Scholars have devoted relatively little attention to the development and redaction of the Talmud Yerushalmi. This is understandable, as scholars are generally more concerned with solving the Yerushalmi’s severe textual and exegetical problems than with questions of redaction. Moreover, almost everything we know about the Yerushalmi’s development and redaction is based on literary analysis of its sugyot. Thus questions of redaction are aggravated by exegetical difficulties and vice versa. Here I propose a solution to two problematic parallel pericopae. This solution may also afford us a rare glimpse into the activity of the redactor, in his attempt to merge two conflicting sugyot revolving about the same subject matter.
EpsteinMavo pp. 201n. 4; 202 n. 3; 547 n. 3 quotes four passages in support of "אין" as “there are”: 1) Ket. 7 1 (992:44). The text there is however corrupt; see quote in Or Zarua Teshuvot 761 (= Teshuvot Maimoniot Nashim 33; Teshuvot Maharam Mi’Rotenbergiii 77 a more extensive quote): דרב שאין בו > דרבנן בשהיו בו. The suggestion to equate שאין = בשהיו here leads to the conclusion that שאין means “there were” rather than “there are.” 2) Naz. 8 1 (1129:27). "שאין אומ' לו איכן הוא קרבנך" but this can be interpreted as a rhetorical question (see Penei Moshe). See also emendation suggested by Ze’ev Wolf Rabinowitz Shaarei Torat Eretz Israel (Jerusalem 1940) 444. 3) M. Parah 5:3 "במים שאין ראוין לקדש" (Munich 95); some mss. read: "במים שהן ראוין לקדש" (Cambridge Add. 470.1 Parma 2596). However other mss. read: "במים שאינן ראוין לקדש" (Kaufmann A50 (!) Parma 3173) and need to be interpreted as a secondary development according to Epstein. 4) M. Bes. 1:10: "אע"פ שאין לצורך מועד" (Mishnah in Yerushalmi Cod. Scal. 3) whereas the other major mss. read: "אע"פ שיש בהן כלאים והן לצורך המועד" (Kaufmann A50 Cambridge Add. 470.1 Parma 3173). It should be noted that the Mishnah in Yerushalmi lacks the words "אע"פ שיש בהן כלאים". Furthermore the prooftext from Ket. is clearly an Aramaic statement; the prooftext from Naz. also seems to be in an Aramaic setting whereas M. Par. and Bes. are a completely Hebrew context. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that "אִין" means “yes” in Palestinian Aramaic (Michael Sokoloff A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan 2002) 51 s.v. "אין" but not "אֵין" in the sense “there are” as Epstein suggests.