1. I use the term “toseftan baraita” to designate a baraita for which a counterpart exists in Tosefta. Use of this term is not intended to prejudge the issue of whether these baraitot were actually drawn from Tosefta, in whatever form it may have had at that time; it is intended only to avoid the otiose repetition of a cumbersome phrase.AJS Review 16 (1991):1–29Google Scholar

2. For a discussion of the assumptions and consequences of such a dating, see part II below. My colleague Prof. Richard Steiner has questioned whether mhe2 may be called a “dialect” at all, given the restricted nature of its use and the fact that intrusions from earlier strata of Hebrew could easily be accommodated into it (personal communication). The differences between the two “strata” or “dialects” are primarily stylistic and not linguistic in nature. The use of the word “dialect” in this study should not be construed as suggesting that mhe² was a living language in the usual sense, but we merely follow the conventional designation of the differences between the various forms of Middle Hebrew as represented by tannaitic and, to some extent, amoraic texts. Hayah Natan has most recently examined the relationship of the language of Tosefta to that of Mishnah-at least phonologically and morphologically-in her Mesorato ha-Leshonil shel Ketav Yad Erfurt shel ha-Tosefta, Jerusalem, 1986/7; see n. 55 below.

3. See Rosenthal, E. S., “Ha-Moreh, ” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 31 (1963): 56 (Hebrew sec), and see my “Authority and Tradition: Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonia” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1986), pp. 48–54.Google Scholar

4. Albeck, Chanoch, Mehqarim bi-Varaita ve-Tosefla(Jerusalem, 1969), esp. pp. 86–138 (hereafter cited as Mehqarim);some of this material is repeated in his Mavo la-Talmudim(Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 51–78 (hereafter cited as Mavo).Google Scholar

5. Epstein, J. N., Mevoot le-Sifrut ha-Tannaim, edited by Melamed, E. Z. (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 241–262 (hereafter cited as Mevo'ot).Google Scholar

6. See his suggested stemma in Mevo'ol, p. 246.

7. As, for example, tHal 1:1 in yPes 2:4 (29b) and bPes 35a rather than the more appropriate tPisha 2:17. See the examples scattered through Albeck, Mehqarim.pp. 94–138.

8. See “Authority and Tradition, ” pp. 444–45. The example of Sifrei Zuta, which contains halakhot unknown from other sources and which Lieberman assigns to the circle of tannaim in Lydda, is not relevant to our case (see Lieberman, S., Siphrei Zutla, The Midrash ofLydda[New York, 1968], pp. 92–124)Google Scholar. Tension between the “Southerners” and the Galilean scholars was high (Schwartz, cf. J., Ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi bi-Yhudah mile-ahar Milhemet Bar Kokba ve-'ad la-Kibbush ha-Aravi: 135–640 li-Sefirah[Jerusalem, 1982], pp. 233–239Google Scholar, idem, , “Metihot shebein Hakhmei Derom Yehudah le-Hakhmei ha-Galil bi-Tequfat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud (ahar Milhemet Bar Kokhba), ” Sinai 93[1983]: 102–109), but there is no reason to assume that our Tosefta would not have been accepted in Babylonia as Rabbi's Mishnah was, with at most a generation's lag. While the unavailability of the Yerushalmi in Babylonia as a redacted Talmud isa case in point, that dates to a later era.Google Scholar

9. Despite the general assumption, this is a common phenomenon, as an inspection of Lieberman's “Masoret ha-Shas” will demonstrate.

10. For example, see the sugyot containing such pairs in yPes 2:7 (29c) re tPisha 3:6, yPes 5:4 (32b) re tPisha 4:3, and those on bPes 8b, 42a, 45a-b.

11. In the case of tPisha, for example, there are only six passages of as much as ten lines for which parallels may be found in bPes. Moreover, their length may be accounted for by their relatively verbose formulation, the presence of mishnaic lemmata, or the vagaries of syntax and technical terminology. In no case are there anything like the number of separate pericopes as in the passage we shall examine.

12. See ySuk 3:11 (54a), and Penei Moshe, s.v. da-′amar R. lla, and ySanh 9:6 (27b), s.v. laman taninan.See Albeck, Mefiqarim, pp. 86–87, for a list of others. It is worth noting in passing that there are few cases of lenaye lamanbaraitot which appear in Tosefta. Of the twentyfour cases that Albeck lists, only four, or at the most six, are found in Tosefta.

