RABBINIC NARRATIVE:

A DOCUMENTARY PERSPECTIVE
VOLUME I
THE BRILL REFERENCE LIBRARY
OF JUDAISM
Editors
J. NEUSNER (Bard College) H. BASSER (Queens University)
A.J. AVERY-PECK (College of the Holy Cross) Wm.S. GREEN (University of
Rochester) G. STEMBERGER (University of Vienna) I. GRUENWALD
(Tel Aviv University) M. GRUBER (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)
G.G. PORTON (University of Illinois) J. FAUR (Bar Ilan University)

VOLUME 14
RABBINIC NARRATIVE:
A DOCUMENTARY
PERSPECTIVE
Volume One:
Forms, Types and Distribution
of Narratives in the Mishnah,
Tractate Abot and the Tosefta

BY

JACOB NEUSNER

BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2003
 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Neusner, Jacob, 1932-
Rabbinic narrative : a documentary perspective / by Jacob Neusner.
v. cm. (The Brill reference library of Judaism, ISSN 1566-1237 ; v. 14)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Forms, types, and distribution of narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate
Abot, and the Tosefta v. 2. Forms, types and distribution of narratives in Sifra, Sifr to
Numbers, and Sifr to Deuteronomy.
ISBN 90-04-13023-3 (v. 1 : alk. paper) ISBN 90-04-13034-9 (v. 2 : alk. paper)
1. Narration in rabbinical literature. 2. Rabbinical literatureHistory and criticism. 3.
MishnahCriticism, Narrative. 4. MidrashHistory and criticism. 5. Parables in
rabbinical literature. I. Title. II. Series.

BM496.9.N37N48 2003
296.12066dc 21 2003050220

ISSN 1566-1237
ISBN 90 04 13023 3

Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

 preface v

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................... ix

Introduction .................................................................................. 1

1. Pseudo-Narrative ................................................................... 25
i. Portrayals of Conversations ................................................... 26
ii. Portrayals of Halakhic Rules as Described Actions .............. 32
iii. The Precedent/Case/Ruling ................................................ 43
iv. Conclusion ............................................................................. 46

part one
narratives in the mishnah
forms, types and distribution

2. Mishnah Seder Zeraim ............................................................ 51

i. Tractate Berakhot .................................................................. 51
ii. Tractate Pe"ah ........................................................................ 55
iii. Tractate Dema#i" .................................................................... 55
iv. Tractate Kilayim .................................................................... 55
v. Tractate Shebi#it ..................................................................... 56
vi. Tractate Terumot ................................................................... 57
vii. Tractate Ma#asero .................................................................. 57
viii. Tractate Ma#aser Sheni .......................................................... 57
ix. Tractate Hallah ...................................................................... 57
x. Tractate #Orlah ...................................................................... 58
xi. Tractate Bikkurim .................................................................. 58
xii. Summary ................................................................................ 58

3. Mishnah Seder Moed .............................................................. 63

i. Tractate Shabbat ................................................................... 63
ii. Tractate Erubin ...................................................................... 65
iii. Tractate Pesahim ................................................................... 67
iv. Tractate Sheqalim .................................................................. 67
v. Tractate Yoma ............................................................................ 69
vi contents

vi. Tractate Sukkah ......................................................................... 70

vii. Tractate Besah ........................................................................... 72
viii. Tractate Rosh Hashanah ........................................................... 73
ix. Tractate Ta#anit ......................................................................... 76
x. Tractate Megillah ...................................................................... 78
xi. Tractate Mo#ed Qatan ............................................................... 78
xii. Tractate Hagigah ....................................................................... 78
xiii. Summary .................................................................................... 78

4. Mishnah Seder Nashim ................................................................ 83

i. Tractate Yebamot ...................................................................... 83
ii. Tractate Ketubot ........................................................................ 85
iii. Tractate Nedarim ...................................................................... 85
iv. Tractate Nazir ............................................................................ 89
v. Tractate Sotah ............................................................................ 90
vi. Tractate Gittin ........................................................................... 90
vii. Tractate Qiddushin .................................................................... 91
viii. Summary .................................................................................... 91

5. Mishnah Seder Neziqin ............................................................... 95

i. Tractate Baba Qamma .............................................................. 95
ii. Tractate Baba Mesia .................................................................. 96
iii. Tractate Baba Batra ................................................................... 98
iv. Tractate Sanhedrin .................................................................... 98
v. Tractate Makkot ........................................................................ 99
vi. Tractate Shebuot ....................................................................... 99
vii. Tractate #Eduyyot....................................................................... 99
viii. Tractate #Abodah Zarah .......................................................... 102
ix. Tractate Horayot ..................................................................... 104
x. Summary .................................................................................. 104

6. Mishnah Seder Qodoshim ......................................................... 107

i. Tractate Zebahim .................................................................... 107
ii. Tractate Menahot .................................................................... 107
iii. Tractate Hullin ........................................................................ 107
iv. Tractate Bekhorot .................................................................... 107
v. Tractate #Arakhin ..................................................................... 109
vi. Tractate Temurah .................................................................... 110
vii. Tractate Keritot ....................................................................... 110
viii. Tractate Me#ilah....................................................................... 111
 contents vii

ix. Tractate Tamid ........................................................................ 111

x. Tractate Middot ....................................................................... 111
xi. Tractate Qinnim ...................................................................... 111
xii. Summary .................................................................................. 111

7. Mishnah Seder Tohorot .......................................................... 113

i. Tractate Kelim ......................................................................... 113
ii. Tractate Ohalot ....................................................................... 113
iii. Tractate Nega"im ..................................................................... 114
iv. Tractate Parah ......................................................................... 114
v. Tractate Tohorot ...................................................................... 114
vi. Tractate Miqva"ot .................................................................... 114
vii. Tractate Niddah ....................................................................... 114
viii. Tractate Makhshirin ................................................................ 115
ix. Tractate Zabim ........................................................................ 116
x. Tractate Tebul Yom ................................................................. 116
xi. Tractate Yadayim ..................................................................... 116
xii. Tractate #Uqsin ........................................................................ 117
xiii. Summary .................................................................................. 117

part two
Narratives in Tractate Abot

8. Tractate Abot .......................................................................... 121

part three
narratives in the Tosefta: forms, types and distribution

9. Tosefta Seder Zeraim ............................................................... 125

i. Tractate Berakhot .................................................................... 126
ii. Tractate Pe"ah .......................................................................... 131
iii. Tractate Dema#i ....................................................................... 134
iv. Tractate Kilayim ...................................................................... 135
v. Tractate Shebi#it ....................................................................... 135
vi. Tractate Terumot ..................................................................... 136
vii. Tractate Ma#aserot ................................................................... 138
viii. Tractate Ma#aser Sheni ............................................................ 138
ix. Tractate Hallah ........................................................................ 139
x. Tractate #Orlah ........................................................................ 139
xi. Tractate Bikkurim .................................................................... 139
viii contents

xii. Summary .................................................................................. 139

10. Tosefta Seder Moed ............................................................... 145

i. Tractate Shabbat ..................................................................... 145
ii. Tractate Erubin ........................................................................ 150
iii. Tractate Pisha (Pesahim) .......................................................... 153
iv. Tractate Sheqalim .................................................................... 157
v. Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) ...................................................... 157
vi. Tractate Sukkah ....................................................................... 167
vii. Tractate Yom Tob (Besah) ....................................................... 172
viii. Tractate Rosh Hashanah ......................................................... 175
ix. Tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) ................................................... 176
x. Tractate Megillah .................................................................... 179
xi. Tractate Mo#ed (Mo#ed Qatan) ............................................... 181
xii. Tractate Hagigah ..................................................................... 182
xiii. Summary .................................................................................. 186

11. Tosefta Seder Nashim ............................................................ 205

i. Tractate Yebamot .................................................................... 205
ii. Tractate Ketubot ...................................................................... 211
iii. Tractate Nedarim .................................................................... 213
iv. Tractate Nezirut (Nazir) .......................................................... 213
v. Tractate Sotah .......................................................................... 215
vi. Tractate Gittin ......................................................................... 220
vii. Tractate Qiddushin .................................................................. 221
viii. Summary .................................................................................. 221

12. Tosefta Seder Neziqin ........................................................... 231

i. Tractate Baba Qamma ............................................................ 231
ii. Tractate Baba Mesia ................................................................ 234
iii. Tractate Baba Batra ................................................................. 234
iv. Tractate Sanhedrin .................................................................. 234
v. Tractate Makkot ...................................................................... 237
vi. Tractate Shebuot ..................................................................... 237
vii. Tractate #Eduyyot..................................................................... 238
viii. Tractate #Abodah Zarah .......................................................... 238
ix. Tractate Horayot ..................................................................... 239
x. Summary .................................................................................. 240

13. Tosefta Seder Qodoshim ....................................................... 245

 contents ix

i. Tractate Zebahim .................................................................... 245

ii. Tractate Menahot .................................................................... 245
iii. Tractate Hullin ........................................................................ 246
iv. Tractate Bekhorot .................................................................... 249
v. Tractate #Arakhin ..................................................................... 251
vi. Tractate Temurah .................................................................... 251
vii. Tractate Keritot ....................................................................... 251
viii. Tractate Me#ilah....................................................................... 251
ix. Summary .................................................................................. 251

14. Tosefta Seder Tohorot ......................................................... 253

i. Tractate Kelim ......................................................................... 253
ii. Tractate Ahilot (Ohalot) .......................................................... 257
iii. Tractate Nega#im ..................................................................... 262
iv. Tractate Parah ......................................................................... 262
v. Tractate Tohorot ...................................................................... 266
vi. Tractate Miqva"ot .................................................................... 267
vii. Tractate Niddah ....................................................................... 270
viii. Tractate Makhshirin ................................................................ 273
ix. Tractate Zabim ........................................................................ 273
x. Tractate Tebul Yom ................................................................. 273
xi. Tractate Yadayim ..................................................................... 273
xii. Tractate #Uqsin ........................................................................ 274
xiii. Summary .................................................................................. 274

15. The Mishnah and the Tosefta Described and Compared 281
i. Forms and Types of Narratives in the Mishnah: General
Observations ............................................................................ 281
ii. Forms and Types of Narratives in the Tosefta: General
Observations ............................................................................ 285
iii. Narratives in the Mishnah and the Tosefta Compared .......... 290
iv. The Successful Narratives Revisited: A Documentary
Perspective on Rabbinic Narrative with special reference
to the Mishnah and the Tosefta ............................................... 298

Bibliographical Appendix: Recent Studies of Rabbinic Narrative ................. 303

i. David Stern: Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis
in Rabbinic Literature. .................................................................. 303
ii. Catherine Hezser: Form, Function, and Historical
Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin. ................. 308
x contents

iii. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash

in Rabbinic Literature. .................................................................. 311

Index of Subjects ............................................................................ 323

Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................... 326
 contents xi

PREFACE

Each Rabbinic document, from the Mishnah through the Bavli,

defines itself by a unique combination of indicative traits of rheto-
ric, topic, and particular logic that governs its coherent discourse.
We can easily identify compositions and composites distinctive or
primary to a given document1 once we decipher those traits in that
combination that characterize that document and no other. The
reason is simple. Compositions and composites2 ordinarily signal their
particular venuesthe compilations where they belongthrough
their indicative traits, which comprehensive analysis readily identi-
fies. But narratives in the same canonical compilations do not con-
form to the documentary indicators that govern in these compilations,
respectively. They form an anomaly for the documentary reading
of the Rabbinic canon of the formative age. In the present project,
I address that anomaly. I ask about the types and forms of narra-
tives and show that particular documents exhibit distinctive prefer-
ences among those types. Accordingly, this detailed, systematic
classification of Rabbinic narrative supplies these facts concerning
the classification of narratives and their regularities:
(1) what are the types and forms of narrative in a given document?
(2) how are these distinctive types and forms of narrative distrib-
uted across the canonical documents of the formative age, the first
six centuries C.E.?3
I start with the Mishnah, tractate Abot, and Tosefta, and plan to
proceed to other documents in due course.
1 Where the same composition or composite occurs in more than a single docu-
ment, it is ordinarily possible to show that the composition or composite exhibits
the formal traits of one document over others in which it occurs. But as I shall
explain, narratives present an anomaly to the documentary hypothesis of Rab-
binic writing.
2 For the distinction and its importance, see The Rules of Composition of the Talmud

of Babylonia. The Cogency of the Bavlis Composite. Atlanta, 1991: Scholars Press for
South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism.
3 The upshot of collecting and arranging that information concerns fundamental

questions of the religion, literature, and history of Rabbinic Judaism as these are
realized in its canonthe sole evidence of that Judaism. If this project accomplishes
its goals, it will form the foundations of an anticipated successor, The Phenomenology
of Rabbinic Narrative: Forms and Types.
xii preface

What is at issue, and what is at stake, in understanding the work-

ings of narrative by documents?4
First, a simple mental experiment answers the question of what
is at issue. If we are handed a piece of expository writing of any type
except narratives and not told the source, we have solid grounds on
which to assign that writing to a particular document, or at the very
least, class of documents. That is because we know the several sets
of documentary preferences of logical, rhetorical, and topical com-
binations, as I said. But faced with a narrative without markings as
to documentary origin, we cannot now come to an informed guess
as to its primary venue, because we do not yet know the documen-
tary repertoire, e.g., the form of the ma#aseh (case/precedent, also
merely story generically) characteristic of the Mishnah as against
that preferred by the Tosefta, and so for other types of narrative,
e.g., mashal/parable. Indeed, in Texts without Boundaries5 I have shown
in a sample of eight documents that writing roughly classified as
narrative6 in each of the eight settings ignores the otherwise-gov-
erning, documentary indicators and boundaries. In their various
forms and types, narratives uniformly appear to violate documen-
tary boundaries otherwise marked by topic-logic-rhetoric in a dis-
tinctive combination. That they do by exhibiting rhetorical and
logical indicators not restricted to a given document or even group
of documents.
What is at stake, second, is more than whether or not we detect
formal regularities. It is whether the narratives, formally beyond tex-
tual boundaries, respond to their own theological and Halakhic
agenda. Specifically, in context do they represent a conceptually
distinct component of the canonical documents in program as well
as in form? Or do narratives find a place within the program of the

4 I simply do not address abstract and theoretical issues of narrative writing,

for these do not pertain to this study. Whether this study pertains to them is not
for me to say. I have found only mildly interesting the work of such literary critics
of Rabbinic writing as Jeffrey Rubenstein, Yonah Frenkel, and others cited below.
5 Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon.

Lanham, 2002: University Press of America. Volume One. The Mishnah, Tractate
Abot, and the Tosefta. Volume Two. Sifra and Sifr to Numbers. Volume Three. Sifr to
Deuteronomy and Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael. Volume Four. Leviticus Rabbah.
6 I do not claim to contribute to, or even engage with, the abstract theoretical

literature of narratology, but deal only with concrete problems of the formative
canon of Judaism, and that reticence makes defining matters a function of context,
not abstract theory, hence the roughly defined of the text.
 preface xiii

respective documents in which they occur? That is one way of deal-

ing with the anomaly, a way demanded by the interior logic of the
documentary hypothesis.
Why does it matter? The ultimate question facing those engaged
by the phenomenology of the canonical writings is how we are to
describe the formative-Rabbinic Judaic structure and system. At stake
therefore is the history of the formation of that Judaism. The rea-
son is simple. A theory on the way in which the documentary evi-
dence took shape and how it accomplished its compilers goals is
required for systematic description of that process. Therein we may
discern the generative logic of formative-Rabbinic Judaism as the
writing down of the system embodies that logic. Accordingly, the
documentary hypothesis promises a theory of system-formation, a
theory based on the formal evidence of regularities in the writing of
the compositions and composites that comprise the constitutive docu-
ments of the system. And that brings us back to the urgency of ad-
dressing the anomaly presently embodied in narratives.
So I undertake the investigation, in the context of the documents
viewed as coherent constructions, of the order and regularity exhib-
ited by narrativesif there is such a pattern. We come, then, to the
concrete tasks of this monograph and its companions: what order,
what regularity, in particular? I propose to identify the narrative types
and forms and other indicative traits that shape out of random data
a set of coherent classifications. I further assess the distribution,
among the canonical compilations, of these types and forms.
The outcome of this volume is simple. We shall differentiate nar-
ratives the formal traits of which indicate origin in the Mishnah (or
in the Tosefta), as against those, the formal traits of which signal
origin in the Tosefta (and not in the Mishnah). That result of the
survey recorded here suffices to prove that narratives in the Mishnah
and the Tosefta adhere to documentary requirements of the Mishnah
and/or of the Tosefta respectively. Given the character of the Mish-
nah, we must find plausible that the document defines its preferences
and uses for narratives as much as for all other media of discourse.
Given what we know about the Tosefta, we cannot find astonishing
that the document contains both Mishnah-like materials and com-
positions that do not conform to Mishnaic preferences on narrative
form. That simple result of this systematic survey necessitates fur-
ther exercises of documentary comparison and contrast in the use
of narratives.
xiv preface

What, exactly, do I mean in the context of the documentary theory by

narrative? I spell out in the Introduction the answer to that ques-
tion defined by the present context, which then excludes a variety
of other perfectly valid and theoretically far more sophisticated read-
ings of the same sources as narratives. Since a vast literature of aes-
thetics (literary theory broadly construed) on narrativity and
poetics accumulates, focused on issues that do not pertain here, a
clear delineation is required: what do I not mean when I speak of
narrative, and in what context do I define the term? The Intro-
duction answers that two-sided question of exclusion and inclusion.
I seek a more objective, formal, positivist account of matters than
theories of aesthetics (narrativity, poetics) provide.7 But for that func-
tional definition I claim only congruence to the problem at hand:
a particular anomaly of a determinate corpus of writings, not a gen-
eral theory pertinent to writing in general.
To recapitulate: what do I claim to prove in this part of the study?
I state with heavy emphasis:
Narratives form part of the documentary self-definition of the Mishnah and
the Tosefta. The fulcrum of interpretation and analysis, for narrative as much
as for all other kinds of canonical writing in formative Judaism, is the docu-
ment.
What I show here is that the narrative in the documents treated
here does serve documentary purposes and does not ignore or dis-
rupt them. The genre, the narrative, assumes a subordinated role
within the programs of the several Rabbinic documents. And with
what consequence? Again with emphasis:

7 One current instance of the aesthetic reading of Rabbinic narrative is Jeffrey

L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. (Baltimore, 1999:
Johns Hopkins University Press) He strives to recapture the meaning and literary
impact that the stories would have had for their original authors and audiences,
so Eliezer Segal, review, Journal of American Academy of Religion (2001, 69:954). Other
instances are Yonah Frenkel, Iyunim be#olamo haruhani shel sipur ha"agadah (Tel Aviv,
1981), and Ofra Meir, Hademuyot hapoalot besipure hatalmud vehamidrash (Jerusalem
1977), and her Sugyot bapoetikah shel sipure hazal (Tel Aviv, 1993). My reading of
David Stern, Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature, Catherine
Hezser, Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin,
and Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature is
reproduced in the Appendix. These represent a vast literature of literary-critical
analysis, both classical and contemporary. The answers to the documentary
questions of a formal, form-analytical character that I raise in this exercise do not
present themselves in that literature, with which I do not intersect.
 preface xv

It is therefore analytically meaningless to talk about the Rabbinic narra-

tive or the Rabbinic parable or the Aggadah or the Rabbinic folktale
or any comparable, generic category that ignores documentary boundaries. The
principal, and primary, analytical initiative commences with the document
the traits of its narrative, parable, Aggadah, folktale, and other generic catego-
ries. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or ma#aseh in the Mishnah
or the Tosefta or Sifra or one or another of the Talmuds, and only then ask how
the narrative or parable or ma#aseh as represented by the one document com-
pares, or contrasts, with that of another.
In that proposition I part company from all those who as a mat-
ter of premise and presupposition have treated the Rabbinic corpus
as uniform and asked about The Rabbinic Story, coming up with an-
swers that claim to speak of everything but in fact represent only some
few things, indeed, the document where they originate but not other
documents (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah but not the Mishnah, to take
a case in point). That process of comparison and contrast sheds light
on the character of the several documents, their construction and
larger context. And that is the heart of the matter. To show what is
at stake, in the bibliographical appendix I present a sustained en-
gagement with the three most important works in the English lan-
guage published in the past decade, those of David Stern, Catherine
Heszer, and Galit Hasan-Rokem. These are not the only readings
in English, but they represent the approach of scholarship in that
language-world. If I ignore most works in languages other than En-
glish, it is for two reasons.
First, I know only few important books on Rabbinic narrative pub-
lished in the past quarter-century in French or Spanish or Portu-
guese or Italian or Scandinavian (Swedish/Danish/Norwegian). In
German there is the important exception in the work of C. Thoma,
which approaches, along documentary lines that I have advocated,
the study of parables.8

8 I owe thanks to Professor Guenter Stemberger, University of Vienna, for

calling to my attention the four volume work: C. ThomaS. Lauer, Die Gleichnisse
der Rabbinen. Erster Teil: Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (PesK), Bern 1986; C. ThomaS. Lauer,
Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen II: Von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Tod Abrahams: Bereschit
Rabba 1-63, Bern 1991; C. ThomaH. Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III: Von Isaak
bis zum Schilfmeer: BerR 63-100; ShemR 1-22, Bern 1996; C. ThomaH. Ernst, Die
Gleichnisse der Rabbinen IV: Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23-30, Bern
2001. Since David Stern in his study of the parables of a particular document insists
that documentary lines mark no important differences among the phenomena of
parables, I consulted him on his reading of Thoma, who sees such differences as
xvi preface

Second, as to works in Hebrew, it is an established fact that, with

important exceptions, represented here by Professor Galit Hasan-
Rokem, Israeli scholarship on Rabbinic Judaism ignores scholarship
in languages other than Hebrew in general, and simply does not
engage with the issues and methods of American scholarship in par-
ticular. It becomes increasingly difficult to understand most, though
not all, Israeli work on ancient Judaism, such as it is, therefore, be-
cause it takes place in a realm of hermetic and private intellectual
discourse. The governing elite of Israeli scholarship in the area treated
here no longer seeks to engage with international scholarship. Writ-
ing and reading only or mainly in Hebrew, the principal players
assume that scholars of Rabbinic Judaism have to read their work,
but they do not have to reciprocate, in their view there being noth-
ing to be learned from outsiders to their circle. A glance at the bib-
liographies ofin tits contextperfectly reputable work in Hebrew
will show what has come about, which is the self-isolation of Israeli
learning in Rabbinics. The self-ghettoized scholars read only what
they agree with. Except for their collections and arrangements of in-
formation, e.g., variant readings of texts, they can now be dismissed
as marginal because intellectually inert.
As is always the case, I conduct my research in conversation with
many colleagues and through diverse media, other peoples publi-
cations not the least of them. From some writings and counselors
I learn what to do, from other writings, what not to do. I am espe-
cially thankful to those who, by telephone and e-mail, comment as
the work unfolds in its successive drafts and changing results.

Jacob Neusner
Bard College

significant, but he has not reviewed Thomas work and had no comment on it so
far as I can discern.
 introduction 1

INTRODUCTION

Narratives, defined presently, violate the norms defined by the

documentary components for the bulk of their contents. To un-
derstand why, we have to grasp the documentary character of the
Rabbinic writings, from the Mishnah through the Bavli.
Components of a common canon relate in three ways: auton-
omy, connection, continuity. Each canonical compilation in its
indicative traits forms an autonomous statement, distinct from all
others. But the markers of autonomy, the unique congeries of traits
of topic, logic of coherent discourse, and rhetoric, all defined in
a moment, do not form the sole measure of a piece of writing.
Some documents intersect, and so are connected with others, e.g.,
the Mishnah and the Tosefta, or some of the Midrash-compila-
tions, Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana sharing en-
tire composites.1 More to the point, what of continuity? Viewed
theologically, all documents are continuous, start to finish. That
is because all are animated by the same cogent theological sys-
tem. All find a place in a single theological structure.2 But of the
three relationships, autonomy predominates, hence the documen-
tary hypothesis of the Rabbinic canon: though connected and
intellectually continuous with all others, nonetheless each docu-
ment is possessed of its own autonomy and integrity.
What precisely do I mean by that? It is that through a unique
combination of rhetorical, topical, and logical traits, each com-
pilation defines itself as different from all the others. That is by a
1 But we can construct an argument to show that a composition is primary to

Leviticus Rabbah and only subordinate in Pesiqta deRab Kahana, so too in the
relationship of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati, as in my From Tra-
dition to Imitation. The Plan and Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati.
Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.
2 I have specified what I conceive that system and structure to be in The The-

ology of the Oral Torah. Revealing the Justice of God. (Kingston and Montreal, 1999:
McGill-Queens University Press and Ithaca, 1999: Cornell University Press), and
in The Theology of the Halakhah. (Leiden, 2001: Brill. Brill Reference Library of Ancient
Judaism).
2 introduction

simple, formal criterion, excluding subjective judgment. A particu-

lar set of preferences among available modes of (1) rhetorical
patterning governs the formalization of language used to express
propositions. These formally-patterned sentences coalesce into
cogent propositions in compositions or composites; the sentences
cohere, one to the next, in accord with (2) a particular logic of
cogent discourse among available modes of coherence, which are
four: propositional, teleological, fixed-associative, or metaproposi-
tional, as I presently shall explain in detail.3 And each document
takes up, among the entire range of possibilities, (3) a particular
topic or problematic of its own, often but not always signified by
a book of Scripture, e.g., Genesis, Leviticus, Lamentations. These
three classifications of distinctive traits of rhetoric, topic, and logic
combine to form that unique congeries, document by document,
to which I have made reference4 In this context, accordingly, a
document is comprised by writing readily differentiated from
all other canonical compilations by its indicative rhetorical, top-
ical, and logical program.5
No one claims that everything contained by a given document
the rhetorical patterns, principles of logical coherence, and topi-
cal programis unique to that document, or that the canon is
made up of utterly unrelated compilations. There are connections
between and among documents. Some writing travels from and
so connects one document to anothernarrative being the pri-
mary, but not the sole, type. Documents overlap in their distinc-
tive traits. More consequentially, sets of documents may share some
indicative traits, e.g., rhetorical forms, as in the Rabbah-compi-
lations, or logical principles, as in the Tannaite Midrash-compi-
lations, or elements of a topical program common to two or more

3 I amplify this matter presently. These four logics of coherent discourse, sum-

marized below, are spelled out in the context of the Rabbinic canon in The Making
of the Mind of Judaism. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.
4 My summary of the documentary analysis, compilation by compilation, is in

my Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. N.Y., 1994: Doubleday. The Doubleday An-

chor Reference Library. Religious Book Club Selection, 1994. Paperback edition:
1999.
5 That is not to claim that documents come to closure at some one point; the

variations in manuscript attestations are well known. But the manuscripts, how-
ever divergent, of a given document will replicate the distinctive documentary traits
of that document. So by a document we must mean, any piece of writing that
adheres to a unique program of logical, rhetorical, and topical traits.
 introduction 3

compilations. But two or more documents never share all three

distinctive traits of rhetoric, logic, and topic.
Take for instance the Rabbah-Midrash compilations, e.g.,
Genesis Rabbah and Song of Songs Rabbah. The Rabbah-Mi-
drash-compilations are readily identified through their character-
istic logic of coherent discourse, which in the aggregate is fixed
associative, and in its components is propositional; and they gen-
erally share rhetorical forms. They differ in topical program. Each
document6 differs from all others in one or another of the indic-
ative traits. Topic serves as the best example. Thus, in the case
just now given, the several Rabbah-documents utilize the logic
of fixed association (commentaries), but only one of them con-
cerns itself with the topic, Genesis, and not with (e.g.) Numbers
or Song of Songsand so throughout. But logic also serves. Thus,
while Sifra and Leviticus Rabbah share the topic, Leviticus, the
former appeals to the logic of fixed association and to the logic
of metapropositional discourse, the other principally to that of
propositional (syllogistic) discourse. The upshot is that there is no
way to confuse a passage selected blindly from Sifra with one
deriving from Leviticus Rabbah. So much for the norm, the doc-
umentary traits that define most of the contents of the canonical
compilations. 7
This carries us to the writing that uniformly presents an anom-
aly, the narratives of various types and forms. However defined
and classified, viewed all together, narratives persistently ignore
the documentary traits of the compilations in which they occur.
To state matters differently, the indicative traits that work for
6 I have to qualify this judgment. I do not think I have succeeded in identifying

the indicative traits of Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael. The whole does not
cohere as do the other late antique canonical documents. My sense is that the
several distinct tractates of the document have to be characterized, each in its
own terms, rather than as components of a uniform document. But I have not
done the work that is required to demonstrate that proposition.
7 The identification of narrative as the main non-documentary writing is proven

for the eight sampled documents in Texs without Boundaries, cited in the next foot-
note, and it is employed for the analysis of Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the
Canon of Formative Judaism. I. The Pointless Parallel: Hans-Jrgen Becker and the Myth
of the Autonomous Tradition in Rabbinic Documents. II. Paltry Parallels. The Negligible
Proportion and Peripheral Role of Free-Standing Compositions in Rabbinic Documents. III.
Peripatetic Parallels. Binghamton, 2001: Global Publications. Academic Studies in the
History of Judaism Series. Second edition, revised, of The Peripatetic Saying: The Prob-
lem of the Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature. Chico, 1985: Scholars Press for
Brown Judaic Studies.
4 introduction

documents viewed whole also work for all the principal types of
writing of said documentsother than the narrative writing there-
in. By the criterion of any given document, narratives in that
document do not conform to the documents distinctive rhetori-
cal pattern, logic of coherent discourse, or in the aggregate even
the topical program!
I know that that is so, on account of the results of the probe
set forth in Texts without Boundaries.8 There I show for eight docu-
ments that narrative writing ignores the documentary boundaries
of the canonical compilations surveyed therein. In that probe to
begin with I identified several types of extra-documentary writ-
ingthat is, writing that in the context of the respective docu-
ments ignores the indicative traits otherwise predominant in those
documents. Of the types of writing I identified as extra-documen-
tary, narratives stand alone. However characterized, in context of
a particular compilation they always ignore documentary indica-
tors in rhetoric and logic of coherent discourse. Narratives, fur-
ther, not uncommonly appear to beif not indifferent to, then
at leasttopically asymmetrical in focus as well.9

II

What, exactly, do I mean by narrative? I ask in an inclusive

definition: whether a candidate for classification as narrative,
forms a story with a lot of action, a story with a lot of dialogue
but no described or even implicit action, a parable (mashal), a case
or legal precedent (sometimes but not always marked ma#aseh,
though that marker in some documents attaches to writing that is
other than a case or legal precedent), or a narrative-setting for a
fixed apophthegmto name five kinds that readily present them-
selves to anyone who knows anything at all in the formative
Rabbinic canon. So much for inclusion. How furthermore do

8 Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon,

Lanham, 2002: University Press of America. Volume One. The Mishnah,. Tractate
Abot, and the Tosefta. Volume Two. Sifra and Sifr to Numbers. Volume Three. Sifr
to Deuteronomy and Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael Volume Four. Leviticus Rabbah.
9 For my eight cases I observed that narratives do not invariably limit them-

selves to the documentary topic that otherwise governs in context, though that
result remains to be reviewed. It is a component of the problem I have not worked
on.
 introduction 5

I accomplish with such a formal definition also the exclusion of all

other kinds of writing that we find in the Rabbinic canon?
What I require is an objective, formal, and positive criterion.
It must embody a formal trait of mind that when operative de-
fines narrative and when not excludes every other kind of writ-
ing. In other words, faced with what looks like a tale, fable, or
story and a variety of other imponderables, I distinguish what looks
like a story from a story, verisimilitude from authenticity. And on
that same basis I exclude from the category narrative one com-
position while I include some other.
Rather than relying on impressions, I choose an objective cri-
terion for inclusion or exclusion. It is one that I have framed in
an entirely other context, when I was working on other issues
altogether. The indicative trait of mind I invoke to distinguish
narrative from all other kinds of writing concerns the logic of
coherent discourse, by which I mean, the linking of two or more
sentences into a statement deemed to make sense. To understand
the answer, readers will want to know the repertoire of logics of
coherent discourse that all together serve the Rabbinic canon.
They will want to be told how each is distinguished from the others.
Only then will the logic of coherent discourse that by its very traits
of mind is unique, in the Rabbinic-canonical context, to narra-
tive and that never functions other than in narratives emerge.
Now to the repertoire of logics and the one that uniquely marks
narratives to the exclusion of all other types of compositions: when
Rabbinic sages undertook to make a coherent statement out of
discrete, completed thoughts, they could draw on one of four logics
of coherent discourse by which two or more sentences are deemed
to cohere and to constitute a statement of consequence and in-
telligibility. These are as follows:
(1) the logic that imparts coherence to data to yield a coher-
ence based on the teleology, or end-purpose, of all data, which
is different from
(2) the logic that imparts coherence to data to yield a propo-
sition and generate a syllogism, which is different from
(3) the logic that joins two or more statements together on
purely formal grounds, and which also is different from
(4) the logic that through the juxtaposition shows the struc-
tural coherence of two or more rules or cases, producing (in con-
6 introduction

text) jurisprudence out of laws, laws out of cases, exemplary cas-

es out of random coincidences. To explain:
(1) Teleological Logic of Coherence. In this mode of thought we link
fact to fact and also prove (ordinarily implicit) propositions by
appeal to the purpose or goal or endhence, teleological
that is implicit in the sequence of facts. Only at the end of the com-
posite do all the pieces fall into place and does the consequence
of the combination of this with that become apparent. Then the
reason, first this, then that, emerges. So by invoking the word
teleology, I mean to stress that the pieces of data cohere not
by reason of their own traits but by appeal to a goal beyond them-
selves. How come the goal is signaled by the sequence of sen-
tences? It is because the goal transcends and imposes order on
all the distinct pieces of data. Here the reader does not know what
the message really is until the end of the story. In teleological
discourse the point is at the end, and not learned along the way.
Stopping at any point before the end will demolish the construc-
tion and leave incoherent and senseless bits and pieces littering
the path to nowhere. By contrast, as we shall see, in a proposi-
tional composition of a syllogistic character, each component is
fully cogent in its own traits and terms, e.g., it may be constitut-
ed by an opinion that on its own bears a meaningful statement.
So what characterizes and so defines narrative and no other type
of Rabbinic writing is a trait of mind that sees purpose in the order
of facts, first this, then that, therefore this led to that and explains it.
The logic10 that makes sequence, movement, dialectics register
so that this coheres to that may be roughly characterized: post
hoc, ergo propter hoc: that happened in sequence after this, it there-
fore happened because of this. In more abstract language, the logic
particular to narrative joins a sequence of statements of action or
thought in such a way as to yield a cogent statement. By reason
of their order the parts cohere into a whole that exceeds the sum
of the parts. That order is taken to bear meaning and exhibit
purpose or intention, and that logic I therefore call teleologi-
cal, hence the teleological logic of narrative.
Narrative logic therefore joins two or more facts to convey a
proposition through the setting forth of happenings in a frame-
10 I put logic in quotation-marks here because of the dubious standing of the

matter, as everyone recognizes. But then Aristotle produced natural philosophy

but not the ordered history or intent and purpose that sustains unfolding stories.
 introduction 7

work of inevitability, in a sequence that makes a point, e.g., es-

tablishes not merely the facts of what happens, but the teleology,
the purpose or goal of the orderthat explains those facts. Then
we speak not only of eventsour naked facts, such as serve in
philosophical logic of syllogismbut of their causal, consecutive
relationships. We have a narrative formed by data when we claim
to account for that relationship teleologically, in the purposive
sequence and necessary order of the data that all together com-
prise happenings. To the exclusion of what alternatives?
(2) Syllogistic or Propositional Logic. The next and in the Halakhic
documents by far the most important logic of coherent discourse,
is philosophical logic of proposition and syllogism. By it facts and
reason yield syllogisms, e.g., two facts produce a third. So the parts
are made to yield a sum greater than they. A way for conducting
philosophical argument is the demonstration we know, in gener-
al, as Listenwissenschaft, that is, a way to classify and so establish a
set of probative facts, which compel us to reach a given conclu-
sion, one that transcends any and all of the facts. These proba-
tive facts may derive from the classification of data, all of which
point in one direction and not in another. Then the traits of the
individual bits of data register on their own, and, seen in any order
but only all together, they yield a pattern, produce a generaliza-
tion, demonstrate a principle.
A catalogue of facts, for example, may be so composed that,
through the regularities and indicative traits of the respective
entries, the catalogue yields a proposition affecting more facts than
are catalogued. In the Halakhah this may or may not be articu-
lated, but it never has to be. In the Aggadahin the Rabbah-
compilations for exampleit is ordinarily articulated, outset and
end, in constructions of a syllogistic character. Accordingly, items
are interchangeable. Therefore the order of the items rarely reg-
isters the besought proposition; the traits common to the items,
in whatever sequence, make all the difference. A list of parallel
items all together point to a simple conclusion; the conclusion may
or may not be given at the end of the catalogue, but the cata-
logueby definitionis pointed. All of the catalogued facts are
taken to bear self-evident connections to one another, established
by those pertinent shared traits implicit in the composition of the
list, therefore also bearing meaning and pointing through the
weight of evidence to an inescapable conclusion. The discrete facts
8 introduction

then join together because of some trait common to them all. This
is a mode of classification of facts to lead to an identification of
what the facts have in common andit goes without saying, an
explanation of their meaning. These and other modes of philo-
sophical argument are entirely familiar.
How do the two logics of coherent discourse compare and
contrast? Philosophical logic of coherence differs from the teleo-
logical logic characteristic of narrative for as already stressed in
philosophical logic, the sequencing of the facts bears no part of
the burden; we can produce our cases in any order with the same
result. By contrast, in teleological logic the manufactured sequence
establishes a moral that by reason of the position of the data in
some way, rather than in some other, is always blatant. Here too,
it hardly matters whether or not the generalization is stated in so
many words. That is because the power of well-crafted narrative
is so to order the components of the construction as to make
unnecessary explicitly announcing the moral. So narrative sees
cogency in the necessary order of events understood as causative.
Purpose, therefore cause, takes the form of a story of what hap-
penedonce upon a time, someone did something with such-and-
such a consequencebecause it had to happen.
Whatever the form, whether invested with the aura of story-
telling or not, the presence of teleological logic marks a compo-
sition as narrative, and the absence denies it that status. If, as we
shall see, we are told in the form of a story about what happens
in the Temple on various occasions, the tale of how rites are
performed, we can invoke the formal issue: does the outcome
become clear at the end, or is the sequence merely formal, a matter
of a correct ordering of action, but not teleologicalmessage-
bearing, detail by detail in fixed array.11
These two classes of logic of coherent discourse, the philosophical
and the teleological, by their nature constitute logics of a propo-
sitional order. But in the Rabbinic canon, many sentences or claus-
es or small groups of completed thoughts stand side by side but
do not intersect in proposition or meaning at all. They are asso-
ciated for purely formal reasons, thus, the logic of fixed associa-
tion.
11 I follow Ithamar Gruenwalds definition of ritual in his Rituals and Ritual Theory

in Ancient Israel. He sees ritual as action, fixed and autonomous, without reference
to the story that accompanies the action (myth).
 introduction 9

(3) The Logic of Fixed Association. The third logic of coherent dis-
courseand by far the most dominant logic in the Midrash-com-
pilationsjoins two or more discrete facts or sentences by join-
ing them to a fixed, received text, ordinally prior and common
to them both.12 The coherence derives from the fixed association
defined by that received text. Then the two or more statements
are deemed to cohere not in what they say in a shared program
of thought but only in their intersection with that (prior) common
text. This logic of coherent discourse sustains a commentary upon
a privileged text, e.g., glosses of Scripture or the Mishnah. It is
not propositional. The logic of fixed association is common in
the Midrash-compilations but (on its own) rare in the Halakhic
ones.13 How it differs from the philosophical and teleological logics
corresponds to the difference between purposive, propositional
discourse and the episodic recording of random thoughts deemed
to cohere not at all or (which is the same thing) altogether sub-
jectively. The one makes connections and draws conclusions,
whether syllogistically or teleologically, and the other registers
truths that yield nothing beyond themselves (and by reason of
forming a component of the revealed Torah, are not expected to).
A good model of the logical incoherence of a topical program
of how a sequence of sentences does not comprise a cogent para-
graphis supplied by Scripture itself. For example, consider the
sequence that follows:
If you see your fellows ass or ox fallen on the path, do not ignore
it; you must help him raise it.
A woman must not put on mans apparel, nor shall a man wear
womans clothing; for whoever does these things is hateful to the Lord
your God.

12 But the fixed text need not be received Scripture. Pesiqta deRab Kahana
takes as the fixed text the sequence of special Sabbaths through the liturgical year,
and there are other bases for coherence of otherwise discrete sentences through
appeal to a received text other than Scripture or liturgy too. But in the Rabbinic
canon two or more propositions unrelated to one another may be joined into a
coherent composite through Scripture more than through all other fixed texts put
together.
13 The two Talmuds join large-scale propositional constructions together through

a logic of fixed association dictated by the Mishnah or Scripturethus utilizing

two logics of coherent discourse, propositional and fixed associative. The Mishnah
is uniformly propositional. Sifra and the two Sifrs are uniformly fixed-associa-
tive. There is no document that coheres only or mainly through the teleological
logic of narrative.
10 introduction

If by the way you happen upon a birds nestwith fledglings or

eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not
take the mother together with her young
When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your
roof
You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seedyou
shall not plow with an ox and an ass together; you shall not wear cloth
combining wool and linen;
You shall make tassels on the four corners of your garment
Deuteronomy 22:4-12
This miscellany yields no generalizations, no special order is re-
quired by the parts, and the details do not cohere; there is little
more to be learned from the repertoire of rules than the rules
themselves. If we changed the order of the components of the
composite (sentences), we neither gain nor lose a scintilla of
meaning or of cogency. Each entry is free-standing; there is no
logic of coherent discourse that turns of the parts into a whole.
The miscellaneous quality of the construction is blatant. In the
Rabbinic context, there are structures that form the given for
purposes of fixed association: books or large constituents of books
of Scripture.
We shall now see how the Rabbinic commentary deals with
the parts without forming them into a whole:

Sifr to Deuteronomy
CCXXIX:IV
1. A. if anyone should fall from it (Dt. 22:8):
B. [Since the verse reads, if one who is falling should fall..., we
conclude that] this one [who falls] is worthy of falling.
C. Nonetheless, merit is assigned to the meritorious, and guilt to
the guilty.
2. A. ...from it:
B. and not into it.
C. For if the public domain was ten handbreadths above and one
fell from it into [the mans roof], the householder is exempt.
D. For it is said, ...from it: and not into it.
CCXXX:I
1. A. You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed,
[else the cropfrom the seed you have sownand the yield of the
vineyard be sanctified [and may not be used]. You shall not plow with
an ox and an ass together. You shall not wear cloth combining wool
and linen] (Dt. 22:9-11):
B. Why do I require this statement? Is it not in any event said,
You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (Lev. 19:19)?
 introduction 11

C. This teaches that whoever keeps two kinds of seeds in a vine-

yard, he violates two negative commandments.
2. A. I know only that the law pertains to a complete vineyard. How
do I know that it applies even to a single vine which produces fruit?
B. Scripture says, vineyardunder any circumstance.
3. A. How on the basis of Scripture do I know that the produce of
mixed seeds in a vineyard is forbidden for any sort of benefit?
B. Scripture here says, ...sanctified, and elsewhere the same
word occurs.
C. Just as in that other context, the upshot is that no benefit or
use is permitted, so sanctified here means that benefit or use is per-
mitted.
There is no pretense that one fact plus one fact yields another
fact; the exposition aims at episodic observations about one thing
or another, not at a coherent construction, out of discrete data,
of a cogent proposition transcending the data. The propositional,
syllogistic logic of coherent discourse works for the parts, with a
formal, fixed associative construct serving to hold the parts to-
gether.
(4) Metapropositional Logic. The fourth mode of establishing con-
nections between and among factscompleted whole units of
thought (sentences) or composites of such whole units (para-
graphs) undertakes the methodical analysis of many things in a
single way. Stunning in its logical power, it proposes to pattern a
great many cases to yield a uniform overarching principle. Nearly
the whole of Sifra attains coherence through a single mode of
analytical argument, and much of Sifr to Deuteronomy aims at
showing that numerous cases or rules yield cogent propositions.
Metapropositional logic characterizes both Halakhic and Aggadic
discourse, the latter in its theological mode, e.g., numerous cases
that yield a single proposition of a theological character, and that
cohere only in that proposition common to them all. Here is a
good example, drawn also from Sifr to Deuteronomy:

Sifr to Deuteronomy
CCXXVII:I
1. A. If before you, along the road, you chance [upon a birds nest,
in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother
sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the mother to-
gether with her young. Let the mother go and take only the young, in
order that you may fare well and have a long life] (Dt. 22:6-7):
B. you chance:
12 introduction

C. excluding a case in which the one is ready at hand.

2. A. [with fledglings or eggs:]
B. The smallest number of fledglings is two, and the smallest
number of eggs is two.
C. How on the basis of Scripture do I know that if there is only
a single fledgling or a single egg, one is liable to send forth the mother?
D. Scripture says, nestunder any circumstance.
3. A. Since it is said, in any tree or on the ground, with fledg-
lings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs,
B. might I suppose that I should then exclude the case of geese
or chickens, which make their nest in an orchard?
C. Scripture says, ...before you, [under whatever circumstance].
4. A. I know only that the law pertains to a case in private domain.
How on the basis of Scripture do I know that it applies also in public
domain?
B. Scripture says, ...along the road.
5. A. How on the basis of Scripture do I know that it applies to a
nest in a tree?
B. Scripture says, ...in any tree.
6. A. And how do I know that it applies to a nest on the road?
B. Scripture says, ...along the road.
7. A. and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs:
B. Just as the fledglings can survive, so the eggs must be able to
survive,
C. thus excluding [Hammer:] eggs that are addled.
D. Just as eggs have to have the dam [to keep them warm], so
the fledglings are those that have to have their dam [to feed them],
E. thus excluding those that can fly, since they do not have to
have their dam.
8. A. and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs:
B. The law applies when the mother is sitting over them, thus
excluding a case in which she is fluttering about.
C. Might one then exclude a case in which her wings are touch-
ing the nest?
D. Scripture says, and the mother sitting over the fledglings,
E. even if she is not with them.
F. Might one suppose that in the case of an unclean bird sitting
on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird sitting on the eggs of an
unclean bird, one should be obligated to send forth the mother?
G. Scripture says, and the mother sitting over the fledglings
or on the eggs,
H. requiring that both be of the same species.
It would be difficult to find a better example of the authorships
power of turning a case into a general law, applicable to a varie-
ty of cases. No. 1 begins the work of restriction, continued at No.
2. No. 3 then broadens the applicability of the rule, progress that
 introduction 13

goes forward through Nos. 4, 5, 6. No. 7 then proceeds to a fur-

ther layer of amplification. Now we wish to define the conditions
that make the case pertinent to the prevailing rule, thus No. 7,
the eggs, No. 8, the location of the dam, the definition of the
species, and so on. The sequence of inquiry, therefore, involves,
first, restriction, then inclusion, finally, definition of pertinent clas-
sifications and categoriesan orderly and well composed state-
ment.
Clearly, the propositional, metapropositional, and fixed asso-
ciative logics never serve the purpose of narrative, since, at each
point, we follow the unfolding data in sequences (where there is
such a proposition), not only at the end. But at issue is not the
formal positioning of the climactic constituent of a continuous
construction, rather the kind of logic that renders the construc-
tion continuous, start to finish. To state the matter simply: we know
narrative from all other kinds of compositions and composites in
the Rabbinic canon by the logic that establishes coherence be-
tween and among the free-standing, discrete whole units of thought
(sentences) of a given piece of writing. Then at every point, the
question must present itself: how does the composition at hand
impose coherence upon its components? What makes the com-
position a narrative, and, if a narrative, of what type? These are
the questions concerning the phenomena and their classification
that I present, item by item, to all candidates set forth by the
canonical documents.

III

Having defined the traitteleological logicthat must be present

to validate classifying a piece of writing as narrative, let me turn
to the question of relevance, to which I merely alluded in the
Preface. Specifically, what makes it urgent to formulate a system-
atic phenomenology of Rabbinic narrative for the canon of late
antiquity, from the Mishnah through the Bavli? The answer de-
rives from the documentary hypothesis, which, as I have made
clear, has yielded the fact that in documentary context narratives
form a massive anomaly, demanding systematic inquiry. Any claim
that the Rabbinic compilations constitute documents as defined
here must address the fact that the several documents contain more
than random, and other than haphazard components of non-doc-
14 introduction

umentary writing. Chief among compositions and composites that

do not replicate the indicative traits otherwise (uniquely) charac-
teristic of a given document are narratives, however we define
narrative.14
From a form-analytical perspective the narrativea piece of
writing that coheres by reason of teleological logic, as against the
three other types of logic of coherent discourse characteristic of
the Rabbinic canonis the only important one. The sizable sam-
pleeight complete documentssurveyed in Texts without Bound-
aries has shown that narratives of various kinds, differentiated by
form and function in diverse compositions and composites, always
ignore the documentary traits that distinguish one Rabbinic com-
pilation canon from another and each from all others in the for-
mative canon. Most of the composites and the majority of the
compositions that comprise a document will adhere to the docu-
ments unique tripartite program. But when we ask about the
compositions and composites of a given document that do not
conform to the indicative traits that define that document, an
interesting fact emerges. It is critical to the work undertaken here,
and it requires exposition in its own terms.
To specify that fact that underscores the singularity of narra-
tives in the Rabbinic canon viewed jointly and severally, a prin-
cipal distinction demands recognition. It is between extra-documen-
tary and non-documentary writingcompositions and even large-scale
composites.15 The urgency of distinguishing extra-documentary
writing, which can accommodate compositions comparable in logic
to those in hand, and non-documentary writing, which cannot,
has now to be amplified, beginning with the definition of that
distinction.
By extra-documentary compositions and composites I mean
those that violate the particular indicative traits of the document
in which they occur, but that conform to the model of such traits
nonetheless. These conflict in one or another of the three princi-

14 Those who do not perceive the formal order of the Rabbinic documents also

do not grasp the anomalous character of the narrative, which does not exhibit
traits particular to the respective documents, so far as my prior work has worked
itself out.
15 The distinction between extra-documentary and non-documentary writing

is spelled out in Making the Classics in Judaism: The Three Stages of Literary Formation.
Atlanta, 1990: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.
 introduction 15

pal indicators governs writing in the document in which they oc-

cur. But they point toward a comparable documentas I just said,
one in the same model, if with variation. For example, for late
antiquity we have no Midrash-document devoted to Proverbs. So
a sustained, systematic exegesis of a passage of Proverbs located
in Song of Songs Rabbah or Pesiqta deRab Kahana would vio-
late the documentary norms of those compilations. But the frag-
ments we do would comprise a chunk of such a document in the
model of the Midrash-documents we do have. That is, we do not
have a Proverbs Rabbah in the formative canon. But we know
what such a document would look like, since we have some of
the required components.16 So by extra-documentary I mean,
beyond the range of the extant documents, but well within their
model. 17
Compositions and composites called non-documentary, by
contrast, disregard the rules of documentary writing such as gov-
ern in each and all of the score of canonical compilations. They
not only ignore the indicative traits of the documents in which
they occur, but they in no way replicate for a fresh topic a known
model of any extant document. So we have Midrash-compilations,
if not for one scriptural book, then for another. But we have no
canonical compilation of stories, e.g., lives of sages, on the one
side,18 histories of Israel, on the other.19 So too there are elabo-
rate stories of the false Messiah and the true one, and the like.
But in the entire formative canon there is nothing remotely re-
cording the life of the Messiah, beginning to end. Entire chap-
ters in the lives of principal sages and their master-disciple circles,
sustained stories about paradigmatic events in Israels history
none of these types of writing coalesces into coherent documents
in the way in which the compositions and composites located in

16 The medieval compilers would collect the candidates for inclusion in a Prov-

erbs Rabbah (and so throughout) in their Yalqutim and equivalent documents.

But they were collectors and arrangers, not the creators of coherent documentary
statements such as the late antique counterparts set forth.
17 This was pointed out by Herbert Basser, In the Margins of the Midrash. At-

lanta, 1990: Scholars Press, pp. 16-18.

18 I deal with an aspect of this larger problem in Why No Gospels in Talmudic

Judaism? Atlanta, 1988: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies. Now: Lanham
MD, 2001: University Press of America. Studies in Judaism series.
19 I explain that fact in The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present. History,

Time, and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda, 1996: CDL Press.

16 introduction

the Mishnah or Genesis Rabbah or the Bavli (to name three dis-
parate cases) do. By that criterion the non-documentary represent
a kind of writing intended to stand on its own, not planned for a
larger composite. That carries us to the perspective of the docu-
mentary hypothesis on narrative.

IV

What lends weight to the non-documentary writing comprised by

the varieties of narratives in the extant canon, making me sus-
pect that these are more than random accidents in a chaotic ca-
nonical process? I have shown far more than that narratives rep-
resent non-documentary writing. In Texts without Boundaries I found
that narratives, however defined, uniquely constitute anomalies in
every extant document. Narratives of one kind or another occur in
all the canonical documents and constitute the non-documentary
components of every document in the Rabbinic canon. At no point
does a story, or a precedent, or a parable, among other types of
narratives, conform to the indicative program of a given docu-
ment. That is for two reasons, which complement one another.
First, I cannot point to a single canonical compilation that en-
compasses within its definitive traits a set of rules on the kind of
narratives that fit or do not fit the governing plan for the docu-
mentary writing therein. Second, the work not having been done,
I cannot yet identify narrative conventions that function in one
document but not in anotherif any. And if there is none, I have
yet to reckon with the implications of that fact for the history of
Rabbinic Judaism, which defines the goal of the entire oeuvre.
That fact defines the task before us, It is, through patient sift-
ing of data, to find out whether some other set of conventions
than documentary ones governed the narrative writing in the
Rabbinic framework. Now form-analysis undertakes to identify the
types, forms, and program of narratives. These questions govern:
(1) Is it really soas my completed probe suggeststhat doc-
umentary boundaries do not function in this type of writing in
the way in which they demarcate all other types of writing?
(2) Do the narrative compositions truly comprise a distinct corpus
of writing, and if so, under what auspices, for what purposes, and
with what systemic consequences?
These are distinct problems, one old, the other new, and only
 introduction 17

thorough and systematic inquiry of a form-analytical character can

answer them.

Having defined what is at issue, let me now double back and

specify the answers to the questions that confront us. These artic-
ulate what is at stake in solving the problem of regularity and order,
determining the canonical status of narrative in the Rabbinic corpus
of late antiquity. The answers track the questions, reproduced in
italics, of religion, literature, and history, in line with the program
of The Three Questions of Formative Judaism: History, Literature, and
Religion.20
1. At stake for understanding the religious system of formative Rabbinic
Judaism: Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to
thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules
and symmetry of the canon?
A corpus of extra-, including non-, documentary writing did
find its way into the process of documentary composition and
compilation. Of the three types of the identified extra-documen-
tary writing(1) exegesis of clumps of Scripture from books not
accorded, by entire documents, systematic commentaries in the
Rabbinic canon of late antiquity, (2) agglutination of topical mis-
cellanies, and (3) narrativesthe first two self-evidently cohere
to the model of the canonical documents, though not to the par-
ticular program of any extant document. Hence they raise no
questions of a documentary character, but rather confirm the
definition of a conventional compilation. As large formal aggre-
gates they cannot be differentiated from the documentary writing
to which they correspond. I find no recurrent differences in the
regnant conceptions of the anomalous writing that are asymmet-
rical or even jarring, let alone differences in contents.
Narratives represent a question not yet addressed. I do not know
at this point how to differentiate between narrative-writing and
(the other) normative, canonical types of writing. Clearly, such
differentiation can go forward only systematically and thorough-
ly. At this point, any claim that the narratives constitute a coher-
ent sector of writing, with their own traits of rhetoric, logic, and
20 Leiden, 2002: Brill. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism.
18 introduction

topic would be premature. (In the present context I mean by top-

ics conceptions, detailed contents and propositions.)
Why does it matter? People posit a Judaism beyond the texts.
By that they mean to allege we have access to Judaic thought
beyond the limits of the extant documents, knowledge that is a
priori, on the one side, or that is represented in bits and pieces
of writing that survive, out of context, in the Rabbinic documents.
Here is a clear opportunity to investigate the qualities of norma-
tive-Judaic writings that originate outside of the documentary
boundaries. So what about the Judaism beyond the textsat
least, that alleged Judaic structure and system to which the texts
willy-nilly afford only occasional and fragmentary access?
2. At stake for discerning the literary qualities of the Rabbinic canon:
Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form and
meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and how
are we to classify and to interpret them?
The question is readily unpacked. Extra-documentary writing
is readily characterized within the limits of extant, documentary
writing. For forms and patterns of the non-documentary writing,
that is, the narrative compositions and composites, we do not know
the answer. This part of the work supplies the beginnings of one,
as we shall see in chapter fifteen.
3. At stake for the history of formative Rabbinic Judaism: At what point
in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we know them did doc-
umentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning of that interven-
tion? When and under what circumstances did documentary considerations give
way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?
The historical question is framed in terms of sequences of ac-
tivity and continuities and changes exhibited by those sequences.
But the issue of analysis and the models of interpretation are
framed atemporally, phenomenologically.21 They concern types
of data and the inner logicthe definition of self-evidence and
the givensthat generates them. We cannot describe the process,

21 I initially proposed to argue in Making the Classics in Judaism: The Three Stages

of Literary Formation that documentary writing is consequent upon, and comes later
than, pre-, extra-, and non-documentary writing, but that argument led nowhere
and persuaded no one, in the end not even me. It was a false start, because I
mistook difference in phenomena for difference in sequence, a fundamental error
for phenomenology. That argument never found its way into my final formulation
of matters.
 introduction 19

since there is no evidence that difference in traits signals sequences

in temporal order. But in each formative-redactional context
documentary writing clearly takes priority. In Making the Classics
of Judaism I have already indicated my reasons for regarding the
documentary project as the starting point for most of the writing
encompassed by a given document. So for example at the point
at which people determined to create a commentary to Sifra with
specified indicative traits of form and program, writing conform-
ing to that program of rhetorical, logical, and topical (here: prop-
ositional, problematic) traits got underwaythen and not before.
But we already know that documentary writing and writing com-
parable to documentary writing did not prevent non-documenta-
ry writing from going forward perhaps before, certainly alongside,
and surely afterward; and the same names that occur in the one
predominate in the other, as everyone knows. So, once more, to
our starting point: the one important corpus of extra-documenta-
ry writing, the narratives of various kinds, venues, and indicative,
definitive traits, remains to be considered.
Narrative writing commonly bears a further, historical dimen-
sion, biography. Narratives focus on events involving named in-
dividuals, the larger number of them specific sages. Narrative
writing therefore opens the opportunity to preserve traits of indi-
viduation, e.g., accounts of how a given master conducted him-
self. By its nature, focusing as it does on the actions of named
individuals, narrative does preserveif exemplary, stillother-
than-consensus conduct. The individual is singled out, so narra-
tive sustains a labor of individuation that other forms of discourse
do not. And, still more striking: we should not miss the simple
reality, the topical program of narrative, as we shall see, does
extend its range of interest to circles of the Israelite community
that are comprised by other-than-sages, however that formida-
ble constituent element of the world of Judaism be named. The
perspective and viewpoint of not a few stories do not replicate
the standard ones of sagacity.
Indeed, a fair number of narratives explicitly invoke the ex-
emplary conduct and virtue of not-sages, and these narratives,
often in a Halakhic context but not of Halakhic content, repre-
sent the sole ambience in the Rabbinic writing for the represen-
tation of such persons and their values. And, I suspect time will
tell, not all such persons, and not every value espoused by them,
20 introduction

conformed to, or was otherwise preserved by, the results of doc-

umentary and extra-documentary writing. So if we are to find,
within the Rabbinic canon, shards and remnants of a Judaic sys-
tem acknowledged by the Rabbinic writers but outside of their
framework, we shall find it among the diverse narratives. But in
so stating, I have moved far beyond the range of established
knowledge, which, as is clear, defines the need for systematic and
detailed work of analytical classification.

VI

The program of the project hardly presents surprises. Beginning

with the Mishnah, tractate Abot, and Tosefta, and continuing with
other compilations in due course, I sort out narratives by docu-
ments: the distribution, by forms and types, of narratives, as the
title of the volume indicates. In a later, companion-study, I hope
to sort out narratives by their indicative traits, without regard to
their documentary venue, e.g., the ma#aseh, the mashal, and so on.
The phenomenology that results ought to provide information on
a dual grid. It ought to permit perspective both (1) on the docu-
mentary unfolding of narratives (thus: religion, history) and (2)
on repertoire of narratives without regard to documentary distri-
bution (thus: literature).22
To produce coherent results for further analysis of the litera-
ture, history, and religion of nascent Rabbinic Judaism, at each
point, I ask a uniform set of questions, thus imposing on the data
a set of taxonomic considerations of a consistent order. In line
with the important consideration just now introduced, I (1) es-
tablish my reason for regarding a pericope as narrative to be-
gin with. I then (2) identify the source of the movement from one
element of the tale to the next, indicating what imparts the dyna-
mism and purpose (teleology) to the composition. Finally, in
line with the purpose of this survey, I (3) ask each item to tell me
how it is to be classified, meaning, what points of regularity and
order it contains to justify linking it with other items of a formal-

22
It goes without saying that, as indicated in the Preface, I do not concern
myself with the program of literary criticism or of aesthetics, which ask different
sets of questions from those that animate this study. Where I learn something
important from literary critics, I indicate in context.
 introduction 21

ly-comparable character: the taxonomic phenomenology of the

narratives viewed as a whole. The nature of the worka piece
by piece examination of the evidencerequires that the phenom-
enological outcome take shape cumulatively. At this point it will
not serve any purpose to define a rough-and-ready classification
of narratives.
Here is the set of questions, in the order that strikes me as logical
and necessary, which, in the encounter with each item, I uniformly
address. Then, at each point, I underscore the particular aspects
of special interest that are at hand.
1. A piece of writing qualifies as a narrative because it attains
coherence through the teleological logic of coherent discourse
defined earlier. This commonly means that, at some point and
in some articulated way, the narrative invokes a finite action, it
records something that has happened, or it asks the reader to
imagine a real-time, real-life event: On what basis does the narrative
attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling
of the tale? The answer justifies my classifying the composition as
a narrative.
2. The sequence of data, I have argued, is not random but
determinative. The sequence conveys the purpose, in context, that
each component is meant to serve. A narrative thus coheres by
reason of a tension that is precipitated and resolved, a point that
is proved by the narrative: thus: What point of conflict or intersection
of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension
resolved? This question reinforces the foregoing.
3. The narratives fall into diverse categories, each with its own
traits. These categories, defined by formal criteria, do not repre-
sent the outcome of taste and judgment and critical acumen, which
I do not claim to possess, but only of a simple, material assess-
ment of concrete features of the writing: How, in light of other, com-
parable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative clas-
sified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex
or simple?
What about compositions that by the criterion of teleological
logic do not qualify as narratives but convey a narrative tone
or impression, e.g., a sequence of actions and their outcomes, or
a setting for a story that is not actually told, e.g., they were
walking along the way and he said to him, with no action but
talk? Enough has been said to warrant a systematic discussion, at
22 introduction

the very outset, of what I call pseudo-narratives, which is to say,

compositions that adopt what looks like a narrative tone but co-
here on some foundation other than the logic of teleology that,
by definition, characterizes all narratives but no non-narrative
compositions. In chapter one I point to three classifications of such
writing and instantiate each.
Then we turn to the survey that this project records. We begin
with the data of the Mishnah and ask whether the document con-
tains compositions or composites that qualify as narrative. Since
the document is rich in exemplary precedents explicitly marked
as ma#aseh, which renders precedent/case, we should anticipate
many narratives. These I log in within the classification of pseu-
do-narratives. What is left? What we shall find is only a few odd
narratives, each of them unique, and no protocol or pattern of
narrative. We proceed to tractate Abot, then take up the Tosef-
tas narratives. The outcome, in chapter fifteen, allows us to make
some progress toward the announced goals of the project. There
I identify the documentary preferences as to narrative that char-
acterize the Mishnah, tractate Abot, and the Tosefta.23

VII

Through the use of diverse margins, broad for the narrative, in-
dented for the context, I indicate my views on the form-analyti-
cal data of a given composition. In that way I preserve the narra-
tive in its larger context while signaling its formal limits. The visual
signal permits us to see very clearly the way in which authentic
narratives are distinguished from their documentary contextif
they are to be so distinguished.

23 Clearly, at this stage we can say nothing about the types of narrative viewed

in abstraction from the documents, e.g., in a canonical framework: the Rabbinic

narrative, or Talmudic stories viewed without differentiation in their own frame-
work or in documentary context, let alone the Aggadic narrative, as though all
Aggadah formed an undifferentiated composition. The conclusions of the Pref-
ace pertain. But once the types of narratives of each canonical document, viewed
on its own, have been collected and classified rigorouslyexplaining not only in-
clusion but exclusionthen work on the Rabbinic narrative or Talmudic sto-
ries or the Aggadic narrative will become analytically possible. As matters now
stand, the premise of inquirydocumentary lines mean nothingis untested by
Rabbinic narratologists.
 introduction 23

In the shank of the exercise, chapters two through fourteen, I

log in not only authentic narratives but those that, by the criteria
that are spelled out in chapter one, I classify as pseudo-narratives.
That is the only way to provide a complete survey of pertinent
data.
This page intentionally left blank
 pseudo-narrative 25

CHAPTER ONE

PSEUDO-NARRATIVE

My definition of the logic of coherent discourse has to explain

all cases uniformly: why this, not that? The presence of that logic
classifies writing as a narrative, its absence signifies that writing
that looks like a story in fact does not qualify as a narrative but,
by reason of verisimilitude, as pseudo-narrative. In that connec-
tion I begin with three special problems, all involving described
action. These bear resemblance to stories, the rhetoric correspond-
ing to what generally characterizes narratives in Rabbinic context.
But their principal parts do not cohere through the required logic
of coherent discourse. They are (1) conversations1 (he said to
him he said to him); (2) presentations of ritual conduct in
the Temple (and in the court) (he did this he did that); and
(3) the precedent or case, usually marked ma#aseh.2 The conver-
sations construct a setting for what are, in fact, merely exchanges
of principles or arguments: artificial dialogue, a pseudo-narrative
setting for an analytical presentation. The presentations of ritual
conduct in the Temple represent a particular type of writing re-
stricted to a particular topic. They imitate the preference of Scrip-
ture, e.g., Leviticus 16, in presenting rituals through described
action. The ma#aseh in the Mishnah follows a simple pattern: in
such and such a place, thus and so took place, and Rabbi Y ruled

1 Quotation-marks signify the distinction between verbatim reports of conver-

sations and fabrications of conversations out of surmise or convention, such as

characterize nearly the whole of the Rabbinic canonical record of things people
supposedly said to one another. In that record literary convention and artifice govern;
there is nothing that remotely qualifies as a verbatim report of things really said,
as a conversation that really took place on some one day in some determinate
situation.
2 The distinction between a precedent and a unique case, lacking authority as

a precedent, makes no difference in the contexts we survey, hence I avoid making

a commitment as to how I classify the ma#aseh in the Mishnah. In the Tosefta the
ma#aseh takes on further tasks in context, sometimes replicating the Mishnaic us-
age, some times going well beyond.
26 chapter one

in this wise). The Tosefta invokes the marker, ma#aseh, for other
kinds of writing, some of which qualify as narrative.
Let me now explain, in line with the indicative criterion, why
I exclude three sorts of compositions that seem to, but do not,
set forth a narrative. I deem each of these to constitute a pseudo-
narrative. In our detailed survey of the narratives of the Mishnah
and the Tosefta, from the pseudo-narratives we gain perspective
on the authentic narratives, their forms and proportions.

I. Portrayals of Conversations

First, let us take up a simple example of how a Halakhic com-

posite is supplied with a setting:
Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 1:4
A. These are some of the laws which they stated in the upper room of
Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Gurion when they went up to visit him.
B. They took a vote, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House
of Hillel.
C. And eighteen rules did they decree on that very day.
1:5 (1) A. The House of Shammai say, They do not [on Friday after-
noon] soak ink, dyestuffs, or vetches, unless there is sufficient time for
them to be [fully] soaked while it is still day.
B. And the House of Hillel permit.
1:6 [II] A. The House of Shammai say, They do not put bundles of
[wet] flax into the oven, unless there is time for them to steam off while
it is still day.
B. And [they do not put] wool into the cauldron, unless there is suf-
ficient time for it to absorb the color [while it is still day].
C. And the House of Hillel permit.
[III] D. The House of Shammai say, They do not spread out nets for
wild beasts, fowl, or fish, unless there is sufficient time for them to be
caught while it is still day.
E. And the House of Hillel permit.
1:7 [IV] A. The House of Shammai say, They do not sell [anything]
to a gentile or bear a burden with him,
B. and they do not lift up a burden onto his back,
C. unless there is sufficient time for him to reach a nearby place [while
it is still day].
D. And the House of Hillel permit.
A-C appear to tell a story of an incident, but in fact serve merely
to provide the setting for a sequence of Halakhic rulings of a
particular classification. A common example of the same phenom-
enon is the ma#aseh, to which we turn in section iii.
 pseudo-narrative 27

Second, what about portrayals of conversations, e.g., debates

or exchanges of opinion on rulingsimplicit dialogue lacking all
activity or movement, from a starting point to a conclusion? Do
these register as narratives, since they describe the unfolding se-
quence, the action, of talk? Let me give a single example of a
well-articulated description of a conversation:
Mishnah-tractate Sotah 5:5
A. On that day did R. Joshua b. Hurqanos expound as follows: Job
served the Holy One, blessed be He, only out of love,
B. since it is said, Though he slay me, yet will I wait for him (Job
13:15).
C. But still the matter is in doubt [as to whether it means], I will wait
for him, or I will not wait for him.
D. Scripture states, Until I die I will not put away mine integrity from
me (Job. 27:5).
E. This teaches that he did what he did out of love.
F. Said R. Joshua, Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban
Yo-hanan b. Zakkai? For you used to expound for your entire life that Job
served the Omnipresent only out of awe,
G. since it is said, The man was perfect and upright and one who
feared God and avoided evil (Job 1:8).
H. And now has not Joshua, the disciple of your disciple, taught that
he did what he did out of love.
We have the markings of narrative: a particular time or occasion
(on that day), yielding an expectation of an unfolding order of
events (said R. Joshua), leading to a climactic resolutionthe
realization of the teleological logic of coherent discourse. But a
second look shows otherwise. What we have is merely an expo-
sition of a theological position and the exegetical foundations
therefor, situated within what I class as a pseudo-narrative set-
ting. Pseudo-narrative creates the impression of a teleological
construction but in fact merely provides a dramatic setting for a
systematic exposition, a fabricated dialogue, for what is in fact a
mere saying or ruling of law.
What is at issue, then, is whether exchanges of opinion he said
to him he said to him with or without accompanying de-
tail) constitute narratives: can they be said to represent purposive
sequences of facts to be classified as narrative? One may well claim
that a report of an exchange of opinions represents an event
recorded through dialogue, thus every Halakhic composition
might be deemed the outcome of an event. To avoid such an
infinite regress from the surface exchanges of opinion to an a priori
28 chapter one

transaction in (allegedly) actual time, a simple definition serves.

That I have already said is what distinguishes narrative from all
other forms and types of coherent discourse in the Rabbinic can-
on. It is that teleological logic that I set forth in the Introduction.
And, in the case at hand, A-E cohere as a proposition, the de-
tails fitting together by reason of their propositional logic, and do
not have to wait until H to attain cogency.
Accordingly, I do not list as narratives the exchanges of opin-
ion, e.g., colloquies, he said they said to him he said to
them A deed or an action of some kind has to be included, if
only implicitly, to qualify as a narrative. Here are two examples
of what in the present survey of the canon does not rise to the
level of a narrative:
M. Berakhot 4:2
4:2 A. R. Nehunia b. Haqqaneh would pray a short prayer upon en-
tering the study house and upon leaving.
B. They said to him, What is the nature of this prayer?
C. He said to them, Upon entering I pray that I will cause no offense.
D. And upon my exit I give thanks for my portion [in life].
If we remove B and go from A to C-D, we change nothing of the
meaning and sense of the composition. He would do so and so,
the deed then being elaborated, is simply a primary statement
expanded and explained. The burden of the composition rests not
on the sequence of the statements but on the propositions thereof,
and the intrusion of they by the criterion of the logics of co-
herent discourse explained at the outset does not mark the com-
position as a narrative. In the same category is the following
colloquy:
Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 4:7
A. They asked sages in Rome, If [God] is not in favor of idolatry, why
does he not wipe it away?
B. They said to them, If people worshipped something of which the
world had no need, he certainly would wipe it away.
C. But lo, people worship the sun, moon, stars, and planets.
D. Now do you think he is going to wipe out his world because of
idiots?
E. They said to them, If so, let him destroy something of which the
world has no need, and leave something which the world needs!
F. They said to them, Then we should strengthen the hands of those
who worship these [which would not be destroyed], for then they would
say, Now you know full well that they are gods, for lo, they were not wiped
out!
 pseudo-narrative 29

Apart from the setting ( in Rome), the exchange of argu-

ments contains no action; more to the point, each component is
positioned by reason of its contents, that is, If people wor-
shipped must come where it does, followed by the objection,
But lo We do not have to wait until the final turning in the
exposition. It is not a very intricate argument, and comparison
with the dialogic art of Plato is hardly proportionate. But the notion
that someone here is telling a story comparable to the stories with
their beginning, middle, and end, their tension and resolution,
their logic of coherent discourse does not pertain.
The following colloquy serves, because it coheres only step by
step, within the exchange of reasons for a given proposition. It is
simply a theological dialogue that evokes a narrative setting but
does not in any way depend for coherence on the end-point. It
represents a convention of Halakhic exchange as well, as the fol-
lowing shows:

Mishnah-Tractate Negaim 11:7

A. (1) A summer garment which has colored and white checks(2) they
spread from one [white] to another [white square].
B. They asked R. Eliezer, And lo, it is a distinctive check?
C. He said to them, I have not heard.
D. Said to him R. Judah b. Beterah, May I teach concerning it?
E. He said to him, If to confirm the words of sages, yes.
E He said to him, Perhaps it will remain on it for two weeks, and that
which stands on garments for two weeks is unclean.
G. He said to him, You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the
words of sages.
H. The spreading which is near [it is a mark of uncleanness] in any
measure at all.
J. That which is distant[signifies uncleanness only if it is] the size of
a split bean.
K. And that which returns
L. the size of a split bean.
Finally, let me give an example of a ma#aseh of a classical or-
derstatement of a situation/event and a sages ruling thereon
joined to a formal debate, an exchange of reasons and criticism
thereof. Neither component qualifies as a narrative:
Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 1:16
A. An immersion-pool which was measured and found lackingall the
acts requiring cleanness which were carried out depending upon it
B. whether this immersion-pool is in the private domain, or whether
30 chapter one

this immersion-pool is in the public domain[Supply: are unclean.]

C. R. Simeon says, In the private domain, it is unclean. In the
public domain, it is clean.
1:17 A. Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: The water-reservoir of Disqus in Yavneh
was measured and found lacking.
B. And R. Tarfon did declare clean, and R. Aqiba unclean.
C. Said R. Tarfon, Since this immersion-pool is in the assumption of
being clean, it remains perpetually in this presumption of cleanness until
it will be known for sure that it is made unclean.
D. Said R. Aqiba, Since this immersion-pool is in the assumption of
being unclean, it perpetually remains in the presumption of unclean-
ness un-til it will be known for sure that it is clean.
1:18 A. Said R. Tarfon, To what is the matter to be likened? To one
who was standing and offering [a sacrifice] at the altar, and it became
known that he is a son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah
for his service is valid.
B. Said R. Aqiba, To what is the matter to be likened?
To one who was standing and offering [a sacrifice] at the altar, and
it became known that he is disqualified by reason of a blemish
for his service is invalid.
1:19 A. Said R. Tarfon to him, You draw an analogy to one who is
blemished. I draw an analogy to the son of a divorcee or to the son of
a Halusah.
B. Let us now see to what the matter is appropriately likened.
C. If it is analogous to a blemished priest, let us learn the law from
the case of the blemished priest. If it is analogous to the son of a divorce
or to the son of a Halusah, let us learn the law from the case of the son
of the divorcee or the son of a Halusah.
1:20 A. R. Aqiba says, The unfitness affecting an immersion-pool affects
the immersion-pool itself, and the unfit aspect of the blemished priest
affects the blemished priest himself.
B. But let not the case of the son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah
prove the matter, for his matter of unfitness depends upon others.
C. A ritual pools unfitness [depends] on one only, and the unfitness
af a blemished priest [depends] on an individual only, but let not the
son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah prove the matter, for the
unfitness of this one depends upon ancestry.
D. They took a vote concerning the case and declared it unclean.
E. Said R. Tarfon to R. Aqiba, He who departs from you
is like one who perishes.
T. Miq. 1:17A-B amplify T. Miq. 1:16 A, C. Then the protracted
formal exchange, C-D, 1:18, 1:19 perfectly executes the require-
ment of a debate on a dispute, in precise balance throughout.
There is no basis whatever for assuming that these highly formal-
ized compositions mean to record events that actually happened;
 pseudo-narrative 31

nor is there any interest in portraying a particular event on a de-

terminate occasion.
Here, again, the author of the passage has chosen the form of
a dialogue, in which an exchange of opinions is set forth as a one-
time argument. But what is at stake is the presentation of the
Halakhah and the reasons for it, and in that exercise each com-
ponent coheres, fore and aft, by reason of the substance of what
is said and the reason that animates it.
So to the main point: are conversations narratives? No, in
no way do they qualify here. I eliminate from consideration as
narrative writing the single most ubiquitous, often the most in-
tellectually dynamic, type of writing in the Rabbinic canon: an
exchange of opinion outside of the framework of supposed en-
counter or other (implicit) activity. A sequence comprised by He
said to him, he said to him does not qualify as a narra-
tive, e.g., the transcript of a conversation that took place in some
one day and circumstance. Here the logic that operates is that of
a simple syllogism: if this, then that, if not-this, then not-that. Each
component of the composition stands on its own and links to the
others through the substance of what is said, not the outcome of
what is implicit. The two (or more) free-standing elements inter-
sect in topic, not in the requirement that one element come be-
fore or after another. As I said earlier, in this case we do not have
to wait to the end to make sense of the units of thought; each
stands on its own. The point of intersection advances a pre-exist-
ing proposition or set of propositions.
For the purpose of this study I therefore treat the formula, he
said to him, as an indicator of the start and end of a component
of a formal exposition of opinion pure and simple. The order of
what is said does not convey the purpose of the composition. In
other words, unless purpose, e.g., an implicit action to be vali-
dated or condemned, is clearly at issue, I take he said to him,
he said to him to constitute paragraph-markers, indicators of
the limits of completed discourse, and not the substantive signal
of a conversation that took place at some one time. The context
always signals the implicit presence of an event, that is, something
that actually is alleged to have happened to precipitate. or to come
about by reason of. an exchange of views, e.g., the meeting of
two authorities at some one occasion, or the happening of a con-
crete transaction upon the consequences of which two authorities
32 chapter one

lay down rulings. Any other taxonomic principle will require our
treating as narrative the entire dialogic corpus of the Rabbinic
canon, meaning, the greater part of all documents. When we re-
view tractate Abot in chapter eight, we see why this decision is
necessary and wise.

