TO KNOW SEXUALLY

The verb know is related to the word body in Semitic

In order to understand Sumerian we have to go back 6000 years and reinvent the first human
clothes. The animal skin that was often used to cover a naked body became suddenly
cumbersome. The invention of Sumerian tongue coincides with climate warming, the
disappearance of ice sheets covering Europe and sia, the invention of animal husbandry and
farming. The greatest shock that humans e!perienced at the end of the last ice age was the
unbearable hot sun. "onse#uently they had to use te!tiles or much lighter skin to cover the
most sensitive parts of the human body. It meant they had to go in public almost naked or
very lightly dressed.
This is the reason why the name of the word know, shame, $the fall of man who got to know
the female body and fell from grace% derived from the name body in Semitic.
SU
ku (kus kuz gu)
ku& $S'I(%.
su (sum
3
sug
6
u
11
)
su $"))E%.
su $*+ES,%.
su $SI('%.
sug
6
sug $-E.+"E%.
*ull listing.
Also: /u.
ZU
su
2
0see full listing1
zu (su
2
)
2u $'(34%.
2u $5TE-I+%.
*ull listing.
Also: ka
67
, ki
6
, 8u
9
, 2a
!
0:;1.
In Sumerian the name for skin and know are homo<ideograms.
S; = :; $skin = know%
> +E?@3ld Aabylonian@(ippur [[su]] = zu-um-ru-um 3A a 67BC7D
zumru [BODY] (N)
7 instances
.eriodsC 3ld Aabylonian $9%D (eo<ssyrian $9%.
4ritten formsC 2u<um<rum.
(ormali2ed formsC 2umrum 02u<um<rum1.
The Sumerian myth of creation derived straight from Semitic . This fact is very
imortant !ecause it is rofound"y re"ated to Sumerian "anguage and its secret
messages. The artificia" "anguage a""eged that the #aters of the dee had a strange
name A$.%U
&any other cu"tures esecia""y 'ndo Euroean !orro#ed from this Sumerian (Semitic)
idea. The ver! %U in Sumerian means to *no# se+ua""y. And the name A$.%U
means father sea, he is the creator of everything. The sea is the #ater of "ife, his
semen. 'ndo Euroeans !orro#ed this idea to create Ouranus in -ree* and .aruna
in Sans*rit. /e #as erceived as a s*y god #ho #as attached and constant"y
cou"ated #ith mother earth.
A**adian0
ed 1%U 0 2 (v!. e3e 4 art. md 4 on"y in reterite)
G. to *no# 4 kma td as you *no# 4 stat. 0 to !e a#are, to !e
*no#n . to cause to *no#, inform, ac5uaint (s.o. 0 acc., #ith sth. 0 acc.)
.ariants 0 id u
6omarison #ith other Semitic "anguages 0
7roto8Semitic 0
9
yad:
Syriac 0 y:da ;;;;;
/e!re# 0 y:da <=> ?@
Ugaritic 0 yd
Proto-Semitic 9y.d. 8
!e"#i#$ A*no#A
%&&"di"# edu
U$"ritic yd
'e(re) yd
%r"m"ic yd
!e*ri #Bda
'"rsusi yCda
So+otri eda
Proto-Semitic 9yd
%,ro"si"tic et-mo.o$- Afroasiatic etymo"ogy
!e"#i#$ *no#
%&&"di"# idu
U$"ritic yd
P*oe#ici"# yd
'e(re) yd
%r"m"ic 7a" yd
Bi(.ic". %r"m"ic yd
S-ri"# %r"m"ic yd
!oder# %r"m"ic Urm d y
!"#d"ic %r"m"ic yda
/0i$r"0*ic Sout* %r"(i"# Sa! d #
'"rsusi yCda
edtu
[Humanities]
*no#"edge 4
6f. mdntu, ud
See a"so 0 nindnu (2)
ud1 2 3 ( )
[Industry]
craftsman, Dourney ... 0 too"s , im"ements , e5uiment , meta" vesse"s , gear
4
.ariants 0 ud
See a"so 0 antu
ud
E ud: A B
"#4tu 1NF-.-G.NA 0 2 (1H.KHI 0 2)
[Feeding Cooing]
househo"d, a"ace, shi, Dourney, !att"e, ottre, carenter ... 0 utensi"s , too"s
, im"ements , #ares , gear 4 antu libbi 0 inner organs ("iver ...) 4
.ariants 0 unutu, untu
See a"so 0 ud ! "
u#4tu
E anJtu
u#u1tu
E anJtu
#i#d1#u (5)
[#rt]
*no#"edge , instruction 4
The Semitic concet of *no#ing has derived from the concet of teaching. This idea
is foreign to other "anguages !ecause no other "anguage has !een intentiona""y
transformed !efore A**adian. The root ver! for &#o) in Semitic is actua""y a reduced
root ver! for te"c*. Semitic tongues are engineered "anguages, meaning they have
!een transformed de"i!erate"y. Kortunate"y the "anguage rocesses of sound
e"imination have ta*en "ace #hi"e Semitic #riters #ere trying a"" a"ong to *ee the
"anguage froLen in time. These #riters *et the changes in chec* !ut they #ere
una!"e to sto them in the "ong run. 0Let us see the evo"ution of the ver! teach into
the ver! "earn M *no#.
A**adian0
mu."mmidu 6
[$ro%essions]
teacher
See a"so 0 ta&m'du, a u ta&m'du (, )"t u**i, ummnu, &iginnu
6omarison #ith other Semitic "anguages 0
Ara!ic 0 mu "im NOPQORSOTU VteacherV
" u t".m7du 6
schoo"mate
See a"so 0 mu&ammidu (, ta&m'du, a u ta&m'du (, )"t u**i, ummnu
t".m7du
schoo" !oy , ui" , student , disci"e
See a"so 0 mu&ammidu (, &iginnu, a u ta&m'du (
6omarison #ith other Semitic "anguages 0
Ara!ic 0 t"mWX YZ[Q\ Vstudent, ui"V
"am:du (]) 0 [+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence] ^) - 0 to arehend , to find out , to
"earn , to fathom , to *no# , to *no# se+ua""y 4 ]) -tn 0 0 to fami"iariLe
onese"f , to study , to ta*e cogniLance of 4 _) ` 0 to instruct , to teach , to
e+"ain , to ma*e c"ear , to c"erify , to en"ighten (a) 4 b) c 0 to inform , to
!rief , to reort , to *ee in the "oo 4
"am:du (`) 4 "am:du (c) 0 teach
"am:du 0 G. to "earn Gt. to "earn com"ete"y D. to teach, inform . to
have s.o. "earn sth.
mu"ammidu 9 0 [$ro%essions] teacher
."m1du (5)
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
^) - 0 to arehend , to find out , to "earn , to fathom , to *no# , to *no#
se+ua""y 4 ]) -tn 0 0 to fami"iariLe onese"f , to study , to ta*e cogniLance of
4 _) ` 0 to instruct , to teach , to e+"ain , to ma*e c"ear , to c"rify , to
en"ighten (a) 4 b) c 0 to inform , to !rief , to reort , to *ee in the "oo 4
6f. &amdu
.ummudu
[,ducation]
^) 0 #ord 0 taught 4 ]) 0 l lummudu 0 a) ca"f 0 uninitiated se+ua""y ,
virgin , !) "ough 0 untried 4
6f. &amdu
.ariants 0 &ammudu
."mmudu
[,ducation]
E "ummudu
."m1du (D) 8 ."m1du ()
teach
."m1du 1%U 0 2 (v!. a3a 4 im. &imad)
G. to "earn Gt. to "earn com"ete"y D. to teach, inform . to have s.o. "earn
sth.
6f. &amdu (2), &ummudu
6omarison #ith other Semitic "anguages 0
7roto8Semitic 0
9
"am:d
Syriac 0 ta"med ;;;;;; Vto teachV
/e!re# 0 ":mad =d> e@
Ugaritic 0 "md
.1 ."mdu
[+ora& &i%e Conscience]
^) 0 #ithout e+erience , ine+erienced 4 virgin 0 l lamittu 0
ine+erienced , innocent 4 ]) innocent 4
See a"so 0 -a, -atu
.itmudu 6
"earned
m4d 1(-AL).%U 0 2 (adD.)
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
#ise 4 *no#ing sth. (fgen.), a#are of sth. 4 e+erienced, cometent, e+ert ,
*no#"egea!"e , ac5uainted #ith , a#are of , conversant #ith , cogniLant ,
versed in , erudite , #e""8versed , "earned 4 l md stuid, ignorant ,
una#are 4
6f. ed, mdtu, mdntu
.ariants 0 mda u , mudd, mdi u
m4dtu (n. 4 )
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
*no#"edge, a#areness, #isdom
6f. md
m4d" u ( )
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
E mJdg
mudd
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
E mJdg
m4di u ( )
[+ora& &i%e Inte&&igence]
E mJdg

Sumerian0
11Lu22
h(%U)i
A**. ju8u8Lum
to instruct



Sumerian0
11Lu22
h(%U)i
A**.
e8du8um
to *no#


Sumerian0
11Lu22
h(%U)i
A**.
#a8du8um
to *no#


Sumerian0
11Lu22
h(%U)i
A**.
#u8du8um
to ma*e *no#n


Sumerian0
9(dij) 11h(a)i8Lu22
%Ua
A**.
a8su8u
hsycian


Sumerian0
9(dij) 11su22
SU 1sin*2
A**adian0
e8!u(&U) 1sin*3 sin*ing2
reason
The A**adian #riter have secifica""y recorded !oth the #ords for teaching and
"earning0
Lu 1KNOW2 (klb+0 E` '''!, O"d A**adian, Ur ''', O"d $a!y"onian) #r. Lu Vto *no#4
to "earnV A**. ed4 &amdu
1^2
Lu
]l] distinct forms attested4 c"ic* to vie# forms ta!"e.
9. to &#o) (:;<=>9??@)
m LEX3O"d $a!y"onian3Niur "(5 AiBC #u-zu O$ Niur Ura _ ]^b4 #"m-dumu zu O$ Niur Lu
nbb4 [[zu]] = zu-u5 = ZU = &a-ma-a-du O$ Aa ^bn0^4 [[zu]] = = = .u-du-u2-um O$ Aa ^bn0]4 [[zu]]
= = = e-du-u O$ Aa ^bn0_4 [[zu]] = = = /u-ud-du-u2 O$ Aa ^bn0b4 [[zu]] == = [a-0a]--u O$ Aa
^bn0o. LEX3O"d $a!y"onian3un*no#n .u5 [zu-"] = [mu-du]-u2-um O$ Lu8AL"ag A ^bk4 .u5 teB5 #u-zu = .a )u-u.-
tam &a i-du-u2 O$ Lu8AL"ag A lp4 .u5 zu-" =mu-du-u2 "u]8aL"ag $ and 6 Seg.],
^]p4 .u5 #iA5-*u. #u-zu = .a &i-mu-tam &a i-du-u2 "u]8aL"ag $ and 6 Seg.], ^o_4 .u5 teB5 #u-zu = .a [)u-
u.]-tam &a i-du-u2 "u]8aL"ag $ and 6 Seg.^, nq. ELA3E` '''!3Niur e#-zu-zu T&/ o, qbq o i
]. ELA3E` '''!3Umma9("BDc) "(-zu-zu I-K ]qqoqo]qd o ii ]. ELA3O"d A**adian3Niur 9("BDc) su5-m"-
("OS7 ^, qbn r i p. ELA3O"d A**adian3un*no#n #"m-ti-."-#i e-zu &A` b, q__ b4 "(-zu &A` b,
^lk ^_4 "(-zu &A` b, ^lk n. ELA3Ur '''3`rehem did.i B"C #u-zu-t" AU6T _, _p_ _4 B"C #u-zu si."-
t" $ur-r" AU6T _, _pb _4 urud" Bu-zu-e $I& _, ^oq o. ELA3Ur '''3-irsu("-"#-Bu(
u(
#i$5-#"-me #u-zu (i5-
du99 AOAT q]o, bbo I Scot & r i ^^A4 mu sum si&i.ze5-" #u-uC-zu-"-BeC ASr qk, _]k ql o i
_4 C(diB) iC-zu ASr ^p, qpp ]b o iii ^q. ELA3Ur '''3Niur i$i zu-u5-#u-um &.N qp, ^o] _4 mu-zu-zu-
m" i-zu-ru-um B" [...] m"-$u-=NATN _lo ^^4 "-"-(u-um-m" $"-$"-zu NATN _lo ^. ELA3Ur '''3Umma #u-u#-
zu AnOr qn, _]o b4 "-#i-zu-t" $6T ], ^lb _4 mu m"5-d"r"C "(-zu
d
e#-&i ("-"(-duE YNEI p, ^_
n. ELA3Ur '''3Ur BeB zu-". $6T ^, ^_k _4 &i iC-zu-t" Ks. /i"recht, ^_p ^ ]4 i#-su #u-su5UET _,
qq_n n4 u.-t" iri-&i #u-zu UET _, qlkp o4 u.-t" iri-&i #u-zu UET _, qlkk o4 [...] =-t" iri-#" #u-
zu UET k, qqbq k. ELA3Ur '''3unc"ear &"s&". #"-me #u-zu-e-BeC SET ]qb ].un*no#n3O"d
$a!y"onian3un*no#n [[zu]] = = ZU = &u-mu-du &SL qk, ^]b8^_n i+ onk4 [[zu]] = = = u-&u-mu &SL qk,
^]b8^_n i+ opq4 [[zu]] = = = .u-0u--um &SL qk, ^]b8^_n i+ op^4 [[zu]] = = = e-du-um &SL
qk, ^]b8^_n i+ op]4 [[zu]] = = = /e-du-um &SL qk, ^]b8^_n i+ op_4 [[zu]] = = = /u-du-
um &SL qk, ^]b8^_n i+ opb. un*no#n3E` '''!3Niur d"-("-."-e $". iC-$"-mu-zu ASr ^l, . b_8bl
rism +v ^^4 $". iC-$"-mu-zu ASr ^l, . b_8bl rism +i+ _. un*no#n3E`
'''!3unc"ear 9("BDc) 5(("ri$Dc) .u$".
F
iC
F
-zu [...] $'N qp, q]n o ii b. un*no#n3O"d A**adian3Ada! ("-zu-zu O'7
q^b, ^o] ]. un*no#n3O"d A**adian3-irsu *e5-zu 'TT ^, q^]l^ l4 B"C-(i iC-zu IT6 qpl p. un*no#n3O"d
A**adian3'sin "#-zu &.N q_, qq^ o iii n. un*no#n3Ur '''3`rehem mu m"5 mu-#i-G%G%B iH-d" DU #u-u(-zu-"-
BeCAA'6A$ ^3^, ". qbp, ^k^^8bpp _. un*no#n3Ur '''3-irsu C(diB) si."C &"B du 5(diB) si."C#i#d"-
t" <(diB) $i#5 iC-$eB-t" s"5-du99 u< C(diB)-&"m iC-diC-zu .u5 &i#-$i<-" du99-$"-zi-d" $& &essenger qo_ ^4 iC-zu-
" dumu #u-("#d"C &.N ^k, q_] l4 9(("#5) iC-$eB du$-(i #u-zu SNAT ]qb o4 9(u) C("B) 5(("#5) iC-zu T6T'
], q_obo l4 iC-zu 'TT _, qll^b o ii ]. un*no#n3Ur '''3Umma "-B"C "-i#-zu &.N ^l, ^q^o
l4 e5 uB-("r Bu-zu-$"5-[r"] &.N ^p, lno ]4 mu-zu &.N ]^, __o ^. un*no#n3Ur '''3Ur .u$".-&uC-zu #u-
zu T6S ^, qqo o ii ^q. un*no#n3Ur '''3unc"ear [...] .u5-
d
[...] dumu erC-[...] r"
F
-" [...]-$".5 dumu mu-zu &.N ^p,
l]_ o i nA4 me-zu-" O&IO lp, ]o ]q _. un*no#n3O"d $a!y"onian3un*no#n #u-u#-t"-zu-zu UET o,
b]p ]o.
See0 a! sej Lu4 ama Lu4 ajgar sej Lu4 eme sej Lu4 suruj Lu4 *us mete
Lu4 magur Lu4 munus sej Lu4 munus uj Lu4 u sej Lu4 uj Lu4 uLud sej Lu.
5. to .e"r#
A**. ed Vto *no#V4 &amdu Vto "earnV.
1]qq]2 r. /oyru, Lengths Widths Surfaces bb4 bl.
See /IJSG LuMto *no#.
The A**adian #riters indicate that they have created the Sumerian #ord %U M *no#
from A**adian ver! [[zu]] == = [a-0a]-zu 1ta*e, a5uire (*no#"edge)2
"*1zu [I%K/] (L)
n instances
7eriods0O"d $a!y"onian 1]24 &idd"e Assyrian 1^24 &idd"e $a!y"onian 1_24 un*no#n 1^2.
Written forms0a8a8Lu4 a8a8Lu8um4 i8u8uL4 ju8u8Lum.
Norma"iLed forms0ah:Lu (a8a8Lu)4 ah:Lum (a8a8Lu8um)4 WhuL (i8u8uL)4 jJhuLum
(ju8u8Lum).
9. i#structi#$ (N) (9=>9<@)
5. t"&e (C=><C@)
C. t"&i#$ (N) (C=><C@)
When you see the scri!ets resentation A**. ed Vto *no#V4 &amdu Vto "earnV you cantt
gras the evo"ution from &amdu Vto "earnV i ed Vto *no#V. Theoretica""y a shorter ver! shou"d have
evo"ved into a much "onger #ord. $ut the "a#s of sound assimi"ation rove that "ong #ords !ecome shorter and shorter. 'dea""y
monosy""a!ic Sumerian #ords shou"d have roduced "onger A**adian ones !ut the evo"ution of A**adian #ords &amdu Vto "earnV
i ed Vto *no#V has !een recorded through mi""ennia unti" the moment the scri!es Du+taosed their resective derivatives giving the
imression that shorter #ords give rise to "onger ones #hen the truth is 5uite different.
10e unedited %u&&2te3t o% t0e 4567 8e/is0 ,ncyc&o*edia
I%G!UD ( )
Name of t#o #or*s #hich have !een reserved to osterity as the roduct of the 7a"estinian and $a!y"onian schoo"s during the amoraic eriod, #hich
e+tended from the third to the fifth century 6.E. One of these comi"ations is entit"ed VTa"mud Yerusha"miV (rerusa"em Ta"mud) and the other VTa"mud $a!"iV
($a!y"onian Ta"mud). Used a"one, the #ord VTa"mudV genera""y denotes VTa"mud $a!"i,V !ut it fre5uent"y serves as a generic designation for an entire !ody of
"iterature, since the Ta"mud mar*s the cu"mination of the #ritings of re#ish tradition, of #hich it is, from a historica" oint of vie#, the most imortant
roduction.
The Name.
VTa"mudV is an o"d scho"astic term of the Tannaim, and is a noun formed from the ver! V"immedV M Vto teach.V 't therefore means rimari"y Vteaching,V a"though
it denotes a"so V"earningV4 it is em"oyed in this "atter sense #ith secia" reference to the Torah, the terms Vta"mudV and VTorahV !eing usua""y com!ined to
indicate the study of the La# !oth in its #ider and in its more restricted sense, as in 7eAah i. ^, #here the term Vta"mud TorahV is a"ied to study as a re"igious
duty. On the other hand, the "earning ac5uired !y study is a"so ca""ed Vta"mud,V so that A*i!aAs ui" rudah !en '"ai cou"d say0 V/e from #hom one derives the
greater art of his *no#"edge 1Vta"mudoV2 must !e regarded as the teacherV (Tosef., $. &. ii., end4 Yer. $. &. pd4 $. &. __a has V o*mahV instead of Vta"mudV).
To designate the study of re"igion, the #ord Vta"mudV is used in contrast #ith VmaAaseh,V #hich connotes the ractise of re"igion. A*i!aAs vie# that on this
account the Vta"mudV ran*ed a!ove the VmaAasehV #as adoted as a reso"ution !y a famous conference at Lydda during the /adrianic ersecution (see Sifre,
`eut. b^4 id. bq!4 Yer. 7es. _q!4 6ant. I. ii. ^b). The t#o terms are contrasted different"y, ho#ever, in the tannaitic saying ($. $. ^_q!), VThe /a"a*ah 1the
rinci"es guiding decisions in re"igious "a#2 may not !e dra#n from a teaching of the master 1Vta"mudV2 nor !e !ased uon an act of his 1VmaAasehV2, un"ess
the master e+ress"y dec"are that the teaching or act under consideration is the one #hich is a"ica!"e to the ractise.V
'n the second "ace, the #ord Vta"mudVugenera""y in the hrase Vta"mud "omarVuis fre5uent"y used in tannaitic termino"ogy in order to denote instruction !y
means of the te+t of the $i!"e and of the e+egetic deductions therefrom. 'n the third "ace, the noun Vta"mudV has the meaning #hich a"one can !e genetica""y
connected #ith the name VTa"mudV4 in tannaitic hraseo"ogy the ver! V"immedV denotes the e+egetic deduction of a ha"a*ic rinci"e from the $i!"ica" te+t (for
e+am"es see I. /. ii. k4 Sifre, Num. ^^p)4 and in harmony #ith this meaning of the #ord Vta"mudV denotes that e+osition of a ha"a*ic saying #hich receives
an e+egetic confirmation from the $i!"ica" te+t. Of the terms, therefore, denoting the three !ranches into #hich the study of the traditiona" e+egesis of the $i!"e
#as from ear"iest times divided !y the Tannaim (see re#. Encyc. iii. ^l_, s.9.$i!"e E+egesis), VmidrashV #as the one identica" in content #ith Vta"mudV in its
origina" sense, e+cet that the &idrash, #hich inc"udes any *ind of $i!"ica" hermeneutics, !ut more esecia""y the ha"a*ic, dea"s #ith the $i!"e te+t itse"f, #hi"e
the Ta"mud is !ased on the /a"a*ah. The &idrash is devoted to $i!"ica" e+osition, the resu"t !eing the /a"a*ah (com. the hrase Vmi8*an ameruV 1M
V!eginning here the sages have saidV2, #hich occurs fre5uent"y in the tannaitic &idrash and #hich serves to introduce ha"a*ic deductions from the e+egesis).
