Jacob Neusner-The Rabbinic Traditions About The Pharisees Before 70 Parts I II III - Brill1971

THE RABBINIC
ABOUT THE
TRADITIONS
PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
PART I
THE
MASTERS
THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS

ABOUT THE PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
PART I
THE MASTERS
BY
JACOB
NEUSNER
Professor of Religious Studies

B r o w n University
LEIDEN
E. J . B R I L L
1971
Copyright
1971 by E. j . Brill, Leiden,
Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
For Morton Smith
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Preface
XIII
PART
ONE
THE MASTERS
List of Abbreviations
xiv
Transliterations
xvi
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION
11
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
11
13
15
22
III.
IV.
To Lay on Hands
Decrees
Moral Apophthegms
Conclusion
SIMEON THE JUST
24
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
24
44
57
ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B.

YOHANAN
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
V.
Antigonus of Sokho
Traditions of Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan.
Synopses
Conclusion
60
60
61
77
81
JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH

B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
VI.
82
Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite

82
Traditions of Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah 8 6
Synopses
122
Conclusion
137
SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
142
142
155
158
VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VII.
YOHANAN THE H l G H PRIEST, HONI THE ClRCLER, AND

OTHERS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM
BEFORE HlLLEL
i. Yohanan the High Priest

ii. Honi the Circler
iii. Others
VIII. MENAHEM. SHAMMAI
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
IX.
Menahem
Traditions of Shammai
Synopses
Conclusion
HILLEL
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
X.
SHAMMAI AND HILLEL
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
XI.
GAMALIEL
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
XII.
SIMEON B. GAMALIEL
i. Traditions
ii. Synopses
iii. Conclusion
XIII. OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 70
i.
Mentioned in Connection with Shammai

1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah
2. Baba b. Buta
3. Yo'ezer >Ish HaBirah
4. Sadoq
5. Yohanan the Hauranite
ii. Mentioned in Connection with Hillel
1. BeneBathyra
2. Gedva
160
160
176
182
184
184
185
204
208
212
212
280
294
303
303
333
338
341
342
370
373
377
377
384
386
389
389
389
389
391
392
392
392
392
392
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I X
3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag

392
4. Shebna
393
5. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel
393
iii. Mentioned in Connection with Gamaliel I
394
1. Admon and Hanan
394
2. Hanina b. Dosa
394
3. Yohanan the Scribe
396
iv. Others
396
1. Honi the Circler, Grandson of Honi the Circler
(Abba Hilqiah)
396
2. Joshua b. Gamala
396
3. "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. Harsom 397
4. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests
400
5. Nahum the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian . . .
413
6. Zekhariah b. Qevutal and Zekhariah b. HaQassav 414
7. Measha, Nahum the Scribe, Simeon of Mispah,
Judah b. Bathyra, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah
b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion, Abba Yosi b. Hanan, and
Yohanan b. Gudgada
415
PART TWO
THE HOUSES
Transliterations
XIV.
XV.
INTRODUCTION
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
XVI.
Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai
Sifra
Sifre
Midrash Tannaim
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Zera'im
Mo'ed
Nashim
Neziqin
Qodashim
Toharot
Collections of Houses-Disputes in Mishnah-Tosefta
Tables
xin
xv
1
6
6
9
11
30
39
41
41
120
190
234
239
253
324
344
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART
THREE
CONCLUSIONS
List o f Abbreviations
xiv
Transliterations
xvi
XVII.
INTRODUCTION
X V I I I . INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS

i.
A.
Standard Legal F o r m
B.
C.
Testimonies
Debates
D.
Narratives
1 . Historical Information in Standard Legal F o r m
2 . Epistles
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
XIX.
Legal Traditions
3 . Ordinances
4 . Chains and Lists
5 . Precedents
6 . Contexts
7 . First-Person Accounts
8 . Illustrations and Proofs
9 . Histories o f L a w s
E. Legal Exegeses
1 . Scriptural References
2 . Exegeses
3 . Proof-texts
4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Chria
Aggadic Traditions
A . Stories
1 . Allusions t o Stories
2 . S h o r t Biographical References
3 . Biographical and Historical Stories
B. Sayings
1 . 'T'-Sayings
2 . Sayings N o t in a Narrative Setting
3. Apophthegms
4 . "Woe"-Sayings
. . .
5 . Formulaic Sayings
C. A g g a d i c Exegeses
1 . Scriptural References
2 . Exegeses
3 . Proof-Texts
4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Fable
Summary o f Forms and Types
Some Comparisons
History o f Forms
5
5
1 4
1 6
.
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 5
2 7
2 8
3 1
3 3
3 5
3 8
3 9
3 9
4 0
4 2
4 2
4 3
4 3
4 3
4 5
4 7
5 5
5 6
5 6
5 9
6 1
6 1
6 2
6 2
6 2
6
6
6
6
8
4
4
9
9
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS . . 1 0 1

i.
ii.
iii.
Introduction
Pericopae without Formulae o r Patterns
Pericopae w i t h Formulae o r Patterns
1 0 *
1 0 6
1 1 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv.
Small Units o f Tradition

1 . Fixed Opposites
a. L i a b l e v s . F r e e
b. Unclean v s . Clean
c. P r o h i b i t v s . P e r m i t
d. Unfit v s . F i t
e. Midras vs. Terne-Met
f. I n s i d e v s . O u t s i d e ; P a s t v s . F u t u r e ; A b o v e v s . B e l o w .
2 . Balance o f M e t e r
3 . Balance o f M e t e r and Change o f Letter
v.
S y n t a c t i c a l a n d M o r p h o l o g i c a l C h a n g e s E q u i v a l e n t in F u n c t i o n
t o Small Units o f Tradition
1 . Tense and N u m b e r
2 . D i s t i n c t i o n v s . N o D i s t i n c t i o n {And v s . Or)
3 . Reversal of W o r d - O r d e r
4 . Statement of l a w + / N e g a t i v e
5 . Negative Statement + Permit
6 . >P i n S e c o n d L e m m a
vi.
Differences i n W o r d - C h o i c e
vii. Number-Sequences
viii. Houses-Disputes N o t in Precise Balance
ix.
S u m m a r y of Small Units o f Tradition and Other M n e m o n i c
Patterns
XX.
XI
1 1 9
1 1 9
120
120
122
122
123
123
124
125
126
126
126
128
129
132
1 3 4
1 3 4
136
1 3 8
140
x.
Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem
143
xi.
Oral Traditions
163
VERIFICATIONS
180
i.
ii.
Introduction
180
P e r i c o p a e w i t h o u t V e r i f i c a t i o n s b e f o r e ca. 2 0 0 A . D . ( M i s h n a h Tosefta)
175
iii.
Verifications of Y a v n e h
1.
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
2.
Joshua b. Hananiah
3.
Eliezer + J o s h u a
4.
E l i e z e r + <Aqiba
5.
A b b a Saul
6.
Gamaliel II
7.
Eleazar b. R. Sadoq
8.
Eleazar b. 'Azariah
9.
Eleazar b. 'Azariah and J o s h u a
1 0 . Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael
1 1 . Tarfon
1 2 . Tarfon + 'Aqiba
1 3 . <Aqiba
1 4 . ' A q i b a n Exegeses in Houses-Disputes
1 5 . Y o h a n a n b. Nuri
1 6 . Jonathan b. Bathyra
1 7 . A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan
1 8 . Ilai
1 9 . D o s a b . Harkinas
2 0 . Ishmael
Verifications of Usha
1.
U s h a in G e n e r a l
iv.
199
199
200
201
201
202
202
203
203
204
204
204
204
205
207
208
208
208
208
208
208
209
209
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XII
v.
vi.
vii.
2.
J u d a h b. Baba
3.
J u d a h b. Bathyra
210
210
4.
5.
Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a
Eliezer b. J a c o b
211
211
6.
7.
Dosetai b. Y a n n a i
Y o s i b . Halafta
211
211
8.
Y o s i b . Halafta a n d J u d a h b . Ilai
213
9.
10.
Y o s i b . Halafta a n d M e i r
Y o s i b . Halafta a n d S i m e o n b . Y o h a i
213
213
1 1 . Simeon b. Y o h a i
214
12.
13.
Meir
M e i r a n d J u d a h b . Ilai
215
215
14.
J u d a h b . Ilai
217
15.
Simeon b. Gamaliel
218
16. Nathan
Verifications of the Circle of J u d a h the Patriarch
219
220
1.
2.
220
220
T h e Circle o f J u d a h the Patriarch in G e n e r a l

Simeon b. Eleazar
3.
Others
T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at Y a v n e h
T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at U s h a
222
223
231
viii. Conclusion
XXI.
XXII.
HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS
239
i.
ii.
The Missing Traditions

The Rabbinic History of Pharisaism: The Early Masters
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
T h e Matter o f Hillel
Gamaliel and Simeon. Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai
The Yavnean Stratum
The Ushan Stratum
255
272
281
282
vii.
The Laws
286
239
239
SUMMARY : THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE

70
APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS

INDICES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
234
BIBLE
APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, QUMRANIAN WRITINGS
JOSEPHUS
MISHNAH
TOSEFTA
MEKHILTA, SIFRA, SIFRE, MIDRASH TANNAIM
PALESTINIAN TALMUD
BABYLONIAN TALMUD
IX.
M l D R A S H I M AND O T H E R COMPILATIONS
X.
GENERAL INDEX
301
320
PREFACE
My thanks go to the American Council of Learned Societies for a

research fellowship in 1970-1 and to Brown University for a summer
study grant and sabbatical leave in the same academic year. I am further
indebted to Brown University for bearing the substantial costs of
typing the manuscript several times, preparing indices, and numerous
other research expenses.
My students, David Goodblatt, Robert Goldenberg, Gary Porton,
Shamai Kanter, William Scott Green, my friends, Brevard S. Childs,
Wayne Sibley Towner, Robin J . Scroggs, and Wayne A. Meeks, and
my colleagues, Horst R. Moehring and Ernest S. Frerichs, all read the
manuscript and made important suggestions. The effort to systematize
and generalize results, in volume III, was suggested by Professors
Childs, Towner, and Meeks. My teacher Morton Smith deserves much
of the credit for whatever success this project may have attained. Mrs.
Marion Craven typed the manuscript with requisite care and patience.
The contribution of my publisher, E. J . Brill, is self-evident. To all I
express sincere appreciation.
I alone bear responsibility for errors of fact or judgment.
Providence, Rhode Island
23 December 1970
25 Kislev 5731
The tenth anniversary
of my father's death.
JACOB NEUSNER
LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS
Ah.
= Ahilot
'Arakh. = 'Arakhin
ARN
= A v o t deRabbi Natan
A.Z.
= <Avodah Zarah
b.
= Bavli, Babylonian Talmud
b.
= ben
B.B.
= Bava Batra
B.M.
= Bava M e s i V
B.Q.
= Bava Qamma
Ber.
= Berakhot
Bes.
= Besah
Bik.
= Bikkurim
Chron. = Chronicles
Dan.
= Daniel
Dem.
= Demai
Development = Development of a Legend:
Studies on the Traditions Concerning
Yohanan ben Zakkai ( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 )
Deut.
= Deuteronomy
<Ed.
= 'Eduyyot
E p s t e i n , Mevd*ot J . N .
Epstein,
Mevo*ot leSifrut HaTanncfim
(Jeru
salem, 1 9 5 7 )
E p s t e i n , Mishnah = J . N . E p s t e i n , Mavo
le Nusah HaMishnab
(Jerusalem,
1964 )
2
*Eruv. = *Eruvin
Ex.
= Exodus
Ez.
= Ezekiel
F i n k e l s t e i n , Mavo = Mavo le Massekhet
Avot
veAvot
deR.
Natan
(N.Y.
1950)
Gen.
= Genesis
Git.
= Gittin
Hag.
= Hagigah
Hal.
= Hallah
H a l i v n i , Meqorot
=
David
Weiss
uMesorot
(Tel
Aviv, 1968)
Hor.
= Horayot
Hos.
= Hosea
Hul.
= Hullin
Is.
= Isaiah
JE
= Jewish Encyclopedia
Jer.
= Jeremiah
Josh.
= Joshua
Jud.
= Judges
Kel.
= Kelim
Ker.
Kil.
=
=
Lev.
=
M.
=
M.Q.
=
M.S.
=
M.T.
=
MT
=
Ma.
=
Mak.
=
Maksh. =
Mai.
=
Meg.
=
Meg. Ta.
Mekh. =
Men.
=
Mid.
=
Miq.
=
Naz.
=
Ned.
=
Neg.
=
Nez.
=
Nid.
=
Num.
=
Oh.
=
Orl.
=
Par.
=
Pes. .
=
Prov.
=
Ps.
=
Qid.
=
Qoh.
=
R.
=
R.
=
R.H.
=
Sam.
=
Sanh.
=
Shab.
=
Shav.
=
Sheq.
=
Shev.
=
Song
=
Sot.
=
Suk.
=
Ta.
=
Tern.
=
Ter.
=
Toh.
=
4
Keritot
Kila'im
Leviticus
Mishnah
Mo'ed Qatan
Ma*aser S h e n i
Midrash Tanna'im
Massoretic Text
Ma'aserot
Makkot
Makshirin
Malachi
Megillah
= Megillat Ta'anit
Mekhilta
Menahot
Middot
Miqva'ot
Nazir
Nedarim
Nega im
Nezirot
Niddah
Numbers
Ohalot
Orlah
Parah
Pesahim
Proverbs
Psalms
Qiddushin
Qohelet
Rabbah
Rabbi
Rosh Hashanah
Samuel
Sanhedrin
Shabbat
Shavu*ot
Sheqalim
Shevi it
Song of Songs
Sotah
Sukkah
Ta'anit
Temurah
Terumot
Toharot
4
LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS
Tos.
Tosefta
Yad.
Yadaim
T.Y.
Tevul Y o m
Yev.
Yevamot
*Uqs.
= 'Uqsin
y.
= Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian
Talmud
Zab.
Zech.
Zer.
=
=
=
Zabim
Zechariah
Zera'im
Y.T.
Zev.
Zevahim
Yom Tov
XV
TRANSLITERATIONS
>
<
= p
= T
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
While several generations of scholars have produced histories of

Palestinian Jewry and Judaism in the period of the Second Temple,
none has systematically analyzed from formal, redactional, synoptic
or comparative, and literary-critical perspectives the Pharisaic-rabbinic
traditions copiously cited in the composition of those histories. Conse
quently, rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are cited as though we
knew how they were shaped and handed on, to what degree they may
be relied upon for accurate historical information, where and when
they were given the form in which we now have them. But we do not
have that information. Here I propose not to provide a new account
of Pharisaism, but merely to bring to bear upon rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisaic masters of the Second-Temple period some of the
critical techniques commonplace in the study of other sources per
taining to the history of the same time and place.
The usefulness of this undertaking is readily apparent. Few his
tories of the period attempt more than a primitive and precritical
analysis of the pertinent Pharisaic-rabbinic materials, and this despite
the considerable achievements of scholarship in other aspects of the
study of ancient Jewish and Christian literature. New Testament
scholars customarily give careful attention to critical considerations
when using New Testament materials for historical purposes. But
they quote Talmudic stories as contemporary, first-hand, accurate his
torical accounts. They would not think, when discussing a story about
Jesus, of neglecting its internal signs of development or of ignoring
several versions of the same story in their attempt to discover what,
if anything, can be said about actual events. Yet they cite rabbinic
stories of what rabbis said and did as if critical considerations impor
tant in New Testament studies simply do not apply. In this they are
abetted by Jewish historians who in a pseudorthodox spirit maintain
the pretense that wherever or whenever a story was finally written
down, whether in third-century Babylonia or tenth-century Italy, said
story accurately and reliably relates the exact details of what really
happened in the time of which it speaks. From the moment a Pharisaic
master or rabbinic sage said or did something, it is supposed, a process
Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 1
INTRODUCTION
automatically was set into motion orally to record, then orally to trans
mit, an exact detailed historical account of the saying or the event. The
relationship between the event and the story that purports to preserve
it is never investigated; it is simply supposed to be perfect corres
pondence.
The historical question thus has predominated to the exclusion of
critical study of traditions; but critical study is a priority for formulat
ing, then finding and evaluating the answers to, historical questions.
We cannot speculate, for instance, on who was Simeon the Just or
Hillel, if we have not first of all considered whether and how we know
anything at all about Simeon the Just or Hillel. We certainly cannot
innocently amalgamate Pharisaic-rabbinic stories with those deriving
from other sources, e.g. Josephus, Ben Sira, and the Synoptic Gospels,
and come up either with a harmonious "life" of a man whose name
occurs in several ways in several sets of materials, or with an account
of an event, institution, or practice alluded to in them.
Here historical questions will not be raised at all. In no instance
do I propose to speculate on what saying or event may have originally
given rise to the "original" rabbinic tradition, the remnants or later
developments of which are now in our hands. Such questions include
these: When and why did the Pharisees emerge? What was their
historical context? the course of their evolution and development?
the nature and provenance of their doctrines and distinctive institu
tions? (See Ellis Rivkin, "Prolegomenon,"///^/^ and Christianity\ ed.
W. O. E. Oesterly, H. Loewe and E. I. J . Rosenthal [Repr. N.Y.,
1969], p. xii). We shall make no effort to define what one generally
means by "Pharisees" or "Pharisaism." Anonymous sayings, and those
attributed to masters after 70 about conditions before 70 are not con
sidered, unless either the named masters or the Houses of Shammai
and Hillel are directly referred to.
The difficult question of the meaning of perushim in M. Hag. 2 : 7,
b. Sot. 22b, b. B.B. 60b, Tos. Ber. 3 : 25, M. Yad. 4 : 6-7, Tos. Yad.
2 : 20, 4 : 8, b. Yoma 19b, y. Yoma 1 : 5, Tos. Hag. 3 : 35, b. Nid.
33b, Tos. Yoma 1 : 8, M. Mak. 1 : 6, Sifre Deut. 190, and in the vari
ous other texts examined by Ellis Rivkin in "Defining the Pharisees"
{Hebrew Union College Annual40-41,1969-70, pp. 205-249) is not raised.
Rivkin's careful analysis of the ways in which perushim is used seems
to me impeccable in all but two respects.
First, he does not distinguish among the texts before him according
to the authorities to whom sayings are attributed and the compilations
INTRODUCTION
in which they occur, nor does he analyze the literary and formal
qualities of those texts. He takes for granted that all texts accurately
describe what really was said and done.
Second, his discussion therefore tends to slide across the line between
philological analysis, on the one side, and historical judgment, on the
other, producing the impression of a less critical, and more fundamen
talist, approach than is explicitly claimed at the outset. From a general
ly persuasive analysis of the use of PR in various texts, Rivkin
proceeds to make groundless "historical" statements, e.g., "The Phari
sees did not make the laws of ritual purity rigorous for themselves
but for the priests." However, having at the outset excluded evidence
pertinent to such statements deriving from other traditions and collec
tions, he seems to me without justification in coming to any historical
conclusions at all.
On one page, for instance, he refers to constructing "the tannaitic
definition of the Pharisees from the texts that have met the criteria
of authenticity" (p. 246). Without telling us what is meant by "authen
ticity," he proceeds, on the very next page, to offer not an account of
the Tannaitic definition, but the following manifestly historical judgment:
The Pharisees were a scholar class dedicated to the supremacy of the
twofold Law, the Written and the Unwritten. They actively opposed
the Sadducees who recognized only the Written Law as authoritative,
and they sought dramatic means for proclaiming their overriding au
thority. Their unwritten laws ... were operative in all realms: cultus,
property, judicial procedures, festivals, etc The Pharisees were active
leaders who carried out their laws with vigor and determination. They
set the date for the cutting of the <-omer. They set up procedures for the
burning of the red heifer and compelled priesdy conformance. They
insisted that the High Priest carry through his most sacred act of the
year in accordance with their regulations. They determined judicial pro
cedure, the rightful heirs to property, the responsibility of slaves for
damages, the purity status of Holy Scriptures.
Nowhere in this paragraph, or in the adjoining ones, do I find a clear
caveat that the foregoing is supposed to be a summary of a composite
of sources referring to perushim, sources from authorities spread over
a century or more and deriving from various late documents. Rivkin
clearly intends the foregoing as a historical, descriptive statement
about the historical Pharisees, and not as a summary of the viewpoint
of a few later rabbis about them. The further statement confirms this
view:
INTRODUCTION
The Pharisees once liberated from the limited, circumscribed, and rare
usage of prusim and identified as the hakhamim sofrim can reclaim their
identity as that scholar class that created the concept of the two-fold
Law, carried it to triumphant victory over the Sadducees, and made it
operative in society (p. 248).
Rivkin then rapidly cites Josephus, Antiquities 13 : 297, 408, Philippians 3:5,6, Galatians 1:14, Matthew 23:2, and Mark 7: 5,9, and con
cludes :
The hitherto discordant sources are now seen to be in agreement.
Josephus, Paul, the Gospels, and the tannaitic literature are in accord
that the Pharisees were the scholar class of the twofold Law, nothing
more, nothing less.
We have moved a long way from the allegation that our problem is
merely to study the use of perushim in some tannaitic materials.
It must therefore be stressed that our purpose is to examine tradi
tions about pre-70 masters and the Houses of Shammai and Hillel,
not to compose a history of the people and movements referred to in
those traditions. At the end, to be sure, I offer some judgments as to
what those traditions may tell us about the historical movement to
which they refer, but there the main effort is to suggest a perspec
tive on the nature of the traditions themselves.
To do more than that one must pay attention not only to the
disparate materials in which the Pharisees appear, but also to those
in which they are absent. The problem then is to construct a picture
of the whole of Palestinian Judaism. Such a construction may cast
doubt on Rivkin's opening proposition (p. 205):
The Pharisees played a decisive role in the history of the Jews and in
the development of Judaism. All contemporary sourcesJosephus, the
New Testament, and the tannaitic literatureattest to this fact.
Since important contemporary sources produced by Jews, such as
the QumranJan writings, Philo, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical
collections, and contemporary writings of non-Jews who knew some
thing about Palestine, e.g. Tacitus, Pliny, know nothing about the
Pharisees, let alone their "decisive role" in the history of Judaism,
one must wonder how well that fact is attested. Further, the two extrarabbinic testimonies referred to by Rivkin come from authorities who
themselves claimed to have been Pharisees, Josephus and Paul, or
from circles evidently affected by the presence of Pharisees and engag
ed in debates with them, the Synoptic story-tellers. So we may readily
agree that for the Pharisees' rabbinic heirs, on the one side, and for
INTRODUCTION
people who claimed to have been part of their group, or for circles
confronted by Pharisaic or rabbinic criticism, on the other side, Phari
saism indeed played a decisive role. All produced records showing
the importance of Pharisaism for their own situation. The fact which
is well attested therefore is not the one introduced at the outset. That
fact may also be true. It remains to be investigated. But, I repeat, the
sole interest here is to study the shape and structure of some rabbinic
traditions. My purpose is to undertake to provide a small part of the
information historians require for further consideration of the history
of pre-70 Pharisaic Judaism in its historical setting.
Since our concern is not to reconstruct the history of pre-70 Phari
saism, we shall not be concerned with the endless theories of historians
about actual historical relationships between the Pharisees and others
mentioned by Josephus on the one side, and the Pharisees and others
before 70 referred to in Talmudic literature, on the other; likewise
between the Pharisees of rabbinic tradition and those in the literature
commonly alleged to be Pharisaic, composed before 70 and now pre
served in languages other than Hebrew and Aramaic. Thus, for
instance, we may bypass efforts to identify Baba b. Buta with the sons
of Baba (Josephus, Antiquities XV, 260-6), by G. Allon, {Mehqarim
beToledot Yisrcfell [Tel Aviv, 1957], p. 39), and the still more convolut
ed efforts to identify Pollion the Pharisee with Abtalion or Hillel
{Antiquities 15:3-4, 370), and Samaias {Antiquities 14:172-4, 175-6),
the disciple of Pollion the Pharisee (15:3-4, 370) with Shema'iah,
Shammai, Simeon b. Shetah, and pretty much anyone else who can
be found in rabbinic traditions pertaining to the first century B.C.
These efforts seem to me primitive and pointless, but it is not our
problem to correct them. Anyone who consults the vast secondary
literature concerning pre-70 Pharisaism will find many wonderful
surprises. He will find out that after Hillel, Simeon and Jonathan b.
Uzziel were heads of the Pharisaic court; that Ben He He was the
convert whom Hillel won over while standing on one foot; and
numerous other marvels. In general I have found few points of formal
or substantive congruence, let alone contact, between the rabbinic tra
ditions about pre-70 Pharisees and other literature pertaining to them.
One may well hypothesize that if such non-rabbinic works as are
generally assigned to Pharisaism are in fact Pharisaic, then the rabbinic
traditions in general are not. But that hypothesis requires investigation
by those competent to do so; here I hope merely to examine part
of the rabbinic documentation.
c
INTRODUCTION
This work continues the inquiry begun in Development of a Legend:

Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1970).
Having examined the traditions on the first Pharisaic-rabbinic hero
after 70,1 determined to study the materials on the antecedent Phari
saic masters before proceeding to subsequent problems. The early
masters differ greatly from the ones that follow Yohanan. But even
more important, the conditions for the redaction, preservation and
transmission of sayings of masters before 70 radically differ from the
conditions prevailing afterward. We have in Hebrew or Aramaic no
Pharisaic documents finally redacted before 70, and in those coming
afterward it is difficult to locate and verify pericopae likely to have
been given final form before the destruction. The traditions about the
pre-70 masters contain not the slightest hint that the exact words of
sayings now before us were orally formulated and handed on from
master to disciple. The picture changes with Gamaliel I. While he
and his son Simeon never refer to Hillel, Gamaliel II does refer to
Simeon, and we have some credible recollections, coming after 70,
of Gamaliel I as well. Now none of the masters prior to Gamaliel I
was personally known to post-70 authorities. Hence no one after 70
could claim to have heard precisely what they had said. Consequently,
the fact that we have so few credible lemmas and still fewer tales
about them indicates two things: first, that the overwhelming majority
of the sayings and tales we do have come from post-70 teachers; second,
that these teachers did not freely invent material about early teachers,
but for the most part reported what they had heard. It will therefore
seem that the war of 66-73 and destruction of Jerusalem led to a
radical break in whatever processes of transmission of traditions had
flourished beforehand. Some Pharisaic authorities died in the war.
The political conditions of Pharisaic life vastly changed afterward.
Nearly all pericopae before us derive in their present form from the
years after 70, a great many from those after 140 or even later. On
the face of it, therefore, the historical value of the rabbinic traditions
of pre-70 Pharisaism is not apt to be considerable. As we shall see, the
later rabbis frequently developed what they had, and sometimes in
vented what they needed, in conformity with their imagination of
affairs before 70, and these facts make it still more difficult to recover
much, if any, usable historical information. All this does not diminish
the historical interest of the traditions, but the period to which they
accurately testify often is likely to be later than the period of which
they claim to speak. Nonetheless, it seems to me important to supply
INTRODUCTION
a thorough account of materials pertaining to men and institutions

in the period before the destruction, before proceeding to layers of
traditions which are apt to produce far more credible data. Perhaps
these results will seem primarily, though not wholly, negative, but a
useful contribution may consist of delineating the range of our igno
rance and raising various sorts of as yet unanswered questions.
I shall attempt critically to analyze the traditions. Later, scholars
may distinguish those pericopae reflecting the inner life of Pharisaism
from stories about heroes retrospectively created or anachronistically
adopted by the Pharisees as their own. Here, as I said, we shall seek no
definition of what one means by "Pharisee" and "Pharisaic" at all.
From the materials various tentative definitions may emerge, to be
further tested against the whole body of evidence. For now, we merely
begin to seek a way to characterize and comprehend complicated
traditions preserved in rabbinic literature about men and heroes in
Pharisaism before 70.
My comments on the pericopae of the named masters (Part I) are
divided into three parts: 1. Classification: legal, moral, theological,
narrative, biographical; 2. Setting: the document in which a story is
now preserved, the school responsible for its compilation, the later
masters who tell the story or refer to it, thus supplying a terminus ante
quern; 3. Analysis of contents: is the story or saying unitary or composite?
If the latter, what are the units of the composition? Do we detect a
peculiar tendency reflecting later issues or concerns? At the end of
each unit a synopsis will allow comparison of the several versions of
the same story or saying, and the changes occuring after the first
appearance of the pericope will be investigated. In stories appearing
in earlier collections and then cited later on, my sole interest pertains
to the context of the later citation. Only in the synopses do I discuss
variations in readings and in details in the several successive versions
of the same story.
The chief issue in the synoptic studies of part I is this: Did the
several versions of the same pericope arise separately, or did one de
pend upon the other? The question is important, for if the versions
arose separately, then we cannot say details in one but not in the other
were necessarily added later and are therefore fictitious even in terms of
the original account. If on the other hand one account clearly depended
upon another, then details added in the dependent one certainly did
not occur in the earlier version. Where it seems possible to account for
variants in pericopae appearing in successive compilations, I try to do so.
INTRODUCTION
Existing translations which seem to me satisfactory have been co

pied, though with much alteration. My own translations are as literal
as I could make them, at the expense of stylistic felicity, sometimes
even of perfect clarity. Where I depart from the literal Hebrew to
supply an idiomatic translation, I include either a consonantal trans
cription or a literal translation, so that the Hebrew text may be readily
constructed. I have given the Hebrew consonants for out-of-the-ordinary words, particularly where these vary from one version to the
next. My translations should not, therefore, be considered apart from
the practical purpose which they are meant to serve. Babylonian
Talmudic translations not my own are attributed to the translator by
name; these are all drawn from the Soncino Press translation; I use
the reprint of the London, 1938, edition. But I have made changes
throughout. I have compared Albeck's Mishnah text to MS Kaufmann,
and generally record the differences where these seem important.
Synoptic studies invariably are based not on translations but on the
Hebrew texts. In general, however, I try to preserve consistent trans
lations of the same words in different versions, to facilitate synoptic
comparisons. Words supplied in the translation not appearing in the
original are bracketed. Transliterations of Hebrew words are in paren
theses.
Collections are categorized in the following way:
1
I.
Tannaitic Midrashim
i.
School of R. Ishmael
ii. School of R. Aqiba
The Circle of Judah the Patriarch
i.
Mishnah
ii.
Tosefta
Materials attributed to Tannaim in the Gemarot of Palestine and
Babylonia
i.
Palestinian Talmudic traditions attributed to Tannaim
ii. Babylonian Talmudic traditions attributed to Tannaim
(Beraitot)
Amoraic Traditions
i.
Amoraic sayings in the Palestinian Talmud
ii. Amoraic sayings in the Babylonian Talmud
Avot deRabbi Natan
c
II.
III.
IV.
V.
1
H . A l b e c k , SiSab Sidre Mishnah ( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 5 4 et. s e q . , v o l s I - V I ) .
INTRODUCTION
VI.
Later Collections
i.
Genesis Rabbah
ii. Lamentations Rabbati
iii. Leviticus Rabbah
iv. Pesiqta deRav Kahana
v. Pesiqta Rabbati
vi. Tanhuma
vii. Qohelet Rabbah
viii. Numbers Rabbah
ix. Deuteronomy Rabbah
X.
Song of Songs Rabbah
xi. Midrash on Psalms
xii. Other Collections
Thus, in the case of Simeon the Just, Sifre Num. 22 is marked I. i. 1,

= A source in a Tannaitic midrash (I), produced in the school of R.
Ishmael (i), first in the sequence of sources in that collection pertaining
to the master at hand (1).
The synoptic tables follow these conventions:
thus
= identical to the primary version on the left;

= omitted in a later version;
= words in italics are supplied in a later version, or changed
in a later version from the word choice in the primary
version.
The first two parts of the work provide analyses of the traditions.
In the third are offered some generalizations and conclusions. There
also will be found a few systematic remarks, drawing together the
scattered suggestions and hypotheses developed in the context of the
analyses of discrete pericopae. It seemed to me best to analyze the
sources before offering an introduction to them, and I hope the reader
will follow the same order. To discuss "method" apart from the
sources seemed to me poor method, for one must evolve methodthe
set of questions, procedures, inquiries brought to bear on any peri
copesource by source and problem by problem. It is a mistake to
systematize the tentative, frequently intuitive results of the analysis
of discrete matter into a general statement of what must always be so;
such systematization inevitably distorts those results. It imposes upon
them a permanent and definitive character by no means intended at
10
INTRODUCTION
the beginning of the inquiry. It further subjects them to tests for

which they are unready. In this regard the British critics of German
form-criticism have tended to claim more for form-critical results
than the authors originally intended, then to challenge those arti
ficially systematized, inflated results. Here I offer no rules and claim
nothing more than to present some puzzling facts, to ask a few modest
questions, perhaps to widen the range of doubt. A systematic state
ment of "method" would here ill serve the primitive level of the
present work. Not until a critical historical account of the formation
of main elements of the entire Talmudic tradition down to 600 A.D.
is available can we hope to investigate some of the persistent phenome
na revealed by the whole and to formulate some descriptive "laws,"
by which further work may be guided, and previous work may be
refined and corrected.
CHAPTER TWO
THE
CHAINS OF PHARISAIC
TRADITION
We have three chains of Pharisaic tradition, listing the authorities

of the party and assigning to them either moral apophthegms, purity
decrees, or rulings on a minor aspect of the conduct of the sacrificial
cult. These chains follow in probable order.
i. T o LAY ON HANDS
}
A. Yosi b. Yo'ezer says ( WMR) [on a Festival-day] not to lay

(LSMK) [hands on the offering before it is slaughtered]. Yosi b.
Yohanan says to lay [hands].
Joshua b. Perahiah says not to lay [hands]. Nittai the Arbelite says
to lay [hands].
Judah b. Tabbai says not to lay [hands]. Simeon b. Shetah says to
lay [hands].
Shema'iah says to lay [hands]. Abtalion says not to lay [hands].
Hillel and Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth, and
Shammai entered in.
Shammai says not to lay [hands]. Hillel says to lay [hands].
B. The former were nasis, and the latter fathers of the court
(>BWT BYT DYN).
(M. Hag. 2:2)
The opinions are in indirect discourse, "says to lay," "says not to
lay." Normally "says" is followed by direct discourse.
Someone has supplied the subscription (B) that the first-named were
nasis, the second-named, heads of the court, considerations which do
not figure in the body of the pericope and are irrelevant to its con
tents. But the pattern is not exact; the first-named always should say,
not to lay on hands. Yet while Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua b. Perahiah,
and Judah b. Tabbai, say not to do so, Shema'iah has the wrong
opinion for his position in the list. The little group at the end, HillelMenahem, then Shammai-Hillel, is also difficult. Hillel-Menahem break
the pattern; the lemma is a later insertion. In fact, Hillel should say
not to lay on hands, since he was supposed to have been nasi. We shall
12
THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC
TRADITION
see a story on this very point, in which Hillel is represented as follow

ing Shammai's practice.
Clearly, in the pericope before us Hillel is presumed to be nasi,
despite the wrong opinion. But if we drop the interpolation of
Hillel-Menahem, we find what the form calls for, merely: Shammai/
Hillel: not to lay/lay, and that is surely the authentic reading according
to the foregoing pattern. (Finkelstein, Mavo, p. 15, comes to the same
conclusion for quite different reasons.) Therefore the original list had
Shammai as nasi, Hillel as head of the court. The switch with Menahem
(otherwise unknown) permits placing Hillel first, therefore makes him
nasi, according to the subscription, so it becomes Hillel-MenahemShammai-Hillel.
I cannot guess why Shema'iah's opinion has been reversed.
In Tos. Hag., R. Meir provides a far better solution to the problem
of making Hillel nasi in traditions which originally have him as father
of the court. Tos. Hag. 2:8 (ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines 40-44) is as
follows:
They differed only on the laying of hands.
"They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to lay
on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands were
nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court," so R. Meir.
R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi. Judah b. Tabbai [was]
head of the court."
Meir thus has five pairs:
1. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay)
2. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay)
3. Nasi (not to lay) -j- head of court (to lay)
4. Nasi (to lay)
+ head of court (not to lay)
5. Nasi (to lay)
+ head of court (not to lay)
Meir's list is the same as M. Hag. 2:2 as far as Shema'iah and Abtalion. He presumably had no mention of Hillel-Menahem, for that
would have made Hillel-Shammai a sixth pair. But for the last pair
he had a "to lay"-Nasi in first place. Was it Shammai or Hillel? Proba
bly Hillel, since the "not to lay"/"to lay" antithesis is primary to the
tradition, and there seems no strong reason for changing the attribu
tions. So we have two forms of the list, one which can be reconstructed
from M. Hag. 2:2, the other from Meir's report. They agree for the
first four pairs; for the first, the form behind M. Hag. 2:2 had Shammai
not, Hillel to; while Meir had Hillel to, Shammai not. Meir's tradition
can be explained as a secondary development from the other, motivat-
TRADITION
13
ed by the desire of the Hillelites to represent Hillel as head of the

government, nasi. What was done to the M. Hag. tradition by insert
ing the Hillel-Menahem pair before Shammai and Hillel was done in
Meir's tradition by simply reversing the customary order and putting
Hillel before Shammai. This is neat and may be correct, but it leaves
us with a second, unanswered problem: who was Menahem and how
did he get in? The possibility that the last of Meir's pairs may have
been, Hillel said to lay, Menahem said not to lay, and there may have
been no reference at all to Shammaiwhich would be understandable
if we had an old list from the House of Hillelcannot be wholly
excluded. In that event Meir's list would be older and M. Hag. would
represent a post-70 revision, when the Shammaites and the Hillelites,
for survival's sake, combined their forces, the terms of the compro
mise (here) being that Shammai's name would have precedence, but
the law would in general follow Hillel.
Judah [b. Ilai] differs only with reference to Judah b. Tabbai and
Simeon b. Shetah. The latter, he says, was nasi.
The list of M. Hag., excluding Menahem and the subscription,
could not have been shaped later than the time of Meir and Judah,
since both refer to it. Judah the Patriarch follows Meir, therefore
has as nasis Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua, Judah, Shema'iah, and Hillel.
Since he thought he descended from Hillel and referred to the Bene
Bathyrans' giving up their position to Hillel and making him nasi,
it was natural to explain matters as he did in the subscription. But
the subscription in M. Hag. 2:2 cannot come before Meir-Judah, who
do not cite it verbatim. It looks like Judah the Patriarch's summary of
Meir's comment; note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 133-4.
II. DECREES
DTNY>: (1) Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of

Jerusalem decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness
(TWM'H) upon the land of the peoples and on glassware.
(2) Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for
the wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon
metal utensils.
(3) Shammai and Hillel decreed (GZR) uncleanness on hands.
(b. Shab. 14b)
Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosef
14
TRADITION
b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed

uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass utensils."
R. Yonah [Var.: Yuda] said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbi."
R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
uncleanness on metal utensils.
"Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of the hands."
y. Shab. 1:4 ( = y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11)
The Babylonian herait a is a list of decrees. I assume Simeon b.
Shetah's saying has been contaminated by the reference to the ordi
nance (TQN) about the marriage-contract, missing in y., which is out
of place here, for all are decrees and concern uncleanness. Judah b.
Tabbai is absentthus following Judah b. Ilaiand the Palestinian
version supplies his name, making the list Yosi + Yosi, Judah +
Simeon, and Hillel -f- Shammai, in all three instances with the nasi
first, hence following Meir in Tos. Hag., and (of course) placing
Hillel in the nasVs position. The absence of Joshua b. Perahiah-Nittai
the Arbelite is curious. The addition of the places of origin of the
Yosi's suggests that this might come after M. Hag., so I should also
have expected the inclusion of the absent masters. Perhaps no one
had traditions on uncleanness-decrees to attribute to the men. That
guess depends upon the presumption that without considerable moti
vation people did not make up what they did not have. But often they
did, as we shall observe time and again (for one example, sayings attri
buted to Simeon b. Gamaliel I/Gamaliel II, in fact are made up by
Meir-Judah, below, Chapter Twelve).
The representation of Shammai as nasi, Hillel second to him, is
congruent to the stories of the (temporary) predominance of the House
of Shammai and of the (later) rise of the House of Hillel to power.
It also explains why the Houses-form nearly always puts the Shammaite
House ahead of the Hillelite one, in conformity with the order of
M. Hag. The later masters, coming long after the Hillelite hegemony
had been well established by the patriarchate, appropriately doctored
the earlier materials in the ways that have become evident.
This explanation however takes for granted two allegations of the
later Tannaim, first, that Yohanan b. Zakkai took over from Shammai
and Hillel and was HillePs heir; second, that the Yavnean patriarch
Gamaliel was descended from Hillel. But the allegation that Yohanan
b. Zakkai was HillePs continuator first occurs in M. Avot, which,
as we shall see, comes later than the M. Hag.-chain. No Tannaitic
TRADITION
15
or early Amoraic authority refers to Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's

disciple, and it is primarily in the highly developed traditions of ARN
that Yohanan's discipleship to Hillel plays a considerable role. The
beraitot of b. Suk. = b. B.B. {Development, pp. 216-221), which make
something of that fact, are apt to be later than, and based upon, Avot,
therefore do not change matters.
More strikingly still, in all the Gamaliel-traditionspertaining ei
ther to the first or the second onewe find not the slightest allusion
to the familial relationship between Gamaliel and Hillel. To the contra
ry, Gamaliel II-materials persistently allege that Simeon b. Gamaliel I
followed Shammaite rules, certainly an extraordinary state of affairs
for the "grandson" (or great-grandson) of Hillel himself. It is more
over remarkable that Simeon b. Gamaliel and Gamaliel I never occur
in the Houses-materials. The heirs of Hillel (Yohanan b. Zakkai, Gama
liel) and the House of Hillel on the face of it have nothing whatever
to do with one another. It may therefore be anachronistic to suppose
that the Hillelites predominated because Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gama
liel II were the greatest student and the great-grandson of Hillel,
respectively. It looks as if things were the other way around. They
were given a relationship to Hillel because they came to power at a
point at which the Hillelite House predominated, and the allegation
that both were Hillelites was the condition of their leadership at
Yavneh. Strikingly, while that allegation later was important, no one
took the trouble to invent stories in which either authority ever cited
"my master" or "my father" Hillel. As I said, no named authority
from Hillel to Yavneh ever quotes Hillel. But the predominance of
Hillelites at Yavneh is very well attested and may be regarded as
an axiom. Nothing in the Tannaitic stratum of Yohanan b. Zakkaimaterials places him into relationship with either the House of Sham
mai or the House of Hillel. Yohanan cites "my teachers" back to
Moses, but never mentions Hillel, as early as Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
(M. Yad. 4:3). This seems to me probative that the circles of Yohanan's
immediate disciples had no traditions relating Yohanan to Hillel.
Similarly, Gamaliel II repeatedly is given references to "the house of
father," meaning Simeon b. Gamaliel I, but none to Hillel, directly or
inferentially.
i n . MORAL APOPHTHEGMS
1.
A. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it on to
16
TRADITION
Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets; and the
Prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly (KN$T).
B. They said three things, "Be deliberate in judgment, raise up
many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah."
2. Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Assembly.
He used to say, "On three things the world stands: on the Torah,
on the [Temple-] service, and on deeds of loving kindness."
3. Antigonus of Sokho received from Simeon the Just.
He used to say, "Be not like slaves that minister to the master for
the sake of receiving a reward, but be like slaves that minister to the
master not for the sake of receiving a reward; and let the fear of heaven
be upon you."
4. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of 0Y) Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of
Jerusalem received from them [sic],
Yosi b. Yo'ezer says, "Let your house be a meeting-house for the
Sages, and sit amid the dust of their feet, and thirstily drink in their
words."
5. A. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem says, "Let your house be
opened wide; and let the needy be members of your house; and do
not talk much with a woman."
B. They said this of a man's own wife: how much more of his
fellow's wife! Hence the Sages have said, "He that talks much with
women brings evil upon himself, and neglects the study of the Law,
and at the end he inherits Gehenna."
6. Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received from them.
Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Make for yourself a master (RB), and
get a fellow (HBR) [-disciple]; and judge any man with the balance
in his favor."
7. Nittai the Arbelite says, "Keep far from an evil neighbor, and
do not consort with a wicked neighbor, and do not despair of retribu
tion."
8. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah received from them.
Judah b. Tabbai says, "Make not yourself like them that would
influence the judges; and when the suitors stand before you, let them
be in your eyes as wicked men; and when they have departed from
before you, let them be in your eyes as innocent, so soon as they
have accepted the judgment."
9. Simeon b. Shetah says, "Abundantly examine the witnesses;
and be cautious in your words, lest from them they learn to swear
falsely."
TRADITION
17
10. Shema'iah and Abtalion received from them.

Shema'iah says, "Love work; and hate mastery (RBNWT), and
seek not acquaintance with the ruling power (R$WT)."
11. Abtalion says, "Sages, give heed to your words, lest you incur
the penalty of exile, and be exiled to a place of evil waters, and the
disciples that come after you drink and die, and the name of Heaven
be profaned."
12. Hillel and Shammai received from them.
Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing
peace, loving mankind, and bringing them near to the Torah."
13. He used to say, "A name made great is a name destroyed, and he
that increases not decreases, and he that learns not is worthy of death, and he
that makes worldly use of the crown perishes"
14. He used to say, "If I am not for myself who is for me? And
being for mine own self, what am I? And if not now, when?"
15. Shammai says, "Make your [study of] Torah [a] fixed [habit].
Say little and do much. And receive all men with a cheerful counte
nance."
16. Rabban Gamaliel says, "Make for yourself a master (RB) [ =
Joshua b. Perahiah's saying, above]; and keep distant from doubt;
and do not tithe by guesswork."
17. Simeon his son says, "All my days I have grown up among
the sages, and I have found nothing better for the person (GWP) than
silence; and the expounding is not the principle, but the doing; and
he that multiplies words occasions sin."
18. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "On three things the world
stands: on truth, on judgment, and on peace, as it is written, Execute
the judgment of truth and peace (Zech. 8:16)."
M. Avot 1:1-18 (Compare trans. Danby,
pp. 446-7; no. 13 ital. = Aramaic)
The form from no. 4 to no. 12 is fixed: the names of the two who
received the Torah from the foregoing, then apophthegms assigned
to each, in order. The apophthegms are always triplicates; each says
(>WMR) three things.
The list is heavily glossed. In no. 5, for example, we are given a
qal vehomer, which then produces a saying of the sages. In no. 8, as
soon as they have accepted makes specific what has already been presuppos
ed by when they have departed. Its purpose is to rule out the possible
18
TRADITION
objection, "What if they have not accepted the judgment?"a typical

sort of Talmudic quibble. Abtalion's saying is not a triplicate, but the
three evil consequences make up for the absence of three separate
sayings. No. 3 is expanded by the affirmative revision and the gloss,
thus three. Nos. 13 and 14 are added to Hillel's saying, not a gloss
but a considerable interpolation of materials, some in Aramaic, occurr
ing elsewhere. Now it is used to say (HYH WMR) as in nos. 2-3.
Strikingly, with Hillel and Shammai the pairs cease. Also Gamaliel,
standing alone, is not said to "receive" from Hillel/Shammai, nor
Simeon from Gamaliel. Gamaliel's saying follows the earlier form.
Simeon's does not, for it is glossed by all my days... I have found, making
an apophthegm, "There is naught better" into an autobiographical
comment. But the rest of the saying conforms to the earlier pattern.
Then in no. 18, Simeon his son becomes Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and
is given a statement incongruent to the foregoing form. That saying
is a counterpart of Simeon the Just's, though the specification of the
"three things" changes, and is glossed with a Scriptural proof-text.
What is striking is the persistence of the "three things" form in the
sayings that come in-between. No. 18 has been tacked on to the fore
going list to close with a parallel to no. 2.
Simeon the Just's saying is parallel to Simeon b. Gamaliel's, which
clearly represents a post-135 revision of no. 2: the Torah now is
truth, a philosophizing tendency; the Temple service is now replaced
by justice; and deeds of lovingkindness are replaced by peace. Morton
Smith observes that the basis of "the world" is no longer the coherent
"brotherhood of Israel," but the pax Romana. That this conclusion
balances no. 2, and not the saying in no. 1, strongly suggests that no. 2
was originally the first saying in the list, and that the saying in no. 1
is a later addition, putting at the head of the whole list the fundamental
principles of the rabbinic academy as a social form.
But the fact that no. 18 was added to balance no. 2 raises the prob
lem about no. 2 itself: Was it an integral part of the list? We saw that
the fixed form characteristic of the list ("A + B received from them;
A said [three sayings]; B said [three sayings]") begins only with no. 4.
Thus on formal grounds there are strong reasons for thinking that
nos. 2 and 3 were secondary accretions, and since the rabbinic tradi
tions had no substantial legal materials from Simeon the Just and
Antigonusindeed, ignored Antigonus and treated Simeon primarily
through legendsthe case is clear. The original list began just as the
rabbinic legal tradition began: with the two Yosi's. The appeal to
}
19
Simeon the Just, perhaps known from Ben Sira, was motivated by
the desire to attach this legal tradition to the last great member of the
legitimate Jerusalem priesthood before its fall. Simeon's function is
therefore the same as that of Moses etc.,he is part of the biblical
(and Ben Sira) stemma of the tradition of the law. Antigonus was put
in to bridge the temporal gap between Simeon and the Yosi'sa
whole century! Whence did they get him? We have no idea.
Another mystery is the beginning of no. 4: the two Yosi's received
from them, when the solitary Antigonus has preceded them. This pro
bably is confirmation of our conjecture that Simeon and Antigonus
have been added. The original referent of them will have been "the
men of the great synagogue"a single mythologumenon which bridg
ed the gap from the prophets to the Pharisees. The original list was
thus 1A, 4, 5A, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12, and 15. That this elegant structure
was broken to insert Simeon and thus claim connection with the last
of the legitimate priesthood, and also to make the representation
that the priesthood put the law ahead of the Temple service, indicates
that the insertion was made when rivalry with the illegitimate priest
hood was important, i.e. before 70, and this indication is confirmed
by the fact that the Temple service is still conceived as one of the
foundations of the world. So no. 2 was added before 70, and no. 3 may
have come at the same time. Its development after 70 was double,
as can be seen from M. Avot 2.
After no. 18, M. Avot 2 begins with the yet later additions from the
patriarch's circle, Rabbi, and Rabban Gamaliel III (M. Avot 2:1,
2:2ff), and then a collection of sayings of Hillel, purported ancestor
of the patriarchal house, and then in Avot 2:8 comes an earlier addi
tion to the list: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai received [the Torah] from
Hillel and Shammai. This, which does have the form of the earlier
entries, clearly is what has been displaced by the intervening (inserted)
patriarchal material. The pre-70 list was therefore expanded by his
pupils before it was taken over by the patriarchate. From the material
following M. Avot 2:8 (Yohanan's pupils and their sayings) we can
see how it was developed in his school, by contrast to the patriarchal
development. The Mishnah combines the two traditions.
The names on the lists compare as follows
M. Hag.
2:2
b. Shab.
1:4
14b = y. Shab.
M. Avot
Moses
Joshua
1:1-18
20
Elders
Prophets
M e n of the Great Syna
gogue
Simeon the Just
Antigonus of Sokho
Y o s i b. Yo'ezer
Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n
Joshua b. Perahiah
Nittai the A r b e l i t e
J u d a h b. Tabbai
Simeon b. Shetah
Shema'iah
Abtalion
Hillel-Menahem
Shammai-Hillel
Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of
Seredah
Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of
Jerusalem
[y.: J u d a h b . T a b b a i
and] Simeon b.
Shetah
Shammai
Hillel
[y.: Hillel a n d S h a m m a i ]
Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of
Seredah
Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of
Jerusalem
J o s h u a b. Perahiah
Nittai the Arbelite
J u d a h b. Tabbai
S i m e o n b. Shetah
Shema'iah
Abtalion
Hillel
Shammai
Gamaliel [omits: received]

S i m e o n b. Gamaliel [omits:
received]
[2:8: Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai
received f r o m Hillel a n d
Shammai]
The second names in the first two pairs, Yosi b. Yohanan and Nittai
the Arbelite, elsewhere are given no independent sayings whatever.
They occur only in the context of the first-mentioned names, Yosi b.
Yo ezer and Joshua b. Perahiah. Further, Shema'iah and Abtalion are
rarely separated at all, but, except in Avot, normally appear as a pair,
with remarkably few independent lemmas attributed to either the
one or the other. They are given common ancestry. The first two
Yosi's are not supplied with places of origin in M. Hag.
M. Avot corresponds to M. Hag. where the two coincide, except
in the additions of the places of origin of the Yosi's, and in the reversal
of the order to Hillel-Shammai, making Hillel nasi; the subscription
of M. Hag. serves the same purpose. The Babylonian version of the
cleanness-decree lists does not conform.
The names tacked on to the Avot-list obviously serve to complete the
story back to Moses, on the one side, and to 170 A.D., on the other.
Gamaliel is made the heir of Hillel's Torah. The Simeon mentioned
in the beraita in b. Shab. 15a is ignored; perhaps the compiler of the
Avot-list did not know that beraita.
c
TRADITION
21
It is striking that, except for Hillel's (no. 13), none of the apoph
thegms in the M. Avot-list ever is discussed or even referred to by
Tannaim or in Tannaitic collections. By contrast, the materials in
M. Hag. are reworked by Judah b. Ilai and Meir. On this basis, one
can hardly propose for the Avot-apophthegms a date before Judah
the Patriarch (if then). This is congruent to the fact that Hillel both
as ancestor of the patriarchate and as master of Yohanan b. Zakkai first
turns up in the Avot-list and becomes important thereafter.
Since, as I said, no extant materials have either Simeon b. Gamaliel
or Gamaliel I referring to Hillel, we may suppose that the claim of
Hillel as an ancestor by the patriarchate came some time after the
destruction of the Temple. My guess is that it was first alleged quite
a long time later on. Judah the Patriarch's circle probably is responsi
ble for the additions of Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel to the Avot
list. Since that same circle also produced the genealogy linking Hillel
to Davidpresumably because the Babylonian exilarch did the same
the link between Gamaliel I and Hillel may have come some time
before Judah the Patriarch, who is the first patriarch to refer to Hillel
as his ancestor. The link is to be traced to the point at which the
patriarchate made peace with the growing predominance of the Hille
lite House, some time soon after the destruction of the Temple. Before
then the Shammaites apparently predominated within Pharisaism, and
Simeon b. Gamaliel probably was one of them, which accounts for
the suppression of virtually all of his legal traditions. The first point
at which a Hillelite claim would have served the patriarchate therefore
was the time of Gamaliel II. But, since Gamaliel II is represented as
following Shammaite law (e.g. b. Yev. 15b), makes no reference to
Hillel, plays no role in the Hillel-pericopae or in Hillel's House's
materials, as I said, and tells how his father Simeon followed Shammai
te rules, the Hillelite ancestry for the patriarchate founded by Gama
liel II may not have been established until ca. 150, by which time it
seems to be settled. That is the point at which Meir had to revise the
form of the earlier list to make Hillel nasi.
Yosi b. Halafta, Meir's contemporary, knew nothing about b. Shab.
14b, and said the decree about the uncleanness of glassware and the
land of the peoples in fact was in force (with no authority given)
eighty years before the destruction of the Temple. The masters cer
tainly recognized that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Sham
mai. Therefore Yosi b. Halafta's tradition was separate from, and con
tradicted, b. Shab. He presumably knew no other. It therefore may be
22
that that beraita comes well after ca. 150, as the names of Palestinian
Talmud's authorities suggest.
i v . CONCLUSION
The earliest chain of Pharisaic tradition probably consisted of the

following names:
1. Yosi b. Yo'ezer
2. Yosi b. Yohanan
3. Joshua b. Perahiah
4. Nittai the Arbelite
5. Judah b. Tabbai
6. Simeon b. Shetah
7. Shema'iah
+
8. Abtalion
9. Shammai
10. Hillel
11. Yohanan b. Zakkai
12. Yohanan's disciples
Replaced by
13. Gamaliel
14. Simeon b. Gamaliel
Of the foregoing, nos. 2 and 4 exist in the traditions only in associa
tion with nos. 1 and 3; nos. 7 and 8 are always connected. As we shall
see, furthermore, the relationships between nos. 5 and 6 are extremely
complex, and it looks as if separate traditions of the two masters may
have been put together for a post facto explanation of the union of two
originally unrelated circles of disciples.
We shall now consider in sequence the traditions of each of the
masters on the list. The judgment of E. J . Bickerman is everywhere
verified: "Un oubli general couvrit les stecles qui s'etaient ecoules
entre Alexandre et Auguste, parce que personne n'avait plus interet
a s'en souvenir." For the later rabbinic continuators of the
1
E l i e B i c k e r m a n , " L a c h a i n e d e la t r a d i t i o n p h a r i s i e n n e , " Revue biblique 5 9 ,

1952, pp. 44-54; pp. 45-6.
TRADITION
23
Pharisees what happened had to be revised into what ought to have

happened. They had a keen interest in the intervening period, but
the likely facts of the matterthe recent origins of the Pharisaic
party, probably in the second century B.C., and the Shammaite pre
dominance in the party in the first century A.D. until the destruction
of the Templewere not palatable, so new facts had to be invented
both to improve the picture, and to fill out its blank spaces.
CHAPTER THREE
SIMEON THE
JUST
i. TRADITIONS
I.i.l. [When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a
Naîrite] to separate himself to the Lord (Num. 6:2)...
Rabbi Simeon the Just said, "I ate the guilt-offering of Naziriteship
(NZRWT) but one, when one came from the South, of beautiful
eyes, lovely appearance, with his locks in curls. I spoke to him (N'M),
'Quickly must one (MHR >YT) [should be: MH R>YT = What did
you see to, why did you] destroy beautiful hair?'
"And he said (N'M) to me, 'I was a shepherd in my town. I went
to fetch water from the spring. I looked at my shadow. My heart
grew haughty (PHZ). It sought to remove me from the world. I
said to it, 'Wicked (R$<)! LO, you take pride in what is not yours.
It belongs to the dust, the worm, and the maggot. Lo, I shave you
off for [the sake of] Heaven.'
"Forthwith I bowed my head and kissed his head and said to him,
'May [people] like you, who do the will of the Omnipresent, increase
in Israel. Upon you ( LYK) is fulfilled the Scripture, When either a man
or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Naîrite, to separate himself
to the Lord: "
(Sifre Num. 22, ed. Friedman, pp. 7a-b)
C
Comment: Later on (IV.ii.3) cited to show Simeon did not approve of

Nazirites, this pericope may be categorized as a narrative in autobio
graphical form (Simeon said, / . . . ) . From the narrative no legal principle
is here derived or illustrated. The moral rule that one must not take
pride in beautiful appearances is illustrated by the young man's merito
rious shaving of his head as a Nazirite.
The setting in Sifre bears no relationship with what precedes or fol
lows. It is a unitary, literary account. Apart from some difficulties in
word choice and diction, ironed out in later versions, the pericope is
smooth and flows easily. The standard blessing at the end to be sure is
vague, for what specific action the young man took to do God's will is
not specified, merely inferred; this would later on be supplied. The
story is the work of a single hand.
The inclusion of the title rabbi is an obvious anachronism, prima facie
evidence that the story comes after 70 A.D. But that detail may have
SIMEON THE J U S T Il.i.l
25
been inserted later on and cannot be used to date the original composi
tion of the pericope. Hence we have no clear idea as to when and where
the story was first told, or how it was transmitted.
As we shall see, Simeon the Just is a shadowy, legendaryfigure.Ad
ding his name to what may be a Judaized version of the Narcissus story
is perfectly natural, just as it is Simeon the Just who represents the
Jews before Alexander of Macedonia. But we certainly cannot speculate
on who would originally have made Narcissus into a Nazirite or what
would have provoked retelling the story in a Jewish framework.
See David Weiss Halivni, Meqorot, pp. 272-275.
Il.i.l.A. Who prepared them [the earlier red-heifer offerings]?
"Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five [were
prepared] after Ezra," the words of R. Meir.
But the sages say, "Seven since Ezra."
B. And who prepared them? Simeon the Just and Yohanan the
High Priest prepared two each, and Elieho'enai b. Haqqof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael b. Phiabi prepared one each.
(M. Par. 3:5, trans. Danby, p. 700.)
Comment: This "historical" pericope contains a reference to a deed
done by Simeon (among others). What he actually did is not specified,
since it is assumed that the general laws describing the red-heifer sacri
fice were carried out by him as well. Elsewhere (Vl.iv.l), it is specified
that he made a new ramp for each offering; that detail is omitted in the
subsequent Mishnah (3:6), where it would have belonged. The Mishnaic
passage before us thus contains no material of legal interest.
The terminus ante quem is made clear by the reference to Meir, hence
the middle of the second century. The difference between Meir and the
sages is whether Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest had
made one or two such offerings. Judah the Patriarch follows the sages,
with two attributed to each one, one to the three others. Actually, the
Tannaim could have had no very firm traditions on the subject (see my
Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, [Leiden, 1970 ], pp. 77-80).
The pericope is a composite, interrupted by "according to..." Were
it a unitary account, it would have read, "Who had prepared them?
Moses the first, Ezra the second, andfive/sevenafter Ezra, plus names."
The second (B) and who had prepared them supplies continuity broken by
the report of the disagreement.
The first who had prepared them follows a reference to the possibility
that the high priest could not find remnants of the sacrifices of his pre
decessors, "If he did not find [remnants of the ashes of] the seven, they
might make use of six, five, four, three, two, one." Then comes, "And
who made them?" It is unlikely that a pericope circulated apart from
the question "Who made them," e.g. in the following language, "Moses
made the first, Ezra, the second..." Such a pericope, lacking an explan
atory phrase to make clear that under discussion is the history of the
2
26
S I M E O N THE J U S T Il.ii.l
red heifer sacrifice, would have been meaningless. The form before us,
therefore, is in the language supplied by the generation responsible for
the text as we have it, namely, that of Meir, or by the immediately fol
lowing one. We do not know how Meir or his opposition knew how
many heifers were prepared and who had made them. But we have no
trace of whatever original tradition was referred to by Meir. We have
merely a reference to the content of such a pericope (if any actually ex
isted).
I cannot think of any reason that Meir's generation would have taken
special interest in the red-heifer ceremony, or why Judah the Patriarch
would have gone out of his way to list the names of the high priests
responsible for the earlier sacrifices. Whatever contemporary consider
ations, if any, provoked the dispute between Meir and the anonymous
opposition are not apparent, and I imagine there were none. Many his
torical issues elicited Meir's concern. This was simply a dispute about
what had been done long, long agoin a time concerning which Phar
isaic traditions supplied no reliable information whatever.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 44-5.
Il.ii.l. Simeon the Just said, "In my life (MYMYY) I have not
eaten the guilt-offering of a Nazir except once only (BLBD). The story
is told concerning (M SH B) one [man] who came to me from the
south. I saw him [of] beautiful eyes, good appearance, and his locks
were curled. I said (NM) to him, 'My son, Why [Lit.: What did you
see to] did you destroy this lovely hair?'
"He said (NM) to me, 'I was a shepherd in my town, and I came to
fill water from the river. I looked at my shadow, and my impulse (YSR)
grew proud within me and besought to remove me ( BR) from the
world.
" 'I said to it [my impulse], 'Evil one! You have [a right] to be jealous
only of a thing which is not yours, of a thing which is destined to
make ( SH) dust, worm, and maggot. Lo, it is incumbent on me [a
vow] to shave you off for [the sake of ] Heaven.'
"I bent my head and kissed him on his head. I said to him, 'My son,
may [people] like you, who do the will of the Omnipresent, multiply
in Israel. Upon you ( LYK) is fulfilled this [Scripture], When a man
or woman separates himself to vow..: (Num. 6:2)."
(Tos. Nez. 4:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 138-9, lines
32-40; Zuckermandel, p. 289, lines 9-16)
C
Comment: See I.i.l and synoptic studies below. The form maâseh b- is
intruded, a peculiar addition. The form does not belong and interrupts
Simeon's story. It must represent a contamination by a copyist or editor
who thought any sort of story will require maâseh be.. .vejshe as an intro
ductory formula. The formula does not recur in Simeon-materials.
S I M E O N T H E J U S T II.ii.2
27
II.ii.2. A. Simeon the Just heard, "The decree is annulled (BTYLT

'YBYDT') which the enemy (SN'Hlit.: one who hates) intended to
bring (LHYTYH) on the Temple, and Qesgeleges (QSGLGS) has been
killed, and his decrees have been annulled,' [Italics = in Aramaic] and
he heard these things in the Aramaic language.
B. All the time that Simeon the Just was alive (QYYM), the western
light was continual. When he died, they went and found it had gone
out. Afterward, sometimes it went out, and sometimes it burned
strongly.
C. The fire of the wood-offering was continual. Once they had arrang
ed it in the morning, it would burn strongly all day long, so that
they would offer on it perpetual offerings and supplementary offerings
and their drink-offerings. And they would not add on it more than
two pieces of wood for the twilight offering, as it is said, And the
priest will burn on it... (Lev. 6:5). When Simeon the Just died, the woodoffering's power diminished, and they did not refrain from adding wood
to it all day long.
D. There was a blessing in the two bread-loaves and in the showbread. The two bread-loaves would be divided on the [festival of]
Gathering ( SRT) and the show-bread was divided on the festival
(RGL) among all the [priestly] watches. Some ate and were satisfied,
and others ate and [even] left over, yet no more than an olive's mea
sure came to each one. After Simeon the Just died, the blessing de
parted...
(Tos. Sot. 13:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 319,
lines 9-20)
C
Comment: Part A comes at the end of a long list of heavenly messages

delivered through an echo (BT QWL). In Simeon's instance it is merely
stated that "he heard," since earlier in the chapter is specified a number
of instances in which sages heard heavenly echoes; in a reference to the
conclusion of prophecy with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, it is said,
"But even so, they would cause them to hear through the echo." Then,
an echo heard in Yavneh announced that Hillel was worthy of receiving
the holy spirit. Again, an echo announced at Yavneh that Samuel the
Small was worthy of receiving the holy spirit. This is followed by
Samuel the Small's dying words, and it is carefully specified that these
were in Aramaic. Then, Yohanan the High Priest heard from the house
of the holy of holies that the young men had conquered Antioch (in
Aramaic, but not so specified as earlier). Finally, "Simeon heard..." Af
ter Simeon is mentioned, the further story in part B is told about what
happened after he died. It is therefore clear from the context that the
composite pericope was shaped, at the earliest, in the second century.
28
S I M E O N T H E J U S T III.i.1
Some of the materials may be later, for the explicit reference to the
use of the Aramaic language (in italics) makes no sense at all here. No
one here debates whether the angels speak Aramaic or not. That issue is
raised elsewhere, as we shall see (III.ii.4, below) by R. Yohanan (d. 279)
and Rav Judah (d. 297). It may be that a saying about what Simeon and
Yohanan the High Priest had heard from heaven long circulated in
Aramaic (Josephus gives it, of course, in Greek), and this was then
cited to prove that the angels speak Aramaic. But the saying also circu
lated in Hebrew here and in IV.i.4! It seems more likely that the saying
was rendered into Aramaic for the purposes of the argument in which
it was cited, than that it was only afterward rendered from Aramaic
into Hebrew for a reason no one can now imagine. But the second and
third clauses remain in Hebrew, contrary to the subscription.
We may classify both parts as biographical references to Simeon's
life. But Simeon plays a wholly passive role in Part A, and in Parts
B-C-D, none at all. Like the destruction of the Temple, his death marks
a major turning in the supernatural life of Israel. We cannot fruitfully
speculate on the school responsible for the story in its current form. To
be sure, the story could not have been shaped much before the middle
of the second century, for reasons given earlier. Part A is a unitary com
position. Parts B-C-D are not, for in fact the lists of various miracles
that ceased to happen with Simeon's death elsewhere are augmented
considerably; here we have only part of a composite of miracles attrib
uted to the period before Simeon's death. The tendency is to attribute
to Simeon and his times the glory and supernatural grace afterward
denied to Israel.
Judah the Patriarch, strikingly, did not refer to Simeon the Just in
his list of ancient worthies to which this passage is a supplement, M.
Sotah 9:9-15. This is a remarkable omission, since others on the M.
Avot- and M. Hagigah-lists are present: Yohanan the High Priest, Yosi
b. Yo ezer, and Yosi b. Yohanan: "When [they] died, the grapeclusters
ceased." It would have been natural to include Simeon in this very con
text. Moreover, Tos. does preserve the Mishnaic passage (in italics):
"When the first prophets died, Urim and Tummim ceased" Then comes
the long passage (9:15) about the end of various blessings when not a
high priest but Tannaitic sages died: Meir, Ben Zoma, Joshua, Simeon
b. Gamaliel, Eleazar b. Azariah, Aqiba, Hanina b. Dosa, Yohanan ben
Zakkai, and others, down to Judah the Patriarch himself. Why not
Simeon the Priest as well? I cannot say, but the omission must be re
garded as noteworthy.
Megillat Ta'anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 344, develops the pericope into
a story about Qsglgs.
c
III.i.1. Rabbi Ulla objected before Rabbi Mana, "Lo it is taught

(TNY), Simeon the Just prepared two cows..."
(y. Sheq. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 16b)
Comment: The context is a discussion of the high priesthood's pride
29
S I M E O N T H E J U S T III.i.2-3
and wastefulness. R. Hanina accuses the high priests of scandalous lavishness because they constructed new ramps for each red heifer sacri
fice, rather than using existing, adequate equipment. Ulla objects
that Simeon the Just had done this very thing, citing M. Par. 3:5,
with the presumption that Simeon had done as was described in M.
Par. 3:6 (above Il.i.l). Then, "Can you say Simeon the Just was
extravagant?" The answer is that he had done so because of the im
portance of the heifer ceremony. In Pesiqta deR. Kahana (below,
Vl.iv.l) the question is given anonymously, the answer comes from R.
Abun in the name of R. Ele azar. The basis for referring to Simeon the
Just, therefore, is his inclusion in the list in M. Par.
c
111.1.2. There we learned (TMN TNYN): Simeon the Just was of

the remnants of the Great Assembly.
He would say, "On three things the world stands: Torah, cult,
and deeds of loving-kindness."
And the three of them [sic] are in one Scripture (Is. 51:16): I have
placed my words in your mouththis is Torah. And in the shadow of my
hands I have covered youthis is [doing] deeds of lovingkindness. To
teach you that whoever occupies [himself] in Torah and in deeds of
lovingkindness merits sitting in the shadow of the Holy One, blessed
be he.
(y. Ta. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 21a = y. Meg. 3:6,
repr. Gilead, p. 26a)
Comment: The context is a discussion of the saying of R. Jacob b. Aha
in the name of R. Yasa, "The world stands only on account of the
sacrifices." Then the saying of Simeon the Just is cited as contrary evi
dence. The saying derives directly from Avot 1:3, with no change.
What is new is the exegesis of Is. 51:16, purporting to supply a prooftext for Simeon's opinion, but mentioning only two elements. The
proof-text does not appear in any earlier version of the saying. It is an
anonymous augmentation, a gloss appearing only here and in the paral
lel, y. Meg. 3:6, which in all respects is identical. The omission of the
cult is puzzling.
Clearly, the Avot saying now was available and therefore was cited.
But it appears in no other Tannaitic compilation and is not referred to
by a Tannaitic authoritya rule applying to all logia in the Avot-chain,
as I said (p. 21).
111.1.3. DTNY: R. Simeon the Just said ('MR), "In my days I have
eaten the guilt-offering of a Nazirite only once. One time a man came
up to me from the South, and I saw him ruddy, with lovely eyes and a
good appearence, and his curls were heaped up (MSWDRWT) in
heaps and heaps (TYLY TYLYM). And I said to him, 'My son,
30
S I M E O N T H E J U S T III.ii.1
Why did you [lit.: What did you see to] destroy this beautiful hair?'
"He said (NM) to me, 'Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my town, and
I went to fill the drawing of water (LML'WT >T HS'WB MYM). I
saw my shadow (BWBYYH) in the water. My impulse (YSR) took
pride over me and sought to destroy me ( BD) from the world. I said
to it, 'Evil one! You take pride in something which is not yours. It is
my duty to sanctify you to Heaven.'
"I bent my head and said to him, 'My son, may such as you, who
do the will of the Omnipresent, multiply in Israel. Concerning you,
Scripture says, When a man or a woman will separate himself to vow a vow...' "
(y. Ned. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 3a = y. Naz. 1:5,
repr. Gilead, p. 5a)
J
Comment: The context is an inquiry into what Tannaitic authority

does not approve vows of various sorts. The authorities cited are R.
Judah and R. Simeon. R. Simeon says it is a sin to refrain from using
wine, and his view is buttressed by the story of Simeon the Just. In y.
Naz. 1:5 the context is set by the same discussion.
III.ii.1 .A. Our Rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Throughout the forty
years that Simeon the Just ministered:
(1) The lot ['For the Lord'] would always come up in the right
hand. From that time on, it would sometimes come up in the right
hand, sometimes in the left.
(2) And the crimson-colored strap would turn white. From that
time on it would at times become white, at others not.
(3) Also, the westernmost light was shining. From that time on,
it was now shining, now failing.
(4) Also, the fire of the pile of wood kept burning strong, so that
the priests did not have to bring to the pile any other wood besides
the two logs, in order to fulfill the command about [providing] the
wood [unintermittently]. From that time on, it would sometimes keep
burning strongly, sometimes not, so that the priests did not refrain
throughout the day from bringing wood for the pile [on the altar].
(5) A blessing was bestowed upon the omer the two breads, and
showbread, so that every priest who obtained a piece thereof as big
as an olive ate it and became satisfied, some eating thereof and even
leaving something over. From that time on a curse (M WRH) was
sent upon the omer two breads, and showbread, so that every priest
received a piece as small as a bean: the well-bred ones withdrew their
hands from it, while voracious folk took and devoured it...
c
31
B. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): In the year in which Simeon

the Just died, he said to them [that] in this year he would die.
They said, "Whence do you know that?"
He replied, "On every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in
white and wrapped in white, would join me, entering [the Holy of
Holies] and leaving [it] with me. But today I was joined by an old
man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, who entered, but did
not leave, with me."
After the festival (RGL) [of Sukkot] he was sick for seven days
and died.
C. His brethren the priests forbore to mention the [Ineffable] Name
in pronouncing the [priestly] blessing.
(b. Yoma 39a-b, trans. Leo Jung, pp. 184-6)
Comment: Part B may be classified as biography. The former, part A
(= II.ii.2), is an account of a change in Israel's supernatural life tied to
the death of Simeon the Just. Simeon serves, like Simeon b. Shetah, to
supply a date for "the good old days." The antecedent Mishnah pertains
to the priestly cult on the Day of Atonement, with specific reference to
the casting of lots for disposal of the sacrificial goat. A brief inquiry
follows: Which Tanna is responsible for the Mishnah? Attention is
drawn to available beraitot. Then comes the beraita given here as part A.
This is briefly interrupted by a story about a priest who grabbed more
than his share of the bread, followed by part B. Presumably the beraita
could have stood as a unity, without the second superscription, Our
rabbis taught, just as the final clause stands without it, rather than Our
rabbis taught. When Simeon ministered ...the priests would mention the Ineffable
Name; when he died, they forebore. Immediately following the conclusion
of the Simeon-materials is still another beraita on the supernatural his
tory of the cult: "In the last forty years before the destruction, the lot
did not come up in the right hand, the crimson-colored strap did not
turn white, the western-light did not shine, and the doors of the heikhal
would open by themselves, until Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai rebuked
them." This beraita obviously is a continuation of the foregoing collec
tion, and the whole was certainly shaped together, at the earliest in the
second century.
The setting is different in detail from II.ii.2, but not much different
in structure. Just as earlier we found that Simeon-materials were placed
in the general context of data on the supernatural, coming to an end
with Yavnean masters (Samuel the Small), so here Yavneans (Yohanan
ben Zakkai) are linked to Simeon the Just. We cannot, to be sure, date
the final formation of the beraita to so early a date as second-century
Yavneh. We may be certain only that it was in its final form by the
early fourth-century, at which point the maâseh about the piggish
priest was added, followed by the comments of Rabbah b. R. Shela and
Rava.
32
Formally, we have quite different sorts of stories, now preserved in

the separate beraitot, A and B. They were brought together to provide
an account of the miracles of the time of Simeon the Just, first with
regard to the cult, then with regard to his own death. Nothing in the
language or contents requires us to divide the pericope into component
parts: (a) when he ministered, (b) when he died. The editorial reasons
for the later division are clear.
The tendency is obvious. Until Simeon the Just the high priesthood
was worthy of its holy office. Afterward, some of the high priests were,
and some were not. About a generation before the destruction the high
priesthood became consistently unpalatable to the Pharisaic party. But
we need not speculate on what "really" happened in the cult. Sayings
such as these are important not for the history of the cult or the biogra
phy of Simeon, but for the study of Tannaitic attitudes toward both.
III.ii.2. A. And has it [not] been taught (WHTNY>): On the
twenty-fifth of Tevet is the day of Mount Gerizim, on which one may
not mourn.
B. [It is the] day on which [commemorating] the Kuteans sought
[permission] to destroy the House of our God from Alexander of
Macedonia.
He gave them [permission]. They came and informed Simeon the
Just.
What did he do? He put on the priestly garments and cloaked
himself in the priestly garments.
Some of the nobles of Israel [were] with him, [with] torches of
fire in their hands, and all night they walked [from] this side and [from]
that, until the morning star arose. When the morning star arose, he
[Alexander] said to them [the Kuteans], "Who are these?"
They said to him, "They are Jews who rebelled against you."
When he came to Antipatris, the sun came out, and these [from
one direction] met those [coming from the other side].
C. When he saw Simeon the Just, he descended from his chariot
and prostrated himself before him. They said to him, "Will such a
great king as you prostrate himself before this J e w ? "
He said to them, "The image (DMWT DYWQNW) of this [man]
conquers before me in the midst of (BBYT) my battles."
D. He said to them, "Why have you come?"
They said to him, "Is it possible that star-worshippers should mis
lead you to destroy the house in which men pray for you and for your
kingdom that it [your kingdom] may never be destroyed!"
He said to them, "Who are these [to whom you refer] ?"
They said to him, "These Kuteans who stand before you."
33
He said to them, "Lo, they are given into your hands."

Forthwith they perforated their heels, tied them to the tails of their
horses, and dragged them over thorns and thistles until they came
to Mount Gerizim. When they came to Mount Gerizim, they ploughed
it and planted it with vetchjust what they had sought to do to the
House of our God.
F. That day they made into a festival.
(b. Yoma 69a)
Comment: This beraita, which serves as a scholion to Megillat Ta'anit,
may be classified as a historical narrative in which Simeon plays a minor
role, rather than as a biographical pericope. It is cited in the context of a
discussion on whether the priestly garments may be worn outside of the
Temple. It is introduced by "Come and hear: As to priestly garments, it
is forbidden to go out in them into the province, but in the sanctuary,
whether during the time of the service or otherwise, it is permitted to
wear them." Then the beraita is cited as a contradiction: Simeon the
Just wore the garments outside the Temple. The response is that the
garments he wore were fit to be priestly garments, but were not actual
ly so; or alternatively, the emergency justified disobeying the particular
rule against wearing them outside of the Temple. Ps. 119:126 is cited
a routine way of solving the problem. The whole is anonymous, but it
is preceded by discussion about using the priestly garments for personal
benefit, in which R. Papa, R. Mesharsheya, and R. Ashi participate.
In Megillat Ta'anit (Lichtenstein, p. 339) the day of the destruction of
Gerizim is 21 Kislev; Josephus says John Hyrcanus destroyed it. We
may be certain the framers of the beraita had no accurate information on
the subject. The form of the beraita is similar to other Babylonian Tal
mudic treatments of Megillat Taânit pericopae (Development of a Legend
pp. 180-182). The Aramaic of the Fasting-scroll is cited, followed by a
long narrative, in rabbinic Hebrew, of the story underlying the simple
date.
The narrative is composite. Part C is intruded, interrupting the
course of the story with an extraneous detail. Then the narrative re
sumes with D, which ignores C ("He said to them") and could as well
have followed right after part B. Part C also circulated by itself. But
parts B, D, and E form a single, unitary account. Part F then refers
back to the superscription, so that the form usually associated with
Fasting-Scroll stories is now completed. I therefore suppose that the
story in parts B, D, and E stood alone; then part C was added to in
clude another detail about Simeon's "famous" meeting of Alexander
and the Jews, in addition to that part in B. Parts A and F were supplied
last of all.
As in the analysis of other materials attached to sentences from the
Fasting-Scroll, we have no clue as to when or how the whole was put
together. The materials did not necessarily lie before the Babylonian
masters mentioned above, for the story is cited anonymously, merely in
34
the context of their discussion, and they do not necessarily provide a

terminus ante quern. For all we know, the beraita in its current form was
shaped even later than R. Ashi. We have no firm information whatever.
Simeon's role is limited to parts B and C. Part C is independent of the
rest. As to B, Simeon is intruded because he is high priest, therefore in
charge of affairs and expected to meet the crisis. Any other name would
have served as well. But Part C makes Simeon into a supernatural figure.
Stories of Alexander and an important Jew are not limited to Simeon.
Another, and completely different, account of Alexander and a Jewish
spokesman concerns Gebiha b. Pesisa, b. Sanh. 91a = Meg. Ta anit, ed.
Lichtenstein, pp. 328-30.
c
III.ii.3. TNY>: Simeon the Just said ("MR), "I never ate the guiltoffering of a contaminated (TM>) Nazir except for [Ned.: once, one
time] one man, who came to me from the South, [Ned.: and I saw
that he was] of beautiful eyes, lovely appearance, and with his locks
arranged (SDWRWT) in heaps of curls (TLTLYM). I said (>MR) to
him, 'My son,Why did you [Lit.: what did you see to] destroy this
[Ned. ijour] beautiful hair?'
"He said to me, 'I was a shepherd for my father in my town. I
went to draw water from the well. I looked at my reflection. My
impulse (YSR) grew haughty and sought to drive me (TRD) from the
world. I said to it, 'Base one (RYQH)! On what account do you take
pride (G'H^n the world which is not yours, for your end will be worm
and maggot. By the [Temple] cult! I shall shave you for [the sake
of ] Heaven.'
"I arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him, 'May Nazirites
[Ned.: makers of Naîriteship] like you increase in Israel. Concerning
you Scripture says, When a man shall make a special vow, the vow of a
Na%irite, to separate himself to the Lord (Num. 6:2).' "
(b. Naz. 4b = b. Ned. 9b)
Comment: The context of b. Naz. is an anonymous discussion con
cerning the author of the Mishnah about the difference between a
temporary Nazirite, and a life-Nazirite like Samson. Various Tannaim
are cited, all in a hypothetical framework, "He would say." No one is
directly quoted. The phrase unto the Lord is mentioned and then comes
the beraita about Simeon the Just's story, attached to Num. 6:2. After
the story the discussion continues anonymously. The context of b. Ned.
is a discussion on whether vows of Naziriteship are sinful or not. The
discussion is anonymous, certainly Amoraic (if not later), but following
comes a demurrer of R. Mani, that the instance of Simeon the Just does
not decisively prove the case. The story thus is more appropriate for
the issue of b. Ned. than of b. Naz.
35
S I M E O N T H E J U S T III.ii.4-5
III.iiAA. Do not the ministering angels understand Aramaic? Be

hold it has been taught (TNY>):
B. Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo (BT QWL) from the
house of the Holy of Holies, which was saying [in Aramaic]. "The
young men who went to wage war against Antioch have conquered (NSHW
TLY> D>ZLW L>GH> QRB> L'NTWKY')."
C. Further the story is told concerning (M SH B) Simeon the Just,
that he heard an echo from the house of the Holy of Holies, which
was saying [in Aramaic], "Annulled (BTYLT) is the decree (*BYDT')
which the enemy (SN H) thought to introduce (L?YYT H) into the Temple
(HYKV), and [in Hebrew] Gasqelges (GSQLGS) [A. Cohen, trans.:
Caius Caligula (sic)] has been slain, and his decrees have been annulled."
D. They wrote down that hour and it tallied [with the time of
his death].
Now it was in Aramaic that it [the echo] spoke.
(b. Sot. 33a)
C
Comment: The issue is raised by Rav Judah with the agreement of R.

Yohanan, the contemporary Palestinian master, that one should not
pray in Aramaic, for the angels do not understand it. The story con
cerning Yohanan the High Priest, followed by and a further story con
cerning Simeon the Just, seems to me an integral part of the composite
beraita. But part D belongs after part B. Part C is an intrusion. So at the
outset the elements were separate and probably circulated by them
selves.
III. ii.5. Needless to say [this is so of priests who ministered to]
another matter.
Since it says here, Needless to say [this is so of priests who minister
ed to] another matter, it follows that the Temple of Onias was not
an idolatrous shrine. Our Tanna thus concurs with the view of him
who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine.
A. For it was taught (DTNY>): In the year in which Simeon the
Just died, he said to them that he would die.
They said to him, "How do you know?"
He replied, "Every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white
and wrapped in white, met me. He entered with me [into the Holy
of Holies] and left with me. But this year an old man, dressed in black
and wrapped in black, met me. He entered with me but did not leave
with me."
After the Festival (RGL) [of Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days
and then died.
36
And his brethren the priests forbore [to pronounce] the Name in
[the priestly] benediction.
B. In the hour of his departure [from this life], he said to them,
"My son Onias shall assume the office [of High Priest] after me."
His brother Shime i, who was two years and a half older, was jealous
of him and said to him, "Come and I will teach you the order of the
Temple service."
He thereupon put on him a gown ('WNQLY), girded him with a
girdle, placed him near the altar, and said to his brethren the priests,
"See what this man promised his beloved and has now fulfilled: 'On
the day in which I assume the office of High Priest, I will put on
your gown and gird myself with your girdle.' "
At this his brethren the priests sought to kill him.
He fled from them, but they pursued him. He then went to Alexan
dria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in ho
nor of idols.
When the Sages heard of this, they said, "If this is what happened
[through the jealousy] of one who had never assumed the honor, what
would happen [through the jealousy] of one who had once assumed
the honor [and had been ousted from i t ] ! "
This is the view of the events according to R. Meir.
C. R. Judah said to him, "That was not what happened, but the
fact was that Onias did not accept the office of High Priest because
his brother Shime'i was two years and a half older than he..."
(b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 676-7)
c
Comment: The context is an anonymous discussion of the status of

the Temple of Onias. The responsible Tannaim obviously are Meir and
Judah b. Ilai. Indeed, in this instance we are explicitly informed that
the whole version of events printed here is that of Meir. There follows
a completely different version of Onias's history, told by Judah. But all
parties seem to agree on the story about Simeon the Just,if they know
it at all. The introductory story about Simeon comes both separate
from, and before, the materials on Onias. Meir and Judah may there
fore supply the terminus ante quern for part A, the middle of the second
century A.D.
As we have it, the beraita must be regarded as a composite of two
traditions, A + B or C. It is noteworthy that the beraita A + B or
A + C is not divided with a second superscription, which supports my
earlier contention thatfora/te-superscriptionscould well have been sup
plied in such a way as to break apart existing, unitary pericopae. Part A
seems to me divided, as earlier stated, into two parts, the story of the
prediction of Simeon's death, his death, and then a second item, that
S I M E O N THE J U S T IV.i.1-2
37
the priests then ceased to pronounce the Ineffable Name. The latter is
not integral to the story. It would have been better located in the list of
miracles that ceased to take place after Simeon died.
IV.i.l. [Concerning the high priests in the Second Temple]: Simeon
the Just served forty years.
R. Aha said, "It is written, Fear of the Lord augments one's days
(Prov. 10:27)these are the priests who served in the First Temple.
But theyears of the wicked are diminishedthese are the ones who served
in the Second Temple."
(y. Yoma 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 4b)
Comment: The reference to Simeon the Just's tenure in office is ano
nymous. The observation of R. Aha supplies a terminus ante quern. In
IV.ii.1 (b. Yoma 9a), the passage is in the name of Rabba b. b. Hana in
the name of R. Yohanan, hence mid third-century for the latter, late
third-century for the tradent.
IV.L2.A. [Regarding the high priest's prayer on the Day of Atone
ment in the Holy of Holies, it is said that he should not pray too long
lest he frighten the congregation.]
The story is told concerning (M SH B) one who went on a long time,
and they decided to go in after him.
They said it was Simeon the Just.
They said to him, "Why did you go on a long time?"
He said to them, "I was praying concerning the Sanctuary of your
God that it not be destroyed."
They said to him, "Even so, you ought not to have gone on a long
time."
B. Forty years did Simeon the Just serve Israel in the high priest
hood. In the final year he said to them, "In this year I am going to die."
They said to him, "How do you know?"
He said to them, "Every year, when I would enter the House of
the Holy of Holies, there was a certain old man, dressed in white
and cloaked in white. He enters with me and departs (YWS*) with
me. But in this year he entered with me and did not depart with me."
(y. Yoma 5:2, repr. Gilead, p. 27a)
C
Comment: The terminus ante quern is set by the immediately following

comment: R. Abbahu was asked how it was possible for a man to enter
with the high priestor even angels with men's appearance. He replied
that it was not a man but the Holy One blessed be He,
Here part A of the long beraita already considered (IILii.5) stands by
itself, without part C, also without mentioning the priests' ceasing to
38
S I M E O N T H E J U S T IV.i.3
articulate the Ineffable Name (part B). More remarkable still, the pas
sage does not even include a reference to the "fact" that Simeon actually
died a week later.
The story of the high priest who prayed too long is anonymous.
Simeon's name is supplied as a gloss, because of the context. The story
does not appear elsewhere.
IV.i.3.A. The days that Simeon the Just was alive, it [the goat of
Atonement] would not reach half-way down the mountain before it
broke into pieces.
When Simeon the Just died, it [the goat of Atonement] would flee
to the wilderness, and the Saracens (SRQYN) would eat it.
B. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the lot of the Name
would come up in the right hand. When Simeon the Just died, some
times [it would come up] in the right hand, and sometimes in the left.
C. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the western lamp
would burn. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would flicker
out, and sometimes it would burn.
D. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the strap of crimson
would turn white. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would
turn white, sometimes red.
E. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the flame of the
wood offering would burn strongly. When they had placed two logs
of wood in the morning, they would not place [more] all day long.
When Simeon the Just died, the power of the fire-offering was diminish
ed, and they would not hesitate to place wood [on the fire] all daylong.
F. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, a blessing was
sent on the two loaves of bread and the showbread. To each one
would come about an olive's measure, and some ate and were satisfied,
while some ate and left over. When Simeon the Just died, the blessing
was taken from the two bread-loaves and from the showbread...(etc.)
(y. Yoma 6:3, repr. Gilead, p. 33b)
Comment: The context of the list of miracles that ended with the
death of Simeon the Just is the Mishnah pertaining to the disposition
of the sacrificial goat on the Day of Atonement. There is no close tie to
the foregoing materials. The following pericope relates to a priest's
taking his portion of the bread; the connection to the Simeon-list is
the theme of the final item.
The classification is historical: changes in Israel's supernatural situa
tion following Simeon's death. The list is probably a composite, for, as
we have seen, some of the items recur elsewhere, but not as part of the
entire pericope before us. The details of his predicting his death and the
events following it are omitted.
S I M E O N THE J U S T IV.i.4, IV.ii.1-2
39
IV.i.4. The story is told that Simeon the Just heard an echo coming
from the house of the Holy of Holies, and it said, "Gaius Goliqes
[GYYS GWLYQS] is slain, and his decrees are annulled."
(y. Sot. 9:13, ed. Gilead, p. 45b)
Comment: The entire pericope now is in Hebrew; no Aramaic ap
pears, unlike the Babylonian version of the same message. The context
is set by the foregoing remark: while prophecy has ceased, Heaven still
communicates through the echo. No Amoraic masters refer to the
story, which is anonymous. There follows the story of the message to
Yohanan the High Priest, this time in Aramaic, and further heavenly
echoes are mentioned, with reference to the worthiness of Hillel,
Samuel the Small, and other meritorious men, to receive the holy spirit.
The story as it stands is a unity. The reference to GYYS GWLYQS is
generally interpreted to mean Caligula. But this seems to me unlikely;
if it is Caligula, it cannot be Simeon the Just. Or Simeon's pericope has
been doctored. That accurate historical data are before us is unlikely.
IV.ii.l. Rabbah b. b. Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan, "What
is the meaning of the Scripture, The fear of the Lord adds days, but the
years of the wicked are shortened (Prov. 10:27)?... The years of the wicked
refers to the Second Temple which stood for four hundred twenty
years, in which more than three hundred priests served. Deduct from
them the forty years that Simeon the Just served, the eighty that
Yohanan the High Priest served, the ten that Ishmael the son of
Phiabi served, and some say, the eleven that Rabbi [sic] Eleazar b.
Harsom served. Go and calculatenone of the remainder completed
[even] his [one] year [in office]."
(b. Yoma 9a)
Comment: The context of the reference to Simeon is a saying of R.
Yohanan transmitted by Rabbah b. b. Hana. The tradition about his
forty years in office is apparently well known, presumably from Il.ii.l.
Hence the latter must come before ca. 250 A.D.
IV.ii.2. / did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them
utterly (Lev. 26:44).
Samuel said, "...neither did I abhor themin the days of the Greeks,
when I raised up for them Simeon the Just and Hashmona'i and his
sons and Mattathias the high priest..."
(b. Meg. 11a)
Comment: Samuel's exegesis is to be dated to the middle of the third
century. Clearly, Samuel imagined Simeon the Just was a contemporary
of the Maccabees. Whether or not he knew the materials connecting
40
S I M E O N THE J U S T IV.ii.3, Vl.iii.l, V L i v . l
Simeon to the time of Alexander of Macedonia I cannot say. And we do

not know for certain that Samuel knew Alexander was not a contem
porary of the Maccabees. Still, we may safely postulate that he did know
it and hence may suppose that stories about Simeon the Just and
Alexander were not available in third-century Nehardea. This seems
plausible, also, because no such stories are told by a Nehardean master.
All occur in Pumbedita or elsewhere, none among the authorities of
Samuel's circle. But our sample is too limited for that fact to be proba
tive. To be sure, Samuel may have thought "the Greeks" who troubled
Israel included Alexander himself, but this would run counter to the
tendency of rabbinical traditions about the Macedonian. Hence it seems
more likely, as I said, that Samuel did not know the materials connect
ing Alexander and Simeon the Just.
IV.ii.3. Abbaye said, "Simeon the Just, R. Simeon, and R. Eleazar
HaQappar are all agreed that a Naîr is a sinner..."
(b. Ned. 10a)
Comment: The reference to the story of Simeon the Just and the
Jewish Narcissus is interpreted to show that Simeon did not approve of
Nazirites. The story appears in the preceding page. It seems reasonable
to suppose the story lay before Abbaye, and that the materials of b. Ned.
9b-10a were edited with reference to Abbaye's thesis, hence in fourthcentury Pumbedita. These materials need not have then received their
final form, but later changes would have been minor and inconsequen
tial. Otherwise, the materials as now arranged could not have served
the purpose Abbaye assigned to them.
Vl.iii.l. When Alexander looked at Simeon the Just, he stood on
his feet. The Kuteans said to him, "Do you rise before a Jew?" He
said, "When I go forth to battle, I behold his likeness, and I conquer."
(Lev. R. 13:5)
Comment: Here is a late citation of the brief colloquy about Alex
ander's respect for Simeon, appearing entirely by itself. I do not think
the rest of the story was purposely omitted. The greater likelihood is
that this pericope circulated independently.
VLiv.l. [Abba Saul says the high priests would make a ramp for
the heifer... All were prideful.] But lo, it is taught (TNY) "Simeon
the Just made two heifers, and he did not bring out the second on
the ramp on which he brought out the first."
Can you say of that just man that he was prideful?
R. Abun in the name of R. Eleazar said, "[It was] on account of
the importance of the heifer-sacrifice."
(Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum I,
pp. 73, 1.11 to 7 4 , 1 . 1 )
SIMEON THE J U S T VI.iv.2, 3, V I . v . l , 2
41
Comment: Here is a later version of materials familiar in III.i.1. The

masters are different, but the references to Simeon are the same. In fact
the beraita about the two ramps built by Simeon must have been shaped
before Pesiqta de R. Kahana's editor made use of it together with the
colloquy of R. Abun. If R. Eleazar b. Pedat in fact referred to the
beraita, then it had to have been known in early Amoraic times in
Palestine. This would point to a terminus ante quern of ca. 250 A.D.
VI.iv.2. When Alexander of Macedonia saw Simeon the Just, he
would stand up, and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just."
His courtiers said to him, "Do you rise before a J e w ? "
He said to them, "When I go to battle, I see his face and conquer."
(Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I,
p. 75, lines 4-7)
Comment: See Vl.iii.l,
VLiv.3. There we learned [TMN TNYNN (Avot 1:2)], "Simeon
the Righteous was of the remnants of the whole law."
(Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I,
p. 308, 1. 17)
Comment: I do not see the connection between the above reference to
Avot and the context in which it occurs. Nor do I comprehend the
language, "M$YYRY KL HYLKTH." Mandelbaum merely refers to
Avot 1:3, as if the above replicated the language found there.
VI.v.l. R. Aha said in the name of R. Hanina: "Out of ostentatiousness, each High Priest spent as much as sixty talents of gold on the
runway."
"But in a beraita we are told of Simeon the Just, who [during his
ministry] led out two red heifers, that even he deemed it necessary not
to lead out the second on the runway upon which he led out the first.
Do you dare say that such a righteous man was ostentatious?"
"Indeed not," as R. Abin explained in the name of R. Eliezer,
"Simeon the Just did what he did in order to lend solemnity to the
preparation of the ash of the red heifer."
(Pesiqta Rabbati 14:14, [trans. W. Braude, p.
291])
Comment: See VLiv.l. Braude paraphrases.
VI.v.2. Alexander of Macedon, whenever he saw Simeon the Just,
would stand up and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just."
When his retinue reproached him, "Do you stand up in the presence
42
Simeon the
Just
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1. A t e guilt-offer
ing o f w o r t h y
Nazirite
Sifre N u m . 2 2
2. Prepared redheifer
Il.i
Mishnah
Il.ii
Tosefta
IH.i
Tos. Nez. 4 : 7
y. Ned. 1 : 1
y. Naz. 1 : 5
M . Parah 3 : 5
(Meir)
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 a
( 2 n d cen.)
4 . C h a n g e in
supernatural
after death
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 b
(see I V . i i . l )
5. W o r l d stands
o n three things
6. Met Alexander
and saved Temple
M. Avot 1:3
Tannaitic
M a t e r i a l s in
Palestinian
Gemara
Ill.ii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
b. Ned. 1 0 a
(Abbaye)
b. N a z . 4 b
b. N e d . 9 b
(Judah + Simeon)
[y. Y o m a 6 : 3 ]
b. S o t . 3 3 a
(Yohanan-Judah;
3 r d c.)
y. Sot. 9 : 1 3
b. Y o m a 3 9 a - b
y. Y o m a 6 : 3
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
N u m . R. 1 0 : 7
Pes. R. K a h .
y. Ta. 4 : 2
y. M e g . 3 : 6
(Jacob b. Aha)
L e v . R. 1 3 : 5
Pes. R. K a h .
Pes. Rab.
b. Y o m a 6 9 a
y. Y o m a 1 : 1
y. Y o m a 5 : 2
(R. A b b a h u )
8. Raised u p t o
meet Greek threat
b. Y o m a 9a
(Yohanan3 r d c.)
b. M e g . 1 1 a
( S a m u e l ; 3 r d c.)
9. Predicted o w n
death
b. S o t . 3 9 b
b. M e n . 1 0 9 b
10.
b. M e n . 1 0 9 b
* N o t signified as T a n n a i t i c .
V
ARN
Pes. R. K a h .
Pes. Rab.
7. Served forty
y r s . as h i g h p r i e s t
(see n o . 4 )
Onias
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
y. Sheq. 4 : 2
CUlla)
3. Heard decree
was annulled
43
SIMEON THE J U S T VI.v.2
SIMEON THE JUST VI.v.2
y. Y o m a 6 : 3
44
SIMEON THE JUST VI.v.2
of a Jew?" he would reply, "Whenever I go down into battle and see

his visage, I am victorious."
(Pesiqta Rabbati 14:15, [trans. W. Braude, p.
293])
Comment:
See VLii.l.
ii. SYNOPSES
1.
Sayings Attributed to Simeon the Just
In the first classification is only one saying of apophthegmatic

character, Avot 1:3 (2):
Avot 1:3(2)
1.
Simeon the Just was
among the remnants of the
Great Assembly.
y. Ta. 4:2
1. T M N
TNNYN
y. Meg. 3:6
1.
Pes. R. Kahana
1.
remnants of the
whole law ( K L
2.
H e w o u l d say, O n t h r e e
things the w o r l d stands, O n
the T o r a h , and o n the cult,
a n d o n deeds o f l o v i n g
kindness.
2.
2.
HYLKTH)
2.
3.
3 . A n d all
3.
three are in one
S c r i p t u r e , Is. 5 1
3.
Clearly the Avot saying was accurately quoted in the third century,
with the addition of an appropriate exegesis, presumably sometime
after the Avot-collection was widely available. The version in Pes. de
R. Kahana omits the operative moral teaching. The passage probably
is garbled.
2.
Stories Attributed to Simeon the Just
We have one story told in the name of Simeon the Just about
himself. The form is: Simeon the Just said + story told in the first person.
When other characters appear in the story, their dialogue is supplied
by Simeon.
Sifre Num.
22
1.
2.
3.
R a b b i S i m e o n t h e J u s t said
I n e v e r ( M ' W L M ) ate the guiltoffering o f N a z i r i t e s h i p b u t o n e
Tos. Nez. 4:7

(Text: S. L i e b e r m a n ,
[N.Y., 1 9 6 7 ] p. 1 3 8 )
1.
2.
3.
Tosefta
[ O m i t s Rabbi]
(MYMYY)
Nashim
45
SIMEON THE J U S T SYNOPSES
4.
W h e n one came f r o m the south,
5.
o f beautiful eyes, l o v e l y appear
ance
6.
a n d his l o c k s h e a p e d u p i n t o c u r l s
7.
I said ( N ' M ) t o h i m , Q u i c k l y m u s t
( M H R ' Y T ) one destroy beautiful hair
8.
H e said ( N ' M ) t o m e
9.
I w a s a s h e p h e r d in m y t o w n
10.
A n d I w e n t t o fill ( M L ' ) w a t e r
from the well
11.
I l o o k e d at m y s h a d o w
12.
and m y heart g r e w haughty (PHZ)
13.
It w a n t e d t o r e m o v e m e f r o m the
world. (LH'BRNY)
14.
I s a i d (N>M) t o i t , E v i l o n e (R$<)
15.
L o , y o u t a k e p r i d e i n w h a t is n o t
y o u r s . It b e l o n g s t o t h e d u s t , w o r m , a n d
maggot.
16.
L o , I s h a v e y o u [off] f o r H e a v e n .
I shaved.
17.
F o r t h w i t h I k i s s e d h i m o n his h e a d
a n d said ( N ' M ) t o h i m
18.
M a y s u c h as y o u i n c r e a s e i n I s r a e l ,
w h o do the will of the Omnipresent.
19.
C o n c e r n i n g y o u is fulfilled
20.
Num. 6:2
4.
one
Story is told concerning ( M S H B )

who c a m e t o m e f r o m t h e s o u t h
^* 99 99 99
7.
( N M ) , My son, Why [ W h a t d o y o u
see t o ] d e s t r o y this b e a u t i f u l h a i r
8.
9
(NM),
* 99 99 99
10.
11*
12.
13
99 99 99
f r o m t h e river
m y impulse
* * 99 99 99
14
* ' 99 99 99
15.
You had the right to bejealous ( G R H )
only o f s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is n o t y o u r s ,
s o m e t h i n g destined to be made i n t o d u s t ,
w o r m , and maggot.
16.
L o , it is incumbent on me to shave
[Omits: I shaved]
1 7 . / bent my head
18.
My son,
19
99 99 99
20.
y. Ned. 1:1 = y. Na .
1:5
[Variations in y. Naz. 1 : 5 in brackets]
1.
DTNY
2.
[ O m i t s Rabbi]
3
Z
1.
2
4.
6.
a r r a n g e d f o r h i m in h e a p s ( T Y L Y
T Y L Y M ) [Naz. o m i t s $ D R ]
7.
my sonWhat did you see to
[ = w h y ] d e s t r o y this
8.
H e said ( N M ) t o m e , Rabbi [ N a z . :
NWM']
6.
9.
t o fill a pail ( M L ' S ' W B )

water
I saw ( R ' H ) in the midst of the water
m y impulse
t o destroy C B D )
15.
[ O m i t s : It b e l o n g s t o t h e
4b = b. Ned.
9a
TNY>
3.
never (MYMY)guilt-offering of
a n unclean Na%ir except f o r o n e man
4 . ft7w* up to me (*LH).
5.
I s a w h i m ruddy f D M W N Y ) with
[Naz.: a d d s D M W T ]
10.
with
11.
12.
13.
14.
,,
b. Na .
came t o m e ( B )
j>
arranged for him in curls
7 . I said ( ' M R ) s o n W h a t d i d y o u
see t o d e s t r o y this b e a u t i f u l h a i r ?
8.
['MR]
9.
10.
for my father
[to d r a w , B ]
11
12.
13.
14.
15.
m y impulse
to drive me ( T W R D N Y )

( ' M R ) , Base one ( R Y Q H )
On what account do you take pride in
46
SIMEON THE JUST
d u s t , etc.]
16.
It is i n c u m b e n t o n m e t o sanctify
you to heaven
17.

[ N a z . : I embraced a n d
kissed]
A
19.
20
>
C o n c e r n i n g y o u , Scripture
says
SYNOPSES
/fo awr/*/ w h i c h is n o t y o u r s ? For your

end will be with w o r m a n d m a g g o t
[ O m i t s : dust]
16.
By the cult [ O m i t s : Z ^ ( H R N Y ) ]
>
17.
/ arose and [in place o f / shaved], I
said ('MR)
18.
M a y s u c h Naîrites as y o u [ O m i t s :
who do the will...]
19.
Scripture says [Instead o f is fulfilled]
20.
The Tosefta stands between the fully revised Babylonian beraita and
Sifre Num. Important improvements include the addition of my son
(no. 7), this (no. 7), impulse in place of heart (no. 12), and, most striking,
the complete revision of no. 15 by which the language is greatly
clarified. I have rendered SH in passive, to be made, but it may be
translated to makejproduce. The unclear shaved my head of no. 16, which
is poor diction, is changed to a clause in Simeon's reply, / bent my
head. These changes are not fundamental, but superficial and stylistic.
The several versions certainly are interdependent. The Palestinian
Talmudic versions, which are close to one another, though not identi
cal in all respects, on the whole follow Tosefta, as is to be expected.
Story is told of Tos. no. 4 is rightly omitted, but the Yer. versions add
several words: ruddy, demut. The oath it is incumbentto sanctify occurs,
only to be changed in the Babylonian beraita to the exclamatory by
the cult. The reference to dust, worm and maggot is omitted in both Pales
tinian Talmudic versions, perhaps not a lapse of a scribe but a definite
literary choice. The most important differences are, in general, be
tween the earliest version and the latest; the intermediate versions
are transitional.
The accounts in Sifre Num. and b. Naz. are closely related, for all
differences are minor. No major element in one account is omitted
in the other. But the beraita consistently supplies details left out of the
version of Sifre Num., for instance unclean Nazir, explaining what
Simeon the Just had against guilt offerings of Nazirs; came to me,
arranged for him (addition of sedurot 16) in curls; my son added to the
colloquy. The difficult language of Sifre Num., MHR >YT, which I
roughly translated, jg/z/V^/)' must one, is corrected in favor of a much more
lucid what did you see [= what made you, why] (i.e. MH R'YTnot
much of a change). The diction is then improved with the addition
of this beautiful hair. The shepherd now works for my father. Fill is
replaced by draw, which settles the matter of the duplicated verbs in
C
SIMEON THE J U S T
SYNOPSES
47
the Palestinian versions (no. 10), where both roots occur. Heart is
dropped in favor of impulse (YSR), possibly more colloquial. The
change of TRD for BR or >BD probably is for the same reason. Like
no. 7, no. 15 is improved in the beraita by the inclusion of the more
complete and lucid statement, phrased in the form of a question, On
what account, followed by a declarative For your end... All that survives
of the Sifre version is the stock-reference to dust, worm, and maggot,
and the choice of PHZ and G'H. Similarly in no. 16, the Lo is replaced
by the language of a vow, By the cult. In the absence of the oath "by
the Temple cult", the force of the vow is diminished; by the cult
intensifies lo. The changes in nos. 17 and 18 conform to the earlier
ones: I arose and Naîrites add, in the former instance, a more collo
quial expression, in the latter, a more pointed reference to the sort
of Nazirites Simeon hopes will multiply. The general who do the will is
made more specific and precise: Nazirites. The Scripture is set into
different citation-form. In Sifre Num. the Scripture is fulfilled in the
Nazirite; in the Palestinian and beraita versions is found the language
common in the Babylonian Talmud, "Scripture says concerning you..."
It is difficult to deny that the beraita-vetsion depends, and improves,
upon that in Sifre Num. Valuable details are added to the Sifre's
account. The language is clarified and in several points is made to
conform to rabbinical diction and word-choice. While some of the
differences may represent merely different linguistic conventions
(N'M/'MR), most of them enhance the Sifre version. The beraita thus
comes later than the version in Sifre Num. This dependence is not
merely in the general outline of the story; the differences are not in
generalities but in minor details. These cannot have been independent
accounts which circulated separately; the authority responsible for the
beraita seems to have had the Sifre version before him.
The differences between the versions of the beraita in b. Ned. and
Naz. are negligible.
If Sifre were dated later than the other versions, what we have called
improvements would have to be regarded as corruptions of superior,
earlier versions.
C
3.
Stories about Simeon the Just
Of the four stories told about, or containing references to, Simeon

the Just, two are historical, and two are of a miraculous, or superna
tural, character, a distinction the narrator would not have recognized.
The former pertain to Simeon's preparing a heifer-sacrifice and to his
48
SIMEON THE JUST
SYNOPSES
encounter with Alexander of Macedonia. The latter are, first, the

heavenly-message story, and second, the list of supernatural changes
in the life of the cult, marking Simeon's death.
a. Heifer
M. Parah 3:5
1.
W h o made them?
2.
Simeon the Just and
Y o h a n a n the high priest
m a d e t w o each
3.
5.
6.
y. Sheq.
4:2
1.
2.
3.
'Ulla objected before
M a n a , L o it is
taught
(TNY):
4.
Simeon the Just made
t w o [omits: each]
5 . He did not bring the second out on the ramp on which he
brought out the first
6.
ful
Can you say he was waste

[etc]}
Pes. de R.
1.
2.
Kahana
3.
[ H e r e : Anony
mous] L o it is t a u g h t
4.
Simeon
the
m a d e t w o heifers
Just
5 . [Identical t o y . S h e q . ]
6.
C a n y o u say that just
man [ e t c ] ?
The Mishnah is referred to in the later versions, but not cited verbatim.
The reference to Yohanan the High Priest is deliberately omitted. This
leaves a lacuna, filled in by the latest midrashic compilation with the
addition of heifers. The other change, for he supplying that just man,
intensifies the ironic force of the question. TNY means that the editor
alludes to the Mishnah. Clearly the later materials depend upon the
earlier, but they have also greatly augmented the Mishnah, by supply
ing the "fact" that the high priests had wastefully constructed the ramp
referred to in M. Parah 3:6, "They would construct a ramp from the Tem
ple Mount to the Mount of Olives." The assumption made by the later
masters is that for each sacrifice a new ramp was constructed. But this
must then apply to all the priests listed in 3:5, including Simeon the
Just. The problem is how to distinguish Simeon the Just, a high
priest admired by rabbis, from others on that same list, who are not
held in high esteem. The later history of the high priesthood is told
in lurid colors by Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. No restraints limited
expression of rabbinic hostility against the late priesthood. Hence, if
anyone implies all high priests did the same lavish act, Simeon must
forthwith be cited to show the act was not disreputable at all.
The inclusion of no. 5 is not part of the citation of the Mishnah,
though it occurs under the superscription TNY. I do not know whence
the beraita derives, for Tos. Par. 3:7 follows the Mishnah at the perti
nent place. The inference that the ramp could not be used twice was
SIMEON THE JUST SYNOPSES
49
drawn from M. Par. 3:5-6, but we do not know drew it, why, or
when it was important to add to the anti-priestly polemic this particular
detail. But at that point the problem of Simeon's inclusion in the list
had to be faced.
The terminus ante quern is the middle of the third century A.D. Clearly,
the detail about the priests' constructing new ramps circulated separate
ly from the Mishnah and was added to the beraita later on. Yet,
standing by itself, it is incomprehensible, for a saying Simeon did not
bring the second out... would mean nothing outside of the context of
"Simeon the Just made two."
The additional detail of the beraita depended upon the Mishnah,
having been added later as a commentary on Mishnah 3:6, as I said.
We therefore cannot regard no. 5 as an independent tradition.
b.
b. Yoma 69a
1. TNY>
2. Forbidden to mourn on
the 25th of Tevet, the day
of Mt. Gerizim.
3. Kuteans sought per
mission to destroy Temple,
from Alexander.
4. He gave permission.
5. Simeon the Just wore
priestly garments
6. and arranged proces
sion of Israelite nobility
carrying torches.
7. When morning star
arose, approached Alexan
der.
8. Who are these? Jews
who rebelled against you.
9. At Antipatris sun came
out and the processions
met.
10. Alexander rose before
Simeon, saying if he saw
him before battle, he would"
win.
Lev. R. 13:5
1.
2.
Pes. R. Kahana
1.
2.
Pes. Rabbati
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
5.
4.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
8.
9.
6.
8.
9.
10.
Kuteans asked,
Do you rise before
a Jew}
11. Why have you come?

12. You want to destroy
the Temple where they pray
for you and your kingdom.
Alexander
11.
12.
10. A. would 10. [As in Pes.

say, Blessed is
de R. Kahana.]
God of Simeon the
Just. Courtiers:
Do you rise? A.:
See face
11.
11.
12.
12.
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I
50
SIMEON THE JUST
13.
Gave Kuteans over to
J e w s , w h o mutilated them
and destroyed Mt. Gerizim.
13.
SYNOPSES
13.
13.
Clearly, no. 10, which interrupts the narrative of b. Yoma 69a, circulat
ed separately. It was erroneously placed in the Babylonian beraita,
presumably because it supplied additional information on Alexander's
encounter with Simeon the Just. But it did not explain his favor to
the Jews, for immediately thereafter Alexander asks them (no. 11)
why the Jews have come, and only after they explain their case in
terms favorable to the king does he grant their request, and, more
than the request, also the right to take vengeance against the Samari
tans.
If the materials in no. 10 circulated by themselves, however, then
they may antedate the beraita, for they fit in too well to suggest later
contamination. They presumably were shaped before ca. 250 A.D.,
but appeared only in the late midrashic compilations. This is one
instance in which the unredacted form of a story may have indepen
dently circulated early, only to be written down long afterward. On
the other hand, it is possible that the beraita as we have it was the only
redaction of the pericope about Alexander's respect for Simeon, in
which case the later midrashic compilers took only a part of it, without
the slightest reference to the context in which it had originally
appeared. Lev. R. presupposes the connection by including Kuteans.
The Pesiqtas improve matters by substituting courtiersleaving
no
problem as to the identity of the questioners.
c. Heavenly
Tos. Sot. 13:7Part
(13:6)
1.
Simeon
the
heard
A
Just
b. Sot.
Echo
33a
1.
Further
story is
told
( S W B M<SH B ) of S i m e o n
t h e J u s t that he h e a r d a n
echo from the house of the Holy
of Holies* which was sayinz
2.
T h e d e c r e e is a n 9
nulled ( B T Y L T
<YBYDT>)
3.
which the
enemy 3
CSN'tD said ( D Y ' M I O
4.
4.
to bring
( L H Y T Y H ) to the tem to bring ( L ' Y Y T ' H )
ple
y. Sot.
9:13
1.
The
Simeon
echo from
of Holies
2.
3.
4.
s t o r y is t o l d t h a t
the Just heard an
the house of the Holy
and said
SIMEON THE J U S T SYNOPSES
51
5.
a n d Q S G L G S h a s 5
5.
G Y Y S G W L Y Q S has
>>
b e e n slain [in Hebrew]
GSQLGS
b e e n s l a i n [in Hebrew]
6.
a n d h i s d e c r e e s a r e ^
6.
a n d h i s decrees a r e a n
99
99
99
a n n u l l e d [in Hebrew]
n u l l e d [in Hebrew]
[=9]
7.
a n d he heard them 7.
7.
in t h e A r a m a i c l a n g u a g e
8.
a n d t h e y w r o t e d o w n 8.
8.
t h e h o u r a n d i t tallied
9.
A n d / / spoke i n t h e A r a 9.
9.
maic language
N.B.
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7
Part B
Omitted
Omitted
The pericope of Simeon-stories in Tos. Sot. 13:7 splits into two sepa
rate traditions. The first tradition is represented here. The second
occurs in the next synopsis (p. 52). For y. Sot. 9:13, the point of
the story is that Simeon heard a heavenly echo. This version therefore
excludes the Aramaic translation of the decrees (nos. 2, 3, and 4), for
use of Aramaic is no issue. In other respects y. Sot. does not differ
from Tos. nos. 5 and 6. The superscription is simply the story is told
concerning, with no reference to a Tannaite tradent. For the Babylonian
Talmud and Tosefta, on the other hand, the point of the story is that
the heavenly voice spoke in Aramaic. Therefore nos. 2, 3, and 4 are
in Aramaic, but these are in substance then summarized in Hebrew
in nos. 5 and 6. No. 6 actually translates no. 2!
The relationship of the first element in the three versions is fairly
clear. The original was simply Tos. Sot. no. 1. This is augmented for
editorial purposes with further in the Babylonian Talmudic account.
Both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds include story is told and
supply the information on where the voice came from. From that point
forward Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. are pretty much identical, except for the
improvement of the representation of the verb to bring, and the revision
of the spelling of the name of the enemy. The addition of no. 8 in b. Sot.
is clearly a contamination from the foregoing account, about Yohanan
the High Priest (below). The passage is quite meaningless here. No.7
in Tos. is out of place, for the point of the Tos. stories is not that
the echo spoke Aramaic. That is the point in b. Sot. 33a. It is a probable
contamination.
The several traditions therefore serve quite separate purposes. The
point is either that Simeon heard as echo, or that angels speak Aramaic,
but it cannot be both. The simplest and purest version of the former
is y. Sot. Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. have then been contaminated by the
52
SIMEON THE JUST
SYNOPSES
inclusion of both tendencies, resulting in the egregious repetition of

no. 2 in no. 6. If the point were that angels spoke Aramaic, the perti
nent elements ought to have been Tos. Sot. nos. 1-4 and 7, or b. Sot.
nos. 1-4 and 9. In neither does no. 8 fit at all.
No. 1 of the Palestinian Talmudic version comes earlier than no. 1
of the Babylonian. But the relationship of the rest of the elements to
one another is unclear to me. Certainly without Tos. Sot. we should
have concluded that b. Sot. came after the version in the Palestinian
Talmud. It would represent a thoroughgoing revision to serve the
purpose of the argument for which it is cited in the Babylonian context.
Hence the story would have been revised later on in Babylonia. But
this supposition is impossible, since the Babylonian version is, except
for no. 8, pretty much the same as the one in the Tosefta; indeed, it
is almost certainly based upon it. Hence we have to postulate two
quite separate versions of the pericope: Tos. + b. Sot.,or Tos. + y. Sot.
The two may be based upon a common, simple story, of which nos. 5
and6 in the Palestinian Talmudic version are an accurate reminiscence.
If this is so, then y. Sot. is the earliest of the three versions, followed
by Tosefta, then the Babylonian based upon the Toseftaa strange
anomaly.
As to the identification of the enemy referred to in no. 5 of all
three accounts, we have no idea what name is here rendered into
Hebrew characters. I see no profit in attempting to read Gaius
Caligula into any of the consonantal representations before us.
d.
Tos. Sot.
2.
13:7b
Miracles
y. Yoma 6:3
1.
A l l the days that Sime
o n t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , it [the
g o a t ] w o u l d n o t r e a c h half
way d o w n the mountain be
f o r e it w a s t u r n e d i n t o b i t s .
W h e n S i m e o n the J u s t died,
it w o u l d flee t o t h e w i l d e r
ness,
and
the
Saracens
w o u l d eat it.
b. Yoma 39a-b
1.
T N W R B N N : In the
forty years that Simeon the
Just
served[omits
goatmiracle]
2 . A l l t h e d a y s t h a t S i m e o n 2.
t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , t h e l o t o f alive]
the Name w o u l d come up
in t h e r i g h t [ h a n d ] . W h e n
Simeon the J u s t died, some
t i m e s it w o u l d c o m e u p in
t h e r i g h t , s o m e t i m e s in t h e
left.
[Omits
All-
SIMEON THE J U S T
2*.
[2*.
see 7 * ]
3.
A l l the time that
Simeon the Just was
alive
4.
The Western lamp
was continual ( T D Y R )
5.
W h e n he died
6. they w e n t and
it h a d g o n e o u t
7.
Afterward, some
t i m e s it w e n t o u t , s o m e
t i m e s it b u r n e d
3.
days
4.
w o u l d burn ( D L Q )
4.
5*
6.
5.
6.
99
99
99
7
'
53
SYNOPSES
2*.
The red strap w o u l d
turn white. Henceforward,
s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n
w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d
n o t t u r n w h i t e . [See y .
Y o m a 7* below]
3.
[ O m i t s all-alive]
burn [ = y . Y o m a )
Henceforward
7
'
99
99
99
7*.
A l l the days that S i [7*.
= 2* above]
meon the Just was alive, the
red strap w o u l d turn white.
W h e n Simeon the Just died,
s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n
w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d
turn red.
A l l t h e d a y s e t c . , thefire 8 .
8.
A n d t h e fire o f t h e 8 .
[ O m i t s all-alive] fire o f
w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s c o n o f t h e w o o d - o f f e r i n g would w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s strong,
flame up
tinual
and the priests did not have to
bring wood to the fire exceptfor
the two logs to carry out the
commandment of the wood.
9.
Once they had ar 9.
O n c e t h e y hadplaced two 9 .
r a n g e d it i n t h e m o r n logs i n t h e m o r n i n g
i n g , it w a s s t r o n g
99
99
99
( H Y T H M T G B R T ) all
day long
10.
a n d t h e y w o u l d of 1 0 .
10.
f e r o n it c o n t i n u a l offer
ings and supplementary
offerings and their
drink-offerings
7*.
11.
and they o n l y ad 1 1 .
11.
d e d t o it t w o l o g s o f t h e
e v e n i n g offering
12.
Lev. 6:5
12.
t h e y a d d e d n o t h i n g all 1 2 .
day l o n g [omits L e v 6 : 5 ]
13.
W h e n Simeon the 1 3 .
13.
99
99
99
Just died
14.
the strength (KH) 1 4
14.
Henceforward, some
*
99
99
99
of the
fire-offering
di
t i m e s it w a s s t r o n g a n d
m i n i s h e d (T&)
s o m e t i m e s it w a s n o t stronff
15.
and they did not
,, ,,
15*
,,
refrain f r o m adding
w o o d all d a y l o n g
54
SIMEON THE JUST SYNOPSES
16.
A n d there was a
blessing o n the t w o
loaves of bread and the
show-bread.
16.
17.
The t w o loaves of
bread w e r e d i v i d e d at
t h e G a t h e r i n g (<SRT)
a n d t h e s h o w - b r e a d at
the festival ( R G L ) f o r
all t h e w a t c h e s .
18.
S o m e ate and w e r e
sated, and s o m e ate a n d
left o v e r
19.
a n d o n l y as m u c h
as a n o l i v e ' s b u l k c a m e
t o each o n e .
20.
W h e n Simeon the
J u s t died the blessing
departed...
21.
17.
b l e s s i n g sent u p o n
16.
b l e s s i n g was sent on the
<omer and
17.
1 8 . Each one would get

olive's bulk and
an 1 8 .
Each priest to whom as
much as a n o l i v e ' s b u l k came
some ate,,
,,
19.
[See a b o v e ; o r d e r is 1 9 .
[See a b o v e , o r d e r is
reversed]
reversed.]
20.
21.
20.
A curse w a s sent o n t h e
*omer etc.
21.
[Predicted o w n death]
b. Yoma 39b
b. Men. 109b
1.
TNW RBNN
1.
DTNY>
2.
In
that year
in 2
which Simeon the Just
died
y. Yoma 5:2
1.
2.
Forty years Simeon the
Just served Israel in the high
priesthood. I n t h e last y e a r ,
he said t o them, In this year
/ am g o i n g t o d i e .
3.
h e said t o t h e m t h a t 3
*
in this year he w o u l d die
4.
T h e y said t o h i m , 4
W h e n c e d o y o u k n o w ? ~*
5.
H e said t o t h e m , 5*
Every DayofAtonement
an old man w o u l d meet
m e , dressed in w h i t e a n d
cloaked in w h i t e .
6.
He w o u l d enter
6*
w i t h me and leave w i t h
me.
7.
Today an old man 7
'
m e t m e d r e s s e d in b l a c k
and cloaked in black.
He went in w i t h me but
he did n o t leave w i t h
3.
99
99
99
99
99
99
4
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
5.
H e said t o t h e m , E v e r y
year that I w o u l d enter the
house
of the Holy
of
Holies, an old m a n
99
99
99
7.
This year h e e n t e r e d
w i t h me but did not leave
with
me.
[Omits
black
clothes]
me.
O
8.
A f t e r t h e f e s t i v a l h e
fell ill f o r s e v e n d a y s
a n d he died.
9.
His
brethren the 9
' *
priests held back f r o m
b l e s s i n g w i t h t h e [Inef
fable] name.
[As above]
8.
9.
SIMEON THE J U S T
10.
W h e n he was dying,
h e said t o t h e m , M y s o n
O n i a s etc.
[The rest o f the story ap
pears o n l y here.l
[11.
]
10.
[11.
55
SYNOPSES
10.
[11.
C o l l o q u y o f R. A b bahu: M a n was the Holy
One.]
The changes in the supernatural setting of the cult and the prediction
by Simeon that he would die are as follows:
Tos. Sot.
13:7b
1. Western
lamp
2. Fire of
wood-offering
3. Blessing o f
loaves
v. Yoma 6:9
1. Goat
b. Yoma
1. Lot
2. Lot
2. Red strap
3. Western
lamp
3. Western
lamp
4. Red strap
4. Fire of
wood-offering
5. Blessing of
loaves
6. Predicted
death
7 . Ineffable
Name
5. Fire of
wood-offering
6. Blessing o f
loaves
39a-b
b. Men. 109b
1. Predicted
death
2 . Ineffable
Name
y. Yoma
5:2
1. Prayed
too long
2. Predicted
death
If we could reconstruct a single, unitary source that underlay the

several pericopae, it logically would look something like this:
Day
of Atonement
Daily cult
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prayed too long

Predicted death and died
Priests s t o p s a y i n g Ineffable N a m e
After he died-. G o a t
Lot
Red Strap
7.
8.
9.
Western lamp
Fire of wood-offering
Blessing of loaves
Nos. 1-6 all pertain to the Day of Atonement. Nos. 7-9 stand by them
selves as a comparable, but separate list of supernatural changes.
Strikingly, Tos. Sot. does preserve nos. 7-9 as a separate pericope.
Similarly, b. Yoma 39a-b, nos. 6-7, probably circulated separately, as
seen in the identical version in b. Men. 109b. There the pericope serves
to introduce the long singleton about the succession to Simeon.
Palestinian Talmud Yoma 5:2 similarly supplies the Yom Kippur per
icope, but without the miracles in connection with the cult of that day.
That leaves the lists in y. Yoma 6:3 and b. Yoma 39a-b, in which the
56
SIMEON THE JUST
SYNOPSES
YomKippur miracles are presented together with those of Tos. Sot.; but
b. Yoma keeps the Yom Kippur materials separate from the other mira
cles, while y. Yoma inserts no. 3, Western lamp, into the midst of
the others. We may therefore take it for granted that Tos. Sot. does
constitute a single, separate pericope. The stories about the predic
tion of Simeon's death probably circulated separately as well, there
fore serving diverse editorial purposes later on. To these were attach
ed the detail about the Ineffable Name or the prayer that went on too
long; neither was integral to the prediction-story, but both found a
satisfactory place. The miracles connected with the Day of Atonement
service likewise may have circulated by themselves, but in the form
before us they have already been contaminated by the list of Tos. Sot.
As to the relationships among the several components of the perico
pae, we find that the Babylonian beraita imposed its own conventional
language, as would be expected. Normally, this meant choosing words
common in Babylonian rabbinical Hebrew and rendering vague de
tails more precise and pointed, e.g. all the days of y. Yoma becomes
in the forty years. But the substance of the several miracles varies very
little between the Palestinian and Babylonian versions. The important
differences are between both and Tosefta. Thus Tos. Sot. 13:7b, nos.
6, 9, 10, 11, and 17 have no close equivalent, or no equivalent at all,
in either Talmudic version. The Babylonian version, to be sure,
transforms the participle of y. Yoma 6:3 no. 16 into a verb, adds
omer (no. 20), and makes a few other, minor alterations. But in the
main Tos. presents a striking contrast to the two Talmuds' versions,
and these by and large closely resemble one another.
The beraita in b. Yoma 39b is unchanged in b. Men. 109b. I imagine
the editor of b. Men. 109b took it from existing materials to serve
as an introduction to the story of real interest to him, about the Temple
of Onias. Without the foregoing materials (nos. 1-9) the story told
by R. Meir could have stood by itself. The death-story in b. Yoma
39b and y. Yoma 5:2 presents some contrasts. The Palestinian Tal
mudic version makes explicit the forty years, but that detail had already
occurred in b. Yoma 39a-b. Perhaps the editor of the beraita saw no
reason to repeat the information. Since the y. Yoma pericope stands
by itself, it was natural to include the more concrete detail. Hence
we cannot in this instance suppose the Palestinian version to have
been more detailed or concrete than the Babylonian one. The indirect
discourse of the Babylonian beraita becomes direct discourse (or vice
versa) in no 2. The detail about the old man dressed in white is omitted
c
SIMEON THE J U S T CONCLUSION
57
in no. 7 of the Palestinian version. It seems to me a striking omission,

and the likelihood is that the editor of the Babylonian beraita supplied
it to complete the symmetry of the story. He likewise invented nos.
8 and 9; no. 8 is absolutely necessary to complete the talethat is,
Simeon actually did die. No. 9 is not essential. In any event, the Baby
lonian beraita probably comes after the Palestinian version of the same
story and likely depends upon it. The augmentations are not derived
from a separate oral or written tradition circulating by itself, but all
were provoked by literary and artistic considerations. None presents
a detail of independent, historical interest.
i n . CONCLUSION
Pharisaic-rabbinic materials on Simeon the Just contain no legal

materials. This is striking, since Simeon stands (with Antigonus) as
the only ancient "rabbi" who left not a single legal saying. Others
in the chain of tradition ruled at least on the controversy of whether
or not to lay hands (M. Hag. 2:2). The stories about Simeon scarcely
relate to law. Apart from the single moral apophthegm in M. Avot
1:3, we have no materials one might call theological. The rabbinic
record consisted chiefly of stories about Simeon, some told by him,
others recorded anonymously.
The content of these stories, on the other hand, is more or less
congruent with non-Pharisaic traditions on Simeon. He was high
priest. He piously carried out the most solemn obligations of the high
priesthood, the rites of the Day of Atonement and of the red-heifer.
He enjoyed divine favor, demonstrated by his receiving heavenly mes
sages and also by the supernatural events characteristic of the Temple
and cult during his high priesthood. Following R. Abbahu, we may
suppose Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition included the detail that God
accompanied Simeon into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atone
ment. Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition was unclear as to when Simeon lived.
One predominant school placed him in the time of Alexander the
Great. But Samuel seemed to imagine Simeon was a contemporary
of the Maccabees, and modern scholars have read the name of Gaius
Caligula or even Seleucus into another pericope, Still, the traditions
do not depend upon any particular historical period. But all of them
point toward a Pharisaic-rabbinic memory of a noble and pious high
priest.
Two other bodies of tradition on a Simeon, high priest, come down
58
from other circles in antiquity. One is Ben Sira 50:1-21, at the end
of the praise of famous men. Since Ben Sira lived no more than a
century after the Simeon of whom he wrote, we may find "the pride
of his people, Simeon the high priest, son of Onias" a reliable historical
reminiscence. This Simeon repaired and fortified the Temple, improved
the water supply, fortified the city, and carried out other important
functions of the priestly government of Jerusalem. Ben Sira's vision
of the high priest as he came out of the inner sanctuary, "like the
morning star among the clouds" and his recollection of Simeon in
his "glorious robe, clothed...with superb perfection...like a young
cedar on Lebanon" in general are congruent to the similar Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. But that tradition in no detail reflects knowledge
of the Simeon-portrait in Ben Sira. Not a single common motif, detail,
or image unites the two bodies of information. Ben Sira lists no mira
cles, but rather provides a portrait of the worldly priest-administrator.
The rabbis' praise finds its form chiefly in miracles.
Ill Maccabees 2: Iff refers to the high priest Simon, but this high
priest can have nothing to do with Simeon the Just of rabbinic tradi
tion.
In Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (12:32, trans. Ralph Marcus, VII,
p. 25, and note pp. 732-6), we find an explicit reference to our Simeon:
On the death of the high priest Onias, he was succeeded by his son
Simon, who was surnamed the Just because of both his piety toward
God and his benevolence to his countrymen.
While Josephus had supposedly studied Pharisaic tradition, he did not
refer to the Avot saying, let alone to the miracle-stories.
The Simeon the Just of Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition has been identi
fied with Simeon I (310-291 or 300-270 B.C.) son of Onias I and grand
son of Yaddua, or with Simeon II (219-199 B.C.) son of Onias II
[see S. Ochser, JE XI, pp. 352-4]. In fact the traditions we have
considered have been divided by various scholars among several
Simeons, including Simon Maccabee and Simeon son of Gamaliel I.
It serves no good purpose to speculate on the historical facts underly
ing these flimsy traditions.
The likelihood that any of the rabbinic traditions accurately portrays
the historical Simeon the Just is nil. First, the traditions are all highly
developed stories, not brief, easily memorized lemmas. None of the
stories can be reduced to a simple and unadorned formula. Not a
single one reveals the marks of an oral tradition which has been written
59
down and then expanded. The forms of all the materials are manifestlylate. They conform to what is entirely familiar in Tannaitic and Amo
raic literature, rather than to the more primitive forms one would
have reason to expect on the basis of the Houses lemmas, as we shall
see. The historical Simeon presumably lived ca. 300 B.C., before the
existence of the Pharisaic movement itself, so we have no reason to
imagine the Pharisees had any first-hand traditions. But the rabbinic
traditions we do have cannot be supposed to be based on materials
of any great antiquity. Simeon, like Simeon b. Shetah, is a typical
righteous priest. He therefore appears in various lists of things good
priests did and marks the end of a golden age. Any list of significant
rites performed under named high priests naturally will include him,
along with Moses, and equally credibly.
One tradition seems to me more than routine, and that is the story
that Simeon heard an echo announcing a decree was annulled. As we
shall see, this message is related to one that came to Yohanan the
High Priest (John Hyrcanus). Josephus preserves the same saying in
pretty much the same words. What has happened, therefore, is that a
remarkable incident pertaining to one high priest of olden times has
naturally been expanded to include Simeon.
The Simeon-tradition consists of the following sorts of materials:
Stories of things Simeon did and said: world stands on three things, met
Alexander;
Supernatural events: heard decree was annulled, changes in supernatural
life of cult after death, predicted own death;
Cultic reports: prepared heifer, ate Nazirite-offering.
Of these sorts of materials, none is on the face of it more credible
than any other. We have no reason to suppose the second-century
A.D. masters had in hand more than a name, Simeon (the Just), and
an interest in shaping stories about him. He joins the chain of tradition,
as we have seen, in the early third century, probably not much earlier.
The name was known before that time, but its importance to the
Tannaim may be measured by the paucity of Tannaitic references to
him: the heifer, the Nazirite story, and receiving an echobut no
laws, no exegeses of Scripture, none of the materials characteristic of
authorities about whom the rabbis claimed to have substantial tradi
tions. The rest of the Simeon tradition comes later, but does not change
the picture.
CHAPTER FOUR
ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO.
AND
Y O S I B.
Y O S I B.
YO'EZER
YOHANAN
i. ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO
Apart from the apophthegm in M. Avot 1:3, the only tradition

pertaining to Antigonus is as follows:
...and let the fear of heaven be upon you [as in M. Avot 1:3]so that
your reward may be doubled in the age to come.
A. Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples who used to study his
words. They taught them to their disciples, and their disciples to
their disciples. These proceeded to examine the words closely and
demanded, "Why did our ancestors see fit to say this thing? Is it
possible that a laborer should do his work all day and not take his
reward in the evening? If our ancestors, forsooth, had known that
there is another world and that there will be a resurrection of the
dead, they would not have spoken in this manner."
B. So they arose and withdrew from the Torah, and split into two
sects, the Sadducees and the Boethusians: Sadducees named after
Sadoq, Boethusians after Boethus.
C. And they used silver vessels and gold vessels all their livesnot
because they were ostentatious; but the Sadducees said, "It is a tradi
tion among the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the
world to come they will have nothing."
(ARNa Chap. 5, trans. Goldin, p. 39)
Comment: The story has nothing to do with Antigonus himself, but
explains the formation of the Sadducean and Boethusian sects. The
likelihood that the other parties were born in the midst of Pharisaism
and were merely heretical offshoots is slight. The pericope is a com
posite. First comes the long account of the break of the disciples into
conflicting parties. Second, part C, And they used, is a separate and dis
tinct unit, in which the routine Pharisaic criticism of the Sadducees for
their lavishness is repeated. The link to the foregoing is obvious, but
artificial.
Part A would have stood by itself. Part B could have been interpo
lated but could not have stood separately, since a pericope consisting
merely of They arose and withdrew would mean nothing. A pericope about
61
T H E Y O S I ' S I.ii.l
the Sadducees named after Sadoq, furthermore, would have had no

special interest to Pharisaic tradents. Part C therefore stands by itself as
a separate and distinct unit. It may be that the opening sentence was
part of the foregoing. They arose and withdrew ... and used ... But then the
additional explanation comes from a tradent friendly to the Sadducees,
eager to turn aside the Pharisaic critique of Sadducean ostentation by
explaining that it was really for sound (to them) theological reasons.
In any event we do not have any similar text, so we cannot speculate
on what circulated elsewhere in other forms. We have no idea as to the
time or place of the redaction of this pericope. That must depend upon
more careful inquiry into the date and place of the final redaction of
ARN.
Finkelstein (Mavo, p. 36), argues that part C must derive from a
Boethusian tradition, giving reasons similar to those adduced above:
"How is it possible that the sages of the Pharisees should speak in
praise of the founder of the Boethusian sect..." This passage is there
fore "a remnant of Sadducean literature." If the passage was actually
shaped in early times, then Finkelstein's argument seems correct. On
the other hand, if ARN is the product of a much later time, when the
issues separating Pharisaism from Sadduceeism had long since been
forgotten, the pericope could well have been composed in utter igno
rance of what Sadducees and Boethusians actually said. The author
might have constructed the story from his own imagination, responding
to the philosophical difficulties of Antigonus's saying, by the construc
tion of a little dramatic colloquy among disciples, leading to a historical
break in "the Torah." Afflicting yourself in this world and having
nothing in the world to come could be an inference drawn from the
question in Part A, Is it possible that a laborer should do his work... In that
case the story has no historical connection with ancient Sadduceeism.
II. TRADITIONS OF YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN
Apart from the Avot and Hagigah chains of Pharisaic tradition, the
Yosi's occur in the following materials:
I.ii.l. Rabbi Eliezer says, "Uncleanness in no way pertains to liquids
(M$QYN). You may know that this is so, for behold, Yosi ben
Seredah [sic] gave testimony ( YD) concerning the waters [read MY
for BY] of the slaughter-house, that they are clean (DKYYN).
Rabbi Aqiba says...
(Sifra Shemini Parashah 8:5, ed. I. H. Weiss,
p. 55a)
C
Comment: This is the first legal saying attributed to a Pharisaic master.

R. Eliezer here cites materials redacted in M. *Ed. 8:4. Aqiba and
Eliezer supply the earliest possible terminus ante quern. M. Ed. includes
Yosi b. Yo'ezer's opinion on other legal matters as well. The text is
c
62
THE Y O S T S Il.i.l
imperfect, for Yosi's name is given incorrectly. The text here reads
Eliezer, that is, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. Elsewhere it is Ele'azar.
The content of the legal saying is important. It concerns purity laws,
which to begin with applied only in the Temple. This tends to suggest
that the saying in substance is genuine, for the Pharisaic masters, be
ginning with Simeon the Just, later on were associated in the mind of
the movement with the Temple and its procedures. The earliest laws of
the Pharisaic movement pertained primarily to Temple law, as in M.
Hag. 2:2. This is only part of the Yosi-tradition on purity laws. The
setting in Sifra indicates that the saying was redacted under 'Aqiban
auspices. But that fact does not tell us anything about possible changes
in the tradition to conform to an 'Aqiban viewpoint; I see no partisan
issue in the saying.
Yosi b. Yo ezer would not "originally" have said, "I testify (that) ..."
Where would such "testimony" have been given, and for what pur
pose? The testimony-form seems to derive from the earliest Yavnean
stratum; whether it is earlier than that we cannot now know. The say
ing is not merely a revision from direct to indirect discourse. What is
interesting is the persistence of Aramaic formulations in sayings attri
buted to the early Pharisees. If the language of the early masters was
Aramaic, the language of this lemma would be a mark of authenticity.
So the content and the language in this instance suggest, but do not
prove, an early date for the saying.
c
Il.i.l. When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of

Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased (BTL), as it is written, There
is not a cluster to eat, my soul desireth the first-ripe fig (Mic. 7:1).
(M. Sot. 9:9)
Comment: Danby gives the meaning of "grapeclusters" as "metaphor
for those of outstanding merit." Third-century midrashic explanation
of the word is "a man in whom is everything":
What does grapeclusters (>$KWLWT) mean? Rav Judah in the
name of Samuel said, "A man in whom are all things [>Y$ SHKL
BW]."
(b. Sot. 47b)
Albeck (Seder Nashim, [Tel Aviv, 1954] p. 259) offers the same: "Men
in whom are wisdom and good deeds," following b. Tern. 15b. In his
extended notes, p. 393, he lists a number of references in which the
same ridiculous etymology appears. S. Y. Rapaport, Êrekh Milin
(Warsaw, 1914) pp. 99-105 defines it as "school, gathering place of the
learned men." A further reference to grapecluster, in addition to Micah
7:1, is Is. 65:8. The sense of the Scripture is the same as in Aphrahat,
Demonstration XXIII, Concerning the Grapecluster, where the "grape
cluster" symbolizes the bearer of divine blessing. For Aphrahat it is the
messianic blessing; for the rabbinic and Pharisaic sources it is the
bearer of the true single and unified Torah, oral and written, revealed
63
T H E Y O S I ' S II.i.2
to Moses and handed down from him to the Pharisees themselves. That
"grapecluster" was lost or hidden from this time until after Aqiba, as
we shall see. From that time controversies marred the formerly united
and irreproachable tradition. This is spelled out in other materials.
The saying is to be classified as a very late reminiscence. We do not
know who originally said that the first of the pairs was also the last of
the grapeclusters and drew from this the inference that the change after
Yosi + Yosi was not for the better. We certainly cannot imagine that
either Yosi "one day taught his disciples, 'My sons, Yosi and I are the
last of the grapeclusters.'" Since that is obvious, one must ask, Who so
stated and why? I do not know. But since the Yosi's stood at the head
of the M. Hag. list, and since this list cannot come after ca. 140 A.D., it
looks as if the responsible authority would appear in Ushan times.
The setting is a collection of sayings about the end of old virtue.
When murders multiplied, one rite ended; when adulterers did, an
other; when the Yosi's died, the grapeclusters came to an end. Then
comes an interruption about Yohanan the High Priest, presumably be
cause Yosi + Yosi were understood to have been his contemporaries.
The sequence resumes with the end of the Sanhedrin, followed by a
long list of the deaths of ancient worthies and what ended when they
died. The whole in current form cannot date from earlier than the
third-century, to be sure, but in this instance we need not doubt that
the list was composed of somewhat earlier materials. The editor did not
consistently impose on those materials the form When X died,y ended. In
any event, original teachings of the Yosi's cannot be present here.
Note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 684-5.
c
II.i.2.A. For perushim (Pharisees? Separatists?) the clothes of an

'-am ha ares count as suffering /^raAincleanness. For them that eat
heave-offering the clothes of Pharisees count as suffering midras'-uncle&nness. For them that eat of hallowed things, the clothes of them that
eat heave-offering count as suffering ^/t^r^-uncleanness. For them that
occupy themselves with sin-offering water, the clothes of them that
eat of hallowed things count as suffering /^/^/-uncleanness.
B. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was the [most] pious (H^YD) in the priesthood,
yet for them that ate of hallowed things, his apron counted as suffer
ing /#/Vraj--uncleanness.
(M. Hag. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 214)
y
Comment: Like the foregoing, this is to be classified as a reminiscence

concerning Yosi/Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Here Yosi serves as an example of
an ancient pious priest. Even the best of the virtuous old priests still
served as a source of ^/^/-uncleanness. Any other namee.g. Simeon
the Justwould have served just as well. I do not imagine the saying
circulated separately from the tradition about the conditions of midrasuncleanness. That is, we do not have an apophthegm about the matter
64
T H E Y O S T S II.i.3
of /^/^/-uncleanness, only later on attached to the law. The reference

to the example of Yosi is a gloss on the legal saying.
The setting is a tradition about Temple uncleanness laws. To be sure,
the Pharisees some time late in the Temple period asserted that Templepurity laws pertain also to the eating of unconsecrated food (hullin), but
no hint of that development is in the above formulation. At best, in the
context of the earlier laws in the pericope, the reference is to eating
tithes and other holy offerings, but not ordinary foods. M. Hag. 3:6
concerns purity for eating or touching tithes, heave-offerings, sanctities
(qddesh) and the like, so this view seems likely.
We once more observe that the content of the laws attributed to early
Pharisaic heroes pertains to Temple purity rules. My guess is that the
Pharisees at the outset included priests who rejected the procedures of
Temple priests, asserting their own views on Temple purity laws and
other cultic matters (laying on of hands). Later on, Pharisaism proceeded
to apply those same laws to the eating of an ordinary meal, saying the
table of the Jew is like the cultic table of God. But the original disputes
evidently centered on the cult itself. The view about eating ordinary
food in ritual cleanness comes long after the Pharisaic group had
achieved full self-consciousness, regarding itself as quite apart from the
Temple group, and its own traditions as superior to those of the Temple
schools; thus for Pharisaism a layman's judgment was superior to a
priest's.
C
II.L3.A. R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concerning ( L)

(1) the Mj/7-locust (QMS') is clean (DKY),
and (2) that the liquids in the Temple shambles are clean (DKYYN),
and (3) that he who touches a corpse becomes unclean (YQRB
LMYTH M$>B).
B. And the called him "Yosah the permitter" (WQRWN LYH
Y W S H SRYY>).
(M. 'Ed. 8:4, trans. Danby, p. 436)

Comment: Except for the italicized words, the whole pericope is in
Aramaic. Instead of the more usual TM* and THR we find S'B (mista'av)
and DKY (dekhe, dekhayin). Like the language of Megillat Ta'anit, the
language of Yosi's opinion is not translated into rabbinic-Mishnaic
Hebrew. The Hebrew formula at the outset (H YD) is imposed by the
editor of the on that day materials. But obviously Yosi's and other
testimonies of the pericope derive from masters who could not have
been present. We do not have definitive evidences of the fixed forms in
which Pharisaic teachings were transmitted before rabbinic times, but
these materials are apt to have been part of those teachings. We may
readily imagine the teaching began simply Yosi b. Yoêêr said. The
three-things form is followed here, with purity-laws instead of moral
apophthegms. A second example is Yohanan the High Priest's abrog
ations, M. M.S. 5:15.
C
T H E Y O S T S II.i.3
65
We do not know who called him "the permitter" (or lenient), or who
held an opposite view, that the locust was capable of uncleanness, and
that the liquids were susceptible. We may imagine someone taught that
the liquids (blood, water) could receive uncleanness. The commentaries
further discuss why Yosi should have ruled concerning the corpse,
since Scripture (Num. 19:11,17) makes this perfectly clear. The various
distinctions and explanations of course are of no interest here. We may
suppose Temple priests, whose sayings were not preserved in Pharisaic
tradition, held the contrary. But then why would the epithet "Yosi the
permitter" have been preserved by Pharisaic tradents later on? We may
regard the tradition as an accurate record of what early generations of
Pharisees attributed to Yosi b. Yo ezer. Perhaps he himself as a priest
issued such rulings. If he did so, it was not in the Temple, but in the
party, and hence the teaching contains one of the Pharisaic disputes
with the Temple authorities. Temple authorities then held the opposite,
and we may assign to them both the hypothetical contrary rulings and
the epithet. Presumably the Pharisaic tradents did not regard the epithet
as particularly hostile, and, since it would have been known outside of
their circles, they had no reason to suppress it. So Temple authorities
applied a stricter rule than did the Pharisees: the locust could receive
uncleanness, and purity rules did pertain to the liquids of the Templeslaughterhousea considerable inconvenience. The Temple in all re
spects must be kept inviolable and the sanctity-rules must be applied as
strictly as possible. This indeed later characterized the Sadducees in
matters of purity-laws. The laws are strict, but affect only the Temple.
The Pharisees tended to apply lenient interpretations to those laws, but
regarded them as everywhere applicable, even in connection with com
mon meals. The Essenes were equally strict, but kept the laws only in
their commune, where it presumably was relatively easy to do so.
As to the classification, the pericope contains an earlier legal saying
by Yosi b. Yo'ezer. The Mishnaic setting, as I said, is traditions from
Yavneh. The other masters in the same pericope however are not only
Yavneans.
In their form prior to the one before us, the sayings probably were
originally given as a unit, for they consist of closely related uncleanness
rules on 1. locust, 2. liquid, 3. corpse. All pertain to the chief legal issue
about which Pharisaic tradition attributed teachings to the early mas
ters. The unifying principle was not the legal theme by itself, but also a
unifying form: three things attributed to Yosi b. Yo'ezer. To be sure,
the logia may have circulated separately and only later on have been put
together. If so, the earlier Pharisaic materials presumably were ex
tremely brief, one-sentence, simple logia containing rules of Temple
(uncleanness) law, mainly concerning matters of detail (locust, liquid).
Dropping the attribution ("R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified con
cerning") we find the following:
[<L]
>YL QMS' DKY
[W<L]
c
66
THE Y O S T S Il.ii.l
M$QH BYT MTBHY> [D>NWN] DKYYN

[W]
DYQRB BMYT> MST'B [MS Kaufmann: MS'B]
with the subscription:
WQRW LH YWSY $RY\
The bracketed words are the connecting material. As we noted, the first
connector (W L) is in Hebrew and carries forward the Hebrew redactional introduction. The redactor then has left the substance of the
Yosi-saying unchanged. This again suggests that the subscription is
part of a pre-Yavnean formulation.
One should look for mnemonic considerations in the present lem
mas, for in authentic Houses-sayings we can usually locate the rhymescheme or small units of which materials are constructed. What words
or elements unite the three sayings? Clearly, DKY/DKYN joins the
first and second. Otherwise they are not balanced or matched. What
joins no. 3 to no. 2 is the syzygy clean\unclean\ otherwise, they too are
unrelated either in subject-matter or in diction; no. 1 has six syllables,
no. 2 ten, no. 3 eight, so there is no intelligible pattern or rhyme-scheme.
The mnemonic principle can therefore have been the clean\clean\uncleantheme and that alonenot a very striking pattern.
The Temple for centuries had carried on its affairs according to
purity rules, presumably those in Scriptures as interpreted by the
priests' traditions. If the Pharisees took seriously matters of detail, it
must have been because Temple authorities and Pharisaic opinion sepa
rated primarily on these matters. We of course do not know why the
Pharisees believed that the ^//-locust was pure. For many centuries the
Temple authorities presumably regarded the liquid of the slaughter
house as capable of receiving uncleanness. Why just now did the Phari
sees maintain otherwise? More important, why and how did it become
a partisan issue?
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 505-6; Mishnah, p. 181.
C
Il.ii.l. It is impossible (>Y 'PSY) to set a reproach (DWPY) against

any of the grapeclusters that arose for Israel from when Moses died
until Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusa
lem arose. After Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan
of Jerusalem died, and until R. Judah b. Baba arose, it is possible to
set a reproach against them.
(Tos. B.Q. ed. Zuckermandel, p. 362, lines
9-12)
Comment: Variants give 'PSR, which I have followed in my transla
tion. Other versions confirm this reading.
This pericope obviously cannot date from before the middle of the
second century A.D. The first clause, that it is impossible to reproach
any of the grapeclusters, could have circulated separately, but it would
have meant little, unless a contrasting after they died had been added.
THE Y O S T S Il.ii.l
67
Hence the pericope is a unity. Reproach (DWPY) elsewhere means divi

sion or controversy; the apparent meaning therefore is that until the
last of the grapeclusters, the masters were unanimous on all things, but
afterward controversy began to multiply in the Torah. This is parallel
to the late Antigonus-story about the schism of the Sadducees and
Boethusians. The viewpoint is consistent with M. Hag. 2 : 2 . The laying
on of hands controversy began with the last of the grapeclusters. M.
Hag. certainly gave rise to this saying.
It is astonishing that a second-century tradition, presumably deriving
from the circle of the martyred Judah b. Baba, to whom the ordination
of all the surviving students of 'Aqiba is credited, should have asserted
that all the generations of sages from the grapeclusters to Aqiba were
reproachable. Clearly, important legal issues divided Yavneans and the
later 'Aqibans. No one could have imagined that what distinguished
the ancients from the moderns was the absence of controversy among
the current or preceding generation. But if some other reproach than
legal controversy was in mind, it is equally puzzling. We have here what
seems to be a rejection of the entire Pharisaic tradition from Yosi +
Yosi to, and including, Aqiba. The source is a post- Aqiban collection,
so we cannot attribute to the Ishmaeleans any role whatever in shaping
the tradition.
The saying may be classified as a later reminiscence of the two Yosi's.
It serves as an interpretation of the meaning ofgrapecluster: What ended?
Irreproachability, perfection, absence of division, lack of schism. Im
mediately following is the assertion that nearly all of Judah b. Baba's
deeds were for the sake of heaven, except for a minor one: he violated
the law against raising small cattle in Palestine. The inference is to be
drawn that from the two Yosi's until Judah b. Baba, not all the deeds
of the masters were for the sake of heavena strange allegation.
My guess is that the introduction of the two Yosi's served as a con
venient dividing point and nothing more. That is to say, since the grapeclusters are at issue, and since the purpose of the editor of the pericope
is to assert Judah b. Baba renewed the blessing of the grapeclusters, it
was natural to refer to the characterization, known from materials later
placed into the Mishnah, of the two men as the end of the old line of
tradition and the start of controversies. The purpose of the editor of the
pericope therefore is to state that Yosi + Yosi themselves marked the
end of a great era. But if, as alleged, the list of Pharisaic masters at
Ushan times began with the Yosi's, then it is difficult to understand the
reference to the two men as the end of something old. Rather they
should be made into the start of something new; hence they should be
said to be the first of the grapeclusters, a list of worthies ending with
Judah b. Baba. In that case Aqiba and all the other ancients would not
be listed among those not regarded as grapeclusters, but rather would
be among those regarded as a model for the coming generation, a senti
ment surely appropriate in Judah b. Baba's circle. The grapeclusters
then should end with Judah b. Babaand this Judah the Patriarch obvi
ously could not abide. So he dropped the Toseftan materials entirely,
c
68
T H E Y O S T S III.i.1, III.ii.1
and ended the grapeclusters where they had formerly begun, with the
Yosi's. But other versions preserve precisely this judgment.
The setting is a discussion of raising small cattle in Palestine, a ruling
that came long after Maccabean times.
III.i.1. Mishnah: When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b.
Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased, as it is said, There
is no grapecluster to eat, my soul desireth the first ripe fig (Micah 7:1).
TNY: All the pairs (ZWGWT) that arose from the death of Moses
until Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem
arose, it is possible to set against them a reproach. Until R. Judah b.
Baba arose, it is not possible to place against them a reproach.
(y. Sot. 9:10, repr. Gilead, p. 44a)
Comment: Now the tradition is reversed. The present "Tannaitic" for
mulation of the Toseftan tradition is that the late Tannaitic generation
(= Judah the Patriarch's) is reproachable, but the masters from Yosi -fYosi to 'Aqiba-Judah b. Baba were not reproachable, just as I suggested.
Obviously, if the polemic has been reversed, the facts cannot have
changed. If by reproach schism or division is meant, then the large cor
pus of divisions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, of the laying on
of hands controversy, and of other materials was available to demon
strate the contrary. The intervening generations were demonstrably
flawed, subject to reproach. Hence the Toseftan version has been de
liberately changed, without reference to contrary information. The re
proach of the intervening generation is turned to praise; the praise of
the disciples of Judah b. Baba is turned into reproach.
The setting is clear. The gemara following M. Sot. 9:9 reads, "Until
R. Aqiba and all the pairs arose, there were no grapeclusters..." Then
TNY, and the above follows. The gemara therefore asserts that the times
from the last grapeclusters, the two Yosi's, until 'Aqiba, were irre
proachable and unblemished, and following Judah b. Baba the masters
again were reproachable. Hence the meaning of the TNY-passage con
firms the reading of the introductory superscription as we have it. All
is quite consistent.
And all is quite contrary to the earlier version! But the whole thing
furthermore contradicts the Mishnah to which it is attached. The
Mishnah explicitly states Yosi + Yosi were the end of the grape
clusters, with the implication that something good had come to an end,
not that they had marked the beginning of an irreproachable chain of
masters. The present version thus is contrary both to the Mishnah and
to the Toseftan supplement to the Mishnah.
c
III.ii.1. [Mishnah: And these are the laws stated in the upper cham
ber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon, when they went up to visit
him. They took a count, and the House of Shammai outnumbered
T H E Y O S T S III.ii.1
69
the House of Hillel. And on that day they enacted eighteen measures.
Gemara: And what are the eighteen measures? We learned...one's
hands.]
And the hands. Did the students of Shammai and Hillel [so] decree?
Shammai and Hillel decreed [it], as it is taught (DTNY>):
Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de
creed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness (TWM'H) upon the
land of the peoples and on glassware.
Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for the
wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon
metal utensils.
Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands.
(b. Shab. 14b)
c
Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de

creed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and glassware.
But the rabbis of the "eighty years" [before the destruction of the
Temple] did so, for
R. Kahana said, "When R. Ishmael son of R. Yosi fell ill, they sent
to him, 'Rabbi, tell us two or three of the things you stated in your
father's name.'"
"He replied, "Thus did my father say, One hundred and eighty years
before the destruction of the Temple the wicked kingdom spread
over Israel.
"'Eightyyears before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed
on the land of the peoples and glassware.
"'Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin
went into exile and took its seat in the trade halls...'"
And should you say, They [Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan]
flourished during these eighty years also, it was taught:
Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon ruled as patriarchs during
the [last] century of the Temple's existence.
Thus Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan were much
earlier...
(b. Shab. 15a)
Comment: This beraita may be classified as a report of a legal decision
made by the two Yosi's. We cannot accurately date it, but it cannot
derive from the second century B.C., when the two masters probably
were alive, for the formulation begins after Shammai and Hillel. The
beraita may be compared to the laying-on-of-hands list of M. Hag. 2 : 2
70
T H E Y O S T S III.ii.2
and Avot 1 :lff. That is, its literary form is a chain of Pharisaic tradition,
pertaining now not to sacrificial practice or to moral rules but to clean
ness laws (pp. 11-23). The likelihood is that the beraita before us de
rives from a period after the end of the second century A.D., for it is
unlikely that Yosi b. Halafta, father of Ishmael b. R. Yosi, would have
framed a teaching on the imposition of uncleanness on the land of the
peoples and on glassware in ignorance of a beraita alleging Yosi + Yosi
were the responsible authorities. The Talmud's discussion must be re
garded as completely accurate. The rabbinical tradition did recognize
that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Shammai, hence came
many years before the final century of the Temple's existence.
On the other hand, it could be that a different tradition existed along
side Yosi b. Halafta's. If so, it is striking that we have no evidence of it
in any corpus of traditions earlier than the Babylonian beraita. The
beraita-lketztute
presumably did not originate in a single place, time,
or circle of masters. Some of it may actually have come from Tannaitic
schools in Palestine. But in the Babylonian Talmud, beraitas frequently
give evidence of having been shaped, or at least reshaped, in the Baby
lonian schools themselves. The absence of a reference in an earlier com
pilation of traditions to the alleged decree of the two Yosi's and the
presence of Yosi b. Halafta's contrary tradition on the same matter to
gether suggest that the beraita-vetsion
was unknown to Yosi b. Halafta.
I cannot imagine who might have invented the story, or for what
purpose. No contemporary polemic seems to me to have been involved.
Nor do I see a relationship to any other teachings of the two Yosi's
which might have provoked the attribution to them of similar decrees
on the land of the peoples and on glassware. The early decrees all per
tain to Temple-cleanness, not to the extension of Temple-cleanness
laws to such remote matters as the uncleanness of foreign countries, on
the one hand, or to glassware, on the other. These considerations were
important only when cleanness laws were observed outside of the
Temple as well as within it, and when numbers of Pharisees therefore
were concerned with the applicability of cleanness-rules to daily life.
Only then was the ruling concerning glassware and foreign dirt conse
quential. Hence I tend to doubt the accuracy of the attribution.
The question remains, Why then attribute the ruling not to the sages
of the "eighty years," but rather to much earlier masters ? I suspect the
answer will illuminate not the early traditions on the two Yosi's, but
rather the mind of some circle within the school of Judah the Patriarch.
In y. Shab. 1:4, R. Yosi attributes the decree to Judah b. Tabbai and
Simeon b. Shetah.
The setting is a Babylonian Amoraic discussion. In its present form
the beraita constitutes a chain of tradition. The actual decrees attributed
to the two Yosi's may originally have been separate, but were brought
together for transmission before they reached the editor of the beraita.
III.ii.2. TNY*: R. Eleazar says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to
liquids at all. You should know [it] for behold, Yosef b. Yo ezer of
c
71
T H E Y O S F S III.ii.3, 4 , 5
Seredah testified concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean, and con

cerning liquids (M$QYN) of the slaughter-house, that they are clean."
(b. Pes. 16a)
Comment: The setting is a discussion concerning the opinion of
Eleazar in the context of the opinions of Meir, Judah, Yosi, and Simeon.
The discussion in fact is anonymous; the Tannaim are cited, not directly
quoted. Thefirstnamed Amora is Nahmanb. Isaac. The text has Ele azar,
not Eliezer. But the beraita reads R \ which could produce either attri
bution. See above, I.ii.l for further comment. The corpse-uncleanness
is omitted.
c
111.11.3. R. Eliezer says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to liquids

at all. You should know [it] for lo, Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah testified
concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean and about liquids of the
[Temple] slaughter-house (BYT MTBHY'), that they are clean."
(b. Ned. 19a)
c
Comment:
See I.ii.l. The setting is the same as b. Pes. 16a.
111.11.4. TNN: Rabbi Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concern

ing the ^//-locust, that it is pure (DKN), and concerning the liquid
(M$QH) of the slaughter-house, that it is pure (DKN), and that one
who comes into contact with the dead, (that) he is unclean (QRB
LMYT> MS'B); and they called him Yosef who permits [alternatively:
Yosef the lenient].
(b. A.Z. 37a)
Comment:
See I.ii.l. The context is a discussion between R. Judah
Nesi'a and R. Simlai. Several things have been permitted, and the
warning is raised that "we shall be called a permissive court." Then the
above is cited. Later on in the same setting the beraita is further dis
cussed. R. Papa and others explain what locust is referred to.
111.11.5. TNN HTM: When Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and

Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters came to an
end.
What are the grapeclusters? A man in whom are all things.
And Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel, "All the grapeclusters
who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer
died learned Torah like Moses our rabbi. Henceforward they did not
learn Torah like Moses our rabbi."
In a Mishnah we learned:
There was no reproach in all the grapeclusters that arose for Israel
72
THE Y O S T S IV.i.l, 2
from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah. Hencefor

ward there was reproach in them...
[Here a story is told of a certain hasid in whom was found only a
single matter of reproach, that he reared a small goat in Palestine,
which is forbidden.] And it is an established fact with us that whereever we deal with a certain hasid, it refers to either R. Judah b. Baba
or R. Judah b. Ilai.
Now [these] rabbis lived many generations after Yosef b. Yo ezer.
R. Joseph said, "[It is the] reproach of the laying on of hands
[controversy]."
But does not Yosef b. Yo'ezer himself differ with reference to the
law of laying on of hands?
When he differed it was in his later years, when his heart had
weakened.
(b. Tern. 15b-16a)
c
Comment: See Il.ii.l. The setting is autonomous. There is no apparent

connection with the foregoing materials. For Samuel the reproach was
poor learning. R. Joseph interprets "reproach" as division or schism.
The question is raised, How can we say Yosi was beyond reproach
when he himself participated in controversy? Hence the meaning of
DWPY, as stated above, must be schism or controversy.
The reference to in a Mishnah we learned of course is inaccurate, since
the materials appear in a late beraita.
IV.i.l. Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah

say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem
decreed uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass
utensils"?
Rabbi Yonah said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai [did i t ] . "
R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
uncleanness on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning
the cleanness [sic] of the hands."
(y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a)
Comment: See III.ii.1. Here we have still another discussion of the
decree about uncleanness upon the land of the peoples, but this one
leaves no doubt as to the role of the two Yosi's. It allows us to date the
formation of the beraita (III.ii.1) at least to the time of R. Jeremiah, midfourth-century, and R. Yonah of the same period. It is clear that until
then there was no well-established tradition on who was responsible for
the decree.
IV.i.2. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah
T H E Y O S I ' S IV.i.3, IV.ii.l
73
say, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem

decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glass uten
sils."
R. Yuda said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
[uncleanness] on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concern
ing the cleanness of hands."
(y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b)
Comment:
See IV.i.l.
IV.i.3. [Simeon b. Shetah made three ordinances, that a man may

do business with his wife's marriage-contract, that children must go
to school; and he decreed uncleanness concerning glass vessels.]
Did not Rabbi Ze'ra R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say,
"Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed
[the capacity to receive] uncleanness on the land of the peoples and
on glass utensils."
Rabbi Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbi [did i t ] . "
Rabbi Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbi and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
concerning metal utensils, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concern
ing the cleanness of hands..."
(y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b)
Comment:
See IV.i.l.
IV.ii.l.A. It was asked, Did the rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b.

Gamaliel [re disinheriting one's wicked children] or not? Come and
hear concerning:
B. Yosef b. Yo e%er had a son who did not behave properly.
[What follows is in Aramaic]
He had a loft [full of] denarii. He rose and sanctified it [to the Temple].
C. He [the son] went and married the daughter of the wreathmaker of Yannai the King. She gave birth to a son. He [the husband]
bought her a fish. When he opened it, he found a pearl in it.
D. She said to him, "Do not show it to the king, for he will take
it from you for a small sum of money. Go and show it to the treasurers
[of the Temple]. But do not suggest the price, for it is said that making
an offer to the Most High is like [actually] giving [something] to an
ordinary person. But let them state its value."
E. He brought it. They assessed it for thirteen lofts of denarii.
They said to him, "Seven are [available], and six are not."
c
74
Y o s i b.
Yo'ezer
and
Y o s i b.
Yohanan
THE YOSI'S IV.ii.l
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1. W h e n they
died, grape
c l u s t e r s ceased
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
Tos. B.Q. 8 : 1 3
y. Sot. 9 : 1 0
b. T e r n . 1 5 b - 1 6 a
3. Uncleanness o f
land of peoples
and glassware
4. Lay hands on
sacrifice
M . Hag. 2 : 2
5. Let house be
meeting place
let house be o p e n
M. A v o t 1:4-5
1 . Cleanness o f
fluids in T e m p l e
slaughter-house
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Sifra 8 : 5
(Eliezer)
ILi
Mishnah
M . <Ed. 8 : 4
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
b. S h a b . 1 4 b - 1 5 a
y. S h a b . 1 : 4
y. Pes. 1 : 6
y. K e t . 8 : 1 1
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
M . Hag. 2 : 7
3 . Mj//7-locust
clean
M , <Ed. 8 : 4
b. Pes. 1 6 a
b. A . Z . 3 7 a
4. Corpse-uncleanness
M . <Ed. 8 : 4
b. A . Z . 3 7 a
6. N e p h e w killed
self
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
b. Pes. 1 6 a
b. N e d . 1 9 a
b. A . Z . 3 7 a - b
2. W a s most pious
of priesthood, but
s u f f e r e d midrasuncleanness
5. Son gave pearl

to Temple
IV.i
Amoraic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
M. Sot. 9 : 9
2. Reproach
against grape
clusters
Y o s i b.
Yo'ezer
Alone
75
THE Y O S I ' S IV.ii.l
b. B.B. 1 3 3 b
L e v . R. 6 5 : 2 7
76
THE YOSTS Vl.i.l
He said to them, "Give me seven. As to the six, [in Hebrew]

Behold, they are sanctified to Heaven!'
They went and wrote, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one [loft of
denarii] and his son brought in six [lofts]."
F. Some say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one, and his son took
out seven."
(b. B.B. 133b)
Comment: The setting is an anonymous inquiry into the support for
Simeon b. Gamaliel's opinion. No named tradents or masters partici
pate in the discussion. The language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic,
then in the conventional form associated with the Temple transaction,
back to Hebrew, given in italics.
The beraita is a singleton. We have no idea when, why, or where it was
written. It may be classified as a biographical narrative, and, apart from
Vl.i.l, it is the only exemplum of biography in the Yosi-traditions. As
it stands, parts C, D, and E form a single, unified narrative. Part F is
tacked on as a revision of E. But it could not have circulated separately,
for it would have meant little outside of the context of some story, if
not this one, unless as an allusion. On the other hand, it certainly has
the resonance of a pithy saying. The superscription, part A, stands quite
separately. The problem is part B. It now serves to introduce the story
of Yosef's son, who is not named. But had part C begun, The son of
Yosef b. Yo*e%er married the daughter of... then the introductory clause
would have been superfluous. Then part E refers back to part B. I sup
pose that parts B and C could have generated a quite separate story
than that in parts C and D.
Vl.i.l.A. Yaqim of Serurot was the nephew of R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer
of Seredah.
He was riding on his horse. He went before the beam on which
he [Yosi] was to be hanged.
He said to him, "See the horse on which my master has set me,
and see your horse on which your master has set you."
He said to him, "If he does thus to those that anger him, how
much the more [good will he do to] those that do his will."
He said to him, "Has any man done his will more than you?"
He said to him, "If so to those that do his will, how much the
[worse will he do to] those that anger him."
The matter pierced him like the poison of a snake, and he went
and brought on himself the four modes of death inflicted by the court:
stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation.
B. What did he do? He brought a post and planted it in the earth,
raised around it a wall, and tied on it a cord. He made a fire in front
77
THE YOSI'S Vl.i.l
of it and set a sword in the middle [of the post]. He hanged himself
on the post, and the cord was burned through, and he was strangled.
The sword caught him, while the wall [of stones also] fell on him,
and he was burned.
C. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah dozed and saw his bier flying through
the air.
He said, "By a brief hour has he preceded me to the Garden of
Eden."
(Gen. R. 65:27, ed. Theodor-Albeck, II, pp.
742 1. 5 through 744,1.1 = Midrash on Psalms
11:7, Braude, I, pp. 166-7)
Comment: This is a singleton, appearing in a late compilation, with
no connections in theme or in detail to any antecedent traditions on
Yosi b. Yo'ezer. We do not know how the story was shaped and have
no idea whatever as to the sources of Yosef b. Yo^zer's supposed mar
tyrdom. As it stands, the story stands quite apart from, and outside of,
the other traditions on Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Had Yaqim been associated
with any other ancient worthy, it would have made no difference for
the substance of the story, which apparently is an echo of one of the
several 'Aqiba martyrdom-legends. Part B is interpolated, a gloss ex
plaining the foregoing.
The identification of Yaqim of Serurot with Alcimus of I Mace. 7:16
and the further allegation that Alcimus was Yosi's nephew (!) are
groundless; the various historical opinions based on that identification
are absurd.
in. SYNOPSES
A.
1.
Yosi b. Yo e%er and Yosi b. Yohanan
Reproach against Grapeclusters
Tos. B.O.
8:13
1.
A l l the grapeclusters
t h a t a r o s e f r o m Israel f r o m
w h e n Moses died until Y o sef b . Y o ' e z e r o f S e r e d a h
and Y o s e f b. Y o h a n a n o f
Jerusalem
y. Sot.
1.
9:10
TNY:
(ZWGWT)
>
b. Tern. 15b-16a
1*.
A n d R a v J u d a h said
in the name o f S a m u e l , A l l
the grapeclusters
f r o m the days of Moses until

Yosef
Pairs
b. Yo*e%er died would learn

Torah like Moses our rabbi.
Thenceforward, they did not
learn Torah like Moses our
rabbi.
1.
T N Y ' : A l l the grape
clusters t h a t a r o s e f o r Israel
f r o m the days o f M o s e s u n t i l
Y o s i b . Y o e z e r died
{
78
THE YOSI'S
2.
It is not p o s s i b l e t o
place r e p r o a c h against
them.
3.
A n d until arose J u d a h
b. Baba
4.
It is p o s s i b l e t o p l a c e
against t h e m reproach
2.
SYNOPSES
It is p o s s i b l e
3
99
99
99
[ o m i t s : and]
4.
It is not p o s s i b l e
2.
There was not in them a n y
reproach
3.
4.
Thenceforward,
in them reproach
there was
The Tos. has been much garbled in transmission to the Babylonian

beraita, no less so to the Palestinian version. As to the latter, we have
already observed that the sense of the tradition has been reversed.
The beraita begins with the teaching in Samuel's name about study of
Torah, followed by TNY* as in 1* above. It seems to represent at
best a paraphrase of Tos. Yosi b. Yohanan has been dropped in both
parts of the Babylonian Talmudic version; Judah b. Baba (no. 3) is
likewise omitted here, but is referred to in the immediately following
Talmudic discussion. This proves that the beraita originally contained
no reference to him, for if it had, the subsequent discussion, aimed
at showing Judah is referred to, would have been superfluous. The
Babylonian beraita thus has drawn the sting from the Judah b. Babatradition, by leaving the impression that while the end of the grape
clusters concluded old-time virtue, no particular sage later on can be
credited with reverting to that former glory. Without the praise of
Judah b. Baba as the restorer of ancient merit, the beraita has been
deprived of its former contemporary relevance. It stands merely as an
untendentious supplement to the grapecluster-Mishnah.
I imagine the beraita was shaped after the version in Tos. B.Q.,
indeed after Rav Judah (d. 299), the language of whose citation of
Samuel suggests that the original formulation of Tos. B.Q. was un
known. Had it been known to Rav Judah (Samuel), he would have
directly referred to it and would not have offered his own formulation,
involving study of Torah, of the change in the history of the grape
cluster.
Alternatively, Samuel-Rav Judah did know Tos. B.Q., but, because
of its political aspect (Judah b. Baba), preferred to formulate it in
other, quite original, but neutral terms. But the beraita in any event
accomplished the same end. It may, to be sure, have been formulated
after the Judah b. Baba-version and circulated independently thereafter.
The omission of Yosi/Yosef b. Yohanan later on could not have been
consequential. He was merely a name on a list. No one had ties to
him or direct access to traditions originally deriving from him.
THE YOSTS
2.
79
SYNOPSES
Uncleanness of Land of Peoples and Glassware.
b. Shab. 14b
1.
DTNY'
2.
Yosi + Yosi
3.
decreed uncleanness
4.
on the land of
the peoples
5.
a n d o n glass
ware
5*.
6.
Simeon b.
Shetah ordained
(TQN)
7.
marriage-set
tlement for a wife
8.
and decreed
uncleanness o n
metal utensils
9.
Shammai and
Hillel decreed
10.
uncleanness
o n the hands
y. Shab. 1:4
1.
Did
not
R.
Ze'ira b. A b u n a
in R . J e r e m i a h ' s
n a m e say
2.
Yosef + Yosef
3
4
5
1.
Ze'ira
2.
3
not
R.
R.
5*
6.
And S i m e o n
b. S h e t a h decreed
6.
1.
7.
99
99
9 . Hillel and
Shammai
10
Yosi +
Yosi
2.
3
Yosi +
Yosi
99
99
99
>>
99
>
5*
5*.
R . Y o s i said,
J u d a h b. Tabbi
R. Y o n a h said,
J u d a h b. Tabbi and
Simeon b.
Shetah
decreed...
[ = y. Shab.]
6.
[As a b o v e ]
7.
99
99
9 . Hillel and
Shammai
10.
cleanness
99
99
y.Ket.
8:11
1.
Did not
Abuna
5*.
R. Y o n a h
said, Judah b.
Tabbai
Did
99
99
99
9.
Hillel and
Shammai
10.
cleanness
99
99
99
What the Babylonian Talmud knows as a beraita allegedly formulated

by Tannaim is available to the Palestinian Talmud only in the names
of fourth-century Palestinian Amoraim from Babylonia (Jeremiah,
Ze ira). Apart from the marriage-contract (no. 7), the materials are
nearly identical in all important matters. Variations are in such minor
details as the names Yosi/Yosef. The Palestinian versions are virtu
ally identical with one another, b. Shab.'s S + H is the better
order; and uncleanness (no. 10) must be more accurate than cleanness,
which makes no sense. But the inclusion of no. 7 is irrelevant to decrees
on purity lawsindeed, the language TQN is substituted, obviously
unsatisfactorily, for GZR, otherwise used throughout. Alternatively,
the beraita before us has been contaminated by materials from other
sources.
c
80
THE YOSI'S SYNOPSES
B.
Yosi b. Yo e%er Alone
1. Cleanness of Fluids in Temple

Sifra
8:5
M. 'Ed.
8:4
Slaughter-house
1.
Rabbi
Eliezer says
1.
b. Pes. 16a
1.
WHTNY':
2.
Uncleanness
( T W M ' H ) etc.
2.
Ele'arar
2
3.
Y o u should
k n o w t h a t it is s o
3.
3.
4.
4.
that]
4
for behold,
Y o s i b. Seredah
testified c o n c e r n
ing
4*
#
5.
BYMTBHY'
b. Ned.
19a
1.
[As b. Pes.]
b. A.Z.
37a
1.
DTNN
2.
99
[ O m i t s : for
' *
[Omits:
99
99
99
99
99
3.
[ A s b. Pes.]
3.
4.
[As b. Pes.]
4
~*
99
99
4*.
99
behold; A d d s : b.
Yo<e er]
4 * . o n *ayilQMS> D K Y
5.
a n d o n fluid
o f the slaughter
4*.
5.
DKN
4*.
MSQYN
5.
[As b. Pes.]
[As b. Pes.]
DKN
5.
MSQH
6.
DKN
house
(M$QH
B Y T MTBHY')
6.
that
[they
are]
pure
(DKYYN).
6.
t h a t they are
pure ( D ' Y N W N
DKYN)
6 >
DKN
7.
7.
A n d that one
w h o touches a
c o r p s e is i m p u r e
(WDYQRB
BMYT> MT>B)
7.
7.
7.
[As in Mishnah]
LMYT>
MS'B
8.
8.
And
they
called h i m Y o s i
the
lenient
(WQRW
LH
Y W S Y RY')
8.
8.
8.
[As in Mishnah]
LYH
99
99
99
YWSP
The citation of the Mishnah in b. A.Z. 37a is accurate and reveals

only minor variations, none of which changes the meaning. The
beraita-versions of b. Pes. and b. Ned are identical. Both differ markedly
from the Mishnah in omitting nos. 7 and 8. But the real comparison
is between Mishnah and Sifra. Sifra is shorter, leaving out all but the
question of fluids (nos. 5-6). The rulings however pertain to unclean
ness. I suppose the Mishnah preserves the earliest formulation of the
saying, that is, the full list in Aramaic. Then Sifra presents merely
part of it, for R. Eliezer's purposes. To be sure, the brief citation
(nos. 5-6) could have been an independent tradition, circulating quite
separately from the list of three Yosi-rulings supplied by M. Ed. In
any event the entire list in M. Ed. now forms a unified pericope.
Two of the three rulings are lenient and are so characterized at the
end (no. 8). The whole is set into an editorial form of the Yavnean
c
THE YOSTS CONCLUSION
81
period, yet, as I suggested, the actual formulation, best preserved in

the Mishnah, may well date back to earlier times.
i v . CONCLUSION
At the outset we must distinguish between the corpus of Yosi +

Yosi sayings, and that in which the two masters stand separately.
Yosi b. Yo'ezer by himself is the subject of six stories or sayings;
the pericope of M. <Ed. produces three of these. In addition we have
a reference to him as "the most pious of the priesthood," and two very
late stories about him. The two Yosi's are linked only in the several
chains of Pharisaic tradition: M. Sot., Avot, Hag., and the beraita in
b. Shab. 14b. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem otherwise is completely
ignored. Yosi b. Yo'ezer thus left one set of three sayings which
may in fact be genuine.
To this point, we may characterize early Pharisaic heroes as priests.
Their traditions were primarily rules on ritual cleanness and the sacri
ficial cult, both for Temple purposes. Antigonus of Sokho is an
exception. What is exceptional about him is that he occurs in the
Avot-list, in which the priestly connection or cultic interest of the early
Pharisees is obscured, and moral teachings substituted. Antigonus is
an anomaly, but, because of the paucity of evidence outside of the
Avot-chain, not a very important one.
Later Pharisaism clearly saw the advent of the pairs, beginning
with the two Yosi's, as a significant turning, but whether this was
to the good or otherwise was unclear. The decrees attributed to the
two Yosi's pertaining to uncleanness of foreign lands and the capacity
of glassware to be susceptible to uncleanness, and their rulings on
laying on hands in sacrifice, all at first were primarily considerations
for the Temple and its cult. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's laws are consistent with
this pattern, for they concern Temple fluids and other cleanness rules.
The other references to, and stories about, both men or about Yosi
b. Yo ezer alone are late and not very credible. We find no hint that
one held office higher than the other, e.g. president {Nasi) and vicepresident of some Sanhedrin. That issue is imposed on M. Hag. 2:2
by Judah the Patriarch's subscription. The Yosi-traditions would not
have given rise to the supposition that the Pharisaic offices were at
issue in listing the names of the early masters. The traditions likewise
supply no hint of the existence of such officesor, indeed, of a Phari
saic "party," sect, or movement.
c
CHAPTER FIVE
J O S H U A B. P E R A H I A H
JUDAH
AND
B. T A B B A I A N D
NITTAI THE
SIMEON
B.
ARBELITE.
SHETAH
i. JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE
Nittai the Arbelite occurs only in M. Avot and M. Hag. In addition,

we have four traditions on Joshua b. Perahiah, who further appears
in the magical bowls found at Nippur (see my History of the Jews in
Babylonia, V. Later Sasanian Times [Leiden, 1969], pp. 235-241).
Il.ii.l.A. Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Wheat that comes from Alexan
dria is [capable of becoming] unclean on account of its baling machine
('NTLY') [which sprinkles water on the wheat]."
B. The sages said, "If so, let it be unclean for Joshua b. Perahiah
and clean for all Israel."
(Tos. Maksh. 3:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 675,
lines 21-3)
Comment: Still another ruling on purity laws, this pericope falls with
in the classification of legal sayings. The form [Rabbi] X says is standard
later on. The pericope is in a list of rulings on susceptibility to unclean
ness on account of the application of fluids. The pericope may be com
posite, for part A could have stood alone. Part B introduces as a col
loquy the response of the sages, but this, lacking to him, looks tacked on.
The language is good Mishnaic Hebrew. I imagine that had a ruling
been preserved in Joshua b. Perahiah's own words, it would have con
formed to the Aramaic noted in connection with Yosi b. Yo ezer. This
pericope, if authentic, has been translated into the usage conventional
later on. But we have no way to date it. Epstein, Mev6*ot, p. 510, takes
for granted its antiquity; Mishnah, pp. 1153-4: sages said is "early style."
c
III.ii.1. TNW RBNN: Always let the left hand thrust away and
the right hand draw near...not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust
one of his disciples away with both hands.
(b. Sot. 47a)
Comment: This is an allusion to the story of Joshua b. Perahiah and
Jesus, to be dated after the story became well-known.
83
J O S H U A III.ii.2, I V . i i . l
III.ii.2. It was taught (TNY*):

A. R. Joshua b. Perahiah said, "At first whoever says to me, 'Go up/
I should bind him and put him in front of the lion. Now whoever
says to me, 'Go down/ I should pour over him a kettle of hot water."
B. For [we see that] Saul [at first] shunned [the throne], but, after
he had taken it, he sought to kill David.
(b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, p. 678)
Comment: The beraita is an autobiographical form for a moral apoph
thegm. It follows the long beraita (cited above, p. 35) about the death
of Simeon the Just and the foundation of the Temple of Onias by his
son. The thematic connection to the foregoing is the reference to
Alexandria. At this point stories about sages who went there follow.
But the story does not say Joshua b. Perahiah was associated with
Alexandria. We must assume the editor was familiar with the beraita,
or at least the tradition, about Joshua b. Perahiah in Alexandria and
therefore selected this saying for inclusion with the Onias-Temple
story.
The beraita could have circulated independently. We do not know
where or why it was framed, or how the editor knew anything at all
about Joshua. I imagine he would have known the M. Avot and Hag.
lists, so would have been aware that Joshua b. Perahiah had held high
office. But any other name on those lists would have served. Hence the
attribution is not necessarily random. Part B certainly is not integral
to the saying and probably was tacked on later.
IV.ii.l.A. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah?
B. When Yannai the King killed the rabbis, Simeon b. Shetah was
hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus fled to
Egyptian Alexandria.
C. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jeru
salem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt: O my sister, my
husband [Joshua] dwells in your midst, and I remain desolate"
D. He arose and came back and found himself in a certain inn ( WPYZ>). They paid him great respect.
He said, "How beautiful is this *aksania? / " [ = inn or inn-keeper].
E. One of his disciples [MSS: Jesus] said to him, "Rabbi, her eyes are
narrow"
He replied, "Wicked person! Do you occupy yourself with such
[a thought]?"
He sounded four hundred horns [ = shofar-bl&sts] and excommunicat
ed him.
He came before him many times.
C
84
JOSHUA IV.ii.l
JOSHUA
J o s h u a b.
Perahiah
Alone
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
Tos. Maksh.
1. Alexandrian
w h e a t unclean
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials i n
Babylonian
Gemara
b. S o t . 4 7 a
b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b
3. H a r d t o r e l i n
quish h o n o r
b. M e n . 1 0 9 b
and
Nittai the
Arbelite
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
ILi
Mishnah
1. Ordinationcontroversy
M . Hag. 2 : 2
2. M o r a l sayings
M. A v o t 1:6-7
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
ILii
Tosefta
IV.ii
Amoraic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
- IV.ii.l
V
ARN
VI
Later
85
Compilations of
Midrashim
3:4
2. J o s h u a d r o v e
Jesus away
Joshua b.
Perahiah
IV.i
Amoraic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
He [Jesus] said, "Receive me." But he [Joshua] refused to take

notice.
F. One day while he [Joshua] was reciting the Shema , he [Jesus]
came before him. He planned to receive him. He made a sign to him
with his hand. He [Jesus] thought he [Joshua] was [again] repelling
him. He went and set up a brick and worshipped it.
G. He said to him, "Repent"
H. He answered him, "Thus have I learned from you: Whoever sinned
and caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence"
I. A Master has said, "Jesuspractised magic and deceived and led Israel as
tray?'
(b. Sot. 47a, trans. A. Cohen, pp. 247-8 = b.
Sanh. 107b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 736 n. 2)
c
Comment: The above appears in the uncensored versions of the

Babylonian Talmud. I followed the text in R. Rabbinovicz, Variae
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials i n
Babylonian
Gemara
(b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b )
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Bahylonicum (Repr. N.Y., 1960), vol.

XI, Sanhedrin, pp. 339-340, and revised the above-cited translation to
conform to Rabbinovicz's text. The referent of part A is the beraita
quoted above. That does not mean the narrative is necessarily later than
the beraita, for it may be a literary convention to introduce further ex
planatory matter by means of questions. Indeed, the beraita presupposes
knowledge of some such story as this.
Classified as a biographical narrative, the pericope is set in a collec
tion of beraitot about accepting penitents, particularly with reference to
Elisha and Gehazi. Then comes supplementary discussion about
Gehazi. Finally, the editor reverts to the above narrative, beginning
with part A. Part B must now be integral to what follows. Without it
we have no knowledge of why Joshua went to Egypt, or on what basis
Simeon called him back. The message in part C is in a mixture of
Hebrew and Aramaic, as is the rest of the story. Hebrew passages are
in italics. They conform to the rule that discourse between master and
disciple tends to be in Hebrew, narrative material in Aramaic. Parts D,
E, F, G, and H are all a unity. No detail is superfluous; none could have
been comprehensible out of context. No element in the dialogue echoes
86
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N I.i.l
a pre-existing logion, except part I, obviously a subscription, an inde

pendent logion now attached to the foregoing story because of its
thematic relevance. Part I is apt to be the earliest element in the as
semblage. (It is quoted verbatim by Justin Martyr, see W. A. Meeks,
Prophet-King
[Leiden, 1968] p. 56.)
The story cannot in any form date before ca. 100 A.D., and may de
rive from later times. Perhaps parts B and C circulated earlier and sepa
rately, as part of a corpus of traditions on early Pharisees and their lives,
or, in the case of part B, of famous communications between Pharisees.
Sending Joshua to Alexandria probably served a purpose apart from
bringing him back with Jesus; many MSS omit and Jesus in part B. We
may therefore speculate that a pre-existing tradition about Joshua in
Alexandria may have been revised to serve the purpose of the antiChristian polemic. Tos. Maksh. would represent an element of that
tradition. In its current form, the story is smooth and probably the
product of a single hand, perhaps working with elements earlier told
for other purposes.
II. TRADITIONS OF JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH
I.i.l.A. Once (KBR) Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death [one

false] witness [against whom an] alibi [had been established] ( D
ZWMM).
Judah b. Tabbai said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you
did not shed innocent blood, for the Torah said that you may sentence
[a murderer] to death on the evidence of witnesses, and [also] you
may sentence witnesses to death on the basis of an alibi. Just as there
must be two witnesses giving evidence, so also must be two against
whom an alibi is established."
B. And once (WKBR) Judah b. Tabbai entered a ruin and found
a slain man still writhing, and a sword still dripping blood [was]
in [text: from] the hand of the slayer.
Said Judah b. Tabbai to him, "May [evil] come upon me if [it
be] not [true that] either I or you have killed him. However, what
can I do, since the Torah has said, At the mouth of two witnesses ...shall
a matter he established (Deut. 19:15)? But he who knows [all], [even]
master of [the] thoughts [of man], will exact punishment of that
man."
Hardly had he come out [from that place] when a serpent bit him
[that man], and he died.
(Mekhilta Kaspa III, lines 31-41, ed. and trans.
Lauterbach, III, pp. 170-1)
C
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N I.i.l
87
Comment: The pericope is a biographical account, illustrating a point

of law. But the law is not enunciated here. In both instances the irony
is underlined: even though the false witness and the murderer ought to
be punished, the law will not permit it. I do not think the stories are in
tended as a critique of the law, or that they derive from circles holding
a contrary opinion of what the law ought to be.
The setting is a commentary on E x . 23:6-12. No Tannaite tradents
are mentioned in connection with the pericope. Immediately preceding
comes this story (trans. Lauterbach, III, pp. 169-70):
S u p p o s e t h e y see h i m p u r s u i n g his f e l l o w - m a n t o k i l l h i m w i t h a s w o r d in
his h a n d . T h e y say t o h i m , " K n o w y o u t h a t t h e m a n y o u a r e after is a s o n
o f t h e c o v e n a n t , a n d t h e T o r a h h a s said, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed ( G e n . 9 : 6 ) ? "
B u t h e says t o t h e m , "I k n o w a b o u t all t h a t . "
T h e w i t n e s s e s t h e n l o s e s i g h t o f h i m . A f t e r a w h i l e , h o w e v e r , t h e y find
t h e o n e w h o h a d b e e n p u r s u e d slain b u t still w r i t h i n g , a n d b l o o d d r i p p i n g
f r o m t h e s w o r d in t h e h a n d o f t h e p u r s u e r .
I m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e s h o u l d b e d e c l a r e d g u i l t y . B u t it says, A.nd the
innocent and righteous slay thou not.
There follows "Once Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death..." The two

stories look suspiciously alike. What they have in common is, first, the
stock phrase, slain but still writhing, and blood dripping from the hand of the
pursuer.
The point of both stories, second, is that the law contains
anomalies; a murderer cannot always be punished, for circumstantial
evidence is insufficient. But the first story stresses that the murderer
was properly warned and acknowledged the warning, details absent
from the Judah b. Tabbai-version. And the Judah-story adds the detail
that the man actually was punished by Heaven, so one should not be
disturbed at the inability of the earthly court always to carry out justice,
since the heavenly court will take up the slack. It is clear that the stories
are, if separate, interrelated. The Judah-story is more specific and con
crete. Its conclusion is far more satisfactory. It looks as if the generalized
version comes first and has been revised.
The pericope clearly is composite. Part A stands separate from part
B and bears little relation to it, other than the obvious thematic one.
The criticism is Judah b. Tabbai's against Simeon b. Shetah. In all other
versions the situation is reversed. We must therefore suppose either
that a tradition favorable to Judah b. Tabbai circulated, part A, only to
be revised by tradents favorable to Simeon b. Shetah, or the contrary.
Because the roles are reversed, not only here but in discussions on
which of the two men was nasi and which was head of the court, it is
certain that someone has intentionally reversed the names. The Judahgroup's version of the anonymous story comes as part B. Simeon's
version of the miscarriage of justice appears elsewhere, where Simeon
tells Judah he has killed an innocent man, that is, Judah b. Ilai's version,
not Meir's, and the one Judah the Patriarch accepted.
Two separate traditions are now brought together:
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N I.i.l
I. Miscarriage of justice
II. Circumstantial evidence.
Both schools preserved both stories. Judah b. Tabbai's circle gave the
former (part A), as I said, as a criticism of Judah against Simeon, and
presumably added Judah's name in part B in place of the anonymous
version of II. Simeon b. Shetah's school gave the former (I) as Simeon's
critique of Judah. Perhaps the story about circumstantial evidence in
which no one is mentioned comes from them as well. To be sure, the
anonymous story did not necessarily originate among Simeon's stu
dents. Since the Judah-version came later, it may have had no connec
tion at the outset to Simeon. But it surely would have been preserved by
them instead of the Judah-version, so the end-result is not much
changed.
We do not have sufficient evidence on the history of Pharisaic circles,
houses, or schools before Hillel to speculate on why or how these par
ticular materials took shape. Perhaps the two masters did teach disci
ples, and later on the materials were amalgamated in collected tradi
tions of early Pharisees. In the amalgamation the stories of the respec
tive disciple-circles were put together, so that in the end the two men
were represented as having worked together, one as head of the court,
the other as nasi. They were further represented as having headed a
single, united party. But the representation required the preservation
of the traditions of each circle, and we consequently have duplicated
versions of the same "event." This theory presupposes that the stories
are very early, despite the absence of the marks of oral transmission. If
the stories come later onafter 70then they would suggest that the
names of Judah and Simeon proved important to Tannaitic authorities
at Usha, therefore provoking partisan accounts of the early masters.
We may take for granted that part B is of no historical use. Part A
purports to describe a murder trial. The legal issue involved is rules of
testimony affecting such a trial. This represents the first tradition attri
buted by rabbis to early Pharisees in which something other than cultic
rules of purity is at issue. The conduct of murder trials may well have
been in the hands of the high priesthood, however, so we cannot regard
part A as a tradition necessarily pertaining to other than Temple priests.
But, as I said, it is thefirsttradition that does not necessarily derive from
priestly or Temple circles. Still, the law which it contains is not enun
ciated in the usual abstract form, but merely is taken for granted.
Since the story in which the version of Judah b. Tabbai's school ap
pears occurs only in the Ishmaelean collection, one must note that all
the versions in which Simeon b. Shetah predominates derive from
'Aqiban collections. This fact would be of greater consequence, if, in
the case of the former subordinated figures among the pairs, e.g. Yosi
b. Yohanan, Nittai the Arbeb'te, we had similar evidence that stories
favoring the lesser of the figures were preserved in Ishmaelean circles.
We have no such stories, and we can say nothing about the Ishmaelean
attitude toward heads of the court (in later parlance). All we can say is that
the assignment of one of the pairs to be nasi and the other to be head of
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N I.ii.l
89
the court is characteristic of 'Aqiban and post- Aqiban collections. The

one point at which we observe the contraryor a confusion of tradi
tionsis in the sole Ishmaelean tradition. Perhaps the revision and cre
ation of pre-70 history that took place in Yavneh and Usha involved
some sort of partisan debate on the relative value of traditions deriving
from various schools and circles. But most of the materials we have now
come down to us in the form the 'Aqibans gave to them. I cannot think
of what motive Aqibans would have had to downgrade Judah b.
Tabbai-traditions in favor of Simeon b. Shetah ones. But it is a fact that
they did so. In this regard Meir consistently espoused the Mekhiltan
view of Judah b. Tabbai; Judah b. Ilai favored Simeon b. Shetah's
circle's view of matters, so the revisions evidently derive from Usha.
But they cannot be later than that.
Note M. Makkot 1:6, Tos. Sanh. 6:6.
c
I.ii.l. A. And I shall give you rains in their seasonon the evenings of
the Sabbaths [when people stay home].
B. The story is told concerning (M SH B) in the days of Simeon
b. Shetah, in the days of Shelomsu [SLMSW] the queen, that the rains
came down from one Sabbath evening to the next, until the wheat
became like kidneys, the barley like olive-pits, and the lentils like
golden denars.
C. And the sages tied up some of them and set them aside for coming
generations, to make known how much [loss, damage] sin causes, to
fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25), Your iniquities have turned these away,
and your sins have kept good from you.
(Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 1:1, ed. Weiss, p. 110b)
C
Comment: The context is a saying on rain. A story about rain in the

days of Herod immediately precedes, and the two may have formed a
single pericope even at the outset. The form is certainly similar. In both
pericopae the named authorities serve only to provide a date for a mi
raculous event. By this time, "in the days of Simeon b. Shetah" means
simply, "in the good old days," or "a long time ago." Moreover, the
reference to the sages is clearly an anachronism. In the time the peri
cope was shaped, "the sages", not the priests or the government, were
the people likely to take responsibility for preserving examples of the
way things were in the golden past. Furthermore, the assumption that
in Simeon's day, Israel was sinless and therefore enjoyed supernatural
abundance could have been drawn only if no one knew, or cared about,
other facts of that time. Further stories, not in this collection, tell of the
persecution of sages, witchcraft in Ashqelon, and other sins; no one
could have ignored those sins on the part of the Jewish regime and or
dinary folk. So the story comes long after the 'event' and is pure fantasy.
The date is duplicated: BYMY Simeon BYMY Shelomsu. It would
have been sufficient to refer either to Simeon or to Salome, and was un-
90
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N I.ii.2
necessary to mention both. Perhaps Simeon is a gloss, since the context

has Salome and Herod. But I cannot think of the motive in originally
including both sage and queen. Perhaps the story takes for granted
other materials linking Simeon and the queen ("his sister"). The peri
cope otherwise is a unity. No detail could have been left out or circu
lated separately. The point of the story comes at the end, "to make
known how much damage is done by sin," and hence the moral and
accompanying proof-text are integral. The story bears no close rela
tionship to the life and times of Simeon b. Shetah. On the other hand,
since it looks back on his times as especially prosperous, we may imag
ine it could have circulated in circles favorable to the Simeon-tradi
tions.
The omission of Judah b. Tabbai here as elsewhere is not unimpor
tant. It would have been natural for a tradent influenced by lists of the
pairs to say, "In the days of Simeon and Judah," rather than of "SimeonSalome." Under the circumstances it is a striking revision of what ought
to have been the normal formula. Perhaps the story was redacted in
circles in which Judah-traditions either were not favorably treated or
were regarded as unimportant. Since the story cannot derive from the
times of Simeon himself, and probably comes long after Herod's time,
one may suggest that even as late as the second century a tendency
within Pharisaism (Judah b. Ilai's?) persistently favored Simeon and
excluded Judah b. Tabbai from consideration even in routine contexts.
Alternatively, such a circle knew nothing of Simeon's alleged associa
tion with Judah. But this alternative seems possible only if the lists of
the pairs were not widely known or referred to, and that is unlikely.
I.ii.2. A. And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he
is put to death, and you hang him on a tree (Deut. 22:22).
A man is to be hung, but a woman is not to be hung.
B. R. Eliezer says, "Even a woman is to be hung.
C. R. Eliezer said to them, "Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women
in Ashqelon?"
They said to him, "He hung eighty women, and yet [the law is]
one does not judge [even] two [capital] cases on one day, but the
times necessitated teaching through exemplary punishment [and also
as regards to hanging women]."
(Sifre Deut. 221, ed. Friedman, p. 114b, Finkelstein, p. 253)
Comment: This pericope supplies important evidence of the antiquity
of the story of Simeon's hanging in Ashqelon. The story is not told,
merely alluded to. In some form it therefore must have circulated before
ca. 100 A.D. The elements of the story here attested are four: Ashqelon,
hanging, women, and eighty. The fact that they were witches must
come later; the magical side to Simeon's action is utterly absent. As it
JUDAH AND
91
S I M E O N Il.i.l
stands, the above pericope shows that Simeon b. Shetah served to ex

emplify proper legal procedure for sages of Yavneh (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus). No one doubted Simeon supplied a valid precedent, the only issue
being, for what rule?
The classification is a biographical reference to something Simeon
had done. The context is clear as given. Part B has a standard lemma of
Eliezer. Part C duplicates it and is joined to the foregoing by the de
bate-form: the verb >MR is shifted into the past tense, ignoring the
form of the immediately preceding lemma, and the exegesis of part A
is treated as if "they" had "said" it to himhence, theyjsages say is imag
ined before "a man is..."
The colloquy thus is artificial. We have no reason to believe it is a
verbatim report of something once actually said in the school on a par
ticular day. It rather is a formalized account of how Simeon's actions
both served as a precedent and also were justified in Yavnean discourse.
Eliezer's disciples cannot be held responsible for the pericope in its
present form. They would not have left matters with a refutation of
their teacher. Nor in its primitive forme.g. omitting they said to him
could the school of Eliezer have played a part, for their formulation
ought to have read, "Rabbi Eliezer says, Even a woman is to be hung
just as Simeon b. Shetah did." Without a contrary view, the precedent
of the just as clause is superfluous. The whole therefore must derive
from circles that held a view contrary to Eliezer's. In that case, the in
trusion of the reference to Simeon's action serves not to illustrate
Eliezer's sound precedent, but rather the opposite: Some might suppose
Simeon supplies a precedent to the contrary of our opinion, but that is
not the case. So Eliezer's saying (C) comes from the opposition!
If we had a clearer idea as to the opposition to Eliezerwe cannot
routinely supply the names of Joshua, Gamaliel, or Aqibawe might
have grounds for speculating on what circle or group referred to Simeon
in this matter. But at best, as I said, we may merely offer a date for some
elements of the Ashqelon tradition, no later than ca. 1 0 0 A.D.
c
Il.i.l.A. They sound the shofar because of any public distressmay

it never befall. But not because of too great abundance of rain.
B. Once (M SH ) they said to Honi the Circlemaker, "Pray that
rain may fall."
He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they
not be softened."
He prayed, but the rain did not fall.
What did he do? [MS Kaufmann omits.]
He drew a circle and stood within and said, "Lord of the world,
your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of
[the] house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not
stir hence until you have pity on your children."
Rain began falling drop by drop.
C
92
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N II.i.2
He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will
fill] the cisterns, pits, and caverns."
It began to rain with violence.
He said, "Not for such rain I prayed, but for rain of goodwill,
blessing, and graciousness."
Then it rained properly, until the Israelites went up from Jerusalem
to the Temple Mount because of the rain.
They [went to him and] said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to
come, so pray that it may go away!"
He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared."
C. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "If you were not Honi, I should
have pronounced a ban against you! [MS Kaufmann: You need to be
excommunicated.] But what shall I do to you? You importune God
[MS Kaufmann: Before the Omnipotent], and he performs your will,
like a son that importunes his father and he performs his will, and of
you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that
bare thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)."
(M. Ta'anit 3:8, trans. Danby, p. 198)
Comment: The classification of Simeon's saying is a famous apoph
thegm, in which Simeon rebukes the miracle-worker. Clearly, part C is
separate from, and plays no role whatever in, part B. The story of part
B could well have ended with his reply. Simeon's rebuke circulated
separately and probably was an independent pericope, but it was natural
to add Simeon's opinion to this Honi-story.
The criticism of miracle-workers is made by Yohanan b. Zakkai in
much the same terms: The miracle-worker is close to God, but like a
slave (Yohanan) or like a child (Simeon), and not in the way Pharisaism
prefers. But this gives us no grounds for dating the logion attributed to
Simeon. As it stands, part C, excluding the Scriptural proof-text, is not
composite, but a unity of thought and style; nor do we have to suppose
the Scripture was supplied later on. We have no clue as to the school or
master responsible for the final formulation of the pericope. Judah the
Patriarch provides merely the terminus ante quern.
II.L2.A. "A man is hanged with his face to the people, and a woman
with her face towards the gallows," the words of R. Eliezer.
But the sages say, "A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged."
B. R. Eliezer said, "Did not [MS Kaufmann: M'SH B] Simeon b.
Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?"
They said to him, "He hanged eighty women, while two ought
not to be judged in the same day."
(M. Sanh. 6:4, trans. Danby, p. 390)
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N Il.ii.l, 2
93
Comment: See I.ii.2. But Eliezer's opinion now is developed and con
cerns a detail of the hanging, while the sages' saying is unaltered; the
sayings therefore do not match, while in Sifre they are in proper bal
ance. M. Sanh. looks like a development of Sifre, presumably worked
in because the antecedent rule on hanging is debated by the same parties.
11.11.1. They differed only on the laying of hands.
"They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to
lay on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands,
were nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court
(ABWT BYT DYN)," the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi, Judah b. Tabbai [was]
head of the court."
R. Yosi said, "At first there was no dispute in Israel..."
(Tos. Hag. 2:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines
40-44)"
Comment: The above pericope supplies supplementary information
for M. Hag. 2:2. Once again we find Meir and Judah [b. Ilai] dis
puting about the early history of Pharisaism. The motive, if any, for at
tributing to Simeon the position of nasi is unclear to me. I cannot under
stand why either party to the argument could have had an ulterior mo
tive in espousing one position rather than the other. But this makes
matters all the more complex, for we have no ground to conjecture
about what either master had in hand as a tradition from olden times.
The pericope serves merely to supply a valid terminus ante quern for M.
Hag. 2:2. The list in its current form could not have been shaped later
than the middle of the second century; since Meir and Judah refer to it,
it must have been shaped before their day. The Mishnah follows Meir's
view, just as in the case of the red heifers. But Judah's predominates
nearly everywhere else.
As noted, Meir preserves the view that Judah b. Tabbai took prece
dence over Simeon; that view would have approved the earliest version
of the slaying of innocent parties, in which Judah criticizes Simeon's
judicial error. The tradition is classified as a later biographical remark
on Simeon and Judah. The setting is clear: Usha in the second half of
the second century. In its present form the pericope gives no evidence
of being a composite.
11.11.2. At first, when the marriage-contract was kept by the father,
divorcing her was held lightly in his eyes.
Simeon b. Shetah ordained that the marriage-contract be kept by
her husband, and he writes to her, "All the property that I have is liable
and pledged for [ the sum of] your marriage-contract"
(Tos. Ket. 12:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 274,
lines 3-5; Lieberman, p. 95, lines 1-4)
94
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N II.ii.3
Comment: Lieberman calls the above an "intermediate version" of the

decrees of Simeon; in this connection see synoptic studies. The sentence
in italics is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The pericope contains no
evidence permitting the suggestion of a date. Attributing to Simeon
such an ordinance may have been a way of saying, "In very olden
times." We have no idea how the later masters knew of Simeon's rule.
But the present format first... R. So-and-so ordained...is
wellknown, having been used in the formulation of the Yohanan ben Zakkai's decree-materials. The form at first... ordained... makes no sense
here.
A report of a legal decree, the pericope is a unity. No logion is at
tributed to Simeon, nor is the language of his decree preserved, except
for the clause to be introduced into, and probably already known from,
the marriage contract.
We again observe the omission of Judah b. Tabbai. Presumably he
ought to have played a role in issuing such a decree, but his name is
consistently omitted in references to legal materials attributed to the
person or times of Simeon b. Shetah.
II.ii.3.A. R. Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation

if I did not put to death a false witness, in order to uproot from the
heart of the Boethusians [their false opinion]. For they would say,
' [The false witness is not put to death] unless the accused has [first]
been put to death.'"
B. Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if
you have not shed innocent blood, for behold, the Torah said, At
the testimony of two or three witnesses the accused will be put to death (Deut.
17:6)Just as there must be two witnesses, so also the [two] false
witnesses [cannot be punished unless] both [are punished]."
C. At that moment Judah b. Tabbai took upon himself not to teach
law except according to Simeon b. Shetah.
(Tos. Sanh. 6:6, ed Zuckermandel, p. 424,
lines 29-34 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann,
p. 117.)
Comment: We have the reverse of I.i.l. Judah made the error, Simeon
corrected it. A polemical context now has been supplied. In his struggle
with the Boethusians Judah went beyond the measure of the law. In
I.i.l the Boethusians were not mentioned. The version naming them
must come later than the one in which they are absent and the motiva
tion for the false ruling is not explained. The conclusion, part C, now
accords with the view that Simeon was the dominant figure. Judah
agrees never again to rule on law except with Simeon's concurrence. In
the version of Judah's circle no such detail is mentioned, and this too
must have been supplied later on, as a fitting consequence of the judicial
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N II.ii.4
95
miscarriage. That the above is later than Judah b. Tabbai's therefore is

clear.
The story of Judah's criticism of Simeon's judicial error has thus
been turned into an explanation of how Judah subordinated himself to
Simeon and therefore was head of the court, not nasi. Since in this form
it is likely to be later than the version of I.i.l, perhaps Meir's tradition
(if he had 2. tradition) would have antedated Judah b. Ilai's, and, ac
cording to the earliest Pharisaic tradition, Judah b. Tabbai did originally
serve as nasi (see conclusion, p. 141). But in later formulations of the facts,
Judah is removed from office, Simeon put in his place. The traditions
were revised, and an explanation supplied for Simeon's greater authority.
We have no clear information on when such a revision of the facts
took place, or what motivated it. It must come long after the time of
Simeon and Judah, for no one aware of the historical realities would
have believed an account which reversed them. It stands to reason that
some sort of conflict about Simeon's and Judah's respective places in
the Pharisaic hierarchy continued for some time. This could not pos
sibly account for echoes of the dispute even two centuries later. We do
not know what kept such a dispute alive, unless we postulate that the
schools of the two masters continued in existence for a while; or, as I
said, that the later Tannaim created the issue to begin with, perhaps as
an expansion of disagreement about the text of the original chain before
Meir and Judah b. Ilai. M. Makkot 1:6 omits Judah's and Simeon's
dispute.
II.ii.4. Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did
not see a man running after his fellow with a sword in his hand. He
entered before him into a ruin, and the other followed after him, and
I [myself] entered after him. I found him slain, with a sword in the
hand of the murderer, dripping blood.
"I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? May I [not] see
consolation if I do not see it [sic]. You and I[one of us] killed him.
But what shall I do to you? For your case is not given into my hands,
for lo, the Torah has said, By the testimony of two witnesses or three will
the accused man he put to death (Deut. 17:6). But the One who knows [all]
thoughts will exact punishment from that man."
He did not move from there before a serpent bit him, and he died.
(Tos. Sanh. 8:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427,
lines 19-24 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann,
p. 120)
Comment:
Now Simeon takes Judah's place. The Toseftan stories
persistently give the Simeon-circle's view of things, that is, Judah b.
Ilai's. Meir's is in the Mishnah, as one would expect. The setting is
identical to the Mekhilta's: the generalized account followed by the
later one specifying a hero.
96
JUDAH AND
SIMEON IV.i.l
III.i.1.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "May one who ate [only] vegetables

bless?"...
B. TNY: Three hundred Naîrites came up [to Jerusalem] in the days
of RSimeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for
absolution, andfor one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for absolu
tion.
C. He came to Yannai the King.
He said to him, "There are here three hundred Nazirites who require
nine hundred offerings. But ('L') you give half from your [property],
and I shall give half from mine."
He sent him four hundred fifty [sacrifices].
An evil tongue [rumor] came and said to him, "He gave nothing of
his own."
D. Yannai the King heard and was angered. Simeon b. Shetah
was frightened and fled.
E. After [some] days important men came up from the Kingdom
of Persia to Yannai the King. When they were sitting and eating,
they said to him, "We recall that there was here a certain old man
who said before us words of wisdom. Let him teach us something
(<WBD>)."
They said to him, "Send and bring him."
F. He sent and gave him his word, and he came. He seated him
[self] between the king and queen.
G. He said to him, "Why did you deceive me?"
He said to him, "I did not deceive you. You [gave] of your money
and I [gave] of my light [Torah], as it is written (Qoh. 7: 12), For
wisdom is a defense even as money is a defense"
H. He said to him, "Why did you flee?"
He said to him, "I heard that my lord was angry against me, and
I wanted to carry out this Scripture, Hide yourself for a little moment,
until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)."
And he [Yannai] cited concerning him [the following Scripture]:
The advantage of knowledge of wisdom will give life to those that possess it
(Qoh. 7:12).
I. He [Yannai] said to him, "And why did you sit down between
the king and queen?"
He [Simeon] said to him, "In the Book of Ben Sira it is written
(Ben Sira 11:1), Esteem her, so she shall exalt you and seat you between
princes."
J . He [Yannai] said, "Give him the cup so that he may bless."
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.1
97
He [Simeon] took the cup and said, "Let us bless the food which
Yannai and his companions have eaten"
He said to him, "Are you stubborn even to such an extent?"
He said to him, "What shall we say, 'For the food which we have not
eaten'?"
He said, "Give him something to eat." They gave him, and he ate
and said, "Let us bless the food which we have eaten"
(y. Ber. 7:2, repr. Gilead, p. 53b-54a = y.
Nazir 5:3, repr. Gilead p. 23b)
Comment: The opening beraita, in rabbinic Hebrew (italics), does not
merely summarize the rest or serve as a brief mnemonic device. It is the
first sentence of the story. Yet the story is not told in the same language.
What seems likely, therefore, is that the opening sentence has been
translated into Hebrew for the purpose of setting the story into beraitaform (TNY), while the rest has been allowed to stand.
The pericope provides a veritable repertoire, or massekhet, of Simeon/
Yannai stories. The setting is a discussion of rules of saying grace, hence
the reference point is part J. R. Jeremiah supplies merely a terminus ante
quern; we have no reason to suppose the pericope is not older than the
fourth century A.D., when it was cited whole and complete.
As to Simeon the Just, so to Simeon b. Shetah is attributed special
interest in Nazirites. He inferentially is an important priest, but not high
priest.
The pericope is a biographical narrative. Its setting in late Amoraic
times can, as I said, prove little about when it was first composed. I do
not think R. Jeremiah or others invented it to serve the purpose of the
argument. It now is cited as a well-known incident.
The pericope obviously is composite. Thefirstpart (B-D) concerns the
sage's ability to hoodwink the king. It ends with Simeon's escape. The
second story, parts E-F, does not depend upon the content of the first.
The fact that Simeon was not present, but was remembered by the
distinguished visitors from abroad, would have been sufficient. The
third element, part F, now quite ignores the earlier setting. It is a brief
allusion to Simeon's role at court. He sat between the king and the
queen. Then parts G, H, and I serve to explain the foregoing stories
and bring them into relationship with one another. Simeon fled to avoid
momentary wrath, and his wisdom served him well. He sat between the
monarchs, because of his wisdom. His wisdom saved him money. In all
three instances odd aspects of Simeon's behavior are traced back to his
knowledge of Torah. I imagine that the details of his behavior survived
for a time before the reasons were supplied by "his Torah." It seems to
me likely that stories about Simeon indeed circulated separately, only
later on to be brought together and supplied with this single explana
tion. Then part J follows, a separate pericope tacked on to the foregoing
collection. Simeon's cleverness made it necessary for the king to inN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.1
elude him in the royal meal, not merely to use him as a ritual expert.
Underlying the whole is the standard Pharisaic polemic, spelled out
in the Scriptural citations, that wisdom raises a person to the heights
and secures for him both wealth and glory. The king is ignorant and
easily fooled. Really, the sage should rule. Without that polemic the
stories serve as disjointed echoes of a great Pharisaic master and his rela
tionships to the thronehe cheated the king of his sacrifices, made a
profound impression on foreign dignitaries, sat between the king and
the queen, and said a blessing over the royal meal. I therefore suppose,
as I said, that the stories originally circulated separately, and only later
were brought together and given form and meaning. The hand of the
editor is most clearly revealed in parts G, H, and I. Without that collo
quy, the stories, though juxtaposed, would still have little if anything
to do with one another. With it they are united and make a standard
point.
As to the historical facts, nothing in Josephus's account of Alexander
Jannaeus prepares us for a picture of the king's cordial treatment of the
Pharisaic leader. On the contrary, only when he died did he (allegedly)
counsel reconciliation with the party. Before that time he struggled
with them and slaughtered many of them, probably because he rightly
thought they were traitors to the state and throne.
It is difficult to isolate elements in the stories that exhibit a mnemonic
pattern. Part D is balanced, two verbs for each clause, plus the names
of the heroes. Perhaps you give half and I give half would have been a fixed
phrase, though this is less clear. Along the same lines, the division of
the three hundred into halves would have been simple, had the original
oral lemma consisted of three hundred Naîrites, with the rest spelled out
later on. I see nothing in part E of the same order. Parts G, H, and I
center upon Scriptures, and the heart of the tradition may have con
sisted of the association of those Scriptures with Simeon. Part J , by
contrast, gives us severalfixedphrases, let us bless... which Yannai/which
we have not I which we have... eaten. These all are clearly plays on let us bless
the food which we have eaten, and it looks as though variations on that
phrase lie at the foundation of the little fable. But apart from these brief
lemmas and key words, the stories are fully articulated and exhibit no
marks that they were transmitted in formulae or fixed forms. The
Houses-materials exhibit a striking contrast, for the rigid adherence to
a single form, the highly disciplined articulation of the form in terms
of balanced phrases, syzygous predicates, and the like are absent here.
If the Houses-materials provide a sound model for how mnemonic tra
ditions were finally written down and developed, then the Simeonstories and many others considered in this part of our study must be
regarded as having a quite different literary history. The tradents may
have handed down various sorts of fables, as in the reference of Eliezer
b. Hyrcanus to Simeon's hanging witches in Ashqelon, but the redac
tors who developed those traditions had before them little more than a
theme and perhaps a story-line, which they developed according to their
own imagination of how things must have been. But the tradition in
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.2, 3
99
this sort of material could not have consisted of carefully redacted

forms, formulae, and lemmas.
III.i.2. We learned there (TMN TNYNN): Simeon b. Shetah sent
to him. He said to him, "You ought (SRYK) to be excommunicated,
for if a decree were issued, as it was issued in the days of Elijah,
would you not be found leading the public to the profanation of the
name? For whoever leads the public to the profanation of the name
requires excommunication."
(y. M.Q. 3:1, repr. Gilead, p. 10b [See y. Ta.
3:10])
Comment: The referent of we learned there is y. Ta. 3:10. Immediately
after Simeon's rebuke, ending with the citation of Prov. 23, in the
gemara follows the above pericope, without the introduction TMN
TNYNN. Otherwise it is identical. The recipient of Simeon's message
thus can only be Honi.
The setting is stories about messages sent by various sages to recal
citrants. The connection is chiefly in theme, in small measure in form,
for some begin if you were not, just as in M. Ta. 3:8. But if the rebuke to
Honi circulated independently, the above is not evidence of that fact. It
is not the message cited in the Mishnah at all, rather an extension of it,
therefore a secondary development.
The category is an attribution of a saying to Simeon in the context of
the story about another figure entirely. Simeon in the full version is not
the center of things at all. The reference to the days of Elijah derives
from Honi's rainmaking.
III.i.3.A. We have learned (>NN TNYNN):
Judah b. Tabbai was nasi. Simeon b. Shetah was head of the
court. Some teach it vice versa (>YT TNYY TNY WMHLP).
He who says Judah b. Tabbai was nasi finds support in the incident
of Alexandria.
III.i.3.B.a. The men of Jerusalem wanted to appoint Judah b.
Tabbai as nasi in Jerusalem. He fled and went to Alexandria. The
men of Jerusalem would write, "From Jerusalem, the great, to Alexandria,
the small: How long will my betrothed dwell with you, while I am widow
( GWMH) on his account?"
b. He departed, coming in a boat.
He said, "Do you remember what the mistress of the house who
received us lacked?"
One of his disciples said to him, "Rabbi, her eye was blinking."
He said to him, "Lo, two [sins] are against you: one that you
suspected me [of looking at her], and one that you looked at her. Did
C
100
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.3
I say that her appearance was handsome of sight ? I only said [handsome]
in [her] deed[s]!"
He was angry with him, and he went away.
III.i.3.C. He who says Simeon b. Shetah was Nasi gains support in
the incident of Ashqelon.
a. There were two pious men (H$YDYN) in Ashqelon, who would
eat in common, drink in common, and toil in the Light [study Torah]
in common. One of them died, and he was not properly mourned
[lit.: an act of mercy was not paid to him]. But when a villager [lit.:
son of the town], a tax-collector, died, the whole town took time off
to mourn him (GML H$D).
That [remaining] pious man began to be troubled, saying, "Woe,
for the enemies of Israel [ = Israel] have nothing!"
He appeared to him in a dream and said to him, "Do not despise
the sons of your Lord. This one did one sin, and the other one did
one good deed, and it went well for him [so on earth, while I was
being punished for my sin, he was rewarded for his good deed]."
[The account now proceeds to specify what sin the pious man had
done, and what good deed the tax-collector had done.]
After [a few] days, that pious man saw his fellow walking in the
midst of (GW) gardens, in the midst of orchards, in the midst of
fountains of water. He saw the village tax-collector [with] his tongue
hanging out by a river. He wanted to reach the water, and he [could]
not reach [it].
b. He saw Miriam the daughter of LY BSLYM (?) [Jastrow: the
leek-like sprouts of onions.]
Rabbi Le'azar b. R. Yosa said, "[She was] hanging from the nipples
of the breasts. "
Rabbi Yosi b. Hanina said, "The pin of the gate of Gehenna was
fastened to her ear."
He said to them, "Why is this so?"
They said to him, "Because she fasted and would publicize [her
good deed]."
Some say, "She would fast one day and claim she had fasted two
days."
c. He said to them, "How long will it be thus?"
They said to him, "Until Simeon b. Shetah will come, and we shall
remove it from her ear and set it in his ear."
He said to him, "Why?"
He said to him, "Because he said, If I am made Nasi, I shall kill
C
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.3
101
the witches, and lo, he has been made Nasi and has not killed the witches.
Lo, there are eighty [female] witches in a cave of Ashqelon, doing
destruction [to] the world. So go and tell him."
He said to them, "I am afraid, for he is the Nasi and will not believe
^
99
me.
He said to him, "If he believes you, well and good, but if not, do
this as your sign before him. Put your hand on your eye and remove
it and return it, and it will return."
He went and reported to him the incident. He wanted to do the
sign before him, but he would not allow him to do so.
He [Simeon] said to him, " I know that you are a pious man. More
than this are you able to do. Moreover, I did not say publicly [that
I would uproot witchcraft], but only thought it in my heart."
d. Forthwith Simeon b. Shetah arose in a severe rainstorm. He took
with him eighty young men. He put in their hands eighty clean gar
ments. He put them into new pots, and put on the(ir) covers [of the
pots].
He said to them, "When I whistle once, put on your garments.
When I whistle a second time, all of you come out at once. When
you arise, let each one of you embrace one [of the witches] and
raise her off the ground, for the practice of that witchcraft does not work
if you raise [the witch] off the ground."
He went and stood before the mouth of the cave. He said, "Hello,
hello, CWYYM >WYYM) open to me, for I am one of yours."
They said to him, "How did you come on such a day?"
He said to them, "I walked between the rain-drops."
They said to him, "And what did you come here to do?"
He said to them, "To study and to teach. Let each one do something
of wisdom."
One of them said what she said and brought bread.
One of them said what she said and brought meat.
One of them said what she said and brought vegetables.
One of them said what she said and brought wine.
They said to him, "What can you do?"
He said to them, "I can whistle twice and bring up for you eighty
young men. They will have pleasure with you and give you pleasure."
They said to him, "That is what we want."
He whistled once, and they put on their garments. He whistled a
second time, and they all came up at once.
He said, "Whoever wants, let him choose his partner."
102
J U D A H A N D S I M E O N III.i.3
They lifted them up and went and crucified them.

e. This is what we have learned (TNYNN): The story is told concerning
(M'SH B) Simeon b. Shetah that he hung women in Ashqelon. They say he
hung eighty women. While one does notjudge two [capital cases] on the same
day, the hour required it.
(y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead p. lla-b = y. Sanh.
6:6, repr. Gilead p. 28b-29a)
Comment: The pericope before us unites several discrete stories, and
these are composites of other stories. III.i.3.A is a rendition of the dis
pute between Judah b. Ilai and Meir, but the names of the Tannaitic
masters are dropped. That does not mean the pericope is earlier. In fact
it is a quite different formulation of the Meir-Judah dispute.
III.i.3.B is a composite of two stories. The first (a) is the account of
Judah's flight to Alexandria. The second (b) has to do with the es
trangement of his disciple, an echo of the story of Jesus and Joshua b.
Perahiah. The italicized words in III.i.3.B.a are in Hebrew, and the
probability is that this logion was the kernel of a storybut not this
one! It is assigned to Joshua b. Perahiah as well (p. 83). III.i.3.B.b is an
abbreviated version of the remainder of the Joshua-story. It is pointless
without the details supplied there. Hence the whole Judah-pericope (b)
comes later than, and depends upon, the Joshua-parallel.
III.i.3.C is a strange and difficult pericope. Thefirstelement, III.i.3.C.a
stands completely apart from the rest, and has been clumsily tacked on
by combining the second dream of the pious man with a reference to
Miriam. The long discussion, which I have not translated, of the sins of
the pious man and the tax collector is a further augmentation of part a.
Then comes another, and separate story. The pious man now fades out,
having supplied the connection to the new material. Here the chief fig
ure is Miriam, the meaning of whose father's name (if that is what is
intended) escapes me. Here we have some evidence for a terminus ante
quern, since Yosi b. Hanina was a Palestinian Amora of the middle third
century and a disciple of Yohanan b. Nappaha. But the date pertains
only to the Miriam-story.
Then comes a clumsy transition, in which Simeon b. Shetah, formerly
absent from both stories, is introduced. III.i.3.C.c still is not a unity.
The pious man now returns and is told to warn Simeon that he is des
tined for Gehenna. The pious man is given a sign to demonstrate to
Simeon, but Simeon does not require it. The transition to Simeon ends
here. Since Simeon is Nasi, the story presumably comes after Judah b.
Ilai.
Finally comes the story of Simeon's execution of the witches,
III.i.3.C.d. The story certainly stands entirely by itself, tacked on to the
foregoing but, intrinsically unrelated to it. It surely circulated alone.
Here Simeon is represented as a master of witchcraft, which illustrates
R. Yohanan b. Nappaha's rule that one could not be appointed to the
Sanhedrin unless he was a master of magic. The story therefore con-
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.i.4, III.ii.1
103
forms to the conceptions of Yohanan b. Nappaha and his circle. But it

would be farfetched to suggest on that flimsy basis that Yohanan b.
Nappaha's circle fabricated the story.
The exchange with the witches in the older of the two versions, y.
Hag., is surely a single, unitary account. The denouement is extremely
brief, in fact too rapid. The concluding element, III.i.3.C.e, therefore
"explains" the whole story, now in Hebrew. Without it, we should have
no clear notion as to what has just now taken place or why. The likeli
hood is, therefore, that the earliest element in the repertoire is III.i.3.C.e,
that is, the version of the Sifre, with the rest following in stages. But
the foregoing tale says nothing about hanging witchesso III.i.3.C.e is
hardly an appropriate subscription! It has the eighty and Ashqelon, but
lacks the element crucial here: witches.
The whole pericope may be classified as a biographical narrative.
The setting must be third-century Palestine.
III.i.4. TNY: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, [jurisdic
tion over] capital crimes was removed [from Jewish courts in Palesti
ne].
And in the days of Simeon b. Shetah [jurisdiction over] cases of
property-litigation (DYNY MMWNWT) was removed (NTL).
(y. Sanh. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. lb)
Comment: The setting of the pericope bears no relationship to its con
tent. Immediately preceding is a saying of how R. Aqiba would open
his court proceedings, then the above, followed by a saying of Simeon
b. Yohai, then Samuel. The whole is simply an unconnected collection
of sayings pertinent to the Mishnah.
The pericope itself is of a familiar sort: in the days of Simeon such-andso happened. As in I.ii.l Simeon figures as an ancient hero.
It is a curious tradition. The Tannaim had substantial materials on
the judgment of dyny mmwnwt in Temple times, e.g. M. Ket. 13:1-2, to
mention just one among many sayings and case-reports. Certainly, no
one maintained Pharisaic courts had lost the right to judge property
cases. Nor is there a tradition that the days of Simeon were so evil a
period as the forty years before the destruction. So both the meaning
and intent of the pericope are unclear to me.
c
III.ii.1.A. DTNN: Simeon b. Shetah sent to Honi the Circler, "You

need to be excommunicated, and if you were not Honi, I should
decree excommunication against you, but what shall I do? For you
appease the Omnipresent, and he does your will, like a son who ap
peases his father, and he does his will, and concerning you Scripture
says, Your father and mother will rejoice, and she who bore you will be joyful
(Prov. 23:25)."
B. R. Joseph learned (TNY): Thaddeus of Rome accustomed the
104
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.ii.2
Romans to eat kids roasted whole on the eve of Passover. Simeon b.

Shetah sent to him and said, "Were you not Thaddeus, I should decree
excommunication against you, because you make Israel eat holy things
outside the precincts [of the Temple]."
(b. Ber. 19a)
In y. M.Q. 3:1 the passage is as follows:
TNY: R. Yosi said, "Thaddeus of Rome... Passover" [as above].
The sages sent to him, "Were you not Thaddeus, we should decree
excommunication against you."
Apparently R. Joseph's tradition has been contaminated by the fore
going pericope about Simeon b. Shetah, presumably because of the
were you not formula. On the other hand, it is possible that Joseph's tra
dition is simply a late version of that in y. M.Q. 3:1, in which now are
supplied not only the name of Simeon b. Shetah, but also the reason for
his condemning Thaddeus's action.
The earlier pericope clearly refers to M. Ta. 3:8 (b. Ta. 19a) and here
has been cited separately. It would not support my contention that
Simeon's message to Honi was not integral to the earlier story. Here
we are not told what Honi had done to warrant Simeon's rebuke; there
we are told what Honi did, but Simeon's rebuke is not integral to the
story. But the point is obvious, since the intent is merely to refer to the
Mishnah.
The setting is a list of decrees of excommunication on account of in
sults to teachers. Joshua b. Levi states that twenty-four such incidents
are mentioned in the Mishnah. That does not help us to investigate the
background of the pericope, for Joshua simply refers to existing ma
terials. The Mishnah remains the terminus ante quern for the pericopae,
both separately and together.
Comment:
III.ii.2. TNY": Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan

of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on
glassware.
Simeon b. Shetah ordained the marriage-contract for the wife and
decreed uncleanness on metalware.
Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands.
b. Shab. 14b (also cited in b. Shab. 15a)
Comment: The chain of tradition, which we have seen earlier, here in
cludes one of the ordinances (TQNWT) of Simeon, and a decree
(GZRH) as well. It suffices to note that the beraita does not explain what
Simeon had done about the marriage-contract and omits reference to
establishing schools for children's education. As to the former, other
traditions supply a full account of Simeon's ordinance, as well as the
reasons for it. The list is abbreviated and for all practical purposes
serves simply as a summary or set of brief allusions.
JUDAH AND
105
III.ii.3.A. TNW RBNN: "Three of the first pairs who said not
to lay on hands, and two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands
were nasis, and those second to them were heads of the court," the
words of R. Meir.
The sages say, "Judah b. Tabbai was head of the court, and Simeon
b. Shetah was nasi"
Who is the Tannaitic authority for the following teaching of the
rabbis (DTNW RBNN):
(b. Hag. 16b)
B. Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation if I
did not kill a false witness, to remove from the heart of the Sadducees
[a false opinion], for they would say false witnesses are not put to
death unless the accused has been executed."
Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you
have not shed innocent blood, for lo, the sages have said false witnesses
are not put to death until both of them are proved perj urers (Z WMM YM),
nor are they flagellated until both are proved perjurers, nor are they
fined [Lit.: do they pay money] until both are proved perjurers."
Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to teach law except
in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah.
C. All the [remaining] days of Judah b. Tabbai he would prostrate
himself on the grave of the slain man, and his voice would be heard
[from afar].
The people thought it was the voice of the slain man.
He said to them, "It is my voice. You will know this on the morrow
when he [I] dies, and his [my] voice is no longer heard."
(b. Hag. 16b = b. Mak. 5b = y. Sanh. 6:3,
repr. Gilead p. 28a)
Comment: Variations in the several versions will be listed in the syn
optic comparison below.
The sages replace Judah in part A. The legal problem is now the pun
ishment, not the number, of false witnesses. Only after the decree of
the court has been carried out are the perjurers liable.
In b. Hag. 16b the above serves as a comment on M. Hag. 2:2. Noth
ing intervenes, and the attribution of the beraita reveals no Amoraic in
fluence. Part B follows in b. Hag. 16b, and recurs in b. Mak. 5b and y.
Sanh. 6:3. But b. Mak. 5b and y. Sanh. 6:3 omit part A.
In b. Mak. 5b, part B illustrates a discussion of perjured witnesses
and their punishment. The discussion both before and afterward is
anonymous. Immediately following in both b. Mak. and b. Hag., R.
Aha b. Rava comments to R. Ashi about the content of the beraita, but
106
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N III.ii.4, 5
the story clearly is at least two centuries older. Part B is cited in b. Hag.
as an existing beraita, which certainly circulated separately from part A,
as we have already seen. In b. Hag., immediately following the whole
pericope is a new Mishnah. There is no further Amoraic discussion,
apart from the remark of R. Aha mentioned above. Part C is the latest
development, a usual addition in the
beraita-stt&tum.
III.ii.4. ...We find that in the days of Simeon b. Shetah the rains
came down for them on the eve of Wednesdays and Sabbaths until
the wheat came up like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and lentils
like gold denars. They tied some of them together as an example
(DWGM>) for the [future] generations, to teach how much [damage]
sin causes, as it is said, Your sins have caused these things, andjour trans
gressions have withheld the good (Jer. 5:25).
So too we find in connection with Herod when they were engaged
in the building of the holy house that rains would come [etc.].
(b. Ta'anit 23a)
Comment: The context is an exegesis of Lev. 26:4, about rain "in its
season." It is here part of a beraita. No authorities are mentioned. The
whole is an anonymous narrative. Shelomsu is dropped. See I.ii.l.
IILii.5.A. Rav Judah said, "At first they would write for the virgin
two hundred [zu%] and for the widow a maneh [one hundred], so
[men] would grow old and not take wives, until Simeon b. Shetah
came and ordained 'All his property is liable [for the payment of]
her marriage-contract.' "
B. It was likewise taught in a beraita (TNY ):
At first they would write for the virgin two hundred i^ K) d f
the widow a maneh, and they would grow old and not take wives.
They decreed that they should leave it in the house of her father.
But still, when he grew angry against her, he would say to her, "Go
to your marriage-contract."
They ordained that they should leave it in her father's house. But
still, when he grew angry at her, he would say to her, "Go to your
marriage-contract."
They ordained that they should leave it in her father-in-law's house.
The rich girls would make it into baskets of silver and gold, and the
poor ones would make it of mud and urine.
But still, when he would grow angry against her, he would say
to her, "Take your marriage-contract and go."
Then ( = until, T) S) Simeon b. Shetah came and decreed that he
J
a n
JUDAH AND
107
should write to her, "All my property is liable [for the payment of]
her marriage-contract."
(b. Ket. 82b)
Comment: Rav Judah's tradition is not the same as the beraita,
for it
omits the intermediate stages leading to Simeon's decree. For our pur
poses, however, Rav Judah provides a terminus ante quern for the tradi
tion about Simeon, for the language of Rav Judah and that of the
beraita are nearly identical:
Judah:
Beraita:
U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d , A l l h i s p r o p e r t y is liable
for her marriage-contract.
U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d that he should write to her,
A l l my p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her [sic] m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t .
The major difference therefore is that the beraita presents Simeon's ordi
nance in the form of a clause in the marriage-contract itself. The beraita
further shifts the whole into direct discourse, but fails to do a complete
job of it, leaving her instead of the expected your. To be sure, the state
of MS evidence is insufficient to build much of a case on any given
reading, and MSS variants are not available to me. Tos. Ket. 12:1 reads
jour,
but there are sufficient differences so that we certainly cannot
maintain the beraita is a copy, imperfect to be sure, of the Toseftan ver
sion.
Simeon again serves as a convenient name on which to hang a
change in the marriage-contract, believed to have taken place long ago.
The language, nonetheless, is a direct attribution: he ordained that one
should do so-and-so. Hence the pericope should be classified as a legal
saying, not as biographical narrative. The context is supplied by the
saying of Rav Judah, in late third-century Pumbedita. The Simeon-part
of the pericope is a unified narrative; what is important for our purpose
is that Simeon's saying is a brief lemma.
The legal problems are of no interest here. See David Weiss Halivni,
Meqorot, pp. 225-6, for a valuable analysis.
III.ii.6.A. Abbaye said, "How do I know it [re the silence of a
husband in a case in which the wife is charged with committing
adultery by one witness only, that the husband must divorce the wife
if he remains silent] ?"
B. DTNY>: The story is told that (M<SH B) Yannai the King went
to Kohalit in the wilderness and there conquered sixty towns. When
he returned, he rejoiced greatly, and invited (QR*) all the sages of
Israel.
He said to them, "Our forefathers would eat salt fish when they
were engaged in the building of the Holy House. Let us also eat salt
fish as a memorial to our forefathers."
So they brought up salt fish on golden tables, and they ate.
108
JUDAH AND
C. There was there a certain scoffer, evil-hearted and empty headed,

and Eleazar ben Po'irah was his name.
Eleazar b. Po'irah said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai, the
hearts of the Pharisees are [set] against you."
"What shall I do?"
"Test (HQM) them by the plate (SYS) that is between your eyes."
He tested them by the plate that was between his eyes.
D. There was there a certain sage, and Judah b. Gedidiah was his
name. Judah b. Gedidiah said to Yannai the King, "O King Yannai,
Let suffice for you the crown of sovereignty [kingship]. Leave the
crown of the [high] priesthood for the seed of Aaron."
For people said that his [Yannai's] mother had been taken captive
in Modi im. The charge was investigated and not found [sustained].
The sages of Israel departed in anger.
E. Eleazar b. Po'irah then said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai,
That is the law [not here specified as the punishment inflicted on Judah]
even for the ordinary folk in Israel. But you are king and high priest
should that be your law too?"
"What should I do?"
"If you take my advice, you will trample them down."
"But what will become of the Torah?"
"Lo, it is rolled up and lying in the corner. Whoever wants to
learn, let him come and learn."
(R. Nahman b. Isaac said, "Forthwith Epicureanism [>PYQWR$WT]
was instilled in him [Yannai], for he should have said, 'That is well and
good for the Written Torah, but what will become of the Oral Torah? ")
F. The evil blossomed through Eleazar b. Po'irah. All the sages
of Israel were killed.
The world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored
the Torah to its place.
(b. Qid. 66a)
c
Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.

Simeon's place in the pericope is certainly peripheral. It is as if a wellknown event is referred to at the end: Simeon b. Shetah made peace be
tween the Pharisees and Yannai (or he overcame Yannai). But we do
not know what actually is attributed to Simeon, for what he said or did
is left unexplained.
A persistent tradition on a falling out between the Pharisees and
Alexander Jannaeus evidently circulated in later times. One form of
that tradition placed the origin of the whole difficulty at the feet of
Simeon b. Shetah himself, holding that the king believed he had been
J U D A H A N D S I M E O N III.ii.7, 8
109
cheated; therefore Simeon fled for a time but later on returned. A se

cond, and different, set of traditions, of which the above is one exemplum, held that difficulties between Yannai and the Pharisees ("rabbis")
as a group led to the flight of many of them, including Judah b. Tabbai
and/or Joshua b. Perahiah to Alexandria. Simeon managed to patch
things upwe do not know howand therefore summoned the refu
gees to return. But the two traditions cannot be reconciled or trans
lated into historical language, nor can we profitably speculate on what
'kernel' of historical truth underlay either or both of them. All we do
know is that Simeon b. Shetah was believed to have played a role in
either the difficulty, or the reconciliation, or both.
We may classify the brief reference at the end with similar materials
in which Simeon supplies either a date (in the days of) or the name of an
honored ancient authority to whom to attribute a hoary law (marriagecontract ordinance: until Simeon came and ordained). In fact Simeon has no
part at all in the story and is not mentioned until the very end. Whatever
important role he played either in the party or at court did not suffice to
give him influence over the course of events. This cannot be regarded
as a biographical narrative. His role here in providing a date for the end
of the persecution is not much different from his place in the story of
how much it had rained "in the good old days."
Abbaye supplies the setting for the citationfourth-century Pum
bedita. Josephus's version is given below, pp. 173-176.
111.11.7. TNY': Rabbi Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see
consolation, if I did not see a man who ran after his fellow into a
ruin, and I ran after him, and I saw a sword in his hand, and his blood
was dripping, and the slain man was writhing.
"I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? Either I or you !
But what shall I do, for your blood is not given into my hands, for lo,
the Torah has said, At the testimony of two witnesses will the condemned
he put to death (Deut. 17:6). He who knows thoughts will exact
vengeance from that man who slew his fellow.'"
They say they did not move from there before a serpent came
and bit him and he died.
(b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a = y. Sanh. 4 : 9,
repr. Gilead, p. 23b)
Comment:
See I.i.l.
111.11.8. TNY*: R. Judah b. Dosetai says in the name of R. Simeon

b. Shetah, "If a fugitive from Palestine fled abroad, his sentence is
not set aside; if from abroad to Palestine, his sentence is set aside,
on account of Palestine's prerogative."
(b. Mak. 7a)
110
JUDAH AND
SIMEON IV.i.1,2
Comment: Tos. Sanh. 3:11 omits reference to Simeon, as do many

MSS of the above. I cannot explain why some MSS would have attrib
uted the saying to Simeon.
IV.i.l. R. Ze'ira bar Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah, "Yosef

b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed
uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware."
Rabbi Yonah said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai."
R. Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
uncleanness on metalware.
"Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the purity of hands."
(y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a = y. Pes.
1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b)
Comment: In III.ii.2, b. Shab. 14b, the decree is credited to Simeon
alone. For further comment, see synoptic studies. The classification is
a form of the chain of tradition. The context is fourth-century Palestin
ian Amoraic, but the tradition must be considerably earlier than R.
Jeremiah.
IV.i.2.A. Simeon b. Shetah ordained three things:

(1) That a man may do business with the marriage-contract of his
wife;
(2) and that children should go to school;
(3) and he ordained uncleanness (TWM'H) for glassware.
B. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna say in the name of R. Jeremiah,
"Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed
uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware."
R. Yosi in the name of R. Judah b. Tabbai [sic].
R. Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed
concerning metalware, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the
purity of hands."
(y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b)
Comment: The list of Simeon's decrees now is challenged, for, as we
observed, the decree on metalware was credited to both Simeon and
Judah b. Tabbai. Clearly, the tradition was in a state of confusion. Yet
the basis for the confusion here lies before us: The desire to list the
decrees or ordinances of Simeon alone. Since no one disputed that
Simeon had a role in the third item on the list, it was included to his
credit. Immediately following, therefore, comes the inquiry as to why
Judah has been omitted. The inquiry is identical to R. Yosi's saying in
y. Shab. 1:4 = y. Pes. 1:6, but with this difference: there R. Yonah is
represented as saying "Judah b. Tabbai." If the text is an accurate rep-
J U D A H A N D S I M E O N IV.i.3, 4
111
resentation of the tradition attributed to him, then we may suppose he

went on to say that Judah b. Tabbai comes next on the list, and is cred
ited with a decree on glassware. Then R. Yosi corrected the tradition by
saying both ancients were responsible. Here, by contrast, R. Yosi's say
ing recurs, but R. Yonah is cited. Perhaps the text or tradition before
us is garbled.
Part A is classified as a record of Simeon's legal ordinances. The con
text in y. Ket. 8:11 is a discussion of the language of the marriage-con
tract. The antecedent materials are similar to those in the Babylonian
version. No authorities are mentioned; the whole probably is of Tan
naitic origin.
As to the list in part A, we may be certain that no. 3 is borrowed
from other versions, for we have seen the formulation in precisely this
language in b. Shab. 14b. The reference to the schools is unique. It ac
tually belongs to Joshua b. Gamala. The content of no. 1 is not what
we should have expected on the basis of earlier formulations. Indeed,
this is not what Simeon ordained at all. At best it may be a separate tra
dition, at worst a garbled summary. The list is a composite; we do not
know who compiled it, but he could not have known either the beraita
or Rav Judah's saying in b. Ket. 82a.
IV.i.3. The hands of Simeon b. Shetah were heated [Jastrow, I,
p. 476: "He was very severe in executing judgment."]
A conspiracy of scoffers came, saying, "Take counsel. Let us testify
against his son and kill him."
They gave testimony against him, and his judgment was entered,
to be put to death.
When he went forth to be executed, they said to him, "My lord,
we are liars."
His father wanted to bring him back.
He said to him, "Father, if you seek to bring salvation by your hand,
make me as the threshold" [Jastrow: "Make me the threshold for
the Law to pass over me"].
(y. Sanh. 6:3, repr. Gilead p. 28a)
Comment:
See III.i.3, to which the above is a curious supplement.
IV.i.4. Simeon b. Shetah was employed in flax [to support himself].

His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, remove [this work] from yourself,
and we shall buy for you an ass, and you will not have to work so
much."
They went and brought him an ass from a Saracen. Hanging on it
was a pearl.
They came to him and told him, "From now on you do not have to
work any more."
112
J U D A H A N D SIMEON IV.ii.l
He said to them, "Why?"

They told him, "We bought you an ass from a Saracen, and hanging
on it was a pearl."
He said to them, "Did its master know about i t ? "
They said to him, "No."
He said to them, "Go, return it."
(y. B.M. 2:5, repr. Gilead p. 8a)
Comment: This biographical fable is told anonymously. A legal teach
ing is cited as having been stated before Judah the Patriarch, but the
narrator, or editor, who proceeds to explain Simeon's action, is never
named, and can only be dated some time after 200 A.D. We have no
clear idea as to how much later the story was told. It bears no relation
ship to any other story about Simeon, who is normally represented as a
courtier of Yannai, or a priest, or a judge, but never as a common labor
er. Hence we must regard the story as late and unrelated to living tradi
tions (if any) about Simeon's life and and work. The story as it stands
certainly is a unity, as one would expect in a late, fictional narrative.
IV.ii.l.A. Yannai the King and the queen ate bread together, and,
since he had killed the rabbis, there was no man [able] to bless in their
behalf.
B. He said to his wife, "Who will give us a man to bless for us?"
She said to him, "Take an oath to me that if I bring you a man, you
will not torment him."
He vowed.
She brought him Simeon b. Shetah, her brother.
C. She sat him down between him and her.
He said to him, "Do you see how much honor I pay you."
He said to him, "It is not you who honors me, but the Torah that
honors me, as it is written, fcr way will liftyou up andhonoryou whenyou
embrace her (Prov. 4:8)."
He said to her, "Do you see that he does not accept authority
(MRWT)."
D. They gave him the cup to bless.
He said, "How shall I bless? 'Blessed is he of whose [gift] Yannai
and his companions have eaten*}"
He drank that cup.
They gave him another, and he blessed [it].
(b. Ber. 48a)
Comment: The italicized portion is in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic.
Here an element of the pericope about the three hundred Nazirites,
III.i.1, stands entirely by itself.
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N IV.ii.2
113
A little gloss makes "the queen" into his sister, a singleton, but taken
for granted by b. Sot. 47a. Clearly, so far as the redactor is concerned,
no reference to any other elements in the former pericope is intended or
required, for Simeon's absence is explained on other grounds in the
introductory clause, part A. But part C is not integral to the story,
which could as well have gone directly from part B to part D. The con
cluding clause of part C in fact is borrowed from other accounts. Here
it does not fit into the narrator's purpose. It is not only superfluous,
but contradicts the spirit of the account. At this point Yannai ought
to have accepted Simeon's explanation, rather than rejecting it. The
reference to the "companions" is similarly unexplained. It would in
this context have been sufficient for the blessing to be, "Yannai has
eaten." Hence the whole pericope is based upon the earlier materials,
artificially separated by the redactor from them for the present pur
pose.
The context is a discussion of whether one may bless if he has not
eaten with the others present. Immediately following is a comment by
R. Abba b. R. Hiyya b. Abba, that Simeon still erred, for he had not
eaten anything, merely drunk a cup of wine. But the narrator clearly
thought the story proved that very point, and it is so understood in
Palestinian Talmudic contexts. What has happened is that in the inclu
sion of the story for the Babylonian editor's purpose, the story has been
revised, but its original point has also been missed, presumably because
Babylonian law on this question differed from the Palestinian view. This
is made explicit in the end: R. Hana b. Judah said in Rava's name, "The
law is that if he ate with them a vegetable leaf and drank a cup of wine,
he can be combined [for the purposes of saying grace]. But he cannot
say Grace on behalf of others until he eats with them the quantity of an
olive of grain-food."
The classification is a biographical narrative told to illustrate a point
of law. The setting is late fourth-century Babylonia. The story certainly
derives from earlier sources, which we have already reviewed (y. Ber.
7:2, y. Naz. 5:3). It is revised and reduced from its former version, but
the elements actually given are not much different. The revision must
have taken place in a Babylonian school.
IV.ii.2. [The passage is an extended account of Honi's rain prayer,
as in the Mishnah.]
Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "Were you not Honi, I
should have placed you under the ban, for were the years like the
years of Elijah, in whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the
name of Heaven be profaned through you? But what shall I do to you,
for you act petulantly before the Omnipresent, and he grants your
desire, as a son who acts petulantly before his father, and he grants
his desires. Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm
water, wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and
114
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N IV.ii.3, 4
pomegranates/ and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says,

Let thy father and thy mother be glad... (Prov. 23:25)."
(b. Ta. 23a, trans, J . Rabbinowitz, p. 117)
Comment: See Il.i.l, M. Ta. 3:8, and III.i.2. The Palestinian version
obviously has been expanded here. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 692.
IV.ii.3. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah?
When Yannai the King put the rabbis to death, Simeon b. Shetah
was hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah fled to Alexan
dria in Egypt.
When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jerusalem,
the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt, O my sister, my husband
dwells in your midst and I abide desolate."
R. Joshua arose and came back...[etc].
(b. Sot. 47a)
Comment: Judah b. Tabbai of y. Hag. 2:2B and y. Sanh. 6:6B has be
come Joshua b. Perahiah. We have already reviewed the entire pericope
above, pp. 83, 99. Here our interest is in Simeon's role. We are not
told who the sister was, but since the narrator thought it important, she
is presumably the queen of b. Ber. 48a.
The reason for Yannai's slaughter of the sages is not given. Simeon
plays no role in earlier events. Afterward, because he is available in
Jerusalem, he is merely able to summon the surviving "rabbis" to re
turn.
IV.ii.4.A. Why are not kings of Israel judged or permitted to judge?
B. Because of an incident that took place in connection with (M SH
SHYH D) the slave of Yannai the King.
He killed someone.
Simeon b. Shetah said to the sages, "Setyour eyes against him, and
let usjudge him"
They sent [word] to him, "Your slave has killed someone."
He sent him [the slave] to them [the sages, for judgment].
They sent [word] to him, "You come too, for the Torah says, If
warning has been given to its owners (Ex. 21:29). Let the owner of the ox
come and stand by his ox."
He [the King] came and sat down.
Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "King Yannai, stand on your feet, so
they [witnesses] may give testimony against you, and not before us [onlyJ do
you arise, but before Him-Who-Spoke-and-the-World-Came-into-Being
do
you arise, as it is said, Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall
standout. 19:17)."
C
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N IV.ii.5
115
He said to him, "Not asyou say, but asyour comrades say [shall I act]."
He looked to the right, and they looked down at the ground. He looked to
his left, and they looked down at the ground. Simeon b. Shetah said to them,
" You are wrapped in thoughts (B LY MH$BWT). Let the Master of thoughts
come and exact vengeance from you"
Forthwith, Gabriel came and smote them to the ground, and they died.
C. At that moment they said, "The King neitherjudges nor isjudged, neither
gives testimony, nor is he the object of testimony"
(b. Sanh. 19a-b)
C
Comment: The italicized passages are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic.

Here the slaughter of the sages is attributed to an angel of God, as an
act of punishment for their supine behavior toward Yannai. Simeon is
not victim, but cause of the punishment. And the king plays a creditable
role. He obeys the sages and carries out their orders. But because of
their own failure to carry out the law, Gabriel kills them, and the king
goes free. Consequently the ruling is made that the king (= the state) is
not summoned to a rabbinical court.
The pericope is a singleton. It is given anonymously, not attributed
to Tannaitic tradents. Before the passage come comments pertaining to
the Mishnah, but not to this story, made by R. Joseph and Resh Laqish,
and then, "But why this prohibition of the kings of Israel? Because of an
incident..." The introductory matter does not involve named authori
ties.
It is a unity; no element could have been comprehended by itself, and
none is superfluous to the story as it stands. The language is not con
sistent; it starts in Aramaic and ends in beraita-Hebrew. But the nar
rative is smooth. We have no basis on which to estimate when it would
have been composed. Since it stands in no relationship to earlier ma
terials, however, a prima facie assumption may be made that it is not
part of whatever developing traditions existed concerning Simeon. It
reveals no signs of mnemonic materials or patterns.
The polemic is clearly against sages who fail to stand up to authority.
The authority here is the "king," but in later times it could as well have
been the patriarch or exilarch. But that will not permit us to assign to
the storyteller such a motive. Josephus, Antiquities 14:168-184, has a
roughly similar story, in which Samaias speaks against Herod before
Hyrcanus. Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 55, therefore turns Yannai here into
Herod and says the law of part C is Simeon b. Shetah's! Others have
identified Samaias with Shammai or Shema iah.
c
IV.ii.5. [R. Hisda and R. Adda b. Ahava comment on Simeon's

actions in Ashqelon.]
(b. Sanh. 46a)
Comment: See y. Hag. 2:2C. The Mishnah here includes Eliezer's
116
JUDAH AND
S I M E O N IV.ii.6, V l . i . l
reference to Simeon's hanging women. Hisda's statement is revised in

the light of that event.
IV.ii.6. [Reference to] "the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah"
[as particularly large.]
(b. Hul. 119b)
Comment: In the context of a discussion involving R. Aha b. Rava,
the above appears as a proverbial expression denoting very large wheat,
with reference to the story cited above, b. Ta anit 23a.
c
Vl.i.l.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "Can Grace be recited in common

including one who dined on vegetables?"
B. Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b.
Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolu
tion, and for one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for
absolution.
He went up to Yannai the King. He said to him, "Three hundred
Nazirites have come up, and they require nine hundred offerings. You
give them half, and I half."
Yannai gave them half.
An evil tongue went forth and said, "Simeon gave nothing."
He heard and fled.
C. After some days, Persian dignitaries were eating at the table
of Yannai the King. They said, "We remember that there was here a
sage, and he said to us wise things."
He said to his sister, "Send, bring him."
She said to him, "Give him your word and he will come." He gave
him his word.
D. He came and sat between the king and queen.
He [Yannai] asked, "What is the meaning of this?"
He [Simeon] said to him, "As it is written in the Book of Ben Sira,
Esteem her so she shall exalt you and seat you between princes"
He said to him, "Why did you fool me?"
He said to him, "Heaven forfend! I did not fool you, but you gave
from yours, and I from mine, as it is written, For wisdom is a defense
even as money is a defense (Qoh. 7:12)."
E. He said to him, "And you did not tell me [that you had not
given the money, but rather absolution] ?"
He said to him, "Had I told you, you would not have done it."
F. He said to him, "And why did you flee?"
He said to him, "As it is written, Hide yourself for a little moment,
until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)."
J U D A H A N D SIMEON Vl.iii.l, VLxii.l
117
He mixed a cup [of wine] for him and told him to bless.
G. He said, "Let us bless the food which Yannai and his companions
have eaten."
He said to him, "In all my days I never heard from you this matter."
He replied, "What do you want? Shall I bless food which I have
not eaten?"
He mixed the cup for him a second time.
He said. "Let us bless the food which we have eaten."
(Gen. R. 91:3, ed. Theodor-Albeck, III, pp.
1114-1117.)
Comment: See y. Ber. 7:2, III.i.1. Here Salome is Yannai's sisteror
the pronoun has the wrong antecedent.
Vl.iii.l. The story is told (M'SH B): In the days of Simeon b.

Shetah and in the days of Shelomsy the Queen, that the rains would
come down from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, until the wheat became
like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and the lentils like golden
denars. The sages gathered (SBR) some of them and put them aside
for the coming generations. All this why? To show how much [dama
ge] sin causes, to fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25) [etc.].
(Lev. R. 35:10, ed. Margoliot IV, p. 829, lines
1-4.)
Comment:
See Sifra Beh., I.ii.l.
And
is added between Salome and
Simeon.
VLxii.l. On the 18th of Tevet, the congregation [of the Pharisees]
took its place in judgment.
Because the Sadducees were seated in the Sanhedrin. Yannai the
King and Shelominon [sic] the Queen were seated with it. And not
a single one of Israel sat with them except for Simeon b. Shetah.
They would ask responsa and laws and did not know how to bring
proof from the Torah.
Simeon b. Shetah said to them, "Whoever knows how to bring
[proof] from the Torah is fit (KSR) to sit in the Sanhedrin."
One time a practical matter fell among them, and they did not
know how to bring proof from the Torah, except for one who was
mumbling and saying, "Give me time, and tomorrow I shall return."
He gave him time. He went and sat by himself but was unable
to bring proof from the Torah. The next day he was ashamed to come
118
J U D A H A N D SIMEON VLxii.l
S i m e o n b. Shetah
and
J u d a h b. Tabbai
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1. Man put t o
death illegally
Mekh. Kaspa
III 3 1 - 4 1
(Judah criti
cizes S i m e o n )
ILi
Mishnah
2. A n o m a l y of law M e k h . Kaspa
against circumstan III 3 1 - 4 1
tial e v i d e n c e
(Judah)
3. Judah: May
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
Tos. Sanh. 6 : 6
(Simeon criti
cizes J u d a h )
y. Sanh. 4 : 9
y. Sanh. 6 : 3
(Simeon criti
cizes S i m e o n )
b.
ag. 1 6 b
b. M a k . 5 b
(Simeon criti
cizes J u d a h )
Tos. Sanh.
6:6 + 8:3
(Simeon)
y. Sanh. 4 : 9
y. Sanh. 6 : 3
b. S a n h . 3 7 b
b. S h a v . 3 4 a
Tos. Hag. 2 : 8
y . tfag. 2 : 2 a
y. Sanh. 6 : 6 a
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
119
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
M . Hag. 2 : 2
n o t lay on hands
S i m e o n : M a y lay
on hands ( =
No.
4)
4 . J u d a h w a s Nasi
Simeon head o f
court or vice versa
5. J u d a h b.
T a b b a i in
Alexandria
b. S h a b . 1 4 b
( S i m e o n alone)
6. Decreed
uncleanness o n
metal w a r e
7. Avot-chain
y. Shab. 1 : 4
y . Pes. 1 : 6
y. Ket. 8 : 1 1
A v o t 1:8-9
and sit on the Sanhedrin. Simeon b. Shetah took one of the disciples
and set him in his place.
He said to them, "One may not diminish the Sanhedrin less than
seventy-one."
Thus he did to them each day until all of them had vanished, and
the Sanhedrin of Israel was seated.
The day that the Sanhedrin of Sadducees vanished and the Sanhedrin
of Israel was seated they made into a holiday.
(Megillat Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 342-3.)
c
Comment:
(b. S o t . 4 7 a
Joshua instead
o f Judah)
y. Hag. 2 : 2 b
y. Sanh. 6 : 6 b
As often in the medieval Scholion to Megillat Ta'anit we
find materials with no antecedents whatever in Talmudic literature. The

pericope is a unity, highly literarydramatic, smooth, with no lacunae
in narrativeand independent of any earlier tradition. It is still another
version of the struggle between Yannai and the Pharisees, but here the
Sadducees are the antagonists, and the king merely a bystander. The
queen plays no part. The form in which the Sadducees are represented
as mumblers who need more time and in the end fail is familiar in other
Megillat Ta'anit materials (Development, pp. 1 8 0 - 1 8 2 ) . The superior
cleverness of the Pharisaic representative conquers all. Simeon here,
like Yohanan ben Zakkai in similar pericopae in Meg. Ta., outwits the
Sadducees, and his victory is celebrated. I cite the pericope merely to illus
trate the way in which completely new materials in later times were
fabricated, then assigned to earlier heroes.
120
Simeon b. Shetah
Alone
1. Rained heavily
in S i m e o n ' s t i m e
2. Hung eighty
w o m e n in
Ashqelon
3. Rebuked Honi
4 . D e c r e e re m a r
riage-contract
5. S i m e o n ,
Yannai, and the
Nazirites
6. After Simeon's
day no propertylitigation
JUDAH AND
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
SIMEON VLxii.l
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
Sifra B e h u q o t a i
1:1
Sifre Deut.
221
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
b. Hul. 1 1 9 b
b. T a . 2 3 a
M. Sanh. 6 : 4
y. H a g . 2 : 2 c
y. S a n h . 6 : 6
M . Ta'anit 3 : 8
y. M . Q . 3 : 1
y. T a . 3 : 1 0
Tos. Ket. 1 2 : 1
y. Sanh. 6 : 3
(son)
b. B e r . 1 9 a
b. S h a b . 1 4 b
b. K e t . 8 2 b
y. Ber. 7 : 2
L e v . R. 3 5 : 1 0
b. Sanh. 4 6 b
b. Ta. 2 3 a
L e v . R. 3 5 : 8
b. Ber. 48a
(says blessing)
G e n . R. 9 1 : 3
y. Sanh. 1 : 1
8. Simeon restored
Pharisees t o f a v o r
with Yannai
b. Q i d . 6 6 a
y. K e t . 8 : 1 1
y . Pes. 1 : 6
9. Decreed chil
dren should go
t o school
y. K e t . 8 : 1 1
1 0 . Returned pearl
y. B . M . 2 : 5
13. Vanquished
Sadducees
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
y. K e t . 8 : 1 1
y. Naz. 5 : 3
b. S h a b . 1 4 b
12. Tried Yannai

f o r slave's m u r d e r
V
ARN
b. Ta. 2 3 a
7 . D e c r e e re u n
cleanness o f
metal w a r e
1 1 . Called J o s h u a
back f r o m Egypt
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
121
(y. H a g . 2 : 2 ,
y. Sanh. 6 : 6 ,
Judah)
Deut. R. 1 3 : 5
b. Sot. 47a
b. Sanh. 1 0 7 b
b. Sanh. 1 9 a - b
Meg. Ta. p. 3 4 2 - 3
122
JUDAH AND
SIMEON
SYNOPSES
III. SYNOPSES
A. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah

1. Man Illegally Put to Death and Anomaly of Law against Circum
stantial Evidence
Mekh.Kaspa
III
31-41
1 . O n c e ( K B R ) S. k i l l e d
( H R G ) a false w i t n e s s
2 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o
him
3 . M a y I [ n o t ] see c o n s o
l a t i o n if y o u h a v e n o t s h e d
innocent blood [ = Tos. 7*]
4. and the T o r a h said

5. Slay at the t e s t i m o n y o f
w i t n e s s e s , slay at t h e testi
m o n y of perjurers
6 . J u s t as t h e w i t n e s s e s
are t w o
7 . so the perjurers are t w o
7*.
7**
8. and once ( W K B R )
9. J u d a h b. Tabbai en
tered a ruin.
1 0 . a n d f o u n d t h e r e a slain
m a n still w r i t h i n g ( M P R P R )
1 1 . and the s w o r d dripping
blood ( M N J P
Tos. Sanh. 6:6 =

Mid.
Tan. ed. Hoffmann, p. 112
1 . J u d a h said
Tos. Sanh.
1.
2.
2.
3 . M a y I if I have
not slain a perjurer to uproot
from
the heart
of the
Boethusians who say the ac
cused must be put to death
[ b e f o r e t h e p e r j u r e r is
slain] (Mid. Tan.
=
Sadducees)
3.
4.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7*. Simeon
said
to
h i m , M a y I [etc.] if y o u
h a v e n o t shed innocent
blood
7**. = Mekh. 6,7
8.
7.
7*.
7**
8 . S i m e o n said, M a y I
[etc.] if I d i d n o t see o n e
r u n n i n g a f t e r his f e l l o w
w i t h a s w o r d in h i s
hand. He entered before
him into a ruin, and ran
after him.
9.
9 . / e n t e r e d after him
10.
1 0 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain
11.
1 1 . a n d t h e s w o r d in
the hand of the murder-
DM)
1 2 . from the hand of the

slaver
1 3 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o
h i m , M a y [evil] come u p o n
me
8:3
99
99
12.
12.
13.
1 3 . I said to him,
Wicked one
99
[see a b o v e ]
99
99
123
J U D A H A N D SIMEON SYNOPSES
1 4 . i f n o t y o u o r I h a v e slain
14.
14.
1 5 . But what should I do
15.
15.

for
your
case is not given into my
hand
1 6 . f o r l o , t h e T o r a h said,
A t the testimony of t w o
witnesses (Deut. 1 9 : 1 5 )
1 7 . But he w h o k n o w s and
the master o f
thoughts
( H Y W D * WB<L
HMHSBWT)
16.
16.
17.
17.
18.
18. ,
19.
1 9 . H e d i d n o t move
from there,,
20. A t
that
moment
J u d a h t o o k on himself
not t o teach l a w except
according to Simeon.
[Mid. Tan. copies b.
Mak. 5b, no. 20.]
20.
1 8 . he w i l l exact punish
ment of that man
19. He had hardly come
o u t w h e n a serpent bit him
a n d he died.
20.
[ O m i t s : master of]
>
The Tosefta has split the single but composite pericope of Mekh.
Kaspa into its two components; the first, about killing a perjurer,
is separated from the story about circumstantial evidence. In both in
stances Judah is replaced as the hero by Simeon. Further, the Tos.'s
Simeon now tells Judah he has shed innocent blood; the Mekhilta's Judah says the same to Simeon. The Tos.'s Judah explains
his action: to inflict exemplary punishment. Of this Mekh. knows
nothing. Tos. no. 3 seems to depend on Mekh. no. 1. The Tos.'s ver
sion of the unpunishable murder is similar to the Mekhilta's and in
most respect depends upon it, e.g. in the correction of master of (no.
17), which is redundant, and in strengthening the conclusion (no. 19)
by killing the man in the very presence of the rabbi. Likewise no. 13
is intensified by the expletive wicked. The whole account is now given
in the first person, as the narrative of Simeon himself. Both Toseftan
versions are developments of the Mekhilta's composite pericope.
But the developments are not merely of detail, which would permit
us to impute dependency. Rather, the names of the masters are
consistently reversed, and this suggests deliberate doctoring, not mere
ly the augmentation of one detail or another. The further versions
all depend in general upon the Toseftan one, as we shall now see.
Mekhilta stands mostly apart from the later developments of the
124
pericope. For the next stage in the comparison, we shall give y. Sanh.
4:9, to which the other versions will be compared.
y. Sanh. 4:9 = Mid. Tan. ed.
Hoffmann p. 101
1 . S i m e o n said, M a y I see
consolation
2 . If I d i d n o t see o n e p u r
suing another
3. He entered [Mid. T a n . :
ran] a r u i n
4 . I e n t e r e d after h i m
5 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain
6. and this one going out
7. and the s w o r d was drippine blood
8 . I said t o h i m
9 . M a y I see c o n s o l a t i o n
1 0 . that this one slew h i m
1 1 . b u t w h a t shall I d o
1 2 . f o r y o u r b l o o d is n o t
given into m y hands
1 3 . but the one w h o k n o w s
t h o u g h t s w i l l exact p u n i s h
ment f r o m that man
1 4 . He did not even leave
there [ H S P Y Q L S ' T ]
1 5 . before a serpent bit h i m
a n d he died.
16.
y. Sanh.
6:3
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
11.
12.
13.
13.
14.
14.
15.
15.
1 6 . J u d a h b.
Tabbai
s a i d , M a y I see c o n s o l a
t i o n if I d i d n o t s l a y a
false w i t n e s s . F o r t h e y
w o u l d say, U n t i l h e is
slain [the false w i t n e s s is
n o t p u n i s h e d ] , as it is
said ( E x . 2 1 : 2 3 ) , Soulfor
soul
16.
17.
1 7 . Simeon b. Shetah
said t o h i m , M a y I see
consolation
18.
1 8 . if it is n o t r e g a r d e d
t o y o u as if y o u s h e d i n
nocent blood.
19.
1 9 . A t that time he t o o k
u p o n himself not to
teach except f r o m the
5b
b. Mak.
TNY*
99
99
99
99
99
99
t o r e m o v e f r o m t h e heart
of the Sadducees
who
w o u l d say
99
99
17.
99
1 8 . if you did not shed

99
99
99
f o r t h e sages said, no
punishment until the ac
cused perjurers
are both
found guilty [+
flagella
tion a n d fines, in s a m e
formulal
1 9 . e x c e p t in
the presence
JUDAH AND
20.
b. Sanh. 37b
1. TNY>
2.
another into a
ruin
3 . / ran after him
4.
5. / saw him with a s w o r d in
his hand
6.
7. a n d his blood was d r i p
p i n g a n d the slain man was
writhing
8. >
9.
1 0 . Wicked! Who killed this
man ? You or me
11.
12.
, f o r l o , t h e
T o r a h h a s said D e u t . 1 7
13.
f r o m that man
who slew his fellow
1 4 . They said h e d i d n o t
move f r o m t h e r e b e f o r e a
s n a k e came and b i t h i m a n d
he died
15. [As above]
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
SIMEON
mouth of
Shetah.
20.
b. Shav.
~'
99
Simeon
b.
2 0 . And all the rest of
Judah*s life he prostrated
himself on the grave of that
witness, and his voice was
heard, and people thought
it was the voice of the slain
man. He said, It is my
voice. You will know it tomorrow when he dies.
b. Hag.
1.
34a
1 99 99
2.
Sanh.]
3
99
99
99
[as b .
9.
10
K J
'
11 .
12
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
16b
2.
fas b .
4.
5. I found him
6.
7.
Sanh.]
125
SYNOPSES
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1 3 . T h e Omnipresent w i l l
fromyou
[omits
who-fellow]
14.
they d i d n o t
m o v e before a snake bit
h i m [ o m i t s came and]
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
15.
16. T N W RBNN
17. fAs b. Mak. 5b]
1 8 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ]
1 9 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ]
20. [ A s b. M a k . 5 b ]
[As abovel
14.
The beraita about Judah's exemplary but illegal punishment of the

false witness, b. Mak. 5b = b. Hag. 16b, is an improvement on the
equivalent version in y. Sanh. 6:3. There they would say is unclear.
The Babylonian version supplies the identity of those who held the
false opinion, namely the Sadducees. This further depends upon Tos.
Sanh. 6:6, but Boethusians is dropped in favor of Sadducees. The exact
126
JUDAH AND
SIMEON
SYNOPSES
quotation of the Boethusians/Sadducees varies somewhat, y. Sanh.

supplies a proof-text for their opinion, which is absent in Tos. Sanh.
and later dropped in b. Mak. = b. Hag. The most striking change
occurs in no. 18, where the language if it is not regarded to you as if
you shed is changed to the more direct you shed. This is a simplification
and an improvement. Tos. knows nothing of Judah's pledge not to
teach instruction/law except according to Simeon, which occurs in
more dramatic detail in the presence ofin the Babylonian beraita.
The Palestinian is intermediate; it does not specify what it was that
Judah would not teach. The beraita, in summary, is unquestionably
later than, and an improvement upon, y. Sanh., being smoother, drop
ping irrelevant details (e.g. the proof-text), but supplying important
"omissions", e.g. what Judah would not teach, and adding flagellation
and fines. In one respect, namely no. 16, to remove etc., the beraita obvi
ously must depend upon Tos. But in all other important aspects, it
is a development of y. Sanh. 6:3thus eclectic or a composite, a puz
zling result.
The Mekh. version provides the briefest and least satisfactory story,
omits the dramatic details of Judah's (Simeon's) report of what he
had done, and of Judah's vow not to teach except following Simeon's
opinions. No. 20 of the beraita is certainly a dramatic and colorful
addition to the whole, known only in the latest version.
The story about the murderer whom the law cannot punish is linked
to the foregoing in Mekh. Kaspa, but everywhere else stands separate
ly. In Mekh. Kaspa we again find the simplest and least embellished
form. The changes from y. Sanh. 4:9 to b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a
are not considerable. The scene is somewhat clarified and sharpened.
He entered.. .1 entered of y. Sanh. becomes the dramatic confrontation
of b. Sanh.: / ran after him and saw him a moment after he did the deed.
Then the details (no. 7) are greatly augmented, but again are drawn
mainly from Mekh. Kaspa, further from the anonymous accounts, not
summarized here, which invariably include the gory details. What shall
I do of y. Sanh. 4:9 is greatly expanded by reference to the proof-text,
but here this is artfully introduced in the context of the exchange be
tween the sage and the murderer. Then, in no. 14 of b. Sanh., the
narrator takes over for the unclear he did not leave, so we are now told
who has provided the details of the denouement.
As we observed above, the two stories are distinct and circulated by
themselves. Only the Judah b. Tabbai-version was kept together. The
Simeon-ones were allowed to develop separately. The beraitot in both
JUDAH AND
SIMEON SYNOPSES
127
cases provide additional information, but we have no reason to sup

pose they contain material drawn from other, independent traditions.
In each instance, on the basis of the earlier versions we can readily
account for the alterations.Only no. 20 is entirely independent of the
foregoing, but it is certainly a dramatic embellishment, nothing more;
it is the sort of addition that editors of beraitot loved to make.
Now, assuming the Mekhilta is the earliest version of the pericopae,
we note that the later accounts are in general dependent upon, or at
least related to, it in all important details except for the identification
of the hero. The whole can be said to be a living tradition, in that de
tails found later on normally derive from earlier accounts and can be
readily traced from one version to the next. But what lies before
Mekh. Kaspa? I find it difficult to imagine that the literary relation
ships we have observed do not signify the dependence, upon the
Mekhilta, of the accounts in which Simeon is the hero. The Mekhilta
of R. Ishmael-version is what Meir would have supplied; all the
others in general follow opinion of Judah b. Ilai, making Simeon
Nasi. All elements of the Simeon-materials thus are revisions of the
foregoing, including the important fact that Simeon is the hero, Judah
the judge who erred. In that case, the correct tradition must be the
one which places Judah b. Tabbai superior to Simeon b. Shetahjust
as in M. Hag. The others testify to the ability of Judah b. Ilai and those
who shared his view not only to develop the older tradition, but also
completely to revise its historical and biographical facts. The relative
importance of Simeon and Judah seems to have constituted an impor
tant issue for the late second century Tannaitic schools.
2.
NasiHead of Court
Tos. HaQ. 2:8
y. HaQ. 2:2a
y. Sanh. 6:6a
1 . T h e r e w e r e five p a i r s .
2 . T h r e e o f t h e first p a i r s
w h o said n o t t o l a y o n h a n d s
3 . a n d t w o o f t h e last w h o
said t o l a y o n h a n d s
4 . w e r e Nasis*
5. a n d t h e second w e r e
heads o f court, according t o
R. M e i r .
6. R . J u d a h says, S i m e o n b.
S h e t a h w a s Nasi, J u d a h b .
Tabbai head o f the court
6*.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
4.
5.
6.
[As in 6*]
6*. W e have
learned
CNN T N Y N N ) : Judah
b . T a b b a i w a s Nasi, S i m -
6 . [ A s in 6 * ]
6*. Some Tannaim

teach C Y T T N Y Y
T N Y ) Judah b. Tabbai
128
eon b. Shetah w a s head

of the court.
w a s Nasi, a n d s o m e T a n n a i m teach S i m e o n b .
S h e t a h w a s Nasi
7.
7. S o m e teach it i n r e
verse. [The story o f J u
d a h in A l e x a n d r i a a n d
S i m e o n in A s h q e l o n f o l
lows.]
7.
The Tos. version thus has not been reproduced, merely cited, in the
Palestinian Amoraic discussion. But y. Hag. rephrases the whole in
explicit form: Judah was Nasi, Simeon was head of the court. In y.
Sanh. two separate attributions to Tannaim simply assign the position
of Nasi to each of the authorities. In any event the language of Tos.
has been abandoned, while Tannaitic authority is claimed for its con
tent.
3.
Judah b. Tabbai in Alexandria
y. Hag. 2:2b
1. The m e n o f Jerusalem wanted t o appoint
J u d a h b . T . as nasi i n J e r u s a l e m . H e fled t o
Alexandria.
2. T h e m e n o f Jerusalem w o u l d w r i t e
3. F r o m Jerusalem the great, t o Alexandria the
small
4. H o w long will m y betrothed dwell with y o u ,
a n d I sit e t c .
y. Sanh.
6:6b
1.
2
3
4 . H o w l o n g w i l l m y husband
d w e l l i n y o u r midst in
my house
5 . [ O m i t s t h e affair w i t h t h e
student.]
5 . H e d e p a r t e d , c o m i n g i n a b o a t . H e said, y o u
r e m e m b e r etc.
The version in y. Sanh. omits the introductory materials and knows

nothing of the incident with the student at all. The augmentations
in no. 4 suggest a somewhat later version, and my guess is that y.
Sanh. depends upon, but abbreviates, y. Hag. The same pattern of
summary and abbreviation of y. Hag. by y. Sanh. recurs in the Simeonstory, III.i.3c.
4.
The Decree on the Uncleanness of Metal Utensils
b. Shab. 14b
1. DTNY>
2. Y o s i b. Y o ' e z e r
and Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n
decreed uncleanness
on the land o f the
p e o p l e s a n d glass
ware.
y. Shab. 1:4
1. R. Ze'ira b.
A b u n a in the n a m e
of R. Jeremiah
2
y. Pes. 1:6
1. [As y. Shab.]
Abuna
R.
y. Ket. 8:11
1. [As y. Pes.]
2
99
99
99
99
99
99
JUDAH AND
3. Simeon b. Shetah
ordained ( T Q N ) the
marriage
contract
for the w o m a n
4. and
decreed
( G Z R ) uncleanness
on metalware
5. S h a m m a i
and
Hillel d e c r e e d u n
cleanness
on
the
hands
SIMEON
SYNOPSES
3 . R. Yonah said, Ju
dah b. Tabbai.
R.
Yosi said, Judah
b.
Tabbai and S i m e o n
b. Shetah
decreed
uncleanness o n met
al w a r e [ O m i t s mar
riage-contract]
4 . [See n o . 3 ]
3 . R . Judah said, J u
dah b. T. and Si
m e o n b . . [ A s y .
Shab.]
5 . concerning the
cleanness o f t h e h a n d s
5. [As y. Shab.]
4.
[See n o . 3 ]
129
3 . R. Yosi said J u
d a h b . T . R . Yonah
said, J u d a h b . T .
a n d S i m e o n b . .
decreed uncleanness
on
metalware
[Omits
marriage-con
tract]
4 . [See n o . 3 ]
5. [As y. S h a b . ]
Since y. Ket. 8:11 contains the list of Simeon's decrees, we shall

add the synopsis of that list here:
Tos. Ket.
12:1
1 . A t first... S i m e o n b . S.
ordained that her marriagecontract should be w i t h her
husband, and he should
write to her, A l l the proper
t y w h i c h I h a v e is l i a b l e a n d
pledged f o r this, y o u r mar
riage-contract.
2.
b. Ket. 82b
1. R a v J u d a h . . . Sime
o n b . . o r d a i n e d all h i s
p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r h e r
marriage-contract.
TNY> N M Y H K Y : . . .
u n t i l S i m e o n b . . o r
dained that he should
w r i t e t o h e r , A l l my
p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her
marriage-contract
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
y. Ket.
8:11
\ . S i m e o n b. Shetah de
creed three things
2. That a man m a y do
b u s i n e s s w i t h his w i f e ' s
marriage-contract
3. That children should
go to school
4. and
he
ordained
( T Q N ) uncleanness on
glassware
All the references to the marriage-contract pertain to details. None

holds Simeon b. Shetah invented the marriage-contract. The reference
in b. Shab. no. 4 appears in y. Ket. 8:11 no. 4, now an ordinance. The
version in b. Shab. no. 4 is unrelated to more detailed accounts of the
matter. The marriage-contract materials are not closely related. Tos.
Ket. has certainly produced b. Ket., but y. Ket. (like b. Shab. no. 3)
stands pretty much by itself. Perhaps the intent of the ordinance is
what y. Ket. no. 2 maintains, but that is not what is specified.
As to the decree on the uncleanness of metal utensils, all the tradi
tions are identical in language, except y. Ket. no. 4, which, like b.
130
JUDAH AND
SIMEON
SYNOPSES
Shab. no. 4, omits reference to Judah b. Tabbai. Since the lists of b.

Shab. 14b and y. Ket. 8:11 have in common the omission of Judah
b. Tabbai and a reference to the marriage-contract (but not the same
reference), there may be some correspondence between them. But a
list of Simeon's decrees ought not to have omitted the founding of
the school-system, and TQN of y. Ket. changes to GZR in b. Shab.
Hence the lists are not closely related. Moreover, the intent of y. Ket.
8:11 is to list Simeon's decrees; one might argue Judah b. Tabbai is
not deliberately omitted, merely bypassed for stylistic purposes. But
the same cannot be said for b. Shab. 14b, which either is defective or
represents a purposeful revision of the tradition referred to by the
Palestinian Amoraim. I presume the latter were influenced by the
juxtaposition of Judah and Simeon in M. Hag. 2:2 and M. Avot, but
I do not understand why the framer of the Babylonian beraita was
not similarly impressed with those lists, if he knew them.
B.
Simeon b. Shetah Alone
1. Heavy Rains
Sifra
1 . M<SH
2. In the days o f S i m e o n
b. S . , i n t h e d a y s o f S L M S W
the queen
3 . that the rains w o u l d de
scend f r o m Sabbath night
t o Sabbath night
4. until the wheat w a s
made like kidneys
5. the barley like o l i v e pits
6 . a n d t h e lentils l i k e g o l d
denars
7 . a n d t h e sages b o u n d
up (SRR) some of them
8 . a n d left t h e m f o r c o m
ing generations
9. to make k n o w n h o w
m u c h sin causes.
1 0 . t o fulfill t h a t w h i c h is
said J e r . 5 : 2 5
b. Ta. 23a
1 . S o w e find
2.
[ O m i t s : Salome
the Queen]
3.
on eves of
Wednesdays and Sabbaths
4
99
99
99
5
6
99
99
99
99
99
99
7.
as an
(DWGM )
example
8.
[ O m i t s : and left
them; coming]
Q
/
99
1 0 . As
99
<
R.
99
99
2.
(SLMSY)
and
3.
99
[Adds:]
''
Lev.
1
99
99
99
it is said
^*
99
99
99
5*
6
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
7
'
O
*
9 . All
99
this why
99
99
99
The differences between Lev. R. and Sifra are negligible. Only all
this why betrays the mark of a later hand. The phrase could have been
omitted without loss of meaning. It serves to underline the purposive
sense of the infinitive, to make known. The Babylonian Talmudic version
follows the usual Amoraic form, as it is said, in place of the Tannaitic
JUDAH A N D SIMEON
131
SYNOPSES
midrashic to fullfill. Salome is now omitted, certainly an improvement,

dropping a redundant detail; her name could have meant little to
people out of touch with the stories of King Yannai and Simeon.
Wednesdays is added because of the legal context. As an example like
wise clarifies the sages' intent, though it does not augment the meaning.
The version in b. Ta. is certainly a development of that in Sifra.
Lev. R. is a more exact copy. This is a common phenomenon. Where
traditions appearing in early collections recur in very late ones,
they are normally copies, showing little evidence of either growth
of a living tradition, or response to vivid discussions of the subjectmatter of the pericope. Both phenomena by contrast are apparent in
b. Ta. Sometimes, to be sure, late compilations supply all sorts of new
elements, but these rarely appear to be integral to the earlier version
or part of an internal process of augmentation of words or phrases.
Rather, they tend to be manufactured of whole cloth.
2.
Hung Eighty Women in Ashqelon
Sifre Deut. 2 2 1
1 . T h e m a n is h u n g , b u t
not the woman.
R. Eliezer says, E v e n a
w o m a n is t o b e h u n g .
2 . R . E l i e z e r said t o t h e m ,
D i d n o t S i m e o n . h a n g
w o m e n in A s h q e l o n ?
3 . T h e y said t o h i m , H e
hung eighty w o m e n , and
one does not judge t w o on
the same day
4. But h o u r required t o
teach o t h e r b y that means
5.
M. Sanh. 6 : 4
1 . The woman is hung
facing backward, the man
facing the people, so R .
E l i e z e r . The sages say,
T h e m a n is h u n g , b u t
not the w o m a n .
2
99
99
99
99
99
99
y. Sanh.
6:3
2.
4.
4.
5.
5. Simeon's hands were

heated. A conspiracy of
scoffers c a m e a n d said,
C o m e , let u s t a k e c o u n
sel a n d testify a g a i n s t
his s o n a n d k i l l h i m .
T h e y testified
against
h i m a n d his case w a s
settled t h a t h e b e k i l l e d .
A s he was going forth
t o b e k i l l e d , t h e y said
to him, "My lord, we
a r e l i a r s . " His f a t h e r
wanted to bring him
132
J U D A H A N D SIMEON
SYNOPSES
b a c k . H e said t o h i m ,
"Father, if y o u w a n t
salvation t o come at
your hand, make me
like a threshold."
y> Hag. 2:2c

1. There w e r e t w o pious men w h o
shared their f o o d and studies.
2. O n e died and w a s not p r o p e r l y
mourned.
3. W h e n a villager, a tax-collector
d i e d , t h e w h o l e t o w n t o o k t i m e off t o
mourn him.
4. The pious man began to be troubled
a n d said etc.
5. D o n o t disgrace the sons o f y o u r
L o r d , f o r t h i s o n e d i d o n e sin, a n d t h e
o t h e r o n e d i d o n e g o o d d e e d a n d it
went well for him
6 . [Specifies t h e s i n ; t h e n s e c o n d
d r e a m : p i o u s m a n s a w f e l l o w in h e a v e n ,
t a x - c o l l e c t o r suffering, a n d M i r i a m etc.
W h y is t h i s s o ? B e c a u s e s h e f a s t e d e t c . ]
7. H o w long thus?
8 . U n t i l S i m e o n t a k e s it f r o m h e r e a r
a n d p u t s in it h i s ?
9 . W h y ? B e c a u s e h e said, I f I a m m a d e
Nasi I shall k i l l w i t c h e s , a n d l o , h e h a d
b e e n m a d e Nasi a n d h a s n o t k i l l e d
w i t c h e s . T h e r e a r e e i g h t y in a c a v e in
A s h q e l o n . G o a n d tell h i m .
1 0 . I a m a f r a i d , f o r h e is Nasi a n d w i l l
n o t b e l i e v e m e . If h e b e l i e v e s y o u , w e l l
a n d g o o d , a n d if n o t , t h i s is y o u r s i g n
\re e y e l .
1 1 . Simeon believed him
1 2 . T o o k e i g h t y y o u n g m e n etc.
1 3 . T h i s is w h a t w e l e a r n e d , T h e s t o r y
is t o l d o f S i m e o n b . S h e t a h t h a t h e
h u n g w o m e n in A s h q e l o n . T h e y said
he hung eighty w o m e n ; w h i l e one does
n o t judge t w o on the same day, the
h o u r r e q u i r e d it.
y. Sanh.
1
6:6c
2
99
99
99
99
99
99
to cry
3
J
'
4.
5.
[ m i n o r v a r i a t i o n s , o n e sin
and went in it, o n e g o o d d e e d a n d went in
6.
[Specifies s i n ; omits: sin o f M i r i a m . ]
7
' *
99
99
99
99
99
99
9 . W h a t is his lapse? He vowed a n d said

99
99
99
1 0 - 99 99 99 ( M i n o r v a r i a t i o n s )
11. n
1 2 . [ F r o m h e r e t o e n d , t h e a c c o u n t is
a b b r e v i a t e d a n d simplified. 1
1 3 . T h i s is w h a t w e l e a r n e d , E i g h t y
w o m e n d i d S i m e o n b . S . h a n g in A s h
qelon and one does not judge t w o in
o n e d a y , b u t t h e h o u r r e q u i r e d it.
The tradition on the hanging of (eighty) women (witches) in Ashqelon

comes in two forms. The earliest is a reference merely to hanging
women. Nothing more is told. This tradition is virtually ignored in
y. Hag. and y. Sanh., which produce the elaborate account about the
witches and how they were outwitted by Simeon's superior knowledge
SYNOPSES
133
of magic and of the libido of witches. A still further detail records the
vengeance of the people of Ashqelon. It seems to me Sifre must be
regarded as earliest, and the Palestinian Amoraic versions as quite
separate, but much later assemblies of traditions. According to the
former, Simeon did put to death a large number of women, but we do
not know why. The elaborate accounts of y. Sanh. and y. Hag. supply
the reason and much more. Of the two, y. Hag. is the more detailed,
while y. Sanh. seems to be an abbreviation and a summary. But neither
is likely to date before Amoraic times. The Babylonian Talmud con
tains no equivalent materials, and we may perhaps assign the magical
accounts to third or fourth-century Palestinian schools.
3.
Rebuked Honi
M. Ta. 3:8
1 . . . . S i m e o n b . . sent t o
him
J.M.Q.
3:1
1. [All omitted to here.]

He said to him
2. W e r e y o u not Honi
2. Y o u require t o be ex
communicated. F o r if a
d e c r e e w e r e d e c r e e d as
in the days o f Elijah,
w o u l d y o u not be found
bringing the public to
profanation
of
the
n a m e , f o r all w h o b r i n g
the public to profana
tion of the name require
excommunication.
3.
3. I should decree excom

munication upon you
4. But w h a t should I do to
you
5. F o r y o u c o m e petulantly
( H T Y ) before the Omni
present
6. and he does y o u r will f o r
you
7. like a son w h o comes
petulantly against his father
8. and he does his w i l l
9. and
concerning
you
S c r i p t u r e says P r o v . 2 3 : 2 5
y. Ta. 3:10
1. [Mishnah ends w i t h
P r o v . 2 3 : 2 5 . T h e n ] If a
d e c r e e w e r e d e c r e e d as
in t h e d a y s o f E l i j a h ,
w o u l d you not be found
bringing the public to
profanation of the name
[etc. as in y . M . Q . n o .
2.]
2. [As y. M . Q . ]
3.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
8.
9.
134
b. Ber. 19a
1 . D T N N [ O m i t s s t o r y u n t i l Simeon sent
to bim]
You require to be excom

municated
SYNOPSES
7*. 2 ^
1. [Foregoing s t o r y m u c h developed.
T h e n as in M . T a . ]
2. F o r if t h e y e a r s w e r e l i k e t h e y e a r s o f
E l i j a h , f o r t h e k e y s o f r a i n w e r e in t h e
hand of Elijah, w o u l d not the name o f
heaven be found profaned by y o u r hand.
3.
4
fAs above!
~*
99
99
99
^'
99
99
99
6.
5.
6*
>
8.
>
' 99
8.
99 99
[ A d d s : ] and he says to him,
Father, take me to wash me in warm water,
pour cold water over me, give me nuts, al
monds, and pomegranates and he gives him
99
99
99
The Palestinian Amoraic versions introduce the theme of Elijah, but

drop the rest of the colloquy of Simeon. The Babylonian beraita
(b. Ber. 19a) borrows a single phrase, You require. The extended version
in b. Ta. 23a not only adopts the whole of the Palestinian version, but
then inserts the remainder of the Mishnah passage, and finally supplies
a complete conversation between the son and the fathera full reper
toire, leaving out not a single detail of the earlier versions.
4.
Simeon. Yannai. and the Nazirites
y. Ber.
7:2
1. T N Y
2. T h r e e h u n d r e d Nazirites
c a m e u p in t h e d a y s o f
R a b b i S i m e o n b . .
2 * . O n e h u n d r e d fifty h e
found grounds for absolu
t i o n (MS> P T H ) , a n d o n e
h u n d r e d fifty h e d i d n o t
find g r o u n d s f o r a b s o l u t i o n
3. H e c a m e t o Y a n n a i t h e
King
4. H e said t o h i m , T h e r e
are
here three hundred
Nazirites
requiring
nine
h u n d r e d sacrifices
5. S o ('L') y o u g i v e h a l f
f r o m y o u r s , and I half f r o m
mine
6. H e s e n t h i m f o u r h u n
d r e d fifty
7. A n e v i l r e p o r t
went
f o r t h a n d said t o h i m
v. Na?.
1.
5:3
99
99
2
99
[Omits
b. Ber.
1.
2.
Gen.
R.
2\
m
99
99
99
Rabbi]
2*
2*.
48a
99
99
2*
^
99
99
99
99
they f o u n d
3
U
'
99
99
99
99
99
99
4
^
5.
[ O m i t s >L>]
99
99
6*
3.
(SLQ)
went up
4.
4.
5.
5.
[As y. Naz.]
6.
6.
Yannai gave half
7.
7.
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
7.
'
3.
'
99
99
99
135
8. He g a v e n o t h i n g o f his
own.
9. Y a n n a i the K i n g heard
and was angry. Simeon b.
. w a s f r i g h t e n e d a n d fled.
1 0 . After some days im
portant men came u p f r o m
t h e K i n g d o m o f Persia t o
Yannai the K i n g .
1 1 . W h e n t h e y w e r e seated
e a t i n g , t h e y said t o h i m , W e
r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e r e is h e r e
a certain o l d m a n a n d he
said b e f o r e u s w o r d s o f
wisdom.
1 2 . Let h i m teach f o r us a
m a t t e r (<WBD>).
1 3 . T h e y said t o h i m , S e n d
and bring him
1 4 . H e sent a n d g a v e h i m
This! w o r d
1 5 . H e c a m e a n d h e sat b e
tween the king and the
queen.
1 6 . H e said t o h i m , W h y
did y o u deceive m e ?
1 7 . H e said t o h i m , I d i d
n o t deceive y o u .
18. Y o u from your money
and
I
from
my
light
[Torahl,
1 9 . A s it is w r i t t e n Q o h .
7:12
8.
1^*
99
99
99
8.
9.
9. [ O m i t s :
angry]
10.
[Begins:] Yannai the
King and the Queen
were eating together.
Since he had killed the
rabbis, there was no one
to bless for them. He
said to his wife, Who
will give us a man to
bless for us} She said
to him, Give me your
oath that if I bring you
a man, you will not
torment him. He gave
his oath and she brought
him Simeon b. 5. her
brother
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
1 6 . ,,
,,
99
99
99
99
"
13
14
A
'
18.
19
S
"*
99
99
Yannai-
99
99
of
99
12.
12.
13.
1 3 . He said to his sis

ter, S e n d , b r i n g h i m
14.
17
99
1 1 . a t t h e table
Yannai the King
11.
99
12
99
[As above]
14.
99
99
1 5 . H e seated h i m
between him and her
15
16.
17.
1 6 . H e said t o h i m ,
W h a t is t h i s
17. [Follows 1 9 ]
18.
18.
19.
19. [Quotes Ben Sira.]

19*. [Now come 1 7
and 1 8 ]
1 9 * * . W h y did y o u
n o t tell m e ?
If I told you, y o u
would not have done
it.
99
[Follows 1 9 ]
136
2 0 . H e said t o h i m , A n d
w h y d i d y o u flee?
2 1 . H e said t o h i m , I h e a r d
that m y lord was a n g r y
against m e , and I w a n t e d t o
fulfill t h i s S c r i p t u r e , I s . 2 6 :
20
22. A n d he read concern
ing him Q o h . 7 : 1 2 b
2 3 . H e said t o h i m , A n d
w h y d i d y o u sit b e t w e e n
king and queen.
2 4 . H e said t o h i m , I n t h e
B o o k s o f B e n S i r a it is
w r i t t e n [etc.] ( 1 1 : 1 )
20
24*.
24*.
2 5 . H e said t o h i m , G i v e
h i m t h e c u p s o h e w i l l bless
26. He took the cup and
said
25
20.
20.
21.
[Omits:
to]
wanted
21.
21.
22.
,,
,,
22.
22.
23.
,,
2 3 . You see how much

honor I pay you}
23.
2 4 . / / is not you that

honors me, but
the
Torah honors me, as it
is written Prov. 4:8
2 4 * . He said to her,
Do you see he does not
accept authority.
24.
25.
2 5 . Mixed cup, said to

him, bless
2 4 . B o o k o f Bar
S i r a ,, ,,
24*.
99
99
26.
2 6 . He said to him,
How
shall I
bless}
Blessed is he whose
[gift] Y a n n a i a n d his
companions
have
eaten?
26.
2 7 . L e t u s bless t h e f o o d
w h i c h Y a n n a i a n d his c o m
panions h a v e eaten
2 8 . H e said t o h i m , T o
such an extent are y o u in
your stubbornness?
2 9 . H e said t o h i m , W h a t
s h o u l d I say, F o r t h e f o o d
which w e have not eaten?
27.
,,
27.
[As above]
2 7 . / never heard this

from you before
2 8 . ,,
,,
28.
[See 2 4 * ]
28.
29
[29. A s a b o v e ,
26]
no.
29
3 0 . H e said, G i v e h i m
eat. H e a t e .
to
30
30
3 1 . a n d said, L e t u s bless
the food which w e have
eaten
31
3 0 . He drank it [the
cup] they b r o u g h t
h i m another cup and
he blessed.
31.
31
Xm
-*
99
99
Gen. R. does not greatly differ from the Palestinian versions. The
order of some of the elements changes, and there are a few minor
changes in word-choice, not here indicated. But for the rest, we may
regard Gen .R. as a fairly accurate representation of the Palestinian
Talmud's accounts. There also are some differences in grammar and
spelling between the two Palestinian versions. They have not been
signified.
JUDAH AND
SIMEON CONCLUSION
137
The real comparison is between the three Palestinian versions and the
Babylonian one. The latter shows how material would be reshaped
by an editor for the purposes of legal discussion. The version in b.
Ber. omits all reference to elements extraneous to the inquiry of that
discussion. It therefore drops the Nazirites and thus loses the explana
tion provided by that incident for Simeon's absence. The more
generalized since he had killed the rabbis make up the difference. The
Babylonian tradition further omits all conversations related to the
earlier incident with the Nazirites. The honor paid to Simeon is now
credited to the king, rather than having Simeon take the place of
honor on his own. This certainly improves matters and permits an
even better sermon to make much the same point. Proverbs replaces
Ben Sira, which is consistent with the Babylonian rabbinic denigration
of Ben Sira. Finally the story of the blessing is repeated, in the establish
ed form, except here, Simeon drinks the first cup, and they have to
provide a second. But the explanation of his action is the same; so
the argument has been converted into a dramatic gesture.
i v . CONCLUSION
Judah b. Tabbai's traditions invariably survive in the context of

Simeon b. Shetah's, with the possible exception of the story of Judah's
return from Alexandria. But even there Simeon plays a role in the
account. By contrast, Simeon-stories in considerable numbers exclude
all reference to Judah. Indeed, even where we should have expected
to find Simeon and Judah, we find either Simeon alone or Simeon and
Queen Salome. The Judah-traditions were assimilated into Simeonones, with Simeon's predominating throughout (except I.i.l.). But
the predominance of Simeon may well derive from revisions of the
traditions in the second century A.D. and afterward, particularly in
disputed interpretations of early history by Meir and Judah b. Ilai.
Simeon is persistently related to Alexandra Salome. In Josephus's ac
count of Alexander Jannaeus and his wife, wefindno reference whatever
to Simeon b. Shetah. Since Josephus was a Pharisee, the omission of
Simeon's name is noteworthy. He presumably knew nothing of the
Simeon-traditions in connection with the times of Alexander Jannaeus
and Alexandra Salome. What we do find, in the case of Alexander
Jannaeus, is stories of revolts against him by the "Jewish population"
(War 1:88), producing "fifty-thousand deaths." In the War the Phari
sees are never mentioned in that connection. His wife and successor,
138
JUDAH AND
SIMEON CONCLUSION
Alexandra Salome, is described as "the very strictest observer of the

national traditions"; the reference, however, has to do with the Temple
priesthood (War 1:108). Then comes the well-known reference to the
Pharisees:
Beside Alexandra, and growing as she grew, arose the Pharisees, a
body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in
the observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws. To them,
being herself intensely religious, she listened with too great deference;
while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, be
came at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish
and to recall, to loose and to bind whom they would. In short, the en
joyments of royal authority were theirs; its expenses and burthens fell
to Alexandra... if she ruled the nation, the Pharisees ruled her.
(War. 1:110-112, trans. L. H. Feldman, pp. 53-5.)
The Pharisees avenged themselves on their enemies of the time
of Alexander Jannaeus, which suggests Alexander had persecuted
Pharisees, though Josephus does not so specify. In the Antiquities
(13:320ff.) the story is much different. Josephus everywhere embel
lishes the account, e.g. to the narrative of the Jewish revolt (13:372),
he now adds the following:
... at the celebration of the festival [of Sukkot] and as he stood beside
the altar and was about to sacrifice, they pelted him with citrons... and
they added insult to injury by saying that he was descended from cap
tives and was unfit to hold office and to sacrifice.
(Antiquities
13:372, trans. Ralph Marcus, p. 413)
He thereupon killed "six thousand of them." Further, when Alexander
further slaughtered "eight hundred of his opponents in Jerusalem,"
on account of their treason, "then his opponents, numbering in all
about eight thousand, fled at night and remained in exile so long
as Alexander lived" (Antiquities 13:383). These are not called Phari
sees. Before he died, he further advised Alexandra to yield a certain
amount of power to the Pharisees, "for if they praised her in return
for this sign of regard, they would dispose the nation favorably to
ward her" (Antiquities 13:400). Josephus waxes eloquent, in Jannaeus'
dying speech, about the influence of the Pharisees and the importance
of conciliating them, presumably because he was eager to convince the
Romans to put the Pharisees (of Yavneh) into power. After Yannai's
death, Alexandra did just that:
Thereupon Alexandra... conferred with the Pharisees... and by placing
in their hands all that concerned his corpse and the royal power, stilled
JUDAH AND
SIMEON CONCLUSION
139
their anger against Alexander and made them her well-wishers and
friends.
(Antiquities
13:405)
She gave power over to the Pharisees (13:408) and "restored the
traditions of their fathers which had been abolished by Hyrcanus."
Here we find no reference to their taking advantage of her simplicity.
Consequently
While she had the title of sovereign, the Pharisees had the power. For
example, they recalled exiles and freed prisoners and in a word in no
way differed from absolute rulers.
(Antiquities
13:409)
One is not readily tempted to follow the example of the historians
who present a "harmony" of the rabbinic stories of Simeon and his
contemporaries with the account of Josephus. Obviously all we have
are compilations of inconsistent materials, given their final form over
a century after the events described in them. Josephus's second ver
sion is much embellished. For all we know, his account of events re
flects that of the Pharisees; but neither gains much credence on that
account.
The report of exiles is congruent with the flight of Judah b. Tabbai
or was it Joshua?to Alexandria. The relationships between Si
meon and Yannai may similarly be harmonized with stories in Jose
phus. But all the Simeon-stories place him in close relationship
with Alexander Jannaeus before the "persecutions." Josephus says
nothing about the relationship of any Pharisees with Jannaeus before
the revolt. Indeed, the revision of Josephus's own attitude toward the
Pharisees and Alexandra Salome suggests contemporary considerations
have everywhere colored his second, detailed version of history.
The rabbinic traditions on the Pharisees in the time of Yannai and
a queen whose name no one can get straight are, as I said, by no means
consistent. The break with the king came about because of an insult,
or because Simeon cheated him, or for some other reason. "The Phari
sees" called Yannai to courtbut then failed to support Simeon.
Simeon restored the Pharisees to powerbut we do not know how.
Or Salome "his sister" got him a safe-conduct. He was essential for
saying Grace at the king's tableand made a fool of the king. Simeon
was a poor manor the queen's brother. The Persian embassy remem
bered himor was not present. Simeon vanquished the Sadducees
or they were utterly unknown. Yannai killed all the rabbis, but they
managed to flee and later returnedor Gabriel killed them!
140
JUDAH AND
SIMEON CONCLUSION
The fact is that the rabbinic traditions themselves are unclear as

to the course of events. If one selects one group of traditions for har
monization with Josephus's stories, the next group must be dropped.
And one must further ignore important developments in Josephus's
own account in order to follow him as a reliable informant. All we
may say for sure is that some of the rabbinic traditions are roughly
congruent with some of the things Josephus reports. That hardly
justifies a fusion of the whole into a single historical account.
The rabbis for their part know hardly anything of important events
in the account of Josephus on Pharisaic-Hasmonean relationships.
The whole thing sometimes is reduced to a temporary exile. They
have heard nothing of Yannai's advice (if he gave it) to his wife about
conciliating them. Most important, they see the Pharisees of those
days pretty much like contemporary rabbis. Josephus' picture is of a
political party seeking to dominate the country and succeeding in
doing so. No hint in the Simeon-stories suggests a quest for the sort
of power Josephus attributes to the party. The "rabbis" are needed
by the court to say Grace. They cheat the king, harp on the value of
their "Torah". They take pride in the petty ceremonial honors paid
to themsitting between the king and the queen. This picture of
rabbis derives not from second-century B.C. Hasmonean court poli
tics, but from a much later time, when the Pharisaic party had trans
cended its origins and become fundamentally a scholastic society of
sages, judges, and bureaucrats, exercising power in the Jewish com
munity only through political institutions in the hands of patriarch
and exilarch, with the imperial governments behind both. To such a
group the trivial honors accorded by Yannai the King were note
worthy. The practical power described by Josephus lay beyond their
imagination.
In summary, we are not able to verify either the details or the
general picture of one set of stories in the "parallels" elsewhere. I
judge the rabbinic traditions to be of modest historical veracity at
best. They reveal no very accurate knowledge of contemporary, second
century B.C. conditions or traditions. The failure of Josephus to men
tion the very "rabbi" thought by the rabbis to have dominated the court of
Yannai and Salome is remarkable. The Simeon of Talmudic stories there
fore must be regarded entirely within the limits of rabbinic tradition.
We have observed a general tendency to idealize the days of Simeon
and Salome. Rain was plentiful, crops were abundant, and the effects
of sin were removed. Simeon exerted sufficient power to hang eighty
JUDAH AND
SIMEON CONCLUSION
141
"witches" in Ashqelon, presumably the Pharisaic equivalent to, and

revision of, the stories in Josephus about their vengeful behavior.
To him are attributed very ancient ordinancesthe marriage-contract
(or some clauses in it), the school system, and a ruling on purity laws.
In these traditions Simeon's supposed superior or associate, Judah b.
Tabbai, is unknown. Those responsible for shaping this picture of
Simeon suppressed any mention of his name. Yet he was elsewhere
either head of the court or Nasi. Clearly, two sets of traditions about
Simeon and Judah were handed on, and in no way can they be harmo
nized with one another (let alone, in the case of Simeon, internally).
According to the Simeon-traditions we may draw the picture just
given. According to the Simeon + Judah traditions, Simeon was
simply an associate in the leadership of the party. The two men made a
few decrees about Temple matterswhether to lay hands on the sacrifice,
purity rules. One of the men judged a murder case. They both hid
out in the time of Jannaeus's persecution. That is the whole picture.
My guess is that the Judah + Simeon set is the more accurate of the
two. The stories of Simeon alone tend to assign the name of Simeon
to a great Pharisaic hero in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Alex
andra Salome. I suppose that the attribution is of the same accuracy
as the assignment to Simeon's days of abundant rain, and the attribu
tion to Simeon's authority of ancient rules in the marriage-contract,
the foundation of the school system, and various moral sayings. It is
a mere convention, certainly not related to a corpus of living traditions
in the first instance shaped in those ancient days.
CHAPTER SIX
SHEMA'IAH
AND
ABTALION
i. TRADITIONS
I.i.l. Shema'iah says, "The faith with which their father Abraham
believed in me is deserving (KDY) that I should divide the sea for
chem, for it is said, And he believed in the Lord (Gen. 15:6)."
Abtalion says, "The faith with which they [themselves] believed in
me is deserving that I should divide the sea for them, for it is said,
And the people believed (Ex. 4:31)."
[Mekh. Beshallah, ed. and trans. J . Z. Lauterbach, IV, lines 58-60, Vol. I, p. 220 ( = Mekhilta
de R. Shime on b. Yohai, ed. Epstein-Melamed
[Jerusalem, 1956], p. 58, lines 17-19)]
c
Comment: This theological-exegetical pericope is part of a series of

sayings concerning the merit for which God saved Israel at the sea.
Bena'ah says it is for the merit of the binding of Isaac. Simon b. Teman
says the merit comes from circumcision. Judah the Patriarch says,
"That faith with which they believed in me is deserving..."the same as
Abtalion. Like Shema'iah, Ele azar b. Azariah says it is for the sake of
Abraham, but does not cite Gen. 15:6. Ele'azar b. Judah of Kefar Tota
says it is for the sake of the tribes. Then come Shema'iah and Abtalion.
Following is Simon of Kitron (for the merit of the bones of Joseph). No
order following generations or any other pattern can be discerned. The
context is therefore difficult to locate. The terminus ante quern may be
Judah the Patriarch.
Strikingly, while Judah the Patriarch and Ele'azar b. 'Azariah take
the positions of Abtalion and Shema'iah, respectively, they do not at
tribute their opinions to the earlier masters. This may mean they did
not know those opinions. In that case the editor drew Shema'iah and
Abtalion materials from a source unavailable to Tannaim after 70. This
seems to me unlikely. The later rabbis' failure to attribute their opinions
to the earlier authorities may best be explained otherwise. The fact is
they do not repeat the exact words of Shema iah and Abtalion, but
formulate positions similar to theirs.
It is rare that a clearcut logion attributed to the two "fathers of the
world" is actually quoted at all. Generally, as is common among the
Pharisaic authorities before Hillel, stories are told, testimonies are re
ported, references are made to deeds done by the sages, but direct at
tributions in the form of conventional, balanced logia are seldom found.
c
SHEMA'IAH AND
A B T A L I O N Il.i.l
143
It is also anomalous for Shema iah and Abtalion to be separated and

given contradictory opinions. Everywhere else the two are treated as
one authority. So it is a puzzling pericope, without formal parallel else
where, the only theological-exegetical saying attributed to the two
masters. It is a unity.
Il.i.l.A. Hillel says, "One hin [= threeqabs] of drawn water renders
the immersion-pool unfit."
[We speak of hin] only ('L') [MS Kaufmann omits >L>] because ()
a man must speak (HYYB LWMR) in the language of his teacher.
And Shammai says, "Nine qabs."
And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either."
B. But until ('L* D S) two weavers came frome the Dung Gate in
Jerusalem and testified in the name of (MM) Shema'iah and Abtalion
[MS Kaufmann: = that], "Three logs [ = a fourth of a hin] of drawn
water render the immersion-pool unfit," [and] the sages [MS Kauf
mann omits the sages] confirmed their opinion.
(M. <Ed. 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 422)
C
Comment: The legal opinion of Shema'iah and Abtalion on the amount of drawn water it takes to disqualify a ritual bath is attributed not
to their supposed disciple, Hillel, but to two lowly workers from a poor
part of town.
The usual order, Shammai, then Hillel, is reversed. I cannot suggest
why. The interpolation between their lemmas accounts for nothing.
Several curious allegations are before us. First, "the sages" declined
the opinion of either Hillel or Shammai. Only an opinion in the name
of Shema iah and Abtalion was acceptable. Why until "just that time"
the sages were reluctant to go along with the distinguished leaders of
(presumably) their own generation is not said. The "sages" here cannot
be thought subordinate to Hillel and Shammai. What is equally inter
esting, second, is that Hillel is specifically allegedby the interpolation
to have used the language he heard from his master. One important
corpus of traditions relates that Shema iah and Abtalion were his only
master(s). Here the language of his master [bin] is explicitly not that of
Shema iah and Abtalion [log]. The interpolation ignores that fact.
Part B of the pericope is added to part A by a circle by no means im
pressed with Hillel or his traditions, for Hillel's opinion is not on the
spot accepted. His traditions are not even those of the sages with whom
it is alleged that he studied. Quite to the contrary, if this tradition had
stood alone, we should have had to conclude Hillel did not study with
Shema'iah and Abtalion. We shall have to regard the pericope, there
fore, as deriving from a circle that regarded Shema iah and Abtalion as
Hillel's superiors and also denied Hillel knew their Toraha circle hos
tile to Hillel himself. Such a group had to come after Hillel and Sham
mai. And it is not likely to have been a circle of Shammaites, for they
c
144
S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N II.i.2
would surely have reversed the order of the masters and placed Sham
mai first. That this is the original order here is shown in the following,
which has Shammai in the right place:
A n d w h y d o t h e y r e c o r d t h e o p i n i o n s o f Shammai and Hillel w h e n t h e s e
do not prevail (Lit.: F o r n o purpose, L B T L H ; M S K a u f m a n n : L B T L N ) ?
T o t e a c h f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t a m a n s h o u l d n o t insist u p o n his o p i n i o n
( W M D *L D B R W ) f o r l o , t h e f a t h e r s o f t h e w o r l d d i d n o t insist u p o n t h e i r
opinions.
(
M . 'Ed. 1 : 4
This puts a good light on matters, but serves also to underline the
anomaly observed above. But compare Tos. Ed.
The sages' words, remarkably, were preserved only by humble men,
not by the distinguished scholars of their circle. The moral lesson can
not obscure the polemic: Hillel and Shammai failed, but ordinary folk
succeeded, in preserving the sages' wordsjust as in the story of Hillel's
rise to power, Tos. Pisha = y. Pes. = b. Pes.! I cannot guess who
would have wanted to make the point that ordinary folk remember
what sages should know but forget, but a circle hostile to Hillel's heirs
would be a likely candidate. Such a group would have been responsible
both for stories representing Hillel's true heirs not as his children but
as learned masters of Torah, e.g. Yohanan ben Zakkai, and for materials
such as these, in which Hillel himself "forgets" or ignores an important
tradition of his supposed masters, which therefore was left to be pre
served by low-class people. "The sages," standing in judgment on
Hillel's opinion, rejected it even before they knew what Shema iah and
Abtalion had to say, and as soon as they did, confirmed the opinion of
S + A. The House of Shammai or circles responsible for the deposition
of Gamaliel II at Yavneh present themselves as candidates, but only
among other possibilities.
The testimony-form for the transmission of Shema iah and Abtalion's
sayings, appearing here, with reference to Yosi [b. Halafta], and else
where, is the only form in which their legal sayings are preserved.
The pericope naturally breaks into two units. Thefirstis Hillel says...
Shammai says... The whole of part A could have stood separately. Part
B is a separate story, linked to the foregoing by the awkward hut until
and then, the sages confirmed their opinion. Without that redactional ele
ment, part B would have taken the form M*SH B, and, as we shall see,
it actually did. This confirms the supposition that the pericope is a
composite. Someone had to add part B to the perfectly neutral materials
in part A, thereby turning part A into a criticism of Hillel.
The interpolation only... teacher underlines the criticism, but the in
tent of the third hand could have been merely to explain Hillel's strange
word-choice (hin rather than gab/log).
Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 234, 423.
c
II.i.2. [ Aqaviah b. Mahalallel testified to four opinions...] He said,

"They do not give a proselytess or a freed bondwoman to drink of the
water [of bitterness]."
SHEMA'IAH AND
145
A B T A L I O N Il.ii.l
And the sages say, "They give her to drink."

They said to him, "It happened (M SH B) to Kharkemit, a freed
bondwoman who was in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion gave
her to drink."
He replied, "Only in show (DWGM ) did they make her drink."
Whereupon they laid him under a ban, and he died while he was
yet under the ban, and the court stoned his coffin...
(M. 'Ed. 5:6, trans. Danby, p. 432, = Sifre
Num. 7, ed. H. S. Horovitz, p. 11.)
C
Comment: The story of a judicial decision of Shema'iah and Abtalion

is inserted into the 'Aqaviah-story. It probably circulated separately, in
ma'aseh b- form. If we did not have the above version (and parallel), we
should know nothing about the allegation that they had taken an im
portant role in administering Temple rites. I do not know why such an
allegation would have been suppressed or allowed to disappear. The
rabbis repeatedly claimed that Pharisees had governed Temple rites.
Yohanan ben Zakkai was supposed to have abrogated this one. We
have no reason to imagine that any circle within Pharisaism was eager
to obliterate the record of the deed of the old sages. That the 'Aqaviahpericope cited their deed shows it was regarded as valid precedent. All
we may say with certainty, therefore, is that Shema'iah-Abtalion mate
rials circulated in forms other than those available to us, and we may
further conjecture that some of those materials have been lost.
The actual mcfaseh is a model of its genre, brief, simple, unified. Yet
the adjectives about who Kharkemit was were supplied later on, to fit
the story into the present context. Elsewhere the story serves a quite
different purpose, and there we hear nothing about her status as a freed
slave-girl. The earliest and simplest form of the story therefore must
have been Kharkemit + ShemaHah and Abtalion + made her drink. To this
are then supplied the conventional superscription, ma*aseh b- as well as
the details about her personal status.
y
Il.ii.l.A. Hillel says, "A Ml hin (ML? HYN) of drawn water of

twelve log (LWG) spoils the ritual bath."
Shammai says, "A full hin of drawn water of thirty-six log spoils the
ritual bath."
And the sages say, "Not according to the words of this and not ac
cording to the words of this, but three logs (LWGYN) of drawn water
spoil the ritual bath."
B. The story is told (M SH B) that two weavers came from the
Dung Gate which is in Jerusalem and gave testimony in the name of
Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water spoil the
immersion-pool, and the sages confirmed their words.
C
146
S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N III.ii.1, 2, 3
C. And why is the name of their place and of their vocation men
tioned? For you have no calling more lowly than weaving, and no
place so despised in Jerusalem as the Dung Gate. But just as the
fathers of the world did not insist upon their opinions in place of an
oral tradition (MW H), how much the more so that any [lesser]'man
should not insist upon his opinion in place of an oral tradition.
(Tos. Ed. 1:3,ed. Zuckermandel,pp. 454, lines
31-3, 455, lines 1-6)
C
Comment:
See Il.i.l and synopses.

c
111.11.1. DTNN: He [ Aqaviah] used to say, "The [bitter] water is

not administered either to a convert or to a freed slavewoman."
And the sages say, "One administers the water."
And they said to him, "The story is told of (M<SH B) Kharkemit
the freed slavewoman in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion
administered the water to her."
He said to them, "They administered it to her as an example
(DWGM )..."
(b. Ber. 19a)
}
Comment: The setting now is R. Joshua b. Levi's list of places in

which the court inflicted excommunication for an insult to a teacher.
The inclusion of Shema'iah and Abtalion is on account of the citation
of M. <Ed. 5:6. See II.i.2.
111.11.2. [R. Huna said, In three places Shammai and Hillel differed.]
The second: Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water..." Shammai
said, "Nine qabs"
But the sages say, "Not according to the opinion of this one or
that one."
Until two weavers came from the Dung Gate of Jerusalem and
testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of
drawn-water render an immersion-pool unfit, and the sages ratified
their words.
(b. Shab. 15a)
See Il.i.l. The setting is late third-century Sura.
111.11.3. [TNW RBNN: This law was hidden from the Men of
Bathyra. After a long argument with Hillel, in which Hillel provides
logical proofs, he wins. Then he says to the opposition:]
A. "What caused it for you that I should come up from Babylonia
Comment:
SHEMA'IAH AND
ABTALION
III.ii.4
147
to be Nasi over you? It was your indolence, because you did not serve
the two greatest men of the time, Shema'iah and Abtalion..."
[They ask another question. Hillel cannot answer but observes the
conduct of ordinary people. He saw the behavior and then remember
ed the law and said,]
B. "Thus have I received the tradition from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion."
(b. Pes. 66a)
c
Comment: What is important for our present purposes is the assertion,

contrary to Il.i.l, that Hillel did preserve and rely upon what he had
learned from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But strikingly, the author of the
story (part B) held that whatever was worthwhile in Hillel's traditions
was verified by its origin with his two teachers. Nothing Hillel could as
sert in his own name was sufficient. Part A underlines this: those who
fail to serve the sages lose their job as nasi\ On the one side is the view
of M. Ed.: Hillel and Shammai lost traditions they ought to have
known or did not study with Shema'iah and Abtalion to begin with.
The middle position, represented here (B) is that Hillel did study with
them, but only when he could cite them was he taken seriously. The
third position is that his earlier learning had taken place abroad, and he
was independent of the two predecessors. That third position is repre
sented in part A. Hillel was educated elsewhere. He came up as a
learned man. "You could have studied with the great sages, but were
too lazy to do so. Therefore I am able to overcome you." But the endresult is the same as part B. The beraita is transparently composite.
The .beraita s position on Hillel's relationships with the two earlier
sages is complex, but hardly so negative as in the earlier materials.
Shema'iah and Abtalion again are represented as having given laws
pertaining to the Temple cult and holiday sacrifices.
c
III.ii.4. TNY*: Judah b. Dortai (DWRT'Y) with his son Dortai

separated (PR) and went and took up residence, in the south.
He said, "If Elijah should come and say to Israel, 'Why did you not
sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath?' what would they say to him?
I am astonished at the two great men of the generation, Shema'iah
and Abtalion, who are great sages and great expositors (DRNYM),
but have not said to Israel, 'The hagigah overrides the Sabbath.'"
(b. Pes. 70b)
Comment: The setting is a discussion of the Mishnah, "When does he
bring a hagigah with it?" Various sayings of Ben Tema are discussed.
The discussion is anonymous. Then comes the beraita cited above. Rav
immediately comments on it, "What is the reason of the son of Dortai?"
Hence the beraita must antedate Rav, therefore is probably Palestinian
and certainly of Tannaitic origin. The next comment is R . Ashi, "Are
148
S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N IILii.5
we to arise and explain the reason of schismatics (PRW$YM)!" Further

discussion is on the reason that the rabbis prohibit the hagigah on the
Sabbath, but this may pertain just as well to the Mishnah cited earlier as
to the
beraita.
This is a striking story, for it represents Shema'iah and Abtalion as

"great men" who have failed in their task. The hostility is more impor
tant than the complimentary epithets. They supposedly are the greatest
sages and expositors of the time, yet have failed to teach the simplest
law. We know nothing of a sect of "Dortaians" in the south. The beraita
purports to tell the origins of a schismatic group, but the group now is
unverified elsewhere. We surely cannot link the beraita to others hostile
to the two sages, but it does testify that the sages were subjected to
critical judgment in later Pharisaism. Since Hillel's rise to power is tied
to a related problem (Pesah on the Sabbath), and Shema'iah andAb talion
are credited with ruling the paschal sacrifice does override the Sabbath,
this is a very puzzling story.
See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 333, 373, 511. Epstein comments (p. 511)
that this passage shows Shema'iah and Abtalion did say the paschal sac
rifice does, and the hagigah does not, override the Sabbath.
III.ii.5. [Re the coming of Hillel: He came from Babylonia and
was a poor man. He could not afford to enter the school-house. He sat
on the skylight] to hear the words of the living God from the mouth
of Shema'iah and Abtalion.
They say, that day was the eve of the Sabbath in the winter solstice,
and snow fell down on him from heaven. When dawn rose, Shema'iah
said to Abtalion, "Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light,
and today it is dark. Is it a cloudy day?" They looked up and saw the
figure of a man in the window...
(b. Yoma 35b)
Comment: They ended up by warming Hillel by a fire, commenting
that it was "worth (KDY) profaning the Sabbath for Hillel," an apoph
thegm, built on the generative KDY-form. The story is a singleton,
part of the tradition on the surface cordial to Hillel, that he had learned
everything he knew from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But the further pre
supposition of that corpus of traditions is that one would be praised
who had acquired his traditions from them, and one would not be
praised who had not, hence a circle favorable to Shema'iah and Abtalion
to begin with. Its point is that Hillel is reliable because of his sacrifice in
studying with the two great sages, as in III.ii.3.B.
The story is part of a composite beraita which proves that whether a
man is poor, rich, or evil, he is liable to study Torah. Those in the
beraita held up as worthy examples are Hillel (poor), R. Eleazar b.
Harsom (rich), and Joseph in Egypt (evil = sexually attractive). The
Hillel-story antedates the composite beraita.
SHEMA'IAH AND
149
A B T A L I O N III.ii.6
The supposition of the story-teller that one must pay to sit at the ses
sions of the Pharisaic schools is striking. I am not sure that a criticism
of Shema iah and Abtalion is intended.
c
III.ii.6. [Mishnah: On Yom Kippur the high priest would arrange

for his friends a day of festivity.]
A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): It happened (M SHB) with
a high priest that as he came forth from the sanctuary, all the people follow
ed him. When they saw Shema iah and Abtalion, they left him and
followed Shema'iah and Abtalion.
Eventually Shema'iah and Abtalion visited him to take (their) leave
of the high priest.
He said to them, "May the descendants of gentiles ( MMYN) come
to peace."
B. They answered him, "May the descendants of gentiles who do
the work of Aaron come to peace, but the descendant of Aaron who
does not do the work of Aaron shall not come to peace."
(b. Yoma 71b)
C
Comment: The passage is anonymous, connected to the foregoing

Mishnah without discussion, and followed by another Mishnah. The
italicized portions are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. As in other
beraitot pertaining to this period, e.g., Simeon b. Shetah and the Nazirs,
and the hangings in Ashqelon, the opening formula is in beraita-Hebrew, the body of the story in Aramaic.
The allegation that the two masters descend from gentiles is made in
a gloss on another beraita, b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b. The High Priest
here is represented as objecting to the popularity of Pharisaic sages,
therefore referring to their disreputable ancestors. Their response is
that they do the work of Aaron. The priest does not. The work of
Aaron which sages do is not the cult but the study of the Torah. After
the destruction of the Temple Torah was alleged by the rabbis to be
equivalent to the old Temple cult. Before that time, to be sure, it may
well have been asserted that a sage of illegitimate ancestry takes prece
dence over a high priest who has not studied Torah, but that is not the
same thing as saying the study of Torah is the work of Aaron. Hence I
suppose the beraita derives from a period when the more extreme asser
tion was taken for granted. It furthermore was a time in which people
could imagine that crowds would leave the high priest on the Day of
Atonement and celebrate the great sages. This rabbinic conception may
not derive from a period in which information on the actual state of af
fairs in Temple times was still known.
The story is a singleton. The words attributed to the two sages may
have originated in an anti-priestly slogan of greater antiquity. But in
their present setting, they are integral to the storyindeed, they may
150
III.ii.7, 8; IV.i.l,
have provoked the invention of the story. The final logion (B) could
have circulated as an anti-priestly saying.
111.11.7. TN>: Naaman was a resident convert. Nebuzaradan was a
righteous proselyte. Descendants of Haman studied Torah in Bene
Beraq. Descendants of Sisera taught children in Jerusalem. Descend
ants of Sennacherib taught Torah in public.
Who were these (M>N >YNWN)? Shema'iah and Abtalion.
(b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b)
Comment: No authority is mentioned in connection with the above
beraita. Who are these is an Aramaic gloss of the beraita. We have no basis
on which to propose a date. Presumably, the gloss comes after Tannaitic
times, and the glossator knew III.ii.6.
111.11.8. Surely it was taught [WHTNY>]:
If an animal takes up its abode in an orchard, it requires predeter
mination, and a free bird must be tied by her wings, so that it should
not be mistaken for its mother, and this is testimony which they
testified from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion.
(b. Bes. 25a)
c
Comment: The setting is a discussion of an opinion of R. Hisda or

Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Nahman. The beraita is a singleton, to be
dated at the latest ca. 250 A.D., presumably in Babylonia.
As is common for the early names of the Pharisaic chain of tradition,
the attribution of a legal opinion is not in the form, Rabbi X says...
Rather, the records are preserved as testimonies (Il.i.l, IV.ii.l), in
stories (II.i.2), or in other forms which later became unconventional.
This matter of festival law nowhere earlier occurs in the names of
Shema'iah and Abtalion. The Houses debate the same theme.
IV.i.l. [They asked Hillel (re Passover sacrifice)... He said, Observe
the people's behavior. When he saw what they did, he said to them:]
"Thus have I heard from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion."
(y. Shab. 19:1, repr. Gilead, p. 87a)
Comment: See III.ii.3.
IV.i.2. [This law was lost by the Elders of Bathyra (re Passover)].
They said, "There is here a certain Babylonian, and Hillel is his
name, who served [as disciple] to Shema'iah and Abtalion..."
[After a long discussion, in which Hillel brings various logical
proofs and they refused to be persuaded, he said,] "Thus I have heard
from Shema iah and Abtalion."
c
SHEMA'IAH
AND
A B T A L I O N IV.i.3; IV.ii.l
151
Once they had heard from him thus, they arose and appointed him
Nasi over them
When they had appointed him Nasi over them, he began to criticize
them, saying, "Who caused you to require this Babylonian? Is it not
because you did not serve the two great men of the world, Shema'iah
and Abtalion, who would sit with you [in times past]."
(y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, p. 39a)
IV.i.3. [R. 'Aqiba and the sages debate on administering the bitter
waters to a woman accused of adultery, in the following circumstance:
Her first husband accused her of adultery and made her drink the
bitter waters. Then he died. She remarried. The second husband ac
cused her of committing adultery even against the first husband.
Does he have the right to make her drink the bitter waters again?]
The sages say, "Whether against one husband or against two, she
drinks and repeats [the ritual].
"Khorkemit [sic] provides proof, for she drank and repeated, and
did it a third time before Shema'iah and Abtalion [on account of an
accusation of adultery against] one husband [only]."
(y. Sot. 2:5, repr. Gilead, p. 13a)
c
Comment: See II.i.2, M. Ed. 5:6. This is an allusion to the Mishnah.

But the story of Kharkemit is augmented. Nothing in the Mishnah sug
gests the above legal issue. There the story serves to illustrate a quite
different legal point, namely, that one administers the waters to a freed
bondwoman. Here that fact about the woman's status is necessarily
dropped. The passage may have been revised for the purposes of the
current discussion, but if so, the revision involved drastic changes, the
imposition of a quite new set of facts. There is no doubt that the dis
cussion is to be attributed to the generation of 'Aqiba. The possibility
that Aqiba had a different version of what was important about
Kharkemit cannot be ignored.
c
IV.ii.l. R. Zakkai said, "This testimony [referring to the Mishnah:

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and
left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat Terumah in virtue of the share
of the embryo, since an embryo may deprive (its mother) of the pri
vilege (of eating Terumah), but has no power to bestow it upon her,
according to R. Yosi] did R. Yosi testify from the mouth of Shema'iah
and Abtalion, and they agreed with him."
(b. Yev. 67a)
152
SHEMA'IAH A N D A B T A L I O N IV.ii.l
Shema'iah
and
Abtalion
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1. Faith merited
splitting the R e d
Sea
Mekh. Beshallah I V ,
58-60
2. W e a v e r s quote
S + A re d r a w n
w a t e r in i m m e r
sion-pool
Sifre N u m . 7
3. G a v e bitterw a t e r t o suspected
adulteress
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
M . 'Ed. 1 : 3
Tos. 'Ed. 1 : 3
M . 'Ed. 5 : 6
S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N IV.ii.l
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
j IILii
! Tannaitic
Materials i n
Babylonian
Gemara
Jb.
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
Bes. 1 9 a
y. Sot. 2 : 5
5. J u d a h b. D o r t a i
criticizes S + A
b. Pes. 7 0 a
6 . Hillel s t u d i e d
with S + A though
a poor man
b. Y o m a 3 5 b
7. H i g h priest
insulted S + A
b. Y o m a 7 1 b
8. S + A were
descended f r o m
Sennacherib
b. G i t . 5 7 b
b. S a n h . 9 6 b
9. Re marking
animal and bird
b. B e s . 2 5 a
y. Shab. 1 9 : 1
y . Pes. 6 : 1
1 0 . R. Y o s i quotes
S - f A re Terumah
b. Y e v . 67a
M. A v o t 1 : 1 0 - 1 1
V
ARN
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
Midrash on
Psalms 1 7 A : 1
1
b. Pes. 6 6 a
Avot-saying
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
4. Hillel quotes
S + A
11.
IV.i
153
154
SHEMA'IAH
AND
ABTALION VLxi.l
Comment: See IILii.8 for the same form, "This is testimony which X
testified from the mouth of S + A." We do not know where or how
the form was created. It does not appear in the earliest stratum of ma
terials, but is attributed to R. Yosi in a beraita (IILii. 8) and here in a
teaching of a third-century Amora. Such attributions of legal opinions
to Shema'iah and Abtalion, while puzzling, cannot be rejected out of
hand. We may here have a reminiscence of the 'Eduyyot-fotm of the
transmission of legal materials. If so, the materials could have received
their current form as early as the end of the first century A.D. But Yosi
b. Halafta comes a century and a half after the two sages, and he did not
hear the tradition from their mouths. Rather, the meaning obviously is on
the authority of
VLxi.l. Another comment on A prayer of David.
Hear the right, O Lord (Ps. 17:1). Consider these words in the light
of what Scripture says elsewhere: And this is the blessing of fudah, and he
said: Hear, O Lord, the voice of fudah (Deut. 33:7). Now there, in a
Mishnah, we learned:
Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water makes a ritual bath of purifi
cation unfit." Note well, that it is the duty of a man to quote his master's
exact words.
Shammai said, "Nine qabs of drawn water make a ritual bath of
purification unfit."
But the sages said, "The practice is not in keeping with what the
one said, nor with what the other said."
Then came two weavers from the Dung-gate in Jerusalem and
testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn
water make a ritual bath of purification unfit, and the sages accepted
the testimony of the weavers.
Since no craft is more lowly than a weaver's, and no place in Jerusa
lem is more despised than the Dung-gate, why was the place whence
the weavers came, and why also was the name of their craft recorded,
except to show that, like the fathers of the world who did not persist
in their own opinion where there was a tradition to the contrary, so
no man should persist in his opinion wherever there is a tradition to
the contrary?
Since the opinions of Shammai and of Hillel in this instance did not
prevail, why were they recorded? To teach coming generations that
a man should not always persist in his opinions, for even Shammai
and Hillel, the fathers of the world, did not.
(Midrash on Psalms 17A:l-2, trans. Braude, p.
221)
155
SYNOPSES
Comment: See M. Ed. 1:3, Il.i.l .A. Braude solves all problems through
paraphrase.
ii. SYNOPSES
Synopses of the Hillel-materials will be provided below.

