A
The historical reliability of tannaitic traditions transmitted by Amoraim in the two Talmudim is one of the thorniest problems awaiting a Talmud scholar or historian researching the literature, legal and aggadic, of the Tannaim. Are these baraitot, introduced by the terms “so-and-so taught” (תני רב פלוני), or “so-and-so taught in front of so-and-so” (תני תנא קמיה דפלוני), or “the Tanna of the house of so-and-so taught” (תנא דבי רב פלוני) authentic tannaitic traditions? Or are their transmission by Amoraim and the lack of the typical terminology used in the Bavli for baraitot (תניא, תנו רבנן) signs of a later, post-tannaitic origin?
Modern scholars have posited that these baraitot, or at least a large portion of them, are amoraic halakhic creations, mainly from Babylonia. Scholars based this theory primarily on formalistic considerations: the technical terms used to present the baraitot, the attitude of the Amoraim to the content of the baraitot, and other similar literary considerations. Recently, I reexamined this claim in relation to a collection of around fifty baraitot transmitted in the two Talmudim by the first generation Babylonian Amora Shmu'el, using the terms: “Shmu'el taught” (שמואל תני); “a teaching of Shmu'el” (מתניתא דשמואל); or “it was taught in the House of Shmu'el” (תנא דבי שמואל). These sources were identified by scholars as “Babylonian baraitot,” created in Babylonia in the pretalmudic period. This “Babylonian Mishnah,” so it has been claimed, harmonized R. Judah Ha-Nasi's Mishnah with Babylonian pretalmudic halakhic traditions, even if this meant offering strained interpretations. However, analysis of the halakhic content of these baraitot demonstrates that these baraitot consistently reflect Palestinian tannaitic tradition (around 70 percent of the total number of baraitot).Footnote 1 The aim of this paper is to broaden the scope and evaluate the nature and source of the largest collection of baraitot identified by earlier scholars as representing a Babylonian halakhic tradition composed primarily during the amoraic period.
My analysis of the 140 baraitot introduced in the Talmudim by terms such as “the Tanna recited in front of …” (תני תנא קמיה) (TTK baraitot) shows that this “Babylonian theory” should not be accepted. The evidence presented as to the date and location of these baraitot's origins is based on preconceived notions and questionable interpretation of the sources. Determining the nature and provenance of the halakhic material found in these baraitot (and baraitot in general) requires analysis of the entire corpus of material and its comparison with similar Palestinian tannaitic material found in the Mishnah, Tosefta, or halakhic midrashim. The form or literary style of the baraita in one of the Talmudim is not sufficient to determine when or where the baraita was created. By demonstrating the strong and consistent correlation between baraitot transmitted by Amoraim in the Bavli with Palestinian tannaitic sources we can appreciate the widespread circulation of Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah in amoraic Babylonia and its deep impact on Babylonian sages. From a broader perspective, analysis of the TTK baraitot contributes to our general understanding of the oral transmission and reception of the tannaitic halakhic tradition in amoraic Babylonia.
B
The terms תני פלוני קומי [ד]פלוני ,תני/תנא פלוני קמיה דפלוני and other similar technical terms appear over 140 times in the two Talmudim, including appearances found only in manuscripts.Footnote 2 These terms occur in an academic settingFootnote 3 when a halakhic tannaitic tradition (usually a baraitaFootnote 4) is recited by either a professional reciter or by a sage in front of the head of a local or central school (yeshivah).Footnote 5 In these cases, the head of the academy examines the transmission of the tannaitic tradition or its content, interprets it, emends its wording, or even rejects it.Footnote 6
These passages portray an essential aspect of the rabbinic scholastic framework of the Babylonian yeshivot throughout the talmudic period.Footnote 7 As stated above, there is a widespread theory among scholars that these baraitot, or at least a majority of them, are not authentic tannaitic halakhic traditions. They were not, so it has been claimed, created during the tannaitic period, nor is their content truly “tannaitic.”
Most of the scholars who suggest that the TTK baraitot were created in the amoraic period based their conclusions on the introductory terms. They reason that when the word תני is combined with the name of the Amora, or with an anonymous reciter (תני תנא קמיה דפלוני), the sage reciting the baraita was the author of the tradition, either as an individual or collectively. This theory is repeated in the studies of Zecharias Frankel, Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Jacob Samuel Ẓuri, Abraham Goldberg, and Ḥanokh Albeck.Footnote 8 However, a formalistic claim that the named reciter of the baraita is also its author is not sufficient to determine the origins of the content of these halakhot and must be rejected. Shamma Friedman has demonstrated that the terms used to introduce baraitot in the Bavli are connected to the characteristics of the talmudic discourse into which the baraita has been interwoven. There is no connection between these introductory terms and the origins or content of the baraita itself.Footnote 9
The nature of the discourse in the passages that include these baraitot is crucial in affirming this conclusion. The Amora in front of whom the baraita was recited is named (תני תנא קמיה דפלוני) because of that Amora's response to the content or wording of the baraita. In his discussion of midrashic baraitot in the Bavli introduced by such terms, Ezra Ẓion Melamed writes,
… that in all of the places where the phrase “so-and-so taught” [תני פלוני] or “the Tanna taught [תני תנא] in front of so-and-so” appears, the authoritative Amora interprets, emends, completes, disagrees, or agrees with the baraita recited by the Tanna sitting in front of him. Occasionally other students protest against the baraita.Footnote 10
Melamed's claim is accurate with regard to nearly all such baraitot in the Talmudim.Footnote 11 It is thus impossible to accept the assertion that the halakhic content found in baraitot transmitted by a named or anonymous reciter in front of an Amora was created by the Amora who recited the baraita or by his beit midrash.Footnote 12 The name of the reciting Amora is included not because he composed the halakhah but because in this particular case the Amora in front of whom the baraita was recited responded directly to the content. In instances where the same baraita was recited without a response, it is included in the talmudic record without any notation as to who recited it or in front of whom it was recited.Footnote 13 This explains why these baraitot are sometimes found elsewhere in the Bavli introduced by the usual terms, “it was taught” (תניא) or “our rabbis taught” (תנו רבנן). And most importantly, when we compare the content and nature of these baraitot with Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah, the opposite conclusion emerges.Footnote 14 Close to 70 percent of TTK baraitot accord with the Halakhah found in tannaitic compositions.Footnote 15 For the remainder of cases I have not located a tannaitic parallel. However, a baraita cannot be identified as a fictitious Babylonian creation based solely on the lack of a parallel in Palestinian tannaitic literature, without any proof as to the Babylonian nature of the baraita, such as a corollary between the practice referenced in the baraita and a purely Babylonian one, a similarity between the baraita and a Babylonian amoraic halakhah, or a resemblance to a Sassanian law.Footnote 16 This is all the more true when it comes to TTK baraitot, which, as stated, exhibit a strong connection to Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah.
The critique that Amoraim frequently lay against these baraitot also serves scholars as evidence for their late date. According to this claim's main representatives, Frankel and Albeck, an Amora would not disagree with a halakhah found in a baraita or emend it radically, in essence reject its content, unless he perceived the baraita as being “a new baraita” with questionable tannaitic origins.Footnote 17 Epstein arrived at a similar conclusion, identifying several TTK baraitot as “Babylonian baraitot,” reflective of pretalmudic teachings from Babylonia. Epstein's theory was based on the halakhic critique leveled by R. Yoḥanan against three baraitot recited in front of him by R. Zakkai, “Babylonian—you crossed three rivers [from Babylonia to 'Ereẓ-Yisra'el] and you were refuted.”Footnote 18 Epstein reads the language of this critique as evidence for the Babylonian origins of these three baraitot—R. Zakkai brought them with him to Palestine from Babylonia and recited them in front of R. Yoḥanan.