'n the Ta"mud, on the other hand, the ha"a*ic assage is the su!Dect of an e+egesis !ased on the $i!"ica" te+t.
Ie"ation to &idrash.
'n conse5uence of the origina" identity of VTa"mudV and V&idrash,V noted a!ove, the former term is sometimes used instead of the "atter in tannaitic sentences
#hich enumerate the three !ranches of traditiona" science, &idrash, /a"a*ah, and /aggadah (see $er. ]]a 1com. &. . ^oa and Yer. $er. lc, _k24 id. _qa4
Su*. ]pa4 $. $. ^_ba4 A!. I. N. +iv. 1com. &asse*et Soferim, +vi. p24 Yer. $. . b!, _^ 1com. Sifre, `eut. __24 Tosef., So ah, vii. ]q 1com. Yer. So ah bba2),
#hi"e sometimes !oth VTa"mudV and V&idrashV are used (&. . ]^a4 TaAan. _qa)4 it must !e noted, ho#ever, that in the editions of the $a!"i, V-emaraV is
usua""y su!stituted for VTa"mud,V even in the assages here cited. The #ord VTa"mudV in a"" these "aces did not denote the study su!se5uent"y ursued !y
the Amoraim, !ut #as used instead of the #ord V&idrash,V a"though this did not rec"ude the "ater introduction of the term VTa"mudV into tannaitic sayings,
#here it either entire"y dis"aced V&idrashV or #as used side !y side #ith it.
After the term VTa"mudV had come to denote the e+egetic confirmation of the /a"a*ah, it #as a"ied a"so to the e+"anation and e+osition of ha"a*ic
assages in genera". As ear"y as the end of the tannaitic eriod, #hen the ha"a*ot #ere fina""y redacted!y the atriarch rudah '. and #ere designated as
V&ishnah,V a term origina""y a"ied to the entire system of traditiona" "earning, the Ta"mud #as deve"oed as a ne# division of this same science4 and it #as
destined to a!sor! a"" others. 'n a !araita dating, according to the amora rohanan, from the days of rudah '. ($. &. __a4 com. Yer. Sha!. ^oc, ]] et se:.),
the &ishnah and the Ta"mud are defined as su!Dects of study side !y side #ith the V&i raV ($i!"e), the study of the Ta"mud !eing mentioned first. To this
!araita there is an addition, ho#ever, to the effect that more attention shou"d !e given to the &ishnah than to the Ta"mud. rohanan e+"ains this assage !y
the fact that the mem!ers of rudahAs academy, in their eagerness to investigate the Ta"mud, neg"ected the &ishnah4 hence the atriarch "aid stress uon the
duty of studying the &ishnah rimari"y. 'n these assages the #ord VTa"mudV is used not in its more restricted sense of the esta!"ishment of ha"a*ot !y
$i!"ica" e+egesis, !ut in its #ider signification, in #hich it designates study for the urose of e"ucidating the &ishnah in genera", as ursued after rudahAs
death in the academies of 7a"estine and $a!y"on. This !araita is, furthermore, an authentic document on the origin of the Ta"mud.
Three c"asses of mem!ers of the academy are mentioned in an anecdote referring to rudah '. ($. $. pa)0 (^) those #ho devoted themse"ves chief"y to the
$i!"e (V!aAa"e &i raV)4 (]) those #hose rincia" study #as the &ishnah (V!aAa"e &ishnahV)4 and (_) those #hose main interest "ay in the Ta"mud (V!aAa"e
Ta"mudV). This is the origina" reading of the assage, a"though the editions mention a"so the V!aAa"e /a"a*ahV and the V!aAa"e /aggadahV (see !e"o#). These
three !ranches of *no#"edge are, therefore, the same as those enumerated in $. &. __a. Tan um !. ani"ai, a 7a"estinian amora of the third century,
dec"ared, #ith reference to this threefo"d investigation (AA!. %arah ^k!)0 VLet the time given to study !e divided into three arts0 one8third for the $i!"e, one8
third for the &ishnah, and one8third for the Ta"mud.V 'n id. __a this saying is 5uoted in the name of the tanna roshua !. /ananiah, a"though this is ro!a!"y a
corrution of the name of rose !. anina (amora). Yudan, a 7a"estinian amora of the fourth century, found in Ecc". +i. k an a""usion to the "easure ta*en in
the three !ranches of study, &i ra, &ishnah, and Ta"mud.
The Three Su!Dects of Study.
The o"d trichotomy of traditiona" "iterature #as changed, ho#ever, !y the accetance of the &ishnah of rudah '., and !y the ne# study of the Ta"mud
designed to interret it. The division termed V/a"a*otV (singu"ar, V/a"a*ahV) in the o"d c"assification #as then ca""ed V&ishnah,V a"though in 7a"estine the
&ishnah continued to !e designated as V/a"a*ot.V The &idrash !ecame a comonent art of the Ta"mud4 and a considera!"e ortion of the ha"a*ic $i!"e
hermeneuties of the Tannaim, #hich had !een reserved in various secia" #or*s, #as incororated in the $a!y"onian Ta"mud. The /aggadah ("ura",
V/aggadotV) "ost its imortance as an individua" !ranch of study in the academies, a"though it natura""y continued to !e a su!Dect of investigation, and a
ortion of it a"so #as inc"uded in the Ta"mud. Occasiona""y the /aggadah is even designated as a secia" !ranch, !eing added as a fourth division to the
three a"ready mentioned. anina !en 7aa, an amora of the ear"y art of the fourth century, in characteriLing these four !ranches says0 VThe countenance
shou"d !e serious and earnest in teaching the Scritures, mi"d and ca"m for the &ishnah, !right and "ive"y for the Ta"mud, and merry and smi"ing for the
/aggadahV (7esi . ^^qa4 7es. I. ^q^!4 Tan., Yitro, ed. $u!er, . ^n4 &asse*. Soferim, +vi. ]). As ear"y as the third century roshua !en Levi interreted `eut.
i+. ^q to mean that the entire La#, inc"uding &i ra, &ishnah, Ta"mud, and /aggadah, had !een revea"ed to &oses on Sinai (Yer. 7es. ^na, "ine ok4 &eg. nbd,
]o), #hi"e in -en. I. "+vi. _ the !"essings invo*ed in -en. ++vii. ]p are e+"ained as V&i ra, &ishnah, Ta"mud, and /aggadah.V The 7a"estinian haggadist
'saac divided these four !ranches into t#o grous0 (^) the &i ra and the /aggadah, dea"ing #ith su!Dects of genera" interest4 and (]) the &ishnah and the
Ta"mud, V#hich can not ho"d the attention of those #ho hear themV (7esi . ^q^!4 see $acher, VAg. 7a". Amor.V ii. ]^^).
According to a note of Tan uma !en A!!a (of the "atter art of the bth cent.) on 6ant. v. ^b (6ant. I. ad &oc.), a student must !e fami"iar #ith a"" four
!ranches of *no#"edge, &i ra, &ishnah, /a"a*ah (the "ast8named term used here instead of VTatmudV), and /aggadah4 #hi"e Samue" !. rudah !. A!un, a
7a"estinian amora of the same century, interreted 7rov. ++viii. ^^ as an a""usion to the ha"a*ist (Vman of the Ta"mudV) and to the haggadist (Vman of the
/aggadahV4 Yer. /or. bpc4 see a"so 7esi . ^nla4 Lev. I. ++i., Ta"mud and /aggadah). /ere may !e mentioned a"so the conc"uding assage of the mishnaic
treatise A!ot (v., end)0 VAt the age of five to the $i!"e4 at the age of ten to the &ishnah4 at the age of fifteen to the Ta"mud.V This is ascri!ed !y many to the
ancient tanna Samue" ha8 a on (see $acher, VAg. Tan.V i. _np), a"though the se5uence of study #hich it mentions is evident"y that #hich #as customary
during the amoraic eriod (com. a"so the saying of A!aye in Ket. oqa).
The fo""o#ing assages from the $a!y"onian Ta"mud may "i*e#ise serve to i""ustrate the secia" usage #hich fina""y made the #ord VTa"mudV current as the
name of the #or*. Samue", one of the ear"iest $a!y"onian amoraim, interreted the #ords of %ech. viii. ^q, Vneither #as there any eace to him that #ent out
or came in,V as a"ying to the rest"essness of one #ho turns from the Ta"mud and confines himse"f to the study of the &ishnah ( ag. ^qa). rohanan, the
younger 7a"estinian contemorary of Samue", e+tends the a""usion to Vhim a"so #ho turns from one Ta"mud to study another,V referring here to $a!"i and to
Yerusha"mi. 't is very ossi!"e that he had noticed that in the case of his numerous $a!y"onian ui"s the transition from the mishnaic e+egesis #hich they
had ac5uired at home to that of the 7a"estinian schoo"s #as not made #ithout distur!ing their eace of mind. A""usions to the VTa"mud of $a!y"onV !y t#o
rominent $a!y"onians #ho sett"ed in 7a"estine (%eAera and reremiah) have "i*e#ise !een re8served ($. &. poc4 Sanh. ]ba)4 and they confirm rohananAs
concetion of the meaning of the term.
The -emara.
'n $a!y"onia the Aramaic noun VgemarV (emhatic state, VgemaraV) #as formed from the ver! (#hich does not occur in 7a"estinian te+ts), having the
meaning of V"earn.V This su!stantive according"y designates that #hich has !een "earned, and the "earning transmitted to scho"ars !y tradition, a"though it is
used a"so in a more restricted sense to connote the traditiona" e+osition of the &ishnah4 and it therefore gained currency as a designation of the Ta"mud. 'n
the modern editions of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud the term V-emaraV occurs very fre5uent"y in this sense4 !ut in near"y every case it #as su!stituted at a "ater
time for the o!Dectiona!"e #ord VTa"mud,V #hich #as interdicted !y the censor. The on"y assage in #hich V-emaraV occurs #ith the meaning of VTa"mudV in
the strict sense of that term and from #hich it #as not removed !y the censor is AEr. _]!, #here it is used !y Na man !ar raco!, a $a!y"onian amora of the
second ha"f of the third century. Kor further detai"s see $acher, V-emara,V in V/e!re# Union 6o""ege Annua",V . ]l8_l, 6incinnati, ^kqb, #here the #ord is
sho#n to have !een used for VTa"mudV from the geonic eriod (see a"so idem, V`ie Termino"ogie der Amorver,V . _^ et se:., Leisic, ^kqo). The "ater
editions of the Ta"mud fre5uent"y su!stitute for the #ord V-emaraV the a!!reviation (Aramaic, M Vthe si+ orders of the &ishnahV), #hich
has come to !e, #ith the ronunciation VShas,V a ou"ar designation for the $a!y"onian Ta"mud.
/ere may !e mentioned the term VShemAataV ( ), #hich #as used in $a!y"onia to designate the ha"a*ic ortion of the Ta"mud, and #hich #as thus
contrasted #ith V/aggadahV (see ag. ]la4 So ah ]qa4 Sanh. _p!4 com. a"so &. . ]_a, #here VShemuAah,V the /e!re# form, occurs in a !araita). 'n the
tenth century this #ord #as used in &ohammedan circ"es to designate re#ish tradition as #e"" as its chief source, the Ta"mud4 so that &asAudi refers to
Saadia -aon as an VashmaAtiV (i.e., a !e"iever in the tradition), using this term in contrast to VKaraiteV (see 7ins*er, VLi u e admoniyyot,V i. o). A VKita! a"8
AshmaAahV (i.e., VTa"mudV) is a"so mentioned (V%. `. &. -.V "viii. lok).
The theorem that the Ta"mud #as the "atest deve"oment of traditiona" science has !een demonstrated !y this discussion of the meaning and the use of the
#ord itse"f. The Ta"mud according"y dates from the time fo""o#ing the fina" redaction of the &ishnah4 and it #as taught in the academy of rudah '. as the
commentary on the tannaitic /a"a*ah. The editoria" activity #hich, from the mass of ha"a*ic materia" that had accumu"ated since A*i!aAs &ishnah, crysta""iLed
the Ta"mud in accordance #ith the systematic order introduced !y that teacher, im"ied the interretation and critica" e+amination of the /a"a*ah, and #as,
therefore, ana"ogous to Ta"mudic methodo"ogy.
There #ere, "i*e#ise, many e"ements of tannaitic tradition, esecia""y the midrashic e+egesis of the $i!"e, as #e"" as numerous ha"a*ic interretations,
"e+icograhica" and materia", #hich #ere ready for incororation into the Ta"mud in its more restricted meaning of the interretation of the &ishnah of rudah '.
When this &ishnah !ecame the standard ha"a*ic #or*, !oth as a source for decisions of 5uestions of re"igious "a#, and, even more esecia""y, as a su!Dect of
study in the academies, the Ta"mud interretation of the mishnaic te+t, !oth in theory and in ractise, natura""y !ecame the most imortant !ranch of study,
and inc"uded the other !ranches of traditiona" science, !eing derived from the /a"a*ah and the &idrash (ha"a*ic e+egesis), and a"so inc"uding haggadic
materia", though to a minor degree. The Ta"mud, ho#ever, #as not an indeendent #or*4 and it #as this characteristic #hich constituted the chief difference
!et#een it and the ear"ier su!Dects of study of the tannaitic eriod. 't had no form of its o#n, since it served as a running commentary on the mishnaic te+t4
and this fact determined the character #hich the #or* u"timate"y assumed.
Ie"ation to &ishnah.
The Ta"mud is ractica""y a mere am"ification of the &ishnah !y manifo"d comments and additions4 so that even those ortions of the &ishnah #hich have no
Ta"mud are regarded as comonent arts of it and are according"y inc"uded in the editions of $a!"i. The history of the origin of the Ta"mud is the same as that
of the &ishnahua tradition, transmitted ora""y for centuries, #as fina""y cast into definite "iterary form, a"though from the moment in #hich the Ta"mud !ecame
the chief su!Dect of study in the academies it had a dou!"e e+istence, and #as according"y, in its fina" stage, redacted in t#o different forms. The &ishnah of
rudah '. #as adoted simu"taneous"y in $a!y"on and 7a"estine as the ha"a*ic co""ection ar e+ce""ence4 and at the same time the deve"oment of the Ta"mud
#as !egun !oth at Sehoris, #here the &ishnah #as redacted, and at Nehardea and Sura, #here rudahAs ui"s Samue" and Ia! engaged in their eoch8
ma*ing #or*. The academies of $a!y"on and of 7a"estine a"i*e regarded the study of the &ishnah and its interretation as their chief tas*. The Amoraim, as
the directors and mem!ers of these academies #ere ca""ed ( see Amora), !ecame the originators of the Ta"mud4 and its fina" redaction mar*ed the end of the
amoraic times in the same #ay that the eriod of the Tannaim #as conc"uded !y the comi"ation of the &ishnah of rudah '. Li*e the &ishnah, the Ta"mud
#as not the #or* of one author or of severa" authors, !ut #as the resu"t of the co""ective "a!ors of many successive generations, #hose toi" fina""y resu"ted in a
!oo* uni5ue in its mode of deve"oment.
The 7a"estinian Ta"mud.
$efore entering into any discussion of the origin and ecu"iar form of the Ta"mud, the t#o recensions of the #or* itse"f may !e !rief"y descri!ed. The genera"
designation of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud as VTa"mud Yerusha"mi,V or sim"y as VYerusha"mi,V is recise"y ana"ogous to that of the 7a"estinian Targum. The term
originated in the geonic eriod, #hen, ho#ever, the #or* received a"so the more recise designations of VTa"mud of 7a"estine,V VTa"mud of the Land of 'srae",V
VTa"mud of the West,V and VTa"mud of the Western Lands.V Yerusha"mi has not !een reserved in its entirety4 "arge ortions of it #ere entire"y "ost at an ear"y
date,#hi"e other arts e+ist on"y in fragments. The editio rinces (ed. $om!erg, .enice, ^o]_ et se:.), on #hich a"" "ater editions are !ased, terminates #ith
the fo""o#ing remar*0 VThus far #e have found #hat is contained in this Ta"mud4 and #e have endeavored in vain to o!tain the missing ortions.V Of the four
manuscrits used for this first edition (com. the note at the conc"usion of Sha!. ++. ^nd and the assage Dust cited), on"y one is no# in e+istence4 it is
reserved in the "i!rary of the University of Leyden (see !e"o#). Of the si+ orders of the &ishnah, the fifth, odashim, is missing entire"y from the 7a"estinian
Ta"mud, #hi"e of the si+th, ohorot, it contains on"y the first three chaters of the treatise Niddah (iv. bpd8o^!). The treatises of the orders of the &ishnah are
arranged in the fo""o#ing se5uence in this Ta"mud4 the agination a"so is given here, in arentheses, to indicate the "ength of the severa" treatises0
'. %eraAim0 $era*ot (]a8^bd)4 7eAah
(^oa8]^!)4 `emai (]^c8]lc)4 KiA"ayim
(]ld8_]d)4 She!iAit (__a8_kd)4 Terumot
(bqa8bp!)4 &aAaserot (bpc8o]a)4
&aAaser Sheni (o]!8opd)4 a""ah (ona8
lq!)4 AOr"ah (lqc8l_!)4 $i**urim (l_c8
lod).
''. &oAed0 Sha!!at (]a8^pa)4 AEru!in
(^pa8]ld)4 7esa im (]na8_nd)4 Yoma
(_pa8boc)4 She a"im (boc8o^!)4 Su**ah
(o^c8ood)4 Iosh ha8Shanah (ola8okd)4
$e ah (okd8l_!), TaAanit (l_c8lkc)4
&egi""ah (lkd8nod)4 agigah (nod8nkd)4
&oAed a an (pqa8p_d).
'''. Nashim0 Ye!amot (]a8^oa)4 So ah
(^oa8]bc)4 Ketu!ot (]bc8_l!)4 Nedarim
(_lc8b]d)4 -i in (b_a8oqd)4 NaLir (o^a8
opa)4 iddushin (opa8lld).
'.. NeLi in0 $a!a amma (]a8nc)4
$a!a &e iAa (nc8^]c)4 $a!a $atra
(^]d8^nd)4 Sanhedrin (^nd8_qc)4
&a**ot (_qd8_]!)4 She!uAot (_]c8_pd)4
AA!odah %arah (_ka8bo!)4 /orayot
(boc8bpc).
.'. ohorot0 Niddah (bpd8o^!).
'n order ii. the "ast four chaters of Sha!!at are missing from the 7a"estinian Ta"mud, #hi"e the treatise She a"im has !een incororated into the editions of
the $a!y"onian Ta"mud from Yerusha"mi, and is found a"so in a &unich manuscrit of $a!"i. 'n order iv. the treatises A!ot and AEduyot are missing in !oth
Ta"mudim, and the conc"uding chater of &a**ot is #anting in Yerusha"mi. 'n order vi. the treatise Niddah ends a!rut"y after the first "ines of ch. iv.
&aimonides e+ress"y states in the introduction to his commentary on the &ishnah that in his time Yerusha"mi #as e+tant for the entire first five orders (com.
A!raham i!n `aud, ed. Neu!auer, V&. r. 6.V i. on)4 therefore he must have seen the Yerusha"mi of the order odashim, a"though he himse"f does not 5uote it
in his commentary on this order (see Kran*e", V&e!o,V . bo!). E+cet for the treatise Niddah, on the other hand, there #as, according to &aimonides (&.c.),
no Yerusha"mi for the si+th order. A South8Ara!ian #or* of the fifteenth century, ho#ever, 5uotes the -emara Von AU in in the -emara of the eo"e of
rerusa"em,V #hich is said to contain a assage on the Lodiac (see Steinschneider, V6ata"og der /e!rvischen /andschriften der Kwnig"ichen $i!"iothe* Lu
$er"in,V . lo, $er"in, ^pnp). The author of this 5uotation, therefore, *ne# Yerusha"mi for the "ast treatise of the si+th order, a"though it is ossi!"e that the
assage 5uoted may have !een in the "ost ortion of the treatise Niddah, and that the name VAU inV may have !een used instead of V ohorot.V Kor further
detai"s on the missing sections of Yerusha"mi see Kran*e", &.c. . boa et se:.4 Weiss, V`or,V iii. ]_]4 $u!er, in $er"inerAs V&agaLin,V v. ^qq8^qo4 and Strac*,
VEin"eitung in den Ta"mud,V . l_8lo. The mishnaic te+t on #hich the 7a"estinian Ta"mud is !ased has !een reserved in its entirety in a manuscrit
!e"onging to the "i!rary of the University of 6am!ridge, and has !een edited !y W. /. Lo#e (VThe &ishnah on Which the 7a"estinian Ta"mud Iests,V
6am!ridge, ^pp_).
.ages from a 5anuscript of the Eerusalem Talmud.0*rom the "airo Feni2ah.1
The 7a"estinian Ta"mud is so arranged in the editions that each chater is receded !y its entire mishnaic te+t #ith the aragrahs num!ered, this !eing
fo""o#ed !y the Ta"mud on the severa" aragrahs. 'n the first seven chaters of $era*ot the aragrahs are designated as VKirst &ishnahV ( ),
VSecond &ishnah,V etc.4 #hi"e in the remainingchaters and a"" the other treatises the aragrahs are termed Vha"a*otV ( ). 'n the ear"y chaters the
mishnaic te+t of each aragrah is reeated entire in the Ta"mud at the !eginning of the aragrah4 !ut "ater on"y the first #ords are refaced to the Ta"mudic
te+t. Even in cases #here there is no Ta"mud the designation of the aragrah and the !eginning of the mishnaic te+t are given. The editio rinces seems to
have !orro#ed this arrangement from the manuscrits, a"though the system is much more sim"e in the fragment of Yerusha"mi edited !y 7au" von Ko*o#Loff
in the V&xmoires de "a Socixtx Archxo"ogi5ue de St. 7eters!ourgV (+i. ^ko8]qo), #hich contains some aragrahs of the si+th and eighth chaters of $a!a
amma. This fragment !egins #ith the conc"uding "ines of the Ta"mudic te+t of ch. v.4 !ut !et#een them and the !eginning of ch. vi. the &ishnah is "ac*ing, so
that the suerscrition, V6hater vi.,V is fo""o#ed immediate"y !y the Ta"mudic te+t. There is no reference to the !eginning of the aragrah, either in the first
or in the succeeding aragrahs4 nor is there any e+"anation of the fact that aragrahs b and n of ch. viii. have no Ta"mud. 't is c"ear, therefore, that the
manuscrit to #hich this fragment !e"onged contained on"y the Ta"mudic te+t, thus resuosing the use of a secia" coy of the &ishnah. 't is "i*e#ise
note#orthy that in the first t#o chaters of $era*ot the sections of the Ta"mudic te+t on some of the aragrahs are designated in the editions !y the #ord
Vis aV (section), a term found occasiona""y a"so in other ortions of the te+t of Yerusha"mi.
The Sty"e of the Yerusha"mi.
The sty"e of Yerusha"mi may !e indicated !y a !rief ana"ysis of a fe# sections, such as $er. i. ^4 I. /. i. ^, ]4 -i . ii. ^4 and $. $. i. l.
$er. i. ^0 The te+t of this aragrah, #hich !egins the &ishnah, is as fo""o#s0
GHuring what time in the evening is the reading of the IShemaII begunJ *rom the time when
the priests go in to eat their leaven $see +ev. !!ii. K% until the end of the first watch of the
night, such being the words of -. Elie2er. The sages, however, say until midnight, though -.
Famaliel says until the coming of the dawn.G
E+am"es.
The Ta"mud on this aragrah (]a, "ine _b8_a, "ine _) contains three sections, #hich corresond to the three oinions and the contents of #hich are as
fo""o#s0
(^) A citation, from a !araita, of another tannaitic regu"ation defining the &ishnah that governs the reading of the VShemaAV in the evening4 t#o
sayings of rose (a 7a"estinian amora of the bth cent.), serving to e"ucidate the !araita (]a, _b8bo). Iemar*s on the osition of one #ho is in dou!t #hether he
has read the VShemaA,V #ith ana"ogous cases, according to reremiah, #hose vie#s #ere transmitted !y %eAera ''. (bth cent.), the first case !eing decided
according to the !araita a"ready mentioned (]a, bo8]!, b). Another assage from the !araita, designating the aearance of the stars as an indication of the
time in 5uestion4 e+"anation of this !araita !y A!!a !ar 7aai (transmitter, 7hinehas4 !oth of the bth cent.)4 other assages on the aearance of the stars
as !earing on the ritua", together #ith a dia"ectic e+"anation !y rose !. A!in (second ha"f of the bth cent.) and a saying !y rudah !. 7aLLi (]!, o8_^). A
!araita on the division !et#een day and night, and other assages !earing on the same su!Dect (i!. "ines _^8b^). The meaning of V!en ha8shemashotV
(t#i"ight), and an ans#er !y Tan uma !. A!!a ("atter art of the bth cent.), together #ith another so"ution given !y a !araita (i!. "ines b^8bl). `iscussion of
this !araita !y A a and rose (bth cent.)4 reference !y &ani to a 5uestion dea"ing #ith this su!Dect #hich he addressed to /eLe*iah of 6ysarea (bth cent.)
from &ishnah %a!. i. l, and the ans#er of the "atter (]!, bl8]c, k). Amoraic sayings and a !araita on the !eginning of the day (i!. "ines k8]q). A sentence of
tannaitic origin in no #ay re"ated to the receding matters0 VOne #ho rays standing must ho"d his feet straight,V and the controversy on this su!Dect !et#een
Levi and Simon (_d cent.), the one adding, V"i*e the ange"s,V and the other, V"i*e the riestsV4 comments on these t#o comarisons (]c, ]q8_^). Kurther
discussion regarding the !eginning of the day, introduced !y a saying of aninaAs (_d cent.)4 haggadic statements concerning the da#n4 a conversation
!et#een iyya the E"der and Simeon !. a"afta ("atter art of the tannaitic eriod)4 cosmo"ogica" comments0 dimensions of the firmament, and the cosmic
distances e+ressed in units of oq and oqq years, together #ith simi"ar haggadic materia", chief"y tannaitic in origin4 /aggadic sayings on -en. i. l, introduced
!y a saying of A!inAs (bth cent.), and inc"uding sayings !y Ia!, rudah !. 7aLLi, and anina4 /aggadic materia" on 'sa. +". ]], introduced !y a controversy
!et#een rohanan and Simeon !. La ish (_d cent.), and on -en. ii. b (]c, _^8]d, ^^). On the second art of the first mishnaic sentence4 the vie#s of rudah '.
and Nathan on the num!er of the night8#atches, and an e+egetic discussion of them, #ith an a""usion to 7s. c+i+. l] (Vat midnightV), as #e"" as haggadic
materia" concerning `avid and his har, #ith esecia" reference to 7s. "vii. k (]d, ^^8bb).
(]) Assi in the name of rohanan0 VThe ru"ing of the sages 1Vunti" midnightV2 is the va"id one, and forms the !asis for the counse" given !y rose 1bth
cent.2 to the mem!ers of the academyV (i!. "ines bo8bp). $araita on the reading of the VShemaAV in the synagogue4 a 5uestion !earing on this matter, and
/unaAs ans#er in the name of the $a!y"onian amora roseh (i!. "ines bp8o]), an i""ustration !eing given in an anecdote regarding Samue" !. Na man,
together #ith a haggadic saying !y him (i!. "ines o]8op). A contradictory vie# !y roshua !. Levi, together #ith ertinent haggadic sayings to the effect that the
VShemoneh AEsrehV must fo""o# immediate"y the after8!enediction of the VShemaAV (i!. "ines ok8n_).
(_) I. -ama"ie"As vie# comared #ith an ana"ogous oinion of Simeon !. Yo ai, together #ith a 5uestion #hich remains unans#ered (]d, nb8_a,
_).
I. /. i. ^, ]0 These t#o aragrahs, #hich are com!ined into one in $a!"i, dea" #ith the commencement of the four seasons (ne# years)0 Nisan ^, E"u" ^,
Tishri ^, and She!a ^ (or ^o). The Ta"mud on ar. ^ is found in ola, bb8old, o], and that on ar. ] in old, o]8ona, _q.
Ta"mud on ar. ^0
(a) The Vne# year of the *ings.V E+egetic deductions and e"ucidations, !eginning#ith the interretation of E+. +ii. ^4 rohananAs e+"anation of ''
6hron. iii. ]4 a controversy !et#een /ananiah and &ani regarding the same verse4 an e+"anation !y A a of E+. +ii. ^4 a !araita !y Samue" on the same
verse4 and simi"ar materia" (ola, bb8ol!, ^q). aninaAs saying that even the years of -enti"e *ings #ere dated from Nisan, and the confirmation thereof !y
$i!"ica" assages from /aggai and %echariah, together #ith the contradictory vie# of the $a!y"onian amora AEfa or efa4 remar*s and o!Dections !y ronah
and 'saac (ol!, ^q8]k). ronah on the ractica" imortance of the ne# year for dating !usiness documents (i!. "ines ]k8__). On the ne# year in the chrono"ogy
of the *ings of 'srae" and rudah, together #ith an interretation of ' Kings ii. ^^, and severa" haggadic assages referring to `avid (i!. "ines __8o]).
(!) The Vne# year of the feasts.V Statement that according to Simeon !. Yo ai Nisan ^ mar*s the !eginning of the year for the se5uence of the
feasts4 a tannaitic midrash of considera!"e "ength on Lev. ++iii. _p, and a re"y !y E"a (bth cent.) to a 5uestion !earing on this matter4 additiona", remar*s and
o!Dections !y amoraim of the fourth century, together #ith the citation of a saying !y the scho"ars Vof that "aceV (i.e., $a!y"onia4 ol!, o]8olc, ^o)4 various
discussions on *indred su!Dects, esecia""y those #hose content invo"ved ha"a*ic e+egesis (olc, ^o8old, ^b).
(c) The Vne# year for tithes of catt"e,V dec"ared !y &ezr to !e E"u" ^. 7roof !y the $a!y"onian amora /una, #ho deduced an oosing vie# from
7s. "+v. ^b4 the re"ation !et#een $en AALLai, #ho is mentioned in a !araita !e"onging to this assage, and A*i!a (i!. "ines ^b8__)4 interretation of &ishnah
$e*. vii. n as !eing ana"ogous in content4 a citation !y &ani of a ha"a*ic e+egesis !y his father, ronah (i!. "ines __8o]).
Ta"mud on ar. ]0 (a) Tishri ^, the Vne# year for the counting of the years.V `eductions from $i!"ica" assages4 discussion on the su!Dect !et#een ronah and
the mem!ers of the co""ege4 ronahAs 5uotation of aninaAs saying on the names of the months, and a saying of Simeon !. La ish on the names of the ange"s
(old, o]8nn). ()) The Vne# year for the Sa!!atica" years and the years of Du!i"ee.V $i!"ica" inference (old, nn8ona, ]). (c) The Vne# year for the "anting of
trees.V E+"anation and e+egetica" deduction (i). "ines _8^b). (d) The Vne# year for vegeta!"es.V E"ucidation and discussion (i). "ines ^b8]_). (e) The Vne# year
for trees,V this section !eing su"emented !y an e+am"e from a tannaitic account of A*i!aAs ractise, #ith e+"anations (i). "ines ]_8_q).
Kurther E+am"es.
-i . ii. ^0 'nade5uate attestation of the rearation of a !i"" of divorce. The Ta"mud on the assage (bba, _b8n^)4 a secia" case in the &ishnah sho#n to
contain the oinion of rudah !. '"ai (i). "ines _b8bq)4 t#o casuistic 5uestions !y rose and the $a!y"onian amora isda, and the ans#ers furnished !y the
&ishnah (i). "ines bq8oq)4 a more detai"ed discussion of another 5uestion of simi"ar content, #ith reference to a controversy !et#een rohanan and Simeon !.
La ish, together #ith notes thereon !y Ammi and %eAera, and a discussion conc"uding #ith a comment !y &ani ( i)."ines oq8n^).
$. $. i. l0 (a) A short e+egetic roof !y E"a, !ased on 7rov. +viii. ^^ (^]d, n^ et se:.). ()) A !araita dea"ing #ith ana"ogous matter, together #ith a remar* !y
rose !. A!in (i). "ines n]8no).
A"though this ana"ysis of the contents of four arts of Yerusha"mi gives no ade5uate idea of the structure of the entire #or*, it #i"" serve to sho# the difference
!et#een its severa" arts in regard !oth to their "ength and to their am"ifications of the sim"e e+"anations of the &ishnah. A comarison of the ortions of
the 7a"estinian Ta"mud here summariLed #ith the corresonding sections of $a!"i, as given !e"o#, is esecia""y instructive.
7assages Ieeated.
Yerusha"mi, #hen regarded as a #or* of "iterature, is note#orthy for a te+tua" ecu"iarity #hich is characteristic of it, though found a"so in $a!"i, name"y, the
"arge num!er of "itera" reetitions. Entire assages, sometimes #ho"e co"umns, of the Ta"mud are found in t#o, occasiona""y in three, searate treatises, in
#hich they differ from each other !y mere variants, most of them due to corrutions of the te+t. These reetitions thro# some "ight on the redaction of the
Ta"mudic te+t, since they rove that !efore the editing of the treatises #as underta*en a uniform mass of materia" #as a"ready at hand in a definite"y revised
form4 they "i*e#ise sho# that in the comi"ation of the Ta"mud one ortion #as e+"ained !y another, as #as natura" in vie# of the character of the contents.
The oortunity #as g"ad"y seiLed, moreover, to reeat didactic materia" in assages #here it did not strict"y !e"ong. These reetitions are o!vious"y of great
va"ue in the te+tua" criticism of the Ta"mud. Since sufficient attention has never yet !een aid to this henomenon of Yerusha"mi, a "ist is here given of those
assages of the first order, %eraAim, #hich are reeated in other orders. 't must !e noted, ho#ever, that this "ist inc"udes neither citations !ased on assages
of another treatise nor ara""e" assages consisting of a sing"e sentence.
(a) 7assages from the order i. reeated in the order ii.0$er. _!, "ines ^q8oo M Sha!. _a, lk8_!, ]q.$er. ba, _q8ol M She . bna, ^_8ok M &. . p_c,
bq8p_d, p.$er. oa, __8l] M &. . p]!, ^b8bn.$er. od, ^b8]q M Sha!. _a, oo8l^.$er. od, lo8la, k M &. . p_a, o8]n.$er. lc, b8^n M Yoma bbd, op8lp.$er. ld,
lq8ln M &eg. n_d, ^o8]].$er. n!, nq8nd, ]o M TaAan. lnc, ^]8lnd, bn.$er. nd, no8pa, ok M TaAan. loc, ]8lk.$er. pc, lq8lk M I. /. okd, ^l8]o.$er. ka, nq8k!,
bn M TaAan. l_c, ll8l_d, bb.$er. kc, ]q8_^ M &eg. noc, p8^k.$er. kc, bk8ob M &eg. no!, _^8_l.$er. ^qa, _]8b_ M 7es. ]kc, ^l8]n.$er. ^^c, ^b8]^ M 7es. _nc,
ob8n^.$er. ^]c, ^l8]o M AEr. ]]!, ]k8_n.$er. ^]c, bb8l] M Su*. ]ba, l8]^ M &eg. n]a, ^o8_^.$er. ^_d, n]8^ba, _q M TaAan. lba, no8lb!, _o.7eAah ^oa, ln8
^o!, ]^ M ag. nl!, ]b8o_.7eAah ^na, _k8n] M ag. nl!, ^_8bn.7eAah ^pd, ^l8__ M She . bla, bp8ln.7eAah ^pd, ll8^ka, o M She . bpc, no8bpd, ^_.7eAah
]^a, ]o8]k M She . bpd, oo8op.`em. ]]a, _^8bq M She . bpd, bq8bk.Ki". ]k!, ]n8l^ M AEr. ^kc, ^o8bk M Su*. o]a, bq8n_.Ki". ]k!, l]8nl M Su*. o]a, n_8o]!,
^^.She!. _bc, ]n8bk M &. . pq!, ]l8o].She!. _pa, oq8lq M Sha!. _c, oo8lo.Ter. bba, _]8_p M Sha!. bbd, b8^q.Ter. bod, b]8o^ M Sha!. _d, ]8^o (com. AA!.
%arah b^d, ^_8]p).Ter. bla, b^8bl!, _o M 7es. ]pa, _b8]p!, _n.&aAas. bka, ]]8]p M Su*. o_d, b_8o_.&aAas. bk!, ^b8_] M Sha!. l!, ^n8_l.&aAas. bk!, _k8bp
M $e ah l]!, n]8l]c, l.&aAas. Sh. o_!, l8bb M Yoma boc, ]8_l (com. She!u. _]!. ol8_bc, _).&aAas. Sh. ob!, bp8op M She . o^!, ^o8]o.&aAas. Sh. ooa, ]_8
oo M AEr. ]bc, __8ll.&aAas. Sh. ood, l]8ln M &. . pq!, n]8pqc, ^q. a". onc, ^l8]q M I. /. on!, lq8l_.
(!)7assages from the order i. reeated in the order iii.0$er. la, _o8l!, ^n M NaL. ola, ^]8lp. $er. l!, o^8ol M id. l^c, ^^8^n. $er. kd, _8^k M -i .
bn!, bk8l_. $er. ^^!, b]8lp M NaL. ob!, ]8]n. $er. ^b!, bo8nq M So ah ]qc, bq8lb. 7eAah ^o!, b^8bn M Ket. _]c, ^q8^l. 7eAah ^oc, n8^l M id. l^a, no8l^c,
^q. `em. ]o!, lq8boc, n M id. l_a, no8l_!, ]^. Ki". _]a, lb8_]d, n M Ket. _bd, nb8_o!, ol. She!. _l!, ]o8lp M id. l^c, ol8l^d, ^n. Ter. bqc, b]8bqd, l M
Ye!. ^_c, nq8^_d, _]. Ter. b]!, bb8o_ M NaL. o_d, ^l8]n. Ter. bbc, k8bbd, bb M Ket. ]n!, o8]nc, _k. &aAas. Sh. ooa, lk8oo!, ^_ M -i . bnd, oo8nq. AOr"ah l^!,
p8__ M NaL. ooc, _]8l_. $i*. lba. _]8bb M Ye!. k!, n^8kc, p.
(c) 7assages from the order i. reeated in the order iv.0$er. _a, o]8lk M Sanh. _qa, lo8_q!, p M AA!. %arah b^c, bl8l_.$er. l!, ]q8b^ M Sanh.
]qa, b_8lq.7eAah ^l!, ]]8]o, b_8lq M Sanh. ]nc, _p8lq.She!. _o!, ]l8bq M AA!. %arah bb!, ]n8b^.She!. _k!, ^b8_p M &a*. _^a, __8oq.Ter. boc, ]b8bod, ^^ M
AA!. %arah b^a, ^p8b^!, _.Ter. bnc, ll8bnd, b M AA!. %arah b^c, ^_8]_.&aAas. Sh. obd, n^8ooa, p M Sanh. ^ka, l_8nl.&aAas. Sh. olc, k8^p M Sanh. ^pd, ^_8
]].AOr"ah l]!, bk8l]c, ^q M AA!. %arah boa, _]8bo!, ^q.
The fo""o#ing ara""e" assages from the second and fourth orders may a"so !e mentioned on account of their "ength0 Sha!. kc, l]8kd, ok M Sanh. ]bc, ^k8
]bd, ^b4 Sha!. ^bd, ^q8^oa, ^ M AA!. %arah bqd, ^]8b^a, b.
`esite these ara""e" assages in the four orders of Yerusha"mi, #hich might !e regarded as a roof of the uniform redaction of the entire #or*, there is
roof to the contrary, #hich sho#s that the first t#o orders differ in origin from the third and fourth. Whi"e the first and second contain a "arge num!er of
!araitot #ith the introductory formu"a VSamue" transmits 1 2,V there is not a sing"e !araita !y Samue" in the third and fourth orders. These "atter
t#o inc"ude, on the other hand, many controversies !et#een &ani and A!in, t#o amoraim of the second ha"f of the fourth century, #hi"e %eraAim and &oAed
contain very fe# (see $acher, VAg. 7a". Amor.V iii. _kp). The redaction of Yerusha"mi is discussed in further detai" !e"o#.
The /aggadot of the Yerusha"mi.
The haggadic ortions of Yerusha"mi are a"so characteristic of its sty"e. As in $a!"i, they fre5uent"y have on"y a s"ight !earing, sometimes none at a"", on the
su!Dect of the mishnaic section and its Ta"mudic interretation, !eing added to the assages in #hich they are found either !ecause they #ere mentioned in
the academy on account of some su!Dect under discussion, or !ecause, in the rocess of the redaction of the treatise, this haggadic materia", #hich #as
va"ued for some secia" reason, seemed to fit into the Ta"mudic te+t at the assage in 5uestion. &any haggadic ortions of Yerusha"mi are "i*e#ise found
a"most #ord for #ord in the ear"ier #or*s of 7a"estinian midrashic "iterature, esecia""y in -enesis Ia!!ah, Leviticus Ia!!ah, 7esi ta di8Ia! Kahana, E*ah
(Lamentations) Ia!!ati, and &idrash Shemue". These ara""e" assages do not a"#ays rove actua" !orro#ing4 for the same ear"ier source may have !een
used in the redaction !oth of Yerusha"mi and of the midrashic #or*s. The haggadot of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud #ere co""ected and annotated !y Samue" !en
'saac raffe Ash*enaLi in his VYefeh &arAehV (.enice, ^opk), and they #ere trans"ated into -erman !y W{nsche (V`er rerusa"emische Ta"mud in Seinen
/aggadischen $estandthei"en,V %urich, ^ppq).
