This is not the first work on the subject. See the introduction there, pp. 9–11, in which earlier works are mentioned; the primary forerunner to my own book is Raphael Patai, Ha-Sapanut (above, n. 14).
See the glossary there, pp. 129-158. On the difficulties involved in determining the correct reading, see above, n. 20. The same holds true even where one understands every word, and where one seems to understand the halakhic context. This may be illustrated by the article by Y. Brand, “In the Light of Ancient Clay Lamps”, in his book Kelei Zekhukhit be-sifrut ha-Talmudit (above, n. 12), 165-168, where he discusses whether the proper reading in m. Betsah 4.4 is: 
... 
(“one does not open the lamp ... on a festival day”) or 
’ (“one does not reduce the lamp ...”). He writes there (p. 166), “As clay vessels are [potentially] impure and transmit impurity only in the air [enclosed by their space as receptacles] and not behind them or above them (Kelim 2.1), they invented the following device - they made clay vessels whose openings are closed, whereby only the artisans who made them became impure, and when they were brought to the home of the purchaser, they opened it [ by knocking out the cover] (t. Kelim: Baba Batra 7.3; and cf. R. Samson b. Avraham of Sens’s commentary on m. Kelim 29.8). It is clear these lamps were made in a similar way - i.e., with their openings closed on inside them, but it was forbidden to open these lamps on a festival day because one thereby makes a vessel, as its opening transforms it into a container for oil.” Cf. illustrations 14 and 15 here. But compare what was written on this by S. Sprecher, “The Issue of Reducing the Lamp” (Hebrew), Sefer ha-Yovel li-kh’vod ha-Gri”d Soloveitchik (Jerusalem, 1984), 446-457.
Nautica Talmudica, pp. 17–120.
These have been collected in Material I and Material II. These articles were originally published in Sinai, Sidra, and Leshonenu, and some in the notes and comments to my edition of Derekh Erets Zuta (2nd edition; Jerusalem, 1982).
See, for example, in Lieberman’s seminal book, Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Jerusalem, 1963), Index 3 (“Roman and Greek Words”, 312-315), (Hebrew), in which those words indicated with an asterisk do not appear in Greek or Latin dictionaries. Cf. in one of his last articles, Tarbiz 50 (1981), 128-135, on his approach to Talmudic realia.
Throughout my above-mentioned book (n. 6).
See above, n. 44. An additional example is the word tetros 
in m. Kelim 2:6. On the basis of the halakhic context and the commentaries of the rishonim and the Geonim, we know this refers to a perforated clay vessel with numerous holes; see Brand, 
, 186-187. Lexicographers have sought a Greek etymon, and offered two main etymological possibilities: 
- that is, perforated, pierced, bored through, from the root διατορεω “to pierce/ make a hole”; or διάτρητος, a word which likewise means perforated, and is also used in Latin in the form of diatreta, in the sense of “glass vessels with open-work decoration” (Martialis 12. 70. 9, etc.). Cf. Krauss, Lehnwörter, II: 262a, who brings most of the relevant bibliography, to which one must add Perush ha-Geonim le-Seder Toharot, ed. J. N. Epstein (Berlin, 1921), 11 n. 17: 
; and Tosafot he-Arukh ha-Shalem, ed. S. Krauss (New York, 1955), 201a, s.v. tetras (one need not relate seriously to the suggestions of 
and 
cited there).
However, although these suggestions are attractive and the meanings of these words are certainly quite close to the presumed meaning of Hebrew 
, it is difficult to accept them because of the great difference between these forms and the Hebrew word. Moreover, the word 
is actually attested in Jewish texts, in the form 
(Krauss ibid., 199a). It seems more likely that we have here a dialectical form of the Greek word 
, which also means “perforated”. Metathesis of consonants is common in Greek loan words used by the Rabbis, so the metathesis from tret- to tetr- is not an obstacle. Other ready examples are such as 
from 
(Krauss, Lehnwörter, 1.114-115 and 264 n. 47) and 
from 
(Krauss, 2.399a); see also Krauss, 414a, s.v. 
and 
. On such metatheses in general, see Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Jerusalem 1984), 223 (index s.v. metathesis). Since this word originates in the Greek verb 
, which also takes the forms 
and 
, “to perforate ” or “to make holes,“ it should not be surprising for us to find the forms 
, 
, or 
(= 
). (These vowels are in free variation in Koine Greek; see F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and the Byzantine Periods [Milano, 1975], 1.242 ff.). However, we will seek for these forms in vain in Greek dictionaries. It is therefore worth recording the etymology of the word tetros as follows: *
> 
- that is, vessel > perforated. And there are many similar cases, such as 
=*
> 
, which is parallel to the word 
-
, that is, a tanner or leather-worker, a word that does not appear in Greek dictionaries, even though it is derived from the Greek word 
“skin” (see Krauss, Lehnwörter, 2.147a, s.v. 
