corner graphic   Hi,    
ver. 2.0.19.07.22
Finding the new version too difficult to understand? Go to classic.studylight.org/

Bible Encyclopedias

The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia

Talmud

Resource Toolbox
Additional Links

Name of two works which have been preserved to posterity as the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the amoraic period, which extended from the third to the fifth century C.E. One of these compilations is entitled "Talmud Yerushalmi" (Jerusalem Talmud) and the other "Talmud Babli" (Babylonian Talmud). Used alone, the word "Talmud" generally denotes "Talmud Babli," but it frequently serves as a generic designation for an entire body of literature, since the Talmud marks the culmination of the writings of Jewish tradition, of which it is, from a historical point of view, the most important production.

The Name.
"Talmud" is an old scholastic term of the Tannaim, and is a noun formed from the verb "limmed" = "to teach." It therefore means primarily "teaching," although it denotes also "learning" it is employed in this latter sense with special reference to the Torah, the terms "talmud" and "Torah" being usually combined to indicate the study of the Law both in its wider and in its more restricted sense, as in Pe' ah 1:1, where the term "talmud Torah" is applied to study as a religious duty. On the other hand, the learning acquired by study is also called "talmud," so that Akiba's pupil Judah ben Ilai could say: "He from whom one derives the greater part of his knowledge ["talmudo"] must be regarded as the teacher" (Tosef., B. M. ii., end Yer. B. M. 8d B. M. 33a has "ḥ okmah" instead of "talmud"). To designate the study of religion, the word "talmud" is used in contrast with "ma' aseh," which connotes the practise of religion. Akiba's view that on this account the "talmud" ranked above the "ma' aseh" was adopted as a resolution by a famous conference at Lydda during the Hadrianic persecution (see Sifre, Deuteronomy 41 Ḳ id. 40b Yer. Pes. 30b Cant. R. 2:14 ). The two terms are contrasted differently, however, in the tannaitic saying (B. B. 130b), "The Halakah [the principles guiding decisions in religious law] may not be drawn from a teaching of the master ["talmud"] nor be based upon an act of his ["ma' aseh"], unless the master expressly declare that the teaching or act under consideration is the one which is applicable to the practise."

In the second place, the word "talmud"— generally in the phrase "talmud lomar"— is frequently used in tannaitic terminology in order to denote instruction by means of the text of the Bible and of the exegetic deductions therefrom. In the third place, the noun "talmud" has the meaning which alone can be genetically connected with the name "Talmud" in tannaitic phraseology the verb "limmed" denotes the exegetic deduction of a halakic principle from the Biblical text (for examples see R. H. 2:9 Sifre, Numbers 118 ) and in harmony with this meaning of the word "talmud" denotes that exposition of a halakic saying which receives an exegetic confirmation from the Biblical text. Of the terms, therefore, denoting the three branches into which the study of the traditional exegesis of the Bible was from earliest times divided by the Tannaim (see Jew. Encyc. 3:163, s.v. Bible Exegesis ), "midrash" was the one identical in content with "talmud" in its original sense, except that the Midrash, which includes any kind of Biblical hermeneutics, but more especially the halakic, deals with the Bible text itself, while the Talmud is based on the Halakah. The Midrash is devoted to Biblical exposition, the result being the Halakah (comp. the phrase "mi-kan ameru" [= "beginning here the sages have said"], which occurs frequently in the tannaitic Midrash and which serves to introduce halakic deductions from the exegesis). In the Talmud, on the other hand, the halakic passage is the subject of an exegesis based on the Biblical text.

Relation to Midrash.
In consequence of the original identity of "Talmud" and "Midrash," noted above, the former term is sometimes used instead of the latter in tannaitic sentences which enumerate the three branches of traditional science, Midrash, Halakah, and Haggadah (see Ber. 22a [comp. M. Ḳ . 15a and Yer. Ber. 6c, 39] Ḳ id. 30a Suk. 28a B. B. 134a Ab. R. N. xiv. [comp. Masseket Soferim, 16:8] Yer. B. Ḳ . 4b, 31 [comp. Sifre, Deuteronomy 33 ] Tosef., Soṭ ah, 7:20 [comp. Yer. Soṭ ah 44a]), while sometimes both "Talmud" and "Midrash" are used (M. Ḳ . 21a Ta' an. 30a) it must be noted, however, that in the editions of the Babli, "Gemara" is usually substituted for "Talmud," even in the passages here cited. The word "Talmud" in all these places did not denote the study subsequently pursued by the Amoraim, but was used instead of the word "Midrash," although this did not preclude the later introduction of the term "Talmud" into tannaitic sayings, where it either entirely displaced "Midrash" or was used side by side with it.

After the term "Talmud" had come to denote the exegetic confirmation of the Halakah, it was applied also to the explanation and exposition of halakic passages in general. As early as the end of the tannaitic period, when the halakot were finally redacted by the patriarch Judah I. and were designated as "Mishnah," a term originally applied to the entire system of traditional learning, the Talmud was developed as a new division of this same science and it was destined to absorb all others. In a baraita dating, according to the amora Johanan, from the days of Judah I. (B. M. 33a comp. Yer. Shab. 15c, 22 et seq. ), the Mishnah and the Talmud are defined as subjects of study side by side with the "Miḳ ra" (Bible), the study of the Talmud being mentioned first. To this baraita there is an addition, however, to the effect that more attention should be given to the Mishnah than to the Talmud. Johanan explains this passage by the fact that the members of Judah's academy, in their eagerness to investigate the Talmud, neglected the Mishnah hence the patriarch laid stress upon the duty of studying the Mishnah primarily. In these passages the word "Talmud" is used not in its more restricted sense of the establishment of halakot by Biblical exegesis, but in its wider signification, in which it designates study for the purpose of elucidating the Mishnah in general, as pursued after Judah's death in the academies of Palestine and Babylon. This baraita is, furthermore, an authentic document on the origin of the Talmud.

Three classes of members of the academy are mentioned in an anecdote referring to Judah I. (B. B. 8a): (1) those who devoted themselves chiefly to the Bible ("ba' ale Miḳ ra") (2) those whose principal study was the Mishnah ("ba' ale Mishnah") and (3) those whose main interest lay in the Talmud ("ba' ale Talmud"). This is the original reading of the passage, although the editions mention also the "ba' ale Halakah" and the "ba' ale Haggadah" (see below). These three branches of knowledge are, therefore, the same as those enumerated in B. M. 33a. Tanḥ um b. Ḥ anilai, a Palestinian amora of the third century, declared, with reference to this threefold investigation (' Ab. Zarah 19b): "Let the time given to study be divided into three parts: one-third for the Bible, one-third for the Mishnah, and one-third for the Talmud." In Ḳ id. 33a this saying is quoted in the name of the tanna Joshua b. Hananiah, although this is probably a corruption of the name of Jose b. Ḥ anina (amora). Yudan, a Palestinian amora of the fourth century, found in Ecclesiastes 11:9 an allusion to the pleasure taken in the three branches of study, Miḳ ra, Mishnah, and Talmud.

