1. 1. See the works of Chanoch Albeck, J. N. Epstein, Joseph Heinemann, Hyman Klein, Saul Lieberman, Jacob Neusner, E. S. Rosenthal, Abraham Weiss, David Weiss Halivni, as well as of Moshe Assis, M. S. Feldman, Shamma Friedman, Israel Francus, David Goodblatt, Abraham Goldberg, David Rosenthal, and others. For references and full bibliography see Friedman, Shamma, “A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction, ” Texts and Studies Analecta Judaica ed. Dimitrovsky, H. Z., 1 (1977): 275–321Google Scholar; Goodblatt, David, “The Babylonian Talmud, ” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt [= ANRW]2.19 (Berlin, in press), especially chap. 4Google Scholar; and Bokser, Baruch M., “An Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud, ” ANRW, 2.19, especially chaps. 8–13.Google ScholarSee also Bokser, Baruch M., “Two Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions, ” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty ed. Jacob, Neusner, 4 vols. (Leiden, 1975), 4: 48–52 [N.B.: on pp. 52, 1. 12, 53, 1. 12, and 54, 1. 18 read “Tefillah” for “Shema”']Google Scholar; idem, Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah, Its Nature, Forms, and Content (Leiden, 1975); and Saldarini, Anthony J., “‘Form Criticism’ of Rabbinic Literature, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. On Grace After Meals and the “Summons” see Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. “Grace After Meals, ” and the literature cited there; M. Ber. 7:3; Epstein, J. N., Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 430–31Google Scholar; Albeck, Chanoch, Shishah sidrei Mishnah vol. 1: Seder Zera'im (Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 27 and 336–37Google Scholar; Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta ki-fshutah 8 vols. (New York, 1955–73), 1: 8–9 [= TK ]Google Scholar; Heinemann, Joseph, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna'im and the Amora'im (Jerusalem, 1964), chap. 4, pp. 67–77, especially 73–77Google Scholar; and Porton, Gary G., The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael pt. 1 (Leiden, 1976), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar See below, text to nn. 40–43.

3.

4. On the see, y. (a) the MSS: The Palestinian Talmud Leiden MS. Cod. Seal. 3. A Facsimile with Introduction by Lieberman, Saul (Jerusalem, 1970), vol. 1 [abbreviated as - L MS]Google Scholar; Talmud Yerushalmi. Codex Vatican 133. Index by Sherry, A. P. (Jerusalem, 1971) [= V MS]Google Scholar; MS of with, y.Commentary of Solomon ben Joseph Sirillo ed. Hayim Yosef, Dinkels (Jerusalem, 1967) [I thank the British Museum for providing me with a microfilm of MSS 403–405 = Or. 2822, 2823, 2824, and Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, for MS Hebr. 7389, both of y. with Sirillo's Commentary] [= S]:Google ScholarGinzberg, Louis, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah (New York, 1909; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1969) [= YFG]Google Scholar; (b) the special editions with modern commentaries: Frankel, Zacharias, Talmud Yerushalmi, Seder Zera'im, ‘Ahavat Siyyon vol. 1: Berakhot and Pe'ah (Vienna, 1874; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1971)Google Scholar; Ratner, Dov Baer, Ahawath Zion We-Jeruscholaim. Berakhot (Vilna, 1901; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1967)Google Scholar; Luncz, A. M., Talmud Yerushalmi vol. 2 [= Ber. chap. 6-Pe'ah chap. 1] (Jerusalem, 1909)Google Scholar; and (c) the critical notes in Leb Sacks, Mordechai Yehudah, Diqduqei soferim la-Talmud ha-Yerushalmi vol. 1: Berakhot (Jerusalem, 1943), p. 33;Google Scholar and Epstein, J. N., Introduction to Amoraitic Literature [= IAL] (Jerusalem, 1962), p. 364.Google Scholar In addition to the commentaries in the Vilna 922 (reprint ed., New York, 1959) edition of Talmud Yerushalmi, I have consulted the numerous commentaries to M. Ber. 7:2 and b. Ber. 47b–48a and codifiers of the law of Grace After Meals who cite and explain parts of y. Ber. 7:2. Ratner provides an index to many of these works. See nn. below for specific references.

