The Hebrew term Talmud (“study” or “learning”)
commonly refers to a compilation of ancient teachings
regarded as sacred and normative by Jews from the time
it was compiled until modern times and still so
regarded by traditional religious Jews. In its
broadest sense, the Talmud is a set of books
consisting of the Mishna (“repeated study”), the
Gemara (“completion”), and certain auxiliary
materials. The Mishna is a collection of originally
oral laws supplementing scriptural laws. The Gemara is
a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of
the Mishna, which in “the Talmud” is reproduced in
juxtaposition to the Gemara. For present-day
scholarship, however, Talmud in the precise sense
refers only to the materials customarily called
Gemara—an Aramaic term prevalent in medieval rabbinic
literature that was used by the church censor to
replace the term Talmud within the Talmudic discourse
in the Basel edition of the Talmud, published 1578–81.
This practice continued in all later editions.
The term Midrash (“exposition” or “investigation”;
plural, Midrashim) is also used in two senses. On the
one hand, it refers to a mode of biblical
interpretation prominent in the Talmudic literature;
on the other, it refers to a separate body of
commentaries on Scripture using this interpretative
mode.
Opposition to the Talmud
Despite the central place of the Talmud in traditional
Jewish life and thought, significant Jewish groups and
individuals have opposed it vigorously. The Karaite
sect in Babylonia, beginning in the 8th century,
refuted the oral tradition and denounced the Talmud as
a rabbinic fabrication. Medieval Jewish mystics
declared the Talmud a mere shell covering the
concealed meaning of the written Torah, and heretical
messianic sects in the 17th and 18th centuries totally
rejected it. The decisive blow to Talmudic authority
came in the 18th and 19th centuries when the Haskala
(the Jewish Enlightenment movement) and its aftermath,
Reform Judaism, secularized Jewish life and, in doing
so, shattered the Talmudic wall that had surrounded
the Jews. Thereafter, modernized Jews usually rejected
the Talmud as a medieval anachronism, denouncing it as
legalistic, casuistic, devitalized, and unspiritual.
There is also a long-standing anti-Talmudic tradition
among Christians. The Talmud was frequently attacked
by the church, particularly during the Middle Ages,
and accused of falsifying biblical meaning, thus
preventing Jews from becoming Christians. The church
held that the Talmud contained blasphemous remarks
against Jesus and Christianity and that it preached
moral and social bias toward non-Jews. On numerous
occasions the Talmud was publicly burned, and
permanent Talmudic censorship was established.
On the other hand, since the Renaissance there has
been a positive response and great interest in
rabbinic literature by eminent non-Jewish scholars,
writers, and thinkers in the West. As a result,
rabbinic ideas, images, and lore, embodied in the
Talmud, have permeated Western thought and culture.
Content, style, and form
The Talmud is first and foremost a legal compilation.
At the same time it contains materials that encompass
virtually the entire scope of subject matter explored
in antiquity. Included are topics as diverse as
agriculture, architecture, astrology, astronomy, dream
interpretation, ethics, fables, folklore, geography,
history, legend, magic, mathematics, medicine,
metaphysics, natural sciences, proverbs, theology, and
theosophy.
This encyclopaedic array is presented in a unique
dialectic style that faithfully reflects the spirit of
free give-and-take prevalent in the Talmudic
academies, where study was focussed upon a Talmudic
text. All present participated in an effort to exhaust
the meaning and ramifications of the text, debating
and arguing together. The mention of a name,
situation, or idea often led to the introduction of a
story or legend that lightened the mood of a complex
argument and carried discussion further.
This text-centred approach profoundly affected the
thinking and literary style of the rabbis. Study
became synonymous with active interpretation rather
than with passive absorption. Thinking was stimulated
by textual examination. Even original ideas were
expressed in the form of textual interpretations.
The subject matter of the oral Torah is classified
according to its content into Halakha and Haggada and
according to its literary form into Midrash and
Mishna. Halakha (“law”) deals with the legal, ritual,
and doctrinal parts of Scripture, showing how the laws
of the written Torah should be applied in life.
Haggada (“narrative”) expounds on the nonlegal parts
of Scripture, illustrating biblical
narrative,supplementing its stories, and exploring its
ideas. The term Midrash denotes the exegetical method
by which the oral tradition interprets and elaborates
scriptural text. It refers also to the large
collections of Halakhic and Haggadic materials that
take the form of a running commentary on the Bible and
that were deduced from Scripture by this exegetical
method. In short, it also refers to a body of
writings. Mishna is the comprehensive compendium that
presents the legal content of the oral tradition
independently of scriptural text.
Modes of interpretation and thought
Midrash was initially a philological method of
interpreting the literal meaning of biblical texts. In
time it developed into a sophisticated interpretive
system that reconciled apparent biblical
contradictions, established the scriptural basis of
new laws, and enriched biblicalcontent with new
meaning. Midrashic creativity reached its peak in the
schools of Rabbi Ishmael and Akiba, where two
different hermeneutic methods were applied. The first
was primarily logically oriented, making inferences
based upon similarity of content andanalogy. The
second rested largely upon textual scrutiny, assuming
that words and letters that seem superfluous teach
something not openly stated in the text.
The Talmud (i.e., the Gemara) quotes abundantly from
all Midrashic collections and concurrently uses all
rules employed by both the logical and textual
schools; moreover, the Talmud's interpretation of
Mishna is itself an adaptation of the Midrashic
method. The Talmud treats the Mishna in the same way
that Midrash treats Scripture. Contradictions are
explained through reinterpretation. New problems are
solved logically by analogy or textually by careful
scrutiny of verbal superfluity.
The strong involvement with hermeneutic
exegesis—interpretation according to systematic rules
or principles—helped develop the analytic skill and
inductive reasoning of the rabbis but inhibited the
growth of independent abstract thinking. Bound to a
text, they never attempted to formulate their ideas
into the type of unified system characteristic of
Greek philosophy. Unlike the philosophers, they
approached the abstract only by way of the concrete.
Events or texts stimulated them to form concepts.
These concepts were not defined but, once brought to
life, continued to grow and change meaning with usage
and in different contexts. This process of conceptual
development has been described by some as “organic
thinking.” Others use this term in a wider sense,
pointing out that, although rabbinic concepts are not
hierarchically ordered, they have a pattern-like
organic coherence. The meaning of each concept
isdependent upon the total pattern of concepts, for
the idea content of each grows richer as it
interweaves with the others.
Early compilations
Ezra the scribe who, according to the Book of Ezra,
reestablished and reformed the Jewish religion in the
5th century BCE, began the “search in the Law . . . to
teach in Israel statutes and ordinances.”
His work was continued by soferim (scribes), who
preserved, taught, and interpreted the Bible. They
linked the oral tradition to Scripture, transmitting
it as a running commentary on the Bible. For almost
300 years they applied the Torah to changing
circumstances, making it a living law. They also
introduced numerous laws that were designated “words
of the soferim” by Talmudic sources. By the end of
this period, rabbinic Judaism—the religious system
constructed by the scribes and rabbis—was strong
enough to withstand pressure from without and mature
enough to permit internal diversity of opinion.
At the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, a judicial
body headed by the zugot—pairs of scholars—assumed
Halakhic authority. There were five pairs in all,
between c. 150 and 30 BCE. The first of the zugot also
introduced the Mishnaic style of transmitting the oral
tradition.
The making of the Mishna: 2nd–3rd centuries
Hillel and Shammai, the last of the zugot, ushered in
the period of the tannaim—“teachers” of the Mishna—at
the end of the 1st century BCE. This era,
distinguished by a continuous attempt to consolidate
the fragmentary Midrashic and Mishnaic material,
culminated in the compilation of the Mishna at the
beginning of the 3rd century CE. The work was carried
out in the academies of Hillel and Shammai and in
others founded later. Most scholars believe that
Halakhic collections existed prior to the fall of
Jerusalem, in 70 CE. Other compilations were made at
Yavne, a Palestinian town near the Mediterranean, as
part of the effort to revitalize Judaism after the
disaster of 70 CE. By the beginning of the 2nd century
there were many such collections. Tradition has it
that Rabbi Akiba organized much of this material into
separate collections of Midrash, Mishna, and Haggada
and introduced the formal divisions in tannaitic
literature. His students and other scholars organized
new compilations that were studied in the different
academies.
After the rebellion of the Jews against Roman rule led
by Simeon bar Kokhba in 132–135, when the Sanhedrin
(the Jewish supreme court and highest academy) was
revived, the Mishnaic compilation adopted by the
Sanhedrin president became the official Mishna. The
Sanhedrin reached its highest stature under the
leadership of Judah ha-Nasi (Judah the Prince, or
President); he was also calledRabbi, as the preeminent
teacher.
It seems certain that the official Mishna studied
during his presidency was the Mishna we know and that
he was its editor. Judah aimed to include the entire
content of the oral tradition. He drew heavily from
the collections of Akiba's pupils but also
incorporated material from other compilations,
including early ones. Nevertheless, the accumulation
was such that selection was necessary. Thus almost no
Midrash or Haggada was included. Colleagues and pupils
of Judah not only made minor additions to the Mishna
but tried to preserve the excluded material, the
Baraitot (“Exclusions”), in separate collections. One
of these was the Tosefta (“Addition”). Midrashic
material was gathered in separate compilations, and
later revisions of some of these are still extant. The
language of all of the tannaitic literature is the new
Hebrew developed during the period of the Second
Temple (c. 6th century BCE–1st century CE).
Early compilations
The making of the Talmuds: 3rd–6th century
The expounders of the Mishna were the amoraim
(“interpreter”), and the two Talmuds—the Palestinian
(or Jerusalem) and the Babylonian—consist of their
explanations, discussions, and decisions. Both take
the form of a running commentary on the Mishna.
The foundations for these two monumental works were
begun by three disciples of Judah ha-Nasi: JoRanan bar
NappaRa, Rav (Abba Arika), and Samuel bar Abba, in
their academies at Tiberias, in Palestine, and at Sura
and Nehardea in Babylonia, respectively. Centres of
learning where the Mishna was expounded existed also
at Sepphoris, Caesarea, and Lydda in Palestine. In
time new academies were established in Babylonia, the
best known being those at Pumbedita, Mahoza and
Naresh, founded by Judah bar Ezekiel, Rava, and Rav
Pappa, respectively. The enrollment of these centres
often numbered in the thousands, and students spent
many years there. Those who no longer lived on the
academy grounds returned twice annually for the kalla,
a month of study in the spring and fall.
