I wish to acknowledge the helpful criticism of Professors Alan Avery-Peck (Tulane Univerty), Howard Eilberg-Schwartz (Indiana University), and Robert Goldenberg (SUNY-Stony rook), all of whom should be held responsible only for what is of value in this paper.

page 136 note 1. The framework within which contemporary discussion of these issues takes place is constituted by the works of Epstein, J. N., Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah [Heb.], 2 vols., 2d ed. (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1964), pp. 946–979Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Text) and Introductions to Tannaitic Literature [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957), pp. 227–232 (hereafter cited as Literature).Google Scholar For instructive discussions of major figures in the modern history of mishnaic literary and historical criticism, see the essays collected in J., Neusner, ed., The Modern Study of the Mishnah (Leiden, 1973) (hereafter cited as Study).Google Scholar The bibliography to this volume, complete to 1972, is a most valuable guide to the relevant literature. A helpful recent discussion of the amoraic reception of the Mishnah is that of Bokser, B. M., Post Mishnaic Judaism in Transition (Chico, Calif., 1980), pp. 461–491.Google Scholar

page 136 note 2. See Epstein, Text, 2:706—726 and the discussion of B. Bokser, M., “Jacob Epstein's Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah, ” in Neusner, Study, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar

page 136 note 3. On the distinctions between the Hebrew employed in the talmudic baraitot and that of the Mishnah itself, see M. Moreshet, “The Hebrew Baraitot in the Babylonian Talmud Are Not MH(1)” [Heb.], in Kutscher, E. Y et al., eds., Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Ramat Gan, 1974), pp. 1–40Google Scholar; idem, “New and Revived Verbs in the Baraitot of the Babylonian Talmud” [Heb.], in Y., Kutscher, ed., Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature, vol. 1 (Ramat Gan, 1972), pp. 117–162Google Scholar; and idem, “Further Studies of the Language of the Hebrew Baraitot in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds” [Heb.], in M., Kaddari, ed., Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature, vol. 2 (Ramat Gan, 1974), pp. 31–73.Google Scholar

page 136 note 4. The term “form-analysis” can apply to a number of rather different analytical procedures, as observed by Bokser, B. M., “Talmudic Form Criticism, ” Journal of Jewish Studies 31, no. 1 (1980): 46–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The present usage is derived from the distinctive contribution of Jacob Neusner, whose most clearly formulated view of the principles and potential of form-analysis may be consulted in A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, vol. 21 (Leiden, 1977), hereafter cited as Purities.Google Scholar

page 137 note 5. For an attempt to interpret the redactional traits of rabbinic texts as literary representa-:ions of the ideology of Oral Torah, see Jaffee, M., “Oral Torah in Theory and Practice: Aspects af Mishnah-Exegesis in the Palestinian Talmud, ” Religion, in press for winter, 1986.Google Scholar

page 137 note 6. The points raised in this paragraph have their basis in Neusner, J., Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden, 1971), 1:1–5 and 3:180–300 (hereafter cited as Pharisees).Google Scholar

page 138 note 7. By “tithing” the Mishnah understands the removal of various offerings prescribed in Scripture for the exclusive use of priests, Levites, and the poor. The offerings for the priests and Levites in particular are regarded as sanctified and enjoy the status of “holy things, ” e.g., Temple property, which may not be put to secular use. On the Mishnah's discussions of these offerings, see Jaffee, M., The Mishnah's Theology of Tithing: A Study of Tractate Maaserot (Chico, Calif., 1981), pp. 1–6 (hereafter, Maaserot)Google Scholar; Peck, A., The Priestly Gift in Mishnah: A Study of Tractate Terumot (Chico, Calif., 1981), pp. 1–7Google Scholar; and Haas, P., A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Tractate Maaser Sheni (Chico, Calif., 1980), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

page 138 note 8. All mishnaic translations in this paper follow the text of Albeck, H., The Six Orders of the Mishnah [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957; 4th printing, 1975)Google Scholar. For very minor textual variants in this and other texts, see the relevant portions of N., Sacks, ed., The Mishnah with Variant Readings: Order Zera'im [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1975), vol. 2.Google Scholar

page 139 note 9. This prohibition finds no precedent in Scripture. The Mishnah, for its part, accepts it without controversy as a fundamental assumption. See, e.g., M. Demai 4:1 and 7:1 + 5, M. Terumot 2:3/T. Terumot 4:1. M. Shabbat 1:1 jT. Shabbat 2:19, M. Be?ah 5:2/T.Y.T.4:4 as well as M. Ma'aserot 2:3. For discussion of later talmudic explanations of the reasons for this prohibition, see Lieberman, S., Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York, 1955), 1:337 and 5:1001–1002.Google Scholar

page 139 note 10. This interpretation builds upon those of RaBaD (Eduyyot 4:10), RaS (Ma'aserot 4:2), and Bertinoro (Ma'aserot 4:2), against that of Maimonides (Ma'aserot 4:2/Eduyyot 4:10), who argues that our case refers in particular to a basket gathered from a tree the fruit of which is, as a matter of course, used only for the Sabbath meals (see Y. Ma'aserot 4:2, 51b). Cf. Y. D. Gilat, “Intention and Action in the Teaching of the Tannaim” [Heb.], Annual of Bar Han University 4–5 (1967), p. 115. Gilat, too, follows the line of exegesis stemming from RaBaD, but is, in my view, too hasty in denying the Shammaites any recognition that intentions have some role in the imposition of liability.

page 140 note 11. The prohibition against Sabbath tithing is first mentioned by Yavneans, e.g., Joshua (T. Ma'aserot 2:\) and Simeon Shezuri (M. Demai 4:1), although the Houses may allude to it at M. Be?ah 1:6. This latter pericope, however, is attested no earlier than Usha by Judah and Yose (T.Y. T. 1:12–13).

page 140 note 12. The terminological distinction between a formal meal (qb') and a random snack ('r'y) is first attributed in M. Ma'aserot to the Ushans Yose (Ma'aserot 1:8, attesting Ma'aserot 1:5) and Judah (Ma'aserot 2:1–2). If the Eliezer of Ma'aserot 2:4 is ben Hyrcanus, which is unlikely, this would then locate the terminology at the Yavnean stratum, attested in the same pericope by the Ushan Simeon. Neither M. Ma'aserot nor later sources suggest that a characteristic of the “formal” meal vis-a-vis tithing law is the inclusion of bread. The issue is directly addressed in Y. Ma'aserot 4:1, 51b, s.v. ' sh hysb bsdh, where the criteria for “formality” include the serving of wine or the posture of leaning. For further discussion of the peculiar notion of “meal” employed in M. Ma'aserot, see Jaffee, Maaserot, pp. 1—6.

page 140 note 13. On the distinction between scriptural and rabbinic perspectives on this issue, see the remarkably compact comment of Rashi, B. Berakhot 31a, s.v. bmws sbh. The notion that liability of produce to tithing is in some sense a function of what the owner intends to do with it has only a doubtful Yavnean attestation (Eliezer, Maaserot 4:3; see n. 22 below). It is impossible in the present context to explore the extent to which the theory of intention in the law of tithes intersects with similar theories in other areas of early rabbinic law. The basis for such work remains the study of M. Higger, “Intention in Talmudic Law, ” reprinted in Gershfield, E. M., ed., Studies in Jewish Jurisprudence (New York, 1971), pp. 234–293.Google Scholar See also the essays of Zeitlin, S. now collected in idem, Studies in the Early History of Judaism: History of Early Talmudic Law, vol. 4 (New York, 1978) (hereafter cited as Studies): “Studies in Tannaitic Jurisprudence: Intention as a Legal Priniciple, ” “Asmakta or Intention: A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence, ” “Intention as One of the Controversial Points Between Jose and Judah, ” “A Note on the Principle of Intention in Tannaitic Literature, ” and “The Semikah Controversy Between the Zugoth.” A major new advance in the state of the question is the forthcoming dissertation of H. Eilberg-Schwartz, “The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention” (Brown University, 1985: directed by Jacob Neusner). I wish to thank Professor Eilberg- Schwartz for sharing his work with me prior to its completion.Google Scholar

page 141 note 14. See Neusner, Pharisees 1:291–294. In my view the most likely echo of the “authentic” Houses is the concern for the role of intention in establishing that a substance is subject to laws appropriate to human food. See, for example, M. Vkzin 3:6 (attested by the Yavnean, Akiva, ad loc.) and M. Makhshirin 1:2–3 (attested at M. Makhshirin 1:3 by the Yavnean, Joshua). I am indebted to Professor Eilberg-Schwartz for drawing my attention to these passages.

page 141 note 15. See in particular, Hoffmann, D., The First Mishna and the Controversies of the Tannaim, trans. Forchheimer, P. (New York, 1977), pp. 92–95 (n. 9),Google Scholar and Albeck, H., Untersuchungen uber die Redaktion der Mischna (Berlin, 1936), pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar Albeck's choleric response to Epstein may be consulted in Albeck, H., Introduction to the Mishnah [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1959), pp. 257–259.Google Scholar

page 142 note 16. In Epstein's view, this is the work of Rabbi, who selected from the prior collections of Judah, Meir, Simeon, and others (Literature, p. 438). I do not, however, share Epstein's certainty that chapter 4 of Eduyyot in particular represents a selection from the “Mishnah” of Meir (Ibid pp. 101–104, 434–438).

page 142 note 17. For details, see Jaffee, Maaserot, pp. 121–123.

page 143 note 18. Nearly all exegetes, following Y. Ma'aserot 4:2 (51b), s.v. l' 'mr rby yhwdh 'l' klklt sbt, err in reading the issue of the Sabbath into Judah's ruling. Cf. Jaffee, Maaserot, p. 125, where the error is repeated. To my knowledge, the sole exegete to depart from the Yerushalmi's precedent is Ephraim Isaac of Premysla (nineteenth century). See his Mishnah Rishonah, Ma'aserot 4:2.

page 143 note 19. Hyman, A., History of the Tannaim and Amoraim [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1964), 2:539, lists some twenty-six traditions of Judah which gloss a preceding ruling with 'p. This is a trait not unique to Judah's traditions, but certainly characteristic of a small group of them. Of these, twenty-two are clearly dependent upon the theme, language, and formulaic traits of the rulings to which they are appended. They should, therefore, be regarded as genuine elements of the pericopae in which they appear. Four examples, however, including Ma'aserot 4:2, exhibit marked linguistic and formulaic independence of their present contexts (Shevu'ot 7:4, Ma'aserot 4:2, Eruvin 10:5 and Nedarim 11:10). This suggests that the appearance of 'p in Judah's traditions is a form, a conventional means of transmitting his opinions. In at least one context, Ma'aserot 4:2, 1 believe that this form has been used to link his name to views which do not derive from his authentic teaching. Only further work on the other three instances mentioned above can judge the extent to which they too depart from principles normally held by Judah. In none of these instances does the ruling attributed to him gloss a dispute between the Houses. There is, to my knowledge, no serious study of the formal characteristics of Judah's traditions which can explain the selection of certain traditions for transmission in the 'p form. See n. 23 for further comments on problems associated with the interpretation of Judah's corpus.Google Scholar

page 146 note 20. See M. Demai 3:3/T. Demai 3:14. The anonymous view of T. conforms to the present interpretation of Judah's assumptions.

page 146 note 21. Ma'aserot 5:1 (s.v. Iqf Islh Ihbrw p(wr), assigned to Judah by Y. Ma'aserot (5:1, 51c), is read by the Yerushalmi to make this very point. The view is, as well, logically compatible with the anonymous ruling of M. Demai 2:2 that one who would be “trustworthy” with regard to tithing should tithe whatever he eats, sells, or purchases. Judah there accepts this view and disputes the separate issue of whether trustworthiness includes refusing the hospitality of Jews unfamiliar with rabbinic customs (ammei ha'ares). Cf. T. Ma'aserot 2:5, in which Simeon b. Gamaliel, in dispute with Rabbi, assumes that rabbinic colleagues (haverim) are unlikely to tithe produce offered to other hiaverim as a gift.

page 148 note 22. Neusner, J., Eliezer b. Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (Leiden, 1973), 2:175Google Scholar, lists this pericope among those which are likely to be authentic reflections of Eliezer's teaching. I have found no discussion of this pericope in Gilat, Y. D., The Teachings of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos [Heb.] (Tel Aviv, 1968).Google Scholar

page 153 note 23. Zeitlin, Studies, p. 80, assumes without argument that Judah is a “Shammaite.” This view is rejected by most recent scholars in favor of a general affiliation with the Akivan school. See Epstein, Literature, pp. 106–125, and Goldberg, A., “And All of Them Are in Accord with R. Akiva” [Heb.], Tarbiz 38, no. 3 (1969): 282–286.Google Scholar Both discussions stress Judah's dependence upon the teaching of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who is often describerd as a “Shammaite, ” but find no firmer evidence linking Judah to Shammaite traditions. For its part, Y. Ma'aserot 3:5, 50d, clearly assumes that Judah is a disciple of Akiva. The results of the present work simply suggest that instances of Judah's corroboration of Hillelite traditions must be scrutinized with great care.

