Rosh Hashanah

REWRITING THE TALMUD: THE FOURTH-CENTURY ORIGINS OF BAVLI ROSH HASHANAH

Marcus Mordecai Schwartz

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for The degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Talmud and Rabbinics The Graduate School of The Jewish Theological Seminary 2011

UMI Number: 3564343

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3564343 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

2 REWITTING THE TALMUD: THE FOURTH-CENTURY ORIGINS OF BAVLI ROSH HASHANAH ABSTRACT MARCUS MORDECAI SCHWARTZ

This dissertation argues that an assembly of passages of mid-fourth century redaction lays submerged below the textual surface of b. Rosh Hashanah. It claims that the third Babylonian amoraic generation (c. 290–320 C.E.) witnessed a cultural exchange that allowed some early versions of the tractate, in whole or in part, to meet in Babylonia. The influx of this Torah from the west, pooling together with the Torah of the east, began to have its effect in this generation and overflowed into the next. It was at this point that it made its greatest impact. The Babylonian amoraim of the fourth generation (c. 320– 350 C.E.) seem to have played a sort of redactional and/or editorial role. It appears that they took the materials from the two centers, combining and shaping passages into a form that began to resemble the Bavli that we know. Because of their roots in both Babylonia and Palestine, these passages share striking thematic affinities with redacted materials in y. Rosh Hashanah. On the other hand, the marked structural affinities between the Bavli and Yerushalmi versions of the tractate seem to be the product of a later era. Though some deeply important elements came later, including the Bavli’s large-scale structural architecture, This dissertation shows that the amoraim of the fourth century seem to have fixed the tractate’s heart and soul, if not its flesh and bone.

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪For Esther‬‬ ‫פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה‬

4

Table of Contents:



Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..5



Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………..……..7



Chapter Two: Rav Hisda—Dates and Documents……………….………………….……….40



Hisda Appendix One: An Aggadic Example…………………………………………………113



Hisda Appendix Two: Hisda citations in B. Rosh Hashanah……………………………...…119



Chapter Three: Rava--Center and Margins… …………………… ………………..……...…124



Rava Appendix One: Midrashic Synopsis…………………………………… ………………189



Rava Appendix Two: Rava citations with Yerushalmi Parallels………………..…………….191



Chapter Four: The Nahotei--Returning Home to Find It…………………….…………….....194



Nahotei Appendix One: Nahotian quotations in Bavli Mo’ed……………………………......232



Nahotei Appendix Two: Nahotian Reports in the Yerushalmi…………………..………........238



Chapter Five: Conclusion……………………………………………………..………………242



Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………......263

5 Acknowledgements: ‫תהילה לאל אליון קונה שמיים וארץ‬ Every creative human endeavor is collaboration. While the errors in this work are my own, its successes are shared. A large community of people stands behind this dissertation. First, I wish to thank my parents, Donald Schwartz and Ann Kibel Schwartz, who instilled me with a love of Jewish and general learning. My father read this dissertation at various points and his suggestions were always insightful. I am grateful to them both for all they have done for me. Next, I want to thank my teacher, Richard Kalmin. A model of rigorous scholarship and humanity, his influence on my intellectual program cannot be overstated. The words “kind” and “generous” do not convey the time, energy, and effort that he dedicated to guiding me through the work of this dissertation. I am deeply grateful for his continued support, help, and advice. I will always be his student. I thank my committee: My friend and teacher Beth Berkowitz was profoundly helpful at a number of stages. Most prominently, she was the official second reader of this project, and suggested a range of creative directions for improvement and further thinking. Azzan Yadin urged me to expand my methodological perspective to my great benefit. I am grateful for his suggestions. David Marcus, who introduced me to the joys of philology, read this dissertation with an unstinting eye. I am grateful that he leant me his care and precision. I was overjoyed to have my Rebbe, Judith Hauptman, join as the final member of my dissertation committee. Rabbi Hauptman has had an enormous influence on both my religious and intellectual development. My first encounter with source-critical Talmud scholarship was in her 199596 seminar on Bavli Yevamot. I can trace a direct line from the work I did that year to the work of this dissertation. That academic year was one of the most important of my life, and at its end, Rabbi Hauptman officiated at my wedding. I am grateful for all that she taught me then and since.

6 Though they did not sit on the committee, I want to acknowledge the influence of three more teachers. Neil Danzig, David Kreamer, and Joel Roth have all been deeply important intellectual and personal influences in my life. I will always be grateful to them. I also want to thank Stephen Garfinkle, Bruce Neilsen, and Shuly Rubin Schwartz who all unfailingly gave their support during the course of my time at the JTS Graduate School. In particular, I want to acknowledge Dr. Schwartz’s encouragement. She was my direct supervisor when I worked for the JTS admissions department, and when I told her of my desire to return to the work of this dissertation, she supported my decision even though it meant loosing me in that role. A number of friends and colleagues contributed suggestions and advice at various points. Daniel Rosenberg and I spoke on and off though the work and he gave me a number of helpful suggestions along with moral support. Ethan Tucker gave me an advanced copy of his forthcoming paper on music and noise on Shabbat. A. Joshua Cahan provided me with chapters of his dissertation that were relevant to my own. Jenny Labendz and David Hoffman both read an early version chapter two. Abby Eisenberg gave me the encouragement I needed to continue this dissertation while we worked together in the JTS admissions department. I thank them all for their advice and friendship. My young sons Isaac, Sammy and Jonah gave me the energy and joy to keep going even when I wanted to lay aside the burden. Finally, last and most beloved, I want to thank my greatest friend and companion, Esther Reed. My success is her success. This dissertation is as much a tribute to her patience and support as it is to my effort. I have placed you as a seal on my arm, a seal upon my heart.

7

Chapter One: Introduction

The fourth century was a period of change and transition in the redaction history of Bavli Rosh Hashanah. This dissertation argues that the amoraic generations of the first half of that century were responsible for developing b. Rosh Hashanah’s major concerns, themes, tannaitic sources, and even the lion’s share of its amoraic content. Employing methods developed over that last three decades of Bavli scholarship, I have uncovered an assembly of passages of mid-fourth century redaction that lay submerged below the textual surface of b. Rosh Hashanah. Because of their roots in both Babylonia and Palestine, these passages share striking thematic affinities with redacted materials in y. Rosh Hashanah. On the other hand, the marked structural affinities between the Bavli and Yerushalmi versions of the tractate seem to be the product of a later era. This structure/theme distinction will be important throughout this dissertation; I will fully define what I mean by these terms below. Though some deeply important elements came later, including the Bavli’s large-scale structural architecture, I will show that the amoraim of the fourth century seem to have fixed the tractate’s heart and soul, if not its flesh and bone. I began this project with the foundation that the Talmudic tractate Rosh Hashanah began to develop independently in Palestine and in Babylonia over the first few amoraic generations. I drew this working hypothesis, as well as a series of other assumptions, from the diverse conclusions of a range of scholars whose influence I acknowledge below, each properly cited in his or her logical place. To summarize briefly, I see convincing evidence that the third Babylonian amoraic generation (c. 290–320 C.E.) saw a moment of cultural connection that allowed some early versions of the tractate, in whole or part, to meet in Babylonia. The influx of this Torah from the west, pooling together with the Torah of the east, began to have its effect in this generation and overflowed into the next when it made its greatest impact. The Babylonian amoraim of the fourth generation (c. 320–350 C.E.) seem to have

8 played a sort of redactional and/or editorial role. It appears that they took the materials from the two centers, combining and shaping them into a form that began to resemble the Bavli that we know. Working with these insights, I restricted my study to the period of the third and fourth generations of Babylonian amoraim. I investigated passages of b. Rosh Hashanah containing the statements of two prominent middle generation amoraim, Rav Hisda (third generation) and Rava (fourth). First, in passages containing either of these sages I separated the later anonymous-editorial material from the attributed amoraic statements. I then removed all attributed sources and traditions later than the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. I discovered that I was then consistently left with coherent, seemingly redacted, “middle-generation” amoraic passages most likely dating from the fourth century. I then subjected these passages to a thorough comparison with y. Rosh Hashanah. The results of these comparisons usually showed that the majority of thematic/content affinities that parallel passages of b. and y. Rosh Hashanah have for one another remained intact. However, the preponderance of structural and/or architectural affinities no longer obtained between Yerushalmi passages and those of my reconstruction. Finally, to preempt the claim that the Nahotei, a group of sages whom the Bavli credits with importing a number of discrete Palestinian traditions to Babylonia, were chiefly responsible for the Palestinian materials we find in the Bavli, and that this could explain my results in an alternate way, I have also included in this project a comprehensive study of the Nahotei. In my study of Nahotian traditions in b. Seder Moed, the first of its kind, I have determined that these traveling Rabbis brought almost no novel Mo’ed-related Palestinian materials to fourth century Babylonia. Instead, they mostly seem to clarify, modify, or reassign the authorship of Palestinian traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. The Nahotian theory of intellectual exchange between the rabbinic circles excluded, at least in b. Seder Mo’ed, my preferred hypothesis of broad-brush fourth century influence now stands as a more fitting explanation for the data at hand.

9 Below the reader will find a general introduction to this project in three sections. Section one describes the initial scholarly influences on the project and traces the above hypothesis in greater detail than in this brief abstract. Section two lays out some additional scholarship that touches on two areas crucial to this project: the influence of the early amoraim on the formation of the two Talmuds, and the role of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim in the redaction of the Bavli. Section three traces my methodology and its application over the course of the present study.

I.

Initial Influences and Hypothesis

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, Richard Kalmin took up a banner previously lifted by Zwi Dor in the mid-twentieth century, and Isaac Halevy in the late nineteenth century; he argued that the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim adopted and adapted materials from Palestinian sources and gave them voice in Babylonia.1 Kalmin's careful argumentation has added a solid contemporary methodological foundation to the contributions of the earlier scholarship. He has taken care in documenting the increasing influence of Palestinian traditions and behaviors among middle-generation Babylonian amoraim. 2 In particular, Kalmin reaffirms Dor’s theory of a special relationship that existed between the circle of the mid-fourth century Babylonian Rava and the early

1

Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, Dorot Rishonim, Vol. 2a (Frankfurt am Main: 1901), or Vol. 5 (Jerusalem: 1966), 551-556, Vol. 3, (Pressberg: 1897) or Vol. 6 (Jerusalem: 1966), 117; Zwi Moshe Dor, Torat Erez-Yiśrael beBavel (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1971), 11-84.; Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Palestine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4-10, 149-50, 173-86. Kalmin also notes that Dor’s view has become widespread among contemporary scholars. See the extensive literature he cites on p. 249, n. 6. 2

The amoraim are conventionally divided into eight generations. Alyssa Gray "Amoraim." in Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007) 89-95. I account the first and second Babylonian generations as “early,” the third and fourth as “middle” and the fifth to the eighth as “late.” The fifth generation belongs to the late period by virtue of its late-style behaviors. See Kalmin, sages, 171. See also pp. 127-40.

10 Palestinian Rabbi Yohanan.3 Kalmin is not the only scholar interested in middle-generation Babylonian amoraim. Several others have shown that Rav Hisda, another middle-generation Babylonian, had a similar special link to the Toseftan beraitot and other sources from the west.4 The access these sages had to Palestinian Torah significantly altered the trajectory of their learning and profoundly influenced the ongoing composition of Babylonian scholastic discourse. Prior to this influx, the learning culture in Babylonia seems to have been largely concerned with developing and collecting Mishnah commentary.5 Naturally, attempts to interpret these early amoraic elucidations of the Mishnah proliferated in the middle amoraic generations, resulting in an organic engagement in Babylonian super-commentary: comments upon comments on the Mishnah.6 However, absent an influx of materials from Palestine, the other major behaviors that uniquely characterize the Babylonian middle-amoraic generations would likely not have developed naturally. These generations 3

Kalmin, 3-18, 173-86. On Rava, see pp. 175-76, 179, and 184; and Kalmin, sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 1994), 87-91. 4

With regard to the Tosefta, this is true at least in Seder Mo'ed. Yoel Florsheim, “Rav Hisda as Exegetor of Tannaitic Sources,” Tarbiz 41 (1971-72): 24-48. See also Geofrey Herman, “Ha-Yahasim bein Rav Huna l'Rav Hisda.” Zion 61, no. 3 (1996): 263-79; and Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007), 16-17, 26-31, 42, 114, and 153, n.5. However Catherine Hezser, review of Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5783_6103.pdf] (2007) points out with regard to the case mentioned on pages 26-31 of Schafer’s book, ‘The reference to Jesus (introduced with ‘another interpretation’) does not seem to be part of Rab Hisda’s statement here.” 5

Included in this are the comments of early Babylonian amoraim on beraitot directly related to the Mishnah. Baruch Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition: Samuel on Berakhot and the Beginnings of Gemara (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 445, 461-84; Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach ha-Mishnah, 2d ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1964), 166-233, 349-50. See also S.K. Mirsky, “The Mishnah as Viewed by the Amoraim,” in Leo Jung Memorial Volume (New York: 1962), 155-74. 6

Kalmin, sages, 43-58, shows that later amoraim treat Rav and Shemuel differently than do earlier ones. While early amoraim preserve distinctions between the relative authorities of these two important first generation amoraim, later amoraim tend to quote them with equivalent frequency and authority, treating them as sources rather than as figures. Kalmin argues that amoraic attitudes towards Rav and Shemuel changed over time and that the sources accurately reflect this change. Borrowing Bokser's language, I would call this an “organic” change: a change we would expect to see as the result of continuity in the culture rather than a change resulting from outside influence.

11 are characterized by the rise of the dispute form, the growing importance of the Toseftan beraitot (whether or not closely linked to the Mishnah), a proliferation of Babylonian amoraic statements interpreting the sayings of Palestinian amoraim, and a growing number of statements attributed to Babylonians that appear to rework traditions from the Yerushalmi and other Palestinian sources.7 These are far from inevitable developments. These four phenomena lead me to advance the hypothesis that there was a new access to, and acceptance of, Palestinian sources in the middle-amoraic period in Babylonia. When we consider these data in combination with other behaviors that Kalmin characterizes as “redactional,”8 we develop the picture of a growing transformation in Babylonian Torah. It is easy to imagine a milieu in which amoraim of the fourth century were conjoining admixtures of material from

7

Avraham Weiss defines the dispute form as a discussion that embraces a sequence of direct questions and answers that are clearly attributable to amoraim. See his Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Sifrutit (Warsaw, 1937), 2-3; Idem, Le-Heker ha-Talmud (New York: Feldheim, 1954), 18-32; and Meyer Feldblum, “Professor Avraham Weiss: Ha'arakhat Darko be-Heker ha-Talmud ve-Siyyum Maskanotav," In Sefer haYovel li-Kevod ha-Rav Dr. Avraham Weiss (New York, 1964). ‫יט‬-‫יח‬. David Charles Kraemer, “Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature” (Ph. D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984), seems to agree with Weiss's definition, defining argumentational forms in opposition to so-called “apodictic” statements, p. 19. On the development and proliferation of the dispute form, see Kraemer 80-136, for a detailed description, and 330-33 for a summary of his conclusions about these generations; see Weiss, Al haYetzirah ha-Sifrutit shel ha-Amoraim (New York, 1962), 10-23, and nn. 35- 36. On the middle generation adoption of Tosefta, see Florsheim, 24-48. P. R. Weis, “The Controversies of Rab and Samuel and the Tosefta,” Journal of Semitic Studies (1958): 288-300, claims that knowledge of the Tosefta is discernible in Rav's, but not Shemuel's statements. His attempt to discern this nicely shows the tiny percentages of direct quotation of the Toseftan Beraitot by either figure. Bokser, 443-47, claims that Shemuel may have had knowledge of the Tosefta. This he bases on the similarity between the style of the “commentary” elements of the Tosefta and the “commentary” elements of Shemuel's statements relating to the Mishnah. Note, however, that he points to a single tradition of Shemuel's--he lists it as tradition no. 51--from his sample set in which Shemuel quotes a Toseftan beraita. When one looks to the direct quotations of, or references to Toseftan beraitot by Shemuel as recorded by Bokser, or in his Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 184, 199-201, the percentages are very small. Tirzah Z. Meacham, “Tosefta as Template: Yerushalmi Niddah,” in Introducing Tosefta (New York: Ktav, 1999), 181, implies--but does not make explicit--the dearth of Toseftan material in Babylonia prior to the middle generations. On the increasing preference for citation of Palestinian amoraim by middle-generation Babylonians, see Kalmin, sages, 46-47, 58-59, and 8994. On the adaptation of Palestinian sources by Babylonians, see Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, and Dor, 15-16, n. 7; 16, n. 1; 24, 36, 66-73, 77, 79-115, and 127-40. 8

Kalmin, sages, 169-73.

12 the two centers--perhaps even comingling proto-Talmudic collections--to create new products whose sum was greater than their parts. Here then is the crux of the argument: the Bavli’s themes – its major subjective concerns, the tannaitic sources it employs and much of its amoraic content9— may have largely been set by the end of this middle period of the Babylonian amoraic activity. This reading of the evidence has some widereaching implications. Not least among these is a reassessment of the striking affinities that we see between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. In this, I am strongly influenced by the work of Alyssa Gray,10 without whose work such a reappraisal would simply be impossible. Until Gray's recent work, the scholarly consensus was that the “editors” of the Bavli did not have the Yerushalmi in front of them as they went about the business of putting shape to their Talmud.11 Gray, however, has convincingly shown that the prominence of the structural features shared by the two documents, at least as far as Avodah Zarah is concerned, is too strong to be the result of independent treatment of the same or similar sources.12 She has demonstrated that, both on the large scale and the small, the shared structures of the two Talmuds are not necessarily called for by the supposedly independently received sources under their treatment.13 Furthermore, Gray has pointed out

9

Since there is a drop-off of amoraic activity following the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. See Kraemer, 57, 69-70, 80-81, 109, 138, and 335-36; Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1989), 43-65; and idem, sages, 55-57, 169-72, 275-81. 10

Alyssa Gray, A Talmud in Exile: the Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005). 11

Ibid., 9-15. Many prominent scholars remain attached to this view. See, for example, Jeffrey Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 159, as well as Leib Moskovitz, “Designation is Significant: An Analysis of the Conceptual Sugya in bSan 47b-48b,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 27, no.2 (Nov. 2003): 248, n. 100. To be fair, Moskovitz seems more circumspect than Rubenstein. 12

Gray, 43-77, 101-42, 149-63, 176-88, and 239-42.

13

Ibid., 85-86. See also pp. 33-39.

13 a number of passages, in tractate Avodah Zarah, in which the Bavli picks up a thread of conversation where the Yerushalmi left off.14 She is also able to point to juxtapositions of similar halakhic and aggadic materials in both versions of tractate Avodah Zarah, as well as their occurrence in the same order and at the same or similar intervals along the same or similar thematic arcs. Here is evidence of her thesis that the editors/redactors of the Babylonian Talmud had the Yerushalmi available to them, and that they made extensive use of it.15 I am largely convinced by her claims. It appears that the Bavli was greatly influenced by the Yerushalmi. That is to say, a redacted Palestinian Rabbinic text, much like the Yerushalmi we know, seems likely to have been both accessible to, and influential upon, the final redactors of tractate Avodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud. At the same time, Gray makes a series of more radical claims that I find less convincing. She claims that our Yerushalmi was the source upon which the Bavli drew, and that it came to Babylonia in a very late period, in the sixth century, and furthermore that the Yerushalmi is likely to have come to Babylonia by way of a scroll. Finally, she denies the possibility that any other sources--such as an “early” Talmud, or a “Quelle” or “Q” text could have played a role in developing the affinities that we see between the two Talmuds.16

14

Ibid., 172-73. As Gray notes, she is not the first to notice this phenomenon. See Zvi H. Chajes, “Imrei Binah,” in Qol Sifrei Mohara'tz Chaiot (Jerusalem: Divrei Chakhamim, 1959), 495-97, and Halevy, vol. 8, 128-30. See Gray's discussion of their arguments, pp. 11-12. 15

16

Gray, 43-52, and 69-72.

For her claim that our Yerushalmi was the text drawn from by B. Avodah Zarah, and her denial of theories of early Talmud, as well as her negation of the possibility of a “Q” text, see ibid., 15-33. Her arguments against a Yerushalmi “Q” text are extensive, but based, by and large, on Mark Goodacre's arguments against a New Testament “Q,” in The Case Against “Q,” (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002). At the heart of Goodacre's argument, ultimately, is the fact that no text containing even a fragment of the proposed N.T. “Q” has ever been recovered. This is not the case with Yerushalmi “Q.” The Yerushalmi Neziqin parallels to other Yerushalmi tractates are exactly the sorts of texts that one would expect Yerushalmi “Q” to look like. See nn. 18-20. For her dating of the initial influence of the Yerushalmi on the Bavli and her “scroll hypothesis,” see Ibid., 199-234. For two rather convincing examples of the argument that the transmission of Rabbinic literature must have been oral in a very late period, see E.S. Rosenthal, “Toldot Nusach u-Ba’ayot

14 In particular, I find too strong her claim that “our” Yerushalmi is the only candidate available as the source upon which the Bavli drew.17 Many aspects of Saul Lieberman’s work on Yerushalmi Neziqin have been drawn into question since his initial publication in 1931.18 However, one aspect that has never been disputed is his claim for the existence of two “complete Yerushalmis” in an early period.19 To begin our survey of this theory, we should note that Lieberman’s method was to compare parallel texts within the Yerushalmi.20 He identified all passages of Yerushalmi Neziqin that paralleled other passages in the Yerushalmi, listing 138 parallels. He then analyzed the relationship between the parallels. Lieberman's method of bringing all paralleled texts from other places in the Yerushalmi that match or fit the context of Yerushalmi Neziqin presents us with a significant phenomenon. Just as is the case in the majority of other Yerushalmi tractates,21 at some point the redactors of Yerushalmi Neziqin

’Arikhah be-Cheqer ha-Talmud,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 1-36, and Ya’akov Sussman, “Torah shebe’al Peh: Peshuto keMashma’o- Kocho shel Kotzo shel Yod,” Mechqarei Talmud 3 (2005): 209-384. However, Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Lehit’havut Shinuyei Girsa’ot Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli”Sidra 7 (1991) 67-102, sees in the same set of phenomena evidence for a written transmission of Rabbinic texts in a relatively early period. My preference for Rosenthal and Sussman’s description of oral transmission is limited to the amoraic period, rather than the somewhat later period described by Friedman. 17

See Gray, 21. She puts forth the argument that Occam’s Razor dictates that we reject early Talmud or a “Q” text as an explanation, “…since we can explain the similarities and differences between y. and b. Avodah Zarah without early Talmud, we do not need it as a global explanation.” 18

Saul Lieberman,“Talmudah shel Qesarin,” Tarbiz 2, suppl. (1931): pp. See the literature cited by H.L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 173-75. 19

This is not a claim about the “missing chapters” of the Yerushalmi, or even a claim that every tractate had both forms of the Yerushalmi. The claim is that two or more large Yerushalmis on many, if not all, tractates existed at some relatively early period, Lieberman, 4-6. See also idem, Sifre Zutta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1968), 125-36. See Sussman, “Ve-Shuv le-Yerushalmi Neziqin,” Mehqarei Talmud 1 (1990): 83-87, who confirms this aspect of Lieberman’s work. 20

Nearly three-fourths of Lieberman's text is given over to these parallels! Lieberman, Talmudah shel Qesarin, 21-83. 21

On this phenomenon, see Baruch Bokser, “An Annotated Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 2, ed. Jacob Neusner (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1992), 178-81.

15 expanded their text by inserting passages from other Yerushalmi tractates that held relevance for the text of Yerushalmi Neziqin. Conversely, the redactors of other Yerushalmi tractates, going about a similar expansionary project, set down in their texts passages that had their origins in Yerushalmi Neziqin. However, all of the texts that appear in other tractates whose context places their origins in Yerushalmi Neziqin do not come from our Yerushalmi Neziqin, but instead appear to come from another version of Yerushalmi Neziqin. All of these texts share a style much more like the remainder of the Yerushalmi that we know, and unlike the unique style of our Yerushalmi Neziqin. Furthermore, all of the expansions imported to Yerushalmi Neziqin from other tractates look like Yerushalmi Neziqin in their style and form. Although we should make some allowances for editorial revision in the process of transfer, the awkwardness that we see generally in the wake of such transfers leads to the conclusion that such revisions were minimal.22 Implication: there were at one point two more or less complete Yerushalmis.23 This factor, unmentioned in Gray’s book, opens the door to the possibility that a different version of the Yerushalmi may have had an influence on the Bavli in an early period. Finally, the sudden and striking proliferation of Palestinian traditions in the middle Babylonian amoraic period strikes me as too strong to lay the credit for all, or nearly all of the strong affinities between the two Talmuds in a relatively late a point in time, as Gray does. By stripping away all material post-dating this middle period from Bavli Rosh Hashanah, I have reconstructed a number of passages in which most of the striking thematic affinities the two Talmuds have for one another remain intact. Gray points to a large number of shared structures and themes between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. I posit that, for Bavli Rosh Hashanah at least, some number of shared thematic elements are, in

22

23

On this awkwardness in all its myriad manifestations, see ibid.

As noted, despite all the “lively discussion” surrounding Yerushalmi Neziqin, this particular point has never been drawn into debate since Lieberman's initial publication in 1931. See Strack and Stemberger, 17375.

16 fact, located in a fourth century layer of the text. On the other hand, Grey’s claim of late (post fifth century) influence in b. Avodah Zarah does not, in my opinion, fully obtain in b. Rosh Hashanah. There it often seems restricted to shared structural affinities. 24 In other words, I claim that while the themes shared by some of the passages in both tractates were established by the fourth century, the Bavli’s shared structures in those same passages were likely established by its later editors.

II.

Additional Scholarly Influences

To fully lay the foundation for this project, I find it right to review the influences on my thinking in two areas: A. The role of the early amoraim in the formation of the two Talmuds; and B. The role of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim in the redaction of the Bavli.

A. The Role of the Early Amoraim in the Formation of the Two Talmuds

I am indebted to Baruch Bokser’s groundbreaking work in this area. Bokser showed that the early Babylonian amora Shemuel had a decided interest in the Mishnah. Shemuel's comments, as recorded in the Bavli, refer to the Mishnah, and to beraitot closely associated with it, in particularly high percentages.25 Bokser took this to imply that in Babylonia the first flowering of that Talmud began with a strong emphasis on Mishnah commentary. Prior to Bokser’s study, Jacob Nahum Epstein had already noted that the Mishnah became a subject of intense study in Babylonia within a generation of its redaction.26 Epstein had claimed that this differed from the way the Mishnah was treated in

24

I will define what I mean by “structure” vs. “theme” below in the description of my methodology.

25

Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 253-82 and 426-28

26

Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach 211-34, 349-52; and Mevo’ot l’Sifrut ha-Amoraim (Tel Aviv, 1962), 12. See also Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews of Babylonia, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1966-70), 1:163-63, 169, 174,

17 Palestine. Though the text was more carefully preserved in Palestine, there the Mishnah was viewed as an important part of a larger tannaitic curriculum, not a text to be studied in isolation.27 Bokser built on Epstein’s argument, convincingly presenting the converse: Shemuel, at least, attempted to study the Mishnah in near isolation from other tannaitic texts. Bokser’s most controversial (and for me, most inspirational) conclusion posits that the culture of Mishnah study in Babylonia may have led to Mishnah commentaries, one by Shemuel and perhaps another by Rav.28 These putative commentaries also supposedly referred to beraitot that were directly related to the Mishnah, but tended not to deal directly with the “Toseftan” beraitot.29 Taking a step back to assess Bokser's work, it must be noted that Bokser only indicates that the likely referent points of Shemuel's--and, therefore, perhaps also Rav's--statements are mishnaiot and related beraitot. In other words, it is generally more likely that in any given memra, they comment on a Mishnah or related beraitot, not that they exclusively do so. It is overly reductive to claim that the first “Babylonian Talmud” was only interested in Mishnah commentaries. Neither Epstein nor Bokser make such a claim. They speak of general trends: higher percentages of Mishnah commentary in the first Babylonian amoraic generation and a greater academic interest in Mishnah than in other subjects. From 176-77; 2:92-125, 284-87; 134-135. See also Jechiel Weinberg, “The Talmudic Exegesis of the Mishnah,” in The Isaiah Wolfsberg Jubilee Volume (Tel Aviv, 1955), 86-105. 27

Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach, 706-26, 771-803, and Mevo’ot l’Sifrut ha-Amoraim, 604-6. See also Avraham Weiss, Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Amoraim (New York, 1962), 1-5 and see/see also v. See also Sussman, “Torah shebe’al Peh”, 245-48. 28

29

Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 461-67.

See n. 6. See also Meacham, 184, and 219-20, who argues that the Tosefta imparts a structural element to the Yerushalmi. A. Joshua Cahan is currently at work on a dissertation that calls Meacham’s claims into doubt. Ultimately, whether or not the Toseftan beraitot provided a structural frame for the Yerushalmi is a secondary concern for me. To me, the major point of importance is that these sources seem not to have held much cultural currency in the early generations of amoraic Babylonia. Conversely, they seem to have held relatively more importance in coeval Rabbinic circles in Palestine. In the fourth century they gained a greater level of currency in Babylonia. This Toseftan rise in status correlates with Kalmin’s claimed “Palestinianization” of Rabbinic Babylonia generally. I find all this far too suggestive to ignore.

18 Epstein and Bokser's work we discern that the major project of the first generation of amoraim in Babylonia may have been the practice of commenting on the Mishnah. From Avraham Weiss we see that perhaps the major project of the next generation was collecting these comments of the first. Noting a trend toward the collection of the first generation's comments on the Mishnah by the second, Weiss envisioned the gradual accretion of these traditions among Babylonian amoraim of the first two generations slowly forming a “proto-Bavli.” This first Babylonian Talmud was, supposedly, largely but not entirely, Mishnah commentary produced by the first generation and largely, but not entirely collected by the second.30 Tirzah Meacham points to a very different project in Palestine.31 Although the interest in the elucidation of Mishnah remains in evidence as the central element of the general project, Meacham claims that the Toseftan beraitot held a higher level of interest for the producers of the Yerushalmi.32

30

The consistency of the behavior of the amoraim of these generations, together with the equally consistent different behaviors of later ones, points to the likelihood that these phenomena accurately reflect changes in Talmud Torah during the amoraic period, rather than the thoroughgoing hand of a later editor. See nn. 6465. 31

Meacham, 84. Cahan disputes Meacham’s findings, suggesting a higher overall interest in Tosefta in Babylonian circles than in Palestinian ones. See above n. 29. I would like to suggest the possibility that further work might show that both Meacham and Cahan have a bit of the truth. Perhaps on deeper investigation we would find that there was a greater interest in Tosefta in the early Palestinian generations of amoraim than in the early Babylonian ones. However, once we look at the Bavli’s treatment of Toseftan materials from the fourth century onward, we might discover a greater interest in these materials than was the case earlier in Palestine. 32

Jacob Neusner in Judaism in Society: the Evidence of the Yerushalmi: Toward the Natural History of a Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1983), 75-78, notes that 90 percent of the Yerushalmi is taken up with exegesis of the Mishnah. Whether or not his percentages can be trusted, he does not deny the importance of the Tosefta in Yerushalmi studies. The Yerushalmi, he claims, presents itself as a Mishnah commentary and seems largely to lack interest in direct exegesis of scripture. This stands in contrast to the way that Neusner views the Bavli, a document he sees as having a strong interest in the direct interpretation of scripture. See his Judaism The Classical Statement; The Evidence of the Bavli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 94-114. This is the point he attempts to make in claiming that 90 percent of the Yerushalmi is commentary on the Mishnah: its discussions revolve around the Mishnah??and other tannaitic sources of the same genre, evincing a decided disinterest in direct interpretation of the Bible. He does not deny the deep importance of the Toseftan beraitot to the “program” of the Yerushalmi. Indeed he notes the

19 The production of commentary on these beraitot seems to have been of importance and they seem to have been an additional part of the curriculum in Palestine.33 According to Meacham, this importance can be seen in the Yerushalmi's use of “Toseftan” beraitot as a structural element. 34 That is to say, the Yerushalmi presents itself not only as an amoraic commentary on the Mishnah, but also one concerned with the “Toseftan” beraitot. Meacham states, “Much of the amoraic discussion in yNid is directed by an idea in tNid; other than commentary on the Mishnah and actual cases, there is very little amoraic material which is not connected to tNid beraitot or ideas. It is therefore likely that tNid provided the outline for the discussions in yNid.”35 While acknowledging the truth of Meacham’s general observation regarding the import of the Toseftan beraitot in Palestine, I have some reservations about her conclusions. I think that Meacham sometimes blurs the distinction between form and content. For example, in the above quote she speaks of both “tNid beraitot [and] ideas” as a single thing. Meacham’s conceptual hendiadys may have misled her. Ideas that appear in both the Tosefta and the Yeushalmi do not necessarily originate in the Tosefta, but may have arisen independently in both sources, or from a shared source. In my view, making a claim of affinity (not to mention paternity) requires we show a similarity both of form and content, of language

citation of Toseftan Beraitot and their importance to the discussion of the Yerushalmi throughout Judaism in Society: pp: 64, 87-88, 91, 94, 103, 107, 124-25, 147, and 165. 33

See n. 18. On the differences between the roles of the Tannaim in Palestinian Rabbinic circles and Babylonian ones (at least early on in the amoraic period), see Sussman, Torah Shebe’al Peh, 241, n. 52, and 270, n. 38, but see also 268, nn., 34 and 35. 34

35

See n. 29.

Meacham, 220. I also want to note that, despite an apparent similarity, there is actually little overlap between Maecham’s contention and Judith Hauptman’s early work in Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (University Press of America, 1987). Hauptman applied her (now) more conservative claim, which posited that certain beraitot may have made up an early layer in the redaction of many Talmudic passages, in a more restricted way. Hauptman never claimed that these beraitot imparted a structural frame to either Talmud.

20 and conception, not just one or the other. The following quote, from the same page as that above, is telling of her assumptions: “Tosefta is a corpus closely resembling Mishnah in its order, subjects discussed, sages quoted, and time of redaction; what would be more natural for an editor to rely on than one tannaitic source as a commentary to another, and hence use it as the basis to organize amoraic discussions?“ “What would be more natural” is a seductively facile phrase, but ultimately entirely subjective. We do not know what status the editors of the Yerushalmi assigned the Toseftan Beraitot, and, at least in this case, we are unable to draw conclusions about what they saw as “natural.” Nonetheless, Meacham does point to a real phenomenon, and the Toseftan beraitot seem to have held import for the Palestinian Rabbis as a part of their regular curricular diet. By contrast, Bokser's work shows this not to be the case for Shemuel as he is presented in the Bavli, the majority of whose comments relate directly to the themes of the Mishnah, rather than to another tannaitic layer.36 Bokser further claims that what is true for Shemuel is likely also the case with Rav as well as other early Babylonian amoraim.37 On the other hand, Meacham's work on Yerushalmi Niddah makes the claim that amoraim in the Yerushalmi, even those contemporary with Rav and Shemuel, are presented as looking to the Toseftan beraitot for insight in their studies of the Mishnah. Meacham's work points to an element in the development of the Yerushalmi that is seemingly lacking among the early Babylonian amoraim. To state as clearly as possible: her observations suggest that, in addition to early amoraic Mishnah commentary, the Yerushalmi likely developed with amoraic

36

Indeed Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 445-47, points out the stylistic and structural differences between the Tosefta and Shemuel's “commentary” on the Mishnah. He concludes that Shemuel was driven by his own series of agendas relating to the Mishnah and was not following the structure of the Tosefta or other beraitot in making his comments. 37

Ibid., 461-67.

21 commentary on and discussion about additional tannaitic documents, including the “Toseftan” beraitot. With this in mind, it is worth considering the possibility that some of the Toseftan beraitot made their way to Babylonia embedded in a matrix of amoraic comment and discussion: in other words, as part of a Talmud. My attempt here is to point out an affinity between Bokser’s work and Meacham’s suggestion. Bokser and Meacham's conclusions, though in both cases based on real phenomena and hard evidence, are to some extent speculative. Shemuel does seem to have spoken more of Mishnah than other subjects, yet the idea that he produced a “Mishnah commentary” is a deductive leap. Though it is clear that the Mishnah provided Shemuel with a framework for his Talmud Torah, Bokser struggles to fit his teachings into the genre of “commentary.” It is not clear that Shemuel ever produced an ad locum commentary on the Mishnah. It is only clear that the Mishnah was the primary object of Shemuel’s halakhic meditations. Indeed the importance of Yehuda bar Yehezqel as a collector of statements by Rav and Shemuel that refer to the Mishnah makes the former conclusion somewhat less likely. After all, what is the necessity of a collector of statements that refer to the Mishnah if each such statement was already tightly tied to the text of the Mishnah? Likewise, Meacham shows the clear importance of Tosefta Niddah to the Palestinian Rabbis who studied Mishnah Niddah. Yet her claim that Tosefta Niddah provides Yerushalmi Niddah with a structural frame for amoraic discussion is not fully worked out. After all, contrary to her claims, ideas present in the Tosefta can appear with frequency in the Yerushalmi without necessarily imparting structure. Structure often has more to do with order of presentation than shared conception; Meacham sometimes blurs this distinction between structure and content. She also seems unclear as to whether this purported phenomenon came about as the result of genuine amoraic interest in the Tosefta, or whether it was the result of later editorial reformulation of amoraic discussion. Either of these contemporary scholars’ conclusions on their own, striking though they are, should only be built upon with great caution. Yet, when taken together, Bokser and Meacham’s studies

22 are suggestive of a consistent picture of early amoraic difference in the two geographical centers of Talmud Torah prior to the fourth century. Putting aside for a moment the speculative conclusions of these two scholars and simply focusing on the evidence they have carefully collected, we encounter here what looks like a geographic difference regarding the focus of study at that time. In the east, the major subject of importance, almost certainly as far as Shemuel is concerned and likely also for Rav, was the Mishnah. In the west, the Toseftan beraitot, along with other tannaitic sources, were an important part of the curriculum. It is the intermeshing of these two scholars’ data that makes this probable difference in the focus of Talmud Torah in this period worth pursuing. Another possible difference one can discern along geographic lines is the rise of the dispute form.38 Avraham Weiss claims that the dispute form was an element present from nearly the beginning of the amoraic period in Palestine, yet almost lacking in Babylonia amongst the early amoraim.39 Weiss claims that this form originated with early Palestinian amoraim, and that Rabbi Yohannan and Reish Lakish in particular played key roles in its development. David Kraemer's work on the development of stylistic forms among the amoraim will also be of importance in our discussion of this geographic difference prior to the mid-fourth century.40 Kraemer's work confirms the transitional nature of the middle generation of amoraim in Babylonia. His results demonstrate that this form flourished in those generations.41 Dispute forms seem to have represented a critical element in the Talmud Torah of Rabbi

38

See n. 7.

39

Weiss, Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli, 2-4, 5, nn., 10-12; and Al ha-Yetzirah, 10-23; and see n. 30.

40

See n. 7.

41

Kraemer, 80-136, 327-33. However, despite his care in distinguishing between the amoraim along chronological lines, he tends to lump the amoraim within a generation together without geographic distinction, even stating at one point, “certainly no obvious difference between the Babylonian and Palestinian sages is apparent,” p. 38. (He refers here to amoraim prior to the fourth Babylonian generation. The context is an explanation of his restriction of his study to the Bavli). Despite this, he does note the exceptional nature of R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish in the development of dispute forms, pp. 69-79, 325-29. He argues, however, that artificial elements in some of their dispute dialogue makes their traditions

23 Yohannan and Reish Lakish. This element is largely lacking in the literary remains of their Babylonian contemporaries. It is therefore likely to have been lacking from any early versions of the “Talmud” that may have existed in Babylonia in this period. The corollary of this is that dispute forms seem likely to have been present in proto-Talmudic compositions in Palestine. Although, as we have seen, Avraham Weiss and his student Meyer Feldblum already came to similar conclusions nearly a half century ago and more study is needed to determine the extent to which the dispute form had spread in the early Palestinian amoraic generations. Also, study is needed to determine the level of sophistication that the form took along both geographic and chronological lines. Kraemer tackles the latter quite well, but the former still needs more study. A third point of distinction between the two centers in the early amoraic period is the influential career of R. Yohannan. The intellectual legacy of both Rav and Shemuel seems to have largely been in the hands of students and tradents.42 The Babylonian amoraic attitude towards and use of Rav’s and Shemuel’s traditions changed over the course of time.43 However, Weiss's work attributes an ongoing stylistic influence to Rabbi Yohannan. Weiss credits Rabbi Yohanan with the creation of the sugya

suspect and he urges caution. Kalmin goes further, stating that Weiss failed to fully make his case, sages, 97103. While it may appear to undermine the case I make for the Johinine origins of the dispute form, I ultimately agree that the extended dialogues between Reish Lakish and R. Yohanan must be approached with caution. However, the uniqueness in terms of their style of argumentation, which both Weiss and Kraemer point to, is a real phenomenon that is best accounted as evidence of authentically historical uniqueness. Indeed, even Kalmin ultimately acknowledges the real possibility that, while the extended dialogues may have accreted in a later period, the basic Johinine-Simonic disputes (i.e., the juxtaposition of two opposing views) are historically authentic. 42

43

See n. 5.

See Kalmin, sages, 52-59. Kalmin indicates that some early amoraim see Rav as more authoritative than Shemuel, while later amoraim do not; only early amoraim make distinctions between the authority of Rav and Shemuel in connection with their seats of residence; only post fourth generation amoraim try to harmonize their conflicting opinions; several early amoraim tend to cite one figure or the other, later amoraim cite them in approximately the same percentages; early amoraim tend to take great offence to perceived challenges to these figures authoritative status, not so for later amoraim; finally, special status is given to amoraim with special knowledge or understanding of Rav’s opinions only in stories involving early amoraim.

24 form, a form that was to have long-lasting import.44 Rabbi Yohannan’s and his students’ unique and continuing influence in matters of Talmudic style and form is a phenomenon that has been noted by a variety of scholars.45 Additionally, the anonymous editorial voice of the Talmud or “S'tam ha-Talmud” seems to have been present earlier in Palestine than in Babylonia.46 Zwi Dor has shown that the content of some anonymous statements from the Yerushalmi make their way into the mouths of middle generation Babylonian amoraim in the Bavli. Unless these Babylonian statements are taken as pseudepigraphic, this fact demands a pre mid-fourth century dating, at least for those particular anonymous statements in the Yerushalmi. Given this, it is plausible that some amount of anonymous material may have been part of proto-talmudic compositions in Palestine.

B. The Role of Middle-Generation Babylonian Amoraim in the Redaction of the Bavli: MidFourth Century Palestinianization and “Some Yerushalmi”

We turn now to discuss the theory that amoraim of the middle generations in Babylonia played a redactional role in the formation of the Bavli.47 The “middle generations” in Babylonia refers to the third and fourth generations of amoraim. Since Halevy’s publication of Dorot Rishonim, one view in modern scholarship of Rabbinics has been that this “middle” period of amoraim in Babylonia held a

44

See the works cited in n. 35. By “sugya,” Weiss seems to mean a matrix of tannaitic materials and amoraic meimrot incorporating amoraic and/or anonymous dispute dialogs. See Feldblum, ‫כג‬-‫יט‬. Chanokh Albeck came to similar conclusions, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1969), 185. 45

See the literature cited by Strack and Stemberger, 86.

46

On the dating of the Stam ha-Talmud ha-Bavli, see n. 65.

47

See Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-8.

25 unique place in the annals of the composition of the Talmud.48 According to Richard Kalmin, these amoraim seem to play a “transitional role” in the formation of the Talmud in a number of ways. To recall, there are subtle hints that they may have been involved in some kind of redactional process.49 Kalmin lists seven ways that fourth generation amoraim appear to be “transitional” in ways that suggest they may have played a “redactional role.”50 They also tend to cite Palestinian sources as a regular part of their curriculum, unlike their first and second-generation predecessors.51 In addition to its affinities with Palestinian sources, this generation evinces a kind of literary separation between itself and the amoraim who came before and after.52 Previously, Dor noted that the fourth generation amora Rava and his students seemed to have a special affinity with the traditions of R. Yohannan.53 Others have noted the special affinity that R. Hisda (third generation) had with the Toseftan beraitot. 54 This boils down to three points:

48

See the literature cited by Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 249, n. 6.

49

Ibid., 169-73.

50

Ibid., 169-70.

51

Kalmin, sages, see 46-47 for the fourth generation amoraim Abbye and Rava and their use of Palestinian traditions; 58-59 for the absence of R. Yohannan’s statements among first and second generation amoraim and their presence among amoraim of the third generation; 87-110 for a general discussion of Palestinian materials preserved by the Bavli and the unique place of the R. Yohannan traditions. 52

Here I refer to the phenomenon of Babylonian tradition chains usually leading from the first and/or second generation to the third or from the fourth to the fifth and/or sixth, but rarely from the first or second or third and beyond. Kalmin, sages, 171. See also pp. 127-40. 53

Dor focuses on Rava and his circle, showing his unique relationship with Rabbi Yohanan's traditions as well as his adoption of anonymous Palestinian materials (pp. 11-78). Dor also shows that Rav Pappa had an affinity for Palestinian traditions in the Yerushalmi, whether they appear with attribution to Palestinian amoraim or anonymously, 79-115. See also Halevy, 8: 128-30. 54

See n. 3.

26 1. These middle-Babylonian generations seemed to have greater access to Palestinian sources than previous groups and they see those sources as having great cultural authority. 2. They stand at a moment of change in terms of literary forms: the adoption and adaptation of the dispute form and changes in transmission of traditions (the “break” in chains of tradition). 3. They seem to behave in a manner that Kalmin describes as redactional. In his most recent book, Kalmin explains these phenomena along with the adoption of other more “Palestinian” behaviors by Babylonian amoraim as a general “Palestinianization” of the Babylonian rabbinic community at this time.55 He notes that this mirrors a similar mid-fourth century “Syrianization” of Christian communities in the east, in which Western cultural practices were adopted and adapted by Eastern communities of scholars.56 The extensive contemporary scholarship cited by Kalmin shows it is probable that a rapid but short-lived Persian conquest of the regions of Syria and Palestine led to population transfers from the Western rim of the Near East to the more Easterly-lying territories that stood under Sassanian Persian rule.57 This upheaval and resettlement of scholars from the west to the east seems to have had a major effect, giving eastern communities access to previously unknown literature and altering the culture of Christian communities there. Kalmin claims the same is likely true of eastern Jewish communities.58 It is my contention that the affinities that we see between the sugyot, chapters, and even tractates of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, can date no earlier than this moment of cultural connection and begin in this period. Some early versions of Yerushalmi-like

55

Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-10, 149-50, and 173-86.

56

Ibid, 4-8.

57

See in particular pp. 6-7.

58

See, for instance ibid., 149-67. See also Jenny R. Labendz, “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” AJS Review 30, no. 2 (2006): 347-92. Schafer finds Rav Hisda to be especially prominent in Babylonian Rabbinic traditions about Jesus, pp. 16-17, 26-31, 42, 114, and 153, n.5.

27 materials may have come to Babylonia in the mid-fourth century as a result of these historical events. It is plausible enough that this new arrival could have been one of the major factors that led to the shift in the sources used as well as the new literary forms and styles so prominent among middle-generation Babylonian amoraim. Finally, I must address the theory that the Nahotei, Babylonian amoraim who traveled to Palestine and returned to Babylonia with Palestinian traditions, were chiefly responsible for the intellectual exchange between the two centers.59 The nineteenth century founders of the academic study of Talmud imagined the Nahota as a traveling businessman who, along with physical merchandise acquired at market in Palestine, hauled large numbers of tannaitic and amoraic traditions, to Babylonia.60 Isaac Halevy (1847–1914) and Ze’ev Wolf Jawitz (1847–1924) both speculated that the Nahotei were responsible for the Palestinian ambience of the Bavli.61 In particular, Halevy’s description of the Nahotei as itinerant scholars/traveling merchants influenced almost all depictions of these sages for the length of the twentieth century. Noting that the Bavli itself depicts these travelers as providing freestanding traditions rather than redacted passages, sources or sugyot, Kalmin, and Gray both reject the possibility that the numbers of traditions brought to Babylonia by these rabbinic travelers could have been large enough to fully (or even mostly) account for the amount of Palestinian materials we see in the Bavli. 62 Gray dismisses the Nahotian theory because of the late period in which she argues the major exchanges of Rabbinic materials occurred. Kalmin does so because he sees the

59 My claim that they are mostly Babylonians who left for Palestine and then returned rests on firm ground. See below, p. 202, n. 244 60 Alyssa Gray, A Talmud in Exile: the Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), 5-7. 61 Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim (Israel: Mifalei Sefarim l’Yitso), 7:455-473. Jawitz, Sefer Toldot Israel (Tel Aviv: Ahiever, 1935), 7:159-164. Gray argues that their conclusions are deeply influenced by their reading of the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon. See Gray, ibid. 62

Kalmin sages, 186; Gray, 5-7.

28 transfer of Rabbinic sources as part of a broader shifting of populations, customs and literary works from the west to the east beginning in the mid-third century. The most important Nahotei were Rav Dimi (flor. c. 310-340), Rav Yitzhak b. Yosef (flor c. 320-350), Rav Shemuel b. Yehuda (flor c. 290-320), Rabin (a.k.a. Rav Avin, flor c. 310-340) and Ulla (flor c. 290-320). It is striking that, with the exception of Ulla, all of these are middle generation Babylonian amoraim whose activity was limited to the first half of the fourth century. I view these travelers as playing a part in the changes that we see during these generations. To be clear, there is simply not enough evidence of large-scale traditions brought by the travelers to make a claim about their candidacy as the major importers of Rabbinics to Babylonia. Even if they were working “behind the scenes” bringing such traditions, they would still have functioned as part of the phenomena I note, not counter to it. That said, it seemed right to me to settle this question by embarking on a new study of the Nahotei as one of the chapters of this project. Above I mentioned the Nahotian hypothesis as an alternate explanation that could have the effect of mitigating my results by presenting different framework for explaining them. In the final chapter of this dissertation I will do away with this possibility. I will argue that, although they represent one known vector that carried Palestinian Rabbinic materials to Babylonia in the fourth century, at least in b. Seder Mo’ed, they do little more than clarify, modify or reassign the authorship of traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. In my investigations I have discovered that Nahotian reports, putatively received from Palestinian masters, most often conform to Babylonian preconceptions of Palestinian traditions. My hypothesis is that Nahotian reports were mostly concerned with Palestinian traditions already current in Babylonia before they began their journeys. Nahotian reports are quoted 103 times in Bavli Seder Mo’ed. Of those, 93 deal with traditions already known in Babylonia prior to the Nahotian report. Only 10 of the 103 represent new traditions, utterly unknown to the Babylonian Rabbis receiving the report.

29 My study of the Nahotei has also allowed me to re-conceptualize their project. I have drawn three new theoretical conclusions about the Nahotei that future discussion of this group of Rabbis will have to address. First, the Nahotei seem to have consciously limited their reports in b. Seder Mo’ed, for the most part, to commentary on rabbinic traditions previously in circulation in Babylonia. I argue that the Nahotian phenomenon is yet one more example of the deep investment that fourth century Babylonian Rabbis made in the Torah of Zion. Second, I claim Nahotian activity is best understood when we seat it in a fourth-century pilgrimage context. The fourth century saw a marked increase in pilgrimage both among Christians, who were visiting Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and among Zoroastrians visiting sacred fires in Pars, Azerbaijan and Media. Accounts from both these religious traditions depict fourth century pilgrimage as an opportunity to meet and confer with living people. I understand the Nahotei as Rabbinic pilgrims of the fourth century. Finally, I will argue Nahotian reports may have aided the shaping of later Babylonian attitudes towards Palestinian Torah. There is currently a burgeoning field of scholars re-conceptualizing lateantique pilgrimage accounts as an early genre of travel writing. In my view, contemporary analytic lenses developed in the study of travel writing yield fruitful results when applied to the Nahotei. Using methods borrowed from this scholarship, I conclude that the reports of the Nahotei may have played a role in forming the first flowerings of an image that some Babylonian Rabbis held of Palestinian Rabbis and their learning as stalwart, if unimaginative, preservers of tradition. These conclusions paint a very different picture of this group of Rabbis than has previously been put forth. I hope my reassessment will begin a conversation about the role that travels between the two centers played in classical rabbinic circles.

30 III. Methodology and Application

The upheavals and population transfers of the third century seem to have resulted in real differences between the Babylonian Rabbis of the fourth century and those before them. While the Mishnah had traveled in an earlier period from the former center to the latter, and altered the culture of the Babylonian rabbinic community, the quantity of material from Palestine that was current in Babylonian Rabbinic circles of the late third to mid-fourth century was unprecedented. Roughly a third of the content of b. Rosh Hashanah consists of these materials. Here I refer to the Toseftan beraitot, statements of Palestinian amoraim that appear to be unknown to early Babylonian amoraim, and statements of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim that share affinities with materials in the Yerushalmi. My claim is that much of this Palestinian material reached Babylonia in the middle amoraic generations.63 It is my further contention that these same materials, in combination with the work of early Babylonian amoraim, make up, in a number of passages, submerged redacted units laying under the surface of the final text of b. Rosh Hashanah. Imagine the Talmud as a palimpsest, with an older redacted sugya often lying beneath a newer one. This is what I found as a commonplace phenomenon in many passages in b. Rosh Hashanah as I stripped away the materials added to the tractate from the fifth Babylonian amoraic generation on. In doing so, I have discovered that the essential content affinities that the passages share with the Yerushalmi remain intact. However, often the sources that share these affinities no longer share the same structure with the Yerushalmi passages. When the Bavli’s later editorial frame is removed along with late amoraic commentary, steps in the dialectic flow 63

The lack of material or content in the Bavli which is present in the Yerushalmi cannot, at least in discrete cases, be taken as disproving the influence of the Yerushalmi or Yerushalmi-like texts on the Bavli as a whole. After all, editors can choose to omit passages from source material in their final redacted work quite easily for any number of reasons. Ultimately, the positive affinities between the two Talmuds in terms of structure and content outweigh the silent negatives.

31 the sugya will necessarily disappear. These vanishing steps are often the self-same progressions of argument that match the order of the affinitive Yerushalmi passage. Without these more recently added bits of editorial frame and late amoraic commentary, the passages no longer share the small scale structural affinities that Gray point to. At a number of junctures in many passages, there is evidence of a “core sugya” that was the product of middle-generation amoraic Babylonia responding to earlier Palestinian materials, versions of which can be found in Y. Rosh Hashanah. As I analyze each unit of several example passages, I will propose that early core Babylonian sugyot often react to and build upon parallel64 sugyot found in the Yerushalmi, but do not mirror them in structure. I will argue that later redactor(s) altered these core Babylonian sugyot, simultaneously adjusting its structure to more closely mirror its Palestinian ancestor, while also expanding it and adding uniquely Babylonian elements of greater sophistication and complexity: It is these altered sugyot that appear in our Bavli. I make no proposal as to the motivation for the later redactors to have brought the Babylonian sugyot into greater structural affinity with the Palestinian. I merely note a phenomenon that I see occurring in b. Rosh Hashanah. My methodology for uncovering the core passages will be explained below.

64 I use the term parallel here, and throughout the chapter and the whole of the work, mostly out of convention. Scholars of Rabbinics writing in Hebrew generally use the term “maqbilot”- most often translated as “parallel” to refer these sorts of affinities between Rabbinic texts. Scholars writing in English have adopted the term “parallel” and “synoptic” to refer to the relationship. The latter term is likely borrowed from New Testament studies. Neither term is entirely satisfactory as a description of the affinities between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Rather than parallel or synoptic (both imply an overall neatly tallying account), their relationship might be described as asymptotic: in general, as one attempts to account for influence between traditions -- those of the Bavli on the one hand, and those of the Yerushalmi on the other-it becomes clear that the difference between them is often smaller in one respect (for example, we may find the same or similar midrash halakhah on the same verses- as we will in our passage), while simultaneously greater in another (the attributions may totally differ, an accompanying narrative in one Talmud may be absent in the other, and so on). However, the difference is rarely so small that one is able to specify that the Bavli traditions could plausibly be taken as deriving exclusively from the Yerushalmi tradition. Nor is it often great enough that one si able to specify that the Bavli traditions clearly could not have been derived from the Yerushalmi tradition. This conundrum should properly lie at the heart of the concerns of BavliYerushalmi studies.

32 The procedure for this study will be as follows: First, for each passage under study I will distinguish the anonymous (stamaitic) material from the attributed amoraic materials. Much of the anonymous materials--though not all such materials--are considered “late”--post-fourth century at the very earliest--by a range of scholars.65 It is difficult to determine whether a particular element of this type of material in a given passage is early or late, and such determinations must be made on a case-bycase basis. However, for my purpose, I will rely on the general scholarly consensus of American scholars of Rabbinics that the majority of this material in the Bavli, particularly the most complex, most likely post-dates the fourth century. Shamma Friedman lists fourteen criteria for identifying this material.66 I intend to use them as my means of identification.67 Twenty years ago or so, my use of these criteria may have been somewhat controversial, but over time they have taken their place as firmly established features of current Rabbinic scholarship; my use of these criteria is now actually quite modest and conservative, particularly when more than one of them are present in a given instance. Another hurdle that this project must overcome is the question of pseudepigraphy. For my project to arrive at its intended conclusions, I must, to some degree or another, show that the content of the amoraic material that I analyze is in fact authentically amoraic.68 I am, however, firmly in the school of

65

Two excellent and thorough reviews of the scholarship regarding the so-called “stammaitic question” are Adiel Schremer, “Stammaitic Historiography” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), and Daniel Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud, ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 339-42. I, of course, refer here to the “classical” or “late” stammaim as opposed to short anonymous statements directly preceding or appended to amoraic statements. These types of statements are likely early, as has been pointed out by Robert Brody in numerous settings and are to be a subject of his forthcoming work, though his ultimate claim about an early editorial voice in the Bavli may turn out to be larger than just this. 66

Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Perek ha-Ishah Rabbah ba-Bavli,” in Mechqarim u-Meqorot, ed. Chaim Dimitrovsky (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), 301-6. 67

68

I will make no content distinctions between Halakhic and Aggadic passages as I apply these criteria.

