1. The story and its development in the Bavli has been the subject of numerous studies. See, for example: Goldenberg, Robert, “The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel II: An Examination of the Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23, no. 2 (1972): 167–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodblatt, David, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 251–53Google Scholar; Steinmetz, Devora, “Must the Patriarch Know ‘Uqtzin? The Nasi as Scholar in Babylonian Aggada,” AJS Review 23, no. 2 (1998): 163–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapira, Haim, “Hadaḥat Rabban Gamliel: Ben historiyah la-’aggadah,” Zion 64, no. 1 (1999): 5–38Google Scholar; Boyarin, Daniel, Border Lines (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 185–89Google Scholar; Boyarin, , “The Yavneh-Cycle of the Stammaim and the Invention of the Rabbis,” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 258–61Google Scholar; Devora Steinmetz, “Agada Unbound: Inter-Agadic Characterization of Sages in the Bavli and Implications for Reading Agada,” in Rubenstein, Creation and Composition, 293–338; Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 77–90Google Scholar; Herman, Geoffrey, “Hafikhah be-vet ha-midrash: Ben ha-bavli li-khtovet Paikuli,” Zion 79, no. 3 (2014): 377–408Google Scholar.

2. Throughout the article, but with one important exception that will be noted below, I cite rabbinic passages from the standard printed editions, including, in the case of the Bavli, the Vilna printing, and note variants only where I deem them potentially significant.

3. See for example, the commentary of Albeck, Chanoch, Shishah sidre mishnah (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957), 1:20Google Scholar. Note also that the parallel passage in the Tosefta introduces the debates regarding the end times of the daily prayers with the statement that “Just as the Torah gave fixed times [קבע] to the recitation of the Shema, so too the sages gave to prayer” (T. Berakhot 3:1). See the comments of Walfish, Avraham, “Approaching the Text and Approaching God: The Redaction of Mishnah and Tosefta Berakhot,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005): 39 n. 45Google Scholar.

4. Ginzberg, Louis, Perushim ve-ḥiddushim bi-yerushalmi: Meyusadim ‘al meḥkarim be-hishtalshelut ha-halakhah ve-ha-’aggadah be-’Ereẓ Yisra'el u-ve-Vavel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary Press, 1941–61), 3:170Google Scholar. Ginzberg makes his claim in part based on the apparent lack of a eulogy in the blessing as recorded in the Tosefta. However, it is by no means clear that this omission reflects an intentional claim on the part of the toseftan author(s) about the content of the prayer, rather than simply taking the closing for granted. Saul Lieberman similarly reads the passage in light of the debate between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel, but like Ginzberg simply assumes that as the background. Tosefta ki-fshutah (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary Press, 1955–88), 1:34Google Scholar.

5. In MS Florence II-I-7, the statement is attributed to 'ר. The context and the tradents make clear that Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi is not the intended tradent. Most likely, this is the result of scribal error. Alternatively, and in light of a similar memra later in the same passage that in most manuscripts is attributed to the first-generation Amora Rav and in MS Florence also appears as 'ר, the variant might refer to that slightly earlier figure.

6. Rabbi Yoḥanan's statement continues to make the exact same point for someone who failed to pray in the morning, namely, that such a person should pray twice in the afternoon, a parallelism that highlights the basic formal equality of the evening and morning prayers. Tosafot ad loc., s.v. ta‘ah, already point out the contradiction between the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the position, which in their version of the Bavli was endorsed by Rav (see below in my discussion of the core Bavli sugya), that Ma‘ariv is optional. See also Rif, 19a in the pagination of the Rif; Me'iri, Bet ha-beḥirah to 26b, s.v. tefillat ‘arvit; Rashba ad loc., s.v. tefillat ‘arvit.

7. The baraita appears as well at B. Ḥagigah 9b, as well as later compilations such as Bamidbar Rabbah, Naso’, par. 9:6. Of course, the fact that this midrash is not attested in tannaitic corpora suggests that we should be extremely careful in treating it as evidence of tannaitic opinion. However, in this case, the assumption of the baraita that the evening prayer is obligatory coheres with what we know from other tannaitic and early amoraic statements.

8. This too is a suspicious baraita because of its lack of parallels, and in particular because it could have been deployed to answer a question on a nearly identical topic in the immediately preceding sugya. See Pene Yehoshua, Berakhot 16a, s.v. ta’ shema‘, who raises this problem, as well as his answers, one of which is convincing, namely, that it was preferable to answer a question about Rabbi Yoḥanan's views based on a memra attributed to him rather than to do so from another source, even a tannaitic one. In any event, as I wrote in the previous note, the bulk of tannaitic and early amoraic sources assuming an obligation in the evening prayer makes it exceedingly unlikely that a lenient view on this matter existed in early rabbinic times, even if one or two of these sources may turn out to be later creations.

9. The relevant passage is in fact missing in two of the manuscripts (MSS Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 and Paris 671), and this was the reading before several medieval commentators; see, for example, Rif, 21a and Rosh, 4:23. However, it seems likely that this reading developed from the tension between this baraita, which states that the reason one need not repeat Ma‘ariv when one forgot the insertion for Rosh Ḥodesh is that one can make it up the following morning, and the statement of Rav (to be discussed presently) that this leniency results from the historical practice of courts announcing the new moon only during the daytime. Note that in addition to MS Munich 95, MS Florence also agrees with the printed editions, but a scribe has crossed this material out so as to fit it with the reading found in Rif and Rosh. In any event, at a minimum the statement attributed to the early Amora Rav assumes an obligation in the evening prayer; the baraita likely, but not necessarily, reflects a similar assumption.

10. Rif, Berakhot 19a; Tosafot, Berakhot 26a, s.v. ta‘ah.

11. The commentary of the Pene Moshe, clearly bothered by the unusual leniency here and connecting this statement to those that preceded it, claims that this is discussing a case where one prayed the evening Amidah, but earlier than ideal (i.e., before sunset). However, such an interpretation finds no basis in the words of Rabbi Yannai's statement.

12. Indeed, the Bavli will reference the optional nature of Ma‘ariv in a discussion of this very mishnah; see my discussion of B. Shabbat 9b–10a below.

13. See, for example: Ritba, 26b, s.v. u-mipene; Betzalel Ashkenazi, Shitah mekubeẓet, Berakhot 26b, s.v. u-mipene.

14. It does appear in the first printing of the Tosefta, likely resulting from the influence of the Bavli, but neither MS Vienna (Wien - Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek Cod hebr. 20) nor Erfurt (Berlin - Staatsbibliothek [Preussischer Kulturbesitz] Or. fol. 1220) has it.

15. Indeed, this interpretation already appears in Piske Rid (26b, s.v. ’amar), and it seems that Rashi understood the Bavli's baraita thus as well; Rashi (26b, s.v. u-padarim). Of course, it is possible that the move made both by Rabbi Tanḥuma and by the Babylonian editors—to find a way to connect Ma‘ariv to the sacrificial service—reflects some amount of anxiety about its status, i.e., they may have been concerned lest someone mistakenly take Ma‘ariv less seriously than other prayers because it lacked a biblical precedent. Reading Rabbi Tanḥuma in this way—as a response to such an implied position—would suggest that a weakening in the status of the evening prayer already existed in amoraic Palestine. Such a reading is not in itself so surprising, and does not argue against the picture I am describing here, given that the Babylonian tradition about Rabbi Yehoshua is known and cited as such in the Yerushalmi, as well as the fact that leniencies with regard to—though not out-and-out exemption from—the evening prayer clearly exist in amoraic Palestine. I am thankful to the anonymous reviewer for the journal for pointing out this possible implication of Rabbi Tanḥuma's statement.

16. Shitah mekubeẓet, indeed cites this passage with precisely such a marker—דתניא תפילת ערבית רבן גמליאל וכו'—but this does not appear in manuscripts or other commentators.

17. The words אינה קבע are missing in MS Oxford as well as both the Soncino and Vilna printings.

18. All other manuscripts read here “For Rav Yehudah …” ('דאמר רב וכו).

19. MS Paris has the word רשות prior to the presentation of the tannaitic debate, which I assume is a mistake.

20. Although the entirety of Shmuel's memra is in Hebrew, in MS Oxford, the word “and the law” is rendered in Aramaic ('והלכת).

21. MS Oxford again uses the Aramaic word 'הלכת; in this case, the Soncino printing follows suit (והלכתא).

22. Following MS Florence as the base text. In the Vilna printing, from the words “and the law follows” until the end here is missing, with a debate of Abbaye and Rava in its stead. See below.

23. Indeed, if we assume that the lack of any introductory statement to the story in the Yerushalmi indicates that the story is being presented as continuous with the debate introduced by R. Yaakov b. Aḥa with the term “It was taught there,” as I think reasonable, then this suggests that the story as well as the legal statement was perceived in amoraic Palestine as having Babylonian origins. This may have implications for treatments of the redactional development of the story in the two Talmuds (e.g., Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamliel II”; Shapira, “Hadaḥat Rabban Gamliel;” Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, 77–90, esp. 80), suggesting that though the Bavli's version reveals distinctive Babylonian editing, it nonetheless built on a Babylonian core rather than a Palestinian one (i.e., the Palestinian version preserves facets of an earlier Babylonian version that our received Bavli text was building on). This may also be buttressed by the fact that the story as it appears in B. Berakhot clearly builds on and references the simpler, but quite similar story at B. Bekhorot 36a. (I am thankful to anonymous reviewer 2 for the journal for suggesting this point.) In other words, the debate between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the evening prayer could have been constructed out of the material at B. Bekhorot 36a in order to serve Babylonian interests regarding the regularity of daily prayer. But see Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamliel II,” 180, where he points to linguistic and cultural traits that suggest a Palestinian provenance for the story. If indeed the source of this tannaitic debate about the evening prayer was Babylonia, then those traits likely reflect editing of earlier sources in both Talmuds, as well as what Goldenberg rightly calls the “composite” nature of both the Palestinian and Babylonian versions (ibid., 188).

24. Moscovitz, Leib, Ha-terminlogiyah shel ha-yerushalmi: Ha-munaḥim ha-‘ikariyim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), 601Google Scholar. So too Albeck, Chanoch, Meḥkarim bi-vraita ve-tosefta ve-yaḥasan la-talmud (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1934), 86–87Google Scholar; Louis Ginzberg, Perushim, 3:169; Epstein, Y. N., Mavo’ le-nusaḥ ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 2:891–97Google Scholar; and Elman, Yaakov, “Babylonian Baraitot in the Tosefta and the ‘Dialectology’ of Middle Hebrew,” AJS Review 16 (1991): 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Moscovitz goes on to dismiss compellingly the possibility that “there” in this term refers to a literary, rather than a geographical, context (Ha-terminologiyah, 601 n. 229).

25. Moscovitz, Ha-terminologiyah, 601 n. 227.

26. For example, Y. Niddah 1:1 (48d). See Epstein, Mavo’, 891, who argues that this is typical, i.e., that the phrase generally appears in the mouths of Palestinian Amoraim with Babylonian origins or connections, though see also Ginzberg, Perushim, 3:168–69, who claims that though R. Yaakov b. Aḥa must have spent some time in Babylonia, he is fundamentally Palestinian in his origins and training.

27. A good start already appears in the work of Albeck, Meḥkarim, 86–87, and Moscovitz, Ha-terminologiyah, 602 n. 233, both of whom point to examples of baraitot introduced by the phrase with parallels in Tosefta and tannaitic midrash, a finding that supports Cohen's general argument.

28. See also Y. N. Epstein, Mavo’.

29. Cohen, Barak, “In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions: The Case of Tanna D'Bei Shmuel,” AJS Review 33, no. 2 (2009): 271–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, , The Legal Methodology of Late Nehardean Sages in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 33–35, 99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, , “In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions II: The Case of Avuha de-Shmuel,” Journal of Jewish Studies 66, no. 1 (2015): 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, , “‘Amoraic Baraitot’ Reconsidered: The Case of Tannei Tanna Kameh,” AJS Review 39, no. 1 (2015): 93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. I see no serious reason to consider the possibility that the words והכלה כדברי האומר רשות are an anonymous interpolation, both because of the consistent use of Hebrew here, as well as the juxtaposition with a lenient ruling attributed to Rav, also in Hebrew.

31. Indeed, Seder Rav Amram Gaon (seder shabbatot) has “Rava” in place of “Rav” in its first occurrence of that name.

32. Rif, Berakhot 19a. This reading of the Rif is found already in R. Yosef Karo's Kesef mishneh commentary (hilkhot tefillah 1:6) and R. Avraham Ḥiyya de Boton's Leḥem mishneh (hilkhot tefillah 3:7). It also seems to be assumed in the comments of the Sefer ha-me'orot (Berakhot 27b, s.v. tefillat), who argues against a position of the Rif by suggesting that Rav held the position that the evening prayer was obligatory—a suggestion that would be impossible if he had the version found in the manuscripts. See also the careful reading of these sources in R. Ovadia Yosef's Responsa yabbia ’omer, ’Oraḥ ḥayim 6.18, where he points out that though the anonymous Babylonian editors are bothered by the perceived contradiction between two positions of Rav regarding Ma‘ariv at B. Yoma 87b, they ignore a similar contradiction at B. Berakhot 30b (the memra of Rav discussed above regarding the insertion for Rosh Ḥodesh; as noted there, the medieval commentators, unlike the Babylonian editors there, point out the contradiction). I would suggest that the different treatments in B. Yoma and B. Berkahot might reflect different traditions regarding whether the amoraic debate features Rav and Shmuel or Rava and Abbaye. For another medieval commentary that may agree with the Rif and the Vilna printing, see Hilkhot ha-Rosh 4:7, though note that the text cited in Tosafot ha-Rosh agrees with the manuscripts, and the logic used there (“the law follows Rav in ritual law,” which the Rosh attributes in this case to Rabbenu Ḥananel) makes clear that this is not subject to manuscript variants in the text of the Rosh itself. For commentators who have a reading in line with the manuscripts, see Halakhot gedolot, hilkhot tefillah, chap. 4; Responsa Rav Natronai, ’Oraḥ ḥayim, 72; Seder Rav Amram Gaon, seder shabbatot; Rashbam, Berakhot 27b; and Piske ha-Rid 27b.

33. At Y. Ta‘anit 4:1 (67d) the name appears as חיננא.

34. אמ' רבי חנינא אתיין אילין פלגוותא כאינון פלגוותא מאן דמר חובה אין נעילה פוטרת של ערב ומאן דמר רשות נעילה פוטר' של ערב.

35. See Tosafot, Yoma 86b, s.v. ve-ha-'amar, who, based on this contradiction in the Bavli, must explain “optional” to mean “less mandatory.” Though this does not appear to be the straightforward sense of the anonymous voice of the Bavli, it may well explain R. Ḥanina here.

36. I would note that Rabbi Ḥanina does not in fact identify the view with Rav by name, and perhaps he is referring to a tradition that predates Rav and only later came to be associated with his name. Nonetheless, I agree that a later Rabbi Ḥanina is more likely here than not, since the earlier Rabbi Ḥanina would not be commenting on a tradition transmitted by the third-generation figure Rabbi Yaakov b. Aḥa.

37. This explanation of course works only according to a version of the sugya as found in the manuscripts and most of the Rishonim.

38. By “making use of” I mean referring to the debate as something already known in order to explain or challenge some other set of ideas. This is distinct from what R. Yaakov b. Aḥa and Shmuel do in their respective Talmuds, i.e., presenting the debate as “new” information.

39. The Rashba cites this view as belonging to Rav. Either way, this is almost certainly the more common Rabbi Ḥanina b. Ḥama, since here it seems to be referring to the contemporary of Rav. Still, the similarity of names is intriguing; I have tried, to no avail, to derive some significance from it.

40. MSS Oxford 23, Vatican 127, Munich 95, Oxford - Bodl. heb. c. 17 (2661) 46–53, Oxford - Bodl. heb. d. 45 (2674) 24–31, Toronto 9-002: זעירי. The same attribution appears in the commentary of Rav Nissim Gaon, the Rif, the Rosh, and the Rid. See here Halivni, , Mekorot u-mesorot: Be'urim ba-talmud (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary Press, 1982), 4:22 n. 3Google Scholar.

41. MS Oxford Bodl. d. 45: the phrase ולמאן דאמר חובה מטרחינן ליה is entirely absent.

42. I am omitting here the two possible resolutions that the anonymous voice offers in response to this attack.

43. MS Oxford Bodl. c. 17 has here כריהותא in place of טריחותא.

44. MSS Oxford Bodl. d. 45 and Cambridge T-S NS 329.887 have אטו חגרו גרים (with slight morphological differences in Cambridge) in place of the entire phrase טריחותא למיסר המייניה.

45. For a source-critical analysis of the passage, see Herman, Geoffrey, “Like a Slave before His Master,” Aram: Zoroastrianism in the Levant and the Amorites 26, nos. 1–2 (2014): 95–96Google Scholar.

46. These statements are also similar to the ruling in the Yerushalmi, discussed above, that one need not get out of bed to recite the evening prayer, the difference being that these passages in the Bavli reference the distinctively Babylonian(/Zoroastrian) practice of wearing a belt. On the significance of belts for the Zoroastrian culture in which the Bavli was produced, as well as the concomitant importance in the Bavli, see Shaked, Shaul, “‘No Talking during a Meal’: Zoroastrian Themes in the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. Bakhos, Carol and Shayegan, M. Rahim (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 165–71Google Scholar, and Mokhtarian, Jason, Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), 55–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. See Halivni, Mekorot u-mesorot, 4:24, who suggested effectively the opposite, i.e., that the words “these Babylonian colleagues” were a later addition to Ze‘iri's preexisting statement. Halivni argued thus, however, because at that point in his project, he assumed that Ze‘iri's claim was based on the preceding anonymous resolution attributing Rabbi Ḥanina's limitation about belts to Babylonians. (In the same passage Halivni then backs off of this suggestion, because at that point he thought that an anonymous passage of the “they do not disagree” sort could indeed be quite early.) It seems far more likely to me, however, that the anonymous resolution of Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina's interpretations of the mishnah in fact derives from Ze‘iri's statement itself, with its distinctly Babylonian flavor and its explicit limitation to “Babylonian colleagues.” See the commentary Sefat ’emet here, which asks the good question (to which it offers an unsurprisingly convoluted answer) why no one makes the parallel derivation from Rav's statement that once someone has washed prior to eating, such a person is exempt from Ma‘ariv according to R. Yehoshua! My answer is simple—the development went in the other direction, i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina was derived from Ze‘iri, rather than the other way around.

48. In MS Paris 671, the latter phrase appears with a slight modification (“what is different here that it teaches ‘anyone who transgresses the words of the sages’”), but perhaps more important, these words have been marked in the manuscript for deletion.

49. The phrase is missing in MS Paris 671 and has been added in the margin.

50. MS New York - JTS Rab. 218 (EMC 270) has here: “[Rav is] in accordance with the view of the one who says it is an additional prayer.…”

51. MS Munich 6 has here: “What is its purpose?” (למה לי), which in context is simply a different formulation of the same idea. No such phrase appears in MSS JTS 218, Oxford 23, and Munich 95.

52. MS Oxford 23 has “Rav Papa” in lieu of “Rav.”

53. By contrast, see Cohen's rejection of the possibility that the “halakhic traditions found in baraitot ascribed to Shmuel in the two Talmuds (Tanna D'Bei Shmuel, Tannei Shmuel, or Matnita DeShmuel) … reflect a Babylonian tradition that originated in the pretalmudic period, or even a Babyonian tradition from a later period.” Cohen, “In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions,” 139–41, emphasis added.

54. Though note that the anonymous voice at B. Berakhot 4b, by invoking the debate to explain the hyperbolic language of a baraita, implies that the author of that allegedly tannaitic text wrote as he did precisely to reject Rabbi Yehoshua's leniency. Still, the Babylonian trend is clear.

55. Boyce, Mary, The Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 2001), 32–33Google Scholar. Boyce does note that the pre-Zoroastrian pagan Iranian prayer practice seems to have been thrice-daily prayer. Perhaps Zoroastrian distaste for this earlier practice would have encouraged Babylonian rabbis to jettison their own thrice-daily prayer system, but this is wildly speculative.

56. Indeed, some have seen this as a Christian replacement for earlier Jewish forms of prayer; see Meeks, Wayne A., “Social and Ecclesial Life of the Earliest Christians,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1, Origins to Constantine, ed. Mitchell, Margaret M. and Young, Frances M. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 168Google Scholar.

57. “At least,” because Ps 119:164 refers to praise seven times a day, leading to the Christian tradition mentioned in the previous paragraph. See Gribetz, Sarit Kattan, “The Shema in the Second Temple Period: A Reconsideration,” Journal for Ancient Judaism 6, no. 1 (2015): 77 n. 64Google Scholar.

58. For a recent consideration of the antiquity (or not) of this practice, see Kattan Gribetz, “Shema in the Second Temple Period.”

59. Though one could also say the same about the contextual meaning of Deuteronomy 6:7. On this point, see Kattan Gribetz, “Shema in the Second Temple Period,” 76.

60. Note that many commentaries posit a connection between the verse in Daniel and that in Psalms; see, for example, the commentary of Hartman, Louis F., The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 199Google Scholar.

61. Weitzman, Michael, “From Judaism to Christianity: The Syriac Version of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Jews among the Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire, ed. Lieu, Judith, North, John, and Rajak, Tessa (London: Routledge, 1992), 166Google Scholar.

62. Ginzberg also suggested this connection between a twice-daily prayer regimen and temple associations, writing that “it is possible that those sages who were opposed to the establishment of an obligatory evening prayer were concerned lest this result in a forgetting of the commemoration of the cult from the heart of those praying … were they to pray three obligatory prayers, this would weaken the connection between ‘the service of the temple’ and the ‘service of the heart’” (Perushim, 3:171). This association is even stronger if one accepts Kattan Gribetz's suggestion that the adoption of the Shema as a standard daily liturgical practice was in fact a rabbinic expansion of a temple-based practice (“Shema in the Second Temple Period”).

63. Y. Berakhot 4:1 (7a); B. Berakhot 31a. Sarason, Richard, “The ‘Intersections’ of Qumran and Rabbinic Judaism: The Case of Prayer Texts and Liturgies,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8, no. 2 (2001): 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quite reasonably suggests another possibility (alongside a suggestion similar to Weitzman's, i.e., “an earlier custom”): that the thrice-repeated prayer results from “a conflation of two twice-a-day liturgies, the diurnal cycle and sacrificial cycle.” Though these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive—both factors could have contributed to the tannaitic prayer system—the rabbinic testimony that the biblical tradition of thrice-daily prayer was a factor in their own conception of their prayer practice surely should have some significant weight in this conversation.

64. 1QS IX, 26–X, 3; 4Q503; and Jubilees 6:14, a text the significance of which to the Qumran community is well known.

65. Weitzman, “From Judaism to Christianity,” 166.

66. Pace Richard Sarason, who points to the timing of prayer in Qumran texts—morning and nighttime, rather than the late afternoon/dusk mandated by Numbers 28:4, 8—as indicative of Qumranic concern specifically for “the diurnal cycle of the sun, i.e., to the cosmic calendar” rather than “the times of sacrifices in the (fatally tainted) Jerusalem Temple” (“‘Intersections’ of Qumran and Rabbinic Judaism,” 179). First, note that the difference between sunset and the biblical בין הערבים is not that great (the difference between “afternoon” in Numbers 28 and the rabbinic standards for the afternoon prayer perhaps creating some confusion here). More important, see, for example, the language in 1QS IX, 4–5, “the offering of the lips in compliance with the decree will be like the pleasant aroma of justice [ותרומת שפתים למשפט כניחוח צדק] and the perfectness of behaviour will be acceptable like a freewill offering” (Martínez, Florentino García and Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., eds. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1:91)Google Scholar, which appears shortly before the injunction in that work to pray morning and nighttime. Clearly, the prayer-sacrifice connection was significant in this community, and their disdain for the real-life practices of the contemporary temple did not diminish this value for them.

67. I have already cited Kattan Gribetz's suggestion that the very practice of twice-daily recitation of Shema reflects tannaitic interest in the temple; on the importance of temple discourse in the very self-construction of the rabbis, see Cohn, Naftali S., The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012)Google Scholar. Such an explanation also coheres well with the continued Babylonian engagement with Seder Kodashim, despite their both chronological and geographical distance from the temple. Still, a uniquely Babylonian interest in the temple cult is a difficult case to make as an explanation for the Babylonian-Palestinian divide with regard to Ma‘ariv, given the clear interest of Palestinian rabbis in the temple and cultic ritual. Note also that Yaakov Sussman has argued that the absence of a Yerushalmi on Seder Kodashim does not seem to suggest that Palestinian Amoraim treated that material differently from those orders on which we do have extant tractates of Palestinian Talmud (“Sugiyot bavliyot li-sedarim zera‘im ve-tohorot” [PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1969]), such that even that datum does not likely indicate a different stance towards temple antiquarianism between Babylonians and Palestinians.

68. Perushim, 3:170.