THE OXFORD ANNOTATED MISHNAH: A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE MISHNAH WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTESEdited by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, and Hayim Lapin. 3 Volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, 2023 Pp. xvi + 2585; list of figures. Hardcover, $680.00; Paperback, $85.00.

This is the latest English translation of the first written document of rabbinic Judaism with which the rabbinic movement consolidated itself. Previous enterprises for an English translation of the Mishnah, geared mostly toward an academic audience, included most notably Danby, The Mishnah (1933); Blackman, Mishnayoth (1955, 1963); and Neusner, The Mishnah (1988). Despite each of these translations' merits, they have not gone without criticisms, each for different reasons that concern the accuracy or style of the translation or whether the translation has delivered the rhetoric of the Mishnah in a way that can make the text accessible to scholars less acquainted with its peculiar language, logic, and multivocal style. Was there then a need for a new translation of the Mishnah? I strongly believe that the answer is yes owing to the inadequacies and limits of past translations, whatever their strengths and merits, and the editors of this publication, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg ל′′ז, and Hayim Lapin, have succeeded in providing more than an updated and informed translation of the Mishnaic corpus.

There are many avenues one may take in a review of such a large project, but given the constraints of space, I will focus on those areas that I found most noteworthy, in both positive and less positive terms.

In the Introduction, the editors discuss concisely yet informatively the Mishnah and its significance for rabbinic Judaism. They explain the nature of the Mishnah in terms of what the Mishnah is and what it is not, how to read it, how to read the translation, and they describe the translation's goal. Finally, at the end of the Introduction, a brief reference to Herbert Danby's translation of the Mishnah aims to highlight the distinctions between the two projects, indicating, even if latently, the editors' respect for Danby's work.

The subsections “How to Read the Mishnah” and “How to Read This Translation” provide a roadmap of the project and are the most informative parts of the Introduction. The editors explain that they “transliterate (and place in italics) rather than translate some of the Mishnah's legal terms; [and that] these are explained in the glossary” (1.6). Indeed, in the Glossary section, the reader will find a definition of many of the terms that are transliterated and placed in italics within the tractates. However, the contributors also provide their own definitions of the terms in the Annotations section per tractate.

This choice does not come without a few caveats. As an example, the term piggul—a term that the editors use to show the different meanings it assumes in the Torah and the Mishnah—appears in several tractates in the Mishnah, and each contributor gives a definition of the term. At the same time, piggul is also explained in the Glossary of Untranslated Hebrew Terms, but the definition given in that section does not render the meanings provided across the tractates in which the term appears. If the reader reads only one or some of the tractates in which the term appears, such as Orlah and Nedarim, and omits Zevahim, Pesahim, and Gittin (the list here is not exhaustive), then they might miss more nuanced meanings of this term which they would also miss by simply referring to the Glossary. Or, to give another example: the term androgynos appears in several discussions across the Mishnah, such as in Bikkurim, Shabbat, Hagigah, Yevamot, Bekhorot, and Terumah (again, this list is not exhaustive). The contributors provide, by and large, similar definitions of the term but with some nuances. If a reader who is unfamiliar with the term in the Mishnah and in other rabbinic works reads only the tractate Terumah, then they will read a definition of the androgynos as an animal with both sexes. However, in the Glossary, the term is explained as a person with both sexes without including the case of an animal defined also as such. On that point, I was surprised to read in one of the tractates the outdated term “hermaphrodite”—which can be perceived as derogatory and stigmatizing (in my opinion, it is both)—as a definition for the term androgynos. On the whole, such an overabundance of definitions between the individual tractates and the Glossary is not necessarily negative, but it can lead to some confusion, especially for the more novice reader. If the reader wishes to get a comprehensive understanding of a term or a sense of a term's array of definitional nuances, they ought to look for all the given definitions across tractates and not depend on the Glossary or on a definition given in a particular tractate alone.

