1. The final mishnah in Ketubbot features several cases in which a husband seeks to compel his wife to relocate to, or to depart, the Land of Israel or Jerusalem. The value of living in the Land of Israel here is conceived as a halakhic consideration that takes precedence over other halakhic considerations. The Babylonian Talmud characteristically discusses each of the clauses of the mishnah in order. The conclusion of this discussion is followed by the lengthy, detailed, and complex passage described here. The passage is not directly concerned with M. Ketubbot, but evidently was inserted here on account of the preoccupation of the final mishnah with the importance of living in the Land of Israel.

2. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., “Hitmodedut ‘im ma‘alot ’Ereẓ Yisra'el: Nituaḥ sugyat Bavli Ketubbot 110a–112b,” in Merkaz u-tefuẓah, ed. Gafni, Isaiah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2004), 159–88Google Scholar.

3. Ibid., 162–64.

4. Concerning the structure and segmentation of the passage, see appendix A below. All indications of sections of the passage in the present essay follow the legend there.

5. See appendix A.

6. Below I shall demonstrate that this division derives for the most part from the data themselves. This division differs from that proposed by Rubenstein in “Hitmodedut.”

7. “Anyone who resides in the Land of Israel abides without sin, as is said …”; “[the] dead who are outside the land are not to revive, as is said …”; “boors are not to revive, as is said ….”

8. “… are not to revive …; are not to revive ….” On the relationship between the statements, see also Y. Kil'ayim 9:4 (32c) and Y. Ketubbot 12:3 (35b), which contain parallels to the second statement by R. Elazar and several other statements cited here in the Bavli in the wake of that statement. There, these are followed by a question asked of many Amoraim, among them R. Elazar: “And even such as Jeroboam son of Nebat and his ilk?” This question is concerned with the fate of the wicked at the time of the resurrection of the dead, and thus parallels R. Elazar's third statement: “boors are not to revive.”

9. This subject likely harks back to Abbaye's comments at the conclusion of the elaboration stemming from R. Elazar's first homily, in the third section of the passage: “Abbaye said, ‘We have received as tradition: Babylonia will not see the pangs of the messiah.’…” (III a7) (R. Elazar's second and third homilies and associated sources are concerned with the resurrection of the dead rather than with the generation of the coming of the messiah.)

10. … אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב עתידין כל אילני סרק שבארץ ישראל שיטענו פירות. This statement about the fertility of non-fruit-bearing trees in the time to come, harks back to Rav Dimi's homily on the words ולשורקה בני אתונו given during the course of the discussion of the fertility of the Land of Israel (III c3), which, as previously noted, stemmed from R. Elazar's third homily in the third section of the passage (III c1).

11. The text of the prevalent version presented here and throughout this essay is according to the Soncino 1487 edition. The text of version B is that of Genizah copy G37, unless otherwise indicated. For the signatures of the fragments comprising Genizah copy G37 (as well as the signatures of all other manuscripts and fragments mentioned further on) and selected variants found in other textual witnesses, see appendix B.

12. It is not impossible that version B also originally contained at this point a reference to one who does not reside in the Land of Israel (something along the lines of “and anyone who does not reside in the Land of Israel has not accepted upon himself the yoke of heaven”) but that it was lost by scribal error due to its similarity (homeoteleuton). However, such a sentence is absent in the three primary witnesses to version B, viz., G37, G38, and MS Vatican 130, which makes this a less likely possibility. (No evidence of dependence between these witnesses or of an earlier written textual witness has been discovered. Furthermore, G37 appears to have been written from dictation or from the scribe's memory; see n. 101).

13. A reading that in the prevalent version is the cause of the explanation deemed problematic (and ultimately rejected there as well).

14. Thus in G37 and MS Vatican 130, in this instance joined by MS Firkovich. G38 here preserves the unique version [… …] מארץ לחוצה לאר֯ץ [… …]. The baraita, according to this version, appears to be concerned with individuals who leave the Land of Israel to live elsewhere, and not at all with long-time inhabitants of the Diaspora. Due to physical damage to the fragment, it is impossible to ascertain what words preceded and followed these words. If it is assumed that the text followed that of version B (with which it otherwise is in agreement), then the sentence as a whole becomes logically problematic, as the comparison to an individual who has passively failed to accept the yoke of heaven is inappropriate for a person who actively leaves the Land of Israel. On the possibility that this version resulted from emendation see the following note.

15. As noted, in the version found in G38, the previous section (c) also discussed an individual who departs the Land of Israel. It may be that the version in G38 rendered a correction there so as to ensure a parallelism between the sections of the baraita, due to the presence of the words “and so too” with which section d begins. In the other witnesses to version B, the conclusions are very much in agreement with the cases described. Passive abstention is portrayed as analogous to passive abstention, viz., “anyone who does not reside in the Land of Israel has not accepted upon himself the yoke of heaven,” while action is portrayed as analogous to action, viz., by virtue of actively departing the land, one resembles a person who actively engages in idolatry.

16. In the prevalent version: “anyone who resides in the Land of Israel is like one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside the land is like one who does not have a God” (b); “anyone who resides outside the land—it is as though he were engaging in idolatry” (c, d). Version B: “anyone who resides in the Land of Israel … it is as though he had accepted upon himself the yoke of heaven” (b); “anyone who does not reside in the Land of Israel has not accepted upon himself the yoke of heaven” (c); “anyone who departs the land for outside the land … it is as though he were engaging in idolatry.”

17. Kahana, Menahem, Kit‘e midreshe ha-halakhah min ha-genizah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 347 Google Scholar. A comparative table of both versions of the baraita and its parallels is provided in appendix C, below.

18. In the source quoted there: “Hence they said, ‘Let a person reside in the Land of Israel in a city that is entirely gentile, and let a person not reside outside the land in a city that is entirely Israelite ….’” See also Kahana, Menahem, “Ma‘alat yeshivat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el bi-Mekhilta Devarim,” Tarbiz 62 (1993): 505–7Google Scholar.