Academies differed in their methods of study.
Pumbedita, for example, stressed casuistry, while Sura
emphasized breadth of knowledge. Students often moved
from one academy to another and even from Palestine to
Babylonia or from Babylonia to Palestine. This kept
open the channels of communication between the various
academies and resulted in the inclusion of much
Babylonian material in the Palestinian Talmud, and
vice versa.
Despite the overwhelming similarity of the two
Talmuds, however, they do differ in some ways. The
Palestinian Talmud is written in the Western Aramaic
dialect, the Babylonian in the Eastern. The former is
invariably shorter, and, not having been subject to
final redaction, its discussions are often incomplete.
Its explanations tend to remain closer to the literal
meaning of the Mishna, preferring textual emendation
to casuistic interpretation. Finally, some of the
legal concepts in the Babylonian Talmud reflect the
influence of Persian law, for Babylonia was under
Persian rule at the time.
The main endeavour of the amoraim was to thoroughly
explain and exhaust the meaning of the Mishna and the
Baraitot. Apparent contradictions were reconciled by
such means as explaining that conflicting statements
referred to different situations or by asserting that
they stemmed from the Mishnayot (Mishnas) of different
tannaim. The same techniques were used when amoraic
statements contradicted the Mishna. These discussions
took place for hundreds of years, and their content
was passed on from generation to generation, until the
compilation of the Talmud.
The portion of the Palestinian Talmud dealing with the
three Bavot (“gates”)—i.e., the first three tractates
of the fourth order of the Mishna (for orders and
tractates, see Talmudic and Midrashic literature,
below)—was compiled in Caesarea in the middle of the
4th century and is distinguished from the rest by its
brevity and terminology. The remainder was completed
in Tiberias some 50 years later. It seems likely that
its compilation was a rescue operation designed to
preserve as much of the Halakhic material collected in
Palestinian academies as possible, for by that time
the deterioration of the political situation had
forced most Palestinian scholars to emigrate to
Babylonia.
The Babylonian Talmud was compiled up to the 6th
century. Some scholars suggest that the organization
of the Talmud began early and that successive
generations of amoraim added layer upon layer to
previously arranged material. Others suggest that at
the beginning a stratum called Gemara, consisting only
of Halakhic decisions or short comments, was set
forth. Still others theorize that no overall
arrangement of Talmudic material was made until the
end of the 4th century.
The statement in the tractate Bava metzia that “Rabina
and Rav Ashi were the end of instruction” is most
often understood as referringto the final redaction of
the Talmud. Since at least two generations of scholars
following Rav Ashi (died 427) are mentioned in the
Talmud, most scholars suggest that “Rabina” refers to
Rabina bar Huna (died 499) and that the redaction was
a slow process lastingabout 75 years to the end of the
5th century.
According to the tradition of the geonim—the heads of
the academies at Sura and Pumbedita from the 6th to
the 11th centuries—the Babylonian Talmud was completed
by the 6th-century savoraim (“expositors”). But the
extent of their contribution is not precisely known.
Some attribute to them only short additions. Others
credit them with creating the terminology linking the
phases of Talmudic discussions. According to another
view, they added comments and often decided between
conflicting opinions. The proponents of theso-called
Gemara theory noted above ascribe to them the entire
dialectic portion of Talmudic discourse.
Mishna
The Mishna is divided into six orders (sedarim), each
order into tractates (massekhtot), and each tractate
into chapters (peraqim). The six orders are ZeraÅim,
MoÅed, Nashim, Neziqin, Qodashim, and ¢ohorot.
1. ZeraÅim (“Seeds”) consists of 11 tractates:
Berakhot, Pea, Demai, Kilayim, SheviÅit, Terumot,
MaÅaserot, MaÅaser sheni, Salla, ÅOrla, and Bikkurim.
Except for Berakhot (“Blessings”), which treats of
daily prayers and grace, this order deals with laws
related to agriculture in Palestine. It includes
prohibitions against mixtures in plants
(hybridization), legislation relating to the
sabbatical year (when land lies fallow and debts are
remitted), and regulations concerning the portions of
harvest given to the poor, the Levites, and the
priests.
2. MoÅed (“Season” or “Festival”) consists of 12
tractates: Shabbat, ÅEruvin, PesaRim, Sheqalim, Yoma,
Sukka, Betza, Rosh Hashana,TaÅanit, Megilla, MoÅed
qa¡an, and Sagiga. This order deals with ceremonies,
rituals, observances, and prohibitions relating to
specialdays of the year, including the Sabbath,
holidays, and fast days. Since the half-shekel Temple
contribution was collected on specified days, tractate
Sheqalim, regarding this practice, is included.
3. Nashim (“Women”) consists of seven tractates:
Yevamot, Ketubbot, Nedarim, Nazir, So¡a, Gi¡¡in, and
Qiddushin. This order deals with laws concerning
betrothal, marriage, sexual and financial relations
between husband and wife, adultery, and divorce. Since
Nazirite (ascetic) and other vows may affect marital
relations, Nedarim (“Vows”) and Nazir (“Nazirite”) are
included here.
4. Neziqin (“Damages”) consists of 10 tractates, the
first three of which were originally considered one
(the Bavot): Bava qamma, Bava metzia, Bava batra,
Sanhedrin, Makkot, ShevuÅot, ÅEduyyot, ÅAvoda zara,
Avot, and Horayot. This order deals with civil and
criminal law concerning damages, theft, labour
relations, usury, real estate, partnerships, tenant
relations, inheritance, court composition,
jurisdiction and testimony, erroneous decisions of the
Sanhedrin, and capital and other physical punishments.
Since idolatry, in the literal sense of worship or
veneration of material images, is punishable by death,
ÅAvoda zara (“Idolatry”) is included. Avot
(“Fathers”), commonly called “Ethics of the Fathers”
in English, seems to have been included to teach a
moral way of life that precludes the transgression of
law.
5. Qodashim (“Sacred Things”) consists of 11
tractates: ZevaRim, MenaRot, Sullin, Bekhorot,
ÅArakhin, Temura, Keretot, MeÅila, Tamid,Middot, and
Qinnim. This order incorporates some of the oldest
Mishnaic portions. It treats of the Temple and
includes regulations concerning sacrifices, offerings,
and donations. It also contains a detailed description
of the Temple complex.
6. ¢ohorot (“Purifications”) consists of 12 tractates:
Kelim, Ohalot, NegaÅim, Para, ¢ohorot, MiqwaÆot,
Nidda, Makhshirin, Zavim, ¢evul yom, Yadayim, and
ÅUqtzin. This order deals with laws governing the
ritual impurity of vessels, dwellings, foods, and
persons, and with purification processes.
Tosefta
The Tosefta (“Addition”) closely resembles the Mishna
in content and order. In its present form it at times
supplements the Mishna, at other times comments on it,
and often also opposes it. There is no Tosefta on the
tractates Avot, Tamid, Middot, and Qinnim. The Talmud
quotes from many other collections of Mishnaiot and
Baraitot: some are attributed to tannaim, and predate
the established Mishna; and others, to amoraim. The
original material is lost.
Talmud (Gemara)
Although the entire Mishna was studied at the
Palestinian and Babylonian academies, the Palestinian
Talmud (Gemara) covers only the first four orders
(except chapters 21–24 of Shabbat and chapter 3 of
Makkot) and the first three chapters of Nidda in the
sixth order. Most scholars agree that the Palestinian
Talmud was never completed to the fifth and sixth
orders of the Mishna and that the missing parts of the
other orders were lost. A manuscript of chapter 3 of
Makkot was, in fact, found and was published in 1946.
The Babylonian Talmud does not cover orders ZeraÅim
(except Berakhot) and ¢ohorot (except Nidda) and
tractates Tamid (except chapters 1,2,4), Sheqalim,
Middot, Qinnim, Avot, and ÅEduyyot. Scholars concur
that the Talmud for these parts was never completed,
possibly because their content was not relevant in
Babylonia.
Midrashim
Halakhic
Halakhic Midrashim are exegetic commentaries on the
legal content of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The five extantcollections are Mekhilta,
on Exodus; Mekhilta deRabbi ShimÅon ben YoRai, on
Exodus; Sifra, on Leviticus; Sifre, on Numbers and
Deuteronomy; Sifre zu¡a, on Numbers. (Mekhilta means
“measure,” a norm or rule; Sifra, plural Sifre, means
“writing” or “book.”) Critical analysis reveals that
Mekhilta and Sifre on Numbers differ from the others
in terminology and method. Most scholars agree that
these two originated in the school of Ishmael and the
others in that of Akiba. In their present form they
also include later additions.Mention should also be
made of Midrash tannaim on Deuteronomy, consisting of
fragments recovered from the Yemenite anthology
Midrash ha-gadol.
Haggadic
Haggadic Midrashim originated with the weekly
synagogue readings and their accompanying
explanations. Although Haggadic collections existed in
tannaitic times, extant collections date from the
4th–11th centuries. Midrashic compilations were not
authoritatively edited and tend to be coincidental and
fragmentary.
Most notable among biblical collections is Midrash
rabba (“Great Midrash”), a composite of commentaries
on the Pentateuch and five Megillot (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations) differing in
nature and age. Its oldest portion, the 5th-century
Genesis rabba, is largely a verse-by-verse commentary,
while the 6th-century Leviticus rabba consists of
homilies and Lamentations rabba (end of 6th century)
is mainly narrative. The remaining portions of Midrash
rabba were compiled at later dates.
The TanRuma (after the late-4th-century Palestinian
amora TanRuma bar Abba), of which two versions are
extant, is another important Pentateuchal Midrash.
Additional Midrashic compilations include those to the
books of Samuel, Psalms, and Proverbs. Mention should
also be made of Pesiqta (“Section” or “Cycles”) deRab
Kahana (after a Babylonian amora) and Pesiqta rabbati
(“The Great Cycle”), consisting of homilies on the
Torah (Pentateuch) readings that occur on festivals
and special Sabbaths.
Haggadic compilations independent of biblical text
include Avot deRabbi Natan, Tanna deve Eliyyahu, Pirqe
(“Chapters”) deRabbi Eliezer, and tractates Derekh
eretz (“Correct Conduct”). These primarily deal with
ethics, moral teachings, and biblical narrative.