1. Splitting the Sea
Mekh. of R. Ishmael
1. Shema'iah says,
2 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t A b r a h a m
their father believed in m e
3 . t h a t I shall o p e n f o r t h e m ( L H M )
t h e sea
4. as it is said, G e n . 1 5 : 6
5. A b t a l i o n says,
6 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e d
in m e
7 . t h a t I s h o u l d o p e n f o r t h e m t h e sea
8. as it is s a i d , E x . 4 : 3 1
Mekb. of R. Simeon b. Yohai

2.
[ o m i t s HY>]
t h e [ f a i t h ] , their father
3 . I am opening f o r t h e m
4.
(LHN)
[ O m i t s as it is said]
6 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 2 ] t h a t
Israel in Egypt b e l i e v e d
7 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 3 ]
Q
>
The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai exhibits fixed stylistic differ

ences from the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael. No. 6 represents a consider
able clarification. The point of Abtalion is that their faith, not merely
that of the fathers, is being rewarded. Hence Mekhilta of R. Simeon b.
Yohai stresses this by supplying Israel in Egypt in place of the less
precise they. The versions are otherwise very close and the differences
merely stylistic. The Ishmael-version is older.
2. Weavers quote Shemaciah and Abtalion
M. 'Ed.
1:3-4
1 . H i l l e l s a y s , A bin o f
drawn-water
spoils
the
miqveh
2 . B u t ('L* ) a m a n is o b
l i g a t e d t o say i n t h e l a n
guage o f his master
3. S h a m m a i says,
Nine
qabs
4 . A n d t h e sages say, N o t
according to the w o r d s of
this one, and n o t according
to the w o r d s o f this one.
5. B u t u n t i l ('L' <D ) t w o
weavers came f r o m
the
D u n g G a t e w h i c h is i n
J e r u s a l e m a n d g a v e testi
mony
in t h e n a m e
of
( M 5 W M ) Shemaâh and
Abtalion
Tos. 'Ed.
1:3
1.
[ A d d s : ] a full
bin o f twelve log
99
15a
99
99
2. for a m a n
2.
3 . a full bin of thirty-six
b. Shab.
log
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
3
w
'
4.
but three logs of
drawn water spoil the miqveh
[ = M . <Ed. n o . 6 ]
^*
C
5 . The story is told ( M S H

B ) that
156
6. T h r e e logs o f d r a w n
w a t e r s p o i l t h e miqveh
7 . a n d t h e sages
con
firmed t h e i r w o r d s
SYNOPSES
6 > >
6.
7
7
*
>
The measurements thus are as follows:

M.
'Ed.
Hillel:
Tos.
One
bin
[=
three
one
'Ed.
bin
= twelve
logs
qabs]
Shammai: [Three bin] =

nine qabs
Sages:
Three logs [=1/4
hin = 3/4 qab]
one bin = thirty-six logs

= three
logs
Mishnah-Tosefta preserve the same relationships:

393/4 =
12363
M. 'Ed.
1:3-4
8. A n d w h y d o they men
tion the w o r d s of Shammai
a n d Hillel t o n o p u r p o s e
(LBTLH)
9. T o teach c o m i n g g e n
erations that a man should
n o t insist o n his o p i n i o n ,
1 0 . f o r lo, the fathers o f the
w o r l d d i d n o t insist o n t h e i r
opinion.
Tos. 'Ed.
1:3
8. And why are the names of
their places and their occupation
mentioned Do you have a more
lowly occupation than weaving,
or a more despised place in
Jerusalem than the Dung Gate
9. But just as the fathers of
the world
b. Shab.
11
91
11
11
99
91
11
o
y
1 0 . d i d n o t insist o n t h e i r
o p i n i o n in a place where oral
tradition ($MW<H)
is avail
able, how much the more so that
a man should not insist on his
opinion in a place where oral
tradition is available.
15a
10*
In b. Shab. 15a the Mishnah is accurately cited, with only a small

but essential improvement. There the strange L becomes for. Tos.
preserves the story about the weavers as a separate unit. The sages
have already given "their" opinionthe opinion which in the Mishnah
as in the story of the weavers (M SH B) derives from Shema iah and
Abtalion. Tos. Ed. thus has the sages' opinion circulate separately
from the pericope involving Hillel and Shammai. I have already re>
>
1H
3L
H
12L
4L
3L
=
=
=
=
3Q
1/4H
12L
3Q
=
=
Q
3/4Q
SYNOPSES
157
marked on the exculpation of Hillel and Shammai. For the Mishnah

what requires explanation is the citation of the two masters, Hillel and
Shammai, when in fact their opinions do not constitute law.
For Tos. the problem is different. No one is bothered about men
tioning Hillel's and Shammai's opinion when it is not law. It is taken
for granted that this may happen. The Tos. story emphasizes the mod
est origins of the opinion attributed to Shema'iah and Abtalionit
came from weavers from the poorest district. The sermon is in form
much the same. But the "fathers of the world" now are not Hillel and
Shammai, but Shema'iah and Abtalion! And the operative element is
the availability of an oral tradition (M'H). The irony is that Hillel
achieved the office of Nasi only because he had such an oral tradition
from Shema'iah and Abtalion, yet here ignores it. The irony is under
lined in Tos. no. 10. All this is revised by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch,
who naturally makes Hillel and Shammai the fathers of the world, and
their forebearance the point of the sermon.
Here we may attribute to Judah the Patriarch a clearcut preference
for the Mishnaic version of the materials. Hillel, his alleged ancestor,
is at the center of things. Judah makes Hillel the example of modesty and
humility. The story of the weavers occurspresumably there was no
other version of Shema'iah and Abtalion's opinionsbut it is sub
ordinated. We may therefore take it for granted that the story circu
lated separately in the form in which it occurs in the Tosefta. Only
afterwards was it revised to serve the purposes of the editor of Mishnah
'Eduyyot. M'SH B is dropped. And so are the significant lessons to
be learned from the Dung Gate. The version of Tos. contradicts the
letter and spirit of the Hillel-Bene Bathyra stories, which in Judah's
time must have been famous.
3. Gave Bitter Water to Suspected
M. 'Ed. 5:6 = Sifre Num. 7
1 . [ ' A q a v i a h a n d sages dis
pute whether to administer
bitter waters t o c o n v e r t o r
freed female slave. ' A q a v i a h
says o n e d o e s n o t d o s o .
T h e sages say o n e d o e s . ]
2 . T h e y said t o h i m , T h e
s t o r y is t o l d ( M ' S H B ) c o n
cerning K h a r k e m i t , a freed
s l a v e g i r l , w h o w a s in
Terusalem.
Adulteress
b. Ber. 19a
1. TNY>: He w o u l d
say, O n e d o e s n o t
cause
to
drink
(MSQYN)
the fe
male convert n o r the
freed slave girl, and
t h e sages say, Y o u
do.
2.
y. Sot. 2:5
1 . R . * A q i b a said, I shall
explain: F r o m one man, the
wife does not drink and re
peat; f r o m t w o men, the
wife drinks and repeats.
A n d t h e sages say, W h e t h e r
f r o m one o r t w o men, the
wife drinks and repeats.
2 . Khorkemit
will prove it,
for she drank and repeated and
[did it still a] third [ t i m e ] ,
( D r o p s Ma'aseh b-).
158
3.
SHEMA'IAH
A n d Shema'iah and A b -
AND
ABTALION CONCLUSION
3.
3.
talion administered the w a

ters t o her.
4.
He
said t o t h e m , T h e y
administered the waters t o

h e r as an e x a m p l e ( D W G M '
HSQWH).
4 . and h e said
4.
As we see, y. Sot. has 'Aqiba's opposition citing not the Mishnah

before us, but rather a quite different reminiscence of, or allusion to,
it. The story no longer concerns whether a convert or a freed slavegirl is made to drink the waters. She is not a freed slave-girl at all.
Now she is just an ordinary wife, in the situation explained above.
We therefore cannot suppose the Mishnah is accurately quoted by the
sages opposed to 'Aqiba. A different, slightly related version is used
for settling a separate issue. The kernel of both traditions must be an
association of Shema'iah and Abtalion with the administration of the
bitter waters to Kharkemitwho was either a freed slave-girl, or a
wife in an especially complicated situation, but not both.
i n . CONCLUSION
Shema'iah and Abtalion have no teachers. Much like the earlier

pairs, they are quoted, but quote no one. They rarely are cited separate
ly. Indeed, the story of "their" descent from Sennacherib would be
more easily understood if the two were really one person. At any rate
they function as a unit in nearly all traditions.
By inference they are involved in the Temple cult, since they sup
posedly ruled on the administration of the bitter waters to an adul
teress. But this does not mean the later rabbis assumed they were priests,
for the rabbis claimed Temple rites were ruled by rabbis. On the other
hand the conflict with the high priest is a stylized sermon, recording
an opinion familiar in later rabbinic materials.
What is striking is the expansion of the sorts of legal opinions at
tributed to the two masters. These include the measurements of a
ritual bath, the aforementioned administration of bitter waters, Pass
over sacrificial laws (by inference from the attribution of Hillel's opin
ion), sacrifice of the hagigah on the Sabbath (by inference from the
complaint of Judah b. Dortai), preparation of animals for use on
festivals, and rights to consume Terumah. While we of course do not
know whether the two masters really made such rulings, it is conse
quential that the shape and content of the traditions attributed to them
have changed from the earlier ones. The legal materials until Simeon
SHEMA'IAH
AND
ABTALION CONCLUSION
159
b. Shetah were sparse and chiefly concerned purity rules. Simeontraditions somewhat extended the range to include marriage-contracts,
educational reforms, and so on. But nothing like the extent and variety
of the legal attributions to Shema'iah and Abtalion occurs earlier.
S + A now rule on the range of issues characteristic of the Housesdebates: festival, purity, family, and agricultural laws. Their legal
agenda corresponds to that of the first-century authorities.
The traditions clearly are to be divided between those in which
Hillel plays a role, and those in which he is absent. The latter include
the faith that warranted splitting the sea, the administration of the
bitter waters, the criticism of Judah b. Dortai, the encounter with the
high priest, the attribution of their ancestry to Sennacherib, the animal
in the orchard, and the right to eat Terumah. In few of these are the
sages represented as putative ancient authorities for already wellknown, established practices, as is so often the impression given by
Simeon b. Shetah-materials. On the contrary the S + A traditions
independent of Hillel relate to two authorities who, while not abund
antly represented, are credited with actual legal sayings (in testimonyform) and considerable authority (the "sages" approved an opinion
given in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion); who supplied important
precedents made use of in later legal discussions (the bitter water);
and who ruled on complex legal issues (the animal in the orchard,
right to Terumah). Only in the Hillel materials do Shema'iah and
Abtalion occur, like Simeon b. Shetah and earlier figures, as shadowy,
scarcely known "great authorities," to whom conventional opinions
are traced (e.g., Hillel and Bathyrans). Efforts to fill in the gaps by
identifying Shema'iah and Abtalion with Pollion the Pharisee and
his disciple Samaias of Josephus, Antiquities, 15: 1-4, have little in
their favor, apart from the approximate similarity of the names of
Shema'iah and Samaias. Pollion, or Samaias, is credited with arguing
in behalf of Herod when he was on trial before Hyrcanus; he repro
achfully foretold to Hyrcanus and the judges that if Herod's life were
spared, he would one day persecute them all. Herod later on (15:370)
showed kindness to Pollion and Samaias, even though though they
refused to take an oath of loyalty to him. Typical of the 'method' of
the historians is the effort to identify this story with b. Sanh. 19a-b,
above, pp. 114-115, in which Simeon b. Shetah appears against Yan
nai; they make Yannai into Herod, and Simeon is now Samaias. At
any rate nothing in the rabbinic traditions of S + A hints at involve
ments with Herod, nor is Shem'iah represented as Abtalion's disciple.
CHAPTER SEVEN
YOHANAN
T H E HIGH PRIEST,
HONI THE
CIRCLER, A N D OTHERS M E N T I O N E D I N
CONNECTION WITH
BEFORE
PHARISAISM
HILLEL
i. YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST
Il.i.l. Yohanan the High Priest (1) did away with the confession
concerning the Tithe.
(2) He too (T?) made an end (BTL) of the Awakeners and (3) the
Stunners.
(4) And until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem.
(5) And in his days none needed to inquire concerning demai-ptoduce.
(M. Ma'aser Sheni 5:15)
Comment: For the meaning of Yohanan's laws, see S. Lieberman,
"The Three abrogations of Johanan the High Priest," Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), pp. 139-143.
The pericope lists legal actions of Yohanan (= John Hyrcanus). The
language is different for each clause. He did away ( BR) with one thing.
Also he annulled (BTL) two cultic practices. Then comes a different
form: Until his days, joined to the foregoing by and. The final element,
again joined by and, in his days a man did not have to ask, is still a fourth
form. It is difficult to imagine the original materials drawn upon by the
editor. The legal topics are not unrelated. The second and third con
cern Temple rites. The first and fourth relate to the priestly dues.
The setting is laws on the confession. The pericope is tacked on at
the end. While it relates in theme, it is not integral to the antecedent ma
terials and could have been dropped without losing significant laws; it
surely circulated independently.
The tendency of rabbinic .materials is to regard Yohanan the High
Priest as a good priest until the very end. But this pericope contains no
qualification of that judgment. Yohanan did what was right, and his
laws remain valid (so far as they are relevant to contemporary condi
tions). Wefindno hint that Yohanan at the end of his "eighty years" in
office turned to minut or became a Sadducee. That must be regarded as
a separate, and later tradition. After Simeon the Just, Yohanan is the
only high priest so favorably regarded until the first century. He is the
only Hasmonean of whom the rabbis not only approved, but whom
they also held to provide valid precedents in the law.
C
YOHANAN
II.i.2, 3,
161
I cannot propose a date. The form is neither the X says... of later

rabbinic usage, nor the testimony-form, but the three things, as with Yosi
b. Yo'ezer. The preservation of historical-legal reminiscences in other
than conventional style is not unusual. Perhaps this is a model for the
"three things" style characteristic of early masters' sayings, copied in
M . Avot 1:1-18. The lemmas are brief and self-contained. They may
have been redacted according to the pattern in which they reach us,
consisting chiefly of verb plus predicate. Until in his days would be light
glosses. The redactional elements then complete the pericope. The
pericope, like Yosi's, may represent the form of pre-Houses-materials.
Those materials were redacted at Yavneh. Perhaps the earliest Pharisaic
traditions consisted of brief lists on a single legal theme, e.g. unclean
ness, Temple cult, like the little legal pericopae of the Qumranian
writings.
See Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 405-6.
11.1.2. Yohanan the High Priest did away with the confession con
cerning the Tithe.
He also made an end of the Awakeners and the Stunners.
Until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem, and in
his days none needed to inquire concerning ^^/-produce.
(M. Sot. 9:10)
Comment: Confession of is added to Tithe. The setting is a pericope on
changes in the Temple cult. Immediately preceding is the reference to
the end of the rite of breaking the heifer's neck, the bitter water, and
the end of the grapeclusters. The above follows, in the context of the
grapeclusters. Following is, "When the Sanhedrin ceased." The passage
is nearly unchanged from Il.i.l, and the above is certainly a citation of
the foregoing.
11.1.3. And who prepared [the red heifer offering]? ...Yohanan the
High Priest prepared two...
(M. Par. 3:5)
Comment: See above, p. 25. The preservation of Yohanan in this
context again indicates he was one of the good high priests of Pharisaicrabbinic tradition.
11.1.4. The Sadducees say, "We cry out against you, O you Pharisees,
for you say, "The Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean, and the
writings of Homer do not render the hands unclean.'"
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, "Have we nothing against the
Pharisees but this? For lo, they say, 'The bones of an ass are clean
and the bones of Yohanan the High Priest are unclean.'"
They said to him, "As is our love for them, so is their uncleanness
N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I
11
162
YOHANAN Il.ii.l, 2
so that no man will make spoons of the bones of his father or mother."
He said to them, "Even so the Holy Scriptures..."
(M. Yad. 4:6)
Comment: ^^.Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning
Yohanan hen Zakkai (Leiden, 1970), pp. 60, 203. This pericope cannot
date before the beginning of the second century, if then. Yohanan ben
Zakkai is represented as referring to Yohanan the High Priest in a fa
vorable light. The pericope further portrays Yohanan as admired by
the Sadducees. I imagine that fact provoked later rabbis to make
Yohanan the High Priest into a Sadducee/#?/# "at the very end of his
life," so as to harmonize both the favorable view preserved earlier, on
the one hand, with the Sadducean attitude shown here, on the other.
Later on the inference was drawn and fully articulated in beraita-totm.
If so, the traditions on his legal decrees probably come before this
story. But I cannot suggest how much earlier.
11.11.1. Yohanan the High Priest heard from the house of the Holy
of Holies, 'Theyoung men who went out to make war against Antioch have
conquered' (NSHW TLY* D'ZLY L'GPP QRB> B>NTWKY>) and they
noted that hour, and it tallied that they had conquered at that very
hour.
(Tos. Sot. 13:5, ed. Zuckermandel p. 319,
lines 8-9)
Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.
The context is given above, p. 27. The point of the pericope is a mi
raculous revelation to Yohanan, another indication of the high favor he
enjoyed in rabbinical circles. The tallying of the hour of the supernatu
ral revelation with the hour of the event occurs in other miracles, e.g.
Hanina b. Dosa and Gamaliel's son, b. Ber. 34b. The kernel of the peri
cope is the Aramaic passage, in which case the point must be as given,
that Yohanan was vouchsafed a heavenly revelation. Later on, R.
Yohanan used the Aramaic logion to prove an additional, and quite
different point, about heavenly knowledge of Aramaic.
Josephus has the same miracle-story (below, p. 173).
11.11.2. The knockersThese are those that pull (M$K) the calf
between its horns as they do to the idol.
(Rabban) Yohanan (b. Zakkai) [sic] said to them, "How long are
you going to feed the altar unfit meat
(terefot)"
Until his days the hammer blow was in Jerusalemon the inter
mediate days of the festival.
He also decreed concerning the Confession and annulled (BTL)
the demai.
Y O H A N A N III.ii.1
163
For he sent in all the towns of Israel, and saw that they separated
only the great Heave-offering. As to First Tithe and Second Tithe,
some were tithing and some were not tithing.
He said, "As to Heave-offering, the mortal sin [inheres], and as to
the Heave-offering of the Tithe, the sin of tevel [untithed produce
inheres.]"
A man would designate Heave-offering and Tithe and give to the
priest, and would profane Second Tithe with coins, and as to the
rest of the Tithe and the Poorman's Tithehe who takes from his
fellow must bring proof.
(Tos. Sot. 13:10)
Comment: Tos. Sot. has already been corrected in accord with b. Sot.
48a (below, p. 165), and corrupted by Rabban... b. Zakkai. Otherwise,
y. M.S. 5:5 copies Tos. Sot.
III.ii.1. Abbaye said, "We have a tradition that a good man does
not become bad."
But does he not?
Is it not written (Ezek. 18:24), But when the righteous turns away from
his righteousness and commits iniquity?
Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally
righteous does not do so. But is that so?
Have we not learned (TNN): Believe not in yourself until the day
of your death. For lo, Yohanan the High Priest officiated as high priest
for eighty years, and in the end he became a min [printed texts: Sadducee],
Abbaye said, "Yohanan is the same as Yannai."
Rava said, "Yohanan and Yannai are different. Yannai was originally
wicked, and Yohanan was originally righteous..."
(b. Ber. 29a)
Comment: This biographical logion cannot have been cited before the
middle of the fourth century, possibly much later, for it is brought as a
comment on Abbaye's teaching. Abbaye, however, supposed Yohanan
and Yannai the King were the same. Since Yannai is referred to as a
priest but never called "high priest," while in our materials Yohanan is
always called "high priest," we may imagine Abbaye knew the story
about Yannai's fight with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) and drew from it
the inference that Yannai also was high priest. That provides a terminus
ante quern for the beraita cited above, pp. 107-109. But it does not help
us to date this one.
It seems to me, as I said, that some time between the mid-second cen
tury and the mid-fourth century, the implications of Yohanan b. Zak-
164
Y O H A N A N III.ii.2, 3
kai's Mishnaic logion led to the conclusion that, late in life, Yohanan
the High Priest had joined the Sadducees. The apparently Sadducean
materials cited in connection with Antigonus of Sokho show that rab
binic tradition assigned the beginning of Sadduceeism to the period be
fore Joshua b. Perahiah. Hence, had that evidence been known, it
would have been logical to place Yohanan in the Sadducean party, if
at all, somewhat after that time.
As to the beraita itself, it is probably a composite, for do not believe is a
separate apophthegm, merely illustrated by lo, Yohanan. It could have
stood by itself, and so could the Yohanan-phrase. As we shall see, the
latter was quoted without the foregoing homily. Rabbah b. b. Hana
refers to it, b. Yoma 9a, and hence a somewhat earlier date may be late
third-century. But his saying is not in the form of a separate beraita
about Yohanan the High Priest. It rather concerns a whole list of good
priests (Simeon the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi) who served a long time. It
therefore seems to me probable that the pericope was placed into
beraita-fotm
after Rabbah b. b. Hana. Hence sometime in thefirstfifty
years of the fourth century, the pericope was given its present form,
then was cited with reference to Abbaye's opinion.
111.11.2. R. Yohanan said, "If anyone prays for his needs in Aramaic,
the ministering angels do not pay attention to him, because they do
not understand that language."
But it has been taught (TNY*): Yohanan the High Priest heard an
echo issue from within the holy of holies announcing, The young men
who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious.
It also happened with (W$WB M'SH B) Simeon the Righteous...
(b. Sot. 33a)
See Il.ii.l. R. Yohanan supplies the terminus ante quern for the
mid-third-century. The italicized words are in Aramaic. The
heavenly messages to both high priests in Aramaic prove that angels do
know Aramaic.
Comment:
beraita:
111.11.3. WHTNY': He also annulled the confession and decreed

in respect of demai.
For he sent throughout Israelite territory and saw that they separated
only the Great Terumah alone. But as for the First and Second Tithes,
some tithed and some did not tithe.
He said, "My children, Come and I will tell you. Just as in [neglect
of] the Great Terumah there is mortal sin, so with respect to the Terumah
of the Tithe and to untithed produce (TBL) there is mortal sin."
He arose and ordained (TQN) for them: Whoever purchases fruits
from an 'am ha!*ares must separate the First and Second Tithes from
them.
165
Y O H A N A N III.ii.4
As to First Tithe, he separates the Terumah of the Tithe and gives it

to a priest. And as for the Second Tithe, he should go up and eat it in
Jerusalem.
With regard to the First Tithe and the Tithe of the poor, whoever
demands them from his neighbor has [the burden of] proof [that they
had not been already separated].
[Abbaye replied]: He made two decrees. He abolished the confes
sion over the presentation of the First Tithe in the case of haverim, and
he decreed in regard to the demai of the âmme ha ares.
(b. Sot. 48a)
y
Comment: This beraita, for which Abbaye supplies the terminus ante
quern, is a considerable expansion of the Mishnah cited above, Il.i.l. The
whole is in beraita-Hebtew. Yohanan's reason now is given in detail, and
in the form of a fabricated, direct address. The opening clause is taken
directly from the Mishnah, but that does not prove the clause circulated
separately; on the contrary, it is cited, then developed for the purposes
of the author of the beraita. For further comment, see Il.i.l, above, p.
160.
III.ii.4. TNY': They used to strike with clubs as is the practice with
idolatry.
He said to them, "How long will you feed the altar with corpses?"
Corpses? (Nevelot)but they were properly slaughtered!
Rather, torn flesh (terefot), since the membrane of the brain may
have been perforated.
He arose and ordained (TQN) for them rings in the ground.
(b. Sot 48a)
Comment: The pericope explains the meaning of "knockers", referred
to in the Mishnah. Like the foregoing beraita it provides a very consid
erable expansion of the Mishnah, again supplying a fabricated logion in
direct discourse.
Immediately preceding is an explanation of Rav Judah in the name
of Samuel: "They used to make an incision on the calf between its horns
so that the blood should flow into its eyes. He came and abolished the
practice because it appeared as though [the animal] was blemished."
Then comes the beraita, which gives a different explanation: the practice
was drawn from the pagan cult. But the point is much like the one
given by Samuel: to prevent the animal from struggling, it would be
stunned. The beraita has been revised by a gloss, and the gloss stands.
The Palestinian version (IV.i.l) preserves the correction, so the above
antedates R. Yohanan.
I find it difficult to imagine that Samuel knew the beraita in its current
form, for the simple reason that if he had known it, he presumably
166
Y O H A N A N IV.i.l
YOHANAN
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
1. Did away with

c o n f e s s i o n etc.
M. M.S. 5 : 1 5
M. Sot. 9 : 1 0
2. Prepared heifer
M. Par. 3 : 5
3. Bones unclean
to protect from
misuse
M. Yad. 4 : 6
Yohanan
the High
Priest
4. Heard heavenly
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 1 0
b. S o t . 4 8 a
y. M . S . 5 : 5
y. S o t . 9 : 1 1
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 5
b. S o t . 3 3 a
y. S o t . 9 : 1 3
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i.l
V
ARN
VI
167
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
echo
5. E n d e d u p a
Sadducee after
e i g h t y y e a r s in
High Priesthood
6. U s e o f D i v i n e
N a m e in d o c u
ments
would have cited it, rather than explaining matters in other language
entirely. Samuel said they made an incision, the beraita, that they stunned
the animal. In the former instance the problem was a blemish. In the
latter, it was possible damage to the animal's brain which would render
it unfit for the altar (and Jewish use = TRP). So while the points are
parallel, they are quite different, and, as I said, sufficiently different so
Samuel could not likely have known the beraita. That does not mean
the beraita was formulated later on, for it probably circulated separately
until Rav Judah (d. 297 A.D.).
The pericope is a legal reminiscence. The setting is difficult to ascer
tain. We only know it was not Nehardea-Pumbedita, and could well
have been a Palestinian school. In its present, revised form, the pericope
may be regarded as a unity.
IV.i.l. R. Yohanan said, "Yohanan the High Priest sent and in
vestigated in all the towns of Israel, and found that they were separat
ing only the Great Heave-offering (Terumah Gedolah), but as to First
Tithe and Second Tithe, some were separating [them] and some were
not.
"He said, 'Since First Tithe is punishable by death and Second
Tithe [comes under] the sin of tevel, let a man designate (QWR' M)
b. B e r . 2 9 a
b. Y o m a 9a
P e s . R. K a h .
Meg. Ta.
Heave-offering and the Heave-offering of the Tithe and give it to the

priest.
"'Let him substitute coins for Second Tithe. As to the restPoor
Man's Tithe, he who takes from his fellow must bring proof [of the
legitimacy of his claim], and let him make the confession.'"
[As to the knockers]: Yohanan the High Priest said to them, "How
long are you going to feed unfit food (terefot) to the altar?"
He went and made for them rings.
[And in his days a man did not need to ask concerning demai\.
For he set up pairs (ZWGWT).
(y. M.S. 5:5, repr. Gilead, p. 33b = y. Sot.
9:11, repr. Gilead, p. 44b)
Comment: The beraita-fotm
is absent; instead, we have an attribution
to R. Yohanan b. Nappaha. We shall compare this version to III.ii.4
below, in synopses.
As to the pairs, the traditional commentaries on this passage assign
the beginning of the pairs to Yohanan's times; they were set up to over
see the law of demai. The explanation does not occur elsewhere and is
not assigned to a named tradent.
168
Y O H A N A N IV.i.2, IV.ii.l, V L i v . l , VLxii.l
IV.i.2. The story is told (M'SH ) that the young men went to do
battle against Antioch, and Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo
coming from the house of the Holy of Holies and saying, The young
men who went to make war against Antioch have conquered. They wrote that
time and placed in it the hour, and they found that it happened at that
very hour.
(y. Sot. 9:13, repr. Gilead, p. 45b)
Comment: The italicized portion is in Aramaic, the rest in standard
Hebrew. For further comment, see above, Il.ii.l.
IV.ii.l. Yohanan the High Priest served eighty years.
(b. Yoma 9a)
Comment: The context is a saying of Rabbah b. b. Hana that the high
priests of the Second Temple served less than a year, excluding Simeon
the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and Yohanan. See
III.ii.1.
VLiv.l. They said concerning Yohanan the High Priest that he
served in the high priesthood for eighty years, and at the end became
a Sadducee.
(Pesiqta de R. Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I,
p. 176)
VLxii.l. On the third of Tishri the use of the divine name in legal
documents was abrogated.
For the evil kingdom of Greece decreed persecution against Israel.
They said to them, "Deny the Kingdom of Heaven, and say, 'We have
no portion in the God of Israel.'"
But they did not mention the name of Heaven in their mouth.
When the hand of the Hasmonean House was victorious, they
decreed that they should write the name of Heaven in legal documents,
and thus would they write, "In the year such-and-such of Yohanan the
High Priest, who is High Priest to the Highest God."
When the sages heard of the matter, they said, "But do you mention
the name of Heaven in legal documents? Shortly this one will pay his
debt and destroy his note, and the name of Heaven will be found
thrown into the garbage."
They stopped them, and that day they made into a festival.
(Megillat Ta'anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 337.)
Comment: This singleton is a rabbinic tradition critical of Yohanan
the High Priest. It is a medieval fabrication.
169
YOHANAN SYNOPSES
Synopses
1. Did Away with Confession
M. M.S.
M. Sot.
5:15
9:10
b. Sot.
Tos. Sot.
13:10
48a
y. M.S.
5:5
y. Sot.
(
9:11
99
99
as i n y . M . S .
5:5)
1. Y o h a n a n the
H i g h Priest did
a w a y w i t h (<BR)
the Confession o f
the T i t h e
2. A l s o he annulled
(BTL) the Wakers
and the K n o c k e r s
3. A n d until his
days the h a m m e r was
s t r i k i n g in J e r u s a l e m
4. A n d in his days
a man did n o t h a v e
t o a s k a b o u t demai
5.
6.
1.
TNY>
1.
A l s o he annulled
(BTL)
1
X
99
99
91
19
99
99
7.
7.
8. H e said t o t h e m ,
Since First Tithe [is]
in death and Second
Tithe is in the sin of
tevel
8.
9 . L e t a m a n desig
nate Heave-offering
and Heave-offering
o f T i t h e a n d g i v e it
t o the priest
9.
99
99
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4 . A n d h e decreed
concerning demai
4 . H e annulled ( B T L )
demai
4.
4.
5. f o r he sent
t h r o u g h the w h o l e
b o u n d a r y o f Israel
a n d s a w t h e y sepa
r a t e d o n l y Terumah
Gedolah.
6. A s t o First T i t h e
and Second Tithe,
some were tithing,
and some w e r e n o t
tithing.
^*
5 . Yohanan the
High Priest sent and
searched in all the
cities of Israel and
found
6*
6.
7.
7 . H e said t o t h e m ,
M y children, C o m e
a n d I shall say t o
you.
8.
8 . J u s t as in Terumah o
Gedolah m o r t a l sin
inheres, so in H e a v e offering o f Tithe and
tepefy
m o r t a l sin
inheres.
9.
9. He arose and
ordained (TQN)
for them: He w h o
purchases fruits
f r o m an 'am hd*ares
separates f r o m
them Heave-offering
o f tithes and gives
it t o t h e priest
10. Second Tithe
h e g o e s u p a n d eats
10.
1. R. Y o h a n a n
said
7.
99
99
99
9. [ = y.
M.S. 5:5]
99
99
'
1 0 . [y. M . S .
5:5]
19
1 0 . and Second Tithe

he profanes it with
1 0
x
99
91
91
170
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
YOHANAN
it in J e r u s a l e m
1 1 . First Tithe and
poorman's Tithe
he w h o takes a w a y
f r o m his f e l l o w
must bring the
proof
12. W h a t are
knockers? Rav
J u d a h - S a m u e l [as
above]
13. B M T N Y T '
TN>:
14. They would
s m i t e it w i t h h a m
m e r s as t h e y d o b e
forehand
1 5 . H e said t o
them, Until w h e n
are y o u g o i n g t o
feed corpses
( N B Y L W T ) to the
altar
11.
SYNOPSES
corns
1 1 . and the rest
p o o r man's Tithe

and let him
confess
11.
12.
12.
12.
13.
13.
13.
1 4 . [y. M . S .
5:5]
1 4 . Yohanan the
High Priest said to
them
14.
15.
TRPWT
1 5 . H o w long are
y o u g o i n g t o feed
15
16. N B Y L W T ? Lo
they slaughter
them, but T R P W T
lest t h e m e m
brane of the brain
be pierced
16.
16.
16.
NBYLWT
18. He arose and

ordained (TQN)
for them
19. rings on the
ground
20.
18.
altar [ o m i t s lestpierced]
1 8 . ,, ,, ,, a n d
made
19.
19. rings [Omits

on ground]
20.
2 0 . for he set up pairs
18.
j>
19
20.
We see that both the Babylonian and Palestinian gemarot preserve

substantial expansions of the tradition. The two Palestinian versions
differ very little, except in the striking failure of y. Sot. 9:11 to correct
NBYLWT to TRPWT, the secondary, therefore necessarily later
version. Tos. Sot. 13:10 does make the necessary correction, perhaps
a scribal "improvement." The earlier form of the Amoraic material
must be the Palestinian version attributed to R. Yohanan, with the
beraita\r coming later. The Palestinian form omits the colloquy intro
ducing Yohanan the High Priest's message, My children, come and I shall
teach you. The Babylonian further improves the diction of his message,
just as...so..., and corrects sin of tevel (whatever that might mean) to
in...tevel, mortal sin... which makes sense. The Babylonian prefers to
have the man eat his tithe in Jerusalem, while the saying of R. Yohanan
j>
YOHANAN
171
SYNOPSES
is congruent to Palestinian realities of his day. No one could then go

up to Jerusalem. The Babylonian improves on this, by rightly, but
anachronistically, setting the whole thing back into Temple times.
The Palestinians have him confess he has paid his dues, but this is
manifestly dishonest, and the Babylonian drops that detail. The inter
ruption of Rav Judah-Samuel obviously will be absent in the Palestin
ian version. Then the Babylonian further improves on the brief collo
quy, by supplying the detail of what they would do (b. Sot. 48a, no.
14), thus augmenting the Palestinian version's simple he said to them.
The Babylonian further explains the legal dilemma, no. 17 lest the
membrane, further developing the Palestinian version's no. 17. The
concluding detail, no. 19, is augmented by on the ground in Babylonia.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the Babylonian beraita not
only comes later than R. Yohanan's version, but in fact depends, and
improves, upon it in numerous details. But we have no grounds to
suppose that R. Yohanan possessed some sort of "very ancient" tradi
tion, or, if he did, that he transmitted it in the language in which it
would have been formulated centuries earlier. On the contrary, in
effect he did much as did Samuel, but instead of phrasing the whole
in his own language, he told a story in standard Mishnaic narrative
style. This then became the basis for the still later Babylonian beraita.
2. Heard Heavenly Echo
Tos. Sof. 13:5
(
= y. Sot. 9 : 1 3 )
1 . Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest
heard f r o m the house of the
holy o f holies
2.
b. Sot.
3.
[See a b o v e , 1 ]
4.
4.
[ = y. Sot.]
5. A n d they tallied ( K W N )
that h o u r and they tallied
t h a t t h e y c o n q u e r e d at t h a t
hour
6 . [See a b o v e , 5 ]
1.
33a
WHTNY>:
6.
1.
9:13
M'SH
2.
5.
y. Sot.
2. Y o u n g men w e n t f o r t h
t o d o b a t t l e at A n t i o c h
3 . And
Y o h a n a n the high
priest h e a r d an echo coming
forth from the h o u s e o f t h e
holy o f holies
4 . Theyouths who made war in

Antioch have conquered [in
Aramaic]
5. and t h e y w r o t e d o w n
t h a t t i m e a n d set in it t h e
hour
6 . a n d t h e y t a l l i e d it t h a t it
w a s in t h a t v e r y h o u r
In no. 3, y. Sot. adds BT QWL, strikingly absent from Tos. Sot. no. 1.
172
YOHANAN
SYNOPSES
The Babylonian version is furthest from the other two, which are quite
close to one another, as we saw in connection with Simeon. The
Babylonian beraita has dropped nos. 5 and 6, since the issue is whether
or not the angels speak Aramaic, and those details therefore are of no
consequence here. Otherwise, the differences among the three versions
are not substantial. The Palestinian version no. 5 removes some of the
verbal repetitions of Tos. Sot. and is certainly dependent upon it. The
Babylonian beraita copies Tos. Sot. so far as it is relevant. But its
omissions look deliberate and indicate dependence on the Tosefta
version, not an independent formulation or the transmission of a
separate tradition.
3. Ended as a Sadducee
b. Ber. 29a
1. T N N
2. D o n o t b e l i e v e in y o u r
self etc.
3. F o r lo, Yohanan the
H i g h P r i e s t s e r v e d in t h e
high priesthood for eighty
years
4 . a n d at t h e e n d b e c a m e
(Lit: was made) a Sadducee
b. Yoma 9a
1.
2.
3. ...and the eighty that
Y o h a n a n the High priest
served...
Pes. R. Kah.
1. They said concerning
2.
3. Y o h a n a n
p r i e s t that
the high
4
r
The beraita of b. Ber. 29a is referred to, but not closely quoted, in b.
Yoma 9a. What is more interesting is the form of the citation in Pes.
R. Kahana. There the compiler has imposed a quite different form
from TNN. Now it is they said concerning with the additional that neces
sary for the new form. Otherwise it is identical to the beraita and pre
sumably represents a citation of it. The editor of a midrashic compila
tion was prepared to impose his own redactional forms on antecedent
materials, even those attributed to Tannaim.
Conclusion
Until Amoraic times Yohanan the High Priest was represented as
a faithful and authoritative teacher of the law and high priest. This is
remarkable, given the attitude of the Pharisees toward the priesthood.
Yohanan is one of those exceptions in whose time miracles character
istic of the cult in the time of Simeon the Just would have recurred.
Like Simeon, he prepared a heifer-offering. His decrees and ordinances
were not only preserved in the Mishnah, but discussed afterward in
both countries with a view to locating his reasons. The fact that the
Y O H A N A N CONCLUSION
173
real reasons for Yohanan's decrees had long since been forgotten may
possibly serve as an indication of the antiquity of the tradition pre
served in M. M.S. 5:15. It may well be that an old Pharisaic tradition
here persists into rabbinic times, and I think that is the case. The
logion about the young men may be the oldest saying deriving from
Yohanan; it is set into two separate arguments, one on heavenly
echoes, the other on the language of angels, but it must antedate both
and may represent language associated with Yohanan from much ear
lier times, to be compared to similar usage preserved in the name
of Yosi b. Yo ezer of the same approximate period.
We were readily able to account for the decided revision of the once
favorable attitude toward Yohanan. The language of Yohanan ben
Zakkai made it seem Yohanan the High Priest was a Sadducee,
and the rest naturally followed. The calculation of the immense reign
of Yohanan enhanced the drama of his final heresy. I do not know
how the figure of eighty was reached. It was twice Simeon the Just's
time. Josephus assigns him thirty-one years.
Josephus's John Hyrcanus (135-104) first appears in War I:54ff.
He succeeded his murdered brothers as high priest and led the state
for thirty-one years (1:68). He enjoyed the "three highest privileges:
the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the
gift of prophecy. He could invariably predict the future." In the per
tinent materials in the War, Josephus makes no mention of Pharisees.
In Antiquities XIII, Josephus vastly expands his account. He credits
John Hyrcanus with the destruction of the Gerizim temple and the
conversion of Idumaea (13:254). The heavenly message now appears
as follows:
c
Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told,

how the Deity communicated with him, for they say that on the very
day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was
alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice say
ing that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the
Temple, he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually hap
pened.
The message here preserved in indirect discourse is presented in direct
discourse in the rabbinic materials: "The youths who have made war
on Antioch have conquered." But the message is nearly identical, and
so is the setting.
Josephus now brings the story of the Pharisees and Hyrcanus (13:
288ff., trans. L. H. Feldman):
174
As for Hyrcanus, the envy of the Jews was aroused against him by
his own successes and those of his sons. Particularly hostile to him
were the Pharisees, who are one of the Jewish schools... And so great
is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a
king or high priest, they immediately gain credence.
Hyrcanus too was a disciple of theirs, and was greatly loved by them.
And once he invited them to a feast and entertained them hospitably,
and when he saw that they were having a very good time, he began by
saying that they knew he wished to be righteous and in everything he
did tried to please God and themfor the Pharisees profess such be
liefs ; at the same time he begged them, if they observed him doing any
thing wrong or straying from the right path, to lead him back to it and
correct him. But they testified to his being altogether virtuous, and he
was delighted with their praise.
However, one of the guests, named Eleazar, who had an evil nature
and took pleasure in dissension, said, "Since you have asked to be told
the truth, if you wish to be righteous give up the high priesthood and
be content with governing the people."
And when Hyrcanus asked him for what reason he should give up
the high-priesthood, he replied, "Because we have heard from our el
ders that your mother was a captive in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes."
But the story was false, and Hyrcanus was furious with the man,
while all the Pharisees were very indignant.
Then a certain Jonathan, one of Hyrcanus' close friends, belonging
to the school of Sadducees, who hold opinions opposed to those of the
Pharisees, said that it had been with general approval of all the Pharisees
that Eleazar had made his slanderous statement; and this, he added,
would be clear to Hyrcanus if he inquired of them what punishment
Eleazar deserved for what he had said.
Hyrcanus did so, and the Pharisees replied:
Eleazar deserved stripes and chains; for they did not think it right to
sentence a man to death for calumny, and the Pharisees are naturally
lenient in the matter of punishments.
Hyrcanus was outraged, and
Jonathan in particular inflamed his anger, and so worked upon him
that he brought him to join the Sadducean party and desert the Phari
sees and to abrogate the regulations which they had established for the
people and punish those who observed them.
At this point, Josephus explains who the Pharisees are and alleges that
everyone listens to them, while the Sadducees are followed only by the
wealthy (etc.). Then Josephus returns to the account of War. Hyrca
nus lived happily ever after and had the three greatest privileges etc.
Clearly, the rabbis' tradition of Alexander Jannaeus (b. Qid. 66a)
175
and Josephus's story of John Hyrcanus in Antiquities exhibit remark

able affinities. On Abbaye's theory that Yannai and Yohanan were one
and the same, we have no difficulties whatever, and it is Abbaye who
cites the materials in b. Qid. 66a.
I am impressed by the near-identity of the miracle-story with the
rabbinical one, even more impressed by the antiquity of the language
attributed to the heavenly echo, and would be inclined to imagine that
to both Josephus and the rabbis was available a single, brief logion in
Aramaic. The parallels certainly are too close to be accidental.
The long story about Hyrcanus ( = b. Qid.'s Jannaeus) and the
Pharisees is another matter. It is long, well developed, and involves
not a single short phrase, but a complex narrative. Josephus has in
serted it whole into his story. He does not account for Pharisaic
hostility, but takes it for granted; then he makes Hyrcanus a Pharisee,
so their hostility is even more incredible. Now comes the famous
banquet, with Eleazer ( = Judah b. Gedidiah of the Talmud) as the
trouble-maker, described with much the same adjectives, and his mes
sage is identical in substance. Everyone "leaves indignant" in both
versions. Then Jonathan (the Talmud's Eleazer b. Po'irah) tells the
king to let the Pharisees show their true feelings. They impose the
normal punishment. This detail is absent in b. Qid. 66a, but it is
there taken for granted, "That is the law even for the most humble...
shall that be your law too?" follows the departure of the sages. The
version in b. Qid. 66a, if not garbled or defective, therefore is in
comprehensible without the details supplied in Josephus's story, thus
presumably comes later than Josephus. Now Josephus explains how
Hyrcanus left the Pharisees and joined the Sadducees, after which he
lived happily. This detail ignores the foregoing narrative. For the
rabbis the break came on the threshold of his death and is left unex
plained. Then Simeon b. Shetah comes along and restores the Phari
sees to power.
I find it impossible to imagine how the two versions could have
been shaped independently of one another. They are so close that
were Josephus's version to appear in a Talmudic document, we should
readily have produced an uncomplicated synoptic comparison. Two
facts seem to me decisive. The first is the length and complexity of
the narrative, the second, the constant parallels of theme, development,
and detail, between the two versions. The two cannot be thought
entirely separate traditions, but, on the contrary, may be best account
ed for within one of three theories: either Josephus here cites an
176
HONI Il.i.l
ancient pre-rabbinic, Pharisaic story (highly unlikely); or both refer

in common to a third, independent source; or the rabbis cite Josephus.
This third seems to me most improbable, unless in fact the rabbis
knew Josephus's writings in the original Aramaic. The b. Qid. 66a
story cannot, for obvious chronological, stylistic and form-critical
considerations, have been known to Josephus. If the rabbis did know
Josephus's story, it would account for their tradition that Yohanan
had been a Pharisee and had deserted the party. Yohanan the High
Priest is also alluded to in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 33:11.
See M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903), p. 362-3: "May
the enemies of Yohanan the High Priest have no leg to stand on,"
evidently a curse.
II. HONI THE CIRCLER
ILi. 1 .A. Once they said to Honi the Circler, "Pray that rain may fall."
He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they
be not softened."
He prayed, but rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle
and stood within it and said before him, "Lord of the world, your
children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of the house
before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until
you have pity on your children."
Rain began falling drop by drop.
He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will fill]
cisterns, pits, and caverns."
It began to rain with violence.
He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain of goodwill,
blessing, and graciousness."
Then it rained in good order, until the Israelites went up from
Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain.
They went to him and said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to come,
so pray that it may go away." .
He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared."
B. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him saying, "If you were not Honi, I
would have pronounced a ban against you, but what shall I do to you,
for you importune God and he does your will, like a son that impor
tunes his father, and he performs his will, and of you Scripture says,
Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore you rejoice (Prov.
23:25)."
(M. Ta. 3:8)
177
HONI Il.i.l, IV.ii.l
Comment: The pericope is cited anonymously. It follows a law that

one does not sound the shofar on account of an excess of rains, and then
comes ma'aseh she + they said to Honi. The biographical story is surely a
unity, excluding the message of Simeon b. Shetah (see above, p. 91).
The story is quoted without much change in Megillat Ta anit, ed.
Lichtenstein, pp. 348-9. The message of Simeon to Honi further recurs
as a separate pericope in b. Ber. 19a, above, pp. 103-104. In y. Ta'anit
3:9, the story is somewhat expanded (as in b. Ta'anit 23a, below). A
series of glosses is supplied to various elements in the Mishnaic account,
e.g. re the stone:
c
" J u s t as it is i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s s t o n e t o m e l t a w a y f r o m t h e w o r l d , s o it
is n o t p o s s i b l e t o p r a y t h a t r a i n s w i l l g o a w a y , b u t g o a n d b r i n g m e a
thank-offering."
T h e y w e n t a n d b r o u g h t h i m a t h a n k - o f f e r i n g . H e p l a c e d his t w o h a n d s
o n it a n d said, " L o r d o f t h e w o r l d , Y o u b r o u g h t e v i l o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d
t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e i n it, a n d y o u b r o u g h t g o o d o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d
t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e in it, b u t m a y it b e y o u r w i l l t h a t y o u w i l l b r i n g
prosperity." F o r t h w i t h the w i n d b l e w and the clouds dispersed and the sun
shone and the land dried u p " (and so forth).
The y. Ta. materials certainly come later than the Mishnah and aug
ment it, but the meaning is not much changed. The message of Simeon
b. Shetah is similarly augmented in y. Ta. 3:10, as we noted earlier.
Honi evidently occurs in Josephus's account of the conflict between
Hyrcanus and Aristobulus (Antiquities 14:22-24, trans. Ralph Marcus
pp. 459-60):
N o w there was a certain Onias, w h o , being a righteous man and dear to
G o d , h a d o n c e in a rainless p e r i o d p r a y e d t o G o d t o e n d t h e d r o u g h t , a n d
G o d h a d h e a r d his p r a y e r a n d sent r a i n . T h i s m a n h i d h i m s e l f w h e n h e s a w
that the civil w a r continued t o rage, but he w a s taken t o the camp o f the
J e w s and w a s asked t o place a curse o n A r i s t o b u l u s and his fellow-rebels,
j u s t as h e h a d , b y his p r a y e r s , p u t a n e n d t o t h e rainless p e r i o d . B u t w h e n
in s p i t e o f h i s refusals a n d excuses h e w a s f o r c e d t o s p e a k b y t h e m o b , h e
s t o o d u p in t h e i r m i d s t a n d said, " O G o d , K i n g o f t h e u n i v e r s e , since t h e s e
m e n standing beside m e are t h y people, and those w h o are besieged are t h y
priests, I beseech thee n o t t o hearken t o t h e m against these m e n n o r t o
b r i n g t o pass w h a t t h e s e m e n ask t h e e t o d o t o t h o s e o t h e r s . " A n d w h e n h e
h a d p r a y e d in t h i s m a n n e r t h e v i l l a i n s a m o n g t h e J e w s w h o s t o o d r o u n d
h i m stoned h i m t o death.
The rabbinic traditions about Honi contain no parallel to this story.

IV.ii. 1. [It happened that the people said to Honi, the Circle Drawer,
etc.]
A. Once it happened that the greater part of the month of Adar
had gone and yet no rain had fallen. The people sent a message to
Honi the Circle Drawer, "Pray that rain may fall."
He prayed and no rain fell.
He thereupon drew a circle and stood within it, in the same way
N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I
12
178
H O N I IV.ii.l
as the prophet Habbakuk had done, as it is said, / will stand upon my

watch, and set me upon the tower (Hab. 2:1).
He exclaimed, "Lord of the world, your children have turned to
me because [they believe] me to be a member of your house. I swear
by your great name that I will not move from here until you have
mercy upon your children!"
Rain began to drip, and his disciples said to him, "We look to you
to save us from death. We believe that this rain came down merely to
release you from your oath."
Thereupon he exclaimed, "It is not for this that I have prayed, but
for rain [to fill] cisterns, ditches and caves."
The rain then began to come down with great force, every drop
being as big as the opening of a barrel (and the sages estimated that
no one drop was less than a log).
His disciples then said to him, "Master, we look to you to save us
from death. We believe that the rain came down to destroy the world."
Thereupon he exclaimed before him, "It is not for this that I have
prayed, but for rain of benevolence, blessing and bounty."
Then rain fell normally until the Israelites [in Jerusalem] were com
pelled to go up [for shelter] to the Temple Mount because of the rain.
[His disciples] then said to him, "Master, in the same way as you
have prayed for the rain to fall, pray for the rain to cease."
He replied, "I have it as a tradition that we may not pray on account
of an excess of good. Despite this, bring me a bullock for a thanks
giving-offering."
They brought him a bullock for a thanksgiving-offering, and he
laid his two hands upon it and said, "Lord of the world, your people
Israel, whom you have brought out from Egypt, cannot endure an
excess of good or an excess of punishment. When you were angry
with them, they could not endure it. When you showered upon them
an excess of good, they could not endure it. May it be your will that
the rain may cease and that there be relief for the world."
Immediately the wind began to blow and the clouds were dispersed,
and the sun shone, and the people went out into the fields and gathered
for themselves mushrooms and truffles.
Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent this message to him, "Were it
not that you are Honi, I would have placed you under the ban; for
were the years like the years [of famine in the time] of Elijah, in
whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the name of Heaven be
profaned through you? But what shall I do to you, who act petulantly
HONI IV.ii.l
179
before the Omnipresent and he grants your desire, as a son who acts
petulantly before his father and he grants his desires.
"Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm water,
wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pome
granates,' and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says, Let thy
father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)."
B. Our rabbis have taught: What was the message that the Sanhe
drin sent to Honi the Circle Drawer? [It was an interpretation of the
verse], Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee,
and light shall shine upon thy ways (Job 22:28).
Thou shalt also decree a thing: You have decreed [on earth] below and
the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills your word [in heaven] above.
And light shall shine upon thy ways. You have illumined with your
prayer a generation in darkness.
When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: There is lifting up. You have
raised with your prayer a generation that has sunk low.
For the humble person He saveth. You have saved by your prayer a
generation that is humiliated with sin.
He delivereth him that is not innocent. You have delivered by your
prayer a generation that is not innocent.
Yea, He shall be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands. You have
delivered it through the work of your clean hands.
C. R. Yohanan said, "This righteous man [Honi] was throughout
the whole of life troubled about the meaning of the verse, A Song of
Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were
like them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Is it possible for a man to dream
continuously for seventy years?
"One day he was journeying on the road, and he saw a man planting
a carob tree.
"He asked him, 'How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?'
"The man replied, 'Seventy years.'
"He then further asked him, 'Are you certain that you will live
another seventy years?'
"The man replied, 'I found carob trees in the world. As my fore
fathers planted these for me, so I too plant these for my children.'
"Honi sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he
slept, a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight,
and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw
a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree, and he asked him, 'Are
you the man who planted the tree?'
180
HONI IV.ii.l
"The man replied, 'I am his grandson.'

"Thereupon he exclaimed, 'It is clear that I slept for seventy years.'
"He then caught sight of his ass, who had given birth to several
generations of mules, and he returned home.
"He there inquired, 'Is the son of Honi the Circle Drawer still
alive?' The people answered him, 'His son is no more, but his grand
son is still living.'
"Thereupon he said to them, 'I am Honi the Circle Drawer,' but
no one would believe him.
"He then went to the study-house, and there he overheard the
sage say, 'The law is as clear to us as in the days of Honi the Circle
Drawer, for whenever he came to the study-house, he would settle
for the sages any difficulty that they had.' Whereupon he called out,
'I am he,' but the sages would not believe him, nor did they give him
the honor due to him.
"This hurt him greatly and he prayed [for death] and died."
Rava said, "Hence the saying, 'Either companionship or death.'"
D. Abba Hilqiah was a grandson of Honi the Circle Drawer, and
whenever the world was in need of rain, the rabbis sent a message
to him and he prayed and rain fell.
Once there was an urgent need for rain, and the rabbis sent to him
a couple of sages [to ask him] to pray for rain. They came to his house
but they did not find him there. They then proceeded to the fields,
and they found him there hoeing.
They greeted him, but he took no notice of them.
Towards evening he gathered some wood and placed the wood and
the rake on one shoulder and his cloak on the other shoulder.
Throughout the journey he walked barefoot, but, when he reached
a stream, he put his shoes on. When he lighted upon thorns and thist
les, he lifted up his garments. When he reached the city, his wife,
well-bedecked, came out to meet him. When he arrived home, his
wife first entered [the house], and then he, and then the scholars.
He sat down to eat, but he did not say to the sages, "Join me."
He then shared the meal among his children, giving the older son
one portion and the younger two.
He said to his wife, "I know the sages have come on account of
rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; perhaps the Holy One, blessed
be He, will have mercy and rain will fall, without having credit given
to us."
They went up to the roof; he stood in one corner and she in another.
HONI IV.ii.l
181
At first the clouds appeared over the corner where his wife stood.
When he came down he said to the sages, "Why have you sages
come here?"
They replied, "The rabbis have sent us to you, Sir, [to ask you] to
pray for rain."
Thereupon he exclaimed, "Blessed be God, who has made you no
longer dependent on Abba Hilqiah."
They replied, "We know that the rain has come on your account,
but tell us, Sir, the meaning of these mysterious acts of yours, which
are bewildering to us? Why did you not take notice of us when we
greeted you?"
He answered, "I was a laborer hired by the day, and I said I must
not relax [from my work]."
"And why did you, Sir, carry the wood on one shoulder and the
cloak on the other shoulder?"
He replied, "It was a borrowed cloak. I borrowed it for one purpose
[to wear] and not for any other purpose."
"Why did you, Sir, go barefoot throughout the whole journey, but
when you came to a stream, you put your shoes on?"
He replied, "What was on the road I could see, but not what was in
the water."
"Why did you, Sir, lift up your garments whenever you lighted
upon thorns and thistles?"
He replied, "This [the body] heals itself, but the other [the clothes]
does not."
"Why did your wife come out well bedecked to meet you, Sir, when
you entered the city?"
He replied, "In order that I might not set my eyes on any other
woman."
"Why, Sir, did she enter [the house] first, and you after her, and
then we?"
He replied, "Because I did not know your character."
"Why, Sir, did you not ask us to join you in the meal?"
[He replied], "Because there was not sufficient food [for all]."
"Why did you give, Sir, one portion to the older son and two por
tions to the younger?"
He replied, "Because the one stays at home, and the other is away
in the synagogue [the whole day]."
"Why, Sir, did the clouds appear first in the corner where you wife
stood and then in your corner?"
182
H O N I IV.ii.l
[He replied], "Because a wife stays at home and gives bread to the
poor, which they can at once enjoy, while I give them money, which
they cannot at once enjoy.
"Or perhaps it may have to do with certain robbers in our neigh
borhood. I prayed that they might die, but she prayed that they might
repent [and they did repent]."
E. Hanan ha-Nehba [the Modest] was the son of the daughter of
Honi the Circle Drawer. When the world was in need of rain, the
rabbis would send to him school children, and they would take hold
of the hem of his garment and say to him, "Father, father, give us
rain."
Thereupon he would plead with the Holy One, blessed be He,
[thus], "Master of the Universe, do it for the sake of these who are
unable to distinguish between the Father who gives rain and the father
who does not."
And why was he called, Hanan ha-Nehba?Because he was wont
to lock (mihabbeh) himself in the privy [out of modesty].
(b. Ta. 23a-b, trans. J . Rabbinowitz,
pp. 115-120)
Comment: This Amoraic expansion of the Mishnaic passage constitutes
a veritable Honi-tractate. Apart from parallels to materials already re
ferred to, the whole is a singleton. It is transparently composite. Part A
successively develops each of the elements of the Mishnah. Disciples are
supplied, to allow a more congenial context for the exchanges. The ma
terials are certainly later than the Palestinian Talmudic equivalents, e.g.
Your children becomes the people you brought forth from Egypt, with many
more additions. The pericope is late. The Simeon-message is greatly
expanded, as we observed above (p. 177). Then comes part B, a beraita,
Amoraic in origin, in which a conversation is supplied for the Sanhedrin.
Part C consists of R. Yohanan's story about Honi and the man who
planted a carob-tree. That story seems to me a unity. It must date be
fore ca. 350 (Rava) but after ca. 250 (R. Yohanan). Then come the
further stories of Honi's family. The whole Honi-corpus consists of the
materials given here. We cannot doubt that the bulk of new materials
comes very late. But how much older is the Mishnaic stratum? I find it
difficult to offer even a rough guess. The special interest of R. Yohanan
in the whole corpus likewise requires an explanation, but I cannot sug
gest one.
in.
OTHERS
The only names mentioned in Simeon the Just materials are those
of his two sons, Shimeî and Honyo (pp. 36-7). They do not occur else
where.
OTHERS
183
While Yosi b. Yo'ezer's son is left nameless, his nephew, Yaqim of

Serurot, is mentioned (p. 76). No further rabbinic traditions refer
to him.
The sages Eleazar b. PoHrah and Judah b. Gedidiah mentioned in
connection with the Pharisaic dispute with Yannai the King occur
only there (pp. 107-108).
The criticism of Shema'iah and Abtalion is the only tradition refer
ring to Judah b. Dortai or to his son (p. 147).
CHAPTER EIGHT
MENAHEM.
SHAMMAI
i. M E N A H E M
The only explicit reference to Menahem is in M. Hag. 2:2, cited

above: "Hillel and Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth
and Shammai entered in." This enigmatic saying is discussed in
Amoraic pericopae, as follows:
[Menahem went forth and Shammai entered.]
Where did he go?
Abbaye said, "He went forth to evil culture."
Rava said, "He went forth to the king's service."
It has also been taught (TNY> NMY HKY): Menahem went forth
to the king's service, and eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk
(SYRYQWN) went forth with him.
(b. Hag. 16b)
Where did he go forth?
Some say, "He went forth from measure to measure (MYDH)."
And some say, "He went against his face (KNGD PNYW), he and
eighty pair of disciples of the sages, dressed in golden silk [following
Jastrow, read SYRQY instead of TYRQY] that brightened their
faces like the saucer attached to a pot."
For they said to them, "Write on the horn of an ox that you do not
have a portion in the God of Israel."
(y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead, pp. lOb-lla)
Comment: The Babylonian pericope is unrelated to other materials in
the same context. Rava's saying is expanded in the beraita, or perhaps he
cited the tradition contained in the beraita. I assume the eighty pair of
disciples is a counterpart to Hillel's, in a beraita also from Pumbedita;
perhaps it is a stock-phrase.
The Palestinian pericope, isolated from its setting, is enigmatic. The
meaning of "from measure to measure" has been variously explained; I
do not know what it means. He went against his face generally is inter
preted to mean, he went out unwillingly, but here again, I do not know
the philological basis for that explanation. The passages compare as fol
lows:
S H A M M A I I.ii.l
b. Hag.
1. W h e r e did he g o ?
2 . A b b a y e said
3. He w e n t forth to evil culture
4 . R a v a said
5. He w e n t f o r t h t o the service o f
the king
6. T N Y ' N M Y H K Y
7. M e n a h e m w e n t f o r t h t o t h e s e r vice of the king
8. A n d t h e r e w e n t f o r t h w i t h h i m
e i g h t y p a i r s o f disciples
9 . d r e s s e d in
silk
(LBW$YN
SYRYQWN)
10.
185
y.
Hag.
1.
2 . Some say
3 . from measure to measure h e w e n t
forth
4 . Some say
5 . H e w e n t f o r t h against his face
6.
7.
8. H e a n d e i g h t y p a i r [sing.] o f disciples of the sages
9 . d r e s s e d ( M L B W $ Y N ) [in] silks
of ( T Y R Q Y = S Y R Q Y ) gold
1 0 . F o r t h e y said t o t h e m , etc.
The Babylonian beraita has improved the Palestinian Amoraic tradition

in a number of respects. First, the enigmatic language, from measure to
measure and against his face, has been dropped in favor of commonplace
and immediately comprehensible expressions. Second, the beraita
changes pair to pair/, clarifies S YRYQY and drops the redundant gold.
All of no. 10 is dropped in the Babylonian version. My guess therefore
is that the Babylonian version depends upon the Palestinian one. It
seems to me unlikely that the two traditions developed independent of
one another, and in this instance the shorter and clearer probably im
proves upon the longer and less lucid. But I do not understand why the
substantial detail of no. 10 should have failed to serve the editor of the
Babylonian beraita. We have no reason to attribute any tradition con
cerning Menahem to a period before the circulation of M. Hag., for
both Palestinian and Babylonian pericopae begin with the language of
the Mishnah, "Where did he go," although the beraita has hidden that
question in the declarative statement of no. 7. The Mishnah, in its
present form, must have been known to all parties responsible for the
foregoing pericopae. On this basis we must regard all the traditions as
efforts to provide glosses for the Mishnah, not as independent traditions
deriving from the period before it.
For a discussion of the interpretation of the language of the pericopae
and an account of Menahem, see Sidney B. Hoenig, "Menahem, Hillel's
First Associate," Bitâron 52, 1964, pp. 87-96. Hoenig identifies Mena
hem with the Menahem ben Signai of M. Ed. 7:8. Others have found
our Menahem in Menahem b. Judah, the Galilean Sicarius, and Menahem
the Essene, both mentioned by Josephus. I see no merit in any of these
guesses. So far as I can see, the Menahem of M. Hag. 2:2 appears only
there. We do not gain much by supplying him with new patronymics
and identities. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 138, 900.
c
I I . T R A D I T I O N S OF S H A M M A I
I.ii.l.A. Shammai the Elder says,

and keep itwhen it comes."
"Remember
itbefore it comes,
186
S H A M M A I I.ii.l
B. They said concerning (>MRW <LYW <L) Shammai the Elder

that the memory of the Sabbath did not move from his mouth.
He purchased something good.
He says, "This is for Sabbath."
A new vessel, and says, "This is for Sabbath."
(Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, ed. EpsteinMelamed, p. 148 lines 29-30, to Ex. 20:8)
Comment: The pericope is classified as an exegesis. It is brief and the
primary element, part A, certainly could have been handed on and
then expanded, in part B, into a little story. The setting is comments on
the duplication of the commandment of the Sabbath in Exodus and
Deuteronomy. The antecedent materials are anonymous. Then comes
the above, followed by an exegesis attributed to R. Judah b. Bathyra,
which bears no relationship to the foregoing. The pericope is compo
site. Part A could have stood independently, so could part B. But part
B looks like the transformation of an exegesis into a biographical fable,
as often happens with Hillel-materials. The two are brought together as
a tractate of Shammai/Sabbath materials.
Part A is a singleton. Part B recurs in a Hillel/Shammai contrast (b.
Bes. 16a), in which Shammai takes second place in the usual invidious
comparison. If part B is as old as its setting would imply, then b. Bes.
16a must have drawn upon an independent Shammai-story and con
verted it for the purposes of the unfriendly contrast. The form in b.
Bes. 16a is as follows:
TNY':
}
T h e y said c o n c e r n i n g ( M R W < L Y W <L) S h a m m a i t h e E l d e r : A l l his d a y s

h e w o u l d eat f o r t h e h o n o r o f t h e S a b b a t h .
[If] h e f o u n d a h a n d s o m e (N'H) c o w , h e says, " T h i s is f o r t h e S a b b a t h . "
[If] h e f o u n d a n o t h e r m o r e h a n d s o m e t h a n it, h e l e a v e s t h e s e c o n d [ o v e r ]
a n d eats t h e first [on t h e S a b b a t h ] ,
B u t H i l l e l t h e E l d e r h a d a different m e a s u r e ( M D H ) , f o r all h i s d e e d s [ w e r e ]
f o r t h e s a k e o f h e a v e n , as it is s a i d , Blessed be the Lord every day (Ps. 6 8 : 2 0 ) .
W e h a v e l i k e w i s e l e a r n e d i n a beraita ( T N Y * N M Y H K Y ) :
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " F r o m t h e first o f y o u r s e v e n [days o f t h e
week] for y o u r Sabbath ( M H D B Y K L S B T Y K ) . "
A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel s a y , "Blessed is t h e L o r d d a y b y d a y . "
Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai omits TNY'. The tendency of the

beraita is considerably different from that of the Mekhilta. Shammai's
behavior in the Mekhilta is beyond reproach and held up as a good ex
ample. In b. Bes., by contrast, Shammai behaves in a less than exem
plary manner. It seems likely that b. Bes. has been reshaped for the pur
poses of the Hillelite tradent.
We therefore have three Shammai-elements. The House of Shammai
may come first of all, but if so, their saying has not been copied or used
in the formulation of Shammai's saying. It stands by itself. By contrast
the House of Hillel's saying has produced a little Hillel-story, as often
187
S H A M M A I I.ii.2
happens, just as Shammai's exegesis may lie behind I.ii.l.B. But it then is
curious that Shammai's saying in I.ii.l. A is not referred to in the Sham
mai story. The development of the Hillel-materials is therefore coherent:
1. House of Hillel, Blessed is the Lord... 2. Hillel the Elderall his
deedsBlessed is the Lord. In any event the Houses-dispute and the dis
pute of the masters Shammai and Hillel are quite parallel, and constitute
one of the few points of contact between stories about the masters and
sayings of their Houses.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 512.
I.ii.2. This is one of three things that Shammai the Elder expounded,
"One does not weigh anchor [of] a ship to [journey on] the Great
Sea less than three days before the Sabbath."
In what context is the rule given? For a long voyage, but for a short
one, one may weigh anchor.
[Sifre Deut. 203, ed. Friedman, p. 111b,
Finkelstein, p. 239 (Tos. Shab. 13:10,
12-13, without Shammai)]
Comment: The above saying is at the end of an extended pericope
about besieging a city. It begins with a rule on destroying the trees.
Then comes a requirement of offering peace two or three days before
making war. Finally:
O n e d o e s n o t b e s i e g e a c i t y less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h , b u t if
they encircled them and the Sabbath happened t o come, the Sabbath does not
interrupt the war.
T h i s is o n e o f t h r e e t h i n g s t h a t S h a m m a i . . .
If attributed to Shammai are all three rules, then the first would be
about offering peace, the second about the timing of the siege, the third
is the direct attribution above. But if that is the list in the editor's mind,
he did not carefully explicate it. The language is, This is one... followed
only by the rule about weighing anchor. The inference is, as I have sug
gested, that the other two rules are immediately antecedent. But this is
not clearly stated. We have a parallel, however, in Tos. Eruv. 3:7 (be
low, p. 196), so the meaning must be as given.
The pericope is a list of laws chiefly about the Sabbath. The link to the
peace-offer is three days before. The setting is entirely anonymous. As a
unity, the pericope would have read, "Shammai the Elder says/testi
fied..." followed by the three laws. The part explicitly attributed to
Shammai is a unity. The siege-rule circulated separately; the pericope
is a composite. What is striking is the attribution to Shammai of Sab
bath-rules. The Shammai/Hillel corpus contains legislation on subjects
never earlier treated in Pharisaic traditions.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 278-9, who posits the list of three items, in
cluding //o/z^j-materials.
c
188
S H A M M A I I.i.l
I.i.l.A. [Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinancethis means the law
about the tefillin.]
From year to yearthis tells that one should examine the tefillin once
in twelve months. Here it says, From year toyear (Ex. 13:10), and there
it says, For a full year shall he have the right of redemption (Lev. 25:29).
Just as year there means fully twelve months, likewise herethese are
the words of the House of Hillel.
8. The House of Shammai say, "One need never ( LMYT) examine
(BDQ) them."
C. Shammai the Elder said, "These are the tefillin of my mother's
father."
(Mekh. Pisha III, lines 209-216, trans. Lauterbach, I. p. 157)
C
Comment: Shammai's saying, C, to be classified as an autobiographical

reference for legal purposes, depends upon the foregoing materials. It
would be simply incomprehensible for such a statement to have circu
lated independent of the argument between the Houses. The Hillelite
opinion required an annual inspection; the Shammaite House said no
inspection is ever required. Shammai then supplies an example of the
foregoing: my grandfather's tefillin never required inspection.
But the example seems curious. According to the House of Shammai,
no example is required, for no tefillin, whoever the owner, need be in
spected annually. To point to "my grandfather" as a person whose care
of his tefillin exempts them from the need for annual inspection may
imply that others, not so virtuous, would be wise to submit to inspec
tion. But in the Hillel-version, y. Eruv. 10:1, the saying is not inter
preted in this way, rather as support for the foregoing view.
The saying has no parallel, nor do we find further references in
Shammai-materials to his grandfather.
The Tannaitic collections contain no Hillel-Shammai stories. The
three Shammai-stories reveal no hostile view of the master, who is
never used as a foil to the virtue of Hillel.
The form of the pericope is odd. Nearly all Houses-pericopae follow
the single form: House of Shammai, then House of Hillel. Where an
extended introduction is included in the opening lemma, it often will be
inserted into the Shammaite saying. Furthermore, the standard Housespericopae normally are easily reduced to brief mnemonic elements. For
the one before us, therefore we should have expected:
c
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " O n e n e e d n e v e r e x a m i n e
tefillin"
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,
" O n e s h o u l d e x a m i n e tefillin o n c e in
months."
twelve
This form is not ideal, for usually the Houses-lemmas are balanced opposites, e.g. uncleanjclean, or mere sequences of numbers, e.g. three/four.
Here we should have expected either:
S H A M M A I Il.i.l
189
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : O n e d o e s n o t e x a m i n e tefillin.
House o f Hillel:
O n e d o e s e x a m i n e tefillin.
Once in twelve months
would be a gloss. Or:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : O n e e x a m i n e s tefillin o n c e in six m o n t h s
House o f Hillel:
O n e e x a m i n e s tefillin o n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s .
Such a version would have produced a simple superscription, they ex

followed by the Houses opinions, as single words, e.g. the
inclusion of the negative, followed by a repetition of the superscription
as the Hillelite opinion, or the sequences of numbers in some readily
discernible mnemonic pattern. The sayings attributed to Shammai here
and to Hillel in y. Eruv. 10:1 presumably come after the dispute, but I
do not see how they have been provoked by it. So the whole is a puzz
ling pericope, standing quite outside the standard forms.
amine tefillin,
Il.i.l .A. Second Tithe vetches may be consumed only in their green
condition, and may be brought up to Jerusalem and taken out again.
If they have contracted uncleannessR. Tarfon says, "They should
be divided among lumps of dough."
But the Sages say, "They should be redeemed."
B. Heave-offering [vetches]
The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, and
they give as food in uncleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness but rub and
give as food in uncleanness."
Shammai says, "They are eaten dry (SRYD)."
R. Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them may be done in un
cleanness."
[M. M.S. 2:4, trans. Danby, p. 75 (compare
M. <Ed. 1:8)]
c
Comment: Shammai's position is that the heave-offering vetches must

be kept dry and eaten dry, so that at no point are they to be made sus
ceptible to become unclean through the application of liquids (see H.
Albeck, Seder ZeraHm [Tel Aviv, 1957], p. 251). The contrary positions
are, first, that of the House of Shammai, that they may be fed to cattle
in a state of uncleanness, but must be soaked and rubbed in cleanness;
second, the House of Hillel, that they should be soaked in a state of
cleanness, but may be both rubbed and fed to cattle in uncleanness.
Shammai, who says at no point may they be rendered susceptible of un
cleanness, assigns the most stringent protection of cleanness to the
heave offering-vetches. R. 'Aqiba's position is the very opposite. Thus:
Shammai
vs.
'Aqiba
H o u s e of S h a m m a i v s . H o u s e o f Hillel
Shammai's saying stands entirely within the conventions of Mishnaic

legal sayings. It is Shammai says, just as all others in the pericope say. The
190
S H A M M A I II.i.2
classification and the form coincide: a legal saying in standard legal form.
The setting is less clear than it seems on the surface. Shammai's say
ing could not have been comprehended independent of the rest of the
pericope. Therefore it depends upon the others and does not date in
this form from before 'Aqiba, the last named in the pericope. An earlier
form could have been, "Vetches of heave-offeringShammai says [tes
tified] : They should be eaten dry." Still, without knowing that con
trary or otherwise differing opinions were maintained elsewhere, the
passage would have posed a problem: If Shammai says so, who says
otherwise? Hence I imagine the earliest form of the pericope would
have had to include several differing opinions. If this is the case, then
Shammai's opinion has passed through several states of transmis
sion, the first of which is at this point hardly recoverable. But I see no
reason to imagine some later scholar's opinion has been attributed to
Shammai to gain greater acceptance. That possibility is excluded by de
finition.
In its present form, the Mishnah looks like a composite of earlier
traditions. But my guess, as I said, is that the pericope despite appear
ances may actually be a late, unitary composition, for a single hand in
the endafter 'Aqibamust have set the whole into final form, and the
shape of antecedent materials is more difficult to imagine than on the
face of it one would expect. Chronological considerations prevent the
hypothesis that the named sages "one day" met and issued a resume of
their conflicting opinions. But what other events underlie the pericope
simply escape my imagination. We cannot conceive that on every perti
nent legal issue, a Shammai-opinion was available, in the proper form
and order, and that the same was so for other houses and masters. But if
not, then why to Shammai is attributed an opinion on just this matter?
The preservation of isolated opinions on various, unrelated questions
in the name of pre- Aqiban authorities, opinions in no context, and
bearing no formal or substantive relation to one another, certainly is
puzzling. Less curious is the commonplace allegation that Shammai and
his House differed on legal mattersthat is an obvious Hillelite polemic.
See Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 7 3 .
c
II.i.2. If a man would change a s'ela of Second Tithe money in

Jerusalem.
The House of Shammai say, "[He must change] for the whole s'ela
copper coins (M<WT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "[He may take] one sheqeFs worth of
silver and one sheqeFs worth in copper coins."
They that made argument before the Sages say, "Three denars worth
of silver and one of copper."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Three denars' worth of silver and from the fourth
[denar] a quarter in copper coin."
R. Tarfon says, "Four aspers in silver."
191
Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] consume

its value (Y>KL KNGDW)."
(M. M.S. 2:9, trans. Danby, p. 76 [Compare
M. <Ed. 1:10])
Comment: Shammai stands entirely apart from the dispute. The datum
of the dispute is changing the money. Shammai holds it should not be
changed at all. The opinion is tacked on at the end of a set of logical
opposites:
House of Shammai
vs.
House of Hillel
They that made argument (= ben 'Azzai
and ben Zoma)
Aqiba
vs.
Tarfon
Shammai
c
Chronologically, all are in approximately proper order except Shammai.

But that makes sense, for, as I said, his opinion is at such variance with
all others that it would disturb the symmetry of the opinions (Sheqe/
Denar, Fourth) to include it otherwise than at the end. The pericope
could hardly have started, "If a man would change... Shammai says,
Let him deposit [and not change]..." Hence the only logical place comes
at the end of the opinions pertinent to the issue at hand.
The terminus ante quern is in the middle of the second century A.D.
Shammai's opinion in this case, as in the foregoing, depends upon the
completed pericope. Standing by itself, it could mean nothing at all.
Since we can hardly imagine a gathering of the above-named sages,
whatever Shammai originally said has been revised to conform to the
context. For considerations mentioned above, it remains difficult to un
derstand how a tradition in his name on this subject circulated outside
of the setting of an argument.
In both instances the 'Aqiban school has transmitted pericopae setting
Shammai into opposition with the House of Shammai. He indeed is left
completely alone and in effect outside of the framework of the later dis
putes. A polemic apparently is intended, that the House of Shammai
does not really preserve the opinions of their master. But I see no reason
to doubt the genuineness of attributions to Shammai on the part of the
House of Shammai.
See Epstein, Mevoyot, p. 67-7.
9
II.i.3.A. Whatsoever is leavened, flavored, or mingled [ = liquid;

and conveys marked flavor] with Heave-offering, Or/^-fruit, or
Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, is forbidden.
B. The House of Shammai say, "[If it is unclean, even though less
than an egg's bulk, which is the quantity necessary to convey fooduncleanness] it can also convey uncleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "It can never convey uncleanness un
less it is an egg's bulk in quantity."
c
192
C. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah was one of the disciples of the

House of Shammai, and he said, "I have heard [a tradition] from
Shammai the Elder, who said, 'It can never convey uncleanness unless
it is an egg's bulk in quantity.'"
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5, trans. Danby, pp. 90-1)
Comment: The testimony of Dositheus, Shammai's disciple, is impor
tant as an example of how Shammai-traditions were handed on by
Hillelites. The substance of the testimony is that Shammai in fact held
the opinion of the House of Hillelgiven in identical words!and
therefore repudiates the opinion advanced by the House bearing his
name.
This position conforms to the Hillelite claim that all good disciples
of Shammai in fact ruled like Hillelites. That is why their opinions are
preserved, along with their names and the fact that they had studied
with Shammai. This proves that opinions of Shammai's named disciples
(but not his House), not conforming to the House of Hillel's opinions,
were everywhere suppressed, and that Shammai's opinions survive in
the normative, Hillelite- Aqiban traditions only where the Hillelites
chose to permit them to survive. That probably explains why all the
Shammai-traditions in the Mishnah either stand by themselves as ex
emplifications of Shammai's own, private practice (e.g., M. Suk. below),
or are at striking variance with opinions attributed to the House of
Shammai (as in the foregoing instances), or (incredibly) are identical
with House of Hillel-opinions (as here). It all adds up to the same thing:
Shammai is either completely isolated, or repudiates his own House, or
is really a Hillelite.
This is prima facie evidence of the unreliability of the bulk of Shammai-materials in the Mishnah, for the contrary is to be supposed to have
been the case: Shammai must have issued opinions held to be norma
tive, not merely private; his House must have preserved them; and he
could not often, if ever, have agreed with Hillel or the House of Hillel,
or the existence of systematic Shammaite opposition is beyond reason.
These observations apply, in particular, to materials in which Sham
mai stands by himself and not in contradistinction to Hillel. The forma
tion of Hillel vs. Shammai materials requires investigation in its own
terms, for they constitute a separate corpus, both in form and in sub
stance. But here the form is, Shammai says. In no instance of a Shammai
says/said-tradition are we able to imagine what in fact he actually said,
or, more significant, the form in which the saying was transmitted.
The classification is a legal saying in narrative form. Dositheus's re
port by definition is the secondary formulation of Shammai's saying,
yet purports to contain the original saying without alteration: He said.
For reasons given above, I find it a dubious claim. The contrary is more
likely: Shammai taught his House, and his House accurately preserved
his traditions. In that case, either the House of Shammai is here mis
represented, or the House of Hillel eventually came to Shammai's opic
193
nion. But then Shammai's opinion is accurately citedand that of his

House has been exchanged for the opinion of Hillel's House, so that
Shammai's House is repudiated, and Hillel's supported, by the "authen
tic" tradition of the master Shammai himself. When would such a revi
sion of the traditions have taken place? My guess is that it would come
long after the early disciples of Shammai had passed from the scene, for
they surely would have been able to prevent the misrepresentation of
either their, or their master's opinion. Dositheus's opinion and tradi
tion, as I said, may well be authentic, in which case the House of Sham
mai itself must have utterly ceased to exist in its original form, so that an
opinion contrary to its actual views could be foisted on it. If we for the
moment hypothesize that the Shammai-House in its original form pas
sed from the scene sometime after ca. 70 A.D., then we may attribute
the whole pericope to Hillelite-*Aqibans, who did in fact possess ac
curate records of what Dositheus had said, and for obvious reasons in
this instance chose to preserve them. The contrast to Shammai/Hillel
sayings, e.g. M. Ed. 1:1-3, will be drawn below, pp. 303-307.
c
II.L4.A. Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the Sukkah.
And every minor that no longer needs his mother must fulfill [the
law of] the Sukkah.
B. (M SH ) the daughter in law of Shammai the Elder bore a
child [during the festival], and he broke away [some of the] roofplaster and made a Sukkah-too&ag over the bed for the sake of the
infant.
(M. Suk. 2:8)
C
Shammai's opinion is not given; his deed is preserved in

form. He did the opposite of what the foregoing law required,
obviously because he held the child was liable to the observance of
Sukkot. It is striking that Shammai's opinion is here not preserved in
conventional legal form. It would have been, "Shammai says, Minors
are not exempt from the Sukkah" Alternately, "A minor that no more
needs... Shammai says, Even a. minor that needs..." If the formation of
Shammai-traditions followed the same conventions as seen earlier and
as applied to Hillel-traditions, then we must postulate that some such
tradition actually was shaped in Shammai's name. But it was not pre
served and handed on by the Hillelite-* Aqibans. Keeping the whole thing
in story-form and not generalizing it into an apodictic legal opinion
left the clear impression that Shammai's action was personal and private.
It was an example of his tendency (like Gamaliel's) to apply the law
more stringently to himself and his own family than was actually neces
sary. Shammai's opinion therefore is left in the ambiguous state of a story.
The classification is a legal tradition in the form of a story. The pas
sage certainly is a unitary account; it is brief, pointed, and contains no
extraneous details. The only non-essential is the superscription ma'aseh.
Without it the story is complete, and we may take it for granted that the
Comment:
maâseh
194
S H A M M A I II.i.5, 6
superscription is added by the editor for redactional purposes. If so, this

would be a story originating among disciples of Shammai. It contains
no hostile elements, and its presupposition is that what Shammai did is
what others should do.
We do not have any notion of the original form or language of the
story as it was told by Shammaites; it now is in normal Mishnaic He
brew, but we cannot be sure that when it was shaped in Shammai's
circle it was in that language.
Why did the Hillelite- Aqibans preserve the story at all? And why, if
they regarded it as authentic, did they not revise it, as they revised other
Shammaite materials, to serve their own purposes ? It seems to me the
Hillelite-position vis a vis Shammai is well served here. It was their view
that Shammai applied the law more stringently than was required. The
story is, as noted, sufficiently ambiguousis this the law for everyone?
or for Shammai alone?so that there was no need to change it to satis
fy the needs of the Hillelite tradents. The Dositheus-tradition, by con
trast, left no doubt that Shammai's view was meant as law for every
one, and therefore had to be given a new point, by supplying a context
contrary to fact for preservation in Hillelite-* Aqiban materials.
See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 605.
1
II.i.5. The House of Shammai say, "A q u a r t e r - ^ of bones, be they

any of the bones or from two [corpses] or from three [suffices to
convey uncleanness by overshadowing]."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It may be] a q u a r t e r - ^ of bones
from a [single] corpse, and from bones which are the greater part
either in bulk or in number."
Shammai says, "Even [a q u a r t e r - ^ ] from one bone."
(M. *Ed. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 423)
Comment: The dispute appears in this form only here. What is of in
terest is the now routine representation of Shammai as holding the most
stringent position of all, and of the House of Shammai as departing
from the master's opinions. This is R. Judah's version. Compare Tos.
Oh. 3:4, and Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 118.
y
II.L6.A. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boardsThe House of Sham

mai declare it susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel
declare it not susceptible. Shammai says, "Even the frame of the stool
remains susceptible to uncleanness."
B. A stool fixed to a baking-troughThe House of Shammai de
clare it susceptible. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible.
Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it (>P
H*SWY BH) [is susceptible]."
(M. Kel. 22:4, trans. Danby, p. 637 [Compare
M. *Ed. 1:11])
195
S H A M M A I Il.ii.l
Comment: The stool (A) is in two parts, the frame and the covering,
with the latter providing the seat. The stool also has a receptacle for
small objects. The issue is, If the seat is no longer usable for ordinary
sitting, is it still susceptible to uncleanness? The House of Shammai
hold that it remains susceptible, because it can still be used for sitting
if not in the normal wayeven though the seat-boards are removed.
The House of Hillel hold that it is not susceptible, because the bride
can no longer use the stool, even though others can. The legal prin
ciple is this: If the object is no longer usable for its primary function in
the ordinary way, do we take into account other possible functions in
assessing susceptibility to receive uncleanness? Shammai's view is that
even the frame may be susceptible without any covering, for in case of
need it can still be used as a stool. In the second case the opinion of the
House of Shammai is that the object (B) can still be used for a bakingtrough, and its original condition is unchanged. The House of Hillel
hold that its original condition is sufficiently changed to warrant a
change in the susceptibility to receive uncleanness. Shammai's opinion
is that even though the chair was not used for sitting at the outset, the
susceptibility is unchanged (so H. Albeck Seder Toharot [Tel Aviv,
1958], pp. 94-5).
Shammai's opinion again differs from that attributed to either House.
He takes a position outside of, and more extreme than, both Houses.
Il.ii.l.A. A field that has been improved may not be sown at the
end of the Seventh Year.
What is a field that has been improved? When people plough five,
he ploughs six; six, and he ploughs seven [rows].
B. Shammai the Elder says, "If the time (S H) were propitious
(PNWYH), I should decree concerning it that it should not be sown."
C. The court that followed him decreed concerning it that it should
not be sown.
[Tos. Shev. 3:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 176, lines
21-25 (M. Shev. 4:2, y. Shev. 3:3, b. M.Q.
13a, b. Git. 44b, b. Bekh. 34b)]
C
Comment: The category is a saying in standard legal form, but the say
ing is not a statement of the law, One should not do so-and-so. It is an auto
biographical remark, "If I had the power, I would decree such-andsuch," with the concommitant implication that he did not have the
power. This is immediately spelled out. Shammai could not do it, but
the next generation did. Part C then repeats the law of part A, and ac
counts for it, but depends upon the language of part B, not part A
("That followed him"). So B-C are a unit, attached to A.
The obvious polemic is that Shammai was not much of an authority
in his own day. On that basis Hillelite-*Aqibans would have preserved
his saying. I cannot imagine that the saying was transmitted by Sham-
196
S H A M M A I II.ii.2, 3
mai's disciples in this form, without a legal lemma precisely specifying

Shammai's view of the law.
As we have seen, Shammai is the subject of stories or autobiographical
sayings, but rarely are his legal opinions preserved by themselves and
without prejudice. Normally they stand in contrast with those of his
House or agree with Hillel's, and seldom are they supplied as authorita
tive legal opinions.
While Shammai's saying is a separate logion, in fact it was shaped, as
I said, right along with the following, anonymous observation about
the later court. Without that observation, the point of Shammai's say
ing is quite neutral, but with it the polemic against Shammai himself is
underscored. It is independent of the influence of Shammai's own dis
ciples. The original form and substance of Shammai's saying therefore
lie outside of the framework of the pericope.
As to the law involved, Lieberman (Tosefta Kifshutah Seder Zeraîm,
Part B, p. 517) points out that interpreters of the Mishnah supposed the
law about ploughing in the Sabbatical Year applied to the period after
the destruction of the Temple, when paying Roman taxes prevented
full observance of the Year. This, he says, is shown to be false. "Even
in Shammai's time" the problem was considerable. The rule was that
one should not plough in the Seventh Year in the same manner as in
other years. The reference here is to man who ploughs morefinelythan
in ordinary times.
According to the above explanation the reason Shammai could not
decree against this practice had to do with economic necessitythe
heavy taxes. But that necessity ought to have increased in the subse
quent generations, particularly after 70, as the commentators on the
Mishnah supposed. Hence whatever the actual facts of the matter, the
intention of the narrator certainly is to represent Shammai as unable to
do what later sages were able to do.
11.11.2. R. Simeon b. Leazar says, "Shammai the Elder says, 'Let
him leave it in the store and eat against it.'"
(Tos. M.S. 2:10, ed, Lieberman p. 252, lines
49-50)
Comment: R. Simeon b. Leazar here cites the opinion of Shammai in
M. M.S. 2:9 (II.i.2). See above, and synopsis below.
11.11.3. A camp that goes forth to an optional war may not [begin
to] besiege a gentile city less than three days before the Sabbath. But
if they began, even on the Sabbath they may not raise the siege.
And so Shammai the elder would expound, "Until it fall (Deut.
20:20)even on the Sabbath."
(Tos. 'Eruv. 3:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 100, lines
25-28.)
S H A M M A I III.ii.1, 2
197
Comment: The opinion attributed to Shammai in Sifre Deut. 203

(I.i.2) is here given anonymously, but an exegesis of Shammai's is sup
plied to support that opinion. The whole passage appears without tra
dents. Shammai's saying, an exegesis of legal materials, is a unitary text
and follows the form conventional for its genre. Lieberman notes in his
extended commentary (p. 343) that some MSS read ////<?/, but he prefers
the above reading. He also observes that in Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoff
mann, p. 123, the above appears in the name of R. Josiah.
We note that standard, unprejudiced accounts of Shammai's opinions
were occasionally preserved. It therefore is all the more striking how
few such opinions come down to us. The fact that some copyists
changed the name to Hillel suggests it was egregious for them to find
Shammai cited without some evidence that he was subordinate to Hillel
or otherwise impaired as an authority.
III.ii.1. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Gentile cities must not
be besieged less than three days before the Sabbath, yet once they
commence they need not leave off.
And thus did Shammai say, "Until it fall (Deut. 20:20)even on
the Sabbath."
(b. Shab. 19a, trans. H. Freedman, p. 79)
Comments: No tradents are mentioned in connection with the mate
rials, and there is no Amoraic discussion to which it is related.
III.ii.2.A. It was reported about (>MRW <LYW <L) Shammai the
Elder that he did not want [to hand food] to be eaten even with one
hand.
B. Whereupon they [the rabbis] decreed that he must do so with
both hands.
(b. Yoma 77b, trans. Leo Jung, p. 377)
Comment: As in M. Suk. 2:8, a legal opinion of Shammai is not given,
but a story is told in which he behaves more stringently than is required
by the rabbis. The question is therefore supposed to be left open wheth
er this was Shammai's opinion as a legal principle, or whether he did so
only in his own home.
The story is to be divided into two parts, the brief account of what
Shammai did, followed by the rabbis' ruling. The foregoing could have
been told without reference to the rabbinical response. But I doubt that
it was. The real point is the rabbis' decree. Hence while we might have
regarded the story as a composite of two elements, a brief story of
Shammai himself, which might well have originated among friendly
tradents, and the rabbis' decree, it actually is an unfavorable story and a
unity.
The setting is a beraita on washing parts of the body on the Day of
Atonement. This is followed by a teaching of the school of R. Menasseh
198
S H A M M A I III.ii.3
in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, "A woman may wash one of her
hands in water to give bread to an infant..." Then comes the story
about Shammai. Jung explains the rabbis' requiring Shammai to do so
with both hands: It was to emphasize that there is no prohibition
against feeding a child on the Day of Atonement; therefore he must
wash both his hands as a sign that the law is one may feed the child,
since the contrary impression would have been given by Shammai's
gesture.
Abbaye supplies the terminus ante quern, since the pericope is followed
by a gloss in his name. Many *amru âlav stories are commented on in
fourth-century Pumbedita, but I think the form is older than that.
I find it curious that Shammai is represented here, as elsewhere, as
subordinated to "the rabbis" (supplied in Jung's translation), or to
"them." Shammai has no independent standing. He behaves in a way
that makes the law seem stringent and is everywhere corrected or ig
nored. Doubtless stories such as this were shaped in Hillelite, or even
later, circles. They cannot have originated among Shammai's disciples.
III.ii.3.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): The story is told
about (M'SH B) a certain man whose sons did not conduct themselves
in a proper manner. He arose and wrote his estate over to Jonathan b.
Uzziel.
What did Jonathan b. Uzziel do? He sold a third, consecrated a
third, and returned a third to his sons [of the man].
B. Shammai came upon him with his staff and bag.
He said to him, "Shammai, if you can take back what I have sold
and what I have consecrated, you can also take back what I have
returned. But if not, neither can you take back what I have returned."
He exclaimed, "The son of 'Uzziel has confounded me, the son of
'Uzziel has confounded me."
(b. B.B. 133b-134a, trans. I.W. Slotki, p. 562)
c
Comment: The legal principles are of no great interest here. The story
must be classified as an anti-Shammai account deriving from the circle
not of Hillel, but of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel or (more likely) the later tra
dents eager to show Jonathan was the greatest disciple of Hillel. It can
not come from Shammaites. Suddenly introduced from nowhere,
Shammai is here (mis)represented as planning to debate with Jonathan,
but unable to. Jonathan's action turns out to be legally secure against
him. Shammai is left to confess he has been confounded.
The setting of the beraita is supplied by a saying of Samuel to Rav
Judah not to transfer inheritances even from bad sons to good ones.
Even more interesting is the following story, which concerns the dis
ciples of Hillel: The greatest of them was Jonathan, the least was Yo
hanan ben Zakkai (see Development of a Legend, p. 219). So the frame
work is a set of pericopae on the greatness of Jonathan b. Uzziel, and
c
SHAMMAI IV.i.l, 2
199
the above story is, with interruptions and glosses, part of a little Jona
than b. 'Uzziel-tractate.
The terminus ante quern is fourth-century Pumbedita, but the materials
may be slightly older, and the final form somewhat earlier, than that
period.
As noted (Development, pp. 90-91), the beraita about Jonathan as the
greatest disciple of Hillel is openly hostile to Yohanan. It supposes re
cognition of Yohanan as a great authority of his time because it uses his
greatness as a footstool for its hero, Jonathan b. 'Uzziel. It may be the
creation of a mystic group in late Tannaitic times which practiced some
new form of speculative technique different from the Merkavah tradition
that went back to Yohanan, and which tried to justify itself by appeal
ing to the shadowy, ancient Jonathan and by declaring him the greatest
of those disciples of Hillel, of whom Yohanan was only the least.
Here the legitimacy and excellence of Jonathan are further under
lined : Jonathan not only vanquished Shammai, but Shammai admitted
that fact. Any Hillelite would have to be impressed: Hillel's greatest
disciple had achieved what Hillel himself never accomplished, for no
where do wefindHillel so represented as victorious. I therefore imagine
that the pericope derives from the same circle as the Jonathan-Yohanan
b. Zakkai beraita, and that the purpose of the Jonathan-pericopae was to
establish the legitimacy, indeed preeminence, of the master in the mind
of the Hillelite circles in charge of the patriarchate, or of the Davidic
exilarchate.
At any rate the tradition of representing Shammai pretty much as the
Hillelites would want to imagine him is here carried forward. The story
cannot derive from the first century, when Shammai would have been
so well remembered that no one would believe he went about crying,
"The son of'Uzziel has confounded me." Hillelites of that period repre
sent Shammai as a weightier opponent.
We observe that the Shammai-traditions derive from a number of
circles, first and foremost from Hillelites, second, from Shammai's own
disciples, and third, from Jonathan b. 'Uzziel's circle (whether real or
putative). We shall see that other materials pertinent to Hillel and
Shammai come from still other authorities.
The story seems to be a unity,- but only if it depends on y. Ned. 5:6,
below. Otherwise, part B is certainly separate, for we have no hint of
Shammai's involvement in part A. We shall return to this question in
synopsis no. 3.
IV.i.l. What is Shammai's reason? Lest he forget and make them
hullin.
(y. M.S. 2:4, repr. Gilead, p. 13b)
c
See M. M.S. 2:9 = M. Ed. 1:10, to which the above sup

plies an explanation. The gloss is anonymous and unrelated to named
logia in the same context.
Comment:
IV.i.2. Said Rabbi Yosi b. Rabbi Bun, "Thus was the deed [<BD>]:
200
S H A M M A I IV.ii.l, 2, 3
"Jonathan b. Uzziel's father prohibited him by vow from his pro

perty, and arose and wrote them over to Shammai.
"What did Shammai do?
"He sold part, sanctified part, and gave the rest to him [Jonathan]
as a gift, and said, 'If anyone comes and complains about this gift,
let him recover from the purchasers and from the sanctuary, and
afterward he may recover from this man.'"
(y. Ned. 5:6, repr. Gilead, p. 19b)
Comment: The Palestinian version of the Jonathan-story is strikingly
different from the Babylonian beraita. Here the gift is to Shammai, who
acts in behalf of Jonathan by saving for him part of the father's property.
Shammai's presence is now comprehensible.
The classification is a story about Shammai; no new legal principle
evidently is involved, though one is immediately inferred. The context,
however, is identical to the Babylonian: Hillel and eighty disciples, then
Hillel's death scene, then R. Yohanan remarks, "This one is discerned
to be a disciple of the sage." Then comes R. Yosi b. R. Bun, as above.
R. Jeremiah, finally, comments on the story, and a Mishnah is quoted in
support of Jeremiah's remark. This is the whole pericope. The story
certainly is a unitary composition. No element comes as a surprise;
nothing is intruded.
IV.ii.l. It once happened [Ma'aseh ve] that Shammai the Elder's
daughter-in-law gave birth, and he broke an opening through the
plaster of the ceiling and covered it above the bed with the proper
Sukkah-too&ng for the sake of the child.
(b. Yev. 15a)
Comment: A citation of M. Suk. 2:8, the pericope appears as cited by
Mar Zutra, to prove that sages followed their own opinions even con
trary to the established law. This certainly is what the original redactor
wanted to say about Shammai.
IV.ii.2. Shammai says, "Even a single bone from the backbone or
from the skull [defiles by overshadowing]."
(b. Naz. 52b = b. Naz. 53a)
Comment: This is a citation of M. Ed. 1:7, above.
c
IV.ii.3. [Baba b. Buta said], "This is what I have received (QBL)

from Shammai the Elder; 'The white of an egg contracts when brought
near the fire, but semen becomes faint from the fire.'"
(b. Git. 57a)
Comment: The tradition (QBLH) of Baba b. Buta comes in the con
text of a long story transmitted by R. Manyumi b. Hilqiah, R. Hilqiah
b. Tobiah, and R. Huna b. Hiyya.
S H A M M A I IV.ii.4
201
One of them told a story about a man who wanted to divorce his
wife, but could not afford her marriage-contract. He invited his friends
and gave them a good feast and made them drunk, then put them all
into one bed, and brought the white of an egg and scattered it among
them and brought witnesses to prove they had had sexual relations with
his wife. He then appealed to the court. There was at court a certain
elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, named Baba b. Buta who
saidas above. The teaching of Shammai then was tested and relied
upon. The man was flogged and required to pay the marriage-contract.
Abbaye and R. Joseph comment on the story, which is meant to show
the virtue of the ancients. They therefore provide the terminus ante quern.
The passage attributes no saying to Shammai, but rather a tradition,
in direct discourse. What is important is that a disciple of Shammai is
represented as transmitting a tradition of the master and that the master's
tradition is accepted in court. We do not on that account have to con
clude the story is intentionally favorable to Shammai or was originally
shaped in his school, for it was a perfectly verifiable fact of nature that
Shammai had recorded. The fact could easily be tested and found out.
Still, we must regard the pericope as making use of materials in a man
ner on the whole friendly to, and respectful of, Shammai, probably be
cause Baba was a Shammaite who always ruled like Hillel.
IV.ii.4. Shammai the Elder said in the name of Haggai the prophet,
"His sender is liable, for it is said, Thou has slain him with the sword of the
children of Ammon (II Sam. 12:9)."
(b. Qid. 43a)
Comment: The representation of Shammai as possessing and citing
traditions of the latter prophets must be intended as favorable. Sham
mai supposedly had access to highly reliable informationand there
fore other opinions held by him are apt to be equally well founded.
Since Hillel plays no part, the tradent hardly intended a hostile judg
ment on Shammai's opposition. Hillel also claimed for his traditions
either prophetic or supernatural origin, so it is important to find that
Shammai's circle did the same in his behalf.
The contrary point is that someone who tells another to go and kill
does not free the agent fom liability for his action. The sender in fact is
exempt and the slayer liable. Shammai holds the sender is liable. The
Talmudic discussion then supplies various theoretical reasons for
Shammai's position. No one is cited in this connection. The entire set
ting is anonymous. The dispute however arises in the context of an ar
gument between the Houses on exegetical rules, and the saying of
Shammai is (reasonably) regarded as an example of Shammaite exegesis.
It may be that House 0/*has been dropped before Shammai. But the only
source is the text as given above.
The classification is an exegesis for legal purposes. Shammai's saying
certainly is unitary. The Scripture is integral to the saying and cannot
be regarded as a later gloss. We have no idea where and when the pas-
202
Shammai
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1. Remember
S a b b a t h (see n o . 2 )
Mekh. deR
Simeon p. 1 4 8
1.29-30
2 . T h r e e r u l e s re
siege, trip before
Sabbath
Sifre Deut. 2 0 3
(weigh anchor)
3. Phylacteries o f
m y grandfather
Mekh. deR
Ishmael Pisha
IV, 209-216*
Il.i
Mishnah
M. M.S. 2 : 4
M . <Ed. 1 : 8
5 . C h a n g i n g sela
o f second-tithe
m o n e y in
Jerusalem
M. M.S. 2:9
M . <Ed. 1 : 1 0
6. W h a t conveys
flavor can c o n v e y
uncleanness o n l y
i f it is a n e g g ' s
bulk
M. O r l a h 2 : 5
7 . M a d e Sukkah
for infant
M . Suk. 2 : 8
of
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
Ill.ii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
b. S h a b . 1 9 a
(re siege)
y. M . S . 2 : 4
Tos. M.S. 2 : 1 0
b. Y e v . 1 5 a
M. Kel. 2 2 : 4
9 . P l o u g h i n g in
Seventh Year
Tos. Shev. 3 : 1 0
10. W o u l d not
add food to be
eaten w i t h one
hand
b. Y o m a 7 7 b
1 1 . Shammai and
Jonathan b.
<Uzziel
1 2 . E v e n a single
bone from the
b a c k b o n e defiles
by overshadowing
Il.ii
Tosefta
T o s . <Eruv. 3 : 7
(re siege)
4. Heave-offering
v e t c h e s eaten d r y
8. Uncleanness
stools
b. B . B . 1 3 3 b - 1 3 4 a
M . <Ed. 1 : 7
b. Hul. 1 0 7 b
y. Ned.
5:6
b. Naz. 52b
1 3 . S e n d e r is
liable
b. Qid. 43a
1 4 . W h i t e o f egg
contracts
b. Git. 57a
1 5 . Three sayings
M. A v o t 1 : 1 5
V
ARN
203
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
204
sage was given its final form, or who is responsible for transmitting it
for the purposes of the current argument.
IV.ii.5. It was said of Shammai the Elder that he would not feed a
child even with one hand, and they [the sages] ordered him to feed it
with both hands.
(b. Hul. 107b)
Comment: See b. Yoma 77b. The pericope above appears, as earlier, in
the context of a citation of the beraita of the School of Manasseh about
Simeon b. Gamaliel. The story of Shammai is integral to the beraita,
though it obviously constitutes a separate element added to the compo
site. Abbaye comments on the discussion. He says that washing hands
on the Day of Atonement is on account of the evil spirit that clings to
unwashed hands, but, once the hands have been washed in the morning,
there is no further need to wash them when about to feed others. This
of course has nothing to do with the original dispute between Shammai
and those who opposed him and forced him to act contrary to his be
liefs. But it does make clear that the passage was cited in fourth-century
Pumbedita.
i n . SYNOPSES
Passages in which Shammai appears along with the Houses of Hil

lel and Shammai (M. M.S. 2:4 = M. Ed. 1:8, M. M.S. 2:9 = M. <Ed.
1:10, M. Kel. 22:4 = M. <Ed. 1:11, and M. <Ed. 1:7) will be pre
sented in the context of the Houses.
c
1. Rules about the Sabbath

3:7
b. Shab. 19a
1. T N W R B N N
2.
SifreDeut.
203
1 . When you besiege a city
2. Tells that one
offers
peace t w o o r t h r e e days be
fore making w a r against
it...
Tos. 'Eruv.
1.
2.
3. O n e does n o t start a
s i e g e a g a i n s t a c i t y less t h a n
three days before the S a b
b a t h , a n d if t h e y e n c i r c l e d
them and the Sabbath hap
pens to be, the Sabbath
does not interrupt w a r .
3. A camp that goes

forth to optional w a r
d o e s n o t b e s i e g e a gentile
c i t y less t h a n t h r e e d a y s
before the Sabbath, and
i f t h e y began, even on the
Sabbath they d o n o t i n
terrupt.
3 . O n e does n o t besiege
cities of aliens ( N K R Y M )
less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e
f o r e t h e S a b b a t h a n d if
they began, they do not
i n t e r r u p t [ O m i t s : even
on the Sabbath].
4 . T h i s is o n e o f t h r e e
things that S h a m m a i the
Elder expounded
4.
4.
SHAMMAI
5. O n e d o e s n o t w e i g h a n
chor ( P L G ) to the Great
Sea less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e
fore the Sabbath.
6. O f
what
things
are
spoken?
7. O n a l o n g j o u r n e y , b u t
on a near journey, one
weighs anchor.
8.
205
SYNOPSES
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8. Thus
(KK)
did
S h a m m a i the Elder ex
p o u n d , Until it
falls
A n d even on the Sab
bath.
8. A n d s o ( K N )
did
S h a m m a i say
[ o m i t s and]
Sifre contains numerous elements lacking in the two Talmuds, but

has no knowledge of Shammai's exegesis of Deut. 20:20. Tos. Eruv.
refers to an optional war, while to make a required war one presumably
may lay siege at any time. Sifre Deut. is unclear on this point. The
detail on the siege is the same: Once the siege has started, it must not
be lifted despite the Sabbath. The beraita in b. Shab. follows Sifre in
omitting reference to the optional war, but otherwise is identical to
the Tos. version, except in leaving out what must have been thought
redundant, even on the Sabbath. In this instance it is difficult to argue
that the beraita is necessarily later than, and dependent upon, the
Tosefta's version. It bears at least one important affinity to Sifre.
On the other hand, the exegesis of Shammai is copied, with only a
minor omission. I therefore imagine the framer of the beraita depended
upon Tos., but has improved on it by generalizing a camp that goes
forth to optional war into one does not besiegepresumably more satis
factory for a legal context. Hence in the balance the beraita must be
judged dependent upon, and later than, Tos. The appearance of no. 8
in both is the decisive factor, but the rest of the language is sufficiently
close, except for the detail at the outset, no. 3, so that this conclusion
is highly probable.
c
2. Would Not Feed with One Hand

b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yoma 77b
T h e y said c o n c e r n i n g S h a m m a i t h e E l d e r
T h a t h e d i d n o t w a n t t o g i v e t o eat w i t h his o n e h a n d
and they decreed on him
t o g i v e t o eat w i t h t w o h a n d s .
b. Hul.
1.
2.
3.
4.
107b
The two passages in fact are identical. The only differences are in the
context in which they are cited. The essential materials exhibit no
changes whatever.
206
SHAMMAI SYNOPSES
3. Shammai and Jonathan b. *Uf(pjel

b. B.B.
133b-134a
1. T N W R B N N
2 . Ma'aseh b3. O n e man w h o s e sons did not behave
according to rule.
4 . H e r o s e a n d w r o t e his p r o p e r t y t o
J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel.
5 . W h a t d i d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel d o ?
6. H e s o l d a t h i r d
7. consecrated a third
8. a n d r e t u r n e d a t h i r d t o his s o n s .
9. S h a m m a i c a m e t o h i m in his staff a n d
bag.
1 0 . H e said t o h i m , S h a m m a i , if y o u c a n
take away w h a t I have sold and w h a t I
h a v e c o n s e c r a t e d , y o u can t a k e a w a y w h a t
I have returned.
1 1 . If not, y o u cannot take away w h a t I

have returned.
1 2 . H e said, B e n 'Uzziel h a s c o n f o u n d e d
me [twice].
y. Ned.
5:6
1 . R. Y o s i b . R . B u n said
2 . Thus was the thing OBD')
3.
4. Jonathan
b. 'U^gier*
father
pre
vented him by vow from his property and
r o s e a n d w r o t e them to Shammai.
5. W h a t d i d Shammai d o ?
6. H e s o l d part
7 . c o n s e c r a t e d part
8. and gave him the rest as a gift
9.
1 0 . H e [ S h a m m a i ] said, Whoever will
come and complain against this gift, let
him retrieve from the hand of the pur
chasers and from the hand of the sanctuary,
and afterward let him remove from the
hand of this one.
1 1 . [As above]
12.
One version completely reverses the other. The first question is,
Which came first? It seems to me that the Palestinian version must
have preceded the Babylonian beraita; the latter certainly is completely
dependent upon it. The decisive fact is the intrusion of Shammai into
the Babylonian version in no. 9. Who mentioned his name? Only in
the Palestinian version is Shammai integral to the story. One could,
to be sure, divide the beraita into fragments of two independent
stories, one in which Jonathan b. 'Uzziel plays the major, and affirma
tive role, the other in which Shammai somehow is brought into play.
But that theoretical division seems to me unlikely, in the face of the
fact that the Palestinian account supplies a complete and unitary story.
Both parties there play a part from the outset. No one has to be
intruded.
The Babylonian beraita has replaced BD by its conventional super
scription, ma aseh b. It has supplied a reason for the disinheritance.
In the Palestinian version we understand at the very outset why
Jonathan was includedit was his own father. In the Babylonian,
we are as mystified by the gift to Jonathan as by the intrusion of
Shammai.
The Babylonian specifies part as third, obviously an "improvement."
c
SHAMMAI
SYNOPSES
207
The action of Shammai in the Palestinian version is now copied by

Jonathan in the other. Since Shammai was involved in the Palestinian
one, the Babylonians have to invent a dramatic encounter to bring in
Shammai. Now whoever will come is turned into Shammai came... if you.
The elements of no. 10 are otherwise not much different. The beraita is
somewhat more fluent, if you can do this, you can do that, and if you
cannot do this, you cannot do that. The Palestinian has been improved by
the division into affirmative and negative clauses, thus making a bind
ing condition, and the references to hand of purchasers!sanctuary
turned into active verbs. The absence of no. 12 in the Palestinian
version is for obvious reasons.
Since the Babylonian version is later than the Palestinian one, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that someone has intentionally changed
R. Yosi b. R. Bun's story into an account hostile to Shammai, and
that party must be a Babylonian of the fourth-century Pumbeditan
school. Clearly, the Babylonian account depends on the Palestinian
one, so, as I said, we must suppose the Babylonian comes later than,
and represents a deliberate reversal of, the Palestinian. Why would a
fourth-century Babylonian have taken a story friendly to Shammai
and turned it into a hostile account in which Shammai confesses his
utter humiliation? I doubt that issues pertinent to the actual life and
times of Shammai could still have aroused much interest in fourthcentury Babylonia. Nor can anyone have wanted to make much of
Jonathan b. 'Uzziel on the basis of Shammai's humiliation, except
those responsible for the other materials on Jonathan in the same com
plex pericopae in b. B.B. 134a. In that case, we must suppose a fourthcentury date for the whole set of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel pericopae, some
thing we have been reluctant to do until now. A circle thus preserved,
even invented, traditions hostile to Yohanan ben Zakkai. It seems to
me that such a circle would have been unfriendly, also, to the Pumb
editan tradents who used Yohanan ben Zakkai to show how the
leadership of Israel devolved from Hillel not to Gamaliel his son, but
to Yohanan b. Zakkai his best disciple (Development, pp. 293-7). The obvi
ous point was that the leadership of Israel belongs not to the heir of
Hillel/David, but to the sage. In that case the story humiliating Sham
mai would have pleased the opposition to the sages denigrating heirs of
Hillel/David after the flesh, that is, it would have pleased sages who
served a master claiming to descend from David, and therefore to be
related to Hillelthe exilarch. The revision of Yosi b. R. Bun's story
served the polemical interests of such a circle. The humiliation of
a r e
208
SHAMMAI
SYNOPSES
Shammai carried out the purposes of the circle friendly to the exilarch
and hostile to the exilarch's critics; the critics were the circle which
preserved stories of Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's true heir. So the
revision of Hillel-Shammai materials relates to Babylonian politics,
just as the citation of Yohanan b. Zakkai materials serves partisan
purposes in the same place {Development, pp. 295-297).
As it stands, R. Yosi b. R. Bun's story about Shammai is one of the
few late stories in which Shammai appears as a genuine hero, a master
of law and possessed of considerable virtue. We have no reason to
imagine R. Yosi held any living traditions from the time of Shammai
nearly three centuries earlier. What motivated his fabrication of the
story, however, is not clear to me. A further problem is the question
why the exilarchic party should have glorified Hillel, the authority
behind the Palestinian patriarch, the exilarch's great rival. Perhaps
the answer comes in the tradition that Hillel came up from Babylonia
and renewed the Torah which had been forgotten in Palestine. This
tradition is an attempt to relegate the Palestinian patriarch to second
ary status. Everyone knew that Hillel had taught in Palestine, and
Hillel was, by the time this story was invented, the greatest name
behind the rabbinic tradition. So what could be done? Hillel could be
made of Babylonian origin, and the exilarch, no less than the patriarch,
could claim descent from Davidbut there are no traces of such a
claim through Hillel.
iv.
CONCLUSION
Few stories in which Shammai appears by himself fail to reflect the

well-known traditions about Shammai as Hillel's chief opponent.
On the contrary, it is as if one cannot mention Shammai without
denigrating him, either explicitly, as in the non-legal Hillel-Shammai
materials (below), or merely by inference, as in the bulk of the Mishnah's
Shammai-traditions.
Among the pericopae in which Shammai is quoted with unmixed
respect as a major authority, reliable precedent in law, informed
exegete, or worthy sage are the following: Mekhilta deR. Simeon b.
Yohai, p. 148, lines 29-30 (I.ii.l), on the simultaneous commandment
to remember and keep the Sabbath; Sifre Deut. 203 (I.ii.2) = Tos.
<Eruv 3:7 (II.ii.3) = b. Shab. 19a (III.i.1), on Shammai's three Sabbath
regulations (offer peace three days before the siege, besiege a city three
days before the Sabbath, start a long voyage three days before the
Sabbath); Baba b. Buta cites Shammai and his opinion is accepted by
209
SHAMMAI CONCLUSION
the court as law, b. Git. 57a (IV.ii.3); Shammai cites Haggai, b. Qid.
43a (IV.ii.4), surely a significant testimony to the excellence of Sham
mai's traditions; and y. Ned. 5:6, R. Yosi b. R. Bun. This is the sum
of all traditions either neutral or unequivocally favorable to Shammai.
We certainly cannot attribute the bulk of them to the circle of his
immediate disciples. The names of tradents are seldom given. We do
not know who is responsible for pericopae appearing in the earliest
compilations. Those in the later onese.g. in the Amoraic strata of
the twoGemarotsurely do not come from his school, but from masters
who for one reason or another handed on neutral or favorable mater
ials concerning Shammai. In all, the corpus is small and unimpressive.
Indeed, if we relied only on the materials in which Shammai is favor
ably represented and stands by himself, we should have to suppose
nearly all his teachings concerned the Sabbath, both law and exegesis of
Sabbath-Scriptures, with a few later references to miscellaneous mat
ters. We should have further to imagine he in effect had no disciples
indeed no Houseother than Dositheus and Baba b. Buta, who alone
cite him directly, and Baba always ruled like Hillel.
Shammai therefore appears as a major master and significant op
ponent of Hillel, but no genuine and substantial corpus of Shammaitraditions was permitted to survive in the conventional and credible
form of sayings preserved by responsible, loyal students. This im
pression is reinforced by the puzzling legal materials which were per
mitted to survive. In extant legal materials Shammai is consistently
represented as repudiating the opinion of the House of Shammai; or
as holding an opinion different from the House that allegedly received
its traditions from him, e.g. in most Mishnaic pericopae. Thus in M.
M.S. 2:4 (Il.i.l), on eating second tithe vetches dry, his House held
they did not have to be kept free of susceptibility of uncleanness,
therefore dry; in M. M.S. 2:9 (II.i.2), the Second-Tithe money may not
be changed, while the House of Shammai said it might; in M. Orlah
2:4-5 (II.i.3), Shammai's opinion is reported as verbally identical with
that of the House of Hillel and contrary to that of the House of Sham
mai; in M. Ed. 1:7 (II.i.5), on the uncleanness of bones for the
purpose of conveying uncleanness by overshadowing, Shammai's
opinion is different from that of the House of Shammai and closer to
that of the House of Hillel, in that Shammai required the bones to
come from a single corpse; in M. Kel. 22:4 (II.i.6), Shammai's posi
tion differs from that of the House of Shammai and is more extreme
than any other opinion in the pericope.
c
210
SHAMMAI CONCLUSION
Further hostile pericopae present Shammai as unable to accomplish

necessary changes in the law; in Tos. Shev. 3:10, (Il.i.l) he could not
prohibit a practice in violation of the Sabbatical year, but the court
after him could and did do so. He is represented as being subordinate
to "them" ( = the sages), as in b. Yoma 77b (III.ii.2) = b. Hul. 107b
(V.ii.5), in which "they" decreed that he must violate his own ruling
about not feeding a baby even with one hand, and requiring that he
do so with two. This story gives the striking portrait of Shammai,
allegedly second only to Hillel, as subjected to the authority of "the
sages" even in matters of his own religious practice. It certainly is an
extreme statement of the situation, one in which Hillel plays no overt
role whatever.
Mishnaic traditions also preserve Shammai's opinion in the form
of a story, in which Shammai appears as a private party, applying the
law to himself more stringently than he should, with the implication
(made explicit by Mar Zutra) that others should not follow his idio
syncratic behavior, but rather the law as taught by the Hillelite or
Aqiban traditions; this is in M. Suk. 2:8 (II.i.4) = b. Yev. 15a(IV.ii.l),
where he held the child was liable to keep the commandment of the
Sukkah. Elsewhere Shammai is portrayed as accepting the law as the
Hillelite school formulated it, directly or by inference, as Mekh. Pisha
III, 209-216 (I.i.l).
The tendency to revise materials to leave a negative impression of
Shammai's power and influence is fully revealed in the latest stratum
of all. The drastic changes in R. Yosi b. R. Bun's favorable story about
Shammai and Jonathan b. Uzziel remove Shammai as a hero and
replace him with Jonathan, further have Shammai confess he has been
put in his place by the same Jonathan who, in the earlier story, was
disinherited (for unstated reasons) by his father, b. B.B. 133b-134a =
y. Ned. 5:6 (III.i.3, IV.i.2).
The bulk of the Shammai-corpus therefore derives from hostile
circles, though these cannot be thought identical with one another.
The tendency of the Mishnah is clear. Shammai may have founded a
House, but wherever his opinion is preserved, it is a repudiation of
that of his House, either directly or by inference. Shammai thus is
represented as one of those good Shammaites who knew the law really
followed Hillel and therefore consistently taught either the Hillelite
view of the law, or some obviously unacceptablebecause extreme
view, anything but what was in fact contained in the House of Sham
mai's traditions. The Mishnah presents Shammai as a disloyal, therec
211
SHAMMAI CONCLUSION
fore acceptable Shammaite. In the Tosefta and some beraitot he further

occurs as an ineffectual authority, subordinate to "them." We were
able to locate the probable origin of one drastic revision of stories on
Shammai in fourth-century Pumbedita, but while the earlier tendency
was accurately represented there, the greater likelihood is that Mish
naic and other revisions of whatever Shammaite traditions pertained
to Shammai himself and their outright fabrications of hostile stories
about him must date at the very latest from the circles around Judah
the Patriarch. And some of them may be earlier than that.
It therefore is striking that the Aqiban and Ishmaelean traditions
preserved in the Mekhiltas are separate and different in tendency from
the ones in Mishnah-Tosefta, presumably because the earlier masters
had no motive in maligning or misrepresenting Shammai and his role.
By contrast Judah the Patriarch did just that. Further remarks on the
corpus of traditions relating to Shammai will be offered in connection
with the Shammai-Hillel pericopae.
To summarise: When Shammai is presented by himself, without hav
ing to serve as Hillel's foil, his relationship with Hillel nonetheless
continues to predominate in the formation of most traditions. Of
Shammai as a master apart from the relationship to Hillel, we have
scarcely any materials. Shammai-traditions therefore are not much
different in quantity or in character from those of earlier, pre-Hillel
Pharisaic masters, e.g. Joshua b. Perahiah or Judah b. Tabbai. Indeed,
the Simeon b. Shetah-corpus is substantially richer than that part of
the corpus pertaining to Shammai which reflects a neutral or favorable
opinion about him and therefore stands independent of the Hillelrelationship. Hillel's immense prestige and the even greater power
of his descendents succeeded in denying to Shammai more than a
practically negligible position in the traditions, except on Hillelite
terms. By contrast, in materials shaped by the Houses of Shammai and
Hillel, Shammai is given a position of parity with Hillel, e.g. M. Ed.
1:1-3, because the House of Shammai had sufficient power to repre
sent their master accurately and honorably. I should regard some of
those materials in which Hillel and Shammai and their Houses are
juxtaposed as possibly among the earliest parts of the whole corpus,
shaped in something much like their present form about the time of
the destruction of the Temple, before the rise of the Hillelite House and
patriarchate to complete predominance. But such a judgment takes for
granted that the Houses actually did exist as historical entities before 70
and that the House of Shammai shortly thereafter passed from the scene.
c
CHAPTER NINE
HILLEL
The corpus of traditions in which Hillel stands by himself is im

mense. At no point do we discern the influence of Shammai or his
followers in the formation of Hillel-traditions. Shammai of course
plays no role in them, either directly or by inference. The corpus, at
least on the surface, is uniformly favorable, and the contrast with the
materials in which Shammai stands by himself is striking.
i. T R A D I T I O N S
I.ii.l .A With unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it [the Pesah]
(Ex. 12:8)It is a misyah to eat all of them together (L'KL KWLN
K?HT).
B. Hillel the Elder would fold them together and eat them (HYH
KWRKN ZH BZH W'WKLN).
(Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, ed. EpsteinMelamed, p. 13, 1. 12, to Ex. 12:8)
Comment: The classification is a lemma describing as precedent a rou
tine practice of Hillel. The absence of any descriptive matter or expla
nation of context is striking. We are not told why, where, or when he
first did so, what witnesses were present, how he explained his action.
All this is unimportant. The point is to attribute to Hillel a well-known
practice. We have noted a similar tendency to attribute well-established
customs to Simeon b. Shetah.
This lemma turns an exegesis of Ex. 12:8 into a Hillel-story. First
comes the anonymous exegesis, / / is a commandment (misyah) to eat all of
them at once. Then Hillel the Elder would... The revision of exegeses to
narrative recurs in Hillel materials, particularly with reference to Deut.
15. The movement is from generalized, anonymous exegeses to specific
stories about Hillel. But normally the language of the exegesis is then
repeated verbatim in the Hillel-fable, which is not the case here.
Perhaps at the outset a polemic was intended against other ways of
doing things, but by the time the pericope was shaped, ulterior inten
tions in both the exegesis and Hillel-tradition had long since been for
gotten. The Hillel-story cannot on the face of it be subjected to histori
cal questions; the tradition behind the story, about how to eat the three
foods, is simply hung onto Hillel. Since the preservation of the story of
a master's way of keeping a commandment generally was meant to say,
H I L L E L I.ii.2
213
"Do it this way, and not that way," however, the absence of reference to
other ways of doing the commandment carried out by other groups may
signify that the lemma was shaped when the issues to which the gesture
was addressed had long since been forgotten.
The lemma is a unityformal, brief, unadorned, simple. But it could
not have been understood outside of the exegetical context; would fold
them can mean nothing except when attached to Ex. 12:8. The simple
form of the lemma thus belies a complex development, from an exegesis
to a story of what Hillel "actually" said or did.
I.ii.2.A. And he who touches their corpse will be unclean (Lev. 11:24).
Hillel says, "Even if they are in the midst of the water."
B. For () I might say, "Just as the earth elevates unclean things
from their uncleanness, and the ritual pool elevates unclean things
from their uncleanness, so, just as the earth preserves clean things from
becoming unclean, likewise the ritual pool should preserve clean
things from becoming unclean."
C. Scripture says (TLMWD LWMR), He who touches on their corpse
even if they are in the midst of the water.
(Sifra Shemini, Parashah 9:5, ed. Weiss, p. 56a)
Comment: The purity-law concerns the winged insects which one
must not eat: Whoever touches these same insects or their carcass is made unclean
until the evening (Lev. 11:24-5). The commentaries explain that even
though both the one who touches it and the insect should be in a ritual
pool, the insect still makes the man unclean. The exegesis of Scripture
is meant to counter the theoretical view that, by standing in the ritual
pool, a man prevents himself from being made unclean in touching an
unclean insect (as in the whited sepulchre). Touching the corpse may
take place anywhere, land or water, with the same result.
Hillel's saying (part A) is a brief logion. This is joined to the anony
mous exegesis of part B by I might say. It then is anonymously repeated at
the end, where TLMWD LWMR substitutes tot Hillel says. The exege
sis then (C) is given verbatim. As above, part A therefore is a secondary
stage in the development of the pericope. The form of the Hillel-logion
is the same as in the foregoing: a brief, gnomic reference to something
Hillel "says" or had done. Just as in the exegesis of Ex. 12:8, a wellknown practice or doctrine is attributed to Hillel, so here an established
exegesis is now assigned to him.
The simplicity of the form is deceiving. Comprehending the logion
requires considerable information, and the Hillel-logion in no form
could have stood independent of the Scripture. The pericope's literary
historyon the face of itincludes several stages: the anonymous ex
egesis of part C comes first. Part B is an expansion of Part C, explaining
the necessity of making such a comment at all. Finally, part A formu
lates the whole as a Hillel-saying, joining it to the rest with for () as if
Hillel himself were speaking.
214
H I L L E L I.ii.3, 4
The form in I.ii.l and I.ii.2 is much the same: superficially simple,
formal, brief, and undeveloped, but in fact complex.
I.ii.3.A. And the itch will be healed (Lev. 13:37). Hillel says, "Not
that he became afflicted with a bald spot within a patch of hair sur
rounded by baldness (L> $NTQ NTQ BTWK NTQ). " [ S O Jastrow,
II, p. 945, s.v. NTQ]...
B. Because of this matter, Hillel came up from Babylonia.
(Sifra Tazri'a, Pereq9:16, ed. Weiss, pp. 66b-67a)
Comment: The pericope is interrupted by a saying, R. 'Aqiba says...
Then comes Because of. The point is, so far as I can tell, that the new itch
in the old itch is different from the old one, therefore the man is unclean
on account of the new one. Then 'Aqiba comes (following the com
mentaries) not to add or to differ, but to explain Hillel's rule: Why is a
new itch in the midst of an old itch unclean? For the Torah has said,
The itch is healedhe is clean, meaning that the uncleanness is on account
of the healing, and the itch is now a new one, not healed with the for
mer. 'Aqiban glosses on Hillel-pericopae are common in Sifra.
The same considerations mentioned above apply without qualifica
tion here. The saying is complex, and the whole pericope comes at the
end of a considerable process of development. This is underlined by the
subscription, the stock-phrase, On account of this thing Hillel came up from
Babylonia. Hillel's emigration is by now well-known. Various puritylaws are listed as the reason for his move to Jerusalem.
The subscription of the pericope follows the tradition that Hillel was
already a learned man when he migrated. He required no further study
but immediately upon arrival was able to solve difficult problems of
law. The other, that Hillel had to begin studies in Jerusalem, first ap
pears in later compilations.
R. 'Aqiba surely supplies a terminus ante quern. Hillel's statement had
to have reached its current form before ca. 100-130, if, as is alleged,
Aqiba intended to explain it. I am not sufficiently expert in legal mat
ters to know whether Aqiba's saying could have stood separately and
unrelated to Hillel's; this judgment therefore relies on the traditional
commentaries.
c
I.ii.4.A. [If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, he may redeem it
within a whole year after its sale; for a full year he shall have the right of
redemption. If it is not redeemed within a full year, then the house that is in the
walled city shall be made sure] in perpetuity (LSMYTT) [to him who
bought it throughout his generations; it shall not be released in thejubilee (Lev.
25:29-30).]... to include one who gives a gift.
B. At first (BR'SWNH) he [the purchaser] would hide (NTMN)
on the day on which the twelve months [were completed] so that it
should be permanently sold (HLT) to him.
H I L L E L I.ii.4
215
C. Hillel the Elder ordained (TQN) that he [the seller] should

assign (HL) his coins [for redemption of the property] to the [Tem
ple] fund (L$KH), and he would break down the door and enter.
Whenever the other wishes, he may come and take his money.
(Sifra Behar, Parashah 4:8, ed. Weiss, p. 108b)
Comment: There is no exegesis, merely a citation. Parts B-C are inde
pendent of the foregoing, and do not allude to it. M. 'Arakh. (p. 227)
shows the connection explicitlyand makes it clear there is none, for
there LSMYTT proves that a sale and a gift are alike. Hillel's ordinance
pertains to the sale only, as is clear in part C. The connection to Lev.
25:30 is merely in theme. Obviously, Sifra depends upon an exegeticalredactional structure. But M. 'Arakh. does not, and there the situation
that later provoked the decree is described, then the remedy given.
The phrase beginning Hillel ordained certainly could not have been
transmitted apart from the description of the situation necessitating the
ordinance. Hence the whole must be classified as a unified biographical
pericope containing legal materials. It is certainly not to be compared to
normal legal sayings, in the form Hillel says. The context contains no
other named authorities.
The assumption is that a problem "at first" presented itself in Hillel's
time. We are not told when purchasers began to prevent redemptions.
Long before Hillel came from Babylonia, the difficulty of redeeming
the land must already have become apparent. It is incredible that for
five hundred or a thousand years, purchasers were able to get away
with violation of the intent of Scriptural rules, so that only when Hillel
came was it possible to stop the practice.
By contrast, the Yohanan-ordinances all are quite credible. While the
Temple stood, or beforetimes, such-and-so was the case with reference
to cultic or liturgical law. Yohanan made an ordinance to take account
of the changed circumstances after the destruction of the Temple. With
reference to Hillel, joining at first to the exegesis of Lev. 25:30 is puz
zling.
The form is the same as in the report of the ordinances (TQNWT) of
Yohanan b. Zakkai at Yavneh: At first... Yohanan b. Z. ordained... The
actual decree is described, but its exact language is not preserved. We
know what the man was told to do, but not how the necessary proce
dures were carried forward, what documents were issued, and so forth.
As in the decrees of Simeon b. Shetah earlier and Yohanan b. Zakkai,
the form imposes a considerable demand on one's imagination. The his
torical facts, moreover, hardly support the allegation that Hillel or any
Pharisee would have been able to make adjustments in so important a
matter as the transfer of real property. The further assumption that the
Temple authorities participated in the process hardly demands much
1
Development,
pp. 206-209.
216
H I L L E L I.ii.5
attention. I doubt that any decree of a Pharisaic master would have won
not merely the compliance, but the active participation, of the Temple
authorities. So the whole story probably is a fabrication.
I think it likely that the at first... ordained form was shaped in connec
tion with the traditions on Yohanan's decrees at Yavneh, when the
form made good sense and was entirely congruent to facts. It then was
applied to the record of, or used for telling about, earlier ordinances,
where it made no sense at all.
As to the facts of the matter it is difficult to hypothesize. Perhaps the
Pharisees handed on, or the later rabbis independently knew about, the
tradition of how the effects of Lev. 25:29-30 were coped with. Long ago
it was worked out that a man could deposit his funds with the appro
priate public authority and reacquire his property. Then the rabbis at
tached the tradition to the name of Hillel and gave the whole both the
form and the substance as we have it before us. If so, Hillel serves, like
Simeon b. Shetah, as a great authority in olden times. Another possibil
ity is that the law never was enforced at all. No one could redeem prop
erty once it was sold. The whole thing is fantasy. But rabbis assumed
that the laws of Scripture were enforced just as they believed they should
have been. If so, how to cope with this quite theoretical difficulty? They
thereupon invented the story of Hillel's ordinance to solve the fabri
cated problem of what to do if the purchaser will not accept his money.
The whole thing assumed legal weight when the rabbis in time to come
indeed governed the life of the community. When the story was told,
the rabbis actually did control Jewish community life. They therefore
may have felt the need to explain how the well-known law of Lev. 25:
29-30 had been enforced and would again be enforced when the Temple
would be rebuilt. The ordinance-story supplied that reason. I know of
no evidence that people ever actually carried out this law or that the
application of the law just now constituted a difficult problem. Of these
possibilities, the first seems simplest, but we have no evidence to sup
port it, none to exclude the others. Nor is there much to be gained by
spinning out theories based on rabbinical traditions about the applica
tion of laws in Temple times. If the Pharisees did not control the gov
ernment and the Temple, they could not do what the tradition on Hillel
said he had done. Then why invent such a tradition? Or what provoked
concern for the law in the first place? I have no answers to these ques
tions, but the exegesis of Scriptures seems to me the likeliest provoca
tion.
I.ii.5 [Yohanan b. Zakkai's disciples asked him in what garments
the ^zra^-sacrifice was to be carried out. He gave them an erroneous
tradition, then they corrected him.]
And some say, "It was Hillel the Elder, but he could not say, 'What
my own hands have done.'"
(Sifre Num. 123, ed. Friedman, pp. 41b-42a)
Comment:
See Development
of a Legend,
p. 19. The pericope cannot have
H I L L E L I.ii.6
217
been shaped before the time of Yohanan b. Zakkai, and probably comes
long after Yohanan's death. A tradition that may be told about two
masters is not based upon a recollection of what someone had actually
said or done or on a report coming from a reliable tradent. It is to be
classified as a biographical tale.
The original provocation of the tradition may have been the effort to
turn a story hostile to Yohanan b. Zakkai into one friendly to him. But
why should Hillel's name have been raised in this connection? It is not
integral to the story, and some say is immediately corrected: Hillel was
not a priest (as if Yohanan was!), and therefore could not have been the
master to whom the story is assigned. Perhaps someone had a special in
terest in attributing the tale to Hillel, presumably a patriarchal sage or
the patriarch himself, uncomfortable at the story of a model teacher
which omits the name of the teacher's own (alleged) teacher, Hillel. But
this sort of conjecture and similar, even more complicated possibilities
profit very little, for the pericope is too slight.
Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:3, ed. H. S. Horovitz, p. 302, lines 5-11, has a
strange version of the story: Yohanan is dropped, and Hillel claims, "I
saw Joshua b. Perahiah (!) burn it in the large [garment]." The pericope
ends with the same logion about "What my eyes have seen..." This ver
sion surely depends upon the earlier Yohanan b. Zakkai-Hillel ones and
has been contaminated with materials from other pericopae as well. It
cannot be regarded as a part of the living Hillel-tradition, but is grossly
fabricated by tradents or scribes who had no accurate knowledge of the
facts of the original pericope.
I.ii.6.A. Whatever of jours that is with jour brother jour hand should
release (Deut. 15:3)but not he who gives his mortgages to the court.
B. On this basis [Lit.: From here], they said
C. Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^buL
D. On account of the order (TYQWN) of the world.
E. That he saw the people, that they held back from lending to one
another and transgressed what is written in the Torah.
F. He arose and ordained the pro^buL
G. And this is the formula (GWPW) of the pro^bul: "I give to you,
so-and-so and so-and-so, the judges in such-and-such place, every debt
which I have, that I may collect it whenever I like," and the judges
seal below, or the witnesses.
[Sifre Deut. 113, ed. Friedman, pp. 97b-98a,
ed. Finkelstein, pp. 173-4. (Finkelstein prints
parts D-G in small type; cf. Midrash Tannaim to
Deut. 15:4, ed. Hoffmann,p.80,below, p. 222)]
Comment: We note first of all that the at first... Hillel ordained...
form
has not been used. But a number of other sorts of commonplace forms
and stock-phrases are mixed together. First comes the anonymous exe-
218
HILLEL
I.ii.6
gesis on which thepro^bulallegedly is based to begin with: debts in the

hands of a court are not released. The rest of the pericope seems to
depend upon the exegesis. In fact parts (C-D) E-F do not.
Part B suggests that Hillel ordained the pro^bul on the basis of the
exegesis, while part E gives another, and different reason, not based
upon scriptural exegesis at all, but a word-play on TQN in verbal and
nominative form. Part C certainly is a simple, stock-phrase report of the
whole matter. It could have stood with either part D or part B, but parts
B and D make one another redundant.
The "historical event," part E, on which the pro^bul is based poses a
problem, for the same conditions that in Hillel's time provoked the
proybul surely pertained for many centuries. How can one explain why
in just this time the people discovered the evil impulse described in
Deut. 15:9-10? In fact, what we have is a historical paraphrase of
Deut. 15:9-10: Take heed lest there be a base thought in jour heart andjou
say, The seventh year, the jear of release is near' and jour eje be hostile to
jour poor brother and jou give him nothing... You shall give to him freely...
because for this the Lord jour God will bless you... For the poor will never
cease out of the land. The absence of an explicit reference to this Scripture
is striking (it is quoted in later versions), but the foregoing story about
people's not lending before the year of release at just the time of Hillel
takes the place of the Scripture's description of this same "event."
The story, part E, thus serves as an exegesis, through historical narr
ation, of Deut. 15:9-10. As we saw, other exegeses are turned into
historical narratives about Hillel's deeds or events of his day, though
normally the narrative depends on the exegesis, which is not the case here.
Part F then repeats part C, adding the word arose and to supply a con
nection with part E, and thus to preserve the (fictitious) historical
framework of the story. Part G is tacked on; the story is complete with
out it. Part G could as well have followed part A. We do not know what
Hillel said; part G ignores Hillel. Thus part F satisfactorily completes
the story of Hillel. Including the formula is superfluous here, but makes
good sense following part A. Presumably the anonymous exegesis con
sisted of part A + G, to which various Hillel-materials are attached,
first by assigning the exegesis to Hillel (parts B-C), then by making up a
story (parts E-F).
Part B introduces the story: On this basis, referring to the exegesis,
therefore tying the following to it, Hillel ordained the pro^bul. The in
trusion of they said makes no sense. We are not told who said. It is a
stock-introduction to a new story or clause. Actually it ties to the
opening of part E, they said that he saw, or to part C, they said that Hillel.
But part D and part E cannot be joined.
Two different stories have been joined together. One is Parts (A) +
B,C + (G):
6
(But n o t h e w h o g i v e s )
O n t h i s basis ( o m i t : they said)
Hillel o r d a i n e d t h e pro^bul
( A n d t h i s is t h e f o r m u l a )
H I L L E L I.ii.6
219
The other is Parts (A) + C, D, E, (F) + (G):

(But n o t he w h o gives)
Hillel ordained
O n account of the repair of the w o r l d
( O m i t : that) H e s a w t h e p e o p l e , t h a t t h e y h e l d b a c k
He arose and ordained
The version of Parts A + B, C + G is the simplest statement of mat

ters. The second, parts D, E, F, introduces a "historical" provocation
for the matter, ignoring the exegesis and reporting an "event" to take
its place. The two versions circulated separately, in Midrash Tannaim,
p. 80, and M. Shev. 10:3, below.
The viewpoint of the former version is that Hillel's action was based
upon sound exegesis of Scripture. It did not represent modification of
the law merely to accomodate the law to historical circumstances.
Rather, the law always had been what Hillel now said, but it was Hillel
who recognized that fact and acted upon it. Hillel's greatness is in re
covering the tradition, not in inventing new laws to meet the needs of
the time. The contrary tendency ignores the exegesis. Hillel did change
the law to accomodate it to the needs of the day. The decree was "for
the order of the world," and had no exegetical basis. The specific prob
lem therefore has to be spelled out. Likewise, others who choose to is
sue taqqanot are justified in doing so as circumstances require. The same
issue was raised at Usha with reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai's ordi
nances (Development, pp. 206-209, 291), but not with regard to Hillel's.
These two tendencies recur in stories of Hillel's origins. Some say he
came as an ignorant man and learned whatever was worth knowing
from Shema'iah and Abtalion and proved his points by reference to
traditions he had heard from them. The other viewpoint is that Hillel
was a master of Torah before he came from Babylonia, and he came to
Palestine to solve one or another problem, as in Sifra Tazri'a I.ii.2,
where a stock-phrase is added, on this account Hillel came upfrom Babylonia.
The two tendencies are represented separately in biographical materials,
but in legal ones may be mixed together, either as here, in two separate
accounts of the decree, or as in the places to which on this account is
tacked on at the end.
The two stories must have circulated separately. The clumsy means
by which they are amalgamated, e.g. the repetition of the "reason" for
the decree and the use of (here translated that) where itfitsand where
it does not fit, suggest that completed versions already existed.
We have no firm basis on which to formulate a theory of events.
Perhaps Hillel actually made such a decree for the reasons specified, and
the fact that he could do so underlines the immense power and prestige
he enjoyed within Pharisaism. But that decree would not have affected
the life of the great numbers of Palestinian Jews who were not Phari
sees. Debtors were here given a good motive to dislike Pharisees, who
now made their debts perpetual. This leads to a second possibility. The
pro^bul existed before Hillel's day. He served as a convenient name on
which to hang the Pharisaic acceptance of the proybul, despite its con-
220
H I L L E L I.ii.7
travening Scriptural law. But then the debtors' interests would become
problematical. On the one hand, the debts are now allowed to pile up
and be carried forward. On the other hand, the theory of the pro^bul for
Pharisaic consumption is that it loosens credit. But both theories pre
suppose the law was widely observed, and debts indeed were forgiven
according to Deuteronomic law. Evidence of actual practice here be
comes decisive.
While historical considerations lead to an impasse, form-critical ones
do not. We may take it for granted that the story as we have it represents
the effort first to attribute the anonymous exegetical justification of the
pro^hul to Hillel, then to combine both views of taqqanot, a compromise
between those who held one may legislate to meet the needs of the day
and those who held legislation always depended upon Scriptural exege
sis. The latter believed exegesis was possible to permit all needed legisla
tion. The former may have thought otherwise, or, more likely, had no
sufficiently rich exegetical tradition to permit them to rely upon Scrip
tural exegesis for important matters.
It was Aqiba and his associates who so enriched the exegetical tradi
tion that they could find pretty much whatever they wanted in Scrip
ture. Earlier, those who had had to issue decrees without the Aqiban
method thought it reasonable to do so merely because the times ob
viously required it, for example, Yavneans, from Yohanan b. Zakkai's
time onward. Their view of matters is consistently represented in
stories of Yohanan's own decrees: At first... when the Temple was de
stroyed. .. Yohanan did what the times required, with or without Scrip
tural proof. It was natural to shape Hillelite materials in the same frame
work, even where it distorts the materials. It seems likely that the first
viewpoint specified above would appropriately derive from circles in
fluenced by Aqiban exegetical innovations, the second from circles in
which those innovations are either unknown or unacceptable. The sec
ond possibly would be the older of the two. But it is no more credible,
from a historical viewpoint, on that account. And the anonymous exe
gesis (A) does not reveal peculiarly 'Aqiban techniques, so may be older
than 'Aqiban times.
1
I.ii.7. A. Moses was one-hundred-twenty years old (Deut. 34:7).

He was one of four who died at the age of one-hundred-twenty,
and these are they: Moses and Hillel the Elder, and Rabban Yohanan
ben Zakkai and R. Aqiba.
B. ...Hillel came up from Babylonia at the age of forty years, and
served [as a disciple of the] sages for forty years, and sustained Israel
for forty years...
C. Six pairstheir years were equal: Rebecca and Kohath, Levi
c
T h e A r a m a i c ' a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f a d e b t ' , p u b l i s h e d b y J . T . M i l i k {Discoveries

in the JudaeanDesert
[ O x f o r d , 1 9 6 1 ] , p p . 1 0 0 - 1 0 4 ) does take account o f the Sabbatical
r e m i s s i o n o f d e b t s , b u t is not a pro^bul a n d i g n o r e s t h e pro^bul in e v e r y respect.
221
H I L L E L I.ii.7
and Amram, Joseph and Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, Moses and
Hillel the Elder, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai and R. Aqiba.
(Sifre Deut. 357, ed. Finkelstein, p. 429)
c
Comment: See Development of a Legend, pp. 23, 213, 227. We have two
separate pericopae, one states explicitly that the heroes lived one-hun
dred-twenty years; the other says merely that their life-spans are the
same. Apparently, part C is revised by parts A-B (part B serving as an
exposition of part A), which drop everyone but Moses-Hillel, and
Yohanan-*Aqiba. The whole is anonymous; no master is quoted in con
nection with, or in, the pericope.
What is striking is the link of Moses-Hillel, which echoes the Baby
lonian saying that Moses gave the Torah, afterwards Ezra, then Hillel
restored it when it was forgotten, as did Hiyya and his sons afterward.
The pairing of Yohanan and 'Aqiba and Moses-Hillel cannot be in
consequential. The implication is obvious: Hillel was as influential in
the revelation of the Torah as Moses. The absence of a prophetic basis
for Hillel's Torah is elsewhere explained: the generation was unworthy.
Obviously, a tradition linking Yohanan and Aqiba is shaped in the
later school of 'Aqiba, ca. 150 A.D. or afterward. Given the impor
tance of Hillel to the late second-century Tannaitic schools and patriar
chate, we need not doubt that the connection of Moses with Hillel testi
fies to the mind of the whole Tannaitic circle. If so, the tradition that
Hillel came as an ignorant man and learned everything he knew from
Palestinian sages must also have had important advocates in the period
from 150 to 200 and later. Such a tradition would have been important
to Palestinians reacting to the development of rabbinical academies in
Babylonia. The tradition that Hillel was a Babylonian would have meant
a great deal to Babylonian masters. In particular, those who claimed
that the Oral Torah had survived there as much as in Palestine may
have wanted by so claiming to incorporate into the normative tradi
tions antecedent (non-Pharisaic) Babylonian views of Scripture, law and
theology. Masters from, or trained in, Palestine would have preferred
the Oral Torah as taught in the Palestinian schools. The former would
have told the Hillel-Hiyya-stories, which said the Torah, when for
gotten in Palestine, was restored by Babylonians. The latter would have
emphasized Hillel's "ignorance" before his emigration. This pericope
serves the purposes of the latter. But I doubt that it was shaped with
those purposes in mind; rather, in being preserved, it served them.
All we can regard as fact is that no one lived for one-hundred-twenty
years, and therefore anyone who said otherwise could not have known,
or cared about, the facts of the matter. On that basis, we have to date
the formation of the whole pericope among masters who never had
known 'Aqiba, the last named on the list. The pericope is to be classified
as a biographical reference. It is a composite, but the separate elements
A and C may have been formed by a single hand out of antecedent tra
ditions from several sources and shaped by quite unrelated tendencies
(Hillel/Moses, Yohanan/ Aqiba).
c
222
H I L L E L I.ii.8, I l . i . l
I.ii.8A. Whatever of jours is with jour brother jour hand shall release
(Deut. 15:3)not he who gives his mortgages to the court.
On this basis Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^bul.
B. And thus did Hillel expound: Whatever of jours is withjour brother
not he who gives his mortgages to the court.
(Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 80, 1.
32ff.)
Comment: See above, p. 217. Here we have parts A and B of the com
posite version of Sifre Deut. 115. Now the exegesis is explicitly attrib
uted to Hillel, and the story of "the repair of the world," parts D, E,
F, is dropped. This confirms my theory that two originally separate
stories are combined. Part B assigns the anonymous exegesis of part A
to Hillel, by adding WKK DR HLL to the foregoing. But this re
peats A and ignores on this basis (MKN), which is integral to A. B looks
like a gloss intended to make clear what is already obvious.
I.ii.9. [With flaming fire at his right hand (Deut. 33:3)]: Just as fire
makes a mark on the flesh of whoever touches it, so whoever makes
profit in matters of Torah loses his life.
For so would Hillel say, "And he who uses the crown shall perish.."
(Midrash Tannaim ed. Hoffmann, p. 211,1. 26)
Comment: Here an exegesis is supplied for a clause in Hillel's saying,
Avot 1:13. This is characteristic of Midrash Tannaim, see Development,
pp. 36-40. The exegesis obviously is a gloss.
Il.i.l .A. [A loan secured by] a pro^bul is not released [by the seventh
year].
B. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained.
C. For (S) he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to
one another and [were] transgressing what is written in the Torah:
Beware that there be not a base thought in thine heart... (Deut. 15:9).
D. Hillel ordained the pro^bul.
(M. Shev. 10:3, trans. Danby, p. 51)
Comment: The context is discussion of the cancellation of loans by the
Seventh Year. The formula of the pro^bul follows as in Sifre Deut., and
further rules are given. No sage is mentioned in the setting. Now we
have the version omitting the exegesis of Deut. 15:3, but providing
both the citation of Deut. 15:9 and the "historical" reason. We see that
each of the two versions united in Sifre Deut. circulated separately. As
a separate pericope, the "historical" version has been given a new form.
First, the exegesis of Deut. 15:3 is dropped, as I said, and a new super
scription is supplied instead, part B. The superscription suggests that
the record of Hillel's taqqanot was preserved in the form of a list, much
223
H I L L E L II.i.2
like the list of Yohanan b. Zakkai's taqqanot {Development, pp. 43-47).

But this is the only item on the "list." So the superscription must be a
stock-phrase.
The real story begins in part C, but the introductory formula, mcfaseh
b- is not given, rather a much more integral kf, when he saw (MS Kauf
mann omits K). Then, as I said, Deut. 15:9 is spelled out, duplicating
the historical event. Finally comes the subscription, D, which drops he
arose and of Sifre Deut. 115. To be sure, part D repeats part B; but it
is integral to the story. We earlier noticed the duplication of introduc
tory formulae and stock-phrases. In its present form the pericope is a
composite of editorial materialssuperscription, subscriptionand a
historical-legal narrative (part C). The formula of the pro^bul is repeated
without alteration. It certainly is integral to the tradition of Hillel and
the pro^bul. The chapter concerns the release of debts in the Seventh
Year, and proceeds from one rule to the next, finally explaining that the
loan secured by a pro^bul is not released. At that point Hillel's decree is
included.
Judah the Patriarch selected the story that traces the pro^bulto histor
ical necessity, rather than to an exegetical foundation. Why should
Judah have preferred this version? I imagine he would have wanted the
story to serve as proof for two propositions: first of all, his ancestor had
exercised enormous power and was able to change laws of centuries'
standing; second, the nasi does not have to rely upon exegesis but can
do pretty much anything he wants in response to historical conditions.
The nasi, whether Hillel or Judah, has the power and authority to
change the law on account of contemporary necessity, but does not
have to rely upon tradition, whether explicit, or formulated through
exegetical means and validated by the consensus of the schools. So if the
story originally came from circles around Yohanan b. Zakkai or Gama
liel I at Yavneh, before the widespread acceptance of the Aqiban exe
getical methods, it was later on preserved for the purposes of the patri
arch. This conforms to the tendency of Judah the Patriarch in selecting
earlier materials of Yohanan b. Zakkai: He in general preferred those
materials which served as useful precedent in the conduct of the later
patriarchate (set Development, pp. 291-293), and, in particular, portrayed
the Yavnean decrees as based on historical necessity, not exegetical
foundations. The Ushans, by contrast, supplied the exegetical basis and
claimed Yohanan had done nothing new.
c
II.i.2. Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^hul on account of the order

of the world (TYQWN H<WLM).
(M. Git. 4:3, trans. Danby, p. 311)
Comment: Here we have parts C and D of Sifre Deut. 115 as a separate,
unitary stock-phrase. In Sifre Deut. it served to introduce the "histori
cal event." Here it summarizes the whole matter. The context is a peri
cope listing several ordinances on divorce-writs issued by patriarchs
"on account of the good order of the world," Gamaliel the Elder in
224
H I L L E L II.i.3, 4
particular. The form of Gamaliel's ordinances however is at first...

Rabban Gamaliel ordained..., that is, the form conventional at Yavneh
from the time of the formation of Yohanan b. Zakkai's traditions. Its
absence in the Hillel-saying is therefore striking, since in this setting it
would have been natural to say atfirstpeople refrained... Hillel ordained...
11.1.3. A. A man may not say to his fellow, "Lend me a koroi wheat,
and I will repay you at threshing [-time]."
But ('L') he says to him, "[Lend it to me] until my son comes," or
"until I find the key."
Hillel forbids (>W$R).
B. And thus Hillel used to say, "A woman may not lend a loaf of
bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest
wheat should rise in price, and they be found (WNMS'W) partakers
in usury (B>WT LYDY RYBYT)."
(M. B.M. 5:9, trans. Danby, p. 357)
Comment: The concern in the first case is that wheat will increase in
value, hence usury might be involved. What is prohibited is trading in
futures. The specification of the coming of the son implies, Albeck says
{Seder Neîqin, p. 88), that the son now has the required wheat and will
bring it. Hillel prohibits this form of loan as well. The saying of Hillel
(B) then presents the same law through a different example. The value
of the loaf must be determined, and the woman returns not the original
quantity, but the original value, of bread. Otherwise the possibility of
usury is still present.
This later is the standard form for the transmission of a legal tradi
tion : the statement of a general rule of law, followed by the dissenting
opinion of a named master. The form Hillel used to say, joined to the
foregoing by vekhen, does not follow that convention, which would
simply be Hillel says. It rather is the form used for apodictic, general
moral sayings, as in Avot.
The classification is a legal saying. The context is the determination
of neshekh and tarbit. In the foregoing segments the following masters
are mentioned: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, Yosi [b. Halafta], Judah
[b. Ilai], and in the following, Simeon [b. Yohai]. All date from the
middle of the second century. We have no way of knowing how Hillel's
saying was transmitted. It seems unlikely that a generalized rule was
given, followed by his application of it. The more probable form was
the concrete case, including the reason for the ruling (lest wheat should
rise... partakers in usury). But the "reason" is a secondary gloss on the
particular rule, and the primary attribution to Hillel would have been
simply, A woman may not lend... in money.
See Tos. B.M. 6:10.
11.1.4. A. Hillel said, " 1 . Do not separate (PR) from the congregation;
and 2. do not trust yourself until the day of your death; and 3. do not
H I L L E L II.i.4
225
judge your fellow until you come to his place; and 4. do not say a
thing which cannot be heard (M ), for it will be heard in the end; and
5. say not 'When I have leisure I will study.' Perhaps you will not have
leisure."
B. He used to say, "6. A brutish man dreads not sin; and 7. an
ignorant man cannot be saintly; and 8. the bashful man cannot learn;
and 9. the impatient man cannot teach; and 10. he that engages over
much in trade cannot become wise; and 11. where there are no men,
strive to be a man."
C. Also (*P) he saw one skull floating on the face of the water. He
said to it, 12. "Because you drowned, they drowned you, and at the last they
that drowned you shall be drowned"
D. He used to say, 13. "The more ( = He who multipliesMRBH)
flesh, the more worms; 14. the more possessions, the more care; 15.
the more women, the more witchcraft; 16. the more slavewomen,
the more lewdness; 17. the more slaves, the more thieving; 18. the
more Torah, the more life; 19. the more schooling, the more wisdom;
20. the more counsel, the more understanding; 21. the more righte
ousness, the more peace. 22. If a man has gained a good name he has
gained [it] for himself; 23. if he has gained for himself words of Torah,
he has gained for himself life in the world to come."
[M. Avot 2:5-7, trans. Danby, p. 448 (MS
Kaufmann omits and throughout A, and drops
nos. 19-21)]
C
Comment: The italicized logion is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.

The pericope is a collection of moral sayings, in the simplest redactional structure. The whole is joined by and in one clause after another;
or he used to say, or in the case of part C, moreover (>P). The invention of
a "historical" narrative-setting for the saying about the skull is not un
familiar; we have seen the same sort of fabrication in connection with
the ordinance in Deut. Sifre 113.
The twenty-three separate sayings are not all of the same kind. The
first five are discrete, unrelated logia. The and is a connecting word;
indeed, where the thematic connection is obvious, as in the antonymic
parts later on, no and is supplied. Part B contains five related, evenly
balanced sayings, and then an independent logion (no. 11). Part C, as
noted, is a separate logion given a narrative setting. Part D returns to
the model of part B, in which nos. 13-17 are balanced pairs of negative
characteristics, nos. 18-21 positive ones, as follows:
Flesh/worms
possessions/care
women/witchcraft
Torah/life
[schooling/wisdom]
[counsel / u n d e r s t a n d i n g ]
226
H I L L E L II.i.4
bondwomen/lewdness \
bondmen/thieving
[ f
Then come nos. 22-3, the contrast between the good name for oneself
and the words of Torah for life in the world to come.
It is difficult to imagine parts D and B as composites of separate say
ings. They clearly are arranged to make a single point through a set of
examples. Part C is a separate narrative + logion, and part A is a com
posite of logia. The likelihood is that once the form had been stated, it
generated new examples.
This tractate in Hillel's name occurs quite apart from Avot 1:12,
where Hillel counsels people to be disciples of Aaron, and then are
further attributed to him four Aramaic logia, followed by if I am not for
myself etc. That little collection is shorter and different from this one; its
elements demonstrably circulated separately (e.g. he who uses the crown
perishes, Avot 1:13 = Midrash Tannaim, p. 211). I take it for granted
that nos. 1-5, 11 and 12 could likewise have circulated as independent
logia.
The context of the foregoing pericope is sayings of masters from
Judah the Patriarch, so presumably identified with the later patriarch
ate, rather than with its founder. But immediately following is Rabban
Yohanan b. Zakkai took over (QBL) from Hillel and Shammai. He used to
say... This is a continuation of the list ending in Avot 1:18, but there
the list goes from Hillel and Shammai to Gamaliel, then Simeon his son,
and stops, picking up in Avot 2:1 with Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch].
Hence I am not sure that the editor of the pericope understood/////?/ to
mean the later one. Hillel earlier (Avot 1:12) is not called "the Elder,"
in contradistinction to the later Hillel(s). On the contrary the inclusion
of the Yohanan ben Zakkai-pericope suggests that the editor assumed
he was attaching his material to the right Hillel, namely, the Hillel who
had taught Yohanan and who gave the tradition over to him in prefer
ence to Hillel's omitted son and grandson. My guess, therefore, is that
the foregoing pericope should be understood as having formed part of
the Hillel-tradition in the third century (or later), and that the intention
of the editor, or at least, the understanding of the redactor who added
Yohanan b. Zakkai to the Hillel materials before us, was that it indeed
was the Hillel.
That such sayings circulated in Hillel's name in Tannaitic times is un
likely, since none is ever quoted, referred to, or attributed to him before
the third century masters. This is prima facie evidence that the whole is
from Amoraic times. But other such balanced syzygies of moral sayings
occur in Hillel's name, perhaps accounting for the attribution to Hillel
of any that followed the same pattern, or generating new Hillel-sayings
according to formula.
The pericope obviously is a composite. Parts B, C, and D represent
substantial developments into rather sophisticated forms, the first and
the last balanced images, the middle a story. None can be regarded as
primitive. The sayings in part A, famous in their own right, presumably
were popular proverbs now assigned to Hillel.
H I L L E L II.i.5, 6; Il.ii.l
227
II.i.5.A. R. Sadoq says, "Keep not aloof from the congregation,

and do not make yourself like those who seek to influence the judges.
Make them [words of Torah] not a crown wherewith to magnify
yourself or a spade wherewith to dig."
B. And thus Hillel used to say, "He that makes worldly use of the crown
shall perish"
C. Thus you may learn that he that makes profit out of words of
Torah takes his life from the world.
(M. Avot 4:5, trans. Danby, p, 453)
Comment: Hillel's worldly use saying now serves as a gloss on the later
R. Sadoq. It circulated as an independent logion, apart from its setting
in Avot 1:13. The italicized words are in Aramaic. The Hebrew sub
scription (C) supplies a commentary, in the manner of a Targum.
The citation of Hillel's saying as a gloss on Sadoq's proves nothing
about the antiquity of the former. An editor, shaping the whole, might
well have drawn the Hillel-saying from available materials. R. Sadoq
need not have heard it, and probably had not. If he had, he presumably
would have cited it, or alluded to its striking image, in the name of
Hillel. He refers to a crown (<TRH) as Hillel did (TG>). Hence the edi
tor brought together two crown-sayings originally circulating independ
ently of one another. To Sadoq is also attributed Hillel's congregationsaying.
II.L6.A. [If] the [last] day of the twelve months was come and it
was not redeemed, it becomes his forever, no matter whether he
bought it or was given it as a gift, for it is written, In perpetuity (Lev.
25:30).
B. Before time (BR'SNH) the buyer used to hide himself on the
last day of the twelve months so that [the house] might be his in perpe
tuity (HLT).
Hillel the Elder ordained that he [that sold it] could deposit (HLS)
his money in the [Temple] Chamber, and break down the door and
enter. The other, whenever he wants, will come and take his money.
(M. <Arakh. 9:4, trans. Danby, p. 553)
Comment: See Sifra Behar 4:8, above I.ii.3 (p. 215). There are no im
portant changes in form. The context is now laws concerning the Jubi
lee Year. No named authorities other than Hillel occur in the pericope.
Immediately preceding is Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch]; following are
are Meir, Judah, and Simeon. The chapter therefore is middle-secondcentury on the face of it; the Hillel-pericope has been inserted for obvi
ous reasons.
Il.ii.l. Hillel the Elder says, " 1 . Do not be seen naked; do not be
seen clothed;
228
H I L L E L II.ii.2
2. "do not be seen standing; and do not be seen sitting.

3. "Do not be seen laughing and do not be seen weeping, for it
is said, There is a time to laugh and a time to weep, a time to embrace and a
time to refrain from embracing (Qoh. 3:4-5)."
(Tos. Ber. 2:21, ed. Lieberman, p. 11, lines
70-2)
II.ii.2. Hillel the Elder says, "4. When (B$<T) they are gathering
(MKNSYN), scatter, and when they are scattering, gather.
"5. When you see that the Torah is beloved of all Israel and all
rejoice in it, you scatter it, as it is said, Some scatter and gain more (Prov.
11:24).
"6. When you see the Torah is forgotten in Israel and not everyone
pays attention to it, you gather it in, as it is said, A time to work for the
Lord (Vs. 119:126)."
(Tos. Ber. 6:24, ed. Lieberman, p. 40, lines
109-112)
Comment: Il.ii.l is a set of matched amplifications of the teaching not
to separate oneself from the community. One should not do what the
community at large is not doing, and, vice versa, one should not refrain
from doing what the community at large is doing. The connection to the
foregoing is in references to bath-houses where people generally are
naked.
The meaning of II.ii.2 is that when the disciples come together and
highly regard teachings of Torah and review them, one should scatter
(teach widely). But when "the vessels are damaged" and lose most of
the Torah and forget it, gather it inso Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah ad
loc, p. 40. The saying applies the foregoing rules to study of Torah:
One should not do the opposite of what the community is doing, but in
regard to Torah, one cannot waste Torah-traditions on a heedless audi
ence or stop his own study because others are not interested. So the
two sayings form a coherent, antonymic pair. But they do not circulate
as a pair and are never brought into relationship. The context of II.ii.2
is provided by the immediately preceding saying: At first when the
Torah was forgotten in Israel, "the elders kept the Torah to themselves."
Then comes Hillel's saying. This is followed by the unrelated saying of
Meir: There is no Jew who does fewer than a hundred misyot every day.
Both sets of logia obviously are developed, indeed even are supplied
with appropriate proof-texts, unlike Avot-logia. The three examples of
Il.ii.l are matched by the three of II.ii.2, though any one of the three
might have stood by itself and made its own point. I do not think we
are dealing with six independent logia, but rather with two sets of three
paired with one another; and each set must be regarded as a unity, not
as a composite of independent sayings. It is hard to imagine otherwise
H I L L E L II.ii.3, 4
229
in the second pericope. But even in the first, the separate examples
naked, standing, laughingby themselves would not have formed a
meaningful wisdom-teaching, while together they present a forceful
and vivid image. As above, the successive examples may have been add
ed following the established form, so one hand presumably shaped the
whole, possibly developing a single formula. No. 5, and all rejoice, and
no. 6, and not everyone may be glosses; the rest seems without interpola
tions.
C
II.ii.3. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Hillel the Elder who

purchased for a certain poor man, son of good [parents], a horse that
would work ( ML) for him and a slave who would serve (M) him.
(Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 58, lines
36-7)
C
This brief biographical narrative, with the superscription

is simple and unadorned, a unity in all respects. The adjec
tival clauses probably are glosses.
The setting is anonymous laws about providing for a poor man the
necessities to which he is accustomed, e.g. good dishes, adequate funds,
and food; if he is spoon-fed, one spoon-feeds him. Then comes, even a
slave, even a horse, as a comment on Deut. 15:8, But you shall open your
hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. The Hillelstory then repeats verbatim this commentary on the same passage:
Hillel bought a slave and a horse. After the story comes another, about the
men of Galilee who fed a man a litre of meat every day, because he had
been accustomed to it.
It is striking that two Hillel-stories, an ordinance (pro^bul) and the
above pericope, serve as narrative, or "historical," commentaries to
Deut. 15. The conventional, anonymous exegesis in both instances is
translated into "historical" accounts of Hillel's life and deeds. The for
mation of Hillel-stories out of anonymous commentary must follow,
and depend upon, the commentary itself. The inclusion of identical
words in this instance, and identical details in the story of the ordinance
of the pro^bul and in Deut. 15:29-30, make it virtually certain that the
stories depend upon the antecedent exegesis. We may therefore point to
a genre of materials: the transformation of exegesis into apophthegmatic biographytext-commentary in the form of "historical" paradigms
told about a famous master.
Comment:
ma'aseh b+,
II.iiAA. As to food for the Sabbath (KLKLT BT)The House

of Shammai declare free of liability.
And the House of Hillel declare liable.
R. Judah said, "Hillel himself used to prohibit [it] (HYH >W$R)."
B. He who gathers food (KLKLH) to send to his fellow should
not eat it until he tithes.
R. Judah says, "Hillel himself used to prohibit [it]."
230
H I L L E L II.ii.4
C. He who brings figs from place to place, and the Sabbath takes
place [during transit], at the end of the Sabbath should not eat [it]
until he tithes.
R. Judah says, "Hillel himself would prohibit [it]."
(Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, ed. Lieberman, p. 237,
lines 4-6, p. 238, lines 1-2)
Comment: If a man gathered food for the Sabbath, not for himself but
to send to someone else, the food is liable for tithes. The intrusion of
Hillel is striking. Here we find Judah's asserting that Hillel is separate
from the House of Hillel.
The legal context, Lieberman says, is that one has set aside a fig for
the Sabbath. When the fruit is attached to the ground, it is exempt from
tithes; but when one picks it, it forthwith requires tithing. Variant
readings hold Hillel prohibited for himself (only), and not for others;
other traditions hold he prohibited it for all, but was the only one who
prohibited it. The Tosefta differs from the Mishnaic tradition:
A basket of fruit [intended] for the Sabbath
The House of Shammai declare exempt [from tithes].
And the House of Hillel declare liable [to tithes if consumed before the
Sabbath],
R. Judah says, "Also if a man gathered a basketful to send to his fellow,
he may not eat therefrom until he has given tithe."
(M. Ma'aserot 4:2b)
c
See also M. Ed. 4:10. In the Mishnaic traditions, R. Judah's tradition

on Hillel's differing from the House of Hillel is dropped. Judah's saying
is fully spelled out, but Hillel no longer stands behind it. For further
commentary, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc. pp. 694-5.
The pericopae are similar to the Shammai-stories, which separate
Shammai from the House of Shammai. The tradition is complex, as
Lieberman makes clear, but for our purposes it is sufficient to note three
facts. First, the tradition on Hillel's opinion given in the name of Judah
is excluded from the Mishnah. The contrast to the preservation in the
Mishnah of Shammai's difference from the House of Shammai is obvi
ous and striking. Evidently Judah the Patriarch deliberately excluded
evidence on Hillel's relationship to the House of Hillel similar to that
of Shammai to the House of Shammai. Second, the opinion of Hillel
himself was not preserved in language one might expect. We have no
lemma containing Hillel's legal opinion, only a generalized tradition, at
tributing no verbatim-formula of Hillel's opinion to Hillel: HYH 'WSR.
Third, the formula R. Judah said Hillel himself... is a stock-phrase ap
plied to several cases. That stock-phrase could not have been formulated
much before the third quarter of the second century, and before that
time Hillel's opinion, if any, was preserved in unknown forms; I cannot
suggest what shape his legal opinion would earlier have been given.
See Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 101-2.
y
231
II.ii.5. Hillel the Elder would fold together (KRK) the three of
them and eat them.
(Tos. Pisha 2:22, ed. Lieberman, p. 150, line 67)
Comment: See Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 13,1.12, I.i.l. The
pericope on Hillel's practice is unrelated to foregoing materials. Imme
diately preceding is Simeon's saying concerning the liability to con
sume the three foods, afterward, the time that they are to be eaten. The
fact that they are to be eaten together is not mentioned. The story about
Hillel's manner of eating them is inserted as a fixed, unitary pericope,
slightly expanded from the version appearing in the earlier compilation,
but otherwise unchanged. This must therefore represent the simplest
form in which Hillel-stories were cast: Hillel the Elder + verb (would
do) + object. No legal rule is explicated, but it is taken for granted that
Hillel's gesture is paradigmatic.
We cannot call it a "historical" or biographical story, for the tradent
does not intend to say, "Once Hillel did so-and-so," but rather, "Hillel's
ordinary and routine practice was so-and-so." The pericope is a legal
teaching in narrative style, a common form for the transmission of
Hillel's legal traditions, perhaps earlier than the translation of those tra
ditions into the generalized and non-narrative, apodictic style of later
times. We thus see three stages:
1. Exegesis o f Scripture
2 . R e v i s i o n o f S c r i p t u r a l e x e g e s i s i n t o H i l l e l - n a r r a t i v e : Story is told of Hillel
3 . R e v i s i o n o f H i l l e l - n a r r a t i v e i n t o g e n e r a l i z e d , a b s t r a c t legal o p i n i o n a t
t r i b u t e d t o H i l l e l : Hillel says, o r , Hillel would say.
The third stage is absent here.

II.ii.6.A. One time (P'M >HT) the fourteenth fell on the Sabbath.
They asked Hillel the Elder, "Does the Pesah override the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "And do we have only one Pesah in the year which
overrides the Sabbath? We have many more than three hundred
Pesahs in the year, and they override the Sabbath."
B. The whole courtyard ( ZRH) collected (HBR) against him.
He said to them, "The continual offering is a community sacrifice,
and the Pesah is a community sacrifice. Just as the continual offering,
a community sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath, so the Pesah, a com
munity sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath.
C. "Another matter: It is said concerning the continual offering:
its season (Num. 28:2) and it is said with reference to the Pesah: its
season (Num. 9:2). Just as the continual offering, concerning which
its season is said, overrides the Sabbath, so the Pesah, concerning which
its season is said, overrides the Sabbath.
D. "And furthermore (W WD), [it is a] qal vehomer: Although the
C
232
H I L L E L II.ii.6
continual offering, which does not produce the liability of cutting off,
overrides the Sabbath, the Pesah, which does produce the liability of
cutting offis it not logical that it should override the Sabbath?
E. "And further, I have received from my masters [the tradition]
that the Pesah overrides the Sabbath, and not [merely] the first Pesah
but the second, and not [merely] the community Pesah but the indivi
dual Pesah [as well]."
F. They said to him, "What will be the rule for the people who
did not bring knives and Pesah-oSztmgs
to the sanctuary?"
G. He said to them, "Leave them alone. The holy spirit is upon
them. If they are not prophets, they are disciples of prophets."
H. What did Israel do in that hour? He whose Pesah was a lamb hid
it in its wool, a kidhe tied it between its horns; so they brought
knives and Pesahs to the sanctuary and slew their P&r^-sacrifices.
I. On that very day they appointed Hillel as nasi, and he would teach
to them concerning (B) the laws of the Pesah.
(Tos. Pisha 4:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 165-6, lines
80-94)
Comment: This pericope stands separately from the context of fore
going materials. The chapter contains a collection of stories about pub
lic debates on Passover in the Temple. It is followed by a story about
Agrippa's Passover census. The subsequent chapter returns to legal
matters.
The pericope is transparently composite, a collection of loosely re
lated traditions on Hillel's dispute with "them," later on named as the
Bathyrans, and his consequent elevation to the position of nasi. The
dispute supplies a dramatic, narrative setting for exegeses which could
have stood separately, anonymously, and without such a setting, and
probably did, much like the slave and horse for the poor man. Indeed, y.
Pes. 6:1 contains just such a collection of uncleanness and Pesah-exegeses, attributed to Hillel and supplied with superscriptions and sub
scriptions that "on this account Hillel came up from Babylonia." So the
stories of Hillel's rise to power were joined with collections of Pesah
and uncleanness-exegeses.
Part A introduces the whole matter and is complete in itself: Hillel
was asked and thereupon supplied a complete and final answer. Then
the following arguments are attached to the foregoing joined by the
whole courtyard, supposedly disagreeing with him, but saying nothing in
response to his repertoire. Later on "they" would be named, still later
would demolish his arguments. The arguments are as follows:
A . M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h ;
B . C o m m u n i t y sacrifices o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h ;
C. Its season a p p l i e s b o t h t o c o n t i n u a l o f f e r i n g a n d t o Pesah, t h u s b o t h o v e r
ride Sabbath;
233
H I L L E L II.ii.6
D . Qal
E.
vehomer;
I h a v e a tradition f r o m m y m a s t e r s .
Nothing is said about who the masters are. Subsequent versions supply
Shema iah and Abtalion, presumably following the Avot list.
In part F the response is given: Everyone "forthwith" agrees. Part F
could as well have followed part A (or any of the subsequent arguments),
but it is held back until the whole repertoire is completed.
Part G is a still further, separate element, in which a probably wellknown apophthegm is attributed to Hillel, followed by part H, an illus
tration of the prophetic heritage. The people can be relied on, because
they have access to the holy spirit, or at least automatically do the right
thing.
Then comes part I, on that very day. The House of Hillel persistently
appealed to the holy spirit and other supernatural informants in deciding
questions of law; this element is consistent with the Houses-traditions.
But no claim of supernatural revelation was asserted in Hillel's behalf.
On the contrary, his failure to receive the holy spirit had to be explained
away.
Distinguishing the exegetical from the narrative elements, we find
the following:
c
Narrative
A . One time
B . J o i n e d issue [or E ]
F. W h a t to do
G . H o l y spirit
H. W h a t did people d o ?
I . T h e y m a d e h i m nasi
Exegetical
A . M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e
B . C o m m u n i t y sacrifices
C . Its season
D . Qal vehomer
E. Tradition
We see, therefore, that, except for A or E, but not both, the exegetical
and dispute-materials are independent of the narrative framework; all,
including A and E, are inserted without much, if any, reference to the
narrative details. We can reconstruct the ma aseh without referring to
the argumentation. The composite pericope gives every evidence of
coming at the end of a long process of development. The problem of
the Pesah comes before the arguments. The story of the rise to power is
developed in its own terms. Then the two are combined.
As to the historical framework, we are told that, incredibly, no one
for generations had known what to do when the fourteenth of Nisan
fell on the Sabbath, until Hillel came along and told them what to do.
Yet this contradicts part E and parts G-H, in which we are told, "You
can rely on what the people normally do and do not have to depend
upon exegetical investigation, except for post facto justification for ac
cepted practice." Later on this anomaly is explained, with reference to
part E.
This state of affairs is tied to the foregoing by explaining that Hillel
himself approved referring to popular practice, saying that the people
are under the holy spirit. Since other sayings concerning Hillel allege
he alone of his generation was worthy of receiving the holy spirit, but
the generation's poor character prevented it, the pericope must be set
<
234
HILLEL
II.ii.6
apart from other sorts of Hillel-traditions. But I cannot suggest who in

particular would have wanted to allege in Hillel's name that the holy
spirit is upon Israel, or what polemic was involved in so stating.
While the ruling is not presented in the taqqanah-foim,
the same dif
ficulties earlier observed now recur. Part A in fact contradicts parts
F-G, for, as I said, part A alleges no one knew what to do until Hillel
came, and parts F-G claim everyone knew precisely what to do, but
Hillel was able either to provide adequate exegetical authority or to cite
masters. But no one else in Jerusalem had heard anything from those
same masters on this subject. Shema iah and Abtalion are not mentioned,
probably because it would at the outset have been incredible that only
Hillel knew their teaching about a matter of Temple procedure that
must have arisen several times in their lifetimes alone. But later they are
inserted as a gloss on "my masters." The anomaly then has to be ex
plained: You were too lazy to study with S + A!
The little narrative in part H is a separate story, without any real con
nection to the rest, except in that hour, which, like one time and on that
very day, is a convenient joining-formula for the historical-narrative
framework. These considerations therefore require the further division
of the narrative framework into part A and parts F, G, and H, and part
I certainly is still a third element in the narrative.
The anonymity of the pericope, the clumsy joining of its composite
elements into a single, unitary account, and the historical dubiety of the
story that Hillel's arguments were accepted by Temple authorities and
that he was therefore made nasi over the Temple (!), all point to a rel
atively late date for the story as a whole. I do not see how anyone could
have made it up or put together its several parts while the Temple was
standing, for at that point no one could have believed it. My guess is
that available exegetical elements were claimed for Hillel after the nar
rative parts were put together; then Hillel's name would have been
supplied for any exegesis proving that the P^ra^-offering overrides the
Sabbath. The earlier sequencefrom exegesis to apophthegmsug
gests the arguments could have been worked out at the same period,
then attached to the story of Hillel's rise to power, once the issue of the
Pesah was established as the primary theme of that story.
As to the narrative, the obvious division is between the elements that
say Hillel became nasi because of the excellence of his exegetical inge
nuity, on the one hand, and those that say he became nasi because he
had a tradition. But here (unlike y. Pes. and b. Pes.), that distinction
does not seem to be important. No one dramatically underlines that
Hillel was ignored until he could quote his masters, for part E is pretty
much equivalent to the foregoing. Hence the real contrast is between
the allegation that people know what to do and do not require rab
binical instruction, but merely rabbinical confirmation for what they al
ready do, and the thesis that until Hillel's exegeses, no one, even his
masters, knew what to do at all. I am not sure who would have wanted
to advance the former theory, but since it seems to me to claim less for
Hillel than the foregoing, I imagine it would not have come from the
c
235
H I L L E L II.ii.7
patriarchal circles, who would have preferred the view that Hillel was
superior even to Shema iah and Abtalion.
It will not serve to classify the pericope as a legal saying in a historical
framework. It is far too complex for such a category. We had best divide
it and classify, as above, parts B-E as legal-exegetical, and parts A, F-I as
biographical. For reasons already stated, I do not see how it can have
taken shape much before the start of the second century, and it comes
probably later than that. That a shred of historically usable information
is before us seems to me unlikely.
c
II.ii.7. Hillel the Elder says, (A) "To the place which my heart
loves, there my feet lead me.
(B) "If you will come to my house, I shall come to your house.
"If you will not come to my house, I shall not come to your house."
(C) "As it is said (Ex. 20:24), In every place where I shall cause my name
to be mentioned I shall come to you and bless you"
(Tos. Suk. 4:3, ed. Lieberman, p. 272, lines
8-10)
Comment: Hillel's "exegesis" of Ex. 20:24 begins as a popular saying,
which then is made into a comment on Scripture. Lieberman observes
that Hillel made use of it vis a vis Heaven: "If your feet lead you to the
Sanctuary on account of your heart's desire, I shall come to your house
and bless you."
The whole, in Hebrew, is in three parts,
A = proverb
B = p a r s i n g o f t h e p r o v e r b (Ifyou
C = Scriptural proof-text
will come... if you will not
come...)
A considerable tradition, parts of which we have already considered,

assigns to Hillel various enigmatic sayings of an apparently theological
nature. That they existed before being assigned to Hillel may generally
be taken for granted.
It is difficult to find grounds to associate the formation of these peri
copae with a particular school or circle. Some obviously are mystical,
but this one is not. It asserts the Temple is the place where the divinity
bestows his blessing; it is indeed a blessing to go to the Temple. Since
others held the opposite, we may take it for granted that a polemical in
tention underlies the formation of the saying. But it would not serve to
speculate on precisely who said the contrary, or when to Hillel was at
tributed an affirmative evaluation of the Temple. We certainly do not
have to imagine the whole comes after the Temple was destroyed; the
evidence on that question is not decisive one way or the other. In our
studies of Yohanan-traditions we observed the revision of Templestories and priestly sayings to conform to the views of his disciples and
later rabbinical circles. But this saying, if it comes from a Templecircle, is unrevised. That the Temple is a source of blessing certainly is
not alien to the sentiments of Pharisaism or rabbinic Judaism later on.
236
H I L L E L II.ii.8
The context is stories about the celebration of the rejoicing of Bet

HaSho'evah. The hasidim and deed-doers would dance with torches.
Then comes Hillel's saying, which on the face of it is out of context. It is
followed by the story that Simeon b. Gamaliel would juggle eight
torches. The setting therefore is stories about the festival in Temple
times. I do not see why Hillel's saying was included. Someone assumed
it was an appropriate addition to the Bet HaSho'evah collection. Later
versions "explain" the connection by supplying a narrative framework
involving the Festival.
II.ii.8.A. Hillel the Elder expounded (DR) the language of com
mon people.
B. When (K) the Alexandrians would betrothe women, another
came and seized (HTP) her from the market, and the incident (M'SH)
came before sages. They sought (BQ) to declare ( SH) their sons mam%erin.
C. Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring out to me the marriagecontract of your mothers."
They brought [it] to him, and written in it was, "When you enter my
house, you will he my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel."
[Tos. Ket. 4:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 68, lines 3034 (y. Ket. 4:8, y. Yev. 15:3, b. B.M. 104a)]
C
Comment: The italicized phrase is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew.

Part A is a superscription, explaining the point of the story. Without
it the story is complete, but fits into no context. With it the story shows
that Hillel would interpret the language of the documents of ordinary
folk as carefully as the language of the Torah or of the sages. The story
then follows, with no internal superscription at all. Standing separately,
it would have been introduced with maâseh ve + verb.
The tense-structure is difficult. At the outset we have the verb to be
plus participle, hence when they would betrothe, continual action. This is
followed by verbs of completed action, another came and seized, and the
matter came before... The verb-forms now suggest a single incident. This
is reenforced, for the sages wanted to makea specific decision, but (C)
Hillel intervened. We are not told the occasion on which Hillel inter
vened. Rather, we have a narrative in which Hillel's legal opinion is
preserved in the form of an "historical" event. But the event is transpar
ently invented. In generalized language, it would have been Hillel said,
One interprets
the language
of...
On the one hand, the language begins with the implication that we
deal with a rule for a recurring situation; on the other, we are led, in
B-C, into the narrative of a single, one-time event, producing a decision
on a "particular" day and under "particular" circumstances. The heart
of the matter is the language written into the marriage-contracts, nor
mal and continual, rather than exceptional and singular. The language
237
specifies the betrothal takes effect when the woman actually enters the
man's domain, therefore nothing untoward takes place if a betrothal to
another has preceded the final consummation of the marriage. The
whole then is made to serve as illustration of Hillel's legal rule that the
language of documents of other than rabbinical origin is to be carefully
interpreted and enforced. The story sequentially must follow the prin
ciple and illustrate it.
Lieberman observes that the pericope corresponds to M. Ket. 4:6:
T h e f a t h e r is n o t l i a b l e f o r his d a u g h t e r ' s m a i n t e n a n c e .
R . E l e a z a r b . ' A z a r i a h t h u s e x p o u n d e d [the Ketuvab] b e f o r e t h e sages in
t h e v i n e y a r d at Y a v n e h , " T h e s o n s i n h e r i t a n d t h e d a u g h t e r s r e c e i v e m a i n
t e n a n c e b u t l i k e as t h e s o n s i n h e r i t o n l y a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e i r f a t h e r , s o
the daughters receive maintenance o n l y after the death o f their father."
(M. K e t . 4 : 6 , trans. Danby, p. 250)
The Hillel-story likewise illustrates the fact that the language of the
documents may be subjected to close exegetical study, which may pro
duce further laws.
As to the legal issues involved, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad
loc, pp. 245-7.
The pericope is to be classified as a legal tradition preserved in nar
rative form. The setting is complex. Immediately preceding comes the
rule that it is a commandment to nourish the daughters, but not the
sons (= M. Ket. 4:6). Then the Hillel-story follows. Clearly, the only
connection between the two is via the Mishnah quoted above, that is,
the Tosefta's reference to the liability for the daughter's maintenance
relates to the Mishnah-rule that the father is indeed so liable, followed
by the exposition by Eleazar of the language of the Ketuvah. Then the
Tosefta supplies an additional example of such exposition, in the name
of Hillel, as if the foregoing had preserved Eleazar's exposition.
The following matter derives from Meir's exposition of the language
of a legal document unrelated to marriage, then Judah's exposition of
the language of the Ketuvah, and so forth. So the thematic basis for the
whole is clear. Obviously the Hillel-story is included on account of the
congruity of theme, and the whole could not have been shaped in its
present form before the last third of the second century. That does not
tell us when the Hillel-story was first told, then redacted. The only hint
as to its primary elements lies in the confusion of the verbs, from gener
al to completed action. This would suggest that a generalized account
of Alexandrian practice existed. This produced the "incident," and
Hillel then was introduced as the authority who issued the affirmative
ruling.
The "sages" are not identified; they play a passive and minor role.
Once Hillel comes, they disappear. The presumption therefore is that a
Hillel-ruling was sufficient to vanquish all opposition, which other
stories do not confirm. That presumption may suggest a relatively late
date for the story.
C
II.ii.9.A. The story is told that (M SH S) sages entered the house of
238
HILLEL
II.ii.9
Guryo in Jericho and heard an echo saying, "There is here a man who
is worthy (R'WY) of the holy spirit, but his generation is not suf
ficiently righteous (ZK?Y LKK)," and they set their eyes on Hillel
the Elder.
B. And when he died, they said concerning him, "Oh (HY) the
modest [man], the pious [man], disciple of Ezra."
C. Another time ($WB P M >HT) they were sitting in Yavneh and
heard an echo saying, "There is here a man who is worthy of the holy
spirit, but his generation is not sufficiently righteous (ZK?Y LKK)"
and they set their eyes on Samuel the Small.
D. And when he died, they said about him, "Oh the modest [man],
the pious [man], disciple of Hillel..."
(Tos. Sot. 13:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 318,
line 23 to p. 319, line 4)
C
Comment: The Hillel-pericope follows the form of the Samuel-version

and corresponds to it in every detail. Hillel is disciple of Ezra, Samuel
of Hillel. We may take it for granted that the pericope is from heirs of
the circle of Samuel the Small, and that its underlying tendency now is
to stress that the true disciple of Hillel is not Gamaliel his descendant,
but the pious, modest sage.
The further tendency is to explain why Hillel and Samuel "his disci
ple" did not receive the holy spirit: the generation prevented it, but
otherwise they both would have received it. We do not know who as
serted otherwise, saying that it was a mark of Hillel's and Samuel's own
unworthiness that they did not receive the holy spirit. I cannot imagine
it was the patriarchal circle. Perhaps it was Shammaites, confronted by
the Hillelite claim that an echo had confirmed their predominance. They
would have asserted no one had supernatural confirmation for his
laws, not even Hillel. The opposition would have countered that the
echo had indeed praised Hillel and explained his failure to prophesy. In
the present pericope we have no echo of such a contrary story, that
Hillel was unworthy of the holy spirit, though he had hoped to receive
it. I doubt that such a story was told in a form we can now recover. But
the stories of the rise of Hillel to patriarch do stress that all Israel has
access to the holy spirit! So we may suppose that such a story or saying
existed, but has everywhere been dropped. Only the existence of an al
legation to the contrary provides evidence that a hostile story, or group
of stories, may have existed at Yavneh. But they may have been told
concerning Samuel the Small, and Samuel's defenders may have as
serted he was no different from the great Hillel, who also would have
received the holy spirit had his generation, like Samuel's, been worthy
of it. So the polemic may have served a much later circle of masters,
who would have invented the pericope.
I cannot account for the setting in the house of Guryo (= Gurion) in
H I L L E L II.ii.9
239
Jericho, which serves as the counterpart of the "vineyard at Yavneh."

The Samuel-pericope proceeds to relate his dying words in Aramaic:
Simeon and Ishmael would be slain with the sword, the companions
would be killed, and the rest of the people would be despoiled, etc. The
reference must be to the Bar Kokhba War, and hence the whole peri
cope dates from after that time. We have already seen other materials
from the same chapter, about Aramaic messages to Yohanan the High
Priest and Simeon the Just (above, p. 162, 173). The larger frame
work therefore is a compilation of heavenly-message stories, coming in
itsfinalform after the Bar Kokhba War. The introductory materials re
late to the alleged cessation of the holy spirit from Israel. Even though
the holy spirit has ended, the echo continues to connect Israel to Heaven.
Then comes Hillel, followed by Samuel the Small, Yohanan the High
Priest, and Simeon the Just. Intervening is a reference to Judah b.
Baba:
Also concerning Judah b. Baba they sought to say,
"Disciple of Samuel," but the hour was confused (TRP).
We may therefore conclude that the whole pericope infinalcomes from
the Judah b. Baba-circle, but I feel confident that antecedent materials
were used; the Yohanan-pericope makes this virtually certain.
The Hillel-materials are in two parts. First (A) comes the story of the
sages, then (B), the lament at Hillel's death. The latter has nothing to do
with the framework, but was important to the Judah b. Baba-tradents,
for without a reference to the death-scene, what they wanted to say
about Judah b. Baba would have been irrelevant. The two Hillelstories have been joined, one on account of the context about heavenly
echoes, the other tacked on by the Judah-tradents for redactional con
siderations. We need not doubt, therefore, that parts A and B circu
lated separately and were drawn together after the Bar Kokhba War,
presumably at Usha, and therefore the terminus ante quern of the Hillel
stories must be ca. 150 A.D. Having isolated the whole to ca. 100-150
A.D., we may ask, Who was eager to suppress the authority of "the
holy spirit" at Yavneh? As I said, it obviously is the same circle that
supported Joshua b. Hananiah's view of the law: // is not in heaven
(b.B.M. 59b). That group held it was not the holy spirit but rather the
authority of the sages which would decide the law. This was certainly
the House of Shammai, which denied echoes gave law. If we now join
together the two themes, first, Hillel would have received the holy
spirit if anyone did, second, the holy spirit is simply unavailable, and
therefore the law will be decided by rabbis, the obvious choice for prob
able origin is the Hillelite group within the patriarchal circle, both eager
to uphold the reputation of the alleged ancestor of the House of Gama
liel, and also anxious to reaffirm the authority of the patriarch even
against those who claimed to receive heavenly revelations. But this is
not consistent with the stories linking Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gama
liel to the House of Shammai.
To summarise:
First we observed that parts A and B of the pericope
240
H I L L E L II.ii.10, 1 1
must (separately) derive from a circle around Samuel the Small. We

further noted that the redactional framework derives from the period
after the Bar Kokhba War and must be provided by the Judah b. Babacircle (which we have already met in other connections). That circle is
responsible for joining B to A, D to C. We then noted that the tendency
of some Hillel-materials is not only to defend Hillel's reputation, but to
deny that anyone could draw upon heavenly revelation in the forma
tion of the law. This Shammaite tendency is most reasonably attributed
to the patriarchal group. I imagine it was Gamaliel II, not Simeon b.
Gamaliel II, who was responsible, for the materials very likely were in
their present form, though separate, before Judah b. Baba's circle
joined them together for its purposes. We may classify both A and B as
biographical narratives. The separate elements are unitary as they stand,
brief and simple, in one case a very short story, in the other a famous
logion about the lament for Hillel. The latter could go back to the pe
riod after Hillel's death. Of the former we can say nothing.
ILii. 10. A. A man says to his fellow, "Lend me a keg of wine until
my son comes" or "until I open the cistern."
If he had a jar in the middle of the cistern, and the cistern was opened,
and it fell and broke, even though he is liable for its responsibility,
it is permitted.
And Hillel prohibits.
B. To what is this analogous? To one who gives coins to his fellow
to give him fruits at the harvest, and they were stolen or lost. He is
liable for them. If they were too little or too much, he is liable to make
it up to him (LH'MYD LW).
(Tos. B.M. 6:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 384,
lines 10-14)
Comment: See M. B.M. 5:9, ILi.3. Hillel's reason is given in part B, an
extended gloss. We have here further examples of the rule given in the
Mishnah: trading in futures is prohibited. No other authorities are
named in this context.
Il.ii.l 1.A. Seven things did Hillel the Elder expound before the
Elders of Patyra:
B. (1) Qal vehomer, and (2) geêrah shavah, and (3) binyan av, and (4)
katuv ehad veshene ketuvim, and (5) kellal andperat, and perat and kellal
and (6) kayose bo mimaqdm aher, and (7) devar halamed meHnyano.
C. These seven middot did Hillel the Elder expound before the
Sons [sic] of Patyra.
lines 4-8)*
HILLEL II.ii.ll
241
Comment: The text is defective. The subscription, part C, duplicates

the superscription, part A, but with important variations, middot for
devarim, and sons for elders (others texts correct elders). Either A or C
belongs, but not both. The passage alludes to the famous story of
Hillel and the Elders of Bathyra, who otherwise do not occur in Hillelmaterials antecedent to Mishnah-Tosefta at all. The Toseftan version
of the story excludes all reference to Bathyrans. The opposition of Tos.
Pisha is simply "all the courtyard," or "them." This pericope, by con
trast, refers to the exegetical clause of the other, but not to the setting,
the legal issue, or the outcome, that is, it does not know the narrative of
Tos. Pisha A, B, and G, H. I. The arguments of Tos. Pisha (II.ii.6),
moreover, do not illustrate all of the above principles:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h
C o m m u n i t y sacrifices

Its season
Qal vehomer ( c u t t i n g off)
I have received a tradition
=
= heqqesh
= geêrah shavah (2)
= qal vehomer (1)
=
The others, so far as I can make out, do not occur.

The norms of interpretation are as follows: 1. inference a minori ad
majus; 2. inference by analogy; 3. constructing a family on the basis of
one passage (a specific regulation in one biblical passage is extended and
applied to a number of passages); 4. the same rule as the preceding, but
based on two biblical passages; 5. the general and the particular, the
particular and the general; 6. exposition by means of another, similar
passage; 7. deduction from the contextso S. Lieberman, Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950) pp. 53-4. Lieberman observes, "The con
text suggests that Hillel was not the author of these rules and norms;
he simply used recognized arguments to prove that the Paschal Lamb
is offered on the Sabbath, if the fourteenth of Nisan happens to fall on
that day. He employed seven norms of interpretation to prove one
particular law from the Torah." Lieberman further observes (p. 54 n.
58), "Hillel asserted... that his opinion was based on the authority of
his teachers... It appears that his tradition went only as far as the law it
self was concerned. The proofs were his own."
I find it striking that in our stories Hillel does not refer to nos. 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7. One can hardly claim Hillel made use of all, or even most, of
the rules. We rely on Lieberman's sense of the passage, which is that
Hillel is not here credited with the invention of the norms at all. In that
case part B of the pericope before us is an independent list, to which is
attached A/C. No reference to the subject of the argument with the
Elders/Sons of Patyra occurs; nor do we hear of a tradition from his
teachers.
The pericope thus is an attribution to Hillel of the use of middot jdevarim
in an already established list. The list obviously antedates its connection
with Hillel's supposed argument. Nothing in the materials before us
explains why the list should have been associated with that argument;
the contrary actually is the case. It would never have occurred to us
242
H I L L E L II.ii.12, 1 3 , 1 4
that the Hillel-argument of Tos. Pisha was constructed to illustrate

these principles, or any one of them. I doubt that any such list underlies
the formation of the pericope of Tos. Pisha.
What we have is the routine attribution to Hillel of famous apoph
thegms, the revision of well-known Scriptural exegeses into Hillelstories, and similar tendencies to attach existing materials to Hillel. A
pattern in the formation of Tannaitic materials was to attribute to
Hillel as many well-known sayings and stories as one could. A less pro
nounced, but similar tendency was to assign to Simeon b. Shetah de
crees, ordinances, and sayings believed to be "very old."
Syriac PTWR' means table, producing the equivalent of Hebrew
LHNY, money-changer, e.g., Aphrahat translates Matthew 25:27,
trapevytes as patora\ see Karl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (repr.
Hildesheim, 1966), p. 618, col. B. Judah b. Bathyra was a money
changer in Nisibis (History I , pp. 46-52). So perhaps the Bene Bathyra
were Temple money-changers, at least in the view of the Yohanan b.
Zakkai and Judah the Patriarch-tradents who included references to
them in stories about Yohanan at Yavneh and Hillel in the Temple.
2
11.11.12. R. Judah says,"Hillel himself prohibited it."

(Tos. <Ed. 2:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 457 line
29, duplicated in line 32)
Comment: See Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, II.ii.4. The passage is identical
and is cited here from the locus classicus.
11.11.13. [Re Yohanan b. Zakkai and students]
Some say that it was Hillel the Elder whom they asked, and it was
not that he knew, but that he wanted to stimulate the disciples.
(Tos. Ahilot 16:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 614,
line 22)
Comment: See Sifr6 Num. 123. The legal matter is different, as ex
plained in. Development, p. 19,199. This is the version of Joshua's circle.
11.11.14. This is one of the matters on account of which Hillel came
up from Babylonia.
(Tos. Nega'im 1:16, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 619
line 18)
>
Comment: We have a stock-phrase, attached pretty much wherever

one likes. Here, as in Sifra Tazri a, the context is an anonymous rule
about priestly rulings on cleanness and uncleanness of negaîm. No legal
dispute is preserved in context, and why Hillel would have to come up
from Babylonia to rule on such a matter is not specified. The stockphrase, here as elsewhere, serves the purposes of those who hold Hillel
was learned when he arrived in Jerusalem, and that he was able forth
with to issue important rulings -in matters of law.
c
H I L L E L I I . i i . 1 5 , III.i.1
243
Sifra Tazri a pereq 9:16, I.ii.2, in general pertains to the same legal
theme, but in detail the laws there differ from those here. There Hillel
has a lemma. Here only the stock-phrase is given. Hillel's emigration is
well-known. Clearly, a tradition in the second century associated Hillel's
migration with laws on nega'im. The stock-phrase is attached after the
same words in both Tos. Neg. and Sifra. But no one elsewhere told the
"story" or narrative as it would have been connected with nega'im. A
dramatic setting is absent. Y. Pes. awkwardly attempts to make up the
loss by associating cleanness-materials with the Temple-story.
ILii. 15. [Re Yohanan b. Zakkai and disciples]
Some say that it was Hillel the Elder whom they asked; not that he
did not know, but he wanted to stimulate the disciples.
(Tos. Parah 4:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 633,
line 25)
Comment: See Sifre Num. 123, I.ii.4, above.
III.i.1. He was coming from the way, what does he say? "I am sure
that these are not in my house."
Hillel the Elder says, "From a bad report he does not fear (Ps. 112:7)."
(y. Ber. 9:3, repr. Gilead, p. 66b)
Comment: The context is a Mishnah: One who was coming along the
way and heard the outcry in the city and says, "May it be [his] will that
this not be in my house" has offered a vain prayer. The pericope sup
plies the language he should say instead of the vain prayer. It is permitted
for him to express a hope or a sentiment of confidence, but not a prayer.
Hillel then adds an appropriate Scripture. One can readily predict the
future of such a pericope. Hillel will be represented as coming along
and hearing an outcry and saying the right thing; then about him will
the Scripture be cited. This is by now the conventional development of
a Hillel pericope, from exegesis to narrative, and we shall see precisely
this sort of progress.
But what lay before the Palestinian Talmudic account? It is not attrib
uted to a Tanna, but because the later Babylonian version is called Tan
naitic, I include the Palestinian one here. We can say nothing about a
terminus ante quern. The whole context is anonymous; no one refers to
Hillel's teaching.
Hillel's saying is incomprehensible apart from the context of the
Mishnah. It could not have circulated by itself, outside of the frame
work in which Hillel's reference to Ps. 112:7 would have been perti
nent. We cannot suppose that a separate logion has been attached to a
later dispute, particularly since the logion merely refers to the Scripture
to begin with. But if not, all we have is a generalized reminiscence of a
Scripture Hillel "would cite" in a time of stressnot a very impressive
historical record.
244
H I L L E L III.i.2, 3, 4
III.i.2.A. Hillel the Elder used to say, "When they are gathering,
scatter, and when they are scattering, gather."
B. So Hillel would say, "If you have seen the Torah beloved for
Israel and all rejoice in it, scatter. But if not, gather."
(y. Ber. 9:5, repr. Gilead, p. 68a)
Comment: Hillel's logion (parts A-B) serves as a comment to Ps. 119:
126. We shall compare it to Tos. Ber. 6:24, II.ii.2, in synopses, below,
p. 285.
What is interesting is the context. Immediately preceding is a saying
attributed to Simeon b. Yohai, "If you see people losing heart in Torah,
greatly stand and strengthen yourself in it, and you will receive the re
ward of all." Then Ps. 119:126 is cited as Simeon's "reason," followed
by the above pericope. The next logion is unrelated. Simeon's saying
reflects Hillel's: One should gather in times that Torah is not beloved of
Israel. Simeon supplies the comfort that, if you renew your energies,
you will enjoy the reward of the whole generation. At any rate, Simeon's
saying could have been understood without Hillel's, and vice versa, so
we cannot claim dependence of one on the other; the connection is the
proof-text, explicitly assigned to Simeon here, to Hillel in Tos. Ber. 6:
24. We have either two separate comments on its plain meaning, or re
lated and somewhat interdependent ones. The latter seems to me pos
sible ; if so, Simeon supplies a terminus ante quern for Hillel's saying in its
present form.
Part B augments and explains part A, supplying an exact explanation
of what to scatter and why. The primary logion therefore is part A.
111.1.3. WHTNY: M<SH B [concerning] Hillel the Elder who
purchased for a poor man who was son of good [parents] a horse to
work for him and a slave to serve him.
(y. Pe'ah 8:7, repr. Gilead, p. 37a)
Comment: See Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, II.ii.3. The context is a set of stories of
philanthropy; no named authorities discuss Hillel's action.
111.1.4. [Mishnah: A. The pro^bul is not affected by the Seventh
Year.
B. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained (TQN).
C. When he saw that the people held back from lending to one
another and were transgressing what is written in the Torah, as it is
said (Deut. 15:9), Take warning, lest there be inyour head an evil thing saying
.. .Hillel the Elder ordained the pro^buL
D. This is the formula (GWPW) of the prozbul....]
E. Gemara: ...And is the pro^bul & matter of Torah? When Hillel
ordained [it], they supplied a support [for it] in a teaching of the
(SMK) Torah.
H I L L E L III.i.5, 6
245
F. R. Huna the Elder said before R. Jacob b. Aha, "It follows the
opinion of him who holds that tithes are a matter of Torah-law."
[Then] Hillel ordains against a matter of Torah law?
(y. Shev. 10:2, repr. Gilead, p. 29b)
Comment: The reference of the gemara is to the exegesis of Deut. 15:3.
Hillel relied on that exegesis. The Palestinian rabbis discuss the status
of the laws and the basis for Hillel's ordinance. Since the Mishnah had
already supplied the "historical" version, the absence of an exegetical
basis provoked an effort to harmonize the two separate and conflicting
justifications for the ^>r0^///-ordinance.
111.1.5. Hillel the Elder would fold the three of them together as one.
R. Yohanan said, "They disagreed with Hillel the Elder."
(y. Hal. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 2b)
Comment:
See Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 13, line 12, I.ii.l.
111.1.6. They asked Hillel the Elder what to do for the people who
had not brought their knives with them. He said to them, "I heard a
law and forgot it. But let Israel [do as they like].
"If they are not prophets, they are disciples of the prophets."
Forthwith, whoever had [as] his pesah & lamb would hide it [the
knife] in its wool; [or] a kidhe would tie it on his horns. They
turned out (NMS'W) [to have] their paschal sacrifices bringing their
knives with them.
When he saw the deed, he was reminded of [remembered] the law.
He said to them, "Thus have I heard [it] from Shema'iah and
Abtalion."
(y. Shab. 19:1, repr. Gilead, p. 86b-87a)
Comment: See Tos. Pisha 4:13, II.ii.6, parts E, F, G, H. The pericope
stands by itself and begins as if it were a separate story. But it is incom
prehensible without the Passover/Sabbath controversy. The legal issue
settled here concerns carrying on the Sabbath. The passage is an allu
sion to the well-known story. It is not, however, a close copy, but a
somewhat different version, in which the elements are rearranged. In
Tos. Pisha, Hillel cites his teachers (unnamed), then the story is told.
Here he knows nothing until the people carry out their usual practice;
then he is reminded of what he had heard from Shema'iah-Abtalion.
We hear nothing of his consequent promotion to be nasi; that element
is separate and distinct, not invariably included when the rest of the
story is told. But the narrative framework has been so substantially
changed that the omission of reference to his becoming nasi is not re
markable. We also are no longer in the Temple court; the "opposition"
is absent. Hillel is the sole authority, and his word is decisive.
246
H I L L E L III.i.7
The law of the chapter concerns doing on the Sabbath what can be
done before the Sabbath. The general rule is that what can be done be
fore should be done before; what cannot may be done on the Sabbath
day. Immediately preceding the Hillel-pericope is Yosi b. R. Bun's ci
tation of Huna, who cites the Mishnah. Then they asked, a story without
the usual superscription, maâseh = BD\ R. Ze'ira afterward comments
on the Hillel-pericope in the name of R. Eleazar, "A teaching of Torah
without the house of the father [of the law attached to it, or cited with
it] is no Torah." The point is that Hillel's tradition would not have been
accepted if he could not have assigned it to his masters. Then comes
further, anonymous discussion of the laws in Hillel's story. What is
striking is discussion of the story by Ammi and Simon as if the Sons of
Bathyra were mentioned in the foregoing. That element in the pericope
must be drawn from discussion of the longer version (below), placed
here out of context by a later editor or copyist. The point is that the law
was lost to the Bathyrans so as to magnify Hillela point with no
meaning whatsoever in the above version.
C
III.i.7. [Mishnah: These acts pertaining to the Passover-offering

override the Sabbath: slaughtering it, tossing its blood, scraping its
entrails, and burning its fat-pieces.
But roasting it and rinsing its entrails do not override the Sabbath.
Carrying it (to the Temple) and bringing it from outside to within
the Sabbath limit and cutting off a wen (from the carcass) do not
override the Sabbath. R. Eliezer says, "They do override it."
(M. Pes. 6:1, trans. Danby, p. 143)]
C
Gemara: A. This law was lost ( LM) from the Elders of Bathyra.
B. One time the fourteenth [of Nisan] turned out to be the Sabbath,
and they did not know whether the pesah overrides the Sabbath or not.
They said, "There is here a certain Babylonian, and Hillel is his
name, who served Shema'iah and Abtalion. [He] knows whether the
pesah overrides the Sabbath or not. Perhaps there will be profit
(TWHLT) from him."
They sent and called him.
C. They said to him, "Have you ever heard, when the fourteenth
[of Nisan] falls on the Sabbath, whether it overrides the Sabbath or
not?"
D. He said to them, "And do we have only one pesah alone that
overrides the Sabbath in the whole year? And do not many pesahs
override the Sabbath in the whole year? [ = R. Eliezer re carrying]"
E. (Some Tannaim teach a hundred, and some Tannaim teach two
hundred, and some Tannaim teach three hundred.
H I L L E L III.i.7
247
He who said one hundred [refers to] continual offerings.

He who said two hundred [refers to] continual offerings and Sab
bath additional-offerings.
He who said three hundred [refers to] continual offerings, Sabbath
additional-offerings, [and those] of festivals, and of New Moons, and
of seasons.)
E.' They said to him, "We have already said that there is with you
profit."
F. He began expounding (DR) for them from heqqesh and qal
vehomer and from geêrah shavah:
G. "From heqqesh: Since the continual offering is a community
sacrifice and the pesah is a community sacrifice, just as the continual
offering, a community sacrifice, overrides [the] Sabbath, so the pesah,
a community sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath.
H. "From qal vehomer: If the continual offering, [improperly] doing
which does not produce the liability of cutting off, overrides the
Sabbath, the pesah, [improperly] doing which does produce the liability
of cutting off, all the more so should override the Sabbath.
I. "Ftomgeêrah shavah: Concerning the continual offering (Tamid),
In its season is said (Num. 28:2), and concerning the pesah, In its season
is said (Num. 9:3). Just as the continual offering, concerning which
is said In its season overrides the Sabbath, so the pesah, concerning
which In its season is said, overrides the Sabbath."
J . They said to him, "We have already said, 'If there is [ = no]
profit [benefit] from the Babylonian.'
K. "As to the heqqesh which you said, there is a reply: Nofor if
you say so concerning the continual offering, there is a limit (QYSBH)
to the continual offering, but can you say so concerning the pesah,
which has no limit?
L. "The qal vehomer which you said has a reply: Noif you say so
concerning the continual offering, which is the most sacred (QD$
QDSYM), will you say so of the pesah, which is of the lesser sanctities
(QDSYM QLYM)?
M. "As to thegeêrah shavah that () you said: That () a man may
not reason (DN) a geêrah shavah on his own [but must cite it from
tradition]."
[There intervenes a gloss of R. Yosi b. R. Bun in the name of R.
Abba b. Mammel about making one's own geyerah shavah and the
sorts of troubles that ensue.]
N. Even though he sat and expounded for them all day, they did
248
H I L L E L III.i.7
not accept [it] from him, until he said to them, "May [evil] come upon
me! Thus have I heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion!"
When they heard this from him, they arose and appointed him nasi
over them.
O. When they had appointed him nasi over them, he began to
criticize (QNTR) them, saying, "Who caused you to need this Baby
lonian? Is it not because you did not serve the two great men of the
world, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who were sitting with you?"
P. Since he criticized them, the law was forgotten ('LM) by him.
Q. They said to him, "What to do for the people, and they did not
bring their knives?"
R. He said to them, "This law have I heard, but I have forgotten
[it]. But leave Israel [alone]. If they are not prophets, they are dis
ciples of prophets."
S. Forthwith, whoever had as his pesah a lamb would hide it [knife]
in its wool; [if] a kid,he would tie it between its horns. So their
pesahs were found bringing their knives with them.
T. When he saw the deed, he remembered the law.
U. He said, "Thus have I heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion."
(y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, pp. 39a-b)
Comment: Immediately following is the same discussion as above: R.
Zei'ra in R. Eleazer's name said, "Any Torah which has no father's
house is no Torah."
The pericope before us is a veritable repertoire of traditions on Hillel
and the Templebut apart from the superscription, part A, the
Bathyrans are completely forgotten. That detail must have been added
last, apart from the obvious glosses. Linking Hillel to the fall of the
Bathyrans certainly comes after the formation, around Hillel's discipleship of Shema'iah-Abtalion, of the bulk of the materials on his rise to
power. The essential story is contained in the following parts:
B. N o one k n e w w h a t t o d o w h e n the fourteenth o f Nisan coincided
w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , s o "a c e r t a i n B a b y l o n i a n " is called, b e c a u s e o f his discipleship o f Shema'iah-Abtalion.
C. H e is a s k e d t h e q u e s t i o n .
D . H e says t h e a n s w e r is o b v i o u s : M a n y pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h !
E ' . T h e y accept h i s e x p l a n a t i o n .
At this point, the story could have ended; nothing is required to com
plete the picture. We do not have to be told about the immediate abdi
cation (N) of the Bathyrans. That "event" is no issue.
Part E is certainly a late gloss on part D; Tos. Pisha has already cor
rected the language of many to read three hundred, I assume a scribal im
provement of an otherwise older version.
Then comes a new and different repertoire of materials: Hillel's
H I L L E L III.i.7
249
proofs. We have no reason to attribute them to Hillel himself. They

rather are additional "proofs" anyone might have supplied for the same
proposition, an exercise in exegetical logic independent of the historical
setting:
F.
G.
H.
I.
K.
L.
M.
Superscription for the whole

Heqqesh
Qal vehomer
Geêrah shavah
R e f u t a t i o n o f heqqesh
R e f u t a t i o n o f qal vehomer
R e f u t a t i o n o f geêrah shavah
After part I comes a reversion to part E', this time in negative form.
Having accepted his proof, "they" now reject it! Part J certainly marks
the end of a separate and complete version. Parts K, L, and M explain
the rejection of proofs attributed to Hillel. On the proofs, see Epstein,
Mevo'ot, pp. 510-511.
Part N is a separate element in the story, joined to the foregoing by
even though he sat and expounded. The point is that he has a tradition from
Shema'iah, etc. On that basis, he is made nasi. It now concludes Hillel's
proofs and artificially links them to the "historical" account.
Afterward comes another and separate story, how Hillel gloated at
the fall of the Bathyrans. It underlines the importance of serving
Shema'iah and Abtalion. In fact it represents a secondary development
of part N: Hillel came to office only because he had studied with
Shema'iah-Abtalion; the Bathyrans lost office only because they had not
paid them adequate attention.
Part P is a connecting element, leading into a still third story. This
one refers to what to do for the people who had not brought their
knives. Obviously, Hillel knew the answer of S + Athat is the point
of the foregoing. But the narrator intends to tell the story of how the
people are really prophets. Therefore he makes Hillel forget what he
had learnedon account of a moral lapse! This allows the famous log
ion to be stated by Hillel: Leave Israel aloneif they are not prophets.... The
logion is then illustrated by the behavior of the people. The theme of
part P is recovered in parts T-U. He remembered the law. Then comes
the standard phrase: Thus have I heard....
The foregoing analysis leads to the division of the whole pericope
into the following separate parts:
I. P a r t s B , C , D , E ' : Hillel s o l v e s t h e p r o b l e m , all a g r e e .
I I . P a r t s F - M - f N : R e p e r t o i r e o f exegetical p r o o f s , all r e f u t e d . P a r t N
m a y h a v e b e e n c o n t r i b u t e d b y t h e final e d i t o r i a l h a n d , t y i n g t h e w h o l e
t o p a r t A b u t in d o i n g s o , t h e e d i t o r has r e p e a t e d p a r t U .
III. P a r t s O - P : Hillel u n d e r l i n e s t h e f a u l t o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n , b u t is s u p e r naturally punished on that account.
I V . P a r t s Q - S , w i t h s u b s c r i p t i o n T - U : T h e p e o p l e k n e w w h a t t o d o all
a l o n g , because t h e y a r e disciples o f p r o p h e t s . Hillel t h e r e u p o n says
their practice c o n f o r m e d to the law.
250
H I L L E L III.i.7
Let us n o w
reconsider the picture presented b y each o f the
four
elements:
I . B , C , D , E ' : N o o n e k n o w s t h e l a w . Hillel, w h o h a d s t u d i e d w i t h
S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n , w a s l i s t e n e d t o o n t h a t a c c o u n t . H e said t h e
answer was o b v i o u s . They forthwith agree.
T h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y i s t o s t r e s s H i l l e l k n e w t h e l a w , but w a s
recognized
only
because
o f his
discipleship
of
Shama'iah-Abtalion.
H o w e v e r , a s s o o n a s h e s t a t e d t h e l a w , without r e f e r r i n g t o , a n d q u o t i n g
his m a s t e r s , e v e r y o n e exclaimed in a g r e e m e n t .
I I . F , G , H, I , J , K , L , M , N : Hillel t r i e d e v e r y l o g i c a l - e x e g e t i c a l d e v i c e ,
w i t h o u t success. F i n a l l y h e said t h e t r a d i t i o n c o m e s f r o m S h e m a ' i a h A b t a l i o n . T h e o p p o s i t i o n t h e r e u p o n a b d i c a t e d a n d m a d e h i m nasi.
T h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e first s t o r y is u n d e r l i n e d i n m o r e e x t r e m e f o r m .
Now
H i l l e P s k n o w l e d g e is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e w h a t e v e r . A l l t h a t m a t
ters is t h e a b i l i t y t o cite S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n . B u t o n c e h e c o u l d d o s o ,

t h e o p p o s i t i o n n o t m e r e l y a g r e e s , b u t abdicates office a n d places
Hillel
in it instead! S o Hillel o w e s his p o w e r t o his discipleship, n o t t o his

l o g i c . D i s c i p l e s h i p is t h e k e y t o a u t h o r i t y . M e r e a b i l i t y t o r e a s o n m a k e s
no
difference.
I I I . O - P : W h e n H i l l e l b e c a m e nasi, h e b e h a v e d s o o b n o x i o u s l y t h a t h e a v e n
p u n i s h e d h i m b y d e p r i v i n g h i m o f w h a t h a d m a d e h i m nasi t o b e g i n
w i t h : knowledge of the traditions o f Shema'iah-Abtalion.
T h e s t o r y f o l l o w s t h e s a m e t e n d e n c y as t h e
foregoing.
I V . Q , R , S , T , U : Hillel d i d n o t k n o w t h e l a w . H e o b s e r v e d w h a t p e o p l e
did and was reminded that the people w e r e following the correct pro
c e d u r e s , as e n u n c i a t e d b y S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n .
T h e f o u r stories m a k e m u c h the same point t h r o u g h r e w o r k i n g various
materials. HillePs i m p o r t a n c e depends u p o n S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n . W i t h
o u t k n o w i n g their t r a d i t i o n s , h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r e c o g n i z e d
would not have persuaded the
and
opposition.
T h e r e d a c t o r o f the stories stands outside o f t h e Hillelite circle and,

o f c o u r s e , c o m e s w e l l after its p r e d o m i n a n c e w a s a n established fact.
E v e r y o n e k n o w s w h o " t h e c e r t a i n B a b y l o n i a n " i s , is w e l l a w a r e o f h i s
rise t o p o w e r . T h e real q u e s t i o n is, W h y d i d t h e r e d a c t o r o f t h e w h o l e ,
as w e l l as t h o s e
responsible f o r the formation o f the several parts,
c h o o s e t o emphasize HillePs utter subordination t o his masters? W h a t

ever the brilliance o f one's logic, posessing accurate traditions f r o m a
r e c o g n i z e d m a s t e r is d e c i s i v e . W h o w o u l d h a v e w a n t e d t o s a y s o , a n d
to w h o m ? N o s t o r y a b o u t H i l l e l i n p o w e r c a n h a v e f a i l e d t o r e f l e c t t h e
i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e l a t e r p a t r i a r c h a t e , a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e to t h e p a t r i
a r c h a t e , f r o m ca. 1 5 0 A . D . o n w a r d , o f H i l l e l s t o r i e s . Is a p a t r i a r c h a l i n
t e r e s t at h a n d ? I d o n o t see a n y . T h e p a t r i a r c h w o u l d n o t necessarily
h a v e objected t o all elements o f t h e p o r t r a y a l o f Hillel: his rise t o p o w e r
is r e p r e s e n t e d as c r e d i t a b l e . B u t a n o b v i o u s , a n t i - p a t r i a r c h a l t e n d e n c y
c o m e s i n d i v i s i o n I I I , s o m e w h a t m o r e s u b t l y i n d i v i s i o n I V : t h e nasi
can be p u n i s h e d b y H e a v e n f o r harassing t h e rest o f the sages.
Hillel
H I L L E L III.i.8, 9
251
was no better than otherseveryone knew what he knew. All he could

contribute was the attribution to Shema'iah and Abtalion. Divisions
I-II consistently portray Hillel as important because of his masters, but
we need not necessarily hear an echo that the nasi had better listen to his
masters, since no one openly accused the nasi of "ignorance."
III.i.8.A. Hillel the Elder expounded the language of common
people.
B. They would write in Alexandria, for () one of them would
betrothe a woman, and his fellow would snatch her from the market.
And when the deed (M SH) came before sages, they wanted to declare
them mamêrim.
Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring forth the marriage-contract
of their mothers."
They brought forth the marriage-contract of their mothers, and
found written in them: "Whenyou enter my house,you will be my wife ac
cording to the law of Moses and [ theJ Jews"
(y. Yev. 15:3, repr. Gilead, p. 78a)
C
Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8. The context is examples of the
exegesis of the language of legal documents. The Houses of Shammai
and Hillel are given as examples, then the above, followed by Leazar
b. 'Azariah and Meir. In each case the superscription is the same, except
the above: X made the marriage-contract [as] a midrash. The superscrip
tion above (A) does not belong here, but the story (B) does.
As before, the story is somewhat disjointed. It begins with they would
write, but then proceeds to tell the story without saying whatthey would
write. The circumstances of the case are told in verbs of continuing ac
tion: they would do so-and-so. Then the narrative changes to verbs of
completed action: the matter came... they sought... Hillel said to them
etc., as earlier. Hillel's direct address should have your.
III.i.9.A. Hillel would expound the language of common folk.
B. Thus would they write in Alexandria. For () one of them would
betrothe a woman, and his fellow would grab her from the market.
And when the matter came before sages, they sought to make them
mamêrim.
Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring out the marriage-contract of
your mothers."
And they brought out the marriage contract of their mothers, and
they found written in them, "Whenyou enter my house, you will be my
wife according to the law of Moses and the Jews."
(y. Ket. 4:8, repr. Gilead, p. 29a)
Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8. The context is similar to y. Yev.
15:3.
252
H I L L E L III.i.10, 1 1
III.i.lO.A. Eighty pair [sic] of students did Hillel the Elder have.
The greatest of these was Jonathan b. 'Uzziel, and the youngest (least,
QTN) was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.
B. One time he [Hillel] fell ill. And they all entered to visit him.
Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai stood in the courtyard.
He said to them, "Where is he, the youngest among you, for he is
the father of wisdom and father of the generations, and one need not
say, the greatest among you?"
They said to him, "Lo, he is in the courtyard."
He said to them, "Let him enter."
When he entered, he said to them, "To cause those who love me to
inherit substance, and their treasuries shall I fill (Prov. 8:21)."
(y. Ned. 5:6, repr. Gilead, p. 19b)
Comment: ^^Development,
p. 137, 216. The pericope is meant to un
derline the discipleship of Yohanan, the true heir of Hillel.
In part B Jonathan b. Uzziel plays no part. He is entirely passed over.
But the specific reference, one need not say, the greatest amongyou, is based
on, and is a deliberate revision of, part A. Yohanan is great in part A
because he is a footstool for Jonathan b. 'Uzziel. Part A refers back to
Hillel through circles around, or finding their spiritual patrimony in,
Jonathan b. Uzziel. Part B corrects this by saying that Yohanan was
the greatest of the disciples and the true heirthe obvious exclusion
being not only Jonathan, but also Gamaliel I, Hillel's own successor
according to Avot. The citation of Prov. 8:21 is the kernel of the story,
an exegesis-through-expansion into a dramatic scene. The tradition
would have been that Hillel had "applied" Prov. 8:21 to Yohanan b.
Zakkai, and that tradition presumably developed in, or was preserved
by, Yohanan's circle at Yavneh, a circle much pressed by Gamaliel II.
But that presumption does not exclude other possibilities.
Part A is simple and undeveloped, a declarative sentence. It serves as
a superscription for other materials and has been abbreviated {Development, p. 216). Part B by contrast is highly developed, by no means a
primitive pericope, and is supplied with dramatic conversations and an
appropriate setting in the life of the master.
Part A is to be classified as a biographical reminiscence, part B as a
biographical incident. Neither can relate closely to accurate historical
traditions shaped during Hillel's life. I cannot believe Hillel would have
passed over his son in favor of an outsider who was otherwise entirely
unknown, a very young man. The story probably testifies to the polemic
of the Yohanan-circle at Yavneh against Hillel's heir, Gamaliel II. The
evidence that Gamaliel I was Hillel's grandson comes even later, with
Avot, then the beraita of b. Shab. 15a following afterward.
c
III.i.11. (M'SH S) The sages entered the house of Gedy'a (GDY )

in Jericho and an echo came forth and said to them, "There is among
H I L L E L III.ii.1, 2, 3
253
you one man who is worthy (RW'Y) of the holy spirit, but the
generation is not appropriate (KDYY)," and they set their eyes on
Hillel the Elder.
When he died, they said concerning him, "Woe for the modest one,
the pious one, the disciple of Ezra."
(y. Sot. 9:13 [ = 9:16], repr. Gilead, p. 45b)
Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3. The whole passageincluding the con
textis drawn from Tos. Sot., with glosses and some variations. For
further comment, see II.i.9.
111.11.1. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): It once happened of

(M<SH B) Hillel the Elder that ()
He was coming from a journey, and he heard the sound of an
outcry in the city.
He said, "I am confident that this is not in my house."
And of him Scripture says, He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his
heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord (Ps. 112:7).
(b. Ber. 60a)
Comment: See y. Ber. 9:3, III.i.1. The superscriptions are supplied in
duplicate. Hillel's exegesis now has been turned into a narrative about
Hillel, and the Scripture is applied to him. The antecedent materials are
unrelated. Rava comments on the Scripture immediately afterward, but
not on the Hillel-story. The pericope is a unity; the application of the
Scripture is integral here, because of y. Ber. 9:3.
111.11.2. TNY>: A. Hillel the Elder says, "In the time of the gather
ers, (KN$) disseminate (PZR) [it], and in the time of the disseminaters, do you gather."
B. "If you have seen a generation for whom the Torah is beloved,
disseminate, as it says, There is that scatters andyet increases (Prov. 11:24).
"And if you have seen a generation for whom the Torah is not be
loved, gather, as it says, When it is time to work for the Lord, they make
void thy Torah (Ps. 119:126)."
(b. Ber. 63a)
Comment: See Tos. Ber. 6:24, y. Ber. 9:5. Part B serves as a comment
on, and an expansion of, part A. The pericope is a composite of a pri
mary saying and a glossed, secondary development. Immediately pre
ceding is a comment of Rava on Ps. 119:126. Then the beraita follows,
on account of the inclusion of the same Scripture. Then comes a saying
of Bar Qappara, unrelated to the foregoing.
111.11.3. And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her

neighbor [etc.]. Only on the Sabbath is it forbidden, but on weekdays
254
H I L L E L III.ii.4, 5
it is well. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with Hillel,
for we learned (DTNN):
And thus Hillel used to say, "A woman should not lend a loaf to
her neighbor without first valuing it, lest wheat advance, and they
[the lender and the borrower] come to [transgress the prohibition of]
usury?"
You may even say [that it agrees with] Hillel: the one is in a place
where its value is fixed; the other, where its value is not fixed.
(b. Shab. 148b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 754)
Comment:
See M. B.M. 5:9. The citation is anonymous.
III.ii.4. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): No man was ever

crushed (M K) in the Temple Court ( ZRH), except on one Passover
which was in the days of Hillel, on which an old man was crushed,
and they called it, "The Passover of the crushed."
(b. Pes. 64b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 326)
C
Comment: Hillel is not the subject of the pericope; he supplies a date,

like Simeon b. Shetah. The beraita bears no relationship to the context,
except in theme: vast populations assembled in the Temple court. The
next beraita concerns Agrippa's census. He collected kidneys from each
paschal sacrifice, and found 600,000 pairs, at which more than ten peo
ple had registered. That was "the Passover of the Dense Throngs."
II.ii.5.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): This law was hidden
from the Sons of Bathyra.
B. On one occasion, the fourteenth [of Nisan] coincided with the
Sabbath. They forgot and did not know whether the Passover over
rides the Sabbath or not.
They said, "Is there any man who knows whether the Passover
[-offering] overrides the Sabbath or not?"
They said to them, "There is a certain man who has come up from
Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name, who served the two
greatest men of the time, and he knows whether the Passover overrides
the Sabbath or not."
[Thereupon] they sent and called him. They said to him, "Do you
know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?"
He said to them, "Have we then only one Passover during the year
which overrides the Sabbath? Do we not have many more than two
hundred Passovers during the year which override the Sabbath!"
C. They said to him, "How do you know it?"
He said to them, "In its appointed time is stated in connection with
255
H I L L E L III.ii.5
the Passover, and In its appointed time is stated in connection with the
continual offering; just as Its appointed time which is said in connection
with the continual offering overrides the Sabbath, so Its appointed time
which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sab
bath.
D. "Moreover, it is a qal vehomer: if the continual offering [the
omission of] which is not punished by cutting off, overrides the Sab
bath, the Passover, [neglect of] which is punished by cutting off,is
it not logical that it should override the Sabbath!"
E. They immediately set him at their head and appointed him nasi
over them, and he was sitting and expounding the whole day on the
laws of Passover.
F. He began rebuking (QNTR) them with words.
He said to them, "Who caused it for you that I should come up
from Babylonia to be nasi over you? It was the laziness that was in you,
because you did not serve the two great men of the generation,
Shema'iah and Abtalion."
G. They said to him, "Rabbi, what if a man forgot and did not bring
a knife on the eve of the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "I have heard this law but have forgotten it.
But leave it to Israel. If they are not prophets, yet they are disciples
of prophets!"
On the morrow, he whose Passover was a lamb stuck (THB) it
[the knife] in its wool; he whose Passover was a goat stuck it between
its horns.
He saw the deed and recollected the law and said, "Thus have I
received the tradition from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion."
H. The Master said, "In its appointed season is stated in connection
with the Passover, and In its appointed time is stated in connection with
the continual offering: just as Its appointed time which is said in con
nection with the continual offering overrides the Sabbath, so Its ap
pointed time which is said in connection with the Passover overrides
the Sabbath."
I. And how do we know that the continual offering itself overrides the Sab
bath ? Shall we say, because 'In its appointed time* is written in connection with
it? Then the Passover too, surely, 'In its appointed time* is written in connection
with it? Hence [you must say that] 'Its appointed time has no significance for
him [Hillel]; then here too, 'Its appointed time* should have no significance
for him?
Rather Scripture says, This is the burnt-offering of every Sabbath, beside
9
256
the continual burnt-offering (Num. 28:10); whence itfollows that the continual
burnt offering [Tamid] is offered on the Sabbath.
J . The Master said: "Moreover, it follows a minori: if the continual
offering [the omission of] which is not punished by karet, overrides
the Sabbath; then the Passover, [neglect of] which is punished by
karet,is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath!"
[But] this can be refuted: as the continual offering, that is because it
is constantly and entirely [burnt].
He first told them the a minori argument, but they refuted it; [so] then he
told them the geêrah shavah. But since he had received the tradition of a
geêrah shavah, what was the need of an a minori argument?
Rather he spoke to them on their ground: "It is well that you do not learn
a geêrah shavah, because a man cannot argue [by] a geêrah shavah of
his own accord. But [an inference] a minori, which a man can argue of
his own accord, you should have argued7"
Said they to him, "It is a fallacious a minori argument"
K. The Master said, "On the morrow, he whose Passover was a
lamb stuck it in its wool; [he whose Passover was] a goat stuck it be
tween its horns."
But he performed work with sacred animals? [They did] as [did]
Hillel.
L. For it was taught: It was related of Hillel (>MRW <LYW <L HLL):
As long as he lived, no man ever committed trespass through his
burnt-offering. But he brought it unconsecrated [hullin] to the Temple
Court, consecrated it, laid his hand upon it, and slaughtered it... [This
is further discussed.]
M. Rav Judah said in Rav's name: "Whoever is boastful, if he is a
sage, his wisdom departs from him; if he is a prophet, his prophecy
departs from him." If he is a Sage, his wisdom departs from him:
[we learn this] from Hillel.
For the Master said, "He began rebuking them with words, and
[then] he said to them, 'I have heard this law but have forgotten it.'"
"If he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him: [we learn this]
from Deborah..."
(b. Pes. 66a-b, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 333-337)
Comment:
beraita
The
context
is t h e
same
as t h e P a l e s t i n i a n
version:
attached t o t h e M i s h n a h . T h e italicized parts are in A r a m a i c (I,
j)We
h a v e a f i r m terminus
ante quern f o r p a r t s F - G , i n p a r t M :
J u d a h , d. 2 9 7 . T h e a t t r i b u t i o n t o R a v c o u l d m o v e t h e d a t e b a c k
Rav
by
H I L L E L III.ii.5, 6
257
about fifty years. Parts F-G are a secondary development of the brief
pericope given in the summary of F-G in part M: He began to rebuke
them, and then forgot his learning. This has been attached to the Pass
over story, and the law Hillel forgot is made the issue. The practice of
the common folk thereupon is added as well, but is not integral to the
brief pericope. It now is a story hostile to patriarchs who harass the
sages.
Part A begins with a standard superscription: TNW RBNN. The
Palestinian story is here preserved through part B. Then part C begins
with a new connecting phrase, i/0#> doyou know it? This is missing in the
Palestinian version, which has the assembled throng without qualm ac
cept Hillel'sfirstargument, y. Pes. part E'. The connector is an improve
ment, for it explains why all the subsequent exegetical proofs are intro
duced.
Then comes the geêrah shavah, part C, the qal vehomer, part D, but the
other materials are dropped, particularly the heqqesh, y. Pes. parts G/K.
The Babylonian version now makes Hillel nasi, and that ends the story.
The further story of how he forgot his learning follows in the same se
quence as in the Palestinian version, but with the omission of Parts K,
L, and M of the Palestinian version, in which Hillel's several proofs are
refuted by "the assembled throng." This whole assemblage is added
afterward, in the Babylonian parts H, I, and J . It is no longer integral
to the historical event, but now serves as a commentary on the pur
ported arguments, given anonymously and in Babylonian Amoraic form
(Master said).
Part F-G are not much different from y. Pes., parts O-P-Q-R-S-T.
Part K introduces a new pericope, with the double-superscription
TNY', 'amru alav al: In Hillel's time people brought their sacrifices in
an ordinary (profane) state, and only after they reached the Temple did
they declare them sacrifices. This prevented the sin of performing work
with sacred animals. One recalls the Simeon the Just-stories about the
supernatural recognition of his merits; here the tendency is to show
how excellent was Hillel's governance of the cult. The beraita gives in
historical form what could as well have been a legal logion: One does not
lay on hands until....
Now we have two hundred pesahs in part B, and the several Tannaitic
versions and glosses in y. Pes. are dropped.
For further comment, see synopses.
c
III.ii.6. Which Tanna do you know [to hold] that precepts do not
nullify each other? It is Hillel.
For it was taught (TNY>): It was related of Hillel (>MRW <LYW <L)
that he used to wrap them at once (BBT HT), for it is said, They shall
eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Num. 9:11).
R. Yohanan observed, "Hillel's colleagues disagreed with him.
For it was taught (TNY>): You might think that he should wrap them
at once and eat them in the manner that Hillel ate it, therefore it is
J
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I
17
258
stated, They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbseven each
separately."
To this R. Ashi demurred, "If so, what is [the meaning of] even?"
"Rather," said R. Ashi, "This Tanna teaches thus: You might think
that he does not discharge his duty unless he wraps them together and
eats them in the manner of Hillel, therefore it is stated, They shall eat
it with unleavened bread and bitter herbseven each separately."
(b. Pes. 115a, trans. H. Freedman, p. 590)
Comment: The discussion of HillePs sandwich (Mekh. deR. Simeon
b. Yohai, p. 13,1.12; Tos. Pisha 2:22; y. Hal. 1:1) is introduced by an
extraneous question on whether the precepts nullify one another. R.
Yohanan contradicts the foregoing by citing a beraita that explicitly
says Hillel did not properly carry out the Scriptural law. R. Ashi then
revises the beraita and gives it the opposite meaning: One should fol
low HillePs practice, but if he does not, he still discharges his obliga
tion. We see therefore how later legal considerations led to the drastic
alteration of traditions attributed to Tannaim. Amoraic authorities
holding opinions contrary to the received form of the Tannaitic tradi
tion did not hesitate to revise the tradition to conform to their own
legal principles.
The citation of HillePs actionon the whole, in the old version with
only slight changesis by R. Yohanan, mid-third century Palestine;
then R. Ashi, early fifth-century Babylonia. The tradition certainly had
reached its final form by the turn of the third century, but the beraita
serving as a supplementary commentary on that tradition does not
necessarily derive from Tannaitic times.
Strikingly, Ex. 12:8 is dropped, Num. 9:11 substituted.
III.ii.7.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): The poor, the rich,
the sensual (Lit.: evil, R ) come before the [heavenly] court. They
say to the poor, "Why have you not occupied yourself with the
Torah?" If he says, "I was poor and worried (TRWD) about my
sustenance," they say to him, "Were you poorer than Hillel?"
B. They said about (>MRW LYW <L) Hillel the Elder that every day
he used to work and earn one tropaic (TRP YQ), half of which he
would give to the guard of the house of learning, the other half [he
spent] for his food and for that of his family.
One day he found nothing to earn, and the guard at the house of
learning did not permit him to enter. He climbed up and sat upon the
window ( RWBH), to hear the words of the living God from the
mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion.
They said: That day was the eve of Sabbath in the winter solstice*
and snow fell down upon him from heaven. When the dawn rose,.
259
Shema'iah said to Abtalion, "Brother Abtalion, on every day this

house is light, and today it is dark. Is it perhaps a cloudy day?"
They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window.
They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They
removed him, bathed and anointed him, and placed him opposite the
fire, and they said, "This man is worthy that the Sabbath be profaned
on his behalf (R>WY ZH LHLL...)."
(b. Yoma 35b, trans. Leo Jung, p. 163)
Comment: The pericope is in the context of stories about how private
persons contributed their wealth to the Temple: R. Ishmael b. Phiabi,
R. Eleazar b. Harsom. Then comes the Hillel-story as given. Afterwards
follow examples of wealthy and handsome students of Torah. At the
end comes a subscription: Hillel makes the poor liable, Eleazar b.
Harsom, the rich, and Joseph, the evil (= handsome). The beraita is not
necessarily constructed of pre-existing materials, for the three parts ex
hibit uniform narrative style. It contains no named tradents or author
ities.
The Hillel-pericope is in two parts. Part A is a simple reference to
HillePs poverty. Poorer than Hillel sounds like a stock-phrasepresum
ably everyone knew Hillel was as poor as one could be. Part B has a
superficial connection to Sabbath laws, but the connection comes after
the fact. The fact was the climactic logion, This man deserves... For that
purpose it was necessary to specify the day was the eve of the Sabbath.
But this may represent a secondary development to embellish the story
about Hillel in the snow, augmenting the story with warming Hillel by
the fire even on the Sabbath. The logion is based on a generative for
mula, as we shall see.
Part B is surely a unitary account, highly literary and of considerable
narrative sophistication. I do not think its point is that Hillel studied
with Shema'iah-Abtalion, and that whatever he knew that was worth
while came from them. That polemic plays no role here; it is taken for
granted. The real point is the dramatic account of how Hillel studied
despite great poverty. Of course, that point presupposes the theory that
Hillel had to study, therefore migrated as a poor man, with no local con
nections, quite unrecognized.
He had to pay for admission to the school. That detail must provide
an important clue to the date of the story. When were guards set at the
doors of the schools to prevent those who could not pay tuition from
entering? I do not know when such a practice became widespread.
Nothing in the foregoing traditions hints at it. But no one hearing the
story could have believed it, had it not been common practice to keep
out impoverished students.
We may classify the pericope as a biographical narrative; no exegetical
tradition is transformed into a Hillel-story, and no legal principle is in
troduced through it.
260
HILLEL III.ii.8, 9
III.ii.8. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Hillel the Elder had
eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy (R'WY) of the Divine
Spirit resting upon them, as [it did upon] Moses our rabbi. Thirty of
them were worthy that the sun should stand still for them [as it did
for] Joshua the son of Nun. Twenty were ordinary. The greatest of
them was Jonathan b. Uzziel; the smallest [least] of them was Rabban
Yohanan b. Zakkai.
(b. Suk. 28a, trans. I. W. Slotki, p. 123)
c
Comment: See Development, pp. 90-91, and above y. Ned. 5:6. The first
thirty were thus as "worthy" as Hillel himself.
III.ii.9.A. It was taught (TNY>): They said about Hillel the Elder
(>MRW<LYW <L):
When he used to rejoice at the Rejoicing at the Place of the WaterDrawing, he said thus, "If I am here, everyone is here. And if I am
not here, who is here?"
B. He used to say thus, "To the place that I love, there my feet lead
me.
"If you will come to my house, I will come to your house.
"If you will not come to my house, I will not come to your house,
as it is said, In every place where I cause my name to he mentioned, I will come
unto thee and bless thee (Ex. 20:24)."
C. Also he saw one skull that was floating upon the face of the
water. He said to it, "Becauseyou drowned others, they have drownedyou, and
they that drownedyou shall be drowned too"
(b. Suk. 53a, trans. I. W. Slotki, p. 253)
Comment: The context is sayings about the Rejoicing at the Place of
the Water-Drawing. Immediately following is a logion of R. Yohanan,
somewhat related in theme to part C.
Part C is tacked on, cited, in Aramaic, from M. Avot 2:5ff., without
variation. It plays no role in the foregoing. Some of the several logia of
Avot circulated separately. Part A is new. It expands Tos. Suk. 4:3,
II.ii.7, by supplying God with further dialogueif, as is commonly as
sumed, the saying attributed to Hillel is understood as having been said
by God. Hillel thus takes a popular aphorism and gives it theological
meaning by saying it in God's behalf. Part B is taken from Tos. Suk.
without significant modification. While the style of part A follows part
B , the substance differs. We therefore cannot regard part A as a later,
and secondary augmentation of part B .
I do not know why Hillel-logia transforming popular aphorisms into
theological ones were attached to the celebration of Sukkot. In y. Suk.
5:4 a reason is providedbut the meaning is no longer mystical. Pre
sumably they are part of the mystkal tradition associated with Hillel's
H I L L E L III.ii.10, 1 1 , 1 2
261
name, and conceivably the festival was an important holiday in that tra
dition. But we do not know when Sukkot assumed such a significant
role in the mystical tradition, nor can we be certain that the mystical
tradition attributed to Hillel began with him.
IILii. 10. Rav Judah in the name of Rav said, "The law follows
R. Eleazar. But when I stated it in the presence of Samuel, he said to
me, 'Hillel taught (NH): The [following] [different] genealogical
classes went up from BabyloniaPriests, Levites, profaned Priests,
proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, Netini, Shetuqi, and Asufi
and all these may intermarry'..."
(b. Yev. 37a)
Comment: The attribution to Hillel first comes in the mid-third cen
tury. We have no earlier hint of such a tradition. Nowhere else does
Hillel give a ruling on who may marry whom, so it is not a sort of law
one would have expected. Attributing a tradition on the Babylonian
migration in Ezra's time to Hillel certainly is not surprising. But we
have no idea about the history of the lemma, how it was preserved for
two hundred years, or why it should first surface with Samuel. Nor are
we sure this is our Hillel. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 54, says this is the grand
son of Judah the Patriarch, which is highly plausible. In classification,
it is a legal-historical tradition; in form it is a near-standard legal say
ing ; the only unusual aspect is NH instead of >MR.
II.ii.ll. For it was taught (TNY>): It was said of (>MRW <LYW <L)
Hillel the Elder that in his [Hillel's] whole life no man ever trespassed
through his whole offering ( LH). He would bring it as hullin [profane]
to the Temple court, then sanctify it, lay his hand on it, and slaughter
it.
(b. Ned. 9b = b. Pes. 66b)
C
Comment: The above beraita records common practice "in Hillel's

time," but does not specify Hillel ordained the practice. This is, there
fore, not meant as a legal tradition, but as a historical reminiscence of
"the good old days" under Hillel's rule. The beraita is cited in an anon
ymous editorial context. The pericope seeks the Tannaitic authority for
a distinction between vows and freewill offerings. Meir and Judah are
brought as candidates, but neither is cited as participating in the theo
retical discussion. In the end the authority is Simeon the Just! So we
have no evidence of Tannaitic knowledge of the above beraita, nor any
idea when Amoraic reference to it was made. But it looks like the be
ginning of the story about the people as prophets, which turns the rule
into a dramatic narrative of popular practice.
III.ii.l2.A. TNW RBNN: When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi
262
HILLEL III.ii.13
died, the holy spirit departed from Israel. Nonetheless they made use
of the echo.
B. For () one time (P M 'HT) they were sitting in the upper
chamber of Gurya's house (BYT GWRY>) in Jericho. An echo from
heaven gave [came] upon them and said, "There is in your midst one
man who is deserving that the Shekhinah should rest upon him, but
his generation is not worthy (R WY) of it."
C. They all looked at Hillel the Elder.
D. And when he died, they lamented him, "Alas, the pious man
(H$YD), alas, the humble man, disciple of Ezra."
(b. Sot. 48b)
C
Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:13, etc. Samuel the Small fol
lows. The context is a discussion of the end of Urim and Thummim; then
R. Nahman refers to the three prophets mentioned here. The beraita is
not cited by him, however, but serves as a gloss to his comment. So the
context is anonymous and provides no hint as to who cited the beraita.
III.ii.13. [Mishnah: Hillel instituted theprosbul.]
A. We have learned elsewhere (TNN HTM): A prosbul prevents the
remission of debts.
This is one of the ordinances made by Hillel the Elder.
For () he saw that people held back from lending money to one
another, and transgressed the precept in the Torah, Beware that there
not be a base thought in your heart (Deut. 15:9). He arose and ordained
[the] prosbul.
B. The text of [the] prosbul is as follows...
C. But is it possible that while according to the Torah the Seventh
Year releases [debts], Hillel ordained that it should not release [debts] ?
Abbaye said....
(b. Git. 36a)
Comment: The % of Tannaitic texts (PRWZBL) becomes /; the ante
cedent Mishnah has ^.
Here we have the "historical" version, as in the Mishnah. Compare
Sifre Deut. 113.
The above pericope is an amplification of the Mishnah. Immediately
thereafter the question is raised: How could Hillel have set aside a law
in the Torah? The discussant is Abbaye; presumably the pericope in
which Hillel was cited was shaped in fourth-century Pumbedita or later.
The answer is, "He was dealing with the Sabbatical year in our time,"
that is, after the destruction of the Temple! The principle of Rabbi
Judah the Patriarch is then quoted: When the release of land is in opera
tion, so is the remission of debts. The rabbis, however, ordained that
H I L L E L III.ii.14, 1 5
263
the remission of debts should continue, despite the cessation of the re

lease of land. When Hillel saw people refrained, he then instituted the
prosbul.
Then it is asked, "Is it possible that according to the Torah, the

Seventh Year does not release debts, and the rabbis should ordain that it
does?" Abbaye responds, along with Rava. The latter's reason is strik
ing: The rabbis have power to expropriate [people's property]. Then
the question is raised (b. Git. 36b):
W h e n H i l l e l i n s t i t u t e d t h e prosbul, d i d h e i n s t i t u t e it f o r his o w n g e n e
ration o n l y , o r f o r f u t u r e ones as w e l l ?
The practical bearing is on the issue of whether the rabbis can now
abolish it. Samuel is cited: one makes out a prosbul only in the court of
Sura or of Nehardea; and Samuel criticizes the prosbul and says that he
will abolish it if he can.
The discussion of the prosbul in Babylonia is based upon the Mishnah
alone. The exegetical foundation of the prosbul plays no role in the rab
binical discussion, which assumes that the matter was only a response
to historical necessity, with no exegetical basis whatever! This fact
makes it likely that the exegetical pericope in Sifre Deut. 113 was not
available in Babylonia in Samuel's time and even as late as Abbaye. y.
Shev. 10:2 presents the quite different discussion of the Palestinians,
who did know the exegesis. The Babylonian Amoraic discussion again
proves that our analysis of the Sifre Deut. 113 pericope into two sepa
rate stories is valid. The stories certainly circulated separately, and one
of them may never have reached Amoraic Babylonia at all.
111.11.14. We have learned in another place (TNN HTM):
At first a man used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve
month period, so that it should become his forever.
Hillel the Elder [therefore] ordained that he should throw his money
into the chamber and that he should break the door open and enter,
and the other, whenever he likes, should come and take his money.
(b. Git. 74b)
Comment: See Sifra Behar 4:8, M. 'Arakh. 9:4. Rava and R. Papa, or
Shimi b. Ashi, discuss the above Mishnah, applying its legal principle,
concerning a gift forced on the donee, to the delivery of divorce-docu
ments. The question of setting aside Torah-law is not raised, presum
ably because it was self-evident that the only issue was how to carry out
the law, not how to suspend its operation.
111.11.15. Rav Judah in Rav's name said, "The law follows R. Eleazar.
When I stated it before Samuel, he observed to me, 'Hillel teaches
(WNH) ten genealogical classes went up from Babylonia and all are
permitted to intermarry.' Yet you say the law follows R. Eleazar!'"
(b. Qid. 75a)
264
H I L L E L III.ii.16, 1 7 , 1 8
Comment: See b. Yev. 37a. This is an abbreviation of the full citation

there.
IILii. 16.A. Hillel the Elder used to interpret common speech.
B. For it has been taught (DTNY>):
The men of Alexandria used to betroth their wives, and when they
would enter the marriage-canopy, others would come and seize them
(>WTM) from them (MHN).
C. And sages sought to declare their children mamt(erim.
D. Said Hillel the Elder to them, "Bring me your mother's Ketuvah
[sing.]." They brought to him the Ketuvah of their mother, and he
found written therein, 'When you enter the huppah,you mil be my wife*"
E. And they did not declare their children marnêrim.
(b. B.M. 104a)
Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, y. Yev. 15:3, y. Ket. 4:8. Here part A,
integral to the earlier versions, stands before the formal superscription
TNY\ The context is a set of pericopae on authorities who interpreted
the language of ordinary people: Meir, Hillel, Joshua b. Qorhah. Yo
hanan comments on Joshua b. Qorhah's story. Then comes Yosi, on
whose saying Rabina and Maremar remark. Thus the terminus ante quern
is supplied by Yohanan for one element in the whole set. Otherwise it is
without identifying marks of Amoraic interest or discussion. Hence we
do not know who cited Hillel's story or how the whole collection was
originally shaped for inclusion in the Babylonian Talmud.
111.11.17. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Hillel the Elder had
eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy (R'WYM) that the Shekhinah rest on them as Moses our rabbi. Thirty of them were worthy
that the sun stand for them as Joshua b. Nun. Twenty of them were
average.
The greatest of them was Jonathan b. Uzziel, the least was Rabban
Yohanan b. Zakkai.
(b. B.B. 134a)
c
Comment: See y. Ned. 5:6, b. Suk. 28a, above. The context is a col
lection of Jonathan b. 'Uzzielmaterials. Preceding is the story of
Jonathan's confounding Shammai; then comes an intervening story,
finally the above. Immediately following is a long encomium ('MRW
LYW) on Yohanan b. Zakkai, in which Abbaye and Rava are referred
to. At the end comes a further beraita about Jonathan b. Uzziel: "When
he sat and studied the Torah, every bird that flew over him was burned."
Hillel figures as part of the background for a conflict of beraitot\
Jonathan b. 'Uzziel's vs. Yohanan b. Zakkai's. The whole comes from
fourth-century Pumbedita, or later.
C
111.11.18. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN):
H I L L E L III.ii.19, IV.i.l
265
A. Since the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died,

the Holy Spirit departed from Israel. Even so, they used the echo.
B. Once (P'M 'HT) the rabbis were reclining in the upper chamber
of Guria's (GWRYH) house at Jericho, and an echo gave [ = came]
upon them from heaven [saying], "There is here one who is worthy
(R'WY) that the Shekhinah should rest on him as on Moses our rabbi,
but his generation is not righteous (ZK'Y) for it."
Sages set their eyes on Hillel the Elder.
C. And when he died, they said, "Alas, the pious man, the humble
man, the disciple of Ezra."
(b. Sanh. 11a)
Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:3. The context is a story about
Gamaliel II and Samuel the Small. Then comes a story in which Judah
the Patriarch had a somewhat similar encounter with Hiyya. Stories fol
low about Meir, again Samuel the Small, and biblical heroes, who sup
ply precedents for the behavior of Samuel the Small. After the above
pericope is the story of the echo's message about Samuel the Small, then
Samuel's death-scene, finally Judah b. Baba's failure to receive a similar
funeral oration. The context is therefore no different from the Tos. and
y. Sot.: Samuel the Small-Judah b. Baba-Hillel.
No Amoraic authorities appear in connection with the Hillel-peri
cope, and the stories contain no glosses attributable to later authorities.
III.ii.19. DTNY>: It was related (>MRW <LYW <L) of Hillel the

Elder that he used to wrap them [the unleavened bread, bitter herbs,
and paschal meat] at once (BBT 'HT), as it is said, They shall eat it
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Num. 9:11).
(b. Zev. 79a)
Comment: The discussion is whether the commandments can nullify
one another. The beraita is quoted to show Hillel holds the tastes of the
several foods do not nullify one another. The passage is anonymous.
The double-superscription is standard.
IV.i.l. Hillel the Elder said, "These [tefillin] are from my mother's
father."
(y. <Eruv. 10:1, repr. Gilead, p. 59b)
Comment:
See, for Shammai, I.i.l, Mekh. Pisha III, lines 209-216,
trans. Lauterbach, I, p. 157. Now Hillel rather than Shammai refers to
his grandfather's tefillin. The whole passage is as follows:
T N Y : " O n e m u s t i n s p e c t tefillin o n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s , " t h e w o r d s o f
Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch].
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "They d o n o t require inspection."
Hillel t h e E l d e r says, " T h e s e a r e . . . "
266
HILLEL IV.i.2
As in Shammai's case, also here the saying of Hillel could not have cir
culated separately, but must have been preserved in the context of the
dispute around the opinions of Simeon and his son Judah. Simeon b.
Gamaliel II now has the opinion of the Shammaites, and Judah, of the
Hillelites. Hillel supplies proof for the opinion of Simeon b. Gamaliel,
according to the commentary Qprban Edah: "These tefillin were never
inspected and remain in the presumption that they are valid."
It is curious to find a House of Hillel-House of Shammai debate in
the form of Simeon vs. Judah the Patriarch, with Hillel, rather than
Shammai, cited in support of Simeon's (= House of Shammai's) opin
ion. I cannot account for the anomaly.
c
IV.i.2.A. For three things did Hillel come up from Babylonia.

B. He is clean (Lev. 13:17b). One might think he should go free
and [be allowed to] go his way. Scripture says (TLMWD LWMR),
And the priest will declare him clean (Lev. 13:17a).
If the priest declares him clean, [then] one might [say], If the priest
says unclean to be clean, let it be clean. Scripture says, He is clean and
the priest will declare him clean (Lev. 13:17).
C. On this [account] Hillel came up from Babylonia.
D. One Scripture says, And you will sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your
God [from the] flock and herd (Deut. 16:2); and one Scripture says,
From the sheep and the goats you will take [it] (Ex.12 :5). How then?
Sheep for the pesah, and sheep and oxen for the hagigah.
E. One Scripture says, Six days will you eat massot, and one Scripture
says, Seven days will you eat massot (Deut. 16:8, Ex. 12:15). How then?
Six from the new, and seven from the old.
F. And he expounded and caused [them] to agree (H$KYM) and
came up (<LH) and received (QBL) law (HLKH).
(y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, p. 39b-40a)
Comment: The pericope follows the y. Pes. 6:1 story of the rise of
Hillel to be nasi. The thematic connection is obvious, out the view of
Hillel's previous preparation is quite different. Here Hillel comes up as
a learned man and forthwith is able to correct various false opinions;
earlier, his traditions are attributed to Shema iah and Abtalion.
The pericope is garbled. The superscription, part A, leads us to ex
pect three clearcut cases, and its reappearance in part C signifies the end
of either the whole list (impossible), or one of three equivalent forms.
Parts D and E are different both in subject and in form; and part F is the
wrong subscription for the pericope. It belongs with the sons-ofBathyra-stories, not here. But its appearance is therefore all the more
important, for it underlinesechoing the story of the disputethat it
was Hillel's own mastery of Torah that had led to his rise to power, not
the traditions he had learned in Palestine.
c
HILLEL IV.i.3
267
The pericopae are classic harmonizations of apparently conflicting

verses. Part B contrasts two parts of the same verse and harmonizes
them; parts D and E do the same with separate Scriptures. The method
is identical in all cases. Were parts D and E not attached, we should not
have known that to Hillel was attributed the exegesis. All three parts,
B, C, and E, could have circulated separately. Only part B is elsewhere
given in HillePs name (Sifra Tazri'a 9:16). The theme (Passover) of D
and E supplies the connection to HillePs rise to power, attached by part
F to the foregoing stories. Hillel plays no part in the exegeses, which
are not dramatized.
We may take it for granted that a stock-phrase, on this account Hillel
came up from Babylonia did indeed circulate by itself, to be added as a
superscription or subscription in a number of contexts, e.g. Sifra Tazri'a
9:16, Tos. Nega'im 1:16. Some sort of stock-phrase such as part F
served the same purpose. It is reminiscent, if in a different form, of the
earlier pericope, he was sitting and expounding to them all day long. They did
not accept from him until he said to them, May [evil] come upon me if I have
[not] heard thus from Shema'iah and Abtalion. When they had heardfrom him
thus, they arose and appointed him nasi over them. Here the common elements
are expound and receive. The more primitive form is the one before us. It
may be that at the outset came a simple stock-phrase, something like
expounded, agreed and arose [over them] accepted [him], that is, a set of verbs
later on supplied with personal endings (hejthey) and still later, with the
context (migration!rise to power).
All this is conjecture. What is certain is the existence of certain stockphrases attached to various contexts on account of them (uncleanness,
Passover laws) and given a historical framework (came up from Baby
lonia, became nasi). The tendency to historicize exegeses into Hillelnarratives is analogous. The whole historical tradition on HillePs migra
tion and rise to power comes to us in a complex, highly developed state.
Nothing remains as a still primitive saying, in a few words, containing
a simple point. Everything has been recast into long and substantial
stories. All stories in their present form exhibit the marks of composites
of existing, finished pericopae. We have no primitive Hillel-story in any
extant compilation. The elements forming the composite pericopae are
themselves so fully articulated that even the prior levels of develop
ment are no longer to be uncovered. The Houses-pericopae, by con
trast, are much briefer and simpler, as we shall see.
IV.i.3.A. WhenHillel the Elder saw them observing [it] in pride (PHZ),
he said to them, "If we are here, who is here? Does he need our praises? Is it
not written (Daniel 7:10), A thousand serve him and myriads of myriads rise
before him ?"
B. When he saw them behaving properly (BKWSR), he would say, "If we
are not here, who is here? For even though there is before him much
praise, the praise of Israel is more beloved before him than all."
"What is the reason (T'JVP): And pleasant are the praises of Israel (II
268
HILLEL IV.i.4, 5
Sam. 23:2). He who is enthroned over the praises of Israel (Ps. 22:3)."
(y. Suk. 5:4, repr. Gilead, p. 24a)
Comment: The context is the same as b. Suk. 53a, reports on the Re
joicing at the Place of Drawing Water. The Hillel-logia are all in Ara
maic, in italics; in b. Suk. they are in beraita-Hebtew. The sayings, ear
lier characterized as popular aphorisms given a theological interpreta
tion in b. Suk. 53a, are here set into a completely historical, this-worldly,
and moral framework. The saying If I am here is now plural. The point
is that "we Jews are nothing, and God does not need us." The negative
formulation, in part B, is likewise provided with a historical-biographi
cal setting: When he saw them... he would say. So the saying becomes an
apophthegm.
Since the passage is not introduced by a Tannaitic superscription, I
have not characterized it as such. But the primary logia must be re
garded as independent of either a theological or a historical setting; to
Hillel were attributed highly enigmatic sayings, and later redactors did
their best to invent appropriate narrative or historical circumstances to
make sense of them. Nothing in context supplies a hint as to Amoraic
authorities that might have discussed, or have been responsible for the
inclusion of, the pericope in its present form.
IV.i.4. R. Levi said, "A scroll of genealogies did they find in
Jerusalem, and written in it was, 'Hillel from David'..."
(y. Ta. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 20b)
Comment: Levi's tradition continues by listing others' genealogies as
well. Further traditions are supplied by Yannai. This is the first refer
ence to the Davidic origins of Hillel. Since the patriarch claimed to
descend from Hillel, and since he also claimed to descend from David,
it was of course important to find such a scroll. The first evidences of
the patriarchal claim to Davidic ancestry thus come with Judah the
Patriarch at the end of the second century. They are important in his
relationships with the exilarchs of the same period, who claimed Davidic
descent from the male line; the best the patriarchate could do was
through the female line. On the Davidic origin of Hillel, see my History
I, pp. 190-1. Clearly, the tradition at the earliest comes in the third cen
tury. Hillel's Davidic origins play no role in stories about his rise to
power, nor does the theme occur elsewhere in Hillel-materials. It is a
late allegation in response to the political-theological needs of the pa
triarch. But its absence from other stories proves not that they are ear
lier, merely different.
IV.i.5.A. R. Jacob b. Idi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi:
B. The story is told (M SH ) that elders entered the upper room
of Gedya (GDYY*) in Jericho. An echo came forth and said to them,
"There are among you two who are worthy of the Holy Spirit, and
C
HILLEL IV.ii.l
269
Hillel the Elder is one of them," and they set their eyes on Samuel the
Small.
C. Again the Elders entered the upper room in Yavneh, and an
echo said [as above], and Samuel the Small is one of them, and they
set their eyes on Rabbi Leazar....
(y. A.Z. 3:1, repr. Gilead, p. 18b = y. Hor.
3:5, repr. Gilead, p. 19b)
Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:13, etc. The named tradents
supply a terminus ante quern. For further comment, see synopses, below.
IV.ii.l.A. These two disciples were sitting before Hillel, one of

them was R. Yohanan b. Zakkaiothers state, before Rabbi [Judah
the Patriarch], and one of them was R. Yohanan.
B. One said, "Why do they vintage (BSR) [grapes] in cleanness,yet do
not gather (M$Q) [olives] in cleanness?"
The other said, " Why do they vintage in cleanness, yetgather in uncleanness ?"
C. He said, " / am certain concerning this one that he will teach instruction
(HWR>H) in Israel."
And the days were not few (MW'TYM) [sic] before he taught instruction
in Israel.
(b. Pes. 3b)
Comment: The italicized portions are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic.
Thus the framework of the story is told in Aramaic, while the supposed
direct discourse of the schoolsthe legal questions of the disciples and
the teacher's commentare in Hebrew. This would suggest the story
teller took it for granted that the language of the schools' legal studies
was Hebrew, while the ordinary language of story-telling (and other
discourse) was Aramaic.
A story about Rabbi and Yohanan or about Hillel and Yohanan b.
Zakkai certainly comes from the third century, if not later. No accurate
materials from Hillel's actual school could have persisted. The circle
that told the story took for granted that Yohanan b. Zakkai was Hillel's
outstanding student, presumably because the chain of M. Avot was by
now well known. We do not have to suppose that mentioning Yohanan
b. Zakkai was to stress that Yohanan, not Gamaliel, was the leading
disciple. The reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai is routine and common
place, not polemical.
The context is stories and sayings about careful choice of words. The
discussion begins with an analysis of the language of the Mishnah. Then
follow various logia about using "clean language." Immediately pre
ceding is a saying about two disciples before Rav, with much the same
point as the Hillel-pericope. The following stories are on the same
theme. No hint as to the redactor of the whole passage can be found.
The pericope is to be classified as a biographical narrative.
270
HILLEL IV.ii.2, 3
The legal materials recur in Shammai-Hillel stories, below, p. 319.

Hillel asks the same question of Shammai. This story thus dramatizes
the materials of legal pericopae, which are taken for granted as decided
law, therefore are earlier.
IV.ii.2. Resh Laqish said, "Lo I am the expiation (KPRH) of R.
Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times, when the Torah was for
gotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylonia and established it.
It was again forgotten. Hillel the Babylonian came up and established
it. Yet again it was forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and
established it."
(b. Suk. 20a, trans. I. W. Slotki, p. 86-7)
Comment: Resh Laqish's saying, preserved only in the Babylonian
Talmud though he was a Palestinian, provides the most striking and ex
treme statement of the view that Hillel was fully educated when he
came from Babylonia. He "restored the Torah" to Palestine! The saying
is dated in the mid-third century, and links the three great Babylonians
of pre-Amoraic times, Ezra, Hillel, and Hiyya. That it does not occur
in the Palestinian Talmud is for obvious reasons. The point of Resh
Laqish's reference to R. Hiyya and his sons is his quotation of a saying
in their name about a Mishnaic dispute between R. Dosa and the sages
about the reed-mats of Usha (in Palestine) and of Tiberias. The logion
quoted above serves as an elaborate superscription for the legal saying
attributed to Hiyya and his sons by Resh Laqish. Still, we have no
grounds to suppose the superscription is conventional, a well-known
tradition now used by Resh Laqish (or the redactor of his saying). With
no parallel versions, the pericope is to be attributed to Resh Laqish.
IV.ii.3. A. [That which is crooked cannot be made straight and that which
is wanting cannot be restored (Qoh. 1:15).J
Ben He He said to Hillel, "Instead of to be restored /"/ ought to be to
be filled! It must therefore refer to one of whose fellows reckoned him
for the performance of a religious act, but he would not be reckoned
with them...."
B. Ben He He said to Hillel, "What is the meaning of the Scripture,
Then shall you again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him
that serves God and him that does not (Mai. 3:18). The righteous is the same
as he that served God, the wicked is the same as he that does not serve God"
He answered him, "He that serves him and he that does not both refer to
such as are perfectly righteous. But he that repeated his chapter a hundred
times is not to be compared with him who repeated it a hundred and
one times."
Said he to him, "And because of one time is he called 'him that serves not? "
9
271
HILLEL IV.ii.4, 5
He answered, "Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers* market: Ten

parasangs for one tût^, eleven for two"
(b. Hag. 9b)
Comment: In addition to Scriptures, the use of italics signifies Ara
maic.
Another quite unique pericope, part A has Hillel as auditor; he says
nothing. This is curious. The form requires a reply; the pericope there
fore looks to be faulty.
In part B, Ben He He raises a standard exegetical problem, and Hillel
"solves" it by ignoring the question, the context, and the sense of the
Scripture, claiming that the Scripture speaks entirely of perfectiy right
eous people, but among them the one who has studied even one more
time is superior and will be discerned apart from the wicked. The exe
gesis is incredible, and Ben He He says so. Hillel's reply is that small
distinctions make a great difference.
I do not know what to make of this strange pericope. While in form
it is not unlike the three things exegeses (y. Pes. 6:1), that means little,
since the exegetical device of contrasting parts of Scriptures or separate
Scriptures and arriving at a harmonization of their supposed conflicts is
commonplace. Indeed the pericope looks like a standard exegesis rou
tinely assigned to Hillel, for reasons unknown to me. I have no notion
who first told the story, or why, or what led to its inclusion and pre
servation in the Hillel-tradition. The classification is an exegesis of con
flicting elements of Scripture. No Amoraic masters are mentioned in
context. In the following pericope, Elijah the prophet and Bar He He
(or R. Eleazar b. Pedat) discuss the meaning of Is. 58:10.
5
IV.ii.4. A. ( MRW <LYW L). It was related about Hillel the Elder
that he bought for one certain poor man son of good [family] a horse
to ride upon and a slave to run before him.
B. One time he did not find a slave to run before him, and he ran
before him three miles.
(b. Ket. 67b)
Comment:
See Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, y. Pe'ah 8:7. Here the exegesis of
Deut. 15:8 is retained, but the Scripture is dropped. The passage is in
a beraita, see synopses. Now Hillel runs before the mancertainly a late
addition. The context is sayings about providing for the poororphans,
then the impoverished. Afterwards comes the Galilean story, then an
application for sustenance to R. Nehemiah and Rava. The context is
standard Babylonian gemara: well-organized pericopae around a coher
ent theme.
5
IV.ii.5. When R. Dimi came, he said, "Hillel and Shebna were

brothers. Hillel engaged in Torah and Shebna in business ('YSQ ).
Eventually, he (Shebna*) said to him (Hillel), 'Let us become partners
5
272
HILLEL IV.ii.6, 7
(N RWB) and divide.' An echo went out and said, If a man would give
all the substance of his house (Song 8:7)."
(b. Sot. 21a)
Comment: The whole story is in Aramaic. The attribution to Dimi
places the story in the late third century. When Dimi came is the standard
introductory formula for his sayings in the Babylonian Talmud. The
point is that the reward for studying Torah far exceeds worldly profit,
and it therefore was an unfair deal.
The antecedent materials deal with the merit for studying Torah and
practicing the commandments. No reference is made to Hillel-Shebna\
Ulla refers to the story of Hillel and Shebna*, so the Palestinian venue of
the story is definite; but in Palestine the standard, when Dimi came super
scription would not have been used, and Ulla does not quote Dimi,
merely refers to the story. Hence it may have antedated Dimi by some
years. No other traditions on Hillel refer to a brother, or to Shebna by
name. We have no way of knowing who first told the story; its homiletical appropriateness is clear, and it may well serve as an exegesis of Song
8:7 without a teaching in generalized form. We of course cannot be
sure that this is our Hillel.
c
IV.ii.6. [Mishnah: Hillel forbade.]

R. Nahman in Samuel's name said, "The law follows Hillel's ruling."
The law is nevertheless not in accordance with him.
[Mishnah: And thus Hillel used to say.]
Rav Judah in Samuel's name said, "This is Hillel's view."
"But the sages maintained, One may borrow and repay uncondition
ally."
Rav Judah in Samuel's name said, "The members of a company
who are particular with each other transgress [the prohibition of]
measure, weight, number, borrowing, and repaying on the festival,
and, according to Hillel, usury too."
(b. B.M. 75a, trans. E. W. Kirzner, p. 433)
Comment: Hillel's teaching in the Mishnah is discussed by Rav Judah
and Samuel.
IV.ii.7.A. Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] said, "Three were humble,
my father, the Bene Bathyra, and Jonathan b. Saul..."
B. The Bene Bathyra, as a Master said, "They placed him at the
head and appointed him nasi over them
"
C. But how does this prove it? Bene Bathyra... because they saw
that Hillel was their superior [in learning, and not because they were
humble].
(b. B.M. 85a)
HILLEL
IV.ii.8,
273
V.i.l
Comment: The reference to Bene Bathyra on Rabbi Judah's part in

dicates that an account of Hillel's rise which included their abdication
(deposition) was known to him. This proves that the superscriptions
and subscriptions in which Bathyrans are mentioned must have circu
lated by his time. But the substance of the several accounts is not here
to be dated one way or the other. The brief logion in part B is merely an
allusion to the well-known "events." By itself it could have meant noth
ing and did not circulate apart from the longer stories, if only because
here we do not know who they and him are.
It is striking that the first patriarch to refer to Hillel at all, let alone to
call him "my forefather," is Judah the Patriarch. Gamaliel II and Simeon
b. Gamaliel II never refer to Hillel or comment on Hillel-pericopae, nor
do Gamaliel I or Simeon b. Gamaliel I. By contrast, both Yavneans and
Ushans can be held responsible for comments on Hillel-sayings and
stories, indeed for making up some of them to begin with. Gamaliel II
does refer to the Shammaite rulings of his father, Simeon b. Gamaliel I,
so one might also have expected references to Hillel, the alleged ances
tor of the post-70 patriarchate, if anyone had actually claimed Hillel was
that ancestor. It looks as if the Hillelite origins of the patriarchate derive
from after Bar Kokhban times, but before Levi took for granted that
Judah the Patriarch descended from Hillel and therefore alleged that
Hillel came from David. This places the patriarchal claim to Hillel as a
forefather sometime before, or early in, the patriarchate of Judah the
Patriarch.
IV.ii.8. Rava said, "One may deduce from the ordinance of Hillel
that if a husband said to his wife, 'Here is thy bill of divorce..."'
(b. <Arakh. 31b)
Comment: Rava's comment pertains to the Mishnaic ordinance of
Hillel concerning redemption of a house. Rava's principle is that since
Hillel had to ordain that in this case, giving against the donee's will is
considered valid, elsewhere it is not. R. Papa, Shimi, and R. Ashi fur
ther discuss the same matter.
V.i.l.A. He [ = Hillel] used to say, "If I'm here, all's here; if I'm
not here, who's here?"
B. Once Hillel the Elder was walking along the road and met men
carrying wheat. "At how much a se ah?" he asked them.
"Two denars" they replied.
Then he met others; he asked them, "At how much a se ah?"
"Three denars" they said.
"But the former said two!" he protested.
"Stupid Babylonian!" they retorted, "Knowest thou not that 'ac
cording to the painstaking is the reward'!"
"Wretched fools!" he answered, "Is this the way you retort to my
question?"
y
18
274
HILLEL V.i.2, 3, 4
C. What did Hillel the Elder do with them? He brought them to a

correct understanding.
(ARN Chap. 12, trans. Goldin, p. 70)
V.i.2. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai took over from Hillel and
Shammai.
Eighty disciples Hillel the Elder had. Thirty of them were worthy
to have the Shekhinah rest upon them as upon Moses, our rabbi, but
their generation was unworthy of it. Thirty of them were worthy to
intercalate the year, and twenty were middling. The greatest of them
all was Jonathan ben Uzziel. The least of them all was Rabban Yoha
nan ben Zakkai.
c
V.i.3. He used to say:

"The more one eats, the more he eliminates.
"The more flesh, the more worms and maggots.
"But the more good works (the more) one brings peace to himself."
V.i.4. Seven rules of interpretation Hillel the Elder expounded
before the Bene Bathyra, to wit:
A. fortiori, analogy, deduction from one verse, deduction from two
verses, (inference) from general and particular, from particular and
general, similarity elsewhere, deduction from context.
These are the seven rules which Hillel the Elder expounded before
the Bene Bathyra.
Comment: V.i.l.A cites the Sukkot-szying,
but outside of the context
of the festival.
V.i.l.B is a highly developed story. In earlier materials Hillel is never
called stupid Babylonian, z stock-insult applied to late-second century
Babylonian migrants to Palestine, and used afterward as well. To my
knowledge it does not occur in reference to earlier migrants. Nathan
the Babylonian is not so named, for example. But the story obviously is
a narrative, highly developed gloss on Avot; according to the painstaking is
the reward is surely late. The subscription likewise represents a common
place theme in later stories about the patience of Hillel. It corrects the
impression that Hillel might have injured the men. The story presum
ably ended with ...my question.
V.i.2 is the familiar pericope, see y. Ned. 5:6 etc., copied without
significant alteration.
HILLEL Vl.i.l, 2; Vl.iii.l, 2
275
V.i.3 is an augmentation of Avot 2:5-7, supplying still more con

trasts built on the same generative formula.
V.i.4 is copied from Tos. Sanh. 7:11 without much change.
As we have seen {Development, pp. 159-187), late midrashic compila
tions either copy earlier materials verbatim, or invent new ones with
out a substantial basis in earlier traditions. V.i.l.A, 2 and 4 illustrate
the former phenomenon, V.i.l.B the latter. Only V.i.3 diverges from
the normal pattern; the divergence is not very considerable.
Vl.i.l. UntilShiloh comes (Gen. 49:10).
The rabbis debated, From whom was Hillel descended?
R. Levi said, "A genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem in
which it was written, Hillel was descended from David, R. Hiyya the
Elder from Shephatiah son of Abital, the house of Kalba Shavu'a
from Kaleb, the house of Sisit Hakeset from Abner..."
(Gen. R. 98:8)
Comment: See y. Ta. 4:2
VI.i.2. ...Hillel the Elder came up from Babylonia, and he was
forty years old; and served the sages forty years; and served Israel
forty years...
(Gen. R. 100:24, ed. Theodor-Albeck, III, p.
1295)
Comment: See Sifr6 Deut. 357. The pericope also occurs in Midrash
Tannaim to Deut. 34:7. No changes occur in this version. Hillel had to
study after his migration, but the point is standard and conventional,
not polemical.
Vl.iii.l. So too did Hillel say, "My self-abasement is my exaltation,
and my self-exaltation, my abasement."
What is the proof (T M) ? He that raises himself is to sit down, he that
abases himself is to be seen (Ps. 113:5).
(Lev. R. 1:5)
C
Comment: The saying is cited in late compilations, e.g. Ex. R. 45:5.

The saying does not appear earlier. It is not so enigmatic as the Sukkotsayings, but means simply that it is hopeless to pursue honor.
VI.iii.2.A. The merciful man does good to his own soul (Prov. 11:17).
This applies to Hillel the Elder.
Hillel the Elder, when he concluded his studies with his disciples,
walked along.
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, Where are you going?"
He answered them, "To do a misvah"
276
Hillel
HILLEL VI.iii.2
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
II.i
Mishnah
1 . Hillel w o u l d
fold together
massah, b i t t e r
h e r b s , etc.
M e k h . deR.
Simeon b.
Y o h a i p. 1 3
1.12
2. W h o e v e r
t o u c h e s insect is
uncleaneven if
in a ritual p o o l
Sifra S h e m i n i
9:5
3 . Itch w i t h i n
itch: O n this
a c c o u n t Hillel
came up f r o m
Babylonia
Sifra Tazri'a
9:16
4. Redeem prop
e r t y at e n d o f y e a r
Sifra B e h a r 4 : 8
5. Stimulated
students
Sifre Num. 1 2 3
6.
M. Shev. 1 0 : 3 ;
Sifre Deut.
1 1 3 ; Mid. Tan., M . Git. 4 : 3
p. 80
Pro^hul
7. Lived onehundred-twenty
years
Sifre Deut. 3 5 7
Midrash Tannaim to Deut.
34:2
8 . W h o uses t h e
c r o w n shall p e r i s h
Midrash Tannaim p. 2 1 1
H I L L E L VI.iii.2
Il.ii
Tosefta
T o s . Pisha 2 : 2 2
IH.i
Tannaitic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
y . Hal. 1 : 1
b. Pes. 1 1 5 a
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
277
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
b. Z e v . 79a
(Compare y.
Pes. 6 : 1 )
Tos. Neg. 1 : 1 6
(Compare y.
Pes. 6 : 1 )
M . <Arakh. 9 : 4
b. G i t . 7 4 b
Tos. Ahilot 1 6 : 8
Tos. Parah 4 : 7
y. S h e v . 1 0 : 2
b. G i t . 3 6 a
G e n . R. 1 0 0 : 2 4
Avot 1:13
Avot 4:5
9. Forbade inter
est in k i n d
M. B.M. 5:9
10. Apophthegms
a n d sayings
M. Avot 1 : 1 2 -
Tos. B.M. 6 : 1 0
b. S h a b . 1 4 8 b
b. B . M . 75a
b. S u k . 5 3 a
(skull)
14; 2:5-7
1 1 . Six moral
sayings
Tos. Ber. 2 : 2 1 ,
6:24
y. Ber. 9 : 5
(scatter/gather)
12. Bought horse

and slave for
p o o r man
Tos. P e ' a h 4 : 1 0
y. Pe'ah 8 : 7
1 3 . i & liability
f o r tithes
Tos. Ma'aserot
3 : 2 - 4 = Tos.
<Ed. 2 : 4
1 4 . Pesah o v e r
rides Sabbath
T o s . Pisha 4 : 1 3 ;
Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1 1
y. S h a b . 1 9 : 1
y . Pes. 6 : 1
A R N Chap. 28
(the m o r e . . . t h e
more...)
b. B e r . 6 3 a
(scatter/gather)
b. K e t . 6 7 b
b. P e s . 6 6 a - b
(b. B . M . 8 5 a )
A R N Chap. 37 =
Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1 1
278
HILLEL VI.iii.2
HILLEL VI.iii.2
1 5 . If y o u will
come to m y house
Tos. Suk. 4 : 3
16. Expounded
Alexandrian
Ketuvah
Tos. Ket. 4 : 9
y. Y e v . 1 5 : 3
y. K e t . 4 : 8
b. B . M . 1 0 4 a
1 7 . W a s worthy of
the Holy Spirit
Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 3
y. S o t . 9 : 1 3
b. S a n h . 1 1 a
b. S o t . 4 8 b
y. Ber. 9 : 3
b. B e r . 6 0 a
y. Ned. 5 : 6
b. S u k . 2 8 a
b. B . B . 1 3 4 a
1 8 . D o n o t fear
report
1 9 . Had eighty
(pair) o f disciples
b. S u k . 5 3 a
b. P e s . 6 4 b
2 1 . S t u d i e d as a
poor man
b. Y o m a 3 5 b
2 2 . Ten geneal
o g i c a l classes ( ? )
b. Y e v . 3 7 a
b. Q i d . 7 5 a
2 3 . N o one tres
passed t h r o u g h
burnt-offering
b. Ned. 9 b
b. Pes. 6 6 b
25. For three

things did Hillel
migrate (nos. 2-3)
2 6 . Hillel f r o m
David
A R N Chap. 1 2
i
20. Man crushed

in Temple court
i n d a y s o f Hillel
2 4 . These are m y
g r a n d f a t h e r ' s tefillin
y. Suk. 5 : 4
y. A . Z . 3 : 1 =
y. Hor. 3 : 5
b. Sot. 4 8 b
y . <Eruv. 1 0 : 1
[ = Shammai
M e k h . Pisha III
209-216]
|y. Pes. 6 : 1
y. Ta. 4 . 2
G e n . R. 9 8 : 8
2 7 . T w o disciples
b e f o r e Hillel
b. Pes. 3 b
2 8 . Ezra, Hillel,
and Hiyya restored
Torah
b. Suk. 20a
29. Ben He He
b. Hag. 9b
3 0 . Hillel a n d
Shebna*
b. Sot. 2 1 a
31. How much

w h e a t p e r se*ah
279
1
i
j
A R N Chap. 1 2
3 2 . M y selfa b a s e m e n t is m y
exaltation
L e v . R. 1 : 5
3 3 . T o w a s h is a
religious duty
L e v . R. 3 4 : 3
280
HILLEL VI.iii.2
They said to him, "What misyah does Hillel do?"

He said to them, "To wash in the bath."
They said to him, "And is this a misyah?*
He replied, "Yes. If the statues of kings, erected in their theaters and
circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look
after them and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them
nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom
how much more so I, who have been created in the image and likeness,
as it is written, For in the image of God made he man (Gen. 9:6)!"
B. Another explanation [of Prov. 11:17]: This is Hillel the Elder.
Hillel the Elder, when he had concluded his studies with his dis
ciples, walked along.
His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, Where are you bound?"
He replied, "To bestow kindness upon a guest in the house."
They asked, "Have you a guest every day?"
He replied, "Is not the poor soul a guest in the body?
Today it is here and tomorrow no longer."
(Lev. R. 34:3, trans. J . J . Slotki, pp. 428-9; ed.
Margoliot IV, pp. 776-7)
Comment: The pericope is a singleton, with no roots in the earlier
Hillel-tradition. Part A is in Hebrew, part B in Aramaic. Both pericopae
begin with Scripture + This is Hillel the Elder. Then comes the story.
The story serves as a narrative exegesis of the Scripture. Hillel is set into
a colloquy with his students, but the comment on Scripture could have
been stated in the third person, and without the dramatic situation.
ii. SYNOPSES
1. Would Fold Together

Mekhilta de R.
Simeon b. Yohai
p. 13 1. 12
1. Ex. 1 2 : 8
Tos. Pisha
2. I t is a mist ah
3 . Hillel t h e E l d e r
would fold them
together ( K W R K N
2 H B Z H ) a n d eat
them
4.
2.
2:22
y.Hal.
1:1
1.
3 91 99
three of them
99
4.
99
99
2.
3 . [ O m i t s : to
gether. .. and eat
them]
4.
b. Pes.
115a
1. TNY> They
said o f Hillel
2.
3 . that,,
t h e m at once
( B B T >HT) a n d
eat t h e m .
4 . As
Num.
it is said
9:11
b. Zev.
1.
79a
=b.
Pes.
=b.
Pes.
2.
3.
4. M W M =
Pes.
The two Babylonian versions are identical, except that b. Zev. 79a
adds because (MSWM), a minor change. The version of Mekhilta deR.
b.
HILLEL
281
SYNOPSES
Simeon is briefest. Tos. Pisha adds the three of them, apparently to

clarify what we are talking about. The omission of the Scriptural
citation (Ex. 12:8/Num. 9:11) may have necessitated the more expli
cit statement, y. Hal. 1:1 drops would eat themperhaps because it was
obvious. The Babylonian versions have entirely lost, or dropped, the
exegetical framework of Ex. 12:8, so HillePs action is no longer an
"illustration" or a narrative pertinent to that Scripture. Another Scrip
ture, Num. 9:11, is cited now as justification for HillePs behavior,
rather than as an independent exegesis. The Babylonian beraita-fotm
comes last of all; the composite version of Mekhilta is the clearest
version, since it preserves the relationship between the exegesis and
the Hillel-story, lost in both Tos. and Palestinian versions. It is in
teresting to see how the exegetical framework is later dropped, then
changed and restored, and the story circulates as an independent bio
graphical account.
2. For Three Things Did Hillel Come Up
Sifra She mini 9:5
1. Lev. 1 1 : 2 4
2 . Hillel says, E v e n
i f h e is i n t h e m i d s t
o f t h e w a t e r (etc.)
2'.
3.
4.
5.
Sifra Tazri'a
9:16
1. Lev. 1 3 : 3 7
2 . Hillel s a y s , L>
SNTQ N T Q
BTWK NTQ
2'.
3.
4 . P r i e s t declares
h i m clean.
5 . I f p r i e s t s say o f
clean u n c l e a n , a n d
vice versa, p e r h a p s
h e is c l e a n ?
Tos. Neg.
1:16
y. Pes.
6:1
2.
2.
2'. F o r three things

did Hillel c o m e u p
from Babylonia
3. Lev. 1 3 : 3 7
4. = Sifra 9 : 1 6
2'.
3.
4
*
5*
>
j>
6. Scripture says,
He is clean a n d
priest makes him
clean.
6.
7.
7. O n account of
t h i s m a t t e r Hillel
came up f r o m
Babylonia
8.
8.
7 . A n d t h i s is one
of the things o n ac
count of which
Hillel c a m e u p
from Babylonia
8.
5. =
Sifra 9 : 1 6
6. =
Sifra 9 : 1 6
7.
Sifra 9 : 1 6
8. [Contrast and
harmonization of
Deut. 1 6 : 2 , Ex.
1 2 : 5 ; Deut. 1 6 : 8 ,
Ex. 1 2 : 1 5 ]
282
9.
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
9.
9.
9. A n d he ex
pounded and
agreed and w e n t up
and received law.
c
Sifra Shemini has nothing to do with the other materials. Sifra Tazri a
and Tos. Neg. nos. 4-7 are identical, except that in no. 7, Tos. makes
the thing into one of the things, without listing others. The revision may
reflect knowledge of a tradition about other "reasons" for Hillel's
migration, part of the tendency that Hillel came up and restored the
Torah to Palestine. Or, alternatively, the subscription is a stock-phrase,
y. Pes. makes one of the things into three things, copies Sifra Tazri'a
word for word, and then adds, for the other two things, the conven
tional harmonizing exegeses (no. 8). At the end comes a new subscrip
tion (no. 9). This phrase makes no sense at all outside of the context
of the Bene Bathyra stories, to which the pericope is loosely attached
in y. Pes. So y. Pes. no. 9 is a redactional device, external to the peri
cope and linking it to the antecedent materials in context. Clearly the
tradition on the thing/things/three things on account of which Hillel
came up has been garbled. Some such list must have existed, perhaps
centered on purity laws and/or Passover rules for the Temple. But in
the versions that have reached us, we cannot find equivalents to the
purity law materials (nos. 4-6), and the others were probably added
later, with the awkward subscription supplied at the very end of the
process to give some semblence of order to the Palestinian version
and to tie it to the foregoing materials in y. Pes. about Hillel's rise to
power.
3. Redeem Property at End of Year
Sifra Behar 4:8
1. [Lev. 2 5 : 3 0 alluded t o : ]
LSMYTWT
2. T o i n c l u d e o n e
who
g i v e s a gift
3 . A t first h e w o u l d h i d e
on the day o f the t w e l v e
m o n t h s [ c o m p l e t i o n ] s o it
w o u l d be permanently sold
( H L W T H ) to him.
M. <Arakb.
9:4
1. W h e n the day of the
completion of the twelve
m o n t h s c o m e s a n d it is n o t
r e d e e m e d , it w a s p e r m a
n e n t l y s o l d t o h i m . I t is all
the same for one w h o buys
a n d o n e t o w h o m it is g i v e n
as a g i f t , as it is said
LSMYTWT.
b. Git.
1.
2.
2.
[as a b o v e ]
3
~'
74b
3. T N N H T M
11
11
11
HILLEL
4. Hillel the Elder ordained

5. t h a t h e s h o u l d a s s i g n his
coins in the T e m p l e fund
( L Y S K H ) and he w o u l d
break d o w n the d o o r and
enter.
6. W h e n e v e r he wants, that
o n e w i l l c o m e a n d t a k e his
coins
283
SYNOPSES
4
~*
ii
5
5
91
11
ii
ii
ii
ii
11
6.
[HLZof
Sifra becomes H L H ;
a d d s : and w h e n e v e r ]
6
99
99
11
The minor change in no. 6 of b. Git., supplying and, clarifies the sub
ject of the verb wants. Setting whenever apart from enter, we now are
clear that it is the purchaser who can choose the time, not the redeemer
of the property. But this was not unclear in the earlier versions, which
had supplied that one (HLZ, HLH) to clarify the same issue. Once the
Sifra version was fixed, it was cited with practically no modification.
The only important changes are in no. 1; the Mishnah superscription
conforms to the normal Mishnaic conventions, but the Hillel story is
unaffected.
4. Stimulated Students
See Development of a Legend, p. 199-201.
5. Pro^bul
SifriDeut.
113
1. Deut. 1 5 : 3
Midrash
4 . Hillel o r d a i n e d t h e
pro^bul.
5. O n account o f the
order of the w o r l d .
6. That [for] he saw
the people, that they
held back f r o m
lending to one
another.
7. A n d they trans
g r e s s e d a g a i n s t w h a t is
w r i t t e n in t h e T o r a h .
8. He arose and o r
d a i n e d t h e pro^bul.
80
1
j
2. B u t not he w h o
g i v e s his m o r t g a g e s t o
the court.
3. F r o m here they
said
Tannaim p.
"
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
M. Shev.
10:3-4
(cited b . G i t . 3 6 a )
1 . Pro^bul is not re
leased. This is one of the
things that Hillel the
Elder ordained.
2.
M.
Git.
4:3
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
ii
ii
ii
5.
5.
99
11
11
6.
6.
3.
said]
4
[ O m i t s : they
^*
ii
ii
ii
[ O m i t s : that]
When
6.
7.
7 . a n d were trans
gressing -}- Deut.
15:9
7.
8.
8.
[Omits:
arose and]
8.
284
9 . A n d t h i s is t h e
f o r m u l a o f t h e pro^bul
1 0 . I give t o you, soand-so and so-and so,
t h e j u d g e s t h a t a r e in
such-and-such a place,
every debt which I
h a v e , that I m a y collect
it w h e n e v e r I w a n t ,
a n d t h e j u d g e s seal
below, o r the witnesses.
11.
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
9.
'
10.
9.
11
11
11
10.
10
A
1 1 . And thus expounded

Hilleh D e u t . 1 5 : 3
but n o t he w h o gives
his m o r t g a g e s t o the
court.
v /
11.
11
11
11
11.
1 1 . And thus expounded

Hilleh D e u t . 1 5 : 3
but n o t he w h o gives
his m o r t g a g e s t o the
court.
As we observed above, Sifre Deut. 113 combines two versions of the

reason and basis for HillePs ordinance, an exegesis of Deut. 15:3 and
the order of the world. Midrash Tannaim preserves the former, nos. 1-4,
with practically no variations. M. Shev. preserves the latter, but now
supplies Deut. 15:9 as a proof-text; the proof-text has already provided
the outline of the historical "event" which Hillel had observed. M.
Shev. 10:3-4 knows nothing of the exegesis of Deut. 15:3; the gemara
in y. Shev. 10:2 raises the question of how Hillel could have ordained
a law in contravention of the Torah. M. Git. 4:3 is a brief summary
of nos. 4-5. Midrash Tannaim explicitly attributes to Hillel the anony
mous exegesis cited in nos. 1-2.
6. Lived One Hundred-Twenty Years
See Development of a Legend, p. 213-216.
7. Who Uses the Crown Shall Perish
No changes occur in the versions of the lemma in Midrash Tannaim,
p. 211, Avot. 1:13,4:5.
8. Forbade Interest in Kind
M. B.M.
5:9
1 . M a n s h o u l d n o t say t o h i s
f e l l o w , L e n d m e a kor o f w h e a t ,
a n d I s h a l l g i v e y o u at t h e h a r
v e s t , b u t h e says t o h i m , L e n d
me until m y son will come, o r
until I find the key.
Tos. B.M.
6:10
1 . A m a n says t o his f e l l o w ,
L e n d m e a keg of wine until my
son comes, or until I open the cis
tern. If he had a jar in the middle
of the cistern and the cistern was
opened and it fell and broke, even
though he is liable, it is permitted.
b. Sbab.
2 . A n d Hillel p r o h i b i t s
2.
3 . A n d s o w o u l d Hillel s a y :
ii
3.
ii
ii
148b
3. D T N N
HILLEL
4. A w o m a n m a y n o t l e n d a
l o a f t o h e r n e i g h b o r u n t i l she
d e t e r m i n e s its v a l u e in m o n e y ,
lest w h e a t i n c r e a s e in p r i c e a n d
they be f o u n d c o m i n g into the
hands of usury.
285
SYNOPSES
4.
4.
The Toseftan version preserves HiUd's prohibition (no. 2) but not

the case to which no. 2 refers in the Mishnah, and drops nos. 3-4
entirely, b. Shab. 148b simply preserves part of the Mishnah, without
significant variation.
9.
Scatter/Gather
6:24
y. Ber.
1 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says
Tos. Ber.
1.
2 . W h e n (B$<T) t h e y a r e
g a t h e r i n g ( K N S ) , scatter
(PZR)
3 . W h e n t h e y are scatter
ing, gather.
4 . W h e n y o u see t h a t t h e
T o r a h is b e l o v e d o n all
Israel a n d all a r e r e j o i c i n g
in i t , y o u b e s c a t t e r i n g in it,
as it is s a i d , P r o v . 1 1 : 2 4
5 . W h e n y o u see t h a t t h e
T o r a h is f o r g o t t e n f r o m
Israel, a n d n o t e v e r y o n e is
paying attention t o it, y o u
b e g a t h e r i n g it i n , as it is
said P r o v . 1 1 9 : 1 2 6
2.
(adds d
to
KNS),
scatter
(BDR)
3.
(BDR)
9:5
would say
4 . And so Hillel would

say, If y o u have seen
(BDR)
[Omits P r o v . 1 1 : 2 4 ]
5.
And
if not, gather
b. Ber. 63a
1 . T N Y > : Hillel t h e E l d e r
says
2 . B$<T H M K N Y S Y N
P Z R (as T o s . B e r . )
3 . B S ' T H M P Z R Y M (AS
Tos. Ber.)
4 . If you have seen a generation

u p o n w h o m t h e T o r a h is
b e l o v e d , s c a t t e r , as it is
said, P r o v . 1 1 : 2 4
5 . And if you have seen a gen
eration
upon
whom
the
Torah is not beloved, g a t h e r ,
as it is said P r o v . 1 1 9 : 1 2 6 .
The Babylonian berait a is based upon the Tos. version, and in some
ways improves it. First, the duplicated verbs of Tos. Ber. no. 5 are
made into a single, strong image; then the conclusion is imperative,
rather than participial, so that the reversed condition of no. 4, which
in y. Ber. is simply a brief allusion, is neatly spelled out in concise
language. No. 4 adds generation. The possibility of the Torah's being
forgotten is not raised in the Babylonian beraita. The Tosefta may
contain an echo of the Hiyya-saying that when the Torah was forgotten
in Israel, Ezra, Hillel, and Hiyya restored it, but here the message is
that, if it is forgotten, one should not get involved. The transforma
tion of the verbal participles of Tos. Ber. to substantive participles in
b. Ber. may not be of consequence. The Palestinian version presents
an abbreviated version of Tos. I assume all three versions are inter
dependent. Since the interdependence is not merely thematic but ver-
286
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
bal, b. Ber. 63a is almost certainly a careful revision of Tos. Ber.;

but y. Ber. is more of a rough precis. As usual, the Babylonian beraita
exhibits considerable stylistic improvements over earlier versions.
10. Bought Horse and Slave for Poor Man
y
y. Pe ab
Tos. Pe'ah 4 : 1 0
1 . Sufficient for his need, what
ever it may be ( D e u t . 1 5 : 8 )
even a slave, even a horse.
2 . M<SH B Hillel t h e E l d e r
that
2.
WHTNY
b. Ket. 67b
1. T N W R B N N :
e v e n a h o r s e to ride on a n d
a s l a v e to run before him.
2 . T h e y said
concerning
Hillel t h e E l d e r (>MRW
< L Y W <L)
3
3. bought f o r one p o o r
m a n , son o f g o o d [parents]
4. a horse that w a s w o r k i n g
for him
5. a n d a slave
serving him.
6.
8:7
11
11
11
99
99
91
( D r o p s : one)
4 . one h o r s e to ride on a n d a
s l a v e to run before him.
5 . [See N o . 4 a b o v e . ]
4 . one h o r s e to work
/Or
was
99
5.
99
to serve him
6. One time he did not find a

slave to run before him and he
ran before him three miles.
6.
Tos. Pe'ah turns the exegesis of Deut. 15:8 into a story about Hillel,
adding the glosses that was working... serving.... y. Pe^h preserves the
story, dropping the exegesis, and turning the descriptive participial
clauses of Tos. Pe'ah nos. 4-5 into purposive infinitives. The whole
is introduced as a Tannaitic tradition, b. Ket. 67b not only preserves,
but revises, the anonymous exegesis by adding to ride... to run before...,
and then, in the Hillel-pericope, makes a separate story out of the
revised exegesis in no. 6, preserving the Tos. -y. Pe'ah version in nos.
4-5, while in no. 1 making the same narrative alterations as had oc
curred in the exegesis of Deut. 15:8. I suppose a still later version
would have said Hillel could not find a horse, and so would have made
Hillel carry the man on his back.
The Babylonian superscription amru alav 'al ties the Hillel-story
to the exegesis; here the Tos. equivalent is ma'aseh.
y
11. Pesah Overrides SabbathRise to Power

Tos. Pisha
y. Pes.
6:1
1 . This law was hidden from
the Elders of Batyra.
4 : 1 3
1. One time
ii
2. the fourteenth
cided w i t h the
coin
ii
y. Shab.
19:1
b. Pes. 66a-b
1. T N W R B N N .
[ A s y . Pes.]
ii
2 . and they did not

know whether the pesah over
rides the Sabbath or not.
2 .
2
ii
ii
ii
[ A s y . Pes.]
287
HILLEL SYNOPSES
3 . T h e y a s k e d Hillel t h e
Elder
3 . They said, There is here a

certain Babylonian
and his
name is Hillel the Babylonian,
who served Shema'iah
and
Abtalion, knows whether pesah
overrides the Sabbath or not.
Perhaps there will be profit
from him. They sent and called
him. They said to him, Have
you ever heard when the four
teenth coincides with the Sab
bath whether it overrides the
the Sabbath or not}
4 . Pesahwhat
is it t h a t
it s h o u l d o v e r r i d e t h e
Sabbath?
4. [As above]
5 . H e said t o t h e m ,
5
6
6. D o
we have
one
pesah i n t h e y e a r t h a t
overrides the Sabbath?
7. Many
more
than
t h r e e h u n d r e d pesahs d o
w e h a v e in t h e y e a r a n d
they override the Sab
bath.
8. A l l the courtyard
collected against him.
99
99
99
91
11
11
3.
3 . [ A s y . Pes. w i t h
glosses, e.g. two great
men of the generation,
S + A etc. D r o p s
perhaps-him.]
4.
4 . [ A s y . Pes.]
5.
6.
6. [ A s y. Pes.]
5. [As y. Pes.]
7 . D o n o t many
S o m e teach, 1 0 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 0 0 ,
etc.
7.
7. M o r e
hundred.
8 . They said, We have already

said, If there is with you profit.
8.
8 . T h e y s a i d to him,
How
do you
know
[Here f o l l o w s heqqesh
a n d qal vehomer]
Forthwith
they
seated h i m at t h e
head and appointed
h i m nasi o v e r t h e m .
He was expounding
all d a y l o n g i n t h e
l a w s o f t h e pesah.
[After
no. 27, fol
l o w y . Pes. a r g u
ments
against
his
proofs, in the f o r m
A master said.]
9 . H e said t o
them,
Tamid is a c o m m u n i t y
sacrifice a n d pesah is a
c o m m u n i t y sacrifice.
1 0 . J u s t as t h e Tamid is
a c o m m u n i t y sacrifice
and overrides the Sab
bath
9 . He began expounding to
them from heqqesh, qal vehomer, and geêrah shavah.
9.
1^*
ii
ii
ii
10.
[10. A s summarized
above.]
1 1 . S o t h e pesah is a
c o m m u n i t y sacrifice a n d
overrides the Sabbath
12. A n o t h e r thing
11*
ii
ii
ii
11.
[11. A s summarized
above.]
ii
ii
[9. A s
than
two
summarized
above.]
ii
1 2 . F r o m qal vehomer [See
12.
288
1 3 . C o n c e r n i n g Tamid,
In its season is said
1 4 . a n d c o n c e r n i n g pe
sah, In its season is said
1 5 . J u s t as Tamid, c o n
c e r n i n g w h i c h In its sea
son is said, o v e r r i d e s t h e
Sabbath.
1 6 . S o pesah, c o n c e r n
i n g w h i c h In its season is
said, o v e r r i d e s t h e S a b
bath
17. A n d furthermore,
qal vehomer
1 8 . Tamid, t h a t o n e is
n o t l i a b l e f o r c u t t i n g off,
overrides the Sabbath,
pesah, t h a t o n e is l i a b l e
f o r c u t t i n g off, is it n o t
l o g i c a l t h a t it s h o u l d
override the Sabbath?
19. A n d furthermore, I
have received f r o m m y
m a s t e r s t h a t pesah o v e r
rides the Sabbath
20. A n d not the

first
Pesah b u t t h e s e c o n d
pesah a n d n o t t h e c o m
munity but the indi
v i d u a l pesah.
20'.
"
2 1 . T h e y said t o h i m ,
W h a t will be f o r the
people w h o have not
b r o u g h t k n i v e s a n d pesahs t o t h e s a n c t u a r y ?
2 2 . H e said t o t h e m ,
Let them alone. The h o
l y s p i r i t is u p o n t h e m . I f
they are not prophets,
they are sons of prophets.
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
T o s . Pisha N o . 1 7 ]
1 3 . From geêrah shavah
13.
>
14
14.
15
16.
17.
[13. A s summarized
above.]
[14. A s summarized
above.]
[See a b o v e , N o . 1 2 ]
18.
They said to him, We have al

ready said, If there is [ n o t ]
profit from the
Babylonian.
[ H e r e y . Pes. s u p p l i e s a r g u
ments against the f o r e g o i n g
p r o o f s , in direct address, e.g.
Heqqesh, that you said, has a
reply e t c . ]
1 9 . Even though he was sitting
and expounding for them all
day, they did not accept [proof]
from him until he said to them,
May [evil] come on me, Thus
have I heard from
Shemai*ah
and
Abtalion.
20.
2 0 ' . When they heard thus

from him, they arose and ap
pointed him nasi over them.
He began to criticise them [for
not having studied with S
+ A , and therefore he for
g o t his l a w . ]
21
15.
[15. A s summarized
above.]
16.
[16. A s summarized
above.]
17.
[17. A s summarized
above.]
18.
[18. A s summarized
above.]
19.
[10. A s summarized
above.]
20.
20.
20'.
20'.
2 1 . They asked
Hillel *
the
Elder
21.
2 2 . / heard this law

hut
andforgot
22. [As
Pes.]
y.
22.
[As y. Pes.]
HILLEL
2 3 . W h a t d i d Israel d o
in t h a t h o u r ?
2 4 . W h o e v e r h a d as h i s
pesah a l a m b h i d it in its
w o o l , a g o a t , t i e d it b e
t w e e n its h o r n s
25. A n d they brought
k n i v e s a n d pesahs t o t h e
sanctuary and slew their
pesahs.
26. O n that v e r y day
they appointed
Hillel
nasi a n d h e w o u l d t e a c h
to them concerning the
l a w s o f pesah.
27.
23.
24.
289
SYNOPSES
23.
,,
24.
,,
25
Forthwith
>
23.
The next day
24.
,,
99
99
,,
,,
25
25
[ O m i t s andpesah s.\
26.
26.
[See 2 0 ' a b o v e . ]
2 7 . When he saw the deed, he

remembered the law. He said,
Thus have I heard from Shema'iab and
Abtalion.
27.
26.
,,
27.
y. Shab. has taken nos. 21-2 and 24-7 and introduced the whole with
they asked, y. Pes. is a considerable expansion of Tos. Pisha, which
knows nothing of the Bene Bathyra, has heard not a word about
HillePs studies with Shema'iah and Abtalion, and does not have Hillel
forget the law, but rather introduces the little story about the people
as prophets (or good deceivers) by supposing that Hillel had given a
law today, but what can the people do to keep it tomorrow? The argu
ments in the three versions are pretty much the same: qal vehomer, heq
qesh, and geêrah shavah.
The important developments come between Tosefta and Palestinian
Talmud. The Babylonian version in general follows the Palestinian,
with various glosses indicating that it depends upon it; it occasionally
improves the order. In dropping the refutations of Hillel and allowing
Hillel to take office upon the conclusion of his successful arguments,
the Babylonian version provides a more continuous narrative; but
then HillePs own proofs, and not his citation of his masters, are made
the cause of his elevation to power. The order is Tosefta, Palestinian
Talmud, Babylonian Talmud.
12. Come to My House
Tos. Suk. 4:3
1 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says
b. Suk. 53a
1. TNY>
They said concerning Hillel the
Elder: When he was rejoicing
at the Rejoicing of the Place of
Drawing, he said, If I am here,
all are here [ a l t e r n a t i v e l y :
y. Suk. 5:4
1 . [In A r a m a i c ] Hillel
the Elder, when he saw
them acting with pride, he
would say to them, If we
are here who is here, and
does he need our praise?
19
290
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
T h e W h o l e is h e r e ] and if I
am not here, who is here ? He
used to say thus
2. T o the place w h i c h
m y heart loves, there
m y feet lead m e .
3. If you will come to
m y h o u s e , I shall c o m e
t o y o u r house.
4. If you will not come
t o m y h o u s e , I shall n o t
come to y o u r house
5 . A s it is s a i d E x . 2 0 : 2 4
6.
2
3
u
and is it not written D a n .

7 : 1 0 . When he saw them
acting properly he would
say, If we are not here, who
is here, for [in H e b r e w ]
even though there are before
him many praises, beloved
is the praise of Israel before
him more than all. What is
the reason? 11 S a m . 2 3 : 2 ,
Ps. 2 2 : 3
2.
3.
11
19
11
~*
ii
ii
ii
5.
ii
ii
ii
6 . Also he saw a skull that

floated on the face of the water.
He said to it, [in A r a m a i c ]
Because you
drowned, they
drowned you, and those that
drowned you will be drowned.
4.
5.
6.
Tos. Suk. is the simplest version, but is not tied to the celebration of
the Festival, y. Suk., by contrast, invents a "historical" event: When
Hillel saw the people misbehaving, he rebuked them, saying their pre
sence means nothing. But when he saw them behaving properly, he
praised them, saying their presence means everything. In b. Suk, this
is turned from first person plural, and historical, into first person
singular, and gnomic. The Scriptures are dropped, and the whole has,
or is given, a theological-mystical echo. Indeed, without reference to
y. Suk we should have imagined the original saying to be a mystical
sentiment said by Hillel (in behalf of God), b. Suk. also preserves
the saying attached to Ex. 20:24, and adds a still further saying.
Thus b. Suk. has taken Tos. Suk. and introduced it with a
double introductory formula (TNY>, 'MRW <LYW); it has the same
apophthegm as y. Suk.; but, left in the singular, the saying has no
historical or narrative function. Then b. Suk. tacks on another Hillelsaying. y. Suk. is entirely unrelated to Tos. Suk., and b. Suk. stands
between the two. But I am not sure that b. Suk. no. 1 necessarily
comes before y. Suk. no. 1. The relations between the two versions
are clear, but the implications of those relations are not obvious to me.
HILLEL
291
SYNOPSES
13. Expounded Ketuvah

Tos. Ket.
4:9
1 . Hillel t h e E l d e r e x
pounded language
of
commonfolk
(HDYWT).
2. W h e n the sons o f
Alexandria w o u l d betrothe women
3 . O n e c a m e a n d seized
her f r o m the market
4. A n d the deed came
b e f o r e the sages.
5. They sought to make
t h e i r s o n s mamêrin
6. Hillel t h e Elder said
to them
7. Bring out to me the
Ketuvah o f y o u r m o t h
ers
8. T h e y b r o u g h t t o h i m
9 . A n d w r i t t e n in it
1 0 . W h e n y o u enter m y
house, y o u will be m y
wife according to the
l a w o f M o s e s a n d Israel
11.
y.
Yev.
1* >
15:3
y. Ket.
4:8
99
99
99
b. B.M.
104a
1 . would expound
DTNY>
2 . They would write in

Alexandria,
for one of
them w o u l d b e t r o t h e a
woman.
2.
[=>
Yev.]
2 . The men o f A l e x
andria w o u l d betrothe
their wives, and when they
entered the canopy, o t h e r s
c o m e a n d seize t h e m
f r o m them.
3 . a n d h i s fellow
3. [ =
Yev.]
4. [ =
Yev.]
y.
3.
y.
4.
4 . a n d when
[See N o . 2 a b o v e ]
5.
to make
them
5. [ =
Yev.]
y.
5 . And the sages s o u g h t

t o m a k e t h e i r s o n s mamZerim.
6. [ =
Yev.]
y.
6*
to
7. [ =
Yev.]
y.
7. B r i n g
to
me
the
Ketuvah o f y o u r m o t h e r
8 . 99 99 99 the marriagecontract of their mothers
8. [ =
Yev.]
y.
9 . they found w r i t t e n i n
them
10.
and the Jews
9. [ = y.
Yev.]
10. [ = y.
Yev.]
8. They b r o u g h t t o h i m
the marriage-contract
of
their mother
9 . a n d he found t h a t it
w a s w r i t t e n in them
1 0 . W h e n y o u e n t e r the
canopy be my wife [ d r o p s
according-Israel].
11.
11.
99
7.
me]
99
99
[Drops
99
99
99
1 1 . And they did not make

their sons marnêrim
The Babylonian beraita improves upon the former versions in every

last detail. First, it has provided a new superscription, so the general
ized reference to HillePs practice is followed by an example given the
status of a Tannaitic tradition, DTNY\ Then the story is carefully
narrated. The problem is not violence in the market, but under the
marriage-canopy. The whole is made a singular event, so we are no
longer dealing with a generalized situation, but with a one-time hap
pening, as the story-teller has already indicated. In the earlier versions
there is confusion on just this point, with a mixture of singular and
plural nouns (mothers). Now the problem of no. 5 is not to declare
the litigants, but rather their children, mamêrim. This further clarifies
the situation, for in the Palestinian versions we are not sure which
generation we are dealing with. The actual situation is corrected in
292
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
no. 10 to conform to the narrative conditions specified earlier. Then

no. 11 tells us the outcome of the case, which is omitted in all the
earlier versions. Most important, therefore, the story is now made a
single event, rather than the description of a generally prevailing situ
ation to which a single court-case is awkwardly attached. But in this
respect the improvement is not complete.
The two Palestinian versions are identical, y. Ket. is presumably
copied by y. Yev., or vice versa. But y. Yev. no. 2 is garbled, unlike
Tos. no. 2. b. B.M. could well be based on Tos. Ket., without the
intervening Palestinian versions, for no. 2 of b. B.M. omits reference
to what the Alexandrians would write, and follows Tos. Ket. in this
respect; the story of Tos. Ket. is much elaborated in b. B.M., to be
sure. Tos. no. 5, their sons, is preserved in b. B.M., as we observed.
14. Worthy of the Holy Spirit
Tos. Sot.
13:3
1. M ' S H
2. T h e sages e n t e r e d t h e
house o f G u r y o in J e r i
cho
3. A n d they heard an
echo saying
y. Sot.
9:13
b. Sanh.
1.
GDY>
3 . A n e c h o went forth
and said
6 . A n d t h e y placed t h e i r
e y e s o n Hillel t h e E l d e r
7. A n d w h e n he died
t h e y said a b o u t h i m
8. W o e f o r the meek
man, w o e for the pious
m a n , disciple o f E z r a .
9 . A g a i n t h e y w e r e sit
ting in Y a v n e h
and
heard an echo saying,
T h e r e is h e r e a m a n [etc.
as n o . 4 - 5 ]
1 0 . a n d t h e y set t h e i r
eyes o n
Samuel
the
Small
4 . T h e r e is amongyou
99
99
99
5.
99
99
99
(KDYY)
99
99
99
7
1
b. Sot.
2. Once they w e r e
r e c l i n i n g in t h e u p
per r o o m of
3 . A n e c h o placed on
them from heaven
99
99
99
99
6 . sages
8.
'
99
99
99
3.
[ = b. Sanh.]
4.
[ = b. Sanh.]
99
99
99
6*
99
99
99
99
99
99
o
*
99
[ = b. Sanh.]
9.
[With
same changes
as
above]
9.
[Same
c h a n g e s as a b o v e ]
9.
10.
10.
10.
99
99
99
b. Sanh.]
( T h e y lamented h i m )
o
*
[=
5. R ' W Y
7
*
2.
99
4.
that the
Shekhinah should rest
on him
^*
48b
1. [ T N W R B N N :
When last
prophets
died, holy spirit ceased,
but would use the echo,
99
4 . T h e r e is h e r e a m a n
w h o is w o r t h y ( R ' W Y )
o f the h o l y spirit
5 . B u t h i s g e n e r a t i o n is
not righteous ( Z K ' Y )
f o r it ( L K K )
11a
99
99
HILLEL
1 1 . A n d w h e n he died...
disciple o f H i l l e l
11.
[With interven
293
SYNOPSES
11*
1 1 >
is called t h e
>
Small]
y. Hor.
3:5
1. R. J a c o b b. 'Idi in the name o f R. J o s h u a b. L e v i
1.
[ = y. A . Z . ]
2. u p p e r r o o m o f G D Y Y *
2.
3.
4.
[ = y. A . Z . ]
[ = y. A . Z . ]
[ = y. A . Z . ]
3.
ing gloss o n w h y he
[ = y. Sot.]
4 . T h e r e a r e a m o n g y o u two w h o a r e w o r t h y o f t h e h o l y
s p i r i t , a n d H i l l e l t h e E l d e r is o n e o f t h e m , a n d t h e y set
their eyes o n Samuel the Small.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. A g a i n the elders entered the u p p e r c h a m b e r in Y a v n e h a n d a h e a v e n l y e c h o c a m e f o r t h a n d said t o t h e m ,
There are a m o n g y o u t w o w o r t h y o f the h o l y spirit a n d
S a m u e l t h e S m a l l is o n e o f t h e m , a n d t h e y set t h e i r e y e s
on R. Leazar, and they w e r e rejoicing that their opinion
had agreed w i t h the opinion o f the h o l y spirit.
8.
9 . [ = y . A . Z . + Eliezer
b. Hyrcanus]
The Babylonian versions supply what may be Babylonian idioms, e.g.

the holy spirit is replaced with Shekhinah. Otherwise, the changes are
of no consequence, except for the placing of the story into a beraita.
The interesting versions are y. A.Z. = y. Hor. Here we see a new
state of affairs. The story is told by Joshua b. Levi. It derives from
Eleazar's or Eliezer's school; or the Samuel the Small-version has been
revised so as to make room for Eliezer. Hillel is taken for granted.
Samuel the Small is moved to Jericho. But at the same time the upper
chamber is moved to Yavneh, replacing the better known vineyard,
probably because the story is an exact counterpart. Certainly y. A.Z. =
y. Hor. depend upon the Tos. Sot.-y. Sot. versions and are not inde
pendent, but still separate forms of the story. If so, this is an instance
in which the Babylonian beraita evidently antedates a Palestinian
Amoraic version of a story appearing in both places.
b. Sanh. adds upper room; the echo comes specifically from heaven;
"they" become the sages; and the holy spirit is dropped entirely. The
Babylonian beraita depends upon the Palestinian-Toseftan version.
The reformulation by Joshua b. Levi is anomalous.
15. Do Not Fear a Bad Report
y. Ber. 9:3
1. If a man
was
coming
b. Ber. 60a
1 . T N W R B N N . The story is told of Hillel the Elder
294
f r o m the road, w h a t does he
say?
2. I am confident that these
a r e n o t in t h e m i d s t o f m y
house
3 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says P s .
112:7
HILLEL
SYNOPSES
that h e w a s c o m i n g o n t h e r o a d and heard the sound of

an outcry in the city. He said, "I a m c o n f i d e n t t h a t this
is n o t in t h e m i d s t o f m y h o u s e .
2.
[As above]
3 . A n d concerning him, Scripture
says P s . 1 1 2 : 7 .
This is a standard example of the transformation of a Hillel-exegesis

into a Hillel-narrative. Now it is a story told about Hillel. He (instead
of a man) is coming along the way, hears the outcry referred to in the
foregoing Mishnah, and says y. Ber. no. 2, but this replaces these. Then
Scripture speaks concerning Hillel, rather than having Hillel cite Scrip
ture.
16. Had Eighty Pair(s)
of Disciples
See Development of a Legend, pp. 216-218.

17. Hillel from David
In y. Ta. 4:2 = Gen. R. 98:8, the Levi-saying is copied exactly, so
far as Hillel is concerned. Other differences are of no interest here.
in.
CONCLUSION
The immense corpus of Hillel-traditions exhibits one uniform

quality: unlike Shammai-pericopae, which are rarely friendly to Sham
mai, no story is overtly hostile to Hillel. None was shaped by circles
intending an unfavorable account of the man and his teachings. The
reason is that the traditions were shaped by Hillelite heirs, both those
who claimed to be his disciples, e.g. Yohanan b. Zakkai, and those
who claimed to be his descendents, e.g. if not Gamaliel I, Simeon b.
Gamaliel, then at least Gamaliel II, Simeon b. Gamaliel II, the House
of Hillel, and especially, Judah the Patriarch. Indeed, the whole corpus
of Tannaitic literature was shaped by Hillelites.
If Gamaliel I was HillePs successor, son, or grandson, we have no
evidence of that fact in the Hillel-materials. Only a late beraita (b.
Shab. 15a, cited below, p. 316) says that Hillel, and SimeonGamaliel,
and Simeon were nasis a hundred years before the destruction of the
Temple. But SimeonGamaliel and the others are not there called
HillePs descendents. This is taken for granted by the commentaries.
M. Avot records Gamaliel as HillePs successor. Even Avot does not
295
HILLEL CONCLUSION
call him Hillel's son. If we depended only on the Hillel-materials, we

should know about Hillel's brother, but nothing about a son. The
Gamaliel I-materials likewise contain no hint of a relationship to
Hillel.
Let us now review according to their classifications and forms the
pericopae in which Hillel appears by himself, without reference to
Shammai.
I. Legal Traditions
A. Hillel's legal rulings in logion-form:
1. To lay [hands]M. Hag. 2:2 (indirect discourse);
2. Ten genealogical classesb. Yev. 37a, IILii. 10;
b. Qid. 75a, IILii.15 (//this is our Hillel).
B. Hillel's legal rulings not in logion-form:
1. Trading in futures prohibitedM. B.M. 5:9, II.ii.3;
Tos. B.M. 6:10, ILii. 10 (different example); b. Shab.
148b, III.ii.3; b. B.M. 75a, IV.ii.6.
2. Tithing ruleR. Judah said Hillel would prohibit:
Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, II.ii.4; Tos. <Ed. 2:4, II.ii.12.
3. Expound language of common people, re KetuvotTos.
Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8; y. Yev. 15:3, III.i.8; y. Ket. 4:8,
III.i.9; b. B.M. 104a, III.ii.16.
4. Pesah overrides Sabbath (below).
5. These are tefillin from grandfathery. Eruv. 10:1,
IV.i.l. ( = Shammai, I.ii.l).
C. Hillel's legal exegeses (direct attribution):
1. Hillel as exegete
a. He who touches corpse in ritual bath is unclean,
Lev. 11:24Sifra Shemini 9:5, I.ii.l;
b. Itch will be healedbecause of this Hillel came
up, Lev. 13:37Sifra Tazri'a 9:16, I.ii.2;
c. Tos. Nega'im 1:16, II.ii.14because of this, etc.;
d. Lev. 13:17a-17b, y. Pes. 6:1, IV.i.2;
e. Deut. 13:2, Ex. 12:5, y. Pes. IV.i.2;
f. Deut. 16:8, Ex. 12:15, y. Pes. 6:1, IV.i.2because of
this, etc.
D. Legal exegeses through Hillel-narratives:
1. Redeem sold propertyordinance, Lev. 25:29-30Sifra
Behar 4:8, I.ii.3; b. Git. 74b, III.ii.14; b. <Arakh. 31b,
IV.ii.8;
c
296
HILLEL CONCLUSION
2. ProsbulDeut. 15:3Sifre Deut. 115, I.ii.5; Midrash Tan

naim p. 80 1. 32ff., I.ii.7; M. Shev. 10:3, Il.i.l; M. Git.
36a, IILii.13;
3. Supply poor with normal needsDeut. 15:8Tos. Pe'ah
4:10, II.ii.3; y. Pe>ah 8:7, III.i.3; b. Ket. 67b, IV.ii.4.
E. HillePs deeds as legal precedent:
1. Brief lemma: Hillel would fold them together and eat them
Ex. 12:8Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai p. 13 1. 12, I.i.l;
Tos. Pisha 2:22, II.ii.5; b. Pes. 115a, II.ii.6; b. Zev. 79a,
III.ii.19.
II. Biographical
Traditions
A. In HillePs Days (anonymous):

1. No one ever crushed in Temple court except one Passover
in HillePs daysb. Pes. 64b, III.ii.4.
2. No man trespassed through burned offering, b. Ned. 9b,
III.ii.11.
B. Shema'iah and Abtalion:
1. Hillel and Bene BathyraPesah and Sabbath: Tos. Pisha
4:13, II.ii.6 (S + A not mentioned); y. Shab. 19:1, III.i.6;
y. Pes. 6:1, III.i.7; b. Pes. 66a-b, III.ii.5; b. B.M. 85a
(Judah the Patriarch refers to event) IV.ii.7.
a. Seven "things" + BathyransTos. Sanh. 7:11,ILii. 11;
tied to Bene Bathyra: ARN Chap. 37, V.i.4.
2. Studied as a poor manb. Yoma 35b, III.ii.7.
C. Yohanan b. Zakkai:
1. Parah-ceremonySifre Num. 123,1.ii.4; Tos. Ahilot 16:8,
II.ii.13; Tos. Par. 4:7, II.ii.15.
D. <Aqiba:
Lived one hundred-twenty yearsMoses/Hillel, Sifre
Deut. 357, 1.ii.6; Gen. R. 100:24, IV.i.2.
E. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel:
1. Jonathan was HillePs greatest student, Yohanan the
leasty. Ned. 5:6, III.i.10; b. Suk. 28a, III. ii.8; b.B.B.
134a, III.ii.17; ARN Chap. 14, V.i.2.
F. Judah b. Baba, via Samuel the Small, as final redactors:
1. Holy spirit would have come to Hillel, but for sins of the
generation, and
2. Lament for Hilleldisciple of EzraTos. Sot. 13:3, ILii.
9; y. Sot. 9:13, III.i.11; b. Sot. 48b, HI.ii.12; b. Sanh. 11a,
HILLEL CONCLUSION
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
297
III.ii.18; y. A.Z. 3:1, IV.i.5; y. Hor. 3:5, IV.i.5 (cited by

Jacob b. IdiJoshua b. Levi).
Judah the PatriarchYohanan b. Nappaha:
1. Hillel praised clean language, b. Pes. 3b, IV.ii.l.
Levi:
1. Hillel from Davidy. Ta. 4:2, IV.i.4; Gen. R. 98:8, IV.i.l
Resh Laqish:
1. Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came from Babylonia and reestablish
ed Torah, which had been forgotten in Palestineb. Suk.
20a, IV.ii.2.
Dimi:
1. Hillel and Shebna, b. Sot. 21a, IV.ii.5.
Hillel and Ben He Heb. Hag. 9b, IV.ii.3.
III. Moral and Theological Logia

A. He who uses crown shall perishDeut. 33:32, Midrash Tan
naim, p. 211, 1. 26,1.ii.8; Avot 1:13.
B. Be of disciples of AaronAvot 4:5, II.i.5; Avot 1:12.
C. Name made greatAvot 1:13.
D. Increase/decreaseAvot 1:13.
E. Learning or deathAvot 1:13.
F. If I am not for myselfAvot 1:14.
G. Do not separateAvot 2:5, II.i.4; Avot 4:5, II.i.5.
H. Do not trust yourselfAvot 2:5.
I. Other logiaAvot 2:5-7; including the more I the moreARN
Chap. 28, V.i.3.
J . Because you drownedAvot 2:5; b. Suk. 53a, III.ii.9.
K. Do not be seen naked (clothed), Qoh. 3:4-5Tos. Ber. 2:21,
Il.ii.l, and
L. Scattering/gathering, Prov. 11:24Tos. Ber. 6:24, II.ii.2; y.
Ber. 9:5, III.i.2 = Ps. 119:126; b. Ber. 63a, III.ii.2.
M. If you come to my house: Ex. 20:24Tos. Suk. 4:3, II.ii.7,
b. Suk. 53a, III.ii.9.
1. If we are hereDan. 7:10, II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3y. Suk.
5:4, IV.ii.3.
N. Hear bad news, say Ps. 112:7y. Ber. 9:3, III.i.1; b. Ber. 60a,
III.ii.1.
O. According to painstaking is the reward (story)ARN Chap.
12, V.i.l.
P. Self-abasement/exaltationLev. R. 1:5, Vl.iii.l.
Q. Wash selfProv. 11:17, Lev. R. 34:3, VI.iii.2.
298
HILLEL CONCLUSION
The legal traditions come in five forms: first and (later on) conven
tional, but least common, are legal rulings in logion-form. Yet, on
examination, we observe that even these are still reports of Hillel's
opinions, not direct attributions of logia to Hillel. Second, and most
important, come legal rulings not in logion-form, but rather as nar
ratives or stories unrelated either to legal logia or to legal exegeses.
Third, we find legal exegeses related to uncleanness rules; a second
sort of legal exegesis is the contrast of apparently conflicting Scrip
tures on Passover rules, followed by Hillel's resolution of the conflict.
A fourth form, much like the second, is the narration of Hillel-stories
on legal Scriptures, but these turn out to be the revision of exegeses
into Hillel-stories, unlike the second category. Finally, we find a report
of a deed of Hillel as a legal precedent. The difference between this
form and the second is the brevity of the tradition, a quite short lem
ma, rather than an extensive narrative.
We have no traditions from Hillel in the form which became stan
dard in Tannaitic times. That does not mean that the traditions are
"very old" and therefore likely to be authentic. It simply means that
Hillel-materials, wherever and whenever redacted, were not subjected
to the procedures normal in reference to sayings of masters of the later
period. To be sure, some of the traditions, particularly in the form of
brief lemmas, may be genuine reports of things Hillel actually did.
By contrast stories in which Hillel acts out a previously anonymous
exegesis of Scripture certainly are fabricated. Other sorts of narratives
are more difficult to evaluate. Nor can we say much about the handful
of legal logia. What is striking in the legal traditions is the range of
subjects on which Hillel is cited as authority. No earlier figure covers
so broad a range of legal themes and problems. Hillel stands at the
beginning of a completely new phenomenon: Pharisaic legislation on
a wide range of topics. His materials are more like what followed than
what went before. The cultic laws no longer are central to his legal
corpus, nor are they even preponderant. Hillel-materials form a new
chapter in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70.
The biographical traditions similarly represent a break with earlier
materials. To be sure, HillePs days serves much as did in the days of
Simeon b. Shetah, but this genre of material is an inconsequential part
of the whole, rather than a substantial segment of it, as with Simeon.
The story of Hillel's rise to power, which comes in several versions,
replete with extensive exegetical and logical debates, is a composite of
many parts. It reflects the view of. circles to whom the names of
HILLEL CONCLUSION
299
Shema'iah-Abtalion were important. We cannot imagine these were

actually disciples of S+A. All we know is that the names of S + A
were supposed to work like magic. The Bathyrans later on are added
as Hillel's opposition, but nowhere do they play any part in the stories.
They come in superscriptions or subscriptions, to make all materials
conform to the theory that Hillel had forced the Bathyrans from pow
er. Since the Bathyrans do not figure in the chains of tradition and
are not integral to the Hillel/S+A materials, we must regard the
tradition on their role in the Temple and abdication to Hillel's favor
as distinct, probably added after the story of Hillel's rise to power in
consequence of his mastery of the traditions of S + A had become
known in some version. Since the Bathyrans formed an opposition
group at Yavneh in Yohanan b. Zakkai's time, it may be that stories
of their earlier deposition became important at Yavneh as a means of
countering their claim to continuing authority. Not only do they have
no such claim now, but "long ago" they were thrown out of power
because of their ignorance of the Torah of Shema'iah and Abtalion
and knowledge of the Torah was Yohanan's primary claim to author
ity. But the Bathyran pericope need not have been added to already
existing materials in their current form. To these, still later, were
supplied the seven exegetical modes and other materials, not all of
them friendly to begin with.
We therefore see that Hillel-pericopae supply points of origin for
many sorts of events, legal and literary phenomena. Stories about
Hillel as a model for virtuestudying as a poor manstand pretty
much by themselves. Later Tannaitic and Amoraic masters made
extensive use of the name of Hillel. The circle of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
produced a Yohanan b. Zakkai story, to which Hillel's name was
added. The circle of 'Aqiba shaped traditions in which Hillel was com
pared to Moses, as 'Aqiba was to Yohanan b. Zakkai. Mystics claiming
Jonathan b. 'Uzziel as their authority made Jonathan Hillel's student,
though Jonathan never quotes Hillel. The Samuel the Small-Judah b.
Baba traditions explain why like Hillel their masters did not receive
the holy spirit and preserve lamentations making Hillel the disciple of
Ezra, and Samuel, of Hillel, traditions absent in Yohanan b. Zakkai
materials. Judah the Patriarch is compared to Hillel in the circle of
Yohanan b. Nappaha. Levi, of the circle around Judah the Patriarch,
makes Hillel a descendent of David, without an intervening genealogy.
Resh Laqish ties Hiyya to Hillel and Ezra as restorers of the Palestin
ian Torahall three like Moses. These are extraordinary facts. They
300
HILLEL CONCLUSION
tell us that from the destruction of the Temple onward, the name of
Hillel was everywhere claimed as the major authorityafter Moses
and Ezrafor the Oral Torah. Hillel could always be added to make
stories more impressive. There was no limit to the claims made in his
behalf as revealer of Torah and worthy of the holy spirit.
The moral and theological logia likewise represent a considerable
innovation in the formation of traditions on the Pharisees before 70.
Here too we find the attribution to Hillel of dozens of apophthegms
of all sorts, exegetical, moral, and theological. It is as if any paranaetic
or apodictic saying would just as well be said in HillePs name as other
wise. Some clearcut forms may be isolated, e.g. the more\the more, and
other sorts of balanced sets of contrasting nouns and verbs. The
contrast is likewise drawn in the moral regimen of the world: because
you drowned...
Despite the rich and impressive Hillel-tradition, however, we can
hardly conclude that with Hillel the pre-70 Pharisees enter the pages
of history. The traditions on Hillel do not lay a considerable claim to
historical accuracy about the life and sayings of Hillel himself. They
provide an accurate account of what later generations thought it im
portant to say about, or in the name of, Hillel. In Tannaitic times,
still more so later on, traditions on a man were shaped by his imme
diate disciples and discussed by people who actually knew him. Re
marks about these traditions, made out of context, in other settings
entirely, and en passant, frequently provide important verification that
a living tradition of what a master had said and done was shaped very
soon after his death and even in his lifetime. They often give a terminus
ante quern. That does not mean the master actually said and did what
the disciples and later contemporaries claimed. But it does mean we
stand close to the master. The reduction of the sayings and traditions
to formal logia, even to written notes, and later on to published
compilations (e.g. Mishnah-Tosefta) further contributes to the his
torical interest of the later masters' traditions. Hillel's materials do
not exhibit the marks of similar processes of editing and redaction,
whether to oral form or to written documents. Hillel had neither
masters nor disciples; he did not quote anyone, except in the context
of a historical narrative, and then he does not say what they said to
him, merely reports their law. No master of his time quotes him.
He is supposed to be Jonathan's, Samuel's and Yohanan b. Zakkai's
master. But none of these ever says, So have I received from Hillel, al
though Yohanan does say he has .received traditions from Sinai.
301
HILLEL CONCLUSION
Samuel the Small is called Hillel's disciple, but this must mean "some
one who does things the way Hillel did." Gamaliel I makes no appear
ance. On the face of it, therefore, both form and style of the Hillelcorpus differ from Tannaitic materials. If Hillel is the first Pharisee to
emerge in the model of the later first-century Pharisees and later rab
bis, that is because the rabbis adopted him and made him their own,
not because in his day he managed effectively to transmit his sayings
in the way in which later masters did.
The rabbis adopted him because of the (presumably later) patriarchs*
claim to descend from him. I do not for one minute suggest Hillel
is a figment of the imagination of Gamaliel II or the later patriarchs.
That probably is not the case. He was important, for one thing, to
nonpatriarchal masters and circles, e.g. Yohanan b. Zakkai and Aqiba,
and to Babylonians quite outside patriarchal influence, e.g. Samuel,
Rav and Rav Judah, Abbaye, and so on. Various groups of later
masters used HillePs name in various ways, not always simply to hang
on to it existing logia.
Further studies of these questions, however, must depend upon
more careful consideration of the later history of Tannaitic circles and
schools. For the moment all we can say with certainty is that successive
groups found it important to shape Hillel-materials, and the conditions
reflected in these materials often are not of actual historical realities
(e.g. no Pharisee, even Hillel, ran the Temple), but rather the realities
of life and fantasies of the shapers of the pericopae. The historical
Hillel may stand behind some of the Hillel-materials before us. But it
will take much study before we can suggest concrete hypotheses about
him. My only firm conclusion is that Hillel was likely to have lived
sometime before the destruction of the Temple and to have played
an important part in the politics of the Pharisaic party. We may further
hypothesize that traditions about his teachings on the festivals (Pas
sover, Sukkot), on purity-laws, and on legal theory (the ordinances),
may go back to him. But the materials before us are so highly develop
ed and sophisticated that we cannot recover anything like the words
he first spoke or even the form as first introduced into the process of
normative tradition.
By contrast we can reasonably hypothesize about the shape of the
mnemonic traditions of the Houses; in general, I should suppose that
the importance at Yavneh and afterward of the House of Hillel lent
to the name of Hillel an importance the man himself may not have
enjoyed in his lifetime. The House of HillePs materials are verified in
c
302
HILLEL CONCLUSION
early Yavneh, the Hillel-stories are first referred to chiefly at Usha. So

it looks as though in the beginning were the House of Hillel-traditions
and only later came the tendency to generate substantial Hillel-stories
and to attribute much-admired sayings and apophthegms to Hillel
himself.
CHAPTER TEN
SHAMMAI AND
i.
HILLEL
TRADITIONS
Pericopae in which Shammai and Hillel either are juxtaposed in

opposed legal, moral, exegetical, and theological teachings, or per
sonify contrasting personal traits, do not occur in the Tannaitic
Midrashim. The first such materials are in Mishnah-Tosefta.
ILi.1.A. Shammai says, "[For] all women it is enough for them
(DYYN) [that they be deemed unclean only from] their time (S'TN)
[of suffering a flow]."
Hillel says, "[A woman is deemed to have been unclean] from [the
previous] examination (PQYDH) to [the present] examination, even
[if the interval is of] many days."
And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either; but
[she is deemed to have been unclean] during the preceding twentyfour hours (M'T L'T), if this is less than [the time] from [the previous]
examination to [the present] examination (MPQYDH LPQYDH),
or else from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination,
if this is less than twenty-four hours."
B. Shammai says, "[Dough made] from one qab [of meal is liable]
to Dough-offering."
And Hillel says, "Two qabs"
And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either. But
one qab and a half [is] liable to Dough-offering."
And when the weights were made greater, they said, "Five quarters of
a qab are liable." R. Yosi says, "Five [quarters only] are exempt but
five and aught over are liable."
C. Hillel says, "One hin of drawn water renders the immersion-pool
unfit. [We speak of hin only] because ('L ) a man must speak according
to the language of his teacher."
And Shammai says, "Nine qabs."
And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either."
D. But when ( L D ) two weavers came from the Dung Gate in
Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that
5
>
> C
304
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL Il.i.l
three logs of drawn water render the Immersion-pool unfit, and the
sages [MS Kaufmann omits sages] confirmed their words.
E. And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel
uselessly (LBTLN)? To teach the coming generations that a man
should not persist in his opinion ( MD L DBR), for lo, the fathers
of the world did not persist in their opinion.
(M. 'Ed. 1:1,3,4,5, trans. Danby, p. 422)
(
Comment: Part A concerns when the touch of a woman in her men

strual period renders objects unclean by reason of her condition. Sham
mai holds that it is from the time of the first appearance of menstrual
blood, but not retroactively. Hillel holds that if a woman inspects her
self and finds a trace of blood, she retroactively has rendered unclean all
the clean things she has touched from the time of the earlier inspection
when she was clean, for one takes into account the possibility that the
period began some time between the last, clean inspection and the pres
ent one. This possibility extends even for a number of days. The sages
reject both opinions. They hold that if the time between the inspections
is greater than the preceding twenty-four hours, the woman retroac
tively renders unclean the objects she has touched during only the prec
eding twenty-four hours. But if the preceding inspection was in the
antecedent twenty-four hour period, then the inspection, not the
twenty-four hour period, is the starting point of the time of her capacity
to render objects uncleanthe most lenient possible ruling, but formal
ly a compromise.
B. Shammai holds that a loaf made of a qab of flour is liable for the
separation of the hallah, and Hillel holds that the smallest measure is
two qabs. The sages take an intermediate position, one and half qabs.
C-D-E. See above, p.
The form in parts A-B is:
Shammailenient position;
Hillel
strict position;
Sages
compromise.
The opinions are phrased in a standard form: X says: Legal opinion. Y

says: Legal opinion. Sages say: Decisive rule. After this come further perti
nent details, e.g. part B, and when the weights were made greater.
The language of the masters is not in the balance one expects in the
Houses pericopae. Part A is as follows:
Shammai: KL HN$YM DYYN S<TN
Hillel:
MPQYDH LPQYDH
These lemmas superficially have nothing to do with one another.
HillePs is not comprehensible outside of the context provided by
Shammai's. But if we set into the superscription the language serving
the lemmas of both, we do not gain much:
KL HNSYM
Shammai: DYYN S<TN
Hillel:
MPQYDH LPQYDH
SHAMMAI AND
305
HILLEL Il.i.l
The sages comments provide a better datum:

M<T L<T
MPQYDH LPQYDH
Hence the original tradition should have involved different wordchoices, T vs. PQYDH. The Shammaite language Twould have
been developed into the complete sentence at the outset, and given as
a generalization. The sages' comment would come before the develop
ment of Shammai's saying into its secondary form (DYYN...). The
original lemmas were developed from differing word-preferences into
a legal issue. If the first attribution to Shammai was simply T, and to
Hillel, PQYDH, then the differing traditions, once brought together,
required the explication of legal, not merely stylistic or verbal, differ
ences. The rest followed routinely. We shall see the same phenomenon
in some Houses-disputes, which seem originally to have involved dif
fering language for pretty much the same object, process, or time-pe
riod.
Part B is precisely the form one would have expected: balanced, op
posing opinions, involving nearly the same words and number of syl
lables, with the difference perfectly clear from the simplest version:
Shammai: MQB LHLH
Hillel:
MQBYM
LHLH serves both lemmas, and, as often, has been inserted into Sham
mai's, rather than serving as a superscription. The sages' opinion now
mediates between two clearcut opinions, by splitting the difference. The
rest is a later supplement. The sages' saying further supplies HYBYN,
a good gloss, if not entirely essential.
Part C is in the wrong form entirely. Hillel should not come first. The
explanatory matter drawn water renders the ritual pool unfit is a gloss, and
could better have served as a superscription. The primary tradition
would have consisted of the following:
Shammai: T$<H QBYN
Hillel:
ML' HYN
But this is unusual, for the masters should use identical substantives,
except for the difference between them; that is, three qabs for Hillel:
Hillel:
Three qabs
Shammai: Nine qabs
This leaves a dispute about the number, nine/three, as in many Housesdisputes. The imbalance of the word-choices naturally elicits a com
ment, but because a man is obligated to say..." This gloss proves that early
redactors were conscious of normal usage and had to explain divergence
from it. I am not clear on why Hillel is made to come first. Normally
the stringent position (merely three qabs of water can render the ritual
pool unfit, versus nine) would be given to the Shammaites. If we had a
list of the stringencies of Hillel and the leniencies of Shammai, such as
we have for the Houses, this item obviously would head it. But without
such a list, we cannot be certain that the stringent opinion is accurately
to be assigned to Hilleland this without comment! The opinion of
Shama'iah and Abtalion is that three logs render the ritual pool unfit,
9
((
306
S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL Il.i.l
that is, a quarter of a hin, or one and a third qabs, by far the most strin
gent position of all.
From the viewpoint of the formal requirements, part B therefore
looks authentic; part A seems to be a dispute fabricated out of the dif
ference of word choice; and part C is simple enough to be reduced to
the anticipated brief lemmas, but presents an important difficulty in the
order of authorities.
The pericopae as a group, excluding parts D and E, which are tacked
on, reflect respect for the opinions of both masters. Shammai is not
subordinated to Hillel. Quite to the contrary, the opinion of each bears
equal weight, but the sages impose a compromise. Since the bulk of
Shammai-materials is of a quite different order and shows Shammai in
an unfavorable light, it is significant that the S + H pericopae do not do
so. That seems to me proof that Shammai-disciples were involved in
the shaping of these traditions and therefore were able to secure parity
for the father of their house. That a compromise-position is reached in
two instances makes even more likely the authenticity of the opinions
attributed to the two masters.
All three legal opinions pertain to matters of interest to haverim in
Temple times: ritual cleanness and agricultural offerings (here: hallah).
The principal legal concerns of the havurah therefore are at issue (see my
Fellowship in Judaism [London, 1963] pp. 22-30). I imagine the foregoing
materials might have been shaped sometime after the death of the two
masters, perhaps ca. 20-50 A.D. The rule concerning a ritual bath and
a woman's uncleanness with respect to her menstrual period was of
fundamental importance. For centuries drawn water must have ren
dered immersion pools unfit, and women would have had their periods
and thereby rendered objects unclean. Why then at "just this time" do
the Pharisaic sages rule on such basic matters? The answer lies in when
according to Pharisaic theory the uncleanness rules came to apply out
side of the Temple. The ritual pool and the capacity of women to render
objects unclean would have mattered to priests in the performance of
their Temple duties. But most of the purity-laws did not pertain outside
of the Temple, and therefore such details of the purity-laws would not
have demanded much concern from ordinary folk. That is not to say
women did not immerse themselves at the end of their period and carry
out the other sexual taboos as the Mosaic law required. But it does mean
that outside of the Temple, the capacity of a woman to render objects
unclean was of no great consequence. When, however, Pharisaism held
that one must eat his unconsecrated food (hullin) in a state of ritual pu
rity, the various laws of ritual purity had to be applied to everyday situ
ations, not merely to the Temple. Clearly, one of those situations was
the capacity of menstrual women to render objects unclean.
The evidence of the synoptic Gospels on Pharisaic concern for un
cleanness and cleanness laws supplies a terminus ante quern for the matter
the years around the destruction of the Temple (assuming Mark at
about 60). The Jesus-logia on the matter of Pharisaic cleanness laws
need not be dated so late but may come from an earlier time. So we may
SHAMMAI AND
307
H I L L E L II.i.2
take it for granted that Pharisaism did stress purity laws and careful
tithing by the middle decades of the first century, if not before. Sham
mai and Hillel represent important legislators on these matters. The
fact that the issues were under debate and required compromise among
conflicting Houses possibly suggests no antecedent traditions on the
subject existed.
These considerations again suggest that the pericopae before us are
apt to be authentic. The two named masters probably issued teachings
on the subject. These teachings were carefully preserved by the respec
tive Houses, until they later put the two together and settled the mat
ters with a compromise. But I do not know when the Mishnaic form
was imposed on the materials, which must to begin with have been
phrased and preserved not in antithetical lemmas but in different form.
(According to Tos. Ed. 1:1 the form antedates Yavneh.)
I further postulate that traditions in which Shammai is regarded with
respect are likely to come from that same timeabout the destruction
of the Templesince later on it was virtually impossible to say any
thing about Shammai except as a foil to the superior Hillel. Hence the
authentic Shammai-traditions were likely to have been introduced into
the normative tradition (and because of its conservatism, never altered
thereafter), when his House was strong and well represented; HillelShammai-fables would come later and have little to do with the histori
cal Shammai.
This view is consistent with my earlier observations on part C as
neutral vis a vis Hillel, pp. 143-144.
On part E, see Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105: it follows Meir, Tos. Ed,
1:4; also p. 234,423,430.
c
II.i.2. Any controversy that is for God's sake shall in the end be of
lasting worth. But any that is not for God's sake shall not in the end
be of lasting worth.
Which controversy was for God's sake? Such was the controversy
of Hillel and Shammai.
And which was not for God's sake? Such was the controversy of
Qorah and all his company.
(M. Avot 5:17, trans. Danby, p. 457-8)
In M. Avot 4:11 R. Yohanan the Sandler says the same of
The glosses, parts B and C, present a favorable opinion of
Shammai-Hillel. The disputes between the two men and their Houses
would not have been repudiated later on without also repudiating the
founder of the Hillelite patriarchate. We therefore do not have to sup
pose the glosses are from Temple times or that part A is an apophthegm
from even earlier days. We do not know who supplied the comment. It
would have been a routine, standard remark, not of the same order as
materials in which Shammai and Hillel are given parity. Hillel comes
first, as in M. Avot 1:12.
Comment:
any assembly.
308
SHAMMAI AND
H I L L E L II.i.3, I l . i i . l
Compare Tos. Hag. 2:9 on the controversies between the Houses.