13. See preceding note for Albeck. For Lieberman, see Tosefet Rishonim1 (Jerusalem, 1936), p. 199; Tosefta Ki-Fshutah4 (New York, 1962), p. 861, the latter to be discussed in detail below; and Tosefta Ki-Fshutah6 (New York, 1967), p. 46, regarding tYeb 6:7.Google Scholar

14. Lieberman discerns a fourth type of Babylonian influence on Tosefta: medieval emendation of toseftan readings to conform to those of the Bavli. This “Babylonization” is much more common than the other types, and is especially characteristic of MS Erfurt; see Tosefta Ki-Fshutah3 (New York, 1962), p. 14 (Heb. numbering) and Tosefet Rishonim4 (Jerusalem, 1939), pp. 12–13 (Heb. numbering).Google Scholar

15. See Epsteins comments in Mavo le-Nusab ha-Mishnah, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1963–1964), pp. 171–174.Google Scholar

16. The total is perhaps as high as 337, if we count a line omitted from Tosefta and the printed edition of the Bavli, but which Lieberman restores to tSuk 3:1 from MS Munich of the Bavli.

17. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim1, p. 199.

18. Liberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah4, p. 861.

19. True, MS Munich reads “Ulla, ” but this reading is unique; see Diqduqei Soferim, pp. 100–101, n. gimel.It therefore may not refer to the famous Palestinian traveler at all; R. Yehudah b. Bathyra is referred to as R. Yehudah; compare bPes 39a with tPisha 2:21.

20. A parade example is the replacement of the tanna qamaand Rabbi in tPisha 4:2 by Rabbah and R. Hisda in bPes 61b.

21. So MS Erfurt. Ed. princ. and MS London have a somewhat different version, and there are disagreements among the commentators as to the exact meaning of their text, see Tosefta Ki-Fshutah4, pp. 859–861.

22. The version of A found in MSS Erfurt and London resembles that quoted by 'Ulla b. Hinena in bSuk 33a to a greater extent than that of MS Vienna, which Lieberman chose as the basis for his edition; see Tosefta Ki-Fshulah4, p. 859, where he discusses the exegetical problems this version presents. The Erfurt-London version reads: “A myrtle branch and a willow branch, the [tops of which] were cut off, and berries grew from them ['them' presumably refers to the obligatory minimum of two branches], are valid.” 'Ulla b. Hinena's version reads: “If its head was cut off, and berries grew in its place, it is valid.” This variant casts doubt on whether these two versions are indeed genetically related. Since MS Erfurt shows a persistent tendency to bring Tosefta's text into conformity with the parallel Bavli, the reading of MS Vienna is preferable. Lieberman included this baraita as part of the collection of Babylonian baraitot because he apparently considered the absence of a Palestinian equivalent decisive. But even if it is not, it means only that this long “Babylonian' passage begins a line later.

23. B is nearly identical to its parallel, with only the omission in Bavli of the word “handbreadths, ” though MS Munich does contain the reading; see Diqduqei Soferim, pp. 93–94, n. alef.

24. That is, the handbreadths spoken of are measured five to a cubit, and not six to a cubit.

25. Bavli reads “in the palm branch []”for “these [].”

26. Again the translation follows MS Erfurt; MSS Vienna, London, and ed. princ. have “with him.”

27. There are two differences in E, both relatively minor. One is the substitution of the phrase “[if] he did not find” for “if he has no, ” and the transposition of “pomegranates” and “quinces, ” a transposition not supported by the manuscript tradition and which may be late; see Diqduqei Soferim, p. 94, n. vav. The other variant is the addition of “no” () before “quinces” in Bavli.

28. Current editions of the Bavli have: “Wrinkled ones are valid, dry ones are invalid. R. Yehudah says: even dry ones [are valid].” However, MSS Munich 1 and 6 read: “And all of them [when] wrinkled are valid.” This reading is supported by numerous medieval attestations; see Diqduqei Soferim, pp. 93–94, n. alef.These MSS also contain the explicitly elliptical “are valid” () of curr. eds. However, Bavli's laconic wording can also be translated thus: “[If they are] wrinkled, [they are valid], [if] dry, [invalid], R. Yehudah, etc.” No significance should be attached to all these common, minor variants.