It is important to note that the proponents of theories linking the anonymous voice of the Talmud with a late-period redactional process also see these later editors of Talmud as reworking earlier sources. Indeed,

33 thought that accepts the diversity of the materials in the Bavli as evidence that the Talmud has often preserved the content of early traditions. Simultaneously, I am aware that there is much that is pseudepigraphic. We have left behind us the days when an attribution by the Talmud was taken to mean that such-and-such an individual undoubtedly said such-and-such a thing. Today, we are cognizant of the fact that a particular statement made around a particular time needs to be shown as likely rather than accepted a priori. However, it is unlikely that a document as full of variation in content, opinion and style as the Bavli was subject to the unyielding hand of a thoroughgoing editor reworking each statement and source to fit a consistent series of agendas throughout. The diversity of the contents of the meimrot in the Bavli--a consistent phenomenon that points to a diversity of composers of content--will make the likelihood of its provenance easier to establish than might first be thought.69

theories of the late “stammaitic” voice and theories of late editorial reworking of earlier tannaitic and amoraic sources seem to go hand-in-hand. See, for example, David Halivni, Meqorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), 5-16, and Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 76-84; Avraham Goldberg, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in The Literature of the sages, pt. 1: Oral Torah. ed. Shmuel Safrai (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 333-34; Sussman, “Shuv le-Yerushalmi Neziqin,” 106-14; and Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Le-Aggadah ha-Historit be-Talmud ha-Bavli,’ in Sefer Zikaron le-Rabbi Shaul Lieberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,1993), 119-64., Kalmin, while not denying that earlier traditions were often reworked by later generations of Rabbis, claims that an opposing phenomenon exists as well: “Cases in which latter generations acted with great restraint toward received traditions, preserving them intact despite the obstacles they posed.” Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia,, 194-95, n. 58. See also Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Steven T. Katz, vol. 4 (City: Publisher, 2006), 843-52. Jeffery Rubenstein seems to have been of a similar mind when he wrote, “One can neither accept all attributions as reliable indicators of Amoraic tradition nor reject them in toto” (p. 11). Both Kalmin and Rubenstein advocate a moderate approach, determining whether an attributed source is late or early on a case-by-case basis. However, they seem to lay the burden of proof differently: Rubenstein seems to view attributed sources as depicting later views with very little proof; sources are often presumed reworked until proven otherwise. Kalmin requires more proof before abandoning the possibility that a source preserves a rabbinic attitude authentically from the period it claims to represent. See Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 195, n. 60. 69

On making use of the variegation of the Bavli as a means of sorting out the provenance of the contents of meimrot, see Kalmin, sages, 1-8, and 53-55. Christine Elizabeth Hayes nicely rebuts the theory of a thoroughgoing editor in, Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (Oxford: Oxford University

34 My claim is that after accomplishing this first step, and stripping away the later material from underlying middle and early amoraic core sugyot, we will be left with coherent “middle generation” amoraic passages consisting of early and middle amoraic (both Palestinian and Babylonian) and Tannaitic materials-- including reworked Palestinian redacted materials. In identifying these core sugyot I will take two further steps: First, I will discount amoraic and tannaitic materials that have been “drawn” from other places in the Talmud to “fill-out” a stammaitic sugya. My criteria here will be based on both form and the quantity of the borrowed materials. In other words, if a sugya meets the form-critical criteria to be pronounced “stammaitic” and the majority, or nearly the majority, of amoraic or tannaitic materials has been borrowed from a more original location, I will discount those materials in that sugya. I will not do this because I think that it is impossible for the amoraim to have used borrowed materials in the creation of amoraic sugyot. Rather, I wish to maintain a conservative standard of inclusion for the materials I see as forming the amoraic core sugya. The reconstruction of early/middle amoraic documents is fraught with dangers enough as it is, and the temptation to include too much material, presenting “my” amoraim as ever more important, is perhaps greater than the temptation to include too little. Second, I want to take a step to avoid accusations of circularity or tendentiousness. I claim to show sources dating from the “middle” amoraic generations simply by stripping away all materials in Press, 1997), 183-88. As Kalmin noted in the works cited above, materials of similar content tend to cluster within generations, though the attributions may vary by source. It is unlikely that a document as full of variation in content, opinion, and style as the Bavli was subject to the unyielding hand of a thoroughgoing editor reworking each statement and source to fit a consistent series of agendas throughout. On the other hand, authorship, as opposed to provenance, was undoubtedly a deeply flexible concept among the sages of the two Talmudim. Marc Bregman’s 1997 survey, “Pseudepigraphy in Rabbinic Literature,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 27-42, remains the most comprehensive account of the state of scholarship on the question. Though I do not like his characterization of Rabbinic pseudepigraphy as dolus bonus, I do agree that we must assume a high degree of pseudepigraphy with a wide variety of motivations.

35 the Talmud post-dating these generations. However, one could argue that a much later generation took disorganized statements of earlier generations and arrayed them in the order that we now see. I claim to see a source, but could I not be inventing such a “source” from the cloth of a Talmud that was in fact put together from the fragmentary traditions of multiple generations at a much later point? Could not the order, if not the content of the meimrot be set in a later, rather than an earlier period of Talmudic development? I will employ three criteria to avoid this possible circularity: 1. All of the early and middle amoraic (both Palestinian and Babylonian) and Tannaitic materials which I claim constitute the core sugyot will be subjected to the same comparison with Y. Rosh Hashanah passages to which Alyssa Gray subjected the entire tractate of b. & y. Avodah Zarah. More specifically, I will subject the compared “documents” to the same “micro” analysis that she performed.70 First, she compared the two tractates as wholes, identifying nearly fifty structural similarities not “called for” by independent treatment of the same or similar sources by the two Talmuds. These fifty similarities were not “called for,” in that they cannot be ascribed to independent treatment of the same Mishnah pericopes, beraitot or meimrot. They are elements of structure that could not appear in both texts absent some sort of cross-influence aside from independent treatment of the same discrete sources. This is the “macro-analysis.”71 Next, she proceeded on to two large sections of “micro-” analysis. She analyzed a large number of b. Avodah Zarah sugyot, arguing by way of close comparison that they constitute secondary reworkings of y. Avodah Zarah sugyot.72 Finally, she showed b. Avodah Zarah's awareness of y. Avodah in three ways: 1) Presenting sugyot in b. Avodah Zarah that begin at the point where

70 Gray, 33-35. 71 Ibid., 41-86. 72 Ibid., 87-148.

36 y. Avodah Zarah sugyot leave off; 2) Showing b. Avodah Zarah sugyot that answer a question left unanswered in y. Avodah Zarah sugyot; and 3) Pointing out b. Avodah Zarah sugyot that draw the same conclusions as y. Avodah Zarah, but use different sources. These three constitute her second “micro-analysis.”73 My claim is that my reconstructed core sugyot in b. Rosh Hashanah should fail this test when subjected to the same “micro-analytic” comparison with parallel passages in y. Rosh Hashanah, despite my concession that the two tractates as a whole clearly pass her “macro-analytic” test. 2. These materials, even when stripped of the surrounding anonymous framework, should cohere as sugyot. When taken as a whole these statements/materials will often follow a thematic or structural arc that forms a sugya. If these materials were redacted into place, along with the surrounding anonymous framework, at a much later period, then they should not hang together as coherent “proto-sugyot.”74 This claim is falsifiable in the following way: the tannaitic and amoraic materials in the stamaitic sugyot, which are clearly drawn from their original locations only to serve the anonymous frame, should not form a thematic or structural arc independent of that frame. The amoraic and tannaitic materials of my core sugyot should form such an arc even when the frame is removed, if they had acquired their place in the document prior to the introduction of the frame and the frame was placed to serve them. If, however, both these and those materials read in exactly the same way once the frame is removed my results are negative. 3. Other detectable elements of early structure should obtain in my core sugyot even absent the surrounding anonymous framework. We should see signs of Mishnah commentary and collecting of Mishnah referent comments among first- to second-generation Babylonian

73 Ibid., 149-74. 74 I will posit the likelihood that the act of adding the anonymous framework was a separate and later editorial activity. See Boyarin, 340-41, on this theory and its supporters.

37 amoraim as shown by Bokser. We should see the importance of the Toseftan beraitot among the Palestinian amoraim as described by Meacham. We should also see the beginnings of dispute forms among this latter group, as demonstrated by Weiss. We should still see all seven “transitional/redactional” behaviors identified by Kalmin among third- to fourth-generation Babylonian amoraim. Furthermore, we should see this last group dealing with both Palestinian and Babylonian amoraic sources. Finally, the lion's share of Yerushalmian content/subject affinities in the document should be present in these middle generations. All of these elements when taken together point to a growing developing Talmud, whose major themes and concerns are being set in the middle of the amoraic period. I am, for the purposes of this study, uninterested in the development of the Talmud following the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. I am here concerned with the early development of the Bavli, what has often been termed “source one,”75 which may be showing its presence by dint of my core sugyot. It is important to me to emphasize that what others have called “source one” is really a middle-generation amoraic layer, since it is also made up of multiple sources. My hypothesis is that already in the midfourth century, a very large proportion of the themes and concerns of the Bavli were set. Additionally, it is my contention that a portion of the striking affinities between the two Talmuds was established in this period. Ultimately, of course, I can only hope to show this for Tractate Rosh Hashanah. Once I have completed my study, I hope my results will apply to other tractates, but only painstaking analysis will reveal whether or not that is the case.

75

See David Goddblatt, “The Babylonian Talmud.” In Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, vol. 2, no. 19.2. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979.) p. 314-18

38

39

Chapter Two: Rav Hisda—Dates and Documents

In this chapter I will show that the third generation Babylonian Amora Rav Hisda (or other formulators of statements attributed to him) had access to a Palestinian amoraic text (or texts), much like our Y. Rosh Hashanah, and made use of it (or them) in composing some of his dicta. In the course of this chapter I shall present a representative sample sugya. I will show that this sugya is seated in a complex of sugyot, which is particularly amenable to an analysis of Rav Hisda's statements. All of the discussion in the first half of this complex of sugyot either directly addresses the concerns of three of Rav Hisda's dicta or flows in logical progression from the discourse encountering these statements. My analysis will be undertaken to illustrate the affinity of these Hisda dicta with materials in the Yerushalmi, and then to draw some conclusions about the origins of these affinities. Second, I aim to show that our sample sugya contains an early literary stratum or “core sugya” which follows a logical series of steps in a coherent order. At a number of junctures in the sugya there is evidence that this “core sugya” is the product of middle-generation amoraic Babylonia responding to earlier Palestinian materials, versions of which can be found in Y. Rosh Hashanah. As I analyze each unit of the sugya I will pose that this early core Babylonian sugya reacts to and builds upon a parallel sugya found in the Yerushalmi, but does not mirror it in structure. I will argue that later redactor(s) altered the core Babylonian sugya, simultaneously adjusting its structure to more closely mirror its Palestinian ancestor, while also expanding it and adding uniquely Babylonian elements of greater sophistication and complexity: It is this altered sugya that appears in our Bavli. I think it premature to put forth a proposal describing the motivation that later redactors may have felt to bring the Babylonian

41 Talmud into greater structural affinity with the Palestinian. Here, I will limit myself to noting the phenomenon. To make the two-fold claim of this chapter perfectly clear: (1) Some middle-generation Babylonian amoraim, Rav Hisda in particular, seem to have built upon the conclusions and assumptions found in y. Rosh Hashanah in the composition of their own materials and traditions, now found in b. Rosh Hashanah. 76 (2) However, the Bavli's use of y. Rosh Hashanah as a template for setting the structure of its discussions appears to be a later phenomenon. Our first step is to locate our sample sugya. Our sugya appears in the printed Vilna edition of b. Rosh Hashanah beginning with page 2a, line 10 (“2a:10” from this point on continuing through 3a:41). The sugya's major concerns are twofold, both of which are focused on m. Rosh Hashanah 's dictum that 1 Nisan is the initial day of the new year for Kings: first, to express a real need--or better, the exclusive underlying need--that the Mishnah’s provision of such a commemoration fulfills: the proper dating of legal documents; second, to uncover the scriptural roots of the date that the Mishnah assigns to this day. As mentioned, our sugya is in fact the first in a complex of several sugyot concluding at 8a:5. This complex of sugyot is organized around three meimrot attributed to the third-generation Babylonian amora Rav Hisda. These meimrot appear at 2a:9-10, 3a:41-43 and 4a:40.77 We locate our sugya in the context of this complex, and the major focus of our inquiry will be a discussion of these three “Hisda dicta.” My claim is that these three Hisda dicta all represent middle-generation

76 At the conclusion of this chapter, an appendix contains a brief analysis of all of Rav Hisda's statements in b. Rosh Hashanah. Many of his statements share the striking features of the three I analyze in this chapter. 77 There is a fourth Hisda statement at 5a:14, as well as a fifth at 7a:14. However these statements do not have the same generative quality that the other three have. They are part of the flow of the sugya, rather than initiators of discussion. They will be discussed along with Rav Hisda's other statements in the appendix to this chapter.

42 Babylonian restatements and expansions of conclusions or implications derived from Palestinian sugyot, versions of which appear in y. Rosh Hashanah. Before embarking on the arduous task of delineating the various literary strata contained in our pericope, let us note one other interesting feature of the sugya. Earlier, I stated that our sugya has a twofold raison d'être: (1) to give motivation for the marking of a royal new year, and; (2) to provide the biblical basis for the date the Mishnah gives. We shall discover that the Palestinian meimrot presented in our sugya are concerned exclusively with the latter issue. The single Babylonian meimra prior to the fifth generation that is native to our sugya, one of the Hisda dicta, concerns the former. I will show that all other Babylonian meimrot in our sugya are either later than the fourth generation or are imported from a more original context at a later point, expanding and imparting added sophistication to our sugya. I present below a translation of our sugya. My translation is based on the Soncino translation, modified to serve as a translation of MS. JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270).78 I have used line breaks for punctuation. Tannaitic sources are italicized; amoraic sources are underlined. Line numbers correspond to those of the Vilna edition. Note that unit [F] is particularly long. The reasons for this will be made clear in the detailed analysis of this unit below. The Hebrew text is presented after the conclusion of the chapter.

Mishnah: The First of Nissan is the New Year for Kings and Festivals.

(A) [2a:9-15]

78 On the choice of this manuscript, see David Golinkin, Pereq Yom Tov shel Rosh ha-Shanah ba-Bavli: Mahadurah Mada'it im Perush (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1988) 5-7, 12-20. See also Chaim Milikowsky, “Kima and The Flood in Seder Olam,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 50 (1983): 121, n. 50-51.

43 “For kings.” Why this law? — R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents. As we have learnt: (m. Shevi'it 10:5) “Antedated documents are invalid, but postdated ones are valid.” Our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [ the throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed. If on the other hand he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.

(B) [2a:15-2b:5] The Master has said, “If a king ascends the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed.” What does this teach us? That Nisan is the New Year for kings, and that one day in a year is reckoned as a year. “But if he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.” This surely is self-evident? — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election to the throne was determined upon in Adar. You might think that in that case we should reckon him [by the next Nisan] to have reigned two years. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

(C) [2b:5-10] Our Rabbis learnt: “If [a king] died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Adar, we can designate [the rest of] the year [up to the first of Nisan] as belonging to either. If he died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, we can date the year by either.

44 If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second.”

(D) [2b:10-21] The Master has here said, ‘If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another, we can date the year by either’. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that we never date the same year by two kings; hence we are told [that this can be done].

‘If the first died in Adar and he was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second’. This surely is obvious? — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election was determined upon from Adar and he is succeeding his father. In that case you might think that we should reckon two years to him. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

'If the first died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the year may be dated by either’. This also seems to be obvious? — You might think that when we lay down that a day in the year is reckoned as a year we mean only at the end of the year but not at the beginning; therefore we are told [that this is not so].

(E)[2b:21-28] Rabbi Yohanan said: How do we know [from Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always

45 reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month. Here Solomon's reign is put side by side with the exodus from Egypt, [to indicate that] just as [the years from] the exodus from Egypt are reckoned from Nisan, so [the years of] Solomon's reign commenced with Nisan.

(F)[2b:28-3a:23] But how do we know that the years from the exodus from Egypt itself are reckoned as commencing with Nisan? Perhaps we reckon them from Tishrei? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month, and it is further written, And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke, etc. Now since the text when referring to Av places it in the fortieth year and again when referring to [the following] Shevat places it also in the fortieth year, we may conclude that Tishrei is not the beginning of the year.

Granted that the former text states explicitly that [the year spoken of was] ‘from the going forth from Egypt’; but how do we know that [the year mentioned in] the latter text is reckoned from the exodus? Perhaps it is from the setting up of the Tabernacle? — [We may reply to this] on the model of R. Papa, [who] said [in another connection] that the occurrence of the expression ‘twentieth year’ in two contexts provides us with a gezerah shavah: so here, [I may say that the occurrence of] the expression ‘fortieth year’ in the two contexts provides us

46 with a gezerah shavah, [showing that] just as in the one case [the date is reckoned] from the Exodus, so in the other case also.

But how do you know that [in respect of these two incidents] that of Av was prior? Perhaps that of Shevat was prior? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written [in connection with the latter], ‘After he had smitten Sihon’; and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is written “And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard.” What was the report that he heard? He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed, and he judged that it was now permitted to attack Israel; and this is intimated in the verse, And all the congregation saw [va-yiru] that Aaron was dead, [commenting on which] R. Abbahu said, Do not read va-yiru, but va-year'u [and they were seen], [the next word being translated] in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, Ki has four significations — ‘if’, ‘perhaps’, ‘but’ ‘for’.

[In objection to this it may be asked], Are the two things alike? [The verse] there speaks of Canaan, whereas [here] it [speaks of] Sihon? — It has been taught: Canaan, Sihon, and Arad are all one. He was called Sihon as resembling a sayyah [foal] of the wilderness, he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and as for his real name, and this was Arad. According to other authorities, he was called Arad as resembling an ‘arad [wild ass] of the wilderness and Canaan after his kingdom, while as for his real name, this was Sihon.

But can I not suppose that New Year is in Iyar? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first day of the

47 month that the tabernacle was reared up,” and it is written elsewhere, “And it came to pass in the second year in the second month... that the cloud was taken up front over the tabernacle of the testimony.” Seeing that the text when referring to Nisan places it in the second year and when referring to Iyar places it also in the second year, we may conclude that Iyar is not New Year.

Can I suppose then that New Year is in Sivan? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, “In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt;” and if Sivan is New Year, it should say, ‘In the third month in the second year after the children of Israel etc.’

But why not say that New Year is in Tammuz, in Av, in Adar?

(G)[3a:23-26] — Rather, said R. Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year of his reign. What [is here meant by] ‘in the second’? Does not [the superfluous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned?

(H) [3a26-32]

But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week?

Rav Ashi said: For one, we never find the second day of the week mentioned in Scripture, and secondly, the second ‘sheni’ [second] is put on the same footing as the first sheni, [indicating that] just

48 as the first sheni refers to a month, so the second sheni refers to a month.

(I) [ 3a:32-42]

It has been taught in accordance with R. Yohannan: How do we know [from the Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor, etc.’

Analysis I will now attempt to provide a detailed discussion of each unit of our sample sugya with the dual purpose to: (1) build a hypothesis concerning the relationship between these materials and the parallel materials in the Yerushalmi (with a particular focus on Rav Hisda), and; ((2) uncover an earlier literary stratum that underpins the Talmud's discussion.

A. Unit One, 2a:9-15: The First Hisda Dictum

1. “For kings.” Why this law? 2. — R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents. As we have learnt: (m. Shevi'it 10:5) “Antedated documents are invalid, but postdated ones are valid.” 3. Our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [the throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed. If on the other hand he stood to [the throne] on

49 the first of Nisan, we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.

We will divide our discussion of this unit into three parts, discussing elements I, II and III of this unit: I The focus of this unit is, as stated above, the desire to express a need for the Mishnah’s assignment of a day as a royal new year. Note that the concern here is not the actual date of the royal New Year, but an inquiry into the necessity of having one altogether.79 It is also important to note that the Hisda dictum here does not have precisely the same meaning as its apparent parallel statement in

79 Rav Hisda's dictum is presented as an answer to the Talmud's anonymously asked question, “ ‫ר'ה למלכים‬ ‫למאי הילכתא‬. .” The linguistic code switch from Aramaic--the question--to Hebrew--Rav Hisda's answer-makes it unlikely that the Hisda dictum and the question originate as a single unit. See Shamma Friedman, Perek ha-Ishah Rabbah ba-Bavli (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978, 25-26. However, Carol Myers-Scotton's very convincing “markedness model” of code switching, indicating that language users switch languages commonly based on which language yields the greatest benefit, may require some rethinking of Friedman's conclusions, See Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 46, 174-90. More to the point, in our case, the Talmud's framing of the first statement (‫)למאי הילכתא‬, seems to be a relatively simple comment pointing to the proper interpretation of Rav Hisda's statement. It may even date to a relatively early period, within a generation of the original composition of Rav Hisda's statement. Robert Brody has of late been making just such arguments. See “Le-Teirukh ha-Halaqim ha-Stami’im shel ha-Talmud ha-Bavli” Sidra 24-25 (2010) 71-81. But also see Shamma Friedman’s critique of Brody’s approach in “Al Titma al Stam she-Nizkar be-Shem Amora.” http://atranet.co.il/sf/al_titma.doc (accessed November, 2008). In response to Brody’s 2006 paper delivered at a Bar-Ilan University conference entitled, “Ha-Yerushalmi, ha-Bavli ve-ha-Stam,” Friedman writes: ‫” המרצה הציג את‬.‫ הבבלי והסתם‬,‫ "הירושלמי‬,‫בין ההרצאות שנישאו בכנס נכללה הרצאתו של פרופ' ירחמיאל ברודי‬ ‫ מתוך שההרצאה כולה‬.‫הרצאתו כחוליה בסידרה המכוונת להעמיד דעה נגדית למוסכמה בעניין יחס המימרות וסתם התלמוד בבבלי‬ ‫ יצאו מקצת השומעים בתחושה שהונח‬,‫ ואף אין ממנה השלכה ישירה על שאלת סתם התלמוד בבבלי‬,‫עסקה בירושלמי ולא בבבלי‬ ‫לפניהם ערעור ללא נימוקבלתי מנומק‬. To be fair, Brody has now made his case much more directly in the 2010 Sidra article. See also Chanokh Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 580-90. Finally, there is clear evidence that the most original location of this Hisda statement is here at b. Rosh Hashanah 2a: there are clear transfers of the statement to less original locations at b. Rosh Hashanah 8a and b. Avodah Zarah 10a. Also, we should mention the omission of attribution of the statement in one of the text witnesses, JTS 1608. This omission seems to be the result of scribal error, as the attribution is in place at 8a in the same manuscript.

50 the Yerushalmi: “Said Rabbi Yonah: they differ with regard to the date of documents” (y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1).80 Rabbi Yonah's statement seeks to locate the real-world legal or policy difference implied in a theoretical dispute regarding the date for the new year of non-Jewish kings between Rabbi Liëzer and Hefa.81 Rabbi Yonah's statement does not limit the practical implications of the Mishnah’s statement to the single area of dating legal documents, as Rav Hisda's statement does in the Bavli. It seeks only the practical implications of the amoraic exchange on the proper dating of gentile kings.82 It does, however, share a great affinity with Rav Hisda's dictum, in that it finds these practical implications in the area of dating legal documents. In other words, both Rav Hisda and Rabbi Yonah locate the practical importance of having a royal new year in the dating of legal documents, but Rabbi Yonah appears to find motivation for making this location only within the confines of the discourse surrounding an amoraic dispute.83 Rav Hisda, at least as framed by the Bavli's preceding anonymous question, seems to take a more expansive view, applying similar conclusions directly to the Mishnah. This significant difference between Rabbi Yonah's point of reference in the Yerushalmi and the framing of Rav Hisda's dictum in the Bavli points us in a productive direction. We must strive to account for the striking affinity between Rav Hisda's statement in this unit and Rabbi Yonah's statement in the Yerushalmi. This goal can be accomplished by looking with greater depth at the three “Hisda dicta.” As mentioned earlier, these unique statements appearing at 2a:9-10, 3a:41-43 and 4a:40, initiate

80 "‫ "אמר רבי יונה שטרות יוצאות ביניהון‬Translations of the Yerushalmi throughout are based heavily on Edward A. Goldman's excellent translation of y. Rosh Hashanah, Jacob Neusner, ed., The Talmud of the Land of Israel: Rosh Hashanah, trans. Edward A. Goldman, Chicago Studies in the Story of Judaism, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) 81 His statement is preceded by the phrase, "‫"מאי ביניהון‬, analogous to the Bavli's common ‫מאי איכא בנייהו‬. 82 Note also that Rav Hisda's dictum refers only to Jewish kings, as Tosafot point out ad locum: ‫דהכא למלכי‬ ‫ישראל קמיירי‬ 83 And even then, an amoraic dispute limited even further: One restricted to a discussion of the gentile royal new year.

51 the discussion and mark major moments of transition in (at least the first half of) the long complex of sugyot at the opening of b. Rosh Hashanah. They follow: 1. R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents.84 2. R. Hisda said: The rule [that New Year for kings is in Nisan] was only meant to apply to the kings of Israel, but the years of non-Israelite kings are reckoned from Tishrei.85 3. R. Hisda said: The festival which occurs in it [Nissan] is the New Year for the festivals.86 Note that all three of these statements seem to be comments relating to the proper interpretation of the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1: “On the first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.”87 Indeed, it seems impossible to construe statements two and three in any other way than as an interpretation of this clause of the Mishnah. Having good reason to think that these three Hisda statements arose as direct interpretations of the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, we are left with the fact that the first two of the statements have content parallels in the Yerushalmi and that the third, while never explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, is the underlying assumption of a Yerushalmi sugya. We have already mentioned the first of these and it’s parallel with Rabbi Yonah’s statement at y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1. The second statement parallels the dispute between Rabbi Liëzer and Hefa also at y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1:

84 ‫ לשטרות‬:‫אמר רב חסדא‬ 85 ‫ אבל למלכי אומות העולם – מתשרי‬,‫ לא שנו אלא למלכי ישראל‬:‫אמר רב חסדא‬ 86 ‫ רגל שבו ראש השנה לרגלים‬:‫אמר רב חסדא‬- This effectively moves the Nissan New Year from 1 Nissan to 15 Nissan, a move of fifteen days based on a reading of the Mishnah that opposes the simple meaning of its own words. 87 "‫ ראש השנה למלכים ולרגלים‬- ‫"באחד בניסן‬

52 Bavli Rosh Hashanah 3a R. Hisda said: The rule [that the new year for

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1 1. Rabbi Liëzer in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

kings is in Nisan] was only meant to apply to the

even for kings of gentile nations, one

kings of Israel, but for kings of gentile nations-

counts only from Nisan. “In the second

from Tishrei

year of Darius, in the sixth month” (Hag. 1:15); “in the eighth month, in the second year of Darius.” (Zach. 1:1) [If the count were from Tishrei] it would have said: “in the eighth month, in the third year.” 2. Hefa said, “in the eight month”(Zach. 1:1) may have been said first, for there is no necessarily implied chronological sequence in the accounts of scripture88

Rav Hisda's second statement in the Bavli seems to mirror Hefa's conclusions while simultaneously sharing greater affinities with Rabbi Liëzer’s language. Hefa takes the position that the New Year for gentile kings is at Tishrei, but through a refutation of Rabbi Liëzer's position, rather than through a directly-worded statement. Indeed, the Yerushalmi later characterizes Hefa as, “The one who says we count from Tishrei.”89 On the other hand, there is also clear linguistic affinity between Rav Hisda’s statement and Rabbi Liëzer's: both use the phrase, “for kings of gentile nations,” to signify the gentile

88

‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה ו‬ ‫ "בשמיני בשנת שתים‬-"‫רבי לעזר בשם רבי חנינה אף למלכי אומות העולם אין מונין אלא מניסן "בשישי בשנת שתים לדריוש‬ ‫ נאמר "בשמיני בשנת שלש"! חיפה אמר שמיני נאמר תחילה אלא שאין מוקדם ומואחר בתורה‬--"‫לדריוש‬ 89 ‫מאן דאמר מתשרי מונין‬. Y. Rosh Hashnah 56b/1:1.

53 new year, though they take opposing views. Our conclusion is that there seems to be an affinity between the entire dispute in the Yerushalmi and Rav Hisda's statement, rather than with either Rabbi Liëzer's or Hefa's statement. Of course, I draw no conclusion as to the origins of this affinity at this point in our discussion. I only point out that the affinity is to be located in both Rabbi Liëzer's and Hefa's statements rather than in one or the other. Moving on for the moment, we turn to the third of these “Hisda dicta.” Although it has no explicit parallel in the statement of an amora in the Yerushalmi, it closely tracks with the underlying assumption of the initial anonymous element in a Yerushalmi sugya. This third Hisda statement also serves as preface to a baraita90 in the Bavli that closely parallels a baraita in that same parallel sugya in the Yerushalmi. I present the two texts in parallel below. I have put in bold font the parallel elements.91

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 4a

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1:1/56b

How can [New Year] for the festivals be on the first of Nisan? It is surely on the fifteenth of

Who is the authority for [the statement of the m.

90 Also parallel to t. Rosh Hashanah 1:2. 91 (Continued below). ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ד עמוד א‬ !‫רגלים באחד בניסן הוא? בחמשה עשר בניסן הוא‬ .‫ רגל שבו ראש השנה לרגלים‬:‫אמר רב חסדא‬ ,‫ למיקם עליה בבל תאחר‬,‫נפקא מינה לנודר‬ .‫ורבי שמעון היא‬ ‫ שלשה‬:‫ רבי שמעון אומר‬.‫ עובר בבל תאחר‬- ‫ כיון שעברועליו שלשה רגלים‬,‫ ואחד המעריך‬,‫ ואחד המקדיש‬,‫ אחד הנודר‬:‫דתניא‬ ‫ כיצד? נדר‬.‫ פעמים חמשה‬,‫ פעמים ארבעה‬,‫ רגלים פעמים שלשה‬:‫ וכן היה רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר‬.‫ וחג המצות תחילה‬,‫רגלים כסדרן‬ .‫ ארבעה‬- ‫ לפני החג‬,‫חמשה‬- ‫ לפני עצרת‬,‫ שלשה‬- ‫לפני הפסח‬ :‫נו‬/‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א‬ ?‫מאן תנא רגלים‬ ‫רבי שמעון‬ ‫דרבי שמעון אמ' שלשה רגלים כסדרן ובלבד חג המצות ראשון אשכחת אמר פעמים חמשה פעמים ארבעה פעמים שלשה לפני‬ ‫עצרת חמשה לפני החג ארבעה לפני הפסח שלשה‬

54 Nisan? R. Hisda said: What it means is that the

Rosh Hashanah 1:1 concerning] festivals?

festival which occurs in it is the New Year for the festivals. The legal import of this rule is for determining when one who makes a vow transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’.

and Rabbi Shimon is here followed.

Rabbi Shimon.

As it has been taught: Whether a man makes a vow, or sanctifies, or makes a valuation, as soon as three festivals elapse [before he carries out his word], he transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. Rabbi Shimon says: The three festivals For Rabbi Shimon said, The three festivals must must be in order, with Passover first. So too Rabbi be in order, except that Passover is always first. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: The festivals

You find that he said, “sometimes five [in

[referred to] are sometimes three [in number],

number], sometimes four, sometimes three. If he

sometimes four, sometimes five. For instance, if a vows before Pentecost, five; before Tabernacles, man made a vow before Passover, they are three,

four; if before Passover, three.

if before Pentecost five, if before Tabernacles four.

Note that the Yerushalmi's conclusion that Rabbi Shimon, as presented in the baraita, is the tanna behind the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1--rests on the assumption that the Passover is the

55 New Year for festivals. According to this interpretation of the Mishnah, if one were to make a pledge after Shavuot, one would have until the 15th of Nisan two years hence to fulfill it, not the shorter period until the first of Nisan. This assumption rests not just on the information contained in the Baraita, but on the identification of the Rabbi Shimon position in the Baraita with the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1.92 Without this identification, the Mishnah seems to be saying that the 1st of Nisan is the New Year for festivals. With this identification the Mishnah is made to say the 15th of Nisan is the New Year for festivals; in other words, “the festival which occurs in it is the New Year for the festivals.” 93 This conclusion, though not unreasonable, is not called for by the Mishnah or shared tannaitic sources. One can easily imagine an interpretation of the Mishnah that would identify the 1st of Nisan as the New Year for festivals, one that would simply make the first of Nisan the deadline for all the previous year’s sacrifices. Our methodology points us to the conclusion that Rav Hisda's statement is prompted by the Yerushalmi's identification of the Rabbi Shimon position with the tanna of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. It is striking that these three important Rav Hisda statements all share conclusions or assumptions found in the Yerushalmi, yet present them in more explicit, expanded or direct ways. Were

92 This aspect of the sugya is directly paralleled in the Yerushalmi. Note also that the identification of the Rabbi Shimon position in the Baraita with the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 is not called for by the shared tannaitic sources. T. Rosh Hashanah 1:2, as well as its two parallels here, makes no requirement that Passover serve as the terminal date for the precept of ‘not delaying.’ It merely states that the full festival cycle must pass before the terminal date has its effect. That terminal date could as easily be the first of Nisan as the fifteenth. The interpretation found in both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is simply not called for by these tannaitic sources. 93 Note, however, that Rav Hisda's statement can not be construed to mirror or parrot the Yerushalmi. If he relates to the Yerushalmi sugya, and I believe that he does relate to at least a version of it, he does so by making explicit the implications of the identification of the first clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 with Rabbi Shimon along these lines: if Rabbi Shimon is the Tanna behind the first clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, then the Mishnah must mean that the 15th of Nisan is the new year for festivals, not the 1st of Nisan. However, the remainder of the Bavli's sugya undoubtedly mirrors the Yerushalmi's in structure. We shall see that this phenomenon-- Rav Hisda apparently building on a Palestinian sugya, while the anonymous voice of the Bavli mirrors it in structure-- is also the case with our primary sample sugya: the first sugya of Rosh Hashanah.

56 only one such statement present we might be unable to draw conclusions. Three such statements present us with more than mere coincidence. It appears that these three structurally important statements show an awareness of the materials contained in the Yerushalmi and actually draw upon--at least some version of them. 94 After we conclude our treatment of this sugya, we shall turn to all the other Hisda dicta in b. Rosh Hashanah and discover that such is the case in the majority of occurrences. II Our recognition of Rav Hisda's apparent tendency to draw on Palestinian traditions contained in the Yerushalmi will aid us, not only in drawing larger conclusions, but in discerning the various layers of redaction in this first unit of our sugya. Let us present the first unit of our sugya with the parallel text from the Yerushalmi next to it.

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 2a 1. “For kings.” Why this law?

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1:1/ 56b 1.What is the [practical] difference between the one who says to count from Nisan and the one who says to count from Tishrei?

2. — R. Hisda said: For dealing with

2.Said Rabbi Yonah: they differ with regard to

documents. As we have learnt: (m. Shevi'it

the date of documents. If someone borrowed a

10:5) “Antedated documents are invalid, but

loan in Iyar and wrote in it [the contract] “the

postdated ones are valid.”

second regnal year [of so and so].” Then he makes a sale [of the property under lien] in Marheshvan and writes in it “the second regnal year [of so and so].” The authority who says

94 Indeed, this appears to be the case for many of Rav Hisda's statement in b. Rosh Hashanah. See the further examples in the appendix.

57 we count from Nisan would date the loan prior [to the sale.] The one who says to count from 3. Our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [the

Tishrei would date the sale prior [to the loan.]

throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as

3.How [do we count] for kings? If [a king]

the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been

died in Adar and was succeeded by another in

completed. If on the other hand he stood to

Adar, we can designate [the rest of] the year

[the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do not

[up to the first of Nisan] as belonging to

reckon him to have reigned a year till the next

either.95

Nisan comes round.

Note that the affinity here is not just one of content, but one of structure as well. The three parts of these two units function in the same way. Part one introduces a question, asking for an area in which the main topical text of the discussion-- m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 in the Bavli, the preceding amoraic dispute in the Yerushalmi-- has a practical significance. It then gives the answer, in both cases in the form of a memra, with a nearly identical answer: dating legal documents. Part two explicates the full significance of the (somewhat terse and cryptic) answer of the Memra: in both cases the concern of the memra is proclaimed to be the potential negative consequences of date confusion in legal documents. Part three flows from the discussion in parts 1-2 and presents a baraita that serves as a segue to the next

95 ‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א‬ ?‫בין כמאן דאמר מניסן מונין בין כמאן דאמר מתשרי מונין מה ביניהון‬ .1 ‫אמר רבי יונה שטרות יוצאות ביניהון‬ ‫לווה מלווה באייר וכתב בה שנה שנייה למלכות מכר מכירה במרחשון וכתב בה שנייה למלכות מאן דאמר מניסן מונין‬ .2 ‫מלווה קדמה מאן דאמר מתשרי מונין מכירה קדמה‬ ‫כיצד למלכים מת באדר ועמד מלך באדר נמנית שנה לזה ושנה לזה‬ .3

58 part of the sugya, as it also begins to illustrate the logistical implications of dating according to the rule of kings. There is significant difference here as well. Part two in the Bavli uses m. Shevi'it 10:5, a Mishnah well-known in the Bavli,96 for its explication of part one. In the parallel, the anonymous voice of the Yerushalmi appears to speak, although the partial use of Hebrew may indicate that it is a continuation of Rabbi Yonah's statement or a reworked tannaitic source of some sort. Nonetheless, the content is nearly identical.97 Indeed the two concepts are so close, that one wonders for a moment why the Yerushalmi fails to use m. Shevi'it 10:5! But, a brief investigation reveals that this clause of m. Shevi'it 10:5 has no currency at all in the Yerushalmi. It is never quoted by the Yerushalmi, and it is not even discussed in any conceptually significant way ad locum in y. Shevi'it.98 Indeed, the very concept

96 See b. Bava Batra 157b, 171b; Bava Metzia 17a, 72a; and, Sanhedrin 32a. 97 Note how Rashi's explanation of the source fairly parrots the language of the Yerushalmi. ‫רש"י מסכת ראש השנה דף ב עמוד א‬ ,‫ ושלא כדין הוא‬,‫ לפי שרצה לטרוף לקוחות שלקחו שדה מן הלוה מזמן שבשטר‬- ‫שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין‬ ‫ ולא יטרוף אפילו מזמן המלוה‬,‫ לפיכך קנסוהו מלגבות בו‬,‫ ובשטר מעיד שהלואה קדמה‬,‫שהרי קדמה מכירה להלואה‬ ‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א‬ ‫לווה מלווה באייר וכתב בה שנה שנייה למלכות מכר מכירה במרחשון וכתב בה שנייה למלכות‬ ‫מאן דאמר מניסן מונין מלווה קדמה מאן דאמר מתשרי מונין מכירה קדמה‬ It is worth considering the possibility that Rashi actually drew on the language of the Yerushalmi here. After performing several searches using Bar-Ilan's Shut Project CD-ROM-based search engine [The Responsa Project/Proyekt ha-shut. Version 6. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University,1998). CD-ROM; now available online by subscription: The Online Bar Ilan Responsa Project], I could not find a passage in the Bavli that expresses this concept with the verb ‫קדמה‬and the nouns ‫מכירה‬and ‫הלואה‬. The Bavli seems to consistently address the issue in Aramaic, using some variation on the phrase " ‫ומשום שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי‬ ‫ואתי למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין‬.” See b. Bava Metzia 12b, 13a, 17a, 19a-b; and b. Bava Batra 169a, 169b. 98 Aryeh Leib Jellin points out that the amoraic discussion in Yerushalmi Shevi'it between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon b. Laqish differs significantly on a conceptual level from the parallel discussion in b. Bava Metzia 72a. (Yafeh 'Ainaiim, b. Bava Metzia 72a, s.v. “Rabbi Yohanan.”) To the contemporary reader, the conclusion that the Bavli redactor is re-framing the Palestinian amoraic discussion to fit the broader

59 of date confusion surrounding an IOU (and with possible nefarious purposes), a subject of discussion in at least seven lengthy Bavli sugyot,99 seems to hold no interest for the Yerushalmi. Putting aside the Yerushalmi's lack of local conceptual discussion at m. Shevi'it 10:5, even in its discussion of other passages of the Mishnah which seem to call for an understanding of falsely dated documents,100 the Yerushalmi fails to discuss the issue in any significant way. The Yerushalmi as a whole not only seems to find no interest in m. Shevi'it 10:5, it is simply not moved to analyze the whole issue of date confusion in legal documents in any depth. Perhaps the oddness of this lack of analysis or interest could be understood in connection with the terse, laconic nature of y. Neziqin. After all, y. Neziqin fails to analyze many things the Bavli takes up in parallel passages. Another possibility is that the issue, though touched on in our Yerushalmi sugya, failed to gain greater currency in Rabbinic discourse until after the close of the Yerushalmi. Meanwhile, the Bavli's favorite accompanying source for the issue, m. Shevi'it 10:5, gains no traction in Rabbinic thought until late in Talmudic development. Taking this thread up, I note here that M. Shevi'it 10:5 is cited seven times in the Bavli.101 There, it is never associated with an amora earlier than the third generation. In five out of the seven citations it is associated with either a late amora (fifth-generation or later),102 or the Bavli's anonymous voice.103 Additionally, the characterization of possibly nefarious date confusion

context of the flow of the sugya in b. Bava Metzia is quite tempting. The y. Shevi'it discussion is far simpler conceptually, and its implications are never applied to any context beyond the immediate concerns of interpreting m. Shevi'it 10:5. 99 See b. Rosh Hashanah 2a, 8a; b. Bava Metzia 12b-19b, 72a; b. Bava Batra 157b, 169-171b; and b. Sanhedrin 32a. 100 For example, see m. Bava Metzia 1:6; and m. Bava Batra 9:8-10, 10:6. 101 See n. 16. 102 See B. Rosh Hashanah 8a; and b. Bava Metzia 157b. 103 See B. Bava Metzia 17a, 72a; and b. Sanhedrin 32a.

60 with the use of the term, “he will come to tear [it] away [from the new] purchasers”104 in Aramaic occurs only in the Bavli's anonymous material; it is never given voice by an amora. Detailed discussion of the problematics of date confusion may simply have had a relatively late popularity. Accordingly, this issue somehow managed to acquire residence in y. Rosh Hashanah, but nowhere else in the Yerushalmi. Of course, the very possibility of the lateness of this subject of discourse should make us suspicious of the provenance of the citation of the m. Shevi'it intertext in our Bavli sugya. Upon reflection, it seems unlikely to me that Rav Hisda's memra originally cited m. Shevi'it 10:5. Note that the concept of possible nefarious date confusion is signified in a highly laconic manner in our sugya. M. Shevi'it is cited without explanation, a presentation jarring to the reader (or auditor) with little initiation into the larger discussions of date confusion in documents from b. Bava Metzia and Bava Batra. The citation seems to assume that readers (or auditors) have familiarity with those sugyot and can overcome the conceptual rift themselves. This is what Rashi obligingly does ad locum using the stammaitic phrasing: “since he wished to tear [it] away [from the new] purchasers.”105 Yet, this tacit assumption betrays a confidence in the Bavli's audience-- an audience that has a perhaps acknowledged familiarity with the detailed discussions of possibly nefarious date confusion elsewhere in the Bavli. To recall, these complex discussions occur only in the Bavli's anonymous voice. Both their complexity and anonymity lead to the conclusion that they postdate Rav Hisda's memra.106 It is a reasonable conclusion that m. Shevi'it 10:5 was appended to Rav Hisda's memra in Rosh Hashanah at some point after the composition of the complex date confusion sugyot in b. Bava Metzia and Bava Batra. To be clear, it is not the use of the concept of date confusion in documents that points to the lateness of the citation of m.

104 "‫ ”אתי למטרף לקוחות‬See n. 21. 105 "”‫לפי שרצה לטרוף לקוחות‬ 106 See Friedman, Perek ha-Ishah, 26- 28.

61 Shevi'it 10:5 in our sugya, it is the lateness of the citation of m. Shevi'it 10:5 as an exemplar of this concept in every other context in which it appears that confirms its late appearance. With this in mind, we will exclude m. Shevi'it 10:5 from our reconstructed “core sugya.” As noted above, Rav Hisda seems to expand upon (at least some version of) the Yerushalmi’s Rabbi Yonah tradition. He opens our sugya, but our sugya is focused on m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, not on the proper interpretation of an amoraic discussion. Rav Hisda's three dicta all seem to build upon the conclusions or implications of Palestinian sugyot, rather than mirror their structures. Nonetheless, the first unit of our sugya seems to closely mirror this portion, at least, of the Palestinian sugya. However the identification of the m. Shevi'it citation with a later redactor would tend to militate against an early structuring of the Babylonian sugya in this fashion. In this unit the earlier Babylonian amoraic material (Rav Hisda's dictum) seems to react to the Palestinian material, but does not imitate it. It seems to be the later anonymous material (the citation of m. Shevi'it 10:5) inserting an element that brings the sugya into greater structural similarity with the Yerushalmi sugya. III Part III of unit one differs significantly from the Yerushalmi sugya as well. I will now show that it was likely a part of the core sugya. The evidence I will present will give us good reason to accept it as part of that early stratum. I will also argue that the nature of that evidence has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to those who would like to elide it from our reconstructed core layer.

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 2a

62 Our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [the throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed. If on the other hand he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.

As we saw earlier, the Yerushalmi makes use of a Toseftan baraita paralleling t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 at part III of its parallel sugya. It uses this Baraita as a segue to the next part of the sugya, and to flesh out some of the implications of dating documents by the royal new year. While a similar Toseftan baraita does appear to a different purpose, later in the Bavli sugya at 2b:5, the baraita that appears in the Bavli at part three of unit one is sui generis, with no direct textual parallels elsewhere in classical Rabbinic literature. But, its content most certainly concords with t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. This unique baraita does share a close linguistic affinity with another baraita in b. Rosh Hashanah at 7b:4. Here are the two texts with the linguistic similarities in bold:107

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 7b

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 2a

‘If a man lets a house to another for a year, he

If a king stood to [the throne] on the twenty-ninth

reckons it as twelve months from day to day. If,

of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a

however, he stipulates "for this year", then even if year has been completed. If on the other hand he the tenant only stood to [ begin occupation] on the stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do

107 The text here is from the Vilna edition. There are no significant manuscript variants, with the exception of an interesting variant in the 7b baraita in MS New York, Rab. 218, EMC 270, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. This variant will be presented and discussed below.

63 first of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives,

not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next

a year has been completed.’ 108

Nisan comes round.

I will claim that these two sources show signs of an early shared relationship. The shared linguistic features are immediately apparent. Aside from the fairly common use of the word “reckon”109 to refer to the act of waiting for the period of a year to pass, the identical use of the phrase, "as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed,"110 along with the very odd dual use of the words "stood on the first "111 – to mean the rise of a king at 2a, on the one hand, and to mark the point in time that a rental agreement is made at 7b, on the other – suggest a linguistic relationship between the two sources. The reader's sense that there is a relationship between these two sources in the Bavli is enhanced when one looks at the halakhah in the Tosefta that parallels the 7b Baraita. I have put in bold the points of difference between the two texts:

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 7b

Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:5 ‘If a man lets a house to another for a year, he

‘If a man lets a house to another for a year, he

rents it from him for twelve months from day to

reckons it as twelve months from day to day. If,

day. If, however, he stipulates "for this year", then

however, he stipulates "for this year", then even if even if the tenant only rents it from him on the

108 ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ז עמוד ב‬ ‫ כיון שהגיע‬,‫ אפילו לא עמד אלא באחד באדר‬,‫ ואם אמר לשנה זו‬.‫ מונה שנים עשר חודש מיום ליום‬- ‫המשכיר בית לחבירו לשנה‬ .‫ עלתה לו שנה‬- ‫יום אחד בניסן‬ 109 The root '‫מ'נ'ה‬. 110 ‫ עלתה לו שנה‬- ‫כיון שהגיע יום אחד בניסן‬ 111 ‫לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן‬

64 the tenant only stood to [ begin occupation] on the first of Adar, he has only until the first of first of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives,

Nisan.112

a year has been completed.

The three points of difference between the Tosfeta and the 7b Baraita are exactly those that form the points of linguistic connection between our two Bavli Beraitot.113 All three are absent from the Tosefta's version of the text. Again, any one occurrence may be coincidental but three at exactly these points are unlikely to be. Equally important is that there are no other points of difference between t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5 and the 7b Baraita except these three. It seems far-fetched to claim that the language of this baraita differs from its counterpart in the Tosefta in exactly these three places only, in exact linguistic agreement with the 2a baraita, as the result of sheer coincidence. The vocabulary of "stood to..." and “as soon as the first of Nisan arrives" seems more original to the context of the crowning of kings than to the renting of houses. Note that the former phrase occurs in t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, which deals precisely with the issue of dating the reigns of kings, and in its parallels in both the Yerushalmi and the

112 ‫תוספתא מסכת ראש השנה (ליברמן) פרק א הלכה ה‬ ‫ שכר הימנו שנים עשר חדש מיום ליום אם אמ' לשנה זו אפי' לא שכר ממנו אלא באחד באדר אין לו‬-‫המשכיר בית לחבירו לשנה‬ ‫אלא עד אחד בניסן‬ 113 One caveat here, MS New York, Rab. 218, EMC 270 records a variant text of the 7b Baraita: " ‫המשכיר‬ ‫בית לחברו לשנה מונה שנים עשר חדש מיום ליום ואם אמ' לשנה זו אפלו לא שכר אלא באחד באדר כיון שהגיע יום אחד בניסן‬ ‫עלתה לו שנה‬.” Here, only two out of the three points of affinity are present. It seems that this manuscript shares a greater affinity with the tosefta than the other of b. Rosh Hashanah. Even so, two out of the three differences from the Tosefta text present themselves here. The odd use of "‫ "עמד‬is present in every other SAME of b. Rosh Hashanah.

65 Bavli,114 but, as noted above, it does not appear in t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5. Rather than certain phrases from the 7b baraita moving to the 2b baraita, the linguistic influence here seems to be characterized by phrases moving in the other direction: from the so-called “Babylonian” baraita of 2a to the 7b baraita. The influence in that direction may be more easily accounted for in another way. It has long been noted that tannaitic sources from the same collection share linguistic features.115 Stereotyped phrases were a great aid to recall and oral reconstruction of memorized texts.116 Put another way, the close linguistic connection between the two sources serves as evidence of their transmission together.117 The absence of the 2a baraita in the Yerushalmi points to the possibility that we encounter here a case in which some Babylonian amoraim had access to a particular tannaitic source that some

114 ‫ה"א‬/ ‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א דף נו טור ב‬ ‫מת באדר ועמד מלך באדר נמנית שנה לזה ושנה לזה‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ב עמוד ב‬ ‫ מת באדר‬.‫ מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬- ‫ מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן‬.‫ ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר – מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬,‫מת באדר‬ ‫ ושנייה לשני‬,‫ מונין ראשונה לראשון‬- ‫ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן‬

‫תוספתא מסכת ראש השנה (ליברמן) פרק א הלכה א‬ ‫כיצד למלכים מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין שנה לזה ולזה מת‬ ‫באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן הראשונה נמנית לראשון והשנייה נמנית לשיני‬

115 See H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 59, 136-37. 116 See Elizabeth Shanks Alexander, Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 63, and n. 46. 117 For an excellent bibliography on the subject of transmission of tannaitic sources within and between the geographic centers, see Michael S. Beger, Rabbinic Authority (Oxford University Press, 1998), 175, n. 51.

66 Palestinians did not. This last proposition finds support when we look at the Yerushalmi parallel of the 7b Baraita and t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5.

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 56d/1:1 1. They [the sages] have added to them118 the payment of rent and the offering of the Shekels. 2. "The payment of rent”- Said Rabbi Yonah, only if the renter said, “for this year”, but if he said, “for one year”, he gives it until this time next year.119

Note that part 1 of this source, apparently a baraita, partially parallels t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 (as well as b. Rosh Hashanah 7a:2-4) in content, though not in form. While the Yerushalmi's text relates to m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, adding to the Nisan new year rental of houses and the Shekel donation, the text of the Tosefta, as well as that of the Bavli, is phrased independently, apparently not commenting upon the Mishnah.120

118 To the 1 Nisan new year cases in the m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. 119 ‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א‬ ‫ אמר רבי יונה והוא שאמר שנה זו אבל אם אמר שנה אחת נותן מעת‬-- ‫הוסיפו עליהן שכר בתים ותרומת שקלים שכר בתים‬ ‫לעת‬ 120 It is also not a full content parallel. The Bavli baraita adds the lunar cycle and the intercalation to the Nisan new year. The Tosefta includes these and makes its text fully independent of the Mishnah by adding the new year for kings and festivals (or alternatively, perhaps the Bavli removes them to make the baraita cohere with the Mishnah). ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ז עמוד א‬ ‫ ויש אומרים אף לשכירות בתים‬,‫ ולתרומת שקלים‬,‫ ולעיבורין‬,‫באחד בניסן ראש השנה לחדשים‬ ‫תוספתא מסכת ראש השנה (ליברמן) פרק א‬ ‫ניסן ראש השנה למלכים ולרגלים לחדשים ולתרומת שקלים ויש או' אף לשכר בתים‬

67 Part 1 of the Yerushalmi text does not parallel the 7b Baraita or t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5. Part 2 is a content parallel to the 7b Baraita and t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5, but it is not a baraita. Rather, it is a memra – another Rabbi Yonah tradition.121 Saul Lieberman noted that the Yerushalmi appears not to know t. Rosh Hashanah 1:5. 122 The Bavli does know of a Toseftan parallel baraita (and presents it at 7b), but one that shares linguistic connections with the 2a baraita, and does not share any with the Yerushalmi Parallel. Several possibilities present themselves here as we contemplate the origins of this source and its likely place in our reconstruction of the core sugya: 

The Babylonian tanna-reciter misconstrued the Rabbi Yonah tradition as a baraita when it was transmitted from Palestine as a discrete source. The baraita at 7b is authentically rooted in the soil of the land of Israel, but its roots do not pass below the amoraic layer. It is not unreasonable to expect that some number of the baraitot in the Bavli have their origins in memrot from Palestine. Tanna-reciters can be forgiven for understanding some number of diverse Palestinian sources as simply tannaitic.123



The 2a and 7b baraita are both authentic Palestinian baraitot that were transmitted to Babylonia. Either before or after their transmission they took up residence in the same tannaitic collection. The Yerushalmi did not have access to these baraitot,124 but the sages of Babylonia did.



While the Yerushalmi did not have access to these two baraitot, perhaps they were embedded

121 This strikes me as too much of a coincidence for comfort. Rabbi Yonah, one of Rabbi Yohannan's students, seems to have had some sort of undue influence on the amoraic stratum of this first sugya complex in b. Rosh Hashanah. This requires further study both in our tractate and in the Bavli generally. 122 Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 5:1019. 123 Although it deals with but one source, this hypothesis meshes nicely with Albeck's theory that the Tosefta has a post-amoraic recension: 604-07. T. Rosh Hashanah 1:5 would have been transferred and adapted from b. Rosh Hashnah 7b at some later point. 124 Or, Rabbi Yonah did have access to it, but he or his students chose to abstract it without direct citation for his (or their) purposes in another context.

68 in some other collation of Palestinian amoraic material. Perhaps at some point early on, the Bavli drew on this other Palestinian material. In any case, whatever the origins of their strong linguistic affinity, it does appear that these two baraitot have an early shared history, at least in Babylonia, without regard to our concerns with their somewhat doubtful Palestinian provenance. All of these above possibilities have the effect of shifting the burden of proof upon advocates who discount the 2b baraita from the earlier strata of its sugya: we shall consider it part of a relatively early stratum until there is evidence to the contrary. With that in mind, there seems no reason to elide this tannaitic source from our reconstructed core sugya. Our reconstruction of such a core lying beneath unit one would be as follows:

R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents.

Our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [the throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed. If on the other hand he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.125

125 ‫אמ' רב חסדא לשטרות‬ ‫ת'ר מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחד בניסן עלתה לו שנה‬ ‫ואם לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שמגיע לניסן אחר‬

69 Note that focus on specific dates in this Baraita- “the twenty-ninth of Adar,” “the first of Nisan” – fits the context of Rav Hisda's statement very well. Rav Hisda's statement at 2b seeks to limit the practical implications of the Mishnah’s assignment of a date for the royal New Year to the single area of dating legal documents. The ideal baraita in support of such a proposition would include specific dates, just as ours does here. In our proposed core, the Baraita functions not to introduce a new subject or serve as a segue to the next part of the sugya, as in our present Bavli or in the Yerushalmi (using the Toseftan baraita parallel to t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1). Rather, it is a text that supports Rav Hisda's statement, filling out the need to have a royal new year: to provide exact specificity of dating, and to provide an era that is unchanging regardless of the actual dates of the deaths and coronations of kings. This is further support for our major thesis: Rav Hisda shows knowledge of the Palestinian parallel materials and builds upon them when commenting on the Mishnah. His statements, however, do not attempt to mirror the structures of those materials.126 Additionally, as we have seen in all three of his statements in the first sugya complex in b. Rosh Hashanah, he makes use of the Palestinian materials, but he does not parrot them slavishly. Rather, he expands upon their content in a number of ways. He makes a Palestinian statement more directly relevant to the Mishnah under discussion (in the case of his statement at 2a:9-10). He appears to decide between two sides of an amoraic dispute and then abstracts the content into a single statement (3a:41-43). He takes the implicit assumption of a Palestinian sugya and formulates a statement that explicitly declares it to be so (4a:40). In all three of these cases equally acceptable- and perhaps more reasonable- interpretations of the clauses of the Mishnah and other tannaitic sources exist. Rav Hisda's three statements here strikingly mirror the interpretive choices of the Yerushalmi, always electing those choices over other alternatives. Finally, we note again that any one such occurrence may simply be coincidental- Rav Hisda may have 126

This trend is reflected generally in the reconstructed core; throughout the reconstructed-core sugya we find fewer parallel structures in common with the Yerushalmi than we do for the redacted Bavli.

70 randomly fallen on the same solution found in y. Rosh Hashanah. However, three such cases occurring in the same order and at the same junctures as their Palestinian parallels were very unlikely to have been random. Our conclusion is that Rav Hisda had access to Palestinian materials and made use of them. It is important to note that the Palestinian Rabbi Yonah's floruit overlaps that of Rav Hisda. (Hisda seems to have been the younger of the two.127) Although they likely never met, they lived over the course of some of the same years. This fact leads us to some interesting speculations: Could both of these amoraim, one in Babylonia and another in Palestine, be drawing on an early Talmud or, perhaps, a quelle Talmud?128 The existence of such an early “q. Rosh Hashanah” that both amoraim could have consulted would allow us to make a linear slice through the Gordian knot of possibilities. Having raised this exciting possibility, it is important to note that we know very little of the actual mechanics of 127 See Harry Freedman, “Hisda,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica2d ed.; Aaron Hyman Sefer Toldot Tanaim veAmoraim (Jerusalem: Qiryah Neemanah, 1964), see “Hisda;” Albeck, 289–90; Shmuel Safrai, "Jonah," Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d ed.; Zacharias Frankel, Mavo ha-Yerushalmi (Breslav: Shletter, 1870; Reprint, Jerusalem, 1967), 98–99; Z.W. Rabinowitz and Ezra Zion Melamed, Sha'are Torat Bavel (Jerusalem: Be. hamid. le-rabanim be-Amerikah, 1961), 433, 435; and Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 395–99. 128 For an excellent bibliography of the Q or early Talmud hypotheses, see Alyssa Gray, A Talmud in Exile: The Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), 15-33. Her arguments against a Yerushalmi “Q” text are extensive, but based, by and large, on Mark Goodacre's arguments against a New Testament “Q,” in The Case Against “Q” (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002). At the heart of Goodacre's argument, ultimately, is the fact that no text containing even a fragment of the proposed N.T. “Q” has ever been recovered. This is not the case with Yerushalmi “Q.” The Yerushalmi Neziqin parallels to other Yerushalmi tractates are exactly the sorts of texts that one would expect Yerushalmi “Q” to look like. See introduction, p.?. For two rather convincing examples of the argument that the transmission of Rabbinic literature must have been oral in a very late period, see E.S. Rosenthal, “Toldot Nusach u-Ba’ayot ’Arikhah be-Cheqer ha-Talmud,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 1-36, and Ya’akov Sussman, “Torah shebe’al Peh: Peshuto keMashma’o- Kocho shel Kotzo shel Yod,’ Mechqarei Talmud 3 (2005): 209-384. However, Shamma Yehuda Friedman, in “Lehit’havut Shinuyei Girsa’ot BaTalmud Ha-Bavli” Sidra 7 (1991): 67-102, sees in the same set of phenomena evidence for a written transmission of Rabbinic texts in a relatively early period. My preference for Rosenthal and Sussman’s description of oral transmission is limited to the amoraic period, rather than the somewhat later period described by Friedman.