19. The condition “[If] you are not in the Land of Canaan” recorded in the Tosefta is somewhat different from the condition in the Bavli, viz., “who does not reside in the Land of Israel.” It emphasizes one's actual presence in the land rather than one's place of residence.

20. On the form and meaning of the expression in the textual witnesses to Sifra and of version B, see appendix B below and sources cited there.

21. See the version preserved in MS London and MS Oxford of Sifra: אלא ללמדך.

22. The addition of the words “in time of peace” (which appear in all textual witnesses of the Tosefta) presumably is intended to exculpate David, who was compelled to leave at a time that was not a “time of peace.” We may also wonder whether the homilist's personal history played a role in the addition of these words.

23. Either version of the homily is plausible. Since David did not settle outside the land, but was driven away “from clinging to the heritage of the Lord,” the tradition about “anyone who departs,” recorded in Sifra, Tosefta, and version B is apt. However, the homily also is coherent in its prevalent form. According to this version, the sense of the verse is that those who are outside “the heritage of the Lord” (i.e., those who reside outside the Land of Israel) are comparable to worshipers of other gods, so that the import of driving David out of “the heritage of the Lord,” in effect, is to tell him, “Go, worship other gods.” It is true that the phrase “anyone who resides outside the land” in the conclusion of section d of the prevalent version may be an emendation whose purpose is to establish an equivalency between the conclusion of this section and of section c, inspired by the expression “and so too” at the beginning of section d. By the same token, the phrase “as though he were engaging in idolatry” that appears in the prevalent version at the end of section c may have been inspired by the conclusion at the end of section d, i.e., the emender thus established an equivalency between the conclusions of the two sections by selecting the case at the end of section c and the argument at the end of section d.

24. As it appears to have a theological implication (albeit one more subdued than the formulation in Tosefta: “[If] you are not in the Land of Canaan, as it were, I am not unto you a God”).

25. However, as I shall demonstrate below, several sources in the passage are related to the baraita, and especially to its parallel traditions.

26. All textual witnesses to the prevalent version; MS Firkovich, which contains a hybrid version of the baraita; and MS Vatican 130, in which the text of the baraita represents version B.

27. B. Berakhot 24b, Shabbat 41a. Both parallels contain a continuation not cited here. The versions of Berakhot are in disagreement as to whether the figure in question is R. Zeira (thus MS Paris, MS Oxford 366, MS Firenze [main text], London BL Or. 5558 N/17–18) or R. Abba (MS Munich 95, MS Firenze as emended [with the word “Abba” added above the line], Soncino 1487 edition, T–S 18 F 1.1; T–S AS 95.356 has [.]ר׳ אב֯, while Fragment Göttweig, Bibliothek des Benediktinerstifts Cod. 358, reads רבא, and in Firkovich Evr. I 184–86 the word is רבה). On these variants, see, e.g., Rabbinovicz, Raphaelo, Dikduke soferim: Berakhot (Munich: ’Ohel Ya‘akov, 1867), 120–21Google Scholar, § f.

28. Such as the sages named at the beginning of the fourth section of the passage (IV a) (see also Rubenstein, “Hitmodedut,” 162–63). The scope of the phenomenon is difficult to estimate; see, e.g., Gafni, Isaiah M., Land, Center and Diaspora (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 75 Google Scholar: “The brave few who nevertheless left Babylonia for the Land ….” For an opposing view, see, e.g., Hauptman, Judith, “‘Aliyah’ and ‘Yeridah’ in Rabbinic Sources,” in Israel and the Diaspora in Jewish Law, ed. Jacob, W. and Zemer, M. (Pittsburgh, PA: Freehof Institute of Progressive Halakhah; Tel Aviv: Rodef Shalom Press, 1997), 104 Google Scholar: “… R. Zera chose to depart Babylonia for Israel, as did many others.”

29. The position espoused by Rav Yehudah presumably should be understood in the context of, inter alia, his efforts to establish and promote Pumbedita as a Babylonian center of learning following the destruction of Nehardea.

30. In both parallel sources—B. Berakhot 24b and B. Shabbat 41a—the anecdote begins as it does here: R. Zeira, who wishes to migrate to the Land of Israel, is avoiding Rav Yehudah, who forbids this. However, each of the parallels then proceeds with an account of the actions then taken by R. Zeira (or R. Abba; see below) because he wishes to hear words of Torah from his teacher before departing. The content that R. Zeira (or R. Abba) heard and the context in which he heard it differ from one parallel to the other, but the introduction and the central motif (listening secretly and the final sentence, “If I had come only to hear only this matter—enough”) are identical, and it may be that all of the parallels are based on a single collection (cf. B. Bava Meẓi‘a 85a).

31. The Talmud reads the verse from the Song of Songs in accordance with the rabbinic view that the subject of the book is the relationship between God and the Jewish nation: the adjuration in this verse not to disturb the love “before it wishes” is taken to mean that as long as Israel remains in exile, they may not perform actions to arouse that love, but instead must wait until God sees fit to redeem them.

32. G37: יר֯חקון. MS Moscow: ?יר֯חק֯. MS Vatican 113: תרחקו. MS Munich: תדחקו. MS Firkovich: יד֯חקו. MS Vatican 130: ידחקו. On the interchange of yeraḥaku and yidḥaku, see, e.g., Rashi ad loc., s.v. ve-she-lo yeraḥaku ’et ha-keẓ.

33. There are four adjurations in the Song of Songs. Two are identical: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by gazelles or by deer of the field, that you not disturb and not arouse this love before it wishes” (השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם בצבאות או באילות השדה אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ; 2:7; 3:5). The third, though similar in content, is shorter and uses different phrasing: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem: why would you disturb and why would you arouse this love before it wishes?” (השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם מה תעירו ומה תעררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ; 8:4). These three adjurations prohibit disturbing the love before it wishes, while the content of a fourth runs counter to them: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem: if you find my beloved, what shall you tell him? That I am lovesick” (5:8).