Linguistica""y, the 7a"estinian Ta"mud is Aramaic, in so far as its frame#or* ("i*e the e"ucidations of the mishnaic te+t !y the mem!ers of the academies and
the amoraic discussions connected #ith them) is redacted in that "anguage4 the greater ortion of the termino"ogy is in "i*e manner Aramaic. The same dia"ect
is em"oyed in genera" for the narrative sections, inc"uding !oth the haggadot and the accounts of the "ives of the sages and their ui"s. The Aramaic ortion
conse5uent"y comrises a"" that is ou"ar in origin or content. The /e!re# sections, on the other hand, inc"ude the ha"a*ic sayings of the Tannaim, the
citations from the co""ections of !araitot, and many of the amoraic discussions !ased on the tannaitic tradition, together #ith other sayings of the Amoraim.
This "inguistic usage is due to the fact that !oth in 7a"estine and in $a!y"on the /a"a*ah #as for the most art e"ucidated and e+anded !y the Amoraim
themse"ves in the "anguage in #hich it had !een transmitted !y the Tannaim. 'n the academy the /e!re# of the &ishnah he"d its "ace side !y side #ith the
Aramaic, thus giving to the "atter a certain co"oring, esecia""y from a "e+icograhic oint of vie#. /e!re# #as retained in great measure a"so in the amoraic
/aggadah. The Aramaic, #hich assumed a fi+ed "iterary form in Yerusha"mi, is a"most the same as that of the ear"ier 7a"estinian midrashic #or*s, differing
from them on"y in a fe# ecu"iarities, most"y orthograhic. This idiom, together #ith that of the 7a"estinian Targum on the 7entateuch, has !een ana"yLed in
-. `a"manAs V-rammati* des r{disch87a"vstinischen AramvischV (Leisic, ^pkb4 ] ed. ^kqo).
Editions of the $a!"i.
The first com"ete edition of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud ( ) #as rinted at .enice, ^o]q8]_, !y `anie" $om!erg, and has !ecome the !asis, do#n
to the resent day, of a very "arge num!er of editions, inc"uding that of $ase", ^onp8p^, #hich, #ith the changes and omissions made !y the censor, e+erted a
o#erfu" inf"uence on "ater te+ts unti" the edition of Kran*fort8on8the8&ain, ^n]q8]], #ith its additions, !ecame the mode" of a"" su!se5uent editions of the
Ta"mud (see !e"o#). The e+terna" form of $a!"i #as determined !y the editio rinces. Whi"e the first edition of Yerusha"mi, in its t#o co"umns on each fo"io
age, contains on"y the te+t, the editio rinces of $a!"i adds the commentary of Iashi on one margin and the tosafot on the other, together #ith *indred
matter. Esecia""y note#orthy is the fact that the first edition of $a!"i has a agination #hich has !een retained in a"" su!se5uent editions, thus rendering it
ossi!"e to 5uote assages #ith e+actness, and to find citations readi"y. The mishnaic treatises #hich have no $a!y"onian Ta"mud are inc"uded in the editions
of the Ta"mud, together #ith commentaries, and these same tractates are "i*e#ise found in the on"y com"ete manuscrit of $a!"i (that at &unich), #here they
form an aendi+, a"though they recede the ost8Ta"mudic treatises, #hich are "i*e#ise contained in the editions. 't has !een noted a!ove that the editions
of $a!"i contain the Yerusha"mi for the treatiseShe a"im4 and this is a"so the case in the &unich manuscrit.
The fo""o#ing "ist gives the names of the treatises of $a!"i #hich have !een reserved, together #ith the se5uence genera""y fo""o#ed in the editions, and the
num!er of fo"ios in each tractate, the agination a"#ays !eginning #ith fo". ]. Of the onq "eaves of the &unich code+, containing a!out eighty "ines to a age,
bkq !e"ong to $a!"i4 this gives an aro+imate idea of the siLe of this Ta"mud. The amount of te+t on each age of the editions, ho#ever, varies great"y on
account of the varying "ength of the commentary of Iashi and the tosafot #hich accomany it4 !ut the num!er of "eaves sho#s the comarative "engths of the
severa" treatises.
'. %eraAim0 $era*ot (lb).
''. &oAed0 Sha!!at (^on)4 AEru!in (^qo)4
7esa im (^]^)4 $e ah (bq)4 agigah (]n)4
&oAed a an (]k)4 Iosh ha8Shanah (_o)4
Yoma (pp)4 Su**ah (ol)4 TaAanit (_^)4
&egi""ah (_]).
'''. Nashim0 Ye!amot (^]])4 Ketu!ot (^^])4
iddushin (p])4 -i in (kq)4 Nedarim (k^)4
NaLir (ll)4 So ah (bk).
'.. NeLi in0 $a!a amma (^^k)4 $a!a
&e iAa (^^k)4 $a!a $atra (^nl)4 AA!odah
%arah (nl)4 Sanhedrin (^^_)4 She!uAot (bk)4
&a**ot (]b)4 /orayot (^b).
.. odashim0 %e!a im (^]q)4 &ena ot
(^^q)4 $e*orot (^l^)4 u""in (^b])4 AAra*in
(_b)4 Temurah (_b)4 Keritot (]p)4 &eAi"ah (]])4
Tamid (k).
.'. ohorot0 Niddah (n_).
&issing -emaras.
$a!"i thus contains !ut one treatise each of the first
and si+th orders4 of the second, She a"im (see
a!ove) is "ac*ing4 and there is no Ta"mud on
AEduyot or A!ot either in $a!"i or Yerusha"mi. The
fifth order of $a!"i contains neither &iddot nor
innim, nor the third, fifth, si+th, and seventh
chaters of Tamid. 't is incorrect, ho#ever, to
sea* of missing ortions of the $a!y"onian
Ta"mud, since in a"" ro!a!i"ity the sections #hich it
omits #ere entire"y disregarded in the fina"
redaction of the #or*, and #ere conse5uent"y
never committed to #riting (for a divergent oinion
see Weiss, V`or,V iii. ]n^). 't #i"" !e sho#n further
on that the mishnaic treatises "ac*ing in $a!"i #ere
su!Dects of study in the $a!y"onian academies.
Ear"iest &anuscrit of the $a!"i.
'n the editions the $a!y"onian Ta"mud is so
arranged that each aragrah of the &ishnah is
fo""o#ed !y the ortion of the Ta"mud #hich forms
the commentary on it4 the ortions are fre5uent"y
divided into sections, ru!ric*ed !y the successive
sentences of the mishnaic aragrah on #hich they
are !ased, a"though an entire aragrah
occasiona""y serves as a sing"e te+t. Thus $a!"i on
Ket. ii. ^ (^la8^p!) is divided into si+ sections4 !ut
there is no division into sections for ii. ] (^p!8]q!),
ii. _ (]q!8]]a), ii. o (]_!), and ii. k (]n!8]pa). There
are three sections for ii. b (]_a)4 t#o for ii. l (]_!8
]la), ii. n (]l!8]na), and ii. p (]na, !)4 and eight for
ii. ^q (]pa, !). 'n the &unich code+, #hich is !ased
on a manuscrit of the midd"e of the ninth century
(see Le#y in V$res"auer rahres!ericht,V ^kqo, . ]p), the te+t of the entire chater of the &ishnah is #ritten in "arge characters on the inner ortion of the
age, searated from the Ta"mudic te+t, #hich is in a different scrit. 'n the fragments in the $od"eian Li!rary, O+ford, #ritten in ^^]_ and containing a ortion
of the treatise Keritot (see Vr. |. I.V i+. ^bo), each chater is headed !y the entire mishnaic te+t on #hich it is !ased. Then fo""o# the sections of the Ta"mud,
each !eginning #ith the #ord and the first art of the mishnaic aragrah in 5uestion, a"though some sections are mar*ed !y the suerscrition
(M ). The suerscrition , #hich in the editions mar*s the !eginning of the Ta"mud on each aragrah of the &ishnah, is found neither in the
&unich code+ nor in the $od"eian fragments. &ost of the manuscrits containing one or more treatises of $a!"i, and descri!ed !y I. N. Ia!!inovicL in the
introductions to vo"s. i., iv., viii., i+., and +i. of his V`i du e Soferim,V are so arranged that the entire mishnaic te+t is "aced at the !eginning of the chater4
and this is a"so occasiona""y the case in the editions, as in the first chater of the treatise Sanhedrin. 'n a St. 7eters!urg manuscrit said to date from ^^^]
the aragrahs are reeated in their roer "aces (i). viii. _). A num!er of codices in the .atican Li!rary are arranged art"y in the one #ay and art"y in the
other (+i. ^_, ^o, ^n, ^p), #hi"e the system adoted in the rinted te+ts occurs in manuscrits a"so (see i). iv. l, p4 +i. ]q). 't may !e mentioned as a curious
circumstance that in one manuscrit of the .atican (i). +i. ^k), containing the treatise 7esa im, many assages are voca"iLed and accented, as is a"so the
case in a $od"eian fragment of Yerusha"mi on $era*ot (Vr. |. I.V i+. ^oq). A fragment of considera!"e "ength in the 6am!ridge Li!rary, and ossi!"y the
ear"iest e+tant manuscrit of $a!"i, a"so contains the treatise 7esa im4 it has !een edited !y Lo#e (VThe Kragment of Ta"mud $a!"i of the Ninth or Tenth
6entury,V 6am!ridge, ^pnk)4 and in its four fo"ios it inc"udes the te+t of fo"s. na, !e"o# 8ka, midd"e, and ^_a, !e"o# 8^la, a!ove, of the editions. The ages are
divided into t#o co"umns4 and the entire mishnaic te+t recedes the chater4 the severa" sections, even those !eginning #ith a ne# aragrah of the
&ishnah, have an introduction on"y in the case of the first #ord of the mishnaic assage in 5uestion, #ith the #ord as suerscrition.
The character of $a!"i and its divergencies from Yerusha"mi may !est !e i""ustrated !y a citation of its commentary on the same assages of the &ishnah as
those contained in the sections of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud a"ready ana"yLed.
.age from the 5unich 5anuscript of the Aabylonian Talmud.
$er. i. ^ (divided in Yerusha"mi into four aragrahs, !ut in $a!"i forms one on"y, the e+"anations of #hich are given in ]a8ka4 for the uroses of the resent
comarison, on"y those discussions in $a!"i #hich refer to that art of the &ishnah #hich in Yerusha"mi forms the first aragrah are here summariLed)0
(a) The initia" 5uestion of the &ishnah and its !asis4 t#o divergent ans#ers, together #ith an o!Dection and its refutation (]a4 a"" anonymous). The
initia" statement of the &ishnah, and an interretation of Lev. ++ii. n !ased on a !araita on this verse and conc"uding #ith a note of Ia!!ah !. She"a (]!), and
the method of teaching this interretation in 7a"estine. The contradictions !et#een the statement of the &ishnah and three !araitot #hich are successive"y
stated and dia"ectica""y refuted (a"" anonymous). A discussion of the third !araita (_a). The oinion of I. E"ieLer (Vunti" the end of the first #atch of the nightV),
and the ro!"em #hether three or four night8#atches #ere im"ied4 a haggadic !araita #ith a saying of I. E"ieLer on the three #atches of the night, together
#ith a discussion of it. A haggadic e+cursus of some "ength, !eginning #ith Ia!As saying regarding the three #atches of the night, and containing a !araita (a
oem !y rose !. a"afta) and a dis5uisition on it (_!). Kurther detai"s of the night8#atches, !eginning #ith a controversy !et#een rudah '. and Nathan (in a
!araita)4 a haggadic saying of roshua !. Levi transmitted !y %eri a and Ammi, this section conc"uding #ith a saying of Ashi. Another saying of roshua !. Levi,
transmitted in "i*e manner, together #ith t#o versions of a comment !y A!!a !. Kahana. `iscussion of the first saying of roshua !. Levi, !eginning #ith the
rising of `avid Vat midnightV (7s. c+i+. l]), and devoted in the main to the connotation of the #ord VneshefV (i!. c+i+. ^bn), together #ith sayings of $a!y"onian
amoraim. The #ay in #hich `avid *ne# #hen midnight had arrived, and concerning his har, (ba). Kurther detai"s regarding `avid, 7s. "vii. k, and E+. +i. b,
#ith an e+egesis !y Ashi, #hich conc"udes the entire discussion. Additiona" haggadic materia" concerning `avid, and a controversy !et#een the 7a"estinian
haggadists Levi and 'saac on 7s. "+++vi. ] #ith reference to 7s. c+i+. l], together #ith comments and citations of a *indred nature.
E+am"es from the $a!"i.
(!) `ia"ectic e+osition of the re"ation of the vie# of the scho"ars to the oinions of I. E"ieLer and I. -ama"ie", together #ith the citation of a
!araita (b!). A controversy !et#een rohanan and roshua !. Levi on the se5uence of the VShemaAV and rayer, !ased on a sentence in this !araita (Vthe
AShemaAA is read0 rayer is offeredV), together #ith a discussion devoted chief"y to e+egetic inferences. An o!Dection a""eged !y &ar !. Ia!ina and !ased on a
assage in the &ishnah, and a haggadic saying of E"eaLar !. A!ina to the effect that he #ho recites 7s. c+"v. thrice dai"y is assured"y a son of the #or"d to
come, the citation !eing made in this "ace on account of an ahorism of simi"ar content given !y rohanan in the course of the same de!ate. A discussion of
these matters, and a saying of rohanan on 7s. c+"v., together #ith another haggadic ahorism !y E"eaLar !. A!ina on the ange"s &ichae" and Iahae", and
its e"ucidation. The vie# of roshua !. Levi on the evening VShemaA,V #hich shou"d !e recited in !ed (oa), and amoraic sayings on the same su!Dect, together
#ith a confirmation, !y a citation of 7s. iv. l, of the ru"ing of roshua !. Levi4 a haggadic saying of Simeon !. La ish transmitted !y Levi !. La ma, as #e"" as
another ahorism of this scho"ar transmitted !y the same authority. A haggadic saying !y 'saac on reading the VShemaAV in !ed, and a comment !y Ashi,
fo""o#ed !y another haggadic ahorism !y 'saac !ased on ro! v. n4 interretation of this verse as denoting aff"ictions sent !y -od (VyissurimV), against #hich
the study of the Torah gives rotection4 haggadic sentences on the La#. A "ong series of haggadic sayings !y 7a"estinian and $a!y"onian amoraim, and
esecia""y !y rohanan, regarding aff"iction (o!), #ith anecdotes from 7a"estine and $a!y"on. A !araita #ith a saying of A!!a $enDamin regarding rayer
!efore retiring, and its e"ucidation, together #ith three other !araitot and haggadic sayings of A!!a $enDamin regarding rayer (la), regarding demons (#ith
various sayings of $a!y"onian authors), and raying in the synagogue. A haggadic saying !y 'saac on the "ast su!Dect transmitted !y Ia!in !. Adda, together
#ith a saying of Ashi and additiona" e"ucidations, fo""o#ed !y another ahoriam transmitted !y Ia!in in the name of 'saac regarding the Vhy"acteries of -od,V
and !y a discussion of the su!Dect !y $a!y"onian amoraim, the vie# of Ashi standing "ast. A third haggadic saying of 'saac, of simi"ar transmission,
concerning rayer in the synagogue (l!), and a series of ahorisms of a "i*e nature, the first !eing !y rohanan, and the second !y /una transmitted !y
e"!o. These, intersersed #ith other sayings, are fo""o#ed !y five more ahorisms transmitted !y e"!o in the name of /una and regarding dearture from
the synagogue, the &in ah rayer, articiation in marriage festivities, the fear of -od, and the refusa" to return a sa"utation. A series (na) of five haggadic
sayings transmitted !y rohanan in the name of rose !en a"afta0 the rayer offered !y -od, acification of an angry neigh!or, disci"ine of oneAs o#n
conscience, three re5uests of &oses, and the teaching that a threat or romise !y -od is not reca""ed, even though given on"y conditiona""y, and that neither,
therefore, is ever unfu"fi""ed. After a num!er of sayings, art"y tannaitic and art"y amoraic in origin, come si+ haggadic ahorisms (n!) transmitted !y rohanan
in the name of the tanna Simeon !en Yo ai, the second treating of the same su!Dect as the corrresonding one in the revious series. To these sayings are
aended various ahorisms and e"ucidations, fo""o#ed !y a conversation !et#een Na man !. raco! and 'saac, in #hich the "atter cites a si+th saying,
concerning rayer in the synagogue, transmitted !y rohanan in the name of Simeon !en Yo ai. Additiona" haggadic ahorisms (pa) on this su!Dect as #e"" as
on the imortance of the synagogue, fo""o#ed !y three sayings of AU""a transmitted !y iyya !. Ammi, and !y various ahorisms on the reading of the Torah in
the synagogue (p!) and other *indred matters. This ortion is conc"uded !y the instructions #hich roshua !. Levi gave to his sons, and !y the ana"ogous
instructions #hich Ia!a gave to his chi"dren, as #e"" as !y e"ucidations of detai"s of these teachings and !y sayings of a simi"ar imort.
(c) 'n the name of Samue", rudah dec"ares that the oinion of I. -ama"ie" is authoritative. A !araita giving a simi"ar vie# !y Simeon !en Yo ai,
fo""o#ed !y an interretation of it #ith a fina" decision !y roshua !en Levi, and !y another version of the re"ation to it of the ru"ing of roshua !en Levi. The
section (ka) terminates #ith an oinion on this !araita !y a scho"ar #ho had come from 7a"estine to $a!y"on.
Kurther E+am"es.
I. /. i. ^ (}} ^8] in Yerusha"mi4 the Ta"mud on these sections is contained in ]a8^o!)0
(a) isdaAs ans#er to the 5uestion as to the ractica" imortance of the Vne# year of the *ings,V #ith a citation of the mishnaic assage (She!. +.
o) regarding antedated and ostdated romissory notes. A !araita on the rec*oning of regna" years, and its e"ucidation (]!), together #ith hermeneutic
deductions from the $i!"e regarding Nisan as the !eginningof the regna" year, introduced !y an inference of rohanan !ased on ' Kings vi. ^ as comared #ith
Num. +++iii. _p, `eut. i. _, b, Num. ++i. ^ (_a), and simi"ar assages, reference !eing fina""y given to E"eaLarAs deduction founded on '' 6hron. iii. ]. A !araita
giving the deduction of rohanan. The assertion of isda that the regna" years of non8'srae"itish *ings #ere rec*oned from Tishri, together #ith $i!"ica"
assages in confirmation of this vie#, !eginning #ith Neh. i. ^ and its hermeneutic e+osition (_!), the conc"usion !eing formed !y a variety of haggadic
materia" on the 7ersian *ings mentioned in the $i!"e (ba).
(!) isdaAs ans#er to the 5uery #hy Nisan ^o, the first day of the Keast of 7assover, #as not made the Vne# year of the feasts,V #hi"e a !araita
sho#s that this vie# #as romu"gated !y Simeon !en Yo ai himse"f. Another !araita (b!) on the ritua" order of the festiva"s, together #ith e+egetic deductions
from the vie#s contained therein and additiona" discussions, conc"uding #ith an e"ucidation (oa) of other ha"a*ic and e+egetic sayings on festiva"s and
sacrifices. $araita (o!) on `eut. ++iii. ]] et se5., and a detai"ed discussion, fo""o#ed !y a simi"ar section (la, !) on `eut. ++iii. ]b. $araita (na) on Nisan ^ and
its four meanings, the first !eing deduced from E+. +ii. ] and `eut. +vi. ^, a"though an o!Dection caused Lev. ++iii. _k to !e regarded !y isda as the !asic
assage, #hi"e %ech. i. n #as cited to refute an a""egation made !y Ia!ina, additiona" $i!"ica" assages !eing 5uoted !y the $a!y"onian amoraim AU""a,
Kahana, and Ashi4 the section is conc"uded !y a deduction of the three other meanings of Nisan ^ (n!) mentioned in the !araita.
(c) The signification of E"u" ^ as the Vne# year for tithes of catt"e,V as taught !y I. &ezr. The various origins of the sentences co""ected in I. /. i.
^, together #ith a saying !y roseh, fo""o#ed !y a series of ahorisms of "ater $a!y"onian amoraim, and one !y Ashi (pa). rohananAs deduction, from 7s. "+v.
^b, of the dou!"e vie# concerning the ne# year for tithes of catt"e, and its dia"ectic e"ucidation.
Second ha"f of the mishnaic aragrah0
(a) The 5uestion regarding the ractica" uti"ity of the ne# year for the counting of the years, ans#ered !y 7aa in e+act"y the same #ay as
isda had so"ved the 5uestion concerning the ne# year of the *ings4 so"ution of the discreancy and further e"ucidations of the rinci"e that Tishri ^ #as the
ne# year for the counting of the years. T#o !araitot on 7s. "+++i. b et se5. (p!).
