JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ferences are by and large localized, and derive from redactional
considerations. In other words, there is no justification
for the assumption that the differences in these baraitot are
ancient, nor that they preserve independent traditions which
originated in the tannaitic period. The opposite is the case.
They do not present alternative traditions, but rather redactional
parallels” (Tosefta Atiqta, 78). This position has been
substantially confirmed in numerous case studies, carried out
both by Friedman and by his students, which have examined
in detail the development of individual traditions, tracing
the various steps through which original tannaitic traditions
passed on the way to their final and often significantly different
form as baraitot in the Babylonian Talmud sources.
This of course does not mean that the phenomenon of
ancient independent traditions is not to be found in many individual
cases. But it does mean that this phenomenon is not
the only legitimate explanation for the existence parallel tannaitic
texts, as Albeck would have us believe. As a result, we
may have to reexamine the assertion, put forward by a number
of scholars of the last century, that many alternative collections
of tannaitic baraitot circulated in later talmudic times, since
much of the evidence for this assertion is valid only if one accepts
Albeck’s views regarding this issue. Friedman’s approach
also has consequences for the historian, who may no longer
use talmudic baraitot as direct and independent historical evidence
for the state of rabbinic law and lore as they existed in
second century Palestine, without first examining the redactional
history of the tradition included in the baraita.
The Development of the Terms Baraita and Tosefet
The baraita, both as a literary and as a legal phenomenon, provided
the foundation for the development of amoraic halakhic
literature, from the very earliest literary levels of the Palestinian
and Babylonian Talmudim to the very end of the amoraic
period. At the same time, it is striking that the term itself only
appears in the Babylonian Talmud, the sole exception being
the case of the Jerusalem Talmud, Nid. 3:3, 50d. Even in the
Babylonian Talmud, it is found almost exclusively in the words
of Babylonian amoraim from the fourth generation onwards,
as pointed out by Neil Danzig. Danzig suggested that the use of
the term baraita, meaning “external mishnah,” as opposed to
the more neutral term matnita, meaning “mishnah,” reflected
the growing establishment of the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah ha-
Nasi as the central and uniquely authoritative source of tannaitic
halakhah in the later Babylonian academies, after an
extended transitional period in which the various collections
of tannaitic halakhah were accepted on a more equal basis. It
remains questionable whether this transitional period, documented
by J.N. Epstein (Mavo le-Nusaḥ ha-Mishnah, 166–352),
extended to the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim.
Moreover, the distinction between mishnah and baraita in the
Babylonian Talmud is as often literary as legal, emphasizing
the simple fact that a given tradition is part of the Mishnah
of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi – and so provides the literary foundation
for a talmudic sugya – whereas some other tradition
baraita, baraitot
is not part of this foundational literary work. It would seem
that the acceptance of the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi
as a unique literary document for the purpose of study preceded
its acceptance as a unique legal source of authoritative
halakhah by several generations.
Moreover, there may be a connection between the use
of the term baraita in later Babylonian rabbinic literature and
the use of the term tosefet (“addition”) in earlier Palestinian
rabbinic literature. In a number of places, tannaitic sources
provide summaries of different categories of traditional study.
Mishnah Nedarim (4:3), for example, mentions instruction
in mikra (Bible) alongside instruction in midrash, halakhot,
and aggadot. In another passage, Tosefta Berakhot (2:12) lists
the same four categories of traditional study under two headings:
the first category – mikra – is connected to the verb likro
(= “to read”), while the other three (midrash, halakhot, and
aggadot) are grouped together under the heading mishnah
and connected to the verb lishnot (= “to recite”). In Palestinian
rabbinic sources of the amoraic period (e. g. TJ, Hor. 3 5,
48c; Gen. R. 15, p. 147; Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 27, p. 405; cf.
Ex R. 10, p. 225) we find similar lists, with the difference that
the terms tosefet, tosefot have been added to the familiar list of
tannaitic terms, mikra, midrash, halakhot, and aggadot. What
is the significance of the inclusion of the term tosefet here, and
how does it relate to the term halakhot, which was already a
member of the original tannaitic list?
An answer to this question, as well as a possible connection
to our term baraita, can be found in a midrash, which
interprets the words of the Song of Songs (6:8): “There are
sixty queens … and there is no end to [the number of] handmaidens.”
The version found in Song of Songs Rabbah (6 [9]:2)
interprets the phrase “sixty queens” as a reference to the “sixty
tractates of halakhot.” It then interprets the second phrase,
saying: “there is no end to handmaidens – there is no end
to tosefot.” When this tradition was restated in later midrashic
collections (Num. R. 18:17, Tanḥuma Koraḥ 12), the first interpretation
was abbreviated to “sixty tractates” (an obvious
reference to the sixty tractates of the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah
ha-Nasi); and the second interpretation was reformulated
in the following words: “And there is no end to handmaidens –
mishnah ḥiẓonah.” As mentioned above, mishnah ḥiẓonah
is the Hebrew translation of matnita baraita, and was one
of standard ways of referring to baraitot in the early posttalmudic
period (the period to which these late midrashic
collections belong). It would seem therefore that the Palestinian
term halakhot refers to the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah ha-
Nasi, while the term tosefot (“additions”) refers to that
body of supplementary tannaitic halakhot, which is commonly
referred to in the Babylonian Talmud by the term
baraitot.
One additional factor may also have influenced the use
of the term baraita in the Babylonian Talmud in place of the
earlier Palestinian term tosefet. At some point in the development
of the Babylonian talmudic tradition, the term tosefet
– or more precisely its Aramaic equivalent tosefta – came
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 127