¹ Translations are (heavily) revised from The Tosefta (ed. Jacob Neusner and Richard S. Sarason; trans. Jacob Neusner; 6 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1977–1986). Tosefta Soṭah, from ch. 3 to the end of the tractate, displays more profound differences than usual, in both quantity and quality, between MSS Vienna and Erfurt, a fact which led Saul Lieberman to present the two versions side by side in his critical edition. Saul Lieberman, The Tosefta (5 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955–1988). My own work on tractate Soṭah led me to conclude that the MSS do not represent two independent textual traditions in these chs., as one might deduce from Lieberman’s synoptic arrangement. Rather, MS Erfurt preserves the more original version, confirmed also by the existing Geniza fragment (which unfortunately continues only up to ch. 4). MS Vienna’s much longer version does not represent an alternative edition of the Tosefta, but rather elaborates and glosses on the basic shared tradition. See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “The Sin of Concealment of the Suspected Adulteress,” Tarbiz 70 (2001) 367–401, at 370–72 and the tables there in n. 14 (Hebrew). See also Robert Brody, Mishna and Tosefta Ketubbot: Text, Exegesis and Redaction (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2015) 20–22 (Hebrew). I agree with Brody’s explanation that “scribes took greater liberties with aggadic material” (idem, Mishna and Tosefta Studies [Jerusalem: Magnes, 2014] 80). For a specific example of the secondary nature of MS Vienna in these chs. see Yoav Rosenthal’s article “Appendices and their Place in the Tosefta,” Tarbiz 79 (2010) 187–228, at 191 (Hebrew).

² The Sifre Deut 38 cites a theological debate between Rabbi Shimon and his son, whether the fact that the blessings which the righteous figures bring to the world vanish after their death is a “a sanctification of the Name” or the opposite (Saul Horovitz, Sifre on Deuteronomy [ed. Louis Finkelstein; Corpus Tannaiticum 3:3; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993] 76 [Hebrew]).

³ Chaim Milikowsky, “Seder Olam and the Tosefta,” Tarbiz 49 (1980) 246–63 (Hebrew); idem, Seder ‘Olam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013) 2:185 (Hebrew). Milikowsky concludes that these chs. used S. ʿOlam Rab. as one of their direct sources. Things, however, might be more complicated: 1) the clearest case of verbatim similarity—11:10: “three good benefactors (parnasim)” which appears also in S. ʿOlam Rab. 10—is not an integral part of the Tosefta, but rather an appendix, as was shown by Rosenthal, “Appendices”; 2) A second case of verbatim dependency—“that the well was gone” in 11:1—is cited only in the longer (and reworked! [see n. 1 above]) version of MS Vienna. Furthermore, other traditions cited in these chs. differ from those of S. ʿOlam Rab., e.g., the ceasing of the holy spirit, dated in S. ʿOlam Rab. 30 (ed. Milikowsky, 2:322) to the days of Alexander the Great, while the Tosefta (13:3) ascribes it to the death of the latter prophets. Even if the gap is not chronologically vast, as the whole Persian period is just a few dozen years according to the rabbis (Milikowsky, Seder ‘Olam, 1:523), it is clearly a different tradition. The whole issue thus deserves further consideration. Compare also Milikowsky’s article “Gehenna and ‘Sinners of Israel’ in the Light of ‘Seder ‘Olam,’ ” Tarbiz 55 (1986) 31–43 (= idem, Seder ‘Olam, 2:78–80), which concludes, with regard to the similarities between t. Sanh. 13:4–5 and S. ʿOlam Rab 3–4, that a shared source, rather than direct influence, should be assumed.

⁴ In a Palestinian medieval source named “Pseudo-Sheiltot,” the two narratives are already combined into one. See Simcha Emanuel, Hidden Treasures From Europe (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 2019) 2:43 (Hebrew).

⁵ See Vered Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature (trans. Dena Ordan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) 59–75. Noam cites several proofs for the antiquity of these traditions, in comparison to the preceding traditions about the rabbis hearing a voice: the usage of Aramaic, the fact that the figures are priests working in the Temple rather than sages gathered in an attic, the political content of the voice, and the term “šam‘a davar” instead of “šam‘a bat qol,” which is used in the previous stories. Noam sees “davar” (lit.: word) as the older form of “bat qol.” Note however that in MS Erfurt there is only “šam‘a” without “davar,” which seems to be the more original version.

⁶ Rosenthal, “Appendices,” and n. 1 above.

⁷ Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kipshuta (12 vols.; 1st ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973) 8:718–74.

⁸ The abundance is of different types: Abraham and Isaac brought satiation (sovaʿ) to the whole land, while Jacob brought plenty to the places he was staying in. These differences may testify to independent midrashic traditions, but we are interested in the redaction which tied them together.

