Skip to navigation | Skip to main content | Skip to footer
Search by multiple inventory points or book comparison
Full Inventory point list:
 
45 books found
 
     
Palestinian Talmud Makkot (Researcher: Alexander Samely):
Selected Inventory point(s):
1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): see 1.1.5 for a possible implicit self-reference in the main body of the text, albeit in boundaries that are precisely NOT those of the current Tractate Makkot, but to a unity Sanhedrin-Makkot.]

Full profile (Bibliography at the bottom):
1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): see 1.1.5 for a possible implicit self-reference in the main body of the text, albeit in boundaries that are precisely NOT those of the current Tractate Makkot, but to a unity Sanhedrin-Makkot.]

1.1.3 [The text uses expressions for characterizing itself as a bounded entity: see the expression "whole" (kol) in the passage quoted in 1.1/1.1.5.]

1.1.5 Important text witnesses attest to a heading which is not integrated with the body of the text or with any introductory frame, implying one or more of the kinds of information under 1.1.1–4: Ms. Leiden (fol. 253 v) and prints Venice and Constantinople have "massekhet makkot" at the beginning. Scribal closing formulae with mention of the "Tractate of Makkot" are found in ms. Leiden (after the Mishnah Makkot of chapter 3 is presented, together with the remark "I did not find Yerushalmi Gemara for this chapter") and similar in the Venice editio princeps. There is mention of "Sanhedrin" as the name of a text in the phrase "we learn here something that we have not learned in the whole of Sanhedrin, (namely): ...". This may be a self-reference to the text's own name, if Makkot-Sanhedrin are both treated under the name "Sanhedrin". In yMak 1:14 [8] 31b17 the term "Sanhedrin" is used to refer to a Mishnaic Tractate, probably not in contrast to the current Mishnaic base text ("Makkot"), but as including that base text ("Sanhedrin" meaning Sanhedrin-Makkot). From this one might infer, although this is not obvious, that the text also implies a self-reference here (namely as something like the "commentary on Sanhedrin(-Makkot)"). In bShevu 2b–3a the beginning of mShevu is said to follow on immediately from Makkot (thus not from "Sanhedrin").

1.4 [The text signals its parts or boundaries only by implicit contrast or by some other implicit signal (1.1./2 do not apply): It is possible that the final Gemara unit to 2:15 [8] which speaks of "life" as the purpose of the cities of refuge, is meant to produce an effect of positive closure, although it is still halakhic in nature. However, given the unclear overall contour of the Tractate (see 1.7) that is highly speculative. In ms. Wieder 135.11-24 (see Wewers, pp. 43, 53) there follows directly after this a unit responding to mMak 3:19 [16], that is the regular end (and 1.4 closure) of the Mishnah Tractate, by speaking about God as the "place" of the world; this is definitely a "closure" unit, although it has no other presence in the transmission of yMak.]

1.4.3 [A lemmatic commentary which otherwise exhibits gaps in its coverage of the base text begins and ends by treating the first and last segment of that base text: this applies, with respect to the final segment of mMak, to ms. fragment Wieder only, see 1.4.]

1.5 The text presents a certain homogeneousness of form and/or contents, without claiming or projecting boundedness, and without being unified by a poetic or rhetorical form (i.e. 1.1, 1.2. and form-bounding points under 3 do not apply): However, see 1.7.

1.5.1 There is a limited inventory of small forms which recur in a linear juxtaposition of units (e.g. 5.8).

1.5.3 The themes which are verbalized together within the text are projected as interrelated objectively, albeit not in their textual sequence: the themes covered are in most cases close or relatively easy to connect with the topics of mMak 1–2.

1.6 The approximate word count or other indication of comparative size is: 4,150 words without the Mishnah text of chapter 3, for which there is no Yerushalmi Gemara (a difference of about 900 words). Word count obtained by pasting the text from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r45.htm into a Word document and using word count. (Accessed 11 June 2011).

1.7 The text’s Inventory profile should be seen in the light of the following further information on completeness, thematic progression, aesthetic effects, etc.: There is Gemara only for two of the three Mishnaic chapters (represented as such, see 9.12); see further 6.12. The text reconstructed by Lieberman for Gemara chapter 3 is not included in this Profile. Although it is possible to interpret one passage (see 1.1 and 1.1.5) as referring to this text as "Sanhedrin", thus presumably indicating that the Tractate usually called "Sanhedrin" in later times was taken to include the current text (so that its boundaries are unified Sanhedrin-Makkot boundaries), this is not how the transmission evidence presents it (see 1.1.5); on the evidence of Sanhedrin-Makkot, see Epstein, Mavo, passim and pp. 983 ff.). In the Zhitomir edition of the Yerushalmi, Makkot does not even follow immediately after Sanhedrin, but is separated from Tractate Sanhedrin by Tractates Shevuot and Avodah Zarah. There are a number of phenomena which, taken each on its own, would not undermine the text presenting itself as a continuity and unity (namely, one of "aggregation"), and these are explained under 6.12 and 9.5. However, the "petering out" of clear lemmatic re-quotations, together with the explicit quotation of a "lemmatic" Mishnaic sentence as if it were from elsewhere (in yMak 2:15 [8]), points in the direction of lack of self-presentation as one "whole". Taken together with the other points mentioned under 6.12 and 9.5 (including meaning inconsistencies or text corruptions arising precisely at those few points where an extended coordination of statements attributed to rabbis is presented), and the lack or fragmentary nature of Gemara for the third Mishnah chapter, there are formal discontinuities in the text which undermine its self-presentation as a "commentary" of the 6.1-6.2 type (so that 1.5.2, for example, does not apply - a rare occurrence for rabbinic works). Speaking diachronically, the text feels like a Tractate "under construction". NB I do not consider the many unacknowledged overlaps with other Yerushalmi Tractates as a sign of the lacking self-presentation of the text of yMak as a text - those overlaps do affect the self-presentation of the Yerushalmi as a whole (see the Profile of that work only).

Top of the Page

2.1 The information conveyed in the text defines the perspective of the governing voice in the following way:

2.1.1.2 The text is not narrative but the governing voice refers to utterances on the basis of unexplained knowledge of speech events of diverse periods and places.

2.1.2 The governing voice thematizes how it comes to know the text’s contents or its right to command obedience from the text’s addressee. Its perspective is presented as limited, referring either to evidence, or to personal experience (mere human knowledge): the perspective is that of someone who routinely (but not necessarily) cites reasons, warrants or other voices for the statements made (except for those statements which are speech reports of the format "R. X said". See 2.1.1.2).

2.1.2.1 The governing voice presents or discusses norms whose commanding force is unlimited, but speaks from a perspective clearly distinguished from that of the ultimate law-giver.

2.1.7 The governing voice (whether first or third person) is anonymous, that is, is not presented as tied to a specific personal identity (or to personhood in general).

2.1.8 The governing voice speaks at no point in the first person (except for any 2.2.4.3) and all persons/objects are mentioned from a third-person perspective.

2.2.4.3 The first person is used but represents a generic “I” (“we”) of discourse and discussion, not the projection of a specific persona.

2.4 The governing voice defines a horizon of knowledge as shared with the projected addressee by taking for granted the following linguistic usages or references (in selection):

2.4.1 Persons or unique objects referred to by proper name or by technical expression: a list of five items missing from the second Temple includes the (altar) fire, ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil and holy spirit (yMak 2:7 [4] 32a8–9).

2.4.1.1 for persons mentioned or presented in narrative usage; as characters; or topics, for example: This only happens after yMak 2:7 [4] when biblical figures start to be mentioned, starting with Moses, and subsequently including Joab, David, Solomon and others.

2.4.1.2 for persons quoted with direct speech in a non-narrative co-text, for example: speech reports with Rabbis' names are pervasive; the "Rabbis of Cesaraea" are mentioned as speakers yMak 2:7 [4] 31d63.

2.4.1.3 for Gods/mythical figures/supernatural beings, etc., for example: There appears to be no mention of God before yMak 2:7; then the expression the Holy One, Blessed be He (in Aramaic), is used in yMak 2:7 [4] 31d57 (with "they asked", after the same question also directed to "wisdom" and to "prophecy" (see Wewers, p. 35). The "holy spirit" is mentioned yMak 2:7 [4] 32a8–9.

2.4.1.4 for locations, for example: Lydda, Cesaraea and Sepphoris are mentioned as exemplary place names, e.g. yMak 1:6–7 [4–5] 31a58 f. In yMak 2:7 [4] 31d18–32 a whole range of place names in Palestine occur, including an account of their relative position and other geographical details, identifying the cities of refuge mentioned in the Mishnah, including "beyond the Jordan", Hebron, Betser, Yehudah (Judaea), Galil (Galilee), Gilead, Shechem, Efraim, Ramot, Gamlah, Qedesh, Golan, Beshan, Qiryat Ye'arim; also Shilo in a subsequent passage.

2.4.1.5 for times or calendar dates (specific to a language or culture), for example: Nisan is mentioned as exemplary time point in a hypothetical legal case (yMak 1:8 [6] 31a61); the institution of a Seventh year (release year) is taken for granted.

2.4.1.6 for documents, texts, books, etc. (identified through being referred to or quoted), for example: the identity of biblical texts is taken for granted by quoting biblical wording; there is mention of "Sanhedrin" as the name of a text in the phrase "we learn here something that we have not learned in the whole of Sanhedrin, (namely): ...". This may be a self-reference to the text's own name, if Makkot-Sanhedrin are both treated under the name "Sanhedrin", yMak 1:14 [8] 31b16. See 1.1. In yMak 2:7 [4] 32a11, the word "mekhlah" is used in the meaning of (halakhic) "Tractate" (see Jastrow, 773a; Wewers, p. 39 n. 117, in a parallel Aramaic passage to yShevi'it 10 end); it is uncertain whether this refers to a fixed text or to a thematic range (the verb is chakham).

2.4.3 The text as a whole routinely employs the following language(s), knowledge of which is taken for granted: Hebrew and Aramaic, with the latter most regularly used in the governing voice (stam) when it quotes other voices, but often amounting to small text quantities (e.g. a teney in front of a Hebrew sentence), and in other cases entirely absent, so that a substantive ruling in Hebrew is, by default, from the perspective of the governing voice (even though, from a diachronic point of view, it may be analysed as tacit quotation of an earlier tradition without attribution). There is though some Aramaic in quoted speech also, and overall Hebrew predominates.

2.4.4 Special linguistic usages occur pervasively or prominently:

2.4.4.1 Technical expressions for a particular subject matter: much specific halakhic information and terminology is presupposed.

2.4.4.2 Technical expressions for presenting disputes/dialectic exchanges: there is some limited occurrence of dialectical or rhetorical vocabulary, but some of that is in quoted speech (e.g. "see" in Aramaic in the voice of R. Yirmiah at yMak 1:14 [9] 31b11). See, however, the rhetorical "And you say this!?" (ותמר אכן) in yMak 2:7 [4] 31d59 and 32a5, in the governing voice. The term "mefaresh" is used in the governing voice in yMak 1:16 [10] 31b24–25 to indicate that a Rabbi names who the earlier parties to a disagreement were, when another Rabbi only presented the two parties, but not identified which of them took which position.

2.4.4.3 Technical expressions for the meta-linguistic presentation of another text (see 6.9.4): For the interpretation of biblical quotations, the terminology "kelal - yatsa'" occurs (yMak 1:1 31a8), "ketiv" and "mah talmud lomar"/"talmud lomar" (yMak 2:6 [3]), among others. There is one mention of defective spelling (linked to the numerical value of the missing letter, in yMak 2:7 [4] 32a8). The term "pasuq" occurs in quoted speech (yMak 1:15 [9] 31a17. There is also a number of quotation formulae for citing Mishnaic wording (from elsewhere than the lemmatic segment), including, e.g. we-ha' tenan, ms. Leiden/we-ha' teninan, ed. Venice) (yMak 1:5 [3] 31a31).

2.4.4.5 Other special linguistic usages: Loan words from the Greek or Latin are rare; examples include "ochlosin" yMak 2:7 [4] 31d33 and "demosiot" (31d48).

2.5 The text contains deictic or other expressions referring to the governing voice’s time or place, or place it after/before some key event:

2.5.1 as part of the words of the governing voice: a rabbi is reported to have sent a message to the "Rabbis of there/de-tamman", yMak 2:7 [4] 31d35. It is taken for granted that "there" means Babylonia, implying that the perspective of the governing voice is not that of Babylonia (Palestine).

2.5.2 as part of the words of a quoted character, but with probable implications also for the governing voice: the "first" and "last" Temple are mentioned in quoted speech in yMak 2:7 [4] 32a6 ff.; it is not unambiguous, however, that the "last" Temple is treated as belonging to the past also (not just the "first").

2.6 The text presents itself as speaking to certain persons, groups or entities, explicitly projecting a certain image of its addressee.

2.6.1 [The governing voice uses apostrophe, second-person grammatical forms or first-person exclusive or inclusive “we”: there are occurrences of a second person morphology in formulae of dialectical exchanges of argument, parallel to the first person 2.2.4.3; this involves also rhetorical questions directed at the "other voice" in the text, not at the implied addressee, as in yMak 2:15 [8] 32a23; see 9.5.]

2.7 The epistemic stance, knowledge horizon, moral stance and identity of the governing voice, and of the projected addressee, do not become thematic in the text.

Top of the Page

6.1 The text’s most basic thematic progression consists of alternations of (a) quotations from a base text in their original sequence, and (b) statements which comment on or add to the meaning of these quotations: the base text is Mishnah Makkot.

6.1.1 Most or many statements are dependent reformulations (paraphrases) of the quotations, or meta-linguistic observations on them: While it is true to say that many statements in yMak are properly described by this category, there is little explicit indication of hermeneutic dependency (even where that is obvious from the contents, e.g. yMak 1:1 31a18, Bar Pedaya) and perhaps most thematic units of yMak fall under 6.1.2 or 6.2.

6.1.2 Some or many statements are presented in such a manner that it is ambiguous whether they reformulate the perceived meaning of the quotation (as in 6.1.1), or supplement, replace or correct it (as in 6.2).

6.1.3 Quotation-comment units pervasively or prominently contain meta-linguistic expressions: this is quite rare, but occurs, albeit perhaps mostly in quoted speech; e.g. use of the verb patar (Nifal, תיפתר tippater) in quoted speech in yMak 1:8 [6] 31a72, yMak 2:3 [2] 31c51.

6.1.4 Quotation-comment units tend to be merely juxtaposed, while the units have internal cohesion and formal independence from each other.

6.1.6 The text also contains quotation-comment units which relate: (i) to texts other than the base text, and/or (ii) to the base text but not in its lemmatic sequence: (i) this goes in particular for biblical quotations; (ii) also applies.

6.1.6.1 Such units play a prominent part or make up the majority of quotation-statement units in the text.

6.2 Found alongside comment statements (6.1.1), a considerable proportion of quotation-attached statements are presented as hermeneutically independent from the quotation (non-comment statements).

6.2.1 Non-comment statements regularly or prominently attract their own hermeneutically dependent comment statements or dedicated discussion: this is not common; a clear example in yMak 1:5 [3] 31a42 (question-answer unit).

6.2.1.1 Such discussions of non-comment statements can effectively take the place of, or indirectly constitute, any otherwise lacking direct discussions of the quotations from the base text to which the non-comment statements are attached.

6.2.2 Non-comment statements can occur as multiples, and constitute extended stretches of text with their own order, homogeneousness or thematic clustering: this is restricted to producing what are still only stretches of thematic clustering on a small scale, but it does occur (e.g. yMak 1:6–7 [4–5] 31a56–64).

6.6 The extent of the base text segment is evident as follows:

6.6.2 There is no regular distance in the base text from the beginning of one quotation to the beginning of the next quotation: this is true to such an extent that a whole block of Gemara text can relate to a whole, rather large, block of Mishnah text; put differently, it is not clear to what extent, after the first quotation of the Mishnaic lemma (see yMak 2:7 31c37 ff., to which this applies in particular) specific information in the Gemara relates to specific passages within a large chunk of Mishnah.

6.6.3 The size of segments (as under 6.6.1/2) tends to be, or to include:

6.6.3.1 A sentence.

6.6.3.2 Less than a sentence.

6.6.3.3 More than a sentence.

6.6.4 The segments (as under 6.6.1./2) provide coverage of the base text as follows:

6.6.4.1 There is no complete coverage of the base text: In the Venice print and ms. Leiden, this is made explicit at one point, where Ms. Leiden re-quotes halakhot (e.g. mMak 1:2, 1:3, 1:4) to which no Gemara is attached directly, citing the opening words with "etc." and leaving vacats before and after. In other words, this layout indicates that the scribe/printer understood a complete coverage of the Mishnaic text (conventionally understood in terms of a complete coverage of each successive halakhah/mishnah) to be the "maximal" standard against which to indicate the actual coverage of the commentary. In the case of one of these Mishnah segments, the Gemara text quotes its words a little later explicitly by the formula "and we have learned" (we-ha' teninan), yMak 1:5 [3] 31a36. It appears that this way of quoting the mishnaic statement is compatible with an assumed relationship to a lemmatic segment as well as with the quotation of a Mishnaic segment "out of lemmatic sequence"; see e.g. "we-hada' hi' de-teninan" in yMak 1:6 31a51 quoting a piece of what must be taken to be part of the local lemmatic segment. At other points, however, where there are similar or larger "gaps" in terms of mishnayot, no indication of this kind is found, so that e.g. Gemara relating to mMak 1:8 [6] is continued with the lemmatic quotation and Gemara belonging to mMak 1:13 [8], 31b4–5.

6.6.4.1.1 Base text not covered is contiguous: while there are clear gaps in the coverage also in chapters 1 and 2, and these are not contiguous with each other, the whole of chapter 3 lacks Gemara treatment in the transmitted evidence (for a modern reconstruction, see Lieberman).

6.6.4.1.2 Base text not covered may have appeared less important or less problematical.

6.6.4.1.2.1 The text does not project complete lemmatic coverage as its overarching theme (6.2 or 6.6.2 apply, or there are many smaller “gaps” in the coverage, while 6.6.4.1.3 applies).

6.6.4.1.3 No manifest pattern accounts for the base text not covered.

6.6.6 The quoted base text segment may already have appeared earlier in the text, as part of a copy of a larger section (or the whole) of the base text found at the beginning of the relevant section of the commentary: in ms. Leiden and the Venice print the Mishnah chapter (ending with the formula "seliq pirqa'") precedes each Gemara section, within which selected pieces of Mishnah are re-quoted as lemmata (usually with ‘כל = "etc.").

6.8 Comment or non-comment statements are prominently or frequently presented as quotations of speech acts by individuals, groups or by anonymous speakers (without emplotment).

6.8.1 Quoted comment or non-comment statements regularly or prominently are themselves treated to explanations or supplementations.

6.8.2 Comment or non-comment statements are frequently or prominently presented as speech acts outside any connecting narrative framework, but in a manner that takes for granted a unified grid of unique places, times and persons.

6.8.2.1 This grid tacitly or explicitly links quoted characters to each other as commentators on the base text: e.g. when the governing voice reports that R. X "asked before" R. Y concerning a theme linked to the Mishnaic text.

6.8.2.2 This grid tacitly or explicitly links quoted characters to the origins of the base text: this becomes explicit occasionally, as when a Rabbi is quoted as asking (in Aramaic): "Who taught 'a blind person'? - R. Yudah, for R. Yudah exempted him..." (yMak 2:5 [3] 31d10).

6.9 The text distinguishes the level of the base text quotations from the level of the statements, whether comments or non-comments, as follows:

6.9.2 Base text quotations have no quotation formula, but tend to be found at the beginning of a new textual unit, marked by the appearance of an incomplete or grammatically isolated sentence, a new theme, and/or a different language/style.

6.9.4 The text employs terms/formulae, signals of transition, hermeneutic techniques, or separation markers, including the following:

6.9.4.2 Speech reports introducing the statement, used as separator.

6.9.4.3 Other signals of the transition between quotation and comment: questions in particular.

6.10 Comment statements reveal hermeneutic attitudes towards the base text as follows:

6.10.1 Comment statements tend to speak directly, in object-language, about the base text’s themes.

6.10.4 The text implies or explicates a hermeneutic stance concerning the accuracy of the base text:

6.10.4.1 [The base text wording is tacitly or explicitly treated under the assumption that it may be inaccurate/insincere/invalid: there is not really sufficient evidence to be certain that this is the case, although it is compatible with the general use of disputes and the interpretation of Mishnaic disputes.]

6.11 Within the lemmatic arrangement, extended sections of text have their own principle of progression which suspends the lemmatic progression:

6.11.1 The base text quotation becomes the starting point of a set of local thematic shifts involving further quotations plus explanation/supplementation: there is a comparatively extended structure built up in this manner, starting with the quotation of Mishnaic lemma 2:7 [4] 31d18 and extending perhaps at 32a10, perhaps before.

6.11.3 Non-comment statements (6.2) can occur in the following positions:

6.11.3.1 After one or more initial quotation-comment unit with manifest or explicit hermeneutic dependency (6.1.1/3).

6.11.3.2 Immediately succeeding the base text quotation (with later units exhibiting hermeneutic dependency on the quotation).

6.11.3.2.1 There are cases where a non-comment statement constitutes the only treatment of the base text quotation.

6.12 There are marked imbalances in the distribution or positioning of base text quotation-statement units at certain strategic points in a 6.1 text. Or, regarding a 6.13 text, there are marked differences in the amount of additional verbal matter provided in another language (6.13.3–5) for passages of base text of the same length between different points in the text: It is unclear whether the missing Gemara for chapter 3 of Mishnah Tractate Makkot (although reconstructed by modern scholars such as Lieberman) can be interpreted as a manifestation of such "petering out" or has entirely different reasons. However, there are some conspicuous structures of distribution also in chapter 2. After the Mishnaic lemma 2:7 [4] has received conspicuously more material than is usual for yMak, further 6.2 units follow whose presentation as belonging to specific Mishnaic segments 2:8–15 [5–8] is less clear than earlier in the Tractate: there are no lemmatic re-quotations of Mishnaic wording at all (the unit concerned with the topic of mMak 2:15 [8] actually quotes the Mishnaic segments explicitly at its end, see under 9.5), and the sequence of units is different from the sequence of the putative Mishnaic segments they may be meant to relate to. However, the size of the units, while on the whole short, is not unusual for yMak overall. At one point in this final part of chapter 2, a cross-reference to a fuller text is given in all main editions and mss. (including Leiden), except in ms. Wieder 133.7–134.23 (see Wewers, p. 37). This manuscript fragment also offers Gemara passages to parts of chapter 3.

6.12.4 The imbalance coincides with other changes:

6.12.4.4 A change in the pattern of coverage of the base text by quoted segments (see explanation in 6.12).

Top of the Page

7.1 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between a non-biblical text and one or more biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive.

7.1.3 There is prominent use of explicit quotations of biblical wording, whether in non-narrative or in narrative (but not in biblical commentary, for which see section 6).

7.2 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between the non-biblical text under discussion and other non-biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive.

7.2.4 The wording or specific theme of self-contained thematic units is occasionally identical to those of another non-biblical text (or part-text), without being marked as quotations from that other text (does not apply if 7.2.6, 7.2.8 or 7.2.9 applies; not applied to Mishnah/Tosefta Tractates): such "parallels" occur with the Tosefta (often not marked as quotation at all, but simply presented in 6.2 mode as from the governing voice of yMak) Sifra and Sifre, as well as Babylonian Talmud passages in bMak and elsewhere. There are also many parallels between different Tractates of the Yerushalmi (in particular with yShevi'it, e.g. yMak 1:5 [3] 31a28–55 = yShevi 10:1 39c14–38, and with yMeg (for yMak 2:5 [3] = yMeg 4 [3], see Wewers' translation, pp. 28–9).

7.2.4.1 Such overlapping units are found in text types which differ from each other in their thematic arrangement: e.g. midrashic units (such as yMak 1:1 31a11 ff. = Sifra Emor Par. 2 Per 2 (51b)) and one or two parallels to Sifre.

Top of the Page

8.1 Standard forms or contents formulated in set phrases, set sentence formats, or clauses in a standard syntactic connection.

8.1.1 Conditional norm or hypothetical legal case: frequent.

8.1.2 Unconditional norm: occasional.

8.1.3 Sentence with theme anticipated to the beginning and repeated in a pronoun or by ellipsis: once, for introducing a dispute, see under 8.2.

8.1.4 Unit of a biblical quotation together with a hermeneutically dependent formulation; midrashic unit: frequent.

8.1.6 Speech report: pervasive.

8.1.9 The a fortiori argument: occasional, e.g. yMak 1:1 31a15 (with Sifra parallel).

8.1.10 List sentence enumerating items by words or phrases: rare, and only after yMak 2:7 [4], e.g. 32a8–9.

8.1.11 List enumerating items by whole sentences/interpretation units: In reported speech only, namely within the message reportedly sent by R. Yochanan to the Babylonian Rabbis, yMak 2:7 [4] 31d35.

8.1.17 Report sentence of a singular event in the past which is not part of a narrative unit, nor of a mashal: yMak 2:7 31d60–62 (albeit presumably with normative intent), in quoted speech.

8.1.19 Prediction of reward or punishment of behaviour in a “wisdom” or similar formulation: A striking passage in yMak 2:7 [4] 31d55 ff. contrasts God's answer (repentance) with those of "wisdom" (evil) and "prophecy" (death) to the question what is the punishment of the sinner; in a different version (ms. Wieder 133.7–11, see Wewers, p. 36; cp. bMak 10b) "Torah" is also asked - thus perhaps mapping the hypostasied speakers onto the parts of the Hebrew Bible Torah-Prophets-Writings=Wisdom. God's answer is allocated one of two Psalm verses as proof-text.

8.2 Non-narrative small literary forms that impose on their components a standard functional relationship to each other, while grammar and syntax may vary:

8.2.1 Dispute unit: frequent, occasionally reported as such (איתפלגון, yMak 1:16 [10] 31b23, in reported speech and further down used again, in the governing voice).

8.2.2 Self-contained question-answer unit in anonymous discourse: comparatively frequent, e.g. yMak 1:5 [3] 31a31–35, sometimes as introduction to a dispute, e.g. yMak 1:5 [3] 31a37; appears to be the single most important device for imposing a theme and structure within which quoted wording is arranged, in particular if there are multiple components or steps in the argument. A number of times the question-answer unit is in itself a narrative report: R. X asked before R. Y (e.g. yMak 2:1 31c39, in Aramaic).

8.2.4 A clause or phrase which links two statements/themes explicitly as being similar: occasional, in particular when two positions allocated to different sources (Mishnah or named Rabbi, or two named Rabbis) are aligned with each other, e.g. yMak 2:4 [2] 31c53, כיי דמר רבי הונא. In yMak 2:7 [4] 32a6 (leading to the list of things absent from the second Temple) the meaning of the link (also occurring in yTa'an 65a59 and yHor 47c64) is unclear; the expression used here and elsewhere in yMak is ותייא כיי דמר ר שמואל, see also e.g. yMak 2:15 [8] (details under 9.5) and yMak 2:15 [8] 32a21. If one adopts for a moment a diachronic perspective (see 1.7), it is worth noting that observations of similarity appear to provide the core for the rudimenatry coordination of opinions and reasons that constitute the rare 9.5 cases in yMak, which appear to be somewhat "unfinished" - but they already have these similarity statements, in terms of persons and historical distributions (see 6.8).

8.3 Forms with internal emplotment relationships, or character-centred small literary forms or motifs:

8.3.3 A narrative unit which is not integrated into a larger chronological framework constituted by the co-text: some bible-related narrative units appear in the context of the creation of the cities of refuge, or connected to the Joab incident in midrashic function (yMak 2:7 [4] 31d48 ff.)

Top of the Page

9.5 In a number of extended dialectical passages, the governing voice differentiates between the topics/propositions of two or more initial thematic units, presented as quotations of speakers or of other text: this does not really apply to extended passages. However, there are two or three clear if shortish examples of this: 1. yMak 2:5 [3] 31c60–31d1 (also including, however, a thematic unit which apparently relates to – unquoted – mBQ 3:1 rather than mMak 2:1); 2. yMak 2:5 [3] 31d10–18, which is, however, confused (more under 7.2); 3. yMak 2:7 [4] (=yMak 2:15 [8]) 32a16–18, where there is no lemmatic re-quotation but the Mishnaic segment to which the unit ostensibly belongs (mMak 2:15 [8]) is quoted explicitly at the end of the unit, introduced with the words "for we have learned", after an attempt to coordinate opinions with their rabbinic proponents; the actual Mishnaic statement so quoted is transmitted in three different versions, only one of which corresponds to the Mishnaic text (see Wewers, p. 41). There is also a hint of such a procedure in yMak 2:1 [1] 31c43 ff., where the governing voice, using question-answer units in Aramaic, provides the two Scriptural arguments for the two Mishnaic positions presented (in the Mishnah) as in dispute with each other. There appear to be no examples of this in chapter 1 of yMak. See also 8.2.4 as a seed corn for 9.5.

9.5.1 The governing voice performs this differentiation largely by quoting further voices, or by speaking on behalf of the initially quoted voices in an internal dialogue: there is just a hint of an "internal dialogue" of the governing voice, as there are three rhetorical questions addressed at the "other position" within the governing voice, not the implied addressee; see yMak 2:15 [8] 32a23 and the dialectical question "And you say this", mentioned in 2.4.4.2.

9.8 The text has a tendency to juxtapose immediately thematic units which fulfill the same literary, evidential, hermeneutic or narrative function, without explicitly integrating them with each other.

9.8.1 There is more than one quotation-comment unit or midrashic unit for the same lemma: occasional, e.g. yMak 1:1 31a11.

9.8.7 There is more than one version of a reported dispute: once, yMak 1:16 [10] 31b24–25, see 2.4.4.2.

9.8.13 There is some acknowledgement of the equivalence/alternative status of adjacent thematic units under 9.8.1-12: for the 9.8.1 case mentioned above, there is use of davar acher (yMak 1:1 31a11).

9.12 Important manuscripts divide the text explicitly into parts by the use of single words or incomplete sentences which constitute sub-headings.

9.12.1 This division involves the use of meta-textual terms: In ms. Leiden the Mishnah section presented before the Gemara begins ends in "seliq pirqa'" (same for ed. Venice), while the Gemara section ends in "hadran alakh" plus opening words of the Mishnaic Tractate.

9.12.2 This terminology is supplemented by the use of sequential numbering, or there is numbering of text sections which are not named at all: numbers (letters) are used for Mishnaic sections (not identical with the most common Mishnah separata numbering of mishnayot) and referred to as "halakhah" (abbreviated to "HL" in ms. Leiden, spelled out in ed. Venice).

Top of the Page

11.1 The non-narrative text projects its thematic concern as being mainly one or more of the following:

11.1.3 Law, commandments or norms of behaviour.

11.1.5 The meaning of another text.

11.1.6 Reports of the speech of named characters.

Top of the Page

12.1 Sampling of genre labels applied to the text in secondary literature: Mishnah commentary.

Top of the Page

Bibliography:

Editions and manuscript facsimiles:

P. Schäfer and H.-J. Becker (eds.), Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, Band IV (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995). The ed. Venice line counting representing in this edition (and close to that found in ed. Krotoshin) is used as column reference system in this Profile; facsimile of ms Leiden: Palestinian Talmud Leiden Ms Cod Scal 3, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Kedem, 1971), with an introduction by S. Lieberman (Liberman); Leiden ms. facsimile online: https://disc.leidenuniv.nl/webclient/DeliveryManager?custom_att_2=simple_viewer&pid=1771217 (accessed 11 June 2011); S. Lieberman, Hilkhot ha-Yerushalmi le-Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon z"l (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1947); S. Wieder "Qeta' Yerushalmi", Tarbiz 17 (1946), pp. 129–135; editio princeps: Talmud Yerushalmi (Venice 1523; reproduced: Ma'aseh Roqeach publisher).

Traditional text: Several editions, e.g. Talmud Yerushalmi with commentaries (print Zhitomir, originally 1860–67), 5 vols. (repr. Israel, 1966); electronic format of the traditional text available on the commercial Bar Ilan Responsa CD (regularly updated).

Online text: Available from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r/r45.htm (accessed 11 June 2011); http://www.yedidnefesh.com/yerushalmi/hebrew/nezikin/nezikin.htm. 

Translations:

English: J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, 35 vols. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982–94); German: G. A. Wewers, Makkot.Geißelung/Shevuot.Schwüre. Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi, IV/5.IV/6, ed. M. Hengel, et al. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1983).

Selected studies (largely identical with other y entries):

In addition to the translations and editions above, see also: M. Assis, Parallel Sugyot in the Jerusalem Talmud (Jerusalem, PhD Dissertation, 1976) (Heb.); S. Lieberman, The Talmud of Caesarea (Heb.; Suppl. to Tarbiz 2,4 (1931–2); S. Lieberman, On the Yerushalmi, 2nd edn. (Heb.; Jerusalem: 1969); Y. Sussman, "We-shuv li-yerushalmi Neziqin", in Y. Sussman and D. Rosenthal (eds.), Mehqere Talmud: Talmudic Studies, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) , pp. 55–133; Y. Sussman, "Pirqe Yerushalmi", in M. Bar-Asher and D. Rosenthal (eds.), Mehqere Talmud: Talmudic Studies, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), pp. 220–83; G. A. Wewers, Probleme der Bavot-Traktate (Tübingen: Mohr, 1984); L. Moscovitz, "Parallel Sugiot and the Text-Tradition of the Yerushalmi" (Heb.), Tarbiz, 60 (1991–2), pp. 523–49; L. Moscovitz, "Double Readings in the Yerushalmi", in P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998), pp. 83–125; L. Moscovitz, Ha-Terminologiah shel ha-Yerushalmi (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009); J. N. Epstein, Mavo le-Nusaḥ ha-Mishnah, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: J. N. Epstein, 1948).



Top of the Page