Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T13:16:31.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions: The Case of Tanna D'Bei Shmuel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2009

Barak Shlomo Cohen
Barak Shlomo Cohen
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Extract

The question of the existence of Babylonian rabbinic traditions dating from the mishnaic period (pre-220 CE) has not been thoroughly and methodically addressed in the scholarly literature. Historians have pointed out that several rabbis were active in Babylonia during the mishnaic period; some researchers have even suggested that in this early period, organized rabbinic intellectual activity already existed in cities such as Nisibis, Nehardea, and Husal. However, a systematic examination of halakhot whose provenance was Babylonia in the mishnaic period has yet to be undertaken. Most prior attempts to uncover Babylonian rabbinic activity from this period have focused on a few traditions ascribed to Tannaim who had a known connection to Babylonia, such as R. Judah b. Bathyra, R. Nathan, and R. Hiyya (the “Babylonians,” as they are sometimes called in rabbinic literature). In light of the absence of a systematic study of Babylonian pre-talmudic rabbinic traditions, Gafni came to the following conclusion, one that this paper will support with solid evidence:

Even if there was a composed Babylonian halakhic tradition that originated before the end of the mishnaic period, it seems that the Palestinian tradition was accepted as the main tradition of the Babylonian sages already at the beginning of the amoraic period. Moreover, when this tradition penetrated into the Babylonian centers of learning, it seems to have completely pushed aside other traditions, causing them to become almost untraceable…. This subject still awaits thorough treatment by talmudic researchers, and at this stage we can discuss only the amount of rabbinic intellectual activity that existed in Babylonia before the talmudic period began…. Reason dictates that after the destruction of the Temple and the Bar-Kochba revolt, as sages began to arrive in Babylonia, the basic foundations of the rabbinic activity were established.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , November 2009 , pp. 271 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2009

I

The question of the existence of Babylonian rabbinic traditions dating from the mishnaic period (pre-220 CE) has not been thoroughly and methodically addressed in the scholarly literature. Historians have pointed out that several rabbis were active in Babylonia during the mishnaic period; some researchers have even suggested that in this early period, organized rabbinic intellectual activity already existed in cities such as Nisibis,Footnote 1 Nehardea,Footnote 2 and Husal.Footnote 3, Footnote 4 However, a systematic examination of halakhot whose provenance was Babylonia in the mishnaic period has yet to be undertaken. Most prior attempts to uncover Babylonian rabbinic activity from this period have focused on a few traditions ascribed to Tannaim who had a known connection to Babylonia, such as R. Judah b. Bathyra,Footnote 5 R. Nathan,Footnote 6 and R. HiyyaFootnote 7 (the “Babylonians,” as they are sometimes called in rabbinic literature).Footnote 8, Footnote 9 In light of the absence of a systematic study of Babylonian pre-talmudic rabbinic traditions, Gafni came to the following conclusion, one that this paper will support with solid evidence:

Even if there was a composed Babylonian halakhic tradition that originated before the end of the mishnaic period, it seems that the Palestinian tradition was accepted as the main tradition of the Babylonian sages already at the beginning of the amoraic period. Moreover, when this tradition penetrated into the Babylonian centers of learning, it seems to have completely pushed aside other traditions, causing them to become almost untraceable…. This subject still awaits thorough treatment by talmudic researchers, and at this stage we can discuss only the amount of rabbinic intellectual activity that existed in Babylonia before the talmudic period began…. Reason dictates that after the destruction of the Temple and the Bar-Kochba revolt, as sages began to arrive in Babylonia, the basic foundations of the rabbinic activity were established.Footnote 10

There are some fifty instances in the two Talmuds in which a baraita' is ascribed to Shmuel through the appellation Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, a “Tanna from the House of Shmuel” (henceforth, TDBS). These compose one of the largest collections of baraitot identified by scholars as representative of pre-talmudic Babylonian halakhah, and as such, they serve as perhaps the best focal point for a study of the issue at hand. In our discussion, we will critically examine the nature of the halakhah presented in this corpus, focusing especially on its connection with Palestinian halakhah. We will reexamine the claim that the content of the halakhot found in TDBS baraitot is Babylonian in origin. As we shall see, most of these halakhot are actually anchored in earlier, tannaitic, Palestinian halakhah. This conclusion will allow us to reopen the larger question of the existence of pre-talmudic Babylonian halakhic traditions and cast some doubt on many scholarly theories—theories that were often not based on a thorough examination of the evidence. In the end, we will have a greater awareness and appreciation of the tremendous influence that Palestinian tannaitic traditions had on Babylonian rabbinic study, even in the early talmudic period.

II

Shmuel and his influence on Babylonian talmudic halakhah have been the focal points of many scholarly studies.Footnote 11 In contrast, few studies have focused on the nature and origin of the fifty or so tannaitic traditions ascribed to his “academy” in the two Talmuds,Footnote 12 traditions that are introduced by the terms Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, Tannei Shmuel, or Matnita DeShmuel. While some general remarks have been made about these traditions, it is difficult to glean from these generalities anything specific concerning their origin or nature. David Tzvi Hoffman described this collection of baraitot as “oral traditions from different teachers.”Footnote 13 So, too, Jacob N. Epstein described the collection as “mostly derived from various ancient sources.”Footnote 14 According to David Goodblatt, the source of this collection of baraitot remains a mystery.Footnote 15 Solomon FunkFootnote 16 and Abraham Goldberg,Footnote 17 who delved deeper into these traditions, tended to see them as a reflection of Babylonian tannaitic traditions stemming from the pre-talmudic era. Some of these studies even ascribed an interpretive agenda to these baraitot—they were intended to adapt Rabbi Judah Hanasi's Mishnah, which was, of course, Palestinian in origin, to prior Babylonian tradition. Goldberg, who dedicated an entire study to this topic, came to the following conclusion:

What emerges from our study is that the main function of “Tanna D'Bei Shmuel” is to adapt the Mishnah, in any place possible, to the Babylonian halakhic tradition, even if this requires a forced interpretation of the Mishnah or a slight emendation of its language.Footnote 18

Goldberg reached this conclusion based on one source alone (Bavli Yoma 70a), in which he found a similarity in halakhah between a baraita' ascribed to TDBS and tannaitic traditions in the Yerushalmi that he ascribed to Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael. According to Goldberg, R. Yishmael's students settled in Babylonia after the Bar Kokhba revolt, and were the source for the Babylonian halakhic tradition found in the TDBS baraita' in the Bavli.Footnote 19 Even if we accept Goldberg's conclusion, in reality, all it does is demonstrate a connection between the halakhah as represented in TDBS sources and a Palestinian halakhic tradition, albeit one that differs from the Mishnah. “This is not a case of ‘Babylonian tradition’ versus ‘Palestinian tradition’ but rather two different Palestinian traditions (the Mishnah and the Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael baraita, B.C.) that arrived in Babylonia with a gap of only one generation between them.”Footnote 20 Indeed, as we shall see, there is a deep connection between the baraitot ascribed to TDBS in the Bavli (and to Tannei Shmuel in the Yerushalmi) and other Palestinian tannaitic halakhic traditions, and Goldberg's work only serves to further demonstrate this.

Hanokh Albeck raised a similar claim with regard to the Babylonian provenance of these halakhot, but from a different perspective. Albeck's research into the TDBS baraitot is part of his larger study of collections of baraitot ascribed to the Amoraim who transmitted them in the two Talmuds (such as Tannei X or “A tanna taught in front of Rabbi X”).Footnote 21 Based on a few external literary characteristics shared by these collections of baraitot, Albeck concluded as follows,

The baraitot transmitted by Amoraim differ from the baraitot that were transmitted anonymously in that the former are usually short, contain no disputes and do not mention the name of any tanna, whereas the latter are longer, contain disputes and mention the names of Tannaim. The content and form of the baraitot transmitted by Amoraim testify that they were later creations and that they were transmitted according to the name of the amora who taught them or arranged them, whereas the anonymously transmitted baraitot were older, and they begin with, “Our Rabbis taught,” or just “It was taught.”Footnote 22

Albeck's claim that these baraitot are “new, and their origin is not from Tannaim in the mishnaic period”Footnote 23 is based on general evidence gleaned from an examination of a broad literary corpus of halakhot, and not on a specific examination of the halakhot represented in Shmuel's baraitot. In about 70 percent of the cases, the halakhah presented in the TDBS baraitot reflects Palestinian tannaitic halakhah,Footnote 24 even if the literary style of these baraitot (as Albeck noted) or linguistic expression (see below)Footnote 25 is reflective of late Tannaim or early Amoraim. This finding makes it difficult to accept the claim that the content of the halakhot in TDBS baraitot is late in origin. Rather, we should distinguish between their language and style, which may reflect later editing, and their halakhic content, which is usually faithful to and reflective of earlier Palestinian tannaitic tradition.Footnote 26 We should note that the same phenomenon exists in general with regard to many baraitot that appear in the Bavli—they are faithful representations of Palestinian halakhah as found in the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi, even though there are significant stylistic and linguistic differences between them and their corresponding Palestinian versions, differences whose origins mostly lie in the editorial activity of later Babylonian tradents.Footnote 27 We will discuss this phenomenon at greater length.Footnote 28

There are twenty-five instances in which the Bavli ascribes a baraita' to Tanna/Tannu + [D]'Bei Shmuel (including instances found only in manuscripts).Footnote 29 Because the term Bei Rav X in the Bavli refers to the academy headed by Rabbi X,Footnote 30 the phrase Tanna D'Bei Shmuel should be understood as baraitot taught in the name of Shmuel.Footnote 31 In more than twenty instances in the Yerushalmi, these baraitot are transmitted with the term Tannei Shmuel or Matnita DeShmuel.Footnote 32 In thirty of these fifty or so baraitot, the halakhic content is parallel to Palestinian halakhic traditions found in the Tosefta and in the Yerushalmi (about 70 percent of the overall cases).Footnote 33 With the exception of one case,Footnote 34 there are no Palestinian tannaitic traditions that parallel the other TDBS traditions, meaning these traditions neither contradict Palestinian sources nor are affirmed by them. We will examine this through a number of representative examples, culled from both Talmuds.

(1) Bavli Eruvin 89a–b

Mishnah:Footnote 35 All the roofs of a town are considered to be a single domain, provided no roof is ten handbreadths higher or lower [than the neighboring roof], the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: each one is its own domain.

Gemara: (1) It was stated: Rav said: They may carry only within four cubits, and Shmuel said: It is permitted to carry throughout its area….Footnote 36

(2) It taught in the mishnah: The sages say: each one is its own domain.

(3) This goes well according to Shmuel but it is a difficult for Rav!

(4) They said in the House of Rav in the name of Rav: [The mishnah means that] one may not carry an object two cubits on one roof and another two cubits on an adjacent roof.

(5) [Is this so?] Footnote 37 But didn't R. Elazar say, “When we were in Babylonia we used to say: The House of Rav in the name of Rav said: ‘They may carry in it only within four cubits,’ whereas those of the House of Shmuel (D'Bei Shmuel) taught, ‘they have use only of their own roof.’”

(6) What does it mean, “they have use only of their own roof?” Is it not that they are permitted to carry throughout its entire area?

(7) Does this have greater force than our Mishnah which we have explained to mean, “That one must not carry an object two cubits on one roof and another two cubits on an adjacent roof,” so too here [we can explain], two cubits on one roof and two cubits on the other.

In section 5, R. Elazar (b. Pedat), a Palestinian Amora of Babylonian origin and a student of Rav and Shmuel,Footnote 38 presents a tannaitic tradition from the House of Shmuel through use of the words “Those of the House of Shmuel [D'Bei Shmuel] taught [tannu],” where the verb tannu appears after the expression “[of] the house of Shmuel.”Footnote 39 This expression, parallel to the expression Tanna D'Bei Shmuel,Footnote 40 appears one other time in the Bavli,Footnote 41 where it is also employed by an Amora contemporary with “those of the house of Shmuel”—R. Nahman (b. Yaakov), who cites it in front of his student, Rava.Footnote 42 In contrast, when fourth-generation and later Amoraim (Abbaye, Rava, R. Papa, and Ravina)Footnote 43 cite baraitot ascribed to Shmuel, they do not use this phrase but rather the more typical Tannei D'Bei Shmuel. In other words, Amoraim chronologically closer to ShmuelFootnote 44 do not cite a collection of baraitot that they refer to as Tannei D'Bei Shmuel, but rather use traditions ascribed to the members of Shmuel's house.Footnote 45 Indeed, it is likely that “those of the House of Shmuel” is not a technical phrase but rather is firsthand testimony of R. Elazar (or R. Nahman) concerning sages from his own generation. The word tannu functions here as a verb and not a technical literary term.Footnote 46 In sum, only from the fourth generationFootnote 47 of Amoraim onward did this collection of baraitot become a collection of halakhot that received the appellation Tanna D'Bei Shmuel.

