The first serious recorded attempt to date the work is by
Rabbi
Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the famous GRA, in
his work Rav
P’alim, p. 126. He was uncertain as to whether
the work was authored by amoraim or in a later period. [His chief concern here
is disproving the erroneous theory that the Maharshal himself collected
the work from various rabbinic sources.] Miller was able to hone in closer,
from the savoraim at the close of the Talmudic period to the beginning
of the Geonic period. Margulies provides considerable evidence that the work
was composed around the year 700. That is, after the Arab conquest and before Rav Yehudai Gaon.

According to Miller, our author was a native of the Land of Israel and familiar
with Babylonian customs through travel to Babylon. Western Aramaic and Western Hebrew forms abound. In fact, the very
composition in Hebrew suggests composition in the land of Israel, the language
of the “Minor”
Talmudic tractates produced there during the Geonic
period, as well as Hebrew translations of Eastern Aramaic Babylonian Geonic works themselves. Margulies points out
that since Miller’s publication, new evidence has emerged from the Cairo geniza
which shows that after the Arab conquest, Babylonian Jews migrated to the Land
of Israel and formed their own separate congregations in Tiberias, Ramla, and Mivtzar Dan (Panias-Banias), with the most likely speculative location for our
author being Tiberias, which was a native Torah center that may have already
boasted a Babylonian community during the Talmudic period.

According to Miller, the work was designed to oppose the
Babylonian side in the dispute between the two great Torah centers. He points
out that many more explanations are offered in support of the
“Yerushalmi” side than the Babylonian. Later, Miller appears to
backtrack and seems to conclude that the work is simply meant to impartially
catalog the various discrepancies.

Margulies accepts the claims regarding the basic “Yerushalmi”
orientation, but understands the purpose more subtly. Rather than taking a
confrontational stance, the work merely seeks to explain and rationalize the
local customs and decisions to the new Babylonian immigrants who were not aware
or respectful of the locals. No attempt is made per se to reject the validity
of the Babylonian customs themselves and at times the author troubles himself
to explain them only.

          4. Characteristics and scope of
the book

The items in the work are haphazardly arranged with only occasional grouping according to topic. It is nowhere near complete
in cataloging all of the items of dispute. According to Miller, the complete
version of the work has not yet been transmitted to us. [This understanding may
underly many efforts to expand on this list, discussed in the Appendix.]
Margulies disagrees, on the basis of the numerous manuscript examples at his
disposal. According to him, the author never meant to compile an exhaustive
list.

          5. Language and sources

[This section is of
considerable philological interest especially regarding Geonic material in
Hebrew which may be of uncertain provenance.]

          6. Legal sources and historical
development of the disputes

          Most of the items can be
documented partially in other Talmudic and Geonic literature. As would be
expected, there is a high level of correspondence between the
“Yerushalmi” side and the Jerusalem Talmud; also, between the
Babylonian side and the Babylonian Talmud.

Most of the items appear to predate the collection and stem from the Talmudic period, many probably earlier, from the  Tannaitic period.

The period following the publication of the Shulhan Arukh is not discussed systematically in Margulies’ commentary
since to a large extent geographic boundaries were erased by the free transfer
of books from one region to another and a great amount of cross-fertilization
occurred. Nevertheless, it is noted that a number of disputes remain with us to
this very day between Ashkenazi and Sepharadi communities.

          7. Use of the book by Geonim

In Babylonian Geonic responsa literature, a number of
disputes are addressed, but apparently not through direct exposure to the work.
It is more likely that the inquirers from the Land of Israel or North Africa
might have been motivated in their queries by exposure to concepts from the
work.

However, the later European collections of Geonic material did see fit to
gather material from this work into their nets. The collection known as Sha’are Tsedeq includes no fewer than eleven items culled from the
disputes.

In a few cases, items from the collection are attributed
to Babylonain Geonim themselves, but it is difficult to rely on any of these
attributions and most were clearly added by the later compiler.

          8. Use of the book
by Rabbinic legal authorities

Many of the great authorities were most probably unaware of the work as they
never cite it or it’s contents. Others who do cite it generally cite only
sections known to them through second or third-hand rabbinic sources.

Geographic location was clearly a major factor. In France and Provence use was
much more pronounced than in Spain. The work seems to have reached different
locations at different times. By the 14th century the work seems to
have been lost for the most part, as only citations from by previous
authorities are ever quoted.