However, the evidence presented by these scholars is insufficient to prove their claims. First of all, there are very few such instances in the Talmudim, most of them involving R. Yoḥanan (about 10 percent of the TTK baraitot). The critical approach adopted by R. Yoḥanan towards these baraitot does not characterize all Amoraim.Footnote 19 Second, and even more problematic for these scholars' claims, is the strong similarity in content between these baraitot and Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah. This similarity exists even for baraitot that were rejected or emended by the Amoraim, including all of the baraitot rejected by R. Yoḥanan. (This will be the focus of attention below.)Footnote 20 Third, the a priori assumption that amoraic emendations of tannaitic sources stem from the source's late provenance is methodologically unsound. Babylonian Amoraim, mainly from the early generations, frequently emend mishnayot and baraitot. Nevertheless, there is no doubt as to these sources' authenticity. As Sussman writes:
Amoraim, when they deem it necessary, do not hesitate to “change” or “fix” their sources in order to resolve difficulties. On the contrary, it seems that despite their caution and meticulousness, they “fix” [their sources] with the greatest of ease—they add to and subtract, exchange and overturn the wording found in their sources.Footnote 21
The baraitot transmitted by named (or anonymous) reciters were abbreviated and cited anonymously, without the names of their tannaitic authors. Many of them serve to complete or interpret the Mishnah and can be understood only in juxtaposition with it. These characteristics were interpreted by scholars as signs that the Halakhah in the baraita postdates the Mishnah. Thus Albeck concludes, “they were not established during the time of the Tannaim of the Mishnah.”Footnote 22 However, this proof is also insufficient. Content found in a baraita that adds to the Mishnah, even if it is interpretive, does not necessarily attest to the content having been created after the composition of the Mishnah. Many studies have shown that occasionally the opposite is true—the short halakhah in the Mishnah is a summary of the longer, more detailed halakhah found in the baraitot of the Tosefta or the Talmudim.Footnote 23
There is no doubt that the baraitot transmitted in the Bavli by named (or anonymous) reciters do exhibit signs of post-tannaitic editing and reworking. This phenomenon is not unique to TTK baraitot; it is common to baraitot in the Talmudim in general. TTK baraitot show signs of having been influenced by the language of the Amoraim, of having been abbreviated, and at times they contain amoraic interpretations or Halakhah. These phenomena as connected to TTK baraitot were studied and described by many scholars, including Jacob Naḥum Epstein, David Weiss Halivni, Jacob Sussman, and Shamma Friedman.Footnote 24 At times a brief and anonymous halakhah found in a TTK baraita has parallels in two different tannaitic collections; at other times it has parallels in two different places in one tannaitic composition.Footnote 25 However, these literary phenomena are not directly related to the content of the traditions. Indeed, as far as their halakhic content goes, the halakhot found in the TTK baraitot reflect Palestinian halakhic tradition, even in cases where the literary style is later and more common to late Tannaim or early Amoraim. This makes it impossible to accept the claim that the content of these baraitot originated in a later period. Rather, finer distinctions must be drawn between the language and literary style of the baraita—which may indeed be post-tannaitic—and its halakhic content, which is generally faithful to the tannaitic Palestinian tradition.Footnote 26 Besides the TTK baraitot that are the focus of this particular study, there are numerous baraitot in the Bavli whose content clearly reflects the authentic earlier Palestinian tannaitic traditions found in the Tosefta and Yerushalmi. Only the differences in language and style are the result of later editing.Footnote 27
Having determined that the origins of these baraitot cannot be based on the narrowly formalistic criteria asserted by earlier critical talmudic scholars, I now turn my attention to analysis of the content of their halakhot. The discussion below focuses on TTK baraitot previously identified by scholars as demonstrating signs of late provenance: (1) baraitot containing interpretations and expansions on the Mishnah, and (2) baraitot rejected or emended by the Amoraim.
Interpretations and Expansions of the Mishnah
There are over thirty anonymous and abbreviated TTK baraitot that either interpret or add a halakhah to the mishnah.Footnote 28 Examination of the halakhic content of this material and comparison with the Halakhah found in tannaitic compositions reveals that around 85 percent (26/30 baraitot) have parallels in tannaitic literature.Footnote 29 The following is an illustrative example of such an interpretive baraita in the Yerushalmi, recited in the presence of R. Yoḥanan. There are twenty-seven baraitotFootnote 30 recited in front of R. Yoḥanan in the Talmudim, making him the Amora in front of whom the largest number of baraitot are recited.Footnote 31 In twenty-two of them the Halakhah accords with that found in tannaitic compositions.Footnote 32
Y. Pe'ah 1:1 (15a):Footnote 33
Mishnah: Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage offering [re'iyah] must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the ḥagigah offering one piece [ma'ah] of silver.
But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage offering must be worth [at least] one [ma'ah] of silver and the ḥagigah offering two pieces of silver.Footnote 34
Gemara: R. Yose recited in front of R. Yoḥanan: the pilgrimage offering can be of the smallest amount. The sages, they were the ones who said: one piece of silver, two pieces of silver.
He [R. Yoḥanan] said: Is there anything like that?
R. Yonah said: Weren't the sages the ones who provided all of the minimum measures [such as] an olive's worth of a corpse, an olive's worth of carrion and a lentil's worth of a shereẓ? As R. Hoshʿaya taught: “You shall not see my face empty-handed”—even the smallest amount. But the sages said: one piece of silver, two pieces of silver….
R. Yose b. Rabbi Bun said: R. Yoḥanan follows his own opinion and R. Hoshʿaya follows his own opinion. R. Yoḥanan follows his own opinion, for R. Yoḥanan said: All minimum measures are Halakhah from Moses at Sinai. This is what is meant when it was said: one piece of silver, two pieces of silver—are from the Torah.
R. Hoshʿaya follows his own opinion … this is what is meant when they said: the pilgrimage offering can be of the smallest amount. The sages, they were the ones who said: one piece of silver, two pieces of silver.
They said: R. Yoḥanan retracted.
R. Yonah and R. Yose both of them said: [R. Yoḥanan] did not retract.
Three times the Torah commands Israelites,Footnote 35 “Do not see my face empty-handed” when making a pilgrimage to the central place of worship. Tannaitic tradition interprets this phrase to refer to money that must be brought to purchase a pilgrimage offering and a ḥagigah offering on the festival.Footnote 36 The two houses dispute the minimal value of these sacrifices. According to Bet Shammai, the main offering on the festival is the pilgrimage offering, a burnt offering completely for God. This leads to the demand that it cost at least two pieces of silver.Footnote 37 In contrast, Bet Hillel is more lenient with regard to this sacrifice, holding that the main purpose of the festival sacrifices is for the owners to offer them and then consume the meat.Footnote 38 Despite the “anonymous” language and the fact that the TTK baraita interprets the Mishnah, the content of the baraita reflects tannaitic tradition. It is identical to the baraita attributed to R. Hoshʿaya that appears at the end of the passage. The same halakhah is also found in Mekhilta de-R. Shimʿon b. Yoḥai, Mishpatim 23:15 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 218): “‘And they shall not see my face empty-handed’: even the smallest amount. And the sages say: The minimum amount for a pilgrimage burnt offering is one piece of silver, and for a ḥagigah offering, two pieces of silver.”Footnote 39 R. Yoḥanan questions this baraita—“Is there anything like that?”Footnote 40 R. Yose b. Rabbi Bun's statement then shows that R. Yoḥanan disagrees with the content of the halakhah, holding that the minimum measure for these sacrifices is not rabbinically determined. According to R. Yoḥanan “all minimum measures were given to Moses on Sinai.”Footnote 41 In any case, the fact that the TTK baraita is anonymous and interprets the mishnah is not evidence that its content was created after the tannaitic period.
