We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 May 2015
Earlier scholars typically considered the tannaitic traditions transmitted by Amoraim in the two Talmuds to be later amoraic (largely Babylonian) creations. This supposition was based on a range of formalistic considerations: the introductory terms, the attitude of the Amoraim to their halakhic content, and the lack of parallels in tannaitic literature. A study of the approximately 140 baraitot introduced by the term “a Tanna taught in front of so-and-so” offers substantial critique of this supposition, which was often based on incorrect a priori assumptions or on faulty interpretations of sources. Assessment of the nature and origins of the halakhic content of these so-called “amoraic baraitot” requires thorough analysis of the halakhic traditions found in this collection and their comparison with parallels in Palestinian tannaitic literature.
1. Cohen, Barak Shlomo, “In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions: The Case of ‘Tanna D'bei Shmuel,’” AJS Review 33, no. 2 (2009): 271–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2. For a full list see appendix A. Concerning the parallels between the different terms in the Talmudim see mainly Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899), 238Google Scholar; Bacher, , Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens (Leipzig: Fock, 1914)Google Scholar, 255 n. 1; Levi, Israel, “Keta'im mi-mishnato shel Abba Sha'ul,” in Mesilot le-torat ha-tannaʾim: Sheloshah ma'amarim, trans. Rabinowitz, A. Z. (Tel Aviv: Aḥdut, 1928), 101 n. 1Google Scholar; Sussman, Jacob, “‘Torah she-beʿal peh’—koḥo shel koẓo shel yod,” Meḥkarei Talmud 3 (2005): 241 n. 52Google Scholar; Assis, Moshe, 'Oẓar leshonot Yerushalmiyim: Munaḥim, bituyim u-leshonot bi-fihem shel he-'amora'im ba-Talmud ha-Yerushalmi, vol. 3 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010), 1400–1404Google Scholar. This number includes all forms of the formula in the Talmudim as well as other formulas that refer to the recitation of a tannaitic tradition in front of a sage, including, “R. X recited in front of R. Y [and R. Z],” “X recited in front of Y and disagreed with Y,” “R. X said: The Tanna recited,” and “A certain one of the scholars used to recite baraitot [מסדר מתני(י)תא] in front of X.”
3. Bacher, Tradition, 255, 263; Funk, Solomon, Die Juden in Babylonien 200–500, vol. 1 (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1902), 84Google Scholar; Ganẓ, Solomon, “The Rōbeh or the Official Memorizer of the Palestinian Schools,” PAAJR 7 (1935–1936): 6–7Google Scholar; Weiss, Isaac Hirsch, Dor dor ve-dorshav, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Ziv, 1962), 215Google Scholar; Bacher, Terminologie, 23; Epstein, Jacob Naḥum, Mavo le-nusaḥ ha-Mishnah, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 673–688Google Scholar; Epstein, , Perush ha-ge'onim le-seder Toharot (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 45Google Scholar; Gerhardsson, Birger, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Copenhagen: Gleerup, 1961), 97Google Scholar; Lieberman, Saul, Yevanit ve-yavnut be-'Ereẓ Yisra'el (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1984), 220Google Scholar; Melamed, Ezra Ẓion, Mavo le-sifrut ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1985), 53–55Google Scholar; Goodblatt, David, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 209–214Google Scholar; Elman, Yaakov, “Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,” Oral Tradition 14 (1999), 58Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 62Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 240–245, and n. 51. Other secondary literature will be discussed throughout this paper.
4. Bacher, Tradition, 230–233, 243–254, 255–266; Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:675.
5. Israel Levi, “Keta'im,” 99; Albeck, Ḥanokh, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969)Google Scholar, 28 n. 30; Moshe Beer, “Academies in Babylonia and 'Ereẓ Yisra'el,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972–4), 203; Gafni, Isaiah, Yehudei Bavel bi-tkufat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1990), 112 n. 4Google Scholar; Cohen, Avinoam, Ravina ve-ḥakhmei doro: ‘Iyyunim be-seder ha-zemanim shel ’amora’im ’aḥaronim be-Bavel (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001), 151 n. 41Google Scholar; Cohen, Barak Shlomo, “Yeshivot mekomiyot be-Bavel bi-tkufat ha-Talmud,” Ẓion 70 (2005): 455Google Scholar.
6. Bacher, Tradition, 255–266; Lieberman, Yevanit, 220; Gerhardsson, Memory, 97; Moses Joseph Yeres, ‘Iyyunim be-hagahot shel ha-ḥomer ha-tanna'i: Meḥkar ‘al ḥamesh hagahot be-sugyot ha-Bavli (PhD diss., Yeshiva University, 1987), 255–258; Melamed, Ezra Ẓion, Midrashei halakhah shel ha-tannaʾim ba-Talmud Bavli (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 23Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-be'al peh,” 276–277.
