rt c~ has = Os ee she ¥ “1 40 40 ie D le — xy ba See Rt lett ete ee 
 Sn Mites ha es 2 + 7 neg ere * > sete are 
 yas ia A ne z : i 4 ; ~ ~ om ve 
 frctere sie ae See iet. i ate pe . i rt z j : } : par ete 
 
 of 
 Hanae 
 
 tid 
 
 ey ¥ : “ i nie ree qice P ee en ae. we ry Be 5 9 Pettey Mies +f 
 Reale et sae ith paciossieie 4 sateae Sr sree 
 
 Fae aise Does : : ; sos : rai 
 % : - “ . < * * Sw vere 
 
 pane Sy tye eel 
 
 sr et 
 arape ns ie 
 
 3, 
 iN 
 i 
 
 ed 
 
 i 
 -! 
 Shag t pore sem 
 
 vat 
 , 
 
 ifs 
 
 a LEN a 
 
 shatste tit 
 Bai 
 
 tor Spay 
 raion aoeee ie 
 
 teen 
 aTeoeberae reece 
 
 + 
 
 lly tya 
 
 . es 
 . Stabe 
 bn i 
 
 Lan 4ay7 Tehie 
 
 ce rerors 
 
 Faby 
 
 
 

 
 
 \ OF PRIW 
 <n "ED 
 
 2) Re 
 ociea, gens 
 
 
 
 Division DIY... 
 
 Section (977s 
 
 
 
 
 ‘A ar 
 UN FEE 7 192 
 
if re 
 } : “7 ‘i baie 
 WAT 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/introductiontota00miel_ 1 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO 
 
 she, JAVED, 
 
& 
 
 ‘_ . 
 
 = 
 i 
 xa 
 ae 
 
 
 

 
 INTRODUCTION 
 erik Al Nw) 
 
 Mio bORTCAL AND LIPTERARYe INTRODUCTION 
 
 Perera eLUt ReMIGN EU bCS OF a hk LA LM UD 
 
 TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 
 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS 
 
 BY 
 
 M.*MIELZINER, Pu. D., D. D. 
 
 Late Professor of Talmud 
 at the Hebrew Union College 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 With Additional Notes by Dr. Joshua Bloch 
 and Dr. Louts Finkelstein 
 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc. 
 “THE JEWISH BOOK CONCERN”’ 
 
 1925 
 
Copyright, 1902, by M. MIELZINER. 
 Copyright, 1925, by BLocH PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 
 
 Printed in the United States of America. 
 
PREPAGE,-TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 The Talmud is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable 
 literary productions of antiquity. In its twelve folio volumes 
 itt embodies the mental labors of the ancient Jewish teachers 
 during a period of about eight hundred years. The attention 
 of these teachers was directed particularly to expounding 
 and developing the religious, moral and civil law of the Bible. 
 The pages of this great work are, besides, replete with 
 wise observations, ethical maxims, beautiful legends and 
 parables, and exegetical explanations. We _ also find in it 
 valuable historical and ethnographical material, as well as 
 occasional references to the various branches of ancient know- 
 ledge and science. 
 
 The Talmud is also remarkable for the powerful influence 
 it exerted upon the thought and life of the Jews during the 
 Middle Ages, yes, even down to quite recent times. Its 
 authority was second only to that of the Bible. Although 
 modern Jews have emancipated themselves more or less 
 from its authority, the Talmud still remains a venerable 
 literary monument of a great and important epoch in the 
 development of Judaism. At the same time, it is a valuable 
 source of religious and ethical doctrines as well as of scientific 
 investigation. 
 
 In our day, quite a general interest in this literary monu- 
 ment of antiquity is being awakened. This increasing inter- 
 est is manifested not only by the publication of numerous 
 works and monographs on Talmudical topics, but also by the 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 fact that several universities and colleges abroad and in this 
 country have established chairs for the study of this special 
 branch of literature. 
 
 The present work which I have called ‘‘Introduction to the 
 Talmud” is the result of many years’ labor and of a long experi- 
 ence as professor of the Talmudical branches at the Hebrew 
 Union College. It is intended to facilitate the exceedingly 
 difficult study ofan intricate subject. Itis the first comprehen- 
 sive work of its kind in the English language, yes, it might be 
 said, in any modern language, if we except Prof. Herman L. 
 Strack’s ‘‘Kinleitung in den Talmud”, a book which, though 
 treating our subject with scientific exactness and impartiality, 
 was not intended to cover the whole ground as is attempted m 
 the present publication. 
 
 Earlier works of this kind, from the eleventh century down 
 to our time, have been written in Hebrew or rather in the Rab- 
 binicalidiom, and hence are accessible to Rabbinical scholars 
 only. Valuable literary material, the result of keen critical 
 research into our subject, has been published by some modern 
 scholars, among whom may be named the late Z. Frankel, and 
 I. H. Weiss.' The results reached by these scholars have 
 been duly considered in our ‘‘Historical and Literary Intro. 
 duction”. 
 
 Regarding the second and third parts of this work, 
 I had to rely almost entirely on my own researches. ‘The 
 only modern work on Talmudical Hermenentics is Dr. H.S8. 
 Hirschfeld’s ‘‘Halachische Exegese”. But the usefulness of this 
 learned work is’ greatly impaired by the fact that 
 
 1 The literature on this subject is given further on in the chapter 
 ‘‘Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud” pp. 88—85. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 the author cast it into a philosophical form to which the 
 subject-matter does not readily lend itself. 
 
 It has been my endeavor to present the methods of the Tal- 
 mudical interpretation of the Bible in the proper light. The 
 application of the various hermeneutical rules is illustrated by 
 nuinerous examples which have been carcfully selected,and which 
 will afford the student an opportunity of becoming familiar with 
 some of the peculiarities of the Talmudical Law. 
 
 Part III of this Introduction is the first attempt at present- 
 ing the Methodology and Terminology of the Talmud in a 
 strictly systematical way. It is, to some extent, an exposition 
 of the Dialectics of the Rabbis, an analysis of their discussions 
 and debates. The references and examples added to each ofthe 
 technical terms and phrases show their prevalence in all sections 
 ofthe Talmud. I may be pardoned in entertaining the hope that 
 this portion of my work will be found a reliable guide through 
 the labyrinth of Talmudical discussions. 
 
 The appended treatise “Outlines of Talmudical Ethics” is 
 essentially the contents of my paper on that subject read at the 
 World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. 
 
 The alphabetical Register of the principal Tanaim and Amo- 
 raim, the Index of technical Terms and Phrases, and the “Key 
 to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud and its commentaries” 
 will, I hope, add to the usefulness of this work. 
 
 CINCINNATI, Marcu, 1894, 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
Preface to the Second Edition. 
 
 
 
 Encouraged by the very favorable reception given to the 
 first edition of this Introduction to the Talmud, I have care- 
 fully revised the work for the present new edition. The 
 numerous typographical errors which had escaped the atten- 
 tion of the proofreader of the former edition have been cor- 
 rected, and several pages of new matter have been appended 
 which supplement the Bibliography of modern works and 
 pamphlets on Talmudic Subjects. ; 
 
 CINCINNATI, O., NOVEMBER, 1902. 
 
 CHE AUTHOR. 
 
PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION 
 
 This edition —the third —of Mielziner’s Introduction 
 to the Talmud, may be briefly described as a reprint of 
 the work originally published in 1894, with a section 
 of additional Notes. The work itself is essentially an 
 Introduction, in the elementary sense, intended for readers 
 who desire to acquaint themselves with the “sea of the 
 Talmud.” It is, therefore, obvious that within the compass 
 of a modest volume such as the present, nothing more than 
 brief treatment is possible. The fact that the work is 
 regarded as “indispensable to a proper understanding of 
 Talmudical discussions’* explains sufficiently its popu- 
 lasityes teas) boped= that this: \new,. enlarged “and = re- 
 vised edition will stimulate a wider interest in the 
 study of the vast literature of the Talmud. In the 
 bibliographical material, only the more important works 
 are indicated. No attempt is made to give exhaustive 
 lists of works on the many subjects referred to. The 
 Additional Notes at the end of the book is the joint work 
 of Dr. Joshua Bloch and Dr. Louis Finkelstein and, it is 
 believed, they embody a fairly good summary of the results 
 of modern research in Talmudic lore since the publication 
 of the second edition of this work in 1903. The Index is the 
 work of Morton M. Berman, a student of the Jewish Insti- 
 tute of Religion, New York. In the preparation of these 
 notes additional help was received from Dr. Jacob Z. Lau- 
 terbach, Professor Talmud, Hebrew Union College. 
 
 ae Ba 
 New York, December, 1924. 
 