71 transmission of Rabbinic sources between the two major centers of Torah in the amoraic period. It is also possible that Rabbi Yonah's sugyot traveled to Babylonia in his lifetime, or shortly thereafter. This possibility also accords with our other finding: Rav Hisda appears to draw on units from the Yerushalmi that are greater than single discrete meimrot, yet his traditions do not appear to have been originally seated in contexts that draw on the total structure of the Yerushalmi. Perhaps Rav Hisda is drawing on proto-Yerushalmi sugyot that contain the elements of influence we have seen, but not some of the later structural elements that the Bavli later incorporates as it encounters the Yerushalmi in its more or less final form.129 Having arrived at a likely hypothesis explaining the striking affinities between three of Rav Hisda's statements and the parallel Palestinian materials, we now turn to focus our energies on the work of our second goal: showing that there is a core sugya underneath our sample Bavli sugya that draws upon Palestinian materials, but does not mirror them in structure.

1. Unit Two, 2a:15-2b:5: The first stammaitic interlude: The Master has said, “If a king ascends the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed.” What does this teach us? That Nisan is the New Year for kings, and that one day in a year is reckoned as a year. “But if he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.” This surely is self-evident?

129As noted in the introduction, there is a good basis for the claim that a version of the Yerushalmi could not have come to Babylonia earlier than in the mid- fourth century.

72 — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election to the throne was determined upon in Adar. You might think that in that case we should reckon him [by the next Nisan] to have reigned two years. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

This unit is entirely stammaitic, most likely post-dates the core sugya- which, we will remember, I claim includes only materials up through the fourth-Babylonian amoraic generation- and should be excluded from our reconstruction. A large amount of the anonymous materials in the Bavli, though not all such materials, I consider “late.” I rely here, and elsewhere, on the general consensus by American scholars of Rabbinics that the majority of this material in the Bavli, particularly complex material such as this, most likely post-dates the fourth century. Shamma Friedman has listed fourteen criteria for identifying this material.130 In this unit, three of his criteria come into play: 1.

The second criterion: Explanatory dependent materials are usually stammaitic. This passage

explicitly functions as a commentary on the baraita from unit one. 2.

The fourth criterion: Excessive sentence length.131

3.

The eighth criterion: Stammaitic vocabulary.132

Any one of these criteria alone in this unit would not necessarily conclusively establish it as stammaitic but the presence of three criteria does. This unit will be excluded from our reconstruction of the “core” of our sugya. 130 Friedman, op.cit. 25-32. 131 ",‫ "לא צריכה דאמנו עליה מאדר ולא אמלכוה עד חד בניסן מהו דתימא נימני ליה תרתין שנין‬for instance. 132 ‫ פשיטא‬,‫ מאי ק'מלן‬,‫ אמ' מר‬,‫ לא צריכה‬,‫מהו דתימא‬. Though these phrases are not exclusively utilized by the stam, on the whole, they are found much more often in anonymous voice than in the mouths of amoraim. Additionally, the phrase "‫ "יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה‬is only used by the anonymous editorial voice of the Bavli. See b. Rosh Hashanah 7b, 10a, 10b, 12b, and b. Nidah 45a.

73

Unit Three, 2b:5-10: Toseftan Baraita Our Rabbis learnt: “If [a king] died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Adar, we can designate [the rest of] the year [up to the first of Nisan] as belonging to either. If he died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, we can date the year by either. If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second.”

As noted above, this baraita parallels t. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 and y. Rosh Hashanah 56a. It flows logically from the subject matter in unit one. Indeed, it is the most reasonable Toseftan corollary to the “Babylonian” baraita at the close of that unit: it contains only statements which follow readily from the previously cited baraita. Additionally, this baraita appears nowhere else in the Bavli, so it is unlikely to have been drawn into our sugya from another location. For all of these reasons, it will be included in our reconstructed core sugya.

Unit

4, 2b:10-21: Second stammaitic interlude

The Master has here said, ‘If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another, we can date the year by either’. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that we never date the same year by two kings; hence we are told [that this can be

74 done].

‘If the first died in Adar and he was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second’. This surely is obvious? — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election was determined upon from Adar and he is succeeding his father. In that case you might think that we should reckon two years to him. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

'If the first died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the year may be dated by either’. This also seems to be obvious? — You might think that when we lay down that a day in the year is reckoned as a year we mean only at the end of the year but not at the beginning; therefore we are told [that this is not so].

This unit is excluded from the reconstruction of the core for the same reasons as unit 2.

Unit

5, Rabbi Yohannan’s dictum: 2b:21-28

Rabbi Yohanan said: How do we know [from Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month. Here Solomon's reign is put side by side with the exodus from Egypt, [to indicate that] just as [the years from] the exodus from

75 Egypt are reckoned from Nisan, so [the years of] Solomon's reign commenced with Nisan.

This unit shifts the focus of the sugya from an investigation of the practical/logistical implications of the Mishnah’s rule, to an attempt to uncover the scriptural origins of the Mishnah’s Nisan rule. Rabbi Yohannan’s statement finds the root of the rule in I Kings 6:1. It does this by use of the hermeneutic principle known as heqesh, drawing a conclusion from an analogy made within a verse or collection of verses.133 The term heqesh is actually employed in Rabbi Yohannan's statement and his midrash seems to follow the classical rules of the heqesh technique. The verse mentions two apparently parallel eras for dating. They are: (1) from the Exodus from Egypt, and (2) from the beginning of the rule of Solomon. The claim is that by mentioning these two systems of dating the Bible is drawing a comparison between them; logically, they must both “reboot” their cycle at the same time: In Nisan. Or put another way, the two cycles must be consonant, since the Bible is able to mention both in a single breath.134 A bit of context is needed here before we can fully deal with this memra. First, Rabbi Yohannan’s statement appears to be in an oppositional relationship with the statement of Rabbi Elezar at b. Rosh Hashanah 3a:23-26, which finds the source for the Mishnah’s Nisan new year at II Chronicles 3:2:

...said R. Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second

133 Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950), 60-61. 134 Indeed, this other way of putting it is exactly as Rashi understands it: ‫ שהרי המקרא הזה מנה שנה זו שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים ליציאת‬,‫מקיש מלכות שלמה לענין מנין השנים ליציאת מצרים‬ .‫ ובשנת ארבע למלוך שלמה‬,‫מצרים‬

76 month in the second in the fourth year of his reign. What [is here meant by] ‘in the second’? Does not [the ambiguous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned?

We notice that Rabbi Elazar's statement does not use the principle of heqesh. Rather, it relies on a claim that the repetition of the phrase, ‘in the second,’ seems extraneous, or at least overly laconic. Rabbi Elazar seems to argue that the first ‘in the second’ must refer to the Exodus era. Therefore the second, logically, should refer to the royal era.135 Contextually, it is important to note that both Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar are prominent Palestinian amoraim. Indeed, Rabbi Yohanan is the most important Palestinian sage of the second generation, while Rabbi Elazar is younger by half a generation. As noted above, the relationship of the two traditions is oppositional. This oppositional relationship presents an interesting parallel with the Yerushalmi.

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 56a/1:1 Rabbi Yaaqov b. Aha and Rabbi Yisa in the Name of Rabbi Yohanan: “And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year of his reign.” It [Scripture] made an analogy [hiqish] between “the fourth year of his reign” and “in the second.” Just as we only count “in the second,” which refers to the [general] months [of the regular year], from Nisan, so too we only count “in the

135 As Rashi puts it: ‫ מהכא שמעינן דשני לירח שמונין בו למלכים‬,‫דהדר כתב פעם אחרת בקרא בשני‬.

77 second,” which refers to the [regnal months] of the fourth year of his reign, from Nisan.136

Neither of the two Bavli traditions is exactly parallel with the Yerushalmi tradition. The Yerushalmi tradition uses heqesh to find the scriptural source for the Mishnah’s Nisan New Year, like the Yohanan tradition in the Bavli, but uses the same verse as the Elazar tradition. Rather than parallel, their relationship might be described as asymptotic: as one attempts to account for influence between these traditions -- each one of the Bavli and the other of the Yerushalmi -- it becomes clear that the difference between them is apparently smaller in one respect while simultaneously greater in another. However, the difference is never so small, nor so great, that one is able to exclusively specify which of the two Bavli traditions could plausibly be taken as deriving from the Yerushalmi tradition. Nor is one able to specify which of the two Bavli traditions clearly could not have been derived from the Yerushalmi tradition. It is as if the Yerushalmi tradition had an oblique influence on each of the Bavli traditions, each knapping off their piece of the Yerushalmi memra as it was transmitted. The following table illustrates my meaning:

Heqesh

Bavli Yohanan

II Chronicles 3:2

Yes

No

136 ‫א‬/‫ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א נו‬ ‫רבי יעקב בר אחא רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן‬ ‫ויחל לבנות בחדש השיני בשיני בשנת ארבע למלכותו הקיש שנת ארבע למלכותו לשיני שבחדשים‬ ‫מה שני שבחדשים אין מונין אלא מניסן‬ ‫אף שני שבשנת ארבע למלכותו אין מונין אלא מניסן‬

78 Bavli Elazar

No

Yes

Yerushalmi Yaaqov b. Aha-

Yes

Yes

Yisa-Yohanan

Note that we see here the opposite phenomenon with regard to what we saw in Rav Hisda's statement at 3a:41-43. There our conclusion was that there is an affinity between the entire Rabbi Liëzer-Hefa dispute in the Yerushalmi and Rav Hisda's statement, rather than with either Rabbi Liëzer's or Hefa's statement alone. Rav Hisda appears to decide between the two sides of the amoraic dispute and then abstract the content into a single statement. Here, our core sugya appears to do the opposite: it splits a single amoraic statement into two opposing views.137 It is possible that what we face here is a transmission problem; maybe the tradition was transmitted from Palestine twice, in two forms: the Rabbi Yohannan tradition and the Rabbi Eliezar tradition.138 Our core sugya incorporates both of these,

137 In actuality, this same memra appears twice in the Yerushalmi sugya. 138 Frustratingly, it is exactly the question of the mechanics of the transmission process that is crucial to our understanding of the core Bavli sugya here. In order to understand what might have happened requires a detailed analysis of the Yerushalmi passage that may have been at the root of our two Palestinian memrot in the Bavli. As mentioned, this tradition appears twice in the first sugya in the Yerushalmi. There a YonahYitzhak b.Nahman-Hiya b. Yosef memra appears to superfluously parrot the Yaaqov b. Aha-Yisa-Yohanan memra word for word. The Yonah-Yitzhak b.Nahman-Hiya b. Yosef memra possesses its own simple sense only if it once was seated in a context that made no reference to the Yaaqov b. Aha-Yisa-Yohanan memra. I posit that these two memrot were originaly transmitted independently of each other. The Yonah-Yitzhak b.Nahman-Hiya b. Yosef memra can easily be construed as filling the same function as the Yaaqov b. AhaYisa-Yohanan memra: to source the dictum that Nisan is the New Year for kings by use of heqesh on II Chronicles 3:2. (Aside from Rabbi Yonah, the amoraim in this chain of tradition are obscure. There is no well-known Yitzhak b. Nahman, although there was a Yitzhak b.Nahmani, but he is usually identified as a third-generation Palestinian amora (putting him out of the running here for chronological reasons). Rabbi Hiya b. Yosef might be Rav Hiya b. Yosef, a second-generation Babylonian student of Rav. This last possibility seems unlikely given the context and Rabbi Yonah's role as tradent.) Once we arrive at this point, we can turn back to the parallel traditions in the Bavli and see that the Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar meimrot each serve nearly the same function as these two Yerushalmi meimrot: to source the dictum that Nisan is the new year for kings by use of midrash on II Chronicles 3:2 or

79 in a way that takes no regard for the Yerushalmi parallel. However, as we shall see below in our discussion of unit eight, the redacted Bavli sugya attempts to bring these traditions into greater structural consonance with the Yerushalmi parallel sugya.

Unit

six: Stammaitic challenges, 2b:28-3a:23

A. But how do we know that the years from the exodus from Egypt itself are reckoned as commencing with Nisan? Perhaps we reckon them from Tishrei?

B. Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month, and it is further written, And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke, etc. Now since the text when referring to Av places it in the fortieth year and again when referring to [the following] Shevat places it also in the fortieth year, we may conclude that Tishrei is not the beginning of the year.

C. Granted that the former text states explicitly that [the year spoken of was] ‘from the going forth from Egypt’; but how do we know that [the year mentioned in] the latter text is reckoned from the exodus? Perhaps it is from the setting up of the Tabernacle?

its direct parallel at I Kings 6:1. Note then, if we put aside the question of structure for a moment, we see that both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi contain two Palestinian memrot each of which find the source of the Mishnah's dictum in a midrashic reading of a biblical verse that gives the start date of the building of Solomon's Temple. As elsewhere, it strains credulity to make a claim of mere coincidence. Either all these meimrot are drawing on some ur-tradition, or the transmission of the material to Babylonia involved both Yerushalmi meimrot, seated in a redacted context or independently.

80 D. [We may reply to this] on the model of R. Papa, [who] said [in another connection] that the occurrence of the expression ‘twentieth year’ in two contexts provides us with a gezerah shavah: so here, [I may say that the occurrence of] the expression ‘fortieth year’ in the two contexts provides us with a gezerah shavah, [showing that] just as in the one case [the date is reckoned] from the Exodus, so in the other case also.

E. But how do you know that [in respect of these two incidents] that of Av was prior? Perhaps that of Shevat was prior?

F. Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written [in connection with the latter], ‘After he had smitten Sihon’; and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is written “And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard.” What was the report that he heard? He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed, and he judged that it was now permitted to attack Israel; and this is intimated in the verse, And all the congregation saw [va-yiru] that Aaron was dead, [commenting on which] R. Abbahu said, Do not read va-yiru, but va-yera'u [and they were seen], [the next word being translated] in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, Ki has four significations — ‘if’, ‘perhaps’, ‘but’ ‘for’.

G. [In objection to this it may be asked], Are the two things alike? [The verse] there speaks of Canaan, whereas [here] it [speaks of] Sihon?

H. It has been taught: Canaan, Sihon and Arad are all one. He was called Sihon as resembling a sayyah [foal] of the wilderness, he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and as for his real name, this was Arad.

81

I. According to other authorities, he was called Arad as resembling an ‘arad [wild ass] of the wilderness and Canaan after his kingdom, while as for his real name, this was Sihon.

J. But can I not suppose that New Year is in Iyar?

K. Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first day of the month that the tabernacle was reared up,” and it is written elsewhere, “And it came to pass in the second year in the second month... that the cloud was taken up front over the tabernacle of the testimony.” Seeing that the text when referring to Nisan places it in the second year and when referring to Iyar places it also in the second year, we may conclude that Iyar is not New Year.

L. Can I suppose then that New Year is in Sivan?

M. Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, “In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt;” and if Sivan is New Year, it should say, ‘In the third month in the second year after the children of Israel etc.’

N. But why not say that New Year is in Tammuz, in Av, in Adar?

This unit, the longest and most complex element of our sugya, is entirely the work of a late stammaiticor even post-stamaitic--redactor and will be entirely excluded from our reconstruction of the core. However, since this unit contains a not-insignificant amount of imported tannaitic and amoraic

82 material, my claim will need some degree of substantiation. I will substantiate my claim of the lateness of this material in three steps: First, I will list textual elements from Friedman's criteria which present themselves here. Next, I will briefly show that all of the tannaitic and amoraic elements are subordinate to the flow of this unit. That is to say, they fit their context in the stammaitic or post-stamaitic stratum of the sugya and do not cohere together--or with any other amoraic or stammaitic materials in the larger sugya--when stripped from their seat in the stammaitic frame. Finally, I shall show that all the tannaitic and amoraic materials in this unit are either imported and jarringly “pasted” into place or imported and reworked to fit the current context. In this unit, four of Friedman's criteria come into play: 1. The first criteria: In a passage of Hebrew and Aramaic, only the Hebrew materials are nonstamaitic. Here, only the imported materials and Biblical verses are in Hebrew. 2. The second criterion: Explanatory dependent materials are usually stammaitic. The whole of this passage functions as a series of clauses either disputing or supporting the Yohannan memra. With exception of the first clause at [A], all of the clauses are entirely dependent on earlier clauses in the passage itself. [B] is dependent on [A]; [C] is dependent on [B] and so forth. With the exception of the imported materials, it is exceedingly difficult and strained to read any of the material here in any other way. 3.The fourth criterion: Excessive sentence length.139 4.The seventh criterion: Stammaitic vocabulary.140 A fifth criterion will also be employed below in connection with the source(s) at [H]-[I]: Friedman’s

139 ‫ דלמא מתשרי מנינן; מדקאים באב וקרי ליה שנת ארבעים קאי בשבט וקרי לה שנת ארבעים מכלל דראש‬,‫מנא לן דמניסן מנינן‬ ‫בשלמא התם איכא למחשב אלא הכא ממאי דליצי' מצרים דלמא להקמת וכ ;שנה לאו תשרי‬, are just three examples of this phenomenon that occur throughout the passage. 140 ‫ מכלל‬,‫ סלד'ע‬,‫ בשלמא התם איכא למחשב אלא הכא‬, ‫ אימא‬, ‫מי דאמי‬, etc. Again, although not exclusively stammaitic, these terms occur more predominantly in anonymous passages. The clustering of such terms here gives greater credence to my claim.

83 eleventh criterion that a clustering of variant readings characterizes a later insertion. This will be discussed in detail below. It is abundantly clear that the majority of this passage, at least, is stammaitic. In the next paragraph, I will turn to the tannaitic and amoraic material that this passage contains. There are three to four non-stammaitic sources in this passage. They occur at [D], [F], [H] and [I]. For convenience, I will present them here stripped of their stammaitic context: [D] ...R. Papa said that the occurrence of the expression ‘twentieth year’ in two contexts provides us with a gezerah...

[F]...“And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard.” What was the report that he heard? He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed, and he judged that it was now permitted to attack Israel; and this is intimated in the verse, And all the congregation saw [vayiru] that Aaron was dead, [commenting on which] R. Abbahu said, Do not read va-yiru, but vayera'u [and they were seen], [the next word being translated] in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, Ki has four significations — ‘if’, ‘perhaps’, ‘but’ ‘for’...

[H]... Canaan, Sihon, and Arad are all one. He was called Sihon as resembling a sayyah [foal] of the wilderness, he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and as for his real name, this was Arad.

[I]... he was called Arad as resembling an ‘arad [wild ass] of the wilderness, and Canaan after his kingdom, while as for his real name, this was Sihon.

Although sources [H] and [I] appear to be a single source with two variants (the “u-ma shemo” baraita), which is undoubtedly closely related to source [F], in general, we have here a collection of sources that does not relate to the other tannaitic and amoraic sources in the sugya. Rav Papa's gezera shava seems particularly isolated from any other materials in the larger sugya. It hangs in the air, connected to

84 nothing, we do not even know to which two verses containing the words ‘twentieth year’ he referred or for what ultimate purpose. Moving on for the moment, the Hebrew language of the second source (a baraita?) begins in medias res; oddly un-introduced and unconsidered even by the (Aramaic) phrase that precedes it. This oddness extends to the two memrot at the source's conclusion as well. These memrot are so closely related to the preceding midrashic narrative, that they obviously make up a unit redacted prior to their placement in our sugya. The result is that they make the baraita/ot of sources [H]/[I]oddly disconnected and distanced from the preceding narrative. These baraitot are clearly placed in our sugya to clarify the identity of the subject of the phrase: “he heard that Aaron had died." They have nothing to do with the technicalities of the two memrot at the conclusion of source [F]. Though sources [F] and t [H]/[I] are clearly related, the three or four sources here do not cohere together to form a logical progression. As stated, Rav Papa's memra does not relate to the material following it at all and the source [F] material remains at arm’s length from the two baraitot of sources three and four. Compare this for a moment with the reconstructed “core” sugya we have so far: A.R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents.

B.[For] our Rabbis learnt: If a king stood to [the throne] on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, a year has been completed. If on the other hand he stood to [the throne] on the first of Nisan, we do not reckon him to have reigned a year till the next Nisan comes round.

C.Our Rabbis learnt: “If [a king] died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Adar, we can designate [the rest of] the year [up to the first of Nisan] as belonging to either. If he died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, we can date the year by either. If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first

85 and the later by the second.”

D.Rabbi Yohanan said: How do we know [from Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month. Here Solomon's reign is put side by side with the exodus from Egypt, [to indicate that] just as [the years from] the exodus from Egypt are reckoned from Nisan, so [the years of] Solomon's reign commenced with Nisan.

E.Said R. Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year of his reign. What [is here meant by] ‘in the second’? Does not [the superfluous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned?141

141 ‫אמ' רב חסדא לשטרות‬

.A

‫[ד]ת'ר] מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחד בניסן עלתה לו שנה‬

.B

‫ואם לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שמגיע לניסן אחר‬ ‫[ת'ר] מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬

.C

‫מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬ ‫מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין ראשונה לראשון ושנייה לשני‬ ‫א'ר יוחנן מנ' למלכים שאין מונין להן אלא מניסן‬

.D

‫שנ' ויהי בשמנים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני ישר' מארץ מצר' בשנה הרביעית בחדש זיו הוא החדש השני למלוך שלמה‬ ‫על יש' ויבן הבית ליי'י‬ ‫מקיש מלכות שלמה ליציאת מצרים‬ ‫מה יציאת מצרים מניסן אף מלכות שלמה מניסן‬ ‫א'ר אלעזר מהכא‬ ‫ויחל לבנות בחדש השני בשני בשנת ארבע למלכותו‬ ‫מאי שנא לאו שני לירח שמונין בו למלכותו‬

.E

86

Our reconstructed “core” reads like a coherent sugya; a bit terse, perhaps, but all of the sources hang tightly together in logical progression, forming a thematic arc in which each source builds on the previous ones. First, at [A], Rav Hisda gives a rationale for the Nisan rule of the Mishnah in the dating of documents. The “Babylonian” baraita, at [B], provides support for Rav Hisda's “dating” thesis in its references to specific dates vis-a-vis royal eras. The Toseftan baraita, at [C], rephrases and expands the logistical information from the “Babylonian” baraita. Finally, the dispute between Rabbi Yohannan and Rabbi Elazar, [D]-[E] seeks to provide the biblical source for the Mishnah’s rule, the next logical step after Rav Hisda's provision of a rationale for it. It is difficult to see how the non-stammaitic sources contained in our sixth unit could cohere together with the others in our sugya. Additionally, as we shall see, there is good evidence that they are either imported and patched into place, or imported and recomposed to fit the current setting. Of these sources, the most easily established as imported by a late redactor is the first, Rav Papa's memra. Here the Talmud openly admits that the memra is imported from a more original context: “[We may reply to this] on the model of R. Papa, [who] said [in another connection] that the occurrence of the expression ‘twentieth year’ in two contexts provides us with a gezerah shavah: so here, [I may say that the occurrence of] the expression ‘fortieth year’ in the two contexts provides us with a gezerah shavah, [showing that] just as in the one case [the date is reckoned] from the Exodus, so in the other case also.” First, the reader should note that the tradition is introduced with the words, “on the model."142 Aside from being stammaitic vocabulary, this phrase indicates that an amoraic or tannaitic source more original in another context is being cited and re-purposed for the current context. This phrase is nearly always followed by the phrase, "so here,"143 to introduce the re-purposing, as it is here. In this case, the memra is imported from nearby, in the next sugya at 3b:1-3. There it exists 142 ‫כי דאמר‬ 143 ‫הכא נמי‬

87 clearly in its original context: “R. Papa said: The occurrence in each text of the expression ‘twentieth year’ provides us with a gezerah shavah, [indicating that] just as in the latter case it means ‘of the reign of Artahshasta,’ so in the former it refers to the reign of Artahshasta.” The reference to the Persian king Artahshasta in the original memra is reworked in our sugya to refer to the Nisan New year. We will see this phenomenon again below. In any case, it is only imported to answer the challenge at [C] and is utterly subordinate to it. Although the source is originally amoraic, it is stammaitic or later in its redaction and must be excluded from our reconstruction of the core sugya. As noted earlier the tannaitic element in source [F] is unmarked by any identifying technical term in the Bavli, and begins with a jarring abruptness, almost mid-sentence. This is because when the source was imported from its original context, the unit it was part of was trimmed to half or a third of its original size, and only the most relevant elements transferred to our text. The original context is a sugya at b. Ta'anit 9a. Below, I have highlighted the transferred element: An objection was raised: R. Jose the son of R. Judah says: Three good leaders had arisen for Israel, namely. Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and for their sake three good things were conferred [upon Israel], namely, the Well, the Pillar of Cloud and the Manna; the Well, for the merit of Miriam; the Pillar of Cloud for the merit of Aaron; the Manna for the merit of Moses. When Miriam died the well disappeared, as it is said, And Miriam died there, and immediately follows [the verse], And there was no water for the congregation; and it returned for the merit of the [latter] two. When Aaron died the clouds of glory disappeared, as it is written, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad heard. What news did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died, and that the clouds of glory had disappeared; he thought that he was free to make war on Israel. Therefore it is written, And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead. With reference to which R. Abahu said: Do not read, ‘they saw’ [va-yiru] but ‘they were seen’ [va-yira'u]. This is also in accordance with the view of Resh Lakish who said: [The word] ki may be used in four different senses, namely, ‘if,’ ‘perhaps,’ ‘but,’ ‘because.’ The two [the Well

88 and the Cloud] returned because of the merit of Moses, but when Moses died all of them disappeared, as it is said, And I cut off the three shepherds in one month. Did they then all [three] die in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Av and Moses in Adar? This therefore is meant to teach you that the three good gifts which were given because of their merit were nullified and they all disappeared in one month. 144 The expatriation of this material from the source in Ta'anit is obvious and even the interpolated memrot of Rabbi Abahu and Reish Lakish have been transferred intact. The transfer of this source most likely occurred after the redaction of this material in b. Ta'anit or at least after its redaction as an aggadic unit without residence in a tractate. Additionally, the transfer must be at least coeval with all statements in our unit to which [F] is subordinate. [F] is subordinate to [E], while [E] is integral to the overall flow of this unit. Further, there is nothing about [E] that characterizes it in vocabulary, form, or style as earlier than any other part of the unit-- it is clearly stammaitic. Conclusion: Since [E] is stammaitic and [F] is both dependent on [E] and also contains some stammaitic material itself, the redactional transfer of the non-stammaitic b. Ta’anit parallel material in [F] must be at least stammaitic, if not later. The final tannaitic element here is a bit more problematic, at least at first glance. Source three/four never appears elsewhere in the Bavli. However, a short amount of inquiry shows it also to be a reworked Baraita from nearby, in the next sugya. The first clue to the source's stammaitic recomposition comes in the form of another of Friedman's criteria: his eleventh criterion that a clustering of variant readings characterizes a later insertion. Below, find a synoptic table of variants for b. Rosh

‫סיחו ן‬ ‫ערד‬ ‫ערד‬ ‫ערד‬ ‫ערד‬ ‫כנע ן‬ ‫ערד‬ ‫כנע ן‬

144 ‫ ושלש מתנות טובות‬.‫ ומרים‬,‫ ואהרן‬,‫ משה‬:‫ אלו הן‬,‫ שלשה פרנסים טובים עמדו לישראל‬:‫מיתיבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר‬ .‫ נסתלק הבאר‬- ‫ מתה מרים‬.‫ בזכות משה‬- ‫ מן‬,‫ בזכות אהרן‬- ‫ עמוד ענן‬,‫ בזכות מרים‬- ‫ באר‬.‫ ומן‬,‫ וענן‬,‫ באר‬:‫ ואלו הן‬,‫ניתנו על ידם‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ נסתלקו ענני כבוד‬- ‫ מת אהרן‬.‫ וחזרה בזכות שניהן‬,‫ וכתיב בתריה ולא היה מים לעדה‬,‫ ותמת שם מרים‬+'‫במדבר כ‬+ ‫שנאמר‬ ‫ניתנה ןלו רשות הוא‬ ‫הואוכסבור כנע‬ ‫שמת אהרן ערד‬ ‫ שמע הוא‬- ‫שמע‬ ‫מה שמועה תנא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫ן וישמע הכא‬+‫כ"א‬ ‫במדבר כנע‬+ Munich 95 ‫להלחם‬ ,‫ונסתלקו ענני כבוד‬ ,‫הכנעני מלך ערד‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫כנע ן‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫תאנא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫ כנע ן‬Munich 140 ,‫ כדדריש ריש לקיש‬.‫ אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו‬:‫ אמר רבי אבהו‬.‫ ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן‬+'‫במדבר כ‬+ ‫ והיינו דכתיב‬.‫בישראל‬ ‫(ע) הוא‬ ‫כנע ן‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫כנע ן‬ JTS 1608 ‫שנאמר‬ ‫הואחזרו שניהם‬ .‫ דהא‬,‫ אלא‬,‫דלמא‬ ‫דאמר ריש‬JTS 218 ‫ הוא‬,‫נסתלקו כולן‬ ‫ סיחו ן‬- ‫מת משה‬ ‫הוא‬,‫בזכות משה‬ ‫כנע ן‬ ‫ תנא‬,‫ אי‬:‫לשונות‬ ‫משמש בארבע סיחו ן‬ ‫ כי הכא‬,‫לקיש‬ ‫כנע ן‬ :‫אלא‬ ,‫מריםן מתה בניסן‬ ‫ וכי‬.‫בירח אחד‬ ‫שלשת הרעים‬ ‫זכריה י"א‬Oxf. + 23 ‫ומשה באדר!הוא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬,‫הואואהרן באב‬ ‫מתו? והלא כנע‬ ‫בירח אחד הוא‬ ‫תאנא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫ ןואכחד אתהכא‬+ ‫כנע‬ .‫אחד‬ ‫ ונסתלקו‬,‫על ידן‬ ‫ערד כולן בירחהוא‬ ‫טובות שנתנוהוא‬ ‫שלש מתנותסיחו ן‬ ‫מלמד שנתבטלוהוא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫סיחו ן‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫כנע ן‬ Pesaro ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫כנע ן‬ ‫ערד‬

‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫סיחו ן‬ ‫סיחו ן‬

‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫תנא‬ ‫תנא‬

‫סיחו ן‬ ‫סיחו ן‬

‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬

‫כנע ן‬ ‫כנע ן‬

London Printed ed

89 Hashanah 3a:8-9. Note the looseness in the testimony of the text witnesses that begins as the baraita picks up.

We see here that as the baraita begins, it seems to hiccup across the witnesses, proliferating in variants. In half of the eight text witnesses the first reference is to the name “Sihon.” In three it is to “Kana'an.” Finally, in one it is “Arad.” And, as can be seen, this variation continues in an (mostly) internally consistent manner as the baraita moves along. Compare this with the firmness of a parallel Baraita at 3b:33-34.

‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬

‫ארתחשס' על‬ ‫וארתחששתאעל‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחשסתא על‬ ‫ארתחששתא על‬

‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫תנא‬ ‫תאנא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫תאנא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫תנא‬

‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫ארתשסתא‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬

‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬ ‫הכא‬

‫היה‬ ‫היה‬ ‫היה‬ ‫היה‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫היה‬

‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬ ‫כשר‬

‫שמל ך‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫שמל ך‬ ‫שמל ך‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫שמל ך‬ ‫שמל ך‬

‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬

‫היה‬ ‫היה‬

‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬ ‫כורש‬

‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫התם‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ '‫ארתחששת‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחשסתא‬ ‫ארתחששתא‬

‫דמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דאמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דמ י‬ ‫דאמ י‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הוא‬

‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬ ‫דריוש‬

‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬ ‫מ‬

Munich 95 Munich 140 JTS 1608 JTS 218 Oxf. 23 Pesaro London Printed Ed CamTS102 JTS2076.4 Munich 95 Munich 140 JTS 1608 JTS 218 Oxf. 23 Pesaro London Printed Ed CamTS102

Here, all the witnesses testify to a single version: The baraita begins with “Koresh,” then moves on to “Daryavesh,” and concludes with “Artahshasta.” Even JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270), which is often at odds with the other witnesses, here shows a bit of looseness in the stammaitic element; it replaces “Daryavesh” with “Artahshasta,” but as the baraita begins, it falls in lock-step with the others, evincing a marked firmness. The contrast with our Baraita at 3a:8 could not be clearer. This baraita shows signs

‫‪90‬‬ ‫‪typical of late insertion in the sugya. But its oddness does not end there. A formal critical inquiry also‬‬ ‫‪yields useful data.‬‬ ‫‪Our baraita has a unique form that it shares with the baraita at 3b:33. I will refer to this form as‬‬ ‫‪an “U-ma shemo” form. This form occurs twelve times in the Bavli.145 This form usually, though not‬‬ ‫‪exclusively found in baraitot, attempts to collapse two or more (usually biblical) characters or places‬‬ ‫‪into a single character or place with several names. The form takes the following consistent three‬‬‫‪clause structure:‬‬

‫‪145 Six of the sources are unique in the tractate in which they appear; no other “U-ma shemo”forms appear‬‬ ‫‪in those tractates. Of the six times that multiple “U-ma shemo” forms appear in the same tractate, two are the‬‬ ‫‪3a:8 and 3b:33 baraitot in Rosh Hashanah. The other four are in Sanhedrin. The first two at b. Sanhedrin 38a‬‬ ‫‪and 82b appear in conection with different Mishnah and are unrelated in content. The last two occurrences,‬‬ ‫‪at 101a and 105b, appear in connection with sequential clauses of the Mishnah. These two may, in fact,‬‬ ‫‪constitute a similar phenomenon to what we see in b. Rosh Hashanah. More work is required to see if this is‬‬ ‫‪the case.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף פט עמוד ב‬ ‫מדבר סיני ‪ -‬שירדה שנאה לאמות העולם עליו‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬חורב שמו‪ .‬ופליגא דרבי אבהו‪ ,‬דאמר רבי אבהו‪ :‬הר‬ ‫‪ .2‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף קיג עמוד ב‬ ‫יהודה‪ ,‬הוא איסי בן גמליאל‪ ,‬הוא איסי בן מהללאל‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬איסי בן עקביה שמו‪ .‬הוא רבי יצחק בן טבלא‪ ,‬הוא‬ ‫‪ .3‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ג עמוד א‬ ‫ שדומה לסייח במדבר‪ ,‬כנען ‪ -‬על שם מלכותו‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬ערד שמו‪ .‬איכא דאמרי‪ :‬ערד ‪ -‬שדומה לערוד במדבר‪,‬‬‫‪ .4‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף ג עמוד ב‬ ‫ שמלך כשר היה‪ ,‬ארתחשסתא ‪ -‬על שם מלכותו‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬דריוש שמו‪ .‬מכל מקום קשיא! ‪ -‬אמר רבי יצחק‪ :‬לא‬‫‪ .5‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת יומא דף נב עמוד ב‬ ‫הוא איסי בן גמליאל‪ ,‬הוא איסי בן מהללאל‪ .‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬איסי בן עקיבא שמו! ‪ -‬בדאורייתא ליכא‪ ,‬בדנביאי איכא‪- .‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף לח עמוד א‬ ‫ שנשאל על אלתו אל‪ ,‬זרובבל ‪ -‬שנזרע בבבל‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬נחמיה בן חכליה שמו‪ .‬יהודה וחזקיה בני רבי חייא הוו‬‫‪ .7‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף פב עמוד ב‬ ‫לדבר עבירה‪ ,‬בן הכנענית ‪ -‬על שעשה מעשה כנען ‪ -‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬שלומיאל בן צורי שדי שמו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף קא עמוד ב‬ ‫נבט ‪ -‬שניבט ולא ראה‪ ,‬מיכה ‪ -‬שנתמכמך בבנין‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬שבע בן בכרי שמו‪ .‬תנו רבנן‪ :‬שלשה ניבטו ולא ראו‬ ‫‪ .9‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף קה עמוד א‬ ‫אחת בימי יעקב ואחת בימי שפוט השופטים‪ .‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬לבן הארמי שמו‪ .‬כתיב ‪+‬במדבר כ"ב‪ +‬בן בעור וכתיב‬ ‫‪ .11‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת הוריות דף יא עמוד ב‬ ‫דאמרי‪ :‬שלום ‪ -‬ששלמה מלכות בית דוד בימיו‪ ,‬ומה שמו? מתניה שמו‪ ,‬שנאמר‪+ :‬מלכים ב' כד‪ +‬וימלך מלך בבל את‬ ‫‪ .11‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת תמורה דף טז עמוד א‬ ‫חורגיה דקנז הוא‪ .‬תנא‪ ,‬הוא עתניאל הוא יעבץ‪ ,‬ומה שמו ‪ -‬יהודה אחי שמעון שמו‪ .‬עתניאל ‪ -‬שענאו אל‪ ,‬יעבץ ‪-‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת כריתות דף ה עמוד ב‬ ‫דבר אחר‪ :‬שלום ‪ -‬ששלם מלכות בית דוד בימיו‪ ,‬ומה שמו? מתניה שמו‪ ,‬שנאמר‪+ :‬מלכים ב' כ"ד‪ +‬וימלך את מתניה‬

91

.____name____ ‫____הוא‬name____ ‫____הוא‬name____ ‫הוא‬.1 ,_reason for name ‫ ש‬name_.2 _reason for name ‫ ש‬name_ ‫__ שמו‬name_ ?‫ומה שמו‬.3 As can be seen, this is a form that can be adapted quite easily to new character and place names with great ease: simply fill in the blanks with the new name. Perhaps that is what has happened in our case. The baraita at 3b:33 may have been reworked for inclusion in our sugya. Above, I noted that this “Uma shemo” form occurs twelve times in sources in the Bavli. However, no two such sources are in as close proximity as those in our unit, which appear on the same folio page. The proximity of the two sources, the plastic and easily adaptable form, along with the looseness of the testimony of the text witnesses to the 3a:8 baraitot,146 lead me to conclude that these sources must also be excluded from our reconstruction of the core sugya. I want to be clear that I am not coming to definite conclusions as to the origins of these two baraitot. I merely point here to a variety of factors which have the effect of raising serious doubts as to the authentic tannaitic nature and genuine amoraic transmission of these baraitot. The idea that later editorial reworking took place fits the data both more readily and elegantly in our case. With this in mind, the burden of proof must shift against including these baraitot in our reconstructed core sugya.

Unit

7: Rabbi Elazar's dictum, 3a:23-26

146 Indeed, the fact that two versions of the baraita are presented by the gemara itself (!), leads to even greater suspicion as to their origins.

92 Said R. Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year of his reign. What [is here meant by] ‘in the second’? Does not [the superfluous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned?

This unit was discussed in detail above in connection with unit five. There is no need to discuss it further. It is included in our reconstruction of the core.

Unit

8: Ravina and Rav Ashi, 3a:26-32

But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week? Rav Ashi said: For one, we never find the second day of the week mentioned in Scripture, and secondly, the second ‘sheni’ [second] is put on the same footing as the first sheni, [indicating that] just as the first sheni refers to a month, so the second sheni refers to a month.

The statement, "But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week?" appears simply to be stammaitic in JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270). Yet, all of the other text witnesses precede the phrase with the following exchange: Ravina strongly demurred to this. But may I not suppose it means the second day of the month? — In that case it would have said distinctly, ‘on the second day of the month.’147

Here, Ravina objects to Rabbi Elazar's interpretation of II Chronicles 3:2, stating that the phrase, "in the second” might simply refer to the date of the month. The Talmud responds by stating that such a statement of dating would have been explicit. The omission of this exchange is probably due to a near

147 ‫ ואימא שני בחדש! אם כן שני בחדש בהדיה הוה כתיב‬:‫מתקיף לה רבינא‬

93 homoiteleuton, the scribe mistaking “But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week?” for “But may I not suppose it means the second day of the month?.”148 Since Ravina is not associated with the former phrase he was not included in JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270) version of the sugya. A similar problem vexes us at the end of our unit. The printed editions of the Talmud have, from the first, omitted the attribution to Rav Ashi, although the content of his statement remains unchanged in all versions.149 The origins of this omission are unrecoverable; however, the data are clear: this statement is not anonymous in six out of eight text witnesses. It seems we should include both the attributions to Ravina and Rav Ashi in our consideration of this unit. Recall for a moment that our overall claim is that some third and fourth generation Babylonian amoraim seem to draw upon redacted Palestinian materials now found in the Yerushalmi (as we have seen in the case of Rav Hisda in this chapter, and will see with regard to Rava in the next). They also appear in underlying early core sugyot that can be reconstructed by stripping later materials. The core sugyot containing these middle-generation Babylonian amoraim do not seem to show signs of replicating the Yerushalmi's structures. However, this unit, containing Ravina and Rav Ashi, both postfourth generation Babylonian amoraim, shows marked affinity in structure and content with a portion of the Yerushalmi parallel sugya. The exchange between Ravina and Rav Ashi recapitulates a series of anonymous challenges and rebuttals from the first sugya of the Yerushalmi. This portion of the sugya was very briefly touched on in the discussion of unit 5, Rabbi Yohannan’s dictum at 2b:21-28. It seems likely that this anonymous exchange is a later insertion in the Yerushalmi's text. I advance this hypothesis on the basis of its anonymity (which, though not always a sign of lateness in the Yerushalmi, is one of three factors that point in the direction of such a conclusion

148 ‫ אימא שני בשבת‬for ‫ואימא שני בחדש‬.This type of error is quite common in this manuscript. 149 The word order differs somewhat, however, in the printed editions from the manuscripts. ‫ דלא אשכחן‬:‫חדא‬ ‫שני בשבת דכתיב‬, as opposed to the more typical ‫חדא בשבת לא אשכחן‬, as in Munich 95.

94 in our case), and its breaking of the neat parallel structure of the Yerushalmi sugya,150 and the dialectic

150 In both halves of the passage the following take place: first, a midrash on Exodus 12:2 is presented that excludes a variety of yearly agricultural milestones from being marked by the Nisan new year; Second, a challenge is raised claiming that one might use the same midrash to exclude the royal and festival cycles from the Nisan new year as well. Third, the Yaaqov b. Aha-Yisa-Yohanan tradition is used to enforce the dictum that Nisan is the New Year for kings note that the question regarding the New Year for festivals is unanswered). This is not the case in the parallel in Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael. See the Horowitz-Rabin ed., p. 7, lines 4-11: one use of the word, "‫ "שני‬must refer to the regular count of the progression of lunar months across the regular year (‫)שני שבחדשים‬, the other must refer to the months in the royal year ( ‫ )שני שבשנים‬In the fourth step, an attempted determination is made as to which "‫ "שני‬refers to which era. In the first part of this passage, step four is preceded by series of anonymous challenges and rebuttals (below, these are indented and represented with a black square.) It is these that break the parallel structure. After this, an anonymous question frames step four, resuming the flow of the sugya after the digression: represented with a circle. )‫א (רישא‬/‫ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א נו‬ ‫כתיב החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים‬ .1 ‫לכם הוא ראש ואינו ראש לא לשני' ולא לשמיטי' ולא ליובילות ולא לנטיע' ולא לירקות‬ ‫ואימר לכם הוא ראש ואינו ראש לא למלכים ולא לרגלים‬ .2 ‫רבי יעקב בר אחא ר' יסא בשם ר' יוחנן‬ .3 ‫כתיב ויחל לבנות בחדש השיני בשיני בשנת ד' למלכותו‬ ‫הקיש שנת ד' למלכותו לשיני שבחדשי' מה שני שבחדשים אין מונין אלא מניסן אף שני שבשנת ארבע למלכותו אין מונין אלא‬ ‫מניסן‬ ‫או אינו אלא שנים בחדש‬ ■ ‫כל מקום שנאמר שנים בחדש פירש‬ ■ ‫או אינו אלא שנים בשבת‬ ■ ‫לא מצאנו חשבון זה מן התורה‬ ■ ‫והא כתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני‬ ■ ‫אין למידין מברייתו של עולם‬ ■ ‫והיי דין הוא שני שבחדשים‬  ‫והיי דין הוא שני שבשנים‬ ‫ר' חנניה ור' מנא‬ .4 ‫חד אמר ויחל לבנות בחדש השני זה שני שבחדשים בשני זה שני שבשנים‬ ‫וחורנה אפילו מיחלף לית בה כלום‬ )‫א (סיפא‬/‫ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א נו‬ ‫רבי שמעון בר כרסנא בשם רבי אחא שמע לה מן הדא‬ ‫החודש הזה לכם מיעט ראשון הוא לכם מיעט‬ ‫מיעוט אחר מיעוט לרבות למלכים ורגלים‬ ‫וירבה לשנים ולשמיטים וליובילות ולנטיעה ולירקות‬ ‫כהיא דאמר רבי יעקב בר אחא רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן‬ ‫ויחל לבנות בחדש השיני בשיני בשנת ארבע למלכותו‬ ‫הקיש שנת ארבע למלכותו לשיני שבחדשים‬

.1

.2 .3

95 complexity that is somewhat less common among amoraim in the Yerushalmi. For us, this lateness of the Yerushalmi passage is significant because we seem to encounter in the Bavli, in our unit, late Babylonian amoraic awareness of this late passage in the Yerushalmi. It seems reasonable to advance the suggestion that Ravina and Rav Ashi saw (or heard) this very set of exchanges that we see in the Yerushalmi. Whether or not the source of their knowledge was our Yerushalmi or some other medium is beside the point. For convenience sake, I will present this exchange next to Ravina and Rav Ashi’s exchange from the Bavli.151 Y. Rosh Hashanah 56a/1:1

B. ROSH-HA-SHANAH 3a Munich 140

A.Or perhaps it is not so, but it means the

A.Ravina strongly demurred to this. But may

second day of the month?

I not suppose it means the second day of the

B.Whenever Scripture says “second” meaning

month?

the day of the month, it says so explicitly.

B.— In that case it would have said distinctly,

C.Or perhaps it is not so, but it means the

‘on the second day of the month’.

second day of the week?

C.But may I not suppose it means on the

D.We have not found such dating in

second day of the week?

Scripture.

D.Rav Ashi said: For one, we never find the

E.But is it not written, “and there was

second day of the week mentioned in

evening, and there was morning, the second

Scripture,

‫מה שני שבחדשים אין מונין אלא מניסן‬ ‫אף שני שבשנת ארבע למלכותו אין מונין אלא מניסן‬ ‫רבי יונה רבי יצחק בר נחמן בשם רבי חייה בר יוסף‬ ‫ויחל לבנות בחדש השיני זה שני שבחדשים בשני זה שני שבשנים‬ ‫וכשהוא אומר בשנת ארבע למלכותו הקיש שנת ארבע למלכותו לשני שבחדשים‬ ‫מה שני שבחדשים אין מונין אלא מניסן‬ ‫ב] ארבע למלכותו אין מונין אלא מניסן‬/‫אף שני שבשנת [נו‬ 151 Here, I will present the version from Munich 140, which seems most typical of the various text witnesses.

.4

96 day” (Gen. 1:8)

E.and secondly, the second ‘sheni’ [second] is

F.We do not derive proof from the account of

put on the same footing as the first sheni,

the creation of the world.152

[indicating that] just as the first sheni refers to a month, so the second sheni refers to a month.153

Steps [A] through [D] are identical in structure and content. Step [A] advances an objection to a previously stated amoraic interpretation of II Chronicles 3:2, stating that the phrase, "in the second” might simply refer to the date of the month. Step [B] is a rebuttal stating that such a system of dating would have been explicitly stated in the verse. Step [C] is another attack on the same previously stated amoraic interpretation of II Chronicles 3:2, now stating that the phrase, "in the second” might simply refer to the day of the week. Step [D] is another rebuttal stating that we find no other scriptural evidence that days of the week are mentioned in Biblical dating systems. At this point, the two texts part ways. In the Bavli, [E] provides the hermeneutic justification for Rabbi Elazar's interpretation of II Chronicles 3:2, a justification absent in his own statement.154 On the other hand, the Yerushalmi goes one exchange further by responding to the answer of [D] with a citation of Genesis 1:8, which does

152 ‫א‬/‫ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א נו‬ ‫או אינו אלא שנים בחדש כל מקום שנאמר שנים בחדש פירש או אינו אלא שנים בשבת לא מצאנו חשבון זה מן התורה והא‬ ‫כתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני אין למידין מברייתו של עולם‬ 153 ‫מתקיף לה רבינא ואימא שני בחדש אם כן שני בחדש בהדיא כת' ואימא שני בשבת אמ' רב אשי חדא דשני בשבת לא אשכחן‬ ‫דכת' ועוד מקיש שני בתרא לשני קמא מה שני קמא חדש אף שני בתראה חדש‬ 154 As it turns out, [E] puts forth another heqesh one step from the conclusion of the sugya, just as the Yonah-Yitzhak b.Nahman-Hiya b. Yosef memra does in the Yerushalmi. This is a shared structural feature, yet the Bavli sugya does not have the two-part parallel structure that the yerushalmi sugya has. The exchanges that parallel the Rav Ashi/Ravina dispute occur earlier here in the Yerushalmi sugya, in the first half of the sugya. The Yonah-Yitzhak b.Nahman-Hiya b. Yosef memra occurs later, towards the end of the second half. It is as if the two halves of the Yerushalmi sugya have been collapsed into a single passage in the Bavli.

97 apparently mention a day of the week. This is finally rebutted in [F], with the statement that midrash that attempts to draw larger conclusions about the biblical system of dating cannot be performed on verses describing creation. The exact same series of challenges and rebuttals, in the same order (from [A] through [D]), seems unlikely to have arisen by chance at the same location in the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Were we to remove this passage from our core sugya, we would remove one of the most striking points of affinity in structure and content between our sugya and its parallel in the Yerushalmi. A central question remains: do Ravina and Rav Ashi's traditions mirror the structure of the Yerushalmi in other places in B. Rosh Hashanah? In other words, do the structural affinities, as opposed to the contentbased affinities that we find between the two tractates, begin to acquire residence in b. Rosh Hashanah after the fourth, but not later than the sixth generation of Babylonian amoraim? Further study is required to determine how often we see evidence of a two-stage relationship between sugyot in the Bavli and their opposite numbers in the Yerushalmi, with the crucial shift in that relationship occurring when Ravina and/or Rav Ashi appear. Certain middle-generation Babylonian amoraim (Rav Hisda and Rava in particular) often seem to relate to the content of Palestinian traditions (and even groupings of traditions, such as in disputes) but not to the larger structures of the Yerushalmi sugyot. Yet, just as we see here, perhaps with further study we shall find more instances in which Ravina and Rav Ashi seem to be in a native relationship with the other amoraic sources in our sugya, yet do replicate, step-by-step, structures we find in the Yerushalmi.

Unit

9: Baraita in support of Rabbi Yohannan, 3a:32-42

It has been taught in accordance with R. Yohannan: How do we know [from Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘And Aaron the priest

98 went up to Mount Hor, etc.155 JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270) version of this Baraita is much shorter than its appearance in the other text witnesses. Here is the version in London - BL Harl. 5508 (400): A.It has been taught in accordance with R. Yohannan: How do we know [from the Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? B.Because it says, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year, etc.’ C.And it is further written, ‘And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor, etc.,’ D.And it is further written, 'And it came to pass in the fortieth year in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, etc.’ E.And it is further written, ‘After he had smitten Sihon, king of the Amorites, etc.’ F.And it is further written, “And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard, etc.” G.And it is further written, And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, etc.’ H.And it is further written, ‘And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first of the month, etc.' I.And it is further written, ‘And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth of the month, the clouds lifted from upon the tabernacle of the covenant, etc.’ J.And it is further written, ‘In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt etc.’ K.And it is further written, ‘And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year, etc.156

155 ‫'תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן מנ' למלכים שאין מונין להן אלא מניסן דכת' ויהי בשמנים שנה וג' ואומ' ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר וג‬ 156 ‫תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן מניין למלכים שאין מונין להם אלא מניסן‬ .A '‫שנ' ויהי בשמנים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני יש' מארץמצרי' בשנה הרבי' וג‬ .B '‫ואומ' ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר וג‬ .C

99

This baraita is nothing but a collation of all ten of the biblical verses presented in the course of the sugya. All of the manuscripts,157 except for JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270), present all of the same verses in the same order. Some, e.g. Munich 140, present them in an abbreviated form. Others, e.g. London - BL Harl. 5508 (400), present them in a fuller form. But all present them in the same order. As shown earlier, much of the material containing these verses in the sugya preceding this baraita is either composed or imported in a relatively late point in the redaction history of the sugya. In particular, unit six which contains a large percentage of materials highly characteristic of the editorial voice of the Bavli as well as clearly imported redacted materials contains seven of these verses. It would strain credulity to an unacceptable level to posit that this baraita represents an unadulterated tannaitic tradition composed prior to the redaction of the sugya in which it is seated. Clearly, this baraita has been either composed or heavily reworked to function as the “punch line” for our sugya.158 It is a deus ex machina sweeping down from the skene at the close of our sugya, granting Rabbi Yohanan an assured and unexpected victory over Rabbi Elazar at the last possible moment. Like all such di ex machinis, it is contrived and artificial. However, there are a few clues here that it is at least based on some relatively early tradition.

'‫ואומ' ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חודש באחד לחדש וג‬ ‫ואו' אחרי הכתו את סיחון מלך האמרי‬ ‫ואו' וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד‬ ‫ואומ' ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן‬ ‫ואומ' ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית באחד בחדש‬ '‫ואומ' ויהי בשנה השנית בחודש השני בעשרים בחדש נעלה הענן מעל משכן העדו‬ '‫ואומ' בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישר' מארץ מצרי‬ ‫ואו' ויחל לבנות בחדש השיני בשני בשנת ארבע למלכותו‬

.D .E .F .G .H .I .J .K

157 The printed editions, unlike the manuscripts here, lack [D]. This is likely an occurrence of homoteleuton. Vilna adds it back at the suggestion of Solomon Edles: (b. Rosh Hashanah 3a, Mesoret HaTalmud, ad loc.) 158 See Judith Hauptman, Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988), 5-6, 35, 38, 97, 139, and 186, on the Bavli's reworking of tannaitic sources.

100 Such a clue comes from the conclusion in the parallel sugya in the Yerushalmi. There, the following baraita ends the sugya: Samuel Taught differing: A.'in the third month, when the people of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt,' (Exod. 19:1)- from here [we learn] that one counts the months from the Exodus. B.From this I only know months. From where [do I learn] years? 'And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, [in the first month] of the second year' (Num. 9:1) C.From this I only know that time [of the Exodus]. From where do I learn later times? '...in the fortieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt,' (Num. 33:38) D.From this I only know [that it was true] for the moment. From where do I know [the same is true] for [later] generations? 'And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, etc.' (I Kings 6:1) E.When the temple was built, they began to use the era [from the time] of its erection: 'And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the two houses, etc.' (I Kings 9:10). F.When they no longer merited the use of the erection era, they began to count from its destruction: 'In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, etc.' (Ezk. 40:1) G.When the no longer merited the use of their own [eras], they began to count [according to the eras of foreign] kingdoms: 'In the second year of Darius the king,' (Hag. 1:1), 'In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia,' (Dan. 10:1)159

159 ‫ב‬/‫ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק א הלכה א נו‬ ‫תני שמואל ופליג‬ ‫בחודש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים‬

.A

101 This baraita shares a number of features with our baraita: 1. It contains a large number of verses (10 in the case of the Bavli, 7 in the Yerushalmi); 2. It comes at the same location in both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi; 3. It serves the same structural purposes as our baraita in the Bavli, a tannaitic text concluding the sugya; 4. It contains some of the same verses (Ex. 19:1, Num. 33:38, I Kings 6:11). There are quite a few differences as well. Unlike our baraita, the Yerushalmi baraita disagrees with all positions that precede it, rejecting their methods, and instead gathering verses to prove a history of changes in the use of eras.160 Also, it contains a significant amount of midrashic-halakhic language in addition to the verses. Finally, it does not serve as a sort of recapitulation of its preceding sugya, as our baraita does. However, on the whole the affinities are much more interesting than the differences here, and again, there are too many of them to be a coincidence. Of additional note is the Yerushalmi's attribution of this baraita to Shemuel, a first generation Babylonian amora.161 It seems odd that a source marked as having a Babylonian provenance by the Yerushalmi should find no place of residence in the Bavli. With this in mind, it seems much more likely that these two baraitot are drawn from the same source baraita. These two sources may have evolved from the same ancestor, each changing different features to adapt to the new environment. Note, however, that this reworked ‫מיכן שמונין חדשים ליציאת מצרים‬ ‫אין לי אלא חדשים שנים מניין‬ ‫וידבר יי' אל משה במדבר סני בשנה השינית‬ ‫אין לי אלא לאותו הזמן לאחר הזמן הזה מניין‬ ‫בשנת הארבעים לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים‬ ‫אין לי אלא לשעה לדורות מניין‬ '‫ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים וגו‬ ‫משנבנה הבית התחילו מונין לבנינו‬ '‫ויהי מקץ עשרים שנה אשר בנה שלמה את שני הבתים וגו‬ ‫לא זכו למנות לביניינו התחילו מונין לחרבנו‬ '‫בעשרים וחמש שנה לגלותינו בראש השנה בעשור לחדש וגו‬ ‫לא זכו למנות לעצמן התחילו מונין למלכיות‬ ‫שנאמר בשנת שתים לדריוש בשנת שלש לכורש מלך פרס‬

.B .C .D .E .F .G

160 Goldman, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Vol. 16: Rosh Hashanah, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 15, n. 18. 161 See Dov Ratner, Ahavat Zion Virushalayim, Rosh Hashanah (Vilna, 1911), 1, who discusses this phenomenon in detail. Baer Ratner, (Vilna: Bi-defus ha-almanah veha-ahim Rom, 1901-17)

102 “Babylonian” baraita, although not mirroring the Yerushalmi's content, does add a structural feature to the Bavli's sugya that it shares with the overall architecture of the parallel sugya of the Yerushalmi. At least two possibilities arise here: 1. This sugya ended with the baraita (an earlier un-reworked version) even in the middle-amoraic generations in Babylonia. Since it serves as a natural conclusion to the themes of the sugya, the Yerushalmi also included it at the end of its parallel sugya. 2. The baraita appeared in another part of the same sugya, or another context, or was free-standing and was reworked and moved to serve as the conclusion of our sugya, bringing it into greater structural consonance with its parallel in the Yerushalmi. Either of these possibilities is a viable hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to recover fully the editorial mechanics with regard to this particular source.

Summary and Conclusions Our purpose in this chapter has been twofold. First, we have established that all three of Rav Hisda's statements in a single sugya complex of b. Rosh Hashanah show evidence of knowledge of Yerushalmi or Yerushalmi-like sugyot on the part of their composers. Second, we have shown that there is an earlier “core” sugya that can be discerned lying under the text of the first sugya of b. Rosh Hashanah. This “core” sugya also appears to pick up on themes, assumptions and conclusions of its Yerushalmi parallel (or perhaps another text like it), but it does not seem to mirror the structure of its Yerushalmi parallel as the finished Bavli sugya does. I will now summarize some of the major elements of these two findings and draw some synthetic conclusions from them. The three Hisda dicta that are the focus of our discussion occur at 2a:9-10, 3a:41-43 and 4a:40. Each of these statements relates to the proper interpretation of the “Nisan” clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. They appear at the same junctures in the Bavli's discussion of the Mishnah that their parallel texts occur in the Yerushalmi's: the first two statements have direct parallels in content to the Yerushalmi and the content of the third, and while never explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, is the underlying

103 assumption is of an entire Yerushalmi sugya. Further, each of these statements shows not mere knowledge of discrete traditions (meimrot), but knowledge of groupings of traditions (sugyot, or at least elements of sugyot, such as disputes) now found in the Yerushalmi. The first of these statements at 2a:9-10 seems to pick up on conclusions that Rabbi Yonah draws in the Yerushalmi regarding an amoraic dispute and applies them to Mishnah exegesis. Note that Rabbi Yonah’s statement is incoherent without knowledge of the preceding dispute. The second Hisda statement at 3a:41-43 perhaps draws on both sides of an amoraic dispute, mirroring the language of one side while accepting the conclusions of the other. The third at 4a:40 make explicit a fundamental assumption of the Yerushalmi sugya parallel to the Bavli sugya in which it appears.162 Additionally, none of the content of these three statements is directly called for by either the Mishnah or shared tannaitic sources.163 Finally, the occurrence of three of these statements together would seem to suggest more than mere coincidence. The composer(s) of Rav Hisda's three dicta must have had access either to y. Rosh Hashanah, or a text or texts very much like it. But did the composition of Rav Hisda's statements occur in an earlier or later period? The second aim of our discussion provides an answer to this question. The first of Rav Hisda's statements forms a part of the early “core” sugya uncovered by our inquiry. Although not mentioned earlier, we should note here that the same is demonstrably true of the latter two statements. This was hinted in our discussion of unit one. The statement, at 3a:41-43, is the first of a linked chain of amoraic

162 See the discussion of unit one, above, for the details of each of these conclusions. 163 The content of 2a:9-10 is clearly not called for by the Mishnah since the Yerushalmi never applies it to the Mishnah! The content of 3a:41-43 does not fill an interpretative lacuna in any tannaitic text, but rather layers the concept of “gentile king” on sources which have not considered the topic. The content of 4a:40 is not called for by either the Mishnah or T. Rosh Hashanah 1:2 (and its baraita parallels). Neither of these require Passover to serve as the deadline for the commandment of ‘not delaying’; they only require that the full festival cycle must pass before the deadline. The deadline could as easily be the first of Nisan as the fifteenth.

