* For this ‘higher criticism’ of the Mishna, see Dr. Lewy, ‘Uber einige Fragmente aus der M. des Abba Saul’ in Zweiter Bericht iiber die Hochschule fiir die W.d. J. in Berlin, 1876, and Dr. D. Hoffmann, Die erste Mischna (Berlin, 1882).
62 TALMUD
of the public property. This commences nzv'7 ninyy (M. Shabbath i. 1), instead of ‘vin mysia, through which the Scripture expression xy: sy (Ex 16!9) is still visible, and thus points to a time when the Hdlakha@ was still in its early stage, forming a sort of paraphrase of Scripture, not a set of abstract laws. As an instance of the latter, it is sufficient to refer here to the historical description of the procession in which the sacrifice of the first-fruits was brought to the temple (Ex. 23%), concerning which we read in M. Bikivirim iii. 4: ‘The pipe was playing before them (the pilgrims) until they arrived at the temple mountain, when even Agrippa the king would take the basket (containing the first-fruits) on his shoulders, stepping forward’ till he reached the courts; then the Levites spoke in song (chanted), ‘I will extol thee, O Lord, for thou hast lifted me up”’ (Ps 302). The mention of Agrippa (probably Agrippa 1., c. 40) points to a contemporary document, since a Rabbi of a later period would, for the sake of emphasis, have named some biblical potentate (¢.g. Solomon), not a mere Herodian prince.* This is only a specimen of many other portions of the Mishna, which contain lengthy descriptions of the sacrificial service on certain occasions, or give accounts of the archi- tecture of the temple, its administration (including lists of the names of the higher officials), and its economy ; whilst others furnish us with records of actual transactions of the Sanhedrin, the procedure of the courts, and the various methods of execution. All these bear the stamp of their own age, and testify to the early date of their composition.
The question whether R. Jehuda, besides com- piling, actually wrote down the Mishna, is still a controverted point amongst modern scholars, as it was nearly a thousand years ago between the Franco-German and the Spanish authorities, The balance of evidence is still about equal on each side. Three things, however, seem to be certain. First, there existed a law or custom, dating from ancient times, prohibiting the writing down of the contents of Tradition, though the Scripture support for this custom (Bab. Talm. Témira 14b and parallel passages) was not ad- vanced till a comparatively late period (end of the 2nd cent.). Ample evidence of this fact is afforded by the traditional term, ‘ Torah by mouth,’ as well as the various mnemotechnical aids to be found in the Mishna (¢.g. Megilla i. 4-11, yajps) and the homage paid to those who invented them (see Jerus. Shekalim 48c, regarding the grouping of Hdlakhéth in numbers, and Aboth d’ R. Nathan 18, respecting R. ‘Akiba’s arranging of the Torah in links). Second, the prohibition did not extend to books of a Haggadic character (xp7297 79°D), of Which we know that they both circulated among, and were read by, the Rabbis. Under Haggadd was included also the gnomic literature—as, for instance, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, which both the Tannaim and the’Amoraim, as well as the authorities of a later period, the Geonim (e.g. R. Saadya), knew in the Hebrew original, and were constantly quoting, and of which fragments covering nearly two-thirds of the book have now been found after a disappear- ance of nearly 700 years. Third, the prohibition was often disregarded, even in cases of Hilakha, as in the case of the Mégillath Ta anith (3y.8 nb»), containing a list of certain days in the year on which no fast could be declared, or the Mégillath Sammanin (yy29 n>), ‘the Roll of Spices,’ treat- ing of the preparation of the incense (Ex 30348) in the tabernacle and the temple (Jerus. Shékalim 49a).
Owing to the great authority of R. Jehuda the
*See Hoffmann, J.c. p. 15; but cf. also A. Biichler, Die
Priester und der Cultus in den letzten Jahrzehnten des Jeru- salemischen Tempels (Wien, 1895), p. 10.
TALMUD
Patriarch, his compilation became the Mishna car’ — éfoxjv, a sort of canonical collection of the teach- ings of the Tannaim, forming the text-book of the students of the Oral Law, round which centred all the comments, discussions, and the additional matter produced by the succeeding generations. The other collections, likewise confined to the teachings of the Zannaim, but composed in schools not presided over by the Patriarch, pass under the name either of aiwnn awn Mishna Hahizdna (more frequently the Aram. xn2 Baraitha), ‘the ex- ternal Mishna,’ or Tésephta (spapin), ‘addition’ (to the Mishna). No treatise representing the ‘external Mishna’ has come down to us, but many hundreds of quotations from such external Mishnas are seattered over the two Talmuds, mostly introduced by such phrases as 7327 isn (‘our Masters taught’), or N138 (‘1b is taught’), or xin and °3m (‘he taught’). But we possess a work, bearing the name Tésephta, corresponding with the arrangement of the Mishna, and dealing with the same subjects. It shows marks of different ages; and, whilst it embodies portions coming from collections preceding our Mishna, it presupposes the knowledge of the latter, - whilst in some places it even affords comments and explanations taken from the Gemara and recast in the New Hebrew style of the Mishna. It is thus safe to assume that the date of its final redaction falls in the later age of the ’Amoraim, though its composition may have been initiated by R. Hiya and R. Hoshaya the disciples of R. Jehuda, to whom tradition attributes such a work undertaken in imitation of the Tésephta of R. Nehemia, who is credited with having collected ‘additions’ to the Mishna of R. ‘Akiba. To this class of works also belong the so-called Minor Tractates bearing the following titles :—Aboth a’ Lf. Nathan (13 ‘7 nay), a sort of Tésephta and Midrash to the tractate ’Abdth, existing in two recensions ;* Massekheth Séphérim (a720 nod), ‘Scribes,’ dealing with the laws relating to the writing of the Scriptures. The text is in a bad condition, the interpolations and additions (on the Jewish liturgy, etc.) almost obliterating the original plan of the work, and it should be studied in con- nexion with the tractates Sepher Térad, Méziza (laws relating to the writing of certain verses from the Scriptures and to fixing them on the door- posts, see Dt 6°), and Téphiliin (Phylacteries), edited by Kirchheim ; Massekheth Sémahéth (n2@D ninoy ‘ Joys’), a euphemistic title for laws and ecus- toms connected with mourning—of which we have also a shorter recension ed. by C. M. Horwitz under the title ‘ny ninsy nape (‘Tractate J oys, the Minor’) ; Massekheth Kalla (n>2 n2p> ‘ Bride’), laws ot chastity to be observed in conjugal life; Mase- kheth Derekh ’Erez (yay 371 n20), ‘ Manners’ and behaviour of the different classes of society on various occasions. The tractate exists in two recensions, a longer (732) and a shorter one (Non). The latter, dealing almost exclusively with the rules of life prescribed for the ‘disciples of the wise,’ is of a very spiritual nature. Lastly, we have to note here the other tractates ed. by Kirchheim, including, besides those mentioned above, the tractates dealing with the laws re- lating to Ztzith (myy), ‘Fringes’ (Nu 15°8); “4 badim (o2y), ‘Slaves’; Athim (oma), ‘Samaritans’ ; and Gérim (a3), ‘ Proselytes.’