5. Frankel; Ratner, pp. 166—67; and Albeck, Chanoch, in Midrasch Bereschit Rabba. eds. Julius, Theodor and Chanoch Albeck (Berlin, 1903–1929; reprint ed. in 3 vols., Jerusalem, 1965), 3:1112, in his notes [continuation of p. 1111, 1.3] to the Genesis Rabba parallel to our sugya [discussed below], cite early medieval authorities who apparently do not include B. Some of their references need revision in light of improved editions of the medieval worksGoogle Scholar; for example, ben Moses, R. Meshullam, Sefer ha-hashlamah in Ginzei rishonim, Berakhoi, ed. Moshe, Hershler (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 245, in contrast to Ratner, contains a version of B. Other recent critical editions confirm their citationsGoogle Scholar; e.g., Yalqut Shime'oni, based upon the Oxford MS, ed. Isaac Shiloni, 2 vols. to date (Jerusalem, 1973-), 2: 783, to Gen. 42, #247, lacks B. While we remain unsure whether or not the y. text used by each author contained the clause, some explicitly state that different readings exist. Perhaps one of the variants consisted of the use of single or plural forms of the pronoun ('oto or 'otan ) and object, senif, “adjunct” (senif or senifln ). See Isaac, Judah ben, Sir Leon, Tosefot…'at Masekhet Berakhot, ed. Nisan, Sachs, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1969–1972), 2: 533–34, and R. Asher ben Jefciel [=Rosh], to Ber. Chap. 7, #20, in Vilna edition of Babylonian Talmud, against which I checked the first edition (Venice, 1520), and cf. Tosefot R. Judah Sir Leon, 2: 524, n. 452. The difference might imply whether or not the vav, “and, ” is disjunctive, conjunctive, or explicative. See below nn. 9 and 11 and the text thereto.Google Scholar

6. So = L, V, S, and others: 'admatai ‘osin ‘oto senif = YFG, p. 293. Some early medieval authorities including R. Meshullam, p. 245, lack this line. See below nn. 19 and 27 and the texts thereto.

7. So = L, V, S, YFG and Moses of Vienne, Isaac ben, 'Or zaru'a (Zhitomer, 1862; reprint ed., Brooklyn, n.d.) #197, 1: 30d (who supposedly cites R. Judah Sir Leon)Google Scholar; kedei she-yihyeh … = Nabmanides, Rabad in, Novellae (Jerusalem, 1928) to b. Ber. 48a; keshe-yeda’ - Sefer ha-hashlamah; kedei she-yeda’ = Tosefot R. Judah Sir Leon.Google Scholar

8. So = L, S, and Rabad cited in Naljmanides, Novellae; keshe-yeda' = Sefer hahashlamah; kedei she-yeh … = YFG, V MS, and OZ; kedei she-yeda’ =Tosefol R. Judah Sir Leon.

9. See Azikri, Eleazar, Sefer haredim, in Vilna edition of PTGoogle Scholar; Benvenisti, Joshua, Sedeh Yehoshua vol. 1: Zera'im (Constantinople, 1662), reprinted in YerwhalmiZera'im (Jerusalem, 1972)Google Scholar; and Tosefot R. Judah Sir Leon to b. 47b–48a. See Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba 3:1112, notes.

10. At one point in the sugya an anonymous authority compares the cases of “ten” and “three” and employs the term “adjunct” for both. The former usage has generated the latter formulation.

11. See Frankel, Zacharias, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi (Breslau, 1870; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1967), p. 95aGoogle Scholar; Hyman, Aaron, Toledo! Tanna'im ve-'Amora'im 3 vols. (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1964), 2: 616–17Google Scholar; Higger, Michael, Osar ha-baraitot 10 vols. (New York, 1938–1948), 4: 418–19Google Scholar; Margalioth, Mordechai, Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature (Tel Aviv, n.d.), pp. 476–77Google Scholar; and Albeck, Chanoch, Introduction to the Talmud. Bavli and Yerushalmi (Tel Aviv, 1969), p. 332.Google Scholar See Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, p. 27, n. 56, and the references there to Epstein, Kutscher, and especially Lieberman. [The page reference to Kutscher should be to p. 1602 and not 1595.] See also TK, 5: 1273.

12. See, e.g., Sirillo, Tosef. R. Judah Sir Leon, and Benvenisti.

13. Cf. Albeck, Introduction p. 524. On Huna and Yehudah, see Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 216–17. That Huna = Huna, see Frankel, Mevo, p. 73a, and E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, Translated and Annotated with Additional Notes by Michael Sokoloff [Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture] (Ramat-Gan, 1976), pp. 67–96, 103–5, especially p. 70. On Avina, see Frankel, Mevo, p. 61b; Hyman, 1: 97–98; Margalioth, p. 41; and Albeck, Introduction, pp. 274–75.

14. See the usage of tiv elsewhere; Kasovsky, C. Y., Thesaurus Mishnae 4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1957–1960), 2: 766, e.g., M. Ket. 1:8 and B.M. 1:8Google Scholar; Kasovsky, C. Y., Thesaurus Thosephthae 6 vols. (Jerusalem, 1932–1961), 3:350, e.g., T. Sot 4:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 173, 1. 146Google Scholar; and Kasovsky, C. Y., Thesaurus Talmudis 39 vols. to date (Jerusalem, 1954), 15: 85–86, and especially note the instances in b. B.B. 155b and A.Z. 57a—b [for which see DS, 120: 6] both preceded by the verb yd, “to know, ” and used to define a “minor” in terms of certain matters: business— knowledge of the practices of business; idolatry—knowledge of the practices of idolatry.Google ScholarSee also Frankel, , 'Ahavat Siyyon ad loc, and cf. Benvenisti, Elijah Ben Loeb Fulda, Talmud Yerushalmi [=Zera'im and Sheq.] (Amsterdam, 1710; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1971), and Albeck in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1113–14, note to 1. 4.Google Scholar

15. See below nn. 32 and 45–50 and the texts thereto. See Lieberman, Saul, Siphre Zutta (New York, 1968), pp. 15–16, TK, 1:84.Google ScholarCf. Ishbili, Yom Tov, Wddushei ha-RHba, Masekhet Sukkah ed. Eliyahu Lichtenstein (Jerusalem, 1975) to b. Suk. 29a = cols. 260–61.Google Scholar

16. Naturally if B is not original to the text, we would have an additional factor precluding it as Samuel's referent. See above, n. 6.