Among the medieval anthologies are the Yalqu¡
(“Compilation”) Shimoni (13th century), Yalqu¡
ha-makhiri (14th century), and ÅEn YaÅaqov (“Eye of
Jacob,” 16th century). The two most important modern
Haggadic anthologies are those of Wilhelm Bacher and
Louis Ginzberg.
Halakhic
Halakhic Midrashim are exegetic commentaries on the
legal content of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The five extantcollections are Mekhilta,
on Exodus; Mekhilta deRabbi ShimÅon ben YoRai, on
Exodus; Sifra, on Leviticus; Sifre, on Numbers and
Deuteronomy; Sifre zu¡a, on Numbers. (Mekhilta means
“measure,” a norm or rule; Sifra, plural Sifre, means
“writing” or “book.”) Critical analysis reveals that
Mekhilta and Sifre on Numbers differ from the others
in terminology and method. Most scholars agree that
these two originated in the school of Ishmael and the
others in that of Akiba. In their present form they
also include later additions.Mention should also be
made of Midrash tannaim on Deuteronomy, consisting of
fragments recovered from the Yemenite anthology
Midrash ha-gadol.
Haggadic
Haggadic Midrashim originated with the weekly
synagogue readings and their accompanying
explanations. Although Haggadic collections existed in
tannaitic times, extant collections date from the
4th–11th centuries. Midrashic compilations were not
authoritatively edited and tend to be coincidental and
fragmentary.
Most notable among biblical collections is Midrash
rabba (“Great Midrash”), a composite of commentaries
on the Pentateuch and five Megillot (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations) differing in
nature and age. Its oldest portion, the 5th-century
Genesis rabba, is largely a verse-by-verse commentary,
while the 6th-century Leviticus rabba consists of
homilies and Lamentations rabba (end of 6th century)
is mainly narrative. The remaining portions of Midrash
rabba were compiled at later dates.
The TanRuma (after the late-4th-century Palestinian
amora TanRuma bar Abba), of which two versions are
extant, is another important Pentateuchal Midrash.
Additional Midrashic compilations include those to the
books of Samuel, Psalms, and Proverbs. Mention should
also be made of Pesiqta (“Section” or “Cycles”) deRab
Kahana (after a Babylonian amora) and Pesiqta rabbati
(“The Great Cycle”), consisting of homilies on the
Torah (Pentateuch) readings that occur on festivals
and special Sabbaths.
Haggadic compilations independent of biblical text
include Avot deRabbi Natan, Tanna deve Eliyyahu, Pirqe
(“Chapters”) deRabbi Eliezer, and tractates Derekh
eretz (“Correct Conduct”). These primarily deal with
ethics, moral teachings, and biblical narrative.
Among the medieval anthologies are the Yalqu¡
(“Compilation”) Shimoni (13th century), Yalqu¡
ha-makhiri (14th century), and ÅEn YaÅaqov (“Eye of
Jacob,” 16th century). The two most important modern
Haggadic anthologies are those of Wilhelm Bacher and
Louis Ginzberg.
Writing and printing of the Talmuds
Study in the academies was always oral; hence the
question of when the Mishna and Talmud were first
committed to writing has beenthe subject of much
discussion. According to some scholars, the process of
writing began with Judah ha-Nasi. Others attribute it
to the savoraim.
The Palestinian Talmud was first printed in Venice
(1523–24). All later editions followed this one.
Printing of the Babylonian Talmud was begun in Spain
about 1482, and there have been more than 100
different editions since. The oldest extant full
edition appeared in Venice (1520–23). This became the
prototype for later printings, setting the type of
page and pagination (a total of close to 5,500
folios). The standard edition was printed in Vilna
beginning in 1886. It carries many commentaries and
commentaries upon commentaries. In the sample page
reproduced here, the Mishna and the Gemara are placed
in the centre column of the page and are printed in
the heavy type. The commentary of Rashi is always
located in the inner column of the page and the
tosafot in the outer column. Other commentaries and
references to legal codes and to scriptural verses
surround the major commentaries, in smaller type.
Talmudic citations are made by tractate name, folio
number, and side of the folio (a or b).
Nonlegal subject matter
Main religious doctrines
While the Talmudic rabbis never formally systematized
their beliefs, their underlying religious concepts are
clearly reflected in their decisions, ideas, and
attitudes. Preeminent in rabbinic thinking were the
concepts of God, Torah, and Israel.
God
The rabbinic God was primarily the biblical God who
acted in history, the creator and source of life who
was experienced through the senses rather than
intellect. In reaction to sectarian teachings (i.e.,
Gnosticism and early Christianity), however, the
rabbis stressed God's universality, absolute unity,
and direct involvement with the world. His immanence
and transcendence (being present in and beyond the
universe) were emphasized, and biblical
anthropomorphisms (ascribing human attributes to God)
were explained metaphorically. The rabbis also
stressed an intimacy into the relationship between God
and man. God became the father to whom each individual
could turn in direct prayer for his needs. To the
names YHWH and Elohim, which traditionally were
identified with God's mercy and judgment,
respectively, the rabbis added new terms reflecting
his other attributes—e.g., Shekhina (“Presence”),
representing his omnipresence, or immanence; and Maqom
(“Place”), his transcendence.
Torah
Torah, in the Talmudic sense, refers to all religious
and ethical teachings handed down by tradition.
According to the rabbis, God created the Torah long
before the world. It contained the eternal divine
formula for the world's future workings and thus the
answers to all problems for all times and all people.
God himself is depicted as studying the Torah, for
even he cannot make decisions concerning the world
that contradict it.
Israel
The people Israel, according to the rabbis, were
chosen by God to be the guardian of his Torah, and,
just as God chose Israel, Israel chose God. Thus, the
concept of Israel as a nation bound together by an
irrevocable commitment to bring the Torah to the
world, and bearing corporate responsibility for this
mission, was formed. No Jew can free himself from this
commitment, but anyone accepting it,regardless of
race, becomes a full-fledged Jew with obligations
binding him and his descendants.
With this in mind, the rabbis repeatedly emphasized
the importance of studying Torah. They pointed out
that the Torah is not a declaration of religious
beliefs. Rather it is a statement of a discipline
regulating each detail of life. Any transgression of
this disciplinehampers the divine plan of establishing
God's way of life in this world.
Worship
The intensive rabbinic religious involvement led to
the growth of a new concept of worship. While in the
Bible worship was usually centred in the sanctuary of
the Temple in Jerusalem, the rabbis, particularly
after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE),
attempted to sanctify all of life. Thus, they said
that one must bless God upon arising in the morning,
before dressing, before and after meals, and in all
ordinary daily actions or routines. Each move in life
should be an act of worship glorifying God's name.
Messianic kingdom
In rabbinic thinking the establishment of God's
kingdom was tied to the Messiah, who was to be a
descendant of King David, wise, just, a great scholar,
a moral leader, and courageous king. He would redeem
the Jews from exile and reestablish their independence
in the land of Israel. With this the world would be
ushered into a new era of righteousness and universal
peace. The rabbis referred to this era as “the world
commonly refers to a compilation of ancient teachings
regarded as sacred and normative by Jews from the time
it was compiled until modern times and still so
regarded by traditional religious Jews. In its
broadest sense, the Talmud is a set of books
consisting of the Mishna (“repeated study”), the
Gemara (“completion”), and certain auxiliary
materials. The Mishna is a collection of originally
oral laws supplementing scriptural laws. The Gemara is
a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of
the Mishna, which in “the Talmud” is reproduced in
juxtaposition to the Gemara. For present-day
scholarship, however, Talmud in the precise sense
refers only to the materials customarily called
Gemara—an Aramaic term prevalent in medieval rabbinic
literature that was used by the church censor to
replace the term Talmud within the Talmudic discourse
in the Basel edition of the Talmud, published 1578–81.
This practice continued in all later editions.
The term Midrash (“exposition” or “investigation”;
plural, Midrashim) is also used in two senses. On the
one hand, it refers to a mode of biblical
interpretation prominent in the Talmudic literature;
on the other, it refers to a separate body of
commentaries on Scripture using this interpretative
mode.
Opposition to the Talmud
Despite the central place of the Talmud in traditional
Jewish life and thought, significant Jewish groups and
individuals have opposed it vigorously. The Karaite
sect in Babylonia, beginning in the 8th century,
refuted the oral tradition and denounced the Talmud as
a rabbinic fabrication. Medieval Jewish mystics
declared the Talmud a mere shell covering the
concealed meaning of the written Torah, and heretical
messianic sects in the 17th and 18th centuries totally
rejected it. The decisive blow to Talmudic authority
came in the 18th and 19th centuries when the Haskala
(the Jewish Enlightenment movement) and its aftermath,
Reform Judaism, secularized Jewish life and, in doing
so, shattered the Talmudic wall that had surrounded
the Jews. Thereafter, modernized Jews usually rejected
the Talmud as a medieval anachronism, denouncing it as
legalistic, casuistic, devitalized, and unspiritual.
There is also a long-standing anti-Talmudic tradition
among Christians. The Talmud was frequently attacked
by the church, particularly during the Middle Ages,
and accused of falsifying biblical meaning, thus
preventing Jews from becoming Christians. The church
held that the Talmud contained blasphemous remarks
against Jesus and Christianity and that it preached
moral and social bias toward non-Jews. On numerous
occasions the Talmud was publicly burned, and
permanent Talmudic censorship was established.
On the other hand, since the Renaissance there has
been a positive response and great interest in
rabbinic literature by eminent non-Jewish scholars,
writers, and thinkers in the West. As a result,
rabbinic ideas, images, and lore, embodied in the
Talmud, have permeated Western thought and culture.
Content, style, and form
The Talmud is first and foremost a legal compilation.
At the same time it contains materials that encompass
virtually the entire scope of subject matter explored
in antiquity. Included are topics as diverse as
agriculture, architecture, astrology, astronomy, dream
interpretation, ethics, fables, folklore, geography,
history, legend, magic, mathematics, medicine,
metaphysics, natural sciences, proverbs, theology, and
theosophy.
This encyclopaedic array is presented in a unique
dialectic style that faithfully reflects the spirit of
free give-and-take prevalent in the Talmudic
academies, where study was focussed upon a Talmudic
text. All present participated in an effort to exhaust
the meaning and ramifications of the text, debating
and arguing together. The mention of a name,
situation, or idea often led to the introduction of a
story or legend that lightened the mood of a complex
argument and carried discussion further.
This text-centred approach profoundly affected the
thinking and literary style of the rabbis. Study
became synonymous with active interpretation rather
than with passive absorption. Thinking was stimulated
by textual examination. Even original ideas were
expressed in the form of textual interpretations.
The subject matter of the oral Torah is classified
according to its content into Halakha and Haggada and
according to its literary form into Midrash and
Mishna. Halakha (“law”) deals with the legal, ritual,
and doctrinal parts of Scripture, showing how the laws
of the written Torah should be applied in life.
Haggada (“narrative”) expounds on the nonlegal parts
of Scripture, illustrating biblical
narrative,supplementing its stories, and exploring its
ideas. The term Midrash denotes the exegetical method
by which the oral tradition interprets and elaborates
scriptural text. It refers also to the large
collections of Halakhic and Haggadic materials that
take the form of a running commentary on the Bible and
that were deduced from Scripture by this exegetical
method. In short, it also refers to a body of
writings. Mishna is the comprehensive compendium that
presents the legal content of the oral tradition
independently of scriptural text.
Modes of interpretation and thought
Midrash was initially a philological method of
interpreting the literal meaning of biblical texts. In
time it developed into a sophisticated interpretive
system that reconciled apparent biblical
contradictions, established the scriptural basis of
new laws, and enriched biblicalcontent with new
meaning. Midrashic creativity reached its peak in the
schools of Rabbi Ishmael and Akiba, where two
different hermeneutic methods were applied. The first
was primarily logically oriented, making inferences
based upon similarity of content andanalogy. The
second rested largely upon textual scrutiny, assuming
that words and letters that seem superfluous teach
something not openly stated in the text.
The Talmud (i.e., the Gemara) quotes abundantly from
all Midrashic collections and concurrently uses all
rules employed by both the logical and textual
schools; moreover, the Talmud's interpretation of
Mishna is itself an adaptation of the Midrashic
method. The Talmud treats the Mishna in the same way
that Midrash treats Scripture. Contradictions are
explained through reinterpretation. New problems are
solved logically by analogy or textually by careful
scrutiny of verbal superfluity.
The strong involvement with hermeneutic
exegesis—interpretation according to systematic rules
or principles—helped develop the analytic skill and
inductive reasoning of the rabbis but inhibited the
growth of independent abstract thinking. Bound to a
text, they never attempted to formulate their ideas
into the type of unified system characteristic of
Greek philosophy. Unlike the philosophers, they
approached the abstract only by way of the concrete.
Events or texts stimulated them to form concepts.
These concepts were not defined but, once brought to
life, continued to grow and change meaning with usage
and in different contexts. This process of conceptual
development has been described by some as “organic
thinking.” Others use this term in a wider sense,
pointing out that, although rabbinic concepts are not
hierarchically ordered, they have a pattern-like
organic coherence. The meaning of each concept
isdependent upon the total pattern of concepts, for
the idea content of each grows richer as it
interweaves with the others.
Early compilations
Ezra the scribe who, according to the Book of Ezra,
reestablished and reformed the Jewish religion in the
5th century BCE, began the “search in the Law . . . to
teach in Israel statutes and ordinances.”
His work was continued by soferim (scribes), who
preserved, taught, and interpreted the Bible. They
linked the oral tradition to Scripture, transmitting
it as a running commentary on the Bible. For almost
300 years they applied the Torah to changing
circumstances, making it a living law. They also
introduced numerous laws that were designated “words
of the soferim” by Talmudic sources. By the end of
this period, rabbinic Judaism—the religious system
constructed by the scribes and rabbis—was strong
enough to withstand pressure from without and mature
enough to permit internal diversity of opinion.
At the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, a judicial
body headed by the zugot—pairs of scholars—assumed
Halakhic authority. There were five pairs in all,
between c. 150 and 30 BCE. The first of the zugot also
introduced the Mishnaic style of transmitting the oral
tradition.
The making of the Mishna: 2nd–3rd centuries
Hillel and Shammai, the last of the zugot, ushered in
the period of the tannaim—“teachers” of the Mishna—at
the end of the 1st century BCE. This era,
distinguished by a continuous attempt to consolidate
the fragmentary Midrashic and Mishnaic material,
culminated in the compilation of the Mishna at the
beginning of the 3rd century CE. The work was carried
out in the academies of Hillel and Shammai and in
others founded later. Most scholars believe that
Halakhic collections existed prior to the fall of
Jerusalem, in 70 CE. Other compilations were made at
Yavne, a Palestinian town near the Mediterranean, as
part of the effort to revitalize Judaism after the
disaster of 70 CE. By the beginning of the 2nd century
there were many such collections. Tradition has it
that Rabbi Akiba organized much of this material into
separate collections of Midrash, Mishna, and Haggada
and introduced the formal divisions in tannaitic
literature. His students and other scholars organized
new compilations that were studied in the different
academies.
After the rebellion of the Jews against Roman rule led
by Simeon bar Kokhba in 132–135, when the Sanhedrin
(the Jewish supreme court and highest academy) was
revived, the Mishnaic compilation adopted by the
Sanhedrin president became the official Mishna. The
Sanhedrin reached its highest stature under the
leadership of Judah ha-Nasi (Judah the Prince, or
President); he was also calledRabbi, as the preeminent
teacher.
It seems certain that the official Mishna studied
during his presidency was the Mishna we know and that
he was its editor. Judah aimed to include the entire
content of the oral tradition. He drew heavily from
the collections of Akiba's pupils but also
incorporated material from other compilations,
including early ones. Nevertheless, the accumulation
was such that selection was necessary. Thus almost no
Midrash or Haggada was included. Colleagues and pupils
of Judah not only made minor additions to the Mishna
but tried to preserve the excluded material, the
Baraitot (“Exclusions”), in separate collections. One
of these was the Tosefta (“Addition”). Midrashic
material was gathered in separate compilations, and
later revisions of some of these are still extant. The
language of all of the tannaitic literature is the new
Hebrew developed during the period of the Second
Temple (c. 6th century BCE–1st century CE).
Early compilations
The making of the Talmuds: 3rd–6th century
The expounders of the Mishna were the amoraim
(“interpreter”), and the two Talmuds—the Palestinian
(or Jerusalem) and the Babylonian—consist of their
explanations, discussions, and decisions. Both take
the form of a running commentary on the Mishna.
The foundations for these two monumental works were
begun by three disciples of Judah ha-Nasi: JoRanan bar
NappaRa, Rav (Abba Arika), and Samuel bar Abba, in
their academies at Tiberias, in Palestine, and at Sura
and Nehardea in Babylonia, respectively. Centres of
learning where the Mishna was expounded existed also
at Sepphoris, Caesarea, and Lydda in Palestine. In
time new academies were established in Babylonia, the
best known being those at Pumbedita, Mahoza and
Naresh, founded by Judah bar Ezekiel, Rava, and Rav
Pappa, respectively. The enrollment of these centres
often numbered in the thousands, and students spent
many years there. Those who no longer lived on the
academy grounds returned twice annually for the kalla,
a month of study in the spring and fall.
Academies differed in their methods of study.
Pumbedita, for example, stressed casuistry, while Sura
emphasized breadth of knowledge. Students often moved
from one academy to another and even from Palestine to
Babylonia or from Babylonia to Palestine. This kept
open the channels of communication between the various
academies and resulted in the inclusion of much
Babylonian material in the Palestinian Talmud, and
vice versa.
Despite the overwhelming similarity of the two
Talmuds, however, they do differ in some ways. The
Palestinian Talmud is written in the Western Aramaic
dialect, the Babylonian in the Eastern. The former is
invariably shorter, and, not having been subject to
final redaction, its discussions are often incomplete.
Its explanations tend to remain closer to the literal
meaning of the Mishna, preferring textual emendation
to casuistic interpretation. Finally, some of the
legal concepts in the Babylonian Talmud reflect the
influence of Persian law, for Babylonia was under
Persian rule at the time.
The main endeavour of the amoraim was to thoroughly
explain and exhaust the meaning of the Mishna and the
Baraitot. Apparent contradictions were reconciled by
such means as explaining that conflicting statements
referred to different situations or by asserting that
they stemmed from the Mishnayot (Mishnas) of different
tannaim. The same techniques were used when amoraic
statements contradicted the Mishna. These discussions
took place for hundreds of years, and their content
was passed on from generation to generation, until the
compilation of the Talmud.
The portion of the Palestinian Talmud dealing with the
three Bavot (“gates”)—i.e., the first three tractates
of the fourth order of the Mishna (for orders and
tractates, see Talmudic and Midrashic literature,
below)—was compiled in Caesarea in the middle of the
4th century and is distinguished from the rest by its
brevity and terminology. The remainder was completed
in Tiberias some 50 years later. It seems likely that
its compilation was a rescue operation designed to
preserve as much of the Halakhic material collected in
Palestinian academies as possible, for by that time
the deterioration of the political situation had
forced most Palestinian scholars to emigrate to
Babylonia.
The Babylonian Talmud was compiled up to the 6th
century. Some scholars suggest that the organization
of the Talmud began early and that successive
generations of amoraim added layer upon layer to
previously arranged material. Others suggest that at
the beginning a stratum called Gemara, consisting only
of Halakhic decisions or short comments, was set
forth. Still others theorize that no overall
arrangement of Talmudic material was made until the
end of the 4th century.
The statement in the tractate Bava metzia that “Rabina
and Rav Ashi were the end of instruction” is most
often understood as referringto the final redaction of
the Talmud. Since at least two generations of scholars
following Rav Ashi (died 427) are mentioned in the
Talmud, most scholars suggest that “Rabina” refers to
Rabina bar Huna (died 499) and that the redaction was
a slow process lastingabout 75 years to the end of the
5th century.
According to the tradition of the geonim—the heads of
the academies at Sura and Pumbedita from the 6th to
the 11th centuries—the Babylonian Talmud was completed
by the 6th-century savoraim (“expositors”). But the
extent of their contribution is not precisely known.
Some attribute to them only short additions. Others
credit them with creating the terminology linking the
phases of Talmudic discussions. According to another
view, they added comments and often decided between
conflicting opinions. The proponents of theso-called
Gemara theory noted above ascribe to them the entire
dialectic portion of Talmudic discourse.
Mishna
The Mishna is divided into six orders (sedarim), each
order into tractates (massekhtot), and each tractate
into chapters (peraqim). The six orders are ZeraÅim,
MoÅed, Nashim, Neziqin, Qodashim, and ¢ohorot.
1. ZeraÅim (“Seeds”) consists of 11 tractates:
Berakhot, Pea, Demai, Kilayim, SheviÅit, Terumot,
MaÅaserot, MaÅaser sheni, Salla, ÅOrla, and Bikkurim.
Except for Berakhot (“Blessings”), which treats of
daily prayers and grace, this order deals with laws
related to agriculture in Palestine. It includes
prohibitions against mixtures in plants
(hybridization), legislation relating to the
sabbatical year (when land lies fallow and debts are
remitted), and regulations concerning the portions of
harvest given to the poor, the Levites, and the
priests.
2. MoÅed (“Season” or “Festival”) consists of 12
tractates: Shabbat, ÅEruvin, PesaRim, Sheqalim, Yoma,
Sukka, Betza, Rosh Hashana,TaÅanit, Megilla, MoÅed
qa¡an, and Sagiga. This order deals with ceremonies,
rituals, observances, and prohibitions relating to
specialdays of the year, including the Sabbath,
holidays, and fast days. Since the half-shekel Temple
contribution was collected on specified days, tractate
Sheqalim, regarding this practice, is included.
3. Nashim (“Women”) consists of seven tractates:
Yevamot, Ketubbot, Nedarim, Nazir, So¡a, Gi¡¡in, and
Qiddushin. This order deals with laws concerning
betrothal, marriage, sexual and financial relations
between husband and wife, adultery, and divorce. Since
Nazirite (ascetic) and other vows may affect marital
relations, Nedarim (“Vows”) and Nazir (“Nazirite”) are
included here.
4. Neziqin (“Damages”) consists of 10 tractates, the
first three of which were originally considered one
(the Bavot): Bava qamma, Bava metzia, Bava batra,
Sanhedrin, Makkot, ShevuÅot, ÅEduyyot, ÅAvoda zara,
Avot, and Horayot. This order deals with civil and
criminal law concerning damages, theft, labour
relations, usury, real estate, partnerships, tenant
relations, inheritance, court composition,
jurisdiction and testimony, erroneous decisions of the
Sanhedrin, and capital and other physical punishments.
Since idolatry, in the literal sense of worship or
veneration of material images, is punishable by death,
ÅAvoda zara (“Idolatry”) is included. Avot
(“Fathers”), commonly called “Ethics of the Fathers”
in English, seems to have been included to teach a
moral way of life that precludes the transgression of
law.
5. Qodashim (“Sacred Things”) consists of 11
tractates: ZevaRim, MenaRot, Sullin, Bekhorot,
ÅArakhin, Temura, Keretot, MeÅila, Tamid,Middot, and
Qinnim. This order incorporates some of the oldest
Mishnaic portions. It treats of the Temple and
includes regulations concerning sacrifices, offerings,
and donations. It also contains a detailed description
of the Temple complex.
6. ¢ohorot (“Purifications”) consists of 12 tractates:
Kelim, Ohalot, NegaÅim, Para, ¢ohorot, MiqwaÆot,
Nidda, Makhshirin, Zavim, ¢evul yom, Yadayim, and
ÅUqtzin. This order deals with laws governing the
ritual impurity of vessels, dwellings, foods, and
persons, and with purification processes.
Tosefta
The Tosefta (“Addition”) closely resembles the Mishna
in content and order. In its present form it at times
supplements the Mishna, at other times comments on it,
and often also opposes it. There is no Tosefta on the
tractates Avot, Tamid, Middot, and Qinnim. The Talmud
quotes from many other collections of Mishnaiot and
Baraitot: some are attributed to tannaim, and predate
the established Mishna; and others, to amoraim. The
original material is lost.
Talmud (Gemara)
Although the entire Mishna was studied at the
Palestinian and Babylonian academies, the Palestinian
Talmud (Gemara) covers only the first four orders
(except chapters 21–24 of Shabbat and chapter 3 of
Makkot) and the first three chapters of Nidda in the
sixth order. Most scholars agree that the Palestinian
Talmud was never completed to the fifth and sixth
orders of the Mishna and that the missing parts of the
other orders were lost. A manuscript of chapter 3 of
Makkot was, in fact, found and was published in 1946.
The Babylonian Talmud does not cover orders ZeraÅim
(except Berakhot) and ¢ohorot (except Nidda) and
tractates Tamid (except chapters 1,2,4), Sheqalim,
Middot, Qinnim, Avot, and ÅEduyyot. Scholars concur
that the Talmud for these parts was never completed,
possibly because their content was not relevant in
Babylonia.
Midrashim
Halakhic
Halakhic Midrashim are exegetic commentaries on the
legal content of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The five extantcollections are Mekhilta,
on Exodus; Mekhilta deRabbi ShimÅon ben YoRai, on
Exodus; Sifra, on Leviticus; Sifre, on Numbers and
Deuteronomy; Sifre zu¡a, on Numbers. (Mekhilta means
“measure,” a norm or rule; Sifra, plural Sifre, means
“writing” or “book.”) Critical analysis reveals that
Mekhilta and Sifre on Numbers differ from the others
in terminology and method. Most scholars agree that
these two originated in the school of Ishmael and the
others in that of Akiba. In their present form they
also include later additions.Mention should also be
made of Midrash tannaim on Deuteronomy, consisting of
fragments recovered from the Yemenite anthology
Midrash ha-gadol.
Haggadic
Haggadic Midrashim originated with the weekly
synagogue readings and their accompanying
explanations. Although Haggadic collections existed in
tannaitic times, extant collections date from the
4th–11th centuries. Midrashic compilations were not
authoritatively edited and tend to be coincidental and
fragmentary.
Most notable among biblical collections is Midrash
rabba (“Great Midrash”), a composite of commentaries
on the Pentateuch and five Megillot (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations) differing in
nature and age. Its oldest portion, the 5th-century
Genesis rabba, is largely a verse-by-verse commentary,
while the 6th-century Leviticus rabba consists of
homilies and Lamentations rabba (end of 6th century)
is mainly narrative. The remaining portions of Midrash
rabba were compiled at later dates.
The TanRuma (after the late-4th-century Palestinian
amora TanRuma bar Abba), of which two versions are
extant, is another important Pentateuchal Midrash.
Additional Midrashic compilations include those to the
books of Samuel, Psalms, and Proverbs. Mention should
also be made of Pesiqta (“Section” or “Cycles”) deRab
Kahana (after a Babylonian amora) and Pesiqta rabbati
(“The Great Cycle”), consisting of homilies on the
Torah (Pentateuch) readings that occur on festivals
and special Sabbaths.
Haggadic compilations independent of biblical text
include Avot deRabbi Natan, Tanna deve Eliyyahu, Pirqe
(“Chapters”) deRabbi Eliezer, and tractates Derekh
eretz (“Correct Conduct”). These primarily deal with
ethics, moral teachings, and biblical narrative.
Among the medieval anthologies are the Yalqu¡
(“Compilation”) Shimoni (13th century), Yalqu¡
ha-makhiri (14th century), and ÅEn YaÅaqov (“Eye of
Jacob,” 16th century). The two most important modern
Haggadic anthologies are those of Wilhelm Bacher and
Louis Ginzberg.
Halakhic
Halakhic Midrashim are exegetic commentaries on the
legal content of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The five extantcollections are Mekhilta,
on Exodus; Mekhilta deRabbi ShimÅon ben YoRai, on
Exodus; Sifra, on Leviticus; Sifre, on Numbers and
Deuteronomy; Sifre zu¡a, on Numbers. (Mekhilta means
“measure,” a norm or rule; Sifra, plural Sifre, means
“writing” or “book.”) Critical analysis reveals that
Mekhilta and Sifre on Numbers differ from the others
in terminology and method. Most scholars agree that
these two originated in the school of Ishmael and the
others in that of Akiba. In their present form they
also include later additions.Mention should also be
made of Midrash tannaim on Deuteronomy, consisting of
fragments recovered from the Yemenite anthology
Midrash ha-gadol.
Haggadic
Haggadic Midrashim originated with the weekly
synagogue readings and their accompanying
explanations. Although Haggadic collections existed in
tannaitic times, extant collections date from the
4th–11th centuries. Midrashic compilations were not
authoritatively edited and tend to be coincidental and
fragmentary.
Most notable among biblical collections is Midrash
rabba (“Great Midrash”), a composite of commentaries
on the Pentateuch and five Megillot (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations) differing in
nature and age. Its oldest portion, the 5th-century
Genesis rabba, is largely a verse-by-verse commentary,
while the 6th-century Leviticus rabba consists of
homilies and Lamentations rabba (end of 6th century)
is mainly narrative. The remaining portions of Midrash
rabba were compiled at later dates.
The TanRuma (after the late-4th-century Palestinian
amora TanRuma bar Abba), of which two versions are
extant, is another important Pentateuchal Midrash.
Additional Midrashic compilations include those to the
books of Samuel, Psalms, and Proverbs. Mention should
also be made of Pesiqta (“Section” or “Cycles”) deRab
Kahana (after a Babylonian amora) and Pesiqta rabbati
(“The Great Cycle”), consisting of homilies on the
Torah (Pentateuch) readings that occur on festivals
and special Sabbaths.
Haggadic compilations independent of biblical text
include Avot deRabbi Natan, Tanna deve Eliyyahu, Pirqe
(“Chapters”) deRabbi Eliezer, and tractates Derekh
eretz (“Correct Conduct”). These primarily deal with
ethics, moral teachings, and biblical narrative.
Among the medieval anthologies are the Yalqu¡
(“Compilation”) Shimoni (13th century), Yalqu¡
ha-makhiri (14th century), and ÅEn YaÅaqov (“Eye of
Jacob,” 16th century). The two most important modern
Haggadic anthologies are those of Wilhelm Bacher and
Louis Ginzberg.
Writing and printing of the Talmuds
Study in the academies was always oral; hence the
question of when the Mishna and Talmud were first
committed to writing has beenthe subject of much
discussion. According to some scholars, the process of
writing began with Judah ha-Nasi. Others attribute it
to the savoraim.
The Palestinian Talmud was first printed in Venice
(1523–24). All later editions followed this one.
Printing of the Babylonian Talmud was begun in Spain
about 1482, and there have been more than 100
different editions since. The oldest extant full
edition appeared in Venice (1520–23). This became the
prototype for later printings, setting the type of
page and pagination (a total of close to 5,500
folios). The standard edition was printed in Vilna
beginning in 1886. It carries many commentaries and
commentaries upon commentaries. In the sample page
reproduced here, the Mishna and the Gemara are placed
in the centre column of the page and are printed in
the heavy type. The commentary of Rashi is always
located in the inner column of the page and the
tosafot in the outer column. Other commentaries and
references to legal codes and to scriptural verses
surround the major commentaries, in smaller type.
Talmudic citations are made by tractate name, folio
number, and side of the folio (a or b).
Nonlegal subject matter
Main religious doctrines
While the Talmudic rabbis never formally systematized
their beliefs, their underlying religious concepts are
clearly reflected in their decisions, ideas, and
attitudes. Preeminent in rabbinic thinking were the
concepts of God, Torah, and Israel.
God
The rabbinic God was primarily the biblical God who
acted in history, the creator and source of life who
was experienced through the senses rather than
intellect. In reaction to sectarian teachings (i.e.,
Gnosticism and early Christianity), however, the
rabbis stressed God's universality, absolute unity,
and direct involvement with the world. His immanence
and transcendence (being present in and beyond the
universe) were emphasized, and biblical
anthropomorphisms (ascribing human attributes to God)
were explained metaphorically. The rabbis also
stressed an intimacy into the relationship between God
and man. God became the father to whom each individual
could turn in direct prayer for his needs. To the
names YHWH and Elohim, which traditionally were
identified with God's mercy and judgment,
respectively, the rabbis added new terms reflecting
his other attributes—e.g., Shekhina (“Presence”),
representing his omnipresence, or immanence; and Maqom
(“Place”), his transcendence.
Torah
Torah, in the Talmudic sense, refers to all religious
and ethical teachings handed down by tradition.
According to the rabbis, God created the Torah long
before the world. It contained the eternal divine
formula for the world's future workings and thus the
answers to all problems for all times and all people.
God himself is depicted as studying the Torah, for
even he cannot make decisions concerning the world
that contradict it.
Israel
The people Israel, according to the rabbis, were
chosen by God to be the guardian of his Torah, and,
just as God chose Israel, Israel chose God. Thus, the
concept of Israel as a nation bound together by an
irrevocable commitment to bring the Torah to the
world, and bearing corporate responsibility for this
mission, was formed. No Jew can free himself from this
commitment, but anyone accepting it,regardless of
race, becomes a full-fledged Jew with obligations
binding him and his descendants.
With this in mind, the rabbis repeatedly emphasized
the importance of studying Torah. They pointed out
that the Torah is not a declaration of religious
beliefs. Rather it is a statement of a discipline
regulating each detail of life. Any transgression of
this disciplinehampers the divine plan of establishing
God's way of life in this world.
Worship
The intensive rabbinic religious involvement led to
the growth of a new concept of worship. While in the
Bible worship was usually centred in the sanctuary of
the Temple in Jerusalem, the rabbis, particularly
after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE),
attempted to sanctify all of life. Thus, they said
that one must bless God upon arising in the morning,
before dressing, before and after meals, and in all
ordinary daily actions or routines. Each move in life
should be an act of worship glorifying God's name.
Messianic kingdom
In rabbinic thinking the establishment of God's
kingdom was tied to the Messiah, who was to be a
descendant of King David, wise, just, a great scholar,
a moral leader, and courageous king. He would redeem
the Jews from exile and reestablish their independence
in the land of Israel. With this the world would be
ushered into a new era of righteousness and universal
peace. The rabbis referred to this era as “the world
Vastaukset 3
Vanhimmat
Asiantuntevan oloista tekstiä, mutta katkesi ikävästi kesken juuri ehkäpä kaikkein mielenkiintoisinta kohtaa..
Esitarkastelussa se näytti kyllä että koko teksti oli mukana. Olkoot, yritän saada tähän toiseen viestiin mahtumaan loput.
Messianic kingdom
In rabbinic thinking the establishment of God's
kingdom was tied to the Messiah, who was to be a
descendant of King David, wise, just, a great scholar,
a moral leader, and courageous king. He would redeem
the Jews from exile and reestablish their independence
in the land of Israel. With this the world would be
ushered into a new era of righteousness and universal
peace. The rabbis referred to this era as “the world
to come,” portraying it as an immense academy in which
the righteous would study Torah without interruption.
They refrained from describing it further, saying that
human language and fantasy are inadequate to its
wonders.
The nature of the Messiah and the time of his arrival
raised much speculation. Following the defeat of Bar
Kokhba, leader of the revolt against Roman rule (135
CE), the Messiah's coming, in rabbinic thought, faded
into the mysterious and distant future, and
descriptions concerning his personality assumed
supernatural overtones.
Doctrine of man
The fate of man, his achievements and failures, his
being and nothingness, occupy an important place in
Talmudic literature. The rabbis' concept of man was a
universal one. While they assumed that Jews are bound
by greater religious duties than others, they
considered all men equal, all created in the image of
God. “Therefore, but a single man was created . . .
That none should say to his fellow, ‘My father was
greater than thy father”' (tractate Sanhedrin).
The world, according to the Talmud, was created for
the sake of man, and it is incumbent upon him to keep
it in order. His responsibility begins at home. Man
must care for his health, marry, build a family,
provide for and educate children, honour parents,
friends, and elders. He also carries social
responsibilities and has to be part of the community.
He must learn a trade and work so that he does not
become a burden to the community.
The uniqueness of man in this world, likened by the
Talmud to the uniqueness of God in the universe, lies
in his freedom of choice. Nature follows its laws and
angels their missions, but man is his own master. In
contrast to St. Paul's doctrine that the original sin
of Adam made sin an integral part of human nature, the
rabbis considered man a wondrous and harmonious being.
The duality of his nature was explained by the
existence of a good and bad impulse, personified by
two angels, yetzer ha-¡ov (the good inclination) and
yetzer ha-raÅ (the evil inclination), which enter each
man after birth. It is the duty of man to overcome his
evil inclination, and it is for thisthat he is
rewarded. Moreover, since there is corporate
responsibility, not only is the sinner punished but
the community at large also suffers. Here again,
however, man is his own master. He can reverse the
course of sin and punishment by repentance. Although
repentance may be accompanied by formal and ceremonial
acts, such as fasting, its basic principle is the
renunciation of the sin and the wholehearted decision
not to repeat it. When a man transgresses against God,
his sin is forgiven by repentance alone, but, when he
transgresses against his fellow man, he must make good
his wrongdoing as well as repent.
Medicine and science
The Talmud devoted considerable attention to the
maintenance of good health, regarding it a religious
duty. A keen understanding of the importance of
hygiene in preventing illness was reflected in an
emphasis upon bodily cleanliness. The rabbis also
stressed the necessity for moderation in eating and
drinking and the importance of a proper diet. The
Talmud prescribed remedies for illnesses and mentioned
surgical techniques, such as cesarean section.
Religious concerns surrounding the calendar,
prohibitions against planting seeds of different kinds
together, dietary laws, and Sabbath-walking limits
resulted in an intense rabbinical interest in
astronomy, zoology, mathematics, and geometry.
Legend and folklore
Side by side with the Midrashic Haggada, which was the
outgrowth of Bible exegesis and developed in the
academies, the Talmuds and Midrashic collections
contain a large quantity of Haggadic material with
mythological rudiments, allusions to pagan beliefs and
customs, and folkloristic elements of a world strange
to the rabbis. Folktales and legends, animal lore, and
adventure narratives, containing pagan ideas and
beliefs, that were told by their Gentile neighbours
were no doubt a major attraction to the common Jews,
especially those in the countryside (the Åam ha-aretz,
or “people of the land”). The rabbis realized the
great danger involved in this situation and developed
their own folk material. They adopted the dramatic and
artistic parts of these stories but rejected the
unwanted elements, replacing them with their own
ideas. Thus the animals and birds in fables quote the
Bible and discuss it in the same manner that the
rabbis do.
Ancient mythology seems to have been well known and
liked by the Jewish masses. Again, in order to fight
its influence, the rabbis reworked its content in
their own spirit. They retained the mythological
suspense—the sea tries to drown the earth—but there is
no mythological struggle between equal powers; angels
try to prevent the creation of man, but they do not
possess titanic power. All are subdued by the command
of God. Thus, the rabbis transformed the ancient myths
into dramatic evidence against polytheism. (See also
Jewish myth and legend.)
Astrology, magic, and divination
Astrology was a recognized science in the ancient
world. The rabbis could not reject it entirely, and
some concluded that the power of the stars is confined
to Gentiles. Others made it part of God's order,
saying that stars influence this world in the same way
that climateinfluences plants. The rabbis strenuously
objected to omens and other forms of divination
because they considered them magic. Dreams were
considered by some rabbis as meaningless, while others
saw in them an element of prophecy.
The rabbis believed in the efficacy of magic but
strenuously objected to its practice. They permitted
only magic that had been proved effective in healing.
They also permitted the use of incantations for the
purpose of counteracting the hold of magic. Because of
their supposedly protective nature, the use of amulets
was also countenanced.
The existence of a demonic kingdom was accepted by the
rabbis without question. Evil spirits are invisible
and fill the nether world. They avoid sunlight and
concentrate in waters and deserted places. They also
mingle with people, trouble them, and help them. They
have passions and are born and die like people.
However, they also have some of the traits and powers
of angels. The evil eye was considered as dangerous as
evil spirits. It was thought that for mysterious
reasons some people have the power to injure others by
looking at them and that it is generally jealousy that
triggers this effect. The rabbis, however, repeatedly
emphasized that all of these strange powers are under
the divine government and, moreover, that they cannot
hurt the pious.
Talmudic law and jurisprudence
Unlike the Romans, who considered ritual law (fas)
God-given and social law (lex) man-made, the rabbis
believed all Jewish law to be of divine origin. Thus,
for example, unfairness in labour relations was
considered a religious sin and caring for the sick a
religious obligation. Though familiar with the concept
of natural law (ethical principles inherent in the
nature of things and apprehensible through human
reason), the rabbis objected to making nature the
basis of law. Even rabbinic ordinances were regarded
as having validity only because the authority of the
rabbis is sanctioned by the Torah.
Methods of arriving at legal principle and decisions
Ancient Halakha knew no controversy. The earliest
controversy dates to the pre-tannaitic zugot. Hillel
and Shammai differed on significant issues, and, with
the rise of their schools, Halakhic uniformity began
to crumble. Halakha became a scholastic discipline
that developed in academic rather than judicial
settings, more and more issues remaining unresolved.
Over 300 controversies between the schools of Hillel
and Shammai (called the House of Hillel and the House
of Shammai, respectively) are reported in Talmudic
sources. As time passed, disputes proliferated even
more and were considered legitimate provided they
conformed to the rule of Halakhic discipline.
No attempt was made to restore Halakhic uniformity
until the beginning of the 2nd century CE.
Controversies were sometimes resolved by citing old
traditions, by establishing precedents, or, when the
sages could convene, by vote taking.
At Yavne, Gamaliel II, the president of the revived
Sanhedrin (c. 80–c. 115 CE), attempted to suppress
diversity of opinion, but failed. The right to differ
was already established. Moreover, in the Halakhic
collection compiled at Yavne (tractate ÅEduyyot), the
views of individual scholars were preserved. The sages
at Yavne, however, did take a major step toward
restoring Halakhic consistency by upholding the
generally more lenient views of the House of Hillel
over those of the House of Shammai, thus establishing
the Hillelite tradition as the main trend of rabbinic
Judaism.
The principle that differing opinions should be
recorded was followed by Judah ha-Nasi in his Mishna.
Modern scholars differ as to whether he meant to
compile a code of law or merely a Halakhic collection.
The amoraim, however, accepted his Mishna as the
definitive code and introduced a set of guidelines
according to which disputes were decided. Thus, for
example, collective (“. . . the sages said”) and
individual opinions stated anonymously were taken as
law; Akiba's decisions were upheld over those of his
colleagues. Similar guidelines developed also with
regard to amoraic controversies.
With the completion of the Talmud, a new phase in
Halakhic development began. Not only were there two
different Talmuds and a large Haggadic literature but
even within each of the Talmuds diversified opinions
were reported. The geonim laid down rules governing
the use of this enormous literature for lawmaking.
They designated the Babylonian Talmud the highest
authority, taking the Palestinian Talmud into
consideration only when it did not disagree with the
Babylonian or when the latter expressed no opinion on
a subject. They also deprived the Haggadic literature
of Halakhic authority and set guidelines for the
precedence of opinion among amoraim. These geonic
rules served as the basis of all future codifications.
After the geonic period two methods of decision making
were applied. The first of these relied primarily upon
the authoritative codes. The Mediterranean rabbis, for
example, made the code of Maimonides the source of all
of their lawmaking. The second method reliedon the
original Talmudic sources for decision making. This
method was applied by the Tosafists and their
followers, who, though theyconsulted the older codes,
did not accept them as the final authorities. The
responsa literature represents a synthesis of these
two methods. Although it makes use of codes as the
main source of law, its decisions are always
accompanied by a discussion and analysis of earlier
relevant literature. This approach has been used by
rabbis to the present day.
In addition to the above, in particular instances
throughout the ages rabbinic authorities promulgated
ordinances (taqqanot) and edicts (gezerot). These were
made in response to pressing needs of time and
circumstance, and this form of lawmaking was most
frequently used by rabbinic synods in the Middle Ages.
Administration of justice
Courts
A comprehensive judicial system is described in
Talmudic sources. The highest court was the Great
Sanhedrin. It consisted of 71 members and convened
daily in one of the Temple halls. It was the highest
legal and religious authority in the country and had
exclusive jurisdiction over matters of a national and
public nature. It also functioned as the court of
appeals, dealing with cases that were not resolved by
the lower courts.
Next in line of judicial authority was the Lesser
Sanhedrin. Each town with a population of 120 or more
had a court of this kind. These courts each consisted
of 23 members and dealt with cases involving capital
punishment.
The members of the Sanhedrins had to be ordained,
pious, mature in age, sound in mind and body, of wide
knowledge, and of pure Jewish descent. Persons who
were too old or who had never had children were
ineligible, for it was thought that they might not be
merciful.
The lower courts dealt with all remaining cases. Each
consisted of three members and convened on Mondays and
Thursdays. In cases involving a penalty the three
judges had to be ordained, but in those involving
ordinary monetary litigation ordination was not
required. In the latter type of case, concerned
parties were allowed the alternative of setting up ad
hoc arbitration bodies.
Methods of arriving at legal principle and decisions
Ancient Halakha knew no controversy. The earliest
controversy dates to the pre-tannaitic zugot. Hillel
and Shammai differed on significant issues, and, with
the rise of their schools, Halakhic uniformity began
to crumble. Halakha became a scholastic discipline
that developed in academic rather than judicial
settings, more and more issues remaining unresolved.
Over 300 controversies between the schools of Hillel
and Shammai (called the House of Hillel and the House
of Shammai, respectively) are reported in Talmudic
sources. As time passed, disputes proliferated even
more and were considered legitimate provided they
conformed to the rule of Halakhic discipline.
No attempt was made to restore Halakhic uniformity
until the beginning of the 2nd century CE.
Controversies were sometimes resolved by citing old
traditions, by establishing precedents, or, when the
sages could convene, by vote taking.
At Yavne, Gamaliel II, the president of the revived
Sanhedrin (c. 80–c. 115 CE), attempted to suppress
diversity of opinion, but failed. The right to differ
was already established. Moreover, in the Halakhic
collection compiled at Yavne (tractate ÅEduyyot), the
views of individual scholars were preserved. The sages
at Yavne, however, did take a major step toward
restoring Halakhic consistency by upholding the
generally more lenient views of the House of Hillel
over those of the House of Shammai, thus establishing
the Hillelite tradition as the main trend of rabbinic
Judaism.
The principle that differing opinions should be
recorded was followed by Judah ha-Nasi in his Mishna.
Modern scholars differ as to whether he meant to
compile a code of law or merely a Halakhic collection.
The amoraim, however, accepted his Mishna as the
definitive code and introduced a set of guidelines
according to which disputes were decided. Thus, for
example, collective (“. . . the sages said”) and
individual opinions stated anonymously were taken as
law; Akiba's decisions were upheld over those of his
colleagues. Similar guidelines developed also with
regard to amoraic controversies.
With the completion of the Talmud, a new phase in
Halakhic development began. Not only were there two
different Talmuds and a large Haggadic literature but
even within each of the Talmuds diversified opinions
were reported. The geonim laid down rules governing
the use of this enormous literature for lawmaking.
They designated the Babylonian Talmud the highest
authority, taking the Palestinian Talmud into
consideration only when it did not disagree with the
Babylonian or when the latter expressed no opinion on
a subject. They also deprived the Haggadic literature
of Halakhic authority and set guidelines for the
precedence of opinion among amoraim. These geonic
rules served as the basis of all future codifications.
After the geonic period two methods of decision making
were applied. The first of these relied primarily upon
the authoritative codes. The Mediterranean rabbis, for
example, made the code of Maimonides the source of all
of their lawmaking. The second method reliedon the
original Talmudic sources for decision making. This
method was applied by the Tosafists and their
followers, who, though theyconsulted the older codes,
did not accept them as the final authorities. The
responsa literature represents a synthesis of these
two methods. Although it makes use of codes as the
main source of law, its decisions are always
accompanied by a discussion and analysis of earlier
relevant literature. This approach has been used by
rabbis to the present day.
In addition to the above, in particular instances
throughout the ages rabbinic authorities promulgated
ordinances (taqqanot) and edicts (gezerot). These were
made in response to pressing needs of time and
circumstance, and this form of lawmaking was most
frequently used by rabbinic synods in the Middle Ages.
A comprehensive judicial system is described in
Talmudic sources. The highest court was the Great
Sanhedrin. It consisted of 71 members and convened
daily in one of the Temple halls. It was the highest
legal and religious authority in the country and had
exclusive jurisdiction over matters of a national and
public nature. It also functioned as the court of
appeals, dealing with cases that were not resolved by
the lower courts.
Next in line of judicial authority was the Lesser
Sanhedrin. Each town with a population of 120 or more
had a court of this kind. These courts each consisted
of 23 members and dealt with cases involving capital
punishment.
The members of the Sanhedrins had to be ordained,
pious, mature in age, sound in mind and body, of wide
knowledge, and of pure Jewish descent. Persons who
were too old or who had never had children were
ineligible, for it was thought that they might not be
merciful.
The lower courts dealt with all remaining cases. Each
consisted of three members and convened on Mondays and
Thursdays. In cases involving a penalty the three
judges had to be ordained, but in those involving
ordinary monetary litigation ordination was not
required. In the latter type of case, concerned
parties were allowed the alternative of setting up ad
hoc arbitration bodies.
Methods of arriving at legal principle and decisions
Ancient Halakha knew no controversy. The earliest
controversy dates to the pre-tannaitic zugot. Hillel
and Shammai differed on significant issues, and, with
the rise of their schools, Halakhic uniformity began
to crumble. Halakha became a scholastic discipline
that developed in academic rather than judicial
settings, more and more issues remaining unresolved.
Over 300 controversies between the schools of Hillel
and Shammai (called the House of Hillel and the House
of Shammai, respectively) are reported in Talmudic
sources. As time passed, disputes proliferated even
more and were considered legitimate provided they
conformed to the rule of Halakhic discipline.
No attempt was made to restore Halakhic uniformity
until the beginning of the 2nd century CE.
Controversies were sometimes resolved by citing old
traditions, by establishing precedents, or, when the
sages could convene, by vote taking.
At Yavne, Gamaliel II, the president of the revived
Sanhedrin (c. 80–c. 115 CE), attempted to suppress
diversity of opinion, but failed. The right to differ
was already established. Moreover, in the Halakhic
collection compiled at Yavne (tractate ÅEduyyot), the
views of individual scholars were preserved. The sages
at Yavne, however, did take a major step toward
restoring Halakhic consistency by upholding the
generally more lenient views of the House of Hillel
over those of the House of Shammai, thus establishing
the Hillelite tradition as the main trend of rabbinic
Judaism.
The principle that differing opinions should be
recorded was followed by Judah ha-Nasi in his Mishna.
Modern scholars differ as to whether he meant to
compile a code of law or merely a Halakhic collection.
The amoraim, however, accepted his Mishna as the
definitive code and introduced a set of guidelines
according to which disputes were decided. Thus, for
example, collective (“. . . the sages said”) and
individual opinions stated anonymously were taken as
law; Akiba's decisions were upheld over those of his
colleagues. Similar guidelines developed also with
regard to amoraic controversies.
With the completion of the Talmud, a new phase in
Halakhic development began. Not only were there two
different Talmuds and a large Haggadic literature but
even within each of the Talmuds diversified opinions
were reported. The geonim laid down rules governing
the use of this enormous literature for lawmaking.
They designated the Babylonian Talmud the highest
authority, taking the Palestinian Talmud into
consideration only when it did not disagree with the
Babylonian or when the latter expressed no opinion on
a subject. They also deprived the Haggadic literature
of Halakhic authority and set guidelines for the
precedence of opinion among amoraim. These geonic
rules served as the basis of all future codifications.
After the geonic period two methods of decision making
were applied. The first of these relied primarily upon
the authoritative codes. The Mediterranean rabbis, for
example, made the code of Maimonides the source of all
of their lawmaking. The second method reliedon the
original Talmudic sources for decision making. This
method was applied by the Tosafists and their
followers, who, though theyconsulted the older codes,
did not accept them as the final authorities. The
responsa literature represents a synthesis of these
two methods. Although it makes use of codes as the
main source of law, its decisions are always
accompanied by a discussion and analysis of earlier
relevant literature. This approach has been used by
rabbis to the present day.
In addition to the above, in particular instances
throughout the ages rabbinic authorities promulgated
ordinances (taqqanot) and edicts (gezerot). These were
made in response to pressing needs of time and
circumstance, and this form of lawmaking was most
frequently used by rabbinic synods in the Middle Ages.
A comprehensive judicial system is described in
Talmudic sources. The highest court was the Great
Sanhedrin. It consisted of 71 members and convened
daily in one of the Temple halls. It was the highest
legal and religious authority in the country and had
exclusive jurisdiction over matters of a national and
public nature. It also functioned as the court of
appeals, dealing with cases that were not resolved by
the lower courts.
Next in line of judicial authority was the Lesser
Sanhedrin. Each town with a population of 120 or more
had a court of this kind. These courts each consisted
of 23 members and dealt with cases involving capital
punishment.
The members of the Sanhedrins had to be ordained,
pious, mature in age, sound in mind and body, of wide
knowledge, and of pure Jewish descent. Persons who
were too old or who had never had children were
ineligible, for it was thought that they might not be
merciful.
The lower courts dealt with all remaining cases. Each
consisted of three members and convened on Mondays and
Thursdays. In cases involving a penalty the three
judges had to be ordained, but in those involving
ordinary monetary litigation ordination was not
required. In the latter type of case, concerned
parties were allowed the alternative of setting up ad
hoc arbitration bodies.
Rules of evidence
Jewish law was extremely strict regarding evidence
acceptable in court. In cases entailing physical
punishment, no circumstantial evidence, confession, or
self-incrimination was recognized. The testimony of
two eyewitnesses who confronted the defendant was
required. In monetary cases documentary evidence and,
at times, oaths were acceptable. Any mental or moral
defects or self-interest in the case disqualified
witnesses. Relatives could not serve as judges or
witnesses.
Trial procedure
Jewish law knows of no lawyers. After the facts were
presented, the court investigated, deliberated, and
made its decision by voting. Both sides had to be
treated equally, even to the point of seeing to it
that neither should be dressed more richly than the
other. Each side could be heard only in the presence
of the other.
In the trial procedure of capital cases, there was a
clear tendency toward bias in favour of the defendant.
Thus, only the judges could argue for conviction, but
all present could argue for acquittal. The most junior
judges voted first so that they would not be unduly
influenced by their seniors. A majority of one was
sufficient for acquittal, but a majority of two was
necessary for conviction. A verdict of acquittal could
be reached on the same day but one of conviction only
on the following day. When the court erred, only its
convictions, and not its acquittals, were reversed.
In Jewish law, ritual and nonritual transgressions
were crimes punishable by court. Each of the 36 most
severe transgressions (e.g., adultery, sodomy,
idolatry, sorcery, or murder) carried one of four
types of death penalty (stoning, burning, beheading,
and strangling). Rabbinic law, however, tended to
minimize the practice of capital punishment. The
rigorous cross-examination of witnesses and the
warning of impending punishment that the transgressor
had to receive immediately before committing his crime
made it almost impossible to reach a death verdict.
If despite all of this a death verdict was reached,
every legal effort was made to allow for a last-minute
reversal. Execution was expedited and carried out in
the most humane manner possible, the accused being
given an opiate before dying. To show their compassion
the judges fasted on the day of execution. According
to tradition the death penalty was abolished 40 years
before the destruction of the Temple, when the Great
Sanhedrin was exiled from the Temple complex.
The punishment for 207 other transgressions (e.g.,
perjury, some forms of incest, the eating of forbidden
foods) was flagellation. Here, too, the rabbis tended
to be lenient. As in capital cases, a rigorous
cross-examination and a warning were required. The
maximum number of stripes administered was 39. Prior
to flagellation the transgressor was examined
medically to determine the number of stripes he could
withstand.
Side by side with the above penalties, the courts also
inflicted makkat mardut (disciplinary stripes) and
excommunication in cases where regular flagellation
could not legally be applied. These two punishments
were generally used in Babylonia, where ordained
courts did not exist. It should be mentioned also that
the Mishna includes a few obscure references to a form
of imprisonment used instead of capital punishment.
Civil and social law
Although the rabbis considered both ritual and
nonritual law sacred, they demonstrated great
independence in supplementing the relatively brief
relevant scriptural comments and regulations with a
comprehensive system of civil and social law. In
response to variations in social and economic
circumstances, certain differences in Palestinian and
Babylonian Talmudic law emerged. The Babylonian
rabbis, for example, recognized the law of the state
as binding in monetary matters, while the Palestinian
rabbis did not. Ingeneral,
however, Jewish civil law
developed relatively autonomously. In instances where
the rabbis did adopt alien legal concepts, they
elaborated upon them until they could be fully
integrated into the spirit and structure of Jewish
law.
The following are some of the areas covered: (1)
Social welfare: a comprehensive social welfare system
was worked out, including obligations to provide for
children, educate them, and train them for a
profession. Regulations of charity, medical
assistance, and burial of the dead were established.
(2) Torts: included were all damages caused by a
person directly or indirectly via his property. The
main aim was to compensate for damages. Consequently,
no torts were classified as criminal. Even “an eye for
an eye” was interpreted to mean financial
compensation. (3) Family law: included were
regulations concerning marriage and divorce procedures
and the innovation of the ketubba (marriage contract),
which spells out the mutual obligations of husband and
wife in the areas of finance, medical care, clothing,
housework, sexual relations, and child care. According
to biblical law, the right to inherit belongs to sons
first. To protect the rights of wives and daughters,
rabbinic law obligated the sons to maintain the widows
and unmarried daughters. (4) Financial law: except for
Gen. 23:9 ff., Jer. 32:10, and Ruth 4:8, Scripture
makes no reference to transaction procedures.The
growth of finances, industry, and land estates led the
rabbis to develop laws concerning contracts,
partnerships, and legal arrangements to circumvent the
biblical prohibition against usury. A series of modes
of transaction effecting the transfer and acquisition
of property evolved. Labour relations, rents, and
leases were also carefully regulated.
The Talmud today
Role in the Jewish community
With the rebirth of a Jewish national state (since
1948) and the concomitant revival of Jewish culture,
the Talmud has achieved renewed importance. Orthodox
Jewry has always focussed upon its study and has
believed it to be the absolute Halakhic authority.
This belief has now become even further intensified.
While rabbinic courts in Israel have jurisdiction only
in the area of family life, it has become one of the
aims of religious (Orthodox) Jewry there to establish
Talmudic law as the general law of the state.
It should also be noted that, aside from the special
case of Israel, the legal system described above has
continued to function down tothe present day in Jewish
communities all over the world. The jurisdiction of
rabbinic courts is voluntarily accepted by Orthodox
Jews. These courts continue to exert authority,
especially in the areas of family and dietary law, the
synagogue, and the organization of charity and social
activity.
Conservative Jewry, too, has always been committed to
rabbinic tradition. It has, however, conceptualized
this tradition as an evolutionary process in which
Halakha changes to meet the challenge of new
conditions. Professional scholarship was considered
crucial for understanding the furthering of this
process. More recently, however, as a result of
revived nationalism, new emphasis has been put upon
lay education. Thus, a network of day schools and
higher institutions of learning in which rabbinic
tradition occupies a major role in the curriculum has
been established. Scores of young Conservative Jews
now search in the Talmud for answers to crucial
problems, such as abortion and civil violence.
Classical (19th-century) Reform Judaism not only
disassociated itself from the Talmud but negated it.
More recently, however, Reformleaders have been
inclined to reestablish some measure of ritual
practice and rabbinic climate. Thus, it is now not
unusual to find them stating their decisions in the
form of responsa and using the rabbinic style of
argument and even the casuistic type of Talmudic
dialectic (pilpul) to justify their relig
Classical (19th-century) Reform Judaism not only
disassociated itself from the Talmud but negated it.
More recently, however, Reformleaders have been
inclined to reestablish some measure of ritual
practice and rabbinic climate. Thus, it is now not
unusual to find them stating their decisions in the
form of responsa and using the rabbinic style of
argument and even the casuistic type of Talmudic
dialectic (pilpul) to justify their religious
practices.
Talmudic scholarship
Although Talmudic scholarship continues to be advanced
by individuals in a number of countries, its two main
centres are in Israel and the United States. The
Israeli centre has tended to focus upon research of a
critical nature. Like Bible criticism, this work is
divided between source criticism (i.e., discovering
the different sources, their dates, and the methods by
which Talmudic literature was formed) and textual
criticism (i.e., establishing the correct text and
reading). Research is also being done on Haggadic
concepts and thinking, Talmudic law, and Halakhic
development.
Talmudic scholarship in the United States has tended
to be more philosophically and historically oriented.
There has been great interest in the development of
Halakha and in folklore and custom. Essential work has
been done and continues to be done in the areas of
source criticism. A work unique in scope and method is
S. Lieberman's commentary on the Tosefta.
by Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky