A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times, Part 3: Sheqalim, Yoma, Sukkah: Translation and Explanation 9781556353628, 1556353626

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF APPOINTED TIMES PART THREE

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER VOLUME THIRTY-FOUR

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LA~' OF APPOINTED TIMES PART THREE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF APPOINTED TIMES BY

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

PART THREE

SHEQALIM, YOMA, SUK.KAH 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 3 Sheqalim, Yoma, Sukkah: Translation and Explanation By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1982 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-362-8 ISBN 10: 1-55635-362-6 Publication date 3/20/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1982

In memory of Rabbi Aaron H. Blumenthal

February 7, 1908

June 13, 1982

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .......... . Abbreviations and Bibliography Transliterations . . . .

IX XVII XXV

SHEQALIM

I. Introduction to Sheqalim . II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX.

Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter Sheqalim Chapter

One . Two . Three Four Five . Six . Seven Eight

3

8 16 23

28 37

41 48 53

YOMA X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII.

Introduction to Y oma Y oma Chapter One . Y oma Chapter Two . Y oma Chapter Three . Yoma Chapter Four Yoma Chapter Five .. Yoma Chapter Six . . Yoma Chapter Seven Y oma Chapter Eight .

63 70 76

81 92 96 105 112 116

SUK.KAH XIX. XX. XXI. XXII.

Introduction to Sukkah • Sukkah Chapter One . Sukkah Chapter Two Sukkah Chapter Three

127 132

140 148

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXill. Sukk.ah Chapter Four XXIV. Sukkah Chapter Five

156 166

Appendix: Corrections to Jacob Neusner,Invitationto the Talm11d, by Richard S. Sarason Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion 176 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181

PREFACE The character of this translation and explanation in detail expresses the purpose of the larger work of which it is part. To present a historyof the Mishnaic la1v,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 word-choices and patterns and in 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 f:Ianokh 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 complete form-analytical translation of Mishnah and of Tosefta. The explanationis rather different from any ofits 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 explain is what I believe requires attention. It follows that 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. 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 formulation. 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 of Mishnah

X

PREFACE

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 meaning. 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 Niishnah speaks to them and therefore must address issues of importance to them. This ahistorical approach is possibly valid for the generating and unfolding of law. 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. If we assume that Mishnah constitutes a single document-and the harmonious internally 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. The exegetes before me asked a wholly other range of questions. For their problem was a different one. lt was dictated by a social and intellectual task quite separate from ours. They addressed themselves not to the exegesis and expression (let alone the world-view) 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 what their society gave them: the conception of a completely unitary legal system, expressed to be sure, in discrete documents originating in diverse places and time, but nonetheless all together forming a timeless, seamless conceptual structure. Their task was defined by this rather platonic metaphor,

PREFACE

XI

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." Of this construct, to them Mishnah constitutes an important component. In their mind the correct approach to Mishnah's interpretation is to relate its ha!akhahto 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-to us, 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 appropriate exegesis. The definitive canon awaiting explanation and extension is "the halakhah." 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 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.

XII

PREFACE

The same treatment, of course, is accorded to Tosefta, the two Talmuds, the diverse legal exegetical compilations, Sifra and Sifre, for example, and to 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 Lieberman's Tosejta Ki-Fsbutah ("a comprehensive commentary to the Tosefta") treats Tosefta as an excuse for long disquisitions on diverse philological and legal questions, the obvious 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 of this approach to the study of earlier rabbinic writings 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 people, its authors, who flourished in one concrete social setting. Reading the document by itself, in its historical context and therefore outside of its atemporal and larger balakhic context, requires a different

PREFACE

XIII

approach. 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 Ho!y Things and Women, and, in retrospect, I think I was altogether 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 and 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 promised. 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 1984. Twelve years are a long time to devote to a single document, however complex, when one's interest is in only 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

XIV

PREFACE

Judaism. That means the main work is yet before me, not behind. These twelve years and forty-two books of mine, not to mention many more years of work and many books of my several doctoral students, all are meant only to prepare the way for a different sort of analysis entirely. This is an approach to Mishnah which is at once more historical, more religious-philosophical, and more religioushistorical than has even 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 of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times and History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. 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, 1980-1981, 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

PREFACE

xv

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 themnor should I have 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.

J.N. Providence, Rhode Island May 2, 1979. 5 Iyyar, 5739. Shalom 'al Yisra•el.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams

= I. Abrahams, l;:lagigah.Translated into English with Notes,

Abrahams, ERE

= I.

Adler

=

AB Ah. Albeck

=

Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Abrahams, "Sabbath," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics X (New York, 1928), p. 891-93. L. Adler, Religion tier geheiligten Zeit. Die biblischen Festzeiten und das Judentum (Miinchen, Basel, 1967). Tosafot R. khet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From Mishnah, ed. Romm. = W. Mueller, "Raum und Zeit in Sprachen und Kalendern Nordamerikas und Alteuropas," Anthropos 1973, 68 (1/2): 156-180. = J. Muilenburg, "Biblical View of Time," Harvard Theological Review 1961, 54:225-52.

=

= = =

=

= =

Num. NS Oh. Ohnuki-Tierney

=

Or. Otto

=

Otto

=

=

=

=

Ozouf

=

p

=

Pa

=

Par. Pedersen Pes. Pharisees Purities

Pieper Proctor QA

XXI

Mishnah 'im perush HaRambam.

Defus Risho>n Napoli

[5]252 [1492] (Jerusalem, 1970).

Nazir Nedarim Nega'im Niddah Martin Nilsson, Primitive Time-Reckoning (Lund, 1920). R. North, "The Derivation of Sabbath," Biblica 1955, 36: 182-201. Numbers Sevi Gutmacher, Napa/at 1evi. In QMH. >Ohalot Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, "Concepts of Time Among the Ainu of the Northwest Coast of Sakhalin," American Anthropologist 1969, 71:488-92. 'Orlah E. Otto, "Zeitvorstellungen und Zeitrechnung im alten Orient." Studium Generate 1966, 19:743-751. Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational (N.Y., 1958). M. Ozouf, "Space and Time in the Festivals of the French Revolution," Comparative Studies in Society and History 1975, 17:372-84. Shishah sidrl mishnah. Ketab yad Parma De Rossi 138 (Repr.:

Jerusalem, 1970). Mishnah ketab yad Paris. Paris 398-329 (Repr.: Jerusalem,

1973). Parah J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London, 1926-47). = Pesal;iim J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden, 1971) I-ill. = J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, (Leiden, 1974-1977) I-XXII. = J. Pieper, "Uber das Phiinomen des Festes," Zeitschrift fur Volkenkunde 1965, 61 :248. = Richard Proctor, The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, and Temple (London, 1883). = Qorban Aharon. Aaron Ibn I;Iayyim (d. 1632), Qorban Aharon, Perush Lassefer Sifra (Dessau, 1749).

XXII

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Qehati QH QMH QS Rabbinowitz

= = =

Rabad Rabad, Sifra Rappaport Rau Reicke R.H. Rosenthal Roth San. Schiffman Segal Segal Sens Shah. Shabu. Shabbat

=

Shalcv Sheb. Shebu. Sheq. SifraFink.

=

SifraHillel Sifra ed. Weiss SifHillel

=

SifHorovitz

=

SiflshShalom SifLiebe:rman

Pinl;ias Qehati, Seder Moed (Jerusalem, 1976) I-II. Moshe Zakhuta, Qol haramaz. In QMH. Qebu,at meforshe hammishnah (Jerusalem, 1962). I;l.ayyim Sofer, Qol Sofer. In QMH. J. Rabbinowitz, Ta'anith. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. R. Abraham hen David, Commentary to Sifra. From Sifra, ed. Weiss. Sevi Hirsch Hakkohen Rappaport, Torat Kohanim, with the commentaries 'Ezrat Kohanim and Tosefet Ha'Ezrah (Jerusalem, 1972). Catherine Rau, "Theories of Time in Ancient Philosophy," PhilosophicalReview 1953, 62: 514-525. B. Reicke, "Jahresfeier und Zeitenwende im Judentum und Christentum der Antike," TheologischeQuartalschrift 1970, 150:321-334. Rosh Hashanah Ludwig A. Rosenthal, Die Mischna, Aufbau 11ndQuellenscheidung.Erster Theil: Die Ordnung Seraim. Erste Hiilfte: Von Berakhot bis Schebiit (Strassburg, 1903). S. Roth, "Sanctity and Separation," Tradition 1974, 14:2945. Sanhedrin Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden, 1975). J.B. Segal, "Hebrew Festivals and the Calendar." journal of Semitic Studies 1961, 6:74-94. M. H. Segal, She/ealim. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Appendices (London, 1948). Ya 'aqob David Ilan, ed., Tosafot Shew (Bene Beraq, 1973). Shabbat Shabu'ot Le Shabbat dons la Consciencejuive: Donnies et Te:x:tes (Paris, 1973). Y. Shalev, "Holy day as an experience of Time," Judaism 1956, 5:160-66. Shebi'it Shebu'ot Sheqalim Sifra or Torat Kohanim. According to Codex Assemani LXVI. With a Hebrew Introduction by Louis Finkelstein (N.Y., 1956). Sifra. With the Commentary of Hillel b. R. Eliaqim. Ed. by Shachne Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1961). Sijra, ed. Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Repr.: N.Y., 1947). Sifre . .. 'im Perusah ... Rabbenu Hillel bar Eliaqim. Ed. Shachne Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1958). Siphre d'Be Rab Fascim!us primus: Siphre ad 1V11meros adj;cto Siphre Zutta. Ed. H. S. Horovitz (Leipzig, 1917). Sifre debeRab. 'Im Tosafot Meir 'Ayin. Ed. Meir IshShalom (Friedman). (Vienna, 1864. Repr.: N.Y., 1948). Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda). II. The Talntud of Caesarea(N.Y., 1968).

ABBREVIATIONS

SifNesiv

=

SifPardo

=

SifVolk

=

SifYasq

=

Simon, Meg. Simon, R.H. Slotki, Er.

=

Slotki, Suk.

=

Soderblom

=

Sot. Solberg

=

Suk.

=

T.

=

T

= =

Ta. Tem. Ter. Thomas

=

Toh. TR

=

T.Y. TYB TYT

= = =

TYY

=

Unknown

=

Uqs. V

=

Vat 130

=

Vat 112

=

=

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXIII

Sifre ... 'Emeq HaNeµ11. Naftali Sevi Yehudah Berlin (Jerusalem, 1960). Sifer Sifre debe Rab. David Pardo (Salonika, 1799. Repr.: Jerusalem, 1970); Sifre... 'im hagahol•.. HaGRA 11e'im perush Keter Kehunah. Sevi Hirsch Hakkohen Volk. Ed. Ya Ambuha' deSifre. Ya 'aqob Ze'eb Yaskobitz (Lodz, 1929. Repr.: Bene Beraq, 1967) I-II. Maurice Simon, Megillah. Translatedinto 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)," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics VI (N.Y., 1938), pp. 731-741. Sotah Winton Udell Solberg, Redeem the Time: The Puritan Sabbath in Early America (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). Sukkah Tosefta Sidre Mishnah. Nez}qin, Qodoshim, Tohorot. Ketab yad Yerushalayim, 1336. Ketab Yad beniqudleft massoret Teman. (Repr.: Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Ta'anit Temurah Terumot Northcote Thomas, "The Week in West Africa," journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1924, 54:183-209. Tohorot Saul Lieberman, Tosifet Rishonim. II. Seder Nashim, Nez.iqin, Qodoshim (Jerusalem, 1938). Tebul Yom Tife'ret Yisra'el Bo'az.. See TYY. Tosafot Yom Tob. Yom Toh Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tife'ret Yisra'el, Yakhin. Israel hen Gedaliah Lipschutz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschutz = TYB.) From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Rom. Mishnah. Sedarim Zeraim, Moed, Nashim. Unknown Edition. Printed in Pisaro or Constantinople. (Jerusalem, 1970). 'Uq~in Talmud Babli. Nidpas 'alyede Daniel Rombergbishenat 5282 [= 1522]. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Repr.: Jerusalem, 1971). Manuscripts of the Babylonian Ta/mud. From the Collection of the Vatican Library. (Jerusalem, 1972). Series A. Manuscripts of the Babylonian Ta/mud. From the Collection of the Vatican Library (Jerusalem, 1974). Series B.

XXIV

ABBREVIA'I'IONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vidal-Naquet

Von Rad Webster Webster, Rest Webster Whitehouse Wolff Women

Y. Y.T. Yad. Yeivin Yeh.

z

Zab. Zeb. Zobel ZY

=

P. Vidal-Naquet, "Temps des dieux et temps des hommes, Essai sur quelques aspects de !'experience temporelle chez !es Grecs," Revue de l'histoire des religions 1960, 157:55-80. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (N.Y., 1962-65). Hutton Webster, Rest Days, a SociologicalStudy (Lincoln, Neb., 1911). Hutton Webster, Rest Days, a Study in Early Law and Morality (N.Y., 1916). Hutton Webster, "Sabbath," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics X (N.Y., 1928). Owen C. Whitehouse, "Holiness (Semitic)," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics VI (N.Y., 1928), pp. 751-59. H. W. Wolff, "Concept of Time in the Old Testament," CTM 1974, 45:35'"42. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women (Leiden, 1980f.) I-V. Yerushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yom Toh Yadayim Israel Y eivin, A Collection of Mishnaic Geniza Fragments with Babylonian Vocalization. With Description of the Manuscripts and Indices (Jerusalem, 1974). Yebamot M. S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta. Based on Erjurt and Vienna Codices (Repr.: Jerusalem, 1963). Zabim Zebal;i.im Moritz Zobel, Der Sabbat, sein Abbild im jiidischen schrifttum, seine Geschfrhteund seine heutige Gestalt (Berlin, 1935). Zera'yi,l;aq. By Yi~l;i.aqI;Iayyot (Brooklyn, 1960).

TRANSLITERATIONS N

-

>

:,.

B

,

-

n

-

~

T

Ji t,

G D H

- w - z - I;I - T

• - y 1 :, = K 1,

-

L

C

~=

M

l=

N

0

- s

"$1

-

'I 'f' i'

., !/)

V)

n

= ~=

£)