A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times, Part 1: Shabbat: Translation and Explanation (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781556353604, 155635360X

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF APPOINTED TIMES PART ONE

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME THIRTY-FOUR

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF APPOINTED TIMES PART ONE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF APPOINTED TIMES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART ONE

SHABBAT TRANSLATION

AND EXPLANATION

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times, Part 1 Shabbat: Translation and Explanation By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1981 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-360-4 ISBN 10: 1-55635-360-X Publication date 3/20/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1981

For David Tracy

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvn

Transliterations

..........................................

xxv

.............................................

1

I. Shabbat Chapter One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Introduction

II. Shabbat Chapter Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

III. Shabbat Chapter Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

IV. Shabbat Chapter Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

V. Shabbat Chapter Five..............................

59

VI. Shabbat Chapter Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

VII. Shabbat Chapter Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

VIII. .Shabbat Chapter Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

IX. Shabbat Chapter Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

X. Shabbat Chapter Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

XI. Shabbat Chapter Eleven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

XII. Shabbat Chapter Twelve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119

XIII. Shabbat Chapter Thirteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131

XIV. Shabbat Chapter Fourteen..........................

137

XV. Shabbat Chapter Fifteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

142

XVI. Shabbat Chapter Sixteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146

XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.

Shabbat Chapter Seventeen.........................

155

Shabbat Chapter Eighteen..........................

163

Shabbat Chapter Nineteen..........................

169

Shabbat Chapter Twenty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180

Shabbat Chapter Twenty-One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185

Shabbat Chapter Twenty-Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

188

Shabbat Chapter Twenty-Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

Shabbat Chapter Twenty-Four......................

204

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

208

PREFACE This is the first of a four-part presentation of the Mishnaic Division of Appointed Seasons, to be followed by a study of the history and structure of the law. The work will be complete in five volumes as follows:

I. II. III. IV.

Shabbat. Translation and Explanation. Ero.bin, Pesahim. Translation and Explanation. Sheqalim, Yoma, Sukkah. Translation and Explanation. Besah, Rosh Hashshanah, Taanit, Megillah, Moed Qptan, Hagigah. Translation and Explanation. V. The Mishnaic System of Appointed Times.

The plan of the work follows that of A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things and A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women, and it does not conform with the rather different program of A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. The character of this translation and explanation in detail expresses the purpose of the larger work of which it is part. To present a history of the Mishnat"c law, I have to give an account of the document itself, first of all to state what I believe Mishnah says, in a rendition, in English, as close to the formal and syntactical character of the Hebrew as English permits. This I do in the translation, which itself is a commentary in its wordchoices and patterns and its version of the division of sentences into stichs, of paragraphs into sentences, and of chapters into paragraphs. (But this last depends, for the convenience of the reader, on the printed text of l;lanokh Albeck.) The translation makes no important contribution to the explanation of realia or the identification of various places, persons, and things, mentioned in the document. What it does contribute is the first translation of a rabbinic document to take full and faithful account of the rigidly formalized, public and anonymous character of Mishnaic language. I provide a complete form-analytical translation of Mishnah and of Tosefta. The explanation is rather different from any of its predecessors, so different that it must be called "explanation." For if what have been done in the past are called commentaries, this cannot be represented as a commentary at all. What I do not say invariably is more important than what I choose to discuss. By radically revising and abbreviating the established exegetical agendum, I believe I have made my richest contribution to the interpretation of Mishnah. This is in two aspects.

X

PREFACE

First, I have tried to force Mishnah to serve as its own commentary. I do so by relying heavily upon those formal and even substantive traits of the document which serve to provide a clear account of Mishnah's meaning and message. I pay careful attention to matters of form and formula.tion. We shall see time and again that principally through setting up a contrast, or placing of a phrase, for emphasis, or other obvious linguistic and syntactical modes of highlighting its meaning, Mishnah serves as its own first, and therefore best, commentary. Second, I have revised what I believe to be the definition of those issues appropriate to, and even acceptable for, exegesis ofMishnah in particular, as a singular document of its period. This last point requires some amplification. There are two sides to the problem of explaining what Mishnah means. Both of them are generated by one absolutely false conception, or, more accurately, misleading analogy. The first problem is the bringing to Mishnah of issues clearly extraneous to its original and historical meaning to its authors. This set of comments plainly is needless because the issues are generated by later problems and questions. They are quite naturally addressed to Mishnah, however, by people who assume Mishnah speaks to them and therefore must address issues of importance to them. This ahistorical approach is possibly valid for the generating and unfolding oflaw. But it is not correct for the interpretation of what Mishnah as a concrete document meant to the particular people who made it up. The second problem is corollary, namely, the placing of Mishnah's materials into the context of a whole legal system. When Mishnah is read in a larger framework than Mishnah, we are prevented from seeing Mishnah's materials as a coherent corpus on their own. This latter approach to Mishnah is absolutely opposite to our purpose. For I propose to state, and, later, historically to account for the unfolding of, the law of Mishnah in particular.Ifwe assume that Mishnah constitutes a single document - and the internally harmonious formal and intellectual traits of Mishnah require that we make that assumption - then we have no choice but to honor the limits of the document when attempting to describe and interpret it. Until now all commentators to Mishnah have taken only a limited interest in the shape and structure of Mishnah itself. It goes without saying, none has asked a historical-exegetical question ("What does this mean to the person who originally said it and who did not know what his successors would want to say about it?") to begin with. For their problem was a different one. It was dictated by a social and intellectual task quite separate

