1. Meir, Ofra, “Ha-sippur ha-talui—Ha-heksher ba-talmud,” Bikoret u-farshanut 20 (1984): 103–119Google Scholar; Meir, , “Sippurei ha-’aggadah be-heksherim sifrutiyim ke-tofa‘ah makbilah le-maẓavei higud mishtanim: Sippur he-ḥasid ve-ha-ruḥot be-vet ha-kvarot,” Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-folklor Yehudi 13–14 (1992): 81–97Google Scholar; Meir, , “Hashpa‛at ma‛ase ha-‛arikhah ‛al hashkafat ha-‛olam shel sippurei ha-’aggadah,” Tura 3 (1994): 67–84Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999), 8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 243–267; Rubenstein, , “Context and Genre: Elements of a Literary Approach to Rabbinic Narrative,” in How Should Late Rabbinic Literature be Read in the Modern World?, ed. Kraus, M. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 137–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubenstein, , Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 7–9Google Scholar, 216–217; Moshe Simon-Shoshan's review of Talmudic Stories, by Jeffrey Rubenstein, and Women and Womanhood in the Talmud, by Valler, Shulamit, AJS Review 26, no. 1 (2002): 129–131.Google Scholar

2. See for example Liebes, Yehuda, Ḥet'o shel ’Elisha: ’Arba‘ah she-nikhnesu le-pardes shel ha-mistikah (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1990), 27–28.Google Scholar

3. See Fraenkel, Yonah, “She'elot hermenutiot be-ḥeker sippur ha-’aggadah,” Tarbiz 47 (1978): 139–172Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , “Meḥkar sippur ha-’aggadah: Mabat le-‘atid lavo,” Mada‘ei ha-yahadut 30 (1990): 21–30Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , Sippur ha-’aggadah:’Aḥdut shel tokhen ve-ẓurah (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001), 32–50Google Scholar. Notwithstanding his forced methodological assertions, Fraenkel does occasionally address the relationship between halakhic and nonhalakhic materials, especially in the Mishnah.

4. For further criticism of Fraenkel see Hirshman, Marc, “‘Al ha-midrash ke-yiẓirah: Yoẓrav ve-ẓurotav,” Mada‘ei ha-yahadut 32 (1992): 83–90Google Scholar; Kalmin, Richard, “The Modern Study of Ancient Rabbinic Literature: Yonah Fraenkel's ‘Darkhei ha-’aggadah ve-ha-midrash' [1991],” Prooftexts 14, no. 2 (1994): 189–204Google Scholar; Levinson, Yehoshua, “Min ha-mashal la-hamẓa'ah: Ẓmiḥat ha-bidyon ke-kategoriah tarbutit,” Higayon l'Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut, in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, ed. Levinson, Yehoshua, Elbaum, Jacob, and Hasan-Rokem, Galit (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006), 28–32Google Scholar; Newman, Hillel, “Closing the Circle: Yonah Fraenkel, the Talmudic Story, and Rabbinic History,” How Should Late Rabbinic Literature be Read in the Modern World?, ed. Kraus, Matthew (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 105–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bakhos, Carol, “Method(ological) Matters in the Study of Midrash,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. Bakhos, Carol (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 179–184Google Scholar; Tropper, Amram, Ke-ḥomer be-yad ha-yoẓer: Ma‘asei ḥakhamim be-sifrut ḥazal (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2011), 14–22Google Scholar; Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 6–8Google Scholar.

5. The Mishnah and the Tosefta were formed in a gradual, multilayered process of collection and redaction of materials of differing natures into compilations containing materials of one or more genres—law statements, casuistic formulations, midrash on Scripture, rabbinic stories, parables—until the major works received their present forms. We have only partial knowledge about the nature of the process, and about how the editors in the various stages conceived the function and relative importance of the various genres. This study rests on the assumption that when any editor placed materials of varied character in proximity he was conscious of the fact that he was mixing genres, and of the possible implications for understanding the materials. See Fraenkel, Yonah, “Mekomah shel ha-halakhah be-sippurei ha-’aggadah,” Meḥkerei Talmud 1 (1990): 207–208Google Scholar, and the following note.