One reason for the neglect of this work may have been
it’s brevity. [For example, the usual explanation for the grouping of the
twelve prophets in one scroll, and today in one volume, is so that the small
books would not become lost.] However, a more compelling reason appears to be
the negative impression that the work made on certain authorities, most
notably, Nahmanides, Ramban (Avodah Zara 35b). It was (correctly) perceived
that the work contains material which contradicts the Babylonian Talmud,
already considered supremely authoritative. Methods of study which stressed a
proper historical understanding of all legal points of view would become common
in rabbinic circles well before the modern period, but at the time they were
not yet developed. If an opinion could not be utilized for determining the
halakha, it was not deemed worthy of further inquiry. Nahmanides is the only
early Spanish sage who even mentions the work, so it is not at all surprising
that he considers it outside the pale of legal precedent.

Possibly, the Spanish Sages resisted the work as a result of the utility that
Karaites received from it and quoted from it. They may have suspected the work
of being a Karaite forgery.

In contrast, early Provencal authorities made ample use of the work. They
include: Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (Eshkol), Rabbi Isaac ben
Abba Mari of Marseilles (Ittur), and Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Manhig).
The textual versions cited by the Provencal sages are similar to those
found in the Geonic Responsa collections which appear to be most original.

Ashkenazi sages also utilized the work widely, but the stylized textual
citations indicate that they were generally quoting secondary and tertiary
rabbinic sources rather than the work directly. The sages include: Rabbi
Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz (Ra’avan, Even Ha-Ezer), Ravya, Tosafot, Rabbi
Eliezer of Metz (Yereim), Sha’arei Dura, Machzor Vitry.

From the fourteenth century on mention and discussion of the work seems to
virtually disappear. A most notable exception is Rabbi Ashtori HaParḥi (Isaac
HaKohen ben Moses, 1280-1366) in his Kaftor w-Ferah, who traveled from
France to the Land of Israel, on which his work focuses. He cites the work
according to versions not attested to otherwise among French sages.
[Furthermore, he took an interest in expanding upon the principle of the work
as seen in the additions which Miller culled from it. See below after the main
body of the translation.]

Students of the Maharam of Rottenberg, such as Hagahot Maimoniot, Mordechai,
and Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) mention the work haphazardly.
Other sages who cite the work include Rikanati, Tashbatz, Agur, Or Zarua, and
Shiltei Giborim. None of the early or later sages undertook an
elucidation of the entire work – they left this important work for us to do!

Karaites took a much keener interest in the disputes than
Rabbanites. This is not at all surprising. The 
Rabbanites claimed to possess an
authoritative Talmudic tradition handed down from the earlier sages. Every
known dispute amongst the Talmudic sages themselves was utilized in order to
argue against these claims. From Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai to disputes
amongst the Babylonian Geonim themselves, the Karaites seized upon the disputes
between East and West eagerly.

The first Karaite sage to quote the work is Jacob Qirqisani (10th century). Since he cites the work in
an overtly apologetic manner (read: missionary), he was wont to exaggerate and
even forge sections of the work. Thus, it goes without saying that his work
cannot be utilized uncritically. Nevertheless, despite this cautionary note,
his early explanations can at times be very useful in understanding the nature
of the disputes themselves.

He explains his interest in the disputes very clearly.
According to him, the disputes between East and West were more extensive than
the disputes between the 
Rabbanites and the Karaites, but nevertheless, claims
of heresy were never leveled and a spirit of tolerance reigned between the
communities. So too, the Karaites should be accepted by the 
Rabbanites . This
stance led him to exaggerate at times the extent of the disputes which were
considered normative. Thus, even though the majority of the disputes concern
extra-legal customs, he would attempt to thrust them into the body of the legal
arena as exemplars of radical opinions. If at times he may have honestly
misunderstood the disputes, in some of them it appears that he was making a
cynical attempt misrepresent them and create confusion to advance his
rhetorical purposes.

One example which stands out is a dispute which Qirqisani appears to have
invented out of whole cloth, an out and our forgery not attested to in any
other versions of the work:

“People of Babylon do not permit one to betrothe a woman
with [the fruit of] the seventh year. People of the Land of Israel permit this.
Therefore, the betrothals of that year in the Land of Israel are not considered
by the Babylonians to effect marriage, and their children are not valid.”

[According to Mordekhai Akiva Friedman (Madaei HaYahadut 31), a maculation of taba’at
to shevi’it resulting from graphic similarity between the letters tet
and shin led item 25 to be misconstrued by Qirqisani in this manner. If
Lewin did not mention this possibility, at the very least, he noticed the
similarities and listed them together in his collection.]

          10. Scholars who have studied
the work