(!) An inference regarding the year of Du!i"ee, !ased on Lev. ++v. b4 and the o!viation of the difficu"ty resented !y Lev. ++v. k (#ith reference to
the Sa!!atica" year) !y means of a !araita on the fo""o#ing verse, together #ith t#o other !araitot on the same su!Dect (ka) and an e"ucidation of Tishri ^q,
conc"uded !y a !araita on Lev. ++v. ^^ and its interretation (k!).
(c) $i!"ica" deduction regarding the "anting of trees and a !araita thereon, #ith an inference dra#n from the $i!"e !y rohanan (^qa), and an
e"ucidation of another !araita cited in e+"anation of the first, rohananAs deduction from -en. viii. ^_ regarding the oosing vie#s of I. &ezr and I. E"eaLar
(^q!) as to #hether a day may !e rec*oned "i*e a year, thus introducing a !araita containing the controversy !et#een I. E"ieLer and I. roshua on the month
of 6reation, the former arguing for Tishri and the "atter for Nisan4 e+egetic haggadot of considera!"e "ength (^^a8^]a) on this section.
(d) A !araita stating that VtithesV and Vvo#sV as #e"" as Vvegeta!"esV !e"ong to Tishri ^, together #ith interretations !y hermeneutics and other
methods (^]!), and #ith discussions of the su!Dect !y the 7a"estinian and $a!y"onian schoo"s, and ha"a*ic e+egeses (^_a8^ba).
(e) An argument !y /oshaiah transmitted !y E"eaLar (^ba), and a !araita recording the ractise of I. A*i!a (^b!8^o!), as #e"" as e"ucidations of
it. Another !araita on She!a ^o, #ith a controversy !et#een rohanan and Simeon !en La ish, and a discussion of it.
-i . ii. ^ (the Ta"mud on this section is contained in ^oa8^na)0
(a) The urose of the entire aragrah, a"though its content is immediate"y aarent from the oening sentence of the mishnaic treatise.
(!) The ro!"em of the connotation of Vthe ha"f of the !i"" of divorce, and AshiAs ans#er.
(c) The "a# regarding a case in #hich on"y Vthe ha"fV of a !i"" of divorce is signed !y #itness in the resence of the !earer4 the more rigorous
interretation of it !y isda and su!se5uent modifications !y Ia!a and (^o!) Ashi, as #e"" as a dia"ectic discussion of these three sayings. Ana"ogous cases
from other !ranches of the /a"a*ah and casuistic 5uestions !earing on them (^la), conc"uding #ith one !y 7aa #hich remains unans#ered.
(d) 6ase in #hich one of the !earers of a !i"" of divorce #itnesses the engrossing of the document and the other the signature4 e+act definition
given !y rohanan and transmitted !y Samue" !. rudah (^l!)4 the ans#er of the "atter to the o!Dection of A!aye, a"though another version of the entire affair
ma*es Ashi the author of the o!Dection4 controversy on the su!Dect !et#een /oshaiah and AU""a. Anecdote of a visit made !y rudah !. ELe*ie" to Ia!!ah !ar
!ar ana during an i""ness of the "atter, and their conversation on a ro!"em connected #ith -i . i. ^.
(e) The case in #hich the engrossing of a !i"" of divorce is #itnessed !y one and the signature !y t#o ersons (^na), and the e+act definition of
such an event, given !y rohanan and transmitted !y Ammi, the section !eing conc"uded !y a discussion !et#een Ammi and Assi.
Lega" E+am"e.
$. $. i. l (the Ta"mud on this section is contained in n!8^^a)0
(a) VOne #ho is art o#ner of a courtyard is o!"iged to contri!ute to the cost of the gate#ay as #e"" as of the door itse"fV4 8the citation of a "egend
concerning E"iDah to rove that a gate#ay is not necessari"y a su!Dect for raise, conc"uded !y a casuistic definition of the case resuosed !y the &ishnah.
(!) According to I. Simeon !. -ama"ie", VEvery courtyard is not adated to a gate#ayV4 a !araita containing the com"ete version of this saying.
(c) According to I. Simeon !. -ama"ie", VOne #ho d#e""s in a city is o!"iged to contri!ute to#ard the !ui"ding of the #a""s and the doors,V etc.4 a
!araita containing the com"ete version ofthis saying. rohananAs ans#er to the 5uery advanced !y E"eaLar concerning the method of "evying contri!utions,
fo""o#ed !y a second version of the same account. The atriarch rudah ''. and the scho"ars contri!uted to#ard !ui"ding the #a"", a"though the "ega"ity of this
action #as 5uestioned !y Simeon !. La ish on the !asis of a haggadic deduction from 7s. c+++i+. ^p, #hi"e rohanan roosed another verse, 6ant. viii, ^q, to
aid in the so"ution of the ro!"em (pa)4 Ia!!ahAs interretation of this assage of 6antic"es. An instance of contri!utions on the art of the scho"ars of
$a!y"onia, and the roof of their i""ega"ity furnished !y the e+egesis of three $i!"ica" assages, ta*en resective"y from the 7entateuch, the 7rohets, and the
/agiograha. 7aaAs roof that a certain ta+ #as imosed on orhans, and a discussion of it, fo""o#ed !y a tannaitic account (ha"f Aramaic) !y rudah '. of
the suort of scho"ars during a time of famine.
(d) V/o# "ong must one d#e"" in a city to have e5ua" rights #ith its citiLensa T#e"ve monthsV4 a conf"icting !araita #hich sea*s of thirty days4
Ia!!ahAs so"ution of this contradiction, #hi"e rohanan reconci"es the discreancy !et#een the eriod of t#e"ve months and that given in another !araita. The
saying of rohanan as to the "ia!i"ity of scho"ars to ta+ation, and various statements regarding the ractise of the $a!y"onian sages. The #ay in #hich roseh
(bth cent.) e+ended a sum of money sent him !y the mother of King Saor, together (p!) #ith an interretation of rer. +v. ]. $araita on the mode of "evying
ta+es for the oor, and the right of assessment of municia" ta+es. The ru"e of the &ishnah (She . v. ]) that the sma""est num!er of ersons #ho may !e
entrusted #ith raising ta+es is t#o, and its $i!"ica" !asis according to Na man !. raco!, together #ith sayings and e+am"es !earing on this matter. An
interretation of `an. +ii. _ as referring to the co""ectors and trustees of the ta+ for the oor, fo""o#ed !y t#o !araitot on these co""ectors and A!ayeAs
statements regarding the ractise of Ia!!ah !. Na mani, as #e"" as (ka) !y a note of Ashi and an oinion of Ia!!ah. $araita on the auditing of the accounts
of the trustees of the ta+ for the oor, and e"ucidations of it. Notes and anecdotes i""ustrating &ishnah 7eAah viii. n (on the amount to !e given to the oor),
fo""o#ed !y haggadic assages on the imortance of a"msgiving, among these ahorisms !eing one cited !y Ia!!ah as transmitted to E"eaLar !y a certain
AU""a #ith a curious surname, #hich forms the !asis of an anecdote. Kurther haggadic assages on the charity of E"eaLar, 'saac, and others. A !araita giving
I. &ezrAs ans#er (^qa) to the 5uestion #hy -od /imse"f does not nurture the oor, fo""o#ed !y an account of the conversation on this su!Dect !et#een I.
A*i!a and Tineius Iufus. Sermon !y rudah !. Sha"om (7a"estinian amora of the bth cent.) on rer. "vii. ^n, and anecdotes from the "ives of rohanan !. %a**ai
and 7aa. /aggadic sayings !y tannaim and amoraim on a"ms. The vision of roseh !. roshua !. Levi (^q!) of the future "ife, together #ith !araitot on the
interretation of 7rov. +iv. _b !y rohanan !. %a**ai and his scho"ars as #e"" as !y -ama"ie" ''. and the other sages of ra!neh. The charity of the mother of
Saor, and t#o !araitot0 one (^^a) the story of the !eneficence of $enDamin ha8 addi 4 the other an account of the generosity of King &ono!aL.
(e) V'f one o!tains a d#e""ing8"ace in the city, he immediate"y receives e5ua" rights #ith the citiLensV4 an oosing vie# !y Simeon !. -ama"ie"
transmitted in t#o versions.
Krame#or* of 6ommentary.
This ana"ysis of four different assages of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud sho#s, in the first "ace, that the frame#or*, as in the 7a"estinian Ta"mud, is formed !y a
running interretation of the &ishnah, desite the heterogeneity of the materia" #hich is inter#oven #ith it. The Ta"mud, ho#ever, is not a mere commentary
on the &ishnah, since, in addition to its haggadic ortions, it contains a varied mass of ha"a*ic materia", connected on"y "oose"y, if at a"", #ith the contents of
the mishnaic aragrahs in 5uestion4 and #hi"e the Ta"mud sometimes adheres c"ose"y to the te+t of such a aragrah, its commentary on a sing"e section of
the &ishnah is often e+anded into the comass of a sma"" !oo*. 'n this resect $a!"i is much more free than Yerusha"mi, #hich is more concise in other
regards as #e""4 the #ider interests of the former and its greater variety and "ength are due at "east in "arge art to the fact that the $a!y"onian academies
enDoyed a "onger e+istence and hence its redaction e+tended over a more rotracted eriod.
/aggadah of the $a!"i..age from an
;nknown Edition of Tractate
Aaba 5e iIa of the
Aabylonian Talmud, .rinted
.robably by Soncino
Aefore 6L00.0Ay courtesy of
.rof. SolomonSchechter.1
The fact that the /aggadah is much more
rominent in $a!"i, of #hich it forms, according to
Weiss (V`or,V iii. ^k), more than one8third, #hi"e it
constitutes on"y one8si+th of Yerusha"mi, #as
due, in a sense, to the course of the
deve"oment of /e!re# "iterature. No
indeendent mass of haggadot deve"oed in
$a!y"on, as #as the case in 7a"estine4 and the
haggadic #ritings #ere according"y co""ected in
the Ta"mud. The most curious e+am"e of this is
a midrash on the $oo* of Esther, found at the
end of the first chater of the treatise &egi""ah
(. ^q!8^na). E+cet for the fact that the te+t of
this section natura""y a""udes to the $oo* of
Esther, the midrash has no connecting8"in* #ith
the receding ortion of the Ta"mud. 't is a true
midrashic comi"ation in the sty"e of the
7a"estinian midrashim, introduced !y si+teen
roems (most"y !y 7a"estinian authors), and
fo""o#ed !y e+egeses and comments on
individua" verses of Esther in the order of the
te+t, each receded !y a catch #ord (for further
detai"s on this midrash see $acher, VAg. $a!.
Amor.V . ^^k). A fragment of a simi"ar
comi"ation on Lamentations, treating of a fe#
verses of the first t#o chaters, is found in the
"ast chater of Sanhedrin (^qb, b et se:.), this
fragment !eing inserted there on account of the
receding casua" a""usion to the $a!y"onian e+i"e
(i). . ^]q). The treatise -i in (ooa8opa)
contains a haggadic comi"ation on the
destruction of rerusa"em, its e"ements !eing
found art"y in the 7a"estinian "iterature, art"y in
E*ah Ia!!ati, and art"y in the treatise TaAanit of
the rerusa"em Ta"mud. This haggadah, #hich
!egins #ith a saying !y rohanan, is aended to
the !rief ha"a*ic e"ucidation of the first sentence
of the mishnaic aragrah on the "a# of the
Sicarii (-i . v. l), mentioning those #ho fe"" in the
#ar against the Iomans. 'n $a!"i such haggadic
intero"ations, often of considera!"e "ength, are
e+treme"y fre5uent, #hi"e the very content of the
mishnaic aragrahs often affords a !asis for
"engthy haggadic e+cursuses. Thus the "ast (in
Yerusha"mi, ne+t to the "ast) chater of
Sanhedrin is made the foundation for a mass of
haggadic comments, most of them on"y "oose"y
connected !y an association of ideas #ith the
te+t of the assages of the &ishnah to #hich
they are assigned. 'n this e+cetiona""y "ong
chater of $a!"i (. kqa8^^_!) on"y that ortion
(^^^!8^^]!) #hich refers to the La# in `eut. +iii.
^] et se:. is ha"a*ic in nature. The haggadic
conc"usion of the first chater of So ah furnishes
the !asis for further Ta"mudic comments in the
sty"e of the /aggadah (p!, ^ba)4 so that, for e+am"e, the interretation of E+. ii. b, cited in the &ishnah (^^a), is fo""o#ed (^^a8^_!) !y an indeendent
section #hich forms a running midrash on E+. i. p8ii. b. Additiona" e+am"es may !e found in near"y every treatise of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud. The haggadic
sections of this Ta"mud, #hich form an imortant art of the entire #or*, have !een co""ected in the very ou"ar VAEn YaAa o!V of raco! i!n a!i! (^st ed.
^o^l), as #e"" as in the rarer V/aggadot ha8Ta"mudV (6onstantino"e, ^o^^4 com. Ia!!inovicL, V`i du e Soferim,V viii. ^_^)4 and they have !een trans"ated
into -erman !y A. W{nsche (V`er $a!y"onische Ta"mud in Seinen /aggadischen $estandthei"en,V _ vo"s., Leisic, ^ppl8pk).
An imortant factor in the comosition of the Ta"mud, and conse5uent"y one it is necessary to consider in a discussion of its "iterary form, is the fre5uent
Du+taosition of severa" sayings ascri!ed to one and the same author. These sayings, #hich are fre5uent"y "in*ed together !y the name of their common
transmitter as #e"" as !y that of their author, #ere evident"y taught in this connected form in the academies, thus finding their #ay into the aroriate
assages of the Ta"mudic te+t. Such grous of ahorisms are e+treme"y fre5uent in $a!"i4 and severa" of them are found in the assage from $er. ]a8ka
#hich has !een ana"yLed a!ove (regarding Yerusha"mi see Kran*e", V&e!o,V . _ka). Other circumstances #hich must !e considered in discussing the
comosition of the te+t of the Ta"mud are set forth in the account of its origin and redaction given !e"o#.
Sty"e and Language.
The remar*s a"ready made concerning the re"ation of the /e!re# and the Aramaic e"ements in the voca!u"ary of Yerusha"mi a"y #ith "itt"e modification to
$a!"i, a"though the Aramaic of the "atter is more near"y a*in to the Syriac (the eastern Aramaic dia"ect then current in $a!y"onia) and is even more c"ose"y
re"ated to &andyan (see Nw"de*e, V&andvische -rammati*,V . ++vi., /a""e, ^pno4 on the 7ersian e"ements in the voca!u"ary of $a!"i see re#. Encyc.vii.
_^_!, s.9. rudyo87ersian). 'n regard to -ree* and Latin terms Levy ma*es the incomrehensi!"e statement (VNeuhe!r. Wwrter!.V iv. ]nba) that Vno -ree* or
Latin #ords are found in the $a!y"onian Ta"mud.V This is, ho#ever, incorrect4 for a "arge num!er of #ords from the Latin and -ree* (see Krauss,
VLehn#wrter,V i. . ++iii.) are em"oyed in the Ta"mud, !oth in the tannaitic assages found in $a!"i, and in the sayings of 7a"estinian as #e"" as of $a!y"onian
amoraim, such as Ia! (see $acher, &.c. . _]). On the e+egetic termino"ogy as a"ied in $i!"ica" and traditiona" hermeneutics, see $acher, VTermino"ogie der
Amorver,V Leisic, ^kqo. An interesting "inguistic ecu"iarity of $a!"i is the fact that tannaitic traditions, esecia""y stories, are occasiona""y given entire"y in
Aramaic, or an anecdote, !egun in /e!re#, is continued in Aramaic (such as the story, designated !y as a !araita, concerning roshua !.
7era yah and his ui" resus 1Sanh. ^qn!2).
The /a"a*ah in $a!"i.
The contents of the Ta"muduthis term !eing restricted to $a!"i, a"though much #hich a"ies to it ho"ds true of Yerusha"mi as #e""ufa"" into the t#o main
divisions of /a"a*ah and /aggadah. A"though, as stated a!ove, the &ishnah itse"f fre5uent"y furnishes the ground for the inc"usion of haggadic e"ements in
the Ta"mud, and a"though the su!Dects discussed in the /a"a*ah fre5uent"y "ead of themse"ves to haggadic treatment, the /aggadah occuies on"y a
secondary osition in the Ta"mud, since this is, !oth in origin and in urose, a ha"a*ic #or*, and #as intended to serve as a commentary on the chief
authoritative #or* of the tannaitic /a"a*ah, the &ishnah of rudah '. Those ortions, therefore, #hich treat of the interretation of the &ishnah are the
su!stance of the Ta"mud. This interretation, ho#ever, #as not mere"y theoretica", !ut #as rimari"y devoted to a determination of the ru"es a"ying to the
ractise of the ceremonia" "a#4 on the other hand, the deve"oment of the /a"a*ah had not ceased in the academies of the Amoraim, desite the accetance
of the &ishnah, so that the oinions and the decisions of the Amoraim themse"ves, even #hen they #ere not !ased mere"y on an interretation of the
&ishnah and other tannaitic ha"a*ot, !ecame the su!Dect of tradition and comment. 'n addition to the &ishnah, furthermore, the &idrash (the ha"a*ic e+egesis
of the $i!"e) and the /a"a*ah in the more restricted sense !ecame the su!Dect of tradition and of study, and #ere reserved in different co""ections as !eing
the other resu"ts of the tannaitic eriod. 'n this #ay the Ta"mud, in its strict connotation of the interretation of the &ishnah, #as increased !y an ine+hausti!"e
mass of materia", #hich afforded the amoraic academies a !asis !oth for the interretation and for the criticism of the &ishnah4 for since the Ta"mud dea"s
#ith the criticism of the &ishnah, not on"y in te+t and meaning, !ut a"so in its re"ation to the !araitot, these !araitot themse"ves #ere fre5uent"y interreted in
the same #ay as #ere mishnaic assages (e.g., I. /. ^qa, ^]!, ]ka), and #ere su"ied #ith their Ta"mud. &oreover, the Ta"mud #as further augmented !y
the inc"usion #ithin it of the vie#s #hich the scho"ars e+ressed in the course of their u!"ic, Dudicia", and other activities, as #e"" as !y the data regarding
their rivate "ives and their re"igious ractises #hich #ere discussed and memoriLed in the academies. 'f this !rief s*etch of the Ta"mud as regards its ha"a*ic
contents!e su"emented !y the statement that the sayings of the severa" amoraim as #e"" as the oosing vie#s of their contemoraries and the mem!ers
of the academies, #hether teachers or ui"s, are fre5uent"y recorded in connection #ith the reort of the discussions of the academies, a more com"ete
vie# of the nature of the Ta"mud and a !etter concetion of its form may !e gained.
The Krame#or* Anonymous.
The rea" frame#or* of the Ta"mud, ho#ever, on #hich the entire structure #as !ui"t, #as, as noted a!ove, rovided !y the 5uestions, comments, and
discussions #hich are !ased on individua" aragrahs of the &ishnah, and #hich are anonymous, or not ascri!ed to any author. Aended to these
assages and intersersed among them are sayings #hose authors are named4 and this c"ass fre5uent"y reonderates great"y. The anonymous frame#or*
of the Ta"mud may !e regarded as the #ar resu"ting from the united activity of the mem!ers of the academy, and uon #hich the #oof of the Ta"mud #as
inter#oven and deve"oed during three centuries, unti" its fina" redaction gave it definitive form. The Ta"mud is rea""y the #or* of the !ody of scho"ars in the
academies, #ho devoted themse"ves to it generation after generation, and *et its traditions a"ive. A"though many mem!ers of the academieusthe great as
#e"" as the sma"", teachers as #e"" as ui"suare mentioned as the authors of various sayings and decisions, and as ta*ing art in the discussions and
controversies, some of them !eing deemed scho"ars #orthy of record on account of a sing"e remar*, the !ac*ground of the Ta"mud, or rather the !ac*ground
for those e"ements regarding #hose authorshi statements are made, #as formed !y the united efforts of those #ho "a!ored to roduce that #or*. The
manifo"d o!Dections and refutations introduced !y the #ord Vmeti!iV (M Vthey o!DectV), and the 5uestions (genera""y casuistic in nature) receded !y the formu"a
Vi!!aAya "ehuV (M Vthey have as*edV) refer to this !ody of scho"ars, regard"ess of the date at #hich they "ived.
Iedaction.