17. If D concerns “Grace, ” that would accord with the use of the word senif, “adjunct, ” which in our context is used to refer to the expanded Summons to Grace, when ten people are present. See n. 8 and the text thereto. Among the several reasons which preclude the view that Samuel refers to A one may include the observation that only Palestinians are associated with the term senif, “adjunct.” The fact that A—B immediately precedes C—D does not pose a problem. In y., traditions often do not refer to their immediately preceding pericopes. See Bokser, ANRW, “Guide, ” chap. 9, B. and the literature cited there. Accordingly, there is the possibility that the formulation, if not the teaching, of the baraita is amoraic. On amoraic baraitot, see Benjamin De-Vries, “Baraita, “ EJ, 4: 189–93; Goodblatt, ANRW, chap. 4.1a; and Bokser, ANRW, “Guide, ” chap. 8, D.3, and the literature cited there, especially Lieberman, Higger, Epstein, Goodblatt (1975), and Moreshet. On our passage see further below, n. 33 and the text thereto.

18. See , Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 107, 116Google Scholar and also Weiss, AbrahamStudies in the Literature of the Amoraim (New York, 1962), pp. 33—34, especially Studies in the Talmud (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 236—37, and David Weiss Halivni, Sources and Traditions, vol. 2: Seder Moed From Yoma to Hagiga (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. i—xii.Google Scholar

19. Meshullam, R. in Sefer ha-hashlamah and Abraham ben David, in Temim de'im (Warsaw, 1897), #1, p. la. Nahmanides in his Milhamot ha-shem on Isaac Alfasi, Hilkhot lacks B and C, though in Novellae to b. Ber. 40a presents C—and interestingly enough as part of a citation of Abraham ben David.Google Scholar

20. Sirillo comments on Mishnah as part of his commentary on y.For , Maimonides, see Mishnah'im perush Rabbenu Mosheh ben Maimon ed. and trans. Yosef Qafih, 7 vols. (Jerusalem, 1963–1968), 1: 82, and cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Berakhot 5:7.Google Scholar

21. As to recensions of y., and the bibliography thereto, see nn. 54—57. Albeck in his notes to the passage, 3: 1111–12, 1. 3, and 1112–13, 1. 3 [especially top of p. 1113], specifically relates several of the differences to differences in recensions.

22. Our discussion is based upon Midrash Bereschit Rabba, Codex Vatican 60. A page index by A. P. Sherry (Jerusalem, 1972). Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1111–1118, prints the London MS and records variants from other MSS [but not Vatican 60] and early printed editions. Vatican 30, generally today considered the best MS of Gen. R. includes only the opening and clos- ing phrases of the sugya and notes that the section in extension is in y. Ber. See , Albeck's notes, ad loc, and his “Introduction, ” Einleitung und Register zum Bereschit Rabba (Berlin, 1931–1936), printed with Theodor and Albeck, Bereschit Rabba. 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1965), vol. 3, Introduction, pp. 107–8Google Scholar; Rosenthal, E. S., “Leshonot soferim, ” in Yuval Shay. (A Jubilee Volume dedicated to S. Y. Agnon]. ed. Baruch, Kurzweil (Ramat Gan, 1958), pp. 293–324, especially 312–13. As the sugya in a recension different from PT appears in Vat. MS 60 and substantively in the remaining MSS other than Vat. 30, the section represents not merely a late addition to the text.Google Scholar See below. On Vatican MS 30, available in photographic reprint, Midrash Bereshit Rabba MS. Vat. Ebr. 30. With an Introduction and Index by Michael Sokoloff (Jerusalem, 1971), see Sokoloff's “Introduction, ” and his references to other literature, especially his articles in Leshonenu 33 (1969): 25–42, 135–49, 270–79, and Kutscher, Studies; and Lewis M. Barth, An Analysis of Vatican 30 (Cincinnati, 1973), and the literature cited there. Vat. MS 60 is considered an important early witness to the text of Gen. R., inferior to Vat. 30 but superior to the London and other MSS. See Kutscher, Studies, pp. 12–13, n. 6; Barth, pp. 83–84; and Sokoloff, Michael, “The Geniza Fragments of Genesis Rabba and Ms. Vat. Ebr. 60 of Genesis Rabba, ” Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University, 1971Google Scholar; rev. ed. (in press) [not seen]. The printed editions, based upon Venice, 1545 edition, as well as the first edition, Constantinople, 1512, on the basis of the PT add C—D after Gen. R.'s version of A—B and “correct” Gen. R.'s actual citations or analogues of A—B, where they later appear in Gen. R. See the list of variants in Albeck, and “Introduction, ” pp. 113, 126, especially 128. A Yemenite MS which accords with the readings in the printed editions, does not represent a manuscript support for these readings, as the MS copies the Venice, 1545 edition. See Albeck, “Introduction, ” pp. 115–17, and 117, n. 2.

