Elijah Cup

Baron Herzog Brut Champagne

2009-12-15T07:58:00.000-08:00

Baron Herzog Brut Champagne

Kosher Wines on line ordering

Bottles/Case: 12
Mevushal: Yes
Alc/Vol: 12%
Size: 750 ml
Region: California
Type: Sparkling
Color: White
Varietal: Brut
Supervision: OU

This item qualifies for Budget Shipping

General Information

This sparkling wine is made from wines produced in California and New York. It has been fermented with special Champagne yeast and given extended contact to enhance the complexity of the wine. It has the aromatic notes of the New York fruit and the lighter, more elegant tones contributed by the fruit from California. Please enjoy it with food, as an apertif or on those special occasions that call for a quality sparkling wine.

Kosher For Passover

Winemaker's Note

Toasty aromas, leading into delicious fruit flavors supported by bright acidity. Best Served With: Lightly flavored fish, veal and chicken.

Kosher Wine

2009-12-07T06:03:00.000-08:00

Kosher Wine. By : Emil G. Hirsch Judah David Eisenstein Executive Committee of the Editorial Board Encyclopedia Judaica

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Presses and Receptacles.
Varieties.
Medicinal Value.
Wine-Bibbing.
In Mourning.

—Biblical Data:

The juice of the grape is the subject of special praise in the Scriptures. The "vine tree" is distinguished from the other trees in the forest (Ezek. xv. 2). The fig-tree is next in rank to the vine (Deut. viii. 8), though as food the fig is of greater importance (comp. Num. xx. 5) than the "wine which cheereth God and man" (Judges ix. 13; comp. Ps. civ. 15; Eccl. x. 19). Wine is a good stimulant for "such as be faint in the wilderness" (II Sam. xvi. 2), and for "those that be of heavy hearts" (Prov. xxxi. 6).

The goodness of wine is reflected in the figure in which Israel is likened to a vine brought from Egypt and planted in the Holy Land, where it took deep root, spread out, and prospered (Ps. lxxx. 9-11). The blessed wife is like "a fruitful vine by the sides of thy house" (Ps. cxxviii. 3). When peace reigns every man rests "under his vine and under his fig-tree" (I Kings v. 5 [A. V. iv. 25]). An abundance of wine indicates prosperity. Jacob blessed Judah that "he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes" (Gen. xlix. 11).

Bread as an indispensable food and wine as a luxury represent two extremes; they were used as signs of welcome and good-will to Abraham (Gen. xiv. 18). A libation of wine was part of the ceremonial sacrifices, varying in quantity from one-half to one-fourth of a hin measure (Num. xxviii. 14).

Wine-drinking was generally accompanied by singing (Isa. xxiv. 9). A regular wine-room ("bet ha-yayin") was used (Cant. ii. 4), and wine-cellars ("ozerot yayin"; I Chron. xxvii. 27) are mentioned. The wine was bottled in vessels termed "nebel" and "nod" (I Sam. i. 24, xvi. 20), made in various shapes from the skins of goats and sheep, and was sold in bath measures. The wine was drunk from a "mizrak," or "gabia'" (bowl; Jer. xxxv. 5), or a "kos" (cup). The wine-press was called "gat" and "purah"; while the "yekeb" was probably the vat into which the wine flowed from the press. The "vine of Sodom" (Deut. xxxii. 32), which probably grew by the Dead Sea, was the poorest kind. The "vine of the fields" (II Kings iv. 39) was a wild, uncultivated sort, and the "sorek" (Isa. v. 2) was the choicest vine, producing dark-colored grapes; in Arabic it is called "surik."

There were different kinds of wine. "Yayin" was the ordinary matured, fermented wine, "tirosh" was a new wine, and "shekar" was an old, powerful wine ("strong drink"). The red wine was the better and stronger (Ps. lxxv. 9 [A. V. 8]; Prov. xxiii. 31). Perhaps the wine of Helbon (Ezek. xxvii. 18) and the wine of Lebanon (Hos. xiv. 7) were white wines. The vines of Hebron were noted for their large clustersof grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Samaria was the center of vineyards (Jer. xxxi. 5; Micah i. 6), and the Ephraimites were heavy wine-drinkers (Isa. xxviii. 1). There were also "yayin ha-rekaH" (spiced wine; Cant. viii. 2), "ashishah" (hardened sirup of grapes), "shemarim (wine-dregs), and "Homez yayin" (vinegar). Some wines were mixed with poisonous substances ("yayin tar'elah"; Ps. lx. 5; comp. lxxv.9, "mesek" [mixture]). The "wine of the condemned" ("yen 'anushim") is wine paid as a forfeit (Amos ii. 8), and "wine of violence" (Prov. iv. 17) is wine obtained by illegal means.E. G. H. J. D. E.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Wine is called "yayin" because it brings lamentation and wailing ("yelalah" and "wai") into the world, and "tirosh" because one that drinks it habitually is certain to become poor (). R. Kahana said the latter term is written sometimes , and sometimes ; that means, if drunk in moderation it gives leadership ( = "head"); if drunk in excess it leads to poverty (Yoma 76b). "Tirosh" includes all kinds of sweet juices and must, and does not include fermented wine (Tosef., Ned. iv. 3). "Yayin" is to be distinguished from "shekar"; the former is diluted with water ("mazug"); the latter is undiluted ("yayin Hai"; Num. R. x. 8; comp. Sifre, Num. 23). In Talmudic usage "shekar" means "mead," or "beer," and according to R. Papa, it denotes drinking to satiety and intoxication (Suk. 49b).

In metaphorical usage, wine represents the essence of goodness. The Torah, Jerusalem, Israel, the Messiah, the righteous—all are compared to wine. The wicked are likened unto vinegar, and the good man who turns to wickedness is compared to sour wine. Eleazar b. Simeon was called "Vinegar, the son of Wine" (B. M. 83b). The wine which is kept for the righteous in the world to come has been preserved in the grape ever since the six days of creation (Ber. 34b).

Presses and Receptacles.

The process of making wine began with gathering the grapes into a vat ("gat"). There were vats hewn out of stone, cemented or potter-made vats, and wooden vats ("Ab. Zarah v. 11). Next to the vat was a cistern ("bor"), into which the juice ran through a connecting trough or pipe ("zinnor"). Two vats were sometimes connected with one cistern (B. k. ii. 2). The building containing or adjoining the wine-presses was called "bet ha-gat" (Tosef., Ter. iii. 7). The newly pressed wine was strained through a filter, sometimes in the shape of a funnel ("meshammeret"; Yer. Ter. viii. 3), or through a linen cloth ("sudar"), in order to remove husks, stalks, etc. A wooden roller or beam, fixed into a socket in the wall, was lowered to press the grapes down into the vat (Shab. i. 9; Ṭoh. x. 8).

The cistern was emptied by a ladle or dipper called the "maHaz" (Ṭoh. x. 7), the wine being transferred to large receptacles known variously as "kad," "kankan," "garab," "danna," and "Habit." Two styles of Habit, the Lydian and the Bethlehemite (Niddah vi. 6), were used, the former being a smaller barrel or cask. All these receptacles were rounded earthen vessels, tightly sealed with pitch. The foster-mother of Abaye is authority for the statement that a six-measure cask properly sealed is worth more than an eight-measure cask that is not sealed (B. k. 12a). New wine stood for at least forty days before it was admissible as a drink-offering ('Eduy. vi. 1; B. B. 97a). When the wine had sufficiently settled it was drawn off into bottles known as "lagin" or "leginah" and "zarzur," the latter being a stone vessel with a rim and strainer, a kind of cooler (Sanh. 106a); an earthen pitcher, "Hazab," was also used (Men. viii. 7). The drinking-vessel was the Biblical "kos." The wine was kept in cellars, and from them was removed to storerooms called "heftek," or "apoṭik" (ἀποθήκη), a pantry or shelves in the wineshop. Bottles of wine from this pantry were exposed for sale in baskets in front of the counter ('Ab. Zarah ii. 7, 39b).

Varieties.

The quality of a wine was known by its color and by the locality from which it came, red wine being better than white wine. keruHim (probably the Coreæ of Josephus) in Palestine produced the best wine (Men. viii. 6), after which came the red wine of Phrygia (Perugita; Shab. 147b), the light-red wine of Sharon (Shab. 77a), and "yayin Kushi" (Ethiopian wine; B. B. 97b). There were special mixtures of wine. Among these were: (1) "alunṭit," made of old wine, with a mixture of very clear water and balsam; used especially after bathing (Tosef., Dem. i. 24; 'Ab. Zarah 30a); (2) "kafrisin" (caper-wine, or, according to Rashi, Cyprus wine), an ingredient of the sacred incense (Ker. 6a); (3) "yen zimmukin" (raisin-wine); (4) "inomilin" (οἰνόμελι), wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shab. xx. 2; 'Ab. Zarah l.c.); (5) "ilyoston" (*ήλιόστεον), a sweet wine ("vinum dulce") from grapes dried in the sun for three days, and then gathered and trodden in the midday heat (Men. viii. 6; B. B. 97b); (6) "me'ushshan," from the juice of smoked or fumigated sweet grapes (Men. l.c.); not fit for libation; (7) "enogeron" (οινόγαρον), a sauce of oil and garum to which wine was added; (8) "apikṭewizin" (ἀποκοτταβίζειν), a wine emetic, taken before a meal (Shab. 12a); (9) "kundiṭon" ("conditum"), a spiced wine ('Ab. Zarah ii. 3); (10) "pesintiṭon" ("absinthiatum"), a bitter wine (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah ii. 3); (11) "yen tappuHim," made from apples; cider; (12) "yen temarim," date-wine. Wine made from grapes grown on isolated vines ("roglit") is distinguished from that made of the grapes of a vine suspended from branches or trained over an espalier ("dalit"); the latter was unfit for libation (Men. 86b).

During the time of fermentation the wine that was affected with sourness was called "yayin koses" (Yer. Pe'ah ii., end), and when matured sour it was "Homez" (vinegar). Good vinegar was made by putting barley in the wine. In former times Judean wine never became sour unless barley was put in it; but after the destruction of the Temple that characteristic passed to the Edomite (Roman) wine. Certain vinegar was called the "Edomite vinegar" (Pes. 42b).

Fresh wine before fermenting was called "yayin mi-gat" (wine of the vat; Sanh. 70a). The ordinary wine was of the current vintage. The vintage of the previous year was called "yayin yashan" (old wine). The third year's vintage was "yayin meyushshan" (very old wine). Ordinary, fermented wine, accordingto Raba, must be strong enough to take one-third water, otherwise it is not to be regarded as wine (Shab. 77a). R. Joseph, who was blind, could tell by taste whether a wine was up to the standard of Raba ('Er. 54a).

Medicinal Value.

Wine taken in moderation was considered a healthful stimulant, possessing many curative elements. The Jewish sages were wont to say, "Wine is the greatest of all medicines; where wine is lacking, there drugs are necessary" (B. B. 58b). R. Huna said, "Wine helps to open the heart to reasoning" (B. B. 12b). R. Papa thought that when one could substitute beer for wine, it should be done for the sake of economy. But his view is opposed on the ground that the preservation of one's health is paramount to considerations of economy (Shab. 140b). Three things, wine, white bread, and fat meat, reduce the feces, lend erectness to one's bearing, and strengthen the sight. Very old wine benefits the whole body (Pes. 42b). Ordinary wine is harmful to the intestines, but old wine is beneficial (Ber. 51a). Rabbi was cured of a severe disorder of the bowels by drinking apple-wine seventy years old, a Gentile having stored away 300 casks of it ('Ab. Zarah 40b). "The good things of Egypt" (Gen. xlv. 23) which Joseph sent to his father are supposed by R. Eleazar to have included "old wine," which satisfies the elderly person (Meg. 16b). At the great banquet given by King Ahasuerus the wine put before each guest was from the province whence he came and of the vintage of the year of his birth (Meg. 12a). Until the age of forty liberal eating is beneficial; but after forty it is better to drink more and eat less (Shab. 152a). R. Papa said wine is more nourishing when taken in large mouthfuls. Raba advised students who were provided with little wine to take it in liberal drafts (Suk. 49b) in order to secure the greatest possible benefit from it. Wine gives an appetite, cheers the body, and satisfies the stomach (Ber. 35b). After bleeding, according to Rab, a substantial meal of meat is necessary; according to Samuel, wine should be taken freely, in order that the red of the wine may replace the red of the blood that has been lost (Shab. 129a).

Wine-Bibbing.

The benefit derived from wine depends upon its being drunk in moderation, as overindulgence is injurious. Abba Saul, who was a grave-digger, made careful observations upon bones, and found that the bones of those who had drunk natural (unmixed) wine were "scorched"; of those who had used mixed wine were dry and transparent; of those who had taken wine in moderation were "oiled," that is, they had retained the marrow (Niddah 24b). Some of the rabbis were light drinkers. R. Joseph and Mar 'Ukba, after bathing, were given cups of inomilin wine (see above). R. Joseph felt it going through his body from the top of his head to his toes, and feared another cup would endanger his life; yet Mar 'Ukba drank it every day and was not unpleasantly affected by it, having taken it habitually (Shab. 140a). R. Judah did not take wine, except at religious ceremonies, such as "kiddush," "Habdalah," and the Seder of Passover (four cups). The Seder wine affected him so seriously that he was compelled to keep his head swathed till the following feast-day—Pentecost (Ned. 49b).

The best remedy for drunkenness is sleep. "Wine is strong, but sleep breaks its force" (B. B. 10a). Walking throws off the fumes of wine, the necessary amount of exercise being in the proportion of about three miles to a quarter-measure of Italian wine ('Er. 64b). Rubbing the palms and knees with oil and salt was a measure favored by some scholars who had indulged overmuch (Shab. 66b).

For religious ceremonies wine is preferable to other beverages. Wine "cheereth God" (Judges ix. 13); hence no religious ceremony should be performed with other beverages than wine (Ber. 35a). Over all fruit the benediction used is that for "the fruits of the tree," but over wine a special benediction for "the fruits of the vine" is pronounced (Ber. vi. 1). This latter benediction is, according to R. Eliezer, pronounced only when the wine has been properly mixed with water. Over natural wine the benediction is the same as that used for the "fruits of the tree" (Ber. 50b). The drinking of natural wine on the night of Passover is not "in the manner of free men" (Pes. 108b). "kiddush" and "Habdalah" should be recited over a cup of wine. Beer may be used in countries where that is the national beverage (Pes. 106a, 107a). According to Raba, one may squeeze the juice of a bunch of grapes into a cup and say the "kiddush" (B. B. 97b). The cup is filled with natural wine during grace, in memory of the Holy Land, where the best wine is produced; but after grace the wine is mixed.

The words introducing the grace, "Let us praise Him whose food we have eaten, and by whose goodness we live," are said over a cup of wine, part of which is passed to the hostess (Ber. 50a). Ulla, when the guest of R. NaHman, was invited to pronounce the grace over wine, and the latter suggested the propriety of sending part of the wine to his guest's wife, Yalta; but Ulla demurred, declaring that the host is the principal channel of blessing, and passed it to R. NaHman. When Yalta heard this she was enraged, and expressed her indignation by going to the wine-room ("be Hamra") and breaking up 400 casks of wine (Ber. 51b). R. Akiba, when he made a feast in honor of his son, proposed, "Wine and long life to the Rabbis and their disciples!" (Shab. 67b).

In Mourning.

Following the Scriptural precept, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts" (Prov. xxxi. 6), the Rabbis ordered ten cups of wine to be served with the "meal of consolation" at the mourner's house: three cups before the meal, "to open the bowels," three cups between courses, to help digestion, and four cups after the grace. Later four cups were added in honor of the Hazzanim, the parnasim, the Temple, and the nasi Gamaliel. So many cups producing drunkenness, the last four were afterward discontinued (Ket. 8b). Apparently this custom was in force when the Temple was in existence, and persisted in Talmudic times; it disappeared in the geonic period. R. Hanan declared that wine was created for the sole purpose of consoling the bereaved and rewarding the wicked forwhatever good they may do in this world, in order that they may have no claim upon the world to come (Sanh. 70a). After the destruction of the Temple many Pharisees, as a sign of mourning, vowed to abstain from eating meat and drinking wine, but were dissuaded from issuing a decree which the public could not observe (B. B. 60b). R. Judah b. Bathyra said, "Meat was the principal accompaniment of joy in the time of the Temple, wine in post-exilic times" (Pes. 109a).

Rab said that for three days after purchase the seller is responsible if the wine turns sour; but after that his responsibility ceases. R. Samuel declared that responsibility falls upon the purchaser immediately upon the delivery of the wine, the rule being "Wine rests on the owner's shoulders." R. Hiyya b. Joseph said, "Wine must share the owner's luck" (B. B. 96a, b, 98a). If one sells a cellarful of wine, the purchaser must accept ten casks of sour wine in every hundred (Tosef., B. B. vi. 6). Whoever sells spiced wine is responsible for sourness until the following Pentecost (i.e., until the hot weather sets in). If he sells "old wine," it must be of the second year's vintage; if "very old wine" ("meyushshan"), it must be of the third year's vintage (B. B. vi. 2).

The question of responsibility on the part of carriers of wine ("shekulai") is discussed. When Rabbah bar Hana's hired carriers broke a cask he seized their overgarments; thereupon the carriers appealed to Rab, who ordered Rabbah to return their garments. "Is this the law?" asked Rabbah in astonishment. "It is the moral law," answered Rab, citing, "That thou mayest walk in the way of good men" (Prov. ii. 20). When the garments had been returned the carriers appealed again: "We are poor men; we have worked all day; and now we are hungry, and have nothing." Rab then ordered Rabbah to pay them their wages. "Is this the law?" inquired Rabbah. "It is the higher law," replied Rab, completing the verse previously cited—"and keep the paths of the righteous" (B. M. 83a).

As a commodity, wine has an important place in the business world. A large proportion of the trade in wine for the Feast of Passover is controlled by Jews. The agricultural activity of Palestine is directed mainly to viticulture. The Rothschild cellars at Rishon le-ziyyon receive almost the entire produce of the Jewish colonists, which, through the Carmel Wine Company, is distributed throughout Russia, Austria, Holland, Switzerland, France, England, and the United States. The vintage of 1904 in the Rothschild cellars exceeded 7,000,000 bottles, of which 200,000 were sold in Warsaw. See Agricultural Colonies in Palestine.

Regarding the interdiction of wine prepared or handled by Gentiles see Nesek.

Looking for Kosher Wine on-line?

Elijah Cups at Aharon's Judaica Denver

2009-12-06T07:59:00.000-08:00

MileChai ®

Aharon's Jewish Books and Judaica
600 South Holly Street 103
Denver, CO
800-830-8660

Sterling Cups

Talmud

2009-11-15T07:45:00.000-08:00

TALMUD By : Wilhelm Bacher: Encyclopedia Judaica
ARTICLE HEADINGS:

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

2007-12-06T21:06:00.000-08:00

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 i. 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 "hokmah" 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, Deut. 41; Kid. 40b; Yer. Pes. 30b; Cant. R. ii. 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 practice."

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. ii. 9; Sifre, Num. 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. iii. 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

2007-12-06T21:05:00.000-08:00

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. K. 15a and Yer. Ber. 6c, 39]; Kid. 30a; Suk. 28a; B. B. 134a; Ab. R. N. xiv. [comp. Masseket Soferim, xvi. 8]; Yer. B. K. 4b, 31 [comp. Sifre, Deut. 33]; Tosef., Sotah, vii. 20 [comp. Yer. Sotah 44a]), while sometimes both "Talmud" and "Midrash" are used (M. K. 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 redactedby 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 "MiKra" (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 MiKra"); (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. Tanhum b. hanilai, 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 Kid. 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. hanina (amora). Yudan, a Palestinian amora of the fourth century, found in Eccl. xi. 9 an allusion to the pleasure taken in the three branches of study, MiKra, Mishnah, and Talmud.

The Three Subjects of Study

2007-12-06T21:03:00.000-08:00

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. hanina 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" (PesiK. 110a; Pes. R. 101b; Tan., Yitro, ed. Buber, p. 17; Massek. Soferim, xvi. 2). As early as the third century Joshua ben Levi interpreted Deut. ix. 10 to mean that the entire Law, including MiKra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah, had been revealed to Moses on Sinai (Yer. Pes. 17a, line 59; Meg. 74d, 25), while in Gen. R. lxvi. 3 the blessings invoked in Gen. xxvii. 28 are explained as "MiKra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah." The Palestinian haggadist Isaac divided these four branches into two groups: (1) the MiKra 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" (PesiK. 101b; see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." ii. 211).

According to a note of Tanhuma ben Abba (of the latter part of the 4th cent.) on Cant. v. 14 (Cant. R. ad loc.), a student must be familiar with all four branches of knowledge, MiKra, 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 Prov. xxviii. 11 as an allusion to the halakist ("man of the Talmud") and to the haggadist ("man of the Haggadah"; Yer. Hor. 48c; see also PesiK. 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-Katon (see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 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 Zech. viii. 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 (hag. 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

2007-12-06T21:02:00.000-08:00

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 Nahman 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 Amoräer," 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 hag. 26a; Sotah 20a; Sanh. 38b; comp. also M. K. 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, "LiKKute Kadmoniyyot," i. 5). A "Kitab al-Ashma'ah" (i.e., "Talmud") is also mentioned ("Z. D. M. G." lviii. 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

2007-12-06T21:01:00.000-08:00

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 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

2007-12-06T20:57:00.000-08:00

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. xx. 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, Kodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while of the sixth, tohorot, 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);
hallah (57a-60b);
'Orlah (60c-63b);
Bikkurim (63c-65d).

II. Mo'ed:

Shabbat (2a-18a);
'Erubin (18a-26d);
Pesahim (27a-37d);
Yoma (38a-45c);
SheKalim (45c-51b);
Sukkah (51c-55d);
Rosh ha-Shanah (56a-59d);
Bezah (59d-63b), Ta'anit (63c-69c);
Megillah (69d-75d);
hagigah (75d-79d);
Mo'ed Katan (80a-83d).

III. Nashim:

Yebamot (2a-15a);
Sotah (15a-24c);
Ketubot (24c-36b);
Nedarim (36c-42d);
Gittin (43a-50d);
Nazir (51a-58a);
Kiddushin (58a-66d).

IV. NeziKin:

Baba Kamma (2a-7c);
Baba Mezi'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. tohorot:

Niddah (48d-51b).

In order ii. the last four chapters of Shabbat are missing from the Palestinian Talmud, while the treatise SheKalim 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." i. 57); therefore he must have seen the Yerushalmi of the order Kodashim, 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 'UKzin in the Gemara of the people of Jerusalem," which is said to contain a passage on the zodiac (see Steinschneider, "Catalog der Hebräischen Handschriften der Königlichen 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 "'UKzin" may have been used instead of "tohorot." For further details on the missing sections of Yerushalmi see Frankel, l.c. pp. 45a et seq.; Weiss, "Dor," iii. 232; Buber, in Berliner's "Magazin," v. 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).
(see image) 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 remainingchapters 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 "Mémoires de la Société Archéologique de St. Petersbourg" (xi. 195-205), which contains some paragraphs of the sixth and eighth chapters of Baba Kamma. 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 and 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 "pisKa" (section), a term found occasionally also in other portions of the text of Yerushalmi.

The Style of the Yerushalmi

2007-12-06T20:56:00.000-08:00

The Style of the Yerushalmi.

The style of Yerushalmi may be indicated by a brief analysis of a few sections, such as Ber. i. 1; R. H. i. 1, 2; Git. ii. 1; and B. B. i. 6.

Ber. i. 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 Lev. xxii. 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."

2007-12-06T20:55:00.000-08:00

Examples

2007-12-06T20:53:00.000-08:00

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 Tanhuma 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 Aha and Jose (4th cent.); reference by Mani to a question dealing with this subject which he addressed to Hezekiah of Cæsarea (4th cent.) from Mishnah Zab. i. 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 hanina's (3d cent.); haggadic statements concerning the dawn; a conversation between hiyya the Elder and Simeon b. halafta (latter part of the tannaitic period); cosmological comments: dimensions of the firmament, and the cosmic distances expressed in units of 50 and 500 years, together with similar haggadic material, chiefly tannaitic in origin; Haggadic sayings on Gen. i. 6, introduced by a saying of Abin's (4th cent.), and including sayings by Rab, Judah b. Pazzi, and hanina; Haggadic material on Isa. xl. 22, introduced by a controversy between Johanan and Simeon b. LaKish (3d cent.), and on Gen. ii. 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 Ps. cxix. 62 ("at midnight"), as well as haggadic material concerning David and his harp, with especial reference to Ps. lvii. 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. Nahman, 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. Yohai, together with a question which remains unanswered (2d, 74-3a, 3).

R. H. i. 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 Shebat 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, beginningwith the interpretation of Ex. xii. 1; Johanan's explanation of II Chron. iii. 2; a controversy between Hananiah and Mani regarding the same verse; an explanation by Aha of Ex. xii. 1; a baraita by Samuel on the same verse; and similar material (56a, 44-56b, 10). hanina'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 hefa; 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 I Kings ii. 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. Yohai Nisan 1 marks the beginning of the year for the sequence of the feasts; a tannaitic midrash of considerable length on Lev. xxiii. 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 Meïr to be Elul 1. Proof by the Babylonian amora Huna, who deduced an opposing view from Ps. lxv. 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. vii. 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 hanina's saying on the names of the months, and a saying of Simeon b. LaKish 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

2007-12-06T20:50:00.000-08:00

Further Examples.

Git. ii. 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 hisda, 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. LaKish, together with notes thereon by Ammi and Ze'era, and a discussion concluding with a comment by Mani (ib. lines 50-71).

B. B. i. 6: (a) A short exegetic proof by Ela, based on Prov. xviii. 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.

The Haggadot of the Yerushalmi

2007-12-06T20:47:00.000-08:00

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, PesiKta 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 Wünsche ("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 Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch" (Leipsic, 1894; 2 ed. 1905).

Editions of the Babli

2007-12-06T20:46:00.000-08:00

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 treatiseSheKalim; 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);
Pesahim (121);
Bezah (40);
hagigah (27);
Mo'ed Katan (29);
Rosh ha-Shanah (35);
Yoma (88);
Sukkah (56);
Ta'anit (31);
Megillah (32).

III. Nashim:

Yebamot (122);
Ketubot (112);
Kiddushin (82);
Gittin (90);
Nedarim (91);
Nazir (66);
Sotah (49).

IV. NeziKin:

Baba Kamma (119);
Baba Mezi'a (119);
Baba Batra (176);
'Abodah Zarah (76);
Sanhedrin (113)
Shebu'ot (49);
Makkot (24);
Horayot (14).

V. Kodashim:

Zebahim (120);
Menahot (110);
Bekorot (161);
hullin (142);
'Arakin (34);
Temurah (34);
Keritot (28);
Me'ilah (22);
Tamid (9).

VI. tohorot: Niddah (73).

Missing Gemaras

2007-12-06T20:44:00.000-08:00

Missing Gemaras.

Babli thus contains but one treatise each of the first and sixth orders; of the second, SheKalim (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 Kinnim, 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," iii. 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

2007-12-06T20:41:00.000-08:00

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. ii. 1 (16a-18b) is divided into six sections; but there is no division into sections for ii. 2 (18b-20b), ii. 3 (20b-22a), ii. 5 (23b), and ii. 9 (27b-28a). There are three sections for ii. 4 (23a); two for ii. 6 (23b-26a), ii. 7 (26b-27a), and ii. 8 (27a, b); and eight for ii. 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." ix. 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 "DiKduKe 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. viii. 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. iv. 6, 8; xi. 20). It may be mentioned as a curious circumstance that in one manuscript of the Vatican (ib. xi. 19), containing the treatise Pesahim, many passages are vocalized and accented, as is also the case in a Bodleian fragment of Yerushalmi on Berakot ("J. Q. R." ix. 150). A fragment of considerable length in the Cambridge Library, and possibly the earliest extant manuscript of Babli, also contains the treatise Pesahim; 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.
(see image) Page from the Munich Manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud.Ber. i. 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 Lev. xxii. 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. halafta) 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 ZeriKa 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" (Ps. cxix. 62), and devoted in the main to the connotation of the word "neshef" (ib. cxix. 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, Ps. lvii. 9, and Ex. xi. 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 Ps. lxxxvi. 2 with reference to Ps. cxix. 62, together with comments and citations of a kindred nature.

Examples from the Babli

2007-12-06T20:39:00.000-08:00

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 Ps. cxlv. 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 Ps. cxlv., 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 Ps. iv. 6, of the ruling of Joshua b. Levi; a haggadic saying of Simeon b. LaKish transmitted by Levi b. Lahma, 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 v. 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 helbo. These, interspersed with other sayings, are followed by five more aphorisms transmitted by helbo in the name of Huna and regarding departure from the synagogue, the Minhah 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 ben halafta: the prayer offered by God, pacification of an angry neighbor, discipline of one's own conscience, three requests of Moses, and the teaching that a threat or promise by God is not recalled, even though given only conditionally, and that neither, therefore, is ever unfulfilled. After a number of sayings, partly tannaitic and partly amoraic in origin, come six haggadic aphorisms (7b) transmitted by Johanan in the name of the tanna Simeon ben Yohai, the second treating of the same subject as the corrresponding one in the previous series. To these sayings are appended various aphorisms and elucidations, followed by a conversation between Nahman b. Jacob and Isaac, in which the latter cites a sixth saying, concerning prayer in the synagogue, transmitted by Johanan in the name of Simeon ben Yohai. Additional haggadic aphorisms (8a) on this subject as well as on the importance of the synagogue, followed by three sayings of 'Ulla transmitted by hiyya b. Ammi, and by various aphorisms on the reading of the Torah in the synagogue (8b) and other kindred matters. This portion is concluded by the instructions which Joshua b. Levi gave to his sons, and by the analogous instructions which Raba gave to his children, as well as by elucidations of details of these teachings and by sayings of a similar import.

(c)

In the name of Samuel, Judah declares that the opinion of R. Gamaliel is authoritative. A baraita giving a similar view by Simeon ben Yohai, followed by an interpretation of it with a final decision by Joshua ben Levi, and by another version of the relation to it of the ruling of Joshua ben Levi. The section (9a) terminates with an opinion on this baraita by a scholar who had come from Palestine to Babylon.

Further Examples

2007-12-06T20:35:00.000-08:00

Further Examples.

R. H. i. 1 (§§ 1-2 in Yerushalmi; the Talmud on these sections is contained in 2a-15b):

(a) hisda's answer to the question as to the practical importance of the "new year of the kings," with a citation of the mishnaic passage (Sheb. x. 5) regarding antedated and postdated promissory notes. A baraita on the reckoning of regnal years, and its elucidation (2b), together with hermeneutic deductions from the Bible regarding Nisan as the beginningof the regnal year, introduced by an inference of Johanan based on I Kings vi. 1 as compared with Num. xxxiii. 38, Deut. i. 3, 4, Num. xxi. 1 (3a), and similar passages, preference being finally given to Eleazar's deduction founded on II Chron. iii. 2. A baraita giving the deduction of Johanan. The assertion of hisda that the regnal years of non-Israelitish kings were reckoned from Tishri, together with Biblical passages in confirmation of this view, beginning with Neh. i. 1 and its hermeneutic exposition (3b), the conclusion being formed by a variety of haggadic material on the Persian kings mentioned in the Bible (4a).

(b) hisda's answer to the query why Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Passover, was not made the "new year of the feasts," while a baraita shows that this view was promulgated by Simeon ben Yohai himself. Another baraita (4b) on the ritual order of the festivals, together with exegetic deductions from the views contained therein and additional discussions, concluding with an elucidation (5a) of other halakic and exegetic sayings on festivals and sacrifices. Baraita (5b) on Deut. xxiii. 22 et seq., and a detailed discussion, followed by a similar section (6a, b) on Deut. xxiii. 24. Baraita (7a) on Nisan 1 and its four meanings, the first being deduced from Ex. xii. 2 and Deut. xvi. 1, although an objection caused Lev. xxiii. 39 to be regarded by hisda as the basic passage, while Zech. i. 7 was cited to refute an allegation made by Rabina, additional Biblical passages being quoted by the Babylonian amoraim 'Ulla, Kahana, and Ashi; the section is concluded by a deduction of the three other meanings of Nisan 1 (7b) mentioned in the baraita.

(c) The signification of Elul 1 as the "new year for tithes of cattle," as taught by R. Meïr. The various origins of the sentences collected in R. H. i. 1, together with a saying by Joseph, followed by a series of aphorisms of later Babylonian amoraim, and one by Ashi (8a). Johanan's deduction, from Ps. lxv. 14, of the double view concerning the new year for tithes of cattle, and its dialectic elucidation.

Second half of the mishnaic paragraph:

(a) The question regarding the practical utility of the new year for the counting of the years, answered by Pappa in exactly the same way as hisda had solved the question concerning the new year of the kings; solution of the discrepancy and further elucidations of the principle that Tishri 1 was the new year for the counting of the years. Two baraitot on Ps. lxxxi. 4 et seq. (8b).

(b) An inference regarding the year of jubilee, based on Lev. xxv. 4; and the obviation of the difficulty presented by Lev. xxv. 9 (with reference to the Sabbatical year) by means of a baraita on the following verse, together with two other baraitot on the same subject (9a) and an elucidation of Tishri 10, concluded by a baraita on Lev. xxv. 11 and its interpretation (9b).

(c) Biblical deduction regarding the planting of trees and a baraita thereon, with an inference drawn from the Bible by Johanan (10a), and an elucidation of another baraita cited in explanation of the first, Johanan's deduction from Gen. viii. 13 regarding the opposing views of R. Meïr and R. Eleazar (10b) as to whether a day may be reckoned like a year, thus introducing a baraita containing the controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua on the month of Creation, the former arguing for Tishri and the latter for Nisan; exegetic haggadot of considerable length (11a-12a) on this section.

(d) A baraita stating that "tithes" and "vows" as well as "vegetables" belong to Tishri 1, together with interpretations by hermeneutics and other methods (12b), and with discussions of the subject by the Palestinian and Babylonian schools, and halakic exegeses (13a-14a).

(e) An argument by Hoshaiah transmitted by Eleazar (14a), and a baraita recording the practise of R. Akiba (14b-15b), as well as elucidations of it. Another baraita on Shebat 15, with a controversy between Johanan and Simeon ben LaKish, and a discussion of it.

Git. ii. 1 (the Talmud on this section is contained in 15a-17a):

(a) The purpose of the entire paragraph, although its content is immediately apparent from the opening sentence of the mishnaic treatise.

(b) The problem of the connotation of "the half of the bill of divorce, and Ashi's answer.

(c) The law regarding a case in which only "the half" of a bill of divorce is signed by witness in the presence of the bearer; the more rigorous interpretation of it by hisda and subsequent modifications by Raba and (15b) Ashi, as well as a dialectic discussion of these three sayings. Analogous cases from other branches of the Halakah and casuistic questions bearing on them (16a), concluding with one by Pappa which remains unanswered.

(d) Case in which one of the bearers of a bill of divorce witnesses the engrossing of the document and the other the signature; exact definition given by Johanan and transmitted by Samuel b. Judah (16b); the answer of the latter to the objection of Abaye, although another version of the entire affair makes Ashi the author of the objection; controversy on the subject between Hoshaiah and 'Ulla. Anecdote of a visit made by Judah b. Ezekiel to Rabbah bar bar hana during an illness of the latter, and their conversation on a problem connected with Git. i. 1.

(e) The case in which the engrossing of a bill of divorce is witnessed by one and the signature by two persons (17a), and the exact definition of such an event, given by Johanan and transmitted by Ammi, the section being concluded by a discussion between Ammi and Assi.

Legal Example

2007-12-06T20:32:00.000-08:00

Legal Example.

B. B. i. 6 (the Talmud on this section is contained in 7b-11a):

(a) "One who is part owner of a courtyard is obliged to contribute to the cost of the gateway as well as of the door itself"; -the citation of a legend concerning Elijah to prove that a gateway is not necessarily a subject for praise, concluded by a casuistic definition of the case presupposed by the Mishnah.

(b) According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, "Every courtyard is not adapted to a gateway"; a baraita containing the complete version of this saying.

(c) According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, "One who dwells in a city is obliged to contribute toward the building of the walls and the doors," etc.; a baraita containing the complete version ofthis saying. Johanan's answer to the query advanced by Eleazar concerning the method of levying contributions, followed by a second version of the same account. The patriarch Judah II. and the scholars contributed toward building the wall, although the legality of this action was questioned by Simeon b. LaKish on the basis of a haggadic deduction from Ps. cxxxix. 18, while Johanan proposed another verse, Cant. viii, 10, to aid in the solution of the problem (8a); Rabbah's interpretation of this passage of Canticles. An instance of contributions on the part of the scholars of Babylonia, and the proof of their illegality furnished by the exegesis of three Biblical passages, taken respectively from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. Pappa's proof that a certain tax was imposed on orphans, and a discussion of it, followed by a tannaitic account (half Aramaic) by Judah I. of the support of scholars during a time of famine.

(d) "How long must one dwell in a city to have equal rights with its citizens? Twelve months"; a conflicting baraita which speaks of thirty days; Rabbah's solution of this contradiction, while Johanan reconciles the discrepancy between the period of twelve months and that given in another baraita. The saying of Johanan as to the liability of scholars to taxation, and various statements regarding the practise of the Babylonian sages. The way in which Joseph (4th cent.) expended a sum of money sent him by the mother of King Sapor, together (8b) with an interpretation of Jer. xv. 2. Baraita on the mode of levying taxes for the poor, and the right of assessment of municipal taxes. The rule of the Mishnah (SheK. v. 2) that the smallest number of persons who may be entrusted with raising taxes is two, and its Biblical basis according to Nahman b. Jacob, together with sayings and examples bearing on this matter. An interpretation of Dan. xii. 3 as referring to the collectors and trustees of the tax for the poor, followed by two baraitot on these collectors and Abaye's statements regarding the practise of Rabbah b. Nahmani, as well as (9a) by a note of Ashi and an opinion of Rabbah. Baraita on the auditing of the accounts of the trustees of the tax for the poor, and elucidations of it. Notes and anecdotes illustrating Mishnah Pe'ah viii. 7 (on the amount to be given to the poor), followed by haggadic passages on the importance of almsgiving, among these aphorisms being one cited by Rabbah as transmitted to Eleazar by a certain 'Ulla with a curious surname, which forms the basis of an anecdote. Further haggadic passages on the charity of Eleazar, Isaac, and others. A baraita giving R. Meïr's answer (10a) to the question why God Himself does not nurture the poor, followed by an account of the conversation on this subject between R. Akiba and Tineius Rufus. Sermon by Judah b. Shalom (Palestinian amora of the 4th cent.) on Jer. lvii. 17, and anecdotes from the lives of Johanan b. Zakkai and Pappa. Haggadic sayings by tannaim and amoraim on alms. The vision of Joseph b. Joshua b. Levi (10b) of the future life, together with baraitot on the interpretation of Prov. xiv. 34 by Johanan b. Zakkai and his scholars as well as by Gamaliel II. and the other sages of Jabneh. The charity of the mother of Sapor, and two baraitot: one (11a) the story of the beneficence of Benjamin ha-zaddiK; the other an account of the generosity of King Monobaz.

(e) "If one obtains a dwelling-place in the city, he immediately receives equal rights with the citizens"; an opposing view by Simeon b. Gamaliel transmitted in two versions.

Framework of Commentary

2007-12-06T20:30:00.000-08:00

Framework of Commentary.

This analysis of four different passages of the Babylonian Talmud shows, in the first place, that the framework, as in the Palestinian Talmud, is formed by a running interpretation of the Mishnah, despite the heterogeneity of the material which is interwoven with it. The Talmud, however, is not a mere commentary on the Mishnah, since, in addition to its haggadic portions, it contains a varied mass of halakic material, connected only loosely, if at all, with the contents of the mishnaic paragraphs in question; and while the Talmud sometimes adheres closely to the text of such a paragraph, its commentary on a single section of the Mishnah is often expanded into the compass of a small book. In this respect Babli is much more free than Yerushalmi, which is more concise in other regards as well; the wider interests of the former and its greater variety and length are due at least in large part to the fact that the Babylonian academies enjoyed a longer existence and hence its redaction extended over a more protracted period.

Haggadah of the Babli

2007-12-06T20:28:00.000-08:00

Haggadah of the Babli.

(see image) Page from an Unknown Edition of Tractate Baba Mezi'a of the Babylonian Talmud, Printed Probably by Soncino Before 1500.(By courtesy of Prof. Solomon Schechter.)The fact that the Haggadah is much more prominent in Babli, of which it forms, according to Weiss ("Dor," iii. 19), more than one-third, while it constitutes only one-sixth of Yerushalmi, was due, in a sense, to the course of the development of Hebrew literature. No independent mass of haggadot developed in Babylon, as was the case in Palestine; and the haggadic writings were accordingly collected in the Talmud. The most curious example of this is a midrash on the Book of Esther, found at the end of the first chapter of the treatise Megillah (pp. 10b-17a). Except for the fact that the text of this section naturally alludes to the Book of Esther, the midrash has no connecting-link with the preceding portion of the Talmud. It is a true midrashic compilation in the style of the Palestinian midrashim, introduced by sixteen proems (mostly by Palestinian authors), and followed by exegeses and comments on individual verses of Esther in the order of the text, each preceded by a catch word (for further details on this midrash see Bacher, "Ag. Bab. Amor." p. 119). A fragment of a similar compilation on Lamentations, treating of a few verses of the first two chapters, is found in the last chapter of Sanhedrin (104, 4 et seq.), this fragment being inserted there on account of the preceding casual allusion to the Babylonian exile (ib. p. 120). The treatise Gittin (55a-58a) contains a haggadic compilation on the destruction of Jerusalem, its elements being found partly in the Palestinian literature, partly in Ekah Rabbati, and partly in the treatise Ta'anit of the Jerusalem Talmud. This haggadah, which begins with a saying by Johanan, is appended to the brief halakic elucidation of the first sentence of the mishnaic paragraph on the law of the Sicarii (Git. v. 6), mentioning those who fell in the war against the Romans. In Babli such haggadic interpolations, often of considerable length, are extremely frequent, while the very content of the mishnaic paragraphs often affords a basis for lengthy haggadic excursuses. Thus the last (in Yerushalmi, next to the last) chapter of Sanhedrin is made the foundation for a mass of haggadic comments, most of them only loosely connected by an association of ideas with the text of the passages of the Mishnah to which they are assigned. In this exceptionally long chapter of Babli (pp. 90a-113b) only that portion (111b-112b) which refers to the Law in Deut. xiii. 12 et seq. is halakic in nature. The haggadic conclusion of the first chapter of Sotah furnishes the basis for further Talmudic comments in the style of the Haggadah (8b, 14a); so that, for example, the interpretation of Ex. ii. 4, cited in the Mishnah (11a), is followed (11a-13b) by an independent section which forms a running midrash on Ex. i. 8-ii. 4. Additional examples may be found in nearly every treatise of the Babylonian Talmud. The haggadic sections of this Talmud, which form an important part of the entire work, have been collected in the very popular "'En Ya'aKob" of Jacob ibn habib (1st ed. 1516), as well as in the rarer "Haggadot ha-Talmud" (Constantinople, 1511; comp. Rabbinovicz, "DiKduKe Soferim," viii. 131); and they have been translated into German by A. Wünsche ("Der Babylonische Talmud in Seinen Haggadischen Bestandtheilen," 3 vols., Leipsic, 1886-89).

An important factor in the composition of the Talmud, and consequently one it is necessary to consider in a discussion of its literary form, is the frequent juxtaposition of several sayings ascribed to one and the same author. These sayings, which are frequently linked together by the name of their common transmitter as well as by that of their author, were evidently taught in this connected form in the academies, thus finding their way into the appropriate passages of the Talmudic text. Such groups of aphorisms are extremely frequent in Babli; and several of them are found in the passage from Ber. 2a-9a which has been analyzed above (regarding Yerushalmi see Frankel, "Mebo," p. 39a). Other circumstances which must be considered in discussing the composition of the text of the Talmud are set forth in the account of its origin and redaction given below.

Style and Language

2007-12-06T20:26:00.001-08:00

Style and Language.

The remarks already made concerning the relation of the Hebrew and the Aramaic elements in the vocabulary of Yerushalmi apply with little modification to Babli, although the Aramaic of the latter is more nearly akin to the Syriac (the eastern Aramaic dialect then current in Babylonia) and is even more closely related to Mandæan (see Nöldeke, "Mandäische Grammatik," p. xxvi., Halle, 1875; on the Persian elements in the vocabulary of Babli see Jew. Encyc. vii. 313b, s.v. Judæo-Persian). In regard to Greek and Latin terms Levy makes the incomprehensible statement ("Neuhebr. Wörterb." iv. 274a) that "no Greek or Latin words are found in the Babylonian Talmud." This is, however, incorrect; for a large number of words from the Latin and Greek (see Krauss, "Lehnwörter," i. p. xxiii.) are employed in the Talmud, both in the tannaitic passages found in Babli, and in the sayings of Palestinian as well as of Babylonian amoraim, such as Rab (see Bacher, l.c. p. 32). On the exegetic terminology as applied in Biblical and traditional hermeneutics, see Bacher, "Terminologie der Amoräer," Leipsic, 1905. An interesting linguistic peculiarity of Babli is the fact that tannaitic traditions, especially stories, are occasionally given entirely in Aramaic, or an anecdote, begun in Hebrew, is continued in Aramaic (such as the story, designated by as a baraita, concerning Joshua b. Perahyah and his pupil Jesus [Sanh. 107b]).

Style and Language

2007-12-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Halakah in Babli

2007-12-06T20:23:00.000-08:00

The Halakah in Babli.

The contents of the Talmud—this term being restricted to Babli, although much which applies to it holds true of Yerushalmi as well—fall into the two main divisions of Halakah and Haggadah. Although, as stated above, the Mishnah itself frequently furnishes the ground for the inclusion of haggadic elements in the Talmud, and although the subjects discussed in the Halakah frequently lead of themselves to haggadic treatment, the Haggadah occupies only a secondary position in the Talmud, since this is, both in origin and in purpose, a halakic work, and was intended to serve as a commentary on the chief authoritative work of the tannaitic Halakah, the Mishnah of Judah I. Those portions, therefore, which treat of the interpretation of the Mishnah are the substance of the Talmud. This interpretation, however, was not merely theoretical, but was primarily devoted to a determination of the rules applying to the practise of the ceremonial law; on the other hand, the development of the Halakah had not ceased in the academies of the Amoraim, despite the acceptance of the Mishnah, so that the opinions and the decisions of the Amoraim themselves, even when they were not based merely on an interpretation of the Mishnah and other tannaitic halakot, became the subject of tradition and comment. In addition to the Mishnah, furthermore, the Midrash (the halakic exegesis of the Bible) and the Halakah in the more restricted sense became the subject of tradition and of study, and were preserved in different collections as being the other results of the tannaitic period. In this way the Talmud, in its strict connotation of the interpretation of the Mishnah, was increased by an inexhaustible mass of material, which afforded the amoraic academies a basis both for the interpretation and for the criticism of the Mishnah; for since the Talmud deals with the criticism of the Mishnah, not only in text and meaning, but also in its relation to the baraitot, these baraitot themselves were frequently interpreted in the same way as were mishnaic passages (e.g., R. H. 10a, 12b, 29a), and were supplied with their Talmud. Moreover, the Talmud was further augmented by the inclusion within it of the views which the scholars expressed in the course of their public, judicial, and other activities, as well as by the data regarding their private lives and their religious practises which were discussed and memorized in the academies. If this brief sketch of the Talmud as regards its halakic contentsbe supplemented by the statement that the sayings of the several amoraim as well as the opposing views of their contemporaries and the members of the academies, whether teachers or pupils, are frequently recorded in connection with the report of the discussions of the academies, a more complete view of the nature of the Talmud and a better conception of its form may be gained.

The Framework Anonymous

2007-12-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

The Framework Anonymous.

The real framework of the Talmud, however, on which the entire structure was built, was, as noted above, provided by the questions, comments, and discussions which are based on individual paragraphs of the Mishnah, and which are anonymous, or not ascribed to any author. Appended to these passages and interspersed among them are sayings whose authors are named; and this class frequently preponderates greatly. The anonymous framework of the Talmud may be regarded as the warp resulting from the united activity of the members of the academy, and upon which the woof of the Talmud was interwoven and developed during three centuries, until its final redaction gave it definitive form. The Talmud is really the work of the body of scholars in the academies, who devoted themselves to it generation after generation, and kept its traditions alive. Although many members of the academie—sthe great as well as the small, teachers as well as pupils—are mentioned as the authors of various sayings and decisions, and as taking part in the discussions and controversies, some of them being deemed scholars worthy of record on account of a single remark, the background of the Talmud, or rather the background for those elements regarding whose authorship statements are made, was formed by the united efforts of those who labored to produce that work. The manifold objections and refutations introduced by the word "metibi" (= "they object"), and the questions (generally casuistic in nature) preceded by the formula "ibba'ya lehu" (= "they have asked") refer to this body of scholars, regardless of the date at which they lived.

Redaction

2007-12-06T20:18:00.000-08:00

Redaction.

This allusion to the anonymous framework of the Talmud suggests the problem of its redaction, which is partially answered by the allusion itself; for the work began with the inception of the collection, and the first amoraim laid the foundation for the task, which was carried on by succeeding generations, the final result being the Talmud in its present form. The system of mishnaic hermeneutics, which was in a sense official, and was at all events sanctioned by the lectures delivered in the academy, was determined as early as the first generation, and remained valid thenceforth. It is interesting to notice that the only certain occurrence of the word "Gemara" in the sense of "Talmud" ('Er. 32b) is found in connection with an account which throws a flood of light upon the first stages of the redaction of the Talmud. This account begins with the interpretation of 'Er. iii. 4, and is as follows: "R. hiyya b. Abba, R. Assi [Palestinian amoraim in Babylon], and Rabba b. Nathan sat; and beside them sat also Rab Nahman. They sat and said [here follows a dialectic discussion on the nature of the place of the tree mentioned in the paragraph of the Mishnah]. Then R. Nahman said: 'It is correct; and Samuel also has approved of this explanation.' Then the first three asked: 'Hast thou established this explanation in the Gemara?' [i.e., "Hast thou included it as a fixed element in the Talmud? Nahman answers in the affirmative, whereupon a confirmatory amoraic tradition is added; and, in the name of Samuel, Rab Nahman interprets the mishnaic passage under consideration in the light of that exegesis]." The term "Kaba'" ("establish") was used in a later age by Sherira Gaon to designate the incorporation of portions that were used to make up the Talmud into its text (see Lewy, "Interpretation des Ersten Abschnitts des Palästinischen Talmud-Traktates Nesikin," p. 4; Bacher, in "Hebrew Union College Annual," 1904, p. 34), while in the Talmud itself the word was applied to the redaction of tannaitic traditions (see R. H. 32a, above; Kid. 25a; Sanh. 21b; Zeb. 114b). This account, which dates from the beginning of the amoraic period in the Academy of Nehardea, is, curiously enough, an isolated instance; for among the many dates and accounts which the Talmud contains in reference to the academy and its members, there is no direct statement concerning the redaction of the text, either in its earlier stages or at its conclusion, although certain statements on divergent traditions of amoraic sayings and discussions afford an idea of the way in which the Talmudic text emerged from the various versions given by the scholars and schools that transmitted it. These statements, which have been collected by Lewy (l.c. pp. 4-14), use the verb "tanni" ("pa'el" from ) in referring to lectures on the Talmudic text as well as amoraic sayings or discussions on them (Bacher, "Terminologie der Amoräer," p. 239). Thus it is stated (Shab. 48b; B. B. 86a) that at Sura a certain interpretation was given in the name of hisda and at Pumbedita in that of Kahana. There are a number of other similar statements concerning traditions, in regard to differences, as between Sura and Pumbedita, and between Sura and Nehardea, in the wording of the amoraic sayings and in their ascribed authorship (Git. 35a). Especially frequent is the mention of amoraim of the fourth and fifth centuries as transmitters of these divergent statements, either two amoraim being named as authorities for two different versions, or an amora being cited as opposing another version to an anonymous tradition. As examples of the former may be mentioned Rabba and Joseph (Zeb. 25b), Pappa and Zebid (Shab. 66b), Kahana and Tabyomi (Ned. 16b), Ashi and Mar Zutra (Shab. 119a), and Rabina and Aha (Ket. 31b); while many other instances are cited by Lewy (l.c.).

Technical Terms for Tradition

2007-12-06T16:21:00.000-08:00

Technical Terms for Tradition.

Particularly interesting are the cases in which a divergent account is presented before Ashi, and thus before the one who projected the definitive redaction of the Talmud, Ashi appearing in all these cases as representing the version first given. Thus the amora Mordecai said to Ashi: "Thou teachest thus; but we teach differently" (Men. 42b; Ber. 5a). In addition to such statements, which are ascribed to members of the Babylonian academies, and which indicate divergencies in amoraic tradition, the extant text of the Talmud contains also a number of othervariants, which are included without such statements. These are introduced by such formulas as "And if you will say (), referring to other authorities, or "There are those who say," or "There are those who teach," and similar phrases. The expression "another version" () frequently appears in the text as a superscription to a divergent account (Naz. 9b; B. K. 59a; hul. 119b; Tem. 5a, 6a, 9b; 11b, 30b [comp. Frankel in "Monatsschrift," 1861, x. 262]; Niddah 29a, 38a). All these instances afford an idea, even though but an imperfect one, of the gradual development of the Talmudic text. To comprehend why only practically a single Talmud was produced, despite the various academies, the great number of authoritative transmitters of the mass of material, and the number of generations that collaborated on the work, it must be borne in mind that there was a continual interchange of ideas between the academies, and that the numerous pupils of the successive generations who memorized the Talmud, and perhaps committed at least a part of it to writing, drew from a single source, namely, the lectures of their masters and the discussions in the academies; further, that, since the work on the Talmud was continued without interruption along the lines laid down by the first generation of amoraim, all succeeding generations may be regarded as one body of scholars who produced a work which was, to all intents and purposes, uniform. This unity finds its expression in the phraseology adopted in the anonymous framework of the Talmud, which terms the authors "we," exactly as a writer speaks of himself as "I" in an individual work. Examples of this phraseology occur in the following formulas: ("We then raised the question"; see Shab. 6b, 71a, 99b; Yoma 74a, 79b; Suk. 33a; Meg. 22a; Yeb. 29b; Kid. 49a; Git. 60b; Shebu. 22b; 'Ab. Zarah 35a, 52b; Niddah 6b); ("We have opposed [another teaching to the one which has been quoted]"); ("We have learned," or, in other words, "have received by tradition"), the conventional formula which introduces mishnaic passages; and, finally, ("Whence have we it?"), the regular preface to an inquiry regarding the Biblical basis of a saying. In all these formulas the "we" denotes the authors of the Talmud regarded as a collective unity, and as the totality of the members of the academies whose labors, covering three centuries of collaboration, resulted in the Talmud. It was in the Babylonian Academy of Sura, moreover, that the final redaction of the Talmud took place, the very academy that took the lead in the first century of the amoraic period; and the uniformity of the Talmud was thus assured, even to the place of its origin.

Date of Redaction

2007-12-06T16:20:00.000-08:00

Date of Redaction.

The statements already made concerning the continuous redaction of the Babylonian Talmud apply with equal force to the Yerushalmi, this fact being expressed by Lewy (l.c. pp. 14-15) in the following words: "In Palestine, as in Babylon, there may have been different Talmudim in the various schools at different periods. . . . Similarly in the Palestinian Talmud different versions of amoraic sayings are quoted in the names of different authors, from which it may be inferred that these authors learned and taught different Talmudim." Lewy speaks also (l.c. p. 20) of several redactions which preceded the final casting of the Palestinian Talmud into its present form. The actual condition of affairs can scarcely be formulated in these terms, however, since the divergencies consist, for the most part, of mere variants in certain sentences, or in the fact that there were different authors and transmitters of them; and although many of these deviations are cited by R. Jonah and R. Jose, who lived and taught contemporaneously at Tiberias, this fact scarcely justifies the assumption that there were two different Talmudim, one taught by Jonah and the other by Jose; it will nevertheless be evident, from the statements cited above, that the Talmud existed in some definite form throughout the amoraic period, and that, furthermore, its final redaction was preceded by other revisions. It may likewise be assumed that the contemporaneous schools of Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Cæsarea in Palestine taught the Talmud in different redactions in the fourth century. Lewy assumes, probably with correctness, that in the case of Yerushalmi the treatise NeziKin (the three treatises Baba Kamma, Baba Mezi'a, and Baba Batra) was taken from a redaction differing from that of the other treatises. (Allusion has already been made to a difference of content between the first two and the last two orders of the Yerushalmi.) With regard to Babli. Frankel has shown ("Monatsschrift," x. 194) that the treatise Tamid, in which only three chapters out of seven are accompanied by a Talmud, belongs to a different redaction from that of the other treatises; and he endeavors to show, in like manner (ib. p. 259), both "that the redactor of the treatise Kiddushin is not identical with that of Baba Batra and Nedarim," and "that the redactor of the treatise Gittin is not the same as that of Keritot and Baba Batra." However, as these remarks refer to the final redaction of the Talmud, they do not touch upon the abstract unity of the work as emphasized above. It is sufficient to assume, therefore, that the final redaction of the several treatises was based on the versions used in the different academies. It may be postulated, on the whole, that the Palestinian Talmud received its present form at Tiberias, and the Babylonian Talmud at Sura (comp. the passages in Yerushalmi in which [= "here"] refers to Tiberias, and those in Babli in which the same word denotes Sura [Lewy, l.c. p. 4]).
(see image) Page from the First Complete Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Printed by Bomberg, Venice, 1520-23.(From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)The chief data regarding the academies of Palestine and Babylon, whose activity resulted in the Talmud, have been set forth elsewhere (see Jew. Encyc. i. 145-148, s.v. Academies), so that here stress need be laid only on those events in the history of the two schools and of their teachers which are especially noteworthy in connection with the origin and the final redaction of the two Talmudim. It may be said, by way of preface, that the academies of Palestine and Babylon were in constant intercommunication, notwithstanding their geographical position. Many prominent Babylonian scholars settled permanently in Palestine, and many eminent Palestinians sojourned in Babylon for some time, or even for a considerable portion of their lives. In the second half of the third century Babylonian students sought the Palestinian schools with especial frequency, while many pupils of Johanan went during the same period to Babylon; and in the troublous days of the fourth century many Palestinian scholars sought refuge in the more quiet regions along the Euphrates. This uninterrupted association of scholars resulted in an active interchange of ideas between the schools, especially as the activity of both was devoted in the main to the study of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem Talmud accordingly contains a large number of sayings by Babylonian authorities, and Babli quotes a still larger number of sayings by Palestinian scholars in addition to the proceedings of the Palestinian academies, while it likewise devotes a very considerable space to the halakic and haggadic teachings of such Palestinian masters as Johanan, Simeon b. LaKish, and Abbahu. Anonymous Palestinian sentences are quoted in Babli with the statement, "They say in the West"; and similar maxims of Babylonian origin are quoted in Yerushalmi in the name of "the scholars there." Both the Talmudim thus acquired more traits in common than they had formerly possessed despite their common foundation, while owing to the mass of material which Babli received from the schools of the Holy Land it was destined in a measure to supplant the Palestinian Talmud even in Palestine.

Activity of Jonah and Jose

2007-12-06T16:15:00.000-08:00

Activity of Jonah and Jose.

The history of the origin of Yerushalmi covers a period of two centuries. Its projector was Johanan, the great teacher of Tiberias, who, together with his pupils and contemporaries, some of them of considerable prominence, laid the foundations for the work which was continued by succeeding generations. The extreme importance of Johanan in the genesis of the Palestinian Talmud seems to have been the basis of the belief, which first found expression in the twelfth century, although it is certainly older in origin, that he was the author of Yerushalmi (see Frankel, "Mebo," p. 47b). As a matter of fact, however, almost a century and a half elapsed after the death of Johanan (279) before this Talmud received its present form, but it was approximated to this form, toward the end of the fourth century, by Jonah and Jose, the two directors of the Academy of Tiberias. Their joint halakic sentences, controversies, and divergent opinions on the utterances of their predecessors are scattered throughout Yerushalmi; but the conclusion that Jose redacted it twice, which has been drawn from certain statements in this Talmud, is incorrect (Frankel, l.c. p. 101a; Weiss, "Dor," iii. 113 et seq., 211; see Lewy, l.c. pp. 10, 17; Halevy, "Dorot ha-Rishonim," ii. 322). Jonah's son Mani, one of the scholars most frequently named in Yerushalmi, seems, after studying at Cæsarea, where noteworthy scholars were living in the fourth century, to have raised the school of Sepphoris to its highest plane; and a large number of the sayings of the "scholars of Cæsarea" was included in Yerushalmi (see "Monatsschrift," 1901, pp. 298-3l0). The only other halakist of importance among the Palestinian amoraim is Jose b. Abin (or Abun). According to Frankel (l.c. p. 102a), he occupied about the same position in regard to the redaction of Yerushalmi as was held by Ashi in regard to that of Babli (see also Weiss, l.c. iii. 117). The final redaction of the Talmud was reserved for the succeeding generation, probably because the activity of the Academy of Tiberias ceased with the discontinuance of the patriarchate (c. 425). This was the time during which Tanhuma b. Abba (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." iii. 502) made his collection and definite literary arrangement of the haggadic exegesis of the amoraic period.

The beginnings of the Babylonian Talmud are associated both with Nehardea, where the study of the tradition had flourished even before the close of the tannaitic period, and with Sura, where Rab founded a new academy which soon surpassed Nehardea in importance. Rab and Samuel, who respectively presided with equal distinction over the two schools, laid the foundation of the Babylonian Talmud through their comments on the Mishnah and their other teachings. Their views are frequently contrasted in the form of controversies; but on the other hand they are often mentioned as the common authors of sentences which were probably transmitted by certain pupils who had heard them from both masters. One of these pupils, Judah b. Ezekiel, when asked to explain some of the more obscure portions of the Mishnah, subsequently alluded plaintively to the "hawayyot" of Rab and Samuel, meaning thereby the questions and comments of the two masters on the entire Mishnah (Ber. 20a and parallels). In like manner, scholars of the fourth century spoke of the hawayot of Abaye and Raba, which formed, as it were, the quintessence of the Talmud, and which, according to an anachronistic addition to an old baraita, were even said to have been included in the branches of knowledge familiar to Johanan b. Zakkai (Suk. 28a; B. B. 134a).

Activity of Raba

2007-12-06T16:13:00.000-08:00

Activity of Raba.

The pupils of Rab and Samuel, the leading amoraim of the second half of the third century—Huna, hisda, Nahman b. Jacob, Sheshet, and the Judah mentioned above, who is especially prominent as a transmitter of the sayings of his two teachers—added a mass of material to the Talmud; and the last-named founded the Academy of Pumbedita, where, as at Sura, the development of the Talmud was continued. Pumbedita was likewise the birth-place of that casuistic and hair-splitting method of interpreting and criticizing halakic passages which forms the special characteristic of the Babylonian Talmud, although the scholars of this academy devoted themselves also to the study of the collections of tannaitic traditions; and at the beginning of the fourth century the representatives of the two movements, "Sinai" Joseph and Rabbah, the "uprooter of mountains," succeeded their master Judah and became the directors of the school. Their sayings and controversies, together with the still more important dicta and debates of their pupils Abaye and Raba, form a considerable part of the material of the Talmud, which was greatly increased at the same time by the halakic and haggadic sentences brought from Palestine to Babylon. All the six orders of the Mishnah were then studied, as is statedby Raba (not Rabba; see Rabbinovicz, "DiKduKe Soferim," on Ta'anit, p. 144), although in Judah's time the lectures had been confined to the fourth order, or, according to the view of Weiss ("Dor," iii. 187), which is probably correct, to the first four orders (comp. Meg. 28b; Ta'an. 24a, b; Sanh. 106b; Raba's pupil Pappa expresses a similar view in Ber. 20a).

Rab's activity marks the culmination of the work on the Talmud. The time had now come when the preservation and arrangement of the material already collected were more important than further accretions. Nahman b. Isaac, pupil and successor of Raba (d. 352), whom he survived but four years, expressed the task of the epigoni in the following words (Pes. 105b): "I am neither a sage nor a seer, nor even a scholar as contrasted with the majority. I am a transmitter ["gamrana"] and an arranger ["sadrana"]." The combination of the former term with the latter, which occurs only here, very concisely summarizes the activity of the redactor. It is clear that Nahman b. Isaac actually engaged in this task from the fact that he is mentioned as the Babylonian amora who introduced Mnemonics ("simanim"), designed to facilitate the memorizing and grouping of Talmudic passages and the names of their authors. The mnemonics ascribed to him in the Talmud (see J. Brüll, "Die Mnemonotechnik des Talmuds," p. 21; Bacher, "Ag. Bab. Amor." p. 134), however, constitute only a very small part of the simanim included in the text of that work. These again form but a remnant of the entire mass of what N. Brüll ("Jahrb." ii. 60) terms the "mnemotechnic apparatus," of which only a portion was included in the printed text of the Talmud, although many others may be traced both in the manuscripts of the Talmud and in ancient citations (see N. Brüll, l.c. pp. 62 et seq., 118 et seq.). The material, to which the epigoni of the second half of the fourth century had added little, was now ready for its final redaction; and it was definitively edited by Ashi (d. 427), who during his long period of activity infused fresh life into the Academy of Sura. In view of his recognized authority, little was left for the two succeeding generations, except to round out the work, since another redaction was no longer possible. The work begun by Ashi was completed by Rabina (Abina), whose death in 499 marks, according to an ancient tradition, the end of the amoraic period and the completion of the redaction of the Talmud.

Committed to Writing

2007-12-06T16:10:00.000-08:00

Committed to Writing.

The date at which the Talmud was committed to writing is purely conjectural. The work itself contains neither statements nor allusions to show that any complete or partial copy of the work redacted and completed by Ashi and Rabina had been made in their days; and the same lack of information characterizes both Yerushalmi and the Mishnah (the basis of both the Talmudim), as well as the other works of the tannaitic period. There are, however, allusions, although they are only sporadic, which show that the Halakah and the Haggadah were committed to writing; for copies were described as being in the possession of individual scholars, who were occasionally criticized for owning them. This censure was based on an interdiction issued in the third century, which forbade any one to commit the teachings of tradition to writing or to use a manuscript of such a character in lecturing (see Git. 60a; Tem. 14b). Replying to the scholars of Kairwan, Sherira Gaon in his letter (ed. Neubauer, "M. J. C." i. 26) alludes to this prohibition as follows: "In answer to your question asking when the Mishnah and the Talmud were respectively committed to writing, it should be said that neither of them was thus transmitted, but both were arranged [redacted] orally; and the scholars believe it to be their duty to recite them from memory, and not from written copies." From the second part of this statement it is evident that even in Sherira's time the "scholars," a term here restricted to the members of the Babylonian academies, refrained from using written copies of the Talmud in their lectures, although they were sufficiently familiar with it to be able to recite it from memory. The statement that the exilarch Natronai (8th cent.), who emigrated to Spain, wrote a copy of the Talmud from memory (see Brüll, "Jahrb." ii. 51), would show that the scholars of the geonic period actually knew the work by heart. Although this statement is not altogether free from suspicion, it at least proves that it was believed to be within the powers of this exilarch to make a copy of the Talmud without having an original at hand. This passage also throws light upon the period of the development and redac tion of the Talmud, during which the ability to memorize the mass of material taught in the schools was developed to an extent which now transcends conception.

On the other hand, Sherira's statement shows that his denial of the existence of the Talmud and the Mishnah in written form was limited to an officially recognized redaction; for manuscripts of the kind mentioned by him were then current, as they had been in the geonic period, despite the interdiction; for they were used at least as aids to study, and without them the Talmud could not possibly have been memorized. In like manner, this prohibition, in the light of Sherira's words, does not preclude the existence of private copies of portions of the traditional literature, even in earlier times. The concealed rolls ("megillot setarim") with halakic comments which Rab found in the house of his uncle hiyya (Shab. 6b; B. M. 92a), as well as the note-books (πίνακες) mentioned at the beginning of the amoraic period and in which such scholars as Levi b. Sisi, Joshua b. Levi, Ze'iri, and hilfai or Ilfa (Shab. 156a; Yer. Ma'as. 49d, 60b; Men. 70a), entered sentences, some of them halakic in character, indicate that such personal copies were frequently used, while the written Haggadah is repeatedly mentioned. It may therefore be assumed that the Mishnah and other tannaitic traditional works were committed to writing as early as the time of the Amoraim. In like manner, there may have been copies of the amoraic comments on the Mishnah, as aids to the memory and to private study. In the early part of the fourth century Ze'era disputed the accuracy of the halakic tradition taught by the Babylonian amora Sheshet, and as he based his suspicions on Sheshet's blindness,he evidently believed that it was impossible for the Babylonian scholar to confirm and verify his knowledge by the use of written notes (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." iii. 4). When Ashi undertook the final redaction of the Talmud he evidently had at his disposal notes of this kind, although Brüll (l.c. p. 18) is probably correct in ascribing to Rabina the first complete written copy of the Talmud; Rabina had as collaborators many of the Saboraim, to whom an ancient and incontrovertible tradition assigns numerous additions to the Talmudic text.

What is Elijah's Cup All About?

2007-11-26T06:13:00.000-08:00

The Silent Cup
What is Elijah's Cup All About?

By Israel Rubin

Rich with symbolism, Passover overflows with meaning and significance. But while the whole seder hums with talk and activity, the "Cup of Elijah" stands alone by itself, without any apparent function. We pay individual tribute with a blessing over each of the other our cups, but not a word about this one. The wine poured into this cup remains untouched to the end -- we pour it right back into the bottle after the seder is over. Is this fifth cup like the proverbial fifth wheel, an unneeded appendage tagging along?

Of course, there's a bit of drama around this cup. When opening the door for Elijah, the children gather round to watch the quivering liquid ripple, hoping to detect some sign of its sampling by the visiting prophet. But surely there's more meaning to this cup than a child's imagination?

Let's not play pretend with someone as serious and holy as the prophet Elijah. It is quite thoughtful of some people to offer Elijah a drink while visiting, but thank you, he doesn't need sips to keep him going. This cup has real purpose and meaning. Let us learn more about Elijah's historic role in Judaism, and we'll realize that this special cup is here even more for our own sake than for his, to inspire us and to give our seder focus and direction.

The Halachic Background

Originally, the issue appears in the Talmud as a question as to whether an optional pleasure drink is permitted after the mandatory four cups. Only Rabbi Tarfon's minority opinion suggests a specific fifth cup for each participant as part of the seder routine. Centuries later, the Code of Jewish Law mentions the custom of placing a fifth cup on the table, calling it "Elijah's Cup."

So while the original obligatory four cups remain nameless (it's just "the first cup," "the second cup," etc.) Jewish tradition has given this cup a most prestigious name after one of the greatest prophets. How ironic that the namesake of this silent and passive cup is none other than the fiery, bold and outspoken Elijah!

According to an explanation by the Gaon of Vilna, "Elijah" refers to the Prophet Elijah as the final arbiter who will eventually, in the future, resolve all "taiku"--stalemates--in the Talmud. In this regard, the Fifth Cup remains in limbo, awaiting Elijah's decision on the debate between Rabbi Tarfon versus the other rabbis whether we must drink four or five cups on Passover eve.

But why must we wait for Elijah to make this decision? Isn't the issue resolved simply by following the established principle that the majority rules, while Rabbi Tarfon is only a singular opinion? And why do we involve Elijah only here, and not also in the other halachic dispute that concerns our seder ritual -- that of Hillel vs. the Rabbis, whether the Paschal offering is eaten with the Matza as a Korech sandwich, or separately?

Expressions of Redemption

The commentaries relate the four cups to the "Four Expressions of Redemption" in G-d's promise to Moses (Exodus 6:2-8): "I will take you out," "I will deliver you," "I will redeem you," and "I will acquire you." These are not merely four synonyms, for each represents a distinct stage and level of Redemption. "I will take you out" refers to physical exit from the land of Egypt. "I will deliver you from their bondage" means delivery from servitude and "I will redeem you" is the Divine guarantee that we remain a free people. "I will acquire you as My nation" to be your G-d's chosen at Mount Sinai -- the goal of the Exodus.

In addition to these four expressions, the Torah also uses a fifth expression of Redemption: "I will bring you into the land." Until two thousand years ago, the seder may have indeed featured a fifth cup, when this fifth expression was fulfilled and the Jewish people actually lived in the Promised Land.

But after being exiled from our homeland, languishing in alien countries all around the world, our situation no longer corresponds to the fifth expression; hence no fifth cup.

Even over the last fifty years, when, thank G-d, we have Israel, we know that the complete redemption has still not come. Israel has proven to be a safe haven for Jews from all over the world, and we surely have much to be proud of Israel's miraculous victories and amazing achievements; yet we're still constantly threatened from within and without, challenged by dubious processes, treaties and schemes by our enemies and detractors. Israel is indeed a place of Divine blessings and protection, but it has yet to achieve the true peace and lofty ideals of the Messianic age.

So no fifth cup is drunk on Passover eve now a days. Yet this special cup remained symbolically on the seder table, expressing our prayers and hopes to be gathered again to the Land of Israel. What may once have been an optional custom has developed over time into standard observance, reinforced by generations of Jewish yearning for the Redemption.

Elijah's Cup demonstrates that "Redemption" is not an abstract concept, an old wives' tale, a wishful fantasy, or a vague notion. Our belief in Moshiach and the Redemption is real and relevant, being a pillar of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith. Elijah's Cup takes the mystical concept of Redemption and Moshiach out of the closet, and places the issue right on the table for all to see and realize.

Presently, this cup is unfortunately beyond our reach; we cannot actually drink it. But we are all ready and waiting. We are on standby, eagerly anticipating Elijah's long awaited heralding of the Redemption. Unlike the other cups that come and go, this special cup represents our staying power and perseverance.

Moshiach Now

This follows Maimonides' teaching that belief in Moshiach shouldn't just be passive. It is not enough to merely sit back and wait. Moshiach should be on our daily agenda. We must actively demand and look forward to Moshiach's coming. Indeed, the Redemption process is accelerated by our prayers, actions and yearning.

Elijah's cup is not there just to grace our table. It is not served merely as an honorary toast to a great prophet. It is rather here to give our whole seder a new focus and direction.

There is a common misconception that the seder is all over after eating the Afikoman. Once they've closed the door on Elijah, some people tend to doze off or clear away the table, assuming that the rest is just winding down with optional chants.

On the contrary! At this point the seder rises to a crescendo, as it approaches the grand finale of the future Redemption. It is here that the context changes course from the past, and turns the corner to the future. Judaism sees the Exodus from Egypt as the beginning of a process to be completed by our redemption through Moshiach.

The seder doesn't just look back to the past, to the Pharaohs and the pyramids; we also look forward to our redemption in the future. As much as we relive the Exodus from Egypt through Moses, let us not lose sight of our ultimate goal, our own redemption now from exile through Moshiach, speedily in our days.

By Israel Rubin

The content in this page is produced by Chabad.org, and is copyrighted by the author and/or Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you do not revise any part of it, and you include this note, credit the author, and link to www.chabad.org. If you wish to republish this article in a periodical, book, or website, please email permissions@chabad.org

No Formal Ratification

2006-12-06T16:05:00.000-08:00

No Formal Ratification.

When Rabina died a written text of the Talmud was already in existence, the material contributed by the Saboraim being merely additions; although in thus extending the text they simply continued what had been done since the first redaction of the Talmud by Ashi. The Saboraim, however, confined themselves to additions of a certain form which made no change whatsoever in the text as determined by them under the direction of Rabina (on these saboraic additions as well as on other accretions in Babli, see the statements by Brüll, l.c. pp. 69-86). Yet there is no allusion whatever to a formal sanction of the written text of the Talmud; for neither did such a ratification take place nor was a formal one at all necessary. The Babylonian academies, which produced the text in the course of 300 years, remained its guardians when it was reduced to writing; and it became authoritative in virtue of its acceptance by the successors of the Amoraim, as the Mishnah had been sanctioned by the latter and was made the chief subject of study, thus becoming a basis for halakic decisions. The traditions, however, underwent no further development; for the "horayot," or the independent exegesis of the Mishnah and the halakic decisions based on this exegesis, ceased with Ashi and Rabina, and thus with the completion of the Talmud, as is stated in the canon incorporated in the Talmud itself (B. M. 86a). The Mishnah, the basal work of halakic tradition, thenceforth shared its authority with the Talmud.

Among the Jews who came under the influence of western Arabic culture the belief that the Talmud (and the Mishnah) had been redacted orally was superseded by the view that the initial redaction itself had been in writing. This theory was first expressed by R. Nissim of Kairwan ("Mafteah," p. 3b), although even before his time the question addressed, as already noted, to Sherira Gaon by the Jews of Kairwan had shown that they favored this view, and the gaon's response had received an interpolation postulating the written redaction of the Talmud.

The definitive redaction of the Babylonian Talmud marks a new epoch in the history of the Jewish people, in which the Talmud itself becomes the most important factor, both as the pivotal point of the development and the manifestation of the spirit of Judaism, and as a work of literature deeply influenced by the fortunes of those who cherished it as their palladium. On the internal history of Judaism the Talmud exerted a decisive influence as the recognized source for a knowledge of tradition and as the authoritative collection of the traditional religious doctrines which supplemented the Bible; indeed, this influence and the efforts which were made to escape from it, or to restrict it within certain limits, constitute the substance of the inner history of Judaism. The Babylonian academies, which had gradually become the central authority for the entire Jewish Diaspora, found their chief task in teaching the Talmud, on which they based the answers to the questions addressed to them. Thus was evolved a new science, the interpretation of the Talmud, which produced a literature of wide ramifications, and whose beginnings were the work of the Geonim themselves.

Influence of the Talmud

2006-12-06T16:02:00.000-08:00

Influence of the Talmud.

The Talmud and its study spread from Babylon to Egypt, northern Africa, Italy, Spain, France, and Germany, regions destined to become the abodes of the Jewish spirit; and in all these countries intellectual interest centered in the Talmud. The first great reaction against its supremacy was Karaism, which arose in the very strong-hold of the Geonim within two centuries after the completion of the Talmud. The movement thus initiated and the influence of Arabic culture were the two chief factors which aroused the dormant forces of Judaism and gave inspiration to the scientific pursuits to which the Jewish spirit owed many centuries of marvelous and fruitful activity. This activity, however, did not infringe in the least on the authority of the Talmud; for although it combined other ideals and intellectual aims with Talmudic study, which it enriched and perfected, the importance of that study was in no wise decried by those who devoted themselves to other fields of learning. Nor did the speculative treatment of the fundamental teachings of Judaism lower the position of the Talmud; for Maimonides, the greatest philosopher of religion of his time, was likewise the greatest student of the Talmud, on which work he endeavored to base his philosophic views. A dangerous internal enemy of the Talmud, however, arose in the Cabala during the thirteenth century; but it also had to share with the Talmud the supremacy to which it aspired.
(see image) Page from Tractate Kiddushin of the Babylonian Talmud, Sabbionetta, 1559.(From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)During the decline of intellectual life among the Jews which began in the sixteenth century, the Talmud was regarded almost as the supreme authority by the majority of them; and in the same century eastern Europe, especially Poland, became the seat of its study. Even the Bible was relegated to a secondary place, and the Jewish schools devoted themselves almost exclusively to the Talmud; so that "study" became synonymous with "study of the Talmud." A reaction against the supremacy of the Talmud came with the appearance of Moses Mendelssohn and the intellectual regeneration of Judaism through its contact with the Gentile culture of the eighteenth century, the results of this struggle being a closer assimilation to European culture, the creation of a new science of Judaism, and the movements for religious reform. Despite the Karaite inclinations which frequently appeared in these movements, the great majority of the followers of Judaism clung to the principle, authoritatively maintained by the Talmud, that tradition supplements the Bible; and the Talmud itself retained tained its authority as the work embodying the traditions of the earliest post-Biblical period, when Judaism was molded. Modern culture, however, has gradually alienated from the study of the Talmud a number of Jews in the countries of progressive civilization, and it is now regarded by the most of them merely as one of the branches of Jewish theology, to which only a limited amount of time can be devoted, although it occupies a prominent place in the curricula of the rabbinical seminaries. On the whole Jewish learning has done full justice to the Talmud, many scholars of the nineteenth century having made noteworthy contributions to its history and textual criticism, and having constituted it the basis of historical and archeological researches. The study of the Talmud has even attracted the attention of non-Jewish scholars; and it has been included in the curricula of universities.

Edict of Justinian

2006-12-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

Edict of Justinian.

The external history of the Talmud reflects in part the history of Judaism persisting in a world of hostility and persecution. Almost at the very time that the Babylonian saboraim put the finishing touches to the redaction of the Talmud, the emperor Justinian issued his edict against the abolition of the Greek translation of the Bible in the service of the Synagogue, and also forbade the use of the δευτέρωσις, or traditional exposition of Scripture. This edict, dictated by Christian zeal and anti-Jewish feeling, was the prelude to attacks on the Talmud, conceived in the same spirit, and beginning in the thirteenth century in France, where Talmudic study was then flourishing. The charge against the Talmud brought by the convert Nicholas Donin led to the first public disputation between Jews and Christians and to the first burning of copies of the work (Paris, 1244). The Talmud was likewise the subject of a disputation at Barcelona in 1263 between Moses ben Nahman and Pablo Christiani. In this controversy Nahmanides asserted that the haggadic portions of the Talmud were merely "sermones," and therefore devoid of binding force; so that proofs deduced from them in support of Christian dogmas were invalid, even in case they were correct.

Attacks on the Talmud

2006-12-06T15:56:00.000-08:00

Attacks on the Talmud.

This same Pablo Christiani made an attack on the Talmud which resulted in a papal bull against it and in the first censorship, which was undertaken at Barcelona by a commission of Dominicans, who ordered the cancelation of passages reprehensible from a Christian point of view (1264). At the disputation of Tortosa in 1413, Geronimo de Santa Fé brought forward a number of accusations, including the fateful assertion that the condemnations of pagans and apostates found in the Talmud referred in reality to Christians. Two years later, Pope Martin V., who had convened this disputation, issued a bull (which was destined, however, to remain inoperative) forbidding the Jews to read the Talmud, and ordering the destruction of all copies of it. Far more important were the charges made in the early part of the sixteenth century by the convert Johann Pfefferkorn, the agent of the Dominicans. The result of these accusations was a struggle in which the emperor and the pope acted as judges, the advocate of the Jews being Johann Reuchlin, who was opposed by the obscurantists and the humanists; and this controversy, which was carried on for the most part by means of pamphlets, became the precursor of the Reformation. An unexpected result of this affair was the complete printed edition of the Babylonian Talmud issued in 1520 by Daniel Bomberg at Venice, under the protection of a papal privilege. Three years later, in 1523, Bomberg published the first edition of the Palestinian Talmud. After thirty years the Vatican, which had first permitted the Talmud to appear in print, undertook a campaign of destruction against it. On New-Year's Day (Sept. 9), 1553, the copies of the Talmud which had been confiscated in compliance with a decree of the Inquisition were burned at Rome; and similar burnings took place in other Italian cities, as at Cremona in 1559. The Censorship of the Talmud and other Hebrew works was introduced by a papal bull issued in 1554; five years later the Talmud was included in the first Index Expurgatorius; and Pope Pius IV. commanded, in 1565, that the Talmud be deprived of its very name. The first edition of the expurgated Talmud, on which most subsequent editions were based, appeared at Basel (1578-1581) with the omission of the entire treatise of 'Abodah Zarah and of passages considered inimical to Christianity, together with modifications of certain phrases. A fresh attack on the Talmud was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII. (1575-85), and in 1593 Clement VIII. renewed the old interdiction against reading or owning it. The increasing study of the Talmud in Poland led to the issue of a complete edition (Cracow, 1602-5), with a restoration of the original text; an edition containing, so far as known, only two treatises had previously been published at Lublin (1559-76). In 1707 some copies of the Talmud were confiscated in the province of Brandenburg, but were restored to their owners by command of Frederick, the first king of Prussia. The last attack on the Talmud took place in Poland in 1757, when Bishop Dembowski, at the instance of the Frankists, convened a public disputation at Kamenetz-Podolsk, and ordered all copies of the work found in his bishopric to be confiscated and burned by the hangman.
(see image) PAGE FROM TRACTATE SHABBAT OF THE ROMM EDITION OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, WILNA, 1886.The external history of the Talmud includes also the literary attacks made upon it by Christian theologians after the Reformation, since these onslaughts on Judaism were directed primarily against that work, even though it was made a subject of study by the Christian theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1830, during a debate in the French Chamber of Peers regarding state recognition of the Jewish faith, Admiral Verhuell declared himself unable to forgive the Jews whom he had met during his travels throughout the world either for their refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah or for their possession of the Talmud. In the same year the Abbé Chiarini published at Paris a voluminous work entitled "Théorie du Judaïsme," in which he announced a translation of the Talmud, advocating for the first time a version which should make the work generally accessible, and thus serve for attacks on Judaism. In a like spirit modern anti-Semitic agitators have urged that a translation be made; and this demand has even been brought before legislative bodies, as in Vienna. The Talmud and the "Talmud Jew" thus became objects of anti-Semitic attacks, although, on the other hand, they were defended by many Christian students of the Talmud.

In consequence of the checkered fortunes of the Talmud, manuscripts of it are extremely rare; and the Babylonian Talmud is found entire only in a Munich codex (Hebrew MS. No. 95), completed in 1369, while a Florentine manuscript containing several treatises of the fourth and fifth orders dates from the year 1176. A number of Talmudic codices containing one or more tractates are extant in Rome, Oxford, Paris, Hamburg, and New York, while the treatise Sanhedrin, from Reuchlin's library, is in the grand-ducal library at Carlsruhe. In the introduction to vols. i., iv., viii., ix., and xi. of his "DiKduKe Soferim, Variæ Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum," which contains a mass of critical material bearing on the text of Babli, N. Rabbinovicz has described all the manuscripts of this Talmud known to him, and has collated the Munich manuscript with the printed editions, besides giving in his running notes a great number of readings collected with much skill and learning from other manuscripts and various ancient sources. Of this work, which is indispensable for the study of the Talmud, Rabbinovicz himself published fifteen volumes (Munich, 1868-86), containing the treatises of the first, second, and fourth orders, as well as two treatises (Zebahim and Menahot) of the fifth order. The sixteenth volume (hullin) was published posthumously (completed by Ehrentreu, Przemysl, 1897). Of the Palestinian Talmud only one codex, now at Leyden, has been preserved, this being one of the manuscripts used for the editio princeps. Excepting this codex, only fragments and single treatises are extant. Recently (1904) Luncz discovered a portion of Yerushalmi in the Vatican Library, and Ratner has made valuable contributions to the history of the text in his scholia on Yerushalmi ("Sefer Ahabat ziyyon we-Yerushalayim"), of which three volumes have thus far appeared, comprising Berakot, Shabbat, Terumot, and hallah (Wilna, 1901, 1902, 1904).

Edict of Justinian

2005-12-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

Early Editions

2005-12-06T15:48:00.000-08:00

Early Editions.

The first edition of Babli (1520) was preceded by a series of editions, some of them no longer extant, of single treatises published at Soncino and Pesaro by the Soncinos. The first to appear was Berakot (1488); this was followed by the twenty-three other tractates which, according to Gershon Soncino, were regularly studied in the yeshibot. The first edition by Bomberg was followed by two more (1531, 1548), while another was published at Venice by Giustiniani (1546-51), who added to Bomberg's supplements (such as Rashi and the Tosafot, which later were invariably appended to the text) other useful marginal glosses, including references to Biblical quotations and to parallel passages of the Talmud as well as to the ritual codices. At Sabbionetta in 1553, Joshua Boaz (d. 1557), the author of these marginalia, which subsequently were added to all editions of the Talmud, undertook a new and magnificent edition of the Talmud. Only a few treatises were completed, however; for the papal bull issued against the Talmud in the same year interrupted the work. As a result of the burning of thousands of copies of the Talmud in Italy, Joseph Jabez published a large number of treatises at Salonica (1563 et seq.) and Constantinople (1583 et seq.). The mutilated Basel edition (1578-81) and the two editions which first appeared in Poland have been mentioned above. The first Cracow edition (1602-5) was followed by a second (1616-20); while the first Lublin edition (1559 et seq.), which was incomplete, was followed by one giving the entire text (1617-39); this was adopted for the Amsterdam edition (1644-48), the partial basis of the edition of Frankfort-on-the-Oder (1697-99). Many useful addenda were made to the second Amsterdam edition (1714-19), which was the subject of an interesting lawsuit, and which was completed by the edition of Frankfort-on-the-Main (1720-22). This latter text has served as the basis of almost all the subsequent editions. Of these the most important are: Prague, 1728-39; Berlin and Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1734-39 (earlier ed. 1715-22); Amsterdam, 1752-65; Sulzbach, 1755-63, 1766-70; Vienna, 1791-1797, 1806-11, 1830-33, 1840-49, 1860-73; Dyhernfurth, 1800-4, 1816-21; Slawita, Russia, 1801-6, 1808-13, 1817-22; Prague, 1830-35, 1839-46; Wilna and Grodno, 1835-54; Czernowitz, 1840-49; Jitomir, 1858-64; Warsaw, 1859-64, 1863-67 et seq.; Wilna, 1859-66; Lemberg, 1860-65 et seq.; Berlin, 1862-68; Stettin, 1862 et seq. (incomplete). The edition of the Widow and Brothers Romm at Wilna (1886) is the largest as regards old and new commentaries, glosses, other addenda, and aids to study.

Two other editions of Yerushalmi have appeared in addition to the editio princeps (Venice, 1523 et seq.), which they closely follow in columniation—those of Cracow, 1609, and Krotoschin, 1866. A complete edition with commentary appeared at Jitomir in 1860-67. The latest edition is that of Piotrkow (1898-1900). There are also editions of single orders or treatises and their commentaries, especially noteworthy being Z. Frankel's edition of Berakot, Pe'ah, and Demai (Breslau, 1874-75).

"Variæ Lectiones" and Translations

2005-12-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

"Variæ Lectiones" and Translations.

A critical edition of Babli has been proposed repeatedly, and a number of valuable contributions have been made, especially in the huge collections of variants by Rabbinovicz; but so far this work has not even been begun, although mention should be made of the interesting attempt by M. Friedmann, "Kritische Edition des Traktates Makkoth," in the "Verhandlungen des Siebenten Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, Semitische Section," pp. 1-78 (Vienna, 1888). Here the structure of the text is indicated by such external means as different type, sections, and punctuation. The edition of Yerushalmi announced by Luncz at Jerusalem promises a text of critical purity.

The earliest allusion to a translation of the Talmud is made by Abraham ibn Daud in his historical "Sefer ha-Kabbalah" (see Neubauer, "M. J. C." i. 69), who, referring to Joseph ibn Abitur (second half of 10th cent.), says: "He is the one who translatedthe entire Talmud into Arabic for the calif Al-hakim." The tradition was therefore current among the Jews of Spain in the twelfth century that Ibn Abitur had translated the Talmud for this ruler of Cordova, who was especially noted for his large library, this tradition being analogous to the one current in Alexandria in antiquity with regard to the first Greek translation of the Bible. No trace, however, remains of Joseph Abitur's translation; and in all probability he translated merely detached portions for the calif, this work giving rise to the legend of his complete version. The need of a translation to render the contents of the Talmud more generally accessible, began to be felt by Christian theologians after the sixteenth century, and by Jewish circles in the nineteenth century. This gave rise to the translations of the Mishnah which have been noted elsewhere (see Jew. Encyc. viii. 618, s.v., Mishnah). In addition to the complete translations mentioned there, single treatises of the Mishnah have been rendered into Latin and into modern languages, a survey being given by Bischoff in his "Kritische Geschichte der Thalmud-Uebersetzungen," pp. 28-56 (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1899). Twenty treatises of Yerushalmi were translated into Latin by Blasio Ugolino in his "Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum," xvii. (1755), xxx. (1765); and the entire text of this Talmud was rendered into French by Moïse Schwab ("Le Talmud de Jérusalem," 11 vols., Paris, 1871-1889). The translation by Wünsche of the haggadic portions of Yerushalmi has already been mentioned; and an account of the translations of single portions is given by Bischoff (l.c. pp. 59 et seq.). In 1896 L. Goldschmidt began the translation of a German version of Babli, together with the text of Bomberg's first edition; and a number of volumes have already appeared (Berlin, 1898 et seq.). The insufficiency of this work apparently corresponds to the rapidity with which it is issued. In the same year M. L. Rodkinson undertook an abridged translation of the Babylonian Talmud into English, of which seven volumes appeared before the translator's death (1904); Rodkinson's point of view was quite unscholarly. Of translations of single treatises the following may be mentioned (see Bischoff, l.c. pp. 68-76): Earlier Latin translations: Ugolino, Zeḅahim, Menahot (in "Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum," xix.), Sanhedrin (ib. xxv.); G. E. Edzard, Berakot (Hamburg, 1713); F. B. Dachs, Sukkah (Utrecht, 1726). Noteworthy among the Jewish translators of the Talmud are M. Rawicz (Megillah, 1863; Rosh ha-Shanah, 1886; Sanhedrin, 1892; Ketubot, 1897); E. M. Pinner (Berakot, 1842, designed as the first volume of a translation of the entire Talmud); D. O. Straschun (Ta'anit, 1883); and Sammter (Baba Mezi'a, 1876). Their translations are entirely in German. Translations published by Christian scholars in the nineteenth century: F. C. Ewald (a baptized Jew), 'Abodah Zarah (Nuremberg, 1856); in 1831 the Abbé Chiarini, mentioned above, published a French translation of Berakot; and in 1891 A. W. Streane prepared an English translation of hagigah. A French version of several treatises is included in J. M. Rabbinovicz's works 'Législation Civile du Talmud" (5 vols., Paris, 1873-79) and "Législation Criminelle du Talmud" (ib. 1876), while Wünsche's translation of the haggadic portions of Babli (1886-89) has been mentioned above.

Function in Judaism

2005-12-06T15:35:00.000-08:00

Function in Judaism.

To gain a comprehensive view of the Talmud it must be considered as a historical factor in Judaism as well as a literary production. In the latter aspect it is unique among the great masterpieces of the literatures of the world. In form a commentary, it became an encyclopedia of Jewish faith and scholarship, comprising whatsoever the greatest representatives of Judaism in Palestine and in Babylon had regarded as objects of study and investigation and of teaching and learning, during the three centuries which elapsed from the conclusion of the Mishnah to the completion of the Talmud itself. When the Mishnah, with the many ancient traditions to which it had given rise since the latter centuries of the Second Temple, was incorporated into the Talmud as its text-book, the Talmud became a record of the entire epoch which was represented by the Jewish schools of Palestine and Babylon, and which served as a stage of transition from the Biblical period to the later aspect of Judaism. Although the Talmud is an academic product and may be characterized in the main as a report (frequently with the accuracy of minutes) of the discussions of the schools, it also sheds a flood of light on the culture of the people outside the academies. The interrelation between the schools and daily life, and the fact that neither teachers nor pupils stood aloof from that life, but took part in it as judges, instructors, and expounders of the Law, caused the Talmud to represent even non-scholastic affairs with an abundance of minute details, and made it an important source for the history of civilization. Since, moreover, the religious law of the Jews dealt with all the circumstances of life, the Talmud discusses the most varied branches of human knowledge—astronomy and medicine, mathematics and law, anatomy and botany—thus furnishing valuable data for the history of science also.

(see image) Page From The Latest Edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, Printed at Piotrkow, 1899-1903.(In the possession of J. D. Eisenstein, New York.)The Talmud, furthermore, is unique from the point of view of literary history as being a product of literature based on oral tradition and yet summarizing the literature of an entire epoch. Aside from it, those to whose united efforts it may be ascribed have left no trace of intellectual activity. Though anonymous itself, the Talmud, like other products of tannaitic and amoraic literature, cites the names of many authors of sayings because it was a universal practise to memorize the name of the author together with the saying. Many of these scholars are credited with only a few sentences or with even but one, while to others are ascribed many hundreds of aphorisms, teachings, questions, and answers; and the representatives of Jewish tradition of those centuries, the Tannaim and the Amoraim, received an abundant compensation for their renunciation of the fame of authorship when tradition preserved their names together with their various expositions, and thus rescued even the least of them from oblivion. The peculiar form of the Talmud is due to the fact that it is composed almost entirely of individual sayings and discussions on them, this circumstance being a result of its origin: the fact that it sought especially to preserve the oral tradition and the transactions of the academies allowed the introduction only of the single sentences which represented the contributions of the teachers and scholars to the discussions. The preservation of the names of the authors of these apothegms, and of those who took part in the discussions, transactions, and disputations renders the Talmud the most important, and in many respects the only, source for the period of which it is the product. The sequence of generations which constitute the framework of the history of the Tannaim and Amoraim may be determined from the allusions contained in the Talmud, from the anecdotes and stories of the academies, and from other valuable literary material, which exhibit the historical conditions, events, and personages of the time, not excepting cases in which the facts have been clothed in the garb of legend or myth. Although it was undertaken with no distinctly literary purpose, it contains, especially in its haggadic portions, many passages which are noteworthy as literature, and which for many centuries were the sole repositories of Jewish poetry.

Elijah the Prophet

2005-12-06T15:23:00.000-08:00

ELIJAH By : Emil G. Hirsch Eduard König Solomon Schechter Louis Ginzberg M. Seligsohn Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:

Ahab and Elijah.
Elijah at Mount Horeb.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

In the Times of Ahab.
Elijah's Zeal for God.
Elijah in the Guise of an Arab.
Elijah the Friend of the Pious.
Joshua b. Levi and Elijah.
Elijah Explains His Actions.
Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah.

The Seven Miracles.
—In Mohammedan Literature:
—In Medieval Folk-Lore:
Sources.
—Critical View:

—Biblical Data:

The name means "Yhwh is (my) God," and is a confession that its bearer defended Yhwh against the worshipers of Baal and of other gods. It has therefore been assumed that the prophet took this name himself (Thenius, in "Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu I Könige," xvii. 1). Elijah was a prophet in Israel in the first half of the ninth pre-Christian century, under King Ahab. In I Kings xvii. 1 and xxi. 17, etc., Elijah is called "the Tishbite" (), probably because he came from a place (or a family) by the name of "Tishbe." A place of that name lay within the boundaries of Naphtali (comp. Tobit i. 2). But the Hebrew words must refer to a place in Gilead (see, however, Targum, Masoretes and David Kimhi ad loc.).

Elijah, therefore, came from the land east of the Jordan, to wage war, in the name of the God of his fathers, against the worship of Baal. He was marked as an adherent of the old customs by his simple dress, consisting of a mantle of skins girt about the loins with a leather belt (II Kings i. 8). He began his activities with the announcement that the drought then afflicting the land should not cease until he gave the word (comp. Josephus, "Ant." viii. 13, § 2).

Ahab and Elijah.

This announcement, addressed to Ahab and his wife, marked the beginning of a life of wandering and privation for the prophet. He fled from hiding-place to hiding-place, the first being by the brook Cherith (). Since Robinson's explorations in Palestine (ii. 533 et seq.) this brook has been identified with the Wadi el-Kelt, which discharges into the Jordan near Jericho. But the resemblance between the two names is really less close than appears, for it must be remembered that "Kelt" is pronounced with the emphatic "k." Moreover, since the expressions and refer to the land east of the Jordan, the brook Cherith must have been there, even if there is no modern river-name with which to identify it. After the brook Cherith had dried up, the prophet was forced to seek refuge beyond the boundaries of Israel, and found it in the Phenician Zarephath, about four hours' journey south of Sidon, where a widow sustained him. She was rewarded by the prophet's miraculous benefits (I Kings xvii. 9-24).

The greatest achievement of Elijah's life was his victory over the priests of Baal at Mt. Carmel. Having heard that the other prophets of Yhwh were also persecuted, he requested King Ahab to gather the people of Israel, the 450 priests of Baal, and the 400 prophets of Ashtaroth on Mt. Carmel. Then he asked Israel the famous question: "How long do ye halt on both knees?" (A. V.: "How long halt ye between two opinions?"), meaning, "How long will ye be undecided as to whether ye shall follow Yhwh or Baal?" The people remaining silent, he invited the priests of Baal to a contest, proposing that he and they should each build an altar and lay a burnt offering thereon, and that the God who should send down fire from heaven to consume the offering should be accepted as the true God. After various unsuccessful attempts to get a favorable answer had been made by the prophets of Baal, while they were ridiculed with subtle irony by Elijah, Yhwh sent fire from heaven to consume his offering. Yhwh was recognized by Israel, and the priests of Baal were slain near the brook Kishon (I Kings xviii. 40).The Ascension of Elijah. From an illuminated Ketubah of the early nineteenth century.(In the U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.)
(see image)

Elijah at Mount Horeb.

But this victory brought no rest to Elijah. He had to leave Israel in order to escape the vengeance of Jezebel (ib. xix. 3 et seq.), and fled to the place where Israel's Law had been promulgated by Moses. As he lay under a juniper-tree, exhausted by his journey, he was miraculously provided with food; and on reaching Horeb, the mountain of God, he heard the voice of the Lord exhorting him to patience. This is the sense of the famous passage (ib. xix. 11-13). God manifested Himself neither in the great wind that rent the mountains,nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the "still small voice." The three following measures were suggested: the appointing of a foreign enemy of Israel; the anointing of an Israelitic rival king to Ahab's dynasty; and the anointing of Elisha to continue the spiritual work of the prophet. This, the chief work of the prophet, Elijah himself carried on to the end of his life. After the election of Elisha (xix. 19-21), he prophesied both punishments and promises (xxi. 17-28; II Kings i. 3 et seq.), and left the field of his activities as suddenly as he had appeared (II Kings ii. 11).

Elijah is also mentioned in later Biblical and apocryphal passages as follows: II Chron. xxi. 12. et seq.; Mal. iii. 24; Ecclus. (Sirach) xlviii. 1; 1 Macc. ii. 58; Isaiah's Martyrdom, ii. 14 (in Kautzsch, "Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments," 1898, ii. 125).E. G. H. E. K.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Elijah, "let him be remembered for good," or "he who is remembered for good" (Yer. Sheb. iii., end); or, as he is commonly called among the Jews, "the prophet Elijah" (Eliyahu ha-nabi'), has been glorified in Jewish legend more than any other Biblical personage. The Haggadah which makes this prophet the hero of its description has not been content, as in the case of others, to describe merely his earthly life and to elaborate it in its own way, but has created a new history of him, which, beginning with his death or "translation," ends only with the close of the history of the human race. From the day of the prophet Malachi, who says of Elijah that God will send him before "the great and dreadful day" (Mal. iii. 23 [A. V. iv. 5]), down to the later marvelous stories of the hasidic rabbis, reverence and love, expectation and hope, were always connected in the Jewish consciousness with the person of Elijah. As in the case of most figures of Jewish legend, so in the case of Elijah the Biblical account became the basis of later legend. Elijah the precursor of the Messiah, Elijah zealous in the cause of God. Elijah the helper in distress—these are the three leading notes struck by the Haggadah, endeavoring to complete the Biblical picture with the Elijah legends. Since, according to the Bible, Elijah lived a mysterious life, the Haggadah naturally did not fail to supply the Biblical gaps in its own way. In the first place, it was its aim to describe more precisely Elijah's origin, since the Biblical (I Kings xvii. 1) "Elijah, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead," was too vague.

Three different theories regarding Elijah's origin are presented in the Haggadah: (1) he belonged to the tribe of Gad (Gen. R. lxxi.); (2) he was a Benjamite from Jerusalem, identical with the Elijah mentioned in I Chron. viii. 27; (3) he was a priest. That Elijah was a priest is a statement which is made by many Church fathers also (Aphraates, "Homilies," ed. Wright, p. 314; Epiphanius, "Hæres." lv. 3, passim), and which was afterward generally accepted, the prophet being further identified with Phinehas (PirKe R. El. xlvii.; Targ. Yer. on Num. xxv. 12; Origen, ed. Migne, xiv. 225). Mention must also be made of a statement which, though found only in the later cabalistic literature (YalKut Reubeni, Bereshit, 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old (see Epiphanius, l.c.), and according to which Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring. See Melchizedek.

In the Times of Ahab.

If the deeds which the Scripture records of Phinehas be disregarded, Elijah is first met with in the time of Ahab, and on the following occasion: God bade the prophet pay a visit of condolence to Hiel, who had suffered the loss of his sons because of his impiety. Elijah was unwilling to go, because profane words always angered and excited him. Only after God had promised to fulfil whatever words the prophet might utter in his righteous indignation did Elijah go to Hiel. Here the prophet met Ahab and warned him that God fulfils the maledictions of the godly, and that Hiel had been deprived of his sons because Joshua had anathematized the rebuilding of Jericho. The king derisively asked: Is Joshua greater than his teacher Moses? For Moses threatened all idolaters with hunger and distress, and yet he—Ahab-was faring very well. At this Elijah said (I Kings xvii. 1): "As the Lord God of Israel liveth," etc.; thereupon God had to fulfil His promise, and a famine came in consequence of the want of rain (Sanh. 113a; Yer. Sanh. x.). God sent ravens to supply the wants of the prophet during the famine. Some think "'ore-bim" (ravens) refers to the inhabitants of Oreb (Gen. R. xxxviii. 5; hul. 5a; so also the Jewish teacher of Jerome in his commentary on Isa. xv. 7). The ravens brought meat to Elijah from the kitchen of the pious Jehoshaphat (Tan., ed. Buber, iv. 165; Aphraates, l.c. p. 314; different in Sanh. 113). God, however, who is merciful even toward the impious, sought to induce Elijah to absolve Him from His promise, so that He might send rain. He accordingly caused the brook from which the prophet drew water to dry up, but this was of no avail. God finally caused the death of the son of the widow in whose house the prophet lived, hoping thereby to overcome the latter's relentless severity. When Elijah implored God to revive the boy (compare Jonah in Rabbinical Literature), God answered that this could only be accomplished by means of "the heavenly dew," and that before He could send the dew it would be necessary for the prophet to absolve Him from His promise (Yer. Ber. iv. 9b; different in Sanh. 113a). Elijah now saw that it would be necessary to yield, and took the opportunity to prove before Ahab, by a second miracle, the almighty power of God. He arranged with the king to offer sacrifices to God and Baal at one and the same time, and to see which would turn out to be the true God.

The bulls, which were selected for sacrifice by lot, were twins which had grown up together. But while Elijah brought his bull quickly to the place of sacrifice, the 450 priests of Baal labored in vain to induce the other to move a step. The animal even began to speak, complaining that while it was his twin brother's glorious privilege to be offered upon the altar of God, he was to be offered to Baal. Only after the prophet had convinced him that his sacrifice would also be for the glorification of Godcould the priests of Baal lead him to the altar (Tan., ed. Buber, iv. 165). They then commenced to cry "Baal! Baal!" but there was no response. In order to confound them utterly, "God made the whole world keep silent as if it were void and waste"; so that the priests of Baal might not claim that the voice of Baal had been heard (Ex. R. xxix., end). These proceedings consumed much time, and Elijah found it necessary to make the sun stand still: "Under Joshua thou stoodst still for Israel's sake; do it now that God's name be glorified!" (Aggadat Bereshit, lxxvi.). Toward evening Elijah called his disciple Elisha and made him pour water over his hands. Then a miracle took place: water commenced to flow from the fingers of Elijah as from a fountain, so that the ditch around the altar became full (Tanna debe Eliyahu R. xvii.). The prophet prayed to God that He would send fire down upon the altar, and that the people might see the miracle in its proper light and not regard it as sorcery (Ber. 9b). In his prayer he spoke of his mission as the precursor of the Messiah, and petitioned God to grant his request that he might be believed in future (Midr. Shir ha-Shirim, ed. Grünhuth, 25a; Aggadat Bereshit, lxxvi.).

Elijah's Zeal for God.

In spite of Elijah's many miracles the great mass of the Jewish people remained as godless as before; they even abolished the sign of the covenant, and the prophet had to appear as Israel's accuser before God (PirKe R. El. xxix.). In the same cave where God once appeared to Moses and revealed Himself as gracious and merciful, Elijah was summoned to appear before God. By this summons he perceived that he should have appealed to God's mercy instead of becoming Israel's accuser. The prophet, however, remained relentless in his zeal and severity, so that God commanded him to appoint his successor (Tanna debe Eliyahu Zuta viii.). The vision in which God revealed Himself to Elijah gave him at the same time a picture of the destinies of man, who has to pass through "four worlds." This world was shown to the prophet in the form of the wind, since it disappears as the wind; storm () is the day of death, before which man trembles (); fire is the judgment in Gehenna, and the stillness is the last day (Tan., PeKude, p. 128, Vienna ed.). Three years after this vision (Seder 'Olam R. xvii.) Elijah was "translated." Concerning the place to which Elijah was transferred, opinions differ among Jews and Christians, but the old view was that Elijah was received among the heavenly inhabitants, where he records the deeds of men (Kid. 70; Ber. R. xxxiv. 8), a task which according to the apocalyptic literature is entrusted to Enoch. But as early as the middle of the second century, when the notion of translation to heaven was abused by Christian theologians, the assertion was made that Elijah never entered into heaven proper (Suk. 5a; compare also Ratner on Seder 'Olam R. xvii.); in later literature paradise is generally designated as the abode of Elijah (compare PirKe R. El. xvi.), but since the location of paradise is itself uncertain, the last two statements may be identical.

It is one of the duties of Elijah to stand at the cross roads of paradise and to lead the pious to their proper places, to bring the souls of the impious out of hell at the beginning of the Sabbath, to lead them back again at the end of the Sabbath, and after they have suffered for their sins, to bring them to paradise forever (PirKe R. El. l.c.). In mystic literature Elijah is an angel, whose life on earth is conceived of as a merely apparitional one, and who is identified with Sandalfon. The cabalists speak also of the struggle between Elijah and the Angel of Death, who asserts his right to all children of men, and who endeavored to prevent, Elijah from entering heaven (Zohar Ruth, beginning, ed. Warsaw, 1885, 76a). The taking of Elijah into heaven or supramundane regions did not mean his severance from this world; on the contrary, his real activity then began. From Biblical times there is his letter to Jehoram, written seven years after his translation (Seder 'Olam R. xvii.; compare, however, Josephus, "Ant." ix. 5, § 2), and his interference in favor of the Jews after Haman had planned their extinction (see harbona; Mordecai). But it is mainly in post-Biblical times that Elijah's interest in earthly events was most frequently manifested, and to such an extent that the Haggadah calls him "the bird of heaven" (Ps. viii. 9, Hebr.), because like a bird he flies through the world and appears where a sudden divine interference is necessary (Midr. Teh. ad loc.; see also Ber. 4b; Targ. on Eccles. x. 20). His appearing among men is so frequent that even the irrational animals feel it: the joyous barking of the dogs is nothing else than an indication that Elijah is in the neighborhood (B. K. 60b). To men he appears in different forms, sometimes while they are dreaming, sometimes while they are awake, and this in such a way that the pious frequently know who is before them. Thus he once appeared to a Roman officer in a dream and admonished him not to be lavish of his inherited riches (Gen. R. lxxxiii.). Once a man came into a strange city shortly before the beginning of the Sabbath, and not knowing to whom to entrust his money (which he was not allowed to carry on the Sabbath), he went to the synagogue, where he saw some one with phylacteries on his forehead, praying. To this man he gave all that he had for keeping, but when he asked for its return at the end of the Sabbath, he found that he had to deal with a hypocrite and impostor. When the poor man fell asleep Elijah appeared to him, and showed him how to obtain his money from the wife of the swindler. When he awoke he followed the advice of Elijah, and not only received his money back, but also unmasked the hypocrite (PesiK. R. xxii.; Yer. Ber. ii.).

Elijah in the Guise of an Arab.

Elijah appeared to many while they were awake, and this in various ways. He often elected to appear in the guise of an Arab () or, more exactly, in that of an Arab of the desert (see Arabia in Rabbinical Literature). In this manner he once appeared to a poor but pious man, and asked him whether he wished to enjoy the six good years which were appointed him now, or at the end of his life. The pious man took him for a sorcerer, and made no reply. But when Elijah came the third time, the man consulted his wife as to what he should do. They concluded to tell the Arab that they wished to enjoy the good years at once; they had hardlyexpressed their wish when their children found a great treasure. The pious couple made good use of their riches, and spent much money for benevolent purposes. After six years the Arab returned and told them that the end of their prosperity had come. The woman, however, said to him: "If you can find people who will use with more conscientiousness what you give unto them, then take it from us and give it to them." God, who well knew what use this pious couple had made of their wealth, left it in their hands as long as they lived (Midr. Ruth Zuta, ed. Buber, near end).

To the pious, Elijah is in many cases a guardian angel, for whom no place is too remote, and who leaves nothing undone to help them in their distress or to save them from misery. Thus, Nahum of Gimzo was once sent on a political mission to Rome and given certain gifts to carry to the emperor; on the way he was robbed of these, but Elijah replaced them, and procured for Nahum riches and honor (Sanh. 109a). He saved the tanna Meïr from the persecuting bailiffs. During the religious persecutions under Hadrian he saved another tanna, Eleazar ben Prata, from the Roman government, which wished to sentence him to death, by removing those who were to testify against him and by bringing him to a place 400 miles distant ('Ab. Zarah 17b). He acted as witness for the amora Shila, when he was accused of exercising jurisdiction according to Jewish law (Ber. 58a), and appeared as comforter to Akiba when the latter was in distress (Ned. 50a). As physician he helped Simi b. Ashi (Shab. 109b), and R. Judah I., whose awful and incessant pains he stopped by laying his hand upon him. This healing had at the same time the effect of reconciling Rabbi with hiyyah, for Elijah appeared to Rabbi in the form of hiyyah, and caused him thereby to hold hiyyah in great respect (Yer. Kil. ix. 32b). Elijah was a daily guest in the academy of Rabbi, and on one occasion he even disclosed a great celestial mystery, for which he was severely punished in heaven (B. M. 85b). Elijah, however, is not only the helper in distress and the peacemaker, but he acted also as teacher of Eleazar ben Simon, whom he taught for thirteen years (PesiK., ed. Buber, x. 92b; see Akiba ben Joseph in Legend).

The following is an Elijah story which was very widely circulated, and which was even given a place in the liturgy: To a pious but very poor man Elijah once appeared and offered himself as servant. The man, at first refusing, finally took him. He did not keep him long, however, for the king needed a skilful builder for a palace which he was about to build; Elijah offered his services, and the pious man received a high price for his servant. Elijah did not disappoint his new master, but prayed to God, whereupon suddenly the palace of the king stood there in readiness. Elijah disappeared (Rabb. Nissim, "hibbur Yafeh meha-Yeshu'ah," near end). This story has been beautifully worked over in the piyyut. "Ish hasid," which is sung, according to the German-Polish ritual, on Sabbath evening.

Elijah the Friend of the Pious.

In olden times there were a number of select ones with whom Elijah had intercourse as with his equals, they being at the time aware of his identity. In Talmudic-Midrashic literature are the following stories: Eliezer ben Hyrcanus was brought by Elijah to Jerusalem to receive instruction there from Johanan ben Zakkai (PirKe R. El. i.). In the great controversy between this teacher and his colleagues, Elijah communicated to Rabbi Nathan what the opinion concerning this controversy was in heaven (B. M. 59b). The same Nathan was also instructed by him with reference to the right measure in eating and drinking (Git. 70a). A special pet of Elijah seems to have been Nehorai, whom he instructed with reference to Biblical passages, and explained to him also some of the phenomena of nature (Yer. Ber. ix. 13c; Ruth R. iv.). Another teacher, called "Jose" (probably not Jose b. halafta), was so familiar with Elijah that he was not afraid to declare openly that Elijah had a rough temper (Sanh. 113a). The words of Elijah to Judah, the brother of Salla the Pious, read: "Be not angry, and you will not sin; drink not, and you will not sin" (Ber. 29b). Besides this friendly advice the pious Judah received important instructions from Elijah (Yoma 19b; Sanh. 97b). Rabbah ben Shila (hag. 15b), Rabbah ben Abbahu (hag. 15b; B. M. 114b), Abiathar (Git. 6b), Kahana (Kid. 41a), Bar He He (hag. 9b), are also mentioned as among the pious who personally communicated with Elijah. Besides these, some others whose names are not given are mentioned as having been in friendly relations with Elijah (B. B. 7b; Yer. Ter. i. 40d; see also Ket. 61a). What kind of people Elijah selected may be seen from the following: Of two pious brothers, one allowed his servants to partake only of the first course at meals, whereas the other allowed them to partake of every course. Elijah did not visit the first, whereas he frequently visited the latter. In like manner he treated two brothers, one of whom served himself first, and then his guests, whereas the other cared for his guests first (Ket. l.c.). The demands of Elijah upon his friends were very strict, and the least mistake alienated him. One of his friends built a vestibule, whereby the poor were at a disadvantage in that their petitioning voices could be heard in the house only with great difficulty; as a result Elijah never came to him again (B. B. 7b).

Very characteristic of Elijah is his relation to the Babylonian amora Anan. A man brought Anan some small fish as a present, which he would not accept, because the man wished to submit to him a law case for decision. The petitioner, however, sooner than have the rabbi refuse his gift, decided to take his case elsewhere, and requested Anan to direct him to another rabbi; this Anan did. The rabbi before whom the case was tried showed himself very friendly toward the man because he had been recommended to him by Anan, and decided in his favor. Elijah, till then Anan's teacher and friend, deserted him from that moment, because, through his carelessness, judgment had been biased (Ket. 105b). The Midrash Tanna debe Eliyahu, in which Elijah often speaks of himself in the first person, recounting his experiences and teaching many lessons, is likewise associated with Anan, who is said to have compiled the work from Elijah's own discourses.

Joshua b. Levi and Elijah.

None of the pious could boast of such a close relation to Elijah as could Joshua b. Levi, to fulfill whose wishes Elijah was always ready, although he sometimes showed himself very severe toward him (Yer. Ter. viii. 4b; Yer. Sheb. ix. 31a; Mak. 11a). Elijah once brought about an interview between Joshua and the Messiah (Sanh. 98a), and he also showed Joshua the precious stones which, according to the words of the prophet (Isa. liv. 11, 12), shall replace the sun in giving light to Jerusalem (PesiK. xviii. 136a). But more precious than these sacred revelations were the lessons which Joshua received from Elijah, especially the doctrine of the theodicy, which Elijah tried to explain to his friend by means of illustrations. Joshua once asked Elijah to take him along on his journeys through the world. To this the prophet yielded on condition that Joshua should never question him concerning the causes of his actions, strange as they might appear; should this condition be violated, the prophet would be obliged to part from him. Both set out upon their journey. The first halt was at the house of a poor man who owned only a cow, but who, with his wife, received the strangers most kindly, and entertained them to the best of his ability. Before they continued their journey next morning, the rabbi heard Elijah pray that God might destroy the poor man's cow, and before they had left the hospitable house the cow was dead. Joshua could not contain himself, but in great excitement said to Elijah: "Is this the reward which the poor man receives for his hospitality toward us?" The prophet reminded him of the condition upon which they had undertaken the journey, and silently they continued on their way. Toward evening they came to the house of a rich man who did not even look at them, so that they had to pass the night without food and drink. In the morning when they left the inhospitable house, Joshua heard Elijah pray that God would build up a wall which had fallen in one of the rich man's houses. At once the wall stood erect. This increased the agitation of the rabbi still more; but remembering the condition which had been imposed upon him, he kept silent. On the next evening they came to a synagogue adorned with silver and gold, none of whose rich members showed any concern for the poor travelers, but dismissed them with bread and water. Upon leaving the place Joshua heard Elijah pray that God would make them all leaders ("heads"). Joshua was about to break his promise, but forced himself to go on in silence again. In the next city they met very generous people who vied with one another in performing acts of kindness toward the strangers. Great, then, was the surprise of Joshua when, upon leaving the place, he heard the prophet pray that God might give them only "one head."

Elijah Explains His Actions.

Joshua could not refrain any longer, and asked, Elijah to explain to him his strange actions, although he knew that by asking he would forfeit the prophet's companionship. Elijah answered: "The poor but generous man lost his cow because of my prayer, for I knew that his wife was about to die, and I asked God to take the life of the cow instead of that of the wife. My prayer for the heartless rich man was because under the fallen wall was a great treasure which would have come into the hands of this unworthy man had he undertaken to rebuild it. It was also no blessing which I pronounced upon the unfriendly synagogue, for a 'place which has many heads will not be of long duration'; on the other hand, I wished for the others, the good people, 'one head,' that union and peace may always be among them." This is a widely circulated legend, first found in Nissim ben Jacob's "hibbur Yafeh," 1886, pp. 9-12, and reprinted in Jellinek's "Bet ha-Midrash," v. 133-135 (vi. 131-133 gives another version). For Judæo-German and other renderings of this legend see Zunz, "G. V." 2d ed., p. 138. The antiquity of the legend may be seen from the fact that Mohammed mentions it in the Koran, sura xviii. 59-82; compare also "R. E. J." viii. 69-73.

Besides Joshua ben Levi, Elijah showed another rabbi, Baroka by name, that things must not be judged from outward appearances. Once they were in a lively street of a great city, when the rabbi asked Elijah whether there were any in the multitude who would have a place in the world to come. The prophet could give an affirmative answer in regard to three men only: a jailer and two jesters—the first, because he saw to it that chastity and morality prevailed among the inmates of the prison; the latter, because they tried by their jests to banish all anxious thoughts from the people (Ta'an. 22a).
(see image) The Prophet Elijah.(From a printed Passover Haggadah, Prague, 1526.)

The Tannaim and Amoraim are not the only ones who could boast of the special favor of Elijah. The mystics and cabalists of all times frequently appealed to Elijah as their patron. Among them was the gaon Joseph, of whom it was said that Elijah was a daily visitor at his academy (First Epistle of Sherira, ed. Neubauer, p. 32). The introduction of the Cabala to Provence is traced directly to Elijah, who revealed the secret doctrine to Jacob ha-Nozer. Similarly Abraham b. Isaac and Abraham ben David of Posquières are mentioned as privileged ones, to whom Elijah appeared (see Jellinek, "Auswahl Kabbalistischer Mystik," pp. 4, 5). The pseudonymous author of the "Kanah" asserted that he had received his teachings directly from Elijah. In the Zohar, Simon ben Yohai and his son Eleazar are mentioned as among those who enjoyed the special friendship of Elijah. This work, as well as the TiKKun Zohar and the Zohar hadash, contains muchthat is ascribed to Elijah (compare Friedmann, "Seder Eliyahu Rabba we-Seder Eliyahu Zuta," pp. 38-41). When, toward the middle of the fourteenth century, the Cabala received new prominence in Palestine, Elijah again took a leading part. Joseph de la Regna asks Elijah's advice in his combat with Satan. The father of the new cabalistic school, Isaac Luria, was visited by Elijah before his son was born. In like manner, the father of Israel Ba'al Shem-tob received the good news from Elijah that a son would be born unto him, "who would be a light in Israel" ("Ma'asiyyot Peliot," pp. 24, 25, Cracow, 1896, which contains an interesting narrative of Elijah's meeting with the father of Ba'al Shem-tob).

Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah.
(see image) Elijah Announcing the Coming of the Messiah.(From an illuminated Mahzor in the town hall of Frankfort-on-the-Main.)

The climax of Elijah's activity is his appearance shortly before the Messianic time. "He is appointed to lead aright the coming ages, to restore the tribes of Jacob," says Ben Sira of him (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlviii. 10, 11). In the second half of the first Christian century it was expected that Elijah would appear shortly before the coming of the Messiah, to restore to families the purity which in the course of time had become doubtful ('Eduy. viii. 7; this is the opinion of Johanan b. Zakkai). A century later the notion prevailed that Elijah's office was "to bring peace and adjust all differences" (ib.). It was expected that all controversies and legal disputes which had accumulated in the course of time would be adjusted by him, and that difficult ritual questions and passages of Scripture seemingly conflicting with each other would be explained, so that no difference of opinion would exist concerning anything (Men. 45b; Ab. R. N. xxxiv.; Num. R. iii., near the end; compare also Jew. Encyc. i. 637a). The office of interpreter of the Law he will retain forever, and in the world to come his relation to Moses will be the same as Aaron's once was (Zohar, Ẓaw, iii. 27, bottom). But the notion which prevailed at the time of the origin of Christianity, that Elijah's mission as forerunner of the Messiah consisted mainly in changing the mind of the people and leading them to repentance, is not unknown to rabbinical literature (PirKe R. El. xliii., xlvii.). His real Messianic activity—in some passages he is even called "go'el" (="redeemer"; compare Friedmann, l.c. pp. 25, 26)—will commence three days before the coming ofthe Messiah. On the first day he will lament over the devastation of Palestine, but will close with the words: "Peace will now come over the earth"; on the second and third days he will speak words of comfort (PesiK. R. xxxv. 161; Elijah as the "good messenger of salvation" is a frequent figure in the apocalyptic midrashim). When the archangel Michael blows the trumpet, Elijah will appear with the Messiah, whom he will present to the Jews ("Otot ha-Mashiah," in Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 62, 125; see Eschatology). They will ask of Elijah, as an attestation of his mission, that he raise the dead before their eyes and revive such of the dead as they personally knew (Shir ha-Shirim Zuta, ed. Buber, 38, end; compare also Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch; Bousset, "The Antichrist Legend," p. 203).

The Seven Miracles.

But he will do more than this, in that he will perform seven miracles before the eyes of the people: (1) He will bring before them Moses and the generation of the wilderness; (2) he will cause Korah and his company to rise out of the earth; (3) he will revive the Messiah, the son of Joseph; (4) he will show them again the three mysteriously lost sacred utensils of the Temple, namely, the Ark, the vessel of manna, and the vessel of sacred oil (see Antichrist); (5) he will show the scepter which he received from God; (6) he will crush mountains like straw; (7) he will reveal the great mystery (Jellinek, l.c. iii. 72). At the bidding of the Messiah, Elijah will sound the trumpet, and at the first blast the primitive light will appear; at the second, the dead will rise; and at the third, the Divine Majesty will appear (Jellinek, l.c. v. 128). During the Messianic reign Elijah will be one of the eight princes (Micah v. 4), and even on the Last Day he will not give up his activity. He will implore God's mercy for the wicked who are in hell, while their innocent children who died in infancy on account of the sins of their fathers, are in paradise. Thus he will complete his mission, in that God, moved by his prayer, will bring the sinful fathers to their children in paradise (Eccl. R. iv. 1). He will bring to an end his glorious career by killing Samael at the behest of God, and thus destroy all evil (YalKut hadash, ed. Radawil, 58a). Compare Elijah's Chair.

Bibliography: Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, s.v.;
Friedmann, Seder Eliyahu Rabba we-Seder Eliyahu Zuta, pp. 1-44, Warsaw, 1902;
S[amuel] K[ohn], Der Prophet Elia in der Legende, in Monatsschrift, xii. 241 et seq., 361 et seq.;
Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern, i. 76-80.S. S. L. G.

—In Mohammedan Literature:

Elijah is mentioned in the Koran as a prophet together with Zechariah, John, and Jesus (sura vi. 85); while in sura xxxvii. 123-130 it is said: "Verily, Elijah [Ilyas] was of the prophets, when he said to his people, 'Will ye call upon Baal and leave the best of creators, God, your Lord?'" In verse 130 he is called "Ilyasin": "Peace upon Ilyasin, thus do we reward those who do well."

According to Baiḍawi, the people to whom Elijah was sent were the inhabitants of Baalbek in Cle-Syria. When Elijah made his appearance as a prophet the king (Ibn al-Athir says that the king's name was Ahab, but places him after Ezekiel) believed in him, though the people did not. The king made Elijah his vizier, and both worshiped God. But the king soon apostatized, and Elijah separated from him. The prophet then afflicted the country with famine, and no one save himself had bread to eat; so that if one noticed the odor of bread he said: "Elijah must have passed this way."

One day Elijah came into the house of an old woman who had a paralytic child named Elisha ibn Ukhtub. Elijah cured the child, who remained with the prophet, and, after Elijah's translation, became his successor.

The Jewish tradition that Elijah is identical with Phinehas is current among the Moslems also. They have, moreover, another tradition borrowed from the Jews. Elijah, they say, will appear on the last day, and either he or one of his descendants will await, in the interior of a mountain, the second coming of the Messiah.

Certain Islamic authorities confound Elijah with Al-Khiḍr (= "the green" or "fresh one"), famous in Mohammedan literature on account of his having discovered the fountain of perpetual youth. Even their names have been combined in "Khiḍr-Ilyas" or "Khiḍralas." Other authorities, among them the author of the "Ta'rikh Muntahab," distinguish Elijah from Al-Khiḍr, whom they identify with Elisha. They believe that, while the latter is the guardian of the sea, Elijah is the guardian of the desert (the idea originating, doubtless, in the fact that Elijah hid himself in the desert; I Kings xix. 4).

Elijah's translation is thus described by the Moslems: God had told Elijah in a vision to go out of the town and to mount anything which he might see before him. He departed with his disciple Elisha, and, seeing a horse, mounted it. God covered him with feathers, enveloped him with fire, took away from him the desire of eating and drinking, and joined him to His angels. According to Ibn al-Athir, God made Elijah of a twofold nature: man and angel, earthly and heavenly.

Bibliography: Ibn al-Athir, Al-Ta'rikh al-Kamil, i. 90, 91, Cairo, 1891-92;
Tabari, Chroniques (French transl. of Zotenberg), i. 374, 381, 409-411;
Rampoldi, Annali Musulmani, iv. 491, vi. 549, Milan, 1822-25;
E. Rödiger, in Ersch and Gruber, Encyc. section i., part 33, p. 324;
D'Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, iii. 345, s.v. Ilia;
Hughes, Dict. of Islam, s.v.E. G. H. M. Sel.

—In Medieval Folk-Lore:

Owing to his ubiquitousness and to the universal belief that he remained after his departure from the earth the ever-ready helper of the Jew, Elijah the prophet became the prototype of the Wandering Jew. Many characteristics of wandering deities and heroes like those of Buddha, of Zeus, and of Thor and Wodan who were believed to wander about the earth to test the piety and hospitality of the people, hence also those of Khiḍr, the Arabic legendary hero, were incorporated in the history of Elijah. He was accordingly expected to appear from time to time, especially on solemn occasions, as "the angel of the covenant," the genius of Jewish home sanctity who keeps a record of every mésalliance (Kid. 70a). He was believed to be present as the angel of the covenant at the circumcision (see Elijah's Chair), or to appear as a guest at the Seder and as protector of the Jewish household whenever the door was opened on that night. Every Saturday evening his blessedintervention was invoked for the work of the new week; hence the many mystic formulas in the cabalistic liturgy for the close of the Sabbath.

He was often identified with other heroes of Jewish legend to whom immortality was attributed, such as Melchizedek, who had no father or mother, and Enoch-Metatron, who is said to have been a shoemaker by profession (YalK. Reubeni, Bereshit, 27a and 9d), and this seems to explain the original story of the Wandering Jew.

Bibliography: A. Tendlau, Sprichwörter und Redensarten Deutsch-Jüdischer Vorzeit, pp. 14-16, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1860;
idem, Das Buch der Sagen und Legenden Jüdischer Vorzeit, notes to Nos. 3, 28, Frankfort, 1873;
L. Geiger, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, iii. 297;
Mannhardt, Germanische Mythen, pp. 118, 725, Berlin, 1858;
Nork, Etymologisches Mythologisches Wörterbuch, s.v. Elias.K.

Sources.

—Critical View:

The stories of Elijah are not all derived from the same author. This is evident, first, from the fact that the longer form of the name () is used (about sixty times) everywhere except in II Kings i. 3-12 and (in reference to other persons of the name) in I Chron. viii. 27; Ezra x. 21, 26. Then, too, there is a significant disagreement between I Kings xix. 15 et seq., where Elijah is commissioned to anoint Kings Hazael and Jehu, and II Kings viii. 7 et seq., ix. 1 et seq., where it is said that these two kings were appointed by Elisha. Neither of these stories, however, bears marks of exilic or post-exilic origin, for the compound prepositions (I Kings xviii. 19) or (xxi. 29) are not a proof of such origin, although the latter preposition is often used by preference in the post-exilic period. It is also obvious that the mention of the sacrifice (I Kings xviii. 36) does not stamp the story as post-exilic (contrary to G. Rösch, "Der Prophet Elia," in "Theologische Studien und Kritiken," 1892, pp. 557 et seq.; comp. Ed. König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," p. 264).

Many scholars, nevertheless, consider the stories legendary; and, although something extraordinary must have happened at Mt. Carmel, it can not be denied that the miraculous incidents of the prophet's career may have been magnified as they passed on from generation to generation. The account of the destruction of the two captains and their soldiers may be taken as an example of this; and, indeed, the fact that the shorter form of the prophet's name is used proves the account to be undoubtedly of later origin.

Some modern scholars regard the stories as mythological—Hugo Winckler, for instance, in his "Geschichte Israels" (1900, ii. 273).

Three other persons by the name of Elijah are mentioned in the Old Testament: a Benjamite who lived before the time of Saul (I Chron. viii. 27), and two persons of the post-exilic period (Ezra x. 21, 26).

Its Authority

2001-12-06T15:27:00.000-08:00

Its Authority.

After the completion of the Talmud as a work of literature, it exercised a twofold influence as a historical factor in the history of Judaism and its followers, not only in regard to the guidance and formulation of religious life and thought, but also with respect to the awakening and development of intellectual activity. As a document of religion the Talmud acquired that authority which was due to it as the written embodiment of the ancient tradition, and it fulfilled the task which the men of the Great Assembly set for the representatives of the tradition when they said, "Make a hedge for the Torah" (Ab. i. 2). Those who professed Judaism felt no doubt that the Talmud was equal to the Bible as a source of instruction and decision in problems of religion, and every effort to set forth religious teachings and duties was based on it; so that even the great systematic treatise of Maimonides, which was intended to supersede the Talmud, only led to a more thorough study of it. In like manner, the Shulhan 'Aruk of Joseph Caro, which achieved greater practical results than the Mishneh Torah, of Maimonides, owed its authority to the fact that it was recognized as the most convenient codification of the teachings of the Talmud; while the treatises on the philosophy of religion which strove as early as the time of Saadia to harmonize the truths of Judaism with the results of independent thinking referred in all possible cases to the authority of the Talmud, upon which they could easily draw for a confirmation of their theses and arguments. The wealth of moral instruction contained in the Talmud exercised a profound influence upon the ethics and ideals of Judaism. Despite all this, however, the authority enjoyed by it did not lessen the authority of the Bible, which continued to exercise its influence as the primal source of religious and ethical instruction and edification even while the Talmud ruled supreme over religious practise, preserving and fostering in the Diaspora, for many centuries and under most unfavorable external conditions, the spirit of deep religion and strict morality.

The history of Jewish literature since the completion of the Talmud has been a witness to its importance in awakening and stimulating intellectual activity among the Jews. The Talmud has been made the subject or the starting-point of a large portion of this widely ramified literature, which has been the product of the intellectual activity induced by its study, and to which both scholars in the technical sense of the word and also a large number of the studious Jewish laity have contributed. The same faculties which had been exercised in the composition of the Talmud were requisite also for the study of it; the Talmud therefore had an exceedingly stimulating influence upon the intellectual powers of the Jewish people, which were then directed toward other departments of knowledge. It is a noteworthy fact that the study of the Talmud gradually became a religious duty, and thus developed into an intellectual activity having no ulterior object in view. Consequently it formed a model of study for the sake of study.

The Talmud has not yet entirely lost its twofold importance as a historical factor within Judaism, despite the changes which have taken place during the last century. For the majority of Jews it is still the supreme authority in religion; and, as noted above, although it is rarely an object of study on the part of those who have assimilated modern culture, it is still a subject of investigation for Jewish learning, as a product of Judaism which yet exerts an influence second in importance only to the Bible.

The following works of traditional literature not belonging to the Talmud have been included in the editions of Babli: Abot de-Rabbi Natan; Derek Erez Rabbah; Derek Erez Zuta; Kallah; Semahot; Soferim.

Bibliography: The manuscripts, editions, and translations have been discussed in the article. For an introduction to the Talmud the following works may be mentioned in addition to the general ones on Jewish history: Weiss, Dor, iii.;
Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, ii., Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1901;
H. L. Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1894 (covers the Mishnah also and contains an extensive bibliography of the Talmud);
M. Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, Cincinnati (also gives good bibliography of the Talmud; the second part of this work contains a clear discussion of the hermeneutics and the methodology of the Talmud). On the Palestinian Talmud: Z. Frankel, Mebo, Breslau, 1870;
J. Wiener, Gib'at Yerushalayim, Vienna, 1872 (reprinted from Ha-Shahar);
A. Geiger, Die Jerusalemische Gemara, in his Jüd. Zeit. 1870, pp. 278-306 (comp. Monatsschrift, 1871, pp. 120-137);
I. Lewy, Interpretation des Ersten Abschnitts des Palästinischen Talmud-Traktates Nesikin, in Breslauer Jahresbericht, 1895, pp. 1-19. On the Babylonian Talmud: Z. Frankel, Beiträge zur Einleitung in den Talmud, in Monatsschrift, 1861, pp. 168-194, 205-212, 258-272;
N. Brüll, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerkes, in his Jahrb. 1876, ii. 1-123. On the earlier works introductory to the Talmud: J. H. Weiss, in Bet Talmud, i., ii., Vienna, 1881, 1882;
Samuel b. Hophni, Madkhal ila 'al-Talmud (= "Introduction to the Talmud"; this is the earliest work bearing the title and is known only through a quotation in the lexicon of Ibn Janah, s.v. );
Samuel ha-Nagid, Mebo ha-Talmud (forming an appendix to the first volume of modern editions of the Talmud);
Joseph ibn 'AKnin, an introduction to the Talmud (Hebr. transl. from the Arabic), edited in the Jubelschrift des Breslauer Seminars zum Siebzigen Geburtstage Frankels, 1871.

For other works on the subject see Talmud Hermeneutics;

a list is given in Jellinek, Kontres ha-Kelalim, Vienna, 1878. General articles on the Talmud in reviews and encyclopedias: Emil Deutsch, in Quarterly Review, 1867, frequently reprinted and translated;
J. Derenbourg, in Lichtenberg's Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses, 1882, xii. 1007-1036;
Arsène Darmesteter, in R. E. J. xviii. (Actes et Conferences, pp. ccclxxxi.-dcxlii.);
S. Schechter, in Hastings, Dict. Bible, extra vol., 1904, pp. 57-66;
E. Bischoff, Talmud-Katechismus, Leipsic, 1904.

On the literature of the Talmud commentaries see Talmud Commentaries. On grammatical and lexicographical aids to the study of the Talmud see Jew. Encyc. vi.80, s.v. Grammar, Hebrew, and ib. iv. 580-585, s.v. Dictionaries, Hebrew.

Talmud