B. Makkot 20b:
Mishnah: One who makes a bald spot on his head, and one who rounds the corners of his face or destroys the corners of his beard … is liable.
Gemara: The Tanna recited in front of R. Ḥisda: Both one who rounds the corners of his beard and one who has [the corners of his beard] rounded—are punishable by lashes.
He said to him: Should one who ate dates in a basket be lashed? Who said this to you? It is R. Judah who said:Footnote 42 One who transgressed a negative commandment without doing anything is lashed.
Rava said: This refers to one who rounds the corners of his own beard, and it accords with everyone's opinion.
R. Ashi says: It refers to one who assists, and it accords with everyone's opinion.
There are two TTK baraitot in the Bavli recited in front of R. Ḥisda (an Amora of the third generation).Footnote 43 Both add to the halakhah in the mishnah and both have parallels in tannaitic compositions. This example from Makkot is an excellent illustration of both. The mishnah punishes one who rounds the corners of his beard (see Leviticus 19:27) with lashes.Footnote 44 The TTK baraita adds that when two people participate in the forbidden activity—one who rounds and one whose beard is rounded—both are liable. The same baraita is found in Sifra, Kedoshim, per. 6:3, to Leviticus 19:26 (ed. Weiss, p. 90c):Footnote 45 “‘Do not round’—both the one who rounds and the one [whose beard] is rounded.”Footnote 46 The midrash is likely based on the plural language of the verse, as was pointed out by medieval commentators, “Since the Torah used the plural ‘Do (pl.) not round the corners of your (pl.) head’ it refers to both of them.”Footnote 47A parallel also appears in T. Makkot 4:10 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 442):
One who rounds off the corners of his fellow's head—both are liable. When is this so? When both do so intentionally. But if both did so unintentionally—they are exempt.Footnote 48
The liability of the passive participant surprises R. Ḥisda: “the one whose head is rounded, what crime has he committed that he should be lashed? This is a negative commandment transgressed passively, and he should not be lashed!”Footnote 49 To resolve the difficulty, the TTK baraita is ascribed to R. Judah, who holds that in general passive transgressions are punished by lashes.Footnote 50 Nonetheless, as in the previous cases, the anonymity of the baraita and its interpretive nature do not indicate that it was created as an addition to the Mishnah.
B. Menaḥot 50b:
Mishnah: The high priest's griddle-cakes cannot be brought in [two separate] halves. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. If a [high] priest offered half in the morning and then died and they appointed another priest in his place, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house, neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, and offer one half and leave the other half to waste. It turns out that two halves are offered and two halves go to waste.Footnote 51
Gemara: A Tanna recited before R. Naḥman: As for the first half and the second half, their appearance must first be allowed to spoil and then they are taken away to the place of burning.
R. Naḥman said to him: I grant you the first one, since it was fit to be offered, but as for the second, why must its appearance first be spoiled? From the very outset it was intended for destruction!
Who told you this? A Tanna of the school of Rabbah b. Abuha who said that even piggul must have its appearance spoiled [before it is destroyed].Footnote 52
In the Bavli, seventeen TTK baraitot are recited in front of R. Naḥman, a third-generation Babylonian Amora, making him the Amora in front of whom the second highest number of TTK baraitot are recited.Footnote 53 The halakhic content of thirteen of these baraitot reflects the tannaitic halakhic tradition documented in the Mishnah, halakhic midrashim, Tosefta, or baraitot in the Yerushalmi.Footnote 54 The above baraita is phrased briefly and anonymously; it explains and expands the mishnah. Again, despite the language and style, which make the baraita look as if it postdates the Mishnah, there are parallels in both the Tosefta and Yerushalmi.
According to the mishnah, the minḥah of the high priest (offered twice daily) is prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour that is divided into two. From this flour twelve full loaves are prepared, six for the morning offering and six for the twilight. If the high priest died after offering his morning minḥah, the replacement high priest must repeat the entire procedure—he may not bring the remaining loaves that the previous high priest prepared, nor may he prepare only six new loaves. Rather, he must bring a full tenth of an ephah of flour, and divide it in half. With half of the flour he prepares six loaves for the twilight offering; the other half goes to waste. As the mishnah states, “two halves are offered and two halves go to waste.” T. Menaḥot 7:10 (ed., Zuckermandel, p. 522) explains how they would let the two halves “go to waste”:
A [high] priest who offered half [of the minḥah] and then died and they appointed another priest in his place—he may not bring half of a tenth from his own home nor may he bring the half tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather, he brings a full tenth and he divides it in two. This half and the first half—should be left to spoil and then they go out to the place of burning.
In Y. Shekalim 7:6 (50d) the TTK baraita interprets the mishnah and is introduced by the term, “and it was taught about it” (ותני עלה).Footnote 55 According to all three versions of this baraita, the halves of the minḥah offering that will not be sacrificed must be left out all night until their appearance changes,Footnote 56 since they are considered sanctified from the time they were prepared. R. Naḥman disagrees, holding that since the half of a tenth prepared by the second high priest was never sanctified, it need not be left out until its appearance changes. To resolve the baraita, R. Naḥman ascribes its halakhah to Rabbah bar Abuha (see also parallels in Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah).Footnote 57 In any case, despite its anonymous phrasing and interpretive nature, the TTK baraita recited in front of R. Naḥman is anchored in the tannaitic traditions of the Tosefta and Yerushalmi.
This section concludes an examination of TTK baraitot that contain amoraic interpretations of the Mishnah or a baraita.Footnote 58 These are amoraic interpretations employing phrases such as, “it was taught only with regard to” (לא שנו אלא), “the halakah is like R. So-and-so” (הלכה כר' פלוני), and “Who is this? R. So-and-so?” (הא מני? ר' פלוני היא). These served as evidence for scholars for the late dating of TTK baraitot in general, for they testify that the “Tannaim”—the professional reciters—recited amoraic traditions.Footnote 59 However, the most that can actually be concluded from this phenomenon is that the reciter added an amoraic teaching or ruling to the baraita, which he also recited.Footnote 60 In all of these cases, the reciting Amora must have recited the tannaitic source as well, for without it, the amoraic addition cannot be understood. Indeed, for all four of the sources that have had an amoraic interpretation or ruling added to the baraita, the tannaitic portion has a parallel in the Mishnah or another tannaitic composition.Footnote 61 These instances cannot serve as evidence for the late dating of the tannaitic portion of the tradition. We'll look at one example to demonstrate this:
B. Yevamot 40a:
Mishnah: One who marries his yevamah [dead brother's wife]—he has rights to his brother's property. R. Judah says: In all cases, if the father is still alive, the property belongs to the father.
