The Mishnah is preserved in a web of exegetical texts—the Tosefta, the alakhic midrashim, and the Talmuds—which have accompanied it iroughout its history of transmission. A common problem in mishnaic:xtual criticism, therefore, is to clarify the extent to which elements of the Mishnah's exegetical tradition have become part of the the text itself. It is for this reason that a question most appropriate to other literary texts is so difficult to answer for the Mishnah: at what point does the history of the text's creation end and the history of its transmission and interpretation begin? In a certain respect, of course, in the mishnaic case this question is conceptually flawed. By posing an absolute distinction between the redactionand transmission-history of the Mishnah, one reifies processes which, in fact, are most difficult to distinguish. Epstein in particular has shown that the text of the Mishnah, in the recension of Rabbi (Judah the Patriarch), remained relatively fluid for some centuries after its promulgation, ca. 200 C.E. Thus, the mishnaic text-types now available are in a very real sense no less the creations of the Mishnah's later students (the amoraim, or “explainers”) than they are the work of the Mishnah's authors.

As Jacob Neusner and others have argued, before talmudic stories can be evaluated as historical evidence we must ask who the original authors were, what were their motives, and who was their intended audience. Even once we obtain the “original” version of a story, we do not necessarily have access to the historical event which gave rise to the story. For perhaps accounts of the historical event have been colored, even distorted beyond recognition, by the needs, desires, and beliefs of the original authors. Or perhaps the stories they transmit are fabrications, invented by students or later editors with a particular goal in mind.

The late Professor Jacob Katz was wont to observe that the student seeking to properly study and evaluate rabbinic responsa must read his sources twice. First, he must examine the text from the point of view of the halakhist, and evaluate it as an integral part of halakhic literature and tradition, respecting the general assumption of the halakhist that Jewish law is a closed system, which operates according to its own rules. After this, he must don the spectacles of the historian and evaluate, as best he can, the degree to which contemporary circumstances had an impact (if any) upon or are reflected in the decisor's ruling. This dual challenge is quite daunting in so highly nuanced and idiomatically opaque a literature as the halakhah. Caution and sensitivity must be the hallmark of all efforts to achieve both of the aims posited by Katz, especially the latter. As a result of the sagacity of Katz's admonition, halakhic historiography in recent years has made heavy use of the medium of case studies (carried out within specific periods and geographical areas). Recourse to these has proven fruitful in advancing the historian's goal of carefully and responsibly reconstructing the history of halakhah per se and the annals of the societies and cultures within which halakhic traditions were developed and which, in turn, left their impact thereupon.

This study presents the ideas about setting times for Torah study in the writings of R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (Rashaz) as one of the elements that formed the inclusive concept of mystical experience in the Ḥabad movement. The article argues that in his teachings Rashaz invested common experiences and the precepts of normative, non-mystical Judaism with mystical meanings, and thus proposed a new, inclusive concept of mystical experience. The reinterpretation of the precept of setting times for Torah study in Rashaz's writings was one of the factors that greatly contributed to the re-evaluation of the role of ordinary people in religious life, and to shaping Ḥabad's inclusivist vision of mysticism.

A storehouse of narratives can be found within the literature which emerged from and gave expression to the spiritual developments in sixteenth-century Safed. These include legends, moral tales and exempla, anecdotes, and parables which can be garnered from the volumes of the kabbalistic ethical works and other literature of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and early eighteenth centuries. In this study we shall seek to explore two such narratives of that period, stories which, while quite different from one another in character, both draw upon much earlier narrative traditions which have been subtly but radically remolded. The immediate aim of tracing the prehistory of these two stories and their routes of metamorphosis and of comparing the Safed stories with the sources which lie behind them is to clarify the literary and historical significance of the two narratives in the precise form which they acquired in the Safed experience. On a broader scale, such exploration might serve to exemplify the transformation of narrative traditions under the impact of a worldview and a cultural-spiritual milieu.

D. Sperber has confirmed, from rabbinic sources, the argument of J. Drescher (Le muséon 82 [1969]: 98—100) that τράπεζ was used to mean a “paten, tray, dish” in addition to its better known meaning of “table.” We shall here try, through the use of rabbinic sources, to show the real, archaeological background behind the semantic change from “table” to “tray” and to suggest that this background may have been a cause of that change.

Against the background of the dramatic upsurge of liberalism, radicalism, and freethought in religion within the United States in the last third of the nineteenth century, American Reform Judaism and Unitarianism made impressive strides. By the 1880s, Reform Judaism had become the preeminent form of Judaism in both institutional growth and organizational cohesiveness; it remained the favored religious pattern of the elite leadership of American Jewry well into the twentieth century. For its part, Unitarianism by the 1880s had spread beyond the confines of New England, featured a revitalized Western branch, the Western Unitarian Conference, and was experiencing an articulate denominational consciousness.