 *C. Levias, A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained in the 
 Babylonian Talmud. Cincinnati, 1900, p. 2. 
 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PART I 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS.......... 
 CHAPTER 
 
 ih: 
 
 1B. 
 
 Li: 
 
 ive 
 
 WITT 
 
 FEI Feared GR LANGA cal Semen terrae ea Sn ac canis Sen eteeard oan Sheree 
 Its Origin, Compilation and Division. Order of Suc- 
 cession, Names and General Contents of its 63 Tracts. 
 Language of the Mishna. 
 
 WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA.............. 
 Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre; Fragmentary 
 Baraithoth. 
 
 Popes UL HORURI ES. O EAH WeVLS BON A) oo ce) one 
 The Sopherim, the “Zugoth,”’ the Tanaim. The six 
 Generations of the latter. Characteristics and Bio- 
 graphical Sketches of the principal Tanaim. 
 
 io beb XPOUNDERSZOF THE MISHNAS ew... 
 
 Palestinian and Babylonian Amoraim. Their Division 
 into Generations. Biographical Sketches of the princi- 
 pal Amoraim. 
 
 ie ee ee Gy VA A cers acces ca ett te lee oh eiesakey ee oii ah greta en ducks 
 
 Classification of its Contents into Halacha and Agada. 
 Compilation of the Palestinian and the Babylonian 
 
 PAGE 
 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 40 
 
 56 
 
 Gemara. The two Gemaras compared with each other. 
 
 . APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD.. 
 COMMENTARIES ON (THE TAUCMUDex (0°). 005. 
 
 A. On the Babylonian Talmud. B. Exclusively on the 
 Mishna. C. On the Palestinian Talmud. 
 
 Tiel WL HL OaeAN Die CO.DLMIGA TIONS (ue iver 5c creretene 
 A. Compendiums of the Talmud, by Alfasi and by Asher 
 b. Jechiel. B. The Codes, by Maimonides, by Moses of 
 Coucy, by Jacob b. Asher and by Joseph Karo. C. Col- 
 lections of the Agadic Portions of the Talmud. 
 
 X1 ! 
 
 63 
 65 
 
 72 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 IX. MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS........ 
 
 X. AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 
 A. Lexicons. B. Grammars. C. Chrestomathies. D. 
 Introductory Works. a. Older Works. 6. Modern 
 Works in Hebrew. c. Works and Articles in Modern 
 Languages. d. Historical Works. e. Encyclopedical 
 Works. f. Some Other Books of Reference. 
 
 AI. TRANSLATIONS OF sTHHeLALM UD... eee 
 A. The Mishna. B. The Babylonian. C. The Pales- 
 tinian Talmud. 
 
 XITS’ BIBGIOGRAP Hiv 5 ees ie ee et ore 
 Modern Works and Monographs on Talmudical Sub- 
 jects. 
 
 XIII. 1. OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 200 WHY STUD Yet Feet AdgM UD ace cen 
 
 PART II 
 
 LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 
 
 1. INTRODUCTION? Perici eis ee eee 
 Definition. Plain and Artificial Interpretation. Legal 
 and Homiletical Interpretation. 
 
 2. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL IN- 
 
 TERPRETATION eters ore icles tan cee ae es 
 
 Hillel’s Seven Hermeneutic Rules. A New Method, by 
 Nahum. Development of this Method, by R. Akiba. 
 The Thirteen Rules of R. Ishmael. Literature. 
 
 EXPOSITION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
 I. THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR... 
 
 II. THE ANALOGY. 
 A. Gezera-Shava sei fee ee ee 
 B. Heckésh) 3.8.8225 8 he Gee oe en ee a 
 
 III. GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWG........... 
 IV. THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR.......... 
 
 V. MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULE OF GENERAL 
 AN DSAPARTICUGA Rite cit c mare cc ca nee ee 
 
 88 
 
 93 
 
 103 
 108 
 
 117 
 
 120 
 
 169 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 VI. 1. EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT......... 
 
 2. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING PAS- 
 Sr Gr Seater in eee eet inks sce elole tes a ata ola oi sue isle a) sdsieteieae«.¢ 
 
 REPLI L LLG) NA lated Colt laisens croton soto ererw ene cet ngste tess erelein'e 
 
 A. Juxtaposition. B. Restrictions in the Application of 
 Analogy. C. Limited or Unlimited Effect of an Anal- 
 ogy. D. Refutation and Reinstatement of Hermeneutic 
 Arguments. E. The Theory of Extension and Limita- 
 tion. F. “Mikra” or “Masora.” Closing Remark. 
 
 BART Lt 
 
 TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND 
 
 METHODOLOGY 
 Pere PAU LC) Ler Yuu eaten tree Sete ee eretem yr Moco sliatctee << S12 So cte eet a teta n® 
 
 I. TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE STRUC- 
 TURE OrcAUMISHNA PARAGRAPH. oc. 3.0... 5. 
 
 II. MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA 
 
 jag Rae NE DN a RD an coe le oy Cen Per ec ag Shar i 
 
 Ill. THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA....... 
 IV. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN 
 
 PRES ON Wi ee eh ot Sitar en oS or Oye Ge aan Ot ae 2 
 
 V. QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS... 
 
 VI. DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CONCERNING 
 IVE TS WET AMR Greer tte or. oie ec tteeg atist RET) osc uh wk sieP sachet eo 9 
 
 ViletLReEATMENT,OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 2... ceo... 
 VIII. TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIF- 
 
 eGR GN ClosG) he O PIN TON foo ces tirrs ce tettinreye cre fay ene es 2 
 
 IX. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS.......... 
 Classification: 1. Questions of Investigation. 2. Ques- 
 tions of Astonishment. 3. Questions of Objection. 
 Some Special Kinds of Objection. The Dilemma. The 
 
 Rejoinder. 4. Questions of Problem and Their Solution. 
 
 BRA Gre Ea ND LOIN tere: cgay gee) tie Sogresc a ear a ettioiotu ies ote oso.» 
 
 1. Terms and Phrases Introducing an Argument. 2. 
 Classification of Arguments: a. Argument From Com- 
 mon Sense. b. Argument From Authority. c. Argu- 
 ment From Construction. d. Argument From Analogy. 
 e. Argument a fortiori. 3. Indirect Argumentation. 4. 
 Direct and Indirect Arguments Combined. 
 
 xlil 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ¢ 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 ALEREEUTATIONS rie tess eterna deh We tke ae ee ee 254 
 
 Definition and Terms. a. The Refutation of a Propo- 
 sition. 6. Procedure of Refuting the Various Kinds of 
 Arguments. 
 
 ALL oP HE ADT BAC cect ie ae ees ents ee eet cee Tae 261 
 
 Definition and Terms. The Principal Debaters. Illus- 
 tration of a Debate. Anonymous Discussions and 
 
 Debates. 
 PART IV 
 
 OUTLINES OF “TAUMUDIGATAMILH IGS 3s. eee 267 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC............. 281 
 IN DEXSTO"SUBJECTS*“AN DEN AME Serpe oe 4 eee 319 
 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REF- 
 
 HRENGES Fe. Petey se oe serene te, ee ee eee 375 
 INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES........ 385 
 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD 
 
 AND COMMENTARIES @:. 42-25 0- 6 2) te eee eee 389 
 
 Xiv 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 AHO 
 THE TALMUD 
 PART I 
 
 HISTORICALTAND LIPERARY 
 INTRODUCTION 
 

 
THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. 
 Sasa 
 
 The Talmud is the work which embodies the mental labors 
 of the ancient Jewish teachers during a period of about eight 
 hundred years (from about 300 before, to 500 after, the Christian 
 era) in expounding and developing the civil and religiouslaw 
 of the Bible. Besides, it contains the theosophical views, ethical 
 maxims and exegetical remarks of those teachers; it is inter- 
 woven with many valuable historical and ethnographical records 
 and occasional references to the different branches of ancient 
 knowledge and sciences. 
 
 The Talmud consists of two distinct works, the dZzshna, as 
 the text, and the Gemara as a voluminous collection of com- 
 mentaries and discussions on that text. 
 
 The appellation Talmud, meaning the Study, properly refers 
 to the Gemara only, but according to a literary usage establish- 
 ed in later times, the name Talmud is applied also to the 
 combined work of Mishna and Gemara.’ 
 
