A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 21: The Redaction and Formulation of the Order of Purities in Mishnah and Tosefta 9781556353420, 1556353421

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF MISHNAH:
TRACTATES AND THEIR ORGANIZATION

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART TWENTY-ONE

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME

SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART TWENTY-ONE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies and The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART TWENTY-ONE

THE REDACTION AND FORMULATION OF THE ORDER OF PURITIES IN MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA

Wip£&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 21 The Redaction and Formulation of the Order of Purities in Mishnah and Tosefta By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1977 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-342-0 ISBN 10: 1-55635-342-1 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1977

For

IVSD

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ..... . List of Abbreviations Transliterations . Introduction

. .

I. The Principal Divisions of Mishnah: Tractates and their Organization . . i. Definitions. . . . ii. Tractates . . . . iii. Organization of Tractates 1. Kelim . 2. Ohalot . 3. Negaim 4. Parah . 5. Tohorot 6. Miqvaot 7. Niddah 8. Makhshirin . 9. Zabim . . . 10. Tebul Yom. 11. Yadayim . 12. Uqsin . iv. Conclusion. . II. The Intermediate Divisions of Mishnah: "Chapters" and their Delineation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii. Intermediate Divisions Defined by Both Internallyunitary Formulary Traits and Coherent Themes . . . iii. Intermediate Divisions Defined by Both Externallyunitary Formulary Traits and Coherent Themes . . . iv. Intermediate Divisions Defined by Cogent Themes but Lacking Formulary Coherence . . . . . . . . . . v. · Intermediate Divisions Defined by Unitary Formulary Traits but Lacking Coherent Themes . . . . . . .

XI XIX XXIV

1 22 22 25 29

30 45 53 63 74 83 88 94 99 102 104 108 112

113 113 120 126 152 155

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi. Intermediate Divisions Wholly Lacking Formal or Thematic Coherence and Defined Solely by Redactional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 vii. Intermediate Divisions Originally Defined by Internally-unitary Formulary Traits and Coherent Themes but Split Apart for Redactional Purposes. . . . . . 158 viii. The Construction of Mishnah's Intermediate Divisions: General Traits 160 ix. Conclusion. . . . . 163 III. Mishnah's Smallest Components: Cognitive Units and their Formulation . . . i. Definitions . . . . ii. Forms in Mishnah 1. The Attributive 2. The Dispute. 3. MaOhalot.] Albeck = I;I. Albeck, Seder /ohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958). Ar. = 'Arakhin A.Z. = 'Abodah Zarah B. = Babli, Babylonian Talmud = Baba> Batra' B.B. = Baba' Me~i'a' B.M. B.Q. = Baba' Qamma' Ber. = Berakhot Bes. = Be~ah = Bikkurim Bik. Chomsky, Language = Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (N.Y., 1972). Chomsky, Reflections= Noam Chomsky, Reflections on Language (N.Y., 1975). Chomsky, Structures = Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957). Dan. = Daniel = Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933). Danby = Dema 'i Dem. 1 Full discussions of the approaches to Mishnah and its history of nineteenth and twentieth century scholars are in The Modern Study ~f the Mishnah (Leiden, 1973), with specific reference to J. N. Epstein, Zccharias Frankel, Jacob Bri.ill, Hirsch Mendel Pineles, N. Krochmal, H. Graetz, I. H. Weiss, and Z. Jawitz, David Hoffmann, Y. I. Halevy, Joachim Oppenheim, J. S. Zuri, Benjamin DeVries, I;Ianokh Albeck, Abraham Weiss, and, among the living, Abraham Goldberg and David Weiss Halivni. The papers, by Baruch Micah Bokser, Joel Gereboff, Gary G. Parton, William Scott Green, and Charles Primus, provide a considerable account of how Mishnah has been introduced up to the present time. In addition, the bibliography, pp. 256-269, lists and summarizes other books and articles not dealt with in the analytical essays. Entries not discussed at length are summarized therein. The bibliography surveys, in particular, articles in the principal scholarly journals of Judaica in English, French, German, and Hebrew, as well as those in the festschriften indexed by Jacob R. Marcus and Albert Bilgray, An Index to Jewish Festschriften (Cincinnati, 1937) and by Charles Berlin, Index to Fe.rtschriften in Jewish Studies (Cambridge and New York, 1971). While no claim is made for completeness, the essays and bibliography in The Modern Study of the Mishnah do provide a fair sample of important and representative approaches to the problems dealt with in this and the subsequent part of the study and a reliable perspective on the whole. A still more valuable account of the state of many questions, including that dealt with here, is Gunter Sternberger, "La recherche rabbinique depuis Strack," translated into French by R. Breckle, Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses55, 4, 1975, pp. 543574. Sternberger is cited on the task of Mishnah-introduction below, p. 67. The present bibliography lists only those works directly cited in this part, but, as indicated, the bibliographical foundations of the work are supplied in MSM. A further state-of-the-question-study is underway under the editorship of Professor Richard S. Sarason, Brown University, under the projected title, The