29. Current editions have “they said to them” rather than “to him, ” but the latter is the correct reading, as preserved in the manuscripts and medieval citations; see Diqduqei Soferim, p. 94, n. gimel.

30. In place of “men [] of the cities“ Bavli has “city folk .” It also substitutes “grandchildren” for “children.” There is also a clearly secondary branch of the manuscript tradition which reads in place of pans. This is the reading of MS Munich 6, and is reflected in Or Zarua, Orljol tiayyim.Ran and Ritva, and some of the Maimonidean commentators. See Diqduqei Soferim, loc. cit.

31. Bavli contains a rhetorical flourish of sorts: “Is there then a proof from there?”

32. “Men of [Jerusalem]” in Tosefta appears as “honored men of [Jerusalem]” in the Babylonian version; see below. Another minor change is the omission of “even” in Bavli.

33. The fact that R and S occur together in both Talmuds, but with the addition of other material, all in R. Yohanan's name, would seem to indicate that at some point his more general listing was incorporated into this baraita rather than that the baraita postdates R. Yohanan. After all, the subject is essentially the willow ceremony and not a listing of halakhol le-Moshe mi-Sinai.

34. There is one exception to this general neglect of lemmata. The rabbis′ objection to R. Meir's understanding of the custom of the in m 3:8 appears in both t 2:10 (K) and b 37a. But the latter part is actually an addition to m 3:8, according to a suggestion made by Rabbinovicz long ago (Diqduqei Soferim, p. 114 n. zayiri)and accepted by Lieberman. This addition does not appear in Mishnah manuscripts which reflect a Palestinian provenance, and others besides. R. Meir's comment is repeated in the Babylonian baraita in order to “set the stage” for the rabbis′ objection. I and J are lemmata from m 3:8.

35. For example, see Fraenkel, Y., “She'elot Hermanutiyot be-Heqer Sippur ha-Aggadah, ” Tarbiz 47 (5738): 139–172Google Scholar; idem, , “Ha-Zeman ve-'Izzuvo be-Sippurei ha-Aggadah, ” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, ed. Petuchowski, J. J. and E., Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 133–162 (Hebrew sec.), or his popular introduction lyyunim be-'Olamo ha-Ruhani she! Sippur ha-Aggadah(Tel Aviv, 1981).Google Scholar

36. See Neusner, J., The Peripatetic Saying: The Problem of the Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature(Chico Calif: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 12–29. A comparison of any parallel version of nearly any anecdote will demonstrate this phenomenon; see, for example, tPisha 2:15–16 and bErub 64b, or tPisha 4:15 and bPes 64b.Google Scholar

37. See sec. II below.

38. The relatively common phenomenon of sugyot mufilafot, especially between yNez and the rest of Yerushalmi, is of an entirely different order, since in that case the differences involve the arrangement of material, not an awareness of its very existence! For the case of Sifrei Zuta, see n. 8 above.

39. See most conveniently Neusner, Jacob, The Tosefta: Its Structure and Its Sources(Atlanta, 1986), esp. pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

40. T 2:7, which begins the toseftan section dealing with the four species, contains a short miscellany: palm branch (relating to m 3:1), followed by four imrotdealing with the willow, at which point our passage begins. All but the first and the last are on b 34a, though somewhat differently worded and in a different order; ySuk 3:3 (53c) in part overlaps and in part presents new material contradictory to Tosefta (as does Bavli).

41. Tosefta Ki-Fshutah4, p. 851 ad lines 10–12.

42. Cited in Bavli and Mekhiltas, but not in Yerushalmi.

43. Only a small portion of which is cited in Bavli.

44. Epstein, J. N., Mevo'ot le-Sifrut ha-Amoraim(Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 49–50Google Scholar, detects evidence of amoraic and saboraic redactions in bSuk. On the other hand, Halivni, D. W., Meqoroi u-Mesorot, Mo'ed 3 (Jerusalem, 1974–1975), p. 179, does not consider the saboraic material extensive enough to constitute a stratum of its own.Google Scholar

45. But see below.

46. bSuk lib, 33a, bMen 27a.

47. In clear contrast to his knowledge of C, as evident from his comment on it in 32b; see below.

48. See Halivni, Meqorot u-Mesorotad loc, who argues that the baraita as it appears in Yerushalmi was the focus of Rabin and R. Dimi's attention.

49. See Ibid, pp. 214–215. Halivni's analysis presupposes that these baraitot are no different in the history of their transmission than any others. He therefore concludes that Rabin and R. Dimi had a version close to that of Yerushalmi (3:1 [53c]), which sees R. Tarfon as differing with the Rabbis on the correct understanding of the anonymous tanna's position (B). Whatever vicissitudes of transmission led to this state of affairs, Tosefta's version is exactly that of the Bavli, which Rava knew. This acquires additional significance in the light of Rava's disregard of P-Q.

50. See Elman, “Authority and Tradition, ” pp. 303–323.

51. The parallel to R in the name of R. Yohanan in b 34a and ySuk 3:3 (53c) does not affect the course of this argument; it is part and parcel of the more general problem of the association of amoraim with material known as tannaitic from other sources; see “Authority and Tradition, ” pp. 288–295.

52. It might also account for the severely limited range of variation in the two texts. This may represent an instance in which these two compilations attest to the state of a baraita within a relatively short period of time, before they could diverge. The major factor, however, is the proximate Babylonian provenance of these baraitot. This is not altogether true of the passage in its entirety, however. The anecdotal material seems to have diverged to a greater extent. This may be because Tosefta's redactor felt the need linto “westernize” the language of the latter. The purely halakhic material was of course much closer to Palestinian norms; see below.

53. See his “Mittelhebräisch und jüdisch-Aramäisch im neuen Köhler-Baumgartner, Hebräische Wortforschung, ” in Festschrift W. Baumgartner(Leiden, 1967), pp. 158–175, esp. pp. 158–160.Google Scholar

54. “Pe'alim Hadashim u-Mehudashim ba-Baraitot sheba-Bavli, ” in 'Erkei ha-Milon he-Hadash le-Sifrut Hazal, vol. 1, ed. Y. Kutscher (1971–1972), pp. 117–162Google Scholar; “Ha-Baraitot ha-'Ivriyot ba-Bavli Einan Leshon Hakhamim I, ” Sefer Zikaron le-Hanokh Yalon(1973–1974), pp. 275–314Google Scholar; and “Nosafot li-Leshonam shel ha-Baraitot ha-'lvriyot ba-Bavli uvi- Yrushalmi, ” in Erkei ha-Milon he-Hadash le-Sifrut Hazal, vol. 2, ed. Kadari, M. Z. (1973–7194). pp. 31–73.Google Scholar

55. In one of his last papers, “Ha-Nasu' ha-Qodem li-Shnei Nose'im bi-Leshon Hazal, ” in Mehqerei Lashon Mugashim li-Ze'ev Ben-Hayyim, ed. M. Bar-Asher, A. Dotan, D. Tene, and G. B.-A. Sarfatti (1983), pp. 337–378, esp. pp. 363–366. More recently, see Natan Braverman, “Bein Leshon ha-Mishnah li-Leshon ha-Tosefta, ” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 31–38. However, compare the remarks of H. Natan, Mesorato ha-Leshonit(n. 2 above), pp. 324–346.

56. A study of yPes currently being carried out indicates that there is no substantial difference between Bavli and Yerushalmi in this, and that Moreshet's impression was misleading.

57. Moreshet, “Pe'alim Hadashim, ” pp. 158–159.

58. “Nosafot, ” p. 68.

59. Indeed, some dialectologists argue that the reverse is usually the case: language develops more rapidly in the homeland than in a colony, which is, linguistically speaking, more conservative; see Hertzler, J. P., A Sociology of Language(1965), pp. 168–169Google Scholar, and Petyt, K. M., The Study of Dialect: An Introduction to Dialectology(1980), p. 61. This tendency ought to have been still stronger among the Babylonian amoraim because of the religious implications of preserving what was considered the ipsissima verbaof the tannaim, the value of the texts preserved, and the limitation of preservation to a small, highly motivated class (see Hertzler, Sociology of Language, esp. pp. 170–172, 175). More recently, however, some dialectologists have greatly restricted the range of this phenomenon to at most isolated isoglosses. The whole question of the applicability of these studies to our case, where we deal with the language of memorized texts rather than living language, needs to be reexamined; see n. 2 above and n. 61 below and the text associated therewith. Despite the limited evidence of lexical change, Moreshet argues that the language of the Babylonian baraitot is further removed from mhe1 than is that of the Palestinian versions.Google Scholar

60. Elman, “Authority and Tradition, ” pp. 114–127.

61. An emerging consensus sees the reduction of rabbinic literature to written form as dating not earlier than the middle of the eighth century; see Rosenthal, D., Mishnah'avodah Zarah: Mahadurah Biqortit u-Mavo(Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 96–106Google Scholar, and the recent remarks of Brody, Y., “Sifrut ha–Geonim veha–Teqst ha–Talmudi, ” in Mehqerei Talmud I, ed. Sussman, and Rosenthal, D. (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 237–303Google Scholar, esp. 240–244. To my knowledge, no one has yet considered this problem regarding the transmission of authentic mhe1 in relation to the general question of the reduction of rabbinic literature to writing. Again, we cannot ignore the relevance of the Genizah fragment of ARN A published by Bregman, M. (“Qeta' Qadum shel Avot de-Rabbi Natan mitokh Megillah, ” Tarbiz 52 [1982–1983]: 201–222). Bregman cautiously dates this fragment beforethe Christian palimpsests of the seventh century; it may be earlier still (see his comments on pp. 211–212, and compare Sussraan's discussion of the Beth Shean inscription he published in “Ketovet Hilkhatit me-'Emeq Bet She'an-Seqirah Muqdemet, ” Tarbiz43 [1973/74]: 88–158, esp. 152–155). In light or the dearth of examples of early rabbinic paleographical samples, the formation of any consensus on this matter may be premature.Google Scholar

62. See Lieberman, S., “The Publication of the Mishnah, ” in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the 1 Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E.(New York, 1962), pp. 83–99.Google Scholar

63. See Albeck, Mefigarim.pp. 87–89.

64. See Tosefta Ki-Fshutah1 (New York, 1955), p. 14 (Heb. numbering).

65. Aside from the evidence cited here, see Elman, “Authority and Tradition, ” esp. pp. 409–419.

66. It is widely known that Yerushalmi's versions of baraitot are radically condensed. As for those variants which might be explained on linguistic grounds, Moreshet would argue that the differing (Aramaic-Hebrew) linguistic environments of the two talmudic centers exercised their influence; this is certainly the case, but while they influenced the directionof linguistic variation, the extentof such variation should not have differed markedly, given the similarities in rabbinic attitudes to transmitting texts accurately. The oft-quoted statement regarding the conservative linguistic tendencies of Judeans versus Galileans (bErub 53a) refers to an earlier period and to a popular context: its polemical edge must also be taken into account. It is also preserved in a Babylonian source! Most important, studies of the sociology of language indicate that linguistic change is not always greater in the colonies (see above, n. 59); note Rava's comment in bGit 65b re the care with which Babylonians used Hebrew.

67. That Babylonian baraitot may nonetheless retain authentic mhe1 usages is to be expected; see Boyarin, D., “La-Leqsikon ha-Talmudi, ” in Mehqarim bi-Leshon ha-'Ivrit uve-Sifrut Hazal Muqdashim le-Zikhro shel Dr. Menahem Moreshet(Ramat Gan, 1990), pp. 35–37Google Scholar, Bar-Asher, M., “Ha-Tippusim ha-Shonim shel Leshon ha-Mishnah, ” Tarbiz 53 (1982), pp. 187–220 esp. 210–218, and H. Natan, Mesorato ha-Leshonit.pp. 328–347, esp. p. 345 n. 46 and text.Google Scholar

68. See Mevo'ot.pp. 188–199.

69. For example, Chanoch Albeck in his Untersuchungen über die Redaktion der Mischna(Berlin, 1923), pp. 39–61.

70. See Kutscher, E. Y., A History of the Hebrew Language(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), pp. 141–142. Kutscher acknowledges the existence of this linguistic variety but concludes that “it would be difficult to detect distinct [linguistic] layers in the Mishna as can be done in B[iblical] H[ebrew].” The reason would seem to be the scattered nature of such material. “The only exception, ” Kutscher adds, ”seems to be the tractate Sayings of the Fathers whose language is colored to a certain extent by B[iblical] H[ebrew].”Google Scholar

71. The latter is found in bPes 8a, but is so common in Tosefta that it would be rash to assert that this somewhat figurative use of the verb in the sense of a “bed” dividing a room in two was unknown to Tosefta. Neither term appears in Moreshet's lexicon, and both must be presumed characteristic of mhe2.

72. Another example of such variants are those to be found in the various manuscripts of Tosefta itself. For example, tSuk 2:10 has in MS Vienna and (undoubtedly influenced by mMeg 1:1) in MS Erfurt.

73. Moreshet, , “Ha-Baraitot ha-'Ivriyot ba-Bavli” (1974), pp. 275–314, and “Pe'alim Wadashim u-Mehudashim, ” pp. 117–162.Google Scholar

74. MS “B” reads (bSuk 37a), corrected to Lieberman (Tosefta Ki-Fshutah4, p. 865, n. 35) suggests the correct reading is , as in Ozar Ha-Geonim, Yoma, p. 51, and Sukka, p. 116.

75. See DiqduqeiSoferim, p. 113, n. heh, and see 115, n. tzadias well: MS Munich reads in mSuk 3:8 (bSuk 36b), but Rabbinovicz notes that Rashi probably had the same reading as do current editions, . On the other hand, MS Munich reads in place of in the baraita. Rabbinovicz suggests that not all the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have followed this practice and so prefers the reading of the current editions of Bavli. The Western tradition at m 3:8 is (so Lowe and ed. Venice of Yerushalmi).

76. It is found only twice in Tosefta. One attestation is tKip 3 (4): 13 (all MSS), under the influence of m Yom 6:4, and the other t Arak 2:2, where it is part of a clearly conflate sequence of constructs, ; the Babylonian parallel (bAr 13b) contains only the first phrase. The Bavli, however, uses the phrase in two non-toseftan baraitot, making three in all: bYoma 19b (and MSS; see Diqduqei Soferimad loc, p. 44, n. samekh)and 69a in the MSS (current editions have , but the reading is supported by Aggadot Ha- Talmudand Ein Yaakov;see Diqduqei Soferim, p. 198, n. zayin)and the toseftan tArak 2:12. The sole appearance of in mYoma 6:4 is sufficient to indicate a mhe1 provenance for the phrase.

77. The phrase is lacking in ySuk 4:13 (54a), which has only . Altogether there are only three attestations of in Yerushalmi: ySuk 2:4 (52d), which is parallel to tSuk 2:4; yMeg4:l (7 Id), andySotah4:3(19c) = ySanh 15:6 (26b). The last two are definitely amoraic: in the first R. Simon (b. Pazzi), who is known to have visited Babylon, and R. Shmuel b. Nahman, who apparently did so as well, refer to the scribal practices of the , and in the second we have: “R. Yoshaya said: Ze'ira told me in the name of the men of Jerusalem”; R. Yoshaya here is evidently the third-generation Palestinian amora of that name, here quoting an amora of Babylonian origin—Ze'ira!Thus, of the three explicit traditions in Yerushalmi which refer to the —the fact that there are only three is also surprising-one is seemingly of Babylonian origin, one parallel to a toseftan baraita, and one may be Babylonian.

78. bShab 62b, bPes 113a, bPes 113a, and bSuk 41b (N above)—all non-toseftan and not in Yerushalmi. Finally, bGit 57b is non-toseftan and does not appear in the Yerushalmi, but does in several Palestinian midrashei aggadah, for example, the Proem to Eichah Rabbah 23.

79. Kasowski, C. J., Ozar Leshon ha-Talmud 25 (1971), p. 1101, and Ozar Leshon ha- Tosefta5 (1958), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

80. Diqduqei Soferimad loc, 29 n. samekh, records a singular, but Rabbinovicz preferred the plural because of the context.

81. Tosefta does contain variants of this phrase, in tBer 4:9–10, which appear in bB.B. 93b and not in Yerushalmi, though they do appear in Eichah Rabbah 4:2 (ed. Buber 71a).

82. For see mBer 5:3–4 (twice), mErub 3:9, mR.H.4:7, mTan 1:2, mMeg4:5 (and see mMeg 4:4 , and mMeg 4:6 [twice], , compare mMeg 4:8, ), while mTan 2:2 has . As for Tosefta: aside from our passage, we have tKip 5:14, tMeg 4:29 and tHag 1:3 for , and tBer 2:9 and tR.H. 4:2 for .

83. See bBer 16a, bShab 24b, bR.H. 34b, bTan 25b, bHul 24b.

84. See bErub 40a (twice), bTan 4b.

85. See bTan 2b, 3a (twice).

86. See b Ber 34a.

87. tB.M. 8:7, tB.B. 3:1, tHul 1:5.

88. tKel B.Q. 5:2 (twice), 7:14, tKel B.M. 1:13.

89. tMiq 1:6.

90. Note that in bB.M. 25a it appears as

91. bShab 81b (twice), bShab 38b, bPes 19b-20a, bM.Q. 16b, 21a, bNed 40a, bGit 70a (twice), bB.M. 25a, 59b, 84b, 105b, bMen 32b, 44a (twice), bHul 51b, 67a, 105a, bAr 30b, bNid 5b (twice), 64b!

92. Given the relatively few attestations of in Tosefta, one may wonder how Tosefta expresses the idea of “on the ground.” It gives a slight preference to tSheb 3:2, tShab 2:2 (which becomes in bShab 21a; see above), tShab 10:14 (no parallel in Bavli), tKel B.B. 3:9 (twice), tMiq 4:17 (none has a parallel in Bavli). It also prefers the concrete, for example: in tTer 1:14, tK.il 1:14 (twice), tKel B.Q. 3:6, tOhol 17:7, or , tHag 2:1, tKel B.Q. 4:10, tOhol 7:2.

93. tShab 14:9 and tHor 2:6.

94. mPes 4:9.

95. tBer 3:3.

96. Ber 10b, 34b, 63a, Erub 63a, Pes 119a, Yoma 20b, 52b, Tan 19b, Hag 5a, Yeb 60b, 99b-100a, 108a, Sotah 35b, Git 47b, 58a, B.M. 87a, B.B. 14a, 81b, 146a, Sanh 59b, 91a, A.Z. 39b, Men 44a, Hul 94a, Nid 70b.

97. For example, see n. 31.

98. Literally, “they crushed it.” In the context, the “it, ” which is feminine, can only refer to [he willows, but the use of the singular is a puzzle, and, while it is easy enough to account for by ihe loss of the final nunin , the fact that this reading is evidenced by all manuscripts andthe d. princ. must give us pause.

99. This tallies with our impression of the anecdotal material in tPisha as compared to its counterparts in tPes; for a more general picture, see Neusner, Peripatetic Saying, pp. 12–29.

100. It also appears in Sifra Emor, ed. Weiss 16:1 (102c), in a third version of this story, one which otherwise contains less detail than even the toseftan version.

101. Daniel Sperber posits an even later-perhaps geonic-elaboration of an originally amoraic story; see “On the Unfortunate Adventures of Rav Kahana, ” in Irano-Judaic: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages(Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 83–101, esp. his comments on pp. 97 f. The basic story must be considered amoraic in light of the parallel in yBer 2:8.

102. MS Vienna's is clearly a scribal error.

103. This is typical of the Yerushalmi, see Lieberman, S., Talmudah shel Kaisarin (supplement to Tarbiz 2) (Jerusalem, 1931), pp. 22–23Google Scholar; Bokser, Baruch, “A Minor for Zimmun(yBer 7:2, 1 lc [correct to 1 lb]) and Recensions of the Yerushalmi, ” AJS Review 4 (1979): 9–10, n. 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

104. This elaboration presumably occurred over a long period of time; whether it resulted in as monochromatic a document as Neusner insists is not clear; see for example Peripatetic Saying, pp. 179–190. The evidence gathered here does point to the decisive impact on style, form, and linguistic texture of the compilation in which a source is found and would in a general way support the contention of Halivni and Neusner of decisive redactional influence.

105. Moreshet, “Nosafot, ” p. 68.

106. See Dor, Z. M., Torat Eretz Yisrael be-Bavel(Tel Aviv, 1971), pp. 11–29.Google Scholar

107. See n. 14 above regarding the “Babylonization” of MS Erfurt of Tosefta.