104 statements which clearly make up a set of native sources moving in a logical progression.164 The statement at 4a:40 serves as an introduction to two baraitot which serve as points of departure for the stamaitic material that begins at 4b:10. The content of 4a:40 and its implications are then dropped by this anonymous material and not discussed again. As such, 4a:40 sits in its own coherent thematic 164 Below is the result of the stripping procees for that sugya. The same method used with regard to sugya one was used with regard to sugya two. Note the logical progression of sources here in core sugya two. In (A), Rav Hisda introduces the idea that the new year for non-Jewish kings is Tishrei. In (B) Rav Papa provides a scrIptural support for Rav Hisda's proposition. (Rav Pappa is a fith-generation Babylonian amora: later than Rav Yosef, who obviously is responding directly to Rav Hisda.) In (C) Rav Yosef responds to Rav Hisda, challenging his proposal with Biblical verses that seem to contradict it. (D)-(I) all grow from this dispute between Rav Hisda and Rav Yosef, alternately supporting one side or the other. Notice that all of the sources read nicely, in logical relationship with one another. .‫ אבל למלכי אומות העולם מתשרי מנינן‬,‫א"ר חסדא לא שנו אלא למלכי ישראל‬

)A

'‫נא' (נחמיה א) דברי נחמיה בן חכליה ויהי בחדש כסליו שנת עשרים וגו‬ )B '‫וכתיב (נחמיה ב) ויהי בחדש ניסן שנת עשרי' לארתחשסתא וגו‬ ‫ אף הכא לארתחשסתא‬,‫ מה התם לארתחשסתא‬-‫אמר רב פפא שנת עשרים שנת עשרים לגזירה שוה‬ "‫מתיב רב יוסף (חגיי א) "ביום עשרים וארבעה לחדש בששי בשנת שתים לדריוש‬ )C "‫וכתיב (חגיי ב) "בשביעי בעשרים ואחד לחדש‬ !‫ בשביעי בשנת ג' מיבעי ליה‬,‫ואם איתא‬ .‫אמר ר' אבהו כורש מלך כשר היה לפיכך מנו לו כמלכי ישראל‬

)D

‫מתקיף לה רב יוסף חדא דא"כ קשו קראי אהדדי‬ )E "‫דכתיב (עזרא ו) "ושיציא ביתא דנא עד יום תלתא לירח אדר די היא שנת שית למלכות דריוש מלכא‬ "‫וכתיב (עזרא ז) "ויבא ירושלם בחדש החמישי היא שנת השביעית למלך‬ !‫ואם איתא שנת השמינית מיבעי ליה‬ ‫א"ר יצחק לא קשיא כאן קודם שהחמיץ כאן לאחר שהחמיץ‬

)F

?‫ ומי החמיץ‬,‫מתקיף לה רב כהנא‬ )G ‫והכתיב(עזרא ו) "ומה חשחן ובני תורין ודכרין ואמרין לעלון לאלה שמיא חנטין מלח חמר ומשח כמאמר כהניא די בירושלם להוא‬ "‫מתיהב להם יום ביום די לא שלו‬ "‫ מטונך! "די להון מהקרבין ניחוחין לאלה שמיא ומצלין לחיי מלכא ובנוהי‬,‫אמר לו רבי יצחק רבי‬

)H

?‫ רב יוסף ואיתימא רבי יצחק מנלן דאחמיץ‬ )I "‫מהכא (נחמיה ב) "ויאמר לי המלך והשגל יושבת אצלו‬ .‫מאי שגל? אמר רבה בר לימא משמיה דרב כלבתא‬

105 relationship with the two baraitot.) The evidence thus points to the inclusion of Rav Hisda's material in our sugya at a relatively early period. It is in relationship with the other core sources of the sugya. This relationship can best be described as forming a coherent, logical progression. Each step of the core sugya can be seen as flowing logically from the earlier materials. At 2a:9-10, Rav Hisda provides the need to accurately date documents as the reason for the Mishnah’s Nisan ruling. The “Babylonian” baraita, at 2a:11-15, supports Rav Hisda's “dating” concept by providing specific dates vis-a-vis royal eras. The Toseftan baraita, at 2b:5-10, provides greater logistical detail about the procedure outlined in the “Babylonian” baraita. Lastly, the exchange between Rabbi Yohannan (2b:21-29) and Rabbi Elazar (3a:23-27) seeks to provide the scriptural origins of the Mishnah’s law, a quite logical step after Rav Hisda's provision of a rational for it. All of this reads through quite nicely after the later anonymous and imported materials are removed. This is not the case with the amoraic or tannaitic materials imported by the later editor, as I have shown in the discussion of Unit Six. Further, it is important to note here that the Ravina and Rav Ashi materials relate primarily to the Yohanan/Elazar dispute. They also show a greater awareness and use of the content and structure of the Yerushalmi than any other element in our sugya. The other amoraic elements native to our sugya simply do not mirror the Yerushalmi's structure. Ravina and Rav Ashi's materials are clearly native to our sugya and do mirror the Yerushalmi's structure, almost parroting it for a time. This gives these materials a different quality than the other amoraic materials in our sugya. The amoraim in our sugya who flourished prior to the fifth generation seem to know, and make use of, content we now find in the Yerushalmi, but they make no use of the Yerushalmi's structure or architecture. Ravina and Rav Ashi most decidedly do make use of the Yerushalmi discussion's structure, as well as its content. Is this generally the case with regard to Ravina and Rav Ashi? Were we to look at their sugyot throughout the Bavli, would we discover that before them the amoraim do not heed the structure of the Yerushalmi materials, but after them they do? This intriguing question will have to wait for another day.

106 We have also discovered that the Palestinian meimrot presented in our sugya- the Yohannan and Elazar traditions are concerned exclusively with giving the biblical basis for the Mishnah’s rule. Rav Hisda’s statement is the only Babylonian meimra prior to the fifth generation, native to our sugya that concerns motivation for the marking of a royal new year. I have shown that all other Babylonian meimrot in our sugya are either later than the fourth generation or are imported from a more original context at a later point, expanding and imparting added sophistication to our sugya. This detectable difference in agenda gives further credence to our claim: that the Rav Hisda material and the Yohannan/Elazar traditions authentically originate in different periods and/or geographic locations with different concerns regarding the m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. It is these different concerns that may have motivated the differing agendas we see in our sugya. So overall, what we have before us is evidence that some of Rav Hisda's statements imply knowledge of materials that are either much like or identical to certain Yerushalmi sugyot. Also, these statements are part of a relatively early layer of Bavli redaction, a layer that weaves together relatively early materials from both geographic centers of Torah with differing concerns to form a coherent logical progression. Finally, this core layer of redaction, while showing knowledge of Yerushalmian materials, does not mirror the Yerushalmi structure. On the other hand, both the final redacted Bavli sugya and the Ravina and Rav Ashi material (which may have been added before the final layer of redaction) do seem to imitate their Yerushalmi parallel's structure.

Hebrew text of the Sample Bavli Sugya: b. Rosh Hashanah 2a:10-3a:41 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]A [2a:9-15 ‫ר'ה למלכים למאי הילכתא‬ ‫אמ' רב חסדא לשטרות‬

‫‪107‬‬ ‫כי דתנן שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין‬ ‫ת'ר מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחד בניסן עלתה לו שנה‬ ‫ואם לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שמגיע לניסן אחר‬ ‫‪------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]B [2a:15-2b:5‬‬ ‫אמ' מר "מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחדבניסן עלתה לו שנה"‬ ‫מאי ק'מלן‬ ‫דניסן ר'ה למלכים ויום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה‬ ‫"ואם לא עמד אלא באחדבניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שמגיע לניסן אחר"‬ ‫פשיטא‬ ‫לא צריכה דאמנו עליה מאדר ולא אמלכוה עד חד בניסן‬ ‫מהו דתימא נימני ליה תרתין שנין‬ ‫ק'מלן‬ ‫‪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]C [2b:5-10‬‬ ‫ת'ר‬ ‫מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬ ‫מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין שנה לזה ולזה‬

‫‪108‬‬ ‫מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין ראשונה לראשון ושנייה לשני‬ ‫‪--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]D [2b:10-21‬‬ ‫אמ' מר "מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה"‬ ‫פשיטא‬ ‫מהו דתימ' שתא לבתרי לא מנינן‬ ‫ק'מלן‬ ‫"מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין ראשונה לראשון ושנייה לשני"‬ ‫פשיטא‬ ‫לא צריכא דאמני עליה מאדר ומלך בן מלך‬ ‫מהו דתימ' לימנו עליה תרתי שני‬ ‫ק'מלן‬ ‫"מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין לו שנה לזה ולזה"‬ ‫פשיטא‬ ‫מהו דתימ' כי אמרינן יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה בסוף שנה בתחלת שנה לא אמרינן‬ ‫ק'מלן‬ ‫‪--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]E [2b:21-28‬‬

‫‪109‬‬ ‫א'ר יוחנן מנ' למלכים שאין מונין להן אלא מניסן‬ ‫שנ' ויהי בשמנים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני ישר' מארץ מצר' בשנה הרביעית בחדש זיו הוא החדש השני למלוך שלמה‬ ‫על יש' ויבן הבית ליי'י‬ ‫מקיש מלכות שלמה ליציאת מצרים‬ ‫מה יציאת מצרים מניסן אף מלכות שלמה מניסן‬ ‫‪-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]F [2b:28-3a:23‬‬ ‫ויציאת מצ' גופה ממאי‬ ‫מנא לן דמניסן מנינן‬ ‫דלמא מתשרי מנינן‬ ‫לא סלד'ע‬ ‫דכת' ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר וימת שם בשנת הארבעים לצאת בני יש' מאר'מצ' בחדש החמישי‬ ‫וכת' ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חדש באחד לחדש‬ ‫מדקאים באב וקרי ליה שנת ארבעים‬ ‫קאי בשבט וקרי לה שנת ארבעים‬ ‫מכלל דראש שנה לאו תשרי‬ ‫בשלמא התם איכא למחשב‬ ‫אלא הכא ממאי דליצי' מצרים‬

‫‪110‬‬ ‫דלמא להקמת משכן‬ ‫כי דאמ' רב פפא שנת עשרים שנת עשרים לגזרה שווה‬ ‫הכא נמי שנת ארבעים לגזרה שווה‬ ‫מה התם מניסן אף הכא נמי מניסן‬ ‫וממאי דמעשה דאב קדים‬ ‫דלמא מעשה דשבט קדים‬ ‫לא ס'ד‬ ‫דכת' אחרי הכתו את סיחן מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון וג'‬ ‫וכי נח נפשיה דאהרן סיחון מיהוה הוה‬ ‫"וכת' וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד יושב הנגב‬ ‫מה שמועה שמע ובא‬ ‫שמע שמת אהרן[הכהן] ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה רשות להלחם בהן בישראל‬ ‫דכת' ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אה'‬ ‫[ואמ' ר' אבהו אל] תקרא ויראו אלא וייראו‬ ‫וכידריש לקיש דאר'ל כי משמש ארבעה לשונות או דלמא אלא דהא"‬ ‫מי דאמי התם כנען הכא סיחון‬

‫‪111‬‬ ‫תנא‬ ‫הוא כנען הוא סיחון הוא ערד‬ ‫סיחון שדומה לסייח במדבר‬ ‫כנען על שם מלכותו‬ ‫ומה שמו ערד שמו‬ ‫איכא דאמ'‬ ‫ערד שדומה לערוד במדבר‬ ‫כנען על שם מלכותו‬ ‫ומה שמו‬ ‫סיחון שמו‬ ‫אימא (דר)[רא]ש השנה אייר‬ ‫לא סד'ע‬ ‫דכת' ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית באחד לחדש הוקם המש'‬ ‫וכתי' ויהי בשנה השנית בחדש השני בעשרים בחדש נעלה הענן מע(ל ה)[ל]מש' העדות‬ ‫מדקאיי בניסן וקרי לה שנה שנית‬ ‫וקאיי באב וקרי לה שנה שנית‬

‫‪112‬‬ ‫מכלל דראש שנה לאו אייר הוא‬ ‫אימא ראש שנה (ל)[ס]יון‬ ‫לא סד'ע דכתי' בחדש השלישי לצאת בני יש'‬ ‫אם איתה בחדש השלישי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית מיבי ליה‬ ‫אלא‬ ‫אימא תמוז‬ ‫אימא אב‬ ‫אימא אדר‬ ‫‪--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]G [3a:23-26‬‬ ‫אלא א'ר אלעזר מהכא‬ ‫ויחל לבנות בחדש השני בשני בשנת ארבע למלכותו‬ ‫מאי שנא לאו שני לירח שמונין בו למלכותו‬ ‫[‪]3a:26-32 H‬‬ ‫אימא שני בשבת‬ ‫אמ' רב אשי חדא דשני בשבת לא מנינן‬ ‫ועוד מקיש שני בתרא לשני קמא‬

‫‪113‬‬ ‫מה שני קמא חדש אף שני בתרא חדש‬ ‫‪--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]I [3a:32-42‬‬ ‫תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן‬ ‫מנ' למלכים שאין מונין להן אלא מניסן‬ ‫דכת' ויהי בשמנים שנה וג'‬ ‫ואומ' ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר‬

114

Appendix One: An Aggadic Example

I would now like to briefly examine three Hisda citations that occur in an aggadic section rather than in a halakhic one. I have not spoken of aggadah thus far, and see this as an opportunity to address the unique concerns of this genre here. Far from finally sharpening the rather blurry lines distinguishing the aggadic pericope from its halakhic cousin, I hope here only to briefly lay out a suggestion for a possible way to understand the different problems that such passages present. Here is the main problem with comparing aggadah in b. and y. Rosh Hashanah as I see it: The aggadic passages in b. Rosh Hashanah generally do not retrace the lines established by the sources in the Yerushalmi. The Bavli makes use of a diverse collection of aggadic sources that differ from those of the Yerushalmi, at least in this tractate. Though aggadah in b. Rosh Hashanah will often rear up and capture the discussion at the same general junctures (following the same Mishnah or similar halakhic sugyot, for example) as it does in the flow of the Yerushalmi, the content and structure of these passages can be quite different. The result is that the sympathetic relationship between the two Talmuds appears to be lost at these junctures. However, the mere fact that aggadah does appear at these similar junctures does point, once again, to the close familial ties that bind the two Talmuds together. My theory is that the Babylonian amoraic expansions on Palestinian aggadah were so lengthy, that it was unwieldy in the extreme for the editors of the Bavli to comprehensively alter them to fit the Yerushalmi’s overall aggadic structures. Nor did they feel free to cut large amounts of Babylonian amoraic aggadic materials. It was within their mandate to preserve these sources as best they could. It is for this reason that we see aggadic sections more or less occurring at the same junctures in Bavli and Yerushalmi tractates without the strong structural and content parallels we see in halakhic sugyot.

115 That said, Rav Hisda’s relationship to the aggadah in the Yerushalmi does appear to have equivalence with his relationship to the halakhic portions, as the following example shows. Though thematically linked, and making use of some of the same sources, the two passages below differ somewhat in content, as is the wont with aggadic passages. That said, it is all the more striking that Rav Hisda appears, once more, to draw directly on the content and language of the Yerushalmi. Furthermore, though the editors of b. Rosh Hashanah may have inherited a range of materials that differed from the Yerushalmi’s, when possible, as in the below example, they nonetheless made the effort to maintain parallel structure, even in the aggadic sections. It is my suggestion that we should highlight these similarities to understand the relationship between the aggadah in the two Talmuds, rather than just focusing on the differences between them. Within these aggadic passages, the similarities are often more significant than the differences might lead us to conclude. For the reader’s ease I have bolded the tannaitic materials, underlined the amoraic and highlighted the identical contents of the sources.

Bavli Rosh Hashanah 16a 1. Rabbi Yose says: Man is judged every

Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1:3 (57a) 1. Rabbi Yose said, “An individual is

day, as it says, “That you shall pass

judged every moment.”

judgment on him every morning.” (Job

What is the reason? “That you shall

7:18)

pass judgment on him every morning,

Rabbi Natan says: Man is judged every

examine him every moment.” (Job

moment, as it says, “[You] examine

7:18)

him every moment.” (Job 7:18)…

“That you shall pass judgment on him every morning”-- this refers to his income.

116 “Examine him every moment”—this refers to his food. 2. R. Hisda said: What is the reason of R. Jose?

2. Rabbi Isaac Rabbah in the name of Rabbi, “The king and the public are judged every day.”

[How can he ask this?] Surely it is as was stated, “That you shall pass judgment on him every morning!” What we mean is this: What is his reason for not taking the same view as R. Nathan? “Examining” merely means scrutinizing. But judging also merely means scrutinizing? The truth is, said R. Hisda, Rabbi Jose's

What is the reason? “That He do the

reason is to be found in this text: “That

judgment of His servant, and the

He do the judgment of His servant, and

judgment of his people, as every day

the judgment of his people, as every

shall require.” (1 Kings 8:59)

day shall require. (1 Kings 8:59) 3. Said Rabbi Levi, “He rules the world in 3. R. Hisda further said: If a king and a

righteousness and judges the peoples

people present themselves together, the

with equity.’ (Psalms 9:9) The Holy

king stands his trial first, as it says,

One judges Israel by day when they are

117 “That He do the judgment of His

doing mitzvoth, and the other nations at

servant, and the judgment of his people,

night, when they are not sinning

as every day shall require. (1 Kings

[because they are sleeping]. ”

8:59)

What is the reason? — If you like, I can say, because it is not proper that a king should remain outside, or if you like I can say, [so that he may be judged] before the [divine] anger waxes hot.

Following shared tannaitic sources at unit one, Rav Hisda, at unit two of the Bavli’s presentation, draws on parallel language and the same biblical citation (1 Kings 8:59) while expanding the conclusions of the statement of Rabbi Isaac Rabbah that appears at y. Rosh Hashanah 1:3 (57a). At unit three, Rav Hisda further expands on the verse presented earlier, apparently breaking from the structure of the Yerushalmi. Rather than discussing the differences between God’s approach to the judgment of Israel vs. the judgment of the other nations, he chooses to advance a theory of divine judgment of kings and commoners. The editorial voice of the Bavli steps in immediately, and brings this subject in closer affinity to the subject that appears in the Yerushalmi: God’s techniques for avoiding the consequences of His anger at a time of Judgment. It does this with the words, “before the [divine] anger waxes hot.” This last move subtly reincorporates Rav Hisda’s aberrant statement at unit three back into the general parallel flow of the sugya with y. Rosh Hashanah—we now can see a common link between the two apparently divergent subjects—God’s attempts to control his own anger. Here again, we see Rav

118 Hisda drawing on amoraic materials in y. Rosh Hashanah and expanding on them with no apparent concern for its structure. The Bavli’s editorial voice, however, steps in to restore the structural affinity, however weakly, even in this aggadic passage.

Appendix Two: Hisda citations in B. Rosh Hashanah.

119 The aim of this appendix is not to exhaustively analyze every statement of Rav Hisda recorded in b. Rosh Hashanah. Rather, it is to provide the reader some additional examples of places in the tractate where my method of painstaking analysis would uncover the core relationship between Rav Hisda’s statements and sources in the Yeushalmi. After a listing of Rav Hisda’s statements in the tractate, I will provide a brief précis of some of the other statements of Rav Hisda and some of my thoughts about their relationship to the sources in the Yerushalmi. Rav Hisda’s name is mentioned twenty-one times in Bavli Rosh Hashanah. Of these references, thirteen represent direct citations of Rav Hisda’s dicta. I define a dictum as the statement, “Rav Hisda said…” followed by formulated content, usually Hebrew in language. One of these dicta (marked with “+” below) is obviously imported from another Bavli tractate. The remaining eight references (marked with “*” below) are not dicta, but editorial discussions of Rav Hisda’s positions. These do not present any actual statement attributed to Rav Hisda. These twenty-one total references appear at the following points in the text (the figure appearing after each colon in the notation indicates the line number in the Vilna edition of the Bavli): 1. 2a:9 2. 3a:41 3. 4a:40 4. 5a:14 5. 7a:14 6. 8a:38 7. 8a:40* 8. 8a:42* 9. 8a:43* 10. 8a:44* 11. 8b:9*

120 12. 8b:10 13. 12a:7* 14. 12a:7+ (Imported from b. Sanhedrin 108b.) 15. 16a:32* 16. 16a:35 17. 16a:36 18. 17a:43 19. 26a:20* 20. 26a21 21. 32a:34 My brief analysis of citations 6-7, 12, 18, and 20 are below. Why do I submit only these to analysis here? First, I have extensively analyzed the first five Hisda citations within the body of the chapter. These require no further analysis. Second, Hisda References 15, 16, and17 (at 16a:32, 16a:35 and 16a:36) were analyzed in Appendix One. To support my general thesis, I need only show affinity between Rav Hisda’s attributed statements and materials in Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah. I do not need to elaborate on the affinities in the Bavli’s later editorial layers. I have therefore discounted from analysis all the Bavli’s editorial elaborations of Rav Hisda’s statements, eliding discussion of those passages in favor of an interrogation of the attributed statements. I have also discounted the statement obviously imported from b. Sanhedrin since its importation is late and falls into the same category as the editorial statements. I therefore claim that all of these dicta either support, or at least, can be construed to be in consonance with my general thesis. Those that offer no support, as explained above, do not actively contradict my theory. For this reason I claim that on the whole the evidence of the tractate is positive for my thesis.

121 References 6 and 12 (8a:38, 8b:10) Both of these citations appear in a single sugya. References 7-11, listed above, appear in the same sugya. The level of late editorial activity is quite high in this sugya. Given this, it is unsurprising that there are really only two dicta here. Both were imported from within b. Rosh Hashanah by the late editorial voice to fill out the sugya. The first, at 8a:38, is imported from 2a:9. The second, at 8b:10, is imported from 16a:36. Aryeh Leib Jellin (Yafeh 'Ainai’im, ad locum) points the reader to his discussion of these two citations in their proper places: on 2a and 16a. In other words, Jellin was already aware that the two citations in this sugya share affinity with the Yerushalmi in their exemplar locus, but that this sugya, in its current location, does not share affinity with y. Rosh Hashanah. It is a late editorial sugya, which uses materials from other locations for its own concerns and agendas.

Reference 18 (17a:43) At the bottom of 16b the Bavli greatly expands on an aggadic section that appears at the same juncture as a major aggadic section of the Yerushalmi. This is typical of the Bavli’s process with aggadah. In doing so, it quotes t. Sanhedrin 13:3-6. The amoraic activity on 17a is all an attempt to deal with this lengthy theological text. Rav Hisda’s comment at 17a:43 fall into this category. The sugya as a whole seems mostly amoraic. Note that Rav Hisda here responds to a Toseftan text with little concern for the Yerushalmi’s structure.

Reference 20 This citation is also a support for my general thesis. Rav Hisda seems to draw upon the formulation of Rabbi Levi at y. Rosh Hashanah 3:2 (58d). Once again we see the language of a Palestinian amora in Rav Hisda’s mouth. However, there are some oddities with this particular reference. The citation form the Bavli uses at 26a:20 would normally lead us to believe that the editor of the Bavli imported this dictum from another location. Meir Nativ (ad locum) points out that Rav Hisda’s statement here would

122 nicely fit the context of b. Yoma 12b. However, the statement does not appear there. Be that as it may, since it does appear, absent another location in the Bavli, we should treat b. Rosh Hashanah as the exemplar locus. If it is the exemplar locus, then it is a further support of my general thesis.

123

124 Chapter Three: Rava--Center and Margins

In this chapter I will argue that some of Rava’s statements in Bavli Rosh Hashanah appear to draw upon units of redacted Palestinian Rabbinic materials which now can be found in parallel165 passages of Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah. My method in this chapter will differ slightly from the last. First, I will present an example passage from Bavli Rosh Hashanah which contains a number of statements attributed to this important fourth century Babylonian sage. To aid the reader’s understanding, I will present a brief exposition of its content. This exposition will also delineate major contours of the structures and themes in the passage. At this point I will need to pause for a digression to make clear my method for identifying Rava’s statements. Historically, Rava’s statements have often been confused with those of his elder colleague Rabbah. I must demonstrate how I am able to know with reasonable confidence which statements are Rava’s. I will then analyze the passage in detail with the aim of establishing my aforementioned conclusion. Reconstructing the several proto-sugyot that may underpin our redacted Bavli passage is, to my mind, part and parcel of establishing Rava’s role in the creation and redaction of the materials in the passage. Therefore, I will tackle these twin aims simultaneously in the analytical section of this chapter. I will demonstrate that some of Rava'i statements in the example passage seem to have been present at a relatively early stage of the passage’s development. I will show that these statements may have originally resided in one of a series of redacted Babylonian proto-sugyot that were likely the raw materials used to create the present passage. I claim I can reconstruct these proto-sugyot. As I strip the later anonymous editorial materials from our example passage, the reader shall see that the earlier amoraic materials cohere as three separate, readable Talmudic discourses. To do this, I shall identify textual layers of relatively early provenance present in the example passage. I will go on to show that 165 To remind the reader, I use the term parallel here, and throughout the chapter and the whole of the work, mostly out of convention. See above, n. 64.

125 these “core” materials166 do not share the Yerushalmi's structures. Nor for that matter, do they seem to contain any structural affinity with the Yerushalmi. My analysis points to these Babylonian protosugyot as the most likely early building blocks of the example passage as a whole. It is my claim that the entirety of our passage was woven together by a later editor from the aforementioned proto-sugyot. I will conclude that the editor likely did this with the aim of creating a single passage that would share greater overall structural affinity with the Yerushalmi. This chapter is to serve as an additional support of my general thesis that a three stage redactional process is at work in Bavli Rosh Hashanah. To remind the reader of the theory put forth in the introduction: First, it seems, there was an early period of composing and collecting Babylonian Mishnah commentary stretching the bulk of the third century. This was likely followed by a middle period of early redactional activity prompted by the arrival in Babylonia of discrete redacted Palestinian materials. I claim that the mid-fourth century, Rava’s floruit, is the most likely time that Babylonian Rabbis would have engaged in this nascent editorial process. Finally, I posit a later period of thoroughgoing redactional activity after the Yerushalmi gained currency in Rabbinic circles in Babylonia. This was probably done with the aim of restructuring many Babylonian sugyot to match the structures found in the Yerushalmi. This chapter will be more of a support for the latter two claims of my thesis, but I will touch on the first of my claims, en passant. Translation and Exposition of the Sample Passage Our example is a relatively complex sugya in the final chapter of Bavli Rosh Hashanah (b. Rosh Hashanah 29b:24-30a:34). I will now present the sugya in translation with an added exposition. 166 On my use of the term “core” to refer to Babylonian proto-sugyot, see above, pp. 27-29. There seems to be a difference between Rava’s statements in Bavli Rosh Hashana and those of Rav Hisda, that is worth noting here. Rav Hisda’s statements seem not to reflect knowledge of the anonymous voice in the Yerushalmi. Rava’s, on the other hand, can sometimes be construed as having knowledge of anonymous Yerushalmi materials. This difference is worthy of study, but is beyond the scope of this project.

126 As part of my exposition, I have added comments and background information to aid the reader [italicized in brackets]. Below, the reader will find the tannaitic material bolded; the amoraic material is underlined.167 For the reader’s convenience, I have provided a translation of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1 preceding the sugya. After the translation and commentary, the reader will find a brief, yet substantial attempt to summarize the thematic and structural contours of the passage. After this, I will move on to a detailed analysis of the passage. I hope to firmly establish that this sugya is, in fact, the historically layered product of a relatively late redactor. I will claim that three older fourth century Babylonian sugyot underlie its redacted structure. While each of these core sugyot share sources and content with the Yerushalmi sugya, none of them reflect its structure.

Translation: Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:1)

[The Mishnah’s topic is the sounding of shofar when Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbat.] When the holyday of Rosh Hashanah fell on a Shabbat, in the Temple (miqdash) they would blow [the shofar], but not in the Provinces (medinah).168 After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban

167 This translation of our passage from the Yemenite manuscript JTS 108 EMC 319 is my own. On the choice of this manuscript, see David Golinkin, Pereq Yom Tov shel Rosh ha-Shanah ba-Bavli: Mahadurah Mada'it im Perush (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1988), 5-7, 12-20. The text appears in the original at the end of this chap. 168 See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 5:1046. He presents a comprehensive summary of the medieval and modern commentaries on the difficult question of what territory is encompassed by the term, “miqdash” and what by “medinah.” After summarizing, he concludes that the Yerushalmi takes “miqdash” to refer to the entirety of Jerusalem, while the Bavli’s position is more ambiguous. My translation, “Temple,” follows Edward Goldman’s trans. in Jacob Neusner, ed.,, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 16: Rosh Hashanah, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 99. It is not meant to signify a reading of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1 that restricts sounding shofar to the sacred precincts of the Temple courtyard. I reserve judgment on the question, though, on the whole, taking “miqdash” as a synecdoche for the entirety of Jerusalem, strikes me as the more reasonable interpretive move in this case. See, however, the clever suggestion of A. A. Halevi, Midrash Rabba (Tel Aviv: Mahberot lesifrut), 1963,

127 Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that they should blow [shofar on Shabbat ] in every place in which there was a court. Rabbi Eliezer said, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed [shofar on Shabbat ] only for Yavneh. They said to him, It [that is, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai’s decree] is the same whether Yavneh, or any other place in which there was [any sort of] a [properly constituted] court. [The Mishnah now lays out a subtle difference between the sounding of Shofar on Shabbat in Jerusalem and the later, similar practice in Yavneh.] Jerusalem had this further over Yavneh: For in every town which could see and hear [Jerusalem] and was close enough to come [from there to Jerusalem by foot] they would blow [shofar on Shabbat ], while in Yavneh they would only blow [shofar on Shabbat ] in court.

Translation and commentary: JTS 108 EMC 319 1. [The Bavli begins with a question about the rule presented in the Mishnah.] What is the [scriptural] source of this rule [regarding the permissibility/prohibition of blowing of Shofar on Shabbat ]?169

5:376. Halevi posits that the Yerushalmi presents a “Babylonian” reading of our Mishnah placed in the mouth of the Babylonian amora Kehana. He claims that Kehana’s statement restricts Shofar blowing on Shabbat to the Temple itself. 169 The Talmud presents Rabbi Levi b. Lahma’s memra as an answer to the Talmud's anonymously asked question, “What is the source of this rule?" As noted in the previous chapter, p.62, n. 79, a code switch from Aramaic--the question--to Hebrew-- Rabbi Levi b. Lahma’s answer--makes it unlikely that the memra and the question originate as a single unit. A search conducted on Bar Ilan University’s Global Jewish Database http://www.responsa.co.il/default.aspx?Action=togglelogin (accessed October 2009) determined that ‫מנא הני‬ ‫ מילי‬occurs 146 times. Of these, 100 are followed by a memra introduced with amar; 3 are followed by a memra introduced with de’amar 22 .)‫ב‬,‫ב קידושין דף סז‬,‫ב זבחים דף כה‬,‫ בכורות דף כז‬are followed by a baraita introduced with teno rabbanan; 15 are followed by a baraita introduced with d’teno rabbanan or another tannaitic signifier with the “dalet” prefix ( ‫ב; זבחים דף‬,‫א; זבחים דף מד‬,‫א; הוריות דף יג‬,‫א; בכורות דף מד‬, ‫בכורות דף מא‬ ‫ א; נזיר דף‬,‫א; נדה דף מד‬,‫א; מנחות דף צא‬, ‫ב; מנחות דף נ‬, ‫א; יומא דף סז‬,‫א; יבמות דף צז‬, ‫ב; חולין דף עז‬,‫ב;זבחים דף צד‬, ‫פט‬ ‫ב‬, ‫ב;תמורה דף יח‬, ‫ב; ערכין דף ל‬,‫)מז‬. Only one, Bava Metzia 87b, introduces the stammmaitic presentation of a biblical verse. This close association between a short, stereotyped Aramaic phrase and generally Hebrew tannaitic or amoraic materials may be indicative of its early anonymous editorial character.

128 1a. [An answer to the question posed at 1.] Said Rabbi Levi b. Lahma, said Rabbi Hama b. Hanina, “one verse says, ‘…a day of solemn rest, a memorial of the shofar-blast’ (Lev. 23:24). But another verse says, ‘You shall have a day of the shofar-blast.’ (Num. 29:1). [These two verses apparently contradict one another. Numbers 29:1 calls for blowing the shofar on the first day of the seventh month. Leviticus 23:24 seems to call for a “memorial’ of such blowing. Perhaps we are to conduct a ritual without any actual blowing of the shofar, but simply the oral recitation of verses referring to the sounding of the shofar? The apparent contradiction poses a problem as the general post-tannaitic attitude was that the Torah may not contradict itself. Therefore, the answer must be that] there is no contradiction. [Instead, the apparent contradiction is actually God’s pedagogic tool, teaching us the following law:] Here [at Lev. 23:24, the Torah describes the law when] the festival day coincides with Shabbat. [Under such circumstances] we do not blow [the shofar]. Here [at Num. 29:1, the Torah describes the law when] the festival day is a weekday, [when] we [do] blow [the shofar].” [In sum, Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina see Lev. 23:24 as prohibiting the blowing of shofar on Shabbat, requiring the oral recitation of verses referring to the sounding of the shofar instead.] 2. Said Rava [raising an objection to the conclusion at 1a.], “But if the source [of the prohibition on blowing shofar on Shabbat ] is the Torah, how did we blow [shofar on Shabbat ] in the Temple? [If it is the Torah that prohibits blowing shofar on Shabbat, then should it not be prohibited in all times and places?] And furthermore, is it forbidden labor?!? [This last question is asked in mock surprise. Its implication is that sounding shofar is not, in fact, labor forbidden on Shabbat, preparing us for the following baraita.] But the House of Shemuel taught [in a baraita], ‘You shall do no laborious work’ (Num. 29:1). This

129 [apparently superfluous verse actually] singles out [both] blowing shofar and detaching pita [from the oven], which are skills and not [forbidden] labor. [Therefore, neither is prohibited by the Torah on Shabbat ].” 2a. Rather, says Rava [simultaneously rejecting the premise of the question at 1 while presenting an alternative hypothesis as to the source of the Mishnah’s rule,] “The Torah certainly permits [blowing shofar on Shabbat ], but our Rabbis are they who have prohibited it.” [Rashi explains, ad locum, that in Rava’s view, this framework explains the difference of practice in and out of the Temple. He notes that the Babylonian amoraim universally subscribe to the principle that Rabbinic decrees did not have force in the Temple. If the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, then it would only apply outside the Temple. ] 2b. [Rava introduces a support from a higher authority: the older Babylonian amora, Rabbah. He presents Rabbah’s statement in order to bolster his, Rava’s, answer at 2a.] This is as Rabbah [explained]. For he said, “everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, but not all are skilled in the sounding of the shofar. [Thus] the Rabbinic prohibition: lest one take it in his hand and go to an expert to learn and carry it four cubits in a public domain [thereby violating Shabbat.].” This [that is, the concern about violating Shabbat by carrying four cubits in a public domain] is the same reason [that stands behind the Rabbinic prohibition] against [taking up the] lulav [on Shabbat ] and the same reason [that stands behind the prohibition] against [the public reading] the scroll [of the book of Esther on Shabbat ]. 3. [Having determined that the Mishnah’s prohibition on blowing shofar on Shabbat is Rabbinic in origin, the Bavli now moves on to comment on the next related plank of the Mishnah.] “After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed [that they should blow in every place in which there was a Court.” m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1] Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: Once Rosh Hashanah coincided with Shabbat [in Yavneh, after the

130 destruction of the Temple]. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai said to B’nei Beteira, “Let us blow [the shofar on Shabbat, in accordance with my decree.]” They said to him, “Let us debate it.” He said to them, “Let us blow [the shofar on this Shabbat and Rosh Hashanah day] and debate [what the longer term practice should be] afterwards.” After they had blown they said to him, “Let us debate.” He replied: “The horn has already been heard [on Shabbat ] in Yavneh, and we don’t object after the fact.” [So, by tricking Benei Beteira into helping him establish precedent, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai won the successful implementation of his decree.] 4. [The Bavli now continues on to comment on the next plank of the Mishnah. The Bavli’s comments in this unit will also serve as segue to the latter sections of the sugya] “Rabbi Eliezer said, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed only for Yavneh. They said to him, [It is the same whether Yavneh, or any other place in which there was a Court.]” [m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1] this [position presented by the response to Rabbi Eliezar] is the same [position] as [that held by] the first tanna [in the previous plank of the Mishnah, and thus appears to be superfluous]! They [the first tanna and the response position] disagree in the case of an ad hoc Court. [In such a case, one would prohibit the blowing of the shofar on Shabbat, the other would not. Thus, there is an area of difference between the two positions and there exists no superfluous plank in the Mishnah. Note that we have introduced the concept of different types of courts: permanent and ad hoc. This binary dispute creates a nice transition into the binary dispute regarding courts to come below.] 5. [The Bavli now moves on to comment on the next plank of the Mishnah.] “When the Temple was destroyed, [Rabban Yohanan b. Zaqai] decreed that they should blow anywhere that a Court is present.” [m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1] R. Huna said, “[The shofar is blown on Shabbat only] with the court.” [Rav Hunah’s dictum limits the parameters of Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai’s decree: an individual must be “with the court” to sound shofar on Shabbat. The

131 requirement dictated by the preposition “with” is ambiguous. The preposition can imply a wide range of locative and/or temporal arrangements. The Bavli presents this ambiguity as binary in nature. The Bavli will only entertain two possibilities (until an attempt at synthesis is made at Unit 8): either Rav Huna requires that all shofar blowing take place in the direct physical presence of the court, or he merely requires that one must sound one’s shofar on Shabbat at the same time that the court sounds its own.] 5a. [The Bavli clarifies the ambiguity.] What is meant by “with the Court”? [It means,] in the [actual direct physical] presence of the Court, excluding [any blowing on Shabbat ] not in the presence of the Court. [In other words, one may not sound the shofar on Shabbat if one is merely doing so at the same time as the court; one must be in the actual room in which the court is seated.] 6. Rava objected [to the conclusion at 5a, quoting m. Rosh Hashanah 4:2]: “‘Jerusalem had this further over Yavne: For in every town which could see and hear and was close enough to come they would blow. While in Yavneh they would only blow in Court.’ What does, ‘this further,’ imply? If I say it refers [only] to what it [the Mishnah] says [that in Jerusalem every adjacent town was permitted to sound shofar, while in Yavneh they were restricted to the place of the court], then it should have [just] said, ‘this’! [The presence of the word “further” implies an additional, unmentioned difference. There must be some sort of lacuna in the Mishnah. What law is the Mishnah trying to imply in its terse laconic style?] Indeed, it implies that in Jerusalem private individuals blew [shofar on Shabbat, and not just appointed officers of the court. By implication, such must not have been the case in Yavneh; it must be that only officers of the court blew shofar there. Thus Rav Huna’s dictum at 5 cannot be accepted, since even if it refers to blowing in the physical presence of the court, it still maintains the possibility that individuals may blow shofar on Shabbat. ]

132 7. [The Bavli objects to Rava’s conclusion at 6.] But, [do you really claim that] in Yavneh individuals didn’t blow?!? But, when R. Isaac b. Joseph came [to Babylonia from Palestine] he said that when the congregational reader in Yavneh finished blowing [shofar] a man could not hear his own voice for the noise [of the blowing of shofarot by individuals]! Rather, isn’t it the case that [the lacuna in the Mishnah implies another conclusion. Namely, that] in Jerusalem they may blow whether at the hour the Court sits [i.e. until the mid-day hour: the time it would finish business on a workday,] or whether at an hour it does not sit? But, that implies that [in Jerusalem] when the court sat they blew outside the presence the court. [Since in Jerusalem they were allowed to blow shofar even when the court was not sitting!] So, [it must be by implication that] in Yavneh they [individuals] may blow in the [direct physical] presence of the court, but may not do so outside of its presence. [Thus Rav Huna’s dictum at 5 is sustained, along with our proposed interpretation of his dictum at 5a. Of course, this is with the caveat that it only apply to post-destruction Yavneh and not to pre-destruction Jerusalem. 5[2]. [The Bavli now steps back from its current discussion, ranging from 5-7, and moves on, rebooting, reimagining and recapitulating steps 5-7 as steps 5[2] -7[2]. But, rather than attaching Rav Huna’s dictum to our Mishnah, the Bavli repurposes his statement and applies it to a new context.] Perhaps I can attach R. Huna’s dictum to this [following] verse [which appears in the following baraita]: It is written: “On the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land.” [Lev 25:9--the context is the blowing of the shofar at the onset of the Jubilee year. If this was the true context of Rav Huna’s dictum, then he may have made no comment about the sounding of shofar on Rosh Hashanah. ] This teaches that every individual is under obligation to blow. R. Huna said: “With the court.” [Rav Hunah’s dictum limits the parameters of the baraita’s ruling: an individual must be “with the court” to sound the jubilee shofar on Shabbat. But the preposition “with” is again

133 ambiguous. The Bavli’s thinking is again binary: Does Rav Huna require that all shofar blowing take place in the direct physical presence of the court, or does he require that one must sound one’s shofar on Shabbat at the same time that the court sounds its own?] 5[2]a. [A first attempt to clarify the ambiguity at 5[2].] What is meant by “with the court”? [It can only mean] the hour when the court sits [i.e. until the mid-day hour: the time it would finish business on a workday. Thence] excluding [the possibility that an individual would be permitted to blow the jubilee shofar on Shabbat at] an hour that it does not [typically] sit. 6[2]. Rabbah raised the following objection [to the conclusion at 5[2]a, quoting from a Baraita]: “The blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah and Jubilee overrides Shabbat in the provinces [i.e. outside Jerusalem] for [each] man and his household.” [The objection is nascent and implicit at this point. The Bavli will make it manifest and explicit below.] 6[2] a. [The Bavli now digresses in its discussion of the baraita, momentarily entertaining and then rejecting a mistaken interpretation of the phrase, “each man and his house,” as a preemptory measure. It then returns to the discussion at hand, explicitly stating Rabbah’s objection to the conclusion at 5[2]a. ] What is meant by ‘[each] man and his house’? [The Bavli’s concern here is that, throughout Rabbinic literature, the word “house” is often taken to refer to a man’s wife.] Shall I say it means a man and his wife? Is a woman really obligated? It is a duty for which there is a specific time, and women are not liable to perform any duties for which there is a specific time! Is it not, ‘[each man] in his house,’ and even during the hours when the Court does not sit?” [As Rashi explains ad locum, the implication of this claim is relatively liberal: that on the Jubilee one need not be in the presence of the court. Indeed, one could sound shofar in the precincts of one’s own residence, this being the simple meaning of “in his house.” However, the permissibility of blowing shofar on Shabbat for Rosh Hashanah would be accordingly more restricted,

134 limited only to the place of the Court’s presence. In either case, the claim is now that it is the location of the blowing of the shofar that is at stake, not its time] 7[2]. [The Bavli objects to Rabbah’s conclusion at 6[2]-6[2]a.] No, it means in fact during the hours when the Court sits. [Thus, our proposed time-based interpretation of Rav Huna’s statement stands, along with the implication that it may in fact have nothing to do with our m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1 and the Rosh Hashanah rite, but may only be concerned with the Jubilee shofar sounding.] 7[2]b. R. Shesheth objected [to the reinstatement of our time-based interpretation of Rav Huna’s dictum. His objection begins with a citation from m. Rosh Hashanah 3:5]: “Jubilee is on the same footing as New Year for blowing the shofar and for blessings.” Except [that the Mishnah restricts the equality and/or similarity of the Jubilee and Rosh Hashanah rites to two areas alone: (1) the shofar blowing, and (2) the liturgical recitation of blessings. This restriction implies the existence of at least one area in which they are neither equal or similar, namely] that on Jubilee they blew [on Shabbat ] both in a court which sanctified the New Moon [i.e. the Supreme Court, the so-called Sanhedrin Gedolah] and in a court which did not sanctify the New Moon [i.e. any established court that could oversee the transfers of property and cancelation of debts at the Jubilee year], and every individual was under obligation to blow. But on Rosh Hashanah they blew only in a court which sanctified the New Moon and individuals were not under obligation to blow. [If Rav Sheshet’s interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 3:5 is correct, then on Shabbat, individuals would nonetheless be required to blow shofar in the physical presence of some sort of court whether at the Jubilee or at Rosh Hashanah. Were this true, then our time-based interpretation of Rav Huna’s statement could not stand, since the issue would again revert to the question of physical presence, and not that of simultaneous performance. Note that Rav Sheshet’s argument is ex silencio: Since neither of these questions (the status of

135 individual sounders of the shofar or the type of court needed to sound the shofar on Shabbat ) is addressed directly in m. Rosh Hashanah 3:5, it is only by implication that there must be a difference between the Jubilee and Rosh Hashanah on these two points.] 7[2]c. [The Bavli exposes this flaw.] If I say that on Jubilee individuals used to blow a shofar and on New Year individuals did not blow [as put forth by Rav Sheshet’s ex silencio argument], then here [is explicit testimony to the contrary], when R. Isaac b. Joseph came [to Babylonia from Palestine] he said that when the congregational reader in Yavneh finished blowing [shofar on Shabbat /Rosh Hashanah ] a man could not hear his own voice for the noise [of the shofar blowing] of individuals! Must it [i.e., the twofold restriction in m. Rosh Hashanah ] not mean that on Jubilee they blow both during the hours when the court sits and also when the court does not sit, but on Rosh Hashanah they blow when the court sits and only when the court sits. Nonetheless, on the Jubilee [individuals may blow shofar] even away from the [direct physical presence of the] court! [Thus, any time-based interpretation of Rav Huna’s words cannot be viable.] 8.

No, [we can sustain our time based interpretation of Rav Huna’s statement, since] in fact, it’s [only blown] in the presence of the court [whether at the Jubilee or at Rosh Hashanah ], [for] it has also been stated [in a meimra]: R. Hiyya b. Gamda said, R. Jose b. Saul said, Rebbi said: The shofar is blown only during the hours that the Court sits [no matter the context, and Rav Huna’s dictum, now taken to refer to both the physical presence of the court and the time it sits, would be appropriate for either Rosh Hashanah or the Jubilee.]

As stated, this sugya is complex. Nonetheless, the structure is straightforward, and can be divided into three parts. 1. This section, consisting of units 1-4, is an exposition of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1’s rules regarding

136 shofar when the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat. We begin with a discussion of the origins of the prohibition of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah. This discussion takes up the first two units of the passage. These units are primarily concerned with the reason that sounding the shofar is required in the Temple (miqdash) but prohibited in the Provinces (medinah). It is important to note that these units do not dispute or limit the requirement to sound shofar in the Temple, nor do they dispute or limit the original prohibition on doing so in the Provinces. The exclusive topics here are the nature of the authority behind the prohibition and its origins: on the one hand does Torah itself, by Divine decree, simultaneously require (in the Temple) and prohibit (in the Provinces) the sounding of the shofar on Shabbat? Or, alternatively, have the sages countermanded the demands of heaven, prohibiting those outside the Temple to sound the shofar, Divine decree notwithstanding. If it is the latter, it calls for the question: What was their reason for doing so? If the former, given that this rule is never explicit in the Torah, what is the midrash halakhah authorizing sounding the shofar in the Temple while prohibiting it in the provinces? This discussion is followed by a quasi-historical digression detailing the first implementation of Rabban Yohannan’s decree overriding the prohibition on blowing shofar on Shabbat in Yavneh. The section then ends with unit 4. This unit consists of a clarification of the implications of the Mishnah’s rejection of the Rabbi Eliezer position. Units 3-4 chiefly discuss the nature of Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai’s decree regarding these rules and the tannaitic understanding of the decree. Units 3-4 also provide a tidy segue to Rav Huna’s memra at unit 5, as mentioned in the above commentary.

2. Section two, embracing Units 5-7, presents an extended discussion surrounding a proposed limitation of Rabban Yohannan’s b. Zakkai’s decree. The third century Babylonian amora, Rav Huna attempts to narrow the decree. He proposes to grant it validity only if the individual blowing shofar is “with the court.” While prepared to accept this caveat, the Bavli must first clarify the

137 ambiguity in Rav Huna’s phrasing. As noted, the preposition in question can imply a range of meanings. The Ben Yehuda Dictionary170 states that the preposition (‫)עם‬, here translated as “with,” can mean in various contexts: “accompanying,” “against,” “and,” “as” (X long as), “before,” “beside,” “by” (reason of), “for all,” “from” (among, between), “in,” “like,” “more than,” “of,” (un) “to,” and “with” (-al). Note that it can refer either to time, as in Psalm 91:15, “I will be with him (‫ )עמו‬in in his time of trouble.” Or, alternatively, it can refer to space, e.g. Genesis 3:12: "The woman you put here with me (‫—)עמדי‬she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." At unit 5a, the Bavli comes down squarely on the spatial side of the question; it advances the hypothesis that, according to Rav Huna’s dictum, one must be in the actual room in which the court is seated to sound the shofar on Shabbat. Here the Bavli explicitly rejects any interpretation of Rav Huna’s words that would permit sounding the shofar if one is merely doing so at the same time as the court. Following this, unit 6 presents Rava’s apparent attempt to unseat this hypothesis. Unit 7 presents the testimony of a nahota, a traveler from Palestine to Babylonia, defeating Rava’s refutation and sustaining the Bavli’s original spatial understanding of Rav Huna.

3. In this last section (5[2]-8), the Bavli applies Rav Huna’s narrow reading to a baraita (paralleling Sifra Behar 2:5171), rather than m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1. It then discusses the implications of this application in detail. First, note that the Baraita places us in the context of the Jubilee sounding of shofar rather than the Rosh Hashanah sounding. Leviticus 25 requires the sounding of shofar throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month. This requirement to sound shofar in numerous places at a single time tends to militate against a spatial interpretation of Rav Huna’s

170 A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew,,1961 ed., s.v. "‫עם‬.” 171 ‫ספרא בהר פרשה ב‬ ‫תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם מלמד שכל יחיד חייב‬

138 words. One cannot link the sounding of the shofar to the direct physical presence of a single court and also require the shofar sounded throughout the land. As a result, it is unsurprising that we see the Bavli adopt a temporal hypothesis in this section at 5[2]a. Also note here that section three shares a strikingly similar structure with section two. Each begins with a Tannaitic source introducing the general topic of the discussion. Next, Rav Huna introduces his requirement that all sounding of the shofar be with the court. At this point, in both sections the Bavli introduces a hypothesis to clarify the ambiguity in Rav Huna’s statement. Next, either Rabbah or Rava raises an objection--from a tannaitic source--to the notion that private individuals may only sound the shofar in the presence of the court. In the third section, there is an additional step here: Rav Sheshet raises an objection at this point. Next, the testimony of a nahota – the Palestinian amora Isaac b. Joseph—is introduced as a support in both sections. Finally, section three again breaks step with section two. At unit 8, the statement of R. Hiyya b. Gamda acts to harmonize Rav Huna’s statement with the objections of units 62-72. However, we will discuss below the possibility that unit 8 is actually a distributed property, properly closing section two, as well as three. As we shall see, the apparent complexity of our passage is the result of its multi-layered compositional and transmission history. In other words, it is largely the accretion of historical layers that provides the complexity here. The Bavli does not, in fact, juggle any of the major variables over the entirety of the passage. We are simply lulled into thinking the passage is unified by dint of its single unifying topic: the blowing of shofar on Shabbat. On closer examination, there is a bit of literary misdirection at play. Variables are picked up and rapidly dropped, no single argument sustaining development for longer than two complete steps. We move rapidly away from questions relating, first to the nature of the authority of shofar blowing on Shabbat, thence to restrictions on the said practice, thence to differences between the Rosh Hashanah and Jubilees and even topics, up to and including a nearly perfunctory, boiler-plate mention of female exemption from positive time-bound

139 commandments. We have here the proverbial kitchen sink of Talmudic redactional complication. Once we segregate each of the historical layers, we will find three separate discussions lie at the heart of the passage. Each of these proposed proto sugyot is more parsimonious than the sum of our composite passage. Indeed, I will claim that a redactor combined three originally separate texts to create our passage in an attempt to recapitulate and expand on the structure employed by the Yerushalmi in its discussion of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1. As we proceed unit by unit through the pericope, I hope to show evidence that this recapitulation is the hybrid product of a relatively late editorial hand: the reader will see, underlying this structure, three older “middle-generation” Babylonian sugyot, each of which shares materials and concerns with the Yerushalmi sugya, but does not mirror it in overall structure. Finally, we shall see that it is Rava’s statements that relate most directly to materials found in the Yerushalmi. On the other hand, the older Rabbah’s statements seem not to share any affinity with Palestinian materials.

A Digression Concerning Rava and Rabbah

Since Rava and Rabbah are so prominent in the passage, before we can proceed to the abovementioned analysis, a word must be said about the attribution of statements to Rabbah or Rava. Convention has it that the spelling, “Rabbah” is the cognomen the Talmud assigns to R. Abba bar Nahmani, a third-generation Babylonian amora.172 “Rava” is assumed to refer to R. Abba bereh d’Rav Yosef bar Hamma, a fourth-generation Babylonia amora.173 Shamma Friedman has convincingly shown

172 Albeck, 307. See also Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Ketiv Ha-Shemot ‘Rabbah’ ve-‘Rava’ Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli,” Sinai Sivan-Tamuz (1992): 141-65. 173 Albeck, 374; Friedman, “Ketiv Ha-Shemot,” 148-64.

140 that these spellings are medieval scribal conventions, and primarily Ashkenazic ones at that.174 Indeed, within Yemenite manuscripts, such as the one our text is drawn from, this convention is either largely unknown or is so inconsistent as to be meaningless. Friedman’s extensive series of examples drawn from a wide range of Bavli manuscripts, Geonic and Rishonic testimony, and his presentation of definitive proof drawn from the important Sassoon manuscript of Halakhot Pesuqot, lead him to conclude that there was not an early spelling convention for these names. Richard Kalmin gave an excellent English summary and analysis of Friedman’s arguments.175 Accepting Friedman’s general claims, he went beyond them noting that Rava and Abbaye rarely appear in direct dialogue with one another in the Bavli. Generally, if one finds Abbaye in dialogue with a sage he treats as a superior with one of these names, Rabbah is intended, not Rava. Finally, it is important to note that Talmudic commentators (rishonim in particular) who suggest, in a specific passage, that a name spelled Rabbah (or Rava) signifies R. Abba bereh d’Rav Yosef bar Hamma (or vice versa) are not correcting the text, but explaining it. These suggestions are not a matter of lower-text criticism, but of exegesis. One may make no determination from the spelling of the names in the manuscripts as to whether the Talmud intends to signify Rabbah or Rava.176 We can only make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, using a consistent set of criteria. Friedman suggests six such criteria and implies a seventh. They are: 1. Generally, if one of these names appears before Abbaye, Rabbah is intended, not Rava. 2. The formula “Amar leih Rabbah/Rava l’Abbayeh” most often refers to Rabbah.

174 Friedman, “Ketiv Ha-Shemot,”, 140-41. 175 Kalmin, sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 179-80. 176 For the sake of convenience, I will adopt the accepted spelling convention for the remainder of the chapter. When I write “Rabbah,” I signify R. Abba bar Nahmani. “Rava” will refer to R.Abba bereh d’Rav Yosef bar Hamma. When unsure, I will make a tentative determination and indicate this to the reader.

141 3. Also generally, if one of these names appear after Abbaye, Rava is intended, not Rabbah. 4. The formula “Amar leih Abbaye l’ Rabbah/Rava” most often refers to Rava.177 5. We may use the other amoraim with which they appear to make such determinations.178 6. We may make use of vocabulary employed uniquely by Rabbah or Rava to decide the intended speaker.179 7. Friedman implies that if Rabbah/Rava refers to, or makes use of, Palestinian Rabbinic materials, Rava is intended, not Rabbah.180

To Friedman’s seven criteria, I would add Kalmin’s already mentioned principle that when Abbaye is presented in dialogue with a sage, named Rabbah or Rava, who he treats as his master, Rabbah is intended, not Rava. Finally, a ninth criterion: Yaakov Elman has recently characterized Rava as a “theoretician” of midrash halakhah.181 Elman shows, in example after example, Rava making 177 These four he draws from various Rishonim. Friedman considers these first four criteria to provide support for determination of the intended amora, but none of these first four by itself can make a hard case. We will be unable to employ them in this chapter, in any event, since Abbaye does not appear in our passage. The same is true of Kalmin’s suggestion, our eighth criterion. 178 Friedman, 155, n. 101. Rav Nahman b. Yaaqov is a particularly enlightening figure in this regard. If he is treated as a colleague, Rabbah is intended. If he is treated with obeisance, then Rava is intended. 179 Ibid. n. 102. See also Friedman, “Kiddushin b’Milveh” Sinai 76 (1975): 68, n. 156,and Kalmin, sages, 180-83. Also, perhaps helpful in this regard, is Noah Aminoah’s claim in Arikhat Masekhtot Sukah u-Moed Katan ba-Talmud ha-Bavli (Tel Aviv: Universitat Tel-Aviv, 1988), 41, n. 8, that the phrase “Rabbah/Rava said, ‘I encountered x who were seated saying…,’” refers to Rava. However, Aminoah’s claim requires more substantiation before we can use it unconditionally. Aminoah bases his claim on manuscript evidence, which Friedman shows is no evidence at all in connection to Rabbah/Rava. 180 “Ketiv Ha-Shemot,” 165, n. 103. 181 "Rava ve-Darkhei ha-Iun ha-Eretz-Yisraelit ba-Midrash Halakhah," in Merkaz u-tefutsah: Erets Yisrael veha-tefutsot be-yeme Bayit Sheni, ha-mishnah veha-Talmud, ed. Isaiah Gafni (Yerushalayim: Merkaz

142 objections or proofs based on a deep grasp of Palestinian techniques of halakhic exegesis: gezera shavah, binyan av, im eno inyan, ribui u-miut, kelal u-frat, as well as others. The same cannot be said of Rabbah. Furthermore, Elman is aware of Friedman’s cautions about the Rabbah/Rava spelling conventions, as well as Kalmin’s work, and is careful and discerning in his examples. Thus, we are on firm ground in advancing the claim that when we encounter Rabbah/ Rava making an argument about the abstract principles of midrash halakhah, Rava is intended, not Rabbah. With all these factors in mind, we now proceed to the first unit in our passage. Analysis For the sake of convenience, I will present the parallel Yerushalmi passage at the head of my analytical section. Since it is my claim that the Bavli sugya was woven together from three earlier Babylonian sugyot to match the structure of the Yerushalmi, the reader must be familiar with the Yerushalmi passage in question prior to seeing my detailed analysis. My argument is that each of the three sections of the Bavli sugya was founded on the bedrock of an earlier discrete proto-sugya. I will analyze the first of these sections separately from the latter two. The first section appears to have had no link to the latter two sections prior to the final stage of redaction. On the other hand, the last two sections seem to contain two proto-sugyot that closely parallel each other in structure, logic and content yet take different starting points. It seemed right to me to segregate their analysis from the first section. I will locate the core materials in each of these three sections. I will demonstrate that a probability exists that these sections originally represented three separate amoraic proto-sugyot, each likely dating from the mid-fourth century. I will show that in each case, our core materials cohere as a proto-sugya. I will show that these proto-sugyot have been combined and enlarged by a later editor with the goal of recapitulating and expanding upon the structure of the first sugya of the fourth chapter of y. Rosh Hashanah . This accomplished, I will also note the presence of affinities between Rava’s statements in Zalman Shazar le-toldot Yisrael), 2004.

