Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T23:45:50.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Story in Three Contexts: The Redaction of a Toseftan Pericope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2014

Binyamin Katzoff
Binyamin Katzoff*
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
*
Binyamin.Katzoff@biu.ac.il

Abstract

The introduction of non-halakhic material into a halakhic section of a classical rabbinic work is a redactional choice that can substantially affect the interpretation of both kinds of material. Understanding the relationship between the non-halakhic material and the surrounding halakhic material can affect one's assessment of the redactor's activity. Conversely, assumptions concerning the redactor's activity can affect the interpretation of the non-halakhic material.

The relationship between halakhic and non-halakhic material and the implications of that relationship for redaction critical investigations are particularly complex in the case of the Tosefta, because the latter is not a completely independent composition. Some scholars see the Tosefta as an interpretative work based on the Mishna while others argue for a degree of redactional independence. What then is the proper context for the interpretation of materials found in the Tosefta—the Tosefta itself or the Mishnah? The answer to this question will crucially affect our interpretation of the non-halakhic material included in the Tosefta and the relation of that material to the halakhic material. This article demonstrates the difficulty in determining the proper redactional context for the interpretation of Toseftan passages that contain halakhic and non-halakhic material by examining the story of Rabbi Yehuda walking behind his teachers in T. Berakhot 1.2. The reason for inserting the story can be understood in three ways, corresponding to three different definitions of the “halakhic context,” in which the Mishnah has a greater or lesser controlling influence over the Tosefta.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 109 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2014 

Introduction

In some rabbinic stories (i.e., stories about talmudic sages), halakhic considerations (considerations relating to prescriptive rules) are essential components of the plot. When such stories are woven together with halakhot (the prescriptive rules themselves) in a rabbinic work, questions arise concerning the relationship between the sources, and the function performed by the story in the wider halakhic context. Understanding such a story and its significance requires familiarity with its halakhic background, often unstated in the story itself. Furthermore, the story may indicate full or partial support for one or another halakhic position, and thus affect the way other halakhic sources are interpreted and ultimately employed in halakhic discussions and conclusions. The presentation, then, of a story within a wider halakhic context is an editorial act that has a significant impact on both the halakhic and the narrative content. But this is a two-way process: the way we understand the relationship between the story and the halakhic material affects what we consider the nature and purpose of the editorial activity to be, and, conversely, our prior assumptions concerning that editorial activity may determine how we understand the relationship between the story and its wider halakhic context.

Ofra Meir and Jeffrey Rubenstein have extensively explored the difficulties involved in determining the context in which to interpret a story.Footnote 1 On the one hand, rabbinic texts can be treated as a broad continuum in which stories may be read in relation to materials from throughout the corpus. All rabbinic literature, according to this approach, forms a giant pan-rabbinic context from which traditions may be legitimately drawn to interpret a story.Footnote 2 This approach, it must be said, is based on assumptions of the proximity, or even the identity of the characteristics of redaction and transmission of the various works of rabbinic literature, which today's critical scholars are reluctant to accept. At the other end of the range is the approach that attempts to read a story in and of itself, in complete isolation from any context, whether immediate or general, that is, on the principle of “closure,” associated famously with the recently deceased and lamented Yonah Fraenkel.Footnote 3 That approach, however, requires the interpreter of a story to fill in necessary details, in accordance with his or her familiarity and understanding, correct or incorrect, of the cultural and halakhic background of the events.Footnote 4 An intermediate approach, advocated by Meir and Rubenstein, identifies the context in which a story can be interpreted as the immediate literary unit in which the story is found, a unit that has a clear editorial identity, such as a series of halakhic statements in the Mishnah or Tosefta,Footnote 5 or a sugya in the Talmuds.Footnote 6

This third approach holds that rabbinic stories are best understood and most fruitfully analyzed in their redactional context, the immediate halakhic context. However, in the case of the Tosefta, we may rightly ask: what is the immediate halakhic context? Because the Tosefta was not composed as a totally independent work, it presents a complex problem. That it is related to the Mishnah is obvious, but the nature of its relationship is not. Some contemporary scholars, following Rav Sherira Gaon,Footnote 7 see the Tosefta as later than and dependent upon the Mishnah, as a commentary is dependent on a base text. Accordingly the role of the Tosefta's redactor was limited, for he did not have an entirely free hand in the organization of his materials—his work subserves the structure, contents, goals, and agenda of the Mishnah.Footnote 8 Thus little can be inferred from the placement of different kinds of sources in the Tosefta, except with reference to the related materials in the Mishnah. According to this view, the primary context for redaction criticism of the Tosefta is in fact the Mishnah.Footnote 9 By contrast, other scholars, among them recently Hauptman, find elements of independent editorial activity in the Tosefta, and do not assume that the Tosefta is redactionally dependent on our Mishnah. Thus, the role of the Tosefta's redactor is taken to have been more pronounced. He may have had a freer hand in the organization of his materials, and his work may serve goals distinct from those of the Mishnah.Footnote 10 In this case, we may be able to infer a great deal from the placement of the sources in the Tosefta, independently of their relationship to cognate material in the Mishnah. In this view, the primary context for redaction criticism of the Tosefta is first and foremost the Tosefta itself.Footnote 11 These approaches are of consequence for anyone looking at rabbinic stories in the Tosefta, for the determination of whether to read a story in light of the Mishnah or in light of the adjacent law in the Tosefta can materially affect the understanding both of the story and of the law.Footnote 12

An analysis of the story of Rabbi Yehudah walking behind his teachers, in the first chapter of Tosefta Berakhot, can serve as a useful exercise in demonstrating these three approaches, corresponding to three different definitions of the “immediate halakhic context,” in which the Mishnah has a greater or lesser controlling influence over the Tosefta and its interpretation.Footnote 13

The story self-contained

Tosefta Berakhot 1.2b:Footnote 14

Said R. Yehudah: Once I was walking behind R. Akiva and R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the time came for the recitation of Shema.

It seemed to me that they had neglected reciting because they were preoccupied with communal needs. I recited and studied,

and afterward they began,

and the sun was already visible over the mountaintops.

If we read the story as self-contained, without any literary context, the focus of the story seems to be on Rabbi Yehudah's failure to understand the actions of his masters, and on his desire to recite the Shema at the proper time.Footnote 15 He clearly thought that it was appropriate to recite the Shema at some particular time, and expected his masters to do so,Footnote 16 even though we the readers do not know what that time was from the story.Footnote 17 It is also clear that the masters, occupied with communal needs, did not recite the Shema at that time, but only later, when the sun was already visible.

Reading the story this way, however, raises some questions. Why did the masters choose to recite the Shema just at the time they did? In other words, what changed that caused them to recite the Shema? Then, what caused Rabbi Yehudah's error? As a disciple following his masters did he not know their practices? Can a halakhic conclusion be drawn from the masters' actions? Why did the editor of the Tosefta place this story adjacent to particular halakhot?

Answers to these questions may come from analyzing the halakhic context in the Tosefta. However, as mentioned above, there is some relationship between the Tosefta and the Mishnah, a relationship that comes to the fore in this chapter of Berakhot as well.Footnote 18 So the story must be examined in light of its broader context in both works, and in light of the possible halakhic contexts in which the editor of the Tosefta intended the story to be read, and the relationship between the story and that context.

Literary Context

The following mishnayot provide a halakhic background that may be relevant to the story in the Tosefta.

Mishnah Berakhot 1.2–3

  1. [A] From what time may the Shema be recited in the morning?

    From the hour one can distinguish between blue and white, R. Eliezer says between blue and green.

  2. [B] Until the sunrise; R. Yehoshu‘a says until the third hour …

  3. [C] The House of Shammai say: In the evening all should recline when they recite but in the morning they should stand, for it is written “when you lie down and when you get up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)

    The House of Hillel say: They may recite it any way, for it is written “when you are on your way.” (Deuteronomy 6:7) Why then is it written, “when you lie down and when you get up”? Rather it means the time when people usually lie down and the time when people usually get up.

  4. [D] R. Tarfon said: I was once on a journey and I reclined to recite in accordance with the House of Shammai and so put myself in danger because of robbers.

    They said to him: You deserved to be responsible for the harm to yourself, in that you transgressed the words of the House of Hillel.

Sections [A] and [B] of the Mishnah set forth the halakhot concerning the time when the Shema may be recited. [A], according to the heading, deals with the question of from what time Shema can be recited, and presents two opinions. [B], according to its heading, deals with the question of the time until which Shema can be recited, and here too, two opinions are offered. Section [C] sets out a dispute between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai concerning the proper posture during the recitation of the Shema. Finally, section [D] reports a story about a sage who practiced according to Bet Shammai, and was rebuked for it.

The following is the immediate context of our story in the Tosefta.

Tosefta Berakhot 1.2–4

  1. [A] From what time may the Shema be recited in the morning?

    Others say when one may be four cubits from his fellow and recognize him.

  2. [B] Its obligation is at sunrise so that one may adjoin to it the prayer and it turns out that he prays at daytime.

  3. [C] Said R. Yehudah: Once I was walking behind R. Akiva and R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and the time came for the recitation of Shema. It seemed to me that they had neglected reciting because they were preoccupied with communal needs. I recited and studied and afterward they began, and the sun was already visible over the mountaintops.

  4. [D] Bridegrooms and all those engaged in commandments are exempt from reciting the Shema and from the prayer, as Scripture states “when you sit at home”: this excludes those who are engaged in commandments, and “when you are on your way”: this excludes bridegrooms.

  5. [E] Once R. Yishma'el and R. Eleazar b. Azariah were staying in the same place, and R. Yishma'el was reclining while R. Eleazar b. Azariah was standing upright. When the time came to recite the Shema, R. Yishma'el stood upright and R. Eleazar b. Azariah reclined. R. Yishmael said to him: What is this Eleazar? [R. Eleazar b. Azariah] said to him: Yishma'el my brother, it is as if people said to someone “Your beard is full,” and he replied to them “It is for the destroyers.” I who was standing upright reclined, and you who were reclining stood upright! [R. Yishma'el] replied: You reclined to carry out the words of the House of Shammai, but I stood upright to carry out the words of the House of Hillel. Another point, [I acted so] lest the students see and establish the halakhah according to your words.

Section [A] of the Tosefta, like the Mishnah, deals with the question of from what time Shema can be recited. Section [B] also deals with the proper time for reciting Shema. Section [C] is our story. Section [D] states that persons are exempt from the requirement of reciting the Shema when they are occupied in performing another mitzvah, a different religious commandment. Finally, section [E], like the Mishnah, reports a story about a sage who practiced according to Bet Shammai and was rebuked for it by his fellow sage.

Before presenting the three ways of interpreting the relation between the story and the halakhic context –and hence the message of the story—the assumption should be made explicit that the redactor of the Tosefta introduced the story within a wider halakhic context precisely because of its relationship to the relevant halakhic statements. Therefore the story should be interpreted in light of the halakhic context and not as a halakhically neutral anecdote.

Privileging the Redactional Context of the Mishnah

Tosefta [A], like Mishnah [A], deals with the question, from when is the Shema recited in the morning? The answer given in the Tosefta—from when a person can recognize a friend at a distance of four cubits, that is, shortly after dawn—is close to those in the Mishnah.Footnote 19 The Tosefta in section [B] then goes on to say that the mitzvah is to read the Shema at sunrise. Most commentators read this line assuming that the author of the Tosefta knew the Mishnah and accepted it as authoritative, and that the Tosefta comes to supplement the Mishnah in light of its (the Mishnah's) agenda.Footnote 20 Accordingly they interpret the reference to sunrise in this line as saying that the best time to recite the Shema is at sunrise, though in principle Shema can be recited at any time between shortly after dawn and sunrise, or three hours after sunrise, as in the Mishnah.Footnote 21

Given this reading of the halakhah in Tosefta section [B], the story in Tosefta section [C] should also be read as relating to a halakhic context which agrees with the Mishnah. In this reading the difference in practice between R. Yehudah and his masters reflects the two views on the end of the period of recitation of Shema in Mishnah section [B].Footnote 22 R. Yehudah follows the tanna kamma, the first view, that the period for recitation ends at sunrise, and therefore he hurried to recite the Shema before sunrise. His masters followed the opinion of R. Yehoshu‘a that Shema can be recited for another three hours, and deliberately postponed their recitation until after sunrise to make this point. The connection of the story to the halakhic context and the message the editor of the Tosefta conveys by presenting the story within this context are as follows: the story relates to the dispute in Mishnah section [B] about the end of the period for recitation of Shema, and the editor of the Tosefta presents it within this context to indicate that the sages decided the halakhah, in practice, according to R. Yehoshu‘a.

Now, though this reading of the story displays a tight connection between the story and the halakhic context, it must be noted that the halakhic issue at stake, the end of the period of recitation of Shema, is entirely absent from the Tosefta. This reading, then, depends on the prior assumption of the subordination of the Tosefta to the Mishnah, both in the literary dependence of the material of the Tosefta on that of the Mishnah, and in its acceptance of the halakhic content of the Mishnah. As noted, neither of these assumptions is compelling. Furthermore, there is not a hint in the story itself that the issue is the end of the time for recitation of Shema. Consequently, though the sages in the story may be acting in conformity with the halakhic opinions in the Mishnah, the literary form of the story provides only a tenuous connection to that halakhic context.

Dual Redactional Contexts

Another possible reading of the story sees the Tosefta as providing a more balanced presentation of the views of the opposing parties than does the Mishnah. As several scholars have observed, the Mishnah's presentation of the dispute of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai concerning the proper posture during recitation of the Shema is distinctly biased in favor of the House of Hillel.Footnote 23 First, while each house is given a voice to present a proof text to support its view, only the House of Hillel is allowed to interpret and hence dismiss the proof text of its opponent.Footnote 24 Second, the story in the Mishnah following the dispute (Mishnah section [D]), on R. Tarfon's practice according to the House of Shammai, ends in a sharp rebuke of R. Tarfon for following the House of Shammai.

Though the Tosefta does not directly recount that dispute, several of its passages do relate to it. In Tosefta section [E], there is the story of R. Eleazar ben Azariah practicing according to the view of the House of Shammai, which ends in a rebuke by R. Yishma'el for doing so.Footnote 25 In section [D] the Tosefta presents a homily on the verse “when you stay at home and when you are on your way” (Deuteronomy 6:7) to the effect that bridegrooms and other persons occupied in the performance of a mitzvah are exempt from reciting the Shema. As both Talmuds observed, the homily is the interpretative retort of the House of Shammai to the interpretation the House of Hillel gave the verse as a proof text to its view on posture.Footnote 26 In this way the Tosefta fills in the “missing” part of the asymmetrical presentation of the dispute in the Mishnah and rectifies the bias the Mishnah has shown in favor of one side of the dispute.Footnote 27

In this halakhic context our story, Tosefta section [C], receives new meaning. According to Mishnah section [C] the House of Hillel reads the verse “when you are on your way” to mean that a person should recite the Shema in whatever posture he happens to be in. The House of Shammai, on the other hand, in Tosefta section [D], reads the very same verse to mean that persons occupied in the performance of a mitzvah are exempt from reciting the Shema. In Tosefta [C], then, when R. Yehudah's masters, R. Akiva and R. Eleazar ben Azariah, refrained from reciting the Shema while occupied in performing a mitzvah,Footnote 28 they were putting into practice the homily of the House of Shammai.Footnote 29 When in turn R. Yehudah did recite the Shema, he was putting into practice the homily of the House of Hillel.Footnote 30

On this reading, the story relates to the dispute in the Mishnah section [C] about the proper posture during the recitation of the Shema, and the Tosefta redactor presents it here to show major sages putting into practice the homily of the House of Shammai, contrary to the bias of the Mishnah in favor of the House of Hillel. Though in the Tosefta, as in the Mishnah, one does not find here an explicit decision between the houses, the story in the Tosefta, like the homily in Tosefta section [D], serves the goal of the Tosefta's redactor of correcting the bias of the Mishnah.

The advantage of reading the story this way is that it connects the story to the halakhic context of the Tosefta, and gives more weight to the independence of the editor of the Tosefta. Though the subject is raised in the Tosefta a propos a halakhah in the Mishnah, the Tosefta does contain several passages on the subject, and thus the story is not detached from the halakhic context of the Tosefta, as in the previous reading. Furthermore, in this reading the redactor of the Tosefta is an active redactor, displaying a halakhic tendency independent of, and different from, the Mishnah, and purposefully correcting its bias.

On the other hand, while the story does describe the masters as practicing in accordance with the House of Shammai, its ending is hardly unambiguous. The story concludes with the masters reciting Shema, but the readers are left in the dark as to why they recited when they did and not before. The conclusion of the story could say that they recited the Shema after they finished their public business. The story would thus illustrate and conclusively confirm the homily of the House of Shammai. On the other hand, the story could also conclude by saying that the masters did not finish their public business, and they recited the Shema anyway. Completed in this way the story provides only partial and nuanced support for the House of Shammai. The point is that either way, an essential detail is missing from the story, and in its absence the story serves its halakhic context obscurely at best.Footnote 31

Privileging the Redactional Context of the Tosefta

A third possible reading would give the Tosefta both halakhic and redactional independence. This reading takes into account a tradition found in other rabbinic works:

  1. a. B. Berakhot 8b

    R. Shimon b. Yoḥai says in the name of R. Akiva: Sometimes a man may recite the Shema twice in the daytime, once before sunrise and once after sunrise, and thereby fulfill his duty once for the day and once for the night.

  2. b. B. Yoma 37b

    Tanna: When the sun would first shine in the morning sparkling rays proceeded [from the chandelier], and everyone would know that the time of reciting the Shema had arrived.

With these traditions in mind,Footnote 32 we should take another look at the halakhah in Tosefta [B], immediately preceding the story:

Its obligation is at sunrise so that one may adjoin redemption to the prayer and it turns out that he prays at daytime.

The first reading of the story, above, presented the interpretation of most commentators, according to which the halakhah in the Tosefta is in basic agreement with that of the Mishnah, that Shema may be recited from the moment that this or that object can be discerned, and adds that הנץ החמה, sunrise, is the preferred time within the permissible span indicated in the Mishnah. However, we should consider the possibility that the Tosefta is saying something different altogether: that the Shema can be recited only from—that is, after—sunrise, contrary to what the Mishnah said.Footnote 33 According to this interpretation, the Tosefta treats only the beginning of the time for Shema, and reports two opinions: the one opinion, in the name of “others,” that Shema may be recited from the time one can discern a friend (Tosefta section [A]), similar to the Mishnah, and the second opinion, that it may be recited only after sunrise (Tosefta section [B]).Footnote 34 Note that the redactor of the Mishnah also recorded two opinions on the beginning of the time for Shema, but neither is from sunrise; thus the redactor expressed his position against the opinion offered in the Tosefta.Footnote 35

If we understand the halakhic context in the Tosefta as independent from and contrary to the Mishnah, the story acquires new meaning. It begins with Rabbi Yehudah walking behind his masters and thinking that the time for recitation of Shema has come. This opening sentence indicates that the focus of the story is the question of the time from when the Shema can be recited, the issue with which Tosefta section [A] opens. Rabbi Yehudah recites the Shema; his masters do not. Though we are not told exactly when this takes place, we are mindful that the Tosefta has just told us that there is a dispute as to whether Shema may be read from the time that one can discern his friend or only from sunrise. Rabbi Yehudah is sure that his masters also think that the time for recitation has come, and therefore supposes that the reason they are not reciting is because they are busy with public business. However, it turns out that his masters—one of whom is the same Rabbi Akiva whose opinion was given in the baraita in B. Berakhot 8b— recite the Shema only when the sun is visible over the mountains, that is, after sunrise. The conclusion again focuses the story on the issue of the time.Footnote 36

In this reading there are hints at the connection of the story in Tosefta [C], with its halakhic context, Tosefta [A-B], in the verbal resonances between the story and its context.Footnote 37 R. Yehudah, who is described as walking אחר (’aḥar) (behind) his masters, is the one who practices according to the view of the אחרים (’aḥerim) (the others) in Tosefta section [A]. His masters, who recite the Shema after the חמה (ḥamah) (sun) is visible, practice according to the second view, in Tosefta section [B], according to which the Shema is to be recited after הנץ החמה (haneẓ ha-ḥamah) (sunrise).Footnote 38

In this halakhic context the story has a clear message. The senior sages take care to recite the Shema after sunrise, according to the opinion brought in the Tosefta and against the opinion brought in the Mishnah.Footnote 39 The editor of the Tosefta presented the story in this halakhic context specifically to support its halakhah against that of the Mishnah.Footnote 40

Conclusion

The tendency of most scholars and commentators to examine the story of Rabbi Yehudah walking behind his teachers while privileging the redactional context of the Mishnah, leads to a reading in which the literary connection of the story to its wider halakhic context is relatively tenuous. In this case, the third approach presented here, which credits the Tosefta with a large measure of independence, both redactional and halakhic, yields a reading in which the story has a rich literary connection to the broad halakhic context in which it is embedded, and hence is the most convincing and satisfying.

These results join those of other studies that demonstrate the redactional independence, at least partial, of the Tosefta, and that argue that the redactor of the Tosefta was an active editor with aims of his own. This conclusion puts into sharp light the importance of examining the connection of stories to their halakhic contexts in order to assess the redactional characteristics of the Tosefta. We have relatively little information on the nature of the gradual process of the gathering of sources into compilations, and their placement in the literary frameworks that evolved into the Tosefta. We are not yet able to give satisfactory answers to such questions as: to what degree did the persons involved in the creation of the Tosefta see themselves as gatherers, or rather as editors? What is the relationship among the various sources included in the compilations, and what was the internal structure of the latter? What are the particular purposes of the Tosefta as a whole work, and how are these expressed? The analysis of rabbinic stories and of their relationship to the contexts in which they are presented can make a valuable contribution to clarifying these issues, for in many rabbinic stories halakhic considerations are a significant part of the plot, yet not made explicit in the story. To make sense of the story, then, it is necessary to work out what the editor expected his readers to know about the story from a wider context. This in turn reveals the ways in which the editor creates links among his sources, his editorial methods and purposes. A wide-ranging study of the relationships between rabbinic stories and their halakhic contexts can yield a great deal of information and advance the study of the Tosefta as a whole work.

This case study also demonstrates that when examining the relation of rabbinic stories to their wider halakhic context in the Tosefta one should pay attention to the interconnectedness of the redactional purposes and the reciprocal relation of stories and other halakhic statements. This is a two-way process: the ways in which scholars have conceptualized the relationship between the Mishnah and Tosefta have influenced their readings of Toseftan stories, and in particular the relationship of these stories to the wider halakhic context; conversely, the way we understand the relationship between the story and the wider halakhic context affects what we consider to be the nature and purpose of the editorial activity. To advance research on the composition of the Tosefta and on the relationship among its parts, priority must be given to deep analysis of the complex of halakhic and literary relationships between various sources, devoid of presuppositions concerning the nature of the book and its relationship to the Mishnah. Gathering the results of in-depth studies of individual cases will enable a comprehensive description of the complex literary phenomena that occupy the attention of critical scholars of rabbinic literature.

Appendix

1. Mishnah Berakhot 1.2-3, MS Kaufmann

Tosefta Berakhot 1.2-4, MS Vienna

References

1. Meir, Ofra, “Ha-sippur ha-talui—Ha-heksher ba-talmud,” Bikoret u-farshanut 20 (1984): 103–119Google Scholar; Meir, , “Sippurei ha-’aggadah be-heksherim sifrutiyim ke-tofa‘ah makbilah le-maẓavei higud mishtanim: Sippur he-ḥasid ve-ha-ruḥot be-vet ha-kvarot,” Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-folklor Yehudi 13–14 (1992): 81–97Google Scholar; Meir, , “Hashpa‛at ma‛ase ha-‛arikhah ‛al hashkafat ha-‛olam shel sippurei ha-’aggadah,” Tura 3 (1994): 67–84Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999), 8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 243–267; Rubenstein, , “Context and Genre: Elements of a Literary Approach to Rabbinic Narrative,” in How Should Late Rabbinic Literature be Read in the Modern World?, ed. Kraus, M. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 137–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubenstein, , Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 7–9Google Scholar, 216–217; Moshe Simon-Shoshan's review of Talmudic Stories, by Jeffrey Rubenstein, and Women and Womanhood in the Talmud, by Valler, Shulamit, AJS Review 26, no. 1 (2002): 129–131.Google Scholar

2. See for example Liebes, Yehuda, Ḥet'o shel ’Elisha: ’Arba‘ah she-nikhnesu le-pardes shel ha-mistikah (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1990), 27–28.Google Scholar

3. See Fraenkel, Yonah, “She'elot hermenutiot be-ḥeker sippur ha-’aggadah,” Tarbiz 47 (1978): 139–172Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , “Meḥkar sippur ha-’aggadah: Mabat le-‘atid lavo,” Mada‘ei ha-yahadut 30 (1990): 21–30Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , Sippur ha-’aggadah:’Aḥdut shel tokhen ve-ẓurah (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001), 32–50Google Scholar. Notwithstanding his forced methodological assertions, Fraenkel does occasionally address the relationship between halakhic and nonhalakhic materials, especially in the Mishnah.

4. For further criticism of Fraenkel see Hirshman, Marc, “‘Al ha-midrash ke-yiẓirah: Yoẓrav ve-ẓurotav,” Mada‘ei ha-yahadut 32 (1992): 83–90Google Scholar; Kalmin, Richard, “The Modern Study of Ancient Rabbinic Literature: Yonah Fraenkel's ‘Darkhei ha-’aggadah ve-ha-midrash' [1991],” Prooftexts 14, no. 2 (1994): 189–204Google Scholar; Levinson, Yehoshua, “Min ha-mashal la-hamẓa'ah: Ẓmiḥat ha-bidyon ke-kategoriah tarbutit,” Higayon l'Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut, in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. Levinson, Yehoshua, Elbaum, Jacob, and Hasan-Rokem, Galit (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006), 28–32Google Scholar; Newman, Hillel, “Closing the Circle: Yonah Fraenkel, the Talmudic Story, and Rabbinic History,” How Should Late Rabbinic Literature be Read in the Modern World?, ed. Kraus, Matthew (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 105–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bakhos, Carol, “Method(ological) Matters in the Study of Midrash,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. Bakhos, Carol (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 179–184Google Scholar; Tropper, Amram, Ke-ḥomer be-yad ha-yoẓer: Ma‘asei ḥakhamim be-sifrut ḥazal (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2011), 14–22Google Scholar; Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 6–8Google Scholar.

5. The Mishnah and the Tosefta were formed in a gradual, multilayered process of collection and redaction of materials of differing natures into compilations containing materials of one or more genres—law statements, casuistic formulations, midrash on Scripture, rabbinic stories, parables—until the major works received their present forms. We have only partial knowledge about the nature of the process, and about how the editors in the various stages conceived the function and relative importance of the various genres. This study rests on the assumption that when any editor placed materials of varied character in proximity he was conscious of the fact that he was mixing genres, and of the possible implications for understanding the materials. See Fraenkel, Yonah, “Mekomah shel ha-halakhah be-sippurei ha-’aggadah,” Meḥkerei Talmud 1 (1990): 207–208Google Scholar, and the following note.

6. Indeed, in recent years quite a few studies have been devoted to various aspects of the relationship between stories and other halakhic materials, which are embedded together, especially in the Mishnah and the two Talmuds. See Fraenkel, Yonah, Midrash ve-’aggadah (Tel Aviv: The Open University in Israel, 1996), 694–760Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , “Ha-’aggadah she-ba-mishnah,” Meḥkerei Talmud 3 (2005): 655–683Google Scholar; Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, “Halakhic Mimesis: Rhetorical and Redactional Strategies in Tannaitic Narrative,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 101–123Google Scholar; Walfish, Avraham, “The Nature and Purpose of Mishnaic Narrative: Recent Seminal Contributions,” AJS Review 32 (2008): 263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moscovitz, Leib, “Le-darkhei shiluvan shel ha-’aggadot ba-yerushalmi—Birurim rishoniyim,” ’Asufot 11 (1995): 197–209Google Scholar; Segal, Eliezer, Case Citation in the Babylonian Talmud: The Evidence of Tractate Nezikin (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990)Google Scholar, 90; Hezser, Catherine, Form, Function and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Tubingen: Mohr, 1993), 262–266Google Scholar; Kahana, Menahem, “Gilui da‘at ve-’ones be-gittin: Le-ḥeker hishtalshelut ha-mesorot ha-muḥlafot be-‘arikhatan shel sugyot me'uḥarot,” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 230–231Google Scholar; Yonatan Feintuch, “Ma‘asei ḥakhamim ve-ha-sugiyot ha-mekhilot ’otam be-masekhet nezikin (ba-bavli)” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2008); Feintuch, , “Ben kohanim le-ḥakhamim—‘Al ’aggadah ’aḥat be-heksherah ha-raḥav be-bavli yoma,” Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-sifrut ‘ivrit 23 (2009): 1–14Google Scholar.

7. Sefer Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Binyamin M. Lewin (Haifa: G. Itzkovski, 1921), 34 [Nusaḥ Ẓarfati]: ולענין תוספתא ... בלא ספק בתר דאתרצן הלכות משנתנו אתרצה תוספתא. ומילי דתוספתא ברירן דבתר מתני׳ אינון ועליהון תניין (As for the Tosefta … there is no doubt that it was composed after the halakhot of the Mishnah were composed, and it is clear that the words of the Tosefta are later than the Mishnah and refer to it.) Similarly Maimonides in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah: “R. Ḥiyya composed the Tosefta in order to explain the Mishnah.”

8. See Frankel, Zacharias, Darkhei ha-mishnah (reprinted Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1959), 322–324Google Scholar; Albeck, Chanoch, Meḥkarim ba-baraita ve-tosefta ve-yaḥasan la-talmud (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1969), 139Google Scholar; Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tanna'im (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957), 243Google Scholar. Elsewhere in his writings one finds a different approach: See Friedman, Shamma, Tosefta ‘atikta—Pesaḥ rishon (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 17–32Google Scholar; Goldberg, Abraham, “Tosefta la-masekhet tamid,” in Benjamin De Vries Memorial Volume, ed. Melamed, Ezra Zion (Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University Research Authority, 1968), 18–42Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush la-mishnah masekhet shabbat (Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976), 21–24Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush la-mishnah masekhet ‘eruvin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 25–28Google Scholar; Goldberg, “The Tosefta—Companion to the Mishna,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Safrai, S., (Philadelphia and Assen 1987) 1: 283–292Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush mivni ve-’analiti la-tosefta masekhet bava kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 8–11Google Scholar. R. David Pardo in Ḥasdei David, his commentary on the Tosefta, and Saul Lieberman in his commentary, Tosefta ki-feshutah, generally interpreted the Tosefta on this literary assumption.

9. This is not to say that the Tosefta will always support the Mishnah—it may contest it or complicate it, but it has no truly independent redactional integrity that can be analyzed on its own terms.

10. Epstein, Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tanna'im, 257; Hauptman, Judith, “Mishnah as a Response to ‘Tosefta’,” in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, ed. Cohen, Shaye J.D., (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 13–34Google Scholar; Hauptman, “Nashim be-masekhet pesaḥim,” in ‘Atarah le-Ḥayim—meḥkarim ba-sifrut ha-talmudit ve-ha-rabanit le-khevod Profesor Ḥayim Zalman Dimitrovski, ed. Boyarin, D. et al. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000): 63–78Google Scholar; Hauptman, “Does the Tosefta Precede the Mishnah: Halakhah, Aggada, and Narrative Coherence,” Judaism 50 (2001): 224–240Google Scholar; Hauptman, “The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah,” JSIJ 4 (2005): 109–132Google Scholar; Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 1–30Google Scholar; Walfish, Avraham, “Approaching the Text and Approaching God: The Redaction of Mishnah and Tosefta Berakhot,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005–2006): 21–79Google Scholar. See also De Vries, Benjamin, “Le-ẓuratan ha-mekorit shel halakhot ’aḥadot,” Tarbiz 24 (1955): 395–398Google Scholar. These studies address signs of independent editorial activity in the Tosefta, which is our interest here. On the question of the relation between specific halakhic statements in the Mishnah and Tosefta, and the option that the Tosefta preserves material that predates parallel material in the Mishnah, perhaps even the raw materials of the parallel Mishnah see the discussion near the conclusion.

11. This is not to say that the Mishnah is not an important comparison text—it certainly is; it is simply to say that the Tosefta has some degree of redactional integrity that can be analyzed on its own terms.

12. Fraenkel, Midrash ve-’aggadah, 709–714; Avraham Walfish, “’Iḥud ha-halakhah ve-ha-’aggadah: ‘Iyyun be-darkhei ‛arikhatah shel ha-tosefta,” in Higayon L'Yona, 309–331.

13. Rabbinic stories, as noted lately by Simon-Shoshan and Wimpfheimer, cannot easily be categorized using the classic definitions that distinguish between halakhah and aggadah. These stories present sages who are considered to be knowledgeable in the law operating in situations in which their actions are motivated, inter alia, by halakhic considerations, even though these may not be made explicit in the story. The actions of the sages, being essential to the plots of the stories, serve as precedents for proper halakhic behavior, and thus convey halakhic information, as do apodictic and casuistic law statements. However, sometimes rabbinic stories contain narrative elements that have no halakhic significance, but rather focus on human and moral issues, as do stories of the aggadah. Rabbinic stories, then, fall between halakhah and aggadah, sometimes more similar to the one genre, sometimes to the other. A proper understanding requires both attention to the halakhic issues and the literary analysis that is customary in the study of each of the two genres. See Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law, 3–8; Wimpfheimer, Barry, Narrating the Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wimpfheimer, “‘But It Is Not So’: Toward a Poetics of Halakhic Narrative in the Talmud,” Prooftexts 24 (2004): 51–86Google Scholar; Wimpfheimer, “Talmudic Halakhic Narrative: Broadening the Discourse of Jewish Law,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 157–196Google Scholar; Yonah Fraenkel, “Mekomah shel ha-halakhah,” 205–215; Fraenkel, Sippur ha-’aggadah, 220–235; Segal, Case Citation, 90–156; Feintuch, Ma‘asei ḥakhamim, 269–271. See also Lifshitz, Berachyahu, “’Aggadah u-mekomah be-toldot Torah she-be‘al-peh,” Shenaton ha-mishpat ha-‘ivri 22 (2001–2003): 233–328Google Scholar; Lifshitz, “Aggadah and Its Role in the History of the Oral Law,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 11–28Google Scholar; Lorberbaum, Yair, Be-ẓelem'elohim: Halakhah ve-’aggadah (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2004), 105–126Google Scholar; Lorberbaum, “Reflections on the Halakhic Status of Aggadah,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 29–64Google Scholar.

14. The Hebrew texts of this and other sources quoted, with translation and discussion of relevant manuscript variants, are presented in the appendix below.

15. Cf. a similar reading of the story in Benovitz, Moshe, Talmud ha-’iggud berakhot perek rishon, ed. Friedman, Shamma (Jerusalem: The Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud, 2006), 402–403Google Scholar. Benovitz emphasizes that in his opinion the story does not reflect halakhic disputes, but rather presents R. Yehudah's surprise at his masters’ failure to recite the Shema at the first possible opportunity. The motif of extraordinary care in the performance of mitzvot is found in other stories as well (perhaps more in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el sources than in Babylonian). See, e.g., Moscovitz, Leib, “‘The Holy One Blessed Be He... Does Not Permit the Righteous to Stumble’: Reflections on the Development of a Remarkable BT Theologoumenon,” in Creation and Composition, ed. Rubenstein, Jeffrey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 163–164Google Scholar; Jacobs, Louis, “The Story of R. Phinehas ben Yair and His Donkey in B. Hullin 7a–b,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, ed. Davies, Philip and White, Richard (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 193–205Google Scholar; Hezser, Form, Function, 264; Feintuch, “Ma‘asei ḥakhamim,” 264–268.

16. This is especially so if שניתי (shaniti) is taken to mean “recited a second time,” in order to bring to the attention of the masters that the time for recitation arrived. See further discussion of the term in the appendix below.

17. Cf. Segal, Case Citation, 177–189.

18. Like the Mishnah, at the beginning of tractate Berakhot the Tosefta deals with the times of recitation of Shema in the morning and evening, the dispute of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai on posture during recitation, the blessings of the Shema and their texts, and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the evening prayer.

19. See Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a) where the time stated in the Tosefta is identified with the first of the times stated in the Mishnah. See also R. Moshe Margaliot, Pnei Moshe ad loc., s.v. ומאן דאמר כדי שיהא אדם רחוק; R. Eleazar Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim ad loc., s.v. כמאן דאמר בין תכלת ללבן; Benovitz, BT Berakhot, 391–392.

20. Lieberman emphasizes the point in his comment to the first line of the Tosefta: ״מאימתי וכוי׳. כנראה שזו פסקה קטועה ממשנתנו (פ״א מ״ב) ... ולמחלוקת זו נסמכה הברייתא שלנו״, Tosefta ki-fshuta [henceforth: Lieberman, TK] (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992)Google Scholar, 1:2.

21. See for example: Tosafot, Berakhot 9b, s.v. לק״ש כותיקין; Rabenu Yonah on Alfasi, Berakhot 4b (Alfasi pagination), s.v. ומצינו למדים; Pardo, R. David, Ḥasdei David, Zera‛im (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1994)Google Scholar, 5, ad Berakhot 1:5 s.v. מאימתי; Abramsky, R. Yehezkel, Tosefta ḥazon Yeḥezkel, vol. 1, Zera‛im (Jerusalem: Bene ha-meḥaber, 2000)Google Scholar, ad Berakhot 1:4, s.v. מצותה; R. Shmuel Avigdor “Tosfa'ah,” Minḥat Bikkurim ad Berakhot 1:4, s.v. מצותה (printed with the Tosefta at the end of the volumes in the Vilna Romm 1881 edition, and subsequent editions of the Talmud Bavli); Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim ad Y. Berakhot 1:2, s.v. אבל אמרו; Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1941)Google Scholar, 1:119–120; Lieberman, TK, 1992, 1:2; Hauptman, Judith, Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (Lanham: University Press of America, 1988)Google Scholar, 100.

22. According to the Tosefta, as in the Mishnah, Shema may be recited from shortly after dawn; at least some of the actions of the sages in the story occurred considerably later. The significance of the actions, then, is with reference not to the beginning of the period for recitation of Shema, but the end of the period, which appears in the Mishnah. See Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi, 1:121; Lieberman, TK 1:3.

23. See most recently Fuchs, Uziel, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim: ‘Iyyun be-sugiyat berakhot 11a ve-gilgulehah,” Sidra 21 (2006): 69–70Google Scholar; Sabato, Mordechai, “Keri'at Shema‘a shel R. Yishma'el ve-shel R. ’Ela‘azar ben ‘Azaryah ve-ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel,” Sidra 22 (2007): 41–42Google Scholar; Hidary, Richard, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Halakhic Pluralism in the Talmud (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010), 171–172Google Scholar.

24. Both Talmuds, Y. Berakhot 1:3 (3b) and B. Berakhot 11a, comment on the lack of symmetry.

25. This story too shows a bias in favor of the House of Hillel, though not necessarily as strong a bias as the Mishnah. See the difference between this story and that in Sifrei Devarim, Va-’etḥanan, pis. 34, to Deuteronomy 6:7 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 62–63); and in both Talmuds, Y. Berakhot 1:3 (3b); B. Berakhot 11a. See also Sabato, “Keri'at Shema,‘42–45; Hidary, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven, 171–173; Katzoff, Binyamin, “Ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel ve-ha-yaḥas ben mekorot makbilim,” Sidra 27–28 (2013): 339–351Google Scholar. Amram Tropper, Ke-ḥomer, 46–66, suggests a different reading of the story, in which the actions of the sages reflect internal disputes within the position of the House of Hillel. On that reading as well the story in the Tosefta relates to a dispute found only in the Mishnah.

26. On the connection of this homily to the halakhic outlook of the House of Shammai, see Knohl, Israel, “Parashah she-yesh bah kibbul malkhut shamayim (Sifre Bamidbar 115),” Tarbiz 53 (1983): 17–20Google Scholar.

27. See Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim, 69–70; Sabato, “Keri'at Shema‘a,” 41–42; Benovitz, BT Berakhot, 502.

28. On the description of persons occupied with public matters as “occupied in the performance of a mitzvah,” see Meir Nehorai, “Mekoro ve-gilgulo shel ha-kelal ha-hilkhati ‘ha-‘osek ba-miẓvah patur min ha-miẓvah’” (MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 2006), 6–12.

29. Here as in Tosefta section [E], R. Eleazar ben Azariah practices in accord with the doctrine of the House of Shammai. On the relation between the comprehensive decision in favor of the House of Hillel and the evidence for practice in accord with the House of Shammai, see Safrai, Shmuel, “Ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel be-Yavneh,” in Be-yemei ha-bayit u-ve-yemei ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994), 2:382–405Google Scholar, originally published in Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977): 21–44; Sussmann, Yaacov, “Ḥeker toldot ha-halakhah u-megilot Midbar-Yehudah: Hirhurim talmudiyim le-’or megilat ‘Mikẓat ma‘asei ha-torah,” Tarbiz 59 (1989–1990): 72–73Google Scholar n. 237; Halivni, Ephraim, Klale psak ha-halakhah ba-talmud (Lod: Haberman Institute for Literary Research, 1998), 130–141Google Scholar; Bitman, Avigdor, “Letivo shel ha-klal ‘halakhah ke-vet Hillel’,” Sinai 82 (1978): 185–196Google Scholar.

30. The sugya in B. Berakhot 11a in its present state implies that the House of Hillel agrees with the House of Shammai that one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzvah is exempt from recitation of Shema. However it has been observed by Weiss, Abraham, Talmud Babilonski (geneza literacka), Czesc II. sugia (Warsaw : Pisma Instytutu Nauk Judaistycznych, 1939)Google Scholar, 101; De Vries, Benjamin, Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-talmud (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1968), 250–251Google Scholar; and Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna’im le-talmud ha-ge'onim,” 71–74, that part of the sugya has been transferred to here from Berakhot 16b or from Sukkah 25a. Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 502, correctly argues that though the notion that both houses agree on this homily can be sustained in these two sugyot, where it is not indicated that the homily reflects the Shammaite position only, that is not the case in the sugya in Berakhot 11a. There, just as the House of Shammai rejects the interpretation given by the House of Hillel to the words “when you lie down and when you get up,” so, it can be argued (with the addition from other sugyot removed) that the House of Hillel can reject the interpretation given by the House of Shammai to the words “when you are on your way.” Indeed in an addition to the sugya found in two manuscripts, MS Paris and the margin of MS Florence, the dialogue between the houses continues. The conclusion in these two manuscripts is that there is a dispute between the houses on this issue, and that the House of Hillel only partially accepts the interpretation the House of Shammai gives to “when you are on your way.” See Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim,” 77–86; Aminoah, Noah, ‘Arikhat masekhet sukkah u-mo‘ed katan ba-talmud ha-bavli (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Publishing Projects, 1988), 47–49Google Scholar.

31. Though several scholars, such as Segal, Case Citation, 189–192, and Simon-Shoshan, “Halakhic Mimesis,” 120–122, have noted that halakhic stories contain superfluous narrative details, there is merit in a literary reading that endows every detail with significance in the building of the dramatic plot. See Fraenkel, Midrash ve-’aggadah, 380–381; Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-’aggadah ve-ha-midrash (Givatayim: Yad Latalmud, 1991)Google Scholar, 240. In this respect the proposed reading is faulty in that the description “the sun was already visible over the mountaintops” is unrelated to the focus of the story—the question of the obligation of persons engaged in the performance of a mitzvah to recite the Shema.

32. See also T. Berakhot 3:19, with Lieberman, TK 1:46.

33. Rabbenu Ḥananel ad B. Berakhot 9b s.v. ותיקין (Jerusalem: Makhon Lev Sameaḥ, 1990), 17.

34. On the earliness of one of the halakhic positions and the history of the halakhah relating to the beginning of the time for recitation of Shema in the tannaitic period, see Gilat, Yitzhak, Perakim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1992), 298–300Google Scholar; Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 401–413.

35. The view of the redactor of the Mishnah that the Shema may be recited even before sunrise appears also in M. Berakhot 3.5: “If one went down to immerse himself: if he can come up [from the pool] and cover himself and recite the Shema before the sun rises he should come up and cover himself and recite the Shema. But if not he should cover himself in the water and recite.”

36. The placement of the story in Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a) after the discussion of the first part of the mishnah, on the beginning of the time for recitation of Shema, and before the discussion of the final part of the mishnah, on the end of the time for recitation, reflects the understanding of the redactors of the sugya that the focus of the story is on the beginning of the time for recitation, as I propose here. This is also implied by the position of the lemma עד הנץ החמה (until sunrise) after the story, though, admittedly, the scribal insertions of the lemmata are often erroneous. See Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Mavo le-nusaḥ ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), 941–945Google Scholar; Lieberman, Saul, ‘Al ha-yerushalmi (Darom: Jerusalem, 1929), 11–12Google Scholar; Sussmann, Yaacov, Talmud yerushalmi yoẓe la-’or ‘al pi ketav yad Skaliger 3 she-be-sifriyat ha-’universitah shel Liden (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language: 2001)Google Scholar, 31, and n. 208.

37. See for example Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-’aggadah, 271–272; Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 251–252; Walfish, Avraham, “Ha-‘arikhah ha-yoẓeret ve-koaḥ ha-yeẓer: ‘Iyyun be-‘arikhat masekhet kiddushin ba-mishnah, ba-tosefta, u-va-bavli,” JSIJ 7 (2008): 31–43.Google Scholar

38. A further connection between the sources can be seen in the imagery of the relative location of the scholars. The description of R. Yehudah as following his masters at some distance and observing them resonates with the view that the time to recite the Shema begins when one can recognize an acquaintance at a distance of four cubits; the description of his masters as walking closely together accords with the view that gives value to the adjacency of the recitation to other parts of prayer.

39. Abramsky, Ḥazon Yeḥezkel, Zera'im, 2 ad 1:4 s.v. על ראשי ההרים; Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim to Berakhot 1:2 s.v. ואח״כ. Gilat, Perakim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah, 299.

40. Even if the Toseftan material is halakhically and redactionally independent of the Mishnah, it is still possible to see the Tosefta here as responding to an earlier Mishnah by modifying or correcting the law in the Mishnah or its bias in favor of the House of Hillel, as did R. Sherira Gaon and those who followed him. However some scholars, most notably Friedman and Hauptman, have argued in recent years that the Tosefta preserves material that predates parallel material in the Mishnah, perhaps even the raw materials of the parallel mishnah, see Friedman, Shamma, “Tosefta ‘atikta: Le-yaḥas makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta; (A) Kol kitvei ha-kodesh (Shabbat 16:1),” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 313–338Google Scholar; Friedman, “Makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994): 15–22; Friedman, “Tosefta ‘atikta: le-yaḥas makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta; (B) Ma‘ase Rabban Gamliel ve-zekenim,” Bar-Ilan 26–27 (1995): 277–288Google Scholar; Friedman, “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels,” in Introducing Tosefta, ed. Fox, Harry and Meacham, Tirzah (Hoboken: Ktav, 1999), 99–122Google Scholar; Friedman, Tosefta ‘atikta: Pesaḥ rishon, 46–49; Judith Hauptman, “Pesikah le-ḥumra be-mishnat gittin,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990): 23–30; Friedman, “Kiyyum me-raẓon shel miẓvot ‘aseh she-hazman graman ‘al yede nashim,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994): 161–168; Friedman, “Ha-mishnah ke-‘ibud shel yeẓirah tanna'it kedumah,” in Neti‘ot le-David—Sefer ha-yovel le-David Halivni, ed. Elman, Yaakov et al. (Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 2004), 61–70Google Scholar; Harry Fox, “Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies,” in Introducing Tosefta, 21–37; Halivni, David, “Mishnot she-zazu me-mekoman,” Sidra 5 (1989): 63–79Google Scholar; Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot bava kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993)Google Scholar, 311. See also Houtman, Alberdina, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (Tubingen: Mohr, 1996), 8–18Google Scholar. Following this approach the relationship between these passages in the Mishnah and the Tosefta could be reversed: The Mishnah is responding to the early material preserved in the Tosefta, in order to promote its halakhic approach, deciding the halakhah concerning the time to recite the Shema, or modifying the even-handed Tosefta by privileging the view of Bet Hillel.

41. The translation is based on the findings of Azar and of Braverman that one of the uses of אלא in tannaitic Hebrew is to mark the rejection of a possible inference from the previous statement. Here: the masters were not careless about the recitation of Shema, but rather postponed the recitation because of their preoccupation in public matters. Azar, Moshe, Taḥbir leshon ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995), 280–281Google Scholar; Natan Braverman, “Ha-miliyot ve-ta'arei ha-po‘el be-lashon ha-tanna'im: Ba-mishnah u-va-tosefta” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1995), 163. Accordingly R. Yehudah at first thought his masters postponed the recitation of the Shema because they were preoccupied in public matters, but it turned out that the reason for the delay was their view concerning the proper time of recitation. See Avigdor, Minḥat bikkurim to Berakhot 1:4 s.v. אלא. This interpretation is supported by the reading in MS Erfurt, which uses the more common expression מפני שהן עסוקין בצורכי ציבור, and by the parallel in Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a), in which the reference to preoccupation in public matters precedes R. Yehudah's initial thought: והיו עסוקין במצות והגיע עונת קרית שמע, והייתי סבור שמא נתייאשו מקרית שמע וקריתי ושניתי. Lieberman, TK 1: 3 ad loc., says the reverse: R. Yehudah originally thought the reason for the delay was his masters' view on the proper time for recitation, but later discovered that the reason was their preoccupation with public matters. So also Hauptman, Development of the Talmudic Sugya, 100. I find this interpretation less convincing, for according to it the conclusion R. Yehudah reaches at the end is presented early in the narrative; whereas stories rooted in oral transmission tend to present events in strict chronological order and to avoid “flash-forward.” See Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 250–251. Furthermore, on Lieberman's interpretation, one must ask what in the masters' behavior brought R. Yehudah to the conclusion that the delay was because of public business. After all, R. Yehudah must have known from the beginning of the journey that his masters were occupied in public business, and must, then, have reached his conclusion because his masters recited the Shema after they concluded the public business. However, this detail, the focus of the story in Lieberman's reading, though a reasonable inference, is not stated explicitly, making the interpretation doubtful and unsatisfactory from a literary standpoint.

42. Commentators have differed on the meaning of the word שניתי in the Tosefta passage. Some say that R. Yehudah recited passages of Mishnah (Azkari, Abramsky ad loc.). Others say that R. Yehudah recited the Shema a second time, and propose various explanations for the repetition: R. Yehudah did so in the hope that his masters would join him in recitation and he would thereby have a minyan (Pardo s.v. ומ״ש אמר רבי יהודה); in order to finish the recitation at sunrise (Lieberman TK 1:3); or in order to bring to the masters' attention that it was time for recitation (Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 402). See also Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi, 1:122. In my translation I have adopted the first interpretation, because reciting the Shema a second time, even though another sage is found doing so (Y. Berakhot 1:1 [2d]), is an unusual and eyebrow-raising act—as attested by the many attempts to explain his motives, themselves hardly precedented in tannaitic literature if at all—explicitly condemned in the Bavli, Berakhot 33b. See the various attempts to rationalize the act in Kesef mishneh, ad Hilkhot keriat Shema 2:11; Ḥasdei David ad loc.; Lieberman, Saul, Hilkhot ha-yerushalmi le-ha-rambam (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1947)Google Scholar, 20 n. 20. I would like to thank one of the journal's anonymous referees for offering a new interesting interpretation to R. Yehudah's action: R. Yehudah recited the Shema twice (accepting the second explanation of שניתי above), once right before sunrise and once right after, thereby performing the recitation once for the day and once for the night, as described in the statement attributed to R. Akiva in B. Berakhot 8b (see the variant tradition in T. Berakhot 1.1 and Bavli ibid.). See also the tannaitic views concerning the end of the time for the recitation of Shema at night, at M. Berakhot 1.1. The story, according to this interpretation, focuses on the issue of timing, and also describes R. Yehudah as reciting the Shema after sunrise, according to the opinion brought in the Tosefta.