II. Portrayals of Halakhic Rules as Described Actions

Second, what about the compositions that describe in a story-telling

tone the rites of the Temple (and of the court), e.g., what the priests
did or do in such and such a connection. Numerous compositions
in the Mishnah addressed to Temple procedures and activities
record data in the language, He did this he did that, and
on the surface these chapters in the life of the Temple cult take
on the quality of narratives. So we are obliged to ask ourselves
whether they qualify for the present study?
These accounts of sequences of action in a given connection
recall the manner in which Leviticus 16 tells the story of the rites
of the Day of Atonement, he shall do this, he shall do that.
When we turn from Scripture to the Mishnah, what shifts is the
tense, from Scriptures future at hand, to the continuous past, thus
How did [which sustains: how would] they do it? in the Mish-
nah. The pertinent verses of Scripture are as follows.
The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron,
when they drew near before the Lord and died, and the Lord said to
Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy
place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is upon the ark, lest
he die; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. But thus
shall Aaron come into the holy place, with a young bull for a sin offer-
ing and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat
and shall have the linen breeches on his body, be girded with the linen
girdle, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall
bathe his body in water and then put them on. And he shall take from
the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offer-
ing and one ram for a burnt offering.
And Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and
shall make atonement for himself and for his house. Then he shall take
the two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of
meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the
Lord and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat
on which the lot fell for the Lord and offer it as a sin offering; but the
 pseudo-narrative 33

goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before
the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the
wilderness to Azazel.
Aaron shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall
make atonement for himself and for his house; he shall kill the bull as
a sin offering for himself. And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire
from the altar before the Lord, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten
small; and he shall bring it within the veil and put the incense on the
fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy
seat which is upon the testimony, lest he die. And he shall take some of
the blood of the bill and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the
mercy seat and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle the blood with
his finger seven times.
Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering which is for the people
and bring its blood within the veil and do with its blood as he did with
the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the
mercy seat; thus he shall make atonement for the holy place, because
of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their trans-
gressions, all their sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which
abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness. There shall be no
man in the tent of meeting when he enters to make atonement in the
holy place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and
for his house and for all the assembly of Israel. Then he shall go out to
the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it; and shall
take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and
put it on the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle some
of the blood upon it with his finger seven times and cleanse it and hallow
it from the uncleanness of the people of Israel.
And when he has made an end of atonement for the holy place
and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat;
and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat; and
confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, all their trans-
gressions and all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the
goat and send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who
is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities upon him to a
solitary land; and he shall let the goat go in the wilderness.
Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and shall put off
the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place
and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a
holy place and put on his garments and come forth and offer his burnt
offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for
himself and for the people. And the fact of the sin offering he shall
burn upon the altar. And he who lets the goat go to Azazel shall wash
his clothes and bathe his body in water and afterward he may come
into the camp. And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the
sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the
holy place, shall be carried forth outside the camp; their skin and their
34 chapter one

flesh and their dung shall be burned with fire. And he who burns them
shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water and afterward he
may come into the camp.
Leviticus 16:1ff
When the Halakhic exposition of the Mishnah and the Tosefta
turns to Temple rites, it encompasses an account, told in the
manner of a tale, of what was done in connection with that rite.
That is to say, in addition to using the generalizing language of
the Halakhah, the author describes the action of the priest in the
manner of a narration. Before proceeding, let me give some in-
stances of the use of language that describes sequential actions
first he did this, then he did thatand then return to the prob-
lem of whether these compositions quality as narratives within the
working definition of this study.
My first candidate sets forth the rite of reaping the barley sheaves
used in the grain offering of the #omer on the opening day of
Passover. Here we have a scripted language, a fixed exchange of
formulas:
Mishnah-tractate Menahot 6:3
A. How did they do it?
B. Agents of the court go forth on the eve of [the afternoon before]
the festival [of Passover].
C. And they make it into sheaves while it is still attached to the ground,
so that it will be easy to reap.
D. And all the villagers nearby gather together there [on the night
after the first day of Passover], so that it will be reaped with great pomp.
E. Once it gets dark [on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan], he says
to them, Has the sun set?
F. They say, Yes.
G. Has the sun set?
H. They say, Yes.
I. [With] this sickle?
J. They say, Yes.
K. [With] this sickle?
L. They say, Yes.
M. [With] this basket?
N. They say, Yes.
O. [With] this basket?
P. They say, Yes.
Q. On the Sabbath, he says to them, [Shall l reap on] this Sabbath?
R. They say, Yes.
S. [Shall I reap on] this Sabbath?
T. They say, Yes.
U. Shall I reap?
 pseudo-narrative 35

V. They say, Reap.

W. Shall I reap?
X. They say, Reap-
Y. three times for each and every matter.
Z. And they say to him, Yes, yes, yes.
AA. All of this [pomp] for what purpose?
BB. Because of the Boethusians, for they maintain, The reaping of
the [barley for] the offering of the first sheaf of barley is not [done] at the
conclusion of the festival.
This account of the rite contains no prescriptive language of a
Halakhic character. The upshot could readily be translated into
the rhetoric of law, e.g., The agents of the court do thus and so,
without the colloquy that translates the law into a tale of how things
were done. The effect is the same. The narrative is sustained by
scripted language, fixed formulas that encase and encapsulate the
activity.
To show another case of a Temple rite described in terms of
scripted language, I turn to the account of how the Sheqel-offer-
ing for the daily whole offering was taken up out of the Temple
treasury:
Mishnah-tractate Sheqalim 3:3-4
3:3 A. A member of the household of Rabban Gamaliel would go in
and take his sheqel between his fingertips and throw it in front of the one
who takes up the heave offering [of the sheqels, so as to make sure his coin
would be used for the purchase of the public sacrifices].
B. And the one who takes up the heave offering intentionally pushes it
into the basket.
C. The one who takes up the heave offering does not do so until he
says to them, Shall l take up the heave offering? And they say to him,
Take up heave offering, take up heave offering, take up heave offering,
three times.
3:4 A. He took up [heave offering] the first time and covered [the
residue] with coverings.
B. [He took up the heave offering] a second time and covered [the
residue] with covers.
C. But the third time he did not cover [it up].
D. [He covered the first two times], lest he forget and take up heave
offering from those sheqels from which heave offering already had been
taken.
E. He took up the heave offering the first time in behalf of the Land
of Israel, the second time in behalf of cities surrounding it, and the third
time in behalf of Babylonia, Media, and the more distant communities.
What leads me to deem the descriptive language covering sequen-
36 chapter one

tial action as a problem of narrative? It is the contrast between

presenting the Halakhic rule as a story, he did this he said
that, and presenting it as an objective apodictic law of how
things generally are done. That distinction emerges in the con-
trast between Mishnah-tractate Yoma 1:1 and 1:2, the former tel-
ling what they would do, the latter the rule governing the offer-
ing:

Mishnah-tractate Yoma 1:1-3

1:1 A. Seven days before the Day of Atonement they set apart the
high priest from his house to the councilors chamber
B. And they [also] appoint another priest as his substitute,
C. lest some cause of invalidation should overtake him.
D. R. Judah says, Also: they appoint another woman as a substitute
for his wife,
E. lest his wife die.
E Since it says, And he shall make atonement for himself and for his
house (Lev. 16:6).
G. His housethis refers to his wife.
H. They said to him, If so, the matter is without limit.
Now from what they did, we shift to prescriptive language of what
the high priest does in his period of isolation in the councilors
chamber, and the formulation is no longer what they did or do,
but rather concerns the established pattern of activity:
1:2 A. All seven days he tosses the blood, offers up the incense, trims
the lamp, and offers up the head and hind leg [of the daily whole offering],
B. But on all other days, if he wanted to offer it up he offers it up.
C. For a high priest offers up a portion at the head and takes a portion
at the head [of the other priests].
The difference between M. 1:1 and M. 1:2 is recovered at M.
1:3, which contrasts once more with M. 1:2. The passage contin-
ues, at 1:3, in the descriptive-narrative language and tone of 1:1,
with more scripted language conveying the sense that a particu-
lar drama is underway:
1:3 A. They handed over to him elders belonging to the court, and
they read for him the prescribed rite of the day [of atonement].
B. And they say to him, My lord, high priest, you read it with your
own lips,
C. lest you have forgottenor never [even] learned it to begin with.
D. On the eve of the Day of Atonement at dawn they set him up at
the eastern gate and bring before him bullocks, rams, and sheep,
E. so that he will be informed and familiar with the service.
 pseudo-narrative 37

How does the rhetoric of the law differ from the rhetoric of the
cited passages and its counterparts in other tractates? Here is how
the law speaks:
Mishnah-tractate Yoma 8:1-3
M. 8:1 On the Day of Atonement it is forbidden to eat, drink, bathe,
put on any sort of oil, put on a sandal, or engage in sexual relations.
But a king and a bride wash their faces. And a woman who has given
birth may put on her sandal, the words of R. Eliezer. And sages pro-
hibit.
M. 8:2 He who eats a large dates bulk [of food], inclusive of its
pithe who drinks the equivalent in liquids to a mouthfulis liable.
All sorts of foods join together to form the volume of the dates bulk,
and all sorts of liquids join together to form the volume of a mouthful.
He who eats and he who drinks[these prohibited volumes] do not
join together [to impose liability for eating or for drinking, respectively].
M. 8:3 [If] one ate and drank in a single act of inadvertence, he is
liable only for a single sin-offering. [If] he ate and did a prohibited act
of labor, he is liable for two sin-offerings. If he ate foods which are
not suitable for eating, or drank liquids which are not suitable for drink-
ing[if] he drank brine or fish brinehe is exempt. As to children,
they do not impose a fast on them on the Day of Atonement. But they
educate them a year or two in advance, so that they will be used to
doing the religious duties.
Now all focus on a singular event or pattern is set aside in favor
of rules stated in general and abstract, indeterminate terms: how
things are done, without regard to the particularities of occasion
or circumstance. Clearly, the language of M. Yoma 1:1, 3 and
its counterparts appears to tell the story of the rite in present tense,
continuous action to be sure, but still a story. How do we differ-
entiate cultic narratives from the narratives that come under study
in this project, so that I call the former pseudo-narratives? The
answer, given in the Introduction, appeals to the logic of coher-
ent discourse that imparts coherence to the components of the
construction(s) at hand.
A further instance of highly scripted language is in the account
of the presentation of firstfruits by the farmer to the Temple priest.
The following is noteworthy for its formalization of speech on the
pertinent occasion. Here is another case in which the sequence
of actions is everything, the conclusion not serving to impose sense
and coherence on the prior units, each of which is necessary on
its own and in its particular point in the description:
38 chapter one

Mishnah-tractate Bikkurim 3:2-6

3:2 A. How do they bring the firstfruits up [to the Temple]?
B. [The male inhabitants of] all the towns in the priestly course gather
in the [main] town of the priestly course [M. Ta. 4:2],
C. and they sleep [outside] in the open area of the town
D. and they would not enter the houses [in the town, for fear of con-
tracting corpse uncleanness].
E. And at dawn, the officer would say,
F. Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to [the house of] the Lord our
God (Jer. 31:6).
3:3 A. Those [who come] from nearby bring figs and grapes,
B. but those [who come] from afar bring dried figs and raisins.
C. And an ox walks before them,
D. its horns overlaid with gold,
E. and a wreath of olive [leaves] on its head.
F. A flutist plays before them until they arrive near Jerusalem.
G. [Once] they arrived near Jerusalem, they sent [a messenger] ahead
of them [to announce their arrival], and they decorated their firstfruits.
H. The high officers, chiefs, and treasurer [of the Temple] come out
to meet them.
I. According to the rank of the entrants, they would [determine which
of these officials would] go out.
J. And all the craftsmen of Jerusalem stand before them and greet them,
[saying],
K. Brothers, men of such and such a place, you have come in peace.
3:4 A. A flutist plays before them, until they reach the Temple mount.
B. [Once] they reached the Temple mount,
C. Even Agrippa the King puts the basket [of firstfruits] on his shoul-
der, and enters, [and goes forth] until he reaches the Temple court.
D. [Once] he reached the Temple court, the Levites sang the song,
E. I will extol thee, 0 Lord, for thou hast drawn me up, and hast not
let my foes rejoice over me (Ps. 30:1).
3:5 A. The pigeons that [were] on top of the baskets were [sacrificed
as] burnt offerings,
B. but [the pigeons] which are in their hands are given [as a gift] to the
priests.
3:6 A. While the basket is still on his shoulder, he recites [the entire
confession of firstfruits, beginning] from the words I declare this day to
the Lord your God (Dt. 26:3),
B. [and proceeding] until he finishes the entire passage.
C. R. Judah says, [While the basket is on his shoulder, he recites only]
up to [the second part of the confession, which begins with the words,] A
wandering Aramean was my father (Dt. 26:6).
D. [Once] he [has] reached [the words] A wandering Aramean was
my father,
E. he takes the basket down from his shoulder, and holds it by its rim,
F. and a priest puts his hand beneath [the basket], and waves it [before
the altar]
 pseudo-narrative 39

G. And [then the Israelite] recites [the second part of the confession,
beginning] from [the words], A wandering Aramean was my father, [and
proceeding] until he finishes the entire passage.
H. And [then] he places [the basket] beside the altar, and he bows down
and departs.
What we have is not a narrative but an account of how things
are to be done in a formal-ritual transaction. That is why the logic
of coherent discourse characteristic of narratives does not serve.
Later on, in chapter fifteen, we shall see how in T. Ta. 3:7 the
same topic, presentation of first-fruits, can be the subject of a highly
successful and authentic narrative, conforming to the logic of
coherent discourse that I have already set forth as the qualifying
criterion for an authentic narrative. The logic registers a distinc-
tion that makes a huge difference in Rabbinic writing.
A final example of conveying the Halakhahhow things are
done generally, under all circumstancesin a narrative form
corresponds to the account of Mishnah-tractate Yoma 1:1, 3:
Mishnah-tractate Middot
1:2 A. The man in charge of the Temple mount would go around to
every watch, and lighted torches were [flaring] before him.
B. And to any watch which was not standing did the man in charge of
the Temple mount say, Peace be with you.
C. [If] it was obvious that he was sleeping, he beats him with his staff.
D. And he had the right to burn his garment.
E. And they say, What is the noise in the courtyard?
E It is the noise of a Levite being smitten, and his clothing being burned,
for he went to sleep at his post.
G. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, One time they found my mothers brother
sleeping and burned his garment.
Once more we find ourselves slipping from a general rule to the
account of a case, an incident, a particular event. Readers may
stipulate that where the Halakhic presentation takes up Temple
rites and comparable events (the Sanhedrins procedures for ex-
ample), the same narrative convention takes over.
Now we return to our problem: do the components hold to-
gether only by reason of the goal of the narrative, or is there a
principle of cogency deriving from sequence, so that each item
on its own lays claim to its legitimate position in the whole, that
is, do we have something akin to the logic of proposition (if not
syllogism) that generally characterizes the presentation of the
Halakhah and of the theological constructions of the Aggadah?
40 chapter one

The answer presents itself when we realize that the order of ac-
tion is everything in the cultic narratives, and, as we shall see in
the writing of Ithamar Gruenwald, that is a necessity for ritual.
But then, by the definition that animates this work, the ritual
accounts do not quality as narrative, but as pseudo-narrative. Let
me explain.
At stake in the utilization of the rhetoric of described action in
Mishnah-tractate Yoma and its counterparts is the sequencing of the
rite, and this is made explicit, for the Day of Atonement, in the
following formulations of the Mishnah (in bold face type) and the
Tosefta (in plain type):
M. 5:7 The entire rite of the Day of Atonement stated in
accord with its proper orderif [the high priest] did one
part of the rite before its fellowhe has done nothing what-
soever. [If for instance] he took care of the blood of the goat
before the blood of the bullock, let him go and sprinkle some
of the blood of the goat after he has sprinkled the blood of
the bullock. And if before he had completed the acts of plac-
ing the blood on the inner altar, the blood was poured out,
let him bring other blood and go and sprinkle it to begin
with on the inner altar [M. 5:3-4]. And so [is the rule] in the
case of the sanctuary [M. 5:5], and so in the case of the golden
altar [M. 5:5], for each of them constitutes an act of atone-
ment unto itself [and need not be repeated]. R. Eleazar and
R. Simeon say, From the place at which he broke off, from
there he begins once more.
T. 3:3 The entire rite of the Day of Atonement, stated in accord
with its proper orderif one did one part of the rite before its fellow,
he has done nothing whatsoever [M. Yoma 5:7A-B], except for taking
out the ladle and fire-pan, for if he did one deed before its fellow,
what he has done is done.
T. 3:4 Said R. Judah, Under what circumstances? In the case of
deeds done inside, while the high priest is wearing white garments. But
as to things done outside, while the high priest is wearing golden gar-
ments, even if he did one deed before its fellow, and repeated any one
of all the rites, what he has done is done.
T. 3:5 [If] he put some of the placings of blood inside and then
the blood was poured out, let him bring new blood and begin afresh
inside. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say, He begins at the place at which
he stopped [cf. M. Yoma 5:7H]. [If] he completed the placings of blood
inside and put some of the placings of blood outside and then the blood
was poured out, let him bring fresh blood and begin at the beginning
outside. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say, He begins at the place at which
he stopped.
T. 3:6 [If] he finished the placings of blood on the veil outside
 pseudo-narrative 41

and placed some of the placings on the altar and then the blood was
poured out, let him bring fresh blood and begin at the beginning on
the altar. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say, He begins at the place at
which he stopped. [If] he completed the placings of blood on the altar
and then the blood was poured out, the placing of the blood into the
foundation does not spoil the rite. And all of them [the beasts requir-
ing burning] impart uncleanness to clothing and are burned in the place
of ashes, the words of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. And sages say, They
do not impart uncleanness to clothing and are not burned in the place
of the ashes, except for the very last one, which completes the service
[of atonement].
T. 3:7 Said R. Yos, This is the sign: Whatever is taken from within
to be placed without is taken as near as possible to the inner altar. And
whatever is taken from without to be placed within is taken as near as
possible to the inner altar. [If] one put part of the blood of the bul-
lock to be offered inside, outside, and some of the blood of the goat to
be placed inside, outside, the ones placed inside go to his credit. But
the ones placed outside do not go to his credit. If] he put part of the
placings of blood inside, and then the blood was poured out, let fresh
blood be brought, and let him begin, on the altar. If he put part of the
placings of blood on the altar, and the blood was poured out, etc. [cf.
M. Yoma 5:7D-E].
T. 3:8 Even though he has not poured the blood on the founda-
tion [M. Yoma 5:6B, C], he has carried out his obligation, as it is said,
And he will complete making atonement (Lev. 16:20). If he has made
atonement, he has completed [the work], the words of R. Aqiba. R.
Judah says, If he has completed the work, then he has made atone-
ment.
Here we see the shift from the description of action (whether in
the future, as in Leviticus 16, or in the past, as in the Mishnah)
to the provision of the law in general, apodictic terms. But that is
not a primary fact.
Now what I think we have before us is the use of descriptive
language (he does this he does that) to set forth the fixed,
Halakhic rule (he is to do this he is to do that. When it
comes to specific actions that are repeated in a ritual context of
Temple or court, scripted language and scripted actions embody
the Halakhah at the critical turnings: what is supposed to be done,
the particular action that is supposed to be taken. In the Mish-
nah and the Tosefta, described action to portray the Halakhah
serves only in the presentation of the rites of the Temple (and
their counterparts of the court). I shall now explain why described
actions in the Temple context do not yield narrative within the
definition given in the Introduction.
42 chapter one

The indicative fact is, the pseudo-narrative of sequenced ac-

tions that he does did will do serves in the Halakhic doc-
uments, particularly the Mishnah, only for ritual, and mainly for
the Temples rituals. This well-documented preference for the use
of the language of description, in addition to the language of
Halakhic prescription, for the particular purpose of embodying
ritual behavior, is best explained by Ithamar Gruenwald, in his
Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Gruenwald addresses matters
in this language, with what is important for my argument in ital-
ics:
The study of rituals mostly concerns the particulars of what is done,
how it is done, and the reason and purpose of doing as embedded in
the very act of doing rituals are performative signs Each ritual
consists of several sub-acts that configure rituals as sequentially struc-
tured events. They are spread out in time and in space. In other words,
the doing of any rituals creates dynamics that turns complex structure
into a process.
what makes the difference between a ritual and a non-ritual
act.The answer focussed on three factors: (1) the logic that shapes
the internal structuring; (2) the dynamics that emerges from the sequencing of
ritual acts; (3) and the mental process that activates intentionality. There
is an inner logic that constitutes the structure of every ritual. Without
that logic, the ritual statement becomes redundant. The specific man-
ner in which the various parts become a coherent whole shows the
manner in which every ritual becomes a compositional event. What-
ever its shape, ritual always is a unique statement that exists in its own
right. In our understanding here, doing the ritual in the right manner means allo-
cating to it, as well as its various components, processual coherence. In this respect,
rituals are analogous to verbal arguments. Reverse or displace any part in a certain
argument, or drop it altogether, and the whole argument changes, or loses its commu-
nicative capacity.3
What is important here is the stress on the sequencing of ritual
acts, the notion of ritual as process (processual coherence). He
states my point of emphasis in so many words: rituals are analo-
gous to verbal arguments That strikes at the heart of the mat-
ter and removes the tales of how things were or are done in the
Temple from consideration within the definition of narrative as
defined by the quality of logic of coherent discourse.
Indeed, Gruenwald captures the matter in the italicized por-

3 Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden, 2002:

Brill. Brills Reference Library of Judaism series.

 pseudo-narrative 43

tion of the cited passage. Within Gruenwalds theory of matters,

which I find compelling, we are able to explain the traits of the
narrative-Halakhic protocol, right alongside the philosophical-
Halakhic protocol, serves in particular in the context of Temple
rites and activities. There is no myth that accompanies the verbal
realization of the rite; it does not belong, and if present, is tacked
on and scarcely intersects in detail (as with the Boethusians of
Mishnah-tractate Menahot). The logic is established in the ges-
ture that establishes a series, that is, three times repeated. More
to the point, everything rests on the sequencing of ritual acts, which
is the point of emphasis that can be conveyed only in the narra-
tive medium selected in the cases at hand. If the sequence is the
key, how else to convey it than say, first he did this, then he did
that?! But, I repeat, the sequencing, step by step, violates the logic
of teleology that signifies narrative and only narrative: not the
sequence step by step but the goal and end of the whole impose
coherence. That is precisely the opposite of the logic of ritual
pseudo-narrative, by which every acted out component of the
process belongs only where it is, takes on meaning and signifi-
cance only in its proper positionand not from the telos of the
whole.
Gruenwalds emphasis on ritual as process then provides us with
the key to understanding the scripted exchanges that are portrayed
in the Halakhah of the cultalongside, I emphasize, the philo-
sophical-expositional portrayal of that same Halakhic category-
formation. Within the definition given in the Introduction for the
logic that always signals the presence of narrative, the absence of
which invariably marks a piece of writing as something other than
narrative, Gruenwalds formulation of the traits of ritual discourse
in the Halakhah validates treating the cited passages and their
counterparts as other-than-narrative. Since in the Mishnah-Tosefta
the use of descriptive language such as is cited above serves only
Temple (and court) procedure, I am justified in omitting all such
passages from my repertoire of candidates for analysis set forth
in the Mishnah and the Tosefta.

III. The Precedent/Case/Ruling

Common in the Mishnah is the composition bearing the marker,

ma#aseh, that reports a case or an action followed by a sages ruling.
44 chapter one

The form is X happened and Sage Y ruled; in the Mishnah it is

ordinarily stripped down and involves a minimum of description.
I present the pseudo-narrative of a precedent or case in its Hala-
khic context, indenting what is theoretical and emphasizing what
supplies an example or a precedent of the law. A few examples
will sustain the generalizations given presently.
Mishnah-tractate Kilayim 4:9
A. He who plants his vineyard by [intervals of] sixteen amah, sixteen
amah [in rows sixteen amot apart]it is permitted to put seed into it [the
area between the rows].
B. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In Salmon one planted his vineyard by [inter-
vals of] sixteen, sixteen amah,
C. and he would turn the foliage of two rows to one side and sow the
cleared land.
D. And in the next year he would turn the foliage to another place [to the
area which he had sown in the previous year] and sow the uncultivated
land.
E. And the case came before sages and they permitted [his actions].
E R. Meir and R. Simeon say, Even he who plants his vineyard
by [intervals of] eight, eight amotit is permitted [to put seed into the
area between the rows].

Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 3:3-4

A. They do not put an egg beside a kettle [on the Sabbath] so that it
will be cooked.
B. And one should not crack it into [hot] wrappings.
C. And R. Yose permits.
D. And one should not bury it in sand or in road dirt so that it will be
roasted.
3:4 A. M#SH S: The people of Tiberias brought a pipe of cold water through
a spring of hot water.
B. Sages said to them, If [this was done] on the Sabbath, [the water] is in
the status of hot water which has been heated on the Sabbath [itself].
C. It is prohibited for use in washing and in drinking.
D. [If this was done] on the festival day, [the water] is in the status of hot
water which has been heated on the festival day.
E. It is prohibited for use in washing, but permitted for use in drinking.
F A milliarum which is clear of ashesthey drink from it on the Sab-
bath.
G. An antikhi [boiler], even though it is clear of ashesthey do
not drink from it.

Mishnah-tractate Pesahim 7:2

A. They do not roast the Passover offering either on a [metal] spit or
on a grill.
 pseudo-narrative 45

B. Said R. Sadoq, Rabban Gamaliel said to Tabi his servant, Go and roast
the Passover offering for us on a grill.
C. [If] it touched the earthenware part of an oven, one should scale
off that place [which has been roasted by the heat of the oven side].
D. [If] some of its gravy dripped on the earthenware and went back
onto it, he must take some [of the meat] away from that place [and
burn it].
E. [If] some of its gravy dripped on the flour, he must take a handful
away from that place.
Mishnah-tractate Yoma 6:3
A. He gave [the scapegoat] over to the one who was to lead it out.
B. All are valid to lead it out.
C. But high priests made it a practice of not letting Israelites lead it
out.
D. Said R. Yose, M#SH W: Arsela led it out, and he was an Israelite.
Mishnah-tractate Qiddushin 2:7
A. He who betroths a woman and her daughter,
B. or a woman and her sister, simultaneously-
C. they are not betrothed,
D. WM#SH B: Five women, including two sisters, and one gathered figs, and
they were theirs, but it was Seventh-Year produce. And [someone] said,
Lo, all of you are betrothed to me in virtue of this basket of fruit, and
one of them accepted the proposal in behalf of all of them
E. And sages ruled, The sisters [in the group of five] are not betrothed.
These items exemplify a common type of writing in the Halakhic
compilations, starting with the Mishnah.4 As is clear, a conven-
tion of writing dictates how the precedent will be formulated, one
that is not difficult to discern. It involves a simple, unadorned,
statement of a fact: such and such was the case. Then an equally
stripped down record of the Rabbinic ruling is required. Why do
these not fall into the general classification of narratives? The
reason is simple: when it comes to the logic of coherent discourse,
the precedent holds together not by reason of what comes at the
end, which imposes sense and meaning and preceding compo-
nents of the composition, but the requirements of Halakhic ex-
position. That is, the action of the ma#aseh always makes sense by
reason of the theoretical Halakhic context established in the ex-
position that surrounds and sustains it. So the ma#aseh in its Hala-

4 It remains to be seen whether the Mishnah, followed by the Tosefta, has its

own form or rhetoric for the ma#aseh, different from that characteristic of the
Talmuds.
46 chapter one

khic setting cannot be treated as an autonomous piece of writing,

with its own logic of coherent discourse at all, but only as a sub-
ordinated and dependent component of a Halakhic, that is, it forms
a component of a philosophical exposition.

IV. Conclusion

These are the three types of pseudo-narrative writings I find in

the Mishnah, Abot, and the Tosefta.5 Neither (1) the pseudo-
narrative utilized in presenting contrasting positions, exchanges
of rulings and reasons, as dialogue, a form of activity, nor (2)
the pseudo-narrative utilized in presenting Temple rites and com-
parable transactions of the Sanhedrin, nor (3) the precedent-case
(ma#aseh) qualifies. In all cases it is for the same reason. The tele-
ological logic of coherent discourse does not function, and that
(in the context of reports of Temple rituals) is for a very particu-
lar and concrete reason, which Gruenwalds theory articulates. The
Mishnaic narratives of cultic-Halakhah portray the sequence of
actions to realize the ritual process, and that emphasis on the deeds
in proper order, each essential where it is and in no other place,
directly violates the teleological logic that tells us only at the end
the point and purpose of the whole. Emphasis on process, on the
integrity of each component of a composite in its place and or-
der, appeals then to that logic of philosophy and syllogism gen-
erally characteristic of Halakhic discourse, and not to the purpo-
sive qualities of matters that imparts coherence to narrative in the
Rabbinic canon.
It does not suffice that that event or action is alleged actually
to have been done at some particular time, whether the action is
articulated or implicit. True, that particularity is necessary for the
composition to have yielded a determinate outcome. If a com-
position sets forth an issue followed by, X said Y said, with
he said to him, he said to him, signaling a conversa-
tion, that fact by itself does not form a determinative taxon. The
reason is, if we changed the order of X and Y, controlling for
clarity, we would change nothing about the outcome of the com-
posite of declarative sentences. There is no teleology in play, no
5
Pseudo-narrative that we find in other documents will be dealt with in due
course.
 pseudo-narrative 47

sequence that signals purpose. We must not confuse verisimili-

tude with authenticity, and it is the governing logic that, in the
context of Rabbinic Judaism, marks a piece of writing as narra-
tive. In a piece of writing that coheres through the teleology es-
tablished at the end, the order makes all the difference, and that
imposes specificity on the arrangement of the components of the
composition:
By narrative, to repeat, I mean, an account of an event or
an action that joins otherwise random data by appeal to an out-
come, that is, teleologicallythat alone.
This page intentionally left blank
 mishnah seder zeraim 49

PART ONE

NARRATIVES IN THE MISHNAH:

FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION
This page intentionally left blank
 mishnah seder zeraim 51

CHAPTER TWO

MISHNAH SEDER ZERAIM

I. Tractate Berakhot

Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 1:1

A. From what time do they recite the Shema# in the evening?
B. From the hour that the priests [who had immersed after unclean-
ness and awaited sunset to complete the process of purification] enter
[a state of cleanness, the sun having set, so as] to eat their heave offer-
ing
C. until the end of the first watch, the words of R. Eliezer.
D. And sages say, Until midnight.
E. Rabban Gamaliel says, Until the rise of dawn.
F. M#SH: His sons came from the banquet hall.
G. They said to him, We have not recited the Shema#.
H. He said to them, If the morning star has not yet risen, you are obli-
gated to recite [the Shema#].
I. And not only [in] this [case], rather, all [commandments] which
sages said [may be performed] until midnight, their religious duty to
do them applies until the rise of the morning star.
J. [For example], as to the offering of the fats and entrailsthe reli-
gious duty to do them applies until the rise of the morning star.
K. All [sacrifices] which are eaten for one day, their religious duty to
do them applies until the rise of the morning star.
L. If so why did sages say [that these actions may be performed only]
until midnight?
M. In order to keep a man far from sin.
The pseudo-narrative, M. Ber. 1:1F-H, consists of an incident,
(1) the sons came home late and (2) consulted their father on
whether it is still appropriate to recite the Shema#, and (3) his ruling
that it is. The ruling repeats his abstract opinion, E, that the time
for reciting the Shema# extends to dawn. The narrative is ignored
at I-M, which carries forward the ruling of Gamaliel at E and at
the end bears a mediating explanation of the positions of sages
and Gamaliel. None of this qualifies as a narrative, since F-G
cohere without H, though in context they require H.
Of greater interest: we shall see in the ma#aseh-form a fair num-
52 chapter two

ber of rulings of Gamaliel and Hillel and others of the patriar-

chal house. The patriarchal house is distinctive in the preserva-
tion of its rulings in pseudo-narrative, rather than standard legal,
form. No other sages or sets of sages compare, either in the
Mishnah or in the Tosefta. The deeds of the patriarchs then are
represented as norm-setting, models of proper conduct without
translation into abstract legal rulings.
Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 1:3
A. The House of Shammai say, In the evening everyone should re-
cline to recite the Shema#, and in the morning he should stand.
B. As it says, When you lie down and when you rise up (Deut. 6:7).
C. And the House of Hillel say, Everyone recites according to his
usual manner.
D. As it says, And as you walk by the way (ibid.).
E. If so why does [the verse] say, When you lie down and when
you rise up?
F. [It means, recite the Shema#] at the hour that people lie down
[at night] and at the hour that people rise [in the morning].
G. Said R. Tarfon, I was coming on the road and I reclined, so as to
recite the Shema#, according to the words of the House of Shammai. And
I placed myself in danger of [being attacked by] thugs.
H. They said to him, You have only yourself to blame [for what might
have befallen you], for you violated the ruling of the House of Hillel.
H is comprehensible only in the Halakhic setting defined by A-
C. M. Ber. 1:3G-H record a first-person incident, what happened
to Tarfon, and a comment on the part of the hearers. The auto-
biographical snippet yields the lesson that is drawn by they. G
stands on its own, without H, and H is not necessary for the
understanding of G. So the two elements cohere by reason of what
is said in G, in the editorial context of A-C. On that basis, I clas-
sify the item as a pseudo-narrative.
Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 2:5
2:5 A. A bridegroom is exempt from the recitation of the Shema# on
the first night
[after the wedding] until after the Sabbath [following the wedding],
B. if he did not consummate [the marriage].
C. M#SH S: Rabban Gamaliel recited [the Shema#] on the first night of his
marriage.
D. Said to him [his students], Did our master not teach us that a bride-
groom is exempt from the recitation of the Shema# on the first night?
E. He said to them, I cannot heed you to suspend from myself the king-
dom of heaven [even] for one hour.
 mishnah seder zeraim 53

2:6 A. [Gamaliel] washed on the first night after the death of his wife.
B. Said to him [his students], Did not [our master] teach us that it is for-
bidden for a mourner to wash?
C. He said to them, I am not like other men, I am frail.
2:7 A. And when Tabi, his servant, died, [Gamaliel] received condolences
on his account.
B. Said to him [his students], Did not [our master] teach us that one does
not receive condolences for [the loss of] slaves?
C. He said to them, Tabi my slave was not like other slaves. He was exact-
ing.
In three matters Gamaliel imposes upon himself a rule that does
not apply to others. At each point there is an exchange, ques-
tion/answer, thus M. 2:5D-E, 2:6B-C, 2:7B-C. Gamaliel sees
himself as subject to a norm other than that which generally ap-
plies, and that is accepted. Each of the three events captures an
action of Gamaliel that puzzles the disciples, then the students
statement and his explanationshort and simple. So the formal
pattern, repeated three times, involves a report of what Gamaliel
did, M. 2:5C, M. 2:6A, and M. 2:7A, the question raised by the
disciples, and his response thereto. The set involves diverse clas-
sifications of the Halakhahreciting the Shema#, washing in the
mourning period, receiving condolences for a slaveand what
holds the stories together as a composite are the formal pattern,
including the name of Gamaliel.
In each case, the point of the narrative is reached only at the
end: I am different, Tabi is different. That answers the ques-
tion of the students and explains the data of the case. Without
the climax of 2:5C/2:6C/2:7C, the three cases have no context,
and the students question, at B, only articulates the context and
focuses attention on what is to come.
How to classify this triplet? The teleological logic of coherent
discourse requires that all details cohere at the end. But the point
that registers at the end is, I am not like other men, or Tabi
my slave is unlike other slaves, and that does very little to sup-
ply coherence to the respective cases, let along impart cogency
to them all. What we have is a report of Gamaliels conduct on
three comparable occasions. That hardly qualifies as an authen-
tic narrative. In fact we have little more than dramatized dialogue
(he said to himhe said to him). When in Chapter Three
we come to M. R. H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, we shall see how
the Mishnah frames an authentic, fully articulated narrative, and
54 chapter two

the contrast with the Mishnahs mode of the ma#aseh will validate
the classification, as pseudo-narrative, of the present complex.
Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 5:5
5:5 A. One who prays and errsit is a bad sign for him.
B. And if he is a communal agent, [who prays on behalf of the whole
congregation], it is a bad sign for them that appointed him.
C. [This is on the principle that] a mans agent is like [the man] him-
self.
D. They said concerning R. Haninah b. Dosa, When he would pray for
the sick he would say This one shall live or This one shall die.
E. They said to him, How do you know?
F. He said to them, If my prayer is fluent, then I know that it is accepted
[and the person will live].
G. But if not, I know that it is rejected [and the person will die].
The context is defined by the statement, One who prays and
errsit is a bad sign for him, amplified by the story of Hanina
b. Dosa, which restates the same proposition in positive terms.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the tale? The report of Haninas power to
predict the outcome of his prayer imparts coherence on all the
details that precede, which, by themselves, do not form a cogent
statement.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? There is no action or
event that is narrated; it is by implication that such and such
happened, that Hanina said thus and so, and so forth.
3. How is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities,
e.g., long or short, complex or simple? Once more, we have an allusion
to a pattern, then the problem is articulated (how do you know?),
and resolved.
The narrative is implicit: when he would do such and so, he
would say Then it shifts into a colloquy: how do you know?
Followed by an appropriate explanation of the action. Here the
statement, M. 5:5D, stands on its own as the report of a deed.
The question unpacks what is miraculous, and F-G spell it out.
The climax comes at the end and imparts meaning to the prior
components of the composition. Here too, we the item meets the
criterion of logic of coherent discourse defined in the Introduc-
tion. The account represents more than a fabricated setting in
which to cite a saying, F-G. Without D-E, F-G have no mean-
 mishnah seder zeraim 55

ing; without F-G, D-E are incomprehensible. So the whole forms

a tight composition.

II. Tractate Pe"ah

Mishnah-tractate Peah 2:5-6

2:5 A. One who sows his field with [only] one type [of seed], even if he
harvests [the produce] in two lots
B. designates one [portion of produce as] peah [from the entire crop].
C. If he sowed [his field] with two types [of seeds], even if he harvests
[the produce] in only one lot,
D. he designates two [separate portions of produce as] peah, [one from
each type of produce].
E. He who sows his field with two types of wheat
F [if] he harvests [the wheat] in one lot, [he] designates one [portion
of produce as] peah.
G. [But if he harvests the wheat in] two lots, [he] designates two [por-
tions of produce as] peah.
2:6 A. M#SH: R. Simeon of Mispah sowed [his field with two types of wheat].
B. [The matter came] before Rabban Gamaliel. So they went up to the
Chamber of Hewn Stone, and asked [about the law regarding sowing two
types of wheat in one field].
C. Said Nahum the Scribe, I have received [the following ruling] from R.
Miasha, who received [it] from his father, who received [it] from the Pairs,
who received [it] from the Prophets, [who received] the law [given] to Moses
on Sinai, regarding one who sows his field with two types of wheat:
D. If he harvests [the wheat] in one lot, he designates one [portion of produce
as] peah.
E. If he harvests [the wheat] in two lots, he designates two [portions of
produce as] peah.
There is no point at which the teleological logic enters in. A-B
serve CE. Without A-B, C-E stand on their own. This is no
narrative, merely a pseudo-narrative setting for a ruling.

III. Tractate Dema#i": no narratives

IV. Tractate Kilayim

Mishnah-tractate Kilayim 4:9

A. He who plants his vineyard by [intervals of] sixteen amah, sixteen
amah [in rows sixteen amot apart]it is permitted to put seed into it
[the area between the rows].
56 chapter two

B. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In Salmon one planted his vineyard by [inter-

vals of] sixteen, sixteen amah,
C. and he would turn the foliage of two rows to one side and sow the
cleared land.
D. And in the next year he would turn the foliage to another place [to the
area which he had sown in the previous year] and sow the uncultivated
land.
E. And the case came before sages and they permitted [his actions].
E R. Meir and R. Simeon say, Even he who plants his vineyard by
[intervals of] eight, eight amotit is permitted [to put seed into the
area between the rows].
The pseudo-narrative consists of the statement of a situation, B-
D, followed by a ruling, E. The situation is comprehensible without
the ruling, such and so was done. B-D hold together without the
sages ruling. On that basis I classify the ma#aseh as a pseudo-nar-
rative.

V. Tractate Shebi#it

Mishnah-tractate Shebi#it 10:3

10:3 A. [A loan against which] a prosbol [has been written] is not can-
celled [by the Sabbatical year].
B. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained.
C. When he saw that people refrained from lending one another money
[on the eve of the Sabbatical year]
D. and [thereby] transgressed that which is written in the Torah, Beware
lest you harbor the base thought [.. and so you are mean to your kinsman
and give him nothing (Dt. 15:9)],
E. Hillel ordained the prosbol [whereby the court, on behalf of the credi-
tor, may collect unpaid debts otherwise cancelled by the Sabbatical year].
M. 10:3A defines the legal fiction, the origins of which are ex-
plained in the narrative, CE. Once more the singular authori-
ty of the Patriarch, commencing with Hillel, registers in the story
of what only the Patriarch can do. Within the analytical model
operative here, we have an authentic narrative, as I shall now ex-
plain.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The data, C-D, take on
meaning only at E: the problem Hillel perceived and how he
resolved it. Here we have a narrative that is required to clarify
what is said, not a fabricated, inert but dramatic setting for a say-
 mishnah seder zeraim 57

ing. The description of Hillels action, E, resolves the tension

provoked by C-D.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? C-D create a ten-
sion, expressed at D. The point of tension is resolved by the sages
intervening and solving a problem outside the framework of the
law that forbids collecting interest.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The brief and simple
narrative is constructed out of the description of a situation and
how it is resolved by the sages intervention.

VI. Tractate Terumot: no narratives

VII. Tractate Ma#aserot: no narratives

VIII. Tractate Ma#aser Sheni: no narratives

IX. Tractate Hallah

Mishnah-tractate Hallah 4:10-11
4:10 A. Nittai and Teqoan brought dough offering from Beitar [to the Land
of Israel to give it to a priest], and [the priesthood] would not accept [it]
from him.
B. People from Alexandria brought their dough offering from Alexandria
[to the Land of Israel to give it to a priest], and [the priesthood] would not
accept [it] from them.
C. People from Mount Sevoim brought their firstfruits [to Jerusalem to give
to a priest] before Pentecost [too early (M. Bik. 1:3)], and [the priesthood]
would not accept [the firstfruits] from them,
D. because of the verse in the Torah, [You shall keep...] the feast of har-
vest, of the first fruits of your labor (Ex. 3:16).
4:11 A. The son of Antines brought firstborn [animals] up from Babylonia
[to the Land of Israel to give to a priest], and [the priesthood] would not
accept [them] from him.
B. Joseph the priest brought the first of the wine and oil, [to the land of
Israel to give to a priest], and [the priesthood] would not accept [it] from
him.
C. He even brought his children and the members of his household up [to
Jerusalem] to celebrate Minor Passover [the festival on the fourteenth of
Iyyar for those who were in a state of uncleanness on the fourteenth of
58 chapter two

Nisan, the date of Passover [Num. 7:3-11] in Jerusalem, and they sent him
away,
D. so that the matter would not be established as obligatory.
E. Ariston brought his firstfruits from Apamea [to Jerusalem to give to a
priest] and [the priesthood] accepted [the firstfruits] from him,
F. because they said, One who acquires [land] in Syria is like one who
acquires [land] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Ideally, we should ma#aseh at M. 4:10A, B, C-D, 4:11 A, B, E.
But the absence of the marker changes nothing. M. 4:10 A, B,
C-D, a triplet, matched by another at M. 4:11 A, B-D, E-F, each
item reporting on an action and its resolution: a situation and how
it is resolved, now by the priests, not the sages. The items are
not tagged ma#aseh, but they do not differ formally or in logic
of coherence from the ma#asim we have already noted.
Now a form emerges, specifically where the marker-tag is miss-
ing. For without it, we can see what is required. The ma#aseh with
or without the tag consists of a sentence or two describing an action
or a situation that requires a ruling, followed by a ruling, with-
out adornment, on the part of the pertinent authority, whether
rabbi or priest. Each pseudo-narrative stands on its own, none
refers to a broader Halakhic context, but all of them join togeth-
er as examples of the priests exercise of their own discretion in
receiving or declining to receive the offerings of the Israelites.

X. Tractate #Orlah: no narratives

XI. Tractate Bikkurim: no narratives

XII. Summary
We have distinguished between pseudo-narratives, lacking the
marker of teleological logic, and narratives. In line with the prob-
lem outlined in the Introduction, the importance of that obvious
observation is clear. The pseudo-narratives obviously serve the
documentary program of the Mishnah and do not supply us with
anomalies that require attention in this context. The pseudo-nar-
ratives are these:
1. Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 1:1: His sons came from the banquet hall.
They said to him, We have not recited the Shema
2. Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 1:3: Said R. Tarfon, I was coming on the
 mishnah seder zeraim 59

road and I reclined, so as to recite the Shema#, according to the words

of the House of Shammai. And I placed myself in danger of [being at-
tacked by] thugs.
3. Mishnah-tractate Peah 2:5-6:: R. Simeon of Mispah sowed [his field with
two types of wheat. [The matter came] before Rabban Gamaliel.
4. Mishnah-tractate Kilayim 4:9: In Salmon one planted his vineyard by
[intervals of] sixteen, sixteen amah,
5. Mishnah-tractate Hallah 4:10-11: Nittai and Teqoan brought dough
offering from Beitar [to the Land of Israel to give it to a priest], and
[the priesthood] would not accept [it] from him. People from Alexan-
dria brought their dough offering from Alexandria [to the Land of Is-
rael to give it to a priest], and [the priesthood] would not accept [it]
from them.
All of these items find their place within a Halakhic framework
and constitute concretizations of situations resolved by Halakhic
rulings, ordinarily illustrating the workings of those rulings. They
form details of the working out of the logic of propositional dis-
course, as I said in Chapter One.
The authentic narratives of Mishnah Seder Zeraim uniformly
describe a situation and specify the Halakhic ruling that governs.
1. M. Ber. 2:5: Gamaliel/bride groom/Shema#
2. M. Ber. 2:6: Gamaliel/mourning/washing
3. M. Ber. 2:7: Gamaliel/mourning/condolences for slave
4. M. Ber. 5:5: Hanina b. Dosa/how he knows when prayer will be an-
swered
5. M. Shebi#it 10:3: Hillel/access to loans/prosbol
The difference between an authentic and a pseudo-narrative in
the Mishnah here emerges as a rather fine one, but it serves in
the present context. The distinction seems to make a difference
principally where Gamaliel is involved; one can make a case for
a Sitz-im-Leben in the Patriarchal setting (inclusive of Hillel). In
Chapter Three, at M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, and in
Chapter Five, at M. Ed. 5:6-7, we shall see far more remarkable
exemplifications of narrative logic of teleology in articulated, af-
fecting narratives: stories.
What is important here is the unanticipated outcome: we now
define for the Mishnah a fixed form, the ma#aseh, in two subdivi-
sions, narrative and pseudo-narrative: an exceedingly economi-
cal description of a case + sages ruling thereon. Ordinarily, the
form is generated by the Halakhic issue in context, but we have
seen that with Gamaliels triplet, M. 2:5-7, the Halakhic context
60 chapter two

is not primary to the construction of the pericope. One way or

the other, the ma#aseh-form set forth in Mishnahs Division of
Zeraim proves to be uniform and (controlling for the meager
volume of evidence) we may claim as a matter of hypothesis that
it is characteristic of the Mishnah.
What can we say about the narrative- or pseudo-narrative form
in documentary context? Both the authentic narratives and pseudo-
narratives, in proportion to the volume of Mishnahs Division of
Zeraim, are subordinate to the purposes of the Mishnah-compo-
sition in which they are situated. That is, the Halakhic context
ordinarily (except for the Gamaliel-set) frames the narratives, and
in most instances is required to make sense of the narratives. As
just now noted, they follow a single form, described incident + rul-
ing. But that stripped down characterization contains within itself
indicative traits. First, the exposition of the described incident is
simplenever complex; the presentation, second, is one-dimen-
sional, limited to a laconic, economical account of the action a
person took that requires classification or the situation that requires
resolution. There is, third, no characterization, and, except for
Gamaliel, also no character-differentiation, let alone development,
no consideration of motive, no picture of details that amplify the
incident or action, no sequence of action and response, but only
the bare sequence: X did so and so with the following consequence.
The context supplies the remainder of the information required
for comprehension, meaning, the rules of narrative respond to and
take for granted the documentary setting. Out of that setting none
of the Halakhic narratives is fully comprehensible; none exem-
plifies much beyond itself. So the narratives of the ma#aseh-classi-
fication take for granted the Mishnaic-Halakhic context as much
as the expository prose that defines their setting.
Some further observations are in order. The Patriarchal names,
Gamaliel and Hillel, are represented as Halakhic models, and in
the narratives and pseudo-narratives no one sage corresponds. The
Patriarchate can have represented its principals as Halakhic mod-
els and sources, through their very deeds, of authoritative law.
But that explanation for the phenomenon competes with others.
I do not know what to make of the omission of the signal,
ma#aseh, from the priests cases, which otherwise conform to the
precedent-form. One may imagine that the marker, ma#aseh, sig-
nals a sages precedent. That is because the Temple-ritual narra-
 mishnah seder zeraim 61

tives considered in chapter one uniformly omit that formal indi-

cator.
Now to return to the problem introduced in the Preface and
fully exposed in the Introduction. On the basis of the surveyed
narratives, let me provisionally respond to the questions that
animate this survey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? At no point do we leave the limits of the
Halakhic setting in which the narrative is situated. The principal
purpose of the narrative is to show how an anomaly is resolved,
or to illustrate how the Halakhah functions in everyday life, or
to provide a precedent for a ruling. None of these entries carries
us to some viewpoint outside of the Halakhic framework. In the
narratives as authentic stories that we meet in chapter three, at
M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, we shall see how a narrative
finds its focus outside the limits of the Halakhic context altogether.
By that criterion, nothing in this chapter registers as a weighty
anomaly.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The ma#aseh in the instances
that do appear to meet the governing criterion for narratives con-
forms to the simplest possible pattern: statement of an action or
situation followed by a ruling, or allusion to a Halakhic rule fol-
lowed by an anomalous situation.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documen-
tary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary
venue? I see no foundations for the hypothesis that in general the
authentic narratives come prior to or separate from the forma-
tion of the law in its Mishnaic statement, that is, as abstract law,
expressed in highly disciplined rhetorical forms.
This page intentionally left blank
 mishnah seder moed 63

CHAPTER THREE

MISHNAH SEDER MOED

I. Tractate Shabbat

Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 1:4

A. These are some of the laws which they stated in the upper room of
Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Gurion when they went up to visit him.
B. They took a vote, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House
of Hillel.
C. And eighteen rules did they decree on that very day.
1:5 [I] A. The House of Shammai say, They do not [on Friday after-
noon] soak ink, dyestuffs, or vetches, unless there is sufficient time for
them to be [fully] soaked while it is still day.
B. And the House of Hillel permit.
1:6 [II] A. The House of Shammai say, They do not put bundles of
[wet] flax into the oven, unless there is time for them to steam off while
it is still day.
B. And [they do not put] wool into the cauldron, unless there is suf-
ficient time for it to absorb the color [while it is still day].
C. And the House of Hillel permit.
[III] D. The House of Shammai say, They do not spread out nets for
wild beasts, fowl, or fish, unless there is sufficient time for them to be
caught while it is still day.
E. And the House of Hillel permit.
1:7 [IV] A. The House of Shammai say, They do not sell [anything]
to a gentile or bear a burden with him,
B. and they do not lift up a burden onto his back,
C. unless there is sufficient time for him to reach a nearby place [while
it is still day].
D. And the House of Hillel permit.
The incident, A-C, scarcely qualifies as a narrative, since all that
is set forth is the context in which various rules were adopted.
The rules stand on their own and do not refer back to the set-
ting. An allusion to an untold story does not qualify as an exem-
plary narrative.
Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 3:3-4
A. They do not put an egg beside a kettle [on the Sabbath] so that it
64 chapter three

will be cooked.
B. And one should not crack it into [hot] wrappings.
C. And R. Yose permits.
D. And one should not bury it in sand or in road dirt so that it will be
roasted.
3:4 A. M#SH S: The people of Tiberias brought a pipe of cold water through
a spring of hot water.
B. Sages said to them, If [this was done] on the Sabbath, [the water] is in
the status of hot water which has been heated on the Sabbath [itself].
C. It is prohibited for use in washing and in drinking.
D. [If this was done] on the festival day, [the water] is in the status of hot
water which has been heated on the festival day.
E. It is prohibited for use in washing, but permitted for use in drinking.
F A milliarum which is clear of ashesthey drink from it on the Sab-
bath.
G. An boiler, even though it is clear of ashesthey do not drink from
it.
The form is standard: statement of a case plus a ruling. The
pseudo-narrative, M. 3:4A, defines the problem that the ruling
resolves. It forms the framework for a routine Halakhic ruling,
nothing more.
Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 16:8
16:8 A. A gentile who lit a candle
B. an Israelite may make use of its light.
C. But [if he did so] for an Israelite, it is prohibited [to do so on the
Sabbath].
D. [If a gentile] drew water to give water to his beast, an Israelite gives
water to his beast after him.
E. But [if he did so] for an Israelite, it is prohibited [to use it on the
Sabbath].
E [If] a gentile made a gangway by which to come down from a ship,
an Israelite goes down after him.
G. But [if he did so] for an Israelite, it is prohibited [to use it on the
Sabbath].
H. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and elders were traveling by boat, and a gentile
made a gangway by which to come down off the ship, and Rabban Gamaliel
and sages went down by it.
The incident, H, forms a precedent and an illustration of the law,
not a narrative in which the order of events or sequence of ac-
tions registers; here there is no such provision.
Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 24:5
A. They abrogate vows on the Sabbath.
B. And they receive questions concerning matters which are required
 mishnah seder moed 65

for the Sabbath.

C. They stop up a light hole.
D. And they measure a piece of stuff and an immersion pool.
E. M#SH S: In the time of the father of R. Sadoq and of Abba Saul b.Botnit,
they stopped up the light hole with a pitcher and tied a pot with reed grass
[to a stick] to know whether or not there was in the roofing an opening of
a handbreadth square.
F. And from their deed we learned that they stop up, measure, and tie up
on the Sabbath.
Here is a precedent, not a narrative within the governing defini-
tion.

II. Tractate Erubin

Mishnah-tractate Erubin 4:1-2

4:1 A. He whom gentiles took forth [beyond the Sabbath limit],
B. or an evil spirit,
C. has only four cubits [in which to move about].
D. [If] they brought him back, it is as if he never went out.
E. [If] they carried him to another town,
F. or put him into a cattle pen or a cattle-fold,
G. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b. Azariah say, He may walk about
the entire area.
H. R. Joshua and R. Aqiba say, He has only four cubits [in which to
move about].
I. M#SH S: They came from Brindisi [Brundisiuml and their ship was sailing
at sea.
J. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b. Azariah walked about the whole ship.
K. R. Joshua and R. Aqiba did not move beyond four cubits.
L. For they wanted to impose a strict ruling on themselves.
4:2 A. On one occasion [P#M HT] they did not enter the harbor until it
had gotten dark [on Friday night]
B. They said to Rabban Gamaliel, Is it all right for us to disembark?
C. He said to them, It is all right, for beforehand I was watching, and we
were within the Sabbath limit before it got dark.
The two ma#asim, each in sequence bearing its conventional marker
((1) M#SH, (2) P#M HT), hardly qualify as narratives. The first of
the two, M. 4:1I-L, illustrates the rulings of M. 4:1G, H; there is
no progression toward a conclusion that makes the rest cohere.
M. 4:1E-H, M. 4:1I-L are out of Halakhic context. The second
of the two, M. 4:2, is tacked on and does not connect to the abstract
Halakhah of M. 4:1A-H. The components form a pseudo-narra-
tive that simply sets the stage for the ruling.
66 chapter three

Mishnah-tractate Erubin 6:1-2

M. 6:1 A. He who dwells in the same courtyard with a gentile,
B. or with [an Israelite] who does not concede the validity of the fic-
tive fusion meal
C. lo, this one [the gentile or nonbeliever] restricts him [from using
the courtyard], the words of R. Meir.
D. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, Under no circumstances does anyone
prohibit [the believer in the fictive fusion meal to make use of the
courtyard] unless two Israelites prohibit one another.
M. 6:2 A. Said Rabban Gamaliel, M#SH B: A Sadducean lived with us in
the same alleyway in Jerusalem.
B. And father said to us, Make haste and bring all sorts of utensils into the
alleyway before he brings out his and prohibits you [from carrying about
in it]..
C. R. Judah says it in another version, Make haste and do all your needs
in the alleyway before he brings out his utensils and prohibits you [from
using it].
Once more, the function of the ma#aseh is to provide a setting for
the ruling. Without the ruling, M. 6:1, M. 6:2 is wholly out of
context.
Mishnah-tractate Erubin 8:7
A. A water channel which passes through a courtyard
B. they do not draw water from it on the Sabbath,
C. unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high,
D. at its entry point and at its exit point.
E. R. Judah says, The wall which is above it is regarded as a parti-
tion.
F. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: From the water channel of Abel did they draw
water at the instruction of the elders on the Sabbath.
G. They said to him, It was because it was not of the requisite size [and so
did not constitute karmelit, neutral domain].
The pattern, M. Er. 8:7A-D, E, F+G, case + ruling + exemplary
incident, supplies yet another example of a pseudo-narrative, in
which the context of a ruling is described by reference to an ac-
tion that people would take.
Mishnah-tractate Erubin 10:9
A. A man should not stand in private domain and open [a door] in
public domain,
B. in public domain and open a door in private domain,
C. unless he has made a partition ten handbreadths high, the words
of R. Meir.
D. They said to him, M#SH B: In the poulterers market in Jerusalem they
used to shut up their shops and leave the key in the window above the door.
 mishnah seder moed 67

E. R. Yose says, It was the market of the wool dealers.

One more, the ma#asehM. Er. 10:9Dsupplies a concretization
of the Halakhic ruling and takes on meaning only in Halakhic
context.
Mishnah-tractate Erubin 10:10
A. A bolt with a knob on its end
B. R. Eleazar prohibits.
C. And R. Yose permits.
D. Said R. Eleazar, M#SH B: In the synagogue in Tiberias they permitted
[using it on the Sabbath],
E. until Rabban Gamaliel and elders came and prohibited it for them.
E R. Yose says, They treated it as prohibited. Rabban Gamaliel and the
elders came and permitted it for them.
A situation is described, with the sages decision recorded, fol-
lowing the pattern of the ma#aseh as precedent. This embodiment
of the Halakhic ma#aseh-form remains wholly within the Halakhic
framework.

III. Tractate Pesahim

Mishnah-tractate Pesahim 7:2

A. They do not roast the Passover offering either on a [metal] spit or
on a grill.
B. Said R. Sadoq, Rabban Gamaliel said to Tabi his servant, Go and roast
the Passover offering for us on a grill.
C. [If] it touched the earthenware part of an oven, one should scale
off that place [which has been roasted by the heat of the oven side].
D. [If] some of its gravy dripped on the earthenware and went back
onto it, he must take some [of the meat] away from that place [and
burn it].
E. [If] some of its gravy dripped on the flour, he must take a handful
away from that place.
Gamaliels action is recorded in a familiar pseudo-narrative pat-
tern.

IV. Tractate Sheqalim

Mishnah-Tractate Sheqalim 6:1-2

A. (1) Thirteen shofar chests, (2) thirteen tables, [and] (3) thirteen acts
of prostration were in the sanctuary.
68 chapter three

B. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and the mem-

bers of the household of R. Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, would do
fourteen prostrations.
C. And where was the additional one?
D. Toward the woodshed,
E. for so did they have a tradition from their forebears that there the
ark was stored away.
6:2 A. M#SH B: A priest was going about his business and saw that a block
of the pavement was slightly different from the rest.
B. He came and told his fellow.
C. He did not finish telling [him] before he dropped dead.
D. Then they knew without doubt that there the ark had been stored away.
The marker, ma#aseh, signals something quite different from a
Halakhic case and ruling.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Here is an authentic
narrative, because D explains the details and sequence of A-C,
and the entire sequence is required in precisely the order given
or it loses meaning and context. Accordingly, M. 6:2D focuses
and explains the prior data.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question does not
pertain here. The point of the narrative derives from its setting,
M. Sheqalim 6:1E: the tradition as to the location of the ark, now
substantiated in the story.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The narrative is real-
ized in described action of the specified sequence. The action is
(1) X noticed that and reported it (2) but did not finish the
report before (3) from which fact the conclusion was drawn that
The third-party report thus records an observation and action and
its result. There is no effort to fill out details; the narrative is re-
alized in brief, unadorned statements of actions: he saw he told
he died, a necessary order. Despite the Halakhic context im-
plicit at M. 6:1A-E, there is no pretense that a precedent is es-
tablished. Accordingly, the effect is to illustrate and validate the
descriptive language, M. 6:1A, B+C-E. So the narrative, in its
context, functions as does a ma#aseh.
 mishnah seder moed 69

V. Tractate Yoma

Mishnah-tractate Yoma 2:1 -2

A. At first whoever wants to take up the ashes from the altar does so.
B. And when they are many [who wanted to do so], they run up the
ramp.
C. And whoever gets there before his fellow, within four cubits of the
altar, has acquired the right to do so.
D. And if the two came at the same time, the one in charge says to
them, Choose up [by raising a finger].
E. And what do they put forth?
F One or two.
G. But they did not put out the thumb in the Temple.
2:2 A. M#SH S: There were two who got there at the same time, running
up the ramp.
B. And one shoved his fellow.
C. And he [the other] fell and broke his foot.
D. When the court saw that the matter was dangerous, they ordained that
the right of clearing off the ashes from the altar should be apportioned only
by lot.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Like M. Sheq. 6:2, M.
Yoma 2:2 serves to account for a Temple rule by appeal to a
particular incident. Why did they not compete but choose up in
the Temple? It was to avoid physical brawling by the priests in
their eagerness to secure the rights of service and their emolu-
ments. Then the incident, M. 2:2 (which the Tosefta will amplify
and intensify!), is cited, and 2:2D explains the point of M. 2:2A-
C, which must adhere to the given order to make sense and to
fit D.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The point of conflict is
clear: how to avoid physical competition between priests. The
dignity of the sacrificial service conflicts with the zeal of the priests.
Choosing up resolves the matter.
3. How, in light of other, comparable pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? Like the ma#aseh in gen-
eral, here too the narrative is stripped down to its absolutely fun-
damental elements. A situation, an action, a result, thus A, B, C-D.
There is no characterization, no individuation, no movement
beyond the described transaction.
70 chapter three

Mishnah-tractate Yoma 6:3

A. He gave [the scapegoat] over to the one who was to lead it out.
B. All are valid to lead it out.
C. But high priests made it a practice of not letting Israelites lead it
out.
D. Said R. Yose, M#SH W: Arsela led it out, and he was an Israelite.
M. Yoma 6:3D does not qualify as a narrative, there being no
sequence of actions that fit together in a teleological pattern.

VI. Tractate Sukkah

Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:1

A. He who sleeps under a bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obliga-
tion.
B. Said R. Judah, We had the practice of sleeping under the bed before
the elders, and they said nothing at all to us.
C. Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: Tabi, Rabban Gamaliels slave, slept under
the bed.
D. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, Do you see Tabi, my slave
he is a disciple of a sage, so he knows that slaves are exempt from keeping
the commandment of dwelling in the Sukkah. That is why he is sleeping
under the bed [rather than directly beneath the Sukkah-covering, which is
what defines the Sukkah and renders it effective in fulfilling the command-
ment of dwelling in the Sukkah, that is, under its shade, during the festi-
val].
E. Thus we learned that he who sleeps under bed has not fulfilled his
obligation.
As in the triplet of cases in Mishnah-tractate Berakhot 2:5-7, ma#aseh
here marks no narrative but a pseudo-narrative, since E does not
focus or order C-D. The narrative qualifies as a Halakhic prece-
dent, pure and simple.
Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:4-5
2:4 A. He who makes his Sukkah among trees, and the trees are its
sidesit is valid.
B. Agents engaged in a religious duty are exempt from the require-
ment of dwelling in a Sukkah.
C. Sick folk and those who serve them are exempt from the require-
ment of dwelling in a Sukkah.
D. [People] eat and drink in a random manner outside of a Sukkah.
2:5 A. M#SH W: They brought Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai some cooked
food to taste, and to Rabban Gamaliel two dates and a dipper of water.
B. And they said, Bring them up to the Sukkah.
 mishnah seder moed 71

C. And when they gave to R. Sadoq food less than an eggs bulk, he took it
in a cloth and ate it outside of the Sukkah and said no blessing after it.
The Halakhic ruling, M. 2:4D, is illustrated by M. 2:5A-B vs. C.
That is, eating in a random manner outside of a Sukkah during
the Festival is illustrated by Sadoq, who consumed less than the
amount of food required to constitute a meal, while Yohanan b.
Zakkai and Gamaliel reject the rule of M. 2:4D and eat even a
random meal in the Sukkah. The described action does not rise
to the status of a narrative, because there is no point at which
the logic of teleology imposes coherence on the components. What
illustrates the Halakhah does not qualify. That point distinguishes
M. 2:4-5 from M. 2:1.
Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:7
A. He whose head and the greater part of whose body are in the Sukkah,
but whose table is in the house
B. the House of Shammai declare invalid.
C. And the House of Hillel declare valid.
D. Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, Was not the prece-
dent so, that the elders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the House
of Hillel went along to pay a sick call on R. Yohanan b. Hahorani, and they
found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body in the Sukkah,
and his table in the house, and they said nothing at all to him!
E. Said the House of Shammai to them, Is there proof from that story?
But in point of fact they did say to him, If this is how you act, you have
never in your whole life fulfilled the religious requirement of dwelling in a
Sukkah!
The ma#aseh, M. 2:7D-E, describes a situation, not a sequence of
events with the order and connected stages clear only at the end,
such as characterizes narrative. What was not said or done hardly
qualifies.
Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:8
2:8 A. Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the religious re-
quirement of dwelling in a Sukkah.
B. A minor who can take care of himself is liable to the religious re-
quirement of dwelling in a Sukkah.
C. M#SH W: Shammai the Elders daughter-in-law gave birth, and he broke
away some of the plaster and covered the hole with Sukkah roofing over
her bed, on account of the infant.
The ma#aseh, M. 2:8C, takes on meaning only in the Halakhic
context. There is no teleological logic that holds the details to-
gether otherwise.
72 chapter three

Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 3:8

A. They bind up the lulab [now: palm branch, willow branch, and
myrtle branch] only with [strands of] its own species, the words of R.
Judah.
B. R. Meir says, Even with a rope [it is permitted to bind up the lulab].
C. Said R. Meir, M#SH B: The townsfolk of Jerusalem bound up their palm
branches with gold threads.
D. They said to him, But underneath they [in fact had] tied it up with
[strands of] its own species.
Once more, we have the description of a situation, not the ac-
count of a sequence of events and their relationship, such as nar-
rative requires by the definition offered in the Introduction and
amplified in chapter one.

VII. Tractate Besah

Mishnah-tractate Besah 3:2

3:2 A. Nets for trapping a wild beast, fowl, or fish, which one set on
the eve of the festival day
B. one should not take [what is caught therein] out of them on the
festival day,
C. unless one knows for sure that [creatures caught in them] were trapped
on the eve of the festival day.
D. M#SH B: A gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel, and he said, They
are permitted. But I do not want to accept them from him.
The ma#aseh supplies an illustrative case in the Halakhic frame-
work.
Mishnah-tractate Besah 3:5
A. A domesticated beast which died-one should not move it from where
it is located.
B. M#SH W: They asked R. Tarfon about such a case and about a dough
offering which had contracted uncleanness. So he went into the study house
and asked. They told him, One should not move them from where they
are located.
The pseudo-narrative presents a setting for a ruling, nothing more.
Mishnah-tractate Besah 3:8
A. A person says to his fellow, Fill up this utensil for me,
B. but not with a measure.
C. R. Judah says, If it was a utensil which served as a measure, he
should not fill it up [either].
D. M#SH B: Abba Saul b. Botnit would fill up his measuring cups on the
 mishnah seder moed 73

eve of a festival and hand them over to purchasers on the festival itself.
E. Abba Saul says, Also on the intermediate days of the festival one
does so,
F because of the clearness of measure.
G. And sages say, Also on an ordinary day one does so, because of
the exactness of the measure [not filled in haste].
H. A person goes to a storekeeper whom he usually patronizes and
says to him, Give me onions and nuts by number.
I. For that is in any case how a householder counts out [these same
things] in his own home.
An action described in a Halakhic setting does not qualify, on its
own, as a narrative.

VIII. Tractate Rosh Hashanah

Mishnah-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:5-6

1:5 A. Whether [the new moon] appeared clearly or did not appear
clearly,
B. they violate the [prohibitions of] the Sabbath on its account.
C. R. Yose says, If it appeared clearly, they do not violate the prohi-
bitions of the Sabbath on its account.
1:6 A. M#SH S: More than forty pairs of witnesses came forward.
B. But R. Aqiba kept them back at Lud.
C. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, If you keep back the people, you will
turn out to make them err in the future.
The ma#aseh coheres only in line with M. 1:5, with the conflicting
positions, M. 1:5A vs. B, C, replicated at M. M. 1:6C vs. 1:6A-
B. This is another Halakhic illustration, lacking the indicative
qualities of a narrative.
Mishnah-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:7
1:7 A. A father and his son who saw the new moon should go [to give
testimony].
B. It is not that they join together with one another [to provide ad-
equate testimony],
C. but so that, if one of them should turn out to be invalid [as a wit-
ness], the other may join with someone else [to make up the requisite
number of witnesses].
D. R. Simeon says, A father and his son, and all relatives, are valid to
give testimony about the new moon.
E. Said R. Yose, M#SH B: Tobiah, the physician, saw the new moon in
Jerusalemhe, his son, and his freed slave.
F. And the priests accepted him and his son [as witnesses to the new moon],
but they invalidated the testimony of his slave.
74 chapter three

G. But when they came before the court, they accepted his [testimony]
and that of his slave, but they invalidated that of his son.
The ma#aseh settles the Halakhic dispute, and in no way appeals
to the ultimate purpose and direction of the stages in the exposi-
tion for coherence.
To this point we have found little of interest among the narra-
tives and pseudo-narratives of the Mishnah, We now come to one
of two striking and important, successful narrativesaltogether
anomalous in the Mishnaic context.
Mishnah-tractate Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9
2:8 A. A picture of the shapes of the moon did Rabban Gamaliel have
on a tablet and on the wall of his upper room, which he would show
ordinary folk, saying, Did you see it like this or like that?
B. M#SH S: Two witnesses came and said, We saw it at dawn on the morn-
ing of the twenty-ninth] in the east and at eve in the west.
C. Said R. Yohanan b. Nuri, They are false witnesses.
D. Now when they came to Yabneh, Rabban Gamaliel accepted their tes-
timony [assuming they erred at dawn].
E. And furthermore two came along and said, We saw it at its proper time,
but on the night of the added day it did not appear [to the court].
F. Then Rabban Gamaliel accepted their testimony.
G. Said R. Dosa b. Harkinas, They are false witnesses.
H. How can they testify that a woman has given birth, when, on the very
next day, her stomach is still up there between her teeth [for there was no
new moon!]?
I. Said to him [Dosa] R. Joshua, I can see your position [and affirm it over
Gamaliels].
2:9 A. Said to him {to Joshua] Rabban Gamaliel, I decree that you come
to me with your staff and purse on the Day of Atonement which is deter-
mined in accord with your reckoning [so publicly renouncing his ruling in
favor of Gamaliels].
B. R. Aqiba went and found him troubled.
C. He said to him, I can provide grounds for showing that everything that
Rabban Gamaliel has done is validly done, since it says, These are the set
feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which you shall proclaim (Lev.
23:4). Whether they are in their proper time or not in their proper time, I
have no set feasts but these [which you shall proclaim] [vs. M. 2:7D].
D. He came along to R. Dosa b. Harkinas.
E. He [Dosa] said to him, Now if were going to take issue with the court
of Rabban Gamaliel, we have to take issue with every single court which
has come into being from the time of Moses to the present day, since it
says, Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of
the elders of Israel (Ex. 24:9). Now why have the names of the elders not
been given? To teach that every group of three [elders] who came into
 mishnah seder moed 75

being as a court of Israello, they are equivalent to the court of Moses

himself.
F. [Joshua] took his staff with his purse in his hand and went along to Yabneh,
to Rabban Gamaliel, on the Day of Atonement that is determined in ac-
cord with his [Gamaliels] reckoning.
G. Rabban Gamaliel stood up and kissed him on his head and said to him,
Come in peace, my master and my discipleMy master in wisdom, and
my disciple in accepting my rulings.

At last we come to a fully realized instance of teleological logic,

an authentic narrative, and one not provoked by the detail of a
Halakhic rulings at that. Within the framework of narrative, we
may classify what is before us as a free-standing, fully-executed
story of a particular incident and its meaning. The flow of action
and thought is dynamic, there is an element of suspensewe do
not know how Joshua will respond to the challengeand the
conflict is articulated.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? At M. 2:9A-C the issue
is clearly drawn, on the basis of the situation described at M. 2:8B-
I. The coherence of each component of the story to all others is
established at F-G. The order of the components is dictated by
the purpose of the narrative, realized at the end. So we have before
us a fully coherent narrative within the teleological logic defined
in the Introduction.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict is between
the authority of the sage and that of the patriarch. The patriarch
exercises his authority despite the acknowledged, superior knowl-
edge of the sage. But he does so in humility and with grace, ac-
knowledging the sages mastery in wisdom, even while affirming
his own authority over the sage, by the Torahs own decree. I do
not see how a more perfect execution of the narrative model before
us can have been achieved.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? As to formal qualities,
the story is unitary, but divided into three clearly-demarcated units,
the Halakhic dispute, M. 2:8B-H, a somewhat uncommonly elabo-
rate account of a case. The conflict is introduced not with the case
but with Joshuas endorsement of the ruling contrary to Gamaliels,
76 chapter three

and Gamaliels exercise of his authority over the sage, M. 2:8I-

M. 2:9A. The conflict is resolved twice, at M. 2:9B-C, by Aqiba,
in favor of Gamaliel, then at M. 2:9D-E, by Dosa b. Harkinas,
with the same result. The resolution plays itself out at M. 2:9F-
G, and the whole holds together, despite the somewhat puzzling
repetition of the sages (Aqibas, then Dosas) endorsement of
Gamaliels action. The second is the more important, since it was
Dosa, not Joshua, who originally rejected Gamaliels ruling in the
case. The key there is Dosas explicit concession that in the end
the action is taken by Gamaliel, everything that Rabban
Gamaliel has done, whose decision binds the sages. So the
entire story takes as its centerpiece the patriarchs institutional
hegemony even over sages correct reading of the law.

IX. Tractate Ta#anit

Mishnah-tractate Ta#anit 2:5

A. M#SH B: In the time of R. Halapta and R. Hananiah b. Teradion some-
one passed before the ark and completed the entire blessing, and they did
not answer after him Amen.
This Halakhic record exhibits no qualities that require us to eval-
uate it as a narrative. It is not exactly a standard case report be-
cause no explicit ruling is given, rather an action not carried out
is specified. It is the same thing.
Mishnah-tractate Ta#anit 3:6
A. M#SH S: Elders went down from Jerusalem to their towns and decreed
a fast because in Ashkelon there had appeared blight to the extent of [the
area of] an ovens mouth.
B. And further: they decreed a fast because wolves had eaten two children
in Transjordan.
C. R. Yos says, Not because they had eaten anyone, but merely because
they had made an appearance.
The two case-reports yield no narrative that I can discern. These
simply allude to events, they do not convey how they happened.
Mishnah-tractate Ta#anit 3:9-10
3:9 A On account of every sort of public troublemay it not hap-
pendo they sound the shofar,
B except for an excess of rain.
C M#SH S: They said to Honi the Circle Drawer, Pray for rain.
D He said to them, Go and take in the clay ovens used for Passover, so
 mishnah seder moed 77

that they not soften [in the rain which is coming.