34. In MS Vatican 130, copy G37, and the printed text, the Talmud here quotes the adjuration in Song of Songs 2:7 and 3:5 (the preference for these verses is buttressed somewhat by the final homily in this unit, a discourse by R. Elazar [II i] that refers to the words “by gazelles or by deer of the field,” which occur only in these two verses). MS Moscow contains what appears to be an abbreviated quotation of this verse: .השבעתי בנות ירושל׳ אם֯ [… … …] את האהבה עד שתחפץ “That you not” (אם) is inappropriate for a citation of 8:4; also possible is that the scribe combined the omission of “by gazelles or by deer of the field” of 8:4 with “that you not” of 2:7 and 3:5. The other textual witnesses contain an inconclusive quotation limited to the initial words of the verse: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem.”

35. In MS Vatican 130 and copy G37, as well as MS Munich 95, the word “Israel” is absent here.

36. All textual witnesses other than G37 read both here and below (in comments by R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina) b e-ḥomah (בחומה) or k e-ḥomah (כחומה). The frequent exchange of bet and kaf, resulting from the similarity in the orthography of these letters in many manuscripts, makes it impossible to determine which version is more correct. The exception, copy G37, in both instances reads שלא יעלו חי֯מה. That this reading of the copy, with a yod, is the correct one is not entirely clear in either of the two locations, but in any event the text seems to read חימה, presumably a corrupt form. (On the corruptions in G37, see below, though the corruption here nevertheless may be graphical in nature.) Meanwhile, the absence of the prepositional letter (bet or kaf) may be evidence that such a reading conforms to the original. As much is indicated by the form of this expression in Midrash Shir Ha-shirim: … שלא יעלו חומה; אם חומה הוא – אלו ישראל העלו חומה מבבל… אילו עלו חומה מן הגולה (according to MS Vatican 76 prior to emendation). On the meaning of the expression, see primarily sources cited below, whose sense is that the meaning of the expression is together, as a single, massive, united body. Rashi comments: שלא יעלו בחומה—“together, with a strong hand.”

37. Presumably, the three adjurations that forbid disturbing the love.

38. This discrepancy alone is not conclusive, as might be determined based on, e.g., R. Ḥelbo's homily in Midrash Shir Ha-shirim (see below).

39. MS Munich 95 and MS Vatican 113 read “one—that the Holy One, blessed is He, adjured Israel” (MS Munich 95 has אחת שהשביע הק׳ב׳ה׳ את ישראל; MS Vatican 113 has אחת שהשביע הק׳ את ישר׳).

40. MS Vatican 130 and copy G37 omit the word “Israel” both here and above. (There the word “Israel” is absent in MS Munich 95 as well [here MS Munich has שהשביע הק׳ב׳ה׳ את ישראל שלא יעלו כחומה].)

41. Thus it appears in manuscripts representing both versions of the baraita above, viz., all manuscripts that represent version B and most of the manuscripts representing the prevalent version. There are two exceptions among the manuscripts of the prevalent version. It is easy to see that this expression may have been added in these two manuscripts in order to create a uniform style within the adjurations. It is far less plausible that all other manuscripts, from both traditions, would have struck this from their text for no apparent reason.

42. In the text of MS Vatican 130 and G37, which in this adjuration omit the term “Israel,” the foreignness of these words is still more conspicuous. According to R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina, the adjurations are addressed to two different entities, viz., Israel and the nations of the world. Why then would he omit the addressee, “Israel,” from this adjuration?

43. For a comparison of the text of copy G37 and the Soncino 1487 edition in the entire section (II), see appendix D.

44. Quotations from Midrash Shir Ha-shirim here and throughout this essay are according to MS Vatican 76.

45. It is difficult to ascertain to which “two adjurations” R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina referred. He may have had in mind the dual verbs “disturb” and “arouse” found in the three verses that prohibit disturbing the love. Also possible, though less likely, is that he intended the two identical verses (2:7 and 3:5) or the two distinct expressions forbidding the addressees to disturb the love (2:7 and 3:5 vs. 8:4). In my view, most probably he intended the two contrary adjurations: one of Israel (2:7; 3:5; 8:4) that proscribes any act that would disturb the love before it wishes, whose violation would distance the love, and another of the nations of the world (5:8), whose violation would arouse the love (“they [would] cause the end to come not at its time,” as R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina says in Midrash Shir Ha-shirim). Such an interpretation accords with the scriptural context of the adjuration, which comes after the woman is beaten and injured: “The watchmen who move about the city found me, beat me, injured me; the keepers of the walls took my mantle from upon me. I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem: if you find my beloved, what shall you tell him? That I am lovesick.”

46. The same number of adjurations is given explicitly in the Bavli at the beginning of R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina's comments: “Why these three adjurations?” Since the redactor has an interest in a discussion of three adjurations, it is clear that the three in question are those that forbid disturbing the love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). The same is implied by the explanation offered according to Rav Yehudah's view—“‘That you not disturb and not arouse’ is written”—which according to the Talmud is the basis of the six adjurations referenced in the homily by R. Levi: three adjurations derived from the three verses that forbid disturbing the love, and an additional three adjurations derived from the dual actions used in these verses, viz., “disturb” and “arouse.” Though it is true that the terminology “that you not … that you not …” (…אם… אם) occurs in only two verses, while the third instead has “why … and why …” (…מה… ומה), the central elements “disturb” and “arouse” recur across the three verses. Notwithstanding, the terminology “that you not … and that you not …” (which is found in all of the textual witnesses) clearly is recognized as symbolizing two adjurations—perhaps evidence of an implicit recognition by the Talmud that R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina personally referred to only two adjurations.

47. What is required in the text is a well-known adjuration that enjoys a consensus of opinion—a requirement satisfied by the adjuration “that [they] not rebel against the nations of the world,” to which both R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina and R. Levi subscribe. (Similarly, in Midrash Shir Ha-shirim, this is the only adjuration that is agreed upon by R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina and R. Ḥelbo; see below.) In terms of the content of the adjuration, refuting the argument of Rav Yehudah requires reference to an adjuration to Israel not to disturb the love. This is effectively satisfied by “that [they] not rebel against the nations of the world” (an adjuration whose general nature makes it slightly preferable for the purpose of the Talmud to the specific adjuration “that [they] not ascend as a wall”).

48. Thus all textual witnesses of Midrash Shir Ha-shirim except Oxford Bodl. Heb. d. 47/7: ושלא יעלו חר֯מה שלגולה; see Kadari, Tamar, Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah: A Synoptic Edition (Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2014)Google Scholar, http://www.schechter.ac.il/ספריה_ומכוני_מחקר/מפעל_מדרש; Kadari, , “Shene kit‘e genizah le-midrash shir ha-shirim rabbah,” Kovez ‘al yad: Minora Manuscripta Hebraica 20 (2011): 38–39 Google Scholar. In both works, the text of the Oxford fragment is copied as חרמה, with no indication of uncertainty. The upper section of the resh, however, has been truncated, perhaps in an attempt to emend that letter to a vav.

49. In both the Talmud and Midrash Shir Ha-shirim, the adjurations’ content is similar. Additionally, this homily assumes a number of adjurations that is twice the number given in R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina's homily. Since the six adjurations discussed by R. Levi are presented in the Talmud as a solution to the doubling of R. Yose b. R. Ḥanina's three adjurations (“disturb … arouse …”), whether R. Levi's original comments referred to a total of six adjurations, as in the Talmud, also must be viewed with considerable doubt.

50. Because the homily attributed by the Talmud to R. Levi alludes only to the adjuration not to ascend as a wall, which it cites with the expression “Three—those that we have said,” the very part of the tradition that apparently is true to the original is not quoted directly.

51. See also Rubenstein, “Hitmodedut,” 169.

52. As observed by Rubenstein, ibid.

53. B. Yevamot 64b; B. Menaḥot 31b, 32b.

54. See, e.g., Albeck, Ḥanokh, Mavo’ la-talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 325–26Google Scholar.

55. Lieberman, Saul, “Kakh hayah ve-kakh yihyeh: Yehude ’Ereẓ Yisra'el ve-yahadut ha-‘olam bi-tekufat ha-mishnah ve-ha-talmud,” in Meḥkarim be-torat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 333–34Google Scholar.

56. B. Yoma 9b (according to MS New York, Enelow 271): “R. Shimon b. Lakish was swimming in the Jordan. Rabbah b. Bar Ḥannah came [and] offered him a hand. He said to him, ‘[I swear] by God that I hate you, as is written, “If she is a wall, we will build upon her a parapet of silver, and if she is a door, we will enclose her with a board of cedar.” If you had made yourselves like a wall [כחומה] and ascended in the days of Ezra, you would have been made comparable to silver, over which decay has no power. Now that you have ascended in poverty [בדלות], you are made comparable to cedar, over which decay has power.’” See also Midrash Shir Ha-shirim 8:10: “Reish Lakish said, ‘When I would see them gathering in the market, I would say to them, “Scatter yourselves.”’ He said to them, ‘At your ascent you did not make yourselves like a wall [חומה], and here you have come to make a wall [חומה]?!’”

57. Midrash Shir Ha-shirim 8:10: “‘If she is a wall’—if Israel had brought up a wall [העלו חומה] from Babylonia, the temple would not have been destroyed that second time. R. Zeira went out to the market to buy something. He said to the one who was weighing, ‘Weigh properly,’ and he said to him, ‘You may not come before us here—you Babylonians, whose forefathers destroyed the temple.’ At that time, R. Zeira said, ‘Were my forefathers not like the forefathers of these?’ He entered the college and heard the voice of R. Ila sitting [and] expounding, ‘If they had ascended [as] a wall [עלו חומה] from the exile, the temple would not have been destroyed a second time.’ He said, ‘’Am ha-’areẓ has taught me well …’” (thus MS Vatican 76 prior to emendation).

58. Lieberman, “Kakh hayah ve-kakh yihyeh,” 334.

59. Possibly the tradition originated in the homily by R. Ḥelbo, a Babylonian who migrated to the Land of Israel. As discussed above, the homily attributed to R. Levi in the Bavli parallels that of R. Ḥelbo in Midrash Shir Ha-shirim, which is the only source in all of Palestinian literature that refers to an adjuration not to ascend as a wall.

60. These arguments are found elsewhere in the Talmud (B. Yoma 9b), demonstrating that this accusation of Babylonian Jewry was known in Babylonia.

61. In this homily, R. Elazar refers to a definite, known adjuration (“the adjuration”) without specifying its content. The inclusion of his homily concerning the undefined adjuration at the conclusion of a discussion whose focus is the adjuration not to ascend as a wall raises the question of whether the redactor thus sought to include R. Elazar among the sages holding forth on the central adjuration in this unit: “that [they] not ascend as a wall.”

62. As mentioned above, the second unit of the discussion (II) concludes with a homily by R. Elazar (II i). This is then followed by the third part of the passage, which also begins with a homily attributed to R. Elazar (III a1). To be sure, it is clear that the two homilies are unrelated: each clearly relates to the distinct content of the unit of which it is a part: the homily by R. Elazar's homily concerning the adjuration relates to the difference of opinion between Rav Yehudah and R. Zeira and its focus on the adjurations in the Song of Songs, while the next homily by R. Elazar, rather than relate to the subjects treated in the first, introduces the third section of the passage.

63. “R. Meir would say, ‘Anyone who lives in the Land of Israel—the Land of Israel atones for him, as is said, “The nation that dwells there shall be forgiven of sin” [Deuteronomy 32:43]’” (Sifrei Devarim, pis. 333 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 383].  A similar homily appears in Mekhilta Devarim to this verse: ו֯כפ֯‹ר… ע›מ֯ו מיכן א׳ ר׳ מאיר כל היו‹ש›ב בארץ ישר׳ ארץ ישר֯׳ מכפרת לו שנ׳ העם ה‹יו›ש֯ב בה נשוא עון [according to Kahana, Kit‘e midreshe ha-halakhah, 357]). In comparison to the wording of R. Meir's homily (ארץ ישראל מכפרת לו), the homily ascribed to R. Elazar in the Talmud (שרוי בלא עון) more closely resembles the phrasing of Isaiah (העם היושב בה נשוא עון). Rav Anan's statement cited subsequent to that by R. Elazar and R. Elazar's next statement also are based on tannaitic sources; see below.

64. In Mekhilta, the statement appears in the context of a homily on Deuteronomy 32:43, spoken by Tannaim who were poised to leave the Land of Israel. On this source, see Kahana, “Ma‘alat yeshivat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el,” 501–13.

65. The statement that “living in the Land of Israel is commensurate with all of the commandments that are in the Torah” appears in the Tosefta immediately following the statement that appears at the beginning of the baraita in the talmudic passage, and in Mekhilta Devarim immediately prior to this statement. For a detailed comparison, see appendix C below.

66. Rav Anan's homily has a counterpart both in the Tosefta and in the Mekhilta immediately following the statement paralleling section I a of the baraita.

67. On the juxtaposition of burial and residence, see Kister, Menahem, “‘Iyyun be-’avot de-Rabbi Natan nusaḥ A perek 17: ‘Arikhah ve-naftule masorot,” in Meḥkere Talmud 3, ed. Rosenthal, David and Sussmann, Yaakov (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 735–38Google Scholar.

68. R. Elazar's homily has a counterpart in the Mekhilta. In the Talmud, R. Elazar's homily is presented in two stages (the second following a question by R. Abba b. Memmel) (III b1). Both are found in the Mekhilta. The wording of R. Elazar's statement amplifies the homily as it appears in the Mekhilta. The Mekhilta states that the dead of the Land of Israel “are to revive first” (see also Reish Lakish, quoting Bar Kappara, in Y. Kil'ayim 9:4 [32c]; Y. Ketubbot 12:3 [35b]; Bereshit Rabbah 97 [MS Vatican 30] [ed. Theodor–Albeck, p. 1239]), whereas R. Elazar states that they are “not to revive” at all. Nonetheless, the relationship between the two sources is clear.

69. The statement by R. Elazar that introduces the third section, Rav Anan's statment, and R. Elazar's second statement.

70. That the section is incorporated so far from its locus in other witnesses makes it difficult to argue that it was absent in the vorlage of G37, was inserted in that copy's margin, and from there found its way to the wrong place in G37. (See also n.  101 below on the possibility that G37 reflects a version of the Talmud that the scribe had committed to memory. According to this prospect, it is even less likely that the second section was inserted based on the copy's vorlage.) For the same reason, it is implausible that the second section in its entirety is a late addition that initially was written in the margin of the vorlage of an early manuscript and thence made its way to two separate locations within the main text.

71. In this view, the second section was absent in the initial stage. When it was incorporated, some inserted it where it appears in standard editions, while others placed it where it appears in G37 (and perhaps still others did not incorporate it at all).

72. See below.

73. This homily by R. Elazar and an associated exchange between him and R. Yoḥanan are followed by three statements by R. Ḥiyya b. Yosef (III c2–3). The two initial statements discuss the revival of the righteous in the time to come. The topic of these dicta is related to the discussion of the lot of the righteous in the time to come that precedes R. Elazar's third homily (III c1). However, R. Ḥiyya b. Yosef's two statements, which depict the resurrection of the righteous, do not address the question of the righteous who died outside the Land of Israel, which is the focus of the previous statements. The statement that the “righteous are destined to ripple forth and arise in Jerusalem” also focuses on how the righteous will be resuscitated, as does the second statement by R. Ḥiyya b. Yosef, and does not address the question of the resuscitation of righteous individuals who died outside the Land of Israel; cf. Rubenstein, “Hitmodedut,” 177. The version noted by Rubenstein, ibid., n. 53, שמבצבצין ועולין לירוש׳, also need not include those buried in the Diaspora. In any event, the bulk of textual witnesses read מירושלים (which accords with the phrasing of the verse here expounded; thus MS Munich, MS Vatican 113, and MS Vatican 130 [“to blossom forth from Jerusalem”]), or בירושלים (printed editions, copy G37 [“to go out in Jerusalem”]). The two statements by R. Ḥiyya b. Yosef thus parallel R. Elazar's third statement about boors: they will not be resuscitated, whereas the righteous will, with no reference to their burial place. R. Ḥiyya b. Yosef's two statements on the resurrection of the righteous in the time to come are followed by a third statement of his, concerning the fertility of the Land of Israel, which initiates a complex passage on that subject. In sum, R. Elazar's third statement (III c1) marks the beginning of a new part of this passage that breaks from the preceding discussion of residence and burial in the Land of Israel or elsewhere. Still, the redactor carefully assured continuity from one part of the passage to another by flanking R. Elazar's third statement with discussions of two different aspects of the resurrection of the righteous.

74. This unit thus differs from the following appendices appearing at the conclusion of the passage, one of which returns to the subject of migrating to and living in the Land of Israel (IV a). Unlike the later appendices, which belong to the conclusion of the passage, this unit proceeds alongside it.

75. In Genizah copies G37 and G38, which represent version B of the baraita, with its focus on residents of the Land of Israel, the baraita is immediately followed by the third section of the passage, whose initial stages are based on the baraita, and which begins with a discussion of one who resides in the Land of Israel. On the other hand, in textual witnesses to the prevalent version of the baraita, which focuses on the residents of the Diaspora, it is immediately followed by the second section of the passage, whose topic is the Jews of Babylonia. MS Vatican 130, as to a lesser extent MS Firkovich, contains a hybrid version: they present the baraita entirely (MS Vatican 130) or partially (MS Firkovich) as in version B, but place the second section of the passage immediately following the baraita, as in the prevalent version of the passage.

76. First, there are two competing transmissions of a baraita. Second, a redacted unit of text is transposed in what seem to be different executions of the same intention, viz., to place the unit alongside the primary passage.

77. In the scope of the present essay, I cannot describe in any detail the picture that emerges from the text of the entire chapter, but I would note that the general picture of the text discussed in this essay is in keeping with that which emerges from other textual variants in the chapter. In more than one instance, G37 contains variants that differ substantially from the prevalent text (though they are generally less important than the variants presented here). In these cases, G37 appears to represent an alternate transmission—albeit with the inclusion of several corruptions and apparently not consistently adhering to that transmission (which is to say that the text of G37 was somewhat influenced by the prevalent version). As is the case here, both MS Vatican 130 and to a lesser degree MS Firkovich in some instances present versions reflecting the tradition represented by G37, but they do so on only partially. These versions should therefore be regarded as hybrids. I intend to present a detailed discussion of the text of this chapter in a separate study.

78. The excursus, which precedes R. Elazar's second homily, contains a series of statements about living in Babylonia and the destiny of Babylonian Jews in the end of days and at the time of the resurrection of the dead (III a5–7). Interposed between R. Elazar's first two homilies in section III of the passage are a number of statements about burial in the Land of Israel and a statement regarding departure from the Land of Israel (cf. Y. Mo‘ed Katan 3:1 [81c]). These are followed by this excursus on Babylonian Jews.

79. Thus in four textual witnesses, representing both traditions: MS Vatican 113, Soncino 1487, G37, and MS Firkovich. MS Munich 95 reads אמר רב יהודה אמ׳ רב, and G68 has אמ׳ ר׳ אלעז֯ר֯, while the version in MS Vatican 130 is א׳ רב יוסף. All that can be deciphered here in the text of MS Moscow is […] ?? א׳ רב. (These ambiguous and illegible letters at the end of a line—apparently line filler—are all that is left of the Amora's name; at the beginning of the next line, where the name of the Amora would be expected to appear, the panel is torn.)

80. This statement presents a scriptural reference: “… as is said, ‘Ho, [to] Zion, escape, you living with the daughter of Babylonia’” (Zechariah 2:11). This verse in Zechariah calls on all the Jews of Babylonia to leave their place of residence and escape to the Land of Israel, in contradiction with Rav Yehudah's view that they must remain in Babylonia “until the day I recall them.” Rav Yehudah audaciously chooses this very verse to corroborate his contrary opinion: “Anyone who resides in Babylonia—it is as though he were residing in the Land of Israel!” It stands to reason that this homily by Rav Yehudah, or at least its meaning as apprehended by the passage's redactor, must be understood in light of its location in the passage, between a statement regarding the resurrection of the dead and another that discusses the pangs of the messiah. Based on the context, Rav Yehudah's statement seems chiefly concerned with the resurrection of the dead: by stating that “anyone who resides in Babylonia—it is as though he were residing in the Land of Israel,” he implies that a resident of Babylonia, like an individual who resides in the Land of Israel, “abides without sin” (as stated by R. Elazar in his homily at the beginning of section III) and merits eternal life. The dead will not be resurrected in Babylonia, but in the end of days, Babylonian Jewry's dead will escape to the Land of Israel: הוי ציון המלטי, יושבת בת בבל (“Ho, [to] Zion, escape, you living with the daughter of Babylonia”).

81. The other statements in the excursus, all attributed to Babylonian Amoraim, also favor living in Babylonia. These statements distinguish between various places in Babylonia, as well as between the “virtuous of Babylonia” and the “virtuous who are in other lands” (and by extension between the virtuous and those who are not).

82. First of these is the statement attributed by Rav Yehudah to Shmuel that equates the distinction between Babylonia and the Land of Israel with that between Babylonia and other lands. This is followed by Rav Yehudah's statement equating Babylonia to the Land of Israel. Last in the series is Rav Yehudah's extreme statement forbidding migration from Babylonia to the Land of Israel.

83. Gafni, Land, 74.

84. The time at which the unit was created cannot be determined based on available historical data. In view of the attribution of the oath not to ascend as a wall at the latest to R. Ḥelbo, a third- to fourth-generation Amora who migrated from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, it may be that this unit was developed in Babylonia as early as the middle of the amoraic period, shortly after the time of the Amoraim invoked here. On the other hand, given that the Palestinian objection to the failure of Babylonian Jews to ascend as a wall challenges the very legitimacy of a Jewish center in Babylonia, the echoes of these contentions well may have been audible even a significant time after they were first pronounced, and they may have triggered the formulation of the passage at any point in the periods during which the conflict between the Palestinian and the Babylonian center was ongoing. The redaction thus would accord with nearly any time in the centuries during which Babylonian Jews sought to bolster the status of the Babylonian center, whether due to the center's inferior position during the beginning of the period, out of the Babylonians’ ambition to attain status commensurate with that of the Palestinian center, or in tandem with their demand in later periods for leadership of the Jewish world. On the enduring pertinence of this motivation, see, e.g., Gafni, Isaiah, “How Babylonia Became ‘Zion’: Shifting Identities in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Levine, L. I. and Schwartz, D. R. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 333–48Google Scholar, and sources listed there.

