1. Scholem, Gershom, “Towards an Understanding of the Messianic Idea in Judaism” (from the German of 1959), in idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1979), pp. 1, 35.Google Scholar

2. See, e.g., Lowenstamm, Samuel, the Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development [Hebrew], 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

3. Bokser, Baruch M., The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley. University of California Press, 1984). The discussion is based on an evaluation of the readings in the Kaufmann and other manuscripts and early editions, freeing the Mishnah's text from postmishnaic glosses; see, e.g., n. 10 below and text thereto.Google Scholar

4.

5. See Bokser, , Origins of the Seder, chap. 4, text to nn. 15–19; and chap. 6, nn. 17–21.Google Scholar

6. Our exegesis of this passage builds on Jacobson, Howard, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (New York, 1983), pp. 128–129. See 1 Cor. 5:6–8; Matt. 16:11–12; and Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, n. 13.Google Scholar

7. I follow the manuscripts in presenting the interpretation of unleavened bread third (after that of the bitter herbs) and in deleting the postmishnaic gloss (drawn from the B.T.) explicitly bidding a person to empathize with the redemption (“In every generation a person is required to regard himself as if he went out from Egypt, as it is said...”). See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, n. 13.

8. The second half of the Mishnah, including both the Akiva and Tarfon traditions, assumes that it is appropriate to mention the theme of redemption.

9. See 2 Chron 30:21, 35:15; M. Pesahim 5:5, 7,9:3; T. Pisha 4:11 (Lieberman ed., p. 163,1. 69), 8:22 (Lieberman ed., p. 188, 1. 72). ha–Meiri, Menahem b. Solomon, Beit ha-Behirah, Pesahim, ed. Klein, Joseph, 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 250, already sensed this transformation, and Meir [Ish Shalom] Friedmann, Me'ir Ayin al Seder ve-Haggadah shel leilei Pesah (Vienna, 1895), pp. 71, 72, recognized the dynamic behind the Mishnah. Note Jubilees 49:6 and Wisdom of Solomon 18:9, describing the Israelites in Egypt praising God; and see Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 2, text to n. 14, and chap. 4, nn. 20–25 and text thereto.Google Scholar

10. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, nn. 6–9 and reference there.

11. The reading “to eat thereon... herbs” is in the Cambridge and Paris (but not the Kaufmann and Parma) MSS and early editions; “joyous in your service” is in the Cambridge, Parma, and Paris MSS (with slight variations); “redeems” is in the Kaufmann and Parma MSS. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, nn. 14–16, and chap. 6, nn. 22–26 and text thereto, for a fuller citation of the variants and a discussion of this text.

12. This point is recognized by both Goldschmidt, E. D.(The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources and History [Hebrew] [Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 56–57)Google Scholar and Heinemann, Joseph (“Book Review of E. D. Goldschmidt's Haggadah” [Hebrew], Tarbij 30 [1960–1961]: 407), who otherwise differ in the analysis of this text.Google Scholar

13. Bokser, Origins of the Seder, esp. chap. 7. See also Neusner, Jacob, “Towards the Natural History of a Religion: The Case of the Palestinian Talmud,” in idem, Formative Judaism (Chico, Calif., 1982), pp. 23–36, esp. 25; and idem, “The Messiah in the Context of the Mishnah,” in idem, Formative Judaism, Second Series (Chico, Calif., 1983), pp. 91–113.Google Scholar

14. Smith, Jonathan Z., “The Bare Facts of Ritual,” History of Religions 20 (1980): 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. See, e.g., Turner, Victor, The Ritual Process (Chicago, 1966; Ithaca, N.Y., 1977) and Drama, Fields, and Metaphors (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974); and the application of Turner's theory in Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 7, text to nn. 11–25.Google Scholar

16. Since Bokser, Baruch M., The Talmud of the Land of Israel: Tractate Pesafiim (Chicago, forthcoming) will contain a corrected and annotated text of the P.T., we presently provide only minimal textual notes.Google Scholar

17. Following the Leiden MS: In B.T. Pesadḥim, the notion of “freedom” appears in a statement attributed to R. Nahman (116a) and is employed by the anonymous late circles in their clarification of various traditions, e.g., 108a.

18.