The content of the baraita' ascribed to the House of Shmuel (“they have use only of their own roof”) accurately reflects the most straightforward interpretation of the sages' opinion in the Mishnah. According to the simple meaning of this mishnah, R. Meir considers all the roofs of the city to be one domain, and therefore allows one to carry vessels from one roof to another roof,Footnote 48 as long as those vessels are on the roof at the beginning of the Sabbath and the height of the roof is ten handbreadths. In contrast, the other sages view each roof as a separate entity and therefore do not allow one to carry from one roof to another.Footnote 49 Rav further limits the sages' opinion, interpreting their statement to mean that one can only carry within a radius of four cubits on any given roof. Rashi explains that according to Rav, “since the rabbis hold that each [roof] is its own domain and each roof is open to one another—each [roof] causes the other to be prohibited, for each is considered a domain completely open to another domain into which it would be forbidden to carry.”Footnote 50 In contrast, Shmuel, who holds that one can carry within the entire area of any given roof, remains closer to the simple interpretation of the sages' opinion in the mishnah. Shmuel's own opinion is identical to that of the tannaitic tradition preserved in the baraita' ascribed to “those of the House of Shmuel.”Footnote 51 The similarity between the mishnah's halakhah, stating that “each one is its own domain,” and Shmuel's baraita', claiming that “they have use only of their own roof,” is also confirmed by the attempt of the anonymous voice in sections 5 and 6 (the stam)Footnote 52 to reject Rav's interpretation of the mishnah through the use of Shmuel's baraita', and in section 7 to resolve Rav's opinion by using the same forced interpretation to Shmuel's baraita' that he used when solving the difficulty on Rav brought directly from the mishnah (section 4).Footnote 53

In sum, the D'Bei Shmuel tannu baraita' transmits the same content as the mishnah's halakhah but in language different from that found in the Mishnah itself. The content of the baraita' does not differ from the simple, unforced interpretation of the sages' opinion in the mishnah. The halakhic similarity between these two sources provided the stam (the anonymous voice in the Bavli) with a source with which to reject Rav's more difficult interpretation of the mishnah.

(2) Bavli Rosh Hashanah 16a

Mishnah: At four set times the world is judged: on Pesaḥ in respect of the produce; on Atzeret (Shavuot) in respect of the fruits of the tree; on Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like the sons of Meron, as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15); and on the Ḥag (Sukkot) they are judged in respect of rain.

Gemara: Whose opinion is that in our mishnah? RavaFootnote 54 said: This Tanna [of our Mishnah] is the Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, since in the House of ShmuelFootnote 55 it was taught: “At four set times the world is judged, on Pesaḥ in respect of the produce, on Atzeret (Shavuot) in respect of the fruits of the tree, on the Ḥag (Sukkot) they are judged in respect of rain, and man is judged on Rosh Hashanah and his judgment is sealed on Yom Hakkipurim.”

And when they taught our mishnah—[it referred to] the beginning of judgment.

In three other places in the Bavli, Rava explains that the halakhah of a mishnah accords with a baraita' attributed to TDBS,Footnote 56 as he does here in Rosh Hashanah.Footnote 57 To limit the scope of our discussion, we will focus on the information found within the TDBS baraita' itself, and not on Rava's interpretation of the baraita', which attempts to draw a parallel between the baraita' and the mishnah at hand.

Shmuel's baraita' can be separated into two parts. The first part lists three “set times” in which the world is judged: in respect of produce, the fruit of the tree, and water. This section is identical to the halakhic content of the Mishnah, and also to R. Judah's opinion in a baraita' found in the Tosefta quoted below (and in a parallel in the Bavli)Footnote 58 and to an anonymous baraita' brought in the Yerushalmi (1:3, 57a).Footnote 59 The second part of the baraita' contains some information not found in the Mishnah, namely, that human beings are judged on Rosh Hashanah and that their judgment is sealed on Yom Kippur. Significantly, this same opinion is found in Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:13 (ed. Lieberman, p. 308):

All are judged on Rosh Hashanah and their decree is sealed on Yom Hakippurim, the words of R. Meir.

R. Judah says: All are judged on Rosh Hashanah and each and everyone's decree is sealed in its time: on Pesaḥ in respect of the produce; on Atzeret (Shavuot) in respect of the fruits of the tree; on Sukkot in respect of rain and each man's decree is sealed on Yom Hakippurim.

R. Yose says: man is judged every day, as it says, “You inspect him every morning” (Job 7:18).

Despite their dispute, both R. Meir and R. Judah agree that a man is judged on Rosh Hashanah and that his decree is sealed on Yom Hakippurim, as is found in the second half of the TDBS baraita'.Footnote 60 Shmuel's opinion is in complete agreement with that of R. Judah's from the Tosefta, which is also found in the parallel version in the Bavli. It is clear, therefore, that in this case, both parts of the TDBS baraita' have parallels in Palestinian tannaitic literature.

(3) Bavli Shabbat 12a

Mishnah: A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall lest he forget and go out [after the Sabbath has begun]. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp.

Gemara:Tanna D'Bei Shmuel:Footnote 61 A man may go out with his tefillin on the eve of Sabbath near nightfall (עם חשיכה). What's the reason? Because Rabbah bar R. Huna said: One must check his tefillin every hour, kal vehomer, from [the High Priest's] diadem. If in the case of the diadem, which contains the Divine Name only once, yet the Torah said, “And it shall always be on his forehead” (Exodus 28:38)—[which means] that he should not divert his mind from it, then with the tefillin, which contain the Divine Name many times, how much more so!

Therefore he will remember [that they are on his head and he will not go out with them on Shabbat].

Shmuel's baraita' allows one to go out while wearing tefillin close to nightfall on Friday eve. He is not concerned “lest the tefillin stay on his head once it is already dark,” which would be a transgression of the prohibition of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath.Footnote 62 The Bavli explains this opinion by citing an amoraic statement according to which “one must check his tefillin every hour … therefore he will remember.” Shmuel's baraita' also appears in Yerushalmi Shabbat 6:2, 8b:

One may go outFootnote 63 with tefillin on the eve of Shabbat near nightfall, but one may not go out with a nailed sandal on the eve of Shabbat near nightfall. What is the difference between the two? This one it is his custom to remove, and this one it is not his custom to remove.

According to the Yerushalmi, one is allowed to wear tefillin close to sunset on Friday evening because that is the time of day when people would always remove their tefillin after having worn them all day, as was the custom in those times. Because the tefillin would normally be removed at that time, there was no great concern that he would forget and leave them on and carry them in the public domain on the Sabbath.Footnote 64 The same halakhah also appears in Tosefta Shabbat 1:11 (ed. Lieberman, p. 3): “They may go out with tefillin near nightfall. And they may read the Holy Scriptures near nightfall, but they may not read them on the Sabbath eve itself.” Lieberman notes the similarity between the two baraitot, “This baraita (from the Tosefta, B.C.) is brought on Bavli Shabbat 12a in the name of Tanei [D'Bei] Shmuel.” Lieberman even explains the two sources in an identical fashion:

There is no doubt that in Palestinian terminology “עם חשיכה” means close to nightfall… . Here they taught “עם חשיכה” which means before they lit the Sabbath candles. At that time they would remove their tefillin, and the baraita teaches us that it is permitted to go out with tefillin, to the courtyard and to the public domain, meaning that it is permitted to wear tefillin until right before nightfall, similar to “reading the Holy Scriptures” mentioned immediately after, and there is no fear lest he go out with them to the public domain after dark.Footnote 65

Like the cases discussed earlier, this case demonstrates the connection between Shmuel's baraita' in the Bavli and the Palestinian tannaitic tradition.

(4) Bavli Pesahim 2a–3a

Mishnah: At the light [or] of the fourteenth [of Nissan] they check for leaven with the light of the candle.

Gemara: What is “at the light”? R. Huna says, “At twilight” [naghei]. And R. Judah says, “At night” [leilei]. Come and hear, the House of Shmuel taught (Tanna D'Bei Shmuel):Footnote 66 On the night [leilei] of the fourteenth they check for leaven with the light of the candle. Therefore, “at the light” refers to “at night.” Rather … all agree that “at the light” refers to “at night,” and they don't disagree, rather one says according to [the typical way of saying things in] his place and the other according to [the typical way of saying things in] his place. In Rav's place the call it “twilight” [naghei] and in R. Judah's place they call it “night” [leilei].

On the exact correspondence between the halakhah in Shmuel's baraita' and that found in the mishnah, Shamma Friedman writes, “Shmuel's baraita is nothing but the language of our mishnah, with one small change, ‘night’ (leilei) instead of ‘light’ (or).”Footnote 67 Shmuel's baraita' is presented by the stammaitic editorsFootnote 68 as decisive proof that or in the mishnah refers to night (as is the opinion of R. Judah), and this after nine other proofs failed.Footnote 69 Indeed, it is indisputable that the meanings of the two expressions are identical.Footnote 70 There is no doubt that or in rabbinic Hebrew means “night.” Nevertheless, whereas J. N. Epstein claims that the two different expressions, or and leilei, stem from two parallel tannaitic sources,Footnote 71 Friedman views Shmuel's leilei as a later revision of the earlier or. He writes, “‘or l …’ is the earlier version, as opposed to ‘leilei’ [which is] a later version, and an expression more commonly found in the words of later Tannaim and even early Amoraim in both Palestine and Babylonia.”Footnote 72 In any case, even if we accept Friedman's opinion that the expression in Shmuel's baraita' is a later revision of the word or in the Mishnah, the halakhic content found in the TDBS baraita' is again identical to the Palestinian halakhic tradition.

(5) Yerushalmi Shabbat 3:4, 6aFootnote 73

Mishnah: It once happened that the people of Tiberias conducted a pipe of cold water through an aqueduct of hot springs. The sages said to them: if this happened on the Sabbath, it is like hot water heated on the Sabbath, which is forbidden both for washing and for drinking. If on a festival, it is like water heated on a festival, which is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking.

Gemara: Hot water heated on a festival, and similarly hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath for the Sabbath: Rav and Shmuel, one says: “One may use it to wash his face, hands and legs,” and the other says, “One may use it to wash his limbs, one limb at a time.” And we do not know which one said this and which one said this. From that which Shmuel taught (tannei): “One may use it to wash his face, hands, and legs,” it can be concluded that Rav was the one who said, “One may use it to wash his limbs, one limb at a time.”

In this parallel, Shmuel's baraita' is introduced with the term Tannei Shmuel, a term parallel to Tanna D'Bei Shmuel Footnote 74 found elsewhere in the Bavli. This baraita' was used by the editor(s) of the sugya in the reconstruction of the halakhic opinions of Rav and Shmuel,Footnote 75 under the assumption that Shmuel's opinion is the same as that found in a baraita' transmitted under his name.Footnote 76 The same opinion is ascribed to Shmuel in Bavli Shabbat 40a: “It was stated: Hot water that was heated up on the eve of the Sabbath: Rav says, ‘On the next day one may use it to wash one's whole body, one limb at a time,’ and Shmuel says, ‘They only allowed one to wash one's face, hands and legs.’”Footnote 77

The mishnah prohibits washing (on the Sabbath) with water that has been heated on the Sabbath because this is like cooking, which is prohibited.Footnote 78 In contrast, the dispute between Rav and Shmuel relates to the question of the use of hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath. As stated, the opinion of Shmuel matches that found in the baraita' transmitted under his name, “Shmuel taught: One may use it to wash his face, hands and legs.” This halakhah has a precise parallel in Tosefta Betzah 2:10 (ed. Lieberman, pp. 288–89):Footnote 79

One may not rinse with hot water heated on the festival, and there is no need to say [that this is prohibited] on the Sabbath. But on the Sabbath one may wash his face, hands and feet with water that was heated on the eve of the Sabbath, and there is no need to say [that this is permitted] on the festival with water that had been heated on the eve of the festival.

The Tosefta explicitly prohibits one from washing anything more than one's face, hands, and legs with water that had been heated before the Sabbath, the same halakhic opinion found in Shmuel's baraita', and attributed to Shmuel in both Talmuds. The same baraita' is brought, with some variants, in Bavli Shabbat 40a, as a support for Shmuel's opinion in the dispute:

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Shmuel: Water that was heated on the eve of the Sabbath, the next day one may use it to wash one's face, hands and legs, but not one's whole body, even one limb at a time. And it wasn't even necessary to state [that this is permitted] with water that was heated on the eve of the festival.Footnote 80

The Bavli goes on to quote two additional baraitot that also support Shmuel's opinion and contradict that of Rav.Footnote 81 Again, as in the other cases, Shmuel's opinion reflects the halakhic tradition of the Palestinian Tannaim.

(6) Yerushalmi Kilayim 8:2, 31c

R. Hama bar UkbaFootnote 82 in the name of R. Yose b. R. Hanina said: One who leads two different animals yoked together [kilayim] is lashed… .

But didn't Shmuel teach [tannei]: If he was standing outside of the city limits and he called it and it came after him, behold this one is exempt.

There, it (the animal) goes on its own volition; here it goes against its will.

The passage opens with the opinion of R. Yose bar R. Hanina, a Palestinian Amora of the second generation,Footnote 83 who holds that leading an animal by voice alone is considered to be of legal significance,Footnote 84 and therefore, if one calls out to two animals of different species that were yoked together and they move, he has transgressed the prohibition of kilayim (see Deuteronomy 22:10). Against this opinion, the passage brings Shmuel's baraita', according to which one who “calls” an animal that is found outside the Sabbath border into the Sabbath border is exempt from causing his animal to pass through the Sabbath border, because Shmuel holds “the animal comes on its own when it is called … and he doesn't transgress by the fact that his animal has on its own gone out of its Sabbath border.Footnote 85 This is what the Yerushalmi means when it explains, “it goes on its own volition.” A similar halakhah appears in a baraita' on Bavli Shabbat 151a, and in Tosefta Shabbat 17:12, (ed. Lieberman, p. 82): “They may not wait at the Sabbath border [toward the end of Shabbat in order to immediately] fetch an animal.Footnote 86 If it was outside the border, he may call to it so that it comes.” From this baraita', it is clear that on the Sabbath, one may call an animal that is outside the Sabbath border if one happens to be there, but he may not go to this border on the Sabbath in order to wait for it to get dark so that he can immediately go out and bring the animal back.Footnote 87 Lieberman again points out the parallel between Shmuel's baraita' and that found in the Tosefta. He writes, “There is no doubt that most of the commentators were correct when they explained that this [Shmuel's baraita', B.C.] is the same halakhah as that found in our Tosefta.”Footnote 88 Just as in the previous two cases, there is a clear correspondence between the halakhah found in Shmuel's baraita' in the Yerushalmi and the tannaitic halakhic tradition found in the Tosefta and in the Bavli.