The Three Subjects of Study.
The old trichotomy of traditional literature was changed, however, by the acceptance of the Mishnah of Judah I., and by the new study of the Talmud designed to interpret it. The division termed "Halakot" (singular, "Halakah") in the old classification was then called "Mishnah," although in Palestine the Mishnah continued to be designated as "Halakot." The Midrash became a component part of the Talmud and a considerable portion of the halakic Bible hermeneuties of the Tannaim, which had been preserved in various special works, was incorporated in the Babylonian Talmud. The Haggadah (plural, "Haggadot") lost its importance as an individual branch of study in the academies, although it naturally continued to be a subject of investigation, and a portion of it also was included in the Talmud. Occasionally the Haggadah is even designated as a special branch, being added as a fourth division to the three already mentioned. Ḥ anina ben Pappa, an amora of the early part of the fourth century, in characterizing these four branches says: "The countenance should be serious and earnest in teaching the Scriptures, mild and calm for the Mishnah, bright and lively for the Talmud, and merry and smiling for the Haggadah" (Pesiḳ . 110a Pes. R. 101b Tan., Yitro, ed. Buber, p. 17 Massek. Soferim, 16:2). As early as the third century Joshua ben Levi interpreted Deuteronomy 9:10 to mean that the entire Law, including Miḳ ra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah, had been revealed to Moses on Sinai (Yer. Pes. 17a, line 59 Meg. 74d, 25), while in Gen. R. 66:3 the blessings invoked in Genesis 27:28 are explained as "Miḳ ra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah." The Palestinian haggadist Isaac divided these four branches into two groups: (1) the Miḳ ra and the Haggadah, dealing with subjects of general interest and (2) the Mishnah and the Talmud, "which can not hold the attention of those who hear them" (Pesiḳ . 101b see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." 2:211).

According to a note of Tanḥ uma ben Abba (of the latter part of the 4th cent.) on Song of Song of Solomon 5:14 (Cant. R. ad loc. ), a student must be familiar with all four branches of knowledge, Miḳ ra, Mishnah, Halakah (the last-named term used here instead of "Tatmud"), and Haggadah while Samuel b. Judah b. Abun, a Palestinian amora of the same century, interpreted Proverbs 28:11 as an allusion to the halakist ("man of the Talmud") and to the haggadist ("man of the Haggadah" Yer. Hor. 48c see also Pesiḳ . 176a Lev. R. xxi., Talmud and Haggadah). Here may be mentioned also the concluding passage of the mishnaic treatise Abot (v., end): "At the age of five to the Bible at the age of ten to the Mishnah at the age of fifteen to the Talmud." This is ascribed by many to the ancient tanna Samuel ha-Ḳ aṭ on (see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." 1:378), although the sequence of study which it mentions is evidently that which was customary during the amoraic period (comp. also the saying of Abaye in Ket. 50a).

The following passages from the Babylonian Talmud may likewise serve to illustrate the special usage which finally made the word "Talmud" current as the name of the work. Samuel, one of the earliest Babylonian amoraim, interpreted the words of Zechariah 8:10 , "neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in," as applying to the restlessness of one who turns from the Talmud and confines himself to the study of the Mishnah (Ḥ ag. 10a). Johanan, the younger Palestinian contemporary of Samuel, extends the allusion to "him also who turns from one Talmud to study another," referring here to Babli and to Yerushalmi. It is very possible that he had noticed that in the case of his numerous Babylonian pupils the transition from the mishnaic exegesis which they had acquired at home to that of the Palestinian schools was not made without disturbing their peace of mind. Allusions to the "Talmud of Babylon" by two prominent Babylonians who settled in Palestine (Ze' era and Jeremiah) have likewise been pre- served (B. M. 85c Sanh. 24a) and they confirm Johanan's conception of the meaning of the term.

The Gemara.
In Babylonia the Aramaic noun "gemar" (emphatic state, "gemara") was formed from the verb (which does not occur in Palestinian texts), having the meaning of "learn." This substantive accordingly designates that which has been learned, and the learning transmitted to scholars by tradition, although it is used also in a more restricted sense to connote the traditional exposition of the Mishnah and it therefore gained currency as a designation of the Talmud. In the modern editions of the Babylonian Talmud the term "Gemara" occurs very frequently in this sense but in nearly every case it was substituted at a later time for the objectionable word "Talmud," which was interdicted by the censor. The only passage in which "Gemara" occurs with the meaning of "Talmud" in the strict sense of that term and from which it was not removed by the censor is ' Er. 32b, where it is used by Naḥ man bar Jacob, a Babylonian amora of the second half of the third century. For further details see Bacher, "Gemara," in "Hebrew Union College Annual," pp. 26-36, Cincinnati, 1904, where the word is shown to have been used for "Talmud" from the geonic period (see also idem , "Die Terminologie der Amorä er," pp. 31 et seq. , Leipsic, 1905). The later editions of the Talmud frequently substitute for the word "Gemara" the abbreviation (Aramaic, = "the six orders of the Mishnah"), which has come to be, with the pronunciation "Shas," a popular designation for the Babylonian Talmud.

Here may be mentioned the term "Shem' ata" (), which was used in Babylonia to designate the halakic portion of the Talmud, and which was thus contrasted with "Haggadah" (see Ḥ ag. 26a Soṭ ah 20a Sanh. 38b comp. also M. Ḳ . 23a, where "Shemu' ah," the Hebrew form, occurs in a baraita). In the tenth century this word was used in Mohammedan circles to designate Jewish tradition as well as its chief source, the Talmud so that Mas' udi refers to Saadia Gaon as an "ashma' ti" (i.e. , a believer in the tradition), using this term in contrast to "Karaite" (see Pinsker, "Liḳ ḳ uṭ e Ḳ admoniyyot," 1:5). A "Kitab al-Ashma' ah" (i.e. , "Talmud") is also mentioned ("Z. D. M. G." 58:659).