PREFACE

XI

from ours. They addressed themselves not to the exegesis and expression (let alone the worldview) of a given document. Nor could they imagine the notion that the laws in their hands formed discrete units of information. Quite the contrary, they began with the conception of a completely unitary legal system, expressed in discrete documents originating in diverse places and times, but nonetheless all together forming a timeless, seamless conceptual structure. Their task was defined by this rather platonic metaphor, namely, to relate each of the parts to the transcendent whole, and to force the whole to encompass all of the parts. It is not, as I originally thought, the ahistorical (or, anti-historical) and harmonistic purpose of the earlier exegetes which made their Mishnah-commentaries so intellectually prolix, indeed, indifferent and irrelevant to the text under discussion. That is a misunderstanding which it has taken me many years to recognize. It is, rather, that the earlier exegetes presuppose something much more profound, much less susceptible to articulation. This is, as I said, the construct, "Jewish law," or "halakhah."Ofthis construct, to them Mishnah constitutes an important component. In their mind the correct approach to Mishnah's interpretation is to relate its halakhah to other halakhah, that is, to "the law." This harmonistic, atomistic and yet encompassing approach is natural for people who keep the law and who take for granted their audience wants to know the law, even though not all of the law of a given document is practical and practiced. But the point of interest is clear, and it explains to them what is relevant and what is not. Since social context and intellectual framework define what is relevant, their essays which to us are total chaos to them are orderly and reliable. But the fact remains that in a different world, their language of exegesis is gibberish, just as is ours to them. When we realize this fact, we understand why it is that the distinctive, documentary character of Mishnah itself has attracted so little interest. Mishnah as such has failed to define the boundaries of an appropriate exegesis. The definitive canon awaiting explanation and extension is other. That is to say, Mishnah is part of that other canon. The canon awaiting interpretation is shaped by Mishnah, only in so far as Mishnah presents its share of legal statements - the law. Consequently Mishnah is read not from whole to part, as a sequence of divisions, tractates, and chapters. This I am the first to do, as the formal character of my work makes clear. And this is the right way to approach the document. But by others Mishnah has been and is read essentially as a mass of individual sentences, tens of thousands of bits of legal information, all of them part of, and arrayed against, a larger construct, the law, and each of them to be

XII

PREFACE

placed into juxtaposition with other bits and pieces of the law. So, as I said, the notion of "the halakhah" obliterates the character of Mishnah as an autonomous document and at best allows Mishnah the status of an authoritative sourceof law. The same treatment, of course, is accorded to Tosefta, the two Talmuds, the diverse legal exegetical compilations, Sifra and Sifre, for example, and much else. The result is that at each point exegetes tend to tell us "everything about everything," so to speak. It is not because they are confused, even though the results are confusing. For despite the fact that their commentaries appear to be not merely allusive, but irrelevant to the text at hand, and even though they are rich in unprovoked questions, artificial dilemmas, and invented solutions, the reason is that the fundamental theory of the document requires precisely those procedures which are followed. If, to take a current and choice example, Saul Liebermann's Tosejta Ki-Fshutah ("a comprehensive commentary to the Tosefta") treats Tosefta as an excuse for long disquisitions on diverse philological and legal questions, the reason is that that is precisely how Lieberman thinks the work should be done. And the reason, I believe, is not merely the ahistorical character of the mind-set of the traditionalist, but, as indicated, because of the more profound conviction as to the character of the law and its diverse documentary expressions. The result to date has been an account of immense philological and legal value. We are able to explain a great deal about the meaning and intention of the sentences of the law, as found (as it happens) in Mishnah and Tosefta ( and the rest of rabbinical literature). We can link together diverse conceptions and rules appearing here, there, everywhere. They are formed into a single fabric, even (in the monumental codes of the law) a seamless one. We have what is besought, which is the power to draw upon, and apply to specific circumstances, the whole wisdom and weight of the law. That is to say, the established exegetical program has succeeded in doing precisely what it set out to do. The tasks originally defined by the conception of '' the law'' have been carried out. The one thing we cannot say on the basis of the available commentaries, both "traditional" and "scientific" (both are wildly inappropriate terms!) is to state clearly what it is that Mishnah (to take our example) wishes to say, in its own setting, within the limits of its own redactional framework, upon the subjects chosen by it, and for purposes defined within the mind of those specific poeple, its authors, who flourished in one concrete social setting. Reading the document by itself, in its historical context and therefore outside of an atemporal, halakhic context, requires a different approach.