19. See Bokser, Talmud, ad loc, for a discussion of the textual problems. Briefly: Leiden MS's reading of would mean a “double measure of poterion.” If poterion, following an alternative meaning of the Greek word, means “cup,” the phrase would then refer to a double cup, defining the exact amount of the “portion of their cup.” Although this rendering is possible and may be alluded to with a play on words, we prefer the reading “vial of poterion,” . The latter is firmly grounded on the basis of the usage and readings elsewhere and the realia. See Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumhn, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1903), pp. 304a, 1140b; and n. 20 below.Google Scholar

20. The story of Titus appears in Leviticus Rabbah 22:3 (Margulies ed., p. 501); ARNB, chap. 7 (Schechter ed., p. 27), and in part, depending on the readings, in Genesis Rabbah 10:7 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 82–83). The vial of poterion and the fly likewise figure in the explanation of the sin of Pharaoh's cupbearer, in Genesis Rabbah 88:2 (Theodor and Albeck ed., p. 1078 and variants). The correction in the pericope from P.T. Pesaḥim 10 is confirmed by Genesis Rabbah 51:3 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 534–535), which quotes Psalm 11:6 and an analogue to P.T.'s explanatory question and answer differing only in the attribution. Several manuscripts, including Vatican 60 (Midrash Bereshit Rabbah. Codex Vatican 60. A Page Indexby A. P. Sherry [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 191), read ; see Theodor and Albeck ad loc. Krauss, Cf. Samuel, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwōrter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. 2 vols. (Berlin, 1898–1899), 2:210. See Pliny, Natural History 27.97.122–123, 25.77.123 (Loeb Classical Library ed., trans. Harris Rackham, 10 vols. [Cambridge, Mass., 1938–62], 7:465, 7:227); and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc.Google Scholar

21. In this light, note a parallel to the P.T. pericope in Genesis Rabbah 88:5 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 1081–1083), which contains an analogue for the four interpretations of the cups but not for the explanatory gloss to “portion of their cup.” Two variations between the P.T. and Genesis Rabbah may be significant. First, the P.T.'s use of the verbal form instead of Genesis Rabbah's simple future in the form of the participle, , may emphasize the future element. Second, the P.T.'s calling of the cups given to Israel “cups of consolation,” , instead of Genesis Rabbah's “cups of deliverance,” the word used in the last proof-text, from Psalm 116:13, may direct the hopes in a manner that tempers the messianic anticipation. The B.T., in contrast to the P.T. and Genesis Rabbah, does not offer extensive symbolic interpretations of the four cups. At most, an anonymous authority, at 108a, believes that the cups connote freedom. (The reference at 109b bottom is a post-talmudic gloss interepolated into Ravina's comment; see Raphaelo Rabbinovicz, Variae Lecliones in Mishchnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, 15 vols. [Munich and Przemysl, 1867–97]. Tract. Psachim, p. 331, n. 20, and Columbia MS X 893–T14, “The Babylonian Talmud. Tractates Beşah, Megillah, and Pesabim.”)

22. P.T. 10:3, 37d. See Lieberman, Saul, Ha-Yerushalmi ke-Feshuto: A Commentary(Jerusalem, 1934), p. 520. Cf. B.T. 116a, the interpretations attributed to the Palestinians R. Levi and R. Yohanan.Google Scholar

23. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 5, n. 62 and text thereto.

24. P.T. 10:4, 37d: . Mekhilta, Cf., Bo 18 (Horovitz and Rabin ed., pp. 73–74); and Goldschmidt, Passover Haggadah, p. 118. In general see Goldschmidt, Passover Haggadah, pp. 22–25;Google ScholarFrancis, Fred, “The Baraita of the Four Sons,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 280–297; and Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 6.i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Heinemann, Cf. Joseph, “The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabbah” [Hebrew], Ha-Sijrut 2 (1971): 825–827, which finds an analogous outlook in Leviticus Rabbah.Google Scholar

26. P.T. 10:4 (Venice 10:5), 37d. See Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, 8 vols. to date (New York, 1955–), l:xxi n. 40, which suggests that we delete the phrase “is required to start with” and read: and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc.Google Scholar

27. Kaufmann, Yehezkel, Sefer Yehoshua (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 196.Google Scholar

28. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 6, nn. 17–19 and text thereto and references, esp. to David Hoffman, Goldschmidt, and Joseph Tabory; and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc. The fact that the tradition is attributed to the Babylonian Rav in itself is not problematic. First, the P.T. chose to include this teaching. Second, the passage may be an instance of what scholars claim to be the tendency of Rav, who studied in Palestine, to represent the Palestinian position or to be sensitive to the Palestinian situation.