6. Indeed, in recent years quite a few studies have been devoted to various aspects of the relationship between stories and other halakhic materials, which are embedded together, especially in the Mishnah and the two Talmuds. See Fraenkel, Yonah, Midrash ve-’aggadah (Tel Aviv: The Open University in Israel, 1996), 694–760Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , “Ha-’aggadah she-ba-mishnah,” Meḥkerei Talmud 3 (2005): 655–683Google Scholar; Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, “Halakhic Mimesis: Rhetorical and Redactional Strategies in Tannaitic Narrative,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 101–123Google Scholar; Walfish, Avraham, “The Nature and Purpose of Mishnaic Narrative: Recent Seminal Contributions,” AJS Review 32 (2008): 263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moscovitz, Leib, “Le-darkhei shiluvan shel ha-’aggadot ba-yerushalmi—Birurim rishoniyim,” ’Asufot 11 (1995): 197–209Google Scholar; Segal, Eliezer, Case Citation in the Babylonian Talmud: The Evidence of Tractate Nezikin (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990)Google Scholar, 90; Hezser, Catherine, Form, Function and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Tubingen: Mohr, 1993), 262–266Google Scholar; Kahana, Menahem, “Gilui da‘at ve-’ones be-gittin: Le-ḥeker hishtalshelut ha-mesorot ha-muḥlafot be-‘arikhatan shel sugyot me'uḥarot,” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 230–231Google Scholar; Yonatan Feintuch, “Ma‘asei ḥakhamim ve-ha-sugiyot ha-mekhilot ’otam be-masekhet nezikin (ba-bavli)” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2008); Feintuch, , “Ben kohanim le-ḥakhamim—‘Al ’aggadah ’aḥat be-heksherah ha-raḥav be-bavli yoma,” Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-sifrut ‘ivrit 23 (2009): 1–14Google Scholar.

7. Sefer Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Binyamin M. Lewin (Haifa: G. Itzkovski, 1921), 34 [Nusaḥ Ẓarfati]: ולענין תוספתא ... בלא ספק בתר דאתרצן הלכות משנתנו אתרצה תוספתא. ומילי דתוספתא ברירן דבתר מתני׳ אינון ועליהון תניין (As for the Tosefta … there is no doubt that it was composed after the halakhot of the Mishnah were composed, and it is clear that the words of the Tosefta are later than the Mishnah and refer to it.) Similarly Maimonides in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah: “R. Ḥiyya composed the Tosefta in order to explain the Mishnah.”

8. See Frankel, Zacharias, Darkhei ha-mishnah (reprinted Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1959), 322–324Google Scholar; Albeck, Chanoch, Meḥkarim ba-baraita ve-tosefta ve-yaḥasan la-talmud (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1969), 139Google Scholar; Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tanna'im (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957), 243Google Scholar. Elsewhere in his writings one finds a different approach: See Friedman, Shamma, Tosefta ‘atikta—Pesaḥ rishon (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 17–32Google Scholar; Goldberg, Abraham, “Tosefta la-masekhet tamid,” in Benjamin De Vries Memorial Volume, ed. Melamed, Ezra Zion (Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University Research Authority, 1968), 18–42Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush la-mishnah masekhet shabbat (Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976), 21–24Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush la-mishnah masekhet ‘eruvin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 25–28Google Scholar; Goldberg, “The Tosefta—Companion to the Mishna,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Safrai, S., (Philadelphia and Assen 1987) 1: 283–292Google Scholar; Goldberg, Perush mivni ve-’analiti la-tosefta masekhet bava kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 8–11Google Scholar. R. David Pardo in Ḥasdei David, his commentary on the Tosefta, and Saul Lieberman in his commentary, Tosefta ki-feshutah, generally interpreted the Tosefta on this literary assumption.

9. This is not to say that the Tosefta will always support the Mishnah—it may contest it or complicate it, but it has no truly independent redactional integrity that can be analyzed on its own terms.