85. It may be that the redactor decided in advance not to incorporate the story of Rav Yehudah and R. Zeira within the primary passage, intending instead to use it as a matrix for the development of this unit.

86. Perhaps, for instance, the story of R. Zeira and Rav Yehudah originally appeared within the primary passage, and at a later date was removed from there to serve as the foundation for the development of the unit focused on the prohibition against ascending as a wall.

87. On this possibility, see, e.g., Rosenthal, Yoav, “On the Early Form of Bavli Mo‘ed Katan 7b–8a,” Tarbiz 77 (2008): 62–65 Google Scholar. According to the proposal advanced there, it is in fact an amoraic passage that was placed alongside a generic (setami) one. This is not the place to consider the question of when generic passages were composed, as determining this depends primarily on the evidence available in each given passage, and as noted, the data here are equivocal as to the relative date of the text.

88. Rosenthal, Eliezer S., “The History of the Text and Problems of Redaction in the Study of the Babylonian Talmud,” Tarbiz 57 (1987): 17–18 Google Scholar; Rosenthal, Eliezer S., “The Renderings of TB Tractate ‘Temurah,’” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 329 Google Scholar.

89. Reference to different tannaitic sources may of course represent different redactions (See Eliezer S. Rosenthal, “Renderings of TB Tractate ‘Temura’”). However, based on all of the data emerging from an examination of the textual witnesses in the present chapter, this is not likely to be the case here.

90. Regarding such “instructions,” see Yoav Rosenthal, “Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Karetot: A Study of Its Textual Traditions” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2003), 215–18.

91. Thus in the example offered by Eliezer S. Rosenthal, “History of the Text.”

92. For a transposition somewhat similar to that examined here, see Yoav Rosenthal, “On the Early Form of Bavli Mo‘ed Katan 7b–8a.” There I proposed that the passage at B. Mo‘ed Kaṭan 7b–8a had within it an amoraic unit whose place was determined to be alongside the primary passage, and it was inserted at different points in different traditions. There, however, the unit was placed in locations close to each other, and both placements appear mistaken. For an entire passage incorporated in two entirely different locations in different manuscripts, see Eliezer S. Rosenthal, “History of the Text,” 31–36. That transposition, however, is fundamentally different from the transposition described here. There, the unit in question is an addendum at the end of the chapter that in several manuscripts was relocated to its natural place in the chapter. On a discrepancy regarding the order of passages, see Sabato, Mordechai, A Yemenite Manuscript of Tractate Sanhedrin and Its Place in the Text Tradition (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi; Hebrew University, 1998), 279–80Google Scholar. Transpositions found in several places in fragments from the Cairo Genizah will soon be published under the rubric of Unknown Traditions of the Babylonian Talmud Preserved in the Cairo Genizah, a project under my direction; see the unnumbered note at the beginning of this essay.

Significantly, there are instances even within the text of the Talmud where different traditions place a given unit in different locations, a phenomenon for which appropriate turns of phrase were reserved (e.g., …איכא דמתני לה א).

Note also the need to distinguish between transpositions of the sort discussed here and those far more common transpositions of a brief unit of verbiage that in all variants appears adjacent to the same other text. Such instances generally reflect the belated insertion of text that presumably had been written into the margins of a written copy; see, e.g., Friedman, Shamma, “A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction,” in Texts and Studies, vol. 1 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1977), 305–6Google Scholar. It behooves us also to differentiate between transpositions where the locus of a text changes, which as indicated are rare, and other discrepancies where the elements of a unit are reordered, which are common.

93. Eliezer S. Rosenthal, “History of the Text”; Eliezer S. Rosenthal, “Renderings of TB Tractate ‘Temura’”; Yoav Rosenthal, “Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Karetot”; Yoav Rosenthal, “On the Early Form of Bavli Mo‘ed Katan 7b–8a”; See also Schremer, Adiel, “Between Text Transmission and Text Redaction: Fragments of a Different Recencion of TB Moed-Qatan from the Genizah,” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 375–99Google Scholar.

94. The data available are insufficient for a sound assessment of the date of this stage. However, this is an early stage relative to other stages that are attested by most of the textual variants found in the manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud.

95. Text-marking conventions: ‹›: addition to the text by the copyist; ( ): erasure by the copyist; [ ]: physical defect (parenthetical reconstructions are intended to facilitate reading and should not be viewed as representing a proposed restoration of the text); א֯ (letter with circle above): a letter whose decipherment is in doubt; ?: an illegible letter; « »: reconstructed text based on other witnesses.

96. This version is represented (with a few variations) in MS Munich Hebr. 95, MS Vatican Ebr. 113, MS Moscow, Ginsburg 1339, copy G68, the Soncino 1487 edition, and partially in MS St. Petersburg, Firkovich Evr. I 187. Designations of Genizah copies are according to the Talmud Bavli with Dikduke soferim ha-shalem: Ketubbot (Jerusalem: Yad Harav Herzog, 1977)Google Scholar. Copy G68 includes two joined Genizah fragments, viz., Cambridge University Library T–S F 2 (1).33 and T–S F 2 (1).66. The text in the table, as noted above, is based on that of the Soncino 1487 edition. In one instance (c), I have supplied text that is absent in the Soncino edition according to that found in the other witnesses. The inserted words are bracketed with guillemets.

97. This version is represented in two eastern Genizah copies, viz., G37 and G38; MS Vatican Ebr. 130; and partially in MS Firkovich. Fragment G37 is a joining of the two fragments, T–S F 2(2).20 and St. Petersburg Antonin, B 291. In G38, the primary fragment is New York, JTS ENA 2081/7, which is torn and lacks a substantial part of the text. According to Sussmann, Y., ed., Thesaurus of Talmudic Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2012), 2:594 Google Scholar, no. 6413, a companion to this fragment is T–S AS 93.566. In a recent update of the Thesaurus of Talmudic Manuscripts at http://www.genizah.org, fragment T–S AS 93.496 was added to this copy. However, additional inquiry is in order before the two AS fragments are incorporated with the New York fragment. As noted, version B in the table above is according to G37. Where the fragment is torn or illegible, I have augmented the text according to other witnesses or based on context. The insertions, bracketed with guillemets, are intended to facilitate reading and should not be viewed as representing a proposed restoration of the text. In one instance I have provided the version found in MS Vatican 130, rather than that of G37, in guillemets (see below).