I would also note that a series of important terms that contributors have translated individually are missing from the Glossary. This is the case with regard to the terms goy and nokhri in Tractate Avodah Zarah. If the reader searches for these terms in the Glossary, they find neither. Instead, under the letter “G,” the reader finds, for example, a definition of the word gimel (the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet), and, under the letter “N,” they find by way of illustration a definition of the word Nisan. In my opinion, the words gimel and Nisan are not any more important semantically or more obscure than the terms goy and nokhri. This lack of completeness among the definitions of terms between the tractates and the Glossary, and the selective choice of which terms made it into the Glossary, at a minimum, makes it difficult for the reader to get an as complete as possible understanding of terms and, at worst, may give the reader a misunderstanding of terms if they do not dedicate time to look for terms across the entire corpus. It may be understandable that a Glossary cannot be exhaustive, but for a project of such significance as the current one, an exhaustive Glossary may have been the desideratum and even expected.

With regard to the textual basis of the project, the editors explain that translations of tractates are based on the standard printing edition, with contributors using either the Vilna edition, Hanokh Albeck's edition, Pinhas Kehati's edition, “or all three” (1.7). However, there is no indication of which edition each translator used.

The translations, in general, are close to the Hebrew text without being clunky in English, with the editors' and contributors' efforts to preserve a sense of the original text. However, no mention is made of the guiding principles or approach behind the translations as a whole or per tractate, neither in this work's Introduction nor in each tractate's Introduction. Was the guiding principle of a translation to be as close to the original as possible? Or was it for each translation to sound natural in English? Or maybe a combination of both? It would have been an important addition to such a project in which translation is its key component had the editors seen to this neglected parameter and maybe advised the contributors to discuss, even succinctly, in their Introductions the overall principles of their translation process, especially considering each contributor's personal approach, philosophy when translating a rabbinic text, and experience on the text(s) on which they worked for this project.

Two of the important features of The Oxford Annotated Mishnah are 1) the inclusion of variants from Mishnah manuscripts to give readers a glimpse of the transmission history of the text and 2) the text's elucidation with the aid of annotations. With respect to the former, the contributors had to provide variants from the Kaufmann A50 and Palatine Library of Parma 3173 manuscripts of the Mishnah. However, one will easily detect a lack of uniformity among contributors in this task as well, which stems from contributors' use of different number of manuscripts in addition to the Kaufmann and Parma in order to present variants—the editors have included a list of these additional manuscripts. Although this choice is admirable, at the same time, it creates some imbalance among the translated tractates. The presentation of the variants is not exhaustive, but it still achieves, to a degree, the editors' goal “to show the reader some of the instability in the transmission of the Mishnah's text” (1.7). The variants are given per page of the translated text and are placed in the Footnotes section below the translated text. In the Footnotes, the contributors also provide more literal or alternative translations of words and phrases, and brief lexicographical information where needed. Relating to the Annotations, these follow the Footnotes and are placed beneath them. Their scope is for the contributors to provide information that elucidates the text. Per the editors' instructions, the contributors had the option to “follow the lead of a single classical commentator, or to flit about from one commentator to another, or to avoid them all” (1.6). However, on several occasions, the reader cannot know what particular commentaries were consulted or whether commentaries were consulted at all. An indication within the annotations of those commentaries that were used by occasion would facilitate the reader to reach for the equivalent commentaries if needed.

As mentioned earlier, each tractate is accompanied by an introduction, the overall purpose of which is to elucidate succinctly a tractate as a unit, underlying, inter alia, its themes, and topics. For the most part, the Introductions are divided into five subsections: 1) “Overview,” which provides a definition of a tractate's name and concise information on its overall topic; 2) “Structure and Organization of the Tractate,” which offers chapter-by-chapter information per tractate; 3) “Main Ideas,” which presents the main ideas a tractate encompasses and the concerns with which it deals; 4) “Relationship to Scripture,” which explains the extent to which topics in a tractate relate to the Hebrew Bible; and 5) “Special Notes for the Reader,” which offers additional information on the translated text, usually on the Mishnah manuscripts that were used to present variants and much less frequently on the commentaries consulted.