10. Epstein, Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tanna'im, 257; Hauptman, Judith, “Mishnah as a Response to ‘Tosefta’,” in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, ed. Cohen, Shaye J.D., (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 13–34Google Scholar; Hauptman, “Nashim be-masekhet pesaḥim,” in ‘Atarah le-Ḥayim—meḥkarim ba-sifrut ha-talmudit ve-ha-rabanit le-khevod Profesor Ḥayim Zalman Dimitrovski, ed. Boyarin, D. et al. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000): 63–78Google Scholar; Hauptman, “Does the Tosefta Precede the Mishnah: Halakhah, Aggada, and Narrative Coherence,” Judaism 50 (2001): 224–240Google Scholar; Hauptman, “The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah,” JSIJ 4 (2005): 109–132Google Scholar; Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 1–30Google Scholar; Walfish, Avraham, “Approaching the Text and Approaching God: The Redaction of Mishnah and Tosefta Berakhot,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005–2006): 21–79Google Scholar. See also De Vries, Benjamin, “Le-ẓuratan ha-mekorit shel halakhot ’aḥadot,” Tarbiz 24 (1955): 395–398Google Scholar. These studies address signs of independent editorial activity in the Tosefta, which is our interest here. On the question of the relation between specific halakhic statements in the Mishnah and Tosefta, and the option that the Tosefta preserves material that predates parallel material in the Mishnah, perhaps even the raw materials of the parallel Mishnah see the discussion near the conclusion.

11. This is not to say that the Mishnah is not an important comparison text—it certainly is; it is simply to say that the Tosefta has some degree of redactional integrity that can be analyzed on its own terms.

12. Fraenkel, Midrash ve-’aggadah, 709–714; Avraham Walfish, “’Iḥud ha-halakhah ve-ha-’aggadah: ‘Iyyun be-darkhei ‛arikhatah shel ha-tosefta,” in Higayon L'Yona, 309–331.

13. Rabbinic stories, as noted lately by Simon-Shoshan and Wimpfheimer, cannot easily be categorized using the classic definitions that distinguish between halakhah and aggadah. These stories present sages who are considered to be knowledgeable in the law operating in situations in which their actions are motivated, inter alia, by halakhic considerations, even though these may not be made explicit in the story. The actions of the sages, being essential to the plots of the stories, serve as precedents for proper halakhic behavior, and thus convey halakhic information, as do apodictic and casuistic law statements. However, sometimes rabbinic stories contain narrative elements that have no halakhic significance, but rather focus on human and moral issues, as do stories of the aggadah. Rabbinic stories, then, fall between halakhah and aggadah, sometimes more similar to the one genre, sometimes to the other. A proper understanding requires both attention to the halakhic issues and the literary analysis that is customary in the study of each of the two genres. See Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law, 3–8; Wimpfheimer, Barry, Narrating the Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wimpfheimer, “‘But It Is Not So’: Toward a Poetics of Halakhic Narrative in the Talmud,” Prooftexts 24 (2004): 51–86Google Scholar; Wimpfheimer, “Talmudic Halakhic Narrative: Broadening the Discourse of Jewish Law,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 157–196Google Scholar; Yonah Fraenkel, “Mekomah shel ha-halakhah,” 205–215; Fraenkel, Sippur ha-’aggadah, 220–235; Segal, Case Citation, 90–156; Feintuch, Ma‘asei ḥakhamim, 269–271. See also Lifshitz, Berachyahu, “’Aggadah u-mekomah be-toldot Torah she-be‘al-peh,” Shenaton ha-mishpat ha-‘ivri 22 (2001–2003): 233–328Google Scholar; Lifshitz, “Aggadah and Its Role in the History of the Oral Law,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 11–28Google Scholar; Lorberbaum, Yair, Be-ẓelem'elohim: Halakhah ve-’aggadah (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2004), 105–126Google Scholar; Lorberbaum, “Reflections on the Halakhic Status of Aggadah,” Dine Israel 24 (2007): 29–64Google Scholar.

14. The Hebrew texts of this and other sources quoted, with translation and discussion of relevant manuscript variants, are presented in the appendix below.

15. Cf. a similar reading of the story in Benovitz, Moshe, Talmud ha-’iggud berakhot perek rishon, ed. Friedman, Shamma (Jerusalem: The Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud, 2006), 402–403Google Scholar. Benovitz emphasizes that in his opinion the story does not reflect halakhic disputes, but rather presents R. Yehudah's surprise at his masters’ failure to recite the Shema at the first possible opportunity. The motif of extraordinary care in the performance of mitzvot is found in other stories as well (perhaps more in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el sources than in Babylonian). See, e.g., Moscovitz, Leib, “‘The Holy One Blessed Be He... Does Not Permit the Righteous to Stumble’: Reflections on the Development of a Remarkable BT Theologoumenon,” in Creation and Composition, ed. Rubenstein, Jeffrey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 163–164Google Scholar; Jacobs, Louis, “The Story of R. Phinehas ben Yair and His Donkey in B. Hullin 7a–b,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, ed. Davies, Philip and White, Richard (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 193–205Google Scholar; Hezser, Form, Function, 264; Feintuch, “Ma‘asei ḥakhamim,” 264–268.

16. This is especially so if שניתי (shaniti) is taken to mean “recited a second time,” in order to bring to the attention of the masters that the time for recitation arrived. See further discussion of the term in the appendix below.

17. Cf. Segal, Case Citation, 177–189.

18. Like the Mishnah, at the beginning of tractate Berakhot the Tosefta deals with the times of recitation of Shema in the morning and evening, the dispute of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai on posture during recitation, the blessings of the Shema and their texts, and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the evening prayer.

19. See Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a) where the time stated in the Tosefta is identified with the first of the times stated in the Mishnah. See also R. Moshe Margaliot, Pnei Moshe ad loc., s.v. ומאן דאמר כדי שיהא אדם רחוק; R. Eleazar Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim ad loc., s.v. כמאן דאמר בין תכלת ללבן; Benovitz, BT Berakhot, 391–392.

20. Lieberman emphasizes the point in his comment to the first line of the Tosefta: ״מאימתי וכוי׳. כנראה שזו פסקה קטועה ממשנתנו (פ״א מ״ב) ... ולמחלוקת זו נסמכה הברייתא שלנו״, Tosefta ki-fshuta [henceforth: Lieberman, TK] (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992)Google Scholar, 1:2.

21. See for example: Tosafot, Berakhot 9b, s.v. לק״ש כותיקין; Rabenu Yonah on Alfasi, Berakhot 4b (Alfasi pagination), s.v. ומצינו למדים; Pardo, R. David, Ḥasdei David, Zera‛im (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1994)Google Scholar, 5, ad Berakhot 1:5 s.v. מאימתי; Abramsky, R. Yehezkel, Tosefta ḥazon Yeḥezkel, vol. 1, Zera‛im (Jerusalem: Bene ha-meḥaber, 2000)Google Scholar, ad Berakhot 1:4, s.v. מצותה; R. Shmuel Avigdor “Tosfa'ah,” Minḥat Bikkurim ad Berakhot 1:4, s.v. מצותה (printed with the Tosefta at the end of the volumes in the Vilna Romm 1881 edition, and subsequent editions of the Talmud Bavli); Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim ad Y. Berakhot 1:2, s.v. אבל אמרו; Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1941)Google Scholar, 1:119–120; Lieberman, TK, 1992, 1:2; Hauptman, Judith, Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (Lanham: University Press of America, 1988)Google Scholar, 100.

22. According to the Tosefta, as in the Mishnah, Shema may be recited from shortly after dawn; at least some of the actions of the sages in the story occurred considerably later. The significance of the actions, then, is with reference not to the beginning of the period for recitation of Shema, but the end of the period, which appears in the Mishnah. See Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi, 1:121; Lieberman, TK 1:3.

23. See most recently Fuchs, Uziel, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim: ‘Iyyun be-sugiyat berakhot 11a ve-gilgulehah,” Sidra 21 (2006): 69–70Google Scholar; Sabato, Mordechai, “Keri'at Shema‘a shel R. Yishma'el ve-shel R. ’Ela‘azar ben ‘Azaryah ve-ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel,” Sidra 22 (2007): 41–42Google Scholar; Hidary, Richard, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Halakhic Pluralism in the Talmud (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010), 171–172Google Scholar.

24. Both Talmuds, Y. Berakhot 1:3 (3b) and B. Berakhot 11a, comment on the lack of symmetry.

25. This story too shows a bias in favor of the House of Hillel, though not necessarily as strong a bias as the Mishnah. See the difference between this story and that in Sifrei Devarim, Va-’etḥanan, pis. 34, to Deuteronomy 6:7 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 62–63); and in both Talmuds, Y. Berakhot 1:3 (3b); B. Berakhot 11a. See also Sabato, “Keri'at Shema,‘42–45; Hidary, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven, 171–173; Katzoff, Binyamin, “Ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel ve-ha-yaḥas ben mekorot makbilim,” Sidra 27–28 (2013): 339–351Google Scholar. Amram Tropper, Ke-ḥomer, 46–66, suggests a different reading of the story, in which the actions of the sages reflect internal disputes within the position of the House of Hillel. On that reading as well the story in the Tosefta relates to a dispute found only in the Mishnah.

26. On the connection of this homily to the halakhic outlook of the House of Shammai, see Knohl, Israel, “Parashah she-yesh bah kibbul malkhut shamayim (Sifre Bamidbar 115),” Tarbiz 53 (1983): 17–20Google Scholar.

27. See Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim, 69–70; Sabato, “Keri'at Shema‘a,” 41–42; Benovitz, BT Berakhot, 502.

28. On the description of persons occupied with public matters as “occupied in the performance of a mitzvah,” see Meir Nehorai, “Mekoro ve-gilgulo shel ha-kelal ha-hilkhati ‘ha-‘osek ba-miẓvah patur min ha-miẓvah’” (MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 2006), 6–12.

29. Here as in Tosefta section [E], R. Eleazar ben Azariah practices in accord with the doctrine of the House of Shammai. On the relation between the comprehensive decision in favor of the House of Hillel and the evidence for practice in accord with the House of Shammai, see Safrai, Shmuel, “Ha-hakhra‘ah ke-vet Hillel be-Yavneh,” in Be-yemei ha-bayit u-ve-yemei ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994), 2:382–405Google Scholar, originally published in Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977): 21–44; Sussmann, Yaacov, “Ḥeker toldot ha-halakhah u-megilot Midbar-Yehudah: Hirhurim talmudiyim le-’or megilat ‘Mikẓat ma‘asei ha-torah,” Tarbiz 59 (1989–1990): 72–73Google Scholar n. 237; Halivni, Ephraim, Klale psak ha-halakhah ba-talmud (Lod: Haberman Institute for Literary Research, 1998), 130–141Google Scholar; Bitman, Avigdor, “Letivo shel ha-klal ‘halakhah ke-vet Hillel’,” Sinai 82 (1978): 185–196Google Scholar.

30. The sugya in B. Berakhot 11a in its present state implies that the House of Hillel agrees with the House of Shammai that one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzvah is exempt from recitation of Shema. However it has been observed by Weiss, Abraham, Talmud Babilonski (geneza literacka), Czesc II. sugia (Warsaw : Pisma Instytutu Nauk Judaistycznych, 1939)Google Scholar, 101; De Vries, Benjamin, Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-talmud (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1968), 250–251Google Scholar; and Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna’im le-talmud ha-ge'onim,” 71–74, that part of the sugya has been transferred to here from Berakhot 16b or from Sukkah 25a. Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 502, correctly argues that though the notion that both houses agree on this homily can be sustained in these two sugyot, where it is not indicated that the homily reflects the Shammaite position only, that is not the case in the sugya in Berakhot 11a. There, just as the House of Shammai rejects the interpretation given by the House of Hillel to the words “when you lie down and when you get up,” so, it can be argued (with the addition from other sugyot removed) that the House of Hillel can reject the interpretation given by the House of Shammai to the words “when you are on your way.” Indeed in an addition to the sugya found in two manuscripts, MS Paris and the margin of MS Florence, the dialogue between the houses continues. The conclusion in these two manuscripts is that there is a dispute between the houses on this issue, and that the House of Hillel only partially accepts the interpretation the House of Shammai gives to “when you are on your way.” See Fuchs, “Mi-talmud ha-tanna'im le-talmud ha-ge'onim,” 77–86; Aminoah, Noah, ‘Arikhat masekhet sukkah u-mo‘ed katan ba-talmud ha-bavli (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Publishing Projects, 1988), 47–49Google Scholar.

31. Though several scholars, such as Segal, Case Citation, 189–192, and Simon-Shoshan, “Halakhic Mimesis,” 120–122, have noted that halakhic stories contain superfluous narrative details, there is merit in a literary reading that endows every detail with significance in the building of the dramatic plot. See Fraenkel, Midrash ve-’aggadah, 380–381; Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-’aggadah ve-ha-midrash (Givatayim: Yad Latalmud, 1991)Google Scholar, 240. In this respect the proposed reading is faulty in that the description “the sun was already visible over the mountaintops” is unrelated to the focus of the story—the question of the obligation of persons engaged in the performance of a mitzvah to recite the Shema.

32. See also T. Berakhot 3:19, with Lieberman, TK 1:46.

33. Rabbenu Ḥananel ad B. Berakhot 9b s.v. ותיקין (Jerusalem: Makhon Lev Sameaḥ, 1990), 17.

34. On the earliness of one of the halakhic positions and the history of the halakhah relating to the beginning of the time for recitation of Shema in the tannaitic period, see Gilat, Yitzhak, Perakim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1992), 298–300Google Scholar; Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 401–413.

35. The view of the redactor of the Mishnah that the Shema may be recited even before sunrise appears also in M. Berakhot 3.5: “If one went down to immerse himself: if he can come up [from the pool] and cover himself and recite the Shema before the sun rises he should come up and cover himself and recite the Shema. But if not he should cover himself in the water and recite.”

36. The placement of the story in Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a) after the discussion of the first part of the mishnah, on the beginning of the time for recitation of Shema, and before the discussion of the final part of the mishnah, on the end of the time for recitation, reflects the understanding of the redactors of the sugya that the focus of the story is on the beginning of the time for recitation, as I propose here. This is also implied by the position of the lemma עד הנץ החמה (until sunrise) after the story, though, admittedly, the scribal insertions of the lemmata are often erroneous. See Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Mavo le-nusaḥ ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), 941–945Google Scholar; Lieberman, Saul, ‘Al ha-yerushalmi (Darom: Jerusalem, 1929), 11–12Google Scholar; Sussmann, Yaacov, Talmud yerushalmi yoẓe la-’or ‘al pi ketav yad Skaliger 3 she-be-sifriyat ha-’universitah shel Liden (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language: 2001)Google Scholar, 31, and n. 208.

37. See for example Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-’aggadah, 271–272; Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 251–252; Walfish, Avraham, “Ha-‘arikhah ha-yoẓeret ve-koaḥ ha-yeẓer: ‘Iyyun be-‘arikhat masekhet kiddushin ba-mishnah, ba-tosefta, u-va-bavli,” JSIJ 7 (2008): 31–43.Google Scholar

38. A further connection between the sources can be seen in the imagery of the relative location of the scholars. The description of R. Yehudah as following his masters at some distance and observing them resonates with the view that the time to recite the Shema begins when one can recognize an acquaintance at a distance of four cubits; the description of his masters as walking closely together accords with the view that gives value to the adjacency of the recitation to other parts of prayer.

39. Abramsky, Ḥazon Yeḥezkel, Zera'im, 2 ad 1:4 s.v. על ראשי ההרים; Azkari, Perush mi-ba‛al sefer ḥasidim to Berakhot 1:2 s.v. ואח״כ. Gilat, Perakim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah, 299.

40. Even if the Toseftan material is halakhically and redactionally independent of the Mishnah, it is still possible to see the Tosefta here as responding to an earlier Mishnah by modifying or correcting the law in the Mishnah or its bias in favor of the House of Hillel, as did R. Sherira Gaon and those who followed him. However some scholars, most notably Friedman and Hauptman, have argued in recent years that the Tosefta preserves material that predates parallel material in the Mishnah, perhaps even the raw materials of the parallel mishnah, see Friedman, Shamma, “Tosefta ‘atikta: Le-yaḥas makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta; (A) Kol kitvei ha-kodesh (Shabbat 16:1),” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 313–338Google Scholar; Friedman, “Makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994): 15–22; Friedman, “Tosefta ‘atikta: le-yaḥas makbilot ha-mishnah ve-ha-tosefta; (B) Ma‘ase Rabban Gamliel ve-zekenim,” Bar-Ilan 26–27 (1995): 277–288Google Scholar; Friedman, “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels,” in Introducing Tosefta, ed. Fox, Harry and Meacham, Tirzah (Hoboken: Ktav, 1999), 99–122Google Scholar; Friedman, Tosefta ‘atikta: Pesaḥ rishon, 46–49; Judith Hauptman, “Pesikah le-ḥumra be-mishnat gittin,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990): 23–30; Friedman, “Kiyyum me-raẓon shel miẓvot ‘aseh she-hazman graman ‘al yede nashim,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994): 161–168; Friedman, “Ha-mishnah ke-‘ibud shel yeẓirah tanna'it kedumah,” in Neti‘ot le-David—Sefer ha-yovel le-David Halivni, ed. Elman, Yaakov et al. (Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 2004), 61–70Google Scholar; Harry Fox, “Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies,” in Introducing Tosefta, 21–37; Halivni, David, “Mishnot she-zazu me-mekoman,” Sidra 5 (1989): 63–79Google Scholar; Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot bava kamma (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993)Google Scholar, 311. See also Houtman, Alberdina, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (Tubingen: Mohr, 1996), 8–18Google Scholar. Following this approach the relationship between these passages in the Mishnah and the Tosefta could be reversed: The Mishnah is responding to the early material preserved in the Tosefta, in order to promote its halakhic approach, deciding the halakhah concerning the time to recite the Shema, or modifying the even-handed Tosefta by privileging the view of Bet Hillel.

41. The translation is based on the findings of Azar and of Braverman that one of the uses of אלא in tannaitic Hebrew is to mark the rejection of a possible inference from the previous statement. Here: the masters were not careless about the recitation of Shema, but rather postponed the recitation because of their preoccupation in public matters. Azar, Moshe, Taḥbir leshon ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995), 280–281Google Scholar; Natan Braverman, “Ha-miliyot ve-ta'arei ha-po‘el be-lashon ha-tanna'im: Ba-mishnah u-va-tosefta” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1995), 163. Accordingly R. Yehudah at first thought his masters postponed the recitation of the Shema because they were preoccupied in public matters, but it turned out that the reason for the delay was their view concerning the proper time of recitation. See Avigdor, Minḥat bikkurim to Berakhot 1:4 s.v. אלא. This interpretation is supported by the reading in MS Erfurt, which uses the more common expression מפני שהן עסוקין בצורכי ציבור, and by the parallel in Y. Berakhot 1:2 (3a), in which the reference to preoccupation in public matters precedes R. Yehudah's initial thought: והיו עסוקין במצות והגיע עונת קרית שמע, והייתי סבור שמא נתייאשו מקרית שמע וקריתי ושניתי. Lieberman, TK 1: 3 ad loc., says the reverse: R. Yehudah originally thought the reason for the delay was his masters' view on the proper time for recitation, but later discovered that the reason was their preoccupation with public matters. So also Hauptman, Development of the Talmudic Sugya, 100. I find this interpretation less convincing, for according to it the conclusion R. Yehudah reaches at the end is presented early in the narrative; whereas stories rooted in oral transmission tend to present events in strict chronological order and to avoid “flash-forward.” See Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 250–251. Furthermore, on Lieberman's interpretation, one must ask what in the masters' behavior brought R. Yehudah to the conclusion that the delay was because of public business. After all, R. Yehudah must have known from the beginning of the journey that his masters were occupied in public business, and must, then, have reached his conclusion because his masters recited the Shema after they concluded the public business. However, this detail, the focus of the story in Lieberman's reading, though a reasonable inference, is not stated explicitly, making the interpretation doubtful and unsatisfactory from a literary standpoint.

42. Commentators have differed on the meaning of the word שניתי in the Tosefta passage. Some say that R. Yehudah recited passages of Mishnah (Azkari, Abramsky ad loc.). Others say that R. Yehudah recited the Shema a second time, and propose various explanations for the repetition: R. Yehudah did so in the hope that his masters would join him in recitation and he would thereby have a minyan (Pardo s.v. ומ״ש אמר רבי יהודה); in order to finish the recitation at sunrise (Lieberman TK 1:3); or in order to bring to the masters' attention that it was time for recitation (Benovitz, Bavli Berakhot, 402). See also Ginzberg, Perush ‘al ha-talmud ha-yerushalmi, 1:122. In my translation I have adopted the first interpretation, because reciting the Shema a second time, even though another sage is found doing so (Y. Berakhot 1:1 [2d]), is an unusual and eyebrow-raising act—as attested by the many attempts to explain his motives, themselves hardly precedented in tannaitic literature if at all—explicitly condemned in the Bavli, Berakhot 33b. See the various attempts to rationalize the act in Kesef mishneh, ad Hilkhot keriat Shema 2:11; Ḥasdei David ad loc.; Lieberman, Saul, Hilkhot ha-yerushalmi le-ha-rambam (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1947)Google Scholar, 20 n. 20. I would like to thank one of the journal's anonymous referees for offering a new interesting interpretation to R. Yehudah's action: R. Yehudah recited the Shema twice (accepting the second explanation of שניתי above), once right before sunrise and once right after, thereby performing the recitation once for the day and once for the night, as described in the statement attributed to R. Akiva in B. Berakhot 8b (see the variant tradition in T. Berakhot 1.1 and Bavli ibid.). See also the tannaitic views concerning the end of the time for the recitation of Shema at night, at M. Berakhot 1.1. The story, according to this interpretation, focuses on the issue of timing, and also describes R. Yehudah as reciting the Shema after sunrise, according to the opinion brought in the Tosefta.