Editing Tosefta (section)

==Origins==
The question of dating the Tosefta is discussed extensively among scholars.<ref name=":8">{{Citation |last=Mandel |first=Paul |title=The Tosefta |date=2006 |work=The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period |volume=4 |pages=319 |editor-last=Katz |editor-first=Steven T. |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-judaism/tosefta/01AD3FCDB5E8ADA0D97EC904512BD830 |access-date=2025-02-04 |series=The Cambridge History of Judaism |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77248-8}}</ref> The mention of sages from the generation after Rabbi Judah HaNasi implies that it would necessarily have been redacted after the Mishna.<ref name=":8" /> However, this fact cannot be taken as an indication of the date of the individual traditions included in it, each of which requires its own discussion.<ref name=":8" /> Suggestions for dating individual traditions in the Tosefta may be presented through a comparative study of all parallel Tannaitic sources.<ref name=":8" /> Another question revolves around the relationship between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, which often quote Tannanitic traditions, known as ''[[Baraita|Baraitot]]'' (external traditions).<ref name=":8" /> These traditions are often similar in content and form to parallel traditions in the Mishna and Tosefta, and are at times identical to them.<ref name=":8" /> Baraitot are commonly mentioned within Talmudic discussions of Mishnaic passages, and collections of them are attributed to various Amoraic sages, thus their study would impact conclusions regarding the Tosefta as well.<ref name=":8" />

=== Authorship ===
There is no explicit mention of an author of the Tosefta within the Tosefta itself.<ref name=":9">{{Citation |last=Mandel |first=Paul |title=The Tosefta |date=2006 |work=The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period |volume=4 |pages=320 |editor-last=Katz |editor-first=Steven T. |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-judaism/tosefta/01AD3FCDB5E8ADA0D97EC904512BD830 |access-date=2025-02-04 |series=The Cambridge History of Judaism |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77248-8}}</ref> Various collections of Tannaitic traditions have been attributed to different sages, including Rabbi Hiyya, Rabbi Hoshaya, and Bar Kappara, all contemporaries of Rabbi Judah HaNasi, and it is possible that these collections played a role in the Tosefta's compilation.<ref name=":9" /> A notable tradition in the Talmud, attributed to [[Johanan bar Nappaha|Rabbi Yochanan]],<ref>{{Cite Talmud|b|Sanhedrin|86a}}</ref> stated that [[Rabbi Nehemiah|Rabbi Nehemia]], a younger contemporary of Rabbi Akiva, was the author of the anonymous traditions in the Tosefta.<ref name=":92">{{Citation |last=Mandel |first=Paul |title=The Tosefta |date=2006 |work=The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period |volume=4 |pages=320 |editor-last=Katz |editor-first=Steven T. |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-judaism/tosefta/01AD3FCDB5E8ADA0D97EC904512BD830 |access-date=2025-02-04 |series=The Cambridge History of Judaism |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77248-8}}</ref> According to another passage in the [[Talmud]],<ref>Sanhedrin 33a</ref> the Tosefta was redacted by [[Hiyya bar Abba|Ḥiya bar Abba]] and one of his students, [[Hoshaiah II|Hoshaiah]].<ref name=":10"> see [[Rashi]] in his commentary on [[Talmud]] [[Sanhedrin]] 33a, s.v. ''v'afilu ta'ah b'rebbi Hiyya''.</ref> The ambiguity in the Talmud ultimately led to disagreement between the Gaonim and Rishonim on the issue of authorship. The Majority, including Rabbi Nissim Ben Yaakov, [[Sherira ben Hanina|Rabbi Sherira Gaon]], the [[Maimonides]], and [[Rashi]], conclude that Rabbi Hiyya was the author, [[Menachem HaMeiri]] suggests Bar Kappara, and a letter from the [[Cairo Geniza]] mentions Rabbi Hoshaya as such.<ref name=":10" /> 

Modern scholarship has proposed many theories as to the identity of the editor of the Tosefta and the manner of its editing.<ref name=":12">{{Cite book |title=The Literature of the sages |date=1987 |publisher=Van Gorcum |isbn=978-90-232-2282-8 |editor-last=Safrai |editor-first=Shemuʾel |series=Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section 2, Literature of the Jewish people in the period of the Second Temple and the Talmud |location=Assen Philadelphia |pages=293}}</ref> Based on the tradition attributed to Rabbi Yochanan above, some have proposed that Rabbi Nehemia was the editor of the Tosefta as well.<ref name=":12" /> Most modern scholars reject this opinion, however many still believe that Rabbi Nehemia held a role in the redaction of the Tosefta, as is hinted at by the numerous mentions of Rabbi Nehemia in the Tosefta versus comparatively rare mentions in the Mishna.<ref name=":12" /> A. Schwartz suggested that the Tosefta is a compilation of the traditions extracted from the Mishna of Rabbi Meir as well as earlier baraitot, and this was later supplemented by the traditions extracted by Rabbi Judah HaNasi.<ref name=":12" />   

Whereas the Mishna was considered authoritative, the Tosefta was supplementary. The Talmud often utilizes the traditions found in the Tosefta to examine the text of the Mishnah. 

The traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view presupposes that the Tosefta was produced to record variant material not included in the Mishnah.

Modern scholarship can be roughly divided into two camps. Some, such as [[:he:יעקב נחום אפשטיין|Jacob N. Epstein]], theorize that the Tosefta as we have it developed from a proto-Tosefta recension that formed much of the basis for later [[Amoraim|Amoraic]] debate in the Talmuds.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |title=The Literature of the sages |date=1987 |publisher=Van Gorcum |isbn=978-90-232-2282-8 |editor-last=Safrai |editor-first=Shemuʾel |series=Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section 2, Literature of the Jewish people in the period of the Second Temple and the Talmud |location=Assen Philadelphia |pages=292}}</ref> Others, such as [[Hanoch Albeck|Hanokh Albeck]], theorize that the Tosefta is a later compendium of several [[Baraita|baraitot]] collections that were in use during the Amoraic period.<ref name=":11" /> According to Epstein's approach, the baraitot in both Talmuds are derived from the ancient Tosefta, with one branch consisting of the Tosefta and the almost identical Baraitot of the Yerushalmi, and another branch consisting of the baraitot of the Bavli.<ref name=":11" /> According to the approach presented by Albeck, the baraitot of the Talmuds and the Tosefta drew from a common source.<ref name=":11" /> 

More recent scholarship, such as that of [[Yaakov Elman]], concludes that since the Tosefta, as we know it, must be dated linguistically as an example of [[Mishnaic Hebrew|Middle Hebrew 1]], it was most likely compiled in early Amoraic times from oral transmission of baraitot.<ref>Yaakov Elman, ''Authority & Tradition'', Yeshiva Univ. Press, 1994; "Babylonian Baraitot in Tosefta and the 'Dialectology' of Middle Hebrew," Association for Jewish Studies Review 16 (1991), 1–29.</ref> [[Shamma Friedman]] has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material and that parts of the Tosefta predate the Mishnah.<ref>S.Y. Friedman, ''Le-Hithavvut Shinnuye ha-Girsaot be'Talmud ha-Bavli'', '''Sidra''' 7, 1991.</ref>