7. There is also ample evidence as to the role that these professional reciters played in the transmission of the talmudic oral tradition during the later, geonic period. See mainly Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:688–692; Sussman, Jacob, “Kitvei yad u-masorot nusaḥ shel ha-Mishnah,” Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies 7 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 238–239Google Scholar; Immanuel, Simḥa, “Teshuvot Rav Ḥai Gaon: ‘Al tannaʾim ve-'amoraʾim ve-ʿal tannaʾim bi-yeshivot ha-ge'onim,” Tarbiz 69 (2000): 105–126Google Scholar; Brody, Robert, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 50Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-be'al peh,” 240–241, 242–243, and n. 51.
8. Zacharias Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, ha-Tosefta, Mekhilta, Sifra ṿe-Sifri: ʻIm nosafot u-mafteaḥ le-Darkhei ha-Mishnah ṿe-hosafot ḥadashot she-nimẓaʾu ba-ketuvim be-ginze ha-Rav (Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1959), 331; Weiss, Dor dor ve-dorshav, 2:215; Halevy, Isaac, Dorot ha-rishonim, vol. 5 (Berlin: Neẓaḥ, 1933)Google Scholar, 126, 129, 131, 142; Ẓuri, Jacob, Toldot ha-mishpat ha-ẓiburi ha-ʿivri: Shilton ha-nesi'ut ve-ha-vaʿad (Paris: Voltaire, 1931), 212Google Scholar; Goldberg, Abraham, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in The Literature of the Sages, vol. 1, Oral Torah, Halakhah, Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, ed. Shmu'el, and Safrai, Ze'ev, Schwartz, Joshua, and Tomson, Peter (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987), 335Google Scholar. Albeck, Ḥanokh, Meḥkarim ba-baraita ve-tosefta ve-yaḥasan la-Talmud (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kuk, 1969), 15Google Scholar; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 28.
9. Friedman, Shamma, Le-toratam shel tanna'im: ’Asufat meḥkarim ‘iyyniyim u-metodologiyim (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2013), 272–273Google Scholar.
10. Melamed, Midrashei halakhah, 23.
11. For a discussion of exceptions see appendix B.
12. See also the cautious conclusion of Cohen, Boaz, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Comparative Study, Part 1: Shabbat (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1935), 30Google Scholar.
13. Below is a full list: B. Shabbat 50a (the TTK baraita is also found in B. Shabbat 125b, introduced by the term tanya); B. Pesaḥim 99b–100a (=tanya); B. Beẓah 17a (=tanu rabanan); B. Beẓah 29b (=tanu rabanan); B. Sotah 22b (=tanu rabanan); B. Bava Meẓiʾa 66b (=tanya); B. ʿAvodah Zarah 61b (=tanu rabanan); B. Niddah 43b (=ketana'ei). This is also a common phenomenon in descriptions of academic study sessions using a formula such as, “X was sitting in front of Y.” See Isaiah Gafni, “Ha-yeshivah be-Bavel: Ha-mivneh ha-penimi, ve-tafkidehah ha-ruḥaniyim ve-ha-ḥevratiyim be-kerev ha-ẓibur ha-yehudi bi-tkufat ha-'amora'im” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1979), 100–106; Gafni, Yehudei Bavel, 274–279.
14. The same is true with regard to sources using the formula תנא דבי שמואל or תני שמואל—it was taught in the house of Shmuel / it was taught by Shmuel. See Cohen, “In Quest,” 271–303.
15. See appendix A.
16. Elman, Yaakov, “Returnable Gifts in Rabbinic and Sasanian Law,” Irano-Judaica 6 (2008): 139–184Google Scholar; Greengus, Samuel, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the Ancient Near East (Eugene: Cascade, 2011), 114–121Google Scholar; Friedman, Le-toratam, 273–275; Henshke, David, Simḥat ha-regel be-talmudam shel tannaʾim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 13–14 n. 48Google Scholar.
17. Albeck, Meḥkarim, 31. See also Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, 332; Weiss, Dor dor ve-dorshav, 2:215–216; Albeck, Meḥkarim, 18–22; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 31, 34.
18. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:173–174.
19. The infrequent appearance of this phenomenon was noted by other scholars. The examples of cases they did cite were usually connected to R. Yoḥanan. See Bacher, Tradition, 256–266; Gerhardsson, Memory, 97; Sussman, “Torah she-be‘al peh,” 276 n. 60.
20. Early generation Amoraim occasionally disagree with a halakhic tradition found in the Mishnah or in a baraita. However, this phenomenon has no bearing on the origin of the tannaitic source. See Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:349–352; Weiss, Abraham, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud (New York: Feldheim, 1954), 11Google Scholar; Halivni, David Weiss, “The Reception Accorded to Rabbi Judah's Mishnah,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, ed. Sanders, E. P. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 204–212Google Scholar.
21. Sussman, “Torah she-be‘al peh,” 277. Concerning emendations of the text of the Mishnah and baraitot see Bacher, Tradition, 94–119, 243–254, 255–277; Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:353; Melamed, Ezra Ẓion, Pirkei mavo le-sifrut ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Shaʿarei Raḥamim, 1973), 357–364Google Scholar; Yeres, ‘Iyyunim ba-hagahot, 64–69.
22. Albeck, Meḥkarim, 32. See also Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 34–35.
23. 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; Friedman, Shamma, Tosefta ‘atikta: Masekhet Pesaḥ rishon (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 46–50Google Scholar; Friedman, Le-toratam shel tanna'im, 143–146.
24. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:165; 2:678–680, 684; Epstein, , Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tanna'im (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957), 674Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-be‘al peh,” 245 n. 64; Halivni, David Weiss, Mevo'ot le-mekorot u-mesorot: ‘Iyyunim be-hithavut ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2012), 99Google Scholar; Friedman, Le-toratam shel tanna'im, 298–299 n. 87.
25. For specific examples see Cohen, “In Quest,” 280–281.
26. See also Henshke, Simḥat ha-regel, 13 n. 48.
27. There are many examples of this. See mainly Moreshet, Menaḥem, “Ha-baraitot ha-ʿivriyot ba-Bavli ’einan lashon ha-ḥakhamim ʾaleph,” in Sefer zikkaron le-Ḥanokh Yalon, ed. Kutcher, Yeḥezkel, Lieberman, Saul, and Kadari, Menachem Ẓ. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1974), 275–314Google Scholar; Weiss, Abraham, ‘Al ha-yeẓirah ha-sifrutit shel ha-'amora'im (New York: Ḥoreb, 1962), 166–167Google Scholar; Friedman, Shamma, Sugyot be-ḥeker ha-Talmud ha-Bavli: ’Asufot meḥkarim be-ʿinyanei mivneh, herkev ve-nusaḥ (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010), 42–43 n. 38Google Scholar; Friedman, , “Ha-baraitot ba-Talmud ha-Bavli ve-yaḥasan le-makbiloteihen she-ba-tosefta,” in ‘Atarah le-Ḥayim—Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-talmudit ve-ha-rabanit li-khvod Professor Ḥayim Zalman Dimitrovsky, ed. Boyarin, Daniel, Hirschman, Marc, Friedman, Shamma, Shmelzer, Menahem, and Ta-Shma, Israel M. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 195–196Google Scholar, and the bibliographical references cited in n. 112; Friedman, Tosefta ‘atikta, 75; Kaẓoff, Benjamin, “Yaḥas ha-baraitot ba-Tosefta le-makbiloteihen ha-talmudiyot: ‘Iyyun me-ḥadash le-'or masekhet Berakhot,” HUCA 75 (2004): 1–24Google Scholar, 48–52; Elman, Yaakov, Authority and Tradition: Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonia (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1994), 48–52Google Scholar; Elman, , “Orality and the Transmission of Tosefta Pisha in Talmudic Literature,” in Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies, ed. Fox, Harry (Hoboken: Ktav, 1999), 128–129Google Scholar; Rosenthal, David, “Masorot ’Ereẓ-Isra'eliot ve-darkan le-Bavel,” Cathedra 92 (1999): 17–18Google Scholar, 22–23. It is theoretically possible that the TTK baraitot reflect early Babylonian traditions parallel to the tannaitic Palestinian traditions (see for instance Elman, Authority, 277–281; compare Friedman, “Ha-baraitot,” 195 n. 112). According to this theory the TTK baraitot are similar to Palestinian Halakhah but stem from an alternative source. However, this does not impact the conclusions above.
28. The following is a complete list of all such cases: B. Berakhot 15b; B. Shabbat 45a (=B. Beẓah 30a); B. Shabbat 50a; B. Shabbat 106a (=B. Bava Kamma 34b); B. Pesaḥim 99b; B. Megillah 8b; B. Megillah 27a; B. Megillah 27b; B. Yevamot 40a; B. Ketubot 68b; B. Gittin 52b; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 27a; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 40a; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 58a; B. Sanhedrin 67b; B. Makkot 20b; B. Makkot 21a; B. Zevaḥim 55a; B. Menaḥot 50b; B. Temurah 29a; B. Temurah 31a; B. Keritot 9b (=Niddah 40a); Y. Pe'ah 1:1 (15a) (=Y. Ḥagigah 1:2 [66b]); Y. Terumot 3:6 (42b); Y. ʿEruvin 1:6 (19b); Y. Pesaḥim 6:1 (33b); Y. Shekalim 3:1 (56d); Y. Yevamot 8:2 (9b); Y. Yevamot 12:2 (12d).