However, the Introduction sections do not show consistency among the tractates. To begin with, the order of the subsections is not always the one listed above, except for the “Overview,” which opens the Introduction—only in one case does the Introduction not commence with this subsection—and the “Special Notes for the Reader,” which is placed at the end, when this subsection is included. Additionally, not all Introductions contain all five subsections, and this seems to depend on the personal choice of each contributor. For example, the “Special Notes for the Reader” subsection is missing from many Introductions. In these cases, the reader cannot know what commentaries a contributor consulted, and they are only able to know what manuscripts a contributor used to demonstrate the variants of a particular tractate from the sigla in the Footnotes section. Particularly with relation to the “Special Notes for the Reader,” even when this subsection is included, it does not always mention the manuscripts used for the variants (similarly, in this case, the reader has to leaf through the translation to spot the different Mishnah manuscripts from their sigla), and in fewer cases, there is a reference to the commentaries consulted for the annotations. In addition, sometimes two subsections may merge under one. For example, the content of the “Relationship to Scripture” subsection may be added to that of the “Main Ideas” and presented under the latter's name. The aforementioned examples only aim to show the lack of completeness and uniformity among contributions, which results in the reader being provided with various degrees of information.

Additionally, some remarks ought to be added in respect of this work's guiding principles, which extend beyond providing an updated and more informed translation of the Mishnah, inadvertently offering some insight into the field of rabbinics in general. Among the fifty-one contributors (including the editors), somewhat less than one-third are women (sixteen out of fifty-one). While it is challenging for editors to recruit contributors for several reasons (e.g., it could be the case that those asked might not have time due to other academic and/or personal commitments), in my opinion, more effort could have been made to include more female and nonbinary scholars of rabbinics to attain a more balanced representation across genders. Furthermore, the reviewer has distinguished contributors who translated tractates pertinent to their research, but they have also noticed seemingly more random assignments. On these points, it would have been rather informative to read about the selection and assignment processes of contributors for this project. These observations are especially relevant considering the fact that there are multiple contributions, ranging from two to four, by a subset of contributors. Would not a more open process have allowed more scholars of early Judaism to participate in this project? Or, would not a more open call for participation have resulted in certain scholars being assigned tractates on whose topics they have researched and published? These questions are not irrelevant for as large of a project such as the translation of the Mishnah, and they put the finger on the wound by calling for more democratization and openness of Jewish Studies to non-normative scholars of early/late ancient Judaism who do not meet the conventions and/or long-held expectations of the field.

Despite a number of structural and editorial inconsistencies that run throughout the three volumes and are observable in the uneven engagement of translators with the text of the tractates, and notwithstanding the need for more inclusivity, which I would have wished or expected for such a significant work, the Oxford Annotated Mishnah is an instrumental work that indeed makes “the Mishnah accessible to the Hebrew-less reader” (1.6) and this manifests on multiple levels.

The concise Introduction of each tractate is instrumental for its comprehension, as it provides, among other things, consequential information on a tractate's topics and themes. This is not a small feat, given the fact that the contributors have succeeded in circumscribing a galore of information in a few pages with the aim to offer a pithy roadmap per tractate. The translations, along with the Footnotes and Annotations, constitute the heart of this work and highlight the importance of this project as a whole. To begin with, the division of the sentences into short lines, unlike previous translations of the Mishnah, also serves the editors' goal to make the text of the Mishnah more comprehensible to the readers—this format ameliorates the density of the text and does allow the reader to follow the line of Mishnaic reasoning with more ease. The Footnotes not only offer a look into the transmission history of the text by pointing out, for example, omissions or additions among the variants, but they also point to obscurities of the text, where these exist, or illuminate obscure points that otherwise would puzzle the reader less acquainted with the Mishnaic or rabbinic text. In my opinion, the Annotations are a constituent part of this project. The contributors have managed the difficult task of providing enough information to explain each tractate, without which it would have been (more) challenging for the reader, especially those not well-versed in rabbinic literature, to comprehend the text in terms of topics, rationale, and arguments. In my opinion, these are the greatest assets of this work that bespeak not only its importance, which is undisputable but also its necessity.

In all, The Oxford Annotated Mishnah constitutes an invaluable contribution to the field of Jewish Studies, bringing the Mishnah closer to scholars and students of early Judaism, religion in the ancient Mediterranean, and of the ancient world more broadly conceived, as well as to an informed, yet not necessarily academic, audience. This project's fifty-one well-known and established scholars–contributors (including this work's editors) have guaranteed with their expertise the quality of this work, which is here to stay.