143 our core layers and materials in that same sugya of the fourth chapter of y. Rosh Hashanah. I will draw the conclusion that an analysis of our passage yields likely examples of the historical Rava apparently drawing upon redacted units now in the Yerushalmi without replicating the Yerushalmi’s larger structural elements. Looking back, we shall see that the Bavli’s anonymous editorial frame both replicates and enlarges upon the Yerushalmi sugya’s overall structure, or, at least, some collection of materials much like it. To argue my claims I must first present the parallel tradition in the Yerushalmi. To aid the reader I have added comments in brackets: Y. Rosh Hashanah 4:1182 1. Rabbi Abba bar Pappa said: Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simon ben Lakish were once sitting and puzzling. They said, we are taught in the Mishnah: “when the Holiday of Rosh Hashanah fell on a Shabbat, they used to sound the shofar in the Temple, but not in the provinces.” If it [sounding the shofar] is according to Torah law, it should supersede [the observance of] the Shabbat in the provinces as well. If it is not in according to Torah law, it should not supersede [the observance of] the Shabbat even in the Temple! 1a. Kehana passed by. They said: behold a great man. Let us ask him. They went and asked him. He [Kehana] said to them [in response]: one verse says, ‘… a day of the shofarblast.’ (Num. 29:1), and one verse says, ‘…a memorial of the shofar-blast’ (Lev. 23:24). How can this be? When it [Rosh Hashanah ] falls on a weekday, ‘… a day of the shofarblast.’ When it falls on the Shabbat, ‘…a memorial of the shofar-blast’--We recount [the shofar], but do not sound it.

182 Translation based on Goldman, in Neusner, ed., Talmud.

144 2. Rabbi Zeira would command his colleagues, “Go in and listen to the voice of Rabbi Levi when he preaches. For it is not possible that he give forth his portion unless it be worthy of study. [Once they went,] and he entered before them, he [Rabbi Levi] said: one verse says, ‘… a day of the shofar-blast.’ (Num. 29:1), and one verse says, ‘…a memorial of the shofar-blast’ (Lev. 23:24). How can this be? When it [Rosh Hashanah ] falls on a weekday, ‘… a day of the shofar-blast.’ When it Falls on the Shabbat, ‘…a memorial of the shofar-blast’- We recount [the shofar], but do not sound it.” 3. [Objection:] From this [that the prohibition is biblical], it [shofar] should not supersede [the Shabbat ] in the Temple as well! 3a. [Answer: the Torah] teaches [us to sound shofar in the Temple in Lev 23:24 by using the words] “…on the first of the month.” [Therefore, on that day shofar must be sounded somewhere. The Temple is the most logical location.] 4. [Objection:] From this we should sound it wherever we know that it is the first of the month! 4a. [Answer:] Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai taught in a Baraita: ‘You shall have a day of the shofarblast. And make an elevation offering, a savory aroma for the Lord’ (Num. 29:1). [Sound the shofar] where the sacrifices are brought!183

183 See Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Scripture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1986, 504-5. I have quoted the Leviticus Rabba version of Bar Yohai’s statement because it is clearer than that of the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi places Lev. 23:25 in Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s mouth. Goldman, trans. of Neusner, ed., The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 16: Rosh Hashanah, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 100, n. 20, also replaces this verse in his translation with Num. 29:1-2, saying, “The P.T.’s use of 23:25…does not make sense.” The text in the Yerushalmi is indeed difficult, because it is, in fact, the Numbers 29 text that has been taken to allow blowing shofar. The Leviticus 23 text is seen as prohibiting it. Quoting it here would seem to reverse the intended polarity of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s midrash. See also Moses Margoles, P’nei Moshe, Talmud Yerushalmi, (Jerusalem, 1931), 18a. Margoles asserts that the Leviticus 23 text is quoted as a sort of boiler-plate, or stereotype phrase, generally referring to the sacrificial system, of which shofar is to be seen as part and

145 5. [New problem:] His colleagues said before Rabbi Yonah, “[Regarding the Jubilee year,] does not scripture state, “Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere in your land on the tenth day of the seventh month.” (Lev 25:9) [This implies that any shofar sounding may be performed everywhere in Palestine, even on the Shabbat!] 5a. [Answer:] He said to them, “[Scripture implies that we should] have this one [sounding of the shofar for the Jubilee] sounded everywhere, but not [other soundings of the shofar] for other occasions. [In other words, the Jubilee sounding is utterly different from the Rosh Hashanah sounding. For the Jubilee, one need not be in a single official place, either the Temple or Jerusalem. Indeed, one could sound shofar in the precincts of one’s own residence, this being the simple meaning of “everywhere in your land.” However, the permissibility of blowing shofar on Shabbat for Rosh Hashanah would be accordingly more restricted, limited only to a single place.] 5b. [Objection:] They said to him, “[Perhaps another reading of scripture implies instead that we should] have this one [Shofar blowing for the Jubilee only] sounded in Palestine, but everywhere for other occasions.” [This reading is focused more on the words, “in your land” rather than on “everywhere.”] 5c. [Answer:] Rabbi Yonah said, “[Your reading is not possible.] If Scripture had written, ‘Then have the trumpet sounded in your land,’ I would have understood it to be a restriction [to Palestine on Jubilee] and an expansion [to all other lands] on other occasions [such as Rosh Hashanah ]. But, since it says “have the trumpet sounded everywhere in your land”

parcel. In other words, the midrash is to be seen not as deriving from the proximity of the sacrifices to the requirement to sound the shofar in Numbers 29. Rather, an analogy is being drawn, generally, between the sacrificial system, which runs uninterrupted by Shabbat in the Temple, and shofar, which, therefore, should also logically run in an uninterrupted fashion on Shabbat.

146 [scripture] expands here [in the case of Jubilee, on which shofar may be sounded everywhere], and restricts [shofar blowing to a single place] on other occasions. The structural and thematic similarities between this text and the Bavli passage are striking. Here too we move from the nature of the authority of shofar blowing on Shabbat (y. units 1-2, b. units 1-4), thence to restrictions on the said practice (y. units 3-4, b. units 5-7), thence to differences between the Rosh Hashanah and Jubilees (y. unit 5, b. units 52-8). No less striking are the differences. We see differences in the order of presentation of Biblical materials,184 differences in attribution (Rabbi Levi b.

184 The verses in the Yerushalmi are in reverse order from that in the Bavli. To fully understand this key difference, we must note that Kehana’s midrash is given a different context than that of Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina. By utilizing the stereotyped Aramaic phrase, “there is no contradiction-‫”לא קשיא‬, the Bavli contextualizes the statement of Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina as directly confronting a contradiction between Lev. 23:24 and Num. 29:1. In other words, Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina are not presented as primarily resolving the halakhic problem of where one may or may not sound shofar on Shabbat, or wrestling with a problem of mishnaic exegesis. Rather, their memra is framed by the Bavli mainly as harmonizing two apparently conflicting verses. Not to put too fine a point on it: of course, the harmonization is also presented as providing the source that stands behind the position of the Mishnah, nonetheless, their statement is contextualized as a primarily Biblical-literary exegesis, rather than a mishnaic, or legal one. This may account for the order of the verses in the Bavli. As an exercise of Biblical-literary exegesis, the statement approaches the verses in the order in which they occur in the Torah: Leviticus, and then Numbers. On the other hand, the Yerushalmi presents Kehana’s midrash as resolving the halakhic conundrum presented by Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. Note that the puzzle presented by these two prominent Palestinian amoraim is narrow in scope: they ask only to know if the Mishnah’s rule is biblical or rabbinic in origin. (This may have also been the original intent behind the memra in the Bavli. When we strip it of the stereotyped Aramaic phrase, “there is no contradiction,” we are left without an explicit framing context. In such circumstances, we can only revert to viewing it as an attempt to explain the Mishnah’s stance.) This is the primary difficulty posed by the seemingly contradictory practice of sounding shofar in the Temple while refraining from doing so in the provinces: we are left wondering whether the prohibition on sounding shofar on Shabbat is Biblical or Rabbinic in origin. Kehana’s midrash answers this problem: it is Biblical in origin. Kehana’s midrash, however, follows a more logical order in presenting the verses in answer to the puzzle presented by Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. Just as they open with sounding shofar (“If it [sounding the shofar] is according to the biblical law…”), Kehana opens with the verse that requires sounding shofar (Num. 29:1). Just as they then turn to the prohibition of sounding shofar on Shabbat, Kehana then turns to the verse that makes that prohibition (Lev. 23:24). The secondary puzzle- how the practice of sounding shofar in the Temple and refraining from doing so in the provinces can exist side by side altogether- is left unresolved by Kehana and must wait for an answer later in the passage. However, see Margoles, 18a. He concludes that it is the midrash of Rabbi Shimon b. Yochai later in the passage that answers the secondary puzzle: if sounding shofar is prohibited by the Torah on Shabbat, why did the priests feel free to sound it in the Temple?

147 Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina, rather than Kehana, present the central midrash halakhah in the Bavli); differences of presentation and style (much greater use of narrative in the Yerushalmi, for example); and, significantly, differences of conclusion (the Yerushalmi concludes that the Torah prohibits the sounding of the shofar on Shabbat, whilst the Bavli concludes the sages forbade it.) In the previous chapter, I described the relationship between two memrot in the Bavli and one in the Yerushalmi as asymptotic.185 If "asymptote" is an unfamiliar term, imagine a curving line that rises from left to right and gently falls over like a blade of grass in a breeze. An asymptote could be an imaginary mirror-image line above the first curve that the curve never actually reaches. They may trace a brief parallel trajectory, and are clearly in relationship, but are not fully parallel. To draw the simile: as one attempts to account for influence between Bavli and Yerushalmi traditions, it becomes increasingly clear that the difference between them is often too large to claim with certainty that one tradition was derived from the other. On the other hand, it is also often the case that the difference between them is simultaneously too small to discount any likelihood that one tradition was indeed derived from the other. While we should note the affinities as a way of tracing the full extent of the differences and similarities of the two Talmuds, nonetheless, we should not fall victim to the temptation to postulate a “synoptic” relationship where the relationship is actually more complex than that term, or the term “parallel,” implies. In most cases, we cannot claim that traditions are parallel or truly synoptic in their relationship. Such is the case here as well. Much as an asymptote can describe the strikingly similar, but markedly oblique relationship

185 The term is borrowed from geometry, as is the term “parallel.” An asymptote is one way of describing the behavior of a curve far away from the origin by juxtaposing it with another curve. The later curve is an asymptote of the former if the space between the two gets close to 0 as one zooms out, the points being considered tending to infinity. In other words, the first curve gets closer to the second as it gets farther from the origin. See Fowler, R. H., The Elementary Differential Geometry of Plane Curves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1920, 89. As stated above, this term strikes me as more heuristically helpful than “parallel” or “synoptic” when dealing with text affinities between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi.

148 between two curves, we should attempt first to fully describe the relationship in all its complexity before attempting any history of tradition-transmission. For example, in our sugya, the relationship between the Rabbi Levi b. Lahma-Rabbi Hama b. Hanina-Rava tradition in the Bavli and the YohananReish Laksih-Kehana tradition in the Yerushalmi should be described in the following way: The two traditions do begin to describe parallel trajectories: both begin with the midrash from Lev. 23:24 and Num. 29:1 and the difficulty posed by the contradictory practice of sounding shofar in the Temple, while refraining from doing so in the provinces. Their lines should continue to parallel each other as they develop were they truly synoptic. However, the differences in order, attribution, presentation, style and conclusion result in a sort of curving away of one tradition from the other. The result is that their relationship can be described as jointly asymptotic. Tracing the general lines of the difficulties has prepared us to face the specifics of the problem. Let us now turn back to the text of the two Talmuds. The central question here is why the text of the Bavli reads as it does: if the Bavli is aware of the Yerushalmi text, how can we account for the differences? If it does not know the Yerushalmi tradition, then why do we see the striking similarities? We cannot answer these questions with certainty, but we can make some educated suggestions about what might have happened in this case.

Section One: Units 1-4 I will draw four conclusions from my analysis of this section of our passage: It

is Rava, not Rabbah, who is the primary speaker in unit 2.

Rava

seems to have accessed units of redacted material that now appear in y. Rosh Hashanah.

I will argue that his refutation of the Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina tradition is likely derived from the dialogue between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish that

149 now appears in y. Rosh Hashanah. But Rava had access to it when it was still a source that was unmoored from any sugya—an independent tradition linked to the Mishnah, but not yet in dialogue with any other amoraic sources. Rava

may have adapted Babylonian materials from other redacted Babylonian contexts (which

we now find at b. Shabbat 117b, 131b, and Sukkah 42b, Beitzah 17b, Megilah 4b) and incorporated them in a new sugya. This may show that Rava or his students acted as redactors of diverse kinds of material, thereby creating new and different sugyot. Section

one was likely originally a separate sugya from sections two and three. The segue to

these two sections at unit 4 was added by a later editor in order to create a larger sugya with the aim of mirroring and enlarging upon the first sugya of y. Rosh Hashanah chapter 4. The original Babylonian proto-sugya underlying this section did not reflect the Yerushalmi’s structure. I will take up each of these conclusions separately. Conclusion One: Rava appears as the main voice at Unit 2, not Rabbah. To come to this conclusion I have applied three of the nine criteria mentioned above, in the methodological digression (pages x-y). First, we may use another cited amora. In our text,186 we see

186 The Yemenite manuscript JTS 108 EMC 319 records the name as ‫רבה‬. The printed editions all record the name as ‫רבא‬. As one would expect, there is some variation in the text witness with regard to the names of these figures in our passage. Recall from above that manuscript evidence is of little or no use in making correct identifications of these two figures.

150 that the first amora cited at unit 2 treats the second amora at unit 2 bas a master, quoting his memra as a refutation from a higher authority; logically, the former is Rava, the latter Rabbah. Second, if Rabbah/Rava refers to, or makes use of, Palestinian Rabbinic materials, our general rule is that Rava is intended, not Rabbah. We see, in our text, that the first amora of unit 2 responds directly to the statement of Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina, two Palestinian sages. Further, Rava’s response to their memra appears to be taken nearly directly from the puzzle of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish from the first part of our Yerushalmi text:

Bavli

Yerushalmi

Said Rava, “But if the source is the Torah,

…if it is not in according to Torah law it should

how did we blow [shofar] in the Temple?

not supersede [the observance of] the Shabbat even in the Temple!

Finally, note the care that Rava takes in attacking Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina on the basis of midrash Halakhah. Here we advance our claim that when we encounter Rabbah/Rava making an argument about the abstract principles of midrash halakhah, Rava is intended, not Rabbah. Here, Rava makes the argument that sounding the shofar is not melakhah, as such, rendering moot the necessity of a verse to indicate an exclusion or limitation. Indeed six of our ten text witnesses,

151 including the geniza fragment, include explicit mention of mi’ut—the midrashic technique employed to limit the force of a verse to a small number of cases-- in Rava’s statement. 187 Granted, it may be a later editorial interpolation. Nonetheless, Rava’s statement was seen as an attack from the perspective of Midrash Halakhah (as it properly is) in a relatively early period.188 As noted above, Yaakov Elman has shown that rarely, if ever, does Rabbah make an argument concerning midrash halakhah. The presence of any one or two of our eight criteria alone might not be convincing. When we find three such criteria together, the likelihood grows much larger that Rava is the first voice in unit 2 and that Rabbah does not appear until 2b. Conclusion Two: Rava appears to have drawn on redacted Palestinian materials to develop his arguments. Given Rava’s close association with the Rabbi Yohanan traditions and the currency of this particular tradition in Palestinian Rabbinic literature,189 it seems likely that Rava may have drawn on some source much like the Yohanan-Reish Lakish tradition to develop his response to Rabbi Levi b. 187 See below:

188 Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina are indeed making use of the ‘mi’ut’ – or exclusionary-methodology here. See Michael Chernick, "The Use of Ribbūyīm and Mi'ūṭīm in the Halakic Midrash of R. Ishmael,," The Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, vol. 70, no. 2 (Oct. 1979), 90, for a clear definition and explanation of this method of midrash halakhah. Rava’s attack hits at the core of the mi’ut--he states that it is unnecessary to read Lev. 23:24 as restrictive. 189 It appears in Leviticus Rabba ed. Margoles, (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary), 29:12, and Pesiqta de Rav Kehana,ed. Mandelbaum (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary), 1987, 23:12.

152 Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina. But I now make a larger claim: Rava may have had access to the Rabbi Yohanan, Reish Lakish, Kehana tradition while it was still being circulated as an independent source, unattached to any accompanying materials. The different versions of this tradition vary slightly, 190 but all include Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish’s puzzle, and Kehana’s solution. The question put forth by these two Palestinian masters is quite restricted in scope: they only hope to discover whether our Mishnah’s regulation is rabbinic or biblical in origin. Kehana’s answer does not resolve a more expansive secondary problem: how can the practice of blowing shofar in the Temple and refraining from doing so in the provinces exist side by side, in any case?191 The subsequent Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai tradition (quoted only in the Palestinian compilations) resolves this secondary problem: Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai taught in a Baraita: ‘You shall have a day of the shofar-blast. And make an elevation offering, a savory aroma for the Lord’ (Num. 29:1). [Sound shofar] where the sacrifices are brought.

Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s midrash is derived from the proximity of the sacrifices to the requirement to sound the shofar in Numbers 29. Because of this proximity, he claims, the requirement to sound the shofar always applies in the place where the sacrificial system resides. The Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai midrash is always transmitted in the Palestinian sources alongside the Rabbi Yohanan, Reish Lakish, Kehana tradition. Rava appears to be unaware of (or at least to ignore) Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s 190 See the first appendix following this chapter for the three texts in synopsis. I have omitted Yalkut Shimoni Emor 645 and Pinhas 782, because they are so clearly derived from the Lev. Rabba text. 191 See Halevi, 5:376. Halevi posits that Kehana’s “Babylonian” reading of our mishnah restricts Shofar blowing on Shabbat to the Temple itself. Thus a “memorial of the shofar-blast,” is only applicable outside the sacred precincts of the Temple. Militating against this clever solution is Saul Lieberman’s reading of the Yerushalmi, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 5:1046. He shows that all the traditions in the Yerushalmi uniformly read our mishnah as allowing shofar sounding throughout Jerusalem.

153 midrash. Is it possible that Rava could have had access to the Rabbi Yohanan, Reish Lakish, Kehana tradition before Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s midrash was appended? Rava could have received the Rabbi Yohanan, Reish Lakish, Kehana tradition and been unaware of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s midrash for two reasons. First, the material connecting Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s midrash to the Rabbi Yohanan/Reish Lakish/Kehana tradition is different in all the Palestinian sources, implying that the two sources were woven together during a later process of redaction. Second, Rava is never associated in the Bavli with any independent Shimon b. Yohai traditions. Rava seems not to have had access to any traditions of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai unless Shimon bar Yohai was quoted by Rabbi Yohanan. Further, even this exception to the general rule— Rava quoting Rabbi Yohanan, in turn quoting Bar Yohai--occurs only once or perhaps twice in the Bavli.192 We note here again Zwi Dor’s conclusion that Rava seems to have had particular access to traditions stemming from the school of Rabbi Yohanan.193 His lack of access to some other Palestinian materials is shown by his total lack of affinity with any independent Shimon bar Yohai traditions. What we may have here, lying at the core level, is an early “Rava sugya.” Rava himself, or his circle of students, may have arranged the order of this part of the sugya as follows: (1) The “Said Rabbi Levi b. Lahma, said Rabbi Hama b. Hanina” tradition (Bavli unit 1a), most likely without the Aramaic insertion, “…there is no contradiction.” 194 This subunit is in affinity with the Kehana element of the case presented in the Yerushalmi. (2) Rava’s own tradition (at unit 2), which shares a deep affinity with the Yohanan-Reish

192 This is clearly the case in Keritut 27a. Shevuot 18b (the text could be read Rava, not Rabbah) is an association by proximity. Bar Ilan Responsa Project. http://www.responsa.co.il/default.aspx?Action=togglelogin (accessed October 2009). 193 See above, P. 6, n. 1. 194 This conclusion is borne out by the looseness of the text across the witnesses. Munich 95 does not contain this phrase, and, most tellingly, the geniza fragment, JTS 3690.7, replaces the Aramaic phrase with a Hebrew one:? , ‫א?יזה צד‬most likely read: "‫כאי זה צד‬.”

154 Lakish element of the case in the Yerushalmi passage. Note, then, that these statements lie coherently in relationship with each other, share an affinity with the content of the Yerushalmi, and do not share the Yerushalmi’s structure.

Conclusion Three: Rava may have adapted Babylonian materials from other redacted Babylonian contexts and incorporated them in a new sugya.

The essence of this conclusion is that Rava or his students took a redactional role in creating the proto-sugya that lies at the heart of section one of our example passage. To establish this, it is not enough to show that units 1-2 cohere as a single unit. These sources could have been placed in relationship by a later author/editor, a Talmudic auteur.195 In the next few pages, I hope to show that Rava or his students had access to the source material of our proposed proto-sugya and to establish the likelihood that he/they took an active hand in adapting them to the present context. We will make the case for this in two stages. First, I will show that the baraita at unit 2 probably had currency in early amoraic circles in Babylonia, but that it has been reworked, likely within a generation of Rava, to fit his argument. Next, I will show that Rabbah’s statement was originally a comment on m. Beitza and had nothing whatever to do with shofar in its original context. However, here it is likely that his statement was reworked to fit the present context in a period much later than Rava or his students. This is also a piece of evidence for Rava’s role, as it shows a later editor reworking material to bolster Rava’s 195

The term is borrowed from film criticism. “Auteur theory” attributes the totality of the creative vision and its final product to a film’s director, as if he or she were the primary "auteur" ("author") of the film, despite the collective process of the film’s making. André Bazin is often cited as the founder of this school of thought. See Bazin, “La Politique des Auteurs” Cahiers du Cinéma, vol. 70, (April 1957), translated as “André Bazin: On the politique des auteurs” in Movies and Methods, trans. and ed. Bill Nichols (Berkeley/London: University of California Press, 1976), 225. This term strikes me as helpful shorthand for the theory, most often associated with Jacob Neusner, that the final stage of redaction set the creative vision of the Bavli and was primarily responsible for its final appearance. See Hayes, Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, 183-88. See above p. 30, n. 69.

155 existing argument by adducing a support from Rava’s well-known elder coleague Rabbah. As I shall show, it seems unlikely that anyone would have been motivated to do this work absent Rava’s argument in the proto-sugya. The Baraita of the House of Shemuel We now see Rava depart from his aforementioned affinities with Palestinian sources. At unit 2a, he advances a novel attack on Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina. The basis of this attack originates in a method of midrash halakhah. And furthermore, is it forbidden labor? But the House of Shemuel196 taught [in a baraita], “You shall do no laborious work’ (Num. 29:1). This singles out [both] blowing shofar and detaching pita [from the oven], which are skills and not labor.” I will conclude, in this section, that Rava (or his students) seems to react to Palestinian material (Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina’s memra) and alter and adapt materials of Babylonian provenance (in this case the Bei Shemuel baraita- a so called Babylonian baraita) in to respond to them. Here we encounter Rava arguing that Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina have misused the abstract principles of midrash halakhah. Specifically, Rava advances the claim that sounding the shofar is not forbidden labor (melakhah). If shofar sounding is not a part of the set of forbidden labors, then the Palestinian use of the hermeneutic technique of exclusion or limitation, the mi’ut, is inappropriate in this case. Shofar sounding cannot be proposed as an exceptional member of the group of forbidden labors, if it was never a member of that group in the first place. As noted, six of the ten text witnesses, including our geniza fragment, explicitly mention the word “mi’ut” as a part of Rava’s

196 The printed editions of b. Shabbat 117b attribute this Baraita to the house of Ishmael. This is clearly a scribal error. Even in the printed editions, b. Shabbat 131b reads, “the house of Shmuel.” The manuscript evidence is uniform. Note that ‫דבי שמואל‬is similar to ‫רבי ישמאל‬: yuds are small, and ends of words are often abbreviated. The two can be confused quite easily.

156 argument.197 While this may be a later insertion in Rava’s statement, nonetheless, Rava is without question putting forth a challenge from the field of midrash halakhah. I want us to recall Elman’s characterization of Rava as a “theoretician” of midrash halakhah.198 This argument is typical of Rava’s personal style. Though the word “miut” itself may have been the insertion of a later editor, the argument is probably authentically Rava’s own. It seems unlikely to me that later editors would have picked a single figure like Rava to associate with midrash halakhah. What would have been their motivation for doing so? Indeed, it would have been easier, and more in his interest, for a Talmudic auteur to liberally pepper all Babylonian amoraim with such traditions. With this understanding, the bulk of the evidence likely places the composition of this unit in a period coeval with Rava and his students, rather than later. Now, I want to turn to the origin of the text Rava uses in his attack. My aim is now to show that a redactor adopted the Baraita from another location and altered it, adapting it to fit the present context. Establishing this is the next link in my argument. Syllogistically, if (1) unit 2a’s argument was likely authentically made by Rava and /or his students, and (2) the central quoted source of the argument shows signs of redaction, then (3) the most likely redactors of the passage were Rava and/or his students. The Baraita of the House of Shemuel has its own text history. Let us begin with t. Shabbat 13:8, in order to establish its background:199

197 See n. 29. 198 "Rava ve-Darkhei,” p. needed? 199 A synoptic parallel can be found at b. Shabbat 117b. ‫תוספתא מסכת שבת (ליברמן) פרק יג‬ ‫השכיח פת בתנור וקדש עליו היום מצילין הימנו מזון שלש סעודות ואומ' לאחרים בואו והצילו לכם ובלבד שלא יעשה עמהן‬ ‫חשבון לאחר שבת הרודה רודה בסכין אבל לא במרדה‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קיז עמוד ב‬

157 If one forgot200 bread in the oven, and the day sanctified upon him [i.e., sunset occurred, initiating the prohibitions of Shabbat ], we may save food for three meals from it [the oven]. [To avoid wasting the bread], one may say to others, ‘come and save [food] for yourselves.’ Just so long as he does not bill them after Shabbat. One detaching [bread from the oven on Shabbat ] may use a knife, but not a [specialized] detaching tool. B. Shabbat 201 quotes a baraita that appears to be a version of this Tosefta passage and reads it as being in harmony with a baraita of the House of Shemuel. This is the same baraita of the House of Shemuel that Rava also quotes in our sugya. Indeed, beyond being in harmony, in some ways, the baraita of the House of Shemuel can be construed as an abstract of this Tosefta passage. As early as 1973 Saul Lieberman implied how this could have worked. Lieberman writes202 that we should understand this Tosefta passage as allowing removal of the bread only if the individual has nothing else to eat. The prohibition on removing bread from the oven is sidelined in such a case because doing so is not a melakhah prohibited by the Torah, and the prescriptive value of eating three meals on Shabbat takes priority. The baraita of the House of Shemuel can be seen as presenting this former datum in essence, without the Tosefta’s casuistic phrasing- that detaching the bread is not a melakhah prohibited by the Torah.203

‫ לא‬- ‫ וכשהוא רודה‬.‫ בואו והצילו לכם‬:‫ ואומר לאחרים‬,‫ מצילין מזון שלש סעודות‬- ‫ שכח פת בתנור וקידש עליו היום‬:‫תנו רבנן‬ .‫ירדה במרדה אלא בסכין‬ 200 Mss. Erfort, London and the geniza fragment all read this as a definite substantive participle: ‫השוכח‬. 201 Ibid. [ok?] 202 Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta, 3:211. 203 This movement from the concrete case--one may save the bread under x circumstances--to a more abstract statement of principle--that removing the bread is not a melakhah-- may be an indication that the baraita of the House of Shmuel post-dates the Tosefta passage. See Jeffrey Rubenstein, “On Some Abstract Concepts in Rabbinic Literature,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1997): 33-73.

158 Now, note two important features of this baraita: first, though this baraita seems to have some currency in the Bavli, it shares no affinities with any Yerushalmi traditions. Second, mark well that the attribution of the baraita is to the Academy of Shemuel. This attribution occurs at least thirteen times in the Bavli, all of them in Seder Moed.204 Each of these factors will contribute to an enlarged understanding of the development of the baraita that Rava presents here in our sugya and its relationship with the other elements of our sugya. Let us take them up in turn. As noted, Rava’s baraita here has no apparent affinities with any text appearing in the Yerushalmi. That is to say, no Yerushalmi text excludes the blowing of the shofar on Shabbat from the general category of forbidden labor (melakhah) by virtue of its nature as a “skill” rather than a labor. This baraita is “Babylonian,” in the sense that it appears only in the Bavli. But it is also Babylonian in another sense: the form of the baraita itself is a preferred form of midrash halakhah in the Bavli. This form of midrash halakhah presents a mi’ut in the following way: 1. It presents a Biblical verse related to the category it wishes to exclude. 2. It makes the exclusionary claim stating, “This [verse] singles out [subject] X, which is [a member of category] A and not [a member of category] B.” As I mentioned above, this form is characteristic of the Bavli, however, in Palestinian midrash halakhah collections, this form occurs only in the Sifra.205 The Bavli presents this form fifteen times.206

204 Shabbat 117b and 131b, Eruvin 70b, 86a and 89b, Pesahim 3a and 39b,Yoma 70a, Sukka 56b, Beitza 29a, Rosh Hashana 29b, Megilah 30a, Moed Qatan 18b. I say “at least,” since we would need to check every attribution to “bei Yishmael” and “Rabbi Shemuel” in the Bavli to make sure that there are not more. 205 Shemini 10:7; Aharei 8:10; Emor 4:12; Behuqotai 4:4. It is possible to propose greater currency of the Sifra in Babylonia. David Hoffman already noted the Sifra’s affinities with materials attributed to Rabbi Hiyya in Zur Einleitung die Halachischen Midraschim (Berlin: M. Driesner, 1887), 22. Hiyya was a late tanna born in Babylonia and often associated with early Babylonian amoraim. See Albeck, p. 144. Hoffmann, p. 12, notes Sifra parallel materials also often appear with the appellation “de-bet Rav" in the Yerushalmi. He implies that Sifra was among the midrashim thatwere accepted by Rav's Babylonian school, and, which then gained currency. On the other hand, he takes "bei Rav" in the Bavli to mean "academy" in general. Hoffman's imagination of a large-scale Babylonian academic context may no longer be credible.

159 The Yerushalmi never does. This baraita appears to have had currency in amoraic Babylonia, but little or none in Palestine of the same period. This datum will be the first link in our chain of argumentation. We shall return to it shortly. Let us now turn to the second important factor in our analysis of this baraita: the attribution of the baraita to the Academy of Shemuel. Though Rava's baraita is Babylonian in its most recent

See Jeffery Rubenstein’s summary of the dispute about the nature of the Babylonian Academy in the amoraic period between Yeshayhu Gafni and David Goodblatt in, “The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy” http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/1-2002/Rubenstein.doc (accessed Nov. 2009). After examining all references to rabbinic institutions and schools in the Bavli, Goodblatt claimed that rabbinic academies, the great institutions of Talmud Torah depicted in Geonic sources, did not exist in amoraic Babylonia. The Talmud often describes Babylonian amoraim in the context of a bei rav or bei rav X. Goodblatt claimed this to be a small circle of disciples that had flocked to an individual sage. Gafni disputed Goodblatt’s argument, claiming that some Bavli passages, roughly thirty-five all told, use the term yeshiva to mean “academy.” In addition, he put forth that certain narrative traditions depict the presence of such institutions in amoraic times. In essence, Gafni posited that yeshivot, though a relatively late Babylonian amoraic innovation did have place of pride in amoraic Babylonia. Rubenstein attempted to harmonize this debate by reviewing Gafni’s sources that indicate the existence of academies in amoraic Babylonia. Rubenstein claims that almost all of these appear in a post-amoraic stratum. So, he says, both Goodblatt and Gafni had a bit of truth. Goodblatt was right to date the rise of the academy to post-amoraic times, while Gafni was right that there are references to academies in the Bavli. Rubenstein’s conclusions about thesethirty-five sources, though reasonable on the whole, are sometimes facile and tendentious. Not all of these sources fit his theory as neatly as he claims. This remains an area for further study. The two loci classici of Goodblatt and Gafni’s statements are David M. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia. (Leiden: Brill), 1975, and Isaiah Gafni, Yehudei Bavel be-Tequfat ha-Talmud. (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar), 1990. Nonetheless, the association of the Sifra with early Babylonian amoraim remains valid. Menahem Kahana has certainly shown that the great similarity of many Sifra's materials to parallel texts in the Bavli indicates some Babylonian amoraim apparently possessed a Midrash very close to our Sifra. See Kahana, "The Development of the Hermeneutical Principle of Kelal u-Ferat in the Tannaitic Period," in Tirzah Lifshitz et al., Mehkarim be-Talmud uve-Midrash: sefer zikaron le-Tirtsah Lifshits (Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 2005), 173–216, "Halakhic Midrash Collections," in Shemuel Safrai, The Literature of the sages, vol. 3b (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press), (2006): pp. and, Otsar kitve-yad shel midreshe hahalakhah: shihzur ha-`otakim ve-teuram (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1995), 22–26, 60–88. In light of this, our datum that this Sifra form only appears in the Bavli is quite intriguing. An area for further study might be the connection here between the bei Shemuel traditions and the various forms of the Sifra. It is of further interest that our mi'ut form occurs in the portions of the Sifra described by a number of scholars as having “Ishmaelian” influence. See Kahana, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., s.v. “Sifra,” 560-2. 206 Shabbat 117b, 131b; Rosh Hashanah 29b; Moed Qatan 4a, 13a; Yevamot 8a; Sotah 46b; Gittin 48a; Bava Batra 72b; Bava Metzia 27a; Zevahim 13a, 69a; Menahot 72a; Arakhin 14a, 26b.

160 provenance, given its Sifra-like form, it may have had origins in Palestine. 207Note that the following three elements of my argument are in the realm of fact, not conjecture: Sifra-style This



materials have currency in the Bavli;

particular Sifra-style form has currency only in the Bavli and not in the Yerushalmi;

This Baraita is associated with Bei Shemuel--a designation that only occurs in the Bavli.

It is clear that the form the baraita takes originated in Palestine, while the source itself must have had (at least) a Babylonian transmission history prior to (or, at least, contemporary with) Rava’s use of it in our sugya. Though not paralleling any text in the Sifra, the form Rava’s baraita takes is well attested there. There is this exceptional element in our case: while the Sifra never excludes two subjects simultaneously, the baraita that Rava quotes presents two subjects for exclusion. It singles out both: (1) the sounding of the Shofar, and (2) detaching the pita from the oven. This expansion of the typical form to cover two subjects is also quite rare in the Bavli.208 It seems safe to advance the possibility that Rava or his students altered the baraita to include a second subject. In other words, the baraita may have

207 However, were this true, it likely would only have been by way of at least a century of Babylonian transmission in the context of a “Babylonian” tannaitic collection. In Seder Mo’ed, at least, this collection was possibly known as the Tanna d’Vei Shemuel. As noted above, all of the baraitot identified this way appear in Mo’ed. This fact points to a thematic constancy that may signify that each of these units belonged originally to a single Babylonian collection of genuine tannaitic statements. To firmly establish this hypothesis would require further study. First, we would need to search the Bavli for any other representatives of this group. We would also need to look at all “Rabbi Yishmael” and “Rabbi Shemuel” traditions in the text witnesses to determine if they are, in fact, d’Vvei Shemuel attributions. We would then need to trace any synoptic parallels in other Rabbinic collections of each of the beraitot to judge their provenance fully. We would then need to analyze the transmission history of each baraita independently. Finally we would need to attempt a synthetic analysis account for all the data such a study would uncover. Tempting though it may be to follow such a line in the present project, such a task lays beyond the scope of our work here. For the moment, we must leave this as a tantalizing speculation. 208 The only other example is at Sotah 46b.

161 originally only dealt with the subject of removing the bread from the oven. Rava (or someone else) may have added the issue of Shofar blowing at a later date. I have three good reasons for putting this suggestion forward: 1. The rare use of this form to exclude two subjects from a major halakhic category simultaneously. This not only disrupts the typical “singles out [subject] X” mi'ut form, but also leaves us with an awkwardly unbalanced literary structure: one verse for two subjects, instead of the more elegant one to one ratio. 2. As noted by Lieberman, our baraita seems to function as an abstract of the Toseftan baraita in b. Shabbat 117b and 131b. The subject there is exclusively the question of violating Shabbat in order to save food, not Shofar blowing.209 3. No other tannaitic source ever associated the sounding of the shofar with melakhah. Indeed, no amora ever made this possible association prior to Rava. In a forthcoming work, Ethan Tucker convincingly associates shofar blowing with the prohibition on making loud noises on Shabbat, rather than as forbidden labor per se.210 The prohibition on the sounding of the shofar was never

209 Of course, the inclusion of shofar blowing in the text of the baraita in the b. Shabbat passages needs further explanation. Further study is needed, but one can imagine that Rava's prominence would cause the baraita to be revised in accordance with the text associated with him in its every appearance. 210 I want to thank Dr. Tucker for sharing with me a draft copy of his paper, “Sacred Silence: Musical Instruments and Shabbat.” In his third footnote he writes: This distinction [that t. Sukkah 4:14 considers there to be a greater problem with sounding the halil on Shabbat than on Yom Tov] might also go a long way to explaining the classic conundrum posed by Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1, which lays out the rule that one only sounds the shofar on the coincidence of Rosh Hashanah and Shabbat in the Temple (or, according to some, in any place where there is a Jewish court, after the Destruction). It may well be that the [tannaitic] ban on sounding the shofar outside of the Temple on Shabbat may have stemmed from a sense that this sort of loud noise was only justifiable with a clear Biblical imperative to override that concern. Since the requirement to sound the shofar could arguably be read as primarily applying in the Temple (it never says ‫בכל מושבותיכם‬as it does with other similar general requirements in Vayikra 23), there might have emerged opposition to sounding the shofar on Shabbat in any situation that could be interpreted as peripheral to the Biblical command. All [the amoraic] efforts in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli to understand this law would thus be difficult because they do not directly engage the notion of ‫השמעת קול‬at the core of this issue. That noise-making concern—which, according to this

162 seen as melakhah by the tannaim. This makes it exceedingly unlikely that an authentic tannaitic source would have entertained the possibility. In the entire corpus of tannaitic literature (including the baraitot of both Talmudim), this suggestion is made nowhere else. Any single one of these points would not be convincing. The three taken together, however, point to the conclusion that this baraita may have been altered, most likely by Rava and/or his disciples. If so, Rava, by altering a single tannaitic source, managed to make the position of Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina look absurd. In reality, it appears that Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina probably did not view sounding the shofar on Shabbat as melakhah per se. Rather, as the Shimon b. Yohai tradition indicates, the commandment to blow shofar on Shabbat is restricted to the temple precincts because of its close association with the Temple cult. The Tannaim may have seen it as forbidden because of the prohibition of holadat qol,211 making loud noises on Shabbat. Rava, not having access to the Shimon b. Yohai tradition, may have assumed that Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina prohibit it as melakhah. To counter their argument he adapts a baraita that speaks of “skill,” a category that certainly obtains in sounding the shofar. My conclusion is that Rava (or his disciple circle) may react here to material from the Palestinian circle of Rabbi Yohanan (in this case Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina’s memra) and arrange and adapt materials of Babylonian provenance (in this case the Bei Shemuel baraita) in reaction to them. 212

argument, is more severe on Shabbat—can only be overridden with a clear Biblical instruction to sound the shofar on that day and in that place. It is also important to note that Tucker takes the halil mentioned in t. Sukkah to be a synecdoche for all musical instruments. 211 Note Rashi’s explanation of the concern at b. Eruvin 104a: ‫כל אולודי קלא אסיר‬ 212 This leaves the issue of Rava’s conclusion at unit 2a a bit up in the air. He sums up his indictment of Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina’s position at unit 2a with these words: “Rather, says Rava, ‘The Torah certainly permits [blowing shofar on Shabbat], but our Rabbis are they who have prohibited it.’

163

Rabbah At unit 2b, we see Rava purportedly laying down the final piece of his new solution to the problem. In fact, I will claim that what we probably see here is the work of a late anonymous editor importing and adapting Rabbah’s meimra from another locus in the Bavli to expand the original sugya., Let me explain: Having undermined Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina’s midrashic position--pointing out both its inconstancy (“But if the source is the Torah, how did we blow [shofar] in the Temple?”), and halakhic absurdity (“And furthermore, is it forbidden labor?”)--he now seems to lay his trump card: the great authority of the Babylonian halakhic tradition over that of Palestine. It looks as though Rava quotes Rabbah: “Everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, but not all are skilled in the sounding of the shofar. [Thus] the rabbinic prohibition: lest one take it in his hand and go to an expert This sort of summary statement, prefaced by the words, “rather, says Rava” seems characteristic of the Bavli’s presentation of Rava. A search conducted in the online Bar Ilan Responsa Project determined that the phrase, “rather, says X” occurs in the printed edition of the Bavli 517 times. Of these, 158 are attributed to Rava (fourth generation), 75 to Abbaye (fourth generation), 62 to Rav Ashi (sixth generation), 50 to various Palestinian amoraim (including eleven to Rabbi Yohanan and four to Reish Lakish; I treat the Palestinians as a separate group since the phrase is unique to the Babylonian tradition and was likely in their mouths as the result of later Babylonian redaction), 35 to Rav Pappa (fifth generation), 33 to Rav Nahman (fifth generation), 30 to Rabbah (third generation), 27 to Rav Yosef (third generation), 15 to Rav Hisda (second/third generation), 11 to the amoraim known by the name Ravina, 7 to Shemuel (first generation), 6 to Rav (first generation), 6 to Rav Yehuda (second generation), and 2 to Rav Yitzhaq (likely second/third generation). Note that nearly half of these occurrences are attributed to either Rava or Abbaye, and Rava is far and away the leader of the group. His tally more than doubles that of any other amora. The clustering we see here--the greatest frequency in the fourth generation, then the sixth, then the Palestinian group, then the fifth, then the third and finally the early Babylonian amoraim--points to a development in which the popularity of this type of summation as an argument waxed and then waned. Whether or not Rava actually said these words is beside the point here. The frequency with which Rava is presented using this phrase, and the dearth of many other amoraim (especially early amoraim) using this phrase, point to a kind of organic authenticity that the phrase possesses. By this I mean the following: if a later editor had interjected these types of summary statements into mouths of amoraimhe would have likely done so in a more systematically uniform way. One would expect this form to appear without generational clustering in significant concentrations, and certainly not among select amoraim. The evidence again points to the possibility that this part of our pericope may be a “Rava sugya”--a passage redacted by Rava or his disciple circle.

164 to learn and carry it four cubits in a public domain [violating Shabbat ].” In fact, Rava does not directly quote Rabbah. The anonymous voice of the Bavli provides Rabbah’s support in this case. Note that Rava has made his case at 2a- the blowing of shofar is not Biblically prohibited labor; it can only be a Rabbinic decree. The authority for this conclusion is drawn from a tannitic source, the baraita of the house of Shemuel. There is no need for further authoritative support. Finally, Rava has already given his summation, concluding his argument with the words “The Torah certainly permits [blowing shofar on Shabbat ], but our Rabbis are they who have prohibited it.” Rabbah’s statement does not so much provide a support for the argument that the blowing of shofar is Rabbinic in origin, as provide some possible reasoning behind it. These sorts of explanatory statements of later amoraic conclusions are characteristic of the Bavli’s late editorial activity. 213 But, the statement is attributed to Rabbah here. How can I count this as the product of a late editorial editor when the statement is attributed to Rabbah? The answer is that Rabbah’s statement has been moved from its original location and altered to fit the present context. This Rabbah statement appears four times in the Bavli in various contexts and sometimes in slightly different formulations (Sukkah 42b; Rosh Hashanah 29b; Beitzah 17b; and, Megilah 4b). After analysis, I believe that three of these citations are late editorial importations. In Sukkah, Megilah, and our passage in Rosh Hashanah, the vocabulary and content, as well as looseness in the formulation of the passage across the text witnesses all point to the conclusion that we have a late editorial importation. A number of explanatory phrases (mai ta’ama, the repetition of “teqiyat shofar”) pop in and out, and the word baqi appears with and without the definite article and even switches to Aramaic (baqia). The content, however, is identical, as we would expect.214 The Beitzah passage does not show

213 See Friedman, “Perek ha-Ishah,” 25-26. 214 On this phenomenon, see E.S. Rosenthal, “Toldot Nusach u-Ba’ayot ’Arikhah be-Cheqer ha-Talmud,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 1-36, and Friedman, “Lehit’havut Shinuyei Girsa’ot Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli” Sidra 7 (1991): 67-102.

165 any of these signs of textual looseness. This looseness that we see in the formulation of Rabbah’s meimra is altogether absent in all the text witnesses of the Beitzah passage. This is even the case when Beitzah and Rosh Hashanah are included in the same manuscripts and printings! These include Pesaro, Vatican 134, Oxford 336, and London 400. Before we can understand this phenomenon, it is important to note that the phrases, “Everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, but not all are skilled in the sounding of the shofar,” and, “go to an expert to learn,” are the locus of the textual looseness in Rosh Hashanah (as well as the Sukkah and Megilah passages). It is these very phrases that are absent in the Beitzah passage: b. Beitza 16b215 Mishnah: If [a Festival] falls after Shabbat, Beit Shamai says: “We must immerse everything [that requires ritual purification in a miqveh] before Shabbat.” But Beit Hillel says: “Vessels--before Shabbat, but a person--on Shabbat.” Talmud: Nonetheless, they all prohibit [immersing] a vessel on Shabbat. Why? Rabbah said: “It is a rabbinic prohibition: lest one take it in his hand and carry it four cubits in a public domain [violating Shabbat ].” Abbaye said to him: “What would you say if he had a cistern in his courtyard?” He said to him: “It is a rabbinic prohibition: [the use of] a cistern in his courtyard [could] lead to [the use of] a cistern in the public domain.”

There are several things worth noting about this passage. First, though Rabbah’s meimra is nearly identical in vocabulary (with exception of the above mentioned phrases) its context is utterly different. Rather than a technically difficult ritual act impelling the person to carry a ritual object to a teacher on Shabbat, as in our pericope in Rosh Hashanah, in Beitzah his explanation of the Mishnah’s concern is that an individual’s piety surrounding ritual purity could trump his or her observance of the prohibition 215 The translation is my own.

166 on carrying in a public domain on Shabbat. The individual might bring the impure object through the public domain on Shabbat in order to purify it in a ritual bath. The Mishnaic prohibition on immersing vessels on Shabbat and festivals is designed, according to Rabbah’s meimra, to prevent this possibility. As a result, in the Beitzah version of the meimra, the references to an expert, as well as to the three “technical” rituals—shofar, the reading of the scroll of Esther and the taking of the four species on Sukkot-- are absent. 216 Second, only in the Beitzah passage do we see another amora (Abbaye, a junior of Rabbah’s by a single generation and a common disputant of his) engage Rabbah’s meimra directly in dispute dialogue. 217 Abbaye’s form of accusation seems to indicate an authentic Babylonian amoraic middle generation exchange. These generations have been characterized by the rise of the dispute form. Indeed, Avraham Weiss claims that though the dispute form was an element present from nearly the beginning of the amoraic period in Palestine, it was almost lacking in Babylonia amongst the early amoraim.218 Note further that Abbaye’s statement can only apply to the version of Rabbah’s meimra in Beitzah, as well as its context in the passage. Given the apparent dialogical authenticity of Abbaye’s 216 This also sheds doubt on the likelihood that Rabbah’s statement originally included the references to an expert ritual performer in Sukkah and Megillah. Let us note that, in fact, the taking of the four species is not really a technical performance. M. Sukkah 3:9 makes clear that merely “taking-up” (notel) the species is sufficient to fulfill the basic requirement. The opposite problem makes Rabbah’s meimra equally far-fetched in Megilah. There, although reading the Book of Esther is certainly a deeply technical act, it requires a level of skill beyond a single day’s training. Only Shofar blowing could plausibly fit the act that the phrases and references included in b. Rosh Hashanah, Sukkah and Megilah, and absent in Beitzah, describe. This factor not only gives further credence to the notion that Rabbah’s meimra is an editorial importation in the latter two tractates, it also makes clear what the probable source of that importation is. It is most likely that the statement was imported intact from Rosh Hashanah to Megillah and Sukkah, and not from Beitzah. Had it been imported from beitzah, without the extraneous phrases, both of these passages would have read more smoothly. 217 Weiss defined the dispute form as a discussion that embraces a sequence of direct questions and answers that are clearly attributable to amoraim. See Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Sifrutit, 2-3, and LeHeker ha-Talmud, 18-32, and, Feldblum, “Professor Avraham Weiss,” ‫יט‬-‫יח‬. 218 See above, p. 7, n.7.

167 attack on Rabbah’s meimra, it seems likely that the Beitzah passage represents the exemplar locus of Rabbah’s meimra. Finally, there is the Aramaic summation which connects the Rosh Hashanah, Sukkah and Megilah passages. This [that is, the concern about violating Shabbat by carrying four cubits in a public domain] is the same reason [that stands behind the Rabbinic prohibition] against [taking up the] lulav [on Shabbat ] and the same reason [that stands behind the prohibition] against [the public reading] the scroll [of the book of Esther on Shabbat ]. The presence of the statement in all three passages (Rosh Hashanah, Sukkah and Megilah), seems to point to an editorial attempt to standardize the meimra for use in all three contexts. Certainly the witnesses show looseness in the text formulation across all three passages at this point. What we probably see in our passage in Rosh Hashanah is an anonymous editor importing and adapting Rabbah’s meimra, perhaps from its context in Beitzah, to serve to explain the reasoning behind the Rabbinic prohibition that Rava posits at 2a.219

219 One other element linking the Rosh Hashanah, Sukkah and Megilah passages is the non-Pentateuchal (or at least, the not explicitly Pentateuchal) nature of the commandments in these three cases. Rabbeinu Zerchia Halevi points this out in his work Ham-Ma’or Haq-Qatan (b. Sukkah, dapei Ha-Rif, 24b-25b). There is an apparent inconsistency between Megilah and Lulav on the one hand (both of which are not explicitly required in the Torah), and Shofar on the other (which is explicitly required, as we have seen). He resolves the problem in the following way: Though the commandment to sound the shofar is detailed in Lev. 23:25 and Num. 29:1-2, the sounds one is supposed to make with the shofar are not. This problem is indeed a source of consternation to both Talmudim in their discussion of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9. Halevi points out that though the Bavli considers one of the three amoraic suggestions for the teruah sound put forward at 34a to indeed be the Biblical teruah sound, the Bavli throws up its hands and fails to make a determination about which of these suggestions is the authentic Biblical teruah. This, he argues, makes the commandment to sound the shofar Rabbinic rather than Pentateuchal in authority, as are Megilah and Lulav. None of this is as far-fetched as it may at first appear. It is exactly this sort of Pentateuchal implicitness that the editorial voice of the Bavli assumes leads the Mishnah to declare that the hagigah offering was not brought on Shabbat. See b. Pesachim 69b--note that Isaiah Fick Berlin adds this reference to the Masoret Hattalmud of our Sugya— [here?]at b. RH 29b. Halevi may indeed have hit on a general stammaitic conceptualization of these three

168

Conclusion 4: Section one of our passage was originally a separate sugya from sections two and three. To begin, Rava’s activity in this section of our example passage seems focused exclusively on Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina. They are the first amoraim who appear in our passage at unit 1a. I will now put forth three claims about their statement, with the aim of showing that Rava’s pericope grew around their statement as an independent unit: (1) This statement was an authentic Palestinian tradition originating in the circle of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish; (2) This statement made its way to Babylonia prior to the arrival of the Yerushalmi; and, (3) This statement was the root of the Babylonian proto-sugya that was the source material for section one of our passage.

I will argue each of these claims in turn. The position Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina put forth was an authentic Palestinian tradition originating in the circle of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. It closely resembles the one presented in the Yerushalmi by Kehana Both texts make use of the apparent contradiction between Leviticus 23:24 and Numbers 29:1 to prohibit the blowing of shofar on Shabbat and to require the oral recitation of verses referring to the sounding of the shofar in its place. This similarity of their midrash to Kehana’s may open a small window for us into the transmission history that stands between mitzvot. If this is the case, then the Aramaic summation may be more likely to be a stammaitic gloss than a continuation of Rava’s statement.

169 our passage in the Bavli and its parallel in the Yerushalmi. These two amoraim in our Bavli passage are both of the third Palestinian generation.220 Both are associated in the Bavli with the circle of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.221 They also appear together elsewhere in the Bavli.222 The Bavli apparently understands that this tradition has come from Palestine. It is marked as such by being in the mouths of these two amoraim. It seems very likely that Babylonian sages would have seen this memra as Palestinian in origin. Further, it seems unlikely that this source was composed in Babylonia. An auteur theory of Talmudic composition, positing that a single author composed all or most of the Bavli’s sources (or at least those of our passage), would have a late Babylonian sage reworking the Yerushalmi with a checklist of Babylonian agenda items in hand. Yet, were one to copy from the Yerushalmi directly to make a new Babylonian passage it is unlikely that one would alter attributions so radically. Now, one could reasonably posit that such an auteur would want to alter Kehana’s, since he is understood to be a Babylonian.223 After all, such an auteur might want to present the source as Palestinian. One could further posit that the putative auteur would be reluctant to attribute the statement to Rabbi Yohanan. Since the memra will be defeated momentarily by Rava, such an author might wish to preserve Rabbi Yohannan’s dignity,224 and lead another Palestinian Rabbi to the slaughter instead. It seems much more

220 Albeck, 257, 237-38; Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., s.v. "Hama Bar Hanina," 291, and s.v. “Levi,” 684-85; Aaron Hyman, Sefer Toldot Tanaim ve-Amoraim (Jerusalem: Qiryah Neemanah, 1964), 8, 51, 57, 460-1; Zacharias Frankel, Mavo ha-Yerushalmi (Breslav: Shletter, 1870; reprint, Jerusalem, 1967), 111. 221 Berakhot 5a, Shabbat 147b, and Sukkah 47a. 222 Ta’anit 16a. 223 Wald, Stephen G., Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., s.v. "Kahana," 708-10; Hyman, Toldot, 846–9; Albeck, 174–5, 203; D [aniel or avid]. Sperber, “TITLE,” in. Irano-Judaica: Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages, ed. Shaul Shaked (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1982-2008 [6 vols.]), vol. X: 83–100; Shamma Yehuda Friedman, "The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana," in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998-2002), 3: 247–71. 224 Wald, Stephen G., and Alyssa Gray, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., s.v. "Johanan ben Nappaḥa," 3702; Dor, Ibid. [Torat Erets-Yiśrael be-Vavel (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1971)? or something else – doesn’t seem to

170 likely, under these circumstances, that such an auteur would select Reish Lakish to play such a Sydney Cartonesque role. Reish Lakish, well-known, but often defeated,225 appears directly in our passage. What motivation would exist to ignore his presence in the Yerushalmi and assign attribution instead to two relatively obscure Palestinian amoraim? It seems more likely that this source was indeed transmitted from Palestine to Babylonia along with the attributions we currently see in the Bavli. This conclusion is bolstered by Rava’s direct response to this source. Rava’s statement cannot be construed as anything other than a response to the preceding statement, making it likely that Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina’s statement was transmitted to Babylonia no later than Rava’s early to mid-fourth century floruit. This statement made its way to Babylonia prior to the arrival of the Yerushalmi This said, it seems most likely that Rava’s sugya was intended to be a refutation of this Palestinian hypothesis and nothing more. The single variable here is whether the shofar blast is prohibited on Shabbat, Rabbinically or Biblically. Rava’s sugya likely did not originally extend beyond this point. This statement was likely the root of the Babylonian proto-sugya that was the source material for section one of our passage. What do I take away from this close analysis of this unit of our sugya? Four important things:

have been cited previously in this chap. – see n. 29 above]; Peter Eric Hayman, "Development and Change in the Teachings of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nafha" (Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 1990), in Heb.; Stephen G. Wald, Perek Elu-ovrin: Bavli Pesahim; perek shelishi; mahadurah bikortit ‘im be’ur makif (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2000), and Kelal gadol: Shabat perek shevi’i min ha-Talmud ha-Bavli: ‘im parshanut ‘al derekh ha-mehkar (Jerusalem: ha-lgud le-farshanut ha-Talmud, 2007); Hamesh sugyot min haTalmud ha-Bavli: ‘im parshanut ‘al derekh ha-mehkar; degem liḳr [Five Sugyot from the Babylonian Talmud: towards an edition of the Talmud with original commentary], ed. Shamma Friedman (Jerusalem: ha-lgud le-farshanut ha-Talmud, 2002) ; Reuven R. Kimelman, “Problems in Late Rabbinic ‘Biography’: The Case of the Amora Rabbi Yohanan, ” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2 (1979): 35–42, and “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disuptation,” Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 3–4 (1980): 567–95. 225 Beer, Moshe, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed.. s.v. "Simeon ben Lakish," 597-8;. Hyman, Toledot, 1193–1202; Frankel, Mavo ha-Yerushalmi, 129b; Albeck, 190ff.

171 (1) Rava may have had access to units of redacted material that now appear in y. Rosh Hashanah, as evidenced by his strikingly derivative response to the Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina tradition. (2) While he may have used this material to create a new sugya on the same subject as the Yerushalmi, his sugya was one that did not reflect the Yerushalmi’s structure. (3) He may have adapted Babylonian materials from other contexts (which we now find at b. Shabbat 117b, 131b, and Sukkah 42b, Beitzah 17b, Megilah 4b) and incorporated them in his new sugya. (4) Section one was likely originally a separate sugya from sections two and three. Recall that my argument is that there are instances in which Rava appears to pull from edited Palestinian Rabbinic units that we now find in the Yerushalmi. We have now seen this phenomenon with regard to Rava, as we did with Rav Hisda in the previous chapter. By proceeding through the first part of our sugya unit by unit (29b:22-38), I have also shown that this first part of our pericope may represent a largely untouched “Rava sugya” consisting largely of core materials, possibly redacted by Rava himself (or his disciples). The rest of the pericope (with two possible outlying sources) is made up of several core sources and a surrounding editorial framework. As we proceed to the second half of the chapter, I will highlight these core sources and show that the structure of our sugya has been changed by the redactor of the passage in order to mirror and broaden the structure of the Yerushalmi sugya that deals with the same Mishnah as our text in the Bavli (m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1). Sections Two and Three: Units 5-8 Below, I deal with the final elements of our sugya. After I removed the stammaitic frame from the passage, using the methodologies outlined in the introduction and the previous chapter, I discovered

172 two coherent and utterly separate sugyot. The presence of two sugyot, one following the other, is plainly marked, even on the final redactional level, by the Bavli’s editorial comment: “Perhaps I can attach R. Huna's dictum to this verse.”226 Neither of these reconstructed proto-sugyot shares much in the way of structure with y. Rosh Hashanah 4:1, though each has a striking affinity to the other. After the presentation of these texts, I will describe the structure of each of these sugyot, and then briefly present a possible Traditionengeschichte justifying my reconstruction and explaining how the

two sugyot might have been placed one after the other during the final stage of the redaction of the Bavli. Finally, I will show how the stammaitic frame adapted the two sugyot for the overall purpose of the passage, bringing them more closely in line with the Yerushalmi’s structure. Here are the two reconstructed core sugyot in synopsis: Sugya X

Sugya Y

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: Once Rosh

It is written: “On the day of atonement you

Hashanah coincided with Shabbat. Rabban

shall sound a horn all through your land.” [Lev

Yohanan b. Zaqai said to B'nei Beteira, “Let us

25:9] This teaches that every individual is

blow [the shofar.]” They said to him, “Let us

under obligation to blow.

discuss it.” He said to them, “Let us blow and discuss after.” After they had blown they said to him, “Let us discuss.” He replied: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and we don't reconsider after the fact.