(7) Yerushalmi Shabbat 19:3, 12a

Mishnah: They may wash a child before his circumcision and after his circumcision and they may sprinkle water on him by hand, but not with a vessel.

Gemara: R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah goes according to the one who says that they may wash the child.

R. Yose said: You must say that they may wash the child.

Shmuel taught [tannei]:Footnote 89 They [never]Footnote 90 stop one from putting oil or hot water on a wound on the Sabbath.

R. Yose said: R. Zera and R. [Ba]Footnote 91 wouldFootnote 92 always come and say to me, “Recite our mishnah, ‘And not only that, but they may also sprinkle water on a wound on Shabbat.’ If you say that they may wash [the child after] circumcision, what is the difference between the wound of an adult and the wound of a minor?”Footnote 93

The Tannei Shmuel baraita' allows any wound to be cleansed with oil or hot water on Shabbat, and not just that of a child after circumcision (see below).Footnote 94 The baraita' is brought as proof that the mishnah should not read as, “they may wash the [wound from] circumcision,” rather, “they may wash the child.”Footnote 95 In his commentary on the Yerushalmi, R. Moshe Margoliot explains, “If you say that the mishnah should read ‘they wash the [wound from] circumcision,’ then what is the difference between the wound of an adult and the wound of a child, and why would the mishnah have specified ‘they wash the [wound from] circumcision,’ for other wounds of adults are washed as well with hot water.”Footnote 96 According to H. Albeck, the baraita' quoted by R. Yose, the one that his teacher R. ZeraFootnote 97 told him to recite frequently,Footnote 98 is the continuation of Shmuel's baraita'. The intention of this continuation was to expand upon the leniency mentioned before—not only do we not withhold oil or hot water, but we even sprinkle (“זלף”Footnote 99) it upon the wound.Footnote 100 It turns out, therefore, that R. Yose's baraita' not only matches the halakhah found in Shmuel's baraita', but even expands on it.Footnote 101 This halakhah, which allows one to use hot water on Shabbat to take care of a wound, is found in Tosefta Shabbat 15:4Footnote 102 (ed. Lieberman, 69):

And one may sprinkle hot water on [the circumcision wound] and not only that but one may sprinkle hot water on [any] wound.

LiebermanFootnote 103 and GoldbergFootnote 104 correctly pointed out that this toseftan baraita' (and its parallel in the Yerushalmi) relates to the use of hot water on the Sabbath by any person, and not just for the sake of a circumcised child: “That is to say, not just a child who is still weak and the wound was put in a place where there is a threat to his life, but any person can pour hot water on his wound [on the Sabbath].”Footnote 105 Again, the halakhah found in Shmuel's baraita' fully accords with the Palestinian tannaitic halakhah, both that found in the Tosefta and in the baraita' in the Yerushalmi, which R. Yose quotes in the name of R. Zera.

The permission that Shmuel grants to use oil to heal a wound on ShabbatFootnote 106 is also mentioned in tannaitic literature, in Tosefta Shabbat 12:12 ([ed. Lieberman, 53]; see also Tosefta Terumot 9:12 [ed. Lieberman, 159]): “A person may anoint his wounds with oil, as long as he doesn't dip it with a cloth or rag.” Lieberman also pointed out that a similar halakhah appears in Mishnah Shabbat 14:4, “The children of royalty may anoint their wounds with rose oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. Rabbi Shimon said: all Israel are royal children.”Footnote 107 From this mishnah Lieberman concluded, “From here we can see that all agree that one can anoint one's wounds with regular oil on the Sabbath.” As in all of the previous cases, again the halakhah in Shmuel's baraita' that allows anyone to use hot water and oil on the Sabbath in order to care for wounds is anchored in Palestinian tannaitic halakhah.

(8) Bavli Bava Metzia 111a

Mishnah: The wages of a man or the renting of a beast or the renting of utensils, each is subject to the rules “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “You may not retain the wages of a laborer with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13). When is this so? When [the employee] demanded it, but if he did not demand it [the employer] does not commit a transgression.

A resident alien is subject to the rule, “You must pay him his wages on the same day,” but he is not subject to the rule, “You may not retain the wages of a laborer.”

Gemara: [As] it is taught: “From among your brothers” (Deut. 24:14)—this excludes Gentiles [aherim]; “your stranger”—this refers to a righteous proselyte; “in your gates”—this refers to one who eats carrion. From this I know [the rule only with regard to a man's wages], how do I know to extend the same rule to beasts and utensils? Scripture says, “in your land,” anything that is in your land. And in respect of all these, one [can] transgress all of these rules. From here they said: The wages of a man or the renting of a beast or the renting of utensils, each is subject to the rules, “You must pay him his wages on the same day” and “You may not retain the wages of a laborer.” R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A resident alien is subject to the rule, “You must pay him his wages on the same day” but not to the rule, “You may not retain [the wages of a laborer].” Animals and utensils are only subject to the rule, “You shall not oppress.”…

Rava said: This tanna [of our Mishnah] is a tanna from the House of ShmuelFootnote 108 [Tanna D'Bei Shmuel], for the House of Shmuel taught: The wages of a man or the renting of a beast or the renting of utensils, each is subject to the rules, “You must pay him his wages on the same day” and “You may not retain [the wages of a laborer].” A resident alien is subject to the rule, “You must pay him his wages on the same day,” but not to the rule, “You may not retain [the wages of a laborer].”

Rava identifies the Mishnah's halakhah with the TDBS baraita', both of which are contrasted with the preceding anonymous baraita' that contains a different halakhah.Footnote 109 In five other places in the Bavli,Footnote 110 Rava identifies the Mishnah with a TDBS baraita'. One of these examples was discussed earlier.Footnote 111 In another case,Footnote 112 Rava identifies the Mishnah with a tanna of the House of Menashe (Tanna D'Bei Menashe),Footnote 113 meaning a collection of baraitot identified with Rav Menashya, a third- or fourth-generation Babylonian Amora.Footnote 114

Shmuel's baraita' is composed of two parts. The first discusses the prohibition of an employer to withhold wages for a laborer or craftsman or to withhold rent due for the use of an animal or utensils. Word for word, this baraita' is nearly identical to the halakhah found in the Mishnah. Other Tannaim disagree, as is evident by the words of R. Jose, the son of R. Judah, in the anonymous baraita' that appears at the beginning of the passage: “Animals and utensils are subject only to the rule, ‘You shall not oppress.’”Footnote 115 So, too, the second half the TDBS baraita'—concerning the prohibition of withholding the wages of a resident alien—is the same as that found in the Mishnah. All five prohibitions that apply to an employer who withholds the wages of his employee (“Do not oppress,” “Do not steal” [counting as two prohibitions],Footnote 116 “Do not withhold,” “Do not let the sun rise [without paying him his wages]”)Footnote 117 do not apply, according to the Mishnah and the TDBS baraita', to the resident alien: “To [the resident alien] the laws of ‘Do not withhold’ … and also ‘Do not oppress’ and ‘Do not steal’ do not apply.”Footnote 118 Like the halakhah found in the first half of the TDBS baraita', so, too, do other Tannaim disagree with this halakhah. The baraita' found earlier in the passage applies all five prohibitions to an employer who withholds wages from a resident alien. In any case, both halves of the TDBS baraita' contain halakhot identical to the Palestinian tannaitic tradition of the Mishnah.

(9) Bavli Moed Katan 18b

Mishnah: They may write the following documents during the festival: betrothal of women [documents], divorce documents and receipts, a will of a dying person, a bequest and prozbuls; evaluation certificates and court orders for support, documents of release from Levirate marriage and documents of repudiation [of marriage] and arbitration records; decrees of the court and correspondence.

Gemara: Shmuel said: It is permitted to betroth a woman on the intermediate days of a festival, lest someone else precedes him… .Footnote 119 Come and learn: that the House of Shmuel taught [Tanna D'Bei Shmuel]:Footnote 120 [During the intermediate days of a festival] one may betroth but not marry, and one may not make betrothal feasts, nor may one perform Levirate marriage, for it is a joy to him. Learn from it.

The TDBS baraita' allows betrothals to take place on the intermediate days of a festival, as does the statement of Shmuel found earlier in the passage and in a parallel statement in the Palestinian Talmud.Footnote 121 This halakhah is also found in Tosefta Moed Katan 1:10 (ed. Lieberman, p. 367): “One may not betroth women during the intermediate days of the festival. R. Judah permits, lest someone else precedes him.” Albeck,Footnote 122 Lieberman,Footnote 123 and AminoahFootnote 124 were therefore correct in identifying Shmuel's amoraic statement and the halakhah found in the TDBS baraita' with the opinion of R. Judah (b. Ilai) found in the Tosefta, both with regard to the halakhah itself and in the justification for the leniency, “lest someone else precede him.”Footnote 125 The opinion prohibiting betrothal on these days stems, apparently, from an assumption that the act looks like an acquisition,Footnote 126 and generally acquisitions are prohibited during the entire festival. Another of the halakhot found in this TDBS baraita', “one may not perform Levirate marriage,” and its justification, “for it is a joy to him,” is found in Mishnah Moed Katan 1:7: “They may not marry women during the festival, neither virgins nor widows, nor may they perform Levirate marriage, for it is a joy to him.” Again, both halakhot mentioned in the TDBS baraita' are identical to other halakhot in the Palestinian tannaitic tradition.Footnote 127

(10) Bavli Shabbat 131a–b

But was it not taught: The shofar and all its accoutrements supersede the Sabbath, the words of R. Eliezer… .Footnote 128 From where does R. Eliezer derive this? … The verse says: “A day of blasting it shall be for you” (Num. 29:1)—on that day, and even [if it falls] on the Sabbath. Concerning what [was this stated]? If you say concerning the [shofar] blasts themselves—hasn't the House of Shmuel taught (Tanna D'Bei Shmuel):Footnote 129 “All manner of work you shall not do”—this excludes blasting shofar and removing bread [from the oven] which are wisdom and not work! Rather [it concerns] the accoutrements.

According to early tannaitic tradition, when Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath, the shofar should be sounded in the Temple but not outside it. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 states, “The festival day of Rosh Hashanah which falls on the Sabbath: in the Temple they would blow [the shofar] but not in the provinces.” According to the Mishnah, after the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b. ZakkaiFootnote 130 decreed that the shofar should be sounded even outside the Temple. Scholars have detected in Palestinian tannaitic literature two main halakhic approaches toward R. Johanan's decree.Footnote 131 According to the earlier approach, blasting a shofar on the Sabbath is a violation of the Torah,Footnote 132 and hence it supersedes the Sabbath (outside of the Temple) only in a court of law; “the blasts of Rosh Hashanah supersede the Sabbath in all of the land only in a court of law.”Footnote 133 The later approach perceived of shofar blasts on Rosh Hashanah as being forbidden only by rabbinic decree.Footnote 134 According to the halakhah presented in the TDBS baraita', sounding a shofar on the Sabbath is not prohibited by the Torah, for it is not considered to be in the category of “work which is toilsome.”Footnote 135 Lieberman, Heineman, and Henshke all identified the halakhah in Shmuel's baraita' with this later approach, according to which sounding a shofar on the Sabbath is only prohibited by the rabbis, and not by the Torah. This line of thinking is reflected, for instance, in Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 2:16 (ed. Lieberman, p. 320):

They may learn to blow [the shofar] on Shabbat, and they need not stop women or children from blowing [the shofar] on Shabbat, and there is no need to say on the festival.

The baraita' allows women and children who have reached an educable age to blow a shofar on the Sabbath in order to learn. The underlying assumption here is that blowing a shofar on the Sabbath is not prohibited by the Torah, “for if they thought there was a toraitic prohibition in blowing the shofar, there would be no doubt that they would prevent women from blowing.”Footnote 136 Henshke demonstrates that the same halakhic approach toward blowing the shofar on the Sabbath lies at the heart of a halakhah in Mishnah Hullin 1:7 and its parallel in Tosefta Sukkah 4:13 (ed. Lieberman, p. 275):Footnote 137 “A festival that falls on the eve of the Sabbath, they blast but they do not recite havdalah; [if it falls] after the Sabbath they recite havdalah, but they do not blast.” Interpreting this mishnah, Henshke writes,

This blast, performed on a festival that falls on the eve of the Sabbath in order to announce that henceforth work done in preparation of food would be prohibited, proves that sounding a blast was not considered a labor prohibited by the Torah. Obviously, the need to announce that the Sabbath was beginning could not itself supersede a Sabbath prohibition. Rather, the author of this Mishnah clearly thinks that sounding a blast is only a rabbinic prohibition, and therefore, in order to prevent people from performing prohibited labors on the Sabbath, the rabbis waived the rabbinic prohibition of sounding a blast.

In the Bavli, Rabbah offers an explanation as to why the rabbis prohibited the blowing of the shofar on a Rosh Hashanah that falls on the Sabbath; he states that it was “a rabbinic decree lest someone carry [the shofar] four cubits in the public domain.”Footnote 138 For our purposes, what is crucial is that, again, the TDBS baraita' contains a halakhic tradition identical to that found in the Palestinian tradition.