牛津注释密西拿：带有介绍和注释的密西拿新译本，由Shaye JD Cohen、Robert Goldenberg和Hayim Lapin编辑。3卷。牛津：牛津大学出版社，2022 年，2023页。十六+2585；数字列表。精装本，680.00 美元；平装本，85 美元。

这是拉比犹太教第一份书面文件的最新英文译本，拉比运动借此巩固了自身。之前的《密西拿》英译本主要面向学术读者，其中最著名的包括丹比的《密西拿》  （1933）；米什纳约斯·布莱克曼(1955,  1963 )；和诺伊斯纳，《米西那》  （1988）。尽管这些翻译各有优点，但它们也并非没有受到批评，批评的原因各有不同，涉及翻译的准确性或风格，或者翻译是否以一种能让学者理解文本的方式传达了密西拿的修辞。不太熟悉其独特的语言、逻辑和多声部风格。那么是否需要对《密西拿》进行新的翻译呢？我坚信答案是肯定的，因为无论过去的翻译有什么优点和优点，都存在不足和局限性，而本出版物的编辑 Shaye JD Cohen、Robert Goldenberg ל''ז 和 Hayim Lapin 已经成功地提供了不仅仅是米什奈语语料库的更新且内容丰富的翻译。

人们可以通过多种途径来审查如此大的项目，但考虑到篇幅的限制，我将重点关注那些我认为最值得注意的领域，无论是积极的还是不太积极的方面。

在引言中，编辑们简洁而内容丰富地讨论了《密西拿》及其对拉比犹太教的意义。他们解释了密西拿的本质，包括密西拿是什么、不是什么、如何阅读它、如何阅读翻译，并描述了翻译的目标。最后，在引言的末尾，简要提及赫伯特·丹比 (Herbert Danby) 翻译的《密西拿》(Mishnah)，旨在强调两个项目之间的区别，表明编辑们对丹比 (Danby) 作品的尊重，即使是潜在的。

“如何阅读密西拿”和“如何阅读本译本”小节提供了该项目的路线图，是引言中信息最丰富的部分。编辑们解释说，他们“音译（并用斜体字）而不是翻译《密西拿》的一些法律术语；[并且]这些在术语表中进行了解释”（1.6）。事实上，在术语表部分，读者会发现许多术语的定义，这些术语在论文中被音译并以斜体字显示。然而，贡献者还在每篇论文的注释部分提供了他们自己的术语定义。

这个选择并非没有一些警告。举个例子，“piggul”这个术语——编辑者用来显示它在《托拉》和《密西拿》中所假定的不同含义的术语——出现在《密西拿》的几篇论文中，每个贡献者都给出了该术语的定义。同时，“piggul”也在《未译希伯来语术语表》中进行了解释，但该部分给出的定义并未呈现该术语出现的各个论文中提供的含义。如果读者只阅读该术语出现的一篇或部分论文，例如 Orlah 和 Nedarim，而忽略了 Zevahim、Pesahim 和 Gittin（此处的列表并不详尽），那么他们可能会错过该术语的更细微的含义如果仅仅参考术语表，他们也会错过这一点。或者，再举一个例子：“雌雄同体”一词出现在《密西拿》的多次讨论中，例如《比库林姆》、《安息日》、《哈吉加》、《耶瓦莫特》、《贝霍罗特》和《泰鲁玛》（同样，这个列表并不详尽）。总体而言，贡献者提供了该术语的相似定义，但存在一些细微差别。如果一个不熟悉《密西拿》和其他拉比著作中这个术语的读者只阅读《Terumah》这本短文，那么他们就会读到“雌雄同体”的定义，即具有两种性别的动物。然而，在术语表中，该术语被解释为具有两种性别的人，而不包括也如此定义的动物的情况。在这一点上，我很惊讶地在其中一篇论文中读到过时的术语“雌雄同体”——它可以被视为贬义和污名化（在我看来，两者兼而有之）——作为术语“雌雄同体”的定义。总体而言，各个论文和术语表之间如此过多的定义并不一定是负面的，但它可能会导致一些混乱，尤其是对于新手读者而言。如果读者希望全面理解一个术语或了解一个术语的一系列定义细微差别，他们应该寻找跨论文的所有给定定义，而不是依赖于术语表或仅在特定论文中给出的定义。