Judah the Patriarch had good reason to prefer this version.
II.i.3. Shammai says, "For all women it is enough for them [that
they be deemed unclean only from] their time [of suffering a flow]."
Hillel says, "[A woman is deemed to have been unclean] from [the
previous] examination to [the present] examination, even if [the inter
val is of] many days."
But the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either; but
[she is deemed to have been unclean] during the preceding twentyfour hours, if this is less than [the time] from [the previous] examina
tion to [the present] examination; or else from [the previous] examina
tion to [the present] examination, if this is less than twenty-four
hours."
If a woman has a fixed period (WW$T), it is enough for her [that
she be deemed unclean only from] her time [of suffering a flow]. If
she had connection and used the test-rags, this counts as an examina
tion, and may lessen either the interval of twenty-four hours, or the
interval from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination.
(M. Nid. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 754)
Comment: See above, p. 303; Epstein, Mishnah, p. 484.
Il.ii.l. ...When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied,
who had not adequately served [as disciples, and fully learned the
masters' Torah], disputes multiplied (HRBW) in Israel, and they be
came two Torahs...
(Tos. Hag. 2:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 384,1. 58-9)
Comment: This clause is intruded into a long logion of R. Yosi [b.
Halafta] on the origin of disputes in the Oral Tradition: At first there
was no dispute in Israel. The court of seventy-one was in its chambers,
and each town had its court of twenty-three, from which appeals would
come to Jerusalem. The legal system was based upon knowledge of tra
ditions ; but there were no confUctingtmdkions. If a court had knowledge,
it said so, and if not, it referred the matter to the higher court. The
formula is, "If they heard, they said to them..." In the end if necessary
the highest court would take a vote. If those who declared unclean
were the majority, they declared the object unclean, or vice versa, and
the law would then be proclaimed in Israel. Then comes when the disci
ples... Afterward, the long account of the judiciary is resumed, with the
qualifications for a judgeship and how one was promoted to the higher
courts.
The pericope before us is an independent logion, picked up for the
purposes of Yosi's account to explain and date the earliest disputes to
309
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L II.ii.2
the Houses. The terminus ante quern must be ca. 150 A.D. Before that
time an unfavorable account of the disputes of the Houses circulated,
but we do not know who held it. It seems to me unlikely to have been
the same circles that regarded the disputes of Hillel and Shammai as
"for the sake of heaven." Judah the Patriarch, or the compiler of Avot,
selected the version more favorable to his alleged ancestor: the famous
old disputes were virtuous. He did not want the disputes of disciples to
reflect ill on the masters, for if the disciples had not sufficiently served
the masters, the masters had not adequately instructed the disciples. In
any event the sayings must come after the Houses of Shammai and Hillel
had come into existence, and their disputes had become well known.
In this same context, we call to mind the saying (M. Ed. 1:3) about
the care of Hillel to say teachings in the precise language of his masters,
consistent with the polemic of the above lemma. But I do not see a
direct connection between the two.
Note Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 422.
c
II.ii.2.A. The story is told concerning (M<SH B) Hillel the Elder,

who laid hands ($MK) on the whole-offering (<WLH) in the courtyard
( ZRH), and the disciples (TLMYDY) of Shammai collected (HBR)
against him.
B. He said to them, "Come and see that it is female, and I must
make it [as] peace-offerings." He put them off (HPLYG) with words,
and they went their way.
C. Forthwith the hand of the House of Shammai was strengthened,
and they sought to establish the law according to them.
D. And there was there Baba b. Buta, who was of the disciples of
the House of Shammai, and knowing that the law [was] according to
the words of the House of Hillel in every place. He went and brought
the whole flock of Qedar and set them up in the courtyard, and he said,
"Whoever needs to bring whole-offerings and peace-offeringslet
him come and take and lay on hands." They came and took the beast
and offered up whole-offerings and laid hands on them.
E. On that very day the law was established according to the words
of the House of Hillel, and no one protested at the matter.
F. A further story is told concerning a certain disciple of the dis
ciples of the House of Hillel, who laid hands on the whole-offering.
A certain disciple of the disciples of Shammai found him. He said to
him, "What is this laying on [of hands] ?"
He said to him, "What is this silence?"
He silenced him with anger.
(Tos. Hag. 2:11, ed. Lieberman, pp. 385-386,
lines 81-90)
C
310
SHAMMAI AND
H I L L E L II.ii.2
Comment: Part A contains a reminiscence of the story of HillePs rise

to power: Forthwith all the courtyard collected (HBR) against him. He said...
(Tos. Pisha 4:13). But here instead of supplying arguments to support
his viewpoint, he simply dissimulated, for Shammai's House agreed
that//^/g^-peace-offerings do require laying on of hands. Consequent
ly, the Shammaites assumed Hillel had accepted their teaching.
The pericope is a supplement to M. Hag. 2:2: Shammai says, "He
may not lay on his hands," and Hillel says, "He may."
The first story ends with part B. Then comes a connecting clause, ty
ing the foregoing incident to the effort to effect the law as the Shammai-House taught it. Baba b. Buta, a disciple of Shammai, but a good
Hillelite one, thereupon foiled them. Superficially, the story seems to
exhibit no integral literary relationship to parts A-B; it looks separate,
joined to the whole because of the congruity of theme. Part E then
supplies a happy ending, using the on that day formula and stressing that
no one protested. Part F draws the necessary consequence from part E:
since no one protested, the silence of the Shammaites is tantamount to
agreement. But part F looks like a simple, anonymous version, out of
which the foregoing could have been spun.
Lieberman observes that flock of Qedar refers to Is. 60:7, All the flocks
of Qedar shall be gathered to you. It means "the best flocks"; see Hellenism
in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), p. 153, n. 5, "The reading of the
Tosefta was perhaps influenced by Is. 60:7." On the legal issues under
dispute, see especially Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc, Hagigah, II,
lines 68-9, p. 1300.
The pericope as a whole is a fantasy, shaped within the theory that
the Temple was in the hands of the Pharisees. Shammai's disciples could
criticize Hillel's procedures in making the appropriate sacrifice, and vice
versa.
This is a Hillelite dramatization of the legal dispute on sacrifices be
tween the two Houses, in two acts. The first, parts A-B, tells how Hillel
conformed to Shammaite law, laying on hands as they said was proper,
but otherwise not. Part C draws the consequence of that fact: it is an
interlude, underlining that since Hillel had conformed to Shammaite
law, therefore the decision was made to follow Shammai. Part D is then
the second act, in which Baba b. Buta rescues the situation by forcing
the issue. Large numbers of people thereupon followed the Hillelite
view of law. Part E, balancing part C, provides the denouement.
If on the face of it, therefore, the pericope is a composite, closer anal
ysis suggests otherwise. The circulation of a separate story that Hillel
had accepted and conformed to Shammai's law seems unlikely. In its
present form it cannot derive from Shammaite circles, who probably
would not have recorded that Hillel "put them off with words, and they
went on their way." Part C certainly would contradict a Shammaite
viewpoint: they soughtimplying a negative outcome, they sought but
could not do it (for the following reasons), diction we have already ob
served in the Hillel-Alexandrian marriage-contract-pericopae, for one
example. Part D means nothing apart from part A. And part E cannot
SHAMMAI AND
H I L L E L II.ii.3
311
be judged an independent subscription, tacked on to a completed story,

but rather the logical consequence drawn from, and integral to, the
foregoing materials. So the pericope stands as a unity.
Dating stories about Pharisaic control of the Temple has generally
proved uncomplicated, which is surely a sign of dubious results. We
have normally assumed that, since the Temple was not in Pharisaic
hands, stories that told otherwise were likely to have been shaped later
on, when the facts of the case either no longer mattered or had been
forgotten. But the formulation of stories on the basis of fantasies is not
unheard of, and we cannot regard the facts of the matter as decisive in
suggesting dates for stories such as this one. What is more important is
that it is taken for granted the Hillelites now are in control. Baba b.
Buta "knew" what was only a fact much later on, when the House of
Shammai had lost all control over the formation of new traditions (even
though old ones continued to be preserved, as we have seen). Since this
is self-evidently a Hillelite version of how Hillel in cahoots with a good
Shammaite had taken control of Temple-law, I imagine it must come
later than the period in which the House of Shammai proved an effec
tive force within Pharisaism, therefore after the destruction of the
Temple. Still, the possibility remains that this is how Hillelites even be
fore hand told their stories, and the foregoing considerations are not
decisive one way or the other.
See Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 19, 48.
II.ii.3. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who
had not served sufficiently, disputes multiplied (RBW) in Israel, and
they became two Torahs.
(Tos. Sot. 14:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 321, 1.
1-2)
Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:9, Il.ii.l. The context is different.
Earlier, the phrase was inserted into a pericope of R. Yosi. Now it in
dependently appears as a separate lemma, introduced by the stockphrase When increased, as in the corresponding Mishnaic chapter. The
phrase about HillePs and Shammai's disciples is just as awkward here
as above. Now it is, When those who were proud of heart (ZHWRY HLB)
multiplied, disputes multiplied in Israel and they were made into two Torahs.
When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not... multiplied... The
two Torahs clause is repeated, presumably borrowed from the S + H
lemma for the antecedent one. But having accounted for disputes, one
hardly has to make allusion to S + H at all. The lemma has been used in
several contexts, but fits perfectly into none of them. Perhaps some
story circulated about the unfitness of the two Houses, but it has been
everywhere suppressed, and all that survives is an allusion to an un
specified unfitness, parallel to the "reproach" that characterized Phari
saism from the two Yosi's to Judah b. Baba. That DWPY is generally
understood to mean the existence of disagreement, so it is not a far
fetched suggestion.
312
SHAMMAI AND
H I L L E L II.ii.4, 5 ; III.i.1, 2
11.11.4. They said, "Let us begin from Hillel and from Shammai."
Shammai says, "From a qab, hallah"
And Hillel says, "From two," and the sages say, "Not like either,
but one and a half qabs is liable for (HYYB B) hallah, as it is said, The
first of your kneading (Num. 15:20)."
(Tos. Ed. 1:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 454, 1.
27-29)
c
Comment: See above, M. Ed. 1:2, ILi.IB. Tos. Ed. preserves a theo
ry of the historical context in which the materials were redacted: "When
the sages entered the vineyard in Yavneh, they said, 'A time is coming
in which a man will seek something from the Torah and will not find
it... (Amos 8:11-12)
They said, 'Let us begin...'" The Hillel-Sham
mai traditions are therefore supposed to be older than Yavneh, in the
form they now exhibit. As was normally the case, Judah the Patriarch
excluded the exegetical basis of the law.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 425, 428: "Let us begin" does not mean
this is the beginning of editing the laws.
11.11.5. [On the amount of drawn water that impairs the ritual pool... ]
(Tos. Ed. 1:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 454, 1.
31-3, p. 455, 1. 1-6)
c
Comment: See above, p. 303.

111.1.1. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of
the hands.
Comment: See above, p. 110. The saying here is in the name of R.
Yosi. In the b. Shab. 14b version, it is an anonymous beraita, below, p.
315.
111.1.2. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of
hands.
(y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead, p. 6b)
Comment: See above, p. 110; below, p. 315.
III.i.3.A. At first there was no dispute in Israel except concerning
laying on [of hands only].
B. And Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four.
C. When the disciples of the House of Shammai and the disciples
of the House of Hillel arose, and they did not serve their rabbis suf
ficiently, disputes increased (RBW) in Israel, [and] they were divided
(HLQ) into two parties (KTWT).
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L III.i.4
313
D. These declare unclean and those clean, and the matter is not
again destined to return to its former condition (LMQWMH) until
the son of David will come.
(y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead, p. 10b)
Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:9, Tos. Sot. 14:9. The Tos. version
here has been corrected to take account of the dispute recorded in the
present Mishnah. Now Hillel and Shammai make the two disputes four,
which are 1. qab for the hallah; 2. impairing the ritual pool; 3. the retro
active uncleanness of the menstruating woman; 4. laying on of hands.
The three new ones are in M. Ed., so the pericope depends upon, and
follows Mishnah-Tosefta. Part C preserves the language of Tos. Sot.
The chief divisions are on purity laws, which presumably do reflect the
contents of disputes between the Houses. The single, unified Torah
now depends upon the coming of the Messiah.
c
III.i.4.A. M'SH B: Hillel the Elder (S) brought his whole-offering

( LH) to the court and laid his hand on it. The disciples of the House
of Shammai collected (HBR) against him.
He began feeling (K$K) its tail. He said to them, "See, it is female,
and [for] peace-offerings."
He put them off with words, and they went away.
After some days the hand of the House of Shammai grew strong,
and they sought to establish the law according to their words.
B. There was there Baba b. Buta, of the disciples of the House of
Shammai, and [he] knows that the law is according to the House of
Hillel.
C. And one time he entered the court and found it desolate.
He said, "May the houses of those who made the House of our God
desolate be made desolate."
What did he do?
He sent and brought three thousand sheep from the flock of Qedar
and inspected them [to be sure they were free] from blemishes and
set them up on the Temple Mount.
He said to them, "Hear me, my brothers, House of Israel! Whoever
wants, let him bring whole-offerings, let him bring and lay on hands,
let him bring peace-offerings and lay on hands."
At that time the law was established according to the House of
Hillel and no one said a thing...
D. The story is told of (M SH B) a certain disciple of the disciples
of the House of Hillel who brought his whole-offering to the court
and laid his hands on it, and one of the disciples of the House of
C
314
SHAMMAI AND
H I L L E L III.i.5, 6 ; III.ii.1
Shammai saw him. He said to them, "What is this laying on [of hands] ?"
He said to him, "What is this silence?" And he silenced him with
anger, and he went away.
(y. Hag. 2:3, repr. Gilead, p. 12a)
Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11, II.ii.2. The story about Baba is
greatly expanded; the changes in the Hillel story and in that about the
disciple of the House of Hillel are minor; see synopses.
C
III.i.5.A. M SH B: Hillel the Elder brought his whole-offering

( LH) to the court and laid his hands on it, and the disciples of Sham
mai collected against him.
He began feeling its tail.
He said to them, "See, it is female, and I brought her for peace-offer
ings."
He put them off with words, and they went away.
B. After some days the hand of the House of Shammai grew strong,
and they sought to establish the law according to their words.
And there was there Baba b. Buti, one of the disciples of the House
of Shammai, knowing that the law follows the House of Hillel.
C One time he entered the court and found it desolate.
He said, "Let the houses of those be desolate who have desolated
the House of Our God." What did he do? He sent and brought three
thousand flock from the flock of Qedar [etc.]
(y. Bes. 2:4, repr. Gilead, pp. lla-b)
C
Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11.

III.i.6. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of
hands.
(y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead, p. 50b)
III.ii.1. [Mishnah: (And) these are (some) of the laws which they
stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon when
they went up to visit him. They took a count, and the House of Sham
mai outnumbered the House of Hillel, and on that day they enacted
eighteen measures.]
Gemara: What are these eighteen measures? For we learned: the
following render Terumah unfit: ...one's hands...]
(b. Shab. 13b)
A. And the hands. Did then the disciples of Shammai and Hillel
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L III.ii.1
315
decree this: [Surely] Shammai and Hillel [themselves] decreed it!

B. For it was taught (DTNY>): Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and
Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the
land of the gentiles and glassware.
Simeon b. Shetah ordained the woman's marriage settlement and
decreed uncleanness upon metal utensils.
Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness (TWM'H) for the hands.
C. And should you answer, "[It means] Shammai and his band
($Y TH) and Hillel and his band," surely Rav Judah said in Samuel's
name, "They enacted eighteen measures, and they differed on eighteen
measures."
But Hillel and Shammai differed only in three places.
For R. Huna said, "In three places they differed"and no more.
And should you answer: They [Hillel and Shammai] came and
decreed that it be suspended, while their disciples came and decreed
that it be burned, surely Ufa said, "The original decree concerning
hands was for burning."
Rather, they [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed it, yet they
did not accept from them. Then their disciples came and decreed,
and they did accept from them...
D. [To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said, "In three places
Shammai and Hillel differed."
E. (1). Shammai says, "Hallah is [due] from a qab [of flour]."
Hillel says, "From two qabs."
But the sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a qab and
a half is liable to hallah.
When the measures were enlarged, they said, "Five quarters of
flour are liable to hallah."
R. Yosi said, "[Exactly] five are exempt; just over five are liable."
F. (2). And further: Hillel says, "A hin full of drawn water spoils a
ritual pool."
For a man must say (a dictum) in his teacher's language.
Shammai says, "Nine qabs."
And the sages say, "Not according to the words of this," etc.
Until (T> ) two weavers came from the Dung Gate of Jerusalem
and testified on the authority of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three
logs of drawn water render a ritual pool unfit, and the sages ratified
their words.
G. (3). And further: Shammai says, "All women, their time (S'TN)
suffices for them."
C
316
SHAMMAI AND
Hillel says, "From examination to examination, and even for many

days."
But the sages say, "Not according to the words of this (etc.), but a
full day is reduced by [the time] between examination and examination,
and [the time] between examination and examination is reduced by
a full day."
H. And are there no more? But there is [this]: Hillel says, "To lay
[hands]."
And Shammai says, "Not to lay [hands]."
R. Huna spoke only of those concerning which there is no dispute
of their teachers in addition.
I. (4). But there is also [this]: One vintages (BSR) [grapes] for
the vatShammai says, "It is made fit (HWK$R) [to become un
clean]."
Hillel says, "It is not made fit."
Except that one, for there Hillel silenced Shammai [sic].
J . Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem
decreed uncleanness in respect of the land of the gentiles and glass
ware.
But the rabbis of the eighty years decreed thisFor R. Kahana
said, "When R. Ishmael son of R. Yosi fell sick, they sent to him,
'Rabbi, Tell us the two or three things which you stated [formerly] on
your father's authority.'
"He sent back, 'Thus did my father say: One hundred and eighty
years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked State [Rome]
spread (P$T) over Israel.'
"'Eighty years before the destruction of the Temple, they decreed
uncleanness for the land of gentiles and glassware.'
"'Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin
went into exile and took its seat in the Trade Halls.'"
K. In respect to what law [is this stated] ? Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi,
"To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines."
The laws of fines.
Can you think so!
But say: "They did not adjudicate in capital cases."
And should you answer, They [Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yo
hanan] flourished during these eighty years too
L. Surely it was taught (TNY>): Hillel, and Simeon Gamaliel, and
Simeon wielded their patriarchate (NHGW NSY'WTN) during one
hundred years of the Temple's existence.
SHAMMAI AND
317
Whereas Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan were

much earlier.
(b. Shab. 14b-15b, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 5863)
Comment: The issue is, Who decreed uncleanness for the hands with
respect to rendering Terumah unclean by their touch? The list of the
eighteen measures holds it was the disciples [= Houses] of Hillel and
Shammai. The composite list of decrees from Yosi b. Yo'ezer to Hillel
is cited.
As we saw, this list is a variation on the chain of tradition, but in
stead of supplying a predicate of moral sayings or Temple laws
(= to lay on hands), it has uncleanness-dem?*.r issued by the Pharisaic
sages. It clearly is an abbreviated list, as above; b. Shab. omits the
second of the pairs, drops Shema'iah-Abtalion and Menahem, and has
Shammai-Hillel in agreement I What is striking in b. Shab. is the assump
tion that the decrees were issued unanimously or by single authorities,
while M. Hag. has the pairs disagreeing. Following the discussion of
Meir and Judah, we may suppose b. Shab. wishes to present the decrees
in the names of the nasi of the generation. But if so, then the parity of
Shammai with Hillel presents a difference in the two lists. We have al
ready suggested that where Shammai is so treated, the likelihood is that
the tradition was shaped while Shammai's followers retained consider
able influence, hence sometime before, or shortly after, the destruction.
The absence from both lists of Gamaliel, Simeon b. Gamaliel, and others
in Avot, makes it probable that the lists were completed early.
We need not imagine that Shammai-tradents are responsible for either
list. M. Hag. in its present state obviously is not of Shammaitic origin,
for it makes Hillel nasi. But b. Shab. need not be regarded as partisan. It
may represent one version of the history of uncleanness decrees agreed
upon by both Houses sometime after the death of the last-named masters,
Hillel and Shammai. That Shammai precedes Hillel here is not inconse
quential.
The beraita which places the decree in the list of the eighteen measures
need not be regarded as a contrary tradition. It has provided a more ac
curate picture of events. The Houses made the decree, but then, in
making up a list of the master's decrees, assigned it to Shammai-Hillel.
The anonymous editor's conclusion, that the masters made the decree
and the disciples managed to enforce it, seems to me reasonable.
Parts D, E, F, and G cover Mishnaic materials of M. Ed. Part H
necessarily alludes to the dispute of M. Hag. Part I is important, adding
a fifth disagreement, unknown to y. Hag. 2:2.B according to our listing
of the "four." But it is possible that M. Hag. is everywhere taken for
granted, so the other decrees would be hallah, miqveh, niddah, and grapes.
Part J introduces the beraita of part L, and tells us that the tradition
on the hundred years before the destruction became important only in
late Tannaitic and Amoraic times. The list cannot date before 70. But
the inclusion of Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon, who until now have
c
318
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L III.ii.1, 2
made no appearance in any Hillel-traditions or in the chains of tradents,

certainly is curious. The beraita s list of Hillelites cannot depend upon
Avot, which includes Gamaliel and Simeon, for it has added an earlier
Simeon, unknown to Avot. The list has no counterparts; it is not cited
elsewhere; all we hear of the Simeon after Hillel is the mere mention of
his name. On that basis we can come to no firm conclusions about the
accuracy of the beraita'\r tradition. We observe that other Hillel-tradi
tions know nothing of Simeon, or of Gamaliel and Simeon his son for
that matter. The traditions including the latter two know nothing of
the former. The list however does not say the later nasi's were Hillel's
family. No source attested before Judah the Patriarch says so.
The patriarchal pattern of names, Gamaliel I, Simeon I, Gamaliel II,
Simeon II, has produced another Simeon before the first Gamaliel, per
haps to match the second-century pattern. The pattern was broken, of
course, with the naming of Judah, son of the second Simeon b. Gama
liel, probably because of the unpopularity of Gamaliel II in Bar Kokhba's time. If, therefore, the pattern was important, it would have been
shaped before the change in the patriarchal pattern in naming future pa
triarchs. Significantly, Judah the Patriarch marks the beginning of the
use of Hillel as a patriarchal name.
Another possibility is that a century seemed long for only three
names, so a fourth was added. But this would not have mattered much,
for everyone knew Hillel lived a long time (one-hundred-twenty years),
of which forty were spent as nasi, and that left thirty for each of the next
}
two
nasis.
And a still third possibility rests on the absence of and after the first
Simeon, which makes the list:
1. H i l l e l and
2. Simeon-Gamaliel
3. Simeon.
and
Thus Gamaliel is given the name Simeon. But who can make much of so
small a matter as and}
It is curious that Simeon-Gamaliel and Simeon play no role in the tra
ditions of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.
The beraitas containing lists, parts B and I, are on the face of it com
posites, but, for reasons stated above, seem to me late, unitary composi
tions. The several traditions are legal-historical, except for parts E , F,
G, and I, which are conventional legal pericopae.
The dispute of part I conforms to our earlier observation about the
subject-matter of Shammai-Hillel laws, concerning ritual-purity rules.
I do not copy Freedman's translation, Hillel was silenced by Shammai.
My text reads STYQ LYH HLL L$M'Y, which can only mean Hillel
silenced Shammai. Freedman has apparently referred to the materials of
b. Shab. 17a in making his translation here.
III.ii.2.A. And another?
One vintages (BSR) [grapes] for the vat
Shammai says, "It is made fit (HWK$R) [to become unclean]."
SHAMMAI AND
319
Hillel says, "It is not made fit."

B. Said Hillel to Shammai, "Why do they vintage (BSR) [grapes]
in purity, and not gather (M$Q) [olives] in purity?"
C. "If you anger (QNT) me," he replied, "I will decree uncleanness
also in the case of olive-gathering."
D. A sword did they plant (N'S) in the school.
They said, "He who enters, let him enter, but he who departs, let
him not depart!"
E. And on that day Hillel was submissive and sat before Shammai
like one of the disciples.
E. And it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the [golden]
calf was made.
F. Now, Shammai and Hillel decreed [this measure], but they did
not accept from them; but their disciples came and decreed, and they
did accept from them.
(b. Shab. 17a)
Comment: The context is the same as above, discussion of the eighteen
decrees. The setting contains no named Tannaitic or Amoraic tradents.
Part A, in standard Mishnaic legal form, certainly stands apart from the
following fable and is complete in itself. As earlier, it seems reasonable
that materials of part A, in which Shammai enjoys full parity with Hil
lel, come early. The subject-matter is congruent to such an early venue.
This early dating also accords with the general supposition that the
eighteen decrees were made during the 60's of the first century.
Parts B, C, D , E , and F are later augmentations of the tradition in
part A. In parts B-C, Hillel appears as subordinate to Shammai. He
points out an inconsistency in Shammai's argument, to which Shammai
replies that the decree can easily be made consistent, and more stringent:
I shall decree. Shammai is represented as able to issue such a decree, there
upon to silence Hillel.
Part D is curious. We are asked to believe someone set up a sword in
the school house to keep everyone (= Shammai's majority) inside.
Hillel was therefore forced to submit to Shammai's judgment. The al
legation that Shammai's rulings were effected by force is egregious. In
other materials it is alleged that the numbers of the House of Shammai
exceeded those of the House of Hillel, resulting in the adoption of
Shammaite rulings. But no where else do we hear of the use of weapons.
If Shammai enjoyed a majority inside, why the sword? Would it not
have sufficed to take a vote? Is this a Hillelite assertion that it was only
force that kept the Shammaite majority in line? If so, it is consistent
with the claim that all good Shammaites knew the law really followed
Hillel anyhow. We do not know the Shammaites' view of matters, but
we may take it for granted that parts D and E preserve the Hillelite
theory. The stock-phrase in the subscription, part E , conforms to
320
the spirit of the foregoing narrative, though it is not integral to it.

Part F then ignores the whole story. It alleges that both Shammai and
Hillel were responsible for the measure, while the story makes it clear
that it was done over HillePs opposition. Part F is drawn from the ear
lier materials. But it makes sense here as much (or little) as earlier. The
decree comes from Shammai-Hillel, and the disciples effected it; or the
disciples attributed the decree to the masters.
The law of part A is then discussed by R. Zei'ri in the name of R.
Hanina and R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha. It presumab
ly reached its current state before the mid-third century, even though it
is not signified as Tannaitic. But all discussions of the law ignore the
"historical" narratives of parts B-E.
Part A could better use TM'/THR, instead of HWK$R +/ L\ Part
B takes for granted the common usage: THRH.
I have no idea when such stories would have been told. The authen
ticity of the legal tradition seems to me highly probable. The credibility
of the accompanying narrative, explaining on the part of Hillelites that
the only way the Shammaite opinions prevailed was by force of arms,
that Shammai silenced Hillel and his logic with an effective threat, that
Hillel was outnumbered, that all those who would come would be likely
to agree with the Shammaites, that Hillel was reduced to the status of a
disciplethe credibility of these assertions, meant to explain in a most
unflattering manner the fact that Shammai's opinion did prevail, is neg
ligible. It is difficult to estimate when such assertions would have proved
important. I can think of no point at which they would have become
irrelevant or incredible. Presumably a later, rather than an earlier, date
would be preferable, however, for after the Shammaite party had lost
any substantive influence in the rabbinical movement, it would have
been easier to explain their earlier preponderance as a matter of force
rather than the logical appeal of their arguments. But this cannot be a
decisive argument.
The language of Hillel's question, part B, recurs in the following
story:
T w o disciples sat b e f o r e H i l l e l , o n e o f w h o m w a s R . Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i .
( O t h e r s state, b e f o r e R a b b i , a n d o n e w a s R . Y o h a n a n . )
O n e said, " W h y d o t h e y v i n t a g e [ g r a p e s ] i n p u r i t y a n d g a t h e r [ o l i v e s ] i n
uncleanness ?"
T h e o t h e r said, "Why do they vintage in cleanness, but not gather in cleanness"
(b. P e s . 3 b )
The question here attributed to Hillel is a phrase around which other

stories were shaped. It is difficult to suggest which of the two settings
the Shammai-dispute, or the disciple-before-the-mastercomes first. It
may be that the lemma has provoked two quite separate and unrelated
stories. But the use of the same words in the two versions indicates that
the lemma was a stock-phrase of the Hillel-tradition. Tos. Shev. 1:5
contains the same argument against Shammaite inconsistency and looks
like the earliest version of all.
Part A follows the conventional Houses-form: superscription stating
SHAMMAI AND
321
the problem, then Shammai says/Hillel says. The opinions of the masters
are phrased in the same verb: HWK$R, and they differ, as I said, only
as to the inclusion of the negative L\ This seems to me the likely mne
monic fundament of the pericope. Part B copies the Houses-debateform, which sets the Hillelite argument first, so that it can be refuted at
the end by the Shammaites, who normally are given the last word. But
the form is violated by the contents of part C, which has Shammai re
ply not by stating a logical argument, but rather by drawing on the
substance of part D. The "reply" is a threat to use force, followed by
an account of how force actually was brought to bear. Hence parts B-C
cannot be regarded as the extension of the Houses-dispute into a debate,
but rather, a very poor imitation of the debate-form, for narrative, not
logical and legal, purposes. In fact part C serves as a connector between
B and D, not as the conclusion of the debate initiated in B. So while
part A looks authentic, the rest for formal reasons must be regarded as
a very late, obvious fabrication.
III.ii.3.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN):
A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like
Shammai.
B. It once happened (M'SH B) that two men made a wager (HMRW)
with each other, saying, "He who goes and makes Hillel angry (QNT)
shall receive four hundred ^#."
Said one, "I will anger him."
That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing (HPP) his
head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, "Is
Hillel here? Is Hillel here?"
Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what
do you seek?"
"I have a question to ask," said he.
"Ask, my son," he said to him.
He asked, "Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?"
"My son, you have asked a great question," he said. "Because they
have no skillful midwives."
He departed, tarried awhile, returned, and said, "Is Hillel here?
Is Hillel here?"
He robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what do you
seek?"
"Ask, my son," he said.
Heasked, "Why are the eyes of the Palmyrenes bleared (TRWTWT) ?"
"My son, you have asked a great question," said he. "Because they
live in sandy places."
21
322
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL
III.ii.3
He departed, tarried a while, returned, and said, "Is Hillel here? Is

Hillel here?"
He robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what do you
seek?"
"Ask, my son," he said.
He asked, "Why are the feet of the Africans wide?"
"My son, you have asked a great question," said he. "Because they
live in watery marshes."
"I have many questions to ask," said he, "but fear that you may
become angry."
Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, "Ask all the questions
you have to ask."
"Are you the Hillel whom they call the Nasi of Israel?"
"Yes," he said.
"If that is you," he said, "may there not be many like you in Israel."
"Why, my son?" said he.
"Because I have lost four hundred f(ut^ through you," complained he.
"Be careful of your moods," he answered.
"Hillel is worth it that you should lose (KDY HW> HLL T>BD...)
four hundred f(u^ and yet another four hundred %u% through him, yet
Hillel shall not lose his temper (YQPYD)."
C. Our rabbis taught:
A certain heathen once (M SH B) came before Shammai and asked
him, "How many Torot have you?"
"Two," he replied, "the Written Torah and the Oral Torah."
"I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the
Oral Torah. Make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the
Written Torah [only]."
He scolded and repulsed him in anger.
[When] he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the
first day he taught him, 'Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet; the following day he
reversed [them] to him.
"But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus" he said.
"Mustyou not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral
[Torah] too."
D. On another occasion it happened that ($WB M'SH B) a certain
heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte,
on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one
foot."
C
323
Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his
hand.
[When] he went before Hillel, he converted him.
He said to him, "What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor. That is
the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn [it]."
E. On another occasion it happened that ($WB M SH B) a certain
heathen was passing behind a school and heard the voice of a scribe
(SWPR) reciting, 'And these are the garments which they shall make: a
breastplate, and an ephod.'
Said he, "For whom are these?"
"For the High Priest," they said.
Then said that heathen to himself, "I will go and become a proselyte,
that I may be appointed a High Priest."
So he went before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte
on condition that you appoint me a High Priest."
But he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.
He then went before Hillel. He made him a proselyte.
Said he to him, "Can any man be made a king but he who knows
the arts of government? Do you go and study the arts of government!"
He went and read. When he came to And the stranger that cometh nigh
shall be put to death, he asked him, "To whom does this verse apply?"
"Even to David King of Israel," was the answer.
Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself a fortiori: "If
Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent, and whom in His love
for them He designated Israel is my son, my first born (Ex. 4:22), yet it
is written of them, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death
how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and
wallet!"
Then he went before Shammai and said to him, "Am I then eligible
to be a High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah, And the stranger that
cometh nigh shall be put to death ?"
He went before Hillel and said to him, "O gentle Hillel: blessings
rest on your head for bringing me under the wings of the Shekhinah /"
F. Some time later the three met in one place. Said they, "Shammai's
impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness
brought us under the wings of the Shekhinah."
(b. Shab. 30b-31a, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 138141)
C
Comment:
Italicized p o r t i o n s (and Scriptures) are in A r a m a i c , t h e rest
i n H e b r e w . T h e p e r i c o p e is u n r e l a t e d t o o t h e r m a t e r i a l s i n its
context
324
SHAMMAI AND
and is anonymous. We have four separate stories, united with a super

scription (part A) and subscription (part E). The stories as a group are,
with the noted exceptions, in graceful Hebrew style. They certainly
could have been told separately, except for parts A and E, and they
have been collected to make a single point, given at the end: Hillel was
patient, Shammai querulous. The editor of the whole pericope has care
fully supplied the moral of the stories.
Part B ends with Hillel is worth, much like b. Yoma 35a, but here
Hillel is worth four hundred %u%, there he was worth profaning the Sabbath.
The original lemma begins, therefore, with KDY HW HLL, with
whatever predicate one finds appropriate for the setting. The same idi
om applies to the Temple.
Part C could have ended with the final phrase, Hillel accepted him as a
proselyte, repeated in part D and E (GYYRYH). The alphabet-story is a
separate element, but relates closely to the foregoing: Just as you rely
on me for the alphabet, so you have to rely on my Torah.
Parts D and E seem to me likewise unitary accounts and from a single
hand. Part F reverts to the superscription, now spelling out what the
patience of Hillel had meant.
The four stories of course reflect the Hillelite viewpoint, but we have
no idea whatever which Hillelitesearly or late, patriarchal or pre-patriarchal, Palestinian or Babylonian. I discern only a few stock-phrases,
Hillel is worth plus parts A/E, be gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Sham
mai. But extended, detailed, smooth stories such as these are not built
upon such brief stock-phrases, but, I think, rather draw upon them at
critical turning points or climaxes in the original narrative. Another
such phrase is the Aramaic what is hateful... around which the second
act of part D is built.
}
III.ii.4.A. It was taught (TNY'): They said concerning (>MRW

LYW <L) Shammai the Elder [that] all his days he would eat in honor
of the Sabbath.
He found a handsome (N'H) animal and said, "Let this be for the
Sabbath." [If afterwards] he found one more handsome, he put aside
the second [for the Sabbath] and ate the first.
B. But Hillel the Elder had a different trait (MDH), for (S) all his
deeds [were] for the sake of heaven, as it is said: Blessed be the Lord,
day by day (Ps. 68:20).
C. It was likewise taught (TNY' NMY HKY): The House of
Shammai say, "From the first day of the week [prepare] for your Sab
bath."
And the House of Hillel say, "Blessed be the Lord, day by day (Ps.
68:20)."
(b. Bes. 16a)
C
Comment: Here Shammai is called "the Elder," presumably by analo-
325
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L III.ii.4, 5
gy to Hillel; there was no "younger." His virtue is turned into a criti

cism. Part A certainly stood separately (pp. 185-187). By itself it is a
story of how the virtuous Shammai kept the Sabbath, always setting
aside the best things he could for that purpose. But with the addition
of part B Hillel proves superior. His religiosity did not await the oc
casion of the Sabbath. Every day did he "observe."
Part C then gives us what must be the beginning of the matter, a dis
pute between the Houses, which has been rendered into stories about
the masters by the foregoing narratives. That seems to me important,
for the House of Shammai's story about Shammai is creditable, no less
so than the House of Hillel's story about Hillel.
Having seen several instances in which an exegesis has been turned
into a Hillel-story, we may take it for granted that the Hillel-clause of
part C has had a similar history. The House of Shammai-clause similarly
has been retold as a Shammai-story. The pericope is similar to the legal
materials of M. Ed. The Houses are of equivalent power within Phari
saism. The Shammaites therefore are able to shape, then introduce into
the normative tradition, favorable materials about their master. These
later on are set together with Hillel-materials. The pericope therefore
is apt to be an authentic record of the mid-first-century encounter of the
Houses, and I see no reason to doubt that the actual teachings of the
masters likewise are accurately presented.
If this is so, the literary history is not difficult to recover:
I. Original teaching of the masters:
1. Shammai: Sabbath
2. Hillel:
Always be grateful
II. The Houses:
1. Shammai's House: Prepare for the Sabbath all week long.
2. Hillel's House:
Be grateful every day.
III. The stories:
1. Shammai: They said concerning Shammai the Elder
2. Hillel the Elder: All his works were for the sake of heaven.
To this point, the traditions were independent of one another, and did
not constitute an effort to contrast Hillel favorably against Shammai.
Then:
IV. The stories brought together:
But Hillel the Elder had a different trait.
At stage four, the contrast is drawn. The beraita at the end must repre
sent the authentic literary record of stage two.
The pericope's theme is vaguely similar to the foregoing materials,
but there is no close relationship.
c
III.ii.5. (TNW RBNN) (M<SH B) Our rabbis taught + It once

happened that
A. Hillel the Elder brought his whole-offering ( LH) into the
[Temple] Court on a festival for the purpose of laying hands there
on.
C
326
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L IILii.5; IV.i.l
The disciples of Shammai the Elder collected against him. They

said to him, "What is the nature (TYBH) of this animal?"
He said to them, "It is a female, and I brought it as a peace-offering."
He felt (K$K) its tail for them, and they went away.
B. And that day the House of Shammai got the upper hand over
the House of Hillel and sought to establish the law according to their
ruling.
C. And an old man of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was
there, named Baba b. Buta, who knew (HYH YWD ) that the law is
as the House of Hillel, and he sent and brought all the sheep of Qedar
that were in Jerusalem and put them into the [Temple] Court and
said, "Whoever wishes to lay on hands, let him come and lay on hands."
D. And on that day the House of Hillel got the upper hand and
established the law according to their opinion, and there was no one
there who disputed it.
E. It happened again with (WB M'SH B) a certain disciple of the
disciples of the House of Hillel who brought his whole-offering into
the [Temple] court for the purpose of laying hands thereon.
A certain disciple of the disciples of the House of Shammai found
him and said to him, "Why this laying on [of hands] ?"
He replied, "Why this silence?"
He silenced him with a rebuke, and he went away.
F. Said Abbaye, "Therefore a young disciple to whom his colleague
says anything should not answer back more than the former had
spoken to him, for the one said to the other, "Why the laying on of
hands?' And the other replied, 'Why silence?'"
(b. Bes. 20a-b, trans. M. Ginsberg, pp. 104-5)
(
Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11. The story is quoted in a discus
sion of the views of the Houses on the comparison of obligatory peaceofferings, whole-offerings, and free-will offerings. The story is told after
a discussion by R. Joseph of the laying on of hands dispute. Afterward
comes a further discussion between the two Houses; no masters are
mentioned in the discussion. Abbaye supplies merely one point at which
the already-established materials were discussed. Part C seems to lack a
clause telling precisely what happened.
IV.i.l. [Mishnah: And the sages say, Not according to the opinion
of either.]
Not like Shammai, who set no exact limit to his words; and not
like Hillel, who spoke in indefinite measures.
. (y. Nid. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. l a )
S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL
IV.ii.l,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ;
V.i.l
327
Comment: This is an anonymous gloss on M. Nid. 1:1.

IV.ii. 1-2. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied,
who had not sufficiently served [discipleship], dissension increased
(RBW) in Israel, and the Torah was made like (K) two Torahs.
(b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 88b)
Comment: See Tos. Hag. 2:9. The context of Tos. Sot. is M$RBWsayings; no masters are cited. In b. Sanh. it is the R. Yosi-beraita> as in
Tos. Hag. So two settings served the same lemma.
IV.H.3-4.A. If one gleans (BSR) grapes for the wine-press
Shammai says, "They are susceptible to defilement (HWK$R) [by
liquid]."
And Hillel says, "They are not susceptible."
B. And Hillel agreed (>WDY) with Shammai.
(b. A.Z. 39b = b. Hul. 36b)
Comment: See b. Shab. 15a, p. 315. The context in b. A.Z. is an anon
ymous discussion of the law about grapeclusters' susceptibility to defile
ment by a liquid. In b. Hul. the passage is cited by R. Zera, discussed
afterward by Abbaye. Hillel's agreement is in accord with the story of
b. Shab., but not with the subscription of that story.
IV.ii.5. [Discussion of the reasons for Shammai's and Hillel's opin
ions in M. Nid. 1:1.]
(b. Nid. 2a-4b)
Comment: The discussion is mostly anonymous, though Abbaye and
Rava participate in some of its stages.
IV.ii.6. Shammai ruled...
(b. Nid. 15a)
Comment: Citation of Shammai's ruling in M. Nid. 1:1, discussed
anonymously. His opinion is compared to that of R. Judah b. R. Yo
hanan b. Zakkai.
V.i.l.A. Be not easily angered: What is that? This teaches that one
should be patient like Hillel the Elder and not short-tempered like
Shammai the Elder.
B. What was this patience of Hillel the Elder? The story is told:
Once two man decided to make a wager of four hundred
with
each other.
They said, "Whoever can put Hillel into a rage gets the four hun
dred
One of them went (to attempt it). Now that day was a Sabbath eve,
z z * z "
328
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL V.i.l
toward dusk, and Hillel was washing his head. The man came and
knocked on his door. "Where's Hillel? Where's Hillel?" he cried.
Hillel got into a cloak and came out to meet him. "My son," he
said, "what is it?"
The man replied, "I need to ask about a certain matter."
"Ask," Hillel said.
The man asked, "Why are the eyes of the Tadmorites [ = Palmyrenes] bleary?"
"Because," said Hillel, "they make their homes on the desert sands
which the winds come and blow into their eyes. That is why their
eyes are bleary."
The man went off, waited a while, and returned and knocked on
his door. "Where's Hillel?" he cried, "where's Hillel?"
Hillel got into a cloak and came out. "My son," he said, "what
is it?"
The man replied, "I need to ask about a certain matter."
"Ask," Hillel said.
The man asked, "Why are the Africans' feet flat?"
"Because they dwell by watery marshes," said Hillel, "and all the
time they walk in water. That is why their feet are flat."
The man went off, waited a while, and returned and knocked on
the door. "Where's Hillel?" he cried, "where's Hillel?"
Hillel got into a cloak and came out. "What is it thou wishest to
ask?" he inquired.
"I need to ask about some matter," the man said.
"Ask," Hillel said to him. In his cloak he sat down before him and
said, "What is it?"
Said the man, "Is this how princes reply! May there be no more like
thee in Israel!"
"God forbid!" Hillel said, "tame thy spirit! What dost thou wish?"
The man asked, "Why are the heads of Babylonians long?"
"My son," Hillel answered, "thou hast raised an important question.
Since there are no skillful midwives there, when the infant is born,
slaves and maidservants tend it on their laps. That is why the heads of
Babylonians are long. Here, however, there are skillful midwives, and
when the infant is born, it is taken care of in a cradle, and its head is
rubbed. That is why the heads of Palestinians are round."
"Thou has put me out of four hundred û^l" the man exclaimed.
Said Hillel to him, "Better that thou lose four hundred
because
of Hillel, than that Hillel lose his temper."
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL V.i.l
329
C. What was this impatience of Shammai the Elder? The story is

told:
A certain man once stood before Shammai and said to him: "Master,
how many Torahs have you?"
"Two," Shammai replied, "one written and one oral."
Said the man, "The written one I am prepared to accept, the oral
one I am not prepared to accept."
Shammai rebuked him and dismissed him in a huff.
He came before Hillel and said to him, "Master, how many Torahs
were given?"
"Two," Hillel replied, "one written and one oral."
Said the man, "The written one I am prepared to accept, the oral one
I am not prepared to accept."
"My son," Hillel said to him, "sit down."
He write out the alphabet for him (and pointing to one of the
letters) asked him, "What is this?"
"It is alef" the man replied.
Said Hillel, "This is not alef but bet. What is that?" he con
tinued.
The man answered, "It is bet."
"This is not bet" said Hillel, "but gimmel."
(In the end) Hillel said to him, "How dost thou know that this is
alef and this bet and this gimmel? Only because so our ancestors of
old handed it down to us that this is alef and this bet and this gimmel.
Even as thou hast taken this in good faith, so take the other in good
faith."
E. A certain heathen once passed behind a synagogue and heard a
child reciting, And these are the garments which they shall make: a breast
plate, and an ephod, and a robe (Exod. 28:4). He came before Shammai
and asked him, "Master, all this honor, whom is it for?"
Shammai said to him, "For the High Priest, who stands and serves
at the altar."
Said the heathen, "Convert me on condition that thou appoint me
High Priest, so I might serve at the altar."
"Is there no priest in Israel," Shammai exclaimed, "and have we
no High Priests to stand and serve in high priesthood at the altar, that
a paltry proselyte who has come with naught but his staff and bag
should go and serve in high priesthood!" He rebuked him and dis
missed him in a huff.
The heathen then came to Hillel and said to him, "Master, convert
y
330
S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL V.i.l
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Shammai
and
Hillel
ILi
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L V.i.l
IILi
Tannaitic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
y. Nid. 1 : 1
b. Nid. 2a-4b
b. Nid. 15a
1. Retroactive
uncleanness o f
menstruant
M . <Ed. 1 : 1
M . Nid. 1 : 1
2. Liability of
M . 'Ed. 1 : 2
T o s . <Ed. 1 : 1
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
3 . D r a w n w a t e r in
immersion-pool
M . <Ed. 1 : 3
T o s . <Ed. 1 : 3
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
4. Dispute for the

sake o f heaven
M. Avot 1 5 : 1 7
loaf for
V
ARN
331
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
liallah
5. Source o f dis
p u t e s is i n a d e q u a t e
study with Sham
mai-Hillel
6. Lay on hands;
Hillel v s . S h a m
mai's students
M. liag. 2 : 2
7 . Hillel and
Shammai decreed
uncleanness o f
hands
Tos. Hag. 2 : 9
Tos. Sot. 1 4 : 9
Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1
y. Hag. 2 : 1 2
y. Sanh. 1 : 4
Tos. Hag. 2 : 1 1
y. P a g . 2 : 3
y. Bes. 2 : 4
y. Shab. 1 : 4
y. Pes. 1 : 6
y. K e t . 8 : 1 1
b. S h a b . 1 4 b - 1 5 a
b. Sot. 4 7 b
b. Sanh. 8 8 b
b. Bes. 2 0 a
(b. Pes. 6 6 b )
(b. N e d . 9 b )
8. Uncleanness o f
vintaging grapes
for the vat
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
b. S h a b . 1 7 a
9 . Hillel + S i m e o n Gamaliel + Simeon
b. S h a b . 1 5 a
1 0 . Gentle like
Hillel, n o t impa
tient like Shammai
b. S h a b . 3 0 b - 3 1 a
1 1 . Hillel, S h a m
mai, and the
Sabbath
(Mekh. deR.
Sim. b. Yohai
p. 1 4 8 , lines
29-30)
(Mid. Psalms
17A)
b. Bes. 1 6 a
b. A . Z . 3 9 b
b. IIul. 3 6 b
A R N Chap. 15
332
S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL V.i.l
me on condition that thou appoint me High Priest, so that I might

stand and serve at the altar."
"Sit down," Hillel said to him, "and I will tell thee something.
If one wishes to greet a king of flesh and blood, is it not right that he
learn how to make his entrances and exits?"
"Indeed," the heathen replied.
"Thou wishest to greet the King of kings of kings, the Holy One,
blessed be He: is it not all the more right that thou learn how to enter
into the Holy of Holies, how to fix the lights, how to approach the
alter, how to set the table, how to prepare the row of wood?"
Said the heathen, "Do what seems best in thine eyes."
First Hillel wrote out the alphabet for him and taught it to him.
Then he taught him the book of Leviticus. And the heathen went on
studying until he got to the verse, And the common man that draweth
nigh shall be put to death (Num. 1:15). Forthwith, of his own accord,
he reasoned by inference as follows: "If Israel, who were called children
of God and of whom the Shekhinah said, And ye shall be unto Me a king
dom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6), were nevertheless warned
by Scripture, And the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death,
all the more I, a paltry proselyte, come with naught but my bag!"
Thereupon that proselyte was reconciled of his own accord.
He came to Hillel the Elder and said to him, "May all the blessings
of the Torah rest upon thy head! For hadst thou been like Shammai
the Elder, I might never have entered the community of Israel. The
impatience of Shammai the Elder well nigh caused me to perish in
this world and the world to come. Thy patience has brought me to
the life of this world and the one to come."
F. It is said: To that proselyte were born two sons; one he named
Hillel and the other he named Gamaliel; and they used to be called
"proselytes of Hillel."
(ARN Chap. 15, trans. Goldin, pp. 78-82)
Comment: b. Shab. 30b-31a is generally expanded and improved upon.
Only part D of b. Shab. is missing, about the whole Torah on one foot.
The rest is told along pretty much the same lines; the dependence of
ARN on b. Shab. may be taken for granted; the former, while copying
the bulk of b. Shab., has added numerous minor details and glosses to
embellish the simpler account of the latter.
Part F of ARN supplies a new subscription, tied only to part E and
omitting reference to the other materials. It takes for granted that
Gamaliel is HillePs son, which is not surprising since ARN is a com
mentary on Avot.
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL
333
SYNOPSES
II. SYNOPSES
1. Retroactive Uncleanness of Menstruant

M. 'Ed.
1:1
M. Nid.
1. S h a m m a i s a y s , A l l t h e w o m e n
suffi
cient f o r t h e m [is] t h e i r p e r i o d ( S ' T N )

2. A n d H i l l e l s a y s , F r o m e x a m i n a t i o n t o
examination
b. Shab.
1*
(PQYDH).
w o r d s of this.
-**
15a
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
2
ii
3 . A n d sages say, N o t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
w o r d s o f this, and not according t o the
4. B u t f r o m t i m e (*T) t o t i m e
1:1
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
[twenty-
four hours] diminishes ( M M ' T ) by means

o f e x a m i n a t i o n t o e x a m i n a t i o n [and v i c e
4.
versa].
4.
(MM'TT)
The Mishnaic tradition is cited in nearly identical form throughout.

2. Liability of Loaf for Hallah
M. 'Ed.
1:2
1. S h a m m a i s a y s , F r o m qab
f o r hallah
2. A n d H i l l e l s a y s ,
t w o qabs
From
Tos. 'Ed.
1:11
1. ...They said, Let us begin
from Hillel and
Shammai.
S h a m m a i s a y s , F r o m qab
hallah [ O m i t s : For].
2
ii
ii
b. Shab.
15a
1. S h a m m a i
says,
F r o m qab, hallah
ii
ii
3 . A n d sages s a y , N o t ac
cording to the w o r d s of
this, and n o t according to
t h e w o r d s o f t h i s , b u t a qab
and a half ( H Y Y B Y M ) are
l i a b l e f o r hallah.
3.
[HYYB
singu
3.
4.
4. A s it is said N u m .
15:20
4.
[=
ii
ii
Tos.
Ed.]
lar]
Except for the narrative superscription and exegetical subscription,

b. Shab. 15a follows Tos. Ed. 1:1 rather than M. <Ed. 1:2 wherever
Tos. and M. Ed. differ. But the differences are not important. The
Mishnah has dropped the Tosefta's exegetical traditions, as is nor
mally the case. Otherwise the materials are pretty much identical in
the several versions.
c
3. Drawn Water in Immersion Pool

c
Synopses of M. Ed. 1:3 = Tos. Ed. 1:3, b. Shab. 15a are given
above, pp. 155-157.
SYNOPSES
4. Source of Disputes Is Inadequate Study with Shammai-Hillel

Tos. Hag. 2:9
=
Tos. Sanh. 7:1
(Yosi-logion)
1. W h e n
multi
plied the
disci
ples o f S h a m m a i
and Hillel that
had n o t served
sufficiently
(KL
SRKN)
Tos. Sot.
14:9
(MSRBW-form
only)
y. Hag.
1:4
2:2
= y.
Sanh.
1 . At first there was no

dispute in Israel except on
laying on of hands only,
And Shammai and Hillel
arose and made them four.
W h e n multiplied
the
disciples of the House o f
S h a m m a i a n d t h e disci
ples of the House o f H i l l e l
and t h e y d i d n o t s e r v e
t h e i r m a s t e r s sufficient-
b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 88b

( M $ R B W - f o r m ) (Yosi-logion)
1
A
'
ii
ii
ii
ly
2. T h e y
caused
to
multiply
(HRBW)
dis
p u t e s in Israel
3. and they w e r e
made t w o Torahs
2 . and the d i s p u t e
ii
ii
[ = Tos. Sot.]
ii
3 . And they were divided

into two parties, these de
clare unclean and these de
clare clean. And it is not
destined again to return to
its former place until the
son of David will come.
2.
3 . A n d the Torah w a s m a d e
t w o Torahs
y. Hag. depends upon, but greatly augments, Tos. Hag. The two
Multiplied
Babylonian
reject the possibility that the Torah was really
( R B versions
W ) [qal]
divided, 3therefore add like two Torahs (even though they were really
one). The preference for qal RBW rather than Tos. Hag.'s HRBW does
not seem meaningful. So Tos. Hag., Tos. Sot., and the two Babylon
ian versions differ from one another in no important ways, except for
one. Tos. Hag. and b. Sanh. insert the lemma into R. Yosi's long say
ing on the administration of justice, though it interrupts the rhythm
and order of that logion, while Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. preserve the
saying as an independent lemma in MRBW-form. Clearly, the saying
stood separately and was introduced into the Yosi-logion later on,
which suggests the explanation for the division of the two Houses
comes before the middle of the second century. However, there is
always the possibility that the lemma has been inserted into the Yosimaterials by a later hand. This was done consistently, however, in both
instances of the Yosi-saying, which can be explained by later scribal
correction. Hence form-critical considerations are hardly decisive in
proposing a credible date for the logion.
In this instance, the Babylonian version is independent of the
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
like
SHAMMAI A N D HILLEL
335
SYNOPSES
Palestinian one, and depends, rather, on the Tosefta'sa rare pheno

menon in materials we have considered.
5. Lay on Hands: Hillel vs. Shammai's Students
Tos. Hag.
2:11
1 . M<SH B
y. Hag.
1*
2:3
= y. Bes.
2:4
b. Bes.
2 . Hillel t h e E l d e r w h o
laid h a n d s o n t h e w h o l e o f f e r i n g (<LH)
2 . w h o brought his whole-of

fering to the courtyard and l a i d
h a n d s o n it.
3 . a n d t h e disciples o f
Shammai
collected
against him.
3.
4 . H e said t o
them,
C o m e a n d see t h a t s h e is
female
4 . He began to feel ( K $ K )
its tail. H e s a i d t o t h e m , S e e

and peace-offerings.
5. and I need t o make

h e r sacrifices o f p e a c e offerings.
6 . H e p u t t h e m off w i t h
w o r d s and they went
away.
5.
6*
House of S h a m m a i
[Above]
20a-b
1.
TOW
RBNN+
2 . w h o brought his wholeoffering to the c o u r t y a r d

to l a y h a n d s on it on the
festival.
3.
House of S h a m
m a i the Elder. They said
to him, What is the nature
of this beast
4 . H e said t o t h e m , I t is
f e m a l e , and I brought it
f o r p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s . He
felt its tail for them.
5.
[Above]
6. and they went away

[ O m i t s hewords].
7. Forthwith the hand

of the House of Sham
mai g r e w strong, and
t h e y s o u g h t t o establish
law according to them.
7 . After some days

a c c o r d i n g t o their words.
8. There was there Baba

ben Buta, w h o w a s o f
the
disciples
of
the
House of Shammai and
k n e w t h a t l a w is a c c o r d
ing to the w o r d s o f the
H o u s e o f Hillel i n e v e r y
place
8.
( O m i t s : in every
place). One time he entered the
courtyard and found it desolate.
He said, May the houses of those
who have desolated the house of
our God be made desolate.
What did he do?
8.
every place.]
9. He went and brought

all t h e Qedar-sheep
and
set t h e m u p in t h e c o u r t
y a r d , a n d said
9 . H e sent a n d b r o u g h t three
thousand goats from
and inspected them from their

faults
9.
Jerusalem
1 0 . W h o e v e r needs to
bring
whole-offerings
a n d p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s , let
him lay o n hands.
1 0 . - 1 1 . Hear me my brothers,
House of Israel, W h o e v e r
wants, let h i m b r i n g w h o l e o f f e r i n g s and lay on hands,
peace-offerings and lay o n
hands.
[11. A s above]
1 0 . W h o e v e r w a n t s to
lay on hands, let him come
and lay on hands
1 1 . T h e y came and t o o k
t h e beast a n d offered
whole-offerings
CWLWT)
and
laid
hands on them.
7 . That day,,
11.
[Omits:
that
in
were in
336
12. O n that v e r y day

the l a w w a s established
according to the w o r d s
o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel
and n o one objected t o
the matter.
12.
and
said anything.
no
SYNOPSES
one
1 2 . T h a t d a y the hand of
the House of Hillel
was
stronger a n d t h e y e s t a b
lished the l a w like them
a n d there was no man
there w h o objected to
t h e m a t t e r in any way
(KLWM).
The progression from the earliest version, Tos. Hag., to the latest,
b. Bes. 20a-b, is in general smooth and routine, except for the sub
stantial intrusion of speeches in nos. 8 and 10 of y. Hag., unavailable
to b. Bes. That is surprising, for the accounts in other respects are
mutually interdependent, and the versions in both Talmuds clearly
depend upon Tos. Hag. Therefore b. Bes. probably did not have ac
cess to Baba's dramatic speeches. I cannot in any other way account
for the omission. This also explains why b. Bes. no. 9 does not know
how many goats were involved, and why the dramatic, second speech,
y. Hag. no. 10, is omitted. So we have an example of what happens
when the two Talmuds' versions depend upon the same anterior
source, but not upon one another. The differences show that the
Palestinians were quite as capable as the Babylonians of creating their
own speeches and conversations, and that literary artifice was no
monopoly of the Babylonian schools, despite the consistent stylistic
excellence of Babylonian beraitas.
Comparing Tos. Hag. with the two Talmuds' versions, we find that
both later accounts make Hillel's opposition the House of Shammai
adding House of to disciples of Both add the dramatic detail that Hillel
lifted the sheep's tail to show its sex. However, in y. Hag., he simply
supplies the information without being questioned, even hinting at
it through his gesture, while in b. Bes. a dramatic colloquy as usual is
introduced: the disciples ask before he says anything, then he says
what it is, and then proves it by showing them the sexual parts. Both
versions drop no. 5, having included the detail in no. 4. b. Bes. leaves
out the first element of no. 6.1 cannot say why. All versions preserve,
with minor variations, nos. 7 and 8. As noted, y. Hag. has greatly ex
panded nos. 8-9. All b. Bes. adds to Qedar sheep is that were in Jerusalem,
a normal expansion to add color. Tos. Hag. is similar to b. Bes. But
why b. Bes. then omits the story of what the people actually did I
cannot understand. There should be a clause, as in Tos. Hag., saying
that the people really did accept Baba's invitation and did conform
to Hillel's law. Otherwise no. 12 is unfounded. Hence I imagine the
337
S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL SYNOPSES
parallel clause has been lost. The conclusion, no. 12, is everywhere the
same, though b. Bes. has rendered it into the Babylonian beraita-idiom
and drawn on no. 7 to supply a counterpart, the hand of Shammai was
not stronger; now it is the hand of Hillel.
6. Hillel
and Shammai
Decreed
Uncleanness of
Hands
Synopses of y. Shab. 1:4 = y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11, and b. Shab.

14b-15a are given above, pp. 128-130.
7.
Uncleanness of VintaoinQ
Grapes
for the
Vat
b. Shab. 17a
h. Shab. 15a
b.
b. Hul.
A.Z.
39b
1. H e
who
gathers
grapes f o r t h e vintage
2. S h a m m a i says, R e a d y
(STYQ
yy
yy yy
yy
3
" * yy yy
yy
Um
L Y H HLL
L$M>Y)
J>
9
3
4.
36b
yy yy
[to r e c e i v e u n c l e a n n e s s ]
(HWK$R)
3. A n d Hillel says, N o t
ready
4. E x c e p t f o r t h a t i n
stance, f o r there Hillel
silenced
Shammai
1
*
yy yy yy
~* yy yy
4. And
Hillel
(<WDY)
agreed with
5.
Shammai
5.
5.
5 . Hillel said t o S h a m m a i ,
W h y d o they gather grapes
i n cleanness a n d t h e y d o
n o t cut olives in cleanness?
6.
6 . H e said t o h i m , I f y o u
press m e , I shall decree u n
cleanness e v e n o n cutting
olives.
6.
6.
7. A s w o r d w a s implanted
in t h e school house. T h e y
said, H e w h o e n t e r s w i l l
enter, b u t he w h o goes o u t
will n o t g o out. That day,
Hillel w a s submissive a n d
sat b e f o r e S h a m m a i l i k e o n e
o f t h e disciples, a n d i t w a s
h a r d f o r Israel like t h e d a y
o n w h i c h t h e calf w a s
made.
7.
7.
yy
Nos. 5-7 of b. Shab. 17a stand entirely alone. No. 4 in the other three
versions surely alludes to b. Shab. 17a, nos. 5-7, but b. Shab. 15a = b.
Hul. 36b has Hillel silencing Shammai, contrary to the extended
version of b. Shab. 17a, while b. A.Z. 39b has Hillel agreeing with
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I
22
338
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL CONCLUSION
Shammai! Both certainly are invented on the basis of the subscriptions,

Shammai and Hillel decreed, presumably unanimously. Perhaps b. Shab.
17a, nos. 5-7, represents a story told to account for that "unanimous"
decree. In their present forms we cannot identify one version as earlier
than another. All that seems certain is that the primary pericope
consisted of nos. 1-3, and then was variously embellished to explain
how the decree was attributed to both men when they had disagreed
about it to begin with.
in.
CONCLUSION
Stories in which Hillel and Shammai are treated as legal authorities

of equal importance include the following:
1. Retroactive uncleanness of objects touched by menstrual woman
M. <Ed. 1:1, M. Nid. 1:1, b. Shab. 15a;
2. Dough made from qab or two qabs liable to hallahM. Ed. 1:2,
Tos. <Ed. 1:1, b. Shab. 15a;
3. How much drawn water impairs ritual poolM. Ed. 1:3, Tos.
<Ed. 1:3, b. Shab. 15a;
4. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the uncleanness of the
handsy. Shab. 1:4, y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11, b. Shab. 13b;
5. When one vintages grapes for the vat, the grapes are made fit to
become uncleanb. Shab. 15a, b. Shab. 17a (III.ii.2.A-B), b. A.Z.
39b, b. Hul. 36b.
c
All legal sayings are redacted in standard Mishnaic forms and pertain
to legal matters of cleanness and proper donation of agricultural taxes,
the two matters of primary concern to the Pharisaic havurah. We may
well doubt that Shammai would have been represented after 70 as an
authority of equivalent importance to Hillel. Hence these materials
are highly credible and may well be authentic traditions of the masters'
or of Houses' rulings.
Stories of a different sort, in which Shammai's vices serve as a foil
to Hillel's virtues, include the following:
1. Shammai impatient, Hillel patientb. Shab. 30b-31a, ARN Chap.
15;
2. Shammai impatient with converts, Hillel nice to themb. Shab.
30b-31a, ARN Chap. 15;
3. Shammai kept good things for Sabbath, Hillel was grateful day by
dayb. Bes. 16a.
The narratives in b. Shab. are in highly sophisticated form and, all
the more so, in ARN. They reflect a situation long after the masters
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL CONCLUSION
339
had died, when Shammai was no longer remembered as a living

person, and when Hillel could be used as a paragon of virtue without
much reference to his actual traits or teachings. In no way can they be
compared to the legal materials juxtaposing the two masters.
Stories explaining the temporary predominance of the Shammaites
are as follows:
1. Hillel laid hands onfire-offering,but because Shammaites thronged
about him, he said it was peace-offering (overcome by Baba b.
Buta)Tos. Hag. 2:11, y. Hag. 2:3, y. Bes. 2:4, b. Bes. 20a-b;
2. Shammai planted a sword in the school-house and forced his ma
jority to remain within, and Hillel was humiliatedb. Shab. 17a.
The third genre of stories about Shammai and Hillel thus provides
the Hillelites' explanation for the temporary predominance of Sham
maites. These stories take for granted the ultimate triumph of the
Hillelite House, therefore come after 70. They explain that the Sham
maites used force to impose their opinions; they either mobbed Hillel
in the Temple, or used weapons of war in the school house, or merely
threatened Hillel. In the former instance a good Shammaite repaired
the damage and corrected the false impression left by Hillel's own
dissimulation. In the latter Shammai's ruling about the uncleanness of
grapes at the vat was entered by force of arms into the normative
tradition. Other, later materials have it simply that Hillel agreed with
Shammai. While, as we saw, the legal tradition seems authentic, the
accompanying story is pure fantasy.
Two contrasting views about the worth of the disputes of the
Houses (disciples of Hillel and Shammai) persisted. One held the
disputes were the result of faulty mastery of the traditions, so the
Torah was thereby made into two Torahs. The other was that they
were for the sake of heaven. A negative view of the disputes of Sham
mai and Hillel and their Houses comes in the logion that when the
disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not sufficiently
served as disciples, the Torah became two TorahsTos. Hag. 2:9,
Tos. Sot. 14:9, y. Hag. 2:2, b. Sot. 47b, b. Sanh. 88b. The affirmative
view held the controversies were for the sake of heaven, only in M.
Avot 5:17.
The Shammai-Hillel materials therefore are to be divided into four
completely different, unrelated kinds: first, possibly authentic records
of legal and moral opinions of the two masters, transmitted through
the Houses at a time that the Shammaites were able to preserve their
master's teachings at parity with Hillel-materials; second, legendary
340
SHAMMAI AND
HILLEL CONCLUSION
stories about the superiority of Hillel and everything he said and did.
The two sorts of stories in no way compare to one another in form,
literary traits, or content. A third group of materials explains why the
Shammaites one time had been able to predominate in Pharisaism;
and a fourth presents an evaluation of the disputes of the masters and
their Houses. The latter three come long after the masters were dead
and probably after the House of Shammai had ceased to be an impor
tant force in the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
GAMALIEL
Locating the traditions of Gamaliel is complicated by the existence

of traditions of Gamaliel II of Yavneh, by the absence of references
to Gamaliel in accounts of the debates of the contemporary Houses
of Shammai and Hillel, by the end of the system of listing pairs, and
most of all, by the failure of the tradents everywhere to distinguish
carefully among the Gamaliel's. To be sure, sometime after the rise
of Gamaliel II of Yavneh, the earlier Gamaliel was sometimes dist
inguished as the Elder, but the attribution is, of course, latesurely
not before 80 A.D.and not consistently and accurately supplied.
Gamaliel was also given the title Rabban, by analogy to his grandson,
I imagine (see Epstein, Mevoôt, p. 31), so was the first of the pre-70
Pharisees to be given the title in later traditions.
A measure of certainty derives from the content of traditionsbut
not a great measure. For instance, pericopae presupposing the exist
ence of the Temple presumably relate to Gamaliel I. Forms linking a
Gamaliel to Eliezer, Joshua, 'Aqiba, and others of Yavneh must mark
traditions of Gamaliel II. Stories about Gamaliel and Onqelos pre
sumably are about Gamaliel II, for Onqelos was a disciple of Eliezer
and Joshua (b. Meg. 10a), and therefore such passages as Tos. Shab.
7:18 (Zuckermandel, p. 119 lines 2-3), b. A.Z. 11a, and b. M. Q. 27a
contain stories probably about the second Gamaliel, not the first,
despite the inaccurate, or improbable allusion to Gamaliel the Elder.
On the other hand, old men of Yavneh, e.g. stories of Sadoq, refer to
a Gamaliel, and it is possible that some of these references are to the
first, not the second one. Here we can have practically no certainty
at all. I have omitted all such reminiscences. Stories about Tabi, slave
of Gamaliel, must be attributed to Gamaliel II.
Our account of the traditions of Gamaliel I therefore can by no
means be so comprehensive and reliable as those of earlier masters. I
have eliminated all materials that did not seem surely to refer to
Gamaliel I, at the risk of missing some stories that belong to him. The
facts that one readily confuses Gamaliel I with Gamaliel II and that
the sayings of the two are internally not clearly differentiated as to
opinion, theme, or tendency suggest that the traditions are not
342
G A M A L I E L I.ii.l, 2
satisfactory for historical research. One may readily distinguish many

traditions of Hillel and his House, given anonymously, from tradi
tions of Shammai and his House, given the same way, because the two
sets of traditions in general were systematized and arranged around
consistent principles (e.g., stringency vs. leniency). The confusion of
the two Gamaliel's comes because the two were in the same party and
their traditions were handed on by the same tradents, who differentiat
ed the two, if at all, either through well-known historical facts (Yavneh
or Jerusalem as the setting), or through the juxtaposition of wellknown personalities (Joshua, Eliezer, or Aqiba with Gamaliel II,
and Yohanan b. Zakkai or a named disciple of the House of Shammai
with Gamaliel I).
c
i. T R A D I T I O N S
1.11.1. Agrippas the Elder (SB') asked Rabban Gamaliel, "Is he

jealous only of others, as it is said, You will know this day and lay it on
your heart that the Lord he is God (Deut. 4:39)."
He said to him, "He is not jealous of one greater then himself or
like himself, but less than himself, and so it says, For two evils my people
has done, me have they abandoned, the source of living waters (Jer. 2:13).
Had they abandoned me, the source of living waters, they would be
wretched. How much the more so to dig for themselves wells, broken wells
that will not hold water!"
(Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, Ex. 20:5, ed.
Epstein-Melamed, p. 147, lines 24-5; p. 148,
lines 1-3)
Comment: This singleton bears no relationship to other early exegeses
of Jer. 2:13 (in b. R.H. 5a-b, y. Suk. 5:5). The representation of Gama
liel with Agrippa might involve Gamaliel the Elder, as in b. Pes. 88a
(below). We have, however, no evidence that a genre of stories devel
oped around the figure of Gamaliel the Elder discussing with gentiles,
kings, or Roman authorities, Scriptural and other theological questions.
Since several similar stories occur with Gamaliel II, it is virtually cer
tain that Gamaliel II is meant here, despite the chronological appropri
ateness of setting Agrippa the Elder with Gamaliel I.
C
1.11.2. This testimony did Hezeqiah father of Q testify before

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder...
(Sifra Shemini, Parashah 7:4, ed. Weiss, p. 53b)
Comment:
The testimony concerns cleanness rules pertaining to clay
G A M A L I E L I.ii.3, 4 ; I l . i . l
343
vessels. No other testimonies in the name of Hezeqiah before Gamaliel

the Elder survive; nor are Gamaliel-logia preserved in testimony-form.
I.ii.3. [You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you
shall dispossess served their Gods... You shall not do so to the Lord your God
(Deut. 12:2-4)].
Rabban Gamaliel says, "And would it enter your mind that Israel
would destroy their [own] altars? God forbid! But you should not do
[actions] like their deeds, that your evil deeds thereby cause the sanc
tuary of our Temple to be destroyed."
(Sifre Deut. 61, ed. Friedman, p. 87b; ed.
Finkelstein, p. 127)
Comment: Since Gamaliel's saying presupposes that the Temple has
not been destroyed, it is apt to be attributed to Gamaliel the Elder. The
sentiment is that Israel would not destroy the altars of gentiles, but
should not emulate the deeds of gentiles and so cause their own altar to
be destroyeda sentiment congruent to that of Yohanan b. Zakkai in
connection with the events of Yavneh in ca. 40 A.D. It seems to me
that it may be an authentic tradition, for the setting, with the Temple
still standing, and the sentiment, that Israel should not violently destroy
pagan altars, both are congruent to the times and known opinions of
leading Pharisees before 70. But these considerations can hardly be de
cisive; we have no firm evidence on the matter. Furthermore, some
versions read Ishmael.
I.H.4.A. And your Torah to Israel (TWRTK) (Deut. 21:5)teaches
that two Torahs were given to Israel, one orally and one in writing.
B. Agenitos the Hegemon asked Rabban Gamaliel. He said to him,
"How many Torahs were given to Israel?"
He said to him, "Two, one in writing and one orally."
(Sifre Deut. 351, ed. Finkelstein, p. 408)
Comment: The same story is told about Yohanan b. Zakkai and
Agrippas the Hegemon, Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 215; see
Development, p. 37. In both instances, the exegesis (part A) is turned into
a story (B).
Il.i.l.A. If a man sowed his field in one kind, even if he made up
two threshing-floors, he need grant but one Pe*ah; if he had sown it
in two kinds, even if he made up but one threshing-floor, he must
grant two Pe*ahs. If he sowed his field in two kinds of wheat and made
up one threshing-floor, he grants one Pe ah; but if two threshingfloors, he must grant two Pe ahs.
B. It once happened that (M'SH ) R. Simeon of Mispah [thus]
sowed [his field and came] before Rabban Gamaliel; and they went up
y
344
G A M A L I E L II.i.2
to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and inquired.

C. Nahum the Scribe (LBLR) said, "I have received a tradition from
R. Measha, who received it from his father, who received it from the
pairs, who received it from the Prophets as zHalakhah given to Moses
from Sinai, that if a man sowed his field in two kinds of wheat and
made them up into one threshing-floor, he grants one Pe*ah; but if
two threshing-floors, he must grant two Pe*ahs"
(M. Pe'ah 2:5-6, trans. Danby, p. 12)
C
Comment: The story (M SH ) involves Gamaliel only incidentally.

Simeon asked him the law, and since he did not know, the two of them
brought the question to a higher court. Nahum then reported his tradi
tion. Strikingly, Gamaliel did not know what the pairs had said, though
he was allegedly descended from Hillel, the last of them (and sup
posedly his own father/grandfather), but Nahum did. Still, I do not see
a polemic against Gamaliel; the saying is cited en passant and without
polemical intent.
Part C repeats as a story the generalized law of part A.
The fact of the matter is that a tradition of the pairs unknown to
Gamaliel is represented as known to someone else of his day. One may
therefore wonder about the nature and extent of Gamaliel's discipleship
with the antecedent masters. No saying is attributed to Gamaliel him
self. He is merely a minor character. Even though he was supposedly
nasi, he still had to repair to the high court; one might have assumed
the nasi presided over that very court. The presumption that this is
Gamaliel I is strong; the setting takes it for granted.
The little story provides flimsy evidence indeed about the opinions
or biography of Gamaliel I.
II.i.2. Yo'ezer of the Birah was one of the disciples of the House
of Shammai, and he said, "I asked Rabban Gamaliel the Elder [when
he was] standing in the Eastern Gate, and he said, I t never renders
the dough forbidden unless it sufficed [of itself] to leaven the dough.'"
(M. <Orlah 2:12, trans. Danby, p. 91)
Comment: Again we have the report of a question brought to Gama
liel the Elder in Jerusalem; several stories about Gamaliel specify where
in Jerusalem he was standing or sitting when the event took place, but
the form is not always a saying of a contemporary (e.g. b. Sanh. 11a,
below). Still, one of the marks of Gamaliel-I materials is that the locale
is carefully spelled out. It seems to me that is apt to be a sign of authen
ticity, for later on it would have been pointless to specify a place in the
destroyed city. Hence a characteristic of the formation of Gamaliel-tra
ditions is the specification of where he was located, e.g. Eastern Gate,
Temple Mount, and so forth, and that specification may come early in
the formation of the tradition.
The above pericope in specifying an inquiry from a disciple of the
345
House of Shammai conforms to our theory that the House of Shammai

did flourish in Temple times. Mentioning quite tangentially the name
of an inquirer of that House serves no obvious polemical purpose. If
the intent were to say that the Shammaites subordinated themselves to
Gamaliel, it would as well have sufficed to say "a disciple" or "the
House of," rather than a particular, named disciple.
The subject-matter of the inquiry is of special interest, for this is not
specified as a matter subject to debate between the Houses. The fore
going Mishnah reads:
I f c o m m o n l e a v e n a n d H e a v e - o f f e r i n g l e a v e n fell i n t o d o u g h , a n d n e i t h e r
o f t h e m sufficed t o l e a v e n t h e d o u g h , b u t i n c l u d e d t o g e t h e r t h e y l e a v e n e d
it, R . E l i e z e r says, "I s h o u l d d e c i d e b y w h i c h o f t h e m fell in l a s t . "
T h e sages say, " W h e t h e r t h e f o r b i d d e n s u b s t a n c e fell i n first o r last, it
c a n n e v e r r e n d e r t h e d o u g h f o r b i d d e n unless it sufficed o f itself t o l e a v e n
the dough."
Thus Gamaliel's opinion, in exactly his words, is preserved as the opin

ion of the sages of Yavneh, in opposition to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (a
Shammaite). Yet Gamaliel's name is not mentionedit is merely "the
sages." This suggests that the opinion of Gamaliel has not been set into
the normal forms of transmission of legal materials, but was kept only
as a story. But if the story was known in Yavneh, and if it did influence
not only the opinion, but the actual formulation, of the majority, then
M. Orl. 2:11 is strangely silent about that fact. Why was Gamaliel not
specified as the authority for the opinion, given the fact that both the
substance and the formulation are supposedly his? The fact that not a
single legal saying of Gamaliel was preserved in normal conventional
form must supply the answer. All Gamaliel-materials in the Mishnah
are in the form of stories or references, in indirect discourse, to his
opinions and enactments. None supplies quotations of his words. All
are in a form different from that imposed at Yavneh and afterward.
On the face of it the Yo ezer story is an authentic account of what
Gamaliel actually stated. Gamaliel served as authority for the Sham
maites. We have no equivalent story of a Hillelite who asked Gamaliel
for a ruling.
c
II.i.3.A. He of the house (SLBYT) of Rabban Gamaliel used to go

in (HYH NKNS) with his Sheqel between his fingers and throw it in
front of him that took up Terumah, and he that took up Terumah in
tends and thrusts it into the basket.
B. He that took up Terumah never took it up without saying, "Shall
I take up Terumah?" and they thrice answered, "Take up Terumah!
Take up Terumah! Take up Terumah!"
(M. Sheq. 3:3, trans. Danby, p. 155)
Comment: The practice pertained to Temple times. The Gamalielite
waited until the time that the money actually would be used for the
346
GAMALIELII.i.4, 5
purchase of sacrifices (Albeck, Mo'ed, p. 194). MS Kaufmann has the

whole in the singular.
According to the above, a "House of Gamaliel" existed alongside the
House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Alternatively, the reference
is to Gamaliel's own household. Since we have no legal opinions attri
buted to the House, only reports of the practices in connection with
specific Temple rites, it is difficult to imagine a House of Gamaliel
comparable to the other Houses. But that cannot be decisive. The
Houses of Shammai and Hillel were small; only in Yavneh did they
predominate in the formation of traditions. Perhaps "Houses" formed
around other pre-70 masters, e.g. Gamaliel, Yohanan b. Zakkai, but
being unrepresented in Yavneh, were either subsumed in the leading
Houses there or obliterated. We cannot be certain.
II.i.4. There were thirteen Shofar-chests, thirteen tables, and thir
teen prostrations in the Temple.
They of the House of Gamaliel and of the House of R. Hanina the
Prefect of the Priests used to make fourteen prostrations.
And where was the added one? Opposite the wood-store, for thus
was the tradition among them from their forefathers, that there the
Ark lay hidden.
(M. Sheq. 6:1, trans. Danby, p. 158)
Comment: Here again we have a story of the practice of two Houses
in the Temple, now in the plural. The additional prostration was on ac
count of their fathers' tradition that in the first Temple the ark was hid
den in the present location of the wood-store; they paid respect to that
place, while others did not.
The reference to "their fathers" does not clarify matters, for fathers of
the worldIncluded Hillel and Shammai, Shema'iah and Abtalion, so it is
difficult to say whether their immediate parents or their masters are
meant. At any rate, Hillel (or Simeon) curiously is not mentioned as the
authority, and the fathers are generalized and anonymous. Hillel ap
pears nowhere in the Gamaliel-traditions, apart from M. Avot and b.
Shab. 15a, as noted above.
II.L5.A. (M'SH ) : Once when they brought cooked food to Rab

ban Yohanan b. Zakkai to taste the broth and two dates and a pail of
water to Rabban Gamaliel, they said, "Bring them up to the Sukkah"
B. And when (K) they gave R. Sadoq less than an egg's bulk of
food, he took it in a towel and ate it outside the Sukkah and did not
say the Benediction after it.
(M. Suk. 2:5, trans. Danby, p. 175)
Comment:
See Development,
p.
43.
347
II.i.6.A. There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called

Bet Ya'azoq, and to there all the witnesses would assemble. And there
the court examined them. And they prepared large meals for them so
that they might make it a habit to come.
B. Beforetime they did not stir from there the whole day.
Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that they might walk within
two thousand cubits in any direction.
C. And not these only, but a midwife that comes to help a delivery,
or any that comes to rescue from a burning house, or ravaging troops,
or from a river-flood or a fallen house; they, too, are [deemed to be]
like people of the city and may move two thousand cubits in any
direction.
(M. R.H. 2:5, trans. Danby, p. 190)
Comment: The decree of Gamaliel is given in the Yavnean form: At
first... When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban X decreed... The form here
makes good sense, however, unlike its use in connection with Hillel's
decrees, for it is entirely plausible that the witnesses earlier remained in
the courtyard, once they had reached it on the Sabbath. But we have no
information on the provocation for changing the law; in the Yavnean
form it is invariably specified.
Who took the sightings of the moon and thereupon decreed the cal
endar? So long as the Temple stood, the Temple administration held
full responsibility for the declaration of the sacred calendar, important
in determining the proper Temple sacrifices for each day. It is hardly
likely that the Pharisees would have told the priests when the festival
and Atonement offerings were to be made. On the other hand, we have
no evidence that the Pharisees maintained a calendar separate from that
of the Temple authorities. Under what circumstances can we conceive
Gamaliel's issuing such an "ordinance," or making such arrangements?
Only if Gamaliel were a leading participant in the Temple councils is it
conceivable that he could have issued such instructions. According to
Acts 5:34 "a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the
law, held in honor by all the people" participated in decisions of the
administration of the Temple. Hence the ordinance conforms to the
picture given by quite separate and unrelated evidence. But the congruity of the two sources cannot be probative, merely suggestive. Still, the
contrast to the alleged ordinances of Hillel is striking. There we could
imagine no circumstance in which Hillel could have decreed what the
Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition attributed to him, while here it seems plau
sible that Gamaliel I made the arrangements assigned to him.
The pericope is in brief, unified, and conventional form. Part C is a
gloss, not to be attributed to Gamaliel. Part A however is integral to the
understanding of the circumstances in which Gamaliel's decree was is
sued.
No further reference to the decree occurs in later materials. The legal
348
basis is not explored, so it is left as a novel innovation, based upon

practical necessity.
On BYT Y<ZQ, see Epstein, Mishnah, p. 407.
c
II.i.7.A. R. Aqiba said, "When I went down to Nehardea to inter

calate a leap-year, Nehemiah of Bet Deli found me and said to me,
'I have heard that in the land of Israel the sages, excepting R. Judah
b. Baba, do not allow (MSY'YN) the woman to marry again on the
evidence of one witness.'
"I answered (NWMYTY) him, I t is so.'
"He said to me, 'Go, tell them in my name (you know that this
country is in confusion by reason of ravaging troops), and I have
received a tradition (MQWBL'NY) from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder:
They allow the woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness.'"
"And when I came and recounted (HRSYTY) the matters before
Rabban Gamaliel, he rejoiced at my words and said, 'We have found
an associate (HBR) for R. Judah b. Baba.' "
B. From the things (MTWK HDBRYM) Rabban Gamaliel remem
bered that men were killed at Tel Arza>, and Rabban Gamaliel the
Elder allowed their wives to marry on the evidence of one witness.
C. And they were established (HWHZQW) to allow (LHYWT
MSY'YN) a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness
[who testifies what he has heard] from [another] witness, or from a
slave, or from a woman, or from a bondwoman.
(M. Yev. 16:7, trans. Danby, pp. 244-5)
Comment: The pericope is a composite of two separate traditions of
Gamaliel's ruling. The first is 'Aqiba's report of the opinion of Nehe
miah, to be dated ca. 100 A.D. The second, part B, is a separate tradi
tion attributing to Gamaliel II the story of Gamaliel I's ruling in con
nection with the massacre of Tel Arza, about which nothing else is
known.
Part A has Aqiba tell Gamaliel II what he has heard. Then Gamaliel
is delighted because Judah b. Baba's ruling is now reaffirmed, a view
surely derived from the Judah b. Baba-circle of'Aqiban disciples. There
fore part A is the version of the story, ca. 100, from that circle, ca. 140150. Gamaliel II makes strikingly little of his grandfather's ruling, in
preference to Judah's.
Part A is joined to the second version by the phrase, from the midst of
the things (MTWK HDBRYM) Rabban Gamaliel remembered that, trans
lated by Danby whereupon. Now comes the second, and separate version
of Gamaliel's ruling. The (earlier) form of the ruling of Gamaliel I
comesas we should have expectedin the context of a story. As to
those slain at Tel Arza, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder permitted their
c
349
wives to remarry on the basis of the testimony of a single witness that

their husbands had died. Afterwards comes the gloss, And the rule was
established...,
followed by the exact words earlier used to report Gama
liel's ruling in connection with the massacre.
What is further interesting is the opinions registered in the next peri
cope:
And the rule was established to permit a woman to remarry on the wit
ness of a single witness, or of a woman, or a slave girl.
R. Eliezer and R. Joshua say, "They do not permit the woman to re
marry on the evidence of a single witness."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Not on the evidence of a woman, nor on the evidence
of a slave, nor on the evidence of a slavegirl, nor on the evidence of rela
tives."
Then is cited a case in which a woman's testimony is accepted, along
with certain proofs of the accuracy of her statement. Gamaliel's view is
rejected by the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai. Gamaliel II says nothing
in this version of the law. He only (miraculously) remembers it, ac
cording to part A, or has a precedent-setting case {not cited in opposi
tion to Eliezer-Joshua), according to part B.
The tradition of Gamaliel I thus persists in two separate forms.
Nehemiah has a tradition in language to be attributed to Gamaliel I:
One permits remarriage on the basis of the testimony of a single wit
ness. Gamaliel I recalls a case in which exactly the same language occurs,
now not as a general rule, rather as part of a narrative:
Gamaliel permitted remarriage (of their wives) on the basis of the testimony of a
single witness.
It comes down to the same thing: Gamaliel's ruling was in the form of a
generalized tradition, which persisted both in that form and also as part
of a story.
Gamaliel II and Nehemiah may be presumed to have known what
Gamaliel I said. This is the first important instance in which immediate
disciples or contemporaries of a Pharisee provide us with verification
for a saying, therefore give evidence as to how a tradition was handed
on very soon after the lifetime of the master who originally gave it. I
take it for granted that their tradition is valid, and that Gamaliel I did
issue a ruling concerning the rights of women to remarry in difficult cir
cumstances. That shows a widening of the range of Pharisaic rulings to
an important, hitherto not much discussed, area of law. One recalls that
to Simeon b. Shetah was attributed a clause in the marriage-contract,
and a few other rulings pertinent to married life were issued, or at least
referred to, in connection with earlier masters. However, Gamaliel I
represents the first Pharisaic master to whom was attributed a substan
tial ruling on that subject (see M. Git. below).
We have no grounds on which to suppose ancient traditions were
now attributed to an important authority, or to reject the authenticity
of the tradition. On the contrary, the persistence of the tradition in two
forms, but in identical language, seems important evidence that it orig
inated in something Gamaliel had actually said and done, and that the
350
incident or ruling (whichever it originally was) was very soon set

into language which became fixed. The rejection of the tradition by
Joshua-Eliezer is in this very same language, One does not permit the
woman to marry on the evidence of a single witnessfurther evidence that the
formula was fixed by the early years of Yavneh. That they held a con
trary opinion is not surprising and says nothing about the authenticity
of the attribution to Gamaliel I. What is more important is the language
in which they rejected it. Aqiba further builds upon the language of
their ruling, a third stage in the development of the argument.
We may reliably attribute to Gamaliel-tradents the words:
c
G a m a l i e l permitted to marry (HSY>) the woman on the testimony (*L P Y ) of one

witness (<D >HD)
On Nehemiah of Bet Deli, see my History of the Jews in Babylonia. I. The

Parthian Period (Leiden, 1969 ), pp. 52-3. He occurs nowhere else.
2
II.L8.A. Admon gave seven [decisions]:

If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was
great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance; but if
the property was small, the daughters receive maintenance and the
sons go begging.
Admon says, "[The son may say], 'Must I suffer loss because I am
a male!"'
Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve (Lit.: See = RW'H) the words of
Admon."
B. If a man claimed from his fellow jars of oil, and the other ad
mitted [his claim] to the [empty] jars, Admon says, "Since he admits
the claim in part, he must take an oath [in denial of the rest]."
But the sages say, "This is not an admission in like to the claim."
Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon."
C. If a man undertook to give money to his [prospective] son-inlaw and then stretched out the leg [ = ran away], she may sit down
[and remain unmarried] until her hair grows grey.
Admon say, "She can say, 'Had I myself undertaken it, I would
sit down until my hair grows grey; but since now it is my father that
undertook it because of me, what can I do? Either marry me or set
me free.'"
Rabban.Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon."
(M. Ket. 13:3-5, trans. Danby, pp. 262-3)
Comment: See Development, pp. 47-8. Admon and Hanan were two
judges of civil law in Jerusalem. Among Admon's seven decisions,
Yohanan b. Zakkai approved two, in disagreement with Dosa b. H a r kinas. Now we have a single stock-phrase for the opinion of Gamaliel
G A M A L I E L II.i.8, 9
351
I, a form different from Yohanan's, which is Hanan said well. But the
structure is otherwise the same:
1. Case/problem/rule of law
2. Opinion of Admon or Hanan
3. Pharisaic reaction:
A. Dosa b. Harkinas said like
their words.
Yohanan b. Zakkai: Well
spoke Hanan.
or
B. Gamaliel: I see the words of

Admon.
Clearly, a Pharisaic pericope was shaped very near the destruction of
the Temple on Pharisaic rulings with respect to the judgments of the
civil judges (= Temple administration) of the city. In part A Admon
rules contrary to the general rule given before his opinion, then comes
Gamaliel's view. In parts B and C the sages' rule intervenes. We do not
know who "the sages" are, but may take it for granted that they are
Pharisees who do not agree with the court's ruling given in Admon's
name. So in part A, the anonymous ruling comes from the court, then
is rejected by Admon and Gamaliel; in part B the ruling comes from
Admon, the sages disagree, but Gamaliel approves; and so in part C.
Other decisions of Admon are preserved without Gamaliel's comment.
In part A Admon's rule favors the male children in cases of a limited
inheritance. In part B the ruling concerns conflicting claims in an ad
versary judgment, an important rule to guide court-decisions. In part C
the law concerns an abandoned woman. Before the wedding the groom
flees. Now is the woman left unable to marry someone else? The rule is
that she cannot marry. Admon rejects the rule on the legal technicality
that the agreement was between the groom and the father, therefore not
binding on the abandoned girl. Gamaliel shares the view of Admon,
consistent with the spirit of his ruling that women may remarry on the
testimony of a single witness to the death of the first husband.
This looks like the composite record of a set of court rulings on
which Pharisaic masters have issued comments, or glosses, for the pur
poses of their own group. Gamaliel's original language may be before
us. No one has taken the tradition and revised it into the language of a
purely Pharisaic ruling or of Gamaliel himself, but the whole has merely
been supplemented with Yohanan's and Gamaliel's opinions. They and
the sages are the only authorities mentioned in context.
II.i.9. When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the
Torah ceased, and purity and abstinence (PRY$WT) died.
(M. Sot. 9:15, trans. Danby, p. 306)
Comment: Gamaliel the Elder is part of the long list of the cessation
of ancient virtues at the death of ancient worthies. Gamaliel comes be
tween Yohanan b. Zakkai and "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi, then Rabbi
352
[Judah the Patriarch] stands at the end of this part of the list, followed
by Pinhas b. Ya'ir on the sad decline consequent on the destruction of
the Temple. The list surely was shaped in the early part of the third
century, composed at that time as a kind of litany. We have no reason
to believe earlier logia about the virtues of the ancients have been trans
formed into the form: when x died,y ended, and then turned into a com
posite list.
Why to Gamaliel should be attributed the glory (KBWD) of the
Torah is clear, for when "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi died, the splendor
(ZYW) of the priesthoodthe counterpartcame to an end. But I do
not know whether these were intentionally paired, for I see no other
pairs in the pericope.
The further gloss, death of purity and separateness, is appropriate, since
with the end of the Temple, the purity-laws no longer applied to their
obvious setting, the Temple, and the emphasis of Pharisaism turned
from those laws ("separateness") to quite different problems. But this is
a post-facto judgment. I doubt it was in anyone's mind.
I do not know what has happened to Simeon b. Gamaliel the Elder.
The Simeon b. Gamaliel on this list comes with Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma,
Joshua, Eleazar b. Azariah, 'AqibaYavneansbut he should have
marked the destruction of the Temple, rather than Gamaliel 1.1 am not
sure which Simeon is intended by the tradent.
c
ILi.lO.A. At first a man used to set up a court [of three] elsewhere

and annul it [the Get, before them].
Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained (HTQYN) that they should
not do so, for (MPNY) the order (TYQWN) of the world.
B. At first a man used to change his name and her name, and the
name of his city and the name of her city.
Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that [in the bill of divorce]
he should write, "Such-a-man, and all other names that he had," and
"Such-a-woman, and all other names that she had," for the order of
the world.
C. A widow may not receive payment [of her Ketuvah'] from the
property of the orphans except on oath.
They refrained from making her swear on oath. Rabban Gamaliel
the Elder (MS Kaufmann: Simeon b. Gamaliel) ordained that she should
vow to the orphans whatsoever they would, and collect her Ketuvah.
D. The witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the order of the world.
E. Hillel ordained the pro^bol for the order of the world.
(M. Git. 4:2-3, trans. Danby, pp. 310-11)
Comment: We have three further ordinances of Gamaliel I, pertaining
to the document of divorce, parts A and B, and the collection of the
marriage-settlement, part C. .
GAMALIEL
II.i.10
353
Part A is in Yzvnean-taqqanah form: At first... Gamaliel ordained...,

with the stock-phrase subscription on account of the order of the world. The
form, however, does not fit so well here as earlier. Once again we are
asked to imagine that for centuries people were able to indulge in prac
tices contrary to the public good; the possibility of issuing a divorce in
one place and annulling it in another would have produced immeasur
able difficulties for the divorced woman, her second husband, and all
future children. It therefore seems unlikely that at first is more than a
formal convention. We may take it for granted that the generally ac
cepted procedures for issuing the get were what the at-first-phtzse al
leges; but the common (non-Pharisaic and pre-Pharisaic) courts pre
sumably had measures which prevented the sort of behavior now pro
hibited by Gamaliel. We may assume that non-Pharisees divorced their
wives as Scripture said, that is, with a document of divorce. So Gama
liel's legislation was not likely to have been necessitated by difficulties
extending back for a thousand years.
If that is the case, and if the report is accurate, then what provoked
Gamaliel? The Pharisaic group may now have begun to make its own
arrangements for changes in marital (and other aspects of personal)
status and therefore rejected the prevailing procedures in favor of a
more efficient rule. Not having access to the means of administration,
therefore to the coercion of police power, available to the Jewish gov
ernment, the Pharisees had to accomplish by other means what must
have been achieved by that government in a quite routine manner.
The same reasoning applies to part B, also in the form: at first...
Gamaliel ordained... on account of the order of the world. It is unthinkable
that for centuries it was possible to issue a divorce in one name, then to
make use of another, more common one, e.g. an old name of the vil
lage, or an uncommon family one, so that the divorce-document could
be confusing.
Part C is in different form; the stock phrase, on account of the order of the
world, is not tacked on at the end. It seems to me more accurate than the
foregoing. The passage begins with a general rule, The widow may not
collect her marriage-settlementfrom the property of the orphans except by means
of an oath. Like the generalized, introductory clauses in M. Ket. 13:1-5,
this would represent the general state of affairs, deriving from, and
based upon, the common law of Palestinian Jewry, applying to everyone.
Then comes a statement of the problem, much like the reports of Hillelordinances: They held back from administering the oath to her. The obvious
result was that the woman was cheated of her marriage-settlement. Then
comes Gamaliel ordained that she should vow to the orphans as much as they
might demand, then collect her marriage-settlement.
How have matters improved? In the case of an oath, Albeck explains
{Seder Nashim, p. 282), the woman might claim that what she received
constitutes salary for caring for the orphans, while the orphans might
claim that that was part of her marriage-settlement. Therefore, Albeck
says, a conflict of interpretation might produce a false oath; hence peo
ple refrained from taking or administering the horrendous oath. HowN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I
23
354
ever, by having the orphans specify whatever they liked, a common in

terpretation of the situation would be achieved, e.g. Such and so fruit is
prohibitedfor
me by vow if I have received any thing from
my
marriage-settlement,
so Albeck. I am not sure how this improves matters. The whole peri
cope is composed of rulings issued for the order of the world, the stockphrase serving to unite the disparate materials. But the Gamaliel-col
lection, like Admon's, certainly was put together apart from the rest and
consisted of three rules:
1. N o t a n n u l d i v o r c e
2 . U s e all n a m e s o n d i v o r c e
3. C o l l e c t m a r r i a g e - s e t t l e m e n t by
vow
that is to say, two laws about divorce-documents, and one discrete rule.
Since part C does not make use of the normal taqqanah-form,
we may
imagine that parts A and B stood as separate rules, and all three existed
without the narrative historical explanation supplied routinely in mat
ters of legislation. Gamaliel could have ruled simply that one must not
annul a divorce except in the court that issued it; one must use all ap
propriate names, to avoid confusion; collecting a marriage-settlement
may be done by vow, not by oath.
These simple formulations of the law (in whatever language seemed
appropriate) would have stood outside of an at first I ordained formula
and would not have relied on the consequent historical justification for
the legislation. The historical explanation is hardly pertinent to the ac
tual rule. Why add the historical "reason"? Pharisaism insisted one
could legislate either through exegesis or through response to pressing
needs, but otherwise, legislation was not done, merely application of
law by the lower courts and interpretation or citation of tradition by the
highest one (as in Yosi's explanation of the operation of the courtsystem noted above, p. 308). Since in this instance, Pharisaic legislation
may have added to, or changed, the existing common law, and since
Pharisaism insisted that the valid common law was indeed its own, re
vealed by Moses at Sinai in the Torahthat is, anachronistically Pharisaizing the law just as it did the heroes of ancient timesthe motive in
adding a historical explanation seems clear. The at firstjordained form
served the purpose of explaining Pharisaic legislation, when new, in
terms of the corruption of old practices.
The formula therefore is as out of place here as with reference to
Hillel. It has been imposed, perhaps routinely, along with the stockphrase about the order of the world. Its usefulness in some of Gamaliel's
ordinances, as in Yavnean ones, led to its imposition even where it does
not belong.
I take it that the formula was imposed at Yavneh and not before. The
earlier form of the sayings cannot be recovered. It was possible to at
tribute direct speech to Gamaliel, as in the Admon-collection (M. Ket.
13:3-5), or to preserve Gamaliel's rules as stories, as in the rule pre
served by Nehemiah of Bet Deli. My guess is that originally direct ad
dress in this instance would have been preferable, later on reduced to
G A M A L I E L I l . i . l l ; Il.ii.l
355
indirect address merely for the purpose of supplying the predicate for
the verb TQN demanded by the new form.
This theory presupposes an early, possibly oral form of the Gamalielrulings. But the at first form has obscured it. In part A we have a sen
tence about early practices, followed by the report that Gamaliel the
Elder ordained that they should not do solanguage that depends upon the
foregoing description. Part B has Gamaliel ordain that one should
write a certain formula, but the formula is not attributed to him as lan
guage he himself has supplied. In both parts A and B it comes down to
the same thing, that whatever brief lemma was earlier memorized has
been revised into a report. In part C, the substance of the decree is pre
served and not merely described:
[TH>] NWDRT LYTWMYM KL MH SYRSW WGWBH KTBTH
hardly a brief, rhythmic formula such as one might have expected.
Further, the verb, TIP NWDRT, has to be revised if it is to stand apart
from the introductory lemma. So in no element of the composite peri
cope are we able to discern what form Gamaliel's original instructions
would have taken. Strikingly, the three parts are unrelated to one an
other in word-choice and rhythm, therefore would not have constituted
a single, unified mnemonic tradition, in which a brief list (three things)
would have been arranged for easy memorization. The only mark of
the requirement to memorize the pericope comes after its formation at
Yavneh: the persistence of the at first form (in parts A and B), and the
inclusion of the stock-subscription, on account of the order of the world. It
therefore looks as if the alleged oral stage follows the written one in re
shaping the Gamaliel-materials; that is, the Mishnah's redactor im
posed it.
I l . i . l l . If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the propertywas great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance;
but if the property was small, the daughters receive maintenance and
the sons go begging.
Admon says, "[The son may say] 'Must I suffer loss because I am
a male?'"
Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon."
(M. B.B. 9:1, trans. Danby, p. 378)
Comment: See M. Ket. 13:3, II.i.8.A. The context is now appropriate:
disposition of inheritances. No masters are mentioned in context; the
rest is anonymous.
Il.ii.l. R. Yosah said, "The story is told that (M<SH ) R. Halafta

went to Rabban Gamaliel to Tiberias, and found him sitting by the
table of Yohanan b. Nazif, and in his hand was the Targum of the
Book of Job, and he was reading in it.
356
G A M A L I E L II.ii.2, 3
"R. Halafta said to him, 'I remember Rabban Gamaliel the Elder,
the father of your father, who was sitting on a step on the Temple
Mountain, and they brought before him the Targum of the Book of
Job, and he said to his sons (Alt.: the builder), 'Hide it under the rubble.'"
(Tos. Shab. 13(14):2, ed. Lieberman p. 57,
lines 4-9)
Comment: The Gamaliel here is Gamaliel II, and his grandfather is
Gamaliel I, as specified. Halafta lived in Sepphoris. The story illustrates
the principle that Scriptures in Targum or in other languages may be
saved from afirebut then must be hidden. Such a Targum was hidden
because of the sages' decree. The testimony of Halafta via Yosah does
not raise any significant difficulties. Various stories place Gamaliel on
the Temple steps, a commonplace detail, introduced conventionally as
a formula, as in Tos. Sanh. 2:6.
The Pharisees took a dim view of making Targums, e.g. a heavenly
voice told Jonathan b. 'Uzziel not to make a Targum of the Writings,
including Job (b. Meg. 3a), the reason (supplied by a gloss) being that
the date of the coming of the Messiah is therein contained. So Gama
liel's rule is consistent with separate and unrelated traditions on the
same subject.
The saying of Halafta is unadorned, a unity; it is a biographical remi
niscence, with the standard M SH superscription. I see no reason to
doubt either that Halafta had said what Yosi his son attributed to him,
or that what he told about Gamaliel was accurate.
C
11.11.2. R. Yosah b. R. Judah said, "Admon and the sages did not
dispute... Concerning what did they dispute? [Concerning the case
in which] she herself arranged the sum.
"Admon says, 'She can say, I thought father would give me, now
that father does not give me, what can I do? Either marry [me] or
free [me].'
"Rabban Gamaliel said, 'I see the words of Admon.'"
(Tos. Ket. 12(13) :4, ed. Lieberman, p. 98,
lines 38-43 [ = b . Ket. 109a, y. Ket. 13:5])
Comment: See M. Ket. 13:5, II.i.8.C. The facts of the case are now
different, but the opinions of Admon and Gamaliel are given in the
same language as earlier. Yosah had the Mishnaic formulation and re
jected it.
11.11.3. The story is told concerning (M'SH B) Rabban Gamaliel

and [the] Elders, who were sitting on steps on the Temple Mountain,
and Yohanan, that scribe, was before them.
He said to him, "Write: To our brethren, men of Upper Galilee and
G A M A L I E L II.ii.3
357
men of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase: We inform you that
the time of the burning has come, to bring out the tithes from the
vats of olives.
"And to our brethren, men of the Upper South and men of the
Lower South, May your peace increase: We inform you that the time
of burning has come, to remove the tithes from the sheaves of wheat.
"And to our brothers, men of the Exile of Babylonia and men of
the Exile of Medea and the rest of all the Exiles of Israel, May your
peace increase: We inform you that the pigeons are tender and the
lambs are young, and the time of spring has not come, and it is good
in my view and in the view of my colleagues, and we have added to
this year thirty days."
lines 27-33, to p. 417, lines 1-2)
Comment: The fixed form of the letters is preserved throughout: Ad
dress, salutation, decree, all in Aramaic. The contents are certainly what
one would expect: olives in Galilee, wheat in the south, news of the
sacrifices and intercalated month to the Exilic communities. But we
cannot confuse verisimilitude with authenticity.
The reference to communities in Medea along with Babylonia is curi
ous, for we have considerable evidence about the latter, but practically
none about the former (except for Nahum the Mede). The equivalence
of Babylonian and Medean communities certainly is dubious. It looks
as if the biblical "Babylonia and Medea" has required the composition
of a separate salutation, even though the communities were not equiva
lent in size or importance. The omission of Alexandria, Asia Minor,
and other communities we know existed is equally strange. It seems as
if conventional usage, rather than the facts of the matter, has shaped the
tradition.
Second, and more seriously, to whom are the letters addressed? If to
all the Jews in those regions, then we are asked to believe that Gamaliel
and the Pharisees, rather than the Temple authorities, determined the
calendar and issued instructions on other mattersmost unlikely. In
fact the Temple authorities determined the calendar, and therefore the
rituals associated with it would have been directed by them, not by
Pharisees. The picture is consistently drawn that the Pharisees told the
priests what to do and otherwise directed Temple procedures, but that
picture is false.
It would be plausible to suggest that the Pharisees wrote to their
brethren,
as the letters specify, and that the concern of the party for
proper tithing is herein reflected. This would account for the letters to
the brothers of the north and the south. But there were no brothers
known to us in Babylonia, all the more so in Medea; the only indepen
dent evidence on Babylonian Pharisaism concerns Nahum the Mede
and, in earlier times, Hillel. The former consists of the nickname, and
358
the latter evidence comes down to the fact that Hillel migrated from
Babylonia, nothing more. Judah b. Bathyra, a Temple authority, lived
in Nisibis, presumably in connection with the collection of Temple of
ferings from that area. Later on, by contrast, the rabbinic authorities did
issue such letters and determine the calendar, but at that time it would
have proved of no interest to tell the Babylonians not to make the
pilgrimage too early, since the Temple lay in ruins. Still, the intercala
tion of the calendar remained important and was presumably announced
in the established language.
A formally similar, but substantively not identical, letter from Simeon
b. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai is preserved in Midrash Tannaim,
ed. Hoffmann, pp. 175-6, set Development, p. 37 and below, p. 378; there
the tradent is Joshua b. Hananiah. I see no basis on which to reject the
authenticity of that letter, which refers to one like this one, "We have
not begun to write to you, but our fathers used to write to your fathers."
The practice of writing such letters further is alluded to in M. M.S. 5:8
by Judah b. Ilai, who says it ended in the time of Aqiba. I therefore
imagine that the letters were in their present form before Aqiba's
time, ca. 120. Since that leaves a relatively brief periodlet us say, 4080 A.D.between the time that Gamaliel's letter would have been
written, and that Joshua told the story of Yohanan b. Zakkai's letter,
the record is apt to be genuine. Gamaliel's letters were likely to have
been preserved, and the instructions on tithing issued from the Jerusa
lem Pharisees to the brethren in the provinces, and on the calendar to
Exile of Medea and Babylonia. That letter follows the form of the
others, and the contents are appropriate; but I do not know who would
have received it. It is unlikely that Gamaliel's archives included both
genuine lettersto Galilee and the South, and fabricated onesto
Babylonia and Medea, right alongside. The letters may suggest the ex
istence of some sort of archive for the preservation and transmission of
written materials of pre-70 Pharisaic masters.
c
II.ii.4. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Rabban Gamaliel

the Elder, who gave his daughter in marriage to Simeon b. Netanel
the Priest, and agreed with him (P$Q M W ) on the condition that
she should not prepare clean things (THRWT) with him ( L GBYW).
(Tos. A.Z. 3:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 446,
lines 6-7)
c
Comment: No tradents appear in connection with the above pericope.

Simeon is listed among the five Jerusalem-disciples of Yohanan b.
Zakkai. It is curious that the marriage agreement included the condi
tion that the daughter not prepare clean things at his direction or with
him ( L GBYW), which means he was not observant of the cleannessrules. The context in which the story is told moreover reenforces this
interpretation. A dispute between Meir and the sages precedes the peri
cope. The sages' opinion is that one may marry his daughter off to an
C
<am ha*ares,
"and agrees with him on the condition that she should not
prepare
359
clean things with him"the exact language of the Gamaliel-story. Gama

liel then is cited as an example in support of the sages' view. The law
may have produced the Gamaliel-story, based on the tradition of Si
meon's non-Pharisaic background. Since Simeon here is presented as
an example of an *am ha'ares, it is further curious both that Gamaliel
gave his daughter to him, and that Simeon is represented as Yohanan b.
Zakkai's disciple. One could imagine that at the outset he was nonobservant, but later on was won over to the party, but no stories tell
about his conversion. He is mentioned only in M. Avot, y. Hag. 2:1 (a
Merkavah-tt&dition), and here.
I cannot account for the identity of language between the sages' opin
ion and the Gamaliel-story. It looks as if the latter has been told or
fabricated as precedent for the former's opinion, just as the redactor
has represented matters, but that does not solve the difficulty of why
Gamaliel accepted a non-Pharisee as son-in-law. The absence of further
Simeon-materials makes it impossible to speculate on the question.
Since he was represented as a good disciple, there is no reason to doubt
he kept the laws as did others of Yohanan's circle. Nor can we suppose
the allegation that he did not was meant to discredit Gamaliel I, for the
point of the story is that Gamaliel took proper account of the son-inlaw's laxity. Perhaps he did not object to intermarrying with nonPharisees, as the sages said was the case, provided one arranged things
properly. But Simeon was a Pharisee, following the Yohanan-list. Per
haps the answer lies in the history of the lists of Yohanan-disciples. If
the Gamaliel-story is genuine, then Simeon was not a Pharisee, there
fore not at the outset a disciple of Yohanan's. But he was part of the
family of an important Pharisaic authority and Yohanan's colleague for
many years. In composing the list of Yohanan's Jerusalem-disciples,
including Simeon as a disciple may have been meant to allege that even
the old Nasi's son-in-law actually served Yohanan, rather than the Nasi
himself (unlikely). In any event, after Gamaliel's death, Simeon would
have gone over to Yohanan, and the facts of his earlier relationship
would have been obscured by the new one. But in so speculating, we
are not on firmer ground than those who argue Simeon learned the law
after his marriage and kept it later on.
II.ii.5. Simeon b. Gode'a gave testimony before the son of Rabban
Gamaliel who said in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that it
is permitted for drinking, but they did not agree with him.
(Tos. A.Z. 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 466,
lines 29-30)
Comment: The reference is to a large barrel carried on wheels (Jastrow,
s.v. DRDWR and RWQB>) or bottles made of leather, formerly used
for wine of gentiles but now having Israelite wine in them. The rule is
the wine may not be drunk, but may be sold. Simeon testifies in the
name of Gamaliel that the wine may even be drunk. This is a singleton.
In b. A.Z. 32a we find the following:
360
G A M A L I E L III.i.1, 2, 3
W i n e k e p t in b a r r e l s o r l e a t h e r b o t t l e s b e l o n g i n g t o gentiles is f o r b i d d e n
f o r d r i n k i n g b u t p e r m i t t e d f o r sale.
S i m e o n b . G u d d a * testified in t h e p r e s e n c e o f R . G a m a l i e l ' s s o n t h a t R .
G a m a l i e l d r a n k o f s u c h in A k k o , b u t t h i s w a s n o t a c c e p t e d .
The Babylonian tradition therefore omits Gamaliel I and pertains to

Gamaliel II. The confusion as to which Gamaliel is involved is further
discussed by later authorities, who resolve it by postulating the exis
tence of two Simeons, one b. Gode a the other b. Gudda* (!).
t
III.i.1.A. R. Judah said, The story concerns (M'SH B) Rabban

Gamaliel and the Elders who were sitting on the steps of the entrance
hall (>WLM) on the Temple Mount, and Yohanan the Priest, the
certain (HLZ) scribe, was sitting before them.
B. They said to him, "Go and write: To our brothers, men of Upper
Galilee and Lower Galilee ('R'YT'), May your peace increase: We
inform you that the time of burning has come. Take out the tithes
from the olive vats.
C. "To our brethen the men of the Upper South and the Men of
the Lower South: We inform you that the time of burning has come.
Take out the tithes of the sheaves of wheat.
D. "To our brothers, the men of the Exile of Babylonia and the
Men of the Exile of Medea and the men of the Exile of Greece and
the rest of all the Exiles of Israel, May your peace increase: We inform
you that the lambs are tender and the pigeons weak, and it is good
in my view and in the view of my colleagues to add to this year thirty
days."
(y. M.S. 5:4, repr. Gilead, p. 31b)
Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. Part C lacks the greeting,
an obvious error.
C
111.1.2. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Rabban Gamaliel

who was standing by ( L) the building on the Temple Mount, and
they brought to him the Book of Job written as a Targum, and he
said to the builders, "Let it be hidden (YGNZW) under the rubble."
C
Comment:
See above, Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l. No tradent appears in
context.
111.1.3. [Citation of M. Git. 4:2.]
(y. B.B. 10:4, repr. Gilead, p. 32a)
Comment:
No named authorities refer to Gamaliel's opinion.
G A M A L I E L I I I . i . 4 ; III.ii.1
361
III.i.4. TNY: R. Yudan said, The story concerns (M<SH B) Rabban

Gamaliel and Elders who were sitting on the step on the Temple
Mount, and Yohanan that scribe (HLZ) was sitting before them.
Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Write: To our brothers, men of the
Upper South, and our brothers, men of the Lower South, May your
peace increase: We inform you that the time of burning has come, to
remove the tithes from the sheaves of wheat.
"And to our brothers, Men of the Upper Galilee and Men of the
Lower Galilee, may your peace increase: We inform you that the time
of burning has come. Remove the tithes from the olive vats.
"To our brothers, Men of the Exile of Babylonia and Men of the
Exile of Medea and men of the Exile of Greece and the rest of all the
exiles of Israel, May your peace increase: We inform you that the
lambs are tender and the pigeons weak, and the time of spring has not
come, and the matter is good in my view and in the view of my col
leagues to add to this year thirty days."
(y. Sanh. 1:2, repr. Gilead, p. 5a)
Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. R. Yannai further cites
the Babylonian letter verbatim.
III.ii.1. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN) M<SH :

The son of R. Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples of sages to R.
Hanina b. Dosa to seek mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up
to an upper chamber and sought mercy for him. When he came down,
he said to them, "Go, for the fever has left him."
They said to him, "Are you a prophet?"
He said to them, "I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a pro
phet, but I have learned this from experience: If my prayer is fluent
in my mouth, I know that he is accepted, but if not, I know that he is
rejected (MTWRP)."
They sat down and wrote and tallied (KWN) the exact moment
($<H).
When they came to R. Gamaliel, he said to them, "By the Temple

service! You did not subtract or leave over, but so it happened, at
that very moment fever left him, and he asked for water to drink."
(b. Ber. 34b)
Comment:
See Development, pp. 88-9. Note also Matt. 15:21-8 and
Mark 7:24-30; Matt. 8:13, Luke 7:10; John 4:50-3. The story, unre
lated to its context, presumably originates in the circle of Hanina b.
Dosa, which preserved memories of how Hanina had healed the sons
362
G A M A L I E L III.ii.2, 3
of the two greatest men of his day. We do not know when or where the
beraita was shaped. The story is a unity. It may pertain to Gamaliel II,
but if this is an authentic story about Hanina, then the greater likelihood
is that it refers to Gamaliel I. He is left without a name; Simeon is not
mentioned, though he would be an obvious candidate, because the son's
identity is unimportant. The story is a healing fable.
111.11.2. Once they brought to R. Yohanan b. Zakkai a dish to
taste and to Rabban Gamaliel two dates and a bucket of water [etc.]
(b. Yoma 79a)
Comment:
See M. Suk. 2:5, II.i.5, and Development,
p. 43.
111.11.3. Our Mishnah refers to a king and a queen.

And it was taught so (WHTNY>): They do not register for two
Passover-offerings simultaneously (K'HD).
A. And it once happened that (WM SH B) the king and queen
instructed their servants, "Go forth and slaughter the Passover-offer
ing on our behalf."
And they went and killed two Passover-offerings for them.
They went and asked the king [which one he desired]. He answered
them, "Go and ask the queen."
They went and asked the queen.
She said to them, "Go and ask R. Gamaliel."
They went and asked R. Gamaliel, who said to them, "The king
and queen, who have no particular desires ( = who are light-headed
D<TN QLH LYHN), must eat of the first. We shall not eat either
of the first or of the second."
B. On another occasion (W$WB P'M'PTIâ lizard was found in
the abattoir, and they wished to declare the entire repast unclean.
They went and asked the king. He said to them, "Go and ask the
queen."
They went and asked the queen. She said to them, "Go and ask
R. Gamaliel."
They went and asked him.
Said he to them, "Was the abattoir hot or cold?"
"It was hot," they said.
"Go and pour a glass of cold water over it," he said to them.
They went and poured a glass of cold water over it, and it moved, and
R. Gamaliel declared the entire repast clean.
Thus the king was dependent (TLWY) on the queen, and the queen
C
G A M A L I E L III.ii.4
363
was dependent on R. Gamaliel. Hence the whole repast was dependent

on R. Gamaliel.
(b. Pes. 88b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 469)
Comment: The beraita is composite; parts A and B obviously contain
separate stories. It is cited anonymously; no masters are mentioned in
context. We may take it for granted that a story about a Gamaliel and
a king and queen must concern Gamaliel I, presumably Agrippa and
his wife. We noted above (I.ii.l) a story involving a Gamaliel and
Agrippas the Elder and made the same assumption.
The stories before us follow the same narrative pattern:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Something
They asked
They asked
They asked
king/queen
happened
t h e k i n g , w h o said a s k t h e q u e e n
t h e q u e e n , w h o said ask R a b b a n G a m a l i e l
R a b b a n G a m a l i e l , w h o m a d e it p o s s i b l e t o d o w h a t t h e
w o u l d find m o s t c o n v e n i e n t .
Then comes the superscription, part C, serving both stories and making
the point that the royal meals depended upon Gamaliel, either with re
spect to Passover, or with respect to a lizard's ritual defilment.
The assumption of part B is that the king and queen ate their meals
in a state of ritual purity, just like Pharisees, and that they relied upon
Pharisaic instructions. This story certainly conforms to the conditions
of life of the Babylonian rabbinate. The exilarch kept the dietary laws
(which did not include cleanness rules), but, rabbis said, was subservient
to the rabbis in keeping them. (By contrast, the Palestinian patriarchate
did not depend upon rabbis for rabbinical information.) The likelihood
that the unnamed king and queen actually ate their unconsecrated food
in a state of ritual purity and that Gamaliel was consulted about their
kitchen and Passover observance is nil. The story conforms to the cir
cumstances of Babylonian Judaism, but that is not decisive. We may
however take it for granted that the beraita contains no information
about the real Gamaliel I and his relationships to the later Herodians.
III.ii.4. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN):
A. From the days of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel, they studied Torah
only standing.
When Rabban Gamaliel died, sickness (HWLY) descended on the
world, and they studied the Torah sitting, and so we have learned:
B. From the time Rabban Gamaliel died, the honor of the Torah
was annulled (BTL).
(b. Meg. 21a)
Comment: Part A draws the consequences, and is an expansion of part
B, cited from M. Sot. 9 : 1 5 . No named tradents are associated with the
composite beraita, which accounts for a well-known practice by refer
ence to a suitable "ancient authority."
364
Gamaliel
the Elder
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
1 . ( ? ) Is G o d jeal
ous of others
M e k h . deR.
Simeon pp.
147-8
2 . H e z e q i a h testi
fied b e f o r e G a m a
liel
Sifra Shemini
7:4
3. (?) D e s t r o y
altars
Sifre Deut. 6 1
Il.i
Mishnah
ILii
Tosefta
IU.i
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
b. B e k h . 3 8 a
(in n a m e o f
Gamaliel the Elder)
4. W o m a n re
m a r r i e s o n testi
m o n y of one wit
ness
M. Yev. 1 6 : 7
5 . S i m e o n asks
G a m a l i e l re Pe ah
M. Pe ah2:6
6 . Y o ' e z e r asks
Gamaliel
M. <Orlah2:12
7 . ( ? ) A t e in S u k kah with Yohanan

b. Zakkai
M . Suk. 2 : 5
8. H o w his house
g a v e Terumah
M . Sheq. 3 : 3
9. H o w his house
prostrated selves
in T e m p l e
M . Sheq. 6 : 1
1 0 . O r d i n a n c e re
witnesses
M . R.H. 2 : 5
11. Approved
A d m o n ' s decisions
M. Ket. 13:3-5
M . B.B. 9 : 1 =
M. Ket. 1 3 : 3
12. When Gama

liel d i e d , g l o r y o f
T o r a h ceased
M. Sot. 9 : 1 5
annulling divorce
M. Git. 4:2a
b. Y e v . 1 1 5 a
(?) =
N o t indubitably Gamaliel I.
b. Y o m a 79a
Tos. Ket. 1 2 : 4
[ = M. Ket. 13:5]
y. K e t . 1 3 : 5
(b. M e g . 2 1 a )
y. B.B. 1 0 : 4
b. K e t . 1 0 9 a
V
ARN
365
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
366
listing nicknames
in d i v o r c e
M. Git. 4 : 2 b
c o l l e c t i n g Ketuvah
M. Git. 4 : 3
16. Banned
Targum of J o b
Tos. Shab. 1 3 : 2
y. Shab. 1 6 : 1
b. S h a b . 1 1 5 a
1 7 . L e t t e r s re
leap-year
Tos. Sanh. 2 : 6
y. M . S . 5 : 4
y. Sanh. 1 : 2
b. S a n h . 1 1 a
18. Married
daughter to
S i m e o n b. Netanel
Tos. A . Z . 3 : 1 0
19. Permitted
drinking from
vessels used f o r
gentile w i n e
Tos. A . Z . 4 : 9
2 0 . Hanina healed
his son
b. B e r . 3 4 b
2 1 . ( ? ) Re b l e s s i n g
oil, then myrtle
b. B e r . 4 3 b
22. Instructed
k i n g a n d q u e e n re
P e s a h etc.
b . Pes. 8 8 b
2 3 . After death,
men studied T o r a h
sitting d o w n
b. M e g . 2 1 a
2 4 . Hillel's p r o s e
lyte named one o f
sons Gamaliel
A R N Chap. 15
25. F o u r kinds of
disciples
A R N Chap. 40
2 6 . Blessed
beautiful gentile
y. A . Z . 1 : 9
(b. A . Z . 2 0 a :
Simeon b.
Gamaliel)
367
368
G A M A L I E L III.ii.5, 6, 7
III.ii.5. Rami b. Hana replied, "Come and hear:

"R. Aqiba stated, 'When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate
the year I met Nehemiah of Bet Deli'" etc.
(b. Yev. 115a)
c
Comment:
Rami cites M. Yev. 16:7.
III.ii.6.A. Come now and see the difference between the proud
leaders of former days and their modest successors of later times.
For it has been taught (DTNY>):
B. M'SH B : Rabban Gamaliel was sitting on a step on the Temple
mount, and that (HLZ) scribe, Yohanan, [was] standing before him
with three cut sheets lying before him. "Take one sheet," he said,
"and write:
"To our brethren, Men of Upper Galilee and to our brethren, Men
of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase: We inform you that the
time of removal has arrived, to set aside the tithe from the olive-heaps.
"Take another sheet, and write: To our brethren, Men of the South,
May your peace increase: We inform you that that the time of removal
has arrived, to set aside the tithe from the wheat sheaves.
"And take the third and write: To our brethren, the Exiles in
Babylonia and to those in Medea, and to all the other exiles of Israel,
May your peace increase forever: We inform you that the doves are
still tender, and the lambs young, and the spring has not yet come.
It is good in my view and in the view of my colleagues, and I have
added thirty days to this year."
C. [Yet] it is possible [that the modesty shown by Rabban Gamaliel
in this case belongs to the period] after he had been deposed [from
the office of Nasi].
(b. Sanh. lla-b)
Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. The (anonymous) glos
sator (C) supposes that it is Gamaliel II, not Gamaliel I. But it seems
highly unlikely that Gamaliel II conducted his business on the steps of
the Temple mount, and the issue at hand, not the facts of the matter,
has provoked the erroneous attribution to Gamaliel II.
III.ii.7. It has been taught (DTNY>): This is the testimony which

Hezeqiah father of Iqesh testified before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh,
in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, "Wherever an earthen
vessel has no inside, it is not regarded as having an independent
c
G A M A L I E L IV.ii.l, V.i.l, 2
369
back. If then the inside becomes unclean, the back becomes unclean,
and if the back becomes unclean, the inside becomes unclean."
(b. Bekh. 38a)
Comment: See Sifra Shemini 7:4, I.ii.2.
IV.ii.l. R. Yosi said, "The story concerns (M<SH B) Father ('B')
Halafta [who] visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi at Tiberias and found him
sitting at the table of Yohanan b. Nizuf with the Targum of the Book
of Job in his hand, and he was reading in it.
"He said to him, 'I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather,
was standing on a step on the Temple Mount, and they brought him
the Book of Job in the Targum and he said to the builder, Tlaster
($Q<) it under the rubble.'"
(b. Shab. 115a, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 563-4)
Comment: Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l. R. Judah the Patriarch and R. Yosi
b. R. Judah comment on the story.
V.i.l. [Hillel's proselyte named one of his sons Gamaliel.]
(ARN Chap. 15)
V.L2.A. On the subject of disciples Rabban Gamaliel the Elder
spoke of four kinds: An unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the
Jordan, a fish from the Great Sea.
B. An unclean fish, who is that? A poor youth who studies Scripture
and Mishnah, Halakhah and Aggadah, and is without understanding.
A clean fish: Who is that? That's a rich youth who studied Scripture
and Mishnah, Halakhah and Aggadah, and has understanding.
A fish from the Jordan: Who is that? That's a scholar who studies
Scripture and Mishnah, Midrash, Halakhah, and Aggadah, and is with
out the talent for give and take.
A fish from the Great Sea, who is that? That's a scholar who studies
Scripture and Mishnah, Midrash, Halakhah and Aggadah, and has the
talent for give and take.
Comment: This singleton bears no relation to the foregoing Gamalieltradition, which does not even mention that Gamaliel had disciples.
Part B richly glosses A.
370
GAMALIEL
SYNOPSES
II. SYNOPSES
1. Heêqiah's
Testimony
The formula in which Gamaliel appears is unchanged in Sifra Shemini

7:4 and b. Bekh. 38a.
2. Woman Remarries
M. Yev. 16:7 is substantially unchanged in b. Yev. 115a, where it
is cited.
3. Ate in Sukkah
M. Suk. 2:5 is accurately cited in b. Yoma 79a, with the following
gloss: TNY LH: "Not because the law is so, but because they wished
to be stringent with themselves," pertinent to the Mishnah; this comes
between Gamaliel-Yohanan and the following clause, about Sadoq.
C
4. Approved Admon s Decisions

M. Ket.
13:5
1. H e w h o agrees o n a sum
o f m o n e y w i t h his [future]
s o n - i n - l a w , a n d h e fledlet
h e r sit u n t i l h e r h e a d t u r n s
white.
2 . A d m o n says, S h e c a n
say, I f I h a d a g r e e d o n m y
o w n , I s h o u l d sit u n t i l m y
head turns white. N o w that
father has agreed f o r me,
w h a t can I d o ? Either m a r
ry o r free [me].
3 . R a b b a n G a m a l i e l said, I
see t h e w o r d s o f A d m o n .
Tos. Ket.
12:4
1 . R. Yosa b. R. Judah said,
Admon and the sages did not
differ where the father agreed
for her, that she can say, Fa
ther agreed for me, what can I
do, etc. In what did they dis
agree}
Where
she
herself
agreed. A d m o n says, She can
say, I thought that
father
would give to me, now that fa
ther does not give to me, what
can I do, marry or free.
2.
y. Ket.
13:5
b. Ket.
109a
1. [ =
Ket.]
Tos.
1. [ =
Ket.]
Tos.
3.
says
2.
2.
3
ii
ii
ii
~* a
ii
The logion of Gamaliel persists in both versions, M. and Tos. Clearly,

the tradition was that he agreed with Admon, but there was disagree
ment on just what was the opinion of Admon. This means that
Gamaliel's opinion in the matter never registered, but was merely a
fixed logion pertaining to his opinion of whatever Admon might say.
Therefore in all four exempla no. 3 is a stock-phrase tacked on at the
end for formal, not substantive, reasons.
ii
GAMALIEL
371
SYNOPSES
5. Banned Tar gum of Job

Tos. Shab.
13:2
1 . R . Y o s a said,
2. M ' S H
3 . R . Halafta w e n t t o R .
Gamaliel to Tiberias
4. and he f o u n d him that
he w a s sitting b y the table o f
Y o h a n a n b. Nazif
5 . a n d i n his h a n d w a s t h e
B o o k o f J o b Tar gum a n d
h e w a s r e a d i n g i n it.
6. R. Halafta said t o h i m ,
I remember Rabban Gama
liel t h e E l d e r , f a t h e r o f
y o u r f a t h e r , t h a t h e w a s sit
ting
7 . o n (*L G B ) t h e s t e p o n
the Temple M o u n t
8. and they b r o u g h t be
fore him the B o o k of J o b
Targum
y. Shab.
1.
2.
3.
16:1
115a
1. R. Y o s /
B
2.
B
3 . Abba l i a l a f t a
4.
^* > yy
yy
5 yy yy
yy
5.
6. R a b b a n Gamaliel
[ O m i t s : the Elder] w h o
w a s s t a n d i n g at t h e b u i l
ding on the
Temple
mount
6 . H e said t o h i m , I
r e m e m b e r [ O m i t s : the
Elder] t h a t h e
7.
' yy yy
8 . to him
the
B o o k o f J o b written [in]
Targum
9 . H e said t o h i s s o n s [sic]
1 0 . H i d e it ( G N Z ) u n d e r
the rubble ( N D B K )
b. Shab.
8.
reading it
>
and he was
9.
t h e builder
9 yy yy yy [~
Y*
Shab.]
1 0 . Plaster
it
(Q<)
10*
yy yy
The Toseftan version has been taken over by the Babylonian beraita
with only a few changes. R. Halafta becomes Abba. Gamaliel is stand
ing, rather than sitting (in conformity to b. Meg. 21a); and the con
cept of geniâh is changed, for reasons I cannot tell. Butb. Shab. has
dropped the whole situation in which the story is told. We are not
informed that it is R. Yosi, Halafta's son, who reports the story as a
criticism of Gamaliel BeRabbi in Tiberias. The story stands as an in
dependent narrative. We are not told which Gamaliel is involved
(though the same presumptions apply as elsewhere). His sons become the
builder (Lieberman's preferred reading), so the detail about hiding the
Targum under the rubble becomes comprehensible. Written is supplied
as well. I see no grounds to doubt that y. Shab. is dependent on Tos.
Shab., for where the version of y. Shab. does use materials of Tos.
Shab. (nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10), it has done so practically verbatim.
Then why is the setting of the story so radically revised? Why no
specification that it is Gamaliel the Elder} I cannot say, but it is clear
that Tos. Shab. has combined two stories, one contained in nos. 1, 3,
4, 5, with the story of Gamaliel the Elder. The combination is smooth
and straightforward, and we do not have to doubt that a single tradent
372
GAMALIEL
SYNOPSES
is responsible for the whole pericope of Tos. Shab. The parts not
appearing in y. Shab. seem to me to have been dropped, not absent to
begin with. b. Shab. is somewhat influenced by y. Shab. in no. 6,
specifically, but I doubt that b. Shab. has copied that single element
from y. Shab.; perhaps the same reasons that caused the tradent of y.
Shab. to make Gamaliel stand up and to drop the Elder motivated the
Babylonian tradent, but I cannot imagine what those reasons might
have been.
6. Letters re Leap Year
Tos. Sanh.
2:6
1. M ' S H B
y. M.S.
5:4
1. Rabbi Y u d a
said
y. Sanh. 1:2
1. T N Y ,
Rabbi
Y u d a n said
2. Rabban Gamaliel
and
t h e E l d e r s w h o w e r e sitting
o n (*L G B ) steps o n t h e
Temple Mount
3 . and Y o h a n a n the certain
scribe ( S W P R H L H ) before
them.
>
2.
of the
WLM
on
the
Temple Mount
2.
3.
b. Sanh.
11b
1.
DTNY>
step
[=y.
M.S.]
2. [Omits
Elders]
step
4 . H e said t o h i m , W r i t e
4 . T h e y said t o
h i m , Go and w r i t e
4 . Rabban
Gamaliel said t o h i m ,
Write
( H L Z ) was stand
ing b e f o r e
him
and
three
cut
sheets w e r e l y i n g
4 . He said t o h i m
Take one letter and
write
5. T o o u r brothers, Men of'

Upper Galilee, and to men
of L o w e r (THT'H) Galilee
6 . M a y y o u r peace increase
7. I inform you
(MHWD<N>)
5. O u r brothers
CHYNW)
5* >>
>
6 >
7
>j
5)
^*
>>
7. W e inform
you
(MHWD'YN)
8.
to
separate t i t h e
f r o m the
olive
vats ( L ' P R W S Y )
9. A n d take one
letter and W r i t e
8. That the time o f b u r n

ing has come, t o bring o u t
( L ' P W Q Y ) tithes f r o m t h e
olive-vats
9. A n d to o u r brothers
M e n of the Upper South
and men of the L o w e r
South
1 0 . M a y y o u r peace
in
crease
1 1 . W e i n f o r m y o u that t h e
t i m e o f b u r n i n g has c o m e ,
t o b r i n g o u t tithes f r o m t h e
sheaves of wheat.
12. A n d to our brothers,
M e n o f the Exile o f Baby-
{HLZ)
was sitting
before
Bring
7
'
8.
out
(TPQWN)
9.
[Reverses o r d e r :
South, then Gali
lee]
10.
11.
12.
and Men of
the
>
>
[ O m i t s : Lower
South]
10.
1^*
1L
,,
,,
11.
[As above, nos.

7-8]
12.
[=
y. M . S . ]
1 2 . Take one letter

and write
GAMALIEL
Ionia a n d m e n o f t h e E x i l e
o f M e d e a a n d t h e r e s t o f all
t h e E x i l e s o f Israel
1 3 . M a y y o u r peace
in
crease
1 4 . W e inform y o u that the
pigeons are tender and the
lambs weak, and the time of
s p r i n g has n o t c o m e .
1 5 . A n d it is w e l l in m y
v i e w a n d in t h e v i e w o f m y
colleagues
1 6 . and I h a v e added t o this
year thirty days.
373
SYNOPSES
Exile of Greece and

the rest
[ O m i t s : Greece]
13
13.
ever
14
14
14.
15
1 5 . t h e matter is
good
15.
1 6 . to a d d
1 6 . j
13.
16*
[=
for-
y. Sanh.
1:2]
>
The texts of the letters are virtually identical; the changes are minor,
involving a shift from infinitives to finite verbs, adding words here
and there. The narrative superscriptions show important changes, b.
Sanh. drops and the Elders, which completely misses the point of citing
the story: Gamaliel was willing to consult his colleagues, while later
patriarchs were not; the antecedent reference to colleagues in no. 15 is
lost. The setting of no. 2, however, is standard: the Temple mount. But
the steps become step and are moved here and there. Then b. Sanh.
supplies some instructions to Yohanan, absent in the earlier accounts.
This addition is certainly an improvement of, and based upon, the fore
going versions. It is striking that while the normal changes made in
earlier Palestinian versions by the editors of late heraitot do occur,
these changes have scarcely touched the substance of the letter.
i n . CONCLUSION
The Gamaliel referred to in Acts 5:34a teacher of the law, held

in honor by all the people, a member of the Temple councilis pre
sumably identical with the Gamaliel the Elder of the foregoing peri
copae. The testimony of Acts and of the rabbinic traditions is con
sistent but not very substantial.
The evidence that Gamaliel lived in Temple times occurs in all sorts
of traditions. The following are the Gamaliel-sayings and stories that
take place in Jerusalem or reflect the existence of the Temple, or both:
Sifre Deut. 61, I.ii.3; M. Pe>ah 2:5-6, Il.i.l; M. <Orlah 2:12, II.i.2; M.
Sheq 3:3, II.i.3 (how they gave Terumah); M. Sheq. 6:1, II.i.4 (behavior
in Temple cult); M. R.H. 2:5, II.i.6; agreed with civil judge, Admon,
M. Ket. 13:3-5; sitting on Temple stairs, Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l (Job),
Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3 (calendar).
374
GAMALIEL CONCLUSION
The traditions are, of course, not equally reliable. Some are stories
that could have been made up at any time, not subject to the control
effected by critical study in the schools and review by masters familiar
with the matter. These include fables of Gamaliel (I? II?) with Agrippas, or with "the king and queen," the latter clearly built on a logion
about Gamaliel:
1. Agrippas the ElderMekh. deR. Simeon, p. 147, I.ii.l;
2. King and queenb. Pes. 88b, III.ii.3.
Other elements in the tradition consist of stock-phrases about testi
mony given before Gamaliel or questions brought to him, and referred
by him elsewhere:
1. Testimony before Gamaliel I
a. Hezeqiah: Sifra Shemini 7:4, I.ii.2; III.ii.8.
b. Simeon b. Gode'a: Tos. A.Z. 4:9, II.ii.5 = b. Bekh. 38a.
2. Questions brought to Gamaliel IRe tithes, etc., M. Pe'ah 2:5-6, Il.i.l;
M. <Orlah2:12, II.i.2.
The testimony-form possibly suggests that legal traditions may have
been shaped under Gamaliel's auspices, for such a formula is unlikely
to have come from other schools. But the formula was not used for
traditions of Gamaliel himself.
Among other, more detailed references to, and stories about, Gama
liel the Elder, we may distinguish between the encomium in the litany
of M. Sotah, the story of his son's being healed by Hanina, and his
daughter's marrying Simeon b. Natanel, none of which is subject to
verification, on the one hand, and the letters to the brethren in Pale
stine and abroad, the excellent state of the preservation of which is
prima facie evidence of a reliable course of transmission, on the other.
I think the letters were likely to have been preserved in patriarchal
archives, which would account for the consistency of their Aramaic
text in the several compilations. The prohibition of the Targum of
Job is similarly attested in a well-articulated chain of transmission.
While Halafta's memory about details may have faltered, it is striking
that, although his own heirs knew nothing of the ruling, when it was
' given, it was accepted as authoritative. Finally, the story of Gamaliel
with Yohanan b. Zakkai is likely to pertain to Gamaliel I.
The references to, and stories about Gamaliel the Elder are as fol
lows:
1. When he died, glory of Torah ceasedM. Sot. 9:15, II.i.9;
375
GAMALIEL CONCLUSION
2. Prohibited Targum of JobTos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l; y. Shab. 16:1,

III.i.2; b. Shab. 115a, IV.ii.l;
3. Letters to Galilee, South, and Babylonia re calendarTos. Sanh. 2:6,
II.ii.3 = y. M.S. 5:4, III.i.1; y. Sanh. 1:2, III.i.4; b. Sanh. l i b ,
III.ii.7;
4. Married his daughter to Simeon b. NetanelTos. A.Z. 3:10, II.ii.4;
5. Son healed by Hanina b. Dosab. Ber. 34b, III.ii.1;
6. With Yohanan'b. ZakkaiM. Suk. 2:5, II.i.5 = b. Yoma 79a,
III.ii.2.
We come, finally, to the legal materials, which seem reliable. These
are in three forms, first, the ordinance (At first... Rabban Gamaliel
ordained...), whether the formula fits or not; second, in an equally
unconventional form, as a logion (stock-phrase) approving the ruling
of another master (Admon); third, a story of a specific ruling ac
companied by a generalized version of the same legal opinion (wives
may remarry/Tel Arza). The rule that one may study seated is not of
the same order of credibility; this looks like an attribution, to an
ancient authority, of a change already well established. The ordinances
and legal opinions are as follows:
Ordinances
1. M. R.H. 2:5, II.i.6New Moon witnesses may move about on
Sabbath.
2. M. Git. 4:2-3, II.i.10re annulling Get only in court that issued it;
using all aliases; and collecting Ketuvah with vow.
Legal opinions and rulings of Gamaliel apart from ordinances
1. Wives may remarry on testimony of one witness (logion and story)
M. Yev. 16:7, II.i.7.
2. Agrees with Admon re inheritance, rules of evidence, broken be
trothalM. Ket. 13:3-5, II.i.8, M. B.B. 9:1 - M. Ket. 13:3, Il.i.ll;
Tos. Ket. 12:4 = M. Ket. 13:5, II.ii.2 (= b. Ket. 109a, y. Ket. 13:5).
3. May study seatedb. Meg. 21a.
Gamaliel is not called nasi. The Gamaliel-corpus does not relate him
to Hillel, either as son or successor (Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 31). Neither
his legal opinions nor stories about him suggest Gamaliel I either
studied with Hillel or was in the House of Hillel. This seems to me the
most important result of our inquiry. Further, while we are told of a
daughter, she is not named, nor when a son is mentioned is his name
(Simeon ?) given. Gamaliel-traditions leave the man in a rather shadowy,
vague state, by contrast to the stories told about Hillel. No one was
interested in developing Gamaliel the Elder-materials into extensive
narratives. This may suggest that the materials we do have, with the
obvious exceptions, are likely to have been shaped sufficiently near
y
376
GAMALIEL CONCLUSION
his lifetime so that interest in the man and his teachings was still
strong. On the whole, therefore, it looks to me as though some of the
legal materials are apt to be authentic records of Gamaliel I.
This fact therefore increases our puzzlement at the failure of the
materials ever to pertain to, let alone mention, matters under debate
between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. If Gamaliel I was a mem
ber of the House of Hillel, the traditions never reflected it. The re
ferences to the members of the House of Gamaliel may mean he himself
conducted his own "House." All we know for sure is that Gamalieltraditions are curiously silent on the House of Hillel, but both make
Gamaliel an authority for a member of the opposition, and have him
rule like the Shammaites (M. Bes. 2:6, below, p. 380).
The legal issues of Gamaliel-pericopae center on issues other than
the laws of table-fellowship, that is, purity rules and agricultural
taboos. They pertain to matters of common, and not merely sectarian,
concern, such as exchanges of property in connection with inherit
ance, marriage and divorce, rules of evidence, witnesses in the Temple
calendar process, and other public issues. The legal agenda of the
Gamaliel-traditions conforms to that of a public official, rather than
of a sectarian authority within Pharisaism. I therefore take it for
granted that Gamaliel was both a Temple-council member, as Acts
alleges, and leader within the Pharisiac sect, as the rabbinic traditions
hold.
CHAPTER TWELVE
SIMEON BEN
GAMALIEL
Locating the traditions of Simeon b. Gamaliel is even more difficult

than finding those of Gamaliel I. He is not specified as the Elder.
No legal traditions are given in his name. To be sure, like a Gamaliel,
a Simeon b. Gamaliel comments on disputes between the Houses of
Hillel and Shammai (e.g. M. 'Eruv 8:6; M. Pes. 4:5), but we do not
know whether it is Simeon I or Simeon ben Gamaliel II, who flourish
ed in the middle of the second century. Where a Simeon b. Gamaliel
refers in the past tense to Yavneh (e.g. Tos. R.H. 4:5), or to Jerusalem
and the Temple (e.g. Tos. Ber. 4:9, Jerusalem; Tos Arakh. 1:13, the
Temple), we may assume that it is Simeon b. Gamaliel II, for the first
Simeon lived in Temple times, and some stories about, and sayings
attributed to, him indicate the Temple was still standing. For an
example of the traditional approach to the problem, one may consult
Tosafot in b. A.Z. 32a, s.v. BL.
c
i. TRADITIONS
I.ii.l. The story is told that (M'SH ) a pair of doves (QYNYM) in

Jerusalem stood at a golden denar.
Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "By this Temple! (M<WN) I shall
not rest this night before they shall be at denars of silver."
He went into the court and taught, "The woman who owes five
certain birth sacrifices and five certain issues brings one sacrifice and
eats of the sacrifices, and the rest [of the offering rests] on her as an
obligation (HWBH)."
And a pair of doves stood that day at a fourth [of the former cost].
(Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:7, ed. Weiss, pp. 59a-b)
Comment: The story presupposes that sacrifices were made, hence
must pertain to Simeon b. Gamaliel I. But it is hard to imagine that
merely teaching a law in the court (BYT DYN) was sufficient in hours
to affect the demand and therefore lower the price, unless the instruc
tions of the Pharisaic court were everywhere heeded. The Temple
priests made the sacrifices and certainly would not have given shares in
them to anyone not clean according to their rule. Hence it is doubtful
that such an event took place, and the story probably was fabricated on-
378
SIMEON BEN
G A M A L I E L I.ii.2, 3
ly when it would have been credible, after the Temple lay in ruins for a
long time.
1.11.2. Rabban Gamaliel said, "The house of father was accustomed
to give one pe*ah for olives which they had in every direction, and as
to carobs, all of which were in sight of one another."
(Sifra Qedoshim Pereq 2:4, ed. Weiss p. 87b)
Comment: I assume this is Gamaliel II, and hence the 'house of father'
would mean Simeon b. Gamaliel I. The legal rule is not formulated.
The private practice of the household is cited, but not as valid prece
dent.
1.11.3. R. Joshua said, "...One time I went up to the Upper Market,
to the Offal Gate which was in Jerusalem, and I found there Rabban
Simeon ben Gamaliel and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai seated, with
two scrolls unrolled before them.
"Yohanan a certain (HLH) scribe was standing before them, pen
and ink at the ready.
"They said to him, 'Write: From Simeon ben Gamaliel and from
Yohanan ben Zakkai to our brethren who are in the Upper and Lower
South, and to Shahlil, and to the seven provinces of the South,
Peace. Let it be known to you that the fourth year has come, and
still the heavenly sanctities have not been burned. But ('L* ) hasten
and bring five sheaves which are required (HN M'KBYN) for the
Confession. And we have not begun to write to you, but ('L') our
fathers used to write to your fathers.'
"They said to him, 'Write a second letter: From Simeon ben Gama
liel and from Yohanan ben Zakkai, to our brethren who are in the
Upper and Lower Galilee and to Simonia and to Oved Bet Hillel,
Peace. Let it be known to you that the fourth year has come, and
still the heavenly sanctities have not been burned. But ('L* ) hasten
and bring olive heaps pBYTY] which are required for the Confession.
And we have not begun to write to you, but our fathers used to write
to your fathers.'"
(Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 26:13, ed. Hoff
mann, pp. 175-6)
c
Comment: See Development p. 37. The whole is in Hebrew, by contrast

to the Aramaic letters of Gamaliel. I do not know why. One does not
translate the other's text. The story comes from Joshua b. Hananiah,
Yohanan b. Zakkai's disciple. As in the letter attributed to Gamaliel I,
the Pharisaic masters here issued instructions to the brethren in various
parts of the country on the proper giving of tithes and on the intercala-
SIMEON BEN
G A M A L I E L Il.i.l
379
tion of the year. The setting is similar for Gamaliel Isuspiciously so,
for it is the same scribe.
But many of the details are different, e.g. two letters, none to the ex
iles; they are not sitting on the steps of the Temple Mount but else
where; the brethren are in specified localities in the South (first), then in
Galilee. That place names occur seems to me important, for once sup
plied, they would not likely have been dropped in a copy, and therefore
the absence of those names from the Gamaliel-letter should mean that
that letter is earlier than this one, and while serving as a model, as the
story readily admits, this letter is not merely a translation. Further, and
decisively, the legal point does not pertain merely to the advent of
tithing-time, but elaborates with the fourth year, Removal, the Confes
sion, and so forth. So the letter above seems to me sufficiently different
from Gamaliel's to establish a prima facie probability that before us is
another, separate document, based on the former. While some details
may depend upon b. Sanh. l i b , the substance seems apt to be authentic.
If that is the case, it is important evidence that Simeon's position was
no different from his father's. Yohanan's association is not easy to ex
plain, since his role in the Pharisaic party before 70 would not have led
us to expect his sharing important tasks with the Nasi Simeon. But if
Simeon was a Shammaite, then Yohanan would have represented the
House of Hillela very tentative conjecture.
See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 137, 1202.
Il.i.l. Rabban Gamaliel said, "(M'SH B) A Sadducee lived with
us in the same alley in Jerusalem. Father said to us, 'Hasten and
put out all the vessels in the alley, before he brings out [his vessels]
and so restricts you'."
R. Judah says in other language, "Hasten and do your needs in
the alley, before he brings out, and he restricts you."
(M. <Eruv. 6:2)
Comment: Gamaliel's recollection of his father's instructions contains
an important legal principle, but that principle is nowhere both spelled
out and attributed to Simeon b. Gamaliel. It is striking that Judah b.
Ilai offers a different version of the father's instructions. Either he did
not know Gamaliel's (actually Meir s, as we shall see) version, or he did
not believe it, or he had a quite separate tradition, or both traditions
were invented. If he had a separate tradition, then where would he have
gotten it? Not from Gamaliel, for obvious reasons. If he made it up,
because he could not conceive Simeon held an opinion other than the
one he knew to be correct, then why did he supply the tradition as
though Gamaliel and Simeon had said such a thing?
The antecedent law (6:1) is that the presence of a gentile or a Jew
who does not believe in the 'eruv prevents the construction of an *eruv
for a given alleyway, so R. Meir. Eliezer b. Jacob insists only one Jew
can prevent it for another. Then comes the story of Gamaliel. Sadducees,
9
380
SIMEON BEN
G A M A L I E L II.i.2, 3
who did not accept the Pharisaic 'Oral Torah/ did not believe in the
c
eruv.
Albeck explains Simeon's view: they should hasten to do all their

necessities before the Sadducee brings out his utensils. From this story
we learn the opinion of Simeon, that the Sadducee who does not be
lieve in the êruv prevents carrying in the alley, but if he does not exer
cise his right in the alley, it is permitted to carry there when an 'eruv is
supplied. This is contrary, Albeck says, to Eliezer b. Jacob's position.
Albeck further holds Gamaliel's formulation of the matter follows
Meir's view and is attributed to Meir. Accordingly, Gamaliel never said
anything at all, but his logion has been fabricated either by Meir, or, as
is made explicit, by Judah (see synopses).
Of importance here is the fact that a logion is made up and then at
tributed to Simeon b. Gamaliel ("father"), at a time that Simeon b.
Gamaliel II was nasi. Whatever reasons for the suppression of Simeon
b. Gamaliel I's legal materials had long since been forgotten. That is
why he could serve as a useful name on which to hang both a logion
and a story.
II.i.2.A. In three things Rabban Gamaliel gives the more stringent
ruling, following the opinion of the House of Shammai:
(1) They do not cover (TMN) hot food on a festival day for the
Sabbath.
(2) They do not put together (ZQP) a candlestick on a festival
day.
(3) They do not bake bread [into] large loaves (GRSYN/GRYSWT),
but [only into] thin cakes (RQYQYN).
B. Rabban Gamaliel said, "Never did my father's household bake
bread into large loaves but only into thin cakes."
They said to him, "What shall we do to your father's household,
which applied the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient
ruling to Israel, so that they might bake bread in both large loaves and
thick cakes."
(M. Bes. 2:6, trans. Danby, p. 183)
Comment:
This is the closest we come to an open admission that
Simeon b. Gamaliel was a Shammaite. Gamaliel ruled like the Sham
maites, and then claimed that his precedent came from his father's
house. This is dealt with like all Shammaitic teachings: they generally
are made to apply to the authority himself, but the rule for the people
is different.
Part B is separate from A.3, a story turned into a general rule of law.
ILi.3.A. If a woman suffered five issues that were in doubt, or five

miscarriages that were in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and
SIMEON BEN
G A M A L I E L I l . i i . l ; III.i.1
381
she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to bring
the other offerings.
If she had suffered five miscarriages that were certain or five issues
that were certain, she brings one offering, eats of the animal offerings,
and she is bound to bring the other offerings.
B. Once (M SH S) in Jerusalem a pair of doves stood at a golden
denar.
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "By this Temple! I will not let
the night to pass by before they cost denars [of silver]."
And he went into the court and taught, "If a woman suffered five
miscarriages that were not in doubt or five issues that were not in
doubt, she need bring but one offering, and she may then eat of the
animal-offerings; and she is not bound to offer the other offerings."
And the same day the price of a pair of doves stood at a quarterdenar each.
(M. Ker. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 564)
C
Comment: See above, Sifra Tazri'a 3:7. It is striking that the pericope
opens with the rule in fact verbatim as taught by Simeon, except for the
obligation to bring the other offerings. Sifra has the obligation remain
ing, thus identical to A. But the rule is not given in his name, and we
only know it is supposed to be his because it comes in the story. It
looks as if either the operative law of the story has been abstracted for
part A, or the law has, like exegeses elsewhere, produced the story,
more likely the latter.
Il.ii.l. The story is told of (M<SH B):

A. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (that he) would dance (RQD) with
eight torches of fire, and none of them would touch the ground.
B. When he prostrates himself, he places a finger on the floor,
bends down (WHH), and kisses, and forthwith straightens up.
(Tos. Suk. 4:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 272, lines
11-13)
Comment:
The context is the Rejoicing at the Place of the Water
Drawing in Temple times. Thus separate stories are joined, first the
juggling (in the manner of Magi, see History of the Jews in Babylonia. II,
pp. 147-150). The second describes Simeon's prostration (Oiddah). We
need not doubt it is Simeon I. The verb-tenses are confused.
This sort of extremely brief and undeveloped story could well have
formed a mnemonic lemma for easy transmission. It would have con
sisted of the name, an active verb, and the exceptional material of the
predicate, glossed by none-ground.
C
III.i.1. They said concerning (>MRW <LYW L) Rabbi Simeon b.
382
SIMEON BEN
Simeon b.
Gamaliel
G A M A L I E L III.ii.1, 2
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
3. H o w he g a v e
pe'ab
4. Letters
5. Non-believer
a n d eruv
ILii
Tosefta
IILi
Tannaitic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
IILii
Tannaitic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Materials in
Babylonian
Gemara
V
ARN
Sifra Tazri'a
383
VI
Later
Compilations of
Midrashim
M. Avot 1 : 1 8
1 . S i l e n c e is g o o d
2. L o w e r e d price
o f d o v e s b y legal
ruling
ILi
Mishnah
S I M E O N B E N G A M A L I E L III.ii.3
L e v . R. 1 6 : 5
M. Ker. 1 : 7
3:7
Sifra
Qedoshim
2:4
Midrash
Tannaim pp.
175-6
M . <Eruv. 6 : 2
b . <Eruv. 6 8 b
6.
Juggled
Tos. Suk. 4 : 4
y. Suk. 5 : 4
7. Blessed pretty
gentile w o m a n
(y. A . Z . 1 : 9
Gamaliel)
Gamaliel that he would dance with eight torches of gold, and they
would not touch each other, and when he would kneel, he would push
his thumb (GWDLW) in the ground and kneel and forthwith straigh
ten up.
(y. Suk. 5:4)
Comment:
b. S u k . 5 3 a
See Tos. Suk. 4:4. No named tradents discuss the passage.
III.ii.1. [Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon lived a century

before the destruction.]
(b. Shab. 15a)
Comment: See above, pp. 316-318.
III.ii.2.A, TNY' NMY HKY: ...It once happened that (M<SH B)
a Sadducee lived (DR) with us in an alley in Jerusalem, and father
said to us, "Hasten and carry out the vessels to the alley before he
carries out and imposes restrictions on you."
B. WM'SH B: A certain Sadducee who was living with Rabban Ga
maliel in an alley in Jerusalem, and Rabban Gamaliel said to his sons,
b. A . Z . 2 0 a
"My sons, Hasten and carry out what you carry out and bring in
what you bring in before this abomination brings out and imposes
restrictions on you, for lo, he has annulled his right for you," the
words of R. Meir.
R. Judah says in another language, "Make haste and do your needs
in the alley before it gets dark, and he imposes restrictions on you."
(b. <Eruv. 68b)
Comment: See synopses.
C
IILii.3.A. TNY>: They said of (>MRW LYW <L) R. Simeon b.

Gamaliel that when he rejoiced at the Rejoicing at the Place of the
Water Drawing, he used to take eight lighted torches and catch one and
throw one, and they did not touch one another.
B. And when he prostrates himself, he digs (N S) his two thumbs in
the ground, bends down, kisses the ground and draws himself up
again. And no other creature can do so.
And this is Qiddah [Ex. 4:31].
(b. Suk. 53a)
J
384
SIMEON BEN G A M A L I E L IV.ii.l
Comment: See above, Tos. Suk. 4:4. The verb-tenses still have not
been made entirely consistent. The setting includes Hillel's Sukkot-s&yings.
IV.ii.l. The story is told that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel while standing
on a step on the Temple Mount saw a gentile woman who was
particularly beautiful and exclaimed, How great are thy works, O Lord
(Ps. 104:24).
(b. A.Z. 20a)
Comment: In y. A.Z. 1:9 (repr. Gilead, p. 7b) it is Gamaliel I:
T h e s t o r y is t o l d o f R a b b a n G a m a l i e l t h a t h e w a s w a l k i n g o n t h e T e m p l e
M o u n t a n d s a w a g e n t i l e w o m a n a n d blessed c o n c e r n i n g h e r .
The Scripture is dropped.

ii. SYNOPSES
1.
Lowered Cost of Sacrifice
The only important difference between Sifra Tazri'a 3:7 and M. Ker.
1:7 is in the question of whether the rest of the offerings must be
brought later on. M. Ker. (B) says no, Sifra lacks the negative, follow
ing M. Ker. (A).
2.
Non-Believer and Eruv
M. <Eruv. 6:2
1. Rabban Gamaliel said,
2 . M<SH B
3. O n e Sadducee w h o was living w i t h
u s in an a l l e y in J e r u s a l e m
4. A n d f a t h e r said t o u s
5. M a k e h a s t e a n d b r i n g o u t all t h e v e s
sels t o t h e a l l e y
6. b e f o r e h e b r i n g s o u t a n d p r o h i b i t s
[it] f o r y o u
7 . R . J u d a h says in a n o t h e r l a n g u a g e :
8. M a k e h a s t e a n d d o all y o u r n e e d s in
t h e alley b e f o r e h e b r i n g s o u t a n d p r o
h i b i t s [it] f o r y o u .
9.
b. <Eruv. 68b

2
11
11
11
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
3
mjm
4
5
6
ii
ii
7.
8.
[No. 1 0 b e l o w ]
9. And
the story is told concerning one
Sadducee who was living with Rabban Ga
maliel in an alley in Jerusalem, and Rabban
Gamaliel said to his sons, My sons, Make
haste and take out what you are taking out,
and bring in what you are bringing in, before
this abomination brings out and prohibits [it]
for you, for lo, he has annulled his right for
you, the words of R. Meir.
SIMEON BEN G A M A L I E L
10.
[No. 8, a b o v e ]
SYNOPSES
385
1 0 . R. J u d a h says i n a different l a n
g u a g e : M a k e haste a n d d o y o u r n e e d s
in t h e a l l e y before it gets dark a n d h e p r o
h i b i t s [it] f o r y o u .
The Mishnah has preserved the version of Meir in the story of

Gamaliel (nos. 1-6), then supplied Judah's version in his own name.
This is an excellent illustration of Judah the Patriarch's preference
for Meir's traditions. It also illustrates that the Tannaitic authorities
were quite well prepared to transmit legal materials in the form of
fabricated stories, and, without the Babylonian beraita, in this case we
should not have known that M. Eruv. no. 1-6 was in fact a saying
of Meir. We should have supposed it was a logion of Gamaliel II
himself. Hence we cannot conclude that words directly attributed to
an early authority in a legal matter or a story pertaining to law must
necessarily have been said by him. The contrary presumption is that
the logion is framed to put into his mouth a saying in conformity with
law later on accepted as authoritative.
c
3. Juggled
Tos. Suk.
4:4
y. Suk.
5:4
b. Suk. 53a
1. TNY> >MRW <LYW
<L
1. M ' S H B
1.
2. Rabban Simeon b. G a
maliel w h o w o u l d dance
w i t h e i g h t t o r c h e s o f fire
2 . Rabbi t o r c h e s
o f gold
3. and one of them did not

touch the ground
4. and when
he
would
prostrate
himself
(MSTHWH),
he
would
place h i s finger in t h e e a r t h
of the floor
3. touch
4.
( K W R < ) he
would push his thumb into
the earth
4.
h e places his
thumbs i n t o t h e e a r t h and
W ; ( S W H H ) a n d kisses
t h e floor a n d s t r a i g h t e n s
up
5 . b o w ( S W H H ) a n d kiss
and forthwith straighten up
(ZWQP)
6.
5. and b o w
(KWR<)
and
forthwith
would
straighten u p ( N Z Q P )
6.
5. [As a b o v e ]
M R W < L Y W <L
another
2.
when he would
rejoice at the Rejoicing of
the Place of the Drawing
w o u l d dance w i t h eight
t o r c h e s o f fire and throw
one and take one
3. [ = y. Suk.]
6 . And no one (else) can

do so, and this is Qiddah
The Babylonian Talmud has reworked and improved earlier materials.

First, it has supplied the usual double-superscription by adding TNY\
Of greater importance, it has added the occasion of the juggling,
perhaps implicit in the context of both Tos. Suk. and y. Suk., but
not spelled out in either place. Now the juggling is an example of
how he would rejoice (lest anyone think that Simeon was like the
386
SIMEON BEN
GAMALIEL
SYNOPSES
Magi, who would juggle for thaumaturgical purposes). No. 3 of b.

Suk. follows y. Suk.; no. 4 of b. Suk. makes it both thumbs, instead
of one; b. Suk. further improves on the duplicated earth]floor of Tos.
Suk. no. 4the thumb goes into the earth, and he kisses the floor, then
straightens up. b. Suk. further explains that no one else can do such
a trick, and a gloss at the end adds that this is the biblical Qiddah.
The torches oigold of y. Suk. no. 2 must be a mistake, b. Suk. thus is
a combination of important details of y. Suk. (as in no. 3) and the
version of Tos. Suk., nos. 4-5, where the word-choices of Tos. SuL
are selected in preference to y. Suk. b. Suk. borrows and develops de
tails in both earlier versions, rather than standing in a single line after
the Palestinian Talmudic one. That b. Suk. depends upon the language
of both seems to me beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a common
phenomenon.
i n . CONCLUSION
The corpus of Simeon b. Gamaliel-traditions is hardly substantial.

Apart from the logion in M. Avot 1:18, we find only a few stories,
no generalized laws. The stories concern his power to lower marketprices of doves, how he gave pe'ah, wrote pastoral letters with Yoha
nan b. Zakkai, the eruv and the non-believer in his neighborhood, how
he juggled, and his blessing of a pretty gentile in the Templean
unimpressive lot (and the last was probably meant to denigrate him).
The contrast to his predecessors, Hillel and Gamaliel I, is striking. The
sorts of stories we have, however, do claim he was an important
authority in Jerusalem (Sifra Tazri'a 3:7 = M. Ker. 1:7), a leading
Pharisaic authority, typically interested in tithing and other agricul
tural rules and rites (Sifra Qedoshim 2:4, Midrash Tannaim, pp. 175-6),
who lived in a mixed society of Pharisees and Sadducees (M. Eruv.
6:2 = b. Eruv. 68b), and a wonder-worker (Tos. Suk. 4:4 etc.)a
coherent, credible picture.
One cannot doubt that Simeon b. Gamaliel issued legal teachings,
but we have no evidence of them except in the context of stories.
This is striking, for some legal materials of Gamaliel I did survive in
various other forms, and we should have expected the same of Simeon
b. Gamaliel his son, who lived nearer to the destruction and presuma
bly had every opportunity to formulate and hand on authoritative
teachings.
Earlier students of the problem have taken it for granted that
c
SIMEON BEN
GAMALIEL CONCLUSION
387
Simeon was subsumed under the House of Hillel, but, while the same
applied to Gamaliel I, some important legal materials of Gamaliel I
do survive, and none comes from Gamaliel's son and successor. The
greater likelihood is that Simeon's legal sayings did not survive
either because no one wanted them to (unlikely), or because someone
suppressed them. Gamaliel, Simeon's son, certainly referred to his
father's rulings and actions, so he had every motive to preserve other
legal materials as well. Why then are we given only Gamaliel's stories,
but not the laws in Simeon's name which such stories ought to have
produced, as in the case of other masters? My guess is that Simeon's
laws were not preserved because they came from a period in which
the House of Shammai predominated; and Simeon himself ruled pret
ty much like the Shammaites, because he was one of them. It was one
thing to keep the House of Shammai's materials in the form given
them before the Hillelites took power. It was quite another to admit
that the later patriarchate at the head of the Hillelite rabbis had
earlier included Shammaites as its chiefs. So Gamaliel II presum
ably allowed whatever legal logia and other materials he had to be
dropped and preserved only a few stories containing little hint of
his father's embarassing legacy. This further suggests that Gamaliel II
may have done so as part of the price securing the support of the
Hillelite faction, headed by Yohanan b. Zakkai, and it moreover
raises the possibilitythough no more than thatthat Gamaliel I
was likewise involved in the House of Shammai, accounting for the
strange form in which his opinions were preserved {Iagree with Admon),
or which was imposed on them at Yavneh (Atfirst... Gamaliel ordain
ed...), surely as inappropriate for Gamaliel's as it was for Hillel's
"ordinances." Gamaliel II's own position is clear, for several stories
show him as a Shammaite. Whatever legal materials of Gamaliel I and
Simeon b. Gamaliel I were permitted to survive obviously were
revised, or at least reviewed, in Yavneh. Clearly, none from Simeon
b. Gamaliel I passed the test of acceptability to the Hillelites.
In Life (190-194), Josephus refers to Simeon b. Gamaliel as of
a very illustrious family, "and of the sect of the Pharisees, who have
the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws."
Josephus praises Simeon's intelligence and judgment, But, he admits,
Simeon did not like Josephus and tried to call an assembly in Jerusalem
to relieve him of his Galilean command. Simeon dealt with the high
priest Ananus and Jesus b. Gamalas, but Ananus did not agree. Simeon
thereupon bribed Ananus and his friendsso Josephusand as the
388
SIMEON BEN
GAMALIEL CONCLUSION
result of bribery Ananus went along. A delegation consisting of

Pharisees was sent, two from the lower ranks, a Pharisee of priestly
family, and a descendent of high priests. They would persuade the
Galileans through Jerusalemite origin, their knowledge of the laws,
and their priestly office, respectively. Josephus returns to the matter
in Life (309) and War (4:158-9). The Simeon b. Gamaliel of Josephus
in general conforms to the rabbinic portrait: he held high office and
reigned over the Pharisaic party. But the two pictures in detail do
not relate to one another. The Simeon of rabbinic memory is a legal
authority, not a politician.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 70

i. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH SHAMMAI
Masters mentioned in connection with Shammai, as his disciples

or followers, will be reconsidered in our studies of the Houses of
Hillel and Shammai. Here we shall briefly review their traditions.
1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah
c
He occurs only in M. Orlah 2:5.

2.
Baba b. Buta
Il.i.l. Baba b. Buta appears in b. Bes. 20a, above, p. 326, b. Git.

57a, Tos. Hag. 2:11, p. 309, y. Bes. 2:4, p. 314, y. Hag. 2:3, p. 314,
and as follows:
They told of (>MRW <LYW <L) Baba b. Buta that he would volunteer
(MTNDB) a suspensive guilt-offering every day except only the day
after the Day of Atonement.
He said, "By this Temple, if they would let me, I should bring
one, but
they say to me, 'Wait until there befalls you a matter
of doubt.'"
But the sages say, "They do not bring a suspensive guilt-offering..."
Comment: The story of Baba illustrates the opinion of R. Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus, "A man may of his own free will offer a suspensive guilt-of
fering on any day and time he pleases, and this is called the guilt-offer
ing of the pious." Then comes they told. The story therefore presumably
derives from Eliezer's school, which makes sense since he was reputed
ly associated with Shammai's House, and Baba was one of the three
named disciples of Shammai (or his house). Baba is therefore one of the
pious (hasidim).
IV.ii.l. A certain Babylonian migrated to the land of Israel and

married.
"Boil me two [cows] feet," he ordered, and she boiled him two
lentils. He was angered at her.
Next day he said, "Boil me a griva" so she boiled him a griwa*
390
B A B A BEN
B U T A IV.ii.2
"Go and bring me two bosuni," so she went and brought him two cand
les.
"Go and break them on the head of baba [threshold]."
Baba b. Buta was sitting on the threshold ('BB') engaged in judging
a lawsuit.
She went and broke them on his head.
He said to her, "What is this that you have done?"
She replied, "My husband ordered me"
"You have performed your husband s will" he replied. "May the Al
mighty bring forth from you two sons like Baba b. Buta"
(b. Ned. 66b)
}
Comment: The setting is a set of pericopae about wives and husbands,

and how rabbis absolved vows between them. The italicized parts are
in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Clearly Baba is brought in because his
name provides the opportunity to make a play on words. The conclu
sion is an appropriate "blessing," though the blessing normally would
be said not by the rabbinic victim, but by the outside party. This peri
cope bears no intrinsic relationship to the Baba-tradition.
IV.ii.2. [Herod killed all the rabbis.]
He spared Baba b. Buta, that he might take counsel of him.
He placed on his head a garland of hedgehog bristles and put out
his eyes.
One day he [Herod] came and sat before him and said, "See, sir,
what this wicked slave [Herod] does."
"What shall I do to him?" replied Baba b. Buta.
He said, "Let the master curse him."
He replied, "Even in thy thoughts thou shouldst not curse a king (Qoh.
10:20)."
[Herod] said to him, "But this is no king."
He replied, "Even though he is only a rich man, as it is written, And in
thy bedchamber do not curse the rich (Qoh. 10:20), and be he no more than
a prince, it is written, A prince among thy people thou shalt not curse (Ex.
22:27)."
[Herod] said to him, "This applies only to one who acts as one of
thy people, but this man does not act as one of thy people"
He said, "I am afraid of him."
"But there is no one who can go and tell him, since we two are
quite alone," he said.
He replied (Qoh. 10:20), "For a bird of the heaven shall carry the voice,
and that which has wings shall tell the matter"
B A B A BEN B U T A IV.ii.2
391
Herod said, "I am he. Had I know that the rabbis were so circum
spect, I should not have killed them. Now tell me what amends I can
make."
He replied, "As you have extinguished the light of the world, as it is
written (Prov. 6:23), For the commandment is a light and the Torah a lamp,
go now and attend to the light of the world, as it is written, And all the nations
become enlightened by it (Is. 2:2)".... (etc.)
(b. B.B. 4a, trans. Maurice Simon, pp. 11-12)
Comment: The story is in Aramaic, except the italicized passages. No
tradents' names are attached to it. The story is a unity and is intended
to give the "reason" Herod built the Temple. The narrator supposes it
took a very short time, while in fact the building went on for decades.
Hence it looks as if the story was shaped long after the facts of the mat
ter were forgotten. The idea that, like Simeon b. Shetah, only Baba sur
vived (also because of his Torah) is of course preposterous, another
mark of a fable, the point of which here is rabbinic circumspection.
Baba-traditions divide into three parts. First are those relating Baba
to Shammai. Though a disciple of Shammai, he ruled according to
Hillel and moreover was able to save the day when Hillel was forced
to follow Shammaite rulings. The second sort of traditions, consistent
with the first, presents Baba as a pious man, here and M.Ker. 6:3.
The third is the folkloristic account of a word-play in connection
with the name Baba.
It is difficult to assess the facts of Baba's career. On the one hand,
Hillelites admitted he was a Shammaite, but put a good face on the
matter. On the other, he does occur as a pious man (hasid) of old,
without being called a Shammaite (M. Ker.). It is difficult to suggest
which of the two sorts of traditions antedated the other. I take it for
granted, however, that had Shammaite tradition not claimed Baba, the
Hillelites would have been glad to make him their own, hence the tradi
tion that he was Shammai's disciple was shaped in Temple times,
when the Shammaites were in a position of predominance, and after
ward the Hillelites revised matters to conform to their view. But none of
the stories in our hands comes from Shammaite circles, and all conform
to Hillelite tendencies.
3.
Yo'eêr *Ish HaBirah

c
He appears only in M. Orlah2:12, in connection with Gamaliel the

Elder; there he is called one of the disciples of the House of Shammai.
392
4.
SADOQ
Sadoq
While Sadoq, who lived in Temple times and afterward, is referred

to as a disciple of Shammai, his traditions and his son's are preserved
chiefly at Yavneh in the context of those of other masters of that
period, and hence had best be considered in later studies.
5.
Yohanan the Hauronite
Likewise a Shammaite of Temple times, Yohanan taught Eleazar

b. R. Sadoq (b. Yev. 15b), and occurs also in Tos. Suk. 2:3 = Tos.
Ed. 2:2; and chiefly in connection with the House of Hillel and
Shammai, in M . Suk. 2:7, y. Suk. 2:8. These materials are reviewed
in part II.
c
II. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH HILLEL
1. Bene Bathyra
Josephus refers to Herod's settlement of Babylonian Jews under
Zamaris in Batanaea {Life 54, Antiquities 17:23-31); the settlers
built the village of Bathyra. In Herod's time they were free of all taxes.
A troop of the Babylonians served the descendents of Herod as body
guards.
Apart from the Hillel-stories, y. Pes., p. 246, b. Pes., p. 254, we
have no references to Bathyrans before 70. Bathyrans later occur in
connection with Yohanan b, Zakkai at Yavneh (see Development, pp.
93-94), and in the persons of Judah b. Bathyra (see History of the Jews
in Babylonia, I. The Parthian Period, pp. 46-52), and of other Bathyrans
after the destruction: Joshua b. Bathyra, Simon b. Bathyra, and Yoha
nan b. Bathyra. None of these can have had any direct connection
with the Bene Bathyrans of the Hillel-stories. On Bene Bathyra, see
also G. Allon, Mehqarim beToledot Yisra el (Tel Aviv, 1957), I, pp.
263-267.
2
2.
Gedya
The only references are in connection with Hillel-Samuel the Small.

Ben H6 He occurs only in M . Avot 5:23. Ben Bag Bag is in Avot
5:22. In ARN these sayings are attributed to Hillel.
In addition, we find Ben Bag Bag-sayings in Tos. B.Q. 10:38: A man
JONATHAN
393
BEN ' U Z Z I E L IV.ii.l
should not take his own property from someone else's house, lest he
appear like a thief; and in the following Talmudic texts: b. Eruv. 27b,
exegesis of Deut. 14:26; b. Pes. 96a, exegesis of Num. 28:2; b. Qid.
lOb-lla ( = Sifre Num. 117, y. Ket. 5:4), message of Yohanan b. Bag
Bag to Judah b. Bathyra in Nisibis regarding whether a daughter of
an Israelite betrothed to a priest may eat Terumah; b. B.Q. 27b-28a =
Tos. B.Q. 10:38; b. Men. 49b = b. Pes. 96a; b. Bekh. 12a, exegesis
of Ex. 13:13 and 12:5; y. M.S. 1:2, exegesis of Deut. 14:26; y. Pes.
9:5, exegesis of Ex. 12:5; y. Sanh. 8:3 = Tos. B.Q.; andy. Sanh. 11:2
= Tos. B.Q. In none of these pericopae does Hillel appear. The
Tosafot, b. Hag. 9b, argue that he was a convert.
c
4.
Shebna
He appears only in b. Sot. 21 a, above, p. 271.
5. Jonathan b. 'Usgiel
c
Jonathan b. Uzziel appears in b. Suk. 28b, above, p. 260, b. B.B.

133b, p. 198, y. Ned. 5:6, p. 199, and b. Meg. 3a as follows:
IV.ii.l. R. Jeremiah, or some say, R. Hiyya b. Abba, said, "The
Targum of the Pentateuch was composed by Onqelos the proselyte
under the guidance of (MPY) R. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
"The Targum of the prophets was composed by Jonathan b. 'Uzziel
under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and the land
of Israel quaked four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs,
and an echo came forth and said, 'Who is it that has revealed my secrets
to mankind?'
"Jonathan b. Uzziel arose on his feet and said, 'It is I who have
revealed your secrets to mankind. It is fully known to you that I have
not done so for my own honor or for the honor of my father's house,
but for your honor, so that dissension (MHLWQT) may not increase
(YRBW) in Israel.'
"He further sought to reveal the Targum of the Hagiography, but
an echo went forth and said to him, 'Enough for you!' "
What was the reason ?
Because the end of the Messiah is foretold in it.
(b. Meg. 3a, trans. M. Simon, p. 9)
c
Comment:
T h e attribution to R. J e r e m i a h o r to Hiyya b. b.
Abba
places the s t o r y in late third-century Palestine. O n l y the c o m m e n t
at
394
H A N I N A BEN
DOSA
the end is in Aramaic. Later Palestinian Amoraim clearly had an interest

in Jonathan, and some, e.g. y. Ned. 5:6, held him in poor repute, while
Pumbeditans revised the materials (above, pp. 206-208) in his favor.
The reasons for this phenomenon must be sought in later Amoraic
history. He is dated at various times, in the late prophetic era or HillePs
day.
in. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH GAMALIEL I
1.
Admon and Hanan
Admon occurs in M. Ket. 13:1, 3-9; the passage is cited, or referred

to, in M. B.B. 9:1, M. Shev. 6:3, y. Ket. 13:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, y.
B.B. 9:1, y. Shev. 6:4, Tos. Ket. 12:1, and b. Yev. 37b, b. Ket. 104b105a, 108b, 109a-b, 110a, b. B.B. 30b, 139b, 140b, Shav. 38b, 40b.
Hanan (b. Avishalom) appears in M. Ket. 13:1-2, which is further
alluded to in y. Ket. 13:1, 2, y. Ned. 4:2, y. Shev. 7:7, b. Ket. 88b,
105a, 107a-b, 108a, 109a, Ned. 33b.
2.
Hanina b. Dosa
c
A miracle-worker and disciple of Yohanan b. Zakkai in Arav

(see Life of Yohanan b. Zakkai pp. 47-53), Hanina occurs in b. Ber.
34b, in connection with healing Gamaliel's and Yohanan's sons (p.
360); and M. Ber. 5:5:
2
They tell of R. Hanina b. Dosa that he used to pray over the sick and
say, "This one wiil live" or "This one will die."
They asked him, "How do you know?"
He replied, "If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know he is ac
cepted; if not, I know he is rejected."
The healing-stories all are based on, and developments of, that story.
In M. Sot. 9:15, Hanina's death marks the end of miracle-workers;
M. Avot 3:10-11 has a saying on fear of sin and wisdom.
Tos. Ber. 3:20 contains the following:
They said of Hanina b. Dosa that he was standing and praying and a
lizard ( RWD) bit him, and he did not stop. His disciples found it dead
and said, "Woe is the man whom a lizard bites, woe is the lizard that
bites Ben Dosa."
C
Tos. Sot. 15:5 is the same as M. Sot. 9:15. He and his colleagues
are referred to as men of truth in Mekhilta Amalek IV, 67, Lauterbach,
II, p. 183. y. Ber. 4:1 refers to the fact that Hanina lived in Arav. y.
Ber. 5:1 contains the story of Hanina's being bitten, together with
the logion of Tos. Ber. 3:20; now it is a HBRBR-lizard that bit him.
c
HANINA BEN
DOSA
395
y. Ber. 5:5 presents the story of the healing of Gamaliel's son, with
some variations, y. Sot. 9:16 has a repetition of the reference to
Hanina as the last of the deed-doers, b. Ber. 33a contains the story of
the lizard, with the usual mz//tf-embellishments. b. Ber. 61b has a
saying of Rav, that the world was created only for R. Hanina b. Dosa,
an allusion to b. Ta. 24b-25a. b. Shab. 112b includes a reference of
R. Zera in the name of Raba b. Zimuna to the same story, b. Pes. 112b
tells a story of a meeting between Igrat b. Mahalat and Hanina b.
Dosa, parallel to, and modeled on, the same story of Abbaye and Igrat.
He orders Igrat never to pass through settled territories, b. Yoma 53b
has a story about the power of Hanina's prayer for rain, similar to
Honi's. b. Ta. 24b-25a has the rain story, then a story of Rav Judah
in the name of Rav about Hanina's receiving praise from an echo:
"The whole world is sustained because of Hanina, and Hanina is
sustained by a qab of carobs." There follow stories about Hanina and
his wife and miracles done for them. Hanina is offered part of his
reward in the world to come to improve his lot in this world but
declines it. A miracle of Hanina's goats and other fables are included
in this Hanina-tractate. b. Hag. 14a refers to b. Ta. 24b, about Hanina's
merit sustaining the world, b. Yev. 121b tells the story of a miracle
performed by Hanina, similar to b. Ber. 34a. He was able to predict
that a girl who fell into a cistern would be saved, b. B.Q. 50a contains
the story of b. Yev. 121b. b. B.M. 106a refers to the story of the miracle
of Hanina's goats in b. Ta. 24b-25a; b. Hul. 86a contains the story of
the heavenly echo about Hanina's merits. So the b. Ta. tractate is a
composite of most Hanina -materials.
The Hanina-tradition is strikingly consistent with Honi's. It con
tains no legal materials, but a number of apophthegmatic miraclestories, built up around fixed paradoxical slogans ("The whole world
is sustained by the merits..."; "Everyone depends on Hanina, who
depends on a carob"; "Woe to people bitten by lizards, woe to the
lizard that bites Hanina"), or, like the Pinhas b. Ya'ir stories, centered
around his animals, daughter, and wife. The corpus attracted much
interest in early Amoraic times, e.g. Rav Judah-Rav. Hanina was as
sociated with Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gamaliel (I), which suggests that
the later authorities could believe first-century Pharisees had associat
ed with, and depended upon, a miracle -worker. We have no reason to
doubt the accuracy of their view of matters. But if Hanina had ap
peared in non-rabbinic sources, e.g. in Hellenistic Jewish writings
or New Testament Apocryphal Gospels, we should not have called
396
J O S H U A BEN
GAMALA
him a Pharisee, and none of the stories about him is quintessential^

Pharisaic.
3.
Yohanan the Scribe
Yohanan the Scribe occurs only in the several reports of letters writ
ten by Gamaliel I (b. Sanh., y. M.S. 5:3, y. Sanh. 1:2), and Simeon b.
Gamaliel I-Yohanan b. Zakkai (Midrash Tannaim).
iv. OTHERS
1.
Honi the Circler, Grandson of Honi the Circle (Abba Hilqiah)
He appears in the Honi-tractate, b. 23a-b, p. 176ff., and y. Ta. 3:9;

Abba Hilqiah is the grandson, in b. Ta. 23b (above, p. 180) and b.
Mak. 23a, where and works righteousness (Ps. 15) is referred to him in
an exegesis of R. Hamnuna. The story in y. Ta. 3:9 concerns another
rain-miracle.
2.
Joshua b. Gamala
He is found in M. Yev. 6:4, "It once happened that Joshua b. Ga

mala betrothed Martha b. Boethus and consummated the union after
the king had appointed him high priest."
In Sifra Emor 2:6 the same story occurs without significant change.
In b. Yoma 18a, Martha buys him the high priesthood:
R. Assi said, "Two qabs of denars did Martha b. Boethus give to King
Yannai to nominate Joshua b. Gamala as one of the high priests."
We have, in addition, the tradition of R. Judah-Rav:
Rav Judah in the name of Rav said, "The name of that man is to be
blessed, and Joshua b. Gamala is his name, for, but for him, the Torah
would have been forgotten from Israel.
"At first if a child had a father, his father taught him, but if not, he
did not learn at all. (What Scripture? And you shall teach them to your
children [Deut. 11:19].)
"They then ordained that teachers of children should be appointed in
Jerusalem. (The Scripture? For from Zion Torah shall go forth [Is. 2:3].)
"Even so, if a child had a father, the father would take him up to
Jerusalem and have him taught there, and if not, he would not go up
and learn there. They therefore ordained that teachers should be ap
pointed in each district (PLK), and that boys should enter school at the
age of sixteen of seventeen. But if the teacher punished them, they used
to rebel and leave.
ISHMAEL BEN PHIABI A N D
E L E A Z A R BEN H A R S O M
397
"Finally Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young

children should be appointed in each province and town, and that
children should enter school at the age of six or seven."
(b. B . B . 2 1 a )
The marriage to Martha thus becomes a nomination to the high priest

hood on her say-so in b. Yoma 18a. The tradition of R. Judah-Rav
is of quite a different order. Joshua plays no role in it until the end;
any name would have served. Simeon b. Shetah is elsewhere given
credit for the establishment of schools. Note also Ben Gamala, M.
Yoma 3:9.
The Jesus b. Gamaliel of Josephus, Ant. 20:211-215 is identified
with Joshua b. Gamala by Derenbourg and others, who change
Yannai to Agrippa II. This is in the spirit of Abbaye, who equates
Yannai with Yohanan the High Priest.
3.
"Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. Harsom
Ishmael b. Phiabi, a high priest, was "Pharisaized" by the rabbinic

traditions. Josephus refers to his appointment as high priest. In Anti
quities 3: 320 he tells that when the country was in the grip of a famine,
Ishmael did not touch a crumb of the Temple offerings. The house
of Phiabi's high priests included Jesus under Herod {Antiquities 15:
322), and Ishmael under Tiberius {Antiquities 18:34), but the "rabbi"
comes close to the destruction. The one under Tiberius was appointed
by Valerius Gratus {Antiquities 18:34). The Ishmael before us was
made high priest {Antiquities 20:179) by Agrippa in 59 A.D., and serv
ed as a delegate to Nero {Antiquities 20:194-6) in connection with a
Roman guard-house built in the Temple. But Nero's wife Poppaea
detained Ishmael and another member of the delegation; then Nero
appointed Joseph b. Kabi b. Simon as high priest. Epstein has two
high priests named I. b. P., Mevo'ot, p. 45.
Rabbinic traditions on "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi occur in M. Sot.
9:15, "When Rabbi Ishmael b. Phiabi died, the splendor of the priest
hood ceased"; and M. Par. 3:5, Ishmael b. Phiabi prepared one of
the heifers (above, p. 25, with reference to Simeon the Just and
Yohanan the High Priest). In Tos. Yom HaKippurim 1:21 we find
the story (M SH B) that "the mother of Ishmael b. Phiabi made him
a tunic of two myriads, and he stood and sacrificed at the altar [in i t ] . "
Tos. Par. 3:6 contains a reference to the two heifer-sacrifices of
Ishmael mentioned in the corresponding Mishnah. He followed the
instructions of the rabbis in connection with that sacrifice; he prepared
C
398
ISHMAEL BEN
PHIABI A N D
E L E A Z A R BEN
HARSOM
one, but since they did not agree with his view of the purity-laws
pertaining to the sacrifice, he annulled the first and did it a second
time, hence the two heifer sacrifices attributed to him.
Further versions of the tunic-story are as follows:
They said about R. Ishmael b. Phiabi that his mother made him a
tunic worth one hundred minas, which he put on to officiate at a
private service and then handed over to the community.
(b. Yoma 35b)
The story is told about Rabbi Ishmael b. Phiabi who put on a
tunic worth a hundred maneh and went up and sacrificed at the altar.
The story is told of Rabbi Eliezer b. Harsom that he put on tunics
worth two myriads, and went up and offered at the altar, but his
brothers, the priests, removed him, because he looked naked in it.
What did he do? He filled it with water and circumambulated the
altar seven times.
(y. Yoma 3:6)
A different picture of Ishmael occurs in the following:
A. Abba Saul b. Botnit said in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanan,
"Woe is me because of the house of Boethus, woe is me because of
their staves.
"Woe is me because of the house of Hanan. Woe is me because
of their whisperings.
"Woe is me because of the house of Qatros, woe is me because
of their pen.
"Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael b. Phiabi, woe is
me because of their fists.
"For they are high priests, and their sons treasurers, and their
sons-in-law are trustees, and their servants beat the people with staves..."
B. Our rabbis taught: Four cries did the Temple court cry out...
[The third]: Lift up jour heads, O ye gates, and let Ishmael b.
Phiabi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve in the high priesthood."
(b. Pes. 57a [ = b. Ker. 28b])
The "cry of the Temple court" vitiates the force of the foregoing
reference and presumably has been attached for that purpose. But
the fact remains that the Ishmael b. Phiabi here is represented as no
different from all the rest of the rapacious high priests and Temple
authorities.
I S H M A E L BEN
PHIABI A N D
E L E A Z A R BEN
HARSOM
399
The traditions of Eleazar b. Harsom are as follows:

They told about (>MRW <LYW <L) R. Eleazar b. Harsom that his
mother made him a tunic worth twenty-thousand minas and his
brethren, the priests, would not let him put it on because he looked
naked.
(b. Yoma 35b)
And the story is told concerning (1VPSH B) Eleazar b. Harsut
[sic], whose mother made him a tunic worth one hundred maneh
(Lieberman: RBW'), and he would stand and offer beside the altar, but
his brothers the priests removed him because he looked naked in it.
[Tos. (Yom Ha)Kippurim 1:22, ed. Lieberman
p. 228, lines 101-103; Zuckermandel, p. 182
(y. Yoma 3:6)]
To the rich man they say, "Why have you not occupied your self
with the Torah?" If he says, "I was rich and busy with my property,"
they would say to him, "Were you richer than R. Eleazar?"
They said of R. Eleazar b. Harsom that his father left him a thou
sand cities on land and over against that one thousand boats on the sea.
Everyday he would take a sack of flour on his shoulder and go
from city to city and from province to province to study Torah.
One time his servants found him and seized him for the corvee
CNGRY').
He said to them, "I beg you, let me go and study Torah."
They said, "By the life of R. Eleazar b. Harsom, we shall not let
you go."
He had never gone and seen them, but he was sitting all day and
night, occupying himself with Torah.
(b. Yoma 35b)
The servants thus had never known him, which accounts for their
behavior. We here have a composite of three brief Eleazar-lemmas.
The first concerns his great wealth, which recurs in different form
in other references. The second is about his studying Torah as a
peripatetic student. The third, following closely, is a story about how
even his servants did not know him. The composite is included with the
Hillel-story about his studies in poverty, above, pp. 258-259. In additi
on, y. Ta. 4:2 (repr. Gilead p. 24b) contains a reference to "the riches of
Eleazar b. Harsom." Of the ten thousand villages in the Royal
400
E L E A Z A R BEN
HARSOM
Mountain he owned one thousand of them. b. Qid. 49b has a saying

"as wealthy as Eleazar b. Harsom."
The two rabbinical high priests mentioned in b. Yoma 9b thus
are presented as pious students of Torahthough neither one left a
legal sayingsubject to the authority of the rabbis, and men of great
wealth. The stories about the tunic look suspicious, and in the back
ground may be a single story of an extravagant garment of a high
priest, which has now turned into a tunic given to the two men by
their respective mothers. The Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition contains
numerous references to the extravagance of the high priesthood, invol
ving even Simeon the Just, as we saw above (p. 28). These stories
are of the same sort. But telling them is not meant to discredit the
priests. Ishmael b. Phiabi is mentioned as "the splendor of the priest
hood;" his heifer-sacrifices are listed. So the traditions are consistently
favorable, with one exception, the little ditty of Abba Joseph b.
Hanan. The song tells us that Ishmael b. Phiabi's house behaved like
high priests in general, beating the people up and intimidating
them. That reference (excluding its gloss, for they are...) certainly
stands apart from the other stories, and, on the face of it, looks like
a genuine reminiscence. Stories about the lavishness of the high priest
hood do not contradict it. But the ones about high priests who follow
ed rabbinic rules certainly do, and they surely are shaped in later times.
- The "cry of the Temple court" notwithstanding, Ishmael was a
standard high priest, and the picture of Josephus must be regarded
as accurate. The later rabbinic traditions revised the historical facts
to suit their imagination. Making Eleazar b. Harsom a devoted student
of Torah serves a similar purpose.
The absence of legal traditions is striking. While the tradents were
prepared to revise historical and biographical materials, they did not
in this instance attribute to, or invent legal sayings for, high priests
alleged to have been loyal Pharisees.
4.
Hananiah Prefect of the Priests
Unlike the two priests, Hananiah/Hanina (interchangeably) Prefect

of the Priests (fegan hakohanirn) left behind not only stories but also
legal sayings. All pertain to the Temple cult and follow the form of
later rabbinic legal tradition on the same matters. I assume he lived
in Temple times, first because he is referred to, along with the House
of Gamaliel, in connection with a Temple rite (M. Sheq. 6:6), second,
because his traditions mention Temple practices of his father's time.
H A N A N I A H I.ii.l, 2 , 3 , 4
401
Unlike the high priests, the Hananiah-corpus is varied and substantial,

indeed comparable in size to that of Gamaliel I, and more considerable
than Simeon b. Gamaliel's.
1.11.1. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priest says, "Father would
reject the maimed from the altar."
(Sifra Sav 1:9, ed. Weiss, p. 29a)
Comment: Immediately preceding is a saying of 'Aqiba. The recollec
tion of Hananiah's father's procedure takes for granted that the father
had authority in the Temple and carried it out in such a way as to sup
ply Pharisaic law with a useful precedent. We do not have to assume
this is a fantasy. The Pharisaic traditions on actual Temple procedures
were not necessarily partisan but may accurately have portrayed what
was really done in the Temple. What signifies a partisan law or opinion
is the assertion that the Temple priests had done the wrong thing, e.g.
as in the sacrifice of the red heifer; or that the priests had done as sages
had told them. But a routine report, not otherwise contradicted, of
what was actually done need not be rejected out of hand. The supposi
tion is that Hananiah's father did supervise Temple procedures. Yet
Hananiah associated himself with Pharisaism, or otherwise he would
probably not have been accepted as an authority. Hananiah may have
represented a priest of Pharisaic persuasion, or, alternatively, a priest
later on "Pharisaized," as in the cases of the two high priests considered
above.
1.11.2. Rabbi Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The appearances
[colors] of leprosy-signs (negaHm) are sixteen."
(Sifra Tazri'a Nega'im 2:6, ed. Weiss, p. 61a)
Comment: In the same list follow Dosa b. Harkinas, who says thirtysix, and Aqavya b. Mehallel, who says seventy-two. Then come secondcentury discussions of why Aqiba reduced the whole to "two which
are four." The juxtaposition of Dosa and Aqavyah with Hanina sug
gests the three were of the same generation, before the destruction;
but Dosa's place is primarily at Yavneh, and on 'Aqavyah we have no
firm information at all.
c
1.11.3. A. And give you peace (Num. 6:26). Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of
the Priests says, "And give you peacein your house."
B. R. Nathan says, "This refers to the peace of the House of David..."
(Sifre Num. 42, ed. Friedman, p. 12b)
1.11.4. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "Great is peace,

for it is weighed against all the works of creation, as it is said, Lo
y
402
HANANIAH Il.i.l, 2
he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, making peace and creating
evil (Amos 4:13, Is. 45:7)."
(Sifre Num. 42, ed. Friedman, p. 13a)
Comment: The setting is a collection of logia on peace. In the first in
stance Hananiah is part of a long list of commentators on the Priestly
Benediction. In the latter (I.ii.4) his saying is in the same form as the
rest, Great is peace, for... The logia are independent of one another and
are brought together to form a composite pericope of peace. Hana
niah's saying is congruent with his logion in Avot. I see no chronologi
cal principle in the arrangement of the masters listed in the two peri
copae.
11.1.1. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The priests never
refrained from burning flesh that had become unclean from a derived
uncleanness together with flesh that had become unclean from a pri
mary uncleanness, although they thereby added uncleanness to its
uncleanness."
[M. Pes. 1:6, trans. Danby, p. 137 (y. Pes. 1:6)]
c
Comment: Aqiba adds the example of lamp-oils; Meir and Yosi com
ment on the legal principle involved, that at Passover one may burn
clean Heave-offering together with the unclean. Aqiba's language is the
same as Hanina's: MYMYHM SLKHNYM. In both instances Temple
practice is reported, but we have no reason on the strength of this
source alone to suppose that Hanina had information deriving from
his own observation, any more than Aqiba did. The terminus ante quern
must be middle-second century Usha, which does not help us to evaluate
the Hanina-tradition. The corpus of Hanina-materials is composed
chiefly of such Temple-sayings in standard legal form, prima facie evi
dence of his special interest in the matter, also of his competence deriving
from personal observation and participation.
Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 332, links this pericope to the Houses-dispute in
Tos. Pis. 1:6; see also Mishnah, p. 1134. That dispute must be based
upon this ruling.
c
11.1.2. What did they do with the surplus of the Terumah? Golden
plating for bedecking the Holy of Holies.
R. Ishmael says, "The surplus of the fruit was devoted..."
R. Aqiba says, "The surplus of the Terumah was devoted..."
R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The surplus of the drinkofferings was devoted to [offerings for] the altar for the summer
(QYS) [such time as it lay idle], and the surplus of the Terumah was
devoted to vessels of ministry."
[M. Sheq. 4:4, trans. Danby, p. 156 (y. Sheq.
4:2, alsob. Ket. 106b)]
c
H A N A N I A H II.i.3, 4
403
Comment: Another Temple tradition of Hananiah in context of 'Aqiba,

now with Ishmael as well, this pericope has Hananiah in disagreement
with Aqiba and Ishmael. 'Aqiba says the surplus of Terumah was for
the time the altar lay idle, and of the drink offerings, for ministering
vessels, while Hananiah has the drink offering surplus for the time the
altar lay idle, and the Terumah for vessels of ministry. Both differ with
Ishmael. The form is identical for all three masters, and presumably
has been shaped out of materials from the times of Aqiba-Ishmael.
Hence the tradition is a reminiscence; Hananiah's information may
have come from personal observation, but this pericope does not sug
gest so.
c
II.i.3. The House of R. Hanina Prefect of Priests would make four

teen prostrations.
(M. Sheq. 6:1)
II.L4.A. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests testified [concerning]
four things:
B. The priests never refrained from burning flesh that had become
unclean from a derived uncleanness together with flesh that had be
come unclean from a primary uncleanness, although they thereby add
ed uncleanness.
R. <Aqiba added...[as M. Pes. 1:6].
C. Hanina the Prefect of the Priests said, "Never did I see a hide
taken out to the place of burning [but it was given to the priests]..."
D. He testified also concerning a little village near Jerusalem,
wherein was a certain elder who used to lend to all the people of the
village, and he would write out [the bond of indebtedness] in his
own hand, and the others signed it, and the matter came before the
sages, and they declared it permissible.
(Hence you maycon elude that a woman writes out her own bill,
a man his own quittance, for the validity of the document depends
only on its signatories.)
E. And [he testified also] concerning a needle that was found in
the flesh [of an offering in the Temple court], that the knife and the
hands remain clean, but the flesh itself is unclean, And if it was found
in the excrement (PR), everything is accounted clean.
(M. <Ed. 2:1-3, trans. Danby, p. 425)
Comment: The testimonies supposedly come from Yavneh. Immedi
ately preceding are disputes of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.
Part B: See above, M. Pes. 1:6, p. 402.
Part C: The pericope begins not with the testimony-form but as a
404
H A N A N I A H II.i.4, 5
standard legal saying, M. Zev. 12:4, from which the passage obviously
is taken. The hide was given to the priests. 'Aqiba comments on the
lemma. Then the sages reject Hananiah's testimony, saying we have not
seen is no proof. The hide must be burned. This is striking, because
Hananiah's testimony was about what he had seen, and the sages ruling,
in flatly rejecting it, is, "It goes to the house of burning." They deny
not the accuracy of Hananiah's recollection, but its serving as an author
itative precedent. That Hananiah speaks in the past tense here as else
where (M. Pes. 1:6) puts the Temple in historical time, and Hananiah
in Yavneh. Aqiba is a firm terminus ante quern.
The report about the village near Jerusalem and the practice of the
village money-lender, by contrast, serves as basis on which to formulate
a rule of law. So Hananiah's cases and stories could serve as reliable
precedents, and, therefore, he was thought of as a Pharisaic authority.
The fourth case returns to Temple matters, this time concerning clean
ness rules. We do not know whether the needle was clean when the cow
swallowed it. The knife and the hands remain clean, though they have
touched the cow, since we suppose they have not touched the needle.
Theflesh,of course, has been made unclean. But if the needle has passed
through, we imagine that the flesh is clean and rule that the flesh and
needle have not come into contact.
The four testimonies pertain, therefore, chiefly to Temple matters.
The report of the practice in the nearby village and the sages' ruling
does not change matters much, since Hananiah may be presumed to
have been aware of decisions of the "sages" of Pharisaic Jerusalem. But
what brought the case to their court to begin with? The presupposition
of the story is that the Pharisaic sages ruled on such matters. But if that
was not the case, then what Hananiah knows about is what the court
presumably the normal civil judges of the cityruled, and the later
sages in preserving the story presumed that the judges were in fact
Pharisees.
None of these materials unequivocally places Hananiah in pre-70
Jerusalem, though Hananiah's frame of reference does center on
Jerusalem. On the other hand, no evidence clearly suggests that
Hananiah was not in Jerusalem before 70, although the juxtaposition of
his opinions with 'Aqiba's and Ishmael's is puzzling. Normally such a
form would mean he was among the authorities at Yavneh whose
opinions were redacted together. In the balance, therefore, the evidence
points toward, but does not decisively place Hananiah in, Jerusalem in
Temple times.
Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 84, 431, assigns the whole pericope to 'Aqiba's
editing.
c
II.i.5. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "Pray for the peace
of the ruling power, since, but for fear of it, men would swallow
each other up alive."
(M. Avot 3:2, trans. Danby, p. 450)
HANANIAH
II.i.6, 7,
405
Comment: Note also ARN, Chap. 20, trans. Goldin, pp. 94-5. Hana
niah's opinion, presumably coming at the time of war against Rome,
places him in the peace-party. ARN Chap. 20 preserves an exegesis of
Deut. 28:46ff, much like Yohanan b. Zakkai's treatment of the same
verse. The Avot saying therefore is appropriate to the time, and, ac
cording to the Sifre Num. 42 logia, to the man as well.
II.i.6. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "My father used to
reject from the altar such as has a blemish."
(M. Zev. 9:3, trans. Danby, p. 482)
Comment: See above, Sifra Sav 1:9, p. 401.
ILi.7.A. If aught befell any of the Hallowed Things to render them
invalid before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests;
but if it befell after they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests.
B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "Never have I seen a hide
taken out to the place of burning."
C. R. <Aqiba said, "We learn from his words that if a man flayed
a firstling..."
But the sages say, "We have not seen affords no proof."
(M. Zev. 12:4, trans. Danby, p. 486)
c
Comment: See above, M. Ed. 2:2, which is borrowed from here, so

Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 84.
c
II.L8.A. R. Ishmael says, "The omer was brought on the Sabbath

from three se'ahs; and on a weekday, from five."
But the sages say, "No matter whether it was a Sabbath or weekday,
it came from three."
B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "On a Sabbath it was
reaped by one man, with one sickle, into one basket, but on a week
day it was reaped by three, into three baskets, with three sickles."
But the sages say, "No matter whether it was a Sabbath or a week
day, it was reaped by three, into three baskets, with three sickles."
(M. Men. 10:1, trans. Danby, p. 505)
Comment: Hananiah's rule once again is in the past tense, phrased not
as a prescriptive law, but as a description of what was done aforetime.
Hence we have a reminiscence of Temple rite on the sixteenth of Nisan.
But Ishmael's language is no different, and the same considerations
pertinent to M. Sheq. 4:4 apply here.
Part B looks like a dispute about the mnemonic tradition in the
hands of both sideswas it one] one j one-three f three j three or was a separate
tradition on weekdays available to all? Hananiah maintains separate
traditions on weekdays and Sabbaths were handed on, and he presurnN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I
26
406
H A N A N I A H ILLS), 1 0
ably had learned such traditions. The sages had not. At early Yavneh,
mnemonic traditions apparently came under discussion, a phenomenon
much in evidence in the Houses-materials.
II.i.9.A. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The colors of
leprosy-signs are sixteen."
R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Thirty-six."
'Aqavyah b. Mehallel says, "Seventy-two."
B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "They do not inspect
leprosy-signs for the first time the day after the Sabbath, since the
[end of] that week will fall on the Sabbath; nor yet on the second day
of the week, since the end of the second week will fall on the Sabbath;
nor in houses on the third day of the week, since the end of the third
week will fall on the Sabbath."
R. Aqiba says, "They inspect them at any time, and if the time for
inspection at the end of the seven days falls on a Sabbath, they leave
it until after the Sabbath."
(M. Neg. 1:4, trans. Danby, p. 676-7)
c
Comment: M. Neg. 1:1 begins with the view of Meir, that the colors
of the leprosy-signs are "two which are four," that is, Scripture speaks
of two, but they are divided into four colors. After this matter is dis
cussed at some length, the above pericope appears, with the traditions
of Hananiah, then Dosa b. Harkinas, then 'Aqavyah. The commentaries
explain that the issue is, How are the original colors referred to in Scrip
tures to be subdivided? But the form of Meir's Mishnah is presupposed
in the sayings attributed to the earlier masters, with this difference: in
stead of "two that are four," we have only fixed numbers, sixteen,
thirty-six, and seventy-two.
The second saying (B) of Hanina again places him into juxtaposition
with 'Aqiba, and one gains the impression that Hananiah is to be placed
in Yavneh toward the end of the first century, along with Dosa and
Aqavyah.
c
II.i.10. Seven days before the burning of the heifer the priest that
was to burn the heifer was taken apart from his house to a chamber...
And throughout the seven days they sprinkled him [with water] from
the [ashes of] all the sin-offerings that were there.
R. Yosi says, "They sprinkled him only on the third and seventh
days."
R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "They sprinkled the priest
that was to burn the heifer on each of the seven days, but [the priest
H A N A N I A H Il.ii.l, 2, 3
407
that was set apart] for the Day of Atonement they sprinkled only on
the third and seventh days."
(M. Par. 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 699)
Comment: This is another Temple reminiscence. Since the probability
is that the Pharisees had no accurate records of the heifer-ceremony,
and they certainly did not supervise it, the tradition is either an accurate
recollection of something Hanina himself saw, or a fabrication of some
thing no one saw, but everyone assumed would have been done ac
cording to Pharisaic law. Hanina's language makes little difference here,
for the Yavnean rabbis phrased in the historical, past tense whatever
laws about the Temple they chose to preserve or create, whether those
laws derived from actual knowledge of historical realities or from the
exegetical and legislative imagination of the Yavnean (and later) mas
ters. So this consideration is hardly decisive. Strikingly, Yosi b. Halafta's
language differs not at all from Hanina's, though Yosi comes about
half-a-century later. The dispute is between Yosi and Hananiah!
11.11.1. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "Terumah which has
been impaired for human consumption, but the dog can eat it, retains
the capacity to render unclean the uncleanness of foods, and they burn
it in its place [forthwith, and do not need to wait until the time of
burning the leaven on the eve of Passover]."
(Tos. Ter. 9:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 158, lines
47-9)
Comment: No other masters are mentioned in context. See also b. Pes.
45b, etc. The logion is in standard legal form.
11.11.2. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "Father would prevent
maimed [offerings] from coming near the altar."
(Tos. Zev. 9:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 493)
Comment: See above, Sifra Sav 1:9.
11.11.3. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "The appearances of
negaHm are sixteen."
R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Thirty six."
'Aqavyah b. Mehallel says, "Seventy-two."
(Tos. Neg. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 618, line
19)
Comment: See above, M. Neg. 1:4, Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6. The peri
cope cannot be composite, for the opinions of the other masters would
mean nothing without Hananiah's full statement of the problem. The
antecedent master is Ishmael, who says they are twelve. Then comes
408
H A N A N I A H II.ii.3
HANANIAH
IILi
Tannaitic
Palestinian
Gemara
ILii
Tosefta
Hananiah,
Prefect of
the Priests
I
Tannaitic
Midrashim
ILi
Mishnah
1. Father w o u l d
Sifra S a v 1 : 9
M. Zev. 9 : 3
Tos. Zev. 9 : 5
Sifra Tazri'a
M . Neg.
Tos. Neg.
IILii
Tannaitic
Babylonian
Gemara
IV.i
Amoraic
Materials in
Palestinian
Gemara
IV.ii
Amoraic
Babylonian
Gemara
II.ii.3
V
ARN
offerings f r o m the
altar
Leprosy-signs
a r e sixteen
Neg.
3 . P e a c e in y o u r
Sifre N u m . 4 2
1:4
1:6
2:6
house
4. Peace equivalent Sifre N u m .
42
t o creation
5. Priests n e v e r
refrained
M . Pes. 1 : 6
M . <Ed. 2 : 1
6. Surplus of
drink-offering
M . Sheq. 4 : 4
7. House of
fjanina made
fourteen prostra
tions
M . Sheq. 6 : 1
8. I never saw
hide taken t o be
burned
M . <Ed. 2 : 2
M. Zev. 1 2 : 4
9. W o m a n may
w r i t e o w n bill o f
divorce
M. Ed. 2 : 3
1 0 . Needle in
flesh o f offering
M . <Ed. 2 : 3
1 1 , Pray for the

government
M. A v o t 3 : 2
1 2 . R e a p i n g *omer
M. Men. 1 0 : 1
1 3 . Inspection o f
l e p r o s y signs
M . Neg.
14. Sprinkled
priests
M . Par. 3 : 1
15. House of our

G o d is w o r t h
missing a bath
b. K e t . 1 0 6 b
1:4
b. A . Z . 4a
Tos. Neg.
1:6
y. Bes. 2 : 2
b. Ta. 1 3 a
409
Compilations of
Midrashim
reject maimed
2.
VI
Later
A R N Chap. 20
410
H A N A N I A H III.i.1; III.ii.1, 2
16. Fire of w o o d
1 7 . Terumah unfit
for human
consumption
1 8 . W h y does
prefect stand o n
right ( = 19)
b. Y o m a 2 1 b
Tos. Ter. 9 : 1 0
411
H A N A N I A H III.ii.3, 4
I
i
1 9 . W h y is p r e f e c t
appointed ( = 1 8 )
Hananiah-Dosa-'Aqavyah in a single, unitary pericope. The italicized

words serve all three, therefore are a superscription inserted into
Hananiah's saying. In MS Kaufmann Neg. 1:4, they are assigned to
Dosa, and Hananiah is dropped entirely..
III.i.1. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, "The House of Our
God is worthy (KDYY) that the priests should lose for it one immer
sion.''
(y. Bes. 2:2, repr. Gilead, p. 10b)
Comment: The saying presumably comes after the destruction of the
Temple. The law is that on the 9th of Av all those who require im
mersion may do so. Then comes Hananiah's saying, using the formula
applied to Hillel, "Hillel is worthy that..." Then R. Levi expounded the
law according to this saying of Hananiah. The view that the priests are
the only ones who immerse is curious, but accurate for Temple times.
The saying in this form must have existed by the beginning of the third
century. The Babylonian beraita properly (from the rabbinic perspective)
corrects it by dropping the priestsnow everyone immerses.
111.11.1. It has been taught (WHTNY>): "Five things were reported

about the fire of the pile of wood. It [the fire] was lying like a lion..."
But has it not been taught (WHTNY>): R. Hanina Prefect of the
Priests said, "I myself have seen it, and it was lying (RBS) like a dog."
(b. Yoma 21b)
b. Y o m a 3 9 a
!
b. S o t . 4 2 a
order that, if an accident should happen to the high priest, the prefect
enters and officiates in his stead."
(b. Yoma 39a)
Comment: Immediately following are stories about Simeon the Just
(above, pp. 30-32).
This beraita, in the form of a question and an answer attributed to
Hanina, pertains to what the prefect of the priests did in the Temple,
something Hanina was presumed to know from personal experience.
But we have no way of knowing the facts of Hanina's participation in
the cult, and it is noteworthy that he does not say he himself did so.
111.11.3. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "The House of our

God merits (KDY) to lose an immersion once a year [on the ninth
of A v ] . "
(b. Ta. 13a)
Comment: y. Bes. 2:2 has priests, in the plural. The fourth-century
Amoraic discussion involves Abbaye and others.
111.11.4. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "For what is the

prefect of the priests appointed? If any disqualification should occur
to the high priest, he enters and officiates in his place."
(b. Sot. 42a)
In b. Yoma 39a the question is, Why is the prefect at the
The answer is exactly the same. The answer must therefore have
circulated independent of either question; it serves equally well for
both.
Comment:
Hanina's saying originally must not have been separated

from thefive-things,for the antecedent of /"/ can only be the fire of the
wood-pile. But it has not shaped thefive-things,for obvious reasons. It
is a reminiscence of Temple times, coming after the destruction.
Comment:
111.11.2. It was taught (TNY*): R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests

says, "Why [does] the prefect of the priests [stand] at the right? In
right?
The corpus of Hananiah-traditions is congruent to what we should

have expected of a priest who lived both before the destruction of
the Temple and afterward. Hananiah's stories include numerous rulings
412
HANANIAH
on, and recollections of, Temple procedures, priestly rites and beha
vior, purity rules, and similar matters:
Rulings:
1. Leprosy-colors (Sifra Tazri a Nega im 2:6).
2. Leprosy-inspections on Sunday are prohibited (M. Neg. 1:4).
3. Capacity of spoiled Terumah to render unclean (Tos. Ter. 9:10).
c
Recollections:
1. Father rejected maimed offerings (Sifra Sav 1:9).
2. The priests never refrained from burning flesh in various states of
uncleanness (M. Pes. 1:6).
3. They used the surplus drink-offerings and Terumah for the altar
and vessels (M. Sheq. 4:4).
4. The Houses of Hananiah and Gamaliel would prostrate (M. Sheq.
6:1).
5. Unfit hides were not burned (M. <Ed. 2:2).
6. Needle in thefleshdid not make knife and hands unclean in Temple
(M. <Ed. 2:3).
7. Omer was cut differently on Sabbath from weekday (M. Men. 10:
c
8. Priest who burned heifer sprinkled daily (M. Par. 3:1).

9. The fire of the wood pile lay like a dog (b. Yoma 21b).
10. The prefect stands next to the high priest so he can take his place
if necessary (b. Yoma 39a), or was appointed for that same purpose
(b. Sot. 42).
In addition, we found logia in praise of peace (Sifre Num. 42, M. Avot
3:2) and about not bathing on the 9th of Av, applying to either priests
or ordinary folk (y. Bes. 2:2; b. Ta. 13b). Nearly the whole of Hana
niah's traditions concern the Temple in one way or the other, excluding
only the peace-sayings and the story about the man who wrote his
own bonds (M. Ed. 2:3). On the face of it, therefore, Hananiah
did live both in Temple times and afterward. Many of the logia are
transmitted in collections of Aqiba, Ishmael, Dosa b. Harkinas, and
'Aqavyah; the first two certainly flourished well after the Temple was
destroyed; the third probably so; and the fourth is impossible to date
definitively. This suggests not only that Hananiah was at Yavneh
through a good part of its history, but also that his sayings were
redacted there. Aqiba's comments on some make it certain a few of
the sayings were fixed by 'Aqiba's time.
The underlying supposition throughout, that the Pharisees ran the
Temple, could also indicate that Hananiah was a creature of the Phari
sees and played no role in the Temple such as was attributed to him.
Or it may be that Hananiah himself was a Temple priest of the Pharic
HANANIAH, N A H U M THE
MEDE
413
saic persuasion and absorbed the viewpoint of the party, even against
everyday facts of Temple governance that must have been known to
him. In any case I cannot imagine Hananiah was a fictional character,
or that, like "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi, probably also Eleazar b.
Harsom, he was a Temple authority later on claimed by the rabbis
as their own. The differences between Hananiah's traditions and theirs
are substantial. The latter are stories and reminiscences, nearly all
fantasies, while the former contain legal materials too carefully redacted
to be compared to random fables. The evidence, however, is hardly
sufficient decisively to settle the question.
5.
Nahum the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian
Nahum the Mede certainly lived at the time of the destruction

of Jerusalem, according to the story in M. Naz. 5:4, as follows:
Il.i.l. A like error befell Nahum the Mede when Nazirites came
up from the Exile and found the Temple destroyed.
Nahum the Mede said to them, "Would you have vowed to be
Nazirites had you known the Temple was destroyed?"
They answered, "No."
And Nahum the Mede released them from their vow.
But when the matter came before the sages, they said to him,
"If any man vowed to be a Nazirite before the Temple was destroyed,
his Nazirite-vow remains binding. But if he vowed after the Temple
was destroyed, his Nazirite-vow is not binding."
[M. Naz. 5:4 (cited in y. Ned. 9:2, y. Naz. 5:3)]
Nahum the Mede is, however, on a list of the judges of civil law
along with Admon and Hanan:
A. Three judges in cases of robbery were in Jerusalem: Admon b.
Gadai, Hanan the Egyptian, and Hanan b. Avishalom...
B. Three judges of civil law were in Jerusalem: Admon, Hanan,
and Nahum...
C. R. Papa replied, "Nahum's name was mentioned by R. Nathan
for it was taught:
"R. Nathan says, 'Nahum the Mede was also one of the judges of
civil law in Jerusalem,' but the sages did not agree with him..."
[b. Ket. 105a (y. Ket. 13:1)]
Nathan, a Babylonian, was responsible for including Nahum the Mede
on the list of the civil judges, along with Admon and Hanan b. Avis-
414
H A N A N THE
EGYPTIAN
halom (M. Ket, 13: Iff) considered above. No other traditions of

Nahum can be definitively located in the setting of Jerusalem.
Further traditions include the following: M. Shab. 2:1, Nahum
the Mede says one may use melted tallow for the Sabbath lamp, and
the sages prohibit it; M. B.B. 5:2, if a man sold an ass, he has not sold
its trappings, but Nahum the Mede says he has sold the trappings;
Tos. B.B. 9:1, R. Nathan says Nahum was one of the civil judges and
held that one who writes over his property in the name of his fellow
cannot be forced to retract; Tos. A.Z. 1:1 = y. A.Z.I : 1 , Nahum the
Mede says one day before pagan festivals in the exile it is prohibited
to do business with them. b. A.Z. 7b contains several other Tannaitic
traditions of Nahum the Mede: One may sell to idolators a male or
old horse in war time; the dill plant is subject to tithe whether as
seeds or vegetables or pods; and one may ask for his own needs during
the benediction who hears prayer. These are random, commonplace
rulings, and give no hint as to where they come from. They do not
follow the form of the M. Ket. 13: Iff rulings of Admon and Hanan.
Hanan the Egyptian, the other name in the b. Ket. 105a discussions,
occurs under that name only in the Babylonian Talmud. In b. Yoma
63b ( = b. Tern. 6b, b. Zev. 34b, 74a), a beraita of Hanan the Egyptian
is cited by R. Joseph with reference to the he-goat-to-be-sent-away on
the Day of Atonement.-Another reference is b. Sanh. 17b, as follows:
c
// was discussed before the sages refers to Simeon b. Azzai, Simeon b.

Zoma, Hanan the Egyptian, and Hananiah b. Hakhinai.
R. Nahman b. Isaac taught that there are five, the three Simeons
(adding Simeon the Temanite), Hanan, and Hananiah.
These masters certainly do not come before the destruction, but are
contemporaries of Aqiba. The inclusion of Hanan on such a list
suggests either that Hanan the Egyptian is not the same as the civil
court judge in Temple times, or that someone has erred in identifying
the Egyptian Hanan with the Hanan of M. Ket. 13:1 (see Epstein,
Mevcfot, p. 45).
c
6.
Zekhariah b. Qevutal and Zekhariah b. HaQassav
Zekhariah b. Qevutal reports (M. Yoma 1:6) that many times did
he read before the high priest before the Day of Atonement out of
the Book of Daniel. Epstein (Mevo'ot, p. 37) assigns the whole of
M. Yoma to Zekhariah b. Qevutal! The report is part of the picture
of how the Pharisees used to instruct the high priest in piety and
ZEKHARIAH
415
law before the Atonement rite. His son is one of the rabbinical apostles
sent to Babylonia ca. 130 A.D. in connection with the dispute with
Hananiah nephew of R. Joshua b. Hananiah (b. Ber. 63a).
Zekhariah b. HaQassav occurs in M. Ket. 2:9 ( = Tos. Ket. 3:2).
He testified concerning his wife, that she had not been raped when
the Romans took Jerusalem:
"By this Temple, her hand stirred not out of mine from the time the
gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left it."
They said to him, "None may testify of himself."
Nonetheless, a beraita adds, he treated her very honorably (b. Ket.
27b). Joshua b. Hananiah cites a teaching of his, M. Sot. 5:1, in con
formity with an exegesis by R. Aqiba. A further story appears in
M. <Ed. 8:2 (cited in b. Ket. 26b-27a, y. Ket. 2:9):
c
R. Yosi the Priest [disciple of Yohanan b. Zakkai] and R. Zekhariah

b. HaQassav testified of a young girl that was left as a pledge in
Ashqelon, and the members of her family kept her far from them, al
though she had witnesses that testified that she had not gone aside in
secret and been defiled.
The testimony did no good. The case-report presumably came to
Yavneh. Eleazar b. R. Yosi cites him, Tos. B.B. 7:11 ( = b. B.B.
111a, y. B.B. 8:1) in a law about the division of a mother's legacy.
Both Zekhariah's therefore lived in the last years of the Temple
and afterward. Zekhariah b. Qevutal may have been important in the
Temple administration. If his report is true, then he was one of those
priests who after the destruction went over to the Pharisees, or was
"Pharisaized" whatever he actually did. We do not have to dismiss
the recollection out of hand. Presumably he did what he said, perhaps
not as a "sage" informing the high priest what to do, but rather as a
perfectly pious Temple authority in his own right. Zekhariah b.
HaQassav survived the capture of Jerusalem, and a few of his tradi
tions persisted at early Yavneh.
7. Measha, Nahum the Scribe, Simeon of Mispah, Judah b. Bathyra,
'Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Heêqiahb. Gorion, Abba Yosi b. Hanan,
and Yohanan b. Gudgada
Measha (MY'S*) and Nahum the Scribe occur only in M. Pe'ah 2:6,
cited above, p. 344.
Simeon of Mispah also occurs in Tos. Yom Hakippurim 1:13 (Zucker
mandel, p. 181, 1. 25, p. 182, 1.1) in juxtaposition with R. Yosi; and
416
H A N A N I A H BEN
HEZEQIAH
Tos. Zev 6:13 (Zuckermandel, p. 488, 1. 36) on the Tamid rite.

Judah b. Bathyra: See my History of the Jews in Babylonia, I. The Parthian
Period , pp. 46-52, 130-4.
Âqavyah b. Mehallel is dated by some as early as the first century
B.C. and by others as late as Yavneh in Gamaliel IFs time. The evidence
is not decisive one way or the other.
Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion (Garon) occurs only in M. Shab. 1:4
(and parallels) as follows:
2
These are among the rulings which the sages enjoined while in the
upper room of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion. When they went
up to visit him they voted, and the House of Shammai outnumbered
the House of Hillel, and eighteen things did they decree on that day.
We have in addition references to Hananiah b. Hezeqiah, without
b. Gorion, in Shab. 13b = b. Men. 45a = b. Hag. 13a, as follows:
Our rabbis taught, Who wrote Megillat Ta'anit? They said, Hana
niah b. Hezeqiah and his companions, who cherished their troubles...
Rav Judah in Rav's name said, "Verily that man, Hananiah b.
Hezeqiah is his name, is to be remembered for blessing, for, but for
him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden, for its words
contradicted the Torah. What did he do? Three hundred barrels of
oil were taken up to him, and he sat in an upper chamber and recon
ciled them."
(b. Shab. 13b = b. Men. 45a = b. Hag. 13a)
Our rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at
his teacher's house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what
Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consum
ed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah
b. Hezeqiah said to them, "If he was a sage, all are sages."
(b. Hag. 13a)
The saying of Rav Judah-Rav is in the context of the discussion
of M. Shab. 1:4, which suggests that the editor assumed the two
Hezeqiah b. Hananiah's were one and the same. But nothing in the
traditions of H. b. H. without b. G. suggests a particular time or
place or circle in which his traditions were redacted, so it is merely
an assumption that they pertained to the same Hezeqiah.
We also have a R. Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon, in
Sifre Deut. 294; and Mekh. Bahodesh 7:66:
Y O H A N A N BEN
417
G U D G A D A Il.i.l, 2
Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon says, "Remember the Sab

bath day to keep it holyRemember it from the first day in the week, so
that if something good comes to you, you should order it (MTQNW)
for the sake of the Sabbath."
This is, in effect, Shammai's saying, b. Bes. 16a. On this basis Epstein,
Mevo'ot, p. 513, assigns Eleazar to the House of Shammai, and to the
period before 70. If he was the son of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah, I should
imagine that he would come after the destruction.
Abba Yosi b. Hanan occurs in M. Mid. 2:6; he says that thirteen
prostrations referred to in M. Sheq, 6:3 (M. Mid. 2:3) were made oppo
site the thirteen gates; in b. Pes. 57a, the woe-sayings are attributed
to Abba Joseph b. Hanan (above, p. 398). In b. Zev. 65a he has a
saying about slaughtering the fowl; b. Sot. 20a, about the woman
accused of adultery, along with Eliezer b. Jacob of Kefar Darom and
Ishmael. Tos. Miq. 3:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 655, has a saying on
combining quantities of water for purification purposes. Tos. Eruv.
11:24, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 154 = Tos. Hag, 1:9, ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 233, has a saying pertinent to M. Hag. 1:8, on which basis Epstein,
Mevcfot, p. 19, assigns Abba Yosi to the last decades before the destruc
tion of the Temple. Tos. Suk. 4:15, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 199, has a
saying on the priestly watches (mishmarot).
c
The traditions of Yohanan b. Gudgada point toward a master who

was a Temple Levite before the destruction of Jerusalem. They are
as follows:
Il.i.l. Yohanan b. Gudgada always ate hullin in accordance with
the rules governing the cleanness of Hallowed Things, yet for them
that occupied themselves with sin-offering water his apron counted
as suffering ^/^/-uncleanness.
(M. Hag. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 214)
II.L2.A. Yohanan b. Gudgada testified of a woman that was a
deaf mute and that was given in marriage by her father [as a minor]
that she could be put away by a bill of divorce.
B. And that a minor that was an Israelite's daughter married to a
priest could eat of heave-offering.
C. And that if she died her husband could inherit from her.
D. And that if a man built a stolen beam into a structure, he need
only repay its value, on acount of the order (MPNY TYQWN) of
the penitent.
E. And that a sin offering that was stolen property, if this was not
418
Y O H A N A N B E N G U D G A D A I l . i i . l , 2 ; III.ii.1; I V . i i . l
known to many, could effect atonement on account of the order of

the altar.
[M. Git. 5:5, trans. Danby, p. 313 (Part A is
inM. Yev. 14:2;inM. Ed.7:9it is R. Nehunya
b. Gudgada; compare M. Yev. 14:2)]
c
11.11.1. R. Judah said, "The story is told of the sons of Rabbi

Yohanan b. Gudgada that they were deaf and dumb, and all the
purities of Jerusalem were done under their supervision ( L GBN)."
(Tos. Ter. 1:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 107, lines 1-2)
C
11.11.2. These are the appointees that were in the Sanctuary: Yohanan
b. Gudgada (was) over the locking of the gates...
(Tos. Sheq. 2:14, ed. Lieberman, p. 210, lines
63-4)
III.ii.1. Our rabbis taught: If it was stripped of its hide, R. Meir
declares it valid, but the rabbis declare it invalid.
Long ago Eleazar the Scribe and Yohanan b. Gudgada testified that
an animal stripped of its hide was invalid.
(b. Hul. 55b)
C
IV.ii.l. It happened that (M SH B) R. Joshua b. Hananiah went to

assist R. Yohanan b. Gudgada in fastening the Temple doors, where
upon he said to him, "My son, turn back, for you are of the singers,
not of the door-keepers."
[b. <Arakh. l i b (Sifre Num. 116, ed. Fried
man, p. 36b)]
In addition, b. Hor. 10a contains a reference to Eleazar b. Hisma
and Yohanan b. Gudgada as the disciples of Gamaliel, but the parallels
give Yohanan b. Nuri, which must be correct, b. Hag. 3a contains a
reference to the sons of the daughter of R. Yohanan b. Gudgada,
disciples of Judah the Patriarch, who were also deaf and dumb.
The traditions are mostly singletons. The one that Yohanan b.
Gudgada ate his hullin in a condition of ritual purity certifies him as
a haver. His four (five) testimonies of M. Git. 5:15 (M. Yev. 14:2,
M. Ed. 7:9) are standard in form and unexceptional in content.
II.L2.D makes him a Hillelite. The sons who were deaf and dumb
(Tos. Ter. 1:1) relate in theme toM. Git. 5:15.A. The traditions are
c
Y O H A N A N BEN
GUDGADA
419
entirely clear that Yohanan b. Gudgada lived in Temple times, and

his sons did also. But their supervisory role is dubious. Yohanan was
in charge of the Temple gates, a Levitical assignment. Linking him
with Joshua b. Hananiah, also a Levite who lived in Temple times,
is by no means far-fetched. We are in no position to verify the Yoha
nan b. Gudgada-traditions. They are internally consistent, (On M.
Git. 5:5, see Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 657,954)
ADDENDUM
p. 240, Il.ii.l 1: Compare Sifra Vayiqra 1:7, ed. Weiss, p. 3a.

ABOUT THE
PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
P A R T
THE
II
HOUSES

ABOUT THE PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
P A R T II
THE HOUSES
BY
JACOB
NEUSNER
Professor o f Religious Studies

LEIDEN
E. J . B R I L L
1971
Copyright
1971 by E. J. Brill, Leiden,
Netherlands

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
For Wayne and Martha Meeks

. . . aAY)0c5c.... ev & SoXoc, oux ecr&v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
xni
PART ONE
THE MASTERS
List o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s
xiv
Transliterations
xvi
I.
II.
III.
VI.
V.
INTRODUCTION
1 1
i.
T o Lay o n Hands
1 1
ii.
Decrees
1 3
iii.
Moral Apophthegms
1 5
iv.
Conclusion
2 2
SIMEON THE JUST
2 4
i.
Traditions
2 4
ii.
iii.
Synopses
Conclusion
4 4
5 7
ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. Y o s i B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN
6 0
i.
6 0
Antigonus of Sokho
ii.
Traditions o f Y o s i b. Y o ' e z e r and Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n
6 1
iii.
Synopses
7 7
iv.
Conclusion
8 1
JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B.

TABBAI AND S l M E O N B. SHETAH
VI.
VII.
VIII.
8 2
i.
J o s h u a b. Perahiah and Nittai the A r b e l i t e
8 2
ii.
Traditions o f J u d a h b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah
iii.
Synopses
1 2 2
iv.
Conclusion
1 3 7
8 6
1 4 2
i.
ii.
Traditions
Synopses
1 4 2
1 5 5
iii.
Conclusion
1 5 8
YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST, HONI THE CIRCLER, AND OTHERS

MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HILLEL . . 1 6 0
i.
Y o h a n a n the High Priest
1 6 0
ii.
H o n i the Circler
1 7 6
iii.
Others
1 8 2
MENAHEM. SHAMMAI
i.
Menahem
1 8 4
1 8 4
VIII
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ii.
iii.
Synopses
204
iv.
Conclusion
208
HILLEL
185
2 1 2
i.
Traditions
212
ii.
iii.
Synopses
Conclusion
280
294
SHAMMAI AND HILLEL
303
i.
Traditions
303
ii.
Synopses
333
iii.
Conclusion
338
GAMALIEL
341
i.
Traditions
342
ii.
Synopses
370
iii.
Conclusion
373
SIMEON B. GAMALIEL
377
i.
Traditions
ii.
Synopses
384
iii.
Conclusion
386
OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 7 0

i.
ii.
389
1.
Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah
389
2.
Baba b. Buta
389
3.
Y o ' e z e r 'Ish H a B i r a h
391
4.
Sadoq
392
5.
Y o h a n a n the Hauranite
392
M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h Hillel
392
1.
Bene Bathyra
392
2.
Gedya
Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag
Shebna
J o n a t h a n b. 'Uzziel
392
4.
5.
iv
389
M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h S h a m m a i
3.
iii.
377
392
393
393
M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h G a m a l i e l I
394
1.
394
A d m o n and Hanan
2.
Hanina b. D o s a
304
3.
Y o h a n a n the Scribe
396
Others
1.
Hilqiah)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
396
H o n i the Circler, G r a n d s o n of H o n i the Circler ( A b b a

396
J o s h u a b. G a m a l a
39
" R a b b i " Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. H a r s o m . . . .
39
Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests
40
N a h u m the M e d e and Hanan the Egyptian
41
Zekhariah b. Q e v u t a l and Zekhariah b. HaQassav . . . .
4 1
Measha, N a h u m the Scribe, S i m e o n o f M i s p a h , J u d a h b.
Bathyra, ' A q a v v a h b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah
b. G o r i o n , a n d Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a
4 1
6
7
0
3
4
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PART
IX
TWO
THE HOUSES
Transliterations
XIII
xv
XIV.
INTRODUCTION
XV.
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
XVI.
Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai
Sifra
Sifre
Midrash Tannaim
6
9
11
30
39
41
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Zera'im
Mo'ed
Nashim
Neziqin
Qodashim
Toharot
Collections of Houses-Disputes in Mishnah-Tosefta
Tables
PART
41
120
190
234
239
253
324
344
THREE
CONCLUSIONS
XVI
Transliterations
XVII.
XVIII.
X I V
INTRODUCTION
INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS

i.
Legal Traditions
A.
B.
C.
Standard Legal F o r m
Testimonies
Debates
5
5
1 4
16
TABLE OF
X
D.
Narratives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
E.
ii.
XIX.
CONTENTS
H i s t o r i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n in S t a n d a r d L e g a l F o r m
Epistles
Ordinances
Chains and Lists
Precedents
Contexts
First-Person Accounts
Illustrations and Proofs
Histories o f L a w s
23
.
24
25
25
27
28
31
33
35
38
Legal Exegeses
1.
Scriptural References
39
39
2.
3.
4.
40
42
42
Exegeses
Proof-texts
F r o m Exegesis to Chria
Aggadic Traditions
43
A.
Stories
1.
Allusions to Stories
2.
S h o r t Biographical References
3.
Biographical and Historical Stories
43
43
45
47
B.
Sayings
1.
"I"-Sayings
2.
S a y i n g s N o t in a N a r r a t i v e S e t t i n g
3.
Apophthegms
4.
"Woe"-Sayings
5.
Formulaic Sayings
55
56
56
59
61
61
C.
Aggadic Exegeses
1.
Scriptural References
2.
Exegeses
62
62
62
3.
4.
63
64
Proof-Texts
F r o m Exegesis to Fable
iii.
S u m m a r y of Forms and Types
64
iv.
v.
Some Comparisons
History of Forms
68
89
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS 1 0 1

i.
Introduction
ii.
Pericopae w i t h o u t Formulae o r Patterns
106
iii.
Pericopae with Formulae o r Patterns
114
iv.
Small Units of Tradition

1.
Fixed Opposites
a.
Liable v s . Free
b. Unclean v s . Clean
c.
Prohibit vs. Permit
d.
Unfit v s . Fit
e.
Midrasvs.
Terne-Met
f.
I n s i d e v s . O u t s i d e ; Past v s . F u t u r e ;
A b o v e vs. Below
101
H9
120
120
I
I
l ^
2
l ^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v.
XI
2.
Balance o f Meter
124
3.
Balance o f M e t e r and Change o f Letter
125
Syntactical and M o r p h o l o g i c a l Changes E q u i v a l e n t in F u n c

tion to Small Units o f Tradition
XX.
126
1.
Tense and N u m b e r
2.
D i s t i n c t i o n v s . N o D i s t i n c t i o n (And
126
3.
Reversal o f W o r d - O r d e r
128
4.
Statement o f L a w + / N e g a t i v e
129
5.
Negative Statement + Permit
132
6.
*P i n S e c o n d L e m m a
134
vs. Or)
126
vi.
Differences i n W o r d - C h o i c e
134
vii.
Number-Sequences
136
viii.
Houses-Disputes N o t in Precise Balance
ix.
S u m m a r y o f Small Units o f Tradition and O t h e r
138
Patterns
140
x.
O r a l Transmission: Defining the Problem
143
xi.
Oral Traditions
163
Mnemonic
VERIFICATIONS
i.
Introduction
ii.
P e r i c o p a e w i t h o u t V e r i f i c a t i o n s b e f o r e ca. 2 0 0 A . D . ( M i s h
iii.
180
nah-Tosefta)
185
Verifications of Y a v n e h
199
1.
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
2.
Joshua b. Hananiah
200
3.
Eliezer + J o s h u a
201
4.
Eliezer + 'Aqiba
201
5.
A b b a Saul
202
6.
Gamaliel II
202
7.
Eleazar b. R. S a d o q
203
199
203
8.
Eleazar b. 'Azariah
9.
Eleazar b. 'Azariah and J o s h u a
204
10.
Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael
204
11.
Tarfon
204
12.
Tarfon + 'Aqiba
204
13.
14.
iv.
180
'Aqiba
4
A q i b a n Exegeses in Houses-Disputes
205
207
15.
Y o h a n a n b. Nuri
208
16.
J o n a t h a n b. Bathyra
208
17.
A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan
208
18.
Ilai
208
19.
D o s a b. Harkinas
208
20.
Ishmael
208
Verifications of Usha
209
1.
Usha in General
209
2.
Judah b. Baba
210
3.
Judah b. Bathyra
210
4.
Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a
211
5.
Eliezer b. J a c o b
211
6.
Dosetai b. R. Y a n n a i
211
TABLE OF
XII
v.
7.
Y o s i b . Halafta
211
8.
9.
Y o s i b . H a l a f t a a n d J u d a h b . Ilai
Yosi b. rlalafta and Meir
213
213
10.
Y o s i b . Halafta a n d S i m e o n b . Y o h a i
213
11.
Simeon b. Y o h a i
214
12.
Meir
215
13.
M e i r a n d J u d a h b . Ilai
215
14.
J u d a h b . Ilai
217
15.
Simeon b. Gamaliel
218
16.
Nathan
219
Verifications of the Circle of J u d a h the Patriarch

1.
XXI.
XXII.
CONTENTS
220
2.
S i m e o n b. Eleazar
220
3.
Others
222
vi.
T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at Y a v n e h
223
vii.
T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at U s h a
231
viii.
Conclusion
234
239
i.
ii.
The
iii.
The Matter o f Hillel
iv.
Gamaliel and Simeon. Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai
272
v.
The Yavnean Stratum
281
vi.
The Ushan Stratum
282
vii.
The Laws
286
Rabbinic History
239
of Pharisaism: The
INDICES
248
255
301
320
369
I.
Bible
II.
Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumranian Writings
III.
Josephus
IV.
Mishnah
VI.
Early Masters
SUMMARY: THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES

BEFORE 7 0
V.
220
T h e C i r c l e o f J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h in G e n e r a l
Tosefta
M e k h i l t a , S i f r a , Sifr, M i d r a s h T a n n a i m
VII.
Palestinian T a l m u d
VIII.
Babylonian Talmud
IX.
Midrashim and Other Compilations
X.
General Index
LIST
OF
ABBREVIATIONS
Ah.
'Arak.
ARN
A.Z.
=
=
=
=
Ahilot
'Arakhin
A v o t deRabbi Natan
'AvodahZarah
b.
Bavli, Babylonian Tal

mud
b.
B.B.
B.M.
B.Q.
Ber.
Bes.
Bik.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
ben
B a v a Batra
Bava M e s i V
Bava Qamma
Berakhot
Besah
Bikkurim
Chron.
Chronicles
Dan.
Dem.
Deut.
Development
=
=
=
=
Daniel
Demai
Deuteronomy
Development of a Legend :
Studies on the Traditions
Concerning
Yohanan ben
Zakkai ( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 )
'Ed.
Epstein,
'Eduyyot
Mevcfot
J . N . E p s t e i n , Mevo'ot
le Sifrut HaTannaHm
(Jerusalem, 1957)
Epstein,
Mishnah
J . N . E p s t e i n , Mavo
le Nusah
HaMishnah
(Jerusalem, 1 9 6 4 )
'Eruv.
Ex.
Ez.
=
=
=
'Eruvin
Exodus
Ezekiel
Finkelstein,
Mavo
Mavo le Massekhet
Avot
veAvot deR. Natan
(New York, 1950)
Halivni,
Meqorot
Hor.
David Weiss Halivni,

Meqorot uMesorot
(Tel
A v i v , 1968)
Horayot
Hos.
Hul.
=
=
Hosea
Hullin
Is.
Isaiah
JE
Jer.
=
=
Jewish Encyclopedia
Jeremiah
Josh.
Jud.
=
=
Joshua
Judges
Kel.
Ker.
Kil.
=
=
=
Kelim
Keritot
Kila'im
Lev.
Leviticus
M.
Mishnah
M.Q.
M.S.
M.T.
MT
Ma.
Mak.
Maksh.
Mai.
Meg.
M e g . Ta.
Mekh.
Men.
Mid.
Miq.
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
M o e d Qatan
Ma^serSheni
M i d r a s h Tanna*im
Massoretic Text
Ma'aserot
Makkot
Makshirin
Malachi
Megillah
Megillat Ta anit
Mekhilta
Menahot
Middot
Miqva'ot
Naz.
Ned.
Neg.
Nez.
Nid.
Num.
=
=
=
=
=
=
Nazir
Nedarim
Nega im
Nezirot
Niddah
Numbers
Gen.
Git.
=
=
Genesis
Gittin
Oh.
'Orl.
=
=
Hag.
Hal.
=
=
Hagigah
Hallah
Par.
Pes.
=
=
Ohalot
Orlah
Parah
Pesahim
XIV
LIST OF
Prov.
Ps.
=
=
Proverbs
Psalms
Qid.
Qiddushin
Qoh.
Qohelet
ABBREVIATIONS
Ta.
Tern.
=
=
Ta'anit
Temurah
Ter.
Terumot
Toh.
Toharot
Tos.
T-Y.
=
=
Tosefta
TevulYom
'Uqsin
y.
Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian
Talmud
YomTov
R.
Rabbah
R.
Rabbi
R.H.
Rosh Hashanah
Sam.
Samuel
Sanh.
Sanhedrin
Y.T.
Shab.
Shabbat
Yad.
Yadaim
Shav.
Shavu'ot
Yev.
Yevamot
Sheq.
Sheqalim
Uqs.
Shev.
Shevi'it
Zab.
Zabim
Song
Song of Songs
Zech.
Zechariah
Sot.
Sotah
Zer.
Zera'im
Suk.
Sukkah
Zev.
Zevahim
TRANSLITERATIONS
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
INTRODUCTION
The pericopae of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel
constitute the largest corpus of materials attributed to pre-70 masters.
Nearly all elements in that corpus exhibit common form and structure
and uniform style.
In the Houses' dispute-form we have a superscription which states
the legal problem, followed by brief rulings attributed to the House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel, in that order. The superscription
sometimes is inserted in the Shammaite lemma, but this is readily
discerned, and the primary pericope is easily restored. The Housesopinions are usually stated in brief balanced phrases, sometimes
opposing numbers, e.g., one/two, three/nine, more often in syzygies,
e.g., liable, not liable, with the Shammaites nearly always in the strin
gent position.
A second form is the debate, in which the Hillelites normally come
first, the Shammaites have the last word and win the argument. Here
the Houses-sayings generally are developed and not compressed into
a few words, balanced against one another.
The model used for the formation of the Houses-disputes seems to
be the pattern of the pairs in M. Hag. 2:2, listing contrary opinions and
systematically assigning them to the two authorities of a given genera
tion:
X
Y
says
says
T o lay
N o t t o lay
The Houses-form differs primarily in the provision of substantial

protases, statements of a legal issue or problem, or superscriptions;
further, the Houses' opinions are phrased usually in direct discourse or
in intensive verbs:
House of
say, unclean
declare
declare
declare
declare
Shammai
unclean
l i a b l e ; say, liable
unfit
ready to receive uncleanness
( ' W M R Y M , TM>)
(MTM'YN)
( M H Y Y B Y N ; ' W M R Y M , H YB)
(PWSLYN)
(BKY YTN; MWKSRYN)
N E U S N E R , T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II
INTRODUCTION
House o f Hillel
say, c l e a n
d e c l a r e clean
('WMRYM,
THR)
(MTHRYN)
d e c l a r e free o f l i a b i l i t y ;
say, f r e e o f l i a b i l i t y
(PWTRYN; 'WMRYM, PTWR)
d e c l a r e fit
(MKSYRYN)
declare n o t ready to receive

uncleanness
(L> B K Y Y T N ;
>YNN
MWKSRYN)
and the like. The Houses begin just where the pairs leave off, after
Shammai and Hillel; Shammai's House comes first, just as does
Shammai in the original chain. Later on, when the law came always to
conform to the Hillelites' ruling, the masters apparently found it con
venient to preserve the traditions as they had received them, and even
to shape new materials following the ancient pattern. In doing so, they
relieved the student of the need of memorizing decisions, since what
ever the Hillelites said would be regarded as law. The few exceptions
were easy to remember. The Hillelites thus effected their revolution
within the antecedent forms, by making the old forms serve new
purposes.
In Amoraic times masters observed the literary phenomena re
presented by the fixed order and rigid forms of the Houses disputes:
R. Abba in the name of Samuel said, "For three years there was a
dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.
"One said, 'The law is in agreement with us,' and the other said, 'The
law is in agreement with us.'
"Then an echo came forth and said, 'Both are the words of the living
God, but the law follows the words of the House of Hillel.' "
Since both are the words of the living God, what entitled the House
of Hillel to have the law established in agreement with their words ?
Because they were kindly and modest. They studied their own rulings
and those of the House of Shammai. They were even so humble as to
mention the words of the House of Shammai before their own.
(b. <Eruv. 13b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 85-6)
On what account did the House of Hillel prove worthy that the law
should be established according to their words ?
R. Judah b. R. Pazzi said, "Because they placed the words of the
House of Shammai ahead of their words.
"And not only so, but they also saw [the point of] the words of the
House of Shammai and retracted their own opinions."
(y. Suk. 2:8)
Clearly, it was regarded as preferable to come first. As we shall see,
INTRODUCTION
the "retractions" do not amount to much, and generally show a

Hillelite bias.
As in b. Eruv. 13b, which alludes to the several explanations, it
also was held that an echo had pronounced the decision:
c
TNY: An echo went forth and said, "These and these are the words
of the living God, but the law is according to the words of the House
of Hillel."
Where did the echo go forth?
R. Bibi in the name of R. Yohanan said, "In Yavneh the echo went
forth."
(y. Yev. 6:6, y. Sot. 3:4, y. Qid. 8:1)
To be sure, Hillelites believed in echoes, and Shammaites did not
(e.g., Tos. Nez. 1:1).
As in the Shammai-Hillel pericopae, the Houses are at parity; but
the Shammaites predominate in both forms, giving the first ruling, the
final argument in a debate. We shall see that the forms were used for a
long time after the destruction of the Temple, though most of the
pericopae were redacted probably before or at Usha, ca. 140-180 A.D.
Some of the pericopae provoke comments of early Yavneans, e.g.
Tarfon and Aqiba, and may therefore have been redacted by ca.
100 A.D. The problem of dating pericopae thus is complicated by
the fact that the Houses-form was pseudepigraphically employed over
a period of roughly a century, from ca. 70 to ca. 170, somewhat less
commonly thereafter. We do not know whether the form was used
before 70 as well; none of the pericopae can be verified by reference to
named masters before 70, who never comment directly on materials
attributed to the Houses or even on legal issues addressed by the
Houses.
All we can hope to propose is a plausible date for the creation and
first usage of the form itself: obviously not before the time of Shammai
and Hillelca. 20 A.D.; and not after the time of Aqiba and Tarfon
ca. 90 A.D. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah also comment
on Houses-pericopae, which pushes the terminus of the form back by
about fifteen years. They sometimes are identified with, or regarded as
equivalent to, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. Perhaps the form
itself came even before their time, right at the outset of Yavneh.
Clearly, the Hillelites predominated at Yavneh, certainly after 100, and
possibly after 70, for Yohanan b. Zakkai was alleged to have been
HillePs disciple. By contrast, no Yavnean was assigned to Shammai as
c
INTRODUCTION
a disciple. Eliezer is merely called a sympathizer. Since the Hillelites

told stories both to account for Shammaite predominance in pre-70
Pharisaism ("sword in the school-house," "Shammaites one day out
numbered Hillelites," "mob in the Temple"), and also to explain the
later predominance of the Hillelites ("heavenly echo came to Yavneh"),
it stands to reason that the Shammaites predominated before 70, the
Hillelites shortly afterward. This is further suggested by the one-sided,
if limited, evidence that Gamaliel II and Simeon b. Gamaliel I followed
Shammaite rules.
My guess, as I said, is that the Houses-forms were first worked out
when the parties were nearly equal in influence, but when the Sham
maites still enjoyed a measure of power, so that they could persist in
taking precedence. Further necessary conditions are, first, the need to
bring the parties together and determine normative law, and second,
the presence of an authority of sufficient stature to impose the necessary
compromises. These conditions can have been met only in one time
and place, and that is, at Yavneh in the time of Yohanan b. Zakkai and
Gamaliel II. The work of Yavneh required the conciliation of both
parties to achieve the unification of Pharisaism for the purpose of
assuming and exercising the new power and responsibility gained in
the aftermath of the destruction. Yohanan b. Zakkai, leader of the
Hillelite sector of Pharisaism, and Gamaliel II afterwards may have
sought to conciliate the Shammaites in the redaction of existing legal
materials. The generation of Gamaliel II, Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, and
Aqiba is the first to refer to Houses-disputes in their present form.
Yavneh's accomplishments thus would seem to include not only the
formation of elements of the Siddur and perhaps the canonization of
parts of Scripture, but also the redaction in Houses-form of parts of
the Oral Torah of Pharisaism. This Oral Torah would have consisted
primarily of Houses-pericopae, perhaps arranged in patterns to
permit easy memorization. But it is the form, not the substance, of
Houses-pericopae, which reached the final stage of development.
Yohanan b. Zakkai, supposedly an important leader before 70, and
all other named Pharisaic authorities are excluded from the essentials
of the Houses-forms. We hear chiefly of the Houses, seldom of
authorities within them. The Houses-form indeed leaves no room at
all for named authorities. Aggadic and other theological materials are
rare, for the purpose of the redactors apparently was to incorporate
only the legal traditions, and the forms were shaped for that limited
purpose, scarcely serving as vessels for other sorts of traditions. All
c
INTRODUCTION
aggadic Houses-materials violate the basic form of both Housesdisputes and debates.
The analyses that follow systematically raise two questions. First,
what was the substance of the law attributed to the Houses? I have
explained the laws according to the commentaries of H. Albeck and,
especially, Saul Lieberman, on the Mishnah and Tosefta respectively.
Lieberman's Tosefta Kifshutah and Tosefet Rishonim have been followed
throughout. While for form-critical reasons I have offered a few
alternate explanations, in the main the exposition of pericopae depends
upon Lieberman. The second question is, What words are essential to
the pericope, and what are glosses, interpolations, developments, or
supplements? What are the mnemonic patterns? I have attempted to
restore the pericopae to what seem to me essential mnemonic elements,
to specify glosses, and to note elements added or changed on account
of redactional considerations. I bear sole responsibility for the answers
to the second set of questions.
We shall survey the pericopae in the Tannaitic Midrashim (both
Mekhilta's, Sifra, Sifre, and Midrash Tannaim) and Mishnah-Tosefta;
to these I have added, at appropriate places, some of the more im
portant beraitot of the Palestinian and Babylonian gemarot, but I have
excluded nearly all Amoraic discussions of the Houses-materials.
Israel Konovitz, Beth Shammai-Beth Hillel. Collected Sayings in Halakah
and Aggadah in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem, 1965),
provides an apparently complete compilation, in the original langu
ages, of all Houses-materials, early and late, and arranges them
according to theme. There is no need to duplicate that work.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM
i. M E K H I L T A D E R.
ISHMAEL
I.i.l.A. Another Interpretation: From Year to Year (Ex. 13:10)

B. [This] tells that a man needs to examine the phylacteries once in
twelve months.
"Here it says From year to year, and below it says For a full year
(YMYM) shall he have the right of redemption (Lev. 25:29). Just as year
(YMYM) there means fully twelve months, so here it also means fully
twelve months"the words of the House of Hillel.
C. The House of Shammai say, "He never needs to examine them."
D. Shammai the Elder said, "These are the phylacteries of my
mother's father."
[Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Pisha 17:209-216, ed.
and trans. Lauterbach, I, p. 157 (M. <Ed. 4:10)]
Comment-. See above, I, p. 188. Another interpretation (A) (DBR
*HR) is the redactional formula. Then comes the exegesis attributed to
the House of Hillel. We should have expected a contrary exegesis of
year; the corresponding opinion of the Shammaites ought to have had
something to do with Ex. 13:9-10 or Lev. 25:29. But it does not. This
is suspicious, for the opening clause of the pericope, giving the Hillelite
opinion, does correspond to the form of the Shammaite opinion given
afterward: one shouldshould
notexamine.
If we ignore the exegesis, we have this:

One examines the
phylacteries
O n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s t h e House o f Hillel.
O n e n e v e r examines t h e m t h e House o f Shammai
that is, approximately the expected form, but with the Houses in the
wrong order.
The Shammaites ignore the exegesis of Lev. 25:29 because it has no
pertinence to phylacteries at all, probably also because it is a gloss. The
Hillelites hold one can introduce Scriptural testimonies on the basis of
common wordsthe heggeshfrom year toy ear. The form here it saysj there
it says occurs, one recalls, in Hillel-stories, e.g. the coincidence of the
Sabbath and Passover, so the exegetical device attributed to Hillel is
likewise attributed to his House. But that does not tell us when the
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM
Li.2
exegetical mode was accepted or came to be regarded as probative

among Hillelites.
It also is curious that the Hillel-House precede the Shammai one, for
the contrary order is far more common, just as in the Shammai-Hillel
pericopae, above, I, pp. 303-340.
The pericope is a unity. One could not comprehend the Shammaite
opinion outside of the context of the argument. Shammai the Elder is
tacked on afterward, but the body of the argument presumably began
with the opinions of the two Houses; to this Lev. 25:29 was added. The
silence of the Shammaites on that attempted proof suggests, as I said,
that they never saw it or did not accept it as probative so as to require a
response. Therefore the Hillelites or their heirs are responsible for the
final form of the pericope.
Pericopae which have not been doctored by Hillelites normally
contain an even balance of materials. Whatever point, argument, or
proof is introduced by one party is dealt with by the other. The Sham
maites come first. Hillelite exegetical rules are not introduced, since the
Shammaites either do not know or do not accept them.
The pericope before us has been augmented by a Hillelite or later
hand, through both the introduction of Lev. 25:29, and the application
to it of Hillelite exegetical principles. The inclusion of the precedent of
Shammai himself (elsewhere, Hillel) is a late addition to the whole.
According to this theory, the memorized fundament of the pericope
would be something like this:
Tefillin
BWDQYN/'YN BWDQYN
And the Houses are given the opinions supposed appropriate, though,
as I said, the attributions are the reverse of what one would expect and
place the Shammaites in the lenient position. Then the first lemma is
glossed with once in twelve months, a necessary addition, further requiring
the simple Shammaite negative to be intensified to never. The Scriptures
are a secondary interpolation.
I.i.2.A. Whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods (Ex.
22:8).
For his private use (LSRKW). You interpret it to mean for his
private use. Perhaps it is not so, but means whether it be for his
private use or not for his private use? But Scripture says, For every
matter of trespass.
B. For () the House of Shammai declare one liable for the inten
tion (Lit.: thought of the heart) to "put his hand," since it is said,
"For every thought of trespass."
And the House of Hillel declare one liable only from the moment
when he actually did put his hand.
TANNAITIC
M I D R A S H I M I.i.2
C. Accordingly, it is said, Whether he have not put his hand unto his
neighbor's goods, [it must mean] for his private use.
[Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Neziqin 15:49-55, ed.
and trans. Lauterbach, III, p. 117 (M. B.M.
3:12)]
Comment: The legal issue of part B is when liability begins. The House
of Shammai hold that intention is tantamount to action, and the House
of Hillel, that one is liable only for what he actually does. The setting is
autonomous. No named masters appear in, or refer to, the passage.
The connection between parts A + C with part B is less clear than it
seems at the outset. The , combining part B to part A, leads one to
suppose that the second part bears some relationship to the content of
the first, as an explanation or illustration. But the first part concerns
disposition of the stolen goods, and the second, the point at which
liability begins. What unites the two is a common Scripture, not theme.
The , translated by Lauterbach as for, therefore is a clumsy redactional
device, in fact misleading the reader to suppose what follows explains
the foregoing, or at least pertains to it. The is a commonplace joiningelement and normally makes good sense in Houses-pericopae. Part C
is tacked on with LKK, but repeats A and leaves the Hillelites without
a Scriptural exegesis to support their position.
The lemma about the House of Shammai does not cite verbatim the
actual teaching of the House at the outset, (say, liable) but reports the
opinion third-hand: (for) the House of Shammai declare liable. . . Then
comes the exegesis supposedly shaped by the Shammaites to back up
their opinion. Likewise with the House of Hillel, the language is not
indirect, let alone direct discourse, but a report, followed by the
irrelevant therefore it is said (LKK N'MR), not the antecedent for it is
said (SN'MR), which ignores the Hillelites, as I said. The two opinions
do correspond to one another: MHYYBYN +/ >YN.
It is further puzzling that the Shammaite opinion depends on the
exegesis of KL: For every matter, even intentionan Aqiban exegetical
principle! The primary elements ought to have been
c
Thought of the heart

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e liable ( H Y Y B )
House o f Hillel
declare exempt ( P T R )
It is hardly necessary to develop the Hillelite lemma into not liable except
when he actually put his handon which the Shammaites obviously agree.
So the pericope looks post- Aqiban and is highly developed.
The pericope certainly is not a unity, but an artificial construction in
which part B is interpolated between parts A and C, because of the
reference to Ex. 22:8.
c
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.l, 2
ii. M E K H I L T A D E R.
S I M E O N B. Y O H A I
I.ii.l.A. Between the two evenings (Ex. 12:6). . . From the sixth hour
and onwards
B. For () the House of Shammai say, "Included in evening is only
[the time] after the day has turned [ = after the noon hour]."
(Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6,
ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 12, lines 4-5)
Comment:
The corresponding passage in Mekhilta deR. Ishmael,
Pisha 5:118-120, ed. Lauterbach, I, p. 42, has the following:
R a b b i [ J u d a h the P a t r i a r c h ] s a y s , " B e h o l d it s a y s , There thou shalt sacrifice the
Passover-offering in the evening. I m i g h t t a k e t h i s l i t e r a l l y , i.e. i n t h e e v e n i n g .
B u t S c r i p t u r e g o e s o n t o say, At the time that thou earnest forth out of Egypt.
W h e n d i d Israel g o f o r t h o u t o f E g y p t ? A f t e r t h e sixth h o u r [ = n o o n ] o f
the day. . ."
Rabbi Judah the Patriarch thus presents exactly the same opinion as
the Shammaites, but his choice of words and supporting exegesis are
different.
How would the opinion of the Shammaites originally have taken
shape? It is difficult to imagine that the brief lemma before us could
have circulated outside of the context of the law and Scripture to which
it pertains. But we have no Shammaite Mekhilta or other document
collecting their opinions, except for the Mishnaic Houses-collections
(below, pp. 324-343). The lemma in its present form has been attached
to a Scripture but presumably was meant as a general rule of inter
pretation for all places in which between the evenings appears. Judah the
Patriarch draws the same conclusion as do the Shammaites but does
not refer to their exegetical proof in stating it.
I cannot imagine why 'Aqibans should have preserved the Sham
maite view. After ca. 100, no normative teachers known to us were
Shammaites. So why should either party have done more than preserve
either already redacted collections of materials, or stories and sayings
reflecting a poor opinion of the Shammaites? This saying is neutral
and presented as authoritative, normally signs of early redaction. Yet
there is no indication that the lemma at an early date was given official
and final form in a collection. Perhaps Shammaite exegetical rules and
sayings were in fact redacted but suppressed, and only bits and pieces
in pretty much their original form survived later on.
See Epstein,
Mevo ot
pp. 328, 332, 336.
I.ii.2.A. Every male (Ex. 23:17)to include (LRBWT) the children.

B. This is that which the House of Hillel say, "Every child who can
10
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.3
hold his father's hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount
is liable for making an appearance (R'YH)."
[Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17,
ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 218, lines 28-9 (b.
Hag. 4a, M. Hag. 1:1, y. Hag. 1:1)]
Comment: The form is much the same as the foregoing: an exegesis
followed by a lemma of one of the Houses, attached in the preceding by
for the House. . . say, or, as here, This is that which. . . saythat is, redactional materials to link autonomous and pre-existing lemmas to the
exegetical framework already established according to order of the
Scriptural compilation. The Hillelite saying is independent, without
the corresponding Shammaite ruling, just as in the foregoing, the
Shammaite material stands by itself. The rule of B is a unity as it
stands. It would have been comprehended quite outside the Scriptural
framework and circulated in that form.
Part A is 'Aqiban, for KLto include is a standard exegetical tech
nique associated with 'Aqibans and later masters. It cannot be attrib
uted to the House of Hillel. Part B ignores the exegesis, presumably has
nothing to do with it, and supplies an interpretation of the Scripture
unrelated to the parts of the Scripture itself (KL). The exegesis depends,
rather, upon the meaning, not the formevery male will include children
who can make the trip. Still, it is hard to see how the Hillelite exegesis
differs from part A, for both depend upon the meaning of every jail. The
only distinction is that part A takes for granted the Aqiban formula:
KLto include; while part B, saying the same thing in substance, ig
nores the exegetical formula. Part B is tacked on to part A because of
the common theme and common reference to KL. Part B must come
later than the Houses-dispute on the same subject and is borrowed
from it. Compare Sifre Deut. 143, below, p. 35.
c
I.ii.3. Six days shall you work and do all your labor (Ex. 20:9)
A. This is that which the House of Shammai say, "They do not
soak ink, dyestuffs, and vetches, except so that ('L* KDY ) they may
be [wholly] soaked while it is still day.
B. "And they do not spread nets [for] beastfs] and birds, except so
that they may be caught while it is still day.
C. "And they do not lay down the olive press beams or the wine
press rollers unless they [the juices] will flow while it is still day.
D. "And they do not open a channel [to water] the gardens except
so that it may be [wholly] filled while it is still day.
E. "And they do not place meat, onion, and egg on the fire, and
not a broth (TBSYL) into the oven except so that they may roast while
it is still day."
TANNAITIC
11
MIDRASHIM I.ii.4
F. And the House of Hillel permit in all of them.

G. But that C^S)
The House of Shammai say, "Six days will you work and do all your
laborthat all your work should be finished by the Sabbath eve."
And the House of Hillel say, " Six days shall you work [and do all your
labor]You labor all six days, and the rest of your work is done of
itself on the Sabbath."
(Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:9,
ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 149, lines 15-21)
Comment: This is a late summary-repertoire of Shammai-rulings on a
single problem summarized at the end, part G. They are presented in
a different sort of collection in M. Shab. 1:4-ll, Tos. Shab. 1:21; see
below, p. 127. All that is not drawn from M.-Tos. Shab. is the little
exegesis in part G; the Houses' lemmas are not balanced opposites,
unlike the M.-Tos. version.
Note also Shammai in Midrash Tannaim, p. 123, Sifre Deut. 203,
Tos. <Eruv. 3:7, b. Shab. 19a, y. Shab. 1:4. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 278,
notes that the House of Shammai was more stringent than Shammai,
and the House of Hillel followed his view!
HI.
SIFRA
I.ii.4. A. [Or anything about which he has sworn falsely ; he shall restore it
in full, and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs] on the
day of his guilt offering(Lev. 6:5 [MT 5:24]).
B. The House of Shammai say, "(YLQH BH$R WYTR) He suffers
the disadvantages of loss or gain."
[So Jastrow, II, p. 718, s.v. LQY; he must pay according to the
original value of his bailment in case of depreciation, or according to
the present value of the misappropriated bailment in case of a rise in
value.]
And the House of Hillel say, "According to the hour of removal [of
the misappropriated bailment]."
C. Rabbi 'Aqiba says, "According to the hour of the claim."
(Sifra Vayiqra Parashah 13:13, ed. I. H. Weiss,
p. 28b)
Comment:
The whole passage occurs in M. B.M. 3:12: If
to his own use what had been left in his his
keeping
The House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage. . ."
a man
put
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM I.ii.4
And the House of Hillel say, "[He must restore the deposit at the
same value] according to the hour of removal."
R. 'Aqiba says, "At its value when claimed."
The passage here is introduced by a Scripture, in the Mishnah by a
generalized rule of law, but the substance otherwise is identical, in the
standard form alluded to above. Then follow later materials (part C),
augmenting, but not changing, the original matter. Such a passage
must have reached itsfinalform before R. ^qiba's time and was never
after altered. It appears in Sifra and Mishnah without alteration, except
in editorial superscriptions, other opinions as supplements at the end,
and (where needed) redactional material. The Shammaite-Hillelite
dispute could have stood without the Aqiban subscription, and prob
ably did. Part B is a unity, the pericope a composite. Since 'Aqiba
supplies the terminus ante quern, the conventional legal form comes very
early in the formation of the legal traditions after 70.
But while the form is standard, the Houses-lemmas are not, for they
do not exhibit the normal antonymic, balanced relationship, in which
word-choices correspond to one another. On the contrary, the Hillelite
and Aqiban sayings are what we should have expected for the Houses:
c
KS<T HWS'H
K$ T TBY<H
C
In the simplest oral form the difference would have been the single
word at the end. The Shammaite saying then should be:
K$<T HGZLH
the time on which the man stole, therefore in substance the same as the
Hillelite lemma, for HWS'H = GZLH.
But the Shammaite meaning is different; their view is that the man
pays the highest possible restitution. If the object increased in value,
he pays the higher value. If from the time it was left with him or he
stole it, it decreased in value, he pays the value at the time it was left
with him. Therefore the Shammaite lemma could not have been a fixed
time, either:
K$<T HPYQDWN
or:
KS<T HGZLH
for neither specification of time would have conveyed the precise
Shammaite opinion, that the value of the property could be according
to either timeor even the Aqiban K T TBY'H for that matter.
The Shammaite lemma therefore necessarily consists of a stockphrase out of balance with the Hillelite one, for only that phrase could
C
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.5
13
precisely convey the Shammaite opinion. Aqiba rejects both Houses'

opinions, taking as the time for evaluating restitution the hour of the
claim, whether higher or lower than the foregoing time. The Hillelites'
position is not necessarily, but may be, more lenient. In this instance,
the considerations of mnemonic transmission in carefully balanced
lemmas must be weighed against the need for precise expression of
the Shammaite opinion, which precludes K T.. .
C
Note Epstein,
Mevd'ot,
p. 77.
I.ii.5.A. [But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought
into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place; it shall be burned
with fire.]
All that is holy will be burned with fire (Lev. 6:30).
B. From here they said:
The flesh of the holy of holies which has been made unclean,
whether with a primary source of uncleanness or with a secondary
source of uncleanness, whether within or outside [the holy precinct]
C. "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be burned within [the
courtyard.]
"And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be burned outside [the court
yard], except [that] which is made unclean with a secondary source of
uncleannesswithin,' "the words of R. Meir.
D. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'All is burned in
side, except that which is made unclean by a primary source of un
cleannessoutside.'
E. "And the House of Hillel say, 'All is burned outside, except that
which is made unclean by a secondary source of uncleanness
within.' "
(Sifra SavPereq 8:6, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 33a)
4
Comment:
Even though one does not bring unclean objects into the
Temple court, not even something made unclean under any circum
stances, Scripture has included in the rule of all that is holy will be burned
within the courtyard the burning of holy objects that have been made un
clean, so Meir's Shammaites. The House of Hillel say all should be
burned outside, for it is indeed forbidden to bring unclean things into
the Temple court, except something unclean in a minor degree. The
rulings of the Houses, in fact formulated by R. Meir and R. Judah [b.
Ilai], the terminus ante quern, ignore B, which alleges that the distinctions
explicitly stated by the Houses do not matter at all!
Afterward comes a second, and separate ruling on the same matter,
deriving from R. Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus] and R. <Aqiba. Eliezer holds
that what is made unclean by a primary source of uncleanness, whether
14
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.6
in or out the court, is to be burned outside the courtyard, and what is

made unclean by a secondary source of uncleanness, whether outside
or inside the court, is burned inside. This too ignores the allegation of
B. Then, also contrary to B, Aqiba holds that what is made unclean
outside, whether by a primary or by a secondary source of uncleanness,
is to be burned outside; what is made unclean inside the court, whether
by a primary or by a secondary source of uncleanness, is to be burned
inside. Thus the place where the uncleanness has taken place is decisive
for Aqiba; the degree of the source of uncleanness is determinative for
Eliezer. Part B comes at the end, for it explicitly alludes to disagreements
on whether the source is primary or secondary, inside or outside. The
original lemmas of the House ought to be simply:
c
The flesh of the holy of holies which has been made unclean, all will be burned
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Inside.
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,
Outside.
No authority gives that picture. The Shammaite lemma of Meir con

forms, but no part of Judah's does. But the whole may be heavily
glossed. The glosses are readily discernible, for they are the exceptions.
Judah's and Meir's exceptions for both Houses depend on whether the
source of uncleanness is primary or secondaryall according to
Eliezer. It therefore looks as if the Ushans have rephrased and develop
ed Eliezer's opinion into a new Houses-dispute. Perhaps B is right:
the Houses originally made no such distinctions as now are alleged by
both the Yavneans and the Ushans.
The Scripture is connected by an inappropriate joining-formula,
from here they said. The exegetical materials are not pertinent at all;
part B artificially and erroneously joins parts C-D-E to the established
redactional framework.
The pericope recurs in M. Sheq. 8:6. There it reflects the rule of
Eliezer that one takes into account the distinction between primary and
secondary sources of uncleanness. M. Sheq. 8:7 then presents the
Eliezer-* Aqiba dispute.
The same Houses-opinions are attached to a parallel dispute in
M. M.S. 3:9 = Tos. M.S. 2:16, below, pp. 99-105.
I.H.6.A. [The rite of circumcision of a] baby born circumcized does
not override the Sabbath, for ()
The House of Shammai say, "One must draw from him [a drop of]
blood [as a sign of] the covenant."
And the House of Hillel say, "One does not need [to do so]."
B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one born circumcized,
that one does need to draw from him a drop of blood of the covenant,
because it is a hidden foreskin ( RLH KBWSH).
C
TANNAITIC
M I D R A S H I M I.ii.6
15
"Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning a proselyte who

converted when already circumcized, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'One needs to draw from him a drop
of blood of the covenant.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'One does not need [to do so].' "
[Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 1:5, ed. Weiss, p. 58b
(Ber. R. 46:13; for B: Tos. Shab. 3:18)]
Comment:
The setting is whether various exceptional circumstances
of the rite of circumcision override the Sabbath. The basic rule is
given anonymously: If the child certainly has a foreskin, the circum
cision overrides the Sabbath, but otherwise it does not. Then comes a
ruling of Judah [b. Ilai] on the androgynous baby, followed by the
ruling of the Houses.
The pericope of the Houses, however, is already redacted, and is
attached to the foregoing general rule with the usual S. Without the
rule, the pericope is complete and follows the normal form, except
that we do not know the antecedent of the House of Shammai's him,
that is, the legal problem addressed by the Houses. Part B supplies an
alternative theory on that question.
The actual ruling does not explicitly pertain to the Sabbath at all, but
to whether or not one draws a drop of blood. Only if we already know
that the law follows the House of Hillel and that the consequence of the
Hillelite ruling about not drawing blood is that one also need not set
aside Sabbath regulations on account of such a bloodless rite, do we
comprehend the redactor's use of the Houses-sayings. Part A therefore
is somewhat more complex than it appears on the surface. Its intro
ductory statement could not have been shaped in its present form dur
ing the period that the law did not automatically follow the Hillelite
House, that is, before 7 0 (when it probably followed the Shammaites)
and presumably sometime thereafter. The presupposition of the re
dactor suggests a relatively late redaction for part A.
But the original language of the Houses has probably not been
changed by the redactor of A or by Simeon, for, if either had made any
changes at all, he would have had the Houses rule on the issue actually
claimed to be under discussionSabbath or convertrather than on
drawing blood, a question peripheral to the issue at hand according
to both. So Simeon has preserved the original formulation in his
prologue, rejecting what must have been before him and substituting
a new superscription. In what form would the sayings of the Houses
have existed until his time? It had to have been as follows:
A.s to circumcising one born circumcised:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, N e e d t o d r a w b l o o d .
T h e H o u s e o f Hillel say,
N o need to d r a w blood.
Then the redactor of A would have augmented the introductory clause:
16
TANNAITIC
A s t o c i r c u m c i z i n g o n e w h o w a s b o r n c i r c u m c i z e d , it does not override the

Sabbath
That is to say, all that was added is // does not override. . . Nothing else
need have been altered; adding the clause provided all necessary redactional material. I am impressed, therefore, with the faithful re
production of the materials coming down from the Houses. Simeon
has been just as faithful, in his way.
See Tos. Shab. 15(16) :9 for the same dispute with regard to a cir
cumcized convert.
I.ii.7. [And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son
or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting
a lamb a year old for a burnt offering. . . This is the law for her who bears a
child, either male orfemale (Lev. 12:6-7).]
A. For a sonto impose a liability for each son.
For a daughterto impose a liability for each daughter.
B. And when it says, or for a daughter[or is] to include (LHBY>)
[in the liability for a sacrifice] one who brings forth an abortion on the
eve of the eighty-first day [after the birth of a girl], that she should be
liable for a sacrifice, according to the words of the House of Hillel.
For () the House of Shammai exempt [her] from the sacrifice.
[Note: After the birth of a girl, eighty days of cleanness have
passed, during which the woman does not become unclean through
discharge of blood. Now, on the eighty-first day, she is to sacrifice.
If another birth takes place before the expiration of this period, no
new offerings are required; but if on or after the eighty-first day, she is
liable. The second birth (abortion) was on the eve of the eighty-first
day. The night is generally considered part of the following day. But
since the sacrifices are not offered until daytime on the eighty-first day,
is the (new) abortion covered by these sacrifices or not?So I. Porusch,
trans., Kerithoth, p. 56, n. 8].
C.l. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you
not agree with us concerning the eve [Lit.: one who sees light] of the
eighty-first day that she is unclean?"
2. The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree con
cerning the woman who aborts on the eighty-first day that she is liable
for a sacrifice?"
D.l. The House of Hillel said to them, "What is the difference
between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day? If it is
equivalent to it as regards uncleanness, will it not be equivalent to
it as regards the sacrifice?"
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.7
17
2. The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say [so] con
cerning the woman who aborts on the eighty-first day, when it
occurs at a time fit to bring an offering, [can you maintain the same
when she bears an abortion on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing
that it did not occur at a time fit to bring an offeringsuppliedfrom M.
Ker. 1:6]?"
E.l. The House of Hillel said to them, "And behold, she who aborts
on the eighty-first day that coincides with the Sabbath will prove the
matter: the abortion took place at a time unfit to bring an offering, and
yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering."
2. The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say [so] con
cerning the abortion on the eighty-first day that coincides with the
Sabbath, which is not fit for offerings of an individual but is at least
fit for communal offerings, will you say so concerning the woman who
aborts on the eve of the eighty-first, for lo, the nights are not the time
for an individual offering and not for a public offering."
F. "She who sees blood proves nothing, for she who aborts within
the period of cleanness is clean, yet she is exempted from the offering."
G. The House of Hillel said to them, "And when it says, or for the
daughter, [it is] to include her who aborts on the eve of the eighty-first,
that she should be liable for the sacrifice."
[Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:1-2, ed. I. H. Weiss,
p. 59a (b. Pes. 3a)]
Comment:
According to the words of. . . signifies a precis of the Hillelite
opinion, but not the exact words of the Hillelites. They are not given
here, but appear only in M. Ker. 1:6: The House of Hillel declare obligated.
Sifra is a secondary development, as we shall see.
Since the passage is nearly identical to M. Ker. 1:6, at the outset we
had best consider the synopsis:
Sifra TavyrPa 3:1

1 . Or f o r t h e d a u g h t e r t o i n c l u d e t h e o n e w h o
a b o r t s o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t , t h a t she
s h o u l d b e l i a b l e f o r t h e sacrifice, a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.
M. Ker. 1:6
1. She w h o aborts o n the eve
o f the eighty-first:
2 . F o r () t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e f r e e o f
t h e l i a b i l i t y o f sacrifice
2.
T h e House o f Shammai declare

f r e e o f t h e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e sacri
fice,
a n d the H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e
obligated.
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II
18
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM I.ii.7
3 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e H o u s e o f
Shammai, D o y o u n o t agree w i t h us concerning
t h e [one w h o sees] o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t
t h a t she is u n c l e a n .
3.
4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , D o y o u
n o t agree concerning her w h o aborts on the
e i g h t y - f i r s t t h a t she is liable f o r t h e sacrifice.
4.
5 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , W h a t is t h e
difference b e t w e e n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t a n d
t h e d a y o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t ? I f it is e q u i v a l e n t t o
it as t o u n c l e a n n e s s , w i l l it n o t b e e q u i v a l e n t t o
i t as t o sacrifice?
5* >> > >>
6 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f
y o u say c o n c e r n i n g h e r w h o a b o r t s o n t h e
e i g h t y - f i r s t , w h e r e it o c c u r r e d at a t i m e fit t o
b r i n g an o f f e r i n g
6. [ A d d s : ]
will you say so concerning her who
aborts on the eve of the eighty-first
where it occurred at a time not fit
to bring an offering?
7 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , L o , t h e o n e
w h o aborts o n the day o f the eighty-first w h i c h
c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h w i l l p r o v e [it], f o r it
d i d n o t o c c u r at a t i m e fit t o b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g ,
b u t she is l i a b l e t o b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g .
8 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f
y o u say [so] o f h e r w h o a b o r t s o n t h e d a y o f t h e
eighty-first t h a t c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , f o r
e v e n t h o u g h it is n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p r i v a t e
sacrifice, it is a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p u b l i c sacrifice,
w i l l y o u say s o c o n c e r n i n g h e r w h o a b o r t s o n
the e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t , f o r l o , t h e n i g h t s a r e
appropriate for neither private nor public
sacrifice.
8. [ M . K e r . has
i n s t e a d o f nights]
9. S h e w h o sees b l o o d d o e s n o t p r o v e it, f o r she

w h o aborts d u r i n g the period o f cleanness
[ M L ' T ) h e r b l o o d is clean, a n d she is f r e e o f
the sacrifice.
'
>>
iy
9 . T h e blood d o e s n o t
night,
prove,
f o r she w h o a b o r t s d u r i n g t h e
p e r i o d s o f cleanness, h e r b o o d
is clean [ M S K a u f m a n n :
Un
clean], a n d she is f r e e o f
her
sacrifice.
1 0 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , W h e n it
says, or the daughter, it is t o i n c l u d e h e r w h o a b o r t s
on the e v e o f the e i g h t y - f i r s t t h a t she s h o u l d b e
iable t o b r i n g the sacrifice.
10.
The important changes c o m e in nos. 2, 3, 4, omitted by M . K e r . ; no.

5, f o r which M . K e r . supplies the necessary conclusion; and n o .
10,
TANNAITIC
19
omitted by M. Ker. No. 2 of Sifra is contained in the Mishnah's

opening statement. Sifra nos. 3-4 summarize the underlying criteria
employed by each party, and the point is elaborated in no. 5. The
Hillelites hold that since she is unclean, a new sacrifice is likewise re
quired for the occasion of her new uncleanness. The Shammaites argue
that since she is liable for the sacrifice for a new birth on the eighty-first
day, there is no difference between the preceding evening and the day,
and the same sacrifice covers both situations. Thus the two Houses
begin by arguing from facts on which all parties agree and must then
introduce distinctions in support of their respective decisions. The eve
before the eighty-first represents a middle ground. Why M. Ker. should
omit the formal introduction to the debate (nos. 3-4) is unclear to me.
Everything else depends on it, for the effort to distinguish evening
from the following day takes for granted that establishing such a
distinction will be decisive. The exchange therefore ought not to have
been dropped. The additional materials in M. Ker. no. 6 obviously are
important, providing the reverse of the foregoing clause, therefore are
essential, as noted in my translation, where I interpolated M. Ker. to
complete the sentence. The changes in nos. 9-10 are striking; M. Ker.
ought to have included the reply of the House of Hillel. Since the
exegetical basis for their position is not given earlier in M. Ker., it is
all the more striking that it is also omitted here. Sifra repeats no. 1 in
no. 10.
The pericope before us contains an extended debate on a legal pro
blem, in which the opposing principles of interpretation are attached to
the name of authorities, as in the Hillel-Bene Bathyra debate on the
Passover offering on the Sabbath. What is striking is the even balance
between the arguments. The two parties are given a fair hearing; the
Shammai-House does not serve merely as a foil for the Hillel-House's
ingenuity, but stands upon firm logical foundations. The normal form
of the Houses-pericopae therefore has been extended from legal
opinion to logical argument.
We may account for this striking phenomenon in two ways. First,
we may suppose that the two Houses constitute invented personnae,
serving to dramatize a clash of legal principles ("They said to them,"
"Do you not agree with us that"). Everyone knew the Hillelites would
win and the law would follow them, so it made no great difference to
preserve good, if in the end rejected, arguments in the name of the
House of Shammai. On the contrary, it was vital to supply the full re
pertoire of counter-arguments, for it was inevitable that they would be
raised by later masters. Showing that all logical issues were raised and
settled at the outset made the debate more persuasive than otherwise.
Everyone would recognize that the Hillelites had won through the
force of their reason and logic, not merely because of circumstances or
heavenly instructions ("echo"). It improved the picture of the House
of Hillel to show they had strong and worthy opponents. The whole
would be from a historical viewpoint fictitious, the creation of the later
masters. This perspective on matters would explain the Mishnah's
TANNAITIC
omission of no. 10, so leaving things with the Shammaites having the
last word, the upper hand.
Alternatively, the debate-elements of the pericope were shaped in
much the same way as the legal opinions, that is, when both sides
enjoyed relative parity with one another. The Shammaites therefore
were able to secure the inclusion in the final pericope of a full account
not only of their opinions but also of the reasons for them. We have
ample evidence that such arguments were constructed at Yavneh, e.g.,
in 'Aqiban circles, and it is not far-fetched to suppose that the final re
daction of the pericope was the product of a joint effort between the
two Houses to secure an accurate picture of the differences between
them about both principles and legal rulings.
The difference between these alternative explanations for the balanced
picture before us is not great. We cannot suppose that "one day" the
two Houses assembled and spoke these arguments in unison ("They
said to them"). The narrative details represent nothing more than a
fictitious dramatization of the argument. The fact that the Hillelites in
the end won did not prevent both the fabrication and the preservation
of the balanced legal syzygies: Law. . . House of Shammai say. . .
House of Hillel say. . . So here too, the debate part of the pericope need
not to be attributed to Hillelite- Aqiban or even later masters, but
perhaps to early Yavnean redactors, responsible to give an account of
matters acceptable to both sides.
As to the pericope itself, it is transparently composite. Part B of
Sifra Tazri'a and its equivalent, M. Ker. 1:6 no. 1, were shaped first of
all as a complete unit. M. Ker. conforms to the pattern normal for
disputes between the Houses. Sifra Tazri a elements no. 1-2 differ be
cause of the inclusion of the Hillelite exegesis, with the Shammaite
opinion ("The House of Shammai exempt. . .") tacked on. The exegesis
was shaped without reference to the Shammaites, and the Shammaite
opinionwithout an exegetical foundationwas added before part B
was finished. Once it was finished, parts C, D, E, and F were worked
out. Part G merely repeats the exegesis of Part B, therefore making it
possible for the Hillelites to win the argument. The arguments are as
follows:
c
C. T h e w o m a n is unclean o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t
T h e w o m a n is liable for an offering o n t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y
Hillel
Shammai
D . W h a t is difference b e t w e e n e v e o f e i g h t y - f i r s t a n d t h e
eighty-first d a y ?
O n t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y she can b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g , b u t o n t h e
Hillel
e v e she c a n n o t
E . If e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , she is liable
t o bring offering, e v e n t h o u g h the offering cannot be
made that day
B u t on the Sabbath there are public offerings, w h i l e o n the
e v e o f the eighty-first day there are n o offerings, private o r
public
Shammai
Hillel
Shammai
T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M I.ii.7
21
Part F then breaks the pattern. Shammaites give a counter-argument,

without the antecedent Hillelite argument. There should have been
some Hillelite argument, based upon "she who sees blood. . ." This is
refuted, but the refutation stands by itself. Part G remains quite outside
of the pattern, as I said, for it allows the Hillelites to complete the argu
ment by their (repeated) exegesis, to which the Shammaites make no
reply at all.
The form of the argument before us thus in fact differs in one
important way from the normal Houses-form: it has the Hillel-opinion
first, followed by the Shammaites, and then persists in placing Hillelites
before Shammaites throughout, until at the end the Shammaites are
dropped entirely. M. Ker. 1:6, by contrast, conforms to the Shammaite/
Hillelite pattern:
Law
House o f Shammai declare free
House o f Hillel
declare obligated
In the arguments, nos, 5, 6, 7, and 8, we find the Hillelites preceding, as

here, but with the final Hillelite argument dropped.
If the Sifra-version has departed from the norm in its primary ele
ment, part B, the reason is clear, namely, the redactional necessity of
uniting a Houses-dispute with an exegesis attributed to Hillelites. It
would have been impossible both to conform to the usual Shammaite/
Hillelite order and also to permit the exegesis to stand in the normal
form and sequence. So redactional considerations required reversing the
order, allowing the exegesis to be marked, "the words of the House of
Hillel," and requiring the Shammaite opinion to come second. The
addition of the Shammaite House's opinion is joined with the usual S,
for, but the opinion is thereupon given in precisely the form one would
expect. Indeed, we find in M. Ker. the proper language. No change
there has been made in the substance of the opinion.
The order of arguments, Hillel-then-Shammai, represents the signific
ant characteristic of the debate-form. This is to the Shammaites' ad
vantage, for it allows them step by step to refute the Hillelite arguments.
Therefore the whole form consistently represents Shammaite pre
ponderance. This reenforces my guess that the debate-form may
constitute not a theoretical argument framed long after the Shammaites
had passed from the scene, but rather the form of an argument among
parties of about equal strength, with the Shammaites able to secure for
themselves the preponderant, advantageous position, both in the order
in which legal opinions are given and in the order of the unfolding of
the arguments. Once the materials were redacted, they were not chang
ed. Judah the Patriarch faithfully copied the materials as they had come
down to him, with the Shammaites' winning the argument.
The Mishnaic version has not bothered with the exegesis, for three
reasons; first, because the Mishnah rarely gives the exegetical founda
tions for laws; second, because in the early third century it was un-
22
TANNAITIC
necessary to underline the predominance of Hillelite opinions in the

formation of law, for everyone knew law followed Hillelite traditions;
third, because the exegesis is spurious, and not Hillelite but Aqiban, as
usual in Sifra. That exegetical principle is a ribbifi: or for a daughter
to include one who brings forth. . . The ribbu'i based on or (*W) is not on
the list of Hillelite principles of exegesis, but belongs to Nahum of
Gimzo-'Aqiba. Original to the Hillelite school, therefore, is merely the
opinion. Before Aqiban times (if the pericope does date before ca.
100,) the Shammaites came last and won the argument. This seems to
me definitive evidence that the pericope at the outset did not contain
part G, therefore part A is likewise tacked on by 'Aqibans. The essential
words of the Hillelites were as given in M. Ker. 1:6, in form just like
those of the Shammaites.
1
I.ii.8.A. Her bloods (Lev. 12:7)teaches that many bloods are un

clean in her: red, and black, and bright crocus color (QRN KRKWM),
and a color like earthy water and like mixed [water and wine].
B. The House of Shammai say, "Also like a water in which fenu
greek had been soaked and a color like the juice that comes out of roast
flesh." [So Danby, p. 747, for KMYMY TLTN and KMYMY BSR
SLY].
C. The House of Hillel declare clean.
(Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:6, ed. Weiss, p. 59a =
Sifra Mesora* Parashah 4:3, Weiss, p. 78a)
M. Nid. 2:6 has the following: Five bloods are unclean
the House of Hillel. . . As usual, Judah the Patriarch
has dropped the exegesis. The only other change is to link the Houses
with and, & redactional alteration of no importance.
The form is standard: a rule of law, followed by a dispute of the
Houses. In this instance the dispute concerns materials added by Sham
maites to the earlier list. The original list, however, has excluded them,
thus in conformity to the Hillelite view. How would the Housespericope have appeared at the outset? I doubt that it originally would
have conformed to the Hillelite view and then duplicated the Hillelite
opinion in part C. We should rather have expected the complete list in
the name of one of the Houses, followed by the contrary view of the
other House, presumably Shammai, then Hillel, thus for the Mishnah:
Comment:
in a woman.
. . and
[Seven] k i n d s o f b l o o d i n a w o m a n a r e unclean: r e d a n d b l a c k a n d b r i g h t
crocus color and a color like earthy w a t e r and like mixed [water and wine]
and a color like w a t e r in which fenugreek had been soaked and a color like
t h e juice t h a t c o m e s o u t o f r o a s t flesh, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " A c o l o r l i k e w a t e r . . . a n d a c o l o r l i k e j u i c e . . .
a r e clean."
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM
I.ii.9
23
In this highly developed form, the pericope would have been complete
and autonomous, requiring no further explanatory matter. In its
present form, by contrast, the primary list makes it superfluous to
specify the bloods which the Hillelites regard as clean. The pericope
before us depends upon the Hillelite revision, for otherwise it is not
comprehensible; that is, "also like a water.. ." makes no sense apart
from the earlier specification. What has been changed from the (theo
retical) autonomous version of the dispute is two elements in the
Shammaite lemma: seven (if originally present) becomes five; also is
added; and, additionally, the Shammaite opinion is moved to the
middle of the list.
My guess is that the original form of the Houses-dispute is not be
fore us, and I imagine it was the redactor who changed the materials,
mainly to connect the whole to the context of a series of exegeses of
Scripture. Had the setting been otherwise, it would have been possible
to preserve the Houses-pericope in an autonomous framework, not
dependent upon any information outside of the actual words attributed
to the two Houses. The earlier pericope (I.ii.7) has already shown us an
example of a still more drastic revision of a material to serve redactional
needs. My hypothesis on the original form of the pericope before us
requires the supposition of substantially fewer changes. For the Sifra
version many bloods need not have been changed at all. The only change
was moving the Shammaite opinion back two elements, and adding
also.
Note Epstein, Mevefot, p. 439.
I.ii.9. A. [When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food,
then you shall count their fruit as forbidden ; three years it shall be forbidden to
you, it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an
offering ofpraise to the Lord (Lev. 19:23-24).]
A. All their fruit will beto include (LHBY>) grape-gleanings (PRT)
and defective clusters [the grapes growing in small, separate bunches
= <WLLWT], according to the words of (KDBRY) the House of
Hillel.
B. The House of Shammai say, "He has [the right to] the grapegleanings and the defective clusters (Y LW PRT WY LW <WLLWT).
And the poor redeem [them] for themselves (WH'NYYM PWDYM
L'SMM)."
C. And the House of Hillel say, "It is all for the winepress (KWLW
LGT)."
(Sifra Qedoshim Parashah 3:7, ed. I. H. Weiss,
p. 90a)
c
Comment: M. Ed. 4:5b has the following:
TANNAITIC
T h e House o f S h a m m a i say, " T h e laws o f grape-gleanings and o f the

defective cluster apply ( Y S L W P R T W Y L W < W L L W T ) , and the p o o r
r e d e e m [the g r a p e s ] f o r t h e m s e l v e s ( W H ' N Y Y M P W D Y M L ' S M N ) .
A n d the H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h e w h o l e [yield g o e s ] t o t h e w i n e p r e s s
( K W L W LGT)."
c
M. Ed. 4:5b (and parallels) preserves the classic form of the dispute,
as we have already observed in similar instances:
The House of Shammai say. . .
The House of Hillel say. . .
Part A is duplicated in part C. It serves the purpose of the redactor,
linking the law to the exegetical framework already established. There
fore the redactor has taken the Hillelite opinion and given it in the form
of an exegesisagain in the style of the Aqiban exegetical rules (!).
Then comes the original form, repeated without alteration in M. Ed.,
and parts B and C are integrally related to one another and stand in
dependent of part A.
The key is according to the words of in part A, noted above as well
(I.ii.7). The redactor so indicates that he has given the Hillelite opinion,
but not in the form in which he has it. Then the original follows. My
guess is that parts B and C have been interpolated from the Mishnaic
version, an example of the dependence of Sifra on Mishnah. In I.ii.7,
by contrast, the exact words attributed to the House of Hillel are not
given at all, but are preserved only in M. Ker. 1:6. We cannot ignore
the redactor's care in specifying according to the words of in both instances
(I.ii.7 and 9), which means that he was aware of the attribution of other,
exact words to the Houses; since he did not present those words, he has
used language to signify what he did give: a summary in exegetical
form, Scripture, exegesis, then attribution to Hillelites.
We may therefore specify both the primary form of the Housesdisputes and its secondary development in the exegetical compilations:
c
Primary:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say. . .
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say. . .
Secondary: Exegesis[normally] according to the House o f Hillel-'Aqiba

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say. . .
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say. . .
[Sometimes:] Repetition o f the exegesis, according to. . .
This permits me to suggest that I.ii.7 is defective, while I.ii.9 shows

what the form should have been. Originally Hillelite opinions were not
accompanied by exegeses of Scripture. 'Aqibans invented what ought
to have been the Hillelite-exegesis.
One of the effects of the Aqiban exegetical revolution was to streng
then the claim of the Hillelites to give the correct version of the law by
providing a sound Scriptural basis for Hillelite opinions. The probable
reason that the Shammaites generally were not supplied with equivalent
c
TANNAITIC
25
exegeseswhich, we may take for granted, could have been fabricated

was that Shammaites no longer predominated at Yavneh. No one
therefore took the trouble to back up their legal opinions with the new
Aqiban exegesis. It is unthinkable that, had their opinions prevailed,
no one could have done so. It is equally unthinkable that the Hillelite
opinions prevailed only because the 'Aqibans (or others) were able to
prove they were "right."
c
The language of the pericope is analyzed below, M. Pe'ah 7:6,

p. 59.
c
I.ii.10.A. [On the fifteenth day of the seventh month (>K BHM$H S R
YWM etc.) when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep
the feast of the Lord seven days ; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on
the eighth day shall be a solemn rest (Lev. 23:39)].
A. The House of Shammai says, "One might think (YKWL) a man
may offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice (YHWG DMso Jastrow for
HGG) on the festival day.
"Scripture says, O/z/^^K), [meaning] only on the intervening week
days [between the first and last days of the Festival] do you offer the
pilgrim's festive sacrifice, but you do not offer the pilgrim's festive
sacrifice (HWGG) on the festival day (BYWM TWB) [itself]."
B. The House of Hillel says, "One might think a man should offer
the pilgrim's festive sacrifice on the SabbathScripture says, Only,
(>K), [meaning] on the festival day (YWM TWB) one offers his
pilgrim's festive sacrifice, but you do not offer the pilgrim's festive
sacrifice on the Sabbath."
}
(Sifra Emor Pereq 15:5, ed. I. H. Weiss, p.

102b)
Comment:
The dispute superficially follows the conventional form.
But it cannot derive from the Houses at all, for at issue is the inter
pretation of the particle >K; later Aqiban exegesis held that 'K served
to exclude the Sabbath from the days on which the hagigah might be
offered. The Shammaites are represented as arguing that 'K limited the
hagigah-offeiing
to the intervening days, excluding the opening and
closing days of the festival itself.
The Houses here have been used as names for the attribution of dis
putes that in this form certainly could not have taken shape before the
end of the first century, if then. Perhaps the Houses substitute for
named authorities following Aqiba, for the attribution to the Houses
of a dispute about the exegesis of the limiting-word >K is spurious.
M. Hag. 1:6 presents the Hillelite view:
c
26
TANNAITIC
M I D R A S H I M I.ii.ll
H e w h o m a d e n o p i l g r i m ' s f e s t i v e sacrifice o n t h e first f e s t i v a l d a y o f t h e

feast offers t h e m t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u r s e o f t h e feast ( M Y L ' H G B Y W M
T W B H R ' S H W N S L H G H W G G >T K L H R G L ) e v e n o n t h e last f e s t i v a l
d a y o f t h e feast.
This is the opposite of the Shammaite view, for the House of Sham
mai hold one may not offer on the festival day (YWM TWB) at all. The
Hillelites' excluded day (>K) is the Sabbath, not the YWM TWB. Judah
the Patriarch makes no reference to the dispute and presents the
Mishnaic ruling anonymously.
If the Houses actually did debate this point of festival law, the exeget
ical basis for their respective rulings could not have been as represented
here, nor as I said, could the form of the debate have focused upon the
function of >K. Since the Houses-pericopae generally survive with
'Aqiban accretions to the original form, there is no reason that this one
should not likewise have come down both in an earlier form, if any
existed, and in the Aqiban development.
We also observe that the singular verb says ( WMR) is used with the
Houses, rather than the plural. I.ii.9 parts B and C use both says and
say, and in M. Ed. 4:5b, Judah the Patriarch has consistently used say.
Normally the collective nouns are given plural verbs.
Note Judah b. Dortai's view above, I, p. 147. He stands against the
Hillelite view.
c
I.ii.ll. [But in the Seventh Year shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the
land, a Sabbath to the Lord. . . What grows of itself in your harvest you shall
not reap. . . it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. The Sabbath of the
land shallprovide foodforyou(Lev.
25-4-6)].
A. And the Sabbath of the Land shall provide food for youfrom the
Sabbath (BWT) in the land you may eat, and you may not eat from
that which is guarded (MWR). From here (MYK'N) they said:
B. A field which has been prepared(SNTYYBH)
The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat its fruits in the
Seventh Year."
And the House of Hillel say, "They eat."
C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat produce of the
Seventh Year [if it is] by favor."
And the House of Hillel say, "By favor and not by favor."
D. R. Judah says, "The matters are reversed. This is one of the
lenient [rulings] of the House of Shammai and the stringent [rulings]
of the House of Hillel."
(Sifra Behar Pereq 1:5, ed. Weiss, p. 106a)
c
The passage recurs in M. Shev. 4:2b (M. Ed. 5:1), with

the following synopsis:
Comment:
27
T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M I.ii.ll
Sifra
M. Shev. 4:2b
1. And the Sabbath of the Land shall be for you
1.
2. F r o m t h e S a b b a t h i n t h e l a n d y o u m a y e a t ,
a n d y o u m a y n o t eat t h a t w h i c h is g u a r d e d .
F r o m h e r e t h e y said
3. A field w h i c h
SNTYYBH)
has been
2.
prepared ( D H
4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat
4. in the Seventh
Year
its f r u i t s
5. A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e y e a t .
5 >> >>
6. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat
the fruits o f the Seventh Y e a r b y f a v o r
(BTWBH)
6 >> >>
7. A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , B y f a v o r a n d
not by favor
7. they eat
8. R . J u d a h s a y s , T h e m a t t e r s a r e r e v e r s e d
( H Y L W P H D B R Y M ) . T h i s is o f t h e l e n i e n c i e s
( Q W L Y ) of the House of Shammai and o f the
stringencies ( H W M R Y ) o f the House o f Hillel.
8.
As usual the Mishnah drops the exegetical framework supplied in

Sifra. From no. 3 onward, the passages are nearly identical. No. 7 of M.
Shev. adds they eat, as a counterpart for the House of Shammai's they do
not eat in no. 6, a stylistic improvement. M. Shev. supplies in no. 4 in the
Seventh Year to clarify when the fruit may not be eaten. In Sifra this is
clear from the exegetical framework. But in M. Shev. the antecedent
law concerns the year following the Seventh Year, so it is necessary to
specify the year in which the law under discussion in the subsequent
segment of the pericope actually applies, namely in, not after, the
Seventh Year. We may therefore reconstruct the original Housespericope as follows:
A field which has been prepared
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat [its f r u i t s ]
T h e y eat.
Then another item in the M. Shev. collection is attached:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , [ T h e y d o n o t eat f r u i t s o f S e v e n t h Y e a r ] b y f a v o r
B y favor and not by favor.
On the last point, R. Judah reverses matters and says the Shammaite
position is that one may eat it both by favor or not by favor, and that
the Hillelite position is that one may not eat by favor. This subscription
is developed and spelled out in M. Ed. 5:1:
c
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.ll
R . J u d a h r e p o r t s six o p i n i o n s i n w h i c h t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i f o l l o w
the m o r e lenient, and the H o u s e of Hillel the m o r e stringent ruling. . .
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i , t h e y m a y eat S e v e n t h Y e a r p r o d u c e
b y f a v o r o r n o t b y f a v o r . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , " T h e y d o n o t eat it
by favor."
Judah was one of several Tannaitic authorities who composed lists of

leniencies and stringencies of the Houses. The editor of Sifra has intro
duced his tradition as a reference to the Houses' opinions. In M. Ed. 5:1,
the reference is turned into a fully articulated dispute. So in Sifra Judah
states that matters are reversed. M. Ed. presents the language to be
attributed to the two Houses, actually reversing the opinions. This re
presents a secondary development of Judah's opinion. Once he held
that the opinions should be reversed, they indeed were reversed. M.
Shev. and Sifra Behar have preserved the primary version of Judah's
logion, which in M. Ed. is articulated in language of direct discourse
and attributed to the Houses.
The pericope before us is in three main parts, first, the superscrip
tion, part A, providing the exegetical basis for the ruling of one of the
Houses. Then comes part B, a complete unit, with the rule of law and
the opinions of the Houses given according to the conventional form.
Part C is then attached to B, and part D to C. Parts B and C are joined
because of a roughly common theme, namely, conditions in which
Seventh Year produce may be eaten, even though the specific laws are
unrelated in detail. Parts B-C certainly were shaped before the time of
Judah b. Ilai, and afterward part D was added.
What is the relationship between part A, the exegesis, and the sub
sequent rulings of parts B-C? The field which has been guarded perhaps
is in the category of the field which has been prepared (B); and the field
in which one may not eat the produce by favor of the owner of the
field certainly is a field which is guarded (C). Therefore the exegesis in the
first instance seems to support, and in the second does indubitably
support, the Shammaite position. The connection between A and B
may be tenuous, but between A and C it is firm. Judah reverses things in
both instances, so allowing the Hillelites to derive support from the
Scriptural exegesis, but attributing to them the more stringent position.
It is unlikely that the exegesis could serve both purposes of both
Houses, and since it supports the Shammaite view in part C, we may
assume the same of part B. The difficulty leading Judah to switch the
positions of the Houses and to attribute to the Hillelites the unusual
position of stringency had to do with the exegetical tradition on Lev.
25:6. He would have followed the 'Aqiban position that the Hillelites
could normally support their positions through Aqiban (or other)
exegesis, and the Shammaites could not. Since the dispute comes be
fore the exegesis, we may take it for granted that the original dispute is
as given in parts B-C, and that the exegesis (part A) provoked the re
vision of Judah (part D).
Professor Louis Finkelstein comments (personal letter, February 9,
1970):
c
TANNAITIC
M I D R A S H I M I.ii.ll
29
" T h e s i m p l e s t w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e text is t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e
e x e g e s i s o f L e v . 2 5 : 6 as g i v e n i n S i f r a f o l l o w s t h e v i e w o f the S h a m m a i t e s ,
as t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e c o l l e a g u e s o f R. J u d a h , a c c o r d i n g t o w h o m the
S h a m m a i t e s p r o h i b i t e d t h e use o f p r o d u c e w h i c h is shamur ( g u a r d e d ) ; a n d
therefore forbade one to take any produce u n d e r conditions which required
o n e t o b e o b l i g a t e d t o a n y o n e ; a n d t h e r e f o r e also f o r b a d e a n y o n e t o ask
p e r m i s s i o n t o use s u c h p r o d u c e . I a m n o t s u r e w h e t h e r t h e first p a r t o f t h e
M i s h n a h i l l u s t r a t e d t h e S h a m m a i t i c e x e g e s i s , f o r , after a l l , a field c o u l d be
p l o u g h e d t w i c e in t h e S a b b a t i c a l y e a r , a n d still n o t be shamur. T h e M i s h n a h
is p r o b a b l y cited t o s h o w h o w t h e exegesis a p p l i e d t o t h e s e c o n d c a s e ; t h e
first b e i n g m e n t i o n e d i n passing.
" T h e S h a m m a i t i c v i e w o f t h e exegesis p r e s e n t s n o difficulties. N o t e t h e
facsimile ed. o f S i f r a , a c c o r d i n g t o V a t i c a n M s . 6 6 , w h i c h I p u b l i s h e d w i t h
a n i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s c u s s i n g s o m e p r o b l e m s i n t h e text. I n t h a t i n t r o d u c t i o n ,
p p . 8 , 9 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 3 8 , 6 6 , I cite e x a m p l e s o f beraitot in S i f r a w h i c h , p r o p e r l y
u n d e r s t o o d , derive f r o m the S c h o o l o f R. Eliezer. These m a y be multiplied
m a n y t i m e s ; a n d o n o c c a s i o n R a b a d indicates this fact w i t h r e g a r d t o s o m e
passages. I n his Sifre Zutta P r o f e s s o r S a u l L i e b e r m a n s h o w s t h a t t h e
midrash b e a r i n g that n a m e c o n t a i n s m a n y passages d e r i v i n g f r o m R . E l i e z e r .
I n t h e Assaf Jubilee Volume, I h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e same is t r u e o f S i f r e D e u t .
I n t h a t i n s t a n c e a g a i n , t h e e x a m p l e s I g a v e m a y be g r e a t l y m u l t i p l i e d . It
t h u s a p p e a r s t h a t at least these t h r e e midrashim o f t h e S c h o o l o f R . ' A q i b a
r e a l l y h a d t h e i r o r i g i n in t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h R . ' A q i b a r e c e i v e d f r o m his
t e a c h e r , R. E l i e z e r , a n d w e r e a c t u a l l y S h a m m a i t i c .
" T h i s fact sheds l i g h t o n R. ' A q i b a ' s m e t h o d . H e w a s q u i t e w i l l i n g t o let
S c r i p t u r e b e taught i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e v i e w o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s , p r o v i d e d
the Mishnah and Tosefta, w h i c h p r o v i d e d f o r the n o r m a t i v e guidance f o r
t h e p e o p l e i n t h e i r l i v e s , f o l l o w e d t h e v i e w o f the H o u s e o f Hillel. H e t h u s
e x p e c t e d t o h o l d t h e S h a m m a i t e s a n d t h e Hillelites t o g e t h e r , g i v i n g t h e
first t h e f o r m , s o t o s p e a k , a n d t h e l a t t e r t h e s u b s t a n c e .
" T h e fact that S i f r a f r e q u e n t l y f o l l o w s t h e v i e w o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s ,
w h i c h d i d n o t escape t h e R a b a d , o f c o u r s e d i d n o t escape m o d e r n s c h o l a r s
e i t h e r . B u t t h e y s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e p e r v a s i v e influence o f R. E l i e z e r w a s
d u e t o t h e fact t h a t R . J u d a h , w h o w a s e d i t o r o f S i f r a at o n e s t a g e ( b .
S a n h e d r i n 8 6 a ) f r e q u e n t l y a d o p t e d t h e v i e w s o f R. E l i e z e r , w h i c h h e r e
c e i v e d t h r o u g h his f a t h e r , R. Ilai ( T o s e f t a Z e v a h i m 2 : 1 7 , p . 4 8 3 ; b . M e n a h o t 1 8 a ) . P o s s i b l y t h i s is a l s o h o w R a b a d e x p l a i n e d t h e v a r i o u s passages
o f Sifra w h i c h he identified as d e r i v i n g f r o m R . Eliezer.
" W h a t a p p a r e n t l y g a v e c o n c e r n t o R a b a d i n the passage b e f o r e u s is that
M . S h e v . 4 : 2 is q u o t e d as f o l l o w i n g f r o m t h e exegesis. I n v i e w o f t h e fact
t h a t R . J u d a h is d e s c r i b e d as t h e e d i t o r o f S i f r a , the e x e g e s i s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y
be expected to f o l l o w his v i e w . Presumably, w h e n R. J u d a h transmitted
S h a m m a i t i c v i e w s , w h i c h his f a t h e r h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m R . E l i e z e r , h e d i d s o
because h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m H i l l e l i t e ; a n d h e l d his c o l l e a g u e s m i s t a k e n in
a s c r i b i n g t h e m t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . I n that e v e n t , M . S h e v . w a s an
e x a m p l e o f a c o n t r o v e r s y b a s e d o n t h e fact t h a t R. J u d a h t r a n s m i t t e d
R . E l i e z e r ' s v i e w s , w h i c h , r e a l l y S h a m m a i t i c , he c o n s i d e r e d Hillelite. B u t
i n t h a t e v e n t he s u r e l y w o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e exegesis i n t h e passage u n d e r
d i s c u s s i o n Hillelite. R a b a d t r i e d t o e x p l a i n in s e v e r a l different w a y s h o w
this could be.
"It is u n l i k e l y , h o w e v e r , t h a t M . S h e v . 4 : 2 h a d b e e n f o r m u l a t e d in R.
J u d a h ' s t i m e , w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e w o r d s , 'R. J u d a h says t h e o p p o s i t e . '
A p p a r e n t l y t h e o l d e s t f o r m o f S i f r a cited o n l y t h e v i e w o f R . J u d a h ' s
30
TANNAITIC
MIDRASHIM I.ii.12,13
c o l l e a g u e s , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h t h e M i s h n a h s h o w s t h a t t h e exegesis is
S h a m m a i t i c ; t h e exegesis d e r i v e d f r o m R. E l i e z e r , w h o a g r e e d w i t h t h e
S h a m m a i t e s . It w a s t a k e n o v e r f r o m h i m b y R. ' A q i b a in his f o r m u l a t i o n o f
S i f r a w i t h o u t c h a n g e , b u t w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f t h e M i s h n a i c n o r m , t o i n
dicate t h a t t h e exegesis w a s a c t u a l l y S h a m m a i t i c , a n d t h a t t h e H i l l e l i t e s
disagreed.
" P r o b a b l y , R. J u d a h imputed the m o r e r i g o r o u s v i e w to the Hillelites,
b e c a u s e , as r e c o r d e d in y . S h e v . 4 : 2 , 3 5 b , R. T a r f o n t r i e d t o eat s o m e o f t h e
f r u i t s o f his o w n o r c h a r d ( w h i c h w a s b e i n g g u a r d e d b y t h e a g e n t s o f t h e
c o m m u n i t y f o r f u t u r e u s e , see L i e b e r m a n in Tosefta Kifshutah Shev., p . 5 8 3 ) .
H o w e v e r , in accordance w i t h the v i e w o f the Shammaites, he w a s careful t o
t a k e t h e p r o d u c e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n ; f o r o n e m a y n o t t a k e it w i t h p e r
m i s s i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y h e w a s s e v e r e l y b e a t e n , a n d finally h a d t o i d e n t i f y
h i m s e l f as R. T a r f o n . T h e g u a r d s t h e n u n d e r s t o o d t h a t h e w a s f o l l o w i n g h i s
o w n t e a c h i n g s . Yer. t h e r e e x p l a i n s t h a t R . T a r f o n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e f o l l o w e d
t h e v i e w s o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s , as r e c o r d e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e l a t e r
s c h o l a r s . H o w e v e r , a p p a r e n t l y , R. J u d a h , w h o h a d g r o w n u p i n R . T a r f o n ' s
h o m e , a s s u m e d t h a t R. T a r f o n h a d f o l l o w e d t h e v i e w o f t h e H i l l e l i t e s ; a n d
t h e r e f o r e R. J u d a h h e l d t h a t t h e v i e w s o f t h e Hillelites w e r e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e
s e v e r e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s ; a n d t h a t it w a s t h e H i l l e l i t e s w h o
f o r b a d e o n e t o eat p r o d u c e o f a field, i f s o d o i n g p l a c e d o n e u n d e r a n y
o b l i g a t i o n t o a n y o n e , o r o n e h a d t o seek p e r m i s s i o n f r o m a n y o n e t o d o s o . "
iv.
SIFRE
I.ii.l2.A. And they shall make for themselves sisit (Num. 15:38).
. . .and already (KBR) did the elders of the House of Shammai and
the Elders of the House of Hillel enter the upper chamber of Jonathan
b. Bathyra, and they said, "There is no limit (Y WR) to [the length of]
sisit"
Similarly, they said, "There is no limit to the [length of the] Lulav"
B. And they shall make for themselves sisit [sing.] (Num. 15:38). I
might think [Lit.: I hear] that he should make it of a single thread by
itself. Scripture says, You shall make yourself GDYLYM [plural]
(tassels) [on the four corners of your cloak (Deut. 22:12)].
From how many tassels doyou make [ them] ?
"Not less than three," the words of the House of Shammai [Fried
man: Hillel].
And the House of Hillel [Friedman: Shammai] say, "Three of wool
and the fourth of blue."
And the law is according to the House of Shammai.
C
[Sifre Num. 115, ed. Friedman, p. 34a (b. Men.

40a-41b, b. Shab. 25a, b. Bekh. 39b; compare
b. Yev. 46)]
I.ii.13. A. Tassels (GDYLYM) you will make for yourself (Deut. 22:12).
TANNAITIC
31
Why is [this] said?

Because it is said, And they shall make for themselves sisit [sing.] (Num.
15:38). I might think [Lit.: I hear] he should make one strand by itself.
Scripture says, GDYLYM.
B. [Of] how many GDYLYM are they made? Not less than three
strands, according to the words of the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "From four strands of blue and four of
white, of four strands of four-by-four fingers."
[Friedman: And the House of Hillel say, "Three."]
And the law follows the words of the House of Shammai.
[Sifre Deut. 234, ed. Finkelstein, p. 266; ed.
Friedman, p. 117a (Part B: b. Yev. 5b)]
Comment:
A further pertinent tradition is as follows:
T N Y ' : A . H o w m a n y t h r e a d s d o e s h e p u t i n t o [the h o l e o f t h e c o r n e r
for fringes] ?
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " F o u r . "
A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h r e e . "
B . A n d h o w f a r m u s t t h e t h r e a d s o f t h e s h o w f r i n g e s h a n g d o w n [ w h a t is
the l e n g t h o f t h e t w i s t e d t h r e a d , i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s h o w - f r i n g e s ] ?
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " F o u r f i n g e r - b r e a d t h s . "
A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel say, " T h r e e
finger-breadths."
C. A n d t h e t h r e e finger-breadths m e n t i o n e d b y t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l a r e
each e q u a l t o o n e o f t h e f o u r finger-breadths o f a n y m a n ' s h a n d .
(b. B e k h . 3 9 b - 4 0 a )
. . . and already ( K B R ) did the Elders of the House o f Shammai and the
E l d e r s o f t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l g o u p t o t h e c h a m b e r o f Yohanan b . B a t h y r a
and d e c i d e t h a t t h e r e w a s n o p r e s c r i b e d l e n g t h f o r t h e sisit a n d n o l e n g t h
f o r t h e Lulav.
(b. M e n . 4 1 b )
For I.ii.l2.B., Friedman reverses the
words o f
t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.
of w o o l and the
fourth
order,
of blue. . . " This he has done t o
p a r a l l e l i n S i f r e D e u t . 2 3 4 ( I . i i . l 3 ) . T h e beraita,
S h a m m a i ' s H o u s e s a y four,
three," the
"Three
c o n f o r m t o the
" N o less t h a n
A n d the H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say,
b. Bekh. 3 9 b - 4 0 a , has
H i l l e l ' s three, a s i n S i f r e D e u t .
I . i i . l 2 . A h a s t h e tradition o f b . B e k h . 3 9 b - 4 0 a
story. In normal apodictic form, i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n
in the
form of
as f o l l o w s :
Length of Sisit
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel say ( a g r e e ) , T h e r e is n o
limit.
The story i s supplied, I imagine, from t h e corpus o f traditions ex

plaining h o w t h e l a w w a s ultimately d e c i d e d i n f a v o r of H i l l e l ' s H o u s e ,
in the (upper) chamber (of s o m e o n e ) a t Yavneh (or elsewhere).
I . i i . l 2 . B mixes an exegesis of Num. 15:38/Deut. 2 2 : 1 2 with the
normal legal form:
TANNAITIC
From how many tassels do you make [them] ?
The House of Shammai:

The House of Hillel:
Not less than three.

Three of wool and the fourth of blue.
I.ii.l3 follows roughly similar form:

Exegesis: Deut. 22:12/Num. 15:38
Of how many GD YL YM are they made?
The House of Hillel: GD YL is not less than three strands.

House of Shammai: Four strands of blue and four of white of [four strands
of] four by four fingers
(House of Hillel:
Three.)
Unfortunately, we do not have the guidance of the Mishnah to help
us sort out the several traditions. If we did, it would probably look
something like this:
How many threads does he put into the fringes?
House of Shammai: Four.

House of Hillel:
Three.
That is, the beraita of b. Bekh. 39b-40a = b. Men. 41b seems the
simplest and formally the most conventional statement. Friedman and
Finkelstein cannot be faulted in favoring the reading of Sifre Deut. 234.
I.ii.l2.B. (Friedman) has the Hillel-House first, generally rare, but
quite common in the Tannaitic compilations of legal exegeses. The
reason for the reversed order here as elsewhere is that the exegesis
supports the opinion that there should be three strands: GDYLM
is plural; the smallest simple plural is three. The Shammaites' opinion
is not contradicted, but any Tannaitic exegete reading GDYLYM
would surely have understood it as the Hillelites did, meaning three, a
convention in Tannaitic exegesis of any simple plural. But b. Yev. 5b
has: GDYL = two, GDYLYM = four! The order in I.ii.13 is no
different. I.ii.13 then adds a second matter, four strands of four-by-four
fingers, for the Shammaites' ruling, and then Friedman's text ends with
the Hillelites' contrary view, consistent with their earlier opinion, thus
Number of strands
Hillel
three
Shammai four
Thickness of strands
Shammai four
Hillel
three
The two lemmas appear separately and in proper order in b. Bekh.
39b-40a = b. Men. 41b, as we would expect: How far musthang down :
House of Shammai: Four \ House of Hillel: Three. This tradition is contra
dicted by the story of b. Men. 41b. The anonymous editor of the Tal
mud neatly harmonizes the two traditions by suggesting that the limit
given in the beraita is a minimum, but, the story says, there is no max-
TANNAITIC
33
limit. The beraita therefore preserves the tradition in what must

be its essential, though not necessarily earliest, form. Both Sifre Num.
and Sifre Deut. thus revise the order for redactional reasons. Sifre Num.
drops the question of length entirely, because the foregoing story says
there is no limit to the matter. Sifre Deut., which does not know the
story of the unanimous agreement on length, preserves both laws. But
it has had to divide the Hillelite ruling into two parts, so as to keep the
Hillelites together with the supporting Scriptural exegesis; then come
both Shammaite rulings, followed (in Friedman) by the separated
Hillelite ruling on length. The beraita of b. Bekh. 39b shows what the
whole looked like in one piece, and Sifre Deut. tells us what a redactor
has done to the possibly original tradition so as to keep the Hillelites'
opinion together with the exegesis supporting their view.
We therefore see that two contradictory traditions on the positions
of the Houses with regard to the length of the fringes were preserved.
One has them differ in the same way as with the number of threads,
four vs. three. The other has them agreethere is no limit at all! Each
party renounces its opinion. Such a compromise comes after 2. tradition
in which each party did hold an opinion contrary to that of the other.
Once people held the Houses agreed, they could not likely have in
vented a disagreement.
It looks to me as if a simple lemma has been developed into several
parts, pertaining to two different questions of law:
imum
Sisit
House of Shammai: Four

House of Hillel: Three
This then served equally well for two questions:
I.
Sisit:
How
many
threads?
[Expanded to]
fourth
House of Hillel:
II.
Sisit:
How far
three
of wool
and
of blue
Three [Expanded to]
not less than.
. .
must they hang down?
House of Shammai: Four [Expanded to]

House of Hillel:
Three [Expanded to]
finger-breadths
finger-breadths
Then, as I said, comes the little fable about agreement on the length for
the sisit, allowing the four I three formula to pertain only to the number of
threads. The exegesis of sisit/GDYLYM supporting three was invented
for the Hillelite position, and the whole was split up as in Sifre Deut.
234. The oral tradition could thus have consisted of /////-four-three, in
the setting of Houses-sayings. The Shammaites would naturally be
assigned the first and more stringent rule, and the rest follows.
See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 104 re SDYN with regard to Sisit.
NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I
34
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM I.ii.14,15
Lii.14. [R. Ishmael, sitting, and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, standing,

were studying together. When the time of reciting the Shema came,
each changed his position. R. Ishmael stood upright and R. Eleazar
b. 'Azariah reclined. Eleazar asked Ishmael why he did so.]
A. He replied, "You reclined according to the words of the House
of Shammai, and I stood up according to the words of the House of
Hillel."
B. Another matter: That the matter not be established as an obliga
tion (HWBH).
C. For (S) the House of Shammai say, "In the evening every man
should recline and recite, and in the morning, stand up [Friedman
adds: as it is said, Whenyou lie down and whenyou rise up (Deut. 6:7)]."
[And the House of Hillel say, "Every man reads according to his
way, as it is said, And when you walk by the way. If so, why is it said,
Whenyou lie down and whenyou rise up} But ('L') when men lie down and
when men rise up."]
[Sifre Deut. 34, ed. Friedman, p. 74b; ed.
Finkelstein, pp. 62-3 (M. Ber. 1:3, Tos. Ber.
l:4,b.Ber.lla,y.Ber.l:6)]
c
Comment: The whole of part C, connected by ( for) cites M. Ber. 1:3

(b. Ber. lOb-lla), without change. What is important in the exchange
between Eleazar and Ishmael is the evidence of a terminus ante quern.
The opinion of the Houses had to have been established in pretty much
the present form before the pericope of the two later masters, for the
story takes for granted the Houses-pericope and alludes to its contents
and language.
In b. Ber. 11a, part B is developed into a part of the reply of Ishmael,
"And, what is more, lest the disciples should see and fix the law so for
future generations."
So Ishmael favored the Shammaites!
I.ii.l 5. A. And there shall no leavened bread be seen with you, neither shall
there be leaven seen withyou (Ex. 13:7).
This is a dispute (HYLWQ) between the House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel.
B. For () the House of Shammai say, "Leaven is of the size of an
olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date."
And the House of Hillel say, "Both are of the size of the olive."
[Sifre Deut. 131, ed. Friedman, p. 101a;
ed., Finkelstein, p. 188(M..Bes. 1:1, M/Ed. 4:1,
b. Yoma 79b, Tos. Yom Tov 1:4)]
TANNAITIC
35
Comment:
The beraita occurs in b. Bes. 7b, with no change. The
primary form of the beraita begins at part B, linked to the foregoing
Scripture by (for). The Scripture is not expounded, merely cited, with
the exegetical difference of the Houses given in standard form imme
diately thereafter. The difference between them is based on the Script
ure's use of leaven (S'WR) and leavened bread (HMS). The Sham
maites hold the two words refer to different measurements for each;
the Hillelites do not agree.
I.ii.l 6. A. Three times in the year every one of your males will appear before
the Lord your God (Deut. 16:16).
Your male[s]to exclude the women.
Every one (KL) of your malefs] to include the children.
B. From here they said:
"Who is a child? Whoever is unable to ride on his father's shoulder
and to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple mount," the words of the
House of Shammai, as it is said, Your male.
And the House of Hillel say, "Whoever is unable to hold his father's
hand and to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple mount," as it is said
(Ex. 23:14), three festivals [feet (RGLYM)].
C. And he will not see the face of the Lord empty-handed.
From charity-funds.
And the sages set a limit:
D. The House of Shammai say, "The reîyyah [is] two silver [coins],
and the rejoicing [offeringSMHH] a silver ma'ah (M H)."
And the House of Hillel say, "The re iyyah [is] a silver ma ah, and the
rejoicing [offeringSMHH] is two silver [coins]."
C
[Sifre Deut. 143, ed. Friedman, p. 102b; ed.

Finkelstein, p. 196 (y. Pe'ah 1:1, y. Hag. 1:2, M.
Hag. 1:2)]
Comment:
In Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17, I.ii.2, the
opinion of the Shammaites (B) is dropped, that of the Hillelites appears
without the exegesis (RGLYM), and the whole is phrased affirmatively:
"Every child who can hold. . . is liable for making an appearance."
The exegetical supports (A) for the Houses' opinions are obviously
later, Aqiban glosses, and not very good ones.
The pericope of the Houses is attached to the foregoing by from here
they said, rather than with the more common for (S). The meaning is not
what we would have expected. In Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai we
were told that the child was liable to go up if he could hold his father's
hand, and here we find that a "child is one who cannot hold his father's
c
36
hand" (etc.), and yetEveryone of your malesto include the children. I

should have supposed that children by the definitions of the Houses
have been excluded, not included. This highlights still further the
awkwardness of the joining words, from here they said, which leads to the
expectation that the foregoing exegesis will have some bearing on the
following legal opinions.
The definitions of child cause the difficulty. If they were in the affir
mative, then the whole would make sense. But in the negative they
contradict the sense of the exegesis of Deut. 16:16: You should bring
your child. These are childrenand obviously one could not bring such
as these, who either cannot ride on the father's shoulder or (all the more
so) cannot make the trip by foot.
If the text before us is sound, then the joining-materials are im
possible, or, alternatively, the definitions should be phrased affir
matively, as in Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17. If that
passage had occurred here, it would have produced a harmonious text:
Children should be brought, and a child is one who can take his father's
hand.
For part C-D, see below, p. 183. Part D is tacked on.
For a lucid account of the laws, see Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 373-4. He
observes (p. 375) that Sifre equates SMHH and HGYGH, "which are
in principle one."
I.ii.l7. [And the first of the fleece of your sheep you shall give him
(Deut. 18:4).]
And how many sheep must he have so that he will be liable for the
first of the fleece?
The House of Shammai say, "Two ewes, as it is said In that day a
man shall keep alive ayoung cow and two sheep (Is. 7:21)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Five, as it is said And five sheep already
dressed^ Sam. 25:18)."
R. Aqiba says, "First fleecetwo. Of your flockfour. You will give
to himlo, five."
(Sifre Deut. 166, ed. Friedman, p. 106b; ed.
c
Comment: We may take it for granted that the exegeses are glosses;
in the Houses-pericopae it is rare to find an exegesis integral to the
lemma of the Houses' opinions. The original pericope would have
looked something like this:
How many sheep-first of fleece:
House of Shammai: Two
House of Hillel:
Five.
c
'Aqiba's opinion provides a striking example of the Aqiban exegetical
TANNAITIC
37
convention of parsing a verse and supplying numerical values to its

elements. But what Aqiba does here openly is done for the Hillelites
by anonymous glossators: they provide a later exegesis in support of
the existing Hillelite ruling. Elsewhere when 'Aqibans do so, they
attribute their exegesis to the Hillelites. Here, by contrast, a distinction
between the opinion of the Hillel-House and the exegetical foundation
for that opinion supplied by Aqiba is carefully preserved. But the
reason for the preservation is that both Houses have already been given
appropriate Scriptures. Had the pericope been presented without such
exegeses, we might have found 'Aqiba's placed in the mouth of the
House of Hillel. On the other hand, this would seem to me primarily a
minor redactional consideration. I doubt that the Scriptures were
assigned to the Houses so early as Aqiba's day. What Aqiba's exegesis
certainly does provide is a terminus ante quern for the Houses' opinions.
c
I.ii.18. [When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor
in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of
divorce and puts it in her hand. . . (Deut. 24:1).] From here
A. The House of Shammai would say, "A man should not divorce
his wife unless he has found in her some indecency, as it is said, Because
he hasfound some matter of indecency in her."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his soup, as it is
said, Because he hasfound some matter of indecency in her."
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "If matter is
said, why is indecency said? And if indecency is said, why is matter said?
For if matter were said and indecency were not said, I might say, 'She
who goes forth on account of a matter will be permitted to marry, and
she who goes forth on account of indecency will not be permitted to re
marry.'
"And do not be surprised, for if she was prohibited from that which
had been permitted to her [her husband], should she not be prohibited
from that which had already been prohibited to her [any other man] ?
Scripture says indecency, and she goes forth from his house, and she goes and
marries another man.
"And if indecency were said and matter were not said, I might say,
'On account of indecency she will go forth, on account of [any other]
matter, she will not go forth.' Scripture says, Matter, and she goes forth
from his house."
C. R. <Aqiba says, "Even if he found another prettier than she. . ."
(Sifre Deut. 269, ed. Friedman, p. 22a; ed
Comment:
The passage recurs in the following:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " A m a n s h o u l d n o t d i v o r c e his w i f e u n l e s s

h e has f o u n d i n h e r s o m e i n d e c e n c y , as it is said, Because he has found some
matter of indecency in her."
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " E v e n if she s p o i l e d his s o u p , as it s a y s , Because
he has found some matter of indecency in her."
R . * A q i b a s a y s , " E v e n i f h e f o u n d a n o t h e r p r e t t i e r t h a n she, as it says, If she
find no favor in his eyes ( D e u t . 2 4 : 1 ) . "
(M. Git. 9:10)
The foregoing Mishnah is accompanied by the following
beraita:
It has b e e n t a u g h t :
T h e H o u s e of H i l l e l said to t h e H o u s e of S h a m m a i , "Is it n o t a l r e a d y said
matter V
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l , "Is it n o t a l r e a d y said
indecency>?"
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , "If indecency w e r e said a n d matter w e r e
n o t said, I m i g h t say, O n a c c o u n t o f indecency she s h o u l d g o f o r t h , b u t o n
a c c o u n t o f [any o t h e r ] matter she s h o u l d n o t g o f o r t h . T h e r e f o r e matter is
said. A n d if matter w e r e said a n d indecency w e r e n o t said, I m i g h t say, O n
a c c o u n t o f [any o t h e r ] matter she m a y b e m a r r i e d t o a n o t h e r , b u t o n a c c o u n t
o f indecency she m a y n o t b e m a r r i e d t o a n o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e indecency is s a i d . "
A n d t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i W h a t do they do with this [ A r a m a i c ] ?' . .
(b. G i t . 90a)
The Babylonian beraita preserves the argument of the House of Hillel,

but suppresses the Shammaite exegesis. Sifre Deut. 269 part B likewise
contains only the Hillelite view. We may take it for granted that the
Shammaites' argument in both cases has been dropped, or no one has
bothered to invent one. But its main outlines are evident in the primary
pericope (part A) itself: the text specifies only adultery as a proper
ground for divorce. The Hillelites' reinterpretation of the Scripture has
to be spelled out to counter the obvious sense of the Scripture itself.
But the failure of the tradents to supply the Shammaites with an ap
propriate reply seems to me probative evidence that while part A is
within the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-tradition, part B derives from
Hillelite circles only, and probably from the 'Aqiban tradents active in
other parts of this compilation. Judah the Patriarch has excluded part
B from the Mishnah because he normally leaves out exegeses. But he
has kept the Houses-pericope intact, also a common phenomenon.
'Aqiba seems to me to supply a terminus ante quern for part A, standing
well within the Hillelite tradition, and extending the ruling to a more
extreme case than is given to the Hillelites.
.The language of the House of Hillel, Even if. . . certainly indicates
dependence of the Hillelite lemma on the Shammaite one, for by itself
the Hillelite saying would not be comprehensible. The Shammaites'
opinion is spelled out in full: A man should not divorceunlessas it is
said. The Hillelites responds to the whole of the foregoing: Even if. . .
TANNAITIC
39
This represents a different form from the one we have found common:
Statement of lawHouse of ShammaiHouse of Hillel In such statements,
dropping the opinion of the first of the Houses would not on the face of
it render that of the second incomprehensible. Both Houses relate to a
single antecedent statement of the legal issue or theme. Here, by con
trast, the House of Hillel gives a kind of gloss to the House of Sham
mai. This leads to the supposition that the Shammaite opinion was
already framed in precisely the form and language selected by Sham
maiteshence the inclusion of a strong exegetical foundationand
never thereafter changed. But the Hillelites did not merely gloss the
foregoing. They have also supplied a complete response to the Sham
maites, which does not permit the Shammaites a reply.
The pericope as a whole shows us what Hillelites were prepared to
do, and not do, with completed Shammaite traditions. They obviously
have not falsified or doctored the Shammaite pericope, but preserved it
whole. They have commented on the substance, and then added a
fictitious colloquy.
This dramatic encounter follows the form one would expect from
similar materials clearly shaped in the encounter between the Houses:
The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai ..
But it does not bother to give the Shammaite reply, in the version of
Sifre Deut. 269; or the reply is given in formalized terms, in the beraita
in b. Git. 90a, merely so as to set the stage for the Hillelite argument,
coming in any event. So the Hillelite tradents have followed the form,
only so far as to lead to the expectation of the usual balanced version;
but the whole of B is a Hillelite fabrication, interpolated into existing
materials.
We must therefore distinguish between a colloquy shaped by both
Houses and one invented by Hillelites, but given a form fictitiously
implying both sides have had equal opportunity to make a case; there
the Shammaites' case is inadequate and the Hillelites must win. The
Hillelite colloquy copies the form of the compromise version, therefore
is presumably later.
v. MIDRASH T A N N A I M
Three of the four pericopae of Midrash Tannaim occur in the fore

going materials:
1. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 6:8, ed. Hoffmann, p. 27:
The story of Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael, without the
citation of M. Ber. 1:3, above, p. 34.
2. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, part B, ed. Hoffmann, p. 139:
Sisit and GDYLH, above, p. 30.
3. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 23:26, ed. Hoffmann, p. 154:
Grounds for divorce, above, p. 37.
The only new item is as follows:
40
TANNAITIC
I.ii.l9.A. You shall not wear a mingled stuff ( TNZ). . . You shall make
yourself tassels (Deut. 22:11 -12).
From here they said
B. A linen cloak with woolen show-fringes ($DYN BSYSYT)
The House of Shammai declare free [of liability].
[Should read: House of Hillel declare liable.]
C. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Will a ne
gative commandment set aside a positive one?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "We find with reference to
all the commandments which are in the Torah that the positive com
mandment takes precedence over the negative commandment, but
here, the negative commandment will take precedence over the
positive commandment [just as it does in Scripture]."
[Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, ed. Hoff
mann, pp. 138-9, part A (b. Shab. 25b)]
Comment:
Our
House
The
The
The pericope has a parallel in the following:
r a b b i s t a u g h t : A l i n e n g a r m e n t is e x e m p t f r o m sisit, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
of Shammai.
H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e it liable.
l a w f o l l o w s t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.
(b. Men. 40a)
The subsequent argument in Midrash Tannaim follows the HillelShammai form, allowing the Shammaites the last word. The exegesis
supports the Shammaite position, moreover, for the Scripture first
specifies the negative commandment (mingled stuff), then the positive
one (tassels). So from here they said accurately attributes to the Sham
maites the supporting exegesis. We need not regard the developed ar
gument (part B) as substantially later than the original formulation of
the dispute, for reasons given earlier (p. 21). I do not understand why
the Hillelite lemma (part B) has been lost.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME
i.
BERAITOT
ZERA'IM
Il.i.l.A. The House of Shammai say, "In the evening every man
should recline and recite (NTH, QR') [the Shema% but in the morning
he should stand up, for it is written, And when thou /test down and when
thou risest up (Deut. 6:7)."
The House of Hillel say, "Every man recites it in his own way, for it
is written, And when thou walkest by the way. If so, why is it said, And
when thou liest down and when thou risest up} But ( L S) the time that men
[usually] lie down and the time that men [usually] rise up."
B. R. Tarfon said, "I was coming on the way, and I reclined (NTH)
to recite (QR*) [the Shema'] in accordance with the words of the House
of Shammai, and I put myself in jeopardy by reason of robbers."
They said to him, "You were worthy to be liable for your own
[punishment] (KDYY HYYT LHWB B'SMK) because you trans
gressed the words of the House of Hillel."
>
>
[M. Ber. 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 2 (b. Ber. 10b-l la,

y. Shev. 4:2, Sifre Deut. 34, y. Ber. 1:3)]
Comment:
The Scriptural supports look like interpolated glosses.
None is required for the House of Shammai, which as usual relies on
the obvious meaning of the Scripture. But the House of Hillel differ
from that meaning and therefore require the explanation of how their
position squares with the plain sense of the Scriptural commandment.
The story (part B) of R. Tarfon supplies a firm terminus ante quern for
the foregoing materials, possibly in their present form, for the roots
NTH, QR occur in both the legal lemma and the story. This suggests
Tarfon or the person responsible for the story about him wished to
underline knowledge of, or make reference to, the actual words of the
House of Shammai.
The point of the story is that anyone who follows the view of the
House of Shammai deserves to be punished and die, a sure sign that the
issue was vivid, and that many did agree with the House of Shammai.
We do not know who "they" are, but it hardly matters. Tarfon says
precisely what "they" do, he through his story about supernatural
punishment for following Shammai, "they" through underlining, the
J
42
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.2
lesson by generalizing on the consequences of transgressing the words

of the House of Hillel.
The pericope is clearly a composite, but part A is not; it is a unity,
with glosses. The highly developed story yields no clear signs of what
constituted a mnemonic version. Each element is fully articulated and
glossed, and the whole depends on its editorial context. In accordance.. .
Shammai may be interpolated, but They said. . . Hillel is integral to the
story, so the former probably also is essential.
II.i.2. A. If he said the Benediction over the wine before the meal, he
need not say it over the wine after the meal.
If he said the Benediction over the savory before the meal, he need
not say it over the savory after the meal.
B. If he said it over the bread, he need not say it over the savory.
But if he said it over the savory, he is not exempt from saying it
over the bread.
C. The House of Shammai say, "Or over aught that was cooked
in the pot."
[M. Ber. 6:5, trans. Danby, p. 7 (y. Ber. 6:5, b.
Ber. 42b, 43b)]
Comment: The point of the Shammaite lemma is that if a man blessed
the savory, he has not exempted from a blessing that which was cooked
in the pot, but must bless that too. The saying is a gloss on the fore
going. Obviously, Or over aught. . . out of context could have meant
nothing. Further, to construct a pericope in which the lemma could
have stood as an independent and immediately comprehensible saying
is not so simple as one might think. At the outset we should have ex
pected something like the following:
I f h e said it o v e r t h e s a v o r y , h e is n o t e x e m p t f r o m s a y i n g it o v e r t h e
bread o r o v e r aught that w a s c o o k e d in the pot, the w o r d s of the House o f
Shammai.
Such a form demands: And the House of Hillel say. . . (contrary wise), y.
Ber. 6:5 supplies:
I f h e blessed t h e b r e a d , h e has e x e m p t e d t h e s a v o r y and what was cooked
in the pot, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l .
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " H e has n o t e x e m p t e d w h a t w a s c o o k e d i n
the p o t . "
Now we have a Houses-dispute such as we should have expected, but

with the wrong order. And the law is not the same. As it stands, the
House of Shammai has supplied a gloss to an existing pericope on
blessingjnot blessing. One must ask, When was the antecedent set of laws
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.3
43
redacted? They exhibit standard Mishnaic form. We may posit two

possibilities. First, the pericope antedates the Houses or was shaped
about the same time as they nourished. Second, the pericope comes
after the Houses had ceased to play a role in Pharisaic-rabbinic circles,
ca. 80-100. The opinion given in the name of Shammai's House has
been provided by someone later than that House and separate from it.
As to the former possibility, we have no literary evidence whatever
that legal materials were redacted in standard form before the work of
the Houses. The form of the disputes of the Houses is not replicated. It
is difficult to imagine that this pericope was shaped at the same time
that the Houses-materials were being worked out, assuming that the
range of forms available to the Houses-redactors was what we now
imagine it to be.
As to the second possibility, the gloss in the name of the House of
Shammai might belong to a Tanna associated with (or accused of
associating with) that House. It represents the simplest alternative. But
that is hardly decisive.
The Palestinian version, which sets the whole into conventional
Houses-form, complicates matters. If it comes before the Mishnaic
version, then why does the Mishnah fail to attribute an opinion to the
Hillelites ? Obviously, if it comes afterward, the existence of the Sham
maite opinion has required invention of a Hillelite counterpart.
Whether the lemma of the House of Shammai, which now appears
as a gloss on the foregoing materials, represents an opinion actually
held by the House is difficult to say. If the Shammaites had held such an
opinion, to assure comprehensibility it would have had to be trans
mitted in a quite different form. No oral fundament deriving from the
House of Shammai can be readily discerned, y. Yer. 6:5 is another
matter. There the Houses-lemmas come down to PTR +/ L\
For Simeon b. Shetah in this matter, above, I, p. 112. Note Epstein,
Mishnah,
p.
1029.
II. i.3.A. These are the things wherein the House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel differ [Lit.: which are between] in what concerns a
meal (SBYN. . .BS<WDH).
The House of Shammai say, "One says the Benediction (MBRK)
over the day and afterwards [over] the wine."
And the House of Hillel say, "One says the Benediction over the
wine and afterwards over the day."
B. The House of Shammai say, "They wash (NTL) the hands and
then mix the cup."
And the House of Hillel say, "They mix the cup and then wash the
hands."
C. The House of Shammai say, "One wipes his hands with a napkin
and lays it on the table."
44
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.3
And the House of Hillel say, ["He lays it] on the cushion."
D. The House of Shammai say, "They clean (KBD) the house and
then wash the hands."
And the House of Hillel say, "They wash the hands and then clean
the house."
E(l). The House of Shammai say, "[The order of saying the Bene
dictions at the outgoing of the Sabbath is] lamp, and food, and
spices, and Havdalah"
And the House of Hillel say, "Lamp, and spices, and food, and
Havdalahr
(2). The House of Shammai say, "[The Benediction over the lamp
is, 'Blessed art thou] who did create the light of fire.' "
And the House of Hillel say, " '. . . who creates the lights of fire.' "
(F. No Benediction may be said over the lamp or the spices of
gentiles, or over a lamp or spices used for the dead, or over a lamp or
spices used for idolatry. No Benediction may be said over a lamp until
one enjoys its light.)
G(l). If a man ate and forgot to say the Benediction, the House of
Shammai say, "He must return to his place and say it."
And the House of Hillel say, "He may say it in the place where he
remembers."
(2). Until what time may he say the Benediction? Until the food in
his bowels is digested.
H. If wine is brought after the food and there is but that one cup
The House of Shammai say, "One says the Benediction over the
wine and then over the food."
And the House of Hillel say, "One says the Benediction over the
food and then over the wine."
I. They may answer "Amen" after an Israelite who says a Benedic
tion, but not after a Samaritan until they have heard the whole Bene
diction.
[M. Ber. 8:1-8, trans. Danby, pp. 8-9 (y. Ber.
8:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, b. Ber. 51b-53b, b. Pes. 103a,
b. Suk. 56a, y. Naz. 7:1)]
Comment:
In addition to the t w o conventional Houses-forms
i s o l a t e d , n a m e l y , t h e s t a n d a r d d i s p u t e : Rule of Law.
mai.
. . House of Hillel.
to House of Shammai,
. . House
already
of
. . a n d t h e d r a m a t i c d e b a t e s : House of Hillel
said
here w e have the third, and, for the Mishnah, the
m o s t s t r i k i n g : t h e collection o f H o u s e s - d i s p u t e s o n a s i n g l e t h e m e .
f o r m is p e l l u c i d :
Sham-
The
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.3
These are the things which are between the House of Shammai and the House
Hillel with regard to the meal.
45
f
Then Rabbi has assembled his list(s), in briefest possible language,

without superscriptions, exegeses, debates, or other extraneous
materials. He has omitted the general theme of the dispute, e.g. parts
A, B, C. We have already noted the existence of other sorts of collections
of Houses-materials attributed to Tannaitic masters, centered, e.g., on
numbers (the six places of Shammaitic leniency). By focussing on a
legal theme, rather than on extrinsic characteristics, Rabbi has made
it possible to insert the whole smoothly into the pertinent portion of
his Mishnah.
Part A: After the superscription serving the whole composite
pericope, the first dispute is introduced without an additional super
scription setting forth the specific problem. Without it all we have in
effect is dayjwine vs. winejday, with the same explanatory words in both
opinions. From this we are supposed to know that the dispute concerns
the order of Sanctification on Sabbaths and Festivals. The Shammaites
hold one blesses the day, then the wine, because the day is the primary
consideration, and the wine comes only on account of the Sanctification
of the day. The Hillelites hold the contrary: the wine is the important
thing, for without it one says no Sanctification at all.
PartB: The same form applies: No general principle, law, or
superscription, merely wash hands, mix cup vs. mix cup, wash hands. The
consideration is that if he mixes the cup first, perhaps some of the
liquid will spill on the sides of the cup, and when the man touches the
liquid before washing his hands, he may render the whole cup unclean,
so the Shammaites. The Hillelites hold that one must not separate the
washing of the hands from the start of the meal.
Part C: After the man washes his hands, where does he place the
napkin ? The Shammaites hold he leaves it on the table, so that he may
dry his hands during the meal. He does not put it on the pillow on
which he is seated, lest the pillow be unclean and therefore render
the napkin unclean on account of the liquid that may be diffused in it,
which may then make his hands unclean. The Hillelites hold that even
if the man's hands become unclean, the [ritual] uncleanness of hands is
not serious. But the napkin should not be left on the table, lest the
table be unclean and make the napkin unclean, and, thence, the food
also be rendered unclean. The Shammaites do not take account of the
possibility that the table may be unclean, since one may not make use of
the table in any event.
The Hillelite opinion is not a gloss on the foregoing, but rather has
been abbreviated. In full form, it would read, He dries his hands on the
napkin and leaves it on the cushion. The lemma is not to be compared to the
Shammaite gloss of M. Ber. 6 : 5 .
Part D: After the meal one sweeps the room to collect the food
particles that may be scattered and then washes the hands before the
concluding benediction, so that the food particles will not be spoiled
by the dropping of the water used for the final washing. The Hillelites
hold one completes the washing (and the Grace), and afterward sweeps
the room. Meanwhile (a beraita explains) the servant will collect all the
food-particles of an olive's size before the washingin effect what the
Shammaites think important at the outset. But if we ignore the beraita,
the plain-sense is that the Hillelites do not take seriously the possibility
of rendering crumbs unclean.
Part E. 1: The subject shifts to the order of blessings after the night
meal at the end of the Sabbath. The Shammaites hold one blesses first
the light one is (now) using, then the food one has (already) eaten, then
the spices, finally says the havdalah. The Hillelites place the blessings of
the light and the spices together, both being short (so Albeck, Seder
Zeraîm, p. 29), then the food, finally says the havdalah. This is Meir's
version, Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105.
Part E. 2 has a related dispute, concerning the blessing for the
light, whether it is past tense and singular, or present tense and plural.
The supposed difference has to do with whether one blesses the crea
tion of light at the creation of the world, or the continual creation of
all sorts of lights every day.
Part F pertains to the foregoing, therefore is included, as a gloss on
the dispute of the Houses. The orderlamp, spicesis Hillelite.
Part G introduces a still further dispute about the meal, unrelated
to the foregoing. If a man forgot to say the blessing, the Shammaites
send him back to the place where he ate, and the Hillelites say he may
say the blessing wherever he remembers it. The opinions of the Houses
are brief and matched. The concluding lemma serves, like part F, as a
gloss on the foregoing problem, coming after the Houses.
Part H is enigmatic. The introductory superscription, stating the
problem, is unusual for the collection-form. Without that phrase, the
dispute looks to be about whether, in the Grace after Meals, one blesses
the wine and then the food, or the food and then the wine. The super
scription changes matters: If wine comes to them after the meal and there is
only that cup of wine. The meaning of the phrase, therefore the conditions
to which it refers, is unclear on the face of it. The Talmuds supply
various explanations, a sign that something is wrong. Albeck gives the
following: If the man wants, he blesses the wine and drinks it, and says
Grace without a further cup. Or, if the wine comes in the middle of the
meal and he blessed it, or if another cup is there which he will drink
after the meal and over which he will say the blessing for wine, then he
does not need to say the blessing of wine for the cup of the Grace. But
if he did not drink wine during the meal and says Grace over the cup,
he also has to bless the cup with the blessing of the wine. The House of
Shammai think that he first says the benediction of wine over the cup
and afterward says Grace, and the House of Hillel the contrary.
The disputes of the Houses normally are simple and straightforward.
In the collection-form before us, the disputes are not preceded by
superscriptions (e.g. Parts A-E). Parts G and F are separate items, there
fore noteworthy both for the superscriptions and for the additional
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
47
II.i.3
glosses or other materials at the end. ("Until what time. . .", "They may
answer 'Amen\ . . " ) . If the Houses-sayings had come in the earlier list,
obviously the superscription would have been left off; had it been left
off, the meaning would have been clear on the face of it.
We shall now review the collection's components:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Shammai
Day/wine
Hands/cup
Table
Blessing
Uncleanness
Uncleanness
Uncleanness
Blessing
E2.
G.
Sweep/wash
F o o d , spices
Did c r e a t e light
F o r g o t : G o back
Blessing
H.
Food/wine
Blessing
El.
Hillel
Wine/day
Cup/hands
Cushion
Wash/sweep
Spices, f o o d
Does c r e a t e lights
F o r g o t : I n the place w h e r e
he recalled he f o r g o t
Wine/food
The subject-matter (within "matters pertaining to the meal") is there

fore arranged in an orderly and logical way:
Before Sabbath-Festival
Meals:
A
During Meals: B , C , D
After Sabbath-Festival
Meals:
E
After Meals (special case, p e r t a i n i n g t o all m e a l s ) :
and part H is an enigma.