⁹ The two orders can clash of course, as in the case of Elisha (12:6). The passage is about war, like Joshua and Samuel, but appears only after Elijah, which already moves to the theme of the holy spirit. Note also that the relationship between Elijah and the holy spirit is twofold. On the one hand the spirit is connected to his charismatic presence—similar to previous phases of affluence which are connected to the presence of the righteous persons and thus disappears with them. On the other hand, Elijah marks the beginning of the end of the period of prophecy as a whole. Up until him “the holy spirit was affluent (merubbah),” when he has gone it “disappeared” (nistalqah), and then, after the latter prophets died, it “stopped” (pasqah) altogether.

¹⁰ See Ephraim E. Urbach, “When did Prophecy Cease?,” Tarbiz 17 (1946) 1–11, at 2 (Hebrew).

¹¹ I refrain from capitalizing this term in order to avoid reading it as a proper name, which is inadequate for our sources. For a similar consideration, see Menahem Kister, “Textual Growth, Midrash and Anthropology in CD A 4:12–5:19,” RevQ 30 (2018) 265–92, at 266 n. 5.

¹² The Tosefta cites three consequences of the destruction, but only with regard to the ‘urim and tummim is a proof text cited.

¹³ See, e.g., m. Šeqal. 6:2; m. Soṭah 8:1; y. Mak. 2:6, 32a. On hiding the ark, compare 2 Macc 2:5 (where Jeremiah rather than Josiah is the protagonist).

¹⁴ As Saul Lieberman has shown, bat qol does not mean an echo of the divine voice, “a poor substitute.” See Steve Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea: Did Josephus Report the Failure of an ‘Exact Succession of the Prophets’ [Against Apion 1.41]?,” JSJ 50 (2019) 524–56, at 529, citing Joachim Jeremias; compare Max Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (New York: Bloch, 1972) 262. Rather, it refers to a voice without a clear source (see m. Yebam. 16:6), which is attributed to the divine realm. See Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I century BCE – IV century CE (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950) 194.

¹⁵ I cannot follow Milikowsky’s argument (Seder ‘Olam, 2:523 n. 105) that the Tosefta does not make good on its promise to narrate the appearance of bat qol, instead discussing those rabbis who are worthy of the holy spirit but did not receive it. After all, it is the bat qol who announces this, thus becoming the supplement to the lost holy spirit. This refutes Milikowsky’s claim that the Yerushalmi’s version (y. Soṭah 9:14) is more original than that of the Tosefta. See also n. 44 below. For bat qol’s role in announcing the existence of the holy spirit, compare Mark 1:8, 11. For the relationships between bat qol and the holy spirit in rabbinic literature in general, see Menahem Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996) 1:350–52 (Hebrew).

¹⁶ Amram Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 84; Boston: Brill, 2013), convincingly argues that the identification of Simeon the Righteous with the “men of the great assembly” functions in ’Abot to “fill the gap between the age of classical prophecy and the age of the pairs” (213, see also 33, 65).

¹⁷ The logic behind the list of sages in our Tosefta was explained by Marc Hirshman, “Anav and Talmid,” in Rabbinic Thought: Proceedings of the First conference on “Mahshevet Hazal” Held at the University of Haifa, 7 Dec. 1987 (ed. Marc Hirshman and Tsvi Groner; Haifa: University of Haifa, 1989) 59–65 (Hebrew). Hirshman convincingly argues that the eulogy of these figures, “Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man,” is not standard language of praise, but a list of the specific traits that grant one the holy spirit. Then, however, he claims that this holy spirit remains an unfulfilled potential. He writes: “the chain of transmission in Tosefta Sotah—Ezra, Hillel, Samuel the Little, R. Yehuda b. Baba—seems to be formed of sages who were worthy of gaining the same revelatory status as Moses but did not succeed. And yet these are the sages who taught Torah to Israel, and due to them Torah did not cease from Israel” (64 [my translation]). Note however that Torah does not appear in this source at all. Instead, the bat qol appears as a lesser manifestation of the lost holy spirit (see n. 24 below).

¹⁸ See n. 35 below. Adiel Schremer argued that the chain of transmission in Mishnah ’Abot is itself an alternative to the mainstream Tannaitic strand. See, however, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “The Wisdom Tradition in Rabbinic Literature and Mishnah Avot,” in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism (ed. Jean-Sebastien Rey, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar; JSJSup 174; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 172–90, at 188, noting that the sayings in these chs. present a conventional Tannaitic world view. There are other types of chains of transmission in rabbinic literature, too. See, e.g., the mystical tradition of those who interpret the divine chariot in t. ḥag. 2:3 and of those whose beauty is like that of the Shekinah in b. B. Bat. 58a.

¹⁹ See Judah Goldin, “A Philosophical Session in a Tannaite Academy,” Traditio 21 (1965) 1–21.

²⁰ Vered Noam, “Ben Sira: A Rabbinic Perspective,” in Discovering, Deciphering, and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years (ed. James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 6; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019) 201–17, at 207, suggests that the chain of transmission in Mishnah ’Abot is a conscious alternative to that of Ben Sira in his Praise of the Fathers. Against Ben Sira’s emphasis on priesthood, from Aaron to Simeon the High Priest, the Mishnah concentrates on the sages, excludes priests from the list altogether, and makes Simeon into a sage “of the remnants of the great assembly.” Our source, I would argue, is much closer to (and, as we shall see below, dependent on) Ben Sira’s tradition. See, however, Amram Tropper, “Was the Chain of Transmission Designed to Polemicize against a Priestly Sect?,” Daat 86 (2019) 155–64 (Hebrew), in which he questions the dichotomy between Ben Sira’s chain and that of ’Abot. He notes that Simeon’s saying in m. ’Abot 1:2 deliberately combines Torah and ʾavodah, i.e., Temple service, unlike the sayings of the “men of the great assembly” who only speak about Torah. In his forthcoming dissertation on the traditions on R. Yehošu‘a b. Hananiah, David Sabbato notes another possible alternative to ’Abot’s chain of tradition. In the story of R. Eliezer and the sages in Yavne, according to t. Yad. 2:16 (but not in the parallel story in m. Yad. 4:3), R. Eliezer cites Amos 3:7: “For the Lord God will do nothing, without revealing His counsel unto His servants the prophets.” In the context of the story, it seems to convey that the prophets, rather than the sages, are the real tradents.

²¹ On the evolution of Torah in m. ʾAbot 1–2, see my “Wisdom Tradition.”

²² Urbach, “When did Prophecy Cease?” Urbach’s article (later integrated into his book The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975]) can only be fully appreciated in the context of his rebuttal of Christian supersessionist claims regarding the loss of “spirit” in postbiblical Judaism. See Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea,” 528. Mason, however, underestimates the sense of vitality and continuity of prophecy in Urbach’s article; or, using Mason’s own metaphor, he concentrates too much on the empty half of Urbach’s prophetic glass. Compare Benjamin D. Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation,” JBL 115 (1996) 31–47, who correctly identifies (and fiercely debates!) Urbach’s conception of the “vitality of prophecy” (31) and especially his claim “that Pharisees and rabbis believed that prophecy continues in their own days” (34 n. 13). For other attempts to rebut Urbach and present a definite picture of end-of-prophecy ideology in rabbinic literature, see Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (SANT 28; Munich: Kosel, 1972) 148–49; Louis Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JTS 41 (1990) 386–422, at 406. For the opposite view, emphasizing continuity rather than rupture, see David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 103–6. For the larger ideological and theological context of the controversy, see Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea,” 525–37. See also Kister, “Textual Growth”; Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity and Sanctuary of the Body in Second Temple Judaism (JAJSup 33; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019) 221–64, who emphasize the multiplicity of attitudes toward the holy spirit in Second Temple literature. See further in n. 24 below.

²³ My reading is different from that of Vered Noam, “Ben Sira,” 202–3. Noam writes: “The rabbis indeed incorporated the story of John and the heavenly voice into their literature but … quickly created mirror images of prophetic powers exercised by rabbis in the attics where they gathered. This means that the storytellers inserted an opposite message into the ‘prophecies,’ essentially making them reveal the end of the age of prophecy.” Since this is a unique tradition about exceptional rabbis, and it is not occupied with Torah at all, I see here rabbis joining the prophetic tradition rather than replacing it. According to my reading, this source continues the very priestly tradition which it is set, per Noam, to amend.

²⁴ Compare the different evaluation of Milikowsky, Seder ‘Olam, 2:521–30. The Tosefta says: “When Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the latter prophets, died, the holy spirit came to an end in Israel, but even so, they made them hear through an echo (bat qol).” While Milikowsky highlights the first part of the sentence, I emphasize the second part, for it is this latter part that is developed in detail in the following four halakhot. I thus side with John R. Levison, “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data,” NTS 43 (1997) 46–57. Levison’s reading of t. Soṭah 13:3 as conveying “a temporary lapse in the presence of the holy spirit” (52) due to the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, in a similar vein to the calamities emanating from the death of other righteous persons and sages, cannot be sustained (see n. 9 above). But his conclusion that our text does not convey a fatal ceasing of the holy spirit is justified. Milikowsky (Seder ‘Olam, 1:523–24 n. 103; see also 521, 526) is thus right in arguing that the parallel passage in S. ʿOlam Rab. 30 proves that we are dealing with the marking of an end of a period, the period of the holy scriptures inspired by the holy spirit. But he unnecessarily downplays the role of the ongoing holy spirit in our Tosefta. See also n. 44 below.

²⁵ Compare Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 406 n. 76. For the connection between the debate on the continuation of prophecy and the different scholarly attitudes toward canonization, see Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea,” 533.

²⁶ Compare Milikowsky: “From Josephus’ assertion that there was no ‘exact continuity’ (ἀκριβὴς διαδοχή) to the prophets, one can understand that some continuity did exist” (Seder ‘Olam, 1:528 [my translation]; note that Milikowsky preceded Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea,” in rejecting the common reading of διαδοχή in C. Ap. 1.41 as a ‘succession’ of prophets). And yet in the context of rabbinic literature he emphasizes only discontinuity (Seder ‘Olam, 529). Milikowsky polemicizes against what he sees as the tendency of previous scholars to overemphasize the continuation of ruaḥ haqodeš (the holy spirit) in rabbinic literature (see, e.g., Abraham J. Heshel, “On the Holy Spirit in the Middle Ages,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday [2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950] 1:175–208, at 175; Urbach, “When Did Prophecy Cease?,” 11). I will not enter into this debate here, as our Tosefta unit should be read independently of our larger evaluation of rabbinic attitudes toward prophecy.

²⁷ This argument reappears in later generations. See, e.g., Yaacob Dweck, Dissident Rabbi: The Life of Jacob Sasportas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019) 177.

²⁸ The English is taken from my forthcoming translation of tractate Soṭah, in Oxford Mishnah: A New Annotated Translation of the Mishnah (ed. Shaye Cohen and Hayim Lapin).

²⁹ “Former prophets” thus means something like: the prophets of old (as in Ezek 38:17). The appearance of “former prophets” in MS Vienna of t. Soṭah 13:3 is an emendation based on the Mishnah.

³⁰ The next passages of the Tosefta are appendices commenting on the parallel Mishnah unit: the regulations of John Hyrcanus. See n. 44 below.

³¹ On this story, and the semi-divine status of the high priest it assumes, see Michael Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology from Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub, 2012) 71–84 (Hebrew).

³² Almost all of the biblical heroes mentioned in the Tosefta also appear in Ben Sira: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph (added at the end of Ben Sira’s list, 49:15), Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, the prophets (Ben Sira has Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and then the Twelve Prophets). The only exceptions are Methuselah (Sirach has Noah, but the subject is similar: the flood) and Miriam (Sirach lists only men!). Note that while Ben Sira, unlike the Tosefta, does not cite verses (with the possible exception of 48:10), it too is full with biblical allusions. See Benjamin G. Wright, “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 183–208.

³³ See Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 199–208, and the bibliography therein. This identification suits the eulogies of Simeon in our unit (t. Soṭah 13:7–8), but not his prophecy concerning Gaius Caligula (Gaskalgas) in 13:6. See Tropper’s assertion that “all of the rabbinic dates for Simeon the Righteous dovetail seamlessly save one” (199). For this exceptional source and the reasons why it ascribes the prophecy to Simeon the Righteous, see ibid., 211; Vered Noam and Tal Ilan, Josephus and the Rabbis (Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017) 470 (Hebrew). In whatever manner we account for this source, it is clear that for the rabbis there is one Simeon the Righteous (pace the scholars cited by Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 210 n. 32), to whom all these traditions are attached. The sense of discrepancy is ours, not theirs.

³⁴ For the tight literary connection between Ben Sira’s praise of the biblical forefathers and that of Simeon the Priest, see Menahem Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1990) 303–78, at 374 n. 257. Scholars argue that the entire unit is an extended eulogy to Simeon. See Noam, “Ben Sira,” 195–96 n. 3 and the bibliography cited there.

³⁵ Ben Sira’s longest portraits are those of Aaron and Phineas (45:6–25). The Tosefta expands on the destruction of the first Temple and the exile of the holy vessels (13:1–2) and ends with a large section on the destruction of the Second Temple (ch. 15). On Ben Sira’s priestly ethos, see Martha Himmelfarb, “The Wisdom of the Scribe, the Wisdom of the Priest, and the Wisdom of the King According to Ben Sira,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 2000) 89–99. For the divine image of the high priest in Sirach, see n. 31 above.

³⁶ Ben Sira counts three individual prophets (as well as “the twelve prophets”) among the great men, emphasizing their divine nature. On “ruaḥ gevura” in Sir 48:24 (regarding Isaiah) as the holy spirit, see Kister, “Contribution,” 371. The Tosefta combines priesthood and prophecy through the image of the ’urim and tummim. For the antiquity of this theme, see Menahem Kister, “5Q13 and the Avoda: A Historical Survey and Its Significance,” DSD 8 (2001) 136–48, at 142.

³⁷ Sir 48:1–10; t. Soṭah 12:5–6. On the unique nature of the image of Elijah in Sirach, see Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts (BZNW 138; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006) 41–42. On the identification of Elijah as a priest, see Meir Ayali, “Whence Elijah?,” in Ki-revivim: Jewish Education and the Study of The Sources (ed. Meir Ayali and Avraham Shapira; Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad; Oranim, 1996) 259–83, at 269 (Hebrew).

³⁸ Even when Ben Sira praises Simeon as a national leader, a builder and a defender (50:1–4), it is in the context of strengthening Jerusalem and the Temple.

³⁹ On this gap, see Kister, “Contribution,” 374, and n. 35 above. The popularity of “Simeon the Righteous” led to various usages of this figure in different contexts. See, e.g., how he is “enlisted” in the debate regarding the status of Onias’s temple in y. Yoma 6:3, 43c; b. Menaḥ. 109b.

⁴⁰ On the divine light and the radiation of the High Priest in Ben Sira, see n. 31 above. On the divine light of the Temple in rabbinic literature, see Moshe Simon-Shoshan, “Past Continuous: The Yerushalmi’s Account of Honi’s Long Sleep and its Roots in the Literature of the Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha,” JSJ 51 (2020) 398–431. For Amoraic traditions regarding Simeon the Righteous in the day of atonement (y. Yoma 6:3, 43c; b. Yoma 39a), see Mira Balberg, “Omen and Anti-omen: The Rabbinic Hagiography of the Scapegoat’s Scarlet Ribbon,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 17 (2016) 25–54, at 40–44.

⁴¹ See Cecil Roth, “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service,” JBL 71 (1952) 171–78; Michael D. Schwartz and Joseph Yahalom, Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004) 17–18; Kister, “5Q13.” See Kister’s summary of the typical structure of this liturgy: “Virtually every classical or pre-classical ‘Avodah begins with God as a creator, goes through a ‘historical’ survey ending with Aaron, and then describes Aaron’s clothes and the priestly service during the Day of Atonement, which is the Sitz im Leben of this poetic type” (147). Unlike previous scholars who saw Ben Sira as the source of this structure, Kister argues for an old priestly poetic tradition manifested also in Ben Sira. See also Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 87.

⁴² On citations of Sirach in rabbinic literature, see Jenny Labenz, “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” AJSR 30 (2006) 347–92 and the literature cited there.

⁴³ To the best of my knowledge the only scholar who noticed the structural similarity between our Tosefta and Ben Sira was Marc Hirshman, who noted laconically: “Surprisingly, we see that the same Tannaitic source which praises, like Ben Sira, the merits of the Fathers of the World, also ends with Simeon the Righteous” (“Anav and Talmid,” 59 [my translation]). On this superb but frustratingly short article, see n. 17 above.

⁴⁴ That this unit is an addendum can be seen from the fact that it appears at the end of the whole unit, and not right after John Hyrcanus’s previous appearance as one of those who “heard a voice” in t. Soṭah 13:5. Milikowsky, Seder ‘Olam, 2:524 n. 105, argues that t. Soṭah 13:3 is dependent on m. Soṭah 9:12, adding to it the reservation that even though the holy spirit ceased, the bat qol did not cease. These two sources, however, share very little in common. The Mishnah does not mention the holy spirit at all, while in the Tosefta it is a central theme (the term ruaḥ haqodeš appears six times, shama/u four times, and bat qol three times).

⁴⁵ For the independent structure of the Tosefta, see also Peter Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen im Antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und verwandten Phänomenen (TSAJ 20; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 308–10. Note also that the thematic continuation between chs. 10–12, which deal with the biblical figures, and ch. 13, which deals with the Second Temple, revokes the possibility that the structure mimics S. ‘Olam Rab., since ch. 13 has no parallel in this text. S. ‘Olam Rab. deals with biblical chronology, with but a few sentences of appendix at its very end, while our Tosefta deals extensively with the Second Temple and its destruction. Milikowsky marks three parallels between S. ʿOlam Rab. and t. Soṭah ch. 13, but none of these reveals dependency or even acquaintance: 1) The hiding of the ark by King Josiah appears in t. Soṭah13:1 as well as S. ʿOlam Rab. 24, but this is a common rabbinic tradition, and the Tosefta had various other traditions regarding the ark not attested in S. ʿOlam Rab.; 2) The ceasing of prophecy appears in both texts, but see in n. 3 above that they clearly relate to different traditions; 3) S. ʿOlam Rab. 30 has the name “Gaskalgas” for a Greek (!) king, but, as Milikowsky himself notes (Seder ‘Olam, 1:551), this is obviously not the same person as in t. Soṭah 13:6. Tosefta Soṭah ch. 10 also reveals no real affinity with S. ʿOlam Rab. The actual parallels concentrate in ch. 11 (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam) and 12 (the Kings).

⁴⁶ “When (miše) the first Temple was built [13:1] … when the first Temple was destroyed [13:2] … when the murderers abound [14:1] … when hedonists abound [14:3] … when the (second) Temple was destroyed [15:1] … when R. Eliezer [et al.] died [15:3] … when the Sanhedrin was annulled [15:6] … from the day (miyom še) the Temple was destroyed [15:10]. ”

⁴⁷ I have found three cases of clear literary dependency: 1) t. Soṭah 15:8 explicates the decrees of m. Soṭah 9:14 following the three revolts: “the crowns of grooms/brides,” “the canopy of grooms,” “teaching one’s son Greek.” According to MS Erfurt, the Tosefta opens directly with the exegetical question “which are ?,” rather than presenting the decree itself as in MS Vienna’s more elaborate, and secondary, phrasing. 2) t. Soṭah 13:9–10 interprets the “awakeners and knockers” of m. Soṭah 9:10, opening directly with the interpretive language “these.” 3) t. Soṭah 15:2 elaborates on “the dew (drops)” of m. Soṭah 9:13, opening with “know!” (note, however, that the following halakha says “the dew has not come down as a blessing,” and so the Tosefta might be referring to this idea). Lieberman identified additional instances, but it is according to his general method that any parallel is a “paragraph taken from the Mishna” (see e.g., Tosefta Kipshuta, 756, 760).

⁴⁸ My account below differs from that of J. N. Epstein, Prolegomena ad Litteras Tannaiticas: Mishna, Tosephta et Interpretationes Halachicas (ed. Ezra Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957) 402 (Hebrew).

⁴⁹ This is the reason why the narration of this ritual was postponed to the end of the elaboration, as opposed to its initial place in the list of the things to be recited in the holy tongue, at the beginning of ch. 7.

⁵⁰ The clearest example is m. Soṭah 9:10, which is taken from m. Ma‘aś. Š. 5:15 and was incorporated here due to the sentence, “He also eliminated (biṭṭel) those who recited the ‘Wake up’ verses and the knockers” (see the explanations of these practices in t. Soṭah 13:9–10), which was associated with the list of cessations (baṭlu).

⁵¹ The death of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch in m. Soṭah 9:15 was added later in order to end with his image. The original list was confined to sages from the last years of the Temple.

⁵² For links between the Hesiodic theme and biblical narratives, see Guy Darshan, After the Flood: Stories of Origins in the Hebrew Bible and Eastern Mediterranean Literature (Library of the Encyclopedia Biblica 35; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2018) 130–32 (Hebrew). The theme of decline itself is known from other Tannaitic sources, e.g., the etiological narratives in the Mishnah explaining new rulings as resulting from specific processes of deterioration (i.e., m. Šeqal. 1:2; m. Roš Haš. 2:1–2; m. Sanh. 3:3). See Moshe Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 200–4. What is unique here, is the sense of an eternal deterioration.

⁵³ This is a well-known apocalyptic trait: “The key to redemption is revealed wisdom, rather than the Mosaic covenant and Torah.” See George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom and Its Relationships to the Mosaic Torah,” in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 81–94, at 83.

⁵⁴ For this analysis, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, The Rite that Was Not: Temple, Midrash and Gender in Tractate Soṭah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008) 178–79 (Hebrew).

⁵⁵ The Tosefta interpreted “song ceased from the houses of feasting” as a decree rather than as a natural dissolution, and thus placed it alongside the decrees related to the revolts. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kipshuta ad loc.

⁵⁶ Before “Rabbi” was added. See n. 51 above.

⁵⁷ See n. 47 above.

⁵⁸ Judicial decline is wholly absent from the chronological account of t. Soṭah chaps. 10–13, and only appears in ch. 14’s list of “When x multiplied.”

⁵⁹ On the rabbinic self-perception as jurists, see Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee (London: Mitchell, 1983) 127; Catherine Hezser, “Roman Law and Rabbinic Legal Composition,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Charlotte E. Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee; Cambridge Companions to Religion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 144–64, at 147–51; Amram Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East (Oxford Oriental Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 192–94; Naftali Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Divinations; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) 17–37.

⁶⁰ For the combination of mediated, angelic revelation and eschatology in apocalypses, see John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 10.

⁶¹ “Crisis” does not formally appear in Collins’ definition of apocalypse—which first appeared in his introduction to the edited volume, “Apocalypse: the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979) 14, and has become all but canonized since. But this omission has to do, as Collins explains, with the lack of a sense of oppression in the “otherworldly journeys” type of apocalypse, while in the “historical” apocalypse it is indeed widespread. For the centrality of the state of crisis in apocalyptic literature from the Hellenistic period, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977) 383–405, at 392–93.

⁶² MS Vienna is more explicit here, too: “whoever mourns for Jerusalem in this world merits rejoicing with her in the world to come.” These secondary glosses (illustrated here with italics), I would argue, capture well the meaning of the statement.

⁶³ Ch. 15 contains several bold metaphysical statements unparalleled in the Mishnah, which can be read in light of the focus on the holy spirit in the previous chapters. 1) In 15:2 (“the dew has been cursed”), ritual worship maintains agricultural bounty, making its loss a metaphysical rather than a solely physical matter. 2) In 15:7 (“and what good was the Sanhedrin for Israel”), a bold theological statement appears: the Sanhedrin’s chastisement protected Israel from the divine wrath. The explication in the parable which follows is even harsher: God punishes more extremely than the Sanhedrin because he is more formidable (the message “so is Israel: the latter tribulations make them forget the former tribulations” seems to be a deliberate moderation of this bold parable). 3) In 15:10–11 (“from the day on which the Temple was destroyed”), the sages present a moderate model of grieving “he leaves open a small area,” but the text also gives voice to two more extreme zealot alternatives: those saying “let us make a decree against the world, that it be left desolate,” and the abstainers who believe that with the annulment of Temple offering, one is not permitted to enjoy this world anymore.

⁶⁴ See Jacob N. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishna (3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000) 976 (Hebrew); idem, Prolegomena, 402; and Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading ‘Second Baruch’ in Context (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 244–52.

⁶⁵ For a fuller list of apocalyptic compositions, see Collins, “Apocalypse.”

⁶⁶ For the distinction between “apocalyptic” world-view and “apocalypse” as a literary genre, see Paul D. Hanson, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David N. Freedman; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 1:279; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 2, 12–14 (and further bibliography in n. 5); idem, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Jr.; IVP Bible Dictionary; Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2000) 40–45, at 43.

⁶⁷ On this combination, see Benjamin G. Wright, “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin, de Gruyter, 1997) 189–222; Himmelfarb, “Wisdom of the Scribe”; Greg S. Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (JSJSup 139; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 121–25, 167–72; Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest, 51.

⁶⁸ See Sir 16:7; 44:16; 49:14. For Ben Sira’s possible use of the Book of the Watchers, see Annette Y. Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 70. See further Randell A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment (EJL 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Benjamin G. Wright, “1 Enoch and Ben Sira: Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Relationship,” in Early Enoch Literature (ed. Boccaccini and Collins) 159–76.

⁶⁹ For priestly traditions in rabbinic literature, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “The Temple of the Body: The List of Priestly Blemishes in Mishna Bekhorot and the Place of the Temple in Tannaitic Discourse,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005–2006) 49–87. For wisdom in rabbinic literature, see Rosen-Zvi, “Wisdom Tradition.” In a recent paper given at the 11th Enoch congress (Munich, May 2021), Hindy Najman called for loosening the traditional distinctions between genres in Second Temple literature: “By calling texts apocalyptic exclusively as their categorical location, we can lose a lot of the texture of traditions and their horizons by missing out on how there are many ways in which these very same texts can be characterized as wisdom, as liturgy and as prophecy” (“Time, Wisdom and Prophecy: Deconstructing Categories”). This article exemplifies the need for exactly such a blurring.

⁷⁰ For combinations of apocalypticism and wisdom, see n. 68 above and Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom” (esp. 83: “Enochic authors tie their soteriology to the possession of the right knowledge.”); Michael Kolarcik, “Sapiential Values and Apocalyptic Imagery in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom (ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér; JSJSup 142; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 23–36. For apocalypticism and priestly traditions, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth,” 383–405; Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, “Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic ‘Imaginaire’ and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood,” in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions (ed. Jan Assman and Guy G. Stroumsa; SHR 83; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 349–66; Andrei Orlov “The Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham: Part I; The Scapegoat Ritual,” in Symbola Caelestis. Le symbolisme liturgique et paraliturgique dans le monde chrétien (ed. Andrei Orlov and Basil Lourié; Scrinium 5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias 2009) 79–111. Compare also the thesis of Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) 78–87, about the accommodation of “apocalyptic mythology” to “covenantal nomism” resulting in “integrated Judaism.”

⁷¹ Tannaitic literature very rarely deals with the destruction of the Temple. As Shaye Cohen rightly observes, it is modern scholarship, rather than any explicit Tannaitic statement, that reads the Mishnah as a grand reaction to the destruction. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Temple and the Synagogue,” in The Early Roman Period (ed. William Horbury, William D. Davies, and John Sturdy; vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 298–325, at 314.

⁷² Amoraic compositions do contain more of this material, as observed by Cohen, “The Temple and the Synagogue,” 316–17. See, e.g., the famous narrative on the revelation of Elijah in Jerusalem’s ruins, in b. Ber. 3a.

⁷³ Moshe Simon-Shoshan, “ ‘These and Those are the Words of the Living God, but …’: Meaning, Background, and Reception of an Early Rabbinic Teaching,” AJSR 45 (2021) 382–410, at 398. Simon-Shoshan argues that the Talmudic tradition (y. Ber. 1:3, 3b; b. ‘Erub. 13b and parallels) about the bat qol appearing in Yavne to announce that halakha is according to the house of Hillel is an Amoraic revision of our Tosefta. Note the dialectic that this Amoraic adaptation creates: the bat qol deals now with halakha and, at the same time, subjects halakha to the realm of the bat qol.

⁷⁴ Some even see apocalypticism and wisdom as coming from the same oppositional priestly milieu: “We can reconstruct plausibly a social context in which we see in Ben Sira and 1 Enoch different factions of priests and their partisans finding faults with others over various aspects of priestly practice and behavior” (Wright, “1 Enoch and Ben Sira,” 176).

⁷⁵ See n. 5 above.

⁷⁶ On the difficulty of moving from the text to its setting, see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 22.

⁷⁷ See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Between Biblical and Apocalyptic: The Making of the Scapegoat Ritual in Mishnah Yoma,” Sidra, 34 (2021) 1–31 (Hebrew).

⁷⁸ See, e.g., Michael Schneider’s reconstruction of rabbinic Temple metaphysics based on the descriptions of the entrance of Simeon the High Priest to the holy of holies narrated in our Tosefta (n. 31 above).

⁷⁹ For a critical engagement with the scholarly convention of the disappearance of apocalypticism, see Michael F. Mach, “From Sunset to Dawn: Transformations in Ancient Jewish Messianism,” Tedua 26 (2014) 307–60 (Hebrew).

⁸⁰ See Brody, Mishna and Tosefta Ketubbot, 41–42.

⁸¹ For a comprehensive review of scholarship, see Shamma Friedman, Tosefta Atiqta: Pesah Rishon (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2002) 15–71 (Hebrew). See also the far-reaching thesis of Judith Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (TSAJ 109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) and the critique of Brody, Mishna and Tosefta Studies, 116.

⁸² Alberdina Houtman, in her study of Tractates Berakhot and Shevi’it, is the only scholar I know of who systematically attempted such a consecutive reading, but her study leaves much for reexamination. She convincingly reveals an editorial hand which connects different halakhot, but her findings hardly support her conclusion that both tractates are “quite readable without the Mishnah” and that the Tosefta is a complementary composition resulting from a “discontent” with the Mishnah’s redaction. Alberdina Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (TSAJ 59; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 234–35.

⁸³ Scholars have identified editorial Tendenz even in midrashic works which are structured as a running commentary, such as the Mekilta (see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990] 57–79) and Gen. Rab. (see Ofra Meir, “The Art of Redaction in Genesis Rabba and Leviticus Rabba,” Teuda 11 [1996] 61–90 [Hebrew]).

⁸⁴ Compare for example the two near-contemporaneous running commentaries to the Talmud: Rashi and Rabbenu Hananel. The former is based on lemmata, while the latter is paraphrasing the Talmud and can be read consecutively, while at the same time serving as a commentary. For these two exegetical methods, see Israel Ta-Shema, Talmudic Commentary in Europe and North Africa: Literary History, Part One; 1000–1200 (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000) 129 (Hebrew).

⁸⁵ The blessing of commandments, wholly absent from the Mishnah, occupied most of the chapter in the Tosefta (Halakhot 9–15), and is referred to in both the beginning and the end of the chapter. At the beginning of the chapter we find a homily that biblically anchors the various blessings of the chapter and adds the blessings “over the Torah and over the commandments.” The fact that the parallel homily in the Mekilta (Pasḥa 16, 60–61) does not include the words “over the commandments” shows that this is a special addition of the Tosefta. R. Meir’s homilies at the concluding section deal again with the multiplication of the commandments: “There is no man in Israel who does not perform one hundred commandments each day There is no man in Israel who is not surrounded by the commandments.” The footprint of an editor is thus unmistakable here: adding the blessing of the commandants at the chapter’s center; the homily on the Torah and the commandments at its opening; and R. Meir’s homilies on the commandants at the conclusion. See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Blessing as Mapping: Reading Mishnah Berakhot, Chapter 9,” HUCA 78 (2007) 25–46; idem, “Responsive Blessings and the Development of the Tannaitic Liturgical System,” JSIJ 7 (2008) 1–29 (Hebrew).