Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules Baraita on Salvation
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
passages in the Talmud, that the tanna It. Nathan, in the Halakah as well as in the Haggadah, was accustomed to group things arithmetically, and to arrange his sayings accordingly. On this observation, Zunz based the conjecture that "this lost work of R. Nathan contained a large portion of his Mishnah, and was arranged in rubrics from one to forty -nine; so that each rubric, under the introductory formula " Middah, " mentioned halakic, haggadic, and, in general, scientific subjects which belonged in that particular place in regard to number " (" G. V." 2d ed., pp. 95-97). From the few fragments of this Baraita preserved by the above-mentioned authors, only one fact pertaining to its character can be ascertained, viz., that it contained haggadic (Talk. I.e. on the seventy nations) as well as halakic matter, especially such portions of the Halakah as are concerned with exact measurement for instance, the measurement of the Tabernacle and its furnishings (Rashi, I.e.), If from these short fragments an opinion could be formed concerning the composition of the Baraita, Zunz's assumption would be justified that it contained Haggadah and Halakah numerically arranged. Another assumption of his, however, that it represents
the " Mishnat R. Nathan " mentioned elsewhere, is highly improbable; R. Nathan's Mishnah was in all likelihood only a version of Akiba's Mishnah differing from the authoritative Mishnah. Against Zunz's opinion, compare Eliakim Milsahagi, "RABIH," pp. 4ft,
7ft.
Steinschneider believed that he had put an end to all conjecture concerning the Baraita through a happy find. In the introduction to an edition of the " Mishnat ha-Middot, die Erste Geometrische Schrift in Hebraischer Sprache " (Berlin, 1864), he maintains that this mathematical work, edited by The him, is identical with the Baraita under ' Mishnat consideration. Were this the case, the ha-Middot." Baraita would be a product of the ninth or, at the earliest, of the eighth century, and its birthplace would have to be BabyFor, although the scientific terminology of lonia. this, the oldest, mathematical work of the Jews shows its origin to have been in a time previous to Arabic influences on Jewish scholarship, j r et expressions Arabic DHD ("arrow ") for si mis versus, or like fn Arabic nnNDD for measure, area, show that niTEfD the work could not have been written before the contact of the Jews with the Arabs. But Steinschneider's assumption can hardly be supported. The "Mishnat ha-Middot" has nothing in common with the Baraita cited by the old scholars under that name for the citations leave no doubt that the Baraita, even in its mathematical parts, was founded on the Bible whereas the " Mishnat ha-Middot " is a purely secular work, and, possibly, it drew upon the same source as did Mohammed b. Musa, the The plea that the oldest Arabic mathematician. " Mishnat ha-Middot " has not been preserved in its entirety, and that in its original form there were references to the Bible for special points, is of no weight, since it is absolutely incomprehensible that haggadic or halakic matter should fit into the frame '
= =
work as it now is. The same reason demolishes
of the
the hypothesis of
the
German
518
translator of the " Mishnat ha-Middot
("Abhandlung zur Geschichte d. Mathematik," in Supplement to "Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik," 1880; II. Schapira, "Mishnat ha-Midoth .
ins
.
Deutsche Uebersetzt
"),
who assumes
was a Mishnah with the Gemara on
that
and that citations of the old scholars refer to the Gemara, whereas the printed text represents the Mishnah (compare the tanna Nathan, and Bahaita on the Erection of the Tabernacle). there
it,
Abraham b. Solomon of Wilna, in the introduction to his edition of Aggadat Beresliit idem, Hah Pe'oiim, pp. 86 etseq.; Buber, Yert'ol Shelitnwth, pp. 22, 23,
Bibliography
Warsaw, 1896
in Israelitische Monatssdirift (scientific supplement to Jttdische Prcsse), vii. 30-31, 1898; idem, Safer ha^Liltkutim, ii. 3 et seq. (Griinhut believes that he found more citations from the present Baraita in Yalkut the proofs for bis assumption are not convincing, at least not for all the passages in yalkut, the source of which he considers to be the Baraita) Ziinz, Schapira, and Steinschneider, as cited above Geiger, in IVUscnsehaftliche Zeitschrift fur Jttdische Theolnaie, vi. 25-30; Epstein, in Ha-Hoker,i. 35.
Griinhut,
L. G.
sk.
J.
BARAITA ON THE HEAVENLY
THRONE
(ri33-|»
"p-|BD
NTVna)
See Ma'asb
Merkabah.
BARAITA OF
R.
ISHMAEL
xrmi
('T[
Baraita which explains the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael, and their application, by means The name is inaccuof illustrations from the Bible. rately given also to the first part of the Baraita, which only enumerates the thirteen rules. The Baraita constitutes the introduction to the Sifra, and precedes it. in all editions, containing principles which in the Sifra are given their application. The Baraita probably originated in the school of R. Ishmael and in this regard the name is not wholly erroneous. For details see Ishmael, Tanna, and Hermeneutics in the Talmud. The Hekalot are also called by some the " Baraita of R. Ishmael."
^Kyot^)
-A-
L. G.
sr.
j.
BARAITA OF
R.
Name given by some of 'Olam Rabba. same name, see
JOSE
the old scholars to the
Seder
Concerning another Baraita of the Briill, " Jahrbucher," v. 99. L. G.
sr.
j.
(iDV 'Y7 NJVna)
BARAITA OF JOSEPH B. UZZIEL (xn"13 ?X p S|DV1) A cabalistic Baraita, several times ,
t1J?
mentioned by ltecanati. It is in manuscript form at Oxford, and is a commentary to the Sefer Yezirah (compare Joseph b. Uzziel). L. G.
jr.
j.
BARAITA OF JOSHUA "6
P
Jffi'liT
'IT)-
Levi," in article IIebraic, £ 5.
B. LEVI (twvna See " Revelation of Joshua b.
Apocalyptic Literature, Neo-
BARAITA ON THE MYSTERY OF THE CALCULATION OF THE CALENDAR A Baraita cited in the Tal("llTjn T1DT N)V"D)
mud
Since special care was taken to keep it secret, it has not been preserved; but it is probable that the Baraita of Samuel incorporated a considerable portion of it. The Talmud citation from this. Baraita has completely puzzled the commentators, as well as modern students of the Jewish calendar and despite many attempts to explain it, it remains obscure. Compare Calendar. Bibliography: Slonimski, in Ha-Maggid, 1864, p. 166; idem, Yesnde ha-Ibhur, 2d ed., pp. 55, 56. L. G. j. sr. (R. II.
20ft).