It looks, therefore, as if the collection consists of five separate,
anterior elements or collections: parts B-C-D, uncleanness rules for
meals, a neat and simple collection of logia, consisting of a few words
attributed to each House; part A; part E (both segments); part G; and
part H.
Part H looks suspiciously like the reverse of par t A:
A
Shammai: Day/Wine ( Y W M / Y Y N )
Wine/Food
(YYN/MZWN)
Hillel:
Food/Wine
(MZWN/YYN)
Wine/Day ( Y Y N / Y W M )
The superscription of part H thus brings more difficulties than we

might have had in its absence.
This sort of list can be readily reduced to brief and alliterative
mnemonic elements:
Part A:
Part B:
PartC:
Part D:
Part E:
YWM/YYN vs. YYN/YWM

NTL/MZG vs. MZG/NTL
SLHN VS. KST
KBD/NTL vs. NTL/KBD
NR/MZWN/BSMYM/HBDLH vs. NR/BSMYM/MZWN/
HBDLH
Thus: MZWN/BSMYM vs. BSMYM/MZWN
48
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.3, I l . i i . l
The list therefore is constructed of transitive participles, generally

given in third-person plural (B, D), though I see no principle that
explains why one set should be plural, the next singular. Only part C is
significantly glossed; there a simple superscription would have allowed
the significant difference to be reduced to two substantives, as given
above. Like parts A and H, parts B and D look suspiciously alike, and
it may be that they began as a single lemma, only later on developed
into two separate arguments. Parts A, B, D, and E all depend upon
word-order, and I see no reason why part E should not have been
preserved in fully articulated form right from the outset. In all, it
would be difficult to invent a better model of a mnemonic list.
Part G(l) is another sort of mnemonic, apparently built out of the
same words and mostly the same radicals:
HZR MQWM BRK vs. BRK MQWM ZKR
Clearly the order is 1,2,3, vs. 3,2,1. Only the first word of the Sham
maite and the last word of the Hillelite lemma is different, and there the
difference is in a single letter, H vs. K. On the whole, therefore, we
may suppose the mnemonic has been only lightly reworked with the
addition of the dative particles (L, B), the personal endings, and the
relative pronoun demanded by the Hillelite lemma.
Even in the fully articulated form before us, wefindobvious balances
between the Houses' lemmas. They contain the same number of words
throughout, e.g.
Part A: MBRK <L HYWM W'HR KK MBRK <L HYYN
MBRK <L HYYN W'HR KK MBRK <L HYWM
and these words preserve a fixed order and balance from one Housesaying to the next, as is obvious above. So while the elements of a
mnemonic version may well have consisted of those isolated above, it
is by no means necessary to suppose that the whole collection is not
now in mnemonic form, or that Judah the Patriarch did not inten
tionally arrange things in just this manner.
We shall compare this version with the Tosefta's below, p. 50. Note
Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 43,185,1002,1007.
C
Il.ii.l. M SH B : R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah [who] were

dwelling (SRWYYN) in one place, and R. Ishmael was reclining, and
R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah standing up. The time of reciting the Shema
came. R. Ishmael stood up and R. Eleazar b. Azariah lay down.
R. Ishmael said to him, "What is this, Eleazar."
He said to him, "Ishmael, my brother. . ."
He said to him, "You lay down to carry out the words of the House
of Hillel, and I stood up to carry out the words of the House of
Shammai."
1
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.2
49
"Another matter, so that the disciples should not see and per
manently establish the law according to your words."
[Tos. Ber. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 2, lines 18-25
(y. Ber. 1:3, b. Ber. 11a; Sifre Deut. 34, y.
Sanh. 11:4)]
Comment:
See above, p. 41. This is the equivalent of M. Ber. 1:3,
Tarfon-story. For our purposes, what is important is the further in
dication of a firm terminus ante quern for the Houses-pericope on the
subject. Judah the Patriarch preferred the more explicit Tarfon-subscription: If you follow the opinion of the House of Shammai, you
deserve punishment.
II.ii.2.A. [As to a] Festival of the New Year that coincides with

the Sabbath:
The House of Shammai say, "One prays ten [benedictions]."
And the House of Hillel say, "One prays nine [benedictions]."
B. [As to a] Festival that coincides with the Sabbath:
The House of Shammai say, "One prays eight [benedictions] and
says [that] of the Sabbath by itself and of the festival by itself, and be
gins with that of the Sabbath."
And the House of Hillel say, "He prays seven [benedictions], and
begins with that pertaining to the Sabbath and concludes with that
pertaining to the Sabbath and says the Sanctification of the Day in the
middle."
[Tos. Ber. 3:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 15, lines
58-63 (b/Eruv. 40a-b, b. Bes. 17a; y. Shev.
1:5)]
Comment:
The pericope contains three disputes, the latter two
combined into one:
New
YearjSabbath
House of Shammai:
House of Hillel:
Ten
Nine
Festival I Sabbath
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E i g h t S a b b a t h b y s e l f / F e s t i v a l b y self
House of Hillel:
SevenSabbath-Sanctification-Sabbath
On the readings and the legal issues involved, see Lieberman, Tosefta
for Zeraîm, pp. 39-40. The whole is, mnemonically, simply a
descending decade. See below, pp. 181-182.
Kifshutah
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I
50
II.ii.3.A. [The] things which are between the House of Shammai

and the House of Hillel as regards the meal:
The House of Shammai say, "One blesses the day, and afterward one
blesses the wine, for the day causes the wine to come, and he has
already sanctified the day, but the wine has not yet come."
And the House of Hillel say, "One blesses the wine, and afterward
one blesses the day, for the wine causes the Sanctification of the day to
be said.
"Another matter: The blessing of the wine is continual, and the
blessing of the day is not continual."
And the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel.
B. The House of Shammai say, "They wash the hands and after
ward mix the cup, lest the liquids which are on the outer surfaces of
the cup may be made unclean on account of the hands, and they may go
back and make the cup unclean."
The House of Hillel say, "The outer surfaces of the cup are perpetu
ally unclean.
"Another matter: The washing of the hands is only [done] near [at
the outset of] the meal."
They mix the cup and afterward wash the hands [ = House of Hillel].
C. The House of Shammai say, "He dries his hand on the napkin
and leaves it on the table, lest the liquids which are in the napkin may
be made unclean on account of the pillow, and they may go and make
the hands unclean."
The House of Hillel say, "Doubtful liquids so far as the hands are
concerned are clean.
"Another matter: Washing the hands does not pertain to unconsecrated food. But he dries his hands on the napkin and leaves it on the
pillow, lest the liquids which are in the pillow may be made unclean
on account of the table, and they may go and render the food unclean."
D. The House of Shammai say, "They clean the house on account
of the waste of food, and afterward they wash the hands."
The House of Hillel say, "If the waiter was a disciple of a sage, he
gathers the scraps which contain as much as an olive's bulk.
"They wash the hands and afterward clean the house."
E. The House of Shammai say, "He holds the cup of wine in his
right hand and sweet oil in his left hand.
"He blesses the wine and afterward blesses the oil."
And the House of Hillel say, "He holds the sweet oil in his right
hand and the cup of wine in his left hand.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.3
51
"He blesses the oil and smears (TH) it on the head of the waiter. If
the waiter was a disciple of a sage, he smears it on the wall, because it
is not praiseworthy that a disciple of the sage[s] should go forth per
fumed."
F. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel
did not dispute concerning the blessing of the food, that it is first,
and concerning the havdalah, that it is at the end. Concerning what did
they dispute? Concerning the light and the spices, for the House of
Shammai say, 'Light and afterward spices/ and the House of Hillel
say, 'Spices and afterward light.' "
[Tos. Ber. 5(6):25-30, ed. Lieberman, p. 29, 1.
53-p. 31, 1.75 (b. Ber. 51b, 53b [ = part E], b.
<Eruv. 13b, y. Ber. 8:15,78, y. Pes. 10:2;
Pes. 114a, b. Suk. 56a)]
G. In the house of study
The House of Shammai say, "One [person] blesses for all of them."
And the House of Hillel say, "Each one blesses for himself."
[Tos. Ber. 5:30, ed. Lieberman, p. 31, lines
80-1 (b. Ber. 53a)]
Comment:
The formal differences between Mishnah and Tosefta are
fairly consistent. For each element the Tosefta supplies the reason for
the position taken by each House, as well as "another matter" further
supporting the Hillelite argument.
The construction of the brief lemmas of M. Ber. 8:lff. is to be
credited to Judah the Patriarch. He has stressed the simplest possible
formulation. The Tosefta constitutes not another version, but a highly
glossed copy of the original, with many interpolations. Thus, the
Hillelite part of B supplies reasons for, and only then gives the equiva
lent of, the Shammaites' primary lemma. In C, the Hillelites do not
even have such an equivalent. In D the Hillelites' view is taken for
granted, then explained. In E, the waiter-element has no Shammaite
counterpart. So Tos. presupposes and depends upon knowledge of the
Mishnah, and looks like a commentary on it, with glosses as needed.
We shall see considerable evidence that Houses-forms were followed
in entirely classical style as late as the period of the Ushan academy. The
only hard evidence here is the appearance of Judah [b. Ilai]; he supplies
excellent testimony that M. Bei. 8:5 (II.L3.E) was before him in a
form other than that of the Mishnah. He alleges that no dispute per
tained to the blessing of food and havdalah, and this normally means that
such a dispute was before him verbatim, and that he differed and planned
to correct it. Judah the Patriarch has not reproduced Judah b. Ilai's
52
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.1
version, but rather preserved the whole list of four items, b. Ber. 52b
(b. Pes. 103a) has the following:
R a v a said, " T h e s e [the M i s h n a h ] a r e t h e w o r d s o f R. M e i r , b u t R. J u d a h
said, ' T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l a g r e e t h a t G r a c e
c o m e s first a n d havdalah last. T h e y differ [ o n l y ] a b o u t l i g h t a n d spices.* "
Judah the Patriarch has taken Meir's version and dropped Judah's, and
the Mishnah must be dated to Usha. On this basis we cannot determine
which version is older. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105-6.
Parts E and G contain new materials. Part E has a dispute in the
extremely succinct form of M. Ber., readily reduced to the simple
mnemonic elements suggested above. But the Hillelite saying not only
is out of balance, but also introduces an element otherwise lacking in
the Shammaite one, about the waiterthat is, what to do with excess
oil. I do not understand how the issue was raised in the Hillelite lemma
at all. It belongs in D.
Part G presents a problem which occurs in reference to b. Eruv.,
below, p. 138. The language of the Houses is identical, and what is
changed is the superscription. The superscription comes after the
Houses-sayings and is intended to provide a setting for their already
redacted ruling. But we have no evidence as to when the superscrip
tion was added or the original sayings redacted.
c
III.ii.1. TNW RBNN: [If] they were sitting in the house of study,
and they brought light before them
The House of Shammai say, "Each one blesses for himself."
And the House of Hillel say, "One blesses for all of them, since it is
said, In the multitude ofpeople is the kings glory (Prov. 14:28)."
[The Shammaite reason is adduced: it is to avoid an interruption of
study.]
TNY* NMY HKY: [Those] of the House of Rabban Gamaliel did
not say 'good health'[to one who sneezed] in the study house be
cause of the interruption of study.
(b. Ber. 53a)
Comment:
The Babylonian beraita has not only reversed the rulings
of the Houses, but also augmented the superscription. The further
beraita
in the Babylonian pericope supplies the information that
Gamaliel followed the Shammaite principle of not interrupting study.
The rulings are matched opposites.
The reversal of the assigned opinions is the problem, for the aug
mentation of the superscription is commonplace and does little to
change the meaning. I doubt that the Toseftan redactor has switched
the Houses around in order to show the conformity of Gamaliel to the
Hillelite ruling; Gamaliel is not mentioned in the context of Tos. Ber.
53
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.2, 3
to begin with. Redactional considerations therefore do not seem im

portant, and I cannot account for the change; but see Lieberman,
Tosefta Kifshutah,
p.
97.
The mnemonic pattern is standard:

Shammai: KL >HD W'HD MBRK L'SMW
Hillel: >HD MBRK LKWLN
Thus the pattern is
KL >HD vs. >HD [L] KL [N]
that is, 1,2,2,1. For further examples of the same pattern, see M.
TVah 3:1, below, pp. 54-55.
III.ii.2.A. [Our rabbis taught: He who enters a privy removes his
tefillin at a distance of four amot and enters. . .]
B. TNY >YDK (Another beraita): "He who enters a permanent
privy removes his tefillin at a distance of four amot, leaves them on the
window near the public way, and enters, and when he goes out, he
goes away four amot and puts them on"the words of the House of
Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "He holds themin his hand and enters."
R. Aqiba says, "He holds them in his garment and enters."
J
(b. Ber. 23a)

Comment:
This is a singleton, not following conventional form. The
superscription is interpolated into the Shammaite lemma, as often
happens. Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern, if the whole is not
pseudepigraphic. The Hillelites are balanced against Aqibahand vs.
garment. The Shammaite lemmawithout the elements serving all
partiesmust be leaves-window. Part A follows the Shammaite reasoning,
against both the Hillelites and Aqiba.
c
III.ii.3. TNW RBNN: [If] they brought before him oil and
myrtle
The House of Shammai say, "He blesses the oil, and afterward he
blesses the myrtle."
And the House of Hillel say, "He blesses the myrtle, and afterward
he blesses the oil."
R. Gamaliel said, "I shall decide [in favor of the House of Shammai.]
We have the benefit of (ZKH) oil both for its odor and for its anoint
ing ; we have the benefit of myrtle for its smell but not for its anointl n g
*"
(b. Ber. 43b)
Comment:
The items are brought after a meal, oil to clean the hands,
and myrtle to smell.
54
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.4
The form is standard. What is interesting is the effort of Gamaliel,

presumably Gamaliel II, to argue in favor of the Shammaite position,
in the Toseftan style. He supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the
dispute, before ca. 100.
II.i.4.A. [If] between olives trees [there were] plots sown with grain
(MLBNWT HTBW'H)
The House of Shammai say, "Pe'ah [must be granted] from every
plot."
And the House of Hillel say, "From one for all."
B. But they agree that, if the ends of the rows [of grain] were con
fused (JVPWRBYN), (that) he gives Pe'ah from one [plot] for all.
[M. Pe'ah 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 12 (y. Pe'ah
3:1)]
Comment: The problem is, When does a field become divided into
two, so requiring that two pesahs be left over for the poor, each part of
the field being obligated by itself? The issue before the Houses is
whether each plot among the olive trees is regarded as separate, there
fore liable. The House of Shammai take the affirmative, of Hillel, the
negative. The Houses agree regarding the ends of the rows. The
Shammaite position is strict with the farmer, therefore advantageous
to the poor gleaners. The Shammaites often rule to the benefit of the
poor.
The form is conventional. What is new is the additional specifica
tion of the limits of the dispute, "They agree. . ." We have not earlier
seen such a careful limitation. Clearly, the problem of law. . . House of
Shammai. . . House of Hillel. . . must come before But they agree (WMWDYM), language already familiar to us in the opening clause of the
debate form (above, p. 16), The House of Hillel said to the House of
Shammai, You agree with us. . . But here the agreement is a fact, rather
than a debater's opening gambit. It is difficult to imagine that such an
additional clause circulated separatelyfor obvious reasons. But was
it imposed by one party on the other? The House of Shammai's posi
tion is what is limited by the agreement, since the House of Hillel have
already made the same point for a more extreme situation, where the
plots are actually separate, and hence obviously would hold the same
where the plots are not separated, but the rows confused. The "agree
ment" furthermore repeats the Hillelite lemma verbatim.
Hence we are left to wonder whether the Shammaite position has
been accurately represented in the agreement-clause. Does it serve as a
Hillelite subscription, or is the clause integral to the pericope as a
whole? If they were able to enforce their view of the law, indeed able
to impose their reading of the tradition on Shammai-Hillel-materials,
the Hillelites could as well have suppressed the entire dispute as have
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.4, 5
55
altered an element in it. Hence one might argue that, had the Hillelites
the power to fabricate such a new subscription, they would have done a
more complete job of it. So the agreement-clause, claiming less for the
Hillelites than one might expect had the Hillelites fabricated it, looks
genuine. This argument is strengthened by the conservatism of the
tradents. Clearly, what the Hillelites said about Shammaites and those
who hold to their views of law is before us. Yet they did not tamper
with the balanced traditionsShammaijHillel, House of ShammaijHouse
of Hillel, and House of Hillel said to House of Shammaibut preserved
some of them as they must have been redacted while the two parties
enjoyed parity, or while Shammaites were in control. The foundationstone of our inquiry is the observation that the Hillelites did not change
Shammai/Hillel pericopae once in final form, even though it would have
been to Hillelite advantage to do so. They invented new stories of all
sorts, e.g. the sword in the school-house, petulant Shammai, and so
forth. But part of what was already redacted, as occasionally evidenced
by discussions of the earliest Yavnean masters, evidently was unchanged.
The report of the agreement is apt to be genuine. The Shammaites'
position here probably is accurately represented. The parties differed
only in some aspects of the problem, agreed in others. In that case the
observation that the Hillelites saw the reason of the opposition and
accepted its position seems to apply also to the Shammaites, though
it is not made explicit in terms of HZR/SNH, as in M. Yev. (below,
pp. 200-202) and elsewhere.
The lemmas of the Houses are beautifully balanced:
House of Shammai say:
Pe ah
MKL >HD W'HD
House of Hillel say
M>HD <L HKL
Pe*ah serves both lemmas. We are left with three words assigned to
each, and these, excluding prepositions, are actually two: KL and
>HD. Further, the order is ascending-descending, as before:
MKL >HD [W'HD]M'HD [<L] HKL
That is, essentially, 1, 2, 2, 1. All that is out of balance is the super
scription, and this is invariably the case. Thus even where the Houses
necessarily have to be given words that are not the usual syzygies
(TM'/THR), their opinions are phrased in an obvious mnemonic
pattern. The agreement uses the Hillelite order: 'HD/KL, appropriately
so, since it is the Shammaites who accept the Hillelite opinion. Other
agreement-mnemonics use the primary elements of both lemmas, but
here that is manifestly impossible.
See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 51-2.
y
II.i.5.A. The House of Shammai say, "[If produce is proclaimed]

ownerless for the benefit of the poor [it is deemed] ownerless [and
Tithe-free]."
56
And the House of Hillel say, "It is not [deemed] ownerless [and
Tithe-free] until ( D S) it is proclaimed ownerless also (>P) for the
[benefit of the] rich, as in the Year of Release."
B. [If] all sheaves of a field [were] each of one qaVs [bulk] and one
was of four qabs, and he forgot it
The House of Shammai say, "[It is] not [deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It is deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf."
C. [If] a sheaf [lay] near the wall or the stack or the oxen or the
implements, and he forgot it
The House of Shammai say, "[It is] not [deemed a] Forgotten
Sheaf."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It is deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf."
D(l). [Whether any sheaf at] the ends of rows [may or may not be
deemed a Forgotten Sheaf] is proved by a sheaf lying over against it.
(2). [If the householder] laid hold of a sheaf to take it to the city and
forgot it, they agree that this is not [deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf.
E. Two sheaves [together may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three
[together may] not [be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves. Two heaps of
olives or carobs [may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three may not.
Two stalks of flax [may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three may not.
Two grapes [may count] as grape-gleanings; three may not. Two ears
of corn [may count as] gleanings; three may not.
These [rulings] are according to the words of the House of Hillel.
And of them all the House of Shammai say, "[Where there are] three
[they belong] to the poor; [where there are] four [they belong] to the
householder."
[M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 16-17
(y. Pe'ah 1:5, 7:1 = M. 6 : 1 ; y. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3,
4; b. B.M. 30b, y. Ket. 8:1, b. Sanh. 88a)]
C
Comment: See also M. Ed. 4:2-4. Parts A, B, and C constitute a

compilation, not a collection, of Houses-disputes on the laws of the For
gotten Sheaf.
Part A concerns property declared ownerless only for the poor. Is
it liable to tithes? The House of Shammai say it is not, the House of
Hillel that it is. In this ruling, as above, the Hillelite position is more
stringent, since it diminishes the return to the poor, who have either
to compete with the rich or to pay tithes. This is made explicit in y.
Ket. 8:1: "The House of Shammai say, 'Ownerless to the poor is
lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder.' "
The form is extremely terse:
57
House o f Shammai: [Ownerless] to the p o o r (only)

[ownerless]
House o f Hillel:
Also t o t h e r i c h .
Like the Year of Release is a gloss. The whole formula requires three
wordsor merely to the poorfor the Shammaites, as given, and could
suffice with two for the Hillelites. The explanatory words, / / can only be
deemed ownerless if it is proclaimed ownerless fill out the sentence, but are
not absolutely necessary for comprehending the position of the Hille
lites. They represent a redactional supplement.
Part B follows the more complete, articulated form:
Problem of law, then the Houses.
The Houses' opinions are equally terse: Not Forgotten Sheaf jForgotten
Sheaf. Clearly, to understand these words, a fuller statement of the issue
to which they pertain is required. The issue is, How do we regard the
larger sheaf? The House of Shammai hold that the oui-qab sheaf is
regarded as if it were divided into four of one qab each; in part E, the
House of Shammai make it explicit that where there are four, they
belong to the householder. Part E looks like a secondary formulation,
with more detail, of the brief lemma before us. The simplest formula
tion of the whole would be simply:
House o f Hillel:
Three.
Part C retains the same full formulation: Principle of law or problem,

plus the Houses. Here the issue is: Is a sheaf lying near some recogniz
able object or some specific location regarded as forgotten} The House
of Shammai hold that since the sheaf is in some place that may be
specified, it eventually will be remembered. The House of Hillel hold
the contrary (see below, Tos. Pe'ah 3:2).
Part D.2 then supplies a point of agreement. Here, however, it is
the House of Hillel that come over to the position of the House of
Shammai. In the cases of part D, there is evidence that the owner has
not completely forgotten the sheaves. He has at the outset given some
sign that he intends to dispose of them. Therefore the law of the For
gotten Sheaf does not apply. Obviously, the Shammaite lemma is
repeated.
What is the difference between parts D and C? In the cases of part D
some process has been undertaken, i.e. gathering the sheaves, or moving
them, while in part C, nothing signifies, according to the Hillelites, the
intention of doing something with the sheaf. It is merely lying in a place
that can be specified, but no purpose in leaving the sheaf there can be
discerned.
Part E spells out the Hillelite position: Three (of anything) are not
regarded as forgotten, but two (of anything) are; the Shammaites say,
Four]three. The cases are a full catalogue:
Sheaves
Olives o r carobs
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.5
S t a l k s o f flax
Grapes
Ears o f corn
I see no reason that all the cases require specification. In any event the
redactor has been careful to specify these are not formulations of the
Houses, but rather follow their views: according to the words of the
House of Hillel. The Shammaite opinion is tacked on with a connectorphrase : Concerning all of them. This too is not an attribution of direct
discourse, but a summary of the position of the House of Shammai. But
the content of the lemma represents what the House originally laid
down:
Three f o r t h e p o o r
Four f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d e r
What we do not have is the equivalent formulation of the House of

Hillel, which, quite obviously, was
Two f o r t h e p o o r
Three f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d e r .
The difference between these pericopae and the collection-form

discussed above (pp. 4 4 f . ) is obvious. The collection form is introduced
with a simple statement of the subject-matter: concerning the meal. No
further superscriptions stating the topic or legal problem then inter
vene. Here, by contrast, the collection-superscription is absent, though
one might have looked for it in part A, and therefore we are given
superscriptions in parts B and C. Part E is a separate pericope, in
which the brief lemmas originally issued by the Houses are given in
great detail for each possible type of produce, all in the Hillelite for
mulation, with the Shammaite opinion tacked on at the end. We need
not regard part E as a later development of Hillelites, for the Sham
maite position is accurately represented. But it is a quite different way
of stating matters, with the Houses in reverse order for redactional
reasons.
The lemmas of the Houses are extremely brief and always balanced
opposites:
Shammai
HBQR L'NYYM HBQR

>YNW SKHH
$L$H [L'NYYM] [W]
>RB<H LB<L HBYT
Hillel
>YNW HBQR
SKHH
SNY [SKHH] SLSH [>YNN SKHH]
In effect, the Houses differ on whether or not the negative particle

belongs, and on a numbers-sequence (two/three vs. three/four). In all
other respects the sayings are either balanced or glossed; they are not
developed, articulated, or expanded in significant detail, except as
specified.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 1 0 2 - 3 .
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
59
II.i.6
II.i.6. A. As to the grapes of a Fourth-Year Vineyard

The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added] Fifth and
of Removal do not apply to [the grapes of] a Fourth Year Vineyard
(>YN LW HM W>YN LW B<WR)."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do apply (Y LW)."
B. The House of Shammai say, "The laws of grape-gleanings and of
the defective cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for them
selves (Y LW PRT WY$ LW <WLLWT, WH'NYYM PWDYN
L'SMM)."
And the House of Hillel say, "The whole yield goes to the wine
press (KWLW LGT)."
[M. Pe'ah 7:6, trans. Danby, p. 18 (y. Pe'ah 7:5,
b. Qid. 54b; M. M.S. 5:3, M. Ter. 3:9, Tos. Ter.
2:13, M. M.S. 5:10)]
c
Comment:
See above, Sifra Qedoshim 3:7, p. 23, and M. Ed. 4:5b.
The issue before us is whether or not the rules of Second Tithe apply,
to the Fourth-Year Vineyard grapes. The House of Shammai hold that
grapes of the Fourth Year Vineyard are not like the Second Tithe in
every respect.
The form is a curious variation of the standard one. Here, the state
ment of law is followed by two sets of Shammai/Hillel opinions:
Grapes of the Fourth-Year
Vineyard:
A . H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N o F i f t h a n d n o B u r n i n g [Unlike S e c o n d T i t h e ]
House o f Hillel:
Y e s [Like Second Tithe]
B. House of Shammai: Grape-gleanings and Defective Cluster apply
[Like S e c o n d T i t h e ]
H o u s e o f Hillel:
L a w s o f S e c o n d T i t h e a p p l y in all respects.
The Hillelite-opinion therefore is duplicated in the two segments of

the pericope. What would an antecedent form have looked like? It
seems to me the problem for the redactor is the complex Shammaite
opinion. An ideal form would have been:
Grapes of the Fourth- Year
Vineyard:
The House o f Shammai say: A r e like Second Tithe in some respects, and
are n o t l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e i n s o m e r e s p e c t s : like S e c o n d T i t h e i n t h a t (a)
g r a p e g l e a n i n g s (b) p o o r r e d e e m ; not l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e i n t h a t (a) n o
F i f t h a n d (b) n o B u r n i n g .
T h e H o u s e o f Hillel s a y : A r e l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e in all respects.
Such a full statement of the Shammaite position apparently was not

possible within the range of formal or redactional alternatives available
in early times. It therefore was necessary to split up the opinions into
the clumsy form before us, thus to suggest two separate pericopae
60
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.6; II.ii.4
existed, when in fact the whole is a single problem and susceptible of

formulation in a single, unitary framework.
The language of the Mishnah compares with Sifra Qedoshim 3:7 as
follows:
Sifra Qedoshim 3:7
M. Pe'ah
1 . All
1 . Grapes
of the
Fourth-Year
Vineyard:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said, D o
n o t h a v e Fifth a n d d o n o t h a v e
Burning.
their fruit
will be
t o include H P R T a n d H ' W L L W T , a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.
7:6
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e y d o .
2 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Y L W P R T
W Y $ L W <WLLWT
3. A n d the p o o r redeem f o r themselves.
2.
4 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , It is all f o r t h e
4.
3 . ,, ,, , ,
winepress
We see that in place of the exegesis, M. Pe'ah gives a topical superscrip

tion.
In y. Pe'ah 7:5, Judah the Patriarch limits the disagreement to the
Seventh Year.
Ideally, the mnemonic fundament would have consisted of the
superscription + Shammaite rule followed by the Hillelite negative
pretty much as in M. Pe'ah 7:6.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 103, who observes that elsewhere the
dispute is on Fourth-year planting (NT*).
II.ii.4. R. 'Ila'P said, "I asked R. Joshua, 'Concerning what sheaves
(<WMRYN) did the House of Shammai dispute?'
"He said to me, 'By this Torah! Concerning what sheaves? Those
near a wall, a stack, oxen, or implements, and he forgot it.'
"And when I came and asked R. Leazar, he said to me, 'They agree
concerning these that Forgetting does not apply.
" 'Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning the sheaf on
which he took hold to bring to town, and he set it by the fence and
forgot it.
" 'For the House of Shammai say, ''Forgetting does not apply, be
cause he has made acquisition of it.' And the House of Hillel say,
'Forgetting?
"And when I came and I laid the matters out before R. Leazar b.
'Azariah, he said to me, 'By the Torah! These things were said from
Sinai
[Tos. Pe'ah 3:2, ed. Lieberman, p. 51, lines
13-19 (y. Pe^h 6:2, M. Ed. 4:4, y. Ket. 8:1)]
99
9 99
61
The Tosefta reenforces the estimate of the terminus ante

for Houses-disputes; M. Pe'ah 6:2 ( = II.i.5.C) came by the time
of Joshua b. Hananiah. Leazar has things contrarywise. They agreed on
the sheaf by the wall, but differed about the sheaf to be brought to town.
This means that two versions of the dispute existed.
The version of Joshua and that of the M. Pe'ah 6:2 compare as
follows
Comment:
quern
M.Pe*ah6:2
1. T h e s h e a f w h i c h is n e a r t h e w a l l , stack, o x e n ,
o r i m p l e m e n t s , a n d h e f o r g o t it.
J o s h u a : Tos. Pe'ah 3:2

1. [These a r e t h e s h e a v e s ] n e a r
the wall, stack, oxen, o r im
p l e m e n t s , a n d h e f o r g o t it.
2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Is n o t F o r g e t t i n g .
2.
3 . A n d H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, F o r g e t t i n g .
3 . ,, ,,
In fact, except for the slight variation in the introductory clause, where,
for obvious redactional reasons, M. Pe'ah omits these are of the collo
quy (>YLW) and then puts the whole into the singular (H MWR in
stead of H'WMRYN), the passages are identical, and M. Pe'ah looks
like the tradition according to Joshua. Leazar says that Forgetting here
does apply, therefore he has the Hillelites agree with the Shammaites.
He claims they differ in another case entirely:
(
M.Pe*ah6:2
Leazar:
1. T h e s h e a f w h i c h a m a n t o o k h o l d o f t o b r i n g
t o t h e t o w n a n d f o r g o t it
1. [ C o n c e r n i n g ( L)] t h e s h e a f
which a man took hold of to
b r i n g t o t h e t o w n and he put it
beside the fence a n d f o r g o t it
Tos. Pe"ah 3:2
2. T h e y a g r e e t h a t it is n o t Forgetting [the f o r gotten-sheaf-law does not apply].
2. [That] t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e l a w o f Forgetting

does not apply because he
m a d e a c q u i s i t i o n o f it.
A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,
T h e l a w o f Forgetting
does
apply.
M. Pe'ah differs with Leazar's version in several respects, but is strik

ingly similar in others. In no. 1, a new detail is introduced into Leazar's
version, in italics, perhaps a contamination from the antecedent case.
As to no. 2, the House of Shammai has already received a gloss ("be
cause he made acquisition"). Otherwise, however, nos. 2-3 of the
Joshua version are repeated here without change. So what is confused
is not the decisions of the Houses, but the case to which they pertain.
Both masters have what must be the primary tradition, attributed to the
Houses by all parties:
1. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N o Forgetting
House o f Hillel:
Forgetting.
2. A n d t h e y a g r e e .
The issue is, To what cases do these decisions and agreement pertain?
Joshua assigns the disagreement to the sheaf by the wall (etc.), and the
agreement to the sheaf to be brought to town. Leazar assigns the
agreement to the sheaf by the wall, the disagreement to the sheaf to go
to town, left by the wall, and then forgotten. R. Eleazar b. Azariah
then agrees with Leazar's version of matters, but Judah the Patriarch
apparently preferred Joshua's.
Now since the Houses originally could not have said both opinions,
and since the Tannaitic tradents were unclear on just what the Houses
were talking about, we may assume the basis for the differences in the
versions of Joshua and Leazar had to do with legal principles. What
were these principles ? As to the sheaf by the wall, stack, oxen, and
implements, the point at issue is (as pointed out above) whether the
fact that the sheaf is found lying near an identifiable location means it
eventually will be remembered ("Oh, what did I do with the sheaf I left
by the implements ?"), while if it was left in the field, the owner will
never afterward be able to call to mind that particular sheaf. Joshua
holds the Houses differed on this principle. As to the sheaf set
aside to be brought to town and then forgotten: Earlier, Hillelites
held that Forgetting applied when the object was left by a specific
location. However, in the second case, Forgetting does not apply,
because in the latter situation there is clearcut evidence that the
householder has not completely forgotten the sheaf but must eventually
remember it, since he intended to do something with it ("bring it to
town")so Joshua. Leazar holds the House of Hillel says the law of
Forgetting does apply, since the owner's actions reveal what was his real
thought. He did not actually plan to take the sheaf to town at all, but
merely to signify that, in leaving it, he did not intend that the law of
Forgetting should apply. But the householder has no right to do so
(following Lieberman, Tosefta, brief commentary, p. 51, n. to 1. 17; and
Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 162-5. [On the question of Joshua's relationship
to M. Pe'ah, see p. 162-4, note to lines 14-5.1 have been careful not to
state a view of that question, by saying that Joshua's opinion before us
merely "looks like" the Mishnah.]) Note also Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 61,
and compare M. Maksh. 1:3; also p. 102.
What seems to have happened, therefore, is that the opinions of the
Houses have come down, along with some generalized traditions on
the legal matters to which the opinions pertained. The "finished"
pericope before the several Yavnean Tannaitic authorities apparently
consisted only of the opinions of the Houses, as specified above: forgetting]
no for getting] and they agree, along with a generalized context to which the
opinions pertained, or the Tannaim assumed the context on the basis of
the gnomic opinions only. The Tannaitic authorities were able to differ
as to the details. This strongly suggests that the form of the Housesdisputes at the outset consisted of completed opinions, perhaps or
ganized according to legal topics. The next stage of editing supplied
introductions or superscriptions to the disputes. This would account
for the extreme brevity of the primary elements in the several pericopae
c
63
already considered, i.e. simple numbers, such as four/three, three/two, or

affirmative-negative syzygies, e.g. forgetting/no forgetting, or reversals
of order, i.e. winejdav vs. dayjwine, and so on. These very soon there
after were amplified, as evidenced by the tendency to supply topical
superscriptions or other appropriate augmentations. The third stage
was the combination of the amplified pericopae into organized collec
tions or lists, as in M. Ber. 8:1-8 and elsewhere, or their inclusion in
other settings entirely.
II.i.7. Sweet oil
The House of Shammai declare liable.
And the House of Hillel declare exempt.
[M. Demai 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 21 (y. Demai
1:3)]
Comment: The issue is whether sweet oil purchased from an outsider
('am ha*ares) is liable to the laws of ^^/-produce or not. If it is, it must
be tithed. The Hillelites say that since the oil is not to be eaten, it is
exempt from the rule. The form is conventional: Problem, House of
Shammai, House of Hillel. The opinions of the Houses, as often, are
expressed in single roots, HYB, PTR, in plural, intensive present
participles. The pericope must be a unity, and no element is gloss. No
later masters refer to the pericope, nor does it relate to its setting, ex
cept in theme: exemption from the rules of ^?^/-produce. See Tos.
Demai 1:26-7, below p. 65.
II.i.8.A. Z)/ffrf/-produce may be given to the poor and to billeted
troops [or, guests] to eat.
B. Rabban Gamaliel used to give dfe^z/-produce to his laborers
to eat.
C. [As to] Almoners (GB'YSDQH)
The House of Shammai say, "They give what has been tithed to
them that do not give tithe and what is untithed to them that do give
tithe; thus every man will eat of what is duly tithed (MTWQN)."
But the sages say, "[Almoners] collect [food] and distribute [it] re
gardless (TM) [of the rules of demai-\>toz\xiz\, and he who wants to
tithe it [according to the rules of demai-\>too\\iz[ will tithe it."
[M. Demai 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 22 (b. Ber.
47a, y. Demai 3:1, b. Shab. 127b, b. <Eruv. 17b,
31b, b. Pes. 35b, b. Suk. 35b)]
Comment: The pericope is a composite of three separate, but related
elements: Demai and the poor/workersjtroops. Part A is not a super-
64
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.8, 9
scription for the rest, but an independent lemma, to which part B, a

story about Gamaliel's practice, is attached. Part C is separate from the
foregoing, as follows:
As to collectors of charity
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " T h e y g i v e w h a t is t i t h e d t o h i m w h o d o e s n o t
t i t h e [and t h e r e v e r s e ] . "
Then comes an obvious gloss:

They
will b e
f o u n d [that] each m a n eats w h a t is in o r d e r ( M T W Q N ) .
And finally:
A n d t h e sages say, " T h e y c o l l e c t r e g a r d l e s s ( T M ) a n d d i s t r i b u t e r e g a r d l e s s
( T M ) , a n d h e w h o w a n t s t o o r d e r [ p r o p e r l y ] ( T Q N ) [ = t i t h e ] , let h i m
order."
The form exhibits the curious difference that in place of the Hillelites
are the "sages." We do not know who those sages are. Clearly, the
editor has followed the usual form; but, apparently not having a
Hillelite attribution, he has inserted anonymous "sages." This might
suggest that where Hillelite-materials were not available, they some
times were not invented. We have no evidence as to the time of redac
tion; we do not know which Gamaliel is involved. No other named
sages appear in context. He would seem to stand closer to the Hillelite
position.
II.i.9.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may sell his olives
only to an Associate (HBR)."
The House of Hillel say, "Even to one that [only] pays Tithes."
B. And the more scrupulous (SNW'Y) of the House of Hillel used
to behave according to the words of the House of Shammai.
(M. Demai 6:6, trans. Danby, p. 25)
Comment:
The pericope is abbreviated, for we have no superscrip
tion to supply the topic or principle of law. This is included in the
opening lemma, attributed to the House of Shammai, because it comes
first. A balanced pericope would have given approximately the same
number of words to both Houses:
As to selling olives :
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " O n l y t o a haver"
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, "Also t o o n e w h o t i t h e s "
(but who cannot be relied upon to preserve the olives in a state of ritual
cleanness). The pericope is therefore somewhat developed beyond
what we should have anticipated as the primitive form.
65
The subscription that the scrupulous Hillelites followed the Sham

maite rule looks like the gloss of a later authority who agreed with the
Shammaite opinion, therefore approved those who followed it. Since
by later times the law nearly everywhere followed the Hillelites, it was
necessary to express disagreement by attributing to "the scrupulous"
conformity to the more stringent view. The subscribed gloss does not
necessarily derive from Shammaite tradents.
Albeck explains (Seder Zera'im, p. 87) that the Hillelites hold one
need not take for granted that the purchaser is going to prepare the
olives to receive uncleanness. He may consume them while they are
still dry and therefore unable to receive uncleanness. This is consistent
with other Hillelite rulings which give the benefit of the doubt to
normally unreliable people, e.g. M. Shev. 5:8.
II.ii.5.A. A s t o s w e e t o i l ^ M N ' R B )
The House of Shammai declare liable.
And the House of Hillel declare free [of liability to the laws of
demai],
B. R. Nathan said, "The House of Hillel declare free of liability
[of the laws of demai] only the oil of rose (PLYTWN)."
C. Others say in the name of R. Nathan, "The House of Hillel
declare free of liability the oil of rose and iris (WWYRYNWN).
[Tos. Demai 1:26-7, ed. Lieberman, p. 67,
lines 66-69 (y. Dem. 1:3)]
Comment:
See above, M. Demai 1:3. Judah the Patriarch has dropped
the qualifying remarks attributed by Nathan to the House of Hillel. We
do not know how Nathan knew such a tradition. Lieberman explains
(ad loc.) that these are special cases. No principle of law is involved.
This contradicts the version of M. Demai 1:3. According to Nathan
the dispute concerned the particular oils specified by him:
As to rose I iris oil
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e liable
H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e f r e e [of l i a b i l i t y ]
Judah the Patriarch has preferred a superscription of a far more en

compassing sort:
As to [all]
sweet oil
Clearly, the tradition of the Houses consisted only of House of Shammai j

. . declare liablejnot liable. The later tradents then had to sort out
the legal issues to which the tradition in abbreviated form was supposed
to pertain. Another form for Nathan's opinion would be, They disputed
only concerning, or even MWD YMthey agree + L MH NHLQWcon-
Hillel.
66
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.6, III.i.1, II.i.10
cerning what did they differ. But these formulae never occur in a Nathanlemma.
II.ii.6. The excess (MWTR) of the 'omer, and the two breads, and the
showbread, and the remnants of the meal offerings, and the supple
ments (TW$PT) of the first fruits
R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon,
"The House of Shammai declare liable.
"And the House of Hillel declare exempt."
(Tos. Demai 1:28, ed. Lieberman, pp. 67-8,
lines 69-71)
Comment: Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Zera'im, pp. 206-7, refers
to M. Zev. 9:5, 14:3: This is the 'omer that comes from grain whose
processing was completed by an 'am hd'ares. The House of Shammai
rule that things which are food are liable to the laws of demai, but edibles
used for the Temple altar do not come under the laws of demai. R.
Simeon holds that the House of Shammai disagreed on all matters
listed in M. Demai 1:3. If the dispute is genuine, it means the Temple
priests could not be trusted to keep the Pharisaic demai-tules even for
the cultic table.
II.ii.6*. Tos. Demai 2:12 is discussed below, III.ii.38, b. Bekh. 30b.
III.i.1. WTNY: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon,
"Hallah
[y. Demai 5:1, repr. Gilead, p. 19b (Tos. Demai
1:28, ed. Lieberman, p. 67)]
Comment: The form is standard, and the pericope shows how readily
later generations made use of it without necessarily having access to
antecedent traditions. The issue is whether the law of demai applies to
hallah. Earlier it is taught that the hallah of an 'am ha*ares is free of the
obligation of demai.
II.i.10. He who would lay out his field in plots (MR) each bearing
a different kind [of crop]
The House of Shammai say, "[Between each he must leave a space
equal to] three furrows of ploughed land."
And the House of Hillel say, "The width of a Sharon yoke."
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.10,11
67
And the opinion of the one is near the opinion of the other.
[M. Kila'im 2:6, trans. Danby, p. 30 (y. Kil.
2:4)]
Comment:
The law concerns planting mixed seeds in a vineyard, so
that the distance between the various varieties is such as not to violate
the taboo against sowing mixed seeds. The case before us concerns
laying out furrows bearing different species. The "dispute" concerns
the choice of language of the Houses' respective rulings, for, as the
gloss makes explicit, the actual differences are not considerable. Since
there is distinguishable ground between the furrows, the law of
Kila im
does not apply. In M. Kila'im 2:9 we have a similar super
scription, "He who wishes to lay out his field. . ." with no reference to
the Houses. There Meir, the sages, and Eliezer b. Jacob participate.
It is difficult to imagine the original dispute of the Houses, if the only
considerable difference was in word-choice. Perhaps, as the glossator
says, there was no substantial difference between them at all, but rather,
the Houses handed on pretty much the same measurement in varying
language, and later on the differences in the language were set into
dispute form. This seems to occur fairly often, particularly where
measurements are concerned.
y
Il.i.l 1 .A. Vineyard patch (QRHT HKRM)

The House of Shammai say, "[At least] twenty-four cubits [square]."
And the House of Hillel say: "Sixteen cubits."
The outer space of a vineyard (MHWL HKRM)
The House of Shammai say, "[At least] sixteen cubits."
And the House of Hillel say, "Twelve cubits."
B. What is a 'vineyard patch'? [The part of] a vineyard that is bare
of vines in its midst. If this is less than sixteen cubits [square], seed may
not be sown there; but if it is [at least] sixteen cubits [square], they
must allow the vines enough space for their tillage, and they may sow
in what is left.
[M. Kila'im 4:1, trans. Danby, p. 32 (y. Kil. 4:1,
b. <Eruv. 3b, 93a)]
Comment:
The purpose is to signify a baldspot (QRHT) in the
vineyard, where seeds may be sown without violating the taboo.
What is striking is that the opinions of the Houses are kept in their
primary form, then the gloss (part B) explains what the Houses are
talking about. Thus
Vineyard
patch
House of Shammai: twenty-four
68
House of Hillel:
Sixteen
Outer space of vineyard

House of Shammai: Sixteen
House of Hillel:
Twelve
Then comes What is a vineyard patch? And in M. Kela'im 4:2, the
parallel, What is the outer space of the vineyard} The what is clauses serve as
commentaries to the enigmatic language of the Houses. The glossator
has followed the law according to the Hillelites (sixteen/twelve) when
explaining the case and giving examples, which proves that the gloss is
Hillelite and obviously comes later than the original Houses-pericope.
In M. Kila'im 4:3, Judah b. Ilai disputes the glossator's definitions, but
he does not touch on the opinions of the Houses one way or the other.
Where Hillelites inserted glosses, definitions or supplements into
completed Houses-pericopae, they did not change the existing mate
rials, but they naturally did refer to their own ruling. The cited example,
therefore, will give the correct impression that the Hillelite view is law.
II.i.l2.A. He who plants a [single] row of five vines
The House of Shammai say, "[This counts as a] vineyard."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It does] not [count as a] vineyard,
unless there are there two rows."
B. Therefore if he sows [within the] four cubits of the vineyard
The House of Shammai say, "He rendered forfeit [Lit.: sanctified,
QD$] one row."
And the House of Hillel say, "He rendered forfeit two rows."
[M. Kila'im 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 33 (y. Kil.
4:2, 3, 6)]
Comment: Part A is in standard form: vineyardjnot vineyard, but with
an important gloss. If it is a vineyard, one must plant seed no nearer
than four cubits. If not, one may plant within six tefahs. The issue is, Is
the collection of five vines regarded as a vineyard or not? The House of
Shammai say, Vineyard. The House of Hillel say, No vineyard. Then
comes the gloss, "Unless there are there two rows." How many plants
are in the two rows? That is the crux of the matter. Since the super
scription specifies five plants to begin with, we might have imagined
that the Hillelites are talking about two rows of ten plants, and the
. difference between the Houses is fivejten. However, M. Kila'im 4:6,
immediately following, takes for granted that three plants constitute
one row for the purposes of defining a vineyard. Therefore the Hillelite
view presumably is that six plants in two rows will constitute a vineyeard, but not five plants in one row. If so, the dispute ought to have
read something like this:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.13
69
He who plants a row of vines

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Five [equal a v i n e y a r d ]
Six [in t w o r o w s e q u a l a v i n e y a r d ] .
The attribution to the Shammaites poses no problem in its present form.

But the Hillelite lemma is ambiguous and awkward, Not
vineyard
unless. . . The simpler form has been broken and reconstructed so as to
give the Shammaites the ruling, and to leave the Hillelites in the
position of supplying an enigmatic saying, itself requiring a gloss.
The joining-word of part B, LPYKK, is also difficult. One is left to
wonder whether a later authority has drawn the implications of the
earlier dispute, now phrasing the whole as a direct attribution to the
Houses. The rule concerns one who sows within the four amot (cubits)
he must have for the tending of the vineyard. How much land does he
have to forfeit? The language is QD (as in Deut. 22:9); he has sancti
fied one row, according to the Shammaites, and two according to the
Hillelites. Normally one should not sow within four amot of the vine
yards. If he does, he gives up the outermost row of the vineyard,
nearest the seed, for the Shammaites hold one row is called vineyard; and
the Hillelites require both the outermost and that next to it, since they
hold that vineyard means no less than two rows.
Surely it would have been possible to present the whole as a com
posite pericope:
He who plants a row of vines
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F i v e [equal a v i n e y a r d ]
House o f Hillel:
Six
He who sows within four amot
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : L o s e s ( Q D ) one r o w (five plants)
House of Hillel:
L o s e s two r o w s (six p l a n t s )
It looks as if therefore is a joining word connecting two quite indep

endent Houses-disputes. Alternatively, the Houses-disputes originally
consisted only of the numbers five] six, one I two, and these have been
broken down into two separate, but thematically related laws. Or
perhaps in choosing LPYKK as the joining-word, the redactor wished
to make it clear that it was he himself who drew the logical consequen
ces of the former pericope, but no lemma attributing such opinions to
the Houses themselves existed.
C
II.i.l3.A. What is the 'trellised vine' ( RYS)?

If a row of five vines was planted beside a fence ten handbreadths
high or beside a ditch ten handbreadths deep and four wide, four
cubits are allotted for its tillage.
B. The House of Shammai say, "They measure the four cubits from
the root of the vines toward the field [beyond the wall]."
70
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.13
And the House of Hillel say, "From the wall [itself] toward the
field."
C. R. Yohanan b. Nuri said, "All err that say so; but [the House of
Hillel said that] if there was a space of four cubits from the root of the
vines to the wall, space enough is allotted for its tillage, and seed may
be sown over what is left."
D. And how much is the space needful for the tillage of the vine?
Six handbreadths in every direction.
R. <Aqiba says, "Three."
[M. Kila'im 6:1, trans. Danby, pp. 34-5 (y. Kil.
6:1)]
Comment:
As above, we have a definition (part A) serving as a
gloss for a Houses-dispute. But A is ignored, not answered. Albeck
explains (Seder Zera'im, p. 366), that the question "What is the trellised
vine" is to be interpreted not as a definition of such a vine"which
everyone well knew"but rather, What is the trellised vine whose law
follows that of the vineyard, to which one gives four cubits as tillage.
The cubits to which reference is made come between the plants and the
wall, not on the other side of the wall.
Then (part B) the Houses dispute about it. One sets aside the ground
necessary for working the trellised vine (etc.) and may sow further
back. While earlier (M. Kil. 4:5) the House of Hillel held that the vine
yard must mean two rows, they agree concerning the trellised vine that
even one row is judged as if it were a vineyard. The House of Shammai
held that one measures back from the roots toward the field, the House
of Hillel, from the wall itself. The primary language of the original
tradition obviously would conform to the formula now attributed to
the Hillelites:
House o f S h a m m a i : [From the] r o o t
House o f Hillel:
[From the] w a l l
The rest (The four cubits need be measured only) has been added, and since
the House of Shammai comes first, its saying has necessarily been aug
mented for the sake of completeness and clarity.
The foregoing account presupposes the agreement of the Houses
that, with reference to the trellised vine, even one row is judged like a
vineyard. Yohanan b. Nuri (part C), however, revises the dispute.
Even in connection with the trellised vine, one row is not regarded by
the House of Hillel as a vineyard, and one does not concede to it four
amot. If between the trellised vine and the wall are four cubits, one
allows for its tillage six tefahs, just as for a row of single plants, and one
may then sow the rest. But if there are not four amot between the wall
and the plants, it is prohibited to sow between the wall and the plants,
even though their law is not as that of the vineyard. Yohanan thus has
completely ignored the Shammaite position, rejected the antecedent
71
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A I I . i . 1 4 , II.ii.7, 8
version of the dispute, and supplied his own. Albeck comments

p. 366) that the tradition of Yohanan b. Nuri must have
been, "As to the trellised vine, one separates from it four cubits and
provides it with its tillage."
Tos. Kil. 4:1 reads, "Rabban Gamaliel and his court ordained that
one separates four cubits from the root of the vines to the wall." This
follows Yohanan b. Nuri's tradition, that if there are not four cubits in
the trellised vine, it is prohibited to sow there.
(Seder Zercfim,
II.i.14. As for the weasel, R. Yosi says, "The House of Shammai

say, 'An olive's bulk conveys uncleanness by carrying, and a lentil's
bulk by contact'."
^
^
^
^
[
( y
8:4)]
Comment:
R. Yosi presents the Shammaites' view, that the weasel is
in the category of a "doubtful beast" since it may be a wild animal. The
House of Shammai hold that one who carries as much as an olive's bulk
of the weasel, as of the corpse of any wild beast, even though he does
not touch it, is unclean; and because the weasel may be regarded as an
insect, one who touches as much as a lentil's bulk is unclean, but the
insect does not render unclean by carrying. So the stringencies of both
categories apply.
It is difficult to ascertain the source of Yosi b. Halafta's ruling for the
Shammaites. No equivalent Hillelite opinion occurs.
11.11.7. [As to] the caper-bush (SLP)

The House of Shammai say, "[It constitutes] mixed seeds in the
vineyard."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It does] not [constitute] mixed seeds."
And both (>YLW W'YLW) agree that it is subject to the law of
[Tos. Kila'im 3:17, ed. Lieberman, p. 217,
lines 60-1 (b. Ber. 36a, y. Ma'aserot 4:4, y. Kil.
5:8)]
11.11.8. "The young shoot that passes over a stone, even though
there are only two fingers' [depth] of dirt on itone may sow on it,"
the words of R. Meir.
R. Yosa says, "Three fingers."
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The House of Shammai say,
'Ten tefahs?
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Six tefahs.' "
(Tos. Kila'im 4:11b, ed. Lieberman, p. 220,
lines 41-4)
72
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.8, II.i.15, 1 6
Comment: II.ii.7 is a completely conventional pericope. In the vine

yard serves both Houses' lemmas, y. Kil. 5:8 adds a second element on
which the Houses agree: It is "not mixed seeds among seeds"(ZR'YM).
Then, allagree. . .
II.ii.8 is still another instance in which the generation of Usha and
other, later Tannaim supply opinions in the name of the Houses. The
issue between them is what measurement pertains to the vine below
the ground. The House of Hillel, which earlier permitted six tefahs for
the explosed plant (above, M. Kil. 6:1.C-D, following Yohanan b.
Nuri), maintain (or, are given) the same position here. The House of
Shammai hold that the law of the vine planted in the ground is the
same as the law of the exposed vine, and a space of ten is required
(Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, adloc, p. 644, to lines 42-3). Once again
we are left to wonder at Simeon b. Gamaliel's source for the dispute of
the Houses. M. Kil. 7:1 holds that if there are not three tefahs of dirt on
it, one may not plant seed there. Judah the Patriarch therefore has ig
nored the alleged dispute of the Houses; but he must have known it.
II.i.15. Until what time do they plough a tree-planted field in the
year before ( RB) the Seventh Year?
The House of Shammai say, "So long as this benefits the produce
[of the sixth year]."
The House of Hillel say, "Until Pentecost."
And the opinion of the one is near the opinion of the other.
C
[M. Shev. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 39 (y. Shev. 1:1,

b. M.Q. 3b)]
Comment: The context is the additional Sabbatical months added to
the year before the actual Sabbatical Year. Work must not be done then
to benefit the produce of the Seventh Year. The Houses say much the
same thing, but in different language. The principle is not disputed.
The gloss again says no actual disagreement between the Houses
existed; each phrased its opinion in its own way. Both preserved their
own word-choices, later on combined in what apparently was the
only form available for that purpose: the dispute.
M. Shev. 1:2 then provides a necessary gloss, defining "a treeplanted field." No dispute between the Houses centers on that defini
tion. It is difficult to assign responsibility for the gloss. It is neutral, but
not necessarily early.
II.i.l6.A. A field that has been cleared of thorns [in the Seventh
Year] may be sown in the eighth year (MWS'Y SBY'YT). [But one]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.16
73
that has been prepared, or used by cattle, may not be sown in the
eighth year.
B. A field that has been prepared
The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat its produce in the
Seventh Year."
But the House of Hillel say, "They eat."
C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat produce of the
Seventh Year if it is by favor [of the owner]."
The House of Hillel say, "They eat it whether by favor or not by
favor."
D. R. Judah says, "The rule is to the contrary; this is one of the
lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of
the House of Hillel."
E. He who thins out (HMDL) olive trees [in the Seventh Year]
The House of Shammai say, "He razes them to the roots (YGM)."
The House of Hillel say, "He uproots them (YSRS)."
F. But they agree concerning one who levels his field [that he may
only] raze [the trees to the roots].
G. Who is he that 'thins out'? [He that removes but] one or two.
And he that 'levels'? [He that removes at least] three [growing] side
by side. This applies to what grows within a man's own domain; but
within the domain of his fellow he that levels may also uproot.
[M. Shev. 4:2, 4, trans. Danby, p. 43 (y. Shev.
4:2,4,9:6)]
Comment:
The issue is, What work is permitted in the Seventh Year?
And what to do with the produce thereof? M. Shev. 4:2, given in parts
A-D, is a composite.
Part B concerns the disposition of the produce of a field which in
the Seventh Year has been improved or used by cattle, therefore
fertilized. The House of Shammai hold one may not consume the
produce of such a field in the Seventh Year, even though it may have
grown without the farmer's cultivation. The House of Hillel say it
may be eaten. The form is standard:
Fruit of a field that has been improved in the Seventh
Year:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y d o n o t eat
H o u s e o f H i l l e l : T h e y eat.
The Shammaite-opinion has been augmented with an explanatory

clause, itsfruit in the Seventh Year. The unglossed opinions of the Houses
originally would have been noteatjeat.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.16
PartC
lacks a topic-sentence or superscription but is perfectly
clear because of the conventional augmentation of the opening clause,
the Shammaite saying. The issue is, Are the fruits of the field ownerless
property? The Shammaites hold that the produce is regarded as owner
less property; therefore if the owner's permission is needed or granted,
then the produce may not be consumed. The Hillelites hold that the
produce may be consumed whether by favor or otherwise. In part D
Judah b. Ilai reverses matters, on the principle that this matter of law
should have the Shammaites in the lenient position, therefore the
Shammaites must be given the opinion that one may eat the fruit
whether or not by the owner's favor, and the Hillelites, only if it is not
with the owner's favor. See Sifra Behar, 1:5, and M. Ed. 5:1. Judah
the Patriarch has ignored Judah b. Ilai's tradition. Obviously, Judah b.
Ilai had, or would have fabricated, something like the following:
c
As to fruits
of the seventh year
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ T h e y eat t h e m ] b y f a v o r o r n o t b y f a v o r .
The House o f Hillel:
[ T h e y eat t h e m o n l y ] n o t b y f a v o r [ O r : t h e y d o
n o t eat t h e m b y f a v o r ] .
The primary language before all authorities therefore was simply:

By favornot
by favor I not by favor.
Clearly, to keep matters straight, various sorts of mnemonic devices

must have circulated, helping the tradent to assign the correct opinion
to the correct House. This further implies that the original tradition
left matters unclear, and consisted, as we have several times noticed, of
a few gnomic words, later on spelled out, assigned to the Houses, and
glossed (as in M. Shev. 1:2 above, for one instance, were the 'treeplanted field' of which the Houses spoke is carefully defined).
M. Shev. 4:4, parts E, F, and G, above, contains in part G the same
sort of extended gloss of the Houses' opinions.
Part E concerns what work may be done in connection with thin
ning out olive trees. The Shammaites hold one may cut down the trees
to the roots, but may not pull up the roots, since that would appear to be
improving the field. The Hillelites concede (part F) that in leveling the
fieldtherefore not merely thinning out the treesthe farmer may not
pull up the roots. Part G then supplies a definition for the foregoing
rules: thinning out is removing one or two, but leveling is pulling up
three together. Part G applies to both Houses, merely a philological
gloss.
The form of M. Shev. 4:4 is standard. The only variation is in the
selection of different words for the opinions of the Houses, rather than
using affirmative/negative versions of the same verbal root; the Sham
maites say YGM, he may raze, the Hillelites, YR, he may uproot,
both in the affirmative. In fact, the difference between razing and up
rooting is the point of the dispute. The form looks suspiciously like a
difference merely in word-choices for saying pretty much the same
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
75
ILi.17
thing (e.g. M. Shev. 1:1). It is possible that no dispute originally

existed between the Houses, but rather different verbal traditions
persisted. In this case both Houses held one may indeed thin out the
olive trees. In preserving the two traditions in a single pericope, it
became important not only to keep the language used by the Houses,
but also to stress that a dispute, or difference, actually separated them.
Here, unlike M. Shev. 1:1, a substantive difference could be attached
to the words chosen by the Houses. But a different gloss, the opinion of
one is near the opinion of the other, would have served almost as satis
factorily. This is all the more evident in part F, where the range of
disagreement is narrowed still further: two vs. three trees.
y. Shev. 4:2 has Tarfon follow the House of Shammai, with the
same result as M. Ber. 1:3B. If not with permission, as the House of Sham
mai is not a later gloss, then Tarfon supplies both the terminus ante
quern and the refutation of Judah b. Ilai, part D. See Epstein, Mevo'ot,
p. 94; Mishnah, p. 58.
II.i.l7.A. After what time is it forbidden to cut down a tree in the
Seventh Year?
The House of Shammai say, "Any tree [may not be cut down] after
it puts forth [leaves]."
The House of Hillel say, "Carob treesafter their branches begin to
droop; vinesafter they produce berries; olive treesafter they
blossom; and any other treeafter it puts forth [leaves]."
B. Any tree that has reached the season, when it is liable to tithes,
may be cut down.
[M. Shev. 4:10, trans. Danby, p. 44 (b. Pes.
52b)]
Comment: Produce in the Seventh Year may only be eaten, not
destroyed, according to M. Shev. 8:2:
T h e p r o d u c e o f t h e S e v e n t h Y e a r is f o r e a t i n g , d r i n k i n g , ( e t c . ) a n d n o t
for destruction.
The pericope before us presupposes and follows the general rule,

though not necessarily in its present form. The Shammaite rule applies
overall. The Hillelites supply definitions for various trees, ending with
the definition of the Shammaites. Thus:
After
what time is it forbidden to cut down trees?
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E v e r y treeafter in puts forth

House o f Hillel:
C a r o b s , v i n e s , o l i v e t r e e s etc. [And]
it puts forth.
every
treeafter
The rule for carobs, vines, and olives differs from that for the re-
76
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.18, 19
mainder. It depends in these instances not on leaves but on other

phenomena. At issue, therefore, is whether specific rules pertain to
these three or not. Perhaps, once again, the real difference is in the
style of formulating the Houses' respective opinions. The Shammaites
may have advanced a general principle. The Hillelites obviously did not
differ about the general principle, but provided a number of specific
illustrative instances. It all comes down to the same thing. So the
dispute-form required the specification of distinctions where no real
differences separated the substance of the Houses' opinions.
Il.i.l8. When arum (LWP) remains from the sixth year until the
Seventh Year, so, too, with summer-onions and madder from good
soil
The House of Shammai say, "They may only be dug up with wooden
rakes."
The House of Hillel say, "With metal spades."
But they agree that madder from stony soil may be dug up with
metal spades.
^
^
^
trans. Danby, p. 45 (y. Shev.
5:2)]
Comment:
The form is standard and poses no problems. The speci
fied produce has ripened in the sixth year. Normally, one uproots them
with spades, not merely pulls them up. The House of Shammai re
quire a change in the normal procedure so that the process will not
appear to be working the land in the Seventh Year. The Hillelites hold
one may do so in the ordinary way. As to the agreement on madder,
it is because one simply cannot do it any other way (so Albeck, Seder
Zera'im,
p. 152). The Houses' opinions are balanced, except they uproot
them:
M'RWPWT $L<S
QRDWMWT SLMTKT
But here the issue is not mere word-choice, but a substantive difference.
ILi. 19.A. The House of Shammai say, "He should not sell him a
ploughing heifer in the Seventh Year."
And the House of Hillel permit it, since he can slaughter it.
B. One may sell him produce even in time of sowing; even if it is
known that he has a threshing-floor, one may lend him a /^-measure;
and one may give him small money in change even if it is known that
he employs laborers. But if [it is known that these things are required]
expressly [to transgress the Seventh Year law], they are forbidden.
[M. Shev. 5:8, trans. Danby, p. 45 (y. Shev. 5:3,
b. A.Z. 15b)]
77
Comment:
The pericope supplies full, unbalanced statements to both
Houses. This is unusual; especially unexpected is attaching the reason
to the Hillelite ruling. Part B adds further examples of the Hillelite
view, presumably from the same glossator, ending with the restrictive
aspect of the Hillelite ruling. The pericope is apt to be a highly de
veloped summary of a primary dispute that would have looked some
thing like this:
As
to selling a ploughing heiferi n the Seventh Year to one suspected of not observing
the
law:
House of Shammai:
Prohibit
House of Hillel:
Permit
Everything else is a Hillelite gloss. As in earlier instances the redactor

has given a full account of the dispute in the Shammaite part of the
pericope, then preserved the Hillelite part in its primary form: permit.
The law in question concerns selling to someone who may not
scrupulously observe the Sabbath-year. M. Shev. 5:7 supplies the
antecedent of him: a gentile in Palestine and a Jew abroad. To the
Hillelites is attributed the more lenient view. Since the heifer does not
give milk, the Shammaites imagine it can only be used for ploughing,
thus violating the law. The Hillelites take account of an unlikely
possibility and so permit the sale. The context is laws concerning sales
in the Seventh Year. Immediately preceding is a general rule: "Any
implement is forbidden [for sale] whose sole use is one that transgresses
[Seventh Year law]. But it is allowed if its use may be either one for
bidden or one permissible" (M. Shev. 5:6). The general rule therefore
is formulated on the basis of the Hillelite principle. The Shammaites
would not have used sole, rather general, or something similar. The
pericope before us ought to antedate the general rule.
Tos. Shev. 4:5b has the same dispute in principle, this time about
selling land; and Tos. Shev. 6:19 has a less exact parallel.
II.i.20.A. Seventh Year produce may not be sold, whether by bulk,
weight or number; even figs [may not be sold] by number or vegetables
by weight.
B. The House of Shammai say, "Nor even (>P) in bundles."
And the House of Hillel say, "What is usually tied up in bundles in
the house may be tied up in bundles in the market; like, for example,
leeks and asphodel."
^ .
.
^
(M. Shev. 8:3, trans. Danby, p. 48)
0 1
Comment:
o x
The general rule is given in M. Shev. 7:3:
. . . n o n e m a y d o business w i t h S e v e n t h Y e a r p r o d u c e , o r w i t h F i r s t l i n g s , o r
w i t h H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , o r w i t h c a r r i o n , o r w i t h w h a t is terefah, o r w i t h f o r
b i d d e n beasts a n d c r e e p i n g t h i n g s .
[In t h e S e v e n t h Y e a r ] a m a n m a y n o t g a t h e r w i l d v e g e t a b l e s and sell t h e m
78
in t h e m a r k e t ; y e t h e m a y c o l l e c t t h e m , a n d his s o n m a y sell t h e m f o r h i m i n
t h e m a r k e t . If h e h a d g a t h e r e d t h e m f o r his o w n use a n d a n y t h i n g r e m a i n s ,
he m a y sell it.
The general rule in part A above amplifies the foregoing. One may not
sell even what one is allowed to sell in the Seventh Year in such a way
that it looks like doing business in the normal fashion.
To this general rule, the House of Shammai now add a detail: One
may not even make up bundles, as is normally done. The House of
Hillel say one makes minor changes in the ordinary manner of doing
things and may therefore bind up in the market rather than at home,
with the gloss's supplying examples. It is difficult to imagine the brief
pericope of which this is an amplification. Perhaps:
[ G e n e r a l r u l e : O n e d o e s n o t sell b y b u l k , w e i g h t , n u m b e r ]
As to making bundles
House of Shammai: Prohibit
House of Hillel:
Permit.
This, however, is manifestly unsatisfactory, for it fails to find a place

for the exact opinion of the Hillelites, which one can hardly reduce to a
simple one or two-word formula. If one added as usual at home, the
Shammaites would be misrepresented, for they prohibit under all
curcumstances.
II.ii.9. One may water the plants until the New Year.
R. Yosa b. Kifar says in the name of R. Leazar, "The House of
Shammai say, 'One waters the foliage, and it drips on to the root.'
"The House of Hillel say, '[One waters both] on the foliage and on
the root.'
"The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'If you permit
him part, permit him all. If you do not permit him all, do not permit
him part.
[Tos. Shev. 1:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 166, line

19p. 167, line 23 (y. Shev. 2:4)]
Comment:
M. Shev. 2:4 has the Shammaite opinion in the name of
Eliezer b. Sadoq, "A man may even water the foliage in the Seventh
Year itself, but not the roots." The Leazar here is, however, Eliezer
b. Shamrmâ, so Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 488, to lines 19-20.
I see no difficulty with the logia attributed to the Houses, though the
Shammaite one in primary form ought to have begun, "Foliage, not
root," corresponding in form to the Hillelite one. The colloquy how
ever is truncated; the expected Shammaite response is not given. This
suggests that the colloquy's unanswered question is a Hillelite gloss,
deriving from circles other than those responsible for the HilleliteShammaite exchanges seen earlier. The Hillelite tendency elsewhere is
79
to point up Shammaite inconsistences, e.g. in connection with picking

olives and grapes, above, I, pp. 318-321.
II.ii.10. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The House of Shammai
and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning that which was
complete, that it [is assigned to] the past [year], and concerning that
which has not blossomed, that it [is assigned to] the coming one.
"Concerning what did they differ? Concerning the pod (TWRML),
"For the House of Shammai say, '[It is assigned] to the past [year].'
"And the House of Hillel say, '[To the] coming [one].' "
21-25 (y. Shev. 2:8, Tos. Ma. 1:5)]
Comment:
The dispute relates to M. Shev. 2:7-8. M. Shev. 2:7
specifies that if various species, e.g. rice and sesame, have taken root
before the New Year, they are tithed after the manner of the past year;
i.e. if the past year was liable for First and Second Tithe, it is given; if
for First and Poorman's Tithe, that is given. But if not, they are for
bidden in the Seventh Year, and then are to be tithed after the manner
of the coming year. As to Egyptian beans, Simeon of Shezur assigns to
them the same rule if they are sown for seed. Simeon says, "If they are
large beans." Eleazar says, "Large beans are treated in like manner only
if they have formed pods before the New Year." As to shallots and
Egyptian beans not watered within thirty days of the New Year, they
are tithed after the manner of the past year and are permitted in the
Seventh Year (M. Shev. 2:9). Otherwise they are forbidden in the
Seventh Year and are tithed after the manner of the coming year.
Simeon b. Gamaliel now introduces the issue of a dispute of the
Houses, and holds it concerns whether pods have formeda case be
tween a completed growth-cycle and a growth-cycle not yet begun. In
such an intermediate, ambiguous situation the Houses take the two
possible positions. We do not know how Simeon b. Gamaliel knew the
tradition on the Houses-dispute, which is absent in the corresponding
Mishnahs, and for which we have no chain of tradition or earlier
allusions. But a parallel problem is in Tos. Shev. 4:21.
The simplest possible form is before us:
The pod
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T o the past [year] ( L S ' B R )
House of Hillel:
T o the c o m i n g [one] ( L ' T Y D L B ' ) .
While, therefore, the form is simple and conventional, understanding

its substance would have required considerable information. But this is
generally the case and provides no criterion in evaluating the likely
authenticity of the attribution to the original Houses. One may theorize
that here the Houses serve as convenience-names, to which to attribute
80
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.ll, 1 2
the two possible opinions on an intermediate or ambiguous stage of an

issue. Simeon may on his own have fabricated the Houses-dispute, in
conformity with a prevailing literary convention.
Il.ii.l 1. [One may not sell produce of the Seventh Year to one
suspected concerning the observance of the Seventh Year. . .]
The House of Shammai say, "One may not sell him a field in the
Seventh Year."
And the House of Hillel permit [it].
[Tos. Shev. 4:5b, ed. Lieberman, p. 180, lines
10-13 (b. A.Z. 15b)]
Comment:
The same pattern was evident in M. Shev. 5:8. Here the
dispute is extended to the sale of a field. The Hillelites depend on the
unnatural assumption that the Seventh Year violator bought the field
intending to plant it after the Seventh Year. The form follows that of
M. Shev. 5:8: House of Shammai say, "One may not sell. . .," and
House of Hillel permit. The difference is that here the superscription is
not inserted into the Shammaite opinion as explanatory matter, because
it does not pertain, but stands before, and independent of, the Sham
maite lemma, as one would expect, since it speaks of produce, not a
field. The superscription therefore has merely given an antecedent to
him, such as is lacking in M. Shev. 5:8. The Hillelite position here lacks
the gloss "since he may perchance. . ." Dropping the glosses, the
whole pericope therefore follows M. Shev. without significant change
of form. That means available Houses' opinions have been assigned to
a new legal issue. But these opinions, consistingin effectof prohibit]
permit, ate standard and not intrinsically related to the superscription to
which they are assigned.
C
ILii. 12. (M SH B) R. <Aqiba () picked an etrog on the first day of

Shevat and treated it according to the words of the House of Shammai
and according to the words of the House of Hillel.
71-2 (b. R.H. 14a-b, y. Bik. 2:5, y. R.H. 1:2, b.
Eruv. 7a, b. Yev. 15a; compare Tos. Shev.
2:6)]
c
Comment:
The story is simple, the background complex. Lieberman
explains: The first of Shevat pertains to the third or sixth year of the
seven-year cycle. R. Aqiba agrees with R. Gamaliel (M. Bik. 2:6) that
the etrog when it is picked is to be tithed. The House of Shammai (M.
R.H. 1:1) hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year for trees, so it is
c
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
81
II.ii.13, II.i.21
already the third (or sixth) year of the cycle, and Poorman's Tithe
must be given. The House of Hillel place the New Year on the fifteenth
of the same month, so it is still the second or fifth year of the cycle, and
the etrog is liable for Second Tithe. R. 'Aqiba has separated the Second
Tithe and both redeemed it and given it to the poor, therefore satisfying
the opinions of both Houses (Lieberman, Tosefta ZeraHm, p. 185, note
to 1.71).
For our purpose the story is valuable in indicating, first, a terminus
ante quern for the rulings of M. R.H. 1:1 (below), second, an attitude of
respect for the Shammaites one would not have expected on the basis of
the Tarfon/Ishmael stories in connection with the Shema .
1
ILii. 13. The House of Shammai say, "They do not sell the produce
of the Seventh year for coins, but for produce, so that he will not
purchase for them [the coins] a spade."
(Tos. Shev. 6:19, ed. Lieberman, p. 192, lines
33-5)
Comment:
The problem is that the man may buy something which is
not for eating, as in M. Shev. 8:2, "Seventh Year produce is intended
for use as food, drink, or unguent. . ." The positions are consistent
with Tos. Shev. 4:5b. The remarks on the form of that pericope pertain
here as well.
II.i.21 .A. Heave-offering may not be given from olives instead of

from oil, or from grapes instead of from wine.
B. If they gave Heave-offering
The House of Shammai say, "[It may still be deemed] Heave-offering
of the olives or of the grapes themselves (TRWMT <SMN BHM)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Their Heave-offering is not Heaveoffering."
[M. Ter. 1:4, trans. Danby, p. 52 (y. Ter. 1:2,

5; 4:4; M. <Ed. 5:2, b. Hul. 163a)]
Comment:
The issue is set in part A, which necessarily comes before
part B ; the Houses here differ only on secondary matters. The presump
tion is that the law-code existed in its final form before the Houses
discussed the problem before us, as is often the case.
The rule is, One does not give Heave-offering from produce whose
preparation is completed for produce whose preparation is incomplete
(M. Ter. 1:10). The House of Shammai hold (Albeck, Seder ZeraHm,
p. 179n) that the Heave-offering he is liable to separate from the olives
and grapes themselves inheres in the olives and grapes which he has
already separated, but what he has separated from them for the olive-oil
NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II
82
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.22
or wine is not Heave-offering. Therefore the law of the olives and

grapes which he has separated is like the law of a mixture of Heaveoffering with unconsecrated food. If the unconsecrated food contains
one hundred times more than the quantity of the Heave-offering, it
is neutralized and does not have the status of a mixture (M. Ter. 4:7).
If not, the mixture is to be sold to priests, who are allowed, of course,
to use it.
The House of Hillel say, "Since he intended to give Heave-offering
also for the oil and the wine, Heave-offering is simply not present here
at all." So the dispute concerns the legal force of intention. Albeck
adds that since it was common to give Heave-offering from olives
for olive oil and from grapes for wine, the House of Hillel ruled
stringently: even though one has given the Heave-offering, in no way
has he carried out his obligation in the matter.
The form is standard:
If they gave
Heave-offering:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e i r o w n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is i n t h e m
<SMN B H M )
House o f Hillel:
T h e i r H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is n o t H e a v e - o f f e r i n g
CYN TRWMTN TRWMH)
(TRWMT
The sayings, though metrically balanced, are not quite syzygies. On the
other hand, the choice before the House of Shammai did not include
the ruling Their Heave-offering is Heave-offering,which. would have been the
logical and formal opposite of the Hillelites' negative. The Shammaite
ruling still is brief and simple in form, matching the Hillelites' in the
number of syllables.
See Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 436; Mishnah, p. 399.
II.i.22. The proper measure of Heave-offering, if a man is liberal, is
one-fortieth part.
The House of Shammai say, "One-thirtieth."
If he is liberal in medium degree, one-fiftieth part; if he is mean, onesixtieth part.
^
^
.
[
5 6
( y
3 ) ]
Comment: The gloss containing the House of Shammai's opinion

takes for granted the existence of the structure into which it is inserted.
Otherwise, the Shammaite ruling would have to be that one gives onethirtieth under all circumstances, which is impossible.
The Tosefta version must be introduced for comprehension of the
Shammaite lemma:
The proper measure of
Heave-offering:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " I f a m a n is l i b e r a l [ L i t . : g o o d e y e ] , [ O n e ] o f
t h i r t y ; i f h e is l i b e r a l i n t h e m e d i u m d e g r e e [ L i t . : i n t e r m e d i a t e ] , [one] o f
f o r t y ; a n d if h e is m e a n [ L i t . : e v i l ] , [one] o f f i f t y . "
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.23
83
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " I f a m a n is l i b e r a l , o n e o f f o r t y ; i f h e is l i b e r a l
i n t h e m e d i u m d e g r e e , o n e o f f i f t y ; a n d i f h e is m e a n , o n e o f s i x t y . "
( T o s . T e r . 5 : 3 , ed. L i e b e r m a n , p . 1 2 9 , l i n e s 9 - 1 2 )
The Mishnaic pericope therefore is identical with, and follows, the

Hillelite position, but it is not so labeled. Rather, the Shammaite view
is interpolated into the Hillelite position, which is presented anony
mously. The fact that the Shammaites held a contrary, or different,
view would not have been revealed without the gloss. Otherwise, the
whole Houses-pericope would have been preserved, as is ordinarily the
case.
The primary form of the pericope clearly must have been the
numbers:
Measure of
Heave-offering:
House of Shammai: 30/40/50

House o f Hillel:
40/50/60
The meaning would have been readily apparent, and no difficulty could
have inhered in assigning the tradition to a particular legal problem, or
given the principle that the Hillelites normally are more liberalthe
right opinion to the right House.
M. Ter. 4:3 therefore looks like a defective tradition, for either the
Shammaites should have been dropped altogether, or the Hillelites
should have been included by name. For formal reasons the Mishnah
either is a secondary development and shows us that Shammaite
opinions could have been (and, in who knows how many instances,
were) suppressed, or it is garbled. We have other instances of the
garbling of just this sequence, best, medium, worst, below, b. R.H.
II.L23.A. [If] one se'ah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred
se ahs of clean Heave-offering
The House of Shammai forbid.
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Since clean
[Heave-offering] is forbidden to non-priests, and also (>P) unclean is
forbidden to priests, if the clean can be neutralized, cannot the unclean
be neutralized also?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "No! If common produce
(HLYN),to which leniency applies and which is permitted to nonpriests, neutralizes what is clean, should Heave-offering, to which
stringency does apply and which is forbidden to non-priests, neutralize
what is unclean!"
C. After they hadagreed
R. Eliezer says, "It should be taken up and burned."
y
84
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.23
But the Sages say, "It is lost through its scantness (*BDH
BM'WTH)."
[M. Ter. 5:4, trans. Danby, p. 58 (y. Ter. 5:2)]
Comment: The issue is, Is the unclean Heave-offering neutralized in

the clean? The Shammaites prohibit it, and the House of Hillel permit
it. According to the Shammaites it must be left to rot; the priests
cannot use it ("prohibit").
The argument of the Hillelites (part B) is this: Clean Heave-offering
is prohibited to non-priests, and unclean is prohibited to priests. Since
clean Heave-offering is capable of being neutralized when it falls into
one hundred times its quantity of unconsecrated food, so the unclean
should be neutralized in clean Heave-offering.
The Shammaites reply that common produce can indeed serve to
neutralize what is clean. But clean Heave-offering, to which more
stringent rules apply, cannot serve to neutralize unclean.
PartC begins with the agree ment-iotm, but does not specify who
agreed with whom. Normally, part B would have ended the argument.
The Shammaites would have the last word and win. Later masters
assume that the House of Shammai agreed with the House of Hillel. As
it stands, after they agreed serves as a joining-formula, to tie R. Eliezer
b. Hyrcanus's opinionin the present tense!to the antecedent ele
ments.
Part C is a separate pericope, awkwardly tied to the superscription of
the whole:
[ If]
one seâh of unclean Heave-offering fell
into hundred se*ahs of clean Heave-
offering :
R. E l i e z e r says, " I t s h o u l d b e t a k e n u p a n d b u r n e d . "
T h e sages say, " I t is l o s t [ = n e u t r a l i z e d ] t h r o u g h its s c a n t i n e s s . "
The word-choices differ from the foregoing, but the positions are the
same:
Eliezer =.
Sages
=
H o u s e of S h a m m a i
H o u s e of H i l l e l
That is, the man must take up a se'ah and give it to the priest, as in the
case of clean Heave-offering that is neutralized, but the se*ah is not to be
eaten, rather to be burned like unclean Heave-offering (M. Tern. 7:5).
Hence Eliezer forbids the unclean Heave-offering to the priest, just as
do the House of Shammai. The sages' position, that it is lost (= neutral
ized) through its scantiness, is identical with the Hillelite position. There
is no necessity to supply further Heave-offering. The whole is regarded
as Heave-offering, and the priests consume it in a state of cleanness.
The substance of part C, excluding the curious redactional formula,
after they had agreed, is a separate and complete pericope, which duplic
ates or is duplicated by part B. The differences are in word-choice, but
the law is the same.
Eliezer's position is consistent in the following rulings: in M. Ter.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
85
II.i.23
5:2, If one se ah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred se ahs of

common produce; M. Ter. 5:5, If one se ah of Heave-offering fell etc.,
and was lifted out and again fell; M. Ter. 5:6, If one se ah of Heaveoffering fell into less than a hundred. The whole constitutes a veritable
repertoire of Eliezer rulings on pretty much the same legal issue, spelled
out in closely related cases.
The commentaries, which suppose that the Houses came to an
agreement in conformity with the Hillelite position and that afterward
Eliezer disagreed, take for granted the existence of a unitary text. They
therefore hold that Eliezer's position remains consistent with the
Shammaites' original one, and the issue therefore becomes this: Does
the man have to take up a se ah as Heave-offering for the priest, as in
the case of clean Heave-offering? He doesbut then it is to be burned.
This, I have argued, still is in effect the Shammaite position at the
outset ("prohibit"), therefore no different in substance from before.
The sages' enigmatic saying is that the whole is annulled, and the
commentaries see the issue as whether Heave-offering now has to be
taken up. The sages' view is that it does not have to be taken up because
the whole has been made Heave-offering and the priests get to consume
it in a state of ritual purity (etc.) as explained above.
Seeing the pericope as a complex of two versions of the same dispute,
with corresponding positions taken by the Houses and the later masters,
we do not have to introduce the issue of whether Heave-offering is
further
to be taken up. Both versions stand in direct relationship to the
opening problem as given in the superscription:
y
A se ah of unclean Heave-offering that has fallen into hundred se*ahs of clean Heaveoffering.
Which version comes first? The word-choices of the Houses-opinions

are curiously inappropriate to the argument:prohibit'\^permit. They have
no direct bearing on the facts of the case. One has to know that "pro
hibit" will mean that the unclean Heave-offering is not neutralized in
the clean Heave-offering, therefore is "prohibited" for priestly use.
By contrast, Eliezer's language is entirely appropriate: / / should be
raised up and burned. This specification of the fate of the unclean Heaveoffering answers the problem set in the topic-sentence: A se ah of un
y
clean Heave-offering
that fell
into a hundred
se ahs
of clean
Heave-offering.
Likewise the Hillelite languagepermitis generalized and irrelevant

to the immediate context, while the sages' language, It is lost through its
scantiness, completes the topic-sentence. On the face of it, therefore, the
Houses-dispute looks like an interpolation in the Eliezer-sages peri
cope; if one dropped the Houses, the whole would be lucid and tightlyorganized.
Two separate versions have been awkwardly combined, the Houses'
dispute and argument, and the Eliezer-sages' formally conventional
ruling (Statement of the problem, Rabbi X rules, Sages [Rabbi Y]
rule). Since the latter renders more precise and clear what the former
86
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.14
leaves generalized and unclear, it seems to me likely that the latter

improves upon, and comes later than, the former. But this is merely a
suggestion. Yavneh surely supplies the terminus ante quern.
Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 61 n. 20; Mishnah. p. 708.
II.ii.14. [If a man] had black and white figs in his house, and so
two kinds of wheat, they give Heave-offering and Tithe from one for
the other.
R. Isaac says in the name of R. Eleazar, "The House of Shammai
say, 'One does not give Heave-offering.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'One does give Heave-offering [in
such a circumstance, from one for the other].' "
[Tos. Ter. 2:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 112, lines
10-12 (y. Ter. 4:7 = Eliezer and Joshua; b.
Hul. 136b)]
Comment: The rule is that one may not tithe or give Heave-offering
for differing species. But all kinds of wheat, nuts, pomegranates, and
so forth are respectively regarded as single species. The issue before us
therefore is the rule as to Heave-offering. The antecedent rule (Tos.
Ter. 2:4) follows the Hillelite view that one gives both Heave-offering
and Tithes from two kinds of wheat (presumably, also figs etc.). The
named authorities are responsible for a version of the Houses-disputes.
We should have expected
As to two kinds of figsjwheat (etc.)
House o f S h a m m a i : T h e y d o n o t give Heave-offering [from o n e f o r the
other]
H o u s e o f Hillel:
They d o give Heave-offering [from one for the other].
We may therefore suppose that some other disputes following the

conventional form such as given here would have been shaped by
named Tannaitic authorities, and that the final versions, dropping re
ference to the authorship of later authorities, would represent a later
development. This is contrary to the normal procedure alleged to have
been followed by Tannaim, that those responsible for pericopae are
named, and the names are carefully preserved. Many Houses-pericopae
are assigned to later authorities.
Lieberman notes (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 310, to p. 112 lines 11-12) that
b. Hul. 136b gives R. Ilai. The change from 'Eleazar to 'Ele'a'y is in
the last two letters only. b. Hul. 136b, whose reading Lieberman calls
"certain", reverses matters:
If he had two kinds of figs, black and white, and so two kinds of wheat, they
do not give Heave-offering and tithefrom thisfor that.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA II.ii.15,16
87
R. Isaac says in the name of R. Ilai, "The House of Shammai say,

'One does not give Heave-offering.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'One gives Heave-offering.' "
So the superscription in this version follows the Shammaite opinion.
The substance of the Houses-opinions is the same.
ILii. 15.A. When do they make it [the vat for winepressing] un
clean?
The House of Shammai say, "After the First Tithe is taken."
The House of Hillel say, "After the Second Tithe is taken."
B. R. Judah said, "The law is according to the words of the House
of Shammai, but the majority (HRBYM) behave according to the
words of the House of Hillel."
C. And the sages say, "They remove the Heave-offering of the
tithe and forthwith render the vat unclean."
[Tos. Ter. 3:12, ed. Lieberman, pp. 118-9,
lines 43-47 (y. Ter. 3:2, Tos. Toh. 11:4)]
II.ii.l6.A. They may not give Heave-offering of oil for crushed
olives, and not of wine for trodden grapes, and if he gave Heaveoffering, it is Heave-offering, but he goes and gives Heave-offering
again. . .
B. R. Yosa says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They give Heaveoffering.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not give Heave-offering.'
"They agree that if he gave Heave-offering, he needs [y. Ter. 1:5:
not] to give Heave-offering a second time."
[Tos. Ter. 3:14, ed. Lieberman, p. 119, lines
50-54 (y. Ter. 1:5,8; M. <Ed. 5:2)]
Comment:
According to Tos. Ter. 3:12 the householder sets aside a
place for the tithe and takes out the Heave-offering of the tithe, but he
does not have also to take out the tithe, for it does not matter that he
gives unclean tithe to the Levite, //the Heave-offering of the tithe has
already been removed from the tithe. Lieberman explains (Tosefta
Kifshutah,
p. 329, to lines 44f.) that it was customary intentionally to
render the vat unclean so that there would be no doubt of the matter.
If it is rendered unclean, people will be more careful not to allow clean
things to touch it (as in M. Ter. 3:4). The Palestinian version reverses
the opinions of the Houses. Lieberman observes that this is not listed
among the lenient rulings of the Shammaites (M. Ed. 5:1-2). The form
of the Houses-dispute poses no difficulty.
c
88
As to ILii. 16, the issue is whether the crushed olives are regarded as
olives or as olive-oil. Clearly, it would be more logical to regard them
as olives. The superscription is Hillelite: one does not give Heaveoffering. R. Yosa's version has the Hillelites prohibit the matter, lest,
from the case of crushed olives, people assume that olive-oil is likewise
given for olives, which is contrary to the law. The Hillelites are again
in the more stringent position. The parallel is M. Ter. 1:4, above, p.
81. For further discussion, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 331-2.
Epstein, Mevo*ot p. 436, notes that it is Meir who is the authority for the
contrary view, that the Shammaites are in the stringent position, y. Ter.
1:5. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 399.
II.ii.l7.A. He who gives Heave-offering of grapes for the market
[ = eating] but eventually makes them raisins; figs, but eventually
makes them dried figs; pomegranates, but eventually makes them into
split and dried (PRD) pomegranatesit is Heave-offering [even
though this is produce whose preparation has been completed eventu
ally, serving as Heave-offering for produce whose preparation has not
been completed], and he does not have to give Heave-offering a
second time.
B. R. Eliezer says, "The House of Shammai say, 'He does not have
to give Heave-offering a second time.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He has to give Heave-offering a
second time.'
C. "The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'Lo, it
is said (Num. 18:27) [ And jour offering shall be reckoned to you as though it
were the grain of the threshing floor and] as the fulness of the wine press. This
one has not given Heave-offering from the winepress.'
"The House of Shammai said to them, 'Lo, it says (Lev. 27:30) All
the tithe [ of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees is
the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord]. If you say that he needs to give Heaveoffering a second time, this one has not carried out also // is holy to the
Lord: "
(Tos. Ter. 3:16, ed. Lieberman, p. 120-1,
lines 61-7)
Comment: What is striking is the attribution to R. Eliezer of the
entire Houses-dispute, including the conventional debate. Since, as we
have observed, Eliezer's opinions and those of the Shammaites some
times coincide, so that he was called the Shammaite, it is of interest to
find pericopae attributing the Houses-form to the authority of Eliezer.
On that basis, we obviously cannot attribute all of the Houses-materials
following what we have called conventional form to Eliezer, but we do
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.18,19
89
have prima facie evidence that the conventional form of disputes does
derive from early Yavneh. Clearly, it later on was copied.
Part A anonymously presents verbatim the Shammaite rule.
The pericope supplements and explains M. Ter. 1:9-10 (trans.
Danby, p. 53) (and see M. Ter. 1:4, above, p. 81):
Heave-offering may be given f r o m oil instead o f f r o m olives that are t o
be p r e s e r v e d , o r f r o m w i n e instead o f f r o m grapes that are to be m a d e into
raisins.
If a m a n gave Heave-offering f r o m oil instead o f f r o m olives intended for
eating, o r f r o m [other] olives instead o f f r o m olives intended f o r eating, o r
f r o m w i n e instead o f f r o m g r a p e s i n t e n d e d f o r e a t i n g , o r f r o m [ o t h e r ]
grapes instead o f f r o m grapes intended for eating, and he afterward deter
mined t o press them, he need n o t g i v e Heave-offering afresh.
H e a v e - o f f e r i n g m a y n o t b e g i v e n f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is
finished i n s t e a d o f f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d , o r f r o m
p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d i n s t e a d o f f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e
p r e p a r a t i o n is finished, o r f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d
instead o f f r o m [ o t h e r ] p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d .
B u t i f t h i s is d o n e , t h e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is v a l i d .
R. Eliezer here contributes the dispute of the Houses. If he has trodden

the grapes (or carried out the other procedures listed), then retroactively
it becomes clear that he has not given Heave-offering. The Shammaite
argument is that when he gave the Heave-offering, since he had not yet
given thought to treading the grapes, he already has sanctified the
Heave-offering and has already carried out holy to the Lord: "If you say
that he has to give Heave-offering a second time, you annul what is
already holy unto the Lord"
It is noteworthy that Eliezer's version follows the simplest mnemonic
style; the Houses-opinions differ only as to the inclusion of the ne
gative, but otherwise are identical. It is clear that the mnemonic marks
do not in themselves prove a pericope is "very old." What it does
suggest is that Yavnean materials in many instances were shaped so as
to facilitate memorization. The Houses-debate of part C is another
matter, but, reduced to the Scriptural citations and brief exegesis of
them, the debate would not greatly alter the form for easy memoriza
tion.
ILii.18. Tos Ter. 5:3, see above, p. 83.
Il.ii.l9.A. [If] A se*ah of unclean Heave-offering (that) fell into a
hundred se*ahs of clean Heave-offering
The House of Shammai prohibit.
And the House of Hillel permit.
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Clean
[Heave-offering] is prohibited to outsiders (ZRYM) [non-priests], and
90
unclean [Heave-offering] is prohibited to priests. If clean [Heaveoffering] can be neutralized, so the unclean also can be neutralized."
The House of Shammai said to them, "No! If you say so concerning
clean [Heave-offering], which is neutralized by [a sufficient quantity of]
unconsecrated food so as to be given to priests to eat, will you say so
of unclean [Heave offering], which is not neutralized [in a sufficient
quantity of] unconsecrated food so as to be given to priests to eat [but
is burned, M. Ter. 5:2]?"
C. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, unclean [Heave-offering]
which fell into the unconsecrated [food] will prove [the point], for it
does not become neutralized by the unconsecrated food so as to be
given to outsiders to eat, yet it is neutralized."
The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say so concerning
unconsecrated food, whose permissibility is considerable [for outsiders
eat it], will you say so of Heave-offering, whose permissibility is not
considerable [for it is limited to priests] ? "
D. The House of Hillel said to them, "And concerning which is the
Torah more stringent? For outsiders or priests who eat Heave-offering?
"[And] concerning outsiders who eat Heave-offering: a clean person
who ate clean [Heave-offering], and a clean person who ate unclean, an
unclean person who ate clean, and an unclean person who ate un
cleanall of them are punished by death.
"But as to priests who eat Heave-offering: the clean [priest] who
ate clean*[Heave-offering] did as he was commanded [to do]. The clean
[priest] who ate unclean [Heave-offering transgresses] a positive
commandment. And the unclean [priest] who ate clean [Heave-offer
ing] and the unclean priest who ate unclean [Heave-offering all trans
gress] a negative commandment.
"And is it not an argument qal vehomer: Now in a situation in which
the Torah dealt stringently, namely with outsiders who ate Heaveoffering, lo, it is neutralized by unconsecrated food so as to be eaten
by outsiderin a situation in which the Torah dealt leniently, namely
with priests who eat Heave-offering, is it not logical that the un
consecrated food should neutralize it so as to be eaten by priests?"
E. After they had agreed [that the unclean is neutralized and not for
bidden], R. Eliezer says [sic], "It should be taken up and allowed to rot."
And the sages say, "It is lost through its scantiness."
[Tos. Ter. 6:4, ed. Lieberman, pp. 137-8, lines
14-31 (y. Ter. 5:4, y. Suk. 2:8, y. Bik. 2:1, Tos.
Zev. 12:17, Tos. Ker. 1:5)]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
91
II.ii.19
Comment: Let us first compare the two versions:

M. Ter.
5:4
Tos. Ter.
1 . A se'ab o f u n c l e a n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g
6:4
that fell
i n t o a h u n d r e d se'abs o f clean H e a v e - o f f e r i n g
yy
yy
2. The House o f Shammai prohibit

9
3 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel p e r m i t
yy
yy
yy
yy
yy
yy
3
y
* '
4 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e H o u s e
Shammai
of
yy
yy
yy
5 . S i n c e clean is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n g e r s a n d
u n c l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d t o p r i e s t s , j u s t as c l e a n is
neutralized [Lit.: comes up ( / L H ) ] , so unclean
should be neutralized.
5 . C l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n
g e r s a n d u n c l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d
t o p r i e s t s . J u s t as c l e a n is n e u
tralized [Lit.: w i l l come u p ] , so
unclean should be neutralized.
6. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f
the light, u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d ( H L Y N
QLYN),
w h i c h is p e r m i t t e d t o s t r a n g e r s , n e u t r a l i z e d t h e
clean, s h o u l d h e a v y H e a v e - o f f e r i n g ( T R W M H
H H M W R H ) , w h i c h is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n g e r s ,
neutralize the unclean?
6 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said
t o t h e m , N o , i f y o u say s o c o n
c e r n i n g t h e c l e a n , w h i c h is
neutralized in the
unconsecrated t o be eaten b y priests
< W
[Part
Cno
equivalent
in
M i s h n a h t o Hillelite
argu
ment.
Lieberman
says
the
S h a m m a i t e a n s w e r re " p e r
m i s s i b i l i t y is c o n s i d e r a b l e " c o r
r e s p o n d s t o M . T e r . n o . 6,
permitted to strangers.]
7.
8. A f t e r t h e y a g r e e d
9. Rabbi Eliezer says,
( T R W M ) and burned.
Let
it
be
raised
7.
o
[PartD]
yy
yy
yy
up
9 . , , a n d allowed to rot
1 0 . A n d t h e sages s a y , It is l o s t i n its m i n u t e n e s s
CBDH BM'WTH).
10* ,, ,, ,,
W e s e e t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t o f t h e H i l l e l i t e s i n n o . 5 r e c u r s n e a r l y ver
batim,
w i t h t h e m e r e a d d i t i o n o f since i n M . T e r . M . T e r . n o . 6 i s c o n
siderably m o r e complex than Tos. Ter. n o . 6, and has added an allusion

to the argument in Part C of Tos. Ter. (following Lieberman).
Tos.
p a r t s C a n d D h a v e n o close e q u i v a l e n t , p a r t D n o n e at all, in M . T e r .
T o s . T e r . thus supplies three Hillelite and t w o S h a m m a i t e a r g u m e n t s :
I. Hillel:
C l e a n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is p r o h i b i t e d t o o u t s i d e r s b u t can b e n e u
t r a l i z e d ; u n c l e a n , w h i c h is p r o h i b i t e d t o p r i e s t s , a l s o s h o u l d b e
neutralized.
92
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.19, III.ii.4
S h a m m a i : No. Unclean Heave-offering cannot be neutralized b y unconse

c r a t e d f o o d s o t h a t p r i e s t s can ever eat it [ t h e r e f o r e t h e a r g u m e n t
a forteriori
is b a s e d o n false p r e m i s e s a b o u t w h i c h is t h e lesser
(lighter) category].
II. Hillel:
U n c l e a n w h i c h fell i n t o u n c l e a n d o e s n o t b e c o m e n e u t r a l i z e d b y
t h e u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d s o as t o b e g i v e n t o o u t s i d e r s t o eat, y e t it
is n e u t r a l i z e d .
S h a m m a i : N o , u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d can b e eaten b y o u t s i d e r s , b u t H e a v e offering c a n b e e a t e n o n l y b y p r i e s t s .

III. Hillel:
T o r a h is m o r e s t r i n g e n t o n o u t s i d e r s w h o eat H e a v e - o f f e r i n g . It is
a n a r g u m e n t a forteriori:
In a situation in w h i c h the T o r a h dealt
s t r i n g e n t l y o u t s i d e r s w h o eat h e a v e - o f f e r i n g i t is n e u t r a l i z e d
b y u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d s o as t o b e eaten b y o u t s i d e r . I n a s i t u a t i o n
i n w h i c h t h e T o r a h dealt l e n i e n t l y p r i e s t s w h o eat H e a v e - o f f e r i n g
is it n o t l o g i c a l t h a t u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d should n e u t r a l i z e it s o as t o
b e eaten b y priests ?
Argument III looks like an elaborated version of argument I. I do not

see why the Shammaite response in argument I could not have served
as well, perhaps in more pretentious form, in argument III. Clearly,
the dispute-form is preserved in part A. Parts B and C follow the
form normal for debates: Hillel-Shammai, with Shammai's House
getting the last word and winning the argument. It is part D that breaks
the form, clearly a Hillelite (or later) supplement to the whole. I take it
for granted that the earlier argumetns were already shaped and could
well have reached something like their final form before the crucial
Hillelite argument of part D was added. This then leaves no ambiguity.
The Shammaites now are represented as agreeing with the Hillelites,
and Eliezer's opinion follows, naturally, along Hillelite lines. But then
the substance of his opinion requires a different explanation from the
one offered earlier.
For an account of the position of Eliezer in the presumption of a
unitary text, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc, pp. 382-3, to line
30. Lieberman demonstrates that "the House of Shammai did agree
with the House of Hillel," and it seems to me that that is how the
passage was understood in Amoraic times. Epstein, Mishnah, p. 708, has
the same view.
III.ii.4. TNY*: A cask of Heave-offering wine which was made
unclean
The House of Shammai say, "It must be poured out forthwith.
And the House of Hillel say, "It may be used for sprinkling."
(b. Pes. 20b = b. B.Q. 115b-116a)
Comment:
R. Ishmael b. R. Yosi comments on the pericope, there
fore supplying a terminus ante quern: ca. 200, the generation of Judah the
Patriarch.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
93
III.i.2, II.i.24
III.i.2. TNY: R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the

House of Hillel did not disagree concerning clean Heave-offering,
that it is prohibited to burn it, and concerning unclean Heave-offering,
that it is permitted to burn it.
"Concerning what did they dispute?
"Concerning the doubtful [Heave-offering], for
"The House of Shammai say, 'They do not burn.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They burn.'
"The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, 'Do you not
say concerning the clean that it is not to be burned? But I say, perhaps
a priest may spend the Sabbath within the limit, and he may come and
eat it on the Sabbath. So also the doubtful should not be burned, for I
say, perhaps Elijah may spend the Sabbath on Mount Carmel, and he
may come and testify concerning it on the Sabbath that it is clean.'
"The House of Hillel said to them, 'We are positive that Elijah
comes neither on Sabbaths nor on the festivals.' "
, ^
(y. Pes. 3:6)
Comment:
The disagreement may be genuine, but the little debate
cannot be. The issue is discussed frivolously, and leaves the Sham
maites in a silly position. That the form is unconventional is the least
problem. Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 61, shows that Judah's Houses are in fact
the Eliezer and Joshua of b. Pes. 13a.
0
II.i.24. A basket of fruit intended for the Sabbath

The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Tithes].
But the House of Hillel declare it liable.
[M. Ma'aserot 4:2, trans. Danby, p. 71 (y.
Ma'aserot 4:2)]
Comment:
The issue is, Is the produce picked for the Sabbath liable
to tithes if eaten before the Sabbath? The House of Shammai say that it
is permitted to eat of the fruit at random before the Sabbath, since
random-nibbling does not render the fruit intended for the Sabbath to
be liable to the various tithes. The House of Hillel require tithing, since,
while set aside for the Sabbath, the fruit forthwith was liable for the
tithes, and it is prohibited to eat it at random before the Sabbath with
out tithing (Albeck, Seder Zercfim, p. 234).
The form is simple and the opinions of the Houses are phrased in
standard language:
Fruit
of the Sabbath
House of Shammai: Declare exempt

House of Hillel:
D e c l a r e liable
94
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.20, 2 1 , 2 2
Here too it looks as if the House of Shammai has taken the more lenient
position.
Hillel's rulings in Tos. Ma. 3:3-4, above, I, p. 229-231, are consistent.
11.11.20. Tos. Ma'aserot 1:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 228,'lines 15-17.
Comment:
See above, Tos. Shev. 2:6, p. 79. The only change here is
that the dispute concerns not the pod but hyssop (>YBWN/YYBWN),
so Lieberman).
11.11.21. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The Houses of Shammai and

Hillel did not differ concerning one who sifts (BRR) on the ground,
that he is free [of liability]; or concerning one who sifts with a vessel,
that he is liable.
"Concerning what did they differ? Concerning one who sifts by
hand for (S)
c
[Tos. Ma aserot 3:10, ed. Lieberman, pp. 239240, lines 29-32 (M. Bes. 1:8)]
11.11.22. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The Houses of Shammai and
Hillel agree that a man should sell [large quantities, e.g.] a stack of
grain, a basket of grapes, and a vat of olives only to a fellow (HBR)
and to one who works in cleanness.
[Tos. Ma'aserot 3:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 240,
lines 40-42 (y. Demai 6:7, Tos. Ma. 5:4)]
Comment:
The issue of Tos. Ma'aserot 3:10 is whether the man is
liable for tithes if he sifts or selects by hand. The Shammaite position
is consistent with their ruling in M. Bes. 1:8. The Houses-pericope is
attached to the foregoing with .
Tos. Ma aserot 3:13 appears in y. Demai 6:7 without the attribution
to Simeon b. Gamaliel. M. Ma'aserot 5:4 has a similar law:
c
A m a n m a y n o t sell h i s s t r a w o r o l i v e - p e a t o r g r a p e - r e s i d u e t o t h e o n e
t h a t is n o t t r u s t w o r t h y i n w h a t c o n c e r n s t i t h e s f o r h i m t o e x t r a c t t h e juices
therefrom. . .
Here, the converse, concerning cleanness, is stated in the affirmative.

The issue is, May one sell to him who is reliable for tithes but not for
preserving the cleanness of the food? M. Demai 6:6 (above, p. 64) has
the following:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.22, II.i.25
95
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " A m a n m a y sell his o l i v e s o n l y t o a f e l l o w

(HBR)."
A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " E v e n t o o n e t h a t [ o n l y ] p a y s t i t h e s . "
The Hillelites permit the sale only of olives, since the unreliable pur
chaser may eat them whole and not crush them; the olives therefore are
not yet susceptible to receive uncleanness. But if the man states he
plans to crush them for the oil, even the Hillelites forbid the sale to him.
Simeon b. Gamaliel here adds that all agree that one may not sell to
one who is not a fellow (HBR) large quantities of wheat, grapes, and
olives, for he will certainly make them liable to receive uncleanness,
therefore they will become unclean, so Lieberman, Tosefta
Kifshutah,
p. 705.
The form is standard, which shows that once it was available, later
authorities (Simeon) made use of it for their own glosses of earlier
materials. The position of the Hillelites is at issue; the Shammaites had
already prohibited such a sale. Simeon b. Gamaliel presumably could
not state on his own authority a position apparently contrary to that of
the Hillelites, but he could have the Hillelites "agree" with the Sham
maites, therefore come out in favor of the law he wanted to advance.
Still later, the superscription attributing the whole to Simeon was
dropped, leaving the Houses-dispute in the form one would have
imagined to be primary. Once again, therefore, we observe that Housesmaterials at the outset were shaped by later masters, and not only in the
setting of pre-destruction Jerusalem or early Yavneh. The forms
apparently were so widely known and conventional that they would
be used even for what amounted to new material. The attestations that
Yavnean masters knew Houses-disputes therefore become all the more
important in helping us to separate possibly authentic from certainly
fabricated materials attributed to the Houses.
II.i.25.A. Second Tithe of fenugreek may be consumed only in its

green condition.
As for Heave-offering [of fenugreek]
The House of Shammai say, "Whatsoever concerns it [is done] in
cleanness, save combing [the head] therewith."
And the House of Hillel say, "Whatsoever concerns it [is done] in
uncleanness, save the soaking of it."
B. Second Tithe vetches may be consumed only in their green con
dition and may be brought up to Jerusalem and taken out again.
If they have contracted uncleanness, R. Tarfon says, "They should
be divided among lumps of dough."
But the sages say, "They should be redeemed.
C. As for Heave-offering [vetches]
96
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.26
The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, but
And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness, but they rub
and give as food in uncleanness."
Shammai says, "They must be eaten dry."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them [may be done] in un
cleanness."
ILL26.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not change his
s'elas for golden denars"
B. R. Aqiba said, "I changed silver for golden denars for Rabban
Gamaliel and R. Joshua."
C. If a man changes a s'ela s worth of Second Tithe money [outside
of Jerusalem]
The House of Shammai say, "He may change it for a whole s'ela"
And the House of Hillel say, "A sheqeFs worth of silver and a
sheqeVs worth in copper coins."
D. R. Meir says, "They may not change silver and produce
[together] into [other] silver."
But the sages permit it.
E. If a man would change a s'ela of Second Tithe money in Jeru
salem
The House of Shammai say, "He must change the whole s'ela into
copper coins (M WT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "He may take one sheqeVs worth of
silver and one sheqeFs worth in copper coin."
They that made argument before the sages say, "Three denars' worth
of silver and from the fourth [denar] a quarter in copper coin."
Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] consume
its value (WY'KL KNGDH)."
c
[M. M.S. 2:3,4,7,8,9, trans. Danby, p. 75-6 (y.

M.S. 2:2,3,4; y. Ter. 3:3; b. B.M. 44b-45a)]
Comment: Before us are discrete pericopae, not a collection.
(M. M.S. 2:3) exhibits standard form:
[Fenugreek]
heave-offering
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , A l l its w o r k s ( M ' S Y H )
combing (HVYPTH)
in
IIJ.25.A
cleanness, e x c e p t
its
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
A l l its w o r k s
(SRYYTH)
97
II.i.26
in
uncleanness,
except
its
soaking
The sayings are thus evenly matched in all respects and the rhythm is
identical. Only word-order changes.
The House of Shammai say it is prohibited to make Heave-offering
unclean. One must therefore preserve ritual purity in dealing with
Heave-offering of fenugreek, for it may serve as food. When small and
properly cooked, it can be eaten; when full-grown and hardened, it is
not eaten, but used as a comb. It would therefore not be subject to the
laws of Second Tithe, but Heave-offering still would be given from it.
It represents the sort of intermediate situation on which the Houses
are apt to disputethe sort of pattern to suggest that the Houses here
serve as (imaginary) authorities to which conveniently to assign the two
theoretically possible, diametrically opposed positions.
The Shammaite position is that only when the fenugreek is used for
combing is it no longer going to be eaten; therefore it need not then be
preserved in a state of ritual purity. The House of Hillel regard it as not
in the category of food except when soaked in preparation for eating.
The dispute is clear: Is fenugreek to be treated as food, except when it
clearly is not suitable for eating? Or is it to be treated not as food, except
when it clearly is suitable for eating? There are no other possible
positions. See Tos. M.S. 2:1, below, p. 108.
11.1.25
part B-C (M. M.S. 2:4) is a similar dispute (see above, I,
p. 189); here the issue again concerns Heave-offering, this time of
vetches. The form is identical:
[Vetches]
Heave-offering
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : S o a k e d a n d r u b b e d in cleanness, a n d g i v e n as
f o o d in uncleanness
H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y : S o a k e d i n c l e a n n e s s , a n d r u b b e d a n d g i v e n as f o o d
in uncleanness.
Vetches may be eaten when soft, but once fully grown, they are fed to
cattle. One does not feed Second Tithe to cattle, but Heave-offering
may be so used. The Houses once again take the two possible, opposing
positions. Since the vetches are notyet given to cattle to eat, the Sham
maites hold they must be preserved in a state of ritual purity, like other
food. Only when given to cattle may they be unclean. The Hillelites
rule that only the first stage is in cleanness, the rest in uncleanness. The
sayings match in every detail except word-order; the position of in
cleanness is the sole formal difference.
11.1.26
parts A-B (M. M.S. 2:7) concern changing Second Tithe into
coins for the journey to Jerusalem. The Shammaites hold one may not
change them for golden denars. The Hillelites say the opposite. The
form is somewhat complex, for the opinions not only are not matched,
but also are not readily reconstructed as a syzygy:
[ A s t o c h a n g i n g ] selas [of S e c o n d T i t h e ] to denars of gold:
House o f Hillel:
Permit
98
But the transition from the language now attributed to the Shammaites
to the above is not simple. Normally it is easy to extract the general rule
from the first House's opinion [Shammaites] and to restore it as a
superscription. But here one must drop a man may not change, which is
part of the substance of the Shammaite position, and it is difficult to
imagine the rest without it.
Part B, the testimony of 'Aqiba, tells us that the early Yavneans
followed Hillelite practice. Is Shammaite practice so widespread that
the deeds of the early authorities supply important contrary evidence?
Unlikely, since no one made the pilgrimage any more. Does Aqiba
intend to make it clear that the early Yavneans followed Hillelite
practice? But who suspected the contrary? Everyone "knew" that the
law follows the Hillelites. Perhaps the chronological order of the
pericope's elements therefore ought to be reversed. Possibly, opinions
of the Houses survived, but no one was quite sure which opinion was
to be attributed to which House. 'Aqiba's testimony made it clear that
the dominantHilleliteopinion was that one may change silver for
golden denars. Then comes the formulation of the dispute. The record
of part B was preserved, owing to the conservatism of the tradents,
along with part A, which must, therefore, postdate Aqiba. It is also
possible that no opinions of the Houses derived from pre-'Aqiban
times, but that those holding the opposite opinion from his were re
legated to the position of the House of Shammai, in a redaction of the
matter in the form of a (fictitious) Houses-dispute. The former alter
native seems to me somewhat more likely.
Parts C-D (M. M.S. 2:8) is a related, but separate, pericope. The ex
change is copper coins of Second Tithe for a sela of silver for the jour
ney, to Jerusalem. If the man has copper coins worth a whole sela, he is
permitted to make the exchange, according to the House of Shammai.
But if he has copper coins for only half a sela, and for the other half he
has a sheqel, that is, half a sela, of silver of Second Tithe, he may not ex
change them all together for a whole sela of silver, for one may not ex
change the silver of Second Tithe for silver (Albeck, Seder Zera'im,
pp. 252-3). The House of Hillel say one may indeed exchange a sheqel of
silver and a sheqel of copper coins for a sela of silver; since he is giving
copper coins for half, it is permitted to change the silver as part of the
transaction.
The dispute of Meir and the sages is along the same lines, only now it
is silver and produce for a sela; the Hillelite ruling applied only to
copper coins and silver, not to produce and silver. The sages extend the
Hillelite leniency even further.
Part E (M. M.S. 2:9) brings the repertoire to a conclusion. Now the
man is in Jerusalem with his large coin, and requires small change again.
The House of Shammai say he must change the whole thing to copper
coins, since one may exchange in Jerusalem only silver for copper, but
not copper for silver, and not silver for silver. The House of Hillel say
that since he is changing silver for copper, he may also change silver for
silver as part of the transaction. The other positions are of no interest
c
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
ILi.26, 27
99
here. Parts C and E (M. M.S. 2:8 and 9) follow the same form:
If a man changes a coin's worth of Second Tithe money
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : A l l t h e s'elacoins
House o f Hillel say:
A sheqel o f s i l v e r , a n d a sheqel o f c o i n s .
If a man would change a sela of Second Tithe in ferusalem
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : A l l the
selacoins
H o u s e o f Hillel say:
A sheqel o f s i l v e r a n d a sheqel o f c o i n s .
Thus in both instances, the Houses are given the same opinions,
phrased in exactly the same words. If the Houses' opinions are accur
ately represented, they then are placed into the context of two different
disputes. It again seems that the tradents had difficulty not only in
attributing the right opinion to the right House, but also in figuring out
to what legal problem the opinions actually pertained.
Part D is added to part C. The later opinions of part E are all tacked
on as well. That does not mean that the several authorities (including
Shammai, above, I, p. 190) came later than the Houses, knew their
opinions, and disregarded them. On the contrary, it would suggest that
the Houses' opinions had not yet been redacted and may not have ex
isted. One can hardly fix the rule that where later masters differ from
Houses' rulings, it was because they did not know those rulings, and
therefore the rulings presumably did not exist, but were formulated
afterward and attributed to the Houses. This would, however, seem
likely when, as in this instance, the masters not only make no reference
to the Houses' opinions, but also use quite different language for their
own. It further conforms to my suggestion about the formulation of
the Houses' opinions after 'Aqiba.
If so, one must wonder why the laws about bringing Second Tithe
money to Jerusalem were under debate when Jews could not make the
pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. Was there no earlier tradition
on the subject? Why formulate the law now that it was no longer a
serious consideration? As to the former, it looks either as if the earlier
common law was unknown to the rabbis (highly unlikely), or as if
there was no law on the subject at all. As to the latter, the rabbis cer
tainly expected Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the rite of pilgrimage with
Second Tithe money to be restored, so they legislated for that time,
which, they fully expected, could not be long postponed. It was part
of their broader effort to ensure through proper observance of the
whole Torah that the future Temple would not suffer the fate of the
last one, when, manifestly, the whole Torah had not been observed.
On M. M.S. 2:8-9, Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 76-77, 216; on M. M.S. 2:4,
p. 273: p. 73: Aqiba's Hillelites of Tos. M.S. 2:1 are in M. M.S. 2:4 as
the anonymous authority. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 487.
c
ILi.27.A. Produce that was fully harvested and passed through

Jerusalem, the Second Tithe thereof must be brought back again and
consumed in Jerusalem.
100
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9
B. If it was not yet fully harvested, [such as] grapes [that are carried]
in baskets to the winepress, or figs in baskets to the drying-place)
The House of Shammai say, "The Second Tithe thereof must come
back and be consumed in Jerusalem." (MS Kaufmann: YHZWR
WYTRWM M<SR NY LHM WY'KL. . . = He should return and
raise up their Second Tithe etc.).
And the House of Hillel say, "It may be redeemed and eaten any
where."
C. R. Simeon b. Judah in the name of R. Yosi says, "The House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute about produce that
was not fully harvested, whose Second Tithe can be redeemed and
eaten anywhere. But about what did they dispute?
"About produce that was fully harvested
"For (S) the House of Shammai say, 'The Second Tithe thereof must
come back and be consumed in Jerusalem [ = part A].'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It may be redeemed and eaten any
where.' "
And demai-[iptodxLce] may be brought in and taken out again and
may be redeemed.
D. [If] a tree stands within [the wall of Jerusalem] and [its boughs]
stretch outside, or stands outside and [its boughs] stretch within, [the
part of the foliage] directly above the wall and inwards is deemed
within [Jerusalem], and the part directly above the wall and outwards
is deemed outside.
E. [If] the entrances to olive-presses [in the city wall] were within
[Jerusalem] and their contained space (HLLN) outside, or their ent
rances outside and their contained space within [Jerusalem]
The House of Shammai say, "The whole [is deemed] as within
[Jerusalem]."
And the House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and
inwards [is deemed] as within and the part directly above the wall and
outwards [is deemed] as outside."
II.i.28. If Second Tithe was brought into Jerusalem and contracted
uncleanness, whether from a Father of Uncleanness or from an Off
spring of Uncleanness, whether within or without [the wall of Jeru
salem]
The House of Shammai say, "All should be redeemed and consumed
within [the walls], excepting only what was rendered unclean by a
Father of Uncleannesswithout [the walls]."
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.27, 28, 29
101
And the House of Hillel say, "All should be redeemed and consumed
outside [the walls], excepting only what was rendered unclean by an
Offspring of Uncleannesswithin [the walls]."
II.i.29. The House of Shammai say, "[If he would give Heave-off
ering from one on behalf of all after he has sealed them up], he opens
[the jars] and empties [them] into the winepress."
And the House of Hillel say, "He opens [them], but he need not
empty them."
[M. M.S. 3:6,7,9,13, trans. Danby, pp. 77-8 (y.
Ma'aserot 3:4; y. M.S. 3:3,4,5,6; b. Mak. 20a)]
Comment:
II.i.27: Parts A, B, C, (M. M.S. 3:6), concern bringing
back to Jerusalem for consumption in the city Second Tithe which once
has passed through. The produce now cannot be redeemed for coins.
The first version of the Houses' dispute concerns produce which was
not fully harvested and passed through Jerusalem, for instance, grapes
brought to the vat and olives to the press. The House of Shammai say
that the Second Tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem,
and the House of Hillel say that the Second Tithe may be redeemed for
coins and consumed anywhere, and (of course) the coins must be
brought back to the city. The dispute therefore places the Houses at
the two possible, opposing poles. What is the rule for produce whose
harvest procedures are still in progress ? It is either like produce whose
procedures have been completed (Shammaites), or like produce whose
harvest procedures have not been undertaken, so far as the trip through
Jerusalem is concerned (Hillelites). The form poses no difficulties:
Produce not fully harvested:
The Second Tithe in it
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : Returns a n d e a t e n i n
House o f Hillel:
Is redeemed a n d e a t e n
ferusalem.
anywhere.
The rulings can be restored to the form of balanced opposites, in the

conventional form (1) HZR (2) 'KL (3) BYRWSLM VS. (1) PDH (2)
'KL (3) BKL MQWM. Thus (1) is a matched opposite, also (3); in both
instances we find the same number of syllables. (2) is the same in both
parts. (MS Kaufmann adds YTRWM to the Shammaite ruling, but this
does not recur in its version of Yosi's Shammaites.)
In part C, R. Yosi, as before, supplies a quite different version of the
dispute. Both Houses agree that the produce is treated like ordinary
fruit outside of the citythat is, they agree on the Hillelite position.
They differ as follows:
Produce that has b e e n fully harvested: The Second Tithe in it
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : Returns a n d is eaten in ferusalem
House o f Hillel:
Is redeemed a n d eaten anywhere.
102
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9
So Yosi has repeated the same rulings, but attached them to a diff
erent superscription. Yosi's superscription now serves for the whole
pericope, according to the antecedent (anonymous) tradent, as part A.
Following him, the parties agree on the position attributed by Yosi to
the Shammaites; he thus has made the Hillelites into Yosi's Shammaites.
The difference between Yosi and the anonymous tradent concerns
whether the word not occurs in the superscription of the Housesdispute. Otherwiseexcluding the gloss about grapes and olivesthe
two versions are identical, both in superscriptions and in the body of the
Houses-dispute. Yosi's tradition obviously did not include the Houses
did not disputethat is his own. It consisted, as I said, of a slightly
different superscription, but of identical opinions. The anonymous
tradition (parts A-B) comes before Yosi. Whether he himself then
revised it for reasons of his own, or whether he actually had a tradition
such as we have reconstructed, of course no one can say (see Tos. M.S.
2:11). Middle-second-century masters were quite well prepared to
revise Houses-materials according to their own understanding of
either the law or of "history," probably the former, and to present as
authentic Houses' disputes what in fact were their own fabrications.
I Li.29:
Parts D and E (M. M.S. 3:7) present legal issues that could
not have affected many people even while Jerusalem flourished. They
are the kind of legal theorizing about intermediate, ambiguous cate
gories, of which the sages seemed so fond. The rule of part A is clearcut
and decisive; all parties agree. The tree is regarded as entirely within
Jerusalem; therefore one must eat the produce in Jerusalem and may
not redeem it for coins. The Houses-dispute then introduces a more
difficult matter, namely, olive presses in a similar state. The practical
difference is whether the olive-oil must be consumed in the city or may
be redeemed for coins.
The theoretical problem obviously is going to be more interesting.
It concerns a crop, work on which is completed (therefore making it
liable to tithes) partly in Jerusalem and partly outside the citythe
third possible state already introduced in II.i.25, parts A-B:
A . F u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d passed t h r o u g h J e r u s a l e m
B . N o t y e t f u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d passed t h r o u g h J e r u s a l e m
C. N o t y e t f u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d n o t f u l l y t h r o u g h / i n J e r u s a l e m w h e n t h e
w o r k is c o m p l e t e d .
that is, the most ambiguous situation of all.

The Shammaite ruling (following the formulation of parts A-B) is
that the whole is regarded as having been done in Jerusalem; therefore
the laws of Jerusalem apply. This remains their position throughout.
.The Hillelites rule that one must determine which part of the crop will
be subjected to which law. The language of the House of Hillel is
identical with the tree-ruling of part D. Had a ruling been preserved,
the House of Shammai would have ruled that the tree should be seen
as unambiguously within Jerusalem, because part of it was there.
M. M.S. 3:8 thus stands within the Hillelite tradition.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
103
II.i.27, 2 8 , 29
The whole complex looks suspicious. To be sure, the historical

Houses may indeed have debated such theoretical legal problems. But
the reappearance of the same words in opinions on quite different
matters, the fabrication by later authorities of revised versions of the
entire dispute, and the absence of a Houses-dispute on part D, where
the appearance of the Hillelite opinion of part E verbatim would suggest
the Shammaite contrary opinion, also verbatim, ought to have been
givenall suggest that what we have is a fabrication in the Houses'
names (and not fully worked out) of a later, theoretical dispute. This
further points to the persistence of the Houses-form after the Houses
ceased to exist.
II.i.28,
M. M.S. 3 : 9 , continues the theme of Second Tithe in
Jerusalem. The tithe has come to the city but has been made unclean.
The dispute now is complicated by two different degrees of unclean
ness. The Father of Uncleanness is an insect or a corpse. An Offspring of
Uncleanness is something made unclean by touching a Father of Un
cleanness, therefore itself of lesser uncleanness. As in Sifra the super
scription is impossible, since it announces that the Houses will not
make such distinctions, and these distinctions then constitute the heart
of their disagreement.
The distinction on where the uncleanness took placeen route to
Jerusalem or in the citydoes not figure in the Houses' dispute, so
that element of the superscription is accurate. But not entirely so, since
the superscription begins, . . .enteredJerusalem
and made unclean and then
adds the qualification, whether within or without. It looks to me as if the
superscription has been doctored. Let us present what might have been
the earliest version of the dispute:
Second Tithe that entered Jerusalem
and was made unclean (in
Jerusalem)
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ A l l is r e d e e m e d , a n d c o n s u m e d ] inside [the c i t y ]
House o f Hillel:
[ A l l is r e d e e m e d a n d c o n s u m e d ] outside [the c i t y ] .
The Houses-dispute therefore resolves itself into the words inside/

Nothing more is required. The place and source of the unclean
ness play no role whatever. The whether-cl&uses are an accurate gloss
on the foregoing. The Houses-rulings are simple and unambiguous, no
matter the circumstances.
Our earlier discomfort at the contradiction of the whether inside]
outside, whether Father/Offspring,
however, was not without cause, for
inside I outside is either redundant of the simple was made unclean, or con
tradicts it. The whether-cl&uses therefore must be glosses supplied after
the revision of the Houses-sayings themselves, to represent the dispute
as it originally had taken place, contrary to the intrusions of the later
glossator; so comes the second stage:
outside.
Second Tithe that enteredJerusalem and was made unclean

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : A l l r e d e e m e d a n d e a t e n inside + (except t h a t w h i c h
w a s m a d e u n c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is eaten] o u t s i d e )
104
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9
House o f Hillel:
A l l r e d e e m e d a n d e a t e n outside - f (except t h a t w h i c h
w a s m a d e u n c l e a n b y a n O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is eaten]
inside).
The issue has not only been made more complex, but new problems
have been introduced. The Houses-positions preserve fixed differences
throughout.
As to the position of the Shammaites, Second Tithe which has been
made unclean is redeemed even in Jerusalem. It nonetheless is prohib
ited to bring in the food which has been redeemed outside of the city.
But food made unclean by a major source of uncleanness and which has
entered Jerusalem may be taken out again and eaten outside (so Albeck,
Seder Zeraîm, p. 257). So the intrusion of Father/Offspring has necessarily
required the introduction of unclean + insidejoutside. The Hillelite
position is that the whole is redeemed and taken outside, except
what is made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness in Jerusalem
thus introducing in the city to go along with Offspring. And the rest
follows: he eats in Jerusalem and may not take it out.
Thus the distinction of Father/Offspring brings in its wake the distinc
tion about where the uncleanness happened. The contradictory super
scription is then completed and added to the whole, denying that the
Houses had made such distinctions! Presumably the authority who
glossed the superscription would also have dropped the exc^/-clauses.
Some sort of compromise or misunderstanding preserved both the
gloss and the excep/-clauses. And that is how it comes down to us.
Did the Houses originally rule on the matter? Or was the whole the
creation of the later legal theorists? Tos. M.S. 2:16 definitively answers
the question: Judah b. Ilai is the source. The brevity of the Houses'
language and the ease with which we could recognize the original
dispute do not constitute probative evidence of an authentic attribu
tion to the Houses themselves, since, as we have seen several times, the
later tradents were quite capable of making disciplined use of the form
for their own fabrications.
II.i.29 (M. M.S. 3:13) has Houses-opinions but no explanatory
matter. This is supplied by Danby, in brackets added to the Shammaite
opinion. The antecedent case, in which the Houses do not appear, is
taken for granted:
If
[and
one.
they
w i n e w a s d e s i g n a t e d H e a v e - o f f e r i n g b e f o r e t h e jars w e r e sealed u p
they w e r e confused w i t h others], they are neutralized in a h u n d r e d and
B u t i f t h e y w e r e l a t e r sealed u p , t h e y r e n d e r h o l y [ o t h e r s w i t h w h i c h
are confused] in any quantity w h a t s o e v e r .
U n t i l h e has sealed t h e m u p , h e m a y g i v e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g f r o m o n e o n
* b e h a l f o f a l l ; b u t a f t e r h e has sealed t h e m u p , h e m u s t g i v e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g
f r o m each s i n g l y .
(M. M . S . 3 : 1 2 b , trans. D a n b y , p. 78)
Now the Houses-dispute appears. If the man has sealed them and then
wants to give Heave-offering, how does he give Heave-offering from
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.30
105
each? The House of Shammai say he has to open the jars and empty
them all back into the winepress. The House of Hillel say he must open
them but need not empty them. The Houses' language is as follows:
House of Shammai: Open and empty into vat
House of Hillel:
O p e n b u t does n o t need t o e m p t y
The language seems to me to conform to convention; it is abbreviated

and preserves the difference between the Houses in a brief clause.
Perhaps the Hillelite form might be simplified: Open, but does not
empty; and the Shammaites' language might be simplified by dropping
into vat. But these little glosses (need, into vat) do not make much differ
ence.
What is difficult is the reconstruction of an appropriate superscrip
tion. The issue is not set by the foregoing, which concerns a mixture of
Heave-offering with otherjars. Perhaps the final clause of M. M.S. 3:12
would serve:
After
he has sealed them, he gives Heave-offering from each one [ w i t h how does he
do so b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d ] :
House o f S h a m m a i : He opens and empties [them] (into the v a t ) .
House o f Hillel:
H e o p e n s a n d d o e s n o t n e e d t o e m p t y [or, h e
opens
a n d does not empty, d r o p p i n g S R Y K )
If so, the editors (or scribes) have erred in splitting the Houses-dispute
from the foregoing paragraph.
II.i.30.A. If a man set aside one issar [as Second Tithe redemptionmoney] and in virtue of this consumed half its value and then went
elsewhere where it was worth a pondion, he can still consume another
issar*s worth.
If he set aside one pondion and in virtue of this consumed half its
value and then went elsewhere where it was worth [only] one issar, he
may consume only another h&li-issar's worth.
If he set aside one issar as Second Tithe redemption money, he may
in virtue of this consume up to one-eleventh of an issar's worth [if it
was demai-iptodncc\ and one-hundredth of an issar's worth [if it was
produce certainly untithed].
B. The House of Shammai say, "In either case one-tenth (HKL
<SRH)."
And the House of Hillel say, "One eleventh [if it was produce]
certainly untithed, and one-tenth if it was ^^/-produce (BWD'Y
>HD SR, WBDM'Y <SRH)."
C
[M. M.S. 4:8, trans. Danby, p. 79 (y. M.S. 4:5)]
106
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.31, 32, 33
Comment:
Albeck {Seder Zercfim, p. 261) explains that the variation
in the value of the coin imposes the necessity of adding when consum
ing the food. The House of Shammai say there is no need to add. The
House of Hillel say, as in the anonymous rule, one adds one-eleventh or
one-tenth, depending on the state of the produce. So part A anony
mously presents the Hillelite view, which then, in part B, occurs in
dispute-form.
II.i.31.A. The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added]

Fifth and of Removal do not apply to [the grapes of] a Fourth Year
Vineyard."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do apply."
B. The House of Shammai say, "The laws of grape-gleanings and
of the defective cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for
themselves."
And the House of Hillel say, "The whole [yield goes] to the wine
press."
11.1.32. [On the eve of the first Festival-day of Passover in the
fourth and seventh years the duty of Removal was fulfilled. Thus
Heave-offering and Heave-offering of Tithe were given to whom they
were due, and the First Tithe was given to whom it was due, and the
Second Tithe and the First-fruits everywhere were removed. R.
Simeon says, "The First-fruits like the Heave-offering were given to
the priests."]
Cooked food
The House of Shammai say, "One must remove it."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is accounted a thing removed
[already]" (SRYK LB<R vs. HRY HW> KMB<R).
11.1.33. If a man had produce at this time and the season (S'T) came
for Removal
The House of Shammai say, "He must redeem it with money (SRYK
LHLLN <L HK$P)."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is all one whether it is in the form
of produce or of money (>HD HN KSP W>HD $HN PRWT)."
[M. M.S. 5:3,6,7, trans. Danby, p. 80-1 (y.
M.S. 5:2,3)]
Comment:
II.i.32,
II.i.31',
M. M.S. 5:3see above, p. 59.
M. M.S. 5:6, adds a Houses-dispute to a minor detail in con-
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.31, 32, 33
107
nection with the duty of Removal. The form is nearly perfect, state
ment of law, Houses opinions:
As to cookedfood [of Second Tithe]
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e n e e d s t o r e m o v e
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, L o , it is as if it w e r e r e m o v e d .
Actually, we should have expected the Hillelite language to be a

counterpart to the Shammaite:
House of Hillel: He does not need to remove.
This is the language of y. M.S. 5:3 (ed. Gilead, p. 62). The lemma
before us thus takes for granted that ruling and explains it, therefore is
a secondary development: He does not need to remove it because it is as
if it were removed: the fruits are no longer before us in their original
form.
II.i.33,
M. M.S. 5:7, follows the same form, and the language is
similarly not quite balanced. After the Temple was destroyed, SecondTithe produce could no longer be brought to, and eaten in, Jerusalem.
What to do with it at the time of removal? The House of Shammai rule
that one has to exchange it for coins. But this does not solve the matter,
for the coins will remain in his hand. The House of Hillel rule that
whether they are coins or produce, the Second Tithe is under the same
law: The man does not need to exchange the produce for money, but
he removes the fruit from the house and leaves it until it rots. This is
the same ruling as M. M.S. 1:5, "If no sanctuary, they are left to rot," a
ruling given for produce that for any reason cannot be brought to
Jerusalem.
The classic form is followed, but the traditions of the Houses do not
compare to one another:
He who has produce in this time and the hour or removal has come
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e n e e d s t o p r o f a n e t h e m b y m o n e y
It is all t h e s a m e [ L i t . : O n e t h a t t h e y a r e ] f o r
money and produce.
The opinions therefore are not matched, and the problem of what to do
is not solved.
The Houses in their pre-Destruction form presumably did not persist
for long at Yavneh. But this issue ought to have come up at once. On
the other hand, Yohanan b. Zakkai ignores the problem. Simeon b.
Eleazar alleged that Yohanan b. Zakkai annulled the practice of setting
aside a quarter-coin for the proselyte's offering, on the basis of M.M.S.
5:2: "One does not declare holy, or to be evaluated, or declare herem, or
raise up Heave-offering and Tithes. . ." M. Yad. 4:3 raised the question
of the tithes to be given by Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year.
The participants are Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah and Ishmael. The vote
is taken that the countries should give Poor man's Tithe in the Seventh
Year, rather than Second Tithe. Then Eliezer b. Hyrcanus announces
that Yohanan b. Zakkai taught him a tradition, deriving from Sinai,
with the money
108
that Ammon and Moab give Poorman's Tithe in the Seventh Year. It is
quite clear, therefore, that the later Yavneans supposed tithes would
continue to be separated, not only in Palestine, and that Yohanan b.
Zakkai similarly supposed the destruction had made no difference.
This seems to me decisive evidence that the dispute of the Houses
follows a period in which it was unanimously assumed tithes would
continue to be given. The Shammaites of II.i.30-31, who assume the
law continues to apply, represent the earliest view of the Yavneans.
The Hillelites, who regard the various laws of tithing as annulled, take
a position that became dominant only later on, and is now represented
by M. M.S. 5:2. So the dispute must formulate in the names of the
Houses opinions which only afterward were accepted.
Why should Yavneans and Ushans have continued to make use of
the dispute-form? Perhaps in the very earliest period no other seemed
appropriate. Contrasting opinions of living masters, rather than of the
old Houses, required the recognition both that the new masters had
the authority to differ on their own, not merely pseudepigraphically in
the names of the ancient authorities; and that the authority of the
Shammaites would no longer be recognized, so anyone who hoped to
be taken seriously had better not attribute his opinion to the Sham
maite House at all. At the outset the masters persisted in using the
forms they knew from Jerusalem, but later on abandoned sole reliance
on them, as either outdated or inappropriate, and alongside the old
forms developed new ones. The necessity to attribute opinions to
established Houses or parties diminished, and the practice of giving
opinions to named authorities began.
The facts that as late as the middle of the second century new Housesdisputes were still being fabricated and that the form was still in use
suggest that, despite the predominance of Hillelites, the old forms, re
flecting a quite different state of affairs, continued to serve the purposes
of tradents.
On M. M.S. 5:3, see Epstein, Mevd*ot p. 103, and compare M. Ter.
3:9, Tos. Ter. 2:13Vineyard becomes planting.
y
II.ii.23. A. [Fenugreek] of Heave-offering

"The House of Shammai say, 'Whatsoever concerns it must be
done in cleanness.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns it may be done
in uncleanness, except for combing [the head] therewith' "
B. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Whatsoever con
cerns it must be done in cleanness, except for combing [the head] with it.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns it must be done
in uncleanness, except for soaking it.' "
C. [Vetches] of Heave-offering
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
109
II.ii.23
"The House of Shammai say, 'They are soaked in cleanness, and

rubbed and given as food in uncleanness.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They must be soaked and rubbed in
cleanness, and given as food in uncleanness' "
the words of R. Judah.
D. R. Meir says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They must be
soaked and rubbed in cleanness, and given as food in uncleanness.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns them must be
done in uncleanness.' "
E. R. Yosi said, "This is the Mishnah of R. Aqiba. Therefore he
says, 'They are to be given to any priest [even an unobservant one].'
"And the sages did not agree with him."
c
[Tos. M.S. 2:1, ed. Lieberman, pp. 248-9, lines

3-10 (y. M.S. 2:2)]
Comment:
See above, M. M.S. 2:3-4, II.i.23A-C. Judah the Patriarch
evidently had the versions supplied by Judah and Meir, and chose
Judah's for M. M.S. 2:3, but the version of neither for part B. Judah
gives the opinion of the House of Hillel as that of Shammai's House in
Part C, and the opinion of Shammai's House as that of the House of
Hillel. Meir in part D gives the opinion of Shammai as Judah the
Patriarch does in M. M.S. 2:4, but then Meir's view of the Hillelite
position is rejected by Judah the Patriarch:
M. MS.
2:3
Judah the
Patriarch
Shammai: A l l
in
Tos. MS.
Meir
clean
Tos. MS.
2:1
Judah h. Ilai
2:1
A l l i n cleanness
combing
A l l i n cleanness
ness except c o m b i n g
ex
except
A l l in uncleanness
cept soaking
ex
Hillel:
A l l in unclean
ness e x c e p t s o a k i n g
A l l in uncleanness,
cept c o m b i n g
M. MS.
2:4
Shammai: Soaked
and
r u b b e d in
cleanness,
and fed in uncleanness
Soaked and rubbed in

cleanness, and fed in
uncleanness
Soaked in
cleanness,
rubbed and fed in un
cleanness
Hillel: Soaked in
cleanness, and r u b b e d
and fed in uncleanness
W h a t s o e v e r c o n c e r n s it
must be d o n e in u n
cleanness
Soaked and r u b b e d in
cleanness, fed i n u n
cleanness.
So, as I said, in M. M.S. 2:3 Judah the Patriarch has given the version
of Judah b. Ilai. In M. M.S. 2:4, he has given Meir's version of Sham
mai's opinion and Judah's view of Shammai's opinion as HilleVs
ruling! Judah and Meir have diametrically opposite views of the
opinions of the Houses on the heave-offering of vetches.
110
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.24, 2 5
The foregoing proves that the Houses' disputes in this connection are
based upon dubious traditions, if any. What seems likely is that no one
knew precisely what the Houses had said. Each party formulated the
extremes as he saw them and attributed them to the Houses. That no
authorities had accurate traditions on the matter is probably because the
Houses never produced any.
See Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 73, 90, 303.
II.ii.24.A. R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Yosah, "Thus
the House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'Do you not agree
about produce that was not fully harvested, that, if the Second Tithe
is redeemed, it should not be eaten in any place [but only in Jerusa
lem] ? Also produce whose harvest has been completed is like it (Lit.:
them).' "
B. "The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say so con
cerning produce whose harvest has not been completed, [it is] because
he can declare them ownerless property to remove them [entirely] from
the [obligations for] Heave-offering and Tithes [since they are not yet
liable], [y. M.S. 3:3:] Will you say so of produce whose harvest has
been completed, which he cannot declare ownerless and so free from
Tithes?'
C. "The House of Hillel said to them, 'Also produce whose harvest
has been completedhe can make it [them] Heave-Offering and Tithes
for [produce in] another place.' [y. M.S. 3:3: He can declare them
ownerless and free them from Tithes.]
D. " 'Another matter: They are not liable for Heave-Offering and
Tithes until they have been lifted up.' "
[That is, until the Tithes have been removed, the owner has no
liability whatsoever and can burn the crop if he wants, and therefore
the walls of Jerusalem have not affected the Tithes inhering therein one
way or the other, there being no present obligation for such Tithes.]
[y. M.S. 3:3: The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say
so concerning produce whose harvest has not been completed, for
which he can bring out Second (Tithe) from another place, will you
say so of produce whose harvest has been completed, for which he
cannot (etc.)?"]
^
52-3,
lines 55-62 (y. M.S. 3:3,6)]
M
L i e b e r m a r i )
II.ii.25.A. Olive presses whose doors open inward [in the city] and
their contained space outside, or whose doors open outward and
contained space inward
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.24, 2 5
111
B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem in them

Second Tithe, as if they were within, and they do not eat in them
lesser sanctities, as if they were outside."
And the House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and
inwards is deemed within, and the part directly above the wall and
outwards is deemed outside."
C. R. Yosah said, "This is the Mishnah of R. Aqiba.
"The first Mishnah:
"The House of Shammai say, 'They do not redeem in them Second
Tithe as if they were within, and they do not eat in them lesser
sanctities, as if they were outside.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Lo, they are like the [Temple]
chambers. That whose door opens inward is deemed inside, and that
whose door opens outward is deemed outside.' "
c
[Tos. M.S. 2:12, ed. Lieberman, pp. 253-4,

lines 65-72 (Tos. Arakh. 5:15)]
c
Comment:
II.i.24, Tos. M.S. 2:11, relates to M. M.S. 3:6, and II.i.25,
Tos. M.S. 2:12, to M. M.S. 3:7, above, pp. 100-105.
In M. M.S. 3:6, Simeon b. Judah alleges in R. Yosi's name that the
Houses did not dispute concerning produce whose harvest was not
completed. All agreed, he said, that the Second Tithe inhering in them
should be redeemed and the produce might be eaten anywhere. Now
we have Simeon's expansion of the version of the dispute he presents
in the Mishnah: produce whose harvest has been completed. The Sham
maites hold that the Second Tithe must be brought back to Jerusalem,
and the Hillelites, that it may be redeemed for money and eaten any
where (and the money must be brought to Jerusalem, as usual).
The argument of Hillelites in part A is that just as the coins ex
changed for the produce not fully harvested must be brought to
Jerusalem, and the produce may be eaten anywhere (on which Simeon
and Yosi allege the House agree), so the same rule pertains to produce
fully harvested. The Hillelites' argument is rejected by the Shammaites,
who introduce a distinction (part B) to show why the same rule cannot
pertain to the harvest in both circumstances. That which has not been
completed may in the end never be subject to the agricultural tithes,
while that which has been completed is thereby already subject to the
Tithes. Lieberman (= y. M.S. 3:3) supplies the following text for
part C:
" A l s o p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has b e e n c o m p l e t e d h e can d e c l a r e t h e m

ownerless property."
' A n o t h e r m a t t e r : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , ' N o , if y o u say so
c o n c e r n i n g p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d , t h a t h e can
112
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
ILii. 2 4 , 2 5
declare them Heave-offering and Tithes f o r [produce in] another place,

w i l l y o u say c o n c e r n i n g p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has b e e n c o m p l e t e d t h a t h e
declare t h e m Heave-offering and Tithes f o r [produce in] another place?' "
As to the argument of part D, Lieberman explains {Tosefta

Kifshutah,
p. 739 to line 62) that the owner is not liable to the priest and Levite for
Heave-offering and Tithes until he raises up and separates from the
untithed mass the Heave-offering and Tithes. The owner can burn the
wheat, without profiting from it, if he wishes.
For our purposes, it suffices to note that Simeon and Yosi have
supplied a fabricated colloquy to spell out what is at issue in the Mish
naic passage. Judah the Patriarch selected the substitute version for the
Mishnah, and left for the supplementary collection, without the
appropriate superscription, the remaining elements of the Simeon-Yosi
fabrication.
II.ii.25 corresponds to M. M.S. 3:7:
If the entrance to olive-presses in the city wall was within, and the contained space
outside, or vice versa
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e w h o l e is d e e m e d w i t h i n
House o f Hillel:
T h e part directly a b o v e the wall and inwards
deemed within, the part directly a b o v e the wall and o u t w a r d s
deemed outside.
is
is
According to part B the opinion of the Hillelites is the same as in the

Mishnah. But that of the Shammaites here is much more complex.
The Tosefta explains the opinion of the House of Shammai. They
did not say that all is deemed as within except to effect the more strin
gent of the possible rulings. One may not redeem Second Tithe therein,
just as in Jerusalem one may not do so. But one may not eat lesser
sanctities therein, just as outside of Jerusalem one may not do so.
The Hillelite ruling is therefore clarified: What is like Jerusalem enjoys
the prerogatives of Jerusalem in all respects, and contrarywise as well.
Therefore one may eat lesser sanctities and Second Tithe. What is not
like Jerusalem is likewise not like Jerusalem in all respects: one may
there redeem Second Tithe.
R. Yosah then tells us that this is the version of 'Aqiba. Before him,
we had a somewhat different form. In it the House of Shammai's
opinion is unchanged. But that of the Hillelites comes in quite different
language, although the meaning seems the same. That is, what is
deemed inside still enjoys all the prerogatives of being in the city, and
what is deemed outside likewise. This follows M. M.S. 3:8:
In the chambers built in the Temple and o p e n i n g into g r o u n d that was
n o t h o l y , n o s a n c t i t y a t t a c h e d t o t h e space w i t h i n t h e m , b u t t h e i r r o o f s a r e
deemed t o be w i t h i n h o l y g r o u n d .
. . .in t h o s e b u i l t b o t h w i t h i n t h e T e m p l e c o u r t a n d o n g r o u n d t h a t w a s
n o t holy and opening both into the Temple and into g r o u n d that was n o t
h o l y , [then i n w h a t c o n c e r n s ] t h e space w i t h i n t h e m a n d t h e i r r o o f s , d i r e c t l y
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
113
II.ii.26
a b o v e t h e T e m p l e [ c o u r t ] a n d i n w a r d s t o w a r d t h e T e m p l e is h o l y , a n d
d i r e c t l y a b o v e the T e m p l e a n d o u t w a r d t o w a r d g r o u n d t h a t is n o t h o l y
is n o t h o l y .
(M.
M.S.
3:8,
trans. Danby, p.
77)
Accordingly, one follows the direction of the door and contained

space. If the door (etc.) is toward one direction, the law of the place
follows that side in all respects. Thus the Hillelite rule remains the
same, but the language in which it was framed is different.
Once again we have a terminus ante quern for a tradition. But the forms
of the tradition are various and complicated. Clearly, a Houses-dispute
was set by the time of R. Aqiba. But the form of Aqiba is somewhat
different from that of M. M.S. 3:7. The House of Shammai is unchan
ged in the two versionsand different from the opinion attributed to
them in the Mishnah! The House of Hillel is changed in form, though
not in substance, and also differs in form, though not in substance,
from the Mishnah in the latter version. For the House of Hillel, Judah
the Patriarch has selected the 'Aqiban version. But we do not know
where he got his version of the Shammaites' opinion. What came be
fore Aqiba? It is difficult to say. My guess is that this is not the sort of
pericope one can readily date to pre-70 times. First, it is complex in
form. Second, in the face of attributions to later authorities, one had
best not seek earlier sources, surely not among pre-Yavnean traditions.
It once again looks as if an existing form has been used for new materi
als.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 78.
c
II.ii.26.A. Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became un

clean, whether it was made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness or
by an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether within the city or outside
B. "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten
within.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten
within, except for that which has been made unclean by a Father of
Uncleanness [and which is eaten] outside' "
The words of R. Meir.
C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be re
deemed and eaten within, except for that which is made unclean by a
Father of Uncleanness [which is eaten] outside.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten out
side, except for that which is made unclean by an Offspring of Un
cleanness [which is eaten] inside.' "
D. R. Leazar says, "If it was made unclean by a Father of Un
cleanness, whether inside or outside, it will be redeemed and eaten
114
outside. If it is made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether

inside or outside, it will be redeemed and eaten inside."
E. R. Aqiba says, "If it is made unclean outside, whether by a
Father of Uncleanness or by an Offspring of Uncleanness, it will be re
deemed and eaten outside. If it is made unclean within, whether by a
Father of Uncleanness or by an Offspring of Uncleanness, it will be
redeemed and eaten within."
F. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel did not dispute concerning that which was made un
clean by a Father of Uncleanness outside, that it should be redeemed
and eaten outside.
"And concerning that which was made unclean by an Offspring of
Uncleanness within, that it should be redeemed and eaten within.
"Concerning what did they debate?
"Concerning that which was made unclean by a Father of Unclean
ness inside, and concerning [that which was made unclean] by an Off
spring of Uncleanness outside, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'It will be redeemed in the place
[where it was made unclean] and eaten in the place [where it was made
unclean].'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It is redeemed in the place and
eaten in every place.' "
(Tos. M.S. 2:16, ed. Lieberman, pp. 255-6,
lines 87-101)
c
Comment: The relationship to M. M.S. 3:9 is clear:

Judah the
Meir
Patriarch
Judah h.
Ilai
Leaqar
'Aqiba
Simeon b.
Leaâr
1.
1. Father/out
sideoutside.
Offspring/in
sideinside
(M. M.S. 3:9)

1. Whether
made unclean by
a Father of Un
cleanness o r b y
an Offspring of
Uncleanness
2. Whether
within or with
out
1.
2.
yy yy yy
1.
Unclean
by
Father
ofUnleanness
Unclean
outside
2.
yy yy yy W h e t h e r
by
Father
o f Off
spring
2.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Judah the
Patriarch
Meir
3. House of
Shammai: A l l
w i l l be redeemed
and eaten inside
Judah b.
Ilai
Leazar
'Aqiba
Simeon b.
Leazar
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4. Father/inside
and Offspring/
outside
4 . E x c e p t w h a t is 4 .
made unclean by
a Father of Un
cleanness o u t
side [that i t is
eaten outside]
4*
4*
115
II.ii.26
4.* Re
deemed
and eaten
outside
4.* Shammai:
4 *
Redeem in the

place [ J e r u s a
l e m ] a n d eat i n
the place.
Hillel: Redeem
in the place and
eat a n y w h e r e .
5. A n d House o f
Hillel: A l l r e
deemed and
eaten outside
5 a
inside
6. Except w h a t
is m a d e u n c l e a n
by an Offspring
o f Uncleanness
i n s i d e [to b e
eaten inside]
6. Except
unclean
by
7.
7.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6*
6.
6.
6.
7.
7. By an
Off
spring,
whether
in or out
eaten
within
7. Un
clean i n
side,
whether
Father
o r Off
spring,
eaten
inside
7.
Father
of Un
cleanness
out
side.
Judah the Patriarch's version derives from Judah b. Ilai. But he has
taken the superscriptions of Meir, nos. 1 and 2, then the substance of
Judah b. Ilai, nos. 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 (!). Strikingly Leazar and 'Aqiba do not
even bother to frame their opinions in the form of Houses-disputes, but
speak in their own names. Simeon b. Leazar has complicated matters
still more by denying the dispute concerned what all the others
supposed, then by giving completely new substance to the dispute,
with new legal forms and rulings (no. 4 * ) .
116
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.27, 2 8
The legal issues are no longer of much consequence. Our earlier

conclusion applies here as well.
II.ii.27. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Hillel and the
House of Shammai did not disagree concerning one who stamps with
his finger on the jar [and in this connection, the wine was never in the
vat, for with his finger he stamped and pressed out the grapes in the
bottle and afterward stopped it up], that he opens but does not have to
empty [out the wine into the vat, for it is sufficient if he opens the
bottle and restores it to its former condition, and even the House of
Shammai agree in this matter].
"Concerning what did they differ?
"Concerning him who tramples [the grapes] in the vat, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'He opens and empties into the vat.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He opens but does not need to
empty.' "
^
M
e d
L i e b e r m a n 5
2 5 6 j
l i n e s
l l l - 1 1 3 ( y . M.S. 2:10)]
Comment: In M. M.S. 3:13 the House of Shammai say that if the
bottles are sealed and the man wants to give Heave-offering from one
on behalf of all, he must open the jars and empty them into the wine
press. The House of Hillel say, "He must open them but need not
empty them." Simeon b. Leazar's supplement specifies that the dispute
pertains only to wine which has originally come from the vat. Judah
the Patriarch was unclear on this point. All he preserved of the Houses
was their ruling, but not the case to which it applied.
II.ii.28.A. They redeem (HLL) produce with coins in Jerusalem in
this time
The House of Shammai say, "This and this are Second Tithe."
The House of Hillel say, "The coins are as they were, and the
produce is as it was [ = not holy but profane]."
B. The House of Hillel say, "A man separates First Tithe of Demai
and lifts its Heave-offering and eats it [the rest], and does not need to
separate Second [Tithe]."
The House of Shammai say, "He needs to separate Second [Tithe],
for I.say, 'If the Second is raised up, the First is raised up; if the First
is raised up, the Second is not raised up.' "
And the law is according to the words of the House of Shammai.
[Tos. M.S. 3:14-15, ed. Lieberman, pp. 260-1,
lines 48-53 (y. M.S. 1:3)]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.29
117
Comment:
Part A is the counterpart of M. M.S. 5:7, above, p. 106.
The Hillelites hold he has done nothing at all, and both the produce
and the coins are as they were. In other words the law is now in abey
ance.
In part B the man does not have to take into account the possibility
that a non-observant person has separated First Tithe and not separ
ated Second Tithe, so the Tithe of the fellow (HBR) is still to be tithed
for Second Tithe, since we assume that if a non-observant person nor
mally separates First Tithe, he will also separate Second Tithe. The
Shammaites give the same opinion as Leazar, (y. M.S. 4:8, cited by
Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 761, to line 52): "He who is reliable for
Second Tithe is reliable for First Tithe."
II.ii.29A. Fruit of the Fourth-Year Vineyard

"The House of Shammai say, 'It has no Added Fifth, and it has
no Removal.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It has the Added Fifth, and it has
Removal.'
"Under what circumstances ? In the Seventh Year, but in the rest of
the years of the seven, it has the Added Fifth and it has Removal"
the words of Rabbi.
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "It is all the same whether it is the
Seventh Year or the rest of the years of the seven. The House of
Shammai say, 'It has no Added Fifth, and it has no Removal.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It has the Added Fifth, and it has
Removal.' "
B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not cut it down (GMM)."
And the House of Hillel say, "They cut it down."
C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem it as grapes
but as wine."
And the House of Hillel say, "[As] wine and grapes."
But all agree that they do not redeem that which is attached to the
soil [since it cannot be accurately evaluated].
D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not plant it in the fourth
year, for the fourth year [next] will fall in the Seventh Year."
(Tos. M.S. 5:17-20, ed. Lieberman, p. 272,
lines 54-62)
Comment:
The words of the Houses are constant. Rabbi has omitted
in the Mishnah reference to the dispute between himself and his father
with regard to the limitations specified in the superscription.
118
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.34, 3 5
Lieberman explains that the House of Hillel compare the Fourth

Year fruits to Second Tithe. Just as Second Tithe is not given in the
Seventh Year, so the law of the Fourth Year fruits does not apply in the
Seventh Year. This is made explicit in part D, which draws the same
conclusion.
Part A therefore limits the Shammaite ruling to the Seventh Year.
For the rest of the years of the cycle, the House of Shammai is re
presented as agreeing with the House of Hillel: Fourth Year fruits do
have the Added Fifth and Removal, just as does Second Tithe. Com
pare Sifra Qedoshim 3:8. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that the House of
Shammai do not compare Fourth Year fruits to Second Tithe. Scripture
(Lev. 19:24) contains no hint that the Fourth Year fruits have the
Added Fifth and Removal.
For further comment, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Zera'im,
pp. 785-7.
II.L34.A. Flour-paste is exempt according to the House of Sham
mai. According to the House of Hillel it is liable.
B. Dumplings are liable according to the House of Shammai. Ac
cording to the House of Hillel they are exempt.
[M. Hallah 1:6, trans. Danby, p. 83 (y. Hal.
1:4, b. Pes. 37b)]
Comment:
The
Danby's translation obscures the form:
flour-paste
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e it e x e m p t [of
H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e it l i a b l e .
Hallah]
The dumplings
House o f S h a m m a i declare liable
House o f Hillel declare exempt.
No logical reasons are given in the commentaries (e.g. Albeck, Seder

p. 276) for the rulings of the Houses. Epstein, Mishnah, pp.
2-3, holds A and B are on the same species of food, and the Tanna of A,
R. Yosi (M. <Ed. 5:2), differs from that of B, R. Meir. He cites Tarbis 7,
pp. 143,156-7.
Zera'im,
II.L35.A. Whatsoever is leavened, flavored, or mingled with

Heave-offering, Or/ah-fruk,
or Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, is
forbidden.
The House of Shammai say, "It can also convey uncleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "It can never convey uncleanness un
less it is an egg's bulk in quantity."
c
119
B. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah was one of the disciples of the House

of Shammai, and he said, "I have heard a tradition from Shammai the
Elder, who said, 'It can never convey uncleanness unless it is an egg's
bulk in quantity.' "
[M. Orlah 2:4-5, trans. Danby, p. 90 (y.
<Orlah2:3)]
c
Comment:
The prohibition concerns whether produce that conveys
a marked flavor can be neutralized (in a hundred and one). It cannot.
The House of Shammai say that if it is unclean, even though less
than an egg's bulk, which is the quantity that conveys food-uncleanness, it also conveys uncleanness. The House of Hillel rule it can convey
uncleanness only in the usual quantity. The rulings of the Houses gloss
the foregoing:
And H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Also (*P) r e n d e r s u n c l e a n
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, N e v e r r e n d e r s u n c l e a n , u n l e s s t h e r e is i n it as [ m u c h
as] a n egg.
The form of the Houses' rulings is complex. Since the Shammaite

ruling is also makes unclean, without further qualification as to quantity,
it carries the implication that less than an egg's bulk is sufficient. The
Hillelite ruling therefore could not have been does not make unclean,
under any circumstances. The issue would thereby have been obscured.
Hence the gloss, unless. . . an egg, makes things entirely clear. But had the
Shammaite ruling read:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Less than an egg's
bulk r e n d e r s
unclean
then the Hillelite lemma would have been:

H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, L e s s t h a n an e g g ' s
bulk d o e s not
render unclean.
That would have been the simplest form. Why was it not used? Per
haps the pericope is highly developed. But the development included
dropping the operative words less than egg's bulk from the primary
Shammaite lemmaand that would not serve any editorial purpose.
Perhaps, therefore, the Houses-dispute originally stood by itself, as
follows:
Less than an egg's bulk
House o f Shammai say: Renders unclean
House of Hillel say:
D o e s not r e n d e r u n c l e a n .
The referent is omitted. The pericope was attached to the foregoing.

All that was augmented in the Shammaite version was the addition of
also, the necessary joining-word. Then the Hillelite saying was complet
ely revised; the superscription was included in its lemma, and the
whole was rephrased as never. . . until. . . Normally, superscriptions are
120
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.36
read into the first, Shammaite clause. Still, this seems the more satis
factory theoretical form.
Part B is quite another matter. Here Shammai is curiously represented
as saying the words of the House of Hillel, verbatim. We are supposed
to believe that the House of Shammai did not know the ruling of the
master (above, I, pp. 192-193). It was a disciple of that very House who
did know what Shammai had said. These were not toldor, incre
dibly, were told and did not accept the tradition. Then the Hillelites took
it over. This seems on the face of it a Hillelite fabrication. But what if
the tradition was an accurate report? Then what has been fabricated
is not Shammai's opinion, but the position of the House of Shammai.
On that basis, the Hillelite position in part A should be exchanged
with the Shammaite one. But to do so, it would be necessary to reverse
the order of the Houseshighly irregular!or to reverse the opinions
attributed to them. Form-critical considerations suggest this too is
difficult:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " I t c a n never c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s
e g g ' s b u l k in q u a n t i t y . "
H o u s e of.Hillel say, " I t canfalso) c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s . "
unless it is an
Without knowing the position of the Hillelites, that of the Shammaites

is incomprehensible. Why say never. . . unless. . ., not as a contradiction
to an antecedent opinion, but as an independent lemma, first in se
quence? Normally never. . . unless. . . serves as the negative-intensive for
the second, contrary opinion. It would have been adequate for the
Shammaite position to read as follows:
House of Shammai: A n egg's bulk conveys uncleanness.
House o f Hillel:
E v e n less t h a n an e g g ' s b u l k c o n v e y s
uncleanness.
The language of the House of Hillel obviously has been given to
Shammai. If Shammai had shared the opinion of the House of Hillel, it
would not likely have been phrased in the form necessary for a Housesdispute. And Dositheus is not accurately represented.
C
II. MO ED
II.i.36.A. (And) these are among the laws which the sages said in
the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gurion. When they went
up to visit him, they voted, and the House of Shammai outnumbered
Eighteen things did they decree on that day.
B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not soak ink, dyestuffs,
or vetches [on a Friday], unless there is ( L KDY S) [time] for them to
be [wholly] soaked while it is still day (MB'WD YWM)."
J
121
C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not put bundles of flax

into an oven, unless there is time for them to steam off while it is still
day; nor wool into a [dyer's] cauldron, unless there is time for it to
absorb the color while it is still day."
D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not spread nets for wild
animals, birds, or fishes, unless there is time for them to be caught
while it is still day."
E. The House of Shammai say, "They do not sell [aught] to a
gentile or help him to load his beast or raise [a burden] on his shoul
ders, unless there is time for him to reach a place nearby."
F. The House of Shammai say, "They do not give hides to a
[gentile] tanner nor clothes to a gentile washerman, unless there is
time for [the work to be] done while it is still day."
G. And all these the House of Hillel permit such time as the sun is
c
up( MHSMS).
H. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "In my father's house they

used to give white clothes to a gentile washerman three days before
Sabbath."
I. Both [the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel] agree that
men may lay down the olive-press beams or the winepress rollers.
[M. Shab. 1:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, trans. Danby,
pp. 100-101 (y. Shab. 1:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, b. Shab.
13b, 17b, 18a-b, b. A.Z. 36a-b)]
Comment:
The legal problem concerns beginning on the eve of the
Sabbath (Friday) work which will be completed on the Sabbath. The
Shammaites say that one must not begin such work; the Hillelites, that
one may begin it. We have already seen the same dispute attributed to
Shammai and Hillel, I, pp. 324-325,157,196-197.
The first problem is the referent of part A. The accepted explanation
is that it pertains to the foregoing paragraphs, which are as follows:
A m a n s h o u l d n o t sit d o w n b e f o r e t h e b a r b e r n e a r t o t h e t i m e o f t h e
a f t e r n o o n Tefillah, u n l e s s h e has a l r e a d y p r a y e d ; a m a n s h o u l d n o t e n t e r a
b a t h - h o u s e o r a t a n n e r y , n o r s h o u l d he [ b e g i n t o ] eat a meal o r d e c i d e a
suit, t h o u g h i f a n y h a v e b e g u n [a l i k e d e e d ] t h e y n e e d n o t i n t e r r u p t it.
T h e y m u s t i n t e r r u p t [their d o i n g s ] t o recite t h e Shema\ b u t t h e y n e e d n o t
i n t e r r u p t t h e m f o r t h e Tefillah.
A t a i l o r s h o u l d n o t g o o u t w i t h his n e e d l e [on F r i d a y ] n e a r t o n i g h t f a l l ,
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.36
lest h e f o r g e t a n d ' g o o u t / n o r s h o u l d a s c r i v e n e r [ g o o u t t h e n ] w i t h h i s
p e n ; n o r s h o u l d a m a n s e a r c h h i s c l o t h e s [ f o r fleas] o r r e a d b y l a m p l i g h t .
R i g h t l y h a v e t h e y said, " A s c h o o l - m a s t e r m a y l o o k w h e r e t h e c h i l d r e n
are r e a d i n g , b u t h e h i m s e l f m a y n o t r e a d . "
I n l i k e m a n n e r a m a n t h a t h a s a flux m a y n o t eat w i t h a w o m a n t h a t h a s a
flux, since i t l e n d s o c c a s i o n t o t r a n s g r e s s i o n .
(M. Shab. 1 : 2 - 3 , trans. D a n b y , p. 1 0 0 )
The greater number of readings is, These are, meaning the foregoing,
though some readings have And these are, meaning, the following (b.
Shab. 13b). Albeck {Seder Mo'ed, p. 406, to 1:4) prefers the first, though
he notes that even These are serves both to introduce, as well as to
complete, a pericope. He admits that there is no decisive evidence, one
way or the other. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 426.
The further problem is, What are the eighteen things? In the antecedent
paragraphs, we find the following issues: 1. barber; 2. bath-house; 3.
meal; 4. law-suits; 5. tailor; 6. scribe; 7. fleas; 8. read. However,
one counts, we do not have eighteen. Nor do eighteen follow. Albeck
further reviews the traditional commentaries on this point.
Part A,M. Shab. 1:4, is an independent lemma, attached as a super
scription for the following collection. It mentions the Houses, and
since the Houses do not occur in the antecedent materials, it seems to
me unlikely that the editor meant M. Shab. 1:2-3.
The little story about the superiority of the Shammaites joins the
several {sword, Hillel in Temple) in which the temporary predominance
of the Shammaites is explained. The story is composed of several
phrases:
1. T h e s e a r e [ s o m e ] of t h e l a w s w h i c h t h e y said i n t h e u p p e r c h a m b e r of
Hananiah b. Hizqiyahu b. G u r i o n
2. W h e n t h e y w e n t u p t o v i s i t ( B Q R ) h i m
3. T h e y v o t e d , and the House o f Shammai w e r e m o r e n u m e r o u s than the
House o f Hillel
4 . [and] e i g h t e e n t h i n g s t h e y d e c r e e d
5. o n t h a t d a y .
The function of no. 2 is a little problem. It may be assigned as the

conclusion of no. 1, or as the beginning of no. 3; my guess is that it
serves as a joining-phrase, a later gloss, for one could proceed from no.
1 to no. 3 without it.
As to no. 1, we have already seen material of the same sort in connec
tion with the question of why Hillel did not receive the holy spirit.
There the sages were assembled as follows: Tos. Sot. 13:3: house of
Guryo in Jericho; y. Sot. 9:13, same, but GDY ; b. Sanh. 11a, once
they were reclining in the upper room of Guryo; b. Sot. 48b = b. Sanh.
11a; y. A.Z. 3:1 = y. Hor. 3:5 has upper room of GDYY\ The combi
nation of the Houses (Hillel), upper room and GuryojGedya looks suspi
cious. We may readily recognize when they went up to visit him as a gloss
of no special interest. But what shall we make of upper room of Hananiah
y
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
123
II.i.36
b. Hizqiyahu b. Gurion? Perhaps someone supposed this is Guryo's

(Gedya's) grandson? That seems to me implausible. What appears more
likely is that a garbled tradition has been straightened out and used for
another meeting of the sages, this time not for the purpose of receiving
heavenly messages or of discussing why they were not receiving them,
but to make decrees. Since the holy-spirit-rmtetiaXs
derive from Samuel
the Small-Judah b. Baba, we had best suppose that the whole was
doctored sometime after ca. 150.
No. 3 is the operative clause: the Shammaites outnumbered the
Hillelites. We have seen this theme earlier, in connection with the
Shammai-Hillel debate about vintaging grapes and crushing olives in
cleanness, also Hillel in the Temple. There Hillel is silenced by a
swordor by the moband the Shammaites outvote the Hillelites
anyhow. Now it is unambiguous that one time the Shammaites were
more numerous, y. Shab. 1:4 supplies the missing violence: it has the
Shammaites murder Hillelite voters.
No. 4 obviously is a formal lemma, which can serve any sort of list.
The eighteen things tradition perhaps began in some sort of collection,
arranged for mnemonic purposes, much like the Ushan ones (M. Ed.,
below). It has been taken up and set into narrative form.
No. 5 surely comes together with no. 4. On that day also serves as a
formula to introduce or conclude stories connected with the deposition
of Gamaliel II. Here, however, I doubt that it means more than it says:
then. I hear no echo of the Gamaliel-deposition.
The pericope need not be regarded as a composite, in the sense that
a final editor has put together existing, completed materials. Apart
from no. 2, nothing seems to me either superfluous or redundant. I see
no other glosses. It looks to me like a little story, much like the holy
spiritstories and the sword-in-the-school-house
fable, composed of
existing themes, or key-words and episodic phrases, but not put
together part by part, as elsewhere. It surely comes at the end of a long
history of transmission of inchoate and unfinished materials. No. 4
can be no earlier than other collection-forms, therefore not much be
fore the middle of the second century. It certainly is more elaborate
than other collection-superscriptions, which consist of numbers plus
key-words (stringencies/leniencies), and represents a considerable
literary improvement.
The form of parts B, C, D, E, F is rigidly fixed and consistent:
c
>
>
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , They do not. . . except in order to ( L K D Y ) . . .

A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l permit.
The laws are as follows:

Part B:
Part
C:
T h e y d o n o t soak ink, and dyes, and vetches, except in o r d e r that

t h e y m a y b e w h o l l y s o a k e d w h i l e it is still d a y
T h e y d o n o t place b u n d l e s o f flax i n t h e o v e n , e x c e p t in o r d e r t h a t
t h e y m a y s t e a m off w h i l e it is still d a y
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Part D:
Part E:
Part F:
II.i.36
T h e y d o n o t s p r e a d n e t s o f beast, b i r d s , a n d fish, e x c e p t in o r d e r
t h a t t h e y m a y be t r a p p e d w h i l e it is still d a y
T h e y d o n o t sell t o t h e g e n t i l e a n d c a r r y w i t h h i m a n d t h e y d o n o t
raise u p o n h i m , e x c e p t in o r d e r t h a t he m a y r e a c h a n e a r place
[ O m i t s : while it is still day]
T h e y d o n o t give hides t o the tanner, and n o t vessels to the gentile
l a u n d r y m a n , e x c e p t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y b e d o n e w h i l e it is still
day.
Part G then serves as a summary-subscription for the whole, as well

as for part F:
And in all of them t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l p e r m i t with the sun.
The Hillelite stock-phrase of the foregoing is augmented fore and aft.

The glossator provides an appropriate summary; at the end, a new
element is introduced, which is redundant: with the sun (while it is still
day = with the sun, as long as the sun is shining). The expected
Hillelite lemma, with appropriate editorial glosses (in italics), completes
the collection. Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 282, does not see these as glosses.
The laws are closely related to one another. Parts B, C, and D con
cern Jews only. Parts E and F pertain to what one may ask a gentile to
do. The form of part E is slightly defective, as I pointed out, but the
change is not consequential. Albeck {Seder Mo'ed, p. 20) explains that
the Shammaites holdall one's work must be done at the end of the sixth
day. The Hillelites say that if the work is completed on the Sabbath, it
is permissible, since inanimate objects, but neither man nor beast, are
involved. The Shammaites prohibit imposing on the gentile, lest it
appear that the gentile is doing the work of an Israelite, as his agent, on
the Sabbath.
Part H tells us that Simeon b. Gamaliel's father's house followed the
Shammaite ruling. We do not know whether this is Gamaliel I or
Gamaliel II, though the state of the Simeon b. Gamaliel I materials is
such that the much greater likelihood is Gamaliel II. If so, then once
again the Yavnean Gamaliel is represented as a Shammaite. I see no
hostile polemic in his son's report. On the contrary, it is probably as
firm historical evidence as we are likely to have. Had he not said it,
given the conditions governing the formation of Hillelite traditions, no
one would likely have invented it; and he did not say it to prove a case
("father was a Shammaite"), but told it in innocence. Perhaps no one
later on (in Judah the Patriarch's day) was much disturbed, since the
House-disputes had long since become a matter of legal theory (as
asserted in M. Yev. 1:4) for Hillelite heirs to work on.
Part I comes at the end and seems to me not part of the foregoing
list, but a later addition. One may begin the process of crushing olives
and grapes. The placing of the weights (beams, rollers) may be done
before the Sabbath, since the primary pressing is thereby completed.
The issue of parts B-D therefore does not apply.
The form before us is exceptional. We should have expected:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.i.3, II.i.37
125
As to soaking ink( before I and) on the Sabbath

House of Hillel:
Permit
This would have covered all aspects of both opinions. The

KDY
form is an awkward circumlocution. Some affirmative formulation of
the issue must have been possible; the one proposed above is hardly
adequate. That the Shammaite lemmas before us are all highly develop
ed and carefully glossed (while it is still day), the persistence of the glos
ses, and the 'L KDY clauses prove that a developed form has taken
the place of a primitive one. But why? My guess is that the authority
behind the collection is also responsible for its form and structure. He
has preferred a smoother set of legal cases, not separated by superscrip
tions or other topical phrases, and therefore has turned whatever ex
planatory matter he had into integral parts of the Shammaite part of
the pericopae. But even as it stands the collection follows an obvious
mnemonic pattern.
Note Epstein, Mevo*ot p. 145, 282-6, 423. He assigns the whole
of 1:5-7 to 'Aqiba, by reference to b. Shab. 18b.
5
III.i.3. R. Joshua Onia taught (TNP), "The disciples of the House

of Shammai took up positions for themselves downstairs and would
slay the disciples of the House of Hillel."
TNY: Six of them went up and the rest stood with swords and
spears.
(y. Shab. 1:4, ed. Gilead, p. 9a)
Comment:
The traditions supply details of the
story to expand this one.
spear in the school house
II.L37.A. A stove (KYRH) which had been heated with stubble or

strawcooked food may be set on it. But if with peat or wood, cooked
food may not be set on it until it has been swept out or covered with
ashes.
B. The House of Shammai say, "Hot water but not cooked food
[may be set thereon]."
And the House of Hillel say, "Hot water and cooked food."
C. The House of Shammai say, "They remove [on the Sabbath]
but do not put back."
And the House of Hillel say, "They also put back."
[M. Shab. 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 102 (y. Shab.
3:1,4; b. Shab. 36b-37a)]
126
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.38
Comment: The dispute of the Houses pertains to the second clause of

the foregoing rule: a stove heated by fuel that produces coals likely to
burn for some time. The possibility is that he may stir the coals. In
part B the Shammaites rule that even after it is swept out, one cannot
put food on such a stove, but only hot water. One may not put food
back on it either. The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing. Without it
we should have assumed no distinction is made between hot water and
food, or between removing food and putting it back. The form is brief
and elliptical:
B . H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H o t w a t e r but not f o o d .
House of Hillel:
H o t w a t e r and f o o d .
C. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T a k e b u t n o t r e t u r n .
House of Hillel:
Also r e t u r n .
The first pair is perfectly balanced, and the sole difference is the ne
gative particle. The second pair makes the Hillelite opinion dependent
on the Shammaite one. It should have been take and return. The latter
pair therefore looks like a gloss on the former, extending the ruling of
the Houses to a separate, but related case.
See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 455-6.
II.i.38. The House of Shammai say, "They take up bones and shells
from the table(SLHN) [on the Sabbath]."
And the House of Hillel say, "He takes the entire table (TBLH) and
shakes it (MN'RH)."
[M. Shab. 21:3, trans. Danby, p. 118 (b. Shab.
143a, 157a, b. Bes. 2a)]
Comment: The Houses opinions are not balanced, but separate:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : They r a i s e u p f r o m t h e t a b l e ( L H N ) b o n e s a n d shells
H o u s e o f H i l l e l : He t a k e / t h e w h o l e t a b l e t ( T B L H ) and shakes it.
The verbs are neither the same root nor in the same person; the noun
of the predicate changes. The two thus look more like separate rulings
which have been juxtaposed, than a standard dispute on the same matter
in the same language and forms. Tos. Shab. reverses the Houses' posi
tions, but preserves the anomalies of form and word choice. This makes
it all the more curious. MS Kaufmann has the following:
T h e H o u s e o f Hillel
say, " T h e y remove (<BR) f r o m o n t h e t a b l e ( S L H N )
shells a n d b o n e s . "
A n d t h e H o u s e o f Shammai say, "He takes away ( L Q ) t h e w h o l e t a b l e t
( T B L H ) a n d s h a k e s it ( W M N ' R H ) . "
The order is Tosefta's, and so are the word-choices. See Epstein,

Mevo ot, p. 297; Mishnah, pp. 357-8, for a full explanation.
y
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.30
127
II.ii.30.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, ". . .they said a male should

not eat with a female Zab [= one afflicted with gonorrhaea] on
account of becoming accustomed to transgression.
"For(S) the House of Shammai say, *A Pharisee-Z^ should not eat
with an outsider-Z^.'
"And the House of Hillel permit."
[Tos. Shab. 1:14(end)-15, ed. Lieberman, p. 4,
lines 34-5 (y. Shab. 1:3, b. Shab. 13a)]
B. These are among the laws which they said in the upper chamber
of Hananiah b. Hizqiyahu b. Garon when they went up to visit him.
And they counted, and the House of Shammai were more numerous
than the House of Hillel.
Eighteen thing[s] they decreed on that very day.
And that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the [golden]
calf was made.
(Tos. Shab. 1:16, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines
36-8)
C. On that day they said, "All things which are carried bring un
cleanness with the thickness of an ox-goad (MRD )."
And they counted and the House of Shammai were more numerous
than the House of Hillel.
C
[Tos. Shab. 1:18, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines

40-41 (b. Shab. 16b-17a, M. Oh. 16:1)]
D.l. On that day they said, "He who forgets vessels on the Eve of
the Sabbath at darkness under the water pipe."
2. And they counted, and the House of Shammai were more
numerous than the House of Hillel.
42-3 (M. Miq. 4:1, b. Shab. 16b assigns D.2to
Meir)]
E. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "Do you
not agree that they do not roast meat, onion[s] and egg[s] on the Eve
of the Sabbath except so that ('L* KDY S) they may be roasted [while
it is still day]? Also it suffices for dyestuffs and vetches [to be] like
them."
The House of Hillel said to them, "Do you not agree that they lay
128
down the olive-press beams and the winepress rollers on the Eve of
the Sabbath at darkness? Also it suffices for dyestuffs and vetches [to
be] like them."
F. These stood in their answer, and these stood in their answer, but
thatCL'S)
The House of Shammai say, "Six days will you labor and do all your
work (Ex. 20:9)that all your work should be finished by the eve of
the Sabbath."
And the House of Hillel say, "Six days willyou laboryou do work
all six days."
1 : 2 0
2 1 >
L i e b e r m a n 5
p p >
5 j
lines 43-49 (y. Shab. 1:5, b. Shab. 18b)]

G. The House of Shammai say, "One does not sell to the gentile
or carry with him or lift up on him [a burden] unless there is time
('L* KDY S) for him to reach a near place."
H. What is a near place? Until he reaches a house near the wall.
R. Aqiba says. . .
I. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "[Those] of (L) the House of
Rabban Gamaliel would bring their washing to the gentile washerman
three days before the Sabbath, and dying on the eve of the Sabbath. . . "
c

49-55 (b. Shab. 19a has R. Sadoq)]
Comment:
Part
A : L i e b e r m a n e x p l a i n s (Tosefta
Kifshutah
p. 13) that
t h e H i l l e l i t e s , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y p e r m i t t h e P h a r i s a i c Zab to e a t w i t h t h e
non-Pharisaic Zab,
agree with the foregoing
rule, that a male and
f e m a l e Zab s h o u l d n o t e a t t o g e t h e r . O t h e r t e x t s , h o w e v e r , p r e s e n t t h e
H o u s e s - d i s p u t e as a n e w a n d s e p a r a t e i t e m .
Part
B:
T h e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n of t h e e i g h t e e n t h i n g s , M . S h a b . 1:4, is
s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t : M . S h a b . Gurion
becomes
Garon.
T h e gloss
and
that day, w h i c h w e s a w a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e h u m i l i a t i o n o f
H i l l e l ( b . S h a b . 1 7 a , I , p . 3 1 8 ) , fits as w e l l h e r e a s i t d o e s t h e r e , a n d f o r t h e
s a m e r e a s o n : I t i s t h e H i l l e l i t e c o m m e n t o n t h e a f f a i r . (See
e x t e n d e d c o m m e n t s , Tosefta
Kifshutah,
Lieberman's
p p . 14-16.) B u t the comment it
s e l f is a s t o c k p h r a s e , w h i c h c a n b e a t t a c h e d p r e t t y m u c h a n y w h e r e .
Part
C:
N o w w e have a new form,
O n t h a t d a y t h e y said
Law
A n d they counted and the House of Shammai w e r e more numerous than
t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.
T h e f o r m is s o u n d , b u t t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w i s i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
129
II.ii.30
truncated; the Hillelite opinion is omitted. Thus in part C, we do not

have the opposing opinion, (presumably) that even less than the thick
ness of a staff suffices. See M. Oh. 16:1:
A n y m o v a b l e o b j e c t c o n v e y s t h e u n c l e a n n e s s i f it is as t h i c k as a n o x goad.
R. T a r f o n said, " M a y I b u r y m y c h i l d r e n i f t h i s is n o t a p e r v e r t e d
halakhah, w h i c h t h e h e a r e r h e a r d w r o n g l y :
" W h e n a h u s b a n d m a n passed b y [a t o m b ] w i t h t h e o x - g o a d o v e r his
s h o u l d e r a n d o n e e n d o f it o v e r s h a d o w e d t h e t o m b , t h e y d e c l a r e h i m u n
clean b y v i r t u e o f t h e l a w o f 'vessels w h i c h o v e r s h a d o w a c o r p s e . ' "
R . ' A q i b a said, ''I w i l l a m e n d [it] s o t h a t t h e w o r d s o f t h e sages s h a l l r e
main valid:
" A n y m o v a b l e object c o n v e y s uncleanness t o him that carries the object
i f it is as t h i c k as a n o x - g o a d , a n d t h e o b j e c t c o n v e y s t h e u n c l e a n n e s s t o
itself w h a t s o e v e r its t h i c k n e s s , b u t t o o t h e r m e n a n d v e s s e l s o n l y i f i t is a
handbreadth wide."
( M . O h . 16:1,
trans. Danby, p.
672)
We therefore have here the unaltered law, before 'Aqiba's emendation.

Part D presents the same strange form, in which the law is stated
without the opposing opinion. This time it concerns one who leaves
vessels under the water-pipe on the Sabbath Eve at darknessnow,
however, without the pertinent law, let alone a conflicting opinion!
It obviously is an abbreviated allusion to existing materials.
Lieberman explains that the man has left the objects intending to
bring them into his house, but has forgotten to take them in. Mean
while rain fell, and the water pipe filled up, so the vessels are filled as
well. The water is not regarded as drawn water, according to the House
of Hillel, since the man did not leave the vessels intending to fill them up.
We shall see other versions of the same situation, in which the Sabbath
is not the issue at all. What we have here, therefore, is an apocopated
lemma, in which reference is made to a case without the legal details
and outcome.
Parts E-F supply an argument for M. Shab. 1:5 (II.i.34.B), and make
reference as well to M. Shab. 1:9 (II.i.34.I). See Mekhilta deR. Simeon
b. Yohai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 149, cited above, I, pp. 185-187.
Lieberman explains the Hillelite exegesis: "You work all six days, and
the rest of your work will be done of itself on the Sabbath (without
your own efforts)." The legal exegesis is joined by the awkward
'L* , the being a common joining-particle.
Part G = M. Shab. 1:7: M. Shab. gives L>, Tos. Shab., >YN, for the
negative particle. Otherwise there are no changes.
Part H is of interest in supplying a terminus ante quern for the ante
cedent paragraph: R. Aqiba and others of his generation (b. Shab.
18b).
c
Part I compares to M. Shab. 1:9:

130
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
M. Shab.
1:9
II.ii.31
Tos. Shab.
1:22
1 . R a b b a n S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l said
1 . R. L e a z a r b . R . S a d o q said,
2. The House of A b b a were accustomed
2 . Those of ( D ) t h e H o u s e o f
Gamaliel would bring ( H Y W
M W L Y K Y N ) their
(NWHGYN
HYW)
3. that they w o u l d give white garment

( K L Y LBN) t o the gentile laundryman
three days before the Sabbath.
Rabban
3. white garment to the

gentile
laundryman three days before the
Sabbath.
The differences in no. 1 are striking indeed. Instead of a first-hand re

port, we have the recollection of Leazar b. R. Sadoq. No. 2 of Tos.
drops were accustomed, and supplies would bring their for would give, but
otherwise, the passages are identical, and strikingly, verbatim in the
operative clause: white garment]gentile laundry man] three days before Sabbath.
We have a single lemma, which has come down in one form, but with
differing superscriptions. Judah the Patriarch has preferred the version
of his father. It is difficult to understand how a first-person recollection
in direct discourse could have produced a third-person-narrative in in
direct discourse. It seems more likely that someone dropped Eleazar
b. R. Sadoq and reframed the story in the first person, supplying the
name of Simeon b. Gamaliel. It is hard to believe someone would have
suppressed the name of the nasi and inserted that of a subordinated sage,
especially in a matter pertaining to the household of the earlier nasi.
Therefore the Eleazar-attribution must be authentic. And note b. Shab.
19a:
R. S a d o q said, " T h i s w a s t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h o s e o f t h e H o u s e o f R. G a
maliel : T h e y w o u l d g i v e w h i t e g a r m e n t s t o t h e f u l l e r t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e t h e
Sabbath, but colored garments even on the eve of the Sabbath."
See also Epstein,
Mevo ot,
p. 278, 286, 507;
Mishnah,
p. 426.
II.ii.31 A. . . .What do they keep on it [stove] ?

"The House of Shammai say, 'One may not keep (QYM) anything at
all on it.'
"The House of Hillel say, 'Hot water, but not food.'
B. "[If] he has removed ( QR) the kettle, all agree that he should not
put back," the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say,'Hot water, but not food.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Hot water and food.' "
C. He removed [the kettle]
The House of Shammai say, "He does not put [it] back."
And the House of Hillel say, "He puts [it] back."
C
[Tos. Shab. 2(3) :13, ed. Lieberman, pp. 9-10,

lines 42-46 (y. Shab. 3:1,4 [hot/cold water], b.
Shab. 36b-37a, 42a [hot/cold water])]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Comment:
M. Shab.
131
II.ii.31
The synopsis is as follows:
3:1
1. [ S t o v e heated
w i t h peat o r
w o o d ] , cooked
f o o d may n o t be
set o n it u n t i l it has
been swept out o r
covered with
ashes.
Tos. 2:13
Meir
(Anon.)
1. W h a t d o they
keep o n i t ? H o u s e
o f S h a m m a i : They
do not keep anything
on it.
1.
Judah
1.
2.
House of
Hillel:
Hot water, but not
food.
2. House of Sham
mai say: Hot w a t e r
but not food
2.
3. House of Hillel
say, H o t w a t e r a n d
food.
3.
2. If he r e m o v e d
t h e k e t t l e , all a g r e e
that he should n o t
p u t it b a c k .
3.
3 . R. J u d a h says,
House of Shammai
say, H o t w a t e r but
not food.
House of
Hillel
say, H o t w a t e r a n d
food.
4. House of Sham
m a i say, T h e y t a k e
off b u t d o n o t p u t
back.
4.
4.
4.
5. House of Hillel
say, T h e y a l s o p u t
back.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6. He
removed
House of Shammai
say, He does not
p u t back.
House of
Hillel
say, He puts back.
Judah the Patriarch has taken Judah b. Ilai's version of the opinions of
the Houses, dropped the superscription, put the whole into the plural
(they/he), and assigned the rulings to a new situation entirely. M. Shab.
nos. 2-3 are the same as Judah no. 3; nos. 4-5 = Judah no. 6. Here the
form of the Houses-sayings is so abbreviated that one can well under
stand how the second-century authorities would have had difficulty in
knowing to what legal problem the sayings pertained. It is the sort of
lemma one would be inclined to assign to the earliest stratum of the
Houses' sayings.
132
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.32, 3 3
11.11.32. [As to carrying certain objects on the Sabbath]

R. [Simeon b.] Leazar says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They
are not handled (NYTLYN) except in case of need.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'In case of need and not in case of
need/ "
[Tos. Shab. 14(15) :1, ed. Lieberman, p. 64,
lines 5:7(Tos. Bes. 1:11, y. Shab. 17:4)]
Comment: The form is a standard, developed exemplum, with the
insertion of the explanatory matter into the opinion of the House of
Shammai:
Handling
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , O n l y i n case o f n e e d
H o u s e o f Hillel,
I n case o f n e e d a n d n o t i n case o f n e e d .
Simeon b. Leazar followed the form that seems to have come early in
the formation of the Houses-materials. We therefore can hardly assign
all such materials in conventional form to the time of the Houses them
selves. We shall see further disputes about the same principle. For the
legal issues, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Mo ed, p. 226.
Note also b. Shab. 124a-b:
c
D T N N : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " O n e m a y n o t [on f e s t i v a l s ] c a r r y

o u t a n i n f a n t , lulav, o r s c r o l l o f T o r a h i n t o t h e s t r e e t . "
A n d the House o f Hillel permit.

11.11.33. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one that was born cir
cumcized, that one needs to draw from him a drop of blood [in ob
servance] of the covenant, because it is a tucked-in foreskin ( RLH
KBWSH).
"Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning a proselyte who
converted when already circumcized, for(S)
"The House of Shammai say, 'One needs to draw from him a drop
of blood [in observance] of the covenant.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'One does not need to draw from him
a drojp of blood [in observance] of the covenant.' "
C

lines 43-7 (y. Shab. 19:2, b. Shab. 135a, y. Yev.
8:1, Sifra Tazri<al:6)]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.34, 3 5
133
Comment: See Sifra Tazri'a 1:6. There the issue is whether the cir
cumcision may be done on the Sabbath. The Shammaites hold it may,
the Hillelites that it may not. The primary form clearly was phrased in
negative/affirmative terms:
[ Concerning drawing a drop of blood in observance of the covenant from one who was]
born
circumcised:
House of Shammai: They do draw blood

House o f Hillel:
They do not draw blood.
Again, the superscription has been inserted into the House of Sham
mai's lemma. The original Houses-lemma certainly consisted of one
born circumcised + draw blood +/ negative. This was then assigned
to the Sabbath- or conversion-circumcision of one born circumcized.
But before both versions comes the dispute rejected by Simeon: one
born circumcised, for this is the only issue to which the actual Housesrulings really pertain.
II.ii.34. A. The House of Hillel say, "They lift up from (M<L) the
table(SLHN) bones and shells."
The House of Shammai say, "He removes (SLQ) the tablet (TBLH)
entirely and empties it out."
B. Zekhariah b. Avqilas did not behave according to either the
words of the House of Shammai or the words of the House of Hillel,
but he took and threw [it] behind the couch.
C. R. Yosah said, "The modesty of Zekhariah b. Avqilas is what
burned the Temple."
lines 14-17 (b. Shab. 142b-143a, 157a, b. Bes.
2a)]
Comment: M. Shab. 21:3 has it in reverse, but the words of the
Houses' opinions are nearly identical. What has been changed is the
order of the Houses, Hillel first, then Shammai. See Lieberman, Tosefta
Kifshutah, p. 268, Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 247.
II.ii.35.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar says, "The House of Shammai say,
'They do not kill a louse (M'KWLT) on the Sabbath.'
B. And so Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel would say, "The House of
Shammai say, 'They do not distribute charity to the poor on the
Sabbath in the synagogue, even to pay the costs of the marriage of
an orphan boy and an orphan girl, and they do not make a match be-
134
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.5; I V . i . l
tween a man and his woman, and they do not pray concerning the sick
person on the Sabbath.'
[Tos. Shab. 16(17) :21-22, ed. Lieberman,
pp. 79-80, lines 47-51 (b. Shab. 12a; y. Shab.
1:3)]
Comment: The second-century masters here tend to follow the more
developed form, in which the Shammaites' lemma carries the super
scription. However, as we observed above, it was quite possible for
them to make use of the more primitive form, and we cannot assign
precedence to one over the other.
The Shammaite view is attested by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, Epstein,
Mevo ot, p. 279.
y
III.ii.5.A. TNW RBNN: They do not send a letter by the hand

of a gentile on the eve of the Sabbath, unless he stipulated the cost
The House of Shammai say, "So that he may reach his home."
And the House of Hillel say, "So that he may reach the house nearest
t h e W a l L
"
(b. Shab. 19a)
Comment: The beraita is parallel to II.i.36.E. but with a new super

scription, and the Hillelite opinion is different.
IV.i.l. They do not send letters by a gentile either Friday or
Thursday.
The House of Shammai prohibit even on Wednesday.
Comment: The above is not attributed to Tannaitic authorities.
III.ii.5.B. TNW RBNN: The House of Shammai say, "On the
first day [of Hanukkah] he lights eight [candles], from then on he
proceeds to reduce [the number]."
And the House of Hillel say, "On the first day he lights one, and
from then on he proceeds to augment [the number]."
^ Shab 21b)
Comment: The form is standard. The primary form would have
been eightjone (which could have been merely alljnot all, or alljone). The
superscription, on the first day he lights, is inserted into the lemma of each
House, and then both are glossed with the obvious consequent ruling,
from then on etc.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.39
135
II.i.39.A. To render [such] an alley-entry valid (HKR HMBWY):

The House of Shammai say, "[It must have both] side-post and
cross-beam."
And the House of Hillel say, "Side-post or cross-beam."
R. Eliezer says, "There should be two side-posts."
B. In the name of R. Ishmael a disciple stated before R. CAqiba,
"The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute
about an entry less than four cubits [wide], which is valid if it has
either side-post or cross-beam.
"About what did they dispute?
"About one whose width was from four to ten cubits, for ()
"The House of Shammai say, [It must have both] side-posts and
cross-beam.'
"And the House of Hillel say, ''Either side-post or cross-beam.' "
R . Aqiba said, "They disputed about both cases."
6
<
[M. <Eruv. 1:2, trans. Danby, pp. 121-2 (b.

Shab. 117a; y. <Eruv. 1:2, b. <Eruv. 2b,
llb-12a)]
Comment:
The law concerns what must be done to mark an alley so
that its residents may carry therein. The House of Shammai say the
alley must have both a side-post and a crossbeam. The House of Hillel
require one or the other, not both. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus wants two
sidebeams. Part A is in standard, primitive form:
Preparation
(HKSR)
of the alley-entry (MBWY)
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , S i d e b e a m and c r o s s - b e a m
S i d e - b e a m or c r o s s b e a m .
That this primitive form also comes very early in the formation of the
tradition is proved by the dispute of the Ishmaelean and 'Aqiba. The
disciple reports identical language for the Houses, but assigns it to
another circumstance:
Concerning [an alleyway] wider than four cubits to ten
[ b e y o n d t h a t , all a g r e e it m u s t h a v e b o t h side a n d c r o s s - b e a m ] :
House o f S h a m m a i say, Side-beam and cross-beam.
Either s i d e - b e a m or c r o s s - b e a m .
Thus, as I said, the disciple of the Ishmaeleans has made the Hillelites
agree, taken the words of the original dispute, and given them a
different superscription. Aqiba says the dispute pertains to an alley
way of any width, which means he has the same superscription as is
c
136
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.6, II.i.40, III.i.4
before us in part A. The second version makes a minor stylistic im

provement by adding either ('W).
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 79, 119; Mishnah, p. 1064: The authority
is Judah b. Ilai.
III.ii.6. TNW RBNN: How is a road through the public domain
to be provided with an eruv?
The shape of a doorway is made at one end, and a side-post and
cross-beam are fixed at the other.
Hananiah said, "The House of Shammai say, 'A door is made at
one end as well as at the other, and it must be locked when one leaves
or enters.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'A door is made at one end and a
side-post and a cross-beam at the other.' "
c
[b. Eruv. 6a (y. Eruv. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 69)]

Comment: The anonymous rule of part A is that of the House of
Hillel in FJananiah's tradition. The form is not standard, but we are
accustomed to the development of Houses-disputes by later masters.
The Hananiah is Hananiah nephew of R. Joshua, following y. Eruv.
1:1.
c
II.L40.A. Rabban Gamaliel said, "(M<SH B+S) A Sadducee lived

with us in the [same] alley in Jerusalem. Father said to us, 'Hasten and
put out all the [needful] vessels in the alley before he brings out [his
vessels] and [so] restricts you.' "
B. When do they give right of access ?
The House of Shammai say, "While it is yet day."
And the House of Hillel say, "After it has become dark."
C. If five companies (HBWRWT) kept the Sabbath in the same
eating-hall (TRYQLYN), the House of Shammai say, "An êruv [is
needful] for each company (HBWRH)."
And the House of Hillel say, "One *eruv [suffices] for all."
[But] they agree that if some of them occupied rooms or upper
chambers, an eruv is needful for each company.
c
[M. <Eruv. 6:2,4a, 6, trans. Danby, pp. 129-130

(y. <Eruv. 6:3-4, 6; b. Eruv. 48b-49a, 68b, 69b,
71a, 72a-b)]
c
III.i.4. The House of Shammai say, "They do not prepare an

eruv for a man unless his utensils are there."
[y. <Eruv. 3:1 (b. <Eruv. 30b)]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.7
137
III.ii.7. TNY': If five residents [of the same courtyard] collected

their *eruv and deposited it in two receptacles
The House of Shammai rule, "Their *eruv is not an eruv (>YN
<RWBN <RWB)."
The House of Hillel rule, "Their W is an W (<RWBN RWB)."
l
(b. <Eruv. 48b)

c
Comment:
Part A (M. Eruv. 6:2) is discussed above, I, p. 379, and
synopsis, I, p. 384. It makes Simeon b. Gamaliel follow the Shammaite
view.
PartBQA.
Eruv. 6:4) pertains to M. <Eruv. 6:3:
c
If one o f them that lived in the c o u r t y a r d f o r g o t to take part in the

eruv, his h o u s e is f o r b i d d e n b o t h t o h i m a n d t o t h e m . . . b u t t h e i r h o u s e s
are p e r m i t t e d b o t h t o h i m a n d t o t h e m .
<
I f t h e y h a d g i v e n h i m r i g h t o f access t o t h e i r h o u s e s , h e is p e r m i t t e d [to
take aught in and o u t o f his house and the c o u r t y a r d ] , b u t they are f o r
bidden. . .
(M. ' E r u v . 6 : 3 A , trans. D a n b y , p. 1 2 9 )
The man who forgot renders his property a different domain from that
of the others and may not carry in or out of it on the Sabbath. When
can they give him right of access, as specified here? The House of
Shammai say it must be done before sunset on Friday, since one cannot
do so on the Sabbath itself. The House of Hillel say, After it gets dark.
Some MSS (plausibly) read, also, a good gloss,
y. Eruv. 6:4 contains the following:
c
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " T h e y d o n o t a n n u a l t h e r i g h t a f t e r it gets

dark."
A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h e y d o a n n u l t h e r i g h t a f t e r it g e t s d a r k . "
This is the simplest possible version of the dispute, and all the tradent
needed to know was that a Houses' dispute about the matter existed.
He could then reconstruct the dispute and supply the proper opinion
to the right House on the basis of the general principle that the Sham
maites were strict, the Hillelites lenient.
The problem of partC(M.
Eruv. 6:6) concerns five companies who
spend the Sabbath in a single room, but remain as separate groups
within it. The House of Shammai say that each group must supply its
own erttv with others in the same courtyard; the House of Hillel say
that one serves for all five, for the room joins the five groups to one
household. The form of part B poses no problems:
c
When do they give right of access?

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W h i l e it is still d a y
House o f Hillel:
[ W h i l e it is still d a y a n d ] also after it g e t s d a r k .
138
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
I I . i . 4 1 , III.ii.8
Part C likewise has similar form, though the opinions of the Houses are
somewhat developed:
If five companiessame
eating-hall
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ A n ] *eruv f o r each ( K L ) company and company

House o f Hillel:
An 'eruv f o r all ( K W L N ) of them
The differences are the italicized words. The Hillelite opinion depends
upon the Shammaite one and could not have stood separately. The
same is so in part B. The original words of the Hillelites therefore
cannot be before us, though the changes in the earlier form need not
have been substantial. The lemmas are not neatly matched:
<RWB LKL HBWRH WHBWRH
<RWB >HD LKWLM
We should have expected for the Shammaites
[<RWB] LKL >HD [W'HD]
Thus, as above (p. 55) 1,2-2,1. The same principle is debated by the
Houses in Tos. Ber. 5:30, above, p. 51.
See Epstein, Mishnah,
Shammaite view.
pp. 460,1200; Simeon b. Gamaliel follows the
II.L41.A. [If there was] a cistern between two courtyards [which

had not made eruv], they may not draw water therefrom on the
Sabbath unless they had made for it a partition ten handbreadths high,
either above, or below or [only] within its rim.
B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says,
"The House of Shammai say, 'Below.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Above.' "
c
[M. <Eruv. 8:6, trans. Danby, p. 132 (y. <Eruv.

8:6, b. <Eruv. 86a, b. Suk. 16a-b)]
Comment:
Part A ignores the dispute of the Houses. That does not
tell us whether it comes before or afterward. The Houses-sayings
contain nothing to join them to the foregoing case. It is Simeon b.
Gamaliel who has supplied that connection. Otherwise we should not
have known about what the Houses disputed. As it is, all we know is
that Simeon b. Gamaliel alleges the Hillelites took a lenient position,
allowing the partition to stand above the whole. But the law does not
in this instance follow either House.
See Epstein,
Mishnah,
pp. 358-9.
III.ii.8.A. DTNY': Hananiah says, "The House of Shammai say,

'One may bake only if he set an eruv of bread, and one may cook only if
c
139
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.9,10
he set an eruv of cooked food, and one may store only if he had already
warm water stored on the eve of the Festival.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'One may set an 'eruv with one dish
and prepare all his requirements [in reliance] thereon.' "
(b. Bes. 17b)
Comment:
The issue is whether one must prepare an eruv for each
sort of food-preparation one plans to do. The Houses take the positions
one would expect. Hananiah's form for the dispute is conventional, but
that proves nothing about the authenticity of his tradition.
<
III.ii.9. An *eruv may be prepared for a Nazirite with wine etc. Our
Mishnah does not represent the view of the House of Shammai.
For it was taught:
The House of Shammai say, "No 'eruv may be prepared for a
Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah.
And the House of Hillel say, "An 'eruv may be prepared for a
Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah. '
B. The House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Do you not
agree that an 'eruv may be prepared for an adult in connection with
the Day of Atonement?"
They said to them, "True (>BL)."
They said to them, "Just as an eruv may be prepared for an adult in
connection with the Day of Atonement, so may an *eruv be prepared
for a Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah."
IILii.10. For it was taught: Hananiah stated, "The House of Sham
mai did not admit the very principle of *eruv unless the man takes out
thither his bed and all the objects he uses."
(b. <Eruv. 30a-b)
9
Comment:
The form is reminiscent of b. Bes. 17b, above, in that we
have the specification of several items on which the Houses take
consistent positions. The Houses' opinions are carefully balanced:
1. ' YN M'RBYN LNZYR BYYN
2. WLYSR'L BTRWMH
1. M'RBYN LNZYR BYYN
2. WLYSR'L BTRWMH
The only difference is the negative ('YN), assigned to the Shammaites.
The dispute of part B is not conventional; indeed, the Shammaites
say practically nothing and are made to concede the correctness of the
Hillelite position. The Hillelites Do you not agree is followed not by a
distinction or counter-argument, but merely 'BL, true. Then the
140
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.42
Hillelites draw the obvious consequence of that agreement: the

principle is identical, therefore just as one prepares what is theoretically
prohibited for use on the Day of Atonement, so one prepares what is
theoretically prohibited for use by the Nazir. The debate certainly is a
late invention, in which the Hillelites as usual stress their own con
sistency and point up the Shammaites' inconsistency, much as Hillel
asks Shammai why one vintages in a state of cleanness but does not
pick olives in a similar state. All Shammai is allowed to say is that he
can impose his view on Hillel by force. The allegation that Shammaite
positions are self-contradictory and Hillelite ones internally harmonious
and logical derives, if not from the House of Hillel, then from later
Hillelite tradents.
The primary dispute may be authentic; it is a singleton, but is con
sistent in giving the Shammaites the stringent position, the Hillelites
the lenient one; and the form is standard and balanced. Hananiah's
saying is difficult to evaluate; we do not know whether he merely
drew the consequences of an existing pericope, or whether he claimed
to have an independent tradition on the matter.
II.i.42.A.. On the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan] the hames must
be searched for by the light of a lamp. Any place into which hames is
never brought needs no searching. Then why have they said, "[They
search] two rows in a wine-vault?" They are a place into which hames
might be brought.
B. The House of Shammai say, "[They must examine] the two rows
on the whole surface 0/[the stack of jars in] the wine-vault."
And.the House of Hillel say, "Only the two outermost rows that are
uppermost."
[M. Pes. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 136 (y. Pes. 1:1,
b. Pes. 2a, 8b)]
Comment:
Part B serves as a gloss on the foregoing, which presum
ably antedates the Houses. The Talmud explains the instructions of the
Houses. What is of interest here is the further use of a Houses-clause as
explanatory matter for a pre-existing law. As in other cases the implica
tion is that the laws existed, in the very form in which we have them
("why have they said. . . " ) , before the Houses supplied their glosses,
and that the law code therefore conies before the Houses. We have had
no hint in the traditions of the named authorities that such a code
existed, let alone in the precise form in which it comes down to us.
We should have expected some sort of superscription, e.g.:
Until where do they search?
House o f S h a m m a i : [ T w o r o w s ] o n the w h o l e surface
House o f Hillel:
[ T w o ] external [rows] w h i c h are the uppermost.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
141
II.i.43, 4 4
The sayings of the Houses are as balanced as one might have expected,
since the changes in word-choice are necessary to convey the sense of
the respective Houses. It is the absence of a superscription that is
curious. The Houses' sayings merely repeat the gloss but do not answer
the question, Why have they said STY SWRWT BMRTP:
Shammaite: STY SWRWT <L KL PNY HMRTP
Hillelite:
STY SWRWT HHYSWNWT
Then further glossed: SHN H'LYWNWT. SO the Houses differ on
outermost vs. on the whole surface. See Epstein, Mishnah,
p. 609.
ILi.43.A. Where the custom is to do work on the Ninth of Av, they
may do so; where the custom is not to do work, they do not work. But
everywhere the disciples of the sages cease from work.
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "A man should always behave as a
disciple of the sages."
B. Moreover the sages say, "In Judea they used to do work until
midday on the eve of Passover, but in Galilee they used to do nothing
at all."
C. And in [what concerns work on] the night [between the 13th
and 14th of Nisan], the House of Shammai forbid [any work].
And the House of Hillel permit until sunrise.
b. Pes. 55a, b. Yev. 13b)]
Comment:
Part B, while formally separate from part A, depends
upon it for context and meaning. It is therefore much like the gloss in
the foregoing. The materials in part A derive from Simeon b. Gamaliel
and "the sages" and refer to Judah and Galilee, rather than regions
such as those mentioned in the letter of Simeon b. Gamaliel and
Yohanan b. Zakkai (Upper South, Lower South). The issue is the
night between the thirteenth and fourteenth in Galilee (presumably in
Judah they worked through the night). The House-dispute is con
ventional:
And the night before the fourteenth
House of Shammai prohibit
A n d H o u s e o f Hillel p e r m i t .
The gloss until

dundant.
dawn
clarifies the Hillelite definition of
night\
it is re
II.i.44. If a man became a proselyte on the day before Passover

The House of Shammai say, "He immerses himself and consumes his
Passover-offering in the evening."
142
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.45, 4 6
And the House of Hillel say, "He that separates himself from the
foreskin is like one that separates himself from a grave."
b. Pes. 92a)]
Comment:
The form is perfectuntil we come to the saying of the
Hillelites. It is a substantial development over what must have been
originally stated, for otherwise, we have to assume that the Hillelites
responded not according to the subject under discussion, but with an
enigmatic, allusive phrase. The saying means that the one who has just
been circumcized is like one who has just touched a grave: he requires
sprinkling on the third and seventh day after the circumcision, just like
someone who has been made unclean by a corpse (Num. 19:18-19). The
Hillelites ought to have said, following the Shammaite pattern:
He requires sprinkling (HZ'H) etc.
or merely the negative:
He does not immerse [and consume his Passover-offering].
I do not understand the preference for a somewhat elliptical expres
sion, which, while comprehensible, carries us far afield, unless the
Hillelite lemma is a development over its original language.
The authority is R. Yosi, M. Ed. 5:2, so Epstein, Mev6*ot, p. 147;
see also Mishnah, p. 516.
c
11.1.45. After they have mixed him his first cup

The House of Shammai say, "He says the Benediction first over the
day and then the Benediction over the wine."
And the House of Hillel say, "He says the Benediction first over the
wine and then the Benediction over the day."
[M. Pes. 10:2, trans. Danby, p. 150 (y. Pes.
10:2, b. Pes. 114a)]
Comment:
See M. Ber. 8:1, above, p. 43. After-cup is a redactional
gloss to tie the dispute to the context: laws of the Seder. The Houseslemmas are identical in both places.
11.1.46. How far does he recite [the Hallel] ?

The House of Shammai say, "To 'A joyful mother of children.' "
And the House of Hillel say, "To 'A flints tone into a springing well'
(Ps. 114:8)."
^
^
( p
p e
1 Q : 6
p #
1 5 1
e s
10:5, b. Pes. 116b-117a)]

Comment:
The opinions of the Houses are followed by a dispute of
R. Tarfon and R. 'Aqiba on the conclusion of the Hallel at the Passover
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.ll, II.ii.36, III.ii.12, 1 3
143
Seder, which takes for granted the existence of the Houses dispute and
therefore supplies a terminus ante quern. The sages assume that one has
referred to the Exodus from Egypt, that is, the opinion of the Hillelites:
One already has said, "When Israel went forth from Egypt. The form is
conventional. Citing Scripture was necessary, so the usual practice of
using key-words has been dropped.
111.11.11. How far does he recite it ?
The House of Shammai say, "Until When Israel came forth out of
Egypt(Vs. 114:1)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Until Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us
(Ps. 115:1)."
- _
(b. Pes. 117a)

v
Comment: This form ought to antedate the version of II.i.46, and it

ought to be what the Yavneans would have had before them.
II.ii.36.A. The House of Shammai say, "They do not burn clean
meat with unclean meat."
B. At first they would say, "They do not sell hames to a gentile and
do not give it to him as a gift, unless ('L KDY ) he eats it before the
hour of Removal comes."
Until R. Aqiba came and taught that they sell and give as a gift
even at the hour of Removal.
C. R. Yosah said, "These [ = at first] are the words of the House of
Shammai, and these [ = Aqiba] are the words of the House of Hillel.
R. Aqiba decided to support the words of the House of Hillel."
5
[Tos. Pisha 1:6, at the end, and 1:7, ed. Lieber

man, p. 142, lines 29-34 (y. Pes. 1:6, 3:6 [re
Terumah]; b. Pes. 15b; b. Pes. 21a, b. Shab.
18b)]
111.11.12. As to piggul, notar, and unclean [sacrificial meat], the
House of Shammai say, "They are not burned together."
The House of Hillel say, "They are burned together." ^
^ ^
111.11.13. TNW RBNN: "A man does not sell his leaven to a
gentile, unless he knows that it will be consumed before Passover"
the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "As long as he [the Jew] may eat it, he
m a y S e l H t
-"
(b. Shab. 18b)
144
Comment: II.ii.36: The dispute of part A comes at the end of a set of

discussions on burning unclean and clean sanctities, e.g. Heave-offering
of various categories of uncleanness, etc. R. Simeon reports, "R.
Liezer and R. Joshua did not dispute concerning clean and unclean,
that they burn this by itself and this by itself. Concerning what did they
differ? Concerning suspended [unclean] with unclean, for R. Liezer
says, 'This is burned by itself and this by itself,' and R. Joshua [says],
'The two of them together.' " The positions of the Houses are suffi
ciently parallel, though in reference to different matters, so that it looks
as if Eliezer = House of Shammai and Joshua = House of Hillel. The
dispute logically comes before the issue discussed in Sifra Sav =
M. M. S. 3:9, above, p. 13,100.
The pericope of the Houses (part A) is preceded by a saying of R.
Yosah and may in fact be read as part of that saying; in any case he
supplies the terminus ante quern.
Part B's opening ruling, that the gentile has to be able to consume
the leaven before the hour of Removal, is similar to the ruling of the
House of Shammai (M. Shab. 1:7), that the gentile must be able to
reach his home before sunset. In b. Shab. 18b, the ruling on leaven is
attributed to the House of Shammai. So at first the law followed the
Shammaites. R. 'Aqiba then reversed matters. R. Yosah then makes the
whole explicit: At first. . . is the ruling of the House of Shammai, and
'Aqiba's ruling is the House of Hillel, and 'Aqiba decided matters in
favor of the House of Hillel. (See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, to Tos.
Shab. Chap. 1, line 51, p. 21, for further comment.)
Hanina, Prefect of the Priests, M. Pes. 1:6, y. Pes. 1:6, is in accord
with the Hillelite position, I, p. 402.
II.ii.37.A. "The pesahthey return it whole and they do not return
it in pieces.
"Concerning the limbs, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'They return.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not return.' "
[Tos. Pisha 7:2, ed. Lieberman, p. 176, lines
6-10 (Sifre Deut. 134, y. Shab. 1:11)]
Comment: The dispute of the Houses pertains to the ^.ra^-sacrifice.
The sacrifice was cut apart by the limbs. The House of Shammai say
one does not return them to the oven, the House of Hillel that one does.
Simeon builds the dispute on the basis of Yosi and Judah. For the
parallel problem with reference to the Sabbath, see Tos. Shab. 2:13,
ed. Lieberman, pp. 9-10, lines 42-45. Indeed the verbal formulae are so
close that it again looks as if the same rulings have been assigned to
different disputes:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Tos. Shab.
Tos. Pisha
2:13
7:2
M. Shab.
1. . . .concerning the
1. He r e m o v e d
145
II.ii.38, 39
1.
3:1
limbs
2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say
he does n o t put back
2. House
of
Shammai
say, They p u t b a c k
2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say,
T h e y take but d o n o t p u t
back
3. and House o f
say h e p u t s b a c k
3 . H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,
They d o n o t p u t b a c k
3. House of Hillel
T h e y also p u t b a c k
Hillel
say,
Clearly, a tradition involving the root HZR, causative, third person

singular or plural, with or without the negative particle, has been
everywhere developed into a Houses-dispute, with the various possible
combinations of singular and plural, affirmative and negative, assigned
to each of the Houses. All that changes is the legal setting and super
scriptions, just as in M. Pes. 10:2 = M. Ber. 8:1.
II.ii.38.A. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "The House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel agree concerning an uncircumcized male (Israelite),
that he receives sprinkling and eats.
"Concerning an uncircumcized gentile [convert, who was converted
and circumcized on the eve of Passover], for (S)
B. "The House of Shammai say, 'He immerses and eats his pesah
in the evening.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He who separates from the foreskin
is like him who separates from the grave.' "
63-66 (b. Pes. 92a)]
c
See M. Pes. 8:8, M. Ed. 5:2. Judah the Patriarch has

followed Eleazar b. R. Sadoq's version, part B, adding the necessary
superscription. But then as I suggested, the original dispute must have
been as follows:
Comment:
An uncircumcized Jew who circumcised on the eve of Passover bejore the sacrifice
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : I m m e r s e s [ = s p r i n k l i n g ] a n d eats
House o f Hillel:
D o e s n o t etc.
Eleazar now has the Hillelites go over to the Shammaite position in

that case, but differ concerning the gentile.
II.ii.39.A. They mixed for him the first cup
The House of Shammai say, "He blesses the day and afterward he
10
146
blesses the wine, for the day causes that the wine should come, and the
day is already sanctified, and still the wine has not come."
And the House of Hillel say, "He blesses the wine and afterward he
blesses the day, for the wine causes that the Sanctification of the day
should be said.
B. "Another matter, the blessing of the wine is perpetual, and the
blessing of the day is not perpetual."
C. And the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel.
(Tos. Pisha 10:2-3, ed. Lieberman, p. 196,
lines 4-8)
Comment: See M. Ber. 8:1:
M. Ber. 8:1
1. T h e s e a r e t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e b e t w e e n
the House o f Shammai and the H o u s e
Tos. Pisha 10:2-3 [M. Pes.

10:2]
1. They mixed for him the first cup
o f Hillel concerning the meal.

2. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , H e
blesses t h e d a y , a n d a f t e r w a r d h e blesses
the wine.
3 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, H e
blesses t h e w i n e , a n d a f t e r w a r d h e
blesses t h e d a y .
2.
for the day causes etc.
3 , for the wine causes e t c
The glosses explaining the positions of the Houses come after the
simple formulae of those positions. The Shammaites hold that if it
were not for the festival, there would be no wine. The day is sanctified
as soon as it gets dark, and the wine still has not come. Therefore its
blessing comes first. The Hillelites hold that if there is no wine, the
Sanctification is not saidall just as in Tos Ber., above, p. 50.
The other matter, Part C, defends the foregoing argument against a
possible criticism. Even if he did not yet say the Sanctification of the day
in his prayer, and he does so without wine, the blessing of the wine
comes first, since it is perpetual obligation. The contrary critique there
fore would have been that he certainly does have to sanctify the dayin
prayereven though there is no wine. One therefore cannot say that
the wine causes the Sanctification of the day to be said. While the
Shammaite critique is not given, the answer to it thus lies before us.
We do not have to suppose the Shammaites said such a thing. The
later masters were stern logical critics of their own positions and would
have seen the difficulty and willingly responded to it, whether or not
Shammaites were available to point out the difficulty. The other matter
is therefore apt to be a gloss, justifying the Hillelite position against a
theoretical critique. The Shammaites are (probably rightly) not credited
with it.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.40, II.i.47
147
II.ii.40. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "And

have they already gone forth [from Egypt, in the evening] that they
should make mention of the Exodus from Egypt?"
The House of Hillel said to them, "Even if he should wait until the
cock crows, lo, if they did not go forth until the sixth hour of the day,
how should he say [words concerning] redemption, for they still were
not redeemed?"
24-28 (y. Pes. 10:5)]
Comment: The debate explains the reasoning of each side in M. Pes.
10:6. The Shammaites are not given a reply, y. Pes. 10:5 gives a fuller
version of the Hillelite lemma:
" I f h e w a i t e d u n t i l t h e c o c k c r o w s , still t h e y h a v e n o t r e a c h e d h a l f t h e
r e d e m p t i o n . H o w are they t o m a k e m e n t i o n o f r e d e m p t i o n , and still they
h a v e n o t b e e n r e d e e m e d ? A n d is it n o t s o t h a t t h e y d i d n o t g o f o r t h u n t i l
n o o n . . . B u t since h e b e g a n w i t h t h e misvah, h e said 'Finish ( M R Q ) '
[talking a b o u t i t ] . "
Note House of Shammai in Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6,

Epstein-Melamed p. 12, Is. 4-5, on evening, (Vol. I, p. 156).
II.L47.A. [If a man] brings together (KN$) coins and said, "Lo,
these are for my sheqel"
The House of Shammai say, "The surplus falls as a free-will offering
(NDBH) [to the Temple fund]."
And the House of Hillel say, "The surplus is free for common use
(HLYN)."
B. [If he said that] I shall bring from them for my sheqel, they agree
that their surplus is for common use (HLYN).
C. [But if he said], "These are for my sin-offering," they agree that
the surplus falls as a free-will offering (NDBH) [to the Temple fund].
[But if he said], "I will bring my sin-offering from them," they
agree that the surplus is free for common use (HLYN).
[M. Sheq. 2:3, ed. Danby, p. 153 (y. Sheq. 2:3,
y. Naz. 5:1)]
Comment: The Houses-dispute is in conventional form:
He who gathers together coins and said, Lo, these are my sheqel
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , [ T h e i r excess is] f r e e - w i l l o f f e r i n g ( N D B H )
[ T h e i r excess is] u n c o n s e c r a t e d ( H L Y N ) .
148
Part B preserves the apodosis of the superscription, taking for granted

the protasis, so the pericope is a unity.
The legal issue is the effect of the man's intention. The Hillelites hold
that while he only intended to sanctify what was necessary, his language
was imprecise. The Shammaites regard the actual language as decisive.
The dispute of the Houses on whether what is erroneously consecrated
is regarded as consecrated recurs elsewhere; the various specific dis
putes all turn on that principle and look like variations of that single
fixed difference. In the second case the Houses obviously agree, since
the language now conforms to the precise intention. As to the sinoffering, part C, here the Shammaites' position is accepted by the
Hillelites. R. Simeon specifies the reason in M. Sheq. 2:4. The sheqel has
a limit, while there is no limit on sin-offerings. So the Hillelites now
have no reason to disagree. On this basis Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 152,
assigns 2:3-4 to Simeon.
II.i.48. If the flesh of the Most Holy Things (QD$Y QD$YM)
contracted uncleanness, whether from a primary uncleanness or from
a derived uncleanness, whether inside [the Temple Court] or outside it
The House of Shammai say, "All must be burnt inside, save when
it has contracted uncleanness from a primary uncleannessoutside."
And the House of Hillel say, "All must be burnt outside, save when
it has contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleannessinside."
[M. Sheq. 8:6, trans. Danby, p. 161 (y. Sheq.
8:3)]
Comment: See M. M.S. 3:9, where the superscription pertains to
Second Tithe which enteredJerusalem:
MM.S.3:9
M. Sheq.
1. S e c o n d T i t h e t h a t e n t e r e d J e r u s a l e m a n d
1. Flesh of Holy of Holies that be-
8:6
became unclean
came unclean
2. W h e t h e r u n c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n ness o r an O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s
2. whether by a Father
[ O m i t s : made unclean]
3 . W h e t h e r inside o r o u t s i d e
3.
4. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , A l l is r e d e e m e d
a n d eaten i n s i d e , e x c e p t w h a t is m a d e u n
c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is
eaten] outside
4. A l l is burned inside
5. H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, A l l is r e d e e m e d a n d
e a t e n o u t s i d e , e x c e p t w h a t is m a d e u n c l e a n
b y an O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is
e a t e n ] inside
5 . A l l is burned o u t s i d e
,,
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.41, III.ii.19
149
The opinions of the Houses are the same, except is redeemed of Second
Tithe becomes is burned for the meat, a change required by the legal
context, and the verb made unclean is not repeated in M. Sheq. no. 2, a
stylistic change of no importance. Here again, it looks as though a
standard Houses-opinion has been placed into several appropriate
contexts by doctoring the superscriptions. This is Judah's version in
Sifra Sav 8:6, so Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 73-4.
II.ii.41.A. Meat of the Most Holy Things which contracted un
cleanness, whether from a Father of Uncleanness or an Offspring
of Uncleanness, whether inside or outside
The House of Shammai say, "All will be burned inside, except for
that which was made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness, [which is
burned] outside."
And the House of Hillel say, "All will be burned outside, except for
that which was made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness, [which
is burned] inside."
B. R. Liezer says, "What is made unclean by a Father of Unclean
ness, whether inside or outside, is burned outside, and by an Offspring
of Uncleanness, whether outside or inside, is burned inside."
C. R. Judah says, "R. Liezer speaks [says] according to the words of
the House of Shammai. R. Aqiba speaks [says] according to the
words of the House of Hillel."
c
[Tos. Sheq. 3:16, ed. Lieberman, pp. 216-7,

lines 46-52 (Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, Tos.
M.S. 2:16)]
Comment:
See M. Sheq. 8:6, and above, pp. 100-105. Here R. Judah
b. Ilai makes explicit what we surmised above. What is missing here is
the opinion of ' Aqiba, which is in M. Sheq. 8:7. See also Sifra Sav 8:6.
III.ii.19. How much must one have drunk to become culpable [for
drinking on the Day of Atonement] ?
The House of Shammai say, "One fourth [of a log].
The House of Hillel say, "One mouthful."
R. Judah in the name of R. Eliezer says, "As much as a mouthful."
99
(b. Yoma 80a)

Comment:
The form is standard. The Houses-sayings consist of the
following:
Shammai: RBY<YT
Hillel:
ML' LWGMYW
150
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.49, 5 0
The sayings consist of standard measures of liquid, therefore are as

balanced as one could expect. Eliezer's difference from the House of
Hillel is discussed in the accompanying gemara. The Hillelites are not
exact as to the matter. Eliezer insists it must be exactly a mouthful. The
Shammaite's minimum is greater than the Hillelites'; they therefore are
in the more lenient position, and R. Hoshaiah observes, "If so, it
would be a case in which the House of Shammai take the more lenient
view, the House of Hillel the more stringent one."
This is a singleton. The difference between the Houses is not consider
able, and it may be that, if the traditions are authentic, the real difference
is in word-choice. That is, curiously, the sole Houses-tradition per
taining to the Day of Atonement.
II.i.49.A. hrLo\&Sukkah
The House of Shammai declare invalid
And the House of Hillel declare valid.
B. And what is deemed an old Sukkah} Any that was made thirty
days before the Feast.
But if it was made for the sake of the Feast, even at the beginning of
the year, it is valid.
[M. Suk. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 173 (y. Pes. 2:4
= old massah; y. Suk. 1:2, b. Suk. 9a)]
Comment: The form is standard. Part B serves as a neutral, later gloss
to the Houses-dispute.
II.i.50. If there was a timber roofing that had no plastering
R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'He loosens and re
moves one beam between each two.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He [either] loosens or removes one
beam between each two.' "
R. Meir says, "He removes one beam between each two, but does not
loosen the roofing."
[M. Suk. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 173 (y. Suk. 1:8,
b. Suk. 15a)]
Comment: Judah b. Ilai records a Houses-dispute on a Sukkah cover
ed by a timbered roofing. To render the Sukkah valid, the Shammaites
say, the man has both to loosen the timbers and to remove one of
every two, and then to place sekhakh over the whole instead. The House
of Hillel say it is sufficient either to loosen the whole or to remove one
of every two beams, then to place the sekhakh, but one does not have to
do both. Meir says, following the Hillelite view, that one must remove
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.51
151
alternate beams but does not loosen; thus there is no choice as to the
procedure.
Meir does not attribute his view to the House of Hillel. But in
effect, the dispute is between Meir and Judah and concerns whether
there is a choice as to the matter; Judah says there is, Meir, there is not.
No one regards the Hillelite opinion as other than law. Both interpret
it. One must therefore wonder, Why has Judah b. Ilai preserved the
Houses-dispute? For the purposes of the law, it would have sufficed to
give his opinion in the following setting:
If there was a timber roofing that had no plastering
J u d a h s a y s , H e [either] l o o s e n s o r r e m o v e s
M e i r says,
He r e m o v e s and does not loosen.
Dropping the Houses-materials, Judah would have adequately stated

his view of the legal issue before the second-century masters. Since I
can see no purpose served by preserving the Houses-form, I suppose
Judah may report an authentic Houses-pericope. To be sure, whether
the Houses-pericope goes back to the actual Houses, or to earlier
masters who made use of the Houses-form, we cannot say for sure.
But as it stands, the pericope seems to me possibly to reflect an inten
tion accurately to preserve the traditional materials.
See Epstein,
Mishnah,
p. 1064 on disputes as to >W.
II.L51.A. If a man's head and the greater part of his body are
within the Sukkah, but his table is within the house
The House of Shammai declare it invalid (P$L).
And the House of Hillel declare it valid (K$R).
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Was thus
not the incident, that (WL> KK HYH M'SH S) the Elders of the House
of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel went to visit R.
Yohanan b. HaHorani and found him sitting with his head and the
greater part of his body within the Sukkah, while his table was within
the house, and they did not say a thing to him [MS Kaufmann omits
and-him~\ ?"
C. The House of Shammai said to them, "Is there proof from that?
They indeed (*P) said to him, 'If such has been your custom you have
never in your life fulfilled the law of the Sukkah' "
[M. Suk. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 175 (b. Ber. 11a,
y. Suk. 2:8, b. Suk. 3a, 7b, 28a-b)]
Comment:
Part A is standard. The legal issue is whether the Sukkah is
sufficiently large. If the man cannot go into it, but leans into it while
152
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.51
sitting in his own house, he has not fulfilled the obligation, so the
Shammaites. But their language is not YSM
The Hillelites accept so small a Sukkah as valid. YS also in part C,
would be better.
The debate-form in part B is used not for an exchange of principles,
but rather to trade stories. What we in fact have is two separate ver
sions of the incident, joined by they said to them and revised to support
the positions of the respective Houses.
The House of Hillel's version is that a Shammaite disciple followed
the law according to the House of Hillel. Sages of both Houses knew
about it and said nothing to him. Hence good Shammaites follow the
Hillelite law, the evidently well-known Yohanan b. HaHorani among
them, and even the elders of the House knew about it and registered no
complaint. The Hillelite House thus contend the Shammaite position is
not what the House of Shammai now allege it to be! The Shammaite
House does not even know the authentic Shammaite tradition.
The House of Shammai do not reject the story. They merely claim
that the sages of both Houses say the man has never carried out the
commandment. Their allegation, therefore, is the precise opposite of
the Hillelites': The sages of the Hillelite House in fact concurred in the
Shammaite ruling. So the little debate concerns the validity of part
A, each party maintaining the other had agreed with its positionthere
ought to be no dispute at all.
It is not difficult to reconstruct an original for the story cited in the
debate. It looks to me as if the Shammaite version would be as follows:
5
A.
B..
C.
T h e E l d e r s of t h e H o u s e of S h a m m a i a n d t h e E l d e r s of t h e H o u s e of
H i l l e l w e n t t o v i s i t R. Y o h a n a n .
T h e y f o u n d h i m s i t t i n g w i t h his h e a d a n d g r e a t e r p a r t o f his b o d y
w i t h i n t h e Sukkah, w h i l e his table w a s w i t h i n t h e H o u s e .
T h e y said t o h i m , " I f s u c h has b e e n y o u r c u s t o m , y o u h a v e n e v e r in
y o u r life fulfilled t h e l a w o f t h e
Sukkah"
This story has been revised for redactional purposes. The opening
lines obviously do not need to be repeated. But the imposition of the
debate-form has required the inclusion of is there proof from that, but. . .
indeed. This now connects the operative statement, If such. . . to the
dispute. The Hillelite version of the story is before us without alter
ation.
It serves no purpose to speculate on what "really" happened, if
anything. The fact is that the Houses made use of incidents involving
the elders as precedents. Presumably, the Shammaites told how Hillel
had obeyed the law as the Shammaites taught it (Temple sacrifice), just
as the Hillelites alleged all good Shammaites followed Hillelite law
(Baba b. Buta). The involvement of Yohanan is the real problem before
both Houses. The Hillelites allege that, while he is claimed by the
Shammaites, he really followed the law of the House of Hillel. The
Shammaite response is: If so, he never kept the law at all. This is a
rather weak reply, since it implicitly accepts the allegation of the
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
153
II.ii.15, II.i.52
Hillelites and merely repeats the Shammaite position without new

testimony. We should have much preferred a Shammaite story about
how Yohanan had never done any such thing at all, but had built his
Sukkah in the proper dimensions to begin with. So it looks to me as if
the Shammaite version of the story is just thata version. They have
revised the antecedent Hillelite story to serve their own purposes, but
they have no other story to substitute in its place, or whatever other
story they had has been suppressed.
If this is the case, it is striking that the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-form
has prevailed. The Hillelites do not suppress the Shammaite answer.
As usual, the Houses enjoy full formal parity with one another. If so,
why could the Shammaites not have introduced their own version,
which would not have had Yohanan's Sukkah improper to begin with ?
We cannot suppose concern for veracity prevented them, since they
were prepared to revise the Hillelite story at its crucial point. It looks
to me as if the Shammaites of this story come long after the fact (if any),
and that they invent no new account because, coming sufficiently long
after he died, they could only contradict Hillelite allegations about him,
but not invent new facts. We have no further stories of visits of the
Elders of both Houses to this particular master, so we cannot speculate
on what the Shammaites would have preserved as a record of the
occasion, instead of the issue of the size of his Sukkah. We shall see
further versions of the Horanite-problem, Tos. Suk. 2:3, below,
p. 155.
Note Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 213, 353; Mishnah, pp. 630,635.
y
III.ii.15. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it [the cover
ing of the Sukkah]
The House of Shammai declare invalid.
(b. Suk. 22b)
Comment: This is a singleton, part of a beraita but unattested else
where. The form is entirely conventional. The problem pertains to the
foregoing, II. i. 51.
II.i.52. [A citron] of ^^/-produce
The House of Shammai declare invalid.
c
[M. Suk. 3:5, trans. Danby, p. 176 (y. Eruv.

3:2;y. Suk.3:5,b. Suk. 35b)]
Comment: The form is standard. The issue is whether one may make
use of citrons of various sorts: stolen, withered, from an asherah, from
an apostate city, ' orlah-fruit, unclean Heave-offering, clean Heaveoffering, then demai, finally, Second Tithe. The Houses rule only on one
154
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.53
detail; all the rest of the laws are given anonymously and unanimously.
The implication is that the other laws come earlier and form part of a
a standard code, with the Houses' supplying a minor addition to the
list.
If one is not sure whether the citron comes from tithed produce, he
must not make use of it but may feed it to the poor, as in the case of
demai in general. So the case of demai pertains to doubtful, not certain
status, while the other items in the list are all certainly in the category of
produce to which laws surely pertain (stolen, or Heave-offering, and so
forth). The Houses-dispute pertains to the most ambiguous matter.
Compare M. Eruv. 3:2: They make an eruv with demai.
c
II.i.53.A. And where do they shake the Lu/av?

"At the beginning and the end of the Psalm, O give thanks unto the
Lord (Ps. 118) and at Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord"according to
the words of the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "Also ( P) at O Lord, we beseech thee,
send now prosperity."
B. R. Aqiba said, "I once watched Rabban Gamaliel and R.
Joshua, and while all the people were shaking their Lulavs, they shook
them only at Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord."
5
[M. Suk. 3:9, trans. Danby, p. 177 (y. Suk.

3:8,b. Suk. 38a)]
Comment:
The form is egregious, for it places the House of Hillel
before Shammai, and it is KDBRY, rather than >MRYM. As it stands,
part B supplies the information that the masters had apparently done
things according to neither House. The pericope therefore breaks the
normal form. The testimony of Aqiba tells us something we cannot
relate to the antecedent dispute. We should have expected the following
c
Where do they shake?

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A t O Lord we beseech thee, send now prosperity
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, ( 1 ) A t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d (2) t h e e n d o f t h e P s a l m :
O give thanks unto the Lord a n d (3) at Save now.
As it now stands, the difference is four (Shammai) vs. three (Hillel). In

the revised form, we have simply rearranged the opinions of the
Houses. But to do so, we must drop the also, which here serves only
redactional purposes, from before the Shammaite opinion. The dispute
then is one vs. three.
Let us now introduce 'Aqiba's story:
R. ' A q i b a said, I o n c e w a t c h e d R a b b a n G a m a l i e l a n d R. J o s h u a , a n d w h i l e
all t h e p e o p l e w e r e s h a k i n g t h e i r Lulavs, t h e y s h o o k t h e m o n l y at Save
now, O Lord, we beseech thee.
155
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.53, II.ii.42
The Hillelites say one shakes at Ps. 118:1 and Ps. 118:25A. The Sham
maites say one shakes at Ps. 118:25B only:
A. Save us, we beseech thee, O Lord
B. O Lord, we beseech thee, send now prosperity.
'Aqiba's story therefore now tells us that Gamaliel and Joshua followed
the Shammaite practice. So the issue between the Houses was whether
one shakes at the start and at the end of Ps. 118 (Hillel) or only at the
end (Shammai). The form is now standard, and the Aqiban report
makes sense; we have several other stories of Aqiba's reporting
Gamaliel's and Joshua's following Shammaite practice.
It seems to me that the pericope has been revised so as deliberately to
obscure the meaning of 'Aqiba's point, and to do so, the Shammaite
ruling has been phrased in terms of part B, rather than part A, of Ps.
118:25. Had normal reference to a Scripture been made, it would have
been merely to the opening words, Save us, we beseech thee, and everyone
would have understood the reference.
This theory depends on the supposition that shaking was done at a
whole Scripture, and not in response to reading only a part of it. If that
is not the case, then we have the following:
c
P s . 118:1
House o f Hillel, H o u s e o f Shammai
P s . 118:25A
P s . 118:25B
Gamaliel and J o s h u a , H o u s e o f Hillel and H o u s e o f Shammai

House o f Shammai
In that case, Aqiba's story serves to establish a third position on the

question: One shakes only at Ps. 118:25A. Form-critical considerations
cannot be decisive, merely suggestive.
For a summary of traditional views, See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 359.
II.ii.42.A. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "When I was studying with
Yohanan b. HaHoranit, I saw that he ate a dry piece of bread, for they
were years of drought. I came and told father. And he said to me,
'Here are olives for him.'
"I brought olives to him. He took them and looked at them and
saw that they were moist [and susceptible to uncleanness].
"He said to me, 'I do not eat olives [without mentioning possible un
cleanness, as a respectful gesture].'
"I came and I told father.
"He said to me, 'Go, say to him, It was broached [therefore the
liquid has not made them susceptible to uncleanness], according to the
words of the House of Hillel; [according to the House of Shammai,
even if it were not broached, the olives would not have been susceptible
thus the concern of Yohanan shows he followed the Hillelite view;
see M. Ed. 4:6] but the lees had stopped it up.' "
c
156
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.42
B. [This is] to tell you that he ate his unconsecrated food in a state
of ritual purity.
C. For () even though he was of the disciples of the House of
Shammai, he behaved only according to the words of the House of Hillel.
D. The law is always according to the House of Hillel.
E. He who wishes to be stringent on himself to behave according
to the House of Shammai and according to the words of the House of
Hillelof such a one it is said, And the fool walks in darkness (Qoh.
2:14).
He who holds to the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and
the lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is evil.
But if according to the words of the House of Shammai, then accord
ing to their lenient and their strict rulings, or [if] according to the
words of the House of Hillel, then according to their lenient and
strict rulings [should he behave].
[Tos. Suk. 2:3, ed. Lieberman, pp. 261-2,
lines 16-26 (y. Ber. 1:4, b. <Eruv. 6b, b. R.H.
14b, y. Yev. 1:6; M. <Ed. 2:2; y. Qid. 1:1, b.
Hul. 43b-44a, y. Sot. 3:4, b. Yev. 15b)]
Comment:
Compare M. Suk. 2:7. The story of part A is a unity. It is
another version of the "Hillelization" of Yohanan, this time in connec
tion with his observance of the purity laws. Part B is a gloss, explaining
the point of Leazar's father's message. Then comes the usual subscrip
tion, part C, a stock-phrase attached to pretty much any story about
a good Shammaite.
Part D introduces a new and separate pericope, formed of parts D
and E. It is addressed to inconsistent people. It seems to me a curious
tradition, for the message should be, as with Ishmael, Tarfon, and
other early Yavneans, that one who follows the teachings of the
Shammaites is worthy of supernatural retribution (death, in the case of
Tarfon). One can suppose two possible times in which such a ruling
could have been made, either long after anyone seriously threatened
Hillelite predominance {the law is always according. . .), or at a time that
the Houses were of equal strength or the Shammaites superior, so that
the best the Hillelites could do was to say, "Be consistent one way or
the other."
It is difficult to choose between these alternatives. Obviously,
Yavneh does not present itself as a likely location. Before that time,
when the Hillelites probably were subordinated within Pharisaism, the
Shammaites presumably would have had a different logion, and the
Hillelites would, as I said, have had to have satisfied themselves with
this sort of counsel. Dating logia by the criterion of their content is
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.16
157
surely a questionable procedure; one can only guess, and my guess is

that the saying comes after the Shammaites represented a serious alter
native within the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement, presumably at the time
of the Bar Kokhba War, and, because of the date of Tos., certainly
before ca. 250; this is consistent with my suggestion for the equally
ironic saying of M. Yev. 1:4, below, p. 190.
As to part A, the story of Leazar seems to me quite credible. It is, to
be sure, told from the Hillelite perspective, but that Leazar told it
perhaps, after the fact, justifying his father's choice of a masterseems
to me reasonably certain. What is curious, if we discount the Hillelite
glosses, is that Leazar did study with a Shammaite. As above, we
should have preferred no story at all to a story raising significant doubt
about Yohanan's true loyalty. "Yohanan would not eat more than
minimal meals in years of drought" or some such theme would have
been preferable from the Shammaite viewpoint.
IILii. 16.A. R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel, "For three
years there was a dispute between the House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel, the former asserting, 'The law is in agreement with
our views' and the latter contending, 'The law is in agreement with
our views.'
"Then an echo came forth and said, 'Both are the words of the
living God, but the law is in agreement with the rulings of the House
of Hillel.' "
Since, however, both are the words of the living God, what was it
that entitled the House of Hillel to have the law fixed in agreement
with their rulings?
Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own
rulings and those of the House of Shammai, and were even so [humble]
as to mention the words of the House of Shammai before theirs, as may
be seen from what we have learnt:
If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the
Sukkah but his table in the house, the House of Shammai say [that the
booth was] invalid but the House of Hillel say that [it was] valid.
Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Did it not so
happen that the elders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the
House of Hillel went on a visit to R. Yohanan b. HaHoranit and
found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the
Sukkah while his table was in the house?"
The House of Shammai replied, "From there may proof be drawn?
They indeed told him, 'If you have always acted in this manner you
have never fulfilled the commandment of Sukkah' "
158
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.i.5, II.i.54
This teaches you that him who humbles himself the Holy One,
blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself the Holy One,
blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness
flees; but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who
forces time is forced back by time, but he who yields to time finds
time standing at his side.
B. Our rabbis taught: For two and a half years were the House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that
it were better for man not to have been created than to have been
created, and the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have
been created than not to have been created.
They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not
to have been created than to have been created, but now that he has
been created, let him investigate his past deeds or, as others say, let
him examine his future actions.
[b. <Eruv. 13b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 85-7
(y. Suk. 2:8)]
Comment:
Samuel's story includes the citation of M. Suk. 2:7.
III.i.5. [This rule applies] before the echo went forth, but after the
echo went forth, the law is always according to the words of the
House of Hillel, and whoever transgresses the words of the House of
Hillel is liable to death.
TNY: An echo went forth and said, "These and these are the
words of the living God, but the law is according to the words of
the House of Hillel."
Where did the echo go forth?
Rabbi Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, "In Yavneh the
echo went forth."
, ~
.
,
,
(y. Ber. 1:4, ed. Gilead, p. 17)
A
Comment:
The foregoing is appended to the rule about consistently
following the Houses. It corrects the false impression that one may ever
follow the Shammaites. The Babylonian discussion on the same matter
differs, b. Yev. 11a ff.
II.i.54.A. If an egg was laid on a Festival-day

The House of Shammai say, "It may be eaten."
And the House of Hillel say, "It may not be eaten."
B. The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and
a date's bulk of what is leavened."
159
And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either (ZH WZH
KZYT)."
C. If a man slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on a Festival-day
The House of Shammai say, "He digs with a mattock and covers up
[the blood]."
And the House of Hillel say, "He should not slaughter unless he
had earth set in readiness [to cover up] from the day before [MS
Kaufmann omits from-before\"
But they agree that if he had slaughtered, he digs with a mattock
and covers up [the blood].
[Moreover they agree] that the ashes of a stove may count as set in
readiness [See b. Hul. 88b, below, pp. 167-168].
D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not remove a ladder
from one dovecot to another, but only incline it from one opening
(HLWN) to another [of the same dovecot]."
And the House of Hillel permit it.
E. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not take [pigeons for
slaughtering on a Festival-day] unless he stirred them up the day
before (MB<WD YWMwhile it is still day)."
And the House of Hillel say, "He stands and says, 'This one and
this one shall I take.' "
F. The House of Shammai say, "They do not take off cupboarddoors (TRSYN) on a Festival-day."
And the House of Hillel permit even to put back.
G. The House of Shammai say, "They do not lift up a pestle to
hack meat on it."
H. The House of Shammai say, "They do not put a hide before the
treading-place, and they may lift one up only if there is an olive's bulk
of flesh on it."
I. The House of Shammai say, "They do not carry out a child or a
Lulav or a scroll of the Torah into the public domain."
J . The House of Shammai say, "They do not take Dough-offering
or [Priests'] Dues (MTNWT) to the priest on a Festival-day, whether
they were set apart (HWRMW) on the day before (MB WD YWM)
or on the same day."
K. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "It is a
(
160
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.54, III.ii.17
geêrah shavah \ Dough-offering and [Priests'] Dues are a gift to the

priest, and the Heave-offering is a gift to the priest. Just as they do not
bring Heave-offering, so they do not bring [Priests'] Dues."
The House of Hillel said to them, "No! If you argue of Heaveoffering, which [a man] has not the right (ZKYY) to set apart [on a
Festival-day], would you also argue of [Priests'] Dues, which [a man]
has the right to set apart [on a Festival-day] ? "
L. The House of Shammai say, "Spices are pounded with a wooden
pestle, and salt in a cruse and with a wooden pot-stirrer."
And the House of Hillel say, "Spices may be pounded, after their
usual fashion, with a stone pestle, and salt with a wooden pestle."
M. If a man picked out pulse on a Festival-day, the House of Sham
mai say, "He [forthwith] eats the edible parts as he picks them out."
And the House of Hillel say, "He picks them out after his usual
fashioninto his lap or into a basket or into a dish; but not on to a
board or into a sifter or sieve."
Rabban Gamaliel says,"He even swills them and separates the husks."
N. The House of Shammai say, "They send only [prepared] por
tions (MNWT) [as gifts on a Festival-day]."
And the House of Hillel say, "They send cattle, wild animal, or
bird, whether alive or slaughtered."
O. They may send wine, oil, flour, or pulse, but not grain. But R.
Simeon permits grain.
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
1
B e ?
pp. 181-3 (y. Demai 4:3 = M. 1:6, b. Yoma

79b = M. 1:1; y. Pes. 5:4 = M. 1:1; y. Bes.
1:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; y. Bes. 4:7 =
part E; b. Shab. 124a-b = part I; b. Bes. 2a-b,
6b-7a, 7b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11a, l i b , 12a, 12b,
14a, 14b, 37a; y. A.Z. 2:7)].
IILii. 17. If it [an egg] is laid on a Sabbath, it may be eaten on a
Festival; [if it is laid] on a Festival it may be eaten on a Sabbath.
R. Judah says in the name of R. Eliezer, "The dispute still continues:
for the House of Shammai say, 'It may be eaten;' and the House of
Hillel say, 'It may not be eaten.' "
^ g g 4^
e
Comment:
The
p e r i c o p e p e r t a i n s to
w o r k that m a y be done
f e s t i v a l i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d , a c c o r d i n g to
on
a
Ex.
12:16.
1
O n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f N u m . 1 5 : 1 7 - 2 1 a n d D e u t . 1 8 : 3 , see G e z a V e r m e s i n
Cambridge History of the Bible ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 7 0 ) , I, p . 2 2 2 .
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.54, III.ii.17
161
The first part of the collection, parts A-I, M. Bes. 1:1-5, concerns
muqseh, that is, something which has not been set aside for use on the
festival. It is prohibited to make use of it on the festival, just as on the
Sabbath.
Part A (M. Bes. 1:1) sets forth the principle under debate in terms
of the particular instance of an egg born on the festival. The House of
Shammai say it may be eaten on the festival; just as it is permitted to
slaughter the hen on the festival for food, so it is permitted to eat its
egg. The House of Hillel regard the egg as a 'new thing/ and it is not
like the egg which the day earlier was in the hen. That which is born
thus is not ready (MWKN) the day before the festival, but muqseh
(Albeck, Seder Mo ed, p. 287).
Part B (M. Bes. 1:1) pertains to Ex. 13:7, No leavened bread (HMS)
shall be seen withyou, and no leaven (S WR) shall be seen withyou. The House
of Shammai understand the measurements to be different from one
another. One does not transgress the taboo of appearance of leaven in a
quantity less than those specified. But one may not consume any
quantity at all. Part B does not belong here, having nothing to do with
the other items on the list. It furthermore lacks a superscription, and no
explanatory gloss is inserted into the Shammaite saying, as one would
expect. The redactional purpose in including it is not evident to me.
Part C, M. Bes. 1:2, is superficially in conventional form:
c
[ S t a t e m e n t o f t h e legal p r o b l e m ] He who slaughters a wild animal, etc.

House o f Shammai: He may dig w i t h a mattock and c o v e r
House o f Hillel:
[Shouldbe: H e m a y not d i g w i t h a m a t t o c k ] .
The Hillelite opinion, however, is that under the specified conditions,

one may not slaughter at all! So the opinions are not evenly matched.
That would not matter, except that the superscription ("He that
slaughters") leads to the supposition that they will be balanced opposites, as usual. So the superscription is wrong.
The Hillelites hold one may not slaughter at all unless the dust for
covering the blood has been made ready before the festival day. Now,
that opinion in fact is not that one may not slaughter. One may slaughter.
The Houses differ only on whether one may now prepare the dirt a
secondary consideration. So the superscription and consequent rulings
should have been:
One who has not prepared the dirt the preceding day:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H e m a y s l a u g h t e r (and d i g a n d c o v e r ) .
House of Hillel:
H e m a y n o t s l a u g h t e r (at a l l ) .
What has been changed to teach the foregoing form? We have placed
the operative element of the present superscription into the lemma of
the Shammaites, and supplied a new superscription. If, therefore, the
original tradition consisted only of the opinions of the Houses, then
someone would merely have taken part of the Shammaite opinion and
11
162
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.54
placed it as a superscription. The condition of the Hillelite rule, about

preparing the dirt the day before, clearly belongs as the superscription;
dropping the redactional formula unless ('L* 'M KN), and adding the
negative, we have
He did not have dirt ready the preceding day
H o u s e of S h a m m a i : H e m a y s l a u g h t e r [and d i g a n d c o v e r ]
House o f Hillel:
He may not slaughter.
So what may have happened is now fairly clear. The gloss on the
Hillelite opinion has been taken from the superscription, and the first
clause of the original Shammaite opinion has replaced it.
But why should this have been done ? Neither the present pericope,
nor the one I have reconstructed, differs from Part A, which supplies a
superscription, then the Houses' opinions in brief matched pairs. To be
sure, part B lacks a superscription; but it also does not belong here
at all. The ^^/-collection (M. Ber. 8:1-8) may supply the key. There the
Houses' rulings are not preceded by superscriptions, except for the
general one at the outset: concerning the meal. Here, by contrast, the
collection-form
has been amplified by the inclusion of superscriptions
at the outset, egg born on festival. But that superscription does not serve
the whole list, merely the first item on it. So someone has apparently
modified the collection-form by the inclusion of superscriptions, as is
common in discrete Houses-pericopae. Part A has been given the
wrong superscription, according to our theory of the original collectionform. Part B has been given noneit is the primary tradition, without
modification.
Part C then has required the construction of an appropriate super
scriptiona general rule, parallel to concerning the meal. Rather than
supplying a narrow and limited item, he did not have dirt ready, the
editor has preferred the more general description, he who slaughters,
intending it to serve as the beginning of an entirely new collec
tion. He has botched the job, for reasons stated earlier, but not entir
ely. His superscription does serve the next items on the list: parts
D-E concern slaughtering pigeons. The editor has succeeded in
arranging things so that a common theme unites otherwise unrelated
laws, thus linking parts C, D, and E, by announcing that common
theme. This would account for his preference for the general, rather
than the specific, superscription.
Parts D-E
(M. Bes. 1:3) are in still another form already familiar
everywhere except in collections: the superscription is inserted into the
Shammaites' opinion. One may not carry a ladder, but may incline it
toward different openings in the same dovecot. His purpose is to take
the pigeons to slaughter them on the festival. The Hillelites permit car
rying the ladder. A better-integrated form would be something like this:
The ladder
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : L e a n a n d not r e m o v e [ c a r r y ]
House of Hillel:
L e a n and r e m o v e .
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
163
II.i.54
That simple form, using the same verbs for both opinions, and differ
entiating the opinions only with the negative (Shammai) and the con
junction (Hillel) would have been developed into the more polished
form before us.
Part E is a still further form. The law pertains to taking pigeons. The
House of Shammai hold that the day before the man must have signi
fied his intention of using them by stirring them. The House of Hillel
say he does not actually have to touch the pigeons, but may signify his
intention merely by so stating. The two opinions are not matched; both
represent secondary developments of whatever primary lemmas
existed, for in each case we have full sentences, spelling out what actions
need to be taken. The Shammaite lemma is elliptical, as in M. Shab.:
H e s h o u l d not t a k e / u n l e s s h e stirred'/'the d a y b e f o r e .
The key word is therefore in the middle. The House of HillePs lemma
does not contain the day before, but it should, for the Hillelite opinion
pertains to that same time. So the day before should either be dropped or
placed in the superscription. The /////^-construction clearly is to be
rephrased as a simple, affirmative verb, presumably stirs, since take
pertains to the situation addressed by both Houses. As to the Hillelite
lemma, what the man says (This and this I am going to take) serves as a
gloss on says. The two verbal participles seem to me essential: He
[merely] stands [down below] and says. So the whole should begin
something like the following:
[Unstated superscription:
He who wishes to slaughter pigeons on the festival
which pigeons he intends to slaughter.]
must on the preceding day signify
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H e stirs [N'N , as p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e ] .
House o f Hillel:
H e stands a n d says [ U n d e r s t o o d : which one he wants].
The which-wants phrase is then rephrased into direct discourse as a

gloss. What we have in the end, therefore, is a brief set of lemmas, with
the opinions of the Houses given as present participles. As to the
rather complex superscription, a simple, if not entirely clear, form
would have been on the preceding day. The developed and complete
statement I have proposed is neither better nor worse than a brief one.
Much depends upon the purposes of the redactors, who were
prepared to attach whatever superscriptions served their purposes.
Clarity of intent was not a dominant consideration (as in part B, where
the omission of a superscription leaves an enigma). So while we may
reasonably speculate on the forms of the Houses-sayings, we cannot
locate the principles guiding the development of superscriptions for
those sayings.
PartsF-I(M.
Bes. 1 : 5 ) follow a single, rigid form:
[No
superscription]
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N e g a t i v e p l u s list o f a c t i o n s
House o f Hillel:
P e r m i t [either e n t i r e l y , o r i n s o m e d e t a i l o f t h e f o r e
g o i n g list, in t h e l a t t e r i n s t a n c e j o i n e d b y also ( P ) ] .
J
164
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.54
The law of part F concerns removing cupboard doors. The House of

Shammai prohibit it, because it looks like tearing down a building,
which is not allowed. The House of Hillel say one may both remove
and restore the doors so as to take out the food therein. Part G con
cerns a separate issue, the pestle. This on weekdays is used for things
which may not be used on the festival, so it is muqseh, and may not be
used even for the processes permitted on the festival. Part H con
cerns the hide of a beast slaughtered on the festival. One may not
tread it unless some flesh adheres, for it is permitted to move the
hide only on account of the meat. The House of Hillel permit it, for if
not, the man will not slaughter the animal to begin with. Part I
has the House of Shammai prohibit moving things which have
nothing to do with the meal. The House of Hillel hold that, since it is
permitted to remove objects for the meal, removing objects not con
nected with the meal may also be done. This position is consistent with
part H, so much so that part I may simply represent a gloss serving to
make explicit, with reference to common things (Scroll of the Torah,
child, Lulav), what has already been said about something uncommon
(the hide). See Simeon b. Gamaliel, above, p. 133.
Part / ( M . Bes. 1:6) conforms to the foregoing pattern, but part K
diverges from it by supplying a Houses-debate. Here, however, the
House of Shammai come first, contrary to the usual debate-form. They
hold that since one may not bring Heave-offering, one may also not
bring other Priestly gifts. The House of Hillel come last and distinguish
between the two sorts of gifts. Normally, we should have expected
to see the Shammaites last, answering the Hillelite argument. The form
of the argument is consistent with others already examined: the second
party answers, No, if you say concerning so-and-so, the reason is such and such,
but will you
say so concerning something
to which that
same reason
does not
Part K presumably represents a Hillelite gloss on part J . It

completely violates the integrity of the collection-form,
even in the loose
state of the form before us.
PartL
constitutes still another, and quite different form from those in
the earlier segments of the list. It has a full account of the opinions of
both Houses. Clearly a superscription specifying the items under dis
cussion would have allowed a very simple Houses-dispute:
pertain?
Crushing
Spices:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W i t h a w o o d e n pestle
House o f Hillel:
A f t e r their usual fashion
Salt:
House of Shammai: In a cruse, with w o o d e n pot-stirrer
House o f Hillel:
W i t h a w o o d e n pestle.
We do not gain much by such a rearrangement; in this case, the opi

nions, though phrased in a considerable number of words, are still
evenly balanced, element by element, and the contrasts are clear as
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.54
165
given. What is more interesting is the progression of the wooden pestle:

Spices may be pounded:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W i t h a w o o d e n pestle
House o f Hillel:
A s usual.
Salt:
House of Shammai:
House o f Hillel:
In a cruse, w i t h w o o d e n pot-stirrer
I n a w o o d e n pestle.
In the salt-case, the Hillelites do require a change in the usual manner of

preparing the salt. The wooden pestle occurs in the opinions of each
House, though in reference to different items. One can hardly propose,
however, that the whole matter from a formal viewpoint depends
simply upon the placement of the wooden pestle.
Part M returns to what we have called 'conventional' form. The
Shammaite opinion has been lightly glossed, with the addition of
edible parts.
Two verbs would have sufficed: pick-eat. The Hillelite
opinion has been heavily glossed. It was sufficient to say, he picks after
his usual fashion.
The rest, moreover, not merely glosses, but changes
the meaning! The issue is, Does he do it after the usual fashion or not?
The original opinion of the Hillelites is that he does. Then the gloss
adds, but not quitefor he may use his lap, a basket, or a dish, but not 2.
board, a sifter, or a sieve, all of which were no less part of his "usual
fashion" than the first three specified. So the gloss has the Hillelites
requiring a slight change in the usual practice after all. Gamaliel stands
within the Hillelite tradition in the unglossed form, for he adds further
procedures which are after his usual fashion, and he would presumably
have been surprised by the exclusions listed in the gloss. In this instance
it seems sure that Gamaliel supplies a terminus ante quern for the Housesdispute.
Part M thus represents the form without a superscription. The
Houses-sayings are not balanced. The Shammaites say one may send
only prepared portions. The House of Hillel say one may send whole
animals, alive or prepared. The issue is divided into two parts, but
concerns only one matter, namely, whether or not the gifts of meat have
to be prepared. The balance is difficult to restore out of the words be
fore us:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ O n e m a y s e n d o n l y ] portions
House o f Hillel:
[One may send] 1 . cattle-animal-bird 2. w h e t h e r alive
or slaughtered
How can one reduce both elements of the Hillelite opinion to a single
word or extremely brief phrase ? It looks to me as if two disputes have
been reduced to one, by the device of abbreviating the Shammaite
ruling; or, alternatively, one dispute has been expanded to two, by
augmenting the Hillelite one. But the single word portions cannot
produce both Shammaite arguments on both of the issues specified in
the Hillelite ruling.
166
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.55
It remains to observe that this "collection" is quite unlike more

primitive exempla of the collection-form, and had best be regarded as a
separate formal category, which we may call the compilation. By collec
tion we have meant lists in which the Houses-materials are preserved in
extremely brief and gnomic form, without superscriptions, and always
in rigidly consistent form, with every element carefully matched. We
are misled, therefore, to regard the complex of pericopae before us as
comparable to the simple collection-form of M. Ber. 8:1-8. What
characterizes the compilation-form
seems to me to be the use of a single
theme or principle to organize pre-existing, highly developed constitu
ent pericopae.
Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 102 assigns M. Bes. 1:1-2 to Meir, by analogy
to M. Pes. 3:8. He observes (pp. 354ff.) that Mishnah-tractate Besah is
based on sources of the disciples of 'Aqiba, though the laws in it are
earlier than Usha. M. Bes. 1:1-2 derives from M. Ed. 4, the leniencies
of the House of Shammai. The dispute about leaven etc., which does
not belong here, proves that M. Ed. is the primary source.
See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 125, M. Bes. 1:1 = Meir; pp. 255-6:
in M. Bes. 1 :l-2, the Hillelites take the stringent position, and after
ward, the lenient one; also pp. 368, 393, 466, 652-3, 955, 967, 1003.
1012.
y
II.i.55. A. If a Festival-day fell on the eve of the Sabbath, [a man] may

not cook on the Festival-day food [intended] from the outset for the
Sabbath., But he may cook food [intended solely] for the festival-day,
and if any is left over, it is left over for the Sabbath; or he may prepare
a dish on the eve of the Festival-day and depend ($MK) on it for the
Sabbath.
B. The House of Shammai say, "Two dishes."
And the House of Hillel say, "One dish."
But they agree that a fish covered with an egg counts as two dishes.
If the dish [intended for the Sabbath] was eaten or lost, a man may
not cook another anew in its stead, but if aught soever of it remained,
he may depend on that for the Sabbath.
C. If [a Festival-day] fell on the day after the Sabbath, the House of
Shammai say, "They immerse all on the day before the Sabbath."
And the House of Hillel say, "Vessels [must be immersed] before
the Sabbath, but men [may immerse themselves] on the Sabbath."
D. Howbeit they agree that [on a Festival-day] they may render
[unclean] water clear by [surface] contact in a stone vessel, but they
may not immerse it, and that they may immerse [vessels on a Festival-
167
day] if they are to be changed from one use to another, or [at Passover]
from one company to another.
E. The House of Shammai say, "They may bring Peace-offerings
[on a Festival-day] and do not lay their hands thereon; but [they may]
not [bring] Whole-offerings (<WLWT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "They may bring [both] Peaceofferings and Whole-offerings and do lay their hands thereon."
F. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not heat water for
his feet unless it is also such as could be drunk."
A man may make a fire and warm himself before it.
G. In three things Rabban Gamaliel rules stringently, according to
the opinion of the House of Shammai:
(1) Hot food may not be covered up on a Festival day for the
Sabbath;
(2) nor may a candle stick be put together on a Festival-day;
(3) nor may bread be baked into large loaves (GRYSWT) but only
into thin cakes (RQYQYM)."
Rabban Gamaliel said, "Never did my father's household bake bread
into large loaves but only into thin cakes."
They said to him, "What shall we infer from your father's house
hold, which applied the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient
ruling to Israel, so that they might bake the bread both in large loaves
and thick cakes!"
H. Moreover he gave three opinions applying the more lenient
ruling:
(1) They may sweep up between couches, and
(2) put the spices on the fire on a Festival-day, and
(3) prepare a kid roasted whole on Passover night.
But these things the sages forbid.
M. Bes. 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, trans. Danby, pp.
183-4 (y. Bes. 2:1, 2, 4, 5, 6; b. Shab. 39b =
Part F; b. Pes. 36b-37a, baking a thick loaf on
Passover = Part G; b. Bes. 15b, 17b, 19a, 20a,
21b, 22a, 22b)]
IILii. 18. Our rabbis taught: "One may cover up [the blood] only
with dust," the words of the House of Shammai.
But the House of Hillel say, "We find ashes referred to as dust, for
168
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.19, 2 0 , 2 1
it is written, And for the unclean thej shall take of the dust of the burning of
the purification from sin (Num. 19:17)."
The House of Shammai, however, say, "It [ashes] might be re
ferred to as the 'dust of the burning' but it is never referred to as
simply 'dust'."
[b. Hul. 88b (b. Sot. 16a)]
111.11.19. Our rabbis taught: The House of Shammai say, "One
may not bake thick bread on Passover."
It was taught likewise: The House of Shammai say, "One may not
bake a large quantity of bread on a Festival."
(b. Bes. 22b)
111.11.20. An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said,
"The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not differ con
cerning a burnt-offering which is not for the Festival, [both agreeing]
that it may not be offered on a Festival, and concerning peace-offerings
of the Festival, that they may be offered on the Festival.
"They differ concerning a burned-offering which is for the Festival
and concerning peace-offerings which are not for the Festival.
"The House of Shammai say, 'He may not bring [them].'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He may bring [them].' "
Reconcile it by saying thus:
R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel do not differ concerning a burned-offering or peace-offering
which are not connected with the Festival, that they may not be
offered on the Festival; and concerning peace-offerings connected
with the Festival, that they may be offered on the Festival; they differ
only concerning a burnt-offering connected with the Festival.
"The House of Shammai say, 'He may not bring.' And the House
of Hillel say, 'He may bring.' "
(b. Bes. 19a)
IILii. 21. It was taught: The House of Hillel said to the House of
Shammai, "If, when it is forbidden [to slaughter to provide food] for
a layman, it is permitted [to slaughter] for the Most High, when it is
permitted on behalf of a layman, it is surely logical that it is permitted
for the Most High."
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
169
III.ii.21
The House of Shammai said to them, "Let vows and freewillofferings prove [the contrary], for they are permitted for a layman and
yet forbidden for the Most High."
The House of Hillel said to them, "As for vows and freewillofferings, that is because there is no fixed time for them. Will you say
[the same] with respect to a pilgrimage burned-offering ( WLH),
seeing that it has a fixed time?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "Even [for] this [sacrifice]
there is no [strictly] fixed time, for we have learned: He who did not
bring his Festival offering on the first day of the Festival may bring
it during the whole of the remaining days of the Festival, even on the
last day."
The House of Hillel replied to them, "Even [for] this there is in
deed a time fixed, for we have learned: If the Festival passes and he has
not brought his Festival offering, he is unable to bring it after the
Festival."
The House of Shammai said to them, "Surely it is said, [That only
may be done] for you (Ex. 12:16)but not for the Most High God."
The House of Hillel said to them, "Surely it is said, [Andyou shall
keep it as a feast] unto the Lord (Lev. 23:41)whatever is for the Lord."
C
(b. Bes. 20b, trans. M. Ginsberg, pp. 105-6, =

y. Bes. 2:4)
Comment:
b. Bes. 19a shows how not only Houses-materials but also
direct quotations of early masters might be fabricated in the context of
much later discussions. Simeon b. Eleazar said either one thing or the
other, but not both. The obvious fact is that the editors of the pericope
have made him say what he logically ought to have said. b. Bes. 20b =
y. Bes. 2:4 supplements the preceding Mishnah with a full repertoire of
arguments for both sides.
b. Bes. 22b supplies a Houses-dispute in conformity with part E.
Since Gamaliel follows the Shammaites, it was easy enough to create a
dispute in the conventional model.
If the dispute of III.ii.18 goes back to the early period, then the
Hillelite lemma has been developed over the primitive form, which
should have been, "Also ashes." Instead we have an argument in favor
of that position, complete with a Scripture. The antecedent Mishnah
in Hullin (M. Hul. 8:1) mentions neither dust nor ashes; but it cannot
accord with the position of the Shammaites, who say only dust, or
with the Hillelites by inference, for they accept dust and ashes, but not
the other items in the same list.
M. Bes. 2:1-5 adds further disputes to the list. I have included M.
170
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.55
Bes. 2:6-7 to supply the context for M. Bes. 2:6, discussed above,
Vol. I, p. 380.
Parts A-B, M. Bes. 2 : 1 , now deal with a complication of the foregoing
pericope, namely the festival that coincides with the Sabbath. Part A
has the festival on Friday. One may not cook on the festival for the
Sabbath, though he may cook on the festival for the needs of that day.
If food remained over, he may make use of it. Part A concludes with
the rule that he may prepare a dish on Friday, and, depending on that,
he may continue to cook on the festival for the Sabbaththus at the
outset he did not cook for the Sabbath, merely happened to continue.
This dish (TB$YL), called êruve-tavshilin, mitigates the effects of the
foregoing rule. So part A is in two sections, an apparently old rule,
followed by a quite contrary one, in which the foregoing is set aside.
The dispute of the Houses, part B, then concerns how many dishes
he prepares so that he may make food for the Sabbath. The House of
Shammai say two, the House of Hillel, onea classic form for the dispute,
originally consisting merely of the numbers two I one. The tradents would
readily have assigned the stricter ruling (two) to the House of Shammai.
Then comes an agreement, using the verb shavin ($WYN) rather than
the more common modin (MWDYN). The agreement is curious, for it
takes for granted that the Shammaite ruling is decisive. The Hillelites
ought not to have bothered to specify a particular dish that constitutes
two tavshilin, when in the first place they require merely one. So the
clause should be Shammaite only, unless we suppose that the unlikely
antecedent as the subject of shavin is the House of Shammai, accounting
for the difference in word-choice.
Part C, M. Bes. 2:2, now places the festival on Sunday. The issue is
when the ritual of purification from Levitical uncleanness takes place.
Th House of Shammai say everything, both men and vessels, must be
immersed before the Sabbath. The House of Hillel say vessels must be
done on Friday, but men may immerse on the Sabbath itself. The rea
son is that men may in any case immerse on the Sabbath for the pleasure
of it, so they may also immerse to wash away ritual uncleanness. The
form is conventional:
If after the Sabbath :
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e y i m m e r s e all b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h
Vessels b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h , man o n t h e S a b b a t h .
The Hillelite lemma takes for granted, and depends upon, the Sham
maite one. Standing independently it would have had to include the
verb, they immerse. One might suppose the verb could have stood in the
superscription, and placing it in the Shammaite lemma instead provides
a more fluent text. But the difference is slight, one way or the other.
Part D, M. Bes. 2:3, supplies an agreement, with SWY, but does not
pertain to the law discussed in part C at all! The agreement pertains
either to a Sabbath or to a festivaltherefore has nothing to do with a
festival on Sunday. The details of the law are of no interest here. What is
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.55, III.ii.22
171
striking is that the redactor's and they agree, parallel to the same usage
above, part B, leads us to suppose the foregoing dispute is now to be
narrowed in scope or otherwise modified, while in fact there is no sub
stantive connection whatever. Without and they agree that, the law would
have stood as an independent, anonymous pericope, and the Houses
would have no bearing on it at all. It looks as if a redactor has joined it
to the foregoing, on the model of part B, but here without good
reason. The only good reason for and they agree would be agreement
following disagreement of the Houses.
PartE,M.
Bes. 2:4, is familiar from M. Hag. 2:2 and from the story
of Hillel in the Temple. The Houses' positions are as follows:
S h a m m a i : ( 1 ) T h e y b r i n g peace-offerings a n d d o n o t lay o n hands. (2) T h e y
d o n o t b r i n g w h o l e - o f f e r i n g s at a l l .
Hillel:
( 1 ) T h e y b r i n g p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s and w h o l e - o f f e r i n g s . (2) T h e y l a y
hands o n both.
I see no formal problems here. The opinions are as balanced as they

could be, given the fact that three rulings, including two disagreements,
have been compressed into one pericope:
S h a m m a i : [ T h e y b r i n g peace o f f e r i n g s a n d ] d o not l a y o n h a n d s
Hillel:
[ T h e y b r i n g peace offerings a n d ] d o l a y o n h a n d s .
Thus originally :
[They bring] peace-offerings on the festival
S h a m m a i : N o t lay o n hands
Hillel:
Lay o n hands.
That is, M. Hag. 2:2! Then comes:

Whole-offerings
S h a m m a i : D o not b r i n g
Hillel:
Bring.
The third ruling pertains only to the Hillelites: They also lay on hands.
Obviously, it is superfluous for the Shammaites to rule on the issue.
All this is compressed, as I said, and so deftly that the strict conventions
of the simple dispute-form have not been greatly stretched, an example
of a secondary development closely following the primary form. Note
also the following:
I I I . i i . 2 2 T N Y * : Peace-offerings w h i c h a r e offered o n a c c o u n t o f t h e
festival:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " H e l a y s [hands] o n t h e m o n t h e e v e o f t h e
festival, a n d slaughters them o n the festival."
A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel s a y , " H e lays [hands] o n t h e m on t h e f e s t i v a l a n d
slaughters them o n the festival."
B u t a l l a g r e e t h a t v o w s a n d f r e e w i l l - o f f e r i n g s a r e n o t offered o n a f e s t i v a l .
(b. B e s . 1 9 a - b )
172
Now the dispute is reduced to the issue of laying on of hands, since the
second clause in both lemmas is identical. This is a far simpler version
than M. Bes.
Part F, M. Bes. 2:5, by contrast is not at all balanced:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F o r h i s feet a m a n m a y heat o n l y d r i n k i n g w a t e r [since
the w o r k may be done only f o r preparation of f o o d ] .
H o u s e o f H i l l e l permit [ m a k i n g a fire f o r a p u r p o s e n o t c o n n e c t e d w i t h
food].
Our earlier observations on this form apply here.

Part G adds three rulings of the House of Shammai:
1 . H o t f o o d m a y n o t b e c o v e r e d u p o n a f e s t i v a l f o r t h e S a b b a t h [and t h e
House of Hillel permit]
2 . T h e y d o n o t p u t t o g e t h e r a c a n d l e s t i c k o n t h e f e s t i v a l [and t h e H o u s e o f
Hillel permit]
3 . T h e y b a k e o n l y t h i n cakes o n t h e f e s t i v a l [and t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l p e r m i t ] .
We have before us in fact a collection of the stringent Shammaite rulings

followed by Gamaliel. What we do not have is the reformulation of the
collection into generalized statements of law, or balanced disputes of
the Houses in any of the several conventional forms. That comes, as I
said, in b. Bes. 22b, for no. 3. Equally striking is the omission of
the Hillelite ruling entirely. We then have Gamaliel's recollection of
his father's House's following Shammaite practice, and as usual this is
dismissed as private idiosyncracy, nothing more.
Part H resumes the pericope, which has been broken by the little
colloquy. We shall return to this collection below, M. Ed. 3:3-12.
c
II.ii.43. The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and
a date's bulk of what is leavened."
And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either."
[Tos. Yom Tov 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 280,
lines 9-10 (M. <Ed. 4:1, y. Bes. 1:2, y. Pes. 5:4,
b. Bes. 7b)]
Comment: See M. Bes. 1:1b. Lieberman discusses the problem of the
relevance of the pericope to M. Bes.-Tos. Yom Tov, Tosefta Kifshutah
ad loc. p. 911, s.v. And in the novellae of the Meiri. He makes it clear that
the classical commentators observed most, if not all, of the literary
phenomena before us. He cites the earlier discussions, and then adds,
"And in the language of our time, the principle [appearance] of the
whole Mishnah is in M. Ed., Chapter Four, and the Tanna repeated
here (according to) the language of M. Ed."
y
II.ii.44.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Hillel and the
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.44, 4 5 , 4 6
173
House of Shammai agree that they may move the ladder from one
dovecot to another.
"Concerning what did they differ? Concerning bringing it back
"For () the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel
permit."
lines 24-6 (b. Bes. 9b)]
II.ii.44.B. R. Simeon says, "The House of Shammai say, 'A man
should not take a pigeon [which is ownerless, and which he has not
yet acquired] until he ties (QR) it.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'A man should not take [it] until he
stirs [it].' "
(Tos. Yom Tov 1:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 281,
lines 29-30)
II.ii.45. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel agree that if he set [them] aside in the nest and found
[them] before the nest, they are prohibited."
lines 33-4 (b. Bes. 25a)]
II.ii.46.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel agree that they remove the doors [of the cup
board] on the festival day.
"Concerning returning it
"For the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel
permit."
B. "They agree that if he hacked on the pestle, it is prohibited to
move it."
C. "They agree that they do not salt hides on the festival, but they
salt on it a piece of meat for roasting."
D. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel agree that they may bring full vessels on account of
the need [of preparing food], and empty ones for filling.
"Concerning empty ones that were not on account of the need [of
preparing food]
174
"For (S) the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel
permit."
[Tos. Yom Tov 1:10b, 11a, ed. Lieberman,
pp. 282-3, lines 37-43 (y. Shab. 17:4 = part D;
b. Bes. 11a, b. Shab. 123a, y. Bes. 1:5, y. Shab.
17:4)]
II.ii.47.A. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel agree that they may take the gifts that were taken up [set
aside] the day before the festival with the gifts which were taken up on
the festival.
"Concerning gifts which were taken up by themselves the day be
fore the Festival
permit.
"The House of Shammai said, 'It is an analogy: Dough offering and
gifts are a gift to the priest, and Heave-offering is a gift to the priest.
Just as they do not bring the Heave-offering, so they should not bring
the gifts.'
"The House of Hillel said to them, 'No, if you say so concerning
Heave-offering, which a man has not the right to set apart, will you
say so concerning the gifts, which a man has the right to set apart?' "
B. R. Yosah says, "The House of Shammai and the House of
Hillel agree that they may take the gifts on the festival.
"Concerning what did they disagree?
"Concerning the Heave-offering
permit.
"The House of Hillel said, 'It is an analogy. Dough offering and
gifts are a gift to the priest, and Heave-offering is a gift to the priest.
Just as they take the gifts, so they should take the Heave-offering.'
"The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say so concerning
gifts, which he is permitted to raise up, will you say so of Heaveoffering, which he is not permitted to raise up?' "
Others say, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree
that they do not take the Heave-offering on the festival day.
"Concerning the gifts
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
175
II.ii.48, 4 9

permit."
[Tos. Yom Tov 1:12-14, ed. Lieberman, pp.
283-4, lines 46-60 (y. Bes. 1:8, b. Bes. 12b)]
II.ii.48.A. R. Meir said, "The House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel agree that the spices are pounded with a wooden pestle, and
the salt with them.
"Concerning the salt by itself, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'In a cruse and with a wooden potstirrer for roasting.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'With anything.' "
B. The House of Shammai say, "They take spices and the pestle to
the crusher, and not the crusher to them."
And the House of Hillel say, "They take this to this, and this to
this, and there is no reason to be wary."
C. The House of Shammai say, "They take the knife and the
butcher to the beast, and not the beast to them."
And the House of Hillel say, "They take this to this and this to this,
and there is no reason to be wary."
[Tos. Yom Tov 1:15-17, ed. Lieberman, p.
284, lines 62-9 (b. Bes. 14a)]
II.ii.49. If a man picked pulse on the festival
R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'If the inedible
(SRWRWT) parts are more numerous than the edible parts, he picks
the edible parts and leaves the inedible parts.'
"The House of Hillel say, 'He picks whatever he likes.' "
lines 77-9 (b. Bes. 14b, b. Shab. 142b)]
Comment:
The
set o f p e r i c o p a e
exhibits
a single c o m m o n
theme:
agreements o f the Houses, leading to redefinition of their differences.

S i m e o n b. Leazar in the Toseftan
traditions alleges t h a t the
Mishnaic
r e c o r d is n o t a c c u r a t e . W h a t t h e M i s h n a h - t r a d i t i o n s s a y i s i n
dispute,
t h e T o s e f t a n o n e s s a y is u n a n i m o u s l y a g r e e d u p o n , a n d n e w
distinc
tions need to be read into the Houses-lemmas. The pericopae
derive
176
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.43-49
principally from mid-second-century masters, who therefore supply

a terminus ante quern for the whole set of M. Bes-pericopae.
One must ask, Which version is likely to have come first, that present
ed in the Mishnah, or that of the second-century masters ? It seems to
me obvious that the primary version is the one selected by Judah the
Patriarch. The allegation that the Houses agreed upon a given point of
law (now verbatim in the Mishnah) but differed upon a subset of that
same law (now in the Tosefta) can mean only one thing. The secondcentury masters had before them the law now in the Mishnah, and
after the fact proposed revisions in the traditions. They did not differ con
cerning thus comes to mind only when provoked by the contrary
assertion, that the Houses did differ. Without it who would have in
vented the legal problem to begin with? But that does not prove the
antiquity of the Mishnaic formulations, merely that they were revised
by the authorities represented in the Tosefta.
The contrary possibility is that Judah the Patriarch has consistently
revised the Toseftan allegations, and where the earlier masters say the
Houses did not differ, he has said they did and has further dropped the
differences alleged by the Toseftan traditions to have separated the
Houses. His tendency would therefore have been to broaden the range
of disagreement. This seems to me less likely than the foregoing, for
the tendency normally was to find further refined distinctions in
general principles, rather than to drop fine distinctions in favor of
gross generalities.
II.ii.44.A, Moving the ladder = M. Bes. 1:3. Simeon uses the language
now in the Mishnah: they move the ladder from dovecot to dovecot, but denies
the Houses differed on the matter. The only issue is whether one may
bring it back.
II.ii.44.B, Taking the pigeon M. Bes. 1:3b. Lieberman explains
(Tosefta Kifshutah, ad toe. p. 926) that the Mishnah pertains to tame
pigeons, and the passage before us to wild ones. Here the House of
Hillel require not merely a spoken word as sufficient specification, but
the act of acquisition, and the House of Shammai require not merely
stirring but tying up. So Simeon has supplemented the law of the
Mishnah with a new case, in which the difference between the Houses
is a fixed difference, but more stringent by a degree as the circumstances
change. The Houses-dispute presumably has come before Simeon and
been supplemented by him through the creation of a new situation.
II.ii.45. R. Simeon b. Leazar now adds a further agreement. The
antecedent, anonymous tradition held that if he set the birds aside in the
nest and found them before it, they were prohibited, but if at the door,
they were permitted. Simeon says the Houses are unanimous on the
first point. This pertains to M. Bes. 1:4, in which the Houses do not
appear at all. He alleges that the Houses agree that pigeons of the
dovecot require specification in advance of the festival, and are not re
garded as house (tame) pigeons; and the disagreement in the Mishnah
pertains only to how one makes a sign of specification.
II.ii.46.A. Returning the cupboard doors = M. Bes. 1:5. The Mishnah
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
177
II.ii.43-49
has the Houses differ on removing the doors. But it adds to the Hillelite
lemma not only permission to do so, but also to return, an allusion to the
dispute created by Simeon. Judah the Patriarch thus claims that the
Houses differed on the removal, all the more so on the restoration of
the doors. Including the latter detail makes sense only if Judah knew
the contrary assertion of Simeon in the Tosefta concerning the nature
of the dispute, for otherwise the Hillelite ruling is superfluous.
II.ii.46.B. Using the pestle = M. Bes. 1:5. The House of Shammai say
that after work is done on the pestle, it may not be moved. In the
Mishnah the Shammaites hold he may not make use of it to begin with.
The Hillelite position is constant. The same difference between the
Houses is therefore present in both versions. The real problem is the
Shammaite position: May he use the pestle at all ? Judah the Patriarch
says they say he may not. Simeon says they say he may use it, but he
may not move it thereafter.
II.ii.46.C. Salting the hide = M. Bes. 1:5 has the House of Shammai
prohibit bringing the hide to the tanner. Here it may not be salted, a
later stage in the process of preservation of the leather. But the Hillelites
now agree that one may not salt the hidesa limitation of the foregoing
Hillelite position. Only if some flesh adheres, so that preparation of
food is involved, do the Houses permit salting the hide.
II.ii.46.D. Moving vessels = M. Bes. 1:5. The House of Hillel prohibit
taking out the child, Lulav, and Torah to the public domain. The House
of Hillel permit. Simeon b. Gamaliel introduces two distinctions not
present in M. Bes. 1:5, namely, whether the vessels are used for need,
and whether they are emptyirrelevant to the cases of M. Bes.!
II.ii.47. Taking the priestly gifts = M. Bes. 1:6. We have four versions
of the dispute about bringing the priestly gifts:
M. Bes.
Tos. Y.J.
1:6
1:12
:Judah
Yosah
Others
1. House of Shammai
say, T h e y d o n o t bring
dough-offering and
gifts t o t h e p r i e s t o n t h e
Festival
1 . [ A g r e e a b o u t gifts
taken before the festival
w i t h gifts t a k e n u p o n
the festival. Differ:]
Gifts taken up before the
festival by themselves.
1. [Agree on
all gifts o n t h e
festival. Differ
o n : ] Heaveoffering.
1. [They agree
about Heaveoffering,
but
differ c o n
cerning] the
gifts.
2. w h e t h e r taken
yesterday o r today
2.
2.
2.
up
3. House of Hillel
permit
3 . House of Shammai
prohibit and
3. [ = Judah's
version]
3. [ = Judah's
version]
4.
4. House
Hillel
4.
^* yy >> yy
^* >> yy yy
5.
yy yy >>
4. House of
said t o t h e m ,
5.
Analogy
Shammai
N E U S N E R , The R a bbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 70, I I
of
12
178
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.43-49
M. Bes. 1:6
Tos. YJ.
6. Dough-offering and
g i f t s a r e a gift t o t h e
priest, and Heave-offer
i n g is a gift t o t h e p r i e s t .
6* >>
1. J u s t as t h e y d o n o t
bring the Heave-offer
ing, so they d o n o t
b r i n g t h e gifts.
8 . T h e H o u s e o f Hillel
said t o t h e m ,
9 . N o , i f y o u say s o
concerning Heaveoffering, w h i c h a m a n
h a s n o t t h e r i g h t t o set
a p a r t , w i l l y o u say s o
concerning gifts, w h i c h
a m a n has the right t o
set a p a r t ?
'
11 11 11
Q
*
11 11 19
9
'
99 99 99
1:12
Judah
Yosah
91 11 11
Others
6.
7. Just as they
bring gifts, so
they should
b r i n g Heaveoffering
7.
8.
8.
Shammai
9 . gifts. . .
Heave-offering
9.
Judah the Patriarch has followed others say in defining the dispute,
namely, concerning the gifts. But he has added dough-offering. He
further alludes to Judah's version by specifying that it makes no
difference when the gifts were taken up, before or on the festival.
Judah's version itself refers to a disagreement about the same distinc
tion and says that disagreement is not at issue. So before both Judah
the Patriarch and Judah b. Ilai was a dispute not represented here, in
which the distinction of when the gifts were taken up was important.
The positions of the Houses are fixed, and the editorial difference be
tween M. Bes. no. 3 and the other versions is readily explained. Judah
the Patriarch is working within a different redactional and formal
framework:
House of Shammai say [in such-and-such a case]prohibit
House of Hillel permit.
The more conventional form is used in the Tosefta:
Statement of Law
Houses: prohibit/permit.
Then comes the argument. This appears without alteration, except for
Yosah's version, which places Hillel first and has the argument con
cern Heave-offering. It is curious that not infrequently the same ar
guments or opinions serve a number of different disputes. This suggests
that the formation of the argument took place before anyone had settled
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.50
179
the issue, To what disagreement did the debate actually pertain? The
debate required little revision, since the main point is the validity of
the analogy of Heave-offering. What is interesting is that Judah the
Patriarch has added the debate-materials to others say, which lacks them.
Yosah's view of matters cannot be ignored. Two important facts
should be observed. First, Yosah has preserved the proper order for a
debate, Hillel then Shammai. Second, he has the only superscription
which accounts for the inclusion of Heave-offering in the debate-form.
The other superscriptions do not even allude to it; Yosah's does. Since
the substance of the debate focuses upon Heave-offering and its
distinctions from other gifts, it looks to me as though Yosah has
drawn the most reasonable conclusion from pre-existing debatematerials and made Heave-offering the center of the dispute.
The others are aware of, therefore come after, Yosah's formulation,
and Judah has accepted their view of matters and revised the debate to
conform to it. So he stands in this instance at the end and has taken
account of all the second-century versions. His tradition is not inde
pendent and presumably as old as, if not older than, the Toseftan ones,
but refers to the Toseftan ones in the superscription. M. Bes. no. 2
mentions Judah b. Ilai no. 1 ; M. Bes. no. 1 depends upon others no. 1
and has added the detail about dough-offering (which ought to have
been taken for granted) for reasons I cannot discern. One cannot, on
the other hand, attribute to Yosah the oldest and therefore the sup
posedly most authentic account, merely because his follows the form
we should have expected.
II.ii.48.A. Spices and salt = M. Bes. 1:7. The Mishnah has the House
of Hillel's requiring no change in the normal preparation of spices, and
small change in the normal preparation of salt. On the legal issues, see
Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 933.
11.11.48. B-C has no counterpart in M. Bes.
11.11.49. Picking pulse = M. Bes. 1 : 8 . The Mishnah's version of the
House of Hillel's opinion is no different from the one before us, except
in formulation. Here he picks whatever he likes, there he picks in his
usual way. The Shammaite rule there concerns whether he must separ
ate, and thereby implies the same, he picks foodand leaves the rest.
So the differences are merely in the formulation of the argument. The
superscriptions are identical. The glosses of M. Bes. 1 : 8 are of course
absent. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 937-8 for important
clarifications of the legal issues. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 258.
House of Hillel agree that they are two tavshilin.
"Concerning the fish with the egg that is on it, for
"The House of Shammai say, '[They constitute] one tavshil.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Two tavshilin. "
9
180
"They agree that if he cooked two different species in the same pot,
or if he mashed an egg in the fish, or if he cut porret under the fish,
that they are two tavshilin"
lines 10-14 (y. Bes. 2:1, b. Bes. 17b)]
Comment: The Tosefta now makes sense of the dispute of the Houses
in M. Bes. 2:1, concerning the fish and egg dish. As we observed, in
M. Bes. 2:1 that "agreement" is pointless, for the Hillelites need not
rule on the question at all. Simeon now tells us the disagreement is the
heart of the matter, since both Houses agree two tavshilin are required
and need only to determine whether certain mixed dishes constitute one
or twoa considerable limitation on the range of differences between
the Houses.
For the difficulty in ascertaining the reading here, see Lieberman,
Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 946-7.
II.ii.51. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai [and
the House of Hillel] did not differ concerning those which were
gathered together in the enclosure, that they bring [them], and con
cerning those scattered in the field, that they do not bring [them].
"Concerning those scattered in the enclosure and gathered together
in the field
"For the House of Shammai say, 'They do not bring [them].'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They do bring.' "
R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel
did not differ concerning what was scattered in the enclosure and
gathered in the field, that they bring [them]. Concerning what did
they dispute? Concerning what was scattered in the field
"For the House of Shammai say, 'They do not bring.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They do bring.' "
[Tos. Yom Tov 3:10, ed. Lieberman, pp.
295-6, lines 34-41 (y. Bes. 4:1, 2; b. Bes. 31a)]
Comment: The passage has no conterpart in Houses-pericopae in
M. Bes., but does have a parallel in M. Bes. 4:2:
T h e y b r i n g w o o d f r o m t h e field f r o m t h a t w h i c h is g a t h e r e d
a n d f r o m t h e e n c l o s u r e , e v e n f r o m w h a t is scattered.
together;
So Judah the Patriarch has settled matters. The Toseftan traditions are
as follows:
181
Simeon
Judah
Gathered in
field
Scattered in the field
Scattered in enclosure
Shammai: Not bring
Shammai: Not
Hillel:
Hillel:
Bring
bring
Bring
Judah the Patriarch has followed Simeon's version, but has dropped
the tradition that the Houses disputed the matter, and given only the
Hillelite position as the law.
II.i.56. [There are four New Year days: on the first of Nisan is the
New Year for kings and feasts. On the first of Elul is the New Year
for the Tithe of Cattle. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say, "The first of
Tishri." On the first of Tishri is the New Year for (the reckoning of)
the year (of foreign kings), of the Years of Release and Jubilee years,
for the planting (of trees) and for vegetables.] And
"The first of Shevat is the New Year for the [fruit-] trees"the
words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "On the fifteenth thereof."
[M. R.H. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 188 (y. R.H. 1:2,
b. R.H. 8a, 14b)]
Comment: The form of the Houses-pericope is unconventional, for
the Shammaite opinion is not quoted, merely cited: On the first. . . for
the tree [according to] the words of the House of Shammai. Then the House
of Hillel say.
The practical result concerns when the tithe of the produce of trees is
to be given. One does not give tithe from produce that has ripened be
fore the first of the year for produce that has ripened thereafter. The
legal consequences therefore are important, but not specified. It looks
as if someone has drawn the implication of antecedent lemmas and not
cited the words verbatim; the Aqiba story (p. 80) may therefore come
before the formulation of the Houses-dispute and may supply the
earliest evidence of the existencebut not the languageof the dispute.
c
II.ii.52.A. If the festival of the New Year coincides with the

Sabbath
The House of Shammai say, "He prays ten."
And the House of Hillel say, "He prays nine."
If a festival coincided with the Sabbath
The House of Shammai say, "He prays eight, and says that of the
Sabbath by itself and that of the festival by itself, and begins with that
of the Sabbath."
182
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.52, 53
And the House of Hillel say, "He prays seven, and begins with that
of the Sabbath and concludes with that of the Sabbath and says the
Sanctification of the Day in the middle."
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Is it not so
that in the presence (M MD) of all of you, Elders of the House of
Shammai, Honi the Little went down [as leader of the prayers] and
said seven, and all the people said to him, 'May it be a pleasure for
you.' "
The House of Shammai said to them, "[It was] because it was a time
appropriate for cutting short."
The House of Hillel said to them, "If the time was appropriate for
cutting short, he should have cut short all of them [rather than
omitting one]."
^
_^
C
L i e b e r m a n j
3 2 Q
lines 88-96 (Tos. Ber. 3:13, y. Shav. 1:5, b.

<Eruv. 40a, b. Bes. 17a)]
Comment:
Part A of the dispute occurs in Tos. Ber. 3:13, ed.
Lieberman, p. 15, line 58. Part A is not changed from Tos. Ber. Part B
is new. Lieberman observes that the dispute of part A takes for granted
that the subject is the Morning, not the Additional Prayer, therefore
comes before the Shofar-sounding
was moved to the Additional Prayer.
Part B pertains to a festival that coincided with the Sabbath. Honi
said seven blessings in their order, unabbreviated, but he began with
the Sabbath, said the Sanctification of the Day in the middle, and ended
with the Sabbath, following the House of Hillel. The people praised
him for doing so. The Shammaites explain that he had had to make has
te. The Hillelites reply that he has dropped the eighth blessing entirely
and should have abbreviated each of them and not dropped one alone.
The form of the debate is exceptional, in that the Hillelites have two
speeches, the Shammaites only the one in the middle. The pericope
should have had an equal number for each House. Perhaps the closing
Hillelite saying is a later gloss, and the whole should have ended with
the Shammaite answer. But the Hillelite question would have had to
have been raised, for the point of the story was that seven were said, as
the Hillelites taught, and not eight. So the Shammaite answer is not to
the point at all. It is therefore wholly a Hillelite story, not shaped like
other debate-forms.
We have no further information on Honi the Small.
II.ii.53.A. He who has carried out the rule of overturning the couch
[as a sign of mourning] for three days before the festival does not
overturn it after the festival.
R. Liezer b. Jacob says, "Even one day."
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.53, II.i.57
183
B. R. Leazar b. R. Simeon says "The House of Shammai say,

'Three days,' and the House of Hillel say, 'Even one hour.' "
[Tos. M.Q. 2:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 370, lines
20-24 (b. M.Q. 20a)]
Comment:
The anonymous rule is the Shammaites'. No one gives
the Hillelite opinion. What came before Leazar b. R. Simeon's saying?
He does not supply a complete superscription, but rather depends upon
the foregoing. What he contributes is the identification of the authority
behind the anonymous rule.
b. M.Q. 20a gives the anonymous rule in the name of R. Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus. The sages say, "A day or even an hour." Simeon b. Eleazar
then says the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel are herein re
presented, and he gives for the House of Shammai three days, and for
the Hillelites, one day. It looks as if the primitive pericope, if any, read
three/one.
Then Tos. M.Q. glossed with hour (rather than day) which
was "improved" in some texts of the beraita, being changed to day, to
match the Shammaite lemma.
II.i.57.A. Who is deemed a child? "Any that cannot ride on his

father's shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount,"
according to the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "Any that cannot hold his father's
hand and go up [on his feet] from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as
it is written, Three regalim (Ex. 23:14)."
B. The House of Shammai say, "The Re'iyyah-offeting
[must be not
less in value than] two pieces of silver and the Festival-offering [not
less than] one ma*ah of silver."
And the House of Hillel say, "The Re'iyyah-offeting
[must be not
less in value than] one ma'ah of silver, and the Festal-offering [not
less than] two pieces of silver."
C. Whole-offerings during mid-festival are brought from [beasts
bought with] unconsecrated money, and Peace-offerings also from
[what is bought with Second] Tithe [money].
D. On the first Festival-day of Passover, the House of Shammai
say, "[They are brought from beasts bought with] unconsecrated
money (HLYN)."
And the House of Hillel say, "[Also] from [what is bought with
Second] Tithe (M<SR) [money]."
[M. Hag. 1:1, 2, 3, trans. Danby, pp. 211-2 (y.
Hag. 1:1, 2, 3, b. Hag. 2a, 6a, 7b, 8a)]
184
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.57, III.i.6
III.i.6. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Is it not
better to learn [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual from
[the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual, and not to learn
[the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual from [that per
taining to] the sacrifice of the community?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "Is it not better to learn [the
law pertaining to] a matter which is observed for all generations from
[the law pertaining to] a matter which is observed through all genera
tions, and do not bring to me [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of
princes, which is not observed through all generations."
(y. Hag. 1 : 2 )
Comment:
II.i.57.A glosses the foregoing Mishnah, which says that
all are liable to the commandment to appear before the Lord (Ex.
23:14) except for a child (among others). The Houses' definitions
therefore come to say what sorts of children are not obligated, hence
phrased in the negative: Whoever cannot go up by foot is a child,
therefore exempt. See above, Sifre Deut. 143, p. 35.
II.i.55.B preserves a House-dispute in which the operative words are
placed in contrary order:
House of Shammai
H o u s e o f Hillel
Re'iyyah
Hagigah
Two s i l v e r
Ma'ah o f s i l v e r
Ma'ab o f s i l v e r
Two s i l v e r
So the problem is to assign the right opinion to the right House. It is a

common difficulty for the later tradents working with primitive Houseslemmas.
Part C-D has a Houses-dispute on the final clause of a general,
anonymous ruling. The law concerns the funds to be used for the
purchase of the festival offerings. The House are concerned with the
peace-offerings to be brought on the first day of every festival, re
ferred to in A-B. The House of Shammai say the funds must come from
unconsecrated funds; the House of Hillel permit taking part from
Tithes. That is, it is permitted to add the coins of Second Tithe to the
two silver coins of the festal-offering-money, which come from un
consecrated funds, and to buy with them a better sacrifice, since the
offering is to be eaten by the worshipper. But, Albeck observes, the
re'iyyah mentioned above, which is wholly offered on the altar and not
eaten, must be purchased only from unconsecrated funds, not from
Second Tithe money.
The Houses-rulings are not part of a collection or compilation. While
they appear in contiguous pericopae, they are in two instances merely
glosses, and not separate rulings such as would have been brought
together in a compilation.
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.58, III.i.7
185
y. Hag. 1:2 adds a debate for parts B-C. On according to the words of in
the Mishnah, see the important discussion of Epstein, Mishnah, p. 403.
Note also pp. 633-4.
II.i.58.A. The House of Shammai say, "They bring Peace-offerings
[on a Festival-day] and do not lay the hands thereon; but [they do] not
[bring] Whole-offerings."
And the House of Hillel say, "They bring [both] Peace-offerings
and Whole-offerings and lay their hands thereon."
B. If the Feast of Pentecost fell on the eve of a Sabbath, the House
of Shammai say, "The day for slaughtering is after the Sabbath."
And the House of Hillel say, "The day for slaughtering is not after
the Sabbath."
But they agree that, if [the Feast] fell on a Sabbath, the day for
slaughtering is after the Sabbath.
[M. Hag. 2:3-4, trans. Danby, p. 213 (y. Hag.
2:3,4; b. Hag. 7b, 17a, 17b)]
III.i.7. The House of Shammai say, "Laying on of hands not in
the ordinary manner has been permitted."
And the House of Hillel say, "Laying on of hands not in the
ordinary manner has not been permitted."
What is 'laying on of hands not in the ordinary manner'? It is laying
on of hands on the preceding day.
(y- Hag. 2:3)
Comment:
II.i.59.A, see above, M. Bes. 2:4.
II.i.58.B, M. Hag, 2:4, concerns the slaughter of the i&^^-sacrifices.
The House of Shammai say they must be sacrificed on Sunday, since
they do not override either the festival or the Sabbath. The House of
Hillel say it may be done both on the Sabbath and on the festival itself,
as above, II.i.87.A, one brings and lays on handstherefore one
slaughters on the festival day.
The form is fully articulated, but conventional:
If Pentecost fell on Friday
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e d a y o f s l a u g h t e r is after t h e S a b b a t h
T h e d a y o f s l a u g h t e r is not after t h e S a b b a t h
The Hillelite opinion is not explicitly stated, merely implied through the
negative of the Shammaite one. But the outcome is clear, having been
specified in the immediately antecedent Mishnah.
Another reading (MS Kaufmann) for the Hillelite opinion is, "It has
186
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.54, 5 5
no day of slaughter," meaning no special day needs to be set aside, for

the slaughter is done on the festival itself. The reading before us is
preferable merely for form-critical reasons.
y. Hag. 2:3 gives us a consistent issue. The Shammaites say one may
then lay on hands the preceding day, since on the day itself one may
not do so; and the Hillelite position follows.
See Epstein,
Mevo'ot,
pp. 50-51,
Mishnah,
p. 634.
y
11.11.54. The House of Shammai say, "The measure of the re iyyah is

greater than the measure of the festal sacrifice (hagigah)"
"The re'iyyah is entirely for the One Above, which is not so for the
hagigah"
The House of Hillel say, "The measure of the hagigah is greater than
the measure of the reyiyyah, for the hagigah was practiced both before the
Word [ = giving of the law at Sinai, being referred to in Ex. 5:1] and
afterward, which is not so of the re'iyyah."
[Tos. Hag. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 376, lines
22-25 (y. Hag. 1:2, b. Hag. 6a)]
Comment:
This is an expansion of M. Hag. 1:2, in which the Sham
maites say more money goes for the reyiyyah than for the hagigah, and the
Hillelites say the opposite. It supplements M. Hag. 1:2, explaining
the opinions of the Houses. This pericope would represent a third
stage in the development of the single tradition. The first had the speci
fications of coins, the second created of these a dispute between the
Houses, and third explained the dispute. Alternatively, the above say
ing, which would have been entirely theoretical, was translated into the
dispute of stage two.
11.11.55. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and

the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning offerings that come
always, that he should bring [them] only from unconsecrated funds, or
concerning peace offerings which come on the rest of the days of the
year, that if he wants to depend on [supplement with] Tithe [money], he
depends on it.
"Concerning what did they differ? Concerning the hagigah of the
festival day itself
"For the House of Shammai say, 'He brings all from unconsecrated
funds.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He brings his obligation from un
consecrated funds, and if he wants to depend on Tithe-funds, he does
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.56
187
so, and the rest of the days of the year he brings his obligation from
unconsecrated funds.' "
[Tos. Hag. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 377, lines
31-6 (b.* Bes. 19a)]
Comment:
Simeon's revision pertains to M. Hag. 1:3. Offerings on
the festival come from unconsecrated funds, and peace-offerings from
the Tithe. As to the first day of the festival, the House of Shammai say,
"From unconsecrated funds," and the House of Hillel say that money
may be added from Tithe-funds.
The reference is to sacrifices of re'iyyah, which, according to the
House of Shammai, are offered continually through the festival. The
House of Hillel agree with reference to the Sabbath, and affirm that
one may not purchase from Tithe-money a sacrifice which a man does
not eat. But as to sacrifices that come on the first day of the festival
meaning the festal peace-offeringsthe Houses differ. So Simeon
has clarified the dispute, rather than revising it altogether. Having
defined the matter, Simeon allows the language of the House of
Shammai in the Mishnah to stand without alteration. This is charac
teristic of his method, as we have seen. The opinions of the Houses
generally are fixed, but the laws to which they pertain need to be
specified. But here, the Hillelite opinion is considerably expanded. When
the Hillelites say from the Tithe, the meaning is that he brings the measure
of his obligation (two silver coins) from unconsecrated money, and the
rest from the Tithe. But he cannot bring the whole from Second-Tithe
funds, for whatever is an obligation may come only from unconsecrated
funds, and this is specified in the following clause, the rest of the days of
the
year.
Note Epstein,
Mishnah,
p. 634, re 1:4.
II.ii.56.A. What is the laying on of hands concerning which they

differed?
B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not lay on hands on the
festival, and as to peace offerings, the one who celebrates through them
lays hands on them the day before the festival."
The House of Hillel say, "They bring peace-offerings and wholeofferings and lay hands on them."
C. The House of Hillel said, "Now, if at a time that you are not
permitted to work for an ordinary person, you are permitted to work
for the Highest One, when you are permitted to work for an ordinary
person, are you not permitted to work for the Highest One?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "Vows and free-will offerings
will prove [the matter], for you are permitted to work [ = make them]
188
for an ordinary person, and you are not permitted to work for the
Highest One."
D. The House of Hillel said to them, "No, if you say so concerning
vows and free-will offerings, whose time is not set (QBW ), will you
say so concerning the hagigah [= re'iyyah sacrifice], whose time is set?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "So too with the hagigah,
sometimes its time is not set, for he who did not celebrate (HG) [the
hagigah = re'iyyah-szcnfice] on the first day of the festival offers [it] the
whole festival and [even] the last day of the festival [according to your
view]."
E. Abba Saul would say it in a different language in the name of
the House of Hillel: "If when your stove is closed [you cannot cook =
the Sabbath], the stove of your Lord is open, when your stove is
open, will not the stove of your Lord [also] be open?"
C
[Tos. Hag. 2:10, ed. Lieberman, pp. 384-5,

lines 68-81 (y. Hag. 2:3, y. Bes. 2:4, b. Bes.
19b-20a-b)]
Comment:
The superscription refers to M. Hag. 2:3=M. Bes. 2:4
and distinguishes among the several disputes therein combined. The
laying on of hands to which reference is made pertains to festival
offerings. As to the hagigah, the person lays on hands the preceding day
(= y. Hag. 2:3). The House of Hillel say one brings peace-offerings
and sacrifices and lays on hands, just as in the Mishnah.
So the revisions pertain primarily to the Shammaite lemma:
M. Hag.: A .
B.
Tos. Hag.: A .
B.
T h e y bring peace-offerings and d o n o t lay o n hands.

They do not bring whole-offerings.
T h e y d o n o t l a y o n h a n d s o n t h e f e s t i v a l [on a n y o f f e r i n g s ] .
A s t o t h e f e s t i v a l o f f e r i n g , t h e y lay o n h a n d s t h e p r e c e d i n g
day.
The clarification therefore serves M. Hag. clause A: When do they lay

on hands? Tos. underlines the ruling and explains how to carry out
the sacrifice. The Hillelite position is unchanged. The principle
under discussion is whether or not one lays hands on the sacrifice
on the festival, debated by the pairs (M. Hag. 2:2) as well as by the
Houses. But no one debated whether to bring offerings on the festival.
Part C: The Hillelites argue that one may not work on the Sabbath,
even in connection with preparation of food, yet one may offer the
perpetual sacrifices and the supplementary sacrifices. On the festival,
when one is permitted to work for an ordinary person, one should be
permitted to lay on hands, and the consideration of Sabbath-rest does
not enter. The Shammaites reply that even when one is permitted to
work for the ordinary person (the festival), one still does not offer vowand free-will sacrifices, with which the Hillelites agree.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTAIII.ii.23
189
Part
D : The Hillelites distinguish between vow- and free-will
offerings and the hagigah. The time for offering it is set. The Shammaites
deny this invariably is the case. There the debate ends, with the Sham
maites having the last word.
Part E: The revision of Abba Saul is of great importance, for the
debate before us must thereby be dated back to Yavneh and cannot be
regarded as a second-century expansion of first-century legal logia. This
shows not only that the dispute existed, but also that the debate had
already taken shape, therefore that the debate-form comes quite early in
the formation of traditions. Afterward it was used in classical style.
Abba Saul holds that the House of Hillel say vow- and free-will offer
ings are sacrificed on the festival, for if the man's oven is open, all the
more so that the oven of the Master should be open for vow- and free
will offerings. So it is not merely a matter of a new image for pretty
much the same argument.
The context for this pericope is interesting. Immediately following is
the story of Hillel the Elder, who laid on hands on the sacrifice in the
courtyard and then assured Shammaites that it was a female and needed
merely for peace-offerings, above, I, p. 309. The Hillel-story comes after
the legal dispute of the Houses, another instance in which a law or
exegesis is turned into a narrative or "historical" account illustrating
the same law or exegesis.
III.ii.23.A. TNW RBNN: The House of Shammai say, "Heaven

was created first and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said,
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
The House of Hillel say, "Earth was created first and afterwards
heaven, for it is said, In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven"
(Gen. 2:4).
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "According
to your view, a man builds the upper story [first] and afterwards builds
the house, for it is said, / / is he that buildeth His upper chambers in the
heaven, and hath founded His vault upon the earth" (Amos 9:6).
Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "According
to your view, a man makes the footstool [first], and afterwards he
makes the throne, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is My
throne and the earth is My footstool" (Is. 66:1).
[b. Hag. 12a = y. Hag. 2:1 (Lev. R. 36:1, Gen.
R. 1:1, Gen. R. 12:14)]
Comment:
The pericope, part A, follows the classic form, heavily
glossed with interpolated Scriptures; the debate is equally conventional.
But the form cannot dictate the date or demonstrate authenticity,
190
especially where the Houses are assigned the only positions for debate
(assuming no one supposed heaven and earth were made at the same
instant, in which case the Houses would have had no argument).
i n . NASHIM
II.L59.A. The House of Shammai permit [Levirate marriage be

tween] the co-wives and the [surviving] brothers.
And the House of Hillel forbid.
B. [If] they had performed halisah, the House of Shammai declare
them ineligible (P$L) to marry a priest.
And the House of Hillel declare them eligible (K$R).
C. [If] they had been taken in Levirate marriage, the House of
Shammai declare [them] eligible.
And the House of Hillel declare ineligible.
D. Notwithstanding that these forbid ( R) what the others permit
(HTR), and these declare ineligible (P$L) whom the others declare
eligible (KR), yet the House of Shammai did not refrain from marry
ing women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from
marrying women from the House of Shammai.
E. [Despite] all [the disputes about what is] clean and unclean,
wherein these declare clean what the others declare unclean, neither
refrained from preparing cleannesses with one another.
J
[M. Yev. 1:4, trans. Danby, pp. 218-9 (y. Yev.

1:2, 6; b. Yev. 9a, 13a-b, 14a-b, 15a-b, 16a,
27a)]
Comment:
While the wives themselves may not enter Levirate
marriage with the surviving brothers, the co-wives may do so, accord
ing to the House of Shammai, contrary to M. Yev. 1:1, which conforms
to the Hillelite opinion without attribution to the House of Hillel.
Parts B and C spell out the consequences of part A. If the cowives carried out the halisah ceremony, the House of Shammai pro
hibit them from marrying a priest, for the halisah was necessary; she
is completely in the status of a halusah, and prohibited to marry priests
(M. Yev. 2:4). The House of Hillel permit it, for the halisah was not
necessary. If the co-wives entered Levirate marriage and were widowed,
the House of Shammai permit them to marry a priest. The House of
Hillel prohibit it, for the Levirate marriage was in fact prohibited, and
the woman is in the same category as a prostitute, prohibited to wed a
priest (Lev. 21:7).
The form of part A is standard, with the Shammaite opinion some
what articulated. With a superscription it would have been as follows:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.59
191
As to the Levirate marriage of co-wives to the brothers

The House of Shammai: Permit.
The House o f Hillel:
Prohibit.
As usual, therefore, the operative words are the matched pairs: prohibit/
and these will be assigned to the Houses according to the
demand of the superscription. Parts B and C, by contrast, follow the
simpler form, with the Shammaites' lemma lightly glossed (in italics):
permit,
They carried out the halisah-ceremony

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : D e c l a r e i n e l i g i b l e from the priesthood
House o f Hillel:
Declare eligible.
Part C is simplest of all:

They entered Levirate
marriage
House o f Shammai: Declare eligible

House o f Hillel:
Declare ineligible.
The formation of disputes is therefore around diametrically opposite

rulings on given questions, with positions assigned to the Houses
according to whatever principles the tradents had available. The
Houses' opinions here are phrased in contrasting verbs in active,
participial form, with minimum adornment. Only the presence of a
superscription or the (alternative) articulation of the dispute within the
Shammaite lemma distinguishes developed from somewhat more
primitive exempla. The latter possibly would have come after the
former, though redactional considerations may sometimes have affected
the choice of form.
Parts D and E present an interesting interpolation, tacked on to the
foregoing and alleging a kind of compromise. Part D is artfully built
on the verbs of parts A-B-C, permit/prohibit,
declare
ineligible)declare
eligible. The order is correct. The predicate is neatly balanced as a legal
condition: each side of the agreement is specifiedthese marry those,
those marry these. We may take for granted that the women are not
active participants in the Houses, but daughters of male members.
Part E then takes up the theme and carries the compromise position
even further:
All
the cleannesses and uncleannesses which
T h e s e d e c l a r e d clean a n d these d e c l a r e d u n c l e a n
T h e y did n o t refrain making [preparing] purities
T h e s e w i t h these.
One should have expected from [M] plus the infinitive, parallel to the
foregoing refrain from (to) marry. The unclean element is ignored, logic
ally, since if one party regarded the other's uncleannesses as clean, it
obviously would have made use of them. Hence the operative category
is cleanness only.
So we are told the Houses intermarried, even though such marriages
would have produced mamêrim, or illegitimate children, according to
one or the other party. In this instance, for example, the children of the
co-wives who entered Levirate marriage according to the House of
Shammai would be mamêrim according to the House of Hillel. Like
wise, they would lend one another cooking ports. The picture is
incredible. If the disputes came to so little that the Houses ignored
the practical consequences of violating their own rulings, then why
should the disputes have been carried on at all? Why should the
Houses have troubled to register their contrary views of law, if they
did not intend to live by them? The subscription is not meant to
denigrate the disputesthat much is clearbut rather to deny their
results in social life. Since the Shammaites take or are given the more
stringent side in the great number of disputes, the assertion seems on
the face of it to be directed toward them. But the case before us has
the Hillelites declaring Shammaite children to be mamêrimyet sup
posedly allowing their progeny to marry such mamêrim\ In a com
munity so conscious of genealogical purity as Palestinian Jewry, that
is, as I said, simply unbelievable. One recalls, with reference to part E ,
that when Gamaliel's daughter married a non-observant Jew (not
specified as a Shammaite, to be sure), he had to agree that cleannesses
would not be prepared in his house at all.
One therefore must ask, When would such an assertion have been
made, by whom, and for what purpose? It is in the language of
historical narrative, so we cannot suppose the intention was to settle
the disputes by a legal compromise. Indeed, nothing is compromised
at all. My guess is that it was important to say such a thing at a time
that someone was attempting to unify the Houses, among other Jews,
for action in a common purpose. The Houses by now could not have
been so vigorous, or their disputes so vital, as in the past. It looks like
an epitaph on a dying age: whatever the disputes may have been, the
parties ignored their practical consequences and really loved one
another.
Anyone who believed the stories about how the Shammaites mobbed
Hillel in the Temple and used a sword in the school house would
not have believed this allegation. Those Yavneans who held that follow
ing Shammaite rulings would be punishable by heaven likewise would
have been surprised by it. If relations between the Houses were as
characterized in those stories, they would not have yielded so benign a
conclusion.
The assertion of parts D-E therefore needs to be placed at a time
that the Houses' disputes no longer divided the Pharisaic-rabbinic
movement, but still were vividly remembered, as remnants of the old
Houses persisted into a new age. That time obviously must come be
fore Judah the Patriarch. My guess is that it was toward the end of
Yavneh's consistory, on the eve of the Bar Kokhba War. The historical
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.24
193
Houses were a dim memory. To be sure, disputes continued to be

shaped within the literary-redactional framework of the Houses, but
the Houses tended to serve as convenience-names to which to assign
opposing viewpoints, and by which to ascertain the acceptable law
(Hillel) without logical difficulty. It was now important to obliterate
old disputes, in the face of the current one, about the messianic hopes
associated with Bar Kokhba. The 'Aqibans who backed Bar Kokhba
may well have asserted that the old Houses really loved one another,
and remaining followers of the Shammaites in particular should be
free to join as equals in the new cause. Since followers of the Hillelites
would have regarded them as mamêrim, it was particularly important
to assert the contrary; but the purity-laws had significant practical
consequences as well. Now the Houses were able to eat with one
another and trust the purity-laws were keptor did not matterfor
the first time in a century. The pericope would have entered the tradi
tion and persisted long afterward, alongside contrary views of the
practical consequences of the Houses-disputes. Having located an
appropriate time, we may therefore suppose the assertion derives from
an Aqiban authority and was issued in connection with efforts to unify
the rabbinic movement behind the Aqiban-Bar Kokhban War. Ishmael's school's view is above, p. 48.
This theory is virtually certain, since Simeon b. Yohai refers to part
E, Tos. Yev. 1:12 (p. 204), so the saying had reached final form by
Ushan times. Since the vigorous disputes on Levirate rules are verified
by several early Yavneans, the allegation must come between ca. 100
and ca. 150.
c
III.ii.24. In the days of R. Dosa b. Harkinas the rival [co-wife] of a

daughter was permitted to marry the brothers. This ruling was very
disturbing to the sages, because he was a great sage and his eyes were
dim so that he was unable to come to the house of study. When a
discussion took place as to who should go and communicate with
him, R. Joshua said to them, "I will go."
They began to address to him (Dosa) all sorts of questions on legal
practice until they reached that of the daughter's rival.
"What is the law," they asked him, "in the case of a daughter's
rival?"
"This," he answered them, "is a question in dispute between the
House of Shammai and the House of Hillel."
"In accordance with whose ruling is the law?"
"The law," he replied, "is in accordance with the ruling of the
House of Hillel."
"But, indeed," they said to him, "it was stated in your name that
the law is in accordance with the ruling of the House of Shammai!"
He said to them, "Did you hear, 'Dosa or 'the son of Harkinas'? "
5
N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s a b o u t t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , II
13
194
"By the life of our Master," they replied, "We heard no son's name
mentioned."
"I have," he said to them, "a younger brother who is the first-born
of Satan, and his name is Jonathan, and he is one of the disciples of
Shammai. Take care that he does not overwhelm you on questions of
established practice, because he has three hundred answers to prove
that the daughter's rival is permitted. But I call heaven and earth to
witness that upon this mortar sat the prophet Haggai and delivered
the following three rulings: That a daughter's rival is forbidden, that
in the lands of Ammon and Moab the tithe of the poor is to be given
in the Seventh Year, and that proselytes may be accepted from the
Cordyenians and the Tarmodites."
(b. Yev. 16a, trans. W. Slotki, pp. 85-87 = y.
Yev. 1:6)
Comment: The story provides a valuable terminus ante quern for M.
Yev. 1:4. On the tithe of Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year, see
Development, pp. 58-60, and above, pp. 106-108.
II.i.60.A. If two of four brothers married two sisters, and the two
that married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halisah and
may not contract Levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already
married them, they must put them away.
- R. Eliezer (Eleazar) says in the name of the House of Shammai,
"They may continue [the marriage]."
And the House of Hillel say, "They must put [them] away."
B. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and one
unmarried, and one of the married brothers died, and the unmarried
one bespoke [performed a ma'amar] the widow, and then his second
brother died
The House of Shammai say, "His [bespoken] wife [abides] with
him, and the other goes forth as being the wife's sister."
And the House of Hillel say, "He must put away his [bespoken]
wife [both] by bill of divorce (GT) and by halisah, and his brother's
wife by halisah"
C. This is the case whereof they have said, "Woe to him because of
[the loss of] his wife! and woe to him because of [the loss of] his
brother's wife!"
_
rx i_
ooi o /
[M. Yev. 3:1, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 221-2 (y.
Yev. 3:1, 4, b. Yev. 28a, 29a-b, b. Ned. 74b,
b. Yev. 51b, M. <Ed.4:9,5:5)]
r A T
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.60
195
Comment:
The form of the Houses opinions in part A uses single,
matched verbs in the future tense:
If they had already married them as Levirate wives
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e y w i l l continue ( Q Y M ) .
T h e y will d i v o r c e (YS*).
The antecedent Mishnah (A) follows the Hillelite opinion (B). Then
Eliezer's view of the history of the tradition must come first, that is,
in the form of a Houses-dispute. Later on someone dropped the
Shammaite position entirely and rephrased the whole following the
Hillelite view, bypassing reference to the Hillelite origin of the law. This
indicates that Houses-disputes later on could be suppressed, as the
law was settled in favor of the Hillelites. But it also shows once again
that conservative tradents preserved early as well as late formulations
of the same law, as M. Yev. 1:1,4.
In part B, M. Yev. 3:5, the House of Shammai say that the word
(M'MR) has effected marriage, and when her sister comes for Levirate
marriage, she is free both from the marriage and even from the halisahceremony because she is the sister of his wife. The House of Hillel
hold that the word did not effect marriage, and when the sister comes to
him as a Levirate wife, both are subject to him and prohibited, since one
of them is subject to him. Therefore he can marry neither. He has to
undertake the halisah-ceremony
with both, and in addition gives a gef
to his bespoken wife, to free her from the tie imposed by the word.
The concluding remark, part C, then applies to such a situation a
popular proverb: he lost both women.
The form is extremely complex:
[Elaborate superscription, stating n o t a problem of law but a case]
Three brothers:
Two married to two sisters, one free
One of the husbands of the sisters died, and the free one bespoke the widow
Then the second brother died.
This is not a superscriptionit is a whole story! The Houses address

themselves not to a problem of law, but to the position of the characters
in the story:
House of Shammai:
H i s w i f e is w i t h h i m
T h a t o n e g o e s f o r t h because o f sister of the wife
House o f Hillel:
H e d i v o r c e s h i s w i f e w i t h a. get a n d w i t h halisah
A n d t h e w i f e o f h i s b r o t h e r w i t h halisah.
We can by no means reduce the whole to a simple dispute about the

effect of the word, even though the case is a conflict about that principle.
Nor can we take upon ourselves to reconstruct a simple dispute con
cerning words, in which the complications of the laws of Levirate
196
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.61
marriage would not enter. That by definition is impossible, since the

issue of word would not be before us without those very complications.
To be sure, we might suppose that in some early form the whole
would have come down to this:
Word
(Ma'amar)
House o f S h a m m a i : D o e s sanctify ( M Q D )
House o f Hillel:
D o e s n o t sanctify
Then the requirements of the form are met. But the dispute before us
plays no role. Such a debate would have had to occur in the tractate on
betrothals, and it does not. This means that an alleged Houses-dispute
has been preserved only in a highly complex statehardly evidence of
origin early in the formation of the tradition.
See Epstein,
Mevo'ot,
p. 437; on Eliezer/Eleazar
Mishnah,
pp. 1162-3.
II.L61.A. If a woman awaiting Levirate marriage inherited pro

perty, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she
sells it or gives it away, and [the act] is valid (MWKRT WNWTNT
WQYYM).
B. If she died, what should be done with her Ketuvah and property
that comes in and goes out with her?
The House of Shammai say, "The heirs of her [deceased] husband
share with the heirs of her father (YHLWQW etc.)."
And the House of Hillel say, "The property falls to them [both]
(NKSYM BHZQTN): the Ketuvah falls to (BHZQT) the [deceased]
husband's heirs, and the property that comes in and goes out with
her falls to (BHZQT) her father's heirs."
[M. Yev. 4:3, trans. Danby, p. 223 (y. Yev.
4:3, b. Yev. 38a-b; b. Sot. 24a, b. Ket. 81a)]
Comment:
Part A could as well have omitted reference to the
Houses, since no dispute concerns that situation, and we have at the
outset no reason to believe the Houses would have differed. Further
more, part A's agreement ought formally to follow part B. But be
cause logic requires the case of the woman who is still alive to come
before that of the woman who dies, the traditions have been reversed.
Actually it should look something like this:
One who was awaiting Levirate marriage who inherited property
[ b e f o r e t h a t t i m e , t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d h a v e c o n t r o l l e d it]
S h e m a y sell a n d g i v e , a n d [the act] is v a l i d .
Part B depends upon the superscription of part A, One who was

awaiting. . . and died.
197
Had the woman lived, her new husband by Levirate marriage would
have inherited the whole. What now are his rights, and what are the
rights of her estate (= inheritors of the father)? The Shammaites say
the Levirate husband inherits, because she died in the status of a
"doubtful marriage." She was not free to marry, therefore is like any
already-married woman. But she was not yet married to her Levir. So
the Levir acquires as one of the heirs of the husband, on account of
that ambiguous situation. And half the estate returns to her father, as
if she were unmarried. The House of Hillel divide the estate. The
marriage-settlement goes to the husband's estate. The property that
remained entirely hers ("that comes in and goes out with her") goes to
her father (or his heirs). So there is no division according to the equal
claim of each party, rather according to the rightful claim as if no
doubt of the marriage existed, according to the Hillelites. Both Houses
agree that until she has entered Levirate marriage, she is free to dispose
of her property as if she were not married. This position can have been
taken by each House without compromising its view of the division of
her estate.
The form superficially is standard, with the superscription and the
Houses' opinions in proper order. But the lemmas of the Houses are
not evenly balanced. They however would be conventional if left
unglossed:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y divide(the heirs of the husband with the heirs of the
father)
H o u s e o f H i l l e l : (The property (NK$YM)
[is]) i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n
( B H Z Q T N ) ( t h e Ketuvah in possession of the heirs of the husband; the
property that comes in and goes out with her in the possession of the heirs of the
father).
Accordingly, the Houses use different words, rather than the same
word plus negative, or the usual syzygies. But that is necessitated by
the nature of the dispute. Hence we do not have to regard the pericope
before us as much developed; it is simply heavily glossed, and the con
ventional form, with superscription, may well have come down from
earlier times. The respective roots are
H L Q vs.
HZQ
That is, a difference of a single letter in the root; each side has the
same number of syllables:
Shammaite:
Hillelite:
yaHaLoQu
beHeZQaTan
So the different word-choices still produce contrasting lemmas for

mnemonic purposes.
Note Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1099.
198
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.62, 6 3
II.i.62.A. No man may abstain from keeping the law Be fruitful and
multiply, unless he already has children.
B. The House of Shammai say, "Two males."
The House of Hillel say, "A male and a female, for it is written,
Male andfemale created he them (Gen. 1:27)."
6:6,b. Yev. 61b-62a)]
Comment:
The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing general rule.
The form is standard. The rule (A) serves as the necessary super
scription; nothing more is needed.
Here the content of the pericope is remarkable, for it tells us that
Pharisees wished to abstain from sexual relations and had to be re
quired to continue to procreate until they had fulfilled their obligation
to maintain the population. So within Pharisaism were ascetics who
preferred the solitary life.
II.i.63.A. The House of Shammai say, "Only they that are be

trothed (>RW$WT) exercise the right of Refusal."
And the House of Hillel say, "[Both] they that are betrothed, and
they that are married."
B. The House of Shammai say, "[They may exercise the right]
against a husband [only], and not against a brother-in-law (YBM)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Against a husband and against a
brother-in-law."
C. The House of Shammai say, "[It must be exercised] in his
presence."
And the House of Hillel say, "In his presence and not in his pre
sence."
D. The House of Shammai say, "[It must be] before the court."
And the House of Hillel say, "Before the court and not before the
court."
E. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "While she
is yet under age, she may exercise right of Refusal even four or five
times."
The House of Shammai answered, "The daughters of Israel are not
ownerless property (HPQR). But ('L') she exercises right of Refusal
and waits until she is come of age, and [then] she exercises right of
Refusal and [forthwith] marries [some other]."
13:1, b. Yev. 101b, 107a-b)]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
199
II.i.63
Comment:
Parts A-D constitute a perfect model of the collectionform, lacking merely a one-word superscription (parallel to concerning
the meal, M. Ber. 8:1), such as concerning refusal, perhaps with the further
gloss, These are the differences between the House of.. . The opinions are
matched, so far as possible:
1.
H o u s e of S h a m m a i say,
to] betrothed
House o f Hillel:
2. House of Shammai:
H o u s e of Hillel:
3 . H o u s e of S h a m m a i :
H o u s e of H i l l e l :
4. H o u s e of S h a m m a i :
H o u s e of H i l l e l :
[They
do not allow t h e
right
of r e f u s a l except
B e t r o t h e d and m a r r i e d .
A g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d , a n d not t h e L e v i r .
A g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d and L e v i r .
Before him.
B e f o r e him a n d not b e f o r e him.
In court.
I n c o u r t a n d not in c o u r t .
It would be difficult to invent a better model of the collection-form, in

deed of the most primitive sort of Houses-pericopae. The only ex
planatory matter has been inserted in the opening clause of the Sham
maite opinion, then understood throughout: they do not allow the right
of refusal exceptthe double negative already familiar in the collection
ofM. Shab. 1:4-8.
The Houses take extreme positions, with the Hillelites consistently
given the more lenient one as usual. The differences are compressed
into affirmative or negative statements of the same proposition (B, C),
or in inclusion or exclusion of the same detail (D). The Shammaite
saying in part A ought to have had betrothed, and not married, but the
explanatory matter prevented it, since not. . . except. . . leaves no room
for a further exclusion. This shows the explanatory matter here is not a
gloss, but is entirely integral to the collection. To be sure, the collec
tion may have been consistent even in part A, and may have been
revised to the form before us, but in this instance too close adherence
to the subsequent form may not, even at the outset, have been required.
Part E of course is anomalous. It has the House of Hillel debate with
the House of Shammai, without an antecedent statement of their two
disagreements. We may readily construct:
1. H o u s e
House
2. House
House
of
of
of
of
Shammai:
Hillel:
Shammai:
Hillel:
A d o l e s c e n t a n d not c h i l d
A d o l e s c e n t and c h i l d
Three times
E v e n f o u r [or five] t i m e s .
The elements of part E in this form could readily have been attached to
the foregoing list. I see no reason to suppose they have been removed
and revised. Rather, someone else has a different version of the Houses'
disputes on the right of refusal, with different legal issues, and a quite
different form. Part E standing by itself follows the usual debatemodel, with the House of Hillel first, the House of Shammai second,
and decisive. The opinions are not matched, but in the debate-form
200
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.25, II.i.64
they not infrequently are whole sentences, even unrelated to one

another in diction. The closing Shammaite clause is extremely com
pressed and should have had a Hillelite counterpart along the same
lines.
III.ii.25. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai,
"(M'SH B) Pishon the camel driver's wife made her declaration of
refusal in his absence."
The House of Shammai said to them, "Pishon the camel driver used
a reversible measure (MDD BKPYSH). They therefore used against
him a reversible measure."
(b. Yev. 107b = y. Yev. 13:1)
Comment:
This clause of the debate pertains to part C. The Hillelites
have a precedent, which is taken as fact, then explained away by the
Shammaites. It looks to me like an artificial construction, showing what
each House theoretically might make of a known case. Pishon looks
like a name formed of KPYH, and the story seems a play on words.
II.L64.A. The House of Hillel say, "We have heard no such tradi
tion [that a woman is believed to testify that her husband has died]
save of a woman that returned from the harvest and within the same
country, and according to a case that happened in fact."
The House of Shammai answered, "It is all one whether she re
turned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from the
vintage, or whether she came from one country to another. The sages
spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in fact."
The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to [the opinion of]
the House of Shammai.
B. The House of Shammai say, "She marries again and takes her
Ketuvah."
The House of Hillel say, "She marries again and does not take her
Ketuvah."
The House of Shammai said to them, "You have declared per
missible the graver matter of forbidden intercourse, and should you
not also declare permissible the less important matter of property?"
The House of Hillel answered, "We find that brothers may not
enter into an inheritance on her testimony."
The House of Shammai answered, "Do we not learn from her
Ketuvah-sctoM that he thus writes for her: 'If thou be married to
another, thou shalt take what is prescribed for thee?' "
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.64
201
The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the opinion of

[M. Yev. 15:2-3, trans. Danby, pp. 241-2 (y.
Yev. 15:2, 3; b. Yev. 116b, 117a, 122a [woman
may remarry on the evidence of an echo], y.
Ket. 4:8, b. Ket. 81a)]
Comment:
The chapter opens with the case of a woman who went
abroad with her husband, returned alone, and announced that her
husband has died. If their marital relation was good and times of peace
prevailed, she may remarry or enter Levirate marriage; if the relation
was good, but it was a time of war, or if their relation was poor, but it
was peacetime, she is not believed.
The saying of the House of Hillel then serves as a commentary on
the problem of whether a woman is believed when she is the sole wit
ness to her husband's death. They report a case in which a woman came
from the harvest in that same province. The specification of the details
of the case leads to two general rules. She was working with her hus
band in a situation that might readily produce the husband's death
(sunstroke). And it was nearby, so that others might clarify the matter.
The House of Shammai say it does not matter whether it was a harvest
(of wheat) or a cutting of olives, whether it was in the same area or a
distant place. The details specified relate merely to the case at hand and
were not meant to serve as precedent. The House of Hillel accept this
opinion.
y. Ket. 15:2 adds another Shammaite argument: the entire year is a
harvest time for something or other, so the Hillelites grant the Sham
maite viewpoint. The Shammaite argument here is built on their lemma
in the Mishnah.
Part B is attached both because it concerns the woman in the same
situation (she has testified of her husband's death), and because to it is
assigned the same amiable superscription: The Hillelites changed their
minds. Now, however, the dispute is phrased first as a legal pericope:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, S h e m a r r i e s a n d r e c e i v e s h e r Ketuvah
S h e m a r r i e s a n d d o e s not r e c e i v e h e r Ketuvah.
The usual balanced form is then supplemented with a debate. The

House of Shammai beginwhich is unusual. But the subscription ex
plains why. The Shammaite argument will be accepted, therefore may
come first, since the Hillelite argument will be balanced by another
Shammaite argument and a conclusive decision. The Shammaites ask
how one can distinguish: Is she believed to remarry but regarded as a
liar in regard to her marriage-contract? The House of Hillel point out
that as regards property, her word is not everywhere taken as law. The
brothers do not inherit. The House of Shammai recognize that distinc
tion, but point out that the language of the Ketuvah is decisive. If she
202
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.57
can remarry, she can also collect her Ketuvah from her first marriage.
And the House of Hillel agree.
Since the Mishnah is a document produced by the descendants of
Hillelite masters ('Aqiba and his disciples, then Judah their disciple),
we do not have to attribute the pericope before us to Shammaite
tradents, and indeed, probably cannot. It seems to me unlikely that such
a Shammaite pericope would have survived, had not the Hillelites
wanted it to. The pericope cannot be compared to those in which both
parties enjoy parity, but rather to those in which good Shammaites are
represented as following the Hillelite law. Since no "good Hillelites"
here are represented as following Shammaite law ("for they know that
the law always follows the House of Shammai. . . " ) , we may take it for
granted that this story has survived because the Hillelites preserved it.
They preserved it because they either wrote it or did not object to its
contents. Of the former we cannot be sure, though it seems to me un
likely that this is how the Hillelite tradents at the outset would have
represented matters. But they need not have objected to it, since what
the Shammaites provide is not testimony derived from their own,
partisan tradition, but rather, testimony from evidence unanimously
believed to be accurate. In the latter case, the language of the Ketuvah
settled mattersand everyone knew that Hillel had interpreted for
legal purposes the language of the Ketuvah, as in the case/story of the
Alexandrians. So the procedure of the Shammaites conformed to the
Hillelite law to begin with, and part B shows that the Shammaites,
like Hillel,
expounded the language of legal documents of ordinary
folk. And that fact is made explicit in y. Yev. 15:3, b. Ket. 81a, etc.
Presumably others alleged the contrary. We have no Shammaite saying
that one does not do so, but that does not much matter. The strong
assertions about Hillel and the story before us together suggest that
someoneif not Shammaitesthought it an important matter.
As to the story in part A, all the Hillelites had to accept was the
Shammaite assertion that the Hillelite tradition was accurate, but was
meant merely as an example, not as a statement of the sole condition in
which the law would pertain. It does not seem to me that the Hillelites
had to concede a great deal. Their story was accepted as valid. The
House of Shammai merely offered an interpretation for what the
Hillelites alleged as fact. This is consistent with the way Hillelites re
present the Shammaite response to precedents cited by Hillelites: The
Shammaites always accept the story (M SH) as fact, merely offer an
alternative interpretation of the precedent. So the Hillelites' precedents
are conceded by Shammaites, who therefore are made to attest to the
veracity of Hillelite records!
Note Halivni, Meqorot, p. 120.
C
II.ii.57.A. "Just as they [the co-wives] free [the others] from

marriage, so they free [them] from betrothal.
"Under what circumstances? In the case of a woman whom he may
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.57
203
not ordinarily marry [Lit.: in whom he does not have qiddushin\ But
in the case of a woman whom he may ordinarily marry [in whom he
does have qiddushin], their co-wives undergo the halisah ceremony and
do not enter Levirate marriage"the words of the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers.
B. The six forbidden connections are more stringent than these,
because [if] they are married to others, their co-wives are permitted,
for the co-wife is only from the brother.
If they married brothers not in transgression [of the law], their cowives are free.
C. These co-wives went and married
The House of Shammai say, "They are unfit, and the progeny is
unfit [for the priesthood]."
And the House of Hillel say, "They are fit, and the progeny is fit."
[If] they entered Levirate marriage
The House of Shammai say, "They are fit, and the progeny is fit."
And the House of Hillel say, "They are unfiit, and the progeny is a
mamêr"
D. R. Yohanan b. Nuri said, "Come and see how this law is wide
spread in Israel: [If we] carry out the law according to the words of
the House of Shammai, the progeny is a mamêr according to the
House of Hillel. [If we] carry out the law according to the House of
Hillel, the progeny is impaired (PGWM) according to the words of
"But come and let us ordain that the co-wives carry out the halisah
ceremony and do not enter Levirate marriage."
They did not suffice to complete the matter before the hour was
unfit (NTRPH).
E.R. Simeonb. Gamaliel said,"What shall we do for thefirstco wives?"
F. They asked R. Joshua, "The children of the co-wiveswhat is
their status?"
He said to them, "Why do you put my head between two great
mountains, between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel,
who will cut off my head?
"But I testify concerning the family of the House of 'Aluba'i
('LWB'Y) from the house of soldiers (BYT SB>YM), and concerning
the family of the House of Qipa'i (QYP'Y) from the house of [the]
gatherer (BYT MQ$S), that they are the children of co-wives (SRWT),
and from them were high priests, and they were offering [sacrifices] at
the altar."
204
R. Tarfon said, "Would that (T'YB) the rival of the daughter would
fall to me so that I could marry her to the priesthood."
G. R. Eleazar said, "Even though the House of Shammai differed
from the House of Hillel concerning co-wives, they agree that the
progeny is not a mamêr, for a mamêr comes only from a woman,
[for violation of] the prohibition [of whose marriage] they [she and
the husband] are liable for cutting off"
H. Even though the House of Shammai disagreed with the House
of Hillel concerning co-wives, sisters, a woman whose marriage-tie
was dubious, an old divorce-document, in reference to one who
betrothes a woman with something worth a perutah, concerning him
who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in the same inn
The House of Shammai did not hold back from marriage with
women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from the
House of Shammai, but they behaved in truth and peace among them
selves, as it is said, They loved truth andpeace (Zech. 8:19).
I. Even though these prohibit and these permit, they did not hold
back [from] preparing clean things with one another, to carry out
that which is said (Prov. 21:2), Every way of a man is right in his own
eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.
J . R. Simeon says, "From doubtful matters they did not hold back,
but they did hold back from those which were certain."
K. The law always follows the words of the House of Hillel.
L. He who wants to be stringent on himself to behave according
to the words of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, concerning this
one is said, The fool walks in darkness (Qoh. 2:14).
He who holds to the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the
leniencies of the House of Hillel is evil. But if according to the words
of the House of Shammai, then according to their leniencies and
stringencies, and if according to the words of the House of Hillel,
then according to [both] their leniencies and their stringencies.
[Tos. Yev. 1:7-13, ed. Lieberman, pp. 2-4,
lines 18-44 (M. <Ed. 4:8; R. Yohanan: y. Yev.
1:6, 3:1, b. Yev. 13b, 14b, 27a; R. Simeon: y.
Yev. 1:6, y. Qid. 1:1, b. Yev. 14b; He who
holds: Tos. Suk. 2:3, Tos. <Ed. 2:3, b. <Eruv.
66b, R. H. 14b, b. Hul. 43b, y. Ber. 1:7, y. Sot.
3:4; y. Qid. 1:1)]
205
Comment: Part A is a supplement to M. Yev. 1:4: the House of

Hillel forbid Levirate marriage between the co-wives and the surviving
brothers. The Houses differ not only on the fifteen categories of women
listed in M. Yev. 1:1, but also on other categories of women. The
House of Hillel prohibit the co-wives from entering Levirate marriage
with the brothers of the deceased, and the House of Shammai permit.
Lieberman however observes (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 5), that the positions
of the Houses may well be reversed in the correct reading of the Tosefta,
and the reading before us may have been corrected to conform to the
Mishnah. He observes that the vast majority of dispute-pericopae have
Shammai first, then Hillel.
The clause beginning under what circumstances pertains to M. Yev. 1:4,
the House of Hillel permit the co-wives to marry the Levirate brothers.
This permission pertains to those normally forbidden to marry the
deceased brother.
Part B pertains to M. Yev. 1:3, and Part C to M. Yev. 1:4.
Parts D-E relate to the co-wives who, relying on the ruling of the
House of Shammai, married brothers-in-law who were priests, prior to
the ordinance of Yohanan b. Nuri. The children would be regarded as
mamyerim.
Part F: Joshua testifies concerning certain families, that they were
children of co-wives and from them had come forth high priests. R.
Tarfon agrees with Joshua's position. For a full explanation, see
Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Nashim, p. 6: Joshua affirms the
Hillelite position.
Part H supplies a whole list of Houses-disputes in marital law,
rendering the conclusion all the more impressive. Parts K-L appear
above, Tos. Sukkah 2:3.
For our purposes, it suffices to observe that the Houses-dispute
comes no later than early Yavneh (Joshua, Tarfon). Since Joshua refers
to the Houses' dispute on the same question, in this instance it stands
to reason that the dispute may derive from Temple times, a supposition
supported by Joshua's testimony concerning families of the priesthood
of that day.
It is noteworthy that Gamaliel supposedly married his daughter's
co-wife:
It h a p p e n e d t h a t ( M ' S H B) R . G a m a l i e l ' s d a u g h t e r w a s m a r r i e d t o his
b r o t h e r A b b a , w h o died childless. Gamaliel married her rival.
H o w d o y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h i s ? W a s R. G a m a l i e l o n e o f t h e disciples o f t h e
House of Shammai?
B u t R. G a m a l i e l ' s d a u g h t e r w a s different b e c a u s e she w a s b a r r e n . . .
(b. Y e v . 1 5 a )
The story standing by itself clearly supposes Gamaliel followed the

view of the Shammaites, and this is consistent with other such stories.
II.ii.58.A. Four brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and
206
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.58, 5 9 , 6 0 , III.ii.26
those who had married the sisters diedlo, these [women] undergo
the halisah ceremony and do not enter Levirate marriage.
And if they [the other brothers] had earlier married, they must
divorce.
R. Leazar says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They remain married.'
"The House of Hillel say, 'They divorce.' "
B. R. Simeon says, "They remain married."
C. Abba Saul says, "The lenient position is the House of Hillel's in
this matter.
[Tos. Yev. 5:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 13, lines 1-4

(y. Yev. 3:1; M. <Ed. 5:5, Tos. <Ed. 2:9)]
Comment: Part A = M. Yev. 3:1, M. <Ed. 5:3. In part B, R. Simeon

holds the Houses do not differ at all. Abba Saul agrees with Simeon on
the Hillelite opinion. Alternatively, he corrects it by assigning the
lenient ruling (remain married) to the Hillelites. See Lieberman, Tosefta
Kifshutah, p. 35.
y. Yev. 3:1 gives Abba Saul's lemma as QWL HWWY BYT HLL
BDBRHZH.
11.11.59. R. Nathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Two sons,
like the sons of Moses, as it is said, The sons of Moses, Gershom and
Eliezer (I. Chron. 23:15).'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Male and female, as it is said, Male
andfemale he created them (Gen. 1:27, 5:2).' "
R. Jonathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Male and female.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Male or female.' "
[Tos. Yev. 8:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 25, lines
18-21 (y. Yev. 6:6, b. Yev. 62a)]
Comment: See M. Yev. 6:6. Judah the Patriarch ignores Jonathan's
tradition and copies Nathan's, dropping the proof-texts as usual.
11.11.60. The House of Hillel say, "In a court and not in a court
and on condition that [not in a court] there are three."
[Tos. Yev. 13:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 45, lines 2-3
(b. Yev. 107b)]
Comment: See M. Yev. 13:1. The condition is a gloss, making the
Hillelite position into the Shammaite one!
III.ii.26. R. Judah stated, "The House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel agree that a man who cohabited with his mother-in-law renders
207
his wife unfit [to live with him]; they differ only where a man cohabited
with his wife's sister, in which case the House of Shammai maintain
that he thereby causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while the House of
Hillel maintain that he does not thereby cause her to be unfit for him."
R. Yosi stated, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel
agree that a man who cohabits with his wife's sister does not thereby
render his wife unfit for him; they differ only where a man cohabited
with his mother-in-law, in which case the House of Shammai main
tain that he thereby causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while the
House of Hillel maintain that he does not cause her to be unfit for him."
[b. Yev. 95a (y. Yev. 10:6)]
II.i.65. If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife, the
House of Shammai say, "Two weeks."
And the House of Hillel say, "One week."
B. "Disciples [of the sages] may continue absent for thirty days
against the will [of their wives] while they occupy themselves in the
study of Torah; and laborers for one week. The duty of marriage
( WNH) enjoined in the Torah is: every day for them that are un
occupied, twice a week for laborers, once a week for ass-drivers,
once every thirty days for camel-drivers, and once every six months for
sailors," so R. Eliezer.
[M. Ket. 5:6, trans. Danby, p. 252 (y. Ket.
5:6, 7,b. Ket. 61b,71a-b)]
C
III.ii.27.A. Was it not taught: If a woman vowed not to suckle her

child
The House of Shammai say, "They pull the breast out of its mouth."
And the House of Hillel say, "They compel her to suckle it."
(b.Ket. 59b = y. Ket. 5:7)
III.ii.27.B. TNW RBNN: "A nursing mother whose husband died
within twenty-four months [of the birth of their child] shall neither be
betrothed nor married again until the [completion of the] twenty-four
months," the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah permits [remarriage] after eighteen months.
R. Jonathan b. Joseph said, "These are the words of the House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'Twenty-four months.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Eighteen months.' "
[b. Ket. 60a-b (y. Sot. 4:3, below p. 227)]
208
II.ii.61.He who keeps his wife by vow from having sexual relations
The House of Shammai say, "Two weeks, like the birth of a female."
The House of Hillel say, "One week, like the birth of a male, and like
the days of her menstrual period."
[Tos. Ket. 5:6, ed. Lieberman, p. 73, lines
32-3 = y. Ket. 5:7]
Comment: The italicized words of II.ii.61 are glosses, dropped by
Judah the Patriarch.
II.i.65 is standard, with the Houses' opinions merely numbers one/
two perhaps glossed with weeks($BT). The wife waits for a week or two,
then may demand a writ of divorce and collect her marriage-contract.
Part B has nothing to do with part A. The superscription of A
pertains to a vow, and the contents of part B relate to other circum
stances preventing the couple from maintaining a normal sexual rela
tionship.
III.ii.27.A, a singleton, is in unconventional form. The positions of
course are diametrically opposed, but the word-choices are unbalanced.
III.ii.25B is the usual twenty-four vs. eighteen dispute. See below, p. 227.
On b. Ket. 60a, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 205.
II.L66.A. [If] a woman inherited goods before she was betrothed,
the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she sells
[them] or gives them away and [that her act is] valid.
B. [If] she inherited them after she was betrothed, the House of
Shammai say, "She sells [them]."
And the House of Hillel say, "She does not sell [them]."
C. But they agree that if she sold them or gave them away, her act is
valid.
D. R. Judah said, "They said before Rabban Gamaliel, 'Since [the
betrothed husband] gets possession of the woman, does he not get
possession of [her] property ?'
"He said to them, 'We are at a loss (BW$YM) [to find reason for
giving him right] over her new [possessions], and ( L S) would you
even burden us with (MGLGLYN <LYNW) the old!' "
E. [If] she inherited [goods] after she married, both agree that if she
sold them or gave them away, the husband may take them out of the
hands of the buyers.
F. If [she inherited them] before she married, and she then married,
Rabban Gamaliel says, "If she sold them or gave them away her act is
valid."
G. R. Hananiah b. 'Aqaviah said, "They said before Rabban
f
>
>
209
Gamaliel, 'Since he gets possession of the woman, does he not get

possession of her goods also?'
"He said to them, 'We are at a loss [to find reason for giving him
right] over her new [possessions], and would you even burden us
with the old also!' "
II.i.67. If a woman awaiting Levirate marriage inherited property,
the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she may
sell it or give it away, and the act will be valid.
If she died, what should be done with her Ketuvah and property that
comes in and goes out with her?
The House of Shammai say, "The heirs of her [deceased] husband
share with the heirs of her father."
And the House of Hillel say, "Her property falls to them [both]; the
Ketuvah falls to the [deceased] husband's heirs, and the property that
comes in and goes out with her falls into the possession of her father's
heirs."
[M. Ket. 8:1, 6, trans. Danby, p. 256-7 (y. Ket.
8:1, 9, 9 : l ; b . Ket. 78a-b, 80b, 81a-b, y. Pe'ah
6:2; b. Sot. 25a, b. Yev. 38b)]
Comment:
II.i.66, M. Ket. 8:1, follows the same pattern as II.i.67,
M. Ket. 8:6 = M. Yev. 4:3. Part A begins with an agreement, therefore
in the wrong order, but logic requires the present arrangement, for the
sequence is before she is betrothed, after she is betrothed, then (part C),
after she is married. The opinion of the Houses in part A is in the same
language as M. Ket. 8:6 M. Yev. 4:3, hence a stock-phrase equally
useful to settle different questions. Part B is in the expected form. The
superscription depends on that of part A, dropping the words to be
understood: the woman who. . . property. . . The several pericopae there
fore seem to have been put together by a single hand. The opinions of
the Houses are as expected, the same verb, in the same form, with or
without the negative. Then comes an agreement in proper sequence,
these and these agree. Part C has the Hillelites go over to the Shammaite
view. Part D relates to the same problem as the foregoing ruling.
Judah b. Ilai therefore supplies a terminus ante quern for the Houses, but
Gamaliel does not. Why do the Houses agree that she may dispose of
her property after she is betrothed? The answer is that we are concerned
with the property she receives after marriage (part E ) : how to justify
the husband's control over it?
Part F goes back over the ruling of part B: property that comes to
the woman after betrothal. Now the superscription is, If she inherited
before she married and then she marriedthe same situation as before,
namely, while she is betrothed, for, were she not betrothed, the question
14
210
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.67
would not be raised. Gamaliel disagrees with the Houses' agreement.