III

Analysis of the fifty or so halakhic traditions found in baraitot ascribed to Shmuel in the two Talmuds (Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, Tannei Shmuel, or Matnita DeShmuel) demonstrates that in the majority of cases, the halakhic content of these baraitot reflects Palestinian halakhic tradition.Footnote 139 These findings preclude us from accepting the scholarly opinion according to which Shmuel's baraitot reflect a Babylonian halakhic tradition that originated in the pre-talmudic period,Footnote 140 or even a Babylonian tradition from a later period.Footnote 141 While it is true that the form and external characteristics of these baraitot differ from typical Palestinian baraitot, as proposed by Albeck (near n. 22)—they tend to be brief, are anonymous, and contain expressions frequently ascribed elsewhere to Tannaim from later generations—this is not sufficient to conclude that the content of these baraitot is Babylonian in origin.Footnote 142 Identifying the nature and origin of the halakhic material found in the Shmuel baraitot requires systematic examination of the contents of all the halakhot contained in this corpus. It is not sufficient to use a characterization of this material's external literary style or form as the basis for any proposal as to the time or place of the origin of its content.Footnote 143 It cannot be coincidental that approximately 70 percent (thirty traditions)Footnote 144 of the Shmuel baraitot are representative of Palestinian tannaitic halakhah.Footnote 145 For most of the other traditions (about fifteen), no parallel in Palestinian tannaitic halakhah has been discovered.Footnote 146

The significance of these findings is that the baraitot transmitted under Shmuel's name cannot support a general claim as to the existence of an independent corpus of tannaitic halakhah in Babylonia prior to the onset of the amoraic period. Analysis of this corpus, which is one of the largest literary corpuses identified by scholars as reflecting a tannaitic Babylonian halakhic tradition,Footnote 147 demonstrates just the opposite, namely, the extreme degree of influence that Palestinian tannaitic halakhah had on Babylonian rabbis, even in this early period. We should emphasize how significant it is that this finding analyzes traditions ascribed to Shmuel, a first-generation Babylonian sage who seems never to have learned Torah in Palestine.Footnote 148 Supposing the existence of an independent Babylonian halakhic tradition, the most likely Babylonian sage we would expect to be identified with this tradition would be Shmuel. Nevertheless, the facts lead to the exact opposite conclusion. The source of Shmuel's tradition is the Palestinian halakhic tradition, frequently the same traditions as those found in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the two great corpuses of Palestinian tannaitic halakhah. The fact that Shmuel's baraitot always accord with Shmuel's own halakhic opinions as found in the two TalmudsFootnote 149 also demonstrates the great influence that the Palestinian halakhah had on Shmuel's halakhic decision making and talmudic commentary.Footnote 150

In conclusion, the detailed evidence that I have analyzed here and elsewhere supports and leads to the acceptance of Gafni's proposal that “the Palestinian corpus of traditions was adopted by the Babylonian sages from the beginning of the amoraic period. Moreover, when these traditions reached Babylonia in this period they caused prior traditions, for all intents and purposes, to disappear.”Footnote 151

Addendum to note 76

(Concerning the relationship of Shmuel to the Tanna D'Bei Shmuel baraitot)

How did Shmuel himself relate to the halakhot found in the collection of baraitot transmitted under his name—Tanna D'Bei Shmuel? In the entirety of talmudic literature, Shmuel does not once relate directly to this collection of baraitot. Most scholarly inquiry concerning this question has focused on the discussions found in the two Talmuds, discussions that point out the identity between the halakhot transmitted by Shmuel and the halakhot ascribed to Tanna D'Bei Shmuel. My own comparison of Shmuel's halakhic statements and those found in TDBS baraitot, in cases where the Talmuds themselves do not compare them, leads to a similar conclusion. Furthermore, even in the few cases (four out of nearly fifty cases, representing about 8 percent of the total TDBS baraitot) in which one of the two Talmuds contrasts a halakhic statement by Shmuel with a TDBS baraita', the case is not one of an explicit halakhic tradition transmitted by Shmuel, but rather an assumption that stems from Shmuel's words. Subsequently, the assumption that Shmuel disagrees with his own baraita' is rejected by the Talmud. These findings reveal the significant influence that the Palestinian tannaitic halakhic traditions found in TDBS baraitot had on Shmuel's own halakhic opinions. This is a broad topic, one that demands a separate discussion, and it is my intention to return to this subject elsewhere. Nevertheless, through the use of representative examples, I shall touch on some of the main points.

As I stated earlier, the similarity between Shmuel's halakhic positions and those in the TDBS baraitot is already noted in talmudic discussions. In three places in the Yerushalmi, the Talmud decides the correct ascription of an opinion in a debate between Rav and Shmuel by using a halakhah found in one of Shmuel's baraitot. The assumption is clearly that Shmuel's own opinion should match those found in the TDBS baraitot. The first example of this phenomenon was discussed earlier (near n. 76). In two other cases, the Yerushalmi acts in a similar fashion: “Rav and Shmuel argued … one said … and the other said … and we don't know who said this and who said that. From that which Shmuel taught [tannei Shmuel]… . We can say that he said …” (Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:7, 23d; ibid 10:7, 26b). The Yerushalmi also notes the similarity between Shmuel's own opinions and those in his baraitot by using the phrase “[and Shmuel taught (tannei Shmuel) thus …] and Shmuel taught according to his own opinion (Shmuel tanita keshitateh …” (Yerushalmi Pesahim 9:6, 37a), or by the words, “and Shmuel taught… . Shmuel goes according to his own opinion, for Shmuel said …” (Yerushalmi Megillah 2:1, 73a, according to the Leiden manuscript). In another case discussed earlier (near n. 122), the Bavli presents a proof from a Shmuel baraita concerning Shmuel's own opinion in a dispute with Rav: “Shmuel said … Come and learn that the House of Shmuel taught (Tanna D'Bei Shmuel)… .” (Bavli Moed Katan 18b).

Along with these cases, our critical examination of the material has yielded additional cases in which Shmuel expresses a halakhic opinion similar to that found in his baraitot. In the first case, Shmuel explains the Mishnah in a manner identical to the explanation in a Shmuel baraita' (near n. 51). In the second case, Shmuel's halakhic opinion matches the halakhic tradition found in one of his baraitot: “Shmuel said … Tannei Shmuel…” (Yerushalmi Shabbat 8:4, 11b). In addition, there is a case in the Bavli (Bekhorot 37b) where a statement by Shmuel explaining a mishnah is replaced by second- and third-generation Amoraim with a Shmuel baraita': “R. Tahlifa b. Abudimi said to [R. Hisda]: Thus did Shmuel say: as a sela… . And R. Shmuel b. Judah said: A baraita says this” (= Thus taught Shmuel: as a sela [Epstein, Mavo Lenusah (see n. 12 herein), 213, n. 5]). These examples demonstrate the identity between halakhot ascribed to Shmuel himself and those found in TDBS baraitot, even if the Talmud does not make the identification.

In four places, the two Talmuds (Bavli Shabbat 54a; Betzah 29a; Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:3, 3a [according to the Leiden manuscript, see below]; and Eruvin 6:8, 24a) present a halakhic discrepancy between Shmuel's own halakhic position and that found in a TDBS baraita'. However, analysis of these four cases reveals that these are not truly discrepancies. As we shall see, the Talmud recognizes that Shmuel's own opinion does not actually disagree with that found in the TDBS baraita', and the suggestion of a discrepancy is eventually rejected. We will now deal with two of these cases, also pointing out that the very fact that the Talmuds contrast Shmuel's opinion with that found in TDBS baraitot reveals the underlying assumption that these two sources should be in agreement; otherwise, why bother noting that they disagree?

(1) Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:8, 24a

It happened that they were sitting outside in a courtyard when the Sabbath began. The case came in front of Shmuel and he said: Since they began to eat the dish while it was still day it is permissible.Footnote 152 Shmuel's statement implies [milta deShmuel amara] that a shittuf must be placed in a house.Footnote 153 Shmuel's tannaitic teaching (matnita) disagrees with him: they may place the shittuf in a guard house.

In the Yerushalmi, the phrase “X's statement implies” (milta deShmuel amara) cites a rule that stems from a halakhic tradition stated by X or from a story in which X was involved.Footnote 154 It is important to emphasize that this halakhic rule was not stated explicitly by X, nor has X stated such a halakhic rule elsewhere. In the foregoing passage, the Yerushalmi concludes from Shmuel's ruling that in general a shittuf (a symbolic communal meal that allows one to carry from certain domains to others) must occur inside a house. Shmuel only reluctantly counted the meal that they were eating as the shittuf, because they had begun to eat while it was still day. The implication is that in other circumstances, he would not have counted this meal as a shittuf because it was not taking place in a house.Footnote 155 The Yerushalmi then contrasts Shmuel's ruling in this case with a tradition found in a matnita deShmuel baraita'. According to the baraita', even if the meal is placed in a guard house found in the courtyard,Footnote 156 the meal is considered valid and allows carrying from one place to another.Footnote 157 The shittuf did not need to be placed in the house. Lieberman had such great difficulty with this passage that he offered a completely different understanding of the phrase “Shmuel's statement implies that a shittuf must be placed in a house,” one that completely contradicts the normal useFootnote 158 of this technical term in the Yerushalmi:

This is how we must also interpret the phrase “Shmuel's statement implies that a shittuf must be placed in a house.” This line is not based on the above story, for there they are not speaking about “shitufei mevuot” [communal meals which allow one to carry from an alleyway to a courtyard and vice versa] but rather “shitufei hatzerot” [which allow one to carry from a house into a courtyard and vice versa]. Shmuel allowed them this because they began to eat while it was still day. However, it seems that they also were familiar with another statement by Shmuel from which it is possible to prove that a shittuf [of an alleyway] must be placed in a house.

Even though Lieberman's suggestion is quite difficult to accept,Footnote 159 it demonstrates that the Talmud's conclusion is not simply and straightforwardly derived from Shmuel's halakhic ruling. It is doubtful, therefore, whether we can use this example to posit an actual halakhic discrepancy between Shmuel and a baraita' transmitted under his name. As we shall see, the same is true of the following source.

(2) Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:3, 3b

Mishnah: A tailor should not go out with his needle close to darkness [on the eve of the Sabbath] lest he forget and go out [on the Sabbath], nor a scribe with his pen, nor should one check his clothes for lice, nor read by the light of the candle.

Gemara: Shmuel said: [That one should not read by the light of the candle] was taught only with regard to one person, but if two [are reading together], since each can protest the other's [Sabbath violation] it is permitted. Shmuel's tannaitic teaching [matnita]Footnote 160 disagrees with him: [It is forbidden to read by the light of] both a lamp that he can tilt and a lamp that he cannot tilt. Ulla bar Ishmael [said] in the name of R. Lazar: Even if it is very [high].Footnote 161

The mishnah prohibits reading by the light of a lamp lest one tilt the lamp,Footnote 162 which is considered by the rabbis to be a violation of the Sabbath. Shmuel's baraita' adds that the prohibition is in effect in all cases, regardless of whether there is an actual possibility that the reader might tilt the lamp. According to this, once the rabbis prohibited a certain activity, it remained prohibited under all circumstances.Footnote 163 The Talmud posits that this baraita' contradicts Shmuel's own halakhic opinion, which distinguishes between one person reading by the light of the lamp and two. Two people can read together because each will prevent the other from violating the Sabbath by tilting the lamp. According to the Talmud's reasoning, if activities that are prohibited lest someone violate the Sabbath are prohibited even if a Sabbath violation is unlikely, as was implied in the baraita', then what does it matter whether his friend will prevent him from reading?Footnote 164 Hence, the two sources are perceived as contradicting each other. However, the Talmud's conclusion that the two sources contradict each other is not actually necessary. This was already noted by Lieberman, in an explanation of Ula bar Ismael's (and perhaps also R. Elazar b. Pedat in the Bavli)Footnote 165 rejection of the proposed contradiction:

Shmuel's baraita is not concerned with a case where another person is with him or when he is alone. Rather it states that it is prohibited to read by the light of the lamp whether the lamp is low and he can tilt it, or whether it is high and he cannot tilt it. However, if two are reading together even Shmuel's tannaitic source would allow reading.Footnote 166

Indeed, in the Bavli's version of this passage (Shabbat 12b), the parallels to the statements of Shmuel and his baraita' are presented without any suggestion of a contradiction between them. For our purposes, we should again emphasize that the contradiction presented in the Yerushalmi between Shmuel's statement and his baraita' is founded on an unnecessary conclusion that was rejected by the Talmud. There is little evidence that the sources themselves actually contradict each other. Furthermore, we can again see that the Talmud expects Shmuel's own opinions to be in accord with those baraitot transmitted under his name, and that when there seems to be a contradiction, a resolution is offered.

References

1. See Funk, S., Die Juden in Babylonien 200–500 (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1902)Google Scholar, 1:7; Bruell, J., Mavo HaMishnah (Frankfurt, 1836; repr., Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 30Google Scholar; Bacher, W., Agadot Hatannaim, vol. I, part II (Yaffo: Eitan & Shoshani, 1932), 102Google Scholar; Halevy, I., Dorot Harishonim, (Berlin and Vienna: B. Hertz, 1933)Google Scholar, 5:681–88; Obermeyer, J., Die Landschaft Babylonien im Zeitalter des Talmuds und des Gaonats (Frankfurt: I. Kauffmann, 1929), 129Google Scholar; Hyman, A., Toldot Tannaim Veamoraim, (London:Express, 1910)Google Scholar, 1:425; Neubauer, A., La Géographie Du Talmud (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967), 370Google Scholar; Smallwood, M., The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 416Google Scholar; Gafni, I., Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Letoldot Israel, 1991), 77Google Scholar; Oppenheimer, A., “HaMercaz BeNetzivin Bitkufat Hamishnah,” in Umma Vetoldoteha, ed. Stern, M. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Letoldot Israel, 1983)Google Scholar, 1:41–150; idem, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983), 331; idem, “Nehardea unetzivim Batkufa Hapartit,” Bar Ilan Annual 26–27 (1995): 117–30; idem, “Batei Midrashot BeBavel Lifnei Hatimat HaMishnah,” in Yeshivot UBatei Midrashot, ed. I. Etkes (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Letoldot Israel, 2006), 20–21.

