In a 1998 article in the journal Sinai, Ilana Katzenellenbogen examines the history of the break-down of the weekly Torah port

36 For example Damascus Document 10:18 prohibits judging in court and Jub. 50:12 proscribes riding an animal, as does mBets 5:2.

37 Hanoch Albeck, Six Orders of Mishnah, 6 vols. (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1959), Mo`ed (Hebrew), 9–11.

38 On sectarian stringency in general, see Yaakov Sussman, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma`ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1990) (Hebrew): 11–76; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making, 129-33; Vered Noam, “Stringency in Qumran: A Reassessment,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40 (2009): 1–14; and eadem, “‘Choosing the Path of Lenience’: Qumranic Stringency or Tannaitic Leniency?” (Hebrew), Megillot 8–9 (2010): 211–26. On rabbinic leniency in the area of Sabbath laws, see Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, 84–90, 104–6, 117–9; Jassen, Scripture and Law; and above nn. 21–28.

39 See mEruv 10:3 and 15 and Gilat, Studies, 104, for other Tannaim who may have shared this view. R. Shimon also takes a lenient stances regarding muktseh; see Efraim Yisḥaki, “Muktseh,” Sidra 16 (2000): 81–104.

40 ibid., 89-92.

41 ibid., 105, citing yPes 3:3, 30a–b.

42 yHag 2:2, 77d = bHag 16b. See also Gilat, ibid., 93, and Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in Judaism (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969), 134.

43 Follows ms. Oxford-Bodl. Heb. e. 52 (2678).

44 See Leib Moscovitz, Talmudic Reasoning: From Casuistics to Conceptualization (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

45 Gilat, Studies, 93, finds expression for this reasoning at yEruv 3:4, 21a = yPes 6:2, 33b, where R. Ḥiyah Rabbah wonders how a Sabbath prohibition can incur lashes when the designated punishment is stoning or karet. However, this is not quite the same and is in any case found in the Yerushalmi, which does not have a problem with the shevut category being biblical.

46 Abraham Goldberg, “Le-hitpatḥut ha-sugya be-Talmud ha-Bavli (ha-shimush be-bituyim ‘gezerat shema,’ ‘gezerat dilma,’ u-‘gezerah mishum,’” in Sefer ha-yovel le-Rabbi Hanoch Albeck (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1963), 101–13. See also Leib Moscovitz, “Le-heqer ha-‘gezera shema’ ba-Yerushalmi,” Sidra 24-25 (2010): 215–35, who largely agrees with Goldberg that the Bavli innovates reasons based on safeguards but adds further examples of the Yerushalmi using similar safeguards in more limited applications.

47 Goldberg, ibid., 107-08. See similarly Gilat, Studies, 93-94.

48 In addition, the term gezerah, by which the Bavli calls these safeguards, itself connotes a stringent law that may not be questioned. See bYom 67b.

49 See bSan 21b.

50 Benjamin De Vries, Studies in the Development of the Talmudic Halakah (Tel-Aviv: Araham Zioni Publishing House, 1966), 67-95 (Hebrew).

51 Ms. Vienna.

52 Ms. Vienna. See analysis at Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955-1988), Shabbat, 3:32.

53 This is also the reason for the law at tShab 12:13 as well as the last law of tShab 1:23 as explained at yShab 1:5, 4a, and bShab 18a. See analysis at Lieberman, ibid., Shabbat 3:22–23.

54 yBets 5:2, 63a.

55 bEruv 104a quoted below.

56 Lev. Rabbah 34. However, the problem here might relate specifically to talking, based on Isa. 58:13, rather than a general prohibition against making noise.

57 See further at David Henschke, “Teki`at shofar be-Shabbat,” Sidra 8 (1992): 31–34.

58 On the possibility that this prohibition against playing music dates back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Vered Noam and Elisha Qimron, “A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its Contribution to the Study of Early Halakah,” Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009), 55–96, and a rejoinder at Richard Hidary, “Revisiting the Sabbath Laws in 4Q264a and Their Contribution to Early Halakhah,” Dead Sea Discoveries (2014): 68-92.

59 Follows Geniza fragment T–S F2(2).23, unless otherwise noted. Only major variants are recorded.

60 The Geniza fragment reads “Rava” but is changed to “Rabbah” above the word. Pisaro and Venice editions read “Rabbah,” but mss. Oxford and Munich, the Fez edition, as well as the vast majority of Rishonim read “Rava.” See Dikduke soferim ad loc. and Shamma Friedman, “Ketiv ha-shemot ‘Rabbah’ ve-‘Rava’ ba-Talmud ha-Bavli,” Sinai 110 (1992): 140–64.

61 Ms. Munich omits, “to him.”

62 tShab 2:7.

63 Ms. Oxford and printed editions add, “we can conclude from this.”

64 Ms. Oxford and printed editions omit, “any,” but it is present in ms. Munich.

65 Ms. Oxford reads, “They.”

66 Ms. Oxford reads, “seeds.”

67 Ms. Oxford omits, “may guard them on the Sabbath as he normally does as long as he does not,” and reads instead, “behold he may not.”

68 tShab 17:25.

69 Ms. Oxford omits, “any.”

70 Ms. Oxford and printed editions read, “We learned,” indicating that this source is a Mishnah. Ms. Munich reads with the Geniza, as translated.

71 All other witnesses add, “from the cistern of the exiles and.”

72 Ms. Munich and the Pisaro edition omit, “and from the great cistern.”

73 mEruv 10:14. Ms. Oxford adds “from the Hakar cistern on a festival,” following the text of the Mishnah. For variant readings and analysis of the Mishnah, see: Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Eruvin, 352–58; and Abraham Goldberg, The Mishna Treatise Eruvin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986) (Hebrew), 310–12.

74 The Geniza fragment adds, “on the Sabb[ath ],” with a lacuna. I have omitted these words following all other witnesses.

75 Geniza omits, “because,” but I provide it based on all other witnesses.

76 Ms. Oxford adds, “and making a sound is prohibited.” Ms. Munich and printed editions add only, “and is prohibited.”

77 Mss. Oxford and Munich insert a comment here, which I have omitted. See Diqduqe soferim.

78 Following printed editions. Ms. Oxford reads, “They said.”

79 Other witnesses read, “What is the reason that the rabbis prohibited this?"

80 `Ula is a Palestinian amora who often visited Babylonia. Even within the Bavli, we find the original law against making noise as late as Rabbah (following mss. St. Petersburg, and Oxford; mss. Munich 95, Vatican 127, London, and ed. Soncino read “Rava”) who explains that one may not use a water mill on the Sabbath “because it makes noise” (bShab. 18a). The prohibition against music is absent not only from Palestinian sources but also from the earlier strata of the Bavli prior to Rava.

81 It is also possible that Rav Aḥa bar Jacob expressed his comment independently from this sugya, but there is no parallel attestation to it and so I am reading his statement as presented within the sugya.

82 Some textual witnesses omit “with a wheel” from the Mishnah; see Safrai, ibid., 353. This could possibly indicate that drawing water in any fashion is prohibited in all places besides the two mentioned in the Mishnah. This would accord with the categorical language found in Jub. 2:29 and 50:8 and is also close to the formulation in the Damascus Document 11:1–2, which prohibits drawing water with a vessel. According to versions that do include “wheel,” only drawing with a wheel would be prohibited in other places, while drawing without such a mechanism would be permitted. Even manuscripts that omit “wheel” most likely assume it and should be interpreted as if it were there. According to this reading, the mishnaic prohibition is much more limited than that of the Second Temple sources. Nevertheless, the various prohibitions on water drawing most likely share some common ancestry.

83 See the previous note and further at Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, 102-04. A prohibition against drawing water is also mentioned in 4Q421 11:3.

84 See commentaries cited above, n. Error: Reference source not found. See also tEruv 8:21:22 and Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, 467-68.

85 See the further leniency in Tosafot to bEruv 104a, s.v. gezera.

86 See Daniel Sperber, “`Al ha-rikud be-Shabbat,” Sinai 53 (1965): 122–126; Shaye Cohen, “Dancing, Clapping, Meditating: Jewish and Christian Observance of the Sabbath in Pseudo-Ignatius,” in Judaea-Palaestina, Babylon and Rome, ed. Benjamin Isaac and Yuval Shahar (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 29–51; Cohen, Law and Tradition in Judaism, 136 n. 24; Semuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), 213–18 and Gilat, Studies, 90 n. 12.

87 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, long form, ch 9, translation from Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; Volume 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 62–63.

88 Enarrationes, Ps. 92:2. Translation from Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., St. Augustine: Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Volume 8 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 453.

89 Sermon 9. Translation from Guiseppe Veltri, “Magic, Sex and Politics: The Media Power of Theatre Amusements in the Mirror of Rabbinic Literature,” in “The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious” (Qoh 10,10): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Mauro Perani (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 243.

90 Adversus Judaeos 1.2.7. Translation from John Chrysostom, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, trans. Paul Harkins (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1979), 9.

91 mTa` 4:8.

92 If indeed clapping and dancing to music was originally permitted before Rava, then it is worth raising the possibility that Rava’s innovative legislation in redirecting the ancient prohibition against noise to making music was intended precisely against the common practice of dancing on the Sabbath. That is, perhaps Rava agreed with the criticism directed against the Jews by Christians and sought to stamp out this practice.

93 Follows Ms. Goettingen with major variants noted. See parallel at bShab 148b.

94 A minority of mss. read, “Rava.”

95 Ms. Goettingen adds here, “the daughters of,” and reads the rest of the line in the feminine gender. I have omitted this based on all other witnesses.

96 Cohen, “Dancing,” analyzes these texts and judges them to accurately reflect the historical practice of these Jewish communities.

97 The final line of the sugya reverses the previous position stating: “This is not so. It makes no difference whether the law is biblical or rabbinic. In either case we do not say anything. For the requirement to add time to the Day of Atonement is biblical yet we see that people eat and drink until nightfall and we do not say anything at all.” However, this must be a later layer of the Stam that disagreed with the earlier layer. In ms. London and in bShab 148b according to ms. Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 and printed editions, the two voices are harmonized into a single question and answer with the addition of: “if you should say” or “we reasoned from here that.” Other manuscripts of bShab 148a (before the additions of later glossators) and all other witnesses to bBets 30a read two distinct layers.

98 Tosafot to bBets 30a, s.v. tenan. See also R. Moshe Isserles to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 339:3.

99 For further analysis of this and related examples, see José Faur, “The Legal Thinking of the Tosafot: A Historical Approach,” Dine Israel 6 (1975): xliii–lxxii.

100 See also Sifra, Behar, parasha 2:5, which arrives at the same conclusion from a different set of verses and similarly assumes that the prohibition against blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is biblical. See also Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Rosh Hashanah, 1061; Henshke, “Teki`at shofar be-Shabbat,” 22–31; and Kosman, “History,” 144–54, who show that there are also some Palestinian sources that do not consider blowing the shofar to be a biblical prohibition—but even those sources do not explain the prohibition as a rabbinic safeguard as the Bavli does.

101 Hanoch Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1987), 639–40, argues that Rabbah actually applied this safeguard originally to the cases in bBets 17b and bPes 69a and it was Rava who transferred his words to bRH 29b. Presumably, then, the Stam transfers it also at bMeg 4b and bSuk 42b. If this is true, it would render utterly fanciful the already improbable conjecture of Noam and Qimron, “Qumran Composition,” 66 n. 25, that “Rabbah transmitted echoes of an early Palestinian rationale.” See further at Hidary, “Revisiting the Sabbath Laws in 4Q264a.”

102 See bPes 65a and Gilat, Studies, 105-06.

103 See analysis of the entire pericope at Shamma Friedman, “Perek ha-isha rabah ba-Bavli, be-seruf mavo kelali `al derekh ḥeker ha-sugya,” in Meḥkarim u-mekorot, ed. H. Z. Dimitrovsky (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1977), 346–57. See an analysis of this general topic at Gilat, Studies, 191–204.

104 For other related examples of the rabbis denying one the opportunity to fulfill a positive biblical commandment in order to uphold that very commandment, see mBer 1:1, mPes 10:9 and analysis at Richard Hidary, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud (Providence: Brown University, 2010), 244 and 249 n. 31; and Louis Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, 4 vols. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1941), 1:85 n. 5, 94.

105 Other items on the list there also fall into this same pattern. For example, according to Bet Hillel at mPes 8:8, one who converts just before Passover and wants to offer the Passover sacrifice must purify himself as if he received corpse impurity. yPes 8:8, 35c, bases this on a verse, while bPes 92b introduces a reason: because he might not realize the following year that he does have to remove his corpse impurity. This requirement to purify the convert continues to supersede the biblical requirement to offer the Passover sacrifice even after the Bavli transfers the basis for this law from biblical to rabbinic, thereby bolstering the authority of rabbinic enactments.

Similarly, mSuk 4:1 legislates that the four species be taken for seven days but only the taking on the first day supersedes the Sabbath. ySuk 3:11, 44a, derives this from Lev. 23:40, which specifies that the four species be taken on the first day, and then continues to add that one celebrate with them for seven days. The first day is singled out because only on that day do the four species supersede the Sabbath but not on the other six days. Bavli Sukkah 42b, on the other hand, explains that this is a safeguard lest one carry the four species through public property to an expert in order to learn. See further at Albeck, Mishnah, Mo`ed, 254 and 489–90. Albeck proposes that the rabbis wanted to emphasize the importance of Sabbath observance by showing that it trumps all festival rituals. The rabbis then found verses to back up their legislation, as seen in the Yerushalmi. If this is true, then Rabbah’s safeguards actually extend the rabbis’ goal of strengthening Sabbath observance in general and the prohibition against carrying in particular. If people see that even the off chance that one may come to carry suffices to cancel a biblical festival ritual, then they will be convinced of the severity and gravity of that prohibition all year round.

106 On the limits of this authority, see Azzan Yadin, “The Chain Novel and the Problem of Self-undermining Interpretation,” Dine Israel 25 (2008): 43–71.

107 bYev 90b.

108 Several other sources similarly suggest that riding an animal is biblically prohibited; see Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Besah, 5:2; Albeck, Mishnah, Mo`ed, 484; Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Shabbat, 3:300; and Gilat, Studies, 191 n. 4.

109 This is a combination of Exod. 23:12 and Deut. 5:14.

110 “In the days of the Greeks,” does not appear in all versions; see Gilat, Studies, 191 n. 3. However, Moti Ard, Meḥalel Shabbat be-farhesia (New York: Bet Hamidrash Le-Rabbanim Be-Amerika, 2008), 271 n. 43 argues that all of the sources assume this time frame.

111 Ibid., 264. Ard further demonstrates that riding a horse in public (παρρησία) was considered a formal act of Jewish apostasy in Roman times.

112 See Vered Noam, Megillat Ta`anit: Versions, Interpretation, History with a Critical Edition (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003), 92–93 and 233–34 (Hebrew); and yHag 2:2, 78a.

113 Deut. 13:6, 17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 22:24, and 24:7. Megilat Ta`anit later on cites the continuation of Deut. 21:21: “and all of Israel will hear and be afraid.”

114 See bYev 79a, which refers to Deut. 29:10 as a safeguard of Moses, and see Maharsha on bShab 30a, contra Rashi ad loc. I thank Tzvi Novick for this insight.

115 See yMeg 4:1, 74a; and bGit 60b.

116 See analysis at Hidary, Dispute, 297-333.

117 tTa` 2:6 and tYev 2:4 and parallels at yTa` 2:12, 66a; yMeg 1:4, 70c; yYev 9:5, 10b; yKet 11:7, 34c; bRH 19a; bTa` 17b; and bYev 85b. See also yBer 1:4, 3b; bEruv 21b; and Hidary, Dispute, 316 n. 63.

118 Richard Hidary, “The Rhetoric of Rabbinic Authority: Making the Transition from Priest to Sage,” in Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice, ed. Michael Bernard-Donals and Janice Fernheimer (Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2014), 16–45.

119 bBB 12b. The Talmud continues to prove that a sage outranks a prophet. yBer 1:4, 3b, similarly explains that a prophet is compared to a king’s messenger who must first show his credentials in order to be validated, whereas a sage can be trusted even without performing any acts of validation. See further at Gilat, Studies, 199.

120 yPe`ah 2:1, 17a; See also Sifra, Behuqotai 2; Sifra, Behar 1; Sifre Deut. 351; Gen. Rabbah 64:5; bBer 5a; and bMeg 19b; and discussion at E. E. Urbach, “Halakha u-Nevu’ah,” Tarbiz 18 (1946), 1–27; and Michael S. Berger, Rabbinic Authority (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 83–96. See also the epigram to this article on the Sabbath laws in particular.

121 Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making, 30, argues for a clear distinction between the two legal systems: “The Qumran scrolls present the exegesis of the Torah and consequently the halakhic decisions that stem from it as a product of divine inspiration, while the rabbinic writings treat it as an open-ended process of human exegetical activity.” Shemesh does cite the article by Urbach mentioned in the previous note and also points out that R. Eliezer held a view similar to that of the Qumranites. However, Shemesh still does not take full account of the many sources discussed by Urbach that reflect divine inspiration within rabbinic teachings as well—both de’oraita and derabanan. See similarly Aharon Shemesh, “Halakha ve-nevu’ah: nevi sheqer ve-zaqen mamre,” in Renewing Jewish Commitment: The Work and Thought of David Hartman, ed. Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001), 923–941.

http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/13-2015/Hidary.pdf