page 153 note 24. The critical role of Ushans in working out a political history of the rabbinic movement rooted in the premise of Hilllelite descent has been identified by Neusner. See Pharisees, 3:282–286 for a summary of the results. For an attempt to reconstruct the actual academic politics of the rabbinic elite during this period, see A. Baumgarten, “The Politics of Reconciliation: The Education of Judah the Prince, ” in Sanders, E. P. al., eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 213–225.Google Scholar Baumgarten's observations regarding the role of Judah b. Ilai (pp. 224–225) are of special relevance.

page 154 note 25. I translate the text of S. Lieberman, Tosefta Zera'im (New York, 1955), pp. 237–238. Cf. T. Eduyyot 2:4 in M. S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta (repr., Jerusalem, 1970), p. 457.

page 154 note 26. Ml 'smw hyh 'wsr. So, too, T. Eduyyot 2:4. Cf. B. Bejah 35a: Ml I'smw hyh 'wsr and Rashi, ad loc. As Epstein (Literature, p. 102) and Lieberman (Tosefta Ki-fshuta, 2:694—695) point out, the correct reading at B, D, and Fis that of the Tosefta. Following Rashi, Lieberman interprets the statement to mean that in Judah's view oMy Hillel in his generation held to the views which the Mishnah ascribes to the Hillelites. Accordingly, the Tosefta, through Judah, represents the Shammaite view as that of the normative majority. I would find Lieberman's interpretation more convincing had he explained why the Tosefta would represent Judah as denying a position (M. Ma'aserot 4:2C/T. Ma'aserot 3:3D) which, in the Mishnah, is reported in his name. Insofar as the Tosefta inherits the Hillelite bias of the Mishnah, it is difficult to explain why it would deliberately reverse the Mishnah's tendency to link prestigious authorities to the “normative” lineage of Hillel-Akiva-Simeon b. Gamaliel—Rabbi.

page 155 note 27. Cf. T. Eduyyot 2:3: Normative law (hlkh) always accords with the words of the House of Hillel.

page 155 note 28. In a paper entitled “The Power of Intention: The Yerushalmi's Reception of a Mishnaic Idea” (AJS Annual Meeting, December 1984), I have traced the problems raised in M. Ma'aserot into the exegetical pericopae of Yerushalmi Ma'aserot. The result of that study will be published shortly in my introduction to The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 7, Maaserot (Chicago, expected for 1986).Google Scholar

page 158 note 2. For example, Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. Kalman Kahan (Frankfurt am Main: Hermon, 1935), p. 9, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. B. Lewin (Haifa, 1921), p. 69, present contradictory accounts of the extent of the saboraic contribution to the Talmud.

page 158 note 3. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 104.

page 158 note 4. The dates utilized throughout this study are based on Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. Kahan, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin. (The date we are utilizing for the death of Rav Ashi is found on p. 5 of the former work [see note 104 there], and on p. 94 of the latter work.) The dates provided by post-talmudic sources for the deaths of talmudic rabbis are impossible to verify in their exact details. However, it is possible in most instances to compare the geonic chronology with that reflected by the internal evidence of the Talmud itself and to arrive at reliable conclusions regarding the proper sequence of these amoraim and their relationship to one another. We have utilized the traditional dates, while remaining cognizant of their limitations.

page 158 note 5. This traditional view, it has often been claimed, was expressed even earlier by Rav Sherira in his famous Iggeret. However, already in the nineteenth century, Heinrich Graetz noticed that Rav Sherira nowhere refers to Rav Ashi as the editor of the Talmud. See Graetz's Geschichte der Juden (1853–75; rpt. Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1873–1900), 4:377. See also Brull, “Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds, ” p. 25, n. 23, and Weiss, Abraham, Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto (New York: Alexander Kohut Foundation, 1943), pp. 246 ff. For the view of the Rambam, see his introduction to the Perush ha-Mishnah, and his introduction to the Mishneh Torah. For Rashi's view, see his commentary on Bava Mefia 86a. Other major medieval proponents of the view that Rav Ashi edited the Talmud include Rav Nissim Gaon in his introduction to Sefer ha-Mafte'ah, Rav Natan Av ha-Yeshiva in his Perush Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, R. Shmuel ha-Nagid in his Mavo ha-Talmud, Rashbam on Bava Batra 130b, Tosafot on Ifullin 2b, Sefer ha-Krilut, and Meiri in his introduction to Avot.Google Scholar