我还要指出的是，术语表中缺少贡献者单独翻译的一系列重要术语。Tractate Avodah Zarah 中的术语goy和nokhri就是这种情况。如果读者在词汇表中搜索这些术语，他们什么也找不到。相反，在字母“G”下，读者可以找到例如“ gimel ”（希伯来语字母表的第三个字母）一词的定义，并且在字母“N”下，他们通过示例找到“gimel”一词的定义。尼散月这个词。在我看来， gimel和Nisan这两个词在语义上并不比goy和nokhri更重要或更晦涩。论文和术语表之间的术语定义缺乏完整性，并且选择性地选择将哪些术语纳入术语表，至少使读者难以获得对术语和术语的尽可能完整的理解。如果读者不花时间在整个语料库中查找术语，在最坏的情况下，可能会给读者带来对术语的误解。术语表不可能详尽无遗可能是可以理解的，但对于像当前这样重要的项目来说，详尽的术语表可能是人们的迫切需要，甚至是期望的。

关于该项目的文本基础，编辑们解释说，论文的翻译基于标准印刷版，贡献者使用维尔纳版、哈诺赫·阿尔贝克版、皮尼亚斯·凯哈蒂版，“或全部三个”(1.7)。然而，没有表明每个译者使用的是哪个版本。

总的来说，这些译文接近希伯来语文本，但英语又不显得笨拙，编辑和撰稿人努力保留原文的感觉。然而，无论是本书的引言还是每篇论文的引言，都没有提及整个或每篇论文的翻译背后的指导原则或方法。翻译的指导原则是否尽可能接近原文？还是每个翻译的英语听起来都很自然？或者也许是两者的结合？如果编辑们看到了这个被忽视的参数，并且可能建议贡献者在他们的引言中讨论，甚至简洁地讨论他们翻译过程的总体原则，这将是对这样一个以翻译为关键组成部分的项目的重要补充，特别是考虑到每个贡献者的个人方法、翻译拉比文本时的哲学以及他们为该项目工作的文本的经验。

《牛津注释密西拿》的两个重要特点是：1）包含密西拿手稿的变体，让读者了解文本的传播历史；2）借助注释对文本进行阐释。对于前者，贡献者必须提供考夫曼 A50 和帕尔马帕拉丁图书馆 3173 份密西拿手稿的变体。然而，人们很容易发现这项任务的贡献者之间缺乏一致性，这是因为贡献者除了考夫曼和帕尔马之外还使用了不同数量的手稿来呈现变体——编辑们列出了这些变体额外的手稿。尽管这种选择令人钦佩，但同时，它也造成了译文之间的一些不平衡。变体的呈现并不详尽，但在一定程度上仍然实现了编辑的目标“向读者展示米西那文本传播中的一些不稳定性”（1.7）。变体按翻译文本的每页给出，并放置在翻译文本下方的脚注部分中。在脚注中，贡献者还提供了单词和短语的更多字面翻译或替代翻译，以及必要时的简要词典编目信息。与注释相关，这些注释跟随脚注并放置在脚注下方。他们的范围是让贡献者提供阐明文本的信息。根据编辑的指示，贡献者可以选择“跟随单个古典评论员的领导，或者从一个评论员跳到另一个评论员，或者避开所有评论员”（1.6）。然而，在某些情况下，读者无法知道查阅了哪些具体评论，或者根本不知道是否查阅了评论。在那些偶尔使用的评论的注释中注明，将有助于读者在需要时找到等效的评论。

如前所述，每篇论文都附有一个引言，其总体目的是简洁地阐明一篇论文作为一个单元，及其背后的主题和主题。在大多数情况下，引言分为五个小节： 1）“概述”，提供了论文名称的定义以及有关其整体主题的简明信息；2) “论文的结构和组织”，提供每篇论文的逐章信息；3）“主要思想”，介绍论文所包含的主要思想及其所涉及的问题；4）“与圣经的关系”，解释了小册子中的主题与希伯来圣经的相关程度；5）“读者特别注释”，提供有关翻译文本的附加信息，通常是用于呈现变体的密西拿手稿，而很少涉及所参考的评论。