29. For a detailed list of all parallels see appendix A.
30. The following is a complete list: B. Berakhot 5a–b; B. Berakhot 16a; B. Berakhot. 57a; B. Shabbat 45a (=Beẓah 30b); B. Shabbat 66b; B. Shabbat 106a (=B. Bava Kamma 34b); B. ʿEruvin 9a; B. Pesaḥim 53b; B. Yoma 43b; B. Beẓah 12a; B. Moʿed Katan 20b; B. Yevamot 67b (=Y. Yevamot 8:3 [9c]); B. Sanhedrin 62b (=Y. Shabbat 7:1 [9a]); B. Sanhedrin 103a; B. Makkot 15b; B. Makkot 21a; B. ʿAvodah Zarah 26a; B. Menaḥot 48a; B. Ḥullin 45a; B. Temurah 29a; B. Temurah 31a; B. Bekhorot 60b; B. Megillah 16b; Y. Pe'ah 1:1 (15a) (=Y. Ḥagigah 1:2 [66b]); Y. Shabbat 2:1 (6c); Y. Yevamot 8:2 (9c) (twice) (=Y. Kiddushin 4:3 [65d]); Y. Nazir 7:1 (55d); Y. Bava Kamma 8:6 (6c). MS Munich 95 of B. Temurah 3a reads: “The Tanna taught in front of R. Yoḥanan” but in other manuscripts, as well as the printed edition, and the parallel in B. Makkot 16a, the text reads, “R. Yiẓḥak said in the name of R. Yoḥanan …”
31. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 214.
32. Compare the detailed list below, appendix A.
33. The parallel for the sugya is found in Y. Ḥagigah 1:2 (66b).
34. M. Ḥagigah 1:2.
35. Exodus 23:15; 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:16.
36. T. Ḥagigah 1:4 (ed. Lieberman, p. 377). For a discussion of the tannaitic sources connected to this issue see Epstein, Mevo'ot, 373–374; Karl, Ẓvi, Mishnayot Ḥagigah ‘im be'ur ḥadash (Levuv: Snunit, 1925), 2–3Google Scholar; Ḥanokh Albeck, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Seder Moʿed (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1958), 387; Safrai, Shmu'el, Ha-'aliyah la-regel bi-yemei ha-bayit ha-sheni: Monografiah historit (Tel Aviv: ‘Am Ha-sefer, 1985), 174–175Google Scholar; Tabori, Joseph, Moʿadei Yisra'el bi-tkufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 51–53Google Scholar.
37. T. Ḥagigah 1:4 (ed. Lieberman, p. 376). See also Henshke, Simḥat ha-regel, 365.
38. B. Ḥagigah 6b. See also Henshke, Simḥat ha-regel, 365. Compare Shmu'el and Ze'ev Safrai, Mishnat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el: Moʿed Katan ve-Ḥagigah (Jerusalem: Lipshiẓ College, 2009), 223–225.
39. For another baraita according to which the rule, “one piece of silver, two pieces of silver” is of rabbinic status see Sifrei Devarim, Re'eh, pis. 143, to Deuteronomy 16:16 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 196); Henshke, Simḥat ha-regel, 50–55.
40. Bacher, Tradition, 256; Frankel, Zacharias, Talmud Yerushalmi: Seder Zera'im (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971)Google Scholar, 57b, s.v. ve-yesh kan zo.
41. Safrai, Shmu'el, “Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai: Historiah ’o te'ologiah?” Meḥkerei Talmud 1 (1994): 36–37Google Scholar.
42. MS Munich 95 reads: “Interpret our mishnah according to R. Judah.”
43. B. Sanhedrin 89b; B. Makkot 20b. See Bacher, Tradition, 264; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 212 n. 24, and p. 214.
44. Albeck, Ḥanokh, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Seder Nezikin (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1958), 230Google Scholar; Aaron Shemesh, “‘Onesh ha-malkot ba-mekorot ha-tanna'im” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1994), 1:184.
45. Melamed, Midrashei halakhah, 277, siman 726.
46. This is the reading in MS Vatican 66. MS Vatican 31 reads: “[and the one rounds someone else's beard] and the one who rounds [ואחד הנוקף].”
47. Ramban citing the Ra'avad, s.v. ’eḥad ha-mekif. See also Lieberman, Saul, Tosefet rishonim, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1938), 167Google Scholar.
48. See also the Riẓad, Ḥidushei ha-Riẓad, 3:351, s.v. be-mekif le-ʿaẓmo.
49. Rashi, s.v. de-’akhil.
50. B. Makkot 4b and parallels. For a discussion of tannaitic and amoraic positions on this issue see Halivni, David Weiss, Mekorot u-masorot: Sanhedrin-Horayot (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2012), 256–258Google Scholar.
51. This halakhah with some variants is in Sifra, Ẓav, par. 3:6–9, to Leviticus 6:13 (ed. Weiss, p. 31a) and in a halakhic midrash on B. Menaḥot 50b.
52. B. Pesaḥim 34b; 63b; 82b.
53. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 213–214, and the literature cited there. For a full list see appendix A.
54. B. Shabbat 93b; B. Megillah 27b; B. Ḥagigah 22b; B. Yevamot 40a; B. Ketubot 101b; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 40a; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 113b (twice); B. Bava Batra 165b; B. Zevaḥim 56a; B. Menaḥot 4a; B. Menaḥot 50b; B. Bekhorot 51b.
55. Concerning the meaning of the term ותני עלה see Moscowitz, Leib, Ha-terminologiyah shel ha-Yerushalmi: Ha-munaḥim ha-ʿikariyim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), 600–601Google Scholar; Assis, ’Oẓar Leshonot, 2:609.
56. Concerning “their appearance changes” (תעובר צורתו) in tannaitic literature see Kohut, Alexander, ed., ‘Arukh ha-shalem (New York: Pardes, 1955), 6:160Google Scholar; Levy, Jacob, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (Berlin: Harz, 1924), 3:612Google Scholar; Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1971), 2:103Google Scholar; Albeck, Ḥanokh, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Seder Moʿed, 166Google Scholar; Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta ki-fshutah: Seder Moʿed (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 4:545Google Scholar, and n. 1; Samu'el, and Safrai, Ze'ev, Mishnat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el: Masekhet Pesaḥim (Jerusalem: Lipshiẓ College, 2009), 290Google Scholar.
57. Reish Lakish in B. Pesaḥim 34a locates the source in the position of R. Ishmael son of R. Yoḥanan b. Beroka (=T. Pesaḥim 6:6 [ed. Lieberman, 173]). See also Higger, Michael, 'Oẓar ha-baraitot (New York: De-vei Rabanan, 1946), 3:340–341Google Scholar.
58. B. Yevamot 40a; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 27a; B. Bekhorot 59b; B. Bekhorot 60b.
59. Compare Albeck, Meḥkarim, 26; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 34.
60. In B. Shabbat 50a the term, “He recited [תני] it and he said [אמר] about it” is solid evidence that a “Tanna” added to his teaching a ruling related to a tannaitic source.
61. B. Yevamot 40a; B. Bava Meẓiʿa 27a; B. Bekhorot 59b; B. Bekhorot 60b.
62. This is the version preserved in Halakhot gedolot, ed. Azriel Hildesheimer, (Jerusalem: Mekiẓei Nirdamim, 1971), 2:91Google Scholar. See also Lis, Abraham, ed., Dikdukei soferim ha-shalem: Masekhet Yevamot (Jerusalem: Yad Harav Herẓog, 1983), 2:82Google Scholar.
63. Halakhot gedolot reads: “Should I teach the opposite?” Concerning this reading see Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:592.
64. Urbach, Ephraim E., Me-ʿolamam shel ḥakhamim: Koveẓ meḥkarim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2002), 74Google Scholar.
65. Y. Yevamot 4:7 (5d); B. Yevamot 40a.
66. Halivni, David Weiss, Mekorot u-mesorot: Seder Nashim (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993), 46Google Scholar. A similar position is ascribed to R. Judah in Sifrei Bamidbar, Pinḥas, pis. 133, to Numbers 27:4 (ed. Horovitz, p. 177) and in Sifrei Devarim, Ki Teẓe, pis. 299, to Deuteronomy 25:7 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 308). See Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta ki-fshutah: Seder Nashim, vols. 6–7 (New York: Magnes, 1996), 47–48Google Scholar; Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot: Seder Nashim, 46–47.
67. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, 47; Albeck Meḥkarim, 113; Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot, 46; Albeck, Ḥanokh, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Seder Nashim (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1952), 335Google Scholar; Urbach, Me-ʿolamam, 74.
68. Bacher, Traditions, 264 n. 10; Weiss, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud, 214; Halivni, “‘Iyyunim,” 152 n. 20; Yeres, ‘Iyyunim ba-hagahot, 258; Urbach, Me-ʿolamam, 73–74; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 276 n. 60.
69. Weiss, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud, 214.
70. For an analysis of similar phenomena in both Talmudim and their historical significance, see Cohen, Barak Shlomo, “Li-vḥinato shel kelal talmudi ’eḥad be-ferusho shel Rashi la-Bavli (‘ʾamar rav peloni mi-shme de-rav ’almoni’),” in Rashi u-veit midrasho, ed. Cohen, A. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2013), 109 n. 106Google Scholar.
71. Albeck was aware of this, see Meḥkarim, 14 n. 1.
72. Even the tradition, “the halakhah is not in accordance with R. Judah” presented in the baraita after R. Naḥman's emendation accords with the opinion of R. Yoḥanan in the Bavli and R. Yannai (first-generation Palestinian Amora) in the Yerushalmi. See Urbach, Me-ʿolamam, 73–74.
73. In addition to the eleven instances of TTK baraitot recited in front of R. Yoḥanan (see below) there are six other such instances. Four of them involve Rav: B. Bava Meẓiʿa 66b; B. Ḥullin 15a; B. Menaḥot 49a; B. Bekhorot 56a. The other two are: B. Bekhorot 49b (R. Judah); B. Menaḥot 28b (R. Yosef).
74. For a definition of the term “apodictic” as used in talmudic studies see Halivni, David Weiss, ‘“Whoever Studies Laws…’: The Apodictic and the Argumentational in the Talmud,” Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 41 (1979): 302 n. 3Google Scholar; Kalmin, Richard,“The Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim: Transition or Continuity? A Study of the Role of the Final Generations of Amoraim in the Redaction of the Talmud,” AJS Review 11 (1986): 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halivni, Mevo'ot, 4, 32, 139.
75. B. Shabbat 106a (=B. Bava Kamma 34b); B. ʿEruvin 9a; B. Yoma 43b; B. Beẓah 12a; B. Yevamot 67b; B. Sanhedrin 62b. Concerning the use of the term to reject a halakhah taught in a tannaitic source see Bacher, Traditions, 355 n. 2; Kohut, ed., ‘Arukh ha-shalem, 2:167; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1:188; Gerhardsson, Memory, 97 and n. 7; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 486; Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot: Yoma-Ḥagigah, 282 n. 6; Yeres, ‘Iyyunim ba-hagahot, 114; , Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 1219Google Scholar. The question of whether the expression was actually issued by R. Yoḥanan in all of these instances (see Danzig, Nachman, “Le-hitpatḥut ha-munaḥ ‘baraita,’” Sinai 89 [1981]: 220Google Scholar; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 486; Weiss, Abraham, Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-hithavuto ha-sifrutit [Warsaw: Jewish Studies Institute, 1936], 24Google Scholar; Weiss, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud, 43) is not relevant to this discussion. This article focuses on the very fact that the baraita was rejected, and not on the specificities of the language used to reject it. Our observations are valid a fortiori if R. Yoḥanan himself was not responsible for some of the rejections, which might have stemmed instead from redactional activity on the part of the sugya's redactor.
76. B. ʿAvodah Zarah 26a. Concerning the usage of this term see Yeres, ‘Iyyunim, 117–123, 150–155.
77. B. Shabbat 106a (=34b). Concerning the general use of this term in the Bavli see Yeres, Hagahot, 63–68.
78. Y. Peʾah 1:1 (15a) (=Y. Ḥagigah 1:2 [66b]); Y. Shabbat 2:1 (4c); Y. Nazir 7:1 (55d). Concerning the use of this term see for example, Frankel, Talmud Yerushalmi: Seder Zera‘im 57b, s.v. ve-yesh kan; Bacher, Tradition, 256 n. 4; Lieberman, Saul, Ha-Yerushalmi ki-fshuto: Shabbat ʿEruvin Pesaḥim (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2008), 65Google Scholar; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 137 n. 103; Assis, ’Oẓar leshonot Yerushalmiyim, 2:524.
79. Y. Bava Kamma 8:6 (6c).
80. Y. Shabbat 3:2 (9c); Y. Yevamot 8:3 (9c). See Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:174 and n. 1; Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi ki-fshuto, 119; Sokoloff, , Dictionary, 575Google Scholar.
81. B. Yoma 43b.
82. B. Pesaḥim 13b; B. Megillah 27b; B. Ketubot 101a; B. ʿAvodah Zarah 61b; B. Makkot 15b; B. Bekhorot 49b; B. Temurah 24a.
83. B. Shabbat 93b; B. Pesaḥim 68a; B. Pesaḥim 90b; B. Beẓah 17a; B. Gittin 52b; B. Makkot 21a; B. Menaḥot 17a; B. Keritot 9b (=B. Niddah 40a). Concerning the use of the term, “Say” (אימא) to signify an emendation see Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:439–440; Albeck, Ḥanokh, Mavo la-Mishnah (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1959), 121Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 277 n. 65.
84. B. Yoma 11a; B. Keritot 11a. Concerning the varying uses of the term, “Teach it this way” (הכי קתני) among the Amoraim, see Goldberg, Abraham, Ẓurah ve-'arikhah be-sifrut ḥazal: Meḥkarim sifrutiyim ba-Mishnah, Tosefta, midrashei halakhah, midrashei ’aggadah ve-Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011), 278–279 n. 30Google Scholar and the bibliography cited there.
85. B. Ketubot 68b. See Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:440, 591–592; Melamed, Pirkei mavo, 365–366; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 277 n. 65.
86. B. Beẓah 12a; B. Makkot 15b; B. Bekhorot 49b.
87. The words in brackets are based on MSS Munich 95, Oxford 23 Opp. Add. Fol. 23.
88. Both the baraita and the response of R. Yoḥanan appear in Y. Yoma 3:8 (40d).
89. This version is preserved in all manuscripts. The printed edition reads: “R. Shimʿon b. Yehoẓadak.” See Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:210 n. 1. Compare Henshke, Simḥat ha-regel, 390 n. 79.
90. B. Shabbat 106a (=B. Bava Kamma 34b); B. ʿEruvin 9a; B. Beẓah 12a; B. Yevamot 67b; B. Sanhedrin 62a. The question of whether the expression was originally uttered by R. Yoḥanan in all six places (see Albeck, Ḥanokh, “Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud,” Tarbiz 3 [1932], 11Google Scholar) is not relevant to our discussion.
91. Y. Shabbat 7:2 (9c) (=B. Sanhedrin 62b); Y. Yevamot 8:3 (9c) (=B. Yevamot 67b).
92. Metzger, David, ed., Perushei Rabbenu Ḥananel bar Ḥushiel la-Talmud: Masekhet Yoma (Jerusalem: Lev Sameaḥ, 1990), 59Google Scholar, s.v. R. Yoḥanan.
93. Ratner, Be'er, ’Ahavat Ẓion: Masekhet Yoma (Jerusalem: Garber, 1962), 35Google Scholar; Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:209–210.
94. Albeck, Meḥkarim, 21; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 34.
95. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:209–210.
96. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:209.
97. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:210; Lieberman, Tosefet rishonim, 3:224. See also the parallel in Sifrei Bamidbar, Ḥukkat, pis. 123, to Numbers 19:2 (ed. Kahana, p. 39).
98. The same is true in the other cases in the Bavli, see Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 486.
99. One “who tears out of anger” or “over his dead” are examples of “all those who ruin.” One who does so is exempt (according to R. Judah). See Goldberg, Abraham, Perush la-Mishnah: Masekhet Shabbat (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976), 253Google Scholar; Gilat, Isaac Dov, Perakim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), 56 n. 116Google Scholar; Shmu'el, and Safrai, Ze'ev, Mishnat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el: Masekhet Shabbat (Jerusalem: Lipshiẓ College, 2009), 2:372Google Scholar. Compare Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:1070–1073.
100. It seems that R. Yoḥanan is the source of the comment, “if you say it is a mishnah …” for this language is ascribed to him four times in the Yerushalmi: Shabbat 2:5 (5a); ʿEruvin 10:12 (26c); Pesaḥim 6:1 (33b); Bava Kamma 3:10 (3d). See Zvi Moshe Dor, Torat ’Ereẓ Yisra’el be-Bavel (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1971), 90; Yeres, ‘Iyyunim be-hagahot, 71–73.
101. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:1071; Goldberg, Perush la-Mishnah: Shabbat, 253; Gilat, Perakim, 56; Safrai, Mishnat ’Ereẓ Yisra'el: Shabbat, 2:372.
102. Metzger, Perushei Rabbenu Ḥananel bar Ḥushiel, 207.
103. The notion that R. Yoḥanan is attempting to bridge the gap between the mishnah, which adopts the position of R. Judah, and the TTK baraita, which reflects the opinion of R. Shimʿon (Ḥidushei ha-Ritba: Shabbat, 683–689) is a later one, based on the interpretation of the later Stammaim (late anonymous editors of the Bavli). See Levine, Benjamin Menashe, Rabanan savorai ve-talmudam (Tel Aviv: 'Aḥiever, 1936), 55Google Scholar.
104. Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 486.
105. As was suggested by Yeres, ‘Iyyunim ba-hagahot, 62. See also Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:680; Goldberg, Perush la-Mishnah: Shabbat, 253; Gilat, Perakim, 56–57.
106. Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, 332; Weiss, Dor dor ve-dorshav, 2:216; Albeck, Meḥkarim, 21; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 30.
107. Weiss, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud, 42.
108. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, 2:108–109.
109. On the dating of Bar Kapara, and his halakhic and ideological teachings see mainly Frankel, Zecharias, Mavo ha-Yerushalmi (Breslau: Schlater, 1870; facsimile edition: Jerusalem: Makor, 1967), 71aGoogle Scholar; Bacher, , ’Aggadot ha-tanna'im, vol. 2:2 (Jaffa: Shoshani, 1921), 163–176Google Scholar; Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 1:24; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, 148–153.
110. The words of Bar Kapara are absent in one of the four parallels in the Yerushalmi (Y. Bava Kamma 3:10 [3d]) where only the interpretation of R. Yoḥanan is found. See Lieberman, Saul, “Talmudah shel Kesarin,” Tarbiz 2 (1931): 29Google Scholar.
111. The dialogue is cited based on the version of Halakhot gedolot, 2:46. A different version of R. Sheshet's response than that found in direct textual witnesses of the passage (manuscripts and printed editions) exists in Halakhot gedolot. However, this does not impact the conclusions reached above. Concerning this textual tradition see Yo'av Rosenthal, “Masekhet Keritot (Bavli): Le-ḥeker mesorotehah” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2004), 247–248.
112. See below, appendix A.
113. B. Megillah 27a (see below).
114. B. Beẓah 16b; B. Kiddushin 66a.
115. Bacher, Tradition, 612; Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:676; Frankel, Jonah, Darkhei ha-'aggadah ve-ha-midrash, vol. 2 (Givatayim: Masada, 1991), 576Google Scholar; Elman, “Orality,” 66; Sokoloff, Dictionary, 789.
116. Many scholars interpret the term מסדר (the piel form of the root סד"ר) to refer not only to recitation and quotation but also to editing or arranging tannaitic material. See for instance, Havlin, Shlomo Zalman, “‘Al ‘ha-ḥatimah ha-sifrutit’ ke-yesod ha-ḥalukah li-tkufot be-halakhah,” in Meḥkarim ba-sifrut ha-talmudit: Yom ‘iyyun le-regel melot shemonim shanah le-Sha'ul Lieberman (Jerusalem: Israel Research Institute, 1983), 156 n. 44Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 307 n. 43.
117. Epstein, Mavo le-nusaḥ, 2:676 n. 1; Boaz Cohen, Mishnah and Tosefta, 30; Gerhardsson, Memory, 105–106; Weiss, Abraham, Meḥkarim ba-Talmud (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kuk and Bar-Ilan University Press, 1975), 51–52Google Scholar; Weiss, Le-ḥeker ha-Talmud, 406; Melamed, Midrashei halakhah, 22; Urbach, Ephraim E., Ha-halakhah—Mekorotehah ve-hitpatḥutah (Givatayim: Masada, 1984), 191Google Scholar; Sussman, “Torah she-beʿal peh,” 241 n. 53, and 261 n. 15.
118. Diner, R. Yosef Ẓvi, Ḥidushei ha-Riẓad: Hagahot, perushim u-be'urim ‘al ha-Bavli ve-Tosefta u-Mishneh Torah le-ha-Rambam (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 2000), 4:469Google Scholar, s.v. ‘asu gomer ke-meʿareh; Gerhardsson, Memory, 98.
119. See also Sifra Kedoshim, par. 11, halakhah 2, to Leviticus 19:20 (ed. Weiss, p. 93a) and parallels.
120. See also Abramsky, Tosefta, seder Kodashin, 10, s.v. meʿareh ke-gomer; Pardo, R. David, Ḥasdei David, Seder Kodashin (Jerusalem: Lev Sameaḥ, 1994), 1:687Google Scholar, s.v. u-meʿareh ke-gomer; Albeck, Shishah sidrei Mishnah: Seder Kodashin (Tel Aviv, Dvir, 1952), 253.
121. Rashi, s.v. ve-'i be-she'ar.
122. See also Sifra Kedoshim par. 5:2, Leviticus 19:20 (ed. Weiss, p. 89c) (concerning one who has sexual contact with a female slave): “lying down [accompanied by] seed—this excludes one [who has only] sexual contact” and parallels.
123. I have not located parallels for the other forty or so traditions found in TTK baraitot.
124. This accords well with findings concerning other baraitot found in the Talmudim attributed to the “House of Levi” or the “amoraic baraitot” attributed to Shmu’el or his (study) house (“Tanna de-vei Shmu’el,” “Tannei Shmu’el,” or “Matnita de-Shmuʾel”). See Ratner, Be'er, “Mishnato shel Levi Ben Sisi,” in Zikhron le-'Avraham ’Eliyahu li-khvod ha-Rav ha-ḥakham he-mefo’ar ’Avraham ’Eliyahu Harkavi (Berlin: Isvokaski, 1909), 117–118Google Scholar; Cohen, “In Quest,” 277, 296–297.