226 ‫ואימא דמותי לה להא דרב חונא אק[ר]א‬. We should note here that the majority of the text witnesses read, “There are those who attach it to this verse…” (Iqa d’matenei lah aqra…). This is an even clearer designation that the material that follows was once an alternative sugya.

173 [a] R. Huna said, “[The shofar on Shabbat is

[a] R. Huna said: “[The shofar on Yom Kippur is

blown only] with the Court.”

blown only] with the Court.”

[b] Rava objected [quoting m. Rosh Hashanah

[b]Rabbah raised the following objection [from a

4:1]: “'Jerusalem had this further over Yavne: For

baraita]: The blowing of the shofar on Rosh

in every town which could see and hear and was

Hashanah and Jubilee overrides Shabbat in the

close enough to come they would blow. While in

provinces [i.e. outside Jerusalem] for [each] man

Yavne they would only blow in Court' Rather, it

and his household.

implies that in Jerusalem private individuals blew.

R. Shesheth objected [from m. Rosh Hashanah 3:5]: “Jubilee is on the same footing as New Year for blowing the shofar and for blessings.” This implies that on Jubilee they blew [on Shabbat ] both in a Court which sanctified the New Moon had and in a Court which had not sanctified the New Moon, and every individual was under obligation to blow. But on Rosh Hashanah they blew only in a Court which sanctified the New Moon and individuals were not under obligation to blow.

[c]But, when R. Isaac b. Joseph came he said that when the congregational reader had finished

[c]When R. Isaac b. Joseph came he said that when the congregational reader in Yavne finished

174 blowing in Yavne, a man could not hear the

blowing a man could not hear his own voice for

sounds of his ears for the noise of the blowing [of

the noise [of the blowings] of individuals!

individuals]!

[d] R. Hiyya b. Gamda said, R. Jose b. Saul said,

[d] R. Hiyya b. Gamda said, R. Jose b. Saul said,

Rebbi said: The shofar is blown only during the

Rebbi said: The shofar is blown only during the

hours that the Court sits.

hours that the Court sits.

Note that these two passages share a nearly identical structure. Each begins with a baraita (neither of which appear in the Yerushalmi227) introducing the general topic of the discussion. Then, at [a], Rav Huna, a second generation Babylonian amora,228 introduces his requirement that all sounding of the shofar be with the court. At this point in both passages our assumption about what this requirement entails is unambiguous: Individuals may only sound the shofar in the presence of the court. This will be overturned at [d] in both sugyot, when R. Hiyya b. Gamda229 provides a reinterpretation of Rav Huna’s position. At [b], either Rabbah or Rava raises an objection--from a tannaitic source--to the notion that private individuals may only sound the shofar in the presence of the court. In Sugya Y, Rav Sheshet raises a similar objection at this point. At [c] the testimony of a nahota–the Palestinian amora Isaac b. Joseph—is introduced as a support of [b]. Finally, as noted, at [d] the statement of R. Hiyya b. 227 Leviticus 25:9 does appear at the end of the y. Rosh Hashanah passage, in the mouths of the amora Rabbi Yonah’s students; however it is used for a different conclusion than what we see here. Additionally, the beraita we see here parallels Sifra Behar 2:5. See above, n. 5. 228 See Albeck, 195; Bacher, Bab Amor, 52ff. [you will need to provide more details about this source??]; Hyman, Toledot, 336ff; Shamma Friedman, “Le-Aggadah ha-Historit be-Talmud ha-Bavli,” inSefer haiḳaron le-rabi Sha’ul Liberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993), 146–63. 229 A shadowy amoraic figure only mentioned four times in the Bavli. He always transmits traditions from Palestinian figures. See Albeck, 165.

175 Gamda acts to harmonize Rav Huna’s statement with the objections of [b] and [c]. As mentioned, this shared structure shows that both of these reconstructed sugyot meet my basic standard of coherence. The sources hang together in relationship much in the same way that the sources of a coherent Yerushalmi sugya do. Several elements of this reconstruction require some justification. Most prominently, I will be obliged to explain the presence of R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s dictum at the end of both sugyot X and Y, even though it appears only at the end of the entire passage in the Bavli. Second, I will need to describe the factors that led me to identify those elements I exclude from my reconstruction as “late editorial frame” rather than as “amoraic core.” This accomplished, I will turn to a brief account of what I see as the most likely way that these two sugyot came to be connected in a single passage in the Bavli. Finally, I will turn to the stammaitic frame itself and demonstrate that it signifies itself as a recapitulation and expansion of the Yerushalmi’s structure and concerns.

R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s Statement Here I claim I can see the genesis of the somewhat eccentric reading of the Tosafot.230 The Tosafist writes: Rashi restricts [R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement] to the Jubilee. However, [to me] it seems that it comes to inform us with regard to Rosh Hashanah as well: We need not sound [the shofar] in the presence of the court. Rather, we must only sound it so long as the court sits.

In other words the Tosafot would have us apply R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement not only where it appears in unit 8 of our example passage (at folio 30a line 33), but also as a distributed property at unit 230 Rosh Hashanah 30a, s.v. “’Ein.”

176 7 (folio 30a line 15), after the words, “But in Yavne they may blow in the presence of the Court, but may not do so outside of its presence.”231 On its surface the sugya as a whole does not seem to call for this double use of R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement. Rashi seems right to view the statement as the final step of the concluding section of the entire sugya, rather than as a retroactively applied conclusion to the earlier section at unit 7, as well as the concluding one at unit 8. However, the reading of the Tosafot is motivated by the fact that, though this reading is not absolutely called for by the text, one can plausibly redistribute R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement back into the earlier section at unit 7. I am not advocating the reading of the Tosafot as superior to that of Rashi. I am merely convinced that the Tosafot’s reading is equally plausible. While I remain agnostic on the question of what benefit, if any, the Tosafist garners by adopting this readings over Rashi’s in regard to interpreting the final redacted version of the sugya, my claim in this case is simply that the very plausibility of the Tosafistic reading of our passage is a clue to its redactional history. The Tosafot noticed that R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement could work plausibly as a conclusion to either of these two sections of our sugya. Regardless of the advantage (or lack thereof) that the Tosafist gains from reading the passage in this way, his claim is correct: R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement can indeed be read as a conclusion to both sections. I say that the most likely reason for this odd state of affairs is the original presence of R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement at the conclusion of both these sections earlier in their redaction history, when they circulated separately as Sugya X and Sugya Y.

231 Tosafot Rabeinu Asher Ad locum adduces further support for this reading from Rabbi Zeira’s question in the Bavli: “If they had made a move to stand, but had not yet done so, [may one sound shofar on Shabbat]?” It appears that, with this question, the Talmud returns to a discussion of Rosh Hashanah shofar sounding. This only makes full sense if R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement is a sort of segue back into our original topic of sounding shofar on Shabbat Rosh Hashanah.

177 Why was R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement removed at some point in time from Sugya X? I claim that this deletion was likely the result of a late redactor's hand combining these two sugyot together. When the redactor placed these two proto-sugyot one after the other to create our Bavli passage, he wished to have a single “punch line,” so he removed R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement from Sugya X to create both literary suspense and a more satisfying final conclusion to the combined passage. Note again, that when the amoraic core materials are revealed, stripped bare of the editorial frame, R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement coheres in both Sugya X and Sugya Y, confirming the reading of the Tosafot. Finally, my standard of coherence requires that we adopt R. Hiyya b. Gamda’s statement as the conclusion of the first proto-sugya. Without it, the sources do not hang together in a thematic arc in Sugya X. Without it, Sugya X would simply peter out with no concluding statement. With it, Sugya X is a coherent sugya with a beginning, middle and end. The Editorial Frame My claim is that the materials I exclude from my reconstruction of these two core sugyot are entirely editorial, most likely post-dating the core amoraic sugya. A significant number of the anonymous materials in the Bavli, though not all such materials, I consider relatively late. I rely here, and elsewhere, on the general consensus that the majority of this material in the Bavli, particularly complex materials such as these, most likely post-date the fourth century. My method has been (and continues to be) a reliance upon Shamma Friedman’s fourteen criteria for identifying this material.232 In my reconstruction, three of his criteria came most prominently into play: 1.

The second criterion: explanatory dependent materials are usually stammaitic.233

232 Friedman, “Perek ha-Ishah,” 25-32. 233 For instance: A.“Rabbi Elazar said Rabban Yohanan did not decree except at Yavne alone. They said to him…” [m. Rosh

178 2.

The fourth criterion: excessive sentence length.234

3.

The eighth criterion: stammaitic vocabulary.235

Any one of these criteria alone in the framing materials would not necessarily conclusively establish them as late editorial additions but the presence of these three criteria points us strongly in that direction. Now, how did the two sugyot come to be connected? How did two nearly identical texts with a different starting point come into existence? This question of slightly differing sugyot, with alternate beginning or end points has already occupied Talmudic scholarship for some time. The phenomenon is most recognizable in the Bavli when the Talmud itself notes it. The Bavli will occasionally present two such sugyot, or only the differing point, with the phrase, "in Sura they teach thus, in Pumbedita they teach thus."236 In 1932, when Julius Kaplan published his groundbreaking study, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, he made the claim that these two centers of Babylonian Rabbinic Torah had Hashana 4:1] this is the same [position] as the first tanna! They disagree in the case of a temporary bet din. B. What is meant by “with the bet din?” In the presence of the bet din, excluding [any blowing on Shabbat] not in the presence of the bet din. C. Rather, isn’t it that in Jerusalem they may blow when the bet din sits or when it does not sit in presence? D. But that implies that when the bet din sat they blew away from the Beth din! But in Yavne they may blow in the presence of the Beth din, but may not do so outside of its presence. 234 “Must it not mean that on Yovel they blow both during the hours when the bet din sits and also when the bet din does not sit, but on Rosh Hashana they blow when the bet din sits but not when the bet din does not sit. Nonetheless, on the Yovel [it is blown] even away from the bet din! No, in fact, it’s in the presence of the bet din," for instance. 235 ‫ ואלא לאו דאלו‬,‫ אי לימא‬,‫לאפוקי‬. Though these phrases are not exclusively utilized by the stam, on the whole, they are found much more often in anonymous voice than in the mouths of amoraim. Additionally, the phrase “ ‫ "בזמן בית דין‬is only used by the anonymous editorial voice of the Bavli. The amoraic phrase is ‫כל זמן שבית דין יושבין‬. 236 See for instance: Shabbat 60b, Sukkah 19a, Bava Batra 142b, Sanhedrin 22a, Avoda Zara 38a, Bekhorot 36b. Albeck notes the phenomenon in Mavo La-Talmudim,.27. He sees the phenomenon as largely Amoraic, see 557-9.

179 served as loci of the redaction of the Talmud from the time of Rav Ashi through the Saboriac period.237 In British Mandate Tel Aviv, Mordecai Dov Judelowitz read Kaplan’s study and made use of it in his history of the Babylonian Academies.238 Using Kaplan’s postulate of a Saboraic redaction, he made an attempt to deal with the problem:239 It is possible that the phrase, "in Sura they teach thus, in Pumbadita they teach thus," refers to study in the academies of Sura and Pumbadita in the days of the Savoraim, and this language is indicative of their period. Evidence of this is the [appearance of the] phrase at Bavli Bava Batra 142b, "in Sura they teach thus, in Pumbadita they teach: Mar the son of Rav Yosef said in the name of Rava." Mar the son of Rav Yosef flourished in the days of Rav Ashi (b. Hulin 48b), 237 Kaplan, (New York: Columbia University Press), 1933. See pp. 5, 14-18, 30 and 139. For an assessment of Kaplan’s work, see Richard Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? Monographs of Hebrew Union College, vol. 12, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College), 1989, 155-7. Zecharias Frankel also noted the use of the phrase and claimed in 1871 that different tractates of the Bavli iself were redacted in each of these two centers: Le-mevo ha-Talmud: helek mi-ma’amar ‘al ha-midot vehamishkalot ba-Torah shebi-khetav uva-Torah shebe’al peh (Breslau: Bi-defus B. L. Monash bi-Krotoshin, 1871; reprint, Jerusalem, 1966 or 1967), netuyim 8, 114. ‫אנשי סורא ופומבדיתא נחלקו ביניהם לא פעם לגבי דעות‬ ‫ וכך‬,‫ שהרי הסוגיות הועברו רק בעל פה‬,'‫ 'בסורא מתני הכי בפומבדיתא מתני הכי‬:‫ כפי שהתלמוד מציין במקומות רבים‬,‫קודמיהם‬ ‫ ומשום כך ברור שהן יכולות להופיע רק במסכתות‬,‫ 'הסוגיות ההפוכות' חדלות אפוא להתמיה‬.‫נוצרו הבדלים בהבנתן ובמסירתן‬ '‫ "אמר ר‬:‫ ואילו בפומבדיתא גרסה המסורת‬,"‫ "אמר ר' יוחנן פירורין שאין בהן כזית מותר לאבדן ביד‬:‫ כך למשל מסרו בסורא‬.‫שונות‬ ‫ "דאמר ר' יוחנן פירורין וכו' מותר‬:‫ וכך מסרו בברכות נב ע"ב‬,‫יוחנן פירורין וכו' אסור לאבדן ביד"; מסכת ברכות נערכה בסורא‬ ‫” וכך שנו עוד‬.‫ "דאמר ר' יוחנן פירורין וכו' אסור לאבדן ביד‬:‫ וכך נאמר בשבת קמג ע"א‬,‫ ומסכת שבת נערכה בפומבדיתא‬,"'‫וכו‬ ‫ "אמר רב פפא הילכתא‬:‫ ובפומבדיתא נמסר‬,"‫ "אמר רב פפא הלכתא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין וכו' שיעבודא דאורייתא‬:‫בסורא‬ ‫ "אמר רב פפא וכו' שיעבודא‬:‫ וכך מופיע בקידושין יג ע"ב‬,‫” מסכת קידושין נערכה בסורא‬.‫וכו' כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני הלווין‬ ‫ "אמר רב פפא וכו' כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני‬:‫ וכך מופיע שם בדף קעו ע"א‬,‫דאורייתא"; מסכת בבא בתרא נערכה בפומבדיתא‬ ‫לווין‬.” Z. W. Rabinowitz held up the banner of this position in 1961 in his—and Ezra Zion Melamed’s--work Sha’arei Torat Bavel: kolel perushim, he’arot ve-hagahot ‘al Talmud Bavli, ve-he’arot le-seder dorot haTanaim veha-Amoraim (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary), explaining the odd language of b. Nedarim, Nazir, Meilah, Keritut and Tamid by positing a Pumbaiditan redaction for the tractates, 299-310. It should also be noted here that this phenomenon is different than that of the sugyot hafukhot, similar sugyot with opposite conclusions in different places in the Talmud. On this latter phenomenon, see Albeck, 560-1, and Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta, 6:512, and vol. 1 of Mavo le-nusaḥ ha-Mishnah, by Jacob Nahum Epstein (Jerusalem:. Magnes, 1999 or 2000, 327. 238 Yeshivat Pumbadita bi-mey Ha-amora’im. (Tel Aviv), 1935. Judelowitz’s work is not terribly helpful as history, but he was a keen, creative reader of Rabbinic texts. His work is filled with little gems of interpretation, like the one I cite here. 239 Vol. I, p. 31, n.75.

180 before the Academies of Sura and Pumbadita were active, so how could [one prior to that period] say, "in Sura they teach thus, in Pumbedita they teach, Mar the son of Rav Yosef said in the name of Rava"? Furthermore, in Bavli Sukkah 19a, regarding the arcade supported by columns disputed by Abbaye and Rava, it says "in Sura they teach this pericope with this text...” This is troubling in that the dispute between Abbaye and Rava was already after Sura's first destruction, so how can [one prior to its reestablishment] say "in Sura they teach this pericope with this [following] text....” Finally, the word, "teach" (matnei), in the phrase "in Sura they teach...” in place of "in Sura they say...” [emphasis added] implies that [a text of] the Talmud was redacted (me'sudar) [and lay] before them, which they would recite, much like a tanna whose baraita was scripted.

Judelowitz already noted that this phrase, "in Sura they teach thus, in Pumbadita they teach thus," preceding alternate versions of sugyot indicates that there were two versions of a single sugya circulating during the Talmud’s final period of redaction. Leaving aside the question of Saboraic authorship or redaction, this insight proves helpful to us in our case. In our case, there were likely two versions of the sugya that came out of the middle generations of Babylonian amoraim. Both of these may have remained in circulation until they were united and reworked during the Talmud’s final period of redaction. Recapitulation of Yerushalmian Structure Finally, we turn to my claim that the late editorial adaptation of these two originally separate sugyot (Sugya X and Sugya Y) had the effect of creating a unified conclusion to the passage that forced the entire Bavli sugya to conform structurally to its Yerushalmi parallel. To show this, we have to revert to an analysis of our Bavli and Yerushalmi sugyot as whole passages, rather than just focusing on this final section. To remind the reader of my analysis earlier in this chapter, though the entire Bavli

181 sugya is indeed complex, its overall structure is actually parsimoniously elegant, and it breaks fairly evenly into three parts: 1.

The conversation concerning the prohibition of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah,

including the statements of Levi b. Lahma and Hama b. Hainina, Rava and Rabbah. (Units 1-2b in the Translation and Commentary section at the top of this chapter.) 2.

A short digression on Rabban Yohanan b. Zaqai’s exception to the prohibition and a

digression on the Mishnah’s rebuff of the Rabbi Eliezer/Elazar stance. This is followed by a consideration of Rav Huna’s restriction of Rabban Yohannan’s rule, which gives it binding force only “with the court.” (Units 3-7) 3.

An alternate use of Rav Huna’s restricted interpretation to a baraita (resembling Sifra

Behar 2:5), instead of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1; a discussion of the implicit factors this use entails. (Units 5[2]-8) We have also seen that an equally coherent, yet more atomistic structure underlies this overall framework—our three separate core sugyot: The Rava sugya, Sugya X and Sugya Y. I am struck by how dissimilar our proposed core sugyot are from the sugya the Bavli presents: 1.

I have shown that our first proposed Rava sugya (units 1-2b) remained largely intact

after editorial adaptation. However, a major change occurred at unit 2b— the addition of Rabbah’s statement regarding shofar, megillah, and lulav, adapted from its original purity context and imported from b. Beitzah. As we have seen, this had the effect of altering the character of the sugya and remaking it in the image of the Yerushalmi. 2.

I now advance the claim that Sugya X (underlying units 3-7) and Sugya Y (underlying

units 5[2]-8) also underwent major changes for similar purposes. Instead of two mutually reinforcing sections attempting to fully test the possible uses of Rav Huna’s statement, my

182 reconstruction shows two separate passages at odds with each other about the meaning of Rav Huna’s statement. In each, Rav Huna presents his requirement that all sounding of the shofar be with the court. However, in Sugya X our assumption is that this rule is restricted to the coincidence of Shabbat and Rosh Hashanah. Yet in Sugya Y, now that the core is revealed, we can see that Rav Huna’s statement can be construed at applying to the general practice of blowing shofar on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee, as well.240 Furthermore, Sugya X is revealed in our core reconstruction to take the Rabbi Yohanan/B’nei Betera baraita as its starting point, rather than the Mishnah. Ultimately, this changes its halakhic implication little, but its literary presentation is quite different, in that it can stand alone, separate from the Mishnah, as a selfcontained unit. The differences between our reconstructed core sugyot and the Bavli’s final literary product become all the more striking when we compare each to the Yerushalmi sugya on the same Mishnah. The Yerushalmi’s sugya also breaks neatly into three parts: 1.

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish hope to discover whether our Mishnah’s prohibition

on sounding shofar on Shabbat is rabbinic or biblical in origin. Kehana presents a midrash resolving the halakhic conundrum presented by Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. 2.

A secondary puzzle--how the practice of sounding shofar in the Temple and refraining

from doing so in the provinces can exist side by side altogether--is left unresolved by Kehana and must now be addressed. Following a short digression involving Rabbi Zeira urging his students to attend the lecture of Levi, Levi is depicted putting forth a Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai 240 See Joseph Hirsch Dünner, Hîddûsê ha-Rîsa"d: haggahôt, pêrûsîm, bê'ûrîm `al hab-bavlî we-hayyerûsalmî tôsefta' û-midresê halaka, (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, no date), vol. I:213. Dünner makes the point that all of the major Rishonim, including Rashi and Maimonides, agree that the prohibition of sounding Shofar is restricted to Shabbat. Nonetheless, he notes, the amoraic statements can all be construed as referring to Yom Kippur. When we remove the stammaitic frame, the reasons for Dünner’s intuition about this become clear.

183 tradition, which has the force of narrowing the scope of Kehana’s midrash, locating the practice of sounding shofar in the Temple on Shabbat in its cultic context. 3.

We conclude the sugya with a challenge and a rebuttal. Rabbi Yonah’s students present

Leviticus 25:9 as evidence that only the shofar of the Jubilee—not that of Rosh Hashanah --may be sounded on Shabbat.241 Rabbi Yonah explains to his students that they have misread the verse, which he claims restricts Shabbat -Jubilee shofar blowing to the land of Israel. On the other hand, he posits, one may blow shofar on Shabbat -Rosh Hashanah in any country, presumably in the seat of the court. Note how closely the structure of the Bavli’s overall sugya mirrors that of the Yerushalmi. In both, in part 1, we are presented with the puzzle of whether our Mishnah’s prohibition on sounding shofar on Shabbat is rabbinic or biblical in origin. This is followed in part two with a short digression, after which an unresolved issue from part one is resolved by a more restrictive reading of an earlier source: in the Yerushalmi this source is Kehana’s midrash, while in the Bavli it is the m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1 itself. Finally, we turn to the issue of shofar sounding on Shabbat -Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year. We end this final, third section of the sugya, in both Talmudim, resolving the discussion in favor of the more lenient of the available halakhic positions. It is my contention that this close structural affinity was only possible once our three reconstructed core sugyot (the Rava sugya, Sugya X and Sugya Y) were adapted and combined for this purpose. Our reconstructed core sugyot, instead of following the Yerushalmi’s structure-- each block building on what came before, are three essentially stand-alone units. Indeed the three core sugyot could be presented in any order we might like without damaging our understanding of the meaning of each individual text. This is not the case either with the Yerushalmi’s sugya or the Bavli’s final 241 I am aware that the forbidden labors of Shabbat and Yom Kippur are often taken to be identical in Rabbinic literature. However, the context of Rabbi Yonah’s dialogue leads me to believe we are dealing specifically with Shabbat and Yom Kippur that coincide in a Jubilee year. Note that the issue of holadat qol is discussed in tannaitic literature only in the context of Shabbat and not that of Yom Kippur. See n. 58.

184 redacted version. Indeed, it seems likely to me that the redactor of the Bavli may have placed the Rava sugya, Sugya X and Sugya Y in the order that we have, overlaying them with his own editorial materials, to recapitulate the structure of the Yerushalmi.

Conclusion

Our analysis has yielded three conclusions. First, three independent core amoraic sugyot likely underlie our Bavli passage-- the Rava sugya, Sugya X and Sugya Y. Second, the first of these units, the Rava sugya, was indeed likely a “Rava sugya”— it is structured around Rava’s statement and his agenda drives the passage forward. He (or his disciples) may even have been involved in the redaction of this passage, combining redacted units of materials from Palestine and juxtaposing them with Babylonian sources culled from different contexts and then adapted for different purposes here. This sugya shares content affinities with materials now found in the Yerushalmi, but does not share the Yerushalmi’s structure. Finally, at some later period an editorial framework seems to have been added. This frame maintains the earlier sources of the core amoraic sugyot but re-contextualizes them, bringing the overall structure of the unit into closer affinity with the structure of the corresponding Yerushalmi sugya. I do not maintain that this is the case with every sugya in which Rava appears in the Bavli, or even in b. Rosh Hashanah. However, this example shows the plausibility of my general claim that there are cases in which we may say that Rava seems to have drawn upon units of redacted Palestinian materials now found in the Yerushalmi. We have seen a case of this with Rav Hisda in the previous chapter, and we have seen it again with regard to Rava in this chapter. This example also supports my secondary claim that these amoraim also often have a presence in underlying early Babylonian core sugyot that do not seem to show signs of replicating the Yerushalmi's structures. I have also shown,

185 again, that these core sugyot can be reconstructed by stripping away later layers of stammaitic materials from the current text of certain passages in the Bavli.

‫‪186‬‬ ‫‪JTS 108 EMC 319 Bavli Rosh Hashanah 29b:24-30a:34‬‬

‫מנא הני מילי‬ ‫אמר ר' לוי בר לחמ....‬מר ר' חמא בר חנינא כת' אחד אומר שבתון זכרון תרועה מקרא קדש וכת' יום תרועה יהיה‬ ‫לכם לא קשיא כן ביום טוב שחל להיות בשבת אין תוקעין כן ביום טוב שחל להיות בחול תוקעין‬ ‫אמר רבה ואו דאוריתא היא במקדש היכי תקעינן ועוד מלאכה היא והתניא דבי שמואל כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו‬ ‫יצאה תקיעת שופר ורדיית הפת שהיא חכמה ואינה מלאכה‬ ‫אלא אמר רבה היא מדאוריתא משרא שרי ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה‬ ‫כי דרבא דאמ' הכל חייבין בתקיעת שופר ואין הכל בקיאין בתקיעת שופר גזרה שמא יטלנו בידו וילך אצל בקיא ללמוד‬ ‫ויעבירנו ברשות הרבים ארבע אמות‬ ‫והינו טעמא דלולב והינו טעמ' דמגלה‬ ‫משחרב בית המקדש התקין וכו' תנו רבנן פעם אחת חלה ראש השנה להיות בשבת אמר להן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לבני‬ ‫בתירה נתקע אמרו לו נדין אמר להן כבר נשמעה קרן ביבנה ואין משיבין אחר מעשה‬ ‫אמר ר' אלעזר לא התקין רבן יוחנן אלא ביבנה בלבד אמרו לו הינו תנא קמא איכא ביניהו בית דין דאקראי‬ ‫משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהוא תוקעין בכל מקום שיש בית דין אמר רב חונא (ל ע"א) ועם בית‬ ‫דין‬ ‫מאי עם בית דין בפני בית דין לאפוקי שלא בפני בית דין דלא‬ ‫מותיב רבה ועוד זאת היתה בירושלים יתירה על יבנה שכל עיר שהיא רואה ושומעת וקרובה ויכולה לבוא תוקעין בה‬

‫‪187‬‬ ‫וביבנה לא היו תוקעין אלא בבית דין בלבד מאי עוד זאת או לימא הני דקתני זאת מיבי לית' ואלא לאו דאלו בירושלים‬ ‫תקעו יחידיים‬ ‫וביבנה לא תקעו יחידיים והא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמ' כי מסיק שליחא דציבורא תקיעתא ביבנה לא שמע אנוש‬ ‫קל אזניה מקל תקיעתא ואלא לאו דאלו בירושלים תוקעין בין בזמן בית דין ובין בזמן שלא בפני בית דין‬ ‫הא בזמן בית דין מיהא תקעינן ואפלו שלא בפני בית דין וביבנה בפני בית דין אין שלא בפני בית דין לא‬ ‫ואימא דמותי לה להא דרב חונא אק[ר]א וביום וביום הכפורים תעבירו שופר וב' מלמד שכל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע‬ ‫אמר רב חונא ועם בית דין‬ ‫מאי עם בית דין בזמן בית דין לאפוקי שלא בזמן בית דין דלא‬ ‫מותיב רבה תקיעת ראש השנה שליובל דוחה את השבת בגבולין איש וביתו מאי איש וביתו או לימא איש ואשתו אשה‬ ‫מי מיחייבא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה היא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה נשים פטורות אלא לא איש ואשתו ואפלו שלא‬ ‫בזמן בית דין‬ ‫לא לעולם בזמן בית דין‬ ‫מותיב רב ששת שוה היובל לראש השנה לתקיעה ולברכות אלא שביובל תוקעין בין בבית דין שקדשו בו את החדש‬ ‫ובין בבית דין שלא קדשו את החדש בו וכל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע ובראש השנה לא היו תוקעין אלא בבית דין שקדשו‬ ‫בו את החדש ואין כל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע‬ ‫או לימ' דאלו ביובל תקעו יחידיים ובראש השנה לא תקעו יחידיים והכא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר כי מסיק‬ ‫שליחא דציבורא תקיעתא ביבנה לא שמע (קל) אנש קל אדניה מקל תקיעתא אלא לאו דאלו ביובל תוקעין בין בזמן בית‬ ‫דין בין שלא בזמן בית דין ובראש השנה בזמן בית דין אין שלא בזמן בית דין לא‬ ‫דאלו בזמן בית דין מיהא תוקעין ואפלו שלא בפני בית דין לא‬

‫‪188‬‬ ‫לעולם בפני ביתדין‬ ‫איתמר נמי אמר ר' חייה בר גמרא אמר ר' יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי אין תוקעין אלא כל זמן שבית דין יושבין‬

‫‪189‬‬ ‫‪Rava Appendix One: Midrashic Synopsis‬‬ ‫ויקרא רבה (מרגליות) פרשת אמור‬

‫פסיקתא דרב כהנא (מנדלבוים) פיסקא‬

‫תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ראש השנה פרק‬

‫פרשה כט [יב]‬

‫כג ‪ -‬ראש השנה‬

‫ד דף נט טור ב‬

‫דילמא‪.‬‬

‫רבי אבא בר פפא‬

‫ר' יוחנן ור' שמע' ‪/‬שמעון‪ /‬בן לקיש הוון א"ר יוחנן ורשב"ל הוון יתיבין מקשיי‬ ‫ר' יוחנן ורשב"ל הוו יתבין ומקשיין‬

‫מתקשיין‪.‬‬

‫אמרין‬

‫בשמעתתא‪.‬‬

‫תנינן יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל‬

‫תנינן יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל‬

‫להיות בשבת‪ ,‬במקדש היו תוקעין אבל‬

‫להיות בשבת במקדש היו תוקעין אבל‬

‫לא במדינה‪ .‬אמרין אין דבר תורה‬

‫לא במדינה אין דבר תורה הוא אף‬

‫במדינה ידחה‪ ,‬ואם אינו דבר תורה אף‬

‫בגבולין ידחה אין לית הוא דבר תורה אף‬

‫במקדש לא ידחה‪ .‬עד אינון יתיבין‬

‫במקדש לא ידחה‬

‫מתקשין‬

‫עבר כהנא אמרין הא גברא רבה‬

‫עבר כהנא אמרין הא אתא מרא דשמעתא עבר כהנא‪ ,‬אמרין הא אתא מרה‬

‫דנישאול ליה אתון שאלון ליה‬

‫ניקום ונשייליניה‪ .‬קמון ושאלוניה‪ .‬תנינן דשמעתא ניקום ונשאול‪ .‬קמון ושאלין‬ ‫יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות‬

‫ליה‪,‬‬

‫בשבת במקדש היו תוקעים אבל לא‬ ‫במדינה‪ ,‬משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן‬ ‫יוחנן בן זכאי שיהיו תוקעי' בכל מקום‬ ‫שיש בו בית דין‪ .‬אם דבר תורה ידחה‬ ‫בגבולין‪ ,‬אם לאו אף במקדש לא ידחה‪.‬‬ ‫אמ' להן כת' אחד אומ' יום תרועה יהיה‬ ‫לכם (במדבר כט‪ ,‬א)‪ ,‬וכת' אחד אומ'‬

‫א' להם כתוב אחד אומ' יום תרועה יהיה אמר לון כתוב אחד אומר יום תרועה‬ ‫לכם (במדבר כט‪ :‬א)‪ ,‬וכתו' אחד או'‬

‫שבתון זכרון תרועה מקרא קדש (ויקרא זכרון תרועה יהיה לכם (ויקרא כג‪ :‬כד)‪,‬‬

‫וכתוב אחר אומר זכרון תרועה‬

‫‪190‬‬ ‫כג‪ ,‬כד)‪ ,‬הא כיצד‪ ,‬בזמן שהוא בא בחול הא כאיצד יתקיימו שני כתובין‪ ,‬בזמן‬

‫הא כיצד בשעה שהוא חל בחול יום‬

‫יום תרועה יהיה לכם‪ ,‬ובזמן שבא בשבת שהוא בא בחול יום תרועה יהיה לכם‪,‬‬

‫תרועה בשעה שהו' חל בשבת זכרון‬

‫זכרון תרועה מקרא קדש‪ ,‬מזכירין ולא‬

‫ובזמן שהוא בא בשבת זכרון תרועה‬

‫תרועה מזכירין אבל לא תוקעין ר' זעורה‬

‫תוקעין‪.‬‬

‫יהיה לכם‪ ,‬מזכירין אבל לא תוקעין‪ .‬ר'‬

‫מפקד לחברייא עולון ושמעון קליה דרבי‬

‫זעירה הוה מפקד לחבריה עיילון ושמעון לוי דרש דלית איפשר דהוא מפיק‬ ‫קלה דר' לוי דריש דלית איפשר ניפק‬

‫פרשתיה דלא אולפן ועל ואמר קומיהון‬

‫פרשתא דלא אולפן‪ .‬עלון ודרש קמיהון‬

‫כתוב אחד אומר יום תרועה וכתוב אחר‬

‫כתוב אחד אומ' יום תרוע' יהיה לכם‪,‬‬

‫אומר זכרון תרועה הא כיצד בשעה‬

‫וכתוב אחד או' זכרון תרועה‪ ,‬הא כאיצד שהוא חל בחול יום תרועה בשעה שהוא‬ ‫‪/‬הא כיצד‪ /‬יתקיימו שני כתובין‪ ,‬בזמן‬

‫חל בשבת זכרון תרועה מזכירין אבל לא‬

‫שהוא בא בחול יום תרועה יהיה לכם‪,‬‬

‫תוקעין‬

‫ובזמן שהוא בא בשבת זכרון תרועה‪,‬‬ ‫מזכירין אבל לא תוקעין‪ .‬תני ר' שמעון‬

‫מעתה אף במקדש לא ידחה תנא באחד‬

‫א"ר שמעון בן יוחי ידחה במקדש שהן‬

‫מכירין זמנו של חדש ואל ידחה בגבולין בן יוחי ידחה במקדש שהם יודעים זמנו‬

‫לחדש מעתה אפילו במקום שהן יודעין‬

‫שאינן מכירין זמנו של חדש‪ .‬תאני ר'‬

‫של חודש ואל ידחה במקום שאינן יודעין שהוא באחד לחדש ידחה‬

‫שמעון בן יוחי יום תרועה יהיה לכם‬

‫זמנו של חודש‪ .‬תני ר' שמע' בן יוחי יום תני ר"ש בן יוחי והקרבתם במקום‬

‫ועשיתם (במדבר כט‪ ,‬א ‪ -‬ב)‪ ,‬במקום‬

‫תרועה יהיה לכם ועשיתם (במדבר כט‪:‬‬

‫שהקרבנות קריבין‪.‬‬

‫א‪ ,‬ב)‪ ,‬במקום שהקרבנות קריבין‪.‬‬

‫שהקרבנות קריבין‬

191 Appendix Two: Rava citations with Yerushalmi Parallels

The two-fold goal of this appendix is to identify the passages in b. Rosh Hashanah that cite Rava directly and then to show which of these Rava statements have a content affinity with the Yerushalmi. Rava is mentioned 43 times in the printed editions of b. Rosh Hashanah. 17 of these are editorial discussions of Rava’s statements rather than direct citations. Of the 26 direct citations, 3 clearly incorrectly identify Rava as the originator of a statement: Rabbah is clearly the author of the statements at 18a:25 and 20a:37, and the printed editions’ citation of Rava at 5a:9 is flatly contradicted by all the manuscript evidence and in parallels in b. Hagiga 17a and Menahot 66a, which cite Abbaye rather than Rava. The 3 citations of Rava at b. Rosh Hashanah 29b:24-30a:34 are excluded from this appendix since they were dealt with in the above chapter. This leaves a total of 20 citations to deal with in this appendix. They are listed below. Of these 20, 15 have content affinity, but show no awareness of the Yerushalmi’s structure. Furthermore, the 3 of the 5 citations that show negative results, have signs suggesting they may be citations of Rabbah rather than Rava. Putting this together with the evidence of the above chapter, 75-80% of Rava’s statements in b. Rosh Hashanah content affinity with y. Rosh Hashanah, but show no awareness of the Yerushalmi’s structure.

B. Rosh Hashanah passages with direct Rava citations excluding 29b:24-30a:34 

(1) 5b:27 has content parallel to 56c (1:1). It also has a structural affinity. The amoraim show no evidence of structural knowledge.



(2-4) 6a:28-32 (3 citations, the second of these may be Rabbah) has content parallel to 56c (1:1). This sugya closely mirrors Yerushalmi sugya in structure, but again the amoraim show no evidence of structural knowledge.

192 

(5) 6b:3 has content parallel to 56c (1:1).



(6) 7b:22 has no content parallel in y. Rosh Hashanah, yet it can be construed as playing a structural role, bringing the Bavli more in line with the Yerushalmi.



(7) 8a:24 has content parallel to 56d (1:1).



(8) 10a:15 (This may be Rabbah) has no content parallel in y. Rosh Hashanah.



(9) 15a:13 has no content parallel in y. Rosh Hashanah. 242



(10) 16a:27 has content parallel to 57a (1:3)



(11-14) 17a:28-50 (4 citations, the last of these may be Rabbah.) This section is aggadic and has no direct content parallel in y. Rosh Hashanah.



(15) 20a:29 has content parallel to 58c (3:1).



(16) 20b:22 has content parallel to 58d (2:6).



(17-18) 21a:14-24 (2 citations.)The first has a parallel with 57a (1:4).The second is imported from Sanhedrin 13b and has no content parallel in y. Rosh Hashanah. 243



(19-20) 27a:29-33(2 citations) The first has parallel with 58d (3:4). The second has no content parallel.

242 243

See, however, y. Bikkurim 2:4. See, however, y. Sheqalim 1:5.

193

Chapter Four: The Nahotei--Returning Home to Find It

This chapter is an attempt to systematically address the role the Nahotei, a fourth century group of traveling Rabbis, took in bringing Palestinian Rabbinic sources and traditions to Babylonia. The

194 Bavli depicts the Nahotei (singular: Nahota) as sages who traveled from Babylonia to Palestine and returned to Babylonia with reports of Palestinian Rabbinic traditions, mostly in the fourth century. 244 Despite some early, nineteenth century scholarly interest in this group of sages, no modern or contemporary scholars have attempted a large-scale study of these traveling Rabbis. In this chapter, I will assess the activity of these unique sages as depicted in b. Seder Mo’ed. I will argue that they represent one known vector that carried Palestinian Rabbinic materials to Babylonia in the fourth century. However, I will show that in b. Seder Mo’ed, they do little more than clarify, modify or reassign the authorship of traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. The evidence of this chapter will result in three conclusions. First, the Nahotei seem to have constrained245 their reports in b. Seder Mo’ed, for the most part, to commentary on Rabbinic traditions previously in circulation in Babylonia. Roughly ninety percent of

244 The Nahotei are mentioned as a group several places in the Bavli: Sukka 43b, Hullin 101b and 124a, Nidah 10b and 39a among them; and, perhaps twice in the Yerushalmi, at y. ‘Orlah 20a-b and y. Rosh Hashanah 22a (see app. II at the conclusion of this chapter, “Nahotian Reports in the Yerushalmi”) However, in some of these loci in the Bavli some of the text witnesses read “nahotei yama” instead of “Nahotei.” The term “Nahotei” (indicating those who return from Palestine), should not be confused with “nahotei yama” (those who go down to the sea [in ships]). This last term is simply an epithet for “sailors” borrowed from Psalms 107:23 and translated into Aramaic. More research is required to accurately sort out the Talmud’s references to these two different groups. The term “Nahotei” is explained at b. Berakhot 38b in connection with the prominent Nahota Ulla, “our Rabbis who have [returned] descending (Hebrew: “yardu,” corresponding to the Aramaic “nahut,”, literally, “they descended”) from Palestine.” The Bavli never explicitly mentions the Nahotei leaving Babylonia. Only their return (their “descent”) from Palestine is noted. However, my presumption that they are Babylonians who left and returned rests on firm ground. Nearly all of the Nahotei bear the Babylonian title “Rav,” as opposed to the Palestinian title “Rabbi.” The most prominent exception to this is Ulla, who bears no title. There is good reason to conclude that Ulla was born in Palestine, immigrated to Babylonia and made regular journeys between the two lands. See Chanokh Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 223. In my opinion, we should consider him as a bicultural figure, neither solely Babylonian nor Palestinian. The principal Nahotei are Rav Dimi (flor. c. 310340), Rav Yitzhaq b. Yosef (flor. c. 320-350), Rav Shemuel b. Yehuda (flor. c. 290-320), Rabin (a.k.a. Rav Avin, flor. c. 310-340), and Ulla (flor. c. 290-320). It is striking that, with the exception of Ulla, all of these are middle- generation Babylonian amoraim, whose careers spanned the first half of the fourth century. 245 Perhaps the term “constraint” sounds strange to Anglophone ears in this context. I use the word to refer to the extra-textual factors that limit both the possible content as well as the possible linguistic forms a text may take. I borrow the term from Sarah Mills and her use of this English term to stand in for the Foucauldian “contrainte.” See Mills, Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women's Travel Writing and

195 the time their extant reports modify Palestinian traditions previously known to Babylonian sages, or comment upon them. Admittedly, this feature makes it difficult to assess the full extent of their involvement in importing sources and traditions to Babylonia from Palestine, since it masks from our view any other “behind-the-scenes” reports they may have made. However, this constraint on the content of their formal reports simultaneously disqualifies their candidacy as the chief pathway for the importation of Palestinian Rabbinic texts in fourth century Babylonia. I draw this last conclusion by virtue of the profoundly limited character of their activity, at least insofar as b. Seder Mo’ed depicts it. Further, it is unlikely in the extreme that the Nahotei could have brought any large-scale, early version of the Talmud Yerushalmi to Babylonia. At most they may have brought small-scale redacted materials. I will show several example passages that depict Nahotei making reports modifying or clarifying Palestinian sources already known to Babylonian sages. I submit that Nahotian activity is best understood as a part of the rich fourth century interplay between Rabbinic Palestine and Babylonia, not as a trigger for it. I contend that we should make no more of the Nahotian phenomenon other than as another example of the deep investment that fourth-century Babylonian Rabbis made in the Torah of Zion. Second, Nahotian activity is best understood in the context of fourth century Near-Eastern pilgrimage practices. The fourth century saw an upsurge of pilgrimage both in the west246 (Christians visiting Egypt, Palestine and Syria) and in the east (Zoroastrians visiting sacred fires in Pars, Colonialism (London: Routledge, 1993), 67-107. The application of a Foucauldian toctpetsoc of discourse to Rabbinic literature strikes me as quite helpful. After all, Rabbinic literature had its genesis in a deeply discursive practice, the devotional-dialogical experience of Talmud Torah. As Daniel Boyarin puts it, “if ever there was a literature whose very form declares its embeddment in social practice and historical reality, it is these texts.” Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 11. Boyarin argues that the application of a Foucauldian understanding of literature as a discursive process unfolding from systems of thought, language and societal structures, allows scholars to render a better accounting of that literature as resulting from the social practices and institutions of specific times and places. It should be clear at this point that I hope to render just such an account around the Nahotei. 246 This is the west from the perspective of the Babylonians. It is their geographic perspective that I adopt for the purposes of this study.

196 Azerbaijan and Media). In this period, the social nature of pilgrimage practices is a striking feature of both Western, Christian sacred journeys, and Eastern Zoroastrian travel to holy fires. Documents from both these religious traditions depict the fourth century pilgrimage as an opportunity to encounter and confer with living people. The faithful in the new temporal centers of influence, such as Constantinople or Ctesiphon, could vicariously link themselves to the old terras sancti, whether Palestine or Pars, Egypt or Azerbaijan, through the pilgrimage encounter with holy people in those lands. However, no novel experience was typically gained by the pilgrims in the journeys they undertook. Instead, the preexisting faith of the traveller was repeatedly confirmed in the journey and little new knowledge was gained. These were journeys to reconfirm what the faith communities already knew. Though there are obvious differences between the Rabbinic sources and those of the Christians and the Zoroastrians (and equally between these two latter groups), in this general context, it is highly suggestive that the Nahotei report or clarify Palestinian traditions to Babylonian amoraim that are largely already known to the Babylonians, albeit in a somewhat different form. I understand the Nahotei as the Rabbinic pilgrims of the fourth century. The Nahotei likely traveled to Palestine to ask questions about Palestinian and other materials that had previously gained currency in Babylonia in the ongoing circles of Torah study there. Their journeys and reports could very well have played a social role in the ongoing circles of Babylonian Torah study, similar to the role pilgrimage accounts likely played among the Zoroastrians and Christians of the day. Third, Nahotian reports may have aided the shaping of later Babylonian attitudes towards Palestinian Torah. There is currently a burgeoning field of scholars re-conceptualizing late-antique pilgrimage accounts as an early genre of travel writing. In my view, contemporary analytic lenses developed in the study of travel writing yield fruitful results when applied to the Nahotei. Using methods borrowed from this scholarship, I conclude that the reports of the Nahotei may have played a role in forming an image that some Babylonian Rabbis held of Palestinian Rabbis and their learning as stalwart, if unimaginative, preservers of tradition. This collective imagining of the Rabbinic other

197 would establish a mirror for this group of Babylonian Rabbis to define themselves, by contrast, as radically creative. This had the ever-widening, circular effect of further reinforcing a view that presented the Palestinian Rabbis as more preservationist and less creative than the Babylonian ones. It is notable that this mode of thought first expanded its orbit in the fourth century, in correlation with the Nahotian reports. The stereotyped image of the plodding, mindlessly obeisant Palestinian Rabbi would not reach its final apogee until the ninth century, in the anti-Palestinian polemics of the Babylonian Gaonim. Of course, the canard of the blinkered Rabbinic formalist is an image that has been enrolled many times since in the service of internal Jewish polemics. That the origins of this image lie in the fourth century and correlate snugly with the reports of the Nahotei enhances the relevance of our study of their activity. The structure of this chapter will be as follows: First, I will show that recent advances in the study of travel writings and reports have granted us a significant methodological lens through which we may view the figure of the Nahota and his report. After I outline the contours of the new directions I will take in this chapter, I will present a brief review of what has been known of the Nahotei prior to my study here. Then I will present the results of a large-scale survey of Bavli Seder Mo’ed. I will show that my survey has borne evidence of a formal Nahotian constraint. They appear to be limited to a relatively small number of possible tropes. Next, I will present a number of example passages illustrating my claims. Finally, I will present a synthetic conclusion justifying the major claims of this chapter. Given the exploratory nature of this attempt, my investigations are preliminary and my conclusions are tentative. In any case, I hasten to point out that my inquiry into Nehotian activity is restricted to b. Seder Mo’ed. Any conclusions about the phenomenon in the remainder of the Talmud should be drawn only with great circumspection.

I

198 The systematic study of travel literature has emerged as a legitimate field of scholarly inquiry over the past two decades, but scholars of Talmud and Rabbinics have taken little note of it. 247 Typically, Rabbinic literature neither conjures the foreign in the imagination, nor focuses the mind’s eye on experiences of travel?248 Yet, I propose that methods developed in the study of travel writing offer insights on the problem when we apply them to the problem of the Nahotei. In examining the activity of these traveling Rabbis, I have been influenced by the theme of expectation-conforming tropes that runs through the heart of many recent studies of travel writing. In essence, the notion is that travelers tend to report their journeys to those back at home in accordance with preconceived expectations. Though travelers lived experiences of journey may pass beyond the scope of their original imaginings, their reports often narrow the experience shaving off those rough edges that would 247 There is an extensive amount of recent scholarship surrounding Jewish travel writing in the early Middle Ages. In particular, the travels of Benjamin of Tudela have attracted the attention of a wide range of scholars. Zur Shalev provides a summary of recent scholarship on this subject in, “Benjamin of Tudela, Spanish Explorer” in Mediterranean Historical Review 25, no. 1 (2010): 17-33. On the whole, very little work has been done on travel accounts in the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, at least in European languages. (See n. 5 for some exceptions from scholars writing in Hebrew.) Even scholars trained in Rabbinics and interested in travel writing tend to focus their research on accounts from later periods. Martin Jacobs’s scholarship is an example of this phenomenon. Originally trained as a scholar of Rabbinics at the Free University of Berlin, Jacobs’s research has recently turned to the study of Jewish travel. However, his interest in Jewish travel seems to be restricted to accounts dating after the rise of Islam. Thus, his forthcoming article in the Jewish Quarterly Review, “From Lofty Caliphs to Uncivilized ‘Orientals’: Images of the Muslim in Medieval Jewish Travel Literature,” draws on his knowledge of Rabbinics, yet does not address travel in the Talmud directly. Further examples include Görge K. Hasselhoff, “Das Heilige Land in talmudischer, spätantiker und mittelalterlicher Literatur,” in Das Gelobte Land (2003): 112-31, and Yosef Levanon, “The Holy Place in Jewish Piety: Evidence of Two Twelfth-Century Jewish Itineraries,” in Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 1 (1998), 103-18. 248 I do not mean that we never find the Talmud foreign to our own mode of thought. On the contrary, quite often the contemporary reader will find the Talmud a very strange text indeed. I mean that the Talmud does not typically directly address journey as a means of encountering the foreign. A major exception to this general trend is the extraordinary series of travel accounts from Rabbah bar bar Hanah at b. Bava Batra 73a75a. I hope to have the opportunity to address this wonderful story cycle at a later point. Clearly worth study in its own right, this story cycle has attracted the attention of a number of Israeli scholars. For a summary of their work, see Reuven Küpperwasser, “Masa’ot shel Rabbah bar bar Hanah,” in Mehqarei Yerushalayim be- Sifrut ha-‘Ivrit, vol. 22: Sifrut u-Mered (2008), 215-41. Note, however, that none of these Israeli studies addresses the material from the perspective of travel writing, per se.

199 fail the comprehension of those at home, and perhaps even that of the travelers themselves. A general feature of travel literature is that the reporter sometimes expresses his or her experience in commonly employed and repetitive tropes.249 These tropes, in turn, conform to the home audience’s expectations. The travel report can be constrained250 to quite a small array of these possible tropes. For instance, David Spurr’s work convincingly identifies a taxonomy of clichéd tropes emerging from the nineteenth-century Western colonial experience that repetitively dominates travel reports of the period.251 Expectation-conforming tropes were certainly also at play in late antique travel reports, as Mary Baine Campbell and Maria Pretzler have shown.252 Building on this feature of travel reports in general,253 my preliminary investigations, fully detailed in Section III, have uncovered a general trend:

249 For three studies introducing this notion of tropes in travel writing and that point to the ways these tropes can function, see David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing and Imperial Administration (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993); Mills, Discourses of Difference; Terry Caesar, Forgiving the Boundaries: Home as Abroad in American Travel Writing (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995), 35-41, 71-82, 138. 250 See n. 2. 251 Spurr, 3-8, 54-77, 83-94, 185. See also Mills, 2-4, 69, 190. 252 Mary Baine Campbell, The Witness and the Other World: Exotic European Travel Writing, 400–1600 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 32, 179, 249-52. Maria Pretzler, Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece (London: Duckworth, 2007), 44-56. 253 A word of caution is due here: The Nahotian accounts seem to have been oral reports. In general, they were not written. (The one exception to this general rule may appear at b. Gitin 9b, which depicts the Nahota Rabbin sending a message to Babylonia. However, the Hebrew verb, “shalah,” does not necessarily imply writing. Furthermore, this verb may simply have been employed as a mnemonic device, since the report includes the description of a century-earlier open halakhic letter the Tanna Rabbi Elazar is supposed to have sent to communities in the diaspora.) All of the careful studies of travel writing I cite are just that; they are studies of travel writing. It is unclear whether an oral travel report would conform to the same sorts of crosscultural features the critics of travel writing generally note. This may make a difference, since orally composed texts often use stations of departure and return as an associative memory device. In other words, we may have to face the possibility that the formula: “when X returned [from Palestine] he said...” could function primarily as a mnemonic grouping device for the association of these traditions rather than a record of travel, per se. Albert Lord already noted the prevalent motives of departure and return in the orally composed texts he and Milman Perry studied. See their The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960) 158-85. Jonathan Foley notes the same phenomenon in his work, going so far as to

200 Nahotian reports, putatively received from Palestinian masters, most often conform to Babylonian preconceptions of Palestinian traditions. We shall see that of the 103 Nahotian reports in Bavli Seder Mo’ed, 93 deal with traditions already known in Babylonia prior to the Nahotian report. 254 It appears that Nahotian reports were mostly concerned with Palestinian traditions already current in Babylonia before they began their journeys. Given this, our account of the Nahotei must center on their role in the practice of Babylonian Talmud Torah in the fourth century: If the Nahotei were, for the most part, not bringing new materials for study to the Rabbis of middle-Sasanian Babylonia, what was the purpose, in the context of Babylonian learning, of their journeys and their reports? It is striking that the Nahotei (with the exception of Ulla) were Babylonian Rabbis who flourished in the fourth century. In the fourth century, any extended journey was fraught with expense and danger, but the pilgrimage to Palestine was particularly so. 255 We know that Christian Pilgrims faced highway robbery, hunger, sleeplessness, chicanery and even murder, all as expected and typical risks of the journey, just within the boundaries of Palestine itself. From fairly early on in the fourth identify the structure of departure and return as the “schema” of many oral texts. See Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1990), 368. I should also point out here that it is my general assumption that the large body of late-antique literary remains that scholars call “Rabbinic Literature” is not, in fact a literature at all. Rather, it is the partially preserved body of the vast Rabbinic (and pre-Rabbinic) discourse that lived its life in a primarily oral form over the first six centuries of the present era. I generally accept the mostly oral process of Rabbinic composition and transmission as a given. In this I am greatly influenced by Yaakov Sussman’s deeply persuasive and exhaustive article, “Torah she-be-al Pe, Peshutah Ke-Mashme’ah: Koho shel Kotzo shel Yod,” in Mehkarei Talmud, vol. 3, ed. Yaakov Sussman and David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2005), 209-384. Note, however, that Alyssa Gray presents an important and thoughtful dissent from this view, positing a written composition for practically the whole of the Rabbinic corpus, in A Talmud in Exile:The Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), 224-33. It important to point out that Gray was writing before the publication of Sussman’s work. Nearly all of the Rabbinic texts that Gray advances in support of the written composition of the Talmud were persuasively dismissed by Sussman, though without acknowledgment of her arguments. 254 For the full results of this survey see the first app. at the conclusion of this chap. 255 Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 315-19.

201 century, Christian pilgrimage had the official approbation of the Christian Roman state. Jewish travellers, who had no such approval, must have faced all these hardships and more. Given this expensive and risk-laden context, and the general dearth of evidence of their true mission, I think it helpful to conceptualize the Nahotei as agents of Babylonian sages sent to brave the perils of the road to obtain specific bits of Palestinian Torah.256 Could we think of them as pilgrims with a mission? Were they sent to Palestine to obtain answers to specific questions about Palestinian materials that Babylonian Rabbis were already studying in Babylonia? The expenditure of significant time and treasure on such journeys, along with risk of life and limb, is indicative of the regard and influence that Palestinian materials held in Babylonia. I also see two other reasons to conceptualize the Nahotian journeys to Palestine as a sort of pilgrimage: First, the extensive evidence for a surge of pilgrimage in the fourth century both in the West among Christian travelers and in the East among Zoroastrians, as we shall shortly see; and, second, pilgrimage accounts from this period often link their descriptions of sacred journeys with experiences of encounter with living people in the terra sancta--a feature that both these surges in pilgrimage share with the accounts of the Nahotei. As for the Christian surge in pilgrimage in the West, recently Georgia Frank has explored the theme of late-antique Christian pilgrimage to visit living holy people, a marked feature of the upsurge in Christian pilgrimage in the fourth century.257 Note that this phenomenon is nearly simultaneous with the travels of the Nahotei. In this period, rather than just traveling to see holy sites in Palestine contemporary reports reveal Christian pilgrims traveling in holy lands to encounter holy people. In 256 Alyssa Gray has already made note of the special connection between fourth century Babylonian sage Abbaye and the Nahota Rav Dimi. Gray, 6, n.17, points out the great frequency of Rav Dimi’s reports to Abbaye. I should point out that Gray’s inquiry into Nahotian activity was restricted to Rav Dimi’s statements, leaving those of the other Nahotei to the side. In sec. III of this chap., I show a direct dialogue between Rabbin and Abbaye at b. Shabbat 21b and another at b. Pesahim 70b. An investigation of the relationship between Abbaye and the Nahotei is an area ripe for further study. Perhaps it is no other than Abbaye who sent some of these Nahotei on their missions to Palestine? 257 Georgia Frank, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University Of California Press, 2000).

202 their written accounts, the pilgrims linger in the descriptions of their gaze upon the faces of the living sacred individuals.258 Frank writes that the faces of holy people became the object of desire and a means of religious transformation for the reporters of religious travels and for their readers during this period. 259 Christian pilgrims of the time made journeys to Palestine and Syria to see the faces of sainted and sacred ascetics and then wrote about the experience for their coreligionists. Mary Baine Campbell has also described the importance that witness and memory played in the experience of the Christian pilgrim. Often, when Christian pilgrims encountered a sacred place or a person, their written accounts did not convey these events as utterly new experiences. Instead, the pilgrims conceptualized these events as recalls from personal memory of a biblical event or person.260 A Christian pilgrim encountering an obscure desert ascetic in the fourth century could walk away feeling as though he/she had just seen the face of John the Baptist. Pilgrimage is a unique religious ritual in practice requiring the pilgrim to merge past and present as he or she moves through a land that is simultaneously familiar from sacred narrative and strangely unexpected in reality.261 This complex interplay between received tradition and the direct travel experience—in this Christian context, the desire to come as physically close as possible to the events and figures of the New Testament—is at play among the Nahotei as well. However, in a Jewish Rabbinic context, the aural replaces the visual. The words of the Nahotian pilgrim are always identified as distinct from the words of other sages in the Bavli, consistently introduced with the words, “when X returned [from Palestine] he said....” The report nearly always contains the words of a Palestinian

258 Ibid., 162-70. Of course, I recognize that these visual descripitions are unique to the Christian community. Neither Jews nor Zoroastrians described their encounters in such evocative optical terms. 259 Ibid. 260 Campbell, 19-21. 261 Simon Coleman and John Elsner, Pilgrimage: past and present in the world religions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 204-6.