29. See Bokser, Talmud, ad loc.

30. P.T. 10:6 (Venice 10:7), 37d (in Leiden MS [=L]) (+Nehemya Alloni, Geniza Fragments of Rabbinic Literature [Hebrew] [Jerusalem, 1973], p. 44 [=G]) = P.T. Sotah 5:4 (Venice 5:6) (in L + Vatican MS [=V]): [missing in V to Sotah=] [Venice Pesafiim alone = ] [L Pesafrim alone=] For clauses B-D, all the manuscripts have the sequence of DEBC, but we have followed the commentaries that reverse the order; see Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi ki-Feshulo, p. 523, and n. 9 above; Yalkut Shimoni to 1 Chron. 29, no. 1181; and Bokser, Talmud, adloc. Cf. B.T. to Pesaḥim, chap. 10, 117a-b, which discusses the possible original contexts eliciting the psalms and their later use by the nation and individuals, and 118a–119b, which further discusses the context and meaning of the psalms; and Megiltah 14a and Arakhin 10b, for an analogue to the P.T. pericope that gives a different emphasis to the several traditions.

31. See Bokser, Baruch M., “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983). As part of recognizing the gulf, the P.T. here–as elsewhere–becomes open to articulating the symbolic dimension of religious lifeCrossRefGoogle Scholar. See the materials discussed in Bokser, Baruch M., “Recent Developments in the Study of Judaism 70–200 C.E.,” The Second Century 3 (1983): 2.C.Google Scholar

32. Our results regarding the P.T.'s concentrated focus on redemption and its selection and treatment of traditions, which together make up a coherent and distinctive message, are in accord with the notion that the P.T. editors imposed their point of view on the contents when they selected the material, in particular those portions transmitted from Babylonia. Hence, we are justified in drawing historical conclusions from the literary evidence. See Saul Lieberman, The Talmud of Caesarea, Supplement to Tarbiz 2,4 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1931), pp. 22–23; and Bokser, Baruch M., Post Mishnaic Judaism in Transition (Chico, Calif., 1980), p. 469 and nn.Google Scholar

33. See Bokser, Post Mishnaic Judaism, esp. pp. 467–482.

34. Glatzer, Nahum N., “The Attitude Towards Rome in Third-Century Judaism” (1962), in idem, Essays in Jewish Thought (University, Ala., 1978), esp. p. 5;Google ScholarNeusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews of Babylonia, 5 vols. (Leiden, 1966–1970), 2:52–72, 159–168, 236–240;Google ScholarUrbach, E. E., The Sages, 2d enl. English ed., 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979, from the 2d Hebrew ed. of 1971), pp. 676–686, 1000–1005, cf. pp. 655–658, 661,668–671; and Judah Goldin, “The Messianic Tradition in Judaism” (Paper delivered at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Boston, Mass., December 1981).Google Scholar

35. See nn. 13 and 22 above. It is for this reason that scholars such as Urbach can rightly criticize the treatment by Avi-Yonah (The Jews of Palestine [Oxford, 1976, trans, and adapted from the Hebrew eds. of 1946, 1952, 1962, 1969], pp. 127–132) as too schematic, undifferentiated, and therefore inaccurate.

36. See, e.g., Urbach, Sages, pp. 668–671,683; and Neusner, Jacob, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1973), 1:477–479, 2:418. The treatment of Abraham's binding of Isaac, the Akedah, provides a vivid example of the increased emphasis on God living up to His promises; seeGoogle ScholarBen-Amos, Dan, “The Akedah: A Folklorist's Response,” in The Biblical Mosaic, ed. Polzin, Robert and Rothman, Eugene (Philadelphia and Chico, Calif., 1982), pp. 166–167.Google Scholar

37. See n. 25 above.

38. Scholem, “Messianic Idea in Judaism,” p. 1. I am appreciative of the critical comments of Lawrence H. Schiffman and Robert Goldenberg, who read earlier drafts of this paper; and of the constructive suggestions of the participants at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, December 19, 1982, where an earlier version of this study was delivered, and of the anonymous reviewers for the AJS Review.