PREFACE

XIII

That approach is represented, I firmly believe, in the pages of this book. It is given by this explanation. So the need for these volumes of translation and explanation is dictated not solely by the concluding, systemic description and interpretation. That was my conception for Hory Things and Women, and, in retrospect, I think I was too apologetic. Nor is the issue of the work solely the historical primary, original - meaning of the text in the minds of the people who so phrased their ideas and arranged their sentences as to give us these, and not some other, expressions of their ideas. The decisive and determinative issues are simply, What is the Mishnah? What is its shape and structure? What is the agendum of its law? How is that agendum to be delineated and interpreted as a complete and exhaustive account of what Mishnah wishes to say? These questions are answered in this book and its fellows. The answers I give here are to these questions, not to those many others already dealt with, with greater or less measure of success, in the established, received exegetical tradition. People who want to know what "the tradition" has to say are not apt to open these books and stay on to study them in any event. Other sorts of readers will find their way to these pages. I do not think they will find the methods and suppositions alien or the results unsatisfying. I began this project weighed down by humility before the intellectual achievements of others who have studied these same problems. I conclude it with greater understanding, and not less appreciation, of their work. But at the same time I see much more clearly that, so far as they claim to speak about Mishnah, they have not done what they promise. So far as I claim to present and briefly to explain what it is that Mishnah, in its limits, for its purposes, to its chosen audience, wishes to say, I do what I claim to do. That fact accounts for the traits of the translation and the character of the explanation - its brevity, severe limitation of the exegetical agendum, and above all, its insistence upon Mishnah's form and formulary expression as definitive of Mishnah's meaning. This is not meant to excuse or apologize. I have worked on Mishnah since 1972, and the last of these books is apt to appear not much before 1982. Ten years are a long time to devote to a single document, however complex, when one's interest is in ony a limited aspect of said document. For, when all is said and done, my real interest remains focused upon the history and structure of nascent rabbinic Judaism. That means the main work is yet before me, not behind. Ten twelve years and forty-three books of mine, not to mention many more years of work and many more books of my several doctoral students, all are meant only to prepare the way for a different short of

XIV

PREFACE

analysis entirely. This is an approach to Mishnah which is at once more historical, more religious-philosophical, and more religious-historical than has ever been attempted. I do not know whether it will succeed. It remains to thank a few among the many to whom much is owed. First of all, I owe thanks to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for awarding to me yet a second Guggenheim Fellowship, for 1979-1980, to facilitate completion of my History oftheMishnaic Law of Appointed Times and History of theMishnaic Law ofDamages.This recognition of the interest of the scholarly world in the results of my work is much appreciated. It also is important to me. At the same time I owe thanks to Brown University for an extraordinary research leave, awarded in the same connection. Second, I wish to thank Brown University for paying the costs of typing these manuscripts. Provost Maurice Glicksman and Associate Dean Frank Durand received without complaint a shower of typists' bills. In an age of exceedingly painful budgetary choices, they loyally and generously paid my typists and did so promptly and courteously. This everyday and humble expression of their belief in the worth of my project is just as precious to me as those research fellowships and honorary doctorates which have come my way. Third, I should be remiss if I did not mention by name the junior colleagues who in my graduate seminar read their work and heard about mine, the graduate students of the period in which this part of the project was coming to completion: Leonard Gordon, Peter Haas, Martin Jaffee, and Alan Peck; and my former colleague, Richard Samuel Sarason, now at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati. Since the work of all of these as well as of some of my former students is an integral part of this project, they in due course will make their own contributions as well. Fourth, my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies have provided a constructive and helpful framework for my teaching and scholarship. I must single out Professors Wendell S. Dietrich and Ernest S. Frerichs with thanks not only for exemplary collegiality but for friendship and love. Finally, after all these years, I have to mention and take note of the enthusiastic support of my children, Samuel Aaron, Eli Ephraim, Noam Mordecai Menahem, and Margalit Leah Berakhah, who were infants when the work began, and who approach maturity as it ends. I never hoped they would read these books, but I should want them to be proud of knowing that, when I was doing the work, they charmed and cheered my life. I could not have done this work without them - nor should I have