E He prayed, but it did not rain.
F What did he do?
G He drew a circle and stood in the middle of it and said before Him,
Lord of the world! Your children have turned to me, for before you, I am
like a member of the family. I swear by your great nameIm simply not
moving from here until you take pity on your children!
H It began to rain drop by drop.
I He said, This is not what I wanted, but rain for filling up cisterns, pits,
and caverns.
J It began to rain violently.
K He said, This is not what I wanted, but rain of good will, blessing, and
graciousness.
L Now it rained the right way, until the Israelites had to flee from Jerusa-
lem up to the Temple Mount because of the rain.
M Now they came and said to him, Just as you prayed for it to rain, now
pray for it to go away.
N He said to them, Go, see whether the stone of those who stray has dis-
appeared [under water].
3:10 A Simeon b. Shatah said to him, If you were not Honi, I should decree
a ban of excommunication against you. But what am I going to do to you?
For you importune before the Omnipresent, so he does what you want,
like a son who importunes his father, so he does what he wants.
B Concerning you Scripture says, Let you father and you mother be glad,
and let her that bore you rejoice (Prov. 23:25).
3:11A If they were fasting. and it rained for them before sunrise, they
should not complete the fast.
B [If it rained] after sunrise, they should complete the day in fasting.
C R. Eliezer says, [If it rained] before noon. they should not com-
plete the day in fasting. [If it rained] after noon, they should complete
the day in fasting.
D WM#SH S: They decreed a fast in Lud. It rained before noon. R. Tarfon
said to them, Go, eat and drank and celebrate a festival. So they arose
and ate and drank and celebrated a festival day. Then they assembled it
twilight and proclaimed the Great Hallel [that is. Ps. 136].
Here at M. 3:9-10B is another authentic narrative, truly perfect
by the stated criterion, and one that is as successful as M. R.H.
2:8-9, exhibiting qualities in common. As before, here too, there
is a strong forward movement, a building toward a climax, a point
of tension and its resolution. M. 3:10D need not detain us.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The climactic conclu-
sion, which unifies all the prior components of the narrative,
comes at M. 3:10A+B, Simeons concession that Honi is espe-
78 chapter three

cially favored by God and therefore not subject to sages disci-

pline or the courts authority. The story illustrates M. 3:9A, not
praying by reason of the calamity of an excess of rain, but the
issue of the story is not that. The story in its own terms has then
the task of displaying the special favor, as of a father to a child,
shown by heaven, and that is accomplished by the triplet, G-I, J-
L, M-N, the whole leading directly to M. 3:10A+B, as I said.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict engages
Honis churlishness and petulance toward Heaven and sages re-
sponsibility to propitiate Heaven through acts of respect.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? In construction, the triplet
points toward a long and complex narrative, realized by described
action and dialogue and fully exposed, without a single false step
or excess detail.

X. Tractate Megillah: no narratives

XI. Tractate Mo#ed Qatan: no narratives

XII. Tractate Hagigah: no narratives

XIII. Summary

The pseudo-narratives of Halakhic precedents are critical to the

Mishnahs presentation, but do not supply data for an account of
the forms and types of Rabbinic narrative in the Mishnah. These
are they:
1. Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 1:4: These are some of the laws which they
stated in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Gurion when
they went up to visit him. They took a vote, and the House of Shammai
outnumbered the House of Hillel.
2. Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 3:3-4: The people of Tiberias brought a pipe
of cold water through a spring of hot water.
3. Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 16:8: Rabban Gamaliel and elders were trav-
eling by boat, and a gentile made a gangway by which to come down
off the ship, and Rabban Gamaliel and sages went down by it.
 mishnah seder moed 79

4. Mishnah-tractate Shabbat 24:5: In the time of the father of R. Sadoq

and of Abba Saul b.Botnit, they stopped up the light hole with a pitcher
and tied a pot with reed grass [to a stick] to know whether or not there
was in the roofing an opening of a handbreadth square.
5. Mishnah-tractate Erubin 4:1-2: They came from Brindisi [Brundisiuml
and their ship was sailing at sea. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b.
Azariah walked about the whole ship R. Joshua and R. Aqiba did not
move beyond four cubits.
6. Mishnah-tractate Erubin 6:1-2: Said Rabban Gamaliel, M#SH B: A
Sadducean lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem. And father
said to us, Make haste and bring all sorts of utensils into the alleyway
before he brings out his and prohibits you [from carrying about in it].
7. Mishnah-tractate Erubin 8:7: From the water channel of Abel did they
draw water at the instruction of the elders on the Sabbath.
8. Mishnah-tractate Erubin 10:9: In the poulterers market in Jerusalem
they used to shut up their shops and leave the key in the window above
the door.
9. Mishnah-tractate Erubin 10:10: In the synagogue in Tiberias they per-
mitted [using it on the Sabbath], until Rabban Gamaliel and elders came
and prohibited it for them.
10. Mishnah-tractate Pesahim 7:2: Rabban Gamaliel said to Tabi his ser-
vant, Go and roast the Passover offering for us on a grill.
11. Mishnah-tractate Yoma 6:3: Arsela led it out, and he was an Israelite.
12. M. Suk. 2:1: Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: Tabi, Rabban Gamaliels slave,
slept under the bed.
13. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:4-5: They brought Rabban Yohanan b.
Zakkai some cooked food to taste, and to Rabban Gamaliel two dates
and a dipper of water. And they said, Bring them up to the Sukkah.
14. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:7: Was not the precedent so, that the el-
ders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the House of Hillel
went along to pay a sick call on R. Yohanan b. Hahorani, and they
found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body in the
Sukkah, and his table in the house, and they said nothing at all to him.
15. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:8: Shammai the Elders daughter-in-law gave
birth, and he broke away some of the plaster and covered the hole with
Sukkah roofing over her bed, on account of the infant.
16. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 3:8: The townsfolk of Jerusalem bound up
their palm branches with gold threads.
17. Mishnah-tractate Besah 3:2: A gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel,
and he said, They are permitted. But I do not want to accept them
from him.
18. Mishnah-tractate Besah 3:8: Abba Saul b. Botnit would fill up his mea-
suring cups on the eve of a festival and hand them over to purchasers
on the festival itself.
19. Mishnah-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:5-6: More than forty pairs of wit-
nesses came forward. But R. Aqiba kept them back at Lud.
20. Mishnah-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:7: Tobiah, the physician, saw the
80 chapter three

new moon in Jerusalemhe, his son, and his freed slave. And the priests
accepted him and his son [as witnesses to the new moon], but they in-
validated the testimony of his slave.
21. Mishnah-tractate Ta#anit 2:5: In the time of R. Halapta and R. Hananiah
b. Teradion someone passed before the ark and completed the entire
blessing, and they did not answer after him Amen.
The formal pattern is clear and requires no comment. The cases/
precedents involve no action and no tension; the purpose of such
narrative as is present is to establish a situation, not describe
an event or an action, and the function of the case/precedent is
to illustrate the Halakhah in context. None of these items coheres
by reason of a teleological logic.
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Mishnah:
1. M. Sheq. 6:1: M#SH B: A priest was going about his business and saw
that a block of the pavement was slightly different from the rest.
2. M. Yoma 2:2: M#SH S: There were two who got there at the same time,
running up the ramp.
3. M. R.H. 2:8-9: M#SH S: Two witnesses came and said, We saw it at
dawn on the morning of the twenty-ninth] in the east and at eve in the
west.
4. M. Ta. 3:9-10: M#SH S: They said to Honi the Circle Drawer, Pray
for rain.
M. Erub. 6:1 and M. Yoma 2:2 present no surprises. Both ac-
commodate themselves to their Halakhic setting, and neither can
stand outside of that setting. All incorporate a single action with
a ruling. It is, as before, X did so and so, with the following
outcome.
M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10 bear nothing in common
with the Halakhic ma#asim, differing radically from the Halakhic
pseudo-narratives of precedents, even though, in both cases, a
Halakhic datum precipitates the narrative and is essential to its
realization. Both present complex expositions, in three marked
parts, with significant actors. The principal players stand forth as
distinct personalities, not simply models of virtue or its opposite.
The dialogue is not stereotype in either case.
Most striking: these are not Halakhic, but political, narratives.
Neither climaxes with a Halakhic ruling; both of them attend to
the power-relationships of the Rabbinic community, the one in-
volving the patriarch over the sage, the other, the sage over the
wonder-worker. To these matters the Halakhic detailproclaim-
 mishnah seder moed 81

ing the New Year in error, sounding the shofar on account of an

excess of rainproves necessary but insufficient for the spinning
out of the story, therefore ultimately marginal. Tension between
persons dictates what is required for the realization of the narra-
tive.
In both stories there is a clear teleology, revealed only at the
end: the story is so arranged as to prove that end-point. The conflict
is integral to the goal, and how it is resolved forms the dramatic
heart of the matter, yielding a characterization of each of the play-
ers: Joshua challenging the patriarch on the foundation of supe-
rior reason, the patriarch imposing a harsh penalty, Aqiba and
Dosa, each for his own reason, supporting the authority of the
patriarch even while dismissing the detail of his ruling, and the
patriarch graciously accepting the sages submission. M. Ta. 3:9-
10 follows the same model of a three-part account, the situation,
the activity, the resolution.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey. The answers come in
two parts, first for the two conventional Halakhic narratives, M.
Erub. 6:1, M. Yoma 2:2, then for the two truly (in the context of
the Mishnah anomalous) narratives, M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta.
3:9-10;
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon?
The two Halakhic ma#asim obviously are fully symmetrical with
their respective Halakhic settings.
The complex stories of Gamaliel and the sages, on the one side,
and Honi and the sages, on the other, define a different situa-
tion. They concern the power-relationships within the institutional
frameworks of rabbis in relationship to others, the patriarch, and
the wonder-worker, respectively. But they attest to the Rabbinic
viewpoint on Honi, and I am inclined to think, on Gamaliel as
well, whose authority prevails even though his decision errs. In
both cases the message is, greater force prevails, sometimes, over
Rabbinic wisdom and learning. In both cases that is Heavens right
to override sages knowledge. So no, the remarkable narratives
of M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, about Honi and the sages,
Gamaliel and the sages, respectively, set forth the perspective of
the Rabbinic narrator and his politics. They attest to Rabbinic
82 chapter three

thought, which has coalesced and been realized in an other-than-

conventional way.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of
form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these pat-
terns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The two sets of
narrativesHalakhic ma#asim, extra-Halakhic storiesare to be
treated separately.
The former adhere to the simple pattern discerned in Mish-
nah-Seder Zeraim: description of an action or a situation followed
by a ruling.
The two instances of fully-realized stories by themselves do not
suffice to expose the presence of a fixed pattern. It suffices at this
point to note both work out a three-part program, requiring some
activity but no decisive action. But whether that signals a formal
pattern cannot be established in a series of two. The stories are
told through what is said, which forms the center of interest at
M. R.H. 2:8-9, and Honis dialogue with the activity of nature,
at M. Ta. 3:8-9. More than these two casual observations as to
form are not justified by the sample before us.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as
we know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the
meaning of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did docu-
mentary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documen-
tary venue?
For the three conventional Halakhic ma#asim, the answer is clear:
they form part of the larger Halakhic program of the Mishnah
and carry out its goals. They must be regarded as integrated into
the Mishnahs documentary unfolding.
I do not see even elementary components of an answer to these
questions in the two anomalous stories. For the same reason
they form too small a samplethat they do not suggest prefer-
ences of form, they also do not point to activities of non-docu-
mentary writing beyond the Mishnahs framework of Halakhic
discourse. Nothing else in the Mishnah compares with these two
remarkable items.
 mishnah seder nashim 83

CHAPTER FOUR

MISHNAH SEDER NASHIM

I. Tractate Yebamot

Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:4

16:4A. [If ] he fell into a body of water, whether within sight of shore
or not within sight of shore
B. his wife is prohibited [until the corpse turns up].
C. Said R. Meir, M#SH B: A certain person fell into a large cistern, and
came up [alive] after three days.
D. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: A blind man went down to immerse in a cave,
and his guide went down after him, and they stayed [in the water] long
enough to drown.
E. So [the sages] permitted their wives to marry.
F. WSWB M#SH B: A certain man in Asya was let down by a rope into the
sea, and they drew back up only his leg.
G. Sages said, If [the recovered part included] from the knee and above,
[his wife] may remarry. [If] the recovered part included only from the knee
and below, she may not remarry.

Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:6

A. They give testimony [about the identity of a corpse which they have
seen] by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon.
B. And they permit a woman to remarry on the evidence of an echo
[which is heard to say that her husband has died].
C. M#SH B: A certain person stood on top of a mountain and said, Mr.
So-and-so, the son of So-and-so, of such-and-such a place, has died.
D. And they went but did not find anyone there.
E. And they [nonetheless] permitted his wife to remarry.
F. SWB M#SH B: In Salmon, a certain person said, I am Mr. So-and-so,
the son of Mr. So-and-so. A snake has bitten me, and lo, I am dying.
G. And they went, and while they did not recognize him, they permitted
his wife to remarry.
The formally-standard ma#asim, M. 16:4 C, D-E, F-G, M. 16:6C-
FE, F-G, are classified not as narratives but as Halakhic compo-
84 chapter four

nents, precedents pure and simple. Each one is constructed of an

economical description of a case or event, followed by sages ruling.

Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:7

A. Said R. Aqiba, When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year,
Nehemiah of Bet Deli came upon me. He said to me, I heard that only R.
Judah b. Baba permits a wife in the Land of Israel to remarry on the evi-
dence of a single witness [to her husbands death].
B. I stated to him, That is indeed so.
C. He said to me, Tell them in my name
D. you know that the country is alive with ravaging bands
E. I have a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that:
F. They permit a wife to remarry on the testimony of a single witness [to
her husbands death].
G. And when I came and laid the matters out before Rabban Gamaliel,
he was overjoyed at my report and said, We now have found a pair for R.
Judah b. Baba.
H. And in the same discourse Rabban Gamaliel recalled that men were
slain at Tel Arza, and Rabban Gamaliel the Elder permitted their wives to
remarry on the evidence of a single witness.
I. And they confirmed in the practice of permitting [the wife to] remarry
(1) on the evidence of a single witness, (2) on the evidence of a slave, (3) on
the evidence of a woman, (4) on the evidence of a slave girl.
J. R. Eliezer and R. Joshua say, They do not permit a woman to re-
marry on the evidence of a single witness.
K. R. Aqiba says, Not on the evidence of a woman [vs. 3], nor on the
evidence of a slave (2), nor on the evidence of a slave girl (4), nor on
the evidence of relatives.
L. They said to him, M#SH B: The Levites went to Soar, the date town,
and one of them got sick on the road, and they left him in an inn.
M. And upon their return, they said to the inn hostess, Where is our good
buddy?
N. She said to them, He died, and I buried him.
O. And they permitted his wife to remarry [on the strength of her evi-
dence].
P. They said to him, And should not a priest girl be equivalent to an inn
hostess?
Q. He said to them, When she [the priest girl] becomes an inn hostess [in
the model of this one], she will be believed.
R. The inn hostess had produced for them his staff, his pouch, and the
Torah scroll which he had had in hand.
M. 16:7A-C form a pseudo-narrative setting for a Halakhic rul-
ing, pure and simple. M. 16:7L-O, P-R, provide a precedent, which
is subject to revision or reinterpretation. Formally the ma#asim are
 mishnah seder nashim 85

somewhat more elaborately articulated than is commonly the case.

There is no issue of teleological logic here.

II. Tractate Ketubot

Mishnah-tractate Ketubot 1:10

A. Said R. Yose, M#SH B: A girl went down to draw water from the well
and was raped.
B. Ruled R. Yohanan b. Nuri, If most of the men of the town marry off
their daughters to the priesthood, lo, she may be married into the priest-
hood.
M. 1:10A sets forth an account of an event, subject to the sages
ruling at B.
Mishnah-tractate Ketubot 7:10
A. And these are the ones whom they force to put her away: (1) he
who is afflicted with boils, or (2) who has a polypus, or (3) who collects
[dog excrement], or (4) a coppersmith, or (5) a tanner
B. whether these [blemishes] were present before they were married
or whether after they were married they made their appearance.
C. And concerning all of them did R. Meir say, Even though he made
a condition with her [that the marriage is valid despite these blemishes],
she still can claim, I thought that I could take it. But now I find I
cannot take it.
D. And sages say, She takes it despite herself, except in the case of
the one afflicted with boils,
E. because [in that case] she enervates him.
F. M#SH B: In Sidon there was a tanner who died, and he had a brother
who was a tanner.
G. Sages ruled, She can claim, Your brother I could take, but I cant take
you [as my levir].
Once more, we have a statement of a case, M. 7:10F, plus a ruling.

III. Tractate Nedarim

Mishnah-tractate Nedarim 5:6

A. He who is forbidden by vow from deriving benefit from his fellow
and who has nothing to eat
B. he [the fellow] gives it [food] to someone else as a gift, and this one
[prohibited by vow] is permitted [to make use of] it.
C. M#SH B: There was someone in Bet Horon whose father was prohibited
by vow from deriving benefit from him.
D. And he [the man in Bet Horon] was marrying off his son, and he said to
86 chapter four

his fellow, The courtyard and the banquet are given over to you as a gift.
But they are before you only so that father may come and eat with us at
the banquet.
E. The other party said, Now if they really are mine, then lo, they are
consecrated to heaven!
F. He said to him, I didnt give you whats mine so you would consecrate
it to Heaven!
G. He said to him, You did not give me whats yours except so that you
and your father could eat and drink and make friends again, and so the sin
[for violating the oath] could rest on his head!
H. Now the case came before sages. They ruled, Any act of donation
which is not so [given] that, if one sanctified it to Heaven, it is sancti-
fied, is no act of donation.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? If we consider the nar-
rative on its own, not in the context of M. 5:6A-B, H. we have a
free-standing story on improper motives in taking vows. Then the
details of C, D, E, F, fall into place in consequence of G. We do
not need H to make C-G cohere, and the exchanges of D-E, F-
G yield a progression to the stated climax at G. Hence M. 5:6C-
G may be regarded as an authentic narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict and its
resolution are fully realized in the unfolding of the narrative, as
indicated above.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? There are three com-
ponents of the narrative, C, which sets the stage, than D-E, F-G.
It follows that before us is a tri-partite complex.
Mishnah-tractate Nedarim 6:6
A. He who takes a vow not to eat meat is permitted to eat broth and
meat sediment.
B. And R. Judah prohibits [him from eating broth and meat sediment].
C. Said R. Judah, M#SH W: R. Tarfon prohibited me from eating eggs
which were roasted with it [meat].
D. They said to him, And that is the point! Under what circumstances?
When he will say, This meat is prohibited to me.
E. For he who vows not to eat something which is mixed with something
else, if there is sufficient [of the prohibited substance] to impart a flavor, is
prohibited [from eating the mixture].
The ma#aseh, C, serves as a precedent in law, and it does not un-
 mishnah seder nashim 87

fold in a set of components joined in a common purpose, such

as teleological logic requires.
Mishnah-tractate Nedarim 9:5
A. They unloose a mans vow by reason of the wifes marriage con-
tract.
B. M#SH B: A certain man vowed not to derive benefit from his wife.
C. And her marriage contract called for a payment of four hundred denars.
D. And he came before R. Aqiba, who required him to pay off her mar-
riage contract.
E. He said to him, Rabbi, my father left [an estate worth] eight hundred
denars, and my brother received four hundred, and I four hundred. Is it
not enough for her if she collects two hundred and I keep two hundred?
F. R. Aqiba said to him, Even if you have to sell the hair of your head, you
still have to pay off her marriage contract.
G. He said to him, Now if I had ever known that things were so, I should
never have taken such a vow.
H. And R. Aqiba declared the vow to be not binding.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Like M. Ned. 5:6, the
present item coheres only by reason of its ultimate goal, which is
the validity of the claim for releasing the vow based on If I had
known. Then the stage is set by the definition, B-C+D, the
claim, E, and the colloquy, F-H.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? I do not see the
intersection of wills or the point of conflict; the story so unfolds
as to illustrate its Halakhic context.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? It is correct to clas-
sify the composition as a narrative, not merely as a legal prece-
dent, then I am inclined to find in the tri-partite unfolding of the
account the example of a familiar division.
Mishnah-tractate Nedarim 9:10
A. [If one said,] Qonam if I marry that ugly Miss So-and-so, and lo,
she is beautiful,
B. ... dark... , and lo, she is light,
C. ... short... , and lo, she is tall,
D. he is permitted [to marry] her,
E. not because she was ugly and turned beautiful, dark and turned light,
short and turned tall, but because the vow [to begin with] was based
on erroneous facts.
88 chapter four

F, M#SH B: A certain man prohibited by vow that, from the daughter of his
sister, he should derive benefit.
G. And they brought her into the house of R. Ishmael and made her beau-
tiful.
H. Said to him R. Ishmael, My son, did you ever take a vow about this
lass?
I. He said to him, Never!
J. And R. Ishmael declared his [vow] not binding.
K. That moment R. Ishmael wept and said, Israelite girls really are beau-
tiful, but poverty makes them ugly.
L. And when R. Ishmael died, Israelite girls took up a lamentation, say-
ing, Israelite girls, weep over R. Ishmael.
M. And that is what [Scripture] says for Saul, Israelite girls, weep for
Saul [who clothed you in scarlet delicately, who put ornaments of gold
upon your apparel] (2 Sam. 1:24).
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The composition differs
from the conventional legal precedent or case because the point
that imparts cogency emerges at the end, Israelite girls really
are, and that throws a fresh light on the situation prevailing
at the outset. That is to say, without K, the climax, we have a
perfectly standard precedent. The man took a vow that he would
not marry his niece on his sisters side, which was deemed par-
ticularly virtuous. Such and such was done, yielding the grounds
for releasing the vow, which was then released. All that is a fa-
miliar mode, and the items hold together as precedents do. We
know as the components make their appearance what they mean
and where they are heading. But K (amplified at L-M) changes
the picture. The teleological logic imposed at K then marks the
composition as a narrative. One could speculate on a prior for-
mulation, F-J, which is extended at K+L-M, but I classify the end-
product of whatever antecedent literary phases marked the
unfolding of what we now have.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? K focuses the story,
and now the tension is between the natural beauty of Israelite
women and their looks by reason of poverty.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The narrative is in
three components, each autonomous of the others: the case, the
 mishnah seder nashim 89

ruling, the conclusion drawn from the facts of the case, not of the
ruling, thus F-J, K, L-M.

IV. Tractate Nazir

Mishnah-tractate Nazir 2:3

A. [If] they mixed a cup for someone, and he said, Lo, I am a Nazir
from it ,
B. lo, this one is a Nazir.
C. M#SH B: A woman was drunk, and they filled a cup for her, and she
said, Lo, I am a Nazirite from it.
D. Sages ruled, She intended only to say, Lo, it is unto me as a Qorban.
This is a precedent, pure and simple.
Mishnah-tractate Nazir 3:6
A. He who [while overseas] took a vow to be a Nazir for a long spell
and
completed his spell as a Nazir, and afterward came to the Land [of
Israel]
B. the House of Shammai say, He is a Nazir for thirty days.
C. And the House of Hillel say, He is a Nazir as from the very begin-
ning.
D. M#SH B: Helene the Queenher son went off to war, and she said, If
my son comes home from war whole and in one piece, I shall be a Nazir
for seven years. Indeed her son did come home from war, and she was a
Nazir for seven years.
E. Then at the end of the seven years she went up to the Land. The House
of Hillel instructed her that she should be a Nazir for another seven years.
F. Then at the end of the seven years she was made unclean. So she turned
out to be a Nazir for twenty-one years.
G. Said R. Judah, She was a Nazir only fourteen years.
Here we have the report of a case and sages ruling on it, not a
narrative that is purposive and coherent by reason of its climax
and conclusion.
Mishnah-tractate Nazir 6:11
A. He in whose behalf one of the drops of blood has been properly
tossed and who [then] was made unclean
B. R. Eliezer says, He loses the whole [set of offerings already offered
up].
C. And sages say, Let him bring the rest of his offerings when he becomes
clean.
D. They said to him, M#SH B: In behalf of Miriam of Tadmor [Palmyra]
one of the drops of blood was properly tossed, and they came and told her
90 chapter four

that her daughter was dying, and she found her dead.
E. And sages said, Let her bring the rest of her offerings when
she will be clean.
Here is yet another report of a case and precedent.

V. Tractate Sotah: no narratives

VI. Tractate Gittin

Mishnah-tractate Gittin 1:5

A. Any sort of writ on which there is a Samaritan witness is invalid,
B. except for writs of divorce for women and writs of emancipation
for slaves.
C. M#SH S: They brought before Rabban Gamaliel in Kepar Otenai the
writ of divorce of a woman, and the witnesses thereon were Samaritan
witnesses, and he did declare it valid.
D. All documents which are drawn up in gentile registries, even if their
signatures are gentiles, are valid,
The case illustrates the indicated rule.
Mishnah-tractate Gittin 4:7
A. He who puts his wife away because she has a bad name should not
take her back.
B. [If he did so] because of a vow [which she had made], he should
not take her back.
C. R. Judah says, [If it was on account of ] any sort of vow which is
publicly known, he should not take her back.
D. But [if it was on account of] a vow which is not publicly known,
he may take her back.
E. R. Meir says, [If it is on account of] any sort of vow which requires
the investigation of a sage [for its absolution], he should not take her
back.
F. [If it is any sort of] vow which does not require the investigation of
a sage, he may take her back.
G. Said R. Eleazar, This latter case was prohibited only because of
the former
H. Said R. Yose bar Judah, M#SH B: In Sidon a man said to his wife, Qonam
if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her.
I. But sages permitted him to take her back, for the good order of the
world.
This is a case-report.
 mishnah seder nashim 91

Mishnah-tractate Gittin 6:6

A. He who had been cast into a pit and said, Whoever hears his [my]
voicelet him write a writ of divorce for his [my] wife
B. lo, these should write and deliver it to her.
C. A healthy man who said, Write a writ of divorce for my wife-
D. his intention was to tease her.
E. M#SH B: A healthy man said, Write a writ of divorce for my wife, and
then went up to the rooftop and fell over and died
F. said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, Said sages, If he fell because of his
own action, lo, this is a writ of divorce. If the wind pushed him off, it is no
writ of divorce.
Here is another case report.
Mishnah-tractate Gittin 7:5
A. Lo, this is your writ of divorce on condition that you pay me two
hundred zuz,
B. lo, this one is divorced, and she should pay the money.
C. ... on condition that you pay me within thirty days from now, if
she paid him during the period of thirty days, she is divorced.
D. And if not, she is not divorced.
E. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH B: In Sidon there was a man
who said to his wife, Lo, this is your writ of divorce, on condition that you
give me my cloak, but the cloak got lost.
F. Sages ruled, Let her pay him its value.
M. 7:5C presents a case report.

VII. Tractate Qiddushin

Mishnah-tractate Qiddushin 2:7

A. He who betroths a woman and her daughter,
B. or a woman and her sister, simultaneously
C. they are not betrothed,
D. WM#SH B: Five women, including two sisters, and one gathered figs, and
they were theirs, but it was Seventh-Year produce. And [someone] said,
Lo, all of you are betrothed to me in virtue of this basket of fruit, and
one of them accepted the proposal in behalf of all of them
E. And sages ruled, The sisters [in the group of five] are not betrothed.
Here is nothing more than a precedent.

VIII. Summary

The pseudo-narratives are these:

92 chapter four

1. Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:4: A certain person fell into a large cis-

tern, and came up [alive] after three days. A blind man went down to
immerse in a cave, and his guide went down after him, and they stayed
[in the water] long enough to drown. A certain man in Asya was let
down by a rope into the sea, and they drew back up only his leg.
2. Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:6: A certain person stood on top of a
mountain and said, Mr. So-and-so, the son of So-and-so, of such-and-
such a place, has died. And they went but did not find anyone there.
And they [nonetheless] permitted his wife to remarry. In Salmon, a
certain person said, I am Mr. So-and-so, the son of Mr. So-and-so. A
snake has bitten me, and lo, I am dying. And they went, and while
they did not recognize him, they permitted his wife to remarry.
3. Mishnah-tractate Yebamot 16:7: Said R. Aqiba, When I went down
to Nehardea to intercalate the year, Nehemiah of Bet Deli came upon
me. He said to me, I heard that only R. Judah b. Baba permits a wife
in the Land of Israel to remarry on the evidence of a single witness [to
her husbands death]. The Levites went to Soar, the date-town, and
one of them got sick on the road, and they left him in an inn. And
upon their return, they said to the inn hostess, Where is our good
buddy? She said to them, He died, and I buried him. And they per-
mitted his wife to remarry [on the strength of her evidence].
4. Mishnah-tractate Ketubot 1:10: Said R. Yose, M#SH B: A girl went
down to draw water from the well and was raped.
5. Mishnah-tractate Ketubot 7:10: In Sidon there was a tanner who died,
and he had a brother who was a tanner Sages ruled, She can claim,
Your brother I could take, but I cant take you [as my levir].
6. Mishnah-tractate Nedarim 6:6: R. Tarfon prohibited me from eating
eggs which were roasted with it [meat].
7. Mishnah-tractate Nazir 2:3: A woman was drunk, and they filled a cup
for her, and she said, Lo, I am a Nazirite from it. Sages ruled, She
intended only to say, Lo, it is unto me as a Qorban.
8. Mishnah-tractate Nazir 3:6: Helene the Queenher son went off to
war, and she said, If my son comes home from war whole and in one
piece, I shall be a Nazir for seven years. Indeed her son did come
home from war, and she was a Nazir for seven years.
9. Mishnah-tractate Nazir 6:11: In behalf of Miriam of Tadmor [Palmyra]
one of the drops of blood was properly tossed, and they came and told
her that her daughter was dying, and she found her dead.
10. Mishnah-tractate Gittin 1:5: They brought before Rabban Gamaliel in
Kepar Otenai the writ of divorce of a woman, and the witnesses thereon
were Samaritan witnesses, and he did declare it valid.
11. Mishnah-tractate Gittin 4:7: In Sidon a man said to his wife, Qonam
if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her. But sages permitted him
to take her back, for the good order of the world.
12. Mishnah-tractate Gittin 6:6: A healthy man said, Write a writ of di-
vorce for my wife, and then went up to the rooftop and fell over and
died
 mishnah seder nashim 93

13. Mishnah-tractate Gittin 7:5 In Sidon there was a man who said to his
wife, Lo, this is your writ of divorce, on condition that you give me
my cloak, but the cloak got lost. Sages ruled, Let her pay him its value.
14. Mishnah-tractate Qiddushin 2:7: Five women, including two sisters, and
one gathered figs, and they were theirs, but it was Seventh-Year pro-
duce. And [someone] said, Lo, all of you are betrothed to me in vir-
tue of this basket of fruit, and one of them accepted the proposal in
behalf of all of them.
I do not see how any of these items qualifies as a narrative. All
of them prove integral to the Halakhic context, which governs their
meaning and explains the inclusion of the details that are given
and the exclusion of those many, many more that are omitted.
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Mishnah:
1. M. Ned. 5:6: There was someone in Bet Horon whose father was pro-
hibited by vow from deriving benefit from him.
2. M. Ned. 9:5: A certain man vowed not to derive benefit from his wife.
And her marriage contract called for a payment of four hundred denars.
3. M. Ned. 9:10: A certain man prohibited by vow that from the daugh-
ter of his sister he should derive benefit. And they brought her into the
house of R. Ishmael and made her beautiful.
Each item reminds us of how fine a line is drawn between the
pseudo-narrative of precedents or cases, and the authentic narra-
tive marked by teleological logic. One may make a case for a
contrary classification of all three of them. I err on the side of
inclusion, for one can make a case that these items are simply
more than commonly elaborated ma#asim. Nonetheless, for the sake
of completeness, within the present reading, I respond to the
questions that animate this survey:
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? No, the three items fit well within the Halakhic
context that is adorned by them. The issues that precipitate the
story are Halakhic issues.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? I did note a tendency to
unfold in three separate units of action and description. Other-
wise I do not discern any clearly-delineated forms that govern.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
94 chapter four

ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documen-
tary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary
venue? I do not see how the three items answer that question. It
appears that the composition of the three narratives fits into the
larger work of Mishnah-writing, even though they are anomalous.
But the anomaly consists in the traits that distinguish these items
from standard ma#asim, and those allegedly-differentiating traits not
only are not formidable but do not vastly alter the basic presen-
tation.
 mishnah seder neziqin 95

CHAPTER FIVE

MISHNAH SEDER NEZIQIN

I. Tractate Baba Qamma

Mishnah-tractate Baba Qamma 8:6

A. He who boxes the ear of his fellow pays him a sela.
B. R. Judah says in the name of R. Yos the Galilean, A maneh.
C. [If] he smacked him, he pays him two hundred zuz.
D. [If] it is with the back of his hand, he pays him four hundred zuz.
E. [If] he (1) tore at his ear, (2) pulled his hair, (3) spit, and the spit hit
him, (4) pulled off his cloak, (5) pulled apart the hairdo of a woman in
the marketplace,
E he pays four hundred zuz.
G. This is the governing principle: Everything is in accord with ones
station.
H. Said R. Aqiba, Even the poorest Israelites do they regard as gentle
folk who have lost their fortunes.
I. For they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
J. M#SH B: Someone pulled apart the hairdo of a woman in the market-
place.
K. She came before R. Aqiba, who required him to pay her four hundred
zuz.
L. He said to him, Rabbi, give me time [to pay her off].
M. He gave him time.
N. He caught her standing at the door of her courtyard and broke a jar of
oil in front of her, containing no more than an issars worth of oil, She let
down her hair and mopped up the oil and put her hand [with the oil] on
her hair [so making use of that small quantity of oil].
O. Now he had set witnesses up against her. Then he came before R. Aqiba.
P. He said to him, Rabbi, to a woman such as this am I to pay off four
hundred zuz?
Q. He said to him, You have no claim whatsoever.
R. He who does injury to himself, even though he has no right to do so, is
exempt.
S. But others who did injury to him are liable.
T. He who cuts down his own shoots, even though he has no right, is ex-
empt.
U. Others who cut down his shoots are liable.
96 chapter five

The story is so told as to illustrate the point of the ruling, R-U,

which is, what someone does to himself is not subject to penalty,
but what others do to that person is. That is why the claim, P, is
rejected. The question is, does the ruling impart coherence to the
narrative? I am inclined to think that it does, because without the
ruling at the end, the details of the narrative are left suspended;
they gain their point only at the end. That is why I classify the
composition as a narrative within the criterion I have set forth here.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The details cohere by
reason of R-U, and everything prior is set up to lead to that crystal-
clear ruling.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The tension is
embodied in the contrast drawn at the end, so here once more,
the composition requires classification as stated.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? I see the same three-
part construction that we have observed before, J-M, setting the
stage, N-P, the action and the question, then Q-U, the response
and the answer. The whole forms a remarkably coherent statement,
each detail absolutely necessary to the realization of the purpose.

II. Tractate Baba Mesia

Mishnah-tractate Baba Mesia 7:1

A. He who hires [day] workers and told them to start work early or to
stay late
B. in a place in which they are accustomed not to start work early or
not to stay late,
C. he has no right to force them to do so.
D. In a place in which they are accustomed to provide a meal, he must
provide a meal.
E. [In a place in which they are accustomed] to make do with a sweet,
F. he provides it.
G. Everything accords with the practice of the province.
H. M#SH B: R. Yohanan b. Matya said to his son, Go, hire workers for
us.
I. He went and made an agreement with them for food [without further
specification].
 mishnah seder neziqin 97

J. Now when he came to his father, [the father] said to him, My son, even
if you should make for them a meal like one of Solomon in his day, you will
not have carried out your obligation to them.
K. For they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
L. But before they begin work, go and tell them, [Work for us] on condi-
tion that you have a claim on me [as to food] only for a piece of bread and
pulse alone.
M. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, He had no need to specify that
in so many words.
N. Everything [in any case] accords with the practice of the prov-
ince.
I am puzzled by the problem of classifying this item. It is not a
precedent or example of the law set forth at A-G. Indeed, the gloss
of M-N makes that explicit, since the point of the composite is at
M. 7:1G: everything accords with local custom. That is not the
issue of the ma#aseh. Rather, it registers the Aggadic, not the Hala-
khic, claim that Israelites are princes and are to be treated as such.
That principle never affects the articulation of the Halakhah of
the Mishnah, except here. But then how does the composition
cohere? It is in three stages, H-I, J-K, and L. L resolves the ques-
tion raised by J-Kwhat is to be done, the agreement having been
erroneously framed? The upshot is simple. I do not see how L
imposes coherence on the prior items, each of which demands
its position exactly where it is. But if we do not have a narrative
within the framework of my definition, we also do not have a
composition that exemplifies the law at hand, as I said, which is
that local custom prevails, whether or not made explicit.
Mishnah-tractate Baba Mesia 8:8
A. He who rents out a house to his fellow for a year-
B. [if] the year was intercalated [and received an extra month of Adar],
C. it is intercalated to the advantage of the tenant.
D. [If] he rented it to him by the month,
E. [if] the year was intercalated,
E it is intercalated to the advantage of the landlord.
G. M#SH B: In Sepphoris a person hired a bathhouse from his fellow for
twelve golden [denars] per year, at the rate of one golden denar per month
[and the year was intercalated].
H. The case came before Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and before R. Yos.
I. They ruled, Let them divide the month added by the intercalation of
the year.
Here is a standard precedent, G+H-I.
98 chapter five

III. Tractate Baba Batra

Mishnah-tractate Baba Batra 9:7

A. He who verbally divides his property [by word of mouth]
B. R. Eliezer says, All the same are a healthy man and a man whose
life is endangered
C. property for which there is security is acquired through money, a
document, and usucaption.
D. And that for which there is no security is acquired only through
being drawn [into the possession of the one who acquires it].
E. They said to him, M#SH B: The mother of the sons of Rokhel was sick
and said, Give my veil to my daughter, and it was worth twelve maneh.
And she died, and the [sages] carried out her statement.
E He said to them, As to the sons of Rokhel, may their mother bury
them.
G. And sages [B. B.B. 156b: Eliezer] say, If [he gave verbal instruc-
tions] on the Sabbath, his statement is confirmed,
H. because he is not able to write down [his will].
I. But not [if it took place] on a weekday.
J. R. Joshua says, If they have stated this rule for the Sabbath, all the
more so that it applies on a weekday.
This is a standard Halakhic precedent.

IV. Tractate Sanhedrin

Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin 5:2

A. The more they expand the interrogation, the more is one to be
praised.
B. M#SH B: Ben Zakkai examined a witness as to the character of the stems
of figs [under which the incident took place].
The stripped down ma#aseh presents no surprises.
Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin 7:2
A. The religious requirement of burning [is carried out as follows]:
B. They would bury him in manure up to his armpits, and put a towel
of hard material inside one of soft material, and wrap it around his
neck.
C. This [witness] pulls it to him from one side, and that [witness] pulls
it to him at the other side, until he opens up his mouth.
D. And one kindles a wick [B. San. 52a: a strip of lead] and throws it
into his mouth, and it goes down into his bowels and burns his intes-
tines.
E. R. Judah says, Also this one: if he died at their hands [through stran-
gulation], they will not have carried out the religious requirement of
 mishnah seder neziqin 99

burning [in the proper manner].

E But: They open his mouth with tongs, against his will, kindle a wick,
and throw it into his mouth, and it goes down into his bowels and burns
his intestines.
G. Said R. Eleazar b. Sadoq, M#SH B: The daughter of a priest commit-
ted adultery
H. And they put bundles of twigs around her and burned her.
I. They said to him, It was because the court of that time was not
expert [in the law].
G-H present a routine ma#aseh. I turns the whole into a debate.

V. Tractate Makkot: no narratives

VI. Tractate Shebuot: no narratives

VII. Tractate #Eduyyot

The following important composite, M. Ed. 5:6-7, should first be

treated in its parts.
Mishnah-tractate #Eduyyot 5:6
A. Aqabiah b. Mehalalel gave testimony in four matters.
B. They said to him, Aqabiah, retract the four rulings which you laid down,
and we shall make you patriarch of the court of Israel.
C. He said to them, It is better for me to be called a fool my whole life but
not be deemed a wicked person before the Omnipresent for even one minute,
D. so that people should not say, Because he craved after high office, he
retracted.
This is an exchange of statements, a recorded conversation. But
the exchange, like the two at M. 5:7, makes sense only at the end,
D forming the climax and point of cohesion of the prior materials.
E. He would declare unclean residual hair [in a leprosy sign] and green
blood [of a vaginal discharge].
E And sages declare clean.
G. He would permit use of the wool which fell out in the case of a
firstling which was blemished, and which one put away in a niche, and
[which firstling] one afterward slaughtered.
H. And sages prohibit.
I. He would say, They do not administer bitter water [to test the woman
accused of adultery] in the case of a proselyte woman or in the case of
a freed slave girl.
J. And sages say, They do administer the test.
100 chapter five

K. They said to him, M#SH B: Karkemit, a freed slave girl, was in Jerusa-
lem, and Shemaiah and Abtalion administered the bitter water to her.
L. He said to them, They administered it to her to make her into an ex-
ample.
Here we have a standard ma#aseh.
M. They excommunicated him, and he died while he was subject to the
excommunication, so the court stoned his bier
N. Said R. Judah, God forbid that Aqabiah was excommunicated!
O. For the courtyard is never locked before any Israelite of the wis-
dom and fear of sin of a man like Aqabiah b. Mehalalel.
P But whom did they excommunicate? It was Eliezer b. Hanokh, who
cast doubt on [the sages ruling about] the cleanness of hands.
Q. And when he died, the court sent and put a stone on his bier
R. This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while he is
subject to the excommunicationthey stone his bier.
The incident, M, is subjected to analysis. It does not constitute a
narrative.
5:7 A. When he was dying, he said to his son, My son, retract in the four
rulings that I have laid down.
B. He said to him, And why do you retract now?
C. He said to him, I heard the rulings in the name of the majority, and
they heard them in the name of the majority, so I stood my ground on the
tradition that I had heard, and they stood their ground on the tradition
that they had heard.
D. But you for your part have heard the matter both in the name of an
individual and in the name of the majority.
E. It is better to abandon the opinion of the individual and to hold with
the opinion of the majority.
F. He said to him, Father, give instructions concerning me to your col-
leagues.
G. He said to him, I will give no instructions.
H. He said to him, Is it possible that you have found some fault with me?
I. He said to him, No. It is your deeds that will bring you near, or your
deeds that will put you off [from the others].
The two exchanges, A-E, F-I, record exchanges in which wise
sayings, E, I, are encapsulated in dialogue given drama by the
occasion, the death-scene. Nonetheless, the exchanges presuppose
a dramatic scene, an event that is now narrated, and both E and
I form the climax and impart cogency to the prior statements,
which, on their own, do not resolve anything. On that basis I classify
the composition as a narrative.
In what follows, I speak of the narrative because M. Ed. 5:6A-
 mishnah seder neziqin 101

D, 5:7A-E, F-I, form a triplet in a single model. The intruded

composition does not change the picture one iota. The described
situation and implicit activity and movement of thought serve as
a setting for the three dialogues.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? At M. Ed. 5:6A-D, 5:7A-
E, F-I, Aqabiahs integrity yields three striking exchanges: (1) so
that people should not say, Because he craved after high office,
he retracted, (2) It is better to abandon the opinion of the
individual and to hold with the opinion of the majority, and (3)
It is your deeds that will bring you near, or your deeds that will
put you off [from the others]. The single model that defines all
three matched compositions yields three climactic moments, where
the point of the preceding exchange is announced, and the whole
falls into place. The narratives attain coherence in all three
instances at that climactic statement.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The tension is
established in the temptation laid forthretract and we will make
you patriarch, my son, retractand why do you retract now?
and give instructions concerning meI will give no instructions.
In each case Aqabiah responds in integrity to the appeal of the
son and the colleagues. It is the movement conveyed by that
challenge and response that marks the complex as more than a
mere setting for a saying.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Once more, we find
a composition executed by a triplet, but here the three parts hold
together not because one flows into the next but because all three
adhere to a single form, rigidly repeated.
Mishnah-tractate Eduyyot 7:7
A. They gave testimony concerning the boards of bakers, that they are
susceptible to uncleanness.
B. For R. Eliezer declares [them] insusceptible.
C. They gave testimony concerning an oven which one cut up into
rings, between each ring of which one put sand,
D. that it is susceptible to receive uncleanness.
E. For R. Eliezer declares it insusceptible.
E They gave testimony that they intercalate the year at any time in
Adar.
102 chapter five

G. For they had said, Only up to Purim.

H. They gave testimony that they intercalate the year conditionally.
I. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel went to ask for permission from the govern-
ment in Syria and he did not come back right away, so they intercalated
the year on the condition that Rabban Gamaliel concur.
J. And when he came back, he said, I concur.
K. So the year turned out to be deemed to have been intercalated.
We have nothing more than a slightly elaborated ma#aseh.

VIII. Tractate #Abodah Zarah

Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:7

1 A. There are three sorts of houses [so far as use as a shrine for idola-
try is concerned]:
B. (1) a house which was built to begin with for the purposes of idola-
trylo, this is prohibited.
C. (2) [If] one stuccoed and decorated it for idolatry and renovated it,
one removes the renovations.
D. (3) [If] one brought an idol into it and took it outlo, this is per-
mitted.
E. There are three sorts of stones:
F. (1) a stone which one hewed to begin with for a pedestallo, this is
forbidden.
G. (2) [If] one plastered it and adorned it for an idol, and did some-
thing new to it
H. one may remove that which he made which is new.
I. (3) [If] he set up an idol on [an existing] stone and then took it off,
lo, this is permitted.
J. There are three kinds of asherahs:
K. (1) A tree which one planted to begin with for idolatrylo, this is
prohibited.
L. (2) [If] he chopped it and trimmed it for idolatry, and it sprouted
afresh, he may remove that which sprouted afresh.
M. (3) [If] he set up an idol under it and then annulled it, lo, this is
permitted,
N. What is an asherah? Any tree under which is located an idol.
O. R. Simeon says, Any [tree] which people worship.
R M#SH: In Sidon there was a tree which people worshipped, and they
found a pile of stones underneath it.
Q. Said to them R. Simeon, Investigate the character of this pile of stones.
R. They did investigate it and found an image on it.
S. He said to them, Since they are worshipping the image [and not the
tree], let us permit them to make use of the tree [itself].
 mishnah seder neziqin 103

This is a conventional ma#aseh, slightly elaborated, and not a nar-

rative in any sense.
Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 5:2
A. Libation wine which fell on grapes
B. one may rinse them off, and they are permitted.
C. But if [the grapes] were split, they are prohibited.
D. [If] it fell on figs or dates, if there is sufficient [libation wine ab-
sorbed] to impart a flavor [to them], they are forbidden.
E. M#SH B: Boethus b. Zonen brought dried figs by ship, and a jar of liba-
tion wine broke open and dripped on them, and he asked sages, who per-
mitted [the figs, once they had been rinsed].
E This is the governing principle: anything which bestows benefit through
imparting a flavor is forbidden, and anything which does not bestow
benefit through imparting a flavor is permitted
G. for example, vinegar [from libation wine] which falls on crushed
beans.
Here is a routine case-report.
Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:4
A. Peroqlos b. Pelosepos asked Rabban Gamaliel in Akko, when he was
washing in Aphrodites bathhouse, saying to him, It is written in your Torah,
And there shall cleave nothing of a devoted thing to your hand (Dt. 13:18).
How is it that youre taking a bath in Aphrodites bathhouse?
B. He said to him, They do not give answers in a bathhouse.
C. When he went out, he said to him, I never came into her domain. She
came into mine. They dont say, Lets make a bathhouse as an ornament
for Aphrodite. But they say, Lets make Aphrodite as an ornament for the
bathhouse.
D. Another matter: Even if someone gave you a lot of money, you would
never walk into your temple of idolatry naked or suffering a flux, nor would
you piss in its presence.
E. Yet this thing is standing there at the head of the gutter and everybody
pisses right in front of her.
F. It is said only, ... their gods (Dt. 12:3)that which one treats as a god
is prohibited, but that which one treats not as a god is permitted.
This pseudo-narrative supplies a setting for an exchange of opin-
ion and argument. Once we have left the bath house, A-B, the
composition shifts from story-telling to a dialogue in which Ga-
maliel makes a speechhardly realizing the teleological logic that
characterizes a narrative. The contrast between this item and M.
Ed. 5:6-7 shows the difference that the distinction makes.
104 chapter five

IX. Tractate Horayot: no narratives

X. Summary

The pseudo-narratives are as follows:

1. Mishnah-tractate Baba Mesia 7:1: M#SH B: R. Yohanan b. Matya said
to his son, Go, hire workers for us.
2. Mishnah-tractate Baba Mesia 8:8: In Sepphoris a person hired a bath-
house from his fellow for twelve golden [denars] per year, at the rate
of one golden denar per month [and the year was intercalated].
3. Mishnah-tractate Baba Batra 9:7: The mother of the sons of Rokhel
was sick and said, Give my veil to my daughter, and it was worth twelve
maneh. And she died, and they carried out her statement.
4. Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin 5:2: Ben Zakkai examined a witness as to
the character of the stems of figs [under which the incident took place].
5. Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin 7:2: The daughter of a priest committed
adultery And they put bundles of twigs around her and burned her.
6. M. Eduyyot 5:7K: Karkemit, a freed slave girl, was in Jerusalem, and
Shemaiah and Abtalion administered the bitter water to her.
7. Mishnah-tractate Eduyyot 7:7: Rabban Gamaliel went to ask for per-
mission from the government in Syria and he did not come back right
away, so they intercalated the year on the condition that Rabban
Gamaliel concur.
8. Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:7: In Sidon there was a tree which
people worshipped, and they found a pile of stones underneath it. Said
to them R. Simeon, Investigate the character of this pile of stones.
9. Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 5:2: Boethus b. Zonen brought dried
figs by ship, and a jar of libation wine broke open and dripped on them,
and he asked sages, who permitted [the figs, once they had been rinsed].
10. Mishnah-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:4: Peroqlos b. Pelosepos asked
Rabban Gamaliel in Akko, when he was washing in Aphrodites bath-
house, saying to him, It is written in your Torah, And there shall cleave
nothing of a devoted thing to your hand (Dt. 13:18). How is it that
youre taking a bath in Aphrodites bathhouse?
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Mishnah:
1. Mishnah-tractate Baba Qamma 8:6: Someone pulled apart the hairdo
of a woman in the marketplace. She came before R. Aqiba, who re-
quired him to pay her four hundred zuz.
2. Mishnah-tractate #Eduyyot 5:6-7: (1) so that people should not say,
Because he craved after high office, he retracted, (2) It is better to
abandon the opinion of the individual and to hold with the opinion of
the majority, and (3) It is your deeds which will bring you near, or your
deeds which will put you off [from the others].
 mishnah seder neziqin 105

Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond to

the questions that animate this survey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? Most of the candidates are precedents or cases,
and they attest to the inner-Halakhic thought of the Mishnah-
compositions in which they occur.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? I do see a persistent interest
in a three-stage or a three-part exposition.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning
of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary
considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?
We have two authentic narratives, M. B.Q. 8:6 and M. Ed. 5:6-
7, and both prove integral to their setting. Neither requires us to
stand outside the Rabbinic framework, in the way in which M.
Ta. 3:9-10 and M. R.H. 2:8-9 do.
This page intentionally left blank
 mishnah seder qodoshim 107

CHAPTER SIX

MISHNAH SEDER QODOSHIM

I. Tractate Zebahim: no narratives

II. Tractate Menahot

Mishnah-tractate Menahot 10:2

A. The requirement of the #omer is to bring it from [barley growing]
nearby.
B. [If] it [the crop] did not ripen near Jerusalem [in time for use on
Nisan 16] [however,] they bring it from any place.
C. M#SH S: It was brought from Gaggot Serifin, and [the grain for] the
two loaves [Lev. 23:17] from the valley of En Sokher.
This is a standard precedent.

III. Tractate Hullin: no narratives

IV. Tractate Bekhorot

Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 4:4

A. He who was not an expert and examined the firstling, (and) which
was slaughtered on his instructions
B. lo, this [firstling] is to be buried.
C. And he [the amateur] pays from his own funds.
D. [If] one [who was not an expert] judged a case, declaring the liable
person to be free of liability, declaring the person free of liability to be
liable, declaring what is clean to be unclean, declaring what is unclean
to be clean
E. what he has done is done.
F. And he pays from his own funds.
G. But if he was an expert recognized by a court, he is free from the
liability
of paying.
H. The womb of a cow was removed. And R. Tarfon had it [the cow] fed
to the dogs.
108 chapter six

I. The case came before sages, and they declared it permitted.

J. Said Todos, the Physician, Neither a cow nor a pig leaves Alexandria
without their ripping out its womb, so that it will not bear offspring.
K. Said R. Tarfon, There goes your ass, Tarfon.
L. Said to him R. Aqiba, Rabbi Tarfon, you are exempt, for you are
an expert recognized by a court.
M. And an expert recognized by a court is free from the liability of
paying.
H-J form a standard pseudo-narrative, Tacked on, K-M do not
add up to a narrative.
Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 5:3
A. He who slit the ear of the firstling
B. Lo, this should never be slaughtered [by reason of a blemish], the
words of R. Eliezer.
C. And sages say, When another blemish will appear in it, it is slaugh-
tered on its account.
D. M#SH B: An old ram, with its hair danglingquaestor saw it.
E. He said, What sort of thing is this?
F. They said to him, It is a firstling. And it is slaughtered only if there is a
blemish on it.
G. He took a dagger and slit its ear.
H. And the case came before sages, and they declared it permitted.
I. He saw that they permitted [it] and went and tore the ears of other first-
lings.
J. And they declared [them] prohibited.
K. One time children were playing in the field, and they tied the tails of
lambs to one another. And the tail of one of them split off. And lo, it was
a firstling.
L. And the case came before sages, and they declared it permitted.
M. They saw that they declared it permitted, and they went and tied to-
gether the tails of other firstlings.
N. And they declared [them] prohibited.
O. This is the general principle: Anything [done] deliberatelyit is pro-
hibited. And anything [done] unintentionallyit is permitted.
I see here two, somewhat augmented but still quite standard,
ma#asim, D-J, K-N.
Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 6:6
A. [If] it has no testicles,
B. or has only one testicle.
C. R. Ishmael says, If it has two pouches, it has two testicles. [If] it has
only one pouch, it has only one testicle.
D. R. Aqiba says, One sets it on its buttocks and squeezes: if there is
a testicle there, it ultimately will descend.
E. M#SH S: One squeezed and it did not descend.
 mishnah seder qodoshim 109

E And it was slaughtered. And it [the testicle] was found cleaving to the
groin.
G. And R. Aqiba declared the beast permitted, and R. Yohanan b. Nuri
prohibited [it].
This follows the usual form for the precedent/case.
Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 6:9
A. M#SH S: The lower jaw stretched beyond the upper one [ = M. 6:8H2].
B. And Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel consulted sages.
C. And they said, Lo, this is a blemish.
D. The ear of a kid which was doubled up
E. Sages said, When it is all a single bone, it is a blemish.
F. And if it is not all a single bone, it is not a blemish.
G. R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel says, The tail of a kid which is like that of
a pig,
H. and that which does not have three links [vertebrae]-
I. lo, this is a blemish.
M. 6:9A-C presents no surprises.

V. Tractate #Arakhin

Mishnah-tractate Arakhin 5:1

A. He who says, My weight is incumbent on me [as a pledge to the
sanctuary] pays his weight
B. if [he said], Silver, [then he pays) in silver;
C. if [he said], Gold, [then he pays] in gold.
D. M#SH B: The mother of Yirmatyah said, The weight of my daughter is
incumbent on me. And she went up to Jerusalem, and weighed her
[Yirmatyah], and paid her weight in gold.
E. [He who says], The weight of my hand is incumbent on me [as a
pledge to the sanctuary]
E R. Judah says, He fills a jar with water and pokes it [his hand] in up
to the elbow. And he weighs out the meat of an ass, with the sinews
and bones. And he puts it [the ass meat] into it [the jar] until it [the
jar] is filled up [with water]..
G. Said R. Yos, And how is it possible to treat as equivalent one kind
of flesh and another, and one kind of bones and another? But:
H. They estimate the hand: how much is it likely to weigh?
No surprise a D, an illustration of C.
Mishnah-tractate Arakhin 8:1
A. He who sanctifies his field when the Jubilee is not [in force]
B. they say to him, You declare first [how much you wish to pay for
the redemption of the field, since, when the Jubilee is not in force, the
110 chapter six

field is redeemed at market value, not at the fifty shekels for each homers
area].
C. For the owner pays an added fifth.
D. But no other man pays an added fifth [M. 7:2].
E. M#SH B: One man sanctified his field because of its poor quality.
F. They said to him, You declare first.
G. He said, Lo, it is mine for an issar.
(H. Said R. Yos, This one said only, For [the value of] an egg. For what
is sanctified is redeemed by money or by something worth money.)
I. They said to him, Its yours!
J. He turned out to lose an issar, and his field was before him [still his].
The case varies the form, since I-J give the ruling in an odd way.
But there are no surprises.

VI. Tractate Temurah: no narratives

VII. Tractate Keritot

Mishnah-tractate Keritot 1:7

A. The woman who is subject to a doubt concerning [the appearance
of] five fluxes,
B. or the one who is subject to a doubt concerning five miscarriages
C. brings a single offering.
D. And she [then is deemed clean so that she] eats animal sacrifices.
E. And the remainder [of the offerings, A, B] are not an obligation for
her.
F [If she is subject to] five confirmed miscarriages,
G. or five confirmed fluxes,
H. she brings a single offering.
I. And she eats animal sacrifices.
J. But the rest [of the offerings, the other four] remain as an obliga-
tion for
her [to bring at some later time]
K. M#SH S: A pair of birds in Jerusalem went up in price to a
golden denar
L. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, By this sanctuary! I shall
not rest tonight until they shall be at [silver] denars.
M. He entered the court and taught [the following law]:
N. The woman who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages [or]
five confirmed fluxes brings a single offering.
O. And she eats animal sacrifices.
 mishnah seder qodoshim 111

P. And the rest [of the offerings] do not remain as an obligation

for her.
Q. And pairs of birds stood on that very day at a quarter-denar
each [one one-hundredth of the former price].
The ma#aseh at K would ordinarily carry in its wake a descrip-
tion of sages response, e.g., sages ruled + N-Q, and that would
serve the purpose.

VIII. Tractate Me#ilah: no narratives

IX. Tractate Tamid: no narratives

X. Tractate Middot: no narratives

XI. Tractate Qinnim: no narratives

XII. Summary

All the candidates are Halakhic ma#asim, some of them formally

more conventional than others. None constitutes an authentic
narrative.
1. M. Menahot 10:2 M#SH S: It was brought from Gaggot Serifin, and
[the grain for] the two loaves [Lev. 23:17] from the valley of En Sokher.
2. M. Bekhorot 4:4: The womb of a cow was removed. And R. Tarfon
had it [the cow] fed to the dogs. The case came before sages, and they
declared it permitted.
3. Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 5:3: An old ram, with its hair dangling
quaestor saw it He said, What sort of thing is this? They said to him,
It is a firstling. And it is slaughtered only if there is a blemish on it.
He took a dagger and slit its ear. And the case came before sages, and
they declared it permitted.
4. Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 6:6: One squeezed and it did not descend.
And it was slaughtered. And it [the testicle] was found cleaving to the
groin.
5. Mishnah-tractate Bekhorot 6:9 M#SH S: The lower jaw stretched be-
yond the upper one
6. Mishnah-tractate Arakhin 5:1 M#SH B: The mother of Yirmatyah said,
The weight of my daughter is incumbent on me. And she went up to
Jerusalem, and weighed her [Yirmatyah], and paid her weight in gold.
112 chapter six

7. Mishnah-tractate Arakhin 8:1 M#SH B: One man sanctified his field

because of its poor quality. They said to him, You declare first. He
said, Lo, it is mine for an issar. They said to him, Its yours!
8. Mishnah-tractate Keritot 1:7: A pair of birds in Jerusalem went up in
price to a golden denar Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, By this sanc-
tuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall be at [silver] denars. He
entered the court and taught [the following law]
 mishnah seder tohorot 113

CHAPTER SEVEN

MISHNAH SEDER TOHOROT

I. Tractate Kelim

Mishnah-tractate Kelim 5:4

A. An oven which was heated from its outer sides, or which was heated
without his [the owners] knowledge, or which was heated in the
craftsmans house, is susceptible to uncleanness.
B. M#SH S: Fire broke out among the ovens of Kefar Signa, and the matter
came to Yavneh, and Rabban Gamaliel declared them unclean.
This is a standard ma#aseh, following the established form.

II. Tractate Ohalot

Mishnah-tractate Ohalot 17:5

A. A field in which a tomb was lost,
B. and in which one built a house and an upper room on top of it,
C. if the door of the upper room was directly above the door of the
house, the upper room is clean. And if not, the upper room is unclean.
D. Dirt of a grave area and dirt from abroad which came in vegetables
join together to reach the measure of the seal of packing bags, the
words of R. Eliezer.
E. And sages say, [It is not joined together but conveys uncleanness]
only if in one place is sufficient to serve as a seal of packing bags.
E Said R. Judah, M#SH: Letters were coming from abroad to the sons of
the high priests, and there was on them a seah or two seahs of seals, and
sages were not scrupulous about them on account of uncleanness [adher-
ing to dirt deriving from land of the gentiles, which may contain corpse-
matter].
I see nothing here that requires comment.
114 chapter seven

III. Tractate Nega"im: no narratives

IV. Tractate Parah: no narratives

V. Tractate Tohorot: no narratives

VI. Tractate Miqva"ot

Mishnah-tractate Miqva"ot 4:5

A. The trough which is [hewn] in the rock
B. (1) they do not draw water from it,
C. (2) they do not mix [ashes of the red cow and water] in it,
D. (3) they do not sprinkle from it,
E. (4) it does not require a tightly stopped-up cover,
E and (5) it does not spoil the immersion pool.
G. [If] it was a [movable] utensil, and one [then] attached it [to the
rock] with plaster
H. (1) they do draw in it,
I. (2) they do mix in it,
J. (3) they do sprinkle from it,
K. (4) it does require a tightly stopped-up cover,
L. and (5) it does spoil the immersion pool.
M. [If] it was perforated below or on the side, and it cannot hold any
amount of waterit is suitable.
N. And how large a hole must there be [so it is no longer a utensil with
a receptacle]?
O. As large as the spout of a water-skin.
P Said R. Judah b. Beterah, M#SH B: A trough of Jehu was in Jerusalem,
and it was perforated with a hole as large as the spout of a water-skin.
0. And everything which required preparation in conditions of cleanness
in Jerusalem was prepared depending upon it [for immersion].
R. And the House of Shammai sent and broke it down [to remove it from
the status of a utensil, for valid immersion-water cannot be collected in a
utensil].
S. For the House of Shammai say, Until the greater part of it will be
broken down, [it is still regarded as a utensil].
Here is another standard case-report.

VII. Tractate Niddah

Mishnah-tractate Niddah 8:2

A. And she blames it on any thing on which she can blame it:
B. [if] she slaughtered a beast, a wild animal, or a bird,
C. or if she was busy with [anything which causes] bloodstains,
 mishnah seder tohorot 115

D. or if she sat down beside people who were engaged in them [any-
thing that produces bloodstains].
E. [If] she killed a louse,
F. lo, this one blames it on it.
G. How much may she blame on it?
H. R. Haninah b. Antigonos says, Up to the size of the split bean.
I. And [it may be attributed to a louse] even though she did not kill it.
And she blames it on her son or her husband.
J. If there is a wound [covered by a scab] on her and it can open again
and bleed she may blame it on that.
8:3 A. M#SH B: One woman came before R. Aqiba. She said to him, I
have seen a bloodstain.
B. He said to her, Perhaps there was a wound on you?
C. She said to him, Yes, but it has healed.
D. He said to her, Perhaps it can open and bleed?
E. She said to him, Yes.
F. And R. Aqiba declared her clean.
G. His disciples did he see staring at one another He said to them, Why
is this matter hard in your eyes? For the sages stated the rule not to
produce a strict ruling but to produce a lenient ruling, as it is said,
And if a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood
(Lev. 15:19)blood and not a stain.
A-F form a standard ma#aseh, with some elaboration in dialogue.
G is tacked on; A-F without G are fully realized.

VIII. Tractate Makhshirin

Mishnah-tractate Makhshirin 1:6

A. He who blows on lentils to test whether they are good
B. R. Simeon says, They are not under the law, If water be put.
C. And sages say, They are under the law, If water be put.
D. He who eats sesame with his [wet] finger
E. liquids which are on his hand
F. R. Simeon says, They are not under the law, If water be put.
G. And sages say, They are under the law, If water be put.
H. He who hides away his fruit in water because of the thieves
I. they are not under the law, If water be put.
J. M#SH B: People in Jerusalem hid away their fig cakes in water because of
the usurpers.
K. And sages declared [them] clean for them.
L. He who puts [floats] his fruit [along] in the stream of the river to
bring them along with himselfthey are not under the law, If water
be put.
The form of the precedent is perfectly followed.
116 chapter seven

Mishnah-tractate Makhshirin 3:4

A. He who sprinkles his house and put wheat into it,
B. and they [the grains of wheat] became damp
C. if it is on account of the water, it is subject to the law, If water be
put.
D. And if it is on account of the rock floor, it is not under the law, If
water be put.
E. He who washes his clothing in a trough and put into it grains of
wheat, and they grew moist,
E if it [the moisture] is on account of the water, it is subject to the law,
If water be put.
G. And if it [the moisture] is on account of itself, it is not under the
law, If water be put.
H. He who dampens [wheat] with sand, lo, this is under the rule, If
water be put.
I. M#SH B: The people of Mahoz were dampening [wheat] in sand.
J. Sages said to them, If thus you have been doing, you have never pre-
pared [food] in accord with the rules of cleanness in your entire lives.
I see no narrative here.

IX. Tractate Zabim: no narratives

X. Tractate Tebul Yom: no narratives

XI. Tractate Yadayim

Mishnah-tractate Yadayim 3:1

A. He who pokes his hands into a house afflicted with a Nega
B. his hands are in the first remove of uncleanness, the words of R.
Aqiba.
C. And sages say, His hands are in the second remove of unclean-
ness.
D. Whoever imparts uncleanness to clothing, when in contact [with
them], imparts uncleanness to the hands
E. So that they are in the first remove of uncleanness, the words of
R. Aqiba.
F. And sages say, So that they are in the second remove of unclean-
ness.
G. Said they to R. Aqiba, When do we find that the hands are in the
first remove of uncleanness under any circumstances whatsoever?
H. He said to them, And how is it possible for them to be in the first
remove of uncleanness without his bodys [being] made unclean, out-
side of the present case?
I. Food and utensils which have been made unclean by liquids impart
 mishnah seder tohorot 117

uncleanness to the hands so that they are in the second remove of

uncleanness, the words of R. Joshua.
J. And sages say, That which is made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness
imparts uncleanness to the hands. [That which has been made unclean]
by an Offspring of Uncleanness does not impart uncleanness to the
hands.
K. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH B: A certain woman came before
Father.
L. She said to him, My hands entered the contained airspace of a clay
utensil.
M. He said to her, My daughter, By what had it been made unclean? [He
thus wished to ascertain the remove of uncleanness that had affected the
contained airspace of the clay utensil.]
N. But I did not hear what she said to him.
0. Said sages, The matter is clear. That which has been made unclean by
a Father of Uncleanness imparts uncleanness to the hands. [That which has
been made unclean] by an Offspring of Uncleanness does not impart un-
cleanness to the hands.
Here is a standard ma#aseh.

XII. Tractate #Uqsin: no narratives

XIII. Summary

The division contains no narratives. The pseudo-narratives/ma#asim

are as follows:
1. Mishnah-tractate Kelim 5:4 M#SH S: Fire broke out among the ovens
of Kefar Signa, and the matter came to Yavneh, and Rabban Gamaliel
declared them unclean.
2. Mishnah-tractate Ohalot 17:5: Letters were coming from abroad to the
sons of the high priests, and there was on them a seah or two seahs of
seals, and sages were not scrupulous about them on account of unclean-
ness
3. Mishnah-tractate Miqva"ot 4:5 M#SH B: A trough of Jehu was in Jerusa-
lem, and it was perforated with a hole as large as the spout of a water-
skin.
4. Mishnah-tractate Niddah 8:2: One woman came before R. Aqiba. She
said to him, I have seen a bloodstain.
5. Mishnah-tractate Makhshirin 1:6: People in Jerusalem hid away their
fig cakes in water because of the usurpers.
6. Mishnah-tractate Makhshirin 3:4: The people of Mahoz were damp-
ening [wheat] in sand.
7. Mishnah-tractate Yadayim 3:1: Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH
B: A certain woman came before Father. She said to him, My hands
118 chapter seven

entered the contained airspace of a clay utensil. He said to her, My

daughter, By what had it been made unclean?
This division yields very little for our study. Further discussion
of the Mishnahs narratives is in chapter fifteen.
 mishnah seder tohorot 119

PART TWO

NARRATIVES IN TRACTATE ABOT

This page intentionally left blank
 tractate abot 121

CHAPTER EIGHT

TRACTATE ABOT

Tractate Abot is attached to the Mishnah but stands distinct from

it in rhetoric, topic, and logic of coherent discourse. It need not
detain us, being a document utterly undifferent to the uses of
narrative. There is a single pseudo-narrative, to be examined
cursorily.
Tractate Abot 2:6
A. Also: he saw a skull floating on the water and said to it, Because you
drowned others, they drowned you, and in the end those who drowned
you will be drowned.
This is a perfectly standard pseudo-narrative: a setting for a say-
ing.
To respond to the questions that animate this survey: in trac-
tate Abot there are no anomalous or asymmetric compositions.
A single topic governs, along with a uniform logic of coherent
discourse (lists of names of authorities, except for a tacked-on-
chapter at the end), and a fairly cogent rhetoric. There is no non-
documentary writing in the shank of tractate Abot.
What about the problem of this study: the anomaly presented
to documentary form-analysis by narratives? It is the fact that, when
it comes to narratives and pseudo-narratives, the compilers of
tractate Abot found nothing of use or interest in the matter. That
striking omission of narratives and pseudo-narratives, so promis-
ing for the Mishnah and the Tosefta, also represents a documen-
tary choice particular to the compilers of that tractate.
I do not know, and cannot imagine, why Abots compilers found
no use for narratives of any kind. But the utter disinterest in adorn-
ing names with traits of personality or virtue characteristic of Abot
does represent a choice that some authorities madeand that
others, dealing with exactly the same materials, rejected. For the
successors and continuators of tractate Abot in Abot deR. Natan
did not concur with the original compilers decision. They accord-
122 chapter eight

ed to the unadorned names of the lists in tractate Abot ample bio-

graphical narratives and extensive narrative amplifications of other
kinds. Naked names acquire rich garments of characterization and
personality, exemplifying, not merely pronouncing, virtue, in a
series of highly developed narratives, both biographical and his-
torical. When we reach Abot deR. Natan we shall see how ex-
tensive narratives of various kinds are formulated to augment trac-
tate Abot.1 Then we shall see how one set of writers and compilers
have made one choice, and how another set of the same made
the opposite choicethe very center of the documentary hypoth-
esis fully exposed.

1 Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Chi-

cago, 1992: University of Chicago Press. Reprint: Binghamton, 2002: Global Publi-
cations, Classics in Judaic Studies series.
 tractate abot 123

PART THREE

NARRATIVES IN THE TOSEFTA:

FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION
This page intentionally left blank
 tractate abot 125

CHAPTER NINE

TOSEFTA SEDER ZERAIM

The second foundation-document of the Halakhah, the Tosefta,

now affords perspective on the narratives of the first, the Mishnah,
that is, the first of our documentary perspectives on Rabbinic
narrative. And what emerges confirms the documentary hypoth-
esis, which insists that the rhetorical, logical, and topical programs
of the canonical compilations are to be analyzed in accord with
documentary boundarieseven when it comes to narratives. Since,
as I said in the Preface and explained in the Introduction, narra-
tives in the aggregate always ignore the rules of logic, topic, and
rhetoric that otherwise govern in the respective documents, that
is an important result. It shows that the documents exhibit pref-
erences on narrative types and forms, though these preferences
do not coincide in definition with those that pertain to the re-
spective documents expository-propositional or exegetical com-
ponents.
In chapters nine through fourteen we shall see that, true to its
character, the Tosefta both repeats the preference of the Mishnah
for the form and use of the ma#aseh and also innovates. For, as
everyone now knows, in the relationship to the Mishnah, the
Tosefta contains three types of writing. These are (1) citation and
gloss of the Mishnah, (2) autonomous exposition of the Halakhah
in its own terms and framework, and (3) writing that amplifies the
Mishnahs rules but does not cite them verbatim. Hencein line
with the documentary hypothesiswe should anticipate that the
Tosefta will both recapitulate the Mishnahs usage and develop
new forms and purposes for the ma#aseh. And that is precisely what
we shall now witness in the survey of the narratives of the Tosefta.
The Tosefta offers not only the now-familiar pseudo-narratives
and case/precedent-ma#asim, but also forms of the ma#aseh entirely
outside the range of the Mishnahs repertoire. But like the Mishnah,
the Tosefta contains only a handful of authentic stories compa-
rable to those at M. R. H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10but in
126 chapter nine

volume no more than in the Mishnah. Both foundation-documents

of the Halakhah therefore exhibit a clear and unambiguous pref-
erence for one type of narrative or pseudo-narrative over all other
types. And when compared and contrasted with one another, the
two documents underscore each its own distinctiveness. That is,
the Mishnahs repertoire is shown particular to the Mishnah, and,
in the context now explained, the Toseftas to the Tosefta. Now
to the survey.

I. Tractate Berakhot

Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 1:4

A. M#SH B: R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar ben Azariah were staying in the same
place. R. Ishmael was reclining and R. Eleazar ben Azariah was standing
upright. When the time came to recite the Shema#. R. Ishmael arose and R.
Eleazar ben Azariah reclined.
B. Said to him R. Ishmael, What is this, Eleazar?
C. He said to him, Ishmael, my brother, they say to one, Why is your beard
grown long? and he says to them, Let it serve [as a protest] against the
destroyers.
D. [Just so] I who was standing reclined; and you who were reclining arose.
E. He [Ishmael] said to him, You reclined to carry out the words of the
House of Shammai, and I arose to carry out [the words of] the House of
Hillel [M. Ber. 1:3].
F. Another version: [I arose] so that the students should not remark and
establish the law according to your words.
The dramatization does not yield a narrative by the criterion in
play here: an exercise in teleological logic. The dialogue is that
of Halakhic discourse, an exchange of positions and reasons, not
of a narrative in which details aim at a designated end-point.
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 2:11
J. The one who eulogizes and those who participate in the eulogy in-
terrupt [their activity] to recite the Shema#, but do not interrupt to
recite the Prayer.
K. M#SH S: Our masters interrupted [a eulogy] to recite the Shema# and
the Prayer.
The exemplary case does not quality as a narrative.
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 2:13
A. One who has had a seminal discharge and who does not have [avail-
able a pool of] water in which to immerse himself
B. behold, he may recite the Shema# [to himself], but not out loud
 tosefta seder zeraim 127

C. and he does not recite the benedictions either before it or after

it], the words of R. Meir.
D. And sages say, He may recite the Shema# out loud and recite the
benedictions before it and after it [cf. M. Ber. 2:3, 3:4].
E. Said R. Meir, Once we were sitting in the house of study before R.
Aqiba, and we were reciting the Shema# to ourselves [inaudibly] [in line
with T. 2:13B],
F. because of a quaestor [Roman detective] standing at the doorway.
G. They said to him, [A precedent from] a time of danger is not proof
[that such a practice is proper].
The precedent does not meet the operative criterion.
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 4:15
O. This is the general rule:
P. [Regarding] any food that is [made from one] of the seven kinds [of
produce] or a kind of bread stuff
Q. Rabban Gamaliel says, One recites three benedictions [i.e., the full
grace after meals] after [eating] it,
R. and sages say, [He recites] one benediction [viz., an abbreviated
grace] [cf. M. Ber. 6:8].
S. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were seated at table in Jeri-
cho.
T. They [attendants] brought before them dates [after they had finished
the meal] and they ate them.
U. R. Aqiba precipitously recited one [blessing] after [eating] them.
V. Said to him Rabban Gamaliel, Aqiba, why do you poke your head into
disputes?
W. He [Aqiba] said to him, Did you not teach us One should follow the
majority? [cf. Exod. 23:2]
X. Even though you rule one way and your fellows rule another way, the
Halakhah follows the ruling of the majority.
This item, S-X, a fine narrative indeed, is comparable to the
Aqabiah-triplet at M. Ed., cited above. The details of the narra-
tive come together in the climactic statement at the end. It is
noteworthy that the motif of the Gamaliel-story at M. R. H. 2:8-
9, the paramount status of the patriarch, Gamaliel, and of tradi-
tion over the subordinate standing of the sage, armed only with
reason, recurs, but now with a different outcome.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The action of Aqiba, U,
in accord with sages, R, is challenged at V and explained at W-
X. S-U qualify as a case/precedent. The addition of V-X shifts
the focus from the text to the dramatic-narrative context, the sages
display of rejection of Gamaliels ruling. Viewed as a unitary
128 chapter nine

exposition, the composition in no way compares to the standard

ma#aseh of the Mishnah, a case/precedent. To be sure, we cannot
regard S-U as necessarily continued by V-X, because if we omit-
ted V-X, S-U would remain completely coherent as a realization
of the Halakhah. And V-X are not particular to S-U. The con-
struction then aims at W-X, without which nothing prior coheres.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? In line with my
reading, the key lies in Aqibas action, U, which is explained at
W-X, thus a logically-authentic narrative.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? This is a precedent/
case that has been amplified and articulated, so that the Halakhic
precipitant is rendered secondary, and the goaldespite your
ruling, the Halakhah follows the majority, meaning, the sages
becomes primary and unifying. That the present represents a point-
by-point response to M. R.H. 2:8-9 strikes me as plausible.
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 4:16-18
4:16 A. M#SH B: R. Tarfon was sitting in the shade of a dovecote on a
Sabbath afternoon.
B. They [the attendants] brought before him a pail of cool water.
C. He said to his students, One who drinks water to quench his thirst
what benediction does he recite? [cf. M. Ber. 6:8]
D. They said to him, Teach us, our master.
E. He said to them, [Praised be Thou, O Lord,] Creator of creatures and
their needs.
F. He said to them, May I inquire [into the meaning of Scripture]?
G. They said to him, Teach us, our master.
H. He said to them, Behold Scripture states, Then they [Josephs broth-
ers] sat to eat; and looking up they saw la caravan of Ishmaelites coming
from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way
to carry it down to Egypt (Gen. 37:25). Now it is customary for Arabs to
carry only foul-smelling skins with resin.
I. But [God saw to it that] they put that righteous man [Joseph] among
[sweet-smelling and] desirable things.
J. And may we not reason a fortiori: if, when God is angry at the righ-
teous, he has mercy on them, when he is disposed to be merciful, how much
more so [does he have mercy on them]!
4:17 A. Similarly, They drew near and they carried them [the corpses of
Nadab and Abihu] in their coats out of the camp (Lev. 10:5).
B. And may we not reason a fortiori: if, when God is angry at the righ-
teous, [their treatment is] such, when he is disposed to be merciful, how
 tosefta seder zeraim 129

much more so [is he mindful of their honor]!