He employs the language of part A:
PartB
She may sell them
PartF
If she sold, or gave, [her act is] valid
Part A
She sells and gives [the act is] valid.
Gamaliel's language uses the same verbs, but in the past tense. It looks
as if the lemma of Gamaliel has shaped that of the Houses, or vice
versa, or that all use a fixed formula.
The pericope now is to be separated into its constituent elements,
which are Houses-disputes and Gamaliel-rulings:
Houses
Gamaliel
1 . [If p r o p e r t y c a m e t o h e r ]
Before betrothed
H o u s e s a g r e e s h e sells a n d g i v e s
and valid
2 . After betrothed
S h a m m a i : S h e m a y sell
Hillel:
S h e m a y n o t sell
[After
betrothed]
R . J u d a h said, T h e y said b e f o r e R .
G a m a l i e l , S i n c e h e has a c q u i r e d t h e
w o m a n , should he n o t acquire the p r o
p e r t y ? [ = H i l l e l i t e p o s i t i o n is a c c e p t e d
but q u e s t i o n e d . ]
3 . B o t h a g r e e t h a t i f after b e t r o t h a l
s h e s o l d o r g a v e , [the act is] v a l i d .
4 . After
married
Houses agree husband can r e t r i e v e

t h e p r o p e r t y [act t h u s is invalid].
[ P r o p e r t y c a m e ] b e f o r e she w a s m a r r i e d ,
and she was married.
R. G a m a l i e l said, I f she s o l d o r g a v e ,
[the act is] valid [=
contrary to the
Houses].
The Houses' agreement concerning her actions (no. 3) after the

betrothal is astonishing. The Hillelites have ruled she may not sell the
property. Yet immediately following, we are told the Houses agree
that if she did sell or give it away, her action is valid. This is strange,
since it has the Hillelites reversing themselves after the fact. Gamaliel is
represented by Judah as recognizing the difficulty of the Hillelite
position.
The rulings after the marriage thus are diametrically opposed. The
Houses agree that the husband controls the property, and Gamaliel
says she may dispose of it.
Clearly, the pericope consists of two quite separate traditions, the
first concerning the Houses, the second concerning Gamaliel, with the
latter also in two separate forms. The first Gamaliel-lemma is simply
the report of R. Judah. But the second is in conventional form, with a
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
superscription
R. Gamaliel
before she was married
211
III.ii.28, 2 9
and she was married,
then the opinion,
saysthus an independent, finished lemma.
Since the second Gamaliel-lemma shows no knowledge of the

Houses-dispute, we may suppose that the Houses-dispute was shaped
after his time. As to the first, we can be less certain, for the tradent is
Judah b. Ilaiprima facie evidence of a second-century redactionbut
the content of the pericope is not different from the Hillelite position:
by implication, she may dispose of the property. By the looks of it,
therefore, the Houses-materials probably do come after Gamaliel, who
is then "Hillelized." Matters now are organized more lucidly and
present the whole in a simple and symmetrical scheme. Perhaps the
model of M. Ket. 8:6 has served for the highly complex materials of
M. Ket. 8:1.
See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 1099-1101.
III.ii.28. It was taught: At what period of her age is a husband
entitled to be the heir of his wife [if she dies while still] a minor?
The House of Shammai say, "When she attains to womanhood."
And the House of Hillel say, "When she enters into the bridal
chamber."
R. Eliezer said, "When connubial intercourse has taken place."
Then he is entitled to be her heir, he may defile himself for her, and
she may eat Terumah by virtue of his rights.
(b. Yev. 89b)

Comment:
The beraita, a singleton, introduces a separate issue from
M. Ket. 8:6, M. Yev. 4:3, supplying factual information pertinent to
those disputes.
x r
III.ii.29.A. TNW RBNN: How does one dance before the bride?
The House of Shammai say, "The bride as she is."
And the House of Hillel say, "Beautiful and graceful bride!"
The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "If she was
lame or blind, does one say of her: 'Beautiful and graceful bride'?
Whereas the Torah said, Keep thee far from a false matter (Ex. 23:7)."
Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "According to
your words, if one has made a bad purchase in the market, should
one praise it in his eyes or deprecate it? Surely, one should praise it in
his eyes."
Therefore, the sages said: Always should the disposition of a man
be pleasant with people.
^
^
Comment:
The original "dispute" is presumably as spurious as the
debate, which has the Houses in reverse order and ends with an ap-
212
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.68, 6 9 , III.ii.30
propriate h o m i l y o f "the sages"in the tradition o f kindly Hillel and

petulant Shammai.
II.i.68. If a man saw others eating [his] figs and said, "May they be
Qprban to you!" and they were found to be his father and brothers and
others with them
The House of Shammai say, "They are permitted, but the others
with them are prohibited."
And the House of Hillel say, "Both are permitted." [The vow is
binding for neither of them.]
II.i.69.A. They vow to murderers, robbers, or tax-gatherers that
[what they have] is Heave-offering even though it is not Heaveoffering; or that they belong to the king's household even though
they do not belong to the king's household.
B. The House of Shammai say, "They vow in all [forms of words]
save in [the form of an] oath."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even in [the form of] an oath."
C. The House of Shammai say, "He should not be first with a
vow, [but he should vow only under constraint]."
And the House of Hillel say, "He may even be first [with a vow]."
D. The House of Shammai say, "[Only] in a matter in which a
vow is imposed."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even (>P) in a matter over which no
vow is imposed."
E. How so?
If they had said to him, "Say, 'Qpnam be any benefit my wife has of
me'," and he said, "Qpnam be any benefit my wife and sons have of
me
The House of Shammai say, "His wife is permitted to him and his
children are forbidden."
And the House of Hillel say, "Both are permitted."
[M. Ned. 3:2, 4, trans. Danby, pp. 266-7 (y.
Ned. 3:2,4, b. Ned. 25b-26a, 28a)]
III.ii.30. R. Ashi answered, "This is what is taught: The House of
Shammai say, 'There is no absolution for an oath.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'There is absolution for an oath.' "
(b. Ned. 28a)
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.68, 6 9 , III.ii.30
213
Comment:
II.i.68, M. Ned. 3:2, like M. Yev. 3:1,5, is superficially in
the conventional form, but has a superscription that is a story, not the
statement of a legal problem. The case is as follows: A man saw people
eating his figs. He assumed they were not relatives. He prevented
them from eating figs by a vow, saying that the figs are to them as a
Temple sacrifice(Oprban). Then he found out his father and brothers
were together with the others. Is the vow valid, having been made un
der a false supposition? The House of Shammai say, "They [the re
latives] are permitted, and those with them are prohibited," and the
House of Hillel say, "These and these are permitted." The lemmas of the
Houses are as balanced as they could have been under the circumstan
ces. We cannot reduce the whole story to the sort of brief superscrip
tion more common in Houses-materials. Nor can we read into the
brief sayings of the Houses a simpler superscription. So the protasis is
exceptional, but the apodosis normal.
II.i.69, M. Ned. 3:4, has the Houses serve as commentators to an
antecedent general law. The rule is, One may swear falsely under
specified circumstances. The issue is, What sort of oath or vow is per
mitted? The House of Shammai say, One may use any sort of vow,
except for the oath (BW H). The House of Hillel permit even that.
The form is standard and the pericope constitutes a brief collection:
C
B.
C.
D.
Shammai:
Hillel:
Shammai:
Hillel:
[ W i t h all v o w s ] , except t h e o a t h
Even t h e o a t h .
[He m a y ] n o t o p e n f o r h i m [ w i t h a v o w ]
Also ( P) h e m a y o p e n f o r h i m .
J
S h a m m a i : In that w h i c h he makes him v o w

Hillel:
Even ( P) i n t h a t w h i c h he d o e s not m a k e h i m v o w .
J
Part E glosses the foregoing with an example, but the Houses-rulings

are in standard form, much as in II.i.68.
M.Ned.
3:2
M.Ned.
3:4
They are p e r m i t t e d
His wife is p e r m i t t e d
Those with them p r o h i b i t e d
And his sons are p r o h i b i t e d .
These and these are p e r m i t t e d
These and these are p e r m i t t e d .
The opinions match, so far as possible, with the Shammaites listing the
permitted category before the prohibited ones; and the Hillelite
opinion is given word for word. Leaving out the glosses, we have the
Shammaite opinion as prohibitedjprohihited
and the Hillelite opinion
closely correspondingas these and these are permitted, the more lenient
judgment. Obviously, one may drop these and these, added for the same
purpose as the other glosses, to tie the opinions to the foregoing cases.
Part E is an addition to the foregoing collection, closely related in
theme, but quite different in form. The list would have been complete
without it; there was hardly need to add a specific example to clarify
what was already clear.
III.ii.30 makes explicit the general principle underlying the several
214
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.62, 6 3
disputes, similar to the principle concerning erroneous consecrations

below, p. 218.
c
See Epstein, Mev6*ot, pp. 378-9: M. Ned. 9:6 has Aqiba in the
position of the Hillelites. Note also Mishnah, pp. 1016 (rc'P), 1109.
II.ii.62. A. [With reference to the father's and husband's annulling a
girl's vows], if the father heard [the oath] and annulled it, but the
husband did not yet hear [it] before he died, the father goes and annuls
the share of her husband.
B. R. Nathan said, "These are the very words of the House of
Shammai.
"The House of Hillel say, 'He cannot annul [the oath] (>YNW
YKWL LHPR).' "
[Tos. Ned. 6:3, ed. Lieberman, p. 117, lines
13-15 (y. Ned. 10:1, b. Ned. 69a, 71a-b)]
II.ii.63.A. The father and last husband annul the vows of a
betrothed girl (N<RH HIVPWRSH). If the father heard [the vow] and
did annul it, and the husband had not yet heard [the vow] before he
died, and she was betrothed even to ten, this is that which they said,
"Her father and her last husband annul her vows."
If her father heard and annulled it, and the husband had not yet
heard [it] before he died, and she was betrothed to another, her second
husband goes and annuls the portion of the first.
B. R. Nathan said, "These are the very words of the House of
Shammai.
"The House of Hillel say, 'He cannot annul.' "
[Tos. Ned. 6:4, ed. Lieberman, pp. 117-18,
lines 16-21 (b. Ned. 69a, 71a, y. Ned. 10:1)]
Comment:
The issue between the Houses is the right of the husband
to annul the girl's vow. The Shammaites say the father can take over the
husband's responsibility in the matter, and the House of Hillel say he
cannot. In the second case the situation is complicated by successive
betrothals, but in the end the disagreement is the same as before. The
Hillelites hold that the father has already annuled his share and cannot
annul that of the husband. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc,
pp. 481-4.
Nathan has not bothered to follow the usual Houses' form, but has
allowed the operative superscription to stand as a separate lemma, which
215
he has then assigned to the Shammaites. But the Hillelite lemma is

standard and brief. A more commonplace form would have had the
long superscription, followed by he mayjmay not annul.
II.i.70.A. [If he said,] "I will be an abstainer [ = Nazir] from dried
figs and fig-cake"
The House of Shammai say, "He becomes a Nazirite."
And the House of Hillel say, "He does not become a Nazirite."
R. Judah said, "Howbeit when the House of Shammai said this,
they spoke only of one that meant, 'May they be to me VisQorban' "
B. If he said, "This cow thinks it will be a Nazirite if it stands up,"
or "This door thinks it will be a Nazirite if it opens!"
The House of Shammai say, "He becomes a Nazirite."
And the House of Hillel say, "He does not become a Nazirite."
R. Judah said, "Howbeit when the House of Shammai said this,
they spoke only of one that meant, 'May this cow bzQorban to me if
it stands up.' "
[M. Naz. 2:1-2, trans. Danby, pp. 281^2 (y.
Naz. 2:1, 2, b. Naz. 9a-b, lOa-b, b. Men. 81b,
103a)]
III.ii.31. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following
Tanna. For it has been taught:
R. Nathan said, "The House of Shammai declare him both to have
vowed [to abstain from figs] and to have become a Nazirite.
"And the House of Hillel declare him to have vowed [to abstain
from figs], but not to have become a Nazirite."
According to another report, R. Nathan said, "The House of
Shammai declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to
have become a Nazirite.
"And the House of Hillel declare him neither to have vowed, nor to
have become a Nazirite."
(b. Naz. 9b)
The Houses' opinions are conveyed by the single word
with the Hillelites' adding w/( YNW). All the rest is an extend
ed, narrative superscription.
The first case (Part A, M . Naz. 2 : 1 ) concerns a man's declaring him
self a Nazir with respect to things not normally prohibited to a Nazir.
The House of Shammai hold that as soon as he has said, "Lo, I am a
Nazir," he has become one, and the rest of the sentence means nothing.
The House of Hillel says that Naziriteship does not pertain to these
Comment:
Naîr,
216
things. Judah b. Ilai supplies a terminus ante quern. He also glosses the
the Shammaite opinion to make it conform to the Hillelite one! When
the man says, "They are like zOorban to me," he has prohibited figs as if
by vow, but he has not become a Nazir at all. So according to Judah,
there was no dispute on the specified case at all, which is incredible.
The whole thing now involves nothing more than a vow with respect
to the produce. Nathan's revisions conform to Judah's.
Part B introduces a new superscription for the Houses' lemmas. The
man's cow does not want to arise. He furiously remarks that she does
not want to stand up because she will be a Nazir if the stands. Likewise
the door is stuck, etc. As above, once the man has said, "Lo, I am a
Nazir," he, not the cow, becomes one. Judah again revises the Sham
maite opinion to conform to the Hillelite view. He has taken a vow not
to make use of the cow. Judah does not help us with the door, but
presumably he would say the Shammaites regard the door as no longer
permissible for the man's use. But the man is no Nazir.
The pericopae are identical in the Houses' apodosis. The protasis
given by the superscriptions consists of two quite separate cases, but in
effect they set up the same conditions and lead to the same ruling. There
fore the pericopae duplicate one another. The superscriptions are long
and involved, quite unlike the simple conventional superscriptions. In
the end, to be sure, all we have is the Houses' rulings, consisting of
single wordsNa%ir-\-jnotassigned according to the principle of
leniency vs. strictness.
On b. Naz. 9a, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 364.
II.i.71.A. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite for a longer spell, and he
fulfilled his Nazirite-vow and afterward came to the Land [of Israel]
The House of Shammai say, "[He need continue] a Nazirite [only
for] thirty days [more]."
And the House of Hillel say, "[He must again fulfill his] Naziritevow as from the beginning."
B. It once happened that (M SH B) the son of Queen Helena went
to war, and she said, "If my son returns in safety from the war, I will
be a Nazirite for seven years." At the end of the seven years she came
up to the Land [of Israel], and the House of Hillel taught her that
she must be a Nazirite for yet another seven years. And at the end of
this seven years she contracted uncleanness. Thus she continued a
Nazirite for twenty-one years.
R. Judah said, "She needed to remain a Nazirite for fourteen
years." [She was not unclean.]
C. If two pairs of witnesses testified of a man, and the one testified
that he had vowed two Nazirite-vows and the other, that he had vowed
five
C
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.71
217
The House of Shammai say, "The testimony is at variance (NHLQH

H YDWT), and there is no Nazirite-vow here."
And the House of Hillel say, "The two are included within the five,
so that he must remain a Nazirite for two [spells]."
C
[M. Naz. 3:6-7, trans. Danby, p. 283 (b. Ket.

7a, y. Naz. 3:6, 7, b. Naz. 19b-20a-b, b. Sanh.
31a, y. Sanh. 5:2; Sifre Zutta, Naso 6:5, ed.
Horowitz, p. 241; note also Sifre Zutta 6:17,
ed. Horowitz, p. 244)]
Comment:
Part A (M. Naz. 3:6) sets forth a complex case, but the
Houses' opinions again are phrased very briefly and, dropping the
gloss, which is in this instance self-evident, wefindsingle words:
S h a m m a i : Naîr t h i r t y day[s]
Hillel:
Nazir at t h e o u t s e t ( B T H Y L H ; M S K a u f m a n n : T H Y L H )
The man's original Naziriteship was for more than thirty days. The
House of Shammai say that the man must fulfill a Naziriteship, that is,
the usual thirty days, for all the time he was abroad he was in an un
clean land and could not keep the vow. The House of Hillel take the
more stringent position. The man must start all over again, since his
Naziriteship abroad counted as nothing.
Part B repeats the Hillelite opinion, now in the form of a story,
attached to the foregoing but independent of it. It begins with the
usual superscription, M SH B. Helene of Adiabene took a vow that if
her son came back from war, she would be a Nazirite for seven years.
She then came to Palestine at the end of the seven years. The House of
Hillel required her to remain in that status another seven years. She
then became unclean, and so was a Nazirite twenty-one years. The story
is incredible. Helene, Queen of Adiabene, achieved an excellent reputa
tion with the Pharisees (among others), and, since she lived abroad, she
was a good choice to be heroine of the story. But the likelihood that
she did any such thing is remote. Judah treats the story appropriately:
he simply changes it, in order to revise the law contained therein, ig
noring the "historicity" of both his, and the former, narrative. The
commentaries supply two explanations for his emendation. Some say
she was never unclean at all, further emending the story. Some say he
followed the Shammaite view. So she was a Nazirite in Palestine only
thirty days, but was unclean and started the original seven years all
over again, thus was a Nazirite fourteen years and thirty days. The fact
that Judah (as usual) makes the Shammaites follow the opinion of the
Hillelites as given in the earlier pericope renders the second explanation
unlikely. The first is contrary to the original account. While Judah
represents a useful terminus ante quern for the story, he had no indepen
dent information on what actually had happened.
l
218
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.72
Part C (M. Naz. 3:7) is a highly developed pericope; it is impossible

to recover a simple mnemonic tradition underlying it. The Houses'
opinions are not matched and contain quite different words. The dic
tion is not balanced. The case concerns a man about whom one
group of witnesses testified to a two-term Naziriteship, and the other
to a five-term Naziriteship. The House of Shammai rule that the testi
mony of each group cancels that of the other, and no Naziriteship is
involved. The Hillelites say the groups agree on two Nazirite-terms, to
which the man is sentenced. The Houses' opinions compare as follows:
S h a m m a i : T h e t e s t i m o n y is d i v i d e d , a n d t h e r e is n o t h e r e N a z i r i t e s h i p
Hillel:
In five, t w o are contained, so he should be a Nazir t w o [terms].
The complex superscription is matched by highly developed lemmas.

See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 384-5.
II.L72.A. The House of Shammai say, "If a thing is dedicated in
error, its dedication is binding (HQD$ T'WT HQD)."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding (>YNW HQD$)."
B. How so?
If a man said, "The black ox that first comes out of my house shall
be dedicated," and a white one came out
The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding (HQD$)."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding."
C. [If he said,] "The golden denar that first comes to my hand shall
be dedicated," and a silver denar came to his hand
The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding."
D. [If he said,] "The jar of wine that first comes to my hand shall be
dedicated," and a jar of oil came to his hand
The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding."
E. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite, and he inquired of a sage, and
he declared the vow binding, he must count [the thirty days] from the
time that he vowed. If he inquired of a sage, and he declared it not
binding, and he had cattle already assigned [for the three offerings],
they may go forth and pasture with the flock.
F. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not
agree that there, although it is a thing dedicated in error, it should go
forth and pasture with the flock?"
The House of Shammai answered, "Do you not agree that if a
man erred and called the ninth [of the herd] the tenth, or the tenth
the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, that its dedication is binding?"
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.72
219
The House of Hillel said to them, "It is not the rod that has de
dicated them. What if he erred and laid the rod on the eighth or the
twelfthwould he have done aught to all? But ('L') the Scripture
which declared the tenth holy, has declared the ninth and the eleventh
holy also."
H. If [six] persons were on a journey and another came towards
them, and one of them said, "May I be a Nazirite if this is such-aone!"
And another said, "May I be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite!'
[And a fourth said,] "May I be a Nazirite if one of you is not a
Nazirite!"
[And a fifth said,] ". . .if you both are Nazirites!"
[And a sixth said,] ". . .if all of you are Nazirites!"
The House of Shammai say, "They are all Nazirites."
And the House of Hillel say, "None of them is a Nazirite excepting
him whose words are not confirmed."
And R. Tarfon says, "None of them is a Nazirite."
[M. Naz. 5:1, 2, 3, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 286-7
(y. Naz. 2:2, 5:1, 2,4; b. Naz. 31a-b, 32a-b; b.
<Arak. 23a, b. B.B. 120b, y. Ter. 3:4)]
Comment:
Parts A-D:
The Houses' opinions are carefully balanced
and simply repeated from one superscription to the next:
S h a m m a i : Sanctified ( H Q D 5) [ D a n b y : b i n d i n g ]
Hillel:
N o t sanctified.
The principle is then spelled out in parts B, C, and D, each of which

supplies a new example for the rule that something sanctified in error
is/is not sanctified:
B:
C:
D:
Ox
black, white
Denar g o l d e n , s i l v e r
Jar
w i n e , oil.
Parts B, C, and D are glosses on part A, and not very good ones. Any
one of them standing by itself would have sufficed for the reconstruc
tion of part A. All of them together contribute nothing new. It is a
little collection, in which part A should serve as the superscription:
A thing dedicated in error
House of Shammai:
Binding
House o f Hillel:
Not binding.
Then the rest follow, each beginning with a much more substantial,
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.72
articulated-superscription than the first. If it is a collection, it is hardly a

primitive one, but rather, the development of a single law into several
illustrations, with each illustration accompanied by an elaborate
superscription, followed by the repetition of the same ruling in primary
form. The Shammaites hold that the man referred to the ox that would
first come out and erred merely in specifying which one that would be
(and so in the other cases). The House of Hillel deny it i n each case. The
Shammaites are consistent with their position in M . Naz. 2 : 1 .
Part E intervenes and has nothing to do with the Houses' rulings.
But part F explains the connection. If a man set aside a sacrifice for his
Nazirite vow, and a sage freed him from the vow, the beast cannot be
used by the man but is sent to pasture. The House of Hillel then point
out to the House of Shammai that this apparently supports the Hille
lite position. It is a thing dedicated in error, yet it is treated as an
unconsecrated animal. The anonymous ruling thus backs up the
Hillelite view that erroneous dedication is not binding. The House of
Shammai bring up another case entirely, ignoring the one before them.
All three of the misnumbered beasts are sanctified. The Hillelites give
a good reply. The counting did not sanctify the animal. Scripture
sanctified the tenth. He himself has sanctified the other two. But this
more or less ignores the eighth and the twelfth animals specified by the
Hillelites, for they too would have been sanctified by the man for the
same reason as the ninth and eleventh.
The debate does not follow the usual primary form, with Sham
maites last and winning the argument. It looks as if the anonymous
ruling, which conforms to the Hillelite view and supports it, was shaped
for just that purpose. Then the debate was artificially constructed by
Hillelites alone. The Shammaites cannot respond to the case at hand,
since by definition it supports the Hillelite position. So they bring
up an irrelevant matterand there too are bested. If it is a Hillelite
pericope, pure and simple, that does not tell us when it would have
been shaped. I take it for granted that the anonymous law of part E
could have come anytime, and the debate of part F, drawing the conse
quences of that law for the antecedent collection, would have followed.
Part H has the Hillelites adhere to the foregoing rule: a thing de
dicated in error is not binding. Here too, the ones whose words are
proved false are Nazirites, and the others are not. The Shammaites are
equally consistent. Once someone has said, "I am a Nazir," that
completes the matter and he is now a Nazir. The position is consistent
both with Parts A-D, and with M . Naz. 2 : 1 . The presence of Tarfon
supplies a useful terminus ante quern for the case, and, I think, for the
Houses-opinions as well. Tarfon has moved beyond the Hillelite
position. He holds that Naziriteship applies only if someone explicitly
stated that he wishes to take upon himself the Naziriteship, while in
this case the people merely wanted to 'strengthen their words' so the
others would believe them.
The Houses-disputes on Naziriteship come down to a single issue,
namely, the effect of stating, "I am a Nazir," whether intentionally or
221
otherwise, whether accurately or in error. Any one of the specific

cases could have produced a ruling on all the others, without further
specification of the Houses' views. That does not mean that the whole
began in some generalized account of the contrary positions. I think
the opposite more likely. Generalized principles were rarely formulated
before the beraila-stratum of Houses-materials. Rather, we find very
brief statements of a case, law, or problem, followed by equally abbre
viated positions for the Houses. It was only later that forms were
available for better articulated and less casuistic statements of laws.
On b. Naz. 30b, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 369, re erroneous consecra
tions. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 106, 151, 390: Judah b. Ilai is the
authority behind 5 :l-3; Mishnah, pp. 332, re M. Naz. 5:5: whose words
were + /not confirmed.
II.ii.64.A. The House of Shammai say, "Substitutes for substitutes
[for the form of words used to utter a Nazirite-vow] are prohibited.
[The oath is binding]."
And the House of Hillel say, "Substitutes for substitutes are per
mitted. [The oath is not binding]."
B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not testify [concerning
a woman that her husband has died] by means of an echo [from
heaven]."
And the House of Hillel say, "They testify by means of an echo."
[Tos. Nez. 1:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 124, lines
1-3 (y. Naz. 1:1, b. Ned. 10b, b. Yev. 122a, M.
Yev. 14:7,16:6)]
Comment: The parallel rulings, M. Naz. 1:1 etc., use Naîr rather
than prohibited/permitted. The meaning must be that the man is or is not
made a Nazir by means of the substitute for the original euphemism. So
the significant stylistic difference is in word-choice. Judah the Patriarch
has improved matters by selecting for the apodosis mote precise and
appropriate language than prohibited/permitted, which makes no sense
there, substituting the substantive Naîr, concerning which the ruling
actually is made. Part A concerns a stage beyond the anonymous rule of
M. Naz. 1:1, "Any substitute for [the form of words used to utter] a
Nazirite-vow is as binding as the Nazirite-vow itself." Now the issue is
secondary. We cannot on that basis suppose M. Naz. 1:1 is the Sham
maite ruling.
Part B concerns whether one permits the woman to remarry on the
testimony of an echo that her husband has died. The Shammaites rule
negatively. M. Yev. 16:6 accords with the Hillelite rule, "They permit
a woman to marry again [on the evidence given] by an echo." One
recalls the several stories of the echo's message about Hillel's failure to
receive the holy spirit and the echo's testimony that the law follows
222
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
the Hillelites.
Hillelite
II.ii.65
circles clearly w e r e p r o n e t o believe in
such
m a t t e r s . S h a m m a i t e o n e s w e r e n o t . J o s h u a b. H a n a n i a h ' s f a m o u s r e
j e c t i o n of
h e a v e n l y t e s t i m o n y (b.
B . M . 59b)
w o u l d place h i m in
the
S h a m m a i t e c a m p , E l i e z e r b. H y r c a n u s i n t h e H i l l e l i t e o n e .

House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one who vowed to be a
Nazir for thirty days, that if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not
fulfilled [his obligation].
"Concerning one who vowed without specifying the term
"For the House of Shammai say, 'If he shaved on the thirtieth day,
he has not fulfilled his obligation.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he
has fulfilled his obligation.' "
[Tos. Nez. 2:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 128, lines
23-26 (M. Naz. 3:1, Tos. Meg. 1:9, Sifre Num.
25 ;b. Naz. 5b)]
Comment:
M . N a z . 3:1
m a k e s n o m e n t i o n of t h e H o u s e s :
A.
I f a m a n said, " I w i l l b e a N a z i r i t e , " h e s h o u l d c u t off his h a i r o n t h e

t h i r t y - f i r s t d a y . B u t i f h e c u t it off o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , h e h a s fulfilled
his obligation.
B.
I f h e said, " I w i l l b e a N a z i r i t e f o r t h i r t y d a y s , " a n d h e c u t off his h a i r

o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , h e has n o t fulfilled h i s o b l i g a t i o n .
Part B
corresponds to the agreement
specified
by
Simeon.
Part
accords w i t h the Hillelite rule, that if he did n o t specify a t e r m a n d

e n d e d t h e t e r m o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , it is sufficient. T h e M i s h n a h i g n o r e s
the allegation that a Houses-dispute
w a s a t h a n d . S i m e o n b.
persistently refines Houses-disputes,
and w e may suppose that before
him was a tradition that a dispute o n the
first
Eleazar
p o i n t did exist.
The
Shammaites w o u l d h a v e held that one should w a i t until the day after

t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e specified p e r i o d , all t h e m o r e so t h e d a y itself; o r
the Hillelites w o u l d h a v e held that o n e m a y s h a v e o n the v e r y day. If
t h e r e w e r e n o s u c h a n t e c e d e n t d i s a g r e e m e n t , it is difficult t o u n d e r
s t a n d S i m e o n ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e w a s n o d i s a g r e e m e n t , f o r t h e p a t t e r n is
well
established
that he
claims
no
disagreement
existed
where
the
M i s h n a h preserves one. A s t o the disagreement, unspecified terms of

Naziriteship permit shaving o n l y o n the thirty-first day. Therefore the
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i r u l e as t h e y d o . T h e Hillelites say t h a t h e
c u t o f f t h e h a i r o n t h e t h i r t y - f i r s t d a y ( M . N a z . 3:1),
should
b u t if he did so a
d a y e a r l y , it is a c c e p t a b l e .
T h e u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i s w h e t h e r part
o f a d a y c o u n t s as a w h o l e d a y .
T h e S h a m m a i t e s take the n e g a t i v e , the Hillelites the affirmative.
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.66, III.ii.32, 3 3
223
Lieberman points out (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 520) that some texts give
the Hillelites the more stringent position.
II.ii.66. R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah said, "The House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning two groups
of witnesses testifying concerning him [that he took an oath to be a
Nazirite], that he is a Nazir for the smallest period therein. Concerning
what did they differ?
"Concerning two witnesses testifying about him, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'The testimony is divided, and no
Naziriteship is here.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'There is in the sum of five [at least]
two, so let him be a Nazir for two [terms].' "
[Tos. Nezirot 3:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 131, lines
1-4 (Tos. <Ed. 2:4, b. Naz. 20a, M. <Ed. 4:11,
b. B.B. 41b, y. Sanh. 5:2)]
Comment: Ishmael refines the dispute recorded in M. Naz. 3:7,
above, p. 216. He says it does not concern groups of witnesses, con
cerning which all parties agree with the Hillelite position, but rather
two individual witnesses. The opinions of the Houses are precisely as
given in the Mishnah; the refinement is effected, as usual, through
altering the superscription.
111.11.32. It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House
of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not differ with respect to two
sets of witnesses, [of which] one attests a debt of two hundred [%u%]
and the other of one hundred [a maneh], since one hundred is included
in two hundred. They differ only where there is but one set.
"The House of Shammai say, 'Their testimony is divided.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Two hundred include one hundred.' "
(b. Sanh. 31a = b. B.B. 41b)
Comment: The debate shifts to other problems, but the substance is
the same.
111.11.33. A bald Nazirite
The House of Shammai say, "He needs to pass a razor over his
head."
And the House of Hillel say, "He must not pass a razor over his
hear] "
e
(b. Naz. 46b = b. Yoma 61b, y. Naz. 6:11)

Comment: The form is standard:
S R Y K L H < B Y R T ' R <L R > $ W + /
>YN
224
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.67, 6 8
The substance of the debate is not reflected in other pericopae. I have

followed the text of y. Naz. 6:11. b. Naz. 46b reverses the opinions,
then explains them away, so as to conform to the outcome of y. Naz.!
See Halivni, Meqorot, p. 414.
II.ii.67. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not impose on
his son the vow of Naziriteship."
And the House of Hillel say, "He imposes the vow."
[Tos. Nezirot 3:17, ed. Lieberman, p. 134,
lines 51-2 (y. Naz. 4:6, Tos. <Ed. 2:2, M. Naz.
4:6, y. Sot. 3:8)]
Comment:
The form is standard, with the Shammaite lemma bearing
the usual explanatory matter. The rulings of the Houses are impose
vow/not impose vow (MDYR/L* MDYR). The Mishnah (4:6) preserves
the Hillelite ruling, without saying so, in the precise language of this
pericope, "A man imposes the vow of Naziriteship on his son." The
Mishnaic tradition derives from the one before us; Judah the Patriarch
has borrowed the explanatory matter from the Shammaite lemma. I see
no way of predicting which of the Houses disputes will be preserved as
such in the Mishnah, and which will be dropped in favor of the
Hillelite law, given anonymously. See also M. Ed. 2:2; Epstein,
c
Mishnah,
v.
1037.
II.ii.68.A. He who vowed as a Nazir and inquired of a sage and he

declared the vow binding
The House of Shammai say, "He counts from the hour that he in
quired."
And the House of Hillel say, "He counts from the hour that he
vowed [Lieberman: that he permitted, meaning, according to the days
that he transgressed his vow]."
(y. Naz. 5:2: House of Hillel: From the hour that he made the
Nazirite vow [NZR]).
B. If he inquired of a sage and he permitted him, these and these
agree that [in the event his vow is lifted], if he had a cow set aside [for
his Nazirite sacrifice], it may go forth and pasture with the flock.
C. This is the error which Nahum the Mede made when he un
loosed the vow.
D. If they were going on the way, and one was coming toward
them
One of them said, "Lo, I am a Nazir if this is so-and-so."
And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if this is not so-and-so."
r
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.68
225
"Lo, I am a Nazir if one of you is a Nazir."

And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if none of you is a Nazir."
"Lo, I am a Nazir if two of you are Nazirites."
And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if all of them are Nazirites."
The House of Shammai say, "They are all Nazirites."
The House of Hillel say, "The only one who is Nazirite is he whose
words were not verified. And they bring a sacrifice in partnership."
R. Judah says in the name of R. Tarfon, "None of them [is a Nazir],
for Naziriteship applies only through uttering a distinct vow (LHPL>H)."
E. R. Yosi said, "The House of Shammai used to say concerning
him who says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that [if] this is Joseph' and it turns
out to be Joseph, 'that this is Simeon' and it turns out to be Simeon,
that he is a Nazir.
"If he saw an androgynous creature, and said, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that
this is a man,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is not a man;'
'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is a woman,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir
that this is not a woman;' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is a man and a
woman,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is not a man and a
woman;' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that one of you is a Nazir,' 'Lo, I am a
Nazir that none of you is a Nazir;' 'that two of you are Nazirites;'
'that all of you are Nazirites'they are all Nazirites. And they all
count for nine Naziriteships [of thirty days]."
[Tos. Nez. 3:19, ed. Lieberman, pp. 135-6,
lines 58-73 (b. Naz. 34a; y. Naz. 5:2, M. Naz.
5:5)]
Comment:
The Hillelite opinion in part A occurs in M. Naz. 5:3.
Both parties agree about the cow, which explains why in M. Naz. 5:3
the Hillelites can address the Shammaites as they do.
Part C refers to M. Naz. 5:4.
Part D is M. Naz. 5:5, in augmented form. The Houses' opinions are
given in the same language as in the Mishnah. The Hillelites' lemma is
glossed by the sacrifice. Judah now becomes the authority for Tarfon's
opinion, which makes him the terminus ante quern for the whole pericope.
Yosi then develops the Shammaite opinion, but ignores the fore
going materials. Obviously the Shammaites agree that if a person vows
on a condition and the condition is valid, he is a Nazir; they would have
held that even in the contrary situation, the vow would have applied.
In the case of the androgynous creature, we have a more pertinent re
cord of the Shammaite position. As to the facts, all are right. But merely
saying, "Lo, I am a Nazir" makes a Nazir out of the one who says
15
226
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.73, III.ii.34
"that none of you is a Nazir." It looks as if we have several versions of

the Houses' opinions, shaped toward the middle of the second century,
and Judah the Patriarch has selected the first, leaving out Yosi's,
though it would have served. One could easily supply the Hillelite and
Tarfon opinions there as well.
As to the disposition of the sacrifice, part B, although the House of
Shammai hold that what is erroneously sanctified is nonetheless
sanctified, the vow had never been properly made, therefore the cow
had never been sanctified at all, erroneously or otherwise.
II.i.73.A. These do not drink and do not receive their Ketuvah \
She that says, "I am unclean," and she against whom witnesses have
testified that she was unclean, and she that says, "I will not drink."
But she whose husband is not minded to make her drink, or she
whose husband has connection with her while on the way, she re
ceives her Ketuvah and does not drink.
B. If their husbands died before their wives drank [the bitter
water]
The House of Shammai say, "They receive their Ketuvah and do
not drink."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not drink, and they do not
receive their Ketuvah"
[M. Sot. 4:2, trans. Danby, p. 297 (y. Sot.
4:1, 2, b. Sot 24a-b, 25b, y. Sanh. 8:6, y. Ket.
9:7)]
III.ii.34. On,what point [do the two Houses] differ? The House of
Shammai are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is
considered as having been redeemed; whereas the House of Hillel are
of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is not considered
as having been redeemed.
[b. Sot. 25a-b (b. Shev. 48b)]
Comment:
The essentials are:
S h a m m a i : [ T h e y ] take [Ketuvah] a n d d o n o t drink
Hillel:
T h e y d o n o t drink a n d d o n o t take [Ketuvah].
I cannot understand the reversal of the order of the participles. Ob

viously, drink could be dropped, since the dispute concerns only the
Ketuvah. But once the not-drink's
have been supplied, presumably by a
glossator, why should the Hillelite opinion follow the order of the
superscription, while the Shammaite one does not?
III.ii.34 explains the underlying legal principle in dispute.
Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 409-410, sees Simeon b. Eleazar as the authority
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.69, II.i.8, 9
227
for part A. His comments on this pericope, p. 410, are important for
the lower criticism of the Mishnaic text. See also Mishnah, pp. 428, 524.
II.ii.69. A woman that commits lewdness with her little son and he
committed the first stage of cohabitation with her
The House of Shammai declare [her] ineligible [to the priesthood]
(Lev. 21:7).
And the House of Hillel declare eligible.
[Tos. Sot. 4:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 301, lines
27-8 (b. Sanh. 69b, y. Git. 8:8)]
The Houses-opinions here are not quotations, e.g., say, is
but syzygous, present participles. The antecedent ruling is that a
woman may be made unclean by any man except a child and one who is
not a man. Yosi says that the woman must undergo the ordeal, "per
haps. . . the child will grow up" and persist in adultery. So she is made
unclean by a child. The rulings of the Houses pertain to Yosi's saying,
with the Shammaites agreeing with Yosi.
Comment:
eligible,
111.1.8. [M. Sot. 3:3: If the writing on the scroll was blotted out,
and she then said, 'I am unclean,' the water is poured away and her
meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap. If the writing on the scroll
was blotted out, and she said, 'I will not drink,' they urge her and give
her to drink against her will.]
How much is blotted out?
TNY: R. Hanin: "The House of Shammai say, 'One.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Two.' " , 0 0 0
o
(y. Sot. 3:3 = y. Sot. 2:4)
Comment:
The reference is to blotting out the name of the Lord
written in the scroll referred to in the Mishnah. The Houses opinions
are the usual one/two. In this instance, however, we know who made up
the Houses-pericope in the conventional form, namely, Hanin, not an
early Tannaitic authority. This shows how in later times it was com
monplace to follow the Houses-form in fabricating data. The name of
the authority frequently was dropped, leaving the impression that the
whole derives from "very ancient times."
3
111.1.9. TNY: "A nursing mother whose husband dies should not
be married for twenty-four months," the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah [b. Ilai] says, "Eighteen months."
R. Jonathan b. Yosi says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Twentyfour months.'
[y. Sot. 4:3 (b. Ket. 60a-b, above, p. 207)]
228
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.74
Comment:
Here what Meir and Judah give as their own opinions
recurs in Jonathan's version as a Houses-dispute. The operative opi
nions are identical in both versions, so in this instance one cannot
reasonably suppose separate and independent traditions on the same
subject were handed on in the names of Ushan masters, on the one side,
and the Houses, on the other. Simeon b. Gamaliel comments on the
dispute, but does not name the antecedent masters; he supplies what we
already have, namely, a terminus ante quern for the dispute. The twentyfour/eighteen
sequence is familiar in other Houses-materials, but that
proves nothing about the origin of the apodosis. What is furthermore
interesting is that Jonathan has not even troubled to supply an appro
priate superscription for the argument; it in fact depends upon "the
words of R. Meir." It looks as if all he has done is to assign the opinions
to the Houses instead of to the Ushans, prima facie evidence that the
Ushans originated the whole. Since Meir and Judah supply numerous
disputes in the names of the Houses, we may suppose they here do
otherwise because the traditions are their own. Jonathan's revision of
the attribution then is difficult to explain; later Palestinians follow the
rule of twenty-four months, without commenting that it is Shammaite.
II.i.74. A. "If a man was half-bondman and half-freedman he should

labor one day for his master and one day for himself"the words of
B. The House of Shammai said to them, "You have ordered [it
well] for his master, but for him you have not ordered [it well.] He
cannot marry a bondwoman, since he is half freedman; and he cannot
marry a freedwoman since he is half bondman.
"May he never marry? And was not the world only created for
fruition and increase, as it is written, He created it not a waste ; he formed
it to be inhabited^. 45:10) ?
"But for the order of the world they compel his master and he sets
him free; and [the bondman] writes him a bond for indebtedness for
half his value."
C. The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the words of
[M. Git. 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 311 (y. Git. 4:5,
b. Git. 40b, 41a-b, b. 'Arakh. 26b, b. B.B. 13a,
b. Hag. 2a, b. Pes. 88a-b)]
Comment:
This curious pericope starts out like a normal Housesdispute, with a superscription, He who was half a slave and half a free man.
The Hillelite opinion, coming out of turn, then pertains to arranging
the man's working hours. We should have expected a Shammaite
opinion first. Theoretically, the House of Shammai would have divided
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
229
II.i.74
the man's working time within a given day, rather than by alternating
days. Instead, part B changes the form, which now becomes a debate.
But this too is truncated, since the debate contains no Hillelite lemma
at the outset. Furthermore, the debate also changes the subject! It now
pertains not to the man's working hours, but to whether he may marry.
The Shammaite lemma is highly developed through several clauses,
and I cannot propose a brief version. Then comes a subscription con
sisting of a stock-phrase found in same form elsewhere in the chapter;
and the phrase itself is a conglomerate of stock-phrases, on account of
the order of the world, they force the master and he makes him a free
man,
etc.,
as in M. Git. 4 : 5 . Finally, part C adds that the Hillelites were persuaded

by the category of half-slave/half-free. Clearly, one might invent some
sort of Hillelite counterpart to the Shammaite argument, but this serves
no purpose. We do not know what the Hillelites originally thought
about the half-slave's marriage.
This collection of forms and stock-phrases"conventional" dispute,
then debate, then order of the world, then the House of Hillel changed their
opinionmakes it difficult, as I said, to suggest what might have con
stituted the primary version (if any) of the pericope. Even if we drop
glosses, e.g., the Scriptural proof-text, the rhetorical introduction
(" You have ordered it well. . . " ) , we are still left with a pericope quite un
like any we have seen. It looks as if two separate arguments have been
joined because of their thematic connection: the status of the halfslave, with the first part pertaining to the work-arrangements, the se
cond to the marriage. But the position of the House of Shammai is
that such a status cannot be allowed to exist at all, therefore no arran
gements need be made.
The content is puzzling. Were there no precedents for the half-slave?
Did such a status come into being "just at this time"? It seems to me
unlikely. What is more likely is that the status is a legal fabrication,
created to explore the ambiguous personal status of someone who may
not have existed outside the lawyers' imagination. The discussion
supposes the Houses legislate in such a case for the first time. All the
preceding centuries, such people were left in a double limbo: They did
not know either how to arrange their working hours or whom to marry.
The appearance of the root TQN ôrdered well" "order of the world")
may provide a key. Perhaps the pericope represents another theoretical
ordinance, but the usual ordinance-form, at first. . . they ordained. . ., has
been confused with two different Houses-forms. I cannot envision
what the ordinance-form would have done with the Shammaite posi
tion and assume it omitted the Shammaites. The Hillelite ordinance
would have been simple enough:
A t first t h e h a l f - s l a v e [ w o u l d h a v e ] w o r k e d f o r t h e m a s t e r o n e d a y , h i m
self o n e d a y . [It t u r n e d o u t t h a t ] h e c o u l d n o t m a r r y . S o t h e y o r d a i n e d t h a t
he should w o r k entirely f o r himself [therefore abandoning the earlier
status] a n d s h o u l d p a y b a c k t h e m a s t e r o n a c c o u n t o f t h e o r d e r o f the
world.
230
The Shammaites could have produced no equivalent taqqanah, for to

begin with they denied such a status was within the law.
Part C poses no problem. The Hillelites do not give up their view
that the man must work both for himself and his master. They simply
accept an arrangement different from the one they originally proposed
but producing the same result. The man is still in bondage, but his
personal status has been clarified. The Shammaite view, that the status
to begin with is inconceivable, plays no role in the Hillelite reversion.
On according to the words of, Epstein, Mishnah, p. 403.
II.i.75.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may dismiss (PTR)
his wife with an old bill over divorce."
And the House of Hillel forbid (>$R) [it].
B. What is an old bill of divorce? If he continued alone with her
after he had written it for it, [it becomes an old bill of divorce].
[M. Git. 8:4, trans. Danby, p. 317 (b. Git. 79b,
y. Git. 8:9)]
Comment: The form is somewhat developed, with the superscription
inserted into the Shammaite lemma:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A m a n frees his w i f e w i t h a n o l d
Get
Prohibit.
In a simpler version we should have had:

An old
Get
House of Shammai:
Permit
House o f Hillel:
Prohibit.
The Shammaite lemma has been revised, not merely glossed, and the
syzygous permit has been changed to a declarative sentence, a man frees
his wife-, thus YS> changes to PTR.
Part B glosses the dispute. Clearly, the tradition of a Houses' dispute
about an old Get circulated in many forms and produced references such
as we have already observed (above, p. 204). This version is the most
serviceable for the purposes of Judah the Patriarch, but not the most
primitive.
II.i.76. If a wrote [a bill of divorce] to divorce his wife and changed
his mind
The House of Shammai say, "He has rendered her ineligible (PL)
[for marriage with] a priest."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even if he gave it to her on a con
dition, and the condition was not fulfilled, he has not rendered inelig
ible (PSL) for marriage with a priest."
231
ILi.77. A. If a man divorced his wife and she then lodged with him
in an inn
The House of Shammai say, "She does not need from him a second
bill of divorce."
And the House of Hillel say, "She needs from him a second bill of
divorce."
B. This applies when she was divorced after wedlock.
C. But they agree that if she was divorced after betrothal [only], she
does not need a second bill of divorce from him, since he is not yet
shameless before her.
[M. Git. 8:8-9, trans. Danby, p. 318-9 (b. Git.
81a-b, b. Qid. 65a-b)]
Comment:
II.i.76, M. Git. 8:8, like the foregoing pericopae, begins
as if it were standard, but, curiously, fails to balance the Houses lemmas:
He who wrote [a Get] to divorce his wife and changed his mind:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , H e has r e n d e r e d h e r unfit f r o m t h e p r i e s t h o o d .
The House of Hillel should say:

H e has not r e n d e r e d h e r unfit. . .
That in fact is the Hillelite opinion, but before the opinion is given, we
have an intervening phrase:
E v e n t h o u g h h e g a v e it t o h e r o n a c o n d i t i o n a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n w a s n o t
fulfilled
Then comes:
H e has not r e n d e r e d h e r unfit. . .
The intervening phrase glosses the Hillelite saying by extending the

Hillelite opinion to a more extreme case than is described in the super
scription. In the new case the man has actually given the Get, but it
turns out to be impaired. Even here the woman is not regarded as
having been subjected to divorce, therefore remains fit to marry a
priest, according to the Hillelites. The glossator apparently regarded
the original opinion as not representing the full extent of the Hillelite
leniency.
II.i.77, M. Git. 8:9, is standard; the lemmas of the Houses pertain to,
and complete, the superscription, and are matched, the difference being
the use of the negative in the Shammaite opinion.
The agreement of part C clarifies the foregoing, therefore is merely a
gloss, not a revision, such as is often supplied by Simeon b. Leazar in
Toseftan pericopae. The meaning of the Houses-dispute is unchanged.
See Epstein,
Mishnah,
p. 86, 266.
232
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.78, II.ii.70, 7 1 , 7 2
II.i.78. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not divorce his
wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he
hath found in her indecency in anything"
And the House of Hillel say, "[He may divorce her] even if she
spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he has found in her indecency in anything"
R. Aqiba says, "Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is
written, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes. . ."
c
[M. Git. 9:10, trans. Danby, p. 321 (y. Git.

9:11,b. Git. 90a, y. Sot. 1:1)]
Comment: See above, Sifre Deut. 269, p. 37.
11.11.70. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not free his wife
with an old Get, so that her Get may not be older than her son"
(Tos. Git. 8:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 332,1. 20)
Comment: The italicized words gloss M. 8:4but for the opinion
of the House of Hillel! The Shammaites say one may do so. Other MSS
properly correct to Hillel.
11.11.71. He who gives a Get to his wife, and they did not bear wit
ness [to it]
The House of Shammai say, "He rendered her ineligible from the
priesthood."
11.11.72. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel did not differ concerning him who divorces his wife,
and [then] she spends the night with him in an inn, that she does not
require from him a second Get.
"Concerning a situation in which he [actually] had intercourse
[with her]."
[Tos. Git. 8:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 333, lines
4-5, 7-9 (b. Git. 8a-b, b. Qid. 65a-b)]
Comment: II.ii.71 corresponds to M. Git. 8:8, if a man gave a Get and
changed his mind. The House of Shammai say that he has rendered her
ineligible, and the House of Hillel say that he has not rendered her
ineligible. It looks like a separate superscription for the same argument.
The apodosis is defective.
233
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.79, II.ii.73
II.ii.72 conforms to the general tendency of Simeon b. Eleazar. Now

the dispute concerns not a married couple, for all agree no further
Get is necessary. The issue is now, What is necessitated by actual inter
course? The opinions of the Houses are not given. We may assume that
the House of Shammai would say no new Get is needed, and the House
of Hillel would require a new one.
In this instance the Shammaite position is made more extreme. Ob
viously, the Hillelites will require a new Get, just as before. But the
Shammaites now treat the act of intercourse as having no legal conse
quence. The old Get remains valid, even though the couple has engaged
in marital relations; therefore the act of intercourse, having no legal
implications, is treated as prostitution.
b. Git. 81a has it that witnesses testify the couple actually had inter
course, or the witnesses saw them alone, thus solving the problem of
who is to testify against the validity of the Get.
II.i.79.A. By three means is the woman acquired and by two means
she acquires her freedom. She is acquired by money or by writ or by
intercourse.
B. By moneythe House of Shammai say, "By a denar or a denar*s
worth."
And the House of Hillel say, "By aperutah or aperutah s worth."
C. And how much is a perutah? The eighth part of an Italian issar.
9
[M. Qid. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 321 (y. Qid. 1:1,

b. Qid. lla-b, 12a, b. Bekh. 50b, y. Shav. 6:1)]
Comment: The Houses-lemma, part B, glosses part A, and then
part C glosses the Hillelite clause of part B. Part C certainly comes after
the Hillelite view of law became normative. We may presume part B
comes after part A as well, but we do not know when part A was re
dacted. The form of the Houses-dispute is conventional, and the Houses'
opinions are presented in brief and balanced form: denarjperutah, with
the additional gloss that the equivalent thereof \s acceptable.
II.ii.73. He who gives permission to three men to betrothe for him
the woman
R. Nathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Two may serve as
witnesses and one as agent.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'All three of them are agents and
cannot serve as witnesses.' "
[Tos. Qid. 4:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 340,
lines 3-4(y. Qid. 2:1, b. Qid. 43a)]
234
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.74
Comment:
The issue is whether an agent can become a witness or
not. The pericope recurs verbatim in b. Qid. 43a. without attribution to
Nathan. Then a separate beraita occurs:
R . N a t h a n said, " T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, ' A n a g e n t a n d a w i t n e s s
[ s e r v e as a t t e s t a t i o n . ] '
" A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, ' A n a g e n t a n d two w i t n e s s e s . ' "
The Tosefta is cited, but Nathan dropped; then a parallel pericope is

created for Nathan, in which the same principle is discussed, but with
reference to different circumstances.
Shammai the Elder rules on the same issue, I, p. 201.
On b. Qid. 42b-43a, Halivni, Meqorot, p. 663.
i v . NEZIQIN
We shall review the 'Eduyyot collections below, section vii.

II.ii.74. He who steals the beam and builds it into the group of
buildings (B YRH)
The House of Shammai say, "He must tear down (Q Q ) the
[entire] group of buildings and take out the beam."
And the House of Hillel say, "He estimates how much it was worth
and pays the owner, on account of the [good] order of penitents."
C
[Tos. B.Q. 9:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 367,

lines 3:5 (y. B.Q. 9:1, y. Git. 5:6, b. Git. 55a, b.
B.M. 101a)]
II.ii.74*. He who goes down into the ruin of his fellow and builds
it without permission. When he goes forth, he says, "Give me my
wood and stones." They do not listen to him.
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The House of Shammai say,
'The right is in his hand.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not listen to him.' "
[Tos. Ket. 8:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 271,
lines 1-3 (ed. Lieberman, pp. 85-6 omits the
saying of Simeon b. Gamaliel)]
Comment:
The form is conventional, but the lemmas of the Houses
are not obviously balanced; they choose quite different words, but are
metrically matched, four to each lemma. The lemmas of the Houses
could have stood quite independent of one another. It looks to me as if
the language of M. B.Q. 9:1 etc. has influenced the revision of the
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.80,
III.ii.35
235
Hillelite lemma. The Shammaite ruling would have been suitably

balanced by a simple negative for the Hillelites: He does not take down. . .
The Hillelites do not merely rule on the first question, but they go on to
explain what the man must do instead. They thus take for granted the
ruling we should have expected. So the Hillelite lemma develops what
would have been the primary form; the Shammaite one is the model for
that form. The same pattern recurs in II.ii.74*.
II.i.80.A. If a man put to his own use what had been left in his
keeping, the House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage whether
its value rises or falls."
And the House of Hillel say, "[He must restore the deposit] at the
same value as when he put it to his own use."
R. Aqiba says, "At its value when claimed."
B. If a man had expressed his intention of putting the deposit to his
own use, the House of Shammai say, "He is liable."
And the House of Hillel say, "He is not liable until he puts it to his
use, for it is written, If he have not put his hand unto his neighbor\r goods
C. Thus if he tilted the jar and took from it a quarter-/^ [of wine]
and the jar was then broken, he need only repay [the value of the]
quarter-/0g [of wine]; but if he lifted it up and took from it a quarterlog and the jar was then broken, he must repay the value of the whole.
c
[M. B.M. 3:12 (y. B.M. 3:9, b. B.M. 43a-b, 44a,

y. Shev. 8:1, b. Qid.42b, Sifra Vayiqra 13:13b)]
Comment: Part A, see Sifra Vayiqra 13:13, p. 11. Part B pertains to
the man's intention. The Shammaite opinion is HYYB, liable, and the
Hillelite one should have been either not HYYB, or, preferably, PTWR,
with the gloss being understood. The gloss required by not liable adds
until, then carefully spells out the point at which liability is incurred,
finally supplies a proof-text. Afterward comes a new and separate gloss,
part C, in which a case is given to illustrate the Hillelite position, ignor
ing the Shammaite one.
In this instance, if the original Hillelite lemma consisted merely of
the negative, it invited a gloss, lest someone suppose the man would
never be liable. But the gloss is in a measure redundant, since everyone
knew that misappropriation of the bailment certainly would incur
liability. So my guess is that the glossator felt uncomfortable with the
Hillelite lemma before him, not only for reasons of clarity, but also for
the sake of diction ( D ).
See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 77; Mishnah, pp. 310, 507,1034.
C
III.ii.35.A. Our Rabbis taught: [Then the master of the house shall be
brought unto the judges. . .] For all (KL) manner of trespass (Ex. 22:8).
236
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.80
The House of Shammai say, "This teaches that he is liable on ac

count of [unlawful] intention just as for an [unlawful] act."
And the House of Hillel say, "He is not liable until he actually puts
it to use, for it is said, [To see] whether he have put his hand unto his
neighbor's goods"
B. Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "But it is
already stated, For any wordoj trespass!"
The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "But it is
already stated, [to see] Whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor sgoods I
If so, what is the teaching of, For any word of trespass? For I might have
thought: I know it only of himself; whence do I know [that he is
liable if] he instructed his servant or his agent [to use it] ? From the
teaching, For any word of trespass"
}
[b. B.M. 44a (Mekh. deR. Ishmael, Nez.

15:49-55; b. Qid. 42b)]
Comment:
M. B.M.
The several versions compare as follows:
3:12
Mekh. Ne .
Z
15:49-55
b. B.M.
44a
1. D T N W
For
1.
2. T h e House o f S h a m
m a i say, L i a b l e ( H Y Y B )
2. F o r
the
House
of
S h a m m a i declare liable
(MHYYBYN)
for
the
thought o f the heart in
sending f o t t h the hand,
as it is said E x . 2 2 : 7 , For
every word ( DBR)
of
trespass
2. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m
m a i say, It teaches t h a t h e
is l i a b l e ( H Y Y B )
for
t h o u g h t as d e e d (*L
MHSBH KM'SH)
3. A n d
the House
of
H i l l e l say, H e is not liable
until he will put forth o n
it a h a n d , as it is said E x .
2 2 : 7 If he has not sent his
hand
3. A n d the House
of
Hillel d o
not
declare
liable ( M H Y Y B Y N ) e x
cept f r o m the time that he
p u t o n it a h a n d , t h e r e f o r e
it is said E x . 2 2 : 7
3. A n d the H o u s e
of
H i l l e l say, H e is n o t l i a b l e
until he sends forth a
h a n d , as it is said E x . 2 2 : 7
4.
4.
4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m
m a i said etc. [ D e b a t e ]
RBNN:
1. He w h o thinks of put
ting f o r t h a hand on a bail
ment
e v e r y w o r d o f trespass
M . B . M . 3 : 1 2 is t h e b r i e f e s t v e r s i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e . I t d r o p s t h e S h a m
maite exegesis o r does n o t b o t h e r t o i n v e n t it, a n d t h e Hillelite
i n c o n t e x t i s p e r f e c t . M e k h . f o l l o w s , a n d reports
than
citing
the
opinions
in
direct
address
opinion
the foregoing
("say,
liable"
rather
becomes
"declare liable"), f u r t h e r m o r e adding a Shammaite exegesis t o balance
237
the Hillelite one. b. B.M. 44a then takes both exegeses and turns them
into a debate, but not in standard form, for it gives the decisive place
and argument to the Hillelites. This seems to me to be evidence that the
berazta-deb&te
follows and depends upon Mekh. Nez. I do not see how
the former could be seen as summarized and abbreviated in the latter.
It also looks as if M. B.M. 3:12 is the simplest and earliest version of
the pericope, and that Mekh. has expanded it by supplying balanced
exegeses, rather than leaving the Shammaites without one.
II.ii.75.A. If a man put to his own use what had been left in his
keeping, the House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage whether
its value rises or falls."
H
' "
Comment:
(Tos.B.M.3:12,ed.Zuckermandel,p.377,1.3)
The language occurring in the Mishnah is cited, then
glossed.
II.L81.A. If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a
man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife's
Ketuvah or to a creditor, the father's heirs may say, "The son died first
and the father died afterward," and the creditors may say, "The
father died first and the son died afterward."
The House of Shammai say, "They divide."
And the House of Hillel say, "The property is in its presumptive
[possessors' hands]."
II.i.81 .B. If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband's
heirs may say, "The wife died first and the husband died afterward,"
and the wife's heirs may say, "The husband died first and the wife
died afterward."
The House of Shammai say, "They divide."
And the House of Hillel say, "The property is in its presumptive
[possessors' hands]the Ketuvah to the husband's heirs and the
property that comes in and goes out with her to her fathers' heirs."
[M. B.B. 9:8-9 (b. B.B. 157a, y. B.B. 9:9)]
Comment:
See M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6. Here the superscription
changes twice, but the opinions of the Houses are in all respects
identical, except for the glosses of M. Yev. = M. Ket., which, natur
ally, are dropped in II.i.81.A. but left in II.i.81 .B. Once again we ob
serve that the Houses-materials can be attached to a wide range of
superscriptions. The legal principle and language of the Houses do not
change, therefore antedate the various superscriptions and accompany
ing glosses.
238
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.76, 7 7
II.ii.76. If the house fell on him and on his mother, since both
[forms of property] come to him as an inheritance, these and these
agree that they divide.
R. Aqiba said, "I agree in this instance with the words of the House
of Hillel that the property remains in the presumption [of the posses
sors' hands] (BHZQTN)."
c
(Tos. B.B. 10:13, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 412, lines 34-5)

c
See M. B.B. 9:8-9. Aqiba supplies important evidence

that the original debate took place at Yavneh or earlier. The language
of the Houses must have been fixed by then, for Aqiba cites the
Hillelite ruling verbatim.
Comment:
II.ii.77.A. The House of Shammai say, "There are three groups.

One is for eternal life. One is for eternal shame and perdition. These
are the completely evil people. That () the least of them (QWLYHN)
descend to Gehanna and squeal and rise again and are healed."
"As it is said, And I will bring the third part through fire and will refine
them as silver is refined and will try them as gold is tried. And they shall call
on my name and I will answer them" (Zech. 13:9).
Concerning them Hannah said, "The Lord kills and resurrects, brings
down to Sheol and raises up" (I Sam. 2:6).
B. The House of Hillel say, "He that abounds in grace inclines
[the scales] towards grace [and they do not go to Gehenna at all]."
And concerning them, David said, " / love that the Lord should hear my
voice and my supplication" (Ps. 116:1).
And concerning them the entire passage [of David] was said.
[Tos. Sanh. 13:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 434,
lines 11:17 (ARN, trans. Goldin, pp. 173-4)]
Comment:
The requirements of the Houses-form are utterly ignored
in this aggadic passage. The opinions are in no way balanced; they are
heavily glossed with Scriptures and references to biblical heroes.
The Shammaite saying is obviously defective. We hear only about two
groups, and the third ("the least of them") is not introduced properly,
but tied to the foregoing with that (), so at first glance it looks as
though the completely wicked are under discussion. Only as we proceed
do we see that still a third group is meant, namely, the ones who are
neither wholly righteous nor wholly wicked. These go down but come
up again.
The Hillelite ruling then pertains to this same group: They do not go
down at all. A simple version of the pericope presumably would have
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.36, II.i.82
239
the Houses as usual debate that ambiguous group, with both sides
agreeing on the wholly righteous, who go straight up, and the wholly
wicked, who go straight down and stay there:
The
intermediates:
The House of Shammai: They go down [and come up again]

They do not go down [at all]
Presumably in a legal pericope, something like this simple form would
have underlain the complex and highly developed pericope. But in
aggadic materials we have yet to see such an unadorned version of a
House-dispute. See S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1938),
II, p. 161.
b. R.H. 16b-17a corrects the pericope, but loses the point of the
Houses' dispute:
III.ii.36. It has been taught: The House of Shammai say, "There
will be three groups at the Day of Judgmentone of thoroughly
righteous, one of thoroughly wicked, and one of intermediate. The
thoroughly righteous will forthwith be inscribed definitively as
entitled to everlasting life; the thoroughly wicked will forthwith be
inscribed definitively as doomed to Gehinnom, as it says, And many
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life
and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence (Dan. 12:2).
"The intermediate will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and
rise again, as it says, And I will bring the third part through the fire, and
will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall
call on my name and I will answer them (Zech. 13:9). Of them, too,
Hannah said, The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the
grave and bringeth up (I Sam. 2:6)."
The House of Hillel say, "He that abounds in grace inclines [the
scales] towards grace, and of them David said, I love that the Lord
should hear my voice and my supplication (Ps. 116-1), and on their behalf
David composed the whole of the passage, / was brought low and he
saved me (Ps. 116:6)."
(b. R.H. 16b-17a)
V.
QODASHIM
II.L82.A. The House of Shammai say, "Any offering whose blood

must be sprinkled on the outer altar makes atonement, even if it is
sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling: or, [if it is] a sin-offering,
[with] two acts of sprinkling."
240
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.82
And the House of Hillel say, "Even ( P) if it is a sin-offering, it

makes atonement if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling."
B. Therefore if the first act of sprinkling was done in the manner
ordained, but the second outside the proper time, it [still] makes
atonement. But if the first act of sprinkling was done outside its
proper time, and the second outside its proper place, the offering is
rendered Refuse (PYGWL) and punishment by Extirpation (KRT) is
thereby incurred.
[M. Zev. 4:1, trans. Danby, p. 472 (b. Zev.
36b, 37b, b. Sanh. 4a)]
Comment:
The dispute concerns the number of times blood must be
sprinkled for a sin-offering. The House of Shammai say two, the House
of Hillel one. According to our earlier observations, we should have
expected the dispute to be phrased in terms of numbers, with a brief
explanation inserted into the Shammaite lemma or set as a superscrip
tion. The end of the Shammaite lemma would have served:
In a sin-offering
House o f S h a m m a i : T w o placings [sprinklings]
House o f Hillel:
One.
The whole of part C as usual depends upon the Hillelite opinion.

As it stands, the opening part of the Shammaite lemma is complex:
1 . A l l t h e s p r i n k l i n g s o n t h e o u t e r alter,
2 . t h a t () if ( M ) h e s p r i n k l e d t h e m o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d
3 . A n d i n a sin-offering, t w o s p r i n k l i n g s .
J
The House of Hillel's opinion is glossed, primarily for redactional

reasons, as indicated in italics:
Also t h e sin-offering, that [ s h o u l d b e , / / ] h e s p r i n k l e d o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e
atoned.
The glosses have been inserted to tie the primary Hillelite lemma to
the foregoing Shammaite one. What has complicated matters is the
introduction of the topical sentence, actually serving as a super
scription not for the Houses but for the first two pericopae of the
chapter, into the Shammaite lemma:
All
the sprinklings [on t h e o u t e r a l t a r ] .
This is tied to the next clause with that($).

materials, we have
Dropping these redactional
If h e s p r i n k l e d t h e m o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d , a n d i n a sin-offering,
sprinklings.
two
241
Now the Hillelite lemma closely corresponds, though it still is some

what glossed,
A l s o as t o a sin-offering (that = ) i f h e s p r i n k l e d o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d .
The primary pericope, as I said, would therefore have been twojone

attached to sin-offering. Everything else is added either to gloss that
dispute, or to serve the redactional needs of the context into which the
dispute has been placed.
II.ii.78.A. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, "One thing of the lenient
rulings of the House of Shammai and the strict rulings of the House of
Hillel [is as follows]:
"The House of Shammai say, 'Two sprinklings make fit and render
piggul [abhorredthe flesh of the sacrifice which the officiating priest
has formed the intention of eating at an improper time, Lev. 7:18] in a
sin-offering, and one sprinkling in all [other] sacrifices.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It is all the same for a sin-offering and
for all sacrificesone sprinkling makes fit and renders [the sacrifice
susceptible to] piggul.' "
B. How so ? If he sprinkled once in silence and the blood was poured
out
The House of Shammai declares [sic] unfit (PW$L).
And the House of Hillel declare fit (MK$YRYN).
If he sprinkled twice in silence and the blood was poured out, all
agree that it is fit.
C. If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time and the blood
was poured out
The House of Shammai say, "It is unfit, but the punishment of
cutting off does not pertain to it."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is piggul, and they are liable on its
account for the punishment of cutting off"
D. [If he sprinkled] twice outside of the proper time and the blood
was poured out, all agree that it is piggul.
E. [If he sprinkled] once outside of the proper time and once out
side of the proper place, the House of Shammai say, "It is unfit, but the
punishment of cutting off does not apply."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is piggul, and they are liable on its
account for the punishment of cutting off."
F. In what circumstances? The sin-offering. But as to all the rest of
the sacrifices, if he sprinkled once in silence and the blood was poured
out, all agree that it is fit.
16
242
If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time, and the blood was
poured out, all agree that it is piggul.
If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time and outside of the
proper place, it is unfit, and the punishment of cutting off does not
apply.
[Tos. Zev. 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 486,
lines 2-15 (b. Zev. 38b)]
Comment:
M. Zev. 4:1 now stands out as a highly abbreviated
summary of Tos. Zev. 4:9. Eliezer b. Jacob observes that the Sham
maites take the more lenient position. The Hillelites are more strict
because a ^gg///-intention in merely one application suffices to render
the sin-offering piggul.
Judah the Patriarch has selected the essentials of Eliezer's long
catalogue of possibilities. Here it seems clear that the Mishnaic version
depends upon and summarizes the Tosefta's.
II.i.83. A. If he slaughtered with a hand-sickle or with a flint or with

a reed, what he slaughters is valid.
All slaughter, and they slaughter at any time, and they slaughter
with any implement excepting a reaping-sickle or a saw or teeth or the
finger-nails, since these [do not cut but tear the windpipe and] choke
[the beast].
B. If a man slaughtered with a reaping-sickle, drawing the blade
backwards (KDRK HWLKTH)
The House of Shammai declare it invalid.
And the House of Hillel declare it valid.
C. But if its teeth are filed down, then it is like a knife.
[M. Hul. 1:2, trans. Danby, p. 513 (b. Hul.
18a)]
Comment:
The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing general rule. It
is in conventional form, with the opinions a matched syzygy: unfit
(PSL), fit (K$R). The Shammaites prohibit drawing the blade back
wards, lest he draw it in the other direction. The Hillelites do not
prohibit the one on account of the othera principle commonly
debated by the Houses.
b. Hul. 18a observes that declare validjinvalid and permit/forbid are
synonymous.
II.i.84.A. No flesh may be cooked in milk, excepting the flesh of

fish and locusts. It is forbidden to serve it up on the table together
with cheese excepting the flesh of fish and locusts.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.84
243
If a man vowed to abstain from flesh, he is permitted the flesh of

fish and locusts.
B. "A fowl comes up on the table [ = is served] together with
cheese, but it is not eaten [with it]"the words of the House of
Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "It does not come up [with it], and it is
not eaten [with i t ] . "
C. R. Yosi said, "This is one of the cases where the House of
Shammai followed the more lenient, and the House of Hillel the more
stringent, ruling."
D. Of what manner of table did they speak? Of a table whereat
men eat; but on a table whereon the food is arrayed, a man may put
the one beside the other without scruple.
104b, b. Shab. 13a)]
Comment:
The Shammaite lemma has been slightly rearranged for
redactional reasons. Two other versions would have been possible:
Fowl with cheese on the table

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : S e r v e d u p [and n o t eaten]
House o f Hillel:
Not s e r v e d u p [and n o t e a t e n ] .
Alternatively, the superscription could have been assigned to the

Shammaite lemma, as often happens; if so, it would have appeared in
precisely the present form. The Hillelite lemma depends upon the
Shammaite one, dropping/bW, with the cheese, on the table, as one would
expect. So the whole revision for redactional purposes consists of re
placing House of Shammai say with words of. . ., and placing the attribu
tion at the end.
Normally, the Shammaites prohibit one thing on account of another
that is, extend the range of prohibitions beyond what the law strictly
requireswhile the Hillelites prohibit only that which may not be
done. The disputes in details of law often come down to that single
fundamental difference ("building a fence around the law") in which
the Hillelites take the lenient position throughout; if they do not, as
here, it is noteworthy.
See Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 142. The Mishnah is Yosi's, Mishnah, p. 671.
This would suggest the pericope comes after, and is shaped in accord
with, his opinion on the respective positions of the Houses, but the
theme of the dispute of the Houses on the matter comes before his
time. The same judgment applies to the rest of M. 'Ed's attributions of
Houses-pericopae.
y
244
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.37, II.i.85
III.ii.37. It was taught: The House of Shammai say, "One must

clean [the mouth |."
The House of Hillel say, "One must rinse it."
(b. Hul. 104b-105a)
Comment: The issue is, What must one do between eating cheese and
meat ? The Houses-lemmas are in perfect form:
House of Shammai: MQNH
House of Hillel:
MDYH
We have no superscription. The singleton would mean nothing outside
of the context of Amoraic discussion in which it appears. The discus
sion makes it clear that the House of Shammai hold one must clean the
mouth and also rinse it; the House of Hillel say one needs only to rinse.
This is made explicit in what is presented as a theoretical Amoraic
formulation:
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, M Q N H a n d t h a t is t h e l a w as t o
LMDYH
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, M D Y H a n d t h a t is t h e l a w as t o L M Q N H
And a further follows, substituting for the gloss, and that is the law, an
Aramaic lemma, WL> B Y. The primary lemma, unglossed and without
an interpretive superscription, obviously consisted of varying wordchoices, nothing more, and these are then given significance in later
discussions. But that does not mean the original lemma goes back to
pre-70 times. The pericope before us depends upon M. Hul. 8:1b.
Without knowledge of that rule we should not have expected any
discussion of further separation of cheese and meat. And we do not
know when that issue first provoked study.
C
II.i.85. And how many [must they be] [to be liable for the fleece-gift
to the priest] ?
The House of Shammai say, "Two sheep, for it is written, A man
shall nourish ayoung cow and two sheep (Is. 7:21)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Five, for it is written, And five sheep
ready dressed (I Sam. 25:18)."
R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Five sheep that have fleeces each of a
mina and a half are subject to the law of the first of the fleece"
But the sages say, "Five sheep, however much may be their fleeces."
135a, Sifre Deut. 166)]
Comment: See Sifre Deut. 166, above, p. 36. 'Aqiba has been drop
ped, and Dosa takes his place. Granting that one must have five sheep
following the Hilleliteshow much fleece do they have to produce to be
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.79, 80, II.i.86
245
subject to the law. This rule places Dosa in the Hillelite camp, after its
original opinion has been shaped; that opinion presumably derives
from Yavneh, if not earlier.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 433; Mishnah, pp. 569,1160. On Dosa's re
lationship to Yavnean Hillelites, see above, p. 193.
II.ii.79. A reaping sickle, etc.
(Tos. Hul. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 500,1.29)
Comment: No change from M. Hul. 1:2.
ILii.80.A. The fowl does not come up and is not eaten.
B. R. Yosi said, "This is one of the leniencies of the House of
Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel:
"The House of Shammai say, 'It comes up and is not eaten.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It does not come up and is not
eaten.' "
C. R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq says, "The fowl comes up with the
cheese on the table.
(Tos. Hul. 8:2-3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 509,

lines 19-21)
Comment: Part A is the Hillelite ruling, but without attribution to

that House, unlike M. Hul. 8:1. Part B contains Yosi's observation, and
then presents the Houses' sayings, without the explanatory glosses of
M. Hul. 8:1. This proves that the simple version proposed above
(p. 243) in fact circulated, and the version of the Mishnah is a revision
by Judah the Patriarch.
Part C indicates that the issue was faced before the time of Yosi.
Eleazar now presents the opinion later on attributed to the Sham
maites. On Eleazar's affinity for Shammaite opinion, see above, p. 155.
But he does not attribute his opinion to the Shammaites, so the attribu
tion to that House must come between ca. 80 and ca. 150, but not earlier.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 239.
II.i.86. The House of Shammai say, "An Israelite may not be
numbered [in the same company] with a priest for [the consumption
of] a Firstling."
And the House of Hillel permit even a gentile.
[M. Bekh. 5:2, trans. Danby, p. 535 (b. Bekh.
32b-33a, b. Tern. 24a)]
Comment: The firstling is blemished. The foregoing rule, given
anonymously, states that ineligible offerings may be sold in the market,
except for the firstling and tithe, which are enjoyed by their owners.
The House of Shammai hold that an Israelite may not share with a
246
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.81, III.ii.38
priest in the firstling. The House of Hillel permit even a gentile to do

so. The form is not standard:
House o f S h a m m a i : A n Israelite may n o t be n u m b e r e d w i t h the priest f o r
a firstling
House o f Hillel:
P e r m i t even a gentile.
The Hillelite ruling extends the dispute; even... looks like an 'Aqiban
gloss. No theoretical superscription obviously presents itself.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 78-9, 454-5.
II.ii.81.A. The House of Shammai say, "They number on firstlings
only priests alone."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even an Israelite."
R. 'Aqiba permits even a gentile, as it is said, Like a deer and like a locust
(Deut. 12:15).
B. The flesh of the firstling
The House of Shammai, "They do not feed it to menstruating
women (NDWT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do feed it to menstruating
women."
[Tos. Bekhorot 3:15-16, ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 538, lines 2-4 (b. Bekh. 33a)]
Comment: Now we see the source of the difficult form of M. Bekh.
The House of Hillel's lemma there has been glossed to include 'Aqiba's
opinion, so Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern for the original dis
pute. A more primitive superscription for part A may now be proposed:
<
Numbering Israelites with priests on
firstlings:

House o f Hillel:
Permit.
The dispute concerning gentiles would not readily be phrased as a

separate dispute, for neither House went that far.
Part B is standard in form. It could have been given permit/prohibit
form, or verb +/ negative form, by adding to a menstruatingwoman to the
superscription. The Shammaite reason is that Num. 18:18 says priests
may eat but lay-Israelites may not, and the same rule applies here. The
Hillelites say that that rule applies only to an unblemished firstling, but
Deut. 15:22 pertains to a blemished one: The unclean and clean shall eat it
all the more so a layman (b. Bekh. 33a).
III.ii.38.A. Our rabbis taught: How long is the period before we
receive him [as a haver] ?
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.39
247
The House of Shammai say, "As regards [the purity of] liquids
(LMQYN), [the period is] thirty days, but as [regards the purity of
his] garment, [the period is] twelve months."
And the House of Hillel say, "Both in the one case as well as in the
other, the period is twelve months."
B. If this be so, then have you here a ruling where the House of
Shammai is more lenient and the House of Hillel is the stricter?
Rather [read]:
The House of Hillel say, "Both in the one case as well as in the
other, the period is thirty days."
[b. Bekh. 30b (Tos. Dem. 2:12)]
Comment:
The issue concerns accepting a neophyte into the havurah.
The pericope is the only one attributed to the Houses which pertains to
that society for meticulous tithing and ritual purities. The pericope
follows the standard form, with the superscription, then the Houses
sayings:
House o f S h a m m a i : F o r liquids, thirty day(s) F o r garment,
twelve
m o n t h (es)
House o f Hillel:
F o r b o t h (>HD Z H W ' H D Z H ) t w e l v e m o n t h ( e s ) .
We could have expected no other form but the one before us. But the
Amoraic discussion of part B then provides definitive evidence that
Amoraim were quite well prepared completely to revise Housesmaterials, following the standard form, for reasons of logic. In this
case, they have assigned to the Hillelites an entirely new opinion:
>HD ZH W'HD ZH LSLSYM
They have thus dropped twelve months and substituted the more
"credible" opinion. Without the discussion we should have assumed
the pericope was classic, therefore "early." This means that merely con
forming to the standard form by itself supplies no evidence whatever as
to the antiquity of a pericope.
Tos. Dem. 2:12 gives the Hillelite lemma as "This and this for
thirty days (ZH WZH L$L$YM YWM)," so evidently has been
corrected to conform to the Amoraic discussion. Lieberman observes,
"And in all readings of the Tosefta [the passage follows] the correction
of the Babylonian Talmud." So the Tosefta's tradition was preserved
only in the b. Bekh. beraita, but the Tosefta itself was revised in later
times.
IILii.39. Our rabbis taught: The House of Shammai say, "If a man
said, 'I take upon myself [to offer] a marheshet' [the vow] must stand
over until Elijah comes."
248
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.82, III.ii.40
(They are in doubt as to whether [these terms] refer to the vessel or

to the pastry prepared therein.)
But the House of Hillel say, "There was a vessel in the Temple called
marheshet, resembling a deep mold, which gave the dough that was put
into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts."
(b. Men. 63a)
r
> j r
Comment:
In this beraita, by contrast, the form is so obviously de
fective that an early attribution seems on the face of it unlikely. In this
instance archaeological data about whether such a vessel actually
existed in the Temple would be helpful, but not decisive; the Hillelites
might know what they were talking about, not from direct observation,
but from the testimony of people unconnected with the Houses.
II.ii.82.A. He who sanctifies his property and intended to divorce

his wife
R. Eliezer says, "He prohibits her by vow not to enjoy benefit, and
she collects her Ketuvah from the sanctified property."
[Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 279: R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon
says, "The House of Shammai say,] 'If he wants to bring her back, he
may bring her back.' "
R. Joshua says, "If he wants to bring her back, he may not bring
her back."
B. And the House of Hillel say, "If he wants to bring her back, he
may not bring her back."
C. R. Eliezer says according to the words of the House of Sham
mai, and R. Joshua says according to the words of the House of Hillel.
c
[Tos. Arakh. 4:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 547,

lines 9-13 (b. <Arakh. 23a)]
III.ii.40. TNY*: If a man dedicates his possessions to the sanctuary
while still liable for his wife's Ketuvah,
R. Eliezer says, "When he divorces her, he must vow that he will
not derive further benefit from her."
And R. Joshua says, "He need not do so."
And R. Eleazar b. Simeon said, "These are the very views of the
House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'A consecration made in error is
a consecration.'
'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It is not a valid consecration.' "
(b. <Arakh. 23a)
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.82, III.ii.40
Comment:
249
Tosefta corresponds to M. 'Arakh. 6:1:
I f a m a n sanctifies his p r o p e r t y t o t h e T e m p l e w h i l e h e w a s l i a b l e f o r t h e
p a y m e n t o f his w i f e ' s Ketuvah
R. Eliezer says, " W h e n he d i v o r c e s her, he must v o w t o d e r i v e n o f u r t h e r
benefit f r o m h e r . "
R . J o s h u a s a y s , "He n e e d n o t . "
The issue in Tos. 'Arakh. however is not whether he may make such a
vow, but whether he may later remarry the woman.
The dispute of the Houses in relation to M. Arakh. concerns whether
a man erroneously consecrates something to the sanctuary. The House
of Hillel hold one cannot do so, and the House of Shammai hold it is a
valid consecration. R. Eliezer rules that even though the possessions
included his wife's property (Ketuvah), they are still sanctified, so he
must vow not to make use of them. By extension to the Tosefta case
before us, the couple may then remarry since the sacred property is
protected by the vow. The Hillelites hold the property was not sancti
fied.
The pericope provides a good example of the effort to standardize a
few Eliezer-Joshua disputes in Houses-forms. The presumption is that
Eliezer follows the opinion of the Shammaites, Joshua, the Hillelites,
but that they did not constitute the Houses. On the one hand, the anony
mous subscription introduces the Houses. On the other, part B repeats
the opinion of Joshua, now as an attribution to the House of Hillelas
if the two lemmas circulated separately and were not related to one
another. A corresponding opinion of the Shammaites has not been
supplied. It should have been identical to Eliezer's.
If we had had such a matched pair of pericopae, containing the same
words attributed both to the Houses and to the Yavnean masters,
respectively, a literary, not a historical difficulty, would have to be
faced first of all. Did the named masters shape their opinions in referen
ce to the Houses' dispute? If so, why did they not say so: The House of
Shammai say. . .just as do the Ushans later on (e.g. Simeon b. Eleazar,
Yosi, Judah b. Ilai). Perhaps they shaped their opinions independently
of the Houses, about whom they would have known nothing. Then,
later on, someone has removed their names and replaced them with the
Houses'. But the original tradition circulated alongside as well.
Alternatively, the Houses' dispute on fundamental principles comes
before the time of the Yavneans, who take up positions in matters of
detail consistent with what the Houses had earlier said in general on
those fundamental principles. Then, later authorities observed the
consistencies and remarked on them, hence part C.
The historical consequence of each of these theories is obvious. On
the one hand, the Houses and the Yavneans are one and the same. For
some reason someone has chosen to drop the names of the masters and
replace them with those of the Houses. There can have been no signi
ficant mnemonic gain. It may have had something to do with the re
lations of the second generation Yavneans to the early masters, or
c
250
perhaps with Eliezer's excommunication. No Houses actually existed,

according to this theory, but they were merely mnemonic conventions.
Alternatively, the Houses did flourish as historical institutions before
70. At Yavneh, the major disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai, Joshua and
Eliezer, having mastered the principles about which the Houses de
bated, proceeded to apply those principles, in a manner preserving a
consistent pattern, to numerous concrete cases, both actual and theore
tical. They proved so consistent in their own decisions that they were
associated with the respective Houses, and it became difficult to
distinguish Eliezer from the House of Shammai, Joshua from the
House of Hillel.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 279.
11.11.83. The House of Shammai say, "There is an Added Fifth to
the Additional Payment."
And the House of Hillel say, "There is no Added Fifth to the
Additional Payment."
[Tos. <Arakh. 4:22, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 548,
lines 26-7 (b. Arakh. 27b)]
c
Comment:
The form is standard. The dispute pertains to M. Arakh.
8:1-2.
11.11.84. Olive-presses whose doors open inward [to Jerusalem] and
whose empty space outward, or vice versa
The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem in them Second
Tithe, as if they were inside, and they do not eat in them the light
sanctities, as if they were outside."
The House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and
inwards is deemed within, and the part directly above the wall and
outwards is deemed outside."
R. Yosi said, "This is the Mishnah of R. 'Aqiba. The first Mishnah
[is as follows]:
"The House of Shammai say, 'They do not redeem in them Second
Tithe as if they were outside, and they do not eat in them light
sanctities, as if they were inside.'
"The House of Hillel say, 'Lo, they are like the chambers: where
the door opens inward it is deemed inward, and contrarywise.' "
c
(Tos. Arakh. 5:15, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 550,

lines 26-33)
Comment:
See M. M.S.
3:7,
p.
101.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.41, II.i.87
251
III.ii.41.A. Our rabbis have taught: If he gave her [a harlot] wheat

[as hire] and she made it into flour, olives, and she made them into oil,
grapes, and she made into wine
One [beraita] taught: They are forbidden [for the altar].
And another [beraita] taught: They are permitted [for the altar].
B. Said R. Joseph, "Gurion who came from Asporak recited:
'The House of Shammai forbid, and the House of Hillel permit.'
"The House of Hillel say, '[Scripture says (Deut. 23:19)]: Them,
implying but not their issue; 'them\ but not their products.'
"The House of Shammai say, 'Them' implying but not their issue;
and the word even includes their products.' "
[b. Tern. 30b (b. B.Q. 65b, b. B.Q. 93b-94a)]
Comment:
R. Joseph's (4th c. Babylonian) tradition accounts for the
contradictory beraitot, assigning each to a House. Gurion indicates how
pericopae were memorized. In this instance we know only the apodosis;
Joseph assigns the standard Houses-rulings to the usual authorities.
The exegesis of'P is Aqiban, and the Houses' attribution is spurious.
c
II.i.87.A. If she miscarried in the night of the eighty-first day, the

House of Shammai declare her exempt from an offering.
And the House of Hillel declare her liable.
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "How does
the night of the eighty-first day differ from the eighty-first day? If they
are alike in what concerns uncleanness, are they not also alike in what
concerns the offering?"
The House of Shammai answered, "No! as you argue of her that
miscarries on the eighty-first day (who was thus delivered at a time
when it was fitting to bring an offering), would you likewise argue of
her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day (who was thus
delivered not at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering)?"
C. The House of Hillel answered, "She that miscarries on an eightyfirst day that falls on a Sabbath affords proof, for she was delivered not
at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering, yet she is liable to
bring an offering."
D. The House of Shammai answered, "No! as you argue of her
that miscarries on an eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath (when
even if it is not fitting to bring the offering of the individual, it is
nevertheless fitting to bring the offering of the congregation), would
you likewise argue of her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-
252
first day (when it is not fitting to bring the offering either of the in
dividual or of the congregation)?"
E. Her blood [-uncleanness] affords no proof, for if she miscarried
before her days of uncleanness were fulfilled, her blood is still unclean
and she is not liable to bring an offering."
ILii.85.A. The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree
concerning the night before the eighty-first that she should be liable
for a sacrifice.
B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you
not agree concerning the night before the eighty-first that her blood
is unclean, and that she who aborts on the eighty-first should be
liable for a sacrifice? What is the difference between day and night, and
between blood and giving birth?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "No, If you say so concerning
the day, which is fit for bringing a sacrifice, will you say so concerning
the night, which is not fit for bringing a sacrifice?"
"As to the blood that you mentioned, [Scripture] distinguished
between blood and giving birth, for she who sees [it] during the
period [after giving birth]her blood is unclean, but she who aborts
during the period, her blood is unclean. She who aborts during the
period is free of all obligation."
C. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, she who aborts on the
day of the eighty-first which coincides with the Sabbath will prove
it. For it did not come forth in an appropriate time in which to bring a
sacrifice. And this proves that the one who aborts on the night before
the eighty-first of any day of the year, when it did go forth at a time
appropriate for bringing a sacrifice, is liable for a sacrifice."
The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say so concerning
the one who aborts on the eighty-first day on any other day of the
year [but the Sabbath], that it is joined with the following day, that
even though it is not appropriate for a private sacrifice, it is approp
riate for a public sacrifice, will you say so concerning her who aborts
on the night of the eighty-first of any day of the year, for the night is
not appropriate either for a private sacrifice or for a public sacrifice?"
D. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, you have said that the
night is joined with the following day. Just as she is liable on the
eighty-first day, so she should be liable on the night of the eighty-first
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.88
253
day. And let not the eighty-second day prove the matter, for [then]
it went forth at a time appropriate for bringing the sacrifice."
[Tos. Keritot 1:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 561,
lines 16-32 (b. Ker. 7b-8a)]
Comment: See Sifra Tazri'a 3:6, and synopses, above, pp. 16-22.
See also Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 293; Epstein, Mishnah,
p. 340.
VI.
TOHAROT
II.i.88.A. If there was a jar full of clean liquids with a siphon inside
it, and the jar had a tightly stopped-up cover, and it was put in a
"Tent" wherein was a corpse
The House of Shammai say, "The jar and the liquids remain clean,
but the siphon is unclean."
The House of Hillel say, "The siphon also is clean."
B. The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the opinion
of the House of Shammai.
[M. Kel. 9:2, trans. Danby, p. 617 (M. Kel.
10:1, M. Oh. 5:3, 15:9, M.'Ed. 1:4)]
Comment: The form is developed, but nearly conventional. Since
the sole point of disagreement is the siphon, the antecedent superscrip
tion could have made place for both the jar and the liquids:
If there was a jar.
. . wherein was a corpse, the jar and the liquids remain cleanand
the siphon:
House o f Shammai: Declare unclean.
House o f Hillel:
D e c l a r e clean.
So the original pericope would have consisted of siphon + the Houses,

and the rest would have been supplied by the editor.
M. Kel. 10:1 states explicitly that an earthenware vessel with a
tightly stopped-up cover affords protection only to foodstuffs, liquids,
and other earthenware vessels, but not to metal. That teaching clearly
contradicts the House of Hillel's here. Rather than permit an anony
mous Mishnah to follow the Shammaite view, the glossator has added
part B, to account for the fact that the law was decided against the
Hillelite view before us.
We may generalize that where we are told the Hillelites agreed with
the Shammaites, and we cannot account for that fact in some other way,
we may suppose that the later legal decision has required the tradents
to revise the position attributed to the Hillelites. It is therefore striking
254
that they did not change matters around, but preserved what they had,
and then, through a new subscription or story, accounted for the
changed circumstances, leaving the Hillelites in control of the law.
This again underlines the conservatism of the tradents in preserving
what they had received.
See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 466; re >P, Mishnah, p. 1024.
II.i.89.A. Articles made from iron ore, or a piece of (unshaped)
smelted iron, or the iron hoop of a wheel, or of sheetmetal, or metal
plating, or the bases or rims or handles of other vessels, or metal
chippings or filings, are not susceptible to uncleanness.
R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, "Also (such as are made) from broken up
(metal) articles. If they were made from the fragments of (other)
articles or from the refuse, or from nails known to have been made
from other articles, they are unclean."
B. If [they were made] from [common] nails
The House of Shammai declare unclean.
And the House of Hillel declare clean.
(M. Kel. 11:3, trans. Danby, p. 620)
Comment: The form is standard. The Houses' lemmas are balanced
syzygies, set against the superscription. The Houses here refine a
general rule, which presumably comes before their time. The usual se
quence will be Shammai + unclean]Hillel + clean, with the presumption
that making things susceptible to uncleanness is the more stringent rul" ing. The issue is that one is not sure whether the nails have been made
from other articles, therefore B depends upon Yohanan b. Nuri in A.
Part B is assigned to Eleazar b. R. Yosi by Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 179.
See Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2, as follows:
R. E l e a z a r b . R. Y o s i said, " T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f
H i l l e l d i d n o t differ c o n c e r n i n g nails o f w h i c h it is k n o w n t h a t t h e y a r e
m a d e f r o m a r t i c l e s , t h a t t h e y a r e u n c l e a n , a n d c o n c e r n i n g nails o f w h i c h it
is k n o w n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t m a d e o f articles, t h a t t h e y a r e clean.
C o n c e r n i n g w h a t d i d t h e y differ ?
C o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m m o n (*L H T M ) , f o r
"The H o u s e of Shammai declare unclean.
" A n d the H o u s e o f Hillel declare clean."
II.i.90.A. A staff that has a club-headed nail fashioned on its end is

susceptible to uncleanness. One that is studded with nails is susceptible.
R. Simeon says, "Only if three rows [of nails] are put in it."
But whensoever they are put in only for adornment, [the staff] re
mains insusceptible. If a tube was put on the end (so, too, in the case
of a door) it remains insusceptible.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
ILi.91
255
But if [the tube] had already served as some utensil and was fastened
to it, it remains susceptible.
B. When does it become insusceptible (THRTH) ?
The House of Shammai say, "So soon as it has suffered damage."
And the House of Hillel say, "So soon as it is fastened on."
Comment: Here, the difference between the Houses rests on a single
letter. When does it become susceptible to receive uncleanness:
House of Shammai:
M$YHBJL
House o f Hillel:
MSYHB/?.
Perhaps a confused mnemonic tradition has come down, with verbs

different from one another only in the third radical.
The House of Shammai say that once the object can no longer be
used, it no longer is susceptible. The House of Hillel say once it is
clean when properly affixed for its new function. See M. Kel. 20:6 for a
similar sequence. See Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 522.
It looks as if the Shammaites assign an earlier time for the purifica
tion, just as happens in other such disputes, and therefore are in the
lenient position.
ILi.91 .A. A chest
The House of Shammai say, "It is measured on the inside [to
determine its capacity]."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is measured on the outside."
But they agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the
rim [should not be included in the] measurement.
B. R. Yosi says, "They agree that the thickness of the legs and
of the rim should be included, but that the space between them
should not be included."
C. R. Simeon of Shezur says, "If the legs were a handbreadth high
the space between them should not be included in the measurement;
but if less than this, the space between them should be included."
[M. Kel. 18:1, trans. Danby, p. 631 (b. Men.
31a)]
Comment: The purpose of measuring is given in M. Kel. 15:1:
" A chest. . . t h a t has a flat b o t t o m a n d h o l d s n o t less t h a n f o r t y seyahs o f
l i q u i d , o r t w o kors o f d r y w a r e s , is n o t s u s c e p t i b l e t o u n c l e a n n e s s . "
256
The Shammaites measure from within, the Hillelites, from without,

and the language is perfectly balanced:
The chest
House of Shammai: [Measured from] within
House o f Hillel:
[Measured from] w i t h o u t .
One of the standard syzygies for Houses-opinions is within\without, as in

connection with the olive press on the wall of Jerusalem, the unclean
ness insidejoutside the walls of Jerusalem, and so forth.
If the vacuum space itself holds forty seyahs, it is clean. The Hillelites
include in the measurement even the thickness of the sides to reach the
measure of forty se*ahs", they therefore take the more lenient position,
since one wants to reach forty se*ahs and therefore render the chest in
capable of receiving uncleanness.
II.i.92.A. Bagpipes are not susceptible to /^/^/-uncleanness.
B. A trough for mixing mortar
The House of Shammai say, "[Susceptible to] ^/V/ra/-[uncleanness]."
And the House of Hillel say, "[Susceptible to] corpse-uncleanness
[alone]."
Comment: The issue is the degree of uncleanness to which the
mixing mortar is susceptible; all parties agree that it may be made un
clean. The Houses-sayings are simply the words signifying the degree
of uncleanness:
House of Shammai:
House of Hillel:
Midras
Corpse-uncleanness.
The Hillelite lemma is not unbalanced; the idiom is TM'-MT, not

merely TM>, which would have been ambiguous. The difference cocerns whether one sits on the object. Since the Shammaites hold one
does, it is susceptible to midras. The Hillelites exclude midras, but, by
saying corpse-uncleanness, they mean to include all other forms of un
cleanness (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 89). In that case, one might suppose
the opinions could have been more nearly balanced with a mere nega
tive added to the Hillelite lemma. But this too would have been ambi
guous, for the Hillelite opinion might have been understood to mean
the trough could not be made unclean at all. Therefore the only accur
ate and precise language is as given, and the pericope is as brief and
balanced as it could have been. MDRSjTM'-MT are balanced else
where.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 112,130-1, 462.
II.L93.A. If a sheet that was susceptible to z^raj'-uncelanness was
257
used as a curtain it becomes insusceptible to /^/^/-uncleanness, but it

is still susceptible to corpse-uncleanness.
When does it cease to be susceptible [to /^/^/-uncleanness]
(THRTH)?
The House of Shammai say, "After it has been sewn up."
And the House of Hillel say, "After it has been tied up."
R. Aqiba says, "After it has been fixed up [in its new place]."
c

Comment:
As above, M. Kel. 14:2, the Houses-opinions consist of
verbs differing in the first two radicals:
Shammai:
Hillel:
Aqiba:
4
M$Y7#R
MSYj^R
M$YQB
The issue is, When does the sheet cease to be used for its ordinary
purpose and so become susceptible not to severe z?/^r^-uncleanness,
but only to corpse-uncleanness? It is interesting that the question is,
When is its purification [from z?/*/ra.r-uncleanness] ? even though it re
mains susceptible to other uncleannesses.
The Shammaites say, "When the sheet is ready for hanging." The
Hillelites say, "Only when it has been hung up." Aqiba says, "When it
is nailed up," that is permanently. The positions are thus in logical
order. But it looks as if the point at which the sheet enters the diminish
ed, therefore more lenient, status, begins with the Shammaite saying. If
we had gemara, it presumably would note that fact and perhaps reverse
matters. Note Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:7.
Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 23-4, says that the Houses here comment on a
pre-existing tradition; also pp. 77, 112; p. 128: the tradition is Yosi's,
in M. Kel. 27:9. Note Epstein, Mishnah, p. 549.
c
II.i.94. A. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boards

The House of Shammai declare it still susceptible to uncleanness.
And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible.
B. Shammai says, "Even (>P) the frame of the stool remains sus
ceptible to uncleanness."
C. If a stool is fixed to a baking-trough
The House of Shammai declare it susceptible to uncleanness.
D. Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it
[is susceptible]."
17
258
Comment: See above, I, p. 194. In both parts, the Houses-opinions

are here in the intensive of TM'/THR. Shammai's saying breaks the
pattern. The issue is whether the chair may continue to be used. In
part A the Shammaites say the stool may still be used by ordinary folk;
in part C, it may still be used, if inconveniently. The "cleanness" is
from ^/^/-uncleanness, see Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 95. On 'P, Epstein,
Mishnah, p. 1026.
II.i.95. A leather bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to
^/^/-uncleanness.
A leather bag or wrapper for purple wool
The House of Shammai say, "M/^ra/[-uncleanness]."
And the House of Hillel say, "Corpse-uncleanness."
Comment: The considerations mentioned above, M. Kel. 20:2, apply
here. The words midrasjteme-met therefore form a syzygy no different
from TM'/THR.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 113,133.
II.i.96.A. "Scroll-wrappers, whether figures are portrayed on them
or not, are susceptible to uncleanness," according to the words of the
House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "If figures are portrayed on them, they
are not susceptible to uncleanness. If figures are not portrayed on
them, they are susceptible."
B. Rabban Gamaliel says, "In either case they are not susceptible
to uncleanness."
Comment: The lemmas are not balanced, because two different situ
ations have been reduced to a single pericope. The Houses agree on the
uncleanness of scroll-wrappers without figures. They differ on those
with figures. The Shammaite saying is not properly attached to the
attribution; according to the words of is inappropriate here, where the
intent obviously is to cite the Houses directly. A simpler form would
have been:
Scroll-covers
with figures
House of S h a m m a i : Declare unclean

House of Hillel:
And they agree that those with figures are unclean.
Why has that conventional form been upset? A glance at the foregoing
pericope provides the answer:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
259
II.i.97, II.ii.86
2 8 : 2 : " I f a piece o f c l o t h less t h a n t h r e e h a n d b r e a t h s s q u a r e w a s u s e d t o

b l o c k u p [a h o l e i n ] t h e b a t h - h o u s e . . . whether it was kept in readiness or
whether it was not kept in readiness, it is s u s c e p t i b l e , " a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s
o f R. E l i e z e r .
R. J o s h u a says, "Whether it was kept in readiness or whether it was not kept in
readiness, it is n o t s u s c e p t i b l e . "
R. ' A q i b a s a y s , "If it was kept in readiness, it is s u s c e p t i b l e , if it wasnot, it is
not. . ."
M. Kel. 28:4 now follows the form of M. Kel. 28:2, using the BYN. . .
BYN. . . form, with distinctions being introduced on that basis.
'Aqiba's lemma of 28:2 corresponds to the Hillelites' in 28:4; Eliezer's,
to the Shammaite one in every detail. It therefore looks as if whatever
primary lemma existed has been revised to follow the forms of later
materials in the same setting; alternatively, the primary lemma is before
us and has been shaped by reference to the same form as EliezerJoshua- Aqiba.
4
See Epstein,
Mevo*ot,
pp. 114, 131-2;
Mishnah,
p. 133.
II.L97.A. The length of the remnants [of the shaft] below the
broad blade of the ox-goad [that serves as a connective] is seven hand
breadths.
B. Of the shaft of a householder's trowel
The House of Shammai say seven.
And the House of Hillel say eight [handbreadths].
C. Of the shaft of a plasterer's trowel
The House of Shammai say nine.
And the House of Hillel say ten [handbreadths].
(M. Kel. 29:8, trans. Danby, pp. 648-9)
Comment:
The Houses-sayings are numbers attached to superscrip
tions :
B
Shammai:
seven
nine
Hillel:
eight
ten
The existence of a dispute presumably led the tradent to assign appro

priate numbers to Houses, then to compose the whole as we have it.
Since the foregoing numbers, on which all parties agree, begin with
seven, it was natural to start with seven, then to proceed upward, as the
materials required.
II.ii.86.A. Vessels of alum-crystal
The House of Shammai say, "They render unclean from their midst
and from their air space like vessels of clay (KLY HRS), and from
260
their outer surfaces like (KLY TP) vessels which require rinsing in
order to be restored to Levitical cleanness [Jastrow, II, p. 1555, s.v.
$TP]."
And the House of Hillel say, "Vessels of alum-crystal are like clay
vessels in every respect."
B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in other language:
"The House of Shammai say, 'They render unclean like a halfvessel and render unclean like a whole vessel.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'Vessels of alum crystal are like clay
vessels in every respect.' "
(Tos. Kel. Bava Qamma, 2:1, ed. Zucker
mandel, p. 570, lines 22-5)
Comment:
The Hillelite lemma of part A could have stood by itself.
The Shammaite one is not balanced, and even though the superscrip
tion is standard, one could not easily revise the whole to form a con
ventional pericope. Still, the disagreement pertains only to the differen
ce from a clay vessel, and an agreement clause would produce a semb
lance of balance:
The outer surfaces of an alum-vessel:
House of Shammai: Declare unclean
House o f Hillel:
Perhaps the superscription is the problem. It has been inadequately

articulated, therefore the bulk of the problem is intruded into the
Shammaite lemma. Simeon's version would be similarly revised. The
materials before us therefore look as if they have been considerably
developed over the simpler forms we should have expected.
The corresponding Mishnah, M. Kel. 2:1, follows the Hillelite view:
Vessels of alum-crystal and earthenware vessels are alike in what con
cerns uncleanness, but the details, unlike the Hillelite lemma here, are
spelled out. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 5: They receive un
cleanness like a half-vessel, for they follow the law of an earthenware
vessel as to their air, and of the KLY TP as to their externals. But as to
imparting uncleanness, their law is identical to that of the earthenware
vessels, which render unclean from their midst and from their outer
surfaces.
II.ii.87.A. Peat. . .which was prepared under conditions of clean
ness and became unclean and fell into the air-space of an oven when it
was heated (BS T HYQH), it [the oven] is unclean. When not heated,
(L> B<T HSYQH), it is clean. . .
B. And R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "The House of Shammai
C
261
declare [the oven] unclean, and the House of Hillel declare [it] clean."
C. In what circumstances? In the case of new [peat], but in the case
of old, all agree that it is clean.
(Tos. Kel. Bava Qamma 6:18, ed. Zucker
Comment: Eleazar b. R. Simeon has adopted the simplest mode of
forming the Houses' opinions. This is attached to part A, making A
into a long superscription. Without the tradition of Eleazar b. R.
Simeon, we should have assumed the law followed the House of
Hillel. M. Kel. 9:5 gives the case when the oven was heated, but
makes no mention of a cold oven. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III,
p. 23.
II.ii.88. [If a shovel has lost its entire blade]
R. Nathan [Jonathan] b. Yosef said, "In this, the House of Shammai
declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean."
(Tos. Kelim Bava MesiV 3:8, ed. Zucker
Comment: Like Simeon, Nathan follows the simplest form. The
standard idiom is clearly, House of Shammai declare unclean, House of
Hillel dectare clean\ this can be attached to pretty much any disputed
situation. As noted, the simplicity of the Houses-lemma establishes no
claim on authenticity. Anyone could have made use of such a stockphrase for any purpose.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 43.
II.ii.89.A. A tube which he fixed under the door, even though he
makes use of it, is clean.
B. If it was unclean and he fixed it under the door, it is unclean
until it is made clean.
When does it become clean?
"The House of Shammai say, 'So soon as he damages [it] (YHBWL).'
"The House of Hillel say, 'So soon as it is fastened on (YHBR)' "
C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, "So soon as it is
damaged (YHBL) and it is fixed (YHBR)."
"The House of Hillel say, 'So soon as it is damaged (YHBL) or it is
fixed (YHBR).'"
(Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 4:5, ed. Zucker
262
Comment:
Judah the Patriarch has selected Meir's version, but has
given both verbs the same form. Judah gives another picture of the
tradition, which assigned both verb-roots to both Houses, but repre
sented the difference as whether each stage had to be passed, or merely
one.
11.11.90. R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq said, "The House of Shammai and

the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning a mustard strainer in
which three holes in the bottom merged into one another, that it is
clean.
"Concerning two:
"The House of Shammai declare unclean.
"And the House of Hillel declare clean."
Comment: M. Kel. 14:8 contains the agreement of the Houses without
mentioning them. The issue is whether the strainer can still be used and
therefore constitutes a vessel. When a smaller hole has been made, the
Shammaites say it can, the Hillelites, that it cannot be used. The
pericope presumably derives from Yavneh.
11.11.91. R. Simeon b. Shezuri said, "The House of Shammai and

the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning the thickness of the
legs and the thickness of rim, that they are measured with it [the chest,
for determining its capacity; if it contains forty seyahs or more, it is
insusceptible to uncleanness].
"Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning [the empty
spaces] between them ( L HBYNYM), for
"The House of Shammai say, 'They are not measured.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They are measured.' "
C

Comment:
M. Kel. 18:1 has the agreement referred to by Simeon, in
the same words, but omits Simeon's name. The difference there con
cerns measuring the inside of the chest or the outside. R. Yosi then
says the space between the legs and rims should not be included, accord
ing to all parties. Simeon Shezuri says whether one measures the space
between the legs depends on the height of the legs. The disagreement
reported here therefore is missing in M. Kel. The form for Simeon's
report is standard in Tosefta. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, III, p. 59.
263
II.ii.92.A. A trough for mixing mortar which holds from two logs
to nine qabs
The House of Shammai say, "Midras"
And the House of Hillel say, "Corpse-uncleanness."
B. And the bag
The House of Shammai, "It is filled and stands."
And the House of Hillel say, "It is filled and tied up (SRWRH)."
C. R. Yosi b. R. Judah says, "The matters are reversed."
[Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 1 1 : 3 , ed. Zucker
mandel, p. 589, lines 17-20 (M.TSd. 5:1)]
Comment:
Part A corresponds to M. Kel. 20:2 (M. Ed. 5:1):
A trough for mixing
mortar
Shammai:
Midras
Hillel:
Corpse-uncleanness.
The qualification of the size follows:

I f a t r o u g h t h a t h o l d s f r o m t w o logs t o n i n e qabs is s p l i t , it b e c o m e s s u s
c e p t i b l e t o w/V/raZ-uncleanness. I f it w a s left o u t i n t h e r a i n a n d it s w e l l e d ,
only to corpse-uncleanness.
That clause in the Mishnah depends upon the Hillelite one, since the
Shammaites hold that whether or not it is split, it is susceptible to
/^/^/-uncleanness. Judah the Patriarch has dropped the qualification
of the size and kept the rest without revision.
Part B does not specify what kind of bag. M. Kel. 20:2 refers to a bag
pipe, and holds they are not susceptible of ^/^/-uncleanness. The
issue is whether one may sit upon it, and the Mishnah concludes one
may not. Here the rulings are phrased in other language. The House of
Shammai say it is not used for sitting, therefore is not susceptible to
/5?/V/ra/-uncleanness. The House of Hillel say if one ties it up, it can be
sat upon, therefore it is subject to /#/V/ra/-uncleanness (compare M. Kel.
20:3 at the end). The Mishnah follows the Shammaite opinion. Yosi
b. R. Judah has reversed the opinions presumably to accommodate the
actual law.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 67; Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp.94,
172, 436, and compare M. Kel. 26:2, Meir and Yosi. See also Epstein,
Mishnah,
p.
1188.
II.ii.93. "When does it become clean (THRTH) [insusceptible to

uncleanness] ?
"The House of Shammai say, 'When it has suffered damage
(YHBL).'
264
"The House of Hillel say, 'When it is fixed (YHBR)' "the words

ofR. Meir.
R. Judah says, "When it has suffered damage and has been fixed on.
And the House of Hillel say, 'When it has suffered damage or been
fixed on.' "
Comment: Judah's lemma is defective, for it has lost the House of
Shammai say. Otherwise it is identical to II.ii.89. But the whole has been
attached to a completely different problem, here concerning matting
spread over roof beams. The following passage concerns the same
matter as M. Kel. 20:6, a sheet made into a veil, but does not refer to
the Houses' opinions on when the sheet becomes insusceptible to un
cleanness. But Lieberman assigns the pericope to the sheet, Tosefet
Rishonim III, p. 68. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 77, Mishnah, p. 1064.
II.ii.94.A. [If a stool is fixed to a baking trough as one sits on it,
it is unclean; if not as one sits on it, it is clean.]
B. "As to one that was made [to be used] inside it, the House of
Shammai declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean"
C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel
did not differ concerning one that was made [to be used] inside it, that
it is clean, and Shammai was [the one who] declared it unclean.
"Concerning what did they differ? Concerning one which he
brought from another place and attached to it, for
D. R. Yosi said, "I see [prefer] the words of the House of Shammai,
which does not say a frame even from the workshop is unclean."
(Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 1:12, ed. Zucker
Comment: The corresponding passage is M. Kel. 22:4. Judah the
Patriarch says the dispute concerns a stool fixed to a baking trough,
hence not according to Meir. For Judah the Patriarch, Shammai alone
rules on one made to be used inside it, holding it is susceptiblethat is,
Meir's House of Shammai. In this detail, therefore Judah the Patriarch
follows Judah b. Ilai. Our interest is in the terminus ante quern of the
Houses-dispute. It cannot come later than ca. 150. But it does not look
as though it is much earlier.
265
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 73; Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp.

118-119.
II.ii.95. R. Eleazar b. R. Yosi said, "The House of Shammai and
the House of Hillel did not differ concerning a bag for purple wool or
wrapper for purple wool, that they are unclean.
"Concerning a wrapper for garments and a bag for garments, for
(Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 594, lines 17-19)
Comment: In M. Kel. 26:6, Judah the Patriarch has the Houses differ
on the purple-wool containers, with the House of Shammai ruling
midras, the House of Hillel, corpse-uncleanness. As to the garmentcontainers, the law is unanimous that they are subject to midras-uncleanness. So Eleazar b. R. Yosi has the reverse tradition. Judah the
Patriarch has given the Shammaites' opinion on the wrapper for gar
ments as the unanimous one, and then has the Houses debate the
purple-wool bags. Appropriately, Judah has chosen midras/corpse un
cleanness, rather than TM'/THR, for his predicate. See Epstein,
Mevo'ot, p. 113.
II.ii.96.A. If one makes a girdle from one side of a garment and
from one side of a sheet
And the House of Hillel declare clean, until he hems [the girdle]
(SYMWL).
B. From the middle of the garment and from the middle of the
sheet he makes a hem on one side [of the piece which he cut out
of the middle of a piece of cloth]
And the House of Hillel declare clean, until he makes a hem from
the second side (MSDW HSNY).
C. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House
of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning him
who makes a girdle from the middle of a garment and from the middle
of a sheet from one side, that it is clean until he hems it from the
second side.
"Concerning him who makes a girdle from the side of the garment
266
and from the side of the sheet, for the House of Shammai declare un
clean and the House of Hillel declare clean, until he hems it."
(Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 5:7-8, ed. Zucker
Comment: See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 86. Compare M.
Kel. 28:7.
II.ii.97.A. The shaft of a trowel of the householders
The House of Shammai say, "Seven,"
And the House of Hillel say, "Eight."
B. And of plasterers:
The House of Shammai say, "Nine,"
And the Houseof Hillel say, "Ten."
(Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 7:4, ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 597, lines 8-10)
Comment: The passage appears verbatim in M. Kel. 29:8.
II.i.98.A. These convey uncleanness by contact and carrying, but
do not convey uncleanness by overshadowing: a barleycorn's bulk of
bone, earth from a foreign country, [earth from] a grave-area, a
member from a corpse or a member from a living man that no longer
bears its proper flesh, a backbone or a skull in which aught is lacking
(HSRW).
B. How much must be lacking in the backbone? The House of
Shammai say, "Two links (HLYWT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even (>PYLW) one link."
C. And in the skull? The House of Shammai say, "As much as
[a hole made by] a drill (KML> MQDH)."
And the House of Hillel say, "So much that, if it was taken from a
living man, he would die (KDY SYNTL MN HHY WYMWT)."
D. Of what kind of drill did they speak?
"A physician's small drill," the words of R. Meir.
But the sages say, "The large drill that lay in a chamber in the
Temple."
^
. kh.
[
>
6 5 2
( b
B e
37b-38a, b. Hul. 42b, 52b; b. <Eruv. 7a)]

Comment: The chapter opens with a list of those things which con
vey uncleanness by overshadowing, that is, by being under the same
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.98, 99
267
"tent", or roof, with another object susceptible of receiving unclean

ness. These include a corpse or part of a corpse, the backbone or skull
or larger bones. The pericope before us now excludes things which do
not convey uncleanness by overshadowing by a tent. The Housessayings of parts B and C gloss the foregoing law, then R. Meir and the
sages gloss the Shammaite ruling about a drill (but see Abraham Gold
berg, Massekhet Ohalot [Jerusalem, 1956], p. 18).
Part B poses no formal problem. It opens with a superscription,
tying the Houses-rulings to the foregoing law. The Houses-rulings are
two/one, glossed with link and, for the Hillelites, even. Such explanatory
matter clarifies matters which were already obvious.
Part C opens with the same sort of superscription, but the Houseslemmas are quite unrelated to one another:
S h a m m a i : A s m u c h as a d r i l l ( K M L > M Q D H )
Hillel;.
S o t h a t it m a y b e t a k e n f r o m t h e l i v i n g m a n a n d h e w i l l die.
In this instance, it is impossible to reformulate the rulings so that they

will use much the same words and present a balance. No one glosses by
saying the opinions are near one another. But part D is a gloss of the
House of Shammai in C.
See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 23,139.
II.i.99.A. If a baking-oven stood within the House and it had an
arched outlet (QMWRH) that projected outside [the house], and
corpse-bearers overshadowed it [with the corpse]
The House of Shammai say, "All becomes unclean."
And the House of Hillel say, "The oven becomes unclean, but the
house remains clean."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Even (>P) the oven remains clean."
B. If over a hatchway ('RWBH) between a house and the upper
room there was set a cooking-pot which had a hole such that liquid
could filter into it (BKWNS M S Q H )
The House of Shammai say, "All becomes unclean."
And the House of Hillel say, "The cooking-pot becomes unclean,
but the upper room remains clean."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Even the cooking-pot remains clean."
C. If the cooking-pot was sound
The House of Hillel say, "It protects (MSLT) all [from unclean
ness]."
The House of Shammai say, "It protects only food, liquids, and
earthenware vessels."
The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to
the opinion of the House of Shammai.
268
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.99
D. If there was a flagon full of clean liquid [in the upper room], the
flagon contracts seven-day uncleanness, and the liquid remains clean.
But if the liquid was emptied out into another vessel, it becomes un
clean.
If a woman [in the upper room] was kneading in a trough, the
woman and the trough contract seven-day uncleanness, and the
dough remains clean.
But if she emptied it into another vessel, it becomes unclean.
The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to
the opinion of the House of Shammai.
[M. Oh. 5:1-4, trans. Danby, pp. 655-6 (b.
Hag. 22a)]
Comment:
Part A :
M. Oh. 5:1 presents a secondary development
of the Houses-dispute. A simpler version would have had oven in the
superscription, so that the Houses-rulings would have referred only to
the house, and the lemmas would have been:
Shammai: Unclean
Hillel:
Clean.
c
R. Aqiba provides important evidence for the terminus ante quern.

Part B , M. Oh. 5:2 exhibits precisely the same pattern, this time with
the cookingpot in the superscription.
Part C, M. Oh. 5:3: The difference between the Houses concerns
things which may be rendered clean in a ritual bath. The pot protects
those thingsfood, liquids, and earthen-ware vesselswhich cannot be
rendered clean in a ritual bath. The opinions of the Houses have been
reversed. The reversal has nothing to do with the content. On the cont
rary, in part A, the Hillelite lemma is longer and makes distinctions, the
Shammaites refer to all; and in part B , it is just the opposite. So the
arrangement does not depend upon formal or literary considerations.
While we therefore cannot change the places of the Houses and
leave the opinions as they are, we can account for the reversal of order.
The pericope ends with the Hillelites agreeing with the Shammaites, so
rearranging the Houses is meant to leave the impression that, having
heard the Shammaite opinion in second place, the Hillelites "then"
changed their minds. In fact, M. Ed. 1:14 presents matters in just this
way (below, pp. 281-284). The rules are given as above, then comes
a debate, beginning with the Hillelites asking the Shammaites "Why?"
The Shammaites reply, then the Hillelites answer. Finally, the Sham
maites give a definitive answer, and the Hillelites change their opinion.
The version before us omits the debate but preserves the operative
legal rulings. The whole thus is shaped within the debate-form, leaving
the Shammaites last, and victorious.
Part D, M. Oh. 1:4, refers to the same situation. It ends with the
c
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.99,100
269
superscription, implying that we have had a Houses-dispute, but the

dispute is missing. The subscription is tacked on because the final rule
follows the Shammaite view, that the liquid and the dough are clean.
But the vessel, the trough, and the woman are unclean, since they can
be rendered clean in a ritual bath. The law was framed without reference
to Shammaites at all. A tradition containing a contrary Hillelite ruling
persisted, so it was important both to assign the anonymous law to the
Shammaites and to explain that the Hillelites had accepted the Sham
maite view. Then the debate was created to explain the reversion of the
Hillelites. Alternatively, the opinions were to begin with attributed to
the respective Houses, but when the Shammaite principle was accepted,
the "debate" had to explain why.
From a critical viewpoint, the single important result is unchanged:
the tradents did not drop the inconvenient Hillelite tradition, nor did
they assign an opinion which turned out to be the accepted law to the
Hillelites, the rejected opinion to the Shammaites. The Hillelite rever
sion comes after the fact, excellent evidence that the fact has not been
doctored.
While the pericopae before us do not constitute a collection, they
cannot be called a compilation either, for we are dealing in effect with a
single situation, spelled out in one detail after another, rather than with a
set of laws shaped around a single principle. The situation concerns the
oven with an arched outlet projecting outside the house, which was
overshadowed by corpse-bearers. The Shammaites say everything is
unclean. The Hillelites say only the oven becomes unclean. Then the
house is given a hatchway and an upper room, and the hatchway is
covered by a pot with a hole. The same problem recurs. Then the pot is
analyzed. It has no hole at all. What does it then protect through inter
vening over the hatchway? Finally comes a related situation: a flagon
in that same upper room. All of these situations pose problems only
within the theory of the Shammaites, that something other than the
oven becomes unclean (in the first instance), or that the cooking pot
does not protect all from uncleanness, in the third. So the whole collec
tion of pericopae depends upon Shammaite rulings throughout. No
wonder, then, that it was necessary to specify that the law follows the
Shammaites and that the Hillelites concede. Otherwise, the considerable
amplification of cases depending on the Shammaite opinion makes no
sense at all.
See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 60, 77,139, 466. He says (p. 60) that reports
of the reversion of the Hillelites derive from Joshua, by comparison of
M. Oh. 5:3-4, Tos. Ah. 5:10-12, and b. Hag. 22b, where it is Joshua
who reverts. But this would seem to me to indicate that here Joshua is
Il.i.l00.A. [If] a corpse [lay] in a house to which were many
entrances, they are all unclean. If one entrance was opened, it [alone]
is unclean and the rest are clean.
270
B. [If there was] intention (H$B) to take out [the corpse] through
one of them, or through a window which measured four handbreadths
square, it afforded protection (HSYL) to all other entrances.
The House of Shammai say, "The intention must have been formed
(YHSWB) before the corpse was dead."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It suffices] even (>P) after it was
dead."
C. If an entrance had been blocked up and it was determined
(NMLK) to open it
The House of Shammai say, "[It affords protection to all other
entrances only] when he has opened as much as four handbreadths
square."
And the House of Hillel say, "So soon as he begins [to open i t ] . "
D. But they agree that if he opens for a first time, he should open
four handbreadths [before it can afford protection].
(M. Oh. 7:3, trans. Danby, p. 659)
Comment: The Houses again gloss earlier traditions. In part B the
issue is, When does intention ( = thought, HB) effect protection for
the other doors ? The House of Shammai say it must come before the
man has died; the Hillelites say it may be even afterward. The pericope
has the explanatory matter in the Shammaite lemma:
S h a m m a i : [He must think] b e f o r e he has died.
Hillel:
[ E v e n ] after he has died.
The italicized words serve both lemmas, and those in brackets con
stitute an internalized superscription for the Shammaites, redactional
matter for the Hillelites.
Part C is a parallel, but different disagreement. If the man plans to
open a window, when does the window effect protection for the other
entrances? The Shammaites say it must have been completely opened
to the requisite space; the House of Hillel say when he begins the
work. They agree that it.must eventually be opened to four tefahs.
The formal problem of part C is clear: the lemmas are by no means
balanced. But if we recognize, that four tefahs is a gloss, being the
opinion of both Houses, the dispute comes down to two words: when
he opensI when he begins (KSYPTH, KSYTHYL), a satisfactory balance:
VPTHvs.VTHL,P vs. L.
The agreement at the end (D) then appropriately makes use of both
verb-roots: when he opens at first (KTHYLH) he will open (YPTH)
four tefahs, thus built on the roots common to the antecedent dispute,
effecting a mnemonic fusion of the two. The agreement moves the
Hillelites to the Shammaite position that mere intention is insufficient.
271
II.i.101 .A. If [the whole roof of] a house was split and uncleanness
lay [in the house] in the outer side, the vessels [in the house] on the
inner side remain clean.
If the uncleanness was within, the vessels outside remain clean if,
according to the House of Shammai, the split is four handbreadths
wide.
But the House of Hillel say, "[They remain clean] however wide it is."
R. Yosi says in the name of the House of Hillel, "[If it is one] handbreadth."
B. [If he set there] a thick cloak or a thick wooden block, they do
not give passage to the uncleanness unless they are raised one handbreadth above the ground. If garments lay folded one above the
other, they give passage to the uncleanness so soon as the upper one is
raised one handbreadth above the ground.
C. If a man was put there [below the split]
The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage (MBY ) to
the uncleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "A man is hollow, and his upper side does
give passage (MBY*) to the uncleanness."
D. If a man looked out of the window and overshadowed the
corpse-bearers
The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage to the un
cleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "He gives passage to the uncleanness."
E. But they agree that if he was wearing his clothes, or if there were
two men one above the other, that these give passage to the unclean
ness.
F. If a man lay over the threshold and the corpse-bearers over
shadowed him
cleanness."
And the House of Hillel say, "He gives passage to the uncleanness."
G. If there was uncleanness within the house and they that over
shadowed him were clean
The House of Shammai declare them clean.
And the House of Hillel declare them unclean.
H. If a candlestick stood in the cistern of a house, and its cup pro
jected, and over it was an olive-basket [so placed] that, if the cand
lestick was taken away, the olive-basket would still stay over the
mouth of the cistern
J
272
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.101
The House of Shammai say, "The cistern remains clean, but the
candlestick is unclean."
The House of Hillel say, "The candlestick also (>P) [remains] clean."
I. But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall in if the cand
lestick was taken away, all is unclean.
(M. Oh. 11:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, trans. Danby, pp.
665-6)
Comment:
Danby's translation of part A, M. Oh. 11:1, obscures the
form:
The [roof of the] house which was split:
Uncleanness outsidethe vessels inside are clean.
Uncleanness inside, the vessels outside
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , Until there should be in the split f o u r tefabs."
H o u s e o f Hillel say,
"A n y amount."
6 1
That is to say, the vessels outside are not clean, unless the split which
divided the house is four tefahs wide; if less than that, the uncleanness is
emitted (but not diffused). Excluding the italicized glosses, the opinions
are balanced expressions of measurement. Yosi's version of course im
proves matters, since it yields four/one. The Tosefta explains the Hillelite
opinion: If the split is as wide as a thread, the vessels outside are clean,
since the uncleanness is diffused.
The problem is that the roof of the house has been split and divided
in two. If the uncleanness is outsidethat is, under the part of the roof
near the doorthe vessels inside are clean, since uncleanness does not
enter a house, only exudes from it. The Houses debate the contrary
situation.
Part B, M. Oh. 11:3, develops the problem set forth in M. Oh. 11:2:
I f t h e w h o l e r o o f o f a p o r t i c o w a s s p l i t a n d u n c l e a n n e s s l a y i n it o n o n e
side, v e s s e l s o n t h e o t h e r side r e m a i n clean. B u t i f s o m e o n e set h i s f o o t o r a
r e e d a b o v e t h e s p l i t , h e has c o m b i n e d t h e u n c l e a n n e s s [ m a k i n g t h e t w o
'tents' i n t o o n e , s o t h e u n c l e a n n e s s passes f r o m o n e side t o t h e o t h e r ] .
I f h e set t h e r e e d o n t h e g r o u n d [ b e l o w t h e s p l i t ] , it d o e s n o t a l l o w t h e
u n c l e a n n e s s t o p a s s , u n l e s s it is raised a h a n d b r e a d t h a b o v e t h e g r o u n d .
Part C, M. Oh. 11:3b, then introduces the problem of a man standing

below the split. The House of Shammai hold that between the man and
the ground there is not the necessary space of one handbreadth, so the
uncleanness does not pass beneath him from one side of the portico to
the other. The House of Hillel even "explains" its opinion. The form is
perfect, excluding the obvious preliminary gloss of the Hillelite ruling:
If a man was placed there:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, [He] d o e s n o t b r i n g t h e u n c l e a n n e s s .
House o f Hillel say,
A man is empty and the upper part b r i n g s t h e u n c l e a n
ness.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.101,102
Without the italicized gloss the Hillelite opinion is simply,
273
[He]does
bring. . .
Part D, M. Oh. 11:4, contains precisely the same ruling, in the same
words, but now with a new superscription. The Hillelite gloss is
dropped, but still serves to explain this ruling, as much as the foregoing
one. In fact, parts C and D look like duplicates, in which the same
principle is discussed through different examples. The clothing is above
the earth by a handbreadth, so serves to conduct the uncleanness.
Part F, M. Oh. 11:5, is identical, with a new superscription. The
problem is no different.
Part G introduces a new Houses-form: declare clean, declare unclean.
The problem now is whether the by-passers have been rendered un
clean by a man. The Shammaites hold that he cannot convey unclean
ness (since he is not hollow), the Hillelites say the contrary, for a
consistent reason. So part G in principle is no different from the fore
going.
Part H is a separate item. The Houses agree that the cistern remains
clean, so the cistern could have been included in the superscription,
leaving a balanced set of lemmas. It would then be:
The
candlestick:
House o f Shammai declare unclean.

H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e clean.
The superscription, to be sure, is rather complex, not a problem of law

but a description of an unusual-situation. But at issue is a point of law,
whether the candlestick is protected by the olive-basket. The cup pro
jects but is covered by a basket. The Hillelites hold the basket protects
the candlestick and the cup. But if the basket depends on the candle
stick, then all agree it does not serve as protection.
We have now seen two composite pericopae in which the Houses
dispute a single point of law through a series of examples of ascending
complexity or difficulty, M. Oh. 5:1-4 and M. Oh. 11:1-6. These
composites are different from both the collections and the
compilations
isolated above. What the previous forms have in common is that they
list a number of rulings, on different legal principles, questions, or
problems, and do not constitute elaborations of the same principle
through different problems. The materials before us, by contrast, do not
exhibit a tight and brief, apocopated form, like the collections; and
they do not contain appropriate superscriptions, serving more than a
single item in the list, like the compilations. The composites have in
common the tendency to present an extended superscription, which
tells a story or presents a detailed case.
Note Epstein,
Mevo'ot,
pp. 23,139.
ILi. 102. A. If a light-hole is newly made, its measure [that suffices to

give passage to uncleanness] is that of a hole made by the drill that
18
274
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.102
lay in the chamber [in the Temple]. The measure of the [unblocked]
residue of a light-hole is two fingerbreadths high and one thumbbreadth wide.
By the residue of a light-hole is meant [also] any window which a
man blocked up but was not able to finish.
If water had bored the hole, or creeping things, or if it had been
eaten through by saltpetre, its measure must be the size of a fist; if a
man had intended to make use of it, its measure must be one hand
breadth square; and if to make use of it as a light-hole, its measure
must be that of a hole made by the drill.
B. If it is a light-hole covered with grating or latticework
"The several holes are included together to make up the measure
of the hole made by the drill," according to the words of the House of
Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "There must be one hole having the
measure of a hole made by the drill."
C [If a man] makes a place for a rod or a [weaver's] stave or for a
lamp
"Its measure may be whatsoever [is needful]," according to the
words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "One handbreadth square."
[M. Oh. 13:1, 4, trans. Danby, p. 668 (Sifre
Zutta, Huqat 19:15 ed. Horovitz, p. 311)]
Comment:
The Houses dispute whether the several holes are in
cluded together or not. The House of Shammai say they are included
together to make up the measure of the hole made by the drill. The
House of Hillel say one hole must be that large. The language is
somewhat difficult:
T h e g r a t i n g a n d t h e l a t t i c e - w o r k are joined together as t h e h o l e o f t h e d r i l l
(KM\J
M Q D H ) a c c o r d i n g to the w o r d s o f the H o u s e o f Shammai.
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, U n t i l t h e r e s h o u l d be in one place t h e h o l e o f t h e
drill (ML* M Q D H ) .
The Houses differ therefore at the italicized words. The gratingwork

and the measuredrill serve both Houses. It would have been better for
the Hillelite opinion to be a simple negative: do not join together. We are
not helped by the exceptional form of the attribution to the Sham
maites. It looks as though the pericope has been somewhat revised
for inclusion in the present pericope. In any event it is clear that the
Houses gloss an antecedent legal tradition held in common by all
parties.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA II.i.103,104
275
M. Oh. 2:3 has the same Shammaite opinion, as much as the hole of the
MQDH), and the K has been attached here, where it does
not belong, by analogy. The Houses here do not disagree on whether
the measurement must be approximate (^TML') or exact (ML*), so the
K presents the misleading impression that two disputes are before us.
Part C, M. Oh. 13:4, is a separate mattei. It follows the preceding
form, presenting the Shammaite attribution at the end of its opinion,
rather than at the outset, where it normally comes. The opinions are as
balanced as they could be, given the idioms for the differing measure
ments. Its measure serves both Houses. They differ only on whatsoever
(KL HW') vs. handbreadth. Uncleanness will pass through one or
another of these spaces in the wall, made for the specified objects.
drill (KM\J
ILi. 103. The forecourt of a tomb-vault

He who stands in its midst [is] clean, if the space was not less than
four cubits (amot), according to the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "[He remains clean if it measures
only] four handbreadths (tefahim)"
[M. Oh. 15:8, trans. Danby, pp. 671-2 (b. Sot.
44a)]
Comment: The Houses-dispute is simply about measurements. It
consists of amotjtefahs, nothing more. The superscription has been
assigned in to to to the Shammaites, as before. Actually if we stop at the
first four, and there introduce the Houses-sayings: amotj tefahs, we have
the primary form of the dispute. But no editor could have been
satisfied with such an irregular construction, therefore the revision in
favor of the form before us.
Note Epstein,
Mevo ot,
pp. 134,139, 210; Mishnah, p. 1069.)
II.i.l04.A. How do they gather the grapes in a Grave-area?

"Men and vessels must be sprinkled the first and the second time;
they then gather the grapes and take them out of the Grave-area;
others receive the grapes from them and take them to the winepress.
If these others touched the grape-gatherers they become unclean"
according to the words of the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "They hold the sickle with a wrapping
of bast, or cut the grapes with a sharp flint, and put them into a large
olive-basket and bring them to the winepress."
B. A field of mourners may neither be planted nor sown; but its soil
is clean and may be used for making ovens suitable for the Hallowed
Things.
276
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.104
And the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one
examines on [behalf of him that would ]bring [his] Passover-offering,
but not [on behalf of him that would eat] Heave-offering.
D. And for a Nazirite
The House of Shammai say, "They examine."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not examine."
E. How is the field examined?
Earth that is easily shifted is taken and put in a sieve that has
narrow meshes, and rubbed. If a barleycorn's bulk of bone is found
there, [he that has been there] is accounted unclean.
F. What do they examine?
The deep drains and the foul water.
The House of Shammai say, "Also the dunghill and loose earth."
The House of Hillel say, "Wheresoever a pig or weasel can penetrate
does not require examination."
[M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8, trans. Danby, pp. 674-5 (b.
Hag. 25b; note also Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:16,
ed. Horovitz, p. 313)]
Comment:
The problem of part A, M. Oh. 18:1, is to keep the grapes
clean. The reversal of the order of the Houses is a minor problem. The
real difficulty is that the opinions of the Houses have nothing whatever
to do with one another. Each could have stood apart from the other
and would have been completely comprehensible.
The Hillelites provide the following scenario: One sprinkles the
men and vessels used for the harvest twice, as if they were unclean by
reason of corpse uncleanness. That is, Albeck explains, {Seder Toharot,
p. 183), to show that they do not lightly treat matters of uncleanness.
Then they take the grapes out of the area. The grapes have not been
made unclean by the men and vessels which were made unclean in the
graveyard. Since there is no choice, the sages did not decree on them
the uncleanness of the graveyard. Then others, who are clean and who
have not entered the area, take the grapes and bring them to the wine
press, but those who actually gather the grapes do not do so, since it
now is possible to let others do the work. If the people touched, the
grapes are rendered unclean..
The Shammaites tell a different story. One merely interposes wrap
ping between the sickle and the man, or uses a flint, which does not re
ceive uncleanness, and the man himself, who has not touched the
grapes directly, may then bring them to the press.
Yosi then qualifies the foregoing: If a vineyard has been turned into
a cemetery, one may make use of the grapes for wine, but otherwise,
one may not.
In no way can the opinions of the Houses be matched. They agree
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
I I . i . 1 0 4 , II.ii.98
277
that one may take the grapes, but differ on all else. What it comes down
to, though, is whether one achieves satisfactory protection by wrapping
up the tools or using tools that do not receive uncleanness, as the
Shammaites sayand this seems to me the easier wayor whether
one must use two sets of workers, with the actual workers clean when
they enter the grave-area (even though as soon as they enter, they be
come unclean). The Houses want to make it clear that an unusual pro
cedure is at hand. This pericope is completely outside the forms we
have encountered.
Parts B, C, D, and E, M. Oh. 18:4, are in the wrong order. The
agreement of the Houses on the one who makes the Pesah and with re
ference to Terumah should have followed the disagreement on the Nazir,
thus part D then part C. Part E serves as a gloss for the whole. The
Houses lemmas are simply, they examinejthey do not examine, just as one
would expect.
The problem is this: The field was ploughed and a grave has been
turned up. A man preparing to offer his Pesah has ventured into it. On
his account they search the field, as explained in part E, to find out
whether or not he has touched a bone and been made unclean, in which
case he may not offer his Pesah. One does not take that trouble fot a
priest who eats Heave-offering. As to the Nazir, the House of Shammai
say one makes a similar examination, and the House of Hillel take the
more stringent position. Even if one finds no bone, the Nazir is un
clean and has to be sprinkled. He loses the days of his uncleanness from
the number needed to fulfill his Nazirite vow. This is consistent with
Hillelite strictness in M. Naz., above, p. 216.
Part F, M. Oh. 18:8, returns to the problem of part E. The Houses'
opinions are in the right order. But they again do not relate to one
another at all. The Shammaites comment on the foregoing list. The
Hillelite saying does not relate to that problem. They simply say what
one does not have to search, which is irrelevant to the foregoing list,
but is relevant to the opening question: What do they examine? The
pattern is as follows:
A.
B.
W h a t d o they examine ?
Drains and water
A'.
B'.
+ Shammai: A l s o dunghill loose earth.

W h a t d o t h e y not e x a m i n e ?
H i l l e l : T h e y d o n o t e x a m i n e places p i g s a n d w e a s e l s c a n g e t a t .
Thus the Houses are not paired in terms either of the form or of the
substance of the law.
C
II.ii.98. A quarter (RWB ) [qab] of bones from the greater part of

the corpse in size, and bones, even though they are less than a quarter
[qab], are unclean.
R. Judah said [the tradition in] another language:
278
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.98
"The House of Shammai [say], 'A quarter [qab] of the bones of the
body, from the greater part of the body or from the greater part of the
number [of bones], [and] the majority of members and the greater part
of the number [of bones] of the corpse, even though they are less than
a quarter [qab], are unclean. . "
R. Joshua said, "I can make the words of the House of Shammai
and the words of the House of Hillel [as] one.
"If from the joints and from the thighs there are found the greater
part of the larger bones in quantity, and half the greater part of the
larger in bones and half the greater part of the number, they do not
join together [to form the requisite quantity to convey uncleanness.]"
[Tos. Ahilot 3:4, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 599
600, lines 37-40, 1-4 (b. Naz. 52b, Sifre Zutta,
Huqatll)]
Comment:
M. Oh. 2:1 says that a quarter-^ from the larger bones
or the greater number of the bones even if less than that quantity con
vey uncleanness by overshadowing. We have no hint of a Housesdispute. M. Oh. 2:3 contains no debate on whether things join together
or not. It concerns the lacking links in the backbone, or the hole in a
skull. Judah apparently had a tradition of Houses-sayings about M.
Oh. 2:1, but he preserved only the Shammaite part.
Compare M. Ed. 1:7, and Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, III, p. 100;
Epstein, Mevd'ot, p. 118. The version of b. Naz. 52b is as follows (trans.
B. D. Klien,p. 196):
c
I I . i i . 4 2 . It has b e e n t a u g h t :
T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " A q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s , w h e t h e r f r o m
t w o [limbs] o r f r o m t h r e e [is sufficient t o cause d e f i l e m e n t b y o v e r s h a d o w ing]-"
A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , A q u a r t e r [qab o f b o n e s ] f r o m a [single]
c o r p s e [is r e q u i r e d ] , a n d [these b o n e s m u s t b e d e r i v e d ] f r o m [those b o n e s
w h i c h f o r m ] t h e g r e a t e r p a r t [of a s k e l e t o n ] , e i t h e r in f r a m e o r i n n u m b e r . "
R. J o s h u a said, " I can m a k e t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d
the H o u s e o f H i l l e l o n e .
" F o r t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, ' F r o m t w o o r f r o m t h r e e , [ m e a n i n g ]
either f r o m t w o shoulders and one thigh, o r f r o m t w o thighs and one
s h o u l d e r , since t h i s is the m a j o r p a r t o f a m a n ' s s t r u c t u r e in h e i g h t . '
" A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , '[The q u a r t e r qab m u s t be t a k e n ] f r o m t h e
corpse, f r o m the greater part either in structure o r in n u m b e r , for this
[ n u m e r i c a l m a j o r i t y ] is t o b e f o u n d in t h e j o i n t s o f t h e h a n d s a n d feet.'
" S h a m m a i says,'Even a single bone f r o m the b a c k b o n e o r f r o m the skull
[defiles b y o v e r s h a d o w i n g ] ' . "
< 4
Let us now compare the several versions:
M.
'Ed.
1:7
1. House
of
Sham
M.
Oh.
1.
2:1
m a i say
Tos. Ah.
3:4
b. Na^
1. R . J u d a h says
of
52b
1. T N Y ' :
another language:
House
279
House
of
S h a m m a i say
Shammai
say
2 . RB< < S M W T
H'SMYM,
MN
2.
2. R W B <
MN
BYN
<SMWT
HGWYH
MSNYM
BYN
MRWB
M$L$H
Quarter-^
> IF M R W B
HBNYN
of bones, whether of
HMNYN
the
2', R W B
bones
two
or
of
from
from
three
WRWB
<SMWT
M S H N Y M >W
MSLSH
=
BNYYNW
MNYNW
(corpses) [conveys
$L
uncleanness by
S'YN BHN
over
MT
2. R W B
M N H < S M Y M >W
>P
<L
RWB
PY
4
shadowing.]
3. A n d the House of
3 . RB<
3. A n d the H o u s e o f
H i l l e l say,
<SMWT
H i l l e l say,
RB< S M W T M N
MRB
MN
HGWYH,
HBYN
MRWB
HBNYN WMRB
>W M R B
>W M R W B
HMNYN
HMNYN
HMNYN
MRB
RWB*
HGWYH,
HBNYN
Quarter qab of bones

f r o m a fsinglel
corpse, [from bones]
w h i c h are the greater
part in bulk and in number.
4. S h a m m a i says,
'PYLW M'SM
E v e n [a
4.
4.
4.
See b e l o w , n o .
9.
>HD.
quarter-qab]
from one bone
M. Oh. follows the Hillelite view, but with significant changes.

There, From the corpse (MN HGWYH) is droppedthe context sup
plies it. Of greater significance, now it is a matter of choice: it may be
either bulk or ( W) number. M. Ed. has and (W). Tos. Ah. has Judah
assign to the Shammaites the exact words of the Hillelites in M. Ed.
no. 3 , except for the inclusion of or (*W) in place of and. 2' looks like a
development of the foregoing ruling; now we are told that even less
than a qab will be sufficient if it is from a single corpse, which extends
the antecedent rule by dropping quarter-^^. No. 2 of b. Naz. is nearly
exact; 'W/'W replaces BYN/BYN, not an important change, b. Naz.
no. 4 follows M. Ed. in specifying//*? the corpse, which M. Oh. leaves
out, but it preserves or ('W) of M. Oh. Since that difference is substan
tive, b. Naz. no. 4 seems closer to M. Oh. than to M. Ed. As to the
sayings of Joshua:
5
280
Tos.
b.
Ah.
5. R . J o s h u a said,
6 . I can m a k e t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e
of
Shammai
and
the
words
of
Na%.
5
6 . as o n e
the
House of Hillel one.

7. M S W Q Y M
RWB
W M Y R K Y M
BNYNW
BGWDL
NMS>
WHSY
7. F o r
the
House
MSNYM
>W
RWB BNYNW WHSY RWB
SWQYM
W Y R K
M N Y N W 'YNN
YRKYYM
(If
from
the
MSTRPYN
shoulders and
from
the
WRWB
of
Shammai
MSLSH
>HD
W S W Q
>W
say,
MSNY
'W
MNY
L
>HD,
HW YL
G W B H W L 'DM
MGWBH
thighs there are f o u n d the greater part
(From two
o f the larger b o n e s in quantity and half
shoulders and f r o m one thigh o r
the greater part o f the larger b o n e s and
t w o t h i g h s a n d o n e s h o u l d e r since t h i s
or threeeither from
two
from
half the greater part o f the n u m b e r , they
is t h e m a j o r p a r t o f a m a n ' s s t r u c t u r e in
do not join together).
height).
8.
8. A n d
the
HGWYH
MRWB
House of
'W
MNYN
BMRPQY
H i l l e l say
MRWB
YDYM
BNYN
HW'YL
MN
'W
WYSNN
WRGLYM
( F r o m the corpse, f r o m the greater part

either in structure
o r in n u m b e r ,
for
t h i s is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e j o i n t s o f
the
h a n d s a n d feet).
9.
9. S h a m m a i says, E v e n a b o n e f r o m the
back b o n e o r f r o m the skull.
The Hillelite lemma of no. 4 has no counterpart in Tos. The b. Naz.

no. 3 version of Shammai is scarcely related to Tos. Ah. no. 3, except
that both make reference to shoulders and thighs. It is difficult to
figure out what has happened. Obviously, Tos. Ah. is a defective text,
since it ignores the Hillelites and in no way solves the problem of mak
ing the Houses say the same thing, b. Naz. is so slightly related to Tos.
Ah. that it looks as though the editor of the beraita has simply worked
things out on his own.
II.ii.99.A. If a woman [in the upper room, referred to in M. Oh.
5:4] was kneading in one trough, and her hands were busy in the
dough, so long as she is raising this and putting down this, raising this
and putting down this, the woman and the trough are unclean a
seven-day uncleanness, but the dough is clean. If she removed her
hand from it and returned it [the hand], it is unclean and makes the
dough unclean.
B. R. Joshua said, "I am ashamed by your words, House of Sham
mai. Is it possible that the woman and the trough are unclean for
seven days and the dough is clean? And that the flagon [M. Oh. 5:4]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.99, III.ii.43
281
should contract seven-days uncleanness and the liquid should remain

clean?"
C. After he stood up, a certain disciple from the disciples of the
House of Shammai said before him, "Rabbi, May I say before you a
reason (T M) that the House of Shammai say concerning i t ? "
He said to him, "Speak."
"The vessel of an *am ha*ares, what is it, unclean or clean?"
He said to him, "Unclean."
"And does something unclean protect? If so, let this thing protect
the vessels of a haver.
D. "Another matter: And if an am hafares says to you concerning
his vessel that it is unclean, when we purified the food and liquid in it,
we have purified [the thing] for himself, but when we have purified
the vessel, we have purified for you and for him."
E. R. Joshua reverted to teach according to the words of the
disciple.
F. R. Joshua said, "I bow (NM) to you, bones of the House of
C
Shammai.
[Tos. Ah. 5:11, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 602-3,

lines 39,1-9 (b. Hag. 22a)]
Comment:
See M. Oh. 5:4, (II.L99.D), in which the law of part A
appears in somewhat different form. The Mishnah is not attributed to
the House of Shammai, but by implication, as we saw above, it is a
Shammaite saying. Now Joshua treats it as such and points out the
anomaly.
Part D appears in M. Ed. 1:14 = b. Hag. 22b, as a Houses-dispute,
and concerns the Shammaite rule that an earthenware vessel can protect
only foodstuffs, liquids, and other earthenware vessels (M. Kel. 3:10).
The case before us does not occur there. Joshua points out the (usual)
Shammaite inconsistency.
For our present purpose, it suffices to note that the House of Hillel
in M. Ed. 1:14, and, by implication, the unstated Hillelite opinion of
M. Oh. 5:4 in fact are to be attributed to Joshua. Eliezer plays no part,
presumably because he was dead, and the reference to the "bones of the
House of Shammai" of part F might be to the deceased Eliezer. This
pericope apparently derives not from the pre-70 Houses but from
Joshua and Eliezer. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 60.
c
III.ii.43.A. For we have learned: "An earthenware vessel protects

everything [therein from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is
under the same roof]," so the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "It protects only foodstuffs and liquids
and [other] earthenware vessels."
282
B. Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Wherefore?"

The House of Shammai answered, "Because it is unclean on
account of the *am ha'ares, and an unclean vessel cannot interpose."
C. Said the House of Hillel to them, "But have you not declared
the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean?"
The House of Shammai answered, "When we declared the food
stuffs and liquids therein clean, we declared them clean [only] for [the
am ha ares] himself; but should we [therefore] declare [also] the vessel
clean, which would make it clean for you as well as for him?"
D. It is taught:
R. Joshua said, "I am ashamed of your words, O House of Sham
mai! Is it possible that if a woman [in the upper chamber] kneads
[dough] in a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean for
seven days, but the dough remains clean; that if there is [in the upper
room] a flask full of liquid, the flask contracts seven-day uncleanness,
but the liquid remains clean!"
E. [Thereupon] one of the disciples of the House of Shammai
joined him [in debate] and said to him, "I will tell you the reason of
the House of Shammai."
He replied, "Tell!"
So he said to him, "Does an unclean vessel bar [the penetration of
uncleanness] or not?"
He replied, "It does not bar it."
"Are the vessels of an am ha*ares clean or unclean?"
He replied, "Unclean."
"And if you say to him [that they are] unclean, will he pay any heed
to you? Nay, more, if you say to him [that they are] unclean, he will
reply, Mine are clean and yours are unclean. Now this is the reason of
the House of Shammai."
Forthwith, R. Joshua went and prostrated himself upon the graves
of the House of Shammai. He said, "I crave your pardon, O bones of
the House of Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [ex
cellent], how much more so the explained teachings!"
It is said that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.
l
(b. Hag. 22a-b, trans. Israel Abrahams, pp.

140-142)
Comment:
T h e a u t h o r o f t h e beraita
of Mishnah-Tosefta.
has greatly i m p r o v e d the version
T h e v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s c o m p a r e as f o l l o w s :
283
M. Oh.
5:4
M. 'Ed.
1:14
Tos. Ah.
5:11
1. A w o m a n w h o was
kneading in the t r o u g h
1.
1. The w o m a n w h o was
kneading in a t r o u g h and
her hands w e r e busy with
t h e d o u g h , s o l o n g as she
is r a i s i n g u p t h i s a n d p u t
ting d o w n this [duplic
ated]
2 . T h e w o m a n a n d the
trough
are unclean
a
seven day uncleanness
2.
3 . a n d t h e d o u g h is clean
3.
4 . A n d i f she e m p t i e d it
into another vessel, un
clean.
4.
4. She r e m o v e d her hands

f r o m it a n d p u t it b a c k ,
she is u n c l e a n a n d r e n d e r s
unclean the dough.
5. T h e House o f Hillel
r e v e r t e d t o teach a c c o r d
i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f the
House of Shammai.
5. [Below, n o . 1 0 ]
5.
[Below]
6.
6. A n earthenware vessel
protects all, according t o
the w o r d s o f the House o f
Hillel. A n d t h e H o u s e o f
Shammai say, It protects
o n l y f o o d , l i q u i d , a n d an
e a r t h e n w a r e vessel.
6.
7.
said t o t h e m , W h y ?
7 . R . J o s h u a said, I a m
ashamed by y o u r w o r d s ,
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . Is it
possible that the w o m a n
and the t r o u g h are un
clean
for
seven
days
[similarly vessels]? A f t e r
he arose, one disciple o f
the House of Shammai
said t o h i m , R a b b i , M a y I
say b e f o r e y o u t h e r e a s o n
that the House o f Sham
m a i say c o n c e r n i n g it ? H e
said t o h i m , S p e a k .
8.
8. The House o f S h a m
m a i said t o t h e m , B e c a u s e
it is u n c l e a n w i t h (*L G B )
a n am ha*ares, a n d an u n -
8. H e said t o h i m , T h e
vessel
of
am
haâres,
w h a t is it, u n c l e a n o r
c l e a n ? I shall say t o h i m ,
2
>>
>>
284
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A III.ii.43, II.ii.100
M. Oh.
9.
10.
5:4
M. 'Ed.
1:14
Tos. Ah.
5:11
clean v e s s e l d o e s n o t p r o
tect ( H S S )
Unclean. A n d does un
clean p r o t e c t ( M S Y L ) ? I f
s o , let t h i s o n e p r o t e c t t h e
v e s s e l s o f a haver.
said t o t h e m , H a v e y o u
n o t d e c l a r e d clean t h e
food and liquids which
are in i t ? T h e House o f
S h a m m a i said t o t h e m ,
W h e n w e declared clean
the
food
and
liquids
w h i c h a r e i n it, f o r h i m
self w e d e c l a r e d u n c l e a n ;
but w h e n y o u declared
clean t h e v e s s e l , y o u d e
clared clean f o r y o u and
for him.
9. A n o t h e r m a t t e r : If an
*am ha ares says t o y o u
c o n c e r n i n g his v e s s e l t h a t
it is u n c l e a n , w h e n w e
d e c l a r e clean t h e f o o d a n d
l i q u i d s i n it, h i m s e l f h a v e
w e declared clean, b u t
w h e n w e declare the v e s
sel c l e a n , w e d e c l a r e it
clean f o r y o u and f o r him.
10.
1 0 . R. J o s h u a r e v e r t e d to
teach ( N H ) a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e w o r d s o f t h e disciple.
R. J o s h u a said, I b o w t o
you, bones of the House
of Shammai.
[=
M.
Oh.
n o . 5]
We see that M. Ed. presents the colloquy of Joshua and the "disciple"
as a Houses' dispute, and reduces the whole to a few simple proposi
tions. There can be no doubt that the M. Ed. version of the debate
summarizes Tos. Ah. and makes it conform to the usual style. Thus M.
Ed. hides the name of Joshua in "House of Hillel." b. Hag. cites M.
Ed. without significant change, then adds, under the superscription
TNY% the Toseftan storynow giving both versions and greatly ex
panding the latter. In general, the beraita closely follows Tos., but
improves the diction of the conversation between Joshua and the
disciple. The concluding passage is, as usual, substantially improved.
Joshua now says N'NYTY instead of the apparently less clear NMTY
(reminiscent of the changes of the Simeon the Righteous-use of the
same verb NM, N'M, etc. See vol, I, pp. 44-47.)
c
c
c
II.ii.lOO.A R. Judah says, "He who opens at the outset [an entrance
to remove a corpse, so effecting protection for the other entrances of
the room in which the corpse is lying, as in M. Oh. 7:3]
"The House of Shammai say, 'When he opens four tefahs.
"And the House of Hillel say, 'When he begins.'
B. "He who opens a blocked-up passage
"The House of Shammai say, 'When he begins.'
9
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
285
II.ii.101,102
"And the House of Hillel say, 'When he thinks [of doing it, it
affords protection]'." ^
^
A
6 0 5 >
4 0 >
p. 606, lines 1:2)

Comment:
M. Oh. 7:3 is somewhat different. There the first argu
ment concerns when he must have given thought to opening the door or
window to remove the corpse. The Shammaites say it must be before
the man has died; the House of Hillel, even afterward.
The second argument, concerning a blocked window or door, is
accurately represented here. The Houses agree that when he opens at
the outset, he must open four tefahs. But now Judah has that unanimous
opinion in the name of the House of Shammai only. The opinion of the
House of Hillel duplicates the first Shammaite opinion, but makes
sense as a separate argument on the first point: he does not have to
open completely at the outset, merely to begin the project. Judah the
Patriarch has compressed the two arguments into the second argument
of M. Oh. 7:3. For our purpose Judah b. Ilai supplies a terminus ante
quern to M. Oh. 7:3: middle second-century.
II.ii.101. [M. Oh. 11:1: If the uncleanness was within, the vessels
outside remain clean until there should be in the split four tefahs,
according to the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, "(They
remain clean) however wide it is."]
And how much must this split (&DQ) be?
The House of Hillel say, "However wide it is (KL SHW')
the thickness of a plummet-string."
And R. Yosi says in the name of the House of Hillel, "An opening
oUtefah."
^
[ T q s
1 2 :
Z u c k e r m a n d e l )
6 0 9 j
lines 29-30 (Compare Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:15,

ed. Horovitz, p. 311)]
Comment:
Judah the Patriarch has taken the anonymous version and
has ignored both the gloss (in italics) and Yosi. Again we have a midsecond-century terminus. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 129-130.
ILii. 102. [He who makes a place for a rod or a stave, as M. Oh.
13:4]
The House of Shammai say, "Its thickness."
And the House of Hillel say, "One handbreadth [tefah] square."
(Tos. Ah. 14:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 611,
lines 29-30)
Comment:
See M. Oh. 13:4. The lamp of M. Oh. 13:4 is given
286
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA II.ii.103,104
anonymously; its measure is the same as the Hillelites', a tefah. The Tos.
tradition therefore limits the dispute to the first two items on the list.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, pp. 137-8.
II.ii.l03.A. If he made a bottle filled with [clean] liquid and tightlystoppered as a plug for a grave
R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon said, "In this the House of Shammai declare
unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean.
B. "The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, 'And which
is likely to receive uncleanness, a man or the liquid?'
"They said to them, 'Liquid [for man is made unclean only by a
Father of Uncleanness].'
"They said to them, 'Now since if man, who is not likely to receive
uncleanness, touched it [ = the bottle], he is made unclean, the liquid
which is in it [the bottle], ought it not become unclean?'
"The House of Hillel said to them, 'Do you not agree concerning a
clean man who swallowed a clean ring and entered the tent of a corpse,
even though he is unclean for seven days, the ring is [still] clean?'
"The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say concerning
the ring, which does not become unclean by the carrying of a Zab, will
you say so of liquid, which does become unclean by the carrying of a
Zab?
"The House of Hillel said to them, 'We reason the seven day un
cleanness from the seven-day uncleanness, and you reason the seven
day uncleanness from an evening's uncleanness. It is better to reason a
seven day uncleanness from a seven day uncleanness than to reason a
seven day uncleanness from an evening's uncleanness. . .' "
lines 5-15)
Comment:
See M. Oh. 15:9, which omits the Houses. The debate
form is not closely followed. The whole may be attributed to Eliezer
and represents a later fabrication of a Houses-dispute.
II.ii.104. He who searches

"The House of Shammai say, 'He searches two jamahs'] and leaves
an ^ amah
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He searches an *amah and leaves an
*amah "the words of R. Aqiba.
And the sages say, "The House of Shammai say, 'He searches an
9
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.ii.105, 1 0 6 , II.i.105
287
*amah and leaves an *amah,' and the House of Hillel say, 'He searches
an *amah and leaves two * amahs' "
lines 14-17)
c
Comment: Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern for the debate,
which has no counterpart in M. Oh. 18:4 or 18:8. The dispute of
'Aqiba and the sages, however, may well concern an antecedent
mnemonic tradition. Aqiba has two I one, the sages one/two, and the
whole can be reconstructed from that simple disagreement about the
bare bones of the tradition. The passage occurs in M. Oh. 16:4, as
Aqiba's version of the Hillelite opinion, with no contrary opinions.
c
11.11.105. If one cut grapes in this grave-area, he should not cut

grapes in another grave-area, and if he cut grapes, he is uncleanthese
are the words of the House of Hillel.
lines 1-3)
Comment: See M. Oh. 18:1.
11.11.106. The House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel:
"They do not search [a field on account of] Terumah, but it is burned."
lines 14-15)
Comment: II.ii.106 corresponds to the unanimous opinion given in
M. Oh. 18:4, that one does not search on behalf of him that would eat
Heave-offering. Here the disposition of the Heave-offering is explained.
II.i.105. The lid of a kettle which is joined to the chain
The House of Shammai say, '[It counts as a] connective for [con
tracting] uncleanness, but not [as] a connective for sprinkling (HBWR
LHZYH)."
The House of Hillel say, "[If a man] sprinkled on the kettle, he has
sprinkled on the lid. [If he] sprinkled on the lid, he has not sprinkled
on the kettle."
^
~ ,
_
(M. Par. 12:10, trans. Danby, p. 713)
/1Vyr
i<2N
Comment: The Shammaites hold that the chain produces uncleanness

for the kettle, but for sprinkling to effect purification, one must sprinkle
the lid as well as the kettle. The House of Hillel say sprinkling the
kettle affects the lid, but not contrarywise. The Hillelite position is
288
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.107, 1 0 8
therefore not completely contrary to the Shammaite one, for the chain
can serve to connect the kettle to the lid when the kettle is sprinkled for
cleanness, but not when the lid is sprinkled. The position completely
contrary to the Shammaite one would have had the chain serving as a
connector for sprinkling, no matter what is sprinkled (lid, kettle).
Perhaps that accounts for the absence of a balanced pericope, which
would have been,
It is a c o n n e c t o r f o r u n c l e a n n e s s and it is a c o n n e c t o r f o r s p r i n k l i n g .
Given the complexity of the Hillelite position, one could probably not
have produced a more succinct statement than the one before us.
II.ii.107. [M. Par. 5:1: He that brings the earthenware vessel for
(the water or the ashes of) the sin-offering must immerse himself and
spend the night by the furnace. . . .For a jar that is to contain Heaveoffering the potter may open the furnace and take out (any jar). R.
Simeon says, "Only from the second row." R. Yosi says, "Only from
the third row."]
R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House
of Shammai say, 'From the third row,' and the House of Hillel say,
'From the second row.' "
(Tos. Par. 5:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 634, lines
19-20)
Comment:
R. Simeon b. Judah's tradition has placed the secondcentury master's opinions in the mouth of the Houses.
ILii. 108. A. The lid of a kettle attached by a chain

The House of Shammai say, "They are all one connection."
And the House of Hillel say, "If he sprinkled the pot, he has sprink
led the lid. If he has sprinkled the lid, he has not sprinkled the pot."
B. R. Yosi said, "These are the words of the House of Shammai.
The House of Hillel say, 'The vessel (KLY) is one connection.' "
(Tos. Par. 12:18, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 641,
lines 9-12)
Comment:
Part A corresponds to M. Par. 12:10, and the House of
Hillel's lemma is given verbatim. The House of Shammai's saying is not
accurately represented, for here no distinction is made between con
tracting uncleanness and sprinklingthe connection serves both
equally. Yosi's version of the Hillelite opinion would have nicely
served for M. Par. 12:10, as I pointed out above, for there the Hillelites
would more conveniently take a position diametrically opposite the
Shammaite one. Yosi sets the terminus ante quern.
289
II.i.l06.A. From what time do olives receive uncleanness?

"After they exude the moisture that comes out of them when they
are in the vat (Z T M'TN), but not the moisture that comes out of
them when they are yet in the store-basket (Z T HQPH)," according
to the words of the House of Shammai.
R. Simeon says, "The prescribed time for the moisture [before it
renders the olives susceptible to uncleanness] is three days."
The House of Hillel say, "After there is moisture enough for three
olives to stick together (M$YTHBRW S L S H ZH LZH)."
Rabban Gamaliel says, "After the preparation is finished."
And the sages say according to his words.
B. If a man left his olives in the basket to grow soft so that they
may be easy to press, they [then] become susceptible to uncleanness.
But if to grow soft so that they may be salted, the House of Sham
mai say, "They become susceptible (MWK$RYM)."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not become susceptible
(>YNN MWKSRYM)."
C. If he wanted to take from them [only enough for] one pressing
or for two pressings
The House of Shammai say, "He may set apart (QWSH) [what he
needs] in [a condition of] uncleanness, but he must cover up (MHPH)
[what he takes] in [a condition of] cleanness."
The House of Hillel say, "He may also (*P) cover it up in a condition
of uncleanness."
R. Yosi says, "He may [even] dig out [what he needs] with a metal
axe and take the olives to the press in [a condition of] uncleanness."
C
(M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7, trans. Danby, pp. 729-30)

Comment:
In Part A , M. Toh. 9:1, the Houses' opinions in no way
match. The issue is, When does the moisture render the olives capable
of receiving uncleanness? The Shammaites say that the moisture that
comes out of the olives in the vat renders them unclean, but not that
which comes when they still are in the basket during the harvest.
Simeon says the moisture that comes out in the vat before they have
been there three days does not render them unclean. This seems to re
vise the Shammaite rule. The House of Hillel say that the olives are
unclean only when the moisture has caused them to stick together in a
masslater than the time specified by the Shammaites, who hold the
mere presence of moisture suffices. Gamaliel assigns a still later time,
namely, when all the work is done, and the olives are ready to be taken
to the crusher.
In this pericope, no effort has been made to frame the Houses'
N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , I I
19
290
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.106
opinions in syzygies or in the normal forms. Presumably it would have

been possible to specify a particular time, e.g., a number of days (as
Simeon), rather than a particular condition. In any event the dispute
comes from the time of Gamaliel, hence is a Yavnean pericope which,
strikingly, in no way follows the Houses-forms used for other Yavnean
materials. This suggests that in the earliest period the standard form
was not carefully followed, while later on it was perfected.
PartB, M. Toh. 9:5, is a more routine pericope, in which the Houses
gloss the foregoing rule, and their superscription depends upon that
rule:
That they may stand so he may salt them
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y a r e p r e p a r e d [to r e c e i v e u n c l e a n n e s s ,
MWKSRYM]
House o f Hillel:
They are not prepared.
The issue is the same as in M. Toh. 9:1: Is the liquid going to prepare
the olives to receive uncleanness? The man intends to eat the olives
after they are salted, but not to produce oil from them. Since the man
does not want the moisture, it is not regarded as a liquid-food and
therefore cannot receive uncleanness, so the Hillelites. The Shammaites
do not pay attention to the man's intention, just as they ignore intention
in the vow of the Nazir, and the consecrationeven in errorof ob
jects to the sanctuary.
PartC, M. Toh. 9:7, concerns olives not ready to receive unclean
ness. In case the farmer wants only part of the olives, the House of
Shammai say he may set apart what he needs in a condition of unclean
ness for a pressing or two, since the olives are not thereby made ready
to receive uncleanness. But he must cover up the olives in cleanness to
bring them to the press, for their work has been completed, and they
are now ready to receive uncleanness. The Hillelites do not require
him to cover in cleanness, for they hold the olives have not yet been
made ready to receive uncleanness, though if he plans to take the
whole mass to the press, he must do so in a condition of cleanness. Yosi
takes a more extreme position than either House, and supplies a
terminus ante quern for the rest.
The form is not quite balanced. All parties agree that he may set
apart in uncleanness, so the issue concerns covering up only. If cut off
and cover up were in the superscription, we should have the following:
If he wants to take from them enough for a pressing or two, he sets apart in unclean
ness, and he covers
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : I n cleanness
House of Hillel:
In uncleanness.
The difference between such a simple form and the more complex one
resulting from the inclusion of part of the superscription in the Sham
maite lemma is not consequential.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.107, II.ii.109
291
II.i.l07.A. If a man put [grapes into the wine-press] from what was
[stored] in baskets or from what was spread out on the ground
The House of Shammai say, "He must put them in with clean hands.
And if he put them in with unclean hands, he renders them unclean."
And the House of Hillel say, "He puts them in with unclean hands.
And he must set apart his Heave-offering in cleanness."
B. All agree that [whether he takes them] from the grape-basket or
from what are spread out on leaves, he must put them into the wine
press with clean hands. If he put them in with unclean hands, he
renders them unclean.
(M. Toh. 10:4, trans. Danby, p. 731)
Comment:
The law concerns taking grapes from baskets and putting
them in the press. The House of Shammai say it must be done with
clean hands, lest the farmer touch the liquid coming out of the grapes
and render them unclean. The House of Hillel rule, as above, that that
moisture is not regarded as liquid capable of receiving uncleanness,
since the man has no intention of using the moisture for food. The
form is heavily glossed:
He who places from baskets, etc.
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e places w i t h clean h a n d s and if he placed with un
clean hands, he has rendered them unclean.
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, H e places w i t h u n c l e a n h a n d s and he separates his
Heave-offering in cleanness.
The italicized words in the Shammaite lemma are a gloss, making ob

vious what is already clear. The Hillelite gloss supplies a separate law,
something we should not have known on the basis of a simple dis
agreement with the Shammaite lemma. The Shammaites obviously
would agree. Hence while the Hillelite lemma contains two rules, the
latter could have been set into a superscription, or, more aptly, as a
subscription, And they agree that he separates.
Part B would have been the logical place for the foregoing agree
ment. It says all agree (HKL SWYN) rather than the more common,
And
they agree (WMWDYN). This limits the Hillelite position once
again, so the form was ideal for the inclusion of the foregoing detail.
The pericope evidently is highly developed and diverges from the
normal forms used for the purpose of recording both disputes and
agreements.
II.ii.l09.A. If one left his vessels before an 'am ha*ares and said to
him, "Guard these for me," they are unclean midras- and corpse-un
cleanness. If he left them on his shoulder, they are unclean midras
[and] corpse-uncleanness.
292
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A Il.ii.l 10, II.i.108
B. R. Dosetai b. R. Yannai said, "The House of Shammai and

the House of Hillel did not differ concerning one who gives (MR)
[them] to an individual, that they are unclean, and concerning one who
leaves (MNYH) them in public, that they are clean.
"Concerning one who gives them in public and leaves them with
an individual, for
(Tos. Toh. 8:9b-10, ed. Zuckermandel p. 669,
lines 19-22)
Comment:
Dosetai, who comes at the beginning of the second
century, reports a Houses-dispute for which we have no other attesta
tion. The Houses dispute an ambiguous situation, and they take or are
assigned the usual positions. A sage coming in the second century
could readily refer to, e.g., Joshua and Eliezer as the House of Hillel
and Shammai, and we have no reason to believe Dosetai held an inde
pendent tradition from Temple times. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim
IV, p. 86.
Il.ii.l 10. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "When their work is done

[they receive uncleanness]," and the law is according to his words.
He who completes his olives in the same day [they are picked]we
have returned to the words of the House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel.
(Tos. Toh. 10:1-2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 671,
lines 8-9)
Comment:
In M. Toh. 9:1, it is Gamaliel. The clause pertaining to
the Houses alleges that their difference pertains only to completing the
whole process in a single day, but otherwise they are in agreement. See
Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, pp. 93-4.
II.i.108. When are they again deemed clean (JVPYMTY THRTN) ?

The House of Shammai say, "After they have been increased [by
more than the like quantity of rain] and overflowed."
The House of Hillel say, "After they have been increased [by more
than the like quantity of rain], even though they have not overflowed."
R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "After they have overflowed, even
though they have not increased."
(M. Miq. 1:5, trans. Danby, p. 733)
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A
293
II.i.109
Comment:
The question pertains to a pool which has been made un
clean by a man, or into which a corpse has fallen (M. Miq. 1:4). The
pool may be deemed clean when sufficient rain has fallen into it. The
House of Shammai hold that when most of the water in the pool is rain
water and it has overflowed, it is regarded as clean. The House of
Hillel say it need not overflow to be deemed clean.
The question, When are they again deemed clean? (M YMTY
THRTN) appears above, p. 257. Here the opinions of the Houses are
clearly balanced, but the Hillelite one is slightly apocopated:
5
House of Shammai: M $ Y R B W
House o f Hillel:
WYSTPW
R B W , ' P <L P Y L> $ T P W .
The Hillelites' first verb ought to have the same form as the Sham
maites'; dropping the M makes the Hillelite lemma depend on the
foregoing. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel takes the third position, that if it
overflows even though it has not been so increased, it is sufficiently clean
for Hallah and for washing hands. So the Hillelite position is given
with precision and could not have been made simpler in any detail,
e.g., by dropping the even though clause.
ILi. 109.A. If a man put vessels under the water-spout [that feeds
the Immersion-pool],it is all one whether they are large vessels or
small vessels or even vessels of cattle-dung, vessels of stone or vessels
of [unburnt] claythey render the Immersion-pool invalid.
B. It is all one whether they were set there or left in forgetfulness,
And the House of Hillel declare it clean (MTHRYN) [if they were
left] in forgetfulness.
C. R. Meir said, "They voted, and the House of Shammai out
numbered the House of Hillel.
"And they agree that if they were left in forgetfulness in the court
yard [and not under the water-spout], it is clean."
D. R. Yosi said, "The dispute still stands where is was[= as
l n

Comment:
Since drawn water spoils the ritual pool, the intervening
vessels spoil the water, hence the pool. The Houses-dispute glosses the
foregoing, raising the issue of whether intent changes matters. The
House of Shammai say that intent does not matter, just as they said
erroneously consecrating objects to the sanctuary is a valid consecra
tion. The form is not standard:
It is all t h e same f o r o n e w h o l e a v e s a n d f o r o n e w h o f o r g e t s ('HD H M N Y H
W ' H D H S W K H ) a c c o r d i n g t o the w o r d s o f the H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .
294
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A Il.i.l 10
T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e c l e a n ( T H R ) i n t h e case o f o n e w h o f o r g e t s
(BSWKH).
In fact, the Hillelite lemma uses the wrong verb, for the problem is not
whether it is clean (THR), but whether it is fit (KR). Further, an ob
vious balance would have been:
As to one who forgets,
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e unfit ( P W S L Y N )
H o u s e o f Hillel d e c l a r e fit ( M K S Y R Y N ) .
Then all agree that he who intentionally leaves etc. The syzygy
KSR/PSL
recurs through the tractate. Its absence here is therefore remarkable,
especially since it would have been natural to include it.
Meir then glosses the Houses' dispute, quoting the stock-phrase
about the vote. The agreement now is attributed to Meir. If the man
forgot the vessels in the courtyard but not under the water-spout, and
the vessels are filled with water, the water does not spoil the bath,
since he certainly did not intend to draw the water. But when the man
forgot the vessels under the water spout, the House of Shammai sup
pose that, when he left them there, he intended to receive in them rain
water, then he forgot them, so it is as if he intended to draw the water.
The water that has spilled into the pool is drawn water (Albeck, Seder
Toharot, p. 350). Yosi then differs with his contemporary, and says that
even here the Houses differ. The Shammaites regard the water that has
spilled into the pool as sufficient to render it unfit.
How much earlier than Meir and Yosi is the Houses-dispute to be
dated? The second-century sages had differing versions of the dispute,
so we may assume their traditions go back for a while. Meir's use of the
stock-phrase indicates only that by his time it was routine to refer to it,
especially when one wanted to assign the correct law to the Shammaites.
If so, by Meir's time the decided law conformed to the Shammaite
position. Yosi does not differ, merely extends the Shammaite position
therefore the decided lawto the case of the courtyard as well.
See Epstein, Mevoôt, pp. 24,147.
Il.i.l 10.A. A trough hewn in the rockthey may not gather the
water into it, or mix [the ashes] therein, or sprinkle from it; it does not
need a tightly stopped-up cover, nor does it render an immersionpool invalid.
If it was a movable vessel, although it had been joined [to the
ground] with lime, they may gather water into it or mix the ashes
therein or sprinkle from it; and it needs a tightly stopped-up cover;
and it renders an immersion-pool invalid.
If there was a hole in it below or at the side such that it can hold no
water at all, the water is valid. How large need the hole be? As large as
the spout of a water-skin.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
295
Il.i.l 11
B. R. Judah b. Bathyra said, "It once happened that (M'SH B) the

Trough of Jehu which was in Jerusalem had in it a hole as big as the
spout of a water-skin, and all the acts in Jerusalem requiring clean
ness were done [after immersing the vessels] therein ( L GBH).
"And the House of Shammai sent and broke it down (PHT) for
"The House of Shammai say, '[It is still to be accounted a vessel]
until the greater part of it is broken down (YPHT)'."
C
[M. Miq. 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 737 (b. Yev.

15a)]
Comment:
There were two Judah b. Bathyras, one of whom lived in
Temple times and was a Temple agent in Nisibis (see my History, Vol.
I , pp. 46-52 and 130-134). If this is the same man, then he presumably
knew what he was talking about, and the story is genuine.
Since only the Pharisees required cleanness outside of the Temple
cult in connection with the preparation of ordinary, unconsecrated
food, we may assume that the Trough here referred to served primarily
the Pharisaic party in Jerusalem, which therefore could not have been
very numerous. The Shammaites, who probably predominated, had
the power to do just what Judah said they had done. We do not have
the contrary, Hillelite lemma, but it obviously is represented in part A.
The story raises the question of what was the state of objects immersed
before the Shammaites imposed their will. Can we imagine that for
decades, even centuries, matters did not conform to the law as the
Shammaites taught it, until "one day" the Shammaites sent and broke
the trough into sufficiently small parts ? Or is it possible that the Sham
maites did not approve of matters, but were able to change matters
only when they came to power? If the latter, then they presumably
came to power some decades before the destruction, but we do not
know the state of affairs, or of the law, before that time. Judah does not
refer to Hillelite opposition. His little story may well describe some
thing that actually happened, and I think it does, but if so, it raises more
problems than it settles.
2
Il.i.l 11.A. The House of Shammai say, "They immerse vessels in a

rain-stream."
The House of Hillel say, "They do not immerse."
B. But they agree that [a man] dams it with vessels and immerses
therein, but the vessels by which he dammed it are not thereby imm e r S e C
*'
(M. Miq. 5:6b, trans. Danby, p. 738)
Comment:
The form is perfect. Beforehand comes a list of places
where one may immerse: trenches, ditches, don key-tracks. A slight
alteration would have taken the rain-stream from the Shammaite lemma
296
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A II.i.112, II.ii.lll, 1 1 2
and set it as a superscription. The Shammaites require forty seyahs of

water in the whole stream. The Hillelites say one must have forty seyahs
standing in one place. The agreement of the Hillelites is that a dam will
establish such a collection of water in the rain-stream. But the vessels
themselves, the Hillelites say, have not been cleansed, since the backs of
the vessels, in the stream, are outside of the dam. The agreement thus
is phrased entirely from the Hillelite viewpoint. The authority is Yosi,
M. <Ed. 5:2; Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 147.
Il.i.l 12. The House of Shammai say, "They do not immerse hot
water in cold, or cold water in hot, or fresh water in foul, or foul
water in fresh."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do immerse."
Comment:
The different kinds of water must be alike so that they
are fully merged. The superscription is inserted into the Shammaite
lemma. Originally the Houses-sayings would have been immerse/not
immerse, just as above, M. Miq. 5:6.
Il.ii.l 11. [When are they deemed clean, as M. Miq. 1:5]

Rains came down
"They were increased [by more than the like quantity of rain] and
overflowed" according to the words of the House of Shammai.
.And according to the words of the House of Hillel say [sic], "They
were increased [by more than the like quantity of rain] even though they
did not overflow."
And according to the words of R. Simeon, "They overflowed even
though they were not increased [by more than the like quantity of
rain]."
they are fit for Hallah and for Terumah and to wash the hands
therein.
(Tos. Miq. 1:7,1:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 652,
line 37, 653, lines 1-2, and p. 653, lines 10-12)
:
Comment:
See M. Miq. 1:5. Here the same verb, RWB, is assigned
to all three lemmas.
Il.ii.l 12. A kneading trough which is filled with pots, and he

dipped it into the ritual pool, requires a hole the size of the spout of a
water-skin and a fountain of any size.
R. Judah says in the name of the House of Shammai, "For a large
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Il.i.l 13
297
vessel, [the whole should be equal to] four tefahs according to the
greater part of it.
(Tos. Miq. 5:2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 657,

lines 1-3)
Comment: Judah's saying appears in M. Miq. 6:5, as follows:

V e s s e l s m a y n o t be i m m e r s e d i n a b o x o r a chest t h a t is i n the sea u n l e s s
t h e r e w a s i n t h e m a h o l e t h e size o f t h e s p o u t o f a w a t e r s k i n .
R. J u d a h s a y s , " I f it w a s a l a r g e v e s s e l [the h o l e ] m u s t be f o u r h a n d
b r e a d t h s ; i f a s m a l l v e s s e l , t h e h o l e s h o u l d be e q u a l t o the g r e a t e r p a r t o f i t . "
Judah's saying is given defectively. Clearly, the concluding clause

according to the greater part should be assigned to small vessels, just as the
four tefahs is assigned to a large vessel. (See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim
IV p. 21.)
ILi. 113.A. Women may always be assumed clean in readiness for
their husbands. When men have come in from a journey their wives
may be assumed clean in readiness for them.
B. The House of Shammai say, "She needs two test-rags for every
act; or [on every occasion] she should perform it [intercourse] by the
light ofalamp(TMS L'WR HNR)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Two test-rags suffice her throughout
the night (DYYH B$NY <DYM KL HLYLH)."
C. Five [kinds of] bloods are unclean in a woman: red, and black,
and bright crocus color, and a color like earthy water, and like mixed
[water and wine].
The House of Shammai say, "Also a color like water in which
fenugreek had been soaked and a color like the juice that comes out
of roast flesh."
And the House of Hillel declare clean.
[M. Nid. 2:4, 6, trans. Danby, pp. 746-7 (y.
Ned. 2:4, 6, b. Nid. l i b , 16a-b, 19a)]
Comment: Part A, M. Ned. 2:4: M. Nid. 2:1 states, "It is the way of
the daughters of Israel when they have sexual relations to use two test
rags, one for him and one for her." The Houses' dispute, part B, here
is out of place, for it pertains to, and glosses, that law (2:1), not the
foregoing element (A) of its own pericope. The Shammaites hold that
the examination must follow each act of intercourse, or she should
make use of a lamp. The Hillelites say the examination may take place in
the morning. The form is not balanced:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [She n e e d s ] two test-rags f o r each act o f i n t e r c o u r s e ( o r
she m a k e s use o f t h e l i g h t o f t h e candle).
H o u s e o f H i l l e l : [It is sufficient f o r h e r w i t h ] two test rags all the n i g h t .
298
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
III.ii.44
The operative phrases are for each act of intercourse vs. all the night. The
italicized words serve both, therefore would have been used in a super
scription, and the bracketed words are glosses, which could have been
made uniform for both sayings, preferably she needs. It is sufficient de
pends upon the antecedent Shammaite lemma. If the Hillelite lemma
had stood separately, it therefore could not have used // is sufficient, for
no contrary, more stringent rule would have existed against which to
measure sufficiency. Hence the primary lemma, because of the content,
could not have been stated in balanced opposites, but the Houses'
opinions could have been conventionally brief.
If, however, the rule had followed M. Nid. 2:1, it would have read
as follows:
The daughters of Israel use two
test-rags:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F o r e a c h act o f i n t e r c o u r s e QL K L T S M Y S W T S M Y $ )
House o f Hillel: A l l the night ( K L H L Y L H ) .
So originally the mnemonic fundament of the Houses apodosis could

have been T$MY$/LYLH. Everything else could have been con
structed out of that brief set. The Hillel-lemma could have added // is
sufficient (DYYH). Only after the Houses-dispute was separated from
the antecedent law was it necessary to supply glosses, both two test rags
and the verbs.
The second Shammaite rule, concerning the light of the candle,
looks like a gloss.
Part C, M. Nid. 2:6: The Houses' dispute is nothing more than
uncleanjclean. The Shammaite lemma has been expanded and attached to
the antecedent rule with also. Without it, one would have expected the
two colors to be in a superscription, followed by House of Shammai
declare unclean. Redactional considerations of Hillelite editors have
produced the obvious developments. See above, p. 22.
y
Note Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 439; Mishnah, p. 485.

III.ii.44.A. Our rabbis taught: Although [the Sages] have said,
"He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is contemptible," the
House of Shammai say, "A woman needs two test-rags for every inter
course, or she must perform it in the light of a lamp."
And the House of Hillel say, "Two testing-rags suffice for her the
whole night."
B. It was taught: The House of Shammai said to the House of
Hillel, "According to your view, is there no need to provide against
the possibility that she might emit a drop of blood of the size of a
mustard seed in the course of the first act, and this would be covered
up with semen during the second act?"
"But," replied the House of Hillel, "even according to your view,
299
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A Il.i.l 1 4
is there no need to provide against the possibility that the spittle,

while still in the mouth, was crushed out of existence?"
["We maintain our view,"] they said, "because what is crushed once
is not the same as that which is crushed twice."
C. It was taught:
R. Joshua stated, "I approve [see] of the view of the House of
Shammai."
"Master, said his disciples to him, "what an extension [of the
restrictions] you have imposed upon us!"
"It is a good thing," he replied, "that I should impose extensive
restrictions upon you in this world in order that your days may be
prolonged in the world to come."
(b. Nid. 16b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 109-110)
Comment: The beraita supplies a debate in standard form. Part C is
valuable evidence for an early date for M. Nid. 1:4, and would be still
more valuable if it had Joshua actually quote the Shammaite lemma. As
it stands, we merely assume it pertains to the pericope to which the
editor has assigned it.
The although-clause in A follows the Houses-dispute, and adds a
Hillelite commentary on the Shammaite position: the Shammaites
counsel a contemptible course. In later times the Babylonian rabbis
warned that using a lamp attracts demons and therefore endangers the
couple and its progeny, a further "reason" for following the Hillelites.
Il.i.l 14.A. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the
purifying woman that is a leper
The House of Shammai declare clean.
And the House of Hillel say, "It is like her spittle or her urine."
B. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not [yet] im
mersed herself
The House of Shammai say, "It is like her spittle or her urine."
But the House of Hillel say, "It conveys uncleanness whether [it is]
wet or dried up."
^
^
^
[
? 4 g
( y
4:3, b. Nid. 34a-b, 35b)]

Comment: Part A: The Hillelite lemma should be simply, declare
unclean. As it stands, the lemma explains the (unstated) Hillelite ruling,
therefore develops declare unclean. The Shammaite opinion is that Scrip
ture (Lev. 15:2) concerning the Zab and the menstrual woman speaks
only of the children of Israel; likewise, the leprous woman after child
birth is like other women after childbirth (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 387,
300
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.115
citing b. Nid. 34a-b). The Hillelites declare unclean: Since the sages
decreed uncleanness on the spittle and urine of gentiles, who are re
garded as Zabim, so they decreed uncleanness for the blood of gentile
women; it also should be unclean, just like the spittle of a Zab, which
renders unclean when moist, but not when dry. As to the blood of the
leprous woman, it is unclean like spittle. Part A therefore would origin
ally have been conventional, but the Hillelite lemma has been revised
and turned into a gloss on the antecedent opinion.
In part B both lemmas have been developed. The Shammaites
compare the blood to that of the purifying woman. It renders unclean
like spittle, that is, when moist, but not when dry. The Hillelites
compare it to the blood of a menstrual woman; the foregoing distinc
tion does not apply. Here the Hillelite lemma is briefer. The Sham
maite one should have been // renders unclean when moist, but not drythat
is, the opposite of the Hillelite one, rendered by the negative. Neither
party could have declared clean. The second Shammaite opinion is
identical with the first Hillelite one, and the second Hillelite opinion,
plus the negative, could have served as the first Hillelite opinion.
The superscriptions require an ascending order of stringency:
Blood of gentile woman, etc.
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : D e c l a r e clean
House o f Hillel:
W h e n w e t , unclean.
The superscription could have permitted the usual balance had it

specified moist. At that point, declare unclean would have precisely rend
ered the Hillelite opinion. Perhaps the redactor preferred a less complic
ated superscription, but this then required a highly elliptical Hillelite
lemma. The second superscription has imposed no such necessity, for
the Hillelite lemma, as I said, shows what the Shammaite one should
have been. The Toseftan equivalent in fact uses the simple language I
have proposed here. Evidently the ^r^//^-editorsandTosefta-compilers
often preferred to "develop" Houses-lemmas by restating them in the
simplest possible form. So what conforms to our theoretical model of
the classic form is not necessarily the earliest version and may some
times come late in the history of a pericope. Form-critical considerations
cannot be decisive in solving historical problems.
Il.i.l 15. "If a woman twenty years old has not grown two hairs,
she must bring proof that she is twenty years old; she is reckoned
sterile, and she may not perform halisah nor may she contract Levirate
marriage.
"If a man twenty years old has not grown two hairs he must bring
proof that he is twenty years old; he is reckoned a eunuch, and he may
neither submit to halisah nor may he contract Levirate marriage"
these are the words of the House of Hillel.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.115, 1 1 6
301
The House of Shammai say, "In either case [this applies] when they
are eighteen years old."
R. Eliezer says, "For a male the rule is according to the House of
Hillel, and for a female it is according to the House of Shammai, since
the growth of a woman is more speedy than that of a man."
[M. Nid. 5:9, trans. Danby, p. 751 (b. Yev.
80a, b. Nid. 47b)]
Comment:
The order of the Houses is reversed, and their dispute is
embedded in a fully-articulated lemma about the rules of maturation.
The Houses-dispute could not have been other than:
Superscription
House of Shammai:
House of Hillel:
Eighteen
Twenty
The dispute certainly is an old one, since Eliezer b. Hyrcanus refers to

it. It is pointless to revise the superscription so as to make place for a
Houses-dispute in conventional form. The assertion that these are the
words of the House of Hillel assigns the whole to the Hillelites, while what
is theirs is only the first part of each clause, a woman or man twenty years
old. The details are not subject to dispute. Further, the Shammaite
lemma seems to presuppose Eliezer's opinion, for it alludes to and
denies the distinction between male and female! But that distinction is
not made in the Hillelite lemma. This points toward the post-Eliezer
redaction of the pericope as we now have it. If we did not know of a
distinction between male and female, we should not have expected the
Shammaite lemma to refer to it, So we are left with the numbers
eighteen and twenty, all that could have stood in the primary Houseslemmas, //there was a dispute before Eliezer.
It is difficult to account for the reversal of order. We have seen
numerous examples in which long superscriptions are assigned to the
Shammaites, with the Hillelites' given a simple, brief word of disagree
ment. Obviously, it is convenient to have the language this and this
together with Eliezer's saying, so that his distinction seems to depend
on the foregoing. But it would have been just as convenient to have
the Hillelites say this and this at twenty years. Nor do I see any mnemonic
advantage in placing the lower number second. So the order is puzzling.
Il.i.l 16.A. If a girl (TYNWQT) who had not yet suffered a flow
was married
The House of Shammai say, "They give her four nights."
And the House of Hillel say, "Until the wound heals."
If her time was come to suffer a flow, and she was married
The House of Shammai say, "They give her the first night."
302
And the House of Hillel say, "Until the outgoing of the Sabbath
four nights."
If she suffered a flow while yet in her father's house
The House of Shammai say, "They give her the coition of obliga
tion."
And the House of Hillel say, "The whole night is hers."
B. [If a man or a woman that had a flux, or a menstruant, or a
woman after childbirth, or a leper have died, they convey uncleanness
by carrying, until the flesh has decayed. A gentile that has died does
not convey uncleanness by carrying.]
The House of Shammai say, "All women that die are deemed [to
have died while they were] menstruants (KL HN$YM MTWT
NDWT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Only she who dies while a menstruant
is deemed a menstruant (>YN NDH >L> MTH NDH)."
C. At first they used to say, "She that continues in the blood of her
purifying would pour out water for [washing] the Passover-offering."
But they changed [their opinion] to say, "For the Hallowed Things
she is as one that has had contact with one that suffered corpse-un
cleanness (KMG TM MT)," according to the words of the House of
Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "Even as one that suffered uncleanness
from a corpse (>P KTM> MT)."
D. But they agree that she eats [Second] Tithe and sets apart
Dough-offering, and brings near [to the other dough the vessel
wherein she has put the portion set apart as Dough-offering] to
designate it as Dough-offering, and that if any of her spittle or if the
blood of her purifying fell on a loaf of Heave-offering, it remains
clean [ = M. T.Y.4.2].
The House of Shammai say, "She needs immersion at the end [of the
days of her purifying]."
And the House of Hillel say, "She does not need immersion at the
end."
E. If she suffered a flux on the eleventh day and immersed herself
at nightfall and then had a connection
The House of Shammai say, "They convey uncleanness to what
they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an offering."
And the House of Hillel say, "They are not liable to an offering."
F. If she immersed herself the next day, and she had connection
and afterward suffered a flux
C
>
303
The House of Shammai say, "They convey uncleanness to what

they lie upon or sit upon, but they are not liable to an offering."
And the House of Hillel say, "Such a one is gluttonous (GRGRN)
[yet is not culpable]."
G. But they agree that if she suffered a flux during the eleventh day
and immersed herself at evening and then had connection, they convey
uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an
offering.
^ ^ ^ ^
^
[
>
p p >
756-7 (b. Ket. 6a, b. Nid. 116, 64b-65a-b, 69b,

71a-b, 72a-b)]
III.ii.45.A. Our rabbis taught: And both agree that if a woman
performs immersion at night after a %ibah the immersion is invalid,
for both agree that if a woman who observed a discharge during the
eleven days and performed immersion in the evening and then had
intercourse, she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat, and both are
liable to a sacrifice.
They only differ where a discharge occurred on the eleventh day, in
which case the House of Shammai rule, "They convey uncleanness to
couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice."
And the House of Hillel exempt them from the sacrifice.
B. Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "Why
should in this respect the eleventh day differ from one of the inter
mediate of the eleven days; seeing that the former is like the latter
in regard to uncleanness, why should it not also be like it in regard to
the sacrifice?"
The House of Hillel answered the House of Shammai, "No! If you
rule that a sacrifice is due after a discharge in the intermediate of the
eleven days, because the following day combines with it in regard to
%ibab, would you also maintain the same ruling in regard to the
eleventh day, which is not followed by one that we could combine
with it in regard to t(ibah}"
Said the House of Shammai to them: "You must be consistent: if
one is like the other in regard to uncleanness, it should also be like
it in regard to the sacrifice; and if it is not like it in regard to the
sacrifice, it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either."
Said the House of Hillel to them: "If we impose upon a man un
cleanness in order to restrict the law, we cannot on that ground impose
upon him the obligation of a sacrifice which might lead to a relaxation
of the law.
9
304
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Il.i.l 1 6
"And, furthermore, you stand refuted out of your own rulings. For,
since you rule that if she performed immersion on the next day and,
having had intercourse, she observed a discharge, uncleanness is
conveyed to couch and seat, and she is exempt from a sacrifice, you
also must be consistent.
"If the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness, it should also
be like it in regard to the sacrifice; and if it is not like it in regard to the
sacrifice, it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either.
"The fact, however, is that they are like one another only where the
law is thereby restricted, but not where it would thereby be relaxed;
here also, they are like one another where the law is thereby restricted,
but not where it is thereby relaxed."
(b. Nid. 72a, trans. LW. Slotki, pp. 500-501)
Comment:
Part A,
M. Nid. 10:1, presents three cases, in logical
order. If a girl who has not yet begun her menstrual cycle is married,
she is presumed clean for the first four nights of marriage. Whatever
blood she sees is regarded as hymeneal blood, therefore clean. But if she
sees blood after the four nights, it is presumed to be menstrual flow.
The Hillelites regard the permitted period as the time needed to heal
the original hymeneal injury. It is not clear to me that these periods
greatly differ from one another.
The next situation pertains to a girl who has reached puberty but has
not yet had a flow. The House of Shammai give a single night, and the
Hillelites, four nights. The Hillelite lemma is glossed with four nights;
the virgin is married on Wednesday, so until the end of the Sabbath
duplicates four nights.
The third case pertains to a girl past puberty. The House of Shammai
give a single act of intercourse. Any blood thereafter is presumed to be
menstrual. The House of Hillel give her the whole night.
The presumption is that the Hillelites are lenient throughout. The
Shammaites lemma carries the superscription, they give her. Without it,
the Houses lemmas are as balanced as possible:
Shammai
1. F o u r nights
2 . First night
3. Coition of obligation
Hillel
U n t i l t h e w o u n d is h e a l e d
Until end o f Sabbath (four nights)
A l l her night.
I do not see how these disagreements could have been phrased so that
the Houses rulings might be balanced opposites. The choices here are
notfixedexpressions, such as we saw with midrasjteme-met.
Part B, M. Nid. 10:4, preserves a Houses-dispute without a super
scription, but in proximate balance:
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A l l w o m e n die m e n s t r u o u s K L H N S Y M
NDWT
MTWT
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
305
II.i.116
H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, N o m e n s t r u a n t , b u t she t h a t dies m e n s t r u o u s

N D H >L' M T H N D H
'YN
Obviously, a mere negative would have served for formal purposes.

The Hillelite lemma has been phrased in the singular; the notbut
form has replaced the simple negative; and while the last two words
correspond to the Shammaites', the protasis has dropped all and used
menstruant
(NDH) in place of women, then joined the whole to the
apodosis with
S. The Houses-opinions look like fixed stock-phrases
which have been set against one another, rather than like a single
opinion phrased affirmatively and negatively, or syzygies such as we
have come to expect. Perhaps the stock-phrases should be regarded as
equivalent to TM'/THR or K$R/PSL and the like.
This suggestion presupposes that the Houses actually differ. But if
we reconsider the difference between the lemmas before us not in the
setting of a dispute, we find that the Houses are saying much the same
thing. We shall phrase the whole in the singular, and restate the Hillelite
lemma without not. . . but. . ., the double-negative:
House of Shammai:
House o f Hillel:
W o m a n dies m e n s t r u o u s
H MTH NDH
M e n s t r u o u s [ w o m a n ] dies
menstruous
NDH MTH NDH
The substantive difference is in the protasis, woman vs. menstruous

vs. NDH! If we did not know that a Houses-dispute
was at hand, we should have supposed that both Houses were saying
that women who die are considered to be in a menstruous condition.
The original Hillelite lemma, standing independently, repeats NDH
fore and aft. This either is a tautology, or must have some "meaning."
The redactor of the pericope obviously assumed that meaning would
derive from a dispute with the Shammaites, and added 'YN. . . 'IS
. . .standard redactional particles. No one could have supposed it
was merely a garbled tradition.
Part C, M. Nid. 10:6, has the Houses in reverse order again, just as
in M. Nid. 5:9. Once more the dispute pertains not to the whole of the
Hillelite lemma, but only to a clause in it. The Hillelites say that for
hallowed things, the woman is like one who has touched a person who
has suffered corpse-uncleanness. The Shammaites drop touch, leaving
like one who is unclean corpse-uncleanness.
Their lemma is introduced with
the joining word 'P, even. The Hillelites say that she is like one who has
touched a primary source of uncleanness, thus is prohibited from
pouring out water for washing the Passover-offering, lest she touch
the waters and make them unclean, and they make the Passoveroffering unclean. The Shammaites make it even worse. It is as if she is a
Father of Uncleanness, and she makes the vessel unclean, all the more so
the water and the Passover-sacrifice. The practical difference is hardly
significant. She is certainly prohibited by both Houses from doing the
same action. The Houses' difference therefore pertains to the recollec[-woman]'H
20
306
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.116
tion of the accurate tradition (touch). I cannot account for the reversal of
the Houses' order.
Part D, M. Nid. 10:7, continues the same discussion. The Sham
maites adopt the Hillelite position. Her status is the same as one who
has bathed on the day and awaits the sunset to complete purification.
Then comes a standard balanced dispute. The difference of the Houseslemmas is merely in the negative. The form obviously is perfect, if
somewhat developed through the insertion of explanatory matter into
the lemmas of both Houses. This makes it all the more curious that the
foregoing pericope drops the conventional form.
The problem of M. Nid. 10:8 = III.ii.45 is this: Scripture distin
guishes between a woman who has a flow of menstrual blood (Lev.
15:19: When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge. . .
she shall be in her impurity for seven days), and a woman who suffers a more
extended flow (Lev. 15:25: If a woman has a discharge of blood for many
days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of
her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness). The
former speaks of a menstrual woman, the latter of a woman suffering
flow (ZBH). The difference is that when the woman sees blood at the
outset, she is supposed to be in her menstrual period for seven days. If
she sees a flow once during the period or throughout it, she immerses
at the end, on the night of the eighth day and is clean. After the seven
days of the menstrual period, the days of the flow (ZYBH) begin. If a
woman has afluxduring the eighth day, she waits a day and immerses,
and if there is no further flow, .he is regarded as clean. If she sees blood
also on the ninth day, she immerses on the tenth, waits out the next
day in cleanness, and is regarded as clean. But if she sees a flow also on
the tenth day, that is, three days in succession after the end of the
menstrual period, she is the ZBH of which Scripture speaks, and has to
count seven clean days, immerse, and bring a sacrifice on the eighth
day (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 375). See Tos. Nid. 9:19 = M. Nid. 10:8,
and compare M. Zab. 1 :l-2.
Parts E-F-G, M. Nid. 10:8, revert to superscription-style:
If a woman saw [a flow] on the eleventh day and immersed at nightfall
intercourse
and had
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : They render unclean by lying or sitting a n d a r e l i a b l e f o r a

sacrifice
House o f Hillel:
T h e y a r e f r e e o f t h e sacrifice ( = III.ii.45).
In this instance, the Hillelites accept the first clause of the Shammaite
ruling, which could have been added to the superscription, leaving a
perfect syzygy: HYYBYN/PTWRYN. The issue on the eleventh day
may be a case offlux(Lev. 15:25), and the beginning of the seven days
when it may be a menstrual flow (Lev. 15:10). The law is that the
woman was supposed to wait a day. She is in the ritual status of a Zab.
The Hillelites do not differ on the uncleanness, but only on the sacrifice,
for they hold that the requirement to wait a day is not in the Torah. But
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.114,115
307
they agree that the couple renders objects unclean on account of a

decree of the scribes.
The second dispute is in descending order of stringency. The woman
now has waited a day, then had intercourse, then saw aflux.The House
of Shammai say the same uncleanness pertains, but there is no sacrifice,
and the House of Hillel say there is no punishment whatever.
The agreement at the end specifies the conditions in which the un
cleanness and the sacrifice will pertain according to both parties. See
Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 23, 63; Mishnah, p. 1030 (>P).
Il.ii.l 14. "A nursing mother whose husband dieslo, such a
one should not become betrothed or married until twenty-four
months have passed for her," the words of R. Meir.
R. Judah says, "Eighteen months."
R. Jonathan b. Joseph says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Twentyfour months.'
[Tos. Nid. 2:2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 642,
lines 22-25 (b. Ket. 60a-b, y. Sot. 4:4)]
Comment:
Jonathan phrases the dispute of the second-century
masters in terms of the Houses, with Meir in the Shammaite position,
Judah in the Hillelite. Since the named masters presumably would have
stated their views in the names of the Houses had they derived them
from the Houses, we may assume Judah and Meir have come to their
conclusions independent of any Houses-traditions, and that Jonathan is
responsible for translating the whole into the Houses-form. See above,
p. 207.
Il.ii.l 15.A. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the
purifying of a woman that is a leper
The House of Shammai say, "Lo, they are like the blood from her
wound (MGPTH)."
B. "The blood of a woman who has given birth and not immersed
renders unclean [when] moist, but does not render unclean [when]
dry,"the words of R. Meir.
And R. Judah declares unclean [when both] moist and dry.
C. R. Eliezer says [quotes] from the lenient rulings of the House of
Shammai and from the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
"The blood of a woman who has given birth and who has not im
mersed
"The House of Shammai say, 'It renders unclean when moist and
does not render unclean when dry.'
308
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
Il.ii.l 1 6
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It renders unclean when both moist
and dry.' "
D. The House of Hillel [following b. Nid. 35b] said to the House
of Shammai, "Do you not agree concerning a menstrual woman, that,
if her time to immerse has come and she has not immersed, she is un
clean?"
The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "No, if you say
so concerning a menstrual woman, who, if she immerses today and
sees [a flux] tomorrow, is unclean, will you say concerning a woman
who has given birth, who, if she immerses today and sees a flux
tomorrow, is clean?"
E. The House of Hillel said to them, "A woman who gives birth
while in the status of a Zab will prove it."
The House of Shammai said to them, "If it is a woman who gives
birth while in the status of a Zab, that is the law, and that is the reply:
A woman who gives birth while in the status of a Zab, the days of her
being in the status of a Zab count for her from the days of her clean
ness but do not count for her from the days of her giving birth."
Il.ii.l 16. She who has difficulty [in giving birth]how much
should she be relieved from pain so as to be in the status of a Zab}
R. Eliezer says, "From time to time," and the law is according to
his words.
R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of
Shammai say, 'Three days/ and the House of Hillel say, 'From time to
time.' "
[Tos. Nid. 5:5-7, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 645,
lines 31-36, 646, lines 1-6 (b. Nid. l i b , 35b,
36a)]
Comment:
Parts A-B correspond to M. Nid. 4:3. The first thing we
notice is that Judah and Meir have phrased the dispute in the simpler
language we should have expected above: render unclean when moist I dry.
M. Nid. 4:3 looks like a development of Tos. Nid. 5:5. Therefore the
dispute begins with Meir and Judah, and not earlier.
Meir is responsible for the whole (Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III,
p. 269). It is his view that the Houses did not differ concerning the
blood of a gentile woman. Even the House of Shammai agree that it
renders unclean when moist, but not when dry. Meir is consistent with
his view in M. Nid. 2:6: The blood conveys uncleanness as a liquid.
Likewise, Meir holds, the Houses did not differ concerning the blood
of one who gives birth; both hold it conveys uncleanness when moist,
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
309
Il.ii.l 17
but not when dry. Meir has used the simplest language, renders unclean
So Meir diners from the picture of M. Nid. 4:3 con
cerning the Houses-dispute. Judah then differs concerning the second
clause of Meir's saying, and holds that the Shammaites regard the
blood of one who gives birth as capable of rendering unclean, whether
moist or dry; compare M. Ed. 5:5. Eliezer is therefore the authority of
M. Nid. 4:3, since he has accurately portrayed the positions assigned to
the two Houses.
Part E again pertains to M. Nid. 4:3: The Houses agree that if a
woman gave birth while a Zab, the liquid (blood) conveys uncleanness
whether moist or dry. The Tosefta here adds (Lieberman, Tosefet
Rishonim
III, p. 270) that it is precisely if she has not yet counted seven
clean days. But if she has counted seven days of the days of her purifica
tion, the House of Shammai rule that they do count for her (as in b.
Nid. 35b; Sifra Tazri'a 1:13).
Il.ii.l 16 appears in b. Nid. 7b. In M. Nid. 4:4, the pericope occurs
without reference to the Houses. Here Eliezer is represented in the
Hillelite position. So we cannot assume that Eliezer invariably is
identical with the Shammaites.
See also M. Zab. 2:3.
when moist, not dry.
Il.ii.l 17.A. If a girl was married that had not yet suffered a flow
The House of Shammai say, "They give her four nights not con
tinuously (M$WRGYN), even [spread over] four months."
And the House of Hillel say, "All the time that [the wound] is
discharging (NYGPT)."
In what circumstances ?
When she has not ceased [to discharge].
But if she has ceased [to discharge] and then she saw [blood] not on
account of sexual relations, lo, this one is unclean as a menstruant.
B. And they give her until the wound is healed.
C. If the color of [her] blood changed and she saw [blood], lo, this
one is unclean as a menstruant.
Concerning this one, the House of Hillel say, "All the night is hers."
R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "They give her a full period ( WNT
LMH)half a day and its night."
D. . . .And in reference to all of them, R. Meir would say [rule]
according to the words of the House of Shammai. . .
C
[Tos. Nid. 9:7-9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 651,

lines 2-5, 7-12 (b. Nid. 64b, 65a)]
Comment:
The corresponding Mishnah is M. Nid. 10:1. Part B is
borrowed from M. Nid. 10:1, the Hillelite opinion, and does not belong
here. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 287.
310
II.ii.ll8.A. That one which the House of Hillel would call glutton
ous, R. Judah would call, "One who has intercourse with a menstru
ant."
B. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "Do you
not agree that one who sees [blood] during the eleven [days] and im
mersed at the evening and had intercourse is unclean for lying and
sitting, and obligated for a sacrifice? Also the one who sees on the
eleventh day should be liable for a sacrifice."
The House of Hillel said to them, "No, if you say so concerning
one who sees [blood] during the eleven days, it is because the day
which comes afterward joins with it for her [to remain in the status of]
a Zab. Will you say so concerning one who sees [blood] on the ele
venth day, for the day which follows does not join with it [for her to
remain in the status of] a Zab}"
The House of Shammai said to them, "If so, she [also] should not
be unclean for [uncleanness of] lying and sitting?"
The House of Hillel said to them, "If we have added the [unclean
ness of] sitting and lying, which is severe, shall we diminish from
bringing the sacrifice, which is lenient?"
(Tos. Nid. 9:19, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 652,
lines 6-13)
Comment: The corresponding Mishnah is M. Nid. 10:8. In part A
Judah b. Ilai adopts the Shammaite position.
Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 290, observes that Judah's father,
Ila'i was a disciple of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, a Shammaite, so here
follows the Shammaite view. The debate here in the name of the
Houses is in b. Nid. 72a given in the name of Judah and the House of
Hillel. This proves that the debate-form was used for later materials,
long after the Houses presumably had ceased to exist.
ILi. 117.A. If a man shook a tree to bring down fruit or some un
cleanness [and he brought down also drops of rain and these fell upon
the fruit], the law I J water be put on (Lev. 11:38) does not apply.
But if [he shook it] to bring down the drops of rain
The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies to the
drops that fell and to them that remained (HYWS'YN W'T SBW)
[and that fell later]."
And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on applies to
the drops that fell but not to them that remained [since his purpose
was that all should fall off together]."
311
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A Il.i.l 17
B. If he shook a tree and the drops of rain fell on another tree; or

a bush, and the drops of rain fell on another bush, and beneath them
were seeds or unplucked vegetables
The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies."
And the House of Hillel say, "It does not apply."
R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yosi Holiqofri of Tibeon,
"Marvel at yourself, if anywhere the Torah prescribes that a liquid can
render aught susceptible to uncleanness unless it was [intentionally]
applied for a set purpose, for it is written, But if water be put upon the
seed(Lev. 11:38)."
C. If man shook a bunch of herbs and [the drops of rain thereon]
fell from the top side to the bottom
And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on does not
apply."
D. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "If a man
shakes the stalk [of a plant], do we take thought lest the drops fall
from one leaf to another?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "A stalk is but a single
[thing], but a bunch is many stalks."
The House of Hillel said to them, "If a man pulled out a sack full of
fruit [that had fallen into the river] and put it on the river bank, do we
take thought lest water falls from the top to the bottom? Yet if he
had pulled out two sacks and put them one above the other, the law
If water be put on applies to the lower sack."
R. Yosi says, "Here also the lower one is not rendered susceptible."
(M. Maksh. 1:2-4, trans. Danby, p. 758)
Comment:
F o o d is s u s c e p t i b l e t o u n c l e a n n e s s if l i q u i d h a s m o i s t e n e d
i t . L i q u i d d o e s s o o n l y i f i t i s intended f o r d r i n k i n g o r o t h e r u s e n o t i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w a t e r i n g s o m e t h i n g attached t o the soil. T h e
may,
liquid
h o w e v e r , be spilled [put] b y s o m e accidental means, n o t m e r e l y b y
the m a n himself, a c c o r d i n g to L e v . 1 1 : 3 8 ,
When water
i s p l a c e d on the
seed, a s i n M . M a k s h . 1 : 1 :
I f a n y l i q u i d w a s acceptable i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , e v e n t h o u g h it w a s n o t
a c c e p t a b l e i n t h e e n d , o r v i c e v e r s a , t h e l a w If water be put on a p p l i e s . L i q u i d s
t h a t a r e u n c l e a n c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s w h e t h e r acceptable o r n o t .
T h e s t o c k - p h r a s e f o r t h e H o u s e s ' r u l i n g s i s If water be put
to liquid which renders food
on, r e f e r r i n g
capable of receiving uncleanness;
m e a n i n g is t h a t t h e l i q u i d e n t e r s t h e c a t e g o r y o f L e v . 1 1 : 3 8 .
the
MKYR
312
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A I l . i . l 17
= BKY YTN is therefore the equivalent of TM% unclean, and >YNW

MKSYR = >YNW BKY YTN is the equivalent to THR, clean.
The form ofpart A, M. Maksh. 1:2, is standard. The Houses' sayings
are perfectly balanced, within the limitations stated above:
To bring down the drops of rain
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h o s e t h a t c o m e f o r t h ( H Y W S ' Y N ) and t h a t a r e o n it
( W ' T 5 B W ) [are] u n d e r (B) If water be put on
H o u s e o f H i l l e l : T h o s e t h a t c o m e f o r t h [are] u n d e r If water. . . B u t t h o s e
t h a t a r e o n i t [are] n o t u n d e r If water, etc.
While the Houses agree on the first matter, it is just as simple to re

member the opinions by stating them in full as to set the agreed item
into the superscription.
The rest of the Hillelite saying is a gloss, explaining that the man
shaking the tree did not give thought to the water that would remain
on it, therefore those drops that fall later are not capable of rendering
food ready to receive uncleanness.
Part B, M. Maksh. 1:3, extends the dispute to a neighboring bush.
The Houses' lemmas are more perfectly balanced than Danby's trans
lation suggests; they are simply: Under If water be put/Not under If
water be put. The food was still attached to the ground. The Sham
maites hold that the water comes under the category of If water be put
and makes susceptible to uncleanness whatever fruits should fall on it.
The Hillelites rule that the liquid fell on produce attached to the ground,
therefore is not in the category of If water be put. But if afterwards the
water remained on another tree, the House of Hillel agree that the
water is in the category of If water be put, since they fell from tree to
tree.
Abba Yosi Holiqofri is cited by Joshua (b. Hananiah), that Scripture
requires the man to intend and actually to place the water himself;
hence he stands outside of the position of either House; but Epstein,
Mevd*ot, p. 61, says Joshua gives the Hillelite reason.
Part C, M. Maksh. 1:4, concerns shaking a bunch of vegetables to
rid them of water. The House of Shammai hold that the rule applies
because the man has paid attention to the water.
The dispute,part D, is not in the normal form, for while the Hillelites
begin it, the Shammaites do not end it. The Hillelites' question is in
astonishment: Do we take thought of shaking a stalk, that the drops
may fall from one leaf to another! The Shammaites reply that the
bunch is different from a single stalk. The Hillelites raise the same
question, now concerning a man with a sack of fruit taken out of the
water. They agree that if there were two sacks, the lower would be
subject to the rulewhich looks like a gloss. So the Hillelites are made
to accept the Shammaite rule of M. Maksh. 1:3!
The Hillelite "arguments" consist of a series of questions in which
the astonishment of the Hillelites replaces any effort at reasoning.
Yosi's saying ignores the gloss, therefore comes before it. The lower
313
sack indeed is not subject to the rule. Since the second Hillelite lemma
merely repeats the argument of the first, we may imagine that the
primary form of the debate had only the first two elements, and the
second Hillelite saying is a new version of the first. But see below
(p. 314) for other versions and an alternative explanation.
Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 78.
II.i.ll8.A. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a jar
The House of Shammai say, "It must be broken."
And the House of Hillel say, "It must be emptied out."
But they agree that a man may put forth his hand inside and take
out produce, and that this is not susceptible to uncleanness.
B. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a trough, the law If
water be put on does not apply to [the water that] splashed out or over
flowed (HNTZYN WHSPYN).
If the trough was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere]
The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies to
it."
And the House of Hillel says, "It does not apply."
C. If he had so set it that the water leaking from the roof should
fall into it, as to what splashed out or overflowed
And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on does not
apply."
D. If it was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere], these
and these agree that the law If water be put on applies to them.
(M. Maksh. 4:4-5, trans. Danby, pp. 762-3)
Comment: Part A, M. Maksh. 4:4, has water dripping into the jar
not at the man's desire. But the jar is full of fruit. How to get the fruit
out? The Shammaites say the jar must be broken, but the man should
not pour out the water, for, if he pours it out, he will willingly move
the water from side to side, and it will then render the fruit susceptible.
The Hillelites say he may pour out the water, for, until it has left the
jar, it does not render the fruit susceptible. The Houses however agree
that if he puts in his hand, the fruit remains clean. That would seem the
best solution. The Houses' opinions are in the form of matched verbs:
Y$BR/Y RH. NO other explanatory matter is supplied; all depends on
the superscription.
Part B, M. Maksh. 4:5, contains three successive disputes. The first
concerns taking the trough to pour out the waterhence willingly.
The House of Shammai hold that the water that splashed out or over
flowed is subject to the rule of If water be put on, because the man has
C
314
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.119, II.ii.119
paid attention to the water, as above. The House of Hillel take the
same position as earlier. In the second case, he left the troughagain
willingly. What overflows is in the same category as before. But the
Hillelites here would hold that the water in the trough is subject to the
rule of If water be put, for the man has intended to collect the water. In
the third instance, the Houses agree that if he took the trough to pour
it out elsewhere, he certainly intended to make use of the whole, even
though he now disposes of it, and therefore his original, purposeful in
tention has not been annulled, as above, M. Maksh. 1:1.
See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 783,1176.
ILi. 119. Any unbroken stream of liquid [that is poured from a
clean to an unclean vessel] remains clean, save only a stream of thick
honey or batter.
The House of Shammai say, "Also one of porridge made from grits
or beans, since [at the end of its flow] it shrinks backwards."
[M. Maksh. 5:9, trans. Danby, pp. 764-5 (b.
Naz. 50b)]
Comment: The Shammaites gloss the foregoing rule, and their
saying is itself glossed ("since it shrinks backwards"). If what the
bottom vessel contains is unclean, it does not render unclean what is
poured out, for what is poured out does not render susceptible to un
cleanness. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1088.
Il.ii.l 19.A. [If a man] shook a tree to bring down from it the
drops of rain, and they fell on those [fruits] that were unattached to
it and on those that were attached [to the ground] below it
The House of Shammai say, "Under If water be put"
And the House of Hillel say, "Those [that were] unattached are
under If water be put, and those [that were] attached are not under If
water be put"
B. R. Yosi b. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House
of Hillel did not dispute concerning one who shook the tree to bring
down from it liquid, and it [the liquid] fell on those [fruits] that were
unattached which were in it, and on those that were unattached under
it, that they are not under If water be put; and concerning the roots
[Lieberman: S'QRN], once they are dry, that they are not under If
water be put.
"Concerning him who shakes the tree to bring down from it fruits
('WKLYN = food), and they fell from basket to basket and from
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
315
Il.ii.l 19
bush [of leaves] to bush in the same tree, that the House of Shammai
say, 'Under If water be put, and the House of Hillel say, 'They are not
under If water be put
[Lieberman: Since the man does not intend to
bring down the water, no intent is present, so the Hillelites. The
Shammaites hold one cannot bring down fruit without water, so the
intent is there.]
C. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "All agree
concerning one who brings up a tied-up sack and places it on the side
of the river, that, even though the water drips from the upper to the
lower, they are not under If water be put"
The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree concerning
him who brings up two tied-up sacks and places them one above the
other so the water flows from the upper to the lower, that the lower
is under the rule of If water be put}"
D. R. Yosi says, "It is all the same with one or two sacks:
"The House of Shammai say, 'It is under If water be put
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It is not under If water be put "
R. Judah says R. Eliezer says, "Both are under If water be put"
R. Joshua says, "Both are not under If water be put"
R. Aqiba says, "The lower one is under If water be put, and the
upper is not under If water be put"
9
99
(Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 673,

lines 16-13)
Comment: Parts A and B correspond to M. Maksh. 1:2-3, but only in
a general way. The Houses' lemmas remain fixed, but the cases to
which they are attached are different from the Mishnaic ones.
While the rule of M. Maksh. 1:4 is not given, we have four versions
of the little debate of M. Maksh. 1:4 in parts C-D, which accounts for
the strange form of the Mishna?c version of the debate. The real pro
blem of M. Maksh. 1:4 is the presupposition of the second Hillelite
argument, that the Shammaites agree that there is a difference between
the upper sack and the lower one, but that the Hillelites also agree that
the lower sack has been rendered unclean.
Yosi b. R. Judah
Eliezer
Joshua
D o w e w o r r y in t h e case
M. Maksh.
1:4
All
o f a s i n g l e sack lest t h e
o n e tied u p sack, t h a t
agree
concerning
water f r o m the u p p e r
t h e l o w e r is not u n d e r
fruit r e n d e r susceptible
If water be put.
the l o w e r f r u i t ? [No!]
B u t if h e b r o u g h t u p
t w o s a c k s , t h e l o w e r is
u n d e r If water be put
Shammai: D o you not

agree concerning t w o
sacks, that etc.
Both are u n d e r
the rule
B o t h a r e not
under the rule
316
Finally, * Aqiba says the lower one is under If water be put, but not the
upper one, which the Mishnaic version of the argument places in the
Hillelites' mouth. Yosi b. R. Judah is consistent in this element, and
Judah the Patriarch has used his version for the Hillelite opening, so the
Mishnah in fact follows himbut with this difference: The Shammaites
of Yosi are dropped in the Mishnah, leaving the Hillelites with the last
answerbad form. In their final clause, the Hillelites concede the
Shammaites' view (as given here) about two sacks. So the Mishnah
probably should have concluded, "The House of Shammai said to them,
'Do you not agree [or, is it not the case, HL>] that if he brought up two,
and placed them'. . ." That would permit the restoration of the normal
debate form. It now looks as if the single-stalk argument, with which
the Hillelites open, is out of place. (See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim
IV, pp. 106-7, Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 78).
II.ii.l20.A. [If water leaking from the roof dripped into the
trough, the water that splashed out or overflowed is (contrary to M.
Maksh. 4:5) under the rule of If water be set.]
If he took them to pour them out
The House of Shammai say, "They are under If water be set."
And the House of Hillel say, "They are not under If water be set."
B. "Under what circumstances? In the case of purity (BTHWRH).
But in the case of impurity (BTM'H), all agree that it is under the law
of If water be set" the words of R. Meir.
R. Yosi says, "It is all the same whether it is clean or unclean, the
House of Shammai say, 'Lo, they are under If water be set.
"And the House of Hillel say, 'They are not under If water be set.
9
99
[Tos. Maksh. 2:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 674,

lines 18-23 (b. Shab. 17a)]
Comment: The Tosefta is equivalent to M. Maksh. 4:5. The Houses'
opinions here correspond to the ones given in the Mishnah. What is
different is the dispute of R. Meir and R. Yosi on whether a distinc
tion is made between pure and impure water. The Mishnah follows
the view of R. Yosi and omits such a distinction. Meir is consistent
withM. Maksh. 1:1, above, p. 311. On the conflict of the anonymous,
rule in part A with the Mishnah, see Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, pp.
111-112.
II.U20.A. If a man has suffered one issue of flux (HRW'H R'YH
>HT SLZWB)
The House of Shammai say, "He is like one that awaits day against
day."
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
317
II.i.120
And the House of Hillel say, "Like one that has suffered a pollution
(KB L KRY)."
B. If he suffered one issue, and on the second day it ceased, and on
the third day he suffered two issues, or one as profuse as if it were
two
The House of Shammai say, "He is wholly a Zab."
And the House of Hillel say, "He conveys uncleaness to what he
lies upon or sits upon, and he must bathe in running water, but he is
exempt from the offering."
C. R. Eleazar b. Judah said, "The House of Shammai agree that
such a one is not wholly a Zab.
"And about what did they dispute?
"About him that suffered two issues, or one as profuse as two, but
suffered none on the second day, and on the third day again suffered
one issue, [of such a one]
"The House of Shammai say, 'He is wholly a Zab.
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He conveys uncleanness to what he
lies upon or sits upon, and he must bathe in running water, but he is
exempt from the offering.' "
D. If he suffered an issue of semen (KRY) on his third day of
reckoning after his flux
The House of Shammai say, "It makes void ($WTR) the two clean
days that went before."
And the House of Hillel say, "It made void(STR) only that day."
E. R. Ishmael says, "If he suffered it on the second day it makes
void the [clean] day that went before."
R. Aqiba says, "It is all one whether he suffered it on the second or
on the third day."
F. For the House of Shammai say, "It has made void the two days
that went before."
And the House of Hillel say, "It has made void that day only."
G. But they agree that if he suffered it on the fourth day, it makes
void that day only if it was an issue of semen; but if he suffered a
flux, even on the seventh day, it makes void [all] the days that went
C
b e f o r e
'
[M. Zab. 1:1-2, trans. Danby, p. 767 (b. Nid.

72b)]
Comment:
L e v . 1 5 : 1 - 1 5 pertains to bodily discharges, which are un
clean. W h e t h e r a man's b o d y r u n s w i t h his
discharge
o r is
stopped
f r o m d i s c h a r g e , it is u n c l e a n . T h e b e d o n w h i c h h e lies a n d p l a c e s
on
which he sits are unclean; one who touches the bed shall wash and
bathe and is unclean until evening. Whoever touches his body likewise
must bathe and is unclean until evening. When the discharge stops, the
man counts seven clean days and immerses. On the eighth day he
brings a sacrifice. When a man sees two appearances of discharge on
one day or two successive days, then he is a Zab, as described above,
counts seven clean days, etc., but he is not liable for a sacrifice unless he
sees three appearances on one day or one on three successive days.
Parts A-C,
M. Zab. 1 : 1 , now take up the ambiguous problem of one
who has not fully met the conditions specified above. One who sees
only a single appearance of flux clearly enters a different ritual status
from a completely clean person. The House of Shammai compare him
to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of her clean cycle. If
she sees it one day, she observes one day in cleanness and is regarded as
clean, but if she sees it three consecutive days, she is regarded as a
Zab. Likewise, one who sees one appearance of flux has to wait; if he
sees a second, he is a Zab and renders unclean through lying and sitting
retroactively from the time that he first saw the flux. The Hillelites say
he is like one who has suffered a seminal emission. He does not render
unclean through lying and sitting, but if he sees a secondflux,he renders un
clean henceforward.
The Houses' opinions are as balanced as possible. That is, each
House compares the man's condition to a different circumstance of
ritual impurity. They could not have ruled uncleanjclean-, the only way
their opinions could have registered with precision is the language
before us: KSWMRT YWM etc. vs. KB L KRY.
In part B, the ambiguity is an interrupted flux. The man saw one
flux, none on the second day, and on the third, two fluxes, or one as
abundant as two. The Shammaites regard him as a Zab. The Hillelites
say he is not completely a Zab, therefore is exempt from the offering.
Eliezer b. Judah then corrects the superscription, preserving the
same opinions. Eliezer insists that the ambiguity concerns pretty much
the same situation, but the specified fluxes occur in different order. The
Hillelite ruling would have been not complete Zab, vs. the Shammaites'
complete Zab. But this required a gloss, explaining in what respects the
man like a Zab, and in what respects he was not. The gloss has survived,
and the primary ruling has been dropped.
Parts D, E, F, G, M. Zab. 1 : 2 , pertain to an issue of semen on the
third clean day after thefluxeshave ended. This is not aflux.The issue
is, What happens to the antecedent days ? The House of Shammai rule
that the seminal issue has cancelled out the two clean days, and the man
must start counting the seven clean days anew. The Hillelites say he
loses that day, but the antecedent clean days still count. The Houses'
lemmas are somewhat developed:
C
S h a m m a i : It v o i d s t h e t w o d a y s before it.
Hillel:
It v o i d s o n l y its d a y .
The simplest comprehensible language would have been two
days
vs.
its
319
day with a gloss of before it to clarify both the Shammaite and the
Hillelite position.
Ishmael and * Aqiba then (E) debate a more ambiguous situation: If
the man saw the semen on the second day. Ishmael seems to follow
the Shammaite line. But 'Aqiba then cites the Houses' opinions; no
distinction is made between the second and the third day. The sayings
of Ishmael and Aqiba are definitive evidence that the Houses' dispute
took shape before ca. 100.
The Houses then (G) agree about the fourth day, with the Shammai
tes' coming over to the Hillelite position. The whole is glossed: this
pertains to semen, not to flux. In a case of flux, obviously, any appear
ance cancels out the intervening clean days.
c
ILii. 121 .A. If a man has suffered one issue of flux

The House of Shammai say, "He is like the woman that awaits day
against day."
And the House of Hillel say, "He is like one that has suffered a
pollution."
B. And these and these agree that he immerses and eats his Pesah
at the evening.
The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not
agree that he immerses and eats his Pesah at the evening?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree that if
he sees [a flux] tomorrow, he is unclean? Lo, he is like a woman that
awaits day against day, that if she should see tomorrow, she is un
clean [retroactively]"
(Tos. Zab. 1:1)
C. If a man caused a shaking of the first observed appearance [of
flux]
The House of Shammai say, "He is suspended (TLWY)."
The House of Hillel say, "He is clean (THWR)."
As to couches and seats he occupied [between the first and second
discharge]
The House of Shammai say, "It [what he sat or lay on] is suspended."
The House of Hillel say, "It is clean."
[Tos. Zab. 1 : 2 (b. Nid. 72b)]
D. If he saw two appearances, he who caused a shaking of both
of them is unclean, according to the words of the House of Shammai.
The House of Hillel say, "He who caused a shaking of the first is
clean, and of the second, is unclean."
320
As to the lyings and sittings between the first and the second, the
House of Shammai declare [them] unclean, and the House of Hillel de
clare clean.
E. "If he saw one as abundant as two, he who shifts the whole is
unclean," the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "The only one who is unclean is he
who shifts the last drop only."
(Tos. Zab. 1:3)
c
F. R. Aqiba said, "The House of Shammai and the House of

Hillel did not disagree concerning him who sees two, or one as large
as two, and on the second [day] it was interrupted, and on the third
day he saw one, that this one is not a complete Zab.
"Concerning the one who saw on the first day, and on the second it
was interrupted, and on the third he saw two.
"The House of Shammai say, 'He is a complete Zab
"And the House of Hillel say, 'He renders unclean through his
lying and sitting, and requires immersion in living waters, but is free of
the sacrifice.' "
(Tos. Zab. 1:4)
9
G. When R. 'Aqiba was arranging ($DR; alt.: HBR) laws for the
disciples, he said, "Whoever has heard a reason from his fellow, let
him come and say so."
R. Simeon said before him in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Judah of
Bartuta, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not
differ concerning him who saw one on the first day, and on the second
it was interrupted, and on the third he saw two, that such a one is not
a complete Zab.
"Concerning him who saw two, or one that was as abundant as
two, and on the second day it was interrupted, and on the third he
saw one."
He said, "Not every one that jumps forward is to be praised, but
only him who gives the reason [for his words]."
(Tos. Zab. 1:5)
H. R. Simeon said before him, "Thus did the House of Hillel say
to the House of Shammai:
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA -
321
II.ii.121
" 'What is it to me that he saw one at first and one at the end?'
"They said to them, 'When he saw one at first and two at the end,
the [intervening] clean day annulled the appearance [at first], and he
has in his hand two appearances [of flux] [But] when he saw two at
first and one at the end, since he was required to count seven [clean
days], the first appearance cancelled the clean day, and he has in his
hand three appearances [of flux].' "
R. < Aqiba reverted to teach (LHYWT SWNH) according to the
words of R. Simeon.
I. R. Eleazar b. R. Yannai said in the name of R. Eleazar Hisma
before Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch], "The House of Shammai and the
House of Hillel did not differ about him who saw one [flux] on the
first day and one on the second, and on the third it was interrupted,
and on the fourth he saw one; and concerning [ L for D] one who
saw one on the first and on the second it was interrupted, and on the
third and fourth he saw twothat such as this is not a complete Zab.
"What did they dispute?
"Concerning one who saw two or one as abundant as two, and on
the second day it was interrupted, and on the third [and on the fourth]
he saw one."
(Tos. Zab. 1:7)
C
J . One disciple of the disciples of R. Ishmael said before R. Aqiba

in the name of R. Ishmael, "The House of Shammai and the House of
Hillel did not dispute concerning one who saw a seminal emission on
the second day, that it makes void the day before it, and concerning
him who saw it on the fourth day, that it voids only its day.
"Concerning him who saw [it] on the third day."
(Tos. Zab. 1 :l-8, ed. Zuckermandel, pp.
676-7, lines 19-40,1-8)
Comment:
Part A corresponds to M. Zab. 1:1. Part B is new, and the
dialogue is built on the supposed agreement. Neither House persuades
the other. Here the purpose of the dialogue is to explicate the reasoning
of each House.
Part C is found in b. Nid. 72b.
Part F indicates that the Mishnah before us follows 'Aqiba.
Part G-H-I supplies important evidence on how Tannaim envisioned
the formation of Houses-materials. They were shaped by the later
masters, who had traditions on laws and on Houses' opinions, and,
N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , II
21
322
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.121
through their own reasoning, figured out what opinions are to be

assigned to which legal problems. Clearly, it was conventional to
argue the Houses' positions in terms of "they said," working out the
logic of each side and setting the whole into debate-form. This shows
two things. First, the debate-form is as old as the conventional syzygies.
Second, it could be, and was, used for the development of materials
long after the Houses had passed from the scene.
Part J corresponds to M. Zab. 1:2.
Note Epstein,
Mevo'ot,
pp. 73, 79, 148, 211.
ILi. 121.A. He who gathers together (MKN$) many Doughofferings with the intention of separating them again, but they stuck
together
The House of Shammai say, "They serve as a connective (HBWR
BTBWL YWM) [to convey uncleanness from the one to the other if
they are touched by one that had] immersed [himself the selfsame]
day."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not serve as a connective
(>YNW HBWR)."
B. [If] pieces of dough [that were Heave-offering] were stuck
together, or [if] loaves [of Heave-offering] were stuck together, or if
he bakes a cake [of Heave-offering] on top of another cake before they
had formed a crust in the oven, or [if there was] a blown-up skim of
froth on water, or the first scum to rise in boiling bean-grits, or scum
of new wine (R. Judah says, "Also that of rice")
The House of Shammai say, "These serve as a connective [to convey
uncleanness if they are touched by one that had] immersed [himself
the selfsame] day."
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not serve as a connective."
But they agree [that they serve as a connective] if they are touched
by any other [grades of] uncleanness, be they slight or grave.
[M. Tevul Yom 1:1, trans. Danby, pp. 773-4
(y. Hal. 3:5, ed. Gilead, p. 21a = y. Hal. 4:1)]
Comment:
A man who has become unclean on account of an un
cleanness concerning which Scripture says, He shall be unclean until evening
(Lev. 11:32, 22:6-7), is in a lower state of uncleanness, for he has im
mersed himself, but only at sunset is he completely clean. The degree of
uncleanness is "second grade uncleanness." He does not make com
mon food (Hullin) unclean, but he does render Terumah invalid, that is,
he conveys to it third-grade uncleanness, so the Heave-offering is
unusable and must be burned. He therefore cannot touch sanctities,
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.122, II.i.122
323
which are one degree still more susceptible than Heave-offering and
may not go into the Temple beyond the gentiles' court. Such a man is
called a tevul-yom.
The Houses' sayings in both parts are perfectly balanced:
connective [for tevul-yom]jnot
connective.
As often, the Hillelite lemma depends for its protasis on the Sham
maite one. The superscriptions are highly articulated and extensive. In
part A, the point is that Hallah is like Terumah. The Hillelites hold that,
since the man intends to separate the loaves, the piece touched by the
man is unfit, but the rest is clean. The second part contains disagree
ment on the same principle. The agreement at the end specifies that the
Hillelites accept the Shammaite view in the other grades of unclean
ness; the Hillelites make a lenient judgment only in the case of a tevulyom.
II.ii.122. If a layer of jelly was formed over the flesh of hallowed

flesh, and so too oil floating on wine
R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah says, "The House of Sham
mai say, 'It is a connective for a tevul-yom
"And the House of Hillel say, 'It is not a connective.' "
9
[Tos. Tevul Yom 2:3, ed. Zuckermandel,

p. 685, lines 9-11 (y. Suk. 2:8, y. Ter. 5:2)]
Comment:
The corresponding Mishnah, M. Tevul Yom 2:5, follows
the Hillelite view, and for the second case Yohanan b. Nuri adheres to
the Shammaite opinion, but does not refer to the Houses.
II.i.l22.A. All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean.

The Song of Songs and Qohelet render the hands unclean.
R. Judah says, "The Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, but
about Qohelet there is dissension."
R. Yosi says, "Qohelet does not render the hands unclean, and
about the Song of Songs there is dissension."
B. R. Simeon says, "Qohelet is one of the things about which the
House of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the House of
Hillel, the more stringent, ruling."
[M. Yad. 3:5, trans. Danby, pp. 781-2 (b.
Meg. 7a)]
c
See M. Ed. 5:3. The Shammaites say it does not render

the hands unclean. The debate is Ushan. Simeon does not quote the
(theoretical) pericope, merely refers to it. M. Ed. constructs the whole
in standard form. Note Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 125,424,436.
Comment:
324
II.i.l23.A. Olives and grapes that have turned hard (PRYSY

ZYTYM etc.)
The House of Shammai declare susceptible to uncleanness, but the
House of Hillel declare them insusceptible.
Black cummin (HQSH)
The House of Shammai declare insusceptible to uncleanness, and
the House of Hillel declare susceptible.
So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes.
B. When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness ?
The House of Shammai say, "After they are caught."
The House of Hillel say, "After they are dead."
R. Aqiba says, "If they could live [if they were put back into the
water, they are not susceptible to uncleanness]."
C. When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness by
virtue of being a liquid?
The House of Shammai say, "After [he] smokes out [the bees]."
And the House of Hillel say, "After he breaks [the honeycombs]."
[M. <Uqs. 3:6, 8, 11, trans. Danby, pp. 788-9
(b. Hul. 75a, b. B.M. 105a)]
c
Part A, M. Uqs. 3:6, is in standard form: The Houses are

in the right order and their opinions are standard: unclean\clean. The
Shammaites hold the specified items can receive uncleanness as foods;
the Hillelites do not regard them as food.
Part B, M. Uqs. 3:8, is another sort of standard dispute: When does
an item become susceptible to uncleanness (or, elsewhere, cleanness)?
The Houses' lemmas are perfectly balanced: M$YSWDW/MSYMWTW. 'Aqiba's comes afterward, and does not balance. The Sham
maite position is that since fish do not require slaughtering, as soon as
they are caught, even while alive, they are capable of receiving un
cleanness. 'Aqiba is essentially in line with the Hillelite view, as usual.
Part C, M. Uqs. 3:11, follows the same form. The Houses' opinions
are consistent. The Shammaites hold that when the honey may be
reached, even though it has not been reached, it has entered the status
of a liquid which one wants to make use of. The Hillelites say that
only when the honey-combs are flowing is honey an available liquid.
The balance is perfect: MYHRHR vs. M$YRSQ.
Comment:
See Epstein,
Mevo'ot,
p. 78, re Aqiba; Mishnah, p. 268.
vii. COLLECTIONS OF HOUSES-DISPUTES IN MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
In addition to the individual pericopae, sometimes loosely strung

together, which contain Houses-materials, we have observed two
325
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
sorts of coherent, composites: collections and compilations. The

are as follows:
collections
1.
M.
Ber.
8:1-8:
Meal
1. Day/Wine
2. Hands/Cup
3. NapkinTable/Cushion
4. Sweep/Wash
5. Food/Spices
6. Created Light/Creates Lights
7. Forgot GraceGo Back/Do Not Go Back
8. Wine/Food
Blessing: Nos. 1,2,5, 6, [8]
Uncleanness: Nos. 2, 3,4
Miscellany: No. 7 .
2.
M.
ShsbAA-S:
Form:
Sabbath
They do not. . . except in order. . . while it is still day +
permit
1.
2.
3.
4.
Soak ink, dyes, and vetches

Place bundles offlaxin the oven
Spread nets for beasts, birds, and fish
Sell to gentile, carry with him, and raise up on him [a
burden]
5. Give hides to tanner, clothes to laundryman
Sabbath-rest for inanimate objects: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (nets). Gentile:
Nos. 4-5.
3.
M.
Yev.
13:1:
Form:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Right of
Refusal
Explanatory matter in first Shammaite lemma:

Shammai: Only betrothed exercise right of refusal
Hillel:
Both betrothed and married
Shammai: Husband, and not brother-in-law
Hillel:
Husband and brother-in-law
Shammai: In his presence
Hillel:
In his presence and not in his presence
Shammai: Before the court
Hillel:
Before the court and not before the court.
Projected continuation:
5. Shammai: Adolescent, not child
Hillel:
Adolescent and child
6. Shammai: Three times [Or: One time] only
Hillel:
[Even] four or five.
4. M.Ned. 3:4:
1.
Vows to
They vow with
Tax-collectors
all
House of Shammai: Except oath

House of Hillel:
Even oath.
326
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
2. House
House
3. House
House
of Shammai:
of Hillel:
of Shammai:
of Hillel:
He may not open for him with a vow

He may even open for him
Concerning that which he makes him vow
Even n o t , , , ,
The most striking compilation is M. Bes., in the following forms:

M. Bes 1:1-3,5-9:
I.
Rule of law
House of Shammai: Verb +/ negative
House of Hillel:
Verb +/ negative
1. M. Bes. 1:1egg bom on festival
2. M. Bes. 1:2dirt not prepared preceding day
3. M. Bes. 1:8picking out pulse (Variation: Choose +
vs.
choose after his usualfashion)
4. M. Bes. 2:4[As reconstructed]lay on hands, bring wholeofferings
II. House of Shammai: Distinction
House of Hillel:
No distinction
1. M. Bes. 1:1bolive's bulk S>WR, date's bulk HMS
2. M. Bes. 1:9 send portions (Variation: Hillelite position is
spelled out in detail)
III. House of Shammai: Negative plus full statement of case
House of Hillel:
Permit
1. M. Bes. 1:3moving ladder+designating pigeons before
festival
2. M. Bes. 1:5take off cupboard doors
lift pestle
hide to treading place
carry child, Scroll, Lulav
3. M. Bes. 1:6take gifts to priest
e a t
IV. Full statement of positions of both Houses

1. M. Bes. 1:7pounding spices and salt
2. M. Bes. 2:5make fire on festival for other than cooking
V.
Brief statement of positions of both Houses

1. M. Bes. 2:1two/one
2. M. Bes. 2:2immerse
M. Ed. contains Houses-collections exhibiting still further forms.

M. Ed. was supposedly compiled on the day on which Gamaliel II
was deposed at Yavneh. Epstein (Mevoôt leSifrut HaTanna*im, p. 422)
demonstrates that the tradition is unlikely: "Some of the traditions
derive from a much earlier time than Gamaliel's deposition." The
tractate, he says, organizes the undecided disputes from Shammai and
c
327
Hillel up to Yavnean times. But the tractate as we have it is not in its

first recension, nor is it the single recension of a given Tanna, but an
assembly of Mishnahs of various Tannaim, particularly Meir, Judah,
and Yosi. Our present interest is to see the principles of organization
of Houses-materials, and, as always, to discern which materials may
derive from pre-Yavnean times.
II.i.l24.A. The House of Shammai say, "A q u a r t e r - ^ of bones
(<SMWT MN H SMYM) of [any] bones, whether from two [corpses]
or from three, [suffices to convey uncleanness by overshadowing]."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It must be] a q u a r t e r - ^ of bones
from a [single] corpse (GWYH), and from bones which are the
greater part either in bulk or in number."
Shammai says, "Even [a q u a r t e r - ^ ] from one bone." [ = M. Oh.
2:1]
B. Heave-offering vetches
The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, but
And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness, but they rub
or give as food in uncleanness."
Shammai says, "They are to be eaten dry (SRYD)."
R. 'Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them may be done in un
cleanness." [ = M. M.S. 2:4]
C. If a man would change a sela's worth of Second Tithe money
[outside of Jerusalem]
The House of Shammai say, "[He may change] coins for the whole
sela (BKL H$L< M'WT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "A sheqeVs worth of silver and a
sheqel s worth in copper coin (B$QL K$P WBSQL M<WT)."
R. Meir says, "They may not change silver and produce [together]
into [other] silver."
But the sages permit it. [ = M. M.S. 2:8].
D. If a man would change a sela of Second Tithe money in Jeru
salem
The House of Shammai say, "He must change the whole sela into
copper coin (BKL HSL<M<WT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "[He may take one] sheqel s worth of
silver and one sheqeVs worth in copper coin (B$QL K$P WB$QL
M<WT)."
C
328
They that made argument before the sages say, "Three denars worth
of silver and one of copper."
R. Aqiba says, "Three denars worth of silver and from the fourth
[denar] a quarter in. copper coin."
Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] con
sume its value." [ = M. M.S. 2:9]
E. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boards
Shammai says, "Even the frame of a stool [remains] susceptible
to uncleanness."
If a stool is fixed to a baking-trough
Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it [is
susceptible]." [ = M. Kel. 22:4]
F. These are things concerning which the House of Hillel changed
their opinion to teach according to the words of the House of Shammai:
If a woman returned from beyond the sea and said, "My husband is
dead," she may marry again. [And if she said], "My husband died [child
less]," she may contract Levirate marriage.
And the House of Hillel say, "We have heard no such tradition
save of a woman that returned from the harvest."
The House of Shammai said to them, "It is all one whether she
returned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from beyond
the sea; they spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in
fact."
The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according
to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Yev. 15:1-2]
G. The House of Shammai say, "She may marry again and take
her Ketuvah
And the House of Hillel say, "She may marry again, but she may
not take her Ketuvah
The House of Shammai answered, "Since you have declared per
missible the graver matter of forbidden intercourse, should you not
also declare permissible the less important matter of property?"
The House of Hillel said to them, "We find that brothers may not
enter into an inheritance on her testimony."
The House of Shammai answered, "Do we not learn from her
c
99
99
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
329
II.i.124
Ketuvah-sctoll that he thus prescribes for her, 'If you be married to

another, you shall take what is prescribed for you?' "
The House of Hillel changed their opinion to teach according to
the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Yev. 15:3]
H. "If a man was half-slave and half free, he should labor one day
for his master and one day for himself," the words of the House of Hillel.
The House of Shammai say, "You have ordered it [well] for his
master, but for him you have not ordered it [well]. He cannot marry
a bondwoman, nor can he marry a free woman. Shall he remain
fruitless? And was not the world created only for fruition and in
crease, as it is written, He created it not a waste; he formed it to he in
habited [Is. 45:18]? But for the order of the world they compel his
master and he sets him free, and the bondman writes him a bond of
indebtedness for half his value."
the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Git. 4:5]
I. "An earthenware vessel can protect aught [that is within it from
contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is under the same roof]"
according to the words of the House of Hillel.
And the House of Shammai say, "It can protect only foodstuffs,
and liquids, and other earthenware vessels." [ = M. Oh. 5:3]
J . The House of Hillel said, " W h y ? "
The House of Shammai said, "Because with an *am ha ares it is
susceptible to uncleanness, and a vessel that is susceptible to un
cleanness cannot interpose [to protect from uncleanness.]"
The House of Hillel answered, "But have you not pronounced the
foodstuffs and liquids therein clean?"
The House of Shammai said to them, "When we pronounced the
foodstuffs and liquids therein clean, we pronounced them clean for
himself; but when you declare the vessel clean, you declare it so for
yourself as well as for him."
the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = Tos. Ah. 5:11-12]
(M. 'Ed. 1:7-14, trans. Danby, pp. 423-4)
y
Comment:
M.
Part A , M . E d . 1 : 7 , recurs without the Houses-dispute in
O h . 2 : 1 , w h i c h gives the Hillelite
pp. 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 ) . T h e lemmas aren o t closely
opinion
anonymously
(above,
matched:
S h a m m a i : Q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s o f [any] b o n e s , whether from two or three

Hillel:
Q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s f r o m t h e c o r p s e , whether from most of the
bulk or from most of the number.
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.i.124
The italicized words match approximately, but do not relate to one

another:
BYN MSNYM BYN M$L$H
MRB HBNYN >W MRB HMNYN
does not match shenayim,
the superscription, quarter of
leaves :
Binyan
minyan
bones,
does not match sheloshah. Clearly

is supplied to each lemma. This
<SMWT MN H'SMYM
<SMWT MN HGWYH
C
So the original dispute consisted of SMYM and GWYH, that is, a

matter of word-choice. Presumably the law referred to was what is here
represented, and at the outset the Houses' disagreed only on the
language in which the law was phrased. The later masters assumed that
a dispute on law, not merely on the language of the tradition, was at
issue, so they developed the whole, beginning with quarter [qab] of
bones, RB< <SMWT, and the BYNBYN glosses. Shammai's lemma
poses no problem. It conforms to the earlier, primitive form, SM
HD, in other words, SM. The pericope has been substantially de
veloped over the primary Houses-lemmas, and if, as is alleged, the
whole was worked out in Yavneh, the original language must have
been spelled out and assigned to the Houses sufficiently before that
time so that the problem of interpreting precisely what the Houses had
been talking about could have been confused with the mere difference
in word-choice.
Part J, M. Ed. 1:14, has an approximate parallel in Tos. Ah. 5:11-12,
with Joshua in place of the House of Hillel, above, p. 280.
We must now ask, By what principle, theme, or common form have
the foregoing pericopae been strung together? Parts F, G, H, and I
clearly form one sub-unit, brought together by the common super
scription and subscriptions that the Hillelites reverted to the Sham
maite position. The individual pericopae all contain the same statement
and presumably were completed before being brought together. A
single editorial hand surely would have imposed unities of form and
deleted obvious redundancies. Whoever was responsible for the pres
ent form of M. Ed. 1:12-14 actually did little more than collect what
already was in final form. Parts C and D are a pair and occur together in
their original place, M. M.S. 2:8-9. Parts A and B are related by the
theme of uncleanness, but the specific problems have nothing to do
with one another. Part E is another uncleanness problem, unrelated to
that of part A. We therefore see two coherent sub-units, parts C-D and
F-G-H-I-J. Parts A-B, furthermore, present a single form:
l
House of Shammai
House o f Hillel
+
Shammai
331
c
Part B further glosses with Aqiba. The reason for bringing together
these parts is therefore the common order of authorities. In that case,
parts C-D may have been added because Shammai appears (part D),
and this would further explain the inclusion of part E.
M. Ed. 1:1-14 therefore consists of two collections, separate but
juxtaposed. The first collection is characterized by the order of opi
nions: the Houses, then Shammai, most strikingly in M. Ed. 1:7, and
M. Ed. 1:11, parts A and E. If the collection of M. Ed. was in some
form such as we now have it by early Yavnean times, then the inclu
sion of Meir in Part C is a later gloss; and the addition of 'Aqiba, with
and without Tarfon, in parts B and D, would represent a somewhat
earlier, intermediate, stage of development. (Note also Epstein,
Mevo'ot, p. 429).
The second collection is easier to discern, consisting, as I said, of
M. Ed. 1:12-14, parts F-J, united by the common subscriptions about
Hillelite reversion. Parts I-J certainly are problematical, for Joshua
elsewhere stands in place of the Hillelites, and it may be that those
pericopae are considerably later than the earliest Houses-materials. In
its present form, in any case, the whole cannot come before Meir.
The first collection is thus the Houses + Shammai, the second, the
Reversion of the Hillelites.
c
II.L125.A. In these things the House of Shammai adopted the more

lenient, and the House of Hillel the more stringent ruling:
B. An egg was laid on a Festival-day
The House of Shammai say, "It may be eaten."
And the House of Hillel say, "It may not be eaten."
The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and a date's
bulk of what is leavened."
And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either." [ = M.
Bes. 1:1; M. Bes. 3:8]
C. If a beast was born on a Festival-day, all agree that it is permitted;
but if a chicken was hatched from an egg, all agree that it is forbidden.
D. If a man slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on a Festival-day
The House of Shammai say, "He may dig with a mattock and cover
up [the blood]."
And the House of Hillel say, "He should not slaughter unless he
had earth set in readiness [to cover up the blood]."
But they agree that if he had slaughtered, he may dig with a mattock
and cover up [the blood]; [moreover they agreed] that ashes of a stove
may be regarded as set in readiness. [ = M. Bes. 1:2]
E. The House of Shammai say, "[If produce is proclaimed]
'ownerless' for [the benefit of] the poor, [it is accounted] ownerless
[and tithe-free]."
332
And the House of Hillel say, "[It can only be accounted] ownerless
[and tithe-free] if [it is proclaimed] ownerless [equally] for [the benefit
of the] rich as in the year of Release."
The sheaves in a field were each of one qaVs weight but one was of
four qabs ; if this was forgotten
The House of Shammai say, "It may no t be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf.''
And the House of Hillel say, "It may be deemed a Forgotten
Sheaf." [ = M . Pe'ah6:l,5]
F. If a sheaf lies near to a wall or to a stack or to the oxen or to the
implements, and is forgotten
The House of Shammai say, "It may not be deemed a Forgotten
Sheaf."
And the House of Hillel say, "It may be deemed a Forgotten
Sheaf." [ = M . Pe>ah6:2]
G. Fourth year fruit
The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added] Fifth and of
Removal do not apply."
And the House of Hillel say, "The rules of the Fifth and of Removal
do apply."
The House of Shammai say, "The laws of Grape-gleanings and
of the Defective Cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for
themselves."
And the House of Hillel say, "The whole yield goes to the wine
press." [ = M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. M.S. 5:3]
H. A jar of pickled olives
The House of Shammai say, "One need not broach."
And the House of Hillel say, "One needs to broach."
But they agree that if it had been broached and the lees block up the
breach, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. [ = M. Maksh. 1:1; b. Yev.
15b, Tos. Yev. 1:11-13]
I. If a man anointed himself with clean oil and then became un
clean, and he went down and immersed himself
The House of Shammai say, "Even though he still drips [with oil],
it is clean."
And the House of Hillel say, "[It is unclean so long as there re
mains] enough to anoint a small member."
J . And if it was unclean oil at the outset
The House of Shammai say, "[It remains unclean, even after he has
immersed himself, so long as there remains] enough to anoint a small
member."
333
And the House of Hillel say, "[So long as it remains] a moist liquid
(M$QH TWPH)."
R. Judah says in the name of the House of Hillel, "So long as it is
moist enough to moisten aught else." [ = y. Ber. 8:3]
K. "A woman is betrothed by [the gift of] a denar or a denar's
worth," according to the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "By aperutah or a perutah* s worth."
And how much is a perutah} The eighth part of an Italian issar.
[ = M. Qid. 1:1]
L. The House of Shammai say, "A man may dismiss his wife with
an old bill of divorce."
And the House of Hillel forbid.
What is an old bill of divorce? If he continued alone with her after
he had written it for her [it becomes an old bill of divorce].
M. If a man divorced his wife and she then lodged with him in an
inn
The House of Shammai say, "She does not need another bill of
divorce from him."
And the House of Hillel say, "She needs another bill of divorce
from him."
This applies when she was divorced after wedlock; but if she had
been divorced from him after betrothal [only], she does not need
another bill of divorce from him, since he is not yet shameless before
her. [ = M. Qid. 1:1; M. Git. 8:4, 8:9]
N. The House of Shammai permit Levirate marriage between the
co-wives and the surviving brothers.
And the House of Hillel forbid it.
If they performed halisah
The House of Shammai declare them ineligible to marry a priest.
And the House of Hillel declare them eligible.
If they had been taken in Levirate marriage
The House of Shammai declare them eligible.
And the House of Hillel ineligible.
Notwithstanding that these declare ineligible and the others declare
eligible, yet the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying
women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from marry
ing women from the House of Shammai.
And all the disputes about what is clean and unclean, wherein these
declare clean and the others declare unclean, neither refrained from
making clean things with the other. [ = M. Yev. 1:4]
334
O. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters, and one
unmarried, and one of the married brothers died, and the unmarried
brother bespoke the widow, and then his second brother died
The House of Shammai say, "His [bespoken] wife abides with him,
and the other is free as being his wife's sister."
And the House of Hillel say, "He must put away his [bespoken]
wife both by bill of divorce and by halisah, and his brother's wife by
halisah."
This is a case whereof they have said, "Woe to him because of [the
loss of] his wife, and woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother's
wife!"[=M. Yev. 3:5]
P. If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife
The House of Shammai say, "[She may consent] for two weeks."
And the House of Hillel say, "For one week [only]." [ = M. Ket.
5:6]
Q. If a woman miscarried on the night of the eighty-first day
The House of Shammai declare [her] exempt from an offering.
And the House of Hillel declare [her] liable. [ = M. Ker. 1:6]
R. A linen garment, as to fringes ($DYN BSYSYT)
The House of Shammai declare exempt.
And the House of Hillel declare liable. [ = Mid. Tan. to Deut.
22:12]
S. A basket of fruit intended for the Sabbath
The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Tithes].
And the House of Hillel declare liable. [ = M. Ma. 4:2]
T. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite for a longer spell (NZYRWT
MRBH) and fulfilled his Nazirite-vow and afterward came to the Land
[of Israel]
The House of Shammai say, "He [need continue] a Nazirite [only
for] thirty days [more]."
And the House of Hillel say, "He is a Nazir as from the beginning."
If two pairs of witnesses testified of a man, the one testified that he
had vowed two Nazirite-vows, and the other that he had vowed five
The House of Shammai say, "The testimony is at variance, and the
Nazirite-vow is not here."
And the House of Hillel say, "The two are included within the five,
so that he must be a Nazirite for two [spells]." [ = M. Naz. 3:6-7]
U. If a man was put there below the split
cleanness."
335
And the House of Hillel say, "A man is hollow, and [his] upper side
gives passage to the uncleanness." [ = M. Oh. 11:3]
(M. <Ed. 4:1-12, trans. Danby, pp. 429-30)
II.i.l26.A. R. Judah says, "Six opinions of the House of Sham
mai's lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent, rulings":
B. The blood of the carcass
The House of Shammai declare it clean.
And the House of Hillel declare it unclean. [ = b. Ker. 21a, b. Shab.
77a, b. Men. 104a]
C. "An egg from a [bird's] carcass is permitted if it is in like condi
tion to them that are sold in the market, otherwise it is forbidden,"
And the House of Hillel forbid it [in any condition]. But they agree
that an egg from a bird that is terefah is forbidden, since it was fashion
ed in what was forbidden. [ = y. Bes. 1:1]
D. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the purifying of
a woman that is a leper
And the House of Hillel say, "It is like to her spittle or her urine."
[ = M . Nid. 4:3]
E. According to the House of Shammai, they may eat Seventh
Year produce by favor [of the owner] or without favor.
And the House of Hillel say, "They may only eat it by favor [of the
owner]." [ = M. Shev. 4:2]
F. A water skin
The House of Shammai say, "[A water-skin can contract midrasuncleanness] when it is tied up with a durable knot (SRWRH
W<MDT)."
And the House of Hillel say, "Even when it is not tied up ('P L PY
S'YNH SRWRH)." [ = M. Kel. 26:4]
G. R. Yosi says, "Six opinions of the House of Shammai's more
lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent, rulings":
H. According to the House of Shammai, a fowl may be served up
on the table together with cheese, but it may not be eaten with it.
And the House of Hillel say, "It may neither be served up with it
nor eaten with it." [ = M. Hul. 8:1]
I. According to the House of Shammai, Heave-offering may be
C
336
set apart from olives instead of from oil or from grapes instead of
from wine.
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not give Heave-offering."
[ = M. Ter. 1:4 has it reversed.]
J . If a man sowed seed within a space of four cubits [from the vines]
of a vineyard
The House of Shammai say, "He renders forfeit one row."
And the House of Hillel say, "He renders forfeit two rows." [ = M.
Kil. 4:5]
K. Flour-paste
The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Dough-offering].
And the House of Hillel declare it liable. [ = M. Hal. 1:6]
L. According to the House of Shammai, they immerse themselves
in a rain-stream.
And the House of Hillel say, "They do not immerse." [ = M. Miq. 5:6]
M. A man who became a proselyte on the day before Passover
The House of Shammai say, "He immerses himself and consumes
his Passover-offering in the evening."
And the House of Hillel say, "He that separates himself from his
uncircumcision is like one that separates himself from the grave."
[ = M. Pes. 8:8]
N. R. Simeon [Ishmael] says, "Three opinions of the House of
Shammai's more lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent,
rulings":
O. According to the House of Shammai [the Book of] Qohelet
does not render the hands unclean.
And the House of Hillel say, "It renders the hands unclean."
[ = M. Yad. 3:5;b. Meg. 7a]
P. Sin-offering water which has fulfilled its purpose
The House of Shammai declare it clean.
And the House of Hillel declare it unclean.
Q. Black cummin
The House of Shammai declare insusceptible to uncleanness.
And the House of Hillel declare it susceptible.
So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes.
[ = M . <Uqs.3:6].
R. R. Eliezer [or, Eleazar] says, "Two opinions of the House of
Shammai's more lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent
rulings":
337
S. The blood of a woman that has not yet immersed herself after
childbirth
The House of Shammai say, "It is like spittle or her urine."
And the House of Hillel say, "It conveys uncleanness whether wet
or dried up."
But they [Shammaites] agree that if a woman gave birth while she
had a flux, it renders unclean whether [the blood was] wet or dried
up. [ = M. Nid. 4:3; Tos. Nid. 5:5-6]
T. If two of four brothers married two sisters, and the two that
married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halisah and may
not contract Levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already
married them, they must put them away.
R. Eliezer [or, Eleazar] says in the name of the House of Shammai,
"They may continue the marriage."
And the House of Hillel say, "They must put them away." [ = M.
Yev. 3:1; Tos. Yev. 5:1, Tos. <Ed. 2:9]
(M. <Ed. 5:1-5)
c
M. Ed. 4:1-12 and 5:1-5 are organized around the

leniencies of the Shammaites and the strict rulings of the Hillelites, in
the presumption that everything else is easily assigned, according to the
content, to one or the other House. The first such list, M. Ed. 4:1-22,
is anonymous. It has a superscription, then consists of a string of peri
copae, all of which occur elsewhere. The second set of lists is attributed
to masters:
Comment:
Usha
I
J
J u d a h b . Ilai
Y o s i b . Halafta
six
six
S i m e o n [Ishmael]
three
Eliezer
two
(or,then
E l e athe
z a r ) shorter lists. The first three are Ushans, the
That is, the longer,
last is presumably Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who should therefore be set
off by himself; variants give Ishmael for Simeon, thus the pair would
be from Yavneh.
Il.i.l25, part A, M. Ed. 4:1, is the superscription for the whole.
Parts H-I-J, M. Ed. 4:6, have no equivalent in the Mishnah.
Part His
in standard form; the difference between the Houses is in
the negative, which here is given to the Shammaites, yielding for them
the lenient position. The issue is whether the brine has made the olives
susceptible to receive uncleanness. The Shammaites hold this particular
moisture is not regarded as liquid within that definition. The Hillelites
go over to the Shammaite opinion for the agreement. Since the man has
c
22
338
shown he does not intend to make use of the brine, it is not in the
category of a "liquid."
Part lis elliptical in form:
He who anoints pure oil and is unclean, descended and immersed
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E v e n t h o u g h he d r i p s , it is clean.
House o f Hillel:
A s m u c h as f o r a n o i n t i n g a s m a l l l i m b [ =
unclean].
These opinions do not relate to one another. One has to supply the
Hillelites with unclean to make sense of their lemma, that is, if so much
oil remains on him, the oil is unclean, but less than that is clean. The
difficulty even now is not easily resolved, for the referent of cleanjunclean could be the man, not the oil.
Part J continues the problem:
If it was unclean oil to begin with
H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : A s m u c h as f o r a n o i n t i n g a s m a l l l i m b
House o f Hillel:
Moist liquid ( M $ Q H T W P H )
Now the Shammaites have the Hillelite lemma. A common progression

as a case becomes more extreme is for the former lenient side to take up
the opposition's stringent position at the next stage. Now the Hillelites
say if there remains this quantity of oil, the oil is unclean; some com
mentaries hold the oil is clean. No one now refers to the man himself,
and presumably those who do so in the first case, part I, are in error.
The Hillelites say that if there is enough oil to moisten the hand, the oil
is unclean; and some explain (Albeck, Seder Ne%iqin, p. 300) that if the
oil is sufficient to wet the hand, it is clean, but more than that sufficiency
is unclean.
Parts K-L-M, M. Ed. 4:7, form a little collection of marriage-rulings.
Apart from the superscription of part A, we may thus discern the
following subdivisions, centered on common themes:
c
1.
2.
3.
4.
P a r t s B , C, D , F e s t i v a l l a w
Parts E, F, G , A g r i c u l t u r a l law
P a r t s H , I, J , C l e a n n e s s ( L i q u i d s )
P a r t s K , L , M , N , O , P, M a r i t a l l a w ( B e t r o t h a l ; C e s s a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e :
B i l l o f D i v o r c e , t h e n , Halisah/Levirate
Marriages; then, Imposed
D i v o r c e because o f V o w )
5 . P a r t Q , M i s c a r r i a g e (Sacrifice)
Part R, Fringes o n linen garments
Part S, Tithing
6. P a r t T , Nazirites
7 . P a r t U , Cleanness (Tents)
The first four groups of pericopae and no. 6 form substantial collections.
No. 5 seems to be the only composite without a common theme; one
might regard Part Q as an extension of the marital law, but nothing
unites parts R and S. Logically, part U should have been in juxtaposi-
339
tion with parts H, I, J , though it can as well stand by itself; the theme
in common with liquids is generalcleanness.
I see no principle to explain the order of the legal themes. What
come first are substantial collections, then follow the miscellaneous
ones. Perhaps, therefore, considerations of quantity were important,
as inM. <Ed. 5:1-5.
I LiAid: Part B has no counterpart in the Mishnah. In M. Ed. 8:1,
Joshua b. Bathyra testifies to the ruling of the Shammaites, but the
Houses do not appear.
Part C likewise is a singleton. The Shammaites rule that if the egg
has a hard shell, it is permitted, otherwise, prohibited. The Hillelites
prohibit it under all circumstances. The form of part B is standard:
Superscription, Houses, TM'/THR.
Part C has the standard superscription, but the Houses' sayings are
not balanced. The Shammaite one poses the problem. A more primitive
form would have put the conditional clause into the superscription (as
it indeed is now), but instead of and if not, prohibited, it would have had,
the House of Shammai permit, balanced by the House of Hillelprohibit. The
//*not clause is of no value, since both Houses agree on that point; at
best it could have produced an element of the agreement at the end.
Part F has no counterpart in Houses-materials. M. Kel. 26:4 has
Yosi taking the Shammaite position. But the approximate parallel is to
Tos. Kel. B. M. 11:3, above, p. 263:
c
Tos.
Mishnah
House of Shammai say, Is
The water-skin
filled a n d
ML'H
SRWRH
stands
H o u s e o f Hillel
bound
filled
W'WMDT
ML'H
WSRWRH
W'WMDT
'P 'L P Y
S'YNH
SRWRH
say,
Is
and
The parallel is not close, but the superscription is identical. See Ep

stein, Mishnah, pp. 128-9.
Yosi's list, parts G-M, follows a somewhat different form. He starts
with the Shammaite opinion, to which he appends according to the
words of the House of Shammai. Then the brief Hillelite lemma follows,
just as in the corresponding Mishnah.
Part Nis either Simeon or Ishmael. Albeck gives Ishmael; hence the
last two authorities would come from Yavnean times. But Epstein,
Mishnah, p. 1193, shows it must be Simeon. The items all pertain to the
Purities.
PartP, M. Ed. 5:3, has no counterpart in the Mishnah. M. Par. 12:4
reads, "For they have said, 'The water of the sin-offering that has served
its purpose does not convey uncleanness' "that is, the Shammaite
position here, but there it is not explicitly attributed to Shammaites.
Parts R, S, and Tare Eliezer's list, the briefest of all.
Part T, M. Ed. 5:5: The Mishnah is cited without reference to the
superscription, assigning the citation to Eliezer to begin with.
Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 434-5, assigns all of M. Ed. Ch. 4 to Meir. As
c
340
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
II.ii.123,124
to Ch. 5, the attributions are clear, and all are contrary to Meir (p. 437).
See his Mishnah, pp. 86-7,125,128 (re 5:1), 399, 964,1193.
ILii. 123. And the House of Hillel say, "We have heard only con
cerning the one who comes from the harvest."
The House of Shammai said to them, "Are not all the days of the
year [a time of] harvest? When the harvest of barley is done, the
harvest of wheat comes, when the harvest of wheat is done, the grapeharvest comes, when the grape-harvest is done, the olive-harvest
comes, so all the days of the year are harvest-time."
The House of Hillel said to them, "We find that the brothers do not
inherit on the strength of her testimony."
The House of Shammai said to them, "From the Writ of her
Ketuvah, let us learn, for it is written in it, 'When you be agreeable
and marry another, take what is written in your Ketuvah and go forth.' "
The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the words of the
House of Shammai.
Comment:
(fos. Ed. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 455, lines

19-24)
See M. Yev. 15:3, above, p. 200.
II.ii.l24.A. Twenty-four things of the lenient rulings of the House

of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
B. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not cause his son by
vow to become a Nazir."
And the House of Hillel say, "A man causes his son by vow to be
come a Nazir." [ = Tos. Naz. 3:17]
C. An egg that was born on the festival. [ = M. Bes. 1:1]
D. If a man anointed himself with clean oil and was made unclean,
he went down and immersed
The House of Shammai say, "Even though it [the oil] drips and
falls, he [it] is clean."
And the House of Hillel say, "[So long as there remains] enough to
anoint a small member, he is unclean; if there is less than that, he is
clean." [ = M. <Ed. 4:6, above, II. i. 124.1]
[E. Here follows the story of R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq and Yohanan
b. HaHoranit, cited above, Tos. Suk. 2:3, p. 155.]
[F. The law always follows according to the words of the House of
Hillel, and he who wishes to be stringent with himself to behave
according to the House of Shammai and according to the House of
Hillel, etc. As above, Tos. Suk. 2:3, p. 156.1
,^
^ i ~ ~ \
(Tos. Ed. 2:2-3)
t
341
G. The House of Hillel [sic] say, "A man does not free his wife with
an old Get, so that her Get should not be older than her son." [ = M.
Git. 8:4]
H. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "They did not dispute concerning
one who divorces his wife, and she spends the night with him in an
inn, that she does not require from him a second Get.
"Concerning if he had intercourse with her." [ = Tos. Git. 8:8]
I. He who vows his wife from [having with him] sexual relations,
(for) the House of Shammai say, "Two weeks, like the birth-period of
a female."
And the House of Hillel say, "One week, like the birth-period of a
male and like the days of her period.
"More than this, he should send her out and pay the Ketuvah"
[ = M. Ket. 5:6]
J . The basket of food set aside for the Sabbath(and) the House of
Shammai declare free of liability, and the House of Hillel declare liable.
R. Judah says, "Hillel himself would prohibit." [ = M. Ma. 4:2]
K. [There follows the set of pericopae in which R. Judah reports,
"Hillel himself would prohibit." (See I, pp. 284-285.)]
L. R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah, "The House of Shammai
and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning him who had two
groups of witnesses, that he is a Nazir according to the smaller [num
ber of days specified by] them.
"Concerning him who had two witnesses testifying concerning
him, for
"The House of Shammai say, 'Their testimony is divided, and no
Naziriteship is here.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'There are in the category of five two,
so he should be a Nazir for two.' " [ = M. Naz. 3:7, Tos. Nez. 3:1]
(Tos. <Ed.2:4)
M. R. Judah says five things of the lenient rulings of the House of
Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
"The blood of carcassesthe House of Shammai declare unclean
[sic], and the House of Hillel declare clean." [ = M. <Ed. 5:1, II.L125.B,
with the opinions reversed, for obvious reasons.]
N. R. Yosi b. R. Judah said, "Even when the House of Hillel
declared unclean, they did not declare unclean except blood which is
342
as much as a quarter [log], so that if it should congeal, there should be

in it as much as an olive's bulk.
"They agree concerning the egg of a terefah-bird that it is prohib
ited, since it grew up in a prohibition.
"Concerning the egg of a carcass, for the House of Hillel prohibit.
"And the House of Shammai say, 'If such as this are sold in the
market, it is permitted, and if not it is prohibited.' " [ = M. Ed. 5:1,
c
- ]
(To,<Ed.2:5)
O. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says one thing of the lenient rulings of the

House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
The House of Shammai say, "Two sprinklings render fit in a sinoffering and one sprinkling in all [other] sacrifices."
And the sages [sic] say, "It is all the same for a sin-offering and for
all the rest of the sacrificesone sprinkling renders fit and makes
piggul." [= M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9]
^
^
^
P. R. Simeon says three things of the lenient rulings of the House
of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
"Qohelet does not render the hands unclean," the words of the
House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "It renders the hands unclean."
[ = M. Yad. 3:5]
Q. Sin-offering water which has served its purposethe House of
Shammai declare clean, and the House of Hillel declare unclean.
[ = M. <Ed.5:3, M. Par. 12:4]
R. A woman in hard labor, how much must she have relief (T$PH)
so that [if she sees a flux] she should be a Zab? R. Eliezer says, "From
time to time" [= twenty-four hours], and the law follows his words.
R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of
Shammai say, 'Three days.'
"And the House of Hillel say, 'From time to time' [ = twenty-four
hours].' " [ = M. Nid. 4:4 without the Houses; and Tos. Nid. 5:7]
(Tos. <Ed. 2:7)
S. R. Eliezer says two things of the lenient rulings of the House of
Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel:
"The blood of one who is in childbirth who has not given birth [sic]
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
343
II.ii.124
renders unclean when moist but does not render unclean when dry,"
the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, "It renders unclean both moist and
dry."
[Compare M. 'Ed. 5:4, M. Nid. 4:3. The text here is obviously
defective, and the italicized words should be who has not immersed.]
(Tos. <Ed.2:8)
T. If of four brothers, two marry two sisters, and the two who have
married the sisters die, lo, these perform halisah and do not enter
Levirate marriage, and if they [the remaining brothers] went ahead
and married them, they must put them away.
R. Eleazar [sic] says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They may
continue the marriage/ and the House of Hillel say, 'They must put
them away.' "
R. Simeon says, "They may continue the marriage."
Abba Saul says, "The House of Hillel had a voice (QWL) (Alt.: the
lenient position, as above) in this matter." [ = M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev.
5-11
(Tos. <Ed. 2:2-9, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 457,
lines 9-32,458, lines 1-21)
J
Comment:
This composite of pericopae opens with a superscrip
tion, promising twenty-four things, but promptly ignores it. The super
scription is followed by the following items:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Nazir
Egg
Clean oil
Old Get
Vow against sex
Basket
Nazir-testimony
8. Blood of carcass
9. Sprinklings
10. Qohelet
11. Sin-offering water
12. Woman in hard labor
13. Blood of childbirth
14. Four brothers.
It seems to me that at best the superscription might read fourteen. But

more likely, the superscription is correct, a stock-phrase borrowed
from elsewhere, and, like much that follows, has simply been deposited
here as part of a disorganized collection of materials. As indicated,
nearly everything has already been seen elsewhere, generally in M. Ed.,
sometimes in other Toseftan passages. But we cannot suppose that the
"editor" has systematically assembled pertinent Tosefta materials. The
composite seems to me random and aimless.
See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim II, pp. 183-4; Epstein, Mevd*ot,
p. 435.)
c
344
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
AND
SOME
BERAITOT
VIII. TABLES
I
I.
House of Shammai
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Alone
Between t w o evenings
2.
Blessing o f s a v o r y does
not exempt food cooked
in pot
A l m o n e r s collect
food
a n d d i s t r i b u t e it t o t h o s e
w h o tithe
M . Ber. 6:5
Weasel
Trough of Jehu broken
by Shammaites
K n e a d i n g t r o u g h filled
with pots
Stream of porridge con
v e y s uncleanness
M. Kil. 8:5
4.
5.
6.
7.
II.
House of Hillel
Mekhilta
deR. Simeon
b. Y o h a i ,
p. 1 2 , lines
4-5
M. Demai 3:1
M. Miq.4:5
(M. Miq. 6:5
= Judah)
M. Maksh. 5:9
Alone
Tannaitic
L i t t l e c h i l d r e n l i a b l e t o m a k e a p p e a r a n c e (see
S i t e D e u t . 143)
I
III.
Tannaitic
Midrashim
House of Hillel and

House of Shammai
1.
Liable
steal
2.
A b o r t i o n o n eight-first
day
S t r a n d s o f si sit
3.
for intention
Tosefta
Mishnah
1.
3.
Il.ii
Il.i
to
Mekhilta
deR. Ishmael
Nez.
15:49-55
Sifra Tazri'a
3:1
Sifre Deut.
234
(Sifre N u m .
115
reverses)
Tos. Miq. 5:2
Midrashim
Mekhilta deR. Simeon

p . 2 1 8 , lines 2 8 - 9
Il.i
Mishnah
(M. K e r . 1:6
reverses)
Il.ii
Tosefta
b.
Yohai,
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND
SOME
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
Midrashim
House of Hillel and

House of Shammai
Mishnah
C l e a n table
5.
Where
Lulav
shake
M. Suk. 4:9
6.
G a t h e r g r a p e s in g r a v e area
M a t u r i t y at 2 0 / 1 8
W o m a n after childbirth
cannot touch purities
M. Oh. 18:1
7.
8.
they
M . Nid. 5:9
M . Nid. 1 0 : 6
I
IV.
House of Shammai
and House of Hillel
1.
I n s p e c t tefillin
2.
3.
Bailiff p a y s a c c o r d i n g t o
hour of removal
B u r n unclean holy things
in Temple court (com
pare M . M . S . 3:9)
4.
Baby b o r n circumcized
5.
Abortion on
day
6.
Unclean
7.
Grape-gleanings and de
fective cluster
8.
N o f e s t i v e p i l g r i m offer
ing o n holiday/Sabbath
F r u i t o f field w h i c h h a s
been prepared
S t r a n d s o f sisit
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
Mishnah
10.
Tosefta
Midrashim
Mekhilta
deR. Ishmael
Pisha
eighty-first
bloods
17:210-216
Sifra
Tos. B.M. 3 : 1 2
Vayiqra 1 3 : 1 3
M . Sheq. 8:6-5
Sifra S a v
8:6
Sifra Tazri'a
1:5
(Sifra T a z r i ' a
3:1
reverses)
Sifra Tazri'a
3:6
Sifra
Tos. Shab. 1 5 : 9
M. Ker. 1:6
M. <Ed.4:10
M . Nid. 2:6
9.
Tosefta
(M. Shab. 2 1 : 3
Tos.
Shab. 1 6 : 7
reverses)
4.
do
345
BERAITOT
Mesora 4:3
Sifra
Qedoshim
3:7
Sifra E m o r
15:5
Sifra Behar
1:5
Sifre N u m .
115
(Sifre D e u t .
2 3 4 reverses)
Midrash
Tannaim to
Deut. 2 2 : 1 2
M. <Ed.4:5b
M . M . S . 5:3
M. Pe ah7:6
J
M. Shev. 4:26
M . <Ed. 5 : 1
Tos. K e r . 1:9
346
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
1
House of Shammai
House of Hillel
11.
and
R e c i t i n g Shema*
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Sifre Deut.
34 (Midrash
Tannaim to
Deut. 6:8)
Sifre Deut.
131
AND
SOME
Il.ii
Il.i
Tosefta
Mishnah
M . Ber. 1:3
Tos. Ber. 1 : 4
M . Bes. 1 : 1
12.
Leaven
13.
W h o is c h i l d ? (See M e k h .
deR. Simeon, p. 2 1 8 )
Sifre Deut.
143
M . Hag. 1 : 1
14.
Fleece
Sifre Deut.
166
M . Hul. 1 1 : 2
15.
Grounds for divorce
M. Git. 9:10
16.
Sisit o n l i n e n c l o a k
Sifre Deut.
269
Midrash
Tannaim to
Deut. 2 2 : 1 2
17.
Day/wine
M . Ber. 8:1
M . Pes. 1 0 : 2
18.
19.
W a s h hands/mix cup
Napkin o n table/cushion
20.
21.
22.
Sweep/wash
Spices/food
Created light/creates
lights
Forget grace
O n e blesses f o r all
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
23.
24.
BERAITOT
M . <Ed. 4 : 1 0
Ber.
Ber.
Ber.
Ber.
Ber.
M. Ber. 8:7
Tos. Ber. 5:30
M . Ber. 8:8
28.
Ownerless
29.
S h e a f left n e a r w a l l
30.
31.
S h e a f t o city
Forgotten sheafthree/
four
Grapes of Fourth-year
vineyard
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Pe ah6:l
<Ed. 4 : 3
Pe ah6:2
<Ed. 4 : 4
Pe ah6:3
Pe ah6:5
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M . S . 5:3
Pe ah7:6
<Ed. 4 : 5
Demai 1:3
Demai 6:6
Kil. 2:6
27.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l
S e l l o l i v e s o n l y t o haver
Space between plots w i t h
different c r o p s
V i n e y a r d patch
H o w many vines con
s t i t u t e etc.
T o s . Pisha
10:2-3
Tos. Ber. 5 : 3 5 - 3 0
8:2
8:3
8:4
8:5a
8:5b
Wine/food
New Year-Sabbath
h o w m a n y b l e s s i n g s , etc.
Pe*ah f r o m p l o t s s o w n
with grain
25.
26.
Tos. Y . T . 1:4
Tos. Ber. 3 : 1 3
Tos. R . H . 2 : 1 7
>
M. Pe ah3:l
,
Tos. Pe>ah3:2
>
Tos. P e a h 3 : 2
M. Kil. 4:1
M. Kil. 4:5
M . <Ed. 5 : 2
Tos. Demai 1:26Tos. Ma. 3 : 1 3
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
House of Shammai
House of Hillel
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
and
Trellised vine
Weasel
C a p e r - b u s h in v i n e y a r d
S h o o t o v e r stone
Ploughing tree
planted
field b e f o r e S e v e n t h Y e a r
P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field
in Seventh Y e a r
AND
SOME
Il.i
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Mishnah
M. Shev. 1:1
M. Shev. 4:2
M . <Ed. 5 : 1
M. Shev. 4:4
45.
Cutting d o w n
Seventh Year
46.
D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in
Seventh Year
Selling p l o u g h i n g heifer
t o n o n - o b s e r v a n t in
Seventh Year
M. Shev. 5:4
S e l l i n g p r o d u c e in
Seventh Year
W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in
Seventh Year
M. Shev. 8:3
47.
48.
49.
T i t h i n g p o d s {hyssop)
51.
S e l l i n g field t o n o n - o b
s e r v a n t in S e v e n t h Y e a r
'Aqiba followed both
H o u s e s in t i t h i n g
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Sell produce for produce,

n o t coins in Seventh Year
I f H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is g i v e n
f r o m o l i v e s instead o f t h e
oil
P r o p e r measure o f Heaveoffering
Unclean Heave-offering
n e u t r a l i z e d i n clean
Heave-offering from
v a r i a n t k i n d s o f same
species
M a k e vat unclean
Crushed olives, olive oil
o r olives
Heave-offering f r o m
g r a p e s t h a t e n d u p raisins
Tithing Sabbath-fruit
O n e w h o sifts b y
liable f o r tithes
M. Shev. 4 : 1 0
M. Shev. 5:8
Tos. Shev. 1:5
50.
52.
Tosefta
Tos. K i l . 3 : 1 7
Tos. K i l . 4 : 1 1
T h i n n i n g o u t o l i v e trees
in S e v e n t h Y e a r
in
Il.ii
M. Kil. 6:1
M. K i l 8:5
44.
trees
347
BERAITOT
hand
Tos. Shev. 2:6

Tos. Ma. 1:5
Tos. Shev. 4:5
Tos. Shev. 4:21
Tos. Shev. 6 : 1 9
M. Ter. 1:4
M . <Ed. 5 : 2
(Tos. Ter. 2 : 5 ;
Tos. Ter. 3:14)
M. Ter. 4:3
M. Ter. 5:4
Tos. Ter. 6:4

Tos. Ter. 2:5
Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 2
Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 4
Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 6
M. Ma. 4:2
M . <Ed. 4 : 1 0
Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 4
Tos. Ma. 3 : 1 0
348
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
I
House of Shammai
House of Hillel
Tannaitic
Midrashim
and
Tosefta
M. M.S. 2:3
Tos. M.S. 2:1
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Tos. M.S. 2:1
Heave-offering of vetches
65.
66.
C h a n g e selas f o r denars
C h a n g e sela o f S e c o n d
Tithe m o n e y outside
Jerusalem
67.
C h a n g e sela o f S e c o n d
T i t h e m o n e y in J e r u s a l e m
Not yet fully harvested
p r o d u c e passes t h r o u g h
Jerusalem
M. M.S. 2:9
M . 'Ed. 1 : 1 0
M. M.S. 3:6
69.
Olive-presses
salem w a l l
M. M.S. 3:7
70.
Second Tithe produce un

clean i n J e r u s a l e m
71.
O p e n jars t o g i v e H e a v e offering
72.
Issar o f S e c o n d T i t h e
money
Removal of cooked food
Removal of Second Tithe
produce in this time
73.
74.
75.
76.
S e p a r a t e t i t h e o f Demai
Hallah f r o m flour paste
and dumplings
77.
Unclean mixture renders

u n c l e a n i n less t h a n a n
olive's bulk
Finishing w o r k before
Sabbath
78.
M.S. 2:4
'Ed. 1 : 8
M.S. 2:7
M.S. 2:8
'Ed. 1 : 9
M. M.S. 3:9
M . Sheq. 8:6
M. M.S. 3:13
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
M.S. 2:12
'Arak. 5 : 1 5
M.S. 2:16
Sheq. 3 : 1 6
M.S. 2:18
M. M.S. 5:6
M. M.S. 5:7
Tos. M.S. 3 : 1 3
Tos. M.S. 3 : 1 5
M . Hal. 1 : 6
M . 'Ed. 5:2
M. 'Orlah 2:4-5
Mekh. deR.
Simeon b.
Yohai,
p. 1 4 9
M. Shab. 1:4-9
Using stove on Sabbath
M. Shab. 3:1
80.
Cleaning table on
Sabbath
P h a r i s a i c Zah
not
with outsider-Z^
M. Shab. 2 1 : 3
eat
Tos. M.S. 2 : 1 1
M. M.S. 4:8
79.
81.
Il.ii
Mishnah
64.
Jeru
BERAITOT
Il.i
Heave-offering
greek
in
fenu
SOME
63.
68.
of
AND
Tos. Shab. 2 : 1 3
Tos. Pisha 7 : 2
Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 7
(reverses Houses)
Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 4
82.
Uncleanness c o n v e y e d b y
ox-goad
Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 8
83.
He w h o forgets vessels
under water-pipe on eve
o f Sabbath
Carrying on Sabbath
K i l l louse o n Sabbath
Distribute charity o n
Sabbath
Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 9
84.
85.
86.
Tos. Shab. 1 4 : 1
Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 2 1
Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 2 2
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND
House of Shammai
House of
and
Hillel
SOME
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Mishnah
Tosefta
T o render alleyway valid

W h e n g i v e r i g h t o f access
Eruv f o r f i v e g r o u p s i n
same r o o m
Partition f o r cistern
Search wine vault
W o r k in G a l i l e e o n n i g h t
before 14th of Nisan
M . <Eruv. 1 : 2
M. 'Eruv. 6:4a
M. 'Eruv. 6:6
93.
Proselyte o n day
Passover
94.
95.
Hallel o n P a s s o v e r
B u r n unclean and
meat
M . Pes. 8 : 8
M . <Ed. 5 : 2
M . Pes. 1 0 : 6
96.
Excess funds
sin-offering
97.
98.
99.
O l d Sukkah
Sukkah w i t h t i m b e r - r o o f
Sukkah t o o s m a l l t o h o l d
table
Etrog o f
Demai-produce
E g g laid o n f e s t i v a l
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
100.
101.
before
102.
Dirt to cover blood

slaughtered animal
103.
104.
M o v e l a d d e r o n festival
Prepare pigeons before
festival
T a k e off c u p b o a r d d o o r s ,
etc.
T a k e gifts t o p r i e s t o n
festival
P o u n d spices a n d salt o n
festival
Picking pulse o n festival
Send prepared portions
as f e s t i v a l gift
O n e o r t w o tavshilin
Immersion for Sabbathfestival
Lay hands on
festival
sacrifice
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
M. 'Eruv. 8:6
M . Pes. 1 : 1
M . Pes. 4 : 5
of
M a k e fire o n f e s t i v a l
Cover hot food on
festival f o r Sabbath
Put together candlestick
o n festival
Bake large loaves
on
festival
Tos. Pisha 7 : 1 4
Tos. Pisha 1 : 6
clean
f o r sheqel
349
BERAITOT
M . Sheq. 2:3
M. Suk. 1:1
M. Suk. 1:7
M . Suk. 2:7
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Suk. 3:5
Bes. 1 : 1
<Ed. 4 : 1
Bes. 1 : 2
<Ed.4:2
Bes. 1:3
Bes. 1 : 3
Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 2
Tos. Y . T . 1:8
Tos. Y . T . 1 : 8 ,
1:10
M . Bes. 1 : 5
Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 0
M . Bes. 1 : 6
Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 2 - 1 4
M . Bes. 1 : 7
Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 1
Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 5
M . Bes. 1 : 8
M . Bes. 1:9
Tos. Y . T . 1:21
M . Bes. 2 : 1
M . Bes. 2:2
Tos. Y . T . 2:4
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Tos. Hag. 2 : 1 0
Bes.
Hag.
Hag.
Bes.
Bes.
2:4
2:2
2:3
2:5
2:6
M . Bes. 2:6
M . Bes. 2 : 6
350
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

House of Hillel
AND
SOME
BERAITOT
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Mishnah
Tosefta
Tos. Y . T . 3 : 1 0
117.
Collect scattered things

in enclosure and gathered
t h i n g s i n field, etc.
118.
119.
N e w Y e a r o f trees
C o s t o f re iyyah a n d
hagigah sacrifices
S o u r c e o f f u n d s f o r festal
sacrifices
M . R.H. 1:1
Pentecost o n F r i d a y
w h e n t o s l a u g h t e r festal
sacrifices
O v e r t u r n i n g couch
of
m o u r n e r before festival
M . Hag. 2 : 4
Levirate marriage of cowives

Marriage followed
by
Levirate obligation
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Yev. 1:4
'Ed. 4 : 8
Yev. 3:1
'Ed. 5 : 5
Yev. 3:5
'Ed. 4 : 9
Yev. 4:3
Ket. 8:6
B.B. 8:8-9
Yev. 6:6
Yev. 13:1
Yev. 15:2
'Ed. 1 : 1 2
Yev. 15:3
'Ed. 1 : 1 2
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
M. flag. 1:2
Tos. Hag. 1 : 4
M . Hag. 1 : 3
Tos. Hag. 1 : 4
Tos. M . Q . 2:9
125.
Effect o f mafamar i n case

of Levirate marriage
126.
Estate o f w o m a n await
ing Levirate marriage,
etc.
127.
Abstain from
t w o children
128.
129.
Refusal-collection
W o m a n testifies i n d e a t h
o f husband
Disposition of
woman
w h o testifies re d e a t h o f
husband
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
131.
V o w against intercourse
132.
Estate o f w o m a n await
ing marriage
V o w in mistaken assump
tion
V o w to murderers-col
lection
Father and husband
annul girl's v o w s
M. Ket. 5:6
M . 'Ed. 4 : 1 0
M. Ket. 8:1
130.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
sex
Substitute language
Nazir
Nazir f r o m abroad
after
for
D i v i s i o n o f t e s t i m o n y re
Nazir
T h i n g dedicated in e r r o r
N a z i r i t e v o w in e r r o r
Tos. Y e v . 1:7-1:
Tos. Y e v . 5:1
Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 9
Tos. B.B. 1 0 : 1 3
Tos. Y e v . 6:6
Tos. Y e v . 1 3 : 1
Tos. 'Ed. 1 : 6
T o s . 'Ed. 2 : 4
M . Ned. 3 : 2
M . Ned. 3 : 4
Tos. Ned. 6 : 4
M . Naz. 2 : 1 - 2
Tos. Nez. 1 : 1
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Tos. Nez. 3 : 1
T o s . 'Ed. 2 : 1 4
Naz.
'Ed.
Naz.
'Ed.
Naz.
Naz.
3:6
4:11
3:7
4:11
5:1,2,3
5:5
Tos. Nez. 3 : 1 9
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
AND
V o w without
351
BERAITOT
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic

House of Hillel
141.
SOME
Midrashim
Mishnah
Tosefta
specifying
Tos. Nez. 2 : 1 0
term
142.
Impose v o w of Nazir
143.
144.
Sage rules v o w binding

H u s b a n d dies b e f o r e
water-ordeal
W o m a n commits adult
ery with minor son
145.
146.
Half-slave, half-free
147.
Old
148.
149.
I m p a i r e d Get
Spent night together
after d i v o r c e i s n e w
needed?
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
M. Sot. 4:2
Git.
'Ed.
Git.
'Ed.
Git.
Git.
4:5
1:13
8:4
4:7
8:8
8:9
3:17
2:2
3:19
4:7
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Git.
'Ed.
Git.
Git.
8:3
2:4
8:8
8:8
Get
H o w much money for

betrothal?
A g e n t becomes witness
R e t u r n s t o l e n b e a m o r its
cost
Intermediate people go
to Gehenna and come
back
Sin-offering requires t w o
sprinklings
M. Qid. 1:1
M . 'Ed. 4 : 7
Slaughter with handsickle

C h i c k e n a n d cheese
table
M . Hul. 1:2
Tos. Zev. 4:9

Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 6
Tos. Hul. 1:6
M . Hul. 8:1
Tos. Hul. 8:23
on
N u m b e r Israelite f o r
firstling
Sanctifies p r o p e r t y a n d
divorces wife
A d d e d fifth t o a d d i t i o n a l
payment
S i p h o n in tent
A r t i c l e s m a d e f r o m nails
W h e n d o e s t u b e (etc.) b e
c o m e insusceptible
(HBL/HBR)
Tos. Qid. 4:1

Tos. B.Q. 9:5
Tos. Sanh. 1 3 : 3
M. Z e v . 4 : l
M . 'Ed. 5:2
M. Bekh. 5:2
Tos. Bekh.
3:15-16
Tos. 'Arak. 4:5
Tos. 'Arak. 4:22
M. Kel. 9:2
M. Kel. 1 1 : 3
M. Kel. 14:2
163.
M e a s u r e chest
M. Kel. 18:1
164.
T r o u g h for mixing
mortar
W h e n does sheet become
insusceptible
M. Kel. 20:2
(M. 'Ed. 5 : 1 )
M. Kel. 20:6
165.
Nez.
'Ed.
Nez.
Sot.
Tos. Sot. 4:7

M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Get
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Tos.
Tos. Kel. B.M.

4 : 5 (tube)
Tos. K e l . B.M.
1 1 : 7 (matting)
Tos. K e l .
B.M. 8:1
Tos. K e l . B.M.
11:3
352
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA
I
House of Shammai
House of Hillel
166.
AND
SOME
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
and
Midrashim
Mishnah
Tosefta
M. Kel. 22:4
Tos. K e l . B.B.
1:12
Tos. K e l . B.B. 4:9
168.
169.
Stool
fixed
to
baking
trough
Wrappers for garments
and purple w o o l
Scroll-wrappers
Shaft of t r o w e l
M. Kel. 28:4
M. Kel. 29:9
170.
Vessels of alum-crystal
(M. K e l . 2 : 1 )
171.
Peat in cool o v e n
(M. K e l . 9:5)
172.
S h o v e l w i t h o u t blade
173.
Mustard-strainer
174.
Girdle
175.
176.
Backbone and skull

Baking o v e n in house
with arched outlet
overshadows corpse
M. Oh. 2:3
M. Oh. 5:1-4
177.
Cooking pot protects

f r o m uncleanness
M. Oh. 5:2-3
178.
Protecting entrances
r o o m with corpse
179.
180.
167.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
BERAITOT
M. Kel. 26:6
(M. K e l . 1 4 : 8 )
Tos. K e l . B.B.
7:4
Tos. K e l .
2:1
Tos. Kel.
6:18
Tos. Kel.
3:8
Tos. Kel.
4:16
Tos. Kel.
5:7-8
B.Q.
B.Q.
B.M.
B.M.
B.B.
Tos. A h . 5 : 1 1 - 1 2
M. Oh. 7:3
Tos. A h . 8:7
Split in r o o f
M a n g i v e s passage
to
uncleanness
Candle-stick protected b y
basket
M.
M.
M.
M.
Tos. A h . 1 2 : 1
D o holes join place f o r

rod
M a n in forecourt o f
tomb-vault
M. Oh. 1 3 : 4
of
G a t h e r grapes in gravearea
Examine grave-area for
Nazir
W h a t do they examine
Q u a r t e r - ^ o f bones, etc.
Bottle plugging grave
W h e n do olives receive
uncleanness
O l i v e s left t o b e salted
Bringing part of olives to
press
Putting grapes into press
Oh. 11:1
Oh. 11:3-6
<Ed.4:12
Oh. 13:1
Tos. A h . 1 4 : 4
M. Oh. 1 5 : 8
M. Oh. 1 8 : 1
Tos. A h . 1 7 : 9
M. Oh. 1 8 : 4
Tos. A h . 1 7 : 1 3
M. Oh. 1 8 : 8
(M. O h . 2 : 1 )
M . <Ed. 1 : 7
Tos. A h . 1 6 : 6
Tos. A h . 3:4
M. Toh. 9:1
M. T o h . 9 : 5
M. f oh. 9:7
M. Toh. 1 0 : 4
Tos. A h . 1 5 : 9
Tos. Toh. 1 0 : 2
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

House of Hillel
AND
SOME
Il.ii
Il.i
Tannaitic
Midrashim
Mishnah
Tosefta
193.
L e a v i n g vessels with
âm-ha'ares
194.
195.
196.
Cleaning p o o l
Vessels under waterspout
Immerse vessels in rainstream
197.
Immerse hot
c o l d , etc.
198.
T w o test-rags f o r e v e r y
act
M . Nid. 2:4
199.
200.
Colors of unclean b l o o d
B l o o d of gentile w o m a n ,
etc.
201.
Marriage o f girl
puberty
M.
M.
M.
M.
202.
W o m e n die as m e n s t r u ants
W o m a n after c h i l d b i r t h
must immerse
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
water
353
BERAITOT
Tos.
in
before
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
Miq.
Miq.
Miq.
'Ed.
Miq.
Nid.
Nid.
'Ed.
Nid.
1:5
4:1
5:6
5:2
10:6
2:6
4:3
5:1,4
10:1
8:10
Tos. Miq. 1:7, 1 0
Tos. Nid. 5:5-7

Tos. Nid. 2 : 7 - 8
Tos. Nid. 9:7-9
M . Nid. 1 0 : 4
M . Nid. 1 0 : 7
Suffered flux o n e l e v e n t h
day
Nursing mother remar
ries 1 8 / 2 4 m o s .
M . Nid. 1 0 : 8
Shakes t r e e w h a t of
water?
W a t e r l e a k s i n t o jar o f
fruit
W a t e r leaks into t r o u g h
A m b i g u o u s Zab-state
C o n n e c t i v e f o r tevul-yom
M. Maksh. 1:2-4
J e l l y as c o n n e c t i v e f o r
tevul-yom
Ecclesiastes r e n d e r s
hands unclean
Hard olives and grapes
susceptible t o unclean
ness
W h e n d o fish
become
susceptible t o u n c l e a n
ness
W h e n do
honeycombs
become
susceptible
to
uncleanness
B r o a c h p i c k l e d jars
O i l o n b o d y after i m m e r
sion
Sin-offering water that
has s e r v e d its p u r p o s e
B l o o d o f carcasses
Toh.
Tos. Nid. 9 : 1 9
Tos. Nid. 2:2
Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4
M. Maksh. 4:4
M. Maksh. 4:5
M. Zab. 1:1-2
M. T.Y. 1:1
(M. T.Y. 2:5)
Tos. Maksh. 2:6

Tos. Zab. 1 :l-8
M.
M.
M.
M.
Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 7
Yad.3:5
'Ed. 5:3
'Uqs. 3 : 6
'Ed. 5:3
T o s . T.Y.
2:3
M . 'Uqs. 3 : 8
M . 'Uqs. 3 : 1 1
M . 'Ed. 4 : 6
M . 'Ed. 4 : 6
M . 'Ed. 5:3
(M. Par. 12:4)
M . 'Ed. 5:1
Tos. 'Ed. 2:2

Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 7
Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 5

ABOUT THE PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
PART III
CONCLUSIONS

ABOUT THE PHARISEES
BEFORE 70
P A R T III
CONCLUSIONS
BY
JACOB
NEUSNER
Professor o f Religious Studies

LEIDEN
E. J . B R I L L
1971
Copyright
i^jt
by E. J. Brill, Leiden,
Netherlands

PRINTED
IN
T H E
N E T H E R L A N D S
For Brevard and Ann

...
G U 8e
Childs
. . . evexsvTpiGcpYjc,
ev
xal auyxoivcavcx; TYJC,

pi^yjc, xal TYJC, 7UI6TYJTOC,
TYJC. eXaiac. e y ^
OCUTOIC.
0 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
xm
PART ONE
THE MASTERS
xiv
Transliterations
xvi
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
INTRODUCTION
1 1
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
1
1
1
2
T o L a yo n Hands
Decrees
Moral Apophthegms
Conclusion
1
3
5
2
SIMEON THE JUST
2 4
i.
ii.
iii.
2 4
4 4
5 7
Traditions
Synopses
Conclusion
ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

i.
ii.
Antigonus of Sokho
Traditions o f Y o s i b. Yo'ezer and Y o s i b. Yohanan
iii.
iv.
Synopses
Conclusion
6 0
6 0
6 1
7 7
8 1
JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B. TABBAI

AND SIMEON B. SHETAH
8 2
i.
ii.
J o s h u a b . Perahiah a n d Nittai t h e A r b e l i t e
Traditions o f J u d a h b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah .
8 2
8 6
iii.
iv.
Synopses
Conclusion
1 2 2
1 3 7
VI.

i.
Traditions
ii.
Synopses
iii.
Conclusion
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
5
2
2
5
8
VII.
YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST, HONI THE CIRCLER, AND OTHERS

MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HILLEL . .
i.
Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest
ii.
H o n i the Circler
iii.
Others
1
1
1
1
6
6
7
8
0
0
6
2
VIII.
MENAHEM. SHAMMAI
i.
Menahem
1 8 4
1 8 4
VIII
IX.
X.
XL
XII.
TABLE
CONTENTS
ii.
iii.
Synopses
204
iv.
Conclusion
208
HILLEL
185
212
i.
ii.
Traditions
Synopses
212
280
iii.
Conclusion
294
SHAMMAI AND HILLEL
303
i.
Traditions
303
ii.
Synopses
333
iii.
Conclusion
338
GAMALIEL
341
i.
Traditions
342
ii.
Synopses
370
iii.
Conclusion
373
SIMEON B. GAMALIEL
377
i.
ii.
iii.
XIII.
OF
Traditions
Synopses
Conclusion
377
384
386
OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 7 0
389
M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h S h a m m a i
1. Dositheus of Kefar Y a t m a h
389
389
2. Baba b. Buta
3 . Y o ' e z e r >Ish H a B i r a h
389
391
4. Sadoq
5. Y o h a n a n the Hauranite
M e n t i o n e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Hillel
392
392
392
ii.
iii.
iv.
1. Bene Bathyra
392
2. Gedya
392
392
4. Shebna
5 . J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel
M e n t i o n e d in Connection w i t h Gamaliel I
1. A d m o n and Hanan
393
393
394
394
2. Hanina b. D o s a
3. Y o h a n a n the Scribe
394
396
Others
1 . H o n i t h e C i r c l e r , G r a n d s o n o f H o n i t h e C i r c l e r ( A b b a Hil
qiah)
2. Joshua b. Gamala
3. "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. H a r s o m . . . .
4 . Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests
5. N a h u m the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian
6. Zekhariah b. Q e v u t a l and Z e k h a r i a h b. HaQassav . . . .
7. Measha, N a h u m the Scribe, Simeon o f Mispah, J u d a h b.
Bathyra, *Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b.
G o r i o n , A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan, and Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a .
396
396
396
397
400
413
414
415
TABLE
OF
PART
CONTENTS
IX
TWO
THE HOUSES
X I X I
Transliterations
XIV.
XV.
INTRODUCTION
TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
XVI.
M e k h i l t a d e R. I s h m a e l
M e k h i l t a de R. S i m e o n b. Y o h a i
Sifra
Sifre
Midrash Tannaim
6
9
H
30
39
41
i.
Zera'im
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Mo'ed
Nashim
Neziqin
Qodashim
Toharot
41
vii.
C o l l e c t i o n s o f H o u s e s - D i s p u t e s in M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a
12
19
23
23
25
viii. Tables
0
0
4
9
3
324
344
PART THREE
CONCLUSIONS
Transliterations
XVII.
INTRODUCTION
XVIII. INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION: TYPES AND FORMS
i.
Legal Traditions
A. Standard Legal Form
B. Testimony-Form
. C. Debates
D. Narratives
1. Historical Information in Standard Legal
Form
2. Epistles
3. Ordinances
4. Chains and Lists
5. Precedents
xiv
xvi
1
5
5
5
14
16
23
24
25
25
27
28
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
6. Contexts
7. First-Person Accounts
8. Illustrations and Proofs
9. Histories of Laws
E. Legal Exegeses
1. Scriptural References
2. Exegeses
3. Proof-texts
4. From Exegesis to Chria
ii. Aggadic Traditions
A. Stories
1. Allusions to Stories
2. Short Biographical References
3. Biographical and Historical Stories . . .
B. Moral Sayings
1. 'T'-Sayings
2. Sayings Not in a Narrative Setting . . .
3. Apophthegms
4. "Woe"-Sayings
5. Formulaic Sayings
C. Aggadic Exegeses
1. Scriptural References
2. Exegeses
3. Proof-Texts
4. From Exegesis to Fable
iii. Summary of Forms and Types
iv. Some Comparisons
v. History of Forms
XIX.
31
33
35
38
39
39
40
42
42
43
43
43
45
47
55
56
56
59
61
61
62
62
62
63
64
64
68
89
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC

PATTERNS
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Introduction
Pericopae without Formulae or Patterns
Pericopae with Formulae or Patterns
Small Units of Tradition
1 . Fixed Opposites
a. Liable vs. Free
b. Unclean vs. Clean
c. Prohibit vs. Permit
d. Unfit ^s. Fit
101
. . . .
101
106
114
119
119
120
120
122
122
TABLE OF CONTENTS
e. Midras vs. Teme-Met

f. Inside vs. Outside; Past vs. Future; Above
vs. Below
2. Balance of Meter
3. Balance of Meter and Change of Letter . . .
v.
Syntactical and Morphological Changes Equivalent
in Function to Small Units of Tradition . . . .
1. Tense and Number
2. Distinction vs. No Distinction {And vs. Or) . .
3. Reversal of Word-Order
4. Statements of Law +/Negative
5. Negative Statement + Permit
6. *P in Second Lemma .
vi. Differences in Word-Choice
vii. Number-Sequences
viii. Houses-Disputes Not in Precise Balance . . . .
ix. Summary of Small Units of Tradition and Other
Mnemonic Patterns
x.
Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem. . . .
xi. Oral Traditions
XX.
VERIFICATIONS
i.
ii.
iii.
123
123
124
125
126
126
126
128
129
132
134
134
136
138
140
143
163
180
Introduction
Pericopae without Verifications before ca. 2 0 0 A.D.
(Mishnah-Tosefta)
Verifications of Yavneh
1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
2. Joshua b. Hananiah
3. Eliezer + Joshua
4. Eliezer + <Aqiba
5. Abba Saul
6. Gamaliel II
7. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq
8. Eleazar b. <Azariah
9. Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Joshua
1 0 . Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael
1 1 . Tarfon
12. Tarfon + Aqiba
1 3 . 'Aqiba
1 4 . Aqiban Exegeses in Houses-Disputes. . . .
c
XI
180
185
199
199
200
201
201
202
202
203
203
204
204
204
204
205
207
TABLE OF
XII
CONTENTS
15. Yohanan b. Nuri

16. Jonathan b. Bathyra
17. Abba Yosi b. Hanan
18. Ilai
19. Dosa b. Harkinas
20. Ishmael
iv. Verifications of Usha
1. Usha in General
2. Judah b. Baba
3. Judah b. Bathyra
4. Eliezer b. Shammu'a
5. Eliezer b. Jacob
6. Dosetai b. R. Yannai
7. Yosi b. Halafta
8. Yosi b. Halafta and Judah b. Ilai
9. Yosi b. Halafta and Meir
10. Yosi b. Halafta and Simeon b. Yohai . . . .
11. Simeon b. Yohai
12. Meir
13. Meir and Judah b. Ilai
14. Judah b. Ilai
16. Nathan
v. Verifications of the Circle of Judah the Patriarch.
1. The Circle of Judah the Patriarch in General.
2. Simeon b. Eleazar
3. Others
vi. The Pre-70 Pharisees at Yavneh
vii. The Pre-70 Pharisees at Usha
viii. Conclusion
XXI.
i.
ii.

The Rabbinic History of Pharisaism: The Early
Masters
iii. The Matter of Hillel
iv. Gamaliel and Simeon. Yohanan b. Zakkai . . .
v. The Yavnean Stratum
vi. The Ushan Stratum
vii. The Laws
208
208
208
208
208
208
209
209
210
210
211
211
211
211
213
213
213
214
215
215
217
218
219
220
220
220
222
223
231
234
239
239
248
255
272
281
282
286
TABLE
XXII.
OF CONTENTS
XIII
SUMMARY : THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHAR

ISEES BEFORE 7 0
301
320
INDICES
I.
II.
BIBLE
369
APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, QUMRANIAN WRITINGS
372
III.
JOSEPHUS
372
IV.
MISHNAH
372
TOSEFTA
380
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
MEKHILTA, SIFRA, SIFRE, MIDRASH TANNAIM
. . . .
384
PALESTINIAN TALMUD
385
BABYLONIAN TALMUD
389
MIDRASHIM AND OTHER COMPILATIONS
394
GENERAL INDEX
395
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Ah.
'Arakh.
ARN
A.Z.
b.
= Ahilot
= 'Arakhin
= A v o t deRabbi Natan
= 'Avodah Zarah
= Bavli, Babylonian Talmud
b.
= ben
B.B.
= B a v a Batra
B.M.
= Bava M e s i V
B.Q.
= Bava Qamma
Ber.
= Berakhot
Bes.
= Besah
Bik.
= Bikkurim
Chron. = Chronicles
Dan.
= Daniel
Dem.
= Demai
Development = J . N e u s n e r , Development
of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions
Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai ( L e i
den, 1 9 7 0 )
Deut.
= Deuteronomy
<Ed.
= 'Eduyyot
E p s t e i n , Mevo ot
=
J . N.
Epstein,
Mevo ot leSifrut HaTanna im
(J
~
salem, 1 9 5 7 )
E p s t e i n , Mishnah = J . N . E p s t e i n , Mavo
le Nusah HaMishnah
(Jerusalem,
1964 )
'Eruv. = 'Eruvin
Ex.
= Exodus
Ez,
= Ezekiel
F i n k e l s t e i n , Mavo = Mavo le Massekhet
Avot
veAvot
deR.
Natan
(N.Y.
1950)
Gen.
= Genesis
Git.
= Gittin
Hag.
= Hagigah
Hal.
= Plallah
=
David
Weiss
uMesorot
(Tel
Aviv, 1968)
Hor.
= Horayot
Hos.
= Hosea
H U C A = Hebrew Union College Annual
Hul.
= Hullin
Is.
= Isaiah
JBL
= Journal of Biblical
Literature
JE
= Jewish Encyclopedia
Jer.
= Jeremiah
y
e f u
Josh.
= Joshua
JQR
= Jewish Quarterly
Review
Jud.
= Judges
Kel.
= Kelim
Ker.
= Keritot
Kil.
= Kila'im
Lev.
= Leviticus
M.
= Mishnah
M G W J = Monatschrift fur die Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Judenthums
M.Q.
= Mo'ed Qatan
M.S.
= Ma aser Sheni
M.T.
= Midrash T a n n a i m
MT
= Massoretic Text
Ma.
= Ma'aserot
Mak.
= Makkot
Maksh. = Makshirin
Mai.
= Malachi
Meg.
= Megillah
M e g . Ta. = Megillat Ta'anit
Mekh. = Mekhilta
Men.
= Menahot
Mid.
= Middot
Miq.
= Miqva'ot
Naz.
= Nazir
Ned.
= Nedarim
Neg.
= Nega im
Nez.
= Nezirot
Nid.
= Niddah
Num.
= Numbers
Oh.
= Ohalot
Orl.
= Orlah
Par.
= Parah
Pes.
= Pesahim
Prov.
= Proverbs
Ps.
= Psalms
Qid.
= Qiddushin
Qoh.
= Qohelet
R.
= Rabbah
R.
= Rabbi
REJ
= Revue des etudes juives
R.H.
= Rosh Hashanah
Sam.
= Samuel
Sanh.
= Sanhedrin
Shab.
= Shabbat
Shav.
= Shavu*ot
Sheq.
= Sheqalim
Shev.
= Shevi'it
c
LIST OF
Song
Song of Songs
Sot.
Sotah
Suk.
Ta.
=
=
Sukkah
Ta'anit
Tem.
Ter.
Toh.
Tos.
=
=
=
=
Temurah
Terumot
Toharot
Tosefta
T.Y.
'Uqs.
=
=
Tevul Y o m
'Uqsin
ABBREVIATIONS
y.
XV
Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian
Talmud
Y.T.
Yom Tov
Yad.
Yev.
=
=
Yadaim
Yevamot
Zab.
Zech.
=
=
Zabim
Zechariah
Zer.
Zera im
Zev.
Zevahim
TRANSLITERATIONS
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
INTRODUCTION
Having examined the individual pericopae from formal, literary,
historical, and redactional-critical perspectives, as seemed appropriate,
I shall now try to characterize the literary and historical traits of the
tradition as a whole. Two literary and two historical studies follow.
The literary studies concentrate on the intermediate, then the small
units of tradition. The intermediate units comprise forms used for var
ious types of materials. After establishing what those forms and types
of pericopae are, I next compare the types and forms of rabbinic tradi
tions about the Pharisees with those of other groups in ancient
Judaism. From the definition of forms, I proceed to analyze the
small units of tradition of which those forms are constructed. This
leads us directly to the question of the oral formulation and transmis
sion of traditions, the heuristic value of mnemonic patterns, and the
place of Oral Torah, meaning orally formulated and orally transmitted
teachings, in the rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisaism.
I have not examined the large units of tradition, that is, those long
pericopae made up of separate and distinct materials about several pre70 Pharisaic masters all together. None of those large units can have
been put together before 70. We have already paid sufficient attention
to the context and thematic setting in which individual pre-70 Pharisaic
pericopae appear. The development of composite pericopae, joining
together already existing materials, is a problem of the study of the
final stages of redaction of the several compilations and does not
materially affect the analysis of the data before us.
The literary and mnemonic studies lead to the question, At what
stages in the formation of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees
are we able to verify the existence of completed, or nearly completed,
pericopae? The study of verifications establishes the likelihood that
important forms come early in the formation of the tradition and
shows us what part of the traditionthe part on which named
Tannaim commentlooked like at various stages in its growth. It
moreover strongly suggests that the rabbinic tradents were extremely
1
P e r h a p s attestations w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b e t t e r w o r d .
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, III
INTRODUCTION
meticulous in using Houses-forms primarily for materials they believ

ed to derive from the Houses-tradition, and not promiscuously,
merely because they required a convenient mnemonic. The verifica
tions also point toward a distinction between generalized, or thematic,
traditions, on the one hand, and the actual formulation and wording
of pericopae, on the other. The former may go back to pre-70 times.
I imagine it sometimes does. But the latter seldom does.
The penultimate chapter builds upon the results earlier obtained
to deal with substantive problems in the history of the rabbinic tradi
tions about the Pharisees.
Finally, the appendix contains discussions of other studies of the
Pharisees. Since our purpose has been not to describe the historical
Pharisees, but only to examine one corpus of traditions concerning
them, I concentrate on materials in which those traditions themselves
are discussed.
It now is necessary to specify the presuppositions of what follows.
First, I assume that the dates of the final redaction of the Tannaitic
collections fall in the early to middle third century, and that, thereafter,
interpolations and glosses were not commonly made in those collec
tions.
Second, I suppose that no reporter was present to take down
verbatim what was said and done at the various incidents recorded in
the rabbinic traditions, but that all we have are traditions about such
events, given both form and substance on some other, later occasion
than that of which they speak.
Third, consequently I have not taken for granted the historical
reliability of the sacred texts. In this respect I come approximately
a century and a half after the establishment of a similarly skeptical
position in respect to both New Testament and Tanakh. With rabbinic
materials, aside from some reservations about the obvious miracles,
one rarely discerns among earlier students the internal necessity to
understand the historical background of texts in a manner other than
that narrated in the texts themselves. When they have done so, it is
for exegetical, not historical purposes. In recent times various stu
dents of rabbinic literature in different ways have made manifest the
urgency of coming to terms with the hidden historical agenda and
the complex literary situation of rabbinic literature, neither of which
permits reading the texts as completely reliable historical witnesses.
But among those students I cannot think of a single historian before
this time who has systematically followed to their logical conclusion
INTRODUCTION
the results of the historical-critical, literary, and exegetical inquiries

of the past century of scientific study of Talmudic literature, all the
more so of biblical and cognate collections.
Fourth, as a working hypothesis, I take seriously the attributions
of sayings to post-70 masters, and, moreover, regard post-140 attribu
tions as absolutely reliable. Therefore if'Aqiba is said to say something,
I assume he actually did say so. While this is an unexamined assumption,
it will have to serve for the moment. Otherwise we should have
continually to say, "the circle of Aqiba attributed to Aqiba the follow
ing," and similarly properly qualified, but cumbersome, circumlocu
tions. For our study, the primary temporal categories are 70-120,
Yavneh; 140-165, Usha; and 165-200, Bet She'arim (the circle of
Judah the Patriarch). I have made slight effort to distinguish parties
and tendencies within those circles of masters. These are all conve
nience-dates, nothing more. Later work on the traditions of those
several periods and the circles and schools that flourished in them
will inevitably produce refinements in the analysis of the rabbinic
traditions about the Pharisees.
Fifth, I postulate that we deal with a 'collective literature/ which,
while perhaps in many elements beginning with a single author, was
publicly transmitted, and rapidly made the property of the community
of the schools. Whatever the role of individuals, it was rapidly oblite
rated and therefore does not matter. This seems to me important, for
it must mean that the literary requirements of the materials before us
are different from those of poetry or narrative such as are attributed
to individual Jewish writers of antiquity. The impact on style is clear:
nothing could be idiosyncratic, in the end relying upon the taste,
judgment, or sensibility of a single man. Everything had to be accept
able to the wider circle of authorities. This must mean that conven
tionality takes precedence over style, formulaic routine over unusual
expression, the public consensus over the private insight.
And this leads us directly to the form-criticism and form-history,
the usefulness of which is the sixth and predominant supposition of
our study.
I do suppose that form-critical, form-historical, and redactionalcritical studies in New Testament materials suggest fruitful ways of
analyzing rabbinic materials. But the reader must not think that I have
taken over without modification or criticism the methods and presup
positions developed in the study of that separate, and quite different,
body of materials. While I have tried to learn from New Testament
c
INTRODUCTION
form-criticism, I do not claim to have mastered and applied NT

form-critical method to Talmudic materials. I do not know whether
New Testament form-critics will regard what is done here as real
form-criticism, or some other kind of criticism, or no criticism at
all. That does not seem to me an interesting question. I have asked
about literary, formal, redactional, and historical matters. By and large
it was from New Testament form-critics that I learned about the
importance of such inquiries. More than this I do not allege. Others
are bound to improve upon what I have done. Scholars of halakhah
certainly will correct, clarify, and deepen the interpretation of legal
materials, and literary critics inevitably will see much more in the
materials than have I. Better texts certainly will yield more accurate
literary studies. Philologists must improve upon the interpretation of
many passages, which, after all, relies upon inadequate dictionaries.
My sole merit, if I have any merit at all, is to have begun the histo
rical-critical work.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION:

TYPES AND FORMS
The types or genres (Gattungen) of traditional materials and the
forms in which they are handed on are here described and catalogued.
At the end we shall compare types and forms of rabbinic pericopae
concerning pre-70 Pharisees with those of other sects in ancient
Judaism.
i. LEGAL TRADITIONS
A legal, or halakhic, tradition is a saying or story about the way

something is to be done, a statement intended to have practical effect
and carry normative authority, or an inquiry into the logic or legal
principle behind such a rule.
Legal traditions come in five sorts of pericopae: A. Standard, or
conventional form, so-called because it predominates in MishnahTosefta and in the fora/V^-literature before us; B. Testimonies; C.
Debates; D. Narratives of legal interest, of various sorts, which are
not comparable to the foregoing in following disciplined forms; and
E. Exegesis of legal Scriptures (midrashe halakhah). Legal traditions
are further put together into lists, collections, composites (II, pp.
324-343), and other larger units, and are composed of formulae,
stock-phrases, and other smaller units (Chapter Nineteen). Before us
are the intermediate units of tradition, between brief key-words,
formulae, and cliches, on the one hand, and substantial conglomerates
of materials, on the other.
A. Standard Legal Form
The purpose is to convey the opinion of a master on a legal issue.
The simplest component is
}
Authority X + says ( WMR) + opinion, in direct discourse.

The important characteristic is the consistent use of present-tense
verbs. This readily produces the simple dispute-form:
INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF
TRADITION
Authority X + says (present tense) + opinion, in direct discourse

Authority Y + says + opinion, in direct discourse.
Thus the dispute is built out of two legal lemmas, often combined
with a protasis in present-tense. The dispute-form yields three varia
tions. First, a common alternative is to drop the introductory super
scription and to insert the "if-clause"the statement of the issue of law
or caseinto the lemma of the first named authority; the lemma of
the second will then depend upon the diction and content of the first,
thus:
Authority X says + statement of law or problem -f- ruling
Authority Y says + ruling (often apocopated).
A second variation is the exclusion of a second authority, leaving the
first in dispute with the anonymous statement of law:
Statement of law or legal problem
Authority X +
+ opinion (often: even, also [*P]).
s a v s
Third, the second named authority will be given a generalized opinion

on the specific antecedent ruling in place of says, e.g., House of Sham
mai say... And House of Hillel permit. Here the antecedent lemma
is taken for granted, as in the foregoing, but the second lemma (per
mit) subsumes the anticipated specific opinion (listed separately below,
pp. 132-134).
The limitation of this study necessarily excludes from consideration
here another, still more common, legal form: the anonymous state
ment of a law, without intervention of named authorities and beyond
dispute. Because we have restricted our sample to pericopae naming
either masters or the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, materials contain
ing laws without assignment to specific authorities (anonymous legal
logia) naturally are omitted. Whether or not such laws in their present
form were redacted before 70 is not at issue.
We shall catalogue in a single list all four varieties of conventional
legal sayings, since all are composed of simple declarative sentences
WMR + direct discourseand thus exhibit a single common charac
teristic. The following pericopae are in standard legal form or one
of the specified variations (only the first appearance of a pericope is
cited):
1. Joshua b. Perahiah sayswheat from Alexandria Tos. Maksh.

3:4
(The sages saidcommentary on ruling: if so)
LEGAL TRADITIONS
c
2. Shammai/Hillel + saystime vs. examinations M. Ed. 1:1

(And the sages say, Not according to either)
3. Shammai/Hillel + saysqab for hallahM.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Ed. 1:3

Hillel/Shammai saysimmersion-poolM. Ed. 1:3
Shammai/Hillel + saysvintage grapes for vat b. Shab. 15a
Hananiah Prefect of the Priests saysleprosy-signsSifra Tazri'a
' Neg. 2:6 = M. Neg. 1:4
Hananiah sayssurplus of fruitM. Sheq. 4:4 (Ishmael, Aqiba)
Hananiah says omer in Sabbath/weekday M. Men. 10:1
Hananiah saysUncleanness of Terumah Tos. Ter. 9:10
c
For the Houses-sayings, we shall add a still further variation on the

standard form: the utilization of intensive, transitive verbs (Pi'el,
Hiph'il), present tense, e.g. declare liable, declare clean, etc. (above, II,
pp. 1-2). These verbs may be regarded as in indirect discourse, e.g.:
House of Shammai say, Unclean (TM>); declare unclean (MTM'YN)
House of Hillel say, Clean (THR); declare clean (MTHRYN).
We shall also include pericopae in which the Houses' rulings are in
the form ...the words of the House of... (and) The House of ...say. The
words-of form generally substitutes for House of... say... on account of
redactional considerations, and therefore falls within the present in
quiry.
10. Baby born circumcizedSabbath/convertSifra Tazri'a 1:5, Tos.
Shab. 15(16):9
11. Tassels of ///// Sifre Num. 115, b. Men. 40a-b
12. Linen-cloak with woolen fringesMid. Tan. to Deut. 22:12,
Hoffmann pp. 138-9
13. Lie down to read Shema'M. Ber. 1:3
14. Benediction over savoryM. Ber. 6:5 [House of Shammai]
15. Day/wineM. Ber 8:1 [others in Tos. Ber 5 (6):25-30; M. Pes.
10:2]
16. Hands/cupM. Ber. 8:2
17. Napkin on table/cushionM. Ber. 8:3
18. Sweep/washM. Ber. 8:4
19. Order of HavdalahM.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Ber. 8:5
Forgot GraceM. Ber. 8:7

Food/wineM. Ber. 8:8
Festival/Sabbath of New YearTos. Ber. 3:13
One blesses for all/each for selfb. Ber. 53a
Leave tefillin outside privyb. Ber. 23a
Oil/myrtleb. Ber. 43b
Pe*ah from grain amid olive treesM. Pe'ah 3:1
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
TRADITION
Ownerless to poorM. Pe'ah 6:1

Forgotten sheaf by wallM. Pe'ah 6:2
Two sheaves togetherM. Pe'ah 6:5
Grapes of fourth-year vineyardM. Pe'ah 7:6
Sweet oilM. Dem. 1:3
Almoners (House of Shammai vs. sages)M. Dem. 3:1
Sell olives to haverM. Dem. 6:6 (Tos. Ma. 3:13)
34. Excess of 'omerTos. Dem. 1:28
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Laws of Demai and Hallahy. Dem. 5:1

Lay out fields in plots with different seedsM. Kil. 2:6
Vineyard patchM. Kil. 4:1
Row of five vinesM. Kil. 4:5
Measure from roots vs. from wallM. Kil. 6:1
Uncleanness of weaselM. Kil. 8:5 [House of Shammai]
Caperbush in vineyardTos. Kil. 3:17
Dirt over shoot over stoneTos. Kil. 4:11
Until when do they plough tree-planted fieldM. Shev. 1:1
Field that has been prepared: eat produce in Seventh YearM.
Shev. 4:2
Eat seventh-year produce by favorM. Shev. 4:2
Thin out olive trees in Seventh YearM. Shev. 4:4
When forbidden to cut down tree in Seventh YearM. Shev. 4:10
Dig up arum in Seventh YearM. Shev. 5:4
Sell ploughing heifer to non-observant person in Seventh Year
M. Shev. 5:8 {Field: Tos. Shev. 4:5b)
Sell Seventh-Year produce in bundlesM. Shev. 8:3
Water plants in New YearTos. Shev. 1:5
Pod in Seventh YearTos. Shev. 2:6
Sell produce of Seventh Year for coinsTos. Shev. 6:19
If Heave-offering is given from olives for oil M. Ter. 1:4 [Tos.
Ter. 3:14, Tos. Ter. 3:16]
Proper measure of Heave-offeringM. Ter. 4:3
Unclean Heave-offering nullified in large quantity of cleanM.
Ter. 5:4 [Tos. Ter. 6:4]
Heave-offering from two kinds of wheat, figsTos. Ter. 2:5
When make vat uncleanTos. Ter. 3:12
Cask of unclean Heave-offeringb. Pes. 20b = b. B.Q. 115b116a
Burn Heave-offering which may be uncleany. Pes. 3:6
Basket of fruit for SabbathM. Ma. 4:2
Purity of Second Tithe of fenugreekM. M.S. 2:3
Purity of Second-Tithe and Heave-offering of vetchesM. M.S.
2:4 [+ Shammai, Aqiba]
Change selas for denarsM. M.S. 2:7
Change seta's worth of Second Tithe money outside of Jerusalem
M. M.S. 2:8
Change Seta's worth of Second Tithe money in JerusalemM.
M.S. 2:9 [ + Tarfon, Shammai]
c
64.
65.
66.
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
67. Produce not fully harvested passed through JerusalemM. M.S.