 We have two compilations of the Gemara, different from 
 each other in language as well as in contents. One originated 
 in the Palestinian, and the other in the Babylonian schools. 
 The latter is called %5335 t45n the Babylonian Talmud, and the 
 former sH5yyq9 195m the Palestinian Talmud. The Mishna 
 text in both of them is the same, though occasionally offering 
 slight variations. 
 
 1 Asa technical term the word 3195p was applied by the ancient 
 teachers to signify the method of deducing a law from the words of 
 Scripture; compare the phrase spi5 syp5n, Maccoth I, 7, a..o. Sub- 
 scquently the word was applied to the discussions of the teachers on 
 the Mishna; compare Sanhedrin 24a: b53 Sy =ay5n. After the Mishna 
 and Gemara had been combined in one work, it became customary 
 to use the word as an appellation of the whole work. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 THE MISHNA. 
 
 Its ORIGIN, COMPILATION AND NAME. 
 
 § 2. 
 
 The Mishna is the authorized codification of the oral or un- 
 written law which, on the basis of the written law contained in 
 the Pentateuch, developed during the second Temple and down 
 to the end of the second century of the common era. | 
 
 The oral law consisted partly of legal traditions and usages 
 which had been handed down from time immemorial; partly of 
 enactments (ODI Ni Nniupn) of the men of the Great 
 Synod or the Sopherim, and subsequently of the Sanhedrin; and 
 partly of the laws which proceeded from the discussions and de- 
 cisions of the teachers, the Tanaim, in the Palestinian academies, 
 established for the purpose of cultivating and transmitting that 
 law. Its transmission was, for many centuries, confined to 
 verbal communication, as it was considered a religious offence 
 to reduce the tradition to writing. 
 
 The cultivation of that law consisted mainly in the endeavor 
 to found its provisions on a biblical basis and support, and to 
 deduce therefrom new provisions for cases not yet provided 
 for. This endeavor gave rise to discussions and a frequent con- 
 flict of opinions. Also the reports of these conflicting opinions 
 were conscientiously preserved in the memory of subsequent 
 teachers. Thus, in the course of time, the subject matter of the 
 oral law accumulated to an immense bulk which, not yet in any 
 way systematized, became almost too heavy to be preserved 
 merely by the power of memory. 
 
 The first attempt towards bringing some order and system 
 into this chaotic mass of traditions was made by Hillel, president 
 of the Sanhedrin in the time of Herod, by arranging it into six 
 principal divisions. His attempt was later resumed by the 
 
 1 In order to assist their memory, however, some teachers had 
 private scrolls on which they for their own use entered single theses” 
 
 of the tr ditional law. Such a scroll was called op ND n> ‘Secret’ 
 Scroll.” i! 
 
THE MISHNA. 5 
 
 celebrated R. Akiba who subdivided the subject matter belonging 
 to each of thesix divisions, into homogeneous parts. Within 
 each part again he grouped the single laws according to their 
 inter-connection and according to certain mnemonical consider- 
 ations. The work of R. Akiba was continued by his distinguish- 
 ed disciple R. Meir who completed the collection and improved 
 its formal arrangement. But neither this compilation of R. 
 Meir nor similar works of his colleagues succeeded in command- 
 ing general recognition, asevery teacher in the various academies 
 preferred to transmit and expound the accumulated material of 
 the law according to a method and arrangement of his own. 
 
 Finally R. Jehuda Hanasi, flourishing towards the end of 
 the second century, undertook the great. task of establishing a 
 general code of the oral law. By virtue of his eminent learning, 
 his dignity as Patriarch and as head of a celebrated academy, 
 he succeeded in accomplishing this task. Taking the unfinished 
 work of R. Akiba and R. Meir as basis, and retaining, in gen- 
 eral, its division and arrangement, he examined and sifted the 
 whole material of the oral law, and completed it by adding the 
 decisions which his academy gave concerning many doubtful 
 cases. Unanimously adopted opinions he recorded without the 
 names of their authors or transmitters, but where a divergence 
 of opinions appeared, the individual opinion is given in the 
 name of its author, together with the decision of the prevailing 
 majority, or side by side with that ofits opponent, and sometimes 
 even with the addition of short arguments pro and con. 
 
 Like the former compilations of the oral law, this work of 
 R. Jehuda was called AM/shna. In order to distinguish it from 
 that of R. Akiba and R. Meir it was originally designated the 
 Mishna of R. Jehuda, but after having been generally accepted 
 as the exclusively authorized code of the traditional law, it bears 
 the simple name A/ishna without any further modification.’ 
 
 1 Whether R. Jehuda Hanasi actually committed his Mishna to 
 writing or not, is a question concerning which the scholars of ancient 
 as well as of modern times express different opinions. In accordance 
 with the principle mentioned in Talm. Gittin 60b and Temura 14b 
 in the name of some teachers, that the oral law ought not to be 
 
6 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In later years of his life, R. Jehuda revised his work, and 
 made several changes. Some additions were made by his dis- 
 ciples.? 
 
 Concerning the etymology and signification of the word 
 naw there is a difference of opinion. Some regard it as a 
 
 esnniranting form of the Hebrew word ; maw (analogous to the double 
 form nape and Map); meaning ¢he NeLOHT in rank, hence a signi- 
 
 fication of the work containing the oral law which takes the 
 second rank compared with the biblical law; whichis’ considered 
 the first. In this sense the word is taken not only by the fathers 
 of the Church who rendered it by the term devrépwors, but also by 
 many modern scholars. Others derive it from the verb FAiw Zo 
 repeat, Which in new Hebrew, like the Aramaic 3M received 
 
 written down 3733 mond NWI ANN US 7D Syoy D125 it is maintained 
 by Sherira Gaon (according to one version in his Iggereth), by Rashiin 
 his commentary on B. Metzia 33 a and Erubin 62b, by Tosaphoth on 
 Megilla 32 a, and by some other authorities of the Middle Ages that R. 
 Jehuda compiled his great Mishna work in his mind without writing 
 it down, and that it was transmitted only orally during many gener 
 ations, until circumstances in the sixth century made it neccessary to 
 commit it to writing. This view is accepted and defended even by 
 some modern scholars, as Luzzatto, Rapaport, Jost, Graetz, Leopold 
 Loew, and others. 
 
 More plausible is the opposite opinion holding that R. Jehuda 
 Hanasi wrote out the Mishna in full, This opinion is shared in the 
 Middle Ages by Samuel Hanagid, R. Nissim, R. Abraham b. David, 
 Maimonides, and in modern times by Geiger, Frankel, Lebrecht, I. H. 
 Weiss, and others, 
 
 The arguments in favor of the former opinion are found in 
 Graetz’ Geschichte der Juden IV, second edition, p. 494, and in 
 Leopold Loew’s Graphische Requisiten II, pp. 112-1382; the contrary 
 arguments in Frankel’s Darke Hamischna p. 211: Weiss’ Dor Dor III, 
 244-248. Compare also Hamburger’s Real-Encycl. II, p. 796, and 8. 
 Adler’s Kobetz al Yad, p. 54. 
 
 1 Clear evidences of such additions by later hands are found in the 
 > ast Mishna of Sota, where the death of Rabbi ls mentioned, and in 
 the last Mishna of Uk’tzin, where mention is made of R. Joshua b. 
 Levi who flourished after Rabbi. As later additions and interpolations 
 must also such passages as 7))}8 °37 or 949.17 be regarded which oc- 
 casionally occur in the context of the Mishna, e. g. Nazir I, 4; IV, 
 5; Maccoth I, 8. 
 
THE MISHNA. 7 
 
 the meaning, 70 relate, to teach, to transmit orally. Mishna then 
 means the oral teaching, the instruction in the traditional law, in 
 contradistinction to N71 the reading in the written law of the 
 
 Bible. 
 
 THE DIVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
 § 3. 
 
 The Mishna is divided into six main sections, termed Seda- 
 rim (“‘Orders” or ‘‘Series”):, A mnemonical sign of the sequence 
 of these sections are the words mp3 jor (time he took), formed 
 by the initials of their names. 
 
 I. Zeraim pryny Seeds or productions of the land. This 
 section embraces the ritual laws concerning the cultivation of 
 the soil and its products. It is introduced by a treatise on 
 prayer and benedictions. 
 
 Il. Moed 3119 Festival, treats of the laws concerning the 
 Sabbath and all festivals. 
 
 Ill. Mashim oxy3 Women, regulations concerning marriage 
 and divorce. 
 