C. Similarly, The lion had not eaten the body [of the disobedient man of
God from Judah] or torn the ass (I Kings 13:28).
D. And may we not reason a fortiori: if, when God is angry at the righ-
teous, and he has mercy on them, when he is disposed to be merciful, how
much more so [does he have mercy on them]!
E. He [Tarfon] said, May I inquire [into the meaning of Scripture]?
F. They [his students] said to him, Teach us, our master.
G. He said to them, Why did Judah merit [that] the kingship [be assigned
by God to his tribe]?
H. They said to him, Because he confessed [in the incident] concerning
Tamar [cf. Gen 34:26].

4:18 A. M#SH B: Four elders were sitting in the gatehouse of R. Joshua:

Eleazar b. Matiah, Hananiah b. Kinai, Simeon b. Azzai, and Simeon the
Yemenite,
B. and they were busy studying that which R. Aqiba had taught them. [Said
to them R. Aqiba]:
C. Why did Judah merit [that] the kingship [be assigned to his tribe]?
D. Because he confessed [in the incident] concerning Tamar.
E. They themselves added [to the teaching]: What wise men have told,
and their fathers have not hidden, to whom alone the land was given [and
no stranger passed among them (Job 15:18-19).
F. He [Tarfon] said to them, And do we reward [people] for [their] trans-
gressions?
G. Why, then, did Judah merit the kingship?
H. [They replied,] Because he saved his brother [Joseph] from death,
1. as Scripture states, Then Judah said to his brothers, What profit [is it if
we slay our brother and conceal his blood? (Gen. 37:26).
J. He said to them, It is sufficient that the rescue atoned for the sale [of
their brother into slavery, but it does not merit a reward].
K. Why, then, did Judah merit the kingship?
L. They said to him, Because of his humility,
M. as Scripture states, Now therefore, let your servant, I pray you, re-
main instead of the lad [as a slave to my lord; and let the lad go back with
his brothers (Gen. 44:33).
N. Saul, too, merited the kingship only because of his humility,
0. as Scripture states, [Saul said to his servant who was with him, Come,
let us go back lest my father cease to care about the asses and become anxious
about us (I Sam. 9:5).
P. He valued his servant equally with himself.
Q. But Samuel did not speak this way. Rather, [he said], Your father has
ceased to care about the asses and is anxious about you, saying, What shall
I do about my son? (I Sam. 10:2).
R. [So, too,] when he [Saul] flees from [the mantle of] rulership what does
Scripture state?
S. So they inquired again of the Lord, Did the man come hither? and
130 chapter nine

the Lord said, Behold, he has hidden himself among the baggage (I Sam.
10:22).
T. He [Tarfon] said to them, But he [Judah] served as a surety [for Jo-
seph], and a surety ultimately is freed from his surety [so there is no great
merit in this action].
U. Why, then, did Judah merit the kingship?
V. They said to him, Teach us, our master.
W. He said to them, Because he sanctified the name of the Holy One, blessed
be He, at the sea.
X. When the tribes came and stood at the sea, this one said, I shall de-
scend [first into the sea], and this one said, I shall descend [first into the
sea]. The tribe of Judah took the initiative [lit., jumped] and descended
first [into the sea] and [thereby] sanctified the name of God at the sea.
Y. And concerning that hour Scripture states, Save me, O God! For the
waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no
foothold (Ps. 69:2-3 [= RSV 69:12])... Let not the flood sweep over me
(ibid. 16). And Scripture states, Judah became his sanctuary (Ps. 114:2).
Judah sanctified the name of God at the sea. Therefore, Israel is his do-
minion (ibid.).
The two pseudo-narratives, T. Ber. 4:16-17 and the comparable
version of T. Ber. 4:18, provide dramatic settings for expositions
of propositions out of Scripture. Without the pseudo-narrative
details, we have nothing other than exchanges of questions and
answers; there is no pretense that the exposition of Judahs ca-
reer is intertwined with the narrative thereof.
A study of the forms and types of Midrash-compositions will
find here an important typification of a commonplace form: fab-
ricated dialogic medium for setting forth an exegetical proposi-
tion. We shall encounter several more such dramatizations of
discourse in the Tosefta, but I have not made the effort to log all
of them into this repertoire, since they do not contribute to our
picture of Rabbinic narrative in the Tosefta, only to the revision
and formation of a particular rhetorical form of the exegetical sort.
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 5:1
A. A man should not eat on the eve of the Sabbath from afternoon
onwards,
B. so that he should be hungry at the start of the Sabbath, the words
of R. Judah.
C. R. Yos says, He may continue to eat until it grows dark.
5:2 A. M#SH B: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Judah and R. Yos
were reclining [and eating] in Acre and the Sabbath began.
B. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel to R. Yos, Rabbi, if it is your wish,
we shall stop [eating, thus refraining in line with Judahs opinion, A-B] on
 tosefta seder zeraim 131

account of the [beginning of the] Sabbath.

C. He said to him, Every day you prefer my opinion to Judahs, and now
you prefer Judahs opinion to mine!?
D. Will you also assault the queen in my presence, in my own house (Esther
7:8)?
E. He said to him, If so, then let us not stop, lest the law be established
permanently [in accord with our actions].
F. They said [concerning this incident], They did not move from there
before the law was established according to R. Yoss [opinion].
When we move beyond the Halakhah, A-B, to the intrusion, into
the exposition, of other-than-Halakhic considerations, C-E, we see
how a ma#aseh is transformed from a case/precedent to a narra-
tive.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The issue is not defined
by the particularity of the Halakhah, A-C, but by the conduct of
the sages in sorting out conflicting rulings. Simeon b. Gamaliels
courtesy does not obscure the outcome: Yos insists that the sages
conduct themselves in accord with his view, as they ordinarily do.
The point of the narrative then is reached in Es response to C-
D, and that is reinforced by F. So we have an authentic narra-
tive, since everything coheres only in light of the outcome, E-F.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? As noted, at issue is
how the sages conduct provides a decisive ruling on the mooted
point of law. Yoss insistence prevails.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? This is no mere
precedent/case but a narrative that addresses an issue of Halakhic
procedureestablishing a precedent on a moot point of law
that transcends the case-study altogether.

II. Tractate Peah

Tosefta-tractate Peah 3:8

A. He who cuts apart [small] bundles [of grain], which he [intends] in
the future to bind into sheaves,
B. and similarly, small bundles of garlic, or small bundles [containing
both garlic and onions [i.e., produce which only later will be bound
into full sheaves],
132 chapter nine

C. these are not [subject to the restrictions of the forgotten sheaf (M.
Peah 6:10B-C), [for they are not yet sheaves].
D. One who binds [his grain into sheaves in order to prevent damage
caused by an approaching] fire, or [an overflowing] irrigation ditch
E. these [sheaves that he binds] are not [subject to the restrictions of]
the forgotten sheaf,
F. because [he intends] in the future to search [for them].
G. MSH B: A certain righteous man forgot a sheaf in the middle of his
field. He said to his son, Go and offer in my behalf [the following offerings
of thanks:] a bullock as a burnt-offering and a bullock as a whole-offering.
H. [His son] said to him, Father, why do you rejoice [for performing] this
commandment [i.e., the forgotten sheaf] more than all other commandments
set forth in the Torah?
I. [The father] said to him, The Omnipresent has given us all of the com-
mandments mentioned in the Torah [such that we perform them intentionally.
But this [one commandment] he gave to us [such that we perform it] unin-
tentionally. For if anyone purposely performs [this commandment] before
the Omnipresent, [i.e., he purposely left a sheaf in the field, but did not
genuinely forget it], he has not performed this command-ment.
J. [He] said to him, Lo, [Scripture] says, When you reap the harvest of
your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to
get it, it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (Deut.
24:19). Thus, Scripture sets forth a blessing [for the unintentional perfor-
mance of the commandment].
K. Is not the matter to be reasoned a minori ad majus? If one who did not
intend to acquire merit [by performing the commandment], but nonethe-
less did acquire this merit is deemed as one who has acquired merit [by
performing it], how much more should he who [in fact] intends to acquire
merit [by performing the commandment], and does acquire this merit [be
deemed to have acquired merit]!
L. Similarly, [Scripture states], If anyone sins, doing any of the things which
the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he does not know it, yet
he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity. He shall bring to the priest a ram
without blemish out of the flock, valued by you at a price of a guilt-offer-
ing, and the priest shall make atonement for him for the error which he
commit-ted unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven (Lev. 5:17-18).
M. Is not this matter [also] to be reasoned a minori ad majus? If someone
who did not intend to transgress, yet in fact does transgress is deemed to
have sinned, how much more should he who intends to transgress and then
does transgress [be deemed guilty of sinning]!
The Halakhic setting, A-F, is null; at issue there is the sheaves
that do not qualify as forgotten. But the point of the dramatized
exposition, G-M, is the opposite: the farmer has forgotten a sheaf
in the middle of his field, and it is certainly subject to the law.
The point of the exposition is expressed in I, with a secondary
 tosefta seder zeraim 133

development, J-M. The described action, G, then is amply ac-

counted for, I-M, but the passage gains coherence through the
proposition that is abundantly articulated: intentionality is set aside
in this one commandment, which makes it unique. We should not
ignore the eloquence of the exposition, its theological focus. But
in no way can we classify the composition as a narrative; it is a
dramatized exposition.
Tosefta-tractate Peah 4:18
A. M#SH B: Monobases the king [of Adiabene] went and gave [to the poor
[all of] his treasures during years of famine.
B. His brothers sent [the following message] to him:
C. Your ancestors stored up treasures and increased the wealth [left for
them by] their ancestors. But you went and gave away all of these trea-
sures, both your own and those of your ancestors!
D. He replied to them, My ancestors stored up treasures for this lower
[world], but I [through giving charity] have stored up treasures for [the
heavenly world] above, as it is stated [in Scripture], Faithfulness will spring
up from the ground below, and righteousness will look down from the sky
(Ps. 85:11).
E. My ancestors stored up treasures [for the material world], where the
[human] hand can reach, but I have stored up treasures [for the non-ma-
terial world], where the [human] hand cannot reach, as it is stated [in Scrip-
ture], Righteousness] and justice are the foundation of your throne, stead-
fast love and faithfulness go before you (Ps. 89:14).
F. My ancestors stored up treasures [of a type] that produce no [real] benefits
but I have stored up treasures [of the sort that do produce benefits, as it is
stated [in Scripture], Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for
they shall reap the benefits of their deeds.
G. My ancestors stored up treasures of money, but I have stored up trea-
sures of souls as it is stated [in Scripture], The fruit of the righteous is a
tree of life, and a wise man saves the poor people (Prov. 11:30).
H. My ancestors stored up treasures [that eventually, after their deaths,
would benefit only] others, but I have stored up treasures [that will ben-
efit] myself [both in life and in death], as it is stated [in Scripture], It shall
be a righteousness ]to you before the Lord your God (Deut.
I. My ancestors stored up treasures in this world, but I have stored up
treasures for myself in the world-to-come, as it is stated [in Scripture] Your
righteousness shall go before you, land the glory of the Lord shall be your
rear-guard] (Is. 58:8).
Like the foregoing, the action, A, precipitates an exchange that
fully exposes what is at stake in providing food for the poor. This
in no way qualifies as a narrative, and the setting is dramatically
rather thin even as a pseudo-narrative.
134 chapter nine

III. Tractate Dema#i

Tosefta-tractate Dema#i 3:14

A. He who sends [produce], whether to an #am haares or to a haber, must
tithe [it before shipping it, so taking responsibility for the conduct of
the other].
B. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, [If he sends] to an #am haares, he must
tithe.
C. [If he sends] to a haber, he must inform him [as to its status, whether
tithed or not; the other will take responsibility properly to tithe] [cf.
M. Dem. 3:3E-G].
D. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH S: R. Yos the student of Rabbi
[Judah the Patriarch] sent me a large citron from Sepphoris and he said,
This came to me from Caesarea,
E. and I learned from [this remark] three things:
F. (1) First, that it was certainly untithed,
G.(2) and it was unclean,
H.(3) and that he had in his possession only this one,
I. for had he had in his possession another one, he would have separated
tithes from it for this one.
The law, A, B-C, is not exactly illustrated by Simeons case, D-I,
which spells out an example of how the information as to status
is conveyed. But the case/precedent, rather than illustrate the
particular law, presents a conundrum for solution: if such and such
is said or done, what is to be learned from the remark? How the
lessons are derived from the incident is not articulated, except at
H-I.
Tosefta-tractate Dema#i 5:24
V. R. Simeon says, [There are] three enactments with respect to Demai.
W. M#SH S: Our rabbis entered Samaritan towns along the road. They
[Samaritans] brought vegetables before them.
X. R. Aqiba hastened to tithe them as certainly untithed produce.
Y. Said to him R. Gamaliel, How are you so bold as to transgress the words
of your colleagues,
Z. or who gave you permission to tithe?
AA. He [Aqiba] said to him, And have I [thus] established a law in Israel
[i.e., set a precedent]?
BB. I have [merely] tithed my own vegetables.
CC. He [Gamaliel] said to him, Know that you have established a law in
Israel by tithing your own vegetables.
DD. And when R. Gamaliel came among them [Samaritans], he declared
their grain and their pulse to be Demai, and the rest of their produce to be
certainly untithed.
EE. And when R. Simeon b. Gamaliel came back among them, he saw
 tosefta seder zeraim 135

that matters were in disarray, and they declared all of their produce to be
certainly untithed.
The three enactments are X, Aqibas view that the produce of
Samaritans is not tithed at all, Gamaliels view, DD, that it is
partially tithed, and Simeon b. Gamaliels view, restoring Aqi-
bas ruling. In that context, the pseudo-narrative provides a set-
ting for a review of the Halakhic positions in sequence, first this,
then that, finally the other, that is, three enactments in sequence,
but no climax that imposes sense and coherence on the prior
components of the composition.

IV. Tractate Kilayim

Tosefta-tractate Kilayim 1:3

A. In the district of Ariah they used to graft apple [-buds] onto Syrian
pear [-trees] [cf. M. Kil. 1:4D(I)].
B. A certain student [once] found them [performing this grafting].
C. He said to them, You are forbidden [to do this].
D. They went and cut them [i.e., the buds] off.
E. And they came and inquired at Yavneh.
F. They [i.e., the sages] said, Well did that student say.
1:4 G. In the irrigated fields of Sepphoris they used to graft crustaminum
pear [-buds] onto pear [-trees] [cf. M. Kil. 1:4B(I)].
H. A certain student [once] found them [performing this grafting].
I. He said to them, You are forbidden [to do this].
J. They went and cut them [i.e., the buds] off.
K. And they came and inquired at Yavneh.
L. They [i.e., the sages] said, Whoever met you was none other than [one]
of the students of the House of Shammai.
The matched recorded rulings, B-C+D-F, H-I+J-L, record inci-
dents but do not qualify as narratives in any way I can perceive.

V. Tractate Shebi #it

Tosefta-tractate Shebi#it 4:4

A. When is one permitted to buy arum in the year following the sev-
enth year under any circumstances [i.e., even if the seller is suspected
of not observing the laws of the seventh year]?
B. R. Judah says, Immediately [M. Sheb. 5:5A-B].
C. R. Judah says, M#SH B: We were in Ein Kusi and we ate arum at the
conclusion of the Festival [Sukkot] in the year following the seventh year
on the authority of R. Tarfon.
136 chapter nine

D. R. Yos said to him, Is that the evidence [for your ruling]? I was with
you, and it happened after Passover!
The alleged precedent for B at C is challenged at D. I do not see
traits of narrative logic here.
Tosefta-tractate Shebi#it 5:2
A. Heave-offering may not be imported from another country into the
Land of Israel [M. Sheb. 6:6].
B. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, In Acre I once saw Simeon b Kahana
drinking wine in the status of heave-offering.
C. When he said, This [wine] comes from Cilicia, they required him to
drink [the wine] in a boat [i.e., he was not permitted to bring the produce
into the Land of Israel].
B-C illustrate A; lacking the signal, ma#aseh, the composition con-
forms in function and characteristic to the precedent/case of the
Mishnah.

VI. Tractate Terumot

Tosefta-tractate Terumot 1:1

A. R. Judah says, A deaf-mute who separated heave-offeringthat
which he has separated is [valid] heave-offering [vs. M. Ter. 1:1A].
B. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: The sons of R. Yohanan b. Gudgada were deaf-
mutes, and in Jerusalem all of the foods requiring preparation in purity were
prepared under their supervision.
C. They said to him, Is that proof [that a deaf-mute may separate heave-
offerings]? For foods requiring preparation in purity do not require [prepa-
ration with] intention and [therefore] may be prepared under the supervi-
sion of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor. [But] heave-offering and tithes
require [separation with] intention [and therefore may not be separated by
such individuals].
D. R. Isaac says in the name of R. Eleazar, That which has been sepa-
rated as heave-offering by a deaf-mute does not enter the status of
unconse-crated food [even though it is not valid heave-offering] be-
cause it is a matter of doubt whether or not he has understanding.
The precedent/case invoked by Judah, B, in illustration of his
ruling, A, is rejected C as not pertinent.
Tosefta-tractate Terumot 1:15
A. A gentile who separated heave-offering from [the produce of1 an
Israelite, even with permissionthat which he has separated is not valid
heave-offering [M. Ter. 1:1E-G].
B. M#SH B: In Pegah an Israelite said to a gentile, Separate the [requisite]
heave-offering from [the produce of my threshing-floor, and he separated
 tosefta seder zeraim 137

it, and [afterwards] the heave-offering fell back [into the unconsecrated food
still] on the threshing floor.
C. The case came before Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [for judgement], and
he ruled, Since a gentile separated the heave-offering [as an agent], it is
not [valid] heave-offering [which was mixed with the produce on the thresh-
ing-floor. Therefore all of the produce remains in an untithed, unconse-
crated status].
D. R. Isaac says, A gentile who separated heave-offering from [the
produce of] an Israelite, and the owners validated [it] at his sidethat
which he has separated is [valid] heave-offering.
The case, B-C, illustrates the law, A.
Tosefta-tractate Terumot 2:13
P. But R. Judah says, A gentiles vineyard in Syria is not subject to the
laws of the fourth year.
Q. But sages say, It is subject to the laws of the fourth year [M. Ter.
3:9C-D].
R. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Segabion the head of the synagogue at Akhzib
purchased a vineyard in its fourth year [of growth] from a gentile in Syria,
and gave him payment.
S. Then he came and asked Rabban Gamaliel, who was passing from place
to place [whether the produce of that field is liable to the restriction of the
fourth year and should not have been purchased].
T. He [Gamaliel] said to him, Wait until we can dwell upon the law.
[Since the story does not conclude with Gamaliels passing judgment, Judah
assumes that the field was not held liable to the law of the fourth year.]
U. The [sages] said to him [i.e., to Judah], Is that evidence? He [Gamaliel]
also sent a messenger to him [i.e., to Segabion] secretly [so as not to embar-
rass him, and said,] That which you have done is done, but do not do it
again. [From this it is obvious that Gamaliel held the field to be liable to
the restrictions of the fourth year.]
Judahs case, R-T, supplies a precedent for Judahs rule, P.
Tosefta-tractate Terumot 3:4
A. R. Judah says, (I) A man measures [the volume of] his untithed
produce and brings it into his house, provided that he does not sepa-
rate heave-offering according to a [fixed] measurement. (2) A man
weighs his untithed produce and brings it into his house, provided that
he does not separate heave-offering according to [a fixed] weight (3)
A man counts his untithed produce and brings it into his house, pro-
vided that he does not separate heave-offering according to a [fixed]
count [cf. M. Ter. 1:7A-B].
B. R. Yos b. R. Judah says, (1) [He does] not [separate heave-offer-
ing] according to a measure [of volume], nor from that which has been
measured;
(2) not according to weight, nor from that which has been weighed;
138 chapter nine

(3) not according to a count, nor from that which has been counted
[vs. M. Ter. 1:7A-B].
C. They said to him, M#SH W: We were gathering figs behind your father,
and he said to us, Count them.
D. Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, M#SH B: A certain old man in Ardascus
would weigh his basket when it was full and then weigh it again when it was
empty [in order to ascertain the exact weight of his produce] and R. Meir
would praise him.
The first ma#aseh, C, supports Judahs ruling, A3, and the second,
D, supports A2.

VII. Tractate Ma#aserot

Tosefta-tractate Ma#aserot 2:1

A. Ass-drivers and householders who were traveling from place to place
B. eat untithed produce in their possession and are exempt [from tith-
ing it]
C. until they reach the specific place [they have in mind] [cf. M. Ma.
2:3A-E].
D. Therefore, if a householder [at whose dwelling they arrive] desig-
nates a specific lodging-place for them
E. if they spend the night there, they are required to tithe [untithed
produce in their possessions before eating it],
F. and if not, they are exempt from tithing.
G. M#SH: R. Joshua went to visit Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai at Beror Hayil,
and the townspeople brought figs out to them. They [i.e., those in Joshuas
party] said to him, Must we tithe [the figs]?
H. He said to them, If we are going to spend the night [here], [we are]
required to tithe, and if not, [we] are exempt from tithing.
The ma#aseh, G-H, illustrates E.

VIII. Tractate Ma#aser Sheni

Tosefta-tractate Ma#aser Sheni 5:15

A. When the Temple was destroyed, the first court said nothing about
it [i.e., about changing the law requiring that fruit grown during the
fourth year of a vineyards growth be brought to Jerusalem].
B. The later court decreed that this [fruit] be redeemed [even if grown
close to the city wall of Jerusalem] [M. M.S. 5:2D].
5:16 C. M#SH B: R. Eliezer owned a vineyard on the border of Kefar Tabri
to the east of Lod and did not want to redeem [the yield of the vines fourth
year of growth, but wanted to keep the produce itself until the time of
removal when he would have to destroy it].
 tosefta seder zeraim 139

D. His disciples said to him, Rabbi, since [the court] decreed that this [fruit]
is redeemed even if grown close to the city wall [of Jerusalem], you must
redeem it.
E. R. Eliezer immediately harvested [the grapes] and redeemed them.
F. And [as regards the fruit of] all other trees, [the law that governs]
the yield of the trees fourth year [of growth] is like [the law] of sec-
ond tithe.
The ma#aseh, C-E, shows the workings of the Halakhic ruling, B.

IX. Tractate Hallah: no narratives

X. Tractate #Orlah: no narratives

XI. Tractate Bikkurim: no narratives

XII. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives that we have noted in this divi-

sion:
a. Standard Ma#asim/Cases/Precedents
1. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 1:4: M#SH b: R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar
ben Azariah were staying in the same place. R. Ishmael was reclining
and R. Eleazar ben Azariah was standing upright. When the time came
to recite the Shema#. R. Ishmael arose and R. Eleazar ben Azariah re-
clined.
2. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 2:11: M#SH S: Our masters interrupted
[a eulogy] to recite the Shema# and the Prayer.
3. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 2:13: Said R. Meir, Once we were sitting
in the house of study before R. Aqiba, and we were reciting the Shema#
to ourselves [inaudibly] because of a quaestor [Roman detective] was
standing at the doorway.
4. Tosefta-tractate Dema#i 3:14: Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH
S: R. Yos the student of Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] sent me a large
citron from Sepphoris and he said, This came to me from Caesarea,
and I learned from [this remark] three things.
5. Tosefta-tractate Dema#i 5:24: R. Simeon says, [There are] three en-
actments with respect to Dema#i. M#SH S: Our rabbis entered Samari-
tan towns along the road. They [Samaritans] brought vegetables be-
fore them.
6. Tosefta-tractate Kilayim 1:3: In the district of Ariah they used to
graft apple [-buds] onto Syrian pear [-trees] [cf. M. Kil. 1:4D(I)]. A certain
student [once] found them [performing this grafting]. He said to them,
140 chapter nine

You are forbidden [to do this]. They went and cut them [i.e., the
buds] off. And they came and inquired at Yavneh. They [i.e., the sages]
said, Well did that student say.
7. Tosefta-tractate Shebi#it 4:4: R. Judah says, M#SH B: We were in
Ein Kusi and we ate arum at the conclusion of the Festival [Sukkot] in
the year following the seventh year on the authority of R. Tarfon.
8. Tosefta-tractate Shebi#it 5:2: Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, In
Acre I once saw Simeon b Kahana drinking wine in the status of heave-
offering.
9. Tosefta-tractate Terumot 1:1: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: The sons
of R. Yohanan b. Gudgada were deaf-mutes, and in Jerusalem all of
the foods requiring preparation in purity were prepared under their
supervision.
10. Tosefta-tractate Terumot 1:15: M#SH B: In Pegah an Israelite said
to a gentile, Separate the [requisite] heave-offering from [the produce
of my threshing-floor, and he separated it, and [afterwards] the heave-
offering fell back [into the unconsecrated food still] on the threshing
floor. The case came before Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [for judge-
ment], and he ruled, Since a gentile separated the heave-offering [as
an agent], it is not [valid] heave-offering [which was mixed with the
produce on the threshing-floor. Therefore all of the produce remains
in an untithed, unconsecrated status].
11. Tosefta-tractate Terumot 2:13: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Segabion
the head of the synagogue at Akhzib purchased a vineyard in its fourth
year [of growth] from a gentile in Syria, and gave him payment.
12. Tosefta-tractate Terumot 3:4: M#SH W: We were gathering figs be-
hind your father, and he said to us, Count them. Said R. Simeon b.
Eleazar, M#SH B: A certain old man in Ardascus would weigh his basket
when it was full and then weigh it again when it was empty [in order to
ascertain the exact weight of his produce] and R. Meir would praise
him.
13. Tosefta-tractate Ma#aserot 2:1: M#SH: R. Joshua went to visit
Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai at Beror Hayil, and the townspeople brought
figs out to them. They [i.e., those in Joshuas party] said to him, Must
we tithe [the figs]?
14. Tosefta-tractate Ma#aser Sheni 5:15: M#SH B: R. Eliezer owned a
vineyard on the border of Kefar Tabri to the east of Lod and did not
want to redeem [the yield of the vines fourth year of growth, but wanted
to keep the produce itself until the time of removal when he would
have to destroy it].

b. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions

1. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 4:16-18: R. Tarfon was sitting in the shade
of a dovecote on a Sabbath afternoon. They [the attendants] brought
before him a pail of cool water. He said to his students, One who drinks
water to quench his thirstwhat benediction does he recite? Why
 tosefta seder zeraim 141

did Judah merit [that] the kingship [be assigned to his tribe]?
2. Tosefta-tractate Peah 3:8: M#SH B: A certain righteous man forgot
a sheaf in the middle of his field. He said to his son, Go and offer in
my behalf [the following offerings of thanks:] a bullock as a burnt-of-
fering and a bullock as a whole-offering. [His son] said to him, Fa-
ther, why do you rejoice [for performing] this commandment [i.e., the
forgotten sheaf] more than all other commandments set forth in the
Torah?
3. Tosefta-tractate Peah 4:18: M#SH B: Monobases the king [of
Adiabene] went and gave [to the poor [all of] his treasures during years
of famine. His brothers sent [the following message] to him:
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Tosefta:
1. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 4:15: Rabban Gamaliel and the elders
were seated at table in Jericho. They [attendants] brought before them
dates [after they had finished the meal] and they ate them. R. Aqiba
precipitously recited one [blessing] after [eating] them. Said to him
Rabban Gamaliel, Aqiba, why do you poke your head into disputes?
2. Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 5:2: M#SH B: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel
and R. Judah and R. Yos were reclining [and eating] in Acre and the
Sabbath began. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel to R. Yos, Rabbi,
if it is your wish, we shall stop [eating, thus refraining in line with Judahs
opinion] on account of the [beginning of the] Sabbath.
T. Ber. 4:15 shows us how a ma#aseh shades over into an authen-
tic narrative and clearly distinguishes itself from the ma#aseh that
serves as a case/precedent in a narrowly-Halakhic framework. T.
Ber. 5:2 shows the same pattern.
What is the upshot? The results show continuity with the Mish-
nah and the development, from the Mishnah, of a secondary form
of the maaseh/precedent/case. Just as the Tosefta both carries
forward, in a dependent relationship, the Mishnahs materials, but
also develops and even initiates, so when it comes to the ma#aseh,
we find both more representations of the Mishnahs form and
typeevery item indistinguishable from what we find in the
Mishnahand two new developments. Of the nineteen entries,
fourteen are the familiar ma#aseh, well-documented in form and
type in the Mishnah. Three are not narratives by the governing
criterion of this study.
More to the point, the authentic narrativesthose two that cross
the boundaries of Halakhic exposition pure and simplerepre-
sent a development of the ma#aseh as defined by the Mishnah. These
items are not interchangeable with their Mishnaic and other-
142 chapter nine

Toseftan Halakhic-narrative counterparts, the standard or revised

ma#aseh. Were we to encounter items such as these, we should not
regard them as interchangeable with those of the Mishnah. The
narrowly-Halakhic ma#asim of the Tosefta, by contrast, indeed are
formally interchangeable with those of the Mishnah. The three
dialogic-dramatizations of expositions of theology or of the mean-
ing of Scripture do not qualify as narratives and do not present
us with non-documentary writing.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey, those that focus on the
non-documentary character of the narrative in the canonical doc-
uments of Rabbinic Judaism:
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? The two authentic narrativessecondary
expansions of Halakhic expositionsby definition fall wholly
within the Halakhic framework; what marks them as distinct is their
shading over into issues not particular to the Halakhic context.
In that regard, the appeal to the authority of the patriarchal house
(Gamaliel, Simeon, Hillel, Judah the Patriarch) and the preser-
vation of the actions of that house as suitable precedents in the
definition of the Halakhah do represent one Sitz-im-Leben for the
precedent-formbut only in the indicated instances. That pro-
nounced tendency is noteworthy, but does not pertain to our
inquiry.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The two identified items
may be characterized as ma#aseh plus, that is, they represent the
secondary development of the established and entirely familiar
ma#aseh-form of the Mishnah.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documen-
tary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary
venue? The sample before us does not sustain a response to this
question, because the two anomalous entries are integral to the
documentary formulation of the Halakhah in context. Stated
simply: this question does not apply.
The main point to be drawn from the evidence at hand is
 tosefta seder zeraim 143

simple. Narratives, the single most important non-documentary

writing in the Rabbinic canon, fit well into the documentary
framework. That is shown both when we compare the Mishnahs
repertoire to the Toseftas, and when we consider the substance
of the composition. The narratives and pseudo-narratives in no
case contain some exotic perspective or deliver some anomalous
message (except for those involving the patriarchal house, and they
too fall entirely within the Halakhic boundaries). Any notion that
the non-documentary writing within the documents opens the door
to some other world than that of the normative sages finds no sup-
port in these results. From the viewpoint of the documentary
hypothesis, this is how matters should emerge. And so, viewed
within the sample at hand, admittedly a tiny one, they do.
This page intentionally left blank
 tosefta seder moed 145

CHAPTER TEN

TOSEFTA SEDER MOED

Now, as we shall see, the marker, ma#aseh, covers a diverse lot of

compositions.

I. Tractate Shabbat

Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 1:12-13

1:12 A. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, Children prepare their
chapters on Sabbath nights with the light of a lamp.
1:13 A. Said R. Ishmael, One time I read by the light of a lamp, and [for-
getfully,] I wanted to tilt it [to get more oil on the wick].
B. I said, How great are the words of sages, who rule, They do not read
on Sabbath nights by the light of a lamp.
C. R. Nathan says, He [Ishmael] most certainly did tilt it.
D. And written on his notebook is the following: #Ishmael b. Elisha
tilted a lamp on the Sabbath.
E. When the sanctuary will be rebuilt, he will bring a sin-offering.
I do not see how this item responds to the teleological logic that
marks narrative. The snippet is a reminiscence, not a case/pre-
cedent, let alone a fully articulated narrative-story.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 2:4
A. They kindle [the Sabbath light] with the oil of colocynth and with
naphtha.
B. R. Simeon Shezuri says, They kindle [the Sabbath light] with fish-
oil and with tar.
C. Sumkhos says, With anything which exudes from flesh they do not
kindle [the Sabbath lamp] except for the fish-oil [M. Shab. 2:2E3].
D. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, Whatever exudes from a tree is not subject
to the rule concerning a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three
fingerbreadths;
E. they make use of it for sekhakh [covering for a Sukkah],
F. except for flax.
G. [If] one wrapped something with which they kindle [the Sabbath
light] around something with which they do not kindle the Sabbath
light, they do not kindle [the Sabbath light] therewith.
146 chapter ten

H. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, The members of fathers house would

wrap flax around a nut and would kindle [the Sabbath light] with it.
2:5 A. Said R. Judah, When we were staying in the upper room of Nitzes
house in Lud, they would pierce an egg-shell and fill it with oil and put it
over the mouth of a lamp on the eve of the Sabbath at dusk,
B. so that it would continue to burn throughout the Sabbath night.
C. And elders were there, and not one of them said a thing [M. Shab.
2:4A-C].
These, though lacking the usual marker, are two standard ma#asim/
precedents/cases, . 2:4H, T. 2:5A-C. The difference is, at T. 2:4H,
there is no formal ruling; it is taken for granted that what was done
in the patriarchs house is normative; no confirmation by sages is
called for. T. 2:5A-B corresponds, but T. 2:5C has no counter-
part in the first of the two cases.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 3:3
A. A bath, the holes of which one stopped up on the eve of the Sab-
bath [to preserve the steam]
B. at the end of the Sabbath one may wash therein forthwith.
C. [If] one stopped up the openings on the eve of the festival, one may
go in on the festival itself and perspire, then go out and take a bath in
cold water.
D. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: [In the case of] the bath of Bene Beraq they
stopped up the openings on the eve of the festival.
E. And R. Aqiba and R. Eleazar b. #Azariah went in and perspired therein,
then went out and took a bath in cold water.
F. But the hot water thereof was covered over with boards.
G. When transgressors became numerous, then went and prohibited the
practice.
The example of the sages, E, serves as a precedent to illustrate
the law, A-C. The divergence from the standard ma#aseh form of
the Mishnah is self-evident.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 3:4
A. [On the Sabbath] they do not rinse the whole body either in hot
water or in cold water, the words of R. Meir.
B. And R. Simeon permits [doing so].
C. R. Judah says, [They may do so] in cold water, but not in hot water.
D. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the case of Baitos b. Zonen they filled a
dipper of cold water for him on the eve of the Sabbath and poured it on
him on the Sabbath, so as to cool him off.
The precedent illustrates the law, C. Here again, no sages rul-
ing is then recorded.
 tosefta seder moed 147

Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 5:11

A. Runners go out with their scarves [on their shoulders].
B. And they did not state this rule for runners alone, but any person
[may do so].
C. But sages speak in terms of prevailing conditions [cf. M. Shab. 6:6,
9].
5:12 A. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Hyrcanus, the son of R. Eliezer, went out
in his scarf to the public domain.
B. But a thread was tied around his finger.
C. Sages said, It was not necessary [for him to take that precaution].
Here is yet another precedent/case, also lacking a sages ruling.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 5:13
A. Shepherds go out with their sackcloths.
B. And they did not state this rule for the shepherds alone, but any
person [may do so].
C. But sages speak in terms of prevailing conditions.
D. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: R. Tarfon went forth on Friday nights to the
school-house, and they gave him a cloth, and he held on to it with both
hands and went out in it to keep off the rain.
The case, D, illustrates the law, C.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 7:16
A. They lead wine and oil through pipes before grooms and brides,
B. and this is not deemed [prohibited as] one of the ways of the
Amorites.
C. M#SH B: Judah and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamaliel, came to the town
of Kabul. The people of the town led wine and oil through them in pipes
[as a sign of honor].
The case, C, illustrates the rule, A.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 7:(17)18
A. They mark the death of kings by burning a pyre, and this is not
deemed [prohibited as] one of the ways of the Amorites,
B. since it says, But you shall die in peace, and with the burnings of
your fathers so shall they burn for you (Jer. 34:5).
C. Just as they mark the death of kings by burning a pyre, so they mark
the death of patriarchs by burning a pyre,
D. but [they do not do so] not for ordinary folk.
E. And what is it that they burn on the pyre on his account?
F. His bed and the things he would use.
G. M#SH S: Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, and Onqelos, the proselyte,
burned a pyre for him of a value of more than seventy minahs.
G illustrates A. The ma#aseh lacks a ruling and is a one-time case;
148 chapter ten

it exemplifies nothing beyond itself, the conduct with the patri-

arch being a unique instance.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:2
A. If they were written in translation into Aramaic [Targum] or in any
language, they save them, and they put them into storage.
B. Said R. Yos, M#SH S: R. Halafta went to Rabban Gamaliel in Tiberias
and found him seated at the table of Yohanan b. Nezif. In his hand was the
Scroll of Job in Targum, which he was reading.
C. Said to him R. Halafta, I recall concerning Rabban Gamaliel the El-
der, your grandfather, that he was sitting on the staircase going up to the
Temple mount. They brought before him a Scroll of Job in Targum and
he instructed his sons, Put it away in storage under the course of stones.
13:3 A. At that moment Rabban Gamaliel gave instructions to put it away
in storage.
B. R. Yos b. R. Judah says, A mortar-trough he turned over on it.
C. Rabbi says, There are two replies to this allegation: First, there was
no mortar on the Temple mount. Second, Do they willfully and delib-
erately destroy such scrolls?
D. [But the practice is to] leave them in a neglected place and they
rot on their own.
The ma#aseh, T. Shab. 13:2B-C, 13:3A, serves as an illustration
of the Halakhah, A.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:4
A. [If] they were written in paint, red ink, gum-ink, or calcanthum,
they save them and store them away.
B. As to scrolls containing blessings [e.g., amulets], even though they
include the letters of the Divine Name and many citations of the To-
rah, they do not save them, but they are allowed to burn where they
are.
C. On this basis they have stated, Those who write blessings are as if
they burn the Torah.
D. M#SH B: A certain person would write blessings, and they told R Ishmael
about him. R. Ishmael went to examine him. When he [Ishmael] was climb-
ing the ladder, he [the writer] sensed his coming. He took the sheaf of blessings
and put it into a dish of water.
E. And in accord with the following statement did R. Ishmael address him,
The punishment for the latter deed is harder than that for the former.
The ma#aseh illustrates the judgment, C, because it shows how in
concrete terms how that is the case, but with water rather than
with fire.
 tosefta seder moed 149

Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:9

A. A gentile who came to put out a firethey do not say to him, Put
it out, or, Do not put it out [M. Shab. 16:6A-B].
B. M#SH A fire broke out in the courtyard of Joseph b. Simai of Sihin. The
soldiers of the detachment in Sepphoris came to put it out, but he did not
let them do so. A rain-cloud burst and put it out.
C. Sages said, It was not necessary [to behave in such a way].
D. Even so, after the Sabbath he sent each one of them a sela, and to their
commander he sent fifty denars.

The ma#aseh shows what is not to be done: They do not give in-
structions at all.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:14
13:14 A. A boat coming from the seathey do not disembark from it
onto dry land [on the Sabbath], unless it lay within the Sabbath limit
before dark.
B. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and elders were coming along in a ship and
the [Sabbath] day became sanctified.
C. They said to Rabban Gamaliel, Is it all right for us to disembark?
D. He said to them, I was taking note, and we were within the Sabbath
limit before dark, but the boat went off course many times.
E. At that moment a gentile made a gangplank to disembark on it.
F. They said to him, May we disembark on it?
G. He said to them, Since he did not make it in our presence [and there-
fore for our need], we are permitted to disembark by it, so the elders
embarked by it [M. Shab. 16:8H].

What we have is a precedent, B-D, for A: a case of a boats be-

ing within the Sabbath limit before dark. The next component
of the ma#aseh, E-G, raises a separate Halakhic question but is
integral to the expounded law. I cannot point to counterpart com-
plexes in the Mishnahs repertoire of ma#asim. It is not common
for ma#aseh to signal a composite of related, but distinct cases/
precedents. Ordinarily, the form signaled by ma#aseh in Halakhic
contexts, the Mishnah and the Tosefta, is a simple declarative
sentence, such and such was done and. The device of tacking
on a cognate but distinct rule is rarely utilized. I do not log in
the distinct precedent/case as a separate entry, even though its
Halakhic principle is unrelated to the one that governs in the
primary case/precedent, to which it is attached.
Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 15:8
A. [If a woman] was married to a first husband who died, to a second
who died, to a third she should not be wed, the words of Rabbi.
150 chapter ten

B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, To a third she may be married,

but to a fourth she should not be married.
C. [If] she produces males and they were circumcised and diedif the
first was circumcised and died, the second and he died, the third may
be circumcised, but the fourth should not be circumcised.
D. M#SH B: Four sisters in Sepphoris: the son of the first was circumcised
and died, the second, and he died, the third, and he died. The case came
before sages, who ruled, The fourth should not be circumcised.
E. Said R. Nathan, When I was in Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia, there
was one woman there who produced male children, who were circum-
cised and died. She circumcised the first and he died, the second, and he
died. The third did she bring before me.
F. I examined him and saw that he was jaundiced. I looked at him, and
I did not find even a drop of blood of circumcision.
G. They said to me, Now what is the rule as to circumcising him?
H. I said to them, Wait on him until blood enters into him.
I. They waited on him and circumcised him and he lived, and they called
him, Nathan the Babylonian, in my name.

The two ma#asim, D, E-I, illustrate the same point of law, T. Shab.
15:8 C. Nathans statement is not necessary to accomplish the task
of D, which it simply illustrates. Here is, then, another instance
in which the Halakhic case/precedent is amplified and particu-
larized; then it is not a case/precedent, but the personal testimony
of a particular authority about a singular situation, tacked on to
a generalized illustration of the law.

II. Tractate Erubin

Tosefta-tractate Erubin 1:2

A. An alley-entry which has the shape of a doorway, even though it is
wider than ten cubits, lo, it is not necessary to diminish it [M. Erub.
I:ID].
B. R. Eliezer says, The validation of an alley-entry is through side-
posts [cf. M. Erub. 1:2D].
C. M#SH B: R. Eliezer went to Joseph b. Peredah in Ublin.
D. And he saw that he had an alley-entry with only a single sidepost.
E. He said to him, Make a second for it.
F. He said to him, Do you instruct me to close it up?
G. He said to him, Let it be closed up. On what basis do you spend the
Sabbath in such wise [with an alley-entry having only a single sidepost]!

The ma#aseh illustrates Eliezers position, B. It is certainly more

 tosefta seder moed 151

elaborate than the usual case/precedent signaled by the marker,

ma#aseh.
Tosefta-tractate Erubin 3:17
E. This is the meaning of that which they have said: The poor man
makes an #erub with his feet [M. Erub.4:9A- B].
F. All the same are the rich man and the poor man,
G. on condition that he should not go forth from town and say, My
place of Sabbath residence is in my place.
H. For they have permitted this procedure [M. Erub. 4:7-8] only for
one who is going on a journey, the words of R. Meir.
I. R. Judah says, All the same are the poor man and the rich man [M.
Erub. 4:9D].
J. He who goes forth from his town and said, My place of Sabbath
residence is where I am standingthis is the very principle of the #erub.
K. But they permitted a householder to send his #erub with his son,
slave, or agent, to make things easier for him.
L. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the household of Mammal and in the household
of Gurion in Rome, they would hand out dried figs to the poor in time of
famine.
M. And the poor people of Shihin went out and made an #erub with their
feet, so they could go into the other town and eat the figs once it got dark.
The ma#aseh illustrates Judahs opinion.
Tosefta-tractate Erubin 4:16
J. [If one was going along and measuring, and someone came along to
him and says, Up to here is the Sabbath line, [this informant] is be-
lieved.
K. M#SH B: An old shepherd came before Rabbi and said to him, I recall
that the townsfolk of Migdal Geder would go down to Hammata, up to the
outermost courtyard near the bridge.
L. And Rabbi permitted the townsfolk of Migdal to go down to Hammata
up to the outermost courtyard, by the bridge.
M. And Rabbi further permitted the townsfolk of Geder to go down to
Hammata and to go up to Geder.
N. But the townsfolk of Hammata did not go up to Geder.
The ma#aseh K-L, M-N, functions as a case/precedent and admi-
rably illustrates J.
Tosefta-tractate Erubin 5:6 -7
A. He who has five courtyards in a single town,
B. if he made regular use of all of them,
C. lo, this one prohibits all of them [if he failed to join in the #erub in
the courtyards (M. Erub. 6:1)].
D. And if not, he prohibits only the place of his usual dwelling alone.
152 chapter ten

5:7 A. Said Rabbi, M#SH B: Ben Napha had five courtyards in Usha. And
he prohibited only the place where he usually livedthat alone.
T. 5:7A-B illustrates T. 5:6D.
Tosefta-tractate Erubin 5:24
G. Utensils which were left for the Sabbath in the courtyard may be
carried about in the courtyard.
H. Those which [were left for the Sabbath] in the alleyway are pro-
hibited.
I. And R. Simeon permits.
J. For so did R. Simeon say, It is permitted to bring something in
and to take something out from an alleyway to the courtyard, and
from the courtyard to the roof, and from the roof to the shed.
K. For so long as they forgot and did not prepare a common #erub,
all of them consist of a single domain.
L. Said Rabbi, When I was studying Torah with R. Simeon in Teqo#a, we
used to bring oil in an unguent from the courtyard to the roof, and from
the roof to the shed, and from one shed to another shed, until we reached
the spring.
M. And there we would wash ourselves [using the oil we had carried].
N. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the time of the danger, we would bring
a scroll of the Torah from the courtyard up to the roof, and from one
roof to another, where we would read in the scroll.
O. They said to him, One may not adduce proof from what was done
in the time of the danger.
Simeons position, J, is illustrated by L-M, N, though N at O is
dismissed as a special case.
Tosefta-tractate Erubin 6:1-2
A. The effecting of a partnership in an alleywayhow [do people prepare
it] [M. Erub. 7:6A]?
B. A man sets down a jar of wine, oil, grain, dried figs, or olives,
C. whether belonging to him or to his fellow,
D. and says, Lo, this belongs to all the residents of the alleyway [M.
Erub. 7:6B].
E. [If that which was set down] belonged to them, he does not have to
make an act of acquisition [in their behalf, since it already belongs to
them].
F. [If that which he set down] was his, he raises it above the earth and
says, I have made acquisition for you and for all who will join you.
G. [If] people join them, he makes an act of acquisition but does not
have to inform them [cf. M. Erub. 7:7].
6:2 A. Said R. Judah, M#SH W: We were dwelling in the courtyard of the
house of Geludah in Lydda, and we were cooking a pot of lentils.
B. Then someone standing at the gate of the alleyway said, I effect acqui-
sition for you through the pot of lentils.
 tosefta seder moed 153

The case, T. 6:2A-B, illustrates the rule, E-F.

Tosefta-tractate Erubin 6:26
A. A water-channel which passes through a courtyard
B. they do not draw water from it on the Sabbath
C. unless they made a partition for it ten handbreadths high at its point
of entry and its point of exit [M. Erub. 8:7A-D].
D. [If] they made a partition for it at its point of entry but not at its
point of exit,
E. at its point of exit but not at its point of entry,
F. they do not draw water from it on the Sabbath
G. unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high at its point
of entry and its point of exit.
H. [If] it was broad at one side and narrow at the other end, lo, this
one should broaden the narrow part.
I. And so do you rule in the case of sewers which flow along under
houses and courtyards.
J. R. Judah says, Walls which are on top of them are deemed equiva-
lent to a partition.
K. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: A water-course came from Abel to Sepphoris,
and we would draw water from it on the Sabbath at the instruction of sages.
L. They said to him, It was because it was not ten handbreadths deep
and four handbreadths broad [M. Erub. 8:7E-G].
The case, K, is offered as a concrete example of the Halakhah.

III. Tractate Pisha (Pesahim)

T. Pisha 2:15
A. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel was going along from Akko to Kezib.
B. He found a loaf of cheap bread on the road.
C. He said to his slave, Tabi, Take the loaf.
D. He saw a gentile. He said to him, Mabegai, take this loaf of bread.
E. R. Leii ran after him [and] said to him, Who are you?
F. He said to him, I come from one of these station-keepers villages.
G. He said to him, What is your name?
H. He said to him, Mabegai.
I. He said to him, Now, did Rabban Gamaliel ever in your whole life meet
you?
J. He said to him, No.
K. On the basis of this event we learn that Rabban Gamaliel divined by the
Holy Spirit.
L. And from what he said we learn three things:
M. We learn that the leaven of a gentile is permitted immediately after
the Passover.
N. And they do not pass by food [but pick it up].
154 chapter ten

O. And they follow the status of the majority of those who travel the
roads [in determining the character of the food].
2:16 A. He came to Kezib.
B. Someone came along and besought from him [absolution of] his vow.
C. He said to this one who was with him, Have we drunk so much as a
quarter-log of Italian wine?
D. He said to him, Yes.
E. He said to him, If so, let him walk along with us until the effect of our
wine has worn off.
F. And he went along with them until they came to the Ladder of Tyre.
G. Once they got to the Ladder of Tyre, he got off the ass and wrapped
himself in his cloak and sat down and declared his vow to be absolved.
H. We learned many rules on that day.
I. We learned that a quarter-log of wine causes drunkenness.
J. And traveling wears down the effects of wine.
K. And that they do not give a decision when they are drunk.
L. And they do not absolve vows either while riding on an ass, while
walking, or while standing, but only wrapped in a cloak and sitting down.
This is a beautifully-framed, balanced narrative, entirely authen-
tic by the definition operative here.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The details of T. 2:15A-
J come together at K, L-O. So the logic of coherence is teleo-
logical, each detail holding together with the others principally
to effect the goal that is defined at the end. T. 2:16 follows the
same pattern. A-G make sense in light of H-L. On the basis of
the recurrent plan of details made to cohere through a lesson, I
classify the two compositions as authentic narratives. But any of
the distinct Halakhic rulings can have been rendered as a con-
ventional ma#aseh/case/precedent.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? I take it the point of
tension is the opacity of the several deeds, which then triggers the
requirement for explanation. And that seems to me critical to the
coherence of the whole: what Gamaliel did bears Halakhic mean-
ings, which it is our task to decode.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? This represents a
fine development of the simple Halakhic ma#aseh, that is, the pre-
cedent/case that illustrates the realized law. There is in the
Mishnah no counterpart to this appealing presentation of the
 tosefta seder moed 155

Halakhic ma#aseh. Now we have a sequence of actions, not pre-

pared for by the formulation of a Halakhic rule, but rather inter-
preted at the end. Since the Mishnah has nothing that compares,
we see how the form develops and becomes more complex and
rich as new tasks are assigned to it.
T. Pisha 3:11
A. R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq says, Heave-offering is removed before the
Sabbath, for the people who are allowed to eat it are few.
B. But unconsecrated food they remove on the Sabbath, for the people
who are allowed to eat it are many [M. Pes. 3:6E].
C. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, One time we were in session before Rabban
Gamaliel in the study-house in Lud. And Zonen, who was in charge, came
along and said, The time has come to burn the leaven. So father and I
went along to the house of Rabban Gamaliel and we burned the leaven.
This is a standard Halakhic ma#aseh.
T. Pisha 3:20
A. How do they leave over the corner of the field in the case of veg-
etables?
B. They would leave it over only in the case of turnip and porret, which
are gathered at the same time.
C. R. Yos says, Also in the case of cabbage.
D. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: The son of Ben Nebo-hayyonhis father [Nebo-
hayyon] left over the corner of the field for turnips. He came and found
the poor gathered at the gate of his garden [laden with vegetables].
E. He said [to his sons], My children, shall we not pay attention to the
teachings of sages? Throw it from your hands.
F. So they threw it down, and he gave them [the poor] twice as much
produce as [poor mans] tithe in the form of that which had been tithed.
G. [Thus it was] not that he was grudging, but because he paid atten-
tion to the teachings of sages.
The Halakhic ma#aseh bears its own explanation, G.
T. Pisha 4:13-14
A. One time the fourteenth of Nisan coincided with the Sabbath.
B. They asked Hillel the Elder, As to the Passover-sacrifice, does it over-
ride [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath?
C. He said to them, Now do we have only a single Passover-sacrifice in the
course of the year which overrides [the prohibitions] of the Sabbath? We
have many more than three hundred Passover-sacrifices in the year, and
they all override [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath.
D. All the people in the courtyard ganged up on him.
E. He said to them, The daily whole-offering is a public offering, and
the Passover-sacrifice is a public offering. Just as the daily wholeoffering
156 chapter ten

is a public offering and overrides [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath, so

the Passover-sacrifice is a public offering [and] overrides [the prohibi-
tion of] the Sabbath.
4:14 A. Another matter: In connection with the daily wholeoffering,
Its season is stated (Num. 28:2), and in connection with the Passover,
Its season is stated (Num. 9:2). Just as the daily wholeoffering, in con-
nection with which Its season is stated, overrides [the prohibitions]
of the Sabbath, so the Passover-sacrifice is a public offering [and] over-
rides [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath.
B. And further there is an argument a fortiori: Now if the daily whole-
offering, on account of which people are not liable to extirpation,
overrides [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath, the Passover-sacrifice, on
account of which people are liable to extirpationis it not logical that
it should override [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath?
C. And furthermore: I have received a tradition from my masters that
the Passover-sacrifice overrides [the prohibitions of the Sabbath]and
not [solely] the first Passover but the second Passover-sacrifice, and not
[solely] the Passover-sacrifice of the community but the Passover-sac-
rifice of an individual.
D. They said to him, What will happen with the people, who did not bring
knives and Passover-lambs to the sanctuary?
E. He said to them, Do not worry about them. The holy spirit rests upon
them. If they are not prophets, they are disciples of prophets.
F. What did the Israelites do in that hour?
G. He whose animal for the Passover-sacrifice was a lamb had hid it [the
knife] in its wool.
H. He whose animal for the Passover-sacrifice was a goat had tied it be-
tween its horns.
I. So they had [in any event] brought both their knives and their Passover-
sacrifices to the sanctuary.
J. And they sacrificed their Passover-sacrifices.
K. On that very day they appointed Hillel to be patriarch, and he taught
them laws of Passover.
What we have in this pseudo-narrative is two components, first,
a dramatic setting for demonstrations of a logical order, T. 4:13C,
E, T. 4:14A-C. Then comes the denouement, remaining well
within the Halakhic-dialogical framework, D-J+K. This qualifies
only as a dramatic framework for what adds up to a review of
arguments on a given proposition.
T. Pisha 4:15
A. One time Agrippa the king wanted to know the census of the popula-
tion.
B. He said to the priests, Set aside for me the kidney of each and every
Passover-sacrifice.
 tosefta seder moed 157

C. And they put aside for him 600,000 pairs of kidneystwice the number
of those who went forth from Egypt.
D. You have not a single Passover-sacrifice on which were not num-
bered more than ten partners,
E. excluding those who were unclean or who were away on a trip.
F. On that very day the Israelites came up onto the Temple mount
and it could not contain them all.
G. And it was called the crowded Passover.
I do not know how to classify this item. It has no Halakhic charge,
and I do not see how the details point to a particular goal in the
end. It seems to me the essential components at A-C, at which
the promise of A is realized: he wanted to knowhe found out.
Then the rest goes over the same ground but leads nowhere new.
Because I do not know identify the indicative qualities, I omit this
entry from my taxonomy of narratives, given below.
T. Pisha 8:4
A. A convert who converted between the two [observances of] Pass-
over has to observe the second Passover, the words of Rabbi.
B. R. Nathan says, He does not have to observe the second Passover,
for he indeed was not obligated by the time of the first Passover.
C. [If] the Israelites will gain permission to build the Temple house
[between the first and second Passover], an individual will prepare the
second Passover, but the community will not observe the second Pass-
over.
D. R. Judah says, Also: the community will observe the second Pass-
over.
E. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Hezekiah, king of Judah, forced the community
to observe a second Passover,
F. as it is said, For a multitude of the people, many of them from Ephraim,
Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate
the Passover otherwise than as prescribed (II Chron. 30:18).
The ma#aseh, E-F, illustrates D. But the citation of a case/prece-
dent supplied by Scripture has no counterpart in the Mishnah and
opens the Halakhic exposition to a vast new range of available
ma#asim.

IV. Tractate Sheqalim: no narratives

V. Tractate Kippurim (Yoma)

Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:4

A. Why do they appoint another priest as his substitute?
158 chapter ten

B. lest some cause of invalidation should overtake him [M. Yoma 1:1
B-C],
C. so the other may take his place.
D. R. Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, says, For that purpose the prefect
was appointed:
E. [So that] in the case of a priest overtaken by some cause of invali-
dation, the other may take his place.
F. [If the substitute should serve in his place], the high priest returns
to the priesthood, and this one who served in his place is subject to all
of the religious requirements of the high priesthood, the words of R.
Meir.
G. R. Yos says, Even though they have said, All the religious require-
ments of the high priesthood apply to him, he is valid neither as a high
priest nor as an ordinary priest.
H. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: Joseph b. Elim of Sepphoris served in the place
of the high priest for one hour.
I. And from that time onward he was not valid either as a high priest or as
an ordinary priest.
I. When he went forth [from his high priesthood of one hour], he said to
the king, The bullock and ram that were offered today, to whom do they
belong? Are they mine, or are they our high priests?
K. The king knew what to answer him.
L. He said to him Now whats going on, Son of Elim! It is not enough for
you that you have served in the place of the high priest for one hour be-
fore Him who spoke and brought the world into being. But do you also
want to take over the high priesthood for yourself?
M. At that moment Ben Elim realized that he had been separated from
the priesthood.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The story comes to its
climax at L-M, which imposes its perspective on all that precedes
and positions each detail. We have more than merely a dramatic
setting for he said to him he said to him.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? At issue is the hu-
bris of the high priest Joseph, his aspiration to transcend the honor
accorded to him. That is made explicit at the end.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The story announces
its point, H-I, describes the action and dialogue that form pro-
voke the narrative, I, and reaches its goal at L-M. It is fully real-
 tosefta seder moed 159

ized and perfect for its plan: a tripartite construction with a be-
ginning, middle, and end.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:8
A. Why does he turn aside and weep [M. Yoma 1:5F]?
B. Because it is necessary to impose an oath on him.
C. And why do they turn aside and weep [M. Yoma l:5F]?
D. Because they have to impose an oath on him.
E. And why do they have to impose an oath on him?
F. Because there already was the case of that certain Boethusian, who of-
fered up the incense while he was still outside, and the cloud of incense
went forth and frightened the entire house.
G. For the Boethusian maintained that he should burn the incense while he
is still outside, as it says, And put the incense on the fire before the Lord,
that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat which is upon the
testimony (Lev. 16:13).
H. Sages said to them, Now has it not also been stated, And put the in-
cense on the fire before the Lord?
I. From this it follows that whoever offers up incense offers up incense
only inside.
J. If so, why is it said, The cloud of the incense may cover?
K. This teaches that he puts into it something which causes smoke to rise.
L. If therefore he did not put in something which makes smoke rise, he is
liable to the death penalty.
M. Now when this Boethusian went forth, he said to his fathers, In your
entire lives you would [merely] expound the Scripture, but you never did
the deed properly, until I arose and I went in and did it right.
N. They said to him, Even though we do expound matters as you say, we
do not do things in the way in which we expound them. We obey the words
of sages. I shall be very much surprised at you if you live for very long.
0. Not thirty days passed before they put him into his grave.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The goal is at N-O: the
Boethusians have their schismatic opinions but obey the law as
sages present it. To make that point, the action, F, and the ex-
planation, G, commence the program; then the sages reading of
the same verses of Scripture, H-L, form the centerpiece, with the
conclusion at M-O imposing coherence on the whole.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? That is clear from
the foregoing.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal quali-
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The pattern, a beginning,
160 chapter ten

middle, and end, is familiar, and the logic is as required. It is,

then, a simple tale and a well focused one.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:12
A. M#SH B: There were two who got there at the same time, running up
the ramp. One shoved the other [M. Yoma 2:2A-B], within four cubits [of
the altar]. The other then took out a knife and stabbed him in the heart.
B. R. Sadoq came and stood on the steps of the porch and said,
C. Hear me, O brethren of the house of Israel! Lo, Scripture says, If in
the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, any one is found
slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, then
your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the
distance to the cities which are around him that is slain (Deut. 21:1-2).
D. Come so let us measure to find out for what area it is appropriate to
bring the calf, for the sanctuary, or for the courts!
E. All of them moaned after his speech.
F. And afterward the father of the youngster came to them, saying, O
brethren of ours! May I be your atonement. His [my] son is still writhing, so
the knife has not yet been made unclean.
G. This teaches you that the uncleanness of a knife is more grievous to
Israelites than murder. And so it says, Moreover Manasseh shed very
much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the
other (2 Kings 21:16).
H. On this basis they have said, Because of the sin of murder the
Presence of God was raised up, and the sanctuary was made unclean.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The Mishnahs ma#aseh is
augmented with Saddoqs recrimination, C-D, and then the cli-
mactic response of the father of the deceased, who illustrates
Saddoqs comment, A-B, though cited from the Mishnah, are
integral to the amplified narrative before us. Lest we miss the point,
G-H articulates it. Viewed on its own, not as a complement to
the Mishnahs narrative, the story is fully realized and coherent,
start to finish.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The narrative charge
comes in the contrast between concern for uncleanness of the
Temple and the acceptance of the murder.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Here the Tosefta
has filled out the Mishnahs ma#aseh and made it work. That is
not a common phenomenon. The narrative leaves no doubt as
to the lesson it wishes to convey.
 tosefta seder moed 161

Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:13

H. An ox is offered by twenty-four priests,
I. the head and the right hind leg [M. Yoma 2:7A-B]: two hold the
right hind leg and bring it up to the altar;
J. three hold the dish and offer it up on the altar.
K. Under what circumstances?
L. In the case of public offerings.
M. But in the case of an individuals offering, whoever wanted to offer
it up offers it up [M. Yoma 2:4H-J].
1:14 A. M#SH B: One of the sons of Martha, daughter of Boethus, could
take two sides of an ox which cost one thousand zuz and walk with them
heel to toe and bring them up onto the altar.
The ma#aseh illustrates the possibility of a single priests present-
ing the entire offering. It is no longer a case/example of a Halakhic
ruling, but serves an altogether different purpose, one with no
counterpart in the Mishnah.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:21-22
A. In all it was worth thirty maneh [M. Yoma 3:7C].
B. These funds are taken from the sanctuary.
C. If he wanted to add, he may add out of his own pocket [M. Yoma
3:7E].
D. M#SH B: Ishmael b. Phiabis mother made for him a tunic worth a hun-
dred maneh.
E. And he would stand and make offerings on the altar wearing it.
1:22 A. SWB M#SH B: Eleazar b. Harsoms mother made for him a tunic
for twenty thousand, and he would stand and make offerings on the altar
while wearing it.
B. But his brethren, the priests, called him down,
C. because [it was so sheer that] he appeared naked while wearing it.
The two ma#asim, T. 1:21D-E, T. 1:22A-C, illustrate M. 3:7E=T.
1:21C. Here too we do not have Halakhic cases/examples but
ancillary facts. That is, cases in which people added money out
of their own pockets to adorn the Temple and its rites. Then come
the indicated incidents. They are not asked to serve as precedents
for the law, which is not challenged, but as mere cases congruent
with the law.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:4
A. All the gates which were there were covered with gold except for
the Nicanors gates,
B. for a miracle was done with them.
C. There are those who say it is because their copper is bright.
D. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, It was Corinthian bronze and shown like
gold [it is as pretty as gold].
162 chapter ten

E. Now what is the miracle which was done with them?

F. They say: When Nicanor was bringing them from Alexandria, in Egypt,
a gale rose in the sea and threatened to drown them. They took one of
them and tossed it into the sea, and they wanted to throw in the other but
Nicanor would not let them. He said to them, If you throw in the second
one, throw me in with it. He was distressed all the way to the wharf at
Jaffa. Once they reached the wharf at Jaffa, the other door popped up
from underneath the boat.
G. And there are those who say one of the beasts of the sea swallowed
it, and when Nicanor came to the wharf at Jaffa, it brought it up and
tossed it onto land.
H. And concerning it, it is explicitly stated in tradition, The beams of
our house are cedar, our rafters are pine (Song of Songs 1:17).
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? T, 2:7F responds to the
question of T. 2:7E. The story is complete: the miracle was that
the door floated along with the ship, and that conclusion also holds
together the sequence of steps. The one thing that is jarring is,
If you throw in the second one, throw me in with it, which
introduces a drama that is not realized. We should have antici-
pated, the sea was calmed. But rather, he was distressed all
the way. So the event that precipitates telling the tale is the
miracle of the second door. That defines the goal of the prior stages.
But what happened to the first door, and how Nicanors impre-
cation not to throw in the door without throwing him in too, fit
into the narrative are left unarticulated. So the narrative is flawed.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? It is a miracle story,
I see no conflict of wills that is resolved.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The formal quality
that strikes me is brevity and simplicity. Indeed, the details are
more than we require to make the point at the end, for reasons I
have explained.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:5-6
2:5 A. The members of the household of Garmu were experts in making
Show Bread and they did not want to teach others [how to make it] [cf. M.
Yoma 3:11B].
B. Sages sent and brought experts from Alexandria, in Egypt, who were
expert in similar matters, but were not experts in removing it from the oven.
C. The members of the house of Garmu would heat the oven on the out-
 tosefta seder moed 163

side, and it [the loaf of bread] would be removed [on its own] on the in-
side.
D. The experts from Alexandria did not do so.
E. And some say this made it get moldy.
F. And when the sages learned of the matter, they said, The Holy One,
blessed be he, created the world only for his own glory, as it is said, Every-
one that is called by my name and whom I have created for my glory (Is.
43: 7), [so we might as well pay the tariff].
G. They sent for them, and they did not come until they doubled their
former salary.
H. They used to take a fee of twelve manehs every day, and now they
went and took a fee of twenty-four, the words of R. Meir.
I. R. Judah says, Twenty-four did they take every day, and now they
went and took forty-eight manehs.
J. Said to them sages, Now why were you unwilling to teach?
K. They said, The members of fathers house knew that the Temple is
destined for destruction, and they did not want to teach others how to do
it, so that they should not be able to do it before an idol in the way in
which they do it before the Omnipresent.
L. And on account of this next matter they are remembered with honor:
M. For a piece of clean bread was never found in the hands of their sons
and daughters under any circumstances, so that people might not say about
them, They are nourished from the Show Bread.
N. This was meant to carry out the following verse: You shall be clean
before the Lord and before Israel (Num. 32:22).
2:6A. The members of the house of Abtinas were experts in preparing the
incense for producing smoke [cf. M. Yoma 3:11C], and they did not want
to teach others how to do so.
B. Sages sent and brought experts from Alexandria, in Egypt, who knew
how to concoct spices in much the same way.
C. But they were not experts in making the smoke ascend [as well as the
others].
D. The smoke coming from the incense of the house of Abtinas would as-
cend straight as a stick up to the beams, and afterward it scattered in all
directions as it came down.
E. That of the Alexandrians would scatter as it came down forthwith [not
rising properly].
F. Now when the sages realized this, they said, The Omnipresent has cre-
ated the world only for his own glory, as it is said, The Lord has made
everything for his own purpose (Prov. 16:4).
G. Sages sent to them [the members of the house of Abtinas], but they declined
to come until the sages doubled their wages.
H. They had been receiving twelve manehs every day, and now they
went and got twenty-four, the words of R. Meir.
I. R. Judah says, They had been getting twenty-four every day. Now
they went and got forty-eight manehs.
J. Sages said to them, Now why were you unwilling to teach [others]?
164 chapter ten

K. They said to them, The members of fathers house knew that the Temple
is destined for destruction, and they did not want to teach others their art,
so that people would not burn incense before an idol in the same way in
which they burn incense before the Omnipresent.
L. And in this [next] matter, they are remembered for good:
A woman of their household never went out wearing perfume at any
time,
M. and not only so, but when they would marry into their household
a woman from some other place, they made an agreement that she
not put on perfume,
N. so that people should not say, Their women are putting on per-
fume made up from the preparation of the incense for the Temple.
0. This they did to carry out the following verse, And you shall be
clear before the Lord and before Israel (Num. 32:22).
Here are narrativesnot marked by ma#asehthat compete with
M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10 in the success of the narrator.
There are characterization, individuation, movement. The source
of tension and its resolution link the incident to the larger con-
cerns of Israel beyond the destruction of the Temple, the whole
cohering in that very matter.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The two stories, T. 2:5,
the household of Garmu, and T. 2:6, the household of Abtinas,
follow a single pattern. The focus is, Why were you unwilling to
teach? The upshot is, it was an act of virtuous responsibility. The
secondary virtue remembered with honor is not required to make
the main narrative succeed. The coherence derives from the ex-
act, commensurate match between the question, T. 2:5A, and the
answer, K. So too in the next narrative, T. 2:6A raises the ques-
tion, and T. 2:6K responds. So we have a perfect match and an
exact realization of the narrative logic: all details work together
in light of the goal to which each is directed in its turn.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The sages have in
mind the here-and-now of the Temple that they administer, and
the two households take the longer view of matters. Lest we miss
the point, the two households are characterized as meticulous in
their honesty, not as money-grubbing at all.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The tripartite con-
struction seems to me to govern, T. 2:5A-G, J-K, and L-N, and
 tosefta seder moed 165

so at T. 2:6. Then the add-on, L-O, is essential to the form. These

are successful, well-crafted narratives, stories with a beginning, a
middle, and an end.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:7
A. Said R. Aqiba, Simeon b. Luga told me, A certain child of the sons of
their sons and I were gathering grass in the field. Then I saw him laugh
and cry.
B. I said to him, Why did you cry?
C. He said to me, Because of the glory of fathers house, which has gone
into exile.
D. I said to him, Then why did you laugh?
E. He said, At the end of it all, in time to come, the Holy One, blessed
be He, is going to make his descendants rejoice.
F. I said to him, Why? [What did you see to make you think of this?]
G. He said to me, A smoke-raiser in front of me [made me laugh].
H. I said to him, Show it to me.
I. He said to me, We are subject to an oath not to show it to anyone at
all.
J. Said R. Yohanan b. Nuri, One time I was going along the way and an
old man came across me and said to me, I am a member of the house
of Abtinas.
K. At the beginning, when the house of father was discreet, they would
give their scrolls [containing the prescriptions for frankincense only] to
one another.
L. Now take it, but be careful about it, since it is a scroll containing a
recipe for spices.
M. And when I came and reported the matter before R. Aqiba, he said
to me, From now on it is forbidden to speak ill of these people again.
N. On the basis of this story, Ben #Azzai said, Yours will they give
you,
O. by your own name will they call you,
P. in your place will they seat you.
Q. There is no forgetfulness before the Omnipresent.
R. No man can touch what is designated for his fellow.
T, 2:8 A. Agdis b. Levi knew a certain mode of singing, and he did not
want to teach it to others [M. Yoma 3:11D].
B. Sages said to him, Why did you not want to teach it to others?
C. He said to them, The members of fathers house knew that the Temple
was destined for destruction, and they did not want to teach their mode of
singing to others, so that they should not sing before an idol the way in
which they say [song] before the Omnipresent.
D. Ben Qamsar knew [the art] of writing, and did not want to teach any-
one else [M. Yoma 3:11E].
E. They said to him, Why do you not want to teach anyone else?
F. He remained silent.
G. These others found an answer to what they said, but Ben Qamsar
166 chapter ten

did not find an answer to what he said.

H. These others sought to increase their own glory and to diminish
the glory owing to Heaven.
I. Therefore their own glory was diminished, while the glory of Heaven
was increased.
J. And a good name and a good memorial were not theirs ever.
K. Concerning the first ones, it is said, The memory of the righteous
is for a blessing But with regard to the latter ones it is said, But the
name of the wicked shall rot (Prov. 10:7).
I see these free-standing compositions: T. 2:7A-I, T. 2:7J-M
(glossed by N-R), T. 2:8A-C, T. 2:8D-F, the whole then glossed
at G-K. Of these, I regard as a fully-successful narrative T. 2:7A-
L, with its clear focus on C/E, the present dismay, the coming
joy, each element matched by its counterpart. Then an ideal re-
alization would not have trailed off with F-I. J-M continues F-Is
theme, the discretion of the Temple craftsmen. I do see it as a
fully realized composition on its own. It consists of two units, the
conduct of the house of Abtinas, J-L, then Aqibas comment
thereon, M. T. 2:8A-C follows the pattern established: secret craft,
why not share, because the Temple is going to be destroyed. Now,
recognizing these parts, can we find a composition that fits the
governing, logical definition of a narrative? It is difficult to an-
swer in the affirmative. T. 2:7A-I comes closest. But while we have
a tripartite composition, A-C, D-E, F-I, what imparts cogency to
the whole merely is the balance of A-C, D-E. F-I does not per-
tain. Hence what I find is dramatized dialogue, not a logically-
appropriate narrative. J-M, T. 2:8A-C, D-F carry forward the
pattern. But, this analysis having been set forth, I can readily
conceive a completely contrary reading of the composite, within
the same criterion of narrative logic.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:13
A. The outer one was looped up at the south, and the inner one at the
north. He walks between them until he reaches the northern side. When
he reaches the northern side, he turns around toward the south, walks
along with the curtain at his left until he has reached the ark [M. Yoma
5: IJ-L].
B. When he reaches the ark, he then pushes the veil aside with his hips.
C. And he placed the firepan between the two bars and he piled up
the incense on the coals, so that the whole house was filled with smoke.
He went out, going along by the way by which he went in. And he said
a short prayer in the outer area. He did not prolong his prayer, so as
not to frighten the Israelites [M. Yoma 5:1M-Q].
 tosefta seder moed 167

D. M#SH B: A high priest took a long time.

E. They said to him, Why did you take a long time?
F. He said to them, I was praying for you and for the sanctuary of your
fathers that it not be destroyed.
G. They said to him, No matter, you have no right to change the custom.
The ma#aseh, D-G, glosses the Mishnah-passage, C. What we have
is not a precedent or a case but a mere illustration. The signal,
ma#aseh, now covers a variety of types of simple narratives, not only
cases/precedents for a Halakhic exposition.
Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 3:14
A. They asked R. Eliezer, Lo, if the goat which is to be sent fell sick, what
is the law as to carrying it?
B. He said to them, Can he carry others?
C. [If] the one who sends him fell sick, what is the law as to sending him
with someone else?
D. He said to them, Thus may you and I be in peace.
E. [If] he pushed it down and it did not die, what is the law as to going
down after it and killing it?
F. He said to them, Thus be the fate of the enemies of the Omnipresent.
G. And sages say, [If] it fell ill, he carries it.
H. [If] the one who sends it fell ill, one sends it with someone else.
I. [If] one pushed it down and it did not die, one should go down
after it and kill it.
Here is a classical pseudo-narrative, a colloquy presented as an
incident. So far as the construction coheres, it is in the quality of
Eliezers answers: his insistence on not answering the questions
in the framework in which they are asked.