3:2
68. Tree inside Jerusalem with boughs outsideM. M.S. 3:7
69. Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem and made uncleanM. M.S.
3:9
70. Give Heave-offering from bottles of wineM. M.S. 3:13
71. Issar ot Second Tithe redemption moneyM. M.S. 4:8
72. Removing cooked foodM. M.S. 5:6
73. Removing produce after DestructionM. M.S. 5:7
74. Hallah from flour-pasteM. Hal. 1:6
75. Neutralize produce that conveys marked flavor M. Orl. 2:4-5
[House of Shammai]
76. Cannot start work before Sabbath that will continue on Sabbath:
soakingM. Shab. 1:5 [ + House of Hillel permit]
77. Steaming, dying, huntingM. Shab. 1:6
78. Sell to gentileM. Shab. 1:7
79. Give work to gentileM. Shab. 1:8
80. Hot water and cooked food on stoveM. Shab. 3:1 [Additional
materials: Tos. Shab. 2 (3): 13]
81. Clean table on SabbathM. Shab. 21:3
82. Male should not eat with female ZabTos. Shab. 1:14 [ + House
of Hillel permit]
83. Carry in case of needTos. Shab. 14 (15): 1
84. KH1 louse on SabbathTos. Shab. 16 fl7):21
85. Hanukkah lightsb. Shab. 21b.
86. Render alley-entry validM. Eruv. 1:2
87. *Eruv for road through public domainb. Eruv. 6a
88. When do they give right of access?M. Eruv. 6:4a
89. Five companies: 'eruv for each?M. Eruv. 6:6
90. Eruv for cisternM. 'Eriiv. 8:6
91. 'Eruv for each kind of foodb. Bes. 17b
92. *Eruv for Nazirite with wineb. Eruv. 30a-b
93. Where search in wine-vaultM. Pes. 1:1
94. Work on night of 13th of Nisan [ + forbid/permit]M. Pes.
4:5
95. Proselyte on day before PassoverM. Pes. 8:8
96. How far recite HallelÂ. Pes. 10:6
97. Burn unclean with clean meatTos. Pisha 1:6 [House of Hillel
permit]
98. Return limbs of PesahTos. Pisha 7:2
99. Surplus of sheqel-coinsM. Sheq. 2:3 [Variations]
100. Burn flesh of Most Holy Things inside/outside M. Sheq. 8:6
[M. M.S.3:9]
101. How much to drink to become culpable on Day of Atonement
b. Yoma 80a
102. Old SukkahM. Suk. 1:1
103. Prepare Sukkah-covering from timber roofing with no plaster
M. Suk. 1:7
c
TRADITION
104. Head and greater part of body within SukkahM. Suk. 2:7
[Declare invalid/valid]
105. Citron of DemaiM. Suk 3:5 [Declare valid/invalid]
106. Where do they shake the lulavM. Suk 3:9
107. Egg laid on festivalM. Bes. 1:1
108. Olive's bulk of leaven and date's bulk of what is leavenedM.
Bes. 1:1
109. Dig with mattockM. Bes. 1:2
110. Move ladder from dovecotM. Bes. 1:3
111. Stir pigeons day beforeM. Bes. 1:3
112. Take off cupboard doorsM. Bes. 1:5
113. Lift up pestleM. Bes. 1:5
114. Put hide before treading placeM. Bes. 1:5
115. Carry out child, lulav, scroll of TorahM. Bes. 1:5
116. Take dough-offering to priestM. Bes. 1:6
117. Pound spices on festivalM. Bes. 1:7
118. How to pick pulse on festivalM. Bes. 1:8
119. Send prepared portions on festivalM. Bes. 1:9
120. One dish vs. two dishesM. Bes. 2:1
121. Festival after Sabbath, what to washM. Bes. 2:2
122. Bring peace-offerings and not lay on hands, not bring whole
offeringsM. Bes. 2:4
123. Heat water for feetM. Bes. 2:5
124. Cover up blood with dust and ashesb. Hul. 88b
125. Bake thick bread on Passoverb. Bes. 22b
126. Gather wood on festivalTos. Y.T. 3:10
127. New Year for Fruit-treesM. R.H. 1:1
128. Resume mourning after festivalTos. M.Q. 2:9
129. Child as pilgrimM. Hag. 1:1
130. Value of festival and reîyjah offeringsM. Hag. 1:2
131. Use Second Tithe money for PassoverM. Hag. 1:3
132. Pentecost on eve of SabbathM. Hag. 2:4
133. Laying on of hands not in the ordinary mannery. Hag. 2:3
( = No. 122)
134. Levirate marriage of co-wives and brothersM. Yev. 1:4
135. Levirate marriage of surviving brothersM. Yev. 3:1
136. Levirate marriage of surviving brotherM. Yev. 3:5 [Ma amar]
137. Woman awaiting Levirate marriage: inheritance, estateM. Yev.
4:3; M. Ket. 8:6; M. B.B. 8:8-9
138. Abstain from sexual relationsM. Yev. 6:6
139. Exercising right of refusalM. Yev. 13:1
140. Woman remarries on own testimony of death of husbandM.
Yev. 15:3
141. Cohabit with wife's sisterb. Yev. 95a
142. Vow to abstain from sexual relationsM. Ket. 5:6
143. Vow not to suckle childb. Ket. 59b
144. Nursing mother whose husband diedb. Ket. 60a-b
y
LEGAL
11
TRADITIONS
145. Inheritance and disposition of property of betrothed woman

M. Ket. 8:1
146. Inheriting minor-wifeb. Yev. 89b
147. How dance before the brideb. Ket. 17a
148. Oprban said in errorM. Ned. 3:2
149. Vows under duressM. Ned. 3:4
150. Absolution from oathb. Ned. 28a
151. Abstainer from dried figs andfig-cakeM.Naz. 2:1
152. Nazir: cow, doorM. Naz. 2:2
153. Nazirite-vow for longer spellM. Naz. 3:6
154. Thing dedicated in errorM. Naz. 5:1
155. Nazirite-vow in errorM. Naz. 5:5
156. Substitutes for substitutes of oathTos. Nez. 1:1
157. Testimony from echoTos. Nez. 1:1
158. Nazir without specifying termTos. Nez. 2:10
159. Divided testimonyM. Naz. 3:7
160. Bald Naziriteb. Naz. 46 b
161. Impose Naziriteship by vowTos. Nez. 3:17
162. Inquired of sage and the vow was binding Tos. Nez. 3:19
163. If husbands died before wives drank bitter waterM. Sot. 4:2
164. Woman who has sexual relations with minor son, re priesthood
Tos. Sot. 4:7
165. How many letters blotted out of scrolly. Sot. 3:3
166. Old Get.M. Git. 8:4
167. Wrote Get and changed mindM. Git. 8:8
168. Divorced his wife and spent night with herM. Git. 8:9
169. Grounds for divorceM. Git. 9:10
170. Get without witnessesTos. Git. 8:8
171. How much money for marriageM. Qid. 1:1
172. Witnesses and agent for betrothalTos. Qid. 4:1
173. Return stolen beamTos. B.Q. 9:5
174. Malfeasance of bailiff: rate of compensationM. B.M. 3:12
175. Two sprinklings for sin-offeringM. Zev. 4:1
176. Slaughter with reaping-sickleM. Hul. 1:2
177. Chicken and cheeseM. Hul. 8:1
178. Rinse mouth between cheese and meatb. Hul. 104b
179. How many sheep liable for fleece-giftM. Hul. 11:2
180. Number Israelite with priest for firstlingM. Bekh. 5:2
181. Meat of firstling to menstrual womanTos. Bekh. 3:16
182. Period before accepting haverb. Bekh. 30b
183. Vow of marheshetb. Men. 63a
184. Sanctify property and divorce wifeTos. 'Arakh. 4:5
185. Added Fifth to additional paymentTos. Arakh. 4:22
186. Harlot's hire of wheat turned into flour for altarb. Tern. 30b
187. Miscarriage on night of eighty-first: liability for offeringM. Ker.
1:6
188. Jar and liquids with tightly-stopped cover in TentM. Kel. 9:2
189. Articles made from common nailsM. Kel. 11:3
c
TRADITION
190. When does staff with tube on the end become insusceptible to
uncleannessM. Kel. 14:2
191. Measuring chest for uncleannessM. Kel. 18:1
192. Trough for mixing mortarM. Kel. 20:2
193. When does sheet cease to be susceptibleM. Kel. 20:6
194. Bride's stool that lost its seat-boardsM. Kel. 22:4 [+ Shammai]
195. Stool fixed to baking troughM. Kel. 22:4 [+ Shammai]
196. Leather-bag or wrapper for purple woolM. Kel. 26:6
197. Scroll-covers with figuresM. Kel. 28:4
198. Length of shaft of householder's trowel to serve as connective
for uncleannessM. Kel. 29:8
199. Stool fixed to baking troughM. Kel. 22:4
200. Peat in ovenTos. Kel. B.Q. 2:1
201. Shovel that lost its bladeTos. Kel. B.M. 3:8
202. When does tube become cleanTos. Kel. B.M. 4:5
203. Mustard strainer with two holes in bottomTos. Kel. B.M. 4:16
204. Bag/bagpipersTos. Kel. B.M. 11:3 (M. Kel. 20:2)
205. Girdle from one side of garment and one side of sheetTos. KeL
B.B. 5:7
206. Lack in backbone so as not to convey uncleanness by overshadow
ingM. Oh. 2:3
207. Lack in skullM. Oh. 2:3
208. Baking oven in house with arched outlet overshadowed by
corpseM. Oh. 5:1-4 [+ < Aqiba]
209. Window affords protection for other entrances in house wherein
a corpse is lyingM. Oh. 7:3
210. Split in roof of house [various examples]M. Oh. 11:1, 3-6
211. Candlestick in cistern, covered by basketM. Oh. 11:8
212. Lighthole covered with grating: holes add together to make up
hole made by drillM. Oh. 13:1
213. Place for rod or staveM. Oh. 13:4
214. Measure of space of forecourt of tomb-vaultM. Oh. 15:8
215. How do they gather grapes in grave-area?M. Oh. 18:1
216. Do they examine field for Nazirite?M. Oh. 18:4
217. What do they examine?M. Oh. 18:8
218. Quarter-^ of bones from greater part of body, etc.Tos. Ah.
3:4 (M. <Ed. 1:7)
219. Tightly-stoppered bottle as plug for graveTos. Ah. 15:9
220. Lid of kettle joined to chain as connectiveM. Par. 12:10
221. Removing jar from oven for use with Heave-offeringTos. Par.
5:1
222. From what time do olives receive uncleanness?M. Toh. 9:1
223. Olives left in basket to grow soft so they may be saltedM.
Toh. 9:5
224. Set apart enough olives for a pressingM. Toh. 9:7
225. Putting grapes into the winepress from what was stored in baskets
M. Toh. 10:4
226. Leaving vessels with âm ha*aresTos. Toh. 8:9b-10
LEGAL
13
TRADITIONS
227. When is pool made unclean by a man rendered clean after a rain
stormM. Miq. 1:5
228. Vessels under water-spoutM. Miq. 4:1
229. Immerse vessels in rain-streamM. Miq. 5:6
230. Immerse hot water in cold and vice versaM. Miq. 10:6
231. Women need test-rags for each act of intercourse vs. through the
nightM. Nid. 2:4
232. Five kinds of blood unclean in a womanM. Nid. 2:6
233. Blood of gentile woman and of purifying woman that is leper
M. Nid. 4:3
234. Signs of maturity by eighteen/twentyM. Nid. 5:9
235. Sexual relations of minor married before pubertyM. Nid. 10:1
236. Women die as menstruantsM. Nid. 10:4
237. Uncleanness of woman in blood of her purifyingM. Nid. 10:6
238. Immersion at end of days of her purifyingM. Nid. 10:7
239. Suffered flux on eleventh dayM. Nid. 10:8
240. How long should woman who has difficulty in giving birth be
relieved from pain so as to be in the status of a ZabTos. Nid.
5:7
241. If man shook tree to bring down drops of rainM. Maksh. 1:2
242. If he shook tree and drops fell on another treeM. Maksh. 1:3
243. If he shook herbs and drops from fell top to bottom M. Maksh.
1:4
244. Water leaking from roof dripped into jarM. Maksh. 4:4
245. Water dripped into troughM. Maksh. 4:5
246. Unbroken stream of liquidM. Maksh. 5:9 [House of Shammai
only]
247. Man suffered one issue offlux,in various sequencesM. Zab. 1:1-2
248. Dough-offerings as connectiveM. T.Y. 1:1
249. Layer of jelly on flesh of hallowed meat, oil on wine, as connec
tive for Tevul Yom-Tos. T.Y. 2:3
250. Olives and grapes that have turned hardM. Uqs. 3:6
251. Black cumminM. <Uqs. 3:6
252. Fish susceptible to uncleannessM. Uqs. 3:8
253. Honeycombs susceptibleM. Uqs. 3:11
254. Anointed self with clean oil and then became uncleanM. Ed.
4:6 [Further variations]
255. Blood of carcassb. Ker. 21a, M. <Ed. 5:1
256. Egg from bird's carcassM. Ed. 5:1
257. Qohelet makes hands uncleanM. Ed. 5:3
258. Sin offering water which has fulfilled its purposeM. Ed. 5:3
c
Among the two hundred fifty-eight pericopae in which we find X

says, either with or without an antecedent superscription and con
trasting lemma of a second authority, all but five pertain to the Houses
of Shammai and Hillel or to Shammai and Hillel. One might have
added a few sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests not phrased
14
TRADITION
on a strictly legal issue, but concerning the explanations or reminiscenses of cultic practice (below pp. 24-25). Nahum the Mede has
a few says-tt^ditions as well (I, p. 413). But sayings of no other pre-70
Pharisaic master are redacted in what I have called standard form.
Strikingly, Hananiah is the only pre-70 master considered in detail
who survived the destruction and actively participated in Yavnean
affairs; as we noted, an important characteristic of his traditions is
redaction along with Ishmael, Aqiba, and others of Yavnean times.
The three Shammai/Hillel sayings, all in a single, composite peri
cope in M. Ed. 1:3, follow the Houses-form. The two hundred fifty
Houses-pericopae could have been substantially expanded by listing
parallels to the cited pericopae, breaking down composites into indi
vidual units, and adding more exempla from the beraita-sttatum. Doing
so would merely have made clear what is already obvious: the redac
tion of the Houses-materials followed literary and formal conventions
not brought to bear upon the sayings of the named pre-70 masters.
It should not be supposed that the reason is the occurrence of those
sayings in Mishnah-Tosefta, for the pre-70 masters also appear with
appropriate frequency in the same collections, yet their sayings are
not in conventional form. Therefore redactional considerations opera
tive in Mishnah-Tosefta have not imposed the conventional form on
the masters' sayings. The traditions were given that form before the
final redaction of the collections in which they occur.
To this catalogue, finally, we may append the following variations:
c
259. Shammai the Elder said in the name ofHaggai the prophet his sender
is liableb. Qid. 43a
260. A man may not say to his fellow...but he says to himHillel
forbids CWSR)M. B.M. 5:9 (Tos. B.M. 6:10; note Tos. Ma.
3:2-4: R. Judah says, Hillel himself used to prohibit [HYH
>WSR]).
The use of the past tense in no. 259 is exceptional, but so is the
authority behind Shammai the Elder*s sayings. The use of forbids in
place of, says, forbidden is no different from declare unclean in place
of say, unclean.
B.
Testimony-Form
}
Testimony-form substitutes the verb H'YD for WMR and the past
tense for the present; it seldom occurs in indirect discourse, testified
that (no. 6), but mostly testified concerning ( L,)...that ()... Unlike says
c
LEGAL
15
TRADITIONS
which represents a timeless present, testified may be qualified as to

place, time, and setting, and may suggest a one-time historical occasion.
The form is normally:
Authority X + testified + concerning + apodosis.
A variation is, testified in the name of/from the mouth of + direct dis
course; also, this is testimony etc. (ZW DWTnos. 3, 4, 5).
(
1. Yosi b. Yo ezer testified concerning ( L)

a. qamsa-locust [is] clean
b. and concerning liquid etc.
c. and that (WD) he that touches...
(M. 'Ed. 8:4)
2. ...Untiltwo weavers from the Dung Gate which is in Jerusalem
came and the testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion:
Three logs of drawn water...
(M. 'Ed. 1:3)
3. If an animal takes up its abode in an orchard...and this is testimony
which they testified from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion
(b. Bes. 25a)
4. R. Zakkai said, This testimony did R. Yosi testify from the mouth
of Shema'iah and Abtalion, and they agreed with him.
(b. Yev. 67a)
5. This testimony did Hezeqiah father of 'Q testify before Rabban
Gamaliel the Elder
(Sifra Shemini 7:4 [b. Bekh. 38a] )
6. Simeon b. Gode'a testified before the son of Rabban Gamaliel who
said in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that it is permitted
for drinking
(Tos. A.Z. 4:9 [b. A.Z. 32a] )
7. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priest testified four things: (MYMYHM
SLKHNYM)
a. Priest did not refrain from burning
b. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, (MYMY) I never
saw
c. Also he testified concerning (>P HW> H'YD 'L)
d. And concerning (W'L) a needle found...that the knife etc.
(M. <Ed. 2:1-3)
C
8. R. Nehunya b. Gudgeda testified concerning ( L)

a. Deaf girl whose father married her off, that() she goes forth
with a Get
b. And concerning an Israelite minor who was married to a priest,
that she...
16
TRADITION
c. And concerning the stolen beam that...

d. And concerning the stolen sin offering that...
(M. <Ed. 7:9 = M. Git. 5:5)
The verb testified of course is used in other than formal settings, e.g.
the following:
9. R. Yosi the priest and R. Zekhariah b. HaQassav testified (sing.!)
concerning a girl given in pledge in Ashqelon...the sages said to
them
(M. <Ed. 8:2)
c
Testimony-form characterizes tractate M. Ed. as a whole. But it also

occurs in other settings, without parallel in M. Ed., e.g. b. Bes. 25a.
The form is used in three ways, first, to introduce a list of testimo
nies (Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, and Nehunya
b. Gudgeda). In this usage, it is testified concerning, though the form is
lost in the second lemma of Hananiah (7b); after concerning comes the
subject of the testimony, then that + verb + apodosis. The second
is testified in the name of, which produces a direct-discourse citation
of Shema'iah and Abtalion (no. 2) or attribution to S + A (nos. 3, 4),
or to Hezeqiah (no. 5). The third is testified that, Simeon B. Gode a
(no. 6). By contrast to conventional legal form, testimonies are not
numerous; most depend upon the editorial conventions of M. Ed.
(nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9). The three lists of M. <Ed., 1, 7, and 8, could as well
have used says, said, or used to say; testified is hardly integral to the
lemmas; the lists preclude assigning a specific time, place, or setting.
The attributions to Shema'iah, nos. 3 and 4, may be modeled on
M. Ed. 1:3, no. 2. Hezeqiah's and Simeon's sayings, nos. 5, 6 are
linked by the reference to Gamaliel the Elder. They therefore derive
in present form from later Yavnean times, and represent one way in
which Gamaliel I's sayings were handed on in the later period. The
same date pertains to Hananiah, Nehunya, and Simeon b. Gode'a,
and a still later date, of course, to Zakkai. The testimony, like the
conventional legal form, comes after 70. It is not important.
c
C. Debates
The debate-form occurs only in Houses-disputes and depends upon
the legal and logical contents of those disputes. It is constructed by
substituting past tense for present tense 'MR (House of Shammai said),
and by adding to them. Generally the substance of the Houses-lemma
then consist of an argument, "Do you not agree", and the like. Some-
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
17
times the Houses-lemmas, while balanced, do not constitute a logical

argument, but merely a statement of legal opinions. The debate-form
is clearly artificial. It does not represent the transcription of a conver
sation that actually took place on a given day or in a given place.
Its purpose is, as I said, to spell out the reasons assigned to each House
as the basis of its legal ruling. The analysis of argument normally
begins with a point on which the opposition agrees and which pre
sumably should lead to the conclusion advanced by the first party.
The opposition then must distinguish between the case covered by
the contrary argument and the case on which its ruling is made. That
explains do you not agree, and this further yields after they agreed, or
the House of Hillel reverted to teach, and similar stock-phrases.
1. Liability of one who brings forth an abortion on the eve of the
eighty-first day after the birth of a girl to bring a sacrifice:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai
Do you not agree with us
Do you not agree concerning
What is difference between
No, if you say so concerning...and behold, she who...will
prove
No, if you say so...
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2, M. Ker. 1:6)
2. Grounds of divorce:
a. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai
And do not be surprised
(Sifre Deut. 269 [M. Git. 9:10 omits] )
b. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Is it not already said
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Is it not already
said
House of Hillel said to them...
(b. Git. 90a)
b. G i t . r e s t o r e s d e b a t e - f o r m b y s u p p l y i n g o p e n i n g c o l l o q u y i n w h i c h
b o t h Houses are cited, then preserves the extended Hillelite exegesis.
3. Water plants until New Year: Water foliage but not root vs. water
both
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If you permit part,
permit all, and vice versa
(Tos. Shev. 1:5)
N o S h a m m a i t e a n s w e r is s u p p l i e d t o t h e Hillelite a r g u m e n t o f S h a m
m a i t e i n c o n s i s t e n c y , b . S h a b . 1 7 a g i v e s S h a m m a i an a n s w e r : I shall f o r c e
y o u t o c o m p l y . T h e a b o v e c a n n o t b e r e g a r d e d as a d e b a t e , e v e n t h o u g h
b e g i n n i n g , House of Hillel said to House of Shammai.
TRADITION
4. Unclean Heave-offering neutralized in clean Heave-offering:

House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Since... if clean can
be neutralized, unclean also...
House of Shammai said to them, No, if...should Heave-offering
to which stringency does apply and which is forbidden.. .neutralize?
After they had agreed...
(M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4)
5. Produce whose harvest has been completed passed through Jeru
salem:
House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, Do you not agree
about produce not fully harvested...also produce whose harvest
has been completed is like it.
House of Shammai said to them, No, if you say so concerning
produce...will you say so concerning...?
House of Hillel said to them...
(Tos. M.S. 2:11 [y. M.S. 3:3] )
The dispute is in the name of Yosi.
6. Work begun before, completed on, Sabbath:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Do you not agree
that they do not roast meat etc. except so that...Also it suffices
for dyestuffs and vetches...
House of Hillel said to them, Do you not agree that they lay down
olive-press beams? Also it suffices...
These stood in their answer (twice)...
(Tos. Shab. 1:20-21)
7.
8.
for Nazirite with wine:

House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree...
They said to them, True.
They said to them...
(b. <Eruv. 30a-b)
Eruv
Reciting
Ha//e/:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, And have they already

gone forth...that they should...
House of Hillel said to them, Even if he should wait...lo they did
not go forth until sixth hour...
(Tos. Pisha 10:9 [M. Pes. 10:6; fuller version of
Hillelites in y. Pes. 10:5])
9. Head and greater part of body in Sukkah:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Was thus (KK) not
the incident, that the Elders of the House of Shammai and the
Elders of the House of Hillel went to visit...
House of Shammai said to them, Is there proof from that...
(M. Suk. 2:7)
LEGAL
19
TRADITIONS
10. Bring priests' dues on festival:

House of Shammai said to House of Hillel. It is 2Lge%erab shavah...
House of Hillel said to them, No, if you argue of... would you
also argue of...
(M. Bes. 1:7 [Tos. Y.T. 1:12-14])
11. Sacrifice on festival-Laying on of hands (M. Hag. 2:2):
a. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If when it is for
bidden... it is permitted...surely it is logical (qal vehomer)
House of Shammai said to them, Let...prove the contrary...
House of Hillel said to them, As for...that is because...will you
say the same with respect to...
House of Shammai said to them, Even here...
House of Hillel said to them, Even here...
b. House of Shammai: Scriptural exegesis
House of Hillel: Scriptural exegesis
(b. Bes. 20b [y. Bes. 2:4; Tos. Hag. 2:10])
12. Festival of New Year coincides with Sabbath:
House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, Is it not so that
in the presence of all of you, Elders of the House of Shammai,
Honi the Little...and all the people said to him...
House of Shammai said to them, Because it was...
House of Hillel said to them, If it was...he should have...
(Tos. R.H. 2:17)
13. Heaven created first:
House of Shammai say, Heaven created first
House of Hillel say, Earth created first
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, According to your
view + Scripture
House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, According to your
view + Scripture
(b. Hag. 12a)
14. Minor exercises right of refusal:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, While she is yet under
age, she may exercise right of refusal even four...
House of Shammai said to them, The daughters of Israel are not
ownerless property. But she exercises... and waits...and then she
exercises...
(M. Yev. 13:1)
15. Exercise of right of refusal in absence of husband:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, M SH B + Pishon's
wife who made her declaration in his absence
House of Shammai said to them, Pishon used...they therefore
used...
(b. Yev. 107b [y. Yev. 13:1])
C
TRADITION
16. Woman testifies of husband's death:

a. House of Hillel say, We have heard no such tradition save...
House of Shammai said, It is all one whether...
House of Hillel reverted...
b. House of Shammai say, She marries again and takes...
House of Hillel say, She marries again and does not take...
House of Shammai said, You have declared permissible the graver
matter...should you not also declare permissible the less...
House of Hillel said to them, We find that...
House of Shammai said to them, Do we not learn from Ketuvah...
(M. Yev. 15:2-3)
17. Dance before bride:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, If she was lame.. .does
one say...
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, According to your
words, if one has... should one praise... surely one should praise...
(b. Ket. 17a)
18. Erroneous consecration:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree
that there [foregoing law], although it is a thing dedicated in error,
it should go forth...
House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree that if a man
erred and called...its dedication is binding...
House of Hillel said to them, It is not the rod that has dedicated...
what if he erred and...But Scripture declared...
(M. Naz. 5:3)
19. Half-slave:
If man was half-slave and half-free, he works one day for master
and one day for self, the words of the House of Hillel.
House of Shammai said to them, You have ordered it for master,
but not for him. He cannot marry? And was not world created
for fruition -f Scripture.
(M. Git. 4:5)
20. Liable for unlawful intention:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel + Scripture
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai + Scripture.
(b. B.M. 44a [Mekh. deR. Ishmael,Nez. 15:49-55] )
T h e s a m e S c r i p t u r a l a r g u m e n t n o t in t h e d e b a t e f o r m (said to House of)
o c c u r s in M e k h . a n d M . B . M . 3 : 1 2 .
21. a. Woman kneading in trough and hands busy...woman and

trough are unclean but dough is clean:
LEGAL
21
TRADITIONS
R. Joshua said, I am ashamed by your words, House of Shammai.

Is it possible that...
After he stood up. Certain disciple from the disciples of House
of Shammai said before them, Vessel of *am hd*ares what is it,
unclean or clean?
He said to him...
R. Joshua reverted to teach according to...
(Tos. Ah. 5:11 [M. Oh. 5:1-5, b. Hag. 22a-b])
y
b. Earthenware vessel protects all, according to House of Hillel.

And House of Shammai say, It protects only food, liquid, and
another earthenware vessel.
House of Hillel said to them, Why?
House of Shammai said to them, Because it is unclean...
House of Hillel said to them, Have you not declared clean...
House of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean...
(M. <Ed. 1:14)
22. Bottle filled with clean liquid and tightly stoppered serves as plug
for grave:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, And which is likely
to receive uncleanness...
They said to them, Liquid.
They said to them, Now since if man.. .is made unclean, liquid all
the more so...
House of Hillel said to them, Do you not agree...
House of Shammai said to them, No, if you say concerning ring...
House of Hillel said to them, We reason...and you reason...It is
better to reason...
(Tos. Ah. 15:9)
Eliezer b. R. Simeon seems to be the authority behind this debate on
M. Oh. 15:9.
23. Testing rags for each act of intercourse or for whole night:
House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, According to your
view is there no need...
House of Hillel said to them, Even according to your view...
They said to them, We maintain our view because...
(b. Nid. 16b)
24. Discharge on eleventh day:
House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Why should eleventh
day differ?
House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, No, if you rule,
it is because... would you also maintain...
House of Shammai said to them, You must be consistent. If one
is like the other...it should also be like it in regard to...
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
House of Hillel said to them, If we impose...we cannot on that

ground.. .And furthermore, you are refuted from your own words...
(b. Nid. 72a [M. Nid. 10:8; Tos. Nid. 9:19] )
25. Blood of woman who has given birth and not yet immersed:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree...
House of Shamai said to House of Hillel, No, if you say so con
cerning... will you say so concerning...
House of Hillel said to them, Woman who gives birth while in
status of Zab will prove it...
House of Shammai said to them, If it is a woman who gives birth...
that is the law and the reply...
(Tos. Nid. 5:6 [M. Nid. 4:3; b. Nid. 7b] )
26. Shake herbs and rain falls from top to bottom:
a. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If a man shakes...
do we take thought that the drops fall from leaf to leaf?
House of Shammai said to them, A stalk is but a single thing, but
a bunch is many stalks...
House of Hillel said to them, If man pulled sack of fruit from
river and put it on bank, do we take thought...
(M. Maksh. 1:4)
b. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, All agree concern
ing one who brings up a tied-up sack and places it on side of river...
House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree concerning
him who brings up two tied-up sacks and places them one above
the other...
(Tos. Maksh. 1:3)
27. Man suffers one issue of flux like woman awaiting day against day vs.
like one that suffered pollution;
agree he immerses and eats pesah:
House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree
that he immerses and eats pesah...
House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree that if he sees
flux tomorrow, he is unclean? Lo he is like woman that waits day
against day...
(Tos. Zab. 1:1)
c
28. R. Simeon said before Aqiba, Thus did House of Hillel say to
House of Shammai, What is it to me that he saw two at first and
one at end?
They said to them, When he saw one at first and two at end...
R. Aqiba reverted to teach...
(Tos. Zab. 1:7)
c
LEGAL
23
TRADITIONS
We may now distinguish between formally authentic debates, that is,

those exhibiting traits set forth above, and materials cast into debateform but which are not debates at all. In the former category are nos.
1, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16b, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. No. 3 is in
debate form: the standard Hillelite argument about Shammaite in
consistency is repeated. But the Shammaites have no contrary lemma;
the Hillelite saying does not constitute a logical argument. Similarly,
in no. 7 the Shammaites are not given any argument; they serve as
silent partners in a one-sided colloquy. Nos. 9, 12, 15 and 16a consti
tute discussions of historical precedents; a Hillelite story is explained
away by Shammaites; no logical principles are introduced. No. 14
contains an assertion of the Hillelites, countered by an argument ("not
ownerless property") for the Shammaites, then a contrary assertion.
No. 17 has the Shammaites raise a logical absurdity, countered by an
equivalent Hillelite absurdity. In no. 19 the Shammaites argue on a
different issue from that raised by the Hillelite lemma. It is not a
debate, simply a Shammaite critique. Nos. 2b, l i b , 13, and 20 are
contrasting Scriptural exegeses set into debate-form. Nos. 21a and 28
give examples of what the debate-form looks like when the Houses
are represented by named masters, here Joshua and a Shammaite
disciple, Aqiba and Simeon. The standard debate-form clearly is a
considerable advance over the materials of nos. 21a and 28. Thus the
mere presence of they said to them does not always signify use of the
debate-form.
c
D.
Narratives
Legal traditions come not only in brief, abstract lemmas and debates,
but also in various kinds of historical narratives. Some exhibit a
clearcut form; others are grouped only according to type, but reveal
no literary-formal traits in common. All refer in historical language
to events of legal significance, in some instances merely to describe a
setting in which a rule was given, in others as the reason for establish
ing a law, as a precedent, or as historical proof for a legal proposition.
While most laws assigned to the Houses are one-sentence lemmas,
all laws attributed to all named pre-70 masters (except the three say
ings in standard form of Shammai and Hillel, M. Ed. 1:3) are narra
tives of one kind or another. These may be brief or long. In the
former category are one-sentence references to something a master
had said, done, or decreed as precedent. The short lemmas also may
c
24
TRADITION
be constructed into lists and chains. In the latter category are fully
developed stories of legal interest, which cannot be formally dis
tinguished from equivalent stories of non-legal interest. What sepa
rates legal narratives from conventional, testimonial, and debate-say
ings is their historical focus, the reference in the past tense to a one
time action, ruling, setting, or event.
1. Historical Information in Standard Legal Form
The standard legal form, Authority + says + apodosis in direct dis
course, is used for some historical sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the
Priests, which pertain to the procedures of the Temple cult in times
past. These have legal interest, for it was generally assumed that the
Temple would be rebuilt, and its cult would then be carried on accord
ing to the law set forth by the rabbis:
1. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Father would reject the maim
ed from the altar.
(Sifra Sav 1:9)
H a n a n i a h ' s t r a d i t i o n , i n s t a n d a r d legal f o r m , c o n c e r n s a c o n t i n u i n g h i s
torical situation, and behind the description o f w h a t the father w o u l d d o
is t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h i s is n o r m a t i v e l a w ; it t h e r e f o r e is a s t o r y g i v i n g a
h i s t o r i c a l p r e c e d e n t in p l a c e o f a g e n e r a l i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w .
2. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, The priests never refrained

from burning flesh that had become unclean...
(M. Pes. 1:6)
3. What did they do with the surplus of the Terumah?...R. Ishmael
says...R. Aqiba says...R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says...
(M. Sheq. 4:4)
c
4. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, Never have I seen a hide

taken out to the place of burning.
R. Aqiba said, We learn from his word that if a man flayed a firstling...
But the sages say, We have not seen affords no proof.
(M. Zev. 12:4)
c
5. R. Ishmael says, The
'omer
was brought on the Sabbath from three
seyahs...
But the sages say...

R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, On a Sabbath it was...
(M. Men. 10:1)
6. Seven days before the burning of the heifer, the priest... And through
out the seven days they sprinkled him from the ashes of all the sinofferings that were there.
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
25
R. Yosi says, They sprinkled him only on the third...

R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, They sprinkled the priest...
(M. Par. 3:1)
7. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Why does the Prefect of
the Priests stand at the right? In order that...
(b. Yoma 39a)
8. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, For what is the Prefect of
the Priests appointed? If any disqualification should occur...
(b. Sot. 42a)
The Hananiah-corpus is strikingly similar to his legal sayings, above,
p. 7.1 see no reason for the use of said in nos. 4 and 8; the contents
do not differ from those of other lemmas. All are historical narra
tives of how things were done in the Temple.
2. Epistles
Two epistles, cited to prove various legal points, exhibit uniform
style. First, the historical setting is described in some detail, including
the names of the authorities and scribe, where they were located when
the letters were written, and the like. Second, the letters themselves
are consistent: Address, salutation, We inform you that, then the sub
stance of the letter.
1. Gamaliel and the Elders sitting on the steps on the Temple Moun
tain, Yohanan that scribe before them. He said to him, Write
To brethren...Salutation...We inform you that + apodosis.
(Tos. Sanh. 2:6)
2. The same form is followed by Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yohanan
b. Zakkai.
(M.T. ed. Hoffmann, pp. 175-6)
3. Ordinances
Ordinances present, then account for laws, by both explaining the
historical situation that necessitated and justified legislation, normally
in contravention of earlier rules, and also specifying the authority
behind the ordinance. In general the form is rigid:
1. At first + description of historical situation
2. Ordained + authority
3. That + rule.
In the Yohanan b. Zakkai-Yavnean ordinances, when the Temple was
26
TRADITION
destroyed always stands between at first and ordained. In the ordinances

of the pre-70 Pharisees, on the other hand, the occasion for the ordi
nance is rarely specified; instead, we are sometimes given the provo
cation ("He saw that the people refrained..."). This seems to me an
important formal difference, the reason for which is self-evident. In a
few instances at first is omitted, but then the historical narrative is
somewhat expanded. The ordinance-form is never found in Housesmaterials. The Houses are never represented as issuing decrees or
ordinances. They never change existing law. HTQYN nearly always
calls for an antecedent at ^-/-explanation:
1. At first, when marriage-contract was kept by father, divorce was
held lightly. Simeon b. S. ordained that the marriage-contract be kept
by husband. And he writes to her...
(Tos. Ket. 12:1)
T h e at first... ordained that... s u p p l i e s a b r i e f n a r r a t i v e - h i s t o r y o f a l a w . b .
Ket. 82b greatly expands the narrative.
2. At first he would hide on the day...so that it should be...Hillel

the Elder ordained that...
(Sifra Behar 4:8)
T h e ordinance-form gives a historical narrative o f conditions before
Hillel's d e c r e e . B o t h p a r t s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e a r e s o m e w h a t l o n g e r t h a n
u s u a l a n d a r e p h r a s e d i n t e r m s o f c o n t i n u i n g a c t i o n : would hide... should
assign... etc.
3. He saw the people, that they held back from lending...he arose and
ordained the prosbul...
(Sifre Deut. 113)
T h e h i s t o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e prosbul d o e s n o t s a y at first. T h e se
q u e n c e h o w e v e r is t h e s a m e : first, a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f p r e v a i l i n g c o n d i
t i o n s necessitating t h e o r d i n a n c e , t h e n t h e o r d i n a n c e . I n s t e a d o f that they
should, w e h a v e t h e f o r m u l a o f t h e prosbul. T h e at first f o r m t e n d s t o b e
m o r e t e r s e a n d less f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d .
4. The witnesses would assemble in Bet Ya'azoq. At first they did

not stir from there the whole day. Gamaliel ordained that they might
walk...
(M. R.H. 2:5)
I d e a l l y , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o u r t y a r d w o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n at first. A s
it s t a n d s , from there c o n n e c t s at first t o t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y p h r a s e a b o u t t h e
c o u r t y a r d , t h e n t h e u s u a l at first... ordained... f o r m f o l l o w s w i t h o u t v a r i a
tion.
5. At first a man used to set up a court elsewhere and annul the Gef.
Gamaliel the Elder ordained...
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
27
6. At first a man used to change his name...Gamaliel the Elder ordain

ed...
7. They refrained from making her swear on oath. Gamaliel the Elder
ordained...
(M. Git. 4:2-3)
T h e at first... ordained-iotm
is l o s t i n n o . 7.
8. Finally Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers should

be appointed...
(b. B.B. 21a)
T h e at first f o r m is i g n o r e d ; t h e a n t e c e d e n t n a r r a t i v e t a k e s its p l a c e , a n d
at t h e e n d t h e taqqanah is g i v e n .
4 . Chains and Lists

The chain is a composite of standard rulings on a single legal theme.
We have noted (I, pp. 11-23) both the primitive and the developed
form. The former consists of
Authority + says +/ negative + infinitive (LMK).
The Shammai-Hillel item of M. Hag. 2:2 develops into a Housesdispute; the others are left in primitive form.
The second form of a chain is historical-legal, that is, an authority
in the past made a legal decree or ordinance, as in the list of cleanness
decrees, b. Shab. 14b (y. Shab. 1:4, y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11):
C
Authority + decreed + uncleanness upon ( L) + object.

The third sort of a chain is M. Avot 1:18, a complex form:
X +Y received the Torah from them.
X says + three (moral) sayings
Y says -f three (moral) sayings.
As we observed, the three-things form is fairly common, e.g. the decrees
of Yohanan the High Priest are awkwardly forced into the three-things
form:
Yohanan the High Priest did away with...made an end...and until
his days...
(M. M.S. 5:15)
T h e three-things o f Y o h a n a n a r e p h r a s e d i n p a s t - t e n s e , o n e - t i m e h i s t o r i c a l
l a n g u a g e . T h e n a r r a t i v e is e x t r e m e l y brief, c o n s i s t i n g o f t i m e + v e r b - f
protasis.
28
TRADITION
The list of three links the testimonies of Yosi b. Yo'ezer on unclean

ness and so forth (above, pp. 14-16). But Yohanan b. Gudgeda's testi
monies (M. Ed. 7:9) are four, rather than three.
While the chain seems to be composed of independent lemmas,,
which could theoretically have been handed on separately, it probably
was made up by a single hand that imposed consistent style on what
ever discrete materials were available or made up the list to begin
with. What begins the chain is a list of authorities. To this is then
assigned an appropriate verb, says or decreed, and the apodosis follows.
Finally, we also find chains summarizing already-known pericopae,.
e.g.:
c
Simeon b. Shetah ordained three things:

1) marriage contract;
2) school;
3) uncleanness for glassware.
(y. Ket. 8:11)
The M. Ed. collections of leniencies etc. are of the same order, but
the details are fully spelled out.
5. Precedents
We have already noted the appearance of precedents in the Housesdebates. The precedents often exhibit a disciplined form:
In general: Ma aseh + B......
Always: Authority + verb + predicate
Normally the precedents are unadorned and contain few extraneous
details; adjectives and adverbs are used very sparingly, if at all.
Macaseh is not unique to precedents, but one meaning is "precedent";.
>MRW 'LYW'L, they said concerning sometimes serves the same purpose.
Some precedents are substantial stories, below, part 8.
c
1. Kharkemit the freed bondwoman in Jerusalem was made to drink

the bitter water by Shema'iah and Abtalion.
(M. <Ed.5:6)
T h e nufaseh s u p p l i e s a p r e c e d e n t f o r t h e legal issue. It is e x t r e m e l y t e r s e t
subject + adjectives + S + A + v e r b .
2. [They said of] Hillel the Elder [that] in his life no one trespassed
through the whole-offering. He would bring it as hullin, then sanctify
it and lay on hands and slaughter it.
(b. Ned. 9b)
T h e s t o r y a b o u t h o w t h i n g s w e r e d o n e in Hillel's t i m e is i n t e n d e d as a
p r e c e d e n t f o r t h e l a w . B u t t h e usual s t y l e o f p r e c e d e n t s is n o t f o l l o w e d , .
LEGAL
29
TRADITIONS
f o r it is n o t Hillel w h o is t h e s u b j e c t o f would bring, b u t anyone. T h e n a r

r a t i v e is s o m e w h a t l o n g e r t h a n i n t h e macaseh.
3. They said concerning Shammai the Elder: All his days he would
eat for the honor of the Sabbath.
(b. Bes. 16a)
T h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e m a s t e r is cited as p r e c e d e n t f o r a S a b b a t h - l a w . A s
a b o v e , t h e f o r m is t i m e + v e r b + p r e d i c a t e .
4. Macaseh: Daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder bore a child, and

he broke away roof-plaster...
(M. Suk. 2:8)
T h e s t o r y o f w h a t S h a m m a i d i d substitutes f o r a g e n e r a l i z e d legal state
m e n t t h a t a c h i l d is o b l i g a t e d , etc. I n s t e a d w e h a v e a n a r r a t i v e o f t h e set
t i n g , daughter-in-law bore child, a n d w h a t h e d i d , w i t h a g l o s s t o e x p l a i n t h e
p e r t i n e n c e o f t h e c a s e : for the sake of the child.
5. They said of Shammai that he did not want to feed even with
one hand a child on the Day of Atonement, so they decreed he must
do so with both hands.
(b. Yoma 77b)
A s a b o v e , Shammai's rule that children are liable f o r festival o b s e r v a n c e
is r e d u c e d t o a s t o r y in t h e s a m e f o r m : n a r r a t i v e o f setting (he did not
want) a n d w h a t t h e y d i d .
6.
Ma'aseh:
Hillel purchased for a poor man a horse and a slave...

(Tos. Pe ah4:10)
>
T h e s t o r y illustrates t h e l a w a b o u t s u p p l y i n g t h e p o o r w i t h w h a t t h e y
n e e d . D r o p p i n g t h e r e d a c t i o n a l m a t t e r (story is told of... who), w e find t h e
usual elements: Hillel + v e r b + predicate.
7. Vain prayer: Hillel the Elder was coming from a journey and heard
the sound of an outcry and said, I am confident... And of him Scripture
says Ps. 112:7.
(b. Ber. 60a)
T h e l a w a b o u t v a i n p r a y e r s is i l l u s t r a t e d b y Hillel's b e h a v i o r . T h e macaseh
is b r i e f : Hillel + v e r b s + a n d said + S c r i p t u r e .
8. Precepts do not nullify one another: (It was said of) Hillel the
Elder (that he) used to wrap them -f Num. 9:11.
(b. Pes. 115a)
Hillel's b e h a v i o r is cited as p r e c e d e n t , w i t h o u t macaseh b-.
9. Macaseh B: They brought cooked food to Yohanan b. Zakkai and

two dates etc. to Gamaliel, and they said...
(M. Suk. 2:5)
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
T h e p r e c e d e n t is a s i m p l e c o n s t r u c t i o n :
v e r b + object + t o Y o h a n a n
v e r b + object + t o Gamaliel
and they said...
T h e p r e c e d e n t s h o w s o n e eats e v e n at r a n d o m i n t h e
Sukkah.
10. Maâseh: Gamaliel the Elder gave his daughter in marriage to

Simeon b. Netanel and agreed with him on condition that she not
prepare clean things with him.
(Tos. A.Z. 3:10)
T h e s t o r y is a p r e c e d e n t o n i n t e r m a r r y i n g w i t h t h o s e w h o d o n o t o b
serve the purity-rules.
11. Ma'aseh: The Elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of
the House of Hillel went to visit R. Yohanan b. HaHorani and found
him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the
Sukkah, with his table within the House [and they did not say a thing.]
(M. Suk. 2:7)
12. In the presence of all of you, Elders of the House of Shammai,
Honi the Little went down and said seven, and all the people said to
him, May it be a pleasure for you.
(Tos. R.H. 2:17)
13. Pishon the camel driver's wife made her declaration of refusal in
his absence.
(b. Yev. 107b)
14. Ma'aseh: The son of Queen Helena went to war, and she said, If
he returns safely, I will be Nazirite.
She went up to the Land, and the House of Hillel taught her...
(M. Naz. 3:6)
15. Judah b. Bathyra: The trough of Jehu in Jerusalem had a hole...
[and all the acts in Jerusalem requiring cleanness were done therein].
And the House of Shammai sent and broke it down.
(M. Miq. 4:5)
Nos. 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , and 1 5 appear in Houses-disputes. A l l are precedents,
b u t d o n o t f o l l o w t h e s i m p l e m o d e l o f t h e e a r l i e r e x a m p l e s . N o . 11 is
s o m e w h a t e x p a n d e d . I n t h e s i m p l e s t f o r m it w o u l d h a v e b e e n , Yohanan
sat with head and greater part in Sukkah and table in house. N o . 1 2 , s i m i l a r l y ,
w o u l d be Honi the Little went down and said seven. N o . 1 3 is s a t i s f a c t o r y as is.
Nos. 1 4 and 1 5 are extended narratives and cannot be reduced to simple
e l e m e n t s ; b o t h a r e c o m p o s e d o f s e v e r a l d e c l a r a t i v e sentences.
16. He of the House of Gamaliel used to go in with Sheqel...

(M. Sheq. 3:3)
T h i s is n o t l i k e e a r l i e r e x e m p l a o f p r e c e d e n t s , f o r it is t o l d i n c o n t i n u o u s
t e n s e , used to do; h e n c e it is a legal s t o r y a b o u t h o w a r i t e is c a r r i e d o n .
T h e s a m e f o r m is in M . S h e q . 6 : 1 . F u r t h e r p r e c e d e n t s o c c u r i n 7 : 6 , 7 , 8 .
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
31
6. Contexts
The contexts in which laws are issued or discussed are sometimes
described in detail. These contexts are irrelevant to the substance of
the law, unlike precedents, and are unlike the ordinance-protasis, which
explains the law. I see no shared formal or morphological traits.
1. Until two weavers came from the dung date in Jerusalem and
testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that...
(M. <Ed. 1:3)
T h e clause supplies a h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g f o r S + A ' s t e s t i m o n y , a n d a m o r a l
is d r a w n f r o m t h e o c c u p a t i o n a n d place o f o r i g i n o f t h e w e a v e r s .
2. Judah b. Dortai and son separated and dwelt in the south. If

Elijah should say, Why did you not sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath,
what would they say to him? I am astonished at S + A etc. that they
have not said to Israel: The hagigah overrides the Sabbath.
(b. Pes. 70b)
T h e l e g a l p r o b l e m is g i v e n a h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , in w h i c h t h e p r o p o n e n t s
o f t h e v i e w re hagigah / S a b b a t h a r e r e p r e s e n t e d as schismatics. ( T h i s m i g h t
b e called a n e t i o l o g y f o r t h e o - p r o m u l g a t i o n o f a l a w . )
3. Because of this matter, Hillel came up from Babylonia.

(Sifra Tazri'a 9:16)
T h e r e c u r r i n g s t o c k - p h r a s e c o n s i s t s o f t h e b r i e f n a r r a t i v e : Hillel +
i n t r o d u c e d b y a j o i n i n g clause.
verb,
4. Two disciples before Hillel, re vintaging grapes in cleanness but

gathering olives in uncleanness.
(b. Pes. 3b)
T h e l i t t l e s t o r y is a s s i g n e d t o H i l l e l / Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i , b u t is n o t i n t h e
f o r m o f a precedent. T h e o p e r a t i v e laws are appropriately cited in He
b r e w , in direct discourse, w i t h the narrative f r a m e w o r k in A r a m a i c . T h e
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d i s p u t e a b o u t t h e s a m e m a t t e r lies in t h e b a c k g r o u n d .
5. Argument of Hillel and Shammai on vintaging grapes: Hillel said

to Shammai, Why one in cleanness, the other not? Shammai, If you
anger me, I will decree...A sword did they plant... They said... And
on that day Hillel was submissive...
(b. Shab. 17a)
T h e s t o r y f o l l o w s the standard legal f o r m a n d begins like a debate. T h e n
S h a m m a i replies w i t h o u t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s u b s t a n c e o f Hillel's l o g i c a l
q u e r y . T h e s t o r y is t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , They said...
T h e n a r r a t i v e details a r e l i m i t e d t o t h e sword a n d on that day, w i t h t h e
c l o s i n g c o m m e n t , " a n d it w a s as g r i e v o u s . . . "
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
6. Re how many pe*ahs required from two kinds of wheat etc.: Story
is told that R. Simeon of Mispah sowed before R. Gamaliel, and they
went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and inquired...
(M. Pe'ah 2:5-6)
T h e precedent-otm s e e m s t o a p p l y , b u t i n fact t h e s t o r y d o e s n o t say
Gamaliel m a d e a ruling, rather had t o ask f o r o n e . N a h u m the Scribe
t h e n r e p o r t s h i s t r a d i t i o n ( Q B L H ) . T h e G a m a l i e l - S i m e o n ma*aseh t h e r e
f o r e is t r u n c a t e d a n d p r o v i d e s m e r e l y a s e t t i n g f o r N a h u m ' s t r a d i t i o n .
B u t it is n o t Nahum said to them. I n p a r t A t h e l a w a p p e a r s a n o n y m o u s l y ,
t h e n in p a r t s B - C t h e n a r r a t i v e r e p e a t s t h e l a w i n a h i s t o r i c a l setting.
7. Yo'ezer of the Birah said, I asked Gamaliel standing in the Eastern

Gate and he said, It never renders the dough unclean...
(M. Orl. 2:12)
c
T h e little n a r r a t i v e , i n t h e first p e r s o n , t h e n g i v e s G a m a l i e l ' s r u l i n g i n

d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e . T h e s t a n d a r d legal f o r m w o u l d h a v e h a d G a m a l i e l says
a n d w o u l d h a v e d r o p p e d t h e n a r r a t i v e details.
8. R. Gamaliel remembered that men were killed at Tel Arza and

R. Gamaliel the Elder allowed their wives to marry on the evidence
of one witness.
_^
_
(M. Yev. 16:7)
7
I n ma'aseh-fotm
all o n e w o u l d h a v e t o d r o p w o u l d b e
Gamalieland.
T h e n wives w o u l d b e m o d i f i e d b y of those killed at Tel Arza. T h e p r e c e d e n t
w o u l d then c o n f o r m t o the brief and u n a d o r n e d style o b s e r v e d earlier:
S u b j e c t + v e r b + p r e d i c a t e . T h e G a m a l i e l - a t t r i b u t i o n is e v e n s i m p l e r ,
d r o p p i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l o c c a s i o n : Gamaliel permitted woman to marry on
testimony of one witness.
9. And already (KBR) did the elders of the House of Shammai and
the Elders of the House of Hillel enter the upper chamber of Jonathan
b. Bathyra...
And they said, There is no limit to sisit.
, ^
'
(Sifre Num. 115)
T
10. And these are among the laws... in the upper room of Hananiah
b. Hezeqiah b. Garon. When they went up to visit him, they voted,
and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel. Eighteen
things did they decree on that day.
^
^
11. A like error befell Nahum the Mede when Nazirites came up from
the Exile and found the Temple destroyed. He said to them, Would
you have vowed...They answered, No. And Nahum the Mede released
them from their vow.
But when the matter came before the sages they said to him, If
any man vowed to be a Nazitire before the Temple was destroyed.. .But
if he vowed after the Temple was destroyed...
(M. Naz. 5:4)
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
33
Nos. 9 and 1 0 introduce Houses-materials, the f o r m e r , a v e r y brief

r u l i n g , t h e latter, t h e e x t e n s i v e c o l l e c t i o n ( a n d parallels) o f M . S h a b . 1:4ff.
N o . 1 1 , b y c o n t r a s t , a l l o w s a case t o i n t r o d u c e t h e sages' r u l i n g . W i t h o u t
t h e c a s e o n e c a n n o t call it a p r e c e d e n t t h e sages said to him w o u l d h a v e
b e e n d r o p p e d , a n d t h e l a w w o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n a n o n y m o u s l y , If any
man vows... But if he vows... T h i s is t h e o n l y instance a m o n g all o u r p e r i
c o p a e in w h i c h a r u l i n g is o v e r t u r n e d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e G a m a l i e l i n q u i r y m a t e r i a l s a r e n o t m u c h different, e x c e p t t h e r e G a m a l i e l asks, a n d
h e r e t h e m a t t e r comes before t h e sages. W e d o n o t k n o w w h o a p p e a l e d
N a h u m ' s r u l i n g . F o r o t h e r s u c h h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t s f o r legal decrees, n o t e
Simeon b. Gamaliel, below, 7 : 2 .
7. First-Person
Accounts
Sometimes the legal narrative contains a first-person saying or story.

This may be intended as a precedent told to illustrate a legal point,
or it may describe the context in which a law is enunciated. The only
common formal trait is the use of "I" + direct discourse, or the
reference to the narrator's own observations or recollections. Rab
binic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees contain no equivalent to the
"F'-sayings of the Gospels; for one thing, no Pharisaic master ever
says, / say to you. Pharisaic-rabbinic masters claimed Moses and his
revelation as the authority behind their laws, therefore avoided
giving the impression that they innovated or legislated except in dire
circumstances, and then only to preserve the old law. Hence "F'-say
ings are chiefly in narratives and seldom stand as independent lemmas.
1. Simeon the Just said, I ate the guilt-offering of Naziriteship but
one, when one came from the south...
(Sifre Num. 2 2 , Tos. Nez. 4 : 7 , y . Ned. 1 : 1 , y . Naz.
1 : 5 , b. Naz. 4 b , b. Ned. 9 b , etc.)
T h e s t o r y is cited t o settle legal issues, t h o u g h t h e issues t e n d t o c h a n g e ,
as n o t e d , a n d t h e s t o r y is r e v i s e d t o s e r v e as a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t i m o n y o n
each. It is a first p e r s o n n a r r a t i v e c o n t a i n i n g s u b o r d i n a t e d d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e
o f t h e N a z i r i t e ("He said t o m e , T w a s . . . ' " ) . T h e S c r i p t u r e is t i e d i n t o
S i m e o n ' s n a r r a t i v e , ( " u p o n y o u is f u l f i l l e d . . . " ) . Maâseh is i n t r u d e d in
T o s . N e z . 4 : 7 , b u t is n o t i n t e g r a l . I n y. N e d . = y . N a z . t h e s t o r y t a k e s
for granted that Simeon does n o t a p p r o v e o f Nazirites; b. Ned. likewise
cites it t o i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r v o w s o f Nazirites a r e sinful, b . N a z . uses
it in a d i s c u s s i o n o n t h e difference b e t w e e n t e m p o r a r y a n d p e r m a n e n t
N a z i r i t e s . A b b a y e , b . N a z . - b . N e d . , a d d s unclean N a z i r t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e
legal i n t e r e s t o f t h e s t o r y . F o r m a l l y , it is a s i n g l e t o n .
Story: Pair of doves in Jerusalem stood at a golden denar. Simeon

b. Gamaliel said, By this Temple! I shall not rest this night before they
shall be at denars of silver. He went into the court and taught, 'The
woman who owes five...' And a pair of doves stood that day at a fourth.
(Sifra Tazri'a 3 : 7 )
2.
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, III
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
T h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e ordinance-form
is b e f o r e u s . I n s t e a d o f at first...
Simeon ordained... w e h a v e t h e r u l e o f l a w e x p l a i n e d b y a p a r t i c u l a r o c c a
s i o n . T h i s f o r m is e x c e p t i o n a l . It starts w i t h a n a r r a t i v e o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l
s i t u a t i o n , m u c h l i k e at first. T h e n S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l i n t e r v e n e s , b u t his
r u l e is n o t called a n ordinance. T h e r u l e a l s o o c c u r s o u t s i d e o f t h e " h i s t o r i
cal" c o n t e x t o f S i m e o n ' s speech. H a d t h e r u l e b e e n g i v e n as S i m e o n b .
G a m a l i e l says, it w o u l d h a v e b e e n s t a n d a r d . And a pair... r e s u m e s a n d
completes the narrative.
3. [Yosah's story of Gamaliel the Elder's view on the Targum of

Job]: R. Halafta said to him, I remember Rabban Gamaliel the Elder...
sitting on a step on the Temple Mountain, and they brought before
him the Targum of the Book of Job and he said to the builder...
(Tos. Shab. 13(14):2)
T h e s t o r y o f Halafta i n c l u d e s t h e u s u a l specification o f w h e r e G a m a
liel's r u l i n g w a s g i v e n . H i s g e n e r a l i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f l a w d o e s n o t r e c u r .
4. Gamaliel said, I see the words of Admon.

(M. Ket. 13:3-5)
T h e u s e o f t h e p a s t t e n s e m a r k s t h e s t o c k - p h r a s e as a n 'historical' ac
c o u n t o f G a m a l i e l ' s legal o p i n i o n .
5. Shammai says, If the time were propitious, I would decree...

(B) The court that followed him decreed...
(Tos. Shev. 3:10)
T h e s t o r y o f t h e c o u r t (B) c o m m e n t s o n S h a m m a i ' s s a y i n g . A l l is brief,
b u t n o t a b b r e v i a t e d ; t h e tale is c o m p l e t e , a n d t h e r e a d e r is a l l o w e d t o
d r a w his o w n c o n c l u s i o n . W e s h o u l d h a v e p r e f e r r e d S h a m m a i said.
6. Gamaliel said, The house of father was accustomed to give one

pfah for olives in every direction, and as to carobs, all of which were
in sight of one another...
(Sifra Qedoshim 2:4)
G a m a l i e l ' s r e c o l l e c t i o n o f h i s father's p r a c t i c e s u p p l i e s a p r e c e d e n t as t o
w h a t o t h e r s m a y d o . It t h e r e f o r e c o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n as a g e n e r a l l a w :
One gives...
7. Gamaliel said, A Sadducee lived with us in the same alley in Jeru

salem. Father said to us, Hasten and put out all the vessels...
R. Judah says in other language, Hasten and do all your needs...
(M. <Eruv. 6:2)
T h e n a r r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k is p r e s e r v e d , a n d M e i r a n d J u d a h s u p p l y d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e speeches f o r S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l . A s n o t e d , t h e f i r s t - p e r s o n
" r e c o l l e c t i o n " o f G a m a l i e l is a d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e earlier t r a d i t i o n t o l d
about h i m .
8. Gamaliel said, Never did my father's household bake bread into

thin cakes.
LEGAL
35
TRADITIONS
They said to him, What shall we do to your father's household...

( M . B e s . 2:6)
c
G a m a l i e l ' s p r e c e d e n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n in n a r r a t i v e f o r m : Ma aseb
b: Simeon b. Gamaliel baked thick cakes (only). A s a d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e r e p o r t
o f G a m a l i e l , it d o e s n o t s e r v e e v e n as a p r e c e d e n t a n d is r e a d i l y d i s m i s s e d ,
in they said to him, n o t b y analysis o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t r a t h e r b y t r e a t i n g
t h e p r a c t i c e as a p r i v a t e i d i o s y n c r a c y . It is n o t an a u t h o r i t a t i v e p r e c e d e n t .
G a m a l i e l ' s p r e c e d e n t s a r e i n c l u d e d as e x a m p l e s o f f i r s t - p e r s o n r e c o l l e c
t i o n s o f w h a t o n e has h i m s e l f seen a n d d o n e .
9. Yo'ezer of the Birah was one of the disciples of the House of Sham
mai, and he said, I asked Rabban Gamaliel [re rendering dough for
bidden].
( M . <Orl. 2:12)
8. Illustrations and Proofs
Another sort of legal narrative presents in historical language either
an illustration of an established law or a tale supposed to prove a
legal point. The latter differs from a precedent in that it is not integral
to the law at hand, but is told for its own interest and then tied by the
redactor to the legal discussion in which it now appears. The redactor
establishes the story as a precedent or illustration of law; the story
had stood independently. No formal traits in common characterize all
illustrations and proofs.
1. Did the rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel about disinherit
ing one's wicked children?
Yosef b. Yo'ezer had a son who did not behave properly...
(b. B.B. 133b)
T h i s is f o l l o w e d b y a l o n g s t o r y . T h e p e r t i n e n c e t o t h e legal issue is at
t h e b e g i n n i n g : Y o s i h a d a l o t o f m o n e y a n d g a v e it t o t h e T e m p l e , t h u s
d i s i n h e r i t i n g t h e s o n . B u t t h e s t o r y t h e n i g n o r e s t h e issue, a n d tells h o w
t h e s o n f o u n d a p e a r l in a fish a n d g a v e t h e m o n e y t o t h e T e m p l e . T h e
n a r r a t i v e itself e x h i b i t s n o l e g a l c o n c e r n ; o n l y t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y s e n t e n c e ,
i n H e b r e w , s u g g e s t s a n y c o n n e c t i o n at a l l : Yosi had a son who did not be
have...
2. Yaqim of Serurot, nephew of Yosi b. Yo'ezer, inflicted on himself

four modes of judicial death-penalty, stoning, burning, decapitation,
and strangulation.
(Gen. R. 65:27)
T h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n , b e g i n n i n g what did he do, s e r v e s as a h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a
t i v e i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e w a y in w h i c h o n e m i g h t inflict all f o u r m o d e s o f
e x e c u t i o n in a p p r o p r i a t e s e q u e n c e . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n is i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e
f o r e g o i n g n a r r a t i v e ; s t a n d i n g b y itself, it c o u l d h a v e b e e n t o l d i n t h e
p r e s e n t t e n s e a n d p r e s c r i p t i v e l y , One brings a post and plants it in the earth
etc.
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
3. A. Once Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death one false witness.

Judah b. Tabbai said to him + direct discourse version of Deut 19:15.
B. And once Judah b. Tabbai entered a ruin and found slain man
writhing and a sword in hand of slayer. Judah b. Tabbai said to him +
Deut 19:15 + exegesis. Serpent bit man.
(Mekh. Kaspa III 31-41)
T h e p a i r o f s t o r i e s p r o v i d e s a h i s t o r i c a l setting f o r e x e g e s e s o f D e u t .
19:15, t h a t t w o w i t n e s s e s a r e r e q u i r e d in a capital case, a n d t h a t false
w i t n e s s e s a r e p u t t o d e a t h o n l y if t h e r e a r e t w o . A s n o t e d , t h e first s t o r y
a l s o o c c u r s w i t h o u t a n a m e d m a s t e r a n d s e r v e s as a n exegesis o f G e n .
9:6.
4. Eliezer: Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?
They said to him, He hung eighty women...
(Sifre Deut. 221)
T h i s is an a l l u s i o n t o a s t o r y w h i c h is n o t s p e l l e d o u t . W h e n t h e s t o r y
d o e s o c c u r , it is h e a d e d b y t h e H e b r e w l e m m a , b u t t h e n is t o l d in A r a
m a i c , a n d t h e A r a m a i c v e r s i o n has little t o d o w i t h t h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c
t i o n . I n f o r m , t h e a l l u s i o n is a p r e c e d e n t , s i m p l y S i m e o n b . + v e r b -{o b j e c t . T h e sages a d d a n a d j e c t i v e , eighty.
5. They sound
for rain.
shofar
because of public distress. Story: Honi prayed

(M. Ta. 3:8)
T h e H o n i - t a l e has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e l a w t o w h i c h
shofar d o e s n o t o c c u r in t h e s t o r y . I list it h e r e b e c a u s e it
legal s t o r y m i g h t b e a t t a c h e d t o a l a w , p r o d u c i n g t h e
any story so attached w o u l d illustrate a law, e v e n w h e n
it is a t t a c h e d . A
illustrates h o w a
expectation that
it d o e s n o t .
6. May one who ate only vegetables bless? TNY: Three hundred
Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. S. For one hundred fifty
he found grounds for absolution, for one hundred fifty did not.
(y. Ber. 7:2)
T h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c t o r y s e n t e n c e , g i v e n a b o v e , is f o l l o w e d b y a l o n g
A r a m a i c t a l e . T h e c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e l e g a l p r o b l e m raised at t h e o u t s e t is
in p a r t J , Give him a cup so he may bless. T h e s t o r y is n o t a b o u t t h a t l a w ,
but does illustrate a point u n d e r consideration.
7. Abbaye said, How do I know that if a wife is charged by one wit

ness with adultery and the husband remains silent, he must divorce
the wife?
Story: Yannai the King went to Kohalit.
(b. Qid. 66a)
A g a i n , a s t o r y is r e f e r r e d t o t o p r o v e a legal p r i n c i p l e . A s b e f o r e , t h e
s t o r y at n o p o i n t r e f e r s t o t h e legal issue a n d can h a r d l y b e said t o " p r o v e "
it.
8. Simeon b. Shetah returned the pearl.

(y. B.M. 2:5)
LEGAL
37
TRADITIONS
T h e s t o r y illustrates a l a w . It is t o l d b y m e a n s o f d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e
b e t w e e n S . b . S . a n d h i s disciples.
9. Why are not kings of Israel judged or permitted to judge? Be

cause of an incident with Yannai the King.
(b. Sanh. 19a-b)
A s i n n o s . 6 a n d 7 , t h e s t o r y s u p p l i e s t h e e t i o l o g y f o r a n established l a w .
I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e l a w is cited a t t h e e n d ( C ) , i n t r o d u c e d b y at that mo
ment they said. T h e e a r l i e r e x a m p l e s a r e n o t s o closely t i e d t o t h e l a w s t h e y
supposedly account f o r .
10. Re disinheritance-law: Story is told of man whose sons did not

conduct selves properly. He wrote his estate over to Jonathan b. Uzziel. Shammai attempts to remonstrate. Jonathan says, If you can
take back what is sold and consecrated, you can take back what I return
ed.
(b. B.B. 133b-134a)
c
T h e s t o r y is l o n g a n d w e l l a r t i c u l a t e d , t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e .
N o l a w is q u o t e d ; b u t J o n a t h a n ' s s a y i n g t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d w h a t t h e l a w
requires.
11. Hillel the Elder expounded the language of common people. When
the Alexandrians would betrothe...Hillel said to them...
(Tos. Ket. 4:9)
t
T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y clause leads t o t h e s u p p o s i t i o n o f a o n e - t i m e ma aseh

l i k e p r e c e d e n t s a b o v e . B u t t h e s t o r y itself is w e l l d e v e l o p e d ; it consists
o f b o t h a description o f t h e prevailing situation (when t h e Alexandrians
w o u l d betrothe... they sought...), a n d t h e account, told in direct-dis
c o u r s e , o f w h a t Hillel d i d . T h e s t o r y ' s legal p o i n t is m a d e a t t h e o u t s e t
and then actually p r o v e d .
y
12. Hillel laid on hands on the whole-offering in the courtyard. Disci

ples of Shammai collected against him. He explained it was a peaceoffering. They went away.
(Tos. Hag. 2:11)
T h e s t o r y d o e s n o t s u p p l y a p r e c e d e n t , b u t e x p l a i n s a w a y o n e : Hillel laid
h a n d s o n a peace-offering, n o t o n a w h o l e - o f f e r i n g . A s a s i m p l e ma aseh,
t h e s t o r y w o u l d b e : Hillel + l a i d h a n d s + o n t h e w h o l e - o f f e r i n g . B u t as
is, t h e s t o r y m a k e s a different p o i n t : it e x p l a i n s w h y t h e S h a m m a i t e s
t e m p o r a r i l y p r e d o m i n a t e d , a n d h o w a l o y a l S h a m m a i t e r e t r i e v e d t h e sit
u a t i o n n o t a legal s t o r y at a l l .
<
13. Hillel's rise to power: The assemblages of stories on this theme

all introduce two legal questions, first, does the Passover-offering
override the Sabbath? Second, is it all right for the people to dissim
ulate in bringing the necessary equipment? The first theme is explored
through exegetical arguments. The "story" merely gives the dramatic
setting for those arguments, which stand independent of the rest. As
38
TRADITION
to the story itself, it starts with the time (One time the 14th fell...).
Then, they asked Hillel, who said + arguments. Then the whole courtyard
collected, and he adds more arguments. Then, / received from my masters.
Afterwards the second legal problem is introduced: the rule for
those who did not bring knives. The answer is that what people do is
acceptable. Then: on that very day. The narratives therefore surround the
legal exegeses with 'historical' information, but do not intrude on
those exegeses. The narrative style is complex, but, in general, consists
of a series of exchanges in direct discourse, they asked...he said to them...
The narrative details, e.g., the whole courtyard...,are brief and tangential
to the whole. What did Israel do in that hour is normal rhetorical material,
introducing the account of what the people did. Then comes a com
plete sentence, On that very day...
(Tos. Pisha 4:13)
14. Baba b. Buta would volunteer a suspensive guilt-offering every day
except day after Day of Atonement. He said, By this Temple, if they
would let me... But sages say, They do not bring...
(M. Ker. 6:3)
Baba's b e h a v i o r and s a y i n g i l l u s t r a t e t h e r u l e of t h e sages.
15. They do not register for two Passover-offerings simultaneously.
Story of king, queen, and Gamaliel...
(b. Pes. 88b)
T h e s t o r y is r e p e a t e d , first w i t h t h e P a s s o v e r , t h e n w i t h t h e l i z a r d . I n
b o t h instances t h e s t o r y is t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e sen
t e n c e s , j o i n e d b y they went and said/asked; t h e n t h e c o n c l u s i o n is spelled
o u t : they did so, and Gamaliel ruled. T h e s e c o n d f a b l e a n d t h e m o r a l o f t h e
w h o l e a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e legal issue.
16. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet for
them that ate hallowed things, his apron counted as suffering midrasuncleanness.
(M. Hag. 2:7)
A b r i e f ' h i s t o r i c a l ' n a r r a t i v e in t h e past tense, t h e p e r i c o p e illustrates a
legal p r i n c i p l e . T h e l i t e r a r y t r a i t is t h e b a l a n c i n g o f c o n t r a s t s : m o s t p i
o u s , y e t midras, m u c h l i k e t h e a n t o n y m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s established i n
m o r a l a n d t h e o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s , e.g. when all gather, you scatter.
9. Histories of Laws
A few pericopae relate the history or consequences of a law.
They exhibit no form or common literary traits.
1. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, capital crimesjurisdiction] was removed. And in the days of Simeon b. . [jurisdic
tion over] cases of property litigation was removed.
(y. Sanh. 1:1)
LEGAL
TRADITIONS
39
and in the days of serve like at first, but now the narrative does
not supply a law or an illustration of a legal point, but rather, an historical
explanation for the prevailing situation. The lemma is brief, as in the at
first form: time + named authority + verb -f subject.
Forty years
2. Even though these forbid and these permit, these declare ineligible
and these declare eligible, the House of Shammai did not refrain from
marrying women from the House of Hillel, and vice versa [Also:
cleannesses]
(M. Yev. 1:4)
This saying purports to relate the "historical" consequences of the
Houses-disputes.
E. Legal Exegeses
Legal exegeses do not differ in form from non-legal ones. They
appear in four ways. First, a Scripture may be quoted for redactional
purposes, at the beginning or end of a pericope, but not analyzed or
cited as proof of a proposition integral to the pericope. Second, a
Scripture may be analyzed with a view to proving a legal proposition.
Third, it may be offered as a proof-text for a legal point without such
close exegetical analysis, yet in a more integral relationship to the
pericope than in the first group. Fourth, some exegeses produce
biographical fables about sages, which then illustrate the antecedent
exegeses.
1. Scriptural
References
Scriptures referred to without any sort of analysis are either glosses

or redactional devices linking a pericope to the framework of an
exegetical compilation, as follows:
1. Num. 6:2, Sifre Num. 22redactional gloss, linking Simeon-story
to its setting; then repeated in the story; Upon you isfulfilled the Scripture.
2. Prov. 10:27, y. Yoma 1:1R. Aha or R. Yohanan: applies to
priests in First and Second Temples; cited in connection with Simeon
the Just's forty years.
3. Lev. 26:44, b. Meg. 11acited by Samuel in connection with
Simeon the Just.
4. Mic. 7:1, M. Sot. 9:9anonymously cited in regard to grapeclusters.
5. Deut. 22:22, Sifre Deut. 221links Eliezer re hanging to context;
omitted in M. Sanh. 6:4, therefore redactional.
6. Lev. 25:30, Sifra Behar 4:8cited in connection with HillePs ordi
nance about redeeming property, but not integral to the story of the
ordinance.
40
TRADITION
7. Ps. 114:8 etc., M. Pes. 10:6Houses: How far recite Hallel?

8. Ps. 118:1 etc., M. Suk. 3:9Houses: Where shake Lulav?
N o s . 9 a n d 1 0 a r e n o t e x e g e s e s b u t r e f e r e n c e s , y e t a r e i n t e g r a l t o t h e legal
context.
2. Exegeses
1. Deut. 17:6,19:15, Mekh. Kaspa III: 31-41, Tos. Sanh. 6:6Judah
b. Tabbai etc.proves that false witnesses are sentenced to death only
when they are two; proves that one must have two witnesses to punish
murderer: Just as there must be two...so also there must be two...
2. Ex. 20:8, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 148, Is. 29-30;
Shammai: Remember it before it comes, and keep it when it comes.
3. Ex. 13:10, Lev. 25:29, Mekh. Pisha III: 209-216Here it says,
there it saysHouses: proves year means twelve months. Re examining
tefillin.
4. Deut. 20:20, Tos. Eruv. 3:7Shammai: Until it fall even on
the Sabbath.
5. Lev. 11:24, Sifra Shemini 9:5He who touches their corpse
Hillel: Even if they are in the midst of the water.
6. Lev. 13:37, Sifra Tazri'a 9:16Itch will be healedHillel: Not
that he became afflicted.
7. Deut. 15:3, Sifre Deut. 113 Whatever of yoursHillel: But not
he who gives his mortgages to the court, prosbul.
8. Deut. 15:9, M. Shev. 10:3People refrained from lending money
and transgressed, so Hillel ordained prosbul.
9. Num. 28:2, Num. 9:2, Tos. Vish2i4:l3Its seasonHillel: proves
Passover-offering overrides Sabbath.
10. Lev. 13:17b vs. Lev. 13:17aHillel harmonizes
11. Deut. 16:2 vs. Ex. 12:5Hillel harmonizes
12. Deut. 16:8 vs. Ex. 12:15Hillel harmonizes
(y. Pes. 6:1)
13. Deut. 12:2-4, Sifre Deut. 61Gamaliel says, Would it enter your
mind that Israel would destroy their altars? But you should not do
like their deeds.
[14. Ex. 22:8, Mekh. deR. Ishmael Neziqin 15:49-55assigned to
Houses' dispute on liability for misuse of bailment, but irrelevant to
that issue.]
15. Ex. 12:6, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6Between
two eveningsHouse of Shammai: Included in evening is the time after
the noon hour.
16. Ex. 23:16, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17Every
maleto include the children. Aqiban proof for Hillelite proposition.
17. Ex. 20:9, Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:9, Tos. Shab.
1:20-lSix days shallyou work analyzed by both Houses.
18. Lev. 6:5, Sifra Sav 8:6On that day of his guilt offeringintroduces
Houses-dispute on payment of bailment that has been misappropriated.
Omitted in M. B.M. 3:12-19.
c
LEGAL
41
TRADITIONS
19. Lev. 6:30, Sifra Sav 8:6All that is holy will be burned introduces
Houses-dispute on burning unclean flesh of holy of holies.
20. Lev. 12:6-7, Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2Or for a daughterto include one
who brings forth abortion, etc. 'Aqiban proof for Hillelite proposition.
Omitted in M. Ker. 1:6.
21. Her bloods, Lev. 12:7, Sifra Tazri'a 3:6introduces Houses dispute
on unclean bloods.
22. Lev. 19:23-4, Sifra Qedoshim 3:7All their fruit will be. Aqiban
proof of Hillelite proposition. Omitted in M. Ed. 4:5.
23. Lev. 23:39, Sifra Emor 15:5>K on the 15th day Houses-dispute,
on meaning of >K, is based on 'Aqiban exegetical principle.
24. Lev. 25:4-6, Sifra Behar 1:5But in the seventh yearproof for
Shammaite position. Omitted in M. Shev. 4:2.
25. Num. 15:38, Sifre Num. 115And they shall make for themselves
introduction to Houses dispute on how many tassels.
26. Deut. 22:12 vs. Num. 15:38, Sifre Deut. 234introduces Houses
dispute on how many strands.
27. Deut. 6:7, Sifre Deut. 34When you lie downHouses dispute re
Sherna*.
28. Ex. 13:7, Sifre Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1Houses dispute whether
measurements differ for leavened bread and other kinds of leaven.
M. Bes. 1:1 omits Scripture.
29. Deut. 16:16, Sifre Deut. 143to include the children. <Aqiban
proof for Hillelite position. M. Hul. 11:2 omits Scripture.
30. Deut. 18:4, Sifre Deut. 166first of fleece. 'Aqiban proof for
Hillelite position.
31. Deut. 24:1, Sifre Deut. 269, repeated in M. Git. 9:10Grounds for
divorce. Houses dispute decency vs. matter.
32. Num. 18:27 vs. Lev. 27:30, Tos. Ter. 3:16cited by Houses to
support position: This one has not given vs. This one has not carried out...
33. Ex. 12:16 vs. Lev. 23:41, b. Bes. 20b, y. Bes. 2:4On making
offerings on festival. Cited by Houses to prove case: But not for the
Most High vs. whatever is for the Lord.
34. Is. 7:21 vs. I Sam. 25:8, M. Hul. 11:2cited refleece,instead of
Deut. 18:4; each House is given a proof-text.
35. Deut. 23:19, b. Tern. 30b)Them but not their issue; even includes
their products. Shammaites are given an Aqiban exegesis.
c
We observe that exegetical material is not substantial by comparison

to the considerable range of legal discussions in Houses-pericopae.
No exegetical materials, except for nos. 1 and 13, occur with reference
to legal teachings of named masters other than Shammai, Hillel, and
their Houses. Thirty-three of the thirty-five items pertain to them.
But of these, nos. 16,19, 22,23, 29, 30, and 35 are 'Aqiban inventions;
no. 14 is irrelevant to the Houses' dispute in which it is quoted; nos,
18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 all supply a redactional connection between a
42
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS
OF
TRADITION
Houses-dispute and the compilation or context in which it is cited,

but are not directly referred to in the substance of the dispute. That
leaves no more than twenty exegetical pericopae that directly derive
from, or pertain to, Houses' opinions or those of Hillel and Shammai.
Of these, nos. 2 and 4 are Shammai's; nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
are Hillel's, in both instances without contrary opinion. The Housesdisputes that most pertinently relate to exegeses are nos. 17, 27, 28,
31, 32, 33, and 34, that is, only seven of thirty-five may be called
significant halakhic exegeses, in which the exegetical materials quoted
in connection with disputes are actually integral to the legal opinions
of opposing parties.
3.
Proof-texts
The proof-texts relate to the material to which they are attached,

but do not affect the content, and appear to be glosses, except for no. 2,
which is integral to Shammai's saying:
1. To make known how much damage is caused by sin, to fulfill
that which is said, Jer. 5:25, Sifra Behuqotai 1:1not analyzed but
integral to story.
2. His sender is liable, for it is said, II Sam. 12:9, b. Qid. 43aShammai.
3. Num. 15:20, Tos. <Ed. 1:1proof text for Hillel re hallah.
4. Prov. 14:28, b. Ber. 53aproof text for Hillel, re blessing.
4. From Exegesis to Chria
In these instances an anonymous exegesis is accompanied by a terse
chria, or biographical apophthegm, in which a named master acts out
the exegesis, which, in nos. 4 and 5, is told in exactly the words of
the foregoing exegesis:
1. Shammai the Elder says, Remember itbefore it comes (Ex. 20:8).
They said concerning Shammai that the memory of the Sabbath did
not move from his mouth.
(Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:8)
2. Ex. 12:8: It is a misyah to eat all together.
Hillel the Elder would fold them together and eat them.
(Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:8 [Also:
Num. 9:11, b. Pes. 115a] )
3. Deut. 15:9: Beware that there be not a base thought. People re
frained from giving loans, so Hillel ordained prosbul.
(M. Shev. 10:3)
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
43
4. Deut. 15:8Sufficient for his needeven slave, horse.

Hillel the Elder gave slave, horse.
(Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, y. Pe'ah 8:7)
5. Ps. 112:7If one hears outcry, he should say Ps. 112:7.
Hillel heard outcry, concerning him Ps. 112:7 is said.
(y. Ber. 9:3, b. Ber. 60a)
II. AGGADIC TRADITIONS
An aggadic tradition is a saying or story about a moral, theological,

or historical matter, without direct legal consequence, bearing no
immediate, practical effect, and carrying no normative authority.
Aggadic traditions in general come in three ways: short and long
stories of various sorts; sayings, whether or not supplied with a
historical framework; and exegeses of Scriptures. These broad divi
sions further reveal some characteristic forms or literary traits.
A . Stories
The normal way of telling a story is through dialogue in direct
discourse, with minimum descriptive matter to set the stage. Once the
story is under way, the connecting material consists primarily of he
said to him, broken up by brief narrative clauses, e.g. he did so and...;
such clauses make it possible to resume the dialogue with only brief
interruptions.
1. Allusions to Stories
Brief clauses in Hebrew allude to stories which then are told in
Aramaic, without substantial relationship to the allusion; or stories
begin in Hebrew and are finished in Aramaic. These pertain primarily
to masters before Shammai-Hillel, as follows:
1. Yosef b. Yo'ezer had a son who did not behave properly.
(b. B.B. 133b)
T h e H e b r e w clause is f o l l o w e d b y a n A r a m a i c s t o r y a b o u t h o w Y o s i ' s
s o n f o u n d a pearl in a fish. T h e c o n n e c t i o n is be had a loft, rose and sanctified
it. T h e s t o r y t h e n i g n o r e s Y o s i u n t i l t h e e n d , w h e n a f o r m u l a i c s a y i n g
( o n e / s e v e n ) r e s t o r e s t h e c o n n e c t i o n , Yosef brought in one and his son took out
seven.
2. Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near...
not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away
with both hands.
(b. Sot. 47a)
INTERMEDIATE
UNITS OF
TRADITION
T h i s is n o t l i k e t h e f o r e g o i n g , since t h e s t o r y is n o t t o l d i m m e d i a t e l y
f o l l o w i n g ; it s h o w s w h a t s u c h an a l l u s i o n l o o k s l i k e w h e n s e p a r a t e d
f r o m t h e s t o r y t o w h i c h it a l l u d e s . T h e s t o r y is in A r a m a i c , t h e s a y i n g in
Hebrew.
3. Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon? He hung

eighty...
(Sifre Deut. 221)
T h e r e f e r e n c e o f E l i e z e r a n d t h e sages is i n H e b r e w . It o m i t s t h e m o s t
important element of the A r a m a i c story o f y. Sanh. 6 : 6 / y . Hag. 2 : 2 , that
the w o m e n w e r e witches, and that Simeon had t o use witchcraft to o v e r
c o m e t h e m . W h a t a r e v e r i f i e d a r e S.b.S., Ashqelon, eighty, a n d hanging. O u t
o f these elements, o n e could n e v e r reconstruct the long narrative.
4. Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. Shetah.

For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolution, and
for one hundred fifty he did not.
(y. Ber. 7:2)
U n l i k e t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h i s H e b r e w s e n t e n c e , s t a n d i n g at t h e b e g i n n i n g
o f a n A r a m a i c n a r r a t i v e , is i n t e g r a l t o w h a t f o l l o w s .
5. The world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored
the Torah to its place.
(b. Qid. 66a)
T h i s s a y i n g is n o t o f t h e s a m e o r d e r as t h e f o r e g o i n g . I t c o m e s , i n H e
b r e w , at t h e e n d o f t h e H e b r e w s t o r y o f t h e f a l l i n g o u t b e t w e e n Y a n n a i
a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s . It is e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e s t o r y , s u p p l i e s a h a p p y
e n d i n g t o it. S i m e o n d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e s t o r y itself.
6.
Ma'aseh
b:
A high priest came forth from the sanctuary.

(b. Yoma 71b)
T h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c t o r y p h r a s e is f o l l o w e d b y , a n d i n t e g r a l t o , t h e A r a
m a i c n a r r a t i v e : all t h e p e o p l e f o l l o w e d h i m , b u t left h i m w h e n t h e y s a w
S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n . T h e p e r i c o p e is g i v e n t h e r e d a c t i o n a l s u p e r
s c r i p t i o n , T N W R B N N , b u t t h a t is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t t h e r e s t w i l l b e t o l d
i n beraita-style. I n d e e d , TNW RBNN + Ma'aseh b + high priest came forth
from sanctuary w o u l d h a r d l y b e sufficient f o r t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r e
mainder of the story, f o r even the names of the heroes S + A are omitted.
7. Rabbi said, Three were humble: my father, the Bene Bathyra, and
Jonathan b. Saul.
(b. B.M. 85a)
I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e s t o r y is a l l u d e d t o , b u t n o t t o l d at all. T h e r e f o l l o w s a
b r i e f a l l u s i o n , " T h e B e n d B a t h y r a , as a m a s t e r said, ' T h e y p l a c e d him at
t h e h e a d and a p p o i n t e d him nasi o v e r t h e m . ' "
8. A master has said, Jesus practiced magic and deceived and led
Israel astray.
(b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b)
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
45
The lemma draws the moral of the Jesus-Joshua story, but does not
allude to its substance.
Brief allusions in Hebrew to stories then told in Aramaic, e.g., nos.
2,3, and 7, do not contain all important elements of the stories themselves
and prove only that a tradition of some sort, but not the story in
pretty much its present form, existed at the time of the allusion. No. 1
sets the stage for a story, but not the story that follows, which is
irrelevant to it. Nos. 4 and 6 begin narratives; no. 4 might be regarded
as an allusion to what follows, but no. 6 cannot. It is the first sentence
of the story and does not stand by itself. No. 5 is not an appropriate
subscription, for, as I said, Simeon is absent from the antecedent
narrative; nor does the phrase supply a moral for the foregoing, unlike
no. 8. All the examples relate to, but stand apart from, the narratives
to which they are attached or allude. The narratives are then independ
ent of the allusions. This suggests that traditional materials included
tales not fully spelled out in the earliest strata, merely referred to or
substantially taken for granted, e.g. no. 7. When the stories themselves
were fully worked out, as in nos. 3 and 4, they were not limited to
the details supplied by the allusions.
2. Short Biographical References
A second intermediate unit of the aggadic tradition is a brief biograph
ical reference, complete in a single sentence. This corresponds to
short legal sentences of various kinds, precedents, e.g., At first...
ordained..., Hillel would fold them, in days of Hillel no one trespassed, and
the like: simple declarative sentences, which stand by themselves and
convey a complete unit of thought but do not tell a story. There is
no formal difference between brief legal precedents and aggadic biograph
ical references. All consist simply of a subject, verb, and object and
adverbs and adjectives as called for. One cannot regard these as forms.
Short biographical references are as follows:
1. When Yosi + Yosi died, the grapeclusters ceased.
(M. Sot. 9:9)
T h e M$ + verb + subject f o r m o f M . S o t . is i m p o s e d o n discrete m a t e
rials, e.g. when multiplied poor disciples, multiplied disputes.
2. Some say it was Hillel the Elder, but he could not say, What my
own hands have done.
(Sifre Num. 123)
46
TRADITION
T h e l e m m a is i n t r u d e d i n t o t h e s t o r y o f Y o h a n a n a n d t h e disciples. I t is
n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t s a y i n g ; Hillel w a s n o t a p r i e s t . It is f o r m e d o f t h e
m a t e r i a l s o f t h e s t o r y in w h i c h it o c c u r s .
3. Hillel came up from Babylonia aged forty, served sages for forty
years, and sustained Israel for forty years.
(Sifre Deut. 357)
A s the foregoing, the lemma depends u p o n the 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 structure of the
p e r i c o p e in w h i c h it o c c u r s a n d is n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t s a y i n g .
4. When Gamaliel died, the glory of Torah ceased.

(M. Sot. 9:15)
See a b o v e , n o .
1.
5. When Gamaliel died, sickness descended on the world and they

studied the Torah sitting down.
(b. Meg. 21a)
6. When Hanina b. Dosa died, men of deeds ceased.
(M. Sot. 9:15)
7. Hillel, Simeon Gamaliel, and Simeon ruled as patriarchs for century
of Temple's existence.
(b. Shab. 15a)
8. Jesus deceived and led Israel astray.
(b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 107b)
9. Yohanan the high priest officiated as high priest for eighty years
and in the end became a min.
(b. Ber. 29a)
10. Menahem went forth to the king's service, and eighty pairs of
disciples dressed in silk went forth with him.
(b. Hag. 16b)
11. Hillel had eighty disciples30/30/20.
(b. Suk. 28a)
12. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had
not adequately served as disciples, disputes multiplied in Israel, and
they became two Torahs.
(Tos. Hag. 2:9)
The short biographical references tend to depend upon the redactional
or narrative framework in which they occur; redactional: nos. 1, 4,
6, and, secondarily, no. 5, on M. Sot., Sifre Num. 123, no. 2, and
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
47
Sifre Deut. 357, no. 3; narrative: no. 8, 11, 12 (M$RBW- formula).

Nos. 7, 9, and 10 are brief, self-contained sentences, more like halakhic
ones, since they stand independent of context and are not shaped either
within it or according to a larger narrative framework.
3. Biographical and Historical
Stories
The largest corpus of non-legal materials consists of stories of a

biographical or historical nature. The two cannot be completely
separated, for the historical stories always involve named masters.
But the former focus upon the masters, the latter upon events in
which masters play a subordinate rule. We have the following peri
copae:
1. Simeon the Just heard, The decree is annulled which the enemy
intended to bring on the Temple, and Qesgeleges has been killed, and
his decrees have been annulled.
(Tos. Sot. 13:7)
2. All the time that Simeon the Just was alive, the western light was
continual. When he died, they went and found it had gone out.
Afterward sometimes it went out and sometimes it burned strongly-f
wood-offering, bread-loaves, and showbread.
(Tos. Sot. 13:7)
3. All the forty years that Simeon the Just ministered + lot,
crimson-colored strap, westernmost light, wood-pile, ômer, two breads
and showbreads.
(b. Yoma 39a-b)
4. In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he said to them that
in this year he would die. They said to him, How do you know? He
replied...
(b. Yoma 39a-b)
5. His brethren forbore to mention the Name.
(b. Yoma 39b)
N o . 4 is t h e s o l e b i o g r a p h i c a l s t o r y in t h i s g r o u p . It is c o m p o s e d o f d i
r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e . N o s . 2 , 3 , a n d 5 a r e s t o r i e s o f c h a n g e s in t h e c u l t ,
for w h i c h S i m e o n supplies the occasion. T h e y contain n o discourse, but
r a t h e r a r e b a l a n c e d sets o f n a r r a t i v e sentences. N o . 2 c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l
s u c h sentences, f o l l o w e d b y when Simeon died - f changes. N o . 4 c o n s i s t s o f
s o m e w h a t brief, m a t c h e d p e r i c o p a e : t h e l o t / s t r a p / e t c . would... from that
time on, sometimes it would, sometimes it would notthe w h o l e c a r e f u l l y c o n
s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s i m p l e p a t t e r n . N o . 1 has S i m e o n hear a m e s s a g e
in n o w a y r e l e v a n t t o S i m e o n himself. It c o u l d as w e l l h a v e said in the days
of Simeon they heardno different f r o m n o s . 2 a n d 3 .
TRADITION
6. When he [Alexander] saw Simeon, he descended from chariot and

prostrated before him, and they said to him, Will such a great king...
He said to them, The image of this man conquers before me...
(b. Yoma 69a)
T h e S i m e o n - i n s e r t i o n consists o f a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e s e t t i n g , p l u s d i a l o g u e
c o n v e y i n g t h e m e s s a g e , s i m i l a r t o n o . 4 a b o v e : in the year + he said to
them + they said to him.
7. Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo: The young men...

(b. Sot. 33a)
Y o h a n a n is n o m o r e i m p o r t a n t h e r e t h a n is S i m e o n in n o . 1.
8. When Simeon died, he said, My son Onias...His brother Shime'i

was jealous of him and said to him...He put on him a gown and said
to priests...At this his brethren sought to kill him...etc.
(b. Men. 109b)
Simeon's death p r o v i d e s a date f o r the Onias-Shime'i story, w h i c h then
is t o l d t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e .
9. Priest prayed too long. They went in after him. They said to him...
He said to them...They said to him... + Forty years Simeon served
as high priest, predicted death.
(y. Yoma 5:2)
N o f o r m a l differences f r o m s t a n d a r d s t o r y - f o r m .
10. Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples etc. They asked, Why did
our ancestors...If our ancestors had known... They arose and with
drew... And they used...
(ARN Ch. 5)
T h i s s t o r y is f o r m a l l y q u i t e u n l i k e t h e l o n g e r n a r r a t i v e s , f o r it c o n t a i n s
substantial n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l a n d o n e l o n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l speech. T h e
s u b s c r i p t i o n and they used d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h e p i c t u r e .
11. Yosi's son went and married daughter of wreath-maker of Yannai

the king. (She gave birth to a son). He bought her a fish. He found a
pearl in it. She said to him...He brought it, they assessed it. They said
to him...He said to them...
(b. B.B. 133b)
T h e s t o r y , a p a r t f r o m its l e g a l s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , h a s a s o m e w h a t a r t i c u l a t e d
i n t r o d u c t i o n , as g i v e n . T h e s o n is i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e s t o r y . T h e p e a r l in t h e
fish c o u l d i n t r o d u c e t h e w h o l e , a n d f r o m t h e r e , t h e w h o l e is d i a l o g u e ,
j o i n e d w i t h w h a t h e d i d in r e s p o n s e t o h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s .
12. Yaqim of Serurot was Yosi's nephew. Riding on horse. Saw beam
on which he was to be hanged. He said to him... (four times). He went
and brought on self...
(Gen. R. 65:27)
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
49
T h e w h o l e is a c o l l o q u y a b o u t r e w a r d a n d p u n i s h m e n t , w i t h a d r a m a t i c
setting p r o v i d e d b y t h e beam at t h e o u t s e t a n d t h e suicide at t h e e n d . T h e
s u b s t a n c e o f ideas d o e s call f o r t h e d r a m a t i c setting.
13. When Yannai killed the rabbis, Simeon was hidden by his sister,
and Joshua and Jesus fled to Alexandria, (a) When there was peace,
Simeon sent...He arose and came back, (b) He found himself in a cer
tain inn; they paid him honor; he said...Disciple said...He said...He
excommunicated him. (c) He came before him many times. He said...
But he did not...One day he tried to repent but thought himself
repelled. He went and set up brick. He said to him... He answered...
(d) A master had said...
(b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b)
T h e s t o r y c o n t a i n s s o m e w h a t m o r e n a r r a t i v e . T h e s t a g e is set w i t h when
Yannai; t h e n c o m e s S i m e o n ' s m e s s a g e . T h e s e c o n d u n i t is t h e s t a y i n t h e
i n n a n d t h e w i c k e d n e s s o f J e s u s , e n t i r e l y i n d i a l o g u e . T h e t h i r d u n i t is
t h e effort a t r e p e n t e n c e , t o l d i n b r i e f d e c l a r a t i v e sentences. T h e n c o m e s
t h e c l o s i n g d i a l o g u e , a n e x c h a n g e i n w h i c h n o n a r r a t i v e is n e e d e d .
14. In the days of Simeon b. Shetah, in the days of Shelomsu the queen,
rains came down in abundance...
(Sifra Behuqotai 1:1)
15. They said to Honi...He said to them...He prayed but rain did
not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and said... Rain began...He
said...It began to rain...He said...Then it rained properly...They went
to him and said...He said...Simeon b. Shetah sent to him...
(M. Ta. 3:8)
T h e w h o l e story consists o f dialogues and m o n o l o g u e s , w i t h a m i n i m u m
of narrative.
16. Three hundred Nazirites...He came to Yannai and said to him...

He did so. Rumor said...Yannai heard and was angry. Simeon was
frightened and fled. After days important men from Persia came.
Sitting and eating, they said...He did so. He said to him...He said to
him...And he cited concerning him the Scripture...He said to him...
He said to him [ + Ben Sira]...He said...He took the cup and said...
He said...He said...He said...They did so, he ate and said...
(y. Ber. 7:2)
17. There were two pious men in Ashqelon; one died and was not
properly mourned. Villager, tax-collector, died, and the whole town
mourned him. Pious man troubled and said. Deceased appeared in
dream and said...
After few days, pious man saw fellow walking in heaven...He saw
Miriam and said, Why is this so? They said to him...He said to them...
They said to him...He said, Why?...He said to him, Because...He
said to them...He said to him...
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III
TRADITION
He went and reported to him the incident. He wanted to do the

sign, but he would not allow him to do so. He said to him, I know...
Forthwith Simeon arose in severe rainstorm. He took eighty young
men, put in their hands eighty clean garments, put them in, and put
on their covers. He said to them... [Then comes the colloquy with the
witches]. Finally, he whistled once and they put on their garments. He
whistled a second time and they all came up at once. He said...
The lifted them up and went and crucified them.
(y. Hag. 2:2 = y. Sanh. 6:6)
Here w e h a v e considerably m o r e narrative than before. O f particular
i n t e r e s t is t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f n a r r a t i v e f o r e x p l a i n i n g b o t h S i m e o n ' s
m a g i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n s a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s ; at t h e s e p o i n t s n o d i a l o g u e
intervenes.
18. (a) Yannai went to Kohalit and conquered sixty towns. When he
returned he rejoiced and invited all the sages.
(b) He said to them... So they did so. There was there a certain scoff
er...He said to Yannai...He said to him...He said to him...He did so.
(c) There was there a certain sage.. .He said to Yannai...(For people
said that his mother had been taken captive)...The charge was investi
gated and not sustained; sages departed in anger.
(d) Eleazar then said to Yannai...He said to him (three exchanges).
(e) The evil blossomed through Eleazar; all the sages were killed.
(f) The world was desolate until Simeon came and restored the
Torah...
(b. Qid. 66a)
T h e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t sets t h e stage, a n d certain sage supplies t h e t r a n s i
t i o n t o t h e m a i n e v e n t . For people said is a n e c e s s a r y e x p l a n a t o r y g l o s s .
T h e n c o m e s t h e first c o n c l u s i o n , sages d e p a r t e d i n a n g e r , f o l l o w e d b y a
s e c o n d set o f e x c h a n g e s , a n d t h e final d e n o u e m e n t : e v i l b l o s s o m e d , sages
killed, w o r l d w a s desolate.
19. Hands of Simeon b. Shetah were heated. Conspiracy came and

said... They did so and it happened. When he went forth to be executed,
they said to him. His father wanted to bring him back. He said to him...
(y. Sanh. 6:3)
20. Simeon b. Shetah was employed in flax. His disciples said to him...
They did so. They came and told him...he said to them...they told
him...(two more exchanges).
(y. B.M. 2:5)
21. Yannai and queen ate together; he had killed rabbis, so no one
could bless. He said to wife...She said to him...He did so and she did
so (etc.dialogue throughout).
(b. Ber. 48a)
22. Slave of Yannai killed someone. Simeon sent to sages...They sent
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
51
to him...He sent the slave for judgment. They sent to him...He did so.
Simeon said to him...He said to him...He looked to right and they
looked down, to left, likewise; he said to them... Forthwith Gabriel
came and killed them and they died.
(b. Sanh. 19a-b)
T h e n a r r a t i v e details a r e s o m e w h a t m o r e f u l l y s u p p l i e d , b u t t h e y d o n o t
dominate the story; they flow f r o m , and depend upon, the dialogue.
23. High priest left sanctuary; people followed him; when they saw
Shema iah and Abtalion, they left him and followed S + A. When
S + A visited him, he said to them...They said to him...
(b. Yoma 71b)
c
T h e s e t t i n g is s o m e w h a t
through dialogue.
l o n g e r t h a n b e f o r e ; t h e p o i n t is
presented
24. Yohanan the high priest heard, The young men who went went
out...and they noted that hour and it tallied that they had conquered...
(Tos. Sot. 13:5)
A s w i t h Simeon, so with Y o h a n a n , once he "heard," he drops out o f the
s t o r y ; t h e n t h e m e s s a g e is g i v e n , a n d a n a r r a t i v e s u m m a r y o f t h e r e s u l t
follows.
25. Honi and Ps. 126:1: One day he was journeying and saw a man
planting a tree...He asked him...He said to him...Honi went to sleep,
rock covered him, and he slept for seventy years. Saw man gathering
fruit of tree and asked him... [The rest is in dialogue],
(b. Ta. 23a)
26. Abba Hilqiah his grandson: story told first in narrative of a set of
gestures and symbolic actions, then in dialogue explaining those ges
tures and actions.
(b. Ta. 23b)
27. Sages entered house of Guryo in Jericho and heard an echo: Man
here worthy of holy spirit, but generation is not, and they set their
eyes on Hillel. When he died, they said concerning him...
Another time sitting in Yavneh, they heard an echo, There is a man
here worthy of the holy spirit, but the generation is not, and they set
their eyes...And when he died, they said about him...
(Tos. Sot. 13:3)
H e r e t h e d i a l o g u e c l e a r l y is s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e n a r r a t i v e . T h e s a g e s sayn o t h i n g o f t h e i r o w n ; first t h e y h e a r a m e s s a g e , w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e g e s
t u r e , t h e n t h e y l a m e n t H i l l e l / S a m u e l t h e S m a l l . T h i s s t o r y differs f r o m
the pattern o f longer narratives, particularly biographical ones.
28. Hillel had eighty students. Greatest: Jonathan, least Yohanan b*

Z.
TRADITION
When he fell ill, they came to see him. Yohanan stood in courtyard.
He said to them...They said to him...He said to them...He did so,
and he said to them Prov. 8:21.
(y. Ned. 5:6)
29. No one was ever crushed in the Temple court except on one Pass
over in Hillel's time, on which an old man was crushed, and they called
it the Passover of the crushed.
(b. Pes. 64b)
30. Hillel used to work every day and earn one tropaic, half paid to
tuition, half for family. One day he found nothing to earn, and guard
at house of learning did not permit him to enter. He climbed up and
sat on window to hear words of living God from S + A. It was eve
of Sabbath in winter solstice, and snow fell. When dawn rose, S said
to A, why dark? They looked up and saw figure of man in window.
They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They
removed him and bathed and anointed him, placed him opposite fire
and said, This man is worthy...
(b. Yoma 35b)
This s h o w s us h o w a s t o r y could d e v e l o p w i t h o u t reliance o n dialogue
f o r t h e b u l k o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . H e r e t h e d i a l o g u e is i n t r i n s i c t o t h e n a r r a
t i v e , n e c e s s a r y at t h e d r a m a t i c t u r n i n g : W h y is it d a r k ? T h e c l o s i n g l e m
m a is a f o r m u l a i c s a y i n g .
31. Hillel and Shebna were brothers, Hillel in Torah, Shebna in busi
ness. He said to him...Echo said Song 8:7
(b. Sot. 21a)
32. Hillel and disciples re bathing: Entirely told through dialogue in
direct discourse.
(Lev. R. 34:3)
33. Be gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai. Two men made
wager, saying...
(b. Shab. 30b-31a)
T h e w h o l e is t o l d in d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e , w i t h o n l y a f e w n a r r a t i v e
details, i.e. he robed and went out to him and said... he departed, tarried a while,
returned, and said... [etc.]
34. Son of Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples to Hanina b. Dosa
to seek mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to an upper
chamber and prayed for him. When he came down, he said to them...
They said to him...He said to them... They sat down and wrote and
tallied the exact moment. When they came to Gamaliel, he said to them...
(b. Ber. 34b)
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
53
35. Simeon b. Gamaliel would dance with eight torches of gold and
they would not touch each other, and when he would kneel, he would
push his thumb in the ground and kneel down and forthwith straighten
up.
(y. Suk. 5:4, Tos. Suk. 4:4)
36. Simeon b. Gamaliel on a step on the Temple mount saw a gentile
woman who was particularly beautiful and said Ps. 104:24.
(b. A.Z. 20a/y. A.Z. 1:9)
37. Babylonian in Palestine: Boil me cow's feetshe boiled two lentils
etc.
(b. Ned. 66b)
Tale a b o u t amusing ambiguities o f Palestinian and Babylonian A r a m a i c .
38. Herod and Baba b. Butatold entirely in dialogue between Herod

and Baba.
(b. B.B. 4a)
39. Jeremiah, or Hiyya b. Abba: Targum of Prophets was composed by
Jonathan b. 'Uzziel, and the land quaked, echo came forth and said,
Who has revealed my secrets? Jonathan arose and said, I did... He
further sought to reveal the Targum of the Hagiography, but echo
said, Enough.
(b. Meg. 3a)
40. Eleazar b. Harsom: His father left him a thousand cities and a
thousand boats. Every day he would take a sack of flour on his shoul
der and go from city to city and province to province to study Torah.
One time his servants found him and seized him for the corvee. He
said to them, I beg you, let me go and study Torah, They said, By
the life of Eleazar b. Harsom, we shall not let you go. He had never
gone and seen them, but was sitting all day and night, occupying him
self with Torah.
(b. Yoma 35b)
L i k e t h e H i l l e l - s t o r y in t h e s a m e b e r a i t a , t h i s o n e s u b o r d i n a t e s d i a l o g u e
to narrative.
41. Joshua b. Gamala betrothed Martha b. Boethus and consummated

the union after the king had appointed him high priest.
(M. Yev. 6:4)
42. Assi: Two qabs of denars did Martha b. Boethus give to King
Yannai to nominate Joshua b. Gamala as one of the high priests.
(b. Yoma 18a)
43. The mother of Ishmael b. Phiabi made him a tunic worth one
54
TRADITION
hundred minas, which he put on to officiate at a private service and then

handed over to the community.
(b. Yoma 35b)
44. Eleazar b. Harsom put on tunics worth two myriads and went up
and offered at the altar, but his brothers the priests removed him because
he looked naked.
(y. Yoma 3:6)
We may characterize narrative style as abbreviated and simple, con
sisting of very short declarative sentences, e.g.: Yannai heard and was
angry. Simeon was frightened and fled. More complex narrative structures
are rare; in general, they are composites of simple structures, e.g. All
the time Simeon was alive, light was continual; when he died, they went and found
it had gone out; afterward, sometimes it went out, sometimes it burned strongly.
That pattern is then carefully repeated for the other examples, woodoffering, bread loaves, show-bread, etc. Dialogue-style is somewhat
more fully developed. We find long speeches, Scriptures, and sub
stantial exchanges. That is to be expected, since stories generally are
told through what is said, rather than through narration of what was
reportedly thought or done. Descriptive material is minimal. A few
stories are exceptional, displaying considerable narrative sophistication;
these occur mainly in the beraita-strztum, e.g. the two in b. Yoma 35b.
Long biographical stories in dialogue-form + brief declarative sen
tences are in nos. 9,11,12,13,15,16,19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34,
37, 38, and 39. Apart from the dialogue, the narrative materials in
all exempla consist of few, very brief declarative sentences. Some have
more narrative than others. No. 15 is vastly expanded in later versions
and supplied with numerous Scriptures and exegeses. By contrast,
no. 26, not quite like the others, begins with the narration of a set
of symbolic gestures, which only then provoke extended explanatory
dialogue in direct discourse.
Short biographical stories, in dialogue-form + brief declarative
sentences, are nos. 4 and 6. The Alexander-Simeon story differs only
in length. It contains a single exchange. Otherwise it is a model for
the biographical story in dialogue form: setting, then colloquy. No.
4 is told through the exchange of Simeon and "them."
Biographical narratives are nos. 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
and 44. These differ from the brief biographical references not only
in length, but also in purpose. They tell a story, while the brief references
do not, with the possible exception of no. 10. As noted, no. 26 relies
upon the narration of symbolic gestures, given at some length, before
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
55
introducing the dependent dialogue. Nos. 30 and 40, in the same

beraita, are well developed stories; in them dialogue not only is
subordinate, but plays no role at all in the unfolding of the story.
Nos. 35, 36 and 41-44 are little biographical tales, in which a brief
sentence or two suffices to tell the story. They consist of subject +
verb + predicate, much like the legal precedents. No. 35 is in the
continuous tense, would do so-and-so; the gesture obviously is not meant
as a legal precedent. No. 31 brings in the echo in place of Hillel's
response to Shebna's invitation; its message is a Scripture.
Historical stories in dialogue + brief declarative sentences are nos. 8,
17, 18, and 22. No. 17 contains a somewhat elaborate description
of the situation, but the important dramatic elements are entirely in
dialogue, excluding the narrative of what Simeon did to the witches.
The story about Yannai (no. 18) is a model of a historical narrative
told through dialogue. Excluding the moral (e), the setting (a), and
the transition (c), no narrative is required for the unfolding of the
story. No. 22 follows the same pattern. By contrast, Josephus tells
no. 18 primarily through narrative and indirect discourse.
Long historical narratives are nos. 2, 3, and 27. As we have observ
ed, nos. 2 and 3 are constructed of simple declarative sentences, in a
repeated pattern. No. 27 is an exception, in that the story is told with
out reliance upon direct discourse. What they said concerning him is not
central to the narrative and does not make the main point.
Short historical narratives are nos. 1, 5, 7, 14, 24, and 29. Nos. 1
and 7 = 24 introduce named masters, but only so that they may hear
the message. No. 7 = 24 is better articulated; there we are told that
what Yohanan had heard actually happened at the very moment he
heard it. But the stories contain no dialogue at all. No. 5 is a brief
narrative. In nos. 14 and 29 Simeon merely provides a date; the story
is then told without reference to the master and queen. The miraculous
details are the center of interest. No. 10 formally is a singleton. The
extended narrative introduces a direct-discourse saying, but no one is
named ("they asked") and no response is given to their observation.
Rather we are told what happened then, and a further saying is
tacked on.
B. Moral Sayings
Non-legal sayings, introduced by Authority + either says, said, or
would[used to] say (HYH >WMR), do not occur with reference to the
Houses. Like standard legal sayings, non-legal ones normally are
56
TRADITION
brief. Many draw a simple contrast or depend upon an ironical obser

vation, e.g. conditional contrast of balanced opposites: If you come to
my house, I shall come to your house + Scripture + vice versa; irony: Woe
to the man whom a lizard bites, woe to the lizard who bites Hanina b. Dosa.
We find no complex sentences or elegant patterns. A long saying
generally conforms to and repeats the original pattern, set forth at
the outset, just as in the longer narratives above, e.g. All the days
Simeon the Just was alive etc. Most moral sayings, except M. Avot 1 rl-18,,
are assigned to Hillel.
1.
"I"-Sayings
1. Hillel the Elder says, To the place which my heart loves, there my
feet lead me. If you will come to my house, I shall come to your house
+ vice versa + Ex. 20:24.
(Tos. Suk. 4:3)
2. Hillel the Elder, when he used to rejoice at the Rejoicing of the
Place of the Water-Drawing, said thus, If I am here, everyone is here.
And if I am not here, who is here (+ no. 1).
(b. Suk. 53a)
3. When Hillel saw them observing it in pride, he said to them, If we
are here, who is here etc.
(y. Suk. 5:4)
4. Hillel said, My self-abasement is my exaltation + vice versa + Ps.
113:5.
(Lev. R. 1:5)
All "P'-sayings are attributed to Hillel. No. 2 in the singular seems to

have Hillel speak in behalf of God; the revision, given in the plural,
removes the mystical-theological tendency and replaces it with a thisworldly moral one. No. 1 begins with a 'secular' saying, to the place
which my heart loves, and this then is theologized. No. 3 is a simple
contrast saying: exaltation is really self-abasement, and vice versa. No. 2
has a narrative settingwhen he used..., when he saw...
2. Sayings Not in Narrative Setting
The M. Avot sayings come in lists of threes:
1. Men of Great Assembly: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many
disciples, make fence around Torah.
(M. Avot 1:1)
AGGADIC
57
TRADITIONS
2. Simeon the Just: On three things world stands: Torah, service,

deeds of lovingkindness.
(M. Avot 1:2)
3. Antigonus of Sokho: Be not like slaves that minister for reward
etc....
(M. Avot 1:3)
4. Yosi b. Yo'ezer: Let your house be meeting place of sages; sit
in dust of their feet; drink in their words.
(M. Avot 1:4)
5. Yosi b. Yohanan: Let your house be open wide, take in poor,
do not talk too much with women.
(M. Avot 1:5)
6. Joshua b. Perahiah: Make a master, get a fellow, and judge with
balance in favor of accused.
(M. Avot 1:6)
7 . Nittai the Arbelite: Keep far from evil neighbor and do not despair
of retribution.
(M. Avot 1:7)
8. Judah b. Tabbai: Do not try to influence judges; view accused
as wicked, but, when they depart, as innocent.
(M. Avot 1:8)
9. Simeon b. Shetah: Examine witnesses; speak cautiously.
(M. Avot 1:9)
10. Shema'iah: Love work, hate mastery, do not become familiar
with ruling power.
(M. Avot 1:10)
11. Abtalion: Watch your words.
(M. Avot 1:11)
12. Hillel: Be of disciples of Aaron.
(M. Avot 1:12)
13. Hillel used to say: Name
increase, you
worldly
decrease; if you
use of crown, you
made great
do not learn, you
is name destroyed;
if you
are worthy of death; if you
do
not
make
perish.
(M. Avot 1:13)

14. Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? etc.
(M. Avot 1:14)
15. Shammai: Study regularly; say little and do much; be cheerful.
(M. Avot 1:15)
58
INTERMEDIATE UNITS O F TRADITION
16. Gamaliel: Acquire a master; keep far from doubt; do not tithe
by guesswork.
(M. Avot 1:16)
17. Simeon: All my days I have grown up among sages, and found
silence is best; expounding is not the main thing, but doing is; do not
talk too much.
(M. Avot 1:17)
18. Simeon b. Gamaliel: On three things world stands: truth, judgment,
and peace.
(M. Avot 1:18)
19. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first, whoever says to me, Go up, I
should bind him and put him in front of the lion. Now, whoever says
to me, Go down, I should pour over him a kettle of hot water.
(b. Men. 109b)
20. Hananiah Prefect of Priests said, Pray for the peace of the govern
ment, since but for fear of it, men would swallow each other up alive.
(M. Avot 3:2)
21. Hillel said, Do not separate from congregation; do not trust your
self until you die; do not judge your fellow until you are in his place;
do not say a thing which cannot be heard etc.; do not say, when I have
leisure, I will study.
He used to say, Brutish man does not dread sin; ignorant man cannot
be saintly; bashful man cannot learn; impatient man cannot teach;
businessman cannot become wise; where no men, strive to be a man.
He used to say, He who increases flesh/worms; possessions/care;
women/witchcraft; slave-girls/lewdness; slaves/thieving; Torah/life;
schooling/wisdom; counsel/understanding; righteousness/peace.
If a man gains a good name, it is for himself; but words of Torah
are for the world to come.
(M. Avot. 2:5-7)
22. Hillel the Elder says, Do not be seen naked/clothed; standing/
sitting; laughing/weeping + Qoh. 3:4-5.
(Tos. Ber. 2:21)
23. Hillel the Elder says, When they are gathering, scatter; scattering/
gather; Torah belovedscatter + Prov. 11:24, Ps. 119:126.
(Tos. Ber. 6:24)
The M. Avot-sayings are generally brief, mostly in the imperative,
the only sayings of either legal or non-legal character to use imperative
verbs. The triplicates are all extremely terse, as observed earlier. The
AGGADIC
59
TRADITIONS
imperatives do not rely on contrast or irony to make their point. Only

no. 17, Simeon b. Gamaliel, draws a contrastexpounding vs. doing.
No. 20 follows the earlier pattern. No. 21 is an extended collection
of Hillel-sayings. The used to j*y/-parts balance one characteristic against
the next:
Protasis: Brutishness
Apodosis: Dread sin
ignorance
saintliness
no men
man
and so on. The increase{increase lemmas follow a simple formulaic

pattern and may be endlessly multiplied. The concluding lemma returns
to the more commonplace contrast \good namejself. vs. Torah\eternal life.
Nos. 22 and 23 follow the same pattern.
3 . Apophthegms
1. Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one and his son took out six/seven
(b. B.B. 133b)
2. If he does thus to those that anger him, how much the more to
those that do his will.
(Gen. R. 65:27)
3. Whoever sinned and caused others to sin is deprived of the power
of doing penitence.
(b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b)
4. King does not judge and is not judged.
(b. Sanh. 19b)
5. Hanina was standing and praying, and a lizard bit him and he did
not stop. His disciples found it dead and said: Woe is the man whom
a lizard bites, woe is the lizard that bites Ben Dosa.
(Tos. Ber. 3:20)
N o t e a l s o b. T a . 24b: E c h o p r o c l a i m e d , " A l l t h e w o r l d is f e d o n a c c o u n t
o f H a n i n a m y s o n , a n d H a n i n a m y s o n subsists o n a w e e k l y b a s k e t o f
carobs."
6. Hillel: Leave Israel alone. If they are not prophets, they are sons of
prophets.
(Tos Pisha 4:13)
The Temple-dispute story supplies the n a r r a t i v e setting.
7. Also he [Hillel] saw one skull floating on the face of the water.
He said to it, Because you drowned, they drowned you, and at last
they that drowned you shall be drowned.
(M. Avot 2:6)
60
TRADITION
8. Death scene: Where is Yohanan? In courtyard. Let him enter. When

he entered, he said to them + Prov. 8:21.
(y. Ned. 5:6)
T h e " m o r a l s a y i n g " f o r t h i s d r a m a t i c s e t t i n g is P r o v . 8 : 2 1 .
9. When Hillel the Elder used to rejoice at the Rejoicing of the Place
of the Water drawing, he said thus, If I am here, everyone is here.
And if I am not here, who is here?
He used to say thus, To the place that I love there my feet lead me.
If you will come to my house, I will come to your house + vice versa +
Ex. 20:24.
(b. Suk. 53a)
10. When Hillel the Elder saw them observing in pride, he said to
them, If we are here, who is here? Does he need our praises + Dan.
7:10. And when he saw them behaving properly, he would say, If
we are not here, who is here + II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3.
(y. Suk. 5:4)
11. What is hateful to you = conversion story.
(b. Shab. 30b-31a)
12. For two and a half years, the Houses disputed: It were better for
man not to have been created than to have been created. Voted:
Better not to have been created; but now that he has been created, let
him examine...
(b. <Eruv. 13b)
Apophthegms, or sayings given a narrative setting, are not all of the
same sort. Some come at the end of stories and spell out the moral, e.g.
nos. 1,3, and 4. In these instances the saying is not integral to the story;
the story certainly has not been invented to supply a setting for the
saying. No. 2, by contrast, develops if he does thus into a story. No. 5
is a still clearer instance of the development of a narrative around
a brief lemma. Here the contrast man\li%ard vs. liârd\lianina readily
produces the story of how Hanina was praying and a lizard bit
him and died. That Hanina did not stop praying adds the lesson:
likewise if others do not interrupt their prayer, they may enjoy
divine favor. No. 6 depends upon a historical-legal, not moral, setting
in the Temple-dispute story. Nos. 9-10 ( = "P'-saying no. 2) stand in
a narrative setting. No. 7 is much like no. 5; a drowning-saying will
produce a scene, in which Hillel, seeing a skull in the water, talks
about drowning. No. 12 is not precisely similar to the others, for the
dispute of whether or not it was better for man to have been created
>
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
61
does not depend upon a saying, Better for man that he was createa. Stand
ing by itself, such a lemma does not appear as an independent saying.
It rather is the apodosis of a saying, If a man does so and sothen //
would have been better for him if he had not been created. The artificial
'dispute* is not accompanied by arguments; it is merely referred to,
with the climactic conclusion, let him examine...
A.
"Woe"-Sayings
We have one woe-saying:
Abba Saul b. Botnit in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanan: Woe is
me because of the House of Hanan. Woe is me because of their whis
perings...
(b. Pes. 57a = b. Ker. 28b)
The pattern is repeated two more times, Woe is me because of...woe is

me because of.... Then comes the historical gloss: For they are high priests
etc. We also note the lament for Hillel:
Woe (HY) the hasid, etc.
(Tos. Sot. 13:3)
5. Formulaic Sayings
Some sayings are formed out of established, generative formulae,
e.g. MRBH/MRBH (M. Avot 2:7), M$MT... BTL...(M. Sot. 9).
Another group of formulaic sayings is built around KDY/R'WY:
1. The House of our God is worth (KDY)
a. that the priests should lose for it one immersion
(y. Bes. 2:2)
b. That one should lose an immersion once a year.
(b. Ta. 13a)
2. Hillel is worth (KDY/R'WY)
a. that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf
(b. Yoma 35b)
b. that the Shekhinah should rest on him.
(b. Sanh. 11a)
3. Worthy that I should divide the sea for them is
a. Faith of Abraham
b. Faith of Israel
(Mekh. Beshallah IV: 58-60)
Other sayings, not based on formulae, but apparently cliches, include
62
TRADITION
and that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the calf was made;
the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel; they voted and decided
(NMNW WGMRW), the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah, and the like.
C. Aggadic Exegeses
Scriptural citations in non-legal pericopae (p. 39) serve three
purposes. First are mere references to adorn pericopae, Scriptures
fundamentally external to the substance of the passage. Second, inte
gral to the pericope are exegeses. Finally, proof-texts relate to the
narrative but are not the focus of interest. These are as follows:
1. Scriptural
References
1. Prov. 23:25M. Ta. 23:25Simeon b. Shetah to Honi.

2. Qoh. 7:12, Is. 26:20 etc
(y. Ber. 7:2)
Yannai and Simeon b. Shetah.
3. Hab. 2:1, Job. 22:28, Ps. 126:1

(b. Ta. 23a-b)
Interpolations in yoni-tractate.
4. Qoh. 10:20, Ex. 22:27, Prov. 6:23, Is. 2:2

(b. B.B. 4a)
Dialogue of Baba b. Buta w i t h Herod.
5. Prov. 11:17applies to Hillel

(Lev. R. 34:3)
6. Ex. 28:4, Ex. 9:16, Num. 1:51, Ex. 4:22
(b. Shab. 31a)
Hillel and proselyte.
2. Exegeses
1. Shema'iah says: Faith of Abraham is deservingGen 15:6
Abtalion says: Faith of IsraelEx. 4:31
(Mekh. Beshallah IV: 58-60)
2. Exegeses of Ben He He:
Deut. 14:26b. Eruv. 27b
Num. 28:2b. Pes. 96a
Ex. 13:13, 12:5b. Bekh. 12a
c
3. Num. 6:26: Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Andgiveyou peace

in your house.
AGGADIC
TRADITIONS
63
4. Hananiah says, Great is peace for it is weighed against creation +

Amos 4:13, Is. 45:7
(Sifre Num. 42)
5. Qoh. 1:15Ben He He + Hillel
Mai. 3:18Hillel: Extra effort makes all the difference.
(b. Hag. 9b)
6. Deut. 4:39, Jer. 2:13
(Mekh. R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:5)
Gamaliel and Agrippas: He is not jealous of one greater than himself.
7. Deut. 12:2-4
(Sifre Deut. 61)
Gamaliel: Do not do like deeds of gentiles.
8. Deut. 21:5
(Sifre Deut. 351)
Gamaliel: Two Torahs, one oral.
9. House of Shammai: Heaven made first, then earth + Gen. 1:1.
House of Hillel: Earth, then heaven + Gen. 2:4 + Amos 9:6 vs. Is.
66:1.
(b. Hag. 12a)
10. Houses: Three groups: One for eternal life, one for eternal shame,
and the middle group + Zech. 13:9,1 Sam. 2:6, Ps. 116:1, Dan. 12:2
(Tos. Sanh. 13:3, b. R.H. 16b-17a)
3.
Proof-Texts
\. Zech. 8:16Simeon b. Gamaliel
(M. Avot 1:18)
2. Is. 51:16Simeon b. Gamaliel
(y. Ta. 4:2, y. Meg. 3:6)
3. Deut. 33:3Hillel: Uses crown
(Mid. Tan., p. 211)
4. Qoh. 3:4-5Hillel: Naked, clothed
(Tos. Ber. 2:21)
5. Prov. 11:24, Ps. 119:126Hillel: gather, scatter: re Torah.
(Tos. Ber. 6:24)
6. Ex. 20:24Hillel: Come to my house.
(Tos. Suk. 4:3)
64
TRADITION
7. Dan. 7:10, II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3Hillel: If we are not here...if

we are here...
(y. Suk. 5:4)
8. Song 8:7Hillel and Shebna.
(b. Sot. 21a)
9. Ps. 113:5Hillel: Self-abasement.
(Lev. R. 1:5)
4. From Exegesis to Fable
No exegesis of Scripture produces a non-legal story about an event
or a master. In all moral apophthegmatic pericopae in narrative form,
Scriptures are tangential, e.g. apophthegms nos. 9, 10. No. 8, in which
Prov. 8:21 replaces a saying, is exceptional, but it does not compare with
the equivalent legal-exegetical stories, in which an exegesis is given,
then converted into a tale about a named master.
i n . SUMMARY OF FORMS AND TYPES
We have isolated and catalogued the following forms and types

of pericopae:
I. Law
1.
Legal
sayings
a. Standard, dispute, and variations 260

Standard: X says + direct discourse
Dispute: X says + direct discourse
Y says + direct discourse
+/ superscription
b. Debate
28 (17 "authentic")
X said to them + direct discourse
Y [or, they]
J>
c. Testimony
X testified concerning/that
2.
Legal
narratives
a. Epistles
2
Authority + setting + he said to him
Write + Address, salutation, content
b. Ordinances
8
At first + historical situation
Ordained + authority
That + rule
c. Chains and lists
2
X says to + infinitive
X + Y decreed + uncleanness + on + object.
S U M M A R Y OF FORMS AND
TYPES
65
d. Precedents
16
Subject + verb + predicate
Generally: simple declarative sentences, little
dialogue.
e. First-person sayings and stories
9
"I" + direct discourse, often in narrative setting
f. Illustrations and proofs
16
(Stories pertinent to law
12)
Stories generally told through dialogue
g. Exegesis to story
5
Scripture + exegesis + X would do/did
II. Aggadic Traditions
1.
Short
biographical
references
12
Simple declarative sentences, no direct discourse

2.
Biographical
and historical
stories
a. Long biographical stories told

through dialogue
44
18
Brief statement of setting + he said to him... he said to him... he did so

and he said to him...
b. Short biographical storiestold
through dialogue
c. Short biographical storiestold
through narrative
Simple declarative sentences.
2
10
d. Long historical stories-told through

dialogue
4
e. Short historical stories-told through
narrative
6
3.
Sayings
a. "P'-sayings
Contain first-person statements or
references
b. Sayings not in narrative setting
c. Apophthegms in narrative setting

contrasts
d. Woe-sayings
e. Formulaic sayings
4
23
12
2
3
III. Scriptures
1.
Law
a. References to Scripture
b. Exegeses
c. Proof-texts
8
35
4
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III
66
2.
TRADITION
Aggadah
a. References to Scripture
b. Exegeses
c. Proof-texts
6
10
9
Through 'types' of traditions we mean to categorize and catalogue

the varieties of the materials before us. These come in two groups, legal
and non-legal. The former are fully catalogued above, pp. 5-43.
While the forms vary, the typelegal traditionuniformly applies
throughout. The non-legal types now require somewhat more detailed
differentiation. One model for such classification is supplied by H.
Gunkel, Legends of Genesis (repr. N.Y., 1964), pp. 13-36, who finds the
following kinds of legends: etiological, ethnological, etymological,
ceremonial, genealogical. Other sorts of Gattungen are poetry of various
kinds, love-songs, wisdom-sayings, litanies, myths, sagas, and the like.
Except for wisdom-sayings, none of these types applies to, or may
be found in, the traditions before us. It would lead us far afield to specu
late on whether we have myth', 'legend' or other genres of literature;
the application of such terms raises questions not directly pertinent to
our inquiry. Our catalogue of categories in a measure repeats items
already listed in the non-legal forms:
c
1. Moral Stories and Sayings

1. Against pride
Sifre Num. 22
(Simeon the Just)
2. Giving to Temple
b. B.B. 133b
(Yosi and son)
3. Acquiring the world to come
Gen. R. 65:27
(Yosi's nephew)
4. Torah brings honor
y. Ber. 7:2
(Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai)
5. Honesty with gentiles
y. B.M. 2:5
(Simeon b. Shetah)
6. Descendants of gentiles who do the work of
Aaron come to peace
b. Yoma 71b
7. Do not trust yourself until death
b. Ber. 29a
(Yohanan the High Priest)
8. Companionship or death
b. Ta. 23b
(Abba Hilqiah)
9. Holy spirit comes only to a worthy genera
tion
Tos. Sot. 13:3
(Hillel)
10. Good man does not fear bad news
y. Ber. 9:3
(Hillel)
S U M M A R Y OF FORMS A N D
67
TYPES
11. Poor and rich must study Torah

b. Yoma 35b
(Hillel, Eleazar)
12. According to painstaking is reward
ARN Chap. 12
(Hillel)
13. It is a misvah to bathe
Lev. R. 34:3
(Hillel)
14. Patience is better than impatience
b. Shab. 30b-31a
(Hillel, Shammai)
15. Honor husband
b. Ned. 66b
(Baba b. Buta)
16. Be circumspect
b. B.B. 4a
(Baba b. Buta)
Moral sayings are listed above, p. 56-59; apophthegms, p. 59-60.
2. Heavenly messages
1. Simeon the Just + Yohanan the High Priest b. Sot. 33a
heard decree annulled, young men victorious
2. Echo quotes Song 8:7Hillel and Shebna b. Sot. 21a
3. Echo praises Hillel
Tos. Sot. 13:3
4. Echo chooses Hillelites
b. Eruv. 13b
(N.B. Tos. Nez. 1:1Hillelites accept testimony of an echo)
c
3. Philosophical stories
1. Is there reward and punishment
(Antigonus of Sokho)
4. Biographical stories^ including miracles
1. Simeon the Just predicted death
2. Alexander saw visage of Simeon and con
quered
3. Healing of Gamaliel's son by Hanina
through prayer
4. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled
5. Song
1. Woe is me
ARN Chap. 5
y. Yoma 5:2
Lev. R. 13:5
b. Ber. 34b (M.
Ber. 5:5)
Tos. Suk. 4:4
b. Pes. 57a
6. Biographical references
Listed above, pp. 45-47
7. Historical stories and sayings
1. Kutaeans vanquished by Simeon the Just
2. Founding of Temple of Onias
b. Yoma 69a
b. Men. 109b
68
TRADITION
3. Reproach against grapeclusters after the

Yosi's
4. Jesus admired whore
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Tos. B.Q. 8:13

b. Sot. 47a = b.
Sanh. 107b
Rained in days of Simeon b. Shetah
Sifra Behuqotai
1:1
Honi made rain
M. Ta. 3:8
Simeon b. Shetah and the witches
y. Hag. 2:2
End of jurisdiction in property litigation in y. Sanh. 1:1
days of Simeon b. Shetah
Yannai breaks with the Pharisees
b. Sanh. 19a-b
Man crushed in Temple in days of Hillel
b. Pes. 64b
Origin of disputes
Tos. Hag. 2:9
Hillel laid hands on whole offering
Tos. Hag. 2:11
Sword in schoolhouse
b. Shab. 17a
8. Non-legal historical
records and lists
1. Who prepared the red heiferSimeon the M. Par. 3:5

Just, etc.
2. Changes in Temple cult at death of Simeon Tos. Sot. 13:7
the Just
iv.
SOME COMPARISONS
We first compare the forms and types of Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae

with those of the first important rabbinic figure after 70, Yohanan b.
Zakkai. Among Yohanan's traditions we find legal sayings in standard
form, debates, epistles, ordinances, precedents, illustrations, proofs,
and references to legal rulings, short biographical references, long
biographical references told through dialogue, sayings both in a nar
rative setting and otherwise, legal and aggadic exegeses, and of course
a wide range of proof-texts and Scriptural references is scattered through
his pericopae. Almost the entire repertoire of types and forms of
Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae recurs with reference to Yohanan b.
Zakkai. The legal traditions occur primarily not in the standard form;
in this respect, Yohanan appears more like the pre-70 masters than
the post-70 ones, e.g. Eliezer and Joshua, whose legal sayings come
chiefly in standard form. But from a literary and formal perspective,
Yohanan marks no break whatever in the formation of traditions.
It will now be instructive to compare briefly and in a general way
both the types of rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees, and the forms
in which those traditions are transmitted, with those of other groups
in ancient Judaism. We shall see that the forms and types of rabbinic
SOME
COMPARISONS
69
traditions about the Pharisees bear slight relationship to the forms and
types of traditions shaped by, or told about, other groups and masters
in the period of which the rabbis speak.
The first body of literature for comparison of forms and types is
the Hebrew Scriptures. Here we find practically nothing in common.
No important type of tradition, except for law and moral sayings,
and no significant Pharisaic-rabbinic form, without exception, is to
be discerned in the whole Tanakh. While Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writers imitate the style and forms of biblical history, psalms,
and visions, make use of the names of biblical authorities in assigning
authorship to their books, and sometimes try to represent their
works as direct continuations of biblical writings, the rabbinic tradi
tions about the Pharisees practically ignore all forms and types of He
brew Scriptures. Excluding the reference to Scriptures as proof texts
and the likeand these are remarkably few, given the range of law and
lore of the Pharisaic-rabbinic traditionwe may say that the Hebrew
Bible played no central role in shaping the literary forms and in the
formulation of the agenda of types of materials before us.
A convenient catalogue of the types of pericopae in biblical literature
is supplied by Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copen
hagen, 1957 ) I, pp. 102-251. Apart from the song quoted by Abba
Hanan, I discern no Pharisaic pericope one might call poetry; certainly
nothing exhibits the standard traits of biblical poetry, such as parallelismus membrorum (Bentzen, p. 119); nor do we find a disciplined
rhythmic system applying to a complete pericope. Bentzen lists the
following kinds of poetry in biblical literature, none of which has a
Pharisaic-rabbinic parallel: workers' songs; mocking, drinking, and
watchman's songs; wedding poetry; funeral songs (without Pharisaic
equivalent, excluding the HY-sayings about Hillel and Samuel the Small,
which do not compare to the dirges of Jer. 9:16, Amos 5:2, II Sam.
1:17ff., and other examples of biblical laments); war poetry; benedic
tions and curses spoken by patriarchs, patriarchal words (Hillel's
citation of Proverbs 8:21 hardly compares); psalms, hymns, thanks
giving odes, lamentations, and other religious poetry, whether collec
tive or individual, cultic or synagogual. In the category of Wisdom
literature, we find nothing similar to popular proverbs, though later
rabbinic literature is full of them.
We do find wisdom-sentences. This is one of two important types
of biblical literature that recur in rabbinic traditions about the Phari
sees. But the form of the biblical wisdom-sentences does not seem to
3
70
TRADITION
have influenced that of the rabbinical moral sayings as it did Ben Sira's
and the Gospels'. For example, Proverbs contains no consistent,
itemized attributions ("Solomon says...") to authorities such as stand
behind every moral saying before us in Pharisaic-rabbinic literature.
The monotonous, but artful contrasts of Proverbs, e.g. a wise son makes
a gladfather, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother (Prov. 10:1) hardly
characterize Pharisaic sayings listed above. In general there we find
the reversal of a statement, i.e. gather vs scatter, as in a legal con
dition, which is not like the parallels of Proverbs. The redactional
techniques are quite different, not only because of the inclusion
of named masters, but also because of the construction in brief
pericopae, by groups of three, something with no antecedent in
Proverbs, where the pericopae are long and highly developed. The
proverbial sentence, with its parallel sections, its rhythms, and its
formal unity by and large is not replicated in the rabbinic-Pharisaic
moral sayings, which tend to ignore parallelism, to exhibit no rhythmscheme, and to be discrete. As to the other sorts of wisdom literature,
e.g. riddles, parables, fables of animals or trees, allegories, we find noth
ing comparable in the materials before us. Bentzen alludes to
priestly oracles, benedictions and curses, sermons and speeches of
retirement, prophetic oracles and revelations, raptures, visions, audi
tions, and reports of supernatural experiences, speeches of reproach
and admonitions. None of these types of literature has a close equiv
alent in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition.
Biblical prose is divided by Eissfeldt (Bentzen, p. 203) into three
headings: speeches, documents, and narratives. Bentzen supplies a
"more differentiated register" (p. 203). As to speeches outside of the
framework of narratives, we have nothing equivalent to substantial
biblical speeches. Perhaps the closest is R. Yohanan's recreation of
Yohanan the High Priest's speech to the Jews with reference to the
tithes, "Come, my children and I shall teach you." Yet that "speech"
is artificially constructed out of the agenda of the tithing laws set
forth in M. M.S. 5:15; the listeners are ignored; without the rhetorical
prelude, it is a set of laws. It hardly exhibits significant rhetorical
interest. We find no Pharisaic-rabbinic equivalent to political speeches,
sermons, and the like. As to documents, we have no copies of specific
contracts or covenants, but we do have models of contracts of marriage,
divorce, and the likedocuments referred to, but not spelled out, in
Deut. 24:1, Is. 50:1, and Jer. 3:8.
For some biblical catalogues, e.g. genealogies, lists of officials,
SOME
COMPARISONS
71
heroes, towns, we have approximate equivalents, e.g. the reference

of Joshua b. Hananiah to the marriages of certain Temple officials,
the allusions to offices and their holders by Hananiah Prefect of the
Priests, and of course the lists of legal rulings. We have two epistles,
not like the biblical ones in form, to be sure. The "artificial letter"
has no parallel in the Pharisaic-rabbinic literature. Etiological legends
about origins of local phenomena are unavailable in the materials
before us. Sanctuary legends obviously will be absent, but so too are
legends describing the origins of usages in daily life and in the cult,
unless one might want to regard the stories of masters' legal rulings
and decrees as efforts to describe such 'beginnings.' The Simeon the
Just-stories may be meant to account for the absence of cultic miracles.
It seems to me the purpose of stories such as Hillel and the Alexan
drians' Ketuvah is not to tell how it comes about that we interpret the
language of documents of ordinary folk. The purpose rather is to
justify that procedure by reference to Hillel's authority. We have
remarkably few devotional legends (Bentzen, p. 327), though the
materials about Hanina b. Dosa's praying, eating, and other habits,
Honi the Circler's famous prayers, and Abba Hilqiah's gestures and
prayers, may be compared to biblical 'stories with religious tendency
and edifying form,' about holy persons. Legends of the prophets may
be compared as a type to biographical narratives about rabbis, but
only in a general way. The forms are entirely unrelated. One cannot
maintain that legends of Samuel, e.g. I Sam. 7:2-8:22, 10:17-27, and
the like, have shaped the ways in which stories about any Pharisaic
master were told. On the contrary, we have no Pharisaic-rabbinic
equivalent to such sustained narratives. The longer biographical narra
tives are hardly the same as hero-legends. The more appropriate equiva
lent to biblical hero-legends would be the brief apophthegms in narra
tive settings, where things Hillel saw and said are set forth as models
for behavior. But the biblical stories, which show heroes vis a vis the
great events of history or in the process of working great wonders,
or relate their religious and spiritual life, e.g. Elijah at Horeb, have
no rabbinic-Pharisaic equivalent. Nor do we find fairy tales. If by
myth one means a legend dealing with divine persons, then the Phari
saic tradition before us contains no myth; indeed, the absence of
epiphanies is accounted for ("generation unworthy").
Two important categories remain: history-narrative and law. As to
the former, we have seen a number of interesting examples of historical
narratives, two of them possibly based upon Aramaic materials used
72
TRADITION
by Josephus, the Simeon b. Shetah tales about the banquet of Yannai

and the trial of Yannai's servant. But the kind of history preserved
in biblical literature, in which events are described in full and with
sustained interest, and stories are put into relationship with other
episodes to tell a long storythis history is not available in the rab
binic traditions about the Pharisees. At best we find a few brief
historical and biographical references, and some, somewhat longer,
narratives of episodes, always complete in themselves, and never
related to a larger effort at the interpretation of the meaning and
direction of history. In the sense that biblical history concentrates on
larger questions, we may say that Pharisaic-rabbinic literature contains
no history, only some historical stories. We find, moreover, nothing
like the books of Ruth, Esther, and similar historical stories; they
differ both as to length, and in their interest in personality and charac
ter. Pharisaic rabbis never have motives or feelings. They say things
and do things, but they do not emerge as individuals, carefully
differentiated from other rabbis. They are not given inner thoughts
or hopes, have no complicated schemes. They are one-dimensional,
flat, frontal, and nearly all cut of the same model. The contrasts
between Hillel and Shammai do not much change the picture. They
are made merely to embody and typify virtues or vices.
Biblical and Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions come together in the legal
interests characteristic of both literatures, though not in equivalent
proportions. Since Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition based itself upon bib
lical law, it is astonishing that we find few literary traits or forms in
common. Let us briefly compare laws on the same subject, the Sab
bath, a themp that occurs in other legal materials we shall examine
below. Biblical Sabbath laws occur in several ways, e.g. as stories, the
story of the manna, Ex. 16:22-30, in which the law is given by Moses,
primarily in imperatives: bake... boil...lay by...eat it today...; Ex. 20:8,
Deut. 5:12-15, general rules about resting, with the reason for the
law; Ex. 31:12-17,34:21, the same. By contrast, the Pharisaic-rabbinictradition is highly detailed and specific, phrased in descriptive parti
ciples of continuous action, in the present tense: they do not soak, they
do not place, they do not sell. One never finds the imperative.
Biblical laws come in three forms: cases and hypotheses, beginning
if or when; imperative or categorical commandments; and mixed forms.
For the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, even where if or when is called
for, it normally does not occur, e.g. an unclean seah of Terumah fell into
a hundred seahs of clean lacks the required if. The hypothetical-law style,
SOME
COMPARISONS
73
introduced by means of participles, does of course predominate in

the Pharisaic-rabbinic materials. The protasis of Lev. 20:11 The man
who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of
them shall be put to death is formally not distant from such legal sayings
as rely on present participles.
Much more is to be said in the comparison of biblical and rabbinic
forms and types. These brief observations suffice to make clear, first,
that the forms of the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition differ from the forms
of biblical literature even where the same types of material are under
discussion; and, second, that the rabbinic traditions about the Phari
sees have remarkably few types of materials in common with biblical
literature.
R. H. Charles (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
[Oxford, 1913]) categorizes the predominant types of materials as
follows:
1. Long historical books:
I Esdras, I-III Maccabees, Letter of Aristeas
2. Historical books with a moral or legal purpose:
Tobit, Judith, Jubilees
3. Apocalypses:
I-II Enoch, II-III Baruch, IV Ezra, Testaments of Twelve Pa
triarchs, Sibylline Oracles, Assumption of Moses, II Esdras
4. Additions to, and completions of, canonical books:
I Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Prayer of Manasses, Prayer of
Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Esther, Books of Adam
and Eve, Martyrdom of Isaiah, etc.
5. Psalms:
Psalms of Solomon
6. Wisdom Literature:
Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, IV Maccabees, Story of Ahikar.
Charles's classifications do not much advance our inquiry. They per
tain to whole books and are rather crude. They pay little attention
to the genres or types of smaller units of tradition, no attention at
all to forms. The fact is that almost nothing of a form-critical nature
has been attempted with Pseudepigrapha. Nonetheless, we may observe
that of these types of books, only the last is pertinent to our compari
sons of types and forms.
The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 contain no types
of pericopae congruent even to the broad categories listed by Charles,
except for no. 6, let alone whole books or extended discussions
comparable to any one of them. As to wisdom literature, IV Macca-
74
TRADITION
bees is a philosophical treatise on inspired reason, and nothing like

it occurs in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. The story of Ahikar "is
a tale of ingratitude and its just judgment, much in the same ethical
manner as Tobit is a tale of a grateful ghost..." (p. 715). It contains
parallels to Proverbs, Ben Sira, Psalms, Daniel, etc. Following Syriac
version A, we may observe that the extensive narrative setting for
wisdom-sentences is without parallel in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradi
tion. At best we find a few sentences setting the stage for a saying,
but nothing equivalent to the long, personal, first-person setting of
Ahikar. The direct address of the wise sayings, e.g., "My son, lift
not up thy eyes..." has no parallel, for the moral sayings we have
examined are not in direct address to a hypothetical listener (Hillel
said, "My son...") and generally do not use the imperative. The
"hearer" is always anonymous. The Wisdom of Solomon, unlike
M. Avot 1:1-18, is not merely a random stringing together of wise
sayings, but a sustained essay composed of such sayings. It attends to
philosophical and theological questions that lie far beyond the ken
of the Pharisaic-rabbinic sayings. The theme of the Pharisaic sayings
is generally practical: appropriate conduct for disciples, masters,
judges. The theme of the Wisdom of Solomon is theological and philo
sophical, i.e., the remorse of the ungodly at judgment, the bliss of the
righteous and miserable fate of the ungodly, the hypostatization of
wisdom, her attributes and value, the work of wisdom in history
from Adam to Moses, and the like. The everyday, practical interest
of the moral sayings noted above hardly recurs. Ben Sira in type and
form stands closer to Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, and the Wisdom of
Solomon than to the Pharisaic-rabbinic moral sayings. As we observed,
the Pharisaic masters' wise sayings have little in common with Prov
erbs. Ben Sira, by contrast, in style and spirit is a close continuator.
The careful parallel of the parts of a saying, e.g. Be not a dog in thy
house j rebuking and fearful in thy works, is not like the contrasting ele
ments of the Pharisaic saying, which, as I said, tend simply to reverse
the antecedent saying as in a legal contract: if all scatter, you gather,
and if all gather, you scatter. While Ben Sira is quoted in rabbinic
literature, the form of the sayings of Ben Sira exerted no more influ
ence on Pharisaic sayings than did that of Proverbs.
A substantial sample of Qumran scriptures, sufficient for our rapid
survey of forms and types of ancient Jewish literature, derives from
A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland and
N.Y., 1967, translated by Geza Vermes). Dupont-Sommer assembles
SOME
COMPARISONS
75
all the non-biblical scrolls and scroll fragments published up to 1960.

For the Hebrew texts, I consulted A.M. Haberman, Megillot Midbar
Yehudah (Jerusalem, 1959); Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the
Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962, translated by
Batya and Chaim Rabin); Y&'&qov L,icht,MegillatHahodayot( Jerusalem,
1957); and Chaim Rabin, The Zadokite Documents. L The Admonition.
II. The Laws (Oxford, 1958 ). I also reviewed the following: Frank
Moore Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (N.Y., 1961); J . T.
Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness ofJudaea (London, 1959);
Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., 1955) and More Light
on the Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., 1958); P. Wernberg- Moller, The Manual
ojDiscipline (Leiden, 1957); J . van der Ploeg, Le rouleau de la guerre
(Leiden, 1959); Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden,
1961); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I
A Commentary (Rome, 1966); James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms
Scroll (Ithaca, 1967); C. Rabin and Y. Yadin, assisted by J . Licht, eds.,
Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of E. L. Sukenik (Jerusalem,
1961, in Hebrew), especially C. Rabin, "The Literary Structure of
the War Scroll," pp. 31-48, in Hebrew; and Lou H. Silberman,
"Unriddling the Riddle. A Study in the Structure and Language of
the Habakkuk Pesher," Revue de Qumran 11, 1961, pp. 323-364.
Only the last two items pertain directly to the literary analysis
of the Scrolls. Rabin observes that the War Scroll is a collection of
three books, the book of the war, the book of God's time, and the
book of victory. The author of the third amplifies the preceding two
books and quotes from them. Silberman treats the nature of early
Jewish exegesis and its methods, the meaning of PR, the Petirah,
dream interpretation and the exegesis of the Habakkuk Pesher, and
then supplies extensive notes on the Habakkuk Pesher (pp. 335ff.).
Our interest is in categorizing by type the larger units of the Qum
ran writings and to compare, where pertinent, the forms of materials
relevant to the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. These naturally
are chiefly in the legal type of pericopae:
2
1.
Scroll
of the Rule ( M a n u a l o f
Discipline):
N o formal comparison t o a tractate o r collection; n o authorities men

t i o n e d ; c o n c e n t r a t e s o n d o c t r i n e , n o t l a w : t h e t w o spirits a n d t h e i r
s t r u g g l e . R u l e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y has n o Pharisaic e q u i v a l e n t , in s u b
stance o r in f o r m . T h e penal c o d e specifies p u n i s h m e n t s , w h i l e w e find
n o specification o f penalties in P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c legal p e r i c o p a e , m e r e l y
guilty\not guilty. S i m i l a r l y , w e find n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f Pharisaic i n s t i t u t i o n s
s i m i l a r t o t h e 'council o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . '
TRADITION
2. Damascus Document:
Rabin divides into "admonition" and "laws." T h e f o r m e r has n o equi
valent. The laws concern the oath, witnesses, the o r d e r of judges, w a t e r
p u r i f i c a t i o n , t h e S a b b a t h , t h e o v e r s e e r , etc. T h e s t y l e is u n l i k e t h a t o f
Pharisaic purification and Sabbath laws r e v i e w e d a b o v e . T h e imperative
is u s e d t h r o u g h o u t , e.g.:
>L Y T H R r a t h e r t h a n L> Y T H R .
T h e S a b b a t h l a w s l i k e w i s e u s e i m p e r a t i v e s t h r o u g h o u t , as in t h e b i b l i c a l
l a w s . T h e l a w a g a i n s t e m p l o y i n g gentiles o c c u r s as f o l l o w s :
>L Y $ L H >T B N H N K R L ' S W T >T
H P S W B Y W M H $ B T (XI:25)
T h e similar Pharisaic rule concerns selling etc.:
The House o f Shammai say:
>YN M W K R Y N L N K R Y W ' Y N T W ' N Y N
M G B Y H Y N <LYW (M. Shab. 1:7)
<MW W ' Y N
t h a t is, d e s c r i p t i v e , p r e s e n t tense p a r t i c i p l e s o f c o n t i n u o u s a c t i o n , v s .
i m p e r a t i v e s , as in biblical l a w s .
Similarly, the p r o h i b i t i o n o f selling animals that w i l l be used f o r
transgression:
>L Y M K R >Y B H M H W < W P T H W R Y M L G W Y M B < B W R
L> Y Z B H W M ( X I I : 4 7 )
House of Shammai say:
L> Y M K R L W [ L G W Y B>RS W L Y S R ' L B H W S H L ' R S , f r o m
preceding] PRH H H W R $ T BBY<YT,
W B Y T H L L M T Y R Y N M P N Y HW> Y K L L S H T H .
M W K R L W P R W T > P Y L W B<T H Z R * etc. ( M . S h e v . 5 : 8 )
W e see t h e s a m e differences: ' L f o r L>; a d d i n g >Y w h e r e n o subject i s
specified in M . S h e v . ; B ' B W R in p l a c e o f M P N Y ; a n d t h e specification
o f t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l e , n o r m a l l y a b s e n t in P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c r u l e s . A s
always, authorities are n o t named by the non-Pharisaic law. That the
s u b s t a n c e o f t h e l a w s o f t e n differs f r o m e q u i v a l e n t P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c
r u l i n g s is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e f o r o u r i n q u i r y . F o r u s t h e s i m p l e f o r m a l
differences in t h e s a m e t y p e o f t r a d i t i o n s a r e o f c e n t r a l i n t e r e s t .
3. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness:
N o e q u i v a l e n t in t y p e o f f o r m . S R K d o e s n o t o c c u r in o u r Pharisaicrabbinic traditions.
4. The Hymn Scroll:

N o e q u i v a l e n t in t y p e o r f o r m ; n o t h i n g s i m i l a r t o " I " p r a y e r s a n d m e d i t a
tions occurs in o u r materials.
5. Biblical commentaries:
P $ R d o e s n o t o c c u r in o u r m a t e r i a l s , a n d n o exegesis o r S c r i p t u r a l citation
c o n t a i n s an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e " h i d d e n significance, a r e v e l a t i o n o f t h e
secrets c o n c e a l e d in t h e d i v i n e b o o k s , w h i c h o n l y i n s p i r e d c o m m e n t a t o r s ,
p r o p h e t s , o r initiates w e r e a b l e t o d i s c o v e r " ( D u p o n t - S o m m e r , p. 2 5 5 ) .
S o w h i l e t h e t y p e is r o u g h l y s i m i l a r , t h e f o r m s a r e u n r e l a t e d . T h e f o r m
i s : citation of textthen
P$R of this is that... o r . . . of this word concerns
SOME
COMPARISONS
77
completely unlike the forms o f Pharisaic-rabbinic Midrash. M o r e o v e r ,

w h i l e t h e Q u m r a n c o m m e n t a r i e s a r e s u s t a i n e d a n d o r g a n i z e d b y biblical
books, w e cannot reconstruct an equivalent Pharisaic-rabbinic c o m m e n
t a r y o n a s i n g l e c h a p t e r , e v e n D e u t . 1 5 , let a l o n e o n a w h o l e b o o k . T h e
S c r i p t u r a l c o m m e n t s b e f o r e us a r e all e p i s o d i c a n d d i s c r e t e , n o t s u s t a i n e d .
C o m m e n t s o n S c r i p t u r e s in H a b a k k u k , M i c a h , Z e p h a n i a h , P s a l m s ,
Ho-
sea, a n d N a h u m a r e f e w a n d f a r - b e t w e e n .
O n l y t h e o v e r a l l t y p e is c o m m o n t o t h e t w o g r o u p s a s t o all sects in
a n c i e n t J u d a i s m , f o r n o n e fails t o r e f e r t o S c r i p t u r e s . B u t t h e differentiated
t y p e s , all t h e m o r e s o f o r m s , s i m p l y d o n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o o n e a n o t h e r .
N o r d o Q u m r a n materials summarized by D u p o n t - S o m m e r include com
ments o n Pentateuchal law-codes. A s t o Genesis, the stories o f L a m e c h ,
E n o c h , a n d A b r a h a m elicit n o P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c c o m m e n t s at all. B y
c o n t r a s t , J u b i l e e s a n d t h e G e n e s i s A p o c r y p h o n e x h i b i t i m p o r t a n t affini
ties; D u p o n t - S o m m e r observes, " . . . the t w o stories are often closely
parallel, e v e n t o the point o f using the same t e r m s " (p. 2 8 1 ) .
T h e "law concerning the Sabbatical year" ( D u p o n t - S o m m e r , p. 3 0 8 - 9 )
h a s n o t h i n g in c o m m o n w i t h Hillel's c o m m e n t o n D e u t . 1 5 : 1 - 3 . N o r a r e
t h e r e e q u i v a l e n t s in t h e P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c c o r p u s t o t h e A p o c a l y p s e o f
Pseudo-Daniel, Prayer of Nabonidus, B o o k o f Mysteries, Angelic Litur
g y , p r a y e r f o r t h e Feast o f W e e k s , a n d o t h e r f r a g m e n t s s u m m a r i z e d b y
D u p o n t - S o m m e r (pp. 320ff.).
The remarkable thing is the independence of the sects from one

another. While Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings and the
Qumran materials exhibit many of the same types (fragments of the
former are found among the latter), the Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae
scarcely correspond to either in form or type. The most striking formal
difference is the persistent attribution to living, immediate authorities,
of the bulk of Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, and the consistent failure
of the Qumranian writers to do the same. We furthermore find a
great deal of dialogue in the former, very little in the latter. The
anonymous superscriptions of the latter are very brief. While Pharisaicrabbinic biographical and historical stories are told openly and explic
itly, the equivalent materials, e.g. about the Teacher of Righteousness
or relations to Maccabean rulers, are told indirectly, through hints
and mysterious allusions, more like the historiography of Daniel than
of Josephus.
Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions contain few, if any, parables; no pre
dictions of the future; no psalms, horoscopes, prayers (except for
Honi's for rain, which hardly compares), and related liturgies; no
references to angels, except Gabriel in the Yannai-trial conclusion;
few allusions to the resurrection of the dead, the last days, the end
of time, and other important eschatological issues.
While Qumranian, Apocryphal, and Pseudepigraphic writers per
sistently attempt to imitate biblical literary types and forms, the Phari-
78
TRADITION
saic-rabbinic writers actually ignore most of those types and all of

those forms. In formulating laws, for example, the other groups rely
primarily on imperatives, while Pharisaic-rabbinic laws seldom use the
imperative for laws; it is chiefly in M. Avot 1:1-18 that we find the
imperative, in moral sayings. To be sure, the three-things redactional
formula occurs, e.g. in Ben Sira 25:1, but that is not a very important
shared trait. The modes of midrash characteristic of the two groups
have little in common, either in relationship to specific Scriptures or
in the construction of whole collections of exegeses, of which, for the
Pharisees, we have none. Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions exhibit little
interest in philosophical questions, e.g. why is there sin and misery
in the world? They present no comprehensive historical vision and
relate no divine plan for the world. They tell stories, but not history;
provide moral sayings, but no set of moral generalizations; offer de
scriptions of how things are done, but no commands. The social and
theological agenda of the one group has virtually nothing to do with
that of the other, and this is reflected in the literary epiphenomena
we have examined.
The work of comparing forms and types of Pharisaic-rabbinic
pericopae with those concerning Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is made
possible by Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Ox
ford, 1963, translated by John Marsh). (I do not mean to neglect
Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel [N.Y., 1935, translated by
Bertram Lee Woolf], but Dibelius's formssermons, paradigms, tales,
legendsare too general for our purposes.) We follow Bultmann item
by item. Some of the types of pericopae Bultmann sets forth do corre
spond to the types found here, so the comparison is greatly facilitated.
He distinguishes between sayings and stories, just as seemed appropri
ate above. Included among sayings are units setting sayings of Jesus
in a brief narrative context, which Bultmann calls apophthegms.
Other sayings are "not in a particular framework."
Conflict-sayings, e.g. Mark 3:1-6, Luke 13:10-17, are similar in type
to legal debates, but generally do not follow the debate-form. The
conflict-sayings develop the setting in great detail, and while the
exchange of legal or theological principles takes place much as in the
Pharisaic debate-form, the narrative framework is much more care
fully worked out, so that the two forms do not closely compare to
one another. Jesus gets both the first and the last lemma; the opposition
is allowed only a single argument, then is overwhelmed. No effort
is made to balance the arguments of the two parties. Moreover, the
SOME
COMPARISONS
79
Pharisaic-rabbinic debates only occasionally make use of proof-texts;

these then are carefully balanced. Mark 12:18-27 is a good example
of the formal differences. The Sadducees ask about an absurd case.
Jesus answers that the case is pertinent. In the Pharisaic-rabbinic
collections we should have characterized this as an "inauthentic"
debate. We may conclude that the type is common to both traditions,
but the forms tend to be separate in each.
An important exception is Mark 10:2-10, on divorce. Jesus here is
tested by the Pharisees. The narrative introduction is appropriately
brief: the Pharisees came up and asked, Is it lawful...He answered
them... They said... But Jesus said to them..., then a long speech.
The argument rests on the assumption common to both parties that
Scriptural rules do apply: one may write a certificate of divorce and
put her away. Jesus is then constrained to explain the agreed-upon
principle, and this he does through further Scriptural exegesis. For
mally, the dispute differs in no significant respect from a standard
Houses-debate. Here, therefore, the type and the form seem be identi
cal in both traditions. It is noteworthy, therefore, that Bultmann re
marks about the artificiality of the pericope, though his reasons are
different from those we have adduced. He observes that the counterquestion is in no sense a counter-argument, and the Scriptural refer
ence does not really answer the opponents, but is subject to their
criticism (p. 27). But this is already familiar to us, for we in general
expect the second party to the debate to accept the premises of the
first, then to build a case upon the shared premises. Naturally, there
fore, the Scriptures will be cited in common, then interpreted dif
ferently.
Other biographical apophthegms include Mark 9:34-40 and Luke
5:1-6. The former supplies a brief narrative setting for two sayings,
first, to be first, one must be last; second, receiving children is the
same as receiving Jesus, and receiving Jesus is receiving him who
sent Jesus. The latter is the sort of secondary development we have
observed, in which a condition will be reversed or fully spelled out.
The sayings "could have circulated without any framework," and
this is not infrequently the case with the Pharisaic-rabbinic apophthegmatic sayings as well.
Bultmann holds (p. 30) that Luke 11:27-8, the blessing of Mary,
follows a formula, blessed be the breasts..., blessed is the hour..., and the
like; if so we have a formulaic saying similar to the wor thy-s&ymgs
listed above (p. 61).
80
TRADITION
We hardly need to review all the pericopae analyzed by Bultmann

to affirm that common to the Synoptic Gospels and the Pharisaicrabbinic tradition is the development of a saying into a biographical
apophthegm, in which the saying is given a fully articulated narra
tive setting. The only noteworthy difference is that the phenomenon
is less common in the Pharisaic materials than in the Synoptic Gospels.
But the history of the Synoptic apophthegms is difficult to compare
to that of the Pharisaic ones.
Bultmann assigns the starting-point of a controversy-dialogue to
"some action or attitude which is seized on by the opponent and used
in an attack by accusation or by question." The Pharisaic debate-form
is not closely equivalent. Sometimes, to be sure, it relies upon a
precedent held in common (e.g. Yohanan HaHorani's Sukkah), but,
more commonly, it begins not in a particular action or saying, but
rather in the alleged agreement of both sides on a particular principle
("Do you not agree..."). As we observed, however, on both sides
the debate-situation is imaginary, and the Pharisaic debate-form may
be described, just as Bultmann says, as "constructions giving lively
expression to some idea," though not "in a concrete event." In general
the "event" is merely "they said to them."
In what life-situation do the Pharisaic-rabbinic debates begin? The
answer must be, in later schools' analyses of the reasons to be assigned
to the Houses for their opinions and in the effort to examine and
spell out the underlying principles at issue. The concentration upon
reasons, to the near-exclusion of the "historical" setting more common
ly supplied in the Synoptic Gospels, may be accounted for by the quite
different life-situation in which the debate-pericopae were shaped.
Unfortunately, Bultmann's catalogue of rabbinic controversy and
scholastic dialogues (p. 42) treats both sorts of materials together.
The cited examples primarily are dialogues between masters and
disciples, e.g. Hillel and the bath. But these have nothing to do with
debates. I do not find among Bultmann's ten rabbinic examples a
single debate. He has been misled by combining debates with scho
lastic dialogues, which are in both form and type entirely separate,
and therefore has not recognized the more appropriate equivalents.
His conclusion is sound, however: one does find somewhat similar
kinds of arguments among the rabbinic materials and in the Synoptic
controversy dialogues.
Likewise, Bultmann's analysis of Scriptural quotations in "rabbini
cal discussion" (Marsh's bad translation of Rabbinendisput, Die Ge-
SOME
COMPARISONS
81
schichte der synoptischen Tradition [Gottingen, 1967, ed.], p. 47) ignores

appropriate, comparable materials and concentrates on inappropriate
ones. Bultmann alleges that "the origin of this rabbinic style is to
be found not only in the discussion of the schools...It is also mani
festly influenced by the oriental way of talking and discussing and
by the primitive art forms such as the fairy-tale has preserved and
developed." We may observe that that "oriental way" seems not to
have made much impression on the biblical, Qumranian, Apocryphal,
and Pseudepigraphic writers. Bultmann observes that the decisive
saying in controversy dialogues would go back to Jesus, if anything
there does. On the Pharisaic side we may reliably conclude that all
debate-materials depend upon antecedent dispute-pericopae (except
for the aggadic ones, which are inconsequential). But whether the
disputes themselves historically derive from the Houses is not a simple
question (Chapter Twenty). A further difference is in the development
of debates or controversy-dialogues. Bultmann observes (p. 51) that
there is a tendency to develop materials in the form of controversydialogues. It seems to me that tendency is not pronounced in the
Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae, which produce disproportionately few
debates out of the substantial dispute-materials available for that
purpose.
As to scholastic dialogues, in which someone asks the master for
information and he replies, we have only a few equivalents. Gamaliel
(or Yohanan b. Zakkai) and Agenitos is one; and the attribution is
not firm. I find no other similar stories, for the testing ofHillel\Shammaimaterials are not of the same order; still if the b. Shab. 30b-31a
pericopae began in some sort of antecedent, separate accounts of Hillel
and the proselyte ("Master, tell me the whole Torah while standing
on one foot"), then those antecedent units would be comparable.
The larger corpus of scholastic dialogues (even among those cited
by Bultmann) belong to Gamaliel II, Joshua, Yohanan b. Zakkai,
and other Yavneans. The Pharisaic masters are not given that sort
of material. I do not know why.
Biographical apophthegms (pp. 55ff.) introduce a Jesus-saying with
biographical narrative; the saying and scene express the point together.
An example is Mark 6:1-16: Jesus is not well received in his own
country, so he says, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his
own country." Similarly, Hillel sayings are given settings, e.g. b. Suk.
53a etc., "When he would rejoice, he said, If I am here"; likewise
"Leave Israel alone" is assigned to HillePs rise to power. The PharisaicN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III
82
TRADITION
rabbinic equivalent is not the biographical stories (above, pp. 47-55),

which are not always built around, or meant to supply a setting for,
a pithy saying, but rather are shaped around a moral lesson to be
derived from the story as a whole. One closer parallel is the develop
ment of an exegesis into a chria, with the Scripture serving as the
equivalent to the Jesus-saying, e.g. y. Ber. 9:3, If you hear an outcry,
you say Ps. 112-7, then: Hillel once heard an outcry, and concerning
him Ps. 112-7 is said. But this is not close to Bultmann's biograph
ical apophtegms. Brief biographical references to Pharisaic masters
have little in common, since they generally do not rest upon the basis
of a fixed saying. Bultmann's parallels in rabbinic stories ("in profu
sion," p. 57) mostly pertain to post-70 masters. He does refer, how
ever, to the Hillel-bathing stories. But these are not built out of If
the statues of kings are scoured and washed... Perhaps more pertinent is
Lev. R. 34:3B, "Is not the poor soul a guest in the body..." But the
details of the story do not pertain to the saying. The drowning-apophthegm is one immediately comparable exemplum: Hillel saw a skull
in the water and said a drowning-saying. Hanina and the lizard is
another, which, Bultmann observes, was constructed out of the proverb,
and is a secondary expansion of the passage (p. 59). These are the only
really close equivalents to the Gospels' biographical apophthegms, in
which both type and form exactly coincide in both traditions.
The apophthegm, Bultmann observes (pp. 61ff.), has a tendency to
generate new materials, just as does the dispute. In this respect, also,
the Pharisaic-rabbinic data tend to differ. Numerous moral sayings do
not produce, or are not given, apophthegmatic-narrative settings.
More striking still, the "moral" of the moral sayings very often is
not spelled out or given a brief and pithy form. As I said, Woe to
the lizard and Because you drowned others do not typify a great many
biographical pericopae. Bultmann notes that the apophthegms produce
variations of motif; here we discern no equivalent phenomenon at all.
Bultmann observes further literary traits such as we repeatedly have
noted. Situations of apophthegms are very economically and briefly
described; few apophthegms contain specific references to place. These
traits are noteworthy throughout Pharisaic-rabbinic narratives. In
some longer narratives one may take for granted that the narrator
assumed events took place in Jerusalem (e.g. Yannai's banquets), but
in most we have no clear notion of when, where, or why an event
took place, e.g. where was the stream in which Hillel saw the skull?
When did he see it? Actions similarly are described only so far as
SOME
COMPARISONS
83
necessary to produce the dialogue (Bultmann, p. 66), and this is a

commonplace narrative trait in Pharisaic-rabbinic stories. Personal
characteristics are sparingly referred to, if at all. Bultmann observes,
"This is where the development begins. As soon as the apophthegm
is affected by an interest in history or developed story-telling we meet
with more precise statements." In the case of the entire corpus of
Pharisaic aggadic stories, it is difficult to locate such interest and develop
ment. By contrast, some legal stories begin anonymously, then provide
characters and a proliferation of details, e.g. Simeon b. Shetah and
Judah b. Tabbai on the anomalies of the laws of testimony. Further,
while in the Gospels' controversy dialogues, the questioners originally
were unspecified persons, in the Pharisaic debates there is no develop
ment at all. No particular person of the House of Shammai or Hillel
stands forward to carry on the debate in a later version. I think the
difference between the two is in the history of artificial construction
behind the Pharisaic debates. Once built, these are not likely to change,
though the arguments themselves may be further elaborated.
Bultmann divides Jesus's dominical sayings (pp. 69ff.)not sayings
which constitute an essential part of the story as direct speechinto
three parts: wisdom-sayings, prophetic and apocalyptic sayings, and
laws and community regulations (for which division he supplies a
charming midrash on Jer. 18:18, counsel from the wise, a word from the
prophet, and law [Torah] from the priest). For all sayings he discerns
three basic forms: principles: declaratory form; exhortations: impera
tive form; and questions. As to the principles, he discerns impersonal
formulation, that is, a rule states in the third person that such-and-such
is the case; personal formulae; blessings; arguments a maiore ad minor.
Bultmann notes that "the rabbis" offer relatively few proverbs of
impersonal formulation. But if we correctly translate Bultmann's
sachlich formuliert as "impersonal formulation," rather than Marsh's
"material formulation" (that is, "some material thing is the subject,"
so March), then we have nothing more commonplace than impersonal
formulations. That is, the whole of the legal corpus consists of thirdperson rules that such-and-such is the case. Here I am unclear as to
Bultmann's meaning; he certainly knew that laws are nearly always
formulated in an impersonal, descriptive, present-tense way. If he
alleged that he found relatively few "proverbs" of that sort, then
presumably he understood proverb quite separately from legal saying.
We do not find blessings. Sayings built on the qal vahomer are typified by
the wash-the-body story; there are many others. Exhortations, using
84
TRADITION
the imperative, seldom appear in the Pharisaic collections, apart from

M . Avot 1:1-18. As to questions, we find a few, but generally the
interrogative element is not the base of the saying, e.g. Hillel the
Elder, "If I am here, everyone is here. And if I am not here, who is
here?" The latter clause could have been, "no one is here." The ques
tion intensifies the force of the saying, but to begin with has not
shaped it, i.e., by pointing to some absurdity. The y. Suk. 5:4 version,
"If we are here, who is here?" more closely corresponds. And HillePs
"If I am not for myself, who is for me?" etc. is an exact example of
the question-form. The Pharisaic sayings not in narrative setting do
not seem to follow the model of Proverbs or Ben Sira, as we observed.
They derive primarily from a single document, and that cannot be
very early, and they do not exhibit the rich variations and full expres
sion of the equivalent Jesus-logia.
The redactional history is another matter. Bultmann observes that
there is a tendency to combine different but similar sayings, e.g. Mark
8:34-7 combines three sayings which originally were certain to have
been separate (p. 82), and this, of course, is transparently the tendency
of rabbinic redactors of some pericopae. But most of the rabbinic
sayings cited by Bultmann which admittedly are similar to the forms
of Jesus-sayings derive from later strata or are attributed to later
masters, many of them Babylonian. The type therefore has not produc
ed such striking similarities as in exampla of the debate/dispute form.
I think it not insignificant that Bultmann's most striking successes
in the analysis of wisdom-sayings depend upon Ben Sira and not upon
Pharisaic materials (e.g., pp. 97f).
We have no Pharisaic-rabbinic equivalents to the prophetic and
apocalyptic sayings of Jesus; no preaching of salvation; no minatory
sayings (the Abba Hanan ^^-saying is not pertinent; it is woe to me
because of, not woe on them because of, as in Luke 11: 43ff/Matt. 23:13ff);
no admonitions; no apocalyptic predictions.
As to legal sayings and church rules, a good pericope for analysis
of a type common to Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions and the Synoptic
Gospels is Matt. 6:1-34. The first thing we notice is the use of impera
tives in successive pericopae: beware of practicing... when you give
alms, sound no trumpet...and when you pray, you must not be like...
and in praying, do not heap up...and when you fast, do not look
dismal...do not lay up for yourselves...The eye is the lamp of the
body...do not be anxious about your life. Some of these logia may
not be regarded as equivalent to legal sayings of Pharisaic masters
SOME
COMPARISONS
85
at all. But if they are so regarded, then the use of the imperative, the
development of metaphors ("the eye is the lamp..."), the extended
explanations ("No one can serve... for either he will hate...or he will
be devoted..."), the development of rules into homiletical expla
nations ("lilies of the field"), and other literary traits set the whole
quite apart from the form of any Pharisaic legal pericope. Likewise
the use of rhetorical questions, "Why do you see.. .How can you say..."
(Matt. 7:34) is not common. The use of antithetical forms is familiar
from Pharisaic-rabbinic wise-sayings, but not from laws, which gener
ally are simple declarative sentences and use present tense participles,
as we have repeatedly observed. The If... then... form of Matt. 18:15-17
has no parallel. It is biblical, not Pharisaic-rabbinic. In this instance,
therefore, the type is the same, but the forms exhibit no close relation
ship to one another.
Bultmann's general conclusion, that there was a stock of dominical
sayings which was reshaped by editing, seems to me pertinent to the
rabbinic sayings. These generally were attributed to Hillel, just as
Christian redactors naturally assigned to Jesus pretty much everything
worth remembering. But the development of legal sayings into a
catechism, which, on the Pharisaic-rabbinic side, would be a little
collection of legal sayings, has no equivalent for Hillel's moral logia,
except M. Avot, 2:5-7.
We have already reviewed the Pharisaic "I"-sayings (above, pp. 3335, 56), These diverge in form and spirit from the Jesus-equiva
lents. What Bultmann means by an "I"-saying is not what we have
meant. We simply gathered all sayings in which a person refers to
himself. These in no way are similar to the Jesus-logia. There is no
equivalent in either form ("I say to you") or type, i.e. sayings about
"I" as judge, Messiah, one who was sent, his personal history, hopes,
or intentions. In this respect the difference between the two religious
communities accounts for the obvious difference in the form and
type of the two groups of "I"-sayings.
As to similitudes and similar forms, we find no equivalent. To be
sure, we do see the use of paradox in some apophthegms, e.g. Hanina/
lizard; but paradox is not a dominant characteristic of the Pharisaicrabbinic sayings and does not occur in stories as the primary vehicle
for narrative. Hyperbole and metaphors are not common. As to such
similitudes as master/servant, tower/war, lost sheep/lost coin, the
thief, faithful servant, children at play, leaven, seed growing of itself,
treasure in the field, pearl of great price, fish-net, house-builder, fig
86
TRADITION
tree, returning householder, prodigal son, unjust steward, two sons,

and the likewe have nothing of the same sort. It is true that later
rabbinic materials make use of similitudes. But the materials before
us do not. Bultmann's rabbinic "parallels" all are attributed to masters
after 70. Bultmann quite properly differentiates between allegorical
features of rabbinic similitudes and customary metaphors (e.g. for
God, for man); but the issue to which he addresses himself (pp. 198ff.)
has nothing to do with the Pharisaic-rabbinic stratum.
Bultmann categorizes narrative materials as follows: miracles of
healing, nature miracles, historical stories, and legends. We find two
"miracles of healing," only with reference to Hanina b. Dosa and Gama
liel's son (and, in the same place, Yohanan b. Zakkai's); and nature
miracles come only in Honi's rain-making and the others assigned
to his grandson. These do not play nearly so important a role in the
Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition as do the equivalent stories in the Jesus
narratives. We find no reference to demons or exorcisms (except
Hanina and IgrathBabylonian and late), lepers, paralytics, healing
of the deaf, dumb, and blind, issues of blood, stilling of storms (ex
cluding "Not for this sort of rain have I prayed," which is hardly
comparable), no walking on water, no feeding miracles, no accursed
fig trees; and the sheqel in the fish's mouth (Matt. 17:24-27) cannot
be compared to the stories either of Yosi's nephew or of Simeon b.
Shetah's pearl on the ass. Honi and Hanina stand outside of the legal
tradition; to neither are attributed legal logia, Scriptural exegeses, or
wisdom-sayings. Bultmann's observation (p. 219) is completely sound:
They are told not just as remarkable occurrences, but as "miracles
of Jesus." Here by contrast we have merely remarkable events. The Honi
and Hanina stories do not verify other teachings of those miracleworkers, but merely testify to heaven's ability to recognize and reward
meriteven through grace to disregard merit where it so chooses
("If you were not Honi..."). No faith in the masters is supposed to be
elicited. The various Honi-stories are given a good conclusion, partic
ularly the Abba Hilqiah-corpus, by contrast to the Jesus miraclestories, which lack a conclusion (p. 220).
Among the characteristic aspects of the style of miracle stories pointed
out by Bultmann, we find no striking counterparts: no references to
the length of the sickness, to the dreadful character of the disease, to
the ineffective treatment of physicians, to the contemptuous treatment
of the healer, no disciples, no allusions to the difficulty of the healing
or of making rain, or to gestures by touch or miracle-working words
SOME
COMPARISONS
87
just prayers. We do find a healing at a distance (Mark 7:29, Matt.

8:13, John 4:50, like Hanina, b. Ber. 34b, as noted above). No crowd
is present at either miracle, though there is, to be sure, an audience
in the backgroundthe people of Jerusalem, or Gamaliel. Nor do we
have any resurrections of the dead. Except for Honi's rain-making,
all the rabbinic nature-miracles referred to by Bultmann (pp. 234f)
pertain to late masters. We may safely conclude that this type of
narrative constitutes an inconsequential part of the Pharisaic-rabbinic
tradition. The particular literary traits associated with it in the Gospels
are absent.
Historical narratives and legends are so described because "instead
of being historical in character [they] are religious and edifying" (p.
244). The stories with a moral (pp. 66-67) would seem as a type to
be an appropriate counterpart. Bultmann observes that the historical
legends in the Synoptic Gospels often include something miraculous;
this is not normally the case in the stories listed above. Bultmann
observes that "the historical stories are so much dominated by the
legends that they can only be treated along with them," a judgment
that applies without qualification to the Pharisaic-rabbinic biographi
cal and historical narratives (above, p. 65).
As to the primary narrative technique, we may note that Matt.
4:1-11 (Luke 4:1-12), the Temptation, tells the story primarily through
dialogue: Jesus was led to the wilderness, fasted, the tempter came
and said to him...But he answered (citing Scriptures); then the devil
took him...and said to him...Jesus said to him...Again the devil took
him...and said to him...Then Jesus said to him...Then the devil left
him. Thus a story relies primarily on dialogue to make its important
points, no different in this regard from the Pharisaic-rabbinic story
telling technique. Mark 9:2-8, the Transfiguration, makes use of consid
erably more description, since a miracle is involved; then Peter
speaks to Jesus, and voice comes from the clouda story in which
dialogue is subordinate to the narrative and descriptive materials.
Mark 11:1-10, the triumphal entry, falls somewhere in between. Jesus
is first of all located, then sends out his disciples and tells them to do
certain things, which they do; then Jesus enters the city and the people
salute him and cry out... This recalls the gesture-part of the story of
Abba Hilqiah and his wife; he comes home and does various gestures.
But the interpretation-section is missing, presumably because Zech.9
is meant to supply the appropriate interpretation.
The Passion Narratives cannot appropriately be compared to any-
88
TRADITION
thing in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition; nothing is so fully, dra

matically, and carefully developed, related to various cultic and mythic
aspects of synagogue life, and embellished in later versions. The dra
matic intensity, the attention to feelings and emotions, the "heightened
reality" of the Passion narratives have no counterpart. I suppose no
single event in Pharisaic-rabbinic history played nearly so important
a role in rabbinic theology and law. This obviously accounts for the
formal difference. I can think of no story that originates in the worship
of the synagogue or the cult. Liturgical, dogmatic, and novelistic
motifs are not commonplace in the Pharisaic-rabbinic narratives,
which, as we have seen, either tell about the authority behind a law
or illustrate its application, on the one hand, or tell a story for the
sake of making a (rarely articulated) moral point, on the other.
As to story-telling techniques, Bultmann further observes (p. 307)
that stories tend to be very concise, just as in the apophthegm: none
covers more than two days' activity (unlike Joshua in Alexandria).
The same observation generally, but not always, pertains to Pharisaicrabbinic stories. Second, the "law of scenic duality" operates. That
is, while many people may appear on the scene, only Jesus and the
interlocutor share the significant action. The same may be said of all
rabbinic stories, which may be constructed out of he said to him...he
said to him..., no matter how many people are involved in the back
grounde.g., Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai. Groups are treated as a
unity, e.g. the Pharisees, the Disciples. The same trait characterizes
some of the stories before us, e.g., the "Persian Embassy" said to him,
"the rabbis" present at Yannai's trial all do the same thing. In the
history of popular tradition, Bultmann observes, there is a tendency
to differentation and individualization; in the Pharisaic-rabbinic ma
terials we find such a tendency only occasionally, but we do not have
significant amounts of materials available for comparisons. The synop
tic tables make clear how and where these processes take place. They
tend to be less pronounced than in the Synoptic Gospels. What we
find instead is a tendency on the part of beraita-z&tots to add new
elements to a story, as in Judah b. Tabbai's weeping, Hillel's not
finding a slave to run before the pauper, and so forth. This is a different
sort of phenomenon, but points toward the same tendency, namely, to
embellish what is in hand. The use of direct speech (pp. 190f., 312f.)
of course is extremely common in the Pharisaic-rabbinic narrative. In
general, Bultmann says, indirect speech is put into direct discourse,
though the contrary also happens. In our materials it is difficult to
SOME
COMPARISONS
89
find indirect discourse to begin with (except M. Hag. 2:2). Numbers

play a special part in popular story telling (p. 314), e.g. three temptations
of Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11), three denials of Peter; this seems to me not a
striking characteristic in the Pharisaic-rabbinic story-telling technique.
To be sure, the Simeon b. Shetah banquet-narrative has three elements.
But numerous stories do not rely upon triads of action. Nor can we
say that the number two is of special importance. On the other hand,
in the legal materials, twojthree represent an important stock-opinion
for the Houses, and other numbers occur repeatedly.
These brief observations on types and forms of the pericopae of the
Synoptic Gospels primarily are meant to prove only one fact: While
the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees exhibit only two types in com
mon with biblical, Qumranian, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical
literature, namely, laws and moral sayings, and have no form in com
mon at all, the Pharisaic traditions by contrast do manifest both types
and forms in common with the Synoptic Gospels. They are indeed
so close at a few points as to present a remarkable congruence. Con
flict sayings = debates, a type shared between the two bodies of
tradition, sometimes make use of the same form. The narrative style
has much in common. Biographical apophthegms are an identical type
using identical form, though the materials are not abundant on the
Pharisaic-rabbinic side. We find short biographical references, biograph
ical and historical stories, sayings not in a narrative setting, apoph
thegms in a narrative setting, numerous references to Scriptures, exe
geses, and proof-texts. Practically the whole repertoire of types of
Pharisaic-rabbinic aggadic materials finds a counterpart in the Synoptic
Gospels. The contrary is not the case, that is, not all Synoptic types
and forms occur in the Pharisaic materials. To be sure, we have noticed
considerable differences in forms, and these tend to outweigh the
similarities. But the contrast between the results of a brief comparison
of Pharisaic and biblical, Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphic, and Qumranian
types and forms, on the one side, and of Pharisaic and Synoptic types
and forms, on the other, is striking. The former comparison proves the
several literatures had practically nothing in common. The latter
shows significant shared traits. This seems to me the firm result of
our brief inquiry.
v . HISTORY OF FORMS
In the synoptic tables and comments we have examined the evi

dences of development and change in individual pericopae. Our prob-
90
TRADITION
lem here is to speculate on the history of forms characteristic of

numbers of pericopae.
The first, and unique, characteristic of rabbinic traditions of the
pre-70 Pharisees is attribution to named authorities or to the Houses
of Shammai and Hillel. As we have seen, other sects attribute pericopae
to biblical heroes but not to known masters of the sects themselves,
men who lived at a particular time and place, bore a particular name
(not title, such as "teacher of righteousness"), and lived pretty much
like other ordinary men, not miracle-workers (excluding Honi, Hani
na), messiahs, visionaries, or prophets.
Two exceptions require specification. First, the whole of the Church
tradition of moral sayings in the Synoptic Gospels is assigned to
Jesus; in this respect, the Pharisaic moral sayings exhibit a small
measure of similarity, in giving most such sayings to Hillel. The
comparison of the whole of the Pharisaic tradition to the whole of
the Gospels-tradition shows the similarity to be unimportant, for
Hillel merely receives more attributions of one kind of logia than do
other masters, but hardly is the sole significant authority.
Second, named authorities supposedly stand behind larger units
of traditions, e.g. Gospels, Epistles. But in this respect the rabbinic
tradition does not differ, for the larger collections, e.g. Mishnah,
Tosefta, are likewise assigned to specific masters, e.g. Judah the Patri
arch. The traditions of authorship on the rabbinic side persisted out
side of the form and structure of the collection so assigned. No
passage in the Mishnah corresponds to Luke 1:1-4 or John 21:24-5
but even these do not refer to Luke or John. Only Revelation proclaims
its author. It did this as part of an attempt to be widely accepted at a
time that apostolic authorship had become an important criterion for
such acceptance. The attributions by the Church of Gospels to Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, and of the rabbinical movement to
Judah the Patriarch, Yohanan, the schools of Aqiba, Ishmael, and
other compilers, have in common the beginning in the mind of later
continuators, who naturally wondered how the books of whose au
thority they were acutely conscious actually took shape. Attribution
of authorship depended upon the continued existence of the church
and the rabbinical movement. Apart from the NT passages specified,
the larger compilations are no more articulate about their authors
than are the Manual of Discipline or Genesis. What therefore sepa
rates the Christian and rabbinic compilations from the others is the
later, historical continuation of their respective movements. By conc
HISTORY OF
FORMS
91
trast, the circles responsible for the Qumranian writings died out or
were killed off; those responsible for composing and preserving
important Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings were assimilated
into early Christianity and then blotted out in the mass of other
Christians; and, of course, the continuators of the circles responsible
for various biblical books even earlier had passed from the scene or
had been assimilated into later movements, circles, or institutions.
We may therefore affirm without significant reservation that the formal
practice of assigning logia, traditions, and even whole pericopae to
numerous specific, historical authorities is the unique characteristic
of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees.
The problem of when that practice began is not difficult to solve.
On the one hand, the first internal verifications of materials, in which
a master refers to a tradition available from an earlier stratum, come
at Yavneh. No Pharisaic master refers to the saying of another Phari
saic master, except in the same pericope. While the Houses address
themselves to one another's opinions, no Houses-logion explicitly re
fers to a teaching of, e.g., Simeon b. Shetah, Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Hillel
or Shammai. Indeed, it is often difficult to see how legal issues impor
tant in one set of pericopae ever elicited discussion among other,
later or different Pharisaic masters and circles. The Houses never refer
to legal opinions of anyone before Shammai and Hillel, nor do legal
issues important to, e.g., Yohanan the High Priest, Judah b. Tabbai,
Joshua b. Perahiah, or even Shema'iah-Abtalion, ever provoke ex
plicit comment on the part of Gamaliel I, or Simeon b. Gamaliel.
Hillel's reference to Shema'iah and Abtalion is no exception, for
it comes as a gloss late in the development of that story: the original
reference is merely to "my masters", and it is in dialogue. By contrast,
Gamaliel II does refer to teachings and practices of Gamaliel I;
Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, 'Aqiba, and other Yavneans (except Yohanan
b. Zakkai) do refer to Houses-materials, and while they (Joshua,
Eliezer) may in fact be the Houses in some pericopae, in many others,
e.g. Tarfon and the Shema , it is clear that a later authority makes ref
erence to an extant, earlier teaching, for which he does not bear
responsibility and to the authority of which he is subject. That sort
of verification is strikingly absent in pre-70 materials. We may therefore
conclude that assignment of traditions to named authorities certainly
took place by, and perhaps slightly before, Yavnean times. It seems
to me not unreasonable to push back the terminus ante quern to the times
of the Houses, that is, mid-first century, if we assume that the Houses
c
92
TRADITION
did indeed assign their traditions to the named authorities standing

behind them, Shammai and Hillel. That assumption is not necessarily
beyond doubt, for the Houses-lemmas never include, "So have we
received from Shammai/Hillel" or other references to named authori
ties before their time, though they do include references to precedents
established by named masters. It is not Yohanan HaHorani saidthough
he obviously is an authority of importancebut Yohanan HaHorani
sat... From attributing logia to the named Houses it was natural
to proceed to assign them to named masters, and that was, as we observ
ed, a practice important to Yavnean tradents.
But what of a terminus a quo? It cannot come before Yosi b. Yo'ezer
and Yosi b. Yohanan, for that is the point at which the named tradi
tions begin. But the evidences on masters before Shammai and Hillel
are not substantial and hardly demand much attention. More signifi
cant still, the occurrences of named authority + says/saidnot merely
talked aboutare few and far between for the whole pre-Shammai/
Hillelite tradition, as follows:
1. X says to lay/Y says not to lay
(M. Hag. 2:2)
T h e basis is t h e layjnot lay d i s p u t e , o n w h i c h a r e h u n g t h e n a m e s o f t h e
a u t h o r i t i e s u p t o S h a m m a i / H i l l e l . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n may b e e a r l y , o n t h e
principle that indirect discourse tends t o c o m e before direct discourse.
2. Rabbi Simeon the Just said

(Sifre Num. 22)
S i m e o n ' s n a m e stands b e h i n d t h e s t o r y , t o l d in t h e first p e r s o n . In e v e r y
w a y t h i s is a n a n o m a l o u s p e r i c o p e .
c
3. Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah testified concerning...

(M. <Ed. 8:4)
4. Joshua b. Perahiah says, Wheat that comes from Alexandria...
(Tos. Maksh. 3:4)
5. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first, whoever says to me, Go up...
(b. Men. 109b>
6. Rabbi Simeon b. Shetah said, May I not see consolation...
(b. Sanh. 37b)
I n M e k h i l t a , t h i s is d i a l o g u e , p a r t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e , n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t
l e m m a ; a n d it c o n t a i n s n o legal t r a d i t i o n o r m o r a l l e m m a , b u t is m u c h
like no. 1 above.
c
7. Shema iah says/Abtalion says, The faith...

(Mekh. Beshallah IV, 58-60)
This is not a considerable list; excluding no. 1, only nos. 3-4 both are
standard, or nearly standard, in form, and contain legal materials. The
HISTORY OF
FORMS
93
contrast to the scores of sayings of the Houses and of Shammai and

Hillel is self-evident. As to Gamaliel I, Simeon b. Gamaliel, and others
after Shammai and Hillel and not assigned to their Houses, we have
the following:
1. Rabban Gamaliel says
(Sifre Deut. 11)
2. Yo'ezer of the Birah asked Gamaliel, and he said, It never renders...
(M. <Orl. 2:12)
3. Rabban Gamaliel said, I approve...
(M. Ket. 13:3-5)
4. Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said, By this Temple 1 I shall not...
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:7)
5. Hanaiah Prefect of the Priests says
(Sifra Sav 1:9)
Other Hananiah sayings in standard form are listed above, p. 15,
pp. 24-5.
The picture now is clear. The use of authority sayjsaysjsaid pertains
primarily to, and surely derives from tradents of, the Houses of
Shammai and Hillel. Nearly all other materials are stories told about,
or references made to, masters and their deeds. Sometime between
ca. 40-50 and ca. 80-90, the says-form was established for the transmis
sion of legal materials. I imagine early Yavneh is the most plausible
point, for then the preservation of the pre-Destruction materials re
quired considerable attention, and perhaps the need to do so led to
the development of standard procedures for fixing the old traditions.
Opinions of the Houses, presumably represented at early Yavneh,
came to register in the balance discussed above (II, pp. 1-5).
The form therefore is easy to locate. It is harder to discover the
origins of the practice of telling stories about, and assigning sayings
to, named masters, instead of Jeremiah, Enoch, and other biblical
heroes, or allowing sayings to stand without attribution at all, as in
Ben Sira, the legal pericopae in the Qumranian Scrolls, and other
pertinent materials. Here the decisive evidence is the availability of the
names themselves, whether in chains or otherwise. At that point at
which the names of particular masters were preserved, the foundations
of the literary convention were laid. The chains obviously were shaped
sometime after Shammai/Hillel, but were made up presumably out
of existing materialsthe names themselves.
But the problem is not merely literary and formal. What characteriz
ed Pharisees and Christians but no others is the view that post-biblical
94
TRADITION
masters were worthy of serious consideration as named, individual,

historical authorities. It is a strange anomaly that while others had
heavenly visions, made laws, gave revelations, wrote psalms, and com
posed prayers to be said by others, only the Pharisees, in behalf of
whom the rabbis made few such claims of heavenly revelations and of
ability to see visions and work wonders, produced masters whose
names, deeds and teachings were preserved openly and explicitly.
In this regard Jesus may be seen as an intermediate figure, like an
important rabbi in form but not in substance, and perhaps like the
Teacher of Righteousness in substance but not in form. The nameless
Teacher of Righteousness, the visionaries who signed the names of
Enoch or the patriarchs to their writings, who added to the books of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, who composed psalms and moral treatises
all of these spiritually gifted authorities remained anonymous. 'Spirit
ual gifts' imposed on them a loss of individuality. The Yosi's, Simeon
b. Shetah and Judah b. Tabbai, and others in behalf of whom was
claimed not heavenly authentication but merely accurate knowledge
of the Torah of Moses, should have been set forth as uniform, anony
mous links in a long chain of tradition, but were made the multiform
subjects of sayings and the differentiated objects of stories. Obviously,
characteristic reference to named authorities begins with the begin
nings of the Pharisaic movement itself, so far as the rabbinic traditions
portray it; but that tradition by itself cannot be called to testify about
more than its own contents. Other writings attributed to, and testi
monies concerning, Pharisaism must be taken into account.
The history of the debate-form has already been alluded to. While
the form itself is first attested in the Synoptic Gospels' dispute-pericopae (e.g., Mark 10:2-10), its use in Pharisaic-rabbinic materials
depends upon, and must follow, the Houses-disputes, to which it is
confined and for which it supplies elaboration and extension. Since
those disputes derive from about the time of Yavneh, the debates come
from the same period. This is virtually certain, for both 'Aqiban and
Joshuan materials are later transmuted into the form of Houses-debates.
Debates are further developed in the second century and afterward.
Testimony-form, while not unique to M. 'Ed., seems to derive pri
marily from the circle(s) responsible for the form of that tractate.
That circle's work is explained (Tos. 'Ed. 1:1) by the theory that the
redaction of materials took place "on that day" on which Gamaliel II
was deposedprobative evidence that the process of redaction was
completed long afterward and required historical explanation in terms
HISTORY
OF
95
FORMS
of events no one knew much about. My guess is that the testimonyform, and with it M. Ed., ought to be located sometime in the late
second century, certainly not much earlier, for much of the material
of M. Ed. consists of completed pericopae of Aqiban disciples, as
Epstein demonstrated. Perhaps the roots of individual units go back
to Usha.
The form of the epistles is clear, but the paucity of examplesmerely
two lettersmakes it difficult to analyze them from a form-historical
viewpoint. Obviously, epistolary form in these instances is hardly
unique to Pharisaism. Perhaps the fact that the letters pertain to the
exercise of the duties of the patriarch, and may possibly derive from
patriarchal archives, is significant. It may have been a standard, scribal
form, which any scribe, like Nahum, would have followed. It certain
ly is not limited to Pharisaism.
The ordinance-form does not fit all materials on which it was imposed.
We were repeatedly struck by the incongruity of the claim that at first
matters were such-and-such, then Hillel ordained & change in the law.
By contrast, in Yavnean times the ordinance-form invariably made
good sense; at first, meaning in Temple times, matters were conduct
ed in such-and-such a way, but now that the Temple has been destroyed,
Yohanan b. Zakkai ordained an appropriate alteration in earlier pro
cedures. Yohanan's ordinances pertain primarily to Temple, and other
ritual and liturgical, matters. It seems to me likely, therefore, that the
form originated in Yavneh, and was awkwardly applied toor actual
ly produced the proliferation of"ordinances" of Hillel, Simeon b.
Shetah, and Joshua b. Gamala. Gamaliel I's ordinances (in M. Git.
4:2-3) do exhibit the same difficulties as Hillel's, but his ordinance
about the witnesses is not much different from Yohanan b. Zakkai's
decree on the same subject. At first the witnesses did so-and-so;
Gamaliel decreed otherwise. Here the legal change is minor and credi
ble. Since Gamaliel allegedly participated in the Temple council,
he might have done what the tradition said. If so, the form and the
substance are congruent to one another. What is missing is the occa
sion for the development of the form itselfand that occasion can be
supplied only by the Destruction and Yavnean reconstruction. It
seems probable that the report of Gamaliel's witness-ordinance in
M. R.H. 2:5 has been set by the redactor into the Yavnean form
predominantin the ordinances of Yohananb. Zakkai in M. R.H. 4:1-4.
If the Gamaliel-ordinance comes from before Yavneh, then one may
set back the first use of the form by about thirty years. But I think it
c
96
TRADITION
more likely that the Gamaliel-rule of M. R.H. 2:5 has been reshaped
and set into ordinance-form by the redactor of the composite pericope,
perhaps shortly after Yohanan b. Zakkai's time.
The chains and lists of cleanness-decrees all end with Shammai/Hillel,
so must be assigned at the earliest to the middle of the first century.
The Houses may be responsible, but whether the occasion was Yavneh
or earlier times cannot be decided with much certainty.
The form of the precedents is a far more difficult problem. Ma aseh
b- + / - $ or IF certainly are all redactional materials, for they come and
go, even in various versions of the same pericope. What is left is a simple
sentence, subject, verb, predicate. It was because of the consistent
function of such sentences that I regarded them as something like a
fixed form. But, standing by itself, a simple declarative sentence cannot
be regarded as a well-defined form. So the problem is, When do such
sentences begin to function in a highly specialized way, as precedents for
legal discussion? The terminus ante quern obviously is the Houses-stra
tum, where they occur in some quantity. The Shema'iah-Abtalion
precedent with Kharkemit may push the date back by a decade, to
Shammai-Hillel. Before that point we cannot venture. But that merely
means no simple sentences referring to masters before S + A are
made to function as precedents in legal discussions presented by pre-70
rabbinic traditions about Phariseeshardly a significant literary fact.
The significance is for the study of the history of legal traditions, and
especially, of the importance accorded to various authorities. S + A are
important because they are followed by, and claimed as masters for,
Hillel. Once again, therefore, the line starts with Hillel/Shammai.
First-person sayings and stories, illustrations, proofs, and other stories
pertinent to law, short biographical references, biographical and his
torical stories, long and short, told through either dialogue or narra
tivenone of these sorts of pericopae constitutes a clearcut form, in
the same way that standard- or ordinance-pericopae follow well-defined
forms. What seemed to me characteristic traits were primarily tech
niques of narrative or storytelling, and these are not susceptible of assign
ment to particular situations or groups.
The process of developing an exegesis into a story about a named mas
ter pertains only to Shammai and, chiefly, Hillel-materials. Sayings not
in a narrative setting, apart from M. Avot 1:1-18, are mostly HillePs.
Apophthegms given a narrative setting, except those that make explic
it the moral of a story but are not integral to the story (apophthegms
nos. 1, 3, 4), are HillePs, all but Hanina/lizard (no. 5).
c
HISTORY
OF
FORMS
97
The forms of random citations of Scriptures, as glosses, interpolations,

and proof-texts, seem to me difficult to assign to particular circles or
specific times. Since citations of Scriptures tend to proliferate, e.g.
Simeon b. Gamaliel is given a Scriptural proof for his M. Avot 1:18
saying, which stands without one, we should regard the phenomenon
as a mark of a pericope in the later stages of its development. Further,
the history of the forms of Scriptural citation, as proofs, illustrations,
or embellishments, cannot be separated from the redactional conven
tions of the various compilations in which they occur, and therefore
begins long after the period under study. We have already observed
that while one sort of collection, e.g. Sifra, Sifre, cites a Scripture,
then comments on its elements, and finally tacks on a saying attributed
to a named master, other compilations or strata, e.g. beraitas, will tie
the same Scripture to the same story with <LYW HKTWB >WMR,
SN'MR, KKTWB, and other redactional formulae. The purposes of
Scriptural citations, moreover, other than merely as glosses or inter
polations, clearly differ from those of Qumranian writings, as we have
already observed.
Scriptural pericopae are those in which Scriptures are not merely
glosses or interpolations, but integral in the formation of the materials.
We shall first specify groups and forms of Scriptural pericopae, then
offer a theory as to their history.
The first, and best defined form of a Scriptural pericope is the
exegesis-to-fable, in which a Scripture is cited and commented on, then
a story is told about a named master in terms of the substance, and
sometimes even of the exact words, of the exegesis. These derive pri
marily from the Hillel-materials, above, pp. 42-43.
A second category, to be sure not a form, is defined by the tendency
to supply historical settings, even narratives, to exegetical materials,
as in the anonymous exegeses to which the subscription is added, on
this account Hillel came up from Babylonia, or as in the extensive proofs
about the Passover offering on the Sabbath which are set into a very
elaborate debate-framework about Hillel (and later on, the Bene
Bathyra). To a much smaller extent, Shammai-materials exhibit the
same characteristics, e.g. Sifre Deut. 203. No other named masters are
similarly treated, with the possible exception of Gamaliel, Mekh. deR.
Simeon to Ex. 20:5, Sifre Deut. 61, 351, if this is our Gamaliel.
A third category, closely related to the foregoing, is the formulation
of a historical narrative around, but not out of the substance of, an
exegesis. This is represented by the Simeon b. Shetah-Judah b. Tabbai
98
TRADITION
story about the unacceptability of circumstantial evidence and the

requirement that there be two perjured witnesses (Mekhilta Kaspa III,
31-41). The difference from the first and second categories is that the
center of the story is not the Scriptural comments but rather their
legal consequences. At the same time, the Scripture is important to
the story, unlike Sifre Num. 22, Simeon the Just and the Nazir, in
which the Scripture is tacked on at the end, concerning you is fulfilled
Num. 6:2; b. Ber. 19a, Simeon and Honi, in which Prov. 23:25 is
said of Honi; and b. Sanh. 19a-b, in which Ex. 21:29 explains the law
cited by the rabbis in calling Yannai to court. Along the same lines
is Sifra Behuqotai 1:1, an historical "illustration" of Jer. 5:25; here
however Simeon b. Shetah is not integral to the story. By contrast,
the references to Is. 26:20, Qoh. 7:12, and Ben Sira 11:1 (or, in Baby
lonian versions, Prov. 4:8), have not provoked the Yannai-Simeon b.
Shetah banquet story, but are subordinated to it; proof of their
peripheral nature is the ability of later narrators to use other Scriptures
than those originally specified. In this pericope, the Scriptures are not
mere embellishments, but also are not formative and central. The
same may be said of Qoh. 10:20, Ex. 22:27, Prov. 6:23, and Is. 2:2,
in b. B.B.4a, Baba and Herod.
Fourth, some Hillel sayings look like elaborations or paraphrases
of Scriptures, especially Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24, where Qoh. 3:3-4 and
Ps. 119:126 are spelled out in terms of laughing/crying, scattering/
gathering, etc. By contrast, Ex. 20:24, in Tos. Suk. 4:3, is merely an
interpolation, neither integral to, nor formative of, the saying.
Fifth, in Scriptural pericopae, the standard dispute formX saysj
Y says applies only to Shema'iah-Abtalion, Mekh. Beshallah iv,
58-60. The standard form, Xsays, is used in Sifre Num. 42 for Hananiah
Prefect of the Priests, with reference to Num. 6:26, Amos 4:13, and
Is. 45:7. In each instance, a Scripture is cited, then explained by
Hananiah; also we find standard form with Shammai in Mekh. deR.
Simeon to Ex. 20:8, Part A.
As to the exegetical principles involved in the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees, we have noticed a tendency of 'Aqibans to con
tribute supporting exegetical materials for Hillelite opinions, even to
formulate in the names of the Houses disagreements on the application
of 'Aqiban principles, e.g. the meaning of >K. These pericopae obvi
ously cannot date before Nahum of Gimzu- Aqiba, and they may come
considerably afterward. Others, in which the exegesis is supplementary,
may not be quite so late. A striking characteristic of the Hillel-rise-toC
HISTORY OF
FORMS
99
power materials is the specification of the types of exegetical devices used

by Hillel to prove his case, which has no equivalent in the other
bodies of tradition we have considered (e.g. Qumran). It would seem
that these specifications, unique in the rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees, come after the fact and are unrelated to it, since to Hillel are
attributed exegetical principles which nowhere appear in Hillel-pericopae.
The striking fact is that where we have a well-defined form for
Scriptural pericopae, it applies primarily, but not solely to Hillelmaterials. To be sure, Shammai is sometimes the object of the same
form, and we noticed Hillel-like forms in the name of Ben He He,
I, p. 392, who is associated with the Hillel-tradition in such instances.
As we review the list of exegeses for legal purposes (pp. 39-42), we
find a remarkable preponderance of Hillel-Shammai-Houses-materials,
thirty-three of the thirty-five exampla. Of aggadic exegeses (pp. 62-64),
we have few from masters not associated with Hillel-traditions. Three
are in the name of Gamaliel in Mekh. deR. Simeon and Sifre (as noted
above). Two are in the name of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, and the
rest are Ben He He, Shema'iah-Abtalion, and the Houses. Proof-texts
integral, or closely related, to sayings of masters are all HillePs, except
two for Simeon b. Gamaliel, one a gloss in M. Avot 1:18, the other
a later proof-text for Simeon's saying (y. Ta. 4:2). Clearcut forms for
Scriptural materials thus primarily pertain toHillelite-traditions. Masters
before his time have no Scriptural pericopae at all. Those after him
are similarly unimportant in the attribution of Scripturally-centered
pericopae. As we noted, the larger part of the legal exegeses derives
from 'Aqibans. The point at which other Scriptural Houses-pericopae
were worked out is very likely to have been early Yavneh. Of the
aggadic Scriptural pericopae we can be less certain. They obviously
cannot come before the first third of the first century, assuming
HillePs death at ca. 20 A.D. I have no terminus ante quern, though
Yavneh seems possible. It was then that the Hillelites came to power,
and interest in Hillel himself was therefore keen. On that basis we may
very tentatively conjecture that the development of the specified forms
for Scriptural pericopae was related to the larger effort of Yavneans to
work out the traditions of pre-70 Pharisaism in such a way as to set
Hillel into the center of things. The effort was a complete success in
this regard as in others. Hillel was made the single most prominent
figure in the formation of Scriptural pericopae.
Conclusion: Both the reference to a limited number of types of materi-
100
TRADITION
als pertaining to pre-70 Pharisaism and the imposition on them of a

few clearcut forms characterize Yavnean tradents. Since the Synoptic
Gospels, which make reference to the same types (among others) of
stories and sayings, use some of the same well-defined forms, develop
stories according to the same techniques of story-telling, and come
from approximately the same periodassuming Mark at 60, the rest
not much laterwe notice an interesting fact. The Christian and rabbi
nic tradents around the destruction of Jerusalem exhibit much the
same literary and formal tendencies. What the former did for Jesus,
the latter did for Hillel. The formation of the intermediate units of
the respective traditions was carried out in not entirely dissimilar ways.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND

OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS
i. INTRODUCTION
Small units of tradition are those fixed, recurrent formulae, cliches,

patterns, or little phrases, out of which whole pericopae, or large
elements in pericopae, e.g. complete sayings, are constructed. Small
units of tradition, while constitutive of pericopae, do not generate
new sayings or legal problems, as do apophthegmatic formulae. That
is, MRBHMRBHproduces numerous sayings; say uncleansay
cleandoes not; rather, it merely serves as apodosis for a random
protasis.
An example of part of a pericope composed primarily of small
units of tradition is as follows:
A basket offruit intended for the Sabbath

House of Shammai declare exempt
And the House of Hillel declare liable.
The italicized words are not fixed formulae. And is redactional; the
formulation of the statement of the problem does not follow a pattern.
The Houses-sentences, by contrast, are formed of fixed, recurrent
phrases, which occur in numerous pericopae. Similarly:
House of Shammai say...House of Hillel say...
are fixed small units, whether or not the predicate matches; when it
balances, we have a larger unit of tradition composed of two small
units:
1 . House of Shammai say,
3. House of Hillel say,
2 . BKY YTN
4. Not BKY YTN.
In this pericope, only the statement of the problem or protasis, not

given, would constitute other than a fixed, small unit; House of ShammaijHillel + say are complete units, and the opinions in the apodoses
are others thus, as I said, a pericope, the apodosis of which is com
posed entirely of fixed, small units of tradition.
102
S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION
AND
MNEMONICS
By definition these small units cannot be random, or they would

not constitute formulae. Such small units are whole words, not syn
tactical or grammatical particles. They also are not mere redactional
devices used to join together discrete pericopae in the later processes
of collection and organization, such as maâseh, SN'MR, LYK HKTWB WMR, and similar connecting-words, editorial conventions, for
mulaic introductions to Scriptures, and other redactional cliches.
Among the intermediate units of tradition we have already noted
combinations of small units of tradition, of which the most important
is: X says. Now it may seem that so routine a phrase cannot be regard
ed as a formula. But its form, sense and function here are absent in
all other Jewish literature. It obviously is not the only or best possible
way of introducing a quotation of a named master. The use of the
present tense participle with regard to a named master is unique and
unnatural, being anti-historical. We find X says, but not X does, X
writes, X decrees, X rules. We have already listed the occurrences of X
says; to these we add the parallel use of authority + other present tense
participles, each such use constituting a small unit of tradition.
On the other hand, formulaic sayings, a few of which we have
already noticed, are not such small units of tradition, for the little
elements in themKDY/R'WYare submerged, not sufficiently artic
ulated to be seen as independent cliches of composition.
Cliches of tradition already noted in our study of intermediate
units are as follows:
1. X testified concerning
2. He said to him, they said to them
3. X said
4. At first (BR'SWNH)...ordained...
5. Three things
6. Ma asehb...W/
7. They said concerning...that he
8. Until (>L> <D S)
9. Because of this matter/because of these matters
10. And already (KBR)
11. They voted and decided (NMNW WGMRW) etc. Also:
House of Shammai outnumbered House of Hillel
12. I see the words of...
13. TNY/TNW RBNN/TNY', etc.
14. What did he do? What did they do? What did Israel do in that
hour? etc.
15. MRBH/MRBH, M$RBW/RBW, etc.
16. Some say (Y >WMRYM)
17. M$MT/BTL
C
INTRODUCTION
103
18. KL ZMN S/KL HYMYM S, etc.

19. X heard
20. >WY LY
Among these, the following are redactional formulae and not small
units of tradition: nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 13.
Somewhat analogous to X says, but routine and not formulaic or
unique to Pharisaic materials, are nos. 1, 2, 3, 16, and 19.
No. 1 is redactional, as we saw.
No. 4. is integral to its form, indeed, its appearance will necessitate
HTQYN X; it therefore is strictly formal, not capable of appearing
in more than a single way. It is analogous to a redactional formula,
with the difference that redactional formulae generally are the last
embellishment of a pericope, meant to tie existing materials to a larger
setting, while BR $WNH...HTQYN... comes at the beginning of
the formation of an intermediate unit of tradition.
No. 8 is a grammatical particle, along with such uncatalogued
particles as M , , W, and the like. They play no substantive role in
the formation of traditions.
Temporal cliches, nos. 17 and 18, routinely establish a historical
framework of reference.
No. 14 shows the model of a rhetorical pattern, meant to add drama
to a narrative. It is a technique of story-telling reduced to a recurrent
formula. The same may be said of no. 11, which supplies a transition
from the statement of an issue or a problem to its solution.
No. 12 is an idiom. Nos. 15 and 17 constitute generative formulaic
patterns, or models, for sayings. No. 20 ought to generate more
sayings than it does; it is in the same category as KD Y/R'WY sayings,
as I said.
No. 9 is functionally analogous to no. 11, that is, it ties an antece
dent, generally anonymous lemma to a historical cliche, e.g., Hillel
tame up from Babylonia.
While not a "small unit," a repeated construction is to be added to
the list:
21. If you will do so-and-so, I shall do so-and-so, and if you will not
do so-and-so, I shall not do so-and-so
that is, a reversal of conditions. This morphological cliche contains
no fixed formula, but as a pattern it cannot be completely distinguished
from nos. 15 and 17, both of which rely on a repetition of wordpatterns. But while nos. 15 and 17 constitute verbal patterns, repeated
in various sayings, no. 21 relies on a fixed change in word order,
>
104
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D
MNEMONICS
or a reversal of conditions, most commonly through an affirmative,

then negative formulation; thus the inclusion of U functions much
like a repeated verb, e.g. RBW or HRBW +/ M. Antonymic say
ings, highly generative, follow much the same formula, e.g. bashful
man cannot learn, impatient man cannot teach.
We therefore observe the existence of cliches of construction, which
are not articulately formulaic, in that they do not rely on fixed parts
or particles of speech, but which may be considered as mnemonically
analogous to small units of tradition. They differ in one important
respect: small units of tradition do not exhibit the tendency of develop
ment or reproduction. They are fixed and final. No further sayings
are created on their model. By contrast, cliches of construction are
capable of generating numerous exampla following a single model.
When x died, y ceased, or when x multiplied, j multiplied, or he who
multiplies x, multiplies y , or a person possessed of vice x cannot exhibit virtue
x'all of these are capable of producing an unlimited number of
sayings in a single model. While x say, unclean may be attached to any
number of cases, it does not yield new sayings in its model. Our interest
is both in such fixed and non-generative formulae and in other
mnemonically helpful patterns.
Unlike the noun-epithet formula found by Milman Parry in the
Iliad and the Odyssey ("Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral VerseMaking. I. Homer and Homeric Style," Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 41, 1930, pp. 73-148; and "II. The Homeric Language as
the Language of an Oral Poetry," ibid., 43, 1932, pp. 1-50), the small
units of tradition before us seldom exhibit a meter, nor is any fixed
metrical value often an obvious formal consideration (except in
Houses-pericopae), because of the plain fact that at the time of the
rabbis people no longer used metric speech for prosaic purposes. But
the Houses' syzygy supplies for the apodosis or predicate of the Houses*
pericopae the same sort of balanced, therefore presumably easy to
memorize, elements. Parry's description therefore applies without
qualification: "Unless the language itself stands in the way, the poet...
of the Homeric poems has...a noun-epithet formula to meet every
regularly recurring need. And what is equally striking, there is usually
only one such formula." Likewise, as we have seen in individual
pericopae and now shall observe overall, the tradent of the Houses*
pericopae has a standard syzygy available for the apodosis of every
regularly recurring legal problem and sometimes even uses an availa
ble syzygy where it does not closely fit the facts of the case.
INTRODUCTION
105
On the other hand, the syzygies appear solely in the apodoses; if

the apodosis almost always is formulaic, the protasis never is. While
"formulaic style' is characteristic of the one, it is nowhere to be discern
ed in the other. So if the fixed epithet is a sign that the style is tradition
al and formulaictherefore oral, then the same may be said of the
syzygous Houses' apodoses. But then one must add with equal cer
tainty that the protases are not traditional, not formulaic, by Parry's
reasoning therefore not oral. Nor are other elements of formal diction
to be seen in the Houses' protases. So, as I said, if the apodosis is
oral, the protasis cannot be. (Actually, I think the Houses-pericopae
in the Mishnah were orally formulated and orally transmitted along
with the rest of the Mishnah.)
The larger question of oral transmission therefore requires consider
ation. Until now it has been taken for granted by students of Phari
saic-rabbinic literature, indeed of all aspects of Talmudic literature,
that the written materials come at the end of a long process of oral
transmission. The "Oral Torah" of Talmudic Judaism was handed
on not in writing but from master to disciple by formulation for
memorization and oral repetition. Various sayings in Talmudic litera
ture claim exactly that. It is, to be sure, striking that no such claim
occurs in the materials we have examined. While we have a routine
reference (Sifre Deut. 351) to two Torahs, one oral and one in writing
(and the attribution to Gamaliel I is not firm, as we have observed),
nothing is said about how materials actually were shaped and handed
on. A self-conscious concern for that issue did not characterize those
who shaped the traditions about the Pharisees; or the way in which
the materials came down was taken for granted. Rather than attempt
to solve the problem at the outset by arguments and conjectures, we
shall seek solutions in the texts themselves, and, if not the answer,
then at least some facts may come before us. These then will permit
further consideration of the theory of oral transmission.
At the outset, however, we must emphasize that all we have for
the consideration of the oral theory are literary data. The claim that
such data in certain forms signify a history of oral formulation and
transmission is a central element in theories of oral transmission, not
a fact explicitly presented by the data themselves. Organization of
materials for easy memorization says nothing about what lies in the
historical background of the materials, only about what was intended
for the future: from redaction onward, it may well have been planned
that they would be learned by heart, therefore to begin with should be
106
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
constructed to facilitate easy memorization. The syzygous construc

tion of the Houses' apodoses is a literary convention of written materi
als. It constitutes a "small unit of tradition' in literature available to
us only in written form. More than this cannot be granted as fact.
II. PERICOPAE WITHOUT FORMULAE OR PATTERNS
We shall first catalogue pericopae that neither contain formulaic

expressions and phrases, on the one hand, nor exhibit structural pat
terns on the other. In this catalogue we find listed practically all
materials pertaining to named masters, excluding Shammai and Hillel,
and also materials of theirs as well as some of the Houses'. In none do
we find a mnemonic pattern of some kind, either in individual phrases
or in overall structure.
We must, to be sure, distinguish between such mnemonic patterns,
on the one hand, and traditions that may lie behind a pericope, on
the other. If the former are absent, that does not mean the redactor
made things up out of his own head. He might have had some ancient
traditions in a form we cannot recover. A few pericopae seemed to be
based on materials clearly antecedent to the time of redaction, e.g.
the decree is annulled, the young men have conquered'(Tos. Sot. 13:7) occurs
with reference to Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest, and
also in Josephus's narrative, as we noted (I, p. 35). Likewise, Simeon
hung witches and similar brief allusions to stories (above, pp. 43-45)
represent brief lemmas out of which long narratives may have been
developed. Such allusions never exhibit a discernible mnemonic struc
ture, Yet the traditions, e.g. on decree/young men, may come before their
first occurrence in the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees.
Pericopae neither containing formulaic elements, nor built of small
units of tradition, nor constructed according to manifest structural
patterns, are as follows:
1. Simeon the Just and the Nazirite
(Sifre Num. 22)
2. Simeon the Just and Alexander
(b. Yoma 69a)
3. Simeon the Just announced death
(b. Men. 109b)
4. Simeon the Just prayed too long
(y. Yoma 5:2)
PERICOPAE
WITHOUT FORMULAE
OR PATTERNS
107
5. Antigonus of Sokho
(ARN ch. 5)
6. Yosi's son gave money to Temple
(b. B.B. 133b)
7. Yaqim of Serurot hung self
(Gen. R. 65:27)
8. Joshua b. Perahiah says, Wheat from Alexandria is unclean
(Tos. Maksh. 3:4)
9. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first...
(b. Men. 109b)
10. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus
(b. Sot. 47a)
11. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah re circumstantial evidence
(Mekh. Kaspa III 31-41)
12. Rain in times of Simeon b. Shetah
I n c l u d e s c l i c h 6 - s i m i l e w h e a t l i k e k i d n e y s , b a r l e y l i k e o l i v e - p i t s , lentils
l i k e denars
13. Simeon b. Shetah hung women in Ashqelon

(Sifre Deut. 221, y. Sanh. 6:6)
14. Honi made rain
(M. Ta. 3:8)
15. Simeon b. Shetah ordained
re
Ketuvah
(Tos. Ket. 12:1)

(Variations)
16. Simeon b. Shetah, Nazirites, Yannai
(y. Ber. 7:2)
Triad o f actions, but n o pattern, either in actions, in phrases in w h i c h
they are described, o r in dialogue.
17. In the days of Simeon b. Shetah property-litigations were remov

ed
(y. Sanh. 1:1)
18. Yannai asked to give up priesthood
(b. Qid. 66a)
Presumably follows Josephus.
19. Simeon b. Shetah executed son

(y. Sanh. 6:3)
20. Simeon b. Shetah returned pearl
(y. B.M. 2:5)
108
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
21. Simeon b. Shetah tried Yannai's slave

(b. Sanh. 19a-b)
A s no. 1 8 .
22. Simeon b. Shetah threw Sadducees out of Sanhedrin

(Meg. Ta., p. 342)
23. Two weavers report opinions of Shema'iah and Abtalion
(M. <Ed. 1:3B)
24. S + A gave bitter water to Kharkemit
(M. <Ed. 5:6)
25. Judah b. Dortai re Passover on Sabbath
(b. Pes. 70b)
26. S + A and high priest
(b. Yoma 71b)
Formulaic saying: Descendents of priests.
27. Free bird tied by wingsS + A

(b. Bes. 25a)
28. Yohanan the High Priest officiated eighty years and at the end
became a min,
(b. Ber. 29a)
29. Use of divine name in documents
(Meg. Ta., p. 337)
30. Abba Hilqiah
(b. Ta. 23a-b)
Narrative pattern.
31. Menahem went forth to king's service

(b. Hag. 16b, y. Hag. 2:2)
32. Daughter-in-law of Shammai had baby, etc.
(M. Suk. 2:8)
33. Shammai: If times were propitious
(Tos. Shev. 3:10)
34. Shammai did not want to hand food
(b. Yoma 77b)
c
35. Shammai and Jonathan b. Uzziel

(b. B.B. 133b-134a)
J o n a t h a n ' s l e m m a is m a d e u p o f a r e v e r s a l o f a t r i p l i c a t e o f c o n d i t i o n s ,
b u t t h e p e r i c o p e is n o t in a clearcut p a t t e r n .
PERICOPAE
WITHOUT FORMULAE
OR PATTERNS
109
36. Shammai: White of egg contracts

(b. Git. 57a)
37. Shammai: Sender liable.
(b. Qid. 43a)
38. Lev. 11:24 + Hillel, Even in midst of water
(Sifra Shemini 9:5)
Hillel r e p e a t s a n o n y m o u s exegesis.
39. Lev. 13:37 + comment + Because of this Hillel came up

40. Deut. 15:3 + not he who gives + Hillel ordained prosbul
(Sifre Deut. 113)
41. And thus Hillel used to say...
(M. B.M. 5:9 [Tos. B.M. 6:10] )
42. HillePs rise to power
(Tos. Pisha 4:13)
T h e s t r u c t u r e is clear, as a n a l y z e d I, p p . 231-235, b u t n o m n e m o n i c p a t
t e r n e m e r g e s f r o m t h e w h o l e o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s . S o m e fixed s a y i n g s ,
h o w e v e r , d o a p p e a r at t h e c e n t e r o f n a r r a t i v e s , m u c h l i k e H i l l e l - a p o p h t h e g m s , e.g. Leave Israel alone.
43. Hillel and Alexandrian
Ketuvah
(Tos. Ket. 4:9)

T h e fixed e l e m e n t is t h e c i t a t i o n o f t h e Ketuvah, a r o u n d w h i c h t h e s t o r y is
shaped.
44. Hillel and holy spirit

(Tos. Sot. 3:13)
N a r r a t i v e p a t t e r n a p p l i e d first t o H i l l e l , t h e n t o S a m u e l , b u t n o i n t e r n a l
pattern in individual segments.
45. Seven things did Hillel expound

(Tos. Sanh. 7:11)
46. Hillel: Coming from the way, what does he say + Ps. 112:7
(y. Ber. 9:3)
D e p e n d s o n antecedent
Mishnah.
47. Hillel death-scene *

(y. Ned. 5:6)
P e r h a p s t h e citation b y Hillel o f P r o v . 8 : 2 1 w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o Y o h a n a n b .
Z a k k a i lies at t h e basis o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . N o m n e m o n i c p a t t e r n a p p e a r s in
t h e p e r i c o p e itself.
110
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
48. No man crushed in Temple

(b. Pes. 64b)
49. Hillel studied as a poor man
(b. Yoma 35b)
50. No one trespassed through whole-offering
(b. Ned. 9b)
51. Ben He He and Hillel
(b. Hag. 9b)
52. Hillel and Shebna
(b. Sot. 21a)
53. How much for wheat-apophthegm
(ARN ch. 12)
54. Guest in body-apophthegm
(Lev. R. 34:3)
55. Controversy for God's sake
(M. Avot 5:17)
56. Hillel laid hands in Temple, Shammaites ganged up against him,
Baba saved the day
(Tos. Hag. 2:11)
57. Shammai silenced Hillel by force
(b. Shab. 17a)
58. Agrippa and Gamaliel
(Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:5)
59. Gamaliel on Deut. 12:2-4
(Sifre Deut. 61)
60. Gamaliel on Deut. 21:5
(Sifre Deut. 351)
61. Gamaliel and Simeon of Mispah
(M. Pe'ah 2:5-6)
c
62. Gamaliel and Yo ezer

(M. <Orl. 2:12)
63. Gamaliel's House gives Terumah
(M. Sheq. 3:3)
PERICOPAE WITHOUT
FORMULAE
OR PATTERNS
111
64. Gamaliel's House's prostrations

(M. Sheq. 6:1)
65. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai eat in
Sukkah
(M. Suk. 2:5)

66. Gamaliel allowed wives to marry
(M. Yev. 16:7)
T h e fixed t r a d i t i o n of G a m a l i e l ' s r u l e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n m n e m o n i c p a t
tern.
67. Gamaliel buried Targum of Job

(Tos. Shab. 13:2)
68. Gamaliel married off daughter to Simeon b. Netanel
(Tos. A.Z. 3:10)
69. Simeon b. Gode'a testified re RWQB*
(Tos. A.Z. 4:9)
70. Hanina healed Gamaliel's son
(b. Ber. 34b)
71. Simeon b. Gamaliel lowers prices
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:7)
72. Gamaliel re father and
pe'ah

73. Gamaliel re father,
min,
and
eruv
(M. <Eruv. 6:2)

(Tos. Suk. 4:4)
75. Simeon b. Gamaliel admired gentile woman
(b. A.Z. 20a)
76. Baba b. Buta and guilt-offering
(M. Ker. 6:3)
77. Baba and Herod
(b. B.B. 4a)
78. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel and
Targum
(b. Meg. 3a)

D i a l o g u e uses cliches, i.e. it is fully revealed before you etc.
112
MNEMONICS
79. Joshua b. Gamala and Martha

(M. Yev. 6:4)
80. Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and expensive tunic
(b. Yoma 35b etc.)
81. Eleazar b. Harsom studied Torah
(b. Yoma 35b)
82. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Father rejected maimed beasts
(Sifra Sav 1:9)
83. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Priests never refrained
(M. Pes. 1:6)
84. Hananiah Prefect of Priests et aL: Surplus of Terumah, etc
(M. Sheq. 4:4)
85. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Pray for government
(M. Avot 3:2)
86. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Never have I seen
(M. Zev. 12:4)
87. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Terumah impaired for human con
sumption
(Tos. Ter. 9:10)
88. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: House of our God is worthy
(y. Bes. 2:2)
89. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: I myself have seen it
(b. Yoma 21b)
90. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Why does Prefect stand...
(b. Yoma 39a)
91. Nahum the Mede and Nazirites
(M. Naz. 5:4)
92. Zekhariah b. HaQassav testified
(M. Ket. 2:9)
93. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah and Ezekiel
(b. Shab. 13b)
(Rav Judah-Rav)
94. Yohanan b. Gudgada ate hullin
(M. Hag. 2:7)
PERICOPAE
WITHOUT
FORMULAE
OR PATTERNS
113
95. Yohanan b. GudgadYs sons were deaf and dumb

(Tos. Ter. 1:1)
96. Joshua b. Hananiah and Yohanan b. Gudgada closed Temple
doors
(b. Arakh. l i b )
c
97. Limit to sisitHouses
(Sifre Num. 115)

98. Lie down to read Shemcf
vs.
recite in his own way-Houses

(M. Ber. 1:3)
T h e lemmas are g i v e n balancing exegeses, b u t d o n o t use the same, o r

similar, w o r d s .
99. Almoners and demaiHouse of Shammai vs. sages

(M. Dem. 3:1)
N o balance.
100. Uncleanness of weaselHouse of Shammai alone

(M. Kil. 8:5)
101. Sell seventh year produce in bundlesHouses
(M. Shev. 8:3)
O n l y b a l a n c e is H o u s e . . . s a y . . .
102. Three groupsHouses debate middle group

(Tos. Sanh. 13:3)
H o u s e s - f o r m is e n t i r e l y l o s t .
103. Vow to give marheshetHouses debate

(b. Men. 63a)
104. Judah b. Bathyra on Trough of Jehu
(M. Miq. 4:5)
No. 9's at first comes close to the formula, at first...ordained, but at
first here means no more than it says, a specification of time, and car
ries no formulaic significance. No. 12 contains the cliche-simile,
wheat like kidneys, etc. Such fixed similes do not contribute to the forma
tion of traditions or pericopae, but are to be treated as composite
parts of speech, in this case, an extended adjective, no different from
big wheat. Another such cliche, this time formed of substantives, is
wells, cisterns, caves of the Honi-rain stories, no. 14; likewise, no. 79:
it is fully revealed before you etc. No. 26 may be built on a formulaic
saying, in which Descendents of Aaron is turned around by who [really]
do the work of Aaron. No. 30 follows a narrative pattern, but not a
114
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION
AND
MNEMONICS
strongly articulated one: specification of gestures, followed by inter

pretation of the gestures. That sort of narrative convention does not,
however, depend upon three things or other sorts of clearcut narrative
forms. In the foregoing pericopae we do not find either formative
formulaic elements or a structure built of small units of tradition. The
pericopae are not constructed according to a narrative pattern manifest
to us. Possible exceptions to this view are listed below, p. 118.
i n . PERICOPAE WITH FORMULAE OR PATTERNS
Numerous pericopae, while not constructed out of small units of

tradition, follow narrative or structural patterns or depend upon
formulae, either cliches of expression or conventions of editorial
form, which are functionally equivalent to small units. Some of these
patterns are strikingly integral to the substance of the pericope, as
in the Houses-debates, the apophthegms, and similar clearcut forms.
Others are external to the substance of the pericope and constitute
redactional conventions. Still others depend for formal structure on
Scriptural citations; in these, a Scripture is broken into its elements,
and comments are assigned to each. Such comments closely relate to
the sense, and sometimes even to the form, of the Scripture. We shall
catalogue all such pericopae in one list, then distinguish among them.
1-28. Houses-debates, itemized above, pp. 16-23.
T h e d e b a t e - f o r m is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e u s e o f House + said + to them.
T h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e l e m m a s f r e q u e n t l y is b a l a n c e d i n c o n t e n t , r a r e l y i n
f o r m . Sometimes, t o be sure, the citation o f Scripture f o l l o w e d b y c o m
ments will exhibit r o u g h balance in n u m b e r o f w o r d s , r h y t h m , o r s o m e
other formal trait. T h e o n l y recurrent small unit o f tradition in the debate
f o r m is as specified i n italics a b o v e .
29-30. epistles, itemized above, p. 25.

T h e p a t t e r n is as d e s c r i b e d .
31-38. Ordinances, itemized above, pp. 25-27.

B y c o n t r a s t , w e c a n n o t r e g a r d t h e precedent as s h a p e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
s a m e s o r t o f d i s c i p l i n e d s t r u c t u r e as t h e ordinance.
39-43. From exegesis to fable, itemized above, pp. 42-43.

T h e p a t t e r n is c l e a r : S c r i p t u r e , t h e n s t o r y b a s e d o n S c r i p t u r e . T o s . Pe'ah
4 : 1 0 is t h e b e s t e x a m p l e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e f o r m , f o r t h e r e , t h e s t o r y m a k e s
u s e o f t h e a c t u a l l a n g u a g e o f t h e exegesis. B u t it is difficult t o i n c l u d e
s u c h i t e m s as y . B e r . 9 : 3 (ii, n o . 4 6 ) w h e r e t h e m n e m o n i c p a t t e r n is u n
clear a n d t h e n a r r a t i v e p a t t e r n s o m e w h a t g e n e r a l i z e d . T h e s e a r e n o t
m u c h different f r o m ii. n o s . 6 0 , 6 1 . T h e s y n o p t i c h i s t o r y o b v i o u s l y e x -
PERICOPAE WITH FORMULAE OR PATTERNS
115
hibits a c o m m o n p l a c e p h e n o m e n o n , the transformation o f a saying o r

r u l e i n t o a n a p o p h t h e g m . B u t t h e l i t e r a r y form at e a c h stage is d i s c r e t e
a n d e x h i b i t s n o significant p a t t e r n .
44. To lay/not to lay + names

(M. Hag. 2:2)
45. Names + GZR + TWM>H + <L
(b. Shab. 14b)
46. Names + three things
(M. Avot 1:1-18)
47. Shema'iah/Abtalionfaith, worthy
(Mekh. Beshallah IV 58-60)
C
48. 40/40/40Deut. 34:7 + Moses/Hillel, Yohanan b. Zakkai/ Aqiba

etc.
(Sifre Deut. 357)
49. M. Avot 2:5-7, Tos. Hag. 2:9, the more the more, or increased...
increased...and other patternsHillel
50. Do not be seen naked/clothed + other paired oppositesHillel
( + Apophthegmatic developments: When he saw them...)
(Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24; Tos. Suk. 4:3, y. Ber. 9:5;
Lev. R. 1:5 etc.)
51. Hillel himself used to prohibit
(Tos. Ma. 3:2-4)
Fixed sentence repeated in several rules.
52. 30/30/20HillePs disciples

(b. Suk. 28a)
53. BSR/MSQTWM'H/THRH, Hillel and Yohanan b. Zakkai
(b. Pes. 3b)
54. Gentle like Hillel
(b. Shab. 30b-31a)
S u p p l i e s n a r r a t i v e s e t t i n g f o r s a y i n g s , e.g. Hateful to yourself. T h e n a r r a
t i v e is c o n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o a s i m p l e p a t t e r n : Hillel d o e s g o o d t h i n g ,
S h a m m a i does bad thing. But t h e pericope does n o t depend u p o n small
units o f tradition.
55. Hillel, Shammai, and Sabbath

(b. Bes. 16a)
S a m e p a t t e r n as a b o v e : N a r r a t i v e c o n t r a s t s b u t n o s m a l l - u n i t c o n s t r u c
tions.
56. I approve words of Admon-Gamaliel

(M. Ket. 13:3-5)
S e n t e n c e r e p e a t e d in clear p a t t e r n .
116
MNEMONICS
57. When Gamaliel died, honor of Torah ended.

(M. Sot. 9:15, b. Meg. 21a)
58. Gamaliel, King, and Queen
(b. Pes. 88b)
Narrative pattern.
59. Baba b. Buta and Babylonian

(b. Ned. 66b)
Narrative pattern
60. Joshua b. Gamala and schools

(b. B.B. 21a)
Narrative pattern characteristic o f R a v J u d a h - R a v histories.
61. Song of Abba Joseph b. Hanan

(b. Pes. 57a)
Woe-formula.
62. Hananiah Prefect of Priests et a/.: Leprosy signs10/30/72
(Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6 [Note also 3/3/3 vs. 1/1/1
M. Men. 10:1])
63. All the time Simeon was alivewhen he diedafterward
(Tos. Sot. 13:7)
Narrative pattern.
64. Throughout the forty yearsfrom that time on

(b. Yoma 39a-b)
Narrative pattern.
65. When Yosis died, grapeclusters ceased

(M. Sot. 9:9)
Formula.
66. For perushim clothes of
*am ha'ares
count as
midras
(M. Hag. 2:7)

A s c e n d i n g scale.
67. Yosi b. Yo'ezer re cleannessthree things + cleanness

(M. <Ed. 8:4)
68. Simeon b. Shetah ordained + three things
(y. Ket. 8:11)
69. Yohanan the High Priest did away + three rules
(M. M.S. 5:15)
70. Three things that Shammai expounded
(Sifre Deut. 203)
PERICOPAE
WITH
FORMULAE
OR
PATTERNS
117
71. This is the matter/one of the matters, on account of which Hillel

came up
(Tos. Neg. 1:16 [y. Pes. 6:1, etc.] )
72. Three stringent rulings of Gamaliel/Simeon b. Gamaliel
(M. Bes. 2:6)
73. Hanina (lizard)
(Tos. Ber. 3:20)
A p o p h t h e g m a t i c p a t t e r n , as i n o t h e r instances, relies o n s a y i n g t o g e n e r
a t e n a r r a t i v e details.
74. Hananiah Prefect of Priests testified concerning four things

(M. <Ed. 2:1-3)
Redactional pattern. Actual items are unrelated to one another.
75. Yohanan b. Gudgada testified

(M. Git. 5:5)
76. ShammaiRemember, before, keep, when
(Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:8)
77. ShammaiUntil it falleven on Sabbath
(b. Shab. 19a)
78. And give you peace (Num. 6:26)Hananiah Prefect of Priests: In
your house
(Sifre Num. 42)
79. Ex. 12:6House of Shammai: Included in evening etc.
(Mekh. deR Simeon to Ex. 12:6)
80. Ex. 20:9 + Houses: All your work finished vs. you work six days
(Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:9, part G)
81. Deut. 24:1 + Houses: DBR vs. <RWH
(Sifre Deut. 269, M. Git. 9:10)
[Listed b e l o w , w o r d - c h o i c e s . ]
82. Ex. 22:8 + Houses: Any trespass vs. put hand

(b. B.M. 44a)
The various formulae and patterns exhibited by the foregoing pericopae
are of different sorts. Some are clearly defined and carefully followed.
Others are constructed merely by the order or number of segments
of a narrative. No formula or pattern is based upon what I have
defined as a small unit of tradition. The types of formulae and patterns
are as follows:
118
S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION
AND
MNEMONICS
Redactional formula, e.g. three things, when died...ended...:

31-38
( o r d i n a n c e s ) , 46, 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74,
75.
I n all t h e s e p e r i c o p a e , t h e p a t t e r n is e x t e r n a l t o t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e
s a y i n g o r s t o r y a n d f r e q u e n t l y s e r v e s t o u n i t e u n r e l a t e d sentences o r
ideas.
Redactional pattern, e.g. 40/40/40: 1-28, 29-30, 48, 52, 62.

I n different w a y s , t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e p e r i c o p e a n d t h e d i s c r e t e m a t e r i a l s
s h a p e d w i t h i n t h a t p a t t e r n a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , e.g. d e b a t e s , epistles, n u m
ber-patterns (years, leprosy-signs).
Narrative pattern: 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66 (ascending scale).
These pericopae exhibit in c o m m o n the quality o f a clearcut repetition
o f p a t t e r n s b y w h i c h a s t o r y is u n f o l d e d . T h e p a t t e r n m a y b e s i m p l y a
r e p e a t e d s e n t e n c e , as in n o s . 63-64, o r i t m a y b e c o m p o s e d o f l a r g e r
u n i t s , e.g. sets o f sentences r e p e a t i n g t h e s a m e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n , as in n o s .
54, 58, w h e r e t h e s a m e t h i n g r e p e a t e d l y h a p p e n s a n d p r o d u c e s t h e s a m e
s o r t o f d i a l o g u e . T o t h i s list o n e m a y a p p e n d ii, 30, 44, 53, w h i c h a r e less
exact.
Repeated sentence: 51, 56.

Here a phrase o r w h o l e sentence recurs.
Substantive pattern: 39-43,44,45,47, 53 (BSR vs. MSQ, TM' vs. THR);

73 (apophthegmatic pattern); 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 (Scripture
supplies framework).
U n l i k e t h e r e d a c t i o n a l t y p e s , in t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p a t t e r n t h e r e c u r r e n t
p h r a s e s o r f o r m s a r e i n t e g r a l t o t h e p e r i c o p e . N o s . 39-43, e x e g e s i s t o
f a b l e , f o l l o w a s i n g l e m o d e l , a n d t h e m o d e l a n d its p o i n t c a n n o t b e d i s
tinguished. B u t some o f these are formally ambiguous.
N o s . 44, 45, a n d 47 a r e s h a p e d in a c a r e f u l l y w o r k e d - o u t f r a m e w o r k .
T h e first t w o a r e lists, b u t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e lists is c o n s i s t e n t , b y
c o n t r a s t t o M , A v o t 1:1-18, w h e r e t h e f o r m is c o n s t a n t , b u t t h e s a y i n g s
generally are n o t closely related t o one another. Here, h o w e v e r , a com
m o n t h e m e is p r e s e r v e d t h r o u g h o u t .
N o . 53 is c o m p a r a b l e t o a H o u s e s - d i s p u t e ; o n e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t t h e
f o r m a t i v e elements constitute small units o f tradition.
N o . 73 r e p r e s e n t s t h e a p o p h t h e g m a t i c f o r m . Its l i t e r a r y t r a i t s a r e w e l l
d e f i n e d , b u t it e x h i b i t s n o fixed p a t t e r n , i n t h e n a r r o w sense h e r e e m
ployed.
N o s . 76-82, t o w h i c h o n e m i g h t a p p e n d ii n o s . 38, 39,40, s e g m e n t s o f
42, 46, 47, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 99, a n d 103, all d e p e n d o n S c r i p t u r e s f o r
their structure.
I h e r e o m i t t e d t h e specified i t e m s l i s t e d i n p a r t ii b e c a u s e t h e y s e e m e d
t o m e not to depend u p o n the parsing of Scripture, but rather o n merely
c i t i n g it. T h a t is, Remember it, before it comes, keep it, when it comes, s e e m s
t o m e t o f o l l o w a clear p a t t e r n , w h i l e m e r e l y a t t r i b u t i n g t o Hillel a n
e s t a b l i s h e d l e m m a , as in i i , n o s . 38, 39, o r c i t i n g a n d d i s c u s s i n g a S c r i p
t u r e w i t h a t t r i b u t i o n t o , o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h , a n a m e d m a s t e r , as in ii,
n o s . 46, 60, 61, a n d 103, d o e s n o t . P a r t ii n o . 99 is t h e m o s t a m b i g u o u s .
I n a n y e v e n t it is a q u e s t i o n o f j u d g m e n t ; m a t t e r s a r e n o t s o clear as in
t h e o t h e r instances.
PERICOPAE
Substantive
formula:
WITH
49,
50,
FORMULAE
OR
PATTERNS
119
61
A s I said, in t h e s e p e r i c o p a e w e n o t e a f o r m u l a w h i c h is i n t e g r a l t o t h e
sayings themselves.
With the specified ambiguous exceptions, the eighty-two pericopae

listed here differ from the one hundred-five listed above in one
respect: all show the sign of some pattern one might call mnemonic,
whether imposed for redactional reasons, or intrinsic to the substance
of the pericope. To be sure, the line is not easy to draw. Apophthegms
and other narrative materials exhibit disciplined form or conventional
story-telling techniques, yet do not reveal mnemonic patterns such as
we observe here. Part ii no. 46, alluded to in nos 39-43, and other
pericopae in which Scriptures occur, yet do not predominate, seem
to me equally difficult to categorize. But in the main, we can dis
tinguish among forms, and assign to some a mnemonic character
(nos. 1-28, 29-30, 31-38), while in others we are unable to discern the
operation of similar mnemonic considerations, even in what seem
clearly defined and disciplined forms. Further, mnemonic patterns are
obvious in discrete pericopae, which formally, all the more so sub
stantively, have nothing to do with one other, as in the redactional
formulae and patterns listed above. With the noted formulaic excep
tions, none of the one hundred eighty-seven pericopae thus far con
sidered contains a small unit of tradition.
i v . SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION
When we come to the Houses-pericopae, we enter a quite different

world. Here all pericopae manifest order and balance and follow re
dactional patterns, or, at the very least, formulae. We noted above
some of the more elaborate redactional patterns, e.g. collections,
composites, II, pp. 324-327. The comments on individual pericopae
made reference to patterns formed by small units of tradition. We
shall now catalogue the several types of small units of tradition and
other mnemonic patterns and list the pericopae in which they occur.
1. Fixed Oppo sites
Strictly speaking, we find small units of tradition only in the syzygies of the Houses-disputes' apodoses. The choices normally are con
sistent within, and appropriate to, the tractates in which they occur,
e.g., unclean in the cleanness-order. They are as follows:
120
S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION A N D
MNEMONICS
a. Liable vs Free (HYB\PTWR, MHYYB YN\PWTR YN)

1. Thought of heart
(Mekh. deR. Ishmael X V 49-55)
[Speculative]
2. She who aborts on eve of eighty-first daysacrifice
(M. Ker. 1:6)
3. Sweet oil
(M. Dem. 1:3 [Tos. Dem. 1:26-7] )
4. Excess of
ômer
etc.
(Tos. Dem. 1:28)
5. Hallah
(y. Dem. 5:1)
6. Basket of fruit for Sabbath
(M. Ma. 4:2)
7. Sift by hand
(Tos. Ma. 3:10)
8. Flour paste, dumplings
(M. Hal. 1:6)
Unlike the Qumranian laws, we do not find the explication of the ref
erence of HYB; what must be done is either implicit in context or
ignored. Penalties are not specified.
b. Unclean\Clean (JM* vs. THR, MTNPYN vs. MTHRYN)
1. Articles made of common nails
(M. Kel. 11:3 [Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2] )
2. Bride's stool that lost seat-boards
(M. Kel. 22:4)
( + Shammai with >P)
3. Scroll covers with figures
(M. Kel. 28:4)
(Reconstruction)
4. Outer surfaces of alum-vessel
(Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:1)
(Reconstruction)
5. Peat in oven
(Tos. Kel. B.Q. 6:18)
6. Shovel lost blade
(Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:8)
7. Mustard-strainer with two holes
(Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16)
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION
121
8. Stool fixed inside baking trough etc.

(Tos. Kel. B.B. 1:12)
9. Wrapper for garments
(Tos. Kel. B.B. 4:9)
10. Girdle from side of garment
(Tos. Kel. B.B. 5:7-8 [M. Kel. 28:7] )
11. Bottle used as plug for grave
(Tos. Ah. 15:9)
12. Cover up olives in cleanness vs. in uncleanness
(M. Toh. 9:7)
13. He places from baskets with clean vs. unclean hands
(M. Toh. 10:4)
14. Leaving vessels in public
(Tos. Toh. 8:9B-10)
15. Types of liquid
(M. Nid. 2:6)
16. Blood of gentile woman
(M. Nid. 4:3A, Tos. Nid. 5:5)
17. If immersed self next day and had connection and suffered flux
(M. Nid. 10:8)
(Theoretical reconstruction)
18-19-20. Man shook tree etc.
S u b j e c t t o l a w o f If water be put vs. n o t =
unclean, clean
(M. Maksh.
(Three
1:2-4
[Tos. Maksh.
1:1-4])
examples)
21-22. Water leaked into trough

S u b j e c t t o If water vs. n o t
( M . M a k s h . 4:5
(Two
[Tos. Maksh.
2:6])
examples)
23. Lyings and sittings

(Tos. Zab. 1:3)
24. Song of Songs
(M. Yad. 3:5 [M. <Ed. 5:3])
25-26. Olives and grapes that turned hard
(M. <Uqs. 3:6)
(Two examples)
27. Blood of carcass
(b. Ker. 21a)
28. Sin-offering-water that has served its purpose
(M. <Ed. 5:3)
122
SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D MNEMONICS
c. Prohibit\Permit ('WfRYNvs.
MTYRYN)
1. Se*ah of unclean heave-offering in a hundred of clean

(M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4)
Better apodosis:
Eliezer: Take u p and burned
Sages:
Lost through
scantiness
2. Work on night of 13th of Nisan

(M. Pes. 4:5)
3. Bringing back ladder
(Tos. Y.T. 1:8)
4. Remove doors of cupboard
(Tos. Y.T. 1:10B)
5. Empty vessels not on account of need
(Tos. Y.T. 1:11 A)
6. Gifts on festival
(Tos. Y.T. 1:12)
(In M. Bes., all equivalents use negative + permit)
7. Substitutes for substitutes of vows
(Tos. Nez. 1:1)
8. Harlot makes wheat into flour for altar
(b. Tern. 30b)
9. Egg from bird's carcass
(y. Bes. 1:1)
d. Unfit/Fit (KSR VS. P$WU MKSYRYN VS. PW$LYN)
1. Old Sukkah
(M. Suk. 1:1)
2. Man's head and greater part of body in Sukkah and table in house
(M. Suk. 2:7)
(Should be: YS> + / - L>)
3. Citron of demai
(M. Suk. 3:5)
4-5. If performed halisah
(M. Yev. 1:4)
(Two examples)
6. Woman has intercourse with minor son, re priesthood
(Tos. Sot. 4:7)
7. Sprinkled and poured out blood once
(Tos. Zev. 4:9)
8. Slaughtered with reaping sickle KDRK HWLKTH
(M. Hul. 1:2)
123
9. One who forgets etc.

(M. Miq. 4:1)
y
To this list we may add YS> vs. V YS , he has, has not, fulfilled his
obligation:
1. Vowed without term and shaved on thirtieth
(Tos. Nez. 2:10)
2. See above, M. Suk. 2:7, no. 2.
We should have expected more extensive use of this syzygy.
e. MidrasjTeme-Met
1. Trough for mixing mortar
(M. Kel. 20:2)
2. Leather bag or wrapper for purple wool
(M. Kel. 26:6)
f. Insidej Outside; PastjFuture; Above/Below
These are commonplace opposites of meaning. They occur as follows:
Inside vs. Outside:
1. Flesh of holy of holies burnedinside/outside
(Sifra Sav 8:6, M. Sheq. 8:6)
2. Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalemeaten inside/
outside
(M. M.S. 3:6-7)
3. Olive presses whose doors open inward and contained space out
ward
(M. M.S. 3:6, 7, 3:12; Tos. M.S. 2:12)
4. Second-tithe made uncleanredeemed and eaten inside vs. outside
(M. M.S. 3:9; Tos. M.S. 2:16)
5. Measure chest
(M. Kel. 18:1)
C
Past vs. comingyear (L$ BR vs. DTYD
LB')
1. Pod
(Tos. Shev. 2:6)
Above vs. below:
1.
*Eruv
for cistern
(M. Eruv. 8:6)
124
S M A L L UNITS O F TRADITION A N D MNEMONICS
2. Balance
of
Meter
In some pericopae, the Houses' lemmas are balanced not only in

the number of syllables of the introductory clause: House X say
House Y say,5 vs. 5but also in the exact meter of the apodoses,
whether or not the actual words correspond and contrast, as above.
These are metrical syzygies, e.g. six syllables vs. six syllables. One
may observe that TM'/THR, HYB/PTWR, and some other fixed
opposites also are metrically balanced.
y
1. TRWMT <SMN BHM vs. >YN TRWMTN TRWMH

(M. Ter. 1:4)
6 vs. 6 ( ? )
2. See M. M.S. 3:6-7 part 3: BYRW$LM PS BKL MQWM

4 vs. 4
3. Who is a child?
KL S'YNW YKWL LRKWB
vs. KL S'YNW YKWL UHWZ
<L KTPYW
T h u s L R K W B <L K T P Y W v s . L ' H W Z
6 vs. 6 ( f o l l o w i n g Y a l o n ' s
SUBYW
BYDW
SlJBYW
BYDW
pointing)
4-5-6. HLQ vs. HZQYahaloqu vs. behezqatan

(M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6, M. B.B. 9:8-9)
4 vs. 4 ( F o u r e x e m p l a ) H L Q
vs. I I Z Q =
L w . Q
7. SLSYM VS. THYLH

(M. Naz. 3:6)
3
8. (H)R$WT BYDW vs. (>YN) SWM'YN LW

(Tos. Ket. 8:9)
4(5) vs. 4(5)
9. YHBZ, vs. YHBi?
(M. Kel. 14:2 [Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5])
10. MY7^R vs. MSY?R
(M. Kel. 20:6)
CAqiba: M S Y Q B )
c
11. WMDTtvj. SRWRH

(Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:3)
3 vs. 3
12. KSYPTH VS. KSYTHYL

(M.
4 vs. 4
( N o t e : A g r e e m e n t uses b o t h r o o t s : P T H vs. T H L = P vs. L )
Oh.
7:3)
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION
125
13. >RB<H vs. KL HW>

(M. Oh. 11:1)
3w.3
14. (MSYZY'W) Z<T HM'TN IV. (M$YTHBRW) SLSH ZH LZH
(M. Toh. 9:1)
6 fv. 6
15. T$MYS VS. LYLH
(M. Nid. 2:4)
2. 2
16. Y$BR VS. Y<RH
(M. Maksh. 4:4)
17. MSYSWDW tv. MSYMWTW
(M. <Uqs. 3:8)
18. MSYHRHR VS. MSYRSQ
(M. <Uqs 3:11)
5 vs. 5, i n b o t h n o s . 17 a n d 18
Another very close balance of words is as follows:

19. House of Shammai say, One might [say]
YHWG >DM BYWM TWB
TLMWD LWMR >K
BMW D >TH HWGG W'YN >TH HWGG BYWM TWB
House of Hillel say, One might [say]
YHWG >DM BSBT
TLMWD LWMR >K
BYWM TWB >TH HWGG W YN TH HWGG B$BT
(Sifra Emor 15:5)
(
T h e difference is Y W M T W B vs. M W D a n d B T vs. Y W M T W B 4

vs. 4, o r , i n effect, M W ' D vs. B T , 2 vs. 2.
In this connection, note also v. 2, reversal of word order\ nos. 9, 10, and
viii. 23.
3. Balance of Meter and Change of Letter

In the following pericopae, we find metric syzygies of word order
and a single change of a letter:
1. HZR MQWM BRK vs. BRK MQWM ZKR = 1,2,3, vs. 3, 2, 1,
(M. Ber. 8:7)
H vs. Z.
126
S M A L L UNITS O F TRADITION
A N D MNEMONICS
2. HZR >KL BYRWSLM VS. PDH >KL BKL MQWM

(M. M.S. 3:6-7)
Thus: 1. HZR vs. PDH
2. >*KL = 'KL
3. 4 metres vs. 4 metres
See also 2. nos. 3,4,9,10,15 above, and v. 3. nos. 8,10,11, below,reversals of word order, much like reversals of letter order, and metrically
balanced.
v . SYNTACTICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES EQUIVALENT
IN FUNCTION TO SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION
Other mnemonic patterns, some of them very common, function

like small units of tradition, in that they set up balanced opposites.
But what is set in opposition is not the choice of words for the apodo
sis, as in iv. 1. a-f, or balances of different words in identical meter,
as in iv. 2, 3. Rather, first, the arrangement of words will be changed in
a single detail, so that one needs merely to remember which of two
words comes first in the lemma of which House; or, second, the
words will be identical, but the syntactical elements will change, e.g.
and vs. or; or, third, the Houses' opinions will be identical, except
that one will have a negative; or, fourth, one will make a negative
statements and the other will permit. Fifth, while 'P is frequently a
redactional device, sometimes it functions much like a mnemonic,
such as permit; or like a change in order order; or like and vs. or.
1. Tense + Number
1. Did create light vs. does create lights
(M. Ber. 8:5)
2. Distinction vs. No. Distinction (And vs. Or)
The difference between the Houses will be represented either by
and vs. or(= not vs. and), with all elements repeated in each lemma; or
by the statement of a distinction in the first lemma, followed by this
and this... in the second; or one element will include only.. .not, the other
(both)...cm/.
1. Leaven/olive, bread/date vs. all (ZH WZH) etc.

(Sifre* Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1, Tos. Y.T. 1:4)
2. Water plants until the New Yearfoliage and it drips on the root
vs. both on foliage and on root
(Tos. Shev. 1:5)
SYNTACTICAL AND
MORPHOLOGICAL
CHANGES
127
3. All ten vs. ten/eleven

(M. M.S. 4:8)
4. Redeem with money vs. all same whether money or produce
(BYN...BYN...)
(M. M.S. 5:7)
5. Redeem produce with coins in Jerusalem: This and this are Second
Tithe vs. coins as they were and fruits as they were
(Tos. M.S. 3:14-15)
6. Grapes vs. wine, grapes and wine
(Tos. M.S. 5:19)
7. Hot water, not food vs. hot water and food
(M. Shab. 3:1)
8. Only in case of need vs. in case of need and not in case of need
(Tos. Shab. 14:1)
9. Side-post and/or cross-beam
(M. <Eruv. 1:2 [b. Eruv. 6a, y. <Eruv. 1:1])
c
10. Loosen and remove vs. loosen or remove

(M. Suk. 1:7)
11. Immerse all vs. vessels before, men on Sabbath
(M. Bes. 2:2)
12. Bring peace-offerings and not lay hands vs. bring and lay
(M. Bes. 2:3)
13. Only betrothed vs. betrothed and married
14. Husband, not YBM vs. husband and YBM
15. In presence vs. in presence and not in presence
16. Before court vs. before court and not before court
(M. Yev. 13:1)
17. Adolescent and not child vs. both
18. Three times vs. even four/five
(M. Yev. 13:1)
(Theoretical continuation)
19. Saw others eating figs: permitted and prohibited vs. both permitted
(M. Ned. 3:2)
20. Three betrothe: two witnesses and one agent vs. all three agents
(Tos. Qid. 4:1)
21. How long is novitiate of haver: Liquids, thirty days, garment,
twelve months vs. both (ZH WZH) thirty days
(b. Bekh. 30b)
128
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
22. YHBL and YHBR vs. YHBL or YHBR

(Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5, 11:7)
23-24-25. All become unclean vs. oven unclean and house clean
(M. Oh. 5:1-4)
(Three examples)
26. Increase and overflow vs. increase or overflow
(M. Miq. 1:5 [Tos. Miq. 1:7, 10] )
27. Set or left in forgetfulnessboth invalid vs. only set invalid
(M. Miq. 4:1)
3. Reversal of Word-Order
Another common mnemonic pattern assigns all elements of the
apodosis to both Houses, but then reverses the order of the elements,
as follows:
1. Houses: Heave-offering vetchessoak, rub, give as food in clean
ness
(M. M.S. 2:4 [Tos. M.S. 2:1])
(Shammai and Aqiba out of balance)
c
2. Re'iyyahtwo silver, SMHHM H vs. Re'iyyahM H, SMHH

two silver
(Sifre Deut. 143, M. Hag. 1:2)
3. Day/wine vs. wine/day
(M. Ber. 8:1)
4. Wash/mix vs. mix/wash
(M. Ber. 8:2)
5. Clean/wash vs. wash/clean
(M. Ber. 8:4)
6. Wine/food vs. food/wine
(M. Ber. 8:8)
7. Sweet oil in right hand and wine in left hand vs. wine in right hand
and sweet oil in left hand
(Tos. Ber. 5:27)
8. KL >HD vs. >HD [<L]HKL
(1, 2 vs. 2, 1)
(Tos. Ber. 5:30, b. Ber. 53a)
9. Oil/myrtle vs. myrtle/oil
(b. Ber. 34b)
10. KL >HD vs. >HD [ L] HKLplots sown with g r a i n - P ^
(M. Pe'ah 3:1)
(1, 2 vs. 2, 1)
C
SYNTACTICAL
AND
MORPHOLOGICAL
CHANGES
129
11. [<Eruv] LKL >HD vs. >HD [L]KL[M]

(M. <Eruv. 6:6)
12. Day/wine vs. wine/day
(M. Pes. 10:2 [Tos. Pisha 10:2-3])
y
13. Measure of re iyyah greater than of hagigah vs. hagigah, than re'iyjah
(Tos. Hag. 1:4)
( = No. 2 above)
14. Heaven/earth vs. earth/heaven
(b. Hag. 12a)
(Speculative)
4. Statements of Law +/~
Negative
The single most common matched pattern assigns all elements of

the apodosis to both Houses and differentiates only by the inclusion
of the negative'YN or L*in one House's lemma.
1. BWDQYN + / - >YN
(Mekh. Pisha III 209-216)
(Speculative)
2. Vintage for vat: HWKSR + / - >YN
(b. Shab. 15a)
[Should be: TM'/THR]
3. To lay (LSMK) + / - L>
(M. Hag. 2:2)
4. Baby born circumcizeddraw blood of covenant +/ 'YN
(Sifra Tazri'a 1:5, Tos. Shab. 3:18)
5. Field preparedeat fruit in Sabbatical year +/ 'YN
(Sifra Behar 1:5A, M. Shev. 4:2)
6. Eat produce by favor +/ not by favor
(Sifra Behar 1:5B)
7. Exempted what was cooked in pot +/ L>
(y. Ber. 6:5)
8. Forgotten sheaf +/ >YN (twice)
(M. Pe'ah 6:2-3)
J
9. Ownerless vs. not ownerless unless also to rich = HBQR +/ YN

(M. Pe>ah6:l)
10. Grapes of fourth-year vineyard'YN Fifth + removal vs. Y$;
Y$ gleanings + cluster vs. KLW LGT
(M. Pe'ah 7:6, Tos. M.S. 5:17)
(Not exact.)
130
MNEMONICS
J
11. He who plants row of five vinesvineyard +/ YN

(M. Kil. 4:5)
12. Caperbush in vineyardMixed seeds +/ YN
(Tos. Kil. 3:17)
13. Give heave-offering +/ >YN
(Tos. Ter. 2:5)
14. Give heave-offering +/ >YN
(Tos. Ter. 3:14)
15. Give heave-offering +/ YN
(Tos. Ter. 3:16)
(And Scriptural arguments, Num. 18:27 vs. Lev. 27:30)
J
16. Doubtful heave-offering + burn +/ >YN

(y. Pes. 3:6)
17. Heave-offering from several jars, open and empty +/ 'YN
[= empty only]
(M. M.S. 3:13, Tos. M.S. 2:18)
18. Cooked food: remove vs. it is as if already removed (Conjectural:
development of do not remove)
(M. M.S. 5:6)
19. Less than egg's bulk renders unclean +/ not
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5)
20. Their Uruv is an <eruv +/ >YN
(b. <Eruv. 48b)
21. Prepare
*eruv
with wine for Nazirite etc. +/ *YN

(b. <Eruv. 30a)
22. Convert on day before Passover: Not require sprinkling vs. requires
(M. Pes. 8:8)
(Theoretical formulation. Actual: immerses and eats vs. he that
separates)
23. Burn piggul,
and unclean meat together +/ 'YN

(b. Pes. 15b)
24. Return limbs +/ >YN
(Tos. Pisha 7:2)
25. Egg laid on festival day eaten +/ 'YN
(M. Bes. 1:1)
26. Bring burned-offering for festival +/ 'YN
(b. Bes. 19a [vs. M. Bes. 2:3] )
notar,
27. Scattered in enclosure, gathered in fieldbring +/ 'YN

(Tos. Y.T. 3:10 [M. Bes. 4:2] )
28. Day for slaughtering is after Sabbath +/ >YN
(M. Hag. 2:4)
SYNTACTICAL AND
MORPHOLOGICAL
CHANGES
131
29. Laying on of hands not in ordinary manner has been permitted

(y. Hag. 2:3)
30. Marries and +/ 'YN takes Ketuvah
(M. Yev. 15:3)
31. Co-wives went and marriedare fit + progeny are fit +/ >YN
(Tos. Yev. 1:7)
32. Woman inherits goods before betrothalsell, give away, etc
+/->YN
(M. Ket. 8:1)
33. Absolution for oath +/ >YN
(b. Ned. 28a)
34. Nazir + / - >YN
(M. Naz. 1:2)
35. HQDS + / - >YN
(M. Naz. 5:1-2)
36. Nazir + / - >YN
(M. Naz. 5:5)
(Slight variations)
37. Testify by echo +/ >YN
(Tos. Nez. 1:1)
38. Bald Nazirite passes razor over head +/ >YN
(b. Naz. 46b)
39. Man imposes vow on son +/ 'YN
(Tos. Nez. 3:17)
40. All Nazirites vs. only Nazir who
(Tos. Nez. 3:19)
,
(Variation: YN... L\..)

41. Takes Ketuvah and drinks +/ >YN
(M. Sot. 4:2)
(Compare no. 30.)
42. Divorce and changed mindrendered wife ineligible to priest
+/-L'
43. Divorce and spent nightneed second Get +/ *YN
(M. Git. 8:8-9)
44. Middle group goes down +/ **YN
(Tos. Sanh. 13:3)
45. Piggul and Karet, piggul not Karet
(Tos. Zev. 4:9)
(Close to and/or)
46. Fowl comes up with cheese +/ L*
(M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3)
132
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
47. Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wifemay bring her

back +/->YN
(Tos. <Arakh. 4:5)
48. Consecration in error is consecration +/ >YN
(b. <Arakh. 23a)
49. Added Fifth to additional payment +/ 'YN
(Tos. <Arakh. 4:22)
50. Measure empty-space +/ *YN
51-52-53. If man over split, does he bring in uncleanness +/ 'YN
(M. Oh. 11:3, 4, 5)
(Three examples)
54. Search for Nazirite +/ >YN
(M. Oh. 18:4)
55. Olives left to grow softMWKSRYN + / - >YN
(M. Toh. 9:5)
56. Immerse vessels in rain-steam vs. >YN
(M. Miq. 5:6b)
J
57. Immerse hot water in cold +/ YN

(M. Miq. 10:6)
58. Needs immersion at end of purifying +/ 'YN
(M. Nid. 10:3)
59. Liable to offering +/ >YN
(M. Nid. 10:7)
5
60-61. Serve as connector +/ YN

(M. T.Y. 1:1)
(Two examples)
62. Layer of jellyconnector +/ *YN
(Tos. T.Y. 2:3)
63. Needs to broach +/ >YN
(M. Maksh. 1:1)
5. Negative Statement -\- Permit
A pattern closely related to the foregoing supplies a full, negative
statement to one side, then has the other side permit, or vice versa:
1. Not sell ploughing heifer vs. permit
(M. Shev. 5:8)
2. Not sell field vs. permit
(Tos. Shev. 4:5B)
3. Not sell Seventh Year produce for coins vs. permit
(Tos. Shev. 6:19)
SYNTACTICAL
4. Not change
A N D MORPHOLOGICAL
se/as vs.
CHANGES
133
permit
(M. M.S. 2:7)
5. Do not plant vs. permit

(Tos. M.S. 5:20)
6. Not soak ink etc. unless time to be wholly soaked while still day
vs. permit
7. Not put bundles offlaxin oven etc. vs. permit
8. Not spread nets vs. permit
9. Not sell to gentile vs. permit
10. Not give hides to tanner vs. permit
(M. Shab. 1:4-8)
11. Pharisee-Z^ not eat with outsider vs. permit
(Tos. Shab. 1:14)
12. Not kill louse vs. permit
(Tos. Shab. 16:21)
13. Send letter on Wednesday vs. permit
(y. Shab. 1:9)
14. Not burn clean meat with unclean vs. permit
(Tos. Pisha 1:6)
15. Do not remove ladder vs. permit
(M. Bes. 1:2)
16. Not take off cupboard doors vs. permit
17. Not lift up pestle vs. permit
18. Not put hide before treading-place vs. permit
19. Not carry out child vs. permit
20. Not take dough-offering vs. permit
(M. Bes. 1:3-6)
21. Not heat water vs. permit
(M. Bes. 2:4)
22. Not bake thick bread on Passover vs. permit
(b. Bes. 22b)
23. Permit co-wives to brothers
vs. prohibit
(M. Yev. 1:4)

24. Man divorces with old bill of divorce vs.
prohibit
(M. Git. 8:4)

25. Israelite not numbered with priest for firstling vs. permit
(M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16)
134
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
6. *P in Second Lemma
*P normally serves redactional, not substantive purposes. Some
times, however, it introduces an actual opinion, thus adding an item
to a list, indicating a contrary opinion ( = permit) and the like.
1. >P adds the Shammaite opinion, with the Hillelite lemma out of
balance
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5)
2. Also like water of fenugreek etc.
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:6 [compare M. Nid. 2:6])
3. Also what was cooked in pot
(M. Ber. 6:5)
4. (Not ownerless unless) also to rich
(M. Pe'ah 6:1)
5. Sell olives on to haver vs. also to one who pays tithes
(M. Dem. 6:6)
6. Hullin vs. >P M<SR
(M. Hag. 1:3 [Tos. Hag. 1:4])
7. Vow in all except oath vs. even oath
8. Not be first vs. even first
9. Only matter vs. even not
(M. Ned. 3:4)
10. Also siphon is clean
(M. Kel. 9:2)
11. Intention before vs. even after
(M. Oh. 7:3)
12. Cover up in cleanness vs. *P in uncleanness
(M. Toh. 9:7)
13. KMG< TM> MT vs. >P KTM> MT
(M. Nid. 10:6)
14. >P porridge etc.
(M. Maksh. 5:9)
(>P here is connector)
vi.
DIFFERENCES IN WORD-CHOICE
In a few instances, no real dispute seems to have separated the

Houses. Juxtaposing their opinions, which use different words for
pretty much the same thing, seems to suggest the presence of a dif
ference where there is only a distinction in word choice, as in nos.
1, 2, 4, 6, 12(?), and 24. In other instances, the differences in word-
D I F F E R E N C E S IN
WORD-CHOICE
135
choice evidently are significant and indicate a substantive dispute, as

in nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,10,11,13,14,15.16,17,18,19, 20, 21,22, and 23.
In none of these does a metrical balance appear to have been a consid
eration in the formulation of a dispute.
1. Hin vs. qabHillel/Shammai
(M. <Ed. 1:3A)
2. <T vs. PQYDHShammai/Hillel
(M. <Ed. 1:1)
3. Table vs. cushion
(M. Ber. 8:3)
4. Three furrows of ploughed land vs. width of Sharon yoke
(M. Kil. 2:6)
5. Measure from root vs. from wall
(M. Kil. 6:1)
6. Sow tree-planted field until: so long as benefits produce vs. Pente
cost
(M. Shev. 1:1)
7. Thin out olive trees in seventh year Raze vs. uproot
(M. Shev. 4:4)
8. Dig up arum with wooden rakes vs. metal spades
(M. Shev. 5:4)
9. Unclean cask of heave-offeringpour out vs. sprinkle
(b. Pes. 20b)
10. All the sela coins vs. sheqel, silver, sheqel, copper
(M. M.S. 2:8, 9)
11. Raise up bones etc. from table vs. take entire table
(M. Shab. 21:3)
(Also: singular vs. plural)
12. Reach home vs. reach house nearest wall
(b. Shab. 19a)
13. Search two rows: outermost vs. on the whole surface
(M. Pes. 1:1)
14. NDBH vs. HLYN
(M. Sheq. 2:3)
15. Fourth vs. mouthful
(b. Yoma 80a)
16. Continue (QYM) vs. put away (YS>)
(M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1)
(Theoretical form: M'MR + QDS + / - >YN)
136
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
17. Two males vs. male and female

(M. Yev. 6:6 [Tos. Yev. 8:4])
(Similar to distinction vs. no distinction)
18. When does husband inherit: womanhood vs. huppah
(b. Yev. 89b)
19. Bride as she is vs. lovely etc.
(b. Ket. 17a)
20. Inquired vs. vowed
(Tos. Nez. 3:19)
21. DBR vs. <RWHgrounds for divorce (based on Deut. 24:1)
(M. Git. 9:10)
(Two vs. two)
22. Denar vs. perufah
(M. Qid. 1:1)
23. MQNH vs. MDYH
(b. Hul. 104b)
C
24. SMYM vs. GWYH

(M. <Ed. 1:7)
(+ Shammai)
{Perhaps: 3 vs. 3)
v i i . NUMBER-SEQUENCES
While number-sequences prove to be common, only 2 vs. 1 or

vice versa tends to recur in a significant number of pericopae. Also
a descending scale, e.g. 10, 9, 8, 7, or an ascending one, e.g., 2, 3, 4,
appears more than episodically. The other sequences seem to come at
random and to depend upon the substance of the laws under discussion,
e.g., nos. 8 (derived from exegesis), 15, 16, 18, 33. Occasionally, we
see opposed units of measurement, with the same number, e.g., no.
28.
1. 3 vs. 9Hillel, Shammai
(M. <Ed. 1:3A)
2. 12 vs. 36Hillel, Shammai
(Tos. <Ed. 1:3)
3. 1 vs. 2Shammai, Hillel: qab for Hallah vs. two qabs
(M. Ed. 1:3)
c
4. 3/3/3 vs. 3/3/3 + 1/1/1Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, Ishmael,

and sages
(M. Men. 10:1)
NUMBER-SEQUENCES
137
5. 16/36/72colors of leprosy-signsHananiah Prefect of Priests,

Dosa, 'Aqavya
(M. Neg. 1:4)
6. 3 vs. Ahow many tassels in sisitHouse of Hillel, then House of
Shammai
(Sifre Num. 115, Deut. 234)
7. 4 vs. 3how many tassels House of Shammai vs. House of Hillel
(b. Bekh. 39b-40a, b. Men. 41b)
8. 2 vs. 5sheep liable to fleece
(M. Hul. 11:2, Sifre Deut. 166)
9. 10 vs. 9, 8 vs. 7benedictions for New Year on Sabbath
(Tos. R. H. 2:17, Tos. Ber. 3:13)
10. 2, 3 vs. 3, 4
(M. Pe'ah 1:5)
11. Vineyard patch24 vs. 16; outer space of vineyard16 vs. 12
(M. Kil. 4:1)
12. Sows within four cubits of vineyard forfeits1 vs. 2
(M. Kil. 4:5)
13. Measurement of dirt10 vs. 6
(Tos. Kil. 4:11B)
14. Measure of heave-offering30/40/50 vs. 40/50/60
(M. Ter. 4:3)
15. When make vat uncleanafter first vs. second [tithe is taken]
(Tos. Ter. 3:12)
(Not comparable to the others.)
16. Hanukkahstart with 8 vs. 1

(b. Shab. 21b)
17. *Eruv-tavshilin2. vs. 1
(M. Bes. 2:1, Tos. Y.T. 2:4)
18. First vs. fifteenth of Shevat
(M. R.H. 1:1)
(Not comparable to the others.)
19. Overturn couch3 vs. 1

(Tos. M.Q. 2:9)
20. Vow no intercourse2 vs. 1
(M. Ket. 5:6)
21. Nursing mother remarry24 vs. 98
(b. Ket. 60a-b)
22. How much blotted out1 vs. 2
(y. Sot. 3:3)
138
AND
MNEMONICS
23. Placings in sin-offering: 2 vs. 1

(M. Zev. 4 : 1 )
24. Length of shafts7 vs. 8, 9 vs. 1 0
(M. Kel. 2 9 : 8 [Tos. Kel. B.B. 7 : 4 ] )
25. How much lacking in backbone2 vs. 1
(M. Oh. 2:3)
26. Uncleanness insidevessels outsidehow big split 4 vs. any
amount
(M. Oh. 1 1 : 1 )
27. Place for rodany amount vs. one
(M. Oh. 1 3 : 4 )
28. Fore-court of tomb4 amot vs. 4 tefahim
(M. Oh. 1 5 : 8 )
29. Its thickness vs. one tefah
(Tos. Ah. 1 4 : 4 )
30. 2 + 1 vs. 1 + 1
(Tos. Ah. 1 6 : 6 )
31. From third row vs. from J ^ W row
(Tos. Par. 5 : 1 )
32. Come of age: 20 vs. 1 8
(M. Nid. 5:9)
33. Minor married
a) 4 nights vs. wound heals
b) 1 ar. 4
(M. Nid. 1 0 : 1 [Tos. Nid. 9 : 7 : 9 ] )
34. Makes void2 vs. 1

(M. Zab. 1:2)
VIII. HOUSES-DISPUTES NOT IN PRECISE BALANCE
In the following pericopae, we discern no balance in the formula

tions of the Houses-opinions. The lack of contrasting meter or
syzygous word-choice in some instances is readily explained, however,
for the subject-matter of the legal disputes or the substance of the
opinions generally excludes the possibility of choosing words other
than those before us, e.g., nos. 2 , 4 , 5 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 6 . Even here,
however, we find fixed lemmas, e.g. after usualfashion does not contrast
with pounded with pestle or pick pulse (nos. 6, 7), but it does constitute a
cliche. Likewise, no. 1 depends upon a cliche for the Shammaite
opinion; the rest of the opinions balance with one another. As we
observed, one could not have phrased the Shammaite opinion in the
fixed terms of the Hillelites or Aqiba's, because, to begin with, it is
variable. Nos. 2 and 4 rely on Scriptures. Nos. 3 , 1 3 , 2 2 , and 2 4 are
c
HOUSES-DISPUTES NOT
IN
PRECISE
BALANCE
139
examples of unbalanced disputes which might have been formulated

in the more conventional way. Some of the Houses' lemmas are
scarcely related to one another, though they address themselves to the
same legal problem, e.g., nos. 15,19, 21. No. 2 is anomalous. All peri
copae, however, do exhibit the standard structural balance, House X say
vs. House Y say.
1. YLQH BHSR WYTR vs. K$<T HWS'H + <Aqiba: K$<T TBY'H
(Sifra Vayiqra 13:13, M. B.M. 3:12)
2. How far recite Hallel + Ps. 114:8
(M. Pes. 10:8 [b. Pes. 117a = Ps. 114:1 vs. Ps.
115:1])
3. Not sell leaven to gentile unless consumed before Passover vs. As
long as Jew may eat, he may sell it.
(b. Shab. 18b)
(Better: +/ not.)
4. Where shake lulav + Ps. 118:1, 25A, 25B
(M. Suk. 3:9)
5. Not take pigeons vs. stands and says
(M. Bes. 1:3, Tos. Y.T. 1:8)
6. Spices pounded with pestle etc. vs. after usual fashion
(M. Bes. 1:7, Tos. Y.T. 1:15-17)
7. Pick pulse and eat edible parts vs. after usual fashion
(M. Bes. 1:8, Tos. Y.T. 1:21)
8. Send MNWT vs. send cattle etc.
(M. Bes. 1:9)
9. Cover up blood with dust vs. ashes are dust
(b. Hul. 88b)
10. Pishon the camel-driver
(b. Yev. 107b)
(Debate on precedent)
11. We have heard no tradition vs. it is all one
(M. Yev. 15:2)
12. Co-wives free from marriage and betrothal etc.
(Tos. Yev. 1:7)
13. Vow not to sucklepull breast vs. compel suckle
(b. Ket. 59b)
14. Testimony at variance vs. two included in five
(M. Naz. 3:7 [Tos. Nez. 3:1])
15. Half-slave, half-freehow arrange work etc
(M. Git. 4:5)
140
S M A L L U N I T S OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
16. Steal beamtake down vs. estimate value

(Tos. B.Q. 9:5)
17. KML> MQDH vs. KDY SYNTL MN HHY WYMWT
(M. Oh. 2:3)
18. KML> MQDH vs. <D YH> BMQWM >HD ML' MQDH
(M. Oh. 13:1)
19. How gather grapes in grave-area
(M. Oh. 18:1)
20. What do they examine
(M. Oh. 18:8)
21. Connective for uncleanness but not for sprinkling vs. if sprinkled
on kettle, sprinkled on lid, not vice versa
(M. Par. 12:10 [Tos. Par. 12:18])
22. Blood of woman after childbirthlike spittle vs. conveys unclean
ness wet or dry
(M. Nid. 4:3B)
23. N$YM MTWT NDWT VS. NDH MTH NDH
(M. Nid. 10:4)
(See II, p. 302-307; six vs. six.)
24. Convey uncleanness vs. such a one is gluttonous
(M. Nid. 10:8)
25. Like one that waits day vs. like one that has suffered pollution
26. Wholly Zab vs. conveys uncleanness to what he sits on etc.
(M. Zab. 1:1)
27. He who anoints pure oil etc.
(y. Ber. 8:3)
28. Tefillin in privy
(b. Ber. 23a)
T h e H o u s e s a r e n o t in b a l a n c e , b u t t h e Hillelites a n d ' A q i b a d o m a t c h :
hand vs. garment.
i x . SUMMARY OF SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND

OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS
We have isolated and characterized the following mnemonic phe

nomena:
1. Pericopae without mnemonic-formulae or patterns105
2. Pericopae with mnemonic formulae or patterns82
a) Redactional formula (e.g. three things)18
Formula external to substance of pericope, imposed to link discrete
materials.
SUMMARY
141
b) Redactional pattern (e.g. epistles, debates)33

Pattern internal to substance of pericope.
c) Narrative pattern (repetition of sequences of actions or of
sentences)8 ( + 3?)
d) Repeated sentence2
e) Substantive pattern17 ( + 13?)
Apophthegms, some lists,fixedframework, e.g., supplied by Scripture.
Recurrent phrases are integral to pericopae, not merely redactional.
[ + ii. 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 99, 103]
f) Substantive formula3
Formula integral to saying.
3. Pericopae containing small units of tradition or following other
disciplined mnemonic forms
314
a) Small units
86
1. Fixed opposites
66
Liable vs. free
8
Unclean vs. clean
28
Prohibit vs. permit
9
Unfit vs.
fit
10
Midrds vs. Teme-Met
2
Inside vs. outside (etc.)
7
2. Balance of meter
18
3. Balance of meter and change of single letter 2
b) Syntactical and morphological
142
changes functionally equivalent
to small units of tradition
1. Tenses and numbers
1
2. Distinction vs. no distinc
tion {and vs. or)
27
3. Reversal of word-order
14
4. Statements of law+/ negative
61
5. Negative statement + permit
25
6. >P in second lemma
14
c) Differences in word choice
24
d) Number-sequences
34
e) Houses-disputes not closely balanced
28
(Structural balance only: Xsay vs. Ysay
142
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
Pericopae exhibiting no clear mnemonic pattern pertain primarily

to named masters other than Hillel, Shammai, and the Houses. Peri
copae containing small units of tradition or following other mnemonic
forms concern the Houses alone. Among the pericopae exhibiting
mnemonic patterns of some sort, we find the following distribution:
Houses: 31 +314 = 345
Hillel + Shammai: 19
Gamaliel + Simeon b. Gamaliel: 9
Chains ending with Shammai-Hillel: 2
Baba b. Buta: 1
Joshua b. Gamala: 2
Abba Joseph: 1
Hananiah Prefect of the Priests: 3
Simeon the Just: 2
Yosi's: 4
Yohanan High Priest: 1
Hanina b. Dosa: 1
Simeon b. Shetah: 2
Shema'iah and Abtalion: 1
In addition, the sayings in Avot follow a redactional pattern. As
to the pericopae without mnemonic patterns, we find the following
distribution:
Simeon the Just: 4
Yosi's: 2
Joshua b. Perahiah: 3
Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah: 9
Shema'iah and Abtalion: 5
Shammai: 6
Hillel: 17
(Houses: 8 [All in structural balance, as noted])
Hillel and Shammai: 3
Gamaliel: 14
Simeon b. Gamaliel: 4
Baba b. Buta: 2
Hananiah Prefect of the Priests: 9
Rest scattered.
The Houses' and Hillel-and-Shammai-pericopae normally exhibit mne
monic patterns or are balanced in some way or another, and the peri
copae of other named masters are apt not to be balanced or to exhibit
mnemonic patterns. Since in the list of mnemonic pericopae are peri
copae whose mnemonic pattern derives from redactional, and not
substantive, considerations, the imbalance is more considerable than
these figures suggest.
ORAL TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
143
We may assign to the Yavnean stratum both the forms listed above
and, for obvious reasons (II, pp. 1-5), the mnemonic patterns
considered here (though later tradents followed the patterns as well).
Since it is virtually certain that Houses-materials and probably many
other elements of the Hillel and Hillel-Shammai traditions derive from
Yavnean times, we may conclude that both the development of welldefined forms for the transmission of data and the arrangement of
materials within those forms in careful mnemonic sequences go to
gether. Forms, small units of tradition, and other mnemonic patterns
all serve the same purpose: the careful redaction and secure, accurate
transmission of materials given normative status. This phenomenon
seems to derive from early Yavnean times, and to have continued there
after.
x. ORAL TRANSMISSION: DEFINING THE PROBLEM
The rabbinic tradition claims as its authority Moses "our rabbi"

and explicitly states that alongside the Scriptures, Moses revealed an
Oral Torah, shaped not in writing to begin with, but by oral dictation,
and orally transmitted in schools for centuries thereafter from master
to disciple. The clearest statement of matters is as follows:
Our rabbis taught: How [was] the Mishnah order [ed] (KYSD SDR
M$NH)?
A. Moses learned from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered,
and Moses repeated to him his [Aaron's] chapter (PRQW). Aaron
departed and sat at the left hand of Moses.
His sons entered and Moses repeated to them their chapter. His sons
departed. Eleazar sat at the right hand of Moses and Itamar at the left
of Aaron.
R. Judah says, "Aaron surely sat at the right hand of Moses."
Again the elders entered, and Moses taught them their chapter. The
elders departed, and all the people entered, and Moses taught them
their chapter.
So it came out that in the hand of Aaron [were] four, in the hand of
his sons three, and in the hand of the elders two, and in the hand of
the whole people one.
His sons taught them their chapter. His sons departed. The sages
taught them their chapter.
So it came about that in everyone's hand were four.
B. On this basis (MK>N)
R. Eliezer said, "A man is required to repeat to his disciple four
times..."
R. 'Aqiba says [sic], "How do we know that a man is liable to teach
his disciple until he learns it? As it is said..."
(b. <Eruv. 54b)
144
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
Judah b. Ilai's interpolation supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the
pericope: Usha. Eliezer's and 'Aqiba's lemmas are appropriately at
tached (MK?N), but stand independent of the story, which conforms
to Eliezer's view. Indeed, one might have formulated the story on
the basis of the dispute of Eliezer and 'Aqiba, thus supplying a prece
dent for the position of the former. We therefore have firm evidence
that the pattern of oral formulation and transmission of traditions was
well established, indeed taken for granted, by Usha (Judah). We may
push the date back to middle-Yavnean times, ca. 100, and even earlier.
Eliezer's and 'Aqiba's argument suggests that the procedures of oral
instruction had not yet been fixed.
Now it is one thing to follow such a story to the conclusion that
even in Yavneh, it was customary to formulate and transmit materials
mnemonically. That conclusion derives some support from the evi
dence concerning Houses' apodoses, which are well attested at Yavneh,
as I shall point out below (Chapter Twenty). It is quite another to
allege that the same process of fixed oral formulation was underway
from the time of Moses (or, remote antiquity) to 70 A.D.
That allegation in fact finds its way into nearly every account of
the formation and transmission of Pharisaic-rabbinic literature. For
example, Alexander Guttmann writes (in "The Problem of the Anony
mous Mishna," Hebrew Union College Annual 16, 1940, pp. 137-156,
quotation on pp. 140-141):
... the Jewish schools differed from those of other peoples in that
not only were the lessons taught orally, but also the entire material
studied was transmitted in the same fashion. The existence of other
religious writings alongside of Holy Writ was not countenanced [italics
supplied]; nor was the use of either notes or books allowed in the
oral teaching of the materials studied. [Here Guttmann refers to b.
Git. 60b.]
By virtue of this rule, the extra-biblical traditions were transmitted
essentially by word of mouth, and no (official) fixing in written form
of any of the material used in the teaching of religious law was possible.
It is not difficult to discover from the literary-historical point of view
the impression that such an oral method of teaching made upon style.
While an authoritative written text takes on a static character with
fixed norms and conventions, the method of oral transmission has a
certain natural flexibility which remains with it even when later on
it is reduced to writing. The notes which were prepared in secret and
the traditional teachings which were collected and later written down
clearly reveal the style of an oral discussion. The Midrash, Mishnah
and similar sources of traditional Jewish literature were, in like manner,
records of the work which developed in the schools. They lack the
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING
THE
PROBLEM
145
literary idiom of written works but, in place of this, they reveal certain
phenomena which would hardly be noticed in the more usual works
of literature.
Two basic problems arise out of this oral transmission of teachings
and statements. One is that of the origin of a teaching and the other
is that of the quality of its transmission. It is quite clear that these two
elements depend largely upon the memory of individuals or on the
traditions of the schools. It is self-evident that the oldest component
parts of traditional materials have their individual origins hidden in
the darkness of the past and must depend upon their transmitters for
their authority. Thus the trustworthiness and the authority of this mate
rial rests upon the recognition which the transmitter of the traditions
might command.
Guttmann makes reference to b. Git. 60b (b. Tern. 14b), which is
as follows
R. Judah b. Nahmani, the Meturgeman of R. Simeon b. Laqish, ex
pounded (DR), "It is written, Write for yourself these words (Ex. 34:27),
and it is written, For according to the mouth ( L PY) of these words (Ex.
34:27). How now [to reconcile writing with memorizing] ( L PH)?
Things which are in writing you are not permitted to state from memo
ry. Things which are memorized (DBRYM B L PH), you are not
permitted to state in writing..."
R. Yohanan said, "God made a covenant with Israel only for the
sake of things which are oral (DBRYM SB L PH), as it says, For by
the mouth ( L PY) of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with
Israel^*. 34:27).
C
The third-century Amoraic references thus are taken at face value by

Guttmann as evidence of pre-70 practice ("long before the destruc
tion...").
The exegetical tradition on Ex. 34:27 does not conform to Judah
b. Nahmani's tendency. Judah the Patriarch derives from the Scripture
the lesson, "Great is circumcision, for it outweighs all the other com
mandments of the Torah" (b. Ned. 32a). Yosi b. R. Hanina proves
from the same Scripture that the Torah was given only to Moses
and his seed, but Moses generously gave it to Israel (b. Ned. 38a).
R. Haggai in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman sees in the Scripture
the lesson that things orally transmitted are more beloved than things
in writing. R. Yohanan and R. Yudan b. R. Simeon prove from it that
one must observe oral as well as Scriptural traditions (both: y. Pe'ah
2:4, y. Meg. 4:1, y. Hag. 1:8). Late Amoraic and medieval compilations
are of no interest here. Judah b. Nahmani's interpretation therefore
is unique, moves far beyond the point made by Samuel and Yohanan,
and possibly is new with him. All others understood the verse to
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 . I l l
10
146
MNEMONICS
mean that oral traditions are especially belovedstandard rabbinic

polemic against those Jews who did not accept the authority of Oral
Torah (meaning, of the rabbis), and they were many. The allegation
in connection with Ex. 34:27, that it is strictly forbidden to write
down oral traditions in any form, is not found before his time. It
therefore hardly seems warranted to extend the rule back to Moses (!).
For our purposes it suffices to note that Guttmann regards as pro
bative for unnumbered centuries the view of a third-century Amora
that one must orally formulate and transmit extra-Scriptural laws.
He might, to be sure, modify his judgment of "the Jewish schools" in
the light of the production of written materials at Qumran, then not
known, and in the Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphic and Zadokite docu
ments, then quite well known. But he evidently means by "Jewish"
merely "rabbinic." Guttmann's allegation that the method of oral
transmission has a certain natural flexibility seems to me the opposite
of the case. Materials meant to be handed on mnemonically are set into
rigid forms for that purpose. The little account of b. 'Eruv. leaves
no room for "natural flexibility."
The most extreme claim in behalf of the view that the rabbinic
traditions now in our hand comprise originally orally composed and
orally transmitted materials comes from Birger Gerhardsson, Memory
and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961). But Gerhardsson merely repeats the
views of nearly all scholars of Jewish literature of the past century,
who routinely quote Judah b. Nahmani's and other sayings as entirely
valid testimonies for the Second Temple period and even earlier.
Gerhardsson, like those he quotes, relies upon unexamined allegations
in the literature, put together into a grotesque composite ("the Talmudic-Midrashic view"), rather than on a close examination of internal
evidence. If something is said about oral transmission, it is assumed
that that saying not only was true when said, which is dubious, but
also earlier characterized processes of redaction and transmission, which
is unlikely. This reading of pertinent sayings seems to me conceptually
primitive. It requires the assumption that the conditions for the forma
tion and transmission of traditions were constant from remote antiq
uity. The way in which the Mishnah was published is likewise the
way in which everything before the Mishnah was given substance and
form. The reliance of Aqiba and others to Judah the Patriarch on
oral means for the formulation and transmission of the Mishnah, their
occasional arrangement of materials to facilitate the mnemonic process,
and, most important, the assumption that that is how the traditions
c
ORAL TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
147
in their hands came down to them these are deemed characteristic

of the Pharisaic tradition from remote times.
My teacher Morton Smith (in "A Comparison of Early Christian
and Early Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82, 1963, pp, 169-176) has said
the last word on Gerhardsson's theory. He comments, "To read back
into the period before 70 the developed rabbinic technique of...[the
year] 200 is a gross anachronism." That very anachronism char
acterizes nearly the entire corpus of scholarship cited by Gerhards
son. We must on the basis of our survey second Smith's judgment
that there was a general failure to preserve ipsissima verba of the early
teachers, unless all they ever said was to lay or not to lay, perhaps a few
purity-rulings, and the like, for we shall see that the antithetical
Houses-materials, which constitute the best-attested corpus of all,
cannot possibly contain the exact rulings of the respective Houses in
the form and words originally supplied by those Houses.
Smith further observes (in an oral tradition to the writer) that there
is not adequate evidence to determine the methods of transmission
used in the early churches nor even in pre-70 Pharisaism, and of
what evidence there is, the most important is that to be found in the
traces of transmission preserved in the surviving material. I have
supplied definitive proof for that assertion.
The large place assigned to memorization in ancient education seems
to Gerhardsson similar in Judaism. But what students of classics
memorized was the text, not the words of the teacher, Smith notes.
He further comments, "Of course, all teaching hopes for remembrance.
The question is, How accurate? Remembrance of the substance only,
or remembrance of the exact wording? With respect to what the
teacher said, classical education aimed at the former, [later] rabbinic
at the latter."
Smith's observations on Gerhardsson produce a most important
distinction, between generalized traditionsstories, ideas, sayings
passed on orally, on the one hand, and tradition to begin with carefully
formulated orally and then orally transmitted word for word, with
the help of mnemonic schemes, and by that means only, until written
down in exactly its earliest, "original", oral form many centuries later.
The latter is what is alleged by the rabbinic tradition from ca. 80 on
ward, and, by students of the literature, claimed in behalf of the Phari
saic tradition before that time. The two propositions, that the materi
als never were written down but framed at the outset without the
medium of writing, and that they thereafter were handed on from mas-
148
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
ter to disciple by the process described in b. 'Eruv. (and elsewhere),

and within the restrictions stated by Judah b. Nahmani, until written
down in exactly the words of the oral formulationthese are the
foundations for Guttmann's allegations, and for those of practically
every other student of the formation of Pharisaic and rabbinic litera
ture. I therefore perceive no important conceptual distinction between
the accounts of b. Eruv. and of such fundamentalist or pseudorthodox scholars as Guttmann and others down to Gerhardsson; and
there probably is none, since all parties take as fact the story of b.
'Eruv.
The issue is not whether there were traditions, or even oral traditions.
We have no reason to doubt there were. The issue is, Do the written
traditions before us contain meticulous reproductions of exactly the
words originally spoken by the masters to which they were attributed
in precisely the form given them by those very mastersipsissima
verba?
That issue must forthwith be divided into two parts. First, did the
masters originally say what now is attributed to them? This we cannot
know. Second, does the present literature contain exact replications
of materials originally formulated orally and transmitted orally?
It is a fact that the majority of pericopae in the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees before 70, and nearly all of the corpus of Houses-ma
terials within those traditions, do exhibit mnemonic patterns, some for
mal, some of them substantive, precise, and striking. What inferences
are to be drawn from that fact? Shall we conclude that the traditions
were based upon orally formulated and transmitted materials? On the
face of it, that conclusion is unwarranted. Clearly many traditions
before us were formulated so as to facilitate their memorization. But
whether or not the redacted pericopae derive from originally oral
materials is a question that obviously cannot be settled, one way or
the other, by the character of materials which we have only in written
form. Since no reference to the way in which materials were formulat
ed, except in Yavnean strata, lies before us, the contents of the tradi
tions themselves supply no help, certainly no support of a theory of
a history of oral transmission of data now written down for the first
time. The theory of a dual Torah by itself is not pertinent, as I said.
Qumranians, for one, had such a corpus of revealed materials external
to Scriptures, and they wrote down at least part of those materials.
But even if various sects had traditions, and if those traditions were oral,
it would not solve the problem, unless it can be shown that in behalf
c
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
149
of such traditions was claimed not merely essential accuracy but exact
verbal correspondence with what was originally stated by the authority
standing behind them. That is what is alleged of the Pharisees both
by the rabbis and by their modern continuators.
Let us briefly review the sorts of data and arguments advanced in
behalf of theories of oral formation and transmission of other litera
tures. We have already made reference to Milman Parry, who held:
It is of course the pattern of the diction which, as in the matter of
the authorship of the style, proves by its very extent that the Homeric
style is oral. It must have been for some good reason that the poet, or
poets, of the Iliad and the Odyssey kept to the formulas even when he,
or they, had to use some of them very frequently. What was this
constraint that thus set Homer apart from the poets of a later time, and
of our own time, whom we see in every phrase choosing those words
which alone will match the color of their own thought? The answer
is not only the desire for an easy way of making verses, but the complete
need of it. Whatever manner of composition we could suppose for
Homer, it could be only one which barred him in every verse and in
every phrase from the search for words that would be of his own find
ing. Whatever reason we may find for his following the scheme of the
diction, it can be only one which quits the poet at no instant.
There is only one need of this sort which can even be suggested
the necessity of making verses by the spoken word. This is a need
which can be lifted from the poet only by writing, which alone allows the
poet to leave his unfinished idea in the safe keeping of the paper which
lies before him, while with whole unhurried mind he seeks along the
ranges of his thought for the new group of words which his idea calls
for. Without writing, the poet can make his verses only if he has a for
mulaic diction which will give him his phrases all made, and made in
such a way that, at the slightest bidden of the poet, they will link
themselves in an unbroken pattern that will fill his verses and make his
sentences." (Parry in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 31, 1930, p.
138; also cited by Albert B. Lord, "Homer, Parry, and Huso," Ameri
can Journal of Archaelogy, 52, 1948, p. 36).
The question, who is the author, is therefore false: "An oral poem
undergoes two kinds of creation, that of the man who first makes it
and that of the man who sings it each time" (Lord, p.38).
As I stressed earlier (p. 104), Parry's argument about the oral
composition and transmission of poetry bears no relationship to the
materials before us. The reason is that the formulaic patterns, partic
ularly those exhibiting affinities with the characteristics referred to
by Parry, do not characterize whole pericopae, but only apodoses.
At best we may suppose that the careful arrangement of the Houses-
150
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
apodoses was intended to ease the burden of decision-making. Once

someone knew the protasis ([If] a seah of unclean Terumah falls into a
hundred seahs of clean), and also knew that the Houses discuss the matter,
he would need no great effort to rule: "House of Shammai prohibit.
House of Hillel permit." The apodoses of Houses-lemmas do, there
fore, tend to be fixed, but also are apt to be moved from one protasis
to another, as in the Ushan stratum. This seems to me to signify
that the small units of tradition were memorized with precisionit
was easy enough. But the cases to which they were to be assigned were
entirely fluid and not set forth with equal precision. And mnemonic
patterns in which the Houses-apodoses are carefully arranged look to
be the creation not of poets or other literary figures in the dim past,
but of the tradents at Yavneh, Usha, and even later, who followed a
simple form for the codification only of legal traditions.
Certainly no literary evidence before us consistently conforms to
the pattern of oral formation and transmission of materials described
by Parry, and most of it does not conform at all. On the contrary,
if the redactors needed to make up legal pericopae by the spoken word,
then that need did not extend to the whole of the pericope, but only
to the last part of it. Formulaic sayings, particularly those generative
of varied materials, seem to me another matter. There we may imagine
that a saying was orally framed, then orally handed onif no other
explanation for the formulaic character of the saying intervenes. But
in the case of some such sayings, e.g. in M. Sot. 9, we have a fairly
clear idea of where and when the materials were redacted, and it was
not in the dim past of Pharisaism, but in the circle of Judah the Patri
arch. M. 'Ed., likewise, seems to be the work of the last fifty years
of the second century, certainly not earlier, since it is dominated by
the disciples of Aqiba. Some of the sayings assigned to Hillel, partic
ularly the more...the more... pattern and the balanced opposites stated
like conditional contrasts, if you do this, I will do that, if you will not do
this, I will not to that, ignorant cannot study, and the likethese do give
every indication of the traits referred to by Parry. But they are brief,
not long or poetic; they are not particularly artful (who can com
pare the intricate metric patterns of Homer with the more...the
more...!).
And formulaic structure does not carry with it formulaic diction. Many
of the mnemonic elements, moreover, pertain to the form and struc
ture of pericopae, not to the contents. Thus knowing that a master
said three things would not tell us what he had said. The ordinanceform is external to its substance. The lists of M. Ed. depend upon
c
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
151
antecedent, fully formulated individual pericopae, or, at least, lemmas.

None of these is to be compared to metric schemes. So if Parry's
reasoning and conclusions are accepted (and it is not our business
to raise that question), then his reasoning points to the opposite
conclusion for the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees.
Scholars of Buddhism take for granted that the earliest traditions
of Buddha were shaped and transmitted orally. They have the support
of Buddhist traditions, which refer to the calling of councils for the
purpose of fixing orally the text of the sacred canon (Raymond B.
Williams, "Historical Criticism of a Buddhist Scripture: The Mahaparinibbana Sutta," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38, 2,
1970, pp. 156-167). A carefully formulated oral canon was preserved
for centuries, it is alleged. Modern scholars, while reluctant to accept
the traditional Buddhist picture, nonetheless envisage a not-dissimilar
process. Williams observes that Buddha certainly gave rules, and
"there must have been many discourses known by heart to the disci
ples, and they may have been collected and recited in a... chanting
together even during Buddha's lifetime." He clearly formulates the
sort of claim made in behalf of rabbis, that they "must have" formulat
ed teachings and given them to the disciples orally, and that the disci
ples then "must have" preserved and accurately handed on the very
words of the master himself. Some have suggested that Buddha taught
in a form with synonyms and repetitions so that the teaching could be
easily learned by his disciples (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught
[N.Y., 1962], cited by Williams, p. 158, n. 3). So, Williams continues,
"After the death of the Buddha this collection and recitation must have
become more important...In oral transmission mnemonic convenien
ces play a large part. All sorts of aids to memoryset words, fixed
phrases, familiar conventional descriptions in stereotyped terms and
other memoria technicabecame characteristic of the tradition." These
materials were then organized into loose collections by form or con
tent (Williams, p. 159).
I take Williams' repeated use of must have been and must have become
to mean that the evidence permits no more definitive conclusions.
There can be no doubt that the Sutta discussed by Williams exhibits
striking mnemonic patterns, formed of various short units and trans
mitted independently. The narrative framework is apt to be less reliable
than the logia. One finds stock phrases and formulae, summaries arrang
ed for easy memorization, serving merely as "key phrases intended
to bring to mind the major teachings of the Buddha." At the end
152
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
Williams concludes, "All of this gives evidence of the shaping of the

material for ease in oral transmission. The verse form, the numerical
sequences, repetitions, stock phrases and paragraphs and formalized
encounters were probably shaped by the monks in the transmission,
though it is possible that the Buddha's teaching methods included
repetition and stylized formulae to aid memorization."
The Buddhist problem thus differs from ours only in degree, for,
from Williams' remarks, one may conclude that even a greater propor
tion of the materials is mnemonically arranged than is the case of the
rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. It is not only that the Housespericopae are not consistently so structured, but that in many of the
other pericopae, where we do find some sort of mnemonic pattern,
we observe that the pattern tends to be external to the substance of
the pericopae themselves, e.g. there are no rhythms or formulaic say
ings characteristic of apophthegms, debates, or brief biographical
references. The lists of three's or four's have been arranged for easy
memorization, to be sure, but the items on the lists do not match. The
exception to this rule are the lists of laying-on's in M. Hag. 2:2 and of
uncleanness decrees in b. Shab. There we do indeed find something
equivalent to Williams' data: disciplined form and correspondingly
fixed substance {to lay\not to lay; or X + Y decreed uncleanness on...) leaving
only the objects to be put to memory. Here we must again observe
that if such lists exhibit mnemonic affinities with the Buddhist suttas,
then the bulk of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees do not.
In the end, the major question is unresolved: how to convert must
have been to was? What solid evidence do we have that the materials
originally were oral, that is, never written down at all, but formulated
by a master and taught to disciples through repetition of formulae
or other means. Not a single story or saying before us suggests that
a pre-70 Pharisaic master ever did any such thing. We do not have
tales of how they taught, nor do we even have internal evidence that
they organized circles of disciples. Perhaps they did; we cannot claim
they "must have" done so.
One of the prerequisites for the development of oral materials is
the presence of a class of professionals or an institution, such as the
Tanna of second century times, devoted to the task. In Parthian civili
zation, such an institution existed, the gosan, a professional minstrel.
Mary Boyce ("The Parthian Gosan and Iranian Minstrel Tradition,"
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1957, pp. 10-45) observes of the old
minstrel tradition that Armenian tradition establishes, "These tales were
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
153
in verse, were sung, and were not written down" (p. 13). Mgosani
regularly appear in Georgian evidence as well (p. 15). They were
minstrels, entertainers, eulogists, singers of laments, always spoken
of in the plural, as forming a group (p. 16). Miss Boyce continues,
"The cumulative evidence suggests that the gosan played a considerable
part in the life of the Parthians and their neighbours, down to late
in the Sasanian epoch: entertainer of king and commoner, privileged
at court and popular with the people...eulogist, satirist, storyteller,
musician; recorder of past achievements and commentator of his own
times" (p. 18). She observes that the gosan must have had to learn
many traditions by memory, in addition to learning how to compose
and recite. She further brings evidence to show that professional
minstrelsy flourished under the Achemenids as well as under the later
Sasanians.
By contrast, we nowhere hear of a professional memorizer, let alone
a class or group of minstrels, in all the materials before us. The Tanna
first occurs in Aqiban times. The characteristic medium for the preser
vation of Jewish traditions, furthermore, was writing, not oral formu
lation and transmission and preservation by memory. Palestine was
a literate society. The Qumran community wrote its traditions. Indeed,
it had a library and had a large room for the purpose of writing down
its documents (Cross, op. cit., pp. 66-7). Josephus wrote his histories,
and assumed the Aramaic version would be read, not recited. The
Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic books seem to have been written
down at the outset. So the authors apparently expected to be read.
The opposition whom Jesus called hypocrites were scribes and Phari
sees. A scribe appears in Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel's stories.
When the Persian embassy wishes to be entertained, it calls (according
to the narrative of Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai, y. Ber. 7:2) not for
minstrelsthere is no word for memorizer or minstrel in the materials
before usbut for the rabbi, who said, not sang, wise things. Nowhere
is the rabbi characterized as an entertainer, a memorizer, a singer. In
pre-70 writings we do not find memorizers or minstrels. We do find
scribes. We have no evidence on the oral composition of materials. We
have, as I said, the Qumran writings as very good evidence for the
written composition of materials. So why should anyone have resorted
to "oral composition"?
To be sure, like the Pharisees described by the rabbis, Qumranian
scriptures occasionally refer to secret doctrines, which were not
written down, but were transmitted with great care. Similarly, Jesus
c
154
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
is alleged to have taught his disciples a secret tradition, not to be

publicly revealed until the proper time. But these are traditions and
do not constitute the whole literature or apparently a significant part
of it. The main point, however, is that we do not find traces that such
secret sayings were redacted for easy oral transmissionthat would
have defeated their purpose to begin with. If Paul's allusions to Jesus
came to him not by a "revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11),
but in some sort of fixed oral formulation which was orally transmitted,
he gives no hint of it. He alleges it is not man's gospel. He may have
had traditions, but of ipsissima verba he gives no unambiguous testi
mony, except from his own visions. And Paul handed on his traditions
in writing. The Gospels originally were written, according to the
testimony of two of them, Luke and John. What traditions lie behind
them, if originally composed and fixed not in writing but in the various
forms of oral story-telling and in the disciplined formation of sayings,
hardly gives significant evidence, because of the poor state of their
preservation. But even if traditions were handed on orally and not in
writing, they would have been passed on in oral transmission for all
of forty years. That hardly gives significant evidence for the institu
tionalization in the Church of an oral literature, or for the availability
of trained, suitably qualified and officially certified memorizers, of
whom we hear nothing.
Obviously, one cannot draw on evidence for the existence of such
an institution, for no such evidence exists. Perhaps the most striking
evidence is the written Gospels themselves, not to mention Paul's
letters: no one was prepared to rely for long upon any medium other
than writing for the formulation, preservation, and transmission of
anything that really mattered. To be sure Paul drew on tradition, even
on oral tradition, e.g., I Cor.l5:3-5, I Thess. 4:1-8, etc. But Paul uses
tradition very freely, and the exact verbal formulation is not important
to him. Early Christian tradition is quite fluid and variable, even
when the content is of crucial importance.
By contrast, in Parthian and later Sasanian civilization, as Miss
Boyce shows, people were prepared to do just that. Things were not
written down because there were other, secure, perhaps socially more
useful means for the preservation of traditions. Strikingly, ChristianSyraic writers consistently give as the excuse for the writing down
of the Avesta the fear that the memorizers would die out (F. Nau,
"fitude historique sur la transmission de l'Avesta," Revue de Phistoire
de religions 95, 1927, pp. 149-199). Whether or not they were right
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
155
(A. Chris tensen, Ulran sous les sassanides [Copenhagen, 1944 ], casts
serious doubt on Nau's conclusions), they took for granted earlier
reliance on just such a class of people, and not on scribes. To be sure,
the Gaonic historians of Talmudic times, relying on the pertinent
sayings in Talmudic literature itself, drew the same picture: persecu
tion threatened the continuity of the Oral Torah, so it had to be writ
ten down. But the sayings on that subject are taken for granted as
accurate historical records of procedures followed in all periods,
rather than in the places and times of which they may accurately give
evidence.
Biblical scholarship on the oral composition and transmission of
traditions is full of animadversions to the "Semitic mind" and similar
imprecise ideas. In general it rests on the assumption that when few
people can read and write, oral recitation of traditions will be impor
tantwhich says nothing about oral formulation and transmission,
merely oral presentation. Carroll Stuhlmueller, "The Influence of Oral
Tradition upon Exegesis," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20, 1958, pp.
299-326, and Hans-Joachim Kraus, "Zur Geschichte des Oberlieferungsbegriffs inderalttestamentlichen W i s s e n s c h a f t , " ^ ^ ^ / / ^ ^ Theologie 16, 1956, pp. 371-387 provide useful summaries, along with A.
Bentzen, cited above. Stuhlmueller claims that the "practical slant of
Semitic mentality" (p. 304) plays a role: "It was the present moment
which preoccupied the Jewish mind. Surrounded by pressing hard
ships and urgent problems that left little or no leisure for cultural
endeavors, the Israelites wanted to know the relevance of the past to
their own day... What does this passage really mean...right here and
now?" (p. 304). Oral tradition comes along to "rescue past events
from the dusty book of history." While on the order of GunkePs
invitation to the fireside of the ancient Israelite to hear the old and
beautiful stories of the tribe recited before eager listeners ("we enter
and listen with them" etc.), Stuhlmueller's colorful fantasy is even more
gross. What evidence is there to support his reification of "the Jewish
mind"? If the "Jewish mind" at one period required orally recited
materials, then why in that very same period, all the more so later on,
did it also require written documents? How did that "Jewish mind"
so change as to produce written materials?
Oral recital likewise allowed Israelites to relive the past, and "a
final reason can be touched upon to emphasize the importance of
oral transmission over the written medium. This was the Hebrew
understanding of Yahweh as 'the living God/ dynamically active here
156
MNEMONICS
and now." The connection between the two sentences is hardly selfevident, nor is it any more manifest when one learns, "Oral tradition
enabled the divine message to participate more fully in Yahweh's
property of being a 'living God/ by giving a continuous existence
to the past in each present and future." I do not argue that we have
no evidence of oral formation and transmission of data. I merely
allege that if the interpretation of such data as seems to give evidence
of an oral fundament, that is, of original oral composition and forma
tion for oral transmission, rests upon the sorts of arguments adduced
here, then we may as well take it as a matter of faith.
Eduard Nielsen {Oral Tradition. A Modern Problem in Old Testament
Introduction, with a Foreword by H. H. Rowley [Chicago, 1955]) sup
plies another account of the biblical problem. He stresses that oral
tradition is not merely a pre-literary stage ( = tradition), as I shall sug
gest later on in reference to some of the materials before us. The
allegation rather is that, as Mowinckel said (Nielsen, p. 13), "The
prophets were men of the spoken word and... their books were
compositions based on oral tradition. We owe it to oral tradition, for
instance, that the prophecies of Amos and Hosea were preserved until
the exilic age, which was also the age when the prophecies were com
mitted to writing." We again note that no distinction is to be made
between oral traditionmerely the pre-literary stageand oral compo
sition and oral transmission. All are one: the orator spoke, his words*
it is claimed, were not written down but instantly memorized at the
very outset. Only much later did anyone bother to write them down
(presumably explained along the lines of a theory that the memorizers
were thought to be dying out, as in the oral theory of the Avesta
and the Babylonian Talmud).
We may bypass arguments adduced from the extent of oral tradition
in the ancient Near East, the contempt for oral tradition in modern
Europe, the sociology of writing and schooling, and the importance
of religious and epic texts in general. Nielsen himself observes that
one cannot "give an answer that applies equally to the Old Nordic,,
the Hellenic, the Persian, the Indian, and the Semitic worlds." Of
greater interest is the mode of argumentation undertaken in behalf
of Nyberg's thesis that "The written Old Testament is a creation of
the post-exilic Jewish community; of what existed earlier undoubtedly
only a small part was in fixed written form" (Nielsen, p. 39). Nielsen's
important arguments are, first, writing was subordinated in pre-exilic
Israel; second, the Scriptures give direct evidence of oral transmission.
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
157
The former is not pertinent to our problem, since, as I said, it is diffi

cult to argue that writing was subordinated to oral formulation and
transmission of materials in the century or so before 70 A.D. Nielsen
observes that while writing was institutionalized in scribes in Davidic
times, these were not widespread. The culture as a whole did not tend
"to a written fixation of its traditions" (p. 49). The contrary was the
case later on.
Nielsen's "positive evidence for the existence of an oral tradition"
is drawn in part from various references in Scriptures themselves, e.g.
Deut. 1:5, 31:11. It is assumed that the father will orally teach his
household: "The home is a miniature national community." Better
proof derives from Psalms: "Since we are so fortunate as to possess
parallel psalms in the book of Psalms, and these are not quite identical
in their present textual form, we can by examining these variants
establish errors of hearing [italics supplied] and thus prove that the oral
tradition played its part in the composition of the Israelite psalms."
That seems to me the most pertinent argument. That sort of argument
and proof is nowhere undertaken by proponents of the oral theory
of Pharisaic traditions before us.
Because of the explicit evidence of Jer. 36, Nielsen devotes consid
erable effort to explain why it does not mean Jeremiah wrote his book.
The book itself reveals "words in metrical form as well as prose
speeches based on words of Jeremiah" (p. 77). Oral traditions are
frequently revised. Micah 4-5 reveals a "complex...neatly framed by
two sayings with related contents" (p. 86). The rest of the argument
depends upon the organization and structure of the passage and bears
no obvious relationship to its allegedly oral beginnings. The discus
sion of Gen. 6-9 produces the following conclusions: the author tries
to compose traditions into a definite chronological scheme; the author
is not merely a redactor, but an artist. These conclusions, alas, have
nothing to do with uniquely oral formulation and transmission of
materials. The distinction between oral composition and transmission,
on the one hand, and oral traditions on the basis of which materials
are composed, on the other, is lost.
Marcel Jousse, in Etudes de psjchologie linguistique. Le style oral rythmique et mnemotechnique che% les Verbo-moteurs. Archives de philosophie, II,
iv (Paris, 1925), and in Les rabbis d Israel. Les Recitatifs rythmiques
par alleles. I. Genre de la Maxime (Paris, 1930), and R. Pautrel, in "Des
abreviations subies par quelques sentences de Jesus dans la redaction
synoptique," Recherches de science religieuse, 24, 1934, pp. 344-365, and
9
158
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
"Les canons du mashal rabbinique," Recherches de science religieuse 26,

1936, pp. 1-45, have examined materials nearer to our interest. Jousse's
Etudes concentrate on the psychology of recitation, oral style, and
similar issues. Jousse's theory is that universal laws permit us to detect
originally oral materials. Whatever the text, wherever it is found, it
will obey certain formal rules, some of them based upon the structure
of the larynx, and on various psychological responses to particular
noises(!). Here we do not find the precision in metrical analysis of
Parry, who formed his ideas in approximately the same time and
setting, but concentration on the allegation of psychological founda
tions of oral stylea more general inquiry, but still, hermeneutically
less deductive than the proponents of oral transmission of biblical
materials. Remarks on the relationships between sound and meaning
(pp. 44ff.) need not detain us. Nor are plays on words uniquely perti
nent to oral formation of traditions (pp. 81ff.). Parallelism (pp. 95ff.)
is not a trait unique either to the formation or to the transmission of
oral materials. The presence of rhythm and rhyme-schemes may signi
fy poetry, but it does not necessitate the hypothesis of an oral founda
tion. While one may grant that the power of memory is strengthened
by each and every mnemonic characteristic adduced by Jousse, one
still is not compelled to follow him to the starting point of his inquiry:
mnemonic characteristics must signify beginnings in oral composition.
To repeat what I have already said: they certainly may signify that
a composition would be transmitted orally, but not necessarily that some
sort of antecedent oral tradition lies at the foundations of the material.
Allegations of oral style generally carry with them the assertion, or
assumption, that the original composer (artist) never wrote down his
ideas, but dictated them for memorization (e.g. pp. 195f.). That is
alleged and not proved, time and again.
Jousse's study of rabbinic maxims makes use of the results of his
psychological and ethnic researches in the analysis of the oral style of
ancient Palestine. He stresses the memorization of materials (pp. xvff.),
balanced parallels (pp. xviiff.), cliche-parallels (e.g. poor, rich), parallel
rhythmic schemes (pp. xxi) and so on. He states (p. xxiii):
En general, deux Schemes rythmiques paralleles se balancent a la
suite Pun de Pautre dans une meme Improvisation. Ainsi en est-il
dans les exemples donnes ci-dessus.
Cependant, tout Scheme rythmique qui a fait danser un Geste
propositionnel sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux d'un Improvisateur ou
d'un Recitateur, acquiert par la une tendance a danser de nouveau.
Un Geste propositionnel, identique ou analogue au premier, s'es-
ORAL TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING THE
PROBLEM
159
quisse-t-il tot ou tard dans le "compose humain" de Plmprovisateur et

cherche-t-il a s'exprimer sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux? De par les
lois de Pautomatisme et du moindre effort, ce Geste propositionnel
simplement esquisse et, pour ainsi dire, a la recherche de sa forme
definitiveva s'amplifier et se danser selon le Schema verbal et rythmique qui s'offre spontanement a lui.
And further (p. xxxi):
Un Scheme rythmique qui, meme isolement, a danse une seule fois
sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux, acquier ainsi une tendance a se
rejouer spontanement, chez Plmprovisateur, quand une attitude mentale, identique ou analogue, cherche ensuite a s'exprimer oralement.
C'est la, nous l'avons vu plus haut, l'origine psycho-physiologique
des Schemas rythmiques-types et des Cliches propositionnels.
Or, ce phenomene d'automatisme et de moindre effort se reproduit,
a plus large echelle, pour les Recitatifs rythmiques eux-memes.
L'Instructeur, ayant a improviser une Recitation sur tel ou tel sujet,
analogue a un sujet traditionnellement stereotype, trouve tout prepare
sur ses muscle laryngo-buccaux, melodiquement et rythmiquement,
un Module schematique de Recitatifs dans lequel se coule, comme
d'elle-meme, la nouvelle Instruction.
Pautrel produces similar sorts of analyses, though his NT texts are
all quoted in Latin (!), and his stress is on images and parallels, rather
than on internal characteristics of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. His
analysis of the canons of the rabbinic mashal stresses internal parallel
isms, the construction of the mashal, the clearcut evidence of narrative
techniques and forms, and other matters which do not settle the
question of oral composition one way or the other. But the real
point is that "oral materials were accurately preserved by oral means,
and this must mean 'the ipsissima verba of Christ have been preserved' "
(Streeter, quoted by Pautrel, p. 45), surely an adumbration of the argu
ment of Gerhardsson. Were that not the object of the argument, I
doubt anyone would have bothered to construct the argument itself.
One discipline does not have to rely on mere conjecture about
unavailable evidence, or at best extrapolation from known to unknown
patterns of formulation and transmission of data, and that is anthropo
logy. There one may actually witness the oral formulation of materials
and trace their transmission without the medium of writing, much as
Parry followed the oral composition and transmission of Serbo-Croat
poetry (described most conveniently by Lord). Jan Vansina {Oral Tradi
tion, A Study in Historical Methodology, translated by H. M. Wright,
London, 1965, from De la tradition orale. Essai de methode historique,
1961) supplies the best account known to me of anthropological
160
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
thought on oral tradition. His primary interest, however, is in the

evaluation of the accuracy of such traditions.
Vansina defines oral traditions as "historical sources of a special nature.
Their special nature derives from the fact that they are 'unwritten'
sources couched in a form suitable for oral transmission, and that their
preservation depends on the powers of memory of successive genera
tions of human beings" (p. 1). Such tradition characterizes non-literate
cultures, "and even among peoples who have writing, many historical
sources, including the most ancient ones, are based on oral traditions."
Vansina's work is based on traditions still alive among peoples without
writing, where "oral tradition continues to exist at the very heart of the
environment that give rise to it." The analogy to a Palestine therefore
cannot be exact.
Vansina analyzes a tale by use of the following concepts: "episode,
plot, motif, setting, and theme." These concepts, he says, can be ap
plied to all oral texts to discover its internal structure. But the same
may be done with written texts.
Vansina's typology of oral traditions (pp. 142ff.) is of special inter
est. He finds five such categories: formulae, such as titles, slogans,
didactic formulae, ritual formulae; poetry, both official and private,
such as historical, panegyric, religious, and personal; lists, such as
place names and personal names; tales, including historical, didactic,
artistic, and personal; and commentaries (to which one may add codes
of law), including legal precedents, explanatory remarks, and occa
sional comments (p. 144). Among these categories, we find in the rab
binic traditions of the Pharisees few formulae, no slogans, but many
didactic formulae, by which Vansina means proverbs, sayings, epi
grams, and the like, "the storehouse of ancient wisdom," which may
contain historical information. We have no ritual formulae or poetry,
with the noted exceptions.
We do have lists of persons. But Vansina here observes, "Lists
are usually preserved by specialists belonging to some institution and
pronounced on the occasion of some public ceremony, such as the
death or the accession of a chief" (p. 151). We have no evidence of an
institution, rite, or public ceremony in connection with the lists speci
fied above. The lists of personal names are not genealogies, nor are
they in an obvious way supposed to "vindicate rights." As to tales,
Vansina's categories are of some interest. He refers to tales concern
ing local history, of which we have none; tales concerning family
history; myths; and the like. All the tales we found are short historical
ORAL
TRANSMISSION:
DEFINING
THE
PROBLEM
161
or biographical accounts of brief episodes. They do not compare to

the materials presented by Vansina.
While Vansina's studies are suggestive, they do not directly illumi
nate our problem. For one thing, none of the traditions before us is
represented as first-hand. All are anonymous. We do not know the
name of any independent authority responsible for our materials be
fore Yavneans, then Ushans. We know, for example, that Meir and
Judah stand behind the tales of the succession of Simeon the Just
(b. Men. 109b). Then, by Vansina's very reasonable standards, we shall
have to discount both versions of that event. The rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees generally are anonymous as to authorship. Chains
of traditions do not begin, R. Aqiba said that R. Gamaliel said that
Hillel said. As we noted, not one of those masters assigned as disciples
to Hillel, e.g., Yohanan b. Zakkai, or as his own son and grandson,
ever says something he has heard from Hillel, or reports something
he has seen Hillel do. But Yavneans do refer to things they have
heard from Yohanan b. Zakkai and have seen Gamaliel do. The
standards proposed by Vansina for the assessment of the reliability
of oral traditions are not only not met by the rabbinic traditions about
the Pharisees; they are scarcely relevant.
K
Summary: We have now reviewed the problem of oral transmission

and some approaches to its definition and solution. The rabbinic view
is clearly portrayed in b. Eruv. 54b. The rabbis claimed to possess
not merely traditions handed on from remote antiquity, but exact words
orally dictated by Moses to Aaron and onward, and orally transmitted
thereafter. That is a very different allegation from the mere claim of
possessing traditions. We noted that the rabbinic view is taken over
without much qualification by representative modern scholars and
projected backward to the period "long before the destruction of the
Second Temple." We further discerned the operative assumptions in
the minds of such scholars, primarily, that the content of sayings is
to be taken at face value; secondarily, that the presence of mnemonic
patterns in itself signifies a background of oral transmission. I argued
that mnemonic patterns may testify about intent concerning the future
transmission of a text set forth according to such a pattern, but cannot
tell us anything about what the author of that text drew upon in
preparing his text and making his arrangement. We observed that
traditions external to Scriptures among other Jewish sects were written
down. We do not know whether all such traditions were preserved
c
N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III
11
162
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
in writing, but it suffices to note that considerable materials were so

transmitted. That shows no environmental or technological barriers
stood in the way of writing down traditions.
In examining allegations that mnemonic patterns signify oral com
position and transmission, we reviewed the results of Milman Parry
and found that while those results may be pertinent to apodoses of
Houses-pericopae (but little else), they do not relate to the protases.
This would mean, following Parry's reasoning, that the opening state
ments of Houses-pericopae were not orally transmitted, and the clos
ing ones were. The argument from mnemonic evidences therefore
does not greatly advance the solution of the problem.
We then noted that scholars in other fields have been unable defini
tively to demonstrate the originally oral formulation and transmission
of materials. That materials were transmitted orally seems beyond
question. That the master to whom they are attributed dictated them
in exactly their present form is beyond proof at this stage. We further
noted that in cultures in which materials apparently were shaped with
out the aid of writing and certainly thereafter transmitted primarily
by memory, experts with significant social tasks carried on the work.
The Iranian gosan presented a viable model. While from 'Aqiba on
ward we hear of the existence of the Tanna, who served the schools
as a 'living book' in much the way the gosan served the Parthian and
Sasanian court as a minstrel, we have no evidence of the existence of
such an institutionalization of the pattern of oral transmission for the
period before 70, and we do have much evidence of another means
of preservation and handing on materials, namely, the scribe, as well as
sufficient evidence of his work.
The allegation of biblical scholars that originally oral traditions have
been transcribed and are now before us, separated from the theological
claims brought in evidence, seemed to yield the same sort of problems
that face the scholars of Buddhism. But the exact definition of what is
claimed did not become clear. That some kind of oral traditions lie
behind elements of biblical literature seems beyond cavil. To claim
that the literature before us preserves, in their original form, oral
formulations which were for a long time orally transmitted seems to
me to exceed the limits of evidence. One may suppose some things were
intended to be memorized, particularly where one finds metrical forms
and other apparently mnemonic patterns. That seems to me all one
may conclude with much certainty.
We turned, finally, to theories deriving from psychology and an-
ORAL
TRADITIONS
163
thropology, but found little help. Jousse's theory seems to me to go

far beyond his data. But since he uses Latin and French translations
in his discussion of biblical and rabbinic sayings, it is not always
easy to follow precisely what he thinks to prove. Vansina's evidence
is superior to anything available to historians, and his analysis of it
seems to me impeccable. Unfortunately, while his discussion is illumi
nating and suggestive, the facts that he can demonstrate precisely
how and where materials were first shaped orally and then handed on
orally, and that we cannot, make it difficult to come to insight signifi
cant for our purposes.
x i . ORAL TRADITIONS
We have reason to suppose the Pharisees possessed traditions apart

from Scriptures. The testimonies of two independent sources, Jose
phus and the Gospels, as well as of the rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees, are clear on that point. If for the moment we make the
unlikely assumption that the b. Shab. 30b-31a story about Shammai and
Hillel accurately reports what Shammai and Hillel actually said to the
potential converts, we may grant that the theory of two Torahs, one
in writing, the other oral, was held by both masters. Gamaliel (or
Yohanan b. Zakkai) explains to Agenitos that there were two Torahs.
Josephus's evidence is more credible and quite unequivocal: the
Pharisees did possess traditions apart from Scriptures. In War II, 162-3
(Antiquities XIII, 171-3), the Pharisees are referred to as the most
accurate interpreters of the laws. Here we find no reference to orally
transmitted or other external traditions. But in his later story of John
Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, Antiquities XIII, 293ff., Josephus adds
a reference to traditions, although without specifying oral transmis
sion, let alone oral formulation of ipsissima verba:
For the present I wish merely to explain that the Pharisees had passed
on to the people certain regulations handed down by former genera
tions and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they
are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regula
tions should be considered valid which were written down [Marcus
adds: in Scripture], and that those which had been handed down by
former generations need not be observed....
(Antiquities XIII, 297-8, trans. Ralph Marcus,
p. 377)
If we had no preconception about oral tradition, this passage would
not have led us to such an idea. It could as well pertain to a document
164
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
like the Manual of Discipline as to to lay/not to lay. But even if Josephus

meant to refer to traditions not written down at all, from his saying
that the Sadducees did not observe the traditions of the fathers (legon
ekiena [the Sadducees] dein hegeisthai nomina ta gegrammena, ta d
ek paradoseos ton pateron me terein), one cannot forthwith derive
the picture of formulation and transmission given by b. Eruv. and
similar narratives, or by modern scholars such as Gerhardsson.
I must stress: / / is one thing to allege that the fathers had handed on
traditions external to Scriptures, even not writing them down at all. It is
quite another to claim that the extra-Scriptural traditions of the Pharisees
are in substance and also in form precisely the ones laid down by Moses, in
the very language of Moses himself. This Josephus does not allege. But if he
did, we should have to point out that he wrote Antiquities at, or shortly
after, the very time that the Yavnean Pharisees were arranging and
transmitting Mishnah in conformity with the picture he would have
drawn. In Antiquities XVIII, 12-15, we find no reference to a doctrine
handed on orally, merely stress on belief in Pharisaic foresight, pre
destination, and the like. The Sadducees, he stresses (XVIII, 16) follow
no observance outside of the laws. In Life 2, he refers to the Pharisees
as having points of resemblance to the Stoic school; in Life 38 he speaks
of the Pharisees as experts in "their country's laws." That is the whole
picture (note Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time
ojJesus Christ [Edinburg, 1885, trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie]
II, ii, pp. 2-5).
Interestingly, the Mishnaic materials on the Perushim and Sedduqim
(assuming that Perushim means Pharisees) are equally reticent about
the existence of an oral tradition as a point of difference between the
sects. M. Yad. 4:6 concerns the uncleanness of Holy Scriptures; M. Yad.
4:7 pertains to cleanness rules; M. Yad. 4:8 is about the use of the
name of the governor in bills of divorce; M. Hag. 2:7, about the gar
ments of the Perushim as midras for those who eat heave-offering; M.
'Eruv. 6:2 concerns the Sadducean disbelief in the eruv; M. Mak. 1:6
relates a dispute about executing false witnesses; M. Par. 3:7, about
the burning of the red heifer; and M. Nid. 4:2 says Sadducean women
who follow the ways of their fathers are therefore like Samaritans, but
if they follow the ways of Israel, they are like Israelitesa saying in
present form by the time of Yosi.
The references of the Synoptic Gospels to "the tradition of the
elders" (Mark 7:4, Matt. 15:2) are consistent with Josephus's picture.
What characterized the Pharisees was firm belief in paradosis ton
y
ORAL
165
TRADITIONS
presbuteron (Mark 7:4); Josephus similarly refers to nomima polla

tina paredosan to demo hoi Pharisaioi ek pateron diadoxes, haper oiik
anagegraptai en tois Mouseos nomois.
Paradosis in NT means tradition "only in the sense of what is trans
mitted, not of transmission," so F. Buchsel, in G. Kittel, ed., Theologi
cal Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids, 1964), p. 172.1 am not clear on what is being excluded
by not of transmission. Buchsel seems to say that paradosis means the
content of tradition without specific reference to the method of trans
mission. This would agree with the view that it was claimed the
Pharisees have a tradition in addition to Scripture, not that the tradi
tion was transmitted in a peculiar way.
Josephus thus does not say the Pharisees have a non-literary tradition.
They have a tradition, but this is not the law of Moses. It is beside the law
of Moses. We not only do not have a reference to oral transmission, we do
not even have an unequivocal Pharisaic reference to an oral Torah or to
two Torahs. Guided by Josephus and the Gospels, we should have
concluded the Pharisees claimed they possessed traditions from olden
times. We should not have supposed such traditions were alleged to
have been orally formulated and transmitted. We should not even have
called such traditions the Oral Torah (Torah shebe al peh). In this
respect, the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees can scarcely be said
to differ.
The theory of Louis Finkelstein is that some traditions about early
times were available in the form of brief allusions or catchwords.
Finkelstein states (in "The Transmission of the Early Rabbinic Tradi
t i o n s , " / / ^ ^ Union College Annual 16, 1940, pp. 115-136; quotation
on pp. 115-117):
c
As is well known, the Rabbinic traditions were handed down orally

for many centuries. It was thought a sacrilege to put them into writ
ing, for that was considered an attempt to add to the Scriptures. Only
when the mass of tradition grew to such proportions as to tax even
the most prodigious memory, did the ancient Sages agree to commit
the oral traditions to writing. Before that time the Mishnah, the Tosefta,
and the Tannaitic Midrashim, as well as the vaster Talmudic discussions,
were studied by rote in the academies and quoted from memory. Never
theless, they were preserved with precision and accuracy; evidence
of the love bestowed on the Torah, as well as the mental prowess
and diligence of the ancient students.
There is reason to think that as an aid to memory, students developed
the habit of formulating certain phrases in each tradition, which served
as pegs on which the unformulated portion depended. In later times
166
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
these formulated phrases were reduced to writing and formed the

shorthand notes, by which much of our tannaitic tradition was pre
served during the centuries before it was completely edited and put
into writing. Such notes were perhaps not used in the study of the
Mishna, which was the basic text of the academies, and which everyone
was supposed to know. The notes were employed for the baraitot, the
traditions which had been compiled by the older scholars as parallel
studies to the Mishna. And apparently the notes were used more fre
quently for informal aggadic study, than for that of the more formal
halaka.
Elsewhere I have shown that the variant versions of the aggadic texts,
which have been preserved in the tannaitic midrashim, frequently have
some written texts at their base. This can be seen from the fact that
errors which could only have arisen in written copies are found in both
versions. But at the same time the variant forms of the text show a
certain fluidity which indicates that while part of the text the catch
wordswere written down, the major part was left to be reconstructed
from memory by the person reciting the passage.
In certain instances...the catchwords were fixed, before they were
reduced to writing. While the texts of the various versions of the
baraitot differ from one another considerably, they all contain these
fixed catchwords. Yet other evidence proves conclusively that in these
instances, the fixed catchwords were transmitted orally rather than in
writing.
Thus there emergefiveforms in which traditions were handed down:
I. T h e a n e c d o t a l f o r m . T h i s is t h e p r i m i t i v e t r a d i t i o n , n o p a r t o f w h i c h
is f o r m u l a t e d in fixed w o r d s o r p h r a s e s . T h e t r a d i t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d
o n l y s o f a r as t h e b a s i c idea o r s t o r y is c o n c e r n e d .
I I . T h e s e m i - n o r m a t i v e f o r m . T h i s is t h e stage in w h i c h t h e t r a d i t i o n
h a s a s s u m e d fixed f o r m in r e g a r d t o c e r t a i n c a t c h w o r d s , w h i c h a p
p e a r in all its v e r s i o n s . It still r e m a i n s a n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , n o p a r t s h a v e
been committed to writing.
III. T h e f u l l y f o r m u l a t e d o r a l t r a d i t i o n o r n o r m . I n t h i s stage, a n e d i t o r
o r t e a c h e r h a s d e c i d e d t o t r a n s m i t t h e o l d e r idea o r s t o r y in a fixed
f o r m , his s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y m e m o r i z e t h e w o r d s i n w h i c h h e expresses
t h e idea o r tells t h e s t o r y .
I V . T h e earliest w r i t t e n f o r m . T h i s d e r i v e s n o t f r o m III b u t f r o m I I .
Instead o f b e i n g s u b m i t t e d t o final f o r m u l a t i o n , in a n o r m a t i v e f o r m ,
t h e t r a d i t i o n is h a n d e d d o w n t h r o u g h t h e c a t c h w o r d s i n d i c a t e d u n
d e r I I ; b u t t o assist t h e m e m o r y f u r t h e r , t h e s e c a t c h w o r d s a r e c o m
mitted to writing.
V.
T h e w r i t t e n text. T h i s m a y emerge either o u t o f III o r o u t o f I V .
It seems to me that some of the allusions to stories listed above

(pp. 43-45) may have been handed on for a long time before the
stories themselves were actually worked out, in some small measure
in accord with those allusions. For instance, Yosef b. Yo'eêr had
a son who did not behave properly alludes to a story about, let us
ORAL
TRADITIONS
167
suppose, disinheritance. But the story that is told has little to do

either with Yosi or with disinheritance. Joshua b. Perahiah thrust one
of his disciples away with both hands could, in a general way, have led
to the formulation of a story about Jesus, or stories about Jesus already
circulating independently could have been assigned to Joshua. More
striking still, Simeon's hanging women in Ashqelon is attested at
early Yavneh by the comment of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. There we have
verification for a number of not very central elements in the long
narrative: the name of Simeon b. Shetah, Ashqelon, eighty, and hang
ing. The rest comes later. These are the sorts of traditions that could
have come down from ancient days (though the one about Jesus and
Joshua is not one of them). They would represent what Finkelstein
calls "the primitive tradition, no part of which is formulated in fixed
words or phrases." But even here, we cannot hold that the tradition
has reached final form even so far as the basic idea or story-line is
concerned. As to the "semi-normative" form and the rest, we can
say nothing.
We now must reiterate as clearly as possible the central issue.
It is not whether there were traditions or whether they were handed
on in some form, perhaps oral. All evidence points toward the exist
ence of a claim of possessing extra-Scriptural traditions among all
parties of ancient Judaism, Essene-Qumranian, Pharisaic, and Saddu
cean. Some were in writing; others probably were not. The issue is
not whether we find terms like 'tradition,' 'to pass on as tradition,'
and 'to receive as tradition' (paradosis, paradidonai, paralambanein).
These terms are adequately attested. In this reply to Smith's review
{Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity [Copenhagen, 1964] p.
7) Gerhardsson satisfactorily phrases the real issue:
We might ask a simple and purely historical question: What was
meant in this particular milieu by 'tradition' and how, practically
speaking, did they set about transmitting this traditionpractical
tradition (not expressed in words) and verbal tradition (articulated:
oral or written?) / / is with verbal tradition that we shall be chiefly concerned
here. [Italics supplied].
It is alleged not merely that traditions of one sort or another existed,
whether set down in writing or not. The claim is that materials were
formulated "verbally," meaning without being written down, and
then transmitted only orally. To his credit Gerhardsson thus accepts
Smith's distinction and recognizes its force: transmission, and not
merely tradition, of the exact words of a teacher just as he spoke them
168
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
or formulated them orally, and not merely of a general recollection

of his message.
Gerhardsson's allegation is that, "When we have determined what
the situation was at this particular time [from Aqiba onward] and
in this particular sphere, we can trace a course backward in time to
the Palestinian milieu of the first century A.D. and then to early
Christianity and Jesus." This seems to me dubious. The evidence on
Yavneh, middle and late but not early, is unequivocal, as I shall sug
gest (p. 171). But we are able to propose a theory to explain that evi
dence in its own place and time. Any effort to infer from the data
that practices well-established at Yavneh applied before that time will
have to depend upon the formulation of some other theory to account
for the same facts differently. And such a theory cannot, for the reasons
adduced above, simply point to the admitted presence of mnemonic
patterns (which Gerhardsson and others ignore) as evidence of what
lay before, and behind, those patterns, for, as we have noted and shall
again stress, mnemonic patterns prove only that the persons who fram
ed them intended that they should be the means for learning tradi
tions. In fact, they come at Yavneh and no earlier. They do not prove
that the person who wrote them down drew upon an antecedent oral
tradition. Literary evidence is written, not oral, and the facts it supplies
are about how people wrote things down, not about what they drew
upon in their writing. We cannot allege without any support whatever
that what Aqiba and his contemporaries did was not new and may
readily be assigned to any earlier timeeven (!) to the "Scriptural
sources themselves" (Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transmission, p.
12).
c
Gerhardsson's allegation of continuities between Yavnean and ear

lier "pedagogical" practices seems to me unsupported by the data,
and the arguments consequently are not conclusive. Pedagogical con
servatism in general tells us nothing about pedagogical innovation in
particular situations and for particular reasons. There is no evidence
that, as he claims, it was part of the "conscious program [of Pharisaism]
to preserve the words and customs of the fathers inviolate." Hillel's
words in M. <Ed. 1:3 are explained as identical to those of his masters,
yet the very same passage in which that is alleged shows quite the
contrary: Shema'iah and Abtalion are given different words from
Hillel's. That would seem to me to prove the very opposite of what
is alleged in the subscription. Such proofs by themselves mean little.
But when such a passage is used to demonstrate "verbal tradition,"
ORAL
TRADITIONS
169
it becomes important to point out it may demonstrate tradition, but

not "verbal" tradition.
Gerhardsson claims that rabbinic pedagogics "have a long history,
which can be traced far back into Old Testament times" (p. 15). That
seems to me to beg the question. We are supposed to assign to the Pha
risees and later rabbis practices for which OT antecedents are claimed.
But the Pharisaic traditions of the rabbis persistently, and nearly uniquely
for their time, ignore nearly the whole range of types of biblical
literature, and bypass every form in which biblical materials are shaped.
That again points to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the rabbis'
Pharisees paid slight attention to the forms of biblical tradition, which
calls into question allegations of other sorts of continuity as well.
The first allegation that someone has a tradition formulated and
transmitted orally in precisely the language in which that tradition
now is repeated pertains to Yohanan b. Zakkai, via Eliezer b. Hyr
canus and Joshua b. Hananiah. The pertinent passages are as follows:
R. Joshua said, "I have received as a tradition from Rabban Yohanan
b. Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher,
as a halakhah given to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to
declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or to bring nigh, but to remove
afar those that were brought near by violence, and to bring near those
that were removed by violence."
(M. <Ed. 8:7)
The antecedent tradition is as follows:
R. Joshua and R. Judah b. Bathyra testified that the widow of one
who belonged to an I sab family was eligible for marriage with a priest...
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "We accept your testimony, but
what shall we do, for Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai decreed that courts
may not be set up concerning this. The priests would hearken to you
in what concerns putting away, but not in what concerns bringing
near."
(M. <Ed. 8:3)
The latter is specific, legal, and credible; it would pertain to Yavneh.
The former is aggadah and has nothing to do with a legal question.
But it is the first reference to exact words supposedly orally formulated
by a master (Moses), then orally transmitted, and now set down in
writing.
Joshua likewise alludes to words of Yohanan b. Zakkai (M. Sot.
5:2, 5), but in that instance those words in fact were not formulated
in a fixed, oral lemma; indeed Yohanan's statement was either
lost or suppressed, or it was not given any sort of official formulation
170
MNEMONICS
at all. So when Joshua heard something along the lines of what Yoha
nan had allegedly said to him, he referred to the tradition, but not
to a fixed lemma in which the teaching was formulated.
The same allegation concerning Yohanan derives from Eliezer:
On that day...they voted and decided that Ammon and Moab
should give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year.
And when R. Yosi the son of the Damascene came to R. Eliezer
in Lydda, he said to him, "What new thing did you have in the house
of study today?"
He said to him, "They voted and decided that Ammon and Moab
give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year."
R. Eliezer wept and said, The secret of the Lord is with them that
fear him, and he will show them his covenant (Ps. 25:14). Go and tell them,
Be not anxious by reason of your voting, for I have received a tradition
from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his
teacher from his teacher, as a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai, that
Ammon and Moab give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year."
(M. Yad. 4:3)
66
Eliezer's assertion, in the same words as the decision, comes in ref

erence to the on that /^-traditions concerning Gamaliel's deposition.
This case is better evidence than those deriving from Joshua's circle
that to Yohanan were attributed orally formulated and orally trans
mitted traditions, and that those traditions were alleged to have deriv
ed in exactly their present form from Sinai. But the very sayings of
Moses through Yohanan never survived in their original form! We
should not have known them had not Eliezer and Joshua quoted them.
And Eliezer quoted his only when able to do so, after Gamaliel II
was out of power. So if Yohanan's saying had earlier been given fixed
form, and if this was done orally, and if it was thereupon taught to
Eliezer for memorization and oral transmission, then that saying none
theless was not published, for only Eliezer knew about it. The others
were in the dark, so had to vote. This pericope hardly conforms to
the picture of the oral formulation and transmission of a public tradi
tion, the Oral Torah.
Furthermore the allegation itself is incredible. The imposition of a
modified form of Palestinian land-taxes on Ammon and Moab implies
the claim that they should be dependencies of the land of Israel. Perhaps
we here have territorial claims of the Jewish regime, claims which could
only be realized over the dead bodies of the now predominantly gentile
inhabitants of Ammon and Moab. So thirty years after his death
Yohanan is discovered to have been a crypto-revolutionary. The con-
ORAL
TRADITIONS
171
tent of the saying is as suspicious as its form. Both probably are

fraudulent. Eliezer himself was in excommunication and never had an
opportunity to deny the purported revelation at the actual consistory.
So the story is apt to come not from Eliezer, but from the consistory
of ca. 100 or thereafter. It does indeed give good evidence that at
that time the words of masters were believed to be formulated orally
and transmitted through the memories of disciples, and I take it as
fact that that was the case.
Perhaps it was alleged by Yohanan, on the basis of Joshua's citation,
that he possessed the exact words revealed by Moses at Sinai. The
evidence is not very persuasive, but one cannot routinely dismiss it.
So the first claim, possibly coming around the time of Yohanan, very
likely among his disciples, is that one has accurate traditions of the
essential content of the ancient Torah.
Certainly, among the next generation of Yavneh comes the further,
and directly consequent, claim, that these accurate traditions are not
merely of the content, but of the exact words orally formulated and
handed on earlier.
The third stage then is the effort to replicate that mnemonic
process in the formulation and transmission of Yavnean materials.
As we saw, the picture of Moses' oral formulation and transmission
of traditions certainly characterized rabbinic masters by the time of
Judah b. Ilai, hence ca. 150. So between ca. 100 and ca. 150 the process
described in b. Eruv. 54b probably took shape.
The Yavneans from Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah
onward do make reference to the oral formulation and transmission
of teachings. Eliezer and Aqiba in b. Eruv. 54b leave no doubt on
this question. R. Tarfon refers to hearing a tradition: "I heard but I
could not explain." R. Joshua says, "Thus have I heard plain ($TM)"
(M. Par. 1:1). R. 'Aqiba (Mekhilta de Ishmael to Ex. 21:1, Lauterbach,
III, p. 1 = b. Eruv. 54b), teaches that one must repeat a tradition
until it has been learned. I see no reason to doubt that to Yavneans it
was important to claim the Oral Torah was orally formulated and
preserved, and not in writing.
These sayings moreover are quite congruent to the literary data we
have examined, all of which point toward Yavneh for the beginnings
both of those forms that seemed clearly defined, and for those mnemoni
cally structured and balanced pericopae that seemed susceptible to
dating at all. While the beginnings of the process may be with Joshua
and Eliezer, it probably was 'Aqiba who most fully developed them,
c
172
S M A L L UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
for it was he who set forth the foundations of the Mishnah, and it
was in his time that the institution of the Tanna, memorizer and
reciter, is first referred to.
Thus, as I said, from the claim of exact verbal tradition, which may
have been made by Yohanan b. Zakkai, but certainly was made by
his disciples, the rabbis progressed to the claim of imitating Moses*
actual procedure. This, by all accounts, was the achievement of 'Aqiba
and his contemporaries. The procedure was, from our perspective,,
anachronistic. It obviously did not accord with the technological
attainments of the day or with long-established procedures.
Saul Lieberman describes the process of formulating and transmiting the Mishnah in "The Publication of the Mishnah" {Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners
of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.IV Century CE. [N.Y., 1950],
pp. 83-99). He asks, Was the Mishnah published? That is, either did
professional copyists hear it dictated and write it down? Or did an
authentic original take written form, and was it then deposited in an
archive? Some Jewish books were published in the second way, that
is, they were written and deposited. However, Lieberman notes,
"Since in the entire Talmudic literature we do not find that a book
of the Mishnah was ever consulted in case of controversies or doubt
concerning a particular reading, we may safely conclude that the com
pilation was not published in writing." Rabbis did possess written
halakhot and comments, but they were private notes without legal
authority, with no more authority than an oral assertion (p. 87).
The Mishnah was published in a different way: "A regular oral.. .edi
tion of the Mishnah was in existence, a fixed text recited by the Tan
naim of the college. The Tanna (repeater, reciter) committed to memory
the text of certain portions of the Mishnah, which he subsequently recited
in the college in the presence of the great masters of the Law...When
the Mishnah was committed to memory and the Tannaim recited it in the
college it was thereby published..." The authority of the college-Tanna
("a word apparently first used for college-reciter in the time of'Aqiba,"
Lieberman, p. 88, n. 39) was that of a "published book" (p. 89).
What was the nature of that living book? "How was the mass of
diverse material arranged and systematized before it was delivered
to the Tanna, before he memorized it?" (p. 90) At the time of'Aqiba,
the body of the Mishnah comprised only the opinions of the represent
atives of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel and their precedessors
(p. 93). 'Aqiba organized matters, sifting through the whole and crys-
ORAL
TRADITIONS
173
tallizing it in an exact and definite shape. His work resulted in the

compilation of a new Mishnah (p. 93).
Then the procedure was as follows: "The Master taught the new
Mishnah to the first Tanna; afterwards he taught it to the second
Tanna" and so on. After the Mishnah was systematized and the Tan
naim knew it thoroughly by heart, they repeated it in the college in
the presence of the master, who supervised the recitation and corrected
it and give it its final form (p. 93). The disciples of 'Aqiba continued
the work, adding comments, and developed a large number of differ
ent versions of the Mishnah. Judah the Patriarch then undertook a
new edition. His Mishnah was virtually canonized, the rest were declar
ed external, with only secondary authority in comparison with the Mish
nah of Judah.
I think it significant that Lieberman nowhere in the article
alludes to the form of the materials used by 'Aqiba or claims
that the antecedent materials had come down via oral traditions of
mnemonically and orally formulated lemmas. Since the evidence of
what lay before 'Aqiba is insufficient, Lieberman apparently pre
ferred to express no opinion on that question.
So here we have the picture of the way in which a tradition was
formulated orally. Someone made up a sentence and dictated it to
memorizers, who then mastered the tradition and constituted its tes
timonies. For that purpose, it was necessary to formulate matters in
the mnemonic patterns we have isolated (among others), and we may
account for such mnemonics as those of the Houses, possibly also (but
this is far less clear) for the well-defined forms, within the theory
herein presented. Now the picture of b. 'Eruv. 54b conforms to an
isolable situation. We may draw on it for evidence of practices before
the time of Judah b. Ilai.
Why should 'Aqiba and his successors have adopted such an
unwieldy means for the formulation and transmission of Mishnah?
One can hardly argue that technical limitations played a role; as I
said, writing was sufficiently commonplace for the Qumranians and
Christians to transmit materials through that medium. It seems to
me the likelier explanation derives from the claim laid forth by the
early Yavneans: the law of the Pharisaic party, now applied with
Roman support in Jewish Palestine by the patriarchal-rabbinic courts,
but formerly unknown to, or ignored by, the masses of Jews, is not
simply sectarian fiat. Jewry now for the first time is called to live
by the Torah of Moses, the whole Torah of Sinai, and is taught to do
174
MNEMONICS
so by men who possess the authentic traditions revealed at Sinai. No

one ignored Scriptures. But to those Sadducees who adhered to the
view that all Moses had revealed was a Written Torah, to those rem
nants of other groups that had had their own written traditions in
addition to Scripture, and above all, to those ordinary folk who knew
nothing other than Scriptures and local customs, elements of the
rabbinic Torah must have proved alien. The authority of the new class
of judges and bureaucrats surely rested on little more than Roman
fiat. The claim of Mosaic "authorship" for the rabbinic Torah and
the authentication of the rabbis, through their master Moses, of that
Torah, in the very manner and oral forms in which it was originally
giventhese allegations must have represented powerful propaganda.
Acting out Moses mode of formulating and transmitting his
Torah was even more persuasive. The outsider, made aware that what
rabbis said was memorized, and that the rabbis memorized just as
had Moses, Aaron, and all the elders, prophets, and sages from Sinai
to the present day, perhaps would not have been unimpressed. The
Roman support for patriarchal-rabbinic government thus was made to
seem incidental und unimportant. The authority of the rabbis derived
from Moses, not from Rome. When 'Aqiba later on supported the
anti-Roman movement culminating in the Bar Kokhba revolution,
he would not have compromised his position by collaboration with
Rome.
So it seems to me plausible that what the early Yavneans did in
formulating traditions in mnemonic patterns and teaching them in
the manner described in b. 'Eruv. was to act out that part of the
Torah-myth most pertinent to their political needs. The processes of
formulating and handing on the law were ritualized: one repeats so
and so many times, no fewer, no more; one arranges traditions to
facilitate memorization, which by this time (if not long before) was
an unnatural means of composition and transmission of materials.
What seems to us its anachronism constituted part of its appeal.
One nonetheless wonders, To whom would such a set of rituals
based upon the rabbinic Torah-myth have appealed? People not part
of the schools could not have known a great deal of what went on in
them, and we know of only a few schools, none in Galilee, before
140. Sadducees and Essenes such as had survived could not have been
any more persuaded by what the rabbinic heirs of Pharisaism now did
than by the claims of the sect before 70. The common folk cannot be
supposed to have known from mere observation just what the rabbis'
ORAL
175
TRADITIONS
gestures meant, or how they had received the laws they enforced in
courts. So it seems to me the imitation of Moses's pedagogy was impor
tant primarily to the rabbis themselves. In that case Aqiba and those
around him may have proceeded along the lines described in b. Eruv.
on account of considerations essentially internal to the rabbinic move
ment itself, rather than for the consumption of outsiders.
This theory attempts to account for several sets of facts. First,
early Yavneans referred to oral traditions. Second, they formulated
teachings of the Houses in obvious mnemonic patterns. Hence it was
important to them that the traditions of the Houses thenceforward
be memorized, not allowed to depend only upon written materials.
Third, other sorts of traditions seem to have been set forth in disciplin
ed forms created in Yavnean times. It may be possible to account
for these facts in other ways. As we shall see in the next chapter, while
we do have pre-70 traditions in abundance, we have almost no rem
nants of pre-70 traditions in their exact pre-70 formulation, so it will
be hard to invent a great many new facts.
Gerhardsson formulates for us still another widespread claim: One
may verify as early some rabbinic traditions, attributed either to the
Pharisees or to later rabbis, by parallel assertions in earlier literature:
c
It is possible to grasp the fundamentals in the oldest 'layers' of the Rab

binic tradition and to find correspondences in older literature, often
in the Old Testament. We are able to fix datesat least to some extent
by referring to Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the remaining 'intertestamental' literature (p. 16).
We indeed find in rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, and, still
more commonly, in later rabbinic and medieval traditions, sayings,
ideas, themes, and stories similar to materials in earlier, but not Phari
saic or rabbinic, compilations. In data we have considered, examples
are the Yannai/Simeon b. Shetah materials, some of which seem based
on Josephus-narrativesbut then not involving Simeon b. Shetah
and some legal correspondences between Qumranian and Pharisaic
law. Hunters after parallels have come up with numerous examples
of sayings and stories, Scriptural comments, and other sorts of tradi
tions, which occur in Apocryphal, Pseudegraphical, and Qumranian
writings, Philo, New Testament and Patristic literature, and the like,
on the one side, and, in somewhat similar ways, in Targumim, or in
rabbinic collections of midrashim, early, late, and medieval, on the
other. The inference usually drawn from such parallels is that the
176
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
late rabbinic materials are thereby "verified as early," as Gerhardsson

states. And indeed, that is the case.
So we must concede that if a comment on a biblical figure occurs
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or Philo, on the one side,
and in a late Talmudic or medieval compilation of rabbinic sayings,
on the other, then the substance of that comment has already occurred
to someone long before late Talmudic or medieval times. We must
now ask, What conclusions are to be drawn?
One conclusion, routinely reached, is that congruence or similarity
proves in this instance the antiquity of the rabbinic 'tradition.' That
invariably is forthwith interpreted (whether articulately or otherwise)
to mean that the ancient Pharisees, five or ten centuries earlier, had
said such a thing, that the writer of the Patriarchal Testament, or
Philo, heard it from Pharisees, and in writing it down, exhibited his
affinity with, or even dependence upon, rabbinic authority or tradition.
Such an interpretation is possible because it is further assumed (but
rarely made explicit) that everything in Pharisaic-rabbinic compila
tions, early and late, is quintessentially Pharisaic, then rabbinic, and
nothing has been taken into that compilation and retroactively Pharisaized and rabbinized. The pan-Pharisaists hold that mere occurrence
in a rabbinic document signifies the presence of Pharisaism-rabbinism,
and this by definition. What is not defined, however, is what one
means by Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, or what will characterize some
thing as uniquely Pharisaic in origin or essence.
A second, closely related, and equally ubiquitous assumption is
that similarities show parallels, parallels reveal sources, and sources
demonstrate dependence. The source of all sources is Pharisaic-rabbi
nic tradition. Therefore if a saying appears early in Philo, and late
in a medieval compilation of midrashim (whether attributed to an early
master or anonymous, and pseudepigraphical considerations are rarely
attended to), then Philo presumably has borrowed from Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. Less defensible still, it is assumed that Christian
exegetes, philosophers, and tradents always borrowed from Jewish
ones, never contrarywise. One might readily suppose, for instance,
that since Mark 10:2-10 looks much like a Pharisaic-rabbinic debate
in form, the Christian tradent has borrowed a form from Pharisaic-rab
binic literary conventions; therefore we have another instance of early
Christian dependence upon rabbinic Judaism.
But a similarity is just that; parallel lines do not meet. The fact
of a parallel form or idea, standing by itself, may prove only that two
ORAL
TRADITIONS
177
men in the same country and social class reached a similar aesthetic
or religious conclusion, at much the same time, about much the same
literary or theological problem, normally a difficulty provoked by the
same Bible. That one borrowed from the other on the face of it is
not a necessary and uncontingent conclusion. But if a late rabbinic
compilation does contain an idea found in a pre-Christian sectarian
document, one may more reasonably suppose that the compiler of
that collection knew the pre-Christian sectarian document, than that
the pre-Christian sectarian writer knew the late rabbinic compilation.
The implications of the oral theory of the formulation and transmis
sion of Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions thus lead to the unnatural con
clusions that everything was floating into the Pharisaic-rabbinic "air,"
and appearance in a particular collection edited at a particular time
implies nothing about the origins or provenance of that particular
tradition. I think the opposite on the face of it is more congruent to
probabilities.
Summary: The Pharisees certainly possessed traditions external to
the written Scriptures. The evidence of Josephus and the New Testa
ment is consistent on this point: Pharisees claimed to have paradosis,
tradition. But Josephus's discussion lends little support for the theory
that the Pharisees claimed to possess the Oral Torah dictated by Moses
and handed on thereafter in the memories, but not in the writings,
of prophets and sages. They have a tradition, but this is not described
as part of the law of Moses. Josephus makes no reference to a Pharisaic
claim that that tradition derives from Moses. He says it is from
"the fathers." He makes no reference either to an oral Torah or two
Torahs. And all the allegations about traditions from the fathers come
only in Antiquities, written after the process of formulation in the
Oral Torah had begun at Yavneh, in part in order to persuade the
Romans of the Pharisees' merits as rulers of Jewish Palestine.
We found ourselves able to follow part of the allegation of Louis
Finkelstein that some rabbinic traditions, in primitive form, may have
been handed on in fixed words or phrases, which conveyed the basic
idea or story. But the specific items available in the materials before
us do not add up to much.
We then reviewed Gerhardsson's assertion that a "verbal" tradition
was handed on and that materials were formulated without being written
down and then were transmitted only orally. We observed that Ger
hardsson explicitly claims the pattern clear in 'Aqiba's time was not
178
SMALL UNITS OF
TRADITION AND
MNEMONICS
new, but derived even from biblical times. We looked in vain for
evidence in support of this view.
The evidence we do have points toward beginnings at Yavneh of
the claim that people possessed verbatim traditions framed by ancient
authorities and handed down orally from then on. While such tradi
tions are assigned to Yohanan b. Zakkai, they seem in the end to
belong not to his disciple Eliezer, but to Eliezer's contemporaries.
In the case of Joshua matters are not so clear. His allegation concerns
aggadah. When we find the aggadic teaching translated into legal terms,
it is Simeon b. Gamaliel, certainly the second one, who does it. But
he refers simply to a decree, not to ipsissima verba. Nonetheless, impor
tant Yavnean masters give evidence of a tendency to refer to oral
teachings, of the discipline of oral transmission through mnemonic
means to disciples, and, one need hardly add, of belief in the Oral
Torah.
These evidences conform to the picture earlier adduced from an
examination of forms and the shape of the Houses-apodoses. This
suggests that both the forms of pericopae and the mnemonic elements
in Houses-materials come at the latest from Yavneh in the times of
Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, and 'Aqiba., We further found in Saul
Lieberman's account of the publication of the Mishnah definitive proof
that the Mishnah began with 'Aqiba, that it was not published or
even written down, but that it was to begin with dictated to disciples,
thus orally formulated, and then orally transmitted, primarily by
professional memorizers present in the rabbinic schools, secondarily
in unofficial notes. The picture drawn in b. 'Eruv. 54b therefore con
forms to the realities described by Lieberman. The use of mnemonic
patterns surely testifies to the intentions of the redactors. No claim is
made for ancient origins for the whole corpus of materials, still less
for its present form. The present form derives from Yavneh.
I proposed a theory to account for the facts that Yavneh supplies
us with our earliest evidences of oral formulation and transmission
of materials, and that the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees con
forming to what we suppose to be mnemonic patterns likewise derive
from Yavneh.
Finally, I observed that the tendency of scholars is to find verifica
tions for the antiquity of traditions first appearing on the rabbinic
side in late Talmudic and medieval compilations, in the sectarian
literature of Second Temple times, Josephus, Philo, or New Testament
and Patristic literature. What is verified is only that someone, long
ORAL
TRADITIONS
179
before the medieval compiler, came to the same conclusion. It may

further be alleged that that view is very old. But on that basis one
cannot prove that pre-70 Pharisees held or did not hold the same opin
ion. One moreover cannot claim that the ancient writer who stated
an opinion later on appearing in a rabbinic compilation learned it
from a Pharisaic master, or even that when he said it, he viewed it
as an opinion held by Pharisees. The opposite seems more likely. It
may be more reasonable to suggest that some time between the first
writing down of a tradition, in, e.g., Qumranian writings, or Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha, or Philo, or Josephus, a rabbi heard the tradition
from someone familiar with such literature (excluding the Qumranian
instance), or learned it himself in its original location. But that sort
of suggestion, while on the face of it more reasonable than its opposite,
is meant merely to propose a possible line of reflection and inquiry.
CHAPTER TWENTY
VERIFICATIONS
i. INTRODUCTION
By verification is meant the effort to find a terminus ante quern for the
substance, form, and wording of a pericope in some evidence, in
general, outside of the structure of the pericope itself, and, if possible,
external even to the collection in which it appears. Verification refers
to the determination of the time and circle in which a pericope reach
ed the condition in which we have it. What is verified is the form and
wording of the pericope, not the contents, all the more so not the
traditions that may lie behind it.
There are three ways in which it may be shown that a pericope has
reached its present form and phrasing. First, it may be cited by an
authority entirely external to the rabbinic tradition. That sort of veri
fication is unavailable to us. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel are
never referred to in the other extant contemporary documents, e.g.,
New Testament, Qumranian writings, Apocrypha-Pseudepigrapha,
and Josephus. Some of the named masters occur in Josephus's narra
tive, in particular John Hyrcanus/Yohanan the High Priest, Honi =
Onias, Simeon the Just, and Simeon b. Gamaliel; Gamaliel I is men
tioned in Acts. But these external references indicate knowledge of
only two items of the rabbinic materials we have examined: the heav
enly message to John Hyrcanus and the story of the break between
Jannaeus and the Pharisees. The references merely show these tradi
tions were widespread, not very much older than the date of the
attestation, nor accurate, nor originally Pharisaic.
Second, the final date of compiling a collection in which a story
first occurs commonly supplies the final date for the present form of
all the materials in that collection; subsequent changes will be limited
to textual corruption (minor) and interpolations (probably rare).
Hence Mishnah-Tosefta, which we may for convenience assign to
ca. 200-250, supplies the terminus ante quern for the bulk of the rabbinic
traditions about the Pharisees. The summary-tables for the named
masters show the growth of the traditions about them; Houses-mate
rials appearing in Mishnah-Tosefta are listed (II, pp. 344-353).
INTRODUCTION
181
Third is the internal evidence in the rabbinic traditions, mainly

the attribution to named masters after 70 A.D. of comments or say
ings about pericopae of pre-70 Pharisees. If a later master refers to the
substance and language of the pericope itself, but evidently stands
outside of both, we may suppose that the pericope was known to him,
therefore comes before, or in, his time in pretty much its present form
and wording.
If a Yavneane.g. 'Aqibaactually participates in deciding the
issue of a Houses-dispute, the pericope in its present form probably
did not arise much before his time. An earlier form may have been
available to him, but the fact that he appears in the structure of the
dispute supplies a firm terminus post quern: the dispute in its present
state cannot come before 'Aqiba. But it also suggests that the dispute
derives from a circle of 'Aqiban disciples, and that circle frequently
turns out to be either later Yavneans or early Ushans, thus suggesting
a date of ca. 100 to 150 A.D. In my lists of verifications, I have
assigned both pericopae in which named masters actually participate,
and those on which named masters comment, but from which they
stand apart, to the same master's stratum, unless evidence for a more
precise estimate was available. Therefore, for instance, both 'Aqiba's
appearance in the structure of a pericope and his comment on an
apparently completed pericope, or on one which he himself evidently
completed, for purposes of verification are interpreted the same way.
The pericope belongs to the 'Aqiban part of the Yavnean stratum.
That is an imprecision to be specified at the outset.
My reasoning for this sort of internal verification is based on a num
ber of unproved assumptions. First, I assume that later masters com
monly tried to assign sayings to the man who said them, not to some
earlier and more prestigious authority. If, e.g., something is attributed
to Gamaliel II, I assume that either Gamaliel II actually said what is
attributed to him, or, at least, the tradents of his circle with his ap
proval assigned that saying to himfor our purposes it comes down
to the same thing. But that assumption demonstrably is not always
reliable. For instance we have found Gamaliel II-lemmas coming from
Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, and there are many instances in which the Mish
nah attributes to a man words which the Tosefta says a later authority
made up. But the limited number of such instances of pseudo-attribu
tion suggests that in the main attributions of traditions are reliable.
Hence it is merely an assumption that if Gamaliel II is said to comment
on a Houses-pericope, it was known to him. If the comment takes
182
VERIFICATIONS
into account the actual language of the pericope, it is a further as

sumption that the pericope in its present form was available to him.
Without further evidence I shall not suppose that a later tradent made
the language of the earlier Houses conform to the comment of the
later master. To be sure we have seen the fabrication of Housesdisputes out of opinions of later masters about the opinions of the
Houses. Moreover, such fabrications have involved direct attributions
to the Houses of specific statements. For instance, Simeon's saying
in M. Yad. 3:5 produces a spelled-out Houses-dispute in M. Ed. 5:3.
In such a case the probability is ever present that the later master not
merely supplies the terminus ante quern, but was the actual creator of
the pericope.
It seems to me impossible that the whole literature is pseudepi
graphic in an extreme sense: that it is the product only of the final
circle of redactors and theirs alone. I take for granted that Yavnean
materials were shaped at Yavneh, then handed on to Usha, primarily
through 'Aqiban disciples; Ushan materials were shaped at Usha, then
handed on to Rabbi's circle. So I take very seriously indeed the attri
bution of a saying to a named authority in a particular school and
time. While no one can show the named authority actually said such
a thing, it seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that circles of his
disciples believed he did, and they themselves moreover assumed
what he said was true. The redactional process described in b. 'Eruv.
54b and elsewhere seems to me to allow the assumption that, if not
the man, then the circle of his disciples is accurately to be regarded
as the source of sayings attributed to the man. Hence by "'Aqiba" or
"Joshua" we may mean the 'Aqiban circle or the Joshuan circle. That
may make biography difficult, but it permits other kinds of reasonably
accurate historical inquiry. Those circles presumably did redact and
hand on what now is in their master's name, and what they handed
on reflects what they believed about law and history. What they be
lieved may or may not accurately reflect historical reality, but it is
likely to reflect their own situation.
An example of the consequences of this reasoning is as follows: If
Rava and Abbaye discuss the identity of the Hasmonean king who
troubled the Pharisees, e.g., b. Qid. 66a, or produce an interpolation
in a pericope, then we may suppose the pericope lay before them in
something like its present condition. To be sure, a still later editor
may have revised the pericope to conform to the opinions of those
masters, and this is not infrequently the case, as was manifest in the
c
INTRODUCTION
183
synoptic tables. A second example, already alluded to, comes in a

reference of a Yavnean or later Tanna to the present formulation of
legal issue in a Houses-dispute. This tells us, first, that the issue was
debated at Yavneh or later; second, that it was believed the Houses
had faced the same problem and ruled on it; third, that Yavneans,
Ushans, or circles around Judah the Prince had materials before them
in pretty much their present form and did not thereafter revise them;
finally, that they decided the law and gave the decision to the Hillelites.
I certainly cannot claim that this sort of verification is definitive.
It seems to me the best we now can hope for.
To be sure, some argue that the essential content of a pericope, not
merely the form and wording, may be said to be verified if we find
reason to believe the content accurately reflects the conditions of the
time of which it speaks. Thus Josephus's stories of the later Hasmoneans' relations to the Pharisees may be alleged to verify the rabbinic
stories of tension between Yannai the King and Simeon b. Shetah,
Joshua b. Perahiah, Judah b. Tabbai, Jesus, and others in the first
century B.C. who fled to Alexandria. It seems to me undeniable that
Josephus and the rabbinic tradents possessed traditions about tension
between Yannai and Pharisees. But those traditions are not before us.
All we have are two quite separate sets of stories. We cannot claim
that the detailed Talmudic version is verified because of similarities
to Josephus, for the similarities (excluding b. Qid. 66a) are only in
generalities. The details, that is, the actual course of events which the
talmudic pericopae report, remain unsupported.
The portraits of some masters, Simeon b. Gamaliel in particular,
are not entirely dissimilar in Josephus and in the rabbinic traditions.
But the emphases of the respective literatures are entirely different.
Ben Sira, Josephus, and the rabbinic traditions agree Simeon the Just
was a famous priest. That does not supply verification for any partic
ular item in the third-named corpus, or in the others for that matter.
No detail of the rabbinic traditions of Simeon the Just seems to me
confirmed by Ben Sira and Josephus, other than the obvious one that
he was high priest.
Certain sorts of internal evidence prove less than at first glance they
may seem to. If a story takes for granted that the Temple is still stand
ing, it would be foolish to conclude that it was actually written before 70,
for that conclusion ignores the ability of a later narrator to avoid obvious
anachronism, as any modern story-teller does. If people believed Hillel
flourished in Temple times, they obviously did not make up stories
184
VERIFICATIONS
about how Hillel walked through the Temple ruins. Verisimilitude

cannot be confused with authenticity. Internal evidence, particularly
that deriving from what the narrator set out to tell us, cannot be
regarded as decisive.
Other kinds of internal evidence, which no narrator intentionally
made available to us, are of greater probative value. But they not in
frequently prove the opposite of what the narrator intended. Thus a
Houses-dispute about the limiting force of K cannot have arisen
before 'Aqiban times, when the limiting force of >K was first accepted
as a normative hermeneutical principle. The historical Houses cannot
have debated that problem before 70 A.D., when the subject-matter
of the debate (the pilgrimage to the Temple) actually conformed to
conditions of everyday life. On the other hand, the reader will have
noticed laws that must stand in an orderly sequence. Thus M. Pes. 1:6
(R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said that the priests burned flesh
made unclean from a derived uncleanness together with flesh made
unclean from a primary uncleanness) must precede a dispute of the
Houses on the question of whether that burning takes place within
the court or outside it. The Houses' dispute about whether or not one
may burn unclean flesh with clean flesh must logically come before
the debate as to where the burning should take placeunless we sup
pose the two traditions were at first entirely separate, come from
different circles of tradents, only later were preserved together, and
still later required the harmonization of the legal scholars of Amoraic
and later times. We thus cannot absolutely prove that Hanina's state
ment must come between the two Houses-disputes on whether the
unclean and clean meats are burned together, on the one side, and
on where they are to be burned, on the other.
y
Similarly we may suppose that lists ending with particular authori

ties most often reached their present form, at least in respect to the
names of the authorities, not much later than the last named. Had they
remained open, later names would have been added to them. I cannot
suggest whether the lists were composed all at once, or were augment
ed every twenty or thirty years; on the face of it, the former alter
native seems to me more probable. Hence the following lists may
derive in their present, or nearly present form, from before 70 A.D.:
1 . To lay/not to lay
(M. Hag.
2:2)
T h e list e n d s w i t h S h a m m a i / H i l l e l , s o c a n n o t b e p r i o r t o ca. 2 0 A . D . B u t
it m a y h a v e b e e n f o r m u l a t e d n o t m u c h after t h a t t i m e . T h e H o u s e s - f o r m
185
INTRODUCTION
f o l l o w s t h e m o d e l a n d c a n n o t c o m e m u c h after 7 0 , w h e n it is w e l l a t
t e s t e d ; t h i s s u g g e s t s t h e list is f o r m e d s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n ca. 2 0 a n d ca.
7 0 A . D . T h e Hillel-stories o n t h e s a m e issue a r e u n v e r i f i e d .
2. X + Y decreed uncleanness on
(b. Shab. 14b = y. Shab. 1:4 etc.)
T h e s a m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p e r t a i n h e r e . T h e list is c o n s t r u c t e d o f different
e l e m e n t s , b u t t h e f o r m p o i n t s t o t h e p e r i o d f r o m ca. 2 0 t o ca. 7 0 A . D . ,
c e r t a i n l y n o t e a r l i e r , p o s s i b l y n o t l a t e r . B u t Y o s i b . Halafta d i d n o t k n o w
t h e t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h m a y m e a n it c o m e s c o n s i d e r a b l y l a t e r t h a n ca. 1 5 0 .
S o formal considerations are n o t
decisive.
What I think is verified is the protasis: the names themselves. The

apodoses are another matter. And even the names of M. Hag. 2:2 may
have been reworked in Yavnean times; Meir and Judah supply the
earliest firm terminus ante quern (I, pp. 11-13).
We omit Hananiah Prefect of the Priests from our catalogues. Veri
fications of sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests are part of the
study of the formation of Yavnean materials. He occurs with Yavneans
as follows:
'Aqiba
(Sifra Sav 1:9, M. Pes. 1:6, M. Zev. 9:3, 12:4,
M. <Ed. 2:1-3)
Dosa b. Harkinas, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel
(Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6 = M. Neg. 1:4)
Ishmael and 'Aqiba
(M. Sheq. 4:4)
Ishmael
(M. Men. 10:1)
Nathan
(Sifre Num. 42)
Yosi
(M. Par. 3:1)
II. PERICOPAE WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS BEFORE CA. 200
A.D.
(MISHNAH-TOSEFTA)
Our first catalogue lists pericopae for which we find no evidence

before their occurrence in Mishnah-Tosefta or later compilations.
In some instances we may be reasonably sure that the pericope
derives from after ca. 200. For example, sayings in M. Avot 1:1-18
attributed to Hillel are also said by Sadoq; presumably, had Sadoq
heard them in HillePs name, he would have said so, given the impor
tance of Hillel at Yavneh and afterward. Since he did not attribute
186
VERIFICATIONS
them to Hillel, he presumably did not hear them as Hillel's. Nor did
anyone else, for the tradition was uncorrected, and no one commented
on Sadoq's saying what Hillel had said. It therefore seems that the
first attribution of such sayings to Hillel came long after Sadoq. In
deed, as we observed, not a single saying in M. Avot. 1:1-18 is ever
referred to in the antecedent Tannaitic strata of traditions. Since
numerous traditions pertaining to pre-70 Pharisees are referred to in
the strata between ca. 70 and ca. 200, it stands to reason that, had they
been redacted in their present form, important traditions such as these
would have made some impression and produced some sort of gloss
or allusion, as some of HillePs sayings in Tos. Ber. appear to have
been alluded to by Simeon b. Yohai. The absence of such allusions or
other sorts of verifications suggests the sayings first appeared about
the time of the final stages of the redaction of the list itself.
The same reasoning does not seem to me to apply to other materials
before us. They may not have been alluded to simply because they
were unimportant, or not relevant to materials under discussionthe
historical pericopae, for exampleor they simply were not known in
the circle responsible for the earlier formation of Yavnean and Ushan
traditions. But they were known elsewhere and eventually were taken
over by Judah the Patriarch and his circle. Even for M. Avot 1:1-18
the arguments stated above cannot be regarded as decisive; they are
merely suggestive.
We have no evidence earlier than Mishnah-Tosefta for any of the
following. In some instances, we do have evidence of Amoraic origin,
and this is specified:
1. M. Avot 1:1-18
S o m e o f t h e H i l l e l s a y i n g s o c c u r in t h e n a m e o f S a d o q . N o n e is r e f e r r e d
t o b y T a n n a i m . T h e earliest v e r i f i c a t i o n s c o m e in A m o r a i c s a y i n g s o f t h e
third century.
2. X + Y decreed uncleanness on...