2. On rabbinic activity in Nehardea during the mishnaic period, see Yudolowitz, M. D., Hayyei HaYehudim Bizman Hatalmud: Sefer Nehardea (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971), 30–31Google Scholar; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 287–91; idem, “Batei Midrashot,” 23–28.

3. Scholars have posited that Husal was a center of rabbinic activity after the Bar Kokhba revolt. According to this theory, it was in Husal that the Babylonian literary corpus of halakhic midrashim from the academy of R. Ishmael (D'Bei R. Ishmael) was created. See Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 5:181–93, 678–81; Epstein, J. N., Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Magness Press, 1957), 168–71Google Scholar; Neusner, J., A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1965)Google Scholar, 1:128–35, 179–87; Melamed, E. Z., “Hilkhot Eretz Yisrael Beor Hatnnaim BeBavel,” in Iyyunim Besifrut Hatalmud (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1986), 292Google Scholar. For a reexamination of this evidence and this supposition, see n. 9 herein.

4. Nineteenth-century historians and maskilim tended to push back the development of centers of Torah learning in Babylonia to the beginning of the talmudic period. In contrast, historians who identified with the emerging Orthodox movement tended to stake the opposite claim, namely, that a center of Torah learning in Babylonia was operative from as early as the Second Temple period, and perhaps even earlier. It is clear that both of these tendencies can be tied to the political and religious leanings of the authors, and to the struggle between those historians and intellectuals who placed themselves in the Haskalah Reform camp and those from the traditionalist Orthodox camp. See Gafni, I., “Ben Bavel LeEretz Yisrael: Olam Hatalmud Veimutim Ideologim Behistoriagraphia Shel Haet Hachadashah,” Zion 82 (1997): 213–42Google Scholar.

5. See, e.g., Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 5:677.

6. See Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, 1:ii n. 2; Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 6:178–210; Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut hatannaim, 168–71; Melamed, “Hilkhot Eretz Yisrael Beor Hatnnaim BeBavel,” 292.

7. See, e.g., Hyman, Toldot Tannaim Veamoraim, 1:425.

8. See Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 85 n. 144, 87 n. 154. A further attestation to R. Natan's Babylonian origins is the fact that R. Sherira Gaon calls R. Natan's mishnah “matnita deBavlai”; see Gaon, R. Sherira, Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon, ed. Levine, B. M. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972)Google Scholar, French ascension, 41. The appellation haBavli is attached to R. Hiyya in three passages in the Bavli: Eruvin 90a, Shabbat 60b, and Keritot 8a. For a collection of passages that testify to R. Hiyya's Babylonian origins and his migration to Israel at a late stage in his life, see Meir, O., R. Yehudah Hanasi: D'yukano shel Manhig Bemasoret Eretz Yisrael UBavel (Tel Aviv: Hakibuts Hameukhad, 1999), 69–70Google Scholar.

9. Most of the evidence that scholars have claimed connects halakhic traditions with Babylonia in the mishnaic period (concerning these three sages) is based on preconceived notions or on tendentious interpretations of sources, as was noted by Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 86–91. Doubtful also are the attempts of several scholars (see Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 678–79; Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 518–20) to identify parts of the Ishmaelian midrashim (such as R. Yonatan, R. Oshaya) as Babylonian. See Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 50–54; Kahana, M., “Maalat Yeshivat Eretz-Yisrael BaMekhilta Devarim,” Tarbiz 72 (1993): 512–13 nnGoogle Scholar. 50–54; idem, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. S. Safrai, Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz, and P. Tomson, part 2 (Van Gorcum: Assen, 2006), 62–63; Oppenheimer, “Batei Midrashot,” 27–28. I wish to thank Professor D. Henshke for directing my attention to Kahana's remarks on this issue.

10. Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 90–91.

11. Listed here are just a few of the main studies that deal with this issue: Hoffmann, D., Mar Samuel: Rector der Jüdischen Akademie zu Nehardea in Babylonien: Lebensbild eines Talmudisch, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Leiner, 1873)Google Scholar; Fessler, S., Mar Samuel: der bedeutendste Amora: Rektor der Juedischen Akademie zu Nehardia in Babylonien (Halle: E. Franck, 1879)Google Scholar; Krochmal, A., “Toldot Shmuel Yarhinai,” Hechalutz 1 (1852): 66–89Google Scholar (repr., Jerusalem, 1972); Graetz, H., History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893)Google Scholar, 2:518–30; Weiss, I., Dor Dor Vedorshav (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Ziv, 1962)Google Scholar, 3:146–56; Weis, P. R., “The Controversies of Rab and Samuel and the Tosefta,” Journal of Semitic Studies 3 (1958): 288–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D. Gordis, “Al Parshanut Rav Ushmuel Lamishnah Ubaraita: Part One: Nimukei Halakhah Veokimtaot” (PhD diss, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1980); Shilo, Sh., Dina Demalkhuta Dina (Jerusalem: Defus Academi, 1975), 4–43Google Scholar; Bokser, B. M., Samuel's Commentary on the Mishna: Its Nature, Forms, and Content (Leiden: Brill, 1975)Google Scholar; idem, Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition (Samuel on Berakhot and the Beginnings of Gemara) (Chico, CA, 1980); E. Halivni, Kelalei Pesak Hahalakhah Batalmud (Lod, Haberman Institute, 1999), 84–98, 107; Kalmin, R., “Changing Amoraic Attitudes toward the Authority and Statements of Rav and Shmuel: A Study of the Talmud as a Historical Source,” Hebrew Union College Annual 63 (1992): 83–106Google Scholar. I will make reference to a few other studies later.

12. This count is based on Epstein's lists, which he based mainly on the textual evidence gleaned from medieval commentaries; see Epstein, J. N., Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2000)Google Scholar, 1:213–14. It should be noted that Epstein was concerned with the entire corpus of tannaitic traditions, and not merely the tannaitic traditions in TDBS baraitot. The following is the full list: Shabbat 12a (manuscripts), 35b (manuscripts), 54a, 131b; Eruvin 70b, 96a, 99b; Pesahim 3a, 39b (three instances); Rosh Hashanah 16a (manuscripts); Yoma 70a; Sukkah 56b; Betzah 29a; Megillah 4b (manuscripts); 23a (manuscripts), 30a; Moed Katan 18b; Gittin 24b (manuscripts), 66a (manuscripts), 70b (manuscripts); and Bava Metzia 111a (manuscripts). Bacher compiled a list of twelve traditions (Bacher, W., Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens [Leipzig: Fock, 1914], 225Google Scholar), but this list was based solely on the printed edition of the Talmud. In the Yerushalmi, there are more than twenty cases of baraitot that are introduced with the term Tannei Shmuel or Matnita DeShmuel. The following is a full list of these cases: Berakhot 1:1, 4b; 1:1, 4d; Sheviit 5:1, 35d; Kilayim 8:2, 31c; Shabbat 1:3, 3b (based on the Leiden manuscript); 2:1, 4d; 3:3, 6a; 8:4, 11b; 9:3, 12a; 11:1, 13a; 17:3, 16b; Eruvin 2:5, 20b; 6:7, 23d; 6:8, 24a; Pesahim 9:6, 37a; Rosh Hashanah 1:1, 56b; Betzah 2:5, 61c; Taanit 3:9, 66d; Megillah 1:1, 70b; 2:1, 73a; 3:4, 74b; 4:4, 75b; Hagigah 1:1, 76a; and 1:1, 80b. Concerning the parallel meaning of the terms Tanne Shmuel in the Yerushalmi and Tanna D'Bei Shmuel in the Bavli, see Hoffman, Mar Samuel, 25 n. 3; Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 208; idem, “Mishnayot Hitzoniyot Umidrashei Tannaim,” Jerusalem 10 (1914), 68–70; Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 212. My analysis of this material serves to strengthen the assumption of the essential identity between the two terms.

13. Hoffman, Mar Samuel, 24. It is difficult to glean any concrete information on our subject from Krochmal's general remarks; see Krochmal, “Toldot Shmuel Yarhinai,” 78.

14. Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 213. Rashi (Betzah 29a, s.v. tanna d'bei) explained in a similar fashion.

15. See Goodblatt, D., Rabbinic Instruction in Sassanian Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 134Google Scholar. The TDBS baraitot did not merit any discussion in Bokser's two books (see n. 11 herein) concerning Shmuel's commentary on tannaitic sources. This absence was noted by E. Segal in his review of Bokser's book, “Hamaavar Mitkufat HaMishnah el Tekufat Haamoraim,” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 317.

16. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, 62. Funk did not present any proof for this claim.

17. Goldberg, A., “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta Ube'Tanna D'Bei Shmuel' LaPerush Hamishnah,” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 144–77Google Scholar. I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor Vedorshav, 150, provided a later date for the editing of this collection and ascribed it to Shmuel: “The great Amoraim of the first generation compiled collections of mishnahs entitled ‘baraitot’ or ‘toseftot’… He too (Shmuel, B.C.) compiled a collection of baraitot and they are introduced with the phrase: Tanna D'Bei Shmuel.”

18. Goldberg, “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta,” 149–50.

19. Goldberg, “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta,” 148. The theory that there was a mass movement of rabbis from Palestine to Babylonia after the Bar Kokhba revolt can be found in a number of studies. Within the framework of this theory, the claim is made that among these rabbis were the students of R. Ishmael. See Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 674ff.; Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 1:141–44; Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 510–11. This theory was rejected because of a lack of supporting evidence; see Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 82ff.; Kahana, “Maalat Yeshivat Eretz-Yisrael,” 512 n. 50–52.

20. Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bitkufat Hatalmud, 91 n. 175.

21. Albeck, H., Mehkarim Babraita Ubatosefta Veyachasan LaTalmud (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kuk, 1970), 15–43Google Scholar; idem, Mavo LaTalmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 28–39.

22. Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 28.

23. Albeck, Mehkarim Babaraita, 32.

24. See n. 33 herein and the examples discussed in the body of this work.

25. For a concrete example of an expression found in a TDBS baraita' that is common among late Tannaim or early Amoraim in Palestine and Babylonia, see the discussion below, near note 67, in regard to the term “Leilei” (לילי) in the TDBS baraita' (replacing “Or” [אור] in the Mishnah). For another such example in which an expression found in a TDBS baraita' seems to be a later emendation, even though the content of the baraita' is reflective of tannaitic Palestinian tradition, see Friedman, S., Tosefta Atikta: Masekhet Pesah Rishon (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), 230–38Google Scholar.

26. This distinction was drawn by Albeck himself; see his Mavo LaTalmudim, 71–72.

27. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon that have been already noted by talmudic scholars. See Moreshet, M., “Habaraitot Haivriot BaBavli Enan Lashon Hakhamim Aleph,” in Sefer Zikharon LeHanoch Yalon (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1974), 275–314Google Scholar; Friedman, S., Talmud Arukh: Perek Hasokher et Haomanin, Hanusah (Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1997)Google Scholar, 12 n. 38; idem, “Habaraitot BaTalmud HaBavli Veyahasan Lemakbiloteihen ShebaTosefta,” in Atara Lehayyim—Mehkarim Besifrut Hatalmudit Veharabanit Likhvod Professor Hayyim Zalman Dimitrovsky, ed. D. Boyarin, M. Hirshman, S. Friedman, M. Shmeltzer, and I. Ta-Shma (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2000), 166–96, esp. 195–96 and the bibliography, n. 112; Katzoff, B., “Yahas Habaraitot BaTosefta Lemakbiloteihen Hatalmudiyot: Iyyun Mehudash Leor Masekhet Berakhot,” Hebrew Union College Annual 75 (2004): 1–24Google Scholar (Hebrew section). Also taken into account must be the possibility that the TDBS baraitot reflect an early Babylonian tradition, one that is parallel to the Palestinian tannaitic tradition. See, e.g., Elman, Y., Authority and Tradition: Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonia (Hoboken, NJ: Yeshiva University Press, 1994), 277–81Google Scholar; cf. Friedman, Tosefta Atikta: Masekhet Pesah Rishon, 195 n. 112. According to this theory, the TDBS baraitot reflect a Palestinian halakhic tradition that stems from an alternative source, similar to the theory suggested by Goldberg, which I have described earlier.

28. There are scholars who have cast doubt on the reliability of the attribution of statements to specific Amoraim in the Bavli. See Green, William Scott, “What's in a Name? The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography,’” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 77–96Google Scholar; Neusner, Jacob, “Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in the Rabbinic Literature,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 26 (1995): 93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other scholars, myself among them, do not cast blanket doubt on the accuracy of all such attributions, but rather accept their accuracy unless there are specific reasons not to. Recent research into the Bavli that has focused on issues such as the chronology of the Babylonian sages, the existence of historical layers within sugyot, the Bavli's terminology, the hierarchical relationship between its sages, the study patterns of the Babylonian Amoraim, and a variety of other such topics has tended to support the general reliability of the attribution of statements to Amoraim in the Talmud, although one must still, of course, be cautious in accepting any given attribution. For a survey of some important studies on this issue, see Elman, Y., “How Should a Talmudic Intellectual History Be Written? A Response to David Kraemer's Responses,” Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999): 378Google Scholar. To Elman's article, we should add Cohen, A., “Bikoret Hilkhatit Leumat Bikoret Sifrutit Besugyot Hatalmud,” Asufot 3 (1989): 346 n. 75Google Scholar; Kalmin, Richard, “Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity as a Source for Historical Study,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. Neusner, J. and Avery-Peck, Alan J. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 187–99Google Scholar; Y. Kelman, “Haokimta Haamorait ‘Hakha Bemai Askinan,’ Hamityaheset Lemekorot Hatannaim—Tiva, Ofya Vetzurata” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2002), 353–54; Cohen, A., “Was Age the Decisive Criterion of Subordination among the Amoraim?” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 289 n. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halivni, D., “Iyyunim Behithavut HaTalmud,” Sidra 20 (2005): 69–70Google Scholar; Cohen, B., “Rav Sheshet Leumat Rav Nahman: Shtei Shitot Parshaniyot Lemekorot Tannaim,” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 32Google Scholar; idem, “Rami ber Hama Leumat Rava: Analogiot Parshaniot uPsikatiot Batalmud.” Dine Israel 25 (2008): 184 n. 155; idem, “Nigudim Bedarkhei Halimmud shel Amoraei Nehardea Haaharonim,” Hebrew Union College Annual 78 (forthcoming).

29. The following is the full list: Shabbat 12a (manuscripts), 35b (manuscripts), 54a, 131b; Eruvin 70b, 96a, 99b; Pesahim 3a, 39b (three times); Rosh Hashanah 16a (manuscripts); Yoma 70a; Sukkah 56b; Betzah 29a; Megillah 4b (manuscripts), 23a (manuscripts), 30a; Moed Katan 18b; Gittin 24b (manuscripts); 66a (manuscripts), 70b (manuscripts); Bava Metzia 111b (manuscripts).

30. For a discussion of this term, see Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sassanian Babylonia, 149–51; Gafni, I, “Hearot Lemaamaro shel Goodblatt,” Zion 46 (1981): 54Google Scholar; Rubenstein, J., “The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy—A Reexamination of the Talmudic Evidence,” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 1 (2002): 56 n. 6Google Scholar.

31. R. Sherira Gaon, in his talmudic chronology, calls the collection “Baraita D'Bei [Mar (absent in Oxford II)] Shmuel”; see R. Sherira Gaon, Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, 47. Rashi calls this collection “The Tosefta that Shmuel Arranged”; see Rashi, Betzah 29a s.v. tanna d'bei.

32. For a discussion concerning the essential similarity between the different technical terms found in the two Talmuds and their reference to the same collection of baraitot ascribed to Shmuel, see n. 12 herein. A list of the appearance of these terms in the Yerushalmi can also be found there.

33. The following is a complete list of cases in which TDBS baraitot have a parallel in Palestinian tannaitic literature. Bavli: Shabbat 12a (see Yerushalmi Shabbat 6:2, 8b; Tosefta Shabbat 1:2 [ed. Lieberman, 3]; and Lieberman, S., Tosefta Kifshuta, Seder Moed [New York, 1962]Google Scholar, 3:9); Shabbat 35b (see Tosefta Sukkah 4:12 [ed. Lieberman, 274–75]; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 4:894); Shabbat 131b (see Henshke, D., “Tekiat Shofar Beshabbat,” Sidra 8 [1992], 24–25Google Scholar); Eruvin 70b (see Dinnur, Y., Hiddushei HaRitzad, Seder Moed [Jerusalem, 1981]Google Scholar, 1:125); Eruvin 96a; Eruvin 89b (see below inside, near footnote n. 35); Pesahim 3a (see below inside, near footnote n. 66); Pesahim 39a (three times) (see Friedman, n. 25 herein); Yoma 70a (see Goldberg, n. 17 herein); Rosh Hashanah 16a (see below inside, near footnote n. 54); Sukkah 56b (see Tosefta Sukkah 4:24 [ed. Lieberman, 277]); Megillah 4b (see Yerushalmi Megillah 1:1, 70b); Moed Katan 18b (see Tosefta Moed Katan 1:10 [ed. Lieberman, 367]; and S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:1237]; Gittin 66a (see Yerushalmi Gittin 3:1, 44c); Bava Metzia 111b; Zevahim 12a (see Yerushalmi Shabbat 19:5, 17b). Yerushalmi: Berakhot 1:1, 2b (see Ginzberg, L., Perushim Vehidushim BaYerushalmi [New York, 1941]Google Scholar, 1:22–23); Kilayim 8:2, 31c (see below inside, near footnote n. 82); Shabbat 3:3, 6a (see Bavli Shabbat 40a); Shabbat 8:4, 11b (see Tosefta Shabbat 8:19 [ed. Lieberman, 33]; and Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 68 n. 3); Shabbat 19.3, 12a (see below inside, near footnote n. 89); Shabbat 11:1, 13a (see Tosefta Shabbat 10:1 [ed. Lieberman, 41]); Pesahim 9:6, 36a (see Tosefta Pesahim 9:9 [ed. Lieberman, 192]); Megillah 3:4, 74b (see Tosefta Megillah 3:1 [ed. Lieberman, 353]; and Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:1165]; Hagigah 1:1, 90b (see Bavli Moed Katan 4a). To this list, we should add Yerushalmi Berakhot 4:1, 7c (see Epstein [n. 12 herein], 891–92).

34. Bavli Shabbat 54a. This source presents a tannaitic tradition that seems to contradict a halakhah found in the Tosefta. For further analysis, see Goldberg, A., Perush LaMishnah: Masekhet Shabbat (Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1976), 93Google Scholar.

35. The Mishnah, here and in subsequent passages, is quoted from the Kaufman manuscript.

36. This debate between Rav and Shmuel appears also in Yerushalmi Eruvin 9:2, 25c.

37. The part in the brackets is added based on Munich 95, Oxford Opp. ADD. Fol. 23, and Vatican 109.

38. See Frankel, Z., Mavo HaYerushalmi (Breslau: Shlater, 1870; facsimile edition: Jerusalem: Omanim, 1967)Google Scholar, 111b; Hyman. Toldot Tannaim Veamoraim, 1:192; Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 224.

39. In the Bavli, the term “Be [Rav] X” refers to the yeshiva or academy that was headed by X; see n. 30 herein.

40. See Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 225, n. 10; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sassanian Babylonia, 132 and n. 86.

41. Eruvin 70b.

42. R. Sherira Gaon identifies R. Nahman as Shmuel's student (Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon, 82) but this claim raises a chronological difficulty. For a discussion of this issue, see Cohen, A., Ravina Vehakhmei Doro: Iyyunim Beseder Hazemanim shel Amoraim Aharonim BeBavel (Ramat-Gan:Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001), 74 n. 46Google Scholar; Cohen, B., “Yeshivot Mekomiot BeBavel Betekufat HaTalmud,” Zion 70 (2005): 449 n. 11Google Scholar; Cohen, B. S., “‘May You Live to One Hundred and Twenty’: The Extraordinary Life-Span of Several Babylonian Amoraim according to Rashi,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007): 231–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In any case, the period in which R. Nahman was active, the last half of the third century and the first half of the fourth century, accords with the period of “those of the house of Shmuel,” to whom his comments relate.

43. Abbaye: Shabbat 54a; Betzah 29a. Rava: Rosh Hashanah 16a (see below inside, near footnote n. 54); Yoma 70a; Sukkah 56b; Megillah 23a; Bava Metzia 111b. Rav Papa: Zevahim 12a. Ravina: Pesahim 39b (in this passage, Ravina comes into contact with R. Aha the son of Rava, meaning that this is Ravina the colleague of R. Ashi [see Cohen, Ravina Vehakhmei Doro, 232]).

44. Concerning the dating of R. Nahman and the question of whether he was a student of Shmuel, see n. 42 herein.

45. Bacher understands the expression “those of the house of Shmuel” as referring to “reciters” who were active in Shmuel's academy and collected baraitot; see Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 225 n. 10.

46. Concerning the interpretation of the term tannei/tannu to mean “quote,” “recite,” or “review,” see Bacher, W., Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899), 238Google Scholar; Levy, J., Wörterbuch über die Talmuds und Midraschim (Darmstadt: Harz, 1963)Google Scholar, 4:653; Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1971), 1681Google Scholar; Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan and Baltimore: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 1218–19Google Scholar.

47. See n. 43 herein.

48. See Tosefta Eruvin 7:12 (ed. Lieberman, 131).

49. See Albeck, H., Seder Moed: Mefurash Perush Hadash im Mevo'ot Hosafot Vehashlamot (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1952), 119–20Google Scholar; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:448–49; Goldberg, , Perush LaMishnah: Masekhet Eruvin (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1976), 253–55Google Scholar; see also Krauss, S., Kadmoniyot HaTalmud, vol. I, part 2 (Berlin and Vienna: Moriah, 1934), 417Google Scholar.

50. Rashi, s.v. ele be'arba amot.

51. The stam (the anonymous voice in the Bavli) connects the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with the question of whether to apply a legal concept called “[fictionally] extend its walls (god asik mehitzata).” However, Moscovitz demonstrated that this legal fiction is not actually present in tannaitic sources in Talmudic Reasoning (From Casuistics to Conceptualization) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 187–88.

52. See Halivni, D., Makorot Umasorot, Eruvin VePesahim (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1982), 232–33Google Scholar.

53. See the parallel in the Yerushalmi (above, n. 36), where a difficulty against Rav is raised from the following mishnah (Eruvin 9:2). Like the Bavli, the Yerushalmi also has great difficulty in explaining Rav's opinion.

54. Munich 140 reads “Ravina.” It seems that the reading “Rava” should be preferred because Rava is the Amora who customarily quotes TDBS baraitot as an explanation of the Mishnah. Concerning this tendency of Rava, see Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 225; Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 213–14; Goldberg, “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta,” 144–77.

55. “Tanna D'Bei Shmuel” is the version found in Cambridge T-S F1(2)43 (R. Shmuel), Leningrad-Antonin 502, London Harl. 5508 (400), Munich 95, JTS Rab. 108 (EMC 319), JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270), and Oxford Opp. Add. Fol 23. This is also the version found in the commentary of R. Hananel; see Metzger, D., ed., Perushei Rabbenu Hananel bar Hushiel LaTalmud (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1994), 38Google Scholar. In contrast, London Or. 5558A/23, Munich 140, and JTS Rab. 1608 (ENA 850) all read “Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael.” Concerning the preference of the reading “Tanna D'Bei Shmuel,” see Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 213; Albeck, Mehkarim Babraita UbaTosefta, 45.

56. Bavli Megillah 27a; Sukkah 56b; Bava Metzia 111b (based on manuscript evidence; see Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 213–14).

57. In another instance (Bavli Sukkah 56b), Rava challenges R. Judah's opinion based on a tradition found in a TDBS baraita'.

58. Rosh Hashanah 16a. Concerning the connection between Rava and the TDBS baraitot, see n. 54 herein.

59. See Goldberg, A., “Al Shtei Hamishnayot Harishonot shel Masekhet Rosh Hashanah,” Tarbiz 29 (1952): 326 n. 1Google Scholar. Goldberg, basing his comments on the printed edition, treats this case as a Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael baraita' (See n. 55 herein).

60. See Pardo, R. David, Hasdei David (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1994)Google Scholar, 2:399, s.v. hakol nidonin; Avramsky, R. Yehezkel, Tosefta im Perush Hazon Yehezkel, vol. 2, Seder Moed (Jerusalem, 2000), 10–11Google Scholar, s.v. hakol nidonin beR”H; see also Tabory, J., Moadei Yisrael Bitekufat HaMishnah VehaTalmud (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2000), 220Google Scholar.

61. This is the version found in JTS ENA 2069.22; R. Hananel (see Metzger, D., ed., Perushei Rabbenu Hananel bar Hushiel LaTalmud [Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1995], 14Google Scholar; Sefer Haitim, ed. Y. Shor [Kraków: Mekizei-Nirdamim, 1903], 7); Tosafot, Menahot 36b, s.v. i' kasavar; and in the writings of other rishonim. In contrast, Munich 95, Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23, Vatican 127, and the printed editions read Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael. Concerning the preference of the reading Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, see Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 213; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kiftshuta, 3: 9.

62. Rashi s.v. im hashekhah.

63. As is well known, the Yerushalmi often does not employ technical terms to introduce tannaitic traditions. See Lieberman, S., Al HeYerushalmi (Jerusalem: Darom, 1929), 29Google Scholar; idem, “Talmuda shel Kesarin,” Musaf Tarbiz 2 (1931): 19; Albeck, Mehkarim Babaraita Ubatosefta, 4; Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 21; B. Katzoff, Hayahas ben HaTosefta VehaYerushalmi Lamasekhet Shabbat (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2004), 297–99.

64. The P'nei Moshe, s.v. velo haishinan, explains, “since it is customary to remove tefillin at nightfall, he won't forget them [and carry them into the public domain].” See also Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 13.

65. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:9; see also Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 13.

66. Sasson-Luntzer is the only manuscript that reads D'Bei R. Yishmael.

67. S. Friedman, “Lashon Hamoadim (I): ‘Or Learba Asar,’” in Mehkarim Batalmud Ubamidrash, ed. M. Bar-Asher, J. Levinson, and B. Lifshitz (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2005), 495. The expression or learba asar from the Mishnah also appears in several parallel passages; see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, Bo 17 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 22); Tosefta Pesahim 1:1 (ed. Lieberman, 140).

68. On the late dating of this sugya, see the note 69 below.

69. According to Halivni, D., Makorot Umasorot: Seder Moed, Eruvin VePesahim (Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1982), 376Google Scholar, the stam did not originally use the TDBS at the outset as a “conclusive proof,” because the editors of the sugya were familiar with another version of the TDBS baraita', a version that was the same as the language of the mishnah (or learba asar), as well as the baraitot in the Tosefta and in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (see n. 67 herein). Were we to accept Halivni's theory, our claim here, concerning the connection between Shmuel's baraita' and the Palestinian tannaitic tradition, would be strengthened. Nevertheless, Albeck, , Mavo LaMishnah (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik-Dvir, 1959)Google Scholar, 173 n. 31, identified the opening sugya of Pesah as a “saboraic” sugya. According to Albeck, the multiplicity of rejected proofs can be explained by the desire of the editors to exhaust all possibilities of explaining or as “evening,” until the final proof could be brought from Shmuel's baraita'. Concerning the identification of this sugya as saboraic, see Weiss, A., Hayetzirah shel HaSavoraim: (Helkam Beyetzirat HaTalmud) (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1953), 12Google Scholar, n. 22. On the characteristics of the saboraic literature in the Bavli, see Cohen, A., “The Saboraic Halakhah in Light of bKiddushin 2a–3b and the Geonic Tradition,” Diné Israel 24 (2007): 161–214Google Scholar.