然而，引言部分并没有显示出各论文之间的一致性。首先，各小节的顺序并不总是上面列出的顺序，除了“概述”（它打开引言）（只有在一种情况下引言不以此小节开始）和“读者特别说明” ，”当包含本小节时，它被放置在末尾。此外，并非所有介绍都包含所有五个小节，这似乎取决于每个贡献者的个人选择。例如，许多引言中都缺少“读者特别注意事项”小节。在这些情况下，读者无法知道贡献者查阅了哪些评论，他们只能知道贡献者使用哪些手稿来证明脚注部分中的特定论文的变体。特别是关于“读者特别说明”，即使包含了这一小节，它也并不总是提及用于变体的手稿（同样，在这种情况下，读者必须翻阅译文才能发现不同的地方） Mishnah 手稿来自他们的 sigla），并且在少数情况下，有参考注释所参考的评论。此外，有时两个小节可能合并为一个小节。例如，“与圣经的关系”小节的内容可以添加到“主要思想”的内容中，并以后者的名义呈现。上述例子只是为了表明贡献之间缺乏完整性和统一性，这导致读者获得不同程度的信息。

此外，还应该就这部作品的指导原则添加一些评论，这些指导原则不仅仅是提供《密西拿》的更新和更明智的翻译，无意中提供了对拉比学领域总体的一些见解。在 51 名撰稿人（包括编辑）中，女性比例略低于三分之一（51 名撰稿人中有 16 名）。虽然出于多种原因，编辑招募贡献者具有挑战性（例如，由于其他学术和/或个人承诺，被邀请的人可能没有时间），但在我看来，可以付出更多努力来包括更多的女性和非二元拉比学者，以实现跨性别的更平衡的代表性。此外，审稿人还区分了翻译与其研究相关的论文的杰出贡献者，但他们也注意到看似更随机的作业。在这些方面，阅读有关该项目贡献者的选择和分配过程的信息会非常有用。考虑到一部分贡献者做出了多项贡献（从两到四个不等），这些观察结果尤其相关。更加开放的进程难道不会让更多的早期犹太教学者参与到这个项目中吗？或者，更公开地呼吁参与是否会导致某些学者被分配研究和出版其主题的论文？这些问题与像《密西拿》的翻译这样的大型项目并非无关紧要，他们呼吁犹太研究更加民主化和对早期/晚期古代犹太教的非规范学者开放，这将矛头指向了伤口。不符合该领域的惯例和/或长期期望。

尽管三卷书中存在许多结构和编辑上的不一致之处，并且在译者对论文文本的参与程度不均匀中可以观察到，并且尽管需要更多的包容性，这是我对如此重要的著作所希望或期望的，《牛津注释密西拿》是一部工具性著作，确实让“不懂希伯来语的读者也能读懂《密西拿》”（1.6），这体现在多个​​层面上。

每篇论文的简洁引言都有助于理解它，因为它提供了有关论文主题和主题的重要信息。这不是一个小壮举，因为贡献者已经成功地将大量信息限制在几页纸中，目的是为每篇论文提供一个简洁的路线图。这些翻译以及脚注和注释构成了这项工作的核心，并强调了整个项目的重要性。首先，与《密西拿》之前的翻译不同，将句子分成短行，这也符合编辑者的目标，使《密西拿》的文本更容易被读者理解——这种格式改善了文本的密度，并且确实允许读者可以更轻松地遵循米什奈学的推理路线。脚注不仅通过指出变体之间的遗漏或添加来了解文本的传播历史，而且还指出文本中存在的模糊之处，或者阐明否则会令人困惑的模糊点不太熟悉米什奈或拉比文本的读者。在我看来，注释是这个项目的组成部分。贡献者们完成了一项艰巨的任务，即提供足够的信息来解释每篇论文，如果没有这些信息，读者（尤其是那些不熟悉拉比文学的读者）从主题、基本原理等角度理解文本将会（更具）挑战性。和参数。在我看来，这些是这部作品最大的财富，不仅表明了它的重要性，这是无可争议的，而且也表明了它的必要性。

总而言之，《牛津注释密西拿》对犹太研究领域做出了不可估量的贡献，使《密西拿》更接近早期犹太教、古地中海宗教和更广泛的古代世界的学者和学生，以及更广泛的古代世界。见多识广但不一定是学术性的受众。该项目的 51 名知名学者贡献者（包括本作品的编辑）以其专业知识保证了本作品的质量，并将继续保持下去。