* See JQR ix. 120.
t Neither the Jerus. nor the Bab. Talm. extends over all the 60 (or 63) tractates of the Mishna. The Jerus. Talm. has Gémara to the first four orders of the Mishna and to three chapters in the tractate Niddd@ in the sixth order; but in the second order there is missing the Gémard to the last four chapters of the trac- tate Shabbath, to the third chapter of the tractate Makkéth, and in the fourth order to the tractates’*Abéth and‘Hdayyéth. The Bab. Talm. has Gémarda as follows : in the first order to tractate Bérakhoth only; in the second order, tractate Shékalim is omitted ; in the fourth order, tractates *Abéth and‘ Hdwyyéth are omitted ; in the fifth order, tractates Middéth and Kinnim are omitted ; in the sixth order, Géméra to tractate Niddd alone.
i a
TALMUD
the lines in Mishna tractate Gittén, ‘that the laws regarding the ovxdpioc (a name under which certain leaders of the Zealot bands were known) did not apply to the land of Judea,’ are followed in the Bab. Talmud by a legendary account of the wars pre- ceding the destruction of the second temple, and various incidents connected with it, extending over more than 5 folio pages (550-58a). Again in the tractate Baba Bathra, the accidental remark in the Mishna, that a volume (or roll) containing the Scriptures inherited by two or more brothers must not be divided among them by cutting it up into its constituent books even when the parties agree to this, ae in the Gémdra (of the Bab. Tal- mud) a discussion relating to the arrangement of the Canon of the OT, its rise, and the dates at which the various books included in it were com- posed, accompanied by a long discourse on the particular nature of the Book of Job, the character and date of its hero, together with a few remarks on other biblical personages, which covers nearly 8 folio pages (13b-l7a). This process of inserting matter but slightly connected with the text is at times carried further by adding to the inserted matter other topics having a similar slight con- nexion with it. As an instance of this process we may regard the following. Mishna Bérakhéth, ch. ix. 1, runs, ‘He who sees a place in which miracles were performed for the sake of Israel says, Praised be he who wrought miracles for our fathers in this place.’ By way of illustration the Gémara (Bab. Talm. 2b. 54a) cites an ‘external Mishna’ in which it is taught that ‘He who sees the crossings of the Red Sea (z.e. the place at which the Jews crossed the Red Sea, Ex 14”), or the crossings of the Jordan (Jos 34) . . . is bound to give thanks and praise to the Omnipresent’ (Makém). The last words suggest a quotation of R. Jehuda in the name of Rab, adding to the number of those who are under the obligation to give thanks, also the four cases enumerated in Ps 107 (people returning from a_ sea voyage, coming back from a journey through the desert, recovering from a serious illness, or released from prison, 340). This statement is followed by several other sayings (540, 55a) which have no other con- nexion with the preceding matter than identity of authorship, all being cited in the name of Rab. One of these citations is to the effect that for three things man should in particular pray to God (who alone can grant them): ‘a good king, a good year, and a good dream’ (556); but the last word again suggests a new train of thought on the subject of dreams, their interpretation and fulfilment, which forms the theme of the next 6 folio pages (55a-57b). Owing to these sudden and olaat changes from subject to subject, the style of the Talmud becomes very uncertain and rather rambling ;* but, on the other hand, it is this very circumstance that keeps the ‘sea of the Talmud’ in constant motion, relieving it from the monotony and tedious repetition so peculiar to the majority of theological works dating from those Ealy ages. Indeed, owing to this facility for drag- ging in whatever interested the compilers or the scribes, the Talmud almost loses the character of a work of divinity, and assumes more the character of an encyclopedia, reproducing the knowledge of the Rabbis during the first five centuries on all
ossible subjects, whether secular or religious.
his is, as already indicated, particularly the case with the Bab. Talmud, the Haggdda ot which is very discursive and rich in all sorts of folk-lore. It must, however, be borne in mind that the authorities in whose names the strangest stories
* It is this discursiveness which makes a proper translation of the Talmud almost impossible: see M. Friedmann’s brochure, spbona nye dy 325, Vienna, 1895 (Heb.).
EXTRA VOL.—5
TALMUD 65
are sometimes communicated are often Rabbis from Palestine, whose sayings and statements were as much studied and discussed in the East as they were in the West.
v. The Saborat *yt19 ‘Explainers’ or ‘Medi- tators’ (upon the words of their predecéssors), whose activity is supposed to have extended over the whole of the 6th century. The most important among them are Rabbah Joge (Pumbeditha) and R. *Ahai (of Be Hathim), who flourished about the beginning of the 6th cent., and probably shared largely in the compilation work of the last of the "Amoraim; and R. Giza (Sura) and R. Simona (Pumbeditha), who belonged to the middle of the same century. The activity of the Saborai, about whose lives we know little, consisted mainly in com- menting upon the Talmud by means of explanatory speeches, and contributing to it some additional controversies marked by peculiarity of style and by absence of the names of those engaged in the dialogue, as well as by insertion of final decisions upon the differing opinions of their predecessors. * The school of the hoes is peculiar to Babylon, there being no corresponding class of teachers in Palestine. Nor is there any reliable tradition, re- garding the compilation of the Jerus. Talmud, by whom it was accomplished, and when it was under- taken. Maimonides’ statement, that R. Johanan composed the Jerus. Talmud, can, since this work contains quantities of matter dating from a much later period, mean only that by the aid of the schools he founded, this Rabbi was largely instru- mental in giving rise to a work embodying the teachings of the later Western authorities. But in consequence of religious persecutions and political disturbances the decay of the schools set in too early to permit even such comparative complete- ness and finish as are to be found in the Bab. Talmud, which is itself far from perfection in this respect. Indeed the abruptness of the discussions of the Pal. Talmud, the frequent absence of formule introducing quotations or marking the beginning of the treatment of a fresh subject or the conclusion of an old one, as well as the meagreness of its matter where the analogy of the Bab. Talmud would suggest the greatest fulness, and the fact that it has no Gémdrd@ at all on the 5th order (sacrifices), which is so strongly represented in the Bab. Tal- mud,+—all these circumstances convey the impres- sion that the Jerus. Talmud was never submitted to a real conscious compilation with the object of presenting posterity with a completed work. What was reduced to writing does not give us a work carried out after a preconcerted plan, but rather represents a series of jottings answering to the needs of the various individual writers, and largely intended to strengthen the memory. And thus lacking the authority enjoyed by the Mishna and the Bab. Talmud, which were the products of the great centres of learning, the Jerus. Talmud was, for a long time at least, not elevated to the rank of a national work, and it is therefore easy to understand how such portions of it as had not much bearing upon actual practice were permitted to disappear. Altogether, the people of Palestine were, as an old Rabbi said, ‘ sick with oppression,’