Torah in the Mouth.pdf

Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE
Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington
Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001
as amplifying material. In light of the spare redactional program pursued by the Mishnaic redactor, already noted, they were omitted as
extraneous and have found their way into the Tosefta. The conceptual issue, undeveloped in the Tosefta, is the degree to which—unlike
sacrificial parts placed upon the Temple altar—the cow's remnants that leave the sacrificial space remain valid (cf. M. Zabim 9:1–6/T.
Zabim 9:1–10).
The literary profile of D is a different matter. In its present form it surely responds to the scenario described at M. Par. 3:10B–C. But if we
remove the attribution formula, what remains is the logical conclusion of the narrative describing the interchange between priest and
witnesses. In my view, the Rabbi Leazar b. Rabbi Shimon dictum here preserves an element of the anterior narrative that stands behind
both the Mishnah and the Tosefta.
M. Par. 3:11
A. He tied them together with the ends of the strip of wool and threw them into her immolation.
B. [After] she was burned up, they beat her with staves, and sift her in sieves.
C. Rabbi Yishmael says: With hammers of stone, and with sieves of stone was she prepared.
D. A black piece that contains ash—they crush it; and one having none—they leave it.
E. The bone, one way or the other, was crushed.
F. And they divide it into three parts: one is placed in the Rampart, and one is placed on the Mount of Olives, and one is divided
Comment: The narrator concludes his account with the immolation of the wood, herb, and wool (A), the reduction of the burned carcass to
ash (B and D–E), and its disposition for future use (F). Rabbi Yishmael's intrusion at C points out that the process of crushing was
undertaken with implements incapable of receiving or imparting uncleanness to the ashes. His words may retrieve for us an alternative
narrative account ignored by the narrator of the Mishnaic account but deemed by the editor of this chapter as worthy of preservation as a
minority opinion.
end p.122
among all the priestly squads.
T. Par. 3:12–14
A. Whether he tore her by hand, whether he tore her with a knife, or whether she tore open of her own;
whether he threw [the bundle] into her body, whether he threw it into her immolation;
whether he threw the three items together, whether he threw them in one at a time—it is fit.
B. If he put them in before the fire had burned most of it or after it had become ash—it is ruined.
C. [T. Par. 3:13] If he took bone or a black piece and sanctified with it—he hasn't done anything at all.
D. If there is upon it any amount of cinder from her body, he crushes it and sanctifies with it, and it is fit.
E. [T. Par. 3:14] And they divide it into three parts: one is placed in the Rampart, and one is placed on the Mount of Olives, and one is
divided among all the priestly squads.
F. The one divided among all the priestly squads would Israel sprinkle from. The one placed on the Mount of Olives would the priests
sanctify with. And the one placed on the Rampart they would preserve, as it is said: “And it shall be stored away for the congregation of
Israel as waters of lustration for purification” (Num. 19:9).
Comment: At A–D the Tosefta supplies random points of clarification that are best understood as comments upon the extant version of M.
Par. 3:11A–E. The Mishnaic narrative is resumed at E, and F supplies crucial material missing in the Mishnah. Had the Mishnaic editor
known this material, I can't imagine why he would have omitted it. Therefore it is possible that F is an expansion of the extant Mishnah
added as the chapter was under composition. At the same time, we cannot exclude the possibility that its origin in the Toseftan tradition
stems from the anterior narrative of the rite of the red cow upon which both the Mishnaic and Toseftan redactions have drawn.
We may now summarize the results of this lengthy excursion into the intertextual connections of chapter 3 of Tractate Parah in its
Mishnaic and Toseftan renditions. While the extant Tosefta can serve as a commentarial source for the elucidation of the extant Mishnaic
text (as it has been used by virtually all medieval and modern interpreters of the Mishnah), the compositional units of the Mishnah and
Tosefta exhibit more complex patterns of relationship. We have been forced repeatedly to distinguish, on the one hand, between the
Mishnah and the Tosefta as redacted documents and, on the other, between the preexisting materials from which these documents have
been compiled.
There are instances, for example, in which Toseftan materials are presupposed by the Mishnaic discourse. Thus M. Par. 3:3C assumes a
change of scene from the Temple Mount to the Eastern Gate that is described explicitly at T. Par. 3:4A. Similarly, M. Par. 3:3F's
description of the sanctification of the ash in the water is inextricably bound up with the description offered by T. Par. 3:4E. In many more
instances, the Toseftan text is self-referential rather than directed toward the Mishnah in its present form. It thus represents a literary
structure parallel to but independent of the Mishnaic compilation. Indeed, only a small part of the Toseftan chapter we have examined
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details
see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011