VI. Tractate Sukkah

Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:1

A. A Sukkah which is taller than twenty cubits is invalid.
B. R. Judah declares it valid [M. Suk. I:IA-B].
C. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Helenes Sukkah was twenty cubits tall, and sages
went in and out, when visiting her, and not one of them said a thing.
D. They said to him, It was because she is a woman, and a woman is
not liable to keep the commandment of dwelling in a Sukkah.
E. He said to them, Now did she not have seven sons who are dis-
ciples of sages, and all of them were dwelling in that same Sukkah!
The ma#aseh forms a standard case/precedent for the Tosefta,
meaning, it records an exemplary incident. But it is not standard
for the Mishnah, lacking as it does a ruling by sages or some
168 chapter ten

explicit statement of the normative outcome. We many times note

in the Tosefta this variation on the familiar form initiated in the
Mishnah.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:7
A. They make a Sukkah-roofing with boards, the words of R. Judah
[M. Suk. 1:6A].
B. And sages prohibit,
C. unless there is a space [covered by Sukkah-roofing] between one
and the next equivalent to the breadth of one of the boards.
D. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the time of the danger we used to lean lad-
ders together and make Sukkah-roofing on top of them out of boards and
then sleep under them.
E. They said to him, There is no proof from what people did in the time
of the danger.
F. But all concur that, if a board is four handbreadths broad, there
must be a distance between one and the next equivalent to the breadth
of a board.
Once more, we have a case/precedent, nothing more.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:8 -9
A. A large courtyard which is surrounded by pillarslo, the pillars are
tantamount to sides [for a Sukkah] [cf. M. Suk. I:IOC].
B. One may make his fellow into the side of a Sukkah, so that he may
eat, drink, and sleep in the Sukkah [formed with his fellow as one of the
sides].
C. Not only so, but a person may lean a bed on its side and spread a
sheet over it,
D. so that the sunshine will not come either onto food or onto a corpse.
E. Sages concur with R. Eliezer that they do not set up tents to begin
with on the festival day, and, it goes without saying, on the Sabbath.
F. And sages say, They add [to them] on the Sabbath, and, it goes
without saying, on the festival [cf. T. Shab. 12:14].
1:9 A. M#SH B: R. Eliezer was reclining in the Sukkah of Yohanan b. Ilai in
Caesarion.
B. The sun shone into the Sukkah.
C. He said to him, What is the law as to spreading a sheet over it? [cf. M.
Suk. 1:3].
D. He said to him, You have not got a single tribe in Israel which did not
produce a prophet.
E. The sun shone half way into the Sukkah.
F. He said to him, What is the law as to spreading a sheet over it?
G. He said to him, You have not got a single tribe in Israel which did not
produce a judge. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin produced kings on the
instruction of prophets.
H. The sun now shone all the way to the feet of R. Eliezer.
 tosefta seder moed 169

I. He [Yohanan] took a sheet and spread it over the Sukkah.

J. And R. Eliezer uncovered his feet and went on his way.
Like Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 3:14, we have a drama-
tization of a colloquy. The conclusion, I-J, does not articulately
affect the order of cogency of the prior exchanges.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:1
A. Agents engaged in a religious duty are exempt from the require-
ment of dwelling in a Sukkah [M. Suk. 2:5],
B. and [this is the case] even though they have said that it is not praise-
worthy of a person to leave his home on the festival.
C. M#SH B: R. Ila#i went to R. Eliezer in Lud. He [Eliezer] said to him
[Ilai], Now whats going on, Ila#i? Are you not among those who observe
the festival? Have they not said that it is not praiseworthy of a person to
leave his home on a festival? For it is said, And you will rejoice on your
festival (Deut. 16:14).
Here is another instance of slightly-dramatized discourse, consisting
of he went to he said to him. Only here all we have is a
situation on which Eliezer commentsnot much even of a ma#aseh.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:2
A. Sick folk and those who serve them are exempt from the require-
ment of dwelling in a Sukkah [M. Suk. 2:4C],
B. and [this is the case] not only of one who is seriously ill,
C. but even if someone has a headache or a pain in the eye.
D. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH W: I had a pain in the eye in
Caesarion, and R. Yos b. Rabbi permitted me to sleep, along with my ser-
vant, outside of the Sukkah.
E. Said Rabbi, When we were comingI and R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoqto
visit R. Yohanan b. Nuri in Bet Shearim, we would eat figs and grapes outside
of the Sukkah [cf. M. Suk. 2:4D].
F. And so did Rabbi say, Any Sukkah which is not at least four by four
cubits is invalid.
G. And sages say, Even if it holds ones head and the greater part of
ones body alone, it is valid [cf. M. Suk. 2:7C].
2:3 A. M#SH B: The Jerusalemites would let down their beds through the
windows ten handbreadths high and covered over them with a Sukkah-roof-
ing and slept under them [cf. M. Suk. 2:7C].
The three ma#asim, Y. Suk. 2:2D, E, and T. 2:3, do not qualify
as narratives. But they also do not replicate the Mishnah-pattern
of case + ruling.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:3
H. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, When I was studying with Yohanan b.
Hahorani [cf. M. Suk. 2:7D], I saw him eating a dry piece of bread, for it
170 chapter ten

was a time of famine. So I came and told my father.

I. He said to me, Here are some olives for him.
J. So I brought him some olives.
K. He took them and examined them and saw that they were wet. He
said to me, Im not an olive-eater.
L. I came home and told my father. And he said to me, Go, tell him, It
was from a perforated basket, in accord with the House of Hillel [and so
the sap which exuded from them is not deemed to have rendered the olives
susceptible to uncleanness], but the lees stopped it up [on which account
the liquids collected and dampened the olives].
M. Now [this story tells] us that he ate his unconsecrated produce in
a state of cultic cleanness.
N. For even though he was one of the disciples of the House of
Shammai, he obeyed only the teachings of the House of Hillel.
O. Under all circumstances the law is in accord with the House of
Hillel.
P. To be sure, he who wants to impose a more strict rule on him-
self, to follow the law in accord with the opinion of the House of
Shammai and in accord with the House of Hillelconcerning such
a one, Scripture says, The fool walks in darkness (Qoh. 2:14).
Q. He who holds by the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai
and the lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is out-and-out evil.
R. But if it is to be in accord with the teachings of the House of
Sham-mai, then let it be in accord with both their lenient rulings
and their strict rulings.
S. And if it is to be in accord with the teachings of the House of
Hillel, then let it be in accord with both their lenient rulings and
their strict rulings.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? T. Suk. 2:3L clarifies all
the prior action and imparts meaning to the whole.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The action of the
donee, in rejecting food in a time of famine, requires an expla-
nation. It is implicit at L.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The first compo-
nent is H-J, the second, K, the third L, hence the familiar tri-
partite construction. I do not see how this set of materials in the
hands of a Mishnah-author cannot have yielded a perfectly rou-
tine ma#aseh/case/precedent. It therefore strikes me as the devel-
opment, toward a more conventional narrative, of the ma#aseh-form
of the Mishnah.
 tosefta seder moed 171

Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:9-10

2:9A. If one does not have a citron, he should not use a pomegranate,
a quince, or any other sort of fruit.
B. If [the four species] were wrinkled, they are valid. If they were dried
up, they are invalid [cf. M. Suk. 3:1A, 2A, 3A, 5A].
C. R. Judah says, If they were dried up, they are valid.
D. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: The townsfolk of the villages would leave their
lulabs to their children in time of need.
E. They said to him, The time of need does not yield proof.
2:10 A. A lulab [palm-branch, willow-branch, myrtle-branch], whether
bound up or not bound up, is valid.
B. R. Judah says, One which is bound up is valid, and one which is
not bound up is invalid.
C. One should not bind it up on the festival day.
D. But one may take a shoot from it and bind it up.
E. They bind up the lulab only with that which is its own species,
the words of R. Judah.
F. Said R. Meir, M#SH B: The townsfolk of Jerusalem bound up their lulabs
with gold threads.
G. They said to him, Is there proof in that precedent? But under-
neath they tied it up with that which is its own species [M. Suk. 3:8].
These two ma#asim, T. 2:9D, T. 2:10F, present standard Tosefta-
style cases/precedents.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 3:1
A. The rite of the lulab overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath at its
[the festival of Sukkots] beginning [that is, when the Sabbath coin-
cides with the first festival day of Sukkot],
B. and the rite of the willow-branch at the end [when the seventh days
rite of the willow-branch is to be done on the Sabbath].
C. M#SH W: The Boethusians piled up big boulders [on the willows which
had been lined up around the altar] on the eve of the Sabbath.
D. The common folk discovered them and came and dragged them away
and took them out from underneath the boulders on the Sabbath.
E. For the Boethusians do not concur that beating the willow-branches
overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath [cf. M. Suk. 4:6A].
F. The law of the willow-branch is a law revealed to Moses at Sinai
[but not referred to in written Scripture].
G. Abba Saul says, It is a matter of the written Torah,
H. since it says, And willow-branches grown by a brook (Lev. 23:4)
I. a willow-branch for the lulab, and a willow-branch for the altar.
J. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, Thus did they say: For him and you, O
altar! For him and you, O altar! [cf. M. Suk. 4:51].
Here is not quite a standard Halakhic ma#aseh, there being no
indication of a sages participation. But the classification serves,
172 chapter ten

since what we have here is nothing more than a case introduced

in a Halakhic context as explanation for a ruling.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 4:4
A. M#SH B: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel danced with eight flaming torches,
and not one of them fell to the ground.
B. Now when he would prostrate himself, he would put his finger on the
ground, bow low, kiss [the ground], and forthwith straighten up.
I see no narrative here, but also no Halakhic precedent/case. How
to classify this particular utilization of the marker, ma#aseh, eludes
me.
Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 4:28
A The priestly watch of Bilgah always divided it in the south, and their
ring was fixed, and their wall niche was blocked up [M. Suk. 5:8E],
B. because of Miriam, daughter of Bilgah, who apostatized.
C. She went off and married an officer at the Greek royal house.
D. And when the gentiles went into the sanctuary, she came along and
stamped on the altar, screaming at it, Wolf, wolf! You have wiped out
[devoured] the fortune of Israel and did not then stand up for them in the
time of their trouble.
E. And some say it was because [the priestly watch of Bilgah] delayed
in observing its priestly watch.
F. So the watch of Yeshebab went in and served in its stead.
G. Therefore, Bilgah always appears to be among the outgoing priestly
watches [at the south, M. Suk. 5:8D], and Yeshebab always appears to
be among the incoming priestly watches.
H. Neighbors of the wicked normally receive no reward,
I. except for Yeshebab,
J. neighbor to Bilgah, who received a reward.
Like the foregoing, I do not know how to classify this item, be-
cause C-D refer to, but do not constitute, a narrative. They form
a fragment of a narrative, an incident out of context.

VII. Tractate Yom Tob (Besah)

Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:6

A. They do not prepare food either for gentiles or for dogs consumption
on the festival day.
B. M#SH B: Simeon of Teman did not go out on the night of the festival to
the school house.
C. At dawn R. Judah b. Baba came upon him. He said to him, Why did
you not come last night to the school house
D. He said to him, A certain religious duty came my way, so I went and
 tosefta seder moed 173

did it. A gentile troop came to town, and they were afraid that they might
make trouble for the townsfolk. So we prepared a calf for them and gave
them food and drink and made a place for them to stay, so that they would
not make trouble for the townsfolk.
E. He said to him, 1ll be most surprised if the good you did is not lost in
the damage you did.
F. For lo, they have said, On the festival day they do not prepare food
either for gentiles or for dogs consumption.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? E-F refer back to B-D
and link the whole together. The narrative then coheres. With-
out B-C, and with D in the third person, such and such happened
and the townsfolk did so-and-so, plus a ruling, e.g., sages did
not approve, would have yielded a perfectly routine example
of a somewhat elaborate ma#aseh in the manner of the Mishnah.
The Toseftas formulation has no counterpart in the Mishnah. On
that basis, I regard the narrative as a development by the Tosefta
of the Mishnahs ma#aseh-form.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The tension is ex-
pressed at B-C, with its attempted resolution at D, and its resto-
ration at E-F.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The tripartite con-
struction is clear. What we have is not a mere case/precedent to
exemplify the law, but a fully-exposed rationale for the law in its
own terms. It certainly conforms to the Toseftas documentary task
to amplify and complement and spell out the Mishnahs rules,
and here we see how the very forms paramount in the Mishnah
are toseftasized.
Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:11-13
A. They do not remove [the meat of an animal which has been slaugh-
tered in such a way as not to damage the hide] on the festival.
B. And they do not remove [the meat, as above] on an ordinary day
in the case of a firstling or in the case of Holy Things which have been
in-validated.
C. And they do everything which has to be done in connection with
circumcision.
D. Matters not done in regard to it on the Sabbath do they do with
regard to it on the festival:
E. they crush cummin and mix wine and oil for it.
174 chapter ten

F. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, But one may not tear up rags for
covering the sore of the circumcision in the first instance [on the fes-
tival].
2:12 A. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel did not
put together a candlestick on the festival night [itself] [cf. M. Bes. 2:6C].
B. WM#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and elders were reclining together when in
Rome, and a candlestick fell down on the night of a festival.
C. R. Aqiba got up and put it back together.
D. Said to him Rabban Gamaliel, Aqiba! What business do you have to
poke your head into fights!
E. He said to him, You yourself have taught us, Follow the majority [Ex.
23:2]. Now, even though you prohibit and they permit, the law is in ac-
cord with the majority.
F. R. Judah says in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, They handle the
candlestick on the festival, but they do not put it together.
2:13 A. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel would
sweep between the couches on the festival [cf. M. Bes. 2:7B].
B. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, Many times did we eat in the house of
Rabban Gamaliel, and not once did I ever see them sweeping between the
couches [after a meal].
C. But they would spread out sheets on the eve of the festival, and when
guests come in, they remove them.
D. They said to him, If so, it is permitted to do the same even on the
Sabbath.
2:14 A. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel would
put spices into an airtight vessel [used for burning them].
B. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, Many times did we eat in the house of
Rabban Gamaliel, and not once did I ever see them put spices into the spout.
C. But they make smoke into boxes on the eve of the festival.
D. Then, when guests come, they open them up.
E. They said to him, If so, it is permitted to do the same even on the Sab-
bath.
In a single model, the three ma#asim, T. 2:12B-E, 2:13A-D, 2:14B-
D, serve as cases/precedents. But once more, they are of a form
favored by the Tosefta and only rarely utilized by the Mishnah:
a story of an event, often in the first person or focused upon a
single actor, lacking a sages formal ruling (which is readily sur-
mised, to be sure).
Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:16
A. The members of the household of Rabban Gamaliel would crush
pepper in a pepper-mill [on the festival day] [cf. M. Bes. 2:8D].
B. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, One time father was reclining before Rabban
Gamaliel, and they brought before him wine-lees and vinegar-lees, and on
them were crushed peppers, and father kept his hands off.
 tosefta seder moed 175

C. They said to him, Dont be concerned about them. They were crushed
on the eve of the festival.
This is a case/precedent, standard by the Toseftas form, but
somewhat awry by the Mishnahs. They said to him in the
Mishnah would have come to expression, And sages ruled,
with the explanation, C, turned into a condition.

VIII. Tractate Rosh Hashanah

Tosefta-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:15

A. At first they would accept testimony concerning the new moon from
everybody [M. R.H. 2:1B].
B. One time the Boethusians hired two witnesses to come and fool the sages.
C. For the Boethusians do not concede that Pentecost should come at any
time except on the day following the Sabbath.
D. One of them came along and gave his testimony and went his way.
E. Then the second one said, I was coming up at Ma#aleh Adumim, and I
saw it crouching between two rocks,
F. its head looking like a calf, and its ears looking like a lamb, and its horns
looking like a deer, and its tail lying between its thighs.
G. I saw it, I was astonished, and I fell backward.
H. And lo, [I found] two hundred zuz tied up for me in my purse.
I. They said to him, The two hundred zuz are given over to you as a gift.
The one who hired you will be laid out on the post.
J. Why did you get involved in this matter?
K. He said to them, I heard that the Boethusians were planning to con-
fuse sages. I said to myself, Its better that I should go and tell sages.
Here the marker ma#aseh is lacking, but its absence signals noth-
ing I can discern, because its presence will have made no per-
ceptible difference in the forming of the incident before us.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The initial statement,
matched by the climax and conclusion makes the point that the
actions of the false witnesses were suborned by the Boethusians,
and that imparts cogency to all the prior components of the con-
struction. Every detail then serves to register the main purpose
of the narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? This is made articu-
late at C.
176 chapter ten

3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The components break
down into these three parts: B-C, D-H, and I-K. But they hold
together to make the polemical point that the narrative is com-
posed to demonstrate: good sectarians acknowledge sages author-
ity, even while they adhere to their own private, even rational
views.
Tosefta-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:16
1:16 A. If they do not recognize him, they send another/ witness with
him [M. R.H. 2:1A], even on the Sabbath.
B. M#SH B: R. Nehorai came with a witness on the Sabbath to Usha and
gave testimony concerning him.
This is a standard case/precedent, setting the case, but lacking
the articulated decision. But it is implicit and there is no doubt
as to its contents.

IX. Tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit)

Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) 2:4

A. Monday and Thursday are set aside for public fasts.
B. On them courts are in session in the towns.
C. On them people gather in synagogues and read [the Scriptures].
D. On them they interrupt for the reading of the Scroll of Esther.
E. What is the difference between a public and a private fast?
F. On a public fast they eat and drink while it is still day [but not after
dark on the eve of the fast], which is not the case for the fast of an
individual.
G. On a public fast it is prohibited to do work, bathe, anoint, put on
a sandal, or have sexual relations, which is not the case for an individuals
fast.
H. On a public fast they gather in the synagogues and read the Scrip-
tures, which is not the case for an individuals fast.
L On a public fast they bring the ark out into the street of the town,
which is not the case for an individuals fast.
J. On a public fast they say twenty-four blessings, which is not the case
for an individuals fast.
K. On a public fast the priests raise up their hands [in the priestly
benediction] four times in the day, which is not the case for an
individuals fast.
1,. On a public fast they do not interrupt [the sequence of fasts] for
festival days which are inscribed in the Fasting-scroll, which is not the
case for an individuals fast.
 tosefta seder moed 177

2:5 A. M#SH W: They decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lud [vs. M. Ta. 2:10].
B. They told R. Eliezer about it, and he got a haircut.
C. They told R. Joshua about it, and he took a bath.
D. R. Joshua said to them, Now go and fast because you have called a fast
[on such a day].
E. So long as Rabban Gamaliel was alive, the law followed his opinion
[cf. M. Ta. 2:10B].
F. After Rabban Gamaliels death, R. Joshua wanted to nullify his opinion.
G. R. Yohanan b. Nuri got up on his feet and said [Aramaic:] It ap-
pears right to follow after the head of the body. So long as Rabban
Gamaliel was alive, the law followed his opinion. Now that he has died,
do you want to nullify his opinion
H. Said R. Joshua, We shall listen to you. Let us now affirm the law
in accord with the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel.
I. And nobody said a thing against his view.
The ma#aseh, T. 2:5A+D, hardly forms a standard precedent/case,
because the conduct of the sages is not generalized. Joshuas rul-
ing is the key. Without B-C, his ruling would mark a conventional
case-ruling. That is why I indent those entries and treat the ma#aseh
as comprised by A+D.
Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) 2:13
A. M#SH B: To a certain pious man did they say, Pray, so it will rain.
B. He prayed and it rained.
C. They said to him, Just as you have prayed so it would rain, now pray so
the rain will go away.
D. He said to them, Go and see if a man is standing on Keren Ofel [a high
rock] and splashing his foot in the Qidron Brook. [Then] we shall pray that
the rain will stop [cf. M. Ta. 3:8].
E. Truly it is certain that the Omnipresent will never again bring a
flood to the world,
F. for it is said, There will never again be a flood (Gen. 9:11).
G. And it says, For this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that
the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn
that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you (Is. 54:9).
What we have is a remnant, intelligible only in its Mishnaic con-
text, to which explicit allusion is made at C, D. Hence I cannot
classify this item without reference to its counterpart at M. Ta.
3:8. It is not a case/precedent. But I do not grasp how it coheres,
since I see two components, A-B, and C-D, lacking the focus that
should hold them together. This is too fragmentary to offer guid-
ance. It appears to me an epitome of the Mishnahs fully articu-
lated narrative; or the latter spells out what is fully encompassed
here. A theory that the Mishnah is prior to the Tosefta, or its
178 chapter ten

version there is prior to its version here, would take the former
view, a theory that the Tosefta is prior to the Mishnah, which
serves as a mere epitome, would take the latter view. Whichever
way one goes, I do not see the two as autonomous of one an-
other.
Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) 3:7
A. What was the matter having to do with the families of the Pestle-Smug-
glers and the Fig-Pressers [M. Ta. 4:5H]?
B. Now when the Greek kings set up border-guards on the roads, so that
people should not go up to Jerusalem, just as Jeroboam the son of Nebat
did, then, whoever was a suitable person and sin-fearing of that genera-
tionwhat did he do?
C. He would take up his first fruits and make a kind of basket and cover
them with dried figs,
D. and take the basket with the first-fruits and cover them with a kind of
dried figs,
E. and he would put them in a basket and take the basket and a pestle on
his shoulder and go up.
F. Now when he would come to that guard, [the guard] would say to him,
Where are you going?
G. He said to him, To make these two rings of dried figs into cakes of
pressed figs in that press over there, with this pestle which is on my shoulder.
H. Once he got by that guard, he would prepare a wreath for them and
bring them up to Jerusalem.
3:8 A. What is the matter having to do with the family of Salmai the
Netophathites [cf. I Chron. 2:54: The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, the
Netophathites]?
B. Now when the Greek kings set up guards on the roads so that the people
should not go up to Jerusalem, just as Jeroboam the son of Nebat did,
C. then whoever was a suitable and sin-fearing person of that generation
would take two pieces of wood and make them into a kind of ladder and
put it on his shoulder and go up.
D. When he came to that guard, [the guard] said to him, Where are you
going?
E. To fetch two pigeons from that dovecote over there, with this ladder
on my shoulder.
F. Once he got by that guard, he would dismantle [the pieces of wood of
the ladder] and bring them up to Jerusalem.
G. Now because they were prepared to give up their lives for the Torah
and for the commandments, therefore they found for themselves a good
name and a good memorial forever.
H. And concerning them Scripture says, The memory of a righteous per-
son is for a blessing (Prov. 10:17).
I. But concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat and his allies, Scripture says, But
the name of the wicked will rot (Prov. 10:17).
 tosefta seder moed 179

We have before us truly satisfying narratives, following a pattern

and fully realized. In the context of the Tosefta, these form the
counterpart to the fine narratives of M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta.
3:9-10. But while those items constitute the sole successful nar-
ratives of the Mishnah, these have counterparts throughout the
Tosefta. In Chapter Fifteen we shall compare the Mishnahs treat-
ment of the rite, M. Bik. 3:2-6, to the Toseftas narrative of the
same rite, T. Ta. 3:7, with, I think, productive results. There a
pattern emerges that accounts for the character of the case at hand.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The two matched sto-
ries, T. 3:7B-H, and T. 3:8A-F, come to their climax at T. 3:8G-
H+I. That is what makes all the details flow together into a
coherent statement.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? At issue is the pestle-
smugglers and fig-pressers conduct in the face of adversity. They
would dissimulate and get by the guards, bringing first fruits to
Jerusalem, bringing the wood offering to the altar. The actions
then respond to the prohibition of doing so.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Each story is in two
parts, T. 3:7B-E, the preparation of the produce, matched by T.
3:8A-C, then the encounter with the guard, T. 3:7F-H, T. 3:8D-
F. Then the shared third and climactic part completes the tripar-
tite composition.

X. Tractate Megillah

Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:4

A. [If] he read it by night, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
B. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: R. Yohanan b. Nuri read it by night in Sepphoris.
C. They said to him, What was done in the time of danger proves noth-
ing.
2:5 A. [If] one read it by heart [instead of from a written version], he
has not carried out his obligation.
B. Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, M#SH B: R. Meir went to Assya to interca-
late the year, and he did not find there a Scroll of Esther written in He-
brew.
180 chapter ten

C. So he wrote one out from memory, and then he went and read [the
Scroll of Esther] from it.
D. [If] one read it, whether standing or sitting or lying,
E. whether one set up a translator [alongside],
F. whether one [did not] say a blessing before it, but said a blessing
after it, whether he said a blessing after it but did not say a blessing
before it, whether he did not say a blessing either before it or after it,
G. he has carried out his obligation.
H. Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, M#SH B: R. Meir read [the Scroll of Esther]
in the synagogue in Tibeon while sitting down, and the members of the
synagogue were sitting down.
I. When he completed reading it, he gave it to another person, and [the
other] said a blessing over it.
I see three more or less standard ma#asim: case/precedents in each
case, at T. 2:4B, T. 2:5B, and T. 2:5H-I.
Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:17
A. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq purchased the syna-
gogue of the Alexandrians which was located in Jerusalem, and he did ex-
actly as he wanted with it.
B. They prohibited using such a building for secular purposes] only if the
original name still applies to it.
The ma#aseh as case/precedent poses no surprises.
Tosefta-tractate Megillah 3:34
A. Make known to Jerusalem her abominations (Ez. 16:2) is read and
translated [vs. M. Meg. 4:10H].
B. M#SH B: A certain party was reading before R. Eliezer, Make known
to Jerusalem her abominations.
C. He said to him, Go out and proclaim your mothers abominations [cf.
M. Meg. 4:10H].
D. The story of the Chariot do they read in public.
3:35 A. The story of Reuben is read and not translated [M. Meg. 4:1OA
B. M#SH B: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel was reading in Kabul, Reuben went
and lay with Bilhah his fathers concubine (Gen. 35:22). and the sons of
Jacob were twelve (Gen.. 35:22).
C. And he said to the translator, Translate only the latter [part of the verse,
but not the former part].
The two ma#asim, T. 3:34B-C and T. 3:35 B-C, are standard case/
precedents by the Toseftas lights. But the Mishnah will have
preferred a more generalizing formulation, e.g., of T. 3:34D and
T. 3:35D. It is a small difference from the norm.
 tosefta seder moed 181

XI. Tractate Moed (Moed Qatan)

Tosefta-tractate Mo#ed (Mo#ed Qatan) 2:14

A. They take seats by the chair of gentiles [at which they do business]
on the Sabbath.
B. For in the beginning they ruled that they do not take seats by the
chair of gentiles on the Sabbath,
C. until R. Aqiba came and taught that they take seats by the chair of
gentiles on the Sabbath.
2:15 A. WM#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel took a seat by the chair of gentiles on
the Sabbath in Akko.
B. They said to him, They were not accustomed to take seats at the chair
of gentiles on the Sabbath.
C. But he did not want to say, You are permitted to do so.
D. So he got up and went on his way.
E. M#SH B: Judah and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamaliel, went in to take a
bath in Kabul.
F. They said to him, They were not accustomed to have two brothers take
a bath together.
G. They did not want to say, You are permitted to do so.
H. So they went in and took a bath one after the other.
2:16 A. SWB M#SH B: Judah and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamaliel would go
out in golden slippers on the Sabbath in Biri.
B. They said to them, They were not accustomed to go out in golden slip-
pers on the Sabbath.
C. They did not want to say to them, You are permitted.
D. So they sent them along with their servants.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The three matched ma#asim,
T. 2:15A-D, E-H, and T. 2:16A-D, all hold together by reason
of a single policy: to honor local custom, even though the Hala-
khah permits what custom prohibits. And still more: the patriarch
and his sons do not exercise their authority, though with the
Halakhah behind them and the status of office sustaining them,
they can have overridden local sensibilities. So the unifying mes-
sage for all three concerns the patriarchate and its light and easy
yoke.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The issue is pre-
cipitated by the contrast between the conduct of the Rabbinic sages
and the objection raised by the locals. It is resolved by the irenic
conduct of the sages.
182 chapter ten

3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The anticipated three
components of each story is, first, the conduct of the sage, sec-
ond, the comment of the locals, and, third, the action of the sage,
who did not wish to correct the wrong impression that prevailed
of the requirements of the Halakhah.

XII. Tractate Hagigah

Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:1

A. They do not expound upon the laws of prohibited relationships [Lev.
18] before three persons,
B. but they do expound them before two;
C. or about the Works of Creation before two
D. but they do expound them before one;
E. or about the Chariot [Ez. 1] before one, unless he was a sage land
understands of his own knowledge [M. Hag. 2:1A-B].
F. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass, and R. Eleazar
b. Arakh was driving the ass from behind
G. He [Eleazar] said to him, Rabbi, repeat for me a chapter of the works
of the Chariot.
H. He said to him, Have I not ruled for you to begin with that they do not
repeat [the tradition] concerning the Chariot for an individual, unless he
was a sage and understands of his own knowledge
I. He said to him, Now may I lay matters out before you?
J. He said to him, Say on.
K. R. Eleazar b. Arakh commenced and expounded concerning the works
of the Chariot.
L. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai got off his ass, wrapped himself in his cloak,
and the two of them sat down on a rock under an olive tree, and [Eleazar]
laid matters out before him.
M. [Yohanan] got up and kissed him on his head and said to him Blessed
be the Lord, God of Israel, who gave to Abraham, our father, a son who
knows how to understand and expound upon the glory of his father who is
in heaven.
N. Some preach nicely but do not practice nicely, or practice nicely but
do not preach nicely.
0. Eleazar b. Arakh preaches nicely and practices nicely.
P. Happy are you, O Abraham, our father, for Eleazar b. Arakh has gone
forth from your loins,
Q. who knows how to understand and expound upon the glory of his Father
who is in heaven.
2:2 A. R. Yos b. Judah says, R. Joshua laid matters out before Rabban
Yohanan b. Zakkai.
 tosefta seder moed 183

B. R. Aqiba laid matters out before R. Joshua.

C. Hananiah b. Kinai laid matters out before R. Aqiba.
This is a famous, much cited narrative. Its interest for our inqui-
ry carries us only to the surface of the story; speculation on the
doctrines and their character need not detain us.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the ac-
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The Halakhah is that
one must not expound the works of the chariot except in the case
of an unusually well qualified disciple. Eleazar b. Arakh under-
takes such an exposition, and Yohanan approves the outcome.
All the details cohere at the end, the question being answered
affirmatively. The Tosefta concretizes the law of the Mishnah, and
the purpose of its narrative is to show how the law applies.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? At issue, as noted,
is whether Eleazar qualifies, and he does.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? First comes the chal-
lenge, then the action, finally the response, F-H, I-K, L-Q, a tri-
partite construction in which each part is required, and the positions
of them all are dictated by the logical requirement of the narra-
tive itself. All that is lacking is the center of the matter: what he
actually said. That is the missing entry, between L and M.
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:3-6
A. Four entered the garden [Paradise]: Ben #Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Other
[Elisha], and Aqiba.
B. One gazed and perished, one gazed and was smitten, one gazed
and cut down sprouts, and one went up whole and came down whole.
C. Ben #Azzai gazed and perished.
D. Concerning him Scripture says, Precious in the sight of the Lord is
the death of his saints (Ps. 116:15).
E. Ben Zoma gazed and was smitten.
F. Concerning him Scripture says, If you have found honey, eat only
enough for you, lest you be sated with it and vomit it (Prov. 25:16).
G. Elisha gazed and cut down sprouts
H. Concerning him Scripture says, Let not your mouth lead you into
sin (Qoh. 5:5).
2:4 A. R. Aqiba went up whole and came down whole
B. Concerning him Scripture says, Draw me after you, let us make
haste. The king has brought me into his chambers (Song of Songs 1:4).
2:5 A. To what is the matter to be compared?
184 chapter ten

B. To a royal garden, with an upper room built over it [to guard it].
What is [the guards] duty? To look, but not to feast his eyes from it.
C. And they further compared the matter to what? To a platoon pass-
ing between two paths, one of fire and one of ice.
D. [If] it turns to this side, it will be smitten by fire, [and if] it turns to
that, it will be smitten by ice.
E. Now what should a person do? He should go right down the middle,
F. and not turn either to this side or to that.
T. 2:3A-H, 2:4 do not constitute narratives. I discern no teleolo-
gy for the compositions, no point they wish to register in select-
ing and arranging data as they do. They describe something that
has happened, but they do not report why what has been done
or said matters. Like the prior item, they do not even hint at what
has been said or done; implied is doctrine not articulated, activ-
ity not recorded.
What is of particular interest is T. 2:5, the two-part Mashal,
A-B, C-F. Here too I see no narrative in any conventional sense,
simply a described situation, lacking all activity or purpose. (In
Volume Two of this project, I shall compare the mashal, translat-
ed as parable, as a form utilized in diverse form and for various
purposes from one document to the next. In that context the
Mishnahs and Toseftas meshalim will play their part.)
The contrast with the following is then telling.
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:6
A. M#SH B: R. Joshua was walking in a piazza, and Ben Zoma was coming
toward him.
B. When he reached him, he did not greet him.
C. He said to him, From whence and whither, Ben Zoma?
D. He said to him, I was concentrating upon the works of Creation, and
there is not even a handbreadth [of distance] between the upper waters
and the nether waters,
E. for it says, The spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters
(Gen. 1:2).
F. And it says, Like an eagle that stirs up its nest that flutters over its young,
spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, so the
Lord alone did lead him (Deut. 32:12).
G. Just as this eagle flutters above its nest, touching and not touching, so
there is no more space between the upper waters and the nether waters
than a handbreadth.
H. Said R. Joshua to his disciples, Ben Zoma already is on the outside [among
the sectarians].
I. The days were only a few before Ben Zoma disappeared
 tosefta seder moed 185

Here is the sole point at which we are told what, in fact, consti-
tuted the doctrine subject to condemnation, D-G. But the narra-
tive setting is integral to the exposition, not a mere formality of
dramatized dialogue.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the ac-
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The purpose of the
narrative is to explain the fate of Ben Zoma, H-I. That is the
direction of the prior components of the construction. A-C form
the prologue, D-G, the main event, and then H-I tie the whole
together.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? At issue is what Ben
Zoma said or did that accounted for his disappearance.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal quali-
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The three components
are clear as stated above.
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:11
A. M#SH B: Hillel the Elder laid on hands on a whole-offering in the court-
yard [cf. M. Hag. 2:3B], and the disciples of Shammai ganged up on him.
B. He said to them, Go and see it, for it is a female, and I have to prepare
it as sacrifices of peace-offerings.
C. He put them off with a bunch of words, and they went their way.
D. But the power of the House of Shammai forthwith became strong, and
they wanted to decide the law permanently in accord with their opinion.
E. Now there was present Baba b. Buta who was one of the disciples of the
House of Shammai, but who acknowledged that the law is in accord with
the opinions of the House of Hillel in every last detail.
F. He went and brought the whole Qedar-flock and set them up right in
the courtyard and announced, Whoever is required to bring wholeoffer-
ings and peace-offeringslet him come and take a beast and lay on hands
[= M. Hag. 2:3B].
G. So [everybody] came along and took a beast and offering up whole-
offerings, having laid on hands.
H. On that very day the law was confirmed in accord with the opinion of
the House of Hillel,
I. and not a single person griped about it.
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:12
A. SWB M#SH B: Another disciple of the disciples of the House of Hillel
laid hands on a whole-offering.
B. One of the disciples of Shammai found him out.
C. He said to him, Whats this laying on of hands?!
D. He said to him, Whats this shutting up?!
186 chapter ten

E. And he shut him up by force.

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the ac-
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The narrative, T.
2:11A-I, explains how it came about that the Temple was con-
ducted in accord with Hillels views, not Shammais. That pur-
pose, H-I, is what lends cogency to the entire prior narrative. The
construction is in these part: A-D, the challenge of the House of
Shammai, by reason of Hillels dissimulation; then E-G, Baba b.
Butas intervention and finally, H-I, the denouementa smooth
and systematic exposition. T. 2:12 reinforces the account to which
it is attached. In context it makes the same point.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? How the Shammaites
took over, how they were driven outthese form the program of
the two narratives.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The three-part con-
struction is obvious. For T. 2:12 it is A, B-C, D-E.
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:13
A. Pentecost which coincided with a Monday or a Thursday or a Friday,
or on any day of the week
B. the House of Shammai say, The day of slaughter [for the offer-
ing] is on the next day.
C. And the House of Hillel say, There is no [such thing as] a day of
slaughter [but burnt-offerings brought as appearance-offerings are
offered up on the festival day itself, except when Pentecost coincides
with the Sabbath].
D. M#SH S: Alexa died in Lud, and the townsfolk gathered to make a la-
ment for him [on the day of slaughter].
E. Said to them R. Tarfon, Go away. People do not make a lamentation
on a festival day [vs. M. Hag. 2:4F].
The ma#aseh is a standard case/precedent, subject to variation to
be sure.

XIII. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives I have identified. Later on, the

entire list in hand, from the perspective of the Mishnah and its
uniform definition of the ma#aseh, I differentiate the standard cases/
precedents from unconventional ones.
 tosefta seder moed 187

a. Standard Ma#asim/Cases/Precedents
1. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 1:12-13: Said R. Ishmael, One time I read
by the light of a lamp, and [forgetfully,] I wanted to tilt it [to get more
oil on the wick].
2. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 2:4: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, The
members of fathers house would wrap flax around a nut and would
kindle [the Sabbath light] with it.
3. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 2:5: Said R. Judah, When we were stay-
ing in the upper room of Nitzes house in Lud, they would pierce an
egg-shell and fill it with oil and put it over the mouth of a lamp on the
eve of the Sabbath at dusk.
4. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 3:3: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: [In the case
of] the bath of Bene Beraq they stopped up the openings on the eve of
the festival.
5. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 3:4: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the case
of Baitos b. Zonen they filled a dipper of cold water for him on the eve
of the Sabbath and poured it on him on the Sabbath, so as to cool him
off.
6. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 5:12: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Hyrcanus,
the son of R. Eliezer, went out in his scarf to the public domain.
7. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 5:13: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: R. Tarfon
went forth on Friday nights to the school-house, and they gave him a
cloth, and he held on to it with both hands and went out in it to keep
off the rain.
8. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 7:16: M#SH B: Judah and Hillel, sons of
Rabban Gamaliel, came to the town of Kabul. The people of the town
led wine and oil through them in pipes [as a sign of honor].
9. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 7:(17)18: M#SH S: Rabban Gamaliel the
elder died, and Onqelos, the proselyte, burned a pyre for him of a value
of more than seventy minahs.
10. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:2: Said R. Yos, M#SH S: R. Halafta
went to Rabban Gamaliel in Tiberias and found him seated at the table
of Yohanan b. Nezif. In his hand was the Scroll of Job in Targum, which
he was reading.
11. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:4: M#SH B: A certain person would
write blessings, and they told R Ishmael about him. R. Ishmael went to
examine him. When he [Ishmael] was climbing the ladder, he [the writer]
sensed his coming. He took the sheaf of blessings and put it into a dish
of water.
12. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:9: M#SH A fire broke out in the court-
yard of Joseph b. Simai of Sihin. The soldiers of the detachment in
Sepphoris came to put it out, but he did not let them do so. A rain-cloud
burst and put it out. Sages said, It was not necessary [to behave in such
a way]. Even so, after the Sabbath he sent each one of them a sela, and
to their commander he sent fifty denars.
188 chapter ten

13. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 13:14: M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and el

ders were coming along in a ship and the [Sabbath] day became sanc-
tified.
14. Tosefta-tractate Shabbat 15:8: M#SH B: Four sisters in Sepphoris: the
son of the first was circumcised and died, the second, and he died, the
third, and he died. The case came before sages, who ruled, The fourth
should not be circumcised.
15. Tosefta-tractate Erubin 1:2: M#SH B: R. Eliezer went to Joseph b.
Peredah in Ublin. And he saw that he had an alley-entry with only a single
sidepost. He said to him, Make a second for it.
16. Tosefta-tractate Erubin 3:17: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the house-
hold of Mammal and in the household of Gurion in Rome, they would
hand out dried figs to the poor in time of famine.
17. Tosefta-tractate Erubin 5:67: Said Rabbi, M#SH B: Ben Napha had
five courtyards in Usha. And he prohibited only the place where he
usually livedthat alone.
18. Tosefta-tractate Erubin 5:24: Said Rabbi, When I was studying
Torah with R. Simeon in Teqo#a, we used to bring oil in an unguent
from the courtyard to the roof, and from the roof to the shed, and from
one shed to another shed, until we reached the spring. And there we
would wash ourselves [using the oil we had carried].
19. Tosefta-tractate Erubin 6:1-2: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: A water-
course came from Abel to Sepphoris, and we would draw water from
it on the Sabbath at the instruction of sages.
20. T. Pisha 3:11: Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, One time we were in ses-
sion before Rabban Gamaliel in the study-house in Lud. And Zonen,
who was in charge, came along and said, The time has come to burn
the leaven. So father and I went along to the house of Rabban Gamaliel
and we burned the leaven.
21. T. Pisha 3:20: Said R. Yos, M#SH B: The son of Ben Nebo-hayyon
his father [Nebo-hayyon] left over the corner of the field for turnips. He
came and found the poor gathered at the gate of his garden [laden with
vegetables]. He said [to his sons], My children, shall we not pay atten-
tion to the teachings of sages? Throw it from your hands. So they threw
it down, and he gave them [the poor] twice as much produce as [poor
mans] tithe in the form of that which had been tithed.
22. T. Pisha 8:4: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Hezekiah, king of Judah, forced
the community to observe a second Passover, as it is said.
23. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:13-14: M#SH B: One of the sons
of Martha, daughter of Boethus, could take two sides of an ox which cost
one thousand zuz and walk with them heel to toe and bring them up
onto the altar.
24. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:21-22: M#SH B: Ishmael b.
Phiabis mother made for him a tunic worth a hundred maneh.. SWB
M#SH B: Eleazar b. Harsoms mother made for him a tunic for twenty
thousand, and he would stand and make offerings on the altar while
wearing it.
 tosefta seder moed 189

25. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:13: M#SH B: A high priest took

a long time. They said to him, Why did you take a long time? He said
to them, I was praying for you and for the sanctuary of your fathers
that it not be destroyed.
26. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:1: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: Helenes Sukkah
was twenty cubits tall, and sages went in and out, when visiting her, and
not one of them said a thing.
27. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:7: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: In the time of
the danger we used to lean ladders together and make Sukkah-roofing
on top of them out of boards and then sleep under them.
28. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:2-3: Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,
M#SH W: I had a pain in the eye in Caesarion, and R. Yos b. Rabbi
permitted me to sleep, along with my servant, outside of the Sukkah. Said
Rabbi, When we were comingI and R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoqto visit
R. Yohanan b. Nuri in Bet Shearim, we would eat figs and grapes out-
side of the Sukkah [cf. M. Suk. 2:4D].
29. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:2-3: M#SH B: The Jerusalemites would let
down their beds through the windows ten handbreadths high and cov-
ered over them with a Sukkah-roofing and slept under them.
30. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:9-10: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: The
townsfolk of the villages would leave their lulabs to their children in time
of need. Said R. Meir, M#SH B: The townsfolk of Jerusalem bound
up their lulabs with gold threads.
31. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 3:1: M#SH W: The Boethusians piled up big
boulders [on the willows which had been lined up around the altar] on
the eve of the Sabbath. The common folk discovered them and came
and dragged them away and took them out from underneath the boul-
ders on the Sabbath.
32. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 4:4: M#SH B: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel
danced with eight flaming torches, and not one of them fell to the
ground.
33. Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:11-13: WM#SH B: Rabban
Gamaliel and elders were reclining together when in Rome, and a candle-
stick fell down on the night of a festival. R. Aqiba got up and put it back
together. Said to him Rabban Gamaliel, Aqiba! What business do you
have to poke your head into fights! Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, Many
times did we eat in the house of Rabban Gamaliel, and not once did I
ever see them sweeping between the couches [after a meal]., Said R.
Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, Many times did we eat in the house of Rabban
Gamaliel, and not once did I ever see them put spices into the spout.
34. Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:16: Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq,
One time father was reclining before Rabban Gamaliel, and they
brought before him wine-lees and vinegar-lees, and on them were
crushed peppers, and father kept his hands off.
35. Tosefta-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:16: M#SH B: R. Nehorai came
with a witness on the Sabbath to Usha and gave testimony concerning
him.
190 chapter ten

36. Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) 2:4: M#SH W: They decreed

a fast on Hanukkah in Lud [vs. M. Ta. 2:10]. They told R. Eliezer about
it, and he got a haircut. They told R. Joshua about it, and he took a
bath.
37. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:4: Said R. Yos, M#SH B: R Yohanan
b. Nuri read it by night in Sepphoris.
38. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:4: Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, M#SH B:
R. Meir went to Assya to intercalate the year, and he did not find there
a Scroll of Esther written in Hebrew.
39. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:4: Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, M#SH B:
R. Meir read [the Scroll of Esther] in the synagogue in Tibeon while
sitting down, and the members of the synagogue were sitting down.
40. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 2:17: Said R. Judah, M#SH B: R. Eleazar
b. R. Sadoq purchased the synagogue of the Alexandrians which was
located in Jerusalem, and he did exactly as he wanted with it.
41. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 3:34: M#SH B: A certain party was read-
ing before R. Eliezer, Make known to Jerusalem her abominations. He
said to him, Go out and proclaim your mothers abominations [cf. M.
Meg. 4:10H].
42. Tosefta-tractate Megillah 3:34: M#SH B: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel was
reading in Kabul, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his fathers con-
cubine (Gen. 35:22). and the sons of Jacob were twelve (Gen..
35:22). And he said to the translator, Translate only the latter [part of
the verse, but not the former part].
43. Tosefta-tractate Mo#ed (Mo#ed Qatan) 2:15: Rabban Gamaliel took
a seat by the chair of gentiles on the Sabbath in Akko. They said to him,
They were not accustomed to take seats at the chair of gentiles on the
Sabbath. But he did not want to say, You are permitted to do so. So
he got up and went on his way.
44. Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:13: M#SH S: Alexa died in Lud, and the
townsfolk gathered to make a lament for him [on the day of slaughter].
Said to them R. Tarfon, Go away. People do not make a lamentation
on a festival day.
We should not miss the variety of forms and types of composi-
tion signaled by the single marker, ma#aseh. The Mishnahs ma#asim
proved uniform: the report of a case of a Halakhic character and
how it was resolved. The type dictated its own form: a simple
declarative sentence, unadorned and undeveloped by, e.g., dia-
logue. Here alongside the ma#aseh of the Mishnah-type and form,
we find other types of composition to which the marker is attached,
and not all of them are Halakhic at all. Let us now classify the
ma#asim that we have identified in two gross categories, Mishnah-
type, and other-than-Mishnah-type. That is justified by the doc-
umentary character of the Tosefta, partially concentric with the
 tosefta seder moed 191

Mishnah, partially free-standing. From the two catalogues that

follow I omit a few items that seem to me ambiguous and not so
readily classified. The upshot is clear.
Ma#asim of the Mishnah-type
(Halakhic, no dialogue, focused on a legal problem, exemplified by a particu-
lar case shorn of all distinguishing traits of occasion; executed by a simple de-
clarative sentence, without dialogue other than in the ruling on the case/
precedent, e.g., he said/sages said, and the like):
1. T. Shab. 3:3
2. T. Shab. 3:4
3. T. Shab. 15:8 [joined by an unconventional reprise involving a par-
ticular sage reporting on his own activity]
4. T. Erub. 5:6-7
5. T. Suk. 1:1
6. T. Suk. 2:3
7. T. Suk. 2:9-10 (2x)
8. T. R.H. 1:16
9. T. Meg. 2:17
As we should expect in a document that intersects in structure,
program and topic with the Mishnah, the Tosefta does replicate
the Mishnaic ma#asehbut loosens its form and redefines its pur-
pose, as we shall now see. The marker ma#aseh now signals a va-
riety of types and forms, not only the stripped down, Halakhic
type and form that predominates in the Mishnah.
Ma#asim of Other-than-the-Mishnah-type
(characterized item by item):
1. T. Shab. 1:12-13: first-person account of how the sage violated the
normative law and responded.
2. T. Shab. 2:4: first person dialogue of how sages conducted themselves
in the household of a principal authority.
3. T. Shab. 2:5: as above.
4. T. Shab. 5:12: practice of a sage, commented on.
5. T. Shab. 5:13: as above.
6. T. Shab. 7:16: local practice described, not objected to by sages.
7. T. Shab. 7:18: report of action of an individual in a particular case.
8. T. Shab. 13:2: report of an incident
9. T. Shab. 13:4: as above; account of what happened when the Halakhah
was violated.
10. T. Shab. 13:9: protracted composition reporting a particular case,
pertinent to the Halakhah but not conforming to its rule.
11. T. Shab. 13:14: dialogue lays out the circumstance of an action by a
sage.
192 chapter ten

12. T. Erub. 1:2: sage instructs on how to carry out the law, use of dia-
logue, not merely a described situation and a ruling.
13. T. Erub. 3:17: no Halakhic ruling set forth.
14. T. Erub. 5:24: when I waswe used to
15. T. Erub. 6:1-2: as above.
16. T. Pisha 3:11: as above.
17. T. Pisha 3:20: protracted account of what was said and done, exem-
plary behavior that transcended the strict requirements of the Halakhah.
18. T. Pisha 8:4: the form of Judahs report is standard, X did Y, but the
source of the Halakhic precedent is highly unusual in this context: it is
Scripture itself. This is the only case in Tosefta, so far as our sample
indicates, in which the authority and active ruling of a Halakhic judg-
ment derive from Scripture, not from the deed of a sage.
19. T. Kip. 21:13-14: this is not a Halakhic ruling at all, rather, a report of
an unusual case. It is not often that ma#aseh marks what is exceptional,
not what is ordinary and normative.
20. T. Kip. 1:21-22: as above.
21. T. Kip. 2:13: this is not a Halakhic ruling at all.
22. T. Suk. 1:7: first person account of what we sages used to do.
23. T. Suk. 2:2-3: I had a pain in the eye and the sage permitted me
24. T. Suk. 3:1: narrative of how the common folk disposed of a Halakhic
practice of sectarians.
25. T. Suk. 4:4: not a Halakhic entry.
26. T. Y.T. 2:11-13: reports on actions of we.
27. T. Y.T. 2:16: as above.
28. T. Ta. 2:4: actions of sages in response to a decision.
29. T. Ta. 2:4: action of sage in response to a circumstance.
30. T. Meg. 2:4: action of sage as a model.
31. T. Meg. 3:34: ad hoc decision of a sage in response to a particular case.
32. T. Meg. 3:34: as above.
33. T. Moed 2:15: action of individual sage in the context of local custom;
particular, not general, Halakhic setting, 2 x.
34. T. Hag. 2:13: ruling of a sage in a particular circumstance.
As I see it, the Toseftas utilization of the signal, ma#aseh, enlarges
the repertoire of possibilities associated with that indicator. How
does the evidence yield that result?
First, while the Mishnah ordinarily means by ma#aseh a case that
signifies the state of the Halakhah, that is, an example of what is
general and not what is particular to a circumstance or a named
authority or the collegium of sages all together, in the Tosefta,
the indicator very commonly alludes to a distinctive case, a spe-
cial situation and precisely not one subject to generalization in
and of itself. The first-person accounts of what we used to do
in the household of such and such authority, or of what that au-
 tosefta seder moed 193

thority permitted or forbade, contrast with the predominance of

exemplary cases/precedents, autonomous of the particularities of
circumstance. Defining the Halakhah as what applies in general
to all circumstances, we may say, in the Tosefta the ma#aseh en-
compasses the particular, sometimes even the unique (the ruling
of a given sage under very special conditions, e.g., when sages
did not disrupt local custom). In a variety of cases, on which we
have already remarked, the Tosefta concretizes and localizes the
Mishnahs general law.1 So the narrowly-Halakhic purpose served
by the ma#aseh in the Mishnah now is joined by usages that the
presentation of the Halakhah in its own terms and framework does
not require. That generalization encompasses, too, the focus on
particular cases of an other-than-exemplary character.
In line with that extension of the signal beyond its original,
Mishnaic discipline, second, we note the loosening of the form,
matching the shift in the type. Now there is ample room for dia-
logue, secondary accounts of described action, the rhetoric of
narrative, if not a fully realized, logically-teleological narrative.
So too, we note cases in which ma#aseh marks a theological expo-
sition, where the meaning of the law is spelled out, and a case in
which Scripture itself is invoked as the source of a Halakhic fact
(!), the ma#aseh-form being abandoned in favor of citation-rheto-
ric. The rhetoric of autobiographical narrative (I had a pain in
the eye and) has no common counterpart in the Mishnahs
ma#asim, any more than the Mishnahs account of the circumstances
of a ruling sustains the particularities that the Toseftas ma#aseh
perfectly routinely records. Nor does the Mishnahs ma#aseh ever,
ever include the response or result of a ruling, such as the Tosef-

1 Whether we say, the Mishnah generalizes and then the Tosefta particular-

izes, or the Tosefta begins with a case, on which the Mishnah then generalizes,
the phenomenon is the same. It does seem to me more likely that the Mishnah is
prior to the Tosefta in time, because the Tosefta does cite verbatim passages that
are original to the Mishnah and only secondary to the Tosefta. By that I mean,
passages that conform to the formal and logical traits of the Mishnah in general
seem to me primary to the Mishnah and secondary to the Tosefta. Passages that
ignore the Mishnahs fixed forms and are framed within the Toseftas looser ones
would seem to me not primary to the Mishnah. That argument works itself out in
the comparison of Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana, where shared
pisqaot can be shown to be primary to Leviticus Rabbah and secondary to Pesiqta
deRab Kahana. But nothing in the present exercise depends upon the historical
sequence of the documents, the Mishnah and the Tosefta. The phenomenological
differences remain fixed, however they be temporally ordered.
194 chapter ten

tas usage commonly encompasses. In all these aspects, as well as

obvious ones not remarked upon, the ma#aseh in the Tosefta is
readily distinguished, both as to type and as to form, from the
counterpart in the Mishnah.
That does not mean in a blind test, we could differentiate the
Mishnahs from the Toseftas ma#aseh, for the reason indicated
above: the Tosefta not only affords a hearing to its distinctive types
and forms of the ma#aseh, it also recapitulates, verbatim and oth-
erwise, the Mishnahs counterpart type and form. But handed a
set of ma#asim both typical of, and different from, those in the
Mishnah, we should have no difficulty whatsoever in picking out
those that are primary to the Tosefta and alien to the Mishnah.
Where there are differences from the Mishnahs types and forms,
there the Toseftas documentary program signals its presence. And
that is how the Toseftas framers always define their plan: where
they intersect with, but then part company from, the Mishnah:
citation and gloss, then autonomous statement of their own.
These same observations will be seen to pertain to the variet-
ies of signals delivered by the marker, ma#aseh, in the other divi-
sions of the document.

b. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions

1. T. Pisha 4:13-14: One time the fourteenth of Nisan coincided with the
Sabbath. They asked Hillel the Elder, As to the Passover-sacrifice, does
it override [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath? He said to them, Now
do we have only a single Passover-sacrifice in the course of the year
which overrides [the prohibitions] of the Sabbath? We have many more
than three hundred Passover-sacrifices in the year, and they all over-
ride [the prohibitions of] the Sabbath. All the people in the courtyard
ganged up on him.
2. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:7: Said R. Aqiba, Simeon b.
Luga told me, A certain child of the sons of their sons and I were
gathering grass in the field. Then I saw him laugh and cry. I said to
him, Why did you cry? He said to me, Because of the glory of fathers
house, which has gone into exile. I said to him, Then why did you
laugh? He said, At the end of it all, in time to come, the Holy One,
blessed be He, is going to make his descendants rejoice.
3. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim 2:8: Agdis b. Levi knew a certain mode
of singing, and he did not want to teach it to others [M. Yoma 3:11D].
Sages said to him, Why did you not want to teach it to others? He
said to them, The members of fathers house knew that the Temple
was destined for destruction, and they did not want to teach their mode
 tosefta seder moed 195

of singing to others, so that they should not sing before an idol the way
in which they say [song] before the Omnipresent. Ben Qamsar knew
[the art] of writing, and did not want to teach anyone else. [M. Yoma
3:11E] They said to him, Why do you not want to teach anyone else?
He remained silent.
4. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 3:14: They asked R. Eliezer, Lo,
if the goat which is to be sent fell sick, what is the law as to carrying it?
He said to them, Can he carry others?
5. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 1:8 9 M#SH B: R. Eliezer was reclining in
the Sukkah of Yohanan b. Ila#i in Caesarion The sun shone into the
Sukkah. He said to him, What is the law as to spreading a sheet over
it? [cf. M. Suk. 1:3] He said to him, You have not got a single tribe
in Israel which did not produce a prophet. The sun shone half way
into the Sukkah.
The pseudo-narrative serves both Aggadic and Halakhic contexts.
As to the Halakhic, T. Pisha 4:13-14 sets the stage for Hillels
exposition of the reasons behind his ruling, which are exegetical
and logical. T. Kip. 2:7-8 set forth propositions in dramatic dia-
logue, but for reasons that are clear do not qualify as authentic
narrativ es. Finally, the rather odd Eliezer-colloquies do not pre-
tend to narrative a coherent account.

The Authentic Narratives of Tosefta Division of Moed

Here are the authentic narratives that I have identified in the present divi-
sion of the Tosefta:
1. T. Pisha 2:15 M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel was going along from Akko
to Kezib. He found a loaf of cheap bread on the road. He said to his
slave, Tabi, Take the loaf. He saw a gentile. He said to him, Mabegai,
take this loaf of bread. On the basis of this event we learn that
Rabban Gamaliel divined by the Holy Spirit He came to Kezib.
Someone came along and besought from him [absolution of] his vow.
He said to this one who was with him, Have we drunk so much as a
quarter-log of Italian wine? We learned many rules on that day.
2. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:4: Said R. Yos, M#SH B: Jo-
seph b. Elim of Sepphoris served in the place of the high priest for one
hour. And from that time onward he was not valid either as a high priest
or as an ordinary priest. When he went forth [from his high priesthood
of one hour], he said to the king, The bullock and ram that were of-
fered today, to whom do they belong? Are they mine, or are they our
high priests? The king knew what to answer him.
3. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:8: And why do they have to
impose an oath on him? Because there already was the case of that certain
Boethusian, who offered up the incense while he was still outside, and
the cloud of incense went forth and frightened the entire house. For the
196 chapter ten

Boethusian maintained that he should burn the incense while he is still

outside Now when this Boethusian went forth, he said to his fathers,
In your entire lives you would [merely] expound the Scripture, but you
never did the deed properly, until I arose and I went in and did it right.
They said to him, Even though we do expound matters as you say, we
do not do things in the way in which we expound them. We obey the
words of sages. I shall be very much surprised at you if you live for very
long.
4. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:12 M#SH B: There were two
who got there at the same time, running up the ramp. One shoved the
other [M. Yoma 2:2A-B], within four cubits [of the altar]. The other then
took out a knife and stabbed him in the heart. R. Sadoq came and stood
on the steps of the porch and said, Hear me, O brethren of the house
of Israel! Lo, Scripture says, If in the land which the Lord your God
gives you to possess, any one is found slain, lying in the open country,
and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges
shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance to the cities which
are around him that is slain (Deut. 21:1-2). Come so let us measure to
find out for what area it is appropriate to bring the calf, for the sanc-
tuary, or for the courts! All of them moaned after his speech. And af-
terward the father of the youngster came to them, saying, O brethren
of ours! May I be your atonement. His [my] son is still writhing, so the
knife has not yet been made unclean. This teaches you that the unclean-
ness of a knife is more grievous to Israelites than murder.
5. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:4: When Nicanor was bringing
them from Alexandria, in Egypt, a gale rose in the sea and threatened
to drown them. They took one of them and tossed it into the sea, and
they wanted to throw in the other but Nicanor would not let them. He
said to them, If you throw in the second one, throw me in with it. He
was distressed all the way to the wharf at Jaffa. Once they reached the
wharf at Jaffa, the other door popped up from underneath the boat.
6. Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 2:5-6: The members of the house-
hold of Garmu were experts in making Show Bread and they did not
want to teach others The members of the house of Abtinas were
experts in preparing the incense for producing smoke [cf. M. Yoma 3:1
IC], and they did not want to teach others how to do so .
7. Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:3: Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, When
I was studying with Yohanan b. Hahorani [cf. M. Suk. 2:7D], I saw him
eating a dry piece of bread, for it was a time of famine. So I came and
told my father. He said to me, Here are some olives for him. So
I brought him some olives. He took them and examined them and saw
that they were wet. He said to me, Im not an olive-eater. I came home
and told my father. And he said to me, Go, tell him, It was from a per-
forated basket, in accord with the House of Hillel [and so the sap which
exuded from them is not deemed to have rendered the olives susceptible
to uncleanness], but the lees stopped it up [on which account the liq-
uids collected and dampened the olives].
 tosefta seder moed 197

8. Tosefta-tractate Yom Tob (Besah) 2:6 M#SH B: Simeon of Teman did

not go out on the night of the festival to the school house. At dawn R.
Judah b. Baba came upon him. He said to him, Why did you not come
last night to the school house He said to him, A certain religious duty
came my way, so I went and did it. A gentile troop came to town, and
they were afraid that they might make trouble for the townsfolk. So we
prepared a calf for them and gave them food and drink and made a place
for them to stay, so that they would not make trouble for the townsfolk.
9. Tosefta-tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:15: At first they would accept
testimony concerning the new moon from everybody [M. R.H. 2:1B].
One time the Boethusians hired two witnesses to come and fool the sages.
For the Boethusians do not concede that Pentecost should come at any
time except on the day following the Sabbath. One of them came along
and gave his testimony and went his way. Then the second one said, I
was coming up at Ma#aleh Adumim, and I saw it crouching between two
rocks.
10. Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot (Ta#anit) 3:7: What was the matter
having to do with the families of the Pestle-Smugglers and the Fig-Pressers
[M. Ta. 4:5H]? Now when the Greek kings set up border-guards on the
roads, so that people should not go up to Jerusalem, just as Jeroboam
the son of Nebat did, then, whoever was a suitable person and sin-fear-
ing of that generationwhat did he do? He would take up his first fruits
and make a kind of basket and cover them with dried figs, and take the
basket with the first-fruits and cover them with a kind of dried figs and
he would put them in a basket and take the basket and a pestle on his
shoulder and go up.
11. Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:1 M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai
was riding on an ass, and R. Eleazar b. Arakh was driving the ass from
behind He [Eleazar] said to him, Rabbi, repeat for me a chapter of the
works of the Chariot. He said to him, Have I not ruled for you to begin
with that they do not repeat [the tradition] concerning the Chariot for an
individual, unless he was a sage and understands of his own knowledge
He said to him, Now may I lay matters out before you?
12. Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:6. M#SH B: R. Joshua was walking in a
piazza, and Ben Zoma was coming toward him. When he reached him,
he did not greet him. He said to him, From whence and whither, Ben
Zoma? He said to him, I was concentrating upon the works of Cre-
ation, and there is not even a handbreadth [of distance] between the
upper waters and the nether waters.
13. Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:11 M#SH B: Hillel the Elder laid on hands
on a whole-offering in the courtyard [cf. M. Hag. 2:3B], and the disciples
of Shammai ganged up on him. He said to them, Go and see it, for it
is a female, and I have to prepare it as sacrifices of peace-offerings. He
put them off with a bunch of words, and they went their way.
14. Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:12 SWB M#SH B: Another disciple of the
disciples of the House of Hillel laid hands on a whole-offering. One of
198 chapter ten

the disciples of Shammai found him out. He said to him, Whats this
laying on of hands?!
These are to be divided into Halakhic and Aggadic, perfunctory
and successful. Here are the types:
Halakhic narratives:
1. T. Pisha. 2:15, which combines a number of Halakhic issues, covering
various classifications of Halakhah, a large and elaborate composition.
2. T. Kip. 1:8: Why the oatha narrative explaining the origin of the law.
3. T. Kip. 1:12: Why the division by lottery of the priestly liturgiesa
narrative explaining the origin of the law.
4. T. Suk. 2:3: Yohanan ben Hahorani, illustrating the laws of preserving
the purity of domestic food.
5. T. Y.T. 2:6: A story illustrating the law.
6. T. R.H. 1:15: A story on the origin of the law.
7. T. Hag. 2:11: Hillel the Elder laid hands on a whole offering in the
Temple courtyard, vs. the position of the house of Shammai on the law.
8. T. Hag. 2:12: the same.
Some Halakhic narratives illustrate how a set of laws comes to-
gether in a single situation, as at T. Pisha 2:15, or they account
for the origins of a given Halakhah. These etiologies tend to fo-
cus on the Temple. So the main purpose of the authentic narra-
tives of a Halakhic character is to place a given Halakhic ruling
into its larger Halakhic context, either identifying its origin, or
illustrating its working, or explaining its venue. In all cases, nar-
ratives of a Halakhic sort are secondary to the presentation of the
Halakhah; they are instrumental, not essential (a distinction I owe
to Ithamar Gruenwald).
Aggadic narratives:
1. T. Kip. 1:4, minor.
2. [T. Kip. 2:4: Nicanors doornot fully realized].
3. T. Kip. 2:5-6: Why various Temple craftsmen did not teach their craft,
a praiseworthy protection of the Temples integrity [a beautifully real-
ized narrative].
4. T. Ta. 3:7: the families of Pestle-Smugglers and Fig Pressers and why they
are honored in the Temple, a praiseworthy deceit in the service of the
Temple and its rites [a beautifully realized narrative].
5. T. Hag. 2:1: Eleazar b. Arakhs proper exposition of the Works of the
Chariot.
6. T. Hag. 2:6: Joshua and Ben Zoma.
I see two types of authentic narratives of an Aggadic classifica-
tion, both of them fully realized in large and complex expositions.
 tosefta seder moed 199

The first involves Temple-authorities and their conduct, T. Kip.

2:5-6 and T. Ta. 3:7. The second set concerns sages exposition
of the works of the Chariot and other issues of cosmology. An
account of how, in the Tosefta, the Temple priesthood and rites
are represented would have to balance the bitter complaint, they
care more about cultic cleanness than about murder, against the
blatant admiration for the Temple cadres, the craftsmen and the
priestly divisions.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey and that are spelled out
in the Preface and Introduction and repeated at each pertinent
unit.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? The Halakhic pseudo-narratives and authen-
tic narratives of the present division of the Tosefta take positions
subordinate to the Halakhic exposition; they fill in gaps; they
validate the rules; they explain the context in which a given
Halakhah originated. They are, in Professor Gruenwalds distinc-
tion, instrumental, not essential. In no detail do they part com-
pany from the Halakhic corpus that they amplify. The first of the
two principal compilations of Aggadic narratives, T. Kip. 2:5-6
and T. Ta. 3:7, accord honor to the Temple authorities and ac-
count for their positions by appeal to their virtue. They cohere
to the basic canonical esteem for the work of the priesthood, if
not for all exempla thereof.
The second of the two Aggadic sets, the cosmological narra-
tives, represents another matter altogether. The sets indeed do refer
to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the Halakhic
documents, in this case, Mishnah-Tosefta, but they convey almost
nothing of the contents of that thought (with the exception of Ben
Zomas dramatized narrative with Joshua the audience). The only
important example yielded by Tosefta Moed of an anomalous
composite beyond the documentary framework is the little set in
T. Hagigah. Everyone who has ever opened the pages of Mish-
nah-Tosefta Hagigah has made the same observation. What I think
is fresh is the recognition that, for the Mishnah and for the Tosefta,
T. Hagigahs two important narratives, T. Hag. 2:2, Yohanan ben
Zakkai and Eleazar, and T. Hag. 2:6, are absolutely unique. And
they conflict. The one naturalizes the Merkabah-lesson, without
200 chapter ten

hinting at its content,2 on which in the Mishnah and the Tosefta

we have no foundations for speculation. The other anathematiz-
es the cosmological lesson, explicitly stating what is objectionable.
In the present context, it suffices to note that here, in the medi-
um of narrative, we find the conflict embodied between those
circles that accommodate, and those that reject, the cosmological
doctrines to which allusion is made here. Then the asymmetric
compositions point to thought that takes place beyond the bound-
aries of the Rabbinic systembut that the Rabbinic system pro-
poses to sort out. In response to the questions that animate this
study, the mixed signals allow us to say no more than that. But
one conclusion is firm: with the indicated exception(s) composi-
tions and composites of narratives in the aggregate fall well with-
in the documentary program of the Tosefta, as much as of the
Mishnah.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The pseudo-narrative ma#asim
do move beyond the simple ma#aseh-form of the Mishnah, add-
ing the use of dialogue, for example, while subtracting the required
sages ruling on the described case, action, or situation. I have
already called them, in form, ma#aseh-plus. But I do not perceive
repetitive patterns of form such as characterize the Toseftas pre-
sentation of Halakhic expositions. I could not define the rules that
governed the patterning of language, for example, of the pseudo-
narrative ma#asim, their dialogue or the order of exposition. More
important, the principal Aggadic narratives, the first of the two
authentic narrative groups devoted to the Temple and to cosmol-
ogy, yields formal patterns. The Temple-narratives obviously
conform to rules of composition that are embodied twice over.
The latterthe narratives of cosmology, T. Hag. 2:2, 2:6are
more difficult to characterize; I see little in common in the nar-
ratives of T. Hag. 2:2 and 2:6, nothing that would tell me, for
example, that without labels, on formal criteria I should link the
two together and differentiate them as a set from all other Aggadic
narratives.

2 The literature on the Merkabah in general and on T. Hag. 2:2ff. is formi-

dable; the best starting point is Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism,
Brill: Leiden/Koeln, 1980.
 tosefta seder moed 201

3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we

know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documen-
tary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary
venue? In light of the response to No. 2, for the bulk of the se-
lected entries I do not know the answer to No. 3. Both authentic
narrative-types, the Temple-stories and the cosmological stories,
require attention. The former are integral to the Toseftas supple-
ment to the Mishnahs laws, which they cite verbatim. So T. Hag.
2:2 on the surface belongs well within the framework of the rules
for composing statements for documents. So far as the second set
moves beyond the work of Mishnah-supplement, it is only in the
few lines of Ben Zomas cosmological account, explicitly labeled
as evidence of Ben Zomas leaving of his senses. That reinforces
the Mishnahs Halakhic ruling about who is, and who is not,
qualified to expound such matters. So while the topics and the
elaborate exposition of the topics stand apart from the normal,
they remain well within the framework of Mishnah-exposition that
defines the Toseftas boundaries. The upshot is, with the exclu-
sion of the imputed discourse of T. Hag. 2:6, at no point do we
find writing that is materially disconnected from the documen-
tary venue.
A quick glance at the pertinent item yields the information we
now require; I indent the key language:
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:6
A. M#SH B: R. Joshua was walking in a piazza, and Ben Zoma was coming
toward him.
B. When he reached him, he did not greet him.
C. He said to him, From whence and whither, Ben Zoma?
D. He said to him, I was concentrating upon the works of Creation,
and there is not even a handbreadth [of distance] between the upper
waters and the nether waters,
E. for it says, The spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters
(Gen. 1:2).
F. And it says, Like an eagle that stirs up its nest that flutters over its
young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pin-
ions, so the Lord alone did lead him (Deut. 32:12).
G. Just as this eagle flutters above its nest, touching and not touch-
ing, so there is no more space between the upper waters and the nether
waters than a handbreadth.
H. Said R. Joshua to his disciples, Ben Zoma already is on the outside [among
the sectarians].
202 chapter ten

I. The days were only a few before Ben Zoma disappeared.

D-G form the heart of the matter. Is this documentary or non-
documentary writing, meaning, are there in other documents or
other parts of this document counterparts to the rhetorical pat-
tern before us? If we omit the first-person I was concentrating,
and focus upon the proposition, As to the works of creation, there
is not for it says and it says just as so there is, we
find before us a perfectly routine realization of the most funda-
mental formal convention of Midrash-exegesis: proposition + proof
text, sometimes with, sometimes without, a repetition of the prop-
osition, that is, D, E-F, G. So however allegedly alien the doc-
trine that is set forth at D and then expounded at E-F + G, the
form is absolutely routine in Midrash-compilations of the Tan-
naite-Halakhic classification, Sifra and the two Sifrs, and famil-
iar, too, in Genesis Rabbah (if not in the bulk of the Rabbah-
Midrash-compilations).
In this context, we may then maintain, there is nothing formally
non-documentary in the narrative at hand. True, in the sense
explained in the Introduction, the composition is extra-documen-
tary: we have no large-scale document that constructs itself out
of expositions of cosmological problems, in the way in which we
have documents that take shape around problems and proposi-
tions of other kinds. So if we were given blind, with no markings
of origin, a composition comparable to T. Hag. 2:6, we could
not position it, e.g., even in Tosefta, with its dominant, other-
than-exegetical preferences for its formalizing its expositions. But
the forms are rhetorically conventional. They are routine in one
of the large classifications of Midrash-compilations, thus consti-
tuting extra-documentary writing, not non-documentary writing.
To ask once more: When and under what circumstances did documen-
tary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary
venue? This realization of Midrash-form in its most ordinary defi-
nition is not writing indifferent to the documentary venue of the
Rabbinic canon, so far as rhetorical patterns govern. On the con-
trary, it is the product of documentary writing, as much as any
other composition in the Tosefta. Indeed, quite ordinary in the
documentary context of Midrash-compilations of a particular clas-
sification, as I said. It is alien only to the canonical context that
is defined by not rhetoric but topic, in this case, by doctrine, as
the text itself says. And had the text not told us the fate of Ben
 tosefta seder moed 203

Zoma, we should not have known that! T. Hag. 2:2 hardly pre-
pares us for such a judgment.
So we move to a question to be addressed to the study of Ju-
daism, meaning, the description in large aggregates, analysis, and
interpretation of the Rabbinic religious system and structureand
not to the documentary reading of the canon of that same Juda-
ism. With writing not indifferent to its documentary venue, the
problem is not one of literature but of religion. But in these ob-
servations, I have moved far beyond the limits of this study.
This page intentionally left blank
 tosefta seder nashim 205

CHAPTER ELEVEN

TOSEFTA SEDER NASHIM

I. Tractate Yebamot

Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 3:1

Y. The wife of his brother on his mothers side, and the wife of his
brother who was not a contemporary, and his daughter-in-law, mar-
ried to his brother [after the death of his son], and she has a sister,
whether from on her fathers side or on her mothers side, married to
his other brother,
Z. and he dies without children
AA. she either performs the rite of Halisah or enters into levirate mar-
riage.
BB. They asked R. Eliezer, Does a mamzer inherit?
CC. He said to them, Does he undergo a rite of Halisah [with his deceased
childless brothers widow] [M. Yeb. 2:5]?
DD. Does he undergo a rite of Halisah?
EE. He said to them, Does he inherit?
FF. Does he inherit?
GG. He said to them, Does one plaster his house [as a sign of his status as
a mamzer]?
HH. Does one plaster his grave?
II. Does one plaster his grave?
JJ. He said to them, May one raise dogs?
KK. May one raise dogs?
LL. He said to them, May one raise pigs?
MM. May one raise pigs?
NN. He said to them, May one raise chickens?
00. May one raise chickens?
PP. He said to them, May one raise small cattle?
QQ. May one raise small cattle?
RR. He said to them, May one rescue a shepherd from a wolf?
SS. May one rescue a shepherd from a wolf?
TT. He said to them, It appears to me that you have asked only about a
female-sheep.
UU. And what is the law as to saving the female-sheep?
VV. He said to them, It appears to me that you have asked only about the
shepherd.
WW. What is the fate of Mr. So-and-So as to the world to come? What is
206 chapter eleven

the fate of Mr. Such-and-such as to the world to come?