PREFACE

xv

wanted to. Let a veil of silence be drawn before the next, the best, for only silence can contain all that is felt, all that words cannot say, in homage to Suzanne Richter Neusner. Each of the books in this series is dedicated to someone who has come into my life as a person of grace, someone whose friendship I did not earn or deserve, but who gave me goodness I did not have coming to me. This book is dedicated to David Tracy, The University of Chicago, as a token of admiration, esteem, and affection. David Tracy combines brilliant intellect with rare gifts of character and conscience and so is an ornament to the academic study of religions. Providence, Rhode Island 14 Nisan 5 739 cEreb Pesah April 11, 1979

J.N.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams Abrabams, ERE Adler AE Ah. Albeck Alexander Andreasen Andreasen, Sabbath Ar. Auerbach

-

A.Z.

B. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Barthelemy Beckwith Ber. Berger

=

Berlin, 1968

-

Berlin, 1972 Berlin, 1971 Bert. Bes. Bik. Blackman

•

Bouah

Brandon Brandon, History Brandon, BJRL

=

I. Abrahams, l;lagigah. Translatedinto English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). I. Abrabams, "Sabbath," Encyclopaediaof Religion and Ethics X (New York, 1928), p. 891-93. L. Adler, ReligiontiergeheiligtenZeit. Die biblischenFestzeitenund das Judentum (Miinchen, Basel, 1967). Tosafot R. 'Aqiba Egger. From Mishnab, ed. Romm. 'Ahilot l;Ianokh Albeck, Shishah sidrl mishnah. Seder Moed (Tel Aviv, 1952). Samuel Alexander, Space, Time and Deity (London, 1920). N. E. Andreasen, "Festival and Freedom: A Study of an Old Testament Theme," lnterpretatiBn1974, 28:281-97. Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old TestamentSabbath, a Tradition HistoricalInvestigation(Missoula, Mont., 1972). 'Arakhin E. Auerbach, "Die Feste im alten Israel," Vetus Testamentum 1948, 8: 1-18. 'Abodah Zarah Babylonian Talmud Baba' Batra' Baba' Me~i'a' Baba' Qainma' D. Barthelemy and J. T. Milik, "The Oration of Moses," Qumran Cave I 1955. R. T. Beckwith, "The Day, its divisions and its limits, in biblical thought," EvangelicalQµarterry1971, 43:218-27. Berakhot' , Isaiah Berger, ed., Analytical Index to TheJewish QµarterryReview, 1889-1908 (N. Y., 1966). Charles Berlin, Harvard University Library. Catalogueef Hebrew Books (Cambridge, 1968) I-VI. Supplement(Cambridge, 1972) I-III. WidenerLibrary Sheiflist, 39. judaica (Cambridge 1971). 'Obadiah of Bertinoro. From Mishnab, ed. Romm. Be~ah Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. Vol. II. OrderMoed. PointedHebrew Text, Introductions,Translation,Notes, Supplement,Appendix, Indexes (London, 1952). N. Bouah, "Calendriers Trationnels et Concept de Temps," Bulletin d'Informationet de Liaison des lnstituts d'Ethno-Sociologieet de Glographietropicak, 1967, 1:9-26. S. G. F. Brandon, "The Deification of Time," Studium Generak 1970, 23:485-497. S. G. F. Brandon, History, Time and Deity (New York, 1965). S. G. F. Brandon, "Time as God and Devil," Bulletin ofthejohn Rylands Library 1964, 47: 12-31.