23. The variation in sequence may be highly significant. The arrangement of material in y. is a product and a reflection of its editing. The place of Samuel's comment, in Gen. R., at the end may accord with our observation elsewhere that in y., Babylonian traditions sometimes are appended at the end and thus do not make up an integral part of the y. sugya; Samuel's Commentary pp. 77—80, esp. 79—80 and n. 216. The Palestinian circles who placed C before Samuel's tradition and placed both, C—D, in the midst of the sugya, apparently see the issues through what may be called a Palestinian perspective: “A minor cannot serve as an adjunct to three.” See Saul Lieberman, Talmud ofCaesarea [Supplement to Tarbiz 2] (Jerusalem, 1931), pp. 20–25, especially 22—23, from whom I quote: “That arranger [of y.] chose and deleted whatever did not fit the approaches of the yeshivot of the land of Israel; he is the one who deleted the Babylonian approaches to the explanation of Mishnah…. And the arranger partially changed verthe language of R. Yermiah [ in a pericope Lieberman immediately above reviewed] in accord with the approach of the Land of Israel.” See also Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 152, n. 467, 156, nn. 475–476, and ANRW, chap. 12. On the presence in our context of a “Palestinian approach” see nn. 39 and 52 and the texts thereto; the fragment of the “Ma'asim li-venei ‘Eres Yisra'el, ” published in Mordechai Margalioth, Hilkhot ‘Eres Yisra'el min ha-genizah (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 44, 11. 13—15, and in Z. M. Rabinowitz, “Sepher Ha-Ma'asim Livnei Erez Yisra'el—New Fragments, ” Tarbiz 41 (1972): 275–305, 285, especially Rabinowitz's footnote, pp. 285–86; and Goldberg, cited in n. 39 below. As to implications of this suggestion, see below.

24. See Sacks, Diqduqei, p. 32, n. 2; Albeck, Bereschit Rabba. 3:1112, n. 2; Epstein, IAL, p. 364, n. 7, and Rabinowitz, “New Fragments, ” p. 286.

25. See Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3:1112–13, n. 3; see also Sacks, Diqduqei, p. 32, n. 4, and Epstein, IAL, p. 364, n. 10.

26. Gen. R. #91 [Theodor and Albeck, 3:1113–14], according to Vatican Codex 60, p. 332:

27. So Vat. 60. Relying on Albeck's list of variants: ve-'ad kammah yehe qore = London MS; ve-'ad ‘eimatai [or: matai] yehe qore = correction in London MS and Yalqut Shime'oni [for the latter Albeck relied on the early editions, the readings of which are confirmed by the Oxford MS, in Yalqut Shime'oni (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 783]. The latter mistaken reading probably was generated by an incorrect filling out of an abbreviation q'. For example, the q' in a reading such as ve-'ad kammah [or 'eikhan] yihyeh q' was taken as qore, “to read” in place of qafan, a “minor.” The author of this mistake may have been motivated by an interpretation in y. that Samuel's comment relates to a minor who is called up to the reading of theTorah Scroll. See the above discussion on the meaning of B of PT, and Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1113, 1. 4, for an example how one may mistakenly justify the reading qore and for his citation of an interpretative gloss from the London MS's margin. Some later MSS conflate both “readings”: ve-'ad kammah qatan [or yehe qatan] qore. The printed editions have been “corrected” on the basis of the PT: u-me-'eimatai hu qore ba-torah. See above, n. 22. Note the reading in Zedekiah b. Abraham Anav, Shibbolei ha-leqel ha-shalem, ed. Solomon Buber (Vilna, 1886); reprint ed. with notes by Yerubam Liner (New York, 1959), #153, p. 60 [= p. 119], 'ad kammah yihyeh niqra qafan “Until when is he called a ‘minor'?” The latter's sequence and wording of the whole sugya indicate that it cites Gen. R. and not PT.

28. So Vat. 60 in addition to two readings which Albeck cites. London and others contain variations thereof, all with 'ad she- with the exception of the printed editions and Yemenite MS which were “corrected” to accord with the PT: mi-shehu yode'a. See n. 22.

29. So Vat. 60. London and other witnesses have variations thereof, all with 'adshe-. Again printed editions and Yemenite MS are corrected to accord with PT, (she-yode'a) le-mi mevarekhin. See n. 22.

30. In this regard, we do not consider the readings in the printed editions and Yemenite MS. See nn. 22, 28, 29.

31. The argument in the text holds unless one understands;iv in a different way. See Maimonides to M. Ber. 7:2 and Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1114, notes. The usage elsewhere of fiv, however, supports our comments. See above, n. 14, and the text thereto. Moreover, as we shall see, D.2, accords with a tradition in b. attributed to Nahman, a master who had access to Samuel traditions. It requires a minor “to know to whom they bless” before he can be counted, yode'a le-mi mevarekhim. See below nn. 35—38, and the text thereto. Of course, the b. tradition may have generated the “correction” of y. If so, the version in Gen. R. would constitute the original reading. See below, the analysis of Tos. Ber. 5:18 which relates to M. Ber. 7:2.

32. See nn. 17 and 33.

33. See TK, 1:84, and n. 38.

34. See Isaac Ashkenazi, Samuel Jaffe b., “Yefeh to'ar, ” digested in Mid rash Rabba (Vilna, 1878; reprinted. Jerusalem, 1961), loc. cit., and Maimonides’ and Sirillo's comments to M. Ber. 7:2. We note, it is not unprecedented for a tradition to be formulated in terms of “Until #“ See b. Yev. 107b, a tradition of Samuel's opens with 'ad she-, “Until”; and in a purported citation of y., which Lieberman argues is a Gaonic gloss, TK, 5:1273—74, “ ‘A minor, qafan, does not# ‘ Until when, 'ad ‘eimatai, #”Google Scholar

35.

36. In addition to Rashi, and Tosf. ad loc, see Lewin, B. M, ed. Otzar ha-Gaonim 13 vols. (Haifa and Jerusalem, 1928–1943), vol. 1: Tractate Berakhoth, “Commentaries, ” pp. 82–83Google Scholar; Isaac Alfasi, Hilkhot; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Hilkhot Berakhot, ” 5:7; Nahmanides, Novellae to b. 48a; especially Elder, Isaiah the, The Rulings of, Pisqei ha-Rid 7 vols. to date (Jerusalem 1964), vol. 1: Berakhot; and Lieberman, TK. 1:84–86.Google ScholarSee Berlin, Meyer, Zevin, Shlomo Jose, and Jehoshua Hutner, Talmudic Encyclopedia 15 vols. to date (Jerusulem, 1947–), s.v. “Zimmun, ” 12: 284—90, especially 286, for a survey of authorities who discuss the sugya and Nabman's comment, and especially Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne, Sefer ha-'eshkol, ed. Shalom and Chanoch Albeck, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1935–38), 1: 41, n. 3.Google Scholar

37. See Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, p. 218 and nn. 3—5.

38. On the association of the comments of Samuel and Nahman and M. Ber. 7:2, see R. Meshullam, pp. 244—45; R. David b. Levi of Narbonne, Sefer ha-mikhtam, in Ginzei rishonim, pp. 91–92; Pisqei ha-Rid, cols. 140—42; Dinkels, 'Emunat Yosef in his edition of Sirillo, to y. Ber. 7:2, s.v. “nashim va-'avadim, ” Sachs notes to R. Judah Sir Leon, 2: 517, n. 398; and see Nahmanides, Novellae, and Shibbolei ha–leqet, #153, p. 118.

39. The possibility that the sources reflect Babylonian and Palestinian perspectives may correlate with the place of a story in the b. and y. sugyot. BT to conclude the sugya presents after Nahman's comment a story about Rabbah, Abaye, and Rava bar R. Hanan. [On the last name see DS, 253: 6, to which add Babylonian Talmud, Codex Florence, Florence National Library II I 7–9, Introduction by David Rosenthal, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1972), 1: 99; and Azulai, Yosef David, Seferpetafi'einayim 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1959), 1: 35, col. b.] That story employs the language of Nahman's tradition and apparently attests its point.Google ScholarSee commentaries, ad loc, e.g., Shelomoh ha-Meiri, Menahem, Beit ha-behirah, Berakhot ed. Shmuel, Daikman (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 180.Google Scholar As mentioned above, PT ends with a story which conveys the point that we count only a “minor” with two hairs, i.e., who has reached physical maturity. Thus b. and y. each ends with a story which reflects its perspective. This agrees with the general observation that gemara's choice and formulation of stories forms part Of its arrangement and is shaped by redactional considerations. See nn. 54 and 23, to which add Abraham Goldberg, “R. Ze'ira and the Babylonian Custom in the Land of Israel, ” Tarbiz 36 (1967): 319–41, especially pp. 327–30. See also below, the reference to TK, 5:1275, 11. 18–19; and my forthcoming article, “Redactional Criticism of Rabbinic Literature: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa.” On b. Ber. 47b—48a, in addition to the aforementioned works, especially Nahmanides, Pisqei ha-Rid, and TK. see also Joel Halevi, Eliezer b., Sepher Rabiah ed. Viktor, Aptowitzer, 4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1965), 1: 112–15, #128, and note, p. 490Google Scholar; Jonah Gerondi, Novellae to Alfasi; Joseph, Aaron b. HaLevi of Barcelona, Perush ha-Ra'h in Rabbenu Yehonatan ha-Kohen ve-ha-Ra'h ‘al Masekhet Berakhot, ed. M. Y. Blau (New York, 1957), p. 151Google Scholar; and Aaron b. Jacob b. David ha-Kohen, 'Orhot hayyim, [Part One] (Jerusalem, 1956), “Birkhat ha-mazon, ” #39—43, pp. 76—77; and Abraham Baer Dobsevage, Sefer ha-mefaref (Odessa, 1871; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 16–17. See also DS, 251:100–253:8; especially the readings in Florence MS; Albeck, Chanoch, Studies in the Baraita and Tosefta (Jerusalem, 1944), pp. 96–97, and Introduction, pp. 524, and 565, n. 27.Google Scholar If Albeck, in Sefer ha-'eshkol, 1: 41, n. 3, is correct, one of the Gaonim added the clause introducing and supporting Nahman's comment.

40. See above, n. 2.

41.

42.

43.

44. For further analysis of this tradition, see Baruch M. Bokser, Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah, Part Two (Leiden, in press). We note that Samuel's comment does not reflect an exceptional interest in “youth.” See b. Nid. 52b, where Samuel takes a lenient position in the very definition of “two hairs, ” the signs of “physical maturity”; b. Shab. 137b, to which see TK. 3:252 and the alternative version of the pericope in a fragment of the She'iltot, J. N. Epstein, “Sheiltot Fragments. B, ” Tarbiz 7 (1938): 15, 11. 12–14; b. M.Q. 14b; and b. San. 54b.

45. The reference often forms part of a list of “women, minors, and slaves, ” as in M. Ber. 7:2. See Kasovsky, Thesaurus Mishnae, 4: 1574a—b.

46. See the use of this criterion in T. ‘Eruv. 6:12, p. 121, 11. 38–41; and TK, 3:425, and 5:1268—69. See also the references to a minor in M. Ter. 1:1, which is limited by M. Ter. 1:3 and T. Ter. 1:4, pp. 107–8, 11. 12–14 [to which see TK, 1:295]; M. Sheq. 1:3, to which see y. Sheq. 1:3, 46a; M. Suk. 3:5, where a definition is incorporated into the reference to a minor [to which see y. Suk. 3:15, 54a, TK, 5:1273, and the formulation in T. Hag. 1:2, presented below, text to n. 47]; M. Meg. 4:6 and y. Meg. 4:6, 75b; M. Hag. 1:1; M. Ket. 1:3, defined by T. Ret. 1:2, pp. 56—57, 11. 10—12, which contains the question: What is a minor (female) and what is a minor (male): A minor (male)—less than nine years and one day; a minor (female)—less than thirteen years and one day; M. Gi{. 6:2–3 and T. Git. 4:2, pp. 260–61, 11. 13–15; M. Hul. 1:1, where the “minor” is defined and limited later within M. Hul. 1:1 as well as in T. Hul. 1:3, p. 500, 1. 23–24. See also M. Nid. 5:3–9.

47.

48. Additional toseftan examples include: T. Ber. 2:13, p. 9, 11. 51—55; T. ‘Eruv. 6:12, p. 121, 11. 39–41; T. Ket. 3:8, p. 65, 11. 36–39; T. Zev. 11:6, p. 496, 11. 3–5 [to which seeT. Hag. 1:3]; T. ‘Oholot 18:6, 8, p. 616, 11. 17, 35–36; and T. Nid. 5:4, p. 645, 11. 28–31; and the above cited examples which define M. Ter. 1:1 (T. Ter. 1:4); M. Ket. 1:3 (T. Ket. 1:2); M. Git. 6:2–3 (T. Git.4:2); and M. Hul. 1:1 (T. Hul. 1:3). See also T. Nazir 3:17. Moreover, we have the example of T. Ber. 5:13, which deals with M. Ber. 7:2 and upon which we focus below, text to nn. 49–52. See also Dt, Sifre. #46, ed. Louis Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy (reprint ed., New York, 1969), p. 104Google Scholar; , Mekhilta, Pisha, Bo, #3, ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin, Mechilta D Rabbi Ismael (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960), p. 12, 11. 5–6Google Scholar; de-Rashbi, Mekhilta, Bo, to Ex. 12:4, ed. Eptstein, J. N. and E. Z. Melamed, Mekhilta D'Rabbi Simon b. Jochai (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 10, 11. 16–19Google Scholar; and Zuta, Sifre, Shelab, , ed. H. S. Horovitz, Siphre D'Be Rab 1. Siphre ad Numeron adjecto Siphre Zutta (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1966), p. 288, 1. 20 to p. 289, 1. 1 [which like T. Hag. 1:23, has a cluster of references with the pattern, “Whoever knows how to …, is liable as to…, ” Kol she-yode'a le- hayyav le- and “Whoever knows how to… is responsible…, ” Kol she-hu yode'a le-…‘alav]. See Lieberman, Siphre Zutta, pp. 15—16. I do not include a full list of amoraic instances of definitions of a “minor.” See, e.g., above n. 46, and b. ‘Eruv. 82a [to which see DS. 323:5] and b. Suk. 28b [to which see DS, 84:2].Google Scholar

49. [ Erfurt MS and p.e. = See The Tosefta, 1:29, Brief Commentary, 1. 38; TK, 1:85–86, and Lieberman's reference to Sirkis, and below n. 51.

50. See The Tosefta, 1:29, Brief Commentary; TK. 1:85 to which cf. Albeck, Studies, p. 96. See also Yom Tob Ishbili, in Ginzei rishonim, p. 502, and Moses Margalioth, Mareh hapanim in editions of y., to y. Ber. 7:3.

51. See TK, 1:84, 1. 36, where Lieberman suggests that the definition in clause 1 deals with the youth's “knowledge.” Lieberman further explains that clause 2 is a general principle. If so, it applies also to the Summons to Grace.

52. We may be able to correlate two readings of the toseftan baraita with the two basic positions as to a “minor.” First, if we assume that clause two of Tosefta refers to “two hairs, ” which Lieberman suggests and which my text follows, Tosefta supplies a general rule: “They are not exacting as to a minor's two hairs.” This does not contradict Samuel's tradition. Clause 3 deals with the proper formula, the issue which Samuel addressed. It too is not necessarily inconsistent with Samuel. While it rules that the exact formula is not critical, it does not preclude one from having a preference. Second, the above reading of Tosefta, on the other hand, does contradict the y. notion that physical maturity determines and not the requisitive knowledge. But the latter position accords with a second reading of the baraita. Some texts of y. Ber. 7:3, which cites clauses 2—3, have in clause 2, “exacting as to the matter, ” ba-davar, instead of be-qatan, “as to a minor.” As this reading is not supported by all the witnesses of y. [not in V MS, YFG], and poses other difficulties, Lieberman has argued that it is the result of a textual or scribal mistake. See TK, 1:85. But if the L and S MSS which do have ba-davar, “in the matter, ” reflect an actual literary tradition, the situation would be different. We would then read clauses 2—3 as, “They are not exacting as to the matter, whether a person says, ‘Let us bless, ’ or ‘Bless.'” This rendering more strongly states that the blessing formula is neither determinative nor significant. In addition, no longer does Tosefta preclude checking for “two hairs” or other signs of physical maturity. Both of these points are important to those masters, Palestinians, who hold that a youth remains a minor until he reaches physical maturity or hold that exceptions to Mishnah's exclusion of a minor applied not to the summons of three but of ten. In the latter case alone does the youth become an adjunct. Naturally while this position accords with the “Palestinian” one, it is inconsistent with Samuel's. If we assume Babylonians and Palestinians knew the baraita, people with different interpretations of Mishnah or autonomous positions could interpret Tosefta's baraita in different ways and each could find support in it. Our argument above may correlate with the beginning of y. Ber. 7:2 which cites clause 2, alone, contains the reading be-qalan, “a minor, ” and reinterprets the text. Moreover, it may obviate a difficulty in b. 47b—48a. Gemara cites a tradition attributed to Yofoanan which offers a criterion of physical maturity, qafan poreah- BT then as a support, tanei nammei hakhei, cites a version of T. 5:18, clauses 1—2. While clauses 2 in both are the same, the criteria in clauses 1 differ. BT's version requires that the youth have two hairs. BT follows with a question which focuses on the contradiction between the two clauses. The resolution somehow supports Yohanan's comment. Commentators differ in their analysis of the pericope and its terms. If Yobanan's baraita had ba-davar and not be-qaian, the two clauses would not contradict each other, and then clause 1 by itself could supply the support. Cf. Albeck, Studies, pp. 96—97. This analysis assumes that b. contains the version of the baraita inappropriate to Yobanan. This mistake may have been produced as part of the adaption of Yobanan's tradition to Babylonian transmissional and redactional consideration. Alternatively, if the sugya was completed with only a reference to the baraita, those who supplied the full text may have included the inappropriate version. Either way, it is the present inappropriate text which causes the exegetical problems. See Lieberman, TK, 1:84, 1. 36. As to the presence of different version of baraitot, their effect on amoraic interpretations, and mistakes in their citations, see Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 101—2, n. 280, and “Guide, ” ANRW, 8. D. Saul Lieberman in particular has demonstrated this phenomenon in y., e.g., Hayerushalmi kiphshuto, 1 vol. to date (Jerusalem, 1934), pp. 121, 157, and David Weiss Halivni repeatedly for b., Sources and Traditions, 2 vols. to date (Jerusalem, 1968). Our argument here accords with the existence of different Palestinian and Babylonian perspectives as to “Summons to Grace.” See nn. 23 and 39 and the text thereto.

53. See n. 20 and Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, for examples of such a formulation.

54. When we need to differentiate between possible recensions of Yerushalmi and the text as preserved in printed editions and MSS we distinctively employ two different abbreviations. “Y” [= Yerushalmi] refers to the former and “PT” [= Palestinian Talmud] to the latter. Otherwise we use the abbreviations interchangeably. In general, see Bokser, “Guide, ” ANRW, chap. 12, especially 12. I.e., and 3; 4, D.4; and 10. A. and D. 1. In particular, I refer to the following works: Israel Lewy, Introduction and Commentary to Talmud Yerushalmi B.Q. 1—6 [from Jahresbericht des judisch-theologischen Seminars Fraenckel'scher Stiftung, 1895—1914] (Jerusalem, 1970); Lieberman, Saul, Talmud of Caesarea [Sup. to Tarbiz 2] (Jerusalem, 1931), Siphre Zutta (New York, 1968), especially pp. 125–36, and “A Few Words by Julian the Architect of Ascalon, The Laws of Palestine and its Customs, ” Tarbiz 40 (1971) 409–17Google Scholar; Epstein, IAL, pp. 279–87, and 287–90; and E. S. Rosenthal, “Concerning the New MS to PT Neziqin, ” Paper delivered at The Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel, August 8, 1977. This Spanish MS is Escorial G-I-3. See also Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3: Introduction: 66–84, and Barth, pp. 60—65, especially the literature cited in n. 68, to which add Baruch M. Bokser, “Two Traditions, ” pp. 48–52; and cf. E. Z. Melamed, An Introduction to Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 573–75, and Edward A. Goldman, “Parallel Texts in the Palestinian Talmud to Genesis Rabba” (Rabbinic diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1969), on which see the text to nn. 65–66 below. [I thank Prof. Goldman and the HUC Library for providing me with a microfilm of the last item.]

55. See nn. 21–54 and the text thereto.

56. Lieberman, Caesarea, pp. 20–25, especially 22–23, and the quotation cited in n. 24, above

57. Ibid. See also Bokser, “Two Traditions.”

58. See the references to Albeck and Rosenthal in n. 22, to which add Epstein, IAL, pp. 324–30; Barth, pp. 11–12, 19, 21, 53–54; and Bokser, “Guide, ” ANRW, 7. 2b, and 9.A.

59. Lieberman, Saul, On the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem, 1929), pp. 12—13Google Scholar; “Emendations in Jerushalmi, F.b, ” Tarbiz 5 (1933): 107–10; and Hilkhoth Ha-Yerushalmi (The Laws of the Palestinian Talmud) of Rabbi Moses ben Maitnon [Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 13] (New York, 1947), “Introduction, ” p. 15, n. 128.

60. Epstein, IAL, pp. 324–30. See Melamed, pp. 578–79.

61. Rosenthal.

62. Moshe Assis, “Parallel Sugyot in the Jerusalem Talmud” (Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University, 1976), passim, especially pp. 5—13.

63. R. Simon be-shem R. Yehoshu'a ben Levi R. Yose bar Sha'ul be-shem R. tinoq ve- [word left incomplete at the end of a line] 'osin ‘oto senif la-asarah kol di-verakhot shenayim befal ve-'ehadyereq mezammenin man tenateh Rabban Sime'on ben Gamli'el, in the Sokoloff (Jerusalem, 1971) reprint, p. 166b. See Rosenthal, especially p. 312.

64. See n. 22.

65. There is also the possibility that the notations in Vatican 30 come from those who relied on a text of y. which originated in the earlier period, and which predates the text of y. then current and which is preserved in PT. The text analyzed in “Two Traditions” provides an analogue to our findings. There we demonstrated that Gen. R. preserves an earlier stage of a pericope than in y. Ber. 8:3, 12b. Samuel's tradition is inappropriately made dependent upon the preceding pericope with the introductory word, “therefore, ” leflkhakh. An examination of the MSS there yields additional information. In two locations in Gen. R. where Samuel's pericope appears, Vatican MS 30 lacks the text but other readings, including Vatican MS 60 have the “earlier recension.” In Gen. R. #11, p. 90, Vatican MS 30 lacks the section along with the surrounding portion of Gen. R. (sections 7–16). Vatican MS 60 [Makor ed., p. 33] and other readings, however, contain the appropriate language to introduce Samuel's comment, 'atya Ice-, “it accords with….” In Gen. R. #82, p. 996, Vatican MS 30 [Makor ed., p. 147] deletes (or, following Rosenthal, abbreviates a reference to a parallel) with a vra notation. Again Vatican MS 60 [Makor ed., p. 307] and the texts and MSS cited by Albeck have the appropriate bridging language, 'atyeh ki-de-Shemuel. Vatican MS 60 thus preserves an early formulation, if not recension, of a tradition. Is it not more likely that Vatican MS 30 deleted the portion which Vatican MS 60 (and others) preserved than that Vatican MS 60 later “filled in” the reference first noted by the circle responsible for Vatican MS 30 See Samuel's Commentary, vol. 2.

66. Note that Vat. MS 60, though it represents a version later than the archetype of Bereschit Rabba, preserved in Vatican MS 30, may have been written a century before Vatican 30. See Barth, pp. 83–84, and Sokoloff, Geniza Fragments.

67. I thank Professors Joseph Dan of the Hebrew University, Jacob Milgrom of the University of California at Berkeley, Jacob Neusner of Brown University, and Gary G. Porton of the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana for their critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper.