Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7
A very well-known mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7, reads,
כל מצות הבן על האב אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות וכל מצות האב על הבן אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין וכל מצות לא תעשה בין שהזמן גרמה בין שלא הזמן גרמה אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין חוץ מבל תשחית ובל תקיף ובל תטמא למתים
For every commandment concerning the son to which the father is subject-men are liable, and women are exempt. And for every commandment concerning the father to which the son is subject, men and women are equally liable. For every commandment dependent upon the time [of year], men are liable and women are exempt. And for every positive commandment not dependent upon the time, men and women are equally liable. For every negative commandment, whether dependent upon the time or not dependent upon the time, men and women are equally liable, except for not marring the corners of the beard, not rounding the corners of the head (Lev. 19:27), and not becoming unclean because of the dead (Lev. 21:1). [trans. J. Neusner]
The textual tradition surrounding the first phrase of this mishnah is very interesting. In most of the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud and the Munich and Vatican (110-111) mss. the version is the same as brought above. However in the Kaufman and Parma mss. of the Mishnah, as in the Jerusalem Talmud, the first clause of the mishnah reads “כל מצות האב על הבן אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות”/”All of the commandments which a father must do for his son-men are liable, and women are exempt. ” The Babylonian Talmud interprets “כל מצות הבן על האב” as “כל מצות הבן המוטלות על האב לעשות לבנו”/”All of the commandments concerning the son which are incumbent upon the father to do to his son…” What is interesting is that the Jerusalem Talmud, which has the opposite version of the mishnah, interprets their version in exactly the same way, i.e. their interpretation of the mishnah is the same as the Babylonian Talmud despite their having a different version. Instead of the Babylonian Talmud’s interpretation of “על” as meaning “incumbent upon”, the Jerusalem Talmud interprets “על” as a simple subject to direct object relationship, i.e. “All of the commandments that a father must do for his son”. So despite both Talmuds having two different versions of the mishnah, their interpretation of it is the same. How did it end up that there are two different versions of the mishnah? J.N. Epstein theorizes that it’s possible that the Babylonian version of the mishnah may have been emended under the influence of mBechorot 8:6 (see his Mavo le-Nusah ha-Mishnah pp. 341-342).
In addition to the textual question, the mishnah also includes the much interpreted phrase “מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה”/”Positive time-bound/caused commandments”. Elizabeth Shanks-Alexander has recently published an article in JQR examining this phrase and also the phrase “כל מצות האב על הבן”/”All of the commandments which a father must do for his son”, as having their origins more in the interpretive process, “the context of scriptual interpretation”, and not in any descriptive or proscriptive social or historical reality.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I hope you draw out a sense of the repercussions this text had in later tradition and historical reality.
It is one thing to note, quite properly, that historical reality cannot be read off of a Talmud text. But the text nonetheless reflects realities precedent to it and impacted reality that unfolded beyond it and in its wake.