XX. He said to them, It appears to me that you have asked only about
Mr. So-and-So.
YY. And what is the fate of Mr. So-and-So as to the world to come?
ZZ. And it was not that R. Eliezer meant to put them off, but the rea-
son is that he never in his entire life stated a rule which he had not
heard.
ZZ does not change the picture of a pseudo-narrative, such as
we have seen before. In fact, all we have is a recorded exchange,
not a logic-driven narrative at all.
Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 4:5
A. He who delivers a writ of divorce from overseas and said, In my
presence was it written and in my presence it was sealed may not then
marry his the mans wife to whom he brought the writ of divorce.
B. If he testified, He [the husband] has died, We killed him, I killed
him, he may not marry his wife.
C. R. Judah says. If he stated], I have killed him, his wife may not
remarry.
D. [But if he stated,] We killed him, his wife may remarry [M. Yeb.
2:9].
E. They said to him, [M#SH B] A certain thug was caught in Qapotqia
[Cappadocia] and was being taken out to be executed. He said, Go tell the
wife of Simeon b. Kahana, I murdered him when he came into Lud.
F. And the case came to sages, who permitted his wife to remarry.
G. He said to them, Is there proof from that case? But in that case,
the doomed man said only, We murdered him.
This is a standard case/precedent, at E-F. The form is perfect:
incident + ruling, with the incident stripped down to its Hala-
khic essentials.
Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 6:7
6:7 A. The deceased childless brothers widow with whom her levir
has performed the rite of Halisah in a period of three months [from
the death of her husband] must wait [from that time] for three months.
B. [If] this took place three months after [the death of the husband],
she does not have to wait for three [more] months.
C. The three months of which they have spoken are three months after
the death of her husband, and not three months after the rite of Halisah
with her levir.
D. He who deposits a writ of divorce for his wife and says, Do not
deliver it to her before three months have passed,
E. as soon as the writ of divorce reaches her hand, she is permitted to
remarry forthwith.
F. And one does not take account of the possibility that it is a superan-
 tosefta seder nashim 207

nuated writ of divorce [after the issuance of which the couple has had
sexual relations].
G. The daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite and the
husband of whom has died eats heave-offering in the evening [of the
same day].
H. And one does not take account of the possibility that she is preg-
nant [and therefore not permitted to do so].
I. The widow of a childless brother, for the first three months after his
death, is supported from the estate of her husband.
J. After three months she is not supported either from her husbands
estate or from her levers property.
K. If her levir went to court and [then] fled, lo, she is supported from
his property.
L. M#SH B: A certain party came before R. Yos. He said to him, What is
the law as to performing the rite of Halisah during the three months [of the
husbands death]?
M. R. Yos cited to him the following verse: And if the man is nor willing
to take his deceased childless brothers widow (Deut. 25:7).
N. [And the meaning, he said, is this:] She who is appropriate for marriage
with the levir is appropriate for performance of the rite of Halisah.
0. Since she is not suitable for levirate marriage [during three months of
the husbands death], she also is not suitable for the rite of Halisah.
P. The deceased childless brothers widow should not engage in the
rite of Halisah nor enter into levirate marriage until three months have
passed from the death of her husband.
Q. And just as they do not say to him to enter into levirate marriage,
so they do not say to him to perform the rite of Halisah.
R. M#SH B: In Piga a certain person was going overseas, and had a de-
ceased childless brothers widow awaiting marriage, and also had a little
brother.
S. In the name of R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq they said, Let her go through the
rite of Halisah, lest some ill-chance happen to him, and she turn out to be
subject to levirate marriage with a minor [and therefore have to wait for
many years].
L-O is a somewhat odd version of the case/precedent, because
what we have is not the report of something that has happened,
but an exchange of question/answer; without a certain party
came, we should have nothing other than a routine Halakhic
interchange. That is why I do not regard the composition as a
pseudo-narrative. It is also odd to find a proof-text and its expo-
sition smack in the middle of a ma#aseh. Accordingly, we may clas-
sify the first ma#aseh as Toseftan, not Mishnaic at all. R is a stan-
dard case/precedent.
208 chapter eleven

Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 10:3

A. Who is he who has crushed testicles?
B. Any one whose testicles are crushed [M. Yeb. 8:2-B]
C. which are punctured or perforated, or one of which is lacking.
D. Said R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqa, I heard in the Vineyard
at Yabneh: He who has only one testicle, lo, such a one is a eunuch by
nature.
E. Said R. Yose, M#SH B: A man in Kefar Mendon went up to the top of
an olive tree and fell down, and one of his testicles was crushed. He came
and had sexual relations with his wife and died.
F. They came and asked R. Yohanan b. Nuri, May his wife enter into
levirate marriage?
G. He said to them, Before you ask me about the law as to her entering
levirate marriage, ask me the law as to her eating heave-offering?
H. For she has been rendered invalid for marriage into the priesthood
and invalid for eating heave-offering [M. Yeb. 8:1, 4].
Here again, the marker, ma#aseh, does not signal a standard form:
description of a case + ruling. The case is well described at E. A
conventional continuation would have been, R. Yohanan b. Nuri
invalidated his wife as to eating heave-offering. The expanded
dialogue breaks out of the case/precedent form.
Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 12:11
A. Said R. Judah, If R. Eliezer could see the wooden sandal of our
own day, he would say concerning it, Lo, it is equivalent to a proper
sandal for all purposes.
B. Said R. Simeon, I came across a certain elder from Nisibis. I re-
marked to him, Was R. Judah b. Betera an authority for you?
C. He said to me, Yes. And he was constantly at my money-changing
stall.
D. I said to him, Did you ever see him perform the rite of Halisah?
E. He said to me, Yes.
F. I said to him, With what did you see him do it, with a slipper or
with a sandal?
G. He said to me, And do they perform the rite of Halisah with a
slipper?
H. I said to him, If so, on what account did R. Meir rule that they
per-form the rite of Halisah with a slipper?
I. R. Jacob says in his name, R. Meir conceded that they do not per-
form the rite of Halisah with a slipper.
This Halakhic dialogue does not qualify as a narrative, nor is there
any pretense that it does. It simply reports on a conversation.
Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 12:15
A. At first they wrote out a writ of Halisah: She came before us and
 tosefta seder nashim 209

removed his shoe from his right foot and she spit before us spit which
was visible, and she said, Thus will be done, etc. (Deut. 25:9).
B. R. Simeon says in the name of R. Aqiba, The act of removing the
shoe is essential, and the act of spitting is not essential [M. Yeb. 12:3].
C. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, Since he did not want to raise up a
name for his brother in Israel, let him come and take a name for him-
self instead of that name: And his name will be called in Israel, etc.
D. It is a duty for the judges and not a duty for the disciples [M. Yeb.
I 2:6L-M].
E. R. Judah says, It is a duty for all the bystanders to say, The man
whose shoe has been removed! The man whose shoe has been removed!
F. Said R. Judah, M#SH W: We were in session before R. Tarfon, and he
said to us, All of you respond: The man whose shoe has been removed!
The man whose shoe has been removed!
The nearly-perfect case/precedent, F, complements E. A perfect
Mishnaic rendering would involve a ruling, not merely a report
of what was done, but he said to us qualifies.
Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7
14:5 A. If he fell into water, whether in sight of shore or not within
sight of shore, his wife is prohibited, the words of R. Meir [M. Yeb.
16:4A-B].
B. And sages say, [If it is] within sight of shore, she is permitted [to
remarry]. [If it is] not within sight of shore, his wife is prohibited from
remarrying. For a wave may have picked him up and thrown him back
onto dry land.
C. Said R. #Aqiba, When I was traveling on the sea, I saw a ship struggling
in the waves, and I was saddened for the fate of a disciple of sages who was
on board. And when I came to Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia, I saw him
in session and asking questions of law before me.
D. I said to him, My son, how did you escape from the ocean?
He said to me, One wave tossed me to the next, and the next to the next,
until I came up on dry land.
E. I said, How great are the words of sages. For they have said: If it is
within sight of shore, his wife is permitted to remarry. If it is not within
sight of shore, his wife is prohibited [M. Yeb. 16:4A-B].
14:6 A. Said Rabbi, M#SH B: Two men were fishing with traps in the Jor-
dan. And one of them went into an underwater cave of fish. His fellow
waited for him long enough for him to have died through drowning and
then reported the matter in his home.
B. At dawn the sun came up, and the man [trapped in the case] saw the
way out of the cave and came home and found a mourning party in his
house.
C. Said R. Meir, M#SH B. A certain man fell into a large cistern and came
up after thirty days, [M. Yeb. 16:4C].
D. They said to him, They do not adduce a miracle-story in evidence.
210 chapter eleven

14:7 A. Even if one heard the sound of professional mourners men-

tioning his name among the deceased
B. there is no more solid evidence than that.
C. [If] one heard an Israelite court declare, So-and-So, son of So-and-
So , is dead, or has been killed, his wife may remarry.
D. [If] one heard royal bureaucrats, saying, So-and-So, son of So-
and-So, is dead, or has been slainhis wife should not remarry.
L. They permit a woman to remarry on the evidence of an echo [M.
Yeb. I 6:6B].
F. M#SH B: A certain person stood on top of a mountain and said. Mr.
So-and-So, the son of So-and-So [M. Yeb. 16:6C] has been bitten by a snake
and died. And they went [M. 16:6F-G] and found that his face was swollen
up [so they did not recognize him], but they [nonetheless] permitted his
wife to remarry.
G. And in the case of a gentile, if he intended to give testimony, his
testimony is not valid [M. Yeb. 16:5D].
H. Abba Yudan of Sidon says, M#SH B: A certain gentile and an Israelite
were going along, and that certain gentile said, Oh woe for a certain Isra-
elite who perished here, and I lamented and buried him here.
I. And the case came before sages, who permitted his wife to remarry.
J. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, M#SH B: A band of prisoners went to
Antioch, and upon their return they said, Of our group only So-and-so, a
Jew, was killed. And the case came before sages, who permitted his wife to
remarry.
14:8 A. SWB M#SH B: Sixty men went down to the fortress at Betar and
not a single one of them came back. And the matter came before sages,
who permitted their wives to remarry.
B. They give testimony concerning him [the deceased] only by men-
tion-ing his name and the name of his father, his name and the name
of his town.
C. But if one said, So and so has gone forth from such and such a
town, and they searched in that town
D. if only he went forth from that town, his wife may remarry.
14:9 A. M#SH B: Two were running after a gang and one of them grabbed
an olive tree, and tore it off and drove off the gang and came back.
B. And he said to him, Good for you, Lion.
C. He said to him, How do you know about me, that Im a lion. Thats just
what Im called in my townYohanan b. Yonatan, Lion of the town of
Shahara.
D. Three days later the man [Yohanan] got sick and died, and [on the tes-
timony of the man who knew his name and the name of his village], they
permitted his wife to remarry.
14:10 A. They do not cross-examine witnesses in matters concerning
wives [remarrying].
B. R. Tarfon and R. Aqiba say, They do cross-examine witnesses in
matters concerning wives.
C. M#SH B: A certain party came before R. Tarfon to give testimony con-
 tosefta seder nashim 211

cerning a woman [that her husband had died so] she may remarry.
D. He said to him, My son, how do you know the testimony for this woman?
E. He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us on a caravan, and a robber-band
fell on us, and he grabbed the branch of a fig-tree and tore it off and drove
the gang away.
F. And I said to him, I congratulate you, Lion!
G. He said to me, Well have you said! You guessed my name. Thats just
what Im called in my village, Yohanan b. Yonatan, the lion of the town of
Shahara.
H. He [Tarfon] said to him, Well said, my son: Yonatan b. Yohanan, the
lion of the town of Shahara.
I. He said to him, No, Rabbi. It was Yohanan b. Yonatan, the lion of the
town of Shahara.
J. He said to him, But did you not just say, Yonatan b. Yohanan, of the
town of Shahara, a lion?
K. He said to him, But his name was Yohanan b. Yonatan of the town of
Shahara.
L. So R. Tarfon cross-examined him three times, and each time his testi-
mony came out just as before.
M. And he permitted the wife to remarry on the strength of his testimony.
N. From that time forth they became accustomed to cross-examine
witnesses in matters concerning women.
0. Said to them R. #Aqiba, When she will be an inn-keeper-woman, she
will be believed too [M. Yeb. 16:7].
Aqibas report, T. 14:5, illustrates the cited Halakhic statement,
and it qualifies as a pseudo-narrative, even without the signal,
ma#aseh. T. 14:6A-B violates the Mishnaic form, because it does
not include a ruling, e.g., and sages said. The same is so of
T. 14:6C-D. T. 14:7F qualifies as a standard ma#aseh, because it
contains a ruling, not just a case-report. Similarly, T. 4:7H-I, J,
T. 14:8A, T. 14:9A-D (a bit elaborate but well within established
parameters) qualify. T. 14:10 A-B are illustrated by C-M, too
elaborate for a standard case/precedent, more suitably classified
as a Halakhic etiology, by reason of N.

II. Tractate Ketubot

Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:7

A. A man marries a woman on condition of not having to maintain
her and of not having to support her.
B. And not only so, but he may make an agreement with her that she
maintain and support him and teach him Torah.
C. M#SH B: Joshua, the son of R. Aqiba married a woman and made an
212 chapter eleven

agreement with her that she maintain and support him and teach him To-
rah.
D. There were years of famine. They [the husband and wife] went and divided
their property.
E. She began to complain against him to sages.
F. And when he came to court, he said to them, She is more credible to
me than any man.
G. She said to them, Most assuredly did he covenant with me thus.
H. Sages said to her, Nothing validly follows the agreement [that took place
at D].
The ma#aseh here is somewhat elaborate in its articulation at C-
G, but if we regard the details as integral, it then conforms to the
familiar pattern.
Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:9
A. Hillel the Elder made an exegesis of ordinary language [of legal
documents, and not merely of the text of the Torah].
B. When the Alexandrians would betroth a woman, afterward someone
else would come along and grab her right out of the market.
C. Such an incident came before sages, and they considered declaring the
children to be Mamzers.
D. Hillel the Elder said to them, Show me the marriage-contract of your
mothers.
E. They showed them to him, and written in it was the following language:
F. When you will enter my house, you will be my wife in accord with the
law of Moses and Israel [but not before that time, on the strength of which
provision in the wording he decided that they were not Mamzers].
The pseudo-narrative supplies a case to illustrate the proposition
that sages conduct exegeses of the ordinary language of legal
documents.
Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 5:9
A. The excess of food [beyond her needs] goes back to him. The ex-
cess of worn-out clothing belongs to her.
B. If he gets rich she goes up with him, but if he becomes poor, she
does not go down with him.
C. M#SH B: The sages awarded to the daughter of Naqdimon b. Gurion
five hundred golden denars daily for a fund for spices, and she was only a
sister-in-law awaiting levirate marriage.
D. But she cursed [them] and said, So may you award for your own daugh-
ters!
5:10 A. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq. May I [not] see comfort, if I did
not see her picking out pieces of barley from under the hoofs of horses
in Akko.
B. Concerning her I pronounced the following Scripture, If you do
not know, O most beautiful of women (Song 1:8).
 tosefta seder nashim 213

I do not see how this provides a case/precedent, since the point,

B, carried forward and glossed at T. 5:10A-B, contains no ruling
by sages.

III. Tractate Nedarim

Tosefta-tractate Nedarim 5:l

A. He who prohibits himself by a vow from deriving benefit from a
house [and] an upper room,
B. and finds out that, before his vow, they had fallen to him by in-
heritance or had been given to him as a gift
C. [and said], If I had known that that was the case, I should never
have taken such a vow,lo, this [vow] is not binding.
D. M#SH B: A certain man prohibited his wife by vow from going up to
Jerusalem.
E. And she went and treated his vow as not binding.
F. And he turned to R. Yos.
G. He [Yos] said to him, Now if you had known that she would treat
your words as null not in your presence, would you have imposed a vow
on her?
H. He said to him, Never!
I. And R. Yos declared the vow not binding.
J. R. Ishmael b. R. Yos says, They say to him, If someone had ap-
peased you, would you have taken such a vow?
K. If he says, No,
L. then lo, this [vow] is not binding.
M. R. Judah b. Betera says, They say to him, If you [then] had
this [present] attitude, would you have taken such a vow?
N. if he says, No,
0. then, lo, this [vow] is not binding.
The case/precedent consists of two parts, D-F + G, or + J-L, or +
M-O. In the alternative apodosis, all we have is a more elabo-
rate version of the standard ma#aseh.

IV. Tractate Nezirut (Nazir)

Tosefta-tractate Nezirut 4:7

A. Said Simeon the Righteous, In my entire life I ate a guilt-offering of a
Nazir only one time.
B. M#SH B: A man came to me from the south, and I saw that he had
beautiful eyes, a handsome face, and curly locks. I said to him, My son, on
what account did you destroy this lovely hair?
C. He said to me, I was a shepherd in my village, and I came to draw
214 chapter eleven

water from the river, and I looked at my reflection, and my bad impulse
took hold of me and sought to drive me from the world.
D. I [the Nazirite to be] said to him, Evil one! You should not have taken
pride in something which does not belong to you, in something which is
going to turn into dust, worms, and corruption. Lo, I take upon myself to
shave you off for the sake of Heaven.
E. I [Simeon the Righteous] patted his head and kissed him and said to
him, My son, may people like you become many, people who do the will
of the Omnipresent in Israel. Through you is fulfilled this Scripture, as it is
said, A man or a woman, when he will express a vow to be a Nazir, to
abstain for the sake of the Lord (Num. 6:2).
The marker, M#SH B, leads to the false expectation that we have
a case/precedent, while in fact we deal with an other-than-Hala-
khic composition altogether. It is, in fact, a beautifully-articulat-
ed narrative, reaching its climax with a conclusion that imparts
itself on the prior details and forms of the whole a coherent state-
ment. Clearly, evidence accumulates through this survey that in
the Tosefta, M#SH no longer signals a stripped down, Halakhic,
composition, one serving a single purpose, a matter to which we
return in chapter fifteen.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The point of the narra-
tive is that the vow is meant to be for the sake of the Lord,
and here is what that requires. So the point of the story emerges
only at the end, E. On that basis I classify the composition as an
authentic narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict is be-
tween the sages stress on the purity of heart that the vow requires
and the commonplace motivation that leads people to take the
view. It is resolved by the story itself, the example of the Nazirite
showing what is suitable for the votive vow.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The anticipated three
stages are B, C-D, and E, the prologue, the main event, and the
upshot. These do not strike me as indicative traits of any special
consequence.
 tosefta seder nashim 215

V. Tractate Sotah

Tosefta-tractate Sotah 4:7

A. Joseph had the merit of (burying) his father, so it was only Moses
who took the trouble to care for his bones, as it is said. And Moses
took the bones of Joseph with him (Ex. 13:19) [M. Sot. 1:9CE].
B. This teaches that all of the people were occupied with plunder,
but he was busy with the doing of a commandment, as it is said,
The wise of heart will heed commandments (Prov. 10:8).
C. But if Moses had not taken care of him, would the Israelites not
have taken care of [Joseph]?
D. [Yet] Scripture says, And the bones of Joseph which the chil-
dren of Israel brought up out of Egypt they buried in Shechem
(Joshua 24:32).
E. But since the Israelites saw Moses taking care of him, they said,
Leave him be. His [Josephs] honor will be greater when his rites
will be performed by great men rather than by unimportant ones.
F. Now if Moses and the Israelites had not taken care of [Jo-
seph], would not his own children have taken care of him?
G. Scripture says, And they became the inheritance of the chil-
dren of Joseph (Joshua 24:32).
H. But when his children saw Moses and the Israelites taking care
of [Joseph], they said, Leave him be. His [Josephs] honor will
be greater when his rites will be performed by many rather than
by few.
I. How did Moses know where Joseph had been buried?
J. They tell:
Serah daughter of Asher was [a survivor] of the generation [of Joseph], and
she went and said to Moses, In the River Nile Joseph is buried. And the
Egyptians made for him metal spits and affixed them with pitch (to keep
him down).
K. Moses went and stood at the Nile River and said, Joseph, the time has
come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem Israel. Lo, the Presence
is held up for you, and the Israelites are held up for you, and the clouds of
glory are held up for you. If you show yourself, well and good, and if not,
we are free of the oath which you have imposed upon our fathers.
L. Then the coffin of Joseph floated to the surface and Moses took it and
went his way.
M. And do not be surprised [that metal should float], for lo, Scripture
says, As one was felling a beam, the axe-head fell into the water... Alas,
my master, for it was borrowed. The man of God said, Where did it
fall? And he showed him the place. And he cut down a stick and cast
it in, and made the iron to float (11 Kings 6:5-6).
N. Now is it not a matter of an argument a fortiori.
O. Now if Elisha, disciple of Elijah, disciple of Moses, could do things
in such a way, Moses, master of Elijah, master of Elisha, all the more
216 chapter eleven

so [should be able to do such things].

P. And some say that Joseph was buried in the royal cemetery, and Moses
went and stood at the graves of the kings and said, Joseph, Joseph! The
time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem Israel. Lo, the
Presence is held up for you, and the Israelites are held up for you and the
clouds of glory are held up for you. If you show yourself, well and good,
and if not, we are free of the oath which you have imposed upon our fa-
thers.
Q. At that moment the coffin of Joseph shook, and Moses took it and went
along.
R. Now there were two coffins traveling with them, one the holy ark,
one the ark of the corpse. And everyone who passed by would remark,
What in fact is the character of these two arks?
S. They would then reply to them, One is the holy ark, and one is the
ark of the corpse.
T. They would say to them, But is it possible that the holy ark should
go along with the ark of a corpse?
U. They replied, The corpse which is kept in this ark carried out what
is written in that which is lying in the other ark.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The narrative, J-L, matched
by P-Q, answers the question of I, thus L imposes its message on
I, with J-K showing how (or P for the second version). On that
basis I regard the composition as a coherent narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The issue is defined
at A and specified at I, Moses attained virtue, and how did he
know how to do so? The narrative is subordinate to its setting
but does carry out its assigned purpose, answering the indicated
question.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? This composition is
difficult to qualify, because it fits so naturally into the expository
program of the Mishnah, amplified by the Tosefta, for Sotah.
Tosefta-tractate Sotah 7:9
A. M#SH B: R. Yohanan b. Beroqah and R. Eleazar Hisma came from
Yabneh to Lud and they greeted R. Joshua in Peqiin.
B. Said to them R. Joshua, What was new in the school-house today?
C. They said to him, We are your disciples and we drink your water.
D. He said to them, It is hardly possible that there should be nothing new
in the school house today. Whose week was it?
E. They said to him, It was the week of R. Eleazar b. #Azariah.
 tosefta seder nashim 217

F. He said to them, And whence was the narration?

G. Assemble the people, men, women, and children, and the sojourner
within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your
God (Deut. 31:12).
H. He said to them, And what did he explain in this connection?
I. They said to him, Rabbi, Thus did he explain in its connection: Now
if the men came along to study, the women came along to listen, why
did the children come along? To provide a reward to the people who
brought them
We have a dramatic setting for an exegetical exercise, a familiar
pseudo-narrative. I do not reproduce the substance of the expo-
sition; I include the entrys pseudo-narrative parts, only because,
were I to omit the item altogether, those following my exposi-
tion of pertinent data in the Toseftas text itself would find the
omission unexplained and therefore puzzling.
Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:3
A. When the latter prophets died, that is, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi, then the Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel.
B. But even so, they made them hear [Heavenly messages] through an
echo.
C. M#SH S: Sages gathered together in the upper room of the house of
Guria in Jericho, and a heavenly echo came forth and said to them, There
is a man among you who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit, but his gen-
eration is unworthy of such an honor. They all set their eyes upon Hillel
the elder.
D. And when he died, they said about him, Woe for the humble man, woe
for the pious man, the disciple of Ezra.
Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:4
A. Then another time they were in session in Yabneh and heard an echo
saying, There is among you a man who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit,
but the generation is unworthy of such an honor.
B. They all set their eyes upon Samuel the Small.
C. At the time of his death what did they say? Woe for the humble man,
woe for the pious man, the disciple of Hillel the Elder!
D. Also he says at the time of his death, Simeon and Ishmael are des-
tined to be put to death, and the rest of the associates will die by the
sword, and the remainder of the people will be up for spoils. After
this, great disasters will fall. This he said in Aramaic.
E. Also concerning R. Judah b. Baba they ordained that they should say
about him, Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man, disciple of
Samuel the Small. But the times did not allow it.
218 chapter eleven

Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:5

A. Yohanan the High Priest heard a word from the house of the Holy of
Holies: The young men who went to make war against Antioch have been
victorious, and they wrote down the time and the day.
B. And they checked, and the victory was at that very hour.
Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:6
A. Simeon the Righteous heard a word from the House of the Holy of Holies:
Annulled is the decree which the enemy planned to bring against the sanc-
tuary, and Gasqelges [Caligula] has been killed, and his decrees have been
annulled.
C. And he heard [all this] in the Aramaic language.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The heavenly echo-com-
positions do qualify as narratives, not only as pseudo-narrative
settings for sayings. That is because the third component, after
the setting and the saying, the consequence or upshot, imparts
meaning to the first two and makes the whole cohere. That is, it
does not suffice at T. Sot. 13:3D, 13:4B, C, 13:5B, to record what
was said in a given session, it is necessary to conclude with what
happened in consequence, which imparts concrete meaning to
what was said. On that basisinfirm and supposititious to be
sureI classify the compositions as narratives.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? This question does
not pertain. What is left open when the setting and saying are set
forth is, to whom they made reference? I cannot classify that
question as a point of conflict.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? This matched set of
compositions follows a simple tripartite pattern: setting, saying,
application.
Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:7
A. So long as Simeon the Righteous was alive, the Western lamp re-
mained permanently lit. When he died, they went and found that it
had gone out.
B. From that time forward, sometimes they find it extinguished, and
sometimes lit.
C. So long as Simeon the Righteous was alive, the altar-fire was per-
petual. When they arranged it in the morning, it would flame up con-
tinually during the entire day. And they would offer on it daily whole-
 tosefta seder nashim 219

offerings and additional offerings and their drink-offerings. And they

did not add to it more than two loads of wood with the daily whole-
offering of twilight, solely so as to carry out the commandment of adding
wood, as it is said, The fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it
shall not go out, the priest shall burn wood on it every morning (Lev.
6:12).
D. After Simeon the Righteous died, however, the power of the altar-
fire grew weak. For even after they had laid it out in the morning, they
did not refrain from adding wood to it all day long.
E. So long as Simeon the Righteous was alive, the Two Loaves and the
Show-Bread were blessed. The Two Loaves were divided on Aseret
[Pentecost] to the priests, and the Show-Bread on the festival to all the
watches [delete: and to the men of that watch]. And some of them ate
and were sated, while others ate and left bread over. And no one got
more than an olives bulk.
F. But when Simeon the Righteous died, the Two Loaves and the Show-
Bread were no longer blessed. So the modest priests kept their hands
off the bread, and while the gluttons divided it up among themselves,
(but) each did not receive more than a bean[s lump of bread].
13:8 A. M#SH B: A priest of Sepphoris took his share and the share
of his fellow. But even so, he did not receive more than a bean[s
bulk of bread].
B. And they called him, Grabber, until this very day.
C. In the year in which Simeon the Righteous died, he said to
them, This year I am going to die.
D. They said to him, How do you know?
E. He said to them, On every Day of Atonement there was a
certain elder, dressed in white and cloaked in white, who would
go in with me and come out with me. This year, however, while
he went in with me, he never came out.
F. After the festival he fell ill for seven days and then died.
G. After Simeon the Righteous died, his brethren refrained from
bless-ing the people with the Divine Name.
The sets, T. 13:7A-B, C-D, E-F, do not pretend to provide nar-
ratives by the teleological-logical-criterion; rather, they describe
sequences of patterns. To be sure, A-B, C-D, and E-F can readi-
ly be made to yield narratives, e.g., by articulating the cause and
climax. But as we have them, they do not qualify, and it is not
our place to produce narratives promised but not delivered by
Tosefta. The same goes for T. 13:8. The ma#aseh, T. 13:8A-B,
cannot qualify as a case/precedent, only as an untold story. C-F
constitute recorded dialogue, not a narrative in the teleological-
logical sense that governs here.
220 chapter eleven

VI. Tractate Gittin

Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:3

A. He who brings a writ of divorce from the Land of Israel [and] can-
not state, In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was
signed,if there are witnesses, it is confirmed through its signatures
[M. Git. 1:3BE].
B. In what way have they ruled, Let it be confirmed through its sig-
natures?
C. Witnesses who stated, This is our handwritingit is valid.
D. [If they said], It is our handwriting, but we do not know either the
man or the woman, it is valid.
E. [If they said], This is not our handwriting, but others give testi-
mony concerning them, that it is their handwriting,
F. or if an example of their handwriting was forthcoming from some
other source,
G. it is valid.
H. R. Meir says, Akko and its neighborhood are equivalent to the Land
of Israel so far as writs of divorce are concerned [M. Git. 1:2D].
I. And sages say, Akko and its neighborhood are equivalent to for-
eign territory so far as writs of divorce are concerned.
J. M#SH B: A man from Kepar Sasi delivered a writ of divorce for a woman
in the presence of R. Ishmael.
K. R. Ishmael said to him, Where do you come from?
L. He said to him, Rabbi, From Kepar Sasi, at the border of the Land.
M. He said to him, Also you must state, In my presence it was written,
and in my presence it was signed, so that we shall not be in need of wit-
nesses.
N. After he left, R. Lei said before him, Rabbi, Kepar Sasi is within the
border of the Land of Israel, nearer to Sepphoris than to Akko.
O. He said to him, Since the matter has gone forth subject to a ruling in
favor of permitting [the validity of the writ of divorce], it is done with.
Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:4
A. R. Judah says, Even though both of its witnesses are Samaritans, it
is valid [M. Git. 1:5A-B].
B. Said R. Judah, M#SH W: They brought before Rabban Gamaliel in Kepar
#Otenai the writ of divorce of a woman, and its witnesses were Samaritans,
C. and he declared it valid [M. Git. 1:5C].
The formally perfect ma#aseh, T. 1:4B-C, a case-precedent that
serves T. 1:4A, shows how elaborate is the developed ma#aseh, T.
1:3J-Obut, in all, how conventional it is. All we have is a more
detailed account of the case and reasoning, such as the Toseftas
case/precedents not-uncommonly provide.
 tosefta seder nashim 221

VII. Tractate Qiddushin: no narratives

VIII. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives I have identified. Then, with the

entire list in hand, I differentiate between standard cases/prece-
dents and thefrom the perspective of the Mishnah and its uni-
form definition of the ma#asehunconventional ones.

a. Standard Ma#asim/Cases/Precedents
1. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 4:5: A certain thug was caught in Qapotqia
[Cappadocia] and was being taken out to be executed. He said, Go
tell the wife of Simeon b. Kahana, I murdered him when he came into
Lud. And the case came to sages, who permitted his wife to remarry.
2. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 6:7 M#SH B: A certain party came before
R. Yos. He said to him, What is the law as to performing the rite of
Halisah during the three months [of the husbands death]? R. Yos
cited to him the following verse: And if the man is nor willing to take
his deceased childless brothers widow (Deut. 25:7).
3. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 6:7 M#SH B: In Piga a certain person was
going overseas, and had a deceased childless brothers widow awaiting
marriage, and also had a little brother. In the name of R. Leazar b. R.
Sadoq they said, Let her go through the rite of Halisah, lest some ill-
chance happen to him, and she turn out to be subject to levirate mar-
riage with a minor [and therefore have to wait for many years].
4. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 10:3: Said R. Yose, M#SH B: A man in
Kefar Mendon went up to the top of an olive tree and fell down, and
one of his testicles was crushed. He came and had sexual relations with
his wife and died. They came and asked R. Yohanan b. Nuri, May his
wife enter into levirate marriage? He said to them, Before you ask me
about the law as to her entering levirate marriage, ask me the law as to
her eating heave-offering? For she has been rendered invalid for mar-
riage into the priesthood and invalid for eating heave-offering [M.
Yeb. 8:1, 4].
5. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 12:15: Said R. Judah, M#SH W: We were
in session before R. Tarfon, and he said to us, All of you respond:
The man whose shoe has been removed! The man whose shoe has been
removed!
6. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said R. #Aqiba, When I was trav-
eling on the sea, I saw a ship struggling in the waves, and I was sad-
dened for the fate of a disciple of sages who was on board. And when
I came to Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia, I saw him in session and
asking questions of law before me. I said to him, My son, how did you
escape from the ocean?
222 chapter eleven

7. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said Rabbi, M#SH B: Two men

were fishing with traps in the Jordan. And one of them went into an
underwater cave of fish. His fellow waited for him long enough for him
to have died through drowning and then reported the matter in his
home.
8. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said R. Meir, M#SH B. A certain
man fell into a large cistern and came up after thirty days.
9. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7 M#SH B: A certain person stood
on top of a mountain and said. Mr. So-and-So, the son of So-and-So
[M. Yeb. 16:6C] has been bitten by a snake and died. And they went
[M. 16:6F-G] and found that his face was swollen up [so they did not
recognize him], but they [nonetheless] permitted his wife to remarry.
10. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Abba Yudan of Sidon says, M#SH
B: A certain gentile and an Israelite were going along, and that cer-
tain gentile said, Oh woe for a certain Israelite who perished here, and
I lamented and buried him here. And the case came before sages, who
permitted his wife to remarry.
11. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,
M#SH B: A band of prisoners went to Antioch, and upon their return
they said, Of our group only So-and-so, a Jew, was killed. And the
case came before sages, who permitted his wife to remarry.
12. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7 SWB M#SH B: Sixty men went down
to the fortress at Betar and not a single one of them came back. And
the matter came before sages, who permitted their wives to remarry.
13. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7 M#SH B: Two were running after
a gang and one of them grabbed an olive tree, and tore it off and drove
off the gang and came back. And he said to him, Good for you, Lion.
He said to him, How do you know about me, that Im a lion. Thats
just what Im called in my townYohanan b. Yonatan, Lion of the
town of Shahara. Three days later the man [Yohanan] got sick and
died, and [on the testimony of the man who knew his name and the
name of his village], they permitted his wife to remarry.
14. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:10: R. Tarfon and R. Aqiba say, They
do cross-examine witnesses in matters concerning wives. M#SH B: A
certain party came before R. Tarfon to give testimony concerning a
woman [that her husband had died so] she may remarry. He said to
him, My son, how do you know the testimony for this woman? He
said to him, Rabbi, he was with us on a caravan, and a robber-band
fell on us, and he grabbed the branch of a fig-tree and tore it off and
drove the gang away. And I said to him, I congratulate you, Lion! He
said to me, Well have you said! You guessed my name. Thats just what
Im called in my village, Yohanan b. Yonatan, the lion of the town of
Shahara.
15. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:7 M#SH B: Joshua, the son of R. Aqiba
married a woman and made an agreement with her that she maintain
and support him and teach him Torah. They were years of famine. They
[the husband and wife] went and divided their property. She began to
 tosefta seder nashim 223

complain against him to sages. And when he came to court, he said to

them, She is more credible to me than any man. She said to them,
Most assuredly did he covenant with me thus. Sages said to her,
Nothing validly follows the agreement.
16. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:9: Hillel the Elder made an exegesis of
ordinary language [of legal documents, and not merely of the text of
the Torah]. When the Alexandrians would betroth a woman, afterward
someone else would come along and grab her right out of the market.
Such an incident came before sages, and they considered declaring the
children to be Mamzers. Hillel the Elder said to them, Show me the
marriage-contract of your mothers.
17. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 5:9: The sages awarded to the daughter
of Naqdimon b. Gurion five hundred golden denars daily for a fund
for spices, and she was only a sister-in-law awaiting levirate marriage.
But she cursed [them] and said, So may you award for your own daugh-
ters!
18. Tosefta-tractate Nedarim 5:l M#SH B: A certain man prohibited his
wife by vow from going up to Jerusalem. And she went and treated his
vow as not binding. And he turned to R. Yos. He [Yos] said to him,
Now if you had known that she would treat your words as null not in
your presence, would you have imposed a vow on her? He said to
him, Never! And R. Yos declared the vow not binding.
19. Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:3 M#SH B: A man from Kepar Sasi deliv-
ered a writ of divorce for a woman in the presence of R. Ishmael. R.
Ishmael said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him,
Rabbi, From Kepar Sasi, at the border of the Land. He said to him,
Also you must state, In my presence it was written, and in my pres-
ence it was signed, so that we shall not be in need of witnesses.
20. Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:4 M#SH W: They brought before Rabban
Gamaliel in Kepar #Otenai the writ of divorce of a woman, and its
witnesses were Samaritans, and he declared it valid
Once more we note the variety of forms and types of composi-
tions classified by the marker, M#SH. As at T. Moed, so here too,
the marker signals not only a Halakhic precedent but an Aggadic
lesson; not only an economical, stripped down account of an inci-
dent bearing explicit legal implications, but a prolix report of
circumstances and dialogue and arguments, leading to a decision:
a precedent too finely differentiated and described to serve as an
illustrative case altogether. If we identify the Mishnah-type Ma#a-
sim apart from the others, this is what we find:
Mishnah-type
(Halakhic, no dialogue, focused on a legal problem, exemplified by a par-
ticular case shorn of all distinguishing traits of occasion; executed by a sim-
224 chapter eleven

ple declarative sentence, without dialogue other than in the ruling on the
case/precedent, e.g., he said/sages said, and the like):
1. T. Yeb. 4:5.
2. T. Yeb. 6:7.
3. T. Yeb. 14:5-7 M#SH B: A certain person stood on top of a mountain
and said: Mr. So-and-So, the son of So-and-So [M. Yeb. 16:6C] has
been bitten by a snake and died. And they went [M. 16:6F-G] and
found that his face was swollen up [so they did not recognize him], but
they [nonetheless] permitted his wife to remarry.
4. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Abba Yudan of Sidon says, M#SH
B: A certain gentile and an Israelite were going along, and that cer-
tain gentile said, Oh woe for a certain Israelite who perished here,
and I lamented and buried him here. And the case came before sages,
who permitted his wife to remarry.
5. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,
M#SH B: A band of prisoners went to Antioch, and upon their return
they said, Of our group only So-and-so, a Jew, was killed. And the
case came before sages, who permitted his wife to remarry.
6. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7 SWB M#SH B: Sixty men went down
to the fortress at Betar and not a single one of them came back. And
the matter came before sages, who permitted their wives to remarry.
7. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7 M#SH B: Two were running after
a gang and one of them grabbed an olive tree, and tore it off and drove
off the gang and came back. And he said to him, Good for you, Lion.
He said to him, How do you know about me, that Im a lion. Thats
just what Im called in my townYohanan b. Yonatan, Lion of the
town of Shahara. Three days later the man [Yohanan] got sick and
died, and [on the testimony of the man who knew his name and the
name of his village], they permitted his wife to remarry. [Elaborate but
well within the formal specifications of the Mishnaic M#SH].
8. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:7 M#SH B: Joshua, the son of R. Aqiba
married a woman and made an agreement with her that she maintain
and support him and teach him Torah. They were years of famine. They
[the husband and wife] went and divided their property. She began to
complain against him to sages. And when he came to court, he said to
them, She is more credible to me than any man. She said to them,
Most assuredly did he covenant with me thus. Sages said to her,
Nothing validly follows the agreement.
9. Tosefta-tractate Nedarim 5:l M#SH B: A certain man prohibited his
wife by vow from going up to Jerusalem. And she went and treated his
vow as not binding. And he turned to R. Yos. He [Yos] said to him,
Now if you had known that she would treat your words as null not in
your presence, would you have imposed a vow on her? He said to
him, Never! And R. Yos declared the vow not binding.
10. Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:3 M#SH B: A man from Kepar Sasi deliv-
ered a writ of divorce for a woman in the presence of R. Ishmael. R.
 tosefta seder nashim 225

Ishmael said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him,

Rabbi, From Kepar Sasi, at the border of the Land. He said to him,
Also you must state, In my presence it was written, and in my pres-
ence it was signed, so that we shall not be in need of witnesses.
11. Tosefta-tractate Gittin 1:4 M#SH W: They brought before Rabban
Gamaliel in Kepar #Otenai the writ of divorce of a woman, and its
witnesses were Samaritans, and he declared it valid.
As before, we see that the Mishnahs rather severe definition of
the form governs and proves quite common in the Tosefta. But
alongside are marks of a loosening up of the requirements:
Other-than-Mishnah-type of Ma#aseh
(already characterized item by item):
1. T. Yeb. 6:7: A certain party came before R. Yos. He said to him, What
is the law as to performing the rite of Halisah during the three months
[of the husbands death]?
2. T. Yeb. 10:3: Said R. Yose, M#SH B: A man in Kefar Mendon went
up to the top of an olive tree and fell down, and one of his testicles was
crushed. He came and had sexual relations with his wife and died. They
came and asked R. Yohanan b. Nuri, May his wife enter into levirate
marriage? He said to them, Before you ask me about the law as to her
entering levirate marriage, ask me the law as to her eating heave-offer-
ing? For she has been rendered invalid for marriage into the priesthood
and invalid for eating heave-offering.
3. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 12:15: Said R. Judah, M#SH W: We were
in session before R. Tarfon, and he said to us.
4. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said R. #Aqiba, When I was trav-
eling on the sea, I saw a ship struggling in the waves, and I was sad-
dened for the fate of a disciple of sages who was on board. And when
I came to Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia,
5. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said Rabbi, M#SH B: Two men
were fishing with traps in the Jordan. And one of them went into an
underwater cave of fish. His fellow waited for him long enough for him
to have died through drowning and then reported the matter in his
home.
6. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:5-7: Said R. Meir, M#SH B. A certain
man fell into a large cistern and came up after thirty days, [Lacks ruling]
7. Tosefta-tractate Yebamot 14:10: R. Tarfon and R. Aqiba say, They
do cross-examine witnesses in matters concerning wives. M#SH B: A
certain party came before R. Tarfon to give testimony concerning a
woman [that her husband had died so] she may remarry. He said to
him, My son, how do you know the testimony for this woman? He
said to him, Rabbi, he was with us on a caravan, and a robber-band
fell on us, and he grabbed the branch of a fig-tree and tore it off and
drove the gang away. And I said to him, I congratulate you, Lion! He
said to me, Well have you said! You guessed my name. Thats just what
226 chapter eleven

Im called in my village, Yohanan b. Yonatan, the lion of the town of

Shahara.
8. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 4:9: Hillel the Elder made an exegesis of
ordinary language [of legal documents, and not merely of the text of
the Torah]. When the Alexandrians would betroth a woman, afterward
someone else would come along and grab her right out of the market.
Such an incident came before sages, and they considered declaring the
children to be Mamzers. Hillel the Elder said to them, Show me the
marriage-contract of your mothers.
9. Tosefta-tractate Ketubot 5:9: The sages awarded to the daughter
of Naqdimon b. Gurion five hundred golden denars daily for a fund
for spices, and she was only a sister-in-law awaiting levirate marriage.
But she cursed
What I said of Tosefta Moeds repertoire of varieties on the form
of the ma#aseh applies here. The marker in the aggregate simply
signals more types of compositions than it does in the Mishnah. I
find no important information in that observation. But that is
because, even in the encounter with the use of the marker ma#aseh
in the Mishnah, I drew no substantive conclusions; it has been
treated as an opaque formality, not as an independent, autono-
mous indicator.
B. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions
1. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 7:9 M#SH B: R. Yohanan b. Beroqah and R.
Eleazar Hisma came from Yabneh to Lud and they greeted R. Joshua
in Peqiin. Said to them R. Joshua, What was new in the school-house
today? They said to him, We are your disciples and we drink your
water. He said to them, It is hardly possible that there should be
nothing new in the school house today. Whose week was it?
Clearly, No. 1 belongs on this list. As I explained above, I do
not regard the T. Sot. 13:4-7 set as comparable, since what we
have is a location (in session), a saying, and an action that fol-
lows upon the saying and gives the saying effect.
Here are the authentic narratives that I have identified in the
present division of the Tosefta:

Halakhic narratives: no narratives

Aggadic narratives
1. Tosefta-tractate Nezirut 4:7: Said Simeon the Righteous, In my
entire life I ate a guilt-offering of a Nazir only one time. M#SH B: A
man came to me from the south, and I saw that he had beautiful eyes,
 tosefta seder nashim 227

a handsome face, and curly locks. I said to him, My son, on what ac-
count did you destroy this lovely hair? He said to me, I was a shep-
herd in my village, and I came to draw water from the river, and I
looked at my reflection, and my bad impulse took hold of me and sought
to drive me from the world.
2. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 4:7: How did Moses know where Joseph had
been buried? They tell: Serah daughter of Asher was [a survivor] of
the generation [of Joseph], and she went and said to Moses, In the
River Nile Joseph is buried. And the Egyptians made for him metal spits
and affixed them with pitch (to keep him down). Moses went and stood
at the Nile River and said, Joseph, the time has come for the Holy
One, blessed be He, to redeem Israel. Lo, the Presence is held up for
you, and the Israelites are held up for you, and the clouds of glory are
held up for you. If you show yourself, well and good, and if not, we
are free of the oath which you have imposed upon our fathers.
3. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:3 M#SH S: Sages gathered together in the
upper room of the house of Guria in Jericho, and a heavenly echo
came forth and said to them, There is a man among you who is wor-
thy to receive the Holy Spirit, but his generation is unworthy of such
an honor. They all set their eyes upon Hillel the elder
4. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:4: Then another time they were in ses-
sion in Yabneh and heard an echo saying, There is among you a man
who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit, but the generation is unwor-
thy of such an honor. They all set their eyes upon Samuel the Small.
5. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:5: Yohanan the High Priest heard a word
from the house of the Holy of Holies: The young men who went to
make war against Antioch have been victorious, and they wrote down
the time and the day.
6. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:6: A. Simeon the Righteous heard a word
from the House of the Holy of Holies: Annulled is the decree which
the enemy planned to bring against the sanctuary, and Gasqelges
[Caligula] has been killed, and his decrees have been annulled. And
he heard [all this] in the Aramaic language.
7. Tosefta-tractate Sotah 13:7: In the year in which Simeon the Righ-
teous died, he said to them, This year I am going to die. They said to
him, How do you know? He said to them, On every Day of Atone-
ment there was a certain elder, dressed in white and cloaked in white,
who would go in with me and come out with me. This year, however,
while he went in with me, he never came out. After the festival he fell
ill for seven days and then died.
We recall that Tosefta Moed presented both Aggadic and Hala-
khic narratives. That is not so here. Apart from the somewhat
ambiguous and odd set at T. Sot. 13:3-7, I see only two narra-
tives, both of them Aggadic, neither of them very elaborate. The
first of the two captures an autobiographical vignette to illustrate
228 chapter eleven

what a sincere vow of a Nazirite requires. The second shades over

into a narrative setting for the report of a saying. Neither comes
close to the rich panoply of activity and conflict conveyed by M.
Ta. 3:9-10 or M. R.H. 2:8-9the successful narratives. Mishnah-
Tosefta, being Halakhic documents, do not present themselves as
likely candidates for elaborate collections of narratives, but the
possibilities not only adumbrated but realized in the two Mish-
nah-narratives of consequence do not find counterparts here.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? The corpus of Halakhic ma#asim, both con-
ventional in the Mishnah-type, and unconventional, adhere to the
Halakhic contexts in which they occur. The authentic Aggadic
narratives underscore the virtue of the Temple priesthood, just
as is the case in Tosefta Moed. The only topically-exceptional
item, the integrity of Moses, presents nothing that would give
pause to a Rabbinic authority!
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? What I said in regard to
Tosefta Moed applies without variation here. The unconventional
Halakhic ma#asim replicate the traits we noted earlier, that is, they
are more elaborate but essentially subject to the same pattern, its
emphases and omissions, yielding a usable precedent, not only
an exceptional case. The Temple-narratives and those involving
the sages do manifest formal traits, but they seem limited to the
examples before us. Only when we have classified the entire cor-
pus of counterpartsnon-documentary writing throughout the
canonshall we know the answer to this question. For the case
at hand, it suffices to say, a pattern governs the complex pericope,
but whether that pattern reproduces itself elsewhere, and with what
variations, we simply do not know at this point and shall not know
for some time to come.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documenta-
ry considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?
I see three groups of non-documentary, narrative compositions,
 tosefta seder nashim 229

T. Nez. 4:7, Simeons first-person story concerning the young Na-

zirite; the snippet about Mosess taking the bones of Joseph; and
the set of T. Sot. 13:3-7. As to the Simeon-story, it is a single-
ton, in Tosefta lacking all counterpart. I do not see how the re-
quirements of Toseftas amplification of the Halakhah of Nazir
precipitated the composition. Documentary considerations do not
intervene. As to the Moses-snippet, we can say nothing. It fits well
into its expository context. As to the patterned set of T. Sot. 13:3-
7, it can have fit perfectly comfortably into the Mishnahs coun-
terpart of statements on the virtues of sages, which it complements
elegantly.
So if my classification of the composite as a set of narratives
standsand my initial impulse was to see the set as pseudo-nar-
rative settings for sayingsthen what we have is not non-docu-
mentary narratives but extra-documentary ones. That is to say,
in Tosefta Nashim we find narrative writing that fits well into an
existing documentary framework, in this case, M. Sot. chapter nine.
These observations yield no data on the strength of which to re-
spond to the question at hand. Here, given the character of the
Tosefta as a document in constant dialogue with the Mishnah,
we do not have writing indifferent to its documentary venue at
all.
This page intentionally left blank
 tosefta seder neziqin 231

CHAPTER TWELVE

TOSEFTA SEDER NEZIQIN

I. Tractate Baba Qamma

Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 2:12

A. They remove stones from a road in the public domain, the words
of R. Joshua.
B. R. #Aqiba says, Just as one has no right to disrupt the public way,
so one has no right to remove stones. But if one has removed stones,
he should take them out to the sea or river or quarry.
C. [If] one removes stones, taking them from the middle of the road
and putting them on the sides,
D. [if] someone came along and was injured by them, lo, this one is
liable.
E. For they have said, Lo, he is like one who removes stones from
before beasts and puts them before man, from before people who have
sight and puts them before the blind.
F. For it is the way of beasts to walk in the middle of the road and of
people to walk along the sides;
G. it is the way of people who have sight to walk in the middle of the
road, and of the blind to walk along the sides.
H. The one who removes stones, taking them from his field and put-
ting them into the public way,
I. and someone else came along and was injured by them
J. Lo, this one is liable,
K. even though they have said, Lo, he is tantamount to one who re-
moves stones from what does not belong to him and puts them into an
area that does belong to him.
2:13 A. M#SH B: Someone was removing stones from his own field and putting
them into the public way.
B. There was a certain good man who argued with him: Why are you tak-
ing stones from what is not yours and putting them into what belongs to
you?
C. The man ridiculed him.
D. After a while the same man fell into need and sold his field, and was
walking along in that very place, and he stumbled [on the rocks he had
earlier tossed out].
E. He said, It was not for nothing that that good man said to me, Lo you
232 chapter twelve

are removing stones from what does not belong to you and putting them
into what belongs to you.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Labeled ma#aseh, this item
serves as a parable, a narrative with a blatant moral, in this case
registering a paradox. The story forms a powerful, logically co-
herent statement, with the climax at D realizing the paradox of
E, the moral of the story.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict of A-
B+C is resolved at D-E.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? In the context of
the Halakhic documents, the Mishnah and the Tosefta, I cannot
imagine a more perfect execution of the teleological logic of
narrative. The narrative is a fully realized story, which takes the
abstract rule, T. 2:12H-K, and recasts it in a concrete, human
conflict. The parts are T. 2:13A, the setting, B-C, the action, and
D-E, the denouement.
Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 8:11
A. On what account have they ruled, They do not rear small cattle in
the Land of Israel?
B. Because they will bring small cattle from abroad to the Land, and
they do not bring large cattle from abroad to the Land.
C. Even though they have ruled, They do not rear small cattle in the
Land of Israel,
D. nonetheless, they do raise them for thirty days before a festival, for
thirty days before the banquet for ones son.
E. But this is not so that the beast may go out and pasture in the mar-
ket, but it has to be tied up to the legs of the bed [and not permitted
to wander about at all].
8:12 A. They asked Rabban Gamaliel, What is the rule as to raising
small cattle?
B. He said to them, They keep alive that which remains lost [and
unclaimed by the owner] for thirty days, and then the butcher buys it
and sells the meat.
C. And this is on condition that one not allow the last of them to
stand around for more than thirty days.
8:13 A. Among all the grape clusters which arose for Israel from the
death of Moses to the rise of Joseph b. Yoezer of Seredah and Joseph
b. Yohanan of Jerusalem it is not possible to find a blemish.
B. But once Joseph b. Yoezer of Seredah and Joseph b. Yohanan of
 tosefta seder neziqin 233

Jerusalem died, until the rise of Judah b. Baba, it most certainly is possible
to find a blemish among them.
C. They tell about Judah b. Baba that all of his deeds were directed for the
glory of Heaven,
D. except that he raised small cattle.
E. One time he fell ill, and a physician came to examine him.
F. He said to him, There is no remedy for you except for boiling milk.
G. He went out and got himself a goat and tied it to the leg of his bed, and
he would draw hot milk from it, for he would groan [because of angina].
H. One time sages wanted to come in to him.
I. But they said, How is it possible to come to him, when there is a robber
[the goat] with him in the house?
J. And when he died, sages examined carefully all of the things he had ever
done, and they found in him no sin except for this one alone.
K. And he too said when he was dying, I know that there is against my
account only this sin alone,
L. which I have done in transgressing the opinion of my colleagues.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? T. 8:13C-D announce
the point and issue of the narrative, E-L. The components are E-
G, H-I, and J-L, and these cohere as an unfolding, coherent
account. Then J-L impart cogency to what has gone before, and
the whole holds together in a single, seamless progression, yielding
a realization of the Halakhah at hand.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The answer is blatant:
even for a single violation of the Halakhic norm, the sage suffered
a blemish such that his colleagues kept their distance, and he knew
why. Necessity did not mitigate the flaw.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The usual tripartite
structure shapes the narrative, with the third part imposing
coherence on the first two.
Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 8:16
A. [If] a person has taken a vow to buy for himself a house or to buy
for himself a field,
B. they do not obligate him to buy it immediately,
C. but only when he finds something which is suitable for his needs.
D. M#SH B. A womans son was causing her trouble [about remarrying,
wanting to marry her off so that she should be supported by a new hus-
band, not by her late husbands estate, now in the domain of the son and
heir].
234 chapter twelve

E. She said, Qonam! Whoever [my son] will send to meI wont turn him
down!
F. Now two people heard about it, who were entirely unsuitable.
G. And they laid claim on her [to marry one of them].
H. And the case came before sages, who ruled, This woman intended to
marry the first person who comes along, only if she will find one who is
suitable for her.
This is a standard ma#aseh: case/precedent. The case, D-G, is re-
solved at H.

II. Tractate Baba Mesia: no narratives

III. Tractate Baba Batra: no narratives

IV. Tractate Sanhedrin

Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 2:3

A. On account of [evidence of conditions in] three regions do they
intercalate the year: Judea, Trans-Jordan, and Galilee.
B. On account of evidence produced in two of them they intercalate
the year, but on account of evidence deriving from only one of them
they do not intercalate the year.
C. But if they declared the year to be intercalated, lo, this is deemed
intercalated.
D. And if the land of Judea was one of the two regions, they would
rejoice,
E. because of [the first fruits of] grain which would come from there.
2:4 A. They do not intercalate the year because [the season of the]
kids, lambs, or pigeons has not yet come.
B. But in the case of all of them, they regard it as a support [for inter-
calating] the year.
C. But if they declared the year to be intercalated [on their basis], lo,
this is deemed intercalated.
2:5 A. R. Yannai says in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who said,
[In Aramaic:] The pigeons are tender and the spring lambs thin,
B. and it is proper in my view, so I have added thirty days to this
year.
2:6 A. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and sages were in session on the steps to
the Temple.
B. And Yohanan the scribe was before them.
C. He said to him, Write:
D. [In Aramaic]: To our brethren, residents of Upper Galilee and
residents of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase! I inform you that
the time for the removal has come, to separate the tithes from the olive
vats.
 tosefta seder neziqin 235

E. To our brethren, residents of the Upper South and residents of

the Lower South, may your peace increase! We inform you that the
time for the removal has come, to separate the tithes from the sheaves
of grain.
F. To our brethren, residents of the Exile of Babylonia, and residents
of the Exile of Media, and of all the other Exiles of Israel, may your
peace increase! We inform you that the pigeons are still tender, the
lambs are thin, and the spring-tide has not yet come. So it is proper in
my view and in the view of my colleagues, and we have added thirty
days to this year.
A-C form a dramatic setting for the transcription of the epistles
to Galilee, the South, and the Exilic communities.
Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 2:8
A. They do not intercalate the year by less than a month or by more
than a month.
B. And if they intercalated it [by less or by more than a month], it is
not deemed to have been intercalated.
C. And they do not intercalate a year in advance.
D. And if they did intercalate a year in advance, it is not deemed in-
ter-calated.
E. And they do not intercalate one year after another [successively].
F. R. Simeon says, They do intercalate one year after another.
G. Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: R. Aqiba was imprisoned, and he interca-
lated three years one after the other.
H. They said to him, From there do you derive proof? But it was
because the court was in session and was reckoning the need for one
year after another, in its proper time.
The ma#aseh forms an attempted precedent, G, which is rejected,
H. This is standard, but for the absence of an articulated ruling.
Tosefta-tractate Sanhedrin 2:10
A. They do not intercalate the year when there is uncleanness.
B. M#SH B: Hezekiah the King intercalated the year when there was un-
cleanness,
C. for it is said, For a multitude of the people, even the men of Ephraim
and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleaned themselves, yet they
ate the Passover otherwise than it is written. For Hezekiah prayed for them,
saying, The Lord pardon every one (II. Chron. 30:18).
It is highly irregularindeed, amazingfor Scripture to supply
a case/precedent in a Halakhic context. What we expect in C is
a reference to sages response. I cannot point to a single counter-
part in the corpus of ma#asim of the Mishnah and the Tosefta.
236 chapter twelve

Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 5:1

L. And so did R. Judah say, He who owed his fellow an oath in court,
and [the other party] said to him, Take a vow to me by the life of
your head, and accepted for himself [that vow][the other party]
cannot retract.
M. WM#SH B: Someone owed his fellow an oath in court and vowed to
him by the life of a certain object, and [the person to whom the oath was
owed] accepted it.
The ma#aseh of M serves as a precedent for Judahs saying, L, if
we accept that the court validated the procedure; otherwise it is
a case. I have not differentiated cases from precedents, but there
are formal grounds for doing so.
Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 8:2
8:3 A. Why did he say so [cf. M. San. 4:5A-C]?
B. So that [the witnesses] should not say, We saw him running after
his fellow, with a sword in his hand. [The victim] ran in front of him
into a shop, and then the other went after him into the store. We went
in after them and found the victim slain on the floor, with a knife in
the hand of the mur-derer, dripping blood.
C. Now lest you say, If not you, then who killed him[you must
be admonished that this is not valid evidence].
D. Said Simeon b. Shatah, May I [not] see consolation, if I did not see
someone run after his fellow, with a sword in his hand, and [the pursued
man] went before him into a ruin, and the [pursuer] ran in after him, and
then I came in right after him, and found [the victim] slain, with a knife in
the hand of the murderer, dripping blood, and I said to him, You evil person!
Who killed this one? May I [not] see consolation if I did not see him [run
in here]. Either you killed him or I did! But what can I do to you? For your
case is not handed over to me. For lo, the Torah has said, At the testimony
of two witnesses or at the testimony of three witnesses shall he who is on
trial for his life be put to death (Deut. 17:6).
E. But He who knows the thoughts of man will exact punishment from
that man. He did not move from the spot before a snake bit him and he
died.
The point of the Halakhah, T. 8:3C, is to exclude the appeal to
circumstantial evidence. D-E then illustrate the matter through
dramatized dialogue with the device of you.
 tosefta seder neziqin 237

V. Tractate Makkot: no narratives

VI. Tractate Shebuot

Tosefta-Shebuot 1:3
A. R. Simeon did say, More grievous is imparting uncleanness to the
sanctuary and its Holy Things than all the other transgressions which
are listed in the Torah.
B. All other transgressions which are listed in the Torah are atoned
for with a single goat, but imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary and
its Holy Things is atoned for through thirty-two goats.
C. All other transgressions which are listed in the Torah are atoned
for one time in the year, but imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary
and its Holy Things is atoned for every month,
D. as it is said, Surely because you have defiled my sanctuary with all
your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will
cut you down, my eye will not spare and I will have no pity (Ez. 5:11).
E. While grievous were the detestable things and abominations which
you did, more grievous than all of them was imparting uncleanness to
the sanctuary.
1:4 A. M#SH B: Two priests who were brothers were running neck and
neck up the ramp, and one of them got within four cubits of the altar be-
fore the other.
B. He took the knife [for killing the sacrificial animal] and stuck it into his
heart.
C. R. Sadoq came and stood on the steps of the portico of the Temple
mount and said, Hear me out, O brothers of ours, House of Israel!
D. Lo, [Scripture] says, When a corpse is found land it is not known
who killed him, and your elders and judges go forth and measure to which
village is the corpse nearer, and that village has to bring a heifer in peni-
tence (Deut. 21: 1-2).
E. Now as to uswhither and whence shall we measure? To the sanctu-
ary? Or to the courtyard? All the people groaned and wept after what he
said.
G. Then the father of the youth came and said to them, My brothers, may
I be atonement for you!
H. My son is still writhing, so the knife has not yet contracted corpse un-
cleanness!
I. This teaches you that the uncleanness of the knife was more disturb-
ing to them than bloodshed,
J. and so Scripture says, And also Manasseh shed very much innocent
blood until he had filled the whole of Jerusalem from one end to an-
other (I Kings 21:16).
K. On this basis it is said that for the sin of bloodshed the presence of
God flew away, and the sanctuary was contaminated.
238 chapter twelve

See Tosefta-tractate Kippurim (Yoma) 1:12. The differences are

trivial, the main structures are replicated.

VII. Tractate #Eduyyot

Tosefta-Tractate #Eduyyot 2:2

A. Twenty-four rulings of the lenient ones of the House of Shammai
and the strict ones of the House of Hillel.
B. The House of Shammai say, A man does not impose a vow of a
Nazirite upon his son.
C. And the House of Hillel say, A man does impose the vow of a Nazirite
upon his son[T. Nez. 3:17].
D. An egg which was born on the festival [M. Ed. 4:1B]
E. others say in the name of R. Eliezer, It and its dam may be eaten.
F. He who anointed himself with clean oil and then became unclean
and went down and immersed himself
G. The House of Shammai say, Even though [the oil] drips and falls,
he is clean.
H. 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. 4:6E-G].
I. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, When I was studying Torah with R. Yohanan
b. Hahorani, I saw that he ate his bread dry [without olives] for the years
were years of famine.
J. I came and told my father.
K. He said to me, Bring him olives.
L. I brought him olives.
M. He took them and examined them, and, seeing that they were moist,
said to me, I really dont eat olives.
N. I came and told my father, who said to me, Go, tell him, It was a jar
which had been pierced [in which they were pickled], in accord with the
ruling of the House of Hillel, but the lees had stopped it up [M. Ed. 4:6A-
D].
0. [This story tells you] that he ate his unconsecrated produce in a state of
cultic cleanness.
P. For even though he was one of the disciples of the House of Sham-mai,
he behaved only in accord with the teachings of the House of Hillel.
See Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:3

VIII. Tractate #Abodah Zarah

Tosefta-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:9

A. They purchase from an #am ha"ares slave-boys and slave-girls, whether
adults or minors.
 tosefta seder neziqin 239

B. They sell to an #am ha"ares both slave-boys and slave-girls, whether

adults or minors.
C. They purchase from them minor girls, but not adults, the words
of R. Meir.
D. And sages say, An adultand she accepts upon herself [responsi-
bility to preserve the cleanness of food].
E. And they do not give them girls, whether minors or adults, the
words of R. Meir.
F. And sages say, One may give him an adult, and one makes an agree-
ment with him that this is done on condition that she not prepare foods
requiring conditions of cleanness while subject to his supervision [since
he does not observe cleanness].
3:10 A. M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel the elder married off his daughter to
Simeon b. Nethanel the priest and made an agreement with him that this
was done on condition that she not prepare foods requiring conditions of
clean-ness while subject to his supervision.
B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, This is not necessary. For they
do not force an associate [who observes the rules of eating unconse-
crated food in conditions of cultic cleanness] to prepare food requir-
ing conditions of cleanness under the supervision of an #am ha"ares.
The ma#aseh, here, a case, fittingly illustrates sages rule, T. A.Z.
3:9F.

IX. Tractate Horayot

Tosefta-tractate Horayot 2:5

A. He, his father, and his master are standing in captivity [and awaiting
ransom]:
B. he takes precedence over his master, and his master takes prece-
dence over his father.
C. But [ransoming] his mother takes precedence over all other people.
D. Who is ones master? It is the one who has taught him Torah,
and not the master who has taught him a trade.
E. And who is this? It is the one who started him off first.
F. R. Meir says, It is his master who has taught him wisdom, and
not his master who has taught him a trade.
G. R. Judah says, It is anyone from whom he has gained the greater
part of his learning.
H. R. Yos says, It is anyone who has enlightened his eyes in his
repetition of traditions.
I. The man takes precedence over the woman in the matter of the
saving of life and in the matter of returning lost property.
J. But the woman takes precedence over the man in the matter of
clothing and in the matter of redemption from captivity [M. Hor.
3:7A-B].
240 chapter twelve

K. When both of them are standing in danger of shame, the man takes
precedence over the woman [M. Hor. 3:7C].
L. M#SH S: R. Joshua went [to Rome], and they told him, There is here a
child from Jerusalem with beautiful eyes and a handsome face, and he is in
danger of shame.
M. R. Joshua went to look into the matter. When he came to the door, he
recited this verse: Who gave up Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to the
robbers (Is. 42:24)?
2:6 A. That child answered and said, Was it not the Lord against whom
we have sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose law they
would not obey (Is. 42:24)?
B. At that instant said R. Joshua, I call to testify against me the heaven
and the earth, that I shall not move from this spot until I shall redeem this
child!
C. He redeemed him for a huge sum of money and sent him to the Land of
Israel.
D. And concerning him Scripture has said, The precious sons of Zion,
worth their weight in fine gold, how they are reckoned as earthen pots,
the work of a potters hands (Lam. 4:2).
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The ma#aseh does not focus
on the Halakhic statement, T. 2:5, since at issue is not precedence
as to redemption from kidnappers. The parts tell the story of the
whole: T. 2:5L, M-T. 2:6A, then B-C. That is, Joshuas action
in redeeming the child registers the focus and the point of the
prior details, explaining why he did what he did. This is not a
mere dramatization of a conversation, M/T. 2:6A, but a fully
realized, logically-driven exposition.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The tension is
theological: why is Israels son in the present, deplorable situation,
and that is the question, T. 2:5M, that is answered at T. 2:6A.
Lest we miss the point, T. 2:6D makes the matter explicit.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The tripartite division
presents no surprises.

X. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives I have identified:

 tosefta seder neziqin 241

a. Standard Ma#asim/Cases/Precedents
1. Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 8:16 A womans son was causing her
trouble [about remarrying]. She said, Qonam! Whoever [my son] will
send to meI wont turn him down! Now there were two people who
heard about it, who were unsuitable. And they laid claim on her [to
marry one of them]. And the case came before sages, who ruled,
2. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 2:8 Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: R. Aqiba
was imprisoned, and he intercalated three years one after the other.
They said to him, From there do you derive proof?
3. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 5:1 WM#SH B: Someone owed his fellow
an oath in court and vowed to him by the life of a certain object, and
[the person to whom the oath was owed] accepted it
4. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 8:2 Said Simeon b. Shatah, May I [not]
see consolation, if I did not see someone run after his fellow, with a sword
in his hand, and [the pursued man] went before him into a ruin, and the
[pursuer] ran in after him, and then I came in right after him, and found
[the victim] slain, with a knife in the hand of the murderer, dripping
blood, and I said to him,
5. Tosefta-Yoma 1:3 = T. Kip. 1:12
6. Tosefta-Tractate #Eduyyot 2:2 = T. Suk. 2:3
7. Tosefta-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:10 M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel the
elder married off his daughter to Simeon b. Nethanel the priest and
made an agreement with him that this was done on condition that she
not prepare foods requiring conditions of clean-ness while subject to his
supervision
These ma#asim divide into Mishnah-type and other, as follows:
Mishnah-type
(Halakhic, no dialogue, focused on a legal problem, exemplified by a par-
ticular case shorn of all distinguishing traits of occasion; executed by a simple
declarative sentence, without dialogue other than in the ruling on the case/
precedent, e.g., he said/sages said, and the like):
1. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 2:8
2. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 5:1
3. Tosefta-tractate Abodah Zarah 3:10
I claim that these three items fit as readily into the Mishnah as
into the Tosefta, being spare and disciplined, brief and laconic
in their description of an event or ruling that is deemed a proba-
tive precedent.
Other-than-Mishnah-type
(characterized item by item):
242 chapter twelve

1. Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 8:16: A womans son was causing her

trouble
2. Tosefta-tractate Sanhedrin 2:10 M#SH B: Hezekiah the King
intercalated the year when there was uncleanness, for it is said
3. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 8:2: Said Simeon b. Shatah, May I [not]
see consolation
The first item relies on a somewhat more than routine elabora-
tion of the case through dialogue. That places it on the margins
of the Mishnah-type, narrowly defined. The second case invokes
a scriptural precedent, which is surely rare; I cannot find another
instance. The third relies on invented dialogue to make its point.
The three other-than-Mishnah types of ma#aseh yield no pattern
of their own. They represent variations on the Mishnahs form.

b. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions

1. Tosefta-Tractate Sanhedrin 2:3 M#SH B: Rabban Gamaliel and sages

were in session on the steps to the Temple. And Yohanan the scribe
was before them. He said to him, Write:
This item can not claim to constitute a narrative in any sense. I
list it for the sake of completeness.
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Tosefta, ranging from perfunctory and
Halakhic to elaborate and Aggadic. Here are the types:
Halakhic narratives:
1. Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 2:12 M#SH B: Someone was remov-
ing stones from his own field and putting them into the public way.
There was a certain good man who argued with him: Why are you
taking stones from what is not yours and putting them into what be-
longs to you? The man ridiculed him. After a while the same man fell
into need and sold his field, and was walking along in that very place,
and he stumbled [on the rocks he had earlier tossed out].
2. Tosefta-Tractate Baba Qamma 8:11: They tell about Judah b. Baba
that all of his deeds were directed for the glory of Heaven, except that
he raised small cattle.
The authentic narratives of a Halakhic character prove random.
The first recalls the well-articulated parable: a story is told, then
given a moral (whether one is required or not). In the literary
context at hand, the paradox of the law yields the necessity to
invent an illustrative case for clarification. The story about Judah
 tosefta seder neziqin 243

b. Baba makes its own point, which is, exceptions are not toler-
ated.
Aggadic narratives:
1. Tosefta-tractate Horayot 2:5-6 M#SH S: R. Joshua went [to Rome],
and they told him, There is here a child from Jerusalem with beautiful
eyes and a handsome face, and he is in danger of shame. R. Joshua went
to look into the matter. When he came to the door, he recited this verse:
Who gave up Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to the robbers (Is.
42:24)? That child answered and said, Was it not the Lord against
whom we have sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose
law they would not obey (Is. 42:24)?
The one authentic narrative of an Aggadic character registers a
theological proposition, profound in its normative standing: Isra-
els fate rests in Israels hands.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey.
1. Do the anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to
thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules
and symmetry of the canon? The two Halakhic narratives and the one
Aggadic one place themselves, respectively, squarely within the
Halakhic and theological framework in which they are positioned,
explicitly so in all three contexts. There is absolutely no indication
that non-documentary writing derives, or represents viewpoints
different, from those held in circles producing writing for particular
documents.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The results are familiar
from the prior divisions of the Tosefta. The unconventional ma#asim
are somewhat more elaborate, employ dialogue to amplify the
case, and otherwise build on the received model. The Halakhic
narratives produce no pattern I can discern, but are too few to
sustain any generalizations I can imagine. The single Aggadic one
hardly suggests a model, except for the drama of a dialogue
consisting of exchanges of verses of Scripture.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning
of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary
considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?
Nothing in the authentic narratives defies explanation deriving
244 chapter twelve

simply from the context in which the narratives are located. That
is so of both the Halakhic and the Aggadic cases. The category,
non-documentary, scarcely justifies itself on the strength of these
random instances, all three of them entirely congruent to their
respective contexts.
 tosefta seder qodoshim 245

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

TOSEFTA SEDER QODOSHIM

I. Tractate Zebahim: no narratives

II. Tractate Menahot

Tosefta-tractate Menahot 13:18

A. At first did they bring the hides of Holy Things to the room of bet Happarwah
and divided them in the evening to each household which served on that
day. But the powerful men of the priesthood would come and take them
by force.
B. They ordained that they should divide it on Fridays to each and every
watch.
Tosefta-tractate Menahot 13:19
A. But still did violent men of the priesthood come and take it away by
force.
B. The owners went and dedicated them to Heaven [T. Zeb. 11:16].
C. They said, The days were not few before the priests covered the face of
the entire porch [of the Temple] with golden trays, a hundred by a hun-
dred [handbreadths], with the thickness of a golden denar. Thus did they lay
them together until the festival. And on the festival they remove them. And
they leave them on the stairs of the Temple Mount, so that the people should
see their work, that it is beautiful [and] that there was no imperfection in
them.
D. After the festival they go and put them up in their place.
Tosefta-tractate Menahot 13:20
A. Abba Saul says, Beams of sycamore were in Jericho. And strong-
fisted men would come and take them by force.
B. The owners went and dedicated them to Heaven.
C. They said, The owners dedicated to Heaven only beams of sycamore
alone [T. Zeb. 11:16-17].
Tosefta-tractate Menahot 13:21
A. Concerning these and people like them and people similar to them
and people who do deeds like their deeds did Abba Saul b. Botnit and
Abba Yos b. Yohanan of Jerusalem say,
B. Woe is me because of the House of Boethus. Woe is me because
of their staves.
246 chapter thirteen

C. Woe is me because of the house of Qadros. Woe is me because of

their pen.
D. Woe is me because of the house of Elhanan. Woe is me because of
their whispering.
E. Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael ben Phiabi.
F. For they are high priests, and their sons, treasurers, and their sons-
in-law, supervisors, and their servants come and beat us with staves.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? T. 13:18-19 form an
unfolding narrative: (1) a situation, (2) how it was dealt with, how
it persisted, (3) how it was finally resolved, and the consequences.
Because the Temple retained possession of the hides, the revenues
permitted the purchase of gold for decorating the porch. That places
T. 13:19C at the climax and conclusion of the whole. On that
basis I classify the composition as I do. Without the climactic
component, we are left with T. 13:20A-C, which scarcely qualifies
as a narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The obvious conflict
is between the donors and the strong-armed priests, which is then
resolved as indicated.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Beyond the standard
tripartite construction, I see no other taxonomic indicators.

III. Tractate Hullin

Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:20

A. Meat which is found in the possession of a gentile is permitted for
gain. [If it is found] in the possession of a min, it is prohibited for gain.
B. That which goes forth from a pagan temple, lo, it is deemed to be
meat from the sacrifices of corpses.
C. For they have stated, The act of slaughter of a min [is routinely
deemed to be for the purposes of] idolatry [M. Hul. 2:7E].
D. Their bread [is deemed] the bread of a Samaritan, and their wine
is deemed wine used for idolatrous purposes, and their produce is deemed
wholly untithed, and their books are deemed magical books, and their
children are mamzerim.
2:21 A. People are not to sell anything to them or buy anything from
them.
 tosefta seder qodoshim 247

B. And they do not take wives from them or give children in marriage
to them.
C. And they do not teach their sons a craft.
D. And they do not seek assistance from them, either financial assis-
tance or medical assistance.

Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:22

A. M#SH B: R. Eleazar b. Damah was bitten by a snake.
B. And Jacob of Kefar Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of
Pantera.
C. And R. Ishmael did not allow him [to accept the healing].
D. They said to him, You are not permitted [to accept healing from him],
Ben Dama.
E. He said to him, I shall bring you proof that he may heal me.
F. But he did not have time to bring the [promised] proof before he dropped
dead.

Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:23

A. Said R. Ishmael, Happy are you, Ben Dama. For you have expired in
peace, but you did not break down the hedge erected by sages.
B. For whoever breaks down the hedge erected by sages eventually suf-
fers punishment, as it is said, He who breaks down a hedge is bitten by a snake (Qoh.
10:8).
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The narrative that unfolds
at T. 2:22-23 reaches its climax at T. 2:23A-B, which registers
the moral of the entire composition: better die than acquire benefit
from Minim. From that perspective, we have three successive parts,
T. 2:22A-C, the colloquy-drama, D-F, and the denouement, T.
2:23A-B. A-C without D-F do not make the point that the
composition wishes to register, and E-F without T. 2:23 do not
articulate the desired conclusion either. Had the story ended at
T. 2:2F, it would have fallen, if somewhat awkwardly, into the
category of a ma#aseh/case. It is only with the three parts joined
that the goal is reached, so that we have a fully-realized narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The contrast between
healing and death, T. 2:22A-C, D-F, requires the explicit moral
at T. 2:23.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The tripartite con-
struction is familiar. Otherwise I perceive no pattern.
248 chapter thirteen

Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:24

A. M#SH B: R. Eliezer was arrested on account of Minut. They brought
him to court for judgment.
B. That hegemon said to him, Should an elder of your standing get involved
in such things?
C. He said to him, The Judge is reliable in my view [I rely upon the Judge,
meaning, God].
D. That hegemon supposed that he referred only to him, but he referred only
to his Father in heaven.
E. He [the hegemon] said to him, Since you have deemed me reliable for
yourself, so thus I have ruled: Is it possible that these gray hairs should err
in such matters? [Obviously not, therefore.] [you are] Dimissus [pardoned].
Lo, you are free of liability.
F. And when he left court, he was distressed to have been arrested on ac-
count of matters of Minut.
G. His disciples came to comfort him, but he did not accept their words of
comfort.
H. R. Aqiba came and said to him, Rabbi, May I say something to you so
that you will not be distressed?
I. He said to him, Go ahead.
J. He said to him, Perhaps some one of the Minim told you something of
Minut which pleased you.
K. He said to him, By Heaven! You remind me. Once I was strolling in the
camp of Sepphoris. I bumped into Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, and he told me
a teaching of Minut in the name of Jesus ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. So
I was arrested on account of matters of Minut, for I transgressed the teach-
ings of Torah: Keep your way far from her and do not go near the door
of her house (Prov. 5:8).
L. For R. Eliezer did teach, One should always flee from what is dis-
reputable and from whatever appears to be disreputable.
Here we find ourselves in a rare setting: face-to-face with a beau-
tifully articulated narrative, comparable to M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M.
Ta. 3:9-10. But that comparison is only aesthetic; the great nar-
ratives of the Mishnah and the Tosefta have little in common when
it comes to the Halakhah, to which in all cases they are margin-
al, or when it comes to theology. At issue here is a quite distinct
concern, the encounter with the cognate-community and its to-
rah.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The first division of the
story, A-E, on its own tells how the sage hoodwinked the Roman
judge. But that does not make the point. The second unit imparts
its perspective on the first: why was he distressed to have been
arrested because of Minut? Because he could not find a valid
 tosefta seder qodoshim 249

reason, in the Torah, for his having suffered as he did. But, K,

his mind was set at ease when he could identify the sin on account
of which he suffered. The point of the whole story, then, is reached
only at K, which has been held back, rather than stated at T.
2:24A, to give coherence and order to the entire construction. This
represents the most successful narrative of its kind in the Tosefta.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? There are two points
of conflict, first, the sage versus the pagan judge, second, the sage
versus his own teaching (L). The resolution is entirely successful.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The presentation of
a story with more than a single act, fully executed with a proper,
dramatic conclusion and also a secondary restatement in the
Halakhic idiom of that same conclusion, certainly is uncommon.
Apart from M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, I cannot point to
anything quite so sustained or coherent in the other-than-Temple-
compositions of the Mishnah or the Tosefta.