 IV. Weztkin pps Damages,embracing a great part of the 
 civil and criminal law. 
 
 V. Kodashim owt Sacred things, treats of the sacrificial 
 laws and the temple service. — 
 
 VI. Zeharoth pny Purification, the laws concerning the 
 clean and unclean. 
 
 Each Seder (section) is subdivided into Masechtoth or treat- 
 ises, of which each bears a name indicating its general con- 
 tents ?. 
 
 The Mishna contains in all sixty three Masechtoth. Each 
 Masechta is again subdivided into Chapéers, called Perakim, and 
 each Perek into paragraphs, of which each is termed AZzshna or 
 
 1 On account of this division of the Mishna into six series the whole 
 Tilmud is signified by the technical term Dw which is an abbreviation 
 of the words p°94D rmyry. 
 
 * The word 35% or NNIDyH is probably derived from 4D) to 
 weave, and means then a web, just as in Latin textus from texere, 
 means a web, and thena composition of words and sentences. 
 
8 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Halacha. The latter term for a single paragraph is especially 
 used in the Palestinian Talmud. 
 
 ORDER OF SUCCESSION, NAMES AND GENERAL CONTENTS OF 
 THE MASECHTOTH. 
 
 § 4, 
 
 Concerning the order in which the Masechtoth belonging to 
 every section follow after each other, some difference appears 
 between the separate Mishna edition (called Mishnayoth my 3y)’ 
 and the arrangement of the Masechtoth as generally adopted in 
 the editions of the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmud. 
 This is especially the case in the Sedarim II—VI, while in Seder 
 I the order of succession is the same in all editions. 
 
 ‘ Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
 endeavors to find some reasons for the order of succession of the 
 Masechtoth ineach Seder. But his reasons are often rather forced. R. 
 Sherira Gaon, in his celebrated epistle holds that the compiler of the 
 Mishna did not have the intention to arrange the Masechtoth according 
 to a strictly systematical order. This opinion is also expressed in the 
 Gemara B, Kamma 102 a; Aboda Zara 7a : n\naDY NI saw mle isc: 
 though, on the other hand, the Gemara sometimes refers to a close 
 connection of one Masechta with the preceding one, as in the beginn- 
 ing of Masecheth Sota: AMD NIN DD mp WII NIN 7139; comp. 
 also the beginning of Mas. Shebuoth and of Taanith. 
 
 Geiger (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift II, p. 487 ss.) shows that in 
 the separate Mishna edition, at least in the Sedarim II—VI, the Ma- 
 sechtoth are simply arranged according to the number of Perakim of 
 which they consist, so that the Masechtoth having the greater number 
 stand first and are gradually followed by those having a lesser number 
 of Perakim, Where the arrangement seemingly deviates from this 
 rule, we can easily account for the deviation. Thus the three Babas, 
 each having ten Perakim, are placed first in Seder Nezikin, because be- 
 longing together and having in all thirty Perakim. They are followed 
 by Sanhedrin having eleven Perakim, and then by Maccoth which 
 though consisting only of three Perakim isin its contents a continua- 
 tion of the subject treated in Sanhedrin, forming with it fourteen Pe- 
 rakim, 
 
THE MISHNA. 9 
 
 The following is a full list of the Masechtoth belonging to 
 each Seder and the number of their Perakim; besides the order 
 of their succession in the separate Mishna edition as well as in 
 the two compilations of the Talmud. 
 
 The letter G added to the number of the order of succession 
 in this list indicates that there is Gemara to that Masechta in 
 either of the two Talmud compilations. 
 
 I. SEDER ZERAIM, containing eleven Masechtoth. 
 
 Order of Succession in the 
 Separate TALMUD 
 Ce ake Babli, Jerushalmi. euchee 
 
 1 1.G. 1.G. Berachoth, n\373, Benedictions or Prayers, 9 
 treats of liturgical rules. 
 
 2 2 2.G. Peah, ANXb, Corner, treats of the cornersand 8 
 gleanings of the field, the forgotten sheaves, 
 the olives and grapes to be left to the poor, 
 according to Levit. XIX 9.10 and Deut. XXIV 
 19 eels 
 
 3 3 8.G. Demai, x94, The Uncertain, treats of corn 7 
 bought from persons suspected of not havy- 
 ing-given thereof the tithes. 
 
 4 4 -4.G. Khilayim,owds, Mixtures, treats of the pro- 9 
 hibited mixtures in plants, animals and gar- 
 ments, according to Levit. XIX, 19; Deutr. 
 XXII, 9 11. 
 
 5 ay 5.G. Shebiith, myaw, The Sabbatical year, ac- 10 
 cording to Ex, XXIII, 11; Lev. XXV, 2-7; 
 Deutr. XV, 1-11. 
 
 6 6 6.G. Therumoth, non, The Heave offeringsfor 11: 
 the priests, according to Numb, XVIII, 12. 
 7 tg 7.G. Maaseroth, nowy, The Tithes, tobe given 5 
 
 to the Levites, according to Lev. XXVII, 
 80-338; Num. XVIII, 21-24. 
 
 8 8 8.G. Maaser Sheni, *}w awyy, The second Tithe, 6 
 | according to Deut. XIV, 22-26. 
 9 9 9.G. Challa, 75m, The Dough, the portion tobe 4 
 
 given thereof to the Priests, according to 
 Num. XV, 20. 21. 
 10 10 10.G. Oria, aby, The Uncircumcised, treats of 3 
 the fruits of a tree during the first four 
 years after its planting, according to Lev. 
 XIX, 23-25. 
 
LQ HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Order of Succession in the 
 
 Separate 
 Mishna Ae Ne Imi Number 
 edition, Babli. Jerushalmi. of Perakim 
 
 Pit aelt 11.G. Biccurim, p»jo3, The First fruits to be 38 
 brought to the Temple, accordIng to Deut. 
 MO OME GEE 
 
 II. SEDER MOED, containing twelve Masechtoth. 
 
 1 1G. 1.G. Sabbath, nay, treats of the labors prohibit- 24 
 
 ed on that day. 
 
 2 2.G. 2.G. EHrubin, ya), Combinations. This Masechta 10 
 being a continuation of the preceding, treats 
 especially of imaginary combinations of loc- 
 alities by which to extend the Sabbath 
 boundary. 
 
 3.G. Pesachim, p'nps5, treats of the laws relating 10 
 to the feast of Passover and the paschal lamb. 
 
 4 ied 5.G. Shekalim, opy, treats of the half Shekel 8 
 which, according to Ex. XXX, 12-16, every 
 Israelite had to pay as a temple tax. 
 5 8.G. 4G. Yoma, xp, the Day, i.e. the day of At- 8 
 onement, according to Lev. XVI, 3-34. 
 6 9.G.  6.G. Suceah, 710, treats of the lawsconcerning 8 
 the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. X XIII, 34736. 
 vf 4.G. 8.G. Betza mya or Yom tov 2) pry, treats of the 5§ 
 kinds of work which, according to Ex. XII, 
 16, were prohibited or permitted on the fes- 
 tivals. The name Betza (the egg) is taken 
 from the first word in that Masechta. 
 8 %7.G. 7G. Rosh Hashana, 72wn wer, Beginning of the 4 
 year, treats of the feast of New Year. 
 9. 2 10;G3 9.G. Taanith, n3yn, on the public fasts. 
 10 12.G.° 10.G.. . Megilla, abv, the Scroll, treats of the read- 4 
 ing of the book of Esther on the feast of 
 Purim. 
 11 0.G.  12.G. Moed Katon, OD I, Minor feast, treatsof 3 
 
 laws relating to tue days intervening be- 
 tween the first and last days of Pesach and 
 Succoth. 
 
 12 6.G. 11.G. Chagiga, 73°35, Feast offering, treats of the 8 
 private offerings on the three feasts of pil- 
 grimage, according to Deut. XVI, 16, 17. 
 
 III. Stper Nasum™, containing seven Masechtoth. 
 
 1 1G. 1.G.  Yebamoth, nyo‘, Sisters-in-Law, treats of 16 
 
 eee marriage, according to Deut. XXV, 
 -10. 
 
 Se) 
 ow 
 2 
 
 ns 
 
THE MISHNA. | 1] 
 
 Order of Succession in the 
 
 Separate 
 Mishna Rene ; Number 
 edition, Babli. Jerushalmi. bay sree hs 
 
 2 2.G. 3.G. Khethuboth, n\a\n3, Marriage deeds, treats 138 
 of dower and marriage settlements. 
 
 3 5.G. 4.G. Nedarim, p73, Vows, treats of vows and 11 
 their annulment, with reference to Num. 
 
 XXX, 3-16. 
 