The theorem that the Talmud was the latest development of traditional science has been demonstrated by this discussion of the meaning and the use of the word itself. The Talmud accordingly dates from the time following the final redaction of the Mishnah and it was taught in the academy of Judah I. as the commentary on the tannaitic Halakah. The editorial activity which, from the mass of halakic material that had accumulated since Akiba's Mishnah, crystallized the Talmud in accordance with the systematic order introduced by that teacher, implied the interpretation and critical examination of the Halakah, and was, therefore, analogous to Talmudic methodology.

There were, likewise, many elements of tannaitic tradition, especially the midrashic exegesis of the Bible, as well as numerous halakic interpretations, lexicographical and material, which were ready for incorporation into the Talmud in its more restricted meaning of the interpretation of the Mishnah of Judah I. When this Mishnah became the standard halakic work, both as a source for decisions of questions of religious law, and, even more especially, as a subject of study in the academies, the Talmud interpretation of the mishnaic text, both in theory and in practise, naturally became the most important branch of study, and included the other branches of traditional science, being derived from the Halakah and the Midrash (halakic exegesis), and also including haggadic material, though to a minor degree. The Talmud, however, was not an independent work and it was this characteristic which constituted the chief difference between it and the earlier subjects of study of the tannaitic period. It had no form of its own, since it served as a running commentary on the mishnaic text and this fact determined the character which the work ultimately assumed.

Relation to Mishnah.
The Talmud is practically a mere amplification of the Mishnah by manifold comments and additions so that even those portions of the Mishnah which have no Talmud are regarded as component parts of it and are accordingly included in the editions of Babli. The history of the origin of the Talmud is the same as that of the Mishnah— a tradition, transmitted orally for centuries, was finally cast into definite literary form, although from the moment in which the Talmud became the chief subject of study in the academies it had a double existence, and was accordingly, in its final stage, redacted in two different forms. The Mishnah of Judah I. was adopted simultaneously in Babylon and Palestine as the halakic collection par excellence and at the same time the development of the Talmud was begun both at Sepphoris, where the Mishnah was redacted, and at Nehardea and Sura, where Judah's pupils Samuel and Rab engaged in their epoch-making work. The academies of Babylon and of Palestine alike regarded the study of the Mishnah and its interpretation as their chief task. The Amoraim, as the directors and members of these academies were called (see Amora ), became the originators of the Talmud and its final redaction marked the end of the amoraic times in the same way that the period of the Tannaim was concluded by the compilation of the Mishnah of Judah I. Like the Mishnah, the Talmud was not the work of one author or of several authors, but was the result of the collective labors of many successive generations, whose toil finally resulted in a book unique in its mode of development.

The Palestinian Talmud.
Before entering into any discussion of the origin and peculiar form of the Talmud, the two recensions of the work itself may be briefly described. The general designation of the Palestinian Talmud as "Talmud Yerushalmi," or simply as "Yerushalmi," is precisely analogous to that of the Palestinian Targum. The term originated in the geonic period, when, however, the work received also the more precise designations of "Talmud of Palestine," "Talmud of the Land of Israel," "Talmud of the West," and "Talmud of the Western Lands." Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. The editio princeps (ed. Bomberg, Venice, 1523 et seq. ), on which all later editions are based, terminates with the following remark: "Thus far we have found what is contained in this Talmud and we have endeavored in vain to obtain the missing portions." Of the four manuscripts used for this first edition (comp. the note at the conclusion of Shab. 20:17d and the passage just cited), only one is now in existence it is preserved in the library of the University of Leyden (see below). Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳ odashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while of the sixth, Ṭ ohorot, it contains only the first three chapters of the treatise Niddah (iv:48d-51b). The treatises of the orders of the Mishnah are arranged in the following sequence in this Talmud the pagination also is given here, in parentheses, to indicate the length of the several treatises:

    I. Zera' im: Berakot (2a-14d) Pe' ah (15a-21b) Demai (21c-26c) Ki' layim (26d-32d) Shebi' it (33a-39d) Terumot (40a-48b) Ma' aserot (48c-52a) Ma' aser Sheni (52b-58d) Ḥ allah (57a-60b) ' Orlah (60c-63b) Bikkurim (63c-65d).
    II. Mo' ed: Shabbat (2a-18a) ' Erubin (18a-26d) Pesaḥ im (27a-37d) Yoma (38a-45c) Sheḳ alim (45c-51b) Sukkah (51c-55d) Rosh ha-Shanah (56a-59d) Beẓ ah (59d-63b), Ta' anit (63c-69c) Megillah (69d-75d) Ḥ agigah (75d-79d) Mo' ed Ḳ aṭ an (80a-83d).
    III. Nashim: Yebamot (2a-15a) Soṭ ah (15a-24c) Ketubot (24c-36b) Nedarim (36c-42d) Giṭ ṭ in (43a-50d) Nazir (51a-58a) Ḳ iddushin (58a-66d).
    IV. Neziḳ in: Baba Ḳ amma (2a-7c) Baba Meẓ i' a (7c-12c) Baba Batra (12d-17d) Sanhedrin (17d-30c) Makkot (30d-32b) Shebu' ot (32c-38d) ' Abodah Zarah (39a-45b) Horayot (45c-48c).
    VI. Ṭ ohorot: Niddah (48d-51b).
In order ii. the last four chapters of Shabbat are missing from the Palestinian Talmud, while the treatise Sheḳ alim has been incorporated into the editions of the Babylonian Talmud from Yerushalmi, and is found also in a Munich manuscript of Babli. In order iv. the treatises Abot and ' Eduyot are missing in both Talmudim, and the concluding chapter of Makkot is wanting in Yerushalmi. In order vi. the treatise Niddah ends abruptly after the first lines of ch. iv.

Maimonides expressly states in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah that in his time Yerushalmi was extant for the entire first five orders (comp. Abraham ibn Daud, ed. Neubauer, "M. J. C." 1:57) therefore he must have seen the Yerushalmi of the order Ḳ odashim, although he himself does not quote it in his commentary on this order (see Frankel, "Mebo," p. 45b). Except for the treatise Niddah, on the other hand, there was, according to Maimonides (l.c. ), no Yerushalmi for the sixth order. A South-Arabian work of the fifteenth century, however, quotes the Gemara "on ' Uḳ ẓ in in the Gemara of the people of Jerusalem," which is said to contain a passage on the zodiac (see Steinschneider, "Catalog der Hebrä ischen Handschriften der Kö niglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin," p. 65, Berlin, 1878). The author of this quotation, therefore, knew Yerushalmi for the last treatise of the sixth order, although it is possible that the passage quoted may have been in the lost portion of the treatise Niddah, and that the name "' Uḳ ẓ in" may have been used instead of "Ṭ ohorot." For further details on the missing sections of Yerushalmi see Frankel, l.c. pp. 45a et seq. Weiss, "Dor," 3:232 Buber, in Berliner's "Magazin," 5:100-105 and Strack, "Einleitung in den Talmud," pp. 63-65. The mishnaic text on which the Palestinian Talmud is based has been preserved in its entirety in a manuscript belonging to the library of the University of Cambridge, and has been edited by W. H. Lowe ("The Mishnah on Which the Palestinian Talmud Rests," Cambridge, 1883).