IV. Tractate Bekhorot

Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 4:6

A. If the container of the fat-tail is broken in the case of Holy Things,
lo, this is a blemish.
B. If the sheath of the male organ is damaged [M. Bekh. 6: A] in any
amount at all, lo, this may be slaughtered.
C. What is the sheath?
D. The container, and not the penis.
E. Said R. Yos b. Hammeshullam, M#SH B: A wolf ripped off that of one
[beast], and it grew back.
This is a standard case/precedent and presents no surprises.
Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 4:7
A. If the tail is cut off at the bone but not at the joint,
B. or if the root end of the tail is divided into two bones
C. or if there is flesh between one link of the tail and the next link to
the breadth of a link [vs. M. Bekh. 6:5C],
D. lo, this should not be slaughtered.
E. If it has only one testicle, lo, this may be slaughtered [M. Bekh. 6:6B].
F. [If] it had two, even though the two are doubled [in one sack], lo,
this should not be slaughtered.
250 chapter thirteen

Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 4:8

A. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: A heifer of the house of Menahem did they set
up on its buttocks, and they squeezed it at the testicles, and only one came
forth. So it was slaughtered. But it was found cleaving to the groin.
B. And the case came before R. Aqiba, and he declared it valid.
C. But when the matter was reported before R. Yohanan b. Nuri he
said, Aqiba has fed them carrion [M. Bekh. 6:6E-G].
D. [If] the horns and hooves were removed, and marrow with them,
lo, this may be slaughtered.
The case is standard.
Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 6:10
A. [If a man is obligated] to redeem himself and to make a pilgrimage
for a festival, he redeems himself and afterward he makes the pilgrim-
age for the festival [M. Bekh. 8:6MP].
B. R. Judah says, He makes the pilgrimage for the festival and after-
ward he redeems himself.
C. For this [the pilgrimage] is a requirement which is transient [and
the opportunity will not recur].
D. [If a man is obligated] to learn Torah and to marry a wife, he learns
Torah and afterward marries a wife.
E. R. Judah said, If he cannot sit [and study] without a wife, he mar-
ries a wife and afterward he learns Torah.
F. [If one is obligated] to study Torah and his son [is obligated] to study
Torah, [if] he is obligated to marry a wife and his son to marry a wife,
G. he comes before his son.
H. R. Judah says, If his son was eager, while his [own] Torah would
be preserved in his possession, then his son comes first.
6:11 A. M#SH B: There was one who encouraged his son to learn Torah,
imposing upon him a vow not to do any other labor.
B. And R. Yos permitted him [the son] to fill a bucket of water for him
and to light a lamp for [the father].
The precedent is routine.
 tosefta seder qodoshim 251

V. Tractate Arakhin: no narratives

VI. Tractate Temurah: no narratives

VII. Tractate Keritot: no narratives

VIII. Tractate Me#ilah: no narratives

IX. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives I have identified:

a. Standard Maasim/Cases/Precedents
1. Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 4:6: Said R. Yos b. Hammeshullam, M#SH
B: A wolf ripped off that of one [beast], and it grew back.
2. Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 4:8: Said R. Yos, M#SH B: A heifer of
the house of Menahem did they set up on its buttocks, and they squeezed
it at the testicles, and only one came forth. So it was slaughtered. But
it was found cleaving to the groin. And the case came before R. Aqiba,
and he declared it valid
3. Tosefta-tractate Bekhorot 6:11 M#SH B: There was one who
encouraged his son to learn Torah, imposing upon him a vow not to do
any other labor. And R. Yos permitted him [the son] to fill a bucket
of water for him and to light a lamp for [the father
All three are Mishnah-type ma#asim, lacking in dialogue, focused
on a legal problem, lacking all distinguishing traits of circumstance.

b. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions

I find no instances of the pseudo-narrative of, They walked along
and he said to him.
Here are the authentic narratives that we have identified in the
present division of the Tosefta:
Halakhic narratives:
1. Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:22 M#SH B: R. Eleazar b. Damah was bitten
by a snake. And Jacob of Kefar Sama came to heal him in the name of
Jesus son of Pantera. And R. Ishmael did not allow him [to accept the
healing]. They said to him, You are not permitted [to accept healing
from him], Ben Dama.
2. Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:24 M#SH B: R. Eliezer was arrested on
account of Minut. They brought him to court for judgment. That hegemon
252 chapter thirteen

said to him, Should an elder of your standing get involved in such

things? He said to him, The Judge is reliable in my view
The authentic Halakhic narratives are paired for obvious, themat-
ic-propositional reasons. I could not formulate rules of writing
Halakhic narratives based on these examples.
Aggadic narratives:
1. Tosefta-tractate Menahot 13:18: At first did they bring the hides of
Holy Things to the room of bet Happarwah and divided them in the
evening to each household which served on that day. But the powerful
men of the priesthood would come and take them by force. The owners
went and dedicated them to Heaven [T. Zeb. 11:16]. They said, The days
were not few before the priests covered the face of the entire porch [of
the Temple] with golden trays, a hundred by a hundred [handbreadths],
with the thickness of a golden denar. Thus did they lay them together until
the festival. And on the festival they remove them. And they leave them
on the stairs of the Temple Mount, so that the people should see their
work, that it is beautiful [and] that there was no imperfection in them.
After the festival they go and put them up in their place.
The one Aggadic narrative yields no qualities susceptible of gen-
eralization.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives, let me respond
to the questions that animate this survey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? No, the Halakhic narratives recapitulate
Halakhic rules, and the Aggadic one fits well within the polemic
tradition that contrasts the conduct of a sector of the priesthood
with the glory of the Temple.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? I see no narrative patterns
that on formal grounds serve to link one entry to the next.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning
of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary
considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?
The authentic narratives (all the more so the pseudo-narratives)
serve the documentary program that encompasses them. They
preserve some odd materials, e.g., the Eliezer-set, but those
materials are wholly coherent in viewpoint, if not in form, with
the Halakhic ones that surround them.
 tosefta seder tohorot 253

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

TOSEFTA SEDER TOHOROT

I. Tractate Kelim

Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6

A. Those whose hands and feet are not washed enter [the area] be-
tween the porch and the altar, the words of R. Meir.
B. And sages say, They do not enter.
C. Said R. Simeon the Modest before R. Eliezer, I entered [the area] between
the porch and the altar without having washed [my] hands and feet.
D. He said to him, Who is more beloved, you or the high priest?
E. He was silent.
F. He said to him, You are ashamed to say that [even] the dog of the high
priest is more beloved than you!
G. He said to him, Rabbi, you have said it.
H. He said to him, By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who with-
out washing hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the al-
tar]they break his head with clubs. What will you do that the guardsman
not find you!
I. R. Yos says, Just as everyone keeps separate [from the area] be-
tween the porch and the altar during the time of burning incense, so
they keep separate in the time of the laying on of blood.
I do not claim to grasp what is at issue in this dialogic setting for
a Halakhic ruling. In any event by the definition of this exercise
it does not qualify as a realization of a narrative. The point of
Eliezer is, sages definitively have defined the Halakhah, B, re-
peated by inference at H. But the dramatized opinions do not
coalesce into a coherent, focused and pointed narrative, or even
an exchange of reasonable arguments. And it goes without say-
ing the characteristic logic of coherent discourse of narrative plays
no role.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 5:3
A. The boards used at weddings as tables which are in dining rooms
householders eat on them, for even though they are divided like the
talon of a bird, they are unclean, because they are like a tray.
B. WM"SH B: A householder had boards in his house, and they would
254 chapter fourteen

borrow them for a mourners house or for a banquet-house. And the mat-
ter came before sages. They declared it clean. He saw that they needed
them, and he gave them to them as a gift.
C, And the matter came before the sages, and they declared them [useful
and therefore susceptible to become] unclean.
Here is a standard case/precedent.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 11:2
A. R. Yos says, It [the trough] may be made unclean and purified
even ten times a day. How so? [If] one left it in the rain and it swelled
up, it is clean. [If one left it] in the east wind, it becomes unclean. So
it becomes unclean and is purified even ten times a day.
B. [If] it was damaged so as to allow olives to drop through, it is in-
susceptible to any sort of uncleanness.
C. [If] one gave it thought
D. Rabbi declares unclean.
E. And sages declare clean, until one will actually do something to it.
F. [As to] one larger than this which was split, even Zabin and Zabot,
menstruating women, and those who have given birth sit and lie in its
midst, [and it is] clean.
G. [If] it was damaged so as to let pomegranates drop through, it is
clean from any sort of uncleanness.
H. [If] one gave it thought
I. R. Aqiba declares unclean.
J. And sages declare clean, until one will smooth it off.
K. Said R. Yos, M#SH S: They brought from Kefar Ludim before Rabban
Gamaliel more than sixty troughs, and he would measure them: a large one
for a seah, a seah, and the small one, two logs. The measure of a seah-seah holds
nearly nine qabs.
I see here nothing more than a familiar case/precedent. The form
would work better with a ruling that explicitly intersected with the
abstract Halakhah, but the sense and context are clear.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 1:2-3
1:2 A. A menstruating woman who drew the rope and stepped on the
beam and leaned on the reed which goes up and downthe cloth is
unclean with Midras-uncleanness.
B. M#SH B: One woman was weaving a cloth in cleanness, and she came
before R. Ishmael for inspection.
C. She said to him, Rabbi, I know that the cloth was not made unclean,
but it was not in my heart to guard it [from impurity].
D. In the course of the questions which R. Ishmael asked her, she said to
him, Rabbi, I know that a menstruating woman came and pulled the rope
with me.
E. Said R. Ishmael, How great are the words of sages, who would say, If
one did not intend to guard it, it is unclean.
 tosefta seder tohorot 255

Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 1:3

SWB M#SH B: One woman was weaving a covering in a state of purity, and
she came before R. Ishmael, who inspected her [about it].
B. She said to him, Rabbi, I know that the covering was not made un-
clean, but it was not in my heart to guard it.
C. In the course of the questions that R. Ishmael asked her, she said to him,
Rabbi, I know that one thread was broken, and I tied it with my mouth.
D. Said R. Ishmael, How great are the words of sages who would say, If
one did not intend to guard it, it is unclean.
While close to a conventional ma#aseh, the composite qualifies as
a narrative, as will be explained.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? This is a more elaborate
articulation of a standard ma#aseh, bearing a moral at T. 1:2E=T.
1:3D. The moral of the two matched stories is, the details of the
case prove that the sages knew what they were talking about. The
intention to preserve cleanness would have alerted the woman to
avoid the contaminating deed of putting the thread in her mouth
and so contaminating it with her spit, unclean by reason of her
menstruation. These therefore are classified not as routine maasim,
but as authentic Halakhic narratives, because they are focused to
illustrate the moral given at the end.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict involves
the womans claim that the cloth was cultically clean even though
she did not have the intention of preserving its cleanness, on the
one side, and the sages insistence that intentionality is required,
on the other. That is resolved by the explicit statement at the end
that sages have their reasons.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The interest in
generalizing on the case to the broader rule that validates requiring
intentionality points to an indicative trait transcending the case.
The three parts of the construction are, the claim, the interrogation
and the confession, then followed by the generalization.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:1
A. A blockthe part which is not a handbreadth high is clean.
B. And [the part] which is a handbreadth high
C. R. Meir and R. Simeon declare unclean.
D. R. Yos and R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq declare clean.
256 chapter fourteen

E. Said R. Meir. M#SH B: One cut two blocks of date-palm to sit on them,
and the matter came before sages, and they declared them unclean.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:2
A. Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: A person brought a stump of olive-wood which
was planed like a cupboard before R. Aqiba, and he said to him, On this I
was sitting. And he declared it unclean for him.
B. He saw his students astonished. He said to them, Why are you aston-
ished? Something more inappropriate [for sitting] than this did R. Joshua
declare unclean.
C. Said R. Yos, M#SH B: Four elders were sitting in the store of R. Eleazar
b. #Azariah in Sepphoris; R. Huspit and R. Yeshebab, and R. Halafta, and
R. Yohanan b. Nuri. And they brought before them one head of a post
which was removed with a chisel. He said to them, On this was I sitting.
D. And they declared it clean for him.
E. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq. Heads of posts were on the Temple
Mount on which craftsmen would sit and polish stones, and sages did
not scruple concerning them in respect to any uncleanness.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:3
A. And so did R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq say, Two blocks were in the house
of father, one unclean, the other clean. I said to father, On what account
is this unclean and the other clean?
B. He said to me, This one, which is hollowed out, is unclean, and the
other, which is not hollowed out, is clean. And on it sat Haggai the prophet.
C. And all of them, if one did not hollow them out intentionally, are
clean.
D. [If] one found them hollowed out and gave thought to them, they
receive uncleanness from then on.
E. [If] a deaf-mute, an insane person, a minor, or a man to whom they
do not belong gave thought to them [as seats], they are insusceptible
to uncleanness.
Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:4
A. The spoon with which the priests knead, and so the cover of a pot
if they are hollowed out and receive anything at all, are unclean, and
if not, they are clean.
B. M#SH B: The butcher of Onqelos the Proselyte brought his cover [or
block] before Rabban Gamaliel, and eighty-five elders were in session there.
Rabban Gamaliel took it and looked at it, and gave it to his colleague, and
his colleague to his. When he saw that no one said anything about it,
C. Rabban Gamaliel took a thread from the cloak of a disciple who was
sitting before him and stretched it [the thread] on it [the block], and found
it hollowed out ever so little, and declared it unclean for him.
D. And in all instances, if one did not deliberately hollow them out,
they are clean. [If] one found them hollowed out and gave thought to
them, they receive uncleanness from then on. [If] a deaf-mute, an in-
 tosefta seder tohorot 257

sane person, a minor, or a man to whom they do not belong gave thought
to them, they are insusceptible to uncleanness.
These are the ma#asim in this composite: T. 2:1E, T. 2:2A-B, T.
2:2C-D, T. 2:3A, T. 2:4B-C, all of them formally interchange-
able with their counterparts in the Mishnah.

II. Tractate Ahilot (Ohalot)

Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 2:6

A. The skull which had in it a single long perforation, or in which there
many perforationsthey join together [to make up] the measure of
the drill.
B. Said R. Yos b. Hameshulam, M#SH: In Eyn Bul someones skull was
chopped open, and the physician patched a patch of gourd on it, and he
lived.
C. Said to him R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Is there proof from that case?
Even though he lived out the entire summer, when the rains came, the
cold overtook him, and he died.
This is a precedent/case that sustains a Halakhic position, but it
does not contain an explicit Halakhic ruling.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 3:8
A. Said R. Simeon, But that is the very matter under discussion. If a
Sukkah which has a door, lo, it [the Sukkah] interposes on it [the corpse],
then as to a Sukkah which has no doorthat is the rolling stone itself.
B. But thus is it necessary to answer him: More common is the un-
cleanness of the Tent than the uncleanness of carrying, for all things
may be made unclean by a Tent, and you have nothing which is made
unclean by carrying except for man alone.
3:9 A. M#SH: In Bet Daggan in Judah a person died on the eve of Passover,
and they went to bury him.
B. And the women entered and tied the rope to the rolling stone. The
men drew [on the rope] from the outside, and the women entered and buried
him. And the men went and [in a state of cleanness] made their Paschal
sacrifice in the evening.
The case/precedent presents no surprises. A sages ruling would
have been welcome.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 4:2
A. Said R. Judah, Six matters did R. Aqiba declare unclean, and he
then reversed himself.
B. M#SH: They brought buckets of bones from Kefar Tabya, and they
left them in the open air at the synagogue in Lud.
C. Teodoros the physician came in, with all the physicians with him. They
258 chapter fourteen

said, There is not present a backbone from a single corpse, nor a skull from
a single corpse.
D. They said, Since some present declare unclean and some present
declare clean, let us arise for a vote.
E. They began from R. Aqiba, and he declared [them] clean.
F. They said to him, Since you, who [in the past] declared unclean,
have declared clean, let them be clean.
G. Said R. Simeon, And until the day of R. Aqibas death, he de-
clared them unclean. Whether or not he reversed himself after he
died I do not know.
The details imply the intent to construct a narrative, but I see
nothing more than the dramatization of Halakhic dialogue; there
is no hint of appeal to the teleological logic of coherent discourse.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 15:12
A. All movables bring the uncleanness if they are as chick as an ox-
goad.
B. Said R. Tarfon, May I bury my sons, that this law is distorted. I
do not know what is the nature of the case. But the one who heard it
heard but erred.
C. And M#SH B: One was passing and an ox-goad was on his shoulder. And
one side overshadowed the grave, and they declared him unclean on ac-
count of the fact that utensils overshadowed the corpse.
D. And the one who heard, heard but erred
15:13 A. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: One was ploughing and shook the plough,
and it came out that a [whole] skull of a corpse was cleaving to the plough,
and they declared him unclean because he overshadowed the corpse.
B. And the person who heard about it heard but erred.
C. Said R. Judah, M#SH B: One was ploughing and shook the plough and
it turned out that the skull of a corpse was cleaving to the plough, and they
declared him unclean because he moved the corpse, and the person who
heard, heard but erred.
I see a patterned set of three standard ma#asim here, T. Ah. 15:12C-
D, T. 15:13A-B, C.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:2
A. It is all the same whether one finds three corpses, or finds three
kokhs, or finds a kokh in a cave or a vault, or found ten [corpses] and
there are not four cubits to eight between them
B. they all are [subject to the rule of] contaminated soil and are [sub-
ject to the rule of] a graveyard, the words of R. Simeon.
C. And sages say, We regard the middle ones as if they were not [present],
and the outer ones join together from four cubits up to eight.
D. [If] one found the head alongside his knees, it is not subject to the
law of contaminated soil, and it is not a graveyard.
E. [If one found] the head of this one alongside the knees of the next,
 tosefta seder tohorot 259

and the head of the other alongside the knees of the next, they are
subject to the rule of contaminated soil, and they are not subject to
the rule of the graveyard.
F. And that which lacks [limbs] is not subject to the rule of con-taminated
soil and subject to the rule of the graveyard.
G. And what is the meaning of lacking? Rabbi says, Something which,
if taken from a living person, would cause his death.
H. [If] one found two at first and then one, it is known that they are
sub-ject to the rule of contaminated soil, but they are not subject to
the rule of the graveyard.
16:3 A. M#SH B: R. Yeshebab was examining [soil] and found two at first,
and one was [already] known. He removed the soil and marked them off as
a graveyard.
B. When he came to R. Aqiba, he said to him, All your labor has been in
vain. You also would have to search out all the known graves of the Land
of Israel.
C. But they have said only, He who finds three in the first instance.
Here is a routine case/precedent, clarifying the Halakhic ruling.
The dramatization, B-C, carries us beyond the narrow limits of
the Mishnahs counterpart.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:8
D. He who searches eats his heave-offering.
E. He who clears away the ruin does not eat his heave-offering.
F. His disciples asked Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, He who searchesmay
he eat [food in the status of heave-offering]?
G, He said to them, He does not eat [food in that status].
H. They said to him, You have taught us that he should eat.
I. He said to them, Well have you spoken. A deed which my own hands
have done and my own eyes have seen, yet I forgot [the law], but when my
ears have heard [the law], how much the more so [should I remember it]!
J. And it was not that he did not know, but that he wanted to stimu-
late the disciples.
K. And some say it was Hillel the Elder whom they asked, and it
was not that he did not know, but that he wanted to stimulate the
disciples.
L. R. Joshua says, He who repeats a tradition but does not work
[on it] is like a man who sows seed but does not harvest, and he
who learns Torah and forgets it is like a woman who bears and
buries.
M. R. Aqiba says, A song is in me, a song always.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The narrative does more
than dramatize Halakhic dialogue. The lesson is I: one should
work hard to remember the Halakhot that he has learned. J takes
260 chapter fourteen

away the sting, K glosses, and L-M are tacked on to restate the
main point of memorization. That makes for a very complex
construction indeed. But the main point, I, does impart shape and
purpose to the antecedent colloquy, F-H, and is integral. Hence
I have to classify this odd composite as a narrative.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The possibilities of
forgetting what one has learned form the heart of the matter, and
the warning to the students the centerpiece.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The focus is on the
exchange of statements, F-G, H-I, with the gloss of J. I find it
difficult to characterize the narrative qualities of F-I, but it is clear
to me that we have more than a dramatized Halakhic exchange,
because the focus of the whole is not on the Halakhic issue but
on the forgetfulness afflicting even the great masters. Any other
Halakhic topic can have sustained the same goal.
T. Par. 4:7 invokes the same narrative framework for a differ-
ent Halakhic topic, which shows that the narrative program forms
the center, the Halakhic exposition the detail.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:11
A. He who empties out his grave into the public way and [some else]
walked therehe empties it out bone by bone, and everything is clean.
B. He into whose field a grave opened gathers bone by bone, and all
is clean.
C. M#SH B: Judah and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamaliel, were walking along
the border of Oni. A man found them, whose graveyard opened into his
field.
D. They said to him, One gathers bone by bone, and all is clean.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:12
A. A pit into which they toss people slain in battleone gathers bone
by bone, and all is clean.
B. And he who is buried without permission[the ground in which he
is buried] has no contaminated soil, and [the ground] does not fall under
the law of a graveyard.
C. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, Abortions do not acquire a grave
and are not subject to the law of contaminated soil, but one who is
buried without permission[the ground in which he is buried] is sub-
ject to the law of contaminated soil.
 tosefta seder tohorot 261

Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:13

A. R. Judah says, A cistern into which they toss abortions is clean.
B. Said R. Judah, M#SH B, The servant-girl of one olive-farmer in Damin
threw an abortion into a cistern. A priest came and looked to see what she
threw in. The matter came before the sages, and they declared him clean,
because the weasel and panther drag it away forthwith.
The two ma#asim, T. Ah. 16:11C-D and T. Ah. 16:13B, adhere
to the standard Halakhic form: situation, briefly described, then
ruling in a very few words (here: with the add-on, because the
weasel.
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 18:15
A. At first they used to say, The surrounding borders of Ashkelon
from the great tomb to Yagud and to the Negev and to Tarin were
unclean. The sages voted concerning them and declared them clean.
18:16 A. Testified Judah b. Jacob of Bet Gubrin and Jacob b. Isaac of
Bet Gufnin concerning Qisri that they possessed it from ancient times
and declared it free without a vote.
B. Said R. Hanin, That year was the seventh year, and gentiles went
to their circuses and left the market full of fruits, and Israelites came
and swiped them, and when they came back, they said, Come, let us
go to sages, lest they permit them pigs also.
18:17 A. Said R. Zeriqa, On the fifth of Second Adar twenty-four
elders voted concerning it and declared it free, for all were entering it
[and it was clean, not regarded as gentile land].
Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 18:18
A. M#SH B: Rabbi and R. Ishmael the son of R. Yos and R. Eliezer
Haqqappar spent the Sabbath in the stall of Pazzi in Lud, and R. Pinhas b.
Yair was sitting before them.
B. They said to him, AshkelonWhat do you [rule] concerning it?
C. He said to them, They sell wheat in their basilicas, and they bathe and
[forthwith] eat their Passovers in the evening.
D. They said to him, What is the rule about remaining in it, in respect to
the land of the peoples?
E. He said to them, When one [gentile] has remained in it [the basilica]
forty days, [it is unclean].
F. They said to him, If so, come and let us vote [formally] concerning
it to free it from tithes.
G. And R. Ishmael the son of R. Yos did not vote with them.
H. When he went out, Rabbi said, Why did you not vote with us?
I. He said to him, Concerning uncleanness which I [formerly] de-
clared unclean, I have [now] declared clean. But not in respect to
tithes.
J. I was afraid of the High Court, lest they remove my head.
262 chapter fourteen

The pseudo-narrative, T. 18:18A, sets the stage for a common-

place Halakhic colloquy, B-C, D-E, F-G, H-I+J.

III. Tractate Nega#im

Tosefta-tractate Nega#im 8:2

A. A hyssop which is fit for the purification-rite is fit for the leper.
B. [If] one sprinkled with it for the purification-rite, it is fit for the
leper.
C. R. Eleazar says, Cedar-wood and hyssop and a red thread which
are mentioned in the Torah are [to be articles] with which work has
not been done [which have never been used].97
D. Said R. Judah, I was spending the Sabbath and I went to R. Tarfons
house.
E. He said to me, Judah, my son, give me my sandal, and I gave him [his
sandal].
F. He put his hand out the window, and he took a staff from there.
G. He said to me, My son, with this [staff] I have purified three lepers.
H. And I learned from it [the staff] seven laws:
I. That it is of cypress-wood.
J. And its head is smooth and planed.
K. Its length is a cubit.
L. And its breadth is a fourth of the thickness of the leg of a bed, divided
one into two, and then two into four.
M. They sprinkle, they repeat, and they do it a third time [with the same
piece of wood].
N. And they purify both while the House is standing and not while the
House is standing.
O. And they purify in the provinces.
The Halakhic report does not appeal for coherence to teleolog-
ical logic and simply elaborates on the plan of a ma#aseh, now taking
the case/precedent and articulating not a case plus one rule but
a case plus seven laws, as specified. Here is a fine example of
loosening up the formal limits of the ma#aseh among the circles
writing for the Tosefta. Translating each entry into a standard
ma#aseh poses no challenge.

IV. Tractate Parah

Tosefta-tractate Parah 2:1

A. R. Eliezer says, It is not purchased from the gentiles.
B. They said to him, M#SH W, They purchased it from gentiles in Sidon,
and it was called Romah.
 tosefta seder tohorot 263

Here is a case/precedent in the conventional model, lacking an

articulated ruling, but insinuating one.
Tosefta-tractate Parah 3:7
A. They would make a causeway from the Temple Mount to the Mount
of Olives, arches upon arches, an arch directly above each pier, be-
cause of the grave in the depths.
B. R. Eliezer says, There was there no causeway, but pillars of marble
were set up there, and planks of cedar on top of them.
C. And the cow did not need to go out on the causeway being insuscep-
tible anyhow].
D. And they made the priest who burns the cow unclean,
E. because of the Sadducees, so that they should not say that it is done
by someone upon whom the sun has set for the completion of his
purification.
3:8 A. WM#SH B: A certain Sadducee had awaited sunset [for purification]
and [then] came to burn the cow.
B. And Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai became cognizant of his intention,
and he came and placed his two hands on him and said to him, My lord,
High Priest. How fitting are you to be high priest! Now go down and im-
merse one time.
C. He went down and immersed and emerged. After he [the high priest,
preparing for the rite of burning the cow] came up, he [Yohanan] tore his
ear [rendering him unfit to serve].
D. He said to him, Ben Zakkaiwhen I have time for you.
E. He said to him, When you have time.
F. Not three days passed before they put him in his grave.
G. His father came to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and said to him, Ben
Zakkai, my son did not have time.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The Halakhic issue is
subordinated to the struggle between Yohanan b. Zakkai and the
priesthood of the Temple. The tension over the Halakhic issue
is expressed at T. 3:8A-C, then the climax, D-F, followed by the
denouement, G. The conclusion, G, resolves the antecedent
tension and imparts its judgment upon the entire transaction.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? As specified.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? I see three components
and a standard pattern here. A-C, D-E, F-G, the one flowing
smoothly into the next.
264 chapter fourteen

Tosefta-tractate Parah 4:6

A. The burning of the cow and its sprinklings [are done] by the high
priest, and all of the other aspects of its rite [are done] by a 1 ordinary
priest.
B. It is said, And you will give it to Eleazar the Priest [Num. 19:3]
it [is burned by] Eleazar, who is prefect, but all other cows [in the future
are burned] by an ordinary priest, the words of R. Meir.
C. R. Yos b. R. Judah and R. Simeon and R. Eliezer b. Jacob say, It
[is done] by Eleazar, who is prefect, and all other cows [are offered
up] even by the high priest.
D. Its requirement is with the four white garments of an ordinary priest
[even if the high priest does it].
E. [If] one did it in the golden garments or in the secular garments, it
is unfit.
4:7 A. His disciples asked Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, A cowin [what
garments, gold or white, is the priest clothed when the rite] is carried out?
B. He said to them, In golden garments [of the high priest].
C. They said to him, You have taught us, In white garments.
D. He said to them, Well have you spoken. And a deed which my own
hands did, and my own eyes witnessedand I forgot [the rule]when my
ears hear [the rule], all the more so [should I remember it.
E. Not that he did not know, but he wanted to stimulate the disciples.
F. And there are those who say they asked Hillel the Elder.
G. Not that he did not know, but that he wanted to stimulate the
disciples.
H. For R. Joshua says, He who repeats but does not work [at
remembering the tradition] is like a man who sows and does not
harvest.
I. And one who learns Torah and forgets is like a woman who
bears and buries.
J. R. Aqiba says, A song is me, always a Song.
T. Ah. 16:8 is matched here. The Halakhic details shift, the nar-
rative framework remains the same.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The pseudo-narrative
does more than dramatize Halakhic dialogue. The lesson is at T.
Par. 4:7D: one should work hard to remember the Halakhot that
he has learned. E takes away the sting, F glosses, and H-J are
tacked on to restate the main point of memorization. That makes
for a very complex construction indeed. But the main point, D,
does impart shape and purpose to the antecedent colloquy, A-C,
and is integral. Hence I have to classify this odd composite as a
narrative.
 tosefta seder tohorot 265

2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of

the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The possibilities of
forgetting what one has learned form the heart of the matter, and
the warning to the students the centerpiece.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal
qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? As before, we have
more than a dramatized Halakhic exchange, because the focus of
the whole is not on the Halakhic issue but on the forgetfulness
afflicting even the great masters. Any other Halakhic topic can
have sustained the same goal, and does.
Tosefta-tractate Parah 10:3
A. M#SH B: R. Ishmael was following after R. Joshua. He [Ishmael] said to
him, He who is clean for the purification-rite who moved a key that is
clean for heave-offeringwhat is the rule? Is he unclean or clean?
B. Said he [Joshua] to him, He is unclean.
C. He said to him, And why?
D. He said to him, Perhaps there was in its [the keys] account a former
uncleanness.
E. Or perhaps [if permitted to move something clean] he may forget and
[also] move an unclean thing.
F. He said to him, But even if not, [he is not unclean even if] he most
certainly moved it, [for the key does not convey uncleanness if it is moved].
G. But your words appear correct in a matter which is susceptible to be-
come unclean with Midras-uncleanness [in which case:]
H. Or perhaps there was in its hand a former uncleanness.
I. Or perhaps he may forget and move the unclean thing.
J. He [Joshua] moved him on to another matter:
K. Said he to him, Ishmael, How do you pronounce the passage, For
your love [dodekha] is better than wine, or, For your breasts [dadekha]
are better than wine (Song of Songs 1:2)?
L. He said to him, For your breasts are better than wine.
M. He said to him, Thus [indeed] is the matter, for lo, its fellow teaches
concerning it [proves by analogy how it is to be read], Your anointing
oils are fragrant (Song 1:3).
N. And sages say, That which is unclean is unclean with Maddaf-
uncleanness, and that which is clean is not subject to Maddaf-un-
cleanness.
0. The unclean person of whom they spoke is one unclean with corpse-
uncleanness and not one unclean with Maddaf-uncleanness.
The genuflection to narrative in the language, was following
after, not to mention the clear claim to record spoken dialogue,
does not change the fact that all we have is a colloquy in slightly
266 chapter fourteen

dramatic form; what is of special interest is that the Halakhic rul-

ing is then followed by an Aggadic one, J-M. N-O revert to the
standard form. The presentation of a Halakhic, then an Aggadic,
proposition is uncommon; pseudo-narratives make possible the
union of the two distinct native category-formations of the Rab-
binic corpus.

V. Tractate Tohorot

Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 6:1

A. The bits of carrion and of properly slaughtered animals in a village
B. they follow the status of the majority.
C. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, Even [if] a single piece of car-
rion is sold in a villageall the meat which is found in the village, lo,
it is regarded as belonging to carrion,
D. because bits of carrion [indeed] are located [there].
E. Unclean and clean drops of blood in the house
F. they follow the status of the majority.
G. M#SH S: Drops of blood were found on loaves of heave-offering, and
the case came before sages, and they declared it clean,
H. for it is only the blood of living creeping things.
Here is another ordinary case/precedent, with an appended rea-
son, as we sometimes find.
Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 6:7
A. Two paths, one unclean and one clean.
B. and one walked in one of them, and entered the sanctuary
C. he is clear [of punishment].
D. [If he walked] in the second [and then entered the Temple], he is
liable.
E. [If he walked] in the first and did not enter [the sanctuary], and
[then he walked] in the second and entered [the sanctuary], he is li-
able.
F. [If he walked] in the first and entered, [then] was sprinkled and the
sprinkling was repeated, and he immersed,
G. then he walked in the second and entered the sanctuary
H. he is liable.
I. R. Simeon declares free in this case.
J. And R. Simeon b. Judah declares free in all cases, in the name of R.
Simeon.
K. M#SH B: They were bringing a dying man from Genossar to Hammatan,
L. and the groups of bearers were changed for him,
M. and at the end he was found dead by them,
N. and the case came before sages, and they declared unclean only the last
group of pall-bearers alone.
 tosefta seder tohorot 267

This is a case/precedent, nothing more. The somewhat more

ample description of the case violates no ma#aseh-pattern or con-
vention.
Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 8:15
A. Unclean and clean liquids [are] in the housethey follow [the sta-
tus of] the larger part.
B. WM#SH B: A woman filtered unclean and clean liquids into a jar of
heave-offering,
C. and the case came before sages.
D. And they did not declare it unclean,
E. because she did not cease to be concerned for it.
This item is slightly more elaborate than the Mishnahs norm, but
essentially fits into that type of ma#aseh.

VI. Tractate Miqva"ot

Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 1:16

A. An immersion-pool which was measured and found lackingall the
acts requiring cleanness which were carried out depending upon it
B. whether this immersion-pool is in the private domain, or whether
this immersion-pool is in the public domain[Supply: are unclean.]
C. R. Simeon says, In the private domain, it is unclean. In the public
domain, it is clean.
1:17 A. Said R. Simeon, M#SH B: The water-reservoir of Disqus in Yavneh
was measured and found lacking.
B. And R. Tarfon did declare clean, and R. Aqiba unclean.
C. Said R. Tarfon, Since this immersion-pool is in the assumption of
being clean, it remains perpetually in this presumption of cleanness until
it will be known for sure that it is made unclean.
D. Said R. Aqiba, Since this immersion-pool is in the assumption of
being unclean, it perpetually remains in the presumption of unclean-
ness un-til it will be known for sure that it is clean.
1:18 A. Said R. Tarfon, To what is the matter to be likened? To one
who was standing and offering [a sacrifice] at the altar, and it became
known that he is a son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah
for his service is valid.
B. Said R. Aqiba, To what is the matter to be likened?
To one who was standing and offering [a sacrifice] at the altar, and
it became known that he is disqualified by reason of a blemish
for his service is invalid.
1:19 A. Said R. Tarfon to him, You draw an analogy to one who is
blemished. I draw an analogy to the son of a divorcee or to the son of
a Halusah.
B. Let us now see to what the matter is appropriately likened.
268 chapter fourteen

C. If it is analogous to a blemished priest, let us learn the law from

the case of the blemished priest. If it is analogous to the son of a divorce
or to the son of a Halusah, let us learn the law from the case of the son
of the divorcee or the son of a Halusah.
:1:20 A. R. Aqiba says, The unfitness affecting an immersion-pool
affects the immersion-pool itself, and the unfit aspect of the blemished
priest affects the blemished priest himself.
B. But let not the case of the son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah
prove the matter, for his matter of unfitness depends upon others.
C. A ritual pools unfitness [depends] on one only, and the unfitness
af a blemished priest [depends] on an individual only, but let not the
son of a divorcee or the son of a Halusah prove the matter, for the
unfitness of this one depends upon ancestry.
D. They took a vote concerning the case and declared it unclean.
E. Said R. Tarfon to R. Aqiba, He who departs from you is
like one who perishes.
The standard ma#aseh-form governs where pertinent: T. 1:17A-B.
Then comes a routine realization of the debate-form that joins
the dispute-form from time to time in the Mishnah, a bit more
commonly in the Tosefta, and routinely in Sifra and in the Tal-
muds. Only E is odd. None of this remotely suggests an intent to
create a standard narrative.
Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 4:10
A. What is the rain-stream?
B. Rain-water which comes down an incline.
C. They inspect it:
D. If there is from its beginning to its end a [complete] intermingling,
E. and there are forty seahs of rain-water [contained therein]
F. they dunk in it.
G. And if not, they do not dunk in it, the words of the House of
Shammai.
H. The House of Hillel say, They do not dunk in it unless there will
be before it a circle containing forty seahs.
I. WM#SH B: A family of laundry men was in Jerusalem, who would make
a dam with utensils and dunk in [the rain-stream dammed up by] them.
J. And all agree that utensils with which one made a dam have not
been immersed [by reason of the water that they keep in check].
The case, I, yields the ruling, J.
Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 7:11
A. A cow which drank purification-water, and one slaughtered it within
twenty-four hours
B. This was a case, and R. Yos the Galilean did declare it clean, and R.
Aqiba did declare it unclean.
 tosefta seder tohorot 269

C. R. Tarfon supported R. Yos the Galilean. R. Simeon ben Nannos

supported R. Aqiba.
D. R. Simeon b. Nannos dismissed [the arguments of] R. Tarfon. R.
Yos the Galilean dismissed [the arguments of] R. Simeon b. Nannos.
E. R. Aqiba dismissed [the arguments of] R. Yos the Galilean.
F. After a time, he [Yos] found an answer for him [Aqiba ].
G. He said to him, Am I able to reverse myself?
H. He said to him, Not anyone [may reverse himself], but you [may
do so], for you are Yos the Galilean.
I. [He said to him] I shall say to you: Lo, Scripture states, And
they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for
the water for impurity.
J. Just so long as they are kept, lo, they are water for impurity, and
not when a cow has drunk them.
K. This was a case, and thirty-two elders voted in Lud and de-
clared it clean.
L. At that time R. Tarfon recited this verse:
M. I saw the ram goring westward and northward and
southward, and all the animals were unable to stand against
it, and none afforded protection from its power, and it did
just as it liked and grew great (Dan. 8:4)
N. [This is] R. Aqiba.
0. As I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the
west across the face of the whole earth, without touching
the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between
his eyes.
P. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had
seen standing on the bank of the river, and he ran at him in
his mighty wrath. I saw him come close to the ram, and he
was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his
two hornsthis is R. Aqiba and R. Simeon b. Nannos.
Q. And the ram had no power to stand before himthis
is Aqiba.
R. But he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon
himthis is R. Yos the Galilean.
S. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from
his powerthese are the thirty-two elders who voted in Lud
and declared it clean.
The standard ma#aseh is completed at A-B. Then comes a slightly
dramatized and truncated debate, I-J, with a conclusion at K. What
is lacking is the reply of Aqiba, and that makes way for the gloss,
L-S. That composition, dependent on the foregoing for context,
is absolutely unique in the Rabbinic canon. It signals a kind of
writing that invokes Scripture to characterize the Rabbinic figures
and their relationships, much as Scripture serves as a generative
270 chapter fourteen

model for Israels public, contemporary history as re-presented

by the Rabbinic sages.
None of this unusual writing adds up to a narrative.

VII. Tractate Niddah

Tosefta-tractate Niddah 1:9

A. And from what time is a girl likely to see a drop of blood?
B. From the time that she will produce two pubic hairs.
C. Said R. Eleazar, M#SH B: There was a young girl in Haitalu whose time
had come to see blood and who missed three periods, and the case came
before the sages, and they said, Sufficient for her is her time.
D. They said to him, It was an interim ruling.
The precedent/case is routine.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:2
A. She who produces [an abortion] like a rind, like a hair, like dust,
like red flies
B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, They crush it, together with spit,
on the fingernail. If it dissolves, lo, this one is a menstruant, and if not,
she is not deemed a menstruant.
4:3 A. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, Two cases did father bring from
Tibin to Yavneh.
B. M#SH B: A woman did produce an abortion like red rinds [scabs], and
they came and asked R. Sadoq about it, and R. Sadoq went and asked sages.
And sages sent and called physicians, and they [the physicians] said, The
woman has a wound inside [her body] and therefore she produces [from its
crust] abortions like red rinds.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:4
A. SWB M#SH B: A woman who had an abortion like red hairs, and they
came and asked R. Sadoq, and R. Sadoq went and asked sages, and they
went and called physicians, and they said, She has a wart in her intestines.
Therefore she produces abortions of red hairs.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:6
A. M#SH B: A woman in Sidon three times produced an abortion shaped
like a raven, and the matter came before sages, and they said, Anything
which does not bear human form is not deemed a foetus.
The three cases present no surprises.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:16
A. She who aborts and it is not known that it is [male or female]
B. let her sit out [the days of uncleanness and cleanness] for a male
and for a female and for menstruation.
 tosefta seder tohorot 271

C. And why have they said [that she should be unclean] as a menstru-
ating woman?
D. That if she should see blood on the thirty-fourth day, [and if] she
should go back and see it on the forty-first day,
E. she should turn out to count the beginning of her menstrual period
from the first and the beginning of her menstrual cycle from the last
[such appearance].
F. And why did they say a [she should sit out the days of uncleanness
and cleanness of a] female?
G. That if she should see blood on the seventy-fourth day and she should
see blood on the eighty-first day, she should turn out to count the
beginning of her menstrual period from the first and the beginning of
her menstrual period from the last [such appearance.
4:17 A. Said R. Ishmael, M#SH B: Cleopatra, the queen of the Alexandrians,
brought her maidservant who was sentenced to death to the king, and he
cut her up, and found that the male child was complete on the forty-first
day and the female on the eighty-first day.
B. They said to him, They do not bring proof from here.
C. And from what source do they bring proof?
D. From [an Israelite] who came to her husband [first],
E. or from one whose husband had come back from abroad.
The incident is presented with the markings of a case/precedent.
But it is not conventional, lacking a ruling, except that implicit
in context.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:2
A. Sadducean women, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways
of their fathers, lo, they are like Samaritans.
B. [If] they left [those ways to walk] in the ways of Israel, lo, they are
like Israel[ites].
5:3 A. M#SH B: A Sadducean chatted with a high priest, and spit spurted
from his mouth and fell on the garments of the high priest, and the face of
the high priest blanched.
B. Then he came and asked his [the Sadducees] wife, and she said, My
lord priest: Even though we are Sadducean women, they [we] all bring their
inquiries to a sage.
C. Said R. Yos, We are more expert in the Sadducean women than
anyone. For they all bring their questions to a sage, except for one
who was among them, and she died.
The ma#aseh would adhere to the convention more closely if it had
a ruling following C. The point is, the status of the Sadducean
man had to be ascertained, and the Sadducees wife could be relied
upon to attest that she was cultically clean, so her husband was
not unclean in the relevant classification. We should have liked
Yos, C, to rule the high priest clean, followed by the articulat-
272 chapter fourteen

ed explanation. Nonetheless, what we have is a somewhat awry

ma#aseh, not a narrative within the governing definition.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:14
A. A girl one day old may be a menstruant.
B. M#SH B: [Such a child was born in] En Bul, and they immersed her
before [immersing] her mother.
C. At the age of three years, the words of R. Meir.
D. And sages say, At the age of three years and one day.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:15
A. During the period in which the son and daughter are interrogated,
if they said, [We know] to Whom we have taken a vow, and to Whom
we have sanctified an object, their vows are vows, and [things subject
to] their acts of sanctification are deemed sanc-tified.
B. M#SH. B: The father of R. Hananiah b. Hananiah set upon him the vow
of the Nazir, and then his father brought him before Rabban Gamaliel.
C. And Rabban Gamaliel was examining him [to determine] whether he
had come to the age of producing tokens of maturity.
(D. And R. Yos b. R. Judah says, Whether he has come to the age of
making vows)
E. He said to him, Why are you so troubled? If I am subject to the author-
ity of father, lo, the authority of father is upon me, and lo, I am a Nazir.
And if I am subject to my own authority, lo, I am a Nazir from this point
forward.
F. He stood and kissed upon his head. He said, I am certain concerning
this one that he will not die before he has taught instruction(s).And he did
not die before he taught instruction in Israel.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:16
A. M#SH B: A boy sanctified his spade to Heaven, and his father brought
him before R. Aqiba.
B. And R. Aqiba interrogated him.
C. He said to him, My son, to what did you sanctify it? Perhaps it was to
the sun or to the moon or the stars and the planets, because they are pretty?
D. He said to him, I sanctified it only to Him to whom iron belongs blessed
be He.
E. R. Aqiba said, This one has been interrogated and found in good or-
der.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:17
A. SWB M#SH: a certain child:
B. They were traveling on a ship, and a sea-storm rose against them, and
they were crying to their god, as it is said, And the sailors feared and cried,
each to his god (Jonah 1:5).
C. That child said to them, How long are you going to act foolishly? Cry
out to him who created the sea!
D. And the case came before the sages and they said, This one has been
interrogated and found in good order.
 tosefta seder tohorot 273

T. Nid. 5:14B is a standard case/precedent. T. 5:15B-C, E-F, T.

Nid. 5:16A-E, prove somewhat more elaborate, but they do not
break out of the ma#aseh pattern and form narratives. T. 5:17 falls
into the same classification at T. 5:16. The Halakhic issue of T.
5:17 is not articulated but in context remains coherent with the
foregoing.

VIII. Tractate Makhshirin: no narratives

IX. Tractate Zabim: no narratives

X. Tractate Tebul Yom: no narratives

XI. Tractate Yadayim

Tosefta-tractate Yadayim 2:15

A. Ammon and Moab give poor-mans tithe in the Sabbatical year.
B. And [in] all other lands and in Babylonia, one tithes [second tithe].
C. [As to] Ammon and Moab and all other lands during the other years
of the septennial cycle, [if in the Land they give] poor-mans tithe, [they
are to give] poormans tithe, and [if in the Land they give] second tithe.
[they are to give] second tithe.
2:16 A. Said R. Yos the Damascene, I was with the former elders going
thereafter] from Yavneh to Lud, and I came and found R. Eliezer.
B. For he was sitting in the stall of bakers in Lud.
C. He said to me, What new thing was there in the bet hammidrash?
D. I said to him, Rabbi, we are your disciples and drink from your water.
E. He said to me, Even sowhat new thing [did you hear]?
F. I reported to him the laws and responsa and the vote.
G. And when I came to this matter, his eyes filled with tears. He said
The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him [Ps. 125:14]. And
it says, Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets [Amos 3:7].
H. Go and say to them, Do not be anxious about your vote. I have
a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, which he received from
the pairs, and the pairs from the prophets, and the prophets from Moses,
a law [revealed] to Moses at Sinai:
I. They tithe the tithe of the poor man in the Sabbatical year.
T. 2:16A-F form a pseudo-narrative, setting the stage for the re-
corded dialogue of G-I.
Tosefta-tractate Yadayim 2:17
A. On that day:
274 chapter fourteen

B. Judah an Ammonite proselyte stood up before them in the bet hammidrash.

C. He said to them, Am I allowed to enter the congregation?
D. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, You are prohibited.
E. R. Joshua said to him, You are permitted.
F. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, Lo, it is written, An Ammonite or a
Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord [even to the tenth
generation] (Deut. 23:3).
G. R. Joshua said to him, And are Ammon and Moab still standing in
their place? Already has Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up and mixed
up all the nations, as it is said, And I have removed the bounds of the peo-
ple and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a valiant
man them that sit on thrones (Is. 10:13).
H. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, Scripture says, But afterward I will br-
ing again the captivity of the children of Ammon (Jer. 49:6). And have they
not yet returned?
I. Said to him R. Joshua, Scripture says, And I will return the captivity
of my people Israel and Judah, says the Lord (Amos 9:14).
J. Just as these have not yet returned [to their homeland], so those [Am-
monites and Moabites] have not yet returned to their homeland.
Tosefta-tractate Niddah 2:18
A. Judah the Ammonite proselyte said to them, What shall I do?
B. They said to him, You have already heard the ruling of the elder. Lo,
you are permitted to enter into the congregation.
C. Rabban Gamaliel said to them, Also an Egyptian proselyte is in the same
status as this one.
D. They said to him, In the case of the Egyptians [in any event], it [Scrip-
ture] has set a limit to the matter for them, as it says, At the end of forty
years I shall gather together Egypt (Ezek. 29:13).
All I see here is dialogic setting for an exchange of Halakhic
positions and proofs.

XII. Tractate Uqsin: no narratives

XIII. Summary

Here are the pseudo-narratives I have identified:

a. Standard Maasim/Cases/Precedents
Mishnah-type
(Halakhic, no dialogue, focused on a legal problem, exemplified by a par-
ticular case shorn of all distinguishing traits of occasion; executed by a simple
declarative sentence, without dialogue other than in the ruling on the case/
precedent, e.g., he said/sages said, and the like):
 tosefta seder tohorot 275

1. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 5:3

2. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 11:2
3. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:1
4. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:2
5. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:3
6. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 2:4
7. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 2:6
8. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 3:9
9. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 15:12C-D,
10. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 15:13A-B, C
11. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:2
12. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:11
13. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:12
14. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:13
15. Tosefta-tractate Parah 2:1
16. Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 6:1
17. Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 6:7
18. Tosefta-tractate Tohorot 8:15
19. Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 1:17 A-B
20. Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 4:10
21. Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 7:11
22. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 1:9
23. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:2
24. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:4
25. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:6
26. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 4:17
27. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:2-3
28. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:14

Other-than-Mishnah-type (characterized item by item):

1. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6: Said R. Simeon the Modest
before R. Eliezer, I entered [the area] between the porch and the altar
without having washed [my] hands and feet. He said to him, Who is
more beloved, you or the high priest? Dialogic setting for a Halakhic
ruling.
2. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 4:2 M#SH: They brought buckets of bones from
Kefar Tabya, and they left them in the open air at the synagogue in Lud.
Teodoros the physician came in, with all the physicians with him. They
said, There is not present a backbone from a single corpse, nor a skull
from a single corpse. They said, Since some present declare unclean
and some present declare clean, let us arise for a vote. They began from
R. Aqiba, and he declared [them] clean. They said to him, Since you,
who [in the past] declared unclean, have declared clean, let them be
clean.
3. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 18:18 M#SH B: Rabbi and R. Ishmael the son of
R. Yos and R. Eliezer Haqqappar spent the Sabbath in the stall of Pazzi
276 chapter fourteen

in Lud, and R. Pinhas b. Yair was sitting before them. They said to him,
AshkelonWhat do you [rule] concerning it? He said to them, They
sell wheat in their basilicas, and they bathe and [forthwith] eat their
Passovers in the evening. They said to him, What is the rule about
remaining in it, in respect to the land of the peoples?
4. Tosefta-tractate Nega"im 8:2: Said R. Judah, I was spending the
Sabbath and I went to R. Tarfons house. He said to me, Judah, my son,
give me my sandal, and I gave him [his sandal]. He put his hand out the
window, and he took a staff from there. He said to me, My son, with
this [staff] I have purified three lepers. And I learned from it [the staff]
seven laws
5. Tosefta-tractate Miqva"ot 7:11 C-E, F-J. K, L-S: This was a case, and
thirty-two elders voted in Lud and declared it clean. At that time R.
Tarfon recited this verse: I saw the ram goring westward and northward
and southward, and all the animals were unable to stand against it, and
none afforded protection from its power, and it did just as it liked and
grew great (Dan. 8:4)
6. Tosefta-tractate Niddah 5:15, 5:16, 5:17 M#SH B: A boy sanctified his
spade to Heaven, and his father brought him before R. Aqiba. And R.
Aqiba interrogated him. He said to him, My son, to what did you
sanctify it? Perhaps it was to the sun or to the moon or the stars and the
planets, because they are pretty? He said to him, I sanctified it only
to Him to whom iron belongs blessed be He. R. Aqiba said, This one
has been interrogated and found in good order.
7. Tosefta-tractate Yadayim 2:16: Ammon and Moab give poor-mans tithe
in the Sabbatical year. And [in] all other lands and in Babylonia, one tithes
[second tithe]. [As to] Ammon and Moab and all other lands during the
other years of the septennial cycle, [if in the Land they give] poormans
tithe, [they are to give] poor-mans tithe, and [if in the Land they give]
second tithe. [they are to give] second tithe. Said R. Yos the
Damascene, I was with the former elders going thereafter] from Yavneh
to Lud, and I came and found R. Eliezer. For he was sitting in the stall
of bakers in Lud. said to me, What new thing was there in the bet
hammidrash? I said to him, Rabbi, We are your disciples and drink from
your water. He said to me, Even sowhat new thing [did you hear]?
I reported to him the laws and responsa and the vote
8. Tosefta-tractate Yadayim 2:17: As above.
Of the thirty-six ma#asim that I have logged in, twenty-eight are
indistinguishable in their indicative traits from those in the Mish-
nah: a severely economical description of a case or problem, a
laconicthe whole set forth in a minimalist fashion. The eight
instances of a highly developed ma#aseh, indicate a loosening of
the definition of the kind of writing to which that marker pertained.
 tosefta seder tohorot 277

b. Narrative Settings for the Exposition of Propositions

1. Tosefta-tractate Parah 10:3 M#SH B: R. Ishmael was following after R.
Joshua. He [Ishmael] said to him, He who is clean for the purifica-
tion-rite who moved the key which is clean for the heave-offering
what is the rule? Is he unclean or clean? He [Joshua] moved him on
to another matter: Said he to him, Ishmael, How do you pronounce
the passage, For your love [dodekha] is better than wine, or, For your
breasts [dadekha] are better than wine (Song of Songs 1:2)?
This item hardly suggests an extensive resort to a pseudo-narra-
tive setting for an expository composition, whether Halakhic or
Aggadic or, as here, both.
Here are the authentic narratives that I have identified in the
present division of the Tosefta:
Halakhic narratives:
1. Tosefta-tractate Kelim Baba Batra 1:2-3: A menstruating woman who
drew the rope and stepped on the beam and leaned on the reed which
goes up and downthe cloth is unclean with Midras-uncleanness. M#SH
B: One woman was weaving a cloth in cleanness, and she came before
R. Ishmael for inspection. She said to him, Rabbi, I know that the cloth
was not made unclean, but it was not in my heart to guard it [from
impurity]. In the course of the questions which R. Ishmael asked her,
she said to him, Rabbi, I know that a menstruating woman came and
pulled the rope with me. Said R. Ishmael, How great are the words
of sages, who would say, If one did not intend to guard it, it is un-
clean.
2. Tosefta-tractate Ahilot 16:8: He who searches eats his heave-offering.
He who clears away the ruin does not eat his heave-offering. His dis-
ciples asked Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, He who searchesmay eat
[heave-offering]? He said to them, He does not eat. They said to him,
You have taught us that he should eat. He said to them, Well have
you spoken. A deed which my own hands have done and my own eyes
have seen, yet I forgot [the law], but when my ears have heard [the
law], how much the more so [should I remember it]!
3. Tosefta-tractate Parah 3:8 WM#SH B: A certain Sadducee had awaited
sunset [for purification] and [then] came to burn the cow. And Rabban
Yohanan ben Zakkai became cognizant of his intention, and he came
and placed his two hands on him and said to him, My lord, High Priest.
How fitting are you to be high priest! Now go down and immerse one
time. He went down and immersed and emerged. After he [the high
priest, preparing for the rite of burning the cow] came up, he [Yohanan]
tore his ear [rendering him unfit to serve]. He said to him, Ben Zakkai
when I have time for you. He said to him, When you have time.
Not three days passed before they put him in his grave. His father came
278 chapter fourteen

to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and said to him, Ben Zakkai, my son
did not have time.
4. Tosefta-tractate Parah 4:7: As above. T. Ah. 16:8.
The Halakhic narratives move beyond the limits of the conven-
tional case/precedent-ma#aseh, but do not stray far from the res-
ervation. They treat the Halakhic case as instrumental in making
the theological point that the sages rulings are impeccable (no.
1), that one must accurately memorize laws (no. 2), and that the
authorities that violate the sages rulings ultimately fall to the
retribution of Heaven (nos. 3, 4). What has happened in the
authentic narratives of the Halakhic classification then is simple.
The Halakhic detail falls away, and a generalization defines the
focus of the composition.

Aggadic narratives: no narratives

The absence of Aggadic narratives hardly surprises, since the
Tosefta, like the Mishnah, focuses on Halakhic problems. But other
divisions, particularly Tosefta Moed, present an ample selection
of authentic, Aggadic narratives.
Now, on the basis of the surveyed narratives of the present
division, let me respond to the questions that animate this sur-
vey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and
symmetry of the canon? The Halakhic narratives by definition remain
well within the governing framework of the document. What we
have, as I noted, are simply ample recapitulations of the ma#aseh,
explorations of its potentialities. On the basis of the narratives,
such as they are, of Tosefta Tohorot, we have no access whatso-
ever to extra-Rabbinic thought.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The conventional ma#asim
adhere to the fixed pattern established by the Mishnahs coun-
terparts. The developed ones augment that pattern, they do not
violate its basic traits. The Halakhic narratives seem to me to fall
into two main groups, as the charts above indicate.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we
know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the mean-
ing of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documenta-
 tosefta seder tohorot 279

ry considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue?

The Halakhic narratives remain well within the framework of the
documentary venue, in both form and program.
Further discussion of the Toseftas narratives is in chapter fif-
teen.
This page intentionally left blank
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 281

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

THE MISHNAH AND THE TOSEFTA DESCRIBED

AND COMPARED

I. Forms and Types of Narratives in the Mishnah: General Observations

While the Mishnah viewed whole exhibits pronounced indicative

qualities of rhetoric, topic, and logic of coherent discourse, by
definition these characteristics do not prepare the way for a dis-
tinctively Mishnaic narrative-form. For the Mishnahs character-
istic logic, which is topical-propositional beginning to end, does
not pertain to narrative writingby definition. Yet the Mishnah
does contain a sizable corpus of (pseudo-narrative) ma"asim, which
adhere to a particular form and which are without exception in-
tegral to its program. It also sets forth a negligible, but interest-
ing, group of authentic narratives, on which we have dwelt at some
length. Of these, three (Gamaliel and Joshua, Honi, and Aqabiahs
death scene) altogether break out of the Halakhic program of the
document (if remaining within the documents thematic frame-
work, that is, sages Halakhic enterprise). Those involving
Gamaliel, Hillel, and the Patriarchate cohere as a sub-division
as well.1 Of them we may say, if the politics of the sponsorship
of the document has intervened in the compilation of the docu-
ment, not in its formal realization, that is only in fragments, and
it is rare.2

1 A case can be made for the presence within the Mishnah and the Tosefta of

remnants of a patriarchal program of composition, with its own theory of the formation
and organization of an authoritative law-code such as the Mishnah, but not topi-
cal-propositional in generative logic, rather formed by ad hoc rulings and, more
important, precedents and decisions of the Patriarchal house. I see the raw mate-
rials for such a case in the present study.
2 That underscores the widely-recognized fact that the Mishnah does contain

shards and remnants of compositions that to begin with cohere other than through
the definitive traits of the document, e.g., Gamaliel-ma#asim, on which we have
282 chapter fifteen

The range of types of the Mishnahs narratives proves remark-

ably narrow. First, most of the items we have surveyed fall into
the category of pseudo-narratives, specifically, of legal precedents/
cases. There a rigid form encases a uniform type of contents: situ-
ations requiring Halakhic resolution, challenging ones analyti-
cal capacities to find the right principle for settling the appropriate
case. Second, a fair part of the entries that qualified as narra-
tives by the criterion of the logic of coherent discourse introduced
at the outset also functions within the Halakhic framework, e.g.,
the Gamaliel-sequences. So were we to compose on the basis of
the Mishnah alone a repertoire of types of authentic narratives
(excluding precedents/cases), what should we propose? Not types
of narratives at all, but rather, random-examples of we know not
what: at M. Ta. 3:9-10 and M. R.H. 2:8-9, on the one side, and
a scattering of oddities, the constructions involving named sages,
Aqabiah and Gamaliel and Aqiba, on the other. These few can-
didates in common show no patterns I can discern. They defy
systematic categorization, some exhibiting indicative marks of form,
others of contents, none of them classified by replicable, objec-
tive formal-logical criteria that cover all data equally well. One
or two items do not constitute a classification or comprise a series.
A simple statistical summary yields the following one-sided
result:
Mishnah Seder Zeraim
Ma#asim 5
Narratives: 5
Mishnah Seder Moed
Ma#asim 21
Narratives: 4 (including M. Ta. 3:9-10 and M. R.H. 2:8-9)

dwelt; composites joined by common formal traits, not by a common topical pro-
gram (the only difference between A and B is C, or, rulings made by reason of
social harmony, covering a variety of topics, and the like). These have been clas-
sified as distinct sources, but then they represent sources of remarkably limited
utilization. No one has ever claimed that everything in every document is particu-
lar to the document in which it occurs, only that documents tend to homogenize
whatever antecedent writing upon which they draw. The fact that some composi-
tions make their way from one document to another has already been dealt with
in my Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the Canon of Formative Judaism. III. Peri-
patetic Parallels. Binghamton, 2001: Global Publications. Academic Studies in the
History of Judaism Series. Second edition, revised, of The Peripatetic Saying: The
Problem of the Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature. Chico, 1985: Scholars Press
for Brown Judaic Studies.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 283

Mishnah Seder Nashim

Maasim 14
Narratives: 3
Mishnah Seder Neziqin
Ma#asim 10
Narratives: 2
Mishnah Seder Qodoshim
Ma#asim 8
Narratives: 0
Mishnah Seder Tohorot
Ma#asim 7
Narratives: 0
Totals:
Ma#asim 65
Narratives: 14
Of the nearly eighty entries in this survey-probe, more than 80%
are precedents/cases, and 20% qualify as narratives. Of those, only
the two in Mishnah Seder Moed and the one in tractate Eduyyot
to which I have already made reference serve an other-than-nar-
rowly-Halakhic purpose. But, not surprisingly, these too fall well
within the limits of Halakhic discourse, as the context in each case
makes clear. That is, they concern relationships between the
Halakhic institutions, the patriarchate and the collegium of sages.
Accordingly, we have identified the narrative that the Mishnahs
documentary purpose requires and that its protocol dictates, and
it turns out to be the pseudo-narrative of the case/precedent, with
its pronounced formal and logical traits and its adherence to the
topical (Halakhic) program in its particular context. But if in its
selectivity the Mishnah once more shows its perfection of focus
and purpose, that does not impede, but rather well serves, our
inquiry. For it shows us that, in the case of the Mishnah, narra-
tives do realize documentary purposes. They do conform to docu-
mentary preferences as much as do the Mishnahs equally rare
exegetical compositions, or its common and characteristic Hala-
khic expositions of generalizations imputed in cases, and the other
types of compositions that comprise the document. It follows that
like the Mishnahs Halakhic-philosophical expositions the Mish-
nahs narratives in the aggregate respond to the Mishnahs own
purpose.
That result is not to be taken for granted within the framework
284 chapter fifteen

of unfolding inquiry in the documentary hypothesis. That a doc-

ument dictates the character of the bulk of the narratives contained
therein is not what I had anticipated when I concluded Texts without
Boundaries. As I earlier explained in the Preface and amplified in
the Introduction, in my survey of eight canonical documents
corpus of non-documentary writing, I have consistently found that
that the narratives of the surveyed documentshowever narra-
tive be defined and however its types be classifiedignore the
documentary protocols that characterized each of those documents,
severally.
But now the possibility presents itself that narratives too con-
form to the particular documents indicative programs, respectively.
For I have shown that incorporated into the Mishnahs documen-
tary definition are (pseudo-) narratives of a very particular form
and program, and these vastly predominate. So, in line with the
claim I made for documentary writing in general, were we given
unidentified samples of (pseudo-)narrative such as we have seen
in chapters two through seven, we should find ample reason to
assign them to the Mishnah. Whether we should assign blind items
only to the Mishnah, or to the Mishnah and some other compi-
lation, remains to be seen. To answer that question, we turned
to the Tosefta, with results summarized in the next section.
So the statistics and data at hand really do speak for themselves.
For the character of the Mishnahnarrowly Halakhic, highly
analytical and systematicaccounts for them. The Mishnah aims
at finding the governing principle in the details of cases, and the
ma#asim are made to exemplify and are never treated as unique.
We should anticipate that that definition will persist, just as the
Mishnah forms the foundation of its successor-documents, the
Tosefta and the two Talmuds. But we should further anticipate a
broadening of the usages of the type and form characteristic of
the Mishnah, just as the successor-documents make their own
distinctive contributions to the exposition of the Halakhah via their
exposition of the Mishnah. So the unfolding relationships between
and among the documents of the Halakhah lead us to expect not
only continuity, with some development, in the Mishnahs nar-
rative heritage, but also quite fresh initiatives altogether in types
and forms of narratives. And that is what the Tosefta will now
show us.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 285

II. Forms and Types of Narratives in the Tosefta: General Observations

Characterizing the Tosefta proves more complicated than describ-

ing the Mishnah, because the Tosefta does not constitute a free-
standing, autonomous document. Rather, it everywhere intersects
with the Mishnah, upon which it relies for its topical program and
organization. In his (only fragmentary) introduction to his Tosef-
ta-edition and translation, Saul Lieberman correctly describes the
Tosefta as a vine depending upon the Mishnahs lattice. But that
characterization applies, by rough estimate, to only about a third
of the Tosefta in volume. When the components of the Tosefta
are classified by the relationship of completed compositions to the
Mishnahs counterparts, we find ample representation of compo-
sitions that do more than cite verbatim and gloss passages of the
Mishnah.
Indeed, by the criterion of relationship with the Mishnah, the
document presents two other types of material. First come the
compositions that stand fully independent of the Mishnah and do
not intersect in topic or proposition, which, by a very rough esti-
mate, constitute approximately a sixth of the whole. Second are
the compositionsabout half of the wholethat do not cite the
Mishnah verbatim but that cannot be fully, exhaustively under-
stood without reference to the Mishnahs counterpart discussion.
So the three types of compositions and composites of which the
Tosefta is comprised yield a complex document, in which we may
classify as either autonomous, or connected, or continuous, as the
case requires, the relationships of the various compositions to the
foundation-document, the Mishnah,
In that context, we cannot find surprising that the Tosefta con-
tains both ma#asim of the Mishnahs model as well as a further
corpus of those that expand, amplify, or otherwise vary the
stripped-down ma#aseh-form. Of the 122 ma#asim produced by my
probe, 68, or 55%, adhere to the Mishnahs unadorned model
of the ma#aseh, namely, the laconic, plain description of an action
or a situationX did thisfollowed by a sages rulingand sages
ruled thus. Then 45% allow the marker, ma#aseh, to signal some
other than the conventional form of a Halakhic case or precedent.
These, treated without further differentiation, I log in as uncon-
ventional. But the departure from the Mishnahs convention in
some instances is radical, e.g., citation of Scripture for a ma#aseh
286 chapter fifteen

and its corps of proof. Some moreover are not Halakhic at all.
In one way or another all explore possibilities and purposes not
considered for that form by the Mishnahs writers.
A simple statistical summary yields the following one-sided
result:
Tosefta Seder Zeraim
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 14
Ma#asim of an unconventional form -
Pseudo-narratives 3
Narratives 2
Halakhic 2
Aggadic -
Tosefta Seder Moed
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 9
Ma#asim of an unconventional form 34
Pseudo-narratives 5
Narratives 14
Halakhic 8
Aggadic 6
Tosefta Seder Nashim
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 11
Ma#asim of an unconventional form 9
Pseudo-narratives 1
Narrative 7
Halakhic -
Aggadic 7
Tosefta Seder Neziqin
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 3
Ma#asim of an unconventional form 3
Pseudo-narratives 1
Narratives 3
Halakhic 2
Aggadic 1
Tosefta Seder Qodoshim
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 3
Ma#asim of an unconventional form -
Pseudo-narratives -
Narratives 3
Halakhic 2
Aggadic 1
Tosefta Seder Tohorot
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 28
Ma#asim of an unconventional form 8
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 287

Pseudo-narratives 1
Narratives 4
Halakhic 4
Aggadic -
Totals for the Tosefta-probe:
Ma#asim in the model of the Mishnahs 68
Ma#asim of an unconventional form 54
Pseudo-narratives 11
Narratives 33
Halakhic 18
Aggadic 15
I cannot explain the anomaly represented by Tosefta Seder Moed,
with its disproportions and its enormous corpus of unconventional
ma#asim (or, use of the marker: ma#aseh). The probe that yields these
figures allows us to characterize the Ma#asim, and the narratives,
Halakhic and Aggadic, in a simple way. As to the Ma#asim, prece-
dents/cases, the Mishnahs model is recapitulated by, but does
not predominate in, the Tosefta. Evidence of experimentation with
the form is abundant.
Still, in the Tosefta as in the Mishnah, the use of narrative for
the dramatic presentation of propositions, whether Halakhic or
Aggadic, is uncommon. But here too the contrast with the Mish-
nah is not to be missed: the Tosefta routinely invokes the marker,
ma#aseh, for Aggadic as much as for Halakhic purposes, which is
rare in the Mishnah. Of the authentic narratives, indeed, we find
an even split between the Halakhic and the Aggadic categories.
Before proceeding, let me interrupt my exposition to introduce
an analytical term I shall now utilize: successful narratives as
against routine ones. What is the difference and how do we know
it by objective standards? A story that is successful fully and
exhaustively realizes the purpose manifestly assigned to it by its
blatant, governing teleological logic. A successful narrative is a
story with a beginning, middle, and climactic conclusion; one that
introduces elements of movement, tension and resolution there-
of; that may even characterize, and that must certainly individu-
ate, the players. These strike me as routine criteria, not requiring
an elaborate theoretical amplification, of which, in this context, I
do not pretend to be capable. Joshua, Aqiba, Dosa, Gamaliel at
M. R.H. 2:8-9, Eliezer at T. Hul. 2:2these names suffice to show
what I mean by characterization and individuation. A routine
288 chapter fifteen

less-than-successfulnarrative conforms in its logical indicator as

exhaustively explained and instantiated, but it does not exhibit
the same narrative ambition that mark the fully-articulated nar-
ratives, the successful ones. By that criterion, I have already iden-
tified the three authentically-successful narratives of the Mishnah.
Now to classify as successful or routine those of the Tosefta, which
are, as a matter of fact, numerous and impressive.
We begin with the simplest taxonomy of the Toseftas narra-
tives (all of them, as a matter of fact, free-standing, though divid-
ed between the categories, autonomous and connected). That
taxonomy is topical: (1) narratives having to do with the sages in
a Halakhic context, (2) narratives having to do with the Temple
and its rites. We may say that a piece of Tosefta-writing that ap-
peals to the logic of teleology for coherence will concern itself
with one or the other of those two themes. Neither topic leads us
beyond the formal limits of the Toseftas Halakhic program. What
are the points of special interest in the repertoire of authentic
narratives yielded by the Tosefta? These are classified by the native
categories, Halakhah and Aggadah, and also by topical foci, not
formal indicators: sages affairs, Temple-incidents, other:
Sages affairs:
1. T. Ber. 4:15: Gamaliel and elders
2. T. Ber. 5:2: Simeon b. Gamaliel, Judah, Yos at a meal
3. T. Pisha 2:15: Gamaliel
4. T. Sukkah 2:3: Yohanan b. Hahorani eating a dry piece of bread
5. T. Yom Tob 2:6: Simeon b. Teman prepared food for gentile army,
on the night of the festival
6. T. Sot. 13:3: Heavenly voice praised Hillel
7. T. Sot. 13:4: Heavenly voice praised Samuel the Small
8. T. Sot. 13:5: Yohanan the High Priest heard a message from the Holy
of Holies
9. T. Sot. 13:6: Simeon the Righteous heard a message
10. T. Sot. 13:7: When Simeon the Righteous died
11. T. B.Q. 8:11: Judah b. Baba raised a goat
12. T. Hor. 2:5-6: Joshua b. Hananiah rescues a young boy from Roman
captivity
13. T. Hul. 2:22, 24: Eleazar b. Damah wanted to accept healing in the
name of Jesus. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus thought well of a teaching of Jesus
and was arrested and tried
14. T. Kel. B.B. 1:2-3: Menstruating woman and Ishmaels ruling
15. T. Ah. 16:8: Forgetting traditions
16. T. Par. 4:7: Forgetting traditions
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 289

Of these narratives, we may immediately dismiss as variations on

the ma#aseh form Nos. 1-5, 14, and as imperfect narratives Nos.
15-16. The Sotah-composite, the set comprised by Nos. 6-10 is
no more successfully executed. Comparable in success to the
Mishnahs three exceptional narrativesstories by any definition
is No. 13, a protracted engagement with a situation and its por-
trayal, and possibly Nos. 11 and 12, which, though brief, do
qualify.
Temple-incidents:
1. T. Kip. 1:4: Joseph b. Elim as high priest
2. T. Kip. 1:8: Boethusian offered incense at the wrong location; Boethu-
sians acknowledge sages authority
3. T. Kip. 1:12: Two priests got into a brawl and one stabbed the other
4. T. Kip. 2:4: Nicanors doors
5. T. Kip. 2:5-6: Household of Garmu and show bread, household of
Abtinas and making incense
6. T. R.H. 1:15: Boethusians hired two witnesses to fool the sages, for they
did not concede that Pentecost should come at any time except on the
day following the Sabbath
7. T. Ta. 3:7: How people presented first fruits when the Greek kings for-
bade bringing offerings to Jerusalem
8. T. Hag. 2:11: Hillel the Elder laid hands on a whole offering in the
Temple
9. T. Hag. 2:12: Another disciple of Hillels house laid hands on a whole
offering
10. T. Naz. 4:7: Simeon the Righteous and the virtuous Nazirite
11. T. Men, 13:18: High handed priests
12. T. Par. 3:8: Sadducee and Yohanan b. Zakkai in connection with burn-
ing the red cow
Here the successful narratives are Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11,
all of them fully articulated, with a beginning, middle, and end;
with tension and its resolution; with a beautifully registered mor-
al. Clearly, we find ourselves in new territory here.
Two other topical-formal classifications are not to be missed,
though they do not materially affect our work. The first is a har-
binger of things to come:
Amplification of Scriptures narratives
1. T. Sot. 4:7: How did Moses know where Joseph was buried
What is noteworthy is the absence, from the Tosefta, of those
amplifications of scriptural narratives that so succeed in the Mi-
290 chapter fifteen

drash-compilations. The final set is miscellaneous, but what a

miscellany at Nos. 1, 2!
Other:
1. T. Hag. 2:1: Yohanan ben Zakkai, Eleazar b. Arakh, and the Merkabah
2. T. Hag. 2:6: Fate of Ben Zoma
3. T. B.Q. 2:12: Someone was removing stones from his own field and
putting them in the public way
Nos. 1, 2 have won ample fame for themselves and despite the
massive gap in the middle of T. Hag. 2:1 where the substance of
the exposition belongs, self-evidently may be classified as impor-
tant and successful. In all, therefore, the Tosefta not only reca-
pitulates the Mishnahs narrative repertoire but both expands its
formal legacy and vastly enriches its substantive heritage. Now to
compare the successful narratives of the Mishnah with those of
the Tosefta, classification by classification.

III. Narratives in the Mishnah and the Tosefta Compared

Subject to comparison are, for the Mishnah, Gamaliel and Joshua

(M. R. H. 2:8-9), Honi the Circle-Drawer and Simeon b. Shatah
(M. Ta. 3:9-10), and Aqabiahs death scene in Mishnah-tractate
Eduyyot. By the criteria of articulation of a narrative program
involving, as I said, a beginning, middle, and end, conflict and
resolution, and the like, all are important. Their counterparts in
the Tosefta are both many and diverse. I find the following to
qualify as important:

Sages affairs:
1. T. Hor. 2:5-6: Joshua b. Hananiah rescues a young boy from Roman
captivity
2. T. Hul. 2:22, 24: Eleazar b. Damah wanted to accept healing in the
name of Jesus. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus thought well of a teaching of Jesus
and was arrested and tried
As between the two, the second is clearly the more elaborated
and obviously the more successful. Now the documentary hypoth-
esis presents us with an experiment. Let us now see whether our
theoretical blind test would serve: given the Mishnah as the
norm, would we confuse a Tosefta-narrative with a Mishnah-nar-
rative? The exercise concerns, for sages affairs, the conflict be-
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared
tween Joshua and Gamaliel for the Mishnah, the elaborate case
of Eliezer and Jesus ben Pantiri for the Tosefta:
M. R.H. 2:8-9
B. M#SH S: Two witnesses came and
said, We saw it at dawn on the
morning of the twenty-ninth] in the
east and at eve in the west.
C. Said R. Yohanan b. Nuri, They
are false witnesses.
D. Now when they came to Yabneh,
Rabban Gamaliel accepted their tes-
timony assuming they erred at dawn].
E. And furthermore two came along
and said, We saw it at its proper
time, but on the night of the added
day it did not appear [to the court].
291
Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:22-4
A. M#SH B: R. Eleazar b. Damah was
bitten by a snake.
B. And Jacob of Kefar Sama came
to heal him in the name of Jesus son
of Pantera.
C. And R. Ishmael did not allow him
[to accept the healing].
D. They said to him, You are not
permitted [to accept healing from
him], Ben Dama.
E. He said to him, I shall bring you
proof that he may heal me.
F. But he did not have time to bring
the [promised] proof before he
dropped dead.
Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:23
A. Said R. Ishmael, Happy are you,
Ben Dama. For you have expired in
peace, but you did not break down
the hedge erected by sages.
B. For whoever breaks down the
hedge erected by sages eventually
suffers punishment, as it is said, He who
breaks down a hedge is bitten by a snake
(Qoh. 10:8).
Tosefta-tractate Hullin 2:24
A. M#SH B: R. Eliezer was arrested
on account of Minut. They brought
him to court for judgment.
B. That hegemon said to him, Should
an elder of your standing get involved
in such things?
C. He said to him, The Judge is
reliable in my view [I rely upon the
Judge, meaning, God].
D. That hegemon supposed that he
referred only to him, but he referred
only to his Father in heaven.
E. He [the hegemon] said to him, Since
292 chapter fifteen

F. Then Rabban Gamaliel accepted you have deemed me reliable for

their testimony. yourself, so thus I have ruled: Is it
G. Said R. Dosa b. Harkinas, They possible that these gray hairs should
are false witnesses. err in such matters? [Obviously not,
H. How can they testify that a therefore.] [you are] Dimissus [par-
woman has given birth, when, on the doned]. Lo, you are free of liability.
very next day, her stomach is still up
there between her teeth [for there
was no new moon!]?
I. Said to him [Dosa] R. Joshua, I
can see your position.
2:9 A. Said to him [Joshua] Rabban
Gamaliel, I decree that you come
to me with your staff and purse on
the Day of Atonement which is de-
termined in accord with your reck-
oning.
B. R. Aqiba went and found him F. And when he left court, he was
troubled. distressed to have been arrested on
C. He said to him, I can provide account of matters of Minut.
grounds for showing that everything G. His disciples came to comfort him,
that Rabban Gamaliel has done is but he did not accept their words of
validly done, since it says, These are comfort.
the set feasts of the Lord, even holy H. R. Aqiba came and said to him,
convocations, which you shall pro- Rabbi, May I say something to you
claim (Lev. 23:4). Whether they are so that you will not be distressed?
in their proper time or not in their
proper time, I have no set feasts but
these [which you shall proclaim] [vs.
M. 2:7D].
D. He came along to R. Dosa b.
Harkinas.

The two stories seem to me to have no point of comparison

whatsoever. It is hardly illuminating to note that each is divided
into two, in the case of M. R.H. 2:8-9 the incident, then the re-
action of the patriarch, in the case of T. Hul. 2:24 the trial, then
the reaction. I do not even see a comparable division into three
parts for Toseftas narrative. The comparison yields nothing sus-
ceptible of generalization. I find in the narratives no abstract cri-
terion that affects them both and that would justify our contrast-
ing what we have established as subject to comparison to begin
with. On the foundations of this comparison and contrast I can
point to no narrative traits particular to the Mishnah or to the
Tosefta.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 293

If the first exercise in comparing the Mishnahs with the Toseftas

successful narratives proves futile, the second leads to a different
outcome, as we see when we turn to the corpus of Temple-inci-
dents in Tosefta, with its counterpart in the Mishnah already noted
in chapter one.
Temple-incidents:
1. T. Kip. 1:4: Joseph b. Elim as high priest
2. T. Kip. 1:8: Boethusian offered incense at the wrong location;
Boethusians acknowledge sages authority
3. T. Kip. 1:12: Two priests got into a brawl and one stabbed the other
4. T. Kip. 2:4: Nicanors doors
5. T. Kip. 2:5-6: Household of Garmu and show bread, household of
Abtinas an making incense
6. T. R.H. 1:15: Boethusians hired two witnesses to fool the sages, for they
did not concede that Pentecost should come at any time except on the
day following the Sabbath
7. T. Ta. 3:7: How people presented first fruits when the Greek kings for-
bade bringing offerings to Jerusalem
8. T. Naz. 4:7: Simeon the Righteous and the virtuous Nazirite
9. T. Par. 3:8: Sadducee and Yohanan b. Zakkai in connection with burn-
ing the red cow
Does the Mishnah contain counterpart exercises, that is, topical
expositions of Temple rites and affairs? It certainly does, and for
the comparison, we take a pseudo-narrative of a Temple rite,
discussed in Chapter One, and a Temple-incident narrative, T.
Ta. 3:7. The Tosefta responds to M. Ta. 4:4H, which, in con-
text, is as follows:
[A] The time of the wood offering of priests and people [comes on]
nine [occasions in the year];
[B] on the first of Nisan [is the offering of] the family of Arah b. Judah
[Ezra 2:5, Neh. 2:10];
[C] on the twentieth of Tammuz [is the offering of] the family of David
b. Judah;
[D] on the fifth of Ab [is the offering of] the family of Parosh b. Judah
[Ezra 2:3, Neh. 2:8];
[E] on the seventh of that month [is the offering of] the family of
Yonadab b. Rekhab [Jer. 35:1ff.];
[F] on the tenth of that month [is the offering of] the family of Senaah
b. Benjamin [Ezra 2:35, Neh. 7:381;
[G] on the fifteenth of that month [is the offering of] the family of
Zattu b. Judah [Ezra 2:8, Neh. 7:13];
[H] and with them [comes the offering of] priests, Levites, and who-
ever is uncertain as to his tribe, and the families of the pestle smugglers
and fig pressers;
294 chapter fifteen

[I] on the twentieth of that same month [is the offering of] the family
of Pahat Moab b. Judah [Ezra 2:6, Neh. 7:11].
What the Tosefta does is supply a narrative to amplify the un-
derlined sentence, meaning, the Mishnah required what the Tosef-
ta supplied, an example of how the Tosefta complements the
Mishnah as a dependent commentary.

Mishnah-tractate Bikkurim Tosefta-tractate Ta#aniyyot

3:2-6
3:2 A. How do they bring the first-
fruits up [to the Temple]?
B. [The male inhabitants of] all the
towns in the priestly course gather in
the [main] town of the priestly course
[M. Ta. 4:2],
C. and they sleep [outside] in the open
area of the town
D. and they would not enter the
houses [in the town, for fear of con-
tracting corpse uncleanness].
E. And at dawn, the officer would
say,
F. Arise, and let us go up to Zion,
to [the house of] the Lord our God
(Jer. 31:6).
3:3 A. Those [who come] from
nearby bring figs and grapes,
B. but those [who come] from afar
bring dried figs and raisins.
C. And an ox walks before them,
D. its horns overlaid with gold,
E. and a wreath of olive [leaves] on
its head.
F. A flutist plays before them until
they arrive near Jerusalem.
G. [Once] they arrived near Jerusa-
lem, they sent [a messenger] ahead
of them [to announce their arrival],
and they decorated their firstfruits.
H. The high officers, chiefs, and trea-
surer [of the Temple] come out to
meet them.
I. According to the rank of the en-
trants, they would [determine which
of these officials would] go out.
[Ta#anit] 3:7
A. What was the matter having to do
with the families of the Pestle-Smug-
glers and the Fig-Pressers [M. Ta.
4:4H]?
B. Now when the Greek kings set up
border-guards on the roads, so that
people should not go up to Jerusa-
lem, just as Jeroboam the son of
Nebat did, then, whoever was a suit-
able person and sin-fearing of that
generation what did he do?
C. He would take up his first fruits
and make a kind of basket and cover
them with dried figs,
D. and take the basket with the first-
fruits and cover them with a kind of
dried figs,
E. and he would put them in a bas-
ket and take the basket and a pestle
on his shoulder and go up.
F. Now when he would come to that
guard, [the guard] would say to him,
Where are you going?
G. He said to him, To make these
two rings of dried figs into cakes of
pressed figs in that press over there,
with this pestle which is on my shoul-
der.
H. Once he got by that guard, he
would prepare a wreath for them
and bring them up to Jerusalem.
3:8 A. What is the matter having to
do with the family of Salmai the
Netophathites [cf. I Chron. 2:54:
The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, the
Netophathites]?
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared
J. And all the craftsmen of Jerusalem
stand before them and greet them,
[saying],
K. Brothers, men of such and such
a place, you have come in peace.
3:4 A. A flutist plays before them,
until they reach the Temple mount.
B. [Once] they reached the Temple
mount,
C. Even Agrippa the King puts the
basket [of firstfruits] on his shoulder,
and enters, [and goes forth] until he
reaches the Temple court.
D. [Once] he reached the Temple
court, the Levites sang the song,
E. I will extol thee, 0 Lord, for thou
hast drawn me up, and hast not let
my foes rejoice over me (Ps. 30:1).
3:5 A. The pigeons that [were] on top
of the baskets were [sacrificed as]
burnt offerings,
B. but [the pigeons] which are in their
hands are given [as a gift] to the
priests.
3:6 A. While the basket is still on his
shoulder, he recites [the entire con-
fession of firstfruits, beginning] from
the words I declare this day to the
Lord your God (Dt. 26:3),
B. [and proceeding] until he finishes
the entire passage.
C. R. Judah says, [While the basket
is on his shoulder, he recites only] up
to [the second part of the confession,
which begins with the words,] A
wandering Aramean was my father
(Dt. 26:6).
D. [Once] he [has] reached [the
words] A wandering Aramean was
my father,
E. he takes the basket down from his
shoulder, and holds it by its rim,
F. and a priest puts his hand beneath
[the basket], and waves it [before the
altar]
G. And [then the Israelite] recites
[the second part of the confession,
295
B. Now when the Greek kings set up
guards on the roads so that the
people should not go up to Jerusa-
lem, just as Jeroboam the son of
Nebat did,
C. then whoever was a suitable and
sin-fearing person of that generation
would take two pieces of wood and
make them into a kind of ladder and
put it on his shoulder and go up.
D. When he came to that guard, [the
guard] said to him, Where are you
going?
E. To fetch two pigeons from that
dovecote over there, with this lad-
der on my shoulder.
F. Once he got by that guard, he
would dismantle [the pieces of wood
of the ladder] and bring them up to
Jerusalem.
G. Now because they were prepared
to give up their lives for the Torah
and for the commandments, there-
fore they found for themselves a
good name and a good memorial
forever.
H. And concerning them Scripture
says, The memory of a righteous
person is for a blessing (Prov. 10:17).
I. But concerning Jeroboam son of
Nebat and his allies, Scripture says,
But the name of the wicked will rot
(Prov. 10:17).
296 chapter fifteen

beginning] from [the words], A wan-

dering Aramean was my father, [and
proceeding] until he finishes the en-
tire passage.
H. And [then] he places [the basket]
beside the altar, and he bows down
and departs.

Now we have solid grounds for comparisonand, therefore, also

contrast. The topicpresentation of the firstfruitsis the same,
and the mode of exposition comparable. The Mishnah speaks in
abstract terms of how things are done in general. The Tosefta
narrates a specific incident, telling what was done on a particular
occasion. In the analytical framework followed here, the Mish-
nah lacks a point at which the entire antecedent exposition falls
into place, while the Tosefta announces its point at A-B, elabo-
rates the details at C-E, F-G, and then announces its realization
at H. The contrast between the Mishnahs account of how mat-
ters are done in general and the Toseftas story of a particular
incident differentiates the one from the other.
If we were to compare the pseudo-narratives of the cult that
the Mishnah presents in abundance with the topically-intersect-
ing, authentic narratives of the Tosefta, we should immediately
discern the same contrast time and again: the latter coheres by
appeal to the logic of coherent discourse of teleology, the former
set forth Halakhic rules in what I see as a descriptive framework
established by pseudo-narrative: narrative in form but not logic.
On that basis, I claim, were we given without identification a
Mishnah-composition on a Temple rite, and a corresponding
Tosefta-composition on the same rite, we should immediately
assign the latter to the Tosefta and the former to the Mishnah.
What leaves no doubt of the matter is, so far as my probe has
shown, the Tosefta contains not a single Mishnah-type narrative
in expounding cultic procedure. So here is a case in which the
documentary program of the Tosefta has been realized in narra-
tive, while the documentary program of the Mishnah has adopt-
ed the pseudo-narrative medium of composition. An obvious
explanation is, the one document, the Mishnah, has selected (pseu-
do-)narratives to serve its purpose of an abstract exposition of the
Halakhah, subject to generalization, and the other document, the
Tosefta, has preferred authentic narratives to serve its purpose of
concretization of the Halakhah in specific cases.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 297

That observation of the difference between the Mishnahs and

the Toseftas successful narratives of Temple rites would then
cohere with our differentiation of the ma#aseh of the Mishnah,
unadorned, consistently exemplary in function and therefore pre-
sented with a minimum of detailin case, in ruling alikefrom
the ma#aseh of the Tosefta, with its diversity, but, withal, ample
specificities of detail, so that the Tosefta-ma#aseh not only exem-
plifies the law but preserves a particular, detailed case that serves
not as an illustration but as a singular precedent, subject to anal-
ysis in its own terms.

Other:
1. T. Hag. 2:1: Yohanan ben Zakkai, Eleazar b. Arakh, and the Merkabah
2. T. Hag. 2:6: Fate of Ben Zoma
Let us proceed to our final contrast, the Mishnahs and the Tosef-
tas presentation of the rules of expounding the Merkabah, that
is, T. Hag. 2:1 and M. Hag. 2:1:

M. Hag. 2:1 Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:1

A. They do not expound upon the A. They do not expound upon
laws of prohibited relationships [Lev. the laws of prohibited relation-
18] before three persons, the works ships [Lev. 18] before three
of creation [Gen. 1-3] before two, or persons,
the Chariot [Ezek. 1] before one, B. but they do expound them be-
B. unless he was a sage and under- fore two;
stands of his own knowledge. C. or about the Works of Cre-
ation before two
D. but they do expound them
before one;
E. or about the Chariot [Ez. 1]
before one, unless he was a sage
land understands of his own
knowledge [M. Hag. 2:1A-B].
F. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b.
Zakkai was riding on an ass, and R.
Eleazar b. Arakh was driving the ass
from behind
G. He [Eleazar] said to him, Rabbi,
repeat for me a chapter of the works
of the Chariot.
H. He said to him, Have I not ruled
for you to begin with that they do
298 chapter fifteen

not repeat [the tradition] concern-

ing the Chariot for an individual,
unless he was a sage and understands
of his own knowledge
I. He said to him, Now may I lay
matters out before you?
J. He said to him, Say on.
K. R. Eleazar b. Arakh commenced
and expounded concerning the works
of the Chariot.
L. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai got off
his ass, wrapped himself in his cloak,
and the two of them sat down on a
rock under an olive tree, and
[Eleazar] laid matters out before him.
M. [Yohanan] got up and kissed him
on his head and said to him Blessed
be the Lord, God of Israel, who gave
to Abraham, our father, a son who
knows how to understand and ex-
pound upon the glory of his father
who is in heaven.
N. Some preach nicely but do not
practice nicely, or practice nicely but
do not preach nicely.
0. Eleazar b. Arakh preaches nicely
and practices nicely.
P. Happy are you, O Abraham, our
father, for Eleazar b. Arakh has gone
forth from your loins,
Q. who knows how to understand
and expound upon the glory of his
Father who is in heaven.
2:2 A. R. Yos b. Judah says, R.
Joshua laid matters out before
Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai.
B. R. Aqiba laid matters out
before R. Joshua.
C. Hananiah b. Kinai laid mat-
ters out before R. Aqiba.

What we discerned earlierthe abstract character of the Mish-

nahs presentation of its topic, the concrete and particular quali-
ty of the Toseftas successful narrativeis still more striking here,
since it is made explicit in so many words when Yohanan cites
the Mishnahs Halakhah and proceeds to show its meaning.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 299

IV. The Successful Narratives Revisited: A Documentary Perspective on

Rabbinic Narrative with special reference to the Mishnah and the Tosefta

We recognize what is distinctive or particular to a given docu-

ments narratives only in comparison and contrast with those of
a kindred compilation. Focusing upon the successful narratives,
what have we learned?
The Mishnahs handful of important narratives, the stories, e.g.,
about Honi, Gamaliel and Joshua, and Aqabiah, all concern
particular persons and how they exemplify what the Halakhah
cannot govern: virtue or Heavenly favor. What about the com-
positions that qualified as narratives by reason of logic but in
context function as standard ma#asim? The Gamaliel-stories under-
score the uniformity of the law by stressing Gamaliels exception-
alism. The restthose involving Aqiba for instance, or Simeon
and his son in hiring workerswell serve their Halakhic context,
even though they qualify by logic as narratives. In those two judg-
mentsthat no more than three non-Halakhic narratives present
themselves, and even the Halakhic true-narratives function as
ma#asimwe characterize nearly all of the narratives we have iden-
tified.
What about the fragmentary data, the authentic narratives of
sagacious virtue? These point to a corpus of writing that some
circles of sages pursued but (a judgment based solely on the case
at hand) that only seldom made its way into the canonical docu-
ments. It would seem, then, that the work of writing for docu-
ments went forward alongside, but independent of, writing not
defined by documentary requirements. Writing of compositions
and perhaps agglutination of composites (e.g., the Gamaliel-sets)
was undertaken, then, both within documentary protocols and not
subject to those protocols. One may imagine that the Gamaliel-
sets were intended for a corpus devoted to the patriarchate in
particular, and shards and remnants of such a patriarchate-com-
pilation survive, signaled by not only their attribution to Hillel,
Gamaliel, Simeon b. Gamaliel, and the like, but also by their
particular formal qualities. Along these same lines, narratives of
the cult (treated in Chapter One) exhibit definitive traits of form
and type. But too little survives to permit more than speculation;
I cannot imagine a hypothetical reconstruction of such a patri-
archate- or a Temple-document, except to say, in neither instance
300 chapter fifteen

does such a hypothetical document serve the Halakhic textual-

community in the way that the Mishnah does.
The Tosefta presents a more complicated case, by reason of
its very documentary character, as I have explained. But the same
question arises: can we offer reliable generalizations about its
narratives and their distinctive qualities? Controlling for the siz-
able intersection of the Tosefta with the Mishnah, we may say
that where the Tosefta is either autonomous of the Mishnah or
connected to, but not continuous with it, it reveals two important
traits. First, it will vastly extend the menu of forms and genres
signaled by the marker, ma#aseh, which loses the particularity and
discipline that it exhibits in the Mishnah. So if we are handed a
ma#aseh without an indication of its origin, then if it is an unadorned
case/precedent, it can derive from either document, but if it is
highly particular, not exemplary in the end, it can derive from
the Tosefta but not likely from the Mishnah.
And that trait of the Toseftas narrative convention is replicat-
ed in the points at which the Tosefta intersects with the Mish-
nahs topical program concerning the Temple and the conduct
of its rites. What the presentation of the Temple rite through a
story telling how things are done in general that the Mishnah sets
forth has its counterpart in the distinctive, one-time, authentic
narrative that the Tosefta featuresin both documents abundantly.
When it comes to sages affairs, both documents narratives fea-
ture the patriarchate, but the Tosefta presents a much wider range
of narratives of that genre than does the Mishnah. And we have
already dwelt on the Toseftas rather odd narratives of the Merk-
abah and related doctrine. They are odd not because of the
manner of conveying the story, which stylistically strikes me as
conventional, but the remarkable silences that the story sustains.
We cannot help noticing how brief the narrative compositions
are, whether successful or routine. The entire corpus of narratives
in the Halakhic foundation-documents, the Mishnah and the
Tosefta, in volume does not add up to as much as an entire trac-
tate of the Halakhah. And, it goes without saying, just as the
Rabbinic canon ignores historical narrative, so it contains no bio-
graphical narrative capable of sustaining anything like a fully-ar-
ticulated life of a great sage. Historical events play no impor-
tant role in suggesting themes for narration, let alone happenings
worthy of particular interest. So too, historical figures, even the
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 301

patriarchs such as Hillel and Gamaliel or master-sages such as

Aqiba and Joshua, inspire scarcely a snippet of a tale, a couple
of paragraphs, even at such a critical juncture as the conflict of
sage and patriarch at M. R.H. 2:8-9.
The trivial character of most of the authentic narratives, the ad
hoc quality of the Halakhic ma#asim, the negligible volume, mea-
sured against the sheer size of the Mishnah and the Toseftaall
of these facts point to a single conclusion. When people under-
took the composition of narratives and pseudo-narratives, it was
in the framework of the documents meant as the ultimate repos-
itory of those compositions. The narratives we have examined in
these pages neither severally nor jointly can have sustained a
document on their own, and, we have seen, nearly all of them
do find a significant location in the Mishnah or the Tosefta. The
upshot of the sparseness and the uniform brevity of narratives and
pseudo-narratives is simply stated: narratives, including pseudo-
narratives, whether successful or routine, represent a negligible
component of documentary writing for the Mishnah or for the
Tosefta. They sustain, as a corpus of writing, no autonomous stand-
ing of their own. They do not represent a body of writing that
can have survived in any rational structure outside of the docu-
mentary framework of the Rabbinic canon, but of writing that is
integral, so far as the Mishnahs and Toseftas narratives are con-
cerned to the documents themselves: the Mishnah, the Tosefta.
The opening part of the survey has yielded a result that makes
necessary the systematic realization of the entire project. Narra-
tives on their own no longer form that negative- or anti-catego-
ry in the documentary framework that they seemed to comprise
in Texts without Boundaries: the one kind of writing that transcend-
ed documentary borders altogether, The sole corpus of non-doc-
umentary writing that narratives initially seemed to constitute no
longer emerges as non-documentary at all. The Mishnahs pro-
nounced tendencies in preferring particular forms and types of
(pseudo-)narrative prove otherwise. The Toseftas distinctive pre-
sentation of Temple rites, by contrast with the Mishnah, does the
same. The result requires us in the context of comparison and
contrast to consider each of the canonical documents in its turn,
to find out whether any proportion of its narratives predominates
and adheres to the documentary program, and of the remainder
(as before), what of the logically-authentic narratives that are tru-
302 chapter fifteen

ly non-documentary. For the Mishnahs three successful, non-

documentary narratives fit comfortably into the Mishnahs larger
expository program, and the Toseftas more numerous counter-
parts in comparative context can be shown distinctive to the Tosef-
tas program as well. We can no longer deem narratives self-ev-
idently to form a corpus of non-documentary writing.
the mishnah and the tosefta described and compared 303

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

RECENT STUDIES OF RABBINIC NARRATIVE

The three current studies of narrative are treated in chronologi-

cal order. If I ignore other candidates for consideration, it is be-
cause they strike me as intellectually less ambitiousless systematic
and lacking important results for further analytical inquiry
than Stern, Hezser, and Hasan-Rokem. All three treated here
build on prior results and so allow us to see the state of the ques-
tion as framed by three quite professional scholars.

I. David Stern: Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in

Rabbinic Literature

The intimidating title, promising to cover four enormous subjects,

parables, Midrash, narrative, and exegesis, the work in
fact is a revised dissertation, with the strengths and weaknesses of
the genre. It is compendious and very well researched; it contains
a large number of interesting observations of detail. But it is a
mere collection of information and opinions on a number of top-
ics, not a well-argued, thoughtfully-crafted statement of a particular
proposition on the general theme at hand. The bridge from the
detail to the main point time and again proves shaky. The result
is an occasionally-interesting but rather prolix and unfocussed
work, a bit pretentiously claiming to accomplish more than is
actually achieved, but, still, valuable for what in fact is given.
Dealing with the mashal as it occurs in two dozen passages in
Lamentations Rabbah, which are given in an appendix in the
Hebrew texts in two recensions and in translation as well, the
monograph, on the strength of which its author gained a tenured
professorship at the University of Pennsylvania, deals with these
topics: composition and exegesis, rhetoric, poetics, thematics, the
mashal in context, and the mashal in Hebrew literature. The
mashal, though represented by a remarkably tiny sample, is treated
304 bibliographical appendix

as uniform, the representations of the form in various, diverse

documents not being differentiated;1 so too Midrash is treated
as everywhere the same thing, being defined as the study and
interpretation of Scripture by the Rabbis in Late Antiquity. The
rabbis represents a massive corpus of undifferentiated data. Con-
sequently, the contemporary tools of form-analysis and criticism,
on the one side, and of the systematic differentiation of documents
by their indicative traits of rhetoric, topic, and logic of coherence,
on the other, are denied to the author by his own obtuseness. The
result is a rather general and unanalytical treatment of the sub-
ject: useful collection of data but not very illuminating because
unanalyzed.
But that does not altogether deny the book a hearing, since the
author provides a full, though somewhat repetitious, account of
the scholarly literature and problems, and his treatment of the texts
he discusses, if a bit prolix, contains interesting ad hoc observa-
tions. A brief survey of the main points yields sound reason to
value the book.
Composition and exegesis: the mashal or parable is to be distin-
guished from a fable: a fable utilizes anthropomorphic animals
or plants to portray the particularly theriomorphic or phytomorphic
features of human behavior. A parable suggests a sort of paral-
lels between an imagined fictional event and an immediate, real
situation confronting the parables author and his audience.
Parables in Rabbinic literature are preserved not in narrative
contexts but in exegetical ones, as part of Midrash... There is no
important formal or functional difference between meshalim re-
corded as parts of narratives and those presented as exegeses of
Midrashim of verses. Parables are to be distinguished from alle-

1 The documentary differentiation undertaken by C. Thoma et al. made no

impact on Sterns inquiry, even though the first of the four parts was in print at
the time he did his work. See C. ThomaS. Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. Erster
Teil: Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (PesK), Bern 1986; C. ThomaS. Lauer, Die Gleichnisse
der Rabbinen II: Von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Tod Abrahams: Bereschit Rabba 1-
63, Bern 1991; C. ThomaH. Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III: Von Isaak bis
zum Schilfmeer: BerR 63-100; ShemR 1-22, Bern 1996; C. ThomaH. Ernst, Die
Gleichnisse der Rabbinen IV: Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23-30,
Bern 2001. When I began, some years later, to find significant differences be-
tween the types and forms of the Mashal characteristic of one document and that
predominant in some other, I asked Stern by letter whether he had seen the same
phenomenon. He replied that he had not. By this point, Thomas work was well
advanced. If Stern has reviewed the Thoma project, I have not seen the review.
 bibliographical appendix 305

gories, on the one side, and the ma#aseh, or precedent (example

or exemplum, an anecdote told to exemplify or illustrate a les-
son).
While Stern concedes that the explanation that accompanies
the narrative of the mashal., called the nimshal, first occurs only
in Medieval documents, he includes in his discussion a full ac-
count of that quite distinct development. Indeed, much of the
chapter on poetics invokes the nimshal, so we are asked to un-
derstand Rabbinic literature of late antiquity only by appeal to
literary forms not found in the writings of late antiquity, a rather
confusing mode of analysis.
Rhetoric: the occasions of the mashal are spelled out. The mashal
serves for three purposes: illustration, secret speech, and rhe-
torical narrative. Stern sees the mashal as a story that turns
allusiveness to effect in order to persuade its audience of the value
of a certain idea or approach or feeling. The key word here is
allusiveness, which Stern does not define with clarity.
Poetics: the center of the book is the interest in the relation-
ship between exegesis and narrative. The Rabbinic mashal can
be defined as a parabolic narrative that claims to be exegesis and
serves the purposes of ideology. That definition would prove
more compelling if it did not serve equally well a variety of other
forms in the Rabbinic literature. Much of the rest of the discus-
sion concerns the nimshal, as I said, leaving open a variety of
questions concerning the mashal in late antiquity. But the results
are not wholly without interest. Sterns most interesting point is
this: among the most distinctive characteristics of the mashals
poetics is the strategically placed point of discontinuity, techni-
cally called a gap. Much of the exposition, alas, proceeds to
disparities between narrative and nimshal, leaving us once more
somewhat puzzled as to Sterns program. Lamentations Rabbah
is not a medieval document, but much of the exposition of the
data spills over into the consideration of kinds of mashal-writing
that came to the surface much later than that document; that pre-
sents a considerable puzzle, if we want to grasp precisely what
Stern wishes to say, indeed, even to define that about which he
is writing; sometimes late antique writing, sometimes medieval;
sometimes, indeed, the mashal in particular, other times Midrash
in general.
Indeed, the confusion is intensified by recurring efforts to de-
306 bibliographical appendix

fine the mashal, each fabricated for its context, thus, later in the
same chapter, the mashal is essentially mimetic narrative. It is
about events and characters, and particularly one characterthe
king, or God. Beyond all else, the mashal represents the greatest
effort to imagine God in all Rabbinic literature. That definition
bears more enthusiasm than enlightenment, since the conception
that the king in the Mashal means God in particular relies
upon the particular cases at hand; the point is not so much dem-
onstrated as alleged with gusto but with a certain selectivity as to
the evidence.
Thematics: the Midrashic mashal is a type of ideological nar-
rative, which seeks to impress the truth and validity of a world-
view...upon its audience. In any particular mashal, that world-view
is refracted within the mashals specific message, its theme or the-
sis. This new definition would prove more useful if it did not
define equally well every other type of writing in Rabbinic lit-
erature. Thus the chapter treats, further, apologetics, polemics,
eulogy and consolation, complaint, regret and warning, and on
and on; that is, various mashals are classified in various ways. None
of the classifications encompasses only the mashal, so the results
are indeterminate and again somewhat puzzling.
The Mashal in context: in their seemingly haphazard positions
in these collections [Talmud, Midrash], the meshalim are no dif-
ferent from the rest of the contents. The structure and composi-
tion of these documents are famously difficult to identify. Despite
a few recent attempts to demonstrate the integritythe formal
and thematic coherenceof the various Midrashic collections, they
remain to all appearances more like anthologies of traditional
Rabbinic interpretations that an anonymous editor has selected
and recorded than like self-contained, logically structured books
in their own right. Stern does not then see any differences of a
general character between, e.g., Sifra and Leviticus Rabbah, both
on Leviticus; or the Tosefta and the Talmud of the Land of Isra-
el, both on the Mishnah. This awry view makes difficult for him
the determination of the context in which the mashal does, or does
not, occur, why here, not there, being questions that, by defini-
tion, he finds he cannot answer. That further accounts for his
difficulty in seeing formal differences in the mashal as it occurs
in the several distinct documents. So he concedes at the outset,
the contextual interpretation of Midrashreading a Midrash-
 bibliographical appendix 307

ic passage in its literary, documentary contextis a very prob-

lematic venture. The larger literary units that we most comfort-
ably use in reading and interpreting the meaning of literary
worksthe document as a whole, chapters, even subsections in
chapters or discrete narrative or legal sections in a work like the
Bibledo not constitute significant units of meaning for Midrash.
That explains why Stern sees the units as fragmentary, mis-
cellaneous, and atomistic. Other views of the documentary char-
acter of the Rabbinic corpus are not examined, and the remain-
der of the chapter replicates in detail the deeply confused character
of Sterns reading of the whole. That makes all the more regret-
table Sterns failure to understand his own results. After a systematic
study, he concludes, The passages just discussed all show how
Midrashic discourse is organized: in recognizable units of discourse,
in literary forms like the petihta, the mashal, the enumeration,
the series. These forms comprise the genres or subgenres of Mi-
drash. They constitute its language, and they maintain themselves
in Midrashic literature formally and rhetorically, even when they
combine with one another. The combinatory pattern of these units
is essentially additive. The petihta-form provides a frame for the
mashal, which in turn is made to serve the special rhetoric of the
petihta; but neither form is required to surrender its distinctive
structure or formal identity when it joins with the other.
Similarly, a mashal can be constructed in the image of an ag-
gadic narrative or ma#aseh, with its own lesson or homily, but it
can simultaneously be employed so as to exploit its own para-
bolic strengths as a paradigmatic, representational narrative. Quite
what Stern means to say is not entirely clear, but the main point
is precisely that of form-analysis: there are fixed forms, they do
govern, and they characterize one kind of writing, rather than some
other. Having produced exactly the results that form-analysis of
documents has yielded, Stern is left unable to explain his own
data. That is because he has not come to grips with the position
he rejects without discussion, quite out of hand, that documents
make a difference. Once he has declared the literature chaotic,
he cannot recognize the points of order he himself identifies. The
concluding chapter, The Mashal in Hebrew Literature, need not de-
tain us, since it is tacked on, dissertation-style, to cover whatever
might have been left out in the substantive chapters.
The strengths of Sterns dissertation are his own. They lie in
308 bibliographical appendix

his ad hoc observations about this and that. In his rambling, some-
times unfocussed discussions of the specific passages in Lamenta-
tions Rabbah he has chosen to discuss in detail, he makes nu-
merous interesting observations. Though this is not a work of
mature scholarship, it is more than a mere collection and arrange-
ment of information, and we may hope for better things to come
from its author.
The weaknesses of the dissertation are those of the genre; the
prose I have cited suffices to show that he writes abominably. Stern
proves a good graduate student, thorough in compiling opinions
on various topics but embarrassingly selective in dealing with
published results that the author does not wish to address at all.
He covers a broad range of subjects, but has not got a well craft-
ed thesis to present to make the topical program cohere and form
an important proposition and thesis upon a well-crafted problem.
So the work is at the same time too general and rambling and
altogether too specific, not bridging the gap between the detail
and the main point. As a dissertation it certainly is above aver-
age; as an account of the parable, this overweight book is more
encyclopedic than interesting.

II. Catherine Hezser: Form, Function, and Historical Significance of

the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin

A revised dissertation (1992) at the Jewish Theological Seminary

of America written under the direction of the late Baruch M.
Bokser, and in the model of his dissertation with me, Samuels Com-
mentary on the Mishnah. Part One: Mishnayot in the Order of Zera#im (1975)
and his Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition. Samuel on Berakhot and the
Beginnings of Gemara (1980), this study of stories found in the Tal-
mud of the Land of Israel tractates Baba Qamma, Baba Mesia,
and Baba Batra (Neziqin) is comprised by two unequal parts,
analysis of the traditions, (pp. 11-226), and Evaluation (pp.
227-409). While the three Babas form a distinct subset of the
Yerushalmi, as Y. I. Halevy, Dorot Harishonim (Vienna, 1923) first
discovered, it is not equivalently clear that the utilization of sto-
ries in those tractates is to be distinguished from the way they are
presented and exploited in others of the same Talmud. It follows
that the purpose of the dissertationare we testing a hypothesis
about the Rabbinic Story in a particular sample of the canon? are
 bibliographical appendix 309

we trying to find out how the Rabbinic Story in these tractates

differs from the same elsewhere? does the particular character of
the Rabbinic Story in these tractates tell us something more about
those tractates?hardly emerges, and diligent paraphrase, accom-
panied by massive compilations of diverse scholarly opinion, along
with large doses of banalities, takes the place of a well-drafted
thesis. Attaining laudable success in the parts, Dr. Hezser contrib-
utes little to our grasp of the wholewhether the Rabbinic Sto-
ry, whether the three tractates she treatsbecause she has not
asked, if I know this, what else do I know? And why does it matter?
That is not to suggest that Dr. Hezser contributes nothing to
learning. Anyone who has occasion to consult the eighty stories
she discusses will thank her for putting everything together in one
place. Her discussions are uniformly painstaking, cautious, and
informed. If many of her observations simply repeat in her words
what the source under discussion has already yielded, still, her
observations articulate interesting data. Each story is presented with
notes on MSS variants, in a suitable English translation; she then
discusses redactional context, by which she means, the occa-
sion and use of the story; literary form; and historical signifi-
cance. These latter investigations say much that is obvious and
little that is interesting. Where a story occurs in more than one
document, she sets up the versions in parallel columns and sum-
marizes what she sees. The second part of the book then collects
and arranges the information that has been laid out. Here she
treats five topics: the redactional uses of the stories in y. Nezi-
qin; pre-redactional story-collections; the forms of the sto-
ries in y. Neziqin; parallels in the Yerushalmi, Babli, and Mi-
drashim; and the historical significance of the stories in y.
Neziqin.
She finds a great amount of editorial work on the y. Bavot.
The editors formulate narrative traditions as glosses on the Mish-
nah, Tosefta, and Amoraic statements and harmonize their wording
with prior statements. Half of the stories appear in groups of two
or more, and she plausibly argues that y. Bavot editors drew
material from various pre-existing collections of stories, supple-
menting this material with occasional stories that were circulat-
ing separately and were not part of any collection. But she does
not then ask what these observations imply about the literary
process that produced the collections as we have them (in writ-
310 bibliographical appendix

ing? oral?), let alone the literary history of the Talmud as we know
it. As elsewhere in the book, where her results prove determinate,
she asks no important questions about them.
The chapter on the forms of the stories distinguishes among
the following: case-stories; example stories; pronouncement sto-
ries; anecdotes; etiological tales; and legends. Since we deal with
only a small segment of the Yerushalmi, and a still less weighty
segment of the corpus of stories in the entire Rabbinic canon, quite
what these categories mean and how they help us to read the
stories in context and otherwise hardly emerge with clarity. Why
classifying data matters, what these various categories imply for
our reading of stories in other Rabbinic documentsthese issues
are not raised. Here failure to define a determinate context for
inquiry proves fatal.
The section on parallels also suffers from the absence of a
hypothesis on the character and relationships of various documents
that share stories; the discussion ranges hither and yon and yields
many opinions but mostly confusion. Hezser discusses only a small
part of the literature in which various versions of the same story
in diverse documents come under discussion, missing, inter alia,
this writers The Peripatetic Saying: The Problem of the Thrice-Told Tale
in Talmudic Literature (Chico, 1985: Scholars Press for Brown Ju-
daic Studies), which is a reprise and reworking of materials in
Development of a Legend (1971) and Rabbinic Traditions about the Phar-
isees before 70 I-III (1973). But lacking a theory on the character
of the documents, she reaches no interesting hypotheses on how
to explain the way stories gain or lose weight as they move from
one compilation to anotheror why that is the fact. So what she
provides is simply long sequences of parallel columns, followed
by her own summary of what the columns display to the naked
eyebut no explanation, let alone generalization.
Finally, the new consensus of learning outside of the State of
Israel, that stories in the Rabbinic literature cannot be read as
factual, historical accounts of things really said and done, finds
confirmation in her discussion. Here Hezser goes over familiar
ground of the critical bases for rejecting the theory of Saul Lie-
berman that these particular tractates originated in Caesarea in
ca. 350 C.E. She takes her place in line after the three others
whoeach for his own reasonshave dismissed Liebermans
theory in the past few years: Moshe Assis, in On the Question
 bibliographical appendix 311

of the Redaction of Yerushalmi Neziqin (Hebrew) (Tarbiz 1987,

56:147-170), Ya#aqob Sussman, in Once again on Yerushalmi
Neziqin (Hebrew) (Mehqerei Talmud. Talmudic Studies, ed. by Y.
Sussman and D. Rosenthal. Jerusalem, 1990 I:55-133) and this
writer, in Why There Never Was a Talmud of Caesarea. (Saul Lieber-
mans Mistakes. Atlanta, 1994: Scholars Press for South Florida
Studies in the History of Judaism). It is clear that Liebermans
theory no longer enjoys a serious hearing, and his methods are
now universally rejected as well.
Clearly, in its parts, the dissertation undertakes numerous use-
ful exercises. But the sum of the parts yields less than a cogent
whole, for, read altogether, the diligent collection and arrange-
ment of observations about one thing and another, together with
a compilation of various opinions on this and that, serves no clear
and determinate purpose. That is because Hezser comes to the
data without a set of questions that define the intellectual con-
text and so instruct her on why she wants to know one thing, rather
than some otheror what urgent questions sustain her detailed
labor. By contrast, Lieberman read the same tractates to prove a
point. So too, the great Rabbinic exegetes of the Yeshiva-world
knew precisely what they wished to learn in these compilations,
as in all others. Anyone who has worked through the commen-
tary of Pen Moshe to the Yerushalmi knows how a master-in-
tellect can frame a coherent exegetical program and execute it with
panache. By contrast, Dr. Hezser does not tell us what is at stake
in her research; the indeterminate and often platitudinous char-
acter of her comments suggests that she cannot explain why her
results make a difference. That failure explains the often aimless
(and sometimes inane) result. Collecting and arranging informa-
tion hardly constitutes an inductive argument concerning a prop-
osition; the game of show and tell in the end leaves us puzzled.

III. Galit Hasan-Rokem: Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in

Rabbinic Literature

By folklore, people generally mean, the expression of ordinary

people, as distinct from the high culture of intellectuals and other
educated persons. Professor Galit Hasan-Rokem, Hebrew Uni-
versity folklore scholar, here deals with folk narratives embed-
ded within Lamentations Rabbati, a fifth or sixth century Rab-
312 bibliographical appendix

binic reading of the book of Lamentations. She defines her focus

of interest in this language (p. 88):
Folk narratives are a part of literature. A mutual relationship prevails
between the written literature of a society and its folk literature, in-
cluding its oral sources Folklore refers to a range of creative modes
performed through auditory, visual, and cognitive means.
This last refers to popular beliefs and their concrete expression
in customs and rituals. Common to all forms of creativity in folk-
lore as a cultural phenomenon is that they are traditional and
collective. Given the clarity of this definition, we should expect
an equally well-composed program of inquiry, and we are not
disappointed. But in fundamental ways the enterprise demands
equally clear analytical exposition, which we shall have to seek
elsewhere in Hasan-Rokems corpus, because it is not here.
There are two principal issues that the work provokes, first, the
classification of the data that are analyzed, second the promise
to clarify a particular document of the Rabbinic canon. As I shall
point out, the epistemological foundations of the field of folklore
define as premises a set of judgments not necessarily subject to
rational criticism. That is because no clear criterion of verifica-
tion or falsification attaches to the judgments made as to what is,
or is not, folklore. If, as we shall see, the learned rabbis produce
folklore, then what would not qualify as folklore? And why
is this a useful category-formation in the analysis of Rabbinic culture
and literature?
Second, while claiming to speak of Midrash in Rabbinic lit-
erature, Hasan-Rokem limits herself to some stories in a single
document. She ignores the document viewed whole and does not
compare and contrast that document to others of its classification
and canon. So we have to ask whether she has defined a docu-
mentary context or explained the venue of the stories that she
addresses: what validates her judgment that these stories repre-
sent Midrash. The two questions, to which we return present-
ly, are complementary, the first asking whether Midrash qual-
ifies as folklore and second whether the venue of the stories
has been properly described, analyzed, and interpreted. Much of
the rigorous thought required to validate the enterprise has yet
to be undertaken by Hasan-Rokem. She begins in the middle,
not at the beginning, of her exposition.
Rather than focus solely on what she does not accomplish, let
 bibliographical appendix 313

us turn to what she does contribute. Here is a brief summary of

her program and proposition:
1. The Study of Folk Narratives in Rabbinic Literature The con-
cern of this book is with the presence of folk literature and folk
culture in Palestinian aggadic literature in Late Antiquity The
scholarly concern with aggadic literature is rich and manifold
All scholars of aggadic literature have acknowledged that folk lit-
erature was an aspect of the spiritual and cultural creativity of the
rabbis Here I find much confusion, and for obvious reasons.
If we take the rabbis to represent high culture, then how con-
ceive of folk literature as a part of their creativity? There fol-
lows a potted survey of prior works on folklore of ancient Juda-
ism, a lot of opinion-passing of no particular interest. This is the
one chapter of the book that should have been dropped. That is
because it is vacuous and pretentiousjust a collection of com-
monplace opinions, lacking all critical acumenand contributes
nothing. The book is better than its beginningby far. Each of
the chapters of the shank of the book works on a particular story,
but whether the story exemplifies something beyond itself, a trait
of the document as a whole, is never established. The main con-
tribution of the work is the acute and sensitive reading of these
stories.
2. The Literary Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash:
Interpreting Narrative Structure. the literary context the most visi-
ble within the general framework encompassing the folk litera-
ture included in aggadic Midrash. Now we have Aggadah as a
venue, but not as folklore by definition. But this is quite con-
fusing, for the categories are not carefully delineated, with the re-
sult: The novelistic folk narrative of a tragic human destiny at
the time of the destruction of the Temple unfolds in the Mi-
drash, after its literary re-creation, as a masterful work of art. The
story here concerns two children, taken captive in the fall of Jerus-
alem, and how in captivity they realized that they were brother
and sister. The reading of the story, which occupies the greater
part of the chapter, does little to validate its classification as folk-
lore, since the elements of high art are persuasively identified
and interpreted. If Chagall qualifies as folklore, so does this sto-
ry in Hasan-Rokems subtle reading of it.
3. The Genre Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash: Riddles
314 bibliographical appendix

about the Wise People of Jerusalem. Here the argument of folklore is

much more articulate and compelling: One of the ways to iden-
tify a folk narrative within the Midrashic corpus is to place it under
a specific genre rubric. I believe what she means (English is not
her native language) is, there is a set of genres characteristic only
or mainly of folklore. If we can classify a story of a Midrash-com-
pilation within one of those established genres, we may fairly
assign it to the category of folklore. Here she turns to a sequence
of eleven riddle tales (p. 45). These she reproduces without at-
tention to their formal traits, without noting the highly sophisti-
cated rhetorical medium that conveys the stories. But she makes
her case: this collection of riddles is not only one of the clearest
conceptualizations of generic coherence in Lamentations Rabbah,
but one of the most cohesive such collections in the entire cor-
pus of rabbinic literature. Not only so, but she concludes with a
passage of surpassing eloquence: The subject, then, is loss. Loss
takes many forms, in the world and for humanity. Life could be
said to go from loss to loss, transforming one into another. When
the human being turns from the darkness of loss to the glare of
loss, life becomes an attempt to understand one loss through
another, an attempt to understand the God within loss and the
loss within God. The nothingness (p.63). At stake in this work
is something far more profound than issues of folklore analysis.
The dedication here is realized: In memory of Amitai, my first-
born (1973-1990). Here scholarship rises to the height of tran-
scendence, aesthetics shades over into theology, and the stakes
of learning enter into solemnity. Anyone who doubts that schol-
arship too verges on the sublime had best engage with Hasan-
Rokem. This chapter strikes me as the strongest in the book, and
the best argument for folklore as a scholarly episteme in the anal-
ysis of culture.
4. The Comparative Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash:
Folk Narrative as Intercultural Discourse. Folk narratives in aggadic
Midrashim convey the immediate cultural context of the narra-
tors Yet folk narratives, recognized for their cultural and lin-
guistic mobility, may also indicate links between their society of
origin and other cultures (p. 67), demonstrated through three of
the eleven stories dealt with in the preceding chapter. India and
Arabia yield parallels. Hasan-Rokem would like to link the Rab-
binic stories to the Arabian counterparts, shading over into an
 bibliographical appendix 315

implicit allegation of borrowing: part of the communication

between the cultures. This chapter carries forward the foregoing
and is systematic and well-organized.
5. The Folkloristic Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash:
Tales of Dream Interpretation. A passage of Lamentations Rabbati
dealing with the interpretation of dreams is taken up: On the
one hand, this passage is a folk narrative describing events about
dream interpretation; on the other, it sheds light on a character-
istic folk practice, the endeavor of dream interpretation, provid-
ing us with detailed information about its participants, its under-
lying beliefs, and its spiritual assumptions. Here Hasan-Rokem
does not exploit available methods of comparing and contrasting
comparable or parallel stories as these occur in various Rabbinic
documents. That is, she ignores the synoptic method, which is
commonplace in literary study. While introducing comparable
stories that occur in other documents, Hasan-Rokem does not
systematically compare them. That leaves her open to the charge
of being impressionistic and unsystematic. She concludes, The
interpretation of dreams is a powerful cultural tool that serves to
regulate relationships between social forces. The rabbinic context
privileges scholars in the academy as legitimate dream interpret-
ers. These scholars thus play a central cognitive role in the
attempt to map out the twilight zones of uncertainty surrounding
human life. What all this has to do with folklore I cannot say,
nor does she. She concludes with what can have served as the
starting point of analysis, were the issues those of cultural inter-
pretation as they are in the academic study of religion: It is not
a mere coincidence that stories of dream interpretation, like rid-
dle stories, have a central position in Lamentations Rabbah, a
Midrash about the destruction of the Temple, for they are inti-
mately connected with the fundamental experience of this text.
Clearly, then, the document figures, and the issues of documen-
tary analysis circulate in Hasan-Rokems mind. But they are not
realized in analysis and exposition, systematic or even episodic.
Here is a brilliant idea that goes to waste because it is not lucidly
articulated and rigorously expounded.
6. The Social Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash: The
Feminine Power of Laments, Tales, and Love. We read folk literature
in Lamentations Rabbah in its social context highlighting the
perspective of women, both as characters in the stories and as part
316 bibliographical appendix

of the society creating the folk literature. Women emerge as

bearers of concrete folk-literary traditions, especially in the genre
of the lament. This chapter seems to me to work well. But it is
filled with special pleading.
7. The Religious Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash:
The Rhetoric of Intimacy as a Rhetoric of the Sacred. Here is another
spectacularly weak chapter. And it is weak because of a simple
failure of scholarship. Hasan-Rokem is making judgments with-
out knowing the territory, and she does not know that she does
not know; her bibliography lacks an entire category of sustained
scholarship on the very subject under discussion. Specifically,
Hasan-Rokem begins with the following heuristic given: Rab-
binic Midrashim do not formulate a systematic religious doctrine
or philosophy. Rather they constitute a complex of more or less
fixed associations, in which congruity is ensured through the links
to the biblical text, established through frequent reference. Cen-
tral experiences in the relationship between the people of Israel
and God take various forms in the Midrash which, constantly
reilluminated, create a complex and multivalent system of mean-
ings. How a system of meanings is different from a systemat-
ic religious doctrine or philosophy I cannot say. I can only state
that, to deny the presence in the Midrash-compilations of a cor-
pus of systematic religious doctrine is to miss the very center and
soul of the Midrash-compilations. There certainly is such a doc-
trine in Lamentations Rabbati, and it is articulated, dominant, co-
herent. Hasan-Rokem does not perceive it, because, as I said, she
simply does not know the scholarship on this very documentas
on all of its companionsthat demonstrates its presence and defines
its details. That is why I state very simply, in this chapter, Hasan-
Rokem does not know what she is talking about. Her mode of
argumentalways from example and episodehere betrays her.
It precludes her knowing what she is talking about. Had she ex-
amined the document whole and complete, e.g., outlining it as it
has been outlined and so identifying its principal propositions,
secondary amplifications, amassing of evidence and argument, all
in exegetical form, she would have known better. Further, had
she compared and contrasted it with other documents, also read
whole and complete, she could never have written the ignorant
judgments that she here sets forth. There is simply a vast litera-
 bibliographical appendix 317

ture on this very problem, of the existence of which she is igno-

rant. Pity.
8. The Historical Context of Folk Narratives in the Aggadic Midrash:
Three Tales on Messianism. Here at issue is the historical context
of folk narratives found within Palestinian aggadic Midrashim
History, because it reflects the self-perception of a society over a
time reaching back from the present to the past, is itself a con-
ceptual and cultural category meaningfully present in folk narra-
tives. The historical context of Palestinian aggadic Midrashim is
reflected in them mainly as a plight of suffering, oppression, and
loss. Folk narratives in this literature bear the same mark. The
literature of the period also contains elements of deliverance
from the painful and humiliating historical present, a deliverance
that may be characterized as utopian in its hints of a complete
reversal of the course of history. Quite what she means by his-
torical context clearly differs from the ordinary use of that lan-
guage. She does not mean, things that really happened. Here she
means, the legend and the myth, two generic terms The dis-
tinction between folktale and legend is based mainly on the way
each represents the world, which is manifest in differences of form,
content, and style. The legend represents a possible world, in
terms of concepts and beliefs current in the narrating society.
Almost everything that is true of the folktale is reversed in the
legend but genres, as ideal types or models in general, do not
usually appear in pure form. Folk literature offers listeners
countless intermediate forms, and elements characteristic of the
folktale may appear in legends, and vice versa. My sense is, this
criterion of differentiation between the one and the other is so
subjective that she might as well claim, I know the difference
when I see it. There is no replicating her method and produc-
ing the same result. But the story of Yohanan ben Zakkais aban-
doning Jerusalem as told in Lamentations Rabbati certainly is to
be classified as a claim to tell history, something that really hap-
pened, not legend or myth in the view of the story-teller. Here
Hasan-Rokem goes over quite familiar ground: the story about
the fall of Jerusalem is also the story about the creation of a new
communal-cultural entity. How this qualifiesthe story of the
founding of Rabbinic Judaisms principal institutional expression,
the master-disciple circleas folklore I cannot say. It strikes me
as the very opposite, and the sophistication of the narrative strength-
318 bibliographical appendix

ens that judgment. But she insists, The folk elements are many
and varied. Then, once more, we are left with a distinction that,
in its realization, makes very little difference. And that judgment
is validated by Hasan-Rokem herself: The folk narratives dis-
cussed in this last chapter clearly convey the central assumption
of this book in general, namely, that folk narratives in the litera-
ture of Palestinian amoraim are literary works devoted to the
central issues concerning scholars and their society at the time.
Who would have thought otherwise? Well, as a matter of fact,
Hasan-Rokem thinks otherwise: They are told within the generic
context of folk literature, which includes the legend and the folk-
tale as its main forms of prose, and they embody the dialectical
interaction between those generic poles in the actual text. The
comparative context of folk literature points to the links of these
stories to the folk literatures of other contemporary cultural and
ideological groups and to types of stories found in other cul-
tures and in other periods, on the other And so forth. All this
adds up to very little: its folklore, except when its not folklore,
and anyhow, what difference does it make?
The book contains many insights and aperus of real value. This
account of the parts does not do justice to the many valuable
observations about this and that that Hasan-Rokem sets forth. But
it does suggest that the whole adds up to less than the sum of the
parts. There is no thesis, no proposition, no problem that is solved.
I see three possibilities for a scholarly book of maturity and weight,
ways of making a coherent statement, not just setting forth a mish-
mash of observations shading over into free association.
A scholar, first, can set forth a systematic state of the question,
reviewing the literatureon method and substance alikeand so
providing perspective on a subject. The opening chapter of this
book does not accomplish that goal or even try; it is spotty and
subjective and uncomprehending.
Second, a scholar can propose a proposition and systematical-
ly construct an argumentevidence, analysisto sustain that
proposition. I already pointed out one such massive and impor-
tant proposal made by Hasan-Rokem herself: It is not a mere
coincidence that stories of dream interpretation, like riddle sto-
ries, have a central position in Lamentations Rabbah for they
are intimately connected with the fundamental experience of this
text. I wish that I could point to the passage(s) where Hasan-
 bibliographical appendix 319

Rokem defines what she means by the fundamental experience

of this text and demonstrates that what she conceives to be that
fundamental experience actually prevails in defining the genera-
tive problematic of the document. But she does not do so.
And, third, a scholar can define a problem that requires solu-
tion, spell out why the problem is important (what is at stake, why
this not that?), how she proposes to solve the problem, why her
proposed solution does solve the problem, and then, the matter
having been defined, do the work systematically and thoroughly.
This work of problem-solving, my account of the contents of the
book shows, Hasan-Rokem does not address at all.
If further evidence of the incoherence of the work viewed whole
is required, I offer the following mental experiment. Try reordering
the chapters, putting No. 8 at No. 2 (omitting reference to chap-
ter one, the state of the question study). Would the sense of
either chapter change? I think not. Clearly, chapters three and
four go together. But if the chapters were set forth in some other
order than the present one, each would make as much, or as lit-
tle, sense as it does in its present position. That is a mark that
the chapters are free-standing articles (except for chapters three
and four, which are continuous). They do not take up and sys-
tematically spell out and demonstrate a particular proposition, they
do not logically solve a problem, step by step, and they do not
cohere, except because the author says they cohere, in their
present, or in any other, order. What I take this failure to define
a strategy of exposition to mean is, Hasan-Rokem is not working
with any model of great scholarship in her mind, an ideal of what
would mark true academic accomplishment. If I mention great
works of problem-solving through analytical argument, such as
Harry A. Wolfsons hypothetical reconstruction and systematiza-
tion of Western philosophy from Philo to Spinoza, or great works
of propositional demonstration, such as Gershom Scholems Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism, I make myself readily understood. There
are models of how the work should be done. I cannot point to
the equivalent aspiration, the one that is replicated, even partial-
ly, in this work.
So much for the book in detail. Now let us turn to the two issues
raised at the outset: does folklore pertain to Rabbinic litera-
ture? Second, can we really ignore the documentary context in
320 bibliographical appendix

which stories and sayings find their place in Rabbinic canonical

compilations, and what do we lose when we do?
First comes the pertinence of the category, folklore: is this
not merely a fabricated category-formation, yielding nothing of
systematic, analytical interest? In the context of Rabbinic docu-
ments, once we have declared a story folklore, what has we
learned, what do we now know that we did not know prior to
that declaration?
The main issue rises in the preface. It concerns the legitimacy
of reading any passage of the Rabbinic corpus as the expression
of anyone other than a learned sage: Some approaches claim
that patterns of study prevalent at the academies, reflecting the
scholars intense exegetical concerns, had a decisive influence on
the artistic form assumed by the texts. Other approaches empha-
size the influence of the public sermon at the synagogue My
own approach is to show how both of these formative bodies
the academy and the synagoguewere also open to other social-
izing institutions the family, rural and urban public spaces, and
the political, commercial, and artistic discourse of the time. The
voices expressed in the text represent both the elite and the broader
layers of society (pp. xi-xii). So by folklore a distinction is made
between elite and masses, the latter then constituting that
folk that yields the lore. Then how are we to know, other
than a priori, what belongs and what does not belong?
Here the problem of the field of Jewish folklore presents it-
self: the venue of the data. Lamentations Rabbati is a highly for-
malized and disciplined text. It is a cogent statement and a co-
herent one. Included within it are stories that Hasan-Rokem
classifies as folklore. These she removes from their documen-
tary context and analyzes in their own terms. But she does not
undertake a reading of the document as a whole and position its
folkloristic elements within the documentary context. But that
context cannot be classified as ordinary; it is a highly sophisticat-
ed literary construction, part of a larger corpus of writings exhib-
iting acute religious sensibility. Everyone who has ever opened
the document has recognized the presence of free-standing sto-
riesthe ones on which Hasan-Rokem concentrates. But do they
represent the documents and suffice to classify the writing as folk-
lore. Or are they parachuted down into an elite piece of writ-
ing, for purposes that are readily surmised, e.g., supplement or
 bibliographical appendix 321

illustrationor for no documentary purpose at all? These are

questions that Hasan-Rokem does not raise, because for her, the
matter is settled by definition. Synagogue-sermons (if that is what
they were, and many doubt it, whom Hasan-Rokem does not
know) or academic disquisitions define the main lines of struc-
ture and order of the documents that contain folktales (within her
definition), but in focusing on those tales and subjecting them to
acute analysis, Hasan-Rokem simply defines the document viewed
whole.
This yields a complete misrepresentation of the character of
Rabbinic compilations of Midrash Aggadah, which is disciplined,
the product of sophisticated intellects and the work of high cul-
ture indeed (to remain within her categories). Indeed, she does
not even acknowledge the working, in the document, of a theo-
logical system, the presence of a theological structure, which gov-
erns the selection and the ordering and exposition of most of the
document. So we are asked to read Midrash as folklore, but
the character of the Midrash-document does not sustain the very
taxonomic decision that defines the project. Folklore is popu-
lar. But the aesthetics and theology of Lamentations Rabbati,
as of most of the other Midrash-compilations of the formative
canon, presuppose a high culture of sophistication, a level of
knowledge of Scripture that renders the data into a ubiquitous
presence, and the propositions spelled out as the outcome of pro-
found and sustained, critical and rigorous thought. In this con-
text, the Israeli religion professor, Ithamar Gruenwald of Tel Aviv
University, writes, Folklore accepts, even on academic grounds,
a value judgment it disguises an academic contempt for the lo-
cal that has no salon legitimization. If there is anything that
Midrash is, it is not folklore. It makes no distinction between the
upper and the lower, the central and the marginal, the learned
and the intuitiveso Gruenwald. In defense of Hasan-Rokems
book, I hasten to point out, she works within an established schol-
arly episteme, she is not obligated to define and justify her en-
tire field. But Gruenfelds critique of the entire field of folklore
is not idiosyncratic but routine among academic scholars of the
Rabbinic literature, and at some point, any ambitious exposition
within that field is going to have to address the epistemological
criticism that calls into question the entire enterprise.
If her account of folklore in Rabbinic literature emerges
322 bibliographical appendix

as chaotic and confused, subjective and idiosyncratic, that is be-

cause of work she has yet to undertake, not because of any frail-
ties of intellect or intelligence exhibited in this study of hers, of
which I find no evidence whatsoever. She is a gifted, serious schol-
ar. Her achievements in this book are her own. Her limitations
are those of the academic setting in which she does her work.
Whatever is taken for granted derives from the academic culture
in which she labors. Whatever is labored and intellectually rigor-
ous derives from her own nature as a scholar and intellect. That
is why I am confident we shall in time see not only better work,
but quite good work, such as, if only episodically, presents itself
even in this chaotic work, so rich in arbitrary and subjective judg-
ments.
 index of subjects
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Abot, 121122
Aesthetics, 20n22
Aggadah
folk narratives in, 313318
logic of coherent discourse in, 7
Allegories, 304305
Assis, Moshe, 310
Autonomy, in Rabbinic canon, 12
Cases, in Mishnah, 25n2, 4346
Composites
non-documentary, 1516
shared among Midrash-compilations,
1, 1n1
Composites and compositions, extra-do-
cumentary, 1415
Connection, of Rabbinic canon, 1
Continuity, of Rabbinic canon, 1
Conversations, in Rabbinic canonical
record, 25, 2632
Cultic narratives as pseudo-narratives,
3243
Development of a Legend (Neusner), 310
Exegesis, and narrative, 305306
Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the
Canon of Formative Judaism. III. Peri-
patetic Parallels (Neusner), 282n2
Extra-documentary writing, 1415,
14n15, 17
Fables, 304
Folklore, 311321
Form, Function, and Historical Significance of
the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin
(Heszer), 308311
From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and
Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and
Pesiqta Rabbati (Neusner), 1n1
Gruenwald, Ithamar, 4243, 321
Halakhah
cultic ritual in, as pseudo-narrative,
3243
323
logic of fixed association in, 9
patriarchal program of composition,
281n1
Hasan-Rokem, Galit, xv, 311321
Heszer, Catherine, xv, 308311
In the Margins of the Midrash (Basser),
15n17
Individuation, in narrative, 19
Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (Neusner),
2
Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fa-
thers According to Rabbi Nathan (Neus-
ner), 122n1
Judaism beyond the texts, 18
Lamentations Rabbah, 303, 305
Lamentations Rabbati, 311312
Lieberman, Saul, 310311
Listenwissenschaft, 7
Literary criticism, 20n22
Logic of coherent discourse
in Aggadah, 7
as defining trait of narrative, 5
in Halakhah, 9
in Rabbah-Midrash compilations, 3,
7
as trait of document, 2
see also logic of fixed association; me-
tapropositional logic of coherence;
syllogistic (propositional) logic of co-
herence; teleological logic of coher-
ence
Logic of fixed association, in narrative,
defined, 911
Ma#aseh
and meshalim, 305
in Mishnah, 282284
pattern of, 2526, 45n4
as pseudo-narrative, 4346
in Tosefta, 125
The Making of the Mind of Judaism (Neus-
ner), 2
324 index of subjects
Making the Classics in Judaism: The Three
Stages of Literary Formation (Neusner),
14n15, 18n21, 19
Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael
indicative traits of, 3n6
Meshalim (parables), in Midrash, 303
308
Metapropositional logic of coherence, in
Rabbinic canon, defined, 1113
Midrash
folklore in, 311321
meshalim (parables) in, 303308
Mishnah
documentary protocols of, 299300
ma#asehs pattern in, 2526, 282284
narrative types and forms in, 282
284
narratives in, compared with To-
sefta, 290298
propositional logic of coherence in,
9n13
Narrative, recent studies of
Form, Function, and Historical Signifi-
cance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi
Neziqin (Heszer), 308311
Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exe-
gesis in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), 303
308
Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in
Rabbinic Literature (Hasan-Rokem),
311321
Narratives
anomalous character of, in Rabbinic
documents, 34, 1314, 16
biographical nature of, 19
compared, in Mishnah and Tosefta,
290298
as connecting documents, 2
cultic narratives as pseudo-narra-
tives, 3243
and exegesis, 305306
miscellaneous, in Tosefta, 289290
as negligible component of Rabbinic
documentary writing, 301302
objective definition and identifica-
tion of, 45
sages affairs, in Tosefta, 288
Scriptural amplification, in Tosefta,
289
successful vs. routine, 287288,
299302
teleological logic as defining trait, 5
13
Temple-incidents, in Tosefta, 289
topical program of, 19
types and forms of, in Mishnah,
282284
types and forms of, in Tosefta, 285
290
in Yerushalmi, 308311
see also pseudo-narratives
Neusner, Jacob, 311
Nimshal, 305
Non-documentary writing
defined, 14n15, 1516
narratives as distinct corpus of, 16,
1718
narratives not distinct corpus of, 302
patterns of form and meaning in, 18
On the Question of the Redaction of
Yerushalmi Neziqin (Assis), 310
Once again on Yerushalmi Neziqin
(Sussman), 310
Opinion, exchange of, in Rabbinic ca-
non, 31
Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis
in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), 303308
The Peripatetic Saying: The Problem of the
Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature
(Neusner), 282n2, 310
Pesiqta deRab Kahana, fixed text of,
9n12
Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition. Samuel
on Berakhot and the Beginnings of Gemara
(Bokser), 308
Precedents, in Mishnah, 25n2, 4346
The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the
Present. History, time, and Paradigm in
Rabbinic Judaism (Neusner), 15n19
Propositional logic of coherence, in
Rabbinic canon. see syllogistic (or
propositional) logic of coherence
Proverbs, 15
Pseudo-narratives
conversations, in Rabbinic canon-
ical record, 25, 2632
defined, 2122
ma#aseh, 4346
ritual conduct, presentations of, 25,
3243
types of, 2526, 4647
see also narratives
 index of subjects
Rabbah-Midrash compilations
logic of coherent discourse in, 3, 7
topical programs vary among, 3
Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees be-
fore 70 I-III (Neusner), 310
Rabbinic Writings
autonomy of documents, 12
documentary considerations in, 18
20, 18n21
extra-documentary writings in, 14
15, 14n15, 17
narrative as connective thread, 2
narratives in, not conforming to in-
dicative traits, 34, 1314, 16, 17
18
non-documentary writings in, 1516
origins of stories in, 310311
outline of programmatic documen-
tary analysis, 2023
traits of programs of, 14
Rhetorical patterning, 2
Riddle tales, in Midrash, 313314
Ritual and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel
(Gruenwald), 8n11, 42
Ritual conduct, presentations of, 25, 32
43
Samuels Commentary on the Mishnah. Part
One: Mishnayot in the Order of Zera"im
(Bokser), 308
Scripture, logical incoherence of topical
program of, 910
Sifra
fixed associative logic of coherence
in, 9n13
metapropositional logic of coherence
in, 11
Sifrs
fixed associative logic of coherence
in, 9n13, 1011
metapropositional logic of coherence
in, 1112
Stern, David, xv, 303308
Sussman, Ya"aqob, 311
325
Syllogistic (or propositional) logic of co-
herence, in Rabbinic canon, de-
fined, 78
Teleological logic of coherence, in Rab-
binic canon
conversations lack, 2632
cultic narratives lack, 3243
defined, 67
as defining trait of narratives, 513
ma#aseh lack, 4346
Temple, ritual conduct denoted in Mish-
nah, 3243
Texts without Boundaries (Neusner), 3, 4n8,
4n9, 14, 16, 284, 301
The Theology of the Oral Torah. Revealing the
Justice of God (Neusner), 1n2
The Three Questions of Formative Judaism:
History, Literature, and Religion (Neus-
ner), 17
Topical autonomy in Rabbinic canon,
2
Topical miscellanies, in Rabbinic Writ-
ings, 17
Tosefta
documentary protocols of, 300
ma#asehs pattern in, 2526, 125,
285287
narrative types and forms in, 285
290
narratives in, compared with Mish-
nah, 290298
three types of writing in, 125
Tosefta Seder Moed
unconventional ma"asim in, 287
Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rab-
binic Literature (Hasan-Rokem), 311
321
Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism?
(Neusner), 15n18
Why There Never Was a Talmud of Cae-
sarea (Neusner), 310
Yerushalmi, stories in, 308311
326 index of ancient sources

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Bible 37:25 128

Amos 37:26 129
9:14 274 44:33 129
1 Chronicles Isaiah
2:54 178, 294 10:13 274
2 Chronicles 42:24 240, 243
30:18 157, 235 43:7 163
Daniel 54:9 177
8:4 269, 276 58:8 133
Deuteronomy Jeremiah
12:3 103 31:6 294
13:18 104 34:5 147
15:9 56 35:1ff 293
17:6 236 49:6 274
21:12 160, 237 Job
22:412 10 1:8 27
22:67 11 13:15 27
22:911 10 15:1819 129
23:3 274 27:5 27
24:19 132 Jonah
25:7 207 1:5 272
26:3 295 Joshua
26:6 38, 295 24:32 215
31:12 216 1 Kings
32:12 184, 201 13:28 129
Exodus 21:16 237
13:19 215 2 Kings
23:2 127, 174 6:56 215
24:9 74 21:16 160
Ezekiel Lamentations
1 297 4:2 240
5:11 237 Leviticus
16:2 180 5:17:18 132
29:13 274 6:12 219
Ezra 10:5 128
2:3 293 16 41
2:5 293 16:1ff 3234
2:6 294 16:6 36
2:8 293 16:13 159
2:35 293 18 297
Genesis 19:19 10
1:2 184, 201 23:4 74, 171, 292
13 297 23:17 107, 111
9:11 177 Nehemiah
34:26 129 2:8 293
35:22 180, 190 2:10 293
 index of ancient sources 327

7:11 294 4:7 28

7:13 293 5:2 103, 104
7:381 293 Abot
Numbers 2:6 121
6:2 214 Arakhin
7:311 58 5:1 109, 111
32:22 163, 164 7:2 110
Proverbs 163, 178 8:1 109, 112
5:8 248 Baba Batra
10:7 166 9:7 98, 104
10:8 215 Baba Mesia
10:17 178, 295 7:1 96, 104
11:30 133 8:8 97, 104
23:25 77 Baba Qamma
25:16 183 8:6 95, 104, 105
Psalms Bekhorot
30:1 38, 295 4:4 107
69:23 130 5:3 108, 111
85:11 133 6:1 249
89:14 133 6:5 249
114:2 130 6:6 108, 111, 249,
116:15 183 250
136 77 6:9 109, 111
Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 8:6 250
2:14 170 Berakhot
5:5 183 1:1 51, 58
10:8 247 1:3 52, 58, 126
1 Samuel 2:3 127
9:5 129 2:5 59
10:2 129, 130 2:57 52
2 Samuel 2:6 59
1:24 88 2:7 59
Song of Songs 3:4 127
1:2 265, 277 4:2 28
1:3 265 5:5 54
1:4 183 6:8 127, 128
1:8 212 Besah
1:17 160 1:56 73
1:7 73
Rabbinic Literature 2:6 174
Babylonian Talmud 2:7 174
Baba Batra 2:8 174
156b 98 3:2 72, 79
Midrash 3:5 72
Sifr to Deuteronomy 3:8 72
CCXXIX:IV 10 Bikkurim
CCXXVII:I 11 3:26 38, 179, 294
CCXXX:I 10 Dema"i
Mishnah 3:3 134
Abodah Zarah Eduyyot
3:4 103, 104 4:1 238
3:7 102, 104 4:6 238
328 index of ancient sources

5:6 99 Menahot
5:67 103, 104, 105 6:3 34
5:7 100, 104 10:2 107, 111
7:7 101, 104 Middot
Erubin 1:2 39
1:2 150 Miqva"ot
4:12 65, 79 1:1620 29
4:78 151 4:5 114, 117
4:9 151 Nazir
6:1 80, 81, 151 2:3 89, 92
6:12 66, 79 3:6 89, 92
7:6 152 6:11 89, 92
7:7 152 Nedarim
8:7 66, 79, 153 5:6 85, 93
10:9 66 6:6 86, 92
10:10 67, 79 9:5 87, 93
Gittin 9:10 87, 93
1:2 220 Nega"im
1:3 220 11:7 29
1:5 90, 92, 220 Niddah
4:7 90, 92 8:2 114, 117
6:6 91, 92 Ohalot
7:5 91, 93 17:5 113, 117
Hagigah Pe"ah
2:1 182, 297 2:56 55, 59
2:3 185, 197 6:10 132
2:4 186 Pesahim
Hallah 3:6 155
4:1011 57, 59 7:2 44, 67, 79
Horayot Qiddushin
3:7 239, 240 2:7 45, 91, 93
Hullin Rosh Hashanah
2:7 246 1:56 79
Kelim 1:7 79
5:4 113, 117 2:1 175, 176, 197
Keritot 2:89 74, 80, 81, 82,
1:7 110, 112 105, 125, 127,
Ketubot 128, 164, 179,
1:10 85, 92 228, 282, 291
7:10 85, 92 Sanhedrin
Kilayim 4:5 236
1:4 135, 139 5:2 98, 104
4:9 44, 55, 59 7:2 98, 104
Ma"aserot Shabbat
2:3 138 1:4 78
Ma"aser Sheni 1:47 26, 63
5:2 138 2:2 145
Makhshirin 2:4 146
1:6 115, 117 3:34 44, 63, 78
3:4 116, 117 6:6 147
Megillah 16:6 149
4:10 180, 190 16:8 64, 78, 149
 index of ancient sources 329

24:5 64, 79 16:5 83

Shebi#it 16:6 83, 92, 210,
5:5 135 222, 224
6:6 136 16:7 84, 92, 211
10:3 56, 59 Yoma
Sheqalim 1:1 158
3:34 35 1:13 36
6:1 80 1:5 159
6:12 67 2:12 69
Sotah 2:2 80, 81, 160, 196
1:9 215 2:7 161
5:5 27 3:7 161
Sukkah 3:11 162, 163, 165,
1:1 167, 168 194, 195
1:3 168, 194, 195 5:1 166
1:6 168 5:7 40, 41
2:1 70, 79 6:3 45, 70, 79
2:4 169 8:13 37
2:45 70, 79 Tosefta
2:5 169 Abodah Zarah
2:7 71, 79, 169, 196 3:9 238
2:8 71, 79 3:10 239, 241
3:8 72, 79 Ahilot (Ohalot)
4:5 171
2:6 257, 275
4:6 171
3:8 257
5:8 172
3:9 257, 275
Ta"anit
4:2 257, 275
2:5 76, 80
2:10 177, 190 15:12 258, 275
3:6 76 15:13 275
3:8 177 16:2 258, 275
3:910 76, 80, 81, 82, 16:3 259
105, 125, 164, 16:8 259, 264, 277,
179, 228, 282 278, 288
4:2 294 16:11 260, 275
4:4 294 16:12 260, 275
4:5 178 16:13 261, 275
Terumot 18:15 261
1:1 136 18:18 261, 275
1:7 137, 138 Baba Qamma
3:9 137 2:12 231, 242, 290
Yadayim 2:13 231
3:1 116, 117 8:11 232, 242, 288
Yebamot 8:12 232
2:5 205 8:13 232
2:9 206 8:16 233, 241, 242
8:1 208, 221 Bekhorot
8:2 208 4:6 249, 251
8:4 208, 221 4:7 249
12:3 209 4:8 250, 251
12:6 209 6:10 250
16:4 83, 92, 209 6:11 251
330 index of ancient sources

Berakhot Kelim Baba Batra

1:4 126, 139 1:23 277, 288
2:11 126, 139 2:1 275
2:13 126, 139 2:2 275
4:15 127, 141, 288 2:3 275
4:1617 130 2:4 275
4:1618 128, 140 Kelim Baba Qamma
4:18 130 1:23 254
5:1 130 1:6 253, 275
5:2 130, 141, 288 2:1 255
Dema"i 2:2 256
3:14 134, 139 2:3 256
5:24 134, 139 2:4 256
Eduyyot 5:3 253, 275
2:2 238, 241 11:2 254, 275
Erubin Ketubot
1:2 150, 188, 192 4:7 211, 222, 224
3:17 151, 188, 192 4:9 212, 223, 226
4:16 151 5:9 212, 223
5:67 151, 188, 191 5:10 212
5:24 152, 188, 192 Kilayim
1:3 135, 139
6:12 152, 188, 192
Kippurim (Yoma)
6:26 153
1:4 157, 195, 198,
Gittin
289, 293
1:3 220, 223, 224 1:8 159, 195, 198,
1:4 220, 223, 225 289, 293
Hagigah 1:12 160, 196, 198,
2:1 182, 197, 198, 238, 241, 289,
290, 297 293
2:2 199, 200, 201, 1:13 161
203, 298 1:1314 188
2:36 183 1:2122 161, 188, 192
2:6 184, 197, 198, 2:4 161, 196, 198,
199, 200, 201, 289, 293
202, 290, 297 2:56 162, 196, 198,
2:11 185, 197, 198, 199, 289, 293
289 2:7 165, 194
2:12 185, 197, 198, 2:8 165, 194
289 2:13 166, 189, 192
2:13 186, 190, 192 3:14 167, 195
Horayot 21:1314 192
2:5 239 Ma"aserot
2:56 243, 288, 290 2:1 138, 140
Hullin Ma"aser Sheni
2:20 246 5:15 140
2:21 246 5:1617 138
2:22 247, 251, 288, Megillah
290 2:4 179, 190, 192
2:2224 291 2:5 179
2:23 247 2:17 180, 190, 191
2:24 248, 251, 288, 3:34 180, 190, 192
290 3:35 180
 index of ancient sources 331

Menahot Pisha (Pesahim)

13:18 245, 252, 289 2:15 153, 195, 198,
13:19 245 288
13:20 245 2:16 154
13:21 245 3:11 155, 188, 192
Miqva"ot 3:20 155, 188, 192
1:16 267 4:1314 155, 194
1:17 267, 275 4:15 156
1:18 267 8:4 157, 188, 192
1:19 267 Rosh Hashanah
1:20 268 1:15 175, 197, 198,
4:10 268, 275 289, 293
7:11 268, 275, 276 1:16 176, 189, 191
Mo"ed (Mo"ed Qatan) Sanhedrin
2:1416 181 2:36 234
2:15 190, 192 2:8 235, 241
Nazir 2:10 235, 242
4:7 289, 293 5:1 241
Nedarim 8:2 236, 241, 242
5:1 213, 223, 224 8:3 236
Nega"im Shabbat
8:2 262, 276 1:1213 145, 187, 191
Nezirut 2:4 145, 187, 191
3:17 238 2:5 146, 187, 191
4:7 213, 226, 229 3:3 146, 187, 191
3:4 146, 187, 191
Niddah
5:11 147
1:9 270, 275
5:12 147, 187, 191
2:18 274
5:13 147, 187, 191
4:2 270, 275
7:16 147, 187, 191
4:4 270, 275
7:(17) 147, 187
4:6 270, 275 7:18 191
4:16 270 12:14 168
4:17 271, 275 13:2 148, 187, 191
5:2 271 13:3 148
5:23 275 13:4 148, 187, 191
5:3 271 13:9 149, 187, 191
5:14 272, 275 13:14 149, 188, 191
5:15 272, 276 15:8 149, 150, 188,
5:16 272, 276 191
5:17 272, 276 Shebi#it
Parah 4:4 135, 140
2:1 262, 275 5:2 136, 140
3:7 262 Shebuot
3:8 262, 277, 289, 1:34 237
293 Sotah
4:6 264 4:7 215, 227, 289
4:7 264, 278, 288 7:9 216, 226
10:3 265, 277 13:3 216, 227, 288
Pe"ah 13:37 229
3:8 131, 141 13:4 216, 227, 288
4:18 133, 141 13:47 226
332 index of ancient sources

13:5 218, 227, 288 Tohorot

13:6 218, 227, 288 6:1 266, 275
13:7 218, 227, 288 6:7 266, 275
13:8 219 8:15 267, 275
Sukkah Yadayim
1:1 167, 189, 191 2:15 273
1:7 168, 189, 192 2:16 273, 276
1:89 168, 195 2:17 273, 276
2:1 169 Yebamot
2:2 169 3:1 205
2:23 189, 192 4:5 206, 221, 224
2:3 169, 170, 191, 6:7 206, 221, 224,
196, 198, 238, 225
241, 288 10:3 208, 221, 225
2:910 171, 189, 191 12:5 225
12:11 208
3:1 171, 189, 192
12:15 208
4:4 172, 189, 192
14:57 209, 221, 222,
4:28 172 224, 225
Ta"anit 14:810 210
2:4 192 14:10 222, 225
3:910 164 Yoma
Ta"aniyyot (Ta"anit) 1:3 241
2:4 176, 190 3:38 40
2:13 177 Yom Tob (Besah)
3:7 178, 197, 198, 2:6 172, 197, 198,
199, 289, 293, 288
294 2:1113 173, 189, 192
3:8 178 2:14 174
Terumot 2:16 174, 189, 192
1:1 136, 140 Zebahim
1:15 136, 140 11:16 245, 252
2:13 137, 140 11:1617 245
3:4 137, 140
REVELATION