(b. Shab. 14b, y. Shab. 1:4, etc.)
M a y c o m e in A m o r a i c t i m e s , f o l l o w i n g a u t h o r i t i e s l i s t e d i n y . S h a b . ,
since Y o s i b . Halafta k n e w n o t h i n g o f t h e t r a d i t i o n .
3. Simeon the Just and the Nazirite

(Sifre Num. 22)
4. When Simeon the Just died, supernatural events ceased to happen
in the cult
(Tos. Sot. 13:7)
PERICOPAE
WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS
187
5. Simeon the Just and Alexander of Macedonia

(b. Yoma 69a)
6. Simeon the Just prayed too long; predicted his own death.
(y. Yoma 5:2)
Earliest reference: R. A b b a h u
7. Simeon the Just was high priest for forty years, Yohanan for
eighty
(b. Yoma 9a)
R . Y o h a n a n is earliest a u t h o r i t y .
8. Samuel re Lev. 26:44

(b. Meg. 11a)
9. Antigonus of Sokho
(ARNa Chap. 5)
10. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was most pious in priesthood, yet his garments
were susceptible of ^/V/rar-uncleanness
(M. Hag. 2:7)
11. Yosi's son found pearl in fish, gave money to Temple
(b. B.B. 133b)
12. Yaqim of Serurot killed himself
(Gen. R. 65:27)
Perhaps alludes t o ' A q i b a n m a r t y r d o m - s t o r i e s ?
13. Joshua b. Perahiah: Wheat from Alexandria

(Tos. Maksh. 3:4)
14. Joshua b. Perahiah: Hard to leave office
(b. Men. 109b)
15. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus in Alexandria
(b. Sot. 47a)
A f t e r ca. 100
A . D . , b u t n o firm e s t i m a t e is p o s s i b l e .
16. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah re false witnesses

(Mekh. Kaspa)
N o firm e v i d e n c e p e r m i t s a n e s t i m a t e o f a terminus post quern. T h e fact t h a t
t h e d i s p u t e o f M e i r a n d J u d a h o n t h e p r e c e d e n c e o f S i m e o n / J u d a h is
paralleled b y the several versions does not allow assigning the story to
t h e i r t i m e o r b e f o r e , o r after, it f o r t h a t m a t t e r .
17. Rain in days of Simeon b. Shetah/Shelomsu the Queen

Omits J u d a h b. Tabbai.
18. Simeon b. Shetah and Honi's rain-making

(M. Ta. 3:8)
19. Simeon b. Shetah and the marriage-contract
(Tos. Ket. 12:1)
VERIFICATIONS
20. Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai's banquet

(y.
Ber. 7:2)
21. Judah b. Tabbai in Alexandria

(y. Hag. 2:2)
22. Simeon b. Shetah and the witches
(y. Hag. 2:2)
24. In days of Simeon b. Shetah propertv-litigations were removed
(y. Sanh. 1:1)
25. Yannai breaks with the Pharisees
(b. Qid. 66a)
26. Simeon b. Shetah and son's trial
(y. Sanh. 6:3)
27. Simeon b. Shetah returned pearl to Saracen
(y. B.M. 2:5)
28. Simeon b. Shetah judged Yannai's slave
(b. Sanh. 19a-b)
29. Shema iah and Abtalion re dividing sea
(Mekh. Beshallah IV 58-60)
c
30. Shammai, Hillel, Shema'iah, Abtalion re ritual pool

(M. <Ed. 1:3)
31. Kharkemit, Shema'iah, and Abtalion
(M. <Ed. 5:6)
B u t y . S o t . 2:5
is A q i b a n .
32. Judah b. Dortai re
Hagigah
on Sabbath
(b. Pes. 70b)
T a n n a i t i c a t t r i b u t i o n b u t n o estimate o f s c h o o l o r m a s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
it is p o s s i b l e .
33. Shema'iah and Abtalion and high priest

(b. Yoma 71b)
34. Shema'iah and Abtalion descend from Sennacherib
(b. Git. 57b)
c
35. Shema iah and Abtalion re tying bird by wings

(b. Bes. 25a)
36. Abrogations of Yohanan the High Priest
(M. M.S. 5:15)
37. Yohanan the High Priest turned
tnin
at the end of his life

(b. Ber. 29a)
38. Honi slept seventy years

(b. Ta. 23b)
Attributed to Yohanan b. Nappaha
39. Abba Hilqiah

(b. Ta. 23b)
PERICOPAE WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS
189
40. Menahem went forth to king's service

(b. Hag. 16b)
41. Shammai re Ex. 20:8
(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 148 Is. 29-30)
42. Shammai re three days before Sabbath
(Sifre Deut. 203, Tos. <Eruv. 3:7)
43. Houses and Shammai re examining
tefillin
(Mekh. Pisha III 209-216)

44. Less than egg's bulk conveys uncleannessHouses, Dositheus
of Kefar Yatmah, Shammai the Elder
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5)
45. Shammai made Sukkah for new baby
(M. Suk. 2:8)
46. Bride's stool lost seat-boardsHouses + Shammai
(M. Kel. 22:4)
But probable verification is Ushan, see below.
47. Field that has been improved may not be sown in Seventh Year
Shammai
(Tos. Shev. 3:10)
48. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel and Shammai
(b. B.B. 133b-134a)
Terminus is R. Yosi b. R. Bun.
49. Baba b. ButaShammai re white of egg

(b. Git. 57a)
50. Shammai in name of Haggai re sender's liability
(b. Qid. 43a)
51. Shammai forced to feed child on Day of Atonement
(b. Hul. 107b = b. Yoma 77b)
52. Hillel would fold together herbs and bread
(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 13, 1. 12)
53. Hillel Lev. 11:24
(Sifra Shemini 9:5)
54. Hillel and redemption of property (Lev. 25:29-30)
(Sifra Behar 4:8)
55. Hillel and disciples re garments
(Sifre Num. 123)
Gloss on Yohanan b. Zakkai story.
56. Hillel and Prosbul

(Sifre Deut. 113)
No Tannaitic discussion of nos. 54, 56.
VERIFICATIONS
57. Hillel came from Babylonia at forty etc.

(Sifre Deut. 357)
L i n k s Hillel t o ' A q i b a ; possibly U s h a n .
58. Hillel: Use crown

(M. Avot 1:13)
59. Hillel prohibits futures
(M. B.M. 5:9, Tos. B.M. 6:10)
Setting: Ushan.
60. Do not separate self from congregation

(M. Avot 2:5-7)
61. Hillel: Do not be seen naked etc.
(Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24)
Possibly alluded t o b y Simeon.
62. Hillel purchased house and slave for poor man

>
(Tos. Pe ah4:10)
63. Hillel: If you will come to my house
(Tos. Suk. 4:3)
64. Hillel expounded language of Ketuvah
(Tos. Ket. 4:9)
65. HillePs exegetical middot
(Tos. Sanh. 7:11)
66. Hillel came up on account of this matter
(Tos. Neg. 1:16)
67. Hillel: Coming from the waysay Ps. 112:7
(y. Ber. 9:3)
68. HillePs eighty disciples
(y. Ned. 5:6)
69. Hillel: Passover of crushed
(b. Pes. 64b)
70. Hillel and Eleazar b. Harsom studied despite poverty, wealth
(b. Yoma 35b)
71. Hillel had people bring whole-offerings in unconsecrated form,
then sanctify them
(b. Ned. 9b = b. Pes. 66b)
72. Hillel: Tefillin of grandfather
(y. <Eruv. 10:1)
73. Three things + Lev. 13:17, Deut. 16:2-Ex. 12:5, Deut. 16:8-Ex.
12:15
(y. Pes. 6:1)
74. Hillel and Ben He He
(b. Hag. 9b)
75. Hillel and Shebna
(b. Sot. 21a)
D i m i is a u t h o r i t y .
PERICOPAE
191
76. Hillel: How much a se'ah

(ARN Chap. 12)
77. Hillel: Self-abasement/exaltation
(Lev. R. 1:5)
78. Hillel: Took bath
(Lev. R. 34:3)
79. Shammai + Hillel: Time vs. examination; dough; ritual bath
(M. <Ed. 1:1, 3-5)
80. Controversy for God's sake: Hillel and Shammai
(M. Avot 5:17)
81. Hillel and Shammaites in Temple
(Tos. Hag. 2:1)
82. Vintage for vatShammai vs. Hillel
(b. Shab. 15a, b. A.Z. 39b, etc.)
83. Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon were century before de
struction of Jerusalem
(b. Shab. 15b)
84. Sword in school-house
(b. Shab. 17a)
85. Gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai
(b. Shab. 30b-31a)
86. Shammai vs. Hillel re Sabbath
(b. Bes. 16a)
87. Agrippas and Gamaliel re Deut. 4:39
(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 147, Is. 24-5)
88. Gamaliel on Deut. 12:2-4
(Sifre Deut. 61)
89. Agenitos and Gamaliel re Deut. 21:5
(Sifre Deut. 351)
90. Sows field in two kinds of wheat and makes one threshing-floor,
grants one pe*ahNahum the Scribe to Gamaliel and Simeon
of Mispah
(M. Pe'ah 2:5-6)
91. Yo'ezer of the Birah and Gamaliel re forbidden substance and
leavening dough
(M. <Orl. 2:12)
l
E l i e z e r a n d sages i n M. O r l . 2:11 discuss t h e s a m e i s s u e . T h e s a g e s say

w h a t G a m a l i e l says, in t h e s a m e w o r d s , b u t m a k e n o a l l u s i o n t o G a m a l i e l .
T h i s s e e m s t o m e t o m e a n t h a t t h e G a m a l i e l - t r a d i t i o n w a s n o t k n o w n at
Y a v n e h , at least n o t in this f o r m , o r it w o u l d h a v e b e e n cited.
92. House of Gamaliel gave sheqel

(M. Sheq. 3:3)
192
VERIFICATIONS
93. House of Gamaliel's prostrations

(M. Sheq. 6:1)
94. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai ate in Sukkah
(M. Suk. 2:5)
95. Gamaliel's ordinance re witnesses
(M. R.H. 2:5)
96. Gamaliel re Admon
(M. Ket. 13:3-5)
97. When Gamaliel died, glory of Torah ceased
(M. Sot. 9:15)
98. Gamaliel's ordinances
(M. Git. 4:2-3)
99. Gamaliel's letters
(Tos. Sanh. 2:6)
A t t e s t e d i n y. M . S . 5:4:
Judah.
100. Gamaliel married daughter to Simeon b. Netanel

(Tos. A.Z. 3:10)
D i s p u t e o f M e i r a n d sages u s e s s a m e l a n g u a g e , m a k e s n o r e f e r e n c e t o
story.
101. Hanina b. Dosa heals son of Gamaliel

(b. Ber. 34b)
102. Gamaliel, king and queen
(b. Pes. 88b)
103. After Gamaliel, Torah studied sitting down
(b. Meg. 21a)
104. Simeon b. Gamaliel lowers price of doves
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:7, M. Ker. 1:7)
(Tos. Suk. 4:4)
106. Simeon b. Gamaliel praised pretty gentile woman
(b. A.Z. 20a)
107. Baba and Babylonian
(b. Ned. 66b)
108. Herod and Baba
(b. B.B. 4a)
109. Jonathan b. Uzziel and Targum of writings
(b. Meg. 3a)
c
Tradents are Jeremiah o r Hiyya b. A b b a .
110. Woe to the lizard that bites Hanina

(Tos. Ber. 3:20)
111. Joshua b. Gamala and Martha b. Boethus
R. A s s i .
(b. Yoma 18a)
PERICOPAE WITHOUT
VERIFICATIONS
193
112. Joshua b. Gamala and schools

(b. B.B. 21a)
Rav Judah-Rav.
113. Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and expensive tunic

(y. Yoma 3:6)
114. Nahum the Mede and Nazirites
(M. Naz. 5:4)
115. Yohanan b. Gudgada ate hullin
(M. Hag. 2:7)
116. Yohanan b. Gudgada-testimonies
(M. Git. 5:5)
117. Joshua b. Hananiah and Yohanan b. Gudgada fastened Temple
doors
(b. <Arakh. l i b )
118. Included in
Ex. 12:6
evening
is time after noonHouse of Shammai
re
(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 12 Is. 4-5)

J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h , M e k h . d e R . Ishmael I , p . 4 2 , says t h e s a m e t h i n g ,
b u t d o e s n o t cite H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .
119. Houses re sisithow long, how many tassels, etc

(Sifr6Num. 115)
Unanimous agreement in upper chamber o f Jonathan b. Bathyra w o u l d
c o m e after dispute (?).
120. Houses: Leaven vs. leavened bread

(Sifre Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1)
121. Houses: Fringes for linen cloak
(Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, ed. Hoffmann,
pp. 138-9)
122. Benediction of savory: House of Shammai
(M. Ber. 6:5)
123. Houses: Dispute re meal
(M. Ber. 8:1-8)
(Except M. Ber. 8:5.)
124. Houses: Benedictions for New Year coinciding with Sabbath,
10, 9, 8, 7 + Honi the Little
(Tos. Ber. 3:13, Tos. R.H. 2:17)
125. Houses: In house of study, one blesses for all vs. all for each
(Tos. Ber. 5:30, b. Ber. 53a)
126. Houses: Plots sewn with grain between olive-trees
(M. Pe'ah3:l)
194
VERIFICATIONS
127. Houses: Ownerless to poor/rich; forgotten sheaf, etc.
(M. Pe'ah6:l, 3, 5)
128. Houses: Grapes of Fourth Year vineyarddo they have Fifth
and burning, etc
(M. Pe>ah7:6, M. M.S. 5:3)
T o s . M.S. 5:17: This is J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h .
129. Houses: Demai to almoners
(M. Dem. 3:1)
130. Houses: Selling olives to haver
(M. Dem. 6:6)
Simeon b. GamalielTos. Ma. 3:13.
131. Houses: He who would lay out field in plots with different crops
how much space between furrows
(M. Kil. 2:6)
M e i r , sages, a n d E l i e z e r b . J a c o b i n M . K i l . 2 : 9 discuss a s i m i l a r issue
w i t h o u t reference to Houses.
132. Houses: Single row of five vinesis it a vineyard or not

(M. Kil. 4:5)
133. Houses: Caperbush re mixed seeds in vineyard
(Tos. Kil. 3:17)
134. Houses: Until what time d o they plough a tree-planted field in
Seventh Year
(M. Shev. 1:1)
135. Houses: Thin out olives in Seventh Yearuproot or raze
(M. Shev. 4:4)
136. Houses: When is it forbidden to cut down tree in Seventh Year
(M. Shev. 4:10)
137. Houses: How dig up arum in Seventh Year
(M. Shev. 5:4)
138. Houses: Sell to the non-observant person articles with which he
can violate Seventh Year
(M. Shev. 5:8, Tos. Shev. 4:5B)
139. Houses: Sell in bundles in Seventh Year
(M. Shev. 8:3)
140. Houses: Sell produce of Seventh Year for coins
(Tos. Shev. 6:19)
141. Houses: Heave-offering from olives instead of oil
(M. Ter. 1:4)
Yosi provides terminus for one version of above.
PERICOPAE
195
142. Houses: Proper measure of Heave-offering

(M. Ter. 4:3, Tos.Ter. 5:3)
143. Houses: Basket of fruit for Sabbath
(M. Ma. 4:2)
144. Houses: If he set aside one issar of Second Tithe redemption-money
tenth, eleventh, etc.
(M. M.S. 4:8)
145. Houses: Removing cooked food
(M. M.S. 5:6)
146. Houses: Produce at this time
(M. M.S. 5:7, Tos. M.S. 3:14-15)
Tos.: Shammaites give same opinion as Leazar in y. M.S. 4:8.
147. Houses: Flour paste re Hallah
(M.Hal. 1:6)
N.B. Epstein assigns dispute to Yosi and Meir.
148. Houses: Mixture of Heave-offering, 'Orlah, etc. can convey un
cleanness, etc.
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5)
149. Houses: Sabbath-rules
(M. Shab. 1:1-8)
150. Houses: Send letter on eve of Sabbath
(b. Shab. 19a, y. Shab. 1:9)
Extension of issue of M. Shab. 1 :l-8.
151. Houses: Hanukkah
(b. Shab. 21b)
152. Houses: When give right of access; 'Eruv for various groups in
same room
(M. Eruv. 6:4A, B)
Epstein says Simeon b. Gamaliel follows Shammaite view.
c
153. Houses: Search wine-vault

(M. Pes. 1:1)
154. Houses: Work on night of 13th Nisan
(M. Pes. 4:5)
155. Houses: Wine/day vs. day/wine
(M. Pes. 10:2)
156. Houses: Old Sukkah
(M. Suk. 1:1)
157. Houses: Rays of sun in Sukkah
(b. Suk. 22b)
158. Houses: Citron of demai
(M. Suk. 3:5)
196
VERIFICATIONS
159. EchoatYavneh
(y. Ber. 1:4, b. <Eruv. 13b)
S a m u e l is terminus.
160. Houses: Slaughter on festival, etc.

(M. Pes. 1:3-6,9)
161. Houses re cover up blood with dust
(b. Hul. 88b)
162. Houses: Cover blood
(M. Pes. 1:2)
163. Houses: Immerse vessels for festival coming after Sabbath
(M. Bes. 2:2-3)
164. Houses: Heat water for feet
(M. Bes. 2:5)
165. Houses: Who is child (re pilgrimage)
(M. Hag. 1:1)
166. Houses: Value of offerings
(M. Hag. 1:2)
167. Houses: Heaven/earth created first
(b. Hag. 12a)
168. Houses: Woman awaiting Levirate marriage disposes of property
(M. Yev. 4:3)
169. Houses: Exercising right of refusalcollection
(M. Yev. 13:1)
170. Houses: Pishon
(b. Yev. 107b)
171. Houses: Woman testifies husband dead
(M. Yev. 15:2-3)
172. Houses: Vow not to suckle child
(b. Ket. 59b = y. Ket. 5:7)
173. Houses: How to please bride
(b. Ket. 17a)
174. Houses: re vows
(M. Ned. 3:2, 4)
c
Aqiba follows Hillelite position, M. Ned. 9:6.
175. Houses: Substitutes for substitutes for vow; testify by echo

(Tos. Nez. 1:1)
176. Houses: Does bald Nazirite have to shave head
(b. Naz. 46b)
177. Houses: Impose vow of Nazirite on son
(Tos. Nez. 3:17)
178. Houses: How much of scroll is blotted out
(y. Sot. 3:3)
Hanin supplies Houses-apodosis.
PERICOPAE
197
179. Houses: Half-slave, half-free

(M. Git. 4:5)
180. Houses: Old bill of divorce
(M. Git. 8:4)
181. Houses: Divorce, then changed mind
(M. Git. 8:8)
182. Houses: Betrothe byperufah vs.
denar
(M. Qid. 1:1)

183. Houses: Does middle group go to Gehenna
(Tos. Sanh. 13:3, b. R.H. 16b-17a)
184. Houses: Slaughter with reaping sickle
(M. Hul. 1:2)
185. Houses: Rinse mouth between milk and meat
(b. Hul. 104b)
186. Houses on rule of haver
(b. Bekh. 30b)
187. Houses: Marheshetvow
(b. Men. 63a)
188. Houses: Added Fifth etc.
(Tos. <Arakh. 4:22, re M. <Arakh. 8:1-2)
189. Harlot's hire for Temple
(b. Tern. 30b)
R . J o s e p h (4th
c. B a b y l o n i a n ) a t t r i b u t e s t h e o p i n i o n s t o t h e H o u s e s . T h e
exegesis is A q i b a n .
190. Houses: Abortion on night of eighty-first

(M. Ker. 1:6, Tos. Ker. 1:9, Sifra Tazri'a 3:6)
191. Houses: Trough for mixing mortar
(M. Kel. 20:2)
192. Houses: Length of shaft of householder's trowel
(M. Kel. 29:8)
193. Houses: Passage of uncleanness through light-hole
(M. Oh. 13:1, 4 [Tos. Oh. 14:4])
194. Houses: Forecourt of tomb
(M. Oh. 15:8)
195. Houses: Gather grapes in grave-area, etc.
(M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8, Tos. Ah. 17:9, 17:13)
196. Houses: Putting grapes into baskets
(M. Toh. 10:4)
197. Houses: Immersion in rain-stream
(M. Miq. 5:6B)
198. Houses: Immersion of hot water in cold
(M. Miq. 10:6)
Possibly: Y o s i b. R. J u d a h .
198
VERIFICATIONS
199. Houses: Unclean bloods

(M. Nid. 2:6)
200. Shammaite House: Porridge, etc.
(M. Maksh. 5:9)
201. Houses: One issue of flux, etc.
(Tos. Zab. 1:1, 1:2)
202. Houses re connective in Dough-offering
(M. T.Y. 1:1)
203. Houses: Olives and grapes that have hardened
(M. <Uqs. 3:6)
204. Houses: When do honey-combs become unclean
(M. <Uqs. 3:8)
The following items are "Tannaitic," since they occur in MishnahTosefta: nos. 1, 3, 4, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 36, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, (46probably Ushan), 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 79, 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,
98, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
137, 138, 139, 140, (141Yosi?), 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
149 (152Simeon?), 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165,
166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184,
188, 190 (191Yosi b. R. Judah), 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204.
The following are first verified in Amoraic times by references of
named Amoraim: nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 38, 48, 75, 109, 111, 112, 159, 178,
189.
The following first occur in Amoraic or later collections: nos. 5, 9
(ARN), 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (perhaps related to
Josephus's story>), 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 49, 50, 51,
67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76 (ARN), 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,
101,102,103,106,107,108,113,117,150,151,157,161,167,172,173,
176, 185, 186, 187.
We observe, therefore, that of the 204 unverified pericopae, 13
definitely are Amoraic in origin; 60 first occur in Amoraic collections,
sometimes marked as beraitot to be sure; and 131 first occur in Tan
naitic collections. All other verifications pertain to Tannaim before or
in the circle of Judah the Patriarch. Some of the items first occurring
in Amoraic or later collections are attributed to Tannaim, and others,
e.g. items in ARN, no. 25, etc., also may belong in the Tannaitic
stratum. Included in the Houses-pericopae are nearly all materials in
classic form; omitted are primarily later Amoraic discussions of Houses
VERIFICATIONS
OF
YAVNEH
199
materials. We may therefore conclude that the greater part of the

rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees is to be assigned to the Tan
naitic stratum. Apart from some of the historical narratives, stories
about named masters before Shammai-Hillel, and the like, practically
all important pericopae of the rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees
were shaped before, and included in, the early third century collec
tions, Mishnah-Tosefta. The general tendencies and themes of the
rabbinic traditions must be regarded as substantially the product of
Tannaitic times. This makes all the more interesting the verifications
of pericopae in Yavnean, Ushan, and later patriarchal circles.
i n . VERIFICATIONS OF YAVNEH
Nearly all Tannaitic verifications, before first occurrences in Mish

nah-Tosefta, pertain to Houses-materials. Obviously, absence of at
testation in the name of a master of Yavneh or Usha does not mean
a pericope necessarily took shape afterwards. We cannot attribute to
Rabbi and his circle the formation of all pericopae not listed here and
in section iv. We shall first catalogue the verified pericopae, afterward
attempt to exploit the available verifications for historical purposes.
Our list begins with the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai; Yohanan
himself never refers to a pre-70 Pharisee, to the Houses, or to mate
rials contained in a pericope either of the named masters or of the
Houses.
1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus
1. Simeon b. Shetah hung women in Ashqelon
(Sifre Deut. 221, M. Sanh. 6:4)
D o e s n o t v e r i f y all o f y. S a n h . 2 : 2 .
2. Baba b. Buta and suspensive guilt-offering

(M. Ker. 6:3)
y
3. Houses: If one se ab of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred

of clean
(M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4)
Eliezer/sages correspond to Houses, using m o r e appropriate language.
4. Houses re giving Heave-offering of grapes and eventually makes

the rest into raisinsdo you make new offering or not?
(Tos. Ter. 3:16)
Eliezer supplies apodosis, p r o b a b l y also t h e debate.
200
VERIFICATIONS
5. Judah in name of Eliezer re Houses: How much to drink on Day

of Atonement to be liable
(b. Yoma 80a)
6. Eliezer re overturning couch before festival in b. M.Q. 20a is a
Houses-dispute for Eleazar b. R. Simeon in Tos. M.Q. 2:9
7. Houses: Vow not to have intercourse
(M. Ket. 5:6)
8. Houses: When does husband inherit wife if she dies while minor
(b. Yev. 89b)
Eliezer rules in same pericope. Related to M. Ket. 8:6; M. Yev. 4:3 takes
those rulings for granted.
9. Houses: Signs of adulthood
(M. Nid. 5:9)
Eliezer's saying presupposes existence of Houses-dispute.
10. Houses: Blood of woman who has given birth and not immersed
(Tos. Nid. 5:5-7, M. Nid. 4:3)
11. Two lenient rulings: M. Nid. 4:3, M. Yev. 3:1
If this
(M. 'Ed. 5:5)

is Eliezer and not Eleazar; it is hard to be certain.
2. Joshua b. Hananiah
1. Letters of Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai

(Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann pp. 175-6)
2. Cites Zekhariah b. HaQassav
(M. Sot. 5:1)
3. Houses: Road in public domain re making *eruv
(b. 'Eruv. 6a)
Hananiah nephew of Joshua is cited authority.
4. Hananiah:
for separate kinds of food

(b. Bes. 17b, compare b. 'Eruv. 30a-b)
5. Houses: Levirate rules
(M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-14)
They asked Joshua: Children of co-wiveswhat is their status?
'Eruv
6. Houses: Quarter-^ of bones, etc.

(Tos. Ah. 3:4, M. 'Ed. 1:7)
Joshua comments on Houses-dispute. M. Oh. 2:1 and 2:3 refer
to no dispute; presumably none was transmitted, because of
VERIFICATIONS
OF
YAVNEH
201
Joshua's harmonization, as the Mishnaic version. But M. 'Ed.

1:7 has the dispute.
7 . Houses: Woman kneading dough
(Tos. Ah. 5:11, M. Oh. 5:4, M. 'Ed. 1:14)
Joshua, "I am ashamed of your words, House of Shammai." Shammaite
disciple explains. M. Oh. 5:4 has reversion of the Hillelites, here meaning
Joshua.
8. Houses: Test rags for each act of intercourse vs. all night
(M. Nid. 2:4)
In b. Nid. 16b, Joshua refers, and rules according, to the House of Sham
mai.
9. Houses: If man shook tree
(M. Maksh. 1:2-4)
Joshua's saying explains Hillelite position, so Epstein. Yosi occurs; the
latest possible verification is Usha.
3. Eliezer + Joshua
1. Houses: Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wife
(Tos. 'Arakh. 4:5)
H o u s e s a r e e q u i v a l e n t t o E l i e z e r + J o s h u a , a n d t h i s is m a d e e x p l i c i t . I n
t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e a n t e c e d e n t i s s u e is e r r o n e o u s c o n s e c r a t i o n s , o f w h i c h
t h e present dispute concerns a concrete example, a n d t h e identification o f
t h e H o u s e s ' v i e w s w i t h t h o s e o f t h e e a r l y Y a v n e a n s is o n a c c o u n t o f t h e
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f t h e i r o p i n i o n s as t o t h e issue.
4. Eliezer + ''Aqiba
1. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testifies re uncleanness of liquids
(Sifra Shemini 8:5)
V e r i f i e d b y r e f e r e n c e o f E l i e z e r b . H y r c a n u s . ' A q i b a is i n t h e s a m e p e r i
c o p e ; a l s o M.
Ed.
8:4.
2. Second Tithe in Jerusalem or flesh of the highest degree of holiness:

Eliezar vs. 'Aqiba
(Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, M. Sheq. 8:6)
H o u s e s : i n s i d e vs. o u t s i d e . E l i e z e r : T h e i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n is
w h e t h e r source o f uncleanness w a s p r i m a r y o r secondary. ' A q i b a : T h e
i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n is w h e t h e r u n c l e a n n e s s w a s c a u s e d o u t s i d e o r
inside. Original Houses dispute p r o b a b l y :
F l e s h o f h o l y o f h o l i e s m a d e u n c l e a n , all b u r n e d i n s i d e v s . o u t s i d e .
A n d t h i s r u l e t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f P r i e s t s ' r u l e i n M.
Pes. 1 : 6 .
202
VERIFICATIONS
M e i r a n d J u d a h f o l l o w E l i e z e r in t h e i r r e v i s i o n s , b e l o w . B u t i n T o s .
M . S . 2 : 1 6 E l e a z e r (Leazar) a n d ' A q i b a d o n o t m a k e u s e o f t h e H o u s e s form for framing their opinions.
3. Render alley-way valid

(M. 'Eruv. 1:2)
Eliezer disagrees w i t h h o u s e s ; student b e f o r e ' A q i b a in n a m e o f Ishmael:
Houses did n o t dispute. Concerning w h a t did they dispute...
They disputed about b o t h . . .
'Aqiba:
N . B . : E p s t e i n h a s J u d a h b . Ilai as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e w h o l e .
5. Abba Saul
1. Houses: Laying on of hands concerning which Houses differ
(M. Bes. 2:4, Tos. Hag. 2:10, M. Hag. 2:2-3)
Abba Saul would say it in different language in name of House of Hillel.
Abba Saul's reference to the Hillelite clause in the debate tells us the
whole issue was worked out in debate-form before his time.
2. Houses: Brothers-sisters
(M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1)
Abba Saul and Simeon (!) differ on which House has the lenient position.
6. Gamaliel II
1. Gamaliel II cites Gamaliel I re drinking wine from barrel used by
gentiles
(Tos. A.Z. 4:9)
Parallel: Gamaliel did so, in b. A . Z . 32a.
Tradent: Simeon b. Gode'a/Gudda'.
y
2. House of Father used to give pe ab re olives and carobs

[3. Sadducee lived with us in same alley
(M. 'Eruv. 6:2)]
In fact, the responsible tradents are M e i r - J u d a h
4. Gamaliel: Father's house never made large loaves but only thin cakes,
following Shammaite ruling
(M. Bes. 2:6)
5. Houses: Order of blessing, oil vs. myrtle
(b. Ber. 43b)
G a m a l i e l : I s h a l l d e c i d e in f a v o r o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .
6. Houses: Pick pulse, etc. Gamaliel: he even swills.

(M. Bes. 1:8)
VERIFICATIONS
OF
203
YAVNEH
7. Gamaliel rules like Shammaites re covering hot food, putting to

gether candlesticks, and baking large loaves
(M. Bes. 2:6-7 [b. Bes. 22b])
8. Houses: Uncleanness of scroll-wrappers
(M. Kel. 28:4)
G a m a l i e l : "In e i t h e r case, a r e n o t u n c l e a n . . . " H e c o m e s after, a n d r u l e s
o n , a n t e c e d e n t d i s p u t e . M . K e l . 2 8 : 2 m a k e s A q i b a = Hillelites, E l i e z e r
= S h a m m a i t e s , s o t h e Y a v n e a n v e r i f i c a t i o n is firm.
c
9. When do olives receive uncleanness? Houses + Gamaliel

(M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7)
Y o s i a n d S i m e o n a l s o o c c u r ; S i m e o n i n M . T o h . 9 : 1 differs f r o m b o t h
t h e H o u s e s a n d G a m a l i e l . Y o s i s t a n d s in t h e s a m e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o M . T o h .
9 : 7 . I n T o s . T o h . 1 0 : 1 - 2 it is S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l i n s t e a d o f G a m a l i e l .
T h e n e t i m p r e s s i o n is t h a t it is a n U s h a n p e r i c o p e , b u t w e c a n n o t b e cer
tain.
7. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq
1. Houses did not differ on uncircumcized male re Pesah. Concerning
what...concerning convert...
(Tos. Pisha 7:14)
E l e a z a r b . R . S a d o q s u p p l i e s a firm terminus f o r M . Pes. 8 : 8 =
5:2.
M.
Ed.
2. Since Eleazar b. R. Sadoq studied with Yohanan HaHorani, he

supplies the terminus ante quern for M. Suk. 2:7, story about Houses'
debate re Yohanan's Sukkah
(M. Suk. 2:7, Tos. Suk. 2:3)
3. Houses did not dispute concerning mustard strainer etc.
(Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16)
E l e a z a r says t h e y a g r e e d , a n d M . K e l . 1 4 : 8 p r e s e n t s a g r e e m e n t o f H o u s e s
without mentioning them.
8. Eleazar b. A%ariah
1. Houses: Brothers-sisters
(M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1)
Eleazar: In name of Shammaites.

(M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-14)
E l e a z a r : E v e n t h o u g h H o u s e s differed, t h e y a g r e e t h e c h i l d is n o t mam?er.
204
VERIFICATIONS
9. Eleazar b. At(ariah and Joshua

1. Forgotten sheaf near wall, stack, oven, or implements
(M. Pe'ah 6:2)
T o s . Pe'ah 3 : 2 : J o s h u a a n d E l e a z a r b . ' A z a r i a h discuss s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , a s
r e p o r t e d b y I l a i . M . Pe'ah 6 : 2 l o o k s l i k e J o s h u a ' s o p i n i o n f o r t h e s u p e r
s c r i p t i o n . H o u s e s ' o p i n i o n s a r e a g r e e d o n b y all p a r t i e s .
10. Eleazar b. Ââriah and Ishmael

1. Re lying down to say Shema*
(Sifre Deut. 34)
F i r m terminus f o r M . B e r .
1:3.
11. Jar Jon

1. y. Shev. 4:2: Tarfon followed Shammaite view and tried without
permission to eat own produce which was guarded, thus firm
terminus for M. Shev. 4:4.
2. House
re
how to recite
Shema'
(M. Ber. 1:3)

T h e s t o r y in M . B e r . 1:3B is a f i r m terminus.
3. Houses: Change Second Tithe money in Jerusalemiela vs. coins

(M. M.S. 2:9)
Tarfon and S h a m m a i occur, also Ben Z o m a and Ben Azzai.
4. I would marry co-wife of daughter

(Tos. Yev. 1:7-13 = Shammaites, M. Yev. 1:4)
5. Houses: Erroneous consecrations
(M. Naz. 5:1, 2, 3, 5)
Tarfon comments on Houses-dispute in M. Naz. 5:5, and since
the issue is worked out through various examples, he supplies a
useful terminus for the Houses' dispute on the issue underlying
the whole set. In Tos. Nez. 3:19 Judah is authority for Tarfon's
lemma.
12. Tarfon + <Aqiba
1. How far recite Hallel
(M. Pes. 10:6, Tos. Pisha 10:9)
Both Tarfon's and Aqiba's sayings take for granted Housesdispute. They follow Hillelite view.
c
VERIFICATIONS
OF YAVNEH
205
13. Aqiba
1. Khorkemit drank bitter water
(y. Sot. 2:5)
Qted by sages in dispute with 'Aqiba.
2. Heave-offering vetches
Houses + Shammai + 'Aqiba
(M. M.S. 2:4)
Aqiba is intrinsic to the pericope, as the opposite of Shammai.
3. Change tela of Second Tithe money in Jerusalem

Houses + 'Aqiba vs. Shammai + Tarfon
(M. M.S. 2:9)
'Aqiba and Tarfon are intrinsic to the pericope. They may represent a
second stage in its development.
4. Hillel re Lev. 13:37 re itch
(Sifra Tazri'a 9:6)
Aqiba explains HillePs exegesis, following view of traditional commen
taries.
c
5. Gamaliel the Elder allowed wives to remarry on testimony of one

witness
(M. Yev. 16:7)
Attested by Aqiban story in part A; also by Gamaliel II in part B. Aqiba
cites Nehemiah of Bet Deli.
l
6. Recompense for damaged bailment: Houses+ Aqiba; Hillelites and

Aqiba are balanced
(Sifra Vayiqra 13:13, M. B.M. 3:12)
c
7. Houses: How many sheep to be liable for first of fleece

(Sifre Deut. 166)
Then 'Aqiba supplies proof for Hillelite opinion.
8. Houses: Grounds for divorce. 'Aqiba extends Hillelite position.
(Sifre Deut. 269, M. Git. 9:10)
c
9. Tefillin in privy: Houses + Aqiba

(b. Ber. 23a)
'Aqiba's opinion balances Hillelites'.
c
10. Aqiba picked etrog on first of Shevat and treated it according to

words of both Houses
(Tos. Shev. 4:2)
Supplies terminus for M. R.H. 1:1.
206
VERIFICATIONS
11. Change selas of Second Tithe money for golden
denars
(M. M.S. 2:7)

4
A q i b a : I c h a n g e d s i l v e r f o r g o l d , etc.
12. Olive presses in walls of Jerusalem

(M. M.S. 3:7)
Y o s i : T h i s is M i s h n a h o f ' A q i b a .
13. Epstein assigns M. Shab. 1:5-7 to 'Aqiba, on basis of b. Shab. 18b.

14. Houses: Burn clean and unclean meat together
(Tos. Pisha 1:6)
Y o s i : ' A q i b a is a u t h o r i t y b e h i n d Hillelites.
15. 'Aqiba: I saw Gamaliel and Joshua, re Houses: Where shake Lulav
(M. Suk. 3:9)
16. Houses: Dividing estate where order of death is unclear
(M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6, M. B.B. 9:8-9)
' A q i b a i n T o s . B . B . 1 0 : 1 3 , "I a g r e e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e w i t h Hillelites t h a t
p r o p e r t y r e m a i n s i n p o s s e s s o r s ' h a n d s . " ' A q i b a cites Hillelite a p o d o s i s
verbatim, o c c u r r i n g in all t h r e e M i s h n a i c p e r i c o p a e , t h u s t h e p r o t a s e s m a y
h a v e been w o r k e d o u t later, in one f o r m o r another, but the apodosis
m u s t h a v e b e e n fixed b y h i s t i m e .
17. Houses: Israelites re first-born

(M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16)
' A q i b a r u l e s i n T o s . B e k h . a n d t h e H i l l e l i t e r u l e i n M . B e k h . is g l o s s e d t o
i n c l u d e it.
18. Houses: When does sheet become insusceptible

(M. Kel. 20:2)
' A q i b a r u l e s o n t h e issue a l o n g w i t h t h e H o u s e s .
E p s t e i n says t h e t r a d i t i o n is Y o s i ' s i n M . K e l . 2 7 : 9 .
19. Houses: Baking oven overshadowed

(M. Oh. 5:1-4, M. Kel. 9:2)
' A q i b a r u l e s a l o n g w i t h H o u s e s . Hillelites r e v e r t t o S h a m m a i t e o p i n i o n ,
a n d h e r e J o s h u a c e r t a i n l y is r e p r e s e n t e d i n M . O h . b y " H o u s e o f Hillel,"
b y c o n t r a s t t o b . H a g . 2 2 a . T h e passage a l s o m u s t v e r i f y M . K e l . 9 : 2 .
T h e w h o l e c e r t a i n l y is Y a v n e a n .
20. Houses: How much to search

(Tos. Ah. 16:6)
' A q i b a a n d sages d i s p u t e H o u s e s - a p o d o s e s . M . O h . 1 8 : 4 , 8 c o n t a i n s n o
c o u n t e r p a r t , b u t m n e m o n i c is t h e s a m e t h e r e .
VERIFICATIONS
OF
207
YAVNEH
21. Suffered issue of semen on third day

(M. Zab. 1:2, Tos. Zab. 1:4)
' A q i b a , I s h m a e l , a n d H o u s e s all r u l e . ' A q i b a cites H o u s e s . I n T o s . Z a b .
1:4, ' A q i b a c o r r e c t s H o u s e s - p r o t a s i s : D i d n o t d i f f e r . . . c o n c e r n i n g w h a t
d i d t h e y differ, etc. T o s . Z a b . 1:5-8
contains definitive evidence o f ' A q i ba's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r M. Z a b . 1:2. S i m e o n a n d a disciple o f Y a v n e h c e r
t a i n l y r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f final r e d a c t i o n .
22. When does fish become unclean? Houses + 'Aqiba

(M. 'Uqs. 3:8)
14. 'Aqiban Exegeses in Houses-Disputes
1. For every thought of trespassShammaites re Ex. 22:8
(Mekh. deR. Ishmael XV 49-55)
G l o s s ; p r e s u m a b l y t h e d i s p u t e itself c o m e s e a r l i e r .
2. Every male (Ex. 23:17)to include the childrenHillelites

(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 218, Is. 28-9, Sifre Deut.
143)
3. Or for a daughter (Lev. 12:6-7)to include liability for sacrifice
for one who aborts on eve of 81st day
(Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2, M. Ker. 1:6)
E x e g e s i s s u p p o r t s H i l l e l i t e p o s i t i o n . T h i s is s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t o f
t h e v e r s i o n i n M. K e r . 1:6, t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t v e r i f y M. K e r . , listed
above.
4. A l l their fruit (Lev. 19:23-4): Grape-gleanings and defective clusters

are included in ScriptureHouse of Hillel. House of Shammai:
Laws do apply.
E x e g e s i s s u p p o r t s Hillelite p o s i t i o n .
w i t h o u t exegesis.
M.
' E d . B 4:5
spells o u t
dispute,
5. K (Lev. 23:29) excludes festival vs. SabbathHouses debate exclu

sion according to 'Aqiban exegetical principle.
(Sifra'Ernor 15:5)
6. Them but not their issue, Deut. 23:19even includes products
(b. Tern. 30b)
'Aqiban proof for Shammaite
position.
See above, pp. 39-43, 98-99, for further discussion.
208
VERIFICATIONS
15. Yohanan b. Nuri

1. Houses: Measuring from root of vines re mixed seeds
(M. Kil. 6:1)
M . K i l . 6 : 1 C : Y o h a n a n b. N u r i c o m m e n t s o n H o u s e o f Hillel's o p i n i o n .
' A q i b a f o l l o w s i n D . I n T o s . K i l . 4:1, G a m a l i e l a n d his c o u r t m a k e a
d e c r e e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Y. b. N.'s v i e w o f t h e H i l l e l i t e o p i n i o n .

(M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-13)
16. Jonathan b. Bathyra
1. Houses met in upper room of Jonathan b. Bathyra and voted no
limit for sisit
(Site Num. 115)
b . M e n . 4 1 b h a s Yohanan b . B a t h y r a
17. Abba Yosi b. Hanan

1. b. Pes. 57a only
18. Ilai
1. Houses: Heave-offering from black and white figs
(Tos. Ter. 2:5 [b. Hul. 136b])
Ilai, cited b y Isaac, g i v e s H o u s e s - d i s p u t e a f t e r a n o n y m o u s r u l e c o n f o r m
i n g t o Hillelite p o s i t i o n .
19. Dosa b. Harkinas

1. Houses:
Rival of daughter may m a r r y brothers

(M. Yev. 1:4, b. Yev. 16a)
20. Ishmael
Ishmael occurs in some stories, but never as an independent author

ity similar to 'Aqiba, Gamaliel, Eliezer, or Joshua. In M. 'Eruv. 1:2,
we find a disciple of Ishmael before 'Aqiba, "Houses did not dispute...
concerning what did they dispute..." Then 'Aqiba holds they disputed
about both cases. We also have a story about Eleazar b. 'Azariahand
Ishmael with respect to how to say the Shema Sifre Deut. 34, thus
verifying M. Ber. 1:3 (along with Tarfon). Ishmael likewise occurs in
M. Zab. 1:2, this time not through a disciple, as in M. 'Eruv. 1:2.
c
VERIFICATIONS
OF
209
YAVNEH
It is as follows: House of Shammai, House of Hillel, Ishmael, 'Aqiba

then, "for the House of Shammai used to say..." and "the House of
Hillel used to say..." The 'Aqiba-Ishmael dispute must logically come
after the Houses.
Ishmael thus never stands by himself in relationship to a Housesdispute, never comments on a Houses-dispute in the manner of'Aqiban
masters, and never appears as the authority for a Houses-tradition.
The absence of Ishmaelean verifications, except in the setting of Aqiban
ones and the story about Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael, does not
prove the school of Ishmael did not possess Houses-materials. It does
suggest that the use of the Houses-form was limited to 'Aqiban circles,
unless the later 'Aqibans obliterated the record of Ishmaelean dis
cussions of Houses' and other pre-70 Pharisaic materials. At any rate
the Houses-materials in our hands do not derive from Ishmaelean
circles.
We have in all 80 verifications, some of which serve for the same
pericope, e.g. M. Ber. 1:3, M. Yev. 1:4. Of these, more than a third
are 'Aqiban.
i v . VERIFICATIONS OF USHA
We find in the names of Ushan authorities verifications for 104

pericopae, some of which duplicate items listed earlier.
1. Usha in General
1. Simeon the Just heard, Decree is annulled; Yohanan the High Priest
heard, Young men have conquered
(Tos. Sot. 13:7A [y. Sot. 9:13])
T h e c o n t e x t s u g g e s t s a final U s h a n r e d a c t i o n o f t h e w h o l e p e r i c o p e , i n
v o l v i n g Hillel, S a m u e l t h e S m a l l , a n d , l a t e r o n , J u d a h b . B a b a . T h e
r e f e r e n c e t o "and h e h e a r d t h e s e t h i n g s in A r a m a i c " c o m e s n o e a r l i e r
t h a n R . Y o h a n a n (d. ca. 2 7 9 ) a n d R a v J u d a h . I t is an i n t e r p o l a t i o n .
2. Hillel came up from Babylonia at forty etc.

(Sifre Deut. 357)
L i n k s Hillel t o M o s e s , ' A q i b a t o Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i . P r e s u m a b l y l a t e r
t h a n ' A q i b a . Perhaps U s h a n s h e r e m a r k t h e effort t o l i n k t h e p a t r i a r c h t o
Hillel.
3. Hillel and futures

(M. B.M. 5:9)
S e t t i n g o f s a y i n g is e n t i r e l y U s h a n .
4. Hillel and redemption of property

(M.
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about Pharisees before 70, I I I
'Arakh.
9:4)
14
VERIFICATIONS
Setting in M. 'Arakh. is entirely Ushan: Meir, Judah, Simeon; but there

is no reference to Hillel on their part.
5. Since Rabbi Judah the Patriarch refers to Bene Bathyra in connec
tion with HillePs rise to power, that gloss, absent in Tos. Pisha
4:13, comes before his time, and Tos. Pisha's version is still
earlier. That would place Tos. Pisha 4:13 at Usha at the latest.
Rav Judah-Rav is a firm terminus ante quern.
6. Among authorities who expound the language of common people
are Meir and Judah.
(Tos. Ket. 4:9)
7. When insufficiently trained disciples of Shammai and Hillel multi
plied, disputes multiplied
(Tos. Hag. 2:9)
This is interpolated in Yosi b. Halafta's description of the court system
before 70. It may come before 150.
[8. Grapeclusters
(M. Sot. 9:5)]
2. Judah b. Baba
1. Grapeclusters end/start with the Yosi's
(M. Sot. 9:9, Tos. B.Q. 8:13)
A f t e r Y o s i ' s u n t i l J u d a h b . B a b a it is/is n o t p o s s i b l e t o set a r e p r o a c h .
Based o n M . Hag. 2 : 2 .
2. Hillel-Samuel the SmallJudah b. Babawould have received holy

spirit but generation was unworthy
(Tos. Sot. 13:3)
3. 'Aqiba says Gamaliel II rejoices at finding a colleague for Judah b.
Baba in Nehemiah of Bet Deli
(M. Yev. 16:7)
3. Judah b. Bathyra
1. Story of trough of Jehu and act of Shammaites
(M. Miq. 4:5)
T o s . M i q . 5:2
tum.
has J u d a h o n same subject, so Usha seems the right stra
VERIFICATIONS
OF
USHA
211
4. Eliezer b. Shammifa
1. Yosi b. Kifar in name of Eliezer:
Houses re watering plants until New Year of Seventh Year
(Tos. Shev. 1:5)
5. Elieyer b. Jacob
1. Houses: Two sprinklings vs. one
(M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9)
6. Dosetai b. R. Yannai
1. Houses: Vessels before 'am ha*ares
(Tos. Toh. 8:9B-10)
7. Yosi b. Halafta
1. Yosi testifies in name of Shema'iah and Abtalion re Israelite woman
eating Terumah
(b. Yev. 67a)
2. Yosi comments on Shammai-Hillel re dough for hallah
(M. 'Ed. 1:3)
3. Gamaliel orders Targum of Job to be hidden
(Tos. Shab. 13:2)
Y o s i tells s t o r y o f h i s f a t h e r , Halafta, w h o r e m e m b e r s G a m a l i e l t h e E l d
er.
4. Yosi: House of Shammai say, Olive's bulk of weasel conveys un

cleanness
(M. Kel. 8:5)
5. Houses: Heave-offering of oil for crushed olives
(Tos. Ter. 3:14)
Y o s i g i v e s H o u s e s - o p i n i o n s a f t e r a n o n y m o u s r u l e . E p s t e i n : Y o s i differs
f r o m Meir, y. Ter. 1 : 5 .
6. Houses: Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem

(M. M.S. 3:6-7)
S i m e o n b . J u d a h in n a m e o f Y o s i : H o u s e s d i d n o t d i s p u t e w h a t w a s n o t
f u l l y h a r v e s t e d etc. A b o u t w h a t d i d t h e y d i s p u t e ? P r o d u c e t h a t was f u l l y
h a r v e s t e d etc.
212
VERIFICATIONS
7. Houses: Olive presses in walls of Jerusalem

(M. M.S. 3:7)
Y o s i : T h i s is t h e M i s h n a h o f ' A q i b a . F i r s t M i s h n a h etc.
8. Yosi supplies terminus for Zekhariah in Tos. Shab. 16:7, therefore

for Houses in M. Shab. 21:3, re clearing table on Sabbath
9. Houses: Proselyte on day before Passover
(M. Pes. 8:8)
M . ' E d . 5 : 2 : A u t h o r i t y is Y o s i .
10. Houses: Burn clean and unclean meat together

(Tos.
Pisha
1:6)
Y o s i : T h e s e a r e w o r d s of ' A q i b a in b e h a l f o f Hillelites.
11. Yosi supplies terminus for M. Shab. 1:7 in b. Shab. 18b, Tos. Pisha
1:6
12. Houses on erroneous Nazir vow
(Tos. Nez. 3:19)
Y o s i supplies terminus f o r M . N a z . 5 : 4 - 5 .
13. Houses re lewdness with minor son

(Tos. Sot. 4:7)
Y o s i comments o n dispute, takes Shammaite position.
14. Houses re cheese and chicken

(M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3)
E l e a z a r b. R . S a d o q r u l e s l i k e t h e S h a m m a i t e s ( T o s . H u l . 8:3) b u t d o e s
n o t p h r a s e his o p i n i o n in t h e n a m e o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . T h i s w o u l d
suggest the dispute o n the l a w antedates attribution o f the dispute t o the
H o u s e s , a n d places t h e attribution in U s h a a n d t h e substance o f t h e d i s p u t e
in Y a v n e h .
15. Houses: Measure chest

(M. Kel. 18:1)
Y o s i : "They a g r e e . . . " also Simeon Shezur, Tos. K e l .
18:1.
16. Houses: Split in roo

(M. Oh. 11:1-8)
Y o s i g i v e s Hillelite t r a d i t i o n .
17. Houses: Gather grapes

(M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8)
Y o s i qualifies t h e i s s u e : I f a v i n e y a r d has b e e n t u r n e d i n t o a c e m e t e r y .
VERIFICATIONS
OF
USHA
213
18. Houses: Split in roof

(Tos. Ah. 12:1)
Y o s i g i v e s Hillelite m e a s u r e m e n t f o r split i n r o o f , t h u s again v e r i f y i n g
M. Oh. 1 1 : 1 .
19. Houses: Lid-chain connector

(M. Par. 12:10, Tos. Par. 12:18)
Y o s i h a s a v e r s i o n different f r o m M . P a r .
20. Yosi: Six lenient rulings: M. Hul. 8:1, M. Ter. 1:4, M. Kil. 4:5,
M. Hal. 1:6, M. Miq. 5:6, M. Pes. 8:8
(M. 'Ed. 5:2)
8. Yosi b. Halafta and Judah b. Ilai
1. Houses: Re taking gifts on festival
(Tos. Y.T. 1:12-14, M. Bes. 1:9)
F o r m : A g r e e . . . concerning w h a t did they differ... concerning... f o r +
debate.
2. Houses agree re cohabitation with mother-in-lawdiffer re wife's

sister
(b. Yev. 95a)
3. M, Maksh. 1:4 is verified in Tos. Maksh. 1:4: Judah cites Eliezer;
Yosi in own name. Joshua and 'Aqiba speak in their own names.
9. Yosi b. Halafta and Meir
1. Houses: Vessels under waterspout
(M. Miq. 4:1)
M e i r a n d Y o s i d i s a g r e e o n final r u l i n g f o r t h i s d i s p u t e . M e i r : T h e y v o t e d ,
S h a m m a i t e s w o n . Y o s i : M a t t e r u n d e c i d e d . T h e difference is t h u s o v e r
t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e s u b s c r i p t i o n , voted and...
2. Houses: Water leaking from roof dripped into jar

(M. Maksh. 4:4-5)
T o s . M a k s h . 2 : 6 h a s M e i r a n d Y o s i d i s p u t e t h e case t o w h i c h t h e H o u s e s '
r u l e a p p l i e s ; t h u s t h e p r o t a s i s is a t issue. Y o s i : I t is a l l t h e s a m e . M e i r :
Under w h a t circumstances...
10. Yosi b. Halafta and Simeon b. Yohai

1. Uncleanness of Qohelet
(M. Yad. 3:5)
214
VERIFICATIONS
Y o s i and Simeon dispute w h e t h e r Houses disagree o n Qohelet o r S o n g

c
o f Songs. M . E d . 5 : 3 constructs the dispute according t o Simeon.
11. Simeon b. Yohai

1. Hillel: Scatter-gather
(y. Ber. 9:5)
S i m e o n s e e m s t o g l o s s Hillel's s a y i n g a n d t h e a p p e n d e d S c r i p t u r e P s .
119:126. His
s a y i n g a p p a r e n t l y reflects k n o w l e d g e o f Hillel's.
2. Simeon b. Judah in name of Simeon: Houses on demai re 'orner and

other cultic edibles
(Tos. Dem. 1:28)
3. Simeon b. Judah in name of SimeonHouses: Hallah subject to
demai
(y. Dem. 5:1)
4. Houses: Return Pesah whole, not in pieces
(Tos. Pisha 7:2 [M. Shab. 3:1])
S i m e o n : Houses did not dispute... Concerning w h a t did they dispute.
Concerning limbs...
5. Houses: Re coins for Sheqel

(M. Sheq. 2:3)
S i m e o n specifies t h e r e a s o n i n M . S h e q . 2:4,
a n d Epstein assigns t o h i m
the w h o l e pericope.
6. Houses: Re tying pigeon

(Tos. Y.T. 1:8, M. Bes. 1:3)
7. Houses did not refrain from doubtful matters
(M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:12)
8. Houses: Uncleanness of girdle
(Tos. Kel. B.B. 5:7-8)
Simeon b. J u d a h in name o f S i m e o n : Houses did n o t dispute, etc... M .
K e l . 28:7
has ' A q i b a , J u d a h .
9. M. Par. 5:1 re removing pot for Heave-offeringSimeon vs. Yosi.

In Tos. Par. 5:1, Simeon is cited by Simeon b. Judah as giving
a Houses-apodosis.
10. She who has difficulty in giving birthEliezer: From time to time.
Simeon b. Judah in name of Simeon: House of Shammai say,
Three days. House of Hillel: From time to time.
(Tos. Nid. 5:7)
I n M . N i d . 4:4
the Houses do not occur.
VERIFICATIONS
OF
215
USHA
11. Three lenient rulings: M. Yad. 3:5; sin-offering water that has
fulfilled its purpose; M. Uqs. 3:6
(M. <Ed. 5:3)
c
12. Meir
1. Who prepared heifer-sacrifices
(M. Par.
3:5)
Issue is number of offerings prepared by Simeon the Just and Yohanan

the High Priest.
2. Houses: Change silver and produce

(M. M.S. 2:8)
3. Houses: Egg laid on festival
(M. Bes. 1:1-2)
Epstein assigns to Meir. Note also b. Bes. 4a: Judah in name of Eliezer.
4. Houses: Spices, salt with pestle on festival

(Tos.
Y.T.
1 : 1 5 - 1 7 , M. Bes.
1:7)
5. Houses: How much lacking in skull

(M. Oh. 2:3)
Meir glosses Shammaite saying: Of what kind of drill did they speak?
6. Houses: Girl married who had not yet suffered flow

(M. Nid. 10:1, 4 , 6-8 [b. Nid. 72a])
Tos. Nid. 9:7-9: In all of them, Meir would rule according to Sham
maites. Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to M. Nid. 10:1. Judah refers to M.
Nid. 10:8. The Ushan setting is firm.
c
N.B. Epstein assigns all cases of M. Ed. Chap. 4 to Meir, thus:

M. Bes. 1:12, M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 5, M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. M.S. 5:3,
M. Maksh. 1:1, y. Ber. 8:3 (anoint self with clean oilJudah
is cited and differs), M. Qid. 1:1, M. Git. 8:4, 9, M. Yev. 1:4,
3:5, M. Ket. 5:6, M. Ker. 1:6, M. Ma. 4:2, Mid. Tan. to Deut.
22:12 (linen garment/fringes), M. Naz. 3:6-7, M. Oh. 11:3.
Some of these have been listed among unverified pericopae.
13. Meir and Judah b. Ilai

1. To lay/not to lay
(M. Hag. 2:2, Tos. Hag. 2:8)
Meir supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the whole list, Judah for the
Judah b. Tabbai-Simeon b. Shetah clause.
2. Founding of Temple of Onias

(b.
Men.
Meir and Judah tell different stories about Onias and Shime'i.
109b)
216
VERIFICATIONS
3. Meir-Judah's dispute about Simeon b. Shetah-Judah b. Tabbai

is reflected in Mekh. Kaspa III, 31-41, re false witnesses, but
the story is not commented on by the Ushan authorities. On the
other hand, the redactor of y. Hag 2:2 alludes to the dispute
without naming the Ushan masters. Then b. Hag. 16b explicitly
ties the dispute to the false-witness story.
4. M. 'Eruv. 6:2 is Meir's version of Gamaliel II re Simeon b. Gama
liel's instructions about 'eruv with Sadducee; b. Eruv. 68b gives
Judah's version.
c
5. Flesh of holy of holiesHouses: Inside vs. outside

(Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, M. Sheq. 8:6)
Sifra's v e r s i o n s a r e M e i r vs. J u d a h ; t h e y f o l l o w E l i e z e r ' s v i e w in d i s p u t e
w i t h A q i b a . T h e y m u s t be later t h a n T o s . P i s h a 1:6. Hillelites in M .
S h e q . 8:6 f o l l o w J u d a h .
c
6. Houses: Order of
Meir and J u d a h
Havdalah
dispute
(M. Ber. 8:5, Tos. Ber. 5:25-30)

the order and l a n g u a g e of the Houses-lists.
7. Houses: Heave-offerings of fenugreekused in cleanness etc.

(M. M.S. 2:3-4)
' A q i b a o c c u r s in 2:4,
b u t t h e w h o l e is a t t e s t e d by M e i r a n d J u d a h , T o s .
M.S. 2:1.
8. Houses: What do they put on stove/remove, put back
(M. Shab. 3:1)
T o s . S h a b . 2:13
supplies J u d a h and M e i r . M . Shab. f o l l o w s J u d a h .
9. Houses: Timber-roofing in
Sukkah
(M. Suk. 1:7)

Judah-Meir dispute
Houses-apodoses.
10. Nursing mother whose husband diedMeir vs. Judah, 24/18.

Jonathan b. Joseph rephrases as Houses-dispute
(b. Ket. 60a-b, y.Sot. 4:3, Tos. Nid. 2:2)
11. Houses: When is tube clean
(Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5, M. Kel. 14:2)
M e i r and
Judah give
Houses-apodoses.
12. Houses: When is sheet clean

(Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:7)
M e i r and
J u d a h d i s p u t e H o u s e s - a p o d o s e s for
M. Kel.
20:6.
VERIFICATIONS
OF
217
USHA
13. Houses: Stool on baking-trough

(M. Kel. 22:4, Tos. Kel. B.B. 1:12)
Meir and J u d a h dispute appropriate protasis. Y o s i then comments o n the
a p o d o s i s . E v i d e n t l y t h e H o u s e s - t r a d i t i o n w a s k n o w n at U s h a .
14. Houses: Menstrual blood of gentile woman

(M. Nid. 4:3)
Meir and J u d a h dispute appropriate apodoses,
Tos. Nid. 5 : 5 - 7 .
14. Judah b. Ilai

1. Quarter-^ of bones conveys uncleanness by overshadowing
Houses + Shammai
(M.<Ed.l:7)
V e r s i o n o f J u d a h b . Ilai i n M i s h n a h ; c o m p a r e T o s . O h . 3 : 4 .
2. Food for SabbathHouses + Hillel. Judah: Hillel himself used

to prohibit [twice]
(Tos. Ma. 3:2-4)
3. Letters of Gamaliel and Elders to DiasporaJudah is tradent
(y. M.S. 5:4, y. Sanh. 1:2)
B u t not i n T o s . S a n h . 2:6,
b. Sanh. l i b .
4. Yohanan b. Gudgada's sons were deaf and dumb, and all ritually
pure objects of Jerusalem were prepared under their supervision
(Tos. Ter. 1:1)
5. Field that has been prepareddo you eat its fruit in Seventh Year
(Sifra Behar 1:5, M. Shev. 4:2, M. <Ed. 5:1)
J u d a h reverses the Houses' opinions.
6. Houses: Vineyard patch

(M. Kil. 4:1)
I n M . K i l . 4:3, J u d a h d i s p u t e s g l o s s a t o r ' s definitions f o r M . K i l . 4:1,
t h e d i s p u t e a n d t h e g l o s s c o m e b e f o r e his t i m e .
so
7 . Houses: When make vat unclean

(Tos. Ter. 3:12)
J u d a h refers t o Houses-debate in present f o r m .
8. Judah: Houses did not disagree concerning clean Heave-offering,

prohibited to burn, and unclean, permitted to burn. Concerning
what did they dispute? Doubtfulburn vs. not burn.
(y. Pes. 3:6)
9. Houses: Pick pulse on festival
(Tos. Y.T. 1:21, M. Bes. 1:8)
218
VERIFICATIONS
10. Houses: Betrothed woman disposes of goods

(M. Ket. 8:1)
Judah
reports
Gamaliel's
rulings
on
same
subject.
Gamaliel's
and
Houses' lemmas are closely related. Gamaliel seems t o recognize and c o r

r e c t difficulty o f H i l l e l i t e r u l i n g , a c c o r d i n g t o J u d a h ' s t r a d i t i o n .
11. Houses: Vow in error re Nazir

(M. Naz. 2:1-2)
J u d a h c o m m e n t s o n H o u s e s ' o p i n i o n s , in t h e i r p r e s e n t f o r m u l a t i o n .
12. Houses: Nazirite vow for longer spell etc. + Helene

(M. Naz. 3:6-7)
13. Houses: Erroneous consecrations
(M. Naz. 5:1-3)
E p s t e i n has J u d a h as a u t h o r i t y b e h i n d M. N a z . 5:1-3.
14. Houses: Open hole to let out uncleanness
(Tos. Ah. 8:7, M. Oh. 7:3)
J u d a h s u p p l i e s w h o l e H o u s e s - p e r i c o p e . M.
O h . 7:3
is t h u s v e r i f i e d a t
Usha.
15. Houses: Anoint self with clean oil etc.

(M. 'Ed. 4:6)
J u d a h cites H o u s e o f Hillel.
16. Judah: Six lenient rulingsblood of carcass, egg of carcass

(M. 'Ed. 5:1-2)
17. Six lenient rulingsblood of gentile woman
(M. Nid. 4:3, M. 'Ed. 5:4)
18. Six lenient rulingsSeventh Year fruit by favor etc.
(M. Shev. 4:2)
19. Six lenient rulingswater-skin
(M. Kel. 26:4, M.'Ed. 5:5)
1. Young shoot passes over stonehow much dirt etc. Meir vs. Yosi,
then Simeon b. Gamaliel reports a Houses-dispute using measure
ments different from those of Meir-Yosi
(Tos. Kil. 4:11B)
2. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Houses did not dispute that what is complete
is assigned to past year, and incomplete, to coming year. Con
cerning what did they differ? Concerning pod (+ past vs. com
ing)
(Tos. Shev. 2:6)
VERIFICATIONS
OF USHA
219
3. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Houses agree man sells large quantities only

to haver
(Tos. Ma. 3:13)
Terminus f o r M . M a . 5 : 4 , p r o b a b l y a l s o M . D e m . 6 : 6 .
4. Houses: Fruit of Fourth-year vineyardAdded Fifth and Removal

J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h ' s v e r s i o n is a b o v e . S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l says t h e dis
p u t e c o n c e r n s all y e a r s o f S e p t a n n a t e , n o t m e r e l y t h e S e v e n t h .
5. Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to Gamaliel IPs practices re Houses'

rules on Sabbath
(M. Shab. 1:9)
Verification f o r law o n g i v i n g w o r k t o gentile launderer. But the saying
is E l e a z a r b . R . S a d o q ' s h e n c e Y a v n e a n a c c o r d i n g t o all t r a d e n t s .
6. Simeon b. Gamaliel: House of Shammai: Do not distribute charity

etc. on Sabbath vs. Hillelites
(Tos. Shab. 16:21-2)
7. Houses: 'Eruv for cistern
(M. <Eruv. 8:6)
S i m e o n b. Gamaliel supplies Houses-apodosis.
8. Simeon b. Gamaliel re moving vessels on account of need

(Tos. Y . T . 1:11)
9. Houses: Steal beam, restore beam vs. value
(Tos. B. Q. 9:5, Tos. Ket. 8:9)
S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l s u p p l i e s H o u s e s - a p o d o s i s in T o s . K e t .
10. See Gamaliel no. 9, M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7

11. Houses: When is ritual pool deemed clean
(M. Miq. 1:5)
S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l differs f r o m b o t h H o u s e s . T o s . M i q . 1:7,
Simeon also.
1:10
has
16. Nathan
1. Houses: Sweet oil re demai laws
(M.
Dem.
N a t h a n defines d i s p u t e o f M . D e m . in T o s .
1:3, Tos.
Dem.
1:3)
Dem.
2. Houses: H o w many children must o n e have before desisting from

marital relations
(M. Y e v . 6:6, T o s . Y e v . 8:4)
N a t h a n defines H o u s e s - p o s i t i o n s a n d s u p p l i e s S c r i p t u r a l p r o o f f o r e a c h .
220
VERIFICATIONS
3. Houses: Annulling daughter's vows

(Tos. Ned. 6:3-4)
N a t h a n is a u t h o r i t y .
4. Houses: Three betrothe womantwo witnesses and one agent

(Tos. Qid. 4:1)
Nathan gives the
apodosis.
v . VERIFICATIONS OF THE CIRCLE OF JUDAH THE

PATRIARCH
We find in the name of the circle of Judah the Patriarch verifications

for 30 pericopae, few of which duplicate verifications of items listed
earlier.
1. The Circle of Judah the Patriarch in General
1. Hillel and Passover offering on Sabbath
(Tos. Pisha 4:13)
Clearly dated by Judah the Patriarch's reference to Bene Bathyra.
Since they are absent from Tos. Pisha, the stories had to come
before Rabbi's time, to have been glossed in his day. But the
interpolations look anti-patriarchal.
2. Yohanan b. Zakkai before Hillel, or Yohanan before Rabbi
(b. Pes. 3b)
D r a m a t i z a t i o n o f H i l l e l vs. S h a m m a i (b. S h a b . 1 7 a ) o n t h e s a m e issue is
ignored.
2. Simeon b. Eleazar
1. Baby born circumcizedHouses: Circumcision overrides Sabbath
(Sifra Tazri'a 1:5)
Simeon b. Eleazar: N o dispute concerning Sabbath, rather concerns circ u m c i z i n g g e n t i l e p r o s e l y t e w h o is a l r e a d y c i r c u m c i z e d . T h u s :
(1) B a b y b o r n circumcized: D o y o u need t o d r a w d r o p o f
f o r e Usha (?)
(2) D o e s h i s c i r c u m c i s i o n o v e r r i d e S a b b a t h U s h a ( ? )
(3) P r o s e l y t e S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r , T o s . S h a b . 1 5 : 9
bloodBe
2. Houses did not dispute concerning one who sifts on ground, that
he is free, or one who sifts with vessel, that he is liable. Concern
ing what did they differ? Concerning one who sifts by hand
( T o s . M a . 3 : 1 0 , M . B e s . 1:8)
THE
CIRCLE OF J U D A H
THE
PATRIARCH
221
3. Houses: Second Tithe made unclean in Jerusalem etc.

(M. M. S. 3:9)
Simeon b. Eleazar contributes t o reformulation o f Y a v n e a n and Ushan
v e r s i o n s o f t h i s d i s p u t e . J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h i g n o r e s his v e r s i o n , f o l l o w s
Judah's.
4. Houses: Give Heave-offering from jars

(M. M.S. 3:13)
S i m e o n b. Eleazar (Tos. M . S . 2 : 1 8 ) : Houses did n o t disagree etc... C o n
c e r n i n g w h a t d i d t h e y differ? C o n c e r n i n g h i m w h o t r a m p l e s . . .
5. Houses: Pharisee Zab eat with outsider Zab

(Tos. Shab. 1:14)
S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r is n a m e d a u t h o r i t y .
6. Houses: Carrying and need

(Tos. Shab. 14:1)
S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r is n a m e d a u t h o r i t y , S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l stands b e h i n d
him.
7. Simeon b. Eleazar supplies Houses-dispute on killing louse on

Sabbath
(Tos. Shab. 16:21)
8. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ about burned offering
which is not for festival
(b. Bes. 19a)
9. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re ladder
(Tos. Y.T. 1:8, 1:10, M. Bes. 1:3)
10. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re birds
(Tos. Y.T. 1:10, M. Bes. 1:3)
11. Houses: One or two Vr//^-dishes
(Tos. Y.T. 2:4, M. Bes. 2:1)
12. Houses: Scattered in field vs. gathered in enclosure
(Tos. Y.T. 3:10, M. Bes. 4:2)
13. Houses: Funds for hagigah of festival day
Simeon: Did not disagree...concerning what did they disagree...
(M. Hag. 1:3, Tos. Hag. 1:4)
14. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ on Nazir for thirty days
who shaved on thirtiethdiffered on one who vowed without
term
(Tos. Nez. 2:10)
S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r s u p p l i e s terminus f o r M . N a z . 3 : 1 .
222
VERIFICATIONS
15. Houses: Do not drink/'receiveKetuvah

(M. Sot. 4:2)
Epstein assigns pericope to Simeon b. Eleazar.
16. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re divorce, then spent
night together in inn, but only re actual intercourse
(Tos. Git. 8:8, for M. Git. 8:9)
17. Houses: Vessels of alum-crystal
(Tos. B.Q. 2:1)
Simeon b. Eleazar revises language of Houses.
3. Others
a. Eleazar b. Judah
1. Houses: Issue of flux
(M. Zab. 1:1)
Eleazar: House of Shammai agree... about what did they differ...
b. Yosi b. R. Judah
1. Houses: Re Bag
(Tos. Kel. B.Q. 11:3)
Yosi reverses rulings. See M. Kel. 20:2, M. <Ed. 5:1.
2. Houses: Man shook tree
(M. Maksh. 1:2-3)
Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4: Yosi b. R . Judah: Houses did not dispute... con
cerning what did they dispute... + debate.
c. Jonathan b. Joseph
1. Houses: Shovel lost blade
Jonathan supplies Houses-apodosis.
d. Ishmael b. R. Yosi
1. Houses: Cask of Heave-offering wine
(b. Pes. 20b, b. B.Q. 115b-116a)
Ishmael comments on pericope.
e. Eleazar b. R. Yosi
1. Houses: Uncleanness of common nails
(M. Kel. 11:3, Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2)
THE
CIRCLE OF J U D A H
THE
PATRIARCH
223
2. Houses: Purple-wool bag etc.

(M. Kel. 2 6 : 6 , Tos. Kel. B.B. 4 : 9 )
Eleazar: Houses did not dispute... concerning w h a t did they dispute...
f. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqa

1 . Houses did not differ re divided testimony of two groups of wit
nesses, but of two witnesses
(Tos. Nez. 3 : 1 )
I s h m a e l s u p p l i e s terminus f o r M . N a z . 3 : 7 . b . S a n h . 3 1 a = b . B . B . 4 1 b h a s
S i m e o n b. Eleazar.
2. Layer of jelly on hallowed flesh

(Tos. T. Y. 2:3)
Ishmael supplies Houses-apodosis.
g. Eleazar (Eliezer) b. R. Simeon

1. Houses: Unclean peat in oven
(Tos. Kel. B.Q. 6 : 1 8 )
Eleazar gives Houses-apodosis.
2. Houses: Botde as stopper for grave

(Tos. Ah. 1 5 : 9 )
Eleazar supplies Houses-apodosis a n d debate. M . O h . 1 5 : 9 omits Houses.
In all we are able to verify approximately 2 1 4 pericopae; some verifi

cations serve the same pericope. To this we may add 1 3 1 unverified
pericopae first occurring in Mishnah-Tosefta, for a total of 3 4 5 peri
copae definitely of Tannaitic origin. This compares to 1 3 pericopae
which definitely first occur in Amoraic times, as verified by named
Amoraic masters. Of the 6 0 first occurring in Amoraic or later col
lections, an undeterminable number may be of Tannaitic origin. If
we assign the whole lot to Amoraic times, however, we find that 345
pericopae are of Tannaitic origin, and no more than 7 3 of Amoraic
origin. The great bulk of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees
therefore were given pretty much the form in which we now have
them by the time of the redaction of Mishnah-Tosefta and related
compilations, and most evidences for their existence and form derive
from 'Aqiba, his disciples, and their successors and continuators.
v i . THE PRE-70 PHARISEES AT YAVNEH
Since the Houses-form, terse, disciplined, and balanced, character

ized the formation of traditions at early Yavneh, we may assign as
224
VERIFICATIONS
an important trait of Yavnean tradents an interest in formulating

materials for easy memorization. Obviously that does not mean all
Yavnean materials were memorized; some may have been written
down, particularly when left out of the 'Aqiban Mishnah. But it does
mean that materials concerning, or attributed to, Yavnean authorities
that exhibit other, quite different literary traits and appear in late col
lections, e.g., the later Midrashim, would seem on the face of it not to
derive from Yavnean tradents responsible for the Houses-pericopae.
The same tradent who carefully worked out a protasis + Houses -f- de
clare unclean\W&z#-pericope would not seem to be the one who told a
long discursive story. With reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai-materials,
collected in Development, pericopae occurring in earlier collections are
apt to be attributions of brief sayings. The narration of long stories
does not predominate in the earlier collections. The claim that such
long stories may go back to Yavneh cannot be definitively evaluated.
On the one side, traditions behind long stories may stand in some the
matic connection with tales told much earlier. On the other, that such
stories in late Midrashic compilations in their present form were told
and redacted at the same time as the brief pericopae occurring in
Mishnah-Tosefta seems unlikely, if stylistic considerations important
to some early Yavnean tradents were shared by most of them. Thus,
for instance, the sophisticated narrative about Yohanan b. Zakkai and
the gentile in the Temple ("The corpse does not render unclean... but
my father in heaven...," Development, p. 168, 172) does not look like
a pericope formulated at the same time as the at first... ordained...
materials, the Houses-disputes, and the exegetical pericopae occurring
in the Tannaitic Midrashim. Criteria of style are not decisive. But they
cannot be ignored, especially when, as in this instance, we can confi
dently attribute to a given circle pronounced stylistic preferences and
can explain the transmissional importance of those preferences.
The Yavnean verifications are by far the most important in helping
us to estimate the condition, by ca. 100 A.D., of the traditions con
cerning the Pharisees. Pericopae verified later on and those without
verification before compilation in Mishnah-Tosefta may occasionally
derive from the period before 70. We have no way of coming to a
reliable opinion about them. But materials known to Yavneans may
be presumed to have come into being and formed part of the normative
tradition before, or by the time of, authorities that refer to them.
Thus, for example, such pericopae as M. Ber. 1:3 and M. Yev.
1:4, subjected to repeated verifications by Yavnean masters, must
THE
PRE-70 PHARISEES
AT
225
YAVNEH
have been in something like their present form before the masters
referred to them. M. Yev. 1:4 preserves a Houses-dispute on basic
Levirate rules. Joshua, Aqiba, Tarfon, and others knew about the
dispute and discussed it. Similarly, M. Ber. 1:3, which contains the
Houses' dispute on the proper way of reciting the Shema', generates
stories involving Tarfon, Eleazar b. 'Azariah, and Ishmael. In these
instances, the fact that the Houses disputed such a point of law is
satisfactorily attested. To be sure, the actual form of the present
pericope is not necessarily attested. Tarfon does not say, "The House
of Shammai say... The House of Hillel say..." Joshua likewise does
not cite M. Yev. 1:4 verbatim, but he does make clear reference to
its substance, so that anyone familiar with the standard form might
easily reconstruct the dispute as we now have it. And the existence of
the Houses-form seems to be adequately attested in earliest Yavnean
times (II, pp. 1-5). So while we cannot claim that the exact words
of the pericopae in the Mishnah before us derive from early Yavneh,
we may aver that both the substance and the form of the pericopae
are attested at that early period, and that both, surely the former, are
quite likely to come from that time. It comes down to much the same
thing.
Let us now review the Yavnean verifications. We shall attempt to
reconstruct the Houses-traditions that were known by ca. 100-120
A.D. We shall next add laws for the first time attested in the Ushan
stratum.
c
A .
History
1. NamesM. Hag 2:2 (Possibly Yavnean, certainly fixed by Usha)

2. Simeon b. Shetah hung eighty women in Ashqelon (Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus)
3. Baba b. Buta, Shammaite disciple, offered daily suspensive guilt
offering (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
4. Yohanan b. Zakkai and Simeon b. Gamaliel wrote epistles to
outlying regions re agricultural taboos (Joshua)
5. Name: Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus + Aqiba)
c
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Temple Law,
Jerusalem,
Pilgrimage,
and Priestly
Dues
c
Burning unclean with clean meat of Temple altar (Eliezer + Aqiba)

Laying on of hands (M. Hag 2:2) (Abba Saul)
Bitter-water ritual ( Aqiba)
Israelites eat first-born with priests ( Aqiba)
Children make pilgrimage ( Aqiba)
c
226
VERIFICATIONS
C. Agricultural Tithes, Offerings, and Taboos

1. Unclean Heave-offering mixed with clean (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
2. Giving Heave-offering of grapes and the remainder is eventually
made into raisins (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
3. Removing old produce at Nisan (Joshua b. Hananiah)
4. Pe ah from olives, carobshow given (Gamaliel II)
5. Forgotten sheaf-rules (Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Joshua b. Hananiah)
6. Seventh-year produce rules (Tarfon)
7 . Second-tithe money in Jerusalem (Tarfon, Ben Zoma, Ben Azzai,
<Aqiba)
8. Heave-offering vetches ( Aqiba)
9. Fleece-offering ( Aqiba)
10. Date of New Year for trees ( Aqiba)
11. Olive-presses in walls of Jerusalem ( Aqiba)
12. Fourth year fruit-rules ('Aqiba)
13. Mixed seeds in vineyard (< Aqiba)
14. Heave-offering from black and white figs (Ilai)
y
D. Sabbath-law
1. 'Eruv in public domain (Hananiah nephew of Joshua)
2. 'Eruv for separate kinds of food (Hananiah nephew of Joshua)
3. 'Eruv for alley (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus + Aqiba + Disciple of Ish
mael)
4. Gentile/Sadducee in alley re 'Eruv (Gamaliel II = Meir + Judah)
5. Work started before Sabbath ('Aqiba)
c
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
E. Festival Law
How much does one drink to be liable on the Day of Atonement
(Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
Large cakes re Passover (Gamaliel II)
Pick pulse on festival (Gamaliel II)
Other festival rules (Gamaliel II)
Size of Sukkah (Eleazar b. R. Sadoq)
F. Liturgy
Order of blessing: Oil vs. myrtle (Gamaliel II)
Proper position for saying Shema' (Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Ishmael,
Tarfon)
How far recite Hallel at Seder (Tarfon, 'Aqiba)
Tefillin in privy ('Aqiba)
Where shake Lulav ('Aqiba, re Gamaliel, Joshua)
Limit re sisit (Jonathan b. Bathyra)
Circumcision of child born circumcized (Eleazar b. R. Sadoq)
G. Uncleanness Laws
1. Quarter-^ of bones in 'tent' (Joshua b. Hananiah)
THE
PRE-70
PHARISEES
AT
227
YAVNEH
2. Woman kneading in 'tent' ( Aqiba, Joshua b. Hananiah)

3. If man shook treepreparation for uncleanness by reason of water
(Joshua b. Hananiah)
4. Uncleanness of liquidsYosi b. Yo'ezer (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus +
<Aqiba)
5. Uncleanness of scroll-wrappers (Gamaliel II)
6. When do olives receive uncleanness in harvest (Gamaliel II)
7. Mustard-strainer (Eleazer b. R. Sadoq)
8. Itch inside itch (cleanness rite) ( Aqiba)
9. Insusceptibility of sheet ( Aqiba)
10. Searching grave-area ( Aqiba)
11. Issue of semen in third day ( Aqiba)
12. Uncleanness of fish ( Aqiba)
c
H. Civil Law, Torts, and Damages

1. Damaged bailment ( Aqiba)
c
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
I. Family Law and Inheritances

Vow not to have intercourse (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
Husband's inheritance when wife dies as a minor (Eliezer b. Hyrca
nus)
Signs of adulthood (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)
Levirate rules re brothers married to sisters (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus,
Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Abba Saul)
Levirate rules re co-wives (Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah, Aqiba,
Joshua b. Hananiah)
Test rags for each act of intercourse (Joshua b. Hananiah)
Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wife (Joshua b. Hananiah)
c
L a r g e r issue, e r r o n e o u s c o n s e c r a t i o n s , v e r i f i e d a l s o b y T a r f o n .
8.
9.
10.
11.
Wife remarries on testimony of one witness ( Aqiba, Gamaliel II)

Grounds for divorce ( Aqiba)
Dividing estate where order of deaths is unclear ( Aqiba)
Blood of woman who has given birth and not immersed (Eliezer
b. Hyrcanus)
J. Miscellany
1. Taboo against drinking gentile wine (Gamaliel II)
2. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus re overturning couch before festival, b. M.Q.
20a, is given by Eleazar b. R. Simeon as Houses-dispute, Tos.
M.Q. 2:9
c
The bulk of the Houses-disputes relate to three major sorts of law:

agricultural tithes, offerings, and taboos; uncleanness laws; and Sab
bath and festival laws. A fourth, somewhat less important area of law
pertains to family life and estates. Now we see that roughly the same
proportions apply to the Yavnean verifications.
228
VERIFICATIONS
We may reliably allege that by Yavnean times the names of the

pre-70 Pharisees were fairly well established in the lists represented
in M. Hag. 2:2. We have additional verification of the names of Yosi
b. Yo'ezer, Simeon b. Shetah, Baba b. Buta, and Simeon b. Gamaliel.
Simeon b. Shetah's hangings at Ashqelon are attested very early. So
are the epistles of Yohanan b. Zakkai and Simeon b. Gamaliel, and
Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness rulings. That constitutes the whole of
the historical record indubitably known at Yavneh. Clearly, the ear
liest Yavneans had only a modest interest in Pharisaic history. They
exhibit no claim to begin something new, but rather they take for
granted their continuity with the antecedent Pharisees. It simply can
not be maintained that early Yavneans were aware of a fundamental
break between themselves and earlier generations. Further, since no
one makes a point of denying any sort of break with the past, we
assume that it was unnecessary to do so. The continuity between
Temple and post-Temple times evidently was a fixed element in the
self-understanding of early Yavneans. There is no evidence that the
work of writing the history of what had gone before was undertaken
at Yavneh. That seems to have been an Ushan project.
We have no considerable evidence of special interest in Temple
laws, the Jerusalem pilgrimage, priestly dues, and the like. While it is
alleged that some of the earliest tractates were formed for the purpose
of preserving records of the Temple rites, the evidence before us
would not seem to contribute much support for that thesis. Neither,
however, does it refute it, since Temple practices before 70 were
presumably settled by priestly law and were not matters about which
disputes between the Houses were likely to arise, or, if they arose, to
be either important or remembered. The absence of any considerable
record of such disputes implicitly contradicts the later rabbinic claim
that before 70 the Pharisees settled questions of Temple procedures.
Apart from the laying-on-of-hands dispute, which is surely old and
pertinent primarily to the inner life of the party, the laws of none of
the verified Temple pericopae required Pharisaic adjudication at just
this time. Clearly the rule on burning unclean with clean meat, the
question of whether Israelites join with priests in eating the first-born
animal, the law on children's making pilgrimages, and the bitter water
ritualall these were matters of fact. Asking any Temple priest should
have produced an authoritative answer. They are random and do not
exhibit a single pattern of relationships or common underlying themes.
The considerable list of laws about agricultural tithes, offerings,
THE
PRE-70
PHARISEES
AT
YAVNEH
229
and taboos points toward a more extensive corpus of law than is

actually attested. It is taken for granted that the tithes and offerings are
given and agricultural taboos observed. The particular problems under
discussion in the very earliest period do not leave the impression that
early Yavneans had to settle fundamental issues about giving tithes
and offerings and observing agricultural taboos. On the contrary, only
minor details remained to be worked out. For example, the rule that
one gives Heave-offering only for the same species, e.g. grapes for
grapes, but not wine for grapes, must lie far in the background, if the
question now is asked, What about grapes that eventually are made into
raisins? Some of the other issues evidently are brought up by legal
logic, rather than by the exigencies of daily life; the olive-press in the
walls of Jerusalem is one obvious example.
Sabbath and festival laws are not sufficiently numerous to justify
an equivalent opinion. Clearly, the 'eruv was accepted in Pharisaic
law and may have formed a point in sectarian debate before 70. The
rule about making an 'eruv for an alley-way seems to be a genuine
Houses-dispute of pre-70 times. The masters debate whether the
Houses had said one had to do both, or either, of the required pro
cedures.
Some of the liturgical laws, on the other hand, form a striking
contrast because of their elementary character. Is it possible that it
was only in early Yavneh that rabbinic Jews recited the Shema'?To be
sure, the problem of where to shake the Lulav now first faced Jews
who had formerly observed the pilgrim festivals primarily in Jerusalem.
So the inquiries on such matters seem to pertain to fundamental litur
gical problems. But the number of verified laws is small, and we can
not draw significant conclusions from them. Similarly, Jews, including
Pharisees, presumably had observed the Passover Seder for genera
tions before Tarfon and Aqiba referred to the Houses-dispute on how
far one recites the Hallel. From the content of such laws we cannot
derive reliable conclusions. It is only the contrast between the ele
mentary problems of liturgy and the far-fetched issues faced by the
Houses with reference to agricultural and uncleanness laws that is
suggestive.
The uncleanness-pericopae likewise take for granted a very consider
able corpus of antecedent rulings. For example, the rule about convey
ing uncleanness by a "tent" underlies many Houses-disputes with
early verifications; the uncleanness of liquids, the rule If water be put
on, the question of when various objects cease, or begin, to receive
c
230
VERIFICATIONS
uncleannessthese rules are secondary and peripheral to the peri

copae in which they stand. One does not receive the impression that
the early Yavneans were engaged in the process of shaping a consider
able corpus of new laws concerning ritual cleanness.
By contrast, we have only one verified pericope concerning civil
law, torts, and damagesthat about the compensation for a damaged
bailment. On that basis, one can hardly imagine the later Pharisees
had left a considerable corpus of laws dealing with civil affairs. Further
there is the remarkable paucity of pericopae, with or without verifica
tion, in the whole of Seder Net(iqin. Later rabbis presumably took over
and refined and developed whatever civil laws survived the Destruc
tion, but they did not attribute them to the Houses of Shammai and
Hillel. This seems to me to suggest two things. First, the pre-70
Houses did not hand over a substantial corpus of laws concerning
civil matters, torts, and damages. They did not do so probably because
they did not have much occasion to develop such a corpus of laws.
The civil courts were in the hands of Temple priests, not sectaries, and
the Pharisees concentrated their attention on those sorts of law of
immediate sectarian interest, specifically agricultural, cleanness, Sab
bath and festival, and, in a smaller degree, family laws. If this sugges
tion is accepted, then the second conclusion closely follows. The at
tributions of laws and disputes to the pre-70 Pharisees are apt in the
main to be reliable, for the later rabbis evidently did not assign to
pre-70 Pharisees, or to the Houses, disputes or laws on subjects about
which the pre-70 Pharisees in fact did not hand on traditions.
Family and inheritance law is of several kinds. Part of family law
pertains to the division of property, e.g. the sanctification of property
in connection with a divorce, dividing estates, and the like. The other
part deals with sexual taboos, such as the laws of menstrual purity,
the prohibition of marriage among various relationships and the like.
The former leaves the impression of the development of relatively new
types of rules. Thus Gamaliel's saying, that 'we are having difficulty
in rationalizing one rule, so do not raise a problem in connection with
another,' suggests that the early Yavneans took over a considerable
corpus of law, partly from the Pharisaic party, partly from common
law, and had to work out and rationalize the whole. On the other hand,
the Houses-dispute about Levirate marriage-rules seems to me firmly
attested, and that the pre-70 Houses debated the matter appears be
yond reasonable doubt.
The attestations of J . l , 2 are not strong.
THE
PRE-70
PHARISEES
AT
USHA
231
vii. THE PRE-70 PHARISEES AT USHA
The Ushan verifications, while chronologically less decisive than

the Yavnean ones, require specification in terms of the sorts of law
and traditions pertaining to pre-70 Pharisees attested within less than
a century after the destruction of the Temple.
A. History
1. Echo to Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest (Judah b.
Baba)
2. Echo to Hillel, Samuel the Small etc. (Judah b. Baba)
3. Hillel came up at 40 (Post- Aqibans ?)
4. Rise of Hillel (Tos. Pisha 4:13 version)
5. Hillel expounded language of common folk (Meir + Judah?)
6. Disputes come from poor (Yosi)
7. End of Grapeclusters (Judah b. Baba)
8. Trough of Jehu (Judah b. Ilai)
9. Hillel: Scatter/gather (Simeon b. Yohai)
10. Who prepared heifer-sacrifices (Meir)
11. Lay/not lay (Meir + Judah)
12. Temple of Onias (Meir + Judah)
13. Simeon b. Shetah vs. Judah b. Tabbai as Nasi (Meir + Judah)
14. Letter of Gamaliel to Diaspora (Judah)
15. Yohanan b. Gudgada's sons (Judah)
4
B. Temple Law, Jerusalem, Pilgrimage, and Priestly Dues

1. Two sprinklings of sacrificial blood (Eliezer b. Jacob)
2. Coins for sheqel (Simeon b. Yohai)
3. Burn flesh inside/outside (Meir + Judah)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
C. Agricultural Tithes, Offerings, and Taboos

Watering plants until New Year of Seventh Year (Yosi b. Kifar,
or Eleazar b. R. Sadoq)
Israelite woman eats Terumah (Yosi)
Dough for Hallah (Yosi)
Heave-offering of oil for crushed olives (Yosi)
Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem (Yosi)
Olive-presses in walls of Jerusalem (Yosi)
Demai re 'omer (Simeon b. Yohai)
Demai re Hallah (Simeon b. Yohai)
Change silver and produce (Meir)
Heave-offering of fenugreek (Meir + Judah)
Fruit of prepared field in Seventh Year (Judah)
Vineyard patch (Judah)
Burn doubtful Heave-offering (Judah)
Young shoot over stone (Simeon b. Gamaliel, Yosi + Meir)
232
VERIFICATIONS
15. Assigning produce to past/coming year re pod (Simeon b. Gamaliel)

16. Fruit of Fourth Year vineyard re Fifth, Removal (Simeon b. Gama
liel)
17. Demai re sweet oil (Nathan)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
D. Sabbath Law
Clearing table on Sabbath (Yosi)
Work started before Sabbath, completed on Sabbath (Yosi)
'Eruv with Sadducee (Meir + Judah)
Put back on stove (Meir + Judah)
Food for Sabbath (Judah)
Work to gentile launderer before Sabbath (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
Charity on Sabbath (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
'Eruv for cistern (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
E. Festival Law
Proselyte on day before Passover (Yosi)
Gifts on festival (Yosi + Judah)
Return pesah whole (Simeon b. Yohai)
Tying pigeon (Simeon b. Yohai)
Egg laid on festival (Meir)
Prepare spices, salt on festival (Meir)
Timber-roofing of Sukkah (Meir + Judah)
Pick pulse on festival (Judah)
More vessels on account of need (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
F. Liturgy
1. Order of Havdalah (Meir + Judah)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
G. Uncleanness Laws
Vessels before 'am ha*ares (Dosetai b. R. Yannai)
Uncleanness of weasel (Yosi)
Burn clean and unclean meat together (Yosi)
Measure chest (Yosi)
Split in roof (Yosi)
Gather grapes in grave-area (Yosi)
Lid-chain connector (Yosi)
Place water (M. Maksh. 1:4) (Yosi + Judah)
Vessel under waterspout (Yosi + Meir)
Water from roof leaked into jar (Yosi + Meir)
Uncleanness of Qohelet (Yosi + Simeon)
Uncleanness of girdle (Simeon b. Yohai)
Removing pot for Heave-offering (Simeon b. Yohai)
Uncleanness of her who has difficulty giving birth (Simeon b.
Yohai)
Sin-offering water that has fulfilled its purpose (Simeon b. Yohai)
THE
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
PRE-70
PHARISEES
AT
USHA
233
How much lacking in skull (Tent) (Meir)

When is tube clean (Meir + Judah)
When is sheet clean (Meir + Judah)
Stool on baking-trough (Meir + Judah)
Menstrual blood of gentile woman (Meir + Judah)
Quarter-^ of bones in tent (Judah)
When make vat unclean (Judah)
Open hole to let out uncleanness (Judah)
Anoint self with clean oil (Judah)
Blood of carcass (Judah)
Water-skin (Judah)
Sell food to haver (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
When is ritual pool deemed clean (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
H. Civil Law, Torts, and Damages

1. Hillel and futures (usury) (Meir, Judah, Simeon)
2. Restore beam or value (Simeon b. Gamaliel)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I. Family Law and Inheritances

Lewdness with minor son (Yosi)
Cohabitation with mother-in-law (Yosi + Judah)
Girl married before flow (Meir, Simeon b. Gamaliel, Judah)
Nursing mother remarries (Meir + Judah)
Betrothed woman disposes of goods (Judah)
How many children before desisting from marital life (Nathan)
Annuling daughter's vows (Nathan)
Three betrothe womanwitness/agent (Nathan)
1.
2.
4.
4.
J. Miscellany
Targum of Job (Yosi)
Nazir: Erroneous vow (Yosi; Judah)
Chicken and cheese (Yosi)
Nazirite vow for longer period (Judah)
In general, the pattern discerned in Yavnean attestations persists, but

with one important change. Ushans clearly were involved in the
development of a history of pre-70 Pharisaism. Nearly all historical
pericopae for which we could suggest verification derive from Us
hans, in particular Judah b. Baba, Meir, and Judah. Clearly, important
elements of the rabbinic history of Pharisaism were given approxi
mately fixed form in Ushan times.
Otherwise, the earlier proportions are not greatly revised. We find
no important increase in Temple, Jerusalem, pilgrimage, and priestly
laws. Agricultural tithes and related matters and uncleanness rules
continue to constitute by far the largest part of Ushan attestations.
234
VERIFICATIONS
Those sorts of law concerning which we found few rules remain the
same; we observe no tendency to shape in the names of the Houses
laws on civil and family affairs.
We therefore cannot hypothesize that the Houses serve as a mere
literary convenience for the formation of laws in easily remembered
patterns. Had there been such a convenience, it should have served for
civil laws no less than cleanness ones. Since it does not, I suppose
that the tradents of Yavneh and Usha did not invent in the names of
the Houses pericopae dealing with laws on which they had no tradi
tions from the Houses. They clearly reworked both protases and
apodoses of various sorts of Houses-materials. But, as I said, they
apparently did not fabricate laws according to the Houses-pattern
concerning matters about which the historical Houses had left them
no traditions whatever. This seems to me very persuasive evidence of
the fundamental authenticity of the rabbinic traditions about the pre70 Pharisees. It was not likely that later tradents invented of whole
cloth something without any foundation whatever in earlier traditions.
It may now be suggested that the pre-70 Houses handed on tradi
tions concerning three areas of law: agricultural tithes, offerings, and
taboos; Sabbath and festival law; and cleanness rules. It is entirely
possible that a few family-laws were formulated, in particular with
relationship to Levirate marriage. Whether the details of the laws
attributed to the Houses actually derive from the pre-70 masters of
course is a more difficult question. Our earlier studies have shown a
tendency to revise both protases and apodoses, though never in the
same pericope. So it would seem that the thematic substance, but not
the details, of the pre-70 traditions, particularly those deriving from
the Houses, in considerable measure lies before us.
v n i . CONCLUSION
If, as is alleged, elements of the rabbinic traditions about the Phari

sees before 70 accurately portray the themes of laws of the pre-70
Pharisaic sect, we must then ask, Do those traditions derive in their
present form from before 70?
Let us consider the evidence of two of the best attested pericopae,
M. Ber. 1:3 and M. Yev. 1:4. Neither contains signs of pre-70 wording.
Both are in the standard Houses-dispute form and give us no idea of
how the individual Houses, when not juxtaposed in an artificial, antonymic structure, actually formulated and preserved their legal tradi-
CONCLUSION
235
tions. So both seem to me to depend upon the Mishnaic setting in all

respects.
The Houses-dispute on reading the Shema' is attested by Tarfon,
Eleazar b. 'Azariah, and Ishmael, which means that by ca. 90 A.D. it
was well known at Yavneh that the Houses had disputed how the
Shemcf was to be read. Behind the dispute lay a difference in whether
the literal sense of Scripture must predominate, as is often the case in
Shammaite rulings, or not, as is often the case in Hillelite exegeses,
all the more so in the subsequent 'Aqiban ones. The pericope follows
in logical sequence upon discussions of when one must read the Shemcf
night and morning, in which Eliezer, Gamaliel and Joshua appear.
The next set of pericopae deals with other matters. So the primary issue
pertaining to the Shemcf in early Yavnean discourse concerned when,
then how the Shemcf was to be read. Obviously, all parties assumed one
does indeed read the Shema' morning and night. No one bothered to
say so. But the issues of when and how one does it ought also to have
been settled a long time ago, if it were a routine private devotional
practice, and if it was supposed that all details of religious life were
to be determined precisely by law. To teach, "It is your duty to recite
the Shemcf night and morning; just how and when you do it is to be
settled by your own piety and common sense" was probably the prac
tice of the 'am ha ares. And the separation of the Pharisees from the
practices of common piety was almost certainly a long and gradual
processit had to be, since new, precise laws in all details of religious
life could not be invented at once. So this common but unspecified
pious practice is to be supposed as the general background against
which the Houses' disputes may be seen as genuine points of precise
definition and differentiation. Among them, again, the manner in
which one recites the Shema' does not look like an issue faced for the
first time in early Yavneh. The issue facing the early Yavneans and
that addressed by the Houses are closely related. The absence of ex
perience in the matter raises the possibility that the Houses and the
early Yavneans, in close sequence, were working out what was to them
a fundamentally new liturgical practice, new not in fundamentals but
in precise definitions. In taking over the governance of cultic life,
just as they apparently took over the pilgrim festivals formerly
centered in the Temple and preserved them after the destruction of
the Temple, the early Yavneans had to work out rules for what earlier
was primarily in the hands of priests. This accounts for some of their
innovations, but more are accounted for by the determination to exy
236
VERIFICATIONS
tend the rule of precise laws to all those areas of life formerly left to
the judgment of the pious individual.
M. Yev. 1:4, well attested by nearly all major authorities of early
Yavneh, has the Houses disagree on whether the co-wives of deceased
brothers may marry surviving brothers. The House of Shammai say
that while the wives do not enter Levirate marriage with the surviving
brothers, the co-wives do so. The House of Hillel forbid it. The rest
of the pericope simply spells out the obvious consequences of such
marriages, and ends with the report that the Houses nonetheless inter
married. M. Yev. 1:1 ignores the position of the Shammaites. Its
introductory clause conforms to the Hillelite opinion, holding that
the women listed among the fifteen categories do free their co-wives
from halisah and from Levirate marriage. Since the Houses dispute the
very point of the introductory clause of M. Yev. 1:1, we may take
for granted that that clause was supplied by an editor of Hillelite
persuasion. Of the materials in M. Yev. 1:1, all that can have come
from the time of the Houses is the list of fifteen. The rest is Hillelite
explanatory material, which serves as a kind of internal gloss. M. Yev.
1:2-3 supplies still more such internal glosses, explaining the contents
and consequences of M. Yev. 1:1. So the chapter as a whole looks
like a composition developed out of M. Yev. 1:1, the list of fifteen
being the only "very old" part of it. The Houses-dispute then is
tacked on at the end. The Hillelite and 'Aqiban redactors did not hesi
tate to preserve Shammaite opinions, generally in the context of Houses'"
disputes, but occasionally by themselves.
From these analyses of M. Ber. 1:1-3 and M. Yev. 1:1-4 it is difficult
to see how extant elements of either pericope, apart from a generalized
tradition of a dispute, derive in present form from the period before
70 A.D. M. Ber 1:1-3 clearly is an early Yavnean set of materials. The
appearance of the Houses is not unexpected. But we have no reason
to believe that the language originally formulated by the respective
Houses is now before us. The Houses-form presumably derives from
early Yavneh, perhaps even from a few years before the destruction
of Jerusalem, for reasons stated earlier (II, pp. 1-5). But what lies
before, and behind, the attributions to the Houses of opinions now
preserved primarily in the context of antonymic disputes, seems to
me no longer available. The bare fact of a dispute is reported in M.
Yev. 1:4. M. Yev. 1:1-3 ignores the Shammaite position altogether,,
as I said, since it is the work of Hillelites and their successors. Sowhatever comes before the Houses-dispute of M. Yev. 1:4 is not now
CONCLUSION
237
present. We have not a hint as to how the Houses earlier preserved

those respective positions outside of the dispute-form. We do not see
traces of the Houses' own records of their rules, e.g. simple rules, ar
ranged in lists by themes, such as one finds in the Qumranian lawpericopae, the abrogations of Yohanan, and the Yosi-uncleanness
decrees, to name three reasonable models. It seems to me that the
dispute-form, deriving from early Yavneh, possibly a few years earlier
than that, has simply ignored the form and possibly also the wording
of whatever traditions each House preserved individually, and not in
relationship to those of the corresponding party.
Since all materials on Pharisees had to pass through the crucible of
the Houses, it is no wonder that masters before Shammai/Hillel are
scarcely known in the earliest strata. As the lists of the early Pharisees
were abstracted from the Houses-disputes, other areas of interest in
pre-70 Pharisaism came to the fore, and with new interests came the
tendency to develop new sorts of historical materials and to assign
them to names on that early list. This looks to be an Ushan enterprise.
What of the superscriptions? If the Houses-disputes depend upon
the apodoses for the respective rulings, then the protases, supplying
the legal agenda of pre-70 Pharisaism according to the later rabbis, also
had to be agreed upon. We observed that the apodoses of Houses-dis
putes exhibit striking mnemonic traits; but they also mean practically
nothing without the protases. One could never have reconstructed the
substance of a law out of House of Shammai declare unclean, House of
Hillel declare clean, and similar cliches. So the whole corpus of the law,
with remarkably few exceptions, relies upon the protases. With them
one could readily reconstruct the decisions. Without them he would
have no idea as to the subject, let alone the substance, of the law.
The protases have no mnemonic traits in common. No one has
attempted to standardize the length, form, or rhythm of the protases.
That does not mean they were not memorized. But it also does not
mean that literary characteristics can help us in estimating the earliest
formal traits of the Houses-protases.
If, furthermore, we add up all the protases of Houses-disputes, we
do not come out with a coherent legal code, but merely with elements
which might be used in such a code. These elements entirely depend
for coherence upon Mishnah-Tosefta in its present form. We scarcely
have an outline of a legal agenda congruent to the whole of MishnahTosefta, even to the three parts in which the Houses-disputes are
abundant. The Houses-disputes tend to appear episodically, not uni-
238
VERIFICATIONS
formly. As observed, they frequently deal with relatively secondary

details of law, the primary aspects of which are well-established. Now
this may mean that much of rabbinic law rests upon antecedent Phar
isaic or popular foundations. But it must mean that in their present
condition, the Houses-disputes do not convey a picture of the con
figuration of that pre-70 law. The Houses-disputes thus constitute
part of the literature of the Mishnah-Tosefta. In every respect they
are subordinated to the structure, frequently also to the form, of
Mishnah-Tosefta. Even though we have been able to suggest reasons
for thinking those disputes accurately convey relatively early tradi
tions about the themes of Houses-disputes, we cannot at this stage
propose that either the form or the substance of the pericopae accurately
represents the Houses-disputes of pre-70 times, all the more so the
Houses-traditions, not set into dispute-form, of that period.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

i. THE MISSING TRADITIONS
Nearly all pre-70 traditions were thoroughly revised at Yavneh and

afterward. We observed slight evidence of what the respective Houses'
materials looked like except when set in antithetical juxtaposition, in
the Yavnean dispute- and related forms. We cannot imagine how one
might reconstruct either House's laws, for instance, in the model of
Qumranian legal collections. Obviously, in the original form a House's
laws were not joined with the contrary opinions of the opposition.
They must have been constituted of more explicit statements than
"liable," "unclean," and "two." Having no such fully articulated law
codes, we are left with the apparently accurate record of the themes on
which the Houses legislated, but not their exact words. Further, as I
just said, the forms of the Houses-traditions depend entirely on the
protases for meaning, and those protases are an integral part of the
structure of Mishnah-Tosefta and are not, except perhaps in content,
the remnants of an antecedent set of coherent laws. Since MishnahTosefta from a formal and literary viewpoint begins with 'Aqiba, we
can hardly maintain that the present forms of the protases reflect the
literary characteristics of pre-70 law-collections. Therefore the whole
of the rabbinic Houses-tradition, while thematicallyaptto be authentic,
is very likely in the first instance the creation of early Yavneh. It seems
to me to have been so thoroughly reworked at Yavneh that the form
does not come much earlier than that point.
If we now construct the agenda of Pharisaic traditions we should
have expected on the basis of external descriptions of the sect, we
discern a remarkable disparity. The traits of Pharisaism emphasized
by Josephus, their principal beliefs and practices, nowhere occur in
the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees. The issues important to other
sects of the period before 70, those problems that occupied the at
tention of the authorities and a central place in the traditions of the
Christians and Qumranians, and of the writers of Apocryphal and
Pseudepigraphic literature and related collections, simply do not
come to the surface in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. It
240
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
serves no good purpose to allege that the early Yavneans suppressed

what we do not now find. We simply do not know what they did not
hand on, only what they did. Nonetheless, it will give an illuminating
perspective on what we do have to reflect on what is missing.
The focus of interest of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees
is the internal affairs of the Pharisaic party itself. The primary partisan
issues center upon Shammai's and his House's relationship to Hillel
and his House. The competing sects, by contrast, are ignored. Essenes and Christians make no appearance at all. The Sadducees are
first mentioned by Yohanan b. Zakkai. The Romans never occur.
The Hasmonean monarchy is reduced to a single name, Yannai the
King, for Yohanan the High Priest, so far as the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees are concerned, was a good Pharisee. In all, the tra
ditions give the impression of intense concentration on the inner life of
the party, or sect, whose intimate affairs take precedence, in the larger
scheme of history, over the affairs of state, cult, and country. The
state is a shadowy presence at best. The cult is of secondary importance.
The country's life and the struggle with Rome as a whole are bypassed
in silence. What we have, therefore, are the records of the party chiefly
in regard to the life of the party itself.
Yet even here, the records exhibit puzzling lacunae. Josephus's
stories of the slaughter of Pharisees, of their striving for power over
the whole state, of their active participation and influence in govern
mentthose recurrent themes of his narrative produce at best a faint
echo in a few Simeon b. Shetah-pericopae. It is as though the party
really begins with Shammai, Hillel, Shema'iah, Abtalion, and the
others in that circle of masters. The most striking silence is the ab
sence of significant records concerning the century and a half before
Hillel. Excluding Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest, who
were not Pharisees, we hear remarkably little from, or about, the
named masters from the Yosi's to Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b.
Tabbai. The record begins in effect with Hillel and Shammai, or, more
really, with their Houses. Simeon is exceptional, but the more impor
tant pericopae involving him with Yannai either are spun out of the
relationship with Yannai itself ("Torah honors the sage") or look like
rough approximations of Josephus-narratives. So the rabbinic tradi
tions about the Pharisees may accurately reflect at most the situation
prevailing in the last seven or eight decades of the party's life, down
to 70 A.D. It would thus seem that the first considerable revision of
Pharisaic materials took place in the period of Hillel and the formation
THE
MISSING
TRADITIONS
241
of the Houses. Then whatever existed about pre-Hillelite Pharisees

was simply obliterated. The second major revision apparently began
at early Yavneh, and was completed by Ushan times. The antecedent
traditions evidently were given completely new form, but the sub
stance, at least in regard to legal themes, was carried forward.
Having recognized, as the largest corpus of missing traditions,
nearly the whole record of pre-Hillelite Pharisaismthat is, the period
in which the Pharisaic party constituted an important force in Hasmonean politics, we now review the specific references of Josephus to
Pharisaism. In War l:110ff., Josephus describes the Pharisees as a
body of Jews "with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation
in the observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws."
Alexandra listened to them, and they took advantage of her to become
the real administrators of the state: "If she ruled the nation, the Phari
sees ruled her." They therefore put to death a man who had advised
the king to crucify eight hundred victims, and "proceeded to kill
whomsoever they would." In War 1:571, a court intrigue includes the
accusation that someone had "subsidized the Pharisees to oppose
him."
In War 2:119, 162 ff., we find the first extended description of the
Pharisees as a party. The Pharisees attribute everything to fate and to
God. They are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws.
They hold that right action mostly rests with men, but Fate cooperates.
The soul is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into
another body, and the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.
By contrast, the Sadducees do not believe in Fate; man has free choice
of good or evil; the soul does not persist after death; nor is there
punishment or reward. "The Pharisees are affectionate to each other
and cultivate harmonious relations with the community. The Sad
ducees... are... rather boorish" etc.
In Antiquities 13: 171-2, we have the second version of the fore
going discussion. The Pharisees say certain events, but not all, are the
work of Fate; the Essenes have Fate as mistress of all things; the
Sadducees do away with Fatea neat pattern. In 13: 288, the Pharisees
are discribed as highly influential. Then comes the banquet of Hyrcanus
(I, pp. 172-176). Josephus concludes (297f.) by explaining that the
Pharisees have regulations passed down by former generations and
not recorded in the Laws of Moses, "for which reason they are rejected
by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regulations should
be considered valid which were written down [in Scripture] and that
242
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
those which had been handed down by former generations need not
be observed" (above, p. 163).
The Pharisees are supported by the masses, the Sadducees by only
the rich people. In Antiquities 13:401, Josephus repeats that the
Pharisees are very influential; in 405ff., he tells a story to illustrate
their popular influence. The passage corresponds to War 1:11 Off.
Antiquities 15:3, refers to Samaias and Pollion. Like Hyrcanus, Pol
lion was able to foretell the future, "and this turned out to be so, for
God fulfilled his words." In 15:370, Herod shows favor to the same
men. In Antiquities 17:41-6, the Pharisees are described as influential,
possessing foresight, "for they were believed to have foreknowledge
of things through God's appearances to them."
In Antiquities 18:11-23, we find the most coherent statement (trans.
Louis Feldman, pp. llff.):
The Pharisees simplify their standard of living, making no concession
to luxury. They follow the guidance of that which their doctrine has
selected and transmitted as good, attaching the chief importance to the
observance of those commandments which it has seen fit to dictate to
them. They show respect and deference to their elders, nor do they
rashly presume to contradict their proposals.
Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate,
still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in
man's power, since it was God's good pleasure that there should be a
fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be
admitted to the council-chamber of fate.
They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there
are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led
lives of virtue or vice; eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls,
while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life.
Because of these views they are, as a matter of fact, extremely
influential among the townsfolk; and all the prayers [vows] and sacred
rites of divine worship are performed according to their exposition.
This is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, by practising
the highest ideals both in their way of living and in their discourse,
have paid to the excellence of the Pharisees.
By contrast the Sadducees have no belief in life after death. "The
soul perishes along with the body. They own to no observance apart
from the laws." The Sadducees furthermore disagree with their teach
ers. They accomplish "practically nothing," because the Pharisees
force them to do their will, since "otherwise the masses would not
tolerate them." In Life 197, finally, Josephus repeats that the Pharisees
"have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's
laws." So Josephus.
THE
MISSING
TRADITIONS
243
The first thing we notice is that Josephus says next to nothing

about the predominant issues in the rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees. Shammai and Hillel are not explicitly mentioned, let alone
their Houses. Above all, we find not the slightest allusion to laws of
ritual purity, agricultural taboos, Sabbath and festivals, and the like,
which predominate in the traditions of the Houses. In the detailed
account of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, Simeon b. Shetah does
not occur. Apart from the banquet of John Hyrcanus, we could not,
relying upon Josephus, recover a single significant detail of the rab
binic traditions about the Pharisees, let alone the main outlines of the
whole.
And the contrary also is the case: from the rabbinic-Pharisaic
materials we could not have envisaged the picture drawn by Josephus,
with the same exception noted above. The allegation, to be sure, that
the Pharisees "excel the rest of the nation in observances of religion
and as exact exponents of the laws" may be taken for granted in the
rabbinic materials, but it is never spelled out. The rabbis never alluded
to competing groups in Pharisaic times; the Sadducees occur only in
Yavnean materials. Strikingly, the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees
never alleged that the Hasmoneans listened to what they said. As we
noticed, the rabbis never imagined that the Pharisees were "the real
administrators of the state." What they claimed to "administer" was
the recitation of Grace at the king's table. The rabbis' Pharisees engaged
in no court intrigues. They surely never told the king to put anyone
to death. They were beyond "subsidy."
Josephus's agenda of Pharisaic doctrine hardly coincides with that
of the rabbis. We have no illusion to "fate" in the whole corpus.
While Josephus seems to paraphrase Aqiba's saying, that all is in the
hands of heaven yet man has free choice, that saying is nowhere
attributed to pre-70 Pharisees, certainly not to the Pharisees who would
have flourished in the period in which Josephus places such beliefs.
We find no references to the soul's imperishability, all the more so to
the transmigration of souls. The Houses' debate on the intermediate
group comes closest to Josephus's report. As to Josephus's allegation
that the Pharisees are affectionate to one another, we may observe that
is not how the Hillelites report matters. Josephus knows nothing of
the Shammaites' slaughter of Hillelites, their mob-action against Hillel
in the Temple, and other stories that suggest a less than affectionate
relationship within the Pharisaic group. So, for Josephus, the three
chief issues of sectarian consequence are belief in fate, belief in tradic
244
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
tions outside of the Laws of Moses, and influence over political life.
The Pharisees believe in fate, have traditions from the fathers, and
exercise significant influence in public affairs. The Sadducees do not
believe in fate, do not accept other than Mosaic laws, and have no
consequence in public life. For the rabbinic traditions about the Phari
sees, the three chief issues of sectarian consequence are ritual purity,
agricultural taboos, and Sabbath and festival behavior.
It is not our purpose here to speculate about the "historical Phari
sees." For all we know, all reports are correct. The Pharisees indeed
differed from the others in their belief in fate (a little bit), in their con
viction of an imperishable soul, in their public influence, in their ob
servance of ritual purity outside of the Temple, in their careful keeping
of agricultural taboos, and in their manner of behavior on the Sabbath
and festivals. The first three do not exclude the second. Our purpose
is merely to gain a better perspective on the sorts of traditions the
later rabbis preserved about, and assigned to, the pre-70 Pharisees.
That perspective illumines the characteristics of the rabbis and of
Josephus, respectively. We learn that what interested the one was of
no concern to the other. From that fact it does not follow that stories
absent in the one or the other actually never happened. No one main
tains that what Josephus ignores never existed. Nor is it a necessary
inference that stories present in both must assuredly have in fact taken
place.
When we survey the references to Pharisees in the Synoptic Gospels,
we observe close correspondences. While the Synoptic writers have
no knowledge of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, which ought to
have been important in the period with which they deal, but assuredly
were important in the period in which they wrote, they do lay emphasis
on matters already familiar in the rabbinic traditions. We shall review
the more important references to Pharisees.
Matt. 3:7 has Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism. Matt.
9:14 refers to fasting on the part of Pharisees and the disciples of
John. Matt. 12: Iff. represents the Pharisees as criticizing Jesus's dis
ciples for picking grain on the Sabbath, and Sabbath observance recurs
as a sectarian issue, with the apophthegm "the son of man is Lord of the
Sabbath" forming the heart of the matter. The Sabbath-pericope is
complex and highly developed. It certainly makes Sabbath-observance
an important issue in Christian-Pharisaic relations. Matt. 12:38 has
the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus. Matt. 15: Iff. raises the issue
of ritual uncleanness: "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition
THE
MISSING
TRADITIONS
245
of the elders, for they do not wash their hands when they eat?" The
Pharisees are then represented (15:13) as not the creation of God, as
blind guides, and so on. Again, in Matt. 16:Iff., the Pharisees and
Sadducees ask for signs from heaven. Matt. 16:6-12 describes the
teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees as leaventhe two are seen
as one group (!). This is peculiar to Matt., who did not understand
Mk.'s "leaven of Herod." In Matt. 19:3, the Pharisees ask whether it
is lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause. In the Pharisaic pericope
of Matt. 22:15ff., the repertoire of arguments pertains to paying taxes
to Caesar, resurrection of the dead (Sadducees), the laws of Levirate
marriage (tied to the foregoing), the great commandment in the law,
the Messiah (whose son is he?), and then follows the condemnation
of the Pharisees: They do not practice what they preach. They demand
too much of ordinary folk. They flaunt their piety, wear long fringes
and broad tefillin, sit in places of honor, and enjoy being called rabbi.
The woe-sayings condemn the scribes and Pharisees for making
converts (23:13), for oath-taking and consecrating objects to the
Temple, for tithing mint, and dill and cummin, and neglecting weight
ier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith; for paying attention
to the cleanness of the outside of the cup and of the plate, but "inside
they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee, first cleanse
the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be
clean." This leads to a second reference to cleanness laws, this time
for allegorical purposes: "You are like white-washed tombs, outwardly
beautiful but inside full of bones." "So you also outwardly appear
righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy" etc. Then
comes the "brood of vipers" and related abusive sayings. The ethicization of purity laws recurs as a Synoptic theme.
Mark 2:15ff. has the "scribes of the Pharisees" condemn Jesus for
eating with sinners and tax collectors; again, "why do John's and the
Pharisees' disciples fast, and your disciples do not"; then the story of
the Sabbath violation involving picking ears of grain on the Sabbath,
with the Lord of the Sabbath saying, and healing on the Sabbaththe
whole repertoire. Mk. 7: Iff. has the Pharisees criticize the disciples
for not washing their hands before eating, "for the Pharisees and all
the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradi
tion of the elders, and when they come from the market place, they do
not eat unless they purify themselves, and there are many other tradi
tions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels
of bronze." Mk. 7:5 further has the Pharisees ask why the disciples
246
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
do not "live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with
defiled hands." Jesus then says the famous "nothing outside a man...
can defile him..." etc. The Pharisees demand a sign (Mk. 8:11); the
lawfulness of divorce occurs (10:2ff.). The Sadduceans debate the
resurrection of the dead, along with the Levirate issue (13:18ff.), and
this is followed by the scribes' question on which commandment comes
first of all. Mark's scribes (13:38) become Pharisees and scribes for
Matthew, as we observed.
Luke's Pharisees raise the issue of Jesus's forgiving sins and healing
(5:17ff.), the authority of the son of man being at issue. The associa
tion with tax collectors and the failure of Jesus's disciples to fast are
further discussed (Lk. 5:29ff.), then comes the Sabbath-pericope (6: Iff.),
healing on the Sabbath, and the like. The authority of the son of man
and baptism are reviewed (7:28ff.); eating with sinners is explained
(7:36). The Pharisees wash the outside of the cup, but inside are full
of extortion (11:37). The Pharisees tithe mint, rue, and every herb,
and neglect justice (11:42ff.), choose the best seats in synagogues and
salutations in the market places. They are compared to unseen graves.
They overburden the people. Healing on the Sabbath is introduced,
but not with reference to Pharisees (13:1 Off.); the Pharisees later recur
in the same issue (14: Iff.). Eating with sinners is mentioned in Lk.
15:Iff. The Sadducees-and-resurrection pericope recurs (20:27ff.).
John's Pharisees raise the question of the baptism of one who is
neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, with reference to John
the Baptist (1:24). Nicodemus the Pharisee asks for a sign (31: Iff.).
The primary concern of John's Pharisees is Jesus's messiahship (e.g.
8: Iff.). Healing on the Sabbath recurs (9:13ff.). That Jesus is not from
God because he does not keep the Sabbath (9:16) is the claim of the
Pharisees.
As we review the recurrent themes in the Gospels' accounts of the
Pharisees, we find the following: Sabbath-observance, in particular,
picking food and healing the sick; cleanness laws, in particular the
view that cleanness-laws are less important than ethical command
ments, and in the same context, eating with people who do not keep
either cleanness-laws or ethical commandments (tax-collectors and the
like); consecrating objects to the Temple and oath-taking; stress on
tithing little things and (again) neglecting ethical matters; fasting;
and lawful divorce.
To the legal agenda, we may add doctrinal questions: the character
and power of the son of man; the value of baptism; signs as authenti-
THE
MISSING
TRADITIONS
247
cation of the messiah; relations to the Roman government; the resur

rection of the dead, tied to a Levirate-pericope; and the relative value
of the respective commandments. The third category consists of the
abuse of Pharisees; this is of no concern here. The legal agenda at
every point has a counterpart in the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees.
Moreover, the stress of the Gospels seems just about right: cleanness
laws, agricultural taboos, Sabbath and festival observance, family
laws. We further observed attention to Temple-consecration and oaths.
Only fasting seems to play no significant part in the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees.
The doctrinal issues are quite another matter. We have seen no
pericopae dealing with any of these issues, excluding Hillel on "the
whole Torah." We have no rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees con
cerning the Messiah, his powers, rights, and obligations. Were we to
construct a picture of first-century Palestinian Judaism entirely on the
basis of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, we should not have
known that the Messiah was a significant element. Indeed, we should
not have heard of the messianic expectation at all. Baptism in the
sense of the Gospels' discussions has not come before us, although
baptism in another sense, primarily for the purification of ritual un
cleanness, not in relationship to the forgiveness of sin, is of course
well attested. But these look like different baptisms; the one is primarily
ritual, the other moral. The Gospels' tendency to ethicize both bap
tism and purity-rules and to set tithing into opposition with moral
behavior is polemical; but it is not without precedent in biblical
prophecy. No echo of that attitude toward ritual comes before us in
the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. As we observed, the
Romans nowhere make an appearance. Whether or not one should
pay taxes is never raised in materials we have reviewed.
We now see that a wide range of issues important in the traditions
concerning other groups, and of other groups concerning the Phari
sees, is either entirely absent or strikingly subordinated in the rabbinic
traditions about the Pharisees. Questions to which we find no ans
wers in the rabbinic materials include the following: What was the
canon of the Scriptures? How did the Pharisees view other groups?
Did the Pharisees believe in the immortality of the soul? What was the
Pharisees' attitude to the Temple? to sacrifice? to the priesthood?
What were the interpretations of baptism supplied by Pharisees?
How did the Pharisees view heteropraxy and heterodoxy? Was the
claim of being the Messiah taken seriously? Was it considered punish-
248
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
able? What were the Pharisees' expectations concerning the Messiah?

What were their attitudes to apocalyptic visions, ideas, and personal
ities ? What was the attitude of the party toward Hellenistic society in
general? Toward Greek-speaking Jews in particular? To what degree
did the Pharisees at various stages in their history before 70 involve
themselves in the politics of the country? When and why did they
pursue an independent course, and when did they withdraw entirely
from political life? What was the inner institutional structure of the
Pharisaic party? How were people admitted and expelled? One could
formulate a substantial agenda of questions, problems, and concerns
important either to other sects, or to Jewish Palestine and its social
and religious life as a whole. That agenda is unattended to by the
rabbinic tradents, who, as I said, tell us about what primarily interested
them. The shape of those interests, on the one side, and the configguration of the historical Pharisees, on the others, do not seem entirely
congruent to one another.
II. THE RABBINIC HISTORY OF PHARISAISM: THE EARLY
MASTERS
Having recognized that the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees

chiefly concern the inner life of their partyto which they do not
even give a nameits internal tensions, its rules for its own affairs,
and the relationships of its dominant personalities and segments to
one another, we may now trace outlines of that history. While, as I
said, we cannot recover from the rabbinic traditions about the Phari
sees a considerable amount of information on the historical Pharisees
and their place in Jewish Palestine, we are able to claim that the party's
own traditions about the Pharisees supply some interesting infor
mation about the life of the party and somewhat more information
about the schools of Yavneh and Usha as well.
Concerning the century and a half before Hillel, we have little more
useful facts than names of leading masters, and of these, only a few:
the two Yosi's, Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah b.
Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetahsix names for the period, one may
guess, from the Maccabees' rise to power to the time of Herod, ca.
160 to ca. 40 B.C. Concerning these masters we may have accurate
thematic traditions, that is, some sort of stories or vague recollections
standing behind the detailed narratives before us. In our discussion
(p. 165) of oral formulation and transmission of traditions, we ob-
THE
RABBINIC
HISTORY
OF
PHARISAISM
249
served that Finkelstein's claim seems reasonable. He distinguished

between detailed stories, on the one hand, and themes or generalized
story-lines, on the other. The latter may go back before 70; we do
not know for sure.
The most important such story-line obviously concerns the flight
of masters to Alexandria, generating stories about Joshua b. Perahiah,
Judah b. Tabbai, and Simeon b. Shetah. The details of the Joshua/Judah
stories cannot have been shaped much before the formation of an
anti-Christian polemic, toward the end of the first century A.D. In this
regard, the Simeon b. Shetah's-hanging-of-witches-story probably
cannot come in its present form before the same time, since Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus's reference to the story leaves out its crucial element, the
use of magic to overcome witches. We of course cannot estimate how
much later than the end of the first century the actual story was given
its present form and substance, but that hardly matters. What comes
before that time may be a generalized tradition about the flight of
masters, on the one side, and hanging women, on the other. These tradi
tions thematically relate, or correspond, to Josephus's references to
Alexander Jannaeus's persecution of the Pharisees and the Pharisees *
murders of their opponents.
Whether or not the rabbinic narratives were provoked by Josephus's
stories we cannot say for certain. Since Josephus explicitly says he
wrote for a Jewish audience, we cannot automatically exclude rabbis
from that audience:
I...propose to provide the subjects of the Roman empire with a
narrative of the facts, by translating into Greek the account which I
previously composed in my vernacular tongue and sent to the barba
rians in the interior...
I thought it monstrous...to allow the truth in affairs of such moment
to go astray, and that, while Parthians and Babylonians and the most
remote tribes of Arabia with our countrymen beyond the Euphrates
and the inhabitants of Adiabene were, through my assiduity, accurately
acquainted with the origin of the war, the various phases of calamity
through which it passed and its conclusion, the Greeks and such Ro
mans as were not engaged in the contest should remain in ignorance of
these matters, with flattering or fictitious narratives as their only guide.
(War 1:2-6 [trans. H. Thackeray, pp. 305])
The War was written almost immediately after the war under the
patronage of Vespasian (Thackeray, p. x ) ; the Greek version comes
later. No one has doubted the fact that an original Aramaic edition
was published. Why rabbis could not have known it, in Palestine, as
250
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
well as, later on, in Babylonia, I cannot say. Obviously, we cannot

prove they did know it, except for the apparent dependence of the
story of b. Qid. 66a on Josephus's version for facts crucial to the nar
rative, yet omitted in b. Qid. 66athe punishment decreed by the
Pharisees. But that omission is susceptible of more than one explanation.
It cannot conclusively demonstrate that Abbaye copied and slightly
revised Josephus's version of the incident. It merely suggests that the
complete independence of rabbis of some period or other from
Josephus's War cannot be taken for granted. This further produces
the inference, as I said, that we cannot automatically exclude rabbis
from Josephus's audience. But if rabbis knew the War, they did not
take much from it.
The medieval Scholion to Megillat Ta anit, which shows considerable
interest in Pharisaic-Sadducean relationships, relies for perspective, if
not for facts, upon other than Talmudic traditions, which subordinate
the Sadducean question, and certainly not on the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees, which omit it altogether.
The ARN pericope about Antigonus of Sokho, which focuses upon
life after death and reward and punishment and accounts for the rise
of Sadducees/Boethusians out of the bosom of Pharisaism, shows in
terests otherwise absent in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees.
It is formally and stylistically unlike anything else in those traditions.
And its theological concern is unique among them. On that basis we
may regard it merely as an anomaly. The date of the collection in
which it appears cannot be settled upon the basis of these sorts of
observations.
Simeon the Just of Pharisaic-rabbinic memory marks an important
turning in the party's view of the history of the cult. The party took
for granted that until his time the cult was graced with supernatural
blessings. Afterward, sometimes it did, and sometimes it did not,
enjoy heavenly favor. Toward the end of the Temple, the rabbis later
claimed, the Pharisees rejected the cultic caste altogether; this claim
is put into the mouth of Yohanan b. Zakkai, who announced that the
heavenly hosts had left the Temple, as in the time of Ezekiel. But the
Pharisaic-rabbinic materials contain no equivalent rejection of the
Temple cult, merely the admission that some priests were worthy of
office, others were not, and finally all were unworthy, except those
later on Pharisaized.
The Simeon-corpus contains important, if oblique, information on
what a worthy priest might expect to experience: the epiphany of
c
THE
RABBINIC
HISTORY
OF PHARISAISM
251
God in the holy of holies. The assertion that Simeon was the last of
the old virtuous priesthood stands alongside the allegation that the
Yosi's were the last of the grapeclusters. It reflects the tendency of
Tannaitic historians to attempt to periodize the history of pre-70 times
and to locate the significant turning points in that history. Similarly,
the effort to reconstruct the cultic history, e.g. who prepared the
heifer? seems to characterize the Ushan historians (of which more
below). The heavenly message about the annulled decree seems to
echo Josephus's report, but the tradition could have come down in
dependently; we do not know. Since the present version reflects the
view of R. Yohanan concerning the ability of angels to understand
Aramaic, it may have been doctored after the compilation of Tosefta.
Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness decrees represent another tradition
attested at early Yavnah. Eliezer and 'Aqiba refer to it. The little
list has not been revised to conform to Mishnaic conventions; it is
kept in Aramaic, for one thing, and does not use the terms nearly
everywhere predominant: TM'/THR. I think we here have something
more than a merely generalized tradition that Yosi issued uncleanness
rulings with respect to the Temple cult. It may be a tradition formulat
ed with some precision and deriving from the earliest, pre-Hillelite
stratum of Pharisaic materials. It stands apart in form and language
from everything else; and since it has an early attribution, we may
take for granted that the form and language are not only different
from, but earlier than, the Yavnean revision of the antecedent tradi
tions. On that basis, of course, we cannot claim we have Yosi's ipsissima verba. But we may well have a remnant of a very old tradition
indeed.
If so, we may observe that the tradition consists of a set of rulings
in simple declarative sentences, without contrary opinions. On that
basis we may allege that the earliest, pre-Houses, traditions did not
consist of antithetical lemmas, but of brief rules, perhaps arranged
according to themes, as I suggested above. Other references to Yosi
b. Yo'ezeras the most pious of the priesthood, the end/beginning
of the grapeclusters, and the likeof course carry no historical weight.
Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem is nothing more than a name. The
two Yosi's uncleanness decrees are difficult to evaluate. Since they
form part of a list that in final form can be no earlier than the mid-firstcentury, it is difficult to assess the source of the attribution of these
particular decrees to the two masters. I see no relationship between
Yosi b. Yo'ezer's little list, on the one hand, and the two decrees (land
252
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
of peoples, glassware), on the other. Since, moreover, Yosi b. Halafta

knew nothing of the Yosis' decrees, it is difficult to claim the attribu
tion comes before the middle of the second century, if then. The
stories of Yosi b. Yo'ezer's son and of Yaqim his nephew need not
detain us.
The seconds of the next two pairs, Nittai the Arbelite and Judah b.
Tabbai, have no independent traditions. They occur only in lists or
in fixed formulae with the first ones in the lists, Joshua b. Perahiah
and Simeon b. Shetah. Judah b. Tabbai moreover does not occur in
places where he should. The Ushan historians tried to work things out,
but obviously had no "very early" traditions to which to refer. Yav
neans had nothing to say about either man.
Joshua b. Perahiah represents a most perplexing case. As I have
noted (History of the Jews in Babylonia, V. Later Sasanian Times [Leiden,.
1970], pp. 235-241), Joshua's name was important to Jews and the
writers of magical bowls and amulets in sixth and seventh century
A.D. Babylonia. Nothing in the rabbinic corpus of Joshua-traditions
tells us for certain why this should have been the case. We do not even
know how the later Babylonians heard his name, for the magicians
do not appear to have been part of the rabbinical movement, certainly
not in its administration. The rabbinic traditions of Joshua give him
a saying about Alexandrian wheat; the sages' comment, "If so, let it
be unclean for him and clean for all Israel," is a cliche, occurring in
other uncleanness-disputes of Yavnean and later times. The source of
the earlier ruling is unknown to us. Joshua's saying about how hard
it is to leave office seems to me similarly random and inconsequential.
The Jesus-story is another matter. Perhaps the first part (b. Sot. 47a
parts B, C) could have stood separately; its point would be the message
of Simeon himself, given an apophthegmatic character: masters should
remain in Palestine, and not go abroad, a theme important in secondcentury rabbinic materials (History of the Jews in Babylonia, L The Parth
ian Period?, p. 131, n. 1). We hardly can claim the little pericope certain
ly is independent and derives from Ushan circles. The Jesus-story
however cannot come much before that time, certainly not earlier than
Yavneh, when the anti-Christian polemic begins to matter. The con
cluding lemma, Jesus practised magic etc., is attested by ca. 150, and
may be the earliest element of the whole, on the basis of which the
Jesus-Joshua materials were spun out. If this conjecture is sound, then
perhaps the Alexandrian exile stands apart, and only later on was join
ed with the Jesus-story, after ca. 150. At any rate that any part of the
THE
RABBINIC
HISTORY
OF PHARISAISM
253
Joshua/Alexandria pericope comes from before 70 A.D. seems to me

unlikely, nor can I imagine what generalized thematic tradition would
have given rise to any of its elements, except the exile of Pharisees
from Jerusalem (below).
Simeon b. Shetah is the only pre-70 named master whose traditions
are both abundant and quite independent of the Hillelite-theme.
Simeon and Judah on the false witnesses, the two masters in the
several chains, Judah in Alexandria, and the sayings in Avot, consti
tute the whole Judah b. Tabbai-corpus, as I said. Judah therefore
does not produce a set of traditions in which he stands independent
of Simeon; but in some of the materials, as discussed at Usha, he is
not subordinate. His relative importance seems to be chiefly an Ushan
issue.
The one important story is Mekhilta's version of the execution of
false witnesses, and as we traced the synoptic history of the story, we
concluded the Mekhilta's version looks earliest of all. But it also is so
different from the rest that it could be regarded as last and independent
(following Wacholder, HUCA 1968, pp. 117ff.). While the literary
traits seem to me to place the version at the start, a case could admit
tedly be made for a quite different interpretation of matters. It seems
to me noteworthy that the Zadokite law addresses this problem (as
do the Sadducees, M. Mak. 1:6):
For every infringement which a man commits against the Law, and
which his fellow has seen, being alone, if it is a matter liable to the
death [penalty], reproving him, the witness shall denounce the culprit
to the overseer in his presence; and the overseer shall inscribe him with
his own hand, waiting until he commits another [infringement] before
one person alone, and he again denounces him to the overseer. If he
relapses and is caught in the act [a third time] before one person alone,
his case is juridically complete.
Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings from Qumran, p.
150
The Zadokite legislation therefore recognizes the same anomaly in the

use of evidence deriving from a single witness, but makes provision
for suitable procedures, rather than admitting the law's inability to
act at all. But it does not help us to determine the time in which the
Judah-Simeon story was first told, all the more so the antecedent, anon
ymous exegesis repeated verbatim in the Simeon-Judah pericope.
The Simeon-corpus, by itself, includes four items more or less
closely related to Josephus's narrative: Simeon, Yannai, and the Nazi
rites ; Simeon restored the Pharisees to favor with Yannai ( = Josephus
254
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
on John Hyrcanus); Simeon called Joshua back from Egypt; Simeon

hung women. The trial of Yannai's slave has been related to the trial
of Herod, but the connection is not so obvious. When we eliminate
these items, however, we come up with a strikingly thin tradition:
it rained in the days of Simeon-Shelomsu, which is joined with a
similar story about Herod's time, so that Simeon, or Shelomsu, looks
like a gloss. He rebuked Honi. He made a decree on the marriagecontract, though no one is quite clear on what the decree consisted of.
Property-litigation ended in his time. He decreed children should go
to school. He returned a pearl. The school-decree seems confused with
Rav Judah-Rav's story about Joshua b. Gamala. The pearl-story is
of no consequence. The marriage-contract decree may be a generalized
tradition, that Simeon had done something in connection with the
marriage-contract, but more than this we cannot say. That the exact
content of the tradition was unclear in Tannaitic times suggests all they
had to work with was the Ketuvah + JV^tftf-tradition itself. Of these
items, the Honi and marriage-contract pericopae are the most impor
tant. Simeon is merely a name in the Honi-story. It was taken for
granted the men were contemporaries. Simeon here is therefore the
Nasi, as is claimed by Judah b. Ilai. The Honi-materials otherwise
ignore Simeon b. Shetah.
The sole master before Hillel to whom are assigned significant
numbers of important traditions thus turns out not much different
from the others. Whatever traditions came from before 70 A.D. seem
so generalized and vague that they cannot bring us very close to the
man himself. Simeon's usable materials, when unrelated thematically
to Josephus's stories, pertain to the marriage-contract, not much else.
The stories corresponding in theme or in detail to Josephus's are
more difficult to analyze, for reasons already stated. If Josephus was
known to the second-century tradents, then they added Simeon to
his narrative, but, as I said, still did not draw a great deal of material
from him. If Josephus was not known to them, then they had tradi
tions which in theme more or less paralleled those used by Josephus.
In either case, therefore, we come to a somewhat more useful corpus
of pre-70 traditions: Alexander Jannaeus murdered Pharisees; Phari
sees murdered their enemies; the Pharisees eventually were restored
to favor; the Pharisees tried the agent of one of the first century
rulers (Jannaeus/Herod). What is most striking in these rather general
themes is their interest in the relationships to the Jewish government
of the Pharisees as a group. Reducing the stories to their themes, we
THE
RABBINIC
HISTORY
OF PHARISAISM
255
discover that the generalized traditions about Simeon b. Shetah in

deed are congruent to the characteristics attributed by Josephus to
the Pharisaism of the period in which he is supposed to have lived.
This can be explained in one of three ways. First, the rabbinic tradi
tions derive from that period, and their thematic authenticity is on
account of that fact. Or, second, the rabbinic traditions are primarily
revisions of materials known to the later rabbis from Josephus. Or,
third, rabbis and Josephus draw on the same sources. In the end it
hardly makes much difference, for no explanation serves to verify the
historical accuracy of the stories that embody the traditions in a mass
of incredible detail. But what is important, and an argument for authen
ticity of the underlying traditions, is the fact that the matter of HillelShammai never intervenes, unlike the Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions,
whose materials have been reworked to introduce issues pertaining to
the later masters.
Yohanan the High Priest and John Hyrcanus must be the same man.
On the Pharisaic side, however, one wonders whether, if rabbis knew
Josephus's account, they thought the two indeed were one. Abbaye
thought Yohanan and Yannai were identical, as we noticed. The one
important tradition is the abrogations of M. M.S. 5:15. This list of
brief reports of things Yohanan had done compares to Yosi's un
cleanness rulings. While in Mishnaic Hebrew, it is brief and wellconstructed, again conforming to the sort of little legal pericope we
should have expected as the vehicle for old legal materials.
HI. THE MATTER OF HILLEL
The figure of Hillel dominates the traditions concerning the period

from Shema'iah-Abtalion to the destruction of the Temple. We have
already noted that the whole of the Houses-tradition, form and sub
stance, reflects equal respect for Shammai and Hillel. It therefore must
be set entirely apart from the traditions about Hillel and Shammai and
about Hillel by himself, for most of these traditions exhibit an unre
lieved polemic against the person of Shammai and against his House.
The traditions about Hillel's alleged teachers, Shema'iah-Abtalion,
do not add up to much. The anomalous pericope in Mekhilta, concern
ing the faith that merited splitting the Red Sea, sets the two into stan
dard dispute-form. Of the other nine traditions, Hillel occurs in three:
Hillel/Shammai spoke in the language of their masters Shema'iah -f
Abtalion; Hillel quoted Shema'iah-Abtalion, who are introduced in a
256
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
gloss of the rise to power story; and Hillel studied with Shema'iahAbtalion even though he was a poor man. Shema'iah-Abtalion further
appear in a gloss of the pericope about descent from Sennacherib.
One legal precedent, about the suspected adulteress and the bitterwater rite, is told concerning them. It is attested fairly early, but not
in the same form as in M. 'Ed., so the primary elements, as I said, seem
to be S + A, administered water, Khorkemit. That leaves the Judah b.
Dortai story, which relates to nothing else in the whole tradition;
Yosi's quotation of S + A concerning Heave-offering; S + A and
the high priest; and the legal teaching about marking the animal and
the bird (b. Bes. 25a).
The Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions differ from those of Simeon b.
Shetah, for strikingly absent is any sort of allusion to Josephus-narratives. They are more akin to Judah b. Tabbai or the Yosi's. It seems
to me the tradition about Khorkemit is apt to stand among the earliest
elements of S + A-materials. Their relationship to Hillel seems, from
a literary viewpoint, chiefly a matter of glossing existing Hillel-pericopae and introducing them where they formerly were absent, or
taking them for granted in telling Hillel-stories (b. Yoma 35b). I
simply do not know what to make of the Judah b. Dortai-story. The
S + A-legal materials are occasional and random. They to be sure
relate to two important Pharisaic concerns, festival observance and
agricultural taboos. But they are too sparse to permit speculation on
their likely antecedent traditions.
The tradition about administering the bitter-water-rite falls into
the group of pericopae alleging the Pharisees ran the Temple. These
occur primarily in the Hillel-stratum and afterward. Nothing in the
antecedent materials contains the allegation, or even the implication,
that such was the case, excluding Yohanan the High Priest and Simeon
the Just, regarded by the Pharisees as Pharisees, and the Yosi-cleanness
pericope, in which the rulings specifically pertain to Temple-affairs.
In that pericope it is not explicitly alleged that Pharisees or Yosi in
particular ran the Temple. This is taken for granted. Later on, however,
the post-70 masters made a considerable effort to prove that very point.
Another theme first occuring here is the stress on master-disciple
relationships, underlined in the language-of-the-masters pericope and
in other Hillel/S + A materials. S + A have no teachers; everyone
thereafter is supposed to. Shammai is never related to them, so the
S + A traditions are wholly within the Hillelite tradition, even where
Hillel does not appear.
THE
MATTER
OF
HILLEL
257
The Hillel-tradition may be divided into several parts (I, pp. 241-242).
First come the Rise-to-Power-Materials:
1. Tos. Pisha 4:13: One time 14th fell on Sabbath.
A. Does Pesah override Sabbath?
They asked Hillel. He said,
Do we have only one?
B. Whole courtyard collected against him. He said to them:
1. Continual offering: geêrah shavah
2. Its season:
heqqesh
3. Cutting off:
qal vehomer
4. I have received from my masters: Pesah overrides etc.
C. They said to him, What will be rule for the people?
Apophthegm: Holy spirit is on Israel.
People brought Pesah tied to sacrifices.
D. On that very day they him nasi.
2. y. Shab. 19:1 re what will be the rule for the people: When he saw
the deed he was reminded of the law. He said to them, "Thus have
I heard it from Shema'iah and Abtalion."
3. y. Pes. 6:1: This law was lost by the Elders of Bathyra. There is here
a certain Babylonian, who served Shema'iah and Abtalion. He
knows etc. Proofs are all rejected. Then: He sat and expounded all
day, but no one accepted his opinion until he said, Thus have I
heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion.
Then: Who caused you etc. ? Because you did not serve S + A.
Then: Forgot law re knives. Saw peoples' practice. Then: Thus
have I heard from S + A.
Bathyrans are not integral to the pericope, are merely glossed in
at the outset, afterward are ignored.
4. b. Pes. 66a-b: Generally follows y Pes. 6:1. Adds: Because he made
others miserable, he forgot his learning, then apophthegm, and he remem
bered.
5. b. Pes. 66a-b: As long as Hillel lived, no one committed trespass
through burnt-offering. He brought it unconsecrated, then con
secrated it in Temple court, laid on hand, and slaughtered it.
This seems t o be a development o f people-brought-knives-story,
bined with laying-on-of-hands controversy.
com
6. b. B.M. 85a: Judah the Patriarch, Bathyrans gave up /^/-position

to Hillel
It seems to me the Rise-to-Power story cannot come after Judah the
Patriarch, not only because it occurs in Tos. Pisha, but also because
17
258
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
Judah himself refers to the Bathyrans in connection with his "ancestor."

That means that some time before Judah the Patriarch, the Bathyrans
had to have been associated with the patriarchate, and their deposition
from the patriarchate had to have entered the Hillel-rise-to-power
materials. Tos. Pisha knows nothing of the Bathyrans or of Shema'iah
and Abtalion. If we suppose the Tos. version comes before Judah the
Patriarch, we must also place it after Gamaliel II, who never refers to
Hillel, but explicitly associates his father, and is himself associated,
with the House of Shammai. Since the chains are attested at Usha, the
succession from Shema'iah-Abtalion to Shammai-Hillel seems to come
somewhat before that time too. Including both the Bathyrans and
S + A, who first occur in the later developments of the story, there
fore would seem to fall at about the same time, and my guess is that
time comes between the death of Gamaliel II, ca. 120, and the child
hood of Judah the Patriarch, ca. 140-150.
The purpose of the story thus must be to give the Gamalielean
patriarchate a new history, in place of whatever story Gamaliel II told
about why Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel were in charge of the
Pharisaic party. Dropping the old ancestors and reaching back to
Hillel coincides with the time that the old pattern of naming is aban
doned: Judah instead of Gamaliel. This again points toward the effort
to reconstruct the patriarchal history. I see no reason that the Tos.
Pisha version could not date from before ca. 150 and form a part of
the patriarchal history worked out at Usha, along with other historical
materials on the Pharisees revised or invented at the same place. I
further see no reason to suppose the story was not in written form by
Judah the Patriarch's time, since the glosses are just thatglosses of
fixed details, not reworkings of considerable segments of tradition.
If so, what did the mid-second-century patriarchate gain by the
new history of Hillel? First, and foremost, it cemented the tie between
the patriarchate and the House of Hillel itself. Gamaliel II presumably
acquiesced in Hillelite predominance at Yavneh. Simeon b. Gamaliel,
or those around him in the patriarchate, went much further. The
House of Shammai no longer carried any weight in the rabbinicalpatriarchal movement. We do not even know whether the Shammaites
continued to exist as an organized force within the movement. With
the Hillelites, especially the disciples of 'Aqiba, the leading Hillelite
of Yavneh, everywhere in charge, the patriarch now had evidence of
his own right to stand at the head of the House of Hillel itself, there
fore to take charge of the rabbinical group.
THE
MATTER
OF
HILLEL
259
A second theme seems important: Hillel ruled the Temple and deter
mined the cultic laws there. As I have suggested {Development, pp.
291-293), Judah the Patriarch made every effort to include in the
authoritative Mishnah materials proving Yohanan b. Zakkai ran the
Temple. A motif in all Hillel-materials is the authority of Hillel over
the cult. It looks as though the same theme was present, although of
secondary importance here.
A third element is the little story, tacked on at the end, about how
the people, if not prophets, are disciples of the prophets. Their prac
tice can be relied upon. Since another set of materials, deriving from
late Yavneans, carefully explains why Hillel had not received the holy
spirit, it is striking to find here the allegation, developed into an
apophthegm, that the "holy spirit is upon Israel." And that assertion
is put into HillePs mouth. The Houses had debated that very point.
The Shammaites had alleged that the echo could not be accepted in
making legal decisions, while the Hillelites held the contrary. So this
detail seems to me congruent to the Hillelite perspective. The explana
tion of why the holy spirit was denied to Hillel himself would then
come earlier, at Yavneh, as noted above (I, pp. 292-293), and would
represent a Shammaite effort to adopt Hillel as precedent for their
view of an issue hotly debated at Yavneh itself.
Fourth, the glosses about Shema'iah and Abtalion, on the one side,
and about the Bathyrans' having to give up office because they had
not adequately studied with S + A, but Hillel had, look like early
interpolations by an anti-patriarchal hand. The patriarch now is the
descendent of Hillel. Rabbis may therefore lecture him about Hillel's
subservience to his masters, with the obvious implication that the
present patriarch would do well likewise to serve his.
Further, just as the Bathyrans had been forced from office by the
consensus of the college, attested in the opinions of Shema'iah-Abta
lion, so the new patriarch must be wary to pay attention to the same
matter. Both details, coming together, point toward the same polemic.
And this is made entirely explicit: Because Hillel had mistreated sages,
he forgot everything he knew, and had to rely for instruction on the
practice of common folk. So heaven would support the collegium of
the sages in punishing a tyrannical patriarch.
The materials on Hillel as a paragon are as follows:
1. Hillel used to fold them together and eat them + E x . 12:8
(Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to 12:8)
260
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
2. Hillel purchased for poor man a horse and slave + Deut. 15:8
(Tos. Pe ah4:10)
>
3. Would have received holy spirit but generation unworthy

(Tos. Sot. 13:3)
S a m u e l t h e S m a l l + J u d a h b . B a b a v s . : L e a v e Israel a l o n e ; h o l y s p i r i t is
u p o n t h e m ( T o s . Pisha 4 : 1 3 ) .
4. Expounded language of common people + Alexandrian Ketuvah

(Tos. Ket. 4:9)
5. Coming from the way, what does he say + Ps. 112:7
(y. Ber. 9:3, b. Ber. 60a)
6. Hillel studied though poor
(b. Yoma 35b)
7. Hillel preferred Torah to wealth and world to come to this world
(b. Sot. 12a)
8. According to painstaking is reward + "he brought them to correct
understanding."
(ARN Chap. 12)
9. Took baths
(Lev. R. 34:3)
These stories seem to me not so readily assigned to a particular time
or school as the foregoing set. They occur in both early and late col
lections. One cannot doubt Hillel served as a paragon in story-telling
as early as Yavneh. Throughout the later history of the formation of
Talmudic traditions it was routine to tell Hillel-stories. I have argued
that forms of Hillel-materials come quite early, by Yavneh. But that
cannot help us in assigning the substance of the foregoing stories to
that, or any other, stage in the development of the Hillel-tradition.
Hillel serves as an authority in legal and exegetical materials in the
following pericopae:
1.
Re Lev.
2.
Re
11:24
(Sifra Shemini 9:5)
Lev. 13:37 etc.

(Sifra Tazri<a 9:16)
3. Ordinance re redemption of property

(Sifra Behar 4:8)
4. Ordinance
re prosbul
(Sifre Deut. 113)
THE
MATTER
OF
261
HILLEL
5. Hillel prohibits trading in futures

(M. B.M. 5:9)
Ushan?
6. Food for Sabbath: Hillel prohibited
(Tos. Ma. 3:2-4)
Judah b. Ilai.
7. Ben He He and Hillel
(b. Hag. 9b)
I have already commented on the likely point of origin of materials
set into ordinance-form, at Yavneh. The Ushans are responsible for
some materials; of others we cannot be sure.
The tradition on Hillel as a Babylonian emigrant is verified in Yav
neh, and everywhere taken for granted. It seems to me puzzling that
no story of why Hillel left Babylonia was developed; the fact of his
migration is frequently referred to, both pointedly, in subscriptions
and superscriptions, therefore as a redactional convention, and quite
routinely. The references are as follows:
A. Subscriptions and Superscriptions
1. Because of this matter Hillel came up from Babylonia
'Aqiba verifies.
2. This is one of the matters on account of which Hillel came up from
Babylonia
(Tos. Neg. 1:16)
3. For three things did Hillel come up from Babylonia
(y. Pes. 6:1)
B. Emigration Taken for Granted
1. Hillel migrated at age 40
(Sifre Deut. 357)
'Aqiba or later.
2. A certain Babylonian and Hillel is his name
(y. Pes. 6:1)
Late second century.
3. Resh Laqish: Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came up and restored Torah
(b. Suk. 20a)
Links Babylonians to restoration of Torah, probably mid-third century.
262
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
Hillel moreover is glossed into, or linked with, materials of other mas

ters, beginning with Yohanan b. Zakkai, ending with Judah the
Patriarch, as follows:
A. Before Judah the Patriarch
1. Yohanan b. Zakkai and disciples re parah-szcti&ce
(Sifre Num. 123)
2. Moses and Hillel
(Sifre Deut. 357)
'Aqiban or later.
3. Hillel and Yohanan b. Zakkaideath scene + Prov. 8:21
(y. Ned. 5:6)
B. Judah the Patriarch
1. Levi: Hillel from David
(y. Ta. 4:2)
2. Yohanan b. Zakkai before Hillel, or Yohanan before Judah the
Patriarch
(b. Pes. 3b)
3. Resh Laqish: Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came up and restored Torah
(b. Suk. 20a)
4. Judah the Patriarch: Bathyrans gave up ^/-position to Hillel
(b. B.M. 85a)
Clearly, the inclusion of references to relationships between Judah the
Patriarch and Hillel is somewhat more common than with any earlier
master. But the evidence is not substantial.
The moral sayings of Hillel form a large corpus. At least one of
them begins with Sadoq, "Do not make the words of Torah into a
crown." HillePs lemma then develops the idea, "He that makes world
ly use of the crown shall perish." So earlier sayings were assigned to
Hillel, in this instance not before ca. 100 A.D., assuming Sadoq at
early Yavneh. Simeon likewise seems to gloss scatter/gather. Of course
the most famous saying, What is hateful to yourself is one of those wise
aphorisms that travelled throughout the ancient world, looking for,
and quickly gaining, an appropriate authority in various cultures. Of
the same sort is HillePs whole Torah on one/wZ-lemma, an apophthegm
with important parallels in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus (above, pp.
78-89 We of course do not know whether Hillel or Jesus "really"
THE
MATTER
OF
263
HILLEL
said any such thing. We do know it was important for tradents to give
both authorities a common type of lemma and to set that type into a
common literary form, the apophthegm. Many of Hillel's sayings
follow a single form, the opposites, whether conditional (Ifyou...)
or
the more... the more. That form is self-evidently generative, so many of
Hillel's discrete sayings may have been produced by the extension of
the same aphoristic model to new themes or images.
The moral sayings are as follows:
1. M. Avot 2:5-7
a) Imperatives: e.g., Do not separate, judge, say
b) Moral opposites: e.g., Brutish man dreads not sin
c) The more...the more... (MRBH...MRBH...)
2. Sadoq: Do not make words of Torah a crown. Hillel: He that makes
worldly use of crown shall perish
(M. Avot 4:5)
3. Do not be seen naked vs. clothed + Qoh. 3:4-5 + opposites + Ps.
119:126.
(Tos. Ber. 2 : 2 1 , 6:24)

Simeon re scatter/gather.
4. If you will come to my house I will come to yours + reverse + Ex.
20:24
(Tos. Suk. 4:3)

Later partially apophthegmatized: When he saw them observing it im
properly, properly + if we are here etc., y. Suk. 5:4.
5. Self-abasement/exaltation
(Lev. R. 1:5)
Only one pericope seemed to reveal a critical attitude toward Hillel:
he did not cite Shema'iah-Abtalion accurately (M. 'Ed. 1:3). But the
same pericope contains the allegation that he did just that. Perhaps the
S + A glosses come in the time of Judah the Patriarch, in the same
spirit as indicated earlier. If so, Judah took good care of them by
adding at the end a statement in the exact opposite spirit of what had
been alleged.
Shammai occurs either routinely, or favorably, in only two peri
copae :
A. Shammai Treated Routinely or Favorably
1. Baba b. Buta cites teaching
(b. Git. 57a)
264
HISTORY
OF THE
TRADITIONS
2. Shammai quotes Haggai the prophet

(b. Qid. 43a)
3. To this, list one may add Shammai's exegeses, above, pp. 40-41, 62-64.
Hillel and Shammai, moreover, occur as equals the following:
B. H
S as
Equals
1. Time vs. interval

2. Hallah
3. Drawn water in ritual pool
(M. <Ed. 1:1, 3-5)
4. Controversy for God's sake is Hillel vs. Shammai
(M. Avot 5:17)
Gloss.
5. When disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not served adequate
ly multiplied, disputes multiplied in Israel
(Tos. Hag. 2:9)
6. H + S decreed concerning uncleanness of hands
(y. Shab. 1:4 etc.)
7. To lay/not to lay
(M. Hag. 2:2)
8. Vintage grapes made fit to receive uncleanness
(b. Shab. 14b)
Of these, nos. 1,2,3,6,7, and 8 correspond in form to Houses-disputes.
M. Ed. 1:1, 3-5 and b. Shab. 14b are catalogued as Hillel-Shammai
disputes; to the list one must add M. Hag. 2:2, and the development
of that list in the uncleanness catalogue, y. Shab. 1:4.
Nos. 4 and 5 contradict one another. The former glosses HillelShammai controversies into a saying about controversies for the sake
of God. No. 5, which probably comes at about Ushan times, but not
much later, since it is interpolated into Yosi's speech about the ad
ministration of justice in ancient Israel, now accounts for disputes,
which are bad, by reference to the inadequate work of the disciples.
This would serve as a warning to the students of the new age to learn
their traditions carefully. It also absolves Hillel and Shammai of any
blame for controversy and discourages the growth of disputes at Usha.
In all other materials Shammai serves as a foil to Hillel's greatness
or plays the villain to Hillel's hero. A commonplace type contrasts be
tween Shammai's vice and Hillel's virtue, as follows:
c
THE
MATTER
OF
HILLEL
265
C. Shammai s Vice + HillePs Virtue

1. All Hillel's deeds were for the sake of heaven
(b. Bes. 16a)
H e r e S h a m m a i ' s v i r t u e b e c o m e s a sign o f l a c k o f f a i t h .
2. Gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai

(b. Shab. 30b-31a, ARN Chap. 15)
V a r i o u s stories.
Shammai moreover lacked powera recurrent themeand the House

of Shammai did not even have accurate records of what he had taught,
or, if they did have them, did not follow them:
D. Lacked Power
1. Shammai: If times were propitious, I would decree. Court that
followed him decreed...
(Tos. Shev. 3:10)
2. Shammai held infant is liable to fast on Day of Atonement. They
forced him to feed infant.
(b. Yoma 77b)
3. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel confounded Shammai in a legal argument
(b. B.B. 133b-134a)
( C o m p a r e y. N e d .
5:6.)
E. Differed
1. Houses: Heave-offering vetches are given as food in uncleanness;
vs. Shammai: They are eaten dry
(M. M.S. 2:4)
2. Re changing Second Tithe money in Jerusalem. House: Change
whole sela for copper coins; vs. Shammai: Not change it at all
(M. M.S. 2:9)
3. House: Less than egg's bulk conveys uncleanness; vs. Shammai:
Must be egg's bulk
(M. 'Orl. 2:4-5)
' A q i b a verifies.
4. House: Quarter-^ of bones convey uncleanness in Tent; vs. Sham

mai: From one bone.
(M. 'Ed. 1:7)
Joshua and 'Aqiba verify.
5. Bride's stool that lost seat-boardsHouse: Susceptible. Shammai:

Even frame of stool is susceptible.
266
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
Stool fixed to baking troughHouse: Susceptible. Shammai:

Even one made [to be used] inside it is susceptible
(M. Kel. 22:4)
Here S h a m m a i rules m o r e strictly than his House.
The traditions seem clear that Shammai's House predominated before

70 A.D., Hillel's House afterward. Evidence of that fact is not only
the reports of Gamaliel II about Simeon b. Gamaliel, but also the
explanations of the Hillelites for the early predominance of Shammai
tes and the later rise to power of the House of Hillel. The stories on
this subject sometimes admit the House of Shammai "one day" out
numbered the House of Hillel, so outvoted them. In M. Miq. 4 : 1 ,
Meir accounts for the Houses' agreement by alleging the Shammaites
outvoted the Hillelites. He does not add that the Shammaites murder
ed Hillelite voters or used a sword to keep them in line. He supplies
the terminus ante quern for the story. His reference is routine, not polem
ical. This story is developed in two directions. First, the Sham
maites used force to keep out the Hillelite voters. Second, the Sham
maites used force to make Hillel himself follow their rule in the
Temple, over which he supposedly reigned as nasi. I would imagine
this story, if widely told, comes before the //^/-materials, for it seems
to me unlikely that a story about Hillel's weakness in the very Temple
whose cult he supervised and about Hillel's dependence on a loyal
Shammaite to retrieve the situation could have been believed by the
same people who took for granted that Hillel was also nasi.
A further Hillelite polemic was that Shammaites were inconsistent
in making legal rulings. This is tied to the use of force on the part of
Shammaites in imposing their rulings. Strikingly, this sort of story
may be attached to a perfectly well balanced Houses-dispute, as a
related but quite separate element.
Early Yavneh apparently marks the period of the Houses' most
intense competition with one another. That is when Tarfon materials
are shaped to include the warningto an alleged Shammaitethat
if you follow Shammaites, you are worthy of death. Tarfon's Sham
maite practices with respect to Seventh Year produce endangered his
life in reference to his own property, according to another story.
Whether or not Tarfon-materials were revised to encourage others
to avoid Shammaite opinions, or whether he himself said such things,
we cannot say. But the spirit of the materials and their early attestation
seem good evidence of the state of affairs at Yavneh.
Perhaps Dosa's calling on Haggai the prophet to testify against the
THE
MATTER
OF
HILLEL
267
Shammaite position on the daughter's rival provoked a Shammaite

allegation that Shammai testified in the name of the same prophet, but
on a different matter.
One story seems to me entirely neutral, and that is Judah b. Bathyra's
tradition that the Shammaites had effected their view of the law in
Jerusalem. The allegation that all "purities" in Jerusalem were done
in the trough suggests the whole Pharisaic group in the city could
make use of a single trough for purifying their dishes. It is consistent
with references to the Elders of the House of Shammai and of the
House of Hillel all assembling in the same room or in the same house,
and with the saying that Hillel had eighty disciples. From this sort of
saying emerges the picture of rather small groups. The narrative con
vention in many stories of the Houses is to have pretty much the
whole of the respective Houses, or at least their elders, in the same
place at the same time.
The stories on why Shammaites predominated and other elements
of the anti-Shammaite polemic are as follows:
F.
Shammaite
Violence
1. Shammaites ganged up on Hillel in Temple, re laying on of hands +

Baba b. Buta saved HillePs law + that very day law was establish
ed according to Hillel
(Tos. Hag. 2:11)
2. House of Shammai outnumbered House of Hillel one day, and they
voted etc.
(b. Shab. 13b)
3. Shammai silenced Hillel:
Hillel: Why inconsistency? Shammai: If you anger me, I will
decree...
A sword did they plant in school-house. He who enters may enter,
but no one leaves. Hillel submitted. Day grievous as day of golden
calf etc.
(b. Shab. 17a [b. A.Z. 39bHillel agreed with
Shammai] )
T h e d e c r e e o f g l e a n i n g in p u r i t y , a p a r t f r o m t h e s t o r y , is
unanimously in b . A . Z . 3 9 b = b . H u l . 3 6 b , b . S h a b . 1 5 a .
presented
4. One who follows Shammaite rulings deserves to be put to death

(M. Ber. 1:3)
Tarfon.
5. Shammaites outvoted Hillelites because they murdered Hillelite vo

ters
(y. Shab. 1:4)
268
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
6. And that day (y. Shab. 1 :Aoutvoting) was as hard for Israel
(Tos. Shab. 1:16)
7. Haggai the prophet lectured that daughter's rival is forbidden
* (= House of Hillel)
(b. Yev. 16a)
Dosa b. Harkinas.
8. Shammaites are inconsistent

(b. Shab. 17a, b. Hag. 22a [ = Tos. Ah. 5:11]
and elsewhere)
9. Shammaites broke trough
(M. Miq. 4:5)
J u d a h b . B a t h y r a ' s t r a d i t i o n is n o t p e j o r a t i v e .
It seems to me that the contrary allegation, that the Houses really

loved one another (M. Yev. 1:4) represents a later stage in the devel
opment of the tradition, though it does not mean all materials hostile
to Shammaites must come in their present form before the Bar Kokhba
war.
Further elements in the Hillelite polemic against the House of
Shammai had to come to terms with two facts. First, Shammaites did
persist in Yavneh. Second, Shammaite precedents were established,,
and people did follow them.
The Hillelites dealt with the undeniable presence of members of the
House of Shammai in two ways. First, they alleged that all good
Shammaites were really Hillelites (sometimes including Shammai him
self). Second, they paid their respect to a bad Shammaite, in Dosa b.
Harkinas's pericdpe (b. Yev. 16a), by alleging Shammaites are danger
ous; they argue well, but fallaciously. The brother of Dosa is the first
born of Satan! One must keep on one's guard. This is good evidence
of the power of the Shammaites at Yavneh.
The Hillelite's Shammaites are as follows:
G.
The Good
Shammaites
1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah, a disciple of the House of Shammai,

quotes Shammai as agreeing verbatim with House of Hillel
(M. <Orl. 2:4-5)
2. Baba b. Buta, Shammaite disciple, knew law really follows the House
o f Hillel in e v e r y place
(Tos. Hag. 2:11)
THE
MATTER
OF
269
HILLEL
3. Yohanan HaHorani followed Hillelite law

a) Sukkah
(M. Suk. 2:7)
b) Cleanness laws
(Tos. Suk. 2:3)
4. Certain disciple persuades Joshua of correctness of Shammaite ruling
(Tos. Ah. 5:11)
T h e r e v e r s i o n is a c c o u n t e d f o r , l a t e r e n t e r s t h e p o l e m i c as p r a i s e f o r
Hillelites.
H. Other Shammaites
1. Yo'ezer of the Birah asked Gamaliel re 'Or/ah
c
(M. Orl. 2:12)

I. Bad Shammaites
1. Son of Harkinas: Take care that he not overwhelm you. He has
three hundred arguments to prove that the daughter's rival is
permitted
(b. Yev. 16a [re M. Yev. 1:4])
As to precedents, the Hillelite tradition asserted, first, that people who
follow Shammaite law do so only for themselves, but they agree that
for all Israel, the law really follows Hillel:
M. Bes 2:6: Simeon b. Gamaliel follows House of Shammai -f"What shall we do with regard to your father's house, which applied
the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient ruling to all Israel?"
Second, Shammaite precedents were ignored or suppressed, and,
in the spirit of the foregoing, the stories were made into proof that
the law really followed the House of Hillel. At best, the Shammaites
are left to explain away the precedent whose facts indubitably support
the Hillelite position, as follows:
9
J. Shammai s Precedents Apply Only to Shammai

1. Minors are exempt from Sukkah. Shammai once fixed Sukkah for
new-born baby. [Rather than: Shammai declares minor liable.]
(M. Suk. 2:8)
K. Precedents, Even of Shammaites, Support Hillelites
1. Yohanan HaHorani, a Shammaite, had a Sukkah which followed
Hillelite rule
(M. Suk. 2:7)
D e b a t e o n w h a t sages said t o Y o h a n a n a b o u t his Sukkah. H i l l e l i t e s : H e
f o l l o w e d o u r l a w . S h a m m a i t e s : [If s o ] t h e y [ r e a l l y ] said t o h i m , I f s u c h
has been y o u r c u s t o m . . .
270
HISTORY
OF THE
TRADITIONS
2. Yohanan HaHorani followed Hillelite cleanness rule re moist olives

etc.
(Tos. Suk. 2:3 [M. <Ed. 4:6] )
3. Honi the Little followed Hillelite liturgy
(Tos. R.H. 2:17)
S h a m m a i t e s : T h e t i m e s c a l l e d f o r it. T h u s t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e v a l i d i t y o f
Hillelite p r e c e d e n t .
4. Pishon the camel-driver's wife

(b. Yev. 107b)
Shammaites explain a w a y Hillelite precedent.
5. Helene followed Hillelite instructions

(M. Naz. 3:6-7)
We observed several instances in which it was alleged that the
Hillelites reverted and accepted the Shammaite position. This leaves
the Hillelites in full control of the law, even where they are obliged
to accept the opposition's view of a particular case. Yet when we
examine the reversions, we find that the Hillelites in any event do not
concede very much:
L.
Reversions
1. Woman testifies re husband's death

(M. Yev. 15:1-3)
Hillelites a g r e e , b u t S h a m m a i t e s e x p l i c i t l y a c c e p t Hillelite p r e c e d e n t .
S h a m m a i t e s m o r e o v e r f o l l o w Hillel h i m s e l f in i n t e r p r e t i n g l a n g u a g e o f
Ketuvah.
2. Half-slave/half-freeman
(M. Git. 4:5)
Hillelites d o n o t g i v e u p t h e i r v i e w t h a t s u c h a status is w i t h i n t h e l a w .
S h a m m a i t e a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e status i n l a w is i g n o r e d .
3. Siphon is clean
M . K e l . 1 0 : 1 contradicts Hillelites; reversion in M . K e l . 9 : 2 preserves
t h e v i e w t h a t l a w r o u t i n e l y f o l l o w s Hillelites, w h o h e r e h a v e m e r e l y
changed their mind.
4. Baking-oven and 'tent'

(M. Oh. 5:1-4)
Debate invented b y J o s h u a accounts f o r Hillelite r e v e r s i o n ; here the
Hillelites = J o s h u a , T o s . A h . 5 : 1 1 .
The Hillelites, finally, had to account for their own success. The
THE
MATTER
OF
271
HILLEL
Amoraim make the Hillelite victory into a matter of superior moral

character and higher intellectual ideals, on the one side, and heavenly
intervention, on the other. The Aqibans, much earlier, supplied
proofs to support Hillelite positions (pp. 40-42), and from that fact
we may infer either that the Aqibans held that Scriptures proved the
correctness of Hillelite opinion, or that the 'Aqibans, agreeing with
Hillelite opinion, found in Scripture satisfactory proof of its correctness.
It comes down to the same thing.
c
M. The Hillelites Triumphed Because:

1. The echo favored Hillelites
(b. <Eruv. 13b)
2. Hillelites were kindly, modest, open-minded
c
(b. Eruv. 13b)

3. Hillelites reverted
(y. Suk. 2:8)
4. Echo at Yavneh
(y. Yev. 6:6)
All Amoraic.
Having examined the elements of the Hillel-traditions and the Hille

lite polemic against Shammai and his House, we must now ask, Which
is prior, the Houses-corpus or the Hillelite polemic?
Clearly, the Houses-form, and with it, the balanced assessment of
the value of the opinion of each House, are verified in the earliest
Yavnean stratum. The first sure verifications of the anti-Shammaite
polemic, however, appear at the same time, with the Tarfon-stories,
the Aqiban exegeses, and related materials. We therefore cannot main
tain that either set of materials must antedate the other. The Housescorpus certainly comes from circles responsible for the compromise
that produced a balanced form and careful attention to the opinions
of each party. The Hillelite-polemic must derive from the Hillelite
circles at Yavneh, and its later expansion testifies to their growing
strength over the formation of the traditions. But the later Hillelites,
Aqibans, and others, who were in full control of the formation of the
rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees, faithfully preserved the early
Houses-corpus and both literally and in spirit even followed its forms.
Since the Houses-corpus is nearly entirely of legal interest, and the
anti-Shammaite polemic almost wholly pertains to the effects, but not
the substance, of the law, we may observe that the Hillelites and their
successors paid much more attention to the impartial recording and
preservation of the laws than they did to the balanced and untendentic
272
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
ous narration of stories about the conditions of the enforcement of

those laws. In other words, history might be falsified, but never law.
In this respect, the Houses-debates represent a striking illustration of
the Hillelites' willingness to give the opposition a full and fair hearing,
by contrast to the allegation that Shammaites used force. While the
form may be early, we noticed that the Houses-debates were fabricated
in later strata as well, and this is congruent to the formation of Housesdisputes along the same impartial lines.
Moreover, the Houses-corpus far exceeds in quantity, all the more so
in the importance of its contents, the whole of the anti-Shammaite
polemic. The willingness of the Hillelites to assert they intermarried
with Shammaites, even though the purity of their family line, to which
all Jews laid great importance, would be marred by following the
Shammaites' false law, is similarly striking. While the need for com
promise was great, its consequence was to call into question the family
purity of the subsequent generations of rabbis and others. That must
account for Simeon b. Yohai's effort to qualify the matter, also for the
Babylonian gemara*s later pericope on whether the Shammaites had
ever actually carried out their legal rulings or had simply taught them
in theory, but in practice, followed Hillelite law (b. Yev. 15a and
following).
The net impression is precisely that discerned by the early Amoraim:
the Hillelites really did in the main behave toward the opposition in a
kindly, modest, and open-minded way. Since heaven was apt to recog
nize and reward such behavior, it was no accident that the echo at
Yavneh (if heard only after Judah the Patriarch) favored the Hillelites.
Still, had the Shammaites triumphed at Yavneh and the patriarchate
remained in their hands, the Houses-corpus would testify concerning
them in precisely the same way. So I take the Houses-corpus as the
best possible evidence of the true spirit of the early rabbis and of their
Pharisaic forebears.
i v . GAMALIEL AND SIMEON. YOHANAN B. ZAKKAI.
The traditions about masters after Shammai and Hillel and not
related to the Houses-materials are not substantial. Gamaliel and
Simeon, the next patriarchs, without a paired Av Bet Din, are not
represented as participating in the Houses-disputes, nor are they even
made to refer to their "ancestor, Hillel."
Omitting reference to exegeses which are not decisively attributable
GAMALIEL
AND
SIMEON. Y O H A N A N
B. Z A K K A I
273
to Gamaliel, we find only a few pericopae. In some, Gamaliel is merely

consulted, then brings a question to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and
in others, he is related to the disciples of the House of Shammai, for
whom he serves as an authority. In M. Orl. 2:12, Gamaliel is consult
ed by a Shammaite; his opinion is preserved verbatim in the name of
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. Temple-practices of Gamaliel's house are record
ed. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai are shown to require even ran
dom meals to be eaten in the Sukkah. Gamaliel made an ordinance with
respect to the right of witnesses to the New Moon to move on the
Sabbath in Jerusalem. Yohanan b. Zakkai later set aside the ordinance,
since it was no longer necessary, and this seems to me a well-attested
tradition, and probably an accurate one. Gamaliel of Yavneh records
the opinion of Gamaliel the Elder in a ruling about the remarriage
of the wives of men killed at Tel Arza; the opinion also persists
verbatim without attribution to Gamaliel. It is well-attested in early
Yavneh, certainly by 100 A.D. Eliezer and Joshua oppose the
Gamaliel-ruling. Gamaliel-sayings gloss the record of Admon's
decisions; and those materials are attested at early Yavneh in
Yohanan b. Zakkai-collections. Gamaliel's further rules, concerning
the bill of divorce and collecting a marriage-settlement, are set in
ordinance-form, which does not seem to fit. Halafta preserves the
recollection, cited by his son Yosi, of Gamaliel's rule against the
Targum of Job. Judah b. Ilai refers to Gamaliel's letters to the dia
spora and cites the standard text.
I should not be inclined to doubt the authenticity of a single one
of the foregoing traditions. Most find attestation in Yavneh, the rest
in Usha. The chains of tradition frequently are specified and strengthen
the impression that the materials were well attested. Gamaliel II cites
Gamaliel I or serves as part of the chain of Gamaliel I-rulings (e.g.
Tos. A.Z. 4:9). Only a few items in the whole tradition compare to
the edifying narratives told about Hillel, e.g. Hanina b. Dosa's healing
of Gamaliel's son (b. Ber. 34b) and Gamaliel, the king and the queen
(b. Pes. 88b). Gamaliel has no moral sayings or other sorts of apoph
thegms.
Simeon's traditions are not substantial. We have the story of his
ruling on the cost of a pair of doves, which seems to me pure fantasy.
Gamaliel's recollections of his father occur in reference to how the
house of father gave pe*ah, and how his father dealt with a Sadducee
in the same alley, with reference to the 'eruv (but this comes from
Meir-Judah). Joshua refers to a letter of Simeon b. Gamaliel and
c
274
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
Yohanan b. Zakkai. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled on the festival of

Sukkot, knew how to do the prostration (Tos. Suk. 4:4). The context
is the same as Hillel's mystical sayings, but Simeon is not related to
Hillel. Gamaliel, or Simeon his son, blessed a gentile woman on the
Temple mount (b. A.Z. 20a, y. A.Z. 1:9).
Evidence that Simeon b. Gamaliel, and his son, Gamaliel II, were
Shammaites, is as follows (and note L. Finkelstein, Akiba [Philadel
phia, 1962] pp. 304-6, who adduces evidence of a less probative char
acter) :
A. Simeon b. Gamaliel
1. M. Eruv. 6:2: Gamaliel II reports his father followed Shammaite
view re 'eruv.
c
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B. Gamaliel II
b. Ber 53a: House of Gamaliel avoided interrupting study.
b. Ber. 43a: Gamaliel, "I shall decide [argue] in favor of the House
of Shammai."
Tos. Shab. 1:22: Gamaliel's house followed Shammaite rule re
bringing washing to gentile launderer before the Sabbath (Eleazar
b. R. Sadoq); M. Shab. 1:9: Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to father's
house, meaning Gamaliel II.
M. 'Eruv. 6:2: Gamaliel II reports his fatherSimeon I followed
Shammaite rule on 'eruv.
M. Suk. 3:9: Aqiba reports Gamaliel and Joshua follow Shammaite
rule re lulav.
c
Speculative.
6. M. Bes. 2:6-7: Gamaliel like House of Shammai:

a) Hot food not covered on festival for Sabbath.
b) Candle-stick not put together on festival.
c) Not bake large cakes.
7. b. Yev. 15a: Gamaliel married brother's wife's rival (= House of
Shammai).
Hillelites were not apt to make up materials to show that Simeon b.
Gamaliel and his son Gamaliel II of Yavneh were Shammaites. It was
not to their advantage. Either they were too weak to take over, in
which event they would not have benefited from the admission that
the Yavnean patriarch and his Jerusalemite father had favored the
opposition. Or they were sufficiently strong to force the patriarch to
conform to their position, in which case they would have done well
to allege the patriarchate had always conformed. So the House of
Gamaliel II himself must be held responsible for these materials. It is
GAMALIEL AND
S I M E O N . Y O H A N A N B. Z A K K A I
275
a mark of the accuracy of their view of matters, also of the likelihood

that the materials were not later on revised to present a different
picture. The likelihood is that Hillelite predominance at Yavneh comes
with the rise of Aqiba, and the real exclusion of Shammaites from the
power to frame traditions and adjudge legal disputes must have taken
place sometime between ca. 100 and ca. 120, by which point the
Shammaites were already losing hold, so that the Hillelites could
safely conciliate the defeated party.
A further question remains: What of Yohanan b. Zakkai? He is
curiously absent from the Houses-materials. His disciples apparently
split among the Houses, with Eliezer generally, though not always,
taking the Shammaite view, or himself serving as the House of Sham
mai, and with Joshua mostly, though not always, on the other side.
The other disciples drop away. One is intermarried with the patriarch's
family, as we observed. So it looks as if two of Yohanan's circle of
five fit in with the Shammaite circle, one with the Hillelite. Of Eleazar
b. Arakh we know nothing, but evidently his absence from Yavneh
may be taken as fact. The Houses were important only at Yavneh, not
in whatever other schools or master-disciple-circles thrived else
where. The other disciples are of no consequence.
The master himself poses the real problem. He should be Av Bet
Din along with the Nasi, Simeon b. Gamaliel, in which case he would
presumably represent the Hillelites. But no one made that allegation,
and we may take for granted that it was unlikely. On the other hand,
the story that places Yohanan with Simeon b. Gamaliel comes from
Joshua. Perhaps the story contains the hidden allegation that Yohanan
was head of the House of Hillel, according to Joshua, the Hillelite.
But Joshua never said so, nor did anyone but Gamaliel II call Simeon
a Shammaite. I therefore doubt the Joshua-letter-pericope is meant to
make that point at all.
As we review the pericopae in which Yohanan appears with pre-70
masters, we find the following:
c
1. Joshua: Yohanan + Simeon b. Gamalielletter

(Midrash Tannaim ed. Hoffmann pp. 175-6)
2. Joshua: Yohanan + Gamaliel+eat in Sukkah
(M. Suk. 2:5)
3. Joshua: Yohanan + Hanan + Admon + Gamaliel
(M. Ket. 13:1, 2)
276
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
4. Joshua: Yohanan has tradition from Moses; no mention of Hillel,

Gamaliel, Simeon
(M. <Ed. 8:7)
5. Eliezer: Yohanan has tradition from Moses; no mention of Hillel,
Gamaliel, Simeon
(M. Yad. 4:3)
6. Hanina b. Dosa: Gamaliel, Yohanan b. Zakkaiheal sons
(b. Ber. 34b)
7. Hillel had eighty disciples: Yohanan + Jonathan b. 'Uzziel
(b. Suk. 28a)
8. Yohanan and daughter of Naqdimon b. Gorion
(b. Ket. 66b)
The Tannaitic stratum thus exhibits the striking failure of both Joshua
and Eliezer to link Yohanan to Hillel. Joshua ties Yohanan to Simeon;
anonymous materials link Yohanan to Gamaliel (nos. 2, 3). The other
pericopae are of no interest.
Now we may take it as fact that Yohanan b. Zakkai lived in Jerusalem
before 70 A.D. He should, therefore, have known about Hillel and
Shammai and their Houses. Since Hillel, Shammai, and the Houses
probably were historical personalities and institutions, it looks as if
Yohanan was not associated either with the early masters (presumably
because they came before his time) or with the Houses, but taught as
an independent master within the Pharisaic group, organized his own
circle of disciples, and occupied a modest place in the life of pre-70
Pharisaic Jerusalem. At Yavneh, after the destruction, no one took
the trouble to allege he had earlier played any significant role in the
leadership of the party. It may be that the organization of the party
under the nasi and av bet din is the discovery of later Yavnean or (more
likely) Ushan historians, for it was the Yavneans, then the Ushans who
developed these offices into important bases for power within the rab
binical group and in Jewish Palestinian government. Ushans supply
the M. Hag. gloss on that matter (I, pp. 11-13).
The position of Yohanan in Jerusalem seems not to have brought
him into relationship with the Houses. If, as I suggested above, the
Houses themselves were not substantial in numbers, then it was quite
possible for several Pharisaic circles to flourish in the same city with
out having their various masters enter into the traditions of the several
circles. Yohanan's career at Yavneh would have been too brief for
GAMALIEL AND
SIMEON. Y O H A N A N
B. Z A K K A I
277
him to make much of the disputes of the Houses, if they had assembled
at Yavneh in his times. He probably died about a decade after the
destruction. It may have taken the Houses at least that long to re
constitute themselves at Yavneh.
What of Eliezer and Joshua? They say nothing about Yohanan in
relationship to either House, because they either had no traditions
associating him with a House or no motive to invent them. My view
is that they had every reason not to assign the master to one or the
other of the Houses. At the outset the Houses cannot have been very
important. Their importance comes with Aqiba, Tarfon, and Gamaliel.
Further, since Eliezer and Joshua seem to have gone over to the
Shammaites and Hillelites, respectively, they had either to remain si
lent on the master's association with one or the other House, or to tell
contradictory stories about his relationships with the antecedent cir
cles. Because for several decades they lived in the same time and place,
they were likely to have said nothing at all, rather than to have alleged
what could be immediately challenged and refuted.
The chief Yavnean disciples of Yohanan associated themselves with
the two Houses, probably because had they not done so, they would
have been left out of the mainstream of Yavnean affairs. Gamaliel
was a Shammaite. His chief opposition was Hillelite. Had Eliezer and
Joshua maintained an aloof attitude toward the Houses, all the more
so toward the issues debated by them and the formulations of Housestraditions, they in effect would have exiled themselves from Yavnean
affairs. So the course of Yavnean politics, to begin with external to
Joshua and Eliezer, drew the two disciples of Yohanan into discus
sions for which their master had not prepared them.
The substance of their traditions of Yohanan (Development, pp. 277,
288-9) portray the master according to the model of the disciple.
Eliezer's Yohanan ruled on the garments for the heifer-ceremony;
conducted a good court; made Yavnean decrees; issued the ruling
about tithing in Moab and Ammon in the Seventh Year (above,
pp. 170-171); gave instructions on cleanness laws; and died just as
did his disciple, Eliezer. The two circles together may be responsible
for the beginnings of the escape story. Eliezer's Yohanan like Eliezer
himself was therefore a good judge, legislator, and conservator of
traditions.
Joshua's Yohanan also ruled on the garments for the heifer ceremony;
saw Merkavah-visions; ruled on the uncleanness of the third loaf;
made decrees at Yavneh; ruled on the marriage of an Zr^-family into
c
278
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
the priesthood; spoke of Elijah's mission to the priesthood; ruled on

tithing food, and perhaps made a purity rule.
What is important, as I said, is that while the disciples make the
master pretty much in their own image, they do not link him to legal
issues debated by the Houses (except tithing in Moab and Ammon).
My theory, therefore, is that Yohanan was not connected to the Houses
before 70, and that afterward his disciples had either no motive or
no opportunity to establish such a connection. The silence on the
Hillel-relationship in Eliezer's and Joshua's traditions may therefore
be part of a larger compromise between the two great disciples: Better
say nothing at all than make the master either a Hillelite or a Shammaite.
But if Gamaliel was a Shammaite and if Gamaliel also deposed Yohanan,
then the Hillelites would have had a strong motive to pick up Yohanan
and make him a central figure in the establishment of Yavneh and in
the formation of his traditions, which accounts for the inclusion and
preservation of important Yohanan-traditions in 'Aqiban collections,
despite the fundamental disagreement between Yohanan and Aqiba
about war.
This theory supposes that the Houses in fact were historical in
stitutions and did flourish in pre-70 Jerusalem. But we have no evi
dence of that fact in external sources. Strikingly, none at all appears in
materials concerning Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel, as I said.
Luke-Acts knows Gamaliel but not Hillel, Shammai, or their Houses.
Of greater consequence, neither Josephus nor Paul has never heard
of the Houses, and each claims he grew up in the Pharisaic movement.
So one may argue that the silence of external sources on the Houses
alongside their abundant evidence on the Pharisees as a group, both
prove that the Houses are primarily a Yavnean phenomenon, perhaps
even a literary convention, and that alone.
I find it difficult to accept this view. While the failure of the Synoptic
materials to refer to the Houses is striking, it cannot be decisive. The
primary focus of the Synoptic materials is upon the Pharisees as a
group and their relationships to the early Church ("Why do your
disciples not..."). The internal politics of the party are of no concern
to the Christian story-tellers. We have no reason to suppose the Chris
tians discerned inner groupings within Pharisaism, any more than the
rabbis cared to figure out relationships between Paul and Peter. To
them, Christians were followers of Jesus; more than that was incon
sequential.
Josephus poses a more serious problem. He knows Simeon b.
c
GAMALIEL AND
S I M E O N . Y O H A N A N B. Z A K K A I
279
Gamaliel, for one thing. His experience of the party was personal and
extended over a period of years. But if we had a history of pre-70
Pharisaism from Joshua and Eliezer, that history would probably
make no more of the Houses than did Josephus; their Yohanan-tradi
tions are clear on this point. Eleazar b. Arakh, in "retirement" at
Emmaus, was supposedly an important disciple, but Eliezer and
Joshua make no reference to him. If the Houses were relatively small
and constituted only one part of the Pharisaic group in Jerusalem, a
still smaller segment of Pharisaism as a whole, then Josephus need
not have known the Houses at all, or, more likely, thought them
noteworthy. To him Shammai and Hillel would have represented
merely other masters of the party, no more important than was Yo
hanan b. Zakkai, of whom he says nothing despite the common
Roman policy shared by Josephus and Yohanan. The centrality of the
Houses in the rabbinic record of pre-70 Pharisaism derives from the
importance of the Houses in the formation of Yavnean and later tradi
tions, not from the place they held in pre-70 times.
A second argument in favor of the Houses as historical institutions
depends upon the verifications listed above (pp. 199-201). While
Eliezer and Joshua were Shammaite and Hillelite, respectively, we
noticed some traditions in which the positions were reversed. The
most important, obviously, is b. B.M. 59b, which makes Eliezer ac
cept, and Joshua reject, the testimony of the echo, thus making Eliezer
a Hillelite, and Joshua a Shammaite. Whatever the facts of the matter,
we cannot reasonably allege that either master in fact wholly constitut
ed the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel respectively. They
do supply materials to the Houses or contribute to discussions of
opinions laws debated by the Houses. Sometimes Joshua's name is
dropped, and House of Hillel substituted, and the same is so of Eliezer.
But this does not make the House into the man. It merely suggests
that some of the masters' traditions were assimilated into, then oblit
erated by, the respective Houses. This stands to reason if the Houses
actually were important Yavnean parties with significant power over
the formation of traditions. We have no grounds to make Joshua
into the whole House of Hillel, Eliezer into the House of Shammai,
and to trace the historical Houses back to the men themselves.
And there is a very good reason not to: Why not "House of Eliezer"
and "House of Joshua"? Since Yavneans from Gamaliel, a contem
porary of the disciples of Yohanan, to the slightly later figures,
Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah, 'Aqiba, and the still later Yavneans, all
c
280
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
refer to the Houses-pericopae, why should they thereby have meant

to refer to the opinions of masters whom they actually knew, and,
in some instances, served as disciples ? Why omit the real authorities ?
And further, why House of Shammai and House of Hillelt Jumping
back over Gamaliel and Simeon to Houses formed by masters at least
half-a-century prior to Yavneh makes little sense, if, in the intervening
years, Houses tracing themselves to Shammai and Hillel did not ac
tually flourish in Jerusalem itself. To be sure, we know the names of
no Hillelites before 70, and only a few ("good") Shammaites. But
that is because all the pre-70 materials were thoroughly revised at Yav
neh, and the names of individual Houses' authorities tended to be sub
sumed into the traditions of the Houses themselves. Yavneans had no
obvious motive to link themselves to fictitious parties.
And there was always Gamaliel, who represented his father, and
who was himself represented, as a Shammaite. To be sure, the opposi
tion for that very reason might have taken Hillel for its historical
authoritybut that is all the more reason to think that pre-70 Jerusalem
knew a House of Hillel, along with a House of Shammai. So, in all, it
seems to me that the Houses did flourish in Jerusalem before the de
struction, as small circles, perhaps not much different in character from,
or larger in size than, the circle of Yohanan and his disciples.
And this leads to the final question: Do Hillel and Shammai stand
as historical figures behind the Houses and did they found the Houses?
And if so, do the rulings of the Houses in hundreds of specific legal
problems follow general principles first laid down by the founders of
the Houses themselves? Here we have no evidence at all, except for
the existence of the Houses themselves, but that evidence seems to me
sufficient to point toward an unequivocal and affirmative answer.
Through the laws we may claim to reach legal principles held by the
masters who founded the Houses. I should be inclined to claim that
the historical Hillel and Shammai stand behind elements of the Houses'
traditions. I should not, at this juncture, want to specify which ones.
The materials of Hanina Prefect of the Priests were largely redacted
in the pericopae of Yavnean masters. While many of the sayings relate
to Temple times, the traditions are Yavnean. Many of them are veri
fied in early Yavneh, either by references of Aqiba, Ishmael, and others,
or by their inclusion in the pericopae of other Yavnean masters. The
corpus is fundamentally sound. That is, Hanina is apt to have made
these statements. Whether he knew what he was talking about, and,
if he did, accurately reported it, I cannot say.
c
THE
YAVNEAN
STRATUM
281
v. THE YAVNEAN STRATUM
Having listed the pericopae verified by Yavneans (pp. 199-209, 223230), we now seek to characterize the rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees which are first attested there. What we describe is not what
Yavneans said about the pre-70 Pharisees. We cannot know all that
they said and thought, for materials first verified in later strata, or
occurring for the first time in Mishnah-Tosefta or even afterward,
may have roots in traditions known at Yavneh or before that time.
Furthermore, rabbinic traditions not specifically attributed or referring
to named pre-70 Pharisees and the Houses have not been considered
at all. What we want to know is simply the configuration of the tradi
tion indubitably known and regarded as authoritative and normative
at Yavneh, then at Usha. We obviously cannot extrapolate from the
known to the unknown or allege that the materials not explicitly
related to pre-70 Pharisaism, or not attributed to any named authority,
play no part in Yavnean and Ushan reflections on pre-70 Pharisaism.
Of a historical nature is the tradition on Simeon b. Shetah's han
ging women in Ashqelon; the letters of Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yo
hanan b. Zakkai; the reference to Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness
rulings; and the references of Gamaliel II to Gamaliel I and to
Simeon b. Gamaliel (above, p. 202). On this basis, we simply could
not reconstruct a coherent account of pre-70 Pharisaism. We find no
effort at periodization, no attention to the lists of authorities of the
party (excepting, possibly, Abba Saul's verification of M. Hag. 2:2),
no overview of what had gone before 70. The pericopae of a historical
character are random and episodic. Even if we add a few biographical
reminiscences, the picture is not changed.
The primary concern of Yavneans was with the Houses and their
laws. The Houses obviously persisted in Yavneh as discernible groups.
Their disagreements on law clearly contributed to setting the agenda
for Yavnean discussion.
The work of Yavneh consisted, first, in establishing viable forms
for the organization and transmissions of the Houses-material. These
forms obliterated whatever antecedent materials were available, for,
as I said, we may assume the respective Houses shaped autonomous
materials, not merely in antithetical relationship to the opposition, and
handed down those materials in coherent units. The Yavneans, second,
made considerable progress in redacting antecedent materials in the
forms they created. We have already listed the areas of law to which
282
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
they gave most attention (pp. 199-209). The Yavnean stratum is vir
tually exhausted by those materials. It also is possible, as I said, that
much of the anti-Shammaite polemic of the Hillelites may derive from
Yavnean times, when the issues separating the parties still were hotly
debated.
v i . THE USHAN STRATUM
From a legal viewpoint, the Ushan verifications do not significantly

alter the picture yielded by the Yavnean ones (pp. 231-234). The areas
of law on which the Houses legislated do not appreciably expand.
What becomes commonplace is the revision of earlier Houses-mate
rials. We find in some later Yavnean pericopae a few items in which a
master alleges the Houses did not really differ about the matter on
which it is alleged they differed. But rather, on that matter they were in
complete agreement, very often on the Hillelite side. They really
differed concerning a much finer point of law. In Ushan pericopae this
mode of interpretation of Houses-pericopae becomes commonplace,
and in the circles of Judah the Patriarch it predominates to the nearexclusion of all other sorts of commentary. This means that in the
study of the Houses-materials, the Ushans were prepared both to
revise what they had, and to investigate the legal principles under
lying the antecedent materials, extending actual disputes to the most
ambiguous possible matters. This mode of study signifies that the
Ushans and the circle of Judah the Patriarch found the Houses-mate
rials especially interesting as sources for legal theory, no longer attend
ing to the actualities of the earliest disputes, if they had access to such
information to begin with. And this further implies that the historical
Houses lay sufficiently far in the background so that legal theory,
rather than practical politics, might become the focus of inquiry.
At the same time, as I said, Ushans gave considerable effort to the
working out and redaction of historical materials. Indeed, most veri
fiable historical materials in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees
are attested for the first time at Usha. It seems that the Ushans, aware
of the need to reconstruct out of the remnants of pre-140 rabbinic
traditions a viable legal and political structure, at the same time sought
to establish historical continuities between themselves and the earlier
masters. This was done in part by telling about the pre-70 masters and
attempting to systematize and organize their history, not merely their
legal traditions. While redacting 'Aqiban materials, the Ushans in
cluded in the normative tradition as much as they could about an-
THE
USHAN
STRATUM
283
cients, back to Moses. So the Mosaic origins of the Oral Torah and
the history of the Oral Torah from Moses down to Usha itself supplied
the primary theme of Ushan historians. That seems to me to signify
awareness of a lack of continuity with the past, just as the Yavneans'
apparent indifference to historical questions tends to suggest a strong
sense that nothing much had changed (p. 228). It is still another mark
of the abyss separating pre-from post-Bar Kokhban times. It suggests
that the real break in the history of the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement
comes not at 70, with the destruction of the Temple, but at 140, with
the devastation of southern Palestine and the reconstitution of the
rabbinic movement and the patriarchal government in the north.
The Ushans evidently are responsible for introducing into the
normative tradition various historical themes. Simeon the Just and
Yohanan the High Priest and their heavenly messages first occur in
pericopae apparently redacted at Usha. Hillel becomes a central figure.
His migration from Babylonia is taken for granted; his rise to power
is the subject of serious historical efforts; his sayings about futures,
his ordinances about the redemption of property, his expounding the
language of common people, some of his moral sayingsthese are
materials first attested at Usha. Part of the reason may be, as I have
suggested, the renewed interest of the patriarchate, now under Simeon
b. Gamaliel, in discovering for itself more agreeable ancestors than
the discredited Gamaliel II. And part of the reason (for it was not a
patriarchal venture alone) must be the interest in recovering usable
heroes from within Pharisaism itself, in place of Bar Kokhba and other
messianic types. A further, though, I think, minor, sub-theme of Hillelmaterials was to stress that masters came to Palestine from Babylonia,
not the reverse; at this time important masters had located themselves
in Babylonia and others tended to leave Palestine for foreign parts.
The Houses-disputes, now well-known, had to explained. This was
attributed to the failure of disciples. The same theme recurs in the
grapecluster-pericope, certainly an Ushan invention. Since, as Gary
G. Porton has shown, Bar Kokhba had made extensive use of the sym
bol of the grapecluster on his coins and was the first to do so (the sym
bol occurs only once, on a coin of Archelaus, before his time), it
stands to reason that the characterization of Pharisaic masters as grape
clusters, bearers of the abiding blessing, was neither accidental nor
irrelevant to the Ushan situation. The claim seems to be that sages, not
messiahs, are the source of blessing. This theme then is tied into the
issue of the disputes of the former generations. Disputes are traced to
284
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
the end of the grapeclusters, with the concommitant warning that

new disputes will call into disrepute the work of the Ushans as well.
Therefore people had better learn their lessons well and avoid con
troversy. And to this theme is tied still another: Hillel, Samuel the
Small, and Judah b. Baba all would have received the holy spirit, but
the generation was unworthy. At Usha this has obvious implications:
those who now claim to receive the holy spirit are charlatans. No one,,
not even the great Hillel, had received it. Furthermore, the unworthiness of the generation prevented it then, and if the generation now
does not conform to the Torah, it too cannot hope to receive divine
communications.
The grapecluster-pericope is only one effort to periodize the
history of ancient times. Another is represented by the Meir-Judah
discussion on the Pharisaic chains; to lay/not to lay is verified at Usha.
Just as the supernatural history was divided into periods, so too was
the history of the Pharisaic party itself worked out in terms of the
names of the presiding authorities in each stage of the party's history.
The dispute about the relative places of Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon
b. Shetah is closely related to this matter. Meir and Judah seem primarily
responsible for the provision of a history for Pharisaism, Judah b.
Baba for the account of the supernatural history. Yosi b. Halafta did
not know the uncleanness-chain, and this may mean either that it
comes later than Usha, or that it was made up in a different circle and
not transmitted to Sepphoris, where he conducted his school, during
his lifetime. Meir and Judah likewise debate the circumstances of the
founding of the Temple of Onias in Alexandria. Judah supplies the
letter of Gamaliel and the Elders to the Diaspora, here following the
model of Joshua's letter of Simeon and Yohanan, assuming the latter
is validly attributed and, indeed, is prior because of that attribution.
Judah is responsible for the precedent about the Helene story, which
shows an interest in first-century Pharisaic history. Likewise, who
prepared the heifer-ceremony is discussed at Usha. So the four central is
sues of sacred history, the history of the supernatural, the history of
the messianic blessing, the history of the Pharisaic party and of the
Oral Torah, and the history of the cultall were worked out at Usha.
If we now review the Ushan history of Pharisaism, we come to the
following picture: from the time of Moses onward, the divine blessing
inhered in the grapeclusters. These were men who bore the special
grace of God. They lasted to the time of the Yosi's, after which
dissensions split the Oral Torah into many parts, and the blessing
THE
USHAN
STRATUM
285
was lost. But it was restored by Judah b. Baba, who had ordained the
surviving students of 'Aqiba. Those very students now dominate at
Usha. So the grapecluster-blessing of ancient times has been restored.
If the disciples of Usha learn their lessons and satisfactorily serve
their masters, the blessing will persist. And the grapecluster, every
one knew, was the sign of the messiah. So on the unity of the rabbinic
group at Usha depended the hope of Israel for the coming of the
Messiah, on that unity and not on the pretentions of messianic generals.
In the meanwhile, none should suppose that the chain has been broken
that extends from Usha back to Sinai. On the contrary, the list of the
masters from Sinai onward demonstrates the perfect continuity of the
tradition. What began at Sinai endures to this very day.
Heavenly messages came to worthy men in the pastSimeon the
Just and Yohanan the High Priest were even able to tell what was
happening at distant places. Hillel himself alleged that the holy spirit
was upon Israel. So those who today want to rely upon the echo and
upon the holy spirit may take comfort. However, Hillel himself did
not receive the holy spirit, and the reason was the un worthiness of
his contemporaries. Just as the decline of generations and the rise of
disputes had withdrawn the blessing of the grapecluster, and with it
the messianic hope, from Israel, so the unworthiness of the generation
has deprived Israel of its spiritual gift of receiving revelation.
The stress on sin as the cause for the thwarting both of the mes
sianic hope and of the capacity to receive the marks of divine concern
corresponds to the message of the Yohanan b. Zakkai-circle after
the destruction of the Temple: Take comfort, for he who punished
you for your sins can be relied upon to recognize your penitence and
to respond to and reward your regeneration. Here too the comfort is
that Israel's own sin, and not the might of a foreign conqueror, ac
counts for Israel's present condition. These primary spiritual concerns
for the Messiah and for receiving direct divine communications sug
gest that people claimed to have heavenly messages in Bar Kokhban
times. But they certainly point toward the messianic claim of Bar
Kokhba himself. Aqiba's students could not affirm the master's view
that Bar Kokhba had been the messiah. What they could and did allege
was that the messianic blessing remained intact, enduring within the
rabbinical group itself. This accomplished two important purposes.
First, it saved from the debacle of Bar Kokhba the remnant of the
messianic hope. Second, it made certain that anyone who was subject
to the influence of the rabbis would reject the notion that someone
c
286
HISTORY
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
who was not a rabbi might again enjoy the sponsorship of rabbis in
asserting a messianic claim.
The Temple lay in ruins, and now prospects of rebuilding it were
hardly encouraging. The founding of a Temple not in Jerusalem was
attributed to disreputable persons. Anyone who proposed to build
a Temple in some place safer than Jerusalem, as did Onias in Leontopolis, could not hope to enjoy the support of Palestinians or the
approval of the rabbis. This message was brought by Ushans to
Hananiah, Joshua's nephew, in Babylonia {History, I, pp. 122-130).
The patriarch descended from the Babylonian, Hillel, not from
those discredited in the tumult of the approach of Bar Kokhba's war
(above, pp. 256-259). Hillel had been a Babylonian, but had had to
endure poverty in order to study in Palestine, and all his power depend
ed upon that study. Therefore the rabbis going abroad should know
it is better to remain in Palestine and to study even though in poverty
than to emigrate to a more abundant, but spiritually deprived land.
These, I think, are some of the contemporary motives emerging
from the Ushan pericopae on the history of Pharisaism. We of course
cannot claim that Ushan story-tellers invented the stories in order to
make these very points. That is something we do not know. It is
clear, however, that in telling such stories, they conveyed a message
peculiarly pertinent to their own situation. This fact, I should guess,
was not hidden from them.
I find no verifications at Usha for elements of the anti-Shammaite
polemic. The polemic may have gone on, but alongside was the al
legation that the Houses really loved each other, and this may have
limited the force q the anti-Shammaite polemic, which in any case
was not so relevant as earlier to the life of the schools.
One legal issue, important in Ushan times and certainly open for
discussion into the period of Judah the Patriarch, concerned mixing
cheese and chicken. This issue was attributed to the Houses, and the
literary data strongly suggest the attribution comes at Usha, but the
dispute derives from Yavneh. The same may apply to the uncleanness
of Qohelet, phrased in terms of the Houses, but probably debated at
Yavneh aforetime.
VII. THE LAWS
Having examined the external aspects of the rabbinic traditions of

the Pharisees, we may now ask, What of the contents? Of the varsiou
THE
LAWS
287
types of pericopae, only the laws seem to me apt thematically to

reflect the historical realities of pre-70 Pharisaism.
The historical traditions come late, and, while perhaps based upon
earlier materials, the stories they tell in their present form hardly
compel much credence. Judah and Meir, for instance, could not have
known anything about the founding of the Temple of Onias, yet
they did not hesitate to fabricate stories which in every detail contradict
one another. The lists may be genuine, but do not tell us much about
pre-70 times. The names may mean something; to layjnot to lay does
not.
The legal exegeses of various kinds generally prove what is already
known on the basis of non-exegetical legal traditions. One cannot
maintain that the Houses came to their opinions on the basis of the
sort of legal exegeses we have examined. The non-legal exegeses per
mit no speculation whatever but are not an important part of the
traditions. The histories of the Houses are composed entirely within
the Hillelite perspective, and while they suggest Shammaite predomi
nance, we can learn from them little more than that. As to the Hillelite
attitude toward the Shammaites, the historical pericopae tell us much
about Yavnean, Ushan and later attitudes. We might not err in extra
polating from them the view that in pre-70 times the Hillelites bore
much the same opinions. But that sort of information is not of much
consequence and could have been projected on the basis of still less
concrete testimonies than the Yavnean and Ushan stories about Sham
maite use of force, Shammai's inconsistencies, and the like (pp. 263272).
At this point we seek to speak not merely of the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees, but of the historical Pharisees in the decades before
the destruction of Jerusalem, as portrayed by legal traditions that seem
to me fundamentally sound in theme, perhaps also in substance, and
attested by references of masters who may reasonably supposed to
have known what they were talking about.
Which laws pertained primarily to Pharisaism, and which were part
of the law common to all of Palestinian Jewry? Most of the laws we
have before us, verified early or late, affect primarily the sectarian life
of the party. Other laws, not in the materials attributed to the pre-70
Pharisees but referred to, or taken for granted, by Yavneans and later
masters may derive from, or reflect, antecedent common law. Of this
we cannot be certain. But since laws of marriage, divorce, transfer of
real property, litigation of torts, damages, criminal law, court-testi-
288
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
mony, and the like equally pertained to everyone, it is consequential

that the Houses-materials contain remarkably few, if any, rulings on
such subjects. Of these, Levirate marriage, because of conflicting
Scriptures, was bound to produce sectarian controversy. The paucity
of laws pertaining to the Temple is not without reason. Since the
Pharisees did not run the Temple, they had no occasion to develop a
substantial corpus of laws about the cult and how it should be carried
on.
The laws that made a sect sectarian were those which either were
interpreted and obeyed by the group in a way different from other
groups or from common society at large, on the one hand, or were to
begin with observed only by the group, on the other. In the latter
category are the purity laws, which take so large a place in the Pharisaic
corpus. The primary mark of Pharisaic commitment was the observ
ance of the laws of ritual purity outside of the Temple, where every
one kept them. Eating one's secular, that is, unconsecrated, food in
a state of ritual purity as if one were a Temple priest in the cult was
one of the two significations of party membership. The manifold
circumstances of everyday life required the multiplication of concrete
rules. Representative of the former category may be the laws of tithing
and other agricultural taboos. Here we are less certain. Pharisees clear
ly regarded keeping the agricultural rules as a primary religious duty.
But whether, to what degree, and how other Jews did so is not clear.
And the agricultural laws, just like the purity rules, in the end affected
table-fellowship, namely, what one might eat.
The early Christian traditions on both points (pp. 78ff.) represent
the Pharisees as reproaching Jesus because his followers did not keep
these two kinds of laws at all, that is, why were they not Pharisees ?
The answer was that the primary concern was for ethics. Both the
question and the answer are disingenuous. The questioners are repre
sented as rebuking the Christians for not being Phariseeswhich begs
the question, for everyone presumably knew Christians were not
Pharisees. The answer takes advantage of the polemical opening:
Pharisees are not concerned with ethics, a point repeatedly made in
the anti-Pharisaic pericopae, depending upon a supposed conflict be
tween rules of table-fellowship, on the one side, and ethical behavior
on the other. The obvious underlying claim is that Christian tablefellowship does not depend upon the sorts of rules important in the
table-fellowship of other groups.
As to the Sabbath laws, the issue was narrower. All Jews kept the
THE
LAWS
289
Sabbath. It was part of the culture of their country. The same applies
to the festivals. Here the Pharisaic materials are not so broad in in
terest as with regard to agricultural rules and ritual purity. They per
tain primarily to gentiles' working on the Sabbath for Jews, on the
one hand, and to the preparation of the W , on the other. Like the
Levirate rule, the 'eruv-lzws must be regarded as solely of sectarian
interest. The references to the unobservant Sadducee make this virtu
ally certain.
Since the tithes and offerings either went to the Levites and priests
or had to be consumed in Jerusalem, and since the purity rules were to
begin with Temple matters, we note that the Pharisees claimed laymen
are better informed as to purity and Temple laws than the Temple
priesthood. Morton Smith ("The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to An
cient Judaism," New Testament Studies 7, pp. 347-360) observes, "Dif
ferences as to the interpretation of the purity laws and especially as to
the consequent question of table fellowship were among the principal
causes of the separation of Christianity from the rest of Judaism and
the early fragmentation of Christianity itself. The same thing holds
for the Qumran community, and, within Pharisaic tradition, the
haburah. They are essentially groups whose members observe the same
interpretation of the purity rules and therefore can have table fellow
ship with each other. It is no accident that the essential act of com
munion in all these groups is participation in common meals." Since
food which had not been properly grown or tithed could not be eaten,
and since the staple of the diet was agricultural products and not meat,
the centrality of the agricultural rules in no small degree is on account
of precisely the same consideration: What may one eat, and under
what circumstances? Smith states, "The obligation to eat only tithed
food was made the basis of elaborate regulations limiting table fellow
ship in a way comparable even to the effect of the purity laws" in the
reforms of Nehemiah ("Sect," p. 353). Nehemiah's third reform, in
addition to purifying the Temple and enforcing the giving of tithes to
Levites, was the enforcement of the Sabbath, also represented in a
more than random way in the Pharisaic laws.
"The normative religion of the country," Smith observes, "is that
compromise of which the three principal elements are the Pentateuch,
the Temple, and the 'amme haâres, the ordinary Jews who were not
members of any sect." The Pharisaic laws virtually ignore the second,
treat the third as an outsider, and are strangely silent concerning the
first. They supply no rules about synagogue life, all the more so about
290
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
reading the Torah and preaching in synagogues. It would be difficult

to maintain that the sect claimed to exercise influence in the life of
synagogues not controlled by its own members or widely preached in
synagogues.
The fact is, therefore, that the laws we have are the laws we should
have: the rules of a sect concerning its own sectarian affairs, matters
of importance primarily to its own members. That seems to me further
evidence of the essential accuracy of the representation of the Houses
in the rabbinic traditions. To be sure, not all laws before us portray
with equal authenticity the life of pre-70 Pharisaism. But the themes
of the laws, perhaps also their substance in detail, are precisely what
they ought to have been according to our theory of sectarianism.
Simeon the Just and Antigonus of Sokho appropriately leave no
laws. Yosi b. Yo'ezer, a priest, laid down rules concerning cleanness
of fluids in the Temple slaughter-house and of a kind of locust, and
corpse-uncleanness. To Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan and the
rest of the pairs are attributed opinions on laying on of hands in the
sacrifice on festivals that coincide with the Sabbath. They also decree
concerning the uncleanness of the land of the peoples and of glassware.
Joshua b. Perahiah decided about the uncleanness of Alexandrian
wheat. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness
on metalware. To Simeon is also attributed a decree regarding the
marriage contract. Shema'iah and Abtalion ruled on giving bitter
water to a suspected adulteress, a Temple rite, a rule of Heave-offering,
and a law on preparing animals for use on the festival. They further
gave an opinion on the acceptability of a ritual pool. This is the sum
of the laws attributed to pre-Hillelite Pharisees: purity rules, Temple
rites, agricultural taboos. Only the marriage-contract stands outside
of the sectarian framework, and precisely what is attributed to Simeon
is unclear. So the early laws, whether authentic or not, conform to
the pattern well-established in the later ones.
Shammai's rulings pertain to Sabbath observance, phylacteries,
Heave-offering, Second Tithe, uncleanness, ploughing in the Seventh
Year, uncleanness from a bone in a 'Tent,' the liability of children to
observe the festival of Sukkot and the Day of Atonement, and the
liability of an agent for misdeeds done in behalf of another. Only the
last item is outside of the pattern.
Hillel's laws and legal exegeses pertain to Passover observance:
eating the species together, sacrificing the Paschal offering on the
Sabbath; uncleanness: touching an insect in a ritual pool, declaring
THE
291
LAWS
an itch to be clean; Seventh Year and Jubilee law: redeem property,

prosbul; interest; liability for tithes; expounding the language of the
Ketuvah. Only interest and the Ketuvah diverge from the established
pattern. Shammai and Hillel together rule on the retroactive unclean
ness of a menstruant, which is important in assessing the cleanness of
objects she may have touched; the liability of a loaf for Hallah, the
acceptability of a ritual pool, uncleanness of hands, and uncleanness
in vintaging grapes for the vat, all as expected.
Gamaliel I has rulings quite different from the foregoing, e.g., on
the right of a woman to remarry on the testimony of one witness.
He was asked concerning pe'ab, 'orlah-tules, and ordained with respect
to the rights of Temple calendar witnesses on the Sabbath, something
a person in his position might have done. He issued ordinances on
annulling divorces, using nicknames in writs of divorces, collecting
the marriage contract. Gamaliel's laws therefore pertain primarily not
to sectarian matters, but to the affairs of ordinary folk. This is what
one would expect from an important civil authority. From Simeon b.
Gamaliel we have no legal lemmas, only reports of how he had lower
ed the price of doves, given pe'ab, and managed to live in the same
alley with a non-believer, with respect to an 'eruv. The latter two items
are of sectarian interest, the final one explicitly so. The first puts
Simeon into the Temple as a major official, in conformity with Jose
phus's picture. If he made and effected such a ruling, it was not as a
Pharisee. The legal traditions of the named masters thus tend to con
form to the pattern suggested above: sectarian rules primarily pertain
ing to matters of sectarian interest.
The Houses-laws, so much more considerable in quantity, do not
much change the picture. We shall briefly categorize the Houses'
materials in Mishnah-Tosefta.
A.
Agricultural
Lam
1. Corner of field and other agricultural gifts to the poor

M. Pe'ah 3:1, M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3, 5
2. Agricultural taboos (Fourth-year fruit, mixed seeds, untithed foods,
disposal of food to insure tithing, purity, Seventh Year Tithes,
Second Tithes, Removal of old produce at Passover)
M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. Demai 1:3, 3:1, M. Demai 6:6,
Tos. Demai 1:26-7, M. Kil. 2:6, 4:1, 5, 6:1, Tos.
Kil. 3:17, 4:11, M. Shev. 1:1, 4:2, 4, 10, 5:4, 8,
8:3, Tos. Shev. 1:5, 2:6, 4:5B, 4:21, 6:19, M. Ma.
4:2, M. M.S. 2:7-9,3:6-7, 9, 13, 4:8, 5:6-7, Tos.
292
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
M.S. 2:11, Tos. M.S. 2:12, Tos. M.S. 5:17-20,

M. Suk. 3:5, M. R.H. 1:1, M. Hag. 1:3
3. Priestly and levitical gifts from agricultural produce {Hallah, Heaveoffering and its rules, including cleanness)
y. Demai 5:1, M. Ter. 1:4, 4:3, 5:4, Tos. Ter.
5:4, 3:12, 3:14, 3:16, Tos. Ma. 3:13, Tos. M.S.
2:18, Tos. M.S. 3:14-15, M. Hal. 1:6. M. Hal.
11:2, M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16
4. Ritual slaughter of animals
M. Hul. 1:2
5. Milk/meat taboo
M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3
B. Ritual Uncleanness
1. Uncleanness of animals
M. Kil. 8:5 (weasel)
2. Uncleanness in agricultural products
Tos. Ter. 3:2 (vat), Tos. Ter. 6:4 = M. Ter. 5:4
(unclean Heave-offering), b. Pes. 20b, y. Pes. 3:6,
M. M.S. 2:3, 4, 3:9, Tos. M.S. 2:1, 2:16, M. <Orl.
2:4-5, M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8, Tos. Ah. 16:6, 17:9, 13,
M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7,10:4, Tos. Toh. 8:9-10, 10:1-2,
M. <Uqs. 3:6-11
3. Invisible uncleanness and how it comes and goes, e.g. Tent, stoppers,
split in roof (re woman baking); connectors; causes; etc.
Tos. Shab. 1:18, M. Kel. 9:2, M. Oh. 2:3, M. Oh.
5:1-4, 7:3, 11:1-8, 13:1, 4, 15:8. Tos. Ah. 3:4,
5:11, 8:7, 12:1, 14:4, 15:9, M. Ed. 1:14, M. Par.
12:10, Tos. Par. 12:18, M. T.Y. 1:1, Tos. T.Y.
2:3, M. Yad. 3:5
4. Capacities of objects to receive and produce uncleanness
M. Kel. 11:3, 14:2, 18:1, 20:2, 20:6, 22:4, 26:6,
28:4, 29:8. Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:1, 6:18, Tos. Kel.
B.M. 3:8, 4:5, 16, 8:1, 11:3, 7, Tos. Kel. B.B.
1:12, 4:9, 5:7-8, 7:4, M. Maksh. 1:2-4, 4:4-5, 5:9,
Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4, 2:6
5. The ritual pool
M. Miq. 1:5, 4:1, 5, 5:6, 10:6, Tos. Miq. 1:7, 10,
5:2 (M. <Ed. 1:3: Shammai + Hillel)
6. Ritual cleanness of women (re: sexual relations or preparation of
"purities" [food])
M. Nid. 2:4, 6 (sex), M. Nid. 4:3 (food, sex),
M. Nid. 10:1, 4, 6, 7, 8, (food), Tos. Nid. 5:5-7,
Tos. Nid. 9:19 (sex)
7. Ritual cleanness of those who suffer a flow
M. Zab. 1:1-2, Tos. Zab. 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
c
THE
LAWS
293
C. Sabbath and Festival Laws

1. Preparing and keeping food on festival, Sabbath (and other tablerules in connection with Festivals and Sabbath), also 'eruv for
cooking, search for leaven on Passover, Passover Seder
Tos. Ma. 3:10, M. Shab. 3:1, 21:3, Tos. Shab.
1:14, Tos. Shab. 1:20, Tos. Shab. 2:13, Tos. Shab.
16:7, M. <Eruv 6:6, M. Pes. 1:1,10:2,6, Tos. Pisha
1:6, 7:2, Tos. Pis. 10:2-3, 9, M. Bes. 1:1-9, 2:1-7,
Tos. Y.T. 1:4, 8, 10, 11, 12-14, 15-17, 21, 2:4
2. Work started before Sabbath and finished on Sabbath, also gentile
work on Sabbath, work on Sabbath and on festivals
M. Shab. 1:4-9, Tos. Shab. 1:22, Tos. Shab. 14:1,
Tos. Shab. 16:21-2, M. Pes. 4:15, Tos. Y.T. 2:10
3. 'Eruv to permit carrying on Sabbath
M. <Eruv. 1:2, 6:2, 4A, 8:6
4. Laws of Sukkah
M. Suk. 1:1,7,2:7, M. Suk. 3:9
5. Pilgrimage laws
M. Hag. 1:1-3, 2:3-4, Tos. Hag. 1:4, 2:10
D. Family Laws
1. Levirate marriage
M. Yev. 1:4, 3:1, 5, Tos. Yev. 1:7-13, 5:1
2. Disposition of wife's property
M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:1, 6, M. B.B. 9:8-9, Tos.
B.B. 10:13
3. Sexual duties
M. Yev. 6:6, Tos. Yev. 8:14, M. Ket. 5:6, Tos.
Ket. 5:6
4. Minor's right of refusal
M. Yev. 13:1, Tos. Yev. 13:1
5. Remarriage of widow
M. Yev. 15:2-3, Tos. Nid. 2:12
6. Vows of wife
Tos. Ned. 6:3-4
7. Marriage of half-slave
M. Git. 4:5
8. Divorce
M. Git. 8:4, 8-9, 9:10, Tos.'Arakh. 4:5, Tos. Git.
8:8
9. Betrothal
M. Qid. 1:1, Tos. Qid. 4:1
10. Coming of age
M. Nid. 5:9, M. Nid. 10:1, Tos. Nid. 9:7-9
E. Temple, Oaths and Vows
1. Sheqel offering
M. Sheq. 2:3
294
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
2. Disposal of unclean offerings

M. Sheq. 8:6, Tos. Sheq. 3:16
3. Sotah-titt
M. Sot. 4:2
4. Sprinkling blood
M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9
5. Offering of woman who miscarries etc.
M. Ker. 1:6, Tos. Ker. 1:9
6. Qorban-vovts
M. Ned. 3:2, Tos. Nez. 1:1
7. Nazir-vows
M. Naz. 2:1-2, 3:6-7, Tos. Nez. 2:10, 3:1, 17, 19
8. Dedications
M. Naz. 5:1-5
9. Also D. 6
F. Liturgical and Ritual Matters
1. How to recite Shema'
M. Ber. 1:3
2. Blessings and conduct at meals
M. Ber. 6:5, 8:1-8
3. Liturgy on New Year that coincides with Sabbath
Tos. Ber. 3:13
4. Tefillin
b. Ber. 23a
5. Circumcision
Tos. Shab. 15:9, M. Pes. 8:8, Tos. Pis. 7:4
G. Civil Law, Torts, Damages
1. Thievery: recompense
Tos. B.Q. 9:5
2. Misappropriation of bailment: Recompense
M. B.M. 3:12, Tos. B.M. 3:12
H. House of Study
1. Blessing in house of study
Tos. Ber. 5:30, b. Ber. 53a
Houses-rulings pertaining either immediately or ultimately to tablefellowship involve preparation of food, ritual purity, either purityrules directly relating to food, or purity-rules indirectly important on
account of the need to keep food ritually clean, and agricultural rules
pertaining to the proper growing, tithing, and preparation of agricul
tural produce for table-use. All agricultural laws concern producing
THE
LAWS
295
or preparing food for consumption, assuring either that tithes and

offerings have been set aside as the Law requires or that the conditions
for the nurture of the crops have conformed to the biblical taboos.
Ritual slaughter, appropriately, occurs in only one minor matter,
likewise the milk/meat taboo is applied to chicken and cheese. The
laws of ritual cleanness apply in the main to the preservation of the rit
ual cleanness of food, of people involved in preparing it, and of
objects used in its preparation. Secondary considerations include the
ritual pool. These matters became practically important in the lives
of Pharisees in regard to the daily preparation of food, in the lives of
all Jews only in connection with visiting the Temple, and of the
priests in the cult itself. Laws regarding Sabbath and festivals further
more pertain in large measure to the preparation and preservation of
food on festivals and the Sabbath. The ritual of table-fellowship also
included blessings and rules of conduct at meals.
We find no such concentration of interest in any other aspect of every
day life. To be sure, ritual considerations in respect to sexual relations,
apart from the preparation of food, do figure; but these are a minor
part of the matter, and the ritual uncleanness that prevents sexual
relations also makes a woman unclean for the preparation of food.
One aspect of Sabbath law, as I said, is surely sectarian, and that is, the
'eruv to permit carrying. It was supplied to alleyways, not to whole
towns, which means that Pharisees never considered the possibility
that they might control a larger domain.
The problem of work started before the Sabbath and finished on
the Sabbath and related matters looks to be of theoretical more than
practical interest. People presumably kept such laws, but once a
routine was established, they would not have had to receive admoni
tion in the matter. The laws of the Sukkah are tangential to the festival.
Like the Sabbath and other festivals, Sukkot was part of the culture
of the country. The Pharisees do not allude to building a Sukkah dif
ferent from that of other folk; the rulings in the matter are minor and
of no great consequence.
Pilgrimage laws and Temple rules are not all of the same sort.
The former theoretically pertain to all Jews and concern offerings
for various purposes and their cost, the liability of children to make
the pilgrimage, and similar matters. But Pharisees could well have
obeyed these laws without appearing to be much different from other
people. The expenditure of funds, for instance, for the various pilgrim
offerings was not a matter subject to the close supervision of Temple
296
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
authorities. Other Temple rules seem sectarian. The references to

various rites and offerings, to the way in which blood was sprinkled, to
the disposal of unclean offerings, and the like are all of theoretical
interest, and some of these pericopae seem to have been shaped in
Yavnean times.
We should have expected more laws pertaining to family matters.
Levirate marriage, the disposition of the wife's property, annulling
the vows of a wife, the remarriage of a widow, exercising the minor's
right of refusal, and similar topics are represented only in one or two
rulings. These affect strikingly fundamental matters. One can hardly
suppose that for many centuries Jews had not known what to do in
these aspects of marital life. In some cases, especially Gamaliel's rul
ings about divorce-documents, we may imagine that the Pharisees
have taken over and made their own the rulings of the civil authority,
perhaps of Gamaliel himself, just as the form of M. Ket. 13: Iff. looks
like a Pharisaic record of approved decrees of municipal authorities.
Levirate marriage on the other hand apparently involved considera
tions internal to the sect itself. Of other items we can be less certain.
Perhaps some of the rulings were primarily for the members of the
group; others may represent ratification by the group of laws pertaining
to everyone and issued by other authorities.
Oaths and vows, which figure in the Christian indictment of Phari
saism, play a smaller role in the traditions than their place in that
indictment would have led one to anticipate. I take it for granted that
the Houses did debate the theory of erroneous consecrations, or per
haps later masters discovered that specific Houses-disputes revolved
around that general theory. It looks as though Nazir-vows indeed
were made and carried out. I should suppose party-members would
have been governed by party-rules, while Jews not in the Pharisaic
group who made Nazir-vows would have turned to Temple priests
for instruction.
Ritual and liturgical matters not involving table-fellowship are
episodic: reciting the Shemcf, a liturgy for the New Year that coincides
with the Sabbath, the unlikely need to rule on the circumcision of a
child born circumcized.
The two matters of civil law and torts both relate to how to assess
damages. Whether these rules derive from Temple times or not, they
do not leave the impression that Pharisees bore heavy responsibilities
in the administration of justice.
If the Pharisees were, as has been taken for granted, primarily a
THE
LAWS
297
group for Torah-study (as the Qumranian writers describe themselves)

then we should have looked for more rules about the school, perhaps al
so scribal matters, than we actually find. Indeed, we have only one,
and that, while attested at early Yavneh, merely involves sneezing in
the school-house. Surely other, more fundamental problems presented
themselves. Nor do we find much interest in defining the master-dis
ciple relationship, the duties of the master and the responsibilities and
rights of the disciple, the way in which the disciple should learn his
lessons, and similar matters of importance in later times.
Of the 341 individual pericopae alluded to above, no fewer than
229 directly or indirectly pertain to table-fellowship, approximately
67% of the whole. The rest are scattered through all other areas of
legal concern, a striking disproportion.
This brings us to a puzzling fact: nowhere in the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees do we find a reference to ritual gatherings of the
Pharisaic party, as a whole or in small groups, for table-fellowship,
apart from the allusions to the question of the 'eruv for several havurot
in the same hall. This surely supplies a slender basis on which to
prove the Pharisaic party did conduct communion meals, especially
so, since there no sectarian ritual meal is ever mentioned. By contrast,
the Qumranian laws, which make much of purity, also refer to com
munion-meals and the right, or denial of the right, of access to them
for members of the commune.
Why do we find no stories of how the haverim gathered to eat and
so-and-so happened or was said? Why is not the communion-meal a
redactional or formulary cliche in the formulation of materials, along
side testified before Gamaliel, or the Elders of the Houses assembled and?
The editorial and redactional framework is silent about table-fellow
ship. The narrative materials say nothing on the matter. And yet the
laws concentrate attention on rules and regulations covering most
aspects of a ritual-meal, which then is never decribed or alluded to as
a ritual-meal.
It seems to me these facts point to one conclusion: the Pharisaic
groups did not conduct their table-fellowship meals as rituals. The
table-fellowship laws pertained not to group life, but to ordinary,
daily life lived quite apart from heightened, ritual occasions. The rules
applied to the home, not merely to the cultic center, be it synagogue,
Temple, or sectarian rite-house (if such existed). While the early
Christians gathered for ritual-meals and made of these ritual-meals
the high point of their group-life, the Pharisees apparently did not.
298
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
The very character of the sectarianism of the Pharisees therefore

seems to differ from that of the sectarianism of the Christians in this
important detail. What embodied and actualized group- or sectarianlife for the Christians and came as the climax of the group's existence
was the communion-meal. What expressed the Pharisees' sense of
self-awareness as a group apparently was not a similar ritual meal.
Eating together was a less ritualized occasion, even though the Phari
sees had rituals in connection with the meal. No communion-ceremony,
no rites centered on meals, no specification of meals on holy occasions,
seem uniquely to characterize Pharisaic table-fellowship. The one
communion-meal about which we do find legislation characterized all
sects, along with the rest of the Jews: the Passover Seder. Eating in
the Sukkah is not of the same order. For the Seder, as for the observance
of Sukkot, the Pharisees may have had rules separate from, and additional
to, those observed by everyone else. But that is not the same thing as
a sectarian communion-meal.
Pharisaic table-fellowship thus exhibits a different quality from that
of the Christians: it was of a quite ordinary, everyday character. The
various fellowship-rules had to be observed in a wholly routine cir
cumstance, daily, for every meal, but without accompanying rites
other than a benediction for the food. Unlike the Pharisees the Chris
tians had a meal-myth. Ritual rendered table-fellowship into heightened
spiritual experience: Do these things in memory of me. The Pharisees told
no stories about purity laws, except (in later times) to account for
their historical development (e.g. who had decreed which purity-rule).
When they came to table, so far as we know, they told no stories about
how Moses had done what they now do, and they did not do these
things in memory of Moses "our rabbi."
Qumranian table-fellowship was open upon much the same basis
as the Pharisaic: appropriate undertakings to keep ritual purity and
consume properly grown and tithed food. Priests, not laymen, said
the blessings. Indeed table fellowship depended upon the presence of
a priest ("Let there not lack among them a man who is a priest, and
let them sit before him, each according to his rank" (1 QS vi. 2-3);...
"And then when they set the table to eat or prepare the wine to drink,
the priest shall first stretch out his hand to pronounce a blessing on
the first-fruits of bread and wine" (1 QSa ii 11-22). Only those who
knew the secret doctrine of the sect were fully accepted in table-fellow
ship. Sinners were excluded, whether the sins pertained to the rituals
of the table or otherwise. The "Messiah of Israel," after the priests,
THE
LAWS
299
blessed the bread, then each blessed according to his rank. The bless
ing of the meal is an important rite, but the Qumranian table-meal
references do not seem to have included a ceremony equivalent to the
Eucharist. In this respect they appear to be somewhat similar to the
Pharisaic meal.
It has been argued (Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins
[N.Y., 1961], pp. 102ff.) that the reference (I QSa II 11-14) to the
Messiah of Israel's "stretching out his hand to the bread" is "obviously
an account of an ideal Messianic session and a ideal Messianic meal."
Black points out that this 'regular meal' "is no ordinary meal of the
community... but a meal confined to those full members of the sect
who belonged to the council of the community." He says, "It is a
priestly celebration and consists solely of bread and wine or bread
or wine, with a priest presiding." But, Black admits, there is no
evidence of any particular religious significance's attaching to this
sacred meal, though such has been inferred (p. 105). Whether the
Qumran documents report a sacred meal of the sort described by
Philo in connection with the Egyptian Therapeutae (Black, p. 106)
seems to me not pertinent to our inquiry. The fact is we have no de
cisive evidence from the Qumranian materials of a Eucharistic meal.
As we now know it, the Qumranian meal apparently was liturgically
not much different from the ordinary Pharisaic gathering, the rites
pertaining to, and deriving from, the eating of food and that alone.
The Qumranian meal would have some similarity to the Eucharist if
it included some sort of narrative about the Temple cult, e.g., stories
about how the sect now replicates the holy Temple and eats at the
table of God, how the founder of the community had transferred the
Temple's holiness out of unclean Jerusalem, how the present officiants
stand in the place of the High Priest of Jerusalem, how the occasion
calls to mind some holy event of the past and comparable tales, or
how such things would be repeated in the future. But we have no
allusion to the inclusion of such mythic elements in the enactment of
the community meal. Josephus's Essenes (cited by Black, p. 175) have
a priest pray before the meal, and afterward, "at the beginning and
the end they do honor to God as the provider of life." This seems to
me no different from the Pharisaic table-rite.
The primary difference is the prominence of priests in the life of the
group. The table-fellowship of Qumranians and Pharisees seems to
me to exhibit less of a ritual embodiment of sacred myth than does
that of the Christians.
300
HISTORY OF
THE
TRADITIONS
On the other hand, both Christians and Pharisees lived among

ordinary folk, while the Qumranians did not. In this respect the
commonplace character of Pharisaic table-fellowship seems all the
more striking. The group's ordinary gatherings were not as a group
at all, but in the private home, with all participating in an ordinary
meal. All meals required ritual purity. Pharisaic table-fellowship took
place in the same circumstance in which all non-ritual table-fellowship
occurred: common folk, eating everyday meals, in an everyday way,,
amid neighbors who were not members of the sect, and engaged in
workaday pursuits like everyone else. This made the actual purity-rules
and food-restrictions all the more important, for only they set the
Pharisee apart from the people among whom he constantly lived. Not
on festivals nor on Sabbaths alone, but on weekdays, in the towns,,
without the telling of myths or the reading of holy books (Torah-talk
at table is attested only later), or the reenactment of first or last things,.
Pharisaic table-fellowship depended solely on observance of the law.
That observance, apart from the meal itself, was not marked off by
benedictions or other rites. No stories were told during the meal or
about it. Keeping the laws included few articulate statements, e.g.,.
blessings. The setting for observance was the field and the kitchen,,
the bed, and the street. The occasion for observance was set every time
a person picked up a common nail or purchased a se*ah of wheat, by
himself, without priests to bless his deed or sages to tell him what to
do. So keeping the Pharisaic rule required neither an occasional, ex
ceptional rite at, but external to, the meal, as in the Christian sect in
Judaism, nor taking up residence in a monastic commune, as in the
Qumranian sect in Judaism, but perpetual ritualization of daily life,
on the one side, and constant inner awareness of the communal order
of being, on the other.
CHAPTER
TWENTY-TWO
SUMMARY: THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS

ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70
The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 are pericopae
in which we find either pre-70 masters or the Houses of Shammai and
Hillel. Pre-70 masters are the men named in the chains of authorities
down to and including Simeon b. Gamaliel and masters referred to in
pericopae of those same authorities. In addition I rapidly surveyed
traditions of others who were evidently presumed by the Tannaitic
tradents both to have lived before 70 and to have been Pharisees.
These do not add up to much; the traditions are mostly concerned
with the masters named in the Pharisaic chains. Few others are known.
Authorities who began teaching before 70 but whose traditions derive
chiefly from Yavneh, rather than pre-70 Jerusalem, were excluded.
I have entirely omitted traditions referring to the history of pre-70
Judaism and Jews in which either the named masters or the Houses
do not appearfor example, stories dealing with biblical heroes, say
ings and laws attributed to Moses, the prophets and sages prior to
Simeon the Just, and similar materials. These I have not assigned to
the rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees, though the rabbis
certainly supposed that biblical heroes, including Moses and the proph
ets, all were part of the Pharisaic movement of their day. This ex
clusion admittedly derives not from the rabbinic traditions but from
my own historical judgment that, whoever Moses was, he was not a
rabbi like 'Aqiba. If I had been trying to reconstruct the history of the
Jews and Judaism before 70, I should certainly have had to consider
whatever the rabbis asserted about that history, though what their
assertions would probably teach us is about post-70 rabbinical
Judaism, not about pre-70 times.
A second, more important exclusion requires specification. In omit
ting reference to materials in which named masters and the Houses do
not occur, I have also precluded consideration of the whole corpus of
rabbinic law not attributed to any authority, before or after 70, which
may derive from, or pertain to, pre-70 Palestinian Judaism. This seems
to me the most important limitation of my effort to characterize the
rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees. Were my purpose to
302
SUMMARY
describe the legal system of pre-70 Palestine, I should have had to

study those anonymous laws of uncertain date, which, standing with
out attribution to post-70 authorities, may have come in anonymous
form from pre-70 times, as well as laws attributed to post-70 authorities
which may in some earlier form have applied before the destruction
of Jerusalem and the establishment of the patriarchal-rabbinic govern
ment, whether originating in Pharisaic circles or not. Theories about
the origin, shape, and history of the law before 70 must emerge from
a study not only of the rabbinic traditions about law, but also of the law
deriving, directly or indirectly, from other Jewish traditions of the
period and from the Greco-Roman, and especially the antecedent
Near Eastern Semitic, legal heritage. The study of the law of ancient
Palestine cannot be pursued through a consideration of only a small
part of the evidence, that in the rabbinic sources, nor may one isolate
that study from the larger historical and legal setting in which Pale
stinian Jewish law took shape. So the study of the Jewish law of
ancient Palestine must stand entirely apart from the study of the Phari
sees, on the one side, and from the consideration of the history and
enforcement of laws now preserved in rabbinic literature, either at
tributed to named authorities or given anonymously, on the other.
The issue is not whether the Tannaitic collections contain laws from
before 70, or whether those laws were applied to, and may accurately
reflect the conditions of, everyday life; or even whether the post-70
authorities knew what they were talking about. These constitute false
definitions for the problems of legal history. The first problem is the
definition of the range of pertinent data; the second, the articulation
of questions which may be brought to those data even within the present
limitations of our knowledge; the third, the relationship of the rabbinic,
particularly Tannaitic, corpus of law to the antecedent law codes or
systems which governed Jewish Palestine; the fourth, the place of the
law of Jewish Palestine before and after 70 within the system of GrecoRoman administration; fifth, the character of law common to the
entire ancient Near East. As Yochanan Muffs has stated (Studies in the
Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine [Leiden, 1969], pp. 193-4),
"What is urgently needed is the coordination of all of this material
into a history of Aramaic Common-law, its origins and developments."
Studying that common law requires consideration of the rabbinic
law-sayings, but those sayings by themselves do not contain the ans
wers to any legal-historical questions worth asking.
The definition of our inquiry therefore is appropriate to the data
303
SUMMARY
I have assembled: what did the rabbinic traditions have to say about,
or attribute to, pre-70 Pharisaic masters? To answer this question I
have brought together all pericopae in which those masters appear,
have then examined the data, and have come to some conclusions about
the form, character, and historical pertinence of the data.
The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D. consist
of approximately 371 separate itemsstories or sayings or allusions
which occur in approximately 655 different pericopae. Of these tradi
tions, 280, in 456 pericopae, pertain to Menahem, Shammai, Hillel,
and the Houses of Hillel and Shammai; these make up approximately
75% of all. A roughly even division of the materials would give
twenty-three traditions in forty pericopae to each name or category,
so the disparity is enormous. Exact figures cannot be given, for much
depends upon how one counts the components of composite pericopae
or reckons with other imponderables. The following approximate
figures suffice to indicate that the disproportionately greater part of
the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees pertains to Hillel and people
involved with him:
Master
Simeon the Just
Antigonus of Sokho
Yosi b. Yo'ezer
Yosi b. Yohanan
Joshua b. Perahiah
Nittai the Arbelite
Judah b. Tabbai
Simeon b. Shetah
Shema'iah-Abtalion
Shammai
Menahem
Hillel'
Shammai-Hillel
Gamaliel
Simeon b. Gamaliel
Houses of Shammai and Hillel
Number of
Traditions
10
2
4
6
3
2
7
13
11
15
2 ,
33
11J
26
7
219
6 1
371
Number of
Pericopae
30
2
10
13
6
2
26
38
18
25
3
,
89
39
41
13
300
A r
1 5 6
655
304
SUMMARY
Approximately 67% of all legal pericopae deal with dietary laws:

ritual purity for meals and agricultural rules governing the fitness of
food for Pharisaic consumption. Observance of Sabbaths and festivals
is a distant third. The named masters normally have legal traditions
of the same sort; only Gamaliel greatly diverges from the pattern,
Simeon b. Shetah somewhat less so. Of the latter we can say nothing.
The wider range of legal topics covered by Gamaliel's legal lemmas
and stories goes to confirm the tradition that he had an important
position in the civil government.
The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees as a whole may be cha
racterized as self-centered, the internal records of a party concerning its
own life, its own laws, and its own partisan conflicts. This seems to
me the most striking result of the survey. The omission of records of
what happened outside of the party is not only puzzling, but nearly
inexplicable. Almost nothing in Josephus's picture of the Pharisees
seems closely related to much, if anything, in the rabbis' portrait of the
Pharisees, except the rather general allegation that the Pharisees had
'traditions from the fathers,' a point made also by the Synoptic story
tellers. The rabbis' Pharisaic conflict-stories moreover do not tell of
Pharisees' opposing Essenes, Christians, or Sadducees, but of Hillelites'
opposing Shammaites. Pharisaic laws deal not with the governance of
the country but with the party's rules for table-fellowship. The polit
ical issues are not whether one should pay taxes to Rome or how one
should know the Messiah, but whether in the Temple the rule of
Shammai or that of Hillel should be followed in a minor festal sacrifice.
From the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees we could not have
reconstructed a single significant, public event of the period before 70
not the rise, success, and fall of the Hasmoneans, nor the Roman
conquest of Palestine, nor the rule of Herod, nor the reign of the
procurators, nor the growth of opposition to Rome, nor the prolifera
tion of social violence and unrest in the last decades before 66 A.D.,
nor the outbreak of the war with Rome. We do not gain a picture of
the Pharisees' philosophy of history or theology of politics. We should
not even know how Palestine was governed, for the Pharisees' tradi
tions according to the rabbis do not refer to how the Pharisees govern
ed the countrythe rabbis never claim the Pharisees did run pre-70
Palestine, at least not in stories told either about named masters or
about the Housesnor do they tell us how the Romans ran it. Further
more, sectarian issues are barely mentioned, and other sects not at all.
The rabbis' Pharisees are mostly figures of the late Herodian and
SUMMARY
305
Roman periods. They were a non-political group, whose chief reli

gious concerns were for the proper preservation of ritual purity in con
nection with eating secular (not Temple) food, and for the observance
of the dietary laws of the day, especially those pertaining to the proper
nurture and harvest of agricultural crops. Their secondary religious
concern was with the proper governance of the party itself. By con
trast Josephus's Pharisaic records pertain mostly to the years from the
rise of the Hasmoneans to their fall. They were a political party which
tried to get control of the government of Jewish Palestine, not a
little sect drawn apart from the common society by observance of
laws of table-fellowship. Josephus's Pharisees are important in the
reigns of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, but drop from the
picture after Alexandra Salome. By contrast, the Synoptics' Pharisees
appropriately are much like those of the rabbis; they belong to the
Roman period, and their legal agenda is virtually identical: tithing,
purity laws, Sabbath-observance, vows, and the like.
The rabbinic tradition thus begins where Josephus's narrative leaves
off, and the difference between them leads us to suspect that the change
in the character of Pharisaism from a political party to a sect comes
with Hillel. If Hillel was responsible for directing the party out of its
political concerns and into more passive, quietistic paths, then we
should understand why his figure dominates the subsequent rabbinic
tradition. If Hillel was a contemporary of Herod, then we may com
mend his wisdom, for had the Pharisees persisted as a political force,
they would have come into conflict with Herod, who could have
wiped them out. Hillel's policy may have been shaped by remembrance
of the consequences to the party of its conflict with Alexander Jan
naeus. The extreme rarity of materials of masters before Simeon b.
Shetah, except those of Yohanan the High Priest = John Hyrcanus,
suggests that few survived Jannaeus's massacres, and that those few
did not perpetuate the policies, nor, therefore, the decisions of their
predecessors. Hillel and his followers chose to remember Simeon b.
Shetah, who was on good terms with Salome, but not his followers,
who were almost certainly on bad terms with Aristobulus and his
descendents, the leaders of the national resistance to Rome and to
Antipater's family (see Josephus's story of Aristobulus's protection
of the Pharisees' victims). As Herod's characteristics became clear,
therefore, the Pharisees must have found themselves out of sympathy
alike with the government and the opposition. And at this moment
Hillel arose to change what had been a political party into a tableNeusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III
20
306
SUMMARY
fellowship-sect, not unlike other, publicly harmless and politically

neutral groups, whatever their private eschatological aspirations.
All this is more than mere conjecture, but less than established fact.
What is fact is that the vast majority of rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees relate to the circle of Hillel and certainly the best attested
and most reliable corpus, the opinions of the Houses, reaches us from
that circle's later adherents. The pre-Hillel Pharisees are not known to
us primarily from the rabbinic traditions, and, when we begin to have
a substantial rabbinic record, it is the record of a group very different
from Josephus's pre-Hillelite, pre-Herodian party.
We have three chains of Pharisaic tradition, that is lists of names
of authorities in succession, to each of which names is given an opin
ion. The first (M. Hag. 2:2) is a list of six pairs, Yosi b. Yo'ezer and
Yosi b. Yohanan, Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah
b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah, Shema'iah and Abtalion, Hillel and
Menahem, Shammai and Hillel; the opinions are to lay or not to lay
hands on the festival offering before slaughter on the Sabbath. The
subscription assigns to the first the office of patriarch, to the second
the office of "father of the court." The latter office is never elsewhere
referred to in the rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees. The
former occurs only with regard to Hillel's rise to power in the Temple.
Meir and Judah refer to the list. Meir knew nothing of the HillelMenahem clause. Meir's list is a secondary development. Instead of
Hillel-Menahem, he has Hillel-Shammai.
The second lists, on uncleanness, have only six names, three pairs:
Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan, Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b.
Tabbai, and Shammai and Hillel. The form calls for decreed uncleanness
plus objects: land of the peoples, metal utensils, uncleanness on hands,
respectively.
The moral sayings of M. Avot 1:18 are explicit in linking Yohanan
b. Zakkai, or Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel, to Hillel. They take
for granted that the latter two were his heirs and successors, although
nothing, in the early traditions of any links him to Hillel through either
stories or citations of legal teachings. Simeon b. Gamaliel was repre
sented by his son, Gamaliel II, as a Shammaite. It looks to me as if the
predominance of Hillelites later on called for the establishment of a
relationship between Hillel and the authorities who came between
him and the Yavnean Hillelites, so Gamaliel I was made his son,
Simeon b. Gamaliel his grandson, andin a different circleYohanan
b. Zakkai into his successor (still later, his outstanding disciple).
SUMMARY
307
The rabbinic tradition about the Pharisees clearly began with the two
Yosi's. The insertion of Simeon the Just was motivated by the desire
to attach the legal tradition to the last great member of the legitimate
Jerusalem priesthood. Simeon serves in M. Avot 1:1 just as does
Moseshe bridges the temporal gap between Simeon and the Yosi's,
a whole century. Originally the men of the great synagogue connect
the prophets to the Pharisees, i.e. the Yosi's, who presumably founded
the sect.
The names of M. Avot correspond to M. Hag. where the two
coincide, while the cleanness-decree lists do not conform. Except for
Hillel's saying, none of the apophthegms in M. Avot ever is discussed
or even referred to by Tannaim or in Tannaitic collections, while the
materials in M. Hag. were reworked by Judah b. Ilai and Meir. So it
seems as if the Avot apophthegms appeared about the time of Judah
the Patriarch, the point at which Hillel was important both as ancestor
of the patriarchate and as master of Yohanan b. Zakkai. The earliest
chain of tradition thus consisted of the names of the two Yosi's,
Joshua-Nittai, Judah-Simeon, Shema'iah-Abtalion, Shammai-Hillel.
Since the two Yosi's were not originally related to Simeon the Just,
they cannot be dated by their present relation to him. It would be
likely to date them about 150 B.C., when Josephus first mentions the
sect's existence; this would allow about thirty years per pair. Of the
figures before Shammai, only Simeon b. Shetah was made the bearer
of a significant corpus of traditions.
Simeon the Just appears in ten traditions occurring in thirty peri
copae. The Simeon-traditions relate primarily to the Jerusalem Temple
and cult: he prepared a red-heifer sacrifice; heard in the holy of holies
that a decree was annulled; saved the Temple in the time of Alexander;
served forty years as high priest; and predicted his own death on the
basis of his supernatural experience in the cult. His son founded the
Temple of Onias. Only the story of the guilt-offering of a worthy
Nazirite stands apartbut not farfrom Temple-materials. The
Nazir-story is told in the first-person, a unique narrative in the rab
binic traditions about the Pharisees. Simeon appears in a pericope at
tested by Meir, referring to the heifer-sacrifice. He made a new ramp
for each offering; since he was a good high priest, the practice was not
extravagant.
No Simeon-pericope reveals forms that might derive from before
70 A.D. M. Par. 3:5, for example, is in the form given it by Judah the
Patriarch on the basis of a dispute of Meir and the sages. But the
308
SUMMARY
heavenly message, though said to have come in Aramaic, then is

translated into Hebrew and is attested in Josephusbut not for
Simeon the Just. It may represent an old tradition taken over in
Tannaitic times and assigned to Simeon. The pericope in which it
occurs is composite and was formed no earlier than Ushan times, if
then.
For the rabbis Simeon the Just marked the end of the legitimate
priesthood. From his time on some priests were, and some were not,
acceptable. The Tannaitic tradition about him is wholly narrative,
primarily "historical"; it contains no legal or exegetical materials,
nothing to indicate Simeon was other than a high priest admired by
Pharisees.
Antigonus of Sokho has one tradition in one pericope. Apart from
his appearance in M. Avot 1:3, Antigonus occurs only in ARN Ch. 5,
where the theological question is explored, Why is there no reward in
the world to come? The beginnings of the Sadducees and Boethusians
are traced to dissension about this problem among Antigonus's dis
ciples.
Yosi b. Yohanan occurs only with Yosi b. Yo'ezer, in four tradi
tions, which come in ten pericopae: (1) the end of the grapeclusters,
augmented by the tradition on the reproach against the grapeclusters;
(2) the decree on the uncleanness of the land of the peoples and of
glassware; (3) laying on of hands on the sacrifice; and (4) the sayings
in M. Avot 1:4-5. Yosi b. Yo'ezer occurs alone in an additional six
traditions, occurring in a total of thirteen pericopae, for a total of ten
traditions in twenty-three pericopae. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleannesssaying is attested at the very beginning of the Yavnean stratum by
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. It is simply a list of three rulings, which probably
circulated as a group, as in M. Ed. 8:4: the ^//-locust is clean, liquids
in the Temple shambles are clean, and touching a corpse makes one
unclean. This list seems to me to supply a model for Pharisaic legal
traditions before the Yavnean revisions, one of two available examples
of a pre-Yavnean formulation of laws; the other is Yohanan the High
Priest's abrogations. It is a brief list, on a single subjectuncleanness
rulesand appears without an exegetical foundation, but rather with
the name of an authority. Perhaps other Pharisaic legal materials came
down in much the same form, namely, as brief lists of related laws at
tributed to an important authority. The list contains no contrary opin
ions, no discussion, and no generalizations. The use of Aramaic is
uncommon; DKY should be THR, S'B should be T M \ The words
c
SUMMARY
309
occur only here in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. But they
are not rare in the Mishnah, especially in M. Bekhorot. The Qumran
laws, given without attributions to authorities, are similarly arran
ged in little lists on a single theme.
Other materials pertinent to both Yosi's consist merely of references
to the two masters. They stand at the end of the grapeclusters, a
theme of importance to Ushans, and Yosi is called the most pious of
the priesthood.
His disinheriting his son is a tradition consisting of two sentences
tied fore and aft to a story bearing no relationship to that tradition,
about his son's gift to the Temple. The tradition would be represented
by the sayings, Yosef b. Yo e%er had a son who did not behave properly and
Yosef b. Yo et(er brought in one and his son took out seven. The story told
in between these two sayings has to do with the son's exemplary
behaviour in giving to the Temple a substantial sum of money. The
story should tell of how Yosi's son had deprived the Templeor
someoneof money which his father had originally donated. What
ever story we should have, the one we do have exhibits no relation
ship to the key sentences and evidently is told by someone who has
no direct knowledge of whatever tradition is 'encapsulated' in the
fixed lemmas. This then gives us a hint as to the way in which generaliz
ed traditions, perhaps conveying themes of some sort or other, might
produce specific, but quite novel, accounts. The fixed traditions prove
of little, if any, help in formulating those accounts. The story of
Yaqim of Serurot, Yosi's "nephew" may have been assigned to Yosi
because he and Yaqim derived from (or are assigned to) the same town.
Otherwise there is no relationship to Yosi. But on account of Yosi's
origin in Serurot, Yosi is made to be carried out to be hanged. Thus
stories of how Jewish martyrs, presumably of the Bar Kokhba period,
died brave deaths, while those who looked on without sympathy
either died ignominious ones or committed suicide, might be told of
Yosi as well. The whole is a melange of late themes and cliches; the
historical Yosi has contributed only his name.
Yohanan the High Priest is nowhere identified as John Hyrcanus.
For the rabbis he was both a high priest and a Pharisee. He has six
traditions in fifteen pericopae. The most important of these concerns
his cultic abrogations of the confession and of certain questionable
procedures in slaughtering. The heavenly-echo story, which Josephus
assigns to John Hyrcanus, is given by the rabbis in closely similar
form to Yohanan. The other four traditions are all mere allusions to
c
310
SUMMARY
Yohanan's name: he prepared a red-heifer; he is mentioned by Yo

hanan b. Zakkai (the sole reference of Yohanan b. Zakkai to a pre-70
Pharisee); he ended up a Sadducee after eighty years in the high
priesthood, a conclusion that evidently followed from Yohanan b.
Zakkai's calling him a Sadducee; and the medieval Scholion to Meg.
Ta. has a little story of Yohanan the High Priest as a well-meaning but
inept legislator. So the 'Pharisaization' of Yohanan the High Priest
comes down merely to the record of his abrogations, which produces
the assumption that he was a good rabbi, and further leads to the
development of other materials around his name. The pericope in M.
M.S. 5:15 containing the abrogations is a simple list of 'three things'
he did, in historical language; it recalls the Yosi-uncleanness-ruling
pericopae, and, as I said, may reflect the way in which pre-70 materials
were formulated and transmitted before the Yavnean stage.
Nittai the Arbelite occurs only alongside Joshua b. Perahiah, in two
traditions in two pericopae, M, Avot and M. Hag. Joshua in addition
has three traditions in six pericopae, a saying on wheat from Alexandria,
on the difficulty of giving up high office, and the flight to Alexandria
at the time of Yannai's murder of the Pharisees. This last makes him
a contemporary of Simeon b. Shetah, then not nasi, and involves him
with his disciple Jesus, thus further making Jesus into a rabbinical
disciple of the second century B.C., or Joshua into a rabbi of the
first century A.D. The Jesus-story has an attached tradition, Jesus
practised magic, etc., which does not refer to Joshua, and none of the
details of the Joshua-Jesus story is alluded to in the summary-sentence,
Whoever sinned and caused others to sin etc.
A tradition that Joshua was a great magician persisted, but left no
trace in rabbinic literature. That both he and Jesus were connected
with magic probably explains why Jesus was made his disciple. This
tradition reached Jews in Babylonia, who called upon Joshua's name
to exorcise demons. His appearance on the Jewish magical bowls of
Nippur, written in the sixth or seventh century A.D., is unwarranted
by rabbinic stories about him, which make him a standard rabbinical
figure.
Judah b. Tabbai similarly appears only along with Simeon b. Shetah;
he has no traditions for his own and sometimes is dropped from
Simeon-materials where he should appear, in favor, for example, of
Shelomsu the Queen. Simeon-Judah traditions are seven, counting
sayings in M. Avot 1:8-9 and M. Hag. 2:2; these occur in twenty-six
pericopae. Two Simeon-Judah traditions are closely related, first,
SUMMARY
311
putting a man to death illegally, second the anomaly of the law with
respect to circumstantial evidence. The role of each in the Pharisaic
government was debated. Judah is sent to Alexandria, instead of
Joshua b. Perahiah; and the uncleanness decree on metalware is credited
to him, though not in all versions of that chain.
Simeon has in addition thirteen traditions, occurring in thirty-eight
pericopae. Of these, two are similar to Josephus's stories about John
Hyrcanus and the Pharisees and Herod and the Pharisees, the former
so close as to suggest dependency. Clearly, later rabbis supposed
Jannaeus and Simeon were contemporaries. Abbaye identified Jan
naeus with John Hyrcanus, which would account for the use of a
Hyrcanus-story with Simeon. Of the thirteen traditions, Simeon is
central in the ones about hanging eighty women in Ashqelon, the
decree on the marriage contract, the story of Simeon, Yannai, and
the Nazirites, the trial of Yannai for his slave's murder, and the vanquish
ing of the Sadducees, a medieval fantasy. In the others Simeon con
tributes merely a name; it rained heavily in his time, he rebuked Honi,
in his day property litigations came to an end, he decreed children
should go to school, and he returned a pearl to a Saracen. What is
striking is that while Simeon appears, in all, in twenty traditions, the
matter of Hillel makes an impression on none of these. Simeon-tradi
tions form an independent corpus. While many of them obviously are
rather late, (e.g. the hangings in Ashqelon produce a long magical
story, well after Eliezer b. Hyrcanus verifies the existence of a tradition
on hanging women in Ashqelon) or certainly derivative, (e.g. the
Yannai-materials), some of them are both centered upon Simeon and
important, e.g. the Nazirites and Yannai, the decrees on the marriagecontract, and other legal matters. Simeon therefore stands as an
independent authority, and not a minor one, in the mind of the rab
binic historians. But the exact nature of his legal traditions was not
clear. Most of Simeon's materials are "historical," rather than legal.
He has no standard legal lemmas or significant exegetical traditions.
After Simeon b. Shetah, the figure of Hillel nowhere is wholly ab
sent from traditions of important Pharisaic masters. Of the eleven
Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions in eighteen pericopae, Hillel is present
in, or glossed into, three; M. Avot and M. Hag. account for two more,
and the latter certainly leads to Hillel-Shammai. So we are left with
six traditions in which Hillel is absent; of these, a legal item, on
setting apart an animal or a bird for festival use, pertains to a matter
of law discussed by the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. A saying on
312
SUMMARY
Heave-offering, cited by Yosi, and a precedent on administering the

bitter-water rite to a suspected adulteress stand independent of the
Hillel-corpus. In addition we have an important Scriptural exegesis,
on the faith that merited the splitting of the Red Sea; the story of the
high priest who insulted Shema'iah and Abtalion, and the allegation,
glossed into a pericope from which the two were originally absent,
that they were descended from Sennacherib. One enigmatic tradition
has Judah b. Dortai, otherwise unknown, criticize S + A for not
ruling as he thought they should. The two masters are rarely separated
at all. In this respect they carry to an extreme the tendency of materials
on earlier authorities to be attributed jointly to the two regnant au
thorities; while Joshua and Simeon in several traditions stand sepa
rate from their colleagues, S + A have only one.
The Honi-the-Circler-corpus consists of the M. Ta. 3:8 story about
his rain-making, which is developed in various later versions, but not
substantially changed. Nothing in that version makes him into a
Pharisee, and the traditions do not allege that he was a Pharisee.
Menahem occurs only in M. Hag. 2:2 and produces an additional
gloss, in both Talmuds, about what happened to him after he 'went
forth\
Shammai by himself has fifteen traditions in twenty-five pericopae.
Hillel stands in the background of many of these. Shammai appears by
himself and as a fully respectable authority primarily in respect to
Sabbath-rulings. Nearly all narratives about Shammai form part of
the Hillelite polemic. Shammai is represented as subordinated to the
authority of 'the sages'; his precedents are made into private pref
erences, without legal weight. His legal sayings are juxtaposed to
those of his House in such a way as to suggest either that Shammai
and his House differ, or that Shammai is more stringent than his
House, or that Shammai is a crypto-Hillelite. He is further shown to
be weak, unable to accomplish desirable changes in the law. The
tendency to revise materials into hostile accounts continues into
Amoraic.times. A favorable story about Shammai and Jonathan b.
'Uzziel, told in Palestine, is turned into a very unfriendly account in
the Babylonian circles of Pumbedita, though I think the reason has
to do with the politics of Babylonian rabbinic Judaism, not with the
historical Shammai. So Shammai-traditions apart from Hillel and the
matter of the Houses are not much different in quantity or character
from those of earlier, pre-Hillel Pharisaic masters, Joshua b. Perahiah
or Judah b. Tabbai. Simeon's corpus is substantially richer than those
SUMMARY
313
Shammai-materials which reflect a neutral or favorable opinion about

him. Hillel's tradents, presumably at Yavneh and afterward, denied to
Shammai more than a negligible position in the traditions, except on
Hillelite terms. This makes all the more striking the immense and
balanced picture of the traditions of the House of Shammai handed on
by the Yavnean tradents.
Hillel by himself has thirty-three traditions in eighty-nine pericopae.
Hillel's materials include legal traditions and exegeses, exegeses turned
into narratives; legal precedents; biographical traditions; and a huge
corpus of moral and theological logia, which, except for M. Avot
1:1-18, far outweighs all moral and theological logia assigned to all
other masters put together. The traditions center on the theme of
Hillel's rise to power, Hillel as paragon of virtue, model for legal and
moral behavior, and authority in legal and exegetical matters, partic
ularly with reference to ritual cleanness, tithing, and keeping agri
cultural rules and taboos. Hillel's emigration from Babylonia is every
where taken for granted, but we have no story about when or why he
came.
The Hillelite indictment of Shammai and his House primarily per
tains to non-legal matters. In legal pericopae Shammai and Hillel are
treated as equals, just as are the Houses. The historical and biographical
materials are another matter. Here Shammai's vice serves as a foil to
Hillel's virtue. Shammai lacked power. He differed from his House.
Shammaites were violent and prevailed, when they did, only because of
their superior numbers and force. Good Shammaites knew the law
was really as taught by the House of Hillel. A bad Shammaite was
called the first-born of Satan. Shammai's precedents are dismissed
either because they apply only to Shammai himself, or because they
prove the law is correctly taught by the House of Hillel. Because
of their superior rationality and moral character, the Hillelites
sometimes change their views and follow the reasoning of the
Shammaites. The Shammaites never do so. When Hillelites do, to
be sure, it is because the change is to a position in consonance with
other Hillelite opinions, or is in fact no change at all, or because the
Shammaites explicitly accept Hillelite precedents. In the end the Hil
lelites triumphed because they were kindly, modest, and open-minded,
also because Heaven itself announced that the law follows Hillel.
Shammai and Hillel appear together, as I said, in a few legal perico
pae, in which the two are fairly balanced, and otherwise, in polemical
materials directed against Shammai and his House. In all, the two
314
SUMMARY
masters share eleven traditions in thirty-nine pericopae. The legal

materials pertain to uncleanness and agricultural matters. Later tra
dents explain that the source of the disputes between the Houses was
inadequate study with Shammai and Hillel. They develop the laying on
of hands dispute into narratives in which Hillel obeys the Shammaite
law because he is forced to. The striking omission is of the Temple
priests, who actually ran things. We are told that the internal politics
of the Pharisaic sect dominated even the cult. Either Shammaites or
Hillelites ranand would runthe cult, but not the priests and
Sadducees to whom it was supposedly entrusted. The Romans are
unrepresented in the mob-scenes, but a single Shammaite put matters
right, a fantastic picture. Shammai-Hillel decrees pertain to uncleanness
of the hands; they argue about, or agree on, the uncleanness of vintag
ing grapes for the vat. Otherwise the corpus consists of stories in
which Shammai's vices contrast to Hillel's virtues, or Shammai's rules
are shown inferior to Hillel's. One beraita makes Simeon Gamaliel and
Simeon Hillel's sons and heirs. This takes for granted the M. Avot
sequence and the descent of the patriarchate from Hillel, therefore it
must be relatively late in the formation of the traditions.
Gamaliel I occurs in twenty-six traditions in forty-one pericopae,
some of which may not refer to him, but to his grandson. The Gamalielcorpus consists primarily of stories and allusions to Gamaliel, not of
rulings in standard legal form. His place in the traditions is not infre
quently merely within the redactional formula. While most of his pre
decessors rule on uncleanness laws and agricultural matters, Gamaliel
also has important rulings about receiving testimony on the New
Moon, marriage and divorce rules and procedures, preparing a Targum
for Job, letters on the leap-year, permitting the use of drinking ves
sels which had been used for gentile wine, and other matters outside
of the legal framework established by the antecedent materials. Some
of these legal materials, e.g. family law, are congruent to the figure of
a Pharisaic master who also held a position in the Sanhedrin, as Acts
reports of Gamaliel. That Gamaliel was a Pharisee is attested in the
same place, so it is unlikely that he was an outsider anachronistically
and retroactively Tharisaized', like Honi or possibly Hanina b. Dosa.
Gamaliel may have been the conduit through which rulings on matters
formerly outside of the range of Pharisaic legal interest entered the
party's traditions. A number of stories place him in the Temple or in
Jerusalem. Several fables about Gamaliel with a king or the king and
the queen may relate to Gamaliel I; telling such fables may rest upon
SUMMARY
315
a generalized tradition that Gamaliel, like Simeon b. Shetah, had

something to do with the court or the government; their absence mayreflect the (accurate) view that other figures, such as Hillel, did not.
Simeon b. Gamaliel has seven traditions in thirteen pericopae, in
cluding the Avot-sayings. All materials are stories about him: how
he lowered the price of doves, how he gave pe*ah, how he dealt with
a non-believer with respect to the eruv, how he juggled, blessed a
pretty gentile woman, and the like. His son, Gamaliel II, further tells
stories of his house's conformity to the rulings of the House of Shammai.
Clearcut and well-defined forms were used for the transmission of
the Houses-materials, Hillel-pericopae, and related data. The single
striking formal characteristic of the whole corpus is, of course, at
tribution to named authorities; this applies throughoutby definition.
The form developed for such attributions, namely, X says, produces
the dispute-form (Statement ofproblem,Xsays.,.
Ysays...), the debate
form (They said to them... They said to them...), and related forms.
All are well-attested at early Yavneh and are used primarily for Housesmaterials, secondarily for the masters standing behind the Houses,
finally for later first-century authorities. The Houses-form (The House
of Shammai say... The House of Hillel say...) comes when the Houses
are of roughly equal strength, so that the form used for the transmission
of their opinions will give parity to both sides. This seems to derive
from early Yavneh, both because it is attested in the earliest Yavnean
stratum, and because it is at that point that the Houses came together
evidently as equals to reconstruct the tradition, both at the same
strength. Before then, Shammaites prevailed, afterward, Hillelites.
The whole corpus of earlier materials characteristic of the respective
Houses was transmuted into the joint Houses-form, with the Houses'
opinions given on a mutually determined agenda of legal problems,
and with an antithetic relationship preserved throughout.
A second Yavnean form used for Pharisaic material is the ordinance,
appropriate for Yohanan b. Zakkai-decrees, but entirely inappropriate
for most Pharisaic pericopae to which it is applied.
The testimony-form seems primarily the creation of the circle respon
sible for M. Ed., though it would seem that the form had appeared
before the second half of the second century, at which time finished
pericopae of disciples of Aqiba were included in M. Ed., forming
the foundations of that tractate.
Chains and lists, so far as these may be regarded as forms, are presumc
316
SUMMARY
ably old but are preserved at the earliest from the time of Shammai and
Hillel.
Precedents do not exhibit a single fixed form; they function in a welldefined way, but that is not the same thing.
Techniques of story-telling and other narratives are of a different order;
they are not forms and characterize the whole range of materials
before us.
Forms for the citation of Scripture seem primarily redactional in origin;
they differ from one document to the next and are consistent within
the respective compilations. Where we do have a well-defined form
for Scriptural pericopae, it appears primarily in Hillel-materials.
Thirty-three of thirty-five exegeses for legal purposes are attributed
to Hillel, Shammai, or the Houses.
Not only do most of the forms we are able to isolate derive from
Yavneh, specifically from the circles responsible for the redaction of
the Houses' antithetic pericopae, but evidence of mnemonic techniques
first occurs in precisely the materials produced by those same circles.
First, as I said, the form of the apodoses of Houses-pericopae invaria
bly is: House of X say... House of Y say... Furthermore, the actual opin
ions of the Houses normally are balanced opposites, or other mnemonic
devices are used to set up the same balance. Some of the patterns derive
from a balanced number of syllables. Others are conventional syzygies, such as unclean/clean. Still others involve fixed changes in morph
ological or syntactical elements. Approximately 105 pericopae do not
exhibit any sort of mnemonic formula or pattern; approximately 82
exhibit some sort of pattern, generally external to the substance; and
314 pericopae contain small units of tradition or other highly disci
plined mnemonic forms. In all, Houses' and Hillel-Shammai-pericopae normally exhibit mnemonic patterns or are balanced in some
way or other. Pericopae of other named masters are apt not to be
balanced or to exhibit other mnemonic patterns. Thus the evidence
indicates that, although these forms and patterns were used in peri
copae produced by later masters, the Yavnean tradents were the first
who shaped and fixed traditions in clearcut literary forms and who
created the common lemmas in such a way as to facilitate memoriza
tion and transmission.
This does not prove that the Yavnean materials originally were
orally formulated and orally transmitted. Part of the corpus seems to
me to have been ritually shaped according to the myth of how Moses
orally dictated, and Aaron memorized, lemmas, namely, those in the
317
SUMMARY
<
Aqiban Mishnah. But the allegation that the present rabbinic material
about the pre-70 Pharisees consists of the written texts of traditions
originally orally formulated and orally transmitted is groundless. The
only allegation we find about pre-70 Pharisees is that they had traditions.
Nothing is said about whether these traditions come from Moses, nor
about whether they were in oral form. They generally are ascribed to
the 'fathers,' and their form is not specified. No mention of an Oral
Torah or a dual Torah occurs in pre-70 pericopae, except for the
Hillel-and-the-convert story, certainly not weighty evidence. More
over the Pharisaic laws contain no instructions on how materials are to
be handed on, nor references to how this actually was done. Alle
gations that Moses dictated an Oral Torah to Aaron in much the same
way as rabbis taught Mishnah first occur with Aqiba, who in fact
undertook exactly that process in the formulation of his Mishnah.
The myth of oral formulation and oral transmission is first at
tested by Judah b. Ilai, although a dispute between Eliezer and
*Aqiba presupposes oral formulation and transmission in Yavnean
circles.
We were moreover able to verify the existence of the larger part of
the Houses-corpus both at Yavneh and Usha. The verifications ex
hibit a uniform pattern. Types of laws attributed to the Houses at
Yavneh are the same types attributed to them at Usha. The Housesform was not used as a mere mnemonic device, to facilitate the memo
rization of traditions of any sort, but was reserved for the redaction
of materials on a few themes on which the Yavneans and Ushans
evidently believed the Houses actually legislated. This further justifies
our attribution of the forms and mnemonic patterns to Yavnean
tradents. But we cannot suppose that a great part of the rabbinic
tradition has been left in its pre-70 form. On the contrary, I take it for
granted that the individual Houses preserved records of their own
opinions not in juxtaposition to the opinions of the opposing House,
just as did Qumranians. The model would be the uncleanness-saying
of Yosi b. Yo'ezer, perhaps also the three abrogations of Yohanan the
High Priest. But the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-corpus of laws follows
a single form, and that is, the disputeeven using it where the opinions
of the Houses do not differ. It follows that the people responsible
for the Houses-dispute-form and the mnemonic small units inserted
in it also recast the whole of the antecedent tradition in this form,
obliterating the earlier forms of whatever materials they had. This
makes it all the more striking that the earliest, and substantial verific
318
SUMMARY
cations come from the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai and their

contemporaries, at the very outset of the Yavnean tradition.
If Yavneans and Ushans were meticulous in reporting the Houses'
disputes, they were not equally careful to preserve a balanced picture
of the period from Hillel to the destruction of the Temple. The picture
they produced is the work of Yavneans more than of Ushans. It
reflects intense competition between Yavnean Hillelites and the Shammaite opposition. Evidently the Hillelites predominated at Yavneh
but had to overcome the common recollection of Shammaite pre
dominance before the destruction. This they accounted for through a
number of vicious stories about Shammaites' use of force and even
murdering their Hillelite opponents. It is striking that the generation
(if not the same tradents) responsible for the carefully balanced disputes
also produced entirely unbalanced stories. The thematic authenticity
of the laws seems to me beyond doubt. The historical accuracy of the
stories is similarly to be affirmed, for their picture of pre-70 politics
seems to me plausible, albeit prejudiced. Along with the latter, how
ever, goes the body of anti-Shammaite polemic, much of it Yavnean,
and most of it probably grossly exaggerated if not wholly false. We
may conjecture that the legal material with its fixed forms is the official
product of the Yavnean academy in which the parties, under Yohanan
b. Zakkai's leadership and the pressure of necessity, cooperated, and
that the stories and propaganda, in less fixed forms, represent what was
then the private gossip of the Hillelite party, and only later, with the
triumph of that party, got into the official tradition. But this is only
conjecture.
Our picture of therabbinic traditions about the Pharisees therefore
is clear. Perhaps beyond those traditions we may even gain a perspec
tive on part of pre-70 historical Pharisaism. The traditions pertain
chiefly to the last half-century or so before the destruction of the
Templeat most, seventy or eighty years. Then the Pharisees were
(whatever else they were) primarily a society for table-fellowship,
the high point of their life as a group. The laws of table-fellowship
predominate in the Houses-disputes, as they ought tothree fourths
of all pericopaeand correspond to the legal agenda of the Pharisees
according to the Synoptic stories. As we saw, some rather thin and
inadequate traditions about masters before Shammai-Hillel persisted,
but these do not amount to much and in several cases consist merely
of the name of a master, plus whatever opinion is given to him in the
chain in which he appears. The interest of the non-legal materials
SUMMARY
319
concentrates on the relationships of Shammai and Hillel, on the

career of Hillel, and related matters. Materials on their successors at
best are perfunctory, until we come to men who themselves survived
to work at Yavneh, such as Hananiah Prefect of the Priests and, of
course, Yohanan b. Zakkai. The chief interest of Hillel-tradents, apart
from the preservation of favorable stories of Hillel and the attribution
of wise sayings to him, was Hillel's predominance in Pharisaism. After
the Houses-disputes ceased to matter much, by the Bar Kokhba War,
the growth of Hillel-materials was undiminished. The rise to powerstories then begin, very likely at Usha, and are rapidly glossed by
patriarchal and anti-patriarchal hands, so that by Judah the Patriarch's
time everyone knows Hillel is the ancestor of the patriarchate in
general, and of Judah in particular. The attribution of a Davidic
ancestor to Hillel naturally means that the patriarch Judah also derives
from the Messianic seed. The work of Yavneh consisted, therefore, in
establishing viable forms for the organization and transmission pri
marily of the Houses-materials. The Ushans continued to make use of
these forms, and further produced a coherent account of the history
of the Oral Torah from Moses onward. The Yavneans probably
showed greater interest in the development of stories about the rela
tionships between the Houses than did later masters, for whom the
disputes were less interesting. The Ushans may have augmented the
traditions of other early masters, besides Shammai-Hillel, and otherwise
broadened the range of interests.
So, in all, we have from the rabbis a very sketchy account of the
life of Pharisaism during less than the last century of its existence
before 70, with at most random and episodic materials pertaining to
the period before Hillel. We have this account, so far as it is early,
primarily through the medium of forms and mnemonic patterns
used at Yavneh and later on at Usha. What we know is what the
rabbis of Yavneh and Usha regarded as the important and desirable
account of the Pharisaic traditions: almost entirely the internal record
of the life of the party and its laws, the party being no more than the
two factions that predominated after 70, the laws being mainly rules
of how and what people might eat with one another.
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS
Introduction
The study of Talmudic and related literature for historical purposes stands
conceptually and methodologically a century and a half behind biblical
studies. While biblical literature has for that long been subjected to the
criticism of scholars who did not take for granted the presuppositions and
allegations of the text, Talmudic literature was studied chiefly myeshivot,
whose primary interests were not historical to begin with, and whose stu
dents credulously took at face value both the historical and the legal sayings
and stories of the Talmudic sages. Here the influences of literary and his
torical criticism emanating from universities were absent. The circle of
masters and disciples was unbroken by the presence of non-believers; those
who lost the faith left the schools. When Talmudic literature was studied
in universities, it was mainly for philological, not historical, purposes. Even
J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisder und die Sadducder. Eine Untersuchung %ur inneren
judischen Geschichte (Griefswald, 1874) seems to have known the rabbinic
traditions about the Pharisees primarily through the medium of Derenbourg,
Essai (below).
Those Talmudists, such as Abraham Geiger and Louis Ginzberg, more
over, who did acquire a university training, including an interest in history,
and who also continued to study Talmudic materials, never fully overcame
the intellectual habits ingrained from their beginnings in yeshivot. Charac
teristic of Talmudic scholarship is the search, first, for underlying principles
to make sense of discrete, apparently unrelated cases, second, for distinc
tions to overcome contradictions between apparently contradictory texts,
and third, for hiddushim, or new interpretations of particular texts. That
exegetical approach to historical problems which stresses deductive thought,
while perhaps appropriate for legal studies, produces egregious results for
history, for it too often overlooks the problem of evidence: How do we
know what we assert? What are the bases in actual data to justify hiddushim
in small matters, or, in large ones, the postulation of comprehensive
principles (shitot) of historical importance? Ginzberg's famous theory that
the disputes of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel and the decrees of the
earlier masters reflect economic and social conflict in Palestine is not sup
ported by reference to archaeological or even extra-Talmudic literary
evidence. Having postulated that economic issues were everywhere present,
Ginzberg proceeded to use this postulate to "explain" a whole series of
cases. The "explanations" are supposed to demonstrate the validity of the
postulate, but in fact merely repeat and illustrate it. What is lacking in each
particular case is the demonstration that the data could not equally wellor
even betterbe explained by some other postulate or postulates. At best
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
321
we are left with "this could have been the reason," but with no concrete evi
dence that this was the reason. Masses of material perhaps originally irrele
vant are built into pseudo-historical structures which rest on nothing more
solid than "we might suppose that." The deductive approach to the study
of law Ul serves the historian. One of the most common phrases in the
historical literature before us is, "If this supposition is sound, then..." I
found it in nearly every historian who wrote in Hebrew. It is Talmudics
extended to the study of history.
I do not unreservedly condemn Talmudics, except in connection with
historical studies. It is a great tradition, interesting and important as a
phenomenon of intellectual history, beautiful and fascinating as an intel
lectual exercise, and a powerful instrument for apologetics and for the
reinterpretation necessary to make ancient laws and doctrines apply to
modern problems. I should not even deny that it may be a valuable instru
ment for philosophical research. For instance, my teacher Morton Smith
comments on the work of Harry A. Wolfson, "Wolfson's achievements by
his 'hypothetico-deductive method' are justly famous. But when Wolfson
uses the method, the hypotheses are made from a minute study of the pri
mary sources, and the deductions are checked at every point by careful
consideration of the historical evidence, and those which cannot be confirm
ed are clearly indicated as conjectural." My objection is that when used by
men without Wolfson's historical training, mastery, and conscience, the
method lends itself easily to abuse, to the invention of imaginary principles
and distinctions for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever, and
to the deduction of consequences which never appear in the texts. It can
too easily be used to obscure real differences of opinion or practice, to
explain away the evidences of historical change, and to produce a picture
of antiquity which has no more similarity to the facts than the Judaism of
contemporary New York does to that of ancient Palestine.
A further, even more serious impediment to the development of the
historical study of Talmudic literature was the need for apologetics. Talmudists with university training encountered the anti-Pharisaic, anti-Judaic,
and frequently anti-Semitic attitudes of Christian scholars, who carried out
polemical tasks of Christian theology in the guise of writing history. The
Jewish historians undertook the defense. Two polemical themes recur.
(First, the Christians' account of the Pharisees ignores rabbinic sources,
therefore is incomplete. The reason is that the Christian scholars do not know
the rabbinic literature, therefore whatever they say may be discounted
because of their "ignorance." Second, the Pharisees were the very opposite
of what Christians say about them) The former polemic produced the Chris
tian response that the rabbinical materials are not reliable, because they
are "late" or "tendentious." Many Christian scholars drew back from using
rabbinic materials, or relied on what they presumed to be accurate, second
ary accounts of them, because they were thoroughly intimidated by the
claims of the Jewish opposition as to the difficulty of properly understand
ing the materials, and because they had slight opportunity to study the
materials with knowledgeable scholars of Judaism. The latter polemicto
prove the Pharisees the opposite of what had been said of themwas all
NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III
21
322
APPENDIX
too successful. When Christian scholars became persuaded that the earlier
Christian view had been incorrect, they took up the polemic in favor of
the Pharisees. In doing so, they of course relied on Jewish scholarship and
took over uncritically its uncritical attitude toward the material. Consequent
ly, on both sides, sources were more often cited as facts than analyzed as
problems. We commonly find a source cited without attention to how the
citation is supposed to prove the "fact" it purportedly contains. Systematic
analysis of texts is rare; allusion to unexamined texts is commonplace.
Reservations about the method and results of previous scholars should
not be taken as evidence that I consider their work to be utterly worthless,
except as history. On the contrary, I have learned from earlier writings
and rely upon some of their results. But I should not have written these
books if I had not considered all previous studies of the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees to be seriously inadequate, because, in general, the
historical question has been asked too quickly and answered uncritically.
The inadequacy results from the false presumption that nearly all sources,
appearing in any sort of document, early, late, or medieval, contain accurate
historical information about the men and events of which they speak. The
historians are further to be blamed tor allowing the theologians to set the
issue: Were the Pharisees really hypocrites? On the part of the Jewish
scholars, the issues were, What shall we say in response to the Christian
theological critique of Pharisaism? How shall we disprove the allegations
of the Christians' holy books? On the Christian side, there were few "his
torians" worthy of the name, for most served the Church and not the cause
of accurate and unbiased historical knowledge. Since the Christian theolog
ical scholars set the agenda, the Jewish ones can hardly be condemned for
responding to it, especially since contemporary anti-Semitism was both
expressed and aided by the Christian scholarly assessment of Pharisaism.
In fact the European Jewish scholars turn out to have been fighting for
the lives of the Jews of their own day and place. They lost that fight. It
was a worthy effort, but it was not primarily an exercise of critical scholar
ship, and it seriously impeded the development of scholarly criticism.
The history of scholarship on the Pharisees thus cannot be divorced from
the history of Judaism and of Christianity in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, from the sociology of the Jews in Europe and the USA, and from
the interrelationships between the two religious traditions. It is not our
problem to describe the course of those complex and interrelated histories.
We have instead to demonstrate in detail how those handicaps pointed out
aboveanachronistic presuppositions, Talmudic method, and apologetic
purposehave vitiated previous studies of the Pharisees. To do so, I shall
rely upon the device of substantial quotations from important and influen
tial studies on the Pharisees. The reader may then measure those statements
against the evidences he has already reviewed. He will observe two recurrent
faults: first, the claim that a story contains an exact historical record of what
actually happened; second, the tendency to say jar more than all the data
together permit. For the former error, evidence is not only abundant, but
obvious. For the latter, the various generalizations about the Pharisees will
have to be measured against the substance of the rabbinic traditions about
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
323
the Pharisees, upon which such gross generalizations largely rely. It might
have been better to state the essential argument of each book or article,
then to point out what is wrong with it. But to do so, I should have had to
enter into the discussion of issues denned by historians to begin with not com
petent to formulate worthwhile issues for argument. I thereby should have
implicitly suggested that the modern historiographical tradition had formu
lated arguable questions, and that its fundamental grasp of the evidence
was sound. This is the opposite of the truth. I therefore cannot attempt to
refute, point by point, statements which are made upon no foundation
other than a false conception of the character of the evidence and of the
nature of historical inquiry.
Apologetics
Three examples of the apologetic literature suffice. R. Travers Herford,
The Pharisees (repr. Boston, 1962), Leo Baeck, The Pharisees and Other Essays
(N.Y., 1947), and George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the
Christian Era (Vols. I-III, Cambridge, 1954) mark the high point of the
apologetic movement. Herford observes that the German and other nonJewish scholars "all seem to have the contrast with Christianity more or
less consciously present in their minds, not realizing that two things cannot
be rightly compared until it has first been ascertained what each of them is in
itself...to call the New Testament as the chief witness upon the question
who the Pharisees really were is false in logic and unsound in history."
The Jewish scholars "know what Pharisaism is like from the inside"as
if the rationalistic Judaism of the nineteenth century were still Pharisaism!
Lauterbach is Herford's guide: the Pharisees stood for the Oral Tradition.
For his historical account, Herford turns to Josephus (a prejudiced and un
reliable source), whose story he embellishes with some Talmudic stories
(mostly late second and third century A.D.). The descriptions of "Pharisaic
religion" then draw upon the whole corpus of rabbinic literature.
For Baeck, the Pharisees were "a movement within the Jewish people,"
not a party or a sect (manifestly false). They were ascetics, Essenes (certainly
not), and separatists. They were committed to the "search for the exact
meaning and the ultimate [?] law," and were primarily a movement of
exegetes of Scriptures. "The Pharisaic trend found its leaders in the scribes."
The Pharisees were "prominent figures, especially in the spiritual life." We
have "hardly any names of Sadducean scribes." The Pharisees were also
"the men of the synagogue," against the Sadducees, "the men of the Temple."
Baeck concludes, "Pharisaism represents a great attempt to achieve the
full domination of religion over life, both over the life of the individual and
the life of the collectivity...It took the idea of saintliness in earnest...Phari
saism was a heroic effort to prepare the ground for the kingdom of God."
One could make an equally good case for the proposition that the Pharisees
were concerned to limit as precisely as possible the claims of religion upon
life. Various Tannaimwhom Baeck would have considered Pharisees,
though they were notwere notoriously hostile to preparations for the
coming of the Kingdom, for one thing.
324
APPENDIX
Moore's apologetic work is less homiletical in form and is far superior

in method. His treatment of the Pharisees (I, pp. 56fF.) is accompanied by
excellent notes (III, pp. 17ff.) in which Moore carefully explains (pp. 17-22)
his approach and method, furthermore specifying his differences from the
earlier scholars. Moore's account of the 'rise of the Pharisees' follows Josephus's narrative. Then b. Qid. 66a is seen as "patently a doublet," and the
Talmud's Jannaeus is understood as Josephus's Hyrcanus, who later went
over to the Sadducees. This is "attested by another Baraita" (b. Yoma 9a).
The word Pharisee means "one who is separated; in general it stands
against <-am ha?ares" Moore now summarizes Josephus's stories about the
Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus; Simeon b. Shetah comes in at the end:
"According to the rabbinical sources, this restoration took place under the
superintendence of Simeon b. Shetah, a brother of the queen." The Phari
sees murdered their opposition. The historical account ends here.
The Pharisaic beliefs then are summarized. They believed in traditional
law; "they were the zealous partisans of the unwritten law." The Sadducees
believed only in the written law. They were more literal in interpreting it.
The Sadducees saw Scripture as the only authority. Scripture and tradition
were the authority for the Pharisees. The Sadducees were rich; the Pharisees
had the masses on their side.
Moore resumes the historical narrative in the next chapter, giving a
paraphrase of Josephus, Antiquities 14. Then Shammai and Hillel are intro
duced, as the last of the pairs and "the beginning of the Tannaite school
tradition." HillePs hermeneutical rules "came from the Babylonian schools
[about which we know nothing before 140 A.D.]. In Jerusalem "the doctors
of the Law sat at the fountainhead of tradition and were able to draw directly
upon that source for answer to the questions that arose in practice... In
remoter lands this appeal to tradition must often have been unavailable,
and the necessity of arriving at an authoritative conclusion from the biblical
text itself must have been correspondingly more strongly felt." Moore then
follows the story of the rise of Hillel, paraphrasing it just as he does Jose
phus's stories, and refers to anecdotes about Shammai and Hillel. He then
returns to the Babylonian origin of the exegetical principles. In Babylonia
much of the law had only an academic interest: "It was natural under
these circumstances that the unwritten law should be more largely deducted
from the text itself by certain exegetical principles. When he came to be
head of a school in Jerusalem, Hillel recognized that the laws must take
account of actual conditions." This accounts for his devising the prosbul,
"which left the law unchanged [!] but by a legal fiction secured the creditor
against the loss of his loan through the coming of the year of release." Hillel
and Shammai produced two schools. The Shammaites predominated until
after the fall of Jerusalem.
Bibliographies
For a central topic in the study of ancient Judaism, the sole satisfactory
bibliography, by the standard of which all others are shown insufficient,
is Heinz Schreckenberg, Bibliographie %u Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
325
Since Schreckenberg includes various themes referred to by Josephus, he

lists many items on the Pharisees. To be sure, he does not know the large
corpus of pertinent writings in Hebrew and Yiddish journals, but for the
European languages, his references to Josephus's Pharisees are evidently
thorough and reliable. It would be a service to scholarship to compile
similarly ambitious, annotated bibliographies for Philo, the Pharisees, and
other subjects. An excellent model is Louis H. Feldman, Scholarship on
Philo and Josephus (1937-1962) (N.Y., 1962).
Ralph Marcus, "A Selected Bibliography (1920-1945) of the Jews in
the Hellenistic-Roman Period," Proceedings of the American Academy for
Jewish Research 16, 1947, pp. 97-182, and Louis H. Feldman, fosephus IX.
Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII-XX (Cambridge, 1965) pp. 556-588,
supply selective bibliographies on various special subjects. Alexander
Guttmann adds a new bibliography, for the years 1925 to 1967, to Moses
Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud (Repr. N.Y., 1968) pp. 397-415.
Guttmann's list is particularly valuable for rabbinic literature, editions and
commentaries. The bibliographies of my Life of Yohanan b. Zakkai (Leiden,
1970 ), pp. 250-264,
History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1965-1970),
I , pp. 204-226, II, pp. 291-301. Ill, pp. 359-365, IV, pp. 437-442, and V,
pp. 376-387, contain numerous items about the Pharisees. The more ambi
tious works referred to below include bibliographies. Louis Finkelstein,
The Pharisees (Philadelphia, 1962 ), II, pp. 903-945, is particularly good for
books and monographs on the Pharisees (pp. 905-946), less thorough for
journal-articles and festschrift en. But Finkelstein's list is not satisfactory for
the period after the publication of the first edition, in 1938; and the general
bibliography contains items not pertinent to ancient Judaism at all. The
bibliography does not suggest that the later revisions of the first edition
were based upon wide reading in studies written after 1938 of problems
pertinent to the Pharisees. Nor has he confronted Bultmann, Fascher.
Dibelius, or other great form-critics.
Helpful bibliographical materials also are found in E. Schurer, A History
of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1885, trans. Sophia
Taylor and Peter Christie), on the Pharisees: II, ii, pp. 1-2; on the scribes
(masters): II, pp. 312, 351. But Schurer is by no means complete.
2
Studies of the State of the Question

Since the Pharisees and Pharisaic-rabbinic literature have been intensively
studied for many centuries by both Jewish and Christian scholars, one can
hardly expect to find a truly comprehensive study of the state of the ques
tion. One turning point is marked by G. H. Box, who seems to me to have
been among the first to call attention to the Jewish counter-attack on Chris
tian scholarship about the Pharisees. G. H. Box, "Survey of Recent Litera
ture on the Pharisees and Sadducees," Review of Theology and Philosophy IV,
1908-9, pp. 129-151, discusses fourteen items published between 1900 and
1908, including encyclopedia articles, brief monographs, and major studies.
What impressed Box was that "Jewish scholarship is beginning to assert
itself in the domain of New Testament historical science." The issues defined
by that scholarship centered upon the evaluation of the Pharisees: Were
326
APPENDIX
they all really hypocritical, or merely some of them? Was their legalism
merely stiff and lifeless, dry and trivial, or was it sincere and inward?
The Jewish critique of Bousset and Schurer (among others) began with
the assertion that the non-Jewish scholars simply did not understand Pha
risaic Judaism, because they did not control its sources. Had they understood
rabbinic literature, they would have seen the Pharisees were "men of culti
vated character and of piety true and deep." Only when Jewish scholars
touched on New Testament materials did the Christians meet the attack.
For reasons integral to his thesis about the extent of the purity laws, Buchler
alleged that Mark 7: Iff. is "not authentic as an incident in the life of Jesus."
Box then found it necessary to differ. One might say whatever he liked
about the Pharisees. In the spirit of the early twentieth-century AngloAmerican scholarship on the subject, favorable judgments on the Pharisees
would be more readily accepted than unfavorable ones.
A second Jewish polemic had to do with the "guilt" for the trial and death
of Jesus. Since Jesus had said and done nothing "which would render him
liable to the death penalty according to the criminal law of the Pharisees
(of which we have exact knowledge) [I], his death was the work of "the
Sadducean High Priesthood." No one now claimed to inherit "Sadducean
Judaism," and on the Jewish side, everyone purported to be true heirs
of the Pharisees, so it seemed safe to blame the Sadducees. Box phrases the
now-predominant issue: "One of the most difficult problems that confronts
the New Testament student who wishes to take account of the Jewish
background and to be just to the Palestinian Judaism of the first Christian
century is concerned with the classification and estimate of the great Jewish
parties, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees" (p. 132).
More pretentious, but less satisfactory is Ralph Marcus, "The Pharisees
in the Light of Modern Scholarship," The Journal of Religion 32, July 1952,
pp. 153-164. Marcus gives a brief resume of suggestions on the meaning
of the word Pharisee and on the historical Pharisees. His paper marks the
high tide of the "sociological interpretation," which, to be sure, began with
Josephus's characterization of the Sadducees as rich and nasty, the Pharisees
as poor humble and kindly. Marcus takes for granted the accuracy of the
picture of Geiger, Ginzberg and Finkelstein, who portrayed the Pharisees
as liberal, proletarian city-dwellers, and their enemies as the reactionary, rich,
landed aristocracy. He traces the beginning of 'scientific discussion' of the
Pharisees to Abraham Geiger, then alludes to Derenbourg, Wellhausen,
Graetz, and Schurer. In all, for Marcus the primary issue remains whether
the Pharisees were good or bad, legalistic or not legalistic, sincere or hypo
critical, universalistic or particularistic. Marcus concludes that today most
people agree with Geiger and "are prepared to vindicate the Pharisees of the
age-old charge that they were narrow legalists and hypocrites." He further
holds that there was no irreconcilable difference between Jesus and the
Pharisees. Marcus's paper at best is reportorial. He brings no new ideas to
the history of scholarship. He makes no effort to relate the backgrounds of
the several scholars to the judgments they have reached. The 'sociological
interpretation' is limited to the Pharisees, not extended to the study of
scholarship about the Pharisees.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
327
E. E. Urbach, HaâL Pirqe *Emunot veDe'ot (Jerusalem, 1969) pp. 1-14,

provides a helpful commentary on modern researches on Pharisaism. His
criticism of earlier accounts of rabbinic Judaism seems just and accurate,
if somewhat abbreviated. While not a thorough study of the state of the
question, his brief chapter is a model of critical historical judgment. Un
fortunately, his later chapters (pp. 502-538) on the Pharisees take for granted
the historical accuracy of the whole range of rabbinic materials.
A. Michel and J . LeMoyne, "Pharisiens," Supplement au Dictionaire de la
Bible, begun by Louis Pirot and Andre Robert, continued by Henri Cazelles
and Andre Feuillet, Fascicules 39 (Paris, 1964) pp. 1022-1024, and 40 (Paris,
1965), pp. 1026-1115, cover the entire range of Pharisaic problems: sources,
history, the masters, then a synthetic account, finally Jesus and the Pharisees,
the Pharisees and the death of Jesus. They lay out the whole scholarly agenda
and give a brief, reliable account of generally accepted views. Their bibliog
raphy gives a good introduction to each of the important problems. I
regard Michel and Lemoyne's article as the best brief introduction to the
study of Pharisaism; it is reliable, judicious, and comprehensive.
The new departures of Ellis Rivkin, alluded to above (I, pp. 3ff.) begin
with sophisticated comments on the state of the question; these are highly
suggestive and thoughtful.
Note also J . Margot, "Les Pharisiens d'apres quelques ouvrages recents,"
Revue de theologie et de philosophie, 3rd series 6, 1956, pp. 294-302.
Critical Studies
From the late nineteenth century onward, a few historians have made
intelligent use of Talmudic materials. They have avoided assuming that
rabbinic texts always are accurate accounts of things that really happened.
They have compared various versions of a story without supposing that
every detail of every version contributes to a factual picture. They have
used common sense. The pseudorthodox reading of the materials therefore
had to compete with a dispassionate historical evaluation of sources, item
by item. Israel Levi, and his student M. Stourdze in France, and E. Schiirer in
Germany at the turn of the twentieth century are the most important early
representatives of the critical approach. Levi and Stourdze examined a few
specific pericopae. Schiirer, by contrast, wrote a complete history of the
period before 70 A.D. Characteristic of both is a certain reserve, a distance
from the values and beliefs of the storytellers.
Israel Levi, "Les sources talmudiques de Phistoire juive. I. Alexandre
Jannee et Simon ben Schetah. II. La rupture de Jannee avec les Pharisiens,"
RE] 35, 1897, pp. 213-223, observes that many stories used by historians
for the reconstruction of Pharisaic history are no more than aggadot, imagi
nary anecdotes for edification and amusement. This observation then is
illustrated by the stories of Simeon, Jannaeus and the Nazirites. Levi com
pares the texts and notes a few of the differences I have listed. He finds it
incongruous that the Persian embassy wants nothing more than to hear
wise teachings of the rabbi. The king is represented as naive. The whole
is in the spirit of a fable: "It would not be difficult to uncover in medieval
328
APPENDIX
literature numerous parallels, not to mention equivalent fables in Midrashic

literature, to which no one assigns historical value."
The break with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) is analyzed as well. Here Levi
compares Josephus's story with the Talmud's and finds noteworthy differ
ences, but the accounts are close and resemble one another. The differences
are explained: both the rabbinic narrator and Josephus drew upon an early
third source. The language and style of the beraita are not talmudic (a
point made by Zeitlin as well, below, p. 346): "Le textc.a conserve tant
de vestiges de sa forme primitive que force nous est d'y voir, non pas une
tradition orale semblable a celles qui ont ete fixees dans des baraitot, mais
bel et bien l'estraits d'une chronique redigee en hebreu sur le modele des
livres historiques de la Bible." If the Qid. beraita is drawn from such a
historical document, Levi does not cite other extracts of this chronicle.
H. Stourdze, "La fuite en Egypte de Josue b. Perahya et l'incident avec
son pretendu disciple Jesus," RE J 82, 1926, pp. 133-156, appropriately
appears in the festschrift to Israel Levi. Stourdze holds that the story of
Joshua and Jesus has no historical value. Hefirstreviews various discussions
of the passage: Krochmal, Weiss, Frankel, Graetz, Yavetz, Halevy, and
Hyman all regard the stories of Judah b. Tabbai and Joshua b. Perahiah
as of historical value. For them Judah fled to Egypt, and later on, so did
Joshua [!]. This he finds unlikely. The several hypotheses do not stand up
under close examination. He compares the versions of the stories and finds
the Palestinian Talmud's simpler and more 'natural.' The story is an imagi
nary anecdote, of no historical value whatever. Stourdze adds, "Mettre en
doute la veracite d'une assertion est une idee moderne. A l'epoque talmudique, les parties discutaient, expliquaient, chacun d'apres ses principes, les
affirmations de l'adversaire, mais ne le contestaient pas." Henceforward,
therefore, Stourdze's analysis is literary and tradition-critical, and not
historical.
Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of fesus Christ
(Trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie, Edinburgh, 1885), II, i, pp. 351ff.,
and II. ii. 4ff., deals with "scribism" and "Pharisees," respectively. Under
the former come Hillel and Shammai, information on whom, apart from
the legendary, "is comparatively small and unimportant." Schurer then
presents M. Avot 1:1-18, and discusses individual names on the list. "It
is likely that just ten names were known, and that these were formed into
five pairs of contemporaries, after the analogy of the last and most famous
pair, Hillel and Shammai." Josephus "seems to speak of the fourth pair,
Shemaiah and Abtalion, under the names Sameas and Pollio...The only
thing that causes hesitation is, that Sameas is called the disciple of Pollio,
while elsewhere Shemaiah stands before Abtalion." Shammai's school was
strict, Hillel's mild. "Of ideas of reformation, which Jewish self-love would
so willingly have us believe in, there is not, as we see, a single word."
Simeon b. Gamaliel "enjoyed extraordinary fame as a scribe."
"The Pharisees" begins with a survey of the pertinent passages in Jose
phus and the Mishnah, further of the haver and the *am ha*ares. The Pharisees
"were by nature the rigidly legal, the Sadducees...only the aristocrats, who
certainly were driven by the historical development into that opposition to
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
329
Pharisaic legality..." a judgment, certainly here as elsewhere, based on lack

of evidence. The Pharisees were simply "those who were specially exact about
the interpretation and observance of the law, hence they were the rigidly
legal, who spared themselves no pains and privations in its punctual ful
fillment." "Pharisaism rests upon the foundation of the law as developed
by the scribes..." The more famous scribes [of whom nothing is known]
proceeded from its midst: "All the influential scribes belong to the Pharisaic
party." Schiirer reviews the several dogmatic differences between Pharisees
and Sadducees. Pharisaism is "simply identical" with post-exilian Judaism
in general [!]. The haverim were not only scholars by profession, but all
who kept the law of purity and tithing.
Eduard Montet, Essai sur les origines des parties saduceen et pharisien et leur
histoire jusqu'd la naissance de Jesus Christ (Paris, 1883) first reviews the histori
cal sources. He takes issue with Derenbourg, who placed credence in the
Talmudic stories about the Second Temple period. Montet's review of
scholarship on various topics is consistently helpful. He finds the Talmudic
version of the Hyrcanus/Jannaeus/Pharisees story "much inferior" to Jose
phus's. "It is merely a pale copy." Montet criticizes Derenbourg's and
Graetz's preferences for the Talmudic story. Montet's chapter about the
religious principles and dogmas of the Sadducean and Pharisaic parties
deals with law and tradition and controversies within the law, including
those pertaining to the calendar, Sabbath, daily sacrifices, legal purity, and
so forth. While Montet knows Simeon b. Shetah, he scarcely refers to
Hillel, the Houses, or other central materials.
George Foot Moore, "Simeon the Righteous," Jewish Studies in Memory
ofIsrael Abrahams (N.Y., 1927), pp. 348-364, alludes to the rabbinical stories,
concluding only that Simeon "stands out in the memory of the age from which
the legends come as the end of an epoch." He looks in second century A.D.
problems for the animus of the stories of Meir and Judah about the Egyp
tian temple, treats the context in which the stories stand, and pays attention
to the problem of QSQLGS and other materials. None of these pericopae
serves Moore as the basis for his comments on the historical Simeon. At
best, he argues, the "Simeon...of the rabbinical sources" is to be put in the
period located on the basis of other, more persuasive evidences. The Avotchain is examined. Moore sees that "at least one link is lacking," and thinks
Antigonus of Sokho had students who were cut out. Moore's account of
Simeon stands out. Unlike Schiirer, Moore both mastered and respected
the Talmudic materials; like him, Moore read them in a critical spirit.
Morton Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," Israel: Its
Role in Civilisation, ed. Moshe Davis (N. Y., 1956), pp. 67-81, observes
that Josephus's picture of the predominance of the Pharisees is drawn not
in War but in Antiquities, written twenty years after the War. "Every time he
mentions them he emphasizes their popularity. It is almost impossible not
to see in such a rewriting of history a bid to the Roman government...The
Pharisees, he says again and again, have by far the greatest influence with
the people. Any government which alienates them has trouble...Josephus's
discovery of these important political facts (which he ignored when writing
the Jewish War) may have been due partly to a change in his personal rela-
330
APPENDIX
tionship with the Pharisees...But...the more probable explanation is that

in the meanwhile the Pharisees had become the leading candidates for Roman
support in Palestine and were already negotiating for it." But much of
Palestinian Judaism was not Pharisaic. Further, "the influence of the Phari
sees with the people...is not demonstrated by the history he records." Third,
"even Josephus' insistence on their influence 'with the multitude' implies a
distinction between them and the people whom they influenced."
The model for contemporary studies is Smith's paper. He demonstrates
how one must read and make use of all sources, showing the importance
of asking, Why does the narrator wish to tell us this story? What does he
want to prove by it? How does the story fit into the larger narrative, and
what is the purpose of that narrative? The historians who take for granted
the 'historicity' of Talmudic stories tend also to treat New Testament and
Josephus narratives in the same way. Smith's brief essay teaches the proper
approach to every text and problem. The off-hand remark of Feldman,
Scholarship, p. 41b, is not accurate; Feldman has not taken seriously the
evidence adduced by Smith.
The comparative study of Talmudic and Hellenistic literature, has been
deliberately neglected in the present work, for it is in the hands of Henry
A. Fischel, for example his "Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near
East: The Transformations of a Chria," in J . Neusner, ed., Religions in
Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden, 1968),
pp. 372-411. In the same article (p. 372 n. 1) Fischel refers to his as yet
unpublished MS, Tannaitic and Amoraic Literature and the Cyniciîng Chria,
and his Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: Transmission, Reception
and Transformation, Function and Structure of Cynic Ideas, Values and Literary
Forms in the Mediterranean Area of Near Eastern Cultures.
In "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and
Pharisaism," in American Oriental Society, Middle Western Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume. Asian Studies Research Institute, Oriental Series, no. 3, ed. Denis
Sinor (Bloomington, 1969), pp. 59-88, Fischel observes (p. 65), "If we
find...that the political fable plays a role in both [Greco-Roman and Near
Eastern] cultures, we are fully aware of the fact that the animals never
actually did what they are said to have done in the narrative...If, however,
this genre is transformed into a type of anecdote in which the clever or
good animal is replaced by a Sage and the dumb or wicked animal by his
antagonist..., the modern scholar has too often been tempted to consider
every detail as true history." Further, "The cynicizing chria with many of
its major motifs, forms, and elements is found also in Tannaitic literature.
Without exception, all the stories on Hillel the Elder...prove to be Greekchriic, representing either (a) a complete Greek chria; (b) a composite of
several chriic parts; or (c) an aggregate of the smallest meaningful chriic
elements... Furthermore, some Hillel chriae are joined to one another within
a narrative framework precisely as in Hellenistic sources." The motif, for
instance, of the sage's forgetting the essentials of his teaching, or of his
suddenly and unexpectedly becoming the head of the academy, is common
place.
Fischel further notes, "Similarly, another startling phenomenon is found
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
331
in both cultures. The same gnome...may be quoted in the name of several

different Sages, thus making for contradictory features in the overall
portrait of a particular Sage. Further, and more important, the same gnome
may occur: (1) as the punch-line of a chria; (2) as an independent unit, without
a story; (3) anonymously, often as a popular proverb; (4) occasionally as
the moral of a fable. It thus seems that the ascription of a sententia to a
Sage might merely have been another means of stressing his importance
and does not reflect an actual teaching of his." The Golden Rule is the best
example: "The point... is that Greco-Roman rhetoric reactivated and refor
mulated older original materials in the Near East" [Note: "Lev. 19:18 may
thus have been the original form of the Golden Rule in earlier Jewish
culture."] Fischel counts thirty to thirty-five examples of cynicizing chria
in Talmudic literature, "whereas there are probably more than 1,000 in
Hellenistic literature and the papyri." In the chria "all Sages were once
slaves, all were abjectly poor, and almost all once did menial work. Only
on these grounds can the interdependence of Cleanthes items and Hillel
anecdotes be fully established and their probable non-historicity be suggest
ed."
Fischel goes on (p. 81), "The intriguing question can now be asked wheth
er the Tannaim and their Pharisaic predecessors, using rhetorical techniques
and the ideology of the Sage in a similar fashion, represent in Judean culture
the identical class, similarly entrusted with the practical tasks of law, admin
istration, and cult...similarly concerned with the preservation of the an
cient heritage by new techniques, and similarly clashing with the hoi polloi...
Indeed, its attractiveness as an ideology for an elite scholar-bureaucracy
may have been among the reasons for the adoption of this rhetorical system
in the first place."
In "early talmudic culture" the Greek chria was "(1) 'naturalized,' i.e.
told of Pharisaic and Tannaitic heroes; (2) transcendentalized, i.e. used for
the propagation of revealed Torah and the acquisition of immortality; (3)
most often 'legitimized' or 'testimonialized' by the addition of a more or less
fitting confirmative biblical quotation...; (4) 'humanized' ...(5) 'halachized,'
i.e. considered an actual event and legal precedent from which further law
could be derived...(6) rhetorical material was of course only selectively
adopted...(7) its narrative technique was used creatively in the (still rheto
rical) combination of chriic and other motemes into a new unit..."
Fischel has not yet fully presented his results and evidence, so it is diffi
cult to comment on the larger implications of his monumental conception.
In general I am much impressed by the dazzling erudition, breath, originali
ty, and critical acumen of his published account. One may wonder whether
he occasionally slips into the state of 'parallelomania', such as is described
by Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," J B L 81, 1962, pp. 1-13. In time to
come Fischel may find occasion to reflect upon the distinctions among
parallels and their meanings discovered by Morton Smith, Tannaitic
Parallels
to the Gospels (Philadelphia, 1951), and also alluded to in my Aphrahat
and
Judaism.
The Christian-Jewish
Argument
in Fourth-Century
Iran (Leiden, 1970),
pp. 187-196. These several studies of the nature and meaning of parallels
will serve not to contradict the significance of Fischel's work, but to refine
332
APPENDIX
his conceptional framework. FischePs undertaking is unique. While others

have noted various parallels between Hellenistic and Talmudic literature,
Fischel has carried out the work not on a sporadic or episodic basis, but
thoroughly, profoundly, and with conceptual sophistication, When his
larger study is available, it will be necessary to cross-reference each pericope
in the present volumes according to his various categories and exempla.
Only then will the cultural context of our materials be fully illuminated,,
as is clear even from this brief summary of a single article.
A. Buchler, <-Am Ha*Ares HaGalili (trans. Y Eldad, Jerusalem, 1964,
of Der galilaische Am-Ha Ares des %weiten Jahrhunderts) thoroughly reviews
the agricultural and purity laws. Buchler's striking thesis, that the laws
pertained primarily to second-century Galilee and were not kept except
by priests in the Temple before that time, must be read in the light of G.
Allon's critique, "The Limits of the Laws of Purity," (in Hebrew, in his
Mehqarim beToledot Yisra'el, I, [Tel Aviv, 1957] pp. 148-176.)
Another important area of critical study concerns the legal principles
underlying discrete materials. Here the elucidation of the data has produced
persuasive and striking results, especially when not accompanied by grandi
ose claims. Among the legal historians, Solomon Zeitlin seems to me to
stand out. In his "Studies in Tannaitic Jurisprudence," Journal of Jewish
Lore and Philosophy, 1, 1919, pp. 297-311, Zeitlin states, "Intention as a
factor in Jewish law was first recognized and given a status by Hillel, who
insisted that we ought to take into consideration not only the primary act
of a man, but also his intention. This innovation was strenuously opposed
by his colleague Shammai." Numerous Houses-disputes are explained in
terms of this disagreement, e.g. M. Maksh. 1:1, 6; 4:3, Tos. Maksh. 2:16,
M. Kel. 26:5-8, etc. Intention in laws of the Sabbath explains the Houses*
differences. Work is forbidden "in which a man intends a particular result;
any ML'KH-act in the doing of which the man contemplated no particular
result is not forbidden."
S. Zeitlin, "Les principles des controverses halachiques entre les ecoles
de Schammai et de Hillel," REJ 93,1932, pp. 73-83, refers to four principles
on which the Houses differed: 1. rabbis have the right to interpret and
emend the law through legalfictions;2. rabbis may interpret the law accord
ing to its spirit, rather than its letter; 3. one should build a fence around the
law; 4. intention is taken into account in the application of the law. In all
four the Shammaites took a negative position, the Hillelites a positive one.
As to M. Pe'ah 6:1, the difference of opinion pertains to the law of res nullius:
if a person renounces his property rights, expressly stipulating that certain
persons may not acquire that property, the object is regarded by Meir (a
Shammaite) as res nullius, for at the moment that the rights are abandoned*
the object becomes ownerless. Yosi (a Hillelite) does not consider the
object as res nullius, for in abandoning his rights the owner has not lost
his title or his responsibility for the object. The disputes in M. Ed. 1:3
pertain to the same issue. Zeitlin assembles a number of other disputes
in which the same principle recurs. Zeitlin concludes, "J'ai essaye de montrer que les controverses entre les ecoles de Schammai et de Hillel sont
fondees sur des principles legaux bien definis." What impresses me in these
t
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
333
and related papers of Zeitlin is his careful and judicious use of the legal
materials for essentially legal purposes, that is, the elucidation of the under
lying principles of various discrete cases. Zeitlin here makes no historical
claims (if we discount his assumption that attributions invariably are correct,
and that assumption plays no significant role in his argument). He shows
that concrete issues of specific cases reflect underlying disputes on impor
tant legal issues.
Another effort to see some order in the Houses-disputes is Adolf Schwartz,
Die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die Erschwerungen der Hilleliten. Ein
Beitrag %ur Entmcklungsgeschichte der Halachah (Karlsruhe, 1893), who offers
the following thesis: "dass die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die
Erschwerungen der Hilleliten nicht aus Unsicherheit... entstanden, sondern
aus einem principiellen Gegensatz der beiden Schulen, oder praciser, aus
dem Antagonismus der Schammaiten gegen der die Entstehung neuer
Halachoth gunstige Lehrmethode Hillel's emporgewachsen sind."
Furthermore, Talmudists have made numerous advances in the philologi
cal and text-critical approach to the materials. These have been alluded to
throughout. Lieberman's Tosefta Kifshutah is the foundation of vol. II of this
study; Epstein's Mavo LeNusah haMishnah and Mevo'ot leSifrut HaTanna*im
were constantly consulted, as was Albeck's text and (uncritical, highly tradi
tional) commentary to the Mishnah. Albeck does not exhibit Epstein's
critical acumen; he is a traditionalist.
J. N. Epstein, Mevo'ot leSifrut HaTannaim. Mishnah, Tosefta, uMidrashe
Halakhah (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1957), pp. 23ff., sees the Mishnaic traditions
involving the Houses as earlier than 'Aqiba's Mishnah. They were edited
near the destruction of the Temple by a Hillelite. Where 'Aqiba adds to a
Mishnah, the passage to which he adds was there before his time. When the
Houses differ on the explanation of a Mishnah, that shows the Mishnah
antedated the Houses, e.g. M. Oh. 2:3, 7:2, 11:1, M. Kel. 15:1, 20:6,
M. Qid. 1:1, M. Miq. 4:1, M. Pes. 1:1, 10:8, and many others. Similarly,
if Joshua cites a Mishnah, the passage comes before his time, e.g. M. Ter.
11:2 etc. This seems to me a good argument, if the attribution of the differ
ence to the Houses appears to be correct. But Epstein's conclusion claims
too much: "All these prove...that there was in existence an early Mishnah,
which was arranged and formalized." In addition, some collections of
materials come from before 70, e.g. M. Sheq., Tamid, Middot, Yoma,
Sukkah, Sotah, Bikkurim, Parah, Ta'anit, Hagigah, Qiddushin, Bava Qamma, Sanhedrin, Shabbat, Pesahimall contain materials which in final form
derive from before 70A.D. That the cited tractates (and others) contain
materials deriving from before 70 seems to me beyond reasonable doubt.
That the materials we have were in their final form at that time is a quite
different, and more difficult question. I think Epstein tends to move too
rapidly from the analysis of literary data to historical conclusions about those
data.
Of interest also is H. J . Zimmels, "Jesus and Tutting up a Brick,' "
fQR 43,1952-3, pp. 225-8, Zimmels explains the action of Jesus in the story
of Jesus and Joshua b. Perahiah. LBYNT* without the prefix L is BYNT',
or, by a slight emendation, B YN YT>, meaning fish. So the meaning is, "And
334
APPENDIX
he hung up the fish and worshipped it."This sort of explication of texts

would be interesting, if one could find any good reason why the teller of
the story should have wanted to represent Jesus as worshipping a fish
rather than a "brick" which might mean a stamped clay tablet. In the absence
of such a reason, the explanation is not compelling.
Note also A. L. Hilbis, "The Hasmoneans According to the Talmudic
and Midrashic Sources," Sinai 8, pp. 6-22, who discusses the failure of the
Talmudic sages to preserve much information about the Hasmonean period.
Traditional Studies
Without doubt the most ambitious and impressive traditional historian
of the rabbinic traditions about the Phariseesas of every other topic in
"Talmudic history"is Y.I. Halevy. I call him 'traditional' because Halevy
makes no pretense of approaching materials as a participant in the wissenschaftliche or scientific tradition. He enjoys destroying the results of those
who do. But his thoroughness, profound knowledge of law, willingness
to analyze texts in depth and to criticize all authorities, ancient and modern
these mark Halevy as the greatest master of "Talmudic history" of his or
any other generation. Obviously, one cannot assent to his ridiculous con
clusions. He regards as facts the allegations of the tradition as to its own
historyit begins at Sinai, or, least, before Ezraand of course takes for
granted that what stories tell is what really happened, what laws prescribe
is what actually was done. For him these are natural assumptions, but not
impediments to the critical analysis of all problems.
Yishaq Isaak Halevy, DorotHaRishonim (German title: Die Geschichte und
Literatur Israels. Ic. Umfasst den Zeitraum von Ende der Hasmonaerêit %ur
Einsetûng derrdmischen Landpfleger, Berlin-Vienna, 1923), pp. 89-143, 547ff.,
deals with Hillel; pp. 144ff., with the beginnings of the Mishnah; etc. The
foundations of the Mishnah had been entirely laid long before Hillel and
Shammai. "The whole was arranged before them in its very language just
as it is before us today." The task of Hillel and Shammai was to expound
their traditions. There were different Mishnaic traditions, however, accord
ing to the different masters, and it was necessary to recover the original
and correct law. The foundations had been laid much earlier. The Men of
the Great Assembly were responsible for various taqqanot, but the bulk
of Mishnah in its present form comes before their time. The Houses dispute
the explanation of various preexisting Mishnah-laws. They therefore supply
a date for those laws: before the time of Hillel. Halevy cites M. Oh. 7:3;
M. Oh. 2:3; M.Qid. 1:1; M. Ter. 1:4, M. Yev. 6:6, and numerous other
passages. All of them prove that the Houses ruled on minor aspects of exist
ing laws, or disputed the exact reading of the Mishnah, or interpreted the
extant laws differently. But the Mishnah existed in its present form before
the Houses. On the Houses (pp. 548-606) Halevy says Shammai and Hillel
founded their respective houses at the beginning of their active careers.
On the "eighteen things,' note pp. 580ff.
Pseudocritical Studies
I share Halevy's negative view of the results of "the science of Judaism,"
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
335
though my reasons are not the same as his. Halevy ridicules the misleading
impression given by "the German sages" that they possess more accurate
information than they actually have. What seems to me equally absurd is
the gullible and uncritical use of Talmudic traditions, combined with the
pretentious claim that, for the first time, something both new and "scienti
fic" is being done with them. All of the studies we are about to consider
take for granted what should be the problem, namely, the facticity or 'his
toricity' of the source. Frequently they merely allude to a pericope, without
citing or analyzing it. For example, one will find Hillel ousted the Bathyrans
by citing his masters, ShemaHah and Abtalion,
with an accompanying footnote,
b. Pesahim 66b. We hear nothing of the several versions, of how the author
understands the introduction of new materials, the rearrangements of old,
the inclusion of interpolations of various sorts (including the names of
S + A), and so on. The unwary reader will therefore assume that the his
torian has facts, and that the task is to interpret or explain facts. He will
not see the frail foundations beneath such 'facts'. In this regard, Fischel,
Levi, and his student Stourdze stand nearly by themselves among Jewish
scholars, Schurer, Moore, and Smith among Christian ones. It seems to
me the best way to recognize what is false about the claim of the scholars
before us to a critical approach is to measure their statements against the
sources we have already studied. For that purpose I shall cite their actual
language. The reader may recall the stories and judge for himself the claim
that a "scientific" or "critical" approach is at hand.
In this respect, I carry forward the study of 'pseudorthodoxy' of my teacher
Morton Smith, in "The Present State of Old Testament Studies, J B L 88,
1969, pp. 19-35. Smith defines pseudorthodoxy as "the attempt to reconcile
the traditional beliefs about the OT with the undeniable results of scholar
ship." Of greatest interest here are Smith's remarks about higher criticism,
"which has always been the bete noire of the pseudorthodox. They were clev
er enough to see that its results had to be accepted. On the other hand,
to attack higher criticism was the accepted way of vindicating pseudortho
doxy. Therefore higher criticism had to be both attacked and accepted.
What could be done? The solution was: to concentrate the attack on the
greatest and most famous representative of higher criticism, to announce to
the public that his 'system' had been destroyed, and to appropriate privately
its elements." Smith's pseudorthodox, and our pseudocritical, scholars have
only the "pseudo" in common. The pseudocritical scholars claim to accept
a critical approach, but in pretending that the sources are accurate historical
records, and in failing to articulate and defend that notion, they reveal the
fundamentalist convictions which they both hold and claim to transcend.
They do not argue with the critical scholars. They either villify or ignore
them. Schurer is attacked; Moore's article on Simeon the Just and the full
implications of Smith's on Josephus's picture of the Pharisees (to take two
examples) are simply ignored. Or the pseudocritical scholars will allege
that they grant the presuppositions of the opposition, then completely
bypass them, pretending nothing has changed. It comes down to the same
thing. Ironically, we face the opposite of Smith's pseudorthodox: the pseu
docritical scholars announce to the public that they are "critical" but pri-
336
APPENDIX
vately they appropriate nothing whatever of the literary and historical-critical

advances of the past century and a half of biblical studies.
What commonly characterizes the pseudocritical school are some or all
of these qualities: first, deductive reasoning; second, arbitrary and ground
less judgments as to the 'historicity' and the lack of 'historicity' of various
individual pericopae; third, failure to bring to bear a wide range of evidence
external to the Talmudic materials; fourth, the assumption that whatever
is alleged in any source is as well attested as what is alleged in any other;
fifth, the endless positing of untested, and untestable, "possibilities"; sixth,
the recurrent, and groundless claim that a story "must have been supported
by tradition"; sixth, the repeated argument that if a story were not true, no
one would have told or preserved it; seventh, the spinning out of large
theories to take account of stories and sayings under some grand philosophi
cal scheme (which is not much different from the next); seventh, a love of
homiletics; eighth, the invention of new definitions for old data, e.g. the use
of proto-Pharisees, to describe the dim figures who link the Pharisees we
know about to the alleged, earlier men of the Great Assembly about whom
we know nothing. But above
presumably, must or may have been and perhaps,
a few sentences later magically converted into was and certainly, everywhere
recur. The pseudocritical scholars claim to write history, but the 'historicity'
of their histories is superficial, not profound. They concentrate on the exege
sis of discrete pericopae. Further, they merely take up one rabbi after
another in chronological order and describe as historical facts the stories
and dicta attributed to him by any and all sources. The best they can do
with disparate sources, e.g. Josephus and the Talmud, is to weave one to
gether with the other; both are true, or one is false and the other true
that exhausts their powers of historical imagination. They never get behind
such sources to events or situations indicated by both but different from
either.
Abraham Geiger, HaMiqra veTargumav (Hebrew translation by Y.L.
Barukh of Urschrift und Obersetûngen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der
innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Jerusalem, 1949) pp. 69-102, discusses the
Sadducees and Pharisees, whom he sees as aristocrats versus republicans.
Geiger stands at the beginning of modern Jewish scholarship on the Phari
sees. His picture affected nearly every subsequent treatment of the subject,
except for Halevy's. Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Its History (trans, by
Charles Newburgh , N.Y., 1911) pp. 90-121, treats the Pharisees and related
questions. The Pharisees were separatists (whatever that means), opposing
the Sadducees, "the descendants of the priest estate in connection with the
families of rank." The Pharisees "objected to having the sanctity of the
priesthood placed so much in the foreground." The Pharisees managed "all
institutions that were of great importance in the popular life." The Pharisees
"were the very core, the brain and the brawn of the nation; their exertions
were directed toward the establishment of equal rights for all [!]their
fight was the fight that was repeated in all times when great interests are
at stake, the fight against priest-craft and hierarchy, against privilege of
individual classes, the fight for the very truth that not outward qualities
alone, but inward religious conviction and consequent moral conduct con-
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
337
stitute the proper worth of the man." "Hillel is a fully historical person."
Legends... "emanate from his character, so that we must acknowledge that,
even if they did not actually come to pass, they are yet in full harmony
with his character." He came from Babylonia as a poor man. He was meek
and mild. For him "the essence of Judaism consists in love of man and
mutual regard, in the respect of the dignity of man and the equality of all
men..." The adherents of the School of Shammai "maintained in perfect
accordance with their gloomy ways that it would be better for man never
to have been born..."
Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews. II. From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135
B.C.E.) to the Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 C.E.) (trans. H.
Szold, repr. Philadelphia, 1949) follows and paraphrases Josephus's narra
tive, into which he mixes Talmudic materials, the whole then being embel
lished with homilies. The Pharisees, "the very center... of the nation, having
above all things at heart the preservation of Judaism in the exact form in
which it had been handed down, insisted upon all political undertakings,
all public transactions, every national act being tried by the standard of
religion." The Pharisees were not a party, "for the mass of the nation was
inclined to Phariseeism..." They received their name "from the fact of
their explaining the Scriptures in a peculiar manner, and of deriving new
laws from this new interpretation."
Simeon b. Shetah played so great a part in the history of the time of
Salome Alexandra "that it was called by many 'the days of Simeon...and
of Queen Salome.'" Simeon drove the Sadducees out of the Sanhedrin
"by the order of the queen." Simeon waived his own rights of precedence
"in favor of Judah b. Tabbai, who was then residing in Alexandria..." "The
anxiety to exalt the Law to punish all opposition...was so great that upon
one occasion Judah ben Tabbai had a witness executed who had been
convicted of giving false testimony in a trial for a capital crime. He was...
desirous of practically refuting the Sadducaean views..." Simeon "did not
fail to upbraid his colleague...and Judah...evinced the profoundest remorse
at the shedding of the innocent blood of the executed witness by resigning
his office of present and by making a public acknowledgment of his contri
tion."
Shema iah presided at Herod's trial. Hillel was "particularly distinguished
for his winning, dove-like gentleness..." "All the members of his household
were imbued through his example with the same faith, so much so that once,
upon entering the town and hearing a cry of distress, he was able confidently
to remark, 'That cry cannot have proceeded from my house.' " Hillel's seven
hermeneutical rules gave the Oral law a quite different aspect: "It lost its
apparently arbitrary character; it became more universal and reasonable in
its tendency..." Once Hillel had proved the matter of sacrificing the paschal
lamb on the Sabbath, "from that day Hillel's name became so popular that
the Bathyrene Synhedrists resigned their officeswhether of their own free
will, or because they were forced to do so by the people, is not knownand
conceded the Presidency to Hillel himself (about 30)." Herod did not
object. Hillel's deputy was "the Essene, Menahem, chosen because of Herod's
wishes." Shammai was "not a gloomy or misanthropical disposition...he
c
22
338
APPENDIX
encouraged friendliness in demeanor towards everyone." The two masters

founded separate schools.
Jonathan b. Uzziel "was disinherited by his father in favor of Shammai,
probably from displeasure at his having joined the school of Hillel." In
the school of Shammai "the Pharisaic principles were carried to the very
extreme." But the Hillelites yielded, and kept the peace. This repertoire of
lugubrious homilies masquerading as historical facts set the fashion from
Graetz's time onward.
The account of the Houses given by S. Mendelsohn shows an even more
gullible approach, in "Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai," J E 3, pp. 115-116. He
sees the Shammaites as restrictive, the Hillelites as moderate. Three hundred
sixteen [exactly!] controversies are preserved in the Talmud, "affecting
221 halakot, 29 halakic interpretations, and 66 guardlaws; and out of the
whole number only 55 present the Shammaites on the side of leniency."
This pseudoprecise number marches from book to book; it seems to be
Weiss's (Dor, below), but no one footnotes him.
The Hillelites were "like their founderquiet, peace-loving men, acco
modating themselves to circumstances and times...The Shammaites...stern
and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceed
ed his severity." "They were intensely patriotic and would not bow to
foreign rule. Their principles were akin to those of the Zealots"who were
not notorious for loving peace.
"As all the nations around Judea made a common cause with the Romans,
the Zealots were naturally inflamed against every one of them; and there
fore the Shammaites proposed to prevent all communication between Jew
and Gentile..." The Hillelites did not agree: "Eleazar ben Ananias invited
the disciples of both schools to meet at his house. Armed men were stationed
at the door, and instructed to permit everyone to enter, but no one to leave.
During the discussions that were carried on under these circumstances,
many Hillelites are said to have been killed; and then and there the remainder
adopted the restrictive propositions of the Shammaites, known in the Tal
mud as the 'Eighteen Articles.' On account of the violence which attended
those enactments, and because of the radicalism of the enactments themsel
ves, the day on which the Shammaites thus triumphed over the Hillelites
was thereafter regarded as a day of misfortune." The ritual obeisance to
"historical criticism" takes the form of said to have. But the phrase has not
affected Mendelsohn's "historical" picture.
Our next example of the pseudocritical school must be taken more seri
ously. Louis Ginzberg, "The Significance of the Halachah for Jewish
History," On Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia, repr. 1962), pp. 77-126,
proposes "to demonstrate that the development of the halachah...is not a
creation of the House of Study but an expression of life itself."
The decree of the Yosi's about the uncleanness of foreign countries
and of glass was imposed "at the time when, as a result of the persecution
by Antiochus Epiphanes, emigration from the Holy Land began. During
that period contemporary leadership feared the threat of mass evacuation
as a great danger to the nation and its land. Therefore, as a preventive
measure, they ruled that foreign lands were impure." Ginzberg claims that
c
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
339
glass was very expensive, though it seems to have been cheap. Many pre
ferred glass vessels, "which could not become ritually impure, to locally
produced earthenware and metal dishes, which required safeguarding against
ritual impurity...When ritual impurity was decreed for glassware this
competition was partially lessened, since glassware from Tyre and Sidon no
longer possessed the advantage of being free from the liability to ritual
impurity"as if the masses kept the purity-laws!
Joshua's decree about wheat from Alexandria is similarly accounted for:
"It is...well known that the competition between the Holy Land and Egypt
in the grain trade, and particularly in wheat, was very great indeed; when,
consequently, Joshua ben Perahya became aware that some apprehension
of impurity existed with respect to Alexandrian wheat, he used it as the
reason for a restrictive decree intended for the benefit of Jewish farmers.
He hoped that the majority of buyers would prefer the wheat of the Holy
Land, which was not conditioned to receive impurity, to impure foreign
wheat. His colleagues...disagreed, for they preferred for the sake of the
general good to encourage competition in foodstuffs."
Simeon b. Shetah's decree on metal vessels came because "people began
to import into the Holy Land other metals...In order to protect native
products, the susceptibility to ritual impurity was also decreed on these
foreign metals, lest they be preferred to the metals of the Holy Land..."
To be sure, Palestine had no metals to speak of.
Before the Houses, "it is established...that there were not many conflicts
of opinion among the sages of Israel." The differences between the Houses
cannot be systematized. Many factors caused them. Shammai and Hillel
did not found the Houses; they date back to the beginning of the pairs.
But then from the beginnings there were many conflicts of opinion, or
Ginzberg contradicts himself.
The Pharisees were split into two wings, right and left, conservatives
and progressives. The controversy about laying on of hands "stems from
the differences between the conservatives and the progressives." "It is my
view that the conflict among the Pairs was over the issue whether obligatory
burnt-offerings and obligatory peace-offerings required the laying on of
hands, for the Torah mentions the laying on of hands only in connection
with votive burnt-offerings and votive peace-offerings or in the cases of a
guilt-offering or sin-offering." The controversy involved four questions.
1 . The extent to which scholars were empowered to derive new enact
ments by means of biblical exegesis: The conservatives wanted to limit
the authority of biblical exegesis as a source of new law. Therefore laying
on of hands was not required, since the Bible does not mention it.
2. The participation of the public, not merely priests, in the Temple
service: The progressives favored increasing the influence of the people
on the Temple, therefore said the people may lay on hands.
3 . Use of laying on of hands as a means of increasing the return of the
Jews to the Holy Land: The progressives wished to use the ritual as propa
ganda towards that end.
4. Equality between Jews of the Holy Land and those of the diaspora
in offering their sacrifices: The conservatives said it was sufficient for the
340
APPENDIX
Jews to send obligatory burnt-offerings. The progressives said in favor of

the diaspora that there is no distinction between votive and obligatory
burnt-offerings; in both instances laying on of hands is required.
As to the differences between the Houses, "the usual interpretation is
that these two Schools expressed the personalities of their founders, the
conciliatory Hillel and the unyielding Shammai." But this is not so. The
real difference goes back before the two masters; the differences were over
social and economic policy. For example, Ginzberg cites M. Ber. 6 : 5 , "If
one pronounces a benediction over the bread, he need not recite one over
the side-dishes..." "The reason for the disagreement was that bread was
the main dish of the poor man's meal, and, therefore, once he recited a
benediction over the bread, he thereby blessed the entire meal; for the rich
man, however, who ate meat, fish, and all kinds of delicacies, bread was
not the main dish. The school of Shammai...maintained that even cooked
foods were not included in a benediction over bread." Other differences
concerning the meal were "based on the class difference between the Schools."
Further, slaughtering a wild animal or bird on a festival day (M. Bes. 1 : 1 )
produces a disagreement resulting "from the class differences between the
two Schools. The eating of game or birds was quite usual for the rich
but not for the poor..."
As to the several cases in which the Houses differ on the matter of inten
tion : "Primitive man reckoned only with the act, and not with the intention;
a man was judged by his deeds and not by his thoughts...We therefore find
the School of Shammai, the representatives of the conservatives, considered
deed more important than thought. In many cases involving laws of things
prohibited and permitted...they declared that deed is paramount, as over
against the progressive view of the School of Hillel, who taught that an act
not accompanied by intention is not to be considered an act."
Ginzberg's picture depends upon the presupposition, not only that the
decrees were made by those to whom they were attributed, but also that
they were enforced. The Pharisees were in control of the government.
Whatever they decreed had the force of law. The Hasmoneans were subser
vient to their wishes even at the very outset of their rule (the Yosi's). The
decrees of the Yosi's were confirmed by the monarch, who presumably
"sat humbly" before the Pharisaic masters. The government was, moreover,
both sophisticated in matters of economics, and also able to carry out sweep
ing decrees pretty much as the Pharisaic masters issued them. One could
argue in Ginzberg's behalf that the Pharisees might have decided their
legal questions by considerations of public interest even though they knew
their decisions would produce no practical consequences. If the presupposi
tion that the law made by Pharisees was enforced was false, that fact would
not render the rest of the structure impossible. What is weak is that Ginz
berg never raises the question of whether and how the Pharisees enforced
their rulings.
Ginzberg must have taken for granted the 'historicity' of the laws of
M. Sanhedrin. He does not bring a shred of evidence to substantiate any
of his theories, e.g. that there was mass emigration at the time of the Macca
bees, that everyone kept the purity laws, that many preferred glass vessels,
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
341
that Joshua had the power and knowledge to help out the farmers, and
that they needed help; that people began to import other metals in the time
of Simeon b. Shetah, and that he had the power to prevent it. The Houses'
disputes go back a century and a half before the establishment of the Houses,
even though we have no hint of that fact in the sources attributed to antece
dent authorities. The Pharisees were split into conservatives and progres
sives ; so too the Sadducees were conservative and the Pharisees progressive,
and so on. Wherever we find two parties, the difference between them will
be explained in the same way. The explanation of M. Hag. 2:2 is not
accompanied by archeological or historical facts. Everything is argued on
the basis of what sounds reasonable.
Louis Finkelstein, HaPerushim veAnshe Keneset HaGedolah (N.Y., 1950:
The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue) and The Pharisees. The Sociolo
gical Background of Their Faith (Philadelphia, 1962 ) carries forward the
economic-sociological thesis of Ginzberg. For him the plebeians are urban
workers, against the rural gentry. Differences in wealth were secondary.
The Houses did not debate old vs. new law. The real differences were be
tween provincials and metropolitans; they reflected differences of habitat.
The struggle was "carried on in Palestine for fifteen [!] centuries." For
example, the Hillelites were sympathetic to the Judean grape-growers; the
"patrician Shammaites" favored the Galilean olive-producersaccounting
for the difference of opinion between the masters recorded in b. Shab. 17a.
Likewise, Shema'iah, a plebeian, believed in the merit of the fathers. The
patricians denied pre-determination." "Abtalyon, the patrician, maintains
that the miracle was caused by the merit of the Israelites themselves."
Louis Finkelstein, Akiba, Scholar, Saint and Martyr (Philadelphia, repr.
1962), again has the Shammaites as patricians, the Hillelites as plebeians.
Simeon b. Gamaliel "scion of the House of Hillel" defected to the Sham
maites: "Social position meant everything to Simeon ben Gamaliel, and
he could not bear to risk its loss. His abandonment of the Hillelite School
was not merely formal and outward; it was inner and complete. He had
inherited the mind of his ancestors, but not their spirit, their shrewdness
but not their understanding, their keen insight but not their broad sympa
thies and social conscience...Above all, he had lost that fundamental quality
of self-effacement, which had made the House of Hillel universally revered.
He could never forget himself. Vain, pompous, and egotistical, conscious
of scholarly inferiority among the Hillelites and of social inferiority among
the Shammaites, he found his greatest delight in dramatic exhibitions of
personal authority." "Everything that Simeon ben Gamaliel did reflected
his social ambitions. He lived in a fashionable court, where his nearest neigh
bor was a Sadducee." Finkelstein's vituperative tirade against poor Simeon
b. Gamaliel seems to me representative of the pseudocritical school's
homiletics. The reader may refer to the little corpus of Simeon-materials
to see whether he can find out what so irritated Finkelstein. I cannot
account for his lengthy, hostile judgment.
Isaiah Sonne, "The Schools of Shammai and Hillel Seen from Within,"
Louis Ginsberg fubilee Volume. On the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.
English Section (N.Y., 1945), pp. 275-293, observes, "Granted that the two
3
342
APPENDIX
schools represented two classes [rich and poor], we must not overlook the
fact that the schools had to settle their class differences not on a purely
practical, but primarily on an academic theoretical ground.. .the schools were
compelled to exert their objective thinking faculties beside seeking the mere
calculation of class interest." Sonne proceeds to elucidate the "immanent
dialectic of the controversies." This had been the contention of A. Schwarz,
Die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die Erschiverungen der Hilleliten (Vienna,
1893), who held that the differences between the Houses were based upon
the Shammaites' rejection of Hillelite hermeneutic principles of interpreta
tion. For Sonne, too, the Shammaites were more literal than the Hillelites.
For example, the Shammaites opposed the use of the principle of analogy
(Geêrah shavah). This is proved from the b. Pes. 66b. story of Hillel in the
Temple; so Sonne makes "them" or "the whole courtyard" into the House
of Shammai (!).
Sonne posits, however, that the fundamental difference is between "the
one and the many, which constitutes the fundamental rhythm of human
thinking in general...To lay stress on context [ = Shammaites] means...
to see the unity in diversity and multiplicity, to think in concepts and to
defy sense perceptions...To lay stress on the word [ = Hillelites], on the
other hand, means to dissolve the unity and the continuity into an infinite
multitude of fragments."
Sonne cites M. Miq. 5:6 (Vol. II, p. 295). The "unity in the continuous
change of the stream" is in line with the view of the Shammaites, but
denied by "the disruptive tendency of the Hillelites." Shammai holds that
if a man sends another to commit murder, the instigator is guilty. "The long
range causation asserted by the Shammaites accounts for a series of their
restrictions with regard to the starting of work on Friday which cannot be
completed before the Sabbath." The same difference relates to intention:
"The Hillelites require the 'intention' to accompany the act; the Sham
maites... extend considerably the range of the intention, so as to reach acts
accomplished after a certain interval in time." The difference about grounds
for divorce has to do with causation: "...from the point of view of the
Hillelites, causation in general is something contingent and external, and
therefore any 'unseemly thing,' even if it has nothing to do with marital
life, may be the cause of divorce."
In general the Shammaites "see the conceptual unity in the diversity
and multiplicity...[while] the Hillelites' tendency [was] towards disintegra
tion of conceptual units..." Sonne concludes that the Hillelites' "atomicnominalistic tendency bears also unmistakably germs of disintegration and
anarchy." So one man's progressives turn out to be another's anarchists.
While I find much to admire in Zeitlin's legal-historical studies, I regret
to observe that the more narrowly historical articles and books uniformly
exhibit unparalleled dogmatism, joined with the allegation that no one else
understands Talmudic literature. Zeitlin's papers confidently and repeatedly
present as fact a wide range of quite dubious notions.
For example, S. Zeitlin, "Prosbol, A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence,"
JQR 37, 1946, pp. 341-362, takes for granted the literal, historical accuracy
of the prosbo/stoties. He does not analyze the literary traits of the stories
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
343
and sees no historical problems in them. The primary issue is legal, but
what the law describes is taken for granted as social and historical fact. Here
that assumption is central to the argument. Zeitlin claims, "Before his
[HillePs] time, the creditor in order not to lose the money which he had
loaned to his fellow men on account of the sabbatical year, deposited with
the court a promissory note given to him by the debtor. Such a promissory
note had a clause to the effect that the real property of the debtor was
mortgaged to the creditor. In such a case, the creditor had the right to
collect the debt even after the sabbatical year...According to the opinion
of the school of Shammai, anything which ultimately has to be collected
is considered as already collected [Footnote: "b. Git. 37a"which contains
an Amoraic interpretation]. However, that was only a custom and had not
as yet been sanctioned. Hillel introduced the Takkana that the creditor
may write a Prosbol, even without the knowledge of the debtor, in which
he declares that he will collect all the debts people owe him. The Prosbol
is valid, whether or not the creditor has a promissory note, and whether
or not the note was deposited with the court. This Takkana Hillel made
a law by supporting it by a verse in the Pentateuch. A Takkana must always
be based on the Pentateuch." Zeitlin thus takes for granted that the Sabba
tical laws were everywhere enforced. It was moreover possible for the
Pharisees to effect changes in the administration of commercial (and real
estate) law. Further, Zeitlin claims that the Prosbol was in existence before
HillePs time, which is not what the story says. He claims this was merely a
"custom," but the story says Hillel introduced that custom. Zeitlin has
imposed a theory upon stories which in their present form contradict his
theory. It hardly serves to argue that Hillel "really" did introduce the Prosbol
as the stories say, against the view that all he did was to find a Scriptural
basis for a rather minor alteration of existing practice. Indeed, one can hard
ly argue with this sort of allegation, without being drawn into the concep
tually primitive framework of discussion. What Hillel "really" did or did not
do is not a suitable subject for analysis, given the condition of the sources.
S. Zeitlin, "Hillel and the Hermeneutic Rules," JOR 54, 1963-4, pp. 161173, again discusses the several stories of HillePs rise to power. "Hillel
introduced the term kal wa-homer, but not the principle of logic." This
was well known. Hillel did not introduce the term geêrah shavah, nor the
principle of analogy. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah knew it. Zeit
lin refers to the story of the people's bringing knives in the wool of lambs:
"This story reveals that the ordinary people, the farmers...knew that if the
eve of Passover fell..." etc. Why did not the Bathyrans know it too? They
were newcomers and did not know the oral Torah (!). "The Bene Bethyra
who rejected Hillel's view to make the custom of the slaughtering of the
paschal lamb a statutory law, accepted Hillel's statement that it was permis
sible to do so on the authorization of Shemaiah and Abtalion. The Bene
Bethyra relinquished their leadership and Hillel became the nasi of the Bet
Din. This occurred in the year 31 B.C.E...It corresponds to another state
ment in the Talmud that Hillel and his descendents headed the Sanhedrin
for a hundred years. From 31 B.C.E. to 69 C.E., when Simeon ben Gamaliel
was assassinated, makes one hundred chronological years."
344
A P P E N D I X
Solomon Zeitlin, "The Pharisees and the Gospels," Essays and Studies in
Memory of Linda R. Miller, ed. Israel Davidson (N. Y., 1938), pp. 235-286,
now regards as "historically accurate" only the controversies between the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. "The Halakot of the Schools of Hillel and
Shammai, Akiba and Eliezer, etc., belong to the history and the develop
ment of the halakah, but have nothing to do with the Pharisees." So the
Houses and presumably their founders were not Pharisees! The Sadducees
ended at 70, "and thus the Pharisees likewise disappeared as opponents."
But the Pharisees "had great influence on the Halakot of the Schools of
Hillel and Shammai." There was "no such sect as the 'Pharisees.' " This is
very confusing. The difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teach
ings of the Pharisees is accounted for as follows: "The Pharisees, leaders
of the Jewish people, although maintaining that ethical teachings are impor
tant for the development of human nature, insisted on the fulfillment of the
law...A state cannot exist unless it is maintained by law and order. On the
other hand, Jesus, not being interested in the State, appealed to his fellow
men to refrain from doing evil..."
Zeitlin's thus intuits various sorts of novellae, offering his own certainty
of the truth of his allegation in place of evidence or careful argumentation.
Perhaps the most striking example of his quite arbitrary definitions is "The
Semikah Controversy between the Zugoth," JOR 7,1916-1917, pp. 499-517.
Here Zeitlin proposes that the "lay on hands" of M. Hag. 2:2 has nothing to do
with performing the ceremony of laying of hands upon the head of the sacrifi
cial animal in the Temple-court on holidays. While the Houses did dispute that
question, the pairs did not. Since Tosefta asks, "Over which semikhah were
the schools of Shammai and Hillel divided," and not over which semikah
were the Zugoth divided," this clearly (!) shows "that the two controversies
were not considered identical." It is Zeitlin's contention that "according to
y. Hag. 2:2 the semikhah was the only subject of contention debated during
the administration of all the Zugoth." The words LSMK and $L> LSMK do
not denote here "to lay on the hands on an object, but express the derivative
meaning of the verb., i.e. to depend, to rely, to accept the authority of,
and the question discussed by the Zugoth was whether we could depend upon
the authority of the Hakamin." Those who held the negative said that "we
ought not to rely on the sages in their innovations upon the Torah; the
colleagues say we rely entirely upon the sages even in their innovations in
the Torah." Zeitlin then analyzes the legal materials attributed to the pairs
and distinguishes the opinion depending upon "the sages" from that de
pending upon the Scripture. The Shammai-Hillel disputes concern four
issues: 1. 'a fence for the Torah,' vs. 'let the strict law prevail' (M. Nid. 1:1,
M. Ed. 5:2); 2. the Hallah-offering, in which Shammai rules that the strict
law must prevail; 3. the Semikhah controversy, in M. Ed. 1:3 pertains to
the tradition of Hillel on the drawn water; and 4. Intention in respect to
grapes for the winepress (b. Shab. 17a).
Zeitlin interprets the language of Shammai to Hillel in b. Shab. 17a,
"If you anger me," as follows: "If you will bring the principle of intention
to prevail, I shall decree that olives are also made susceptible to levitical
uncleanness by their own liquid though no one desires this superfluity."
u
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
345
Another characteristic of pseudocriticism is the resort to facile emenda

tions to solve historical problems. Since the facticity of the historical stories
is taken for granted, emending the sources will supply the answer to any
difficulty and forthwith create a new fact. For example, Solomon Zeitlin,
"Sameias and Pollion," Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy 1, 1919, pp.
61-67, reviews the references of Josephus and then asks, "Who are the two
men... ?" He forthwith reviews various suggestions and possibilities, reject
ing each in turn. In the end he concludes the references of Josephus are not
always to the same men. In one passage Sameias is Shammai; in two others,
he is Shema'iah. The consequences of this theory are then spelled out.
The passages are treated as literally true and accurate accounts of what was
really said and done. Zeitlin then turns to Pollion the Pharisee, who must
be Hillel. Josephus's Pollion is represented as teacher of Sameias. "But
Hillel was not the teacher of Shemaiahhe was his pupil. This reversing
of relations can be explained as due to a scribal error."
Along the same lines, Louis H. Feldman, "The Identity of Pollion, the
Pharisee, in Josephus," JQR 49,1958-9, pp. 53-62, sees Pollio as Abtalion.
"Both were very highly placed in Jewish religious life." Shema'iah's saying
in M. Avot 1:10 about hating domination and not making oneself known
to the government "reflects his disillusionment with Herod. While Hillel
came to power in 30 B.C.E., according to the Josephus story, Abtalion
would then still have been alive." But this would not matter: "Every college
faculty has men who studied under their colleagues." He then was Hillel's
colleague, not his disciple. Feldman rejects Zeitlin's allegation that the
reversal of names was a scribal error. The "identification of Pollio the
Pharisee in Josephus with Abtalion is justified linguistically..."
Feldman might have argued his case differently. If he had noted that
the trial of Herod occurs only in Antiquities, but is not known in War,
he might have observed that for Josephus, the chain of Pharisaic tradition
had not been finally determined by 90 A.D. Therefore the relationships
and order of Shema'iah, Abtalion, Shammai, and Hillel were unclear.
Granting his contention that Pollio is Abtalion, we may observe that Sameas
might stand for either Shammai or Shema'iah (or Simeon, for that matter).
Even fifty years after the composition of Antiquities, the exact order of
Shammai-Hillel was still under discussion by Meir and Judah b. Ilai. But
by then S + A seem to have been worked out. What we learn from Josephus
is simply that Abtalion was known and important by ca. 90 A.D. We may
also observe that he became considerably less important later on (as did
Shema'iah). It may be that with the rise of Hillel to predominance over the
rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, other names became progressively
less important and materials originally attached to them were transferred
to Hillel.
Zeitlin's most ambitious work is The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State.
A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth (Philadel
phia, I, 1962; II, 1967). He holds that the Pharisees "stressed the principle
of the universality of God..." while the Sadducees held "that Yahweh is
an ethnic God..." He does not cite the Sadducean documents on this matter;
there are no evidences on their views. Zeitlin sees the Talmudic account
346
APPENDIX
of Hyrcanus's split with the Pharisees as older than Josephus's "as the lan
guage makes clear. The conversive JFtf#\..was used herethis usage is
frequently employed in the Bible but this is the only instance of its occur
rence in the Talmud."
The Pharisees go back to earliest Second Temple times: "The original
Pharisees supported Zerubbabel" (!). They were the "main factor in the
revolt against the domination of the Syrians." The Sadducees demanded
rigid observance of the Pentateuchal law. "The Pharisees, however, strove
to amend the Pentateuchal law in order to bring religion into consonance with
life. They were ready to modify the Pentateuchal law in order to enable it
to accord with the requirements and demands of ever-changing life."
The Pharisees disapproved of class distinctions. The haverim and Pharisees
"were not identical. Although many of the haberim undoubtedly were
Pharisees, not all the Pharisees were haberim. The haberim had no theories
of life. They only stressed the observance of the Pentateuchal laws of levitical purity and tithes. [This seems to me plausible.] The Pharisees on the
other hand had well developed beliefs with regard to both the individual
and the Judaean community as a whole."
The pairs headed the "Bet Din HaGadol (high court)." Two men repre
sented "two factions in the Great Sanhedrin...When the Great Sanhedrin
was established, the first place of leadership was given to one with a Saddu
cean point of view; the second place to a Pharisee. Later, at the time of Hillel,
when the Pharisees became the representatives of Judaean thought, the
Great Sanhedrin was headed by one person, a Pharisee."
The Pharisees "taught humility and forgiveness of wrong-doing. This
was their motto as a religious group." But the civil wars changed the mind
of many: "They persuaded Queen Salome Alexandra to destroy all who
had helped Jannaeus Alexander to crucify the 800 rebellious Pharisees..."
Judah b. Tabbai was head of the Sanhedrin, but when Simeon b. Shetah
told Judah that he had shed innocent blood and was guilty of manslaughter,
Judah accepted his view "and relinquished the presidency in his favor."
The Sadducees held that false witnesses "themselves would be executed,
if through their false testimony an innocent person was actually executed.
The Pharisees maintained that they be executed after the verdict was render
ed, and it was determined that they had borne false witness."
"In the spring of 3 1 , Hillel became head of the Bet Din. Josephus calls
him Pollionthe hoary or venerable." Hillel was a man of peace. His broth
er "named Shabneh was a business man." Hillel migrated "presumably to
find solutions for three contradictions he found in Pentateuchal laws."
Hillel wanted to "verify whether his interpretations were in fact Judean
law...When Hillel arrived in Judaea...he learned that his independent inter
pretations were all correct, well-established halakoth." His rise to power
vindicated the oral Torah. All his hermeneutic principles "had been used
by Judaeans before Hillel...What was novel in Hillel's approach was the
application of these principles to actual cases of statutory law...Hillel's
method was too radical for the Bene Bathayra and they rejected it."
The Houses represented conservative and liberal viewpoints, respectively.
As with Ginzberg (not cited), Zeitlin holds the differences had begun with
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
347
the first pairs, but Hillel and Shammai gave their names to the schools.
Shammai followed the established law, while Hillel was the innovator. He
introduced another new concept, the principle of intention. He made a
legal distinction "between happenings which stem from volition and those
which do not." "Four controversies are recorded between Shammai and
Hillel. In all tannaitic controversies recorded in the Talmud, the name of
the person who adhered to the conservative point of view is given first.
Shammai's name, however, is given first in three of the disputes...while
in the controversy on Semikah, that is, the transmittal of authority to
introduce new laws, Hillel's name is given first. This is due to the fact
that this principle had already been accepted. Shemayah and Abtalion had
already debated this issue, and the name of Shemayah, who adhered to this
principle, was recorded first." The debates between the Houses "actually
took place."
The Hillelites insisted that people should lay hands on the sacrifice. They
realized that "if people were not allowed to lay their hands on the sacrifices,
they would not bring them and would not make pilgrimages..." They
therefore took a positive view "so as to encourage pilgrimages...The con
tention of the Hillelites that the Shammaite view would deter pilgrimages
was proved correct: the Temple became deserted on the holidays (!).
The view of the Hillelites then became the law." So much for Baba b. Buta!
"Many citations in the Mishne [sic] are Pharisaic formulations from the
period of the Second Commonwealth. This is evident not only in their
content, but also in their wording and style."
In the "conclave of 65-66" the Judaean leaders decreed that gentile food
was ritually unclean. "Some of the decrees adopted at this conclave were
directed against the Sadducees...The Conclave again brought up the prin
ciple of intention introduced by Hillel; that an act without intention although
willed, was not considered a legal act. Shammai had strongly opposed this
innovation, and the Shammaites again opposed this principle. At the con
clave three different units of eighteen measures were discussed. Eighteen
were unanimously adopted; eighteen were adopted by a majority; the other
eighteen remained undecided."
Alexander Guttmann not only takes for granted the 'historicity' of the
various talmudic stories; he also seems to believe in the heavenly echo
mentioned in them. In "The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism,"
HUCA 20,1947, pp. 363-406, Guttmann holds that the Houses ended with
the destruction of the Temple. Eliezer and Joshua refer to them. The "echo
that settled their controversy must have appeared at the time when these
controversies had not yet been settled, i.e. during the first Tannaitic genera
tion (between 70 and 90 CE.)." In "The End of the 'Houses,' " The Abraham
Weiss Jubilee Volume, ed. Samuel Belkin et al. (N.Y., 1964), pp. 88-105,
Guttmann now asks, "When did the Bath Ool [echo] make this sweeping
verdict [in favor of the Hillelites]; 2. did both Houses continue their
existence after that verdict; 3. what was the extent of the authority this Bath
Qpl possessed?" Guttmann takes as fact the opinion of R. Yohanan that
the echo came at Yavneh: "This information is repeated several times in
the Palestinian Talmud, thus confirming its accuracy [sic!]" The echo
348
APPENDIX
came shortly after 70. "Few controversies of the Houses refer to conditions
existing after the destruction of the Temple." Joshua and Eliezer disagree on
the interpretation of controversies between the Houses. "Had they [the
Houses] existed, a simple inquiry with the respective schools would have
sufficed." b. Git. 81a is adduced to prove that the House of Shammai did
not exist in the time of Dosa b. Hyrcanus. Guttmann further takes as fact
the tradition that M. Ed. was edited at early Yavneh. The "fundamental
decision in favor of Beth Hillel was made at the end of a three year's dispute
by a Bath Opl, a Heavenly Voice. The immediate effect of the Bath Ool was
the doom of Beth Shammai. The Bath Qpl was not effective retroactively."
Alexander Guttmann, "Hillelites and Shammaitesa Clarification,"
HUCA 28,1957, pp. 115-126, makes the same point, that the Houses ended
with the destruction. He denies that Eliezer was a Shammaite, this time
with reference to y. Ter. 5:4 ("Who agreed with whom?"), y. Shev. 9:6,
etc. Shamuti applied to Eliezer means under ban, not Shammaite. The Talmuds
"do not offer convincing evidence that Eliezer was actually a Shammaite."
Alexander Guttmann, "Pharisaism in Transition," Essays in Honor of
Solomon B. Freehof ed. Walter Jacob, Frederick C. Schwartz, and Vigdor
W. Kavaler (Pittsburgh, 1964), pp. 202-219, asks whether the Pharisaic
movement continued through the Talmudic period: "Were the rabbis of
the Talmud Pharisees ?" The answer is negative: The Talmudic rabbis were
not Pharisees, but themselves criticized the Pharisees. "When the Temple
was destroyed, the progressive wing of the Pharisees (Beth Hillel) prevailed
and became the main stream of Judaism...Considering themselves as the
true representatives of Judaism, the Hillelites dropped the limiting desig
nation 'Beth Hillel'...The designation 'Pharisees' was now used by the
Talmud for the dissident peripheral groups...While Rabbinic Judaism of
the post-Temple period was well aware of its Pharisaic roots and conceded
that there were genuinely pious men among the Pharisees of their own day
too, the tension between progressive Rabbinic Judaism and the reactionary
[!] Pharisees resulted in derogatory remarks by some rabbis against these
non-conforming Pharisees..." Guttmann concludes, "The Talmud makes
a clear distinction between Pharisees that lived before the destruction of the
Temple and those that lived afterwards. Its attitude towards the former
is friendly, towards the latter...it is just the opposite."
Alexander Guttmann, "Foundations of Rabbinic Judaism," HUCA 23,
1, 1950-1951, pp. 453-474, states, "The principal way of molding Judaism,
of harmonizing changing conditions of life with her hallowed ideas...was
that of interpretation... This indirect way of legislating is a major character
istic...It commences with Hillel...Hillel's great distinction was not the use
of Bible interpretations to establish the law...Hillel's distinction lies in
the fact that he emphasized interpretation as a method."
Guttmann alludes to y. Pes. 6:1. "The above passages [re the three things
on account of which Hillel migrated] reveal that Hillel came to Palestine
to reconcile certain Biblical passages that seemed to be contradictory, and
thus to clarify and confirm certain practices." He may have had in mind
a Greek hermeneutical method, for he had had contacts with Alexandrian
Jews.
c
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
349
The version of Hillel and the Passover-Sabbath sacrifice in y. Pes. 6:1

and b. Pes. 66a "supplement and clarify one another." Furthermore, "brief
partial versions of the arguments are found in Tannaitic midrashim, e.g.
Mekh. Pish. 3:5, Sifre Deut. 65, 142, and in them Hillel is not mentioned.
Josiah occurs instead." But, Guttmann argues, the Talmuds and Tosefta
give three independent (!) versions: "There is no justification...for discarding
three independent sources in order to solve a problem." The Midrashim
"give merely one phase of the discussion. Theirs is obviously a shortened
version related at a time when the discussion did not command the interest
it did at the time of the Temple." So for Guttmann, the Hillel-stories go
back to Temple times. "No real evidence has been produced...against the
historicity of the accounts to the effect that the law under discussion had
actually been forgotten." To be sure no evidence in favor of the historicity
of the stories, or of the application of Pharisaic law in the Temple, is adduced
either.
Like Louis Ginzberg, Jacob Z. Lauterbach enjoyed wide influence for sev
eral decades. Herford says that he revised his own views of the Pharisees after
reading Lauterbach. Lauterbach posits his own set of theories to account for
various disputes. In general, he falls in line with the opinion of reform
Jewish scholars, beginning with Geiger, that the Sadducees were reactiona
ries, the Pharisees liberals. The whole then is embellished with sermons
of various kinds. Lauterbach, in "The Sadducees and Pharisees," "A Signifi
cant Controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees," and "The
Pharisees and their Teachings," Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 23-50,
51-86, 87-162, respectively, postulates that the Sadducees were the older,
more conservative party, the Pharisees the younger, "broader and more
liberal in their views, of progressive tendencies and not averse to innova
tions." Lauterbach treats the division of the two parties, which he assigns
to early (!) in Second Temple times. Pharisees emerge from lay teachers, the
Sadducees were formed by the priestly aristocracy. Like Moore, Lauter
bach draws upon the whole corpus of rabbinic literature for his description
of the Pharisees (called "sages of Israel").
For example, the Meg. Ta. story of how Simeon b. Shetah threw the
Sadducees out of the Sanhedrin is taken as fact, also the story of John
Hyrcanus/Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees. The name Perushim orig
inates in the fact that Hyrcanus forced the group out of the Sanhedrin, so
"they were called NBDLYM, the excluded ones or expelled ones." The
significant difference between the parties was the "identification of the Law
with the ever growing and changing ideas of the teachers." The Pharisees
claimed the right to make laws neccessary for their time. The Sadducees de
nied that right. "Sadducaism because of its rigid conservatism in following
the letter of the Law, gradually lost all influence upon the life of the main
body of the Jewish people."
The 'significant controversy' between the parties concerned the manner
in which the high priest should bring in the incense into the Holy of Holies
on the Day of Atonement. "The Sadducees said it must be prepared outside
of the Holy of Holies. The Pharisees said it should not be put into the censer
outside, but the high priest should enter the Holy of Holies carrying the
350
APPENDIX
censer with thefierycoals in his right hand and the spoon full of incense in his
left hand. Only inside the curtain should he put the incense upon the fiery
coals on the censer and thus offer it there." Lauterbach asks how the
Pharisees could have known the law, when the Sadducees were in control
of the Temple. The Pharisees, he claims to prove, introduced "a radical
reform." The Sadducees retained "many of the primitive notions both
about God and the purpose of the service offered to Him in the Temple."
The Pharisees had a "purer God conception and less regard for the sacrificial
cult...They tried...to democratize and spiritualize the service in the Temple
and to remove from it...the elements of crude superstition and primitive
outworn conceptions." Preparing the incense outside was a measure of pre
caution; the smoke would protect the priest from "the danger of Satan's
accusations..." Further, the smoke would prevent the high priest from
"involuntarily looking the Deity in the face..." These "primitive theological
views" were rejected by the Pharisees.
"The Pharisees and their Teachings" makes the same point, that the
Pharisees offered a "more spiritual" conception of religion than did their op
position. Their victory "had to result in a broad liberal universalism."
Christianity sprang from Pharisaic Judaism. "Jesus and his disciples did
not belong to the priestly aristocratic party of the Sadducees. They were
of the plain humble people who followed the Pharisees." Each of the an
cient sources, the Talmud, Josephus, and the New Testament, preserves
"some accurate information about these two parties." The Pharisees were
the newer party, the Sadducees the older; they were conservative, strict
interpreters of the Torah. The Pharisees were "the younger, progressive
party composed originally of democratic laymen who outgrew some of
the older notions, cherished modern and liberal ideas, and therefore became
separated from the older group and formed a distinct party. They were the
liberal separatists, the dissenters who rejected some of the ancient traditional
conceptions of religion and who broke away the primitive traditional
attitude toward the Torah..." "The Pharisees were heirs of the prophets
and disciples of the priests" (even though elsewhere Lauterbach sees the
Sadducees as the priests!).
Hyman G. Enelow, "The Modern Reconstruction of the Pharisees,"
Selected Works ofHyman G. Enelow. With a Memoir by Felix A. Levy (Chicago,
1935), IV, Scientific Papers, pp. 117-134, reviews the more favorable assess
ment of the Pharisees developing in the early years of the 20th century.
The picture of the parties is standard: The Pharisees "stood for this live
developmental principle. They believed in tradition, but not in a petrified
tradition.!.The Sadducees...like all aristocrats were opposed to develop
ment. Their ground was that the old Scriptures were sufficient, and that no
additions or expansions were permissible." "...from the Pharisees...sprang
all [!] the known leaders and thinkers of post-exilic Israel." Both the Essenes and the Christians come from them. The Sadducees, by contrast,
included Hellenists and other "dangerous internal enemies."
Armand Kaminka exhibits a commendable skepticism about some mate
rials, but thorough-going gullibility about others. The traditional hiddush
(novella) often involved the claim that what everyone took for granted
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
351
was false, but the very opposite was true. In Kaminka's case, this meant
turning Hillel from a Babylonian into an Alexandrian"perhaps" a provin
cial judge from Jericho (!). His sayings can be set at particular historical
times and made to refer to particular events. So behind the facade of
skepticism lies the usual pseudocritical attitude. In "Hillel's Life and Work,"
J OR 30, 1939-40, pp. 107-122, Kaminka recognizes that some of the Hillelmaterials are unhistorical. Any priest in Jerusalem "could have testified
with certainty as to how the ritual of the Passover sacrifice had been perform
ed through long generations when the 14th day of Nisan fell on a Sabbath."
The stories are spun out of "public addresses containing fables with ethical
conclusions." The rise-to-power-story proves a haughty man loses his
wisdom. The story of Hillel's hardships shows "poverty is no excuse for
neglecting the study of the Law." Other materials likewise are for didactic
purposes and should not be treated as historical. It is unlikely that Hillel,
a poor man from abroad, "should have been suddenly chosen for a high
position."
The office of nasi did not exist. Hillel came from Alexandria, not Babylo
nia; this is shown by the story of Hillel's ruling in the Alexandrian marriagecontract case. Hillel was born about 75 B.C.E.
Shammai's saying (b. Qid. 43a) that one who tells someone to kill is
guilty of murder explains how the judges acquitted Herod: A murderer
is only the one who actually sheds blood, and "Shammai" opposed the
ruling. He is the Sameias mentioned by Josephus.
Hillel's sayings, "A name made great is a name destroyed," and "Those
that drowned you will be drowned" refer to great historical events, e.g.
the battle of Pharsalus (48 B.C.E.). Hillel's saying alluded in fact to Pompey,
and "// is to the skull of the latter that he addressed the verse..." (!). A. Kaminka,
"Hillel and his Works," in Hebrew, Zion 4, 1939, pp. 258-266 ( = fOR
30, 107-122) says Hillel came from Alexandria and had been "perhaps a
judge in Jericho when this city was under the rule of Cleopatra." Pollion
was Hillel. Again, the story about the skull floating on the water "was told
about Pompey who drowned near Alexandria after the battle of Pharsalus."
A. Karlin, "Hillel," in Hebrew, Zion 5, 1940, pp. pp. 170-177, claims
to prove the facticity of the story of Hillel's rise to power. Now not only
was Hillel a Babylonian, so too were Shema iah and Abtalion (!), also the
Bathyrans. Kaminka rejects the Davidic origin of Hillel; Karlin reaffirms
it. Kaminka had pointed out that in the story of Gamaliel IPs deposition, no
reference is made to Gamaliel's Davidic origin (through Hillel), a good point.
Karlin replies that there is a reference to the "merit of the ancestors" of
Gamaliel, and this "must mean" the Davidic origin of the patriarchal family.
"I do not understand why we should without reason deny the Talmudic
tradition that Hillel lived one hundred twenty years. Not for nothing did
they call Hillel 'the Elder'..." So Kaminka provoked the appropriate kind
of counter-argument.
Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Los Angeles, 1962) compares
the ideas of Nicolaus and Hillel. "We are perhaps justified then in assuming
that most of the accounts concerning Hillel that are found in the Talmudic
literature emanate from the second half of the first century B.C." He does
c
352
APPENDIX
not say why. Both men were well educated. Perhaps the claims that Hillel
had wide learning "were a reaction to the wide learning ascribed to the
Greeks in Herod's court." Both men said one should not make worldly
use of learning. Hillel "arranged the scale of vices" much as did Nicolaus,
and these may be compared to one another. "Both Nicolaus and Hillel com
pared the striving for a good life with climbing up a ladder." "That Hillel
was aware of the fundamental distinction between Peripatetic and Pharisaic
ethics is perhaps evident from his concluding statement: 'If one has gained
a good name, he has gained something; but if he has gained the words of
the Torah he has gained for himself life in the world to come.' " Abtalion
had urged his fellow scholars "to avoid fraternization with Herod and his
court." "Hillel's famous saying to the floating skull, 'Because you drowned,
they have drowned you'...seems to be applicable to the Antipater affair" (!).
Both men also were brave. "It is conceivable that the stories concerning Hillel's
supposed secular learning endeavored to counter the then famous polymath
Nicolaus, the right hand of the despised king." Wacholder's use of the
words perhaps and seems to changes nothing. In fact his arguments are perti
nent to an examination of the ideal of the sage-politician in Pharisaic and
Greco-Roman literature. As I noted, Henry Fischel is working on such
comparative studies. But by insisting on the historical facticity ("seems
applicable") of the Hillel-stories, Wacholder preserves for himself a place
in the ranks of the pseudocritical scholars.
Israel Goldberger, "The Sources Concerning the Rise of Hillel to the
NesPut" Judah Arye Blau Festschrift (Budapest, 1926), pp. 68-76, compares
the various versions. He dates the event at exactly the thirtieth of March,
30 B.C. (a century before 70 A.D.). He argues that Hillel and others really
lived for one hundred twenty years, citing similar life-spans in Latin
America and in Hungary.
Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, 1961)
examines a number of problems pertinent to the rabbinic traditions about
the Pharisees. He notes that Krochmal and Geiger maintained M. Hag. 2:2,
which speaks of the pairs as sharing the offices of nasi and av bet din, is based
upon "the form of leadership that existed among the Tannaim of the post-Bar
Kokba period." Mantel rejects this view: "Nor have we any reason to
believe that their [Meir's and Judah's] view was simply a projection of
the present into the past." But Mantel's arguments on this point are insuf
ficient. He draws Amoraic data indicating that "the Amoraim here are
not speculating about the reason why R. Meir. and R. Judah held the opin
ions they did, but are pointing to incidents that might plausibly be cited
in support of either opinion. If the Amoraim assumed anything at all it was
that both opinions were backed by tradition." In general, without even such
flimsy arguments Mantel takes for granted the literal historicity of the sour
ces, and all arguments are settled within the presupposition of their facticity.
As above, Mantel repeatedly appeals to "tradition" to support this view,
e.g. "Yet use of the title in our source [b. Shab. 31a-b, re Hillel and the
gentile] must have been supported by tradition."
But Mantel has the merit of thoroughly reading earlier accounts of each
problem with which he deals. His is by far the best-researched scholarly
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
353
contribution. He respectfully summarizes the ideas of others, carefully

takes up each point, and thoughtfully offers his own theses. The bibliogra
phy for any topic he studies is comprehensive and reliable. For the state
of any particular problem, he supplies the best account; his solutions of
various difficulties are no worse than anyone else's.
Sidney b. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin. A study of the origin, development,
composition, and functions of the Bet Din Ha-Gadol during the Second feivish
Commonwealth (Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 29ff., criticizes the view, beginning
with Geiger, that Yosi b. Yo'ezer was the uncle of Yaqim: "I Mace, and
Ber. R. cannot be combined to prove one historic fact, as claimed by Geiger."
But Hoenig does not doubt the historical usefulness of the Ber. R. story.
Simeon the Just is identified with Simeon the Hasmonean. Simeon and
Antigonus are omitted from M. Hag. 2:2 because they "functioned only
in the temporary Bet Din of the Hasmoneans, that is, in the transition
period prior to the creation of the regular supreme court..." His overall
judgment on the value of the sources is, "...all passages which record the
Zugot of the Second Temple era are authentic sources of the epoch's
history." This is the opinion of Zeitlin, whom Hoenig follows closely,
e.g., "S. Zeitlin has already shown that this Semikah controvery...had to do
with reliance upon the authority of the sages who introduced new laws.
Hence the basic conflict in the early Great Sanhedrin was conservatism
(opposition to the introduction of new laws and innovations by the sages)
versus liberalism (reliance upon the authority of the Hakamin...in addition
to that of the Torah)," i.e. "strict constructionism" versus "flexible con
structionism" in the interpretation of the law. As to the Houses-form, the
Shammaite opinion is mentioned first, "for in the methodology of the
Talmud, it is the practice to mention the conservative tendency or older
tradition first, and then the liberal view of innovation in law...", again as
in Zeitlin.
Chaim Tchernowitz (Rav Tzair), Toledot HaHalakhah (English title: His
tory of Hebrew Law. The Transmission and Development of the Oral Law from
its Inception to the Compilation of the Talmud, N.Y., 1950), IV, pp. 99-124, 277340, treats the masters and the Houses. The Houses' disputes were not
random, but concerned principles. Shammai held very old traditionsone
from Haggai, for examplewhile Hillel made use of hermeneutical techni
ques to create new laws. The Shammaite opinion comes before the Hillelite
one because the House of Shammai was older than the House of Hillel.
There were three bases for the Houses disputes: historical-religious, natio
nal-political, and logical-hermeneutical. According to the first, the Sham
maites were conservative, the Hillelites liberal. According to the second,
the Shammaites were nationalists, the Hillelites universalists. According to
the third, the former emphasized the meaning of words, the second, the
explanation of basic principles. Tchernowitz is less thorough than Halevy;
he lacks Halevy's acuteness and sometimes tends toward homiletics.
Yishaq Baer, Yisraêl BaÂmim (Jerusalem, 1955; English title: Israel
among the Nations. An Essay on the History of the Period of the Second Temple and
the Mishnah and on the Foundation of the Halacha and fewish Religion) states,
"The Essenes of the external sources are the sect of the Hasidi7?/-Pharisees,
354
APPENDIX
the haverim of the language of the Mishnah, the first founders of the halakhah." The purity laws go back to pre-Maccabean times. Ritual separatism
is intended to elevate the hasid in pneumatic stages. The name "Pharisees"
does not refer to an organized sect, as in the Gospel and Josephus. The
name Pharisees "signifies a stage of elevation in the education of the whole
community." This seems to me a confused homily in the guise of cultural and
religious history. Louis H. Feldman, Scholarship, has said the last word; see
pp. 16a-b, 23a, 30a, 42a, 48a.
Herbert Loewe, "Pharisaism," in W. O. E. Oesterly, ed., Judaism and
Christianity. I. The Age of Transition (Repr. N.Y., 1969) pp. 105-192, is long,
discursive, and sermonic. The main judgment is that the Pharisees were
practical and tried to "bring religion and learning into the life of the people."
Loewe accepts Finkelstein's theory that the Pharisees were townspeople,
the Sadducees, country gentry and priests.
Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. II. An
cient Times, Part II (Philadelphia, 1952 ), pp. 35-46, and pp. 342ff., notes
43-53, rapidly summarizes the views of various scholars. The Pharisees
"enjoyed great popularity and may be said to have represented the large
majority of the nation...in fact every one [sic] of the Babylonian leaders
known to us was a Pharisee, as were in essence also Philo in Alexandria,
Paul's father in Tarsus, and Theudas in Rome." The Sadducees were wealthy,
educated, and nationalistic, and insisted "on the rigid application of Jewish
law." But they had "lost contact with the living currents of their faith."
The Pharisees represented "the living ethnic body" and insisted on the
validity of the oral law. "As late as the days of Hillel, we are told, leaders
of the Sanhedrin, puzzled by a legal problem, invited this relatively unknown
foreign student to communicate to them some traditions which he had
learned from their own predecessors in office..." "In short, by synthesizing
traditions with the revealed words of Scripture, the Pharisees acknowledged
the supremacy of the time element, of national evolution, of history. The
Sadducees, however, adhering to the basis of their political power, had to
attach more importance to the space element, to the unchanging and per
manent, to the revealed word of God in its most literal sense."
Yishaq D. Gilat, The Teachings of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos and their Position
in the History of the Halakha (Tel Aviv, 1968; English title for Mishnato sheI
R. Eliezer benHyrkanus uMeqomah beToledotHaHalakhah) claims that Eliezer
is "completely dependent on the early halakhah." "The opinions and halakhot of R. Eliezer reflect the halakha as it actually existed in Israel's past..."
Gilat sees Eliezer as identified with "the Shammaitic system of clarification
of the halakha, its exegesis and final decision." The Shammaites "generally
represented the early conservative halakha, while the latter reflected the
later halakha." Gilat cannot be said to have demonstrated his thesis. He
systematically repeats it in connection with one source after another.
Like other Talmudists, he does not resort to archaeological evidence, nor
does he look at extra-Talmudic literary materials, not to mention secondary
studies of other scholars. He acknowledges no antecedents for his entirely
commonplace theory.
Adolph Buchler, Types offeivish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
2
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
355
The Ancient Pious Men (Repr. N.Y., 1968), devotes a chapter to Hillel,
another to Honi. Hillel was called a hasid. Buchler assembles various stories
about Honi and Hillel, all narrated in ordinary historical language. For
example, Honi ot Tos. R.H. 4:11 is the grandson of Honi the Circler:
"This happened undoubtedly before the year 70 in Jerusalem, not only
because the elders of the Shammaites are referred to, but because even the
legendary Honi III lived before the destruction of the Temple." Honi "was
a scholar or a specialist on the prayers." He could not have been an Essene.
B. Z. (Wilhelm) Bacher, AggadotHaTanna?im (Trans. A. Z. Rabbinowitz,
Jerusalem, 1922), I, i, pp. 1-17, treats Hillel and the Houses, surveying
various aggadic materials. Bacher accounts for the absence of attributions of
materials to Simeon the son of Hillel and to Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gama
liel I: "Evidently the destruction of the Temple and the end of the authority
of the Sanhedrin caused the beginning of giving, together with the sayings,
also the name of the person who had said them, because then the private au
thority of each of the sages of the Torah became more important, and the name
of the person responsible for a saying could win acceptance for the saying."
But before the destruction the sayings were "subsumed under the names of the
Houses." But the named masters do have sayings! The Houses disagreements
on aggadic matters must come before the destruction, "for otherwise they
would not have been preserved"a familiar and meaningless allegation.
In fact the Houses-form was extensively used afterward.
Israel Friedlander, "The Rupture between Alexander Jannai and the
Pharisees," JQR 4, 1913-1914, pp. 443-448, sees the story of Josephus and
that of the Talmud as "unmistakably different." The Talmudic narrative
disagrees with Josephus "not only in the names of the heroes but also in the
fundamental character of the incident." The Talmudic account should have
preference over Josephus, "for Josephus's version is in strange contradiction
with his own enthusiastic estimate of John Hyrcan...The whole story points
clearly to the unfortunate conditions as they existed in the time of Jannai,
and, when looked at in this light, the Talmudic account... receives its
proper setting, such as we would seek in vain in the version of Josephus."
The Talmudic story, "while legendary in detail, may well reflect an historic
fact. Its divergence from Josephus may perhaps be best explained on the
supposition that it reached the historian in a different version, in which
the names had been garbled...The Talmudic account is undoubtedly...a
fragment from an old historic source..."
R. Leszynsky, "Simon ben Schetah," REJ 63,1912, pp. 216-231, reviews
the various sources pertaining to Simeon. He says the story of Simeon's
poverty relates to Simeon b. Halafta, citing Ruth R. 1:18, Ex. R. 52:3,
and other late compilations. He assumes that, as a matter of fact, Simeon
was the queen's brother. Simeon could not have issued ordinances (taqqanot), for he was not "recognized head of Judaism, head of the supreme
magistrature." Judah b. Tabbai was. Leszynsky thus settles the disputed
traditions by ignoring the ones he does not accept.
Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into
Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans, by
F. H. and C. H. Cave, Philadelphia, 1969) devotes an appendix to the Phari-
356
APPENDIX
sees (pp. 246-270), He sees the Pharisees as closely linked with the scribes.
The Pharisees were closed communities, members of religious associations.
The Pharisaic communities of Jerusalem "...had strict rules of admission,
which again shows their character as a closed society." The members of
the Pharisaic havurot cannot have been too numerous. The Pharisees were
not the same as the scribes. The leaders of the Pharisaic communities were
scribes. Not all scribes belonged to the Pharisaic community. "For the
most part the members of the havurot were not scribes." All of these judg
ments seem sound and within the limits of the evidence.
"The Pharisees represented the new tradition, the unwritten Law, against
the Sadducean champions of the ancient orthodox theology and tradition,
inflexible defenders of the letter of the written biblical text." The Pharisees
were the people's party: "Their much respected piety and their social lean
ings towards suppressing differences of class gained them the people's
support and assured them...of the victory." "There is something very
impressive about the way in which the people unreservedly followed the
Pharisees. For the Pharisees fought on two fronts; not only did they oppose
the Sadducees, but as the true Israel they drew a hard line between themsel
ves and the masses...who did not observe as they did the rules down by
Pharisaic scribes on tithes and purity." The popularity of the Pharisees
and conclusions drawn therefrom are hardly to be taken as axioms.
George Wesley Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden, 1970),
pp. 259-267, says, "The Pharisees did not necessarily write all of the rabbinic
literature, and may not therefore be adequately represented there. Some of
the rabbis may have been Pharisees but not necessarily all. Because some
of the doctrines in rabbinic literature were similar to those of the Pharisees
it has been supposed that they were responsible for the entire body of
literature..."
He further comments, "It is very difficult, if not impossible, to learn
the character of the Pharisees in the first century of the Christian Era in
Palestine from rabbinic literature, which was mostly edited or originally
composed in the diaspora [sic] sometime between the third and the seventh
century A.D., and which seldom mentioned the Pharisees by name. Some
early tradition may be preserved in this literature, but it must be demonstrat
ed point by point by comparison with Josephus, Philo, or some other
earlier writer. A statement attributed to an early rabbi may have been
composed, as well as attributed to him, by a later rabbi. Literature written
and preserved by the rabbis may or may not have been written by Pharisaic
rabbis, and the date of its composition must still be established by some
other criterion than the date at which the rabbi in question lived." "These
discussions relating Hillel, Shammai, and R. Joshua to the Pharisees do not
prove that these rabbis were themselves Pharisees..." "The quarrels between
the Pharisees and Sadducees were reported neither from a pro-Pharisaic
nor anti-Pharisaic point of view, so there is little direct evidence that the
Pharisees wrote either the Mishnah or the Tosefta."
What does not ring true in Buchanan's account is, first, his allegation that
rabbinic literature "was mostly edited in the diaspora," for he cites no evid
ence whatever that Mishnah-Tosefta were not Palestinian documents. Most
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
357
people think they were. I do not know why Buchanan supposes otherwise.
Further, he seems not to take seriously the fact that later masters do refer
to earlier sayings and stories (above, Chapter Twenty). This would seem
to mean those sayings and stories are not to be dated at the very end of the
Talmudic period600 A.D.but, with some reservations, may be assigned
to the period before the time of the masters who evidently knew them.
To be sure, attributions are not always reliable. But we are no better off
in deciding they never are reliable and in rejecting out of hand the reliability
of the rabbinic process of transmission, in particular after 140 A.D., when
it appears to be sound and under excellent control.
The real problem in Buchanan's account, however, is not his thesis that
the Pharisees do not stand behind elements of Mishnah-Tosefta, but his
failure to do more than to enunciate that theory. In this respect he can
hardly be differentiated from the various Talmudic historians already con
sidered, who announce "revolutionary" theories and then take them for
granted, without subjecting their theories either to close examination or to
the test of evidence. What is pseudocritical here, therefore, is the display
of the form of the critical approach without the substance of the critical
process. In other chapters of the same book, moreover, Buchanan takes for
granted the accuracy not only of attributions to various masters, but also
of what is attributed to them.
J. H. Weiss, Dor Dor VeDorshav (German Title: Zur Geschichte derjiidischen
Tradition, Vilna, 1904), I, pp. 89-184, discusses the several masters and the
Houses. He describes Shammai as a conservative. "Hillel sought the reasons
of laws and was willing to annul those without sound foundations. The
House of Shammai stressed the simple meaning of Scripture, while the
House of Hillel went more deeply into matters."
Z. Frankel, DarkheHaMishnah (Repr. Tel Aviv, 1959) rapidly traces the
history of the Second Temple period down to Hillel and Shammai, then
supplies brief biographies of the names listed in M. Avot 1:1-18. As to the
Houses, the Shammaites were strict, the Hillelites lenient. "The disputes
of the Houses are of three orders, first, concerning Scripture, second,
concerning the extension of prohibitions beyond the narrowest limits of a
ruling, third, concerning reasons for laws." Most of the disputes are of the
second order. "The Shammaites will decree prohibitions far beyond the
narrow limits of the law."
J. Briill, Mevo HaMishnah (German title: Einleitung in die Mishnah\ Frankfurt/M., 1876), gives brief biographies of the masters before 70. The Houses'
differences concern extending biblical prohibitions beyond their stated lim
its. The Hillelites opposed doing so. Also, unlike the Hillelites, the Sham
maites followed the obvious meaning of Scripture. "Sometimes the Houses
argued face to face."
J. Derenbourg, Essai sur Phistoire et la geographie de la Palestine, d'apres
les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. I. Histoire de la Palestine depuis
Cyrus jusqu'a Adrien (Paris, 1876), mixes Josephus's narrative and the rab
binic sources. The Pharisees occur in reference to Hyrcanus (pp. 70ff.),
then a chapter for Hillel and Shammai and their schools (pp. 176ff.). The
various traditions always are taken as fact.
358
APPENDIX
Yosef Klausner, Historia shel HaBayit HaSheni (Jerusalem, 1954), III,

IV, V, deals with the Pharisees (III, pp. 125-130) and Hillel and Shammai
(IV, pp. 125-152). He regards as facts that "Hillel was a Babylonian, poor,
and eventually a member of the Sanhedrin." At no point does he analyze
sources.
Elias J . Bickerman, "The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho," Harvard
Theological Review 44, 1951, pp. 153-166 interprets the saying as follows:
"Be like slaves who attend upon their master without receiving any allow
ance from him, who are in servitude, but also worn with care for daily
bread like free men." The saying "was uttered shortly before or during the
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. In this time, when there was very
great wrath upon Israel, the hope that whoever calls on God is never
forsaken could help no more." But before that time the same dilemma
had been recognized. And we cannot be sure the saying is Antigonus's.
Abba BenDavid, Lashon Miqra veLashon Hakhamim (Tel Aviv, 1967) pp.
95ff., takes for granted that sayings attributed to Simeon the Just were
actually said by him. He therefore asks how it is possible that the contem
porary, Ben Sira, should use such different language, for Simeon's is Mishnaic, Ben Sira's biblical. The difference is that Ben Sira's language is written,
but that of Simeon (and Antigonus) is not written. Their sayings were an
"oral creation." but "if they had been written down, it is possible that they
would have behaved like Ben Sira and tried...to imitate Proverbs or at
least Qohelet." BenDavid stresses that the Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphical,
and Qumranian writers did follow biblical Gattungen and forms and imitate
biblical style, while the Mishnaic writers did not. The whole of rabbinic
literature was formulated and transmitted orally. BenDavid (pp. 224ff.) also
presents the various versions of Simeon and the Nazir. He observes various
developments but does not account for them.
Ellis Rivkin, "Pharisaism and the Crisis of the Individual in the GrecoRoman World," JQR 61,1970, pp. 27-53, sees Pharisaism as "...the Judaism
of a reality within..."
G. H. Box, "Pharisees," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James
Hastings (N.Y., 1908) vol. 9, pp. 831-836, says the Pharisees were "essential
ly a democratic party in the sense that they were themselves mainly drawn
from the people and safeguarded the religious rights and privileges of the
laity as against the aristocratic and exclusive priesthood."
Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, 1952, translated and edited by
Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale), pp. 385-405, regards Pharisaism as
"primarily urban in nature "and "basically bourgeois." The Pharisaic order
"was indeed a substitute for the rural neighborhood for landless city
dwellers.. .The transformation of Jewry into an inter-local, essentially urban,
landless...guest people was essentially consummated under Pharisaic leader
ship." All this far transcends the evidence.
Abraham Moshe Naftal, HaTalmud veYosrav. L Dorot HaTanna*im (Tel
Aviv, 1969), pp. 225-238, treats the masters; on the Houses, pp. 38-40.
Naftal does not seem to have read a single scholarly treatise (except Halevy)
on the subject, but merely assembles a few items pertinent to each master.
His repertoire is by no means complete, and the discussion is primitive.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
359
Kaufman Kohler, "Pharisees," JE 9, pp. 661-6, sees the Pharisees as the

same as the haverim and the hasidim. They founded the synagogue "for com
mon worship and instruction," and schools as well. In the Temple itself
"the Pharisees obtained a hold at an early date, when they introduced the
regular daily prayers beside the sacrifice..." They represented "the principle
of progress."
Aaron M. Hyman, Sefer Toledot Tannafim veAmoraim (Vols. I-III, London,
1910) is the most complete compilation of materials pertaining to various
masters. The materials, however, are not distinguished as to reliability.
Stories from the Zohar stand beside Tosefta and Mishnah-passages. The
collection could have been compiled in 1500; it has no critical value at all.
Theology in Historical Guise
If I have neglected accounts of Pharisaism by non-Jewish scholars, the
reason is that most are beneath criticism. What they lack are concern to
portray the Pharisees accurately and dispassionately and willingness to
abandon theological interests in favor of historical ones. To take one recent
example, Reginald H. Fuller writes (in The Book of the Acts of God. Contempo
rary Scholarship Interprets the Bible, by G. Ernest Wright and Reginald H.
Fuller [N.Y., I960], pp. 229-231), "The dominant concern of the Pharisaic
movement was to preserve inviolate the Mosaic law and its way of life against the encroachments of alien cultures. Since that law had been given
once for all through Moses there could be no new laws. Instead, the ancient
laws, which had been intended for a more primitive society, had to be reap
plied to later situations. In this reapplication there was no thought of
introducing novelties: rather, the idea was to extract the real meaning of
the law." In the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, one will look in
vain for the articulate expression of Fuller's "dominant concern." As to not
making new laws, Fuller seems not to have noticed the taqqanot, and more
especially, the later rabbinic interpretations of the authority of taqqanot.
Certainly, some rabbis are accurately represented by Fuller, namely, those
who sought or supplied Scriptural foundations for taqqanot. But others are
misrepresented, for, as the Jewish scholars repeatedly claim, considerable
efforts were made to change the law, and not merely through reinterpretation or casuistry. Here Fuller shows that he has neither examined the
evidence nor read the scholarly literature.
Further, he reveals a theological bias: "There was little attempt to search
for an underlying principle behind the numerous commands and prohibi
tions. The two great commandments, love of God and love of the neighbor,
were of course part of the law, but even in combination they were not
accorded that central and unifying position which they were given in the
New Testament. All this naturally led to legalism and scrupulosity, to a
belief in the saving value of good works, and the consequent sense of pride
which a doctrine of merit inevitably entailed." The stories of Hillel, some
of them made up at the same time the Gospels were composed, make precise
ly the point Fuller denies was central in the Pharisaic tradition. To Hillel,
just as to Jesus, is given the saying that Lev. 19:18 was "the whole Torah,"
360
APPENDIX
thus surely "central" and "unifying". (To be sure Hillel may never have said
any such thing, but such critical considerations do not enter Fuller's argu
ment.)
Fuller thus misrepresents the Pharisaic position, and one must ask why.
The answer follows in his next sentence. The references to legalism and
scrupulosity and the saving value of good works tell us that Fuller judges
Pharisaic Judaism by the theology of classical Christianity. Legalism is a
bad thing; belief in the saving value of good works obviously is inferior
to "faith." The theological bias natural to a Christian theologian has prevent
ed Fuller from carefully examining the Pharisaic literature and accurately
representing what he finds there.
What is wrong with the Pharisees is that they were not Christians. There
fore one may do with the evidence anything he likes. For example, Fuller
writes, "Hellenistic Judaism became a missionary religion. The statement
in Matthew 2 3 : 1 5 : . .you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte...'
may be an exaggeration, as far as Palestine is concerned, but it was certainly
true of the dispersion." Fuller carefully omits the opening part of the saying:
"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees" For Fuller the verse therefore
testifies about "Hellenistic Judaism," of which it does not speak, and not
about Pharisaic Judaism, to which it refers. This sort of "revision" of
evidence may suit theological purposes, but hardly suggests that the
canons of critical historical inquiry come into play at all.
Fuller's account of the Pharisees is brief and plays no important role in
his picture of early Christianity. I use it to exemplify traits which occur in
grosser form in other works of the same origin. What it shows is that the
large number of Christian scholars of Pharisaism, even in very recent times,
first, do not see differences between theology and history and, second, do
not take the trouble to examine the rabbinic evidences, either accepting or
rejecting the whole (as with Herford and Buchanan, respectively) without
careful, thorough study. Of these faults, the second seems from a scholarly
viewpoint the more damning, for it means scholars have not even bothered
to do their homework.
Fuller's Pharisees are unimportant in his book, and his account cannot be
thought of much consequence. Matthew Black, "Pharisees," in George
Arthur Buttrick et al.> eds., Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York and
Nashville, 1962), III, pp. 774b-781a, by contrast appears in a widely used
handbook and therefore is apt to cause far more prejudice. To his credit,
Black supplies a reasonably accurate account of Josephus's picture of the
Pharisees. His references to Pharisaic law, which, he claims, is characterized
as "legalism and apartheid," derive only from the New Testament. He seems
entirely ignorant of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, though he
lists in his bibliography various works which make copious (if uncritical)
use of those traditions. What alone renders his account noteworthy is his
conclusion:
There is no reason to doubt that the Pharisees still exercised a power
ful influence within the Judaism of our Lord's time. But it is doubtful
if they still enjoyed the same popularity with the masses as in the heydey
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
361
of their political power in the previous centuries. By the first century

A.D.... Pharisaism had become a bourgeois rather than a popular
movement, a predominantly Jerusalem "city" party. No doubt the
Jerusalem Pharisees also had their followers in the country districts,
but their attitude to the Âm Ha ares suggests that the gulf between
the Pharisees and the peasants who formed the bulk of the population
was as great as that between the Sadducees and the small traders in the
cities from whom the Pharisees drew their main support.
y
One would be curious to know how Black knows the Pharisees "still en
joyed the same popularity..." etc. He does not cite opinion polls or other
hard data to that effectand I know no such data. That the Pharisees were
"bourgeois" seems to me not merely a groundless, but a quite meaningless
statement. In the materials before us and in the stories in Josephus's writings
and the New Testament, one will look in vain, moreover, for their "attitude
to the
<-AmHa*ares"
Thus far Black shows merely questionable historical judgment. One may
wonder at the editors' selection of a non-specialist in the study of Pharisaism
for the composition of the article. However, the concluding paragraph
passes from the study of Pharisaism to the judgment of Judaism, and from
history to prejudiced theology:
This loss of influence with the broad masses, especially in the provinces
and the countryside, applied to Pharisaic religion no less than to the
membership of the sect [sic], Pharisaism is the immediate ancestor of
rabbinical (or normative) Judaism, the arid and sterile religion of the
Jews after the fall of Jerusalem and, finally, the Bar Cocheba debacle
(A.D. 135). In Jesus' time, no doubt with certain differences, the broad
picture of Pharisaism cannot have been so far removed from that of
rabbinical Judaism of the post-Jamnia period, the Judaism of the
Tannaites. It is a sterile religion of codified tradition, regulating every
part of life by a halachah, observing strict apartheid, and already as
entrenched in its own conservatism as that of the Sadducees. Its golden
age lay in the second and first centuries B.C., from which its main
literary monuments come [sic], and where its important ideals and con
ceptions are to be found.
We have already observed that Black has no evidence as to the influence
or loss of influence of the Pharisees. His "no doubt with certain differences,"
like the "perhaps" and "may be" of the pseudocritical Talmudic historians,
changes nothing; the Pharisaism of Jesus's time is what he is talking about,
and the Gospels' account supplies the evidence. The "important ideals and
conceptions" of the Pharisaism of which Black approves cannot derive from
the evidence of Josephus, the Gospels, or the rabbinic traditions about the
Pharisees, for none of these sources supplies a picture of that "golden age"
in terms of "ideals and conceptions." It evidently is based upon Apocryphal
and Pseudepigraphical books attributed to the Pharisees, for no good reason,
by obsolescent scholarship. Black has taken these attributions at face value.
As to his obiter dicta about post-70 Judaismwhich is not the topic of his
362
APPENDIX
articleone need not comment. This is the sort of anti-Judaism which has
nothing to do with either historical facts or lack of historical facts. The
choice of prejudicial language"sterile" (twice), "arid," "strict apartheid"
(!), "entrenched conservatism"is familiar in the anti-Semitic writings of
every age, particularly in Germany, to which historical facts are quite irre
levant.
We have already observed that Rudolf Bultmann's knowledge of rabbinic
Judaism derives entirely from secondary sources. Except for his claim to
compare rabbinic literature with Hellenistic and Christian literary forms,
that hardly matters. His Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting
(N.Y., 1965) does matter, for it is widely read, heralded by his American
followers as scholarship, not as what it is, namely apologetics of a rather
crude sort. Bultmann on Judaism tells us the following:
p. 60: "There was no possibility of science and art, nor could there
be any cultural intercourse with other nations. Israel (apart from Hel
lenistic Judaism) cut herself off from the outside world and lived in
extraordinary isolation. As a result she cut herself adrift from history.
p. 64: "The scribes regarded the foundation as immutable, for it
consisted in the holy scriptures themselves. Their method of exegesis
was primitive, and, despite certain variations, stereotype. The progress
of scientific knowledge was limited to painstaking exegesis. But there
was no attempt to reach a deeper understanding of the context, to
discover the ideas underlying the text itself, or the circumstances in
which it took shape. The only kind of progress they recognized was
the accumulation of possible interpretations... New interpretations
were simply recorded side by side with the old, and no attempt was
made to decide which was the true one. It is the function of learning
to preserve as many existing interpretations as possible. In teaching
there was no attempt to ask questions of the pupil and thus train him
to think for himself. The Greek method of seeking the truth in the cut
and thrust of argument was entirely unknown... [!]
p. 68: "Radical obedience would have involved a personal assent to
the divine command, whereas in Judaism so many of the precepts were
trivial or unintelligible that the kind of obedience produced was formal
rather than radical. The equality of importance attached to ritual and
moral precepts was no less conducive to formalism...
p. 69: "With the unintelligibility of many of the precepts and the
scope for works of supererogation, it was impossible to entertain a
radical conception of obedience...
p. 70: "A further consequence of the legalistic conception of obe
dience was that the prospect of salvation became highly uncertain.
Who could be sure he had done enough in this life to be saved?... It
is a remarkable fact that side by side with this sense of sin and urge to
repentance we find the 'righteous' proud and selfconscious... In the
end the whole range of man's relation with God came to be thought of
in terms of merit, including faith itself."
Now what is wrong with all this (and much more, not quoted) is that
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
363
Bultmann simply does not know what he is talking about, in part because
of his demonstrated lack of direct knowledge of the rabbinic traditions
about the Pharisees, but in larger measure because no one has data on the
basis of which "historical" statements such as these may be made.
Obviously the "extraordinary isolation" is groundless; here we may justly
excuse Bultmann for what is evidently mere carelessness. But how would
anyone be able to show, upon the basis of evidence now in our hands,
whether or not the Pharisees "attempted to reach a deeper understanding of
the context"? How does Bultmann or anyone else know what "kind of
progress" the Pharisees recognized or did not recognize?
My criticism is not that Bultmann is ignorant of rabbinical traditions about
the Pharisees, but that he makes statements which cannot be founded upon
any evidence now available or likely to become available. It is as if, like
other scholars, he accused the Pharisees of being "hypocrites" or "the brood
of Satan." Without knowledge of their true feelings, shown, for instance, by
diaries or personal interviews, how are we to know whether the Pharisees
were, or were not, characterized by hypocrisy? (Nor do historians accurately
know who Satan's children really are.) A work on historical problems, more
over, cannot rightly introduce considerations irrelevant to the historical in
quiry. "Radical obedience" may serve as a fruitful theological category, but
helps not at all to understand the nature of life under the law.
As to the triviality or unintelligibility of "many of the precepts" and the
consequent "obedience" produced by them, one need only observe Bult
mann does not know what seemed trivial to a Pharisee, nor, given the state
of his Talmudic knowledge, can one take seriously his judgment of what
was intelligible or unintelligible in first century life.
The three instances of theology in historical guise are not of the same
order. Fuller has merely repeated what he read in some books, decorating
the picture with a few of his own embellishments. His emendation of Matt.
23:15 is adequate evidence of his historical reliability. Black, by contrast,
presents an on-the-whole creditable encyclopedia article, not to be com
pared, to be sure, to the comprehensive and balanced essay by Michel and
LeMoyne (above, p. 327). It is only at the end that Black introduces post-70
rabbinic Judaism, in order to parade his contempt and hostility to it. Perhaps
better editing would have left us with a less biased and therefore more re
spectable article. Bultmann is most influential of the three, and rightly so;
his History of the Synoptic Tradition is apt to guide many students of Talmudic
literature in the method of literary-critical and historical-critical analysis of
traditions. It is, therefore, to be regretted that in his journalistic works, for a
wide audience, he has written theology in the past tense of a historical essay.
Summary
First, we observe that few students of Pharisaism or of the rabbinic
traditions about the Pharisees have thoroughly examined all pertinent sour
ces. Among these few, Epstein and Halevy are outstanding.
Second, a consistently critical, truly historical approach characterizes only
a small number of scholars, e.g, Moore, Morton Smith, Levi and Stourdze,
and the like.
364
APPENDIX
What makes a scholar pseudocritical, third, is the claim that he follows

the normal canons of historical inquiry while at the same time he advances
arguments alien to that inquiry; or that he credulously takes as fact alle
gations contained in literature he has not actually analyzed; or that he
may ignore the conceptual and methodological achievements of other scho
lars, both in the field of Talmudic studies and in cognate areas of inquiry.
One looks in vain, fourth, for the awareness that scholarship reflects
the scholar's own sociological and historical situation. The Reform Jewish
scholars who see the Pharisees as Reform Jews and the Conservative ones
who claim the Pharisees were economic liberals (in the New Deal sense)
exhibit scarcely a trace of self-consciousness.
Admittedly, historians of Pharisaic Judaism face a very knotty problem.
Information on the Pharisees derives from difficult sources. These sources
are quite different from one another and in some measure entirely discrete.
Schurer and Montet were baffled by the evidences of Talmudic literature;
the New Testament materials have not been critically examined by the Talmudists, who read the New Testament in exactly the same literal way in
which they read the Talmud; and only Smith has subjected Josephus's
information on the Pharisees to careful analysis. The attributions of various
Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books to Pharisaic authors seem based
upon shaky assumptions, but these attributions have yet to be carefully
reconsidered in the light of recent advances of scholarship in Qumran,
New Testament and the varieties of early Christianity and Judaism and the
like. In any case reference to supposedly Pharisaic Apocryphal and Pseude
pigraphical books is rare among the Jewish scholars of the Pharisees.
Finally, the fact that Pharisaism was a sect, not "normative" or "popular"
or "democratic," while now widely acknowledged, has scarely entered the
historical understanding of the Jewish scholars, even in recent times.
The following outline summarizes the chief historical faults found in the
materials surveyed above, together with the names of some of the scholars
in whose writings those faults are exemplified.
I. Faulty
1.
2.
Scholarship
N e g l e c t o f s o m e o r all o f t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s a b o u t t h e P h a r i s e e s :
a. H o u s e s - m a t e r i a l s n o t u s e d at all :
e.g. M o n t e t , S c h u r e r .
b) Houses-materials n o t t h o r o u g h l y consulted:
e.g. H o e n i g a n d Z e i t l i n : " C o n s e r v a t i v e v i e w p o i n t a l w a y s
c o m e s f i r s t " b u t t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i takes t h e lenient
position part o f the time.
c) R a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s r e j e c t e d w i t h o u t c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n :
e.g. B u c h a n a n .
d) R e l i a n c e o n s e c o n d a r y a c c o u n t s o f r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s :
e.g. W e l l h a u s e n , F u l l e r .
Neglect o f non-rabbinic evidences about the Pharisees o r materials
contained in rabbinic traditions:
a) N o r e f e r e n c e t o a r c h a e o l o g i c a l data p e r t i n e n t t o h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r
pretation :
e.g. G i n z b e r g , glass e x p e n s i v e , metals a b u n d a n t .
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
REFLECTIONS
365
b) F a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f N e w T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r s h i p :
e.g. Z e i t l i n , F i n k e l s t e i n ( a m o n g m a n y ) i g n o r e f o r m - c r i t i c i s m .
c) N o c o n s i s t e n t r e f e r e n c e t o Hellenistic l i t e r a r y a n d c u l t u r a l p a r a l l e l s :
e.g. P r a c t i c a l l y all p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p , e x c e p t B a e r ,
w h o completely misuses the materials. Contrast Fischel.
3. Failure t o consult relevant secondary literature:
e.g. G i l a t , N a f t a l , a n d p r a c t i c a l l y all t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a r s e x c e p t
Halevy.
4. Failure t o articulate and examine questionable presuppositions:
e.g. B e n D a v i d ; W a c h o l d e r o n first c e n t u r y B . C . o r i g i n o f Hillel
stories; among many.
I I . Faulty Use of Evidence
1. A t t r i b u t i o n s o f sayings are always reliable:
e.g. B i c k e r m a n , W a c h o l d e r , T c h e r n o w i t z , K a m i n k a : " S h a m m a i
quotes Haggai", a m o n g many.
2 . W h a t a s t o r y says h a p p e n e d a c t u a l l y d i d t a k e place ( c r e d u l o u s n e s s ) :
e.g. Z e i t l i n , G r a e t z , G i n z b e r g , F i n k e l s t e i n , B i i c h l e r , a n d all
others.
3 . E v e n m i r a c l e s t o r i e s a r e o f h i s t o r i c a l v a l u e in t h e i r o w n t e r m s :
e.g. G u t t m a n n re e c h o ; G o l d b e r g e r ; a n d o t h e r s .
4. If the story w e r e n o t true, w h y should the tradition h a v e preserved
i t ? V a r i a t i o n : " T h e y m u s t h a v e h a d a g o o d r e a s o n t o tell t h e s t o r y " :
e.g. M a n t e l , K a r l i n .
5. Construction o f narrative b y paraphrase o f rabbinic stories a b o u t
Pharisees (gullibility, similar t o n o . 2 ) :
e.g. D e r e n b o u r g , G r a e t z , M e n d e l s o h n , W e i s s , F r a n k e l , K a r l i n
re 1 2 0 y e a r s ; K l a u s n e r ; a m o n g m a n y .
6. Presumption of unitary pericopae:
e.g. A l l p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n .
7 . U s e o f e m e n d a t i o n s o f texts t o s o l v e h i s t o r i c a l difficulties:
e.g. Z e i t l i n re S a m e a s .
8 . C l a i m o f exact c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r h i s t o r i c a l a c c u r a c y e v e n o f f a b l e s :
e.g. Z e i t l i n o n d a t e o f Hillel's e l e v a t i o n ; W a c h o l d e r a n d K a m i n
k a o n s k u l l in s t r e a m ; G o l d b e r g e r ; a m o n g m a n y .
9 . I n v e n t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g s o r m o t i v e s f o r exegetical m a t e r i a l s :
e.g. Z e i t l i n o n Hillel's m i g r a t i o n " t o find s o l u t i o n s f o r t h r e e
c o n t r a d i c t i o n s h e f o u n d in biblical l a w s . "
1 0 . A l l versions o f a story are correct and must be harmonized and u n i
fied ( u n i t a r y t r a d i t i o n ) :
e.g. G u t t m a n n o n y. Pes. 6 : 1 , b . Pes. 6 6 a .
1 1 . " N o real e v i d e n c e has been p r o d u c e d a g a i n s t t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e ac
c o u n t s " (similar t o n o . 4 ) :
e.g. G u t t m a n n , K a r l i n , M a n t e l .
1 2 . E v i d e n c e c o n t r a r y t o o n e ' s t h e o r y is i g n o r e d :
e.g. L e s z y n s k y re S i m e o n b . S h e t a h ( a m o n g m a n y ) .
1 3 . A l l s t o r i e s d e r i v i n g f r o m all c o m p i l a t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y v a l i d t e s t i m o n i e s
(parallel t o n o . 1 0 ) a l l p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s :
e.g. H y m a n : Z o h a r a n d M i s h n a h e q u a l l y v a l i d .
I I I . Faulty
Narrative
1 . False, i n a p p r o p r i a t e , o r m i s l e a d i n g a n a l o g i e s :
e.g. G e i g e r ; G i n z b e r g ; H o e n i g ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; G u t t m a n n ; L a u -
366
APPENDIX
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
t e r b a c h ; Z e i t l i n o n l i b e r a l s vs c o n s e r v a t i v e s , p l e b e i a n s vs p a t r i
c i a n s ; B a r o n re t i m e vs s p a c e ; L a u t e r b a c h re " P h a r i s e e s ' p u r e r
G o d c o n c e p t i o n " , etc.
Incompetent question-framing:
e.g. B o x ; Z e i t l i n re " P h a r i s e e s " vs. H o u s e s a n d m a s t e r s ; L a u t e r
b a c h : " H o w c o u l d Pharisees h a v e k n o w n t h e l a w ? "
Overinterpretation, o r g o i n g b e y o n d the limits o f the evidence:
e.g. M a r c u s re s o c i o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; F i n k e l s t e i n re S i m e o n
b . G a m a l i e l ; G i n z b e r g re u n c l e a n n e s s l a w s ; E p s t e i n o n p r e 'Aqiban Mishnah; G r a e t z ; Ginzberg and Zeitlin on lay-hands
debate; Zeitlin and Finkelstein o n b. Shab. 1 7 a , etc.; W e b e r ;
many others.
Deductive reasoning:
e.g. G i n z b e r g ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; S o n n e o n "the o n e a n d t h e m a n y , "
among many.
Homiletics:
e.g. G e i g e r ; G r a e t z ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; Z e i t l i n o n J e s u s a n d P h a r i s e e s ;
L a u t e r b a c h re P h a r i s e e s " m o r e s p i r i t u a l " r e l i g i o n ; E n e l o w re
Pharisees f o r "this l i v e , d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e " ; B a e r ; L o e w e ;
B o x ; etc.
Postulates u n s u p p o r t e d b y evidence:
e.g. Z e i t l i n , "Pharisees s u p p o r t e d Z e r u b a b b e l " ; G u t t m a n n o n
d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f P h a r i s e e s a n d t r i u m p h o f Hillelites as " m a i n
stream of Judaism".
A r b i t r a r y definitions t o s o l v e h i s t o r i c a l difficulties (similar t o n o .
II.7):
e.g. F i n k e l s t e i n re P r o t o - P h a r i s e e s ; G u t t m a n n o n Hillel's e x e g e
sis; B a c h e r re c i t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a g e s ; Z e H i n o n H o u s e s n o t
P h a r i s a i c ; etc.
U s e o f critical f o r m t o h i d e p s e u d o c r i t i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s :
e.g. W a c h o l d e r , "It is c o n c e i v a b l e , " " p e r h a p s , " "seems t o " ;
M e n d e l s o h n , "said t o h a v e " ; G r a e t z , e t c . ; m a n y e x a m p l e s .
Among the historiographical errors of pseudocritical scholars, three are

so serious as to render their historical results virtually useless: first, the
failure carefully and critically to analyze the literary and historical traits of
every pericope adduced as evidence; second, the assumption that things
happened exactly as the sources allege; third, the use of anachronistic or
inappropriate analogies and the introduction of irrelevant issues. One or
more of these three fundamental fallacies may account for every one of the
specific faults listed above, as well as for many not specified. The historians
might have learned the need for literary- and historical-critical analysis from
classical and biblical scholarship of the past century and a half; second, they
might have proved less gullible and credulous had they taken seriously the
historical and philosophical achievements of the Enlightenment, at least
its skepticism; and the study of the history of historical scholarship and of
the sociology of knowledge ought to have suggested the dangers of ana
chronism, moralizing, and didacticism.
Other Works
Consulted
>
A b e l , F . M . , Histoire de la Palestine depuis la conquete d Alexandre jusqu* a l invasion

arabe. I. De la conquete d*Alexandre jusqu'a la guerre juive ( P a r i s , 1 9 5 2 ) .
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
367
REFLECTIONS
A b r a h a m s , I . , Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. P r o l e g o m e n o n b y M o r t o n S .

Enslin (N.Y., R e p r . 1967).
A d l e r , L . , Hillel und Schamai, oder die conservative Reform und der stabile
Conservatismus
(Strassburg, 1878).
A d l e r , S . , " P h a r i s a i s m u s u n d S a d d u c a i s m u s , " MGWJ
27, 1878, pp. 522-28; 28,
1879, pp. 29-35.
B i c k e r m a n n , E . J . , " V i r i M a g n a e C o n g r e g a t i o n i s , " Revue biblique 5 5 , 1 9 4 8 , p p .
397fT.
B o n d i , J . , " S i m o n d e r G e r e c h t e , " Jahrbuch der judisch-litterarischen
Gesellschaft 5 ,
1907, pp. 245-277.
D e i n a r d , S . N., " P e r u s h i m , " Osar Yisra'el ( 1 9 1 2 , R e p r . N . Y . , 1 9 6 2 ) , 8 , p p . 3 0 0 - 1 .
E l b o g e n , I . , Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisaer mit besonderer Beritcksichtigung der
Begriffe Gott und Memch ( B e r l i n 1 9 0 4 ) .
F r i e d l a n d e r , M . , Die religiosen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums
im Zeitalter
Jesu
(Berlin, 1 9 0 5 ) .
G e i g e r , A b r a h a m , " S a d d u c a e r u n d P h a r i s a e r , " Jiidische Zeitschrift fur
Wissenschaft
und Leben 2 , 1 8 6 3 , p p . 1 1 - 5 4 .
G i n z b e r g , L o u i s , Students, Scholars, and Saints ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 2 8 ) , p p . 8 8 - 1 0 8 :
"The Religion o f the Pharisee."
G l a t z e r , N a h u m N., Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism
(Washington,
1959).
G o l d i n , J u d a h , "Hillel t h e E l d e r , " Journal of Religion 2 6 , 1 9 4 6 , p p . 2 6 3 - 2 7 7 .
, " T h r e e P i l l a r s o f S i m e o n t h e R i g h t e o u s , " Proceedings of the American
Academy
for Jewish Research 2 7 , 1 9 5 8 , p p . 4 3 - 5 8 .
Herzfeld, L., "Chronologische A n s e t z u n g der Schriftgelehrten v o n A n t i g o n u s aus
S o c h o bis R. A k i b a , " MGWJ
3, 1 8 5 4 , p p . 2 1 1 - 2 2 9 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 7 .
H o e n i g , S i d n e y B . , " O i l a n d P a g a n D e f i l e m e n t , " JQR 6 1 , 1 9 7 0 , p p . 6 3 - 7 5 .
H o l s c h e r , G . , " J o s e p h u s , " in Paulys Real-Encyclopadie
der classischen
Allertumswissenschaft ( S t u t t g a r t , 1 9 1 6 ) , c o l s , 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 .
J u s t e r , J e a n , Les juifs dans Vempire romain ( P a r i s , 1 9 1 4 ) .
K a m i n k a , A . , Mehqarim BeTalmud (Tel A v i v , 1 9 5 1 ) , p p . 7 0 - 8 7 , o n t h e H o u s e s .
K a m p f , J . , "Genealogisches u n d Chronologisches Bezuglich der Patriarchen aus
d e m H i l l e r s c h e n H a u s e bis a u f R a b b i J e h u d a h H a - N a s i , R e d a c t e u r d e r
M i s c h n a , " MGWJ'2,
1853, pp. 201-207, 231-236; 3, 1854, pp. 39-42, 98-107.
Re b . S h a b . 1 5 a , t h e successors o f H i l l e l b e f o r e 7 0 A . D .
K a t z , B . Z . , Perushim, eduqim, Qanna im, Nosrim (Tel A v i v , 1 9 4 8 ) .
K a t z e n e l s o n , J . L . , "Hillel u B e t M i d r a s h o , " HaTequfah 3 , 1 9 1 8 , p p . 2 6 9 - 3 0 1 .
K l i j n , A . F. J . , "Scribes, Pharisees, H i g h Priests, and Elders in t h e N e w Testa
m e n t , " Novum Testamentum 3 , 1 9 5 9 , p p . 2 5 9 - 2 6 7 .
K r o c h m a l , N a c h m a n , Moreh Nevukhe HaZeman, i n S i m o n R a w i d o w i c z , e d . , The
Writings of Nachman Krochmal ( W a l t h a m , 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 7 1 - 9 6 , 2 1 7 f f .
L a c o c q u e , A n d r e , " L a t r a d i t i o n d a n s le B a s - J u d a i s m e , " Revue d histoire et de philosophie religieuses 4 0 , 1 9 6 0 , p p . 2 - 1 9 .
L a n d a u , W . , " S c h e m a j a u n d A b t a l i o n , " MGWJ
7, 1 8 5 8 , p p . 3 1 7 - 3 2 9 .
, " S i m e o n b e n S c h e t a c h , " MGWJ
2, 1 8 5 3 , p p . 1 0 7 - 1 8 0 .
L e h m a n n , J . , " L e p r o c e s d ' H e r o d e . S a m e a s et P o l l i o n , " REJ 1892, p p . 6 8 - 8 1 .
L e s z y n s k y , R . , Pharisaer und Sadducaer ( F r a n k f u r t , 1 9 1 2 ) .
L e v i , I s r a e l , " D e r o r i g i n e d a v i d i q u e de H i l l e l , " REJ 3 1 , 1 8 9 5 , p p . 2 0 2 - 2 1 1 ; 3 3 ,
1896, pp. 143-146.
L e v y , I s i d o r e , La legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine (Paris, 1 9 2 7 ) , p p . 2 3 5 - 2 6 3 ,
carefully summarizes the materials o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees and r e v i e w s
Daniel and A p o c r y p h a l and Pseudepigraphical b o o k s conventionally assigned
t o the Pharisees.
y
368
APPENDIX
M a r c u s , R a l p h , "Pharisees, E s s e n e s , a n d G n o s t i c s , " JBL 7 3 , 1 9 5 4 , p p . 157ff.

M e y e r , R u d o l f , Tradition und Neuschopfung im antiken Judentum. Dargestellt an der
Geschichte des Pharisaismus. Mit einem Beitrag von Hans-Friedrich
Weiss, Der Phari
saismus im Lichte der Oberlieferung des Neuen Testaments ( B e r l i n , 1 9 6 5 ) .
O d e b e r g , H u g o , Pharisaism ana Christianity (St. L o u i s , 1 9 6 4 , t r a n s , b y J . M . M o e ) .
R a b i n , C h a i m , " A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s , " Journal of Jewish Studies 7 ,
1 9 5 6 , p p . 3 - 1 2 : " T h e Pharisees w e r e r e g a r d e d as f r i e n d l y t o J a n n a e u s a n d his
dynasty."
R e i c k e , B o , " R e m a r q u e s s u r P h i s t o i r e d e la f o r m e ( F o r m g e s c h i c h t e ) des T e x t e s d e
Q u m r a n , " Les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte, Colloque de Strasbourg, 5-7
Mai
1955 (Paris, 1 9 5 6 ) .
R o s s l e r , D i e t r i c h , Geset% und Geschichte. Untersuchungen %ur Theologie der judischen
Apokalyptik
und der pharisaischen Orthodoxie ( 1 9 6 0 ) .
Schrenk, G o t t l o b , "Rabbinische Charakterkopfe i m urchristlichen Zeitalter,"
t
Judaica 1 , 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 4 6 , p p . 1 1 7 - 1 5 6 .
U z z i e l , B e n S i o n M e i r Hai, " S i m e o n b e n S h e t a h a n d his T e a c h i n g , " i n
Sinai 3 2 , p p . 3 4 3 - 3 5 0 .
Hebrew,
ADDENDUM
Vol. I, pp. 99-102, the story of Simeon b. Shetah and the
witches of Ashqelon, has the following ending in y. Sanh.
6:6, to be added to III.i.3.d, p. 102:
He indicated to them, "Each one of you, take one [witch] and lift
her up from the earth, and what she does [by way of magic] will not
work."
And he said to that one that brought bread, "Bring bread," and she
did not bring it. And he said, "Bring her to be crucified (LSLYB )."
"Bring broth," and she did not bring it, and he said, "Bring her to
be crucified."
"Bring wine," and she did not bring it, and he said, "Bring her to be
crucified."
And thus he did with all of them.
And this is what we have learned, "Eighty witches did Simeon b.
Shetah hang in Ashqelon. And they do not judge two [capital cases]
on one day, but the hour required it."
>
INDICES
I.
Acts of the Apostles
5:34,
1 347, 373
Amos
4:13,
I 4 0 2 ; III 6 3 , 9 8
5:2,
III 6 9
8:11-12,
1312
9:6,
III 6 3
BIBLE
17:1,
I 125
17:6,
1 9 4 - 5 , 1 0 9 ; III 4 0
18:4,
19:15,
II 3 6 ; III 4 1
1 8 6 , 1 2 3 ; III 3 6
19:17,
I 114
20:20,
21:5,
22:9,
I 1 9 6 - 7 , 2 0 5 ; III 4 0
I 3 4 3 ; III 6 3 , 1 9 1
II 9 6
22:11-12,
I Chronicles
23:15,
II 2 0 6
I Corinthians
15:3-5,
III 1 5 4
Daniel
7:10,
12:2,
1 2 6 7 , 2 9 7 , 111 6 4
II 2 3 9 ; III 6 3
Deuteronomy
1:5,
III 1 5 7
4:39,
I 3 4 2 ; III 6 3 , 1 9 1
5:12-15,
III 7 2
6:7,
6:8,
II 3 4 , 4 1 ; III 4 1
II 3 9
11:19,
1396
12:2-4,
I 3 4 3 ; III 4 0 , 6 3 , 1 9 1
12:15,
II 2 4 6
13:2,
1295
14:26,
I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2
15,
III 7 7
15:1-3,
III 7 7
15:3,
I 217, 222, 245, 283-4, 296,
III 4 0 , 1 0 9
15:8,
I 2 2 9 , 2 7 1 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 3 ,
260
15:9,
I 2 4 4 , 2 6 2 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 4 0 , 4 2
15:9-10,
1 2 1 8 , 222-3
15:22,
II 2 4 6
15:29-30,
1 229
16:2,
1 2 6 6 , 3 8 1 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0
16:8,
I 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0
16:16,
II 3 5 - 3 6 ; III 4 1
II 4 0
22:12,
22:22,
I I 3 0 - 3 2 , 3 9 , 3 3 4 ; III 4 1
I 9 0 ; III 3 9
23:19,
23:26,
I I 2 5 1 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 7
II 3 9
24:1,
I I 3 7 - 8 ; III 4 1 , 7 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 6
26:13,
1 378
28:46,
1405
31:11,
III 1 5 7
33:3,
1 2 2 2 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 3
33:7,
1154
34:7,
1 2 2 0 , 2 7 5 ; III 1 1 5
Exodus
4:22,
I 3 2 3 ; III 6 2
4:31,
9:16,
12:5,
12:6,
12:8,
259
1 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 , 3 8 3 ; III 6 2
III 6 2
I 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 3 9 3 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0
1 1 9 , 1 4 7 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 3
I 2 1 2 - 3 , 2 5 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 2 ,
12:15,
1 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0
12:16,
II 1 6 0 , 1 6 9 ; I I I 4 1
13:7,
II 3 4 , 1 6 1 ; III 4 1
13:9-10,
116
13:10,
I 1 8 8 ; III 4 0
13:13,
I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2
16:22-30,
III 7 2
19:6,
1332
20:5,
1342
20:8,
I 1 8 6 ; III 4 0 , 4 2 , 1 8 9
20:9,
11 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 2 8 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7
20:24,
I 2 3 3 , 2 6 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 6 , 6 0 ,
63, 98, 263
21:2,
III 1 7 1
Indices w e r e prepared b y M r . A r t h u r W o o d m a n , Canaan, N e w Hampshire, o n

a grant f r o m B r o w n University.
24
370
INDICES
21:12-17,
21:23,
III 7 2
1124
21:29,
I 1 1 4 ; III 9 8
22:7,
II 2 3 6
22:8,
1 1 7 , 2 3 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 2 0 7
22:27,
I 3 9 0 ; III 6 2 , 9 8
23-6-12,
187
23:7,
II 2 1 1
18:18,
36,
III 8 3
III 1 5 7
Job
22:28,
III 6 2
John
23:14,
II 1 8 3
1:24,
4:50,
23:16,
23:17,
III 4 0
II 1 0 , 3 5 - 3 6 ; I I I 2 0 7
4:50-3,
1 361
8:lff,
III 2 4 6
28:4,
I 3 2 9 ; III 6 2
34:21,
III 7 2
34:27,
III 1 4 5 - 6
9:lff,
III 2 4 6
III 8 7
III 2 4 6
9:16,
III 2 4 6
21:24-5,
III 9 0
31:lff,
III 2 4 6
Ezekiel
18:24,
1163
Leviticus
2:17,
Galatians
1:11,
1:14,
III 1 5 4
14
Genesis
1:1,
II 1 8 9 ; III 6 3
1:27,
11 1 2 8 , 2 0 6
2:4,
II 1 8 9 ; I I I 6 3
5:2,
II 2 0 6
9:6,
1 87,280
15:6,
1 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 ; III 6 2
Habakkuk
2:1,
I 1 7 8 ; III 6 2
Isaiah
2:2,
2:3,
7:21,
I 3 9 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8
1396
I I 3 6 , 2 4 4 ; III 4 1
26:20,
1 9 6 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 6 ; III 6 2 , 9 8
45:7,
I 4 0 2 ; III 6 3 , 9 8
45:10,
II 2 2 8
45:18,
II329
50:1,
III 7 0
51:16,
I 2 9 ; III 6 3
5 8 : 7 4 , . II 3 7 3
60:7,
1310
65:8,
162
66:1,
III 6 3
Jeremiah
2:13,
I 3 4 2 ; III 63
3:8,
III 7 0
5:25,
1 8 9 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 0 ; III 4 2 , 9 8
9:16,
III 6 9
II 1 9 0
6:5,
1 2 7 , 5 3 ; II 1 1 ; III 4 0
6:30,
II 1 3 ; III 4 1
7:18,
II 2 4 1
11:24,
I 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 9 ,
260
11:24-25,
1213
11:32,
II 3 2 2
11:38,
11310-11
12:6-7,
II 1 6 ; I I I 4 1 , 2 0 7
12:7,
III 4 1
13:17,
13:37,
1 2 6 6 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0
I 2 1 4 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 0 9 ,
205, 260
15:1-15,
II 3 1 7
15:2,
II 2 9 9
15:10,
II 3 0 6
15:19,
II306
15:25,
II 3 0 6
19:18,
111331,359
19:23-24,
II 2 3 ; I I I 4 1 , 2 0 7
20:11,
III 7 3
21:7,
II 2 2 7
22:6-7,
II322
23:39,
11141,207
23:41,
II 1 6 9 ; III 4 1
25:4-6,
II 2 6 , 2 9 ; III 4 1
25:29,
I 1 8 8 ; I I 6 ; III 4 0
25:29-30,
I 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 2 7 ; III 1 8 9
25:30,
1 2 8 2 , 2 9 5 ; III 39
26:4,
1206
26:44,
I 3 9 ; III 3 9 , 1 8 7
27:30,
II 8 8 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 0
Luke
1:1-4,
III 9 0
371
INDICES
4:1-12,
III 8 7
5:1-6,
III 7 9
5:17ff,
5:29ff,
III 2 4 6
III 2 4 6
6:lff,
7:10,
III 2 4 6
1361
7:28,
III
7:36,
III
11:27-28,
15:21-28,
1361
16:lff,
III 2 4 5
17:24-27,
III 8 7
18:15-17,
III 8 5
23:2,
14
23:13,
25:27,
246
246
III 7 9
11:37,
11:42,
III
III
246
246
11:43,
III
84
111 8 4 , 2 4 5 , 360,
1242
Micah
4:5,
III 1 5 7
7:1,
1 6 2 , 6 8 ; III
13:10,
III 2 4 6
13:10-17,
III 7 8
Numbers
14:lff,
III 2 4 6
20:27ff,
III 2 4 6
1:51,
1:15,
Malachi
3:18,
I 2 7 0 ; III
364
63
Mark
2:15ff,
III 3 4 5
3:1-6,
III 78
6:1-16,
III 8 1
7:lff,
1 1 1 2 4 5 , 326
7:4,
III 1 6 4 - 5
7:5,
I 4 ; III 2 4 5
7:9,
14
7:24-30,
1 361
7:29,
III 8 7
8:11,
III 2 4 6
8:34-7,
III 8 4
9:2-8,
III 8 7
9:34-40,
III 7 9
10:2-10,
III 7 9 , 9 4 , 1 7 6
11:1-10,
III 8 7
12:18-27,
III 7 9
13:18fT,
III 2 4 6
15:2,
III 1 6 4
Matthew
3:7,
III 2 4 4
4:1-11,
11187,89
6:1-34,
III 8 4
7:30-34,
III 8 5
8:13,
I 3 6 1 ; III 8 7
9:13,
III 2 4 5
9:14,
III 2 4 4
12:lrT,
III 2 4 4
12:38,
III 2 4 4
15:lff,
III 2 4 4
15:13,
III 2 4 5
39
1332
III
62
6:2,
I 2 4 , 3 4 ; III 3 9 , 9 8
6:26,
9:2,
I 4 0 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 , 1 1 7
I 2 3 1 ; III 4 0
9:3,
1247
9:11,
1 2 5 7 - 8 , 2 6 5 , 2 8 0 ; III 2 9 , 4 2
15:20,
1 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 ; III 4 2
15:38,
I I 3 0 ; III 4 1
18:27,
I I 8 8 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 0
19:11,
165
19:17,
165,11168
28:2,
I 2 3 1 , 2 4 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 4 0 , 6 2
28:10,
1256
Philippians
3:5,
6; I 4
Proverbs
4:8,
I 1 1 2 , 1 3 6 ; III 9 8
6:23,
I 3 9 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8
8:21,
I 2 5 2 ; III 5 2 , 6 0 , 6 4 , 6 9 , 1 0 9 ,
262
10:1,
III 7 0
10:27,
1 3 7 , 3 9 ; III 3 9
11:17,
1 2 7 5 , 2 8 0 ; III 6 2
11:24,
I 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 , 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 ,
63
14:28,
II 5 2 ; III
21:2,
II204
23,
199
42
23:25,
192,103,114,133,176,179;
III 6 2 , 9 8
Psalms
17:1,
22:3,
25:14,
68:20,
104:24,
1154
1 2 6 8 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 0 ,
III 1 7 0
I 186, 324
1 384
64
372
INDICES
112:7,
1 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 7 ; III 4 3 ,
82, 109, 1 9 0 , 260
113:5,
I 2 7 5 ; III 5 6 , 6 4
114:1,
I I 1 4 3 ; III 1 3 9
114:8,
II 1 4 2 ; III 4 0 , 1 3 9
115,
1396
115:1,
II 1 4 3 ; III 1 3 9
116:1,
II 2 3 8 - 9 ; I I I 6 3
118,
II 1 5 4
118:1,
11140,139
119:126,
II Samuel
1:17,
12:9,
III 69
I 2 0 1 ; III 4 2
23:2,
I 2 6 8 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 0 , 6 4
4:1-8,
III 1 5 4
Zechariah
8:16,
8:19,
I Samuel
I I 2 3 8 - 9 ; III 6 3
7:2-8,
III 7 1
I Thessalonians
I 33, 228, 244, 263, 285,
2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 , 2 1 4 , 2 6 3
126:1,
III 6 2
2:6,
10:17-27,
25:8,
III 4 1
25:18,
11 3 6 , 2 4 4
I 1 7 ; III 6 3
II 2 0 4
9,
III 8 7
13:9,
II 2 3 8 - 9 ; III 6 3
III 7 1
II.
APOCRYPHA
Ben Sira
Maccabees
11:1,
I 9 6 ; III 9 8
25:1,
III 7 8
50:1-21,
158
2:1,
7:16,
III.
Antiquities
158
177
TOSEPHUS
X V 3 , III 2 4 2
X V 3-4, 370, 1 5
X V 260-6, 1 5
X V 3 7 0 , I 5 ; III 2 4 2
XVII,
1173
III 2 5 4 , 1 1 7 3
XII 32,
158
XIII 171-2,
III 2 4 1
XIII 171-3,
III 1 6 3
X I I I 288ff,
I 1 7 3 ; III 2 4 1
X I I I 293ff,
III 1 6 3
XIII297-8,
111 1 6 3 , 2 4 1
X I I I 320ff,
I 138
XIII 372, 1 138
XIII 383, I 138
XIII 400, I 138
X I I I 4 0 1 , III 2 4 2
X I I I 405ff,
III 2 4 2
XIII 409, I 139
XIV
III 3 2 4
X I V 22-24, 1 177
X I V 168-84,
I 115
X V 1-4, 1 1 5 9
X V I I 4 1 - 6 , III 2 4 2
XVIII 11-23,
III 2 4 2
XVIII 12-15,
III 1 6 4
Life
2,38,
III 1 6 4
Jewish W a r
12-6,
III 2 4 9
154,
1173
I 108, I 138
I HOff, III 2 4 1 - 2
I 110-12,
I 138
I 5 7 1 , III 2 4 1
II 1 1 9 , 162ff, I I I 2 4 1
II 1 6 2 - 3 ,
III 1 6 3
IV.
'Arakhin
8:1-2,
I I 2 5 0 ; III 1 9 7
9:4,
I 2 2 7 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 2 ; III 2 0 9
MISHNAH
Avot
1:1,
I 7 0 ; III 5 6 , 3 0 7
1:1-18,
1 1 7 , 1 9 , 1 6 1 ; III 5 6 , 7 4 , 7 8 ,
373
INDICES
84, 96-7, 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 185-6, 3 1 3 , 328,

357
1:2,
III 5 7
1:3,
I 2 9 , 4 1 , 4 4 , 5 7 , 6 0 ; III 5 7 , 3 0 8
Bava Qamma
9:1,
II 2 3 4
Berakhot
1:4,
III 5 7
1:4-5,
I 7 4 ; III 3 0 8
1:3,
1 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 9 , 7 5 , 3 4 6 ; III 7,
113, 204, 208-9, 224-5, 234, 236,
1:5,
1:6,
III 57
III 57
267, 294
5:5,
I 3 9 4 ; II 3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 9 , 3 7 0 - 3 ;
1:7,
III 57
III 6 7
1:8,
I 2 2 6 ; III 5 7
1:8-9,
I 1 1 8 ; III 3 1 0
6:5,
II 4 2 , 4 5 , 3 4 4 ; III 7, 1 3 4 , 1 9 3 ,
294, 340
1:9,
8:1,
11 5 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 6 , 1 9 9 , 3 4 6 ; III
7, 1 2 8
III 5 7
1:10,
111 5 7 , 3 4 5
1:10-11,
152
1:11,
III 5 7
1:12,
1 297, 3 0 7 - 1 1 , 57
1:12-14,
I 222, 226-27, 276, 297
8:1-8,
II 4 4 , 6 3 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 , 3 2 5 , 3 4 6 ;
III 1 9 3 , 2 9 4
8:2,
1117,128
8:3,
1117,135
1:13,
1:14,
I 2 8 4 ; III 5 7 , 1 9 0
III 57
8:4,
1117,128
8:5,
11 5 1 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 1 2 6 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 6
1:15,
I 2 0 2 ; III 5 7
8:7,
8:8,
1117,125
1117,128
1:16,
III 5 8
1:17,
III 5 8
1:18,
I 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 7 , 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 9 ,
306
2,
119
2:1,
I 19, 226
2:2,
I 19
2:5-7,
I 225, 227, 260, 275-6, 2 9 7 ;
III 5 8 , 8 5 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 3
2:6,
III 59
2:7,
III 6 1
2:8,
I 19
3:2,
I 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 1 1 2
3:10-11,
1394
4:5,
1 2 7 6 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 6 3
4:11,
1307
5:17,
I 3 0 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 ; III 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 ,
264
5:23,
1 392
Bava Batra
5:2,
1414
9:1,
1 355, 364, 375, 394
9:8-9,
II 2 3 7 - 8 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 2 4 , 2 0 6 ,
293
9:9,
II 2 3 7
Bava M e s i V
3:12,
I I 1 1 , 2 3 7 ; III 1 1 , 2 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 9 4
5:9,
I 224, 240, 254, 276, 284, 295;
III 1 4 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 0 9 , 2 6 1
12:19,
III 4 0
Besah
1:1,
1 34,172,331,340,346,349;
III 4 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 3 , 3 4 0
1:1-2,
11 1 6 6 , 3 4 9
1:1-3,
11 1 6 0 , 3 2 6
1:1-5,
11161,169-71
1:2,
III 1 0 , 1 3 3
1:3,
11 1 7 6 , 3 4 9 , 1 1 1 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 4 ,
221
1:3-6,
III 1 3 3
1:4,
II 1 7 6 ; III 1 0
1:5,
11 1 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 9
1:5-9,
11 1 6 0 , 3 2 6
1:6,
11 1 6 4 , 1 7 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0
1:7,
I I 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 5
1:8,
II 9 4 , 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 ,
202, 2 1 7 , 220
1:9,
II 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 3
1:12,
III 2 1 5
2:1,
11 1 8 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 7 , 2 2 1
2:1-7,
II 1 6 7 ; III 2 9 3
2:2,
2:2-3,
2:3,
2:4,
202
2:5,
2:6,
2:6-7,
3:4,
3:8,
11 2 3 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 7
III 1 9 6
III 1 2 7 , 1 3 0
II 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 3 ,
1 1 1 7 2 , 3 2 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 6
I 3 7 6 , 3 8 0 ; III 1 1 7 , 2 0 2 , 2 6 9
II 1 7 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 7 4
II 3 2 6
II 3 3 1
374
4:2,
INDICES
II 1 8 0 ; III 1 3 0 , 2 2 1
Bekhorot
5:2,
111 1 1 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 6 , 2 9 2
Bikkurim
2:6,
II 8 0
4:7,
4:11,
11223,350
4:12,
5:1,
II 3 5 2
II26-30,74,263,342,345,347,
3 5 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 1 7 , 2 2 2
5:1-2,
II 8 7 ; III 2 1 8
Demai
5:1-5,
1:3,
II 6 3 , 6 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 9 ,
291
1:6,
II 1 6 0
3:1,
II 6 3 , 3 4 4 ; I I I 8 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
6:6,
II 6 4 , 9 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 9 ,
291
'Eduyyot
1:1,
1 1 9 4 , 3 0 4 , 330, 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 7,
135, 191, 264

1:1-14,
1 1 3 3 1 , 350-1
1:2,
1 312,330,333,338
1:3,
I 143, 152, 155-6, 193, 304,
309, 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 7 , 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 3 ,
31, 108, 135-6, 168, 188, 2 1 1 , 263,
292, 332, 344
1:3-5, 1 1 1 9 1 , 2 6 4
1:4,
I 1 4 4 , 1 5 5 , 3 0 4 ; II 2 5 3
1:5,
1304
1:7,
I 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II
2 7 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 2 0 0 - 1 ,
217, 265
1:7-14,
11 329-30
1:8,
I 1 8 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 ; II 3 4 8
1:9,
II 3 4 8
1:10,
I 1 9 1 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 ; II 3 4 8
1:14,
I I 2 6 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 1 , 2 0 1 ,
292
2:1,
2:2,
11338,351
4:8,
11204,350
4:9,
11 1 9 4 , 3 5 0
4:10,
I 2 3 0 ; II 345-7, 3 5 0
1 4 0 3 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 1 8 5
I 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; II 1 5 6 ,
224
2:2-4,
II 56
2:3,
1403,408,412
II 1 6 0 ; HI 2 1 5
4:1,
II 3 4 , 1 7 2 , 3 4 9
4:1-2,
11 3 3 5 , 3 3 7
4:2,
II 3 4 9
4:3,
II 3 4 6
4:4,
II 3 4 6
4:5,
II 2 3 - 4 , 2 7 , 5 9 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; I I I 4 1 ,
207
4:6,
II 1 5 5 , 3 4 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 1 8 ,
270
II 3 3 7 , 3 3 9
5:2, ' i i 8 1 , 87, 1 1 8 , 1 4 5 , 2 9 6 , 346-9,

3 5 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 - 3 , 3 4 4
5:3,
1 1 2 0 6 , 3 2 3 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 ; III
13, 121, 182, 2 1 4 , 2 1 5
5:4,
II 3 4 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 1 8
5:5,
II 1 9 4 , 2 0 6 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 0 ,
218
5:6,
I 1 4 5 - 6 , 1 5 1 - 2 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; III 2 8 ,
108, 188
7:8, 1 1 8 5
7:9,
I 4 1 8 ; III 1 6 , 2 8
8:1,
II 3 3 9
8:2,
I 4 1 5 ; III 1 6
8:3,
III 1 6 9
8:4,
1 6 1 , 6 4 , 7 4 , 8 0 ; III 1 5 , 9 2 , 1 1 6 ,
201, 308
8:7,
111 1 6 9 , 2 7 6
'Eruvin
1:2,
II 1 3 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 0 2 ,
208, 293
3:2,
II 1 5 4
6:2,
I 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; II 1 3 6 ;
III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 1 6 4 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 6 , 2 7 4 , 2 9 3
6:3,
II 1 3 7
6:4,
11 1 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 9 5 , 2 9 3
6:6,
11 1 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 9 , 2 9 3
8:6,
I 3 7 7 ; II 1 3 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 3 ,
219, 293
Gittin
4:2,
1 360,364,366
4:2-3,
I 3 5 2 , 3 7 5 ; III 2 7 , 9 5 , 1 9 2
4:3,
I 223, 276, 283-4, 366
4:5,
II 2 2 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 1 ; III 2 0 , 1 3 9 ,
197, 270
5:5,
I 4 1 8 - 9 ; III 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 3
5:15, 1 4 1 8
8:4,
II 2 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 ,
133, 197, 2 1 5 , 293
8:8,
III 1 1 , 1 9 7
8:8-9,
I I 2 3 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 1
8:9,
111 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 3
375
INDICES
9:10,
I I 3 8 , 2 3 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 1 , 1 7 , 4 1 ,
117, 136, 205, 293
123, 197, 206, 222, 292

20:3,
II263
20:6,
II 2 5 5 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 ,
124 2 1 6 292
2 2 : 4 , ' I 1 9 4 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II 2 5 7 ,
Hagigah
1:1,
I I 1 0 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 6
1:1-3,
II 1 8 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 9 3
2 6 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 1 8 9 , 2 1 7 ,
1:2,
1 1 3 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 8 , 1 9 6
1:3,
1:6,
111 1 0 , 1 3 4 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 2
II26
1:8,
1417
26:4,
II 3 3 5 , 3 3 9 ; III 2 1 8
26:5-8,
III 3 3 2
2:2,
I 1 1 , 19, 57, 62, 67, 69, 74-5,
26:6,
81, 93, 105, 1 1 8 , 130, 184-5, 310,

3 1 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 ; I I 1 , 1 7 1 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 9 ,
27, 89, 92, 1 1 5 , 129, 152, 184-5,
210, 2 1 5 , 225, 228, 264, 281, 306,
310, 312, 341, 344, 352, 353
2:2-3,
2:3,
III 2 0 2
Hallah
120,
I I 2 5 7 ; III 2 0 6
I I 2 5 9 ; III 2 0 3
28:4,
I I 2 5 8 - 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 0 3 ,
1:2,
II 2 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 7 ,
292
8:1,
I I 1 6 9 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 5 1 ; III
11, 1 3 1 , 212-3, 292
11:2,
1 1 2 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 1 , 4 1 , 1 3 7
Kelim
11 2 6 0 , 3 5 2
II281
III 2 1 1
9:2,
II 2 5 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 4 , 2 0 6 ,
270, 292
9:5,
11 2 6 1 , 3 5 2
10:1,
II 2 5 3 ; I I I 2 7 0
11:3,
II 2 5 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 0 , 2 2 2 ,
292
II 2 5 5 ,
292
II 2 6 2 ,
II 2 5 5 ;
II 2 5 5 ,
292
II 2 5 6 ,
2 5 7 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 ,
3 5 2 ; III 2 0 3
III 3 3 3
2 6 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 3 ,
2 5 8 , 2 6 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 ,
I I 2 6 6 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 4
28:9,
II 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 ,
197, 292
Keritot
1:6,
III
294
1:7,
6:3,
11 1 7 - 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 2 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 - 5 ;
1 1 , 17, 41, 120, 197, 207, 215,
I 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 1 9 2
1 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 9
Ketuvot
1:6,
2:9,
Hullin
14:2,
216,
14:8,
15:1,
18:1,
212,
20:2,
27:9,
28:2,
28:7,
2:3-4,
II 1 8 5 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 2 9 3
2:4,
III 1 0 , 1 3 0
2:7,
1 2, 6 3 , 7 4 , 4 1 7 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 2 ,
116, 164, 187, 193
3:6,
163
2:1,
3:10,
8:5,
II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 3 ,
223, 292, 333
292
11 1 8 8 , 3 4 9
1:6,
II 1 1 8 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 ,
195, 213, 292
11:2,
III 2 9 2
266, 292
26:2,
II 263
III 4 1
I 4 1 5 ; III 1 1 2
4:6,
1237
5:6,
II 2 0 7 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 ,
137, 200, 215, 293
8:1,
II 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 ,
218, 293
8:6,
II 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 4 ,
200, 206
13:1,
I 3 9 4 , 4 1 4 ; III 2 9 6
13:1-2,
I 1 0 3 , 3 9 4 ; III 2 7 5
13:1-5,
1353
13:3,
1 335,364,375
13:3-5,
I 350, 354, 364, 373, 375;
III 3 4 , 9 3 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 2
13:3-9,
1394
13:5,
1 364,370,375
Kila'im
2:6,
2:9,
4:1,
4:2,
4:3,
4:5,
1 1 6 7 , 3 4 6 ; III 8, 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
II 6 7 ; III 1 9 4
II 6 7 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 3 7 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 1
II 6 8
I I 6 8 ; III 2 1 7
II 6 8 , 7 0 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 ,
376
INDICES
137, 194, 213, 291

4:6,
II 6 8
215, 332
6:1,
11 7 0 , 7 2 , 3 4 6 ; I I I 8 , 1 3 5 , 2 0 8 ,
291
7:1,
II 7 2
8:5,
1 1 7 1 , 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8, 1 1 3 , 2 9 2
Ma'aserot
4:2,
I 2 3 0 ; II 9 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 , 3 4 7 ; III
8, 1 2 0 , 1 9 5 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 1
5:4,
II 9 4 ; III 2 1 9
II 1 0 7
2:3,
1118,292
2:3-4,
2:4,
1:4,
111 1 3 , 2 2 , 2 1 3 , 2 3 2
4:4-5,
11313,316,353
4:3,
III
4:4,
11113,125
332
4:4-5,
111213,292
4:5,
11113,121
198,
I 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 2 4 , 1 1 6 ,
136, 185
Middot
2:9,
I 1 9 1 , 196, 199, 202, 204, 209,
2 1 1 ; II 9 8 - 9 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 0 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 ,
204-5, 265
3:2,
III 9
3:6,
11111-3,348
3:6-7,
I I 1 0 1 - 5 ; III 1 2 3 - 4 , 1 2 6 , 2 1 1 ,
291
3:7,
II 1 1 1 - 3 , 2 5 0 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 2 0 6 ,
212
3:8,
II 1 1 2 - 3
3:9,
11 1 4 , 1 0 1 - 5 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I
9, 1 2 3 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 2
3:12,
II 1 0 4 ; III 1 2 3
3:13,
II 1 0 1 - 5 , 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 3 0 ,
221, 291
4:8,
I I 1 0 5 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 1
5:2,
II 1 0 7 - 8
5:3,
II 5 9 , 1 0 6 - 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; III
194, 215
5:6,
1119,130,195
5:6-7,
II 1 0 6 - 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 1
5:7,
II 1 1 7 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 5
5:8,
1358
5:10,
II 5 9
5:15,
1 1 6 0 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 1 7 3 ; III 2 7 ,
70, 116, 188, 255
Makkot
I 2 ; III 1 6 4 , 2 5 3
Makshirin
II 3 1 1 , 3 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 3 3 2 ; III
II 3 1 1 - 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 9 2
II 6 2 ; III 1 3
10:1,
1 1 8 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II 9 7 , 9 9 ;
2:7-9,
II 9 6 ; III 2 9 1
2:8,
1 1 9 8 - 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 , 2 1 5
2:8-9,
III 1 3 5
1:1,
1:3,
Menahot
II 9 6 , 1 0 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 1 6
III 8 , 1 2 8 , 2 0 5 , 2 6 5 , 2 9 2
2:7,
11 9 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 6
1:6,
1:2-4,
5:9,
I I 3 1 4 , 3 4 4 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 4 ,
292
Ma'aser Sheni
1:5,
1:2,
III 1 3
1:2-3,
III 2 2 2
132,
2:3,
1417
2:6,
1417
Miqva'ot
1:4,
II 2 9 3
1:5,
II 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 ,
219, 292
4:1,
II 1 2 7 , 2 9 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 ,
128, 266, 2 1 3 , 292, 333
4:5,
II 2 9 5 ; I I I 3 0 , 1 1 3 , 2 1 0 ,
292
5:6,
1 1 2 9 5 - 6 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 ,
213, 292, 342
6:5,
11297,344
6:6,
III 1 3 2
10:6,
292
128,
123,
268,
197,
II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 7 ,
Nazir
1:2,
III 1 3 1
2:1,
II 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 ; III 1 1
2:1-2,
11 2 1 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 8 , 2 9 4
2:2,
III11
3:1,
II 2 2 2 ; III 2 2 1
3:6,
11111,124
3:6-7,
I I 2 1 7 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 ,
270, 294
3:7,
II 2 1 8 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 9 ,
223
4:6,
II 2 2 4
5:1,
III11
5:1-2,
111131,204
5:1-3,
II 2 1 9 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 8
5:1-5,
III 2 9 4
5:3,
II 2 2 5 ; III 2 0 , 2 0 4
377
INDICES
5:4,
I 4 1 3 ; II 2 2 5 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 2 , 1 9 3
5:4-5,
III 2 1 2
5:5,
II 2 1 9 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 ,
131, 204
Nedarim
3:2,
II 2 1 2 - 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 6 ,
294
7:2,
III 3 3 3
7:3,
II 2 7 0 , 2 8 4 - 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 ,
134, 2 1 8 , 292, 334

11:1,
I I 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 8 ,
213, 333
11:1-8, 111212,292
11:3,
II 3 3 5 ; III 2 1 5
11:3-5,
3:4,
11 3 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 6
9:6,
II 2 1 4 ; III 1 9 6
13:1,
Nega'im
1406
1 4
i 4 0 6 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 ; III 7, 1 3 7
Niddah
1:1,
I 3 0 8 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III
244
1:4,
II 2 9 9
2:1,
II 2 9 7 - 8
2:4,
II 2 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 5 , 2 0 1 ,
292
2:6,
II 2 2 , 2 0 8 , 2 9 7 - 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 5 3 ; III
13, 121, 198, 292
4:2,
III 1 6 4
4:3,
II 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 - 9 , 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 ,
3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 4 0 , 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 8, 2 9 2
4:4,
II 3 0 9 , 3 4 2 ; III 2 1 4
5:9,
II 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 8 ,
200, 293
10:1,
I I 3 0 3 - 4 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 8 ,
215, 292-3
10:3,
III 1 3 2
10:4,
I I 3 0 3 - 4 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 4 0 , 2 1 5 ,
292
10:6,
II 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 4 ,
215, 292
10:7,
II 3 0 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 2 1 5 ,
292
10:8,
II 3 0 6 , 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 3 ,
22, 1 2 1 , 140, 2 1 5 , 292
Ohalot
1:4,
2:1,
2:3,
II 2 7 4 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 , 1 9 7 ,
292
1:1,
:
III 1 3 2
11:3-6,
I I 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2
11:8,
II 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2
II 2 6 8
II 2 7 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 0 0
II 2 6 6 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 ,
138, 140, 2 1 5 , 292, 333-4

2:12,
I 3 4 4 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 - 4 , 3 9 1 ; II 2 6 8 9, 2 7 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 2
5:1-5,
III 2 1
5:3,
11 2 5 3 , 3 2 9
5:4,
I I 2 8 0 - 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 0 1
13:4,
292
I I 2 7 4 - 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 , 1 9 7 ,
15:8,
II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 2 1 , 1 3 8 ,
197, 223, 292

15:9,
II 2 5 3
16:1,
18:1,
II 1 2 7 , 1 2 9
II 2 7 6 , 2 8 7 , 3 4 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 ,
1, 1 4 0 , 1 9 7 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 2
18:4,
I I 2 7 6 - 7 , 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 2 ,
197, 206, 2 1 2 , 292
18:8,
I I 2 7 6 - 7 , 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 ,
197, 206, 212, 292
'Orlah
2:4-5,
1 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 9 ; II 1 1 9 , 3 4 8 ;
III 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 4 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 8 ,
292
2:5, 1 3 8 9
2:11,
I 3 4 5 ; III 1 9 1
2:12,
III 3 2 , 3 5 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 3
Parah
1:1,
III 1 7 1
3:1,
1 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 2 5 , 1 8 5
3:5,
I 2 5 , 2 9 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 , 3 9 7 ; III 6 8 ,
207, 2 1 5
3:5-6, 1 4 8 - 9
3:6,
129
3:7,
III 1 6 4
5:1,
III 2 1 4
12:4,
11 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3
12:10,
II 2 8 7 - 8 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2
Pe'ah
1:5,
III 1 3 7
2:5-6,
1 3 4 4 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 - 4 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 0 ,
191
2:6, 1 4 1 5
3:1,
II 5 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 1
6:1,
111 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 5 , 3 3 2
6:1-3,
II 5 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 2 9 1
378
INDICES
6:1-5,
11332,346
6:2,
II 6 0 - 1 ; III 8 , 1 2 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 1 5
6:3,
III 1 9 4
6:5,
111 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 1
21:3,
Pesahim
II 1 4 0 , 1 6 0 , 3 4 9 ; I I I
9,
9,
Sheqalim
7:6,
II 2 5 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; III 8 ,
129, 194, 215, 291
1:1,
II 1 2 6 , 1 3 3 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III
135, 212, 293
135,
2:3,
I I 1 4 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 3 5 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 3
2:4,
II 1 4 8 ; III 2 1 4
3:3,
4:4,
I 3 4 5 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 ; III 1 1 0 , 1 9 1
I 4 0 2 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7, 2 4 ,
112, 185
6:1,
I 346, 364, 373, 403, 408;
195, 293, 333

1:3-6,
III 1 9 6
30, 1 1 1 , 192
1:6,
6:3,
1 4 0 2 , 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; I I 1 4 4 ; III
III
1417
24, 112, 184-5, 201

3:8,
II 1 6 6
8:6,
I I 1 4 , 1 4 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 2 3 ,
201, 216, 294
4:5,
8:7,
I 3 7 7 ; II 1 4 1 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 2 ,
195, 196, 293

8:8,
II 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 9 ; III
9,
130, 203, 212-3, 294

10:2,
11 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 7 , 1 2 9 ,
195, 293
10:6,
II 1 4 2 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 8 , 4 0 , 2 0 4
10:8,
111 1 3 9 , 3 3 3
Qiddushin
1:1,
II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 6 ,
197, 215, 293, 333-4
Rosh Hashanah
1:1,
II 8 0 , 1 8 1 , 3 5 0 ; III
205, 292
1:4,
10,
137,
III 9 5
2:5,
1 3 4 7 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 ; III 2 6 , 9 5 6, 1 9 2
I 9 2 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 1 - 2 ^ III 3 9 , 1 9 9
Shabbat
1:1-8,
1:2-3,
III 1 9 5
II 1 2 2
1:4,
I 4 1 6 ; II 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 ; III 3 2
1:4-8,
II 1 9 9 , 3 2 5 ; III 1 3 3
1:4-9,
II 1 2 1 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 3
1:4-11,
1111
1:5,
II 1 2 9 ; III 9
1:5-7,
III 2 0 6
1:6,
III 9
1:7,
1:8,
1:1,
I I 7 2 , 7 5 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 ,
291
1:2,
1172,74
2:4,
II 7 8
2:7-8,
II 7 9
4:1,
III 2 1 1
4:2,
I 1 9 5 ; II 2 6 - 3 0 , 7 3 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 7 ;
III 8 , 4 1 , 1 2 9 , 2 1 7 - 8 , 2 9 1
4:4,
II 7 3 - 4 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 ,
204, 291
4:10,
4:26,
5:4,
5:6,
5:7,
5:8,
11 7 5 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
II 3 4 5
II 7 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
II 7 7
II 7 7
II 6 5 , 7 6 , 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 ,
Sotah
1:2,
II 1 2 9 , 1 4 4 ; III 9 , 2 1 2
III 9
1:9,
II 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; III 2 1 9 , 2 7 4
2:1,
1414
3:1,
II 1 2 5 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III
127, 214, 2 1 6 , 293
Shevi'it
194, 291
6:3,
1394
7:3,
II 7 7
8:1,
II235
8*2
II81
8:3,'
1 1 7 7 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
10:3,
11140,42
10:3-4,
1 219,222,276,283-4,296
Sanhedrin
6:4,
11 1 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 5
9,
1393
4:2,
II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 2 2 2 ,
294
4:4,
II 3 0 7
5:1,
I 4 1 5 ; III 2 0 0
5:2,
III 1 6 9
5:5,
III 1 6 9
9
III 1 5 0
9:5,
III 2 1 0
9:9,
1 6 2 , 6 8 , 7 4 ; III 3 9 , 4 5 , 1 1 6 , 2 1 0
379
INDICES
9:9-15,
128
9:10,
1161,166
9:15,
I 3 5 1 , 363-4, 374, 394, 397,
III 4 6 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 2
1:1,
1:7,
I I 1 5 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 3
I I 1 5 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 2 1 6 , 2 9 3
2:5,
I 3 4 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 5 ; III
29, 1 1 1 , 192, 275

I 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 1 , 1 5 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 ,
18, 30, 122-3, 203, 269, 293

2:8,
I 1 9 3 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 ; III
108, 189, 269
3:5,
II 1 5 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 5 ,
292
3:9,
II 1 5 4 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 0 , 4 0 , 1 3 9 ,
206, 274, 293
Ta'anit
3:8,
I 92, 99, 104, 1 1 4 , 120, 133-4,
1 7 6 ; III 3 6 , 4 9 , 6 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 3 1 2
23:25,
III 6 2
Temurah
7:5,
II 8 4
Terumot
1:4,
II 8 1 , 8 8 - 9 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 1 2 4 ,
194, 213, 292, 334
1:9-10,
II 8 9
1:10,
II 8 1
3:4,
II 8 7
3:9,
II 59, 1 0 8
4:3,
292
4:7,
5:2,
5:4,
II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 3 7 , 1 9 5 ,
II 8 2
11 8 5 , 9 0 , 3 2 3
I I 8 4 , 9 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 8 , 1 2 2 ,
199, 292
5:5,
II 8 5
5:6,
II 8 5
11:2,
III 3 3 3
Tevul Y o m
1:1,
II 3 2 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 8 ,
292
2:5,
1 0 : 4 , ' II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 9 7
'Uqsin
Sukkah
2:7,
9:7,
1 1 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 ,
219 292
11 3 2 3 , 3 5 3
Toharot
9:1,
I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 5 ,
203, 219, 292
9:5,
I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 2 , 2 1 9 ,
292
3:6,
II 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 1 ,
198, 2 1 5
3:6-11,
III 2 9 2
3:8,
II 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 9 8 ,
207
3:11,
11 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 5
Yadaim
3:5,
II 3 2 3 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 ,
213, 215, 292

4:3,
I 1 5 ; II 1 0 7 ; III 1 7 0 , 2 7 6
4:6,
1162,166
4:6-7,
1 2
4:7,
III 1 6 4
4:8,
III 1 6 4
Yevamot
1:1,
II 1 9 0 , 2 0 5 ; III 2 3 6
1:1-4,
II 1 9 5 ; III 1 0 , 3 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 3 3 ,
200, 203-4, 208-9, 214-5, 224-5,
234, 236, 268-9, 293
1:2-3,
III 2 3 6
1:3,
II 2 0 5
1:4,
I I 1 2 4 , 1 5 7 , 1 9 0 , 194,205, 334,
350
1:7,
III 1 3 9
2:4,
II 1 9 0
3:1,
II 1 9 4 , 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 , 3 5 0 ; III
10, 1 3 5 , 200, 202-3
3:1-5,
II 2 1 3
3:5,
II 1 9 5 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 2 1 5 ,
293
4:3,
II 1 9 6 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 ,
124, 196, 200, 206, 293
6:4,
I 3 9 6 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 2
6:6,
II 1 9 8 , 2 0 6 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 6 ,
219, 293, 334
13:1,
II 1 9 8 , 3 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 ,
127, 196, 293
14:2, 1 4 1 8
14:7,
II 2 2 1
15:1-2,
II 3 2 8
15:1-3,
III 2 7 0
15:2-3,
II 2 0 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 , 1 9 6 , 2 9 3
15:3,
II 3 2 9 , 3 4 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 1
16:6,
II 2 2 1
16:7,
I 3 4 8 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 8 , 3 7 5 ; III 3 2 ,
111, 205, 210
380
INDICES
Yoma
2:3,
1:1,
II 1 6 0
1:6,
3:9,
1414
1397
II 3 0 9
Zevahim
4:1,
II 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 ,
24, 138, 294

Zabim
1:1,
1 :l-2,
1:2,
9:3,
9:5,
111 1 4 0 , 2 2 2
I I 3 0 6 , 3 1 7 - 8 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 9 2
111 1 3 8 , 2 0 7 - 8
V.
II 2 7 8 - 8 0 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 2 , 2 0 0 , 2 9 2
5:10-12,
II 2 6 9
5:11,
I I 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 6 8 70, 292
5:11-12,
11 3 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 2
8:7,
II 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 2 1 8 , 2 9 2
12:1,
11 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 1 3 , 2 9 2
14:4,
II 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 3 8 , 2 9 2
15:9,
111 1 2 , 2 1 , 1 2 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 9 2
16:6,
1 1 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 0 6 , 2 9 2
16:8,
1 242,276,296
16:21-22,
III 2 9 3
17:9,
II 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 9 7 , 2 9 2
17:13,
II 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 9 7 , 2 9 2
'Arakhin
1377
4 : 5 , ' II 2 4 8 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 2 , 2 0 1 ,
293
4:22,
II 2 5 0 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 7
5:15,
11111,250
1:1,
Zarah
1414
3:10,
I 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 5 ; III 3 0 , 1 1 1 ,
192
4:9,
I 3 5 9 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5 , 1 1 1 ,
202, 273
Bava Batra
7:11,
9:1,
10:13,
1415
1414
I I 2 3 8 ; III 2 0 6 , 2 9 3
Bava M e s i V
3:12,
II 2 3 7 , 3 4 5 ; III 2 9 4
6:10,
I 2 2 4 , 2 4 0 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 5 ; III
14, 109, 190
Bava Qamma
2:1,
1 4 0 4 - 5 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 1 2 , 1 8 5
II 6 6
8:13,
3:4,
'Avodah
12:4,
14:3,
TOSEFTA
Ahilot
1:13,
1 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 8 5
II 6 6
III 2 2 2
9:5,
1 7 5 , 7 7 - 8 ; III 6 8 , 2 1 0
I I 2 3 4 , 3 5 1 ; III ii, 1 4 0 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 4
10:38,
1 392-3
Bekhorot
3:15-16,
292
3:16,
I I 2 4 6 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 3 , 2 0 6 ,
III 1 1
Berakhot
1:4,
34,49,346
2:21,
1 2 2 8 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 ,
115, 190, 263
3:13,
I I 4 9 , 1 8 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 3 ,
294
3:20,
I 3 9 4 ; III 5 9 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 2
3:25,
12
4:9,
1377
5:25-30,
111 7, 2 1 6
5:27,
III 1 2 8
5:30,
11 1 3 8 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 4
6:24,
1 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 , 253,276, 285, 297;
III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 3
Besah
1:11,
II 1 3 2
Demai
1:3,
III
1:26-27,
1:28,
II
2:12,
11
219
I I 6 3 , 6 5 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 9 1
6 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 4
66,247
'Eduyyot
1:1,
I 3 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 8 ; III 4 2 , 9 4
1:3, 1 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 - 6 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 ,
3 3 8 ; III 1 3 6
1:4,
1307
1:6,
11 3 4 0 , 3 5 0
2:2,
I 3 9 2 ; II 2 2 4 , 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 , 3 5 3
2:2-3,
II 3 4 0
381
INDICES
2:3,
II 2 0 4
2:4,
I 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 5 ; II 2 2 3 , 3 4 1 ,
347, 350-1
11:7,
292
I I 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 8 , 2 1 6 ,
Kelim B.Q.
2:5,
11 3 4 2 , 3 5 3
2:6,
11 3 4 2 , 3 5 1
2:1,
2:7,
2:8,
11 3 4 2 , 3 5 3
II 3 4 3
6:18,
2:9,
11 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 ,
II 2 6 0 , 3 5 2 ; III
12, 120,
292
I I 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 9 2
Keritot
343,350
'Eruvin
3:7,
I 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 ; II 1 1 ; III
40, 188
11:24,
1417
Gittin
8:3,
11 2 3 2 , 3 5 1
8:8,
II 2 3 2 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 2 2 2 ,
293
Hagigah
1:4,
I I 1 8 6 - 7 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 , 2 2 1 ,
293
1:9,
1417
2:1,
III 1 9 1
2:8,
1 1 2 - 3 , 9 3 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 ; III 2 1 5
2:9,
I 308, 3 1 1 , 313, 327, 330, 334,
3 3 9 ; III 4 6 , 6 8 , 1 1 5 , 2 6 4
2:10,
II 1 8 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 9 3
2:11,
1309,314,326,330,334,339,
3 8 9 ; III 3 7 , 6 8 , 1 1 0 , 2 6 7 - 8
3:34,
12
Hullin
1:6,
11 2 4 5 , 3 5 1
8:2-3,
II 2 4 5 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 3 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 2
K e l i m B.B.
1:12,
II 2 6 4 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 2
4:9,
II 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 2 9 2
5:7,
III 1 2
5:7-8,
II 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 2
7:4,
I I 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 9 2
Kelim B.M.
1:2,
II 2 5 4 ; I I I 1 2 0 , 2 2 2
3:8,
II 2 6 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 2 2 ,
292
4:5,
II 2 6 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 ,
216, 292
4:16,
II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 0 3 ,
292
8:1,
II 2 6 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 2 , 2 9 2
11:3,
II 2 6 3 , 3 3 9 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 ,
292
1:5,
1:9,
II 9 0
II 2 5 3 , 3 4 5 ; I I I 1 9 7
Ketuvot
3:2,
1415
4:9,
I 236, 251, 264, 278, 291, 295;
III 3 7 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 1 0 , 2 6 0
5:6,
8:9,
II 2 0 8 ; III 2 9 3
I I 2 3 4 ; III 1 2 4 , 2 1 9
12:1,
I 9 3 , 1 0 7 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 9 , 3 9 4 ; III
26, 107, 187
12:4,
1 356, 3 6 4 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 5
Kila'im
3:17,
I I 7 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1
4:1,
I I 7 1 ; III 2 0 8
4:11,
I I 7 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 7 , 2 1 8 , 2 9 1
Ma'aserot
1:5,
11 7 9 , 9 4 , 3 4 7
3:2-4,
I 2 3 0 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 5 ; II 9 4 ;
III 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 6 1
3:10,
II 9 4 , 3 4 7 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 9 3
3:13,
I I 9 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2
5:4,
II 9 4
Ma'aser Sheni
2:1,
II 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I
216, 292
2:10,
1196
128,
2:11,
II 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 - 1 , 3 4 8 ; III 1 8 , 2 9 2
2:12,
II 1 1 1 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 1 2 3 , 2 9 2
2:16,
II 1 4 , 1 0 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 1 2 3 ,
202, 292
2:18,
11 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 2 1 , 2 9 2
3:13-15,
II 1 1 6 , 3 4 8
3:14-15,
III 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 2
5:17,
111129,194
5:17-20,
II 1 1 7 ; III 2 9 2
5:19,
III 1 2 7
5:20,
III 1 3 3
Makshirin
1 :l-4,
II 3 1 5 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 2 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 2
1:3,
III 2 2
382
INDICES
1:4,
III 2 1 3
2:6,
2:16,
3:4,
II 3 1 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2
III 3 3 2
I 8 2 , 8 4 ; III 6, 9 2 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7
9:7-9,
9:19,
Parah
3:6,
Megillah
1:9,
II222
I I 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 3
11 3 0 6 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2
4:7,
5:1,
1397
1243,276,296
I I 2 8 8 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 , 2 1 4
12:18,
II 2 8 8 ; III 1 4 0 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2
Miqva'ot
1:7,
II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2
1:10,
II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 2 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2
3:8,
5:2,
1417
II 2 9 7 , 3 4 4 ; III 2 1 0 , 2 9 2
M o ' e d Qatan
2:9,
II 1 8 3 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 0 , 1 3 7 , 2 0 0 ,
227
Pe'ah
3:2,
II 5 7 , 6 0 - 1 , 3 4 6 ; III 2 0 4
4:10,
1229,244,271,276,286,296;
III 2 9 , 4 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 0
Pisha
1:6,
I 4 0 2 ; II 1 4 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 3 3 ,
206, 212, 216, 293

2:22,
4:13,
Nazir
3:17,
II 3 4 0 ; III 1 3 1
Nedarim
6:3,
II 1 1 4
6:3-4,
III 2 2 0
6:4,
11214,350
1231,258,276,280,296
1232,245,276,286,296,310;
III 3 8 , 4 0 , 5 9 , 1 0 9 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 3 1 ,
257, 260
7:2,
II 1 4 4 - 5 ; I I I 9 , 1 3 0 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 3
7:4,
III 2 9 4
7:14,
II 1 4 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 2 0 3
10:2-3,
II 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 9 , 2 9 3
10:9,
II 1 4 7 ; I I I 1 8 , 2 0 4 , 2 9 3
Nega'im
1:6,
1407-8
1:16,
I 2 4 2 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III
117, 190, 261
Nezirot
1:1,
Qiddushin
4:1,
II 2 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 2 2 0 293
Rosh Hashanah
II 3 , 2 2 1 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 1 , 6 7 , 1 2 2 ,
131, 196, 294

2:10,
II 2 2 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 3 , 2 2 1 ,
294
3:1,
II 2 2 3 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 3 9 , 2 2 3 ,
294
3:17,
1 1 2 2 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 9 6 , 2 9 4
3:19,
I I 2 2 5 , 3 5 0 - 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 ,
204, 212, 294
4:7,
1 2 6 , 4 4 ; III 33
Niddah
2:2,
II 3 0 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 1 6
2:12,
III 2 9 3
5:5,
III 1 2 1
5:5-7,
I I 3 0 8 , 3 3 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 ,
292
5:6,
III 2 2
5:7,
II342
5:7,
11113,214
6:3-4,
III 2 9 3
2:17,
193,
4:5,
4:11,
II 1 8 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 9 , 3 0 , 1 3 7 ,
270
1377
III 3 5 5
Sanhedrin
2:6,
1356-7,360-1,366,368,372-3,
3 7 5 ; III 2 5 , 1 9 2 , 2 1 7
3:11,
1110
4:9,
1118
6:6,
I 9 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 - 3 , 1 2 5 ; III 4 0
7:1,
1 330, 334
7:11,
1 2 4 0 , 2 7 5 - 7 , 2 9 6 ; III 1 0 9 , 1 9 0
8:3,
1 95,118,122-3
13:3,
1 1 2 3 8 , 3 5 1 ; III 6 3 , 1 3 1 , 1 9 7
Shabbat
1:14,
293
1:16,
1:18,
I I 1 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 3 3 , 2 2 1 ,
II 1 2 7 ; III 2 6 8
II 1 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 2
383
INDICES
1:19,
11 1 2 7 , 3 4 8
1:20,
III 2 9 3
203, 269, 270

4:3,
1 : 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 1 1 2 8 ; III 1 8 , 4 0
1:21,
1111
1:22,
2:13,
I 235, 260, 278, 289, 297;
III
56, 63, 98, 1 1 5 , 190, 263

4:4,
I 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 - 6 ; III 5 3 , 6 7 , 1 1 1 ,
II 1 2 8 - 9 ; I I I 2 7 4 , 2 9 3
I I 1 3 0 - 1 , 1 4 4 - 5 , 3 4 8 ; III
9,
192, 274
4:15,
1417
216, 293
3:18,
7:18,
Terumot
II 1 5 ; I I I 1 2 9
1341
13:2,
I 356, 360, 366, 369, 371, 373,
3 7 5 ; III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 2 1 1
13:10,
14:1,
1187
II 8 7 , 3 4 7 ; I I I
8, 1 3 7 , 2 1 7 ,
I I 1 6 , 1 3 2 , 3 4 5 ; III 7 , 2 2 0 , 2 9 4
II 1 3 3 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 2 1 2 , 2 9 3
3:14,
II 8 7 , 3 4 7 ; I I I
8, 1 3 0 , 2 1 1 ,
II 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 4
1:5,
1 3 2 0 ; I I 7 8 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 7 , 1 2 6 ,
211, 291
2:6,
II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 2 3 , 2 1 8 ,
291
2:14,
1418
I 1 9 5 , 2 1 0 ; III 3 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 9
III 2 0 5
4:5,
I I 7 7 , 8 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 4 ,
291
291
1 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 2 9 1
II 7 7 , 8 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 4 ,
5:3,
II 8 3 , 8 9 ; III 1 9 5
5:4,
III 2 9 2
6:4,
I I 9 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 8 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 9 ,
292
9:10,
I 4 0 7 , 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 1 1 2
Tevul
Yom
2:3,
11 3 2 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 2 9 2
Toharot
8:9b-10,
II 2 9 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 ,
211, 292
10:1-2,
I I 2 9 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 9 2
11:4,
II 8 7
Yadaim
2:20,
4:8,
Sotah
12
12
Yevamot
3:13,
III 1 0 9
4:7,
II 2 2 7 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 2 1 2
13:3,
I 238, 253, 262, 265, 269, 278,
2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II 1 2 2 ; III 5 1 , 6 1 , 6 6 - 7 ,
210, 260
13:5,
1 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 ; III 5 1
13:6,
150
13:7,
I 2 7 , 5 0 , 5 2 - 6 ; III 4 7 , 6 8 , 1 0 6 ,
116, 186, 209
13:10,
I 163, 166, 169-70
14:9,
I 3 1 1 , 313, 330, 334, 339
15:5,
1394
Sukkah
2:3,
II 8 8 , 3 4 7 ; I I 8 , 4 1 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 9 ,
292
Shevi'it
4:21,
6:19,
291
292
3:16,
Sheqalim
3:10,
4:2,
II 8 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 2 0 8
3:12,
292
16:21,
111 9 , 1 3 3 , 2 2 1
16:21-22,
II 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 1 9
3:16,
2:5,
II 1 3 2 , 3 4 8 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 2 1 ,
293
15:9,
16:7,
1418
1118,113,217
2:13,
1159,108
3:2,
III 2 9 2
1187
13:12-13,
1:1,
1:4,
1:7,
111131,139
1:7-13,
I I 2 0 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 4 ,
293
1:7-14,
III 2 0 0 , 2 0 3
1:11-13,
II332
1:12,
I I 1 9 3 ; III 2 1 4
5:1,
II 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 3 5 ,
202-3, 293
6:6,
II 3 5 0
8:4,
II 2 0 6 ; III 1 3 6 , 2 1 9
8:14,
III 2 9 3
13:1,
II 2 0 6 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 9 3
Yoma HaKippurim
I 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 - 5 , 3 4 0 ;
III
208,
1:8,
12
384
INDICES
1:13,
1415
1:21,
1397
1:22,
1 399
Yom
3:10,
Zabim
Tov
1:4,
II 3 4 , 1 7 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 6 , 2 9 3
1:8,
II 1 7 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 4 ,
221 293
1 : 1 0 , ' II 1 7 4 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 2 2 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 3
1:11a,
111 1 2 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 3
1:12,
II 1 7 7 ; III 1 2 2
1:12-14,
293
II
1:15-17,
293
II 1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 3 9 , 2 1 5 ,
1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; III
19, 213,
2:10,
1:1,
1 1 3 1 9 , 3 2 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2
1:1-2,
111 1 9 8 , 2 9 2
1:1-8,
11 3 2 1 , 3 5 3
1:2,
11319,353
1:3,
1 1 3 2 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 9 2
1:4,
1 1 3 2 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 7 , 2 9 2
1:5,
11 3 2 0 , 3 5 3
1:5-8,
111207,292
1:7,
II 1 8 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 3 7 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 3
III 2 9 3
1 1 3 2 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2
Zevahim
2:17,
1:21,
II 1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 3 9 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 3
2:3,
III 2 2 3
2:4,
II 1 8 0 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 0 , 2 2 1
4:9,
1129,90
II 2 4 2 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 2 , 1 3 1 ,
211, 294
6:13,
1416
9:5,
1 407-8
VI. M E K H I L T A , SIFRA, SIFRfi, M I D R A S H

Mekhilta Amalek IV, 67,
Beshallah I V , 58-60,
I 394
1 1 4 2 , 1 5 2 ; III 6 1 -
2, 92, 98, 1 1 5 , 1 8 8
K a s p a III 3 1 - 4 1 ,
I 8 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 - 3 ; III
36, 40, 98, 107, 216

Neziqin 1 5 : 4 9 - 5 5 ,
II 8 , 2 3 6 , 3 4 4 ;
III
20, 40
M e k h i l t a P i s h a III 2 0 9 - 1 6 , I 2 6 5 ,
III 4 0 , 1 2 9 , 1 8 9
V 1 1 8 - 2 0 , II 9
X V I I 209-216,
11 6 , 3 4 5
Mekhilta deR. S i m e o n b. Y o h a i
1:29-30,
1 202,208
13:1-2,
I 212, 231, 245, 258,
279
276,
Sifra Behar 1 : 5 ,
II 2 6 - 3 0 , 7 4 , 3 4 5 ; III
41, 129, 2 1 7
4:8,
1 2 1 5 , 227, 263, 276, 282, 295;
III 2 6 , 3 9 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 0
Sifra Behuqotai
1:1,
i 8 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 0 - 1 ; III 4 2 , 4 9 , 6 8 ,
Sifre D e u t e r o n o m y
11,
III 9 3
34,
II 4 1 , 49, 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8
61,
I 3 4 3 , 3 6 4 ; III 4 0 , 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 1 0 ,
191
65,
III 3 4 9
113,
I 217, 225, 262-3, 276,
III 2 6 , 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 0
115,
I 222-3, 296
131,
III 4 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 9 3
134,
II144
142,
283-4;
III 3 4 9
143,
II 3 5 , 1 8 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 1 2 8 ,
207
2 8 0 , 2 9 6 ; III 1 8 9
147-8,
1 342,364,374
148,
I 3 3 0 ; III 4 0
149,
II 1 2 9 , 3 4 8
107, 187
TANNAIM
166,
I I 3 6 , 2 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 7 , 2 0 5
190,
12
203,
1187,197,202,204,208; II11;
III 9 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 8 8
221,
I 9 0 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 1 - 2 ; III 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 4 ,
107, 199
234,
II 3 1 - 3 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 7
234,
III 4 1 , 1 3 7
269,
II 3 7 - 9 , 2 3 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 7 , 4 1 ,
117, 205
294,
1416
351,
1 3 4 3 ; III 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 0 1
357,
1 2 2 1 , 2 7 5 - 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 6 - 7 , 1 1 5 ,
209, 261-2
Sifra E m o r
2:6,
15:5,
1396
11 2 6 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 2 5 , 2 0 7
385
INDICES
Sifra M e s o r a 4 : 3 ,
II 2 2 , 3 4 5
Sifra TazrPa
1 : 5 , II 1 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 7 , 1 2 9 , 2 2 0
Sifre N u m b e r s
7,
1 145,152,157-8
22,
I 9 , 2 4 , 4 4 ; III 3 3 , 3 9 , 6 6 , 9 2 ,
106, 186
25
II222
42* I 4 0 1 - 2 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; I I I
98, 117, 185
II 1 3 2 - 3
II 3 0 9
I 4 0 1 , 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 1 1 6 ,
185
3:1-2,
III 7
115,
II 3 0 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III 3 2 , 4 1 , 1 1 3 ,
3:6,
116,
117,
1418
I 393
123*
1 2 1 6 , 2 4 2 - 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 5 ,
Sifra V a y i q r a
11,
1 3 7 7 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 2 0 2
II 2 3 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 7 ,
219
3:8,
II 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 , 2 3 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 2 0 5
II 2 7 8
18:15,
II 2 8 5
19:3,
II 2 1 7
19:15,
II 2 7 4
19:16,
II 2 7 6
Sifre Zutta Naso
Sifra S a v
1:9,
I 4 0 1 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 2 4 ,
93, 185
8:6,
I I 1 3 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 2 3 ,
201, 216
Sifra S h e m i n i
7:4,
I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 9 - 7 0 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5
8:5,
161
9:5,
I 2 1 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 40,
109, 189, 260
6:5,
' A v o d a h Zarah
1:1,
1414
1:9,
2:7,
3:1,
I 3 6 7 , 3 8 3 - 4 ; III 5 3 , 2 7 4
II 1 6 0
I 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; II 1 2 2
Bava Batra
1415
1394
1 360,364
B a v a Mesi'a*
I 1 1 2 , 1 2 1 ; III 3 6 , 50, 6 6 , 1 0 7 ,
II 2 1 7
6:17,
II 2 1 7
Midrash Tannaim
page
80,
1219,22
175-6,
1 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 7 5
211,
I 222, 226, 276, 284, 297
T o Deut. 2 2 : 1 2 ,
T o Deut. 3 3 : 3 ,
VII. P A L E S T I N I A N
188
I 2 1 4 , 219, 242, 267, 276, 281

111 3 1 , 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 2 0 5 , 2 6 0 - 1
Sifre Zutta Huqat
Sifra Q e d o s h i m
2:5,
I I 2 2 , 2 5 3 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 7
13:13,
46, 189, 262
17, 41,
3:7,
I 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 3 3 ,
93, 1 1 1 , 192
9:16,
295;
137, 193
8:1,
9:1,
10:4,
II 1 7 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III
207
63,
111,
2:4,
3:7,
1:6,
1:13,
2:6,
III 7 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 5
III 6 3
TALMUD
3:9,
II 2 3 5
Bava Qamma
9:1,
II 2 3 4
Berakhot
1:3,
1141,49
1:4,
II 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 ; III 1 9 6
1:6,
II 3 4
1:7,
II 2 0 4
4:1,
I 394
5:1,
I 3 9 4 ; II 3 5 7 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 4 - 5
5:5,
I 3 9 5 ; II 3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 7 - 7 2 , 3 7 5
5:25-30,
II 5 1
25
386
INDICES
6:5,
II 4 2 ; I I I 1 2 9
7:2,
I 9 7 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 4 - 6 ; III
9:11,
Hagigah
36, 44, 49, 62, 66, 107, 153, 188

8:1-5,
II232
1144,51
1:1,
II 1 0
1:1-3,
II 1 8 3
8:3,
111140,215
8:7-8,
II 5 1
1:2,
1135,186
1243,253,278, 285,293,297;
1:8,
2:1,
III 1 4 5
I 3 5 9 ; II 1 8 9
III 4 3 , 6 6 , 8 2 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 0
9:5,
I 2 4 4 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 7 ; III 1 1 5 ,
2:2,
I 102, 114-5, 120, 127-8, 132,
8:8,
II 4 4
9:3,
214
216, 268, 344

2:3,
I 314, 330, 335, 339, 389;
1 8 8 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 1
Besah
1:1,
II 3 3 5 ; I I I 1 2 2
2:3-4,
2:12,
1:1-4,
II 1 6 0
1:2,
II 1 7 2
1:5,
2:1,
II 1 8 0
2:1-2,
II 1 6 7
I 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; III 6 1 , 1 1 2
I 314, 330, 335, 339, 389;
II
1 6 9 , 1 8 4 ; III 1 9 , 4 1
2:4-5,
II 1 6 7
4:1,
II 1 8 0
4:7,
II 1 6 0
2:1,
II 9 0
II 8 0
Demai
1:3,
1163,65
3:1,
4:3,
5:1,
6:7,
II
II
II
II
63
160
6 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 2
94
1 245,258, 276,280-1
II 1 1 8
3:5,
4:1,
II 3 2 2
II322
Horayot
3:5,
10:1,
II
II
II
II
1 3 6 ; III 1 2 7
135
136
153
II 1 3 6
II 1 3 7
II 1 3 8
1 1 8 8 - 9 , 2 6 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 5 ; III 1 9 0
Gittin
4:5,
8:8,
8:9,
1 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; II 1 2 2
Ketuvot
1415
4:8,
1236,251, 264,278,291,295;
II 2 0 1
5:4,
1393
5:6-7,
II 2 0 7
5:7,
II 2 0 7 - 8 ; III 1 9 6
8:1,
11 5 6 , 2 0 9
8:9,
II209
8:11,
I 14, 73, 75, 79, 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 1 9 ,
1 2 1 , 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 1 4 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 ; III
27-8, 1 1 6
9:1,
9:7,
'Eruvin
1:1,
1:2,
3:1,
3:2,
6:3-4,
6:4,
8:6,
II 1 8 5
1 330, 334
1:1,
1:4,
2:9,
Bikkurim
2:5,
II 2 2 8
II 2 2 7
II230
II
Hallah
II 1 7 4
1:6-11,
II 1 6 0
1:8,
II 1 7 5
2:2,
2:4,
1 8 4 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 4 , 5 0 , 6 8 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 ,
13:1,
13:2,
13:3-9,
13:5,
15:2,
II209
II226
1394,413
1394
1394
1 3 5 6 , 3 6 5 , 370, 375
II 2 0 1
Kila'im
2:4,
II 6 7
4:1,
II 6 7
4 : 2 , 3, 6,
II 6 8
5:8,
II 7 1 - 2
6:1,
II 7 0
8:4,
II 7 1
387
INDICES
Ma'aserot
9:2,
3:4,
II 1 0 1 - 5
4:2,
4:4,
II 9 3
II 7 1
10:1,
1413
II 2 1 4
Niddah
1:1,
1 326,331
Ma aser Sheni
<Orlah
1:3,
II 1 1 6
2:2,
II 1 0 9
2:2-4,
II 9 6
2:3,
II 1 1 9
Pe>ah
2:4,
1 199,203
2:10,
II 1 1 6
1:1,
3:3,
1:5,7,
II 56
2:4,
III 1 4 5
II 1 1 0 ; III 1 8
3:3-6,
II 1 0 1 - 5
3:6,
II 1 1 0
4:5,
4:8,
II 1 0 5
II 1 1 7 ; III 1 9 5
5:2-3,
5:3,
II 1 0 6 - 7
1396
5:4,
I 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 , 2 7 5 ; III 1 9 2 ,
217
5:5,
1 163, 167, 169-70
Megillah
3:6,
4:1,
1 2 9 , 4 4 ; III 6 3
III 1 4 5
Mo'ed Qatan
3:1,
199,104,120,133
Nazir
1:1,
1:5,
2:1-2,
2:2,
3:6-7,
3:7,
4:6,
5:1,
5:1-2,
5:2,
5:3,
5:4,
6:11,
7:1,
111,221
1 3 0 , 4 5 ; III 3 3
II215
II 2 1 9
II 2 1 7
III 1 1
II 2 2 4
II 1 4 7
II 2 1 9
II 224-5
1 9 7 , 1 1 3 , 120, 134-6, 4 1 3
II 2 1 9
II 2 2 3 - 4
II 4 4
II 3 5
3:1,
II 5 4
6:1-4,
II 56
6:2,
II 2 0 9
7:5,
1159-60
8:7,
1 2 4 4 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 3
Pesahim
1:1,
II 1 4 0
1:6,
1 14, 73, 75, 79, 110, 119, 121,
128, 3 1 2 , 330, 337-8, 402; II143-4;
III 2 7
2:4,
II 1 5 0
3:6,
II 9 3 , 1 4 3 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 2
4:6,
II 1 4 1
5:4,
II 1 6 0 , 1 7 2
5:26,
II 7 5
6:1,
I 151, 153, 232, 246, 248, 266,
271, 276-7, 279, 2 8 1 , 286, 295-6;
III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 1 , 3 4 8 - 9 ,
366
8:8,
II 1 4 2
9:5,
1393
10:2,
1151,142
10:5,
II 1 4 2 ; III 1 8
Qiddushin
1:1,
2:1,
8:1,
11 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 , 2 2 3
II 2 3 3
113
Rosh Hashanah
1:2,
1180,181
Nedarim
1:1,
1 3 0 , 4 5 ; III 3 3
2:4,6,
II 2 9 7
3:2,4,
II212
4:2,
1394
5:6,
I 199, 200, 203, 206, 209-10,
252, 260, 264, 274, 278, 296, 393-4;
III 5 2 , 6 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 5
Sanhedrin
1:1,
1 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 ; III 3 8 , 6 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 8
1:2,
I 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 5 , 3 9 6 ; III
217
1:4,
2:2,
4:9,
1 330,334
III 1 9 9
I 109, 118, 124
388
INDICES
5:2,
11217,223
6:3,
I 105, 1 1 1 , 118, 121, 124, 1 3 1 ;
III 50, 1 0 7 , 1 8 8
6:6,
1 1 0 2 , 1 2 0 ; III 4 4 , 5 0 , 1 0 7
6:6a,
I 1 1 8 , 127-8
6:6b,
6:6c,
1114,128
1132
8:3,
I 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; III 1 8 8 , 2 0 5
II 2 2 7 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 6
11 3 , 1 5 6 , 2 0 4
II 2 2 4
II 2 2 6
4:3,
II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 ; III 2 1 6
9:10,
1 68,74,77-8
9:11,
I 167, 169-70
I 393
8:6,
II 2 2 6
11:2,
1393
11:4,
2:5,
3:3,
3:4,
3:8,
4:1-2,
9:13,
262,
122;
9:16,
II 4 9
I 39, 50-1, 167-8, 1 7 1 , 253,

2 6 4 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 8 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II
III 2 0 9
1395
Shabbat
1:3,
Sukkah
11127,134
1:4,
I 14, 19, 70, 72, 75, 79, 1 1 0 ,
1 1 9 , 1 2 8 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; II 1 1 ,
1 2 3 , 1 2 9 ; III 2 7 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 2 6 4 ,
267-8
1:4-9,
II 1 2 1
1:5,
II 1 2 8
1:7,
III 2 1 2
1:9,
II 1 3 4 ; I I I 1 3 3 , 1 9 5
1:11,
II 1 4 4
3:1-4,
11125,130
5:4,
III 6 0
16:1,
1 360,366,371,375
17:4,
II 1 3 2 , 1 7 4
19:1,
1150,153,245,276,286,296;
III 2 5 7
19:2,
II 1 3 2
1:2,
II 1 5 0
1:8,
II 1 5 0
2:8,
I 3 9 2 ; II 2 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 8 , 3 2 3 ;
271
3:5,
II 1 5 3
3:8,
II 1 5 4
5:4,
I 260, 268, 279, 289, 297, 382,
3 8 5 ; III 5 3 , 5 6 , 6 0 , 6 4 , 8 4 , 2 6 3
5:5,
1342
Ta'anit
3:9,
1396
3:10,
1 99,120,133,177
4:2,
I 29, 44, 268, 275, 279,
2 9 7 , 3 9 9 ; III 6 3 , 9 9 , 2 6 2
Terumot
Sheqalim
2:3,
4:2,
8:3,
II 1 4 7
128,48,402
II 1 4 8
Shevi'it
1:1,
1:5,
II 7 2
1149,182
2:4,
2:8,
3:3,
II 7 8
1179,90
I 195
4:2,
4:4,
5:2,
5:3,
6:4,
7:7,
9:6,
10:2,
11 4 1 , 7 3 , 7 5 ; III 2 0 4
II 7 3
II 7 6
II 7 6
1394
1394
II 7 3 ; III 3 4 8
1 245,263,276,284
Sotah
1:1,
2:4,
II232
II227
III
1:2,
II 8 1
1:5,
1:8,
3:2,
3:3,
3:4,
4:3,
4:4,
4:7,
5:2,
5:4,
II 8 1 , 8 7 ; I I I 2 1 1
II 8 7
II 8 7
II96
II 2 1 9
II 8 2
II 8 1
II 8 6
II 8 4
II 9 0 ; III 3 4 8
Yevamot
1:2,
II 1 9 0
1:6,
3:1,
3:4,
4:3,
6:5,
6:6,
8:1,
10:6,
13:1,
II 1 5 6 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 , 2 0 4
II 1 9 4 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6
II 1 9 4
II 1 9 6
II 4 3
11 3 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 6 ; III 2 7 1
II 1 3 2
II 2 0 7
II 1 9 8 ; III 1 9
294,
389
INDICES
15:2,
II 2 0 1
15:3,
1236,251,264,278,291,295;
II 2 0 1 - 2
Yoma
1:1,
1:5,
3:6,
12
I 3 9 8 - 9 ; III 1 9 3
5:2,
1 3 7 , 5 4 - 5 ; III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 8 7
6:3,
6:9,
I 3 8 , 5 2 - 6 ; III 5 4
155
I 3 7 ; III 3 9
VIII.
BABYLONIAN
'Arakhin
TALMUD
101a,
lib,
23a,
I 4 1 8 ; III 1 1 3 , 1 9 3
II 2 1 9 , 2 4 8 ; III 1 3 2
26b,
27b,
II 2 2 8
II 2 5 0
31b,
1 2 7 3 , 295
II 2 3 4
104a,
I 236, 264, 279, 291, 295
105a,
II 3 2 4
106a,
1395
Bava Qamma
27b-28a,
' A v o d a h Zarah
4a,
1409
7b,
1414
11a,
1341
15b,
1176,80
20a,
274
32a,
36a-b,
37a,
37a-b,
39b,
I 3 6 7 , 3 8 3 - 4 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2 ,
50a,
65b,
93b-94a,
II 2 5 1
115b-116a,
II 9 2 ; I I I 8 , 2 2 2
Bekhorot
12a,
1 3 5 9 , 3 7 7 ; III 1 5 , 2 0 2
II 1 2 1
I 7 1 , 75, 80
175
1 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; III 1 9 1 , 2 6 7
1393
I 3 9 5 ; II 3 5 7 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 - 2 , 2 7 4 - 5
II 2 5 1
I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2
30b,
II 6 6 , 2 4 7 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 7
33a,
II 2 4 6
34b,
1195
37b-38a,
II266
38a,
I 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 - 7 0 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5
39b-40a,
II 3 0 - 3 3 ; III 1 3 7
Bava Batra
4a,
1 3 9 1 ; III 5 3 , 6 2 , 6 7 , 9 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2
13a,
II228
21a,
I 3 9 7 ; III 2 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 3
41b,
II 2 2 3 ; I I I 2 2 3
60b,
12
111a,
1415
120b,
II 2 1 9
133b,
I 7 6 , 3 9 3 ; III 3 5 , 4 3 , 4 8 , 5 9 ,
66, 107, 187

133b-134a,
I 198, 203, 206-7, 2 1 0 ;
III 3 7 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 5
134a,
1 264, 2 7 9 , 2 9 6
139b, 140b,
I 394
157a,
II 2 3 7
B a v a Mesi'a*
30b,
II 5 6
43a-b,
44a,
II235
II 2 3 5 - 7 ; III 2 0 , 1 1 7
44b-45a,
59b,
II96
I 2 3 9 ; III 2 7 9
75a,
I 272, 277, 295
85a,
1 2 7 2 , 2 7 7 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 4 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 2
Berakhot
lOb-lla,
II41
11a,
II 1 5 1
17b,
19a,
23a,
29a,
188
II 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 3 - 4
I 1 0 4 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 7 7 ; III 9 8
I I 5 3 ; III 7 , 1 4 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 9 4
1 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 2 ; III 4 6 , 6 6 , 1 0 8 ,
33a,
I 3 9 5 ; II
374-5
34a,
1395
357-8,
368,
370-2,
34b,
I 1 6 2 , 3 6 1 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 5 , 3 9 4 ; II
3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 4 - 5 ; III 5 2 , 6 7 ,
87, 1 1 1 , 138, 192, 273, 276
36a,
II 7 1
42b,
II 4 2
43b,
I 3 6 7 ; I I 4 2 , 5 3 ; III 7 , 2 0 2 , 2 7 4
47a,
II 6 3
48a,
I 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 - 6 ; III 5 0
51b,
II 5 1
51b-53b,
II44
53a,
I I 5 1 - 2 ; III 7 , 4 2 , 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 7 4 ,
294
390
INDICES
60a,
1 2 5 3 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 9 , 4 3 ,
260
61b,
63a,
I 3 9 5 ; II 3 6 0 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 4
I 253, 277, 285, 286, 297, 4 1 5
31b,
II 6 3
40a,
II182
40a-b,
II 4 9
48b,
I I 1 3 7 ; III 1 3 0
48b-49a,
Besah
2a,
11126,133
2a-b,
II 1 6 0
4a,
I I 1 6 0 ; III 2 1 5
6b-7b,
12b,
II175
68b,
1 3 8 3 - 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 1 6
93a,
7b,
1135,172
9a-12b,
II 1 6 0
II 1 7 3
II174
III 1 4 3 , 1 6 1 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 3
II204
69b, 71a, 72a-b,

86a,
II 1 3 8
II 1 6 0
9b,
11a,
II 1 3 6
54b,
66b,
II 1 3 6
II 6 7
Gittin
8a-b,
II 2 3 2
36a,
1262,277,283,296
14a,
II175
1 4 a - b , II 1 6 0
36b,
37a,
1263
III 3 4 3
14b,
15b,
40b,
II228
41a-b,
II228
II 1 7 5
II167
16a,
I 1 8 6 , 3 2 4 , 3 3 1 , 4 1 7 ; III
115, 191, 265
17a,
II 4 9 , 1 8 2
29,
17b,
11 1 3 9 , 1 6 7 , 1 8 0 ; III 9, 2 0 0
19a,
I 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; II 1 6 7 - 9 ,
1 8 7 ; III 1 3 0 , 2 2 1
19a-b,
II 1 7 1
1 9 b - 2 0 a , II 1 8 8
20a-b,
I 326, 331, 335-6, 339, 389;
II167
20b,
II 1 6 9 ; I I I 1 9 , 4 1
21b,
II 1 6 7
22a,
II 1 6 7
22b,
II 1 6 7 - 9 , 1 7 2 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 3
25a,
I 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 5 - 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 ,
256
31a,
II180
27a,
II160
'Eruvin
2b,
3b,
II135
II 6 7
6a,
II 1 3 6 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 0 0
6b,
II156
7a,
11 8 0 , 2 6 6
llb-12a,
II 1 3 5
13b,
271
17b,
27b,
30a,
30a-b,
30b,
I I 2 - 3 , 5 1 , 1 5 8 ; III 6 0 , 6 7 , 1 9 6 ,
II 6 3
I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2
III 1 3 0
II 1 3 9 ; III 9, 1 8 , 2 0 0
II 1 3 6
44b,
1195
55a-b,
II 2 3 4
57a,
I 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 , 3 8 9 ; III 1 0 9 ,
189, 263
57b,
I 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 8 8
60b,
III 1 4 5
74b,
1 2 6 3 , 2 7 7 , 282, 295
79b,
II230
81a,
III 3 4 8
81a-b,
II 2 3 1
90a,
II 3 8 - 9 , 2 3 2 ; III 1 7
Hagigah
2a,
4a,
6a,
7b,
8a,
11 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 , 2 2 8
II 1 0
II 1 8 3
11183,185
II 1 8 3
9b,
1 2 7 1 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 6 3 , 1 1 0 ,
190, 261
12a,
II 1 8 9 ; III 1 9 , 6 3 , 1 2 9 , 1 9 6
13a,
1416
14a,
1395
16b,
I 1 0 5 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 5 - 6 , 1 8 4 ; III 4 6 ,
108, 189, 216
17a-b,
II 1 8 5
22a,
II 2 6 8 - 9 , 2 8 1 ; III 2 0 6
22a-b,
II 2 8 2 ; II 2 1
22b,
II281
25b,
II276
Hullin
18a,
II242
391
INDICES
36b,
42b,
I 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; III 2 6 7
II266
43b,
II204
43a-44a,
II 1 5 6
51a,
II 3 6 3
52b,
II 2 6 6
55b,
75a,
1418
II324
81a,
86a,
11360, 365
1395
88b,
I I 1 6 8 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6
104b,
5b,
I 105, 119, 123-5
7a,
1109
20a,
II 1 0 1 - 5
23a,
1396
Megillah
II 2 4 3 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 6 , 1 9 7
104b-105a,
Makkot
II244
107b,
119b,
I 2 0 2 - 3 , 2 0 5 ; 2 1 0 , III 1 8 9
1116,121
135a,
II244
136b,
II 8 6 ; III 2 0 8
163a,
II 8 1
3a,
1 3 5 6 , 3 9 3 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2
7a,
11323,336
10a,
1341
11a,
I 3 9 ; III 3 9 , 1 8 7
21a,
I 2 7 5 , 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 1 ; III
4 6 , 1 1 6 , 192
Menahot
18a,
II 2 9
31a,
II 2 5 5
40a,
II 4 0
40a-b,
Keritot
III 7, 1 3 7 , 2 0 8
40a-41b,
45a,
II 3 0 - 2
1416
7b-8a,
II 2 5 3
21a,
II 3 3 5 ; III 1 2 1
49b,
28b,
63a,
II 2 4 8 ; III 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 7
81b,
II 2 1 5
I 3 9 8 ; III 6 1
Ketuvot
6a-b,
II 3 0 3
7a,
II217
17a,
II 2 1 1 ; III 1 1 , 2 0 , 1 3 6 , 1 9 6
26b-27a,
1415
27b,
1415
59b,
60a,
II 2 0 7 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6
II208
60a-b,
II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 , 3 0 7 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 7 ,
216
61b,
II 2 0 7
66b,
II 2 7 6
67b,
1 271,277, 286,296
71a-b,
II 2 0 7
78a-b,
II209
80b,
II 2 0 9
81a-b,
II 2 0 9
81a,
II 1 9 6 , 2 0 1 - 2
82a, 1 1 1 1
82b,
88b,
I 107, 121, 129

1394
104b-105a,
1394
105a,
1413,414
106b,
I 402, 409
107a-b,
1394
108a-b,
I 394
109a,
1 356,365, 370,375
109a-b,
1394
110a,
1394
1393
103a,
II 2 1 5
104a,
II 335
109b,
1 3 6 , 5 4 - 6 , 8 3 ; III 4 8 , 5 8 , 6 7 ,
92, 106-7, 1 6 1 , 187, 2 1 5

Mo'ed Qatan
3b,
II 7 2
13a,
1195
20a,
27a,
II 1 8 3 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 2 7
1341
Nazir
4b,
1 3 4 , 4 5 ; III 3 3
5b,
II222
9a,
II216
9a-b,
II 2 1 5
9b,
II 2 1 5
lOa-b,
II215
19b-20a,
II217
20a, II 2 2 3
30b,
II221
31a-b,
II 2 1 9
32a-b,
II 2 1 9
34a,
II 2 2 5
46b,
52b,
53a,
II 2 2 3 - 4 ; III 1 3 1 , 1 9 6
1 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 ; II 2 7 8 - 8 0
1200
Nedarim
9a,
145
392
INDICES
9b,
I 3 4 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 , 3 3 1 ; III 2 8 ,
33, 110, 190

9b-10a,
10a,
10b,
140
140
II 2 2 1
64b,
1 2 5 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; III 5 2 , 6 8 , 1 1 0 ,
190
66a,
1 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 ; III 3 4 9 , 3 6 6
66a-b,
I 256, 261, 277, 279, 286,
2 9 6 ; III 2 5 7
19a,
171,75,80
25b-26a,
II212
66b,
I 3 3 1 ; III 1 9 0 , 3 4 2
70, 1 1 5 3
28a,
II 2 1 2 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1
33b,
38a,
1394
III 1 4 5
70b,
88a,
66b,
69a,
I 3 9 0 ; III 5 3 , 6 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 2
II 2 1 4
71a-b,
74b,
II 2 1 4
II 1 9 4
Niddah
2a-4b,
1 327,331
7b,
II 3 0 9 ; I I I 2 2
lib,
11297,308
15a,
1327,331
16a-b,
II 2 9 7
16b,
33b,
II 2 9 9 ; III 2 1
12
34a-b,
11 2 9 9 - 3 0 0
35b,
1 1 2 9 9 , 308-9
36a,
II308
47b,
II 3 0 1
64b,
II 3 0 9
64b-65b,
II 3 0 3
65a,
II 3 0 9
69b,
II 3 0 3
71a-b,
II 3 0 3
72a,
II 3 0 4 ; I I I 2 2 , 2 1 5
72a-b,
II 3 0 3
72b,
11319,321
116,
II 3 0 3
2a,
3a,
II 1 4 0
II 1 7
3b,
1 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 2 0 ; III 3 1 , 1 1 5 ,
220, 262
15b,
II 1 4 3 ; I I I 1 3 0
16a,
171,75,80
20b,
II 9 2 ; I I I 8 , 1 3 5 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 2
21a,
II 1 4 3
35b,
II 6 3
36b-37a,
II 1 6 7
37b,
II 1 1 8
45b, 1 4 0 7
55a,
II 1 4 1
57a,
88a-b,
I 3 9 8 , 4 1 7 ; III 6 1 , 1 1 6 , 2 0 8
II 2 2 8
88b,
I 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 4 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 6 ,
192, 273
92a,
96a,
11142,145
I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2
103a,
II 4 4
112b,
114a,
1395
II 5 1 , 1 4 2
115a,
I 2 5 8 , 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 , 2 9 6 ; III 2 9 ,
42
116b-117a,
II 1 4 2
117a,
II 1 4 3 ; I I I 1 3 9
Qiddushin
lla-b,
II 2 3 3
42a-43a,
II 2 3 4
42b,
II235-6
43a,
I 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 ; I I 2 3 3 - 4 ; III
14, 42, 109, 189, 264
49b, 1 4 0 0
54b,
II 59
65a-b,
II 2 3 1 - 2
66a,
I 1 0 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 6 3 , 1 7 5 - 6 ; III 3 6 ,
44, 50, 107, 182-3, 188, 250
66b,
111 3 2 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 5
75a,
1 263,279, 295
Rosh Hashanah
5a-b,
Pesahim
I 1 4 7 ; III 3 1 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8
1342
1342
14b,
II 1 5 6 , 1 8 1 , 2 0 4
14a-b,
II 8 0
16b-17a,
II 2 3 9 ; I I I 6 3 , 1 9 7
Sanhedrin
4a,
II 2 4 0
9a-b,
III 9 8
11a,
I 265, 279, 292, 296, 344, 3678 , 3 7 5 ; II 1 2 2 ; I I I 6 1
lib,
I 3 7 2 - 3 ; III 2 1 7
14b,
I 128-30
17b, 1 4 1 4
19a-b,
I 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 ; III 3 7 , 5 1 , 6 8 ,
108, 188
19b,
III 59
393
INDICES
31a,
II 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 ; III
37b,
46a,
I 1 0 9 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 5 - 6 ; III
I 115
46b,
223
92
135a,
II 1 3 2
142b,
II 1 7 5
142b-143a,
II 1 3 3
1121
143a,
II 1 2 6
69b,
II 2 2 7
88a,
88b,
II 5 6
1 327,331,334,339
148b,
157a,
I 254, 277, 284, 285,

II 1 2 6
91a,
96b,
134
I 149-50, 153
107b,
295
Shevi'it
34a,
I 8 4 , 1 2 1 ; III 4 4 , 4 6 , 4 9 , 5 9 ,
68
1 109,119,125-6
38b, 40b,
48b,
1394
II 2 2 6
Shabbat
Sotah
12a,
13a,
II 1 3 4
II 1 2 7 , 2 4 3
12a,
III
13b,
I 3 1 4 , 3 3 8 , 4 1 6 ; I I 1 2 1 - 2 ; III
112, 267
16a,
20a,
II 1 6 8
1417
14b,
I 13, 19, 21, 104, 110-11, 119,
1 2 1 , 3 1 2 ; III 2 7 , 1 1 5 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 2 6 4
21a,
1 2 7 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 5 2 , 6 4 ,
14a-15a,
337
I 69, 75, 79, 8 1 , 317, 330,
15a,
I 20, 1 0 4 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 - 6 , 252,
294, 327, 331, 333, 337-8, 3 4 6 , 3 8 2 ;
III 7, 4 6 , 1 2 9 , 1 9 1 , 2 6 7
15b,
16b,
III 1 9 1
II 1 2 7
16b-17a,
II 1 2 7
17a,
I 3 1 9 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 9 ; I I 1 2 8 ; III
17, 3 1 , 68, 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 220, 267-8,
341, 344, 366
17b,
II 1 2 1
18a-b,
II 1 2 1
18b,
II 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 - 9 , 1 4 3 - 4 ; III
206
139,
19a,
1197,203,208; II11,128,134;
III 1 1 7 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 5
21b,
II 1 3 4 ; III 9, 1 3 7 , 1 9 5
25a,
II 3 0
25b,
II 4 0
30b-31a,
I 3 2 3 , 3 3 1 - 2 , 3 3 8 ; III
67, 1 1 5 , 1 9 1 , 265
31a,
III 6 2
31a-b,
III 3 5 2
36b-37a,
II 1 2 5 , 1 3 0
39b,
II 1 6 7
42a,
II 1 3 0
77a,
II 3 3 5
112b,
1395
115a,
117a,
123a,
124a-b,
127b,
1 367,369, 371,375
II 1 3 5
II 1 7 4
II 1 3 2 , 1 6 0
II 6 3
52,
260
67, 1 1 0 , 190
22b,
12
24a,
II 1 9 6
24a-b,
II 2 2 6
25a,
II 2 0 9
25a-b,
II 2 2 6
25b,
II 2 2 6
33a,
I 3 5 , 5 0 - 1 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 ; III
48, 67
42a,
I 4 1 1 - 1 2 ; III 2 5
44a,
II 2 7 5
47a,
I 8 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 ; III 4 3 4, 46, 59, 68, 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 252
47b,
I 62, 327, 3 3 1 , 334, 339
48a,
I 163, 165, 167, 169-70
48b,
I 2 6 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II 1 2 2
Sukkah
3a,
II 1 5 1
7b,
II 1 5 1
9a,
II 1 5 0
15a,
II 1 5 0
16a-b,
II 1 3 8
18b,
II 1 4 3
20a,
1 2 7 0 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 6 1 - 2
22b,
I I 1 5 3 ; III 1 9 5
28a,
I 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 6 ,
115, 276
28a-b,
II 1 5 1
28b,
1393
35b,
II 6 3 , 1 5 3
38a,
II 1 5 4
53a,
I 260, 268, 277, 279, 289, 297,
3 8 3 , 3 8 6 ; III 5 6 , 6 0 , 8 1
56a,
II 4 4 , 51
394
INDICES
Ta'anit
107a-b,
13a,
13b,
19a,
1 4 0 9 , 4 1 1 ; III 6 1
1412
1104
23a,
I 106, 114, 120, 130, 134, 177;
III 51
23a-b,
I 8 2 ; III 6 2 , 1 0 8
23b,
24b,
11151,66,188
3 6 2 - 3 , 3 6 5 ; III 5 9
25a,
28a,
11 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 - 7 , 3 7 3 - 5
11 3 6 8 - 9 , 3 7 3
107b,
270
115a,
116b,
6b,
11201,221
121a,
121b,
II 3 5 7
1395
122a,
II221
Yoma
III 1 4 5
15b-16a,
30b,
1 7 2 , 7 5 , 77-8
I I 2 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 4 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 7
Yevamot
9a,
II19p
11a,
13a-b,
II 1 5 8
II 1 9 0
13b,
11141,204
14b,
II204
15a,
I 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 ; II 8 0 , 2 0 5 ; III
274
15a-b,
II 1 9 0
15b,
I 2 1 , 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 6 , 3 3 2
16a,
II 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 ; I I I 2 0 8 , 2 6 8 - 9
27a,
11 1 9 0 , 2 0 4
28a, 29a-b,
II 1 9 4
37a,
37b,
38b,
1261,264,279,295
1394
II 2 0 9
51b,
II194
61b,
II 2 2 3
61b-62a,
II 1 9 8
62a,
II 2 0 6
67a,
I 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 5 , 2 1 1
80a,
II 3 0 1
83a-b,
II 1 9 6
89b,
II 2 1 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 6 , 2 0 0
9 5 a , * II 2 0 7 ; I I I 1 0 , 2 1 3
101b,
II 1 9 8
IX.
D e u t . R. 1 3 : 5 ,
MIDRASHIM AND
1121
Ex. R. 5 2 : 3 ,
III 3 5 5
G e n . R. 1 : 1 ,
II 1 8 9
12:14,
46:13,
I 37, 39, 164, 167-8, 172, 398;
III 1 8 7 , 3 2 4
9b,
1400
1141
14b,
1 365, 368, 370

11201,221
117a,
9a,
Temurah
II198
II 2 0 6 ; III 1 9 , 3 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6 ,
II 1 8 9
II 1 5
19a,
19b,
I 3 9 6 - 7 ; III 53, 1 9 2
12
21b,
35a,
I 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; III 1 1 2
1324
35b,
1 1 4 8 , 1 5 3 , 259, 279, 296, 3989 ; III 52-4, 6 1 , 6 7 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 , 1 9 0 ,
256, 260
39a,
I 4 1 1 - 1 2 ; III 2 5 , 1 1 2
39a-b,
1 3 1 , 5 2 - 6 ; II 4 7 , 1 6
53b,
I 3 9 5 ; II 3 6 1 - 3 , 3 7 4 - 5
63b,
1414
69a,
1 3 3 , 4 9 - 5 0 ; III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 8 7
71b,
1 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 ; III 4 4 , 5 1 , 6 6 , 1 0 8 ,
188
77b,
I 1 9 7 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 0 ; III 2 9 ,
108, 189, 265
79a,
1 3 6 2 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 0 , 375
79b,
1134,160
80a,
II 1 4 9 ; III 9, 1 3 5 , 2 0 0
83b,
II363
Zevahim
34b,
36b,
37b,
38b,
65a,
74a,
79a,
OTHER
1414
II 2 4 0
II240
II 2 4 2
1417
1414
I 265, 277, 280-1, 296
COMPILATIONS
65:27,
I 7 7 ; III 3 5 , 4 8 , 5 9 , 6 6 , 1 2 1 ,
134-6
98:8,
1 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 4 , 297
100:24,
1 2 7 5 , 277, 296
L e v . R.
1:5,
1 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 6 , 6 4 , 1 1 5 ,
395
INDICES
191, 263
13:5,
1 4 0 , 4 9 ; III 6 7
34:3,
I 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 2 , 6 2 , 6 7 ,
82, 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 260
35:8, 1 1 2 1
35:10,
1 117, 121,130-1
36:1,
II 1 8 9
65:27,
1 75
Pesiqta R a b b a t i ,
I 41, 44
Ruth Rabbah 1 : 1 8 ,
III 3 5 5
Ch. 1 2 ,
191,
Ch. 1 4 ,
Ch. 1 5 ,
Ch. 20,
Ch. 22,
I 2 7 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 7 , 1 1 0 ,
265
I 274, 296
I 3 3 1 - 2 , 3 3 8 , 3 6 7 , 3 6 9 ; III 2 6 5
1405,409
II 3 7 2
Ch. 28,
Ch. 37,
Ch. 40,
1274,277,297
1274,277,296
1 367, 369
Song Rabbah 8:7,

Megillat
Q o h . R.
1:15,
I 2 7 0 ; III 6 3
2:14,
11 1 5 6 , 2 0 4
3:3-4,
III 9 8
3:4-5,
I 2 2 8 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 2 6 3
7:12,
111 6 2 , 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 5 - 6
10:20,
I 3 9 0 ; III 6 2 , 9 8
Pesiqta d e R K a h a n a
p.
p.
p.
p.
III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 2 0 8
X. GENERAL
A
Aaron, I 149, 297
C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 6
A b b a , R.,
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 2
L e v i r a t e marriage, II 2 0 5
Sukkah, I I 1 5 7
A b b a Hanan, III 6 9 , 8 4
A b b a H i l q i a h : see H o n i t h e C i r c l e r
A b b a b. R. Hiyya b. A b b a , R., I 1 1 3
A b b a J o s e p h b. Hanan, I 3 9 8 , 4 0 0 ;
III 6 1
F o r m u l a s a n d p a t t e r n s , III 1 1 6
Abba Joseph Holiqofri of Tibeon,
II 3 1 1 - 1 2
A b b a b . M a m m e l , R., I 2 4 7
A b b a Saul,
H a n d s o n f e s t i v a l offering, I I 1 8 8 - 8 9
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 8 1
Red heifer offering, I 4 0
L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 6
Verifications, III 2 0 2
A b b a Saul b. Botnit, I 3 9 8 , III 6 1
A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan, I 4 1 5 , 4 1 7
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , I I I 2 0 8 . See Abba
Joseph
Ta'anit
p. 3 3 7 , III 1 0 8
p. 3 4 2 , III 1 0 8
p. 342-43, 1 1 2 1
A v o t deR Natan
Ch. 5,
I 2 7 2 ; III 5 2 , 6 4
73 1 : 1 1 ,
140
74 1 : 1 , 1 4 0
176, I 168
308 1:17, 1 4 1
INDEX
A b b a h u , R., I 5 7 ; III 1 8 7
Simeon the Just and priesthood, I 37
A b b a y e , I 3 0 1 ; III 3 6 , 1 8 2
D i s c i p l e o f Hillel, I 2 6 4
E g g w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 1
F o o d eaten w i t h o n e hand, I 1 9 8 ,
204
F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 3 1 1
Gamaliel I, I 3 9 5 , 3 9 7
G r a p e s , uncleanness, I 3 2 7
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 0 , 2 5 5
Menahem went forth, I 184-85
Menstration, uncleanness, I 3 2 7
Nazirite and guilt offering, I 4 0
Prosbul, I 2 6 2 - 6 3
Y a n n a i and the Pharisees, 1 1 0 7 , 1 0 9
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 ,
175
A b e l , F. M . , I l l 3 6 7
A b i n , R., I 4 1
Abner, I 275
A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4
E i g h t y first d a y , I I 2 5 1 - 5 3
A b r a h a m , III 7 7
A b r a h a m s , Israel, II 2 8 2 ; III 3 6 7
A b t a l i o n , I 5, 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ; III 1 8 8
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 5 1 - 5 2 ,
57, 62
396
INDICES
Abtalion
B i r d a n d a n i m a l s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 ,
152-53, 158-59
Bitter water and adultress, I 1 4 4 - 4 6 ,
151-53, 157-59
F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 9 1 - 9 2 , 9 6 ,
A g r i p p a , 1 3 6 3 , 3 7 4 , 3 9 7 ; III 6 3 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 1
Passover census, I 2 3 2 , 2 5 4
Agrippas the Elder, I 342
A h a , R . , I 3 7 , 4 1 ; III 3 9
A h a b . R a v a , R., I 1 0 5 - 0 6
A h i k a r , S t o r y of, I I I 7 3
A l b e c k , H., I 6 2 , 7 7 , 2 2 4 , 3 8 0 ; II 5 ;
98-99, 108, 1 1 5 , 303, 306-07, 3 1 1 ,
III 3 3 3
328, 341, 343, 345, 347, 351-52
i
Gamaliel, I 3 5 3 - 5 4
Gamaliel, I 346
Mishnah, I 8
H a n d s , uncleanness, I 3 1 7
H i l l e l as s t u d e n t , I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 2 - 5 3
Seder Mo<ed, 1 3 4 6 ; I I 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 4
Hillel quoted, I 1 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
Seder Joharot, I 1 9 5
158-59
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III 2 8 , 3 1
H i l l e l s t u d i e d as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 59, 262
Immersion pool, I 143-46, 152-58,
303, 305-06
Insults f r o m high priests, I 1 4 9 - 5 0 ,
152-53, 159
J u d a h b. D o r t a i criticizes, I 1 4 7 - 4 8 ,
152-53, 158-59, 183
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 2
M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7
M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2
O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 6 8
Passover overriding Sabbath, I 2 3 3 35, 245-46, 248-51, 255
Prosbul, I 2 1 9
Sennacherib descended f r o m , I 1 5 0 ,
152-53, 158-59
S p l i t t i n g R e d Sea, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
155, 159
Terumah, e a t i n g , I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 8 - 5 9
T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 1 6
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 1
Yosi quoting, I 151-53, 158-59
A b u n , R., I 2 9 , 4 0 - 4 1
A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6 , 3 4 9
A d a m a n d E v e , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3
A d d a b . A h a v a , R., I 1 1 5 - 1 6
A d l e r , S., I l l 3 6 7
A d m o n , I 3 8 7 ; III 3 4 , 1 9 2
Decisions and Gamaliel, I 3 5 0 - 5 1 ,
355-56, 370
F o r m u l a s a n d p a t t e r n s , III 1 1 5
Gamaliel, I 354-56, 373, 3 7 5 , 3 9 4
A d u l t e r y , bitter waters and adultress,
I 144-46, 151-53, 157-59
A g e n i t o s the H e g e m o n , I 3 4 3 ; III 8 1 ,
191
Seder ZeraUm, I 1 8 9 ; II 4 6 , 5 2 ,
70-71, 81, 96, 98, 104, 106, 1 1 8
Alcimus, I 77
Alexander Jannaeus, I 98, 1 2 8 , 137-41,
1 7 5 ; III 3 0 5 , 3 0 7 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 4 , 3 4 6 ,
349, 355
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 8 , 5 4 , 6 7
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 3 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 4
Alexander the G r e a t , I 2 5 , 3 2 - 3 4 , 4 0 43, 48-50, 57, 59
A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e : see Salome
Alexandria, I 36
J u d a h b . T a b b a i in, I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 ,
109, 118-19, 128, 137, 139
A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9
A l l o n , G . , I 5 , 3 9 2 ; III 3 3 2
A l t a r , maimed people rejected, I 4 0 1 ,
405, 407, 412
A l u m - c r y s t a l vessels, II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2
Ammi, I 246
A m m o n , III 1 7 0 , 2 7 7 - 7 8
Second Tithe, II 1 0 7 - 0 8
Amram, I 221
Ananus, I 387
A n i m a l s , m a r k i n g f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 ,
152-53, 158-59
Antigonus of Sokho, I 57, 60-61, 67,
8 1 , 1 6 4 ; III 4 8 , 5 7 , 6 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7
F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 3 0 3 , 3 0 8 ,
329, 353
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 0
Antiochus Epiphanes, I 1 7 3 - 7 4
A n t i p a t e r , III 3 0 5 , 3 5 2
Antipatris, I 32, 49
Aphrahat
Grapeclusters, I 62
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 2
' A q a v i a h b. Mahallel, 1 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 4 1 5 - 1 6 ;
III 1 8 5
INDICES
Hananiah, Prefect o f the Priests,

' I 401, 406-10, 4 1 2
' A q a v y a , III 1 3 7
<Aqiba, R . , I 2 1 1 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 1 , 4 1 4 1 5 ; III 1 3 8 , 1 8 1 - 8 5 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 6
A l l e y w a y validated, II 1 3 5
Baking o v e n , outlet, II 2 6 7 - 6 8 , 3 3 1
Bitter water, adultress, I 1 5 1 , 1 5 7 - 5 8
Circumstantial evidence, I 88-89
Cleanness, I 6 1 - 6 2
D i v o r c e , II 2 3 2
F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 6 6
F l e e c e gift, I I 2 4 4
F o r m s a n d character, III 9 0 - 9 1 , 9 8 ,
115, 301, 317, 333, 344
Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 - 4 2 , 3 5 2 , 3 5 8 , 3 6 8
Grapeclusters, I 6 3 , 67-68
G r a v e , bottle plugging, II 2 8 6 - 8 7
Hallel, r e c i t i n g , I I 1 4 2 - 4 3
Hananiah, Prefect o f the Priests,
' i 401-06, 4 1 2
H e a v e offering, 1 1 8 9 - 9 1 ; 1 1 1 4 3 - 4 4
Heavenly echo, I 2 8
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 3 - 4
Historic role, III 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 8 ,
261, 265, 274-75, 277, 279-80, 285
Itch w i t h i n itch, I 2 1 4
Legal traditions, I 1 4 , 2 2 - 2 4
Levirate marriage, II 2 0 2
L i v e d 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 - 2 1
Lulav, s h a k i n g , I I 1 5 4 - 5 5
M a r r i a g e contract, II 2 3 8
Martyrdom, I 77
N u m b e r Israelite f o r firstling, I I 2 4 6
O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I
111-13, 250
Olives and grapes, unclean, II 3 2 4
Oral transmission and tradition, III
143.44, 1 4 6 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 , 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 8 ,
171-75, 177-78
P l o u g h i n g in S e v e n t h Y e a r , 1 1 9 5 - 9 6
Property litigation, I 1 0 3
Pro^bul, I 2 2 0 , 2 2 3
Scroll w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 9
Sheet, insusceptible, II 2 5 7
Sukkah f o r i n f a n t , I 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 2 1 0
Tannaitic Midrashim, II 1 1 - 1 4 , 2 9 ,
36-38
T i t h i n g , I I 8 0 - 8 1 , 3 4 7 ; c h a n g i n g sela,
I 1 9 0 ; II 9 6 , 9 8 , 3 2 8 ; Second
Tithe, II 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 4 9
Tree, water f r o m shaking, II 3 1 5
Trespass, II 2 3 5
397
Uncleanness, II 5 3 , 1 2 9 ; bulk o f egg,

I 192
Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 0 9 , 2 1 2 - 1 4 ,
216, 225-27, 229
V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 0
W o m a n remarrying, I 348-50
Zab, Pharisaic e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r ,
I I 1 2 8 ; Zab-stztc,
ambiguity, II
317, 319-21
Aristobulus, I 1 7 7 ; III 3 0 5
A s h i , R., I 1 4 7
Alexander the Great, I 3 3 - 3 4
Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 5 8
M u r d e r s , tax collectors, II 2 1 2
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 5 - 0 6
Property redemption, I 2 7 3
A s h q e l o n , I 4 1 5 ; III 3 6 , 4 4 , 4 9 , 1 6 7 ,
281, 311
Simeon b. Shetah and witches, I 8 9 93,98,100-03,115-16,120-21,128,
131-33, 141, 149
Assi, R., 1 3 9 6 ; III 5 3
A s s u m p t i o n o f Moses, III 7 3
A z a r i a h , P r a y e r of, I I I 7 3
B
Baba b. Buta, I 5 ; III 9 8 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 2
Aggadic traditions, III 5 3 , 6 2 , 6 7
Egg w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 0 8 09
Formulas and patterns, III 1 1 1 , 1 1 6
G u i l t offering, III 3 8
History o f traditions, III 2 6 3 , 2 6 7 - 6 8
Lay on hands, I 309-10, 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 2 6
Shammai, I 389-91
Sukkah,
II 1 5 2
Verifications, III 1 9 9 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 8
Bacher, B . Z . ( W i l h e l m ) , III 3 5 5 , 3 6 7
Backbone a n d skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2
Baeck, L e o , III 3 2 3
Baer, Y i s h a q , III 3 5 3 , 3 6 5 - 6 6
Bailiff, p a y a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f r e
moval, II 1 1 - 1 3 , 3 4 5
Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 7 - 6 9 ,
280-84, 329-31, 352
B a r K o k h b a , III 2 8 5
War, I 239-40
Baron, Salo W i t t m a y e r , III 3 5 4 , 3 6 6
Bar Qappara, I 2 5 3
B a r u c h , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3
B a r u k h , H. L . , I l l 3 3 6
398
INDICES
Batanaea, I 3 9 2
Bathing, religious duty 1 2 7 5 - 8 0 , 2 9 7
Bathyra
Hillel quoting Shema'iah and A b t a
lion, I 1 4 6 - 4 7
P a s s o v e r sacrifices, I 1 5 0 - 5 1
Beams, return stolen beams, II 3 2 4 - 2 7 ,
351
B e l a n d t h e D r a g o n , III 7 3
Belkin, Samuel, III 3 4 7
Bena'ah, I 1 4 2
Ben 'Azzai, I 1 9 1 , 3 5 2
Verifications, III 2 0 4 , 2 2 6
Ben Bag Bag, I 3 9 2 - 9 3
B e n D a v i d , A b b a , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5
Bene Bathyra, I 2 4 2 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 9 ; III 4 4 ,
97, 210, 220
Hillel, I 3 9 2
Passover overriding Sabbath, I 2 7 2 ,
274
Bene Beraq, I 1 5 0 , 1 5 7
Ben He He, 1 5, 2 9 7 ; III 1 9 0
A g g a d i c traditions, III 6 2 - 3
F o r m s , III 9 9 , 1 1 0
Hillel, I 2 7 0 - 7 1 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 2 - 9 3
B e n S i r a , 1 2 ; III 4 9
F o r m s , III 9 3
Traditions compared, III 7 0 , 7 3 - 4 ,
8 4 . See also, S i m e o n t h e J u s t
Ben Tema, I 1 4 7
Bentzen, A a g e , III 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 5 5
B e n Z a k k a i : see Y o h a n a n b e n Z a k k a i
Ben Zoma, I 1 9 1 , 352
Verfications, III 2 0 4 , 2 2 6
Bet HaSho'evah, I 2 3 6
Betrothal,
A g e n t as w i t n e s s , I I 2 3 3 , 3 5 0
M o n e y , II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1
Between t w o evenings, II 9, 4 2 - 3 , 3 4 4
B e t Y a ' a z o q , III 2 6
B i b i , R . , II 3 , 1 5 8
Bickerman, E. J . , I 2 2 ; III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 ,
367
B i r d s , m a r k i n g f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 53, 158-59
Bitter water and adultress, Shema'iah
and Abtalion, I 144-46, 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 ,
157-59
B l a c k , M a t t h e w , III 2 9 9 , 3 6 0 - 6 4
Blessings,
Hillel and Shammai, I I 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 , 3 4 6
O n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6
Blood, gentile w o m a n , I I 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 3 0 7 09, 353
S l a u g h t e r e d a n i m a l s , c o v e r i n g of, I I
167-68, 349
U n c l e a n test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 , 3 5 3
Boethus, I 3 9 8
Boethusians, I 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 7
M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 9 4
Bondi, J . , I l l 367
Bones,
Backbone overshadows, I 1 9 4 , 200,
202-03, 209
Q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 , 3 5 2
Unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 7
B o o k o f Mysteries, III 7 7
B o u s s e t , III 3 2 6
Box, G . H., I l l 3 2 5 - 2 6 , 3 5 8 , 3 6 6
Boyce, M a r y , III 1 5 2 - 5 4
Braude, W . , I 4 1 , 4 3 , 77, 154-55
Bromiley, Geoffrey, W . , I l l 1 6 5
Briill, J . , I l l 3 5 7
Buchanan, G e o r g e Wesley, III 356-57,
360, 365
Buchler, A d o l p h , III 3 3 2 , 3 5 4 - 5 5 , 3 6 5
Buchsel, F., I l l 1 6 5
Buddhist traditions compared, III 1 5 1 52, 162
Bultmann, Rudolf, III 7 8 - 8 8 , 3 2 5 , 3 6 2 - 6 4
B u r r o w s , Millar, III 7 5
B u t t r i c k , G e o r g e A r t h u r , III 3 6 0
C
Caligula, Gaius, I 3 5 , 3 9 , 5 7
C a p e r b u s h , II 7 1 , 3 4 7
Carob tree, I 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 2
Cashdan, E., I 3 6 , 8 3
C a v e , F. H. and C. H., I l l 3 5 5
Cazelles, H e n r i , I I I 3 2 7
Chains of tradition, I 1 1 - 2 3
Decrees, I 1 3 - 1 5
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 3
M o r a l precepts, I 1 5 - 2 2
C h a r l e s , R. H., I l l 7 3
Chest measurement, II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 ,
351
C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 2 - 4 5 ,
351
Children making appearance, II 9 - 1 0 ,
35-6, 344, 346
Christensen, A . , I l l 1 5 5
INDICES
Christie, Peter, III 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 8

Circumcision, II 1 4 - 1 6 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 4 5
C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a n d illegal
death, I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 ,
122-27, 141
Cohen, A . , I 35, 8 4
"Come to m y house", 1 2 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 6 0 - 6 1 ,
267-68, 278-79, 289-90, 297
Confessions, I 1 6 0 - 6 7 , 1 6 9 - 7 1
Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 2 6 9 - 7 0 ,
284-85, 352
C o u c h o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0
Creation, II 1 8 9 - 9 0
Cross, Frank M o o r e , J r . , I l l 7 5
C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, 1 1 4 9 , 2 2 2 ,
226-27, 276-77, 284, 297
C u t t i n g t r e e s d o w n in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I
75-6, 347
Cyzicenus, I 1 7 3
D
D a n i e l , III 7 7
D a n i e l , B o o k of, I I I 7 4
David,
Hillel f r o m , I 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 4 ,
297
H o n o r relinquished, I 83
D a v i d s o n , Israel, I I I 3 4 4
Davis, Moshe, III 3 2 9
Day of Atonement,
F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , 1 1 9 7 - 9 8 ,
204
Simeon the J u s t and miracles, I 3 8 ,
55-7
D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6
D e a t h , illegal d e a t h a n d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e ; see C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i
dence
Death of husband, testimony of
w o m a n , II 1 2 9 , 3 5 0
D e b t s : see P r o z b u l
Decrees, chains o f traditions, I 1 3 - 1 5
D e i n a r d , S . N., I l l 3 6 7
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6
Demai p r o d u c e , I I 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9
D e r e n b o u r g , J . , I 3 9 7 ; III 3 2 6 , 3 2 9 ,
357, 266
Dibelius, Martin, III 7 8 , 3 2 5
D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r ,
II 7 6 , 3 4 7
D i m i , R., I l l 1 9 0
399
S h e b n a ' a n d Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2
D i s c i p l e s , b e f o r e Hillel, I 2 6 9 - 7 0 , 2 7 8 79, 2 9 7
D i s p u t e f o r sake o f h e a v e n , I 3 0 7 - 0 8 ,
327, 330-31, 334-35
D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1
Egg w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 1
Gamaliel, I 352-55, 360, 3 6 4 - 6 7
G r o u n d s f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6
P r o p e r t y , sanctifies, I I 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1
D o c u m e n t s , use o f d i v i n e n a m e , 1 1 6 6 68, 172
D o s a , R., I 2 7 0
D o s a b . H a r k i n a s , I 3 5 1 ; III 1 8 5
Fleece-gift, II 2 4 4 - 4 5
H a n a n i a h Prefect o f H i g h P r i e s t s ,
I 401, 406-10, 412
Dosetai b. R. Yannai
V e s s e l s w i t h *am ha* ares, II 2 9 2
Dositheus of Kefar Yatma, I 192-94,
2 0 9 ; III 1 8 9
Clean and unclean mingled, II 1 1 9
History o f traditions, III 2 6 8
Shammai, I 389
Dupont-Sommer, A., I l l 74, 76-7, 253
E
E d o m : see I d u m a e a
Egg white, contracting, I 2 0 0 - 0 3 , 2 0 8 09
E i g h t y disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 4 ,
278-79, 294, 296
Elbogen, I., I l l 3 6 7
Eldad, Y . , I l l 332
Eleazar,
A g g a d i c traditions, III 50, 6 7
Ben He He, I 2 7 1
G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3
N e w Y e a r o f trees, II 1 8 1
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 6 ,
248
R e d h e i f e r offering, I 2 9 , 4 0
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 7 4 - 7 5
E l e a z a r b . <Arakh, III 2 7 5 , 2 7 7
Eleazar b. 'Azariah, I 1 4 2
400
INDICES
Gamaliel, I 3 5 2
Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 3 7
S e c o n d T i t h e s , II 1 0 7
S h e a v e s , II 6 0 - 2
Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 8 , 3 4 6
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 3 - 0 4 , 2 0 8 - 0 9 ,
225-27, 235
Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b.
Garon, I 416-17
E l e a z a r b . H a r s o m , R., I 1 4 8 , 3 9 7 - 9 9 ,
4 1 3 ; III 1 9 0 , 1 9 3
A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 3 - 4
F o r m s , III 1 1 2
H i l l e l a n d studies, I 2 5 9
Simeon the Just, I 39
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 6 8
E l e a z a r b. H i s m a , I 4 1 8
Eleazar b. J u d a h , I 1 4 2
Z ^ - s t a t e ambiguity, II 3 1 7 - 1 8 , 3 2 0
Eleazar b. Pedat, R., I 4 1
Eleazar ben Po'irah, I 1 0 8
Yannai the K i n g , I 1 8 3
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 7 4 - 7 5
E l e a z a r b . S a d o q , II 7 8 ; III 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 86, 274
C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 5
Shammai, I 392
Verifications, III 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 6 27, 231
E l e a z a r b. R. S i m e o n , R . ,
D i v o r c e a n d p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 4 9
P e a t , c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1
E l e a z a r b . R. Y a n n a i , R . , II 3 2 1
E l e a z a r b . R. Y o s i , I 4 1 5 ; III 2 2 2
N a i l s , articles f r o m , I I 2 5 4
W r a p p e r s , garments, II 2 6 5
Eleazar the Scribe, I 4 1 8
Elieho'enai b. Haqqof, I 2 5
E l i e z e r , R., I l l 3 6 , 1 9 1
A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 4
Asheqelon witches, I 9 0 - 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 ,
131
B a k i n g o v e n , a r c h e d o u t l e t , II 2 8 1
B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8
Cleanness, I 6 1 - 2 , 7 0 - 1 , 8 0
D i v o r c e and p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0
Festival practices, II 1 6 0
F o r m s , III 9 1
Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 , 345, 349-50
!
!
j
'
|
G r a p e s and raisins, II 8 8 - 9
H e a v e offering, II 8 3 - 5 , 9 0 - 2
Hillel, I 3 9 3
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 1 , 2 7 3 ,
275-9
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7
L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 4 - 9 6 , 2 1 1
Marriage before puberty, II 3 0 1
143-4, 170-71, 178
R e d heifer offering, I 4 1
Scroll wrappers, II 2 5 9
Tithes, II 1 4 9 - 5 0
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8
Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 5
Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 3 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 - 1 6 ,
235
V e s s e l s w i t h 'am ha ares, I I 2 9 2
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, I 2 9 3 , 2 9 9 , 3 8 9 ;
III 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 1
Couch o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 3
Decrees, chain o f tradition, 1 1 5
F o r m , c h a r a c t e r , III 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 , 3 1 7 ,
y
344, 347^8
Gamaliel, I 3 4 5
Heave-offering, II 8 4
Hillel-Shammai debates, II 3 - 4
Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 2
Sabbath practices, II 1 3 4
T i t h e s , II 1 0 7
U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 4 5
Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 , 2 2 5 - 2 7
Witchcraft hangings, I 9 0 - 1 , 98
Eliezer b. J a c o b o f K e f a r D a r o m , 1 4 1 7 ;
III 1 9 4
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 9 - 8 0
S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 2 4 1
V i n e y a r d c r o p s a n d p l a n t i n g s , II 6 7
Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a , II 7 8 ; III 2 1 1
Elijah, I 9 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7
Honi rebuked, I 1 1 3 - 1 4
Elisha, I 8 5
E m m a u s , III 2 7 9
Enelow, Hyman G., Ill 350, 366
E n o c h , III 7 7
F o r m s , III 9 3 - 4
E n o c h , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3
INDICES
Epistle o f J e r e m y , III 7 3
E p s t e i n , J . N., I 1 3 , 2 6 , 6 3 , 6 6 , 8 2 ;
III 9 5 , 1 9 5 , 3 3 3 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 6
Mevo'ot, I 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 7 , 1 6 1 ,
187, 189, 194, 204, 230, 261, 275,
307, 309, 311-12, 341, 344-45, 397,
402, 404-05, 4 1 4 , 417
Mishnah, I 1 8 5 , 1 9 4 , 3 0 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ,
355-56, 379-80, 406
Mo'ed, I I 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 - 2 6 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 2 34, 136, 138, 141-42, 145, 148-49,
151, 153, 166, 179, 185-87
Nashim, I I 1 9 6 - 9 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 ,
221, 226, 227, 230-31
Neîqin, I I 2 3 5
Qpdashim, II 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 - 4 6 , 2 5 3
Tannaitic Midrashim, I I 9 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 2 3 ,
33, 35, 36
Zera'im, I I 4 3 , 4 8 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 5 8 , 6 2 - 3 ,
72, 75, 82, 86, 88, 92, 93, 99, 108,
110, 113, 1 1 8
Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 0 2 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 4 15, 2 1 8
Epstein-Melamed, 1 1 8 6 , 2 1 2 , 3 4 2
Mekhilta de R. S h i m e ' o n b. Y o h a i ,
I 142, 155; 119-11
'Eruv
C o u r t y a r d d i s p o s a l , II 1 3 7 - 4 0 , 3 4 9
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 379-80, 3 8 2 84
E s d r a s , B o o k s of, III 7 3
E s t h e r , B o o k of, I I I 7 2 - 3
Evenings, between t w o , II 9, 3 4 4
Ezekiel, III 1 1 2
E z r a , I 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 - 9 7 , 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ; III 2 6 2
F o r m s , III 9 4
H o l y s p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 8 , 2 5 3 ,
262, 265
Torah restored, I 2 2 1 , 270, 278-79,
297
E z r a , B o o k of, III 7 3
i
i
I
;
False w i t n e s s , I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5
Fasting-scroll, I 33
Father and husband annul v o w s , II
214-15, 350
F e l d m a n , L . H., I 1 3 8 , 1 7 3 ; III 2 4 2 ,
325, 330, 345, 354
Festival o f Tabernacles, I 3 5
Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2
Festive offering o n Sabbath, II 2 5 - 6 ,
345
F e u i l l e t , A n d r e , III 3 2 7
Fifth addition t o payment, II 2 5 0
Finkelstein, Louis, I 1 2 , 6 1 , 9 0 , 1 8 7 ,
2 1 7 , 3 4 3 ; III 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 , 2 4 8 ,
274, 325-26, 341, 354, 365-67
Tannaitic Midrashim, II 2 8 - 3 1 , 3 4 - 7
Fischel, H e n r y A . , I l l 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 5 ,
352, 365
Fitzmyer, Joseph A . , I l l 75
Fleece, II 3 6 - 7 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 6
F o o d , eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , I 1 9 7 - 9 8 ,
202-05, 2 1 0
Fourteenth o f Nisan, II 1 4 1 , 3 4 9
Frankel, Z., I l l 328, 357, 366
F r e e d m a n , H., I 8 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 ,
317, 323, 363, 369
F r i e d l a n d e r , Israel, I I I 3 5 5 , 3 6 7
Friedman, M., I 24, 90, 1 8 7 , 2 1 6 - 1 7 ,
121,343,401-02,418; 1130-2,34-7
F r u i t o f field p r e p a r e d , I I 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5
F u l l e r , R e g i n a l d H., I l l 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 6 5
! G
Gabriel, I 1 1 5
Gamaliel I, I 6, 2 2 6 , 2 9 4 - 9 5 , 3 0 1 , 3 4 1 7 6 , 3 9 1 ; III 1 8 0 , 1 9 1 - 9 2
A d m o n a n d decisions, I 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 3 5 5 -
\
I
I
|
|
F
401
56, 364-65, 370

A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 6 , 5 2 , 5 8 , 6 3
A t e in Sukkah, I 3 4 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 ,
370
Blessed beautiful gentile, I 3 6 6 - 6 7
Blessing oil, m y r t l e , I 3 6 1 - 6 2 , 3 6 6 - 6 7
B l e s s i n g s , o n e f o r all, I I 5 2 - 5 3
Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 4 - 5
D e s t r o y altars, I 3 4 3 , 3 6 4 - 6 5
Divorce and annulment, I 352-55,
360, 364-67
F e s t i v a l p r a c t i c e s , II 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 ,
172
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 5 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 5 ,
115-17, 303-04, 314-15, 355
F o u r k i n d s o f disciples, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 6 9
Gentile wine, I 359-60, 366-67
H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f t h e Priests, I
400-01
Hands, unclean, I 3 1 7 - 1 8
Hanina, healed son, I 3 6 6 - 6 7
Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III
26
402
INDICES
Hezeqiah testifying, I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 ,
368-70
Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 9
Hillel-proselyte named son Gamaliel,
I 366-67, 369
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, II 4 ; III 3 2 ,
3 5 , 3 8 , 4 0 ; III 2 5 - 7 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 4
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 8 , 2 7 2 81, 291, 296-97
H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 8 - 3 9
Is G o d j e a l o u s o f o t h e r s , I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 65
Ketuvah, c o l l e c t i n g , I 3 6 6 - 6 7
Leap-year-letters, I 3 5 6 - 5 8 ,
I
j
I
!
I
!
!
216, 219, 226-29

Gamaliel III, I 1 9
G a m a l i e l Berabbi, R . , I 3 6 9
G e b i h a b . Pesisa, I 3 4
Gedya, I 268, 392
Gehazi, I 85
360-61,
366-68, 371
L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 2 , 2 0 5
Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5
Married daughter to S i m e o n b.
Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 4 - 5

F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 ; III 3 0 6 , 3 1 5 , 3 5 1
Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 8
Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 5 2
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d e b a t e s , II 4
274-75, 281, 283
H o l y s p i r i t , w o r t h y of, 1 2 4 0 , 2 6 5
Moral precepts, I 2 1
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 273
Verifications, III 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 0 ,
Ne-
tanel, I 3 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 6 6 - 6 7
M i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n , II 2 0 8 - 1 1
O l i v e s , c l e a n n e s s , II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2
O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III
G e h e n n a , I 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 ; II 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 3 5 1
G e i g e r , A b r a h a m , III 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 , 3 3 6 ,
153, 1 6 1 , 163, 170

O t h e r Pharisees, I 3 9 4 - 9 6
Pesah, i n s t r u c t e d k i n g a n d q u e e n , I
W i n e vessels, I 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 6 6 - 6 7
W o m a n blessed, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 8 4
Gentleness and impatience, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 ,
327-32
349, 352-53, 366-67

G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, 1 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 8 - 7 9
Gentiles,
362-63, 366-67
P r o s t r a t i n g in T e m p l e , I 3 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5
Pro^bul, I 2 2 3 - 2 4
S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8
S i m e o n asks r e Pe'ah, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 6 4 -
G e r h a r d s s o n , B i r g e r , III 1 4 6 - 4 8 , 1 5 9 ,
164, 167-69, 175, 177
G e r t h , H a n s H., I l l 3 5 8
Gilat, Yishaq D., I l l 354, 365
G i n s b e r g , M . , 1 3 2 6 ; II 1 6 9
G i n z b e r g , L o u i s , III 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 , 3 3 8 - 3 9 ,
65
Sukkah f o r i n f a n t , I 1 9 3
Targum o f J o b b a n n e d , 1 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 ,
366-67, 369, 371
Terumah g i v e n , I 3 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5
T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 6
T i t h e s , II 6 3 - 4 , 9 6 , 3 4 4
T o r a h ceased o n d e a t h , I 3 5 1 - 5 2 ,
341, 346, 349, 365-67

G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2
G l a t z e r , N a h u m N., I l l 3 6 7
G o l d b e r g , A b r a h a m , II 2 6 7
G o l d b e r g e r , Israel, III 3 5 2 , 3 6 5 - 6 6
Goldin, Judah, I 60, 274, 332, 405;
362, 364-65
T o r a h studied sitting d o w n , 1 3 6 6 - 6 7
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 8 1 , 8 7
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 5 - 0 6 ,
208, 2 1 1 , 217-18, 235
W i t n e s s e s , o r d i n a n c e s re, I 3 4 7 - 4 8 ,
364-65
W o m a n remarries on testimony of
one witness, 13 4 3 , 348-50, 3 6 4 - 6 5 ,
368, 370
Y o ' e z e r asks G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 4 - 4 5 ,
364-65
Gamaliel II, I 6, 1 4 4 , 1 9 4 , 3 0 1 , 3 4 1 ,
3 5 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 8 ; III 8 1 , 1 8 1
I
j
I
|
j
I
'
I
III 3 6 7
Gamaliel, I 369
G r a e t z , H e i n r i c h , III 3 2 6 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 7 - 3 8 ,
365-67
Grapeclusters, I 62-3, 66-8, 7 1 - 2 , 7 4 - 5 ,
77-8, 81
G r a p e s o f F o u r t h Y e a r v i n e y a r d , II
59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 332-33, 346
G r a p e - g l e a n i n g s , d e f e c t i v e clusters,
II 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 5
G r a p e s in g r a v e a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 ,
352
G r a p e s , p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2
Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 ,
INDICES
3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; II 3 2 4 , 3 5 3
G r a v e area, examination f o r Nazir, II
287-88, 352
G r a v e , b o t t l e p l u g g i n g , II 2 8 6 - 8 7 , 3 5 2
Greeks, Simeon the Just, I 39-40, 42-3
G u i l t offering, I 3 8 9
G u n k e l , H., I l l 6 6 , 1 5 5
Gurion, I 238
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 ,
2 9 2 ; I I 1 2 2 ; III 51
G u t t m a n n , A l e x a n d e r , III 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 1 4 8 ,
325, 347-49, 365-67
H
H a b a k k u k Pesher, III 7 5
Haberman, A . M., I l l 75
Haggai, I 3 9 3 ; III 1 8 9
268
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 1 - 6 2 ,
265
Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1
Oral transmission and tradition,
III 1 4 5
Hagigah sacrifices, I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0
Halafta, R., I l l 3 4
Gamaliel, I 3 5 5 , 371
Halevy, Y . I., I l l 3 2 8 , 3 4 4 - 4 6 , 3 5 3 , 3 5 8 ,
364-65
Half-slave, half-free, II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9
Halivni, D a v i d Weiss, I 2 5 , 1 0 7 ; II
202, 208, 2 1 6 , 221, 224, 234
Hallah, flour p a s t e a n d d u m p l i n g s , II
118, 348
L i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 ,
330-31, 333
Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 4 9
Hamnuna, R., I 3 9 6
Hana b. J u d a h R., I 1 1 3
Hanamel the Egyptian, I 2 5
Hanan, III 6 1
Decisions, I 350-51
Gamaliel, I 3 9 4
Hanan b. A v i s h a l o m , I 3 9 4 , 4 1 3
Hanan the Egyptian, I 4 1 3 - 1 4
Hanan ha-Nehba, I 1 8 2
Hananiah,
A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6
403
Erup, I I 1 3 8 - 3 9
Hananiah b. ' A q a v i a h , R., II 2 0 8
Hananiah b. Hakhinai, I 4 1 4
Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. G a r o n , I 6 8 ,
4 1 5 - 1 6 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 2
Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 4
S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II
120, 122-23
Zab, P h a r i s e e e a t i n g w i t h
II 1 2 7
outsider,
Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 0 1 3 ; III 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 8 4 - 8 5

A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 8 , 6 2 - 6 3
Divorce, I 408
Fire of w o o d , I 4 1 0 , 4 1 2
F o r m s , III 9 3 , 9 8 - 9 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 1 9
Hide burned, I 403-05, 4 1 2
History o f traditions, II 2 8 0
House o f G o d , w o r t h missing bath,
I 410-11
Legal traditions, III 7, 1 3 - 4 , 1 5 - 6 ,
24-5
L e p r o s y signs, I 4 0 1 , 4 0 6 , 4 1 2
M a i m e d people rejected f r o m altar,
I 401, 405, 407, 4 1 2
N e e d l e i n flesh o f o f f e r i n g , I 4 1 2
Peace e q u a l s c r e a t i o n , I 4 0 1 - 0 2
Pray for government, I 4 0 4 , 4 0 8
Prefect, appointment and station,
I 410-12
Priests n e v e r r e f r a i n , I 4 0 1 , 4 1 2
Prostrations, I 4 0 3 , 4 1 2
R e a p i n g 'omer, I 4 0 5 - 0 6 , 4 1 2
S p r i n k l e d priests, I 4 0 6 - 0 7 , 4 1 2
Surplus o f drink offering, 1 4 0 1 - 0 2 , 4 1 2
Terumah unfit f o r h u m a n c o n s u m p
tion, I 407, 4 1 2
H a n d s , l a y o n sacrifice, I 1 1 - 3 , 5 7 , 6 6 70, 7 4 - 5 , 8 0 - 1 ; II 1 8 5 - 9
Judah b. Tabbai, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9
H a n d s , u n c l e a n , II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 ,
330-31, 337
H a n i n , R . , II 2 2 7 ; I I I 1 9 6
Hanina, R., I 3 4 6 , 3 7 4
Grapes unclean, I 3 2 0
Healed son of Gamaliel, I 3 6 6 - 6 7
Red-heifer-offering, I 4 1
Hanina ben Dosa, III 6 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 2
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 5 2 , 5 6 ,
59-60
404
INDICES
F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 6 , 3 1 4
Gamaliel, I 3 6 1 - 6 2 , 3 7 5 , 394-96
Heavenly echo, I 2 8 , 1 6 2
History o f traditions, III 2 7 3 , 2 7 6
P a t t e r n s , III 1 1 1 , 1 1 7
Traditions compared, III 7 1 , 8 2 ,
85-87
H a r v e s t p r o d u c e , II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8
Hashmona'i, I 3 9
H a s t i n g s , J a m e s , III 3 5 8
H e a v e offering,
Clean and unclean mingled, II 1 1 8 20, 348
Clean neutralizes unclean, II 8 3 - 6 ,
89-92, 347
Crushed olives, II 8 7 - 8 , 3 4 7
G r a p e s b e c o m e raisins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7
Meat, burning, I I 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 349
O l i v e s instead o f oil, II 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 ,
347
O p e n jars, I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8
P r o p e r measure, II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7
Shammai, I 189-90, 202-03, 209
Unclean w i n e , II 9 2
Vetches, II 3 2 7
Heavenly echo,
Simeon the Just, 1 2 7 - 8 , 3 5 , 39, 4 2 - 3 ,
50-2
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 ,
166-68, 171-72
Helene o f A d i a b e n e , II 2 1 6 - 1 7 ;
III 2 1 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 8 4
H e r f o r d , R. T r a v e r s , III 3 4 9 , 3 5 3 , 3 6 0
Herod, 1 1 1 5 , 1 5 9 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 7 ; 1 1 1 5 3 , 6 2 ,
98, 1 1 1 , 192, 304-5, 3 1 1 , 337, 34546, 351-52
History o f traditions, III 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 ,
254
Rain miracle, I 89-90
Shammai, I 390-91
Herzfeld, L., I l l 3 6 8
Hezeqiah
Testified b e f o r e G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 2 ,
364-65, 368-69, 370, 374
Testimonies, III 1 5 - 6
Hilbis, A . L., I l l 3 3 4
H i l l e l , a n d H o u s e of, I 2 , 4 - 6 , 2 9 4 - 9 7 ,
299, 301
A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 ; eighty-first
day, II 2 5 1 - 5 3 , 3 3 4
Access, giving right, II 1 3 6 , 349
A l l e y w a y validated, II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9
A l u m - c r y s t a l v e s s e l s , II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2
Apophthegms, I 224-26, 274-77, 297
B a c k b o n e a n d s k u l l , II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2
Backbone overshadowing, I 1 9 4
Bailiff, p a y m e n t a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f
removal, II 1 1 - 3 , 3 4 5
Baking o v e n overarched outlet,
II 2 6 7 - 6 9 , 2 8 0 - 8 4 , 3 2 9 - 3 1 , 3 5 2
B a t h i n g as r e l i g i o u s d u t y , I 2 7 5 - 8 0 ,
297
Beams, return stolen, II 2 3 4 - 3 7 ,
351
Ben He He, I 2 7 0 - 7 1 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7
Betrothal, II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1
B e t w e e n t w o e v e n i n g s , II 9 , 3 4 4
Blessings, o n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6
B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ,
307-09, 353
Blood, slaughtered animal, covering
of, I I 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 3 4 9
B l o o d , u n c l e a n test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 ,
353
Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 ,
352
C a p e r b u s h , II 7 1 , 3 4 7
Chest measurement, II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 ,
351
Chicken and cheese o n table, II 2 4 2 45, 351
Children making appearance, I 9 - 1 0 ,
35-6, 344, 346
Circumstantial evidence, I 8 8
Circumcision, I I 1 4 - 6 , 1 3 2 - 3 , 3 4 5
Cleanness, 1 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 ; 1 1 2
"Come to m y house", I 2 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 6 0 61, 267-68, 278-79, 289-90, 297
Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 269-70,
284-85, 352
Couch o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0
C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 2 ,
227, 276-77, 284, 297
C u t t i n g t r e e s in S e v e n t h Y e a r ,
II 7 5 - 6 , 3 4 7
D a v i d t o Hillel, I 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
294, 297
D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6
D e b a t e s c o n s i d e r e d , III 1 6 - 2 3
Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 3 - 1 5
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6
Demai p r o d u c e , I I 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9
D i g g i n g p r o d u c e in s e v e n t h y e a r ,
II 7 6 , 3 4 7
INDICES
D i s c i p l e s b e f o r e Hillel, I 2 6 9 - 7 0 ,
278-79, 297
Dispute for sake o f heaven, I 3 0 7 - 0 8 ,
327, 330-31, 334-35
D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 ; g r o u n d s
f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6 ; and p r o p e r t y ,
II 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1
E g g white contracts, I 2 0 1
E i g h t y disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 ,
274, 278-79, 294, 296
Bruv, c o u r t y a r d disposal, II 1 3 7 - 4 0 ,
349
Ezra, Torah restored, I 2 7 0 , 278-79,
297
Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2 ,
349
F i f t h a d d i t i o n a l t o p a y m e n t , II 2 5 0
Fleece, II 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 6 ; g i f t of, I I
244-45
F o r m s , III 8 9 - 1 0 0 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 1 19, 324, 328, 330-32, 334, 337-40,
344.47, 3 5 1 , 353.59
Formulas and patterns, III 1 1 4 - 1 9 ;
lacking, III 1 0 6 - 1 4
F o u r t e e n t h o f N i s a n , w o r k , II 1 4 1 ,
349
F r u i t o f field, p r e p a r e d , I I 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5
Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 - 4 2 , 344, 346-47, 354,
358, 375-76
G e h e n n a , II 2 3 8 - 9 , 3 5 1
G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 ,
278-79
G e n t l e n e s s of, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2
G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2
Grapeclusters, I 68-70
Grape-gleanings, defective clusters,
II 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 5
G r a p e s o f F o u r t h Y e a r V i n e y a r d , II
59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 332-33, 346
G r a p e s , g r a v e - a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 ,
352
G r a p e s , p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2
Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 ,
3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; II 3 2 4 , 3 5 3
G r a v e , bottle plugging, II 2 8 6 - 8 7 ,
352
G r a v e a r e a , e x a m i n e f o r N a z i r , II
287-88, 352
Hagigah sacrifices, II 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0
H a l f - s l a v e , h a l f - f r e e , II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9 ,
351
Hallah, flour pase a n d d u m p l i n g s , I I
1 1 8 , 3 4 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 -
405
07, 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333

Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 3 , 3 4 9
H a n d s o n festival sacrifice, I I 1 8 5 - 8 9
Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 ,
3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 7 ; II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3
Harvest produce passing t h r o u g h J e
r u s a l e m , II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8
Heave-offering, I 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 ; b u r n
i n g m e a t , II 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 4 9 ; clean
a n d u n c l e a n m i n g l e d , II 1 1 8 - 2 0 ,
3 4 8 ; clean n e u t r a l i z e s u n c l e a n , II
83-6, 8 9 - 9 2 , 3 4 7 ; crushed olives,
II 8 7 - 8 , 3 4 7 ; g r a p e s b e c o m e r a i
sins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7 ; o l i v e s i n s t e a d o f
o i l , I I 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; o p e n jars,
I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; p r o p e r measure, II 823, 3 4 7 ; unclean w i n e , II 9 2 ; o f
vetches, I I 3 2 7 ; v o w t o r o b b e r , tax
c o l l e c t o r , II 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 3 5 0
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 3 0 1
Holes, joining place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 75, 285-86, 352
H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 7 - 4 0 ,
252-53, 261-62, 264-65, 268-69,
278-79, 292-93, 296
Horse and slave f o r p o o r man, I 2 2 9 ,
244, 2 7 1 , 276-77, 286, 296
H u s b a n d , death b e f o r e w a t e r o r d e a l ,
II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1
Immersion, hot and cold, I I 2 9 6 , 3 5 3
Immersion pool, I 143-46, 1 5 4 - 5 7 ;
drawn water, I 303-07, 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 ,
330-31, 333
Impatience of Shammai, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 ,
327-32
Insects, e a t i n g , I 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 ,
281-82, 295
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 ,
227-28, 334, 350
I n t e r e s t in k i n d f o r b i d d e n , I 2 2 4 ,
240, 253-54, 272, 276-77, 284-85,
295
Itch w i t h i n i t c h , I 2 1 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 ,
295
J o n a t h a n b 'Uzziel a n d S h a m m a i , I
198-99, 207-09
Ketuvah, A l e x a n d r i a n e x p o u n d e d , I
236-37, 251, 264, 278-79, 291-92,
295
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 3 , 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 ,
325-26, 330-31, 335-37
L e a v e n , II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s a n a l y z e d , III 5 - 4 3
406
INDICES
L e v i r a t e marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 333-34, 350

Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1
L i v e d 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 - 2 1 , 275-77,
284, 297
Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5
M a n crushed in Temple court, 1 2 5 4 ,
278-79, 296
Marriage, before puberty, II 3 0 0 - 0 3 ,
3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; c o n t r a c t , I 2 3 6 - 3 8 ; estate
of w o m a n awaiting, I I 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0
Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 1 2 - 1 3 ,
231, 245-46, 257-58, 264, 276-77,
280-81, 296
Meals, II 3 2 5
Menahem, I 184-85
Menstration, II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ;
retroactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 ,
315, 326-27, 330-31, 333
Metalware unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 9
M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 2 7 8 - 7 9
M o r a l precepts, 1 1 7 - 2 2 , 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 4 4 ,
P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field in S e v e n t h
Y e a r , II 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7
P r o s e l y t e , d a y b e f o r e P a s s o v e r , II
1 4 1 - 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 3 4 9 ; named son f o r
Gamaliel, I 366-67, 369
Property redemption, I 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 227.
263, 273, 276-77, 282-83, 295
Prozbul, I 2 1 7 - 2 0 , 2 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 ,
262-63, 276-77, 283-84, 296
Qpdashim, II 2 3 9 - 5 3
Re'iyyah'ofeting,
II 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0
Report, not fearing, I 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 8 79, 293-94, 297
R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2
S a b b a t h , I I 3 2 5 ; f e s t i v e o f f e r i n g , II
2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5 ; finishing w o r k b e f o r e ,
II 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 5 , 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; prac
tises, I I 1 2 4 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; r u l e s
and Shammai, I 186-87, 324-25,
330-31
S a l e o f p r o d u c e f o r p r o d u c e in
S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 1 , 3 4 7
253, 276-77, 285-86, 297

M u s t a r d s t r a i n e r , II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2
N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 , 3 5 1
Narrative analyzed, III 2 3 - 3 9
Nazirites, II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0
N e w Year/Sabbath-blessing, II 4 9 ,
Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81, 350

Scroll-wrappers, II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2
Self-abasement, exaltation, I 2 7 5 ,
278-79, 297
S e l l i n g , field in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 0 ,
348
N e w Y e a r trees and Sabbath, I I 1 8 1 82, 350
N u m b e r I s r a e l i t e f o r firstling, I I
246-48, 351
N u r s i n g m o t h e r r e m a r r y i n g , II 3 0 7 ,
353
O l i v e s , cleanness, II 1 5 5 - 5 7 ; presses
in J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 0 - 1 3 , 2 5 0 ,
3 4 8 ; sale t o associate, I I 6 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 ;
u n c l e a n n e s s , salted, I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 ,
324, 352-53
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 1 -
347
P l o u g h i n g h e i f e r in S e v e n t h Y e a r ,
I I 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h
Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 3 4 7
Shammai considered, 2 0 8 - 1 1 , 3 0 3 - 4 0
S h a m m a i debates, II 1 - 5
Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6
Shebna' and Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
35, 240-42, 245-51, 254-57, 272-77,

286-89, 295-96
Pe*ah f r o m g r a i n - s o w n p l o t s , I 5 4 - 5 ,
346
P e a t , c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 1 , 3 5 2
Pentecost, slaughter w h e n Friday, II
185-86, 350
P l o u g h i n g , in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I 1 9 5 9 6 ; t r e e - p l a n t e d field b e f o r e
S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 2 , 3 4 7
Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3
297
Sheet, insusceptible, II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1
Shema\ r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 ,
346
Shema'iah and Abtalion quoted, I
142-47, 150, 152-53, 158-59
S h o o t o v e r stone, II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7
S h o v e l w i t h o u t b l a d e , II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2
Simeon and Shammai, I 3 3 0 - 3 1
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 2 8 4 , 286-87
377, 379, 382
Sin-offering, II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; sprink
les, I I 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1
S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1
Sisit, s t r a n d s of, I I 3 0 - 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4
Slaughter w i t h handsickle, II 2 4 2 ,
245, 351
INDICES
S t e a l i n g , l i a b i l i t y f o r , II 7 - 8 , 3 4 4
S t o o l fixed t o b a k i n g - t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 58, 264-65, 328, 352
Students stimulated, I 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 4 2 43, 276-77, 283, 296
S t u d i e s as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 2 7 8 79, 2 9 6 ; w i t h Shema'iah and A b
talion, I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 152-53
Sukkah,
II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9 ; f o r
infant, I 1 9 3 - 9 4
T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 6 - 4 0
Tavshilin, II 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 9
Tefillin, e x a m i n a t i o n , I 1 8 8 ; II 6 - 7 ,
3 4 5 ; of grandfather, 1 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 2 7 8 79
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3
T i t h e s , c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 0 ; II 3 2 7 ;
Demai, s e p a r a t e tithes, I I 1 1 6 - 1 7 ,
3 4 8 ; f e n u g r e e k , c h a n g i n g sela, II
9 5 - 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d f o r tithes,
II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ; liability for, 1 2 2 9 - 3 0 ,
2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5 . S a b b a t h f r u i t , II
3 3 4 ; Second Tithes, II 1 0 1 - 0 8 ,
1 1 3 - 1 6 , 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; Second Tithes
unclean, II 1 0 0 - 0 1 , 3 4 8 ; sheaves,
I I 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ; sifting b y h a n d ,
I I 9 4 - 5 , 3 4 7 ; t i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; t i t h i n g S a b b a t h f r u i t , II
93, 347
Toharot, II 2 5 3 - 3 2 4
T o m b - v a u l t , f o r e c o u r t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 - 8 9
Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 0 - 1 6 ,
353
Trespass and b u r n t offering, I 2 6 1 ,
2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; II 2 3 5 - 3 7
T r o u g h , m i x i n g m o r t a r , II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 ,
351
T r o w e l shaft, I I 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2
T u b e , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 64, 351
407
V o w o f g i r l , a n n u l m e n t , II 2 1 4 - 1 5 ,
350
V o w s t o t a x c o l l e c t o r , II 3 2 5 - 2 6
W a t e r , l e a k s i n t o t r o u g h , II 3 1 3 - 1 4 ,
316, 353
W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II
78-9, 347
W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7
W h e a t p e r se'ah, I 2 7 3 - 7 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
297
W i n e v a u l t search, I I 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9
W o m a n testifies t o d e a t h o f h u s b a n d ,
II 2 0 0 - 0 2 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 5 0
Wrappers, garments and purple
w o o l , II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2
Z ^ - s t a t e a m b i g u i t y , II 3 1 6 - 1 9 , 3 5 3
Hilqiah b. Tobiah, R., I 2 0 0
Hisda, R.,
A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0
Ashqelon witches, I 1 1 5 - 1 6
Hiyya, I 2 9 7 , 299
Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 7 5
M o r a l sayings, I 2 8 5
Torah restored, I 2 2 1 , 270, 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
297
H i y y a b . A b b a , R., I l l 1 9 2
A g g a d i c traditions, III 53
Hillel, I 3 9 3
H o e n i g , S i d n e y B . , I 1 8 5 ; III 3 5 3 ,
365-67
H o l e s j o i n i n g place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 - 7 5 ,
285-86, 352
Holscher, G . , I l l 3 6 8
H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 7 - 4 0 , 2 5 2 53, 261-62, 264-65, 268-69, 278-79,
292-93, 296
H o n i the Circler, 1 3 9 6 , 3 9 5 - 9 6 ; III 3 6 ,
4 9 , 5 1 , 6 2 ; III 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 1 1 - 1 2 ,
314, 355
Carob-tree, I 179-80, 1 8 2
j
F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 8 , 1 0 8 , 6 0 7
!
Uncleanness, I 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 8 1 8 2 , 2 9 5 ; II 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 6
Unclean-bloods, II 2 2 - 3 , 3 4 5
Rain miracle, I 9 1 - 2 , 1 7 6 - 7 8 , 1 8 0 - 8 2 ;
U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5
III 6 8
V a t unclean, II 8 7 , 3 4 7
Rebuked, I 9 1 - 2 , 99, 103-04, 1 1 3 ,
Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 3 8
j
120-21, 133-34, 167-77
Vessels, immersion on rain-stream, i
T r a d i t i o n s , A g g a d i c , III 5 1 , 6 6 ;
II 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; under w a t e r s p o u t ,
c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 , 7 7 , 8 6 - 7
I I 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3 ; w i t h 'am ha' ares, I I
H o n i t h e L i t t l e , III 1 9 3
291-92, 353
V i n e y a r d c r o p s a n d p l a n t i n g , II 6 6 L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 9 , 3 0
71, 346-47
N e w Y e a r a n d S a b b a t h , II 1 8 2
408
INDICES
H o r o v i t z , H. S., I 1 4 5 , 2 1 7
T o h a r o t , II 2 7 4 , 2 7 6
Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 2 9 ,
244, 271, 276-77, 286, 296
Hoshaiah, II 1 5 0
H u n a , R.,
Hands, unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 6
Ritual bath, I 1 4 6
H u n a b . H i y y a , R., I 2 0 0
Huna the Elder, I 2 4 5
H u s b a n d dies b e f o r e w a t e r o r d e a l , I I
226, 351
Hyman, Aaron M., Ill 328, 359, 366
Hyrcanus, J o h n , I 33, 59, 1 3 9 , 1 5 9 ,
1 7 7 ; III 1 6 3 , 1 8 0 , 3 0 5 , 3 0 9 - 1 1 ,
324, 329, 346, 349, 355, 357
254-55
Slave murdered, I 1 1 5
See also Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest
I
Idumaea, I 1 7 3
I g r a t b . M a h a l a t , I 3 9 5 , III 8 6
Ilai, R . , II 6 0
Ufa, I 3 1 5
Immersion,
H o t a n d c o l d , II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3
Pool, drawn water, I 303-07, 3 1 2 ,
3 1 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 3 ; Shema'iah and
Abtalion, I 143-46, 152-58
Impatience of Shammai, 1 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2
Insects, e a t i n g of, I 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 ,
281-82, 295
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 28, 334, 350
I n t e r e s t in k i n d f o r b i d d e n , I 2 2 4 , 2 4 0 ,
253-54, 272, 276-77, 284-85, 295
Isaac, I 1 4 2
H e a v e offering, II 8 7
Isaac b . A b d i m i , R., I 3 1 6
I s a i a h , III 9 4
M a r t y r d o m , III 73
I s h m a e l , R., I 2 1 1 , 4 1 7 ; III 1 8 5
A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5
Circumstantial evidence, I 88, 1 2 7
F o r m s , III 9 0
H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f t h e Priests,
I 402-03, 405, 407, 412-13
Hands unclean, I 3 1 6
H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 9
Legal traditions, III 1 4 , 2 4
M e k h i l t a of, I 1 5 5 ; II 6 - 8
School and Tannaitic Midrashim, I 8
Second Tithe, II 1 0 7
Shema\ r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 8 , 3 4 6
S t e a l i n g , l i a b i l i t y f o r , II 7 - 8 , 3 4 4
Tefillin, i n s p e c t i o n , II 6 - 7 , 3 4 5
Verifications, III 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 - 0 9 ,
225-26, 235
Z ^ - s t a t e ambiguity, I I 3 1 7 , 3 1 9 , 3 2 1
Ishmael b. Phiabi, R., I 1 6 4 , 1 6 8 , 3 9 7 9 8 , 4 0 0 ; III 5 3 - 4 , 1 9 3
F o r m s , III 1 1 2
Gamaliel, I 3 5 1 - 5 2
Hillel a n d s t u d i e s , I 2 5 9
Red heifer offering, I 2 5
Simeon the Just and priesthood, 1 3 9
I s h m a e l b . R. Y o h a n a n b . B e r o q a h , III
223
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 3
I s h m a e l b . R. Y o s i , R . , I 6 9 - 7 0 ; III 2 2 2
H e a v e offering, II 9 2
Itch w i t h i n itch, 1 2 1 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5
J
J a c o b b. A h a , R., I 2 9 , 2 4 5
J a c o b b . I d i , R., I 2 9 3 , 2 9 7
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 8
J a c o b , W a l t e r , III 3 4 8
Jastrow, M., 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 ,184, 2 1 4 , 359;
II 1 1 , 2 6 0
J e r e m i a h , R., I l l 1 9 2
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 3
Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9
Decrees, I 1 3
F o r m s , III 9 3 - 4
Hillel, I 3 9 3
Metalware unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 8
S h a m m a i a n d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel,
1200
Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 9 6 - 7 , 1 1 6 - 1 7
Jeremias, J o a c h i m , III 3 5 5
J e r e m y , E p i s t l e of, III 7 3
J e s u s , III 1 8 3 , 1 8 7
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 - 6 , 4 9 , 6 8
E s t r a n g e m e n t o f disciples, I 1 0 2
F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 4 , 3 1 0 , 3 2 6 - 2 8 , 3 3 4 ,
344, 350, 359
INDICES
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 4 - 4 7 ,
252, 262, 288
J o s h u a b. Perahiah drives away,
I 82-6
Oral traditions and transmission,
III 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 6 7
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 8 - 8 9
Jesus b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 7
J o b , III 2 1 1 , 3 1 4
Targum b a n n e d , I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 67, 369, 371
J o b , B o o k of, I I I 7 4
J o n a t h a n , R., II 2 0 6
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 7 4 - 7 5
J o n a t h a n b . B a t h y r a , III 3 2
J o n a t h a n b. J o s e p h , R.,
I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w against, I I 2 0 7
Nursing
mother
remarrying,
II
307
J o n a t h a n b. Saul
Pesah o v e r r i d e s S a b b a t h , I 2 7 2 - 7 3
Jonathan b. Uzziel, I 5, 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ;
III 3 7 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 2
A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 1 , 53
Disciple o f Hillel, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 4
F o r m s , III 3 1 2 , 3 3 8 ; lacking,
c
III 1 0 8 , 1 1 1
Gamaliel, I 356
Hillel, I 3 9 3
Shammai, 1 198-200, 202-03, 206-07,
210
J o n a t h a n b. Y o s i , R., II 2 2 7
J o h n the A p o s t l e , III 1 5 4 , 2 4 4 - 4 6
J o h n the Baptist, III 2 4 6
J o s e p h , R . , I 4 2 , 4 1 4 ; III 1 9 7
E g g white contracts, I 2 0 1
In E g y p t , I 1 4 8
Grapeclusters, I 72
Hillel and studies, I 2 5 9
Honi rebuked, I 103-04
L a y on hands, I 3 2 6
One-hundred t w e n t y years, I 2 2 1
J o s e p h b. K a b i b. S i m o n , I 3 9 7
Josephus, I 2, 4 - 5 , 58-9, 1 3 7 - 4 1 , 1 8 5 ,
3 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 ; III 7 2 , 7 7 ,
106, 153, 163-65, 175-79, 180, 183,
409
304-08, 310, 323-25, 328-30, 33536, 345-46, 357

Antiquities,
I 4-5, 58-9, 1 1 5 , 138-39,
159, 173-75, 177
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 4 4 ,
249-51, 253-56, 278-79, 299
J o s h u a , R., I l l 1 8 2
A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 4 - 6 , 4 9
Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 9 ,
280-84, 330-31
B l o o d , test r a g s , I I 2 9 9
Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 8 - 8 0
D i v o r c e and p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0
F o r m s , III 9 1
Gamaliel, I 341-42, 3 5 2
H e a v e o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 4
Hillel, I 3 9 3
Hillel-Shammai debates, III 2 1 , 2 3
273-79
Levirate marriage, II 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 5
Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 9
1 2 0 years, I 2 2 1
Oral traditions, III 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 7 8
S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 9
Sheaves, II 6 0 - 6 2
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8
Simeon b. Shetah, I 1 2 0 - 2 1
Tithes, II 9 6
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 , 8 1 , 8 8
315-16
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 ,
208, 213, 225, 235
V e s s e l s w i t h 'am ha* ares, I I 2 9 2
J o s h u a b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2
J o s h u a b. G a m a l a , I 3 8 7 , 3 9 6 - 9 7 ;
III 1 9 2 - 9 3
A g g a d i c traditions, III 53
F o r m s , III 9 5 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6
School attendance, I 1 1 1
T e a c h e r s , a p p o i n t m e n t s , III 2 7
J o s h u a b. Hananiah, I 3 5 8 , 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 1 9 ; III 1 9 3
F o r m s , III 1 1 3
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d e b a t e s , II 3 - 4
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 239
N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 2 2
O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 6 9 , 1 7 1
410
INDICES
Sheaves, II 6 1
S i m e o n b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8
Traditions compared, III 7 1
Verifications, III 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 2 6 - 2 7
J o s h u a b. L e v i , R., I 1 4 6 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7
H o l y Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 8
Honi rebuked, I 1 0 4
J o s h u a b. Nun, I 2 6 0 , 2 6 4
J o s h u a b. Perahiah, 1 2 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 8 3 , 1 8 7
A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 3 , 5 7 - 8
Alexandrian wheat unclean, I 8 2 - 6
Decrees, I 1 4
F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 3 0 3 , 2 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 ,
328, 333, 339, 341, 356
History of traditions, III 2 4 8 - 4 9 ,
252-53, 290
H o n o r relinquished, I 8 3 - 5
Jesus driven away, I 82-6
J u d a h and Alexandria, I 1 0 2
Lay on hands, I 1 1 , 1 3
L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 6
Magical bowls, I 8 2
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 - 7 , 2 0 , 2 2
O r a l transmission and tradition,
III 1 6 7
Students stimulated, I 2 1 7
Y a n n a i the K i n g , I 1 0 9 , 1 1 4
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 6 4
J o s h u a b. Q o r h a h , I 2 6 4
J o s h u a b . T a b b a i , III 1 0 7
J o s i a h , R., I 1 9 7
J o u s s e , Marcel, III 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 6 3
J u b i l e e s , B o o k of, III 7 3 , 7 7
J u d a h , R., I 1 9 4 , 2 9 5 , 4 1 8 ; I I I 1 8 5
B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8
B o n e s , q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 7 9
Cleanness, I 7 1
Cohabitation, II 2 0 6 - 0 7
Corpse, entrance to r o o m , II 2 8 5
Festival practices, II 1 6 0 , 1 7 4 - 7 5 ,
177-79
F o r m s , III 3 0 6 , 3 1 0 - 1 1 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2
Gamaliel, I 3 6 0
G r a p e s , f o u r t h - y e a r , II 1 3 3
H a n d s u n c l e a n , II 3 2 3
H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 8 - 0 9
284, 287
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 8
L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 4 , 3 4
Menstration, II 3 1 0
M i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n , II 2 0 8 , 2 1 0
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 2 7
N a z i r v o w s , II 2 1 5 - 1 7 , 2 2 5
N e w Y e a r S a b b a t h b l e s s i n g s , II 5 1 - 2
N u r s i n g m o t h e r r e m a r r y i n g , II 3 0 7
143, 161
P r o d u c e in s e v e n t h y e a r , I I 7 3
Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 1 4 4
Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 8 3 ,
385
S t o o l , b a k i n g t r o u g h , II 2 6 4
Sukkah, I I 1 5 0
T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 1 3 , 2 6 - 3 0
Temple of Onias, I 36
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , I I 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3
Tithes, liability f o r , I 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 4 2 ;
second tithes, II 1 1 3 , 1 4 9
Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 5
Trespass and b u r n t offering, I 2 6 1
T u b e i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 6 1 , 2 6 4
V a t u n c l e a n , II 8 7
Verifications, III 2 0 0 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 1 5 ,
226, 232-33
V e s s e l s , i m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m ,
II 2 9 6 - 9 7
J u d a h b. Baba, I 2 9 6 , 2 9 9
Dispute for sake o f heaven, I 3 1 1
Grapeclusters, I 66-8, 72, 7 8
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 0 ,
284-55
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 9 , 2 6 5
Sabbath, finishing w o r k before,
II 1 2 3
Verifications, III 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 3
W o m a n remarrying, I 348
J u d a h b. Bathyra, R., I 1 8 6 , 4 1 5 - 1 6
Cleanness, III 3 0
F o r m s , III 1 1 3
Hillel, I 3 9 2 - 9 3
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 7 - 6 8
O r a l traditions, III 1 6 9
II 2 9 5
J u d a h b . D o r t a i , I I 2 6 ; III 1 8 8
F o r m , III 3 1 2
S a b b a t h a n d Hagigah, III 3 1
INDICES
S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n criticized,
I 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 152-53^ 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 8 3
J u d a h b. Dosetai, R., I 1 0 9
Judah b. Gedidiah,
Y a n n a i and Pharisees, I 1 0 8 , 1 8 3
J u d a h b . Ilai, R . , I 1 3
Circumstantial evidence, I 1 2 7
Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 2 8 5
Decrees, I 1 4
D i v o r c e and property, II 2 4 9
F o r m s , III 3 0 7 , 3 1 7 , 3 4 5
Gamaliel, I 3 5 8
Grapeclusters, I 7 2
H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 9
I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 2 4
Laying o n hands, I 9 3
Menstration, II 3 1 0
M o r a l precepts, I 2 1
M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 8 7 , 8 9
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 2
Nazirite v o w s , II 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 2 1
N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessing, II 5 1 - 2
O r a l transmission and tradition, III
144, 171, 173
Rain miracle, I 9 0
Sabbath practices, II 1 3 1
Simeon b. Shetah-traditions, I 1 3 7 -
I
j
j
I
41
Stool, baking t r o u g h , II 2 6 4
Sukkah,
II 1 5 1
Tannaitic Midrashim, II 1 3 - 5 , 2 9
Temple o f Onias, I 3 6
Tithes, II 1 0 4 , 1 1 4 - 1 5
Verifications, III 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 ,
215, 226, 231
!
Vineyard crops, II 6 8
|
J u d a h b. Nahmani, R., I l l 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 1 4 8 |
J u d a h b . Nesi'a, R . , I 7 1
|
J u d a h b . R . Pazzi, R . , I I 2
!
J u d a h b. Simeon, I 2 6 6
|
J u d a h b. Tabbai, R., I 2 1 1 , III 3 6 , 5 7 , j
183, 187-88
j
Alexandria, I 99-100, 1 0 2 ,1 0 9 , 1 1 8 19, 128, 137, 1 3 9
|
Circumstantial evidence, I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 5, 1 0 5 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 2 2 - 2 7
Cleanness, I 7 0 , 7 2 - 3 , 7 9
Decrees, I 1 4
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 , 9 7 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 ,
411
310, 312, 328, 337, 343, 346, 355

History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 49, 252-53, 256,2 8 4 , 2 9 0
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3 , 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9
Marriage contract, I 9 4
M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 ,
128-30
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0 , 2 2
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 ,
118-19, 127-28
Rain miracle, I 9 0
Simeon b. Shetah compared, I 1 3 7
Traditions compared, III 8 3 , 8 8
Verifications, III 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 3 1
Y a n n a i a n d Pharisees, I 1 0 9
J u d a h b. R. Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, R.,
1327
J u d a h the Patriarch, I 7 0 , 8 1 , 1 5 7 , 2 1 1 ,
2 9 9 , 4 1 8 ; III 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 , 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 9 8
C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 5
C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r u s e of, I 2 2 6
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 5
Disciples before Hillel, I 2 6 9
D i s p u t e s f o r sake o f h e a v e n , 1 3 0 8 - 0 9
Divorce, II 2 3 0
F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 6 - 7 9
Forms, III 90, 307, 3 1 9
Gamaliel, I 352, 3 6 9
G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1
Grapes of Fourth-Year-vineyard,
II 6 0
Hallah, l i a b i l i t y fir loaf, I 3 1 2
Hands, unclean, I 3 1 8
Heave-offering, II 9 2 ; fenugreek,
II 1 0 9
History o f traditions, III 2 5 7 - 5 9 ,
262-63, 272, 282, 286
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 8
L a y o n hands, I 1 3
M o r a l precepts, I 2 1
N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 2 4 , 2 2 6
N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, II 5 1 - 2
O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 2
145-46, 150, 173
272-73
Pearl r e t u r n e d , I 1 1 2
Prosbul, I 2 2 3 , 2 6 2 - 6 3
412
INDICES
P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 2 7
Proselyte, day before Passover,
II 1 4 5
Rain miracle, I 9 2
Red-heifer-ofFering, I 2 6
R e d Sea, splitting, I 1 4 2
R o o f split, I I 2 8 5
Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1
S c a t t e r e d t h i n g s , g a t h e r i n g , II 1 8 0
Sheaves, II 6 2
Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 4 9
Sin-offering, sprinkles, II 2 4 2
T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 9 , 2 1 - 2 , 2 6 ,
38
Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 5 - 6 6
T i t h e s , 1 2 3 0 ; II 1 1 4 - 1 5
T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 6 3
T u b e insusceptible, II 2 6 2
Verifications, III 2 1 0 , 2 1 9 - 2 3
V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 2
Zz^-state, a m b i g u i t y , I I 3 2 1
J u d a h b . Y e h e z q e l , R a v . See Rav Judah
J u d i t h , B o o k of, III 7 3
Jung, Leo, I 3 1 , 197-98, 259
Juster, Jean, III 3 6 8
Justin Martyr, I 86
Kuteans, I 3 2 , 4 0
L
Lacocque, A n d r e , III 3 6 8
Lamech, III 7 7
Landau, W . , I l l 3 6 8
Lauterbach, J . Z . , 1 8 6 - 7 , 1 4 2 , 1 8 8 , 2 6 5 ,
3 9 4 ; III 1 7 1 , 3 2 3 , 3 4 9 - 5 0 , 3 6 6
|
Mekhilta deR. Ishmael, II 6 , 8-9
Lay o n hands, I 1 1 - 1 3 , 5 7 , 1 4 1
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 ,
325-26, 330-31, 335-37
Judah b. Tabbai, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9
Simeon b. Shetah, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9
Leap-year, Gamaliel and letters, I 3 5 6 -
|
j
;
|
|
K
'
!
K a h a n a , R., I 6 9
\
Hands, unclean, I 3 1 6
K a m i n k a , A r m a n d , III 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 3 6 5 - 6 7 i
!
Kampf, J . , I l l 3 6 8
!
Karlin, A . , I l l 351, 366
j
Katz, B. Z . , I l l 3 6 8
I
Katzenelson, J . L., I l l 3 6 8
j
Ketuvah, I 2 3 6 - 3 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
58, 360-61, 366-68, 371

Leaven, II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
Leazar, R., I 2 9 3
Demai a n d t i t h e s , I I 1 1 7
Second Tithe, II 1 1 3 - 1 5
S h e a v e s , II 6 0 - 2
Leazar b. 'Azariah, I 2 5 1
Leazar b. R. S a d o q , R.,
Olives, unclean, II 1 5 5 - 5 7
Proselyte day before Passover, I I 1 4 5
Leazar b. R. Y o s a , R., I 1 0 0
Lehman, J . , I l l 3 6 8
LeMoyne, J . , I l l 327, 364
L e p r o s y signs, I 4 0 1 , 4 0 6 , 4 1 2
Letter o f Aristeas, III 7 3
Levi, R., 1 4 1 0 ; III 2 6 2
Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 6 8 , 2 7 4
1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0
L e v i , Israel, I I I 3 2 7 - 2 8 , 3 3 5 , 3 6 8
Levirate marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 202-07,
291-92, 295,366-67
K h a r k e m i t , III 2 8 , 9 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8
I
Bitter water and adultery, I 1 4 5 - 4 6 , I
151, 157-58
i
Kittel, G., I l l 1 6 5
:
K l a u s n e r , Yosef, III 3 5 8 , 3 6 6
Klein, B. D . , II 2 7 8
Klijn, A . F. J . , I l l 3 6 8
K o h a l i t , I 1 0 7 ; III 5 0
Kohath, I 120
K o h l e r , K a u f m a n , III 3 5 9
K o n o v i t z , Israel, II 5
K r a u s , Hans-Joachim, III 1 5 5
K r o c h m a l , Nachman, III 3 2 8 , 3 5 2 , 3 6 8 i
209-12, 333-34, 350

L e v y , Isidore, III 3 6 8
Licht, Ya'aqov, III 7 5
Lichtenstein, I 2 8 , 3 3 - 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 7
Lieberman, Saul, I 1 2 , 2 6 , 4 4 , 9 3 - 4 ,
160, 195-96, 228-32, 235, 237-38,
241, 308-10, 356, 371, 3 8 1 , 399,
4 0 7 , 4 1 8 ; II 5 , 2 9 - 3 0 ; III 1 7 2 - 7 3 ,
178, 245,247-48, 250, 253, 333
Mo ed I I 1 2 7 - 3 0 , 1 3 2 - 3 4 , 1 4 3 - 4 7 , 1 4 9 ,
156,172-76,179-80,182-83,186-88
Nashim, II 2 0 4 - 0 6 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 4 , 2 2 1 ,
222-25
Neziqin, II 2 3 4 , 2 3 9
I
|
!
413
INDICES
ZeraUm, I I 4 9 , 5 1 , 5 3 , 6 6 , 7 1 - 2 , 7 8 - 8 1 ,
83, 86-8, 9 0 - 1 , 94-6, 109-12, 1 1 4 ,
116-18
L i e z e r , R . , II 1 4 4 , 1 4 9
Liezer B. J a c o b , R., II 1 8 2
L i e z e r b . R. S i m e o n , R . , II 1 8 3
L o e w e , H., I 2 ; I I I 3 5 4 , 3 6 6
Lord, Albert B., I l l 1 4 9
L u k e , III 1 5 4 , 2 4 6
Lulav, s h a k i n g , I I 1 5 4 - 5 5
M
Malachi, I 3 9 3
H o l y Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 1 - 6 2 ,
265
Mana, R., I 2 8
M a n a s s e s , P r a y e r of, III 7 3
M a n crushed in T e m p l e c o u r t , I 2 5 4 ,
278-79, 296
Mandelbaum, B., I 4 0 - 1 , 1 6 8
Mani, R., I 3 4
M a n s o o r , M e n a h e m , III 7 5
M a n y u m i b. Hilqiah, R., I 2 0 0
Mantel, H u g o , III 3 5 2 - 5 3 , 3 6 6
Marcus, Ralph, I 5 8 , 1 3 8 , 1 7 7 ; III 1 6 3 ,
325-26, 366, 368
Maremar, I 2 6 4
Margot, J . , I l l 327
M a r k , III 2 4 6
Marriage,
Before puberty, II 300-03, 3 0 9 , 3 5 3
Contract, 1 6 9 , 7 3 ; II 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; egg
w h i t e c o n t r a c t s , I 2 0 0 - 0 1 ; decrees,
I 1 3 - 4 ; Hillel, I 2 3 6 - 3 7 ; J u d a h b.
Tabbai, I 9 4
Levirate marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 209-12
Remarriage on testimony o f one wit
ness, I 3 4 3 , 3 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 3 6 8 ,
370
Simeon b. Shetah and contract, I 9 3 4, 1 0 4 , 1 0 6 , 120-21, 1 4 1
M a r s h , J o h n , III 7 8 , 8 0 , 8 3
Martha b. Boethus, I 3 9 6 - 9 7 ; III 5 3 ,
192
Mar Zutra, I 200, 2 1 0
Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 3 1 ,
245-46, 257-58, 264, 276-77, 28081, 296
M a t t h e w , III 2 4 6
Mattithias, I 39
M e a l s , II 3 2 5
Measha, R., I 3 4 4 , 4 1 5
Meeks, W . A . , I 86
M e i r , R., I 5 6 , 4 1 8 ; III 3 4 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 2 ,
194-95
Backbone and skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7
Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 3 3 1
Blessings and uncleanness, II 4 6 , 5 2
B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8
Circumstantial evidence, I 1 2 7
Cleanness, I 7 1
Decrees and chain o f tradition, I 1 4
F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 5
F o r m s , III 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 ,
352
Gamaliel, I 358
Hallah, flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s ,
II 1 1 8
Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests,
I 402, 406
Heave-offering, II 1 0 8 - 0 9
287
Holy Spirit, worthiness, 1 2 6 5
Immersion pool, I 3 0 7
Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 ,
227-28
Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 3 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 4
Lay on hands, I 1 2 - 3 , 93
M o r a l precepts, I 2 1 , 2 2 8
M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 8 7 , 8 9 , 9 5
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 , 1 2 7
N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, I I 5 2
III 1 6 1
P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 2 7
Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 - 6
Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1
Simeon b. Gamaliel, 1 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 383-85
Simeon b. Shetah traditions, I 1 3 7
Sukkab, I I 1 5 0 - 5 1
Temple o f Onias, I 3 6
Tithes, II 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 5
Trespass and b u rn t offering, I 2 6 1
T r o u g h , mixing m o r t a r , II 2 6 3
T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 6 2 , 2 6 4
Unclean h o l y things, II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 1 3 ,
215-18, 226, 231-33
27
414
INDICES
Vessels u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t , II 2 9 3 94
V i n e y a r d crops, II 6 7 , 7 1
W a t e r in t r o u g h , I I 3 1 6
Zab, Pharisaic e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r ,
II 2 1 7
M e n a h e m , 1 2 0 ; III 1 8 9
F o r m s , III 1 0 8 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 7
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3
Went forth, I 184-85
Menahem b. Judah, I 1 8 5
M e n a h e m the Essene, I 1 8 5
M e n a s s e h , R., I 1 9 7 - 9 8
Mendelsohn, S., I l l 3 3 8 , 3 6 6 - 6 7
M e n s t r a t i o n , II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; r e
troactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 ,
315, 326-27, 330-31, 333
Mesharsheya, R., I 3 3
M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 2 1 ,
128-30
Michel, A . , I l l 3 2 7 , 3 6 4
M i e l z i n e r , M o s e s , III 3 2 5
M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 2 7 8 - 7 9
M i l i k , J . T., I l l 7 5
Miriam, I 100, 102, 1 3 2
Mistaken assumption, 1 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0
M o a b , III 1 7 0 , 2 7 7 - 7 8
Tithes, II 1 0 7 - 0 8
Modi'im, I 1 0 8
M o n t e t , E d u a r d , III 3 2 9 , 3 6 4 - 6 5
M o o r e , G e o r g e F o o t , III 3 2 3 - 2 4 , 3 2 9 ,
335, 349, 364
Moses, I 59
M o r a l precepts, I 1 5 , 1 9 - 2 0
Mount Gerizim, I 32-3
M o w i n c k e l , III 1 5 6
M u f f s , Y o c h a n a n , III 3 0 2
M u r d e r , circumstantial evidence, I 8 6 9, 9 4 - 9 5 ; collection v o w s , II 2 1 2 14, 350
M u s t a r d strainer, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2
M y s t e r i e s , B o o k of, III 7 7
N
N a b o n i d u s , P r a y e r of, I I I 7 7
Naftal, A b r a h a m M o s h e , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5
N a h m a n , R.,
A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0
Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 2 0

N a h m a n b . Isaac, R . , I 4 1 4
Cleanness, I 7 1
Y a n n a i and Pharisees, I 1 0 8
N a h u m o f G i m z u , II 2 2 ; III 9 8
N a h u m t h e M e d e , I 4 1 3 - 1 4 ; III 1 1 2 ,
193
Gamaliel, I 3 5 7
Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 3 2 - 3
Legal traditions, III 1 4
Nahum the Scribe, I 3 4 4 , 4 1 5
F o r m s , III 9 5
N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 , 3 5 1
N a q d i m o n b . G o r i o n , III 2 7 6
Nasi o f c o u r t
J u d a h b. Tabbai, I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 ,
118-19, 127-28
S i m e o n b. Shetah, I 9 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 ,
118-19, 127-28, 141
N a t h a n , R . , I 8 ; I I 2 0 6 ; III 1 8 5
B e t r o t h a l , a g e n t as w i t n e s s , I I 2 3 3 - 3 4
Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 1
Nazirite v o w s , II 2 1 5 - 1 6
Verifications, III 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 3 2 - 3 3
V o w s o f g i r l a n n u l l e d , II 2 1 4
Nathan b. Y o s i , R., II 2 6 1
Nathan the Babylonian, I 2 7 4
Nau, F., I l l 1 5 4 - 5 5
Nazirites, I 1 4 9
G u i l t offering, I 2 4 - 6 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 4 , 4 0 ,
42-6
Simeon b. Shetah and Y a n n a i the
K i n g , I 96-9', 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ,
120-21, 134-37
S u b s t i t u t e l a n g u a g e , II 2 1 5 , 3 5 0
V o w s , II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0
Nebuzaradan, I 1 5 0
N e h e m i a h , III 2 8 9
Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 7 1
Nehemiah of Bet Deli
Gamaliel, I 3 5 4 , 3 6 8
Nero, I 397
N e w b u r g h , C h a r l e s , III 3 3 6
N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, II 4 9 , 3 4 8
N e w Y e a r , T r e e s a n d S a b b a t h , II 1 8 1 82, 350
N i c o d e m u s , III 2 4 6
N i c o l a u s , III 3 5 1 - 5 2
INDICES
415
Nielsen, Eduard, III 1 5 6 - 5 7

j
Plots s o w n w i t h grain, II 5 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
N i p p u r , magical b o w l s , I 8 2 ; III 3 1 0
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8 , 3 8 2
Nisibis, I 2 4 2 , 3 9 3
Pearl g i v e n Temple, I 7 3 - 6 ; r e t u r n e d ,
Nittai the A r b e l i t e , III 5 7 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 2
I 1 1 1 , 120-21
| Peat, c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 3 5 2
Decrees, I 1 4
F o r m s , III 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 0
185-86, 350
Lay on hands, I 1 1
P e t e r , III 8 7 - 8
Magical bowls, I 82
P h i l o , I 4 ; III 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 2 5 ,
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0 , 2 2
354, 356
N u m b e r I s r a e l i t e f o r firstling, I I 2 4 6 Pilgrim, festive offering o n Sabbath, II
48, 351
25-6, 345
Nursing mother remarrving, II 3 0 7 ,
Pinhas b. Y a ' i r , I 3 5 2 , 3 9 5
353
P i r o t , L o u i s , III 3 2 7
N y b e r g , H., I l l 1 5 6
P i s h o n , I I 2 0 0 ; III 3 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6 , 2 7 0
!
O
O d e b e r g , H u g o , III 3 6 8
Oesterly, W . O . E., I 2 ; III 3 5 4
O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 0 13, 250, 348
O l i v e s , cleanness, I I 1 5 5 - 5 7 , 2 8 9 - 9 0 ,
. 2 9 2 , 3 2 4 , 3 5 2 - 5 3 ; sale t o associates,
II 6 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
<Omer, I 3
Ongelos, I 3 4 1 , 393
Onias, I 3 6 , 5 8 ; III 4 8 , 1 8 0 , 2 1 5
Rain miracle, I 1 7 7
T e m p l e of, I 8 3 ; S i m e o n t h e J u s t ,
I 35-7, 42-3, 56
<Oved B e t Hillel, I 3 7 8
P
Papa, R., I 4 1 3 - 1 4
Alexander the Great, I 33
Cleanness, I 7 1
P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 6 3 , 2 7 3
Parry, M i l m a n , III 1 0 4 - 0 5 , 1 4 9 - 5 1 , 1 5 8 ,
162
Paschal l a m b sacrifice, I 2 4 1
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 1 - 3 5 ,
240-42, 245-51, 254-57,
272-77,
286-89, 295-96
Patyra, I 2 4 0
P a u l , t h e A p o s t l e , I 4 ; III 1 5 4
Pautrel, R., I l l 1 5 7 , 1 5 9
Pe'ah,
Gamaliel and Simeon, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 ,
364-65
Pliny, I 4
Ploughing,
Seventh Year, I 195-96, 202-03, 2 1 0
Tree planted before Seventh Y e a r ,
II 7 2 , 3 4 7
Pollion, 1 5 , 1 5 9 ; III 2 4 2
Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3
Poppaea, I 397
Porton, Gary G., Ill 283
Porusch, I, I I 1 6
Prayer o f Azariah, III 73
Prayer o f Manasses, III 7 3
Prayer o f Nabonidus, III 7 7
P r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7
Property, litigation, I 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 ; r e
demption, 1 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 227, 2 6 3 , 273,
276-77, 282-83, 295
Proselyte, day before Passover, I I 1 4 1 42, 1 4 5 , 349
Prostrations, I 403, 4 1 2
P r o v e r b s , traditions compared, III 7 0 ,
74, 84
Prosbul, I 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 1 7 - 2 0 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 2 6 2 63, 276-77, 283-84, 296
Q
Qatros, I 3 9 8
Q e s g e l e g e s , III 4 7
Qohelet, III 7 4
Qorah, I 307
R
Raba b. Zimuna, I 3 9 5
Rabbah b. A b b u h a , I 3 2 0
416
INDICES
Rabbah b. b. Hana, I 1 6 4 , 1 6 8
A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0
Simeon the Just and the priesthood,
I 37, 39
R a b b a h b . R. S h e l a , I 3 1
Rabbinovicz, R., I 84-5
Rabbinowitz, A . Z., I l l 355
Rabbinowitz, J . , I 1 1 4 , 1 8 2
Rabin, Batya and Chaim, III 7 5
Rabin, Chaim, III 7 5 - 6 , 3 6 8 ; and Y .
Y a d i n , III 7 5
Rabina, I 2 6 4
R a h u l a , W a l p o l a , III 1 5 1
Rain miracle, I 8 9 - 9 2
A b b a Hilqiah, I 1 8 0 - 8 2
Habbakuk, I 1 7 8
Hanan haNehba, I 1 8 2
Honi the Circler, I 1 7 6 - 7 8
Simeon b. Shetah, I 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 ,
116-17, 120-21, 130-31, 140
R a m i b. Hana, I 3 6 8
R a p a p o r t , S. Y . , I 6 2
R a v , I 1 4 7 , 3 0 1 , 4 1 6 ; III 1 9 3 , 2 1 0
F o r m s , III 1 1 2
Gamaliel, I 3 9 5
Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 6 9
Joshua b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 6
R a v a , III 1 8 2
Disciples o f Hillel, I 2 6 4
Honi the Circler and Carob tree,
I 180, 182
Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 7 1
Menahem went forth, I 184-85
Menstration, I 327
Miracles, I 3 1
Propertv redemption, I 2 6 3 , 273
Prozbull I 2 6 3
Report, not fearing, I 2 5 3
Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 1 1 3
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest and Y a n n a i
the K i n g , I 1 6 3
R a v J u d a h , I 3 0 1 , 4 1 6 ; III 1 9 3
F o r m s , III 1 1 2
Gamaliel, I 3 9 5
Grapeclusters, I 62, 7 1 , 77-8
J o s h u a b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 6
Marriage contract, I 1 0 6 - 0 7 , 1 2 9
School attendance, I 1 1 1
Shammai, I 1 9 8
Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest a n d T e m p l e
rites, I 1 6 5 - 6 6 , 1 7 1
Rebecca, I 2 2 0
Red-heifer-offering, 1 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 - 6 7 , 1 7 2 73
Simeon the Just, I 2 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 9 , 4 0 - 3 ,
47-9, 57
Red Sea, splitting, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
155, 159
Reicke, Bo., I l l 3 6 8
Rfiyyah o f f e r i n g , I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0
Report, not fearing, 1 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,
293-94, 297
Resh Laqish
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 1 - 2
Torah restored, I 2 7 0
Ritual bath, I 1 4 3 - 4 6 , 1 5 2 - 5 8
R i v k i n , E l l i s , I 2 - 5 ; III 3 2 7 , 3 5 8
R o s e n t h a l , E . I. J . , I 2
R o b e r t , A n d r e , III 3 2 7
R o o f split, II 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2
Rossler, Dietrich, III 3 6 8
R o w l e y , H . H., I l l 1 5 6
R u t h , B o o k of, I I I 7 2
S
Sabbath, II 3 2 5
Festive offering, II 2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5
Finishing w o r k before, II 1 0 - 1 , 3 4 8
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , 1 3 2 4 - 2 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1
Practices, II 1 2 5 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8
Sabbath fruit, tithing, II 9 3 , 3 4 7
Shammai and remembrance, I 1 8 5 87, 196-97, 202-05, 208-09
Sacrifice,
Birds and animals, I 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
158-59
Hillel cites S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n ,
I 146-47, 150, 152-53, 158-59
Sadducees, I 6 0 - 1 , 6 7
Circumstantial evidence, 1 1 2 5 - 2 6
Grapeclusters, I 67
Opposition t o Pharisees, I 3
V a n q u i s h e d S i m e o n b. Shetah,
I 1 1 4 , 117-19, 120-21
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 - 6 4 ,
INDICES
S a d o q , R., I 6 0 - 1
166-68, 173-76
Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 , 346, 370
Shammai, I 392
S a l o m e , I 1 0 6 , 1 1 7 ; III 4 9 , 2 4 1 , 2 5 4 ,
305, 310, 337, 346
Rain miracle, I 89-90
Sadducees vanquished, I 1 1 7 - 1 9
Simeon b. Shetah, I 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 - 4 1
Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 1 1 7
S a m a i a s , I 5 , 1 5 9 ; III 2 4 2
Samuel, I 5 7 ; III 1 8 7 , 1 9 6
G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3
Grapeclusters, I 62, 7 1 - 2 , 77-8
Holv Spirit, worthiness, I 238-39,
262
1 2 0 years, I 2 2 1
Property litigation, I 1 0 3
Prosbul, I 2 6 3
Shammai, I 1 9 8
Simeon the J u s t and G r e e k threats,
I 39-40
S a m u e l b . N a h m a n , III 1 4 5
Samuel the Small, I 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 3 0 1 ; III 2 8 4
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 8 - 4 0 ,
265, 269
Miracles, I 3 1
S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e ,
II 1 2 3
Traditions c o m p a r e d , III 6 9
Sanders, James A . , I l l 75
Sandmel. Samuel, III 3 3 1
Saul, I 83
Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 - 8 1 ,
350
S c h r e c k e n b e r g , H e i n z , III 3 2 4 - 2 5
S c h r e n k , G o t t l o b , III 3 6 8
Schiirer, E., I l l 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 - 2 9 , 3 3 5 ,
364-65
S c h w a r t z , A d o l f , III 3 3 3 , 3 4 2
S c h w a r t z , F r e d e r i c k C , III 3 4 8
Scroll w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2
Self-abasement, exaltation, I 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 79, 297
S e l l i n g , field in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 0 ,
417
3 4 7 ; p l o u g h i n g heifer in S e v e n t h
Y e a r , II 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in
S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 8 1 , 3 4 7
S e n n a c h e r i b , III 1 8 8
Shema'iah and Abtalion descended
from, I 150, 152-53, 158-59
Sexual abstentation, II 1 9 8 , 3 5 0
S h a m m a i a n d H o u s e of, 1 2 , 4 - 5 , 2 9 4 - 9 5
A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 ; 8 1 s t d a y ,
II 2 5 1 - 5 3 , 3 3 4
A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6 , 3 4 9
A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9
A l u m - c r y s t a l v e s s e l s , II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2
B a c k b o n e and skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2
Backbone overshadows, I 1 9 4 , 200,
202-03, 209
Bailiff, p a y m e n t a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f
r e m o v a l , II 1 1 - 3 , 3 4 5
Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 7 69, 280-84, 329-31, 352
Beams, return stolen beams, II 2 3 4 37, 351
Betrothal, II 2 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; m o n e y f o r ,
II 3 3 3
B e t w e e n t w o evenings, II 9, 3 4 4
B l e s s i n g s o n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6
B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ,
3 0 7 - 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; slaughtered animal,
c o v e r i n g of, I I 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 3 4 9 ; u n
c l e a n , test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 , 3 5 3
Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 ,
352
Caperbush, II 7 1 , 3 4 7
C h e s t m e a s u r e m e n t s , II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 ,
351
Chicken and cheese o n table, II 2 4 2 45, 351
Children making appearance, II 3 5 6, 3 4 6
Circumcision, II 1 4 - 6 , 3 4 5 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 ,
345
Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 ; II 1
C o r p s e , entrance t o r o o m , II 2 6 9 - 7 0 ,
284-85, 352
C o u c h o f m o u r n e r s , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0
C u t t i n g d o w n t r e e s in s e v e n t h y e a r ,
II 7 5 - 6 , 3 4 7
D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6
D e b a t e s c o n s i d e r e d , III 1 6 - 2 3
Decrees, I 1 3 - 5
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 ;
418
INDICES
p r o d u c e , II 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9
D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r ,
II 7 6 , 3 4 7
D i s c i p l e o f Hillel, I 2 6 4 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 4
Dispute f o r sake o f heaven, 1 3 0 7 - 0 8 ,
330-31, 334-35
D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 ; g r o u n d s
f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6 ; a n d p r o p e r t y ,
II 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1
E g g white contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 3
'Eruv, c o u r t y a r d d i s p o s a l , II 1 3 7 - 4 0 ,
349
Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2 ,
349
Fifth additional t o p a y m e n t , II 2 5 0
Fleece, I I 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 6 ; g i f t of, I I 2 4 4 - 4 5
F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , 1 1 9 7 - 9 8 ,
202-05, 2 1 0
F o r m s , III 8 9 - 1 0 0 ; III 1 0 6 - 1 9 , 3 0 3 07, 3 1 2 - 1 9 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 , 33740, 343-45, 347, 3 5 1 , 353, 356-58
Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1 ,
349
F r u i t o f field p r e p a r e d , II 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5
Gamaliel, I 341-42, 344-46, 376
G e h e n n a , II 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 3 5 1
G e n t l e n e s s o f Hillel, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2
G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2
Grapeclusters, I 68-70
G r a p e s , o f F o u r t h Y e a r V i n e y a r d , II
59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 3 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 4 6 ; glean
ings, defective clusters, II 2 3 - 5 ,
3 4 5 ; g r a v e a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 ,
3 5 2 ; p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 ; u n
cleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 31; 11324,353
G r a v e , bottle plugging, II 2 8 6 - 8 7 ,
352
G r a v e area, examine f o r Nazir, II
287-88, 352
Hagigah sacrifices, I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0
Half-slave, half-free, II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9 ,
351
Hallah,. flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s , I I
' 1 1 8 , 3 4 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 07, 312, 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333
Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 4 9
H a n d s o n f e s t i v a l sacrifice, I I 1 8 5 - 8 9 ;
unclean, 1 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 7 ;
II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3
Harvest produce through Jerusalem,
II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8
Heave-offering, I
189-90,
202-03,
2 0 9 ; burning meat, I I 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 4 9 ;
clean n e u t r a l i z e s u n c l e a n , I I 8 3 - 8 6 ,
8 9 - 9 2 , 3 4 7 ; clean a n d
unclean
m i n g l e d , II 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 3 4 8 ; c r u s h e d
olives, II 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 4 7 ; grapes be
c o m e raisins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7 ; o l i v e s
instead o f oil, II 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ;
o p e n jars, I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; p r o p e r
measure, II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7 ; unclean
w i n e , II 9 2 ; o f vetches, II 3 2 7 ;
v o w t o robbers, tax collectors,
II 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 3 5 0
Hillel debates, I I 1 - 5
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 3 0 1
Holes, joining place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 75, 285-86, 352
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 8 - 4 0
Husband, death before w a t e r ordeal,
II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1
I m m e r s i o n , h o t a n d c o l d , II 2 9 6 ,
3 5 3 ; pool drawn water, I 303-07,
312, 315, 330-31, 333
Impatience, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2
I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w a g a i n s t , II 2 0 7 ,
227-28, 334, 350
J o n a t h a n b 'Uzziel, I 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 03, 206-07, 2 1 0
Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3 , 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 ,
325-26, 330-31, 335-37
L e a v e n , II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
Legal traditions, III 5-43
L e v i r a t e marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 333-34, 350
Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1 - 0 4
Lulav, s h a k i n g , I I 1 5 4 - 5 5
Marriage, before puberty, II 3 0 0 - 0 3 ,
3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; c o n t r a c t , I I 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; estate
of w o m a n awaiting, I I 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0
Meals, II 3 2 5
Menstration, II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ;
retroactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 ,
315, 326-27, 330-31, 333
M u s t a r d strainer, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2
N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4
N a r r a t i v e s a n a l y z e d , III 2 3 - 3 9
Nazirites, II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0
N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h b l e s s i n g , II 4 9 ,
348
N e w Y e a r , trees and Sabbath, I I 1 8 1 82, 350
INDICES
N u m b e r Israelite f o r firstling, I I 2 4 6 48, 351

Nursing m o t h e r remarrying, II 3 0 7 ,
353
O l i v e s , c l e a n n e s s , I I 1 5 5 - 5 7 ; presses
at J e r u s a l e m w a l l , II 1 1 0 - 1 3 , 2 5 0 ,
3 4 8 ; sale t o associate, I I 5 4 - 5 5 ,
3 4 6 ; unclean, II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 , 3 2 4 ,
352-53
Pe*ah, p l o t s s o w n w i t h g r a i n , I I 5 4 - 5 ,
346
Peat, cool o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 3 5 2
185-86, 350
Phylacteries o f grandfather, I 1 8 8 89, 202-03
Ploughing, in Seventh Y e a r , I 1 9 5 9 6 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 1 0 ; t r e e p l a n t e d field
before Seventh Year, II 7 2 , 3 4 7
Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3
P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field i n s e v e n t h
year, II 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7
Proselyte, day before Passover, I
141.42, 145, 349
Re*iyyah-ofetmg,
I 183-87, 350
R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2
S a b b a t h , II 3 2 5 ; f e s t i v e o f f e r i n g , I I
2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5 ; finishing w o r k b e f o r e ,
II 1 0 - 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 5 , 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; a n d
Hillel, I 3 2 4 - 2 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; practices,
II 1 2 4 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; r e m e m
brance, I 185-87, 196-97, 202-05,
208-09
Sale o f p r o d u c e f o r p r o d u c e , II 8 1 ,
347
Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81, 350
S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2
S e l l i n g field i n S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 8 0 ,
3 4 7 ; p l o u g h i n g heifer in S e v e n t h
Y e a r , I I 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in
S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 3 4 7
Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6
S h e e t , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1
Sterna*, r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 ,
346
S h o o t o v e r stone, II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7
S h o v e l w i t h o u t blade, II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2
S i m e o n a n d Hillel, I 3 3 0 - 3 1
Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 , 3 8 7
S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; s p r i n k
les, I I 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1
419
S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1
Slaughter w i t h hand-sickle, I I 2 4 2 - 4 5 ,
351
S t e a l i n g , liability f o r , I I 7 - 8 , 3 4 4
S t o o l , fixed t o b a k i n g t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 58, 264-65, 328, 352
Stool, unclean, I 1 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 0 2 - 0 3
Sukkah,
II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9
Sukkah f o r i n f a n t , 1 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 03, 2 1 0
Tannaitic M i d r a s h i m , II 6 - 4 0
Tavshilin, II 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 9
Tefillin, i n s p e c t i o n , I I 6 - 7 , 3 4 5 ; o f
grand father, I 2 6 5 - 6 6
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3
Tithe's, c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 6 ,
2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 9 , 3 2 7 ; demai, s e p a r a t e
tithes, II 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 8 ; fenugreek,
II 9 5 - 9 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d for
t i t h e s , II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r ,
I 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ; Sabbath fruit, II 9 3 ,
3 3 4 , 3 4 7 ; Second Tithes, II 1 0 0 - 0 8 ,
1 4 8 - 4 9 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 ,
6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ; sifting b y h a n d , I I 9 4 - 5 ,
3 4 7 ; tithing pods, II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7
Three sayings, I 2 0 2 - 0 3
T o m b v a u l t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2
Traditions compared, III 6 8 - 8 9
353
T r e s p a s s , II 2 3 5 - 3 7
T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 ,
351
T r o w e l shaft, I I 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2
T u b e , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 64, 351-52
Unclean bloods, II 22-23, 3 4 5
Uncleanness, and egg, 1 1 9 1 - 9 3 , 2 0 2 03
U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5
U n c l e a n n e s s , II 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 6
Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 3 8
II 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t ,
I I 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3 ; w i t h 'am ha*ares, I I
291-92, 353
V i n e y a r d crops, II 6 6 - 7 1 , 3 4 6 - 4 7
V o w o f girl, annulment, II 2 1 4 - 1 5 ,
350
V o w s t o t a x c o l l e c t o r , II 3 2 5 - 2 6
420
INDICES
W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , II 3 1 3 - 1 4 ,
316, 353
W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I
78-9, 347
W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7
W i n e - v a u l t s e a r c h , II 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9
II 2 0 0 - 0 2 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 5 0
Wrappers, garments and purple
w o o l , II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2
Z ^ - s t a t e , ambiguity, II 3 1 6 - 2 1 , 3 5 3
Shavu a, Kalba, I 275
Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6
Shebna', III 6 7 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 0
A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 2 , 5 5 , 6 4 , 6 7 ;
(
a n d Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 ,
393
Sheet, insusceptible, II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1
S h e l o m s u , Q u e e n ; see S a l o m e
Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 ,
346
S h e m a ' i a h , I 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ; III 1 8 8
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 5 1 - 2 , 5 7 , 6 2
B i r d s a n d a n i m a l s f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0 ,
152-53, 158-59
Bitter water and adultress, I 1 4 4 - 4 6 ,
151-53, 157-59
F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 9 8 - 9 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 ,
311, 328, 341, 343, 347, 351
H i l l e l as s t u d e n t , I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 2 - 5 3
Hillel quoted, I 1 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
158-59
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III 2 8 , 3 1
H i l l e l s t u d i e d as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9
History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 59, 290
!
|
!
i
i
i
!
Terumah, e a t i n g , I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 8 - 5 9
Yosi quoting, I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 158-59
Shephatiah b. A b i t a l , I 2 7 5
Shime'i, I 3 6 , 1 8 2
Shime'on b. Y o h a i R., I 1 4 2 , 1 5 5
Shimi b. A s h i , I 2 6 3 , 2 7 3
S h o o t o v e r s t o n e , II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7
S h o v e l w i t h o u t b l a d e , II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2
S i b y l l i n e O r a c l e s , III 7 3
Silberman, L o u H., I l l 7 5
Simeon, I 69
B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 8
Cleanness, I 7 1
Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , II 6 6
G a m a l i e l , r e pe'ah, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 6 4 - 6 5
G i r d l e , II 2 6 5
Hands, unclean, I 3 1 7 - 1 8 ; II 3 2 3
H e a v e offering, II 1 4 4
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; d e
b a t e s , III 2 2 - 3
Nazirite and guilt offering, I 3 0 , 4 0
N e w Y e a r o f t r e e s , II 1 8 1
O l i v e s , u n c l e a n , II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2
Property, redemption, I 2 2 7
S a b b a t h p r a c t i c e s , II 1 4 4
Sin offering, II 1 4 8
Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 6
T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 5 4
Simeon II, I 3 1 8
Simeon b. 'Azzai, I 4 1 4
S i m e o n b. Eleazar, R.,
Alum-crystal vessels, II 2 6 0
Circumcision rites, II 1 4 - 6 , 3 4 5
C o u c h o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 3
D i v o r c e , II 2 3 2 - 3 3 , 2 4 9
F e s t i v a l p r a c t i c e s , II 1 6 8 - 6 9
!
S c a t t e r e d t h i n g s , g a t h e r i n g , II 1 8 0 |
81
Immersion pool, I 143-46, 152-58

Insults f r o m high priests, I 1 4 9 - 5 0 ,
152-53, 159
J u d a h b . D o r t a i criticizes, I 1 4 7 - 4 8 ,
152-53, 158-59, 183
L a y on hands, I 1 1 - 3
M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7
M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 2
!
Second Tithes, II 1 0 7
j
Verifications, III 2 2 0 - 2 2
Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 3 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 6, 6 9 , 2 9 4 , 3 5 8 ,
3 7 7 - 8 8 , 3 9 6 ; III 3 3 , 6 7 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 35, 245-46, 248-51, 255
83, 191-92, 194-95
Prosbul, I 2 1 9
A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 6 , 5 3 - 5 ,
Sennacherib descended f r o m , I 1 5 0 ,
58-9, 63
152-53, 158-59
B e a m s , stolen b e a m s r e t u r n e d , II 2 3 4
Blessed pretty gentile w o m a n , I 3 8 4
S p l i t t i n g R e d Sea, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 ,
"Come to my house", I 2 3 6
155, 159
INDICES
Decrees, I 1 4 - 5
'Eruv, c o u r t y a r d disposal, I I 1 3 7 - 3 8
Festival practices, II 1 6 4 , 1 7 3
F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , I 1 9 8 ,
204
G i r d l e , II 2 6 5
Harvest produce through Jerusalem,
II 1 0 0 , 1 1 0
O l i v e presses, I I 1 1 1 - 1 2
Sin offering, II 2 8 8
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 1 , 2 1 4
Simeon b. Laqish, R., I l l 1 4 5
Simeon b. Leazar,
F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 7 5 - 7 7
Re'iyyah a n d Hagigah-oGering,
II 1 8 6
S a b b a t h p racti ces, I I 1 3 2 - 3 3
Tavshilin, I I 1 7 9 - 8 0
T i t h e s , c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 6 ; S e c o n d
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 ,
301, 303, 306, 314-15, 328, 341,
343, 355
Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1
G r a p e s , F o u r t h Y e a r v i n e y a r d , II
117-18
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 4 ; n a r
ratives, III 2 5 , 3 3 - 5
269, 272-81, 283, 291
H o w h e g a v e Pe'ah, I 3 7 8 , 3 8 2
I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w against, I I 2 2 8
Juggled, I 381-86
Letters, I 3 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 8 2
L o w e r e d price o f doves, I 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 82, 384
M a r r i a g e , II 3 0 9
M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 8 , 2 0 - 2
N o n - b e l i e v e r in 'eruv, 1 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 8 2 - 8 4
153, 169, 178
Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 3 , 2 9 6
S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II
1 2 1 , 1 2 4 ; prac t i c e s , I I 1 3 0 , 1 3 3
S i l e n c e is g o o d , I 3 8 2
S o n gave pearl, I 73-6
Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 5 - 6 6
T i t h e s , sifting b y h a n d , I I 9 4 - 5
T i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 - 1 6 ,
218-19, 221, 225, 228, 231-33
V i n e y a r d crops, II 7 2
Simeon b. Gamaliel II, I 2 9 4
Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 240
Simeon b. Gode'a
F o r m s , III 1 1 1
Gamaliel, I 359-60, 374
T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 6
S i m e o n b . Halafta, III 3 5 5
S i m e o n b . J u d a h , R.,
B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 8
421
T i t h e s u n c l e a n , I I 1 1 3 - 1 5 ; sifting,
II 9 4 - 5
Simeon b. Netanel, III 3 0 , 1 9 2
F o r m s , III 1 1 1
Gamaliel, I 374-75
Married daughter o f Gamaliel,
I 358-59, 366-67
Simeon b. Shetah, I 5, 59, 2 9 8 ; III 6 8 ,
183, 187-88
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 - 5 , 4 9 - 5 0 ,
57, 62, 66
Ashqelon witches, I 89-93, 1 0 0 - 0 3 ,
|
j
115-16,120-21, 128,131-33, 141

Circumstantial evidence, 1 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5 ,
105, 109, 1 1 1 , 118-19, 122-27
Cleanness, I 6 9 , 7 2 - 3 , 79
Decrees, I 1 3 - 4
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 - 5 , 9 7 - 8 , 1 0 7 - 0 8 ,
116, 303-07, 310-11, 324, 329, 337,
339, 3 4 1 , 343, 346, 349, 355
H a n d s o n sacrifice, I 1 1 - 3 , 7 0 , 9 3 ,
118-19
Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 2 6 , 2 8 ,
36, 38
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , II 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 ,
248-49, 252-56, 262, 281, 284, 290
Honi the Circler rebuked, 1 9 1 - 2 , 1 0 3 -
|
j
!
!
|
j
|
04, 1 1 3 , 120-21, 133-34, 176-77

Jesus driven away, I 83, 85
J o s h u a called b a c k f r o m E g y p t , I
120-21
M a n c r u s h e d in T e m p l e , I 2 5 4
Marriage contract, I 93-4, 1 0 4 , 1 0 6 ,
120-21, 141
M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 21, 128-30
Miracles, I 3 1
422
INDICES
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0
Nasi o f c o u r t , I 9 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 ,
127-28, 141
Nazirites a n d Y a n n a i t h e K i n g , I 9 6 9, 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 134-37
153, 167, 175
242
Pearl returned, I 1 1 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 1
Pharisees a n d Y a n n a i t h e K i n g , I
107-09, 120-21
Property, litigation, I 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 ;
redemption, I 2 1 5 - 1 6
Rains, I 89-90, 92, 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ,
120-21, 130-31, 140
Sadducees vanquished, 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 - 1 9 ,
120-21
School attendance, 1 1 1 0 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 4 1
Shammai considered, I 2 1 1
Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 1 4 9 , 1 5 8 59
Slave murdered, 1 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 - 2 1
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 2 , 8 2 , 8 6 ,
88-9
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 1 9 9 , 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 2 5 ,
228
Witchcraft hangings, I 8 9 - 9 3 , 9 8 ,
100-03, 115-16, 120-21, 128, 1 3 1 33, 141
W o m a n remarrying, I 349
S i m e o n b . Y o h a i , R., I l l 1 8 6
B e t w e e n t w o evenings, II 9, 3 4 4
C h i l d r e n m a k i n g a p p e a r a n c e , II 9 - 1 0 ,
344
P r o p e r t y litigation, I 1 0 3
S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , I I
10-1, 348
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 3 - 1 5 , 2 3 1 - 3 2
S i m e o n b. Z o m a , I 4 1 4
S i m e o n of Mispah, R., I 3 4 3 , 4 1 5 ;
III 3 2 , 1 9 1
S i m e o n o f S h e z u r , R., I l l 2 1 2
C h e s t m e a s u r e m e n t s , II 2 5 5 , 2 6 2
T i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9
Simeon the Just, I 2, 5, 9, 2 4 - 5 9 , 4 0 0 ;
III 1 8 0 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 - 8 7
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 4 8 - 5 1 , 5 6 8, 66
Alexander the Great, 1 2 5 , 3 2 - 4 , 4 0 - 3 ,

48-50, 57, 59
F o r m s , III 9 2 , 9 8 , 1 0 6 , 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 7 08, 335, 353, 358
Forty years priesthood, I 3 7 - 9 , 42-3
G r e e k threats, I 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 2 - 3
Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 3 3 , 3 9
H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 51, 256, 283, 285, 290
Honi the Circler, 1 8 2
H o n o r relinquished, I 83
J o s h u a b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 7
Miracles, I 3 0 - 2 , 3 8 , 4 2 - 3 , 52-6
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 0
Nazirite and guilt-offering, I 2 4 - 6 ,
29-30, 34, 40, 42-6
O n i a s , T e m p l e of, I 3 5 - 7 , 4 2 - 3 , 5 6
III 1 6 1
Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 9 ,
4 0 - 3 , 4 7 - 9 , 5 7 ; III 6 8
T r a d i t i o n s , 1 2 4 - 4 4 ; c o m p a r e d , III 7 1
W o r l d on three things, I 2 9 , 4 1 - 4
Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 9 7
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, 1 1 6 0 , 1 6 4 ,
168, 172-73
Y o s i b. Yo*ezer and Y o s i b. Y o h a
nan, I 62-3
Simeon the Righteous, I 239
Simeon the Temanite, I 1 4 2 , 4 1 4
Simlai, R., I 7 1
Simon b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2
Simonia, I 378
Simon, Maurice, I 3 9 1 , 393
Simon of Kitron, I 142
S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; s p r i n k l e s ,
II 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1
S i n o r , Denis, III 3 3 0
S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1
Sisera, I 1 5 0
Sisit H a k e s e t , I 2 7 5
Slaughter w i t h handsickle, II 2 4 2 , 2 4 5 ,
351
Slave murdered, I 1 1 4 , 120-21
S l o t k i , I. W . , I 1 9 8 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 0 , 2 8 0 ;
II 2, 1 5 8 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 4
S m i t h , M o r t o n , 1 1 8 ; III 1 4 7 , 1 6 7 , 2 8 9 ,
321, 329-31, 335, 364
S o l o m o n , I 2 2 1 ; III 7 3 - 4
S o n n e , Isaiah, I I I 3 4 1
Stealing, II 7-8, 3 4 4
423
INDICES
S t o o l , fixed t o b a k i n g t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 - 5 8 ,
264-65, 328, 352
Stourdze, M., I l l 327-28, 335, 3 6 4
S t u h l m u e l l e r , C a r r o l l , III 1 5 5
Sukkah,
II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9 ; eaten
in b y Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, I 3 4 6 ,
3 6 2 , 364-65, 3 7 0 ; Shammai and
infant, I 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 1 0
S u s a n n a , B o o k of, III 7 3
Synoptic Gospels, I 2
F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 4 , 9 9
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 8 , 8 0 , 8 2 ,
84, 87-9
S z o l d , H., I l l 3 3 7
T
Tabi, I 3 4 1
Tacitus, I 4
Tanhuma, I 9
T a r f o n , R.,
Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 3 3 1
F o r m s , III 9 1
Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3
Heave offering, I 1 8 9
H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 3 - 4 , 3 0
277, 279
L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 4 - 0 5
N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 2 5 - 2 6
O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 7 1 , 1 7 8
P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field, S e v e n t h
Y e a r , II 7 5
Shema* r e c i t i n g , I I 4 1 , 4 9
T i t h e s , II 9 5 - 6 , 1 0 7 ; c h a n g i n g
sela,
I 1 9 0 ; II 3 2 8
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 4 - 0 5 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 5 27, 229, 235
Targum o f J o b , I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 ,
369, 371
T a y l o r , S o p h i a , III 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 8
T c h e r n o w i t z , C h a i m , III 3 5 3 , 3 6 5
Tefillin, e x a m i n a t i o n , 1 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 ;
II 6-7, 3 4 5 ; o f grandfather, I 2 6 5 66, 278-79
T e l A r z a , III 3 2 , 2 7 3
Terumah, I 3 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 1 5 1 - 5 3 ,
158-59
T e s t a m e n t s o f T w e l v e P a t r i a r c h s , III
73
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , I I 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3
T h a c k e r y , H., I l l 2 4 9
Thaddeus of Rome, I 103-04

Theudas, III 3 5 4
Tiberius, I 3 9 7
T i t h i n g , A q i b a , I I 8 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; changing
sela, I I 9 5 - 9 , 3 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; demai, sepa
rate tithes, II 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 8 ; fenu
greek, II 9 5 - 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d
f o r t h o s e w h o t i t h e , II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ;
liability f o r tithes, I 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 4 2 ,
2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5 ; Sabbath fruit, II 9 3 ,
3 3 4 , 3 4 7 ; Second Tithes, I I 1 0 1 - 0 8 ,
113-16, 148-49, 345, 3 4 8 ; Sham
mai, I 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 ,
2 0 9 ; sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ;
sifting b y h a n d , II 9 4 - 5 , 3 4 7 ;
t i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7
T o b i t , III 7 3 - 4
T o m b - v a u l t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2
c
\
!
j
j
I
;
!
Trespass, II 2 3 5 - 3 7 ; and b u r n t offering,

I 261, 278-79, 296
T r o u g h , mixing m o r t a r , II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 ,
351
T r o w e l shaft, II 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2
T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 - 6 4 ,
351-52
U
<Ulla, R . ,
Red-heifer-offering, I 28-9
S h e b n a ' and Hillel, I 7 1 - 2
U n c l e a n n e s s , II 5 3
Bloods, II 2 2 - 3 , 3 4 5
D e c r e e s , chain o f t r a d i t i o n , I 1 3 - 5
Egg, bulk o f egg, I 1 9 1 - 9 3 , 2 0 2 - 0 3
Hillel, I 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 8 1 - 8 2 , 2 9 5
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , II 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 ,
346
H o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5
Urbach, E. E., I l l 3 2 7
Usha, 1 2 3 9 , 2 7 0 , 3 0 2 ; 1 1 3
251-53, 258, 281-82
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 9 - 2 0 , 2 3 1 - 3 4
U z z i e l , B e n S i o n M e i r Hai, III 3 6 8
V
v a n den Ploeg, J . , I l l 7 5
V a n s i n a , J a n , III 1 5 9 - 6 1 , 1 6 3
424
INDICES
V e r m e s , Geza, III 7 4
Vessels,
I m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , I I 2 9 4 - 9 7 ,
353
U n d e r waterspout, II 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3
W i t h 'am ha'ares, II 2 9 1 - 9 2 , 3 5 3
V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 6 6 - 7 1 , 3 4 6 - 4 7
W
W a c h o l d e r , Ben Zion, III 2 5 3 , 3 5 1 - 5 5 ,
365-67
W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , I I 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 ,
3 5 3 ; s h a k i n g f r o m t r e e , II 3 1 0 - 1 3 ,
353
W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r ,
II 78-9, 3 4 7
W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7
Weavers, I 143-46, 152-58
W e b e r , M a x , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 6
W e i s s , I. H., I 6 1 , 8 9 , 2 1 3 - 1 5 , 3 4 2 , 3 7 7 7 8 , 4 0 1 ; III 3 2 8 , 3 3 8 , 3 5 7 , 3 6 6
Tannaitic M i d r a s h i m , II 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 5 ,
17, 22-3, 25-6
Wellhausen, J . , I l l 320, 326, 365
W e r n b e r g - M o l l e r , P., I l l 7 5
W h e a t p e r stab, I 2 7 3 - 7 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7
Williams, Raymond B., I l l 1 5 1 - 5 2
W i n e v a u l t s e a r c h , II 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9
W i s d o m of S o l o m o n , III 7 3 - 4
Witchcraft, 1 8 9 - 9 3 , 9 8 , 1 0 0 - 0 3 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 ,
120-21, 128, 131-33, 141
Witnesses
Gamaliel, ordinance regarding, I
347-48
Remarriage of w o m a n , testimony,
I 343, 348-50, 364-65, 368, 370
Wolfson, Harry A., Ill 321
II 3 2 8 - 2 9
W o o l f , B e r t r a m Lee, III 7 8
Wrappers, garments and purple w o o l ,
II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2
W r i g h t , G . E r n e s t , III 3 5 9
W r i g h t , H. M . , I l l 1 5 9
Y
Yaddua, I 58
Y a d i n , Y i g a e l , III 7 5 ; a n d C . R a b i n ,
III 7 5
Yannai, I 73, 83, 159, 183, 3 6 1 , 396;

III 9 8 , 1 5 3 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 8 , 3 1 0 - 1 1
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 4 8 - 5 0 ,
53-5, 62
B r e a k s w i t h P h a r i s e e s , II 6 6 , 6 8
Hillel a n d S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III
36-7
255
Nazirites a n d S i m e o n b . S h e t a h , I
96-9,112-14,116-17,120-21,134-37
Pearl returned, I 1 1 2
Pharisees a n d S i m e o n b . S h e t a h , I
107-09,120-21
Sadducees vanquished, I 1 1 7 - 1 9
Simeon b. Shetah, I 9 6 - 9 , 1 0 7 - 0 9 ,
112-14, 116-17, 120-21, 131, 13437, 138-40
Slave murdered, I 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 120-21
T r a d i t i o n s , III 7 2 , 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 8
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 , 1 7 5
Y a q i m o f S e r u r o t , I 1 8 3 ; III 3 5 , 1 8 7
F o r m s , III 1 0 7 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3
Death, I 74-7
Y a v n e h , II 3 - 4
251-52, 258-62, 266, 268, 271, 27376, 280-82, 297
Miracles, I 3 1
School and train of traditions, 1 1 5
Simeon the Just, I 2 7
Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 0 9 , 2 2 3 - 3 1
Yo'ezer, I 344-45, 364-65
Y o ' e z e r o f the Birah, I 3 9 1 ; III 3 2 , 3 4 ,
191
F o r m s , III 9 3
Gamaliel, I 3 4 4
History o f traditions, II 2 6 9
Y o h a n a n , R . , I 1 6 6 ; II 3 ; I I I 3 9
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 5 5 , 6 0
C a r o b tree and H o n i the Circler, I
179-80, 182
Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 5 7
145, 170-71
I 200
Simeon the J u s t and priesthood, I 3 7 ,
39
425
INDICES
Students o f Hillel, I 2 6 0
Y o h a n a n b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2
Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a , I 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 - 1 9 ;
III 1 9 3
I
F o r m s , III 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 1 7
I
U n c l e a n n e s s , III 2 8
!
!
Y o h a n a n b . H a H o r a n i , R . , I 3 0 2 ; III j
30, 80
F o r m s , III 9 2
History o f traditions, III 2 6 9 - 7 0
Sukkah,
II 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 7
Y o h a n a n b. Nappaha, I 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 ;
III 1 8 8
Temple rites, I 1 6 7
Witches, I 102-03
Y o h a n a n b . Nazif, I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 9 , 3 7 1
Y o h a n a n b. N u r i , I 4 1 8
N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4
Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 3
V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 0 - 2
Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, I 6, 2 9 4 , 2 9 6 ,
2 9 9 - 3 0 1 ; III 1 8 9 , 1 9 2
A d m o n and decisions, I 3 5 0 - 5 1
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 1 - 2
Bones unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2
Chain of tradition, I 1 4 - 5
"Come to m y house", I 2 3 5
D i v o r c e and property, II 2 5 0
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 5 - 6 , 1 1 1 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 ,
310, 315, 318-19
Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1
Gamaliel, I 342-43, 346, 349, 358-59,
362, 274-75, 395-96
G r a p e s unclean, I 3 2 0
Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 5
H i l l e l , I 3 9 2 ; a n d e i g h t y disciples,
1 2 5 2 , 260, 264, 2 6 9 , 2 7 4 ; Shammai
debates, I I 3 - 4 ; S h a m m a i n a r r a
t i v e s , III 2 5 , 2 9 , 3 1
259, 262, 272-81, 285
L i v e d 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 - 2 1
Marriage contract, I 9 4
Miracles, I 3 1
M o r a l precepts, I 1 9 - 2 2 , 2 4 5
III
161, 163, 169, 172, 178

Property redemption, I 2 1 5 - 1 6
Prosbul, I 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 2 3 - 2 4
Rain miracle, I 9 2
S e c o n d t i t h e s , II 1 0 7 - 0 8
I 198-99, 207-08
Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 1 4 4 - 4 5
Simeon b. Gamaliel, 1 3 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 8 6 - 8 7
Students stimulated, I 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 4 2 - 4 3
Sukkah, eats in w i t h G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 6 ,
362, 364-65, 370
Temples, I 1 6 2 - 6 3
T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 , 8 1 , 8 6
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 1 9 9 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 4 25, 228
Yannai and Sadducees, I 1 1 9
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 - 6 4 ,
173
Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 - 7 6 , 3 6 0 ,
3 9 7 ; III 2 7 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 4 8 , 5 1 ,
66-7
Bones unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 7
Cleanness, I 6 4
Confessions abolished, I 1 6 0 - 6 7 ,
169-71
D i v i n e n a m e in d o c u m e n t s , I 1 6 6 68, 172
F o r m s , III 9 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 6 , 3 0 5 ,
308-09
Grapecluster, I 63
History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 56, 283, 285
Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 , 4 8 , 1 6 1 ,
166-67, 172-73
S a d d u c e e after e i g h t y y e a r s , I 1 6 3 64, 166-68, 173-76
Simeon the Just and priesthood, I 3 9
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 9 , 2 1 5 , 2 3 1
Y o h a n a n t h e S a n d l a r , R., I 3 0 7
Y o h a n a n the Scribe, I 3 5 6 , 3 6 8 , 3 9 6
Yonah, R . , I 1 4
Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9
Metalware unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 9
Y o s a , R.,
Gamaliel, I 371
Heave-offering, II 8 7 - 8
Y o s a b . K i f a r , R., I I 7 8 III 2 1 1 , 2 3 1
Y o s a h , R., 1 3 5 5 - 5 6 ; III 3 4
426
INDICES
F e s t i v a l pra ct i ce s , I I 1 7 4 , 1 7 7 - 7 9
H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 3 - 4 4
111-12
S a b b a t h pra ct i c e s , I I 1 3 3
Y o s a h b. R. J u d a h , R., I 3 5 6
Y o s e f b . Y o h a n a n , R., I 7 7
History o f traditions, III 2 5 1
Y o s e f b . Y o ' e z e r , III 3 5 , 3 8 , 1 8 7
A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 3 , 5 9
Y o s i , R., I 4 1 5 - 1 6 ; III 6 8 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 4 - 9 5
A d u l t e r y , II 2 2 7
A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 5 , 6 6
Chest measurement, II 2 5 5
C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 3 ,
245
Cleanness, I 7 1 - 3 , 7 9
Decrees, I 1 4
D i s p u t e s f o r sake o f h e a v e n , I 3 0 8 ,
311
D i v o r c e a n d p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 9
F o r m s , III 1 1 6
Gamaliel, I 354, 369, 371
Hallah, flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s ,
I I 1 1 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3
H a n a n i a h Prefect o f t h e Priests,
I 402, 406
H a n d s u n c l e a n , I 3 1 2 ; II 3 2 3
H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 9
H e i f e r , b u r n i n g , III 2 4 - 5
Honi rebuked, I 4 0 4
Laying of hands, I 93
M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 9
Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 5 - 2 6
111-12, 250
O l i v e s u n c l e a n , II 2 8 9
Proselyte day before Passover, I I 1 4 2
R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5
S a b b a t h practices, I I 1 4 4
S e c o n d t i t h e s , II 1 0 0 - 0 2
Shema'iah and Abtalion quoted,
I 151-53, 158-59
Sin-offering, II 2 8 8
S t o o l , b a k i n g t r o u g h , II 2 6 4
T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 6
V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 3 14, 218, 231-32, 237
II 2 9 6 ; u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t , II 2 9 3 94
W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , I I 3 1 6 ;
shaking tree, II 3 1 1 , 3 1 4 - 1 6
Weasel, II 7 1 , 3 4 7
Y o s i b . R. B u n , R . , I 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 - 1 0 ;
III 1 8 9
Passover overrides Sabbath, 1 2 4 6 - 4 7
Y o s i b . Halafta, 1 2 1 , 7 0 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 4 , 4 0 7 ;
III 1 8 5 - 8 6
284
Verifications, III 2 1 0 - 1 4
Weasel, II 7 1
Y o s i b. Hanina, R., I 1 0 0
Ashqelon and witches, I 2 0 2
III 1 4 5
Y o s i b. R. J u d a h , R., I l l 1 9 7 , 2 2 2
Gamaliel, I 369
T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 6 3
Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r , 1 1 8 3 ; III 5 7
Alexandrian wheat unclean, I 8 2
Cleanness, I 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 , 6 8 - 7 5 , 7 9 - 8 1
Death of nephew, I 74-7
Decrees, I 1 3 - 4
F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 9 4 , 1 1 6 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 9 ,
312, 316-17, 332, 338, 340, 353
Grapeclusters, I 62-4, 66-8, 7 1 - 2 , 7 4 5, 7 7 - 8
Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 7
251-52, 256, 264, 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 , 290
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 2
Traditions, I 6 1 - 7 7 , 81
Uncleanness, III 2 8
Verifications, III 2 0 1 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 - 2 8
Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 1 , 1 7 3
Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n , III 5 7
Decrees, I 1 3 - 4
F o r m s , III 9 2 , 9 4 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 1 0 , 3 1 2 ,
316-17, 332, 338, 340
Grapeclusters, I 62-4, 6 6 - 8 , 7 1 , 74-5,
77-8
Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 7
251, 256, 264, 284, 290
Lay on hands, I 1 1
M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 2
INDICES
427
i Ze'ira b. A b u n a , R.,
!
Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9
Decrees, I 1 3
i
M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 8
Zeitlin, S o l o m o n , III 3 2 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 2 - 4 6 ,
Z
353, 365-67
Zab, P h a r i s a i c e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r ,
Zekhariah b. A v q i l a s , II 1 3 3
II 1 2 7 - 3 0 , 3 4 8
Zekhariah b. HaQassav R., I 4 1 4 - 1 5 ;
Zab-stzte,
ambiguity, II 3 1 6 - 1 9 , 3 5 3
III 1 1 2
Z a k k a i , R., I 1 5 1 ; III 1 5 - 6
T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 6
Zamaris, I 392
Zechariah, I 393
Zekhariah b. Qevutal, I 4 1 4 - 1 5
Zera, R.,
H o l y Spirit, worthiness, 1 2 6 1 - 6 2 , 2 6 5
Zei'ri, R.,
Gamaliel, I 395
Grapes unclean, I 3 2 0
G r a p e s unclean, I 3 2 7
Z e r u b b a b e l , III 3 4 6
248
Zimmels, H. J . , I l l 3 3 3
Traditions, I 6 1 - 7 7 , 81
Y u d a n , R., I 3 6 1 , III 1 4 5

Jacob Neusner-The Rabbinic Traditions About The Pharisees Before 70 Parts I II III - Brill1971

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacob Neusner-The Rabbinic Traditions About The Pharisees Before 70 Parts I II III - Brill1971

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE RABBINIC

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS

Professor of Religious Studies

1971 by E. j . Brill, Leiden,

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Morton Smith

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

SIMEON THE JUST

ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B.

JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH

Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION

YOHANAN THE H l G H PRIEST, HONI THE ClRCLER, AND

i. Yohanan the High Priest

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

Mentioned in Connection with Shammai

3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot

X V I I I . INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS . . 1 0 1

Small Units o f Tradition

Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem

T h e Circle o f J u d a h the Patriarch in G e n e r a l

HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS

The Missing Traditions

SUMMARY : THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE

APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS

My thanks go to the American Council of Learned Societies for a

While several generations of scholars have produced histories of

This work continues the inquiry begun in Development of a Legend:

a thorough account of materials pertaining to men and institutions

Existing translations which seem to me satisfactory have been co

H . A l b e c k , SiSab Sidre Mishnah ( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 5 4 et. s e q . , v o l s I - V I ) .

Thus, in the case of Simeon the Just, Sifre Num. 22 is marked I. i. 1,

= identical to the primary version on the left;

the beginning of the inquiry. It further subjects them to tests for

We have three chains of Pharisaic tradition, listing the authorities

A. Yosi b. Yo'ezer says ( WMR) [on a Festival-day] not to lay

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

see a story on this very point, in which Hillel is represented as follow

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

ed by the desire of the Hillelites to represent Hillel as head of the

DTNY>: (1) Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

or early Amoraic authority refers to Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's

A. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it on to

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

10. Shema'iah and Abtalion received from them.

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

objection, "What if they have not accepted the judgment?"a typical

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

Gamaliel [omits: received]

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

The earliest chain of Pharisaic tradition probably consisted of the

E l i e B i c k e r m a n , " L a c h a i n e d e la t r a d i t i o n p h a r i s i e n n e , " Revue biblique 5 9 ,

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

Pharisees what happened had to be revised into what ought to have