XVIII

Burgelin

C Callahan Chroust Clark Damages

Dauenhauer

Dedcren Dern. Deut. de Vaux Dillmann Ed. EG Ehrlich Epstein, Nusab Epstein, Tan. Erub. ''Festivals''

Fox Freedman, Pes. Freedman, Shab. Gardner Ginsberg Git. Goldberg

ABBREVIATIONS

P. Burgelin, "Sur le passage du sacre au profane," Diogene 1961, 33: 122-131. H. Loewe, The Mishnah ofthe Palestinian Talmud (Hammishnah 'al pi ketab-yad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). J. F. Callahan, Four Views qf Time in Ancient Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass., 1948). Anton-Hermann Chroust, "The Meaning of Time in the Ancient World," The New Scholasticism 194-7, 21: 1-70. C. H. Clark, "Time in Biblical Faith," South East Asia Journal of Theology 1959, 1:37-44. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnah Law ofDamages (Leiden, 1981!.) I-V. Bernard P. Dauenhauer, "Some Aspects of Language and Time in Ritual Worship," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1975, 6:54-62. R. Dederen, "On esteeming one day better than another [Rom. 14:5-6]," Andrews University Seminary Studies 1971, 9:16-35. Derna'i Deuteronomy Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York, 1961). A. Dillmann, Uber das Kalendawesen der Israeliten vor dem babyIonisehen Exit (Berlin, 1881). 'Eduyyot Hiddushe Eliyyahu Migreiditz. From l'v1isbnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). E. L. Ehrlich, Kultsymbolik im A/ten Testament und im nachbiblischen judentum (Stuttgart, 1959). Y. N. H. Epstein, Mabo lenusab hammishnah (Tel Aviv, 1954). Y. N. H. Epstein, Mebo'ot lesifrut hattana'im. Mishnah, tosefta, ummidrashe halakhah. Ed. E. S. Melammed (Tel Aviv, 1957). 'Erubin "Festivals," Encyclopaediajudaica 6 Uerusalem, 1971) 1237-1246. .'.'vfatthew Fox, "Demonic vs. Sacred Time in American Culture," Listening 1976, 11:175-190. H. Freedman, Pesabim. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). H. Freedman, Shabbath. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Howard Gardner, The Quest for Mind. Piaget, Levi-Strauss, and the Structuralist Movement (N.Y., 1973). M. Ginsberg, Be:;:ah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Giitin Abraham Goldberg, Commentary to the Mishnah. Shabbat. Critically Edited. And

Goody GRA Gurvitch

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Provided with Introduction,

Commentary and Notes

(Jerusalem, 1976). In Hebrew. Jack Goody, ''Time,'' International Enqclopedia of the Social Sciences 16:30-42. Elijah ben Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. Georges Gurvitch, The Spectrum of Social Time (Dordrecht, 1964).

ABBREVIATIONS

HA Hag. Hal. l;Iayyot HD Hehn Heidel Hodgkins Holy Things Hooke Hor. Hui.

ID James Jastrow

Jenni Jung

K Katsh

Kel. Ker. Kil. Kittel

KM

Kornfeld Kutsch

Lazarus Lieberman

Lieberman, TK

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

XIX

= Emanuel Hai Riqi, Hon >ashir.In QMH. = l;Iagigah l;Iallah Yi~b.aql;Iayyot, Zera'yi1ltaq. Ed. H. Y. L. Deutsch (N.Y., 1960). - l;lasdeDavid. David Pardo, l;lasdeDavid. I. ToseftaZera'im Mo'ed, Nashim (Livorno. Repr.: 1976). Johannes Hehn, Siebenzahlund Sabbat bei den Babyloniem und im Allen Testament(Leipzig, 1907). William Heidel, The Day ofYahweh;a Stu4J,ofSacredDays and Ritual Forms in theAncient Near East (N. Y., 1929). William Hodgkins, Sunday: Christian and Social Significance(London, 1960). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things (Leiden, 1979) I-VI. = S. H. Hooke, The Origin ofEarly Semitic Ritual (N.Y., 1938). Horayot l;Iullin = Nathan Lebam. Imre da'at. In QMH. E. 0. James, SeasonalFeastsand Festivals(N.Y., 1961). Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionaryofthe Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalm1;and the Midrashic Literature(1904, Repr.: N.Y., 1950) I-II. Ernst Jenni, Die theologischeBegrundungdes Sabbatgebotesim A/ten Testament(Zollikon-Ziirich, 1956). = Leo Jung, Yoma. Translatedinto English with Notes, Glossaryand Indices(London, 1948). = Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabedes Mishnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Repr.: Jerusalem, 1968). · Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishna. One Hundred and Fifty-Nine Fragmentsfrom the. Cairo Geniza in the Saltykov-ShchedrinLibrary in LeningradAppearingfor the First Time with an Introduction,Notes and VariantsUerusalem, 1970). = Kelim Keritot Kiia>yim = R. Kittel, Geschichtedes VolkesIsraelsI (Leipzig, 1912). Kesef Mishneh. Joseph Karo. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Published in Venice, 1574-5. Text used: Standard version of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Walter Kornfeld, "Der Sabbath im Alten Testament," Der Tag des Herm (Vienna, 1958). E. Kutsch, "Sabbath," Die Religion in Geschichteund Gegenwart, 3rd Ed., edited by Kurt Galling, et al. (Tiibingen, 1958) V, 1258-60. H. M. Lazarus, Mo'ed Katan. Translatedinto English with Notes, Glossaryand Indices(London, 1948). = Saul Lieberman, The Tosefta. According to Codex Vienna, with variantsfrom CodicesErfurt, London, GenizahMSS, and Editio Princeps (Venice, 1521). Togetherwith Referencesto ParallelPassagesin Talmudic Literature.And a Brief Commentary.The Orderof Moed (N.Y., 1962). Saul Lieberman, ToseftaKijshutah. A Comprehensive Commentaryon the Tosefta.Part III. OrderMoed.I. Shabbat-Erubin(N.Y., 1962). II. Pesahim-Sukkah(N.Y., 1962). III. Besah-Hagigah(N.Y., 1962). In Hebrew.