 4 6.G. 6.G. Nazir, 733, the Nazarite, treats of the laws 9 
 concerning him, according to Num. VI, 2-21. 
 
 5 7.G. 2G. Sota,7Ayi\D, on the woman suspected of adult- 9 
 ery, according to Num. V, 12-31. 
 
 6 4.G. 5.G. Gittin, po, on Divorces, based on Deut. 9 
 XOX Vein. 
 
 7 3.G. 7G, Kiddushin, ywytp, on Betrothals. 4 
 
 ITV. SepDER NEZIKIN, containing ten Masechtoth. 
 
 1 1G. 1.G. Baba Kama, xp vai, First Gate, treats of 10 
 Damages and Injuries, and their remedies, 
 with reference to Ex. XXI, 28-37; XXTJJ, 
 1-8, 
 
 2 9G. 2.G. Baba Metzia, xsyyo von, Middle Gate, 10 
 
 . treats of laws concerning found property 
 (Deut. XXII, 1-4), concerning trust (Ex. 
 XXII, 6-14), concerning buying and selling 
 (Lev. XXV, 14), lending (Ex. XXII, 24-26; 
 Lev. XXV, 35-37) and concerning hiring 
 and renting. 
 
 3 3.G. 3.G. Baba Bathra, 83n3 833, Last Gate, treats 10 
 of laws concerning real estate and com- 
 merce, mostly based on the traditional law; 
 besides of the laws concerning hereditary 
 succession, based on Num. XX VII, 7-11. 
 
 4 5.G. 4.G. Sanhedrin, prtiD, treats of the courts and 11 
 their proceed ngs, and of the punishment 
 of capital crimes. 
 
 5d 7.G. 5.G. Maccoth, nib», Stripes, treats of false wit- 3 
 nesses and their punishment (Deut. XIX, 
 16-19); of the cities of refuge (Num. XXXV, 
 10-32; Deut. XIX, 1-18) and of crimes pun- 
 ished by stripes (Deut. XXV, 1-3. 
 
 6 6.G. 6.G. Shebuoth, n\yisw, Oaths, treats of the differ- 8 
 ent kinds of oaths, those made in private 
 life as well as those administered in court, 
 Lev. V, 4. 5. 21. 22; Ex, XXIT, 6-10. 
 
12 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Order of Succession in the 
 Separate TALMUD 
 Ee Babl . Jerushalmi. eC OS ES 
 
 7 8 Wanting Eduyoth, nysy, Testimonies, containsacol- 8 
 lection of traditional laws and decisions 
 gathered from the testimonies of disting- 
 uished teachers, 
 
 8 4.G. 7G. Aboda Zara, A} ANY, Idolatry, treats of 5 
 laws concerning idols and the relation to 
 the worshipers thereof, 
 
 9 10 Wanting Aboth, n\ax, Fathers or Sentences of the 5 
 Fathers (the principal teachers), contains 
 ethical maxims of the Mishna teachers. 
 
 10 9.G. 8.G. Horayoth, ny yn, Decisions, treats of the 38 
 consequences of acting according to errone- 
 ous decisions rendered by areligious author- 
 ity, with reference to Ley. chapters IV and V. 
 
 V. SEDER KODASHIM, containing eleven Masechtoth. 
 
 1 1.G. Zebachim, p'nat, Sacrifices, treats of the 14 
 animal sacrifices and the mode of their of- 
 fering,with reference to the first chapters of 
 Leviticus. 
 
 9 2G. 0 Menachoth, nino, Meat-offering, treats of 13 
 meat-c nd drink offerings, with reference to 
 
 7, Lev. ch. IT 
 
 3 4.G. Cholin, (or Chullin) nbyn, Profane things, 12 
 _ treats of the traditional manner of slaught- 
 ering animals for ordinary use; besides of 
 = the dietary laws. 
 4 3.G. Bechoroth, ny7\53, The first born, treats of 9 
 7, the laws concerning the first born of man 
 
 and animals, according to Ex. VIII, 12.13 
 < and Num. XVIII, 15-17. 
 5 5.G. Arachin, >5y, Estimations, treats of the 9 
 = mode in which persons or things dedicated 
 to the Lord by a vow are legally appraised 
 in order to be redeemed for ordinary use, 
 according to Lev. XX VII, 2-27. 
 6 6.G. Themura, mA7\on, Exchange, treats of the 7 
 laws concerning sanctified things having 
 been exchanged, according to Lev. XXVII, 
 10-27. 
 v 7.G. Kherithoth, nin5, Excisions, treats of the 6 
 sins subject to the punishment of excision, 
 and their expiation by sacrifices. 
 
Order of Succession in the 
 
 TALMUD 
 edition. Babli. Jerushalmi. 
 
 Separate 
 Mishna 
 8 8.G. 
 9 -10.G 
 1077 11. 
 11 9. 
 
 VI. SEDER TEHAROTH, containing twelve Masechtoth. 
 
 2. 
 
 ieee 
 
 NG 
 
 Vee ee Nig Lae 
 
 1G 
 
 THE MISHNA. 
 
 13 
 
 Nuinbcr 
 of Perakim 
 
 Me-ila, abyn, Trespass (Sacrilege), treats of 
 the sins of violating or profaning sacred 
 things, according to Lev. V, 15. 16. 
 Thamid, 1"pn, The Daily Sacrifice, describes 
 the Temple service connected with the daily 
 morning and evening offering, according to 
 Ex. XXIX, 38-41; Num. XXVIII, 2-8. 
 Middoth, n\7D, Measurements, contains the 
 measurements and description of the 
 Temple, its courts, gates and halls, also de- 
 scription of the service of the priestly guards 
 in the Temple. 
 
 Kinnim, pp, The bird’s nests, treats of 
 the sacrifices consisting of fowls, the offer- 
 ing of the poor, according to Lev. I, 14; V, 
 Tek LISS, 
 
 Khelim, ps, Vessels, treats of the con- 
 ditions under which domestic utensils, gar- 
 ments etc. receive ritual uncleanness, ac- 
 cording to Lev. XI, 33-35. 
 
 Ohaloth, mn, Tents, treats of tents and 
 houses conveying the ritual uncleanness of 
 a dead body, according to Num. XIX, 14.15. 
 Nega-im, p yi, Leprosy, treats of the laws 
 relating to leprosy of men, garments and 
 dwellings, according to Lev. XIII and XIV. 
 Parah, 775, The Heifer, treats of the laws 
 concerning the red heifer and the use of its 
 ashes for the purification of the unclean, 
 according to Num. XIX. 
 
 Teharoth, ny, Purifications. The word 
 is here used euphemistically, as the Masech- 
 ta treats of some lesser degrees of unclean- 
 ness lasting only till sunset; e. g., Lev. XI, 
 24-28. 
 
 Mikvaoth, niwipo, Wells, treats of the con- 
 ditions under which wells and reservoirs 
 are fit to be used for ritual purifications. 
 Nidda, 773), The Menstruous, treats of the 
 legal uncleanness arising from certain con- 
 ditions in women, according to Lev. XV, 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
14 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Order of Succession in the 
 
 Separate TALMUD 
 ETE Babli. Jerushalmi. ees 
 19-31 and XII, 2-8. 
 & ' 8. Mach-shirin, "wd, Preparations, treatsof 6 
 liquids that, according to Lev. XI, 34. 38, 
 o prepare and -dispose seeds and fruits to re- 
 ceive ritual uncleanness. 
 9 9. z, Zabim, ora}, Persons suffering of running 5 
 issues, treats of the uncleanness arising 
 = from such secretions, according to Lev. XV, 
 2-18. 
 Ome U: ef Tebul Yom, pv bon, Immersed at daytime, 4 
 treats of the state of him who at day time 
 Z immersed for his purification, whiie his per- 
 fect cleanness according to the law is not 
 > acquired before the setting of the sun. 
 sme Sie Yadayim, ovr, Hands, treats of the ritual 4 
 > uncleanness of hands, according to the trad- 
 
 itional law, and of their purification. 
 
 12 Uk-tzin, pypiy, Stalks of Fruit, treats of 3 
 staiks and shells of fruit in regard to con- 
 veying ritual uncleanness. 
 
 Remark 1. In connection with the main subject treatea 
 in each Masechta and generally indicated in its name, occasion- 
 ally other more or less congenial subjects are treated. Thus, 
 for instance, the last Perakim of Masecheth Megilla are devoted 
 to laws cnncerning the sanctity of synagogues and the reading 
 of Scriptures at the public service. In the first Perek of Kid- 
 dushin, after having set forth the different modes of contracting 
 marriage, rules are incidently laid down concerning the legal 
 modes of acquiring differentkinds of property, etc. 
 