This a""usion to the anonymous frame#or* of the Ta"mud suggests the ro!"em of its redaction, #hich is artia""y ans#ered !y the a""usion itse"f4 for the #or*
!egan #ith the incetion of the co""ection, and the first amoraim "aid the foundation for the tas*, #hich #as carried on !y succeeding generations, the fina"
resu"t !eing the Ta"mud in its resent form. The system of mishnaic hermeneutics, #hich #as in a sense officia", and #as at a"" events sanctioned !y the
"ectures de"ivered in the academy, #as determined as ear"y as the first generation, and remained va"id thenceforth. 't is interesting to notice that the on"y
certain occurrence of the #ord V-emaraV in the sense of VTa"mudV (AEr. _]!) is found in connection #ith an account #hich thro#s a f"ood of "ight uon the first
stages of the redaction of the Ta"mud. This account !egins #ith the interretation of AEr. iii. b, and is as fo""o#s0 VI. iyya !. A!!a, I. Assi 17a"estinian
amoraim in $a!y"on2, and Ia!!a !. Nathan sat4 and !eside them sat a"so Ia! Na man. They sat and said 1here fo""o#s a dia"ectic discussion on the nature
of the "ace of the tree mentioned in the aragrah of the &ishnah2. Then I. Na man said0 A't is correct4 and Samue" a"so has aroved of this e+"anation.A
Then the first three as*ed0 A/ast thou esta!"ished this e+"anation in the -emaraaA 1i.e., V/ast thou inc"uded it as a fi+ed e"ement in the Ta"muda Na man
ans#ers in the affirmative, #hereuon a confirmatory amoraic tradition is added4 and, in the name of Samue", Ia! Na man interrets the mishnaic assage
under consideration in the "ight of that e+egesis2.V The term V a!aAV (Vesta!"ishV) #as used in a "ater age !y Sherira -aon to designate the incororation of
ortions that #ere used to ma*e u the Ta"mud into its te+t (see Le#y, V'nterretation des Ersten A!schnitts des 7a"vstinischen Ta"mud8Tra*tates Nesi*in,V .
b4 $acher, in V/e!re# Union 6o""ege Annua",V ^kqb, . _b), #hi"e in the Ta"mud itse"f the #ord #as a"ied to the redaction of tannaitic traditions (see I. /.
_]a, a!ove4 id. ]oa4 Sanh. ]^!4 %e!. ^^b!). This account, #hich dates from the !eginning of the amoraic eriod in the Academy of Nehardea, is, curious"y
enough, an iso"ated instance4 for among the many dates and accounts #hich the Ta"mud contains in reference to the academy and its mem!ers, there is no
direct statement concerning the redaction of the te+t, either in its ear"ier stages or at its conc"usion, a"though certain statements on divergent traditions of
amoraic sayings and discussions afford an idea of the #ay in #hich the Ta"mudic te+t emerged from the various versions given !y the scho"ars and schoo"s
that transmitted it. These statements, #hich have !een co""ected !y Le#y (&.c. . b8^b), use the ver! VtanniV (VaAe"V from ) in referring to "ectures on the
Ta"mudic te+t as #e"" as amoraic sayings or discussions on them ($acher, VTermino"ogie der Amorver,V . ]_k). Thus it is stated (Sha!. bp!4 $. $. pla) that at
Sura a certain interretation #as given in the name of isda and at 7um!edita in that of Kahana. There are a num!er of other simi"ar statements concerning
traditions, in regard to differences, as !et#een Sura and 7um!edita, and !et#een Sura and Nehardea, in the #ording of the amoraic sayings and in their
ascri!ed authorshi (-i . _oa). Esecia""y fre5uent is the mention of amoraim of the fourth and fifth centuries as transmitters of these divergent statements,
either t#o amoraim !eing named as authorities for t#o different versions, or an amora !eing cited as oosing another version to an anonymous tradition. As
e+am"es of the former may !e mentioned Ia!!a and roseh (%e!. ]o!), 7aa and %e!id (Sha!. ll!), Kahana and Ta!yomi (Ned. ^l!), Ashi and &ar
%u ra (Sha!. ^^ka), and Ia!ina and A a (Ket. _^!)4 #hi"e many other instances are cited !y Le#y ( &.c.).
Technica" Terms for Tradition.
7articu"ar"y interesting are the cases in #hich a divergent account is resented !efore Ashi, and thus !efore the one #ho roDected the definitive redaction of
the Ta"mud, Ashi aearing in a"" these cases as reresenting the version first given. Thus the amora &ordecai said to Ashi0 VThou teachest thus4 !ut #e
teach different"yV (&en. b]!4 $er. oa). 'n addition to such statements, #hich are ascri!ed to mem!ers of the $a!y"onian academies, and #hich indicate
divergencies in amoraic tradition, the e+tant te+t of the Ta"mud contains a"so a num!er of othervariants, #hich are inc"uded #ithout such statements. These
are introduced !y such formu"as as VAnd if you #i"" say ( ), referring to other authorities, or VThere are those #ho say,V or VThere are those #ho
teach,V and simi"ar hrases. The e+ression Vanother versionV ( ) fre5uent"y aears in the te+t as a suerscrition to a divergent account
(NaL. k!4 $. . oka4 u". ^^k!4 Tem. oa, la, k!4 ^^!, _q! 1com. Kran*e" in V&onatsschrift,V ^pl^, +. ]l]24 Niddah ]ka, _pa). A"" these instances afford an
idea, even though !ut an imerfect one, of the gradua" deve"oment of the Ta"mudic te+t. To comrehend #hy on"y ractica""y a sing"e Ta"mud #as roduced,
desite the various academies, the great num!er of authoritative transmitters of the mass of materia", and the num!er of generations that co""a!orated on the
#or*, it must !e !orne in mind that there #as a continua" interchange of ideas !et#een the academies, and that the numerous ui"s of the successive
generations #ho memoriLed the Ta"mud, and erhas committed at "east a art of it to #riting, dre# from a sing"e source, name"y, the "ectures of their
masters and the discussions in the academies4 further, that, since the #or* on the Ta"mud #as continued #ithout interrution a"ong the "ines "aid do#n !y the
first generation of amoraim, a"" succeeding generations may !e regarded as one !ody of scho"ars #ho roduced a #or* #hich #as, to a"" intents and
uroses, uniform. This unity finds its e+ression in the hraseo"ogy adoted in the anonymous frame#or* of the Ta"mud, #hich terms the authors V#e,V
e+act"y as a #riter sea*s of himse"f as V'V in an individua" #or*. E+am"es of this hraseo"ogy occur in the fo""o#ing formu"as0 (VWe then raised
the 5uestionV4 see Sha!. l!, n^a, kk!4 Yoma nba, nk!4 Su*. __a4 &eg. ]]a4 Ye!. ]k!4 id. bka4 -i . lq!4 She!u. ]]!4 AA!. %arah _oa, o]!4 Niddah
l!)4 (VWe have oosed 1another teaching to the one #hich has !een 5uoted2V)4 (VWe have "earned,V or, in other #ords, Vhave received !y
traditionV), the conventiona" formu"a #hich introduces mishnaic assages4 and, fina""y, (VWhence have #e itaV), the regu"ar reface to an in5uiry
regarding the $i!"ica" !asis of a saying. 'n a"" these formu"as the V#eV denotes the authors of the Ta"mud regarded as a co""ective unity, and as the tota"ity of
the mem!ers of the academies #hose "a!ors, covering three centuries of co""a!oration, resu"ted in the Ta"mud. 't #as in the $a!y"onian Academy of Sura,
moreover, that the fina" redaction of the Ta"mud too* "ace, the very academy that too* the "ead in the first century of the amoraic eriod4 and the uniformity of
the Ta"mud #as thus assured, even to the "ace of its origin.
`ate of Iedaction.
The statements a"ready made concerning the continuous redaction of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud a"y #ith e5ua" force to the Yerusha"mi, this fact !eing
e+ressed !y Le#y (&.c. . ^b8^o) in the fo""o#ing #ords0 V'n 7a"estine, as in $a!y"on, there may have !een different Ta"mudim in the various schoo"s at
different eriods. . . . Simi"ar"y in the 7a"estinian
Ta"mud different versions of amoraic sayings
are 5uoted in the names of different authors,
from #hich it may !e inferred that these authors
"earned and taught different Ta"mudim.V Le#y
sea*s a"so (&.c. . ]q) of severa" redactions
#hich receded the fina" casting of the
7a"estinian Ta"mud into its resent form. The
actua" condition of affairs can scarce"y !e
formu"ated in these terms, ho#ever, since the
divergencies consist, for the most art, of mere
variants in certain sentences, or in the fact that
there #ere different authors and transmitters of
them4 and a"though many of these deviations
are cited !y I. ronah and I. rose, #ho "ived
and taught contemoraneous"y at Ti!erias, this
fact scarce"y Dustifies the assumtion that there
#ere t#o different Ta"mudim, one taught !y
ronah and the other !y rose4 it #i""
neverthe"ess !e evident, from the statements
cited a!ove, that the Ta"mud e+isted in some
definite form throughout the amoraic eriod,
and that, furthermore, its fina" redaction #as
receded !y other revisions. 't may "i*e#ise !e
assumed that the contemoraneous schoo"s of
Ti!erias, Sehoris, and 6ysarea in 7a"estine
taught the Ta"mud in different redactions in the
fourth century. Le#y assumes, ro!a!"y #ith
correctness, that in the case of Yerusha"mi the
treatise NeLi in (the three treatises $a!a
amma, $a!a &e iAa, and $a!a $atra) #as
ta*en from a redaction differing from that of the
other treatises. (A""usion has a"ready !een
made to a difference of content !et#een the
first t#o and the "ast t#o orders of the
Yerusha"mi.) With regard to $a!"i. Kran*e" has
sho#n (V&onatsschrift,V +. ^kb) that the treatise
Tamid, in #hich on"y three chaters out of
seven are accomanied !y a Ta"mud, !e"ongs
to a different redaction from that of the other
treatises4 and he endeavors to sho#, in "i*e
manner (i). . ]ok), !oth Vthat the redactor of
the treatise iddushin is not identica" #ith that
of $a!a $atra and Nedarim,V and Vthat the
redactor of the treatise -i in is not the same as
that of Keritot and $a!a $atra.V /o#ever, as
these remar*s refer to the fina" redaction of the
Ta"mud, they do not touch uon the a!stract
unity of the #or* as emhasiLed a!ove. 't is
sufficient to assume, therefore, that the fina"
redaction of the severa" treatises #as !ased on
the versions used in the different academies. 't
may !e ostu"ated, on the #ho"e, that the
7a"estinian Ta"mud received its resent form at
Ti!erias, and the $a!y"onian Ta"mud at Sura
(com. the assages in Yerusha"mi in
#hich 1M VhereV2 refers to Ti!erias, and
those in $a!"i in #hich the same #ord denotes
Sura 1Le#y, &.c. . b2).
.age from the *irst
"omplete Edition of the
Aabylonian Talmud, .rinted
by Aomberg, )enice, 6L90<
9M.0*rom the Sul2berger
collection in the Eewish Theological Seminary of merica, (ew Nork.1
The chief data regarding the academies of 7a"estine and $a!y"on, #hose activity resu"ted in the Ta"mud, have !een set forth e"se#here (see re#. Encyc. i.
^bo8^bp,s.9. Academies), so that here stress need !e "aid on"y on those events in the history of the t#o schoo"s and of their teachers #hich are esecia""y
note#orthy in connection #ith the origin and the fina" redaction of the t#o Ta"mudim. 't may !e said, !y #ay of reface, that the academies of 7a"estine and
$a!y"on #ere in constant intercommunication, not#ithstanding their geograhica" osition. &any rominent $a!y"onian scho"ars sett"ed ermanent"y in
7a"estine, and many eminent 7a"estinians soDourned in $a!y"on for some time, or even for a considera!"e ortion of their "ives. 'n the second ha"f of the third
century $a!y"onian students sought the 7a"estinian schoo"s #ith esecia" fre5uency, #hi"e many ui"s of rohanan #ent during the same eriod to $a!y"on4
and in the trou!"ous days of the fourth century many 7a"estinian scho"ars sought refuge in the more 5uiet regions a"ong the Euhrates. This uninterruted
association of scho"ars resu"ted in an active interchange of ideas !et#een the schoo"s, esecia""y as the activity of !oth #as devoted in the main to the study
of the &ishnah. The rerusa"em Ta"mud according"y contains a "arge num!er of sayings !y $a!y"onian authorities, and $a!"i 5uotes a sti"" "arger num!er of
sayings !y 7a"estinian scho"ars in addition to the roceedings of the 7a"estinian academies, #hi"e it "i*e#ise devotes a very considera!"e sace to the ha"a*ic
and haggadic teachings of such 7a"estinian masters as rohanan, Simeon !. La ish, and A!!ahu. Anonymous 7a"estinian sentences are 5uoted in $a!"i #ith
the statement, VThey say in the WestV4 and simi"ar ma+ims of $a!y"onian origin are 5uoted in Yerusha"mi in the name of Vthe scho"ars there.V $oth the
Ta"mudim thus ac5uired more traits in common than they had former"y ossessed desite their common foundation, #hi"e o#ing to the mass of materia"
#hich $a!"i received from the schoo"s of the /o"y Land it #as destined in a measure to su"ant the 7a"estinian Ta"mud even in 7a"estine.
Activity of ronah and rose.
The history of the origin of Yerusha"mi covers a eriod of t#o centuries. 'ts roDector #as rohanan, the great teacher of Ti!erias, #ho, together #ith his ui"s
and contemoraries, some of them of considera!"e rominence, "aid the foundations for the #or* #hich #as continued !y succeeding generations. The
e+treme imortance of rohanan in the genesis of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud seems to have !een the !asis of the !e"ief, #hich first found e+ression in the
t#e"fth century, a"though it is certain"y o"der in origin, that he #as the author of Yerusha"mi (see Kran*e", V&e!o,V . bn!). As a matter of fact, ho#ever, a"most
a century and a ha"f e"ased after the death of rohanan (]nk) !efore this Ta"mud received its resent form, !ut it #as aro+imated to this form, to#ard the
end of the fourth century, !y ronah and rose, the t#o directors of the Academy of Ti!erias. Their Doint ha"a*ic sentences, controversies, and divergent
oinions on the utterances of their redecessors are scattered throughout Yerusha"mi4 !ut the conc"usion that rose redacted it t#ice, #hich has !een dra#n
from certain statements in this Ta"mud, is incorrect (Kran*e", &.c. . ^q^a4 Weiss, V`or,V iii. ^^_ et se:., ]^^4 see Le#y, &.c. . ^q, ^n4 /a"evy, V`orot ha8
Iishonim,V ii. _]]). ronahAs son &ani, one of the scho"ars most fre5uent"y named in Yerusha"mi, seems, after studying at 6ysarea, #here note#orthy
scho"ars #ere "iving in the fourth century, to have raised the schoo" of Sehoris to its highest "ane4 and a "arge num!er of the sayings of the Vscho"ars of
6ysareaV #as inc"uded in Yerusha"mi (see V&onatsschrift,V ^kq^, . ]kp8_"q). The on"y other ha"a*ist of imortance among the 7a"estinian amoraim is rose
!. A!in (or A!un). According to Kran*e" (&.c. . ^q]a), he occuied a!out the same osition in regard to the redaction of Yerusha"mi as #as he"d !y Ashi in
regard to that of $a!"i (see a"so Weiss, &.c. iii. ^^n). The fina" redaction of the Ta"mud #as reserved for the succeeding generation, ro!a!"y !ecause the
activity of the Academy of Ti!erias ceased #ith the discontinuance of the atriarchate (c. b]o). This #as the time during #hich Tan uma !. A!!a (see
$acher, VAg. 7a". Amor.V iii. oq]) made his co""ection and definite "iterary arrangement of the haggadic e+egesis of the amoraic eriod.
The !eginnings of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud are associated !oth #ith Nehardea, #here the study of the tradition had f"ourished even !efore the c"ose of the
tannaitic eriod, and #ith Sura, #here Ia! founded a ne# academy #hich soon surassed Nehardea in imortance. Ia! and Samue", #ho resective"y
resided #ith e5ua" distinction over the t#o schoo"s, "aid the foundation of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud through their comments on the &ishnah and their other
teachings. Their vie#s are fre5uent"y contrasted in the form of controversies4 !ut on the other hand they are often mentioned as the common authors of
sentences #hich #ere ro!a!"y transmitted !y certain ui"s #ho had heard them from !oth masters. One of these ui"s, rudah !. ELe*ie", #hen as*ed to
e+"ain some of the more o!scure ortions of the &ishnah, su!se5uent"y a""uded "aintive"y to the Vha#ayyotV of Ia! and Samue", meaning there!y the
5uestions and comments of the t#o masters on the entire &ishnah ($er. ]qa and ara""e"s). 'n "i*e manner, scho"ars of the fourth century so*e of the
ha#ayot of A!aye and Ia!a, #hich formed, as it #ere, the 5uintessence of the Ta"mud, and #hich, according to an anachronistic addition to an o"d !araita,
#ere even said to have !een inc"uded in the !ranches of *no#"edge fami"iar to rohanan !. %a**ai (Su*. ]pa4 $. $. ^_ba).
Activity of Ia!a.
The ui"s of Ia! and Samue", the "eading amoraim of the second ha"f of the third centuryu/una, isda, Na man !. raco!, Sheshet, and the rudah
mentioned a!ove, #ho is esecia""y rominent as a transmitter of the sayings of his t#o teachersuadded a mass of materia" to the Ta"mud4 and the "ast8
named founded the Academy of 7um!edita, #here, as at Sura, the deve"oment of the Ta"mud #as continued. 7um!edita #as "i*e#ise the !irth8"ace of that
casuistic and hair8s"itting method of interreting and criticiLing ha"a*ic assages #hich forms the secia" characteristic of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud, a"though
the scho"ars of this academy devoted themse"ves a"so to the study of the co""ections of tannaitic traditions4 and at the !eginning of the fourth century the
reresentatives of the t#o movements, VSinaiV roseh and Ia!!ah, the Vurooter of mountains,V succeeded their master rudah and !ecame the directors of
the schoo". Their sayings and controversies, together #ith the sti"" more imortant dicta and de!ates of their ui"s A!aye and Ia!a, form a considera!"e art
of the materia" of the Ta"mud, #hich #as great"y increased at the same time !y the ha"a*ic and haggadic sentences !rought from 7a"estine to $a!y"on. A"" the
si+ orders of the &ishnah #ere then studied, as is stated!y Ia!a (not Ia!!a4 see Ia!!inovicL, V`i du e Soferim,V on TaAanit, . ^bb), a"though in rudahAs
time the "ectures had !een confined to the fourth order, or, according to the vie# of Weiss (V`or,V iii. ^pn), #hich is ro!a!"y correct, to the first four orders
(com. &eg. ]p!4 TaAan. ]ba, !4 Sanh. ^ql!4 Ia!aAs ui" 7aa e+resses a simi"ar vie# in $er. ]qa).
Ia!As activity mar*s the cu"mination of the #or* on the Ta"mud. The time had no# come #hen the reservation and arrangement of the materia" a"ready
co""ected #ere more imortant than further accretions. Na man !. 'saac, ui" and successor of Ia!a (d. _o]), #hom he survived !ut four years, e+ressed
the tas* of the eigoni in the fo""o#ing #ords (7es. ^qo!)0 V' am neither a sage nor a seer, nor even a scho"ar as contrasted #ith the maDority. ' am a
transmitter 1VgamranaV2 and an arranger 1VsadranaV2.V The com!ination of the former term #ith the "atter, #hich occurs on"y here, very concise"y summariLes
the activity of the redactor. 't is c"ear that Na man !. 'saac actua""y engaged in this tas* from the fact that he is mentioned as the $a!y"onian amora #ho
introduced &nemonics (VsimanimV), designed to faci"itate the memoriLing and grouing of Ta"mudic assages and the names of their authors. The
mnemonics ascri!ed to him in the Ta"mud (see r. $r{"", V`ie &nemonotechni* des Ta"muds,V . ]^4 $acher, VAg. $a!. Amor.V . ^_b), ho#ever, constitute
on"y a very sma"" art of the simanim inc"uded in the te+t of that #or*. These again form !ut a remnant of the entire mass of #hat N. $r{"" (Vrahr!.V ii. lq)
terms the Vmnemotechnic aaratus,V of #hich on"y a ortion #as inc"uded in the rinted te+t of the Ta"mud, a"though many others may !e traced !oth in the
manuscrits of the Ta"mud and in ancient citations (see N. $r{"", &.c. . l] et se:., ^^p et se:.). The materia", to #hich the eigoni of the second ha"f of the
fourth century had added "itt"e, #as no# ready for its fina" redaction4 and it #as definitive"y edited !y Ashi (d. b]n), #ho during his "ong eriod of activity
infused fresh "ife into the Academy of Sura. 'n vie# of his recogniLed authority, "itt"e #as "eft for the t#o succeeding generations, e+cet to round out the #or*,
since another redaction #as no "onger ossi!"e. The #or* !egun !y Ashi #as com"eted !y Ia!ina (A!ina), #hose death in bkk mar*s, according to an
ancient tradition, the end of the amoraic eriod and the com"etion of the redaction of the Ta"mud.
6ommitted to Writing.
The date at #hich the Ta"mud #as committed to #riting is ure"y conDectura". The #or* itse"f contains neither statements nor a""usions to sho# that any
com"ete or artia" coy of the #or* redacted and com"eted !y Ashi and Ia!ina had !een made in their days4 and the same "ac* of information
characteriLes !oth Yerusha"mi and the &ishnah (the !asis of !oth the Ta"mudim), as #e"" as the other #or*s of the tannaitic eriod. There are, ho#ever,
a""usions, a"though they are on"y soradic, #hich sho# that the /a"a*ah and the /aggadah #ere committed to #riting4 for coies #ere descri!ed as !eing in
the ossession of individua" scho"ars, #ho #ere occasiona""y criticiLed for o#ning them. This censure #as !ased on an interdiction issued in the third century,
#hich for!ade any one to commit the teachings of tradition to #riting or to use a manuscrit of such a character in "ecturing (see -i . lqa4 Tem. ^b!).