70. Albeck, Mavo LaMishnah, 173 n. 31; see also Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 352–54; Friedman “Leshon Hamoadim,” 475.

71. Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 236.

72. According to Friedman, “Leshon Hamoadim,” 509, the earlier expression or learba asar was replaced as a result of interpretive concerns. Friedman writes, “The idiomatic style ‘or learba asa’ and phrases similar to it were perceived by late Tannaim and early Amoraim as a style that required explanation, and some even saw fit to replace them with more easily understood expressions.”

73. The text of the Yerushalmi here and in subsequent passages is based on the Leiden manuscript.

74. See n. 12 herein.

75. Concerning sugyot in which the Yerushalmi transmits amoraic statements without certainty of their attribution, see Frankel, Mavo HaYerushalmi, 38b; Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens, 548–65; Halivni, D., Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 147 n. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Ravina, 239 n. 30; Sussman, Y., “‘Torah Shebe'al Peah’ Pshutah Kemashma'a—Koho shel Kotzo Shel Yod,” Mehkarei Talmud (2005)Google Scholar, 3: 270–71 n. 38a. We should note that this phenomenon is especially prevalent in the Bavli with regard to disputes between Rav and Shmuel on matters of Aggadah. The Bavli uses the phrase, “Rav and Shmuel dispute the matter, one says … and one says …” See Cohen, Ravina, 233 n. 1.

76. Francus, I., ed., Talmud Yerushalmi: Masekhet Betzah im Perush Ehad Hakadmonim Rabbenu Elazar Azkari Baal Sefer Haredim (New York: JTS Press, 1995), 151Google Scholar, s.v. min mah detanei. The assumption that Shmuel's own opinions are identical to those found in his baraitot is common in both Talmuds. For a detailed analysis of the relationship between Shmuel and TDBS baraitot, see the addendum at the end of this essay.

77. See also Yafeh Enayim, s.v. hamin shehuchmu; Ratner, B., Ahavat Tzion VeYerushalayim: Masekhet Shabbat (Jerusalem: Makhon Muzal Me'esh, 1967), 50Google Scholar; I. Francus, Mehkarim Beharkavah shel Masekhet Betzah ShebaTalmud HaBavli Ubedarkei Arikhatah (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1961), 242–43.

78. In contrast to Bavli Shabbat 39b, which connects the explanation with the prohibition of “covering [food to keep it warm],” the context of this mishnah in Chapter 3 and its explanation in the Yerushalmi show that the prohibition stems from a concern that this would look like prohibited cooking. See Weiss, A., “Perushim Vehearot Latext Uleseder HaMishnah shel Masekhet Shabbat,” Horev 7 (1943): 12–13Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 66.

79. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:952.

80. The text of the baraita' is based on Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23; see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:952.

81. See Y. Dinnur, Hidushei HaRitzad, 28, s.v. bat'hila, who tries to find some halakhic basis in a tannaitic source for Rav's words. Dinnur concludes, “Most people prohibited washing one's whole body, as you can see from the baraitot that were brought here to support Shmuel.” Even so, it is not impossible that the baraita' found on Bavli Shabbat 39b (and its parallel) relate to water heated on the eve of the Sabbath; see Dinnur, Hidushei HaRitzad, 28; Goldberg (above, n. 65). According to this possibility, Rav's opinion could match the lenient opinion of R. Shimon in the baraita'.

82. Vatican 33 reads, “Rabbi Nehemiah bar Ukba,” a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora who may have been from the exilarch's family. See G. Herman, Rashut Hagolah BeBavel Bitkufat HaTalmud (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2005), 233. R. Hama bar Ukba, on the other hand, is a third-generation Palestinian Amora (see Frankel, Mavo HaYerushalmi, 86a; Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 238–339) who in both Talmuds transmits statements in the name of R. Yose bar Hanina (as in this case; see Bavli Pesahim 52b; Sukkah 37b; Yerushalmi Sheviit 9:1, 38d; Pesahim 7:9, 35a; Ketubbot 2:10, 26d). Hence, this reading seems preferable.

83. See Frankel, Mavo HaYerushalmi, 102b; Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 185–86.

84. See P'nei Moshe, s.v. vetanei.

85. Avramsky, R. Yehezkel, Tosefta im Perush Hazon Yehezkel, vol. 2, Seder Moed (Jerusalem, 2000), 113Google Scholar, s.v. kore lah. From here, we can conclude that if he led the animal by pulling it, he would be liable, as Shmuel implies in the Yerushalmi quoted here; see also, Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:288.

86. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:287–88; Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 387. Concerning the meaning of the phrase מחשיכין על התחום, see Cohen, B., Mishnah and Tosefta: A Comparative Study—Part 1: Shabat (New York: JTS Press, 1935), 143Google Scholar.

87. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:287–88; Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 387.

88. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3:288. It is possible to explain the TDBS baraita' as exempting ex post facto one who calls an animal, whereas the Tosefta permits it ab initio. In any case, even if we explain the opinion in the Shmuel baraita' in this way, it is still anchored in tannaitic halakhah.

89. In a parallel in Genesis Rabbah 80:25 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 962), the word Shmuel is missing. However, his name is found in another parallel on Yerushalmi Shabbat 9:3, 12a.

90. The bracketed word לעולם is found in the parallel in Yerushalmi Shabbat 9:3, 12a.

91. The bracketed word בא is absent in the parallel in the Yerushalmi.

92. The bracketed word הוה is found in the parallel in the Yerushalmi Shabbat 9:3, 12a.

93. In the Leiden manuscript, this entire sugya is found in the margins of the manuscript.

94. See also the statement of Rav in the Bavli 134b: “Rav said: they don't prevent one from putting hot water or oil on a wound on Shabbat.”

95. See Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 55–56.

96. P'nei Moshe, s.v. amar R. Yose.

97. Concerning the identification of R. Yose, the student of R. Zera, see Frankel, Mavo HaYerushalmi, 111b; Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 334–36.

98. Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 55 n. 4. This literary style is common for R. Yose in the Yerushalmi; see Lieberman, S., HaYerushalmi Kifshuto, 2nd ed., ed. Katz, M. (Jerusalem and New York: JTS Press, 2008), 162Google Scholar.

99. Kohut, I., ed., Arukh Hashalem (New York, 1955)Google Scholar, 3:294. The Arukh's explanation is quoted from the commentary of R. Gershon Meir Hagolah to Moed Katan; see Zakash, N., ed., Kovetz Rishonim Lemasekhet Moed Katan (Jerusalem:Makhon HaTalmud HaIsraeli Hashalem, 1966), 60Google Scholar. Concerning the meaning of the root זל”פ in rabbinic Hebrew, see Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmuds und Midraschim, 1:539; S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (Leipzig, 1910), 1:228; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1:401; Ben-Yehuda, E., Milon Halashon HaIvrit (Jerusalem-New York: T. Yoslof, 1960)Google Scholar, 2:1348; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic), 415.

100. Albeck, Mehkarim Babaraita UbaTosefta, 101.

101. Compare Shmuel's own opinion, Bavli Shabbat 134b, “And Shmuel said: He can put it on the side of the wound, and it runs down onto the wound.” It is also, of course, possible that the baraita' transmitted by R. Yose in the name of R. Zera was not meant to be the end of Shmuel's baraita' but rather to bolster it through the use of another tannaitic source. In any case, this is not relevant for the issue at hand.

102. See also Cohen, Mishnah and Tosefta, 129.

103. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 3: 245.

104. Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 332.

105. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta 3: 245.

106. Concerning the treatment of a wound with oil, water and other substances during the mishnaic and talmudic periods see, Preuss, J., Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, trans. and ed. Rosner, F. (London: Aronson, 1993), 238–39Google Scholar.

107. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 2:461. The Tosafot on Bavli Shabbat 134b, s.v. v'ein mon'in, explain, “since it teaches, ‘the children of kings anoint their wounds with rose oil’ we can deduce that for other people it is permitted to put other types of oil on their wound [on the Sabbath].”

108. This is the version preserved in the geniza fragment Antonin 1190 (= Katz, A. Y., Ginzei Talmud Bavli [Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 1979]Google Scholar, 2:212), in Munich 95, in Vatican 116–17, and in the Saloniki printed edition. The other printed editions, Hamburg 165, Florence, Ascorial G-I-3, and Vatican 115 all read, “is a tanna from the House of R. Yishmael, for it was taught in the House of R. Yishmael.” Concerning the preference for the version, “Shmuel,” see Epstein, Mavo Lenusah Hamishnah, 1:213; idem, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 723. Goodblatt also based his discussion on identifying the correct version as “a tanna from the House of Shmuel”; see Rabbinic Instruction, 134 n. 94, and my discussion below.

109. Concerning the contradiction between the mishnah and the anonymous baraita', see the stammaitic discussion that begins the passage (Bavli Bava Metzia 111a), “Who is our mishnah? Not the first opinion of the ‘of your brother’ [baraita'] nor R. Jose b. R. Judah … !”

110. Altogether, there are five such cases: Rosh Hashanah 16a; Sukkah 56b; Megillah 23a; Ketubbot 49a; Kiddushin 29b.

111. See the discussion near n. 54 herein.

112. Sanhedrin 56b.

113. The version Tanna D'Bei Menashe is found in all manuscripts. Some manuscripts, however, read “R. Papa” instead of “Rava.”

114. See Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 297.

115. See also Warhaftig, S., Dinei Avodah Bamishpat HaIvri (Tel Aviv: Moreshet, 1969)Google Scholar, 1:3.

116. Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14.

117. See Tosefta Bava Metzia 10:3 (ed. Lieberman, 117), and parallels.

118. Rashi, s.v. ve'eyn bo.

119. Shmuel's statement is parallel to his statement in Yerushalmi Betzah 5:2, 63a: “even on the ninth of Av one may betroth lest someone else precede him.” For a discussion comparing the two different versions, see Aminoah, N., Arikhat Masekhtot Sukkah Umoed Katan Batalmud (Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1989), 392Google Scholar.

120. This is the version preserved in all manuscripts and printed editions. This is also the version preserved in Halakhot Pesukot, ed. N. Danzig (Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 1999), 439. The version preserved in the commentary of R. Hannanel (Perushei R. Hannanel bar Hushiel LaTalmud, ed. D. Metzger [Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1993], 47) and ben Hayatom, R. Shlomo (Perush Masekhet Mashkin LeRabbenu Shlomo Hayatom, ed. Hayot, T. P. [Berlin: Mekizei Nirdamim, 1910], 96)Google Scholar reads Tanna D'Bei Menashe.

121. Concerning Shmuel's statement as preserved in the Yerushalmi, see n. 120 herein.

122. Albeck, Mehkarim Babraita Ubatosefta, 112.

123. S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:1237.

124. Aminoah, Arikhat Masekhtot Sukkah, 262.

125. According to Albeck, the phrase “betrothals of women” in the Mishnah refers to “all documents related to betrothal, for example a document of arranging the marriage (shidukhim) and its financial considerations (t'naim), or the betrothal document itself, which a man can use to betroth a woman by document” (Albeck, , Shisha Sidrei Mishnah [Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958]Google Scholar, 2:381; see also idem, “Haerusin Veshtarotehen,” in Kobetz Mada'i Lezekher Moshe Shor [New York, 1947], 12–13). According to this interpretation, Shmuel's statement and the halakhah in the TDBS baraita' are both identical with the halakhah found in the Mishnah, from which one can conclude that it is permitted to betroth a woman during the festival (compare this interpretation with that offered by the stam in the earlier section of the passage).

126. S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta 5:1237.

127. There is no tannaitic tradition that explicitly prohibits having a betrothal feast during the festival. Rubin, N., Simhat Hahayyim (Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Hameukhad, 2004), 148Google Scholar, attempted to conclude indirectly from Mishnah Pesahim 3:7 (“One who goes to slaughter his passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son or to eat the betrothal feast at his in-laws' home … ”) that “they arranged betrothal feasts during the festival or during the intermediate days of the festival.” This seemingly contradicts the halakhah found in the TDBS baraita', according to which one may not make a betrothal feast. However, Rubin did not note that with the exception of Tosefta Pesahim 3:12 (ed. Lieberman, 154), in all of the other tannaitic parallels to this halakhah, the words “to eat the betrothal feast at his in-laws” are absent. See Sifre Deuteronomy 131 (ed. Finkelstein, 188); Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yohai 13:6 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 39–40); Midrash Hagadol Exodus (ed. M. Margoliot, 230). According to both Epstein (Mavo Lenusah Hamishnah, 746) and Friedman, S. (Tosefta Atikta: Pesah Rishon [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002], 33 n. 7)Google Scholar this is not an incidental late omission in some texts. Rather, there are two authentic and contradictory tannaitic traditions concerning this question. Hence, even if Rubin is correct, and Shmuel's baraita' does contradict the Mishnah, the Mishnah's opinion is not the only tannaitic opinion. Again, it seems likely that there is tannaitic halakhic precedent for the opinion found in the TDBS baraita'.

128. This baraita' can also be found in Yerushalmi Shabbat 19:1, 16d.

129. This is the version preserved in all manuscripts of this passage and the parallel in Bavli Rosh Hashanah 29b. In another parallel in Bavli Shabbat 117b, Munich 95 and the printed editions read Tanna D'Bei R. Yishmael.

130. See the above-cited mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:1. Concerning the historical background to R. Johanan b. Zakkai's decree, see Alon, G., Toldot HaYehudim BeEretz Yisrael Bitkufat HaMishnah VehaTalmud (Tel Aviv: Akibutz Hameukhad, 1953)Google Scholar, 1:67–68; Safrai, S., Bimei Habayit Ubimei HaMishnah (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1994)Google Scholar, 1:139–42.