Gemara: Ulla said: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah. And so too R. Yiẓḥak Nafḥa said: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah.… R. Ḥanina Kara sat in front of R. Yannai and recited: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah. He said to him: Go out and teach your verses outside, the halakhah is not in accordance with R. Judah. The Tanna taught in front of R. Naḥman b. Yiẓḥak:Footnote 62 The halakhah is not in accordance with R. Judah. He said to him: According to whom is it? Like the rabbis? This is obvious—a single opinion and a majority opinion, the halakhah follows the majority! He said to him: Should I erase it?Footnote 63 He said to him: No, they taught you a halakhah, and it was difficult for you, and you overturned it, and that which you overturned, you overturned correctly.
According to the first opinion, the rights to inheritance belong to the levir. This halakhah was likely formed as an incentive for him to marry the widow.Footnote 64 In contrast, R. Judah disagrees and grants the inheritance rights to the father. Both Talmudim explain that R. Judah compares the inheritance of the levir with the inheritance of a firstborn—just as a firstborn does not inherit while his father is alive, so too a levir does not inherit while his father is still alive.Footnote 65 The precise wording of R. Judah's statement in the mishnah leads to the impression that if the father is no longer alive, he would agree with the sages that the levir inherits his dead brother's estate.Footnote 66 However, in the parallel in T. Yevamot 6:3 (ed. Lieberman, p. 18) R. Judah seems to disagree completely with the notion that the levir receives preferential inheritance rights: “R. Judah says: In any case, if the father is alive, the property goes to the father. If the father is not alive, the property goes to [all of the] brothers.”Footnote 67
The passage from Bavli Yevamot serves as a basis for scholars' understanding of how Babylonian reciters changed baraitot.Footnote 68 R. Naḥman describes the original version of the baraita that the reciter received: “The Tanna was familiar with the version: ‘the halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah,’ but due to his reluctance to abandon the opinion of the rabbis and rule in accordance with R. Judah, the Tanna emended the source, and in front of R. Naḥman he presented it in its new form.”Footnote 69 According to R. Naḥman, the original version that the Tanna heard was: “the halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah.” This original version is found in a Palestinian source that can be dated to the end of the mishnaic period or the beginning of the amoraic period (Y. Yevamot 4:7 [5d]):
R. Abba bar Kahana, R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi [said] in the name of Rav: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah. R. Joshua ben Levi said: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah. R. Abahu, R. Lazar [said] in the name of R. Hoshʿaya: The halakhah is in accordance with R. Judah. R. Yoḥanan said: Many times I sat in front of R. Hoshʿaya and I never heard this from him. He said to him: Does it not happen that one person hears something and his fellow does not hear it?Footnote 70
In contrast with the previous cases, the halakhah taught by the reciter is not part of the tannaitic tradition, but rather accompanies it.Footnote 71 In this case, the ruling in accordance with R. Judah matches Palestinian Halakhah from the first half of the third century.Footnote 72 Thus, although the tradition recited by the Tanna is not a baraita and is indeed an amoraic tradition, it is an early tradition that originated in the transitional generation between the tannaitic and amoraic periods. It is not a tradition created in Babylonia.
Baraitot That Were Rejected or Emended
Seventeen TTK baraitot in the Talmudim were rejected by the Amoraim.Footnote 73 This phenomenon is connected mostly with R. Yoḥanan, both in the Bavli and in the Yerushalmi. Frequently, R. Yoḥanan rejects the halakhic content of a baraita when it does not accord with his opinion or with his determination of the halakhah. R. Yoḥanan's responses to these baraitot are usually phrased in apodictic style,Footnote 74 without any justification for the rejection. They include, “go teach it outside” (פוק תני לברא),Footnote 75 “erase it from here” (סמי מכאן),Footnote 76 “that is not a mishnah” (אינה משנה),Footnote 77 “is there anything like that?” (?ן זו[א]כ ויש),Footnote 78 “where did you learn that?”Footnote 79 (הן תניתה אילין?[א]), and “Babylonian, you crossed three rivers and you were refuted” (בבלייא, עברת בידך תלתא נהרין ואתברת).Footnote 80 In one instance, the stam was surprised that R. Yoḥanan rejected a TTK baraita and “didn't heed the words of the reciter.”Footnote 81
In addition, around twenty TTK baraitot were emended by Amoraim using terms such as “teach it” (תני),Footnote 82 “say” (אימא),Footnote 83 “teach it this way” (הכי קתני),Footnote 84 “reverse it” (איפוך),Footnote 85 and others. As stated above, these occurrences led scholars to conclude that these baraitot were post-tannaitic creations. Again, these conclusions are unjustified and unsupported by the sources. With the exception of three cases,Footnote 86 all of these baraitot have parallels in tannaitic literature. The following are a few representative examples.
B. Yoma 42a–43b:
Mishnah: [The high priest] came to the second bull and placed both of his hands on it and confessed. … he slaughtered it and received the blood in a bowl.
Gemara: It was stated: The slaughtering of the [red] heifer and his bull [by a non-priest]:Footnote 87 Rav and Shmu'el: one said the heifer is disqualified but his bull is valid and one said his bull is disqualified but the heifer is valid.
Report it that Rav was the one who said the heifer is disqualified, for R. Zera said in the name of Rav: The slaughter of the heifer performed by a non-priest is disqualified. And Rav said about this: “Elʿazar” [Num. 19:3] and “Law” [Num. 19:2] were taught about it. Report it….
It was stated: The slaughter of the heifer by a non-priest. R. Ammi said: it is valid. And R. Yiẓḥak Nafḥa said: It is disqualified.
Ulla said: It is valid and some say: It is invalid.… The Tanna recited it in front of R. Yoḥanan: The slaughtering [of all beasts] is valid when performed by a non-priest except for the heifer.
R. Yoḥanan said to him: Go teach it outside, for we have not found that slaughtering performed by a non-priest is disqualified.Footnote 88
And R. Yoḥanan, it is not sufficient that he didn't heed the Tanna but he didn't heed even his own teacher, as R. Yoḥanan said in the name of R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai:Footnote 89 The slaughtering of the heifer by a non-priest is disqualified. And I say: It is valid, for we have not found that slaughtering performed by a non-priest is disqualified.
R. Yoḥanan rejects the baraita recited in his presence, saying to the Tanna, “Go teach it outside” (פוק תני לברא). This expression is unique to R. Yoḥanan and is ascribed to him in five additional places.Footnote 90 For two of these instances there is a parallel in the Yerushalmi, where his rejection is phrased in the following manner, “Babylonian, you crossed three rivers and you were refuted.”Footnote 91 According to the stam, R. Yoḥanan disagreed even with his own teacher, the Tanna R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai, whose halakhah accords with the end of the baraita (“the slaughtering of the heifer by a non-priest is disqualified”): “And even though the Tanna recited in front of him [that slaughtering performed by a non-priest] is disqualified, he [R. Yoḥanan] didn't listen to him. And he didn't even listen to his own rabbi who said that the slaughtering of the heifer done by a non-priest is disqualified. Rather he [R. Yoḥanan] insisted that there is no case of slaughtering performed by a non-priest which is disqualified.”Footnote 92 The same opinion is ascribed to R. Yoḥanan in Y. Yoma 8:3 (40d): “And R. Yoḥanan said: we have not found a slaughtering performed by a non-priest that is disqualified.”Footnote 93
Based on this passage, Albeck dated the baraita to the amoraic period.Footnote 94 However, this assertion is problematic. Epstein demonstrated that both of the halakhot found in the baraita are anchored in tannaitic Halakhah.Footnote 95 The first part, “The slaughtering of all beasts performed by a non-priest are valid,” accords with M. Zevaḥim 3:1: “Slaughtering is valid when performed by non-priests, women or slaves. And even most holy sacrifices.”Footnote 96 The halakhah in the second half, “except for the heifer,” is documented in a variety of tannaitic compositions, as well as the tradition ascribed to R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai at the end of the sugya. In these sources Tannaim do debate whether the red heifer must be slaughtered only by the high priest or whether a regular priest can also perform the job. But no Tanna disagrees that the slaughtering must be performed by a priest. For instance, M. Parah 4:1 states: “A heifer for the cleansing [ritual] which was slaughtered … not by the high priest is disqualified. But R. Judah validates it.” Similarly in T. Parah 4:6 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 633):
The burning of the heifer and the sprinkling [of its blood] must be performed by the high priest, but the rest of the sacrificial actions can be performed by an ordinary priest … the words of R. Me'ir. R. Yose b. R. Judah and R. Shim‘on and R. Elʿazar b. Ya‘akov say: … “it” [must be slaughtered] by Elʿazar who was the vice [chief of priests] but the rest of the heifers [may be slaughtered] even by an ordinary priest.
R. Me'ir rules that the burning of the heifer and the sprinkling of its blood must be done by the high priest, but the rest of the actions can be performed by any priest. In contrast, the other sages (R. Yose b. R. Judah, R. Shim‘on, and R. Elʿazar b. Ya‘akov) allow all of the sacrificial actions to be performed by any priest.Footnote 97
R. Yoḥanan's justification for his opposition to the baraita is unclear.Footnote 98 It is possible that he reads Mishnah Zevaḥim as having no exceptions—all slaughtering may be performed by a nonpriest, even that of the red heifer. In contrast, the other Tannaim read the Mishnah's general principle as if it does not include the heifer, a ritual that differs from typical sacrifices. In any case, it is abundantly clear that the baraita recited in front of R. Yoḥanan is an authentic Palestinian tannaitic tradition. R. Yoḥanan's attitude to the baraita bears no relevance to its dating or origins.
B. Shabbat 106a (=B. Bava Kamma 34b):
Mishnah: One who rends his garment over his dead or in anger and all those who ruin [things on Shabbat] are exempt.Footnote 99 But one who ruins something in order to repair it—the minimum measure for liability is like one who repairs.
Gemara: R. Abahu taught in front of R. Yoḥanan: “All who ruin things on Shabbat are exempt, except for one who causes injury or one who burns something.”
He said to him: Go teach it outside, “one who causes injury or one who burns” is not a mishnah. And if you were to say it is a mishnah [it is only true in the following cases]: One who injures—when he needs the blood [for his dog]; one who burns—when he needs the ashes.Footnote 100
But have we not taught—all who ruin [things on Shabbat] are exempt!
The mishnah is in accordance with R. Judah, the baraita is in accordance with R. Shim‘on.
According to the simple reading of the mishnah, a person is not liable for having performed a destructive forbidden labor on Shabbat unless he ruined something with the intention of subsequently repairing it.Footnote 101 The baraita quoted by R. Abahu offers two exceptions to the rule: one who causes injury and one who burns something. R. Yoḥanan rejects this halakhah. (“Go teach it outside—one who causes injury or one who burns is not a mishnah.”) Immediately following his rejection, R. Yoḥanan harmonizes the halakhah in the baraita with the mishnah. According to R. Yoḥanan, one who injures or one who burns is liable only when he does not act in a purely destructive mannerFootnote 102 (as in the case of one “who destroys in order to repair”).Footnote 103 R. Yoḥanan does not offer any explanation as to why he rejected the halakhah found in the baraita. According to Albeck, R. Yoḥanan rejected the baraita out of his own reasoning.Footnote 104 However, it seems more likely that R. Yoḥanan's reading of the mishnah led him to reject the baraita, since according to the mishnah all destructive acts are exempt, even those causing injury and burning.Footnote 105 Both Talmudim also present R. Yoḥanan as harmonizing the mishnah with the baraita—causing injury and burning are not transgressions (mishnah) but when performed for a constructive result, to get the blood or the ash, they are transgressions (baraita).
Zecharias Frankel, Isaac Hirsch Weiss, and Ḥanokh Albeck posited that R. Yoḥanan was able to disagree with the baraita because it was amoraic.Footnote 106 Again, this conclusion is unjustified. The very fact that R. Yoḥanan subsequently explains the baraita in order to bring it in line with the mishnah implies that he is aware of the baraita's authenticity. Had he denied its authenticity altogether, he would not have been compelled to limit its applicability to a case of needing the blood or the ashes.Footnote 107 Furthermore, the halakhah found in the baraita appears in T. Shabbat 8:4 (ed. Lieberman, p. 30): “All those who ruin are exempt except for one who causes injury and one who burns on Shabbat.”Footnote 108 There are four parallels to this baraita in the Yerushalmi. In each of them Bar Kapara, a sage who lived during the transition between the mishnaic and talmudic periods,Footnote 109 is perplexed that the baraita disputes the mishnah. His question is answered by R. Yoḥanan:
As it was taught: All those who ruin are exempt except for one who burns or one who makes a wound. Bar Kapara said:Footnote 110 Even if he doesn't need the blood, even if he doesn't need the ashes? R. Yoḥanan said: As long as he needs the blood or the ashes.
Thus it is clear that the TTK baraita recited in front of R. Yoḥanan is a tannaitic source, one which R. Yoḥanan interpreted in light of his understanding of the mishnah.
The emendations that Amoraim make to baraitot are also not evidence for the dating or origins of the baraita. In the following example a reciter presents a baraita in front of R. Sheshet (third-generation Babylonian Amora). R. Sheshet points out the mistakes in the phrasing of the baraita, but maintains the source as it was received, preferring to interpret it rather than emend it.
B. Keritot 11a–b:
Mishnah: What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? They are not equivalent in regard to the punishment or the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a sin offering is brought, in that of a female slave a guilt offering.... In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately.… In this way [intercourse] with a female slave is [treated] more stringently, for intentional transgression counts the same as unwitting transgression… In all cases of forbidden intercourse if one is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt. If one is awake and one is asleep, the one asleep is exempt. If one [transgressed] intentionally and one unwittingly, the unwitting one brings a sin offering and the intentional one is liable for extirpation.
Gemara: The Tanna taught in front of R. Sheshet: The [Torah] equated one who consummated [the sexual act] with one who made [sexual] contact, one who intended with one who did not intend, one who engaged in natural intercourse with one who engaged in unnatural intercourse, one who was asleep with one awake.
He [R. Sheshet] said to him [to the Tanna]: The baraita should have been phrased in the opposite direction. He said to him: Should I reverse it? He [R. Sheshet] said to him [the Tanna]: No, it refers to a female slave and this is how it should read: One who consummates with a female slave is like one who merely has sexual contact with other forbidden relations.Footnote 111
There are ten cases in the Bavli in which a “Tanna recited in front of R. Sheshet” (including manuscripts).Footnote 112 In another instance a sadran (סדרן) is mentioned in connection with R. Sheshet: “There was a certain scholar who used to recite tannaitic traditions (מסדר מתני[י]יתא) in front of R. Sheshet.”Footnote 113 In situations such as this,Footnote 114 the verb מסדר can mean to “repeat,” as in “repeat a baraita or mishnah in front of a certain rabbi.”Footnote 115 Thus, despite the difference in terminology,Footnote 116 תני and מסדר both can refer to the same activity—the recitation of mishnayot and baraitot.Footnote 117 In nine cases the halakhic content of these baraitot is documented in a tannaitic composition or in a baraita in the Yerushalmi. The example I cite here demonstrates that even a baraita that has been abbreviated, reversed, or omitted, assumedly by the reciter, has parallels in tannaitic compositions. We can trace the changes that occurred to the baraita by comparing it with the parallel Palestinian texts.
The parallel to the TTK baraita recited in front of R. Sheshet is found in T. Keritot 1:16 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 562):
All forbidden relations in the Torah—forced is like willing, unintentional is like intentional, one who made sexual contact is like one who consummated, one who is asleep is like one who is awake, unnatural intercourse is like natural intercourse and she is liable for each and every act. But this is not so for the female slave.
The baraita recited in front of R. Sheshet is basically the same as that from the Tosefta, but a few words were removed: from the beginning, “All forbidden relations in the Torah” and from the end “and she is liable for each and every act, but this is not so for the female slave.” Similarly, the order of some of the words has been reversed (“consummating is like contact” [in front of R. Sheshet] “contact is like consummating” [in the Tosefta], “intentional is like unintentional” [in front of R. Sheshet], “unintentional is like intentional” [in the Tosefta].)Footnote 118 The halakhot found in the baraita have parallels in M. Keritot 2:4: “All forbidden relations in the Torah, one who has sexual contact is like one who consummates … both unwitting and intentional” and in Sifra, Kedoshim, par. 5:8–10, to Leviticus 19:22 (ed. Weiss, p. 89d): “All forbidden relations, one who has sexual contact is like one who consummates, but with a slave woman sexual contact is not like consummation.”Footnote 119 This is another example of the abbreviations and deletions that occurred to the baraitot transmitted in front of Amoraim in the Bavli. These can be detected by comparison with parallels in tannaitic sources, as has been noted by other scholars. Nevertheless, as I have stated, the literary changes that these baraitot underwent do not provide a basis for dating the content of these baraitot to the talmudic period in Babylonia.
There is another point to be made with regard to the emendation that R. Sheshet suggests for the first part of the baraita. According to the Halakhah in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Sifra (see above) sexual contact with a forbidden relation is treated as full consummation.Footnote 120 R. Sheshet is perplexed by the reversal in order found in the baraita, “consummation is like contact.” As Rashi explains, “If this was taught with regard to the other forbidden relations the opposite would be necessary: one is liable for contact with a forbidden relation as if he consummated [the act].”Footnote 121 The emendation suggested by R. Sheshet is based on a tannaitic halakhah and does not change the order of the wording in the baraita: “consummation with a female slave is like contact with other forbidden relations.”Footnote 122 It turns out, therefore, that both the difficulty raised by R. Sheshet and the resolution he offers accord with Palestinian tannaitic Halakhah.
C
The overwhelming majority (around 80 percent) of the 140 halakhic traditions found in the TTK baraitot reflect the Halakhah found in Palestinian tannaitic sources: the halakhic midrashim, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the baraitot in the Yerushalmi.Footnote 123 This high percentage of parallels challenges the scholarly claim that these baraitot reflect an “amoraic Mishnah” or a Babylonian tradition from either the pretalmudic period or later. Such a far-reaching conclusion cannot be based on external characteristics, such as form or literary style. Rather, identification of the nature and source of the halakhic material found in these baraitot requires a thorough examination of their halakhic content and comparison with tannaitic parallels.
Furthermore, analysis of the form and content of TTK baraitot presents us with a glimpse into the live process through which the tannaitic halakhic traditions were shaped by Amoraim in both Palestine and Babylonia. Even more so than anonymously transmitted baraitot, the talmudic discussion in these sugyot shows us how baraitot were disseminated during the amoraic period, critiqued, emended, and occasionally rejected (mainly by R. Yoḥanan). The reciters and the Amoraim abbreviated these baraitot, transmitted them anonymously, and inserted interpretations and expansions. But all of these phenomena do not provide evidence as to the actual source of the baraita.Footnote 124 The very fact that Amoraim and professional reciters transmitted tannaitic material orally does not imply that the content of such sources was a later creation. It almost always was not.
Appendix A
A Detailed List of the Halakhot Found in TTK Baraitot and Their Parallels in Tannaitic Literature
(1) Babylonian Talmud:
Berakhot 5a–b; Berakhot 15b; Berakhot 15b (accords with the halakhah in the baraita in Y. Berakhot 2:3 [4d] [Louis Ginzberg, Perushim ve-ḥidushim ba-Yerushalmi, vol. 1 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1941), 317]); Berakhot 16a (accords with the halakhah in T. Berakhot 2:5 [ed. Lieberman, p. 7]); Berakhot 33a (accords with the tannaitic tradition in Y. Berakhot 5:2 [39a]; Shabbat 45a = Beẓah 30a (=T. Beẓah 3:9 [ed. Lieberman, p. 295] and Y. Beẓah 4:1 [62c] [Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah: Seder Moʿed, 5:974–977]); Berakhot 57a; Shabbat 50a (accords with the halakhah in the baraita in Y. Shabbat 4:2 [7a]); Shabbat 66b (=M. Shabbat 6:8 [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:284]); Shabbat 67a; Shabbat 67a (=T. Shabbat, chapters 6–7 [ed. Lieberman, pp. 22–29] [Goldberg, Ẓurah ve-'ariḥah, 230 n. 32]); Shabbat 93b (accords with the halakhah in T. Shabbat 9:10 [ed. Lieberman, 38] and Y. Shabbat 10:5 [12c]); Shabbat 106a = Bava Kamma 34b; Shabbat 121b (accords with the tannaitic tradition attributed to Rabbi in Y. Shabbat 14:1 [14b]); ʿEruvin 9a (accords with the halakhah in T. ʿEruvin 1:14–15 [ed. Lieberman, p. 91] and Y. ʿEruvin 1:1 [18d]); Pesaḥim 13b = Sukkah 44b (=M. Pesaḥim 1:5 [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:327]); Pesaḥim 20a (=Sifra, Shemini par. 8:5 [ed. Weiss, p. 55d] [Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 142 n. 109]); Pesaḥim 53b (accords with the halakhah in T. Pesaḥim 3:17 [ed. Lieberman, p. 155], and Y. Pesaḥim 4:4 [31a]); Pesaḥim 68a (accords with the halakhah in Sifrei Devarim, Ki Teẓe, pis. 251, to Deuteronomy 23:11 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 281]); Pesaḥim 90b (=M. Pesaḥim 8:5); Pesaḥim 99b–100a (=T. Berakhot 5:1 [ed. Lieberman, 25], and Y. Shabbat 1:2 [3a]); Pesaḥim 113a–b; Yoma 11a (=Sifrei Devarim, Va-'etaḥanan, pis. 36, to Deuteronomy 11:20 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 67]); Yoma 11b (ibid.); Yoma 43b (see above); Ḥagigah 22b (=T. Kelim 3:12 [ed. Zukermandel, p. 593]); Beẓah 12a (twice); Beẓah 17a (=T. Berakhot 3:13 [ed. Lieberman, 15]); Beẓah 20a = Menaḥot 93b (=Sifra, Ẓav, 1:17, to Leviticus 8:16 [ed. Weiss, p. 41d]); Beẓah 29b (=Y. Shabbat 7:2 [10b] and Y. Beẓah 1:10 [60d]); Moʿed Katan 20b; Megillah 8b (=Sifra, Tazri‘a, par. 2:10, to Leviticus 13:6 [ed. Weiss, p. 62a] [Epstein, Mevo'ot, 668]); Megillah 27b (=T. Megillah 2:12 [ed. Lieberman, 351] and Y. Megillah 3:1 [74a]); Yevamot 12b (=T. Niddah 2:6 [ed. Zukermandel, pp. 642–643] [Bacher, Tradition, 262 n. 4]); Yevamot 40a (see above); Yevamot 77b = Y. Yevamot 8:3 (9c) (accords with the halakhah in Sifra, ’Emor, par. 2:6, to Leviticus 21:14 [ed. Weiss, p. 95a]); Ketubot 60a (=T. Niddah 1:3 [ed. Lieberman, 642]), and Y. Ketubot 5:5 [30a] as was emended by R. Yoḥanan); Ketubot 65b (=M. Ketubot 6:1); Ketubot 101b (see Bavli, ibid.); Sotah 22b (=Y. Berakhot 9:5 [14b] and Y. Sotah 5:5 [20c]); Sotah 27a (accords with the halakhah in T. Yevamot 12:8 [ed. Lieberman, p. 42]); Gittin 52b (=T. Bava Batra 8:13 [ed. Lieberman, p. 158] as was emended by R. Abahu [Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah: Seder Zezikin, 10:430]); Bava Kamma 91b (=T. Sanhedrin 6:1 [ed. Zukermandel, p. 423] [Albeck, Meḥkarim, 80]); Bava Meẓiʿa 7a (accords with the halakhah in T. Bava Meẓiʿa 1:1 [ed. Lieberman, p. 62]); Bava Meẓiʿa 27a (=M. Bava Meẓiʿa 2:4); Bava Meẓiʿa 40a (=T. Bava Meẓiʿa 3:10 [ed. Lieberman, p. 75]); Bava Meẓiʿa 54b (=Sifra, Be-ḥukotai, par. 4:4, to Leviticus 27:14 [ed. Weiss, p. 113c]); Bava Meẓiʿa 58a (accords with the halakhah in M. Shevu‘ot 6:5 and Sifra, Va-yikra, par. 22:3, to Leviticus 5:20 [ed. Weiss, p. 27d]); Bava Meẓiʿa 58b (accords with the halakhah in M. 'Avot 3:14); Bava Meẓiʿa 76b (=T. Bava Meẓiʿa 4:11 [ed. Lieberman, p. 83] [Shamma Friedman, Talmud ‘arukh: Perek ha-sokher ’et ha-'omanin, ha-nusaḥ (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1997), 118]); Bava Meẓiʿa 114b (=Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, par. Mishpatim 19, to Exodus 22:25 [ed. Horovitz-Rabin, pp. 316–317] [Melamed, Midrashei halakhah, 23–24]); Bava Batra 77b (accords with the halakhah in T. Bava Batra 4:1 [ed. Lieberman, p. 140] [Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, 10:730–731]); Bava Batra 113b (=Sifrei Bamidbar, Pinḥas, pis. 134, to Numbers 27:11 [ed. Kahana, p. 60]); Bava Batra 113b (=Sifrei Devarim, Shoftim, pis. 216, to Deuteronomy 21:16 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 249]); Bava Batra 175b (accords with the halakhah in T. Bava Kamma 6:3 [ed. Lieberman, p. 21]); Sanhedrin 62a = Y. Shabbat 7:2 (9c) (accords with the halakhah in Mekhilta de-R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai, Yitro, to Exodus 20:5 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 147] and Y. Sanhedrin 7:6 [25b]); Sanhedrin 77b; Sanhedrin 78a (=Sifra, ’Emoŗ par. 20:1, Leviticus 24:17 [ed. Weiss, p. 104d] and Y. Bava Kamma 4:6 [4c]); Sanhedrin 86a (accords with the halakhah in T. Bava Kamma 8:1 [ed. Lieberman, p. 36] [Goldberg, Perush mivni ve-’analiti la-Tosefta masekhet Bava Kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 156]); Sanhedrin 89b; ʿAvodah Zarah 26a (=T. Bava Meẓiʿa 2:33 [ed. Lieberman, p. 72] as was emended by R. Yoḥanan); ‘Avodah Zarah 46a (=T. ‘Avodah Zarah 10:8 [ed. Lieberman, p. 470]); ‘Avodah Zarah 61b (=T. ‘Avodah Zarah 7:7 [ed. Zukermandel, p. 471]); Makkot 15b; Makkot 20a (see above); Makkot 21a (accords with the halakhah in Midrash Tannaim, Devarim 14:1 [ed. Hoffman, p. 71]); Zevaḥim 55a (accords with the halakhah in Sifra, Ẓav, par. 3:2, to Leviticus 6:18 [ed. Weiss, p. 32a] and Sifrei Bamidbar, Be-'ha'alotkha, pis. 77, to Numbers 10:10 [ed. Horovitz, p. 71]); Zevaḥim 56a (quote from M. Middot 5:1 [Albeck, Meḥkarim, 24 and n. 4]); Zevaḥim 75b (=T. Shevi‘it 6:29 [ed. Lieberman, p. 194] [Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah: Seder Zera'im, vol. 1:571]); Zevaḥim 118a (=M. Megillah 1:10 [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:491]); Menaḥot 4a (accords with the halakhah in Bavli ibid., and Y. Shekalim 2:4 [46d]); Menaḥot 17a (accords with the halakhah in M. Menaḥot 2:5 [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:679]); Menaḥot 28b (=T. Menaḥot 9:20 [ed. Lieberman, p. 526]); Menaḥot 48a; Menaḥot 49a (=T. Zevaḥim 1:4 [ed. Zukermandel, p. 479]); Menaḥot 50b (see above); Menaḥot 93a (=Sifra, Va-yikra, par. 17:3, to Leviticus 3:2 [ed. Weiss, p. 13c]); Ḥullin 15a (a quote from M. Terumot 2:3 [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:208]); Ḥullin 45a (=T. Ḥullin 1:11 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 501]); Bekhorot 56a (=T. Bekhorot 7:8 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 542]); Bekhorot 50b (=T. Bekhorot 7:14 [ed. Zukermandel, pp. 542–543]); Temurah 24a (accords with the halakhah in M. Temurah 4:3 and T. Temurah 2:12 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 553]); Temurah 29a (=T. ʿAvodah Zarah 5:9 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 469]) and T. Temurah 4:2 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 555]); Keritot 6b = ibid. 7a; Keritot 7a; Keritot 9b = Niddah 40a (The first part of the baraita accords with the halakhah in Sifra, Tazriʿa, par. 3:6, to Leviticus 12:7 [ed. Weiss, p. 59b] and T. Keritot 1:15 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 562]. The second part of the baraita accords with the halakhah in Sifra, Tazriʿa, par. 4:1, to Leviticus 12:7 [ed. Weiss, p. 59c] [Epstein, Mevo'ot, 668].); Keritot 11a (see above); Keritot 25a–b (accords with the halakhah in M. Keritot 6:3); Meʿilah 16b (=Sifra, Kedoshim, par. 11:20, to Leviticus 20:26 [ed. Weiss, p. 93c–d] and Y. Nazir 6:1 [54d]); Niddah 10a (accords with the halakhah in T. Niddah 1:10 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 642] [Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:680]); Niddah 24b (accords with the halakhah in Sifra, Tazriʿa, par. 1:8, to Leviticus 12:3 [ed. Weiss, p. 58a] and T. Niddah 4:15 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 645]); Niddah 43b (=Sifra, ’Emor, par. 4:3, to Leviticus 22:4 [ed. Weiss, p. 96c] [Melamed, Midrashei halakhah, 292]).
(2) Palestinian Talmud:
Pe’ah 1:1 (15a) = Ḥagigah 1:2 (76b) (see above); Pe’ah 1:1 (16b) = Sanhedrin 10:1 (27c); Pe’ah 6:1 (19b) = Nedarim 4:8 (38d) (=T. Maʿaserot 3:11 [ed. Lieberman, p. 240]); Pe’ah 7:6 (20b) = Maʿaser Sheni 5:3 (56a) (accords with the halakhah in Sifra, Kedoshim, par. 3:8, to Leviticus 19:25 [ed. Weiss, p. 90b]); Terumot 3:6 (42b) (accords with the halakhah in M. Terumot 3:6 and T. Terumot 4:10 [ed. Lieberman, p. 125] [Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, 1:347]); Maʿaserot 7:2 (44d); Bikkurim 3:6 (65d); Shabbat 2:1 (4c) (=Sifra, Tazriʿa, par. 1:1, to Leviticus 12:3 [ed. Weiss, p. 58b]); Shabbat 3:6 (6c) (=T. Shabbat 3:14 [ed. Lieberman, p. 14]); ʿEruvin 1:6 (19b); Pesaḥim 1:1 (27b); Pesaḥim 6:1 (33b); Pesaḥim 8:7 (36b) = Moʿed Katan 1:5 (80d) = Sanhedrin 6:5 (23d); Pesaḥim 8:6 (36a) (accords with the halakhah in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, par. Bo, to Exodus 12:48 [ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 56] and Mekhilta de-R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai, par. Bo, to Exodus 12:44 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 35]); Shekalim 3:1 (56d) (accords with the halakhah in T. Rosh Hashanah 1:6 [ed. Lieberman, p. 306]); Sukkah 1:2 (52b) (=M. Sukkah 1:2); Sukkah 4:10 (54d) (=M. Sukkah 4:10); Beẓah 5:2 (63a) (accords with the halakhah in M. Beẓah 5:2 and M. Rosh Hashanah 4:8 and T. Shabbat 17:29 [ed. Lieberman, p. 86] and T. Beẓah 4:4 [ed. Lieberman, p. 300] [Shmu’el and Zeev Safrai, Mishnat ’Ereẓ Yisra’el: Masekhet Beẓah, 207]); Yevamot 8:2 (9b) (accords with the halakhah in M. Kiddushin 4:3 [Albeck, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Nashim, 414]); Yevamot 8:2 (9b) (=Sifrei Devarim, Ki Teẓe, pis. 253, to Deuteronomy 23:9 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 279] and T. Kiddushin 5:4 [ed. Lieberman, p. 295]); Yevamot 9:3 (10a) (=T. Yevamot 2:4 [ed. Lieberman, p. 6]); Yevamot 12:2 (12d) (=Mekhilta de-R. Shim‘on b. Yoḥai, Mishpatim, to Exodus 21:1 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 163] and Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, par. Mishpatim 3, to Exodus 21:7 [ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 255] and Sifrei Devarim, Re’eh, pis. 122, to Deuteronomy 15:17 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 181]); Sotah 1:1 (21b–c) = Nedarim 3:1 (37d); Sotah 1:2 (16c) = ibid. 4:4 (19d) (=Sifrei Bamidbar, Naso, pis. 7, to Numbers 5:13 [ed. Kahana, p. 27] [Menachem Kahana, Sifre Bamidbar: Mahadurah mevo’eret, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011), 96]); Nazir, 7:1 (55c) (=Sifra, ’Emor, par. 1:13, to Leviticus 21:3 [ed. Weiss, p. 94a]); Nazir 7:3 (56c) (=M. Nazir 7:4, and accords with the halakhah in T. ’Ohalot 4:14 [ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 601–602]); Bava Kamma 8:6 (6c) (=T. Sanhedrin 6:1 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 423]); Sanhedrin 2:2 (20b); Sanhedrin 5:1 (22c); ʿAvodah Zarah 2:6 (42a) (=T. Bekhorot 1:11 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 535] and T. Bekhorot 1:12 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 535]); ʿAvodah Zarah 3:5 (43a) (=Sifrei Devarim, Re’eh, pis. 60 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 126]).
Appendix B
TTK Baraitot in the Bavli without an Amoraic Response
In eleven cases in the Bavli (less than 10 percent of the TTK baraitot) in which a baraita is recited in front of a sage using the formula, “the Tanna recited in front of so-and-so,” the sage in front of whom the baraita was recited does not respond. These instances, which do not accord with the usual format into which TTK baraitot are embedded, might be perceived as contradicting the notion that the Talmudim record the Tanna who recited the tradition and in front of whom it was recited, only because in these cases there was a response to the baraita.
However, this is not actually the case. In every case in which such a response is lacking, the discourse is of a stammaitic nature. In these cases the baraita serves as a source for a halakhah or idea put forth by the stam. It is presented with the terms, “that the Tanna taught (דתני) in front of so-and-so,” “but didn't the Tanna teach (והא תני) in front of so-and-so,” “as the Tanna taught (כדקתני) in front of so-and-so.” In some cases the baraita is cited as part of a collection of baraitot related to a certain halakhic or aggadic idea. In one case, the baraita serves as an example for a halakhic ruling using the term hilkheta, a term identified by scholars as a late technical term.
These are not, therefore, typical “live” descriptions of the discourse that took place in amoraic circles. Rather, these are literary sources that were available to the editors of the sugya who used them for their own needs. It is possible that originally these sources did include the response of the Amora in front of whom the baraita was recited. The response was subsequently deleted by the editor of the sugya into which the source was placed because it wasn't relevant to the discussion in its new context. Indeed, there is one instance in which a TTK baraita recited by a Tanna in front of R. El‘azar is cited within a stammaitic discussion without any response (B. Keritot 6b, “as the Tanna taught in front of R. El‘azar”) but is cited elsewhere (ibid. 7a) with a description of R. El‘azar's response (“He said to him: You said it well.”). This case demonstrates what is likely true of the other cases as well—originally there was an amoraic reaction to the baraita, but the reaction was lost when the baraita was moved to its new literary source.
Below is a full list of these cases:
Berakhot 33a (cited by the stam); Yoma 88a (brought as part of a series of baraitot dealing with the same topic); Moʿed Katan (brought as part of a series of baraitot dealing with the same topic [see Noah Aminoah, ‘Arikhat masekhtot Sukkah u-Moʿed Katan ba-Talmud ha-Bavli (Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1989), 349]. Furthermore, in the Yerushalmi the reading is brought in the following formula: “R. ʾIdi of Caesarea in the name of R. Yoḥanan.” This fact can explain R. Yoḥanan's lack of response in the Bavli.); Ketubot 60a (cited as an alternate tradition to an amoraic statement by use of the term איכא דאמרי); Sotah 27a (cited as support for an anonymous halakhic ruling, hilkheta, offered by the stam); Kiddushin 31a (The baraita is one of a series of baraitot discussing the commandment to honor one's parents.); Bava Kamma 33b (cited by the stam as support of a previous halakhah in a baraita [see David Weiss Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot: Masekhet Bava Kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 125–127]); Bava Batra 113b (The baraita is brought by the stam as support for R. Sheshet, using the term, “As it was taught [דתני]” [MSS Hamburg 165, Paris 1337].); Sanhedrin 103a (The baraita is part of a series of aggadic midrashim attributed to R. Yoḥanan.); Temurah 31a (cited by the stam); Keritot 9b = Niddah 40a (ibid.).