Ie"ying to the scho"ars of Kair#an, Sherira -aon in his "etter (ed. Neu!auer, V&. r. 6.V i. ]l) a""udes to this rohi!ition as fo""o#s0 V'n ans#er to your
5uestion as*ing #hen the &ishnah and the Ta"mud #ere resective"y committed to #riting, it shou"d !e said that neither of them #as thus transmitted, !ut
!oth #ere arranged 1redacted2 ora""y4 and the scho"ars !e"ieve it to !e their duty to recite them from memory, and not from #ritten coies.V Krom the second
art of this statement it is evident that even in SheriraAs time the Vscho"ars,V a term here restricted to the mem!ers of the $a!y"onian academies, refrained
from using #ritten coies of the Ta"mud in their "ectures, a"though they #ere sufficient"y fami"iar #ith it to !e a!"e to recite it from memory. The statement that
the e+i"arch Na ronai (pth cent.), #ho emigrated to Sain, #rote a coy of the Ta"mud from memory (see $r{"", Vrahr!.V ii. o^), #ou"d sho# that the scho"ars of
the geonic eriod actua""y *ne# the #or* !y heart. A"though this statement is not a"together free from susicion, it at "east roves that it #as !e"ieved to !e
#ithin the o#ers of this e+i"arch to ma*e a coy of the Ta"mud #ithout having an origina" at hand. This assage a"so thro#s "ight uon the eriod of the
deve"oment and redac tion of the Ta"mud, during #hich the a!i"ity to memoriLe the mass of materia" taught in the schoo"s #as deve"oed to an e+tent #hich
no# transcends concetion.
On the other hand, SheriraAs statement sho#s that his denia" of the e+istence of the Ta"mud and the &ishnah in #ritten form #as "imited to an officia""y
recogniLed redaction4 for manuscrits of the *ind mentioned !y him #ere then current, as they had !een in the geonic eriod, desite the interdiction4 for they
#ere used at "east as aids to study, and #ithout them the Ta"mud cou"d not ossi!"y have !een memoriLed. 'n "i*e manner, this rohi!ition, in the "ight of
SheriraAs #ords, does not rec"ude the e+istence of rivate coies of ortions of the traditiona" "iterature, even in ear"ier times. The concea"ed ro""s (Vmegi""ot
setarimV) #ith ha"a*ic comments #hich Ia! found in the house of his unc"e iyya (Sha!. l!4 $. &. k]a), as #e"" as the note8!oo*s ( ~) mentioned at the
!eginning of the amoraic eriod and in #hich such scho"ars as Levi !. Sisi, roshua !. Levi, %eAiri, and i"fai or '"fa (Sha!. ^ola4 Yer. &aAas. bkd, lq!4 &en.
nqa), entered sentences, some of them ha"a*ic in character, indicate that such ersona" coies #ere fre5uent"y used, #hi"e the #ritten /aggadah is
reeated"y mentioned. 't may therefore !e assumed that the &ishnah and other tannaitic traditiona" #or*s #ere committed to #riting as ear"y as the time of
the Amoraim. 'n "i*e manner, there may have !een coies of the amoraic comments on the &ishnah, as aids to the memory and to rivate study. 'n the ear"y
art of the fourth century %eAera disuted the accuracy of the ha"a*ic tradition taught !y the $a!y"onian amora Sheshet, and as he !ased his susicions on
SheshetAs !"indness,he evident"y !e"ieved that it #as imossi!"e for the $a!y"onian scho"ar to confirm and verify his *no#"edge !y the use of #ritten notes
(see $acher, VAg. 7a". Amor.V iii. b). When Ashi undertoo* the fina" redaction of the Ta"mud he evident"y had at his disosa" notes of this *ind, a"though $r{""
(&.c. . ^p) is ro!a!"y correct in ascri!ing to Ia!ina the first com"ete #ritten coy of the Ta"mud4 Ia!ina had as co""a!orators many of the Sa!oraim, to
#hom an ancient and incontroverti!"e tradition assigns numerous additions to the Ta"mudic te+t.
No Korma" Iatification.
When Ia!ina died a #ritten te+t of the Ta"mud #as a"ready in e+istence, the materia" contri!uted !y the Sa!oraim !eing mere"y additions4 a"though in thus
e+tending the te+t they sim"y continued #hat had !een done since the first redaction of the Ta"mud !y Ashi. The Sa!oraim, ho#ever, confined themse"ves to
additions of a certain form #hich made no change #hatsoever in the te+t as determined !y them under the direction of Ia!ina (on these sa!oraic additions
as #e"" as on other accretions in $a!"i, see the statements !y $r{"", &.c. . lk8pl). Yet there is no a""usion #hatever to a forma" sanction of the #ritten te+t of
the Ta"mud4 for neither did such a ratification ta*e "ace nor #as a forma" one at a"" necessary. The $a!y"onian academies, #hich roduced the te+t in the
course of _qq years, remained its guardians #hen it #as reduced to #riting4 and it !ecame authoritative in virtue of its accetance !y the successors of the
Amoraim, as the &ishnah had !een sanctioned !y the "atter and #as made the chief su!Dect of study, thus !ecoming a !asis for ha"a*ic decisions. The
traditions, ho#ever, under#ent no further deve"oment4 for the Vhorayot,V or the indeendent e+egesis of the &ishnah and the ha"a*ic decisions !ased on this
e+egesis, ceased #ith Ashi and Ia!ina, and thus #ith the com"etion of the Ta"mud, as is stated in the canon incororated in the Ta"mud itse"f ($. &. pla).
The &ishnah, the !asa" #or* of ha"a*ic tradition, thenceforth shared its authority #ith the Ta"mud.
Among the re#s #ho came under the
inf"uence of #estern Ara!ic cu"ture the !e"ief
that the Ta"mud (and the &ishnah) had !een
redacted ora""y #as suerseded !y the vie#
that the initia" redaction itse"f had !een in
#riting. This theory #as first e+ressed !y I.
Nissim of Kair#an (V&aftea ,V . _!), a"though
even !efore his time the 5uestion addressed,
as a"ready noted, to Sherira -aon !y the re#s
of Kair#an had sho#n that they favored this
vie#, and the gaonAs resonse had received
an intero"ation ostu"ating the #ritten
redaction of the Ta"mud.
The definitive redaction of the $a!y"onian
Ta"mud mar*s a ne# eoch in the history of
the re#ish eo"e, in #hich the Ta"mud itse"f
!ecomes the most imortant factor, !oth as
the ivota" oint of the deve"oment and the
manifestation of the sirit of rudaism, and as a
#or* of "iterature dee"y inf"uenced !y the
fortunes of those #ho cherished it as their
a""adium. On the interna" history of rudaism
the Ta"mud e+erted a decisive inf"uence as the
recogniLed source for a *no#"edge of tradition
and as the authoritative co""ection of the
traditiona" re"igious doctrines #hich
su"emented the $i!"e4 indeed, this inf"uence
and the efforts #hich #ere made to escae
from it, or to restrict it #ithin certain "imits,
constitute the su!stance of the inner history of
rudaism. The $a!y"onian academies, #hich
had gradua""y !ecome the centra" authority for
the entire re#ish `iasora, found their chief
tas* in teaching the Ta"mud, on #hich they
!ased the ans#ers to the 5uestions
addressed to them. Thus #as evo"ved a ne#
science, the interretation of the Ta"mud,
#hich roduced a "iterature of #ide
ramifications, and #hose !eginnings #ere the
#or* of the -eonim themse"ves.
'nf"uence of the Ta"mud.
The Ta"mud and its study sread from
$a!y"on to Egyt, northern Africa, 'ta"y, Sain,
Krance, and -ermany, regions destined to
!ecome the a!odes of the re#ish sirit4 and in
a"" these countries inte""ectua" interest
centered in the Ta"mud. The first great
reaction against its suremacy #as Karaism,
#hich arose in the very strong8ho"d of the
-eonim #ithin t#o centuries after the
com"etion of the Ta"mud. The movement thus
initiated and the inf"uence of Ara!ic cu"ture
#ere the t#o chief factors #hich aroused the
dormant forces of rudaism and gave
insiration to the scientific ursuits to #hich
the re#ish sirit o#ed many centuries of
marve"ous and fruitfu" activity. This activity,
ho#ever, did not infringe in the "east on the
authority of the Ta"mud4 for a"though it
com!ined other idea"s and inte""ectua" aims
#ith Ta"mudic study, #hich it enriched and
erfected, the imortance of that study #as in no #ise decried !y those #ho devoted themse"ves to other fie"ds of "earning. Nor did the secu"ative treatment
of the fundamenta" teachings of rudaism "o#er the osition of the Ta"mud4 for &aimonides, the greatest hi"osoher of re"igion of his time, #as "i*e#ise the
greatest student of the Ta"mud, on #hich #or* he endeavored to !ase his hi"osohic vie#s. A dangerous interna" enemy of the Ta"mud, ho#ever, arose in
the 6a!a"a during the thirteenth century4 !ut it a"so had to share #ith the Ta"mud the suremacy to #hich it asired.
.age from Tractate iddushin of the Aabylonian Talmud, Sabbionetta, 6LLO.0*rom the
Sul2berger collection in the Eewish Theological Seminary of merica, (ew Nork.1
`uring the dec"ine of inte""ectua" "ife among the re#s #hich !egan in the si+teenth century, the Ta"mud #as regarded a"most as the sureme authority !y the
maDority of them4 and in the same century eastern Euroe, esecia""y 7o"and, !ecame the seat of its study. Even the $i!"e #as re"egated to a secondary
"ace, and the re#ish schoo"s devoted themse"ves a"most e+c"usive"y to the Ta"mud4 so that VstudyV !ecame synonymous #ith Vstudy of the Ta"mud.V A
reaction against the suremacy of the Ta"mud came #ith the aearance of &oses &ende"ssohn and the inte""ectua" regeneration of rudaism through its
contact #ith the -enti"e cu"ture of the eighteenth century, the resu"ts of this strugg"e !eing a c"oser assimi"ation to Euroean cu"ture, the creation of a ne#
science of rudaism, and the movements for re"igious reform. `esite the Karaite inc"inations #hich fre5uent"y aeared in these movements, the great
maDority of the fo""o#ers of rudaism c"ung to the rinci"e, authoritative"y maintained !y the Ta"mud, that tradition su"ements the $i!"e4 and the Ta"mud itse"f
retained tained its authority as the #or* em!odying the traditions of the ear"iest ost8$i!"ica" eriod, #hen rudaism #as mo"ded. &odern cu"ture, ho#ever,
has gradua""y a"ienated from the study of the Ta"mud a num!er of re#s in the countries of rogressive civi"iLation, and it is no# regarded !y the most of them
mere"y as one of the !ranches of re#ish theo"ogy, to #hich on"y a "imited amount of time can !e devoted, a"though it occuies a rominent "ace in the
curricu"a of the ra!!inica" seminaries. On the #ho"e re#ish "earning has done fu"" Dustice to the Ta"mud, many scho"ars of the nineteenth century having made
note#orthy contri!utions to its history and te+tua" criticism, and having constituted it the !asis of historica" and archeo"ogica" researches. The study of the
Ta"mud has even attracted the attention of non8re#ish scho"ars4 and it has !een inc"uded in the curricu"a of universities.
Edict of rustinian.
The e+terna" history of the Ta"mud ref"ects in art the history of rudaism ersisting in a #or"d of hosti"ity and ersecution. A"most at the very time that the
$a!y"onian sa!oraim ut the finishing touches to the redaction of the Ta"mud, the emeror rustinian issued his edict against the a!o"ition of the -ree*
trans"ation of the $i!"e in the service of the Synagogue, and a"so for!ade the use of the , or traditiona" e+osition of Scriture. This edict, dictated
!y 6hristian Lea" and anti8re#ish fee"ing, #as the re"ude to attac*s on the Ta"mud, conceived in the same sirit, and !eginning in the thirteenth century in
Krance, #here Ta"mudic study #as then f"ourishing. The charge against the Ta"mud !rought !y the convert Nicho"as `onin "ed to the first u!"ic disutation
!et#een re#s and 6hristians and to the first !urning of coies of the #or* (7aris, ^]bb). The Ta"mud #as "i*e#ise the su!Dect of a disutation at $arce"ona in
^]l_ !et#een &oses !en Na man and 7a!"o 6hristiani. 'n this controversy Na manides asserted that the haggadic ortions of the Ta"mud #ere mere"y
Vsermones,V and therefore devoid of !inding force4 so that roofs deduced from them in suort of 6hristian dogmas #ere inva"id, even in case they #ere
correct.
Attac*s on the Ta"mud.
This same 7a!"o 6hristiani made an attac* on the Ta"mud #hich resu"ted in a aa" !u"" against it and in the first censorshi, #hich #as underta*en at
$arce"ona !y a commission of `ominicans, #ho ordered the cance"ation of assages rerehensi!"e from a 6hristian oint of vie# (^]lb). At the disutation of
Tortosa in ^b^_, -eronimo de Santa Kx !rought for#ard a num!er of accusations, inc"uding the fatefu" assertion that the condemnations of agans and
aostates found in the Ta"mud referred in rea"ity to 6hristians. T#o years "ater, 7oe &artin .., #ho had convened this disutation, issued a !u"" (#hich #as
destined, ho#ever, to remain inoerative) for!idding the re#s to read the Ta"mud, and ordering the destruction of a"" coies of it. Kar more imortant #ere the
charges made in the ear"y art of the si+teenth century !y the convert rohann 7feffer*orn, the agent of the `ominicans. The resu"t of these accusations #as a
strugg"e in #hich the emeror and the oe acted as Dudges, the advocate of the re#s !eing rohann Ieuch"in, #ho #as oosed !y the o!scurantists and
the humanists4 and this controversy, #hich #as carried on for the most art !y means of amh"ets, !ecame the recursor of the Ieformation. An
une+ected resu"t of this affair #as the com"ete rinted edition of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud issued in ^o]q !y `anie" $om!erg at .enice, under the rotection
of a aa" rivi"ege. Three years "ater, in ^o]_, $om!erg u!"ished the first edition of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud. After thirty years the .atican, #hich had first
ermitted the Ta"mud to aear in rint, undertoo* a camaign of destruction against it. On Ne#8YearAs `ay (Set. k), ^oo_, the coies of the Ta"mud #hich
had !een confiscated in com"iance #ith a decree of the 'n5uisition #ere !urned at Iome4 and simi"ar !urnings too* "ace in other 'ta"ian cities, as at
6remona in ^ook. The 6ensorshi of the Ta"mud and other /e!re# #or*s #as introduced !y a aa" !u"" issued in ^oob4 five years "ater the Ta"mud #as
inc"uded in the first 'nde+ E+urgatorius4 and 7oe 7ius '.. commanded, in ^olo, that the Ta"mud !e derived of its very name. The first edition of the
e+urgated Ta"mud, on #hich most su!se5uent editions #ere !ased, aeared at $ase" (^onp8^op^) #ith the omission of the entire treatise of AA!odah %arah
and of assages considered inimica" to 6hristianity, together #ith modifications of certain hrases. A fresh attac* on the Ta"mud #as decreed !y 7oe
-regory X'''. (^ono8po), and in ^ok_ 6"ement .'''. rene#ed the o"d interdiction against reading or o#ning it. The increasing study of the Ta"mud in 7o"and "ed
to the issue of a com"ete edition (6raco#, ^lq]8o), #ith a restoration of the origina" te+t4 an edition containing, so far as *no#n, on"y t#o treatises had
revious"y !een u!"ished at Lu!"in (^ook8nl). 'n ^nqn some coies of the Ta"mud #ere confiscated in the rovince of $randen!urg, !ut #ere restored to
their o#ners !y command of Krederic*, the first *ing of 7russia. The "ast attac* on the Ta"mud too* "ace in 7o"and in ^non, #hen $isho `em!o#s*i, at the
instance of the Kran*ists, convened a u!"ic disutation at KamenetL87odo"s*, and ordered a"" coies of the #or* found in his !ishoric to !e confiscated and
!urned !y the hangman.
.FE *-35 T-"TTE S,AAT 3* T,E -355 EHITI3( 3* T,E
AAN+3(I( T+5;H, 4I+(, 6BB6.
The e+terna" history of the Ta"mud inc"udes a"so the "iterary attac*s made uon it !y 6hristian theo"ogians after the Ieformation, since these ons"aughts on
rudaism #ere directed rimari"y against that #or*, even though it #as made a su!Dect of study !y the 6hristian theo"ogians of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. 'n ^p_q, during a de!ate in the Krench 6ham!er of 7eers regarding state recognition of the re#ish faith, Admira" .erhue"" dec"ared himse"f una!"e
to forgive the re#s #hom he had met during his trave"s throughout the #or"d either for their refusa" to recogniLe resus as the &essiah or for their ossession
of the Ta"mud. 'n the same year the A!!x 6hiarini u!"ished at 7aris a vo"uminous #or* entit"ed VThxorie du rudazsme,V in #hich he announced a trans"ation
of the Ta"mud, advocating for the first time a version #hich shou"d ma*e the #or* genera""y accessi!"e, and thus serve for attac*s on rudaism. 'n a "i*e sirit
modern anti8Semitic agitators have urged that a trans"ation !e made4 and this demand has even !een !rought !efore "egis"ative !odies, as in .ienna. The
Ta"mud and the VTa"mud re#V thus !ecame o!Dects of anti8Semitic attac*s, a"though, on the other hand, they #ere defended !y many 6hristian students of
the Ta"mud.
'n conse5uence of the chec*ered fortunes of the Ta"mud, manuscrits of it are e+treme"y rare4 and the $a!y"onian Ta"mud is found entire on"y in a &unich
code+ (/e!re# &S. No. ko), com"eted in ^_lk, #hi"e a K"orentine manuscrit containing severa" treatises of the fourth and fifth orders dates from the year
^^nl. A num!er of Ta"mudic codices containing one or more tractates are e+tant in Iome, O+ford, 7aris, /am!urg, and Ne# Yor*, #hi"e the treatise
Sanhedrin, from Ieuch"inAs "i!rary, is in the grand8duca" "i!rary at 6ar"sruhe. 'n the introduction to vo"s. i., iv., viii., i+., and +i. of his V`i du e Soferim, .ariy
Lectiones in &ischnam et in Ta"mud $a!y"onicum,V #hich contains a mass of critica" materia" !earing on the te+t of $a!"i, N. Ia!!inovicL has descri!ed a""
the manuscrits of this Ta"mud *no#n to him, and has co""ated the &unich manuscrit #ith the rinted editions, !esides giving in his running notes a great
num!er of readings co""ected #ith much s*i"" and "earning from other manuscrits and various ancient sources. Of this #or*, #hich is indisensa!"e for the
study of the Ta"mud, Ia!!inovicL himse"f u!"ished fifteen vo"umes (&unich, ^plp8pl), containing the treatises of the first, second, and fourth orders, as #e""
as t#o treatises (%e!a im and &ena ot) of the fifth order. The si+teenth vo"ume ( u""in) #as u!"ished osthumous"y (com"eted !y Ehrentreu, 7rLemys",
^pkn). Of the 7a"estinian Ta"mud on"y one code+, no# at Leyden, has !een reserved, this !eing one of the manuscrits used for the editio rinces.
E+ceting this code+, on"y fragments and sing"e treatises are e+tant. Iecent"y (^kqb) LuncL discovered a ortion of Yerusha"mi in the .atican Li!rary, and
Iatner has made va"ua!"e contri!utions to the history of the te+t in his scho"ia on Yerusha"mi (VSefer Aha!at iyyon #e8Yerusha"ayimV), of #hich three
vo"umes have thus far aeared, comrising $era*ot, Sha!!at, Terumot, and a""ah (Wi"na, ^kq^, ^kq], ^kqb).
Ear"y Editions.
The first edition of $a!"i (^o]q) #as receded !y a series of editions, some of them no "onger e+tant, of sing"e treatises u!"ished at Soncino and 7esaro !y
the Soncinos. The first to aear #as $era*ot (^bpp)4 this #as fo""o#ed !y the t#enty8three other tractates #hich, according to -ershon Soncino, #ere
regu"ar"y studied in the yeshi!ot. The first edition !y $om!erg #as fo""o#ed !y t#o more (^o_^, ^obp), #hi"e another #as u!"ished at .enice !y -iustiniani
(^obl8o^), #ho added to $om!ergAs su"ements (such as Iashi and the Tosafot, #hich "ater #ere invaria!"y aended to the te+t) other usefu" margina"
g"osses, inc"uding references to $i!"ica" 5uotations and to ara""e" assages of the Ta"mud as #e"" as to the ritua" codices. At Sa!!ionetta in ^oo_, roshua
$oaL (d. ^oon), the author of these margina"ia, #hich su!se5uent"y #ere added to a"" editions of the Ta"mud, undertoo* a ne# and magnificent edition of the
Ta"mud. On"y a fe# treatises #ere com"eted, ho#ever4 for the aa" !u"" issued against the Ta"mud in the same year interruted the #or*. As a resu"t of the
!urning of thousands of coies of the Ta"mud in 'ta"y, roseh ra!eL u!"ished a "arge num!er of treatises at Sa"onica (^ol_ et se:.) and 6onstantino"e
(^op_ et se:.). The muti"ated $ase" edition (^onp8p^) and the t#o editions #hich first aeared in 7o"and have !een mentioned a!ove. The first 6raco#
edition (^lq]8o) #as fo""o#ed !y a second (^l^l8]q)4 #hi"e the first Lu!"in edition (^ook et se:.), #hich #as incom"ete, #as fo""o#ed !y one giving the entire
te+t (^l^n8_k)4 this #as adoted for the Amsterdam edition (^lbb8bp), the artia" !asis of the edition of Kran*fort8on8the8Oder (^lkn8kk). &any usefu"
addenda #ere made to the second Amsterdam edition (^n^b8^k), #hich #as the su!Dect of an interesting "a#suit, and #hich #as com"eted !y the edition of
Kran*fort8on8the8&ain (^n]q8]]). This "atter te+t has served as the !asis of a"most a"" the su!se5uent editions. Of these the most imortant are0 7rague,
^n]p8_k4 $er"in and Kran*fort8on8the8Oder, ^n_b8_k (ear"ier ed. ^n^o8]])4 Amsterdam, ^no]8lo4 Su"L!ach, ^noo8l_, ^nll8nq4 .ienna, ^nk^8^nkn, ^pql8^^,
^p_q8__, ^pbq8bk, ^plq8n_4 `yhernfurth, ^pqq8b, ^p^l8]^4 S"a#ita, Iussia, ^pq^8l, ^pqp8^_, ^p^n8]]4 7rague, ^p_q8_o, ^p_k8bl4 Wi"na and -rodno, ^p_o8
ob4 6Lerno#itL, ^pbq8bk4 ritomir, ^pop8lb4 Warsa#, ^pok8lb, ^pl_8ln et se:.4 Wi"na, ^pok8ll4 Lem!erg, ^plq8lo et se:.4 $er"in, ^pl]8lp4 Stettin, ^pl] et
se:. (incom"ete). The edition of the Wido# and $rothers Iomm at Wi"na (^ppl) is the "argest as regards o"d and ne# commentaries, g"osses, other
addenda, and aids to study.
T#o other editions of Yerusha"mi have aeared in addition to the editio rinces (.enice, ^o]_ et se:.), #hich they c"ose"y fo""o# in co"umniationuthose of
6raco#, ^lqk, and Krotoschin, ^pll. A com"ete edition #ith commentary aeared at ritomir in ^plq8ln. The "atest edition is that of 7iotr*o# (^pkp8^kqq).
There are a"so editions of sing"e orders or treatises and their commentaries, esecia""y note#orthy !eing %. Kran*e"As edition of $era*ot, 7eAah, and `emai
($res"au, ^pnb8no).
V.ariy LectionesV and Trans"ations.
A critica" edition of $a!"i has !een roosed reeated"y, and a num!er of va"ua!"e contri!utions have !een made, esecia""y in the huge co""ections of
variants !y Ia!!inovicL4 !ut so far this #or* has not even !een !egun, a"though mention shou"d !e made of the interesting attemt !y &. Kriedmann,
VKritische Edition des Tra*tates &a**oth,V in the V.erhand"ungen des Sie!enten 'nternationa"en Orienta"isten86ongresses, Semitische Section,V . ^8np
(.ienna, ^ppp). /ere the structure of the te+t is indicated !y such e+terna" means as different tye, sections, and unctuation. The edition of Yerusha"mi
announced !y LuncL at rerusa"em romises a te+t of critica" urity.
The ear"iest a""usion to a trans"ation of the Ta"mud is made !y A!raham i!n `aud in his historica" VSefer ha8 a!!a"ahV (see Neu!auer, V&. r. 6.V i. lk), #ho,
referring to roseh i!n A!itur (second ha"f of ^qth cent.), says0 V/e is the one #ho trans"atedthe entire Ta"mud into Ara!ic for the ca"if A"8 a*im.V The tradition
#as therefore current among the re#s of Sain in the t#e"fth century that '!n A!itur had trans"ated the Ta"mud for this ru"er of 6ordova, #ho #as esecia""y
noted for his "arge "i!rary, this tradition !eing ana"ogous to the one current in A"e+andria in anti5uity #ith regard to the first -ree* trans"ation of the $i!"e. No
trace, ho#ever, remains of roseh A!iturAs trans"ation4 and in a"" ro!a!i"ity he trans"ated mere"y detached ortions for the ca"if, this #or* giving rise to the
"egend of his com"ete version. The need of a trans"ation to render the contents of the Ta"mud more genera""y accessi!"e, !egan to !e fe"t !y 6hristian
theo"ogians after the si+teenth century, and !y re#ish circ"es in the nineteenth century. This gave rise to the trans"ations of the &ishnah #hich have !een
noted e"se#here (see re#. Encyc. viii. l^p, s.9., &ishnah). 'n addition to the com"ete trans"ations mentioned there, sing"e treatises of the &ishnah have
!een rendered into Latin and into modern "anguages, a survey !eing given !y $ischoff in his VKritische -eschichte der Tha"mud8Ue!ersetLungen,V . ]p8ol
(Kran*fort8on8the8&ain, ^pkk). T#enty treatises of Yerusha"mi #ere trans"ated into Latin !y $"asio Ugo"ino in his VThesaurus Anti5uitatum Sacrarum,V +vii.
(^noo), +++. (^nlo)4 and the entire te+t of this Ta"mud #as rendered into Krench !y &ozse Sch#a! (VLe Ta"mud de rxrusa"em,V ^^ vo"s., 7aris, ^pn^8^ppk).
The trans"ation !y W{nsche of the haggadic ortions of Yerusha"mi has a"ready !een mentioned4 and an account of the trans"ations of sing"e ortions is given
!y $ischoff (&.c. . ok et se:.). 'n ^pkl L. -o"dschmidt !egan the trans"ation of a -erman version of $a!"i, together #ith the te+t of $om!ergAs first edition4
and a num!er of vo"umes have a"ready aeared ($er"in, ^pkp et se:.). The insufficiency of this #or* aarent"y corresonds to the raidity #ith #hich it is
issued. 'n the same year &. L. Iod*inson undertoo* an a!ridged trans"ation of the $a!y"onian Ta"mud into Eng"ish, of #hich seven vo"umes aeared !efore
the trans"atorAs death (^kqb)4 Iod*insonAs oint of vie# #as 5uite unscho"ar"y. Of trans"ations of sing"e treatises the fo""o#ing may !e mentioned (see
$ischoff, &.c. . lp8nl)0 Ear"ier Latin trans"ations0 Ugo"ino, %e a im, &ena ot (in VThesaurus Anti5uitatum Sacrarum,V +i+.), Sanhedrin ( i). ++v.)4 -. E.
EdLard, $era*ot (/am!urg, ^n^_)4 K. $. `achs, Su**ah (Utrecht, ^n]l). Note#orthy among the re#ish trans"ators of the Ta"mud are &. Ia#icL (&egi""ah,
^pl_4 Iosh ha8Shanah, ^ppl4 Sanhedrin, ^pk]4 Ketu!ot, ^pkn)4 E. &. 7inner ($era*ot, ^pb], designed as the first vo"ume of a trans"ation of the entire
Ta"mud)4 `. O. Straschun (TaAanit, ^pp_)4 and Sammter ($a!a &e iAa, ^pnl). Their trans"ations are entire"y in -erman. Trans"ations u!"ished !y 6hristian
scho"ars in the nineteenth century0 K. 6. E#a"d (a !atiLed re#), AA!odah %arah (Nurem!erg, ^pol)4 in ^p_^ the A!!x 6hiarini, mentioned a!ove, u!"ished
a Krench trans"ation of $era*ot4 and in ^pk^ A. W. Streane reared an Eng"ish trans"ation of agigah. A Krench version of severa" treatises is inc"uded in r.
&. Ia!!inovicLAs #or*s ALxgis"ation 6ivi"e du Ta"mudV (o vo"s., 7aris, ^pn_8nk) and VLxgis"ation 6rimine""e du Ta"mudV (i). ^pnl), #hi"e W{nscheAs trans"ation
of the haggadic ortions of $a!"i (^ppl8pk) has !een mentioned a!ove.
Kunction in rudaism.
To gain a comrehensive vie# of the Ta"mud it must !e considered as a historica" factor in rudaism as #e"" as a "iterary roduction. 'n the "atter asect it is
uni5ue among the great masterieces of the "iteratures of the #or"d. 'n form a commentary, it !ecame an encyc"oedia of re#ish faith and scho"arshi,
comrising #hatsoever the greatest reresentatives of rudaism in 7a"estine and in $a!y"on had regarded as o!Dects of study and investigation and of
teaching and "earning, during the three centuries #hich e"ased from the conc"usion of the &ishnah to the com"etion of the Ta"mud itse"f. When the &ishnah,
#ith the many ancient traditions to #hich it had given rise since the "atter centuries of the Second Tem"e, #as incororated into the Ta"mud as its te+t8!oo*,
the Ta"mud !ecame a record of the entire eoch #hich #as reresented !y the re#ish schoo"s of 7a"estine and $a!y"on, and #hich served as a stage of
transition from the $i!"ica" eriod to the
"ater asect of rudaism. A"though the
Ta"mud is an academic roduct and may
!e characteriLed in the main as a reort
(fre5uent"y #ith the accuracy of minutes) of
the discussions of the schoo"s, it a"so
sheds a f"ood of "ight on the cu"ture of the
eo"e outside the academies. The
interre"ation !et#een the schoo"s and dai"y
"ife, and the fact that neither teachers nor
ui"s stood a"oof from that "ife, !ut too*
art in it as Dudges, instructors, and
e+ounders of the La#, caused the
Ta"mud to reresent even non8scho"astic
affairs #ith an a!undance of minute
detai"s, and made it an imortant source
for the history of civi"iLation. Since,
moreover, the re"igious "a# of the re#s
dea"t #ith a"" the circumstances of "ife, the
Ta"mud discusses the most varied
!ranches of human *no#"edgeu
astronomy and medicine, mathematics and
"a#, anatomy and !otanyuthus furnishing
va"ua!"e data for the history of science
a"so.
.age *rom The +atest
Edition of the Eerusalem
Talmud, .rinted at
.iotrkow, 6BOO<6O0M.0In
the possession
of E. H.Eisenstein, (ew
Nork.1
The Ta"mud, furthermore, is uni5ue from
the oint of vie# of "iterary history as !eing
a roduct of "iterature !ased on ora"
tradition and yet summariLing the "iterature
of an entire eoch. Aside from it, those to
#hose united efforts it may !e ascri!ed
have "eft no trace of inte""ectua" activity.
Though anonymous itse"f, the Ta"mud, "i*e
other roducts of tannaitic and amoraic
"iterature, cites the names of many authors
of sayings !ecause it #as a universa"
ractise to memoriLe the name of the
author together #ith the saying. &any of
these scho"ars are credited #ith on"y a fe#
sentences or #ith even !ut one, #hi"e to
others are ascri!ed many hundreds of
ahorisms, teachings, 5uestions, and
ans#ers4 and the reresentatives of
re#ish tradition of those centuries, the
Tannaim and the Amoraim, received an
a!undant comensation for their
renunciation of the fame of authorshi
#hen tradition reserved their names
together #ith their various e+ositions, and
thus rescued even the "east of them from
o!"ivion. The ecu"iar form of the Ta"mud is
due to the fact that it is comosed a"most
entire"y of individua" sayings and
discussions on them, this circumstance
!eing a resu"t of its origin0 the fact that it
sought esecia""y to reserve the ora"
tradition and the transactions of the
academies a""o#ed the introduction on"y of
the sing"e sentences #hich reresented
the contri!utions of the teachers and
scho"ars to the discussions. The reservation of the names of the authors of these aothegms, and of those #ho too* art in the discussions, transactions,
and disutations renders the Ta"mud the most imortant, and in many resects the on"y, source for the eriod of #hich it is the roduct. The se5uence of
generations #hich constitute the frame#or* of the history of the Tannaim and Amoraim may !e determined from the a""usions contained in the Ta"mud, from
the anecdotes and stories of the academies, and from other va"ua!"e "iterary materia", #hich e+hi!it the historica" conditions, events, and ersonages of the
time, not e+ceting cases in #hich the facts have !een c"othed in the gar! of "egend or myth. A"though it #as underta*en #ith no distinct"y "iterary urose, it
contains, esecia""y in its haggadic ortions, many assages #hich are note#orthy as "iterature, and #hich for many centuries #ere the so"e reositories of
re#ish oetry.
'ts Authority.
After the com"etion of the Ta"mud as a #or* of "iterature, it e+ercised a t#ofo"d inf"uence as a historica" factor in the history of rudaism and its fo""o#ers, not
on"y in regard to the guidance and formu"ation of re"igious "ife and thought, !ut a"so #ith resect to the a#a*ening and deve"oment of inte""ectua" activity. As
a document of re"igion the Ta"mud ac5uired that authority #hich #as due to it as the #ritten em!odiment of the ancient tradition, and it fu"fi""ed the tas* #hich
the men of the -reat Assem!"y set for the reresentatives of the tradition #hen they said, V&a*e a hedge for the TorahV (A!. i. ]). Those #ho rofessed
rudaism fe"t no dou!t that the Ta"mud #as e5ua" to the $i!"e as a source of instruction and decision in ro!"ems of re"igion, and every effort to set forth
re"igious teachings and duties #as !ased on it4 so that even the great systematic treatise of &aimonides, #hich #as intended to suersede the Ta"mud, on"y
"ed to a more thorough study of it. 'n "i*e manner, the Shu" an AAru* of roseh 6aro, #hich achieved greater ractica" resu"ts than the &ishneh Torah, of
&aimonides, o#ed its authority to the fact that it #as recogniLed as the most convenient codification of the teachings of the Ta"mud4 #hi"e the treatises on the
hi"osohy of re"igion #hich strove as ear"y as the time of Saadia to harmoniLe the truths of rudaism #ith the resu"ts of indeendent thin*ing referred in a""
ossi!"e cases to the authority of the Ta"mud, uon #hich they cou"d easi"y dra# for a confirmation of their theses and arguments. The #ea"th of mora"
instruction contained in the Ta"mud e+ercised a rofound inf"uence uon the ethics and idea"s of rudaism. `esite a"" this, ho#ever, the authority enDoyed !y
it did not "essen the authority of the $i!"e, #hich continued to e+ercise its inf"uence as the rima" source of re"igious and ethica" instruction and edification
even #hi"e the Ta"mud ru"ed sureme over re"igious ractise, reserving and fostering in the `iasora, for many centuries and under most unfavora!"e
e+terna" conditions, the sirit of dee re"igion and strict mora"ity.
The history of re#ish "iterature since the com"etion of the Ta"mud has !een a #itness to its imortance in a#a*ening and stimu"ating inte""ectua" activity
among the re#s. The Ta"mud has !een made the su!Dect or the starting8oint of a "arge ortion of this #ide"y ramified "iterature, #hich has !een the roduct
of the inte""ectua" activity induced !y its study, and to #hich !oth scho"ars in the technica" sense of the #ord and a"so a "arge num!er of the studious re#ish
"aity have contri!uted. The same facu"ties #hich had !een e+ercised in the comosition of the Ta"mud #ere re5uisite a"so for the study of it4 the Ta"mud
therefore had an e+ceeding"y stimu"ating inf"uence uon the inte""ectua" o#ers of the re#ish eo"e, #hich #ere then directed to#ard other deartments of
*no#"edge. 't is a note#orthy fact that the study of the Ta"mud gradua""y !ecame a re"igious duty, and thus deve"oed into an inte""ectua" activity having no
u"terior o!Dect in vie#. 6onse5uent"y it formed a mode" of study for the sa*e of study.
The Ta"mud has not yet entire"y "ost its t#ofo"d imortance as a historica" factor #ithin rudaism, desite the changes #hich have ta*en "ace during the "ast
century. Kor the maDority of re#s it is sti"" the sureme authority in re"igion4 and, as noted a!ove, a"though it is rare"y an o!Dect of study on the art of those
#ho have assimi"ated modern cu"ture, it is sti"" a su!Dect of investigation for re#ish "earning, as a roduct of rudaism #hich yet e+erts an inf"uence second in
imortance on"y to the $i!"e.
The fo""o#ing #or*s of traditiona" "iterature not !e"onging to the Ta"mud have !een inc"uded in the editions of $a!"i0A!ot de8Ia!!i Natan4 `ere* Ere
Ia!!ah4 `ere* Ere %u a 4 Ka""ah4 Sema ot 4 Soferi m .
Bibliography
10e manuscri*ts, editions, and trans&ations 0a9e )een discussed in t0e artic&e. For an introduction to t0e 1a&mud t0e %o&&o/ing /ors may )e
mentioned in addition to t0e genera& ones on 8e/is0 0istory; <eiss, =or, iii.>
Ha&e9y, =orot 0a2?is0onim, ii., Fran%ort2on2t0e2+ain, 4564>
H. @. Atrac, ,in&eitung in den 1a&mud, 2d ed., @ei*sic, 4B5C (co9ers t0e +is0na0 a&so and contains an e3tensi9e )i)&iogra*0y o% t0e 1a&mud)>
+. +ie&-iner, Introduction to t0e 1a&mud, Cincinnati (a&so gi9es good )i)&iogra*0y o% t0e 1a&mud> t0e second *art o% t0is /or contains a c&ear
discussion o% t0e 0ermeneutics and t0e met0odo&ogy o% t0e 1a&mud). Dn t0e $a&estinian 1a&mud; E. Frane&, +e)o, Fres&au, 4BG6>
8. <iener, Hi)!at Ierus0a&ayim, Jienna, 4BG2 (re*rinted %rom Ha2A0a ar)>
#. Heiger, =ie 8erusa&emisc0e Hemara, in 0is 8Kd. Eeit. 4BG6, **. 2GB2L67 (com*. +onatssc0ri%t, 4BG4, **. 42624LG)>
I. @e/y, Inter*retation des ,rsten #)sc0nitts des $a&Mstinisc0en 1a&mud21ratates Nesiin, in Fres&auer 8a0res)eric0t, 4B5O, **. 4245. Dn t0e
Fa)y&onian 1a&mud; E. Frane&, FeitrMge -ur ,in&eitung in den 1a&mud, in +onatssc0ri%t, 4B74, **. 47B245C, 26O2242, 2OB22G2>
N. FrK&&, =ie ,ntste0ungsgesc0ic0te des Fa)y&onisc0en 1a&muds a&s Ac0ri%t/eres, in 0is 8a0r). 4BG7, ii. 4242L. Dn t0e ear&ier /ors
introductory to t0e 1a&mud; 8. H. <eiss, in Fet 1a&mud, i., ii., Jienna, 4BB4, 4BB2>
Aamue& ). Ho*0ni, +ad0a& i&a !a&21a&mud (P QIntroduction to t0e 1a&mudQ> t0is is t0e ear&iest /or )earing t0e tit&e and is no/n on&y t0roug0 a
:uotation in t0e &e3icon o% I)n 8ana , s.9. )>
Aamue& 0a2Nagid, +e)o 0a21a&mud (%orming an a**endi3 to t0e %irst 9o&ume o% modern editions o% t0e 1a&mud)>
8ose*0 i)n !# nin, an introduction to t0e 1a&mud (He)r. trans&. %rom t0e #ra)ic), edited in t0e 8u)e&sc0ri%t des Fres&auer Aeminars -um Aie)-igen
He)urtstage Frane&s, 4BG4.
For ot0er /ors on t0e su)Rect see 1a&mud Hermeneutics>
a &ist is gi9en in 8e&&ine, on res 0a2Se&a&im, Jienna, 4BGB. Henera& artic&es on t0e 1a&mud in re9ie/s and encyc&o*edias; ,mi& =eutsc0, in
Tuarter&y ?e9ie/, 4B7G, %re:uent&y re*rinted and trans&ated>
8. =eren)ourg, in @ic0ten)erg!s ,ncyc&o*Udie des Aciences ?e&igieuses, 4BB2, 3ii. 466G246L7>
#rsVne =armesteter, in ?. ,. 8. 39iii. (#ctes et Con%erences, **. ccc&333i.2dc3&ii.)>
A. Ac0ec0ter, in Hastings, =ict. Fi)&e, e3tra 9o&., 456C, **. OG277>
,. Fisc0o%%, 1a&mud2Satec0ismus, @ei*sic, 456C.
Dn t0e &iterature o% t0e 1a&mud commentaries see 1a&mud Commentaries. Dn grammatica& and &e3icogra*0ica& aids to t0e study o% t0e 1a&mud
see 8e/. ,ncyc. 9i.B6, s.9. Hrammar, He)re/, and i). i9. OB62OBO, s.9. =ictionaries, He)re/.
Dn t0e termino&ogy o% t0e 1a&mud see, in addition to t0e /ors on 1a&mudic met0odo&ogy; #. Atein, 1a&mudisc0e 1ermino&ogie, #&*0a)etisc0
Heordnet, $rague, 4B75>
<. Fac0er, =ie ,3egetisc0e 1ermino&ogie der 8Kdisc0en 1raditions&itteratur; *art i., =ie Fi)e&e3egetisc0e 1ermino&ogie der 1annaiten, @ei*sic,
4B55 (origina& tit&e, =ie #e&teste 1ermino&ogie der 8Kdisc0en Ac0ri%taus&egung)>
*art ii., =ie Fi)e&2 und 1raditionse3egetisc0e 1ermino&ogie der #morMer, i). 456O.