This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I would think that Shaul Leiberman's "Tosefta ki-Feshutah" is the definitive commentary on tosefta, (instead of Rabbi Abramsky's work) although I'm not sure how one goes about proving that. Would you look at citations?, sales? conduct a poll of scholars?
20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
No argument there. Most of the citations of Tosefta study I have come across cite Shaul (Saul)Lieberman's work as the definative study of the Tosefta. His work is widely used in Orthodox circles as well as non-Orthodox works. (JTS Press has been selling his work to Orthodox rabbis for years. Apparently its one of Orthodoxy's little secrets, like the way that some Orthodox rabbis order copies of CJLS teshuvot from the Rabbinical Assembly. Not that they need to do so anymore, since the RA published most of their teshuvot, and then put many of them online.) RK03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
If we can't find a source verifying which edition is considered authoritative and by whom, we should take that piece out. Additionally, unless there is a reason not to, I'd like to remove the distinction between Orthodox and Non-Orthodox editions because it doesn't seem to add any real informational content. --yonkeltron (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Tosefta Kifshuta is the authoritative "critical" edition. Period. There are other commentaries, of course, but as for critical editions Lieberman's is it. I cited Jacob Neusner to prove the point, although almost any other scholarly work on Mishnah and Tosefta could have been used. I specifically chose Neusner because Liebrman strongly criticized Neusner's scholarship in an article published posthumously. Neusner, has ever since been embroiled in an academic battle over his methodology and scholarship, and, subsequently has been severely critical of Lieberman. However, even Neusner calls Lieberman's Tosefta Kifsutha "masterful" and uses it extensively in his works. I beleive that Lieberman's work was not completed and only encompasses 3 or 4 of the six Sedarim. However, I am not certain of this.
As for Orthodox use of Lieberman: Anectodtaly, I know Orthodox Rabbis who use Tosefta kifshuta and Yerushalmi kifshuta. I also know that even the editors of Artscroll's Yerushalmi edition consult Lieberman's work regularly - Although that doesn't mean that they ascribe to it's explanations. It does indicate that his works are respected by most everyone as having enormous scholarly value.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}