Modern Study of Midrash.

xx Deut, Douglas Ed. Erub. Epstein, Nussap Epstein, Tan. Farb, Word Plcry Fishman

ABBREVIATIONS

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

= Deuteronomy = Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols. Explorations in Cosnwlogy (N.Y., 1970. Used: Vintage Books edition, 1973).

= 'Eduyyot = 'Erubin = See Nussap. = See Tan.

= Peter Farb, Word Plq_y. What Happens When People Talk (N.Y., 1974. Used: Bantam edition, N.Y., 1975). = Joshua A. Fishman, The Sociologyof Language. An Inter-

disciplinary Social Science Approach to Language in Sociery (Rosley, 1972). Fitzmyer = Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.," Catholic Biblical Quarter!J 32, 1970, pp. 501-531. Geertz, Ethos = Clifford Geertz, "Ethos, World-View and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols," The Antioch Review 17, 4, 1957, pp. 421-437. Geertz, Religion = Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System," Anthropological Approaches to the Stui(y of Religion, Edited by Michael Banton. (London, 1966), pp. 1-46. Git. = Gittin. GRA = Elijah ben Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, Ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tosefta seder Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for T. Green, Bibliography = William Scott Green, "What's in a Name? The Problematic of Rabbinic 'Biography'," in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. by William Scott Green (Missoula, 1977). Hag. = },lagigah Hal. = I;lallah Harmon = On Noam Chomsky: Critical Essays. Edited by Gilbert Harmon (N.Y., 1974). Haugen = Einar Haugen, The Ecology of Language (Stanford, 1972). Hor. = Horayot Hul. = I;Iullin Jastrow = Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc. (Reprint N.Y., 1950). Kd. "-'"Kelim Ker. =° Keritot Kil. Kila'yim Lane = Introduction to Structuralism. Edited and Introduced by Michael Lane. (N.Y., 1970). Consulted: R. Barthes, "Historical Discourse," pp. 145-155; M. Gaboriau, "Structural Anthropology and History," pp. 156-169; E. Leach, "The Legitimacy of Solomon," pp. 248-292. Lev. = Leviticus Levy-Bruh! = Lucien Levy-Bruh!, How Natives Think (London, 1926). Lieberman, = Saul Lieberman, "The Publication of the Mishnah," Publication Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), pp. 83-99. Lieberman, TR = Saul Lieberman, Tosejeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and

ABBREVIATIONS

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

XXI

Midrashim and Rare Editions. III. Kelim-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-Uktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). .M. = Mishnah Ma. = Ma'aserot Mak. = Makkot Maimonides, Code = The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanness. Trans. by Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954). Maimonides, Comm. = Mishnah 'im perush Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon. Trans. Joseph David Qappa}:i.VI. Seder /ohorot. (Jerusalem, 1967). =~ Makhshirin Makh. Mc. = Me'ilah Meg. = Megillah = E. Z. Melamed, Hayyapas .rhebenmidrashe halakhah !amMelamed mishnah velattosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). = David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (Boston, 1963). Mellinkoff = Mena}:iot Men. = Miqva>ot Miq. M.Q. = Mo'ed Qatan = Ma 'aser Sheni M.S. MSM = The Modern Stut{y of the Mishnah, edited by Jacob Neusner (Leiden, 1973). Naz. = Nazir Ned. = Nedarim Neg. = Nega'im Nid. = Niddah Num. = Numbers = Y. N. Epstein, Mabo' lenussap hammi.rhnah (Jerusalem, Nussab Tel Aviv, 19542). Oh. == 'Ohalot Or. = 'Orlah Par. = Parah Pes. = Pesa}:iim Qid. = Qiddushin R ..H. = Rosh Hashshanah Safrai = Shemu'el Safra'i, "Leba'ayat hakkeronologiah she! hannesi>im beme'ah hashsheniyah vehashshelishit," Divre haqqongresha'olami hashshishi lemada'e hayyahadut, (Jerusalem, 1976) II, pp. 51-57. Saldarini = Anthony J. Saldarini, review, History of the Mishnaic Law Laiv of Purities I-Ill, Journal of Biblical Literature 95, 1, 1976, pp. 149-151. San. = Sanhedrin Shah. = Shabbat Shabu. = Shabu'ot Sheb. = Shebi'it Sheq. = Sheqalim Sot. = Sotah Spiro = Melford E. Spiro, "Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation," in Anthropological Approaches to the Stut{y of Religion.Edited by Michael Banton. (London, 1966), pp. 85-126. Sternberger = Gunter Sternberger, "La recherche rabbinique depuis Strack," translated into French by R. Breckle. Revue d'histoire et dephilosophie religieuses,55, 4, 1975, pp. 543-574.

XXII

ABBREVIATIONS

Strack

= Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia, 1931. Used: Harper Torchbook edition, N.Y., 1965). = Sukkah = Tosefta = Ta'anit = Y. N. Epstein, Mebo'ot lesifrut hattanna'im. Mishnah, tosefta ummidrashehalakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957). =f: As above. 64. 7:31\-B, C, D-F, G-1, J-L: A bright spot-in it thONEN'tS

division, e.g., from 3 :3-4/6-8, even though both fall within the category of simple declarative sentence. Moreover, we notice that the pattern before us is without parallel in our entire tractate. iii. 13: Once more, the simple declarative sentence exhibits its capacity for distinctiveness and diversity. The sentences are fully worked out, with subordinate clauses, and are readily discerned from the sort at iii. 12 and iii. 14. iii. 14: Here, as noted, we do not find equivalently tightly formulated sentences. Yet the x unclean/y clean-pattern does impose a shift in the diction of the sentences, from fully worked out and smooth ones, to contrastive constructions. What is important is that the contrast-x this/y that-is effected even where the apodosis is undifferentiated, that is, at 13: 7, and the point of emphasis is the lo, theseare. ill. 15: While it is true that the common form is the dispute, the components of the dispute are strikingly balanced with one another through 15: 1F-S. 15: 2's sentences are built on the contrastive apodosis, and the dispute is incidental to the sentence-structure. The same applies to 15: 3. The point made above, that the contrastive apodosis is present even without the x uncleanf.yclean-formulation, is to be applied at 15: 4. This brings us back to 15: 1F-S, for there is no better example of the contrastive apodosis than that which is present in the two long and complex, highly-tuned balanced clauses, of Meir's and Judah's sayings. Accordingly, the contrastive predicate, not merely the dispute, is what constitutes the formulary unity of the entire comstruction, an impressive one at that. ill. 16: A second look shows us that this set is built out of the contrastive predicate, and one can make a case in favor of regarding iii. 15 and 16 as a single formulary subdivision. iii. 17: Duplicated subject. ill. 18: The continuation of the duplicated subject and of the theme of the point at which various objects and materials receive uncleanness suggests that iii. 17 and 18 may be deemed a single intermediate division. The unclean/clean-patternthen is secondary to the redactional intent. ill. 19: There can be no clearer example of the way in which a single pattern for a simple declarative sentence may be imposed through a sequence of entries. The sort of declarative sentence is obvious: simple but laden with subordinate clauses, many of them requiring an understood if.

TRADENTS

AND REDACTORS

OR TRADENT-REDACTORS?