98. MS Vatican 130: לעולם יחזר אדם וידור.

99. Thus, correctly, in MS Vatican 130: “Scripture represents him” (מעלה עליו הכת׳). G37 has “of him Scripture says” (עליו הכתוב או׳), a turn of phrase that functions to introduce a scriptural quotation and thus is inappropriate in his context. In all probability this term inadvertently found its way into G37 due to the words עליו הכתוב that are common to the two expressions. The version in G37 is characterized by the presence of several errors, mostly phonetic corruptions, which indicates that the scribe either wrote from dictation or transcribed a version that he had committed to memory. Several of these corruptions demonstrate that the scribe did not always understand the content of the material that he was transmitting (e.g., 107b: למד֯ פסלה instead of פטרי טובי ;לא מתפיס לה instead of פתריתו בה; 110b: על מה instead of אלמא [twice]; מכוליה instead of משען ;מקולי instead of מה שאין. 111a: ושם תהי instead of ושמתיה; etc.). The mistaken version here (עליו הכתוב או׳), together with several additional phenomena that do not accord with a text written from dictation, indicates somewhat in favor of the likelihood that the scribe transmitted a version that he had committed to memory while taking some license, and with occasional errors. Take for example 110a: בהדין א׳ אדמון (הדין is not appropriate here), or instances of confusion between Hebrew and Aramaic: 110b: שכתיב ביה (instead of דכתיב ביה); 111b: בלבושיהון (twice: an Aramaic suffix appended to a Hebrew word).

100. MS Vatican 130: שכל הדר בארץ ישר׳ מעלה עליו הכת׳ כאילו קיבל עליו עול שמים. G38: שכל הדר בארץ ישראל֯ [… …] עול מלכות שמים. (For the version in Sifra, see appendix C below.) On עול שמים and עול מלכות שמים, see Eliashiv Fraenkel, “Kabbalat ‘ol malkhut shamayim,” ’Oqimta 2 (2014): 1–8, and sources cited there.

101. MS Firkovich: וכי תעלה על דעתך שכל הדר….

102. Fragment G38: ??ץ֯ כ֯?ע֯? (the original apparently read בארץ כנען). MS Vatican 130: הדר בכל הארצות.

103. MS Firkovich: שכל מי שאינו דר בארץ ישראל. MS Vatican 130: כל מי שאינו דר בארץ ישר׳. G38: […] מארץ לחוצה לאר֯[. …], concerning which see below.

104. G37: לא קיבל עליו […] שמים. MS Vatican 130, MS Firkovich: לא קיבל עליו עול שמים. G38: physical defect.

In the prior section (b), MS Firkovich follows the prevalent version: שכל הדר בארץ ישראל דומה כמי שיש לו אלוה וכל הדר בחוצה לאר֯ץ֯ ד֯מ֯ה כמי֯ שאין לו אלוה.

105. MS Munich 95: וכל מי שאינו דר בארץ.

106. MS Vatican 113: לתת לכם את ארץ כנע׳ אני י׳י א׳היכם.

107. The bracketed text appears in all direct textual witnesses except the Soncino 1487 edition. (The sentence also is absent from a fragment containing Ma‘amadot liturgy, Nahum Collection 253/270–277.) It is impossible to ascertain what text appeared here in G68 due to physical damage to the fragment, but it is evident from the size of the affected area that even before the fragment became torn, there was a significant lacuna at this point. (The text continues with the quotation from David: [… .]ה֯סתפח בנחלת יי׳י לאמר לך עבוד אלהים אחרים . .)

108. MS Vatican 113: …בארץ כנען. MS Munich 95: …בארץ ישראל. MS Moscow: […] בחו֯צ֯ה ל֯?רץ (presumably the original read [והדר] בחוצה לארץ).

109. MS Vatican 113: כל מי שאינו דר באר׳ כנע׳. MS Munich 95: כל שאין בארץ. MS Moscow: […] בח֯ו֯צ֯ה֯ ל֯ארץ. In G68 here there is a sizeable lacuna.

110. MS Vatican 113, MS Munich 95: מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו….

111. Insertion is from MS Vienna. Pronounced textual variants are indicated in nn.

112. Ed. Weiss, 109c. Insertion is according to Venice 1545 edition. (Text is absent in MS Vatican 66.) Pronounced textual variants are indicated in nn.

113. Kahana, Kit‘e midreshe ha-halakhah, 347. The supplemental text bracketed with guillemets is according to Kahana, “Ma‘alat yeshivat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el,” 505–7.

114. Thus in MS Erfurt, printed editions, and T–S Or. 1080.13.69. MS Vienna: בחוצה לעיר.

115. Cf. B. Ketubbot 111a.

116. Firkovich fragment, Ebr. II A 270: מקבל עליו (עול) מל[ ]ת שמים.

117. Most witnesses: וכן דוד אומר. MS London: וכן דוד הוא אומר. MS Parma: וכן אמ׳ דוד.

118. MS Vatican 31: וכי תעלה על דעתך. MS London: וכי עלתה על דעתך. Firkovich fragment: וכי עלתה על דעתנו.

119. MS London, MS Oxford: אלא ללמדך. MS Vatican ebr. 31: absent.

120. Firkovich fragment: מקבל שם שמים.

121. MS Parma: וכל היושב בחוצה לארץ.

122. Bracketed text is according to MS Erfurt.