203 Rabbi or Rabbis. I theorize that these Rabbinic pilgrims traveled to Palestine to ask questions of Palestinian sages about old Palestinian Rabbinic words and to hear the words of current Palestinian sages in response. While the Christian pilgrimage report of the fourth century may have attempted to forge a connection to the figures of the New Testament by imagining living people standing in their place, these Rabbinic pilgrims used the words of living Palestinian sages to imbue old Palestinian words with new life. When received in Babylonia, the Nahotian report opened a new window into the thoughts and words of Rabbi Yohanan, Rabban Gamaliel, or Hillel and Shamai, the revered sages of the past. 262 The sages in the West stood in place of past sages and gave insight that held central value for the Babylonians. Could a Nahota encountering an obscure Palestinian Rabbi in the fourth century have walked away feeling as though he had just heard the words of Rabbi Yohanan? Scholars of Rabbinics have long and widely noted that the Bavli will regularly represent amoraic materials that appear in the Yerushalmi with newly applied tannaitic attributions or with a different amoraic attribution, often to Rabbi Yohanan.263 Is it possible that this attributive confusion is, in fact, a pseudepigraphic re-assignment of authorship? In other words, did the tradents involved in the transmission of these sources re-assign them to tannaim or the well-known Rabbi Yohanan? Could encounters with Palestinian Rabbis have held near-equivalency in the imagination of Babylonian sages with an actual encounter with a tanna or the greatest of past Palestinian amoraim, Rabbi Yohanan? From Shrira Gaon to Maimonides, Rabbi Yohanan has been portrayed as impossibly long-lived and

262 This kind of reverence, of course, has the ironic effect of freezing the revered group in the past, limiting our expectations of their potential creativity. We so often only see what we expect to see. 263 For an extensive citation of this literature, see H.L. Strack and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Markus Bockmel (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992), 84.

204 with an influence outsized beyond the scope of reality. 264 Could pseudepigraphy be one solution to this problem? 265 Turning to the East, we see a simultaneous cognate phenomenon in the Sassanid Zoroastrian experience. In the next few paragraphs, I will argue that fourth-century Zoroastrian religious elites saw pilgrimage as an opportunity to meet, confer and deliberate with others of their class in the far-flung Sassanian Empire. We will see that the fourth-century upsurge in Zoroastrian pilgrimage seems to have played a social role. Forming a religious network centered on the royal fire temple of Adur Farnbag in Pars, these sacred journeys tightened bonds of fraternity between the widely distributed Sassanid magi. Just as was the case in Christian pilgrimage, Zoroastrian pilgrimage, at least in its elite form, was associated with encounter and exchange among living people, as we shall see. With the establishment of the secure and prosperous period of middle-Sasanian rule, the increase we see in the evidence of pilgrimage to the sacred fires should not surprise us. Mary Boyce writes of this period: The evidence points to the great Zoroastrian sanctuaries being centres of general devotion and pilgrimage in the same way as the great shrines of Christendom, with their priests vying with one another to promote the legends and hence the sanctity of their particular fires; and ancient Iran doubtless saw in spring and autumn countless caravans of pilgrims as varied and colourful as those of medieval Europe.266

264 See Gerson Cohen, The Book of Tradition of Abraham ibn Daud (New York: JTS Press, 1967), 122, note to line 18. 265 See above, p. 30, n. 69. 266 Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2001), 125.

205 Both Boyce and Arthur Christensen267 identified three sacred-royal fires as the focus of Sasanian pilgrimage. These were Adur Burzen-Mihr in Parthia, Adur Gushnasp in Media, and the great Adur Farnbag in Pars.268 As we shall see, Adur Farnbag was to be the locus of the elite pilgrimage so important to my larger argument. The Denkard, a Pahlavi work containing passages of Sasanian provenance, but redacted in the tenth century,269 states that the three fires mirrored social and feudal divisions at the height of Sasanian rule. Note the association the Farnbag fire holds with the priestly class: The fire which is Farnbag has made its place among the priests;... the fire which is Gūshnasp has made its place among the warriors;... the fire which is Būrzīn-Mitrō has made its place among agriculturists.270

The Bundahishn, a creation account redacted in the eighth or ninth century but containing numerous Sasanian traditions,271 posits the existence of these three sacred fires from the time of creation. Other Pahlavi texts clearly make use of the fires as implements of imperial propaganda and as symbols of Sasanian sovereignty.272

267 Arthur Christensen, Cambridge Ancient History 12 (1939), s.v. “Sassanid Persia..” 268 In 1921, A. V. Williams Jackson identified Adur Burzen-Mihr with the village of Mihr (the present-day town of Mehr). Its location is halfway between Miandasht and Sabzevar on the Khorasan road to Neyshabur in the contemporary Iranian Razavi Khorasan province. He pointed to the remains at Takht-i-Suleiman as the temple of Adur Gushnasp. It sits midway between Urumieh and Hamadan near the present-day town of Takab, and 400 km. west of Tehran in West Azarbaijan province. Today, the unusually beautiful ruins of the Takht-i-Suleiman citadel complex are a UNESCO world heritage site. Finally, he linked the Farnbag Fire with a site 16 km. southwest of Juyom, midway between Jahrom and Lar, roughly 200 km. southeast of Shiraz in Fars Province. A.V. Williams Jackson, Journal of the American Oriental Society (1921): 81-98. 269 Philippe Gignoux, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. "Dēnkard," http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Dec. 2010). 270 Denkard, 6.293, trans. E. W. West, in Sacred Books of the East, vol. 5, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897). For a longer discussion of this passage, see Shemuel Shaked, The Wisdom of the Sasanian sages (Dēnkard VI). (Costa Mesa, AZ?: Mazda, 1979), 113. Shaked’s translation does not differ in any real way from West’s. I’ve quoted West’s here mostly because of its greater accessibility. 271 David Neil MacKenzie, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. "Bundahišn," http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Dec. 2010). 272 Mary Boyce, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. "Ādur Farnbāg," http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Dec. 2010).

206 As noted, for our purposes, the most important of these late-antique pilgrimage sites is the Adur Farnbag dedicated to the Avestan Yazata Khvarnah.273 How did the Farnbag fire gain its elite status? Though the Bundahishn links it, along with the other two great fires, to the moment of creation its rise in esteem is inextricably linked to the rise of the Sasanian royal dynasty. Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, the great tenth century book of Persian kings based on the lost Sasanian royal chronicle Khwaday Namag, associates the war council of Adeshir I in Pars with the temple of Ram-Khorad.274 This council was central to his victory over Ardavan, establishing the new Sasanian regime. The location of the council seems to have been chosen so that Ardeshir could visit the temple containing the sacred fire. In the middle-Sasanian empire, this sacred fire located at Pars became associated with the royal family and was thenceforth styled Adur Farnbag, the fire of they who share in the Divine Glory or Farr (Old Persian: Khvarnah).275 This story in the Shahnameh may have its roots in an attempt to explain how the sacred fire at Pars became the most important of the three principle pilgrimage sites of middle-Sasanian Zoroastrianism, the fire symbolizing the priestly class. The founder of the dynasty visited this sacred fire to hold council and make offering to Khvarnah just prior to winning the kingdom. Now we’ve reached a turning point in our argument: the association of the Adur Farnbag pilgrimage site with the Magi holds special significance for our argument concerning the Nahotei. But there is one more Persian text we must look at to create the final linkage. The first chapter of the

273 Avesta is the name the Zoroastrian religious tradition gives to its primary canonical collection of sacred texts. See J. Kellens, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Avesta,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). The yazatas are personifications of the good powers under Lord Mazda’s rule; literally it means, "those worthy of worship." See Boyce, Zoroastrians, p. xxi. In the Avesta, the figure of Khvarnah is associated with the stars and the sun and moon (Dādistān ī dēnīg, pt. 1, 25, 35-36); Ahura Ma dā (Yt. 19.10); the Amesha Spetas (qq.v.; Yt. 19.15); and Mithra (Yt. 19.35; Vd. 19.15). See Gherardo Gnoli, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Farr,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 274 Shahnameh: the Persian Book of Kings, trans. Dick Davis (New York: Viking Penguin, 2006), 539-40. 275 Boyce, "Ādur Farnbāg." In all Iranian dialects, the name had an initial f- (resulting in “Farr” or “Farrnah”), except Avestan and Pahlavi, which preserve the kh-: “Farnbag,” instead of “Khvarnbag.” Boyce, Zoroastrians, 123.

207 Sasanian divine comedy,276 the Arda Viraz Namag, depicts in detail the occasion of a priestly pilgrimage at Adur Farnbag: [T]here were other magi and Dasturs277 of the religion; and some of their numbers were loyal and apprehensive. And an assembly of them was summoned in the residence of the victorious Frobag278 fire; and there were speeches and good ideas, of many kinds, on this subject: that “it is necessary for us to seek a means, so that some one of us may go, and bring intelligence from the spirits; that the people who exist in this age shall know whether these Yazishn279 and Dron280 and Afrinagan281 ceremonies, and Nirang282 prayers, and ablution and purifications which we bring into operation, attain unto God, or unto the demons. And come to the relief of our souls, or not….”283

276 Boyce and those before her characterized it this way because of its thematic and structural affinities with Dante’s Divina Commedia. Mary Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 84. 277 In the Sassanian period, “dastur” had a wide range of meanings, primarily denoting “one in authority, having power.” Mansour Shaki, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Dastur,”http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 278 An alternate spelling of Farnbag. Boyce, Zoroastrians, 124. 279 The name for the central ritual in Zoroastrianism. “The Yasna is the long liturgical text recited during the daily performance of the ritual.” William W. Malandra, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Yasna,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 280 A ceremony conducted by priests that bless and give thanks for food in a prescribed ritual. Dron is both the name of the ceremony and the palm-sized unleavened ritual bread made for the ceremony. The ceremony takes about fifteen minutes to complete and can be conducted by both priest and laity. Jamsheed K. Choksy, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Dron,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 281 “The word "āfrīnagān" has three uses: 1. The āfrīnagān is an extended liturgical ceremony. 2. “Āfrīnagān” also can mean a specific āfrīnagān prayer of the Avesta. 3. The word is used for the vessel in which the sacred fire is tended. M. F. Kanga, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Āfrīnagān,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 282 A Zoroastrian ritual that sanctifies a solution of bull’s urine and water; the holy liquid is known as nīrang or nīrangdīn. Firoze M. Kotwal and Philip G. Kreyenbroek, Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Nīrangdīn,” http://www.iranica.com/ (accessed Jan. 2011). 283 Arda Viraz Namag, 1:19-27, “The Book of Arda Viraf,” in Avesta: Zoroastrian Archives, maintained by Joseph H. Peterson, http://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/viraf.html, (accessed Dec 1, 2010).

208 Eventually, the priestly synod selects the Magus Viraz to make the astral journey to answer their questions, during which he meets the spirits of the dead, encounters the six holy Yazatas, is granted visions of heaven and hell and is finally issued into the very presence of Ahura Mazda. 284 In the end, Ahura Mazda Himself answers the questions originally posed by the Magi. Their rituals, Lord Mazda says, meeting the expectations of the reader, accord with good thought, good word and good deed. Note that the Arda Viraz Namag presents a journey to ask questions, questions the reader should presumably already know the answers to, in order to satisfy the anxiety of the inquirers. In this text, the pilgrimage site of Adur Farnbag serves two roles. First, it is the window to heaven: Viraz embarks on his journey from the most holy site in the holy land of Pars. However, despite this ideal location, in order to accomplish the journey Viraz still must consume opium and drink wine. The importance of pilgrimage here is not only the closeness of the site to the Divine realm. Perhaps the more important factor, the reason the tale is set at Adur Farnbag, is not simply the encounter between Viraz and Lord Mazda, but also the encounter between Viraz and the other religious elites of his class. This other role that Adur Farnbag serves in the narrative is more important for our purposes: it is a sight of priestly encounter. The account of the Priestly pilgrimage to Adur Farnbag does not contain lengthy descriptions of religious ritual detail. Instead, it depicts meetings between the Magi and

284 Viraz’s journey strikes me as similar to the astral journeys depicted in the Hekhalot literature. As Eliot Wolfson describes succinctly, in these Rabbinic texts, “…the mystic is said to pass through the seven heavenly palaces or halls (hekhalot) in order to reach the throne of glory (kisse' ha-kavod) or chariot (merkavah).” Eliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 74. Wolfson notes that, after much debate, most scholars now assign the fourth through the ninth centuries as the most likely period for the composition of these texts. Aside from the odd early dating put forth by Rachel Elior in The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, trans. David Louvish (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), the dating controversy is pretty much closed now. See Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), need pp.. All of the recensions of the Hekhalot texts are Babylonian in provenance. This is the same time and place as the composition, redaction and final recension of the Arda Viraz Namag. More work is required to account for the cross-cultural influence between these texts. Additionally, a more comprehensive attempt to study the Nahotei would need to deal with the Hekhalot texts, given the metaphor of travel that lies at their heart.

209 the Dasturs. They travel far distances to hold parley at Adur Farnbag. It serves as a sort of late-antique convention center for the Magi. This is another purpose in the framing story: the religious leadership of Imperial Sasania must be gathered in one spot so that the finest among them can be selected to make the astral journey, the just and noble Viraz. Without the priestly gathering at Adur Farnbag, Viraz’s bona-fide credentials cannot be established and the tale of his journey cannot commence. This image of priestly pilgrimage to Adur Farnbag for the purpose of encounter with other priests makes sense to the Sasanian reader or auditor of Viraz’s tale precisely because Adur Farnbag actually did play such a role in the religious life of the Sasanian Magi and Dasturs. We’ve seen that the Christian pilgrim’s encounter with the living holy person is recounted in strikingly visual terms. Conversely, the Arda Viraz Namg, much like the reports of the Nahotei, depicts the pilgrimage encounter in oral and aural terms. Whilst western, Christian pilgrimage was made to living holy people as much as to holy sites; in the East, the Arda Viraz Namag depicts elite Zoroastrian pilgrimage as an opportunity for encounter amongst the Magi at the royal fire of Adur Farnbag in Pars. Yaakov Elman, among others, has noted the adoption of modes of Zoroastrian priestly behavior among the Rabbinic elite of Babylonian society, even down to table manners and costume. 285 It does not seem strange that they would adopt concepts of pilgrimage in consonance with that of the Zoroastrian religious elite, traveling to seek out fellowship and study with fellow Rabbis and sages.

285 Yaakov Elman, "Acculturation to Elite Persian Norms and Modes of Thought in the Babylonian Jewish Community of Late Antiquity." in Y. Elman, et al., eds., Neti’ot le-David: Jubilee Volume for David WeissHalivni (Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 2004), 31-54. See also Shaul Shaked, “Items of Dress and Other Objects in Common Use: Iranian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic,” in Irano-Judaica, vol. III, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East), 1994), 106-17; Geofery Herman, “The Exilarchate in the Sasanian Era,” Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, 2005; and, Herman, “The Story of Rav Kahana (BT Baba Qamma 117a-b) in Light of Armeno-Parthian Sources,” in Irano-Judaica, vol. 6, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 2008), 53-86.

210 Furthermore, in both the Christian West and the Zoroastrian East, the seat of temporal power was removed from the terra sancta. Just as a Christian nun from Constantinople would make a spiritual journey to Palestine, a Ctesiphonian Zoroastrian Priest would travel to Pars on a similar quest. The Rabbis of Babylonia are also removed from their perceived spiritual center in Palestine. It would be very strange indeed if the Rabbis of Babylonia were totally immune to these general trends that surrounded them round on either side. This new conception of the Nahotei is, by itself, a contribution. The trend towards increased pilgrimage in the fourth century in both the Zoroastrian East and the Christian West is an established phenomenon. Seeing the larger context allows us to place the Nahotei in a milieu in which pilgrimage has a social function, mediating the relationship between people residing at the older spiritual wellsprings and those at work creating the newer sources of religious influence in the au courant centers of power. II The nineteenth-century founders of the academic study of Talmud imagined the Nahota as a sort of Rabbinic import-export specialist, hauling large, unwieldy numbers of tannaitic and amoraic traditions, along with physical merchandise acquired at market in Palestine, to Babylonia.286 Notably, both Isaac Halevy (1847–1914) and Ze’ev Wolf Jawitz (1847–1924) theorized that the Nahotei were chiefly responsible for the marked Palestinian flavor of the Bavli.287 As we shall see, Halevy’s description of the Nahotei as itinerant scholars/traveling merchants was to influence almost all depictions of the group for the next hundred years. After this early interest, the activity of the Nahotei

286 Gray, Talmud in Exile, 5-7. 287 Isaac Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim (Israel: Mifalei Sefarim l’Yitso), 7:455-473, YEAR?; Wolf Jawitz, Sefer Toldot Israel (Tel Aviv: Ahiever, 1935), 7:159-64. Gray argues that their conclusions are deeply influenced by their reading of the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon. See ibid.

211 became a largely dark subject among scholars of Rabbinics, garnering no serious studies and but a few comments. Those comments can be rapidly catalogued in a few paragraphs here: In 1964, Adin Steinsaltz, while accepting Halevy’s claims, theorized that the Nahotian enterprise was founded by the Palestinian Ulla primarily as an elucidatory activity. 288 He also implied its ongoing continuation as an exclusively Babylonian practice, by dint of the deep Babylonian acceptance of Palestinian Rabbinic authority. Despite the somewhat unlikely conclusion he reaches to explain this exclusivity, that in Palestine there was a concerted effort to actively suppress the Babylonian sages and their learning, Steinsaltz had noticed a real phenomenon. Steinsaltz never returned to this conception of the topic and even seemed to reject it later. In his 1976 work, The Essential Talmud,289 he simply parroted Halevy’s 1901 description of the Nahotei, presenting them as mass importers of novel Palestinian Rabbinics to Babylonia, and even omitted the Nahotei altogether from his The Talmud: a Reference Guide in 1989.290 Moshe Beer later expanded on Steinsaltz’s assumptions, aggregating them with Halevy’s conclusions in the following way: By their activities the nehutei contributed to the cross-fertilization of the academies of Erez Israel and Babylonia. Their words were tested in the academies and compared with parallel traditions, and in this way they attempted to arrive at the precise implication of the statements, their truth, and their reliability. In this manner the nehutei made their contribution to the formation and elucidation of many topics in the Babylonian Talmud. As a result of the connections established by the nehutei between the academies of Erez Israel and Babylonia the 288 Adin Steinsaltz, “Ha-Qesharim bein Bavel le-Eretz Yisrael,” in Talpioth, 9 (1964), 294–306. Commenting on their absence in the Yerushalmi, he also notes that their prominence as important Rabbinic figures is actually relatively small, ‫ ואף בבבל‬,‫ וגם רב דימי ואפילו עולא לא היו חכמים בולטים בארץ ישראל‬,‫ גם רבין‬..”. "‫מצאו מקומם בשורה השניה של החכמים‬. It is their activity that was important, not their personal creativity or authority as sages. 289 Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud (New York: Basic Books, 1976), 54. 290 Steinsaltz, The Talmud: A Reference Guide (New York: Random House, 1989).

212 mutual knowledge of the two large Jewish communities was increased, and so the Oral Law was prevented from developing separately with the two communities becoming two nations, alien one to another.291

Though Steinsaltz never detailed the larger significance of his description, Beer’s synthesis and expansion of the implications of both Halevy’s and Steinsaltz’s conclusions hits the right points: The references to “parallel traditions” and the prevention of “two communities becoming two nations, alien one to another” attests to the recognition, on the one hand, that the Bavli seldom presented any Nahotian texts unaccompanied by an alternate version of the same Palestinian source that had reached Babylonia by some other means, and, on the other, the role that Nahotian activity might have played in solidifying ties between the two centers as a result. In 1975, David Goodblatt endorsed Halevy’s 1901 conclusions in his survey of the contemporary scholarship on the Bavli. With no apparent polemic intention he emphasized Halevy’s presumption that the Nahotei primarily traveled to Palestine on business trips. Note that in doing so he unwittingly distanced the Nahotei from association with pilgrimage. Of course, no one had suggested at this stage that such an association might be helpful to understanding Nahotian activity. To his credit, Goodblatt also admitted that this former conclusion was merely a presumption with no real foundation. 292

In 1991, Gunter Stemberger based his description of the Nahotei on Goodblatt’s report, with the

presumption that the impetus for their journeys was for professional purposes now stated as fact. 293 In short, Halevy’s initial description held almost exclusive sway on the topic for the whole of the twentieth century.

291 Beer, Moshe, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., s.v.. "Nehutei," 65. 292 David M. Goodblatt, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1980), 288. 293 Strack and Stemberger, 179.

213 As mentioned earlier, in the early twenty first century, Richard Kalmin and Alyssa Gray have, in the context of other studies, made some attempts to deal with the Nahotian problem. Both Kalmin and Gray have dismissed previous assumptions that the prominence of Palestinian materials we see in the Bavli was mainly the result of Nahotian activity. 294 Both also note that the Talmud itself depicts these travelers as providing discrete traditions rather than large-scale sources and sugyot. Kalmin and Gray both have good reasons for rejecting Halevy’s and Jawitz’s conclusions. Gray’s conclusion that the editors of the Bavli undertook large-scale transfers of Palestinian material to the Bavli from the Yerushalmi in a late period (post-fifth century) lead her to exclude the Nahotei as the major likely vector of exchange. After all, the activity of the Nahotei was long concluded in the period Gray points to as the most likely time of these large-scale transfers. On the other hand, Kalmin was motivated to reject the candidacy of the Nahotei by his intense study of the fourth century Babylonian milieu. He sees the transfer of Rabbinic sources from Palestine to Babylonia in this period as part of a larger historical movement of people, culture and literature from the West to the East beginning in the midthird century. To him, it seems more likely that these large-scale transfers of population were responsible for the significant influx of material we see in the period. It seems correspondingly less likely that a handful of Rabbinic travellers would be responsible for such a large quantity and array of materials. To be clear about my own views: Halevy’s influential 1901 assumption that the Nahotei were responsible for delivering a large-scale share of the Palestinian Rabbinic traditions to Babylonia in the mid-fourth century is in reality not such a challenge to either Kalmin or Grey’s arguments. There is simply no evidence of any large-scale traditions that these travelers brought. Given this fact, it would be foolhardy to assume they brought such materials. Yet even were we to make that irresponsible leap, even if we were to assume that they were diligently working “behind the scenes” to bring such traditions to Babylonia, they would still have functioned as part of the fourth century ferment that 294 Gray, Talmud in Exile, p.?; Kalmin, sages, 186.

214 Kalmin notes, not counter to it. The phenomenon of the Rabbinic travelers can simply be viewed as another of the unique features that characterize the middle generations of amoraim in fourth-century Babylonia. While I am not totally dismissive of the role that might have been played by the Nahotei in the fourth-century literary transitions evident in the Bavli, I cannot conclude that the Nahotei brought substantially more than they are explicitly credited with bringing. Though they may have brought more sources and traditions than those in evidence, the Nahotei were certainly not responsible for the lion’s share of the novel transmissions of Rabbinics from Palestine to Babylonia in the fourth century. I strongly agree with Kalmin and Gray that the Nahotei did not bring large-scale traditions. Yet, given the formal constraints placed on their statements, on the whole, I also see no reason to deny the possibility that they may have brought somewhat more material than for which they are given credit. Yet, this admission of possibility is really without implication. It will always remain impossible to prove that they delivered only the material that they are credited with and nothing more. But, for our purposes, only the materials they are credited with had an observable influence on Babylonian Rabbinic scholastic life. We can only study what our eyes see. We are unable to inquire into things that are unrecoverable. I also want to emphasize that no matter how large the involvement of the Nahotei may have been in bringing materials from Palestine, they certainly did not bring an early version of the Yerushalmi to Babylonia. The most we can say is that they may have been involved in the importation of a possibly significant number of discrete Palestinian Rabbinic traditions to amoraic circles in Babylonia. I have shown in earlier chapters that the prominent late-third, early fourth century amora Rav Hisda and his even more significant fourth century colleague Rava, though deeply invested in Palestinian materials that appear in y. Rosh Hashanah, seem not to know of the Yerushalmi’s more expansive arcs and structures. On the basis of this evidence, and of that which I will present later in this chapter, it seems more plausible to conclude that the Nahotei brought small-scale redacted materials to Babylonia—if they brought redacted materials at all.

215 Finally, in my eyes, it is important to note that the Nahotian arrival on the scene chronologically fits in with Kalmin’s purported fourth century “Palestinianization” of Rabbinic Babylonia. Kalmin depicts a range of literary phenomena along with the adoption of “Palestinian” behaviors by Babylonian amoraim as a general “Palestinianization” of the Babylonian rabbinic community at this time.295 I see the Nahotian activities as part of this fourth century trend, and impossible to construe as counter to it. This further seating of the Nahotei in their fourth century context also allows me to plausibly correlate the Nahotian reports with one Babylonian picture of Palestinian learning, a picture that would live an afterlife with long-lasting cultural consequences. One school of thought in the Bavli, associated with the early fourth century amora Rabbah b. Nahmani, privileges aggressive religious creativity over the rote mastery of a large number of memorized traditions, giving preference to the creative sage, characterized as, “the uprooter of mountains.”296 The Palestinian sage, on the other hand, was depicted by some Babylonian sages in this same period as a stalwart preserver of tradition, passively submitting to the words of his master, sublimating his potential for greater creativity in favor of esteem for his elders.297

295 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-10, 149-50, 173-86. 296 B. Berakhot 64a, b. Horayot 14a. Criticism of this preference is not absent in the Bavli, see Shabbat 145b, Yoma 57b, and Menahot 99b. Of course, these criticisms are themselves indicators of the widespread use of the “uprooter” style of scholarship in Babylonia. Rabbi Zeira’s fasts on arrival in Palestine serve as perhaps the most poignant indicator of this difference in scholarly style. He undergoes an extended series of fasts to forget the Babylonian fashion of study. See Bava Metzia 85a. The Babylonians would eventually gain the confidence to assert the superiority of their more creative and intricate style. See Gittin 6a and Bava Qama 117b. Indeed, Sukkah 20a credits the Babylonians with the salvation of Torah itself, in a Palestinian voice no less! 297 Palestinian esteem for one another trumps the search for truth: b. Sanhedrin 24a. They are beholden to outmoded hermeneutic techniques: Shevuot 5a. They are meek: Ned. 22a. They are pampered: Ketubot 62a. They are also depicted as stricter than the Babylonians: Shabbat 60b, Sukkah 20, Beitzah 14b.The opposite phenomenon is, of course, sometimes present as well. See Hulin 95ba and 137b, which depict Palestinian Rabbi Yohanan showing great esteem for the Babylonians Rav and Shemuel. Note that Rabbi Yohanan is one of those earlier Palestinians held in esteem by the Babylonians. More work is needed to sort this all out, but could we perhaps posit that the later Babylonians held positive view of early Palestinians while holding negative views of the later ones? I admit a centain paucity of evidence here. Of course, in this point (really a small point in my overall argument) I am only making a case for the pausible effect the Nahotian traditions might have had on later Babylonian attitudes.

216 One marked feature of travel writing, in general, is its wont to go beyond the descriptive, doing prospective work in shaping the reader’s impression of reality.298 Given this, it is undoubtedly suggestive that the Nahotian reports persistently represent the Palestinian sages in their preservationist modes. The depiction of the Palestinian Jew as indentured to his elder masters would eventually dominate in the Gaonic works of anti-Palestinian polemic: Pirqoy ben Baboy and the Hiliqqim, which depict the “men of the west” as slavishly following the customs of their ancestors even when foolishly and obviously in error.299 The claim that the Nahotei were chiefly responsible for forming this longenduring paradigm of the Palestinian age is a bridge too far. The Nahotei were too small a group with far too limited a lifespan to be chiefly responsible for any major phenomenon. However, a lesser claim is more reasonable: the Nahotei, in presenting the Torah of Zion to Babylonia, held a mirror up to Babylonian Talmud Torah. Compared to what could be perceived as the timid, familiar Palestinian Torah that Nahotian reports exclusively present, Babylonian Torah is indeed unstintingly novel and creative—a horse of a different color. Such a conception could have provided a sense of security for the Babylonians as they went about adopting and adapting Palestinian Torah. From this humble beginning, the gyre widened over time: to me it seems likely that the Nahotei both fed on and fueled the ongoing project of reimagining Palestinian Torah in Babylonia using the words of Babylonian sages. If the fourth century saw the "Palestinianization" of the Babylonian sages, as Kalmin argues300, such a process would have been fraught with insecurity:301 is Babylonian Torah being abandoned in the face of the Palestinian influx? The Nahotian report says that the Palestinian material is the same as it 298 Frank, 30, 78; Campbell, 2-4; François Hartog, The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History, trans. Janet Lloyd (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). 299 Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 113-21. 300 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-10, 149-50, 173-86. 301 The Babylonian Rabbi Yermiah’s traditions at Shabbat 145b, Yoma 57b and Menahot 99b do indeed show a high level of Babylonian insecurity, as does the extreme Babylonian self-criticism at the conclusion of the passage at Sanhedrin 24a.

217 ever was, knowable and different from the Babylonian. This would have allowed the Babylonian Rabbis to pick up Palestinian traditions and cultural practices while remaining secure in their "Babylonian-ness." The Nahotian travel report is by its very nature part and parcel of the Babylonian imagining of the Land of Israel. The image of Palestine that they transmitted would also have the effect of defining the imaginary borders of Rabbinic Babylonia, and by extension, long-lasting images of the diaspora Jew. It is worth noting that the polemical image of the Palestinian Jew stuck in an autonomic behaviorist rut was appropriated and variously applied in later periods to a range of internal “others.” Tracing this after-history is worth an article or paper in its own right. Robert Brody has made some initial attempts at this in his 2003 Goiten lecture.302 The relevance of all this cannot be overstated, but ultimately lies beyond the scope of this chapter’s central aim; our concern at the present is outlining the nature of the Nahotian enterprise in its fourth century context.

III The Nahotei present a surprisingly limited range of form and content in their reports. A survey of Seder Mo’ed reveals that they generally do not deliver new traditions from Palestine, but revise and/or comment on traditions already known to Babylonian Rabbinic circles. The Nahotei are often shown reporting that a tradition that already has had currency in Babylonia was subsequently approved by a Palestinian Rabbinic master, but refined with additional conditions or details. While it is by no means a rare occurrence that they supply some additional element to a tradition previously known in Babylonia, this is invariably done in one of only three ways. They either present identical content as a known tradition, such as a baraita or meimra, but with a new attribution, in the name of a Palestinian sage thought to have greater authority in Babylonian circles; they present a version of a tradition known 302 Robert Brody, Pirqoy ben Baboy and the History of Internal Polemics in Judaism (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2003), p.?. For a deeply creative contemporary recasting of this polemic against a contemporary internal other, see Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism (New York: Macmillan, 1976), 321-35.

218 to the Babylonian sages, but with some modification to the content; or, as is most often the case, they simply present the clarification of a tradition that was previously somewhat opaque to the Babylonian Rabbis. 303 Nahotian reports are quoted 103 times in Bavli Mo’ed.304 Forty-nine of these quotations, nearly half of them, represent reports clarifying the meaning of tannaitic or amoraic traditions already known in Babylonian circles. Thirty reports, about a third of the total, modify the language and content of traditions that already had currency in Rabbinic Babylonia. Fourteen reports revise the authority of a source in circulation amongst the Babylonian amoraim, usually by attributing it to a new Palestinian sage. Often, but not exclusively, the source will be reattributed to Rabbi Yohanan. For some reason, reports of this type are heavily clustered in Shabbat and Eruvin. Taken together, fully 93 of the 103 Nahotian reports in Bavli Mo’ed deal with traditions already known in Babylonia prior to the Nahotian report. Only 10 of the 103 represent new traditions, utterly unknown to the Babylonian Rabbis receiving the report. This last group makes up less than a tenth of the total.305 On the basis of this evidence, the character of the Nahotian report appears to have developed in the fourth century in response to Babylonian sages and their need for specific answers about specific sources. The Nahotian

303 I recognize that this last behavior is not merely slavish or passive—indeed such a clarification can be quite creative. Note, however, that despite the presence of Nehotian creativity, they still do not generally present unfamiliar traditions. The very familiarities of the traditions they clarify place them, and Palestinian Torah generally, firmly in the world of the known past. 304 There are actually fewer than 103 unique traditions. Some traditions are clearly repeated in more than one locus in the Bavli. I estimate that we are dealing with no fewer than 92 unique nahotian traditions. However, more study of these traditions is needed to determine the precise number. Some traditions that appear to be repeated with seemingly small vocabulary or content changes may, in reality, turn out to be unique traditions on further study. On the other hand, some traditions that appear to be unique may have been modified by an editor on transfer to a new locus in the Bavli. The work of sorting all this out is a desideratum, but lies beyond the scope of this project. 305 Five traditions in this group of ten are linguistically marked as distinct. Following the typical Nahotian attribution form, “when Rabbi X came [from Palestine] he said…” we find the words, “they say in the west…” (amrei ba-ma’arava). More work is needed to determine whether these words always introduce new traditions from Palestine or not.

219 report does not appear to have been a vector for the import of any significant amount of new Palestinian material to Babylonia, at least not for Seder Mo’ed. Four examples involving the Nahota Rabbin shall serve to illustrate this point. Below, I will present examples that illustrate the three Nahotian behaviors I mention above. First, an example from b. Shabbat will show Rabbin upgrading a source in authorship by reattributing it to Rabbi Yohanan. Second, an example from b. Eruvin will show Rabbin’s report modifying the language of a meimra, thereby modestly expanding its meaning. Then, in a passage from b. Rosh Hashanah, Rabbin reports the words of a Palestinian sage clarifying the meaning of a tannaitic source. Next, I will pause to briefly analyze the significance of these three specific passages to our larger understanding of the Nahotian report. Finally, I will present a passage from b. Pesahim that supports my theory of Nahotian constraint by showing the motivations that lie at the root of their constrained reportage. A passage from b. Shabbat 21b presents a Nahotian report attributed to a Palestinian sage thought to have greater authority than the statement’s originally known author: Rabbi Zeira said, “Rav said, ‘the wicks and oils that the sages forbade for the Shabbat lights may be used for the Hanukkah lights, either on a weeknight or on Shabbat.” Rabbi Yirmiah said, “What is Rav’s Reason? He reckons that if it [the Hanukkah light] goes out, one need not relight it, nor may one use its light for mundane purposes.” The Rabbis stated this reasoning before Abbaye in Rabbi Yirmiah’s name, but he did not accept it. When [the Nahota] Rabbin came [from Palestine] The Rabbis stated this reasoning before Abbaye in Rabbi Yohanan’s name, and he accepted it.

The sages of the Mishnah forbade a number of oils and wicks for use in Shabbat lamps. 306 Elsewhere in b. Shabbat, Rabbah reports that these were forbidden because of their tendency to flicker and go out.

306 M. Shabbat 2:1.

220 307

At the beginning of our sample passage, Rabbi Zeira reports Rav’s dictum308 that one may use these

unreliable oils and wicks for the Hanukkah lamps. Rabbi Yirmiah, a Babylonian who immigrated to Palestine,309 helpfully supplies the early Babylonian Rav’s reasoning: Only the act of lighting is required to fulfill the ritual of the Hanukkah lamps. One need not light them if they go out, and in any case, since one may not use the light they shed for any mundane purpose, the flicker caused by sub-par materials is irrelevant. The mid-fourth century Babylonian sage Abbye already knows of the Babylonian-born Rabbi Yirmiah’s tradition. But he only accepts the authority of this tradition when the Nahota Rabbin comes from Palestine with the identical tradition, now re-attributed to the great Palestinian master Rabbi Yohanan. Here we see the superiority of the Palestinian Rabbi Yohanan’s authority in Abbaye’s eyes, even when the subject at hand is the reputed reasoning of an early Babylonian Rabbi! It is also worth noting the relationship between Rabbin and Abayye.310 Rabbin is clearly depicted as subordinate to Abbaye. He makes his report with bland neutrality, leaving it to others to determine the relative authority of his report. Though Abbaye already knew of Rabbi Yirmiah’s meimra, he had rejected its reasoning as a legitimate explanation of Rav’s ruling. This state of affairs continued until he heard Rabbin’s report. Thereafter, he accepted it by dint of its revision in authority. Clearly, Abbaye finally

307 B. Shabbat 21a. 308 Rav was one of the two most important early third century figures among the Babylonian Rabbis. Rabbi Zeira was a student of Rav’s disciple, Rav Yehudah. Rabbi Zeira immigrated to Palestine and studied with Rabbi Yohanan. After some significant period of time he returned to Babylonia. He possessed access to the traditions of both centers as a result. See Albeck, 233-6. It is worth noting that the Bavli never treats Rabbi Zeira as a Nahota despite his history of migration. 309 Albeck, 340-2. 310 Alyssa Gray notes Abbaye’s unique connection with the Nahota Rav Dimi. See above n. 258. Gray only investigated Rav Dimi’s statements, leaving those of the other Nahotei to the side, for her purposes. The direct dialogue we see between Rabbin and Abbaye here and in the coming example in b. Pesahim is intriguing. Another area of further study would be the investigation of the relationship between Abbaye and the Nahotei. Perhaps it is no other than Abbaye who sent some of these Nahotei on their missions to Palestine?

221 accepted the reasoning posited by both Rabbi Yirmiah’s tradition and Rabbin’s report on the basis of Rabbi Yohanan’s superior authority, rather than any revised understanding of its logical sense. In this case, Rabbin imports authority from Palestine rather than any novel content. Prior to Rabbin’s report, the idea had currency in Babylonia, but not acceptance. Because Rabbin’s report attributes the idea to Rabbi Yohanan, it gains acceptance. B. Eruvin 78b presents another typical case: a Nahotian report of a tradition known to the Babylonian sages, but with some moderate changes. To understand this example the reader needs some context. Much of b. Eruvin is concerned with the definition of the boundaries of private versus public space. One of the recurring obsessions of the tractate is the attempt to limit the legal requirements involved in defining a doorway. Under what circumstances is a doorway considered a proper doorway? When is it simply defined as a large hole in the side of a structure? Throughout the tractate, the community of sages universally take it as a given that beyond a certain amount of breadth, an opening may no longer be considered a doorway. At that point, the measure of which is subject to debate, the opening is merely a gap or hole marring the normal function of the structure’s external wall as a barrier. Yet, even in such a case, a permanent feature of the building located in the midst of the wide gap can legally subdivide the broad, open space into two smaller doorways. Such features may include stairways or entrance ladders leading to the second floor of the structure, or even closely adjacent trees. It is therefore surprising to read Rav Hisda’s statement and Rabbin’s modifying report in the following passage: …Rav Hisda objected, “…A tree, which is subject to Shabbat prohibitions [and may not be used as a ladder on Shabbat ], is prohibited [to use as a demarcating point subdividing the opening into a courtyard or alleyway]. An Ashera-tree idol, which is subject to idolatry prohibitions [and by rights should be chopped down], is permitted [to use as a demarcating point subdividing the opening into a courtyard or alleyway].” Another meimra supports this: When [the Nahota] Rabbin came [from Palestine, he reported], “Rabbi Elazar (some say Rabbi

222 Abahu) said, ‘Rabbi Yohanan said, “anything which is subject to Shabbat prohibitions is prohibited [to use as a demarcating point subdividing the opening into a courtyard or alleyway]. Anything which is subject to idolatry prohibitions is permitted [to use as a demarcating point subdividing the opening into a courtyard or alleyway]. In the above passage, Rav Hisda (flourished late-third, early-fourth century) posits an exception to the general rule: if the opening is subdivided by a tree habitually used as a ladder by the residents of the courtyard in which it grows, since it may not be climbed on Shabbat, the tree has no standing and the subdivision of the broad gap into two legally distinct doorways is not legally valid. The two doorways revert to being a single large hole in the wall. However, paradoxically, Rav Hisda does grant subdivisional standing to a tree that has been worshiped as an avatar of the goddess Ashera. Even though Deuteronomy demands the tree’s destruction,311 so long as the demolition is not yet a de facto occurrence, its subdivision of the space is considered valid. So long as the ladder-tree represents an ongoing anxiety, because of its potential to suborn Shabbat prohibition, it has no standing. On the other hand, for Rav Hisda the Ashera-tree, though condemned to demolition, has standing so long as it remains erect. Following Rav Hisda’s statement, Rabbin presents a modified version of Rav Hisda’s tradition in the name of Rabbi Yohanan. In this modified version, the concrete specificity of Rav Hisda’s tree is removed and the principle is stated more abstractly: Even though objects prohibited for Shabbat use may not be employed as demarcation points, anything which is subject to idolatry prohibitions may be legally used as a demarcation point. Here we have a tradition that was known in early fourth century Babylonia refined by a major Palestinian master, as reported by a Nahota. Note that the legal content of the two versions of the statement are identical. The presence of a Shabbat prohibition voids the standing of the subdividing structural feature, but the feature’s previous role in idolatrous worship does

311 Deut. 7:5.

223 not taint its status as a subdividing marker. Though condemned to demolition, the structural feature has standing so long as it remains erect. Generally, the chronological movement in Rabbinic literature is from the concrete case to a more abstract statement of principle--not the other way around. 312 Rav Hisda’s statement is probably not a concrete application of the abstract principles contained in Rabbin’s report. Rather, Rabbin’s report most likely abstracts Rav Hisda’s statement. Put more directly, Rabbin likely brings a statement from Palestine that abstracts and more broadly applies the case law contained in a statement already known in Babylonia. These last two of these examples, from b. Eruvin and Shabbat, portrayed behaviors that we may classify as typical of the Nahotei, at least as portrayed in b. Seder Mo’ed. However, I have yet to present the most common behavior they exhibit: the clarification of a tradition already known in Babylonia prior to their report. I will now present an example of this below. Our example is the concluding unit of the fairly complex final sugya of the fourth chapter of b. Rosh Hashanah . 313 We shall see in this example, that though the Nahotei seem, for the most part, constrained to report modifications or clarifications of traditions already known in Babylonia, their coeval Babylonian colleagues are clearly not constrained in the same ways. In this passage, other Babylonian amoraim seem free to report any traditions they like, even entirely new ones. Because of the complexity of the example, I will need to present this passage in greater detail than the previous two. I will present an excerpt of the relevant materials from the sugya in translation, with an added exposition. As part of my exposition, I have added comments and background information to aid the reader [italicized in brackets]. Below, the reader will find the tanaitic material in

312 Leib Moskovitz, Talmudic Reasoning (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 293-341. Jeffrey Rubenstein, “On Some Abstract Concepts in Rabbinic Literature,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1997): 33-73. 313 B. Rosh Hashanah 35a.

224 bold text; the amoraic material is underlined.314 For the reader’s convenience, I have provided a translation of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9 preceding the sugya, followed by a brief thematic sketch. After the translation and commentary of the Bavli passage, the reader will find a brief attempt to summarize the thematic and structural contours of the example.

M. Rosh Hashanah 4:9 1. …Just as the congregation’s agent is obligated [to recite the statutory prayer315 aloud on behalf of the community], so is each individual [Jew] obligated [to recite the prayer silently first, each on his or her own behalf]. 2. Rabban Gamaliel316 says, “The congregation’s agent fulfills the community’s obligation.” [Therefore, individuals need not recite a personal statutory prayer in addition to the communal one recited by the congregation’s agent.] The Mishnah presents a disagreement between Rabban Gamaliel and the anonymous majority view, presented at clause one. That view posits that, despite the public recitation of the statutory prayer by the congregation’s agent, the individual worshiper is nonetheless required to make a private, individual recitation of the prayer. To understand Rabban Gamaliel’s opposing view we may draw an analogy to the sacrificial cult. Just as the priests in the Temple carried out the major rituals of the service, spilling the blood on the walls of the altar and burning the innards and limbs of the victim without the aid of the penitent bringer of the sacrifice, so the congregation’s agent performs the service 314 This translation of our passage from the Yemenite manuscript JTS 108 EMC 319 is my own. On the choice of this manuscript, see David Golinkin, Pereq Yom Tov shel Rosh ha-Shanah ba-Bavli: Mahadurah Mada'it im Perush (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1988), 5-7, 12-20. 315 In this context, the prayer in question is the mishnaic “tefillah,” consisting of nineteen blessings on a weekday and seven on most Shabbat and festival days. \ 316 Mss. Munich 95 and Vatican 134 both read “Shimon b. Gamaliel.” However, none of the Mishnah manuscripts do so.

225 of the heart on behalf of the individual worshiper. In Rabban Gamaliel’s view, the ritual performed by the congregation’s agent dispenses the statutory obligation of each and every individual worshiper. That much is clear. What remains unclear from the Mishnah is the full extent of Rabban Gamaliel’s dispensation. Must the individual worshiper actually hear the recitation of the congregation’s agent? Or, alternatively, may the performance of the ritual in the synagogue quorum settle the matter for the entire community, both for those present in attendance and for those not present in attendance? It is this ambiguity that the Bavli attempts to address in the passage excerpted below:

B. Rosh Hashanah 35a:23- 35a:27 1. [In an attempt to clarify the extent of Rabban Gamaliel’s ruling,] Rav Aha bar Avirah said, “Rabbi Shimon Hasida said, ‘Rabban Gamaliel would exempt even [those not in the synagogue from the private recitation of the statutory prayer, such as] the people [working] in the fields.” [That is to say, the communal recitation of the statutory prayers would fulfill the obligations of rural Jews who are not in the synagogue. Rabban Gamaliel apparently takes the conduct of the communal ritual of worship by the prayer quorum in the synagogue to be of primary importance, even overriding the need for the attendance of the full community at large.] 2. [The Talmud makes explicit the full implications of Rabban Gamaliel’s ruling:] Needless to say, [he would also exempt from the private recitation of the statutory prayer even] those standing here [in town,317 but not in attendance in the synagogue. In other words, the communal recitation of the statutory prayers would fulfill the obligations of all Jews at all times, and in all places].

317 This can only refer to those in town, not those in the synagogue. This is clear from step 3 below. See also Rashi, ad locum.

226 3. [An objection to 2.] On the contrary! Those [in the field] are forced [to miss the daily prayer quorum due to their heavy agricultural work load. Therefore, Rabban Gamaliel enables them to fulfill their obligatory worship in absentia through the agency of the communal prayers recited in town. However,] those [in town] are not forced [to miss the daily prayer quorum and do not receive the same Gamalian dispensation] 4. [A support for 3.] This is as Abba breh d’Binyamin bar Hiyya taught [in a baraita], the people that are behind the Kohanim [during the ritual of the priestly blessing] are not included in the blessing [since they could easily move to be in front of the Kohanim. The same is true of the townsfolk in 2. They could come to synagogue, but choose not to. Since they have elected not to come to the synagogue, they receive no dispensation.] 5. When Rabbin came [from Palestine] he said [in the name of] Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, “Rabbi Shimon Hasida said: Rabban Gamaliel did not exempt any [of those not in the synagogue from the private recitation of the statutory prayer] except the people [working] in the fields.” 6. What is the reason [for the difference between them and others]? Because they are forced [to miss the daily prayer quorum due to their heavy agricultural work load. However, those] in town are not. At unit 1, Rav Aha bar Avirah’s statement attempts to resolve the ambiguity present in Rabban Gamaliel’s position in m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9. Units 2-4 present a later anonymous editorial expansion of the sugya. Unit 2 consists of a challenge in the form of a proposed reductio ad absurdum of Rabban Gamaliel’s opinion, introduced only to be defeated at 3-4. Unit 3 soundly rejects the proposition of unit 2. The support adduced at unit 4 is imported from its exemplar locus at b. Sotah 38b. Unit 5 is Rabbin’s report, which I will fully explicate in the next paragraph. Unit 6 is an elucidatory comment explaining the reasoning behind Rabbin’s report.

227 When we remove the later materials at units 2-4 and 6, it is clear that the core of the passage is the statement of Rav Aha bar Avirah at unit 1 and Rabbin’s report of a similar, clarifying tradition at unit 5. They read in coherent relationship with each other when placed side by side: Rav Aha bar Avirah said, “Rabbi Shimon Hasida said, ‘Rabban Gamaliel would exempt even the people in the fields.” When Rabbin came he said [in the name of] Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, “Rabbi Shimon Hasida said: Rabban Gamaliel only exempted the people in the fields.” 318 Rabbin’s report clarifies the words of Shimon Hasida first presented by Rav Aha bar Avirah. Rav Aha bar Avirah is a Babylonian reporting the Palestinian Shimon Hasida’s understanding of Rabban Gamaliel’s words. But an ambiguity remains in Shimon Hasida’s words: does Rabban Gamaliel exempt only those in the fields from synagogue attendance or does his dispensation also extend to all Jews at all times? Rabbin’s report of the Palestinian Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi’s statement clarifies this. According to Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, Shimon Hasida understands that Rabban Gamaliel’s dispensation only extends to the rural Jews unable to attend the synagogue in town. Rabbin’s report has a dual clarifying effect. It clarifies both the ambiguity in Rav Aha bar Avirah’s meimra and, in turn, brings clarity to the ambiguity in m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9; it clarifies the full extent of Rabban Gamaliel’s dispensation. 319 The final example I will present is not a typical specimen of the phenomena I described above, but it is enlightening of the more typical reports we encounter. In b. Pesahim 70b the Nahota Rabbin (also referred to as Rav Avin) reveals something of his work process in his dialogue with Abbye: Rabbi Ila’a said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah b. Safra, “Scripture states, ‘And you shall celebrate it as a celebratory-sacrificial-feast (Heb: hag) to the Lord for seven days of the year.’ 318 It is possible that Rabbin may have been presenting an alternate version of Rabbi Shimon Hasida’s tradition without reference to Rav Aha bar Avirah. This may have been the original case. This possibility really has no relevance for my study, however. In the context of the sugya the two traditions are juxtaposed and, therefore, Rabbin’s tradition clarifies Rav Aha bar Avirah, even at the core redactional level. The Bavli, already in an early period, depicts Rabbin’s tradition as a clarification. That is the important point. 319 See App. II following this chapter: Nahotian Reports in the Yerushalmi.

228 (Deut. 16:15) Seven?!? The celebratory sacrifices run eight days [continuing from Sukkot into Shemini Atzeret]! From this verse [we derive the rule] that the celebratory sacrifice (hagigah) does not override the Shabbat prohibitions [and it is not performed on Shabbat as a result].” When [the Nahota] Rabbin came [from Palestine] he said, “I stated this [tradition before] my [Palestinian] teachers [with the following problem]: Occasionally you will find only six days that the celebratory sacrifice runs, for instance, if the first day is Shabbat [then the eighth day will be as well]. Abbye said, “O gloomy Avin! Say it like this: It’s never going to be eight days and in most years it will be seven.” Very briefly, the above passage conveys the following problem: Rabbi Ila’s statement identifies the Biblical source for the practice of suspending the Hagigah sacrifice in the Temple on Shabbat. In Deut. 16, the Sukkot festival is described as seven days in length. This description seemingly excludes the eighth day of convocation, Shemini Atzeret, from the sacrificial feast. Yet, some sacrifices are indeed performed on the eighth day. Rabbi Ila’s meimra locates the solution to this apparent discrepancy in the prohibition on performing the Hagigah sacrifice on Shabbat. Since Shabbat will inevitably be one of the eight days of the Sukkot--Shemini Atzeret festival complex, the absence of the Hagigah sacrifice on that particular day results in a seven-day sacrificial feast, rather than an eight-day feast, at least as regards this one sacrifice. However, Rabbin notes that by this logic, the feast might be reduced to a total of six days, if the first day of Sukkot and the eighth day both fell on Shabbat. In such a case, the verse in Deut. 16, if it does indeed hint at the Hagigah sacrifice, would be rendered fallacious. Either the verse does not refer to the sacrifice (and, therefore, the seven days in the verse simply makes a distinction between the pilgrimage of Sukkot and that of Shemini Atzeret), or we must misunderstand the intent of Rabbi Ila’s statement. The fourth century Babylonian sage Abbaye is then depicted as insulting Rabbin for having proposed a problem he views as absurd.

229 Rabbi Ila is a Palestinian sage who flourished in the late third century. 320 This passage depicts him as the tradent of the older Rabbi Yehudah b. Safra’s tradition. As is typical in the Bavli, we are given no indication how this Palestinian source made its way from Palestine to Babylonia. However, from the general context it seems safe to conclude that the source was known in Babylonia prior to Rabbin’s report concerning it. The Nahota Rabbin is aware of the problem with Rabbi Ila’s meimra. Such recognition seems most likely to have come about through study and reflection. Note also that the setting of Rabbin’s report is clearly Babylonian-- he makes his report after returning from Palestine. The highly allusive statement, “I stated this [tradition before] my [Palestinian] teachers,” would only have been coherent to a Babylonian audience if the tradition to which it alluded was already known in Babylonia. The most likely conclusion in this case is that Rabbin presented a Babylonian-known Palestinian tradition in Palestine before Palestinian Rabbis. He likely did this because he had learned of the tradition in Babylonia. Stating this tradition before the sages of the west becomes a means of seeking a solution to a flaw he, or perhaps they, perceive(s). What we see here presents us with a helpful paradigm that is borne out by the evidence of my survey of b. Seder Mo’ed. Nahotei seem to have presented materials to Palestinian sages seeking their input and perhaps their clarification. They then attempted to present the answers they received to their Babylonian colleagues. Conclusion In this chapter I have attempted to make an initial assessment of the activity of the Nahotei in b. Seder Mo’ed. I argued that they did indeed import some number of Palestinian Rabbinic materials to Babylonia in the fourth century. However, I have also claimed that, at least as depicted in b. Seder Mo’ed, they did little more than clarify, modify or reassign the authorship of traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. My arguments in this chapter boil down to three conclusions.

320 Albeck, 223.

230 First of all, when we seat Nahotian activity in the context of cross-cultural fourth century Middle-Eastern pilgrimage, we understand it better. In the West, the fourth century saw Christians visiting Egypt, Palestine and Syria. In the East, Zoroastrians were visiting sacred fires in Pars, Azerbaijan and Media. The fourth century established the social nature of sacred journey in both regions and religious traditions. I presented documents from both these religious traditions depicting the pilgrimages of the period as an opportunity to meet and talk with living people. The religious communities in the rapidly changing religious and political scene of the day could forge a connection to the stable past in Egypt or Palestine or Pars or Media through the encounter with the sacred individuals sojourning in those lands. Typically, no novel experience was looked for by the pilgrims. Repeated confirmation of pre-existing faith was the point of the journey. These were travels to reconfirm the already known and, unsurprisingly, new knowledge was rarely gained. In this context, the fact that the Nahotei report or clarify Palestinian traditions to Babylonian amoraim that are largely already known to the Babylonians, if in a slightly different form, is highly suggestive. I have understood the Nahotei to be the Rabbinic pilgrims of the fourth century. The Nahotei probably traveled to Palestine and asked questions about Palestinian and other materials that had previously gained popularity among the Rabbinic scholastics in Babylonia. The Nahotian journeys and reports seem to have played a social role in the ongoing circles of Babylonian Torah study, similar to the role pilgrimage played in the two major societies at large. Next, I argued that Nahotian reports played a small but significant role in forming later Babylonian attitudes towards Palestinian Rabbis and their learning. Using methods borrowed from the study of travel writing, I argued that the reports of the Nahotei helped shape an image that some Babylonian Rabbis held of Palestinian Rabbis and their learning as stalwart, if unimaginative, preservers of tradition. My conclusions were that this beginning was limited and tentative. However, over time, the Nahotian reports of Palestinian Rabbis, showing these sages doing little more than parroting the past, may have grown in the imagination of the Babylonians. In the end, the correlation of

231 the first presentations of the image of the plodding, obeisant Palestinian Rabbi in the fourth century with the height of the Nahotian journeys is too suggestive to ignore. While this stereotype would find its moment of greatest significance in the ninth century anti-Palestinian polemics of the Babylonian Gaonim, I have shown that it may have both fed on the Nahotian reports and fueled them as well. Of course the relevance of the canard of the unthinking Rabbinic behaviorist is always felt in Jewish religious circles, even down to our time. Finally, reports of the Nahotei in b. Seder Mo’ed are, for the most part, limited to elucidations of Rabbinic traditions previously in circulation in Babylonia. Fully 93 of their 103 reports modify Palestinian traditions previously known to Babylonian sages, or comment upon them. Because this feature masks from our view any informal reports they may have made, it’s quite hard to determine the full sphere of their activity in bringing sources and traditions to Babylonia from Palestine. However, this limitation on the content of their formal reports simultaneously disqualifies their candidacy as the major vector for the importation of Palestinian Rabbinic texts in fourth century Babylonia. At most, they may have brought small-scale redacted materials. My example passages depicted Nahotei making reports clarifying Palestinian sources already known to Babylonian sages. In the final analysis, I believe Nahotian activity is best understood as a part of the rich fourth century interplay between Rabbinic Palestine and Babylonia. Nahotian activity is yet another demonstration of the deep import that Palestinian Torah held for fourth-century Babylonian Rabbis.

232 Appendix I: Nahotian quotations in Bavli Mo’ed

Bavli Mo’ed-103 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 14

30

49

10

Shabbat -31 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 5a

9. 7a(3)

19. 7a

2. 21b

10. 52a(2)

20. 7a(2)

3. 50a

11. 63b

21. 7b

4. 52a

12. 76a

22. 8b

5. 54a

13. 76a(2)

23. 45b

6. 72a(2)

14. 105a

24. 50a(2)

7. 74a

15. 108b

25. 72a

8. 147a

16. 112b

26. 108b(2)

17. 147a(2)

27. 125b

31. 13b

233 18. 147a(3)

28. 134b 29. 134b(2) 30. 152a

Eruvin-23 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

1. 9b

4. 9a

10. 3a

2. 75a

5. 22b

11. 6b

3. 87a

6. 36b

12. 10b

7. 77a

13. 10b(2)

8. 78b

14. 27a

9. 100b

15. 54b

known in Babylonia

16. 61a 17. 75a(2) 18. 85b 19. 86b 20. 87a(2) 21. 87b 22. 101b

Pesahim-8

23. 83a

234 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 25a

3. 56b

7. 33b

2. 71a

4. 60b

8. 104a

5. 70b 6. 110b Rosh Hashanah - 4 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 15b

4. 30a

2. 23a 3. 35a

I have not included two nahotian testimonies of calendric declarations. These are reports to the Babylonian community either of intercalation or the announcement of the new moon. These occur at 20a and 22b. Yoma-13 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

235 known in Babylonia

1. 3b(2)

5. 3b

2. 12b(2)

6. 12b

3. 63a

7. 41b

4. 78a

8. 42a

13. 72b

9. 55b 10. 63a(2) 11. 73a 12. 88a

Sukkah- 11 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 45b

2. 21a

5. 10a

3. 43b

6. 11b

4. 43b(2)

7. 12a 8. 21b 9. 32b 10. 32b(2)

Beitzah- 1

11. 16b

236 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 31a

Ta’anit-1 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 10a

Megillah-1 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 18a

Mo’ed Qatan-7 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

237 tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 20a

3. 3b

5. 10a

2. 27a

4. 22b

6. 10a(2) 7. 13b

Hagigah-3 New authority

Modifies a tradition

Clarifies a tradition

New tradition

provided for a

already known in

already known in

previously unknown

tradition already

Babylonia

Babylonia

in Babylonia

known in Babylonia 1. 8a

2. 14a 3. 15b

238 Appendix II: Nahotian Reports in the Yerushalmi

As discussed above, near the end of Section III, the extent of Rabban Gamaliel’s dispensation of individual worshipers from reciting the Tefillah is the theme of just the final third of a much longer and more structurally complex sugya concluding the b. Rosh Hashanah. The overall theme of the entire sugya is the extent to which Rabban Gamaliel’s view influences the ongoing lived practice of Jewish worship. In that sugya, the Talmud accepts the notion that Rabban Gamaliel’s system reigns only for the Musaf prayer of Rosh Hashanah and the Jubilee Day of Atonement. 321 In other words, at these two moments of worship, the only two that incorporate shofar blasts, individuals need not recite a personal statutory prayer in addition to the communal one recited by the congregation’s agent. This has a direct parallel in the concluding lines of y. Rosh Hashanah: 322 “Rabbi 'Huna Rabbah of Sepphoris says in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: "The Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel [when we pray] along with those shofar blasts. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Hisda [two middle-generation Babylonian amoraim!] were sitting in Babylonia at [the time of] the shofar blasts. When they completed the [communal] prayers, Rav Hisda rose to pray his private prayer. Rabbi Zeira said to him, ‘Did we not pray?’ He replied to him, ‘I prayed, and

321 Viz. B. Rosh Hashanah 35a: 1-3: “When [the Palestinian] Rabbi Abba came up (saleq) from the sea, [returning to Palestine, likely from a Mediterranean journey] he explained it: “The sages accepted the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel for the blessings of [the Musaf prayer of] Rosh Hashanah and [the Jubilee] Yom Kippur.” I adopt the interpretation of R. Nissim Gerondi here, limiting this statement to the Musaf of Rosh Hashanah and the Jubilee Day of Atonement, rather than the more expansive possibility of applying it to all the prayers of every Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. See Hiddushei Ha-Ran Masekhet Rosh Hashanah, (Jerusalem: Mechon Ha-Rishonim ve-Ha-Shut, 1994), 54. Gerondi’s interpretation is no radical move in this case. He merely makes explicit what both Rashi and Maimonides imply. See Rashi, s.v. “Ele mishum d’ashvei,” and Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 8:10. Note, however, that this position seems to differ from that of Alfasi (12a) and Rabeinu Asher (§14). See also R. Joseph Karo, Beit Yosef, Oreh Hayyim, §591. 322 Y. Rosh Hashanah 22a.

239 now I pray again. Some came down from the west (d’nahtun ma’aravaya) and reported in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “The Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel [when we pray] along with those shofar blasts.” But I did not focus [during the communal prayers]. Had I focused I would have fulfilled my obligation.” Rabbi Zeira said, “And that is proper! All the tannaim recite it [m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9] in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, But Rabbi Hosheyah has it in the name of the sages.” This passage is the one of two Nahotian reports I have been able to find in the Yerushalmi.323 It is an odd feature of this y. Rosh Hashanah text, which tallies with the earlier two-thirds of the Bavli sugya, that it does not parallel the final third of the Bavli sugya, the part that contains Rabbin’s Nahotian report, which is our main concern in this chapter. Our Bavli passage, quoted above in section III, containing the final third of the Bavli sugya, has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. It is equally odd that the Babylonian story that concludes the tractate in the Yerushalmi has no parallel in the Bavli. Clearly, at least in this case, we cannot credit Rabbin with importing the entirety of the sugya, “behind the scenes.” His report is actually relevant to the only part of the Bavli sugya which has no parallel of any kind in the Yerushalmi! The other Nahotian report I have been able to find in the Yerushalmi is at ‘Orlah 20a-b, and is also a second-hand report, presented in the voice of a Babylonian amora. Rabbi Yohanan is again listed as the original author of the tradition the report delivers: Rav Huna said, “When some came from the west there (nahtun ma’aravaya d’taman), they reported this in the name of Rabbi Yohanan and we observed it: “‘Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material’ (Lev. 19: 19)’ This [verse] compares kinds of seed to kinds of materials and kinds of animals. Just as [the prohibition on combining] kinds of materials and kinds of animals is not dependent on residence in Palestine, and is in effect in 323 The other is at ‘Orlah 20a-b, which I deal with shortly.

240 Palestine and the diaspora, so to [the prohibition on combining] kinds of seed, even though it is dependent on residence in Palestine, nonetheless it is in effect in Palestine and the diaspora.” A more comprehensive investigation of the Yerushalmi is needed to determine whether more reports are extant. The phrase “some came down from the west” (nahtun ma’aravaya) seems to appear only in these two places. It is possible that other Nahotian reports are, in fact, present in the Yerushalmi. However, the apparent lack of consistent language introducing any further reports makes finding them difficult. It currently appears to me that there is usually no clear direct textual or linguistic parallel in the Yerushalmi to the Nahotian reports either at the level of discrete traditions or as a broad phenomenon. I take this to be another indication of the Babylonian character of Nahotian activity.

241

242 Chapter Five: Conclusion

In this dissertation I argued that a series of passages originally redacted in the fourth century lie below the textual surface of Bavli Rosh Hashanah. I reconstructed these passages using methods that various scholars of Rabbinics have developed since the mid-1970’s. I have shown that these fourth century passages shared only content affinity, and not structural affinity, with their sister-texts in the Yerushalmi. I understand this shared content to be a result of large-scale movements of population and information from the Syrian-Palestinian west to the Persian-Babylonian east in the period leading up to the composition of these reconstructed passages. In order to support this last claim, I have also attempted to discredit the theory that a small group of traveling sages, known as the “Nahotei,” was responsible for the movement of theses western intellectual materials to the Rabbinic east. In this conclusion, I will first briefly review some of the theoretical background that stood behind this study. As I do this, I will contend that the results of this study corroborate the theoretical and methodological assumptions I made at its outset. Then, I will summarize the conclusions of each chapter of this study with an eye towards integrating them into a synthetic whole, validating my major thesis. Finally, I will end with a few words about the larger relevance of the present work.

I.

Corroborating Assumptions

In this section I will recall the theoretical concerns and assumptions I advocated in the general introduction to this project. I do this not only for the ease of the reader, but also to put forth the claim that the practical results of my study have justified the working theories and methods I advanced at it outset.

243 To recall, a number of population displacements and emigrations in the late-third century seem to have had a profound influence on the Babylonian Rabbis of the fourth century, changing them and differentiating them from the sages who preceded them.324 It is true that the Mishnah had made the journey from the Palestine to Rabbinic Babylonia, at an earlier time, and changed the nature of the Babylonian rabbinic community.325 However, there was an unparalleled quantity of Palestinian intellectual material newly available to the Babylonian sages of the late third to mid-fourth century.326 This is not breaking news. Since the 19th Century, with the publication of Isaac Halevy’s Dorot Rishonim, a prominent school of thought among scholars of Rabbinics has held up the banner of these “middle-generation” amoraim in Babylonia. This school assigned these special Rabbis a unique niche in the composition history of the Talmud.327 At the close of the twentieth century, Richard Kalmin argued that these amoraim held a “transitional role” in the formation of the Talmud. Kalmin’s argument was novel in the diverse number of ways he saw these Rabbis differentiating themselves: he catalogued seven characteristics of fourth century Babylonian amoraim that appear to be “transitional.”328 This taxonomy of difference led Kalmin to argue that some of these sages were possibly early Talmudic redactors.329 Throughout this dissertation I have tried to test this hypothesis of fourth-century exceptionalism. Applying a number of methods borrowed from a diverse range of contemporary scholars, I analyzed a series of passages from b. Rosh Hashanah I thought amenable to my tests. I have 324 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-10, 149-50, and 173-86. 325 See above, p. 7, n. 5. 326 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4-8. 327 See Y. I. Halevy, Dorot Rishonim, Vol. 2a (Frankfurt am Main: 1901), or Vol. 5 (Jerusalem: 1966), 551-556, Vol. 3, (Pressberg: 1897) or Vol. 6 (Jerusalem: 1966), 117 and the literature cited by Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 249, n. 6. 328 Ibid.,169-70. 329 Ibid., 169-73.

244 shown that the themes of these passages, the tannaitic sources they employ, and the majority of their amoraic materials330 were likely set by the end of the “middle period” of the Babylonian amoraim. My next step was a thoroughgoing reassessment of the affinities that we see between b. Rosh Hashanah and y. Rosh Hashanah in these passages. As I mentioned in the introduction, I am here strongly influenced by Alyssa Gray’s work and my present reassessment would be impossible without her reassessment of the relationship between b. and y. Avodah Zarah. Gray’s work is deeply important to my project. Given this, we need to recall the relevant features of her project, without which a coherent understanding of my conclusions is impossible. Keep this in mind: before Gray's reassessment, the contemporary consensus was that the “editors” of the Bavli did not have the Yerushalmi before them.331 Gray’s work convinced me that the shared structures of the two works, at least in Avodah Zarah, are too strong to be the result of independent reception of the same sources.332 After reading Gray’s work, I was convinced that the Yerushalmi had greatly influenced the Bavli. However, I also had some reservations. Gray’s theory was that late sixth century (or later) Babylonian Rabbinic editors set the Bavli’s structure and themes to more or less reflect those of the Yerushalmi’s. But I found myself increasingly finding cases in which some fourth century Babylonian amoraim seemed to draw upon redacted materials from the Yerushalmi. In particular I noticed several cases of this involving the middle generation Babylonian amoraic sages Rav Hisda and Rava. As I looked more closely, I saw that these two amoraim often appeared in underlying early Babylonian “core” sugyot. By “core,” I mean passages that could be reconstructed by stripping away layers of later anonymous materials to reveal coherent passages of fourth-century provenance. On close study, I 330 Note the drop-off of amoraic activity following the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. See Kraemer, 57, 69-70, 80-81, 109, 138, and 335-36; Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1989), 43-65; and idem, sages, 55-57, 169-72, 275-81. 331 See above, p. 9, n. 11. 332 Gray, 43-77, 101-42, 149-63, 176-88, and 239-42.

245 noticed that these core sugyot, while sharing themes, concerns and even sources with the Yerushalmi, did not seem to reflect the Yerushalmi's structures. On the other hand, the later layers of text in these passages usually did share the structural affinities with the Yerushalmi that Gray points to. This phenomenon led me to the working theory that there were two discrete periods of Palestinian amoraic influence on the Rabbis of Babylonia: 1. In the late third to mid-fourth century, a mixed multitude of Rabbinic sources made the journey from Palestinian Rabbinic circles to those of Babylonia. The arrival of these sources had a profound effect on the developing Bavli. 2. At a later point, in the second half of the fifth century at the earliest, a more or less complete version of the Yerushalmi made the same journey and prompted the reworking of the Bavli, along the lines that Gray suggests. At this point, its later editors forced the Bavli to toe the line with the existing structure of the Yerushalmi.

To substantiate my somewhat airy assumptions, I was in need of a very concrete set of methodological tools. First, I decided to rely on the general consensus that the majority of the anonymous material in the Bavli, particularly the most complex, was probably composed after the fourth century. 333 For each passage I analyzed, I needed to distinguish the anonymous material from the attributed, amoraic materials. I used Shamma Friedman’s well-worn 1978 list of fourteen criteria to identify this material and distinguish it from the amoraic layer.334 However, I decided to be conservative in my application of these criteria. I tried to find example passages in which more than 333 See Adiel Schremer, “Stammaitic Historiography” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), and Daniel Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud, ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 339-42. 334 Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Perek ha-Ishah Rabbah ba-Bavli,” in Mechqarim u-Meqorot, ed. Chaim Dimitrovsky (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), 301-6.

246 one criterion was present in the late anonymous layer. I felt that the presence of at least two criteria was essential, and three was always preferred. I was successfully able to hold fast to this conservatism throughout my reconstruction and presentation of the example passages in the chapters of this study. There was another impediment I had to overcome: the question of pseudepigraphy. I had to show that the content of the amoraic material that I analyzed was, in fact genuinely amoraic.335 I am aware that there is much in the Bavli that is pseudepigraphic. But I am also an advocate of the idea that the diversity of eht Bavli’s sources and content is good evidence that the Talmud has often left early traditions untouched. 336 To me, it seems unlikely in the extreme that a thorough reworking of the Bavli’s sources would have resulted in a work as rich in diversity of subject, thought and tone as the Bavli. As I went about the work, I rapidly discovered that the Bavli’s diversity made establishing the authentic provenance of many of its amoraic statements easier than I first thought.

335 I’ve noted elsewhere that theories of the late “stammaitic” voice and theories of late editorial reworking of earlier tannaitic and amoraic sources seem to go hand-in-hand. SeeDavid Halivni, Meqorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), 5-16, and Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 76-84; Avraham Goldberg, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in The Literature of the sages, pt. 1: Oral Torah. ed. Shmuel Safrai (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 333-34; Sussman, “Shuv le-Yerushalmi Neziqin,” 106-14; and Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Le-Aggadah ha-Historit be-Talmud ha-Bavli,’ in Sefer Zikaron le-Rabbi Shaul Lieberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,1993), 119-64. 336 On making use of the diversity of opinion in the Bavli to sort out the provenance its contents, see Kalmin, sages, 1-8, and 53-55. Christine Elizabeth Hayes rebuts the theory of a thoroughgoing editor in Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 183-88. Kalmin, while not denying that earlier traditions were often reworked by later generations of Rabbis, claims that an opposing phenomenon exists as well: “Cases in which latter generations acted with great restraint toward received traditions, preserving them intact despite the obstacles they posed.” Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia,, 194-95, n. 58. See also Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Steven T. Katz, vol. 4 (City: Publisher, 2006), 843-52. Jeffery Rubenstein seemed to agree with Kalmin when he wrote, “One can neither accept all attributions as reliable indicators of Amoraic tradition nor reject them in toto”(p. 11). Both Kalmin and Rubenstein advocate a moderate approach, determining whether an attributed source is late or early on a case-by-case basis. However, they seem to lay the burden of proof differently: Rubenstein seems to view attributed sources as depicting later views with very little proof; sources are often presumed reworked until proven otherwise. Kalmin requires more proof before abandoning the possibility that a source preserves a Rabbinic attitude authentically from the period it claims to represent. See Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 195, n. 60.

247 This is how my methodological assumptions played themselves out as I did the real work of this study: In each text I tested, I striped away the late materials that framed and interpreted the middleamoraic and early-amoraic sources of the passage. I found I was often left with a coherent fourth century sugya consisting of Tannaitic and early-amoraic to middle-amoraic sources. In each chapter of this dissertation, I was at great pains to identify the “core” materials in precise detail. This effort, along with my close analysis of the Bavli-core structure, wound up comprising the bulk of my presentation. I invested a significant amount of time and dedicated much of the space of this study to these two elements for a single purpose: These two elements are the best evidence I can present that a sugya residing in the Bavli has been altered and reworked by a late editor to recapitulate and expand upon the structure of its sister Yerushalmi passage. To state the corollary, this detailed analysis also led me to conclude that each of my selected passages contained examples of middle-generation amoraim drawing upon redacted units in the Yerushalmi without replicating the Yerushalmi’s structure. In the end, I was pleased to see that I could often justifiably conclude that the Bavli’s anonymous interpretive-editorial frame both replicates and enlarges upon the Yerushalmi’s structure, or at least some collection of materials much like it. II.

Chapters

In this section, I will briefly remind the reader of the three major chapters of my study and provide a short summery of their claims. I will then go back and catalogue in greater detail the conclusions of each chapter in a separate sub-section. Following my general introduction, I presented two chapters that consisted of close readings of passages of Bavli Rosh Hashanah. The first of these dealt with the five beginning folios of b. Rosh Hashanah. This segment of the tractate is made up of a complex of texts that contain several statements of the early-fourth century Babylonian amora Rav Hisda. In this chapter, I argued that Rav Hisda's statements appear to draw on redacted materials that now reside in Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah.

248 However, I also claim that relatively later editors set the structural affinities we see between the sister Bavli and the Yerushalmi passages there. The middle chapter was a similar analysis of an extended complex of texts from the final chapter of b. Rosh Hashanah that contains several statements of the Babylonian amora Rava. I again argued that this important middle generation figure apparently drew on redacted materials that now reside in y. Rosh Hashanah. I also claimed again that the structural affinities that we see between this passage and that of the Yerushalmi are the product of a late Babylonian editorial hand. In the final major chapter of this study, I have attempted to discredit the theory that the Nahotei could have been primarily responsible for the renewed influence of the Palestinian Rabbinic community on that of Babylonia in the fourth century. In this chapter I argued that, at least in b. Seder Mo’ed, they did little more than clarify, modify or reassign the authorship of traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their travel reports.

A. Rav Hisda In my first major chapter I claimed I could show that Rav Hisda studied and used some redacted Palestinian Rabbinic texts much like a number that now appear in y. Rosh Hashanah. To make this case, I closely analyzed a sample sugya from the first chapter of b. Rosh Hashanah. I undertook this analysis to illustrate the affinity of Rav Hisda’s statements in this passage with materials in the Yerushalmi. My second aim was to show that the sample sugya contained an early literary stratum (or “core sugya”) which followed a logical series of steps in a coherent order. At a number of junctures in the sugya, I claimed to see evidence that this core sugya was the product of middle-generation amoraic Babylonia. Moreover, I saw in it evidence of Babylonian reaction and response to earlier Palestinian materials, versions of which we now find in Y. Rosh Hashanah. At each new step of my reconstruction, I saw growing reason to interpret this core sugya as reacting to and building upon a sister sugya found in the Yerushalmi. I also grew increasingly confident that this core sugya did not mirror its Palestinian

249 sibling in structure. Accordingly, I argued that later redactors altered the core Babylonian sugya, reworking its structure to mirror its elder Palestinian relative, while also expanding and improving it. It is this reworked sugya that the Bavli presents to us when we read it today. Here, in summary, is the two-fold claim I made in this chapter: 1.

Rav Hisda seems to have built upon conclusions and assumptions we now find in y. Rosh Hashanah. There is evidence that he used these Palestinian materials in the composition of his statements in b. Rosh Hashanah.

2.

The Bavli's use of y. Rosh Hashanah as a structural template is a later phenomenon. Detailed reconstruction and analysis shows that the middlegeneration core sugya did not mirror the Yerushalmi’s structure.

My results validated the two-fold purpose of the chapter. I was able to establish that a number of Rav Hisda's statements reveal knowledge of Yerushalmi or Yerushalmi-like sugyot. I was also able to show that there is an earlier core sugya lying under the text of my sample. This “core” sugya also appears to pick up on themes, assumptions and conclusions of its Yerushalmi parallel (or perhaps another text like it), but it does not seem to mirror the structure of its Yerushalmi parallel.

I will now summarize the major elements of these two findings: three Hisda dicta were the focus of my study. They appeared at b. Rosh Hashanah 2a:9-10, 3a:41-43 and 4a:40. Each of these statements related to the proper interpretation of the first clause of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1, “The First of Nissan is the New Year for Kings and Festivals.” Strikingly, they appeared at the same junctures in the Bavli's discussion of the Mishnah that their sibling texts occur in the Yerushalmi's: the first two statements (2a:9-10, 3a:41-43) have direct content parallels in the Yerushalmi. The content of the third (4a:40), while never explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, is the underlying assumption of the

250 Yerushalmi discussion. Moreover, beyond mere affinity with discrete traditions (i.e., individual meimrot), each of these statements betrays knowledge of groupings of traditions now found in the Yerushalmi! I construe this evidence as justifying my claim that Rav Hisda was aware of entire Yerushalmian sugyot. However, even the most conservative reader of the evidence I present would have to admit that he was aware of at least elements of sugyot, such as disputes. The first of these statements (2a:9-10) appears to draw on Rabbi Yonah’s interpretation of an amoraic dispute (at y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1), and applies it to a direct exegesis of m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1. The second Hisda statement (3a:41-43) appears to draw equally from two opposing sides of an amoraic dispute (also at y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1), adopting the language of one side while adopting the conclusions of the other. The third (4a:40) explicitly states that Passover is the New Year’s Day of festivals. This is the unstated Yerushalmian understanding of Rabbi Shimon’s position regarding the order of the festivals (first Passover, then Shavuot and finally Sukkot) at y. Rosh Hashanah 56b/1:1. Note well that neither the Mishnah, nor shared tannaitic sources directly calls for these three statements.337 The appearance of these three statements in this order in the same complex of texts is deeply suggestive: Rav Hisda seems to have had access either to y. Rosh Hashanah, or a text much like it. Additionally, Rav Hisda's statements form a part of an early series of core sugyot uncovered by our inquiry. His statements are like links in a chain of amoraic statements which make up a set of sources moving in a logical progression, even when we remove the anonymous editorial framework surrounding them. The evidence leads me to conclude that Rav Hisda's materials joined the sugya at a relatively early period. I have shown that his statements are in relationship with the other sources that lie at the core level of the sugya. This

337 For these three reasons: (1) The Yerushalmi never applies the content parallel of 2a:9-10 to the Mishnah. (2) 3a:41-43 does not clarify an ambiguity any tannaitic text. Instead it imposes the novel category of “gentile king” on older sources. (3) As for 4a:40, neither the Mishnah nor the Tosefta require Passover to serve as the deadline for the commandment of ‘not delaying’; they only require that the festival cycle pass prior to the deadline. The deadline could just as easily be the first of Nisan as the fifteenth.

251 relationship can best be described as forming a coherent, logical progression. To briefly illustrate, this is how I construe each step of the reconstructed core progression I have uncovered underlying the first sugya of b. Rosh Hashanah: 1. The reconstructed sugya begins at 2a:9-10 with Rav Hisda giving the need for accurate dating of legal documents as the motivation for m. Rosh Hashanah ’s declaration of 1 Nisan as a New Year’s Day. 2. A baraita, at 2a:11-15, then supports Rav Hisda's dating concept by specifying dates for royal eras. 3. Another baraita, at 2b:5-10, moves on to provide greater detail about the procedure first outlined in the earlier baraita. 4. Finally, the exchange between Rabbi Yohannan (2b:21-29) and Rabbi Elazar (3a:23-27) seeks to give the scriptural origins of the Mishnah’s law, a reasonable step after Rav Hisda's attempt to help us understand the Mishnah’s motivation for the law in the first place. All of this reads smoothly through once I’ve removed the later anonymous and imported materials. I have also shown this to be far from the case with the amoraic or tannaitic materials I identified as imported by some later editor. I also noted that the Palestinian sages in our passage- Rabbis Yohannan and Elazar- do nothing more than give the biblical basis for the Mishnah’s Nisan rule. Rav Hisda is the only Rabbi before the fifth Babylonian generation interested in the motivation for celebrating a royal new year. I have shown that all other Babylonian traditions in our sugya are either later than the fourth generation or are imported from a different context. I have shown that the later editors of the passage likely did this to expand our sugya and add complexity to it. This difference in agenda adds to my argument: the Hisda sources and the Yohannan/Elazar traditions genuinely originated in different periods and/or geographic locations, each with a different focus of interest in m. Rosh Hashanah 1:1.

252 I have presented evidence that some of Rav Hisda's statements imply knowledge of sources that are so like Yerushalmi sugyot as to be indistinguishable from them. Moreover, his statements are part of a relatively early layer of Bavli redaction. This layer weaves together relatively early materials, with differing concerns, from both geographic centers of Torah, to form a coherent logical progression. This core layer of redaction, while showing knowledge of Yerushalmian sources, does not mirror the Yerushalmi’s structure. Nonetheless, the final redacted Bavli text complex does seem to imitate its sister text’s structure in the Yerushalmi.

B. Rava In this chapter, I argued that some of Rava’s statements in b. Rosh Hashanah seemed to draw upon content from y. Rosh Hashanah. To support this claim, I first presented an extended passage from the final chapter of b. Rosh Hashanah that featured this fourth century Babylonian Rabbi. Next, I reconstructed several middle-generation core sugyot that underlay this redacted complex of texts. I demonstrated that Rava was likely present in this passage at a relatively early stage of its history. I further claimed that his presence was originally restricted to one of three redacted Babylonian core sugyot which later editors used as raw materials for creating the final Bavli passage. As I striped the later anonymous editorial materials from our example passage, I discovered that the earlier amoraic materials left behind cohered as three separate, readable core sugyot. I went on to show that these core sugyot did not share the Yerushalmi's structures as the final layer of redaction does. In fact, they seemed not to contain any structural affinity with the Yerushalmi at all. My analysis tcetieed me to conclude that these Babylonian core materials were the early building blocks of the complex as a whole. It’s likely that a later editor wove together the final version of the passage from these early components, combing them with later additions. I also think it plausible that the editor did this with the goal of creating a single passage that would share substantial structural affinity with the

253 Yerushalmi. Before I present a detailed summery of my conclusions in this chapter, I would first like to point out an additional contribution I made in this chapter. In the course of the chapter, I laid out the criteria I used to distinguish Rava’s statements from those of his elder colleague Rabbah.338 Rava’s statements have often been confused with those of Rabbah, another important and similarly named Babylonian sage. The criteria I presented in this chapter allow us to make conclusions with reasonable confidence as to which statements are Rava’s and which Rabbah’s. Shamma Friedman pointed out some time ago that we cannot determine whether the Bavli intends to signify Rabbah or Rava from manuscript evidence.339 Friedman suggests six criteria that we should use to make such determinations. He also implies a seventh criterion that I have listed explicitly below. I have also added an eighth criterion drawn from Richard Kalmin’s work,340 as well as a ninth from Yaakov Elman’s.341 The criteria are: 8. If Rabbah/Rava appears before Abbaye, the Bavli intended to cite Rabbah, not Rava. 9. The formula “Amar leih Rabbah/Rava l’Abbayeh” most often refers to Rabbah. 10. If Rabbah/Rava appears after Abbaye, the Bavli intended to cite Rava, not Rabbah. 11. The formula “Amar leih Abbaye l’ Rabbah/Rava” most often refers to Rava.342

338 Mostly for the sake of convenience, I have adopted the accepted spelling conventions of these names. When I write “Rabbah”, I signify R.Abba bar Nahmani. “Rava” refers to R.Abba bereh d’Rav Yosef bar Hamma. See Chanokh Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 307. 339 Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Ketiv Ha-Shemot ‘Rabbah’ ve-‘Rava’ Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli” Sinai SivanTamuz (1992): 141-165. 340 Kalmin, sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 179180. 341 "Rava ve-Darkhei ha-Iun ha-Eretz-Yisraelit ba-Midrash Halakhah" in Merkaz u-tefutsah: Erets Yisrael veha-tefutsot be-yeme Bayit Sheni, ha-mishnah veha-Talmud, Ed. I. Gafni (Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot Yisrael), 2004. 342Friedman considers these first four criteria only to be support for the determination of the intended amora when used in conjunction with his fifth and/or sixth criterion. None of these first four by itself can

254 12. We may also use their interactions with amoraim other than Abbaye to make such determinations.343 13. We may make use of vocabulary employed uniquely by Rabbah or Rava to determine the speaker.344 14. Friedman implies that if Rabbah/Rava refers to, or makes use of, Palestinian Rabbinic materials, Rava is intended, not Rabbah.345 15. I add to the list Richard Kalmin’s principle that when Abbye is presented in dialog with Rabbah/Rava and Abbaye treats him as his master, Rabbah is intended, not Rava. 16. Yaakov Elman has recently characterized Rava as a “theoretician” of midrash halakhah. When we encounter Rabbah/ Rava making an argument about the abstract principles of midrash halakhah, Rava is intended, not Rabbah. The collection and presentation of these criteria are obviously not only of value to my study. I hope that many scholars will make use of these criteria that I have collected and detailed in theet pagee. Here is a summary of my analysis of the first sugya in the final chapter of Bavli Rosh Hashanah (b. Rosh Hashanah 29b:24-30a:34): As noted, in this passage, the Bavli presents us with an extended text complex. At first glance, the apparent sophistication and intricacy of the passage is intimidating.

make a hard case. 343 For instance: If Rabbah/Rava treats Rav Nahman b. Yaaqov as a colleague, the Bavli intends Rabbah. If, on the other hand, Rabbah/Rava treats Rav Nahman b. Yaaqov with obeisance, then the Bavli intends Rava. 344 Friedman, “Ketiv Ha-Shemot”, n. 102 gives various linguistic and stylistic suggestions. These are primarily based on his footnote in “Kiddushin b’Milveh” Sinai 76 (1975): 68 n. 156. Friedman’s suggestions seem sound. See also Kalmin’s linguistic suggestions, sages, Stories, Authors and Editors, 180-183. Less helpful in this regard is Noah Aminoah’s claim in Arikhat Masekhtot Sukah u-Moed Katan ba-Talmud haBavli (Tel Aviv: Universitat Tel-Aviv, 1988), 41, n. 8 that the phrase “Rabbah/Rava said, ‘I encountered x who were seated saying…’”, refers to Rava. Aminoah bases his claim on manuscript evidence, which Friedman shows is no evidence at all in connection to Rabbah/Rava. 345 “Ketiv Ha-Shemot ‘Rabbah’ ve-‘Rava’ Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli”, 165, n. 103.

255 However, closer inspection reveals its structure to be relatively simple, and it falls fairly easily into three parts: 5.29b:22-38 A conversation concerning the prohibition of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah : This includes the statements of the Palestinians Levi b. Lahma and Hama b. Hainina, who claim the Torah forbids sounding shofar on Shabbat, and Rava, who claims it is the Rabbis who do so. Rava also introduces a source from Rabbah to support his claim and, apparently, provide a transition into section two. 6.29b:38-30a:15 A digression on the later clauses of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1: First, the Bavli presents a narrative contextualizing Rabban Yohannan b. Zaqai’s rule that one may sound shofar on Shabbat at the seat of the court. This is followed by an explanation of the Mishnah’s rebuttal to Rabbi Eliezer/Elazar’s stance that the court referred to by Yohannan b. Zaqai was only the one in Yavneh. Then the Bavli presents an extended consideration of Rav Huna’s narrowing of Rabban Yohannan’s rule, which gives it binding force only “with the court.” 7.30a:15-35 An alternate use of Rav Huna’s interpretation: we now apply it to a baraita (resembling Sifra Behar 2:5), instead of m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1. This is followed by a discussion of the implications of this alternative. The first goal of my analysis was to show that an equally coherent structure underlies this text complex—our three proposed core sugyot. Once I removed the unattributed and imported materials, I was left with three separate coherent passages. I was struck by how dissimilar our proposed core sugyot are from the final version the Bavli presents.

256 Part one must now do without Rabbah’s dictum, which I concluded later editors imported from b. Beitzah 16b and reworked to fit our context. Without Rabbah’s segue into the next section, this first unit of the passage now stands unmoored from the remainder of the text complex. This was my first clue that this section may have originated as a discrete “Rava sugya”—a passage that Rava and/or his disciples edited and arranged without attachment to the remainder of the present complex. A second clue to the extent of Rava’s role in this core sugya was his strikingly derivative response to the Rabbi Levi b. Lahma and Rabbi Hama b. Hanina tradition: his response is nearly identical and language and content to a puzzle that Rabbi Yohannan and Reish Lakish presents in the passage’s Yerushalmi sister text. This and other evidence led me to conclude that Rava may have had access to units of redacted material that now appear in y. Rosh Hashanah. I came to understand Rava’s role in this section the following three ways: (5) Rava probably used Yerushalmian materials to create a new sugya on the same subject as that Yerushalmi presents. However, his new sugya did not mirror the Yerushalmi’s structure. (6) Rava seems to have reworked tannaitic materials from other Babylonian contexts (which we now find at b. Shabbat 117b and 131b) and incorporated them in his new sugya. (7) Rava’s sugya was likely originally separate from sections two and three. My analysis of sections two and three reinforced this last claim. Rather than two mutually reinforcing attempts to test the implications of Rav Huna’s statement, we now find two completely separate core sugyot at odds with each other about Rav Huna’s basic meaning! 346

346 In each of these core sugyot Rav Huna presents his requirement that all sounding of the shofar be with the court. However, in the first passage, this rule is restricted to Shabbat-Rosh Hashanah. In the second, with the core is revealed, we can see that Rav Huna was originally depicted as attempting to extend the practice of sounding shofar to the Shabbat-Yom Kippur of the Jubilee.

257 The striking differences between the reconstructed core sugyot and the Bavli’s final literary product were made even more compelling when I compared them to the sister Yerushalmi sugya (y. Rosh Hashanah 4:1/59b). The Yerushalmi sugya also falls neatly into three sections: A.Rabbi Yohannan and Reish Lakish present a puzzle: Is m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1’s prohibition on sounding shofar on Shabbat rabbinic or biblical in origin? Kehana presents a midrash resolving the puzzle: it is a biblical prohibition. B.A short narrative digression, after which Levi presents a Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai tradition narrowing the scope of Kehana’s midrash, contextualizing the ancient practice of sounding shofar on Shabbat solely within the cultic rituals of the Temple. C.The Yerushalmi concludes its sugya with a challenge and a rebuttal. Rabbi Yonah’s students raise Leviticus 25:9 as evidence that only the shofar of the Jubilee—not that of Rosh Hashanah --may be sounded on Shabbat (yet, presumably, only in the seat of the court). Rabbi Yonah excoriates his students for misinterpreting the verse, which he argues restrict Shabbat -Jubilee shofar sounding to the land of Israel. On the other hand, he claims, one may sound shofar on Shabbat -Rosh Hashanah in any country, so long as the court is present. The Yerushalmi adheres closely to the same overall structure as the Bavli’s sugya: 1. Both Talmudim first present the puzzle of whether m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1’s prohibition on sounding shofar on Shabbat is rabbinic or biblical in origin. 2. Part two opens with a short narrative digression, after which we resolve an issue left over from part one by imposing a more restrictive reading. 3. Finally, we turn to the issue of shofar sounding on Shabbat -Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year. We end this final, third section of the sugya, in favor of the more lenient of the available halakhic positions.

258 Our three reconstructed core sugyot do not follow this structure. Instead of each section building on what came before, we see three essentially stand-alone units. Indeed the three core sugyot could be presented in any order without damaging the meaning of the text. This is not true of the Yerushalmi’s sugya or the Bavli’s final version. These factors lead me to conclude that the redactor of the Bavli probably put parts two and three of the Bavli’s sugya in their present order to mirror the structure of the Yerushalmi. M. Rosh Hashanah 4:1 demands no discussion of the Jubilee shofar blowing, and I can easily imagine the jubilee element of our reconstructed core sugya circulating unattached to m. Rosh Hashanah 4:1. To summarize all this, my analysis yielded three conclusions: 1. After removing the surrounding anonymous editorial framework, we can see three independent core amoraic sugyot underlying our Bavli passage. 2.

The first of these units was likely a “Rava sugya”— someone structured it around Rava’s tradition and his agenda drives the passage forward. He (or his disciples) may even have been involved in the redaction of this passage, combining Yerushalmian materials and juxtaposing them with Babylonian sources. As a result, his core sugya originally shared content affinities with materials now found in the Yerushalmi, but did not share the Yerushalmi’s structure.

3. At some later period someone brought the three core sugyot together and added an editorial framework. This framework retained the earlier sources of the core amoraic sugyot but re-contextualized them, bringing the overall structure of the passage into closer affinity with the structure of its sister Yerushalmi sugya. I don’t claim that this would be true with every sugya in which Rava in b. Rosh Hashanah. I also readily admit that this example is a good one. However, this example shows the strong plausibility of my general claim that that there are cases in which we may say that Rava seems to have drawn upon

259 units of Yerushalmian materials. This sample is also a support for my other claim that these amoraim also often have a presence in underlying early Babylonian core sugyot which do not seem to show signs of mirroring the Yerushalmi's structures. I have also shown again that I can reconstruct these core sugyot by stripping away later layers of stammaitic materials from the text of particular passages in the Bavli.

C. The Nahotei

In this chapter I tried to assess of the behavior of the Nahotei in b. Seder Mo’ed. I claimed that while they may have brought some significant amount of Palestinian Rabbinic material to Babylonia in the fourth century, the evidence of b. Seder Mo’ed shows that they primarily clarified, modified or reassigned the authorship of sources already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. My claims reduce down to three points. First of all, understanding the larger context of fourth century Middle-Eastern pilgrimage helps us identify a more likely purpose of Nahotian travel, beyond the mere acquisition of information. Along the Mediterranean rim, the fourth century saw numerous Christians make the journey to Egypt, Palestine and Syria. In the gulf region, Zoroastrians made pilgrimage to the sacred fires of Pars, Azerbaijan and Media. The social nature of sacred journey was of the upmost importance in both regions and religious traditions. Documents from both these religious traditions depict pilgrimage in the fourth century as a chance to meet and talk with living people. The Zoroastrian and Christian communities, unsettled by the ongoing season of religious and political change, could gain a sense of stability in linking themselves to the living past in the pilgrim lands. Whether in Egypt, or Palestine, or Pars, or Media, they encountered the sacred past by seeing and speaking with the living saints of those countries. But the pilgrims typically didn’t look for new experiences on these journeys. They traveled

260 mostly to experience a past known to them through their sacred texts and other pilgrim’s accounts. Unsurprisingly, the pilgrims of this period showed little novel insight into the societies and cultures they encountered on their travels. I contended that this trend in the evidence of fourth century Christian and Zoroastrian pilgrimage suggested a new plausible framework for understanding the Nahoteian report. I construed the Nahotei to be fourth-century Rabbi-pilgrims. I argued that the Nahotei may have traveled to Palestine to ask questions about the Palestinian materials that they already knew from Babylonian Rabbinic study circles. I saw the Nahotian journeys as playing a social role in the circles of Babylonian Torah. This would have paralleled the role pilgrimage played in Christianity and Zoroastrianism at the same time. Second, I tried to show that Nahotian reports took a part in forging later Babylonian attitudes towards Palestinian Rabbis and their learning. Borrowing methods from the growing field of travel studies, I claimed that the accounts of the Nahotei helped convince some Babylonian Rabbis that Palestinian Rabbis and their learning were stalwart, if unimaginative, preservers of tradition. While at the outset, these images of the Palestinians were limited and tentative, over time the Nahotian reports of these sages, who they depicted as doing little more than parroting the past, came to grow in the imagination of the Babylonians. In the end, the correlation between the initial associations of the Palestinian Rabbi with the Torah of the past and the height of the Nahotian journeys in the fourth century is too suggestive to ignore. This stereotype would eventually find its moment of greatest significance in the ninth century anti-Palestinian polemics of the Babylonian Gaonim. I have attempted show that these polemics may have a part of their roots in the Nahotian reports of the fourth century. Of course the image of the unthinking Rabbinic behaviorist, woefully out of touch with times is with us even today. Finally, Nahotian accounts in b. Seder Mo’ed were mostly restricted to explanations of, or expansions on, Rabbinic traditions previously in circulation in Babylonia. 93 of the 103 reports modify Palestinian traditions previously known to Babylonian sages, or comment upon them. Because this

261 feature hides from view any informal reports they might have made, it’s quite difficult to trace the full boundaries of their role in bringing sources and traditions to Babylonia from Palestine. However, this restriction in their formal reports seems disqualify their candidacy as a major vector for the importation of Palestinian Rabbinic texts in fourth century Babylonia. The most we can say is that they may have brought small-scale redacted materials. My example passages showed Nahotei making reports clarifying Palestinian sources already known to Babylonian sages. In the final analysis, I believe Nahotian activity is best understood as a part of the rich fourth century exchange between Rabbinic Palestine and Babylonia. Nahotian activity is yet another example of the importance that Palestinian Torah held for fourth century Babylonian Rabbis.

Relevance I hope this project will contribute to the field of Rabbinics by further refining our understanding of the process that was involved in the composition of the Bavli and its relationship with the Yerushalmi. I further hope it will contribute generally to the field of Jewish Studies as an analysis of the influence of Zion and its religious ideology on a diaspora community of scholars in late antiquity. Recall that I claim that middle generation Babylonian Rabbis adopted and adapted materials from Palestinian Rabbis. In doing so they appropriated Palestinian materials as their own. This process was one in which the ideologies of the West were reconstructed and altered by the sages of the East. This process allowed them to hold on to the notion that the Torah of Zion was sacred, while continually moving beyond it to create an equally creative and sacred Torah of the Babylonian Diaspora. Finally, it will contribute to the study of human society generally by analyzing how large oral texts change over

262 long periods of time when transmitted between two centers during a period of late residual orality. I hope I have shown that these types of exchanges can only be understood by detailed analysis. We can only understand the general from the specific.

Bibliography

263 Adler, Rudolph J. "The Rabbinic Development of Rosh Hashanah. " Conservative Judaism 41, no. 2 (1988-89): 34-41. Albeck, Chanokh. Mavo la-Talmudim. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969. Alexander, Elizabeth Shanks. Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Alon, Gedalia. Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977. Aminoah, Noah. Arikhat Masekhtot Sukah u-Moed Katan ba-Talmud ha-Bavli. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv, 1988. Berger, Michael S. Rabbinic Authority. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Bokser, Baruch M. “An Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud.” Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Vol. 2, no. 19.2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979. ________. “An Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud.” The Study of Ancient Judaism. Vol. 2, The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, ed. Jacob Neusner, 139-256. New York: Publisher, 1981. ________. Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition: Samuel on Berakhot and the Beginnings of Gemara. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. ________. Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ________. “Talmudic Studies.” In The State of Jewish Studies, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Edward L. Greenstein. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

264 ________. "Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia." In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. _______. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Boyce, Mary. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. _______. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Brand, Yitzhaq. “Rosh Hashanah ve-Hoshanah Rabbah: Me-Chagei Miqdash lImei Din.” In Amnon Bazak, Be-Rosh Ha-Shanah yikatevun: kovets maamarim ‘al Rosh ha-Shanah, 21-39. Alon Shevut (West Bank): Hotsaat Tevunot, 2002. Bregman, Marc. “Pseudepigraphy in Rabbinic Literature.” In Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Brem, Jerome B. "At What Time in Jewish History did Rosh Hashanah begin on the First of Tishri?" Conservative Judaism 48, no. 4 (1996): 73-80. Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. _______. Pirqoy ben Baboy and the History of Internal Polemics in Judaism. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2003. Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity, AD 150-750. New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. Caesar, Terry. Forgiving the Boundaries: Home as Abroad in American Travel Writing. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995. Campbell, Mary Baine. The Witness and the Other World: Exotic European Travel Writing, 400-1600. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

265 Chajes, Zvi H. “Imrei Binah.” In Qol Sifrei Mohara'tz Chaiot. Jerusalem: Divrei Chakhamim, 1959. Chernick, Michael. “The Use of Ribbūyīm and Mi'ūtīm in the Halakic Midrash of R. Ishmael.” The Jewish Quarterly Review. New series 70, no. 2 (October 1979): 96-116. Cohen, Gerson. The Book of Tradition of Abraham ibn Daud. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967. Coleman, Simon, and John Elsner. Pilgrimage: Past and Present in the World Religions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. de Jong, Albert. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Dîner, Yôsef S. [or Joseph Hirsch Dünner] Hîddûsê ha-Rîsa"d: haggahôt, pêrûsîm, bê'ûrîm `al habbavlî we-hay-yerûsalmî tôsefta' û-midresê halaka. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, n.d. Dor, Zwi Moshe. Torat Erets-Yiśrael be-Vavel. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1971. Eliot, Rachel. The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism. Translated by David Louvish. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004. Elman, Yaakov. “Acculturation to Elite Persian Norms and Modes of Thought in the Babylonian Jewish Community of Late Antiquity.” In Neti’ot Le-David: Sefer ha-Yovel le-David ha-Livni. Jerusalem: Orhot, 2004. ________. Authority and Tradition: Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonia. New York: Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1994. _______. “Rava ve-Darkhei ha-Iun ha-Eretz-Yisraelit ba-Midrash Halakhah.” In Merkaz u-tefutsah: Erets Yisrael veha-tefutsot be-yeme Bayit Sheni, ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, ed. Isaiah Gafni. Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot Yisrael, 2004. ________. "The World of the "Sabboraim": Cultural Aspects of Post-Redactional Additions to the Bavli." In Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

266 Epstein, Jacob Nahum. Mavo le-Nusah ha-Mishnah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1964. ________. Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Amoraim. Tel Aviv, 1962. Feldblum, Meyer. "Professor Avraham Weiss: Ha'arakhat Darko be-Heker ha-Talmud ve-Siyyum Maskanotav," In Sefer ha-Yovel li-Kevod ha-Rav Dr. Avraham Weiss, ‫לזـלט‬. New York, 1964. Florsheim, Yoel. “Rav Hisda u-Farshanuto le-Meqorot Tenai’im be-Seder Mo’ed ba-Bavli vIurshalmi.” Tarbiz 41 (1971-72): 24-48. Foley, Jonathan. Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Frank, Georgia. The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Frankel, Zacharias. Le-mevo ha-Talmud: helek mi-ma’amar ‘al ha-midot veha-mishkalot ba-Torah shebi-khetav uva-Torah shebe’al peh. Breslau: Bi-defus B. L. Monash bi-Krotoshin, 1871; reprint, Jerusalem, 1966 or 1967. _______. Mavo ha-Yerushalmi. Breslav: Shletter, 1870. Reprint, Jerusalem,, 1966. Friedman, Shamma Yehuda. “Al Titma al Stam she-Nizkar be-Shem Amora.” http://atranet.co.il/sf/al_titma.doc. (accessed November 2008). _______. "The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana." In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer. Vol. 3: 247–71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998-2002. _______. “Ketiv Ha-Shemot ‘Rabbah’ ve-‘Rava’ Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli.” Sinai Sivan-Tamuz (1992): 141-65. _______. “Kiddushin b’Milveh.” Sinai 76 (1975): pp. _______. “Le-Aggadah ha-Historit be-Talmud ha-Bavli.” In Sefer ha-zikaron le-rabi Sha’ul Liberman, 146-63. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993. _______. “Lehit’havut Shinuyei Girsa’ot Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli.” Sidra 7 (1991): 67-102.

267 _______. “Perek ha-Ishah Rabbah ba-Bavli.” In Mechqarim u-Meqorot, ed. Chaim Dimitrovsky. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978. ________. “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels.” In Introducing Tosefta; Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies, ed. Harry Fox and Tirzah Meacham. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1999. Gafni, Isaiah. Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. _______. Yehudei Bavel be-Tequfat ha-Talmud. Jerusalem:Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1990. Gerondi, R. Nissim. Hiddushei Ha-Ran Masekhet Rosh Hashanah. Jerusalem: Mechon Ha-Rishonim ve-Ha-Shut, 1994. Gershenfeld, Beryl. "Judgment on Rosh Hashanah: Analysis of Content and Process in a Talmudic Aggadah." Jewish Thought 1, no. 1 (1990): 29-45. Goldberg, Avraham. “The Babylonian Talmud.” In The Literature of the sages. Pt. 1: Oral Torah, ed. Shmuel Safrai. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ________. “Hadirat ha-Halakhah shel Erez Yisrael le-Tokh Masoret Bavel.” Tarbiz 33, no. 4 (1964): 337-8. ________. “R. Zeira u-Minhag Bavel be-Erez Yisrael.” Tarbiz 36 (1965): 319-41. Goldman, Edward A. “A Critical Edition of Palestinian Talmud Tractate Rosh Hashanah [Chapters 14].” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 219-68; 47 (1976): 191-216; 48 (1977): 219-42; and, 49 (1978): 205-26. Golinkin, David. Ginze Rosh ha-shanah; Sheyare Kitve Yad shel Bavli Rosh ha-Shanah meha-Genizah be-Qahir: Mahadurah Metsulemet be-Tseruf Mavo Qodiqologi. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2000. ________. “Pereq Yom Tov shel Rosh ha-Shanah ba-Bavli: Mahadurah Mada'it im Perush.” Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1988.

268 Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against “Q.” Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2002. Goodblatt, David M, “Abraham Weiss: The Search for Literary Forms.” In The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, ed. Jacob Neusner, 95-103. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ________. “The Babylonian Talmud.” Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2, no. 19.2. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979. ________. “The Babylonian Talmud.” In The Study of Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner. Vol. 2: ThePalestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, 120-99. New York: Ktav, 1981. ________. Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Gray, Alyssa. A Talmud in Exile: The Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005. Green, William Scott “What’s in a Name?: The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography.’” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies, vol. 1. Missoula, MT.: Scholars Press for Brown University, 1978-80. Halevi, A. A. Midrash Rabba. Tel Aviv: Mahberot lesifrut, 1963. Halevy, Isaac. Dorot ha-Rishonim: Divre ha-Yamim li-Venei Yisrael. 6 vols. Jerusalem, 1966 or 1967. [Reprint of Vols. 1-5, Frankfurt am Main, 1901-18; Vol. 6., Pressburg, Czechoslovakia, 1897; Vol. 7, 1939.] Halivni, David. Introduction to Meqorot u-Mesorot: Baba Metzia. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003. ________. Introduction to Meqorot u-Mesorot: Baba Qama. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993 Introduction to Meqorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat. Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982. _______. Introduction to Meqorot u-Mesorot: Yoma-Hagigah. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1975.

269 ________. Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Hamesh sugyot min ha-Talmud ha-Bavli: ‘im parshanut ‘al derekh ha-mehkar; degem liḳr [Five Sugyot from the Babylonian Talmud: towards an edition of the Talmud with original commentary]. Edited by Shamma Friedman. Jerusalem: ha-lgud le-farshanut ha-Talmud, 2002. Hartog, François. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Hasselhoff, Görge K. “Das Heilige Land in telmudischer, spätantiker und mittelalterlicher Literature.” In Das Gelobte Land (2003): 112-31. Hauptman, Judith. Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988. ________. “Mishnah as a Response to Tosefta.” In The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000. ________. “The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah.” Jewish Studies; an Internet Journal 4 (2005): 109-32. Hayes, Christine E. “Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Differences in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hayman, Peter Eric. "Development and Change in the Teachings of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nafha." Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 1990 (Hebrew). Herman, Geofrey. “The Exilarchate in the Sasanian Era.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 2005. _______. “The Story of Rav Kahana (BT Baba Qamma 177a-b) in Light of Armeno-Parthian Sources.” In Irano-Judaica, vol. 6. Edited by Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 2008.

270 _______. “Ha-Yahasim bein Rav Huna l’Rav Hisda.” Zion 61, no. 3 (1996): 263-79. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism. New York: Macmillan, 1976. Hezser, Catherine. Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr and P. Siebeck, 1993. Hoffmann, David. Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim. Berlin: M. Driesner, 1887. Hyman, Aaron. Sefer Toldot Tanaim ve-Amoraim. Jerusalem: Qiryah Neemanah, 1964. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE-400 CE. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Jawitz, Wolf. Sefer Toldot Yisra’el. Tel Aviv: Ahiever, 1935. Judelowitz, Mordecai Dov. Yeshivat Pumbadita bi-mey Ha-amora’im. Tel Aviv, 1935. Kalmin, Richard Lee. "Between Rome and Mesopotamia: Josephus in Sasanian Persia." In Ancient Judaism in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Carol Bakhos. Leiden: Brill, 2005. _______. "The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud." In The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4. Edited by Steven T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ________. Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. ________. "Midrash and Social History." Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (2006): 133-59. _______. The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? Monographs of Hebrew Union College, vol. 12. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1989. ________. The sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 1999. ________. sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Atlanta: Scholars Press; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 1994.

271 Kaplan, Julius. The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. New York: Columbia University Press, 1933. Kahana, Menahem I. “The Development of the Hermeneutical Principle of elal u-Ferat in the Tannaitic Period.” In Tirzah Lifshitz et al., Mehkarim be-Talmud uve-Midrash: sefer zikaron le-Tirtsah Lifshits. Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 2005. _______. "The Halakhic Midrashim." In The Literature of the sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum; Liturgy, Poetry Mysticism; Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, 3-106. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2006. _______. Otsar kitve-yad shel midreshe ha-halakhah: shihzur ha-`otakim ve-teuram. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1995. Kimelman, Reuven R. “Problems in Late Rabbinic ‘Biography’: The Case of the Amora Rabbi Yohanan.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2 (1979): 35–42. _______. “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disuptation.” Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 3-4 (1980): 567–95. Kraemer, David Charles. “Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature.” Ph. D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1984. Küpperwasser, Reuven. “Masa’ot shel Rabbah bar bar Hanah.” In Mehqarei Yerushalayim be-Sifruit ha-‘Ivrit. Vol. 22: Sifrut u-Mered (2008): 215-41. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJS Review 30, no. 2 (2006): 34792. Levanon, Yosef. “The Holy Place in Jewish Piety: Evidence of Two Twelfth-Century Jewish Itineraries.” Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 1 (1998): 103-18. Lewy, Israel. Mevo u-Ferush le-Talmud Yerushalmi: Bava Kama, Perakim 1-6. Jerusalem: Hotsa’at Kedem, 1970.

272 Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950. ________. “Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries.” Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946). _______. Sifre Zutta. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1968. _______. “Talmudah shel Qesarin.” Musaf le-Tarbiz 2 (1930). _______. Tosefta Ki-Fshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973. Lord, Albert, and Milman Perry. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. Margoles, Moses. P’nei Moseh, Talmud Yerushalmi. Jerusalem, 1931. Meacham, Tirzah Z. "Tosefta as Template: Yerushalmi Niddah." In Introducing Tosefta, 181-220. New York: Ktav, 1999. Milikowsky, Chaim. “Kima and the Flood in Seder ‘Olam and B.T. Rosh ha-shana: Stellar TimeReckoning and Uranography in Rabbinic Literature.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983): 105-32. Mills, Sarah. Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism. London: Routledge, 1993. Mirsky, Samuel Kalman, “The Mishnah as Viewed by the Amoraim.” In Leo Jung Memorial Volume. New York, 1962. Misgav, H. “Dating Formulae and Their Use in Jewish Documents from the Second Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods.” In Medidah u-Shekilah bImei Qedem, 41-45. Hefah, Israel: Muzeon Reuven ve-`Idit Hekht, 2001.

273 Moskovitz, Leib. “Designation is Significant: An Analysis of the Conceptual Sugya in bSan 47b-48b.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 27: no. 2 (2003): 227-52. Myers-Scotton, Carol. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Ness, Lester John. Astrology and Judaism in Late Antiquity. Ph. D. diss., Miami University,. 1990. Neusner, Jacob. "The Comparison of Bavli and Yerushalmi Qiddushin? The Basic Dilemma.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner. Vol. 8, 133-253. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. _______. A History of the Jews of Babylonia. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1966-70. _______. Judaism and Scripture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. ________. Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi; Toward the Natural History of a Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Reprint, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. ________. Judaism: The Classical Statement; The Evidence of the Bavli. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986. ________. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981. ________. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. 2d ed. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 129. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. _______, ed. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. Volume 16, Rosh Hashanah. Translated by Edward A. Goldman. Chicago Studies in the Story of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Oppenheimer, Aharon. “The Attempt of Hananiah, Son of Rabbi Joshua's Brother, to Intercalate the Year in Babylonia; A Comparison of the Traditions in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.” The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Shäfer and Catherine Hezser. Vol. 2, 255-64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pretzler, Maria. Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth, 2007.

274 Raab, Menachem."Kiddush ha-Hodesh, Kiddush ha-Levanah and Birkat ha-Hodesh." Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy 27 (2005-06): 20-29. Rabinowitz, Z. W., and Ezra Zion Melamed. Sha’are Torat Bavel: kolel perushim, he’arot ve-hagahot ‘al Talmud Bavli, ve-he’arot le-seder dorot ha-Tanaim veha-Amoraim. Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1961. Ratner, Baer. Bi-defus ha-almanah veha-ahim Rom. Vilna, 1901-17. Reich, Eli. "God of Judgment, God of Compassion: A Reading of the Rosh Hashanah Service." Judaism 46, no. 3 (1997): 259-69. Robbins, Ellen. "The Pleiades, the Flood, and the Jewish New Year." In Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, 329-44. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Rosenthal, David. "'Arikhot Qedumot ha-Meshuqa'ot ba-Talmud ha-Bavli." In Mechqerei Talmud, vol. 1, 155-204. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. ________. "Halakhah Eretz-Yisraelit ba-Talmud ha-Bavli." Ha-Qongres ha-'Olami le-Mada'ei haYahadut 10 (1990): 85-92. ________. "Mesorot Eretz-Yisrael ve-Darkkan le-Vavel." Qetedra 92 (1999): 7-48. _______. "Pirqa de-Abbaye: Pereq 2 shel Bavli Rosh Hashanah. " Tarbiz 46 (1977): 97-109. Rosenthal, E. S. “Toldot Nusah u-Ba’ayot ’Arikhah be-Cheqer ha-Talmud.” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 1-36. Rubenstein, Jeffrey. The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. _______. “On Some Abstract Concepts in Rabbinic Literature.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1997): 33-73. _______. “The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy.” http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/12002/Rubenstein.doc (accessed November 2009).

275 Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. _______. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schremer, Adiel. “Stammaitic Historiography.” In Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Shaked, Shaul. “Items of Dress and Other Objects in Common Use: Iranian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.” In Irano-Judaica, vol. 3. Edited by Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1994. Shalev, Zur. “Benjamin of Tudela, Spanish Explorer.” Mediterranean Historical Review 25, no. 1 (2010): 17-33. Sperber, Daniel. “On the Unfortunate Adventures of Rav Kahana: A Passage of Saboraic Polemic from Sasanian Persia.” In Irano-Judaica: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages, vol. 1, 83-100. Edited by Shaul Shaked. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1982. Spurr, David. The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing and Imperial Administration. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 1976. _______. “Ha-Qesharim bein Bavel le-Eretz Yisrael.” In Talpioth 9 (1964): 294-306. _______. The Talmud: the Steinsaltz Edition; A Reference Guide. New York: Random House, 1989. Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century B.C.E. toTenth Century C.E. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ________. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003.

276 Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Sussmann, Ya’akov. “Torah shebe’al Peh: Peshuto keMashma’o-Kokho shel Kotzo shel Yod.” In Mechqerei Talmud, vol. 3, 209-384. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005. _______. “Ve-Shuv l’Yerushalmi Neziqin.” In Mechqerei Talmud, vol. 1, 133-55. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. Thornton, Timothy C. G. "Jewish New Moon Festivals, Galatians 4:3-11 and Colossians 2:16." Journal of Theological Studies 40, no. 1 (1989): 97-100. Wacholder, Ben Zion. "Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources." Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971): 227-42. Wald, Stephen G. Kelal gadol: Shabat perek shevi’i min ha-Talmud ha-Bavli: ‘im parshanut ‘al derekh ha-mehkar. Jerusalem: ha-lgud le-farshanut ha-Talmud, 2007. _______. Perek Elu-ovrin: Bavli Pesahim; perek shelishi; mahadurah bikortit ‘im be’ur makif. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2000. Walfish, Avraham. “Ha-Geografia be-Qidush ha-Chodesh uva-Teqi'ah ba-Shofar u-Mashma'utah: Iyun ba-Mishnah be-Masekhet Roshha-Shanah uve-Maqbilotehah.” In Mehkere Yehudah ve-Shomron 11 (2002): 253-65. ________. “Ha-Mishnah be-Espeqlariah Interteqstualit: Iyun be-Shalosh Mishnayot le-Or Sugyot Aggadiyot be-Sifrut ha-Tanna'im veha-Amora'im.” In Amnon Bazak, Shemuel Vigodah, and Meir Munits, ‘Al Derekh ha-avot: sheloshim shanah le-Mikhlelet Ya’akov Hertsog: kovets maamarim be-nose Torah ve-hinukh, 233-67. Alon Shevut (West Bank): Hotsaat Tevunot, 2001. ________. “Shitat ha-Arikhah ha-Sifrutit ba-Mishnah al-pi Masekhet Rosh ha-Shanah.” Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, 2001. ________. “Yom ha-Din be-Torat ha-Tannaim.” In Amnon Bazak, Be-Rosh Ha-Shanah yikatevun: kovets maamarim ‘al Rosh ha-Shanah, 61-86. Alon Shevut (West Bank): Hotsaat Tevunot, 2002.

277 Weinberg, Jechiel. “The Talmudic Exegesis of the Mishnah.” In The Isaiah Wolfsberg Jubilee Volume, 86-105. Tel Aviv, 1955. Weis, Pinkas Rudolf. “The Controversies of Rab and Samuel and the Tosefta.” Journal of Semitic Studies (1958). Weiss, Avraham. Al ha-Yetzirah ha-Sifrutit shel ha-Amoraim. New York, 1962.

________. Hithavut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto. New York: ha-Mosad le-Zikhron Aleksander Kohut, 1943. ________. Le-Heker ha-Talmud. New York: Feldheim, 1954. ________. Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Sifrutit. Warsaw, 1937. _______. Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Amoraim. New York, 1962. Wolfson, Eliot R. Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Zelcer, Heshy. A Guide to the Jerusalem Talmud. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers, 2002.

278