131. See Heineman, I., Iyyunei Tefilah (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1981), 85–89Google Scholar; Henshke, D., “Tekiat Shofar BeShabbat,” Sidra 8 (1992): 19–37Google Scholar; Tabori, J., Moadei Yisrael (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2000), 247–52Google Scholar.

132. It seems that the original reason that blowing the shofar was prohibited on the Sabbath was because of making noise; see Henshke, “Tekiat Shofar BeShabbat,” 31–36.

133. See Sifra Behar Parsha 2:4, 107a.

134. Concerning the chronological development of this halakhah in tannaitic literature, see Henshke, “Tekiat Shofar BeShabbat,” 22–27.

135. Rashi, malekhet avodah. Concerning the tendency in tannaitic literature to perceive sages as having the authority to decide what constitutes prohibited Sabbath labor based on their own logical conclusions, see Gilat, Y. D., Mehkarim Behishtalshelut Hahalakhah (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), 249–61Google Scholar.

136. J. Tabory, Moadei Yisrael, 250; see also Heineman, Iyyunei Tefilah, 86; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 5:1061.

137. See Henshke, “Tekiat Shofar BeShabbat,” 26.

138. Bavli Rosh Hashanah 29b; Sukkah 42b. The Bavli commonly phrases Sabbath prohibitions using the words “lest someone does… .” See Goldberg, , “Lehitpatchut Hasugya Batalmud HaBavli,” Sefer HaYovel LeRabbi Hanokh Albeck (Jerusalem:Mosad Harav Kuk, 1963), 101–13Google Scholar.

139. A surprisingly high percentage of the TDBS baraitot, about 70 percent, are concerned with the Sabbath and festival laws. Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten, 208, already noted this strange phenomenon, and staked the claim that this phenomenon was a result of Shmuel's or the Talmuds' selected focus on certain tannaitic material, mostly that found in Seder Moed. Support for this theory can be found in the fact that Shmuel himself demonstrates a tendency to offer interpretations to mishnahs and baraitot from Seder Moed. D. Gordis, who analyzed Rav and Shmuel's commentaries on tannaitic sources, evaluated more than 250 instances in which one of these two Amoraim contextualized a tannaitic source using a term such as “what are we dealing with here” (hakha bemai askinan), or “it was only taught regarding …” (lo shanu) (Gordis, Al Parshanuet, 340). His conclusion was that Shmuel demonstrates a more pronounced tendency than Rav to deal with tannaitic sources from Moed and Kedoshim (60 percent of all cases). This conclusion may support Bacher's supposition with regard to the TDBS baraitot. However, a firmer conclusion will only be able to be suggested after a more thorough examination of all of Shmuel's literature found in both Talmuds. This is a topic I hope to return to in a broader work, one that will deal with the intellectual activity of Shmuel and the other Nehardean sages.

140. As was claimed by S. Funk Die Juden in Babylonien, 62 and Goldberg, “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta,” 144–77.

141. As was suggested by Albeck, Albeck, Mehkarim Babraita Ubatosefta, 15–43; idem, Mavo LaTalmudim, 28–39.

142. As was claimed by Albeck, Albeck, Mehkarim Babraita Ubatosefta, 15–43; idem, Mavo LaTalmudim, 28–39. For examples of chronologically late expressions found in TDBS baraitot see above, near footnote n. 25.

143. Concerning the relationship of Shmuel's baraitot to the Mishnah, Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 214, writes, “The relationship of this collection of baraitot to the Mishnah is thus: part of it explains the Mishnah … part of it expands upon the Mishnah … and part of it disagrees with the Mishnah.” In order to prove his assertion that Shmuel's baraitot “disagree with the Mishnah,” Epstein cites Yoma 70a, discussed at length by Goldberg (see “Shimusho Shel Rava Ba Tosefta,” 144–77). While it is true that Shmuel's baraita' in this passage does present a halakhic tradition that differs from that presented in the Mishnah, Shmuel's baraita' does match, as Goldberg noted, the Palestinian tannaitic tradition ascribed to R. Yishmael and his students as it appears in the Yerushalmi. Epstein's comments are only directed at the relationship between Shmuel's baraitot and the Mishnah, and not their relationship to the broader scope of Palestinian literature, as is the concern in this article.

144. See n. 33 herein.

145. Sources in both Talmuds reveal that Shmuel's father, Abba bar Abba, called in the Bavli “Avuha DeShmuel,” also maintained close ties with sages in Palestine, and especially with Rabbi [Judah Hanasi]. In a number of passages, Avuha DeShmuel, who, like Shmuel, lived in Nehardea, is described as sending halakhic questions to Palestine (see Bavli Pesahim 103a; Rosh Hashanah 27b [= Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 3:6, 59a]; Rosh Hashanah 28a; Yevamot 104b; Yevamot 105a; Yevamot 115b; Bava Metzia 90a; Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:1, 9c). In one of these traditions, Yevamot 115b, Avuha DeShmuel's connection with Rabbi is so great that the former sends the latter a question with an obvious answer, and Rabbi bothers to answer it “due to the honor of Avuha DeShmuel” (see Albeck, S., Mishpachot Sofrim [Warsaw: Sholdberg, 1903], 22Google Scholar). These traditions demonstrate the close connection between Avuha DeShmuel and the Palestinian halakhic traditions, and also suggest how these traditions may have reached Babylonia in the first generation of Amoraim and how they may have been so familiar to and influential on Shmuel.

146. See the discussion near n. 33 herein.

147. For another group of halakhot that has been identified as being a tannaitic halakhic corpus with some attachment to Babylonia, see nn. 3–7 herein.

148. It is doubtful whether Shmuel ever spent time in Palestine. The main source that has served as the basis for the supposition that he did is an Aggadah found in Bavli Bava Metzia 85b–86a. In this source, Shmuel is called “Rabbi's doctor”; see Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 148. In the story, Rabbi attempts to give Shmuel rabbinic ordination, but his plan is not successful and Shmuel does not receive ordination. Many scholars have seen this as a source for the fact that Shmuel was a disciple of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi]. See Graetz, History of the Jews, 2:518; I. H. Weiss, “The Controversies of Rab and Samuel and the Tosefta,” 164; Yaavetz, T., Toldot Yisrael (Tel Aviv: Am-Olam, 1938)Google Scholar, 7:26; Hyman, Toldot Tannaim Veamoraim, 1123. According to D. Hoffman, Mar Samuel, 15, and Bacher, W., “Samuel Yarhina'ah,” Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901)Google Scholar, 11:29, Shmuel did indeed spend time in Israel but learned mainly from Rabbi's students in Babylonia. In contrast, Rappoport, S., Erekh Milin (Prague: M. Landa, 1852)Google Scholar, 1:222; Frankel, Mavo HaYerushalmi, 124b; and Beer, M., “Samuel,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Detroit: Macmillan, 2007)Google Scholar, 17:757, doubted the historical accuracy of this tradition because of its late, aggadic character. Indeed, there are several other difficulties with this aggadic tradition, which have been pointed out by other scholars. See, e.g., Epstein, Mevo'ot Lesifrut Hatannaim, 200 n. 1; Beer, “Samuel,” 757; D. Halivni, “Iyyunim Behithavut HaTalmud,” 84 and n. 69; and Meir, R. Yehudah Hanasi, 238. Epstein, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 212, cited two other sources that he believed imply that Shmuel spent time in Palestine, but deeper analysis of both of these sources demonstrates that his conclusion is doubtful. The first proof is Shmuel's statement on Bavli Shabbat 51b, “R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: In front of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] they would switch this one with that one.” It seems that Epstein interpreted the phrase “in front of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] they would switch” as indicating Shmuel's physical presence in front of Rabbi when he and others would ask questions. However, it is equally possible that Shmuel was merely transmitting a tradition with which he was familiar and not that Shmuel himself was present in front of Rabbi (see Halivni, D., Makorot Umasorot: Shabbat [Jerusalem: JTS Press, 1982], 153Google Scholar). The second proof that Epstein cited is a passage in Bavli Gittin 66b that begins, “Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi.” There are two problems with this proof. First of all, some manuscripts (e.g., Vatican 130, which reads, “Shmuel said”) do not contain the ascription to Rabbi. Even more problematic is that when the first three generations of Babylonian Amoraim cite traditions in the name of Tannaim from Rabbi's generation, the term “X said in the name of Y” does not necessarily mean that X heard the statement directly from Y. See Cohen, B. S., “How Many R. Hamnunas in the Babylonian Talmud? A Study in Talmudic Chronology,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007): 98 n. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

149. See above n. 76 herein.

150. This conclusion is supported by a sample check of a collection of baraitot in the two Talmuds which open with the term, Tanna D'Bei Levi. Levi was a first-generation Babylonian Amora (see Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, 153–55) whose center of activity was Nehardea (Bavli Megillah 29a; Ketubbot 103b; Yerushalmi Sukkah 4:3, 54c) and whose close colleagues were Shmuel's father (Avuha DeShmuel—Bavli Megillah 29a) and Shmuel (see, e.g., Bavli Bava Metzia 38b; Yerushalmi Ketubbot 2:5, 26c). The connection between the Tanna Levi statements and the Tosefta was already sensed by Ratner, B., “Mishnato shel Levi ben Sisi,” in Zikaron LeAvraham Eliyahu Lekh'vod HaRav Hachakham Hamephoar Avraham Eliyahu Harkavi (Peterburg: Z. H. Izkovask; Berlin: Itzkovaski, 1908), 117–18Google Scholar. Our sample check affirms Ratner's conclusion. The following are the main findings that stem from this examination: (I) Thebaraitotin the Yerushalmi: Four of the five baraitot ascribed to Levi in the Yerushalmi are consistent with those found in tannaitic halakhah. (1) Gittin 5:3, 46d. See Tosefta Ketubbot 4:17 (ed. Lieberman, 70); see also S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 6:254 n. 103, “And this [Tanna D'Bei Levi] baraita is our Tosefta.” (2) Bava Kamma 5:10, 15b (according to the Escorial manuscript, Lieberman, S., Yerushalmi Nezikin [Jerusalem, 1984], 19Google Scholar). The halakhah in this baraita' appears in Tosefta Kilayim 1:8 (ed. Lieberman, 204). (3) Bava Batra 4:4, 14c (according to the Escorial manuscript, p. 90). This baraita' appears in Tosefta Bava Kamma 3:1 (ed. Lieberman, 138); see also Lieberman, S., Tosefta Kifshuta (New York, 1988)Google Scholar, 10:362, “It turns our Tosefta is like the House of Levi.” (4) Bava Batra 10:5, 17c. The halakhah in this baraita' is found in Tosefta Bava Batra 11:9 (ed. Lieberman, 169). (II) Thebaraitotin the Bavli. For the Bavli, I only examined a sample selection of Tanna D'Bei Levi baraitot from the orders of Moed, Nashim, and Kedoshim: (1) Eruvin 10a. There is a parallel to this baraita' in Yerushalmi Eruvin 1:1, 18c, where it is transmitted anonymously. (2) Pesahim 17a. The stam connects Levy's baraita' with an anonymous baraita' by using the phrase “It was taught in a baraita like Levi (תניא כוותיה דלוי).” (3) Ketubbot 96b. This baraita' is found in Tosefta Ketubbot 11:1 (ed. Lieberman, 92). See also Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, 6:355. (4) Menahot 48b. This baraita' is found in Tosefta Nezirut 4:9 (ed. Lieberman, 40). See also S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta 7:554. (5) Hullin 108b. This halakhah is found in Tosefta Makkot 4:7 (ed. Zukermandel, 442). See also Dinnur, Hiddushei HaRitzad, 4:340.

151. Gafni, Yehudei Bavel Bitkufat Hatalmud, 90.

152. This halakhic position is ascribed to Shmuel also in Bavli Bava Batra 130a.

153. A shittuf is a symbolic communal meal that allows one to carry from a courtyard into an alleyway or vice versa.

154. See, e.g., Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten, 112; S. Lieberman, HaYerushalmi Kifshuto, 415. This is also the more recent conclusion of Leib Moscowitz in his recent book, Haterminologia shel HaYerushalmi: Hamunachim Haikari'im (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, forthcoming). I wish to thank Professor Moscowitz for allowing me to examine a draft of his forthcoming book.

155. See the commentary of R. Moshe Margoliot (Penei Moshe), s.v. miltei deRav.

156. Concerning the identification of the “gate house” in talmudic literature, see Kraus, S., Kadmoniyot HaTalmud (Berlin and Vienna: Moriah, 1924)Google Scholar, 1:420–21.

157. See Penei Moshe, s.v. matnita deShmuel.

158. See n. 160 herein.

159. As noted by Moscowitz (n. 155 herein), who writes, “However, this is a difficult interpretation, both in light of the actual words of the term and in light of its typical usage.”

160. This is the version preserved in the Leiden manuscript. Printed editions read, “the Mishnah disagrees with him.” However, Epstein has already demonstrated that this is a printer's error; see “Medikdukei Yerushalmi,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 260; idem, Mavo Lenusah HaMishnah, 163; see also S. Lieberman, HaYerushalmi Kifshuto, 32.

161. The word high is an addition based on S. Lieberman's emendation, HaYerushalmi Kifshuto, 32.

162. See also Tosefta Shabbat 1:13 (ed. Lieberman, 3); Goldberg, Perush LaMishnah, 13.

163. See Abramsky, Tosefta Hazon Yehezkel, Seder Moed, 4, s.v. afilu gavoha.

164. R. David Frankel, Korban Haedah, s.v. meahar sheyekholin limhot.

165. As was suggested by Halivni, Makorot Umasorot, 28–29.

166. S. Lieberman, HaYerushalmi Kifshuto, 32.