[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 259

" Gemara," which means acquired learning); and (4) Talmud is the comprehensive term for the Mishna and the explanations it contains. Amoraim is a term which means " speaker " and refers to the Jewish scholars who were active from the period of the closing of the Mishna till toward the end of the fifth century. The most celebrated of the Amoraim was Johanan bar Nappaha (d. 279; cf. JE, vii. 211-213). Of later date were Mani bar Jonah, head of the school in Sepphoris, and Jose bar Abin. The close of the Palestinian Talmud took place in the next generation in the beginning of the fifth century. In the Palestinian Talmud there are evidences of several redactions: in the first and second orders there are many Tannaitic sayings attributed to Samuel (of Nehardea; see below, V.), but none in the third and fourth; on the other hand there are many notes of controversy between Mani and Abin in the third and fourth, in the first and second they are few. Against compilation by one author may be adduced the great number of repetitions; thus from the first book there are thirty-nine long excerpts in the second, sixteen in the third, ten in the fourth. The editions of the Palestinian Talmud contain only the first four orders and the Mishna of four chapters of Niddah (sixth order) with the Gemara of three chapters and a few lines beside. In the second order there are lacking the four last chapters of the Gemara to Shabbath, in the fourth the last chapter of the Gemara to Makkoth and all of Abhoth and 'Edhuyyoth. This results from the condition of the Leyden Codex upon which the first edition (Venice, 1523-24) was baseds and there are witnesses to the existence of some of these parts. The Mishna of the Palestinian recension is complete in the Cambridge manuscript already noted. This Talmud as extant has Gemara to thirty-nine tracts, the Babylonian to only thirty-seven; yet the latter is three times as extensive. The Babylonian Talmud was authoritative, and in case of conflict was preferred to the Palestinian.

Manuscripts are (1) the Leyden Codex Scaliger 3, dated 1289 A.D., used for the first edition (ut sup.); (2) at Oxford, no. 365, Berakhoth with commentary, no. 2671, Mo'edh katan, 2672, Babha kamma, no. 2674, Berakhoth; (3) at London, British Museum, Codices Orient. 2822-24, Zeraim and Shekalim; (4) at Rome, Codex 333 contains Zera'im and Sotah; (5) a Lewis-Gibson manuscript of one leaf from Gittin is described in JQR, 1897, 117-119.

V. The Babylonian Talmud: In the beginning of the second century Nehardea was a seat of Jewish learning, and under Mar Samuel (d. 254) it was at the height of its prosperity. Contemporaneous with this was the academy at Sura under

Authorities. a disciple of Samuel and Rab, founded the school at Pum Beditha, noted for the activities of Babbah bar Nal;mani (d. 331), a keen dialectician, of Joseph bar Hiyya (d. 333), who because of his comprehensive knowledge of the law was called Sinai, and of Abaye (d. 338), the pupil of the two named just before him. Raba bar Joseph bar Hama (d. 352) taught in Mahuza on the Tigris, and after him Nahman bar Isaac (d. 356)

near Sura, and after his death the school at Sura acquired new importance. The deliverances of Joseph and Raba form a large part of the Babylonian Talmud, and to these is added material brought from Palestine. Through Ashi, for half a century head of the school at Sura, the accumulated material during two centuries was arranged. A spur to the making of this collection was the persecution of the Jewish religion in Persia, 439-457. Rabbina bar Huna (d. 499) was the last of the Amoraim, those coming after used the work of those who preceded as a basis. As early as Tanna Judah ben Il'ai mention is made of mnemonic signs, and these were used in manuscript for convenience and for saving of time and space; collections of these abbreviations were employed by the Tannaim, also the abbreviations themselves were used by those who collected and arranged the Babylonian Talmud. In the manuscripts these gradually fell away, partly because they became superfluous and partly because they were no longer understood. Of the sixty-three tracts of the Mishna twenty-six are without the Babylonian Gemara; these were, no doubt, discussed in the Babylonian schools in the fourth century, but the discussions were probably never digested or reduced to writing. A great part of the contents of many of these tracts can not have been employed outside of Palestine, while that of others went under other tracts; `Edhuyyoth and Abhoth could from their subject matter have had no Gemara. The first mention of the Babylonian Talmud entire occurs in the second half of the eighth century.

Munich, Codex Hebr. 95, the one extant manuscript of the entire Babylonian Talmud, written in 1343; Codex Hebr. 6, containing Pesahim, Yoma, and Haghigha· Codex Hebr. 140-141, which contains five tracts or parts of tracts; (2) at Rome according to the brothers Assemani thirty-one codices contained fifty-seven tracts of the Talmud and some of the so-called lesser tracts; (3) at Oxford no. 366 contains two tracts, no. 367 has two, 368 has one, 369 one, 370 four, 373 one, 375 one, while other fragmentary codices are nos. 2661, 2666, 2667, 2671, 2673-78, some of diem important, the oldest dated 1123 (cf. S. Schechter and S. Singer, Talmudical Fragments in the Bodleian Library, Cambridge,

1896); (4) in London, British Museum Harley 5508 contains eight tracts, and Add. 25, 717 contains three in whole or part; (5) in Florence the National Library contains the second-oldest of known dated Talmud manuscripts (1176 or 1177), with seven tracts. (6) in Hamburg no. 165 of the year 1184 contains three tracts. (7) at GSttingen Codex

Heb. 3 contains five tracts in whole or part; (8) at Carlsruhe a manuscript contains Sanhedrin; (9) at Paris the National Library has no. 671 with Berakhoth, no. 1337 with three tracts, and no 1313 with a part of Babha Bathra; (10) in New York Columbia University has a South Arabian manuscript written in 1548 which contains four tracts; (11) at Cambridge is the manuscript described in W. H. Lowe, The Fragment of Talmud Babli Pesachim . . . (Cam bridge, 1879).

The fewness of early manuscripts is in some de

gree compensated by the numerous citations in

early authorities, such as the Talmud compendium

of Isaac ben Jacob Alphasi (between

a. Censor- 1013 and 1103), the Talmud diction

ship; Con- ary of Nathan ben Yehi'el of the

sequent eleventh century, and the Talmud

Changes. commentaries of Rashi and the Toseph

tists. There is need of a critical com

mentary of the Talmud (the Mishna and the two

Talmuds), and this need is the greater because of