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.