Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/564

514 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Baraita

Another explanation of the terra "Baraita" is the following: The Mishnah that is, the collection of tannaite traditions compiled by Judali ha-Nasi formed the authoritative subject of instruction in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian academies whereas the Baraitas were taught in private schools for the academies (Sherira, "First Letter," ed. Neubauer, p. 14). Now these preparatory schools, existing alongside the academies, were designated by the term "bam" (the outside) (Shah. 106^; Bezah 126; Yeb. 77ft; Sanh. 626); and later in Babylonia they were called "tarbiza" (Isaac Halevy, "Dorot ha-Rishonim," iii. 226, was probably the first to prove the identity of the tarbiza with the bara). Baraita, accordingly, is teaching delivered in such schoolhouses. point in favor of this explanation is that it makes clear also the striking designation for the teacher of a Baraita, " tanna bara, " instead of " tanna baraya," the proper form of an adjective. Thus " tanna bara " is neither more nor less than a " tanna of the bara " (outside school) and his teaching is the Baraita. The fact that the Yerushalmi (Pes. vii. 34<(Hallah iv. 59d; Yoma vi. 43d) has " tanna baraya " does not disprove this explanation, as the adjective " baraya " merely means " belonging to the bara."

—

A

A



Whatever may have been the original meaning of the word "Baraita," it is certain that in the Babylonian Talmud it designates the most varied kinds of tannaite traditions not contained in Various the Mishnah, such as Sipra, Sifre, Kinds of Mekilta, and Tosefta. In the Talmud Yerushalmi, " Baraita " rarely Baraita. occurs, but it is not wholly lacking as Frankel maintains ("Mebo,"

12a);

see,

for in-

Niddab iii. 50d. According to Weiss ("Dor," iii. 3), Yerushalmi once gives the Hebrew equivalent "Mihuzah"for the Aramaic "Baraita." His statement which he fails to verify by any refstance, Yer.

—

—

however, scarcely correct. (The expression " mishnah ha-hizonah " occurs in Num. R. xviii. 21, a work which, in its present form, is hardly older than the twelfth century; in 'Aruk, s.v. 10 1, erence

is,

s.v. priSX; in the writings of the Karaite, Judah Hadassi; in those of Judah of Barcelona, and in

and

Halakot Gedolot.

The contents

of a Baraita are either haggadic or

halakic, more frequently the latter but the proportion of Haggadah to Halakah in the Baraita is quite different from their proportion to each other in the Mishnah. For, while the Mishnah rarely gives hag;

gadic matter, the Babylonian treatise Berakot alone The halakic cites fifty Haggadot from the Baraita. Baraitas are either purely halakic or Nature and Midrashic-halakic that is, they either simply state a law independently of Sources.

Scripture, or deduce legal decisions in the Bible by means of certain

from some passage hermeneutic rules.

The sources used by the

Talhalakic Baraitas, are the extant halakic Midrashim, Mekilta, Sifra, Sifre, Sifre Zutta, Mekilta de R. Simon, and Mekilta on Deuteronomy (the last three only partially preserved in manuscript form), as well as various tannaitic collections which did not survive the redaction of the

mud,

especially for

Talmud and

of

the

which nothing

is

now known.

To

514

these lost Midrashic collections, which were still in existence at the time of the Amoraim and were the sources for a large number of the halakic Baraitas,

belong the following:

first,

those

named

from whose school they

after the

the Baraita collections of R. Simon, of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, and of R. Ishmael (the last is often called " The Baraita of the school of R. Ishmael then ") those which are named after their last redactor; e.g., R. Hiyyah, R. Hoshaya, and R. Hizkiyah, the last of whom may be regarded, if not as a tanna, at least as a semi-tanna (see Bar Kappara), and whose collection marks the transition from the tannaitic to the amoraic Baraita collections. Concerning the older pupils of Rabbi namely, Bar Kappara, Levi, Abba Arika, and Samuel it is known that they collected Baraitas and arranged them according to the Orders B. B. 526, of the Mishnah (for instance, KM. 766 where the Baraita collection of Levi is cited as the originator

issued, as



—

—



" Kiddushin debe Levi see Rashbam, ad loc. But " compare also I. Halevy, "Dorot ha-Rishonim," ii.

119-161).

The great mass of traditional matter presented by these widely varying Baraita collections may be separated into two large divisions the pre-Mishnaic Baraita and the post-Mishnaic. The Tannaitic origin and development, form, and contents of the two are so essentially Baraita

—

Collections, different that they may be readily

dis-

Even in the first arrangeMishnah made by the pupils of Shammai tinguished.

ment of

the

time of the Temple, considerable the traditional subject-matter were Thus, as was noted by Sherira (First Letter, ed. Neubaucr, p. 16), the Talmud ('Er. 19ce) speaks of a Baraita of the school of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, which can be taken to mean only that so far back as the time of Johanan b. Zakkai certain things were excluded from the authoritative teachings, which, nevertheless, continued to be transmitted. When Akiba undertook for the first time a comprehensive and systematic collection of the traditional matter, much was omitted by him, not, only through his frequent and intentional disregard of the old Halakah, but for the purely economical reasons that he had to limit himself to a selection from the vast amount of material at hand. According to a Talmudic passage, not to be taken literally, but doubtless containing a foundation of fact, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus alone transmitted 300 Halakot in a special Most of the tannaim of Akiba's case (Sanh. 68«). time, like Ishmael and Abba Saul, also occupied themselves with collections and arrangements of the old traditions and their collections, as well as those of others from which very many Baraitas are derived, have been preserved in more or less lengthy fragments. Unfortunately, Akiba's peculiar hermeneutics undid much of the good accomplished by his methodology; and, indeed, his pupils, R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Simon, and R. Nehemiah, felt themselves

and

Hillel in the

portions omitted.

of



compelled to modify essentially the collection begun by him and in the process many old Baraitas were again excluded.

The redaction of the Mishnah by Judah ha-Nasi, which followed, was based chiefly on R. Me'ir's recension of Akiba's Mishnah. It was owing to the