"Seder 'Olam" and the Tosefta / סדר-עולם והתוספתא
It is notoriously difficult to prove the dependence of one work within the rabbinic corpus upon another. The methodological pitfalls are many and not easily overcome. Within the scope of the present article, the author has endeavored to prove that the twelfth chapter of Tosefta Sota is dependent upo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | תרביץ 1980-04, Vol.מט (ג/ד), p.246-263 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | heb |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | It is notoriously difficult to prove the dependence of one work within the rabbinic corpus upon another. The methodological pitfalls are many and not easily overcome. Within the scope of the present article, the author has endeavored to prove that the twelfth chapter of Tosefta Sota is dependent upon Seder 'Olam (henceforth: SO). Each of the six passages in this chapter of the Tosefta has a parallel in SO. Though it cannot be proven that all six are dependent upon SO, the cumulative evidence is convincing. The first passage discussed can barely be understood in the Tosefta, and its full meaning comes to light only after additional passages in SO are consulted. There is no conclusive evidence concerning the second passage; yet even here the hypothesis that the Tosefta used SO leads towards an understanding of the former. The third passage paralleled in the Tosefta and Seder 'Olam is explicable on its own. However, only by consulting an additional passage in SO can the chronological basis of its exegesis be justified. The fourth passage also contains a chronological statement, which can be understood only after it is related to the preceeding passage in SO. In the fifth passage, only small sections of the Tosefta and SO parallel each other; indeed the two passages deal with different themes. Though there is no evidence that SO was the source of the Tosefta, it is clear that the Tosefta passage cannot have been the original source. The sixth passage is the most interesting; though on the surface it appears that there is no relationship between the Tosefta and SO, it is argued nonetheless, that the formation of the Tosefta passage makes sense only if it could be postulated that SO served as its source. Thus, four of the six passages in Tosefta Sota XII contain indications that the passage in SO is original and the parallel passage in the Tosefta derivative. Neither of the other two passages contradict this assertion and even tend to support it. It is therefore concluded that SO was available in an edited form before the redaction of the Tosefta. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0334-3650 |