); and I cannot elaborate further here.
See, for example, Material 1, pp. 105, 147-149, 158-159.
See Rambam, Hilkhot Tefillin 3.13, where he writes: “One who ties a square knot [on the tefillin of the head], like a kind of a dalet, every talmid hakham must teach him, and it is impossible to describe its form in writing, but only by seeing.” A useful example is found in t. Kelim, Baba Metsia᾽ 1:9 and Lieberman’s discussion in Tosefet Rishonim, 3.35
Jastrow (in his Dictionary, 1465b) interprets: “an ornament in the shape of a reptile”, deriving it from rahash (ibid., 1470a), and this is similarly the view of Ben-Yehuda in his Thesaurus, 6531 (and compare ibid., 6557). However, Levi (in his Talmudic Dictionary: Neuhebräissches und Chaldäissches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim [Leipzig, 1889], 4.443) interprets it as a vessel (gefäss), deriving it from the biblical marheshet, a utensil used for frying.
The author of Ḥasdei David wrote (p. 22), “This too I did not find, for it was not brought by the Rash nor ruled upon by the Rambam, and I do not know what it is, and perhaps one needs to say that it is a harhur [coulter or point if a lance] that is widespread ... for we have learned in the Mishnah in Chapter 13: ‘a harhur which was damaged is impure’, from which we learn specifically that it was damaged, but it still fulfills the function for which it was intended, namely, to dig. But if it is broken, it is no longer of any use. As for what was written: ‘and its point was removed’, even if it comes to interpret the mishnah, as we have learned: ‘If its makof [eye] was broken it is pure’, without explaining what is meant by the word makof - and this refers to its point, that is, the hole in which one places its handle. And he concludes as follows: ‘that in any event, if there remained hooks, it is still capable of performing its function, without the handle that holds the hooks.’ Or perhaps one might say that this refers to a case where the iron with which he digs is broken, one may still dig using the hooks; and this is farfetched.” And indeed, his words seem rather forced.
An example of a buckle of this type (albeit not exactly as we have described it) may be found in the book by Flinders Petrie, Objects of Daily Use (above, note 7), 23, § 52,11, and in the illustration there in Plate xviii,11.
An illuminating example of this may be found in m. Kelim 21.2; see Feliks, Ha-Hakla’ut be-Erets Yisrael (above, note 10), 80 ff.
The main works on this subject are: Johann Krengel, Das Hausgerät in der Mišnah (Frankfurt, 1889), Part I (no more appeared); Adolf Brüll, Trachten der Juden im Nachbiblischen Alter-thume: Ein Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Kostümkunde (Frankfurt, 1873), part I (no more appeared); as well as the book by Dalman (above, note 10), vol. 5; the dissertation of Morits Winter, “Die Koch- und Tafelgerate in Palästina zur Zeit der Mischna” (Berlin, 1910). Shortly there will appear a volume written by a former student of mine, Dr. Keren Kirshenbaum, entitled Rihut ha-Bayit ba-Mishnah, (Household Furniture in the Mishnah). All these subjects also of course enjoyed Krauss’ treatment in his Archäologie.
Edited by W. Smith, W. Wayte and G. E. Marindin. The 3rd edition was published in London in 1890.
Paris, 1887 (photo ed.: Graz, 1969). Also worth mentioning is A. Rich, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities6 (London, 1893), used extensively by Krauss.
Mentioned above, n. 9. To this one should add the secondary references: He-Hai ba-Mishnah [Animals in the Mishnah] (Jerusalem, 1972); etc. Regarding books on living creatures, we should mention that of Shmuel Shapira, ‘Ofot be-sifrut ha-Talmudit-Yalkut [Birds in Talmudic Literature: Collection] (Sifriyat ha-Sadeh, 1961). There is also interesting material to be found in Mendel Nun, Ha-Dayig ha-’Ivri ha-Kadum [Ancient Hebrew Fishing] (Tel-Aviv, 1964).