 Remark 2. The Perakim belonging to each Masechta 
 are designated in the separate Mishna edition simply by the 
 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Talmud edition by 
 ordinal numbers as well as by a certain name taken from the first 
 word or words with which that Perek begins. ‘Thus the first 
 Perek of Berachoth is designated in the separate Mishna edition 
 by 'S pAb and in the Talmud edition by TWN PID, ND. In 
 earlier rabbinical literature references to a certain Perek ofthe 
 Mishna are generally made by giving only the name of that 
 Perek without stating the Masechta to whieh it belongs, as 
 
THE MISHNA. 15 
 
 TPbdT pAb referring to the third Perek of Baba Metzia. An 
 alphabetical list of the names of all Parakim with the indication 
 of the Masechtoth to which they belong is found in the appendix 
 to Masecheth Berachoth in the Talmud editions, immediately 
 after Maimonides’ Introduction to Seder Zeraim. 
 
 LANGUAGE OF THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 5. 
 
 The language of the Mishna is New Hebrew, as developed 
 during the period of the second Temple. The Hebrew having 
 been supplanted by the Aramaic dialects as the language of 
 common life, the ancient idiom was cultivated by the learned 
 for liturgical and legal purposes. Many new words and phrases 
 had to be coined to express new ideas andobjects, and new 
 grammatical forms and syntactical constructions adopted for 
 the favored processes of legal dialectics. As far as possible 
 use was made for this purpose of new derivations of the stock 
 of Biblical words and of some genuine Hebrew roots which 
 though not happening to occur in the Biblical literature still 
 lingered in the memory of the people. Besides, recourse was 
 had to the dominating languages. From the Aramaic especially 
 some word roots and grammatical inflections, derivations and 
 constructions were borrowed and modified according to the 
 genius of the Hebrew idiom, Utensils and other objects and 
 ideas till then unknown were designated by the same terms, 
 used by that nation from which they had been borrowed. In 
 this way, many Greek terms and with them also some Latin 
 words more or less modified, were adopted and naturalized.' 
 
 1 Modern works on the language of the Mishna are: 
 
 M. I. Landau, Geist und Sprache der Hebraer nach dem zweiten 
 Tempelbau (Prague 1822). 
 
 A. Geiger. Lehr-und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mishna (Breslau, 
 1845). . 
 
 L. Dukes, Sprache der Mishna (Esslingen, 1845). 
 
 J. H. Weiss, Mishpat Leshon ha-Mishna (Vienna 1867). 
 
 Herm. L. Strack und GC. Siegfried, Lehrbuch der neuhebraeischen 
 
 Sprache und Literatur, Karlsruhe und Leipzig, 1884. 
 
 Salomon Stein, Das Verbuin der Mischnasprache, Berlin 1888. 
 
16 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In this New Hebrew language, also called the language of 
 the sages (OMD2N pw? or y3isa7 N3w), are composed not only the 
 Mishna but also the kindred works to be mentioned in the fol- 
 lowing chapter. 
 
 As to the styleof expression, the Mishna is very brief and 
 concise well calculated to impress itself upon the memory- 
 
CHAPTER IT. 
 WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 6. 
 
 There are several works which are kindred to the contents 
 of the Mishna, and originated partly before and partly after its 
 close, though their present shape belongs to a much later period. 
 We refer to the TZosephta, the Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre. 
 Tnese works are very important from the fact that they throw 
 much light on the Mishna in revealing the sources of many of 
 its canons, and the reasons of its diverging opinions. For this 
 purpose, they arefrequently quoted in the Gemara. The follow- 
 ing will briefly describe each of these works. 
 
 a. THE TOSEPHTA. 
 
 ST. 
 
 The word Tosephta (SMboDiN) means Addition, Supplement, 
 and, as indicated by this name, the work is intended to complete 
 deficienciesof the Mishna. It is divided into Masechtoth, gene- 
 rally corresponding to those of the Mischna, but differing from 
 them in the arrangement of their subject, and in the division of 
 their Perakim. The latter are not subdivided into paragraphs. 
 There are in all sixty Masechtoth and 452 Perakim, The Tosephta 
 contains mainly the remnants of the earlier compilations of the 
 Halacha made by R. Akiba, R. Meir, R. Nehemia, and others not 
 adopted in the Mishna, and, besides, additions made, after R. 
 Jehuda Hanasi’s death, by his desciples R. Chiya, R.Oshaya, Bar 
 Kappara and others. But we find in that work also many sayings 
 and decisions of later Amoraim of the Babylonian and Palestin- 
 ian schools. In its present shape it belongs to the fifth or 
 sixth century.’ 
 
 1 The Tosephta is usually printed as an appendix to Alphasi’s com- 
 pendium of the Talmud. In the Vienna edition of the Eabyl. Talmud 
 (1860-72) the Masechtoth of the Tosephta are appended to the corres- 
 ponding Mosechtoth of the Talmud. A separate revised edition of the 
 whole Tosephta was published by Dr. Zuckermandel (Pasewalk and 
 Treves,1877-82). Dr. Adolph Schwartz is publishing a new edition of the 
 
18 TLISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 b. THE MECHILTA. 
 
 S43) 
 
 The Mechilta, the Siphra and the Siphre have this in com. 
 mon, that they treat of the oral law not according to well arrang 
 ed subjects, as is the case with the Mishna and the Tosephta, 
 but rather in the form of a running commentary and discussion 
 on the biblical passages from which the law is deduced or on 
 which it is based. 
 
 The term Mechilta (yAd Dy), being the Aramaic equivalent 
 of the Hebrew word 77413, means originally ‘‘Measure”, but in the 
 rabbinical language it signifies the method of the traditional in- 
 terpretation (Midrash), and then a collection of interpretations 
 of the law. 
 
 The work bearing that particular name contains a collec- 
 tion of rabbinical interpretations on several sections of the second 
 book of Moses; beginning with Ex. ch. XII, 1, it goes on till ch. 
 XXIIT-19. Of the remaining chapters it comments only on 
 XXXII, 12-17 and on XXXV, 1-3. 
 
 Though principally of a legal character (Midrash Halacha), 
 it has also homiletical interpretations (Midrash Agada), 
 especially on Ex. XIII, 17-XIX, 25. 
 
 The Mechilta is divided into nine main sections (Masechtoth), 
 named according to the contents of the Bible passage which they 
 expound, as NMmDBT ASD, nowst por ete. Each Masechta is 
 subdivided into chapters (Parashoth), the total number of which 
 is 77. 
 
 Passages from the Mechilta are occasionally quoted in the 
 Talmud, without however mentioning the name of that book. 
 In the post-Talmudic literature it is mentioned as "4 spdop 
 Sxyow. Some were therefore inclined to regard R. Ishmael 
 
 Tosephta with notes and text corrections, of which the first volume 
 is out, Wilna 1891. 
 
 Critical researches on the Tosephta are found in Frankl’s Darke 
 Hamishna pp. 304-307 and in I. H. Weiss’, Dor Dor etc. IT pp. 217-225 ; 
 also in I. H. Duenner’s Wesen and Ursprung der Tosephta, Amster- 
 dam 1874, 
 
WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA 19 
 
 (flourishing in the beginning ofthe second century) as its author; 
 but against this opinion speaks the circumstance that thenames 
 of teachers living much later are mentioned in the book. Modern 
 scholars hold that the Mechilta was originally a collection of 
 teachings of R. Ishmael and his school. This collection having 
 been brought from Palestine to Babylon,received there many in- 
 terpolations. In the form we possess it, the book belongs to the 
 fourth or fifth century.’ 
 
 ec. THE SIPHRA. 
 § 9. 
 
 The Siphra ("45D i. e. the book), also called Torath Coha- 
 nim, is a collection of traditional interpretations of the whole 
 book of Leviticus, introduced by an exposition of R. Ishmael’s 
 thirteen hermeneutic rules. 
 
 Different from the Mechilta, the style of the Siphra is gen- 
 erally more argumentative, defending the traditional interpreta- 
 tions against possible objections. Both names of this book are 
 mentioned, and numerous passages thereof are quoted, in the 
 Talmud. The authorship of its essential parts is there ascribed 
 to R. Jehuda b. Ilai, a disciple of R. Akiba (many. SADD OND 
 Sanhed. 86),and according to this statement the collection origin- 
 ated in Palestine in the middle of the second century. But in 
 the course of time it was considerably increased by additions 
 from the hands of later teachers, especially those belonging to 
 the school of Abba Areca and is therefore also called 35 S237 875D.’ 
 
 As before us, the book has two different divisions which are 
 
 1 The latest editions vf the Mechilta with critical introductions 
 and annotations were published by I. H. Weiss (Vienna (885) and by 
 M. Friedmann (Vienna 1870.) 
 
 Critical researches on the Mechilta are also found in Frankel’s 
 Monatschrift 1853, pp. 388 398, and Geiger’s Urschrift pp. 140, 152 sqq. 
 and in his Zeitung 1871 pp. 8-28. I. H. Weiss Dor Dor II, pp. 225-2381. 
 
 2 The latest edition of the Siphra with the commentary of R 
 Abraham b. David of Posquieres (Rabed) and annotations by I H. 
 Weiss was published Vienna 1862. 
 
 As to critical researches on the Siphra, see Frankel, Monatsschrift 
 1854 and I. H. Weiss, in his Introduction to the Siphra, and in his Dor 
 Dor II p. 281-236. 
 
20 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 rather bewildering, one according to the customary Sabbath 
 lessons, Parashoth, subdivided into Perakim; the other according 
 
 to sections named after their main conterts and subdivided into 
 chapters termed Parasha or Parashata. 
 
 d. THE SIPHRE, 
 
 § 10. 
 
 The Siphre, or, as its fuller title reads, 35 $353 “DD (the 
 books of the school of Rab), comprises the traditional interpret- 
 ations of the book of Numbers, beginning with chapter V, and 
 of the whole book of Deuteronomy. The author of the Siphre on 
 Numbers was evidently not the same as the author of that on the 
 last book of the Pentateuch. Thestyle of the former, being more 
 argumentative and discoursive, often resembles that of the Siphra, 
 while Siphre on Deuteronomy is generally brief, bearing more 
 resemblance to the Mechilta. The passages anonymously given 
 in the Siphre are ascribed in the Talmud to R. Simon b. Jochai, 
 one of the distinguished disciples of R. Akiba (yw 75D OND 
 Sanhedrin 86a); but,as, on the one hand,many of those passages 
 can be traced back to the school of R. Ishmael, and, on the other 
 hand, teachers of a much later period are mentioned therein, 
 it is the opinion of modern scholars that the Siphre before us is 
 a composite of two different works which, like the Siphra, receiv- 
 ed its present shape in the Babylonian shools founded by Abba 
 Areca. . 
 
 The Siphre is divided into sections corresponding to those 
 of the Sabbath lessons and subdivided into paragraphs, termed 
 Piskoth. That on Numbers has 161, and that on Deuterenomy 
 357 Piskoth.? 
 
 e. BARAITHA. 
 Sarile 
 Besides the Tosephta, the Mechilta, the Siphra and the 
 
 Siphre just described, other collections of a similar character 
 existed during the Talmudical period. In the course of time 
 
 1 The latest edition «f the Siphre with annotations is that of M. 
 Friedmann, Vienna 1864. 
 
WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA, 2) 
 
 they perished, but many hundred fragmentary passages thereof 
 are quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Ge- 
 mara. Such a passage quoted from those lost collections as well, 
 as from the Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre was termed 
 Baraitha (S73), or AMathnitha Laraitha, meaning an extrane- 
 ous Mishna. This term was used in order to distinguish those 
 passages from passages, in our Mishna, that is, the authorized 
 Mishna of R. Jehuda Hanasi, compared with which they had 
 but a subordinate value. The Baraithoth are often found to be 
 conflicting with each other or with the authorized Mishna, and 
 in this case the Gemara usually displays, great ingenuity and 
 subtility in the attempt to reconcile them. In some instances, 
 however, one or the other Baraitha is declared to be spurious.1 
 
 1 Some critical researches on the Baraitha are found in Frankel’g 
 Darke Hamishna p. 311-318, and in I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor II p. 239-244, 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 12. 
 
 The authorities mentioned in the Mishna and Baraitha as 
 having transmitted and developed the oral law belong to three 
 different periods, namely: 
 
 1. The period of Sopherim 
 2. The period of Zugoth, and 
 3. The period of Zanaim. 
 
 a. Sopherim or scribes were the learned men who succeed- 
 ed Ezra during a period of about two hundred years. To them 
 Inany institutions and extensions of the Mosaic law are ascribed 
 D51D “7D7 OMI niipn. The Sopherim are also called collect- 
 ively A5y73N Nos CwaN the Men of the Great Synod. According 
 to tradition, this synod consisted of 120 members, but we have 
 no record of their names with the exception of Zzra, its founder, 
 and of Simon the Just (the high priest Simon I, between 310-292, 
 or his grandson Simon II, between 220-202 B. ©.) who is said 
 to have been one of the last members of the Great Synod. 
 
 Antigonos of Socho, a disciple of Simon the Just, was the 
 connecting link between this and the following period. 
 
 b. The word Zugeth (mat), meaning the pairs (duumviri), 
 is the appellation of the leading teachers from Jose ben Joezer 
 till Hillel, of whom always two, at the same time, stood at the 
 head of the Sanhedrin, one as president (Nasi), and the other 
 as vice-president (Ab beth din). 
 
 The succession of these Zugoth was: 
 
 1. Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Jochanan, flourishing at 
 the time of the Maccabean wars of independence. 
 
 2. Joshua b. Perachia and Nitat of Arbela, flourishing at 
 the time of John Hyrcan. 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 23 
 
 8. Judab. Tabai and Simon 6. Shetach, flourishing at the 
 
 time of Alexander Janai and queen Salome. 
 
 4, Shemaiah and Adtalion, flourishing at the time of 
 
 Hyrcan II. 
 5. Hillel and Shamazi, flourishing at the time of king 
 Herod. 
 
 ec. With the disciples of Hillel and Shamai begins the 
 period of Zanaim, which lasted about 210 years (from 10 to 220 
 Ch. Era). With the beginning of this period the title Radbdz 
 (my teacher) for the ordained teachers,and the title Raddan, our 
 teacher) for the president of the Sanhedrin came in use. 
 
 In the Mishna, the term Tana (N3n), meaning a teacher of 
 the oral law, does not yet occur. Those teachers are there sig- 
 nified by generally adding the title of Raésdz to their names, or 
 by calling them collectively pan the Sages, while the author- 
 ities of the preceding period are occasionally designated D°3pt 
 osswssn the former elders. It is first in the Gemara that the 
 term Zana (Njn) is applied to a teacher mentioned in the 
 Mishna and Baraitha, in contradistinction to the Amoraim, ex- 
 pounders of the Mishna, as the teachers after R. Jehuda Hanasi 
 are called. 
 
 The period of the Tanaim is generally divided into 5 or 6 
 minor sections or generations. The purpose of this division is 
 to show which teachers developed their principal activity con- 
 temporaneously, though the actual lifetime of some of them ex- 
 tended to more than one generation. 
 
 The following chronological tables contain the names only 
 of the more prominent teachers of each generation, Every 
 table is followed by short biographical sketches of the teachers 
 mentioned therein.’ 
 
 1 Fuller characteristics of the lives and teachings of the principal 
 Tanaim are given in the following works: 
 
 Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. IV. 
 
 Z. Frankel, Darke Hamishna. 
 
 I. H. Weiss, Zur Geschichte der juedischen Tradition, Vol. I. 
 and IT. 
 
 Jacob Bruell, Mebo Hamishna, Vol. I. 
 
 J. Hamburger, Real Encyclopaedie, Vol. II. Die Talmudischen 
 Artikel. 
 
 M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah, 
 
24 HISTORICAI. AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE FIRST GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 § J B35, 
 
 The principal Tanaim of the first generation, which lasted 
 about seventy years ', from 10 to 80, C. E., are: 
 
 1. The School of Shamai, and the School of Hillel 
 2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. 
 
 3. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. 
 
 4. Rabbi Cnanina, Chief of the Priests. 
 
 5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. 
 
 6. R..Jochanan ben Zaccai. 
 
 Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 1. The School of Shamai and the School of Hillel were founded 
 by the disciples of the great teachers whose names they bear. Follow- 
 ing the principles of their masters,they differed widely in their opinions 
 on many legal questions; the School of Shamai, in general, taking a 
 rigorous, and the school of Hillel a more lenient view of the question. 
 In their frequent controversies the School of Shamai, having been 
 founded already during the life time of Hillel, is always mentioned 
 first. Of individual teachers belonging to either of these two schools 
 only avery few are occasionally mentioned by name. Both schools exist- 
 ed during the whole period of the first generation, and the antagonism 
 of their followers extended even to the middle of the subsequent gener- 
 ation. 
 
 2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. Of this teacher who flourished 
 shortly after Hillel only a few opinions and traditions are recorded. 
 According to what is related of him in Mishna Eduyoth V, 6. 7, he 
 was a noble character with unyielding principles. 
 
 3. Rabban Gamaliel the Hider. He was ason of R. Simon, and 
 grandson of Hillel whom he succeeded in the office of Nasi. Many 
 important ordinances (npn) of the Rabbinical law are ascribed to him 
 He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Th ; 
 epithet “the Elder” generally added to his name, is to distinguish him 
 
 1 This comparatively great length of the first generation is easily 
 explained by the circumstance,that it refers to the duration of the pre 
 vailing Schools of Shamai and Hillel,and not, as in the subsequent gen 
 erations, to that of the activity of a single leading teacher. 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 25 
 
 from his grandson Gamaliel of Jabne, who flourished in the following 
 generation. 
 
 4, Rabbi Chanina,Chief of the Priests, or the proxy of the high- 
 priest. He as well as ‘‘the court of Priests” 9°375 by 5/5 are inciden- 
 tally mentioned in the Mishna in connection with laws concerning the 
 sacrifices and the temple service. 
 
 5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. He was the son and successor of Rab- 
 ban Gamaliel the Elder, and was executed by the Romans in the time 
 of the destruction of Jerusalem. Belonging to the school of Hillel, 
 his individual opinions in questions of law are but rarely recorded in 
 the Mishna. He must not be confounded with his grandson who had 
 the same name and belonged to the fourth generation of Tanaim. 
 
 6. R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. This distinguished teacher was one of 
 the youngest disciples of Hillel, occupied a high position already be- 
 fore the destruction of Jerusalem, and afterwards became the founder 
 and head of the celebrated academy of Jabne (Jamnia). 
 
 Of other authorities belonging to the first generation of Tanaim, 
 mention must be made of Admon, Chanan and Nachum the Mede, who 
 were civil judges before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and 
 whose legal opinions are occasionally recorded in the Mishna, 
 
 THE SECOND GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 § 14, 
 
 This generation lasted about forty years, from 80 to 120. 
 The principal Tanaim belonging to it are: 
 
 1. Rabban Gamaliel II (of Jabne). 
 Rabbi Zadok. 
 
 R. Dosa (b. Harchinas). 
 
 R. Eliezer b. Jacob. 
 
 R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos). 
 
 R. Joshua (b. Chanania). 
 
 R. Elazar b. Azaria. 
 
 R. Juda b. Bathyra. 
 
 OT oT Ro BD 
 
 Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 1. Rabban Gamaliel Il. He was a grandson of Gamaliel the Elder; 
 after the death of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai he became president of the 
 
26 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 academy of Jabne,and like his ancestors, he bore the title Nasi (Prince); 
 with the Romans, Patriarch. In order to distinguish him from his 
 grandfather, he received the surname Gamaliel of Jabne, or the 
 Second. 
 
 %. KR. Zadok, Of him it is related that he, in anticipation of the 
 destruction of the Temple, fasted for forty successive years. He then 
 removed to Jabne where he as well as his son, R. Eliezer b. Zadok, be- 
 longed to the distinguished teachers. 
 
 3. Rk. Dosa b. Harchinas belonged to the school of Hillel, and 
 removed with R. Jochanan b. Zaccai from Jerusalem to Jabne where 
 he reached a very old age. He stood in such high esteem that his most 
 distinguished colleagues appealed to his opinion in doubtful cases. 
 
 4. Rk. Eliezer b. Jacob was head ofa school, and in possession of 
 traditions concerning the structure and interior arrangements of the 
 temple. He is also mentioned with commendation as to his method of 
 instruction whicn was ‘‘concise and clear” (9p) 3p). There was also an- 
 other Tana by a similar name who flourished in the fourth generation. 
 
 0. &, Eliezer b. Hyrkanos,in the Mishna called simply R. Eliezer, 
 was one of the most distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai 
 who characterized him as ‘‘the lime cemented cistern that does not 
 lose a drop”. He was a faithful conservator of handed-down decisions 
 and. opposed to their slightest modification and to any new deductions 
 to be made therefrom. His school was in Lydda, in South Judea, 
 Though formerly a disciple of the Hillelites, he inclined to the views 
 of the Shamaites and consequently came in conflict with his colleagues. 
 Being persistent in his opinion, and conforming to it even in practice, 
 he was excommunicated by his own brother-in-law, the patriarch 
 
 ramaliel IT. 
 
 6. R. Joshua b. Chanania, in general called simply R. Joshua, 
 was likewise one of the favored disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. 
 Shortly before the destruction of the Temple he left Jerusalem with 
 his teacher, after whose death he founded a separate school in Bekiin. 
 As member of the Sanhedrin in Jabne, he participated conspicuously 
 in its deliberations and debates. His discussions were mostly with 
 FR. Eliezer to whose unyielding conservatism he formed a striking con- 
 trast, as he represented the more rational and conciliatory element of 
 
 that generation, and combined with great learning the amiable virtues 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. DAL 
 
 of gentleness, modesty and placability which characterized the Hil- 
 lelites. As he, on several occasions, was humiliated by the Nasi Gamaliel 
 II with whom he differed on some questions, the members of the San- 
 hedrin resented this insult of their esteemed colleague by deposing the 
 offender from his dignity and electing another president. It was 
 only through the interference of the appeased R. Joshua that R. Gam- 
 aliel, who apologized for his conduct, was again restored to his office. 
 
 7% R. Elazarb. Azaria descended from a noble family whose 
 pedigree was traced up to Ezra the Scribe. Already while a young 
 man, he enjoyed such a reputation for his great learning that he was 
 made president of the academy at Jabne in place of the deposed R. 
 Gamaliel. When the latter was reinstated, R. Elazar was appointed 
 as vice-president. His controversies were mostly with R. Joshua, R. 
 Tarphon, R. Ishmael and Kk. Akiba. On account of the noble virtues 
 which he combined with his great learning he was compared to ‘a 
 vessel filled with aromatic spices”, and R. Joshua said of him: ‘‘agen- 
 eration having a man like R. Elazar b. Azaria, is not orphaned”. 
 
 8. R. Juda b. Bathyra had a school in Nisibis (in Assyria) 
 already at the time when the temple of Jerusalem was still in exist- 
 ence. He was probably a descendant of the family Bene Bathyra who 
 were leaders of the Sanhedrin under king Herod, and who resigned 
 that oftice in favor of Hillel. Several other Tanaim had the same 
 family name, as R. Joshua b. Bathyra, R. Simon b. Bathyra and one 
 called simply Ben Bathyra. 
 
 Of other teachers belonging to the second generation we have yet 
 to mention R. Nechunia b. Hakana who was the teacher of R. Ishmael, 
 and Nachum of Gimzo who introduced the hermeneutic rule of 35 
 1,9) (extension and limitation) which was later further developed 
 by his great disciple R. Akiba. 
 
28 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE THIRD GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 Se TIGY, 
 
 Several Teachers of the third generation, which lasted from 
 the year 120 till about 139, flourished already in the preceding 
 one. The principal teachers are: 
 
 1. KR. Tarphon. 
 
 2. HK. Ishmael: 
 
 ay dat Wel eny, 
 
 4, R. Jochanan b. Nuri, 
 5. R. Jose the Galilean. 
 6. R. Simon b. Nanos. 
 
 1. Re Judah babs. 
 
 8. R. Jochanan b. Broka. 
 
 Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 1, R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, of Lydda. He is ssid to have been 
 inclined to the views of the School of Shamai. On account of his 
 great learning he was called ‘‘the teacher of Israel”; besides, he was 
 praised for his great charitable works. His legal discussions were 
 mostly with his colleague R. Akiba. 
 
 2. R. Ishmael (b. Elisha) was probably a grandson of the high 
 priest Ishmael b. Elisha who was condemned to death by Titus together 
 with the patriarch Simon b. Gamaliel I. When still a boy, he was 
 made a captive and brought to Rome, where R. Joshua who happened 
 to come there on a mission,redeemed him at a high ransom and brought 
 him back to Palestine. R. Nechunia b. Hakana is mentioned as one 
 of his principal teachers. When grown to manhood, he became a 
 member of the Sanhedrin and was highly revered by his colleagues. 
 He is named among those who emigrated with the Sanhedrin from 
 Jabne to