237

ii. 20: This sizable entry now is to be subdivided, since some of the sentences are simple and smooth, and others contain a duplicated subject. 19: SA, A bed which was ... , and to which one ... -the whole thing is ... ; 19:6/\, A bed to which one ... , and the corpse touched them-they arc unclean . . . By contrast 19: 7: J\ box, the opening of which is ... is susceptible to .... The same applies at 19: SA, 19: 9 /\, 19: lOA, and, ignoring the lo, these, at 20: 1A, 20 :2A, 20: 3A, 20:4/\, 20:SA (if understood throughout); 20:6A, 20:7l\. 1\ccordingly, the commencement of each principal cognitive unit, excluding the two opening ones, does carefully adhere to a single formulary pattern, the declarative sentence bearing a subordinated adjectival clause for the subject of the sentence. These are hardly routine or random occurrences. iii. 21: The pattern at iii. 20 is carried forward with astonishing consistency. I do not think we need doubt that the two intermediate merely separated by the divisions are distinct from one another-not accident of the intrusion of Chapter ·rwenty-One. iii. 22: 'fhe common formula, All utensils have ... , shoul, 3:6, 7, and 8, and, accordingly, the introductory unit, 3: 5, with its stress on M$>, is integral to the whole. Once more, the use of the simple declarative sentence is secondary to the redactional plan for the whole intermediate division. iii. 71: It is solely the recurrently understood if [or if there is] which can be seen to mark the declarative sentences of this subdivision. iii. 73: Here we have subunits at 6:5, if understood; 6:6A-B matched by C-D, thus a pericope made up of internally balanced sentences; and 6: 6Dff., in which the operative unifying phrase is "private domain for the Sabbath and public domain for uncleanness," 6:6G, I, 6:7C, E, 6:8B, D-E, and 6:9B, E, and F. Once again the declarative sentences are unified in sizable groups by recurrent formulary patterns or word-choices internal to the conception which is to be formulated. iii. 75: The disputes yield more than a single sort of syntactical construction. 9: 1 is a duplicated subject. The sentences of 9: 2-3 have in common the implied if. 9: 4, 5, and 6 all begin with he-who, followed by a tightly joined predicate, thus a subunit of the subdivision. 9: 7 builds on the understood if. iii. 76: 9: 8-9. This unitary subdivision rests upon the topic of 9: 8, The dead creepingthin9, 153-54, 206,- 257 8:1 154, 206, 257 59, 153-5/4 8:1-10

8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:9

154, 154 154, 154, 1 54,

175, 230, 257

206 230, 257 2'.0, 257 l 54, 230, 257 154, 20(, 154, 175 8: I 0 154, 206, 230 '): I 136, 206, 239 (): 1-3 59, 136 9:2 136, 206, 239, 257 '): 3 136, 190, 206 l 54, l 7 5, 206, 257 10:l 10: 1-9 60, 154 I 5/4, 175, 206, 257 10:2 10:3 154, 20(, 10 :4 l 51. 206 10:3 154, 2:\0 10:6 154, 230, 257, 167 154, 257 10:7 10 8 154, 206, 263 154, 175, 206, 257, 263, 267 l0:9 10: llJ 60, 136, 206, 2'57, 2(,7. 287 136, 206, 223, 210 I I: I ll: l- l2 60-61, 136 11 :2 136. 220, 240, 257 11 :3 136, 175, 206, 240, 257 I \6, 175, 206, 223, 240, 257 11:4 11 :5 136. 175_, 223, 240, 257 136, 206, 230, 240, 257 11:6 11:7 l'\6, 190, 210, 257 11:8 136, 175, 206, 215, 240 136, 223, 240, 257 11:9 136, 206, 223, 240, 257 11 :10 136, 206, 223, 240, 257 11:ll 11:12 136, 223, 240, 257 12: I 137, 206, 223, 240, 257 12: l-7 61-62, 136-37 137, 207, 240, 257 l2:2 12:3 137, 175, 207, 240 12:4 1:,7, 175, 207, 240, 257,275 12:5 137, 175, 207, 240, 268 137, 240 12:6 137, 207, 223, 240, 268 l3:1 L:l:1-13 137, 215, 240, 268 1):3 ]1:4 I:\:

s

I :\:6

13:7 13:8

137, 137, 137, 137, 137, I '17,

175, 207, 207, 175, 207, 707,

230, 240, 240, 215, 240, 240,

240,

257

2571 268 268 2-10

254 254

BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC

13:9 137, 215, 240, 254-55 137, 175, 207, 240 13:10 13:11 137, 175, 231, 240, 258 13:12 ]1