Material I and II and The City in Roman Palestine.
This section is a revised version of what I wrote in my Legitimacy and Necessity: Scientific Discipline and the Learning of Talmud (Jerusalem, 2006).
For example, in the Beth Alpha mosaic (6th century) where Abraham, in the binding of Isaac is clothed in such a manner.
Elfenbein (infra, n. 4) printed this section in brackets, perhaps indicating that it is not a part of Rashi’s statement, but a later gloss by a disciple. I here assume that this is part of Rashi’s statement. The whole responsum is found in Or Zarua 1, sect. 128, 45a, and at the end it is written: 
,
, that is to say Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac), and also in Shiltei ha-Gibborim to the Mordechai to Shabbat chapter 1. On R. Shmayah, see A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France (Jerusalem, 1995), index of names, p. 625b (Hebrew).
For a description of “leg-garments” during the eleventh and twelfth centuries in Western Europe, see C. Koehler, A History of Costume (New York, 1963), p. 136. See also Knaur’s Kostümgeschichte aller Zeiten von Henry Harald Hansen (Munich and Zurich, 1984), no 77, fig. 162.
Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Elfenbein (New York, 1943), no. 262, pp. 305-306. On the use of trousers in medieval France, see G. W. Rhead, Chats on Costume (London, 1906), pp. 69-114 (referring to Strult, Dress and Habits of the English People (1842). See my additional comments in my Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 7 (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 96, note 7.
See note 59. Cf. Ch. Tchernowits’s comment in Ha-Goren 10 (1928), Hebrew.
From A. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume (New York, 1973), p. 86.
See Darmesteter and Blondheim, Les Gloses françaises ... (Paris, 1929), no. 456, p. 62.
comes from Greek
“outer garment”, superaria. See E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period (Cambridge, MA and Leipzig, 1914; reprint, Hildesheim and New York, 1975), p. 1001a, s.v. subriko/j; S. Krauss, Lehnwörter, 8a, s.v. 
.
S. Krauss, Lehnwörter p. 8 s.v. 
.
It is related to Scottish breeks, English breeches and Old English brèć, etc.
See Codex Theodosianus 14.10.3; Lampridius, Alexander Severus 40. See W. Smith, W. Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Antiquities, vol. 1 (London, 1890), pp. 314-315. See further R. A. Gergel, “Costume as Geographic Locator: Barbarians and Prisoners on Cuirassed Statue Breastplates”, in The World of Roman Costume, ed. J. L. Sabesta and L. Bonfanto (Madison and London, 1994), p. 197, who describes a remarkable cuirassed statue from Sabratha in Libya (p. 198, fig. 12.7), which celebrates the Flavian conquest of Judaea. (See C. C. Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959), 44, no. 85, pl. 8,fig. 25) He describes the Jewish male captive seated in a pile of oval shields, wearing a sagum around his torso and fastened at his right shoulder, and also, surprisingly according to Gergel, wearing bracae. Gergel adds: “In this particular instance, the costume worn by the two captives on the Sabratha breastplate is principally the product of artistic license and bears no correspondence to actual Jewish costume : Jewish males do not wear trousers.” However, we may call into doubt Gergel’s definitive statement, as Jews did, on occasion, wear trousers. See further A. T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (Stroud, 2000), 54-56; and C.H. Kraeling, The Synagogue, (New Haven, 1956), index: Clothes, Trousers. Figures 18 and 19 are taken from Smith’s Dictionary ibid. Trajan’s column was dedicated to the emperor in 113 CE See L. Rossi, Trajan’s Column and the Dacian War (London, 1971), for a full discussion of the column.
Yelamdenu to Genesis 3:22, apud Aruch s.v. 
; see Aruch Completum, ed. A. Kohut, 2:201b.
There has been a good deal written on this subject. See, e.g., A.Y. Bromberg, Rashi ve-ha-Yerushalmi (Jerusalem, 1945), and R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes’ glosses to Ta’anit ad fin., and his Imrei Binah, sect. 5 ff.