xx

ABBREVIATIONS

Levy, Worterhuch Long

Lowy

M M. Ma. Maimonides. Comm.

= -

Maimonides, Seasons -

Mak. Makh. Martin-Achard

=

Martineau

-

Maxson

=

Me. Meg. Meinhold Meinhold, Woche

= =

Melammed, Midrash

=

Melammed, Talmud Men. Millgram

-

=

=

Miq. ML Momigliano Morgenstern

•

M.Q. MS Mueller

=

Muilenburg N Naz. Ned.

-

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jacob Levy, Worterbuchuber die Talmudim und Midraschim (1924. Repr.: Darmstadt, 1963) I-IV. Burke 0. Long, "Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and their Bearing on OT Criticism," Vetus Testamentum26:187-198. An important step beyond the arguments in Pharisees III, pp. 101-180. S. Lowy, "The Motivation of Fasting in Talmudic Literature," Journal ofJewish Studies 1958, 9:19-38. Babylonian Talmud CodexMunich (95) (Repr.: Jerusalem, 1971). Mishnah MaAmbuha>deSifre. Ya'aqob Ze>eb Yaskobitz (Lodz, 1929. Repr.: Bene Beraq, 1967) 1-11. Maurice Simon, Megillah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Maurice Simon, Rosh Hashanah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Israel W. Slotki, 'Erubin. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Israel W. Slotki, Sukkah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). N. Soderblom, "Holiness (General and Primitive)," Encyclopaediaof Religion and Ethics VI (N.Y., 1928), pp. 731-741. Sotah

ABBREVIATIONS

Solberg Suk.

T. T

Ta. Tern. Ter. Thomas

Toh. TR

T.Y. TYB TYT

TYY

XXIII

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Winton Udell Solberg, Redeem the Time: The Puritan Sabbath in Ear(y America (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). Sukkah Tosefta Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshim, Tohorot. Ketab Yad Yerushalayim, 1336. Ketab Yad beniqud lefi massoret Teman. (Repr.: Jerusalem,

1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Ta'anit Tcmurah Terumot Northcote Thomas, "The Week in \Vest Africa," Journal

ef the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1924, 54: 183-209. Tohorot Saul Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim. II. Seder Nashim, Neziqin, Qodoshim (Jerusalem, 1938). Tebul Yorn Tife'ret Yisra'el Bo'az. See TYY. Tosafot Yorn Toh. Yorn Tob Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tife'ret Yisra'el, Yakhin. Israel ben Gedaliah Lipschutz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschutz = TYB.) From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm .

Unknown

.Mis/mah. Sedarim Zeraim, Moed, Nashim. Unknown Edition. Printed in Pisaro or Constantinople. (Jerusalem, 1970).

Uqs. V

'Uq~in Talmud Babli. Nidpas 'al yede Daniel Bamberg bishenat 5282 [ =

1522]. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Repr.: Jerusalem, Vat 130 Vat 112 Vidal-Naquet

Von Rad Webster Webster, Rest Webster Whitehouse Wolff Women

Y. Y.T. Yad.

1971).

Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. From the Collection of the Vatican Library. (Jerusalem, 1972). Series A. = Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. From the Collection of the Vatican Library Qerusalem, 1974). Series B.

P. Vidal-Naquet, "Temps des