Pages from a Manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud .
(From the Cairo Genizah.)
The Palestinian Talmud is so arranged in the editions that each chapter is preceded by its entire mishnaic text with the paragraphs numbered, this being followed by the Talmud on the several paragraphs. In the first seven chapters of Berakot the paragraphs are designated as "First Mishnah" (), "Second Mishnah," etc. while in the remaining chapters and all the other treatises the paragraphs are termed "halakot" (). In the early chapters the mishnaic text of each paragraph is repeated entire in the Talmud at the beginning of the paragraph but later only the first words are prefaced to the Talmudic text. Even in cases where there is no Talmud the designation of the paragraph and the beginning of the mishnaic text are given. The editio princeps seems to have borrowed this arrangement from the manuscripts, although the system is much more simple in the fragment of Yerushalmi edited by Paul von Kokowzoff in the "Mé moires de la Socié té Arché ologique de St. Petersbourg" (xi:195-205), which contains some paragraphs of the sixth and eighth chapters of Baba Ḳ amma. This fragment begins with the concluding lines of the Talmudic text of ch. v. but between them and the beginning of ch. vi. the Mishnah is lacking, so that the superscription, "Chapter vi.," is followed immediately by the Talmudic text. There is no reference to the beginning of the paragraph, either in the first or in the succeeding paragraphs nor is there any explanation of the fact that paragraphs 4,7 of ch. viii. have no Talmud. It is clear, therefore, that the manuscript to which this fragment belonged contained only the Talmudic text, thus presupposing the use of a special copy of the Mishnah. It is likewise noteworthy that in the first two chapters of Berakot the sections of the Talmudic text on some of the paragraphs are designated in the editions by the word "pisḳ a" (section), a term found occasionally also in other portions of the text of Yerushalmi.

The Style of the Yerushalmi.
The style of Yerushalmi may be indicated by a brief analysis of a few sections, such as Ber. 1:1 R. H. 1:1,2 Giṭ . 2:1 and B. B. 1:6.

Ber. 1:1: The text of this paragraph, which begins the Mishnah, is as follows:

"During what time in the evening is the reading of the ' Shema' ' begun? From the time when the priests go in to eat their leaven [see Leviticus 22:7 ] until the end of the first watch of the night, such being the words of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say until midnight, though R. Gamaliel says until the coming of the dawn."

Examples.
The Talmud on this paragraph (2a, line 34-3a, line 3) contains three sections, which correspond to the three opinions and the contents of which are as follows:

  1. A citation, from a baraita, of another tannaitic regulation defining the Mishnah that governs the reading of the "Shema' " in the evening two sayings of Jose (a Palestinian amora of the 4th cent.), serving to elucidate the baraita (2a, 34-45). Remarks on the position of one who is in doubt whether he has read the "Shema' ," with analogous cases, according to Jeremiah, whose views were transmitted by Ze' era II. (4th cent.), the first case being decided according to the baraita already mentioned (2a, 45-2b, 4). Another passage from the baraita, designating the appearance of the stars as an indication of the time in question explanation of this baraita by Abba bar Pappai (transmitter, Phinehas both of the 4th cent.) other passages on the appearance of the stars as bearing on the ritual, together with a dialectic explanation by Jose b. Abin (second half of the 4th cent.) and a saying by Judah b. Pazzi (2b, 5-31). A baraita on the division between day and night, and other passages bearing on the same subject (ib. lines 31-41). The meaning of "ben ha-shemashot" (twilight), and an answer by Tanḥ uma b. Abba (latter part of the 4th cent.), together with another solution given by a baraita ( ib. lines 41-46). Discussion of this baraita by Aḥ a and Jose (4th cent.) reference by Mani to a question dealing with this subject which he addressed to Hezekiah of Cæ sarea (4th cent.) from Mishnah Zab. 1:6, and the answer of the latter (2b, 46-2c, 9). Amoraic sayings and a baraita on the beginning of the day ( ib. lines 9-20). A sentence of tannaitic origin in no way related to the preceding matters: "One who prays standing must hold his feet straight," and the controversy on this subject between Levi and Simon (3d cent.), the one adding, "like the angels," and the other, "like the priests" comments on these two comparisons (2c, 20-31). Further discussion regarding the beginning of the day, introduced by a saying of Ḥ anina's (3d cent.) haggadic statements concerning the dawn a conversation between Ḥ iyya the Elder and Simeon b. Ḥ alafta (latter part of the tannaitic period) cosmological comments: dimensions of the firmament, and the cosmic distances expressed in units of 50,500 years, together with similar haggadic material, chiefly tannaitic in origin Haggadic sayings on Genesis 1:6 , introduced by a saying of Abin's (4th cent.), and including sayings by Rab, Judah b. Pazzi, and Ḥ anina Haggadic material on Isaiah 40:22 , introduced by a controversy between Johanan and Simeon b. Laḳ ish (3d cent.), and on Genesis 2:4 (2c, 31-2d, 11). On the second part of the first mishnaic sentence the views of Judah I. and Nathan on the number of the night-watches, and an exegetic discussion of them, with an allusion to Psalm 119:62 ("at midnight"), as well as haggadic material concerning David and his harp, with especial reference to Psalm 57:9 (2d, 11-44).

  2. Assi in the name of Johanan: "The ruling of the sages ["until midnight"] is the valid one, and forms the basis for the counsel given by Jose [4th cent.] to the members of the academy" (ib. lines 45-48). Baraita on the reading of the "Shema' " in the synagogue a question bearing on this matter, and Huna's answer in the name of the Babylonian amora Joseph ( ib. lines 48-52), an illustration being given in an anecdote regarding Samuel b. Naḥ man, together with a haggadic saying by him ( ib. lines 52-58). A contradictory view by Joshua b. Levi, together with pertinent haggadic sayings to the effect that the "Shemoneh ' Esreh" must follow immediately the after-benediction of the "Shema' " ( ib. lines 59-73).

  3. R. Gamaliel's view compared with an analogous opinion of Simeon b. Yoḥ ai, together with a question which remains unanswered (2d, 74-3a, 3).

R. H. 1:1,2: These two paragraphs, which are combined into one in Babli, deal with the commencement of the four seasons (new years): Nisan 1, Elul 1, Tishri 1, and Shebaṭ 1 (or 15). The Talmud on par. 1 is found in 56a, 44-56d, 52, and that on par. 2 in 56d, 52-57a, 30.

Talmud on par. 1:

    (a ) The "new year of the kings." Exegetic deductions and elucidations, beginning with the interpretation of Exodus 12:1 Johanan's explanation of 2Chronicles 3:2 a controversy between Hananiah and Mani regarding the same verse an explanation by Aḥ a of Exodus 12:1 a baraita by Samuel on the same verse and similar material (56a, 44-56b, 10). Ḥ anina's saying that even the years of Gentile kings were dated from Nisan, and the confirmation thereof by Biblical passages from Haggai and Zechariah, together with the contradictory view of the Babylonian amora ' Efa or Ḥ efa remarks and objections by Jonah and Isaac (56b, 10-29). Jonah on the practical importance of the new year for dating business documents ( ib. lines 29-33). On the new year in the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, together with an interpretation of 1 Kings 2:11 , and several haggadic passages referring to David (ib. lines 33-52).
    (b ) The "new year of the feasts." Statement that according to Simeon b. Yoḥ ai Nisan 1 marks the beginning of the year for the sequence of the feasts a tannaitic midrash of considerable length on Leviticus 23:38 , and a reply by Ela (4th cent.) to a question bearing on this matter additional, remarks and objections by amoraim of the fourth century, together with the citation of a saying by the scholars "of that place" (i.e. , Babylonia 56b, 52-56c, 15) various discussions on kindred subjects, especially those whose content involved halakic exegesis (56c, 15-56d, 14).
    (c ) The "new year for tithes of cattle," declared by Meï r to be Elul 1. Proof by the Babylonian amora Huna, who deduced an opposing view from Psalm 65:14 the relation between Ben ' Azzai, who is mentioned in a baraita belonging to this passage, and Akiba ( ib. lines 14-33) interpretation of Mishnah Bek. 7:7 as being analogous in content a citation by Mani of a halakic exegesis by his father, Jonah ( ib. lines 33-52).
Talmud on par. 2: (a ) Tishri 1, the "new year for the counting of the years." Deductions from Biblical passages discussion on the subject between Jonah and the members of the college Jonah's quotation of Ḥ anina's saying on the names of the months, and a saying of Simeon b. Laḳ ish on the names of the angels (56d, 52-77). (b ) The "new year for the Sabbatical years and the years of jubilee." Biblical inference (56d, 77-57a, 2). (c ) The "new year for the planting of trees." Explanation and exegetical deduction (ib. lines 3-14). ( d ) The "new year for vegetables." Elucidation and discussion (ib. lines 14-23). ( e ) The "new year for trees," this section being supplemented by an example from a tannaitic account of Akiba's practise, with explanations (ib. lines 23-30).

Further Examples.
Giṭ . 2:1: Inadequate attestation of the preparation of a bill of divorce. The Talmud on the passage (44a, 34-71) a special case in the Mishnah shown to contain the opinion of Judah b. Ilai (ib. lines 34-40) two casuistic questions by Jose and the Babylonian amora Ḥ isda, and the answers furnished by the Mishnah ( ib. lines 40-50) a more detailed discussion of another question of similar content, with reference to a controversy between Johanan and Simeon b. Laḳ ish, together with notes thereon by Ammi and Ze' era, and a discussion concluding with a comment by Mani ( ib. lines 50-71).

B. B. 1:6: (a ) A short exegetic proof by Ela, based on Proverbs 18:11 (12d, 71 et seq. ). (b ) A baraita dealing with analogous matter, together with a remark by Jose b. Abin (ib. lines 72-75).

Although this analysis of the contents of four parts of Yerushalmi gives no adequate idea of the structure of the entire work, it will serve to show the difference between its several parts in regard both to their length and to their amplifications of the simple explanations of the Mishnah. A comparison of the portions of the Palestinian Talmud here summarized with the corresponding sections of Babli, as given below, is especially instructive.

Passages Repeated.
Yerushalmi, when regarded as a work of literature, is noteworthy for a textual peculiarity which is characteristic of it, though found also in Babli, namely, the large number of literal repetitions. Entire passages, sometimes whole columns, of the Talmud are found in two, occasionally in three, separate treatises, in which they differ from each other by mere variants, most of them due to corruptions of the text. These repetitions throw some light on the redaction of the Talmudic text, since they prove that before the editing of the treatises was undertaken a uniform mass of material was already at hand in a definitely revised form they likewise show that in the compilation of the Talmud one portion was explained by another, as was natural in view of the character of the contents. The opportunity was gladly seized, moreover, to repeat didactic material in passages where it did not strictly belong. These repetitions are obviously of great value in the textual criticism of the Talmud. Since sufficient attention has never yet been paid to this phenomenon of Yerushalmi, a list is here given of those passages of the first order, Zera' im, which are repeated in other orders. It must be noted, however, that this list includes neither citations based on passages of another treatise nor parallel passages consisting of a single sentence.

    (a ) Passages from the order i. repeated in the order ii.:Ber. 3b, lines 10-55 = Shab. 3a, 69-3b, 20.Ber. 4a, 30-56 = Sheḳ . 47a, 13-59 = M. Ḳ . 83c, 40-83d, 8.Ber. 5a, 33-62 = M. Ḳ . 82b, 14-47.Ber. 5d, 14-20 = Shab. 3a, 55-61.Ber. 5d, 65-6a, 9 = M. Ḳ . 83a, 5-27.Ber. 6c, 4-17 = Yoma 44d, 58-68.Ber. 6d, 60-67 = Meg. 73d, 15-22.Ber. 7b, 70-7d, 25 = Ta' an. 67c, 12-67d, 47.Ber. 7d, 75-8a, 59 = Ta' an. 65c, 2-69.Ber. 8c, 60-69 = R. H. 59d, 16-25.Ber. 9a, 70-9b, 47 = Ta' an. 63c, 66-63d, 44.Ber. 9c, 20-31 = Meg. 75c, 8-19.Ber. 9c, 49-54 = Meg. 75b, 31-36.Ber. 10a, 32-43 = Pes. 29c, 16-27.Ber. 11c, 14-21 = Pes. 37c, 54-71.Ber. 12c, 16-25 = ' Er. 22b, 29-37.Ber. 12c, 44-62 = Suk. 24a, 6-21 = Meg. 72a, 15-31.Ber. 13d, 72-14a, 30 = Ta' an. 64a, 75-64b, 35.Pe' ah 15a, 67-15b, 21 = Ḥ ag. 76b, 24-53.Pe' ah 17a, 39-72 = Ḥ ag. 76b, 13-47.Pe' ah 18d, 16-33 = Sheḳ . 46a, 48-67.Pe' ah 18d, 66-19a, 5 = Sheḳ . 48c, 75-48d, 13.Pe' ah 21a, 25-29 = Sheḳ . 48d, 55-58.Dem. 22a, 31-40 = Sheḳ . 48d, 40-49.Kil. 29b, 27-61 = ' Er. 19c, 15-49 = Suk. 52a, 40-73.Kil. 29b, 62-76 = Suk. 52a, 73-52b, 11.Sheb. 34c, 27-49 = M. Ḳ . 80b, 26-52.Sheb. 38a, 50-60 = Shab. 3c, 55-65.Ter. 44a, 32-38 = Shab. 44d, 4-10.Ter. 45d, 42-51 = Shab. 3d, 2-15 (comp. ' Ab. Zarah 41d, 13-28).Ter. 46a, 41-46b, 35 = Pes. 28a, 34-28b, 37.Ma' as. 49a, 22-28 = Suk. 53d, 43-53.Ma' as. 49b, 14-32 = Shab. 6b, 17-36.Ma' as. 49b, 39-48 = Beẓ ah 62b, 72-62c, 6.Ma' as. Sh. 53b, 6-44 = Yoma 45c, 2-36 (comp. Shebu. 32b. 56-34c, 3).Ma' as. Sh. 54b, 48-58 = Sheḳ . 51b, 15-25.Ma' as. Sh. 55a, 23-55 = ' Er. 24c, 33-66.Ma' as. Sh. 55d, 62-67 = M. Ḳ . 80b, 72-80c, 10.Ḥ al. 57c, 16-20 = R. H. 57b, 60-63.
    (b )Passages from the order i. repeated in the order iii.:Ber. 6a, 35-6b, 17 = Naz. 56a, 12-68. Ber. 6b, 51-56 = Ḳ id. 61c, 11-17. Ber. 9d, 3-19 = Giṭ . 47b, 49-63. Ber. 11b, 42-68 = Naz. 54b, 2-27. Ber. 14b, 45-70 = Soṭ ah 20c, 40-64. Pe' ah 15b, 41-47 = Ket. 32c, 10-16. Pe' ah 15c, 7-16 = Ḳ id. 61a, 75-61c, 10. Dem. 25b, 60-45c, 7 = Ḳ id. 63a, 75-63b, 21. Kil. 32a, 64-32d, 7 = Ket. 34d, 74-35b, 56. Sheb. 36b, 25-68 = Ḳ id. 61c, 56-61d, 17. Ter. 40c, 42-40d, 6 = Yeb. 13c, 70-13d, 32. Ter. 42b, 44-53 = Naz. 53d, 16-27. Ter. 44c, 9-44d, 44 = Ket. 27b, 5-27c, 39. Ma' as. Sh. 55a, 69-55b, 13 = Giṭ . 47d, 55-70. ' Orlah 61b, 8-33 = Naz. 55c, 32-63. Bik. 64a. 32-44 = Yeb. 9b, 71-9c, 8.
    (c ) Passages from the order i. repeated in the order iv.:Ber. 3a, 52-69 = Sanh. 30a, 65-30b, 8 = ' Ab. Zarah 41c, 46-63.Ber. 6b, 20-41 = Sanh. 20a, 43-60.Pe' ah 16b, 22-25,43-60 = Sanh. 27c, 38-60.Sheb. 35b, 26-40 = ' Ab. Zarah 44b, 27-41.Sheb. 39b, 14-38 = Mak. 31a, 33-50.Ter. 45c, 24-45d, 11 = ' Ab. Zarah 41a, 18-41b, 3.Ter. 47c, 66-47d, 4 = ' Ab. Zarah 41c, 13-23.Ma' as. Sh. 54d, 71-55a, 8 = Sanh. 19a, 63-76.Ma' as. Sh. 56c, 9-18 = Sanh. 18d, 13-22.' Orlah 62b, 49-62c, 10 = ' Ab. Zarah 45a, 32-45b, 10.
The following parallel passages from the second and fourth orders may also be mentioned on account of their length: Shab. 9c, 62-9d, 59 = Sanh. 24c, 19-24d, 14 Shab. 14d, 10-15a, 1 = ' Ab. Zarah 40d, 12-41a, 4.

Despite these parallel passages in the four orders of Yerushalmi, which might be regarded as a proof of the uniform redaction of the entire work, there is proof to the contrary, which shows that the first two orders differ in origin from the third and fourth. While the first and second contain a large number of baraitot with the introductory formula "Samuel transmits []," there is not a single baraita by Samuel in the third and fourth orders. These latter two include, on the other hand, many controversies between Mani and Abin, two amoraim of the second half of the fourth century, while Zera' im and Mo' ed contain very few (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." 3:398). The redaction of Yerushalmi is discussed in further detail below.

The Haggadot of the Yerushalmi.
The haggadic portions of Yerushalmi are also characteristic of its style. As in Babli, they frequently have only a slight bearing, sometimes none at all, on the subject of the mishnaic section and its Talmudic interpretation, being added to the passages in which they are found either because they were mentioned in the academy on account of some subject under discussion, or because, in the process of the redaction of the treatise, this haggadic material, which was valued for some special reason, seemed to fit into the Talmudic text at the passage in question. Many haggadic portions of Yerushalmi are likewise found almost word for word in the earlier works of Palestinian midrashic literature, especially in Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiḳ ta di-Rab Kahana, Ekah (Lamentations) Rabbati, and Midrash Shemuel. These parallel passages do not always prove actual borrowing for the same earlier source may have been used in the redaction both of Yerushalmi and of the midrashic works. The haggadot of the Palestinian Talmud were collected and annotated by Samuel ben Isaac Jaffe Ashkenazi in his "Yefeh Mar' eh" (Venice, 1589), and they were translated into German by Wü nsche ("Der Jerusalemische Talmud in Seinen Haggadischen Bestandtheilen," Zurich, 1880).

Linguistically, the Palestinian Talmud is Aramaic, in so far as its framework (like the elucidations of the mishnaic text by the members of the academies and the amoraic discussions connected with them) is redacted in that language the greater portion of the terminology is in like manner Aramaic. The same dialect is employed in general for the narrative sections, including both the haggadot and the accounts of the lives of the sages and their pupils. The Aramaic portion consequently comprises all that is popular in origin or content. The Hebrew sections, on the other hand, include the halakic sayings of the Tannaim, the citations from the collections of baraitot, and many of the amoraic discussions based on the tannaitic tradition, together with other sayings of the Amoraim. This linguistic usage is due to the fact that both in Palestine and in Babylon the Halakah was for the most part elucidated and expanded by the Amoraim themselves in the language in which it had been transmitted by the Tannaim. In the academy the Hebrew of the Mishnah held its place side by side with the Aramaic, thus giving to the latter a certain coloring, especially from a lexicographic point of view. Hebrew was retained in great measure also in the amoraic Haggadah. The Aramaic, which assumed a fixed literary form in Yerushalmi, is almost the same as that of the earlier Palestinian midrashic works, differing from them only in a few peculiarities, mostly orthographic. This idiom, together with that of the Palestinian Targum on the Pentateuch, has been analyzed in G. Dalman's "Grammatik des Jü disch-Palä stinischen Aramä isch" (Leipsic, 1894 2 ed. 1905).

Editions of the Babli.
The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud () was printed at Venice, 1520-23, by Daniel Bomberg, and has become the basis, down to the present day, of a very large number of editions, including that of Basel, 1578-81, which, with the changes and omissions made by the censor, exerted a powerful influence on later texts until the edition of Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1720-22, with its additions, became the model of all subsequent editions of the Talmud (see below). The external form of Babli was determined by the editio princeps. While the first edition of Yerushalmi, in its two columns on each folio page, contains only the text, the editio princeps of Babli adds the commentary of Rashi on one margin and the tosafot on the other, together with kindred matter. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the first edition of Babli has a pagination which has been retained in all subsequent editions, thus rendering it possible to quote passages with exactness, and to find citations readily. The mishnaic treatises which have no Babylonian Talmud are included in the editions of the Talmud, together with commentaries, and these same tractates are likewise found in the only complete manuscript of Babli (that at Munich), where they form an appendix, although they precede the post-Talmudic treatises, which are likewise contained in the editions. It has been noted above that the editions of Babli contain the Yerushalmi for the treatise Sheḳ alim and this is also the case in the Munich manuscript.

The following list gives the names of the treatises of Babli which have been preserved, together with the sequence generally followed in the editions, and the number of folios in each tractate, the pagination always beginning with fol. 2. Of the 570 leaves of the Munich codex, containing about eighty lines to a page, 490 belong to Babli this gives an approximate idea of the size of this Talmud. The amount of text on each page of the editions, however, varies greatly on account of the varying length of the commentary of Rashi and the tosafot which accompany it but the number of leaves shows the comparative lengths of the several treatises.

    I. Zera' im: Berakot (64).
    II. Mo' ed: Shabbat (157) ' Erubin (105) Pesaḥ im (121) Beẓ ah (40) Ḥ agigah (27) Mo' ed Ḳ aṭ an (29) Rosh ha-Shanah (35) Yoma (88) Sukkah (56) Ta' anit (31) Megillah (32).
    III. Nashim: Yebamot (122) Ketubot (112) Ḳ iddushin (82) Giṭ ṭ in (90) Nedarim (91) Nazir (66) Soṭ ah (49).
    IV. Neziḳ in: Baba Ḳ amma (119) Baba Meẓ i' a (119) Baba Batra (176) ' Abodah Zarah (76) Sanhedrin (113) Shebu' ot (49) Makkot (24) Horayot (14).
    V. Ḳ odashim: Zebaḥ im (120) Menaḥ ot (110) Bekorot (161) Ḥ ullin (142) ' Arakin (34) Temurah (34) Keritot (28) Me' ilah (22) Tamid (9).
    VI. Ṭ ohorot: Niddah (73).

Missing Gemaras.
Babli thus contains but one treatise each of the first and sixth orders of the second, Sheḳ alim (see above) is lacking and there is no Talmud on ' Eduyot or Abot either in Babli or Yerushalmi. The fifth order of Babli contains neither Middot nor Ḳ innim, nor the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Tamid. It is incorrect, however, to speak of missing portions of the Babylonian Talmud, since in all probability the sections which it omits were entirely disregarded in the final redaction of the work, and were consequently never committed to writing (for a divergent opinion see Weiss, "Dor," 3:271). It will be shown further on that the mishnaic treatises lacking in Babli were subjects of study in the Babylonian academies.

Earliest Manuscript of the Babli.
In the editions the Babylonian Talmud is so arranged that each paragraph of the Mishnah is followed by the portion of the Talmud which forms the commentary on it the portions are frequently divided into sections, rubricked by the successive sentences of the mishnaic paragraph on which they are based, although an entire paragraph occasionally serves as a single text. Thus Babli on Ket. 2:1 (16a-18b) is divided into six sections but there is no division into sections for 2:2 (18b-20b), 2:3 (20b-22a), 2:5 (23b), and 2:9 (27b-28a). There are three sections for 2:4 (23a) two for 2:6 (23b-26a), 2:7 (26b-27a), and 2:8 (27a, b) and eight for 2:10 (28a, b). In the Munich codex, which is based on a manuscript of the middle of the ninth century (see Lewy in "Breslauer Jahresbericht," 1905, p. 28), the text of the entire chapter of the Mishnah is written in large characters on the inner portion of the page, separated from the Talmudic text, which is in a different script. In the fragments in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, written in 1123 and containing a portion of the treatise Keritot (see "J. Q. R." 9:145), each chapter is headed by the entire mishnaic text on which it is based. Then follow the sections of the Talmud, each beginning with the word and the first part of the mishnaic paragraph in question, although some sections are marked by the superscription (= ). The superscription , which in the editions marks the beginning of the Talmud on each paragraph of the Mishnah, is found neither in the Munich codex nor in the Bodleian fragments. Most of the manuscripts containing one or more treatises of Babli, and described by R. N. Rabbinovicz in the introductions to vols. i., iv., viii., ix., and xi. of his "Diḳ duḳ e Soferim," are so arranged that the entire mishnaic text is placed at the beginning of the chapter and this is also occasionally the case in the editions, as in the first chapter of the treatise Sanhedrin. In a St. Petersburg manuscript said to date from 1112 the paragraphs are repeated in their proper places (ib. 8:3). A number of codices in the Vatican Library are arranged partly in the one way and partly in the other (xi:13,15, 17,18), while the system adopted in the printed texts occurs in manuscripts also (see ib. 4:6,8 11:20). It may be mentioned as a curious circumstance that in one manuscript of the Vatican ( ib. 11:19), containing the treatise Pesaḥ im, many passages are vocalized and accented, as is also the case in a Bodleian fragment of Yerushalmi on Berakot ("J. Q. R." 9:150). A fragment of considerable length in the Cambridge Library, and possibly the earliest extant manuscript of Babli, also contains the treatise Pesaḥ im it has been edited by Lowe ("The Fragment of Talmud Babli of the Ninth or Tenth Century," Cambridge, 1879) and in its four folios it includes the text of fols. 7a, below -9a, middle, and 13a, below -16a, above, of the editions. The pages are divided into two columns and the entire mishnaic text precedes the chapter the several sections, even those beginning with a new paragraph of the Mishnah, have an introduction only in the case of the first word of the mishnaic passage in question, with the word as superscription.

The character of Babli and its divergencies from Yerushalmi may best be illustrated by a citation of its commentary on the same passages of the Mishnah as those contained in the sections of the Palestinian Talmud already analyzed.V12p009001.jpgPage from the Munich Manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud .Ber. 1:1 (divided in Yerushalmi into four paragraphs, but in Babli forms one only, the explanations of which are given in 2a-9a for the purposes of the present comparison, only those discussions in Babli which refer to that part of the Mishnah which in Yerushalmi forms the first paragraph are here summarized):

    (a ) The initial question of the Mishnah and its basis two divergent answers, together with an objection and its refutation (2a all anonymous). The initial statement of the Mishnah, and an interpretation of Leviticus 22:7 based on a baraita on this verse and concluding with a note of Rabbah b. Shela (2b), and the method of teaching this interpretation in Palestine. The contradictions between the statement of the Mishnah and three baraitot which are successively stated and dialectically refuted (all anonymous). A discussion of the third baraita (3a). The opinion of R. Eliezer ("until the end of the first watch of the night"), and the problem whether three or four night-watches were implied a haggadic baraita with a saying of R. Eliezer on the three watches of the night, together with a discussion of it. A haggadic excursus of some length, beginning with Rab's saying regarding the three watches of the night, and containing a baraita (a poem by Jose b. Ḥ alafta) and a disquisition on it (3b). Further details of the night-watches, beginning with a controversy between Judah I. and Nathan (in a baraita) a haggadic saying of Joshua b. Levi transmitted by Zeriḳ a and Ammi, this section concluding with a saying of Ashi. Another saying of Joshua b. Levi, transmitted in like manner, together with two versions of a comment by Abba b. Kahana. Discussion of the first saying of Joshua b. Levi, beginning with the rising of David "at midnight" ( Psalm 119:62 ), and devoted in the main to the connotation of the word "neshef" (ib. 119:147), together with sayings of Babylonian amoraim. The way in which David knew when midnight had arrived, and concerning his harp, (4a). Further details regarding David, Psalm 57:9 , and Exodus 11:4 , with an exegesis by Ashi, which concludes the entire discussion. Additional haggadic material concerning David, and a controversy between the Palestinian haggadists Levi and Isaac on Psalm 86:2 with reference to Psalm 119:62 , together with comments and citations of a kindred nature.

Examples from the Babli.

    (b ) Dialectic exposition of the relation of the view of the scholars to the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Gamaliel, together with the citation of a baraita (4b). A controversy between Johanan and Joshua b. Levi on the sequence of the "Shema' " and prayer, based on a sentence in this baraita ("the ' Shema' ' is read: prayer is offered"), together with a discussion devoted chiefly to exegetic inferences. An objection alleged by Mar b. Rabina and based on a passage in the Mishnah, and a haggadic saying of Eleazar b. Abina to the effect that he who recites Psalm 145 thrice daily is assuredly a son of the world to come, the citation being made in this place on account of an aphorism of similar content given by Johanan in the course of the same debate. A discussion of these matters, and a saying of Johanan on Psalm 145 , together with another haggadic aphorism by Eleazar b. Abina on the angels Michael and Raphael, and its elucidation. The view of Joshua b. Levi on the evening "Shema' ," which should be recited in bed (5a), and amoraic sayings on the same subject, together with a confirmation, by a citation of Psalm 4:6 , of the ruling of Joshua b. Levi a haggadic saying of Simeon b. Laḳ ish transmitted by Levi b. Laḥ ma, as well as another aphorism of this scholar transmitted by the same authority. A haggadic saying by Isaac on reading the "Shema' " in bed, and a comment by Ashi, followed by another haggadic aphorism by Isaac based on Job 5:7 interpretation of this verse as denoting afflictions sent by God ("yissurim"), against which the study of the Torah gives protection haggadic sentences on the Law. A long series of haggadic sayings by Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim, and especially by Johanan, regarding affliction (5b), with anecdotes from Palestine and Babylon. A baraita with a saying of Abba Benjamin regarding prayer before retiring, and its elucidation, together with three other baraitot and haggadic sayings of Abba Benjamin regarding prayer (6a), regarding demons (with various sayings of Babylonian authors), and praying in the synagogue. A haggadic saying by Isaac on the last subject transmitted by Rabin b. Adda, together with a saying of Ashi and additional elucidations, followed by another aphoriam transmitted by Rabin in the name of Isaac regarding the "phylacteries of God," and by a discussion of the subject by Babylonian amoraim, the view of Ashi standing last. A third haggadic saying of Isaac, of similar transmission, concerning prayer in the synagogue (6b), and a series of aphorisms of a like nature, the first being by Johanan, and the second by Huna transmitted by Ḥ elbo. These, interspersed with other sayings, are followed by five more aphorisms transmitted by Ḥ elbo in the name of Huna and regarding departure from the synagogue, the Minḥ ah prayer, participation in marriage festivities, the fear of God, and the refusal to return a salutation. A series (7a) of five haggadic sayings transmitted by Johanan in the name of Jose

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.

Bibliography Information
Singer, Isidore, Ph.D, Projector and Managing Editor. Entry for 'Talmud'. 1901 The Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/tje/t/talmud.html. 1901.

Lectionary Calendar
Monday, July 22nd, 2019
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
ADVERTISEMENT
Search for…
Enter query in the box:
 or 
Choose a letter to browse:
A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M 
N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  Y  Z 

 
Prev Entry
Talmid ḥAkam
Next Entry
Talmud Commentaries
ADVERTISEMENT
To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use our convenient contact form
Powered by Lightspeed Technology