In fact, Rashi’s assumption does seem to be partially correct, namely that the sages did not usually wear trousers, but merely cloaks. See e.g., b. Shabbat 118a, on R. Yossi’s glima, 
, in b. Baba Batra 57b, etc. Indeed, trousers were not so common. See S. Krauss, Qadmoniyyot 2/2, 216; on girdles, see 217-227; and on undergarments, 200–215. For a full discussion of the girdle, “gartel”, one should add the halakhic element of “hikon”, 
; see b. Shabbat 10a, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 91:2; a full discussion is presented in J. Lewy’s Minhag Yisrael Torah, (New York, 1990), 1:141-143, and, more recently, my Minhagei Yisrael, 7:94-107, where I treated this issue in considerable detail. For a similar issue, see Mishnah Berurah 2:1.
Aruch Completum, 6:345-346.
Der Gaonäische Kommentar zur Mischnaordnung Teharoth, Y N. Epstein ed. (Berlin, 1921), 74.
Ibid, p. 114, line 2.
The Mishnah commentary Tosefot Yom Tov was not convinced, however: “It also troubles me that he wrote mitpaḥat here, and in general a mitpaḥat is not a garment so large that she would cover herself in it, as the ‘three mitpaḥot᾽ of m. Kelim 24:14 prove, and (we see) from what I wrote there at the beginning of ch. 29, etc.” The Mishnah Aharona also questioned Bertinoro’s approach: “The Rabbi explained it as a mitpaḥat with which she covers herself, and, according to this, the word is superfluous in the Mishna, since there is no difference then between a ḥaluk [the garment mentioned previously in the same Mishna] and a mitpaḥat.” Later he brought Maimonides’ commentary on this Mishnah, who wrote (according to the Kafih translation) that 
is 
(a belt she fastens). Thus, the Mishnah Aharona wrote that “according to the Rambam, who explains it as a belt, it is possible to say that it is the apron 
women wear, with which she does not even cover herself, since it commonly twists around, as we teach in the tenth chapter of Shabbat, etc.”
See A. Darmester & D. S. Blondheim, Les gloses françaises, p. 103, no. 752: “‘Orel’ écharpe pour couvrir surtout la tête”. Following their lead, see R. Y Gukovitsky, Sefer Targum ha-La’az (London, 1985), 7, no. 115 and m. Katan, Otsar ha-La’azim (Jerusalem, 1984), 161,2442.
On the basis of Rashi’s explanation, the Tur (Yore De‘ah, §190) writes: “and so is the law, if it [the bloodstain] is found on the ma’aforet with which she covers her head, etc.” See Beit Yosef there (s.v. 
) who in a forced explanation of the Rashbah, wrote that this is the case “specifically when she covers her hair with a robe 
or cloak 
, just as a loose covering without tying it well, but if she ties it well on her head, and when she wakes up she also finds it well-tied, it is obvious that she does not need to worry about it [i.e., the bloodstain], since we see that it [the garment] has not turned around and has not twisted to and fro” (quoted in the Tosefot Yom Tov). On the basis of Rashi’s explanation, the Maggid Mishne explains the Rambam in Issurei Biah, 9:11: “‘... and also her belt 
, anywhere blood it found on it - she is unclean.’ The Mishnah reads 
and there are those who explain it as a ma’aforet with which she covers her head” (see Tosefot Yom Tov there).
Der Gaonäische Kommentar, 114, n. 8.
Despite the fact that Kohut did not accept his opinion; see there and compare with Arukh ha-Shalem, volume 1, 217a, entry 
, and Krauss’ note in Tosafot ha-Arukh ha-Shalem, 329, on entry 
.
A. Rich, Dictionary.
See further, Smith’s Dictionary, 2: 318-22, entry pallium; and also Darenberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire, 285-293, enty pallium.
It should be noted that the pallium was not particularly popular in Rome, as we find in Smith’s Dictionary 2: 322a, in W C. F. Anderson: “In Rome itself the Greek mantle [i.e. pallium - D. S.] never became naturalized, though under the name pallium, it was well known to them as the distinctive mark of a Greek. Indeed, palliates is used as meaning Greek, in opposition to togatus, meaning Roman, not only in the well-known division of comedies into palliatae and togatae, but apparently in ordinary speech. Conservative Romans regarded it as beneath their dignity to wear a pallium, and we find it cast up as a reproach against Scipio Africanus (Liv. 29.19) and Rabirius (Cic. Pro Rab. 9.25) that they did so. Cicero speaks with indignation of Verres (Verrem 5.33.86), stetit soleatus praetor populi Romani pallio purpureo tunica talari, and even under the Empire Germanicus offended some people by adopting a par Graecis amictus (Tac. Ann. 2.59).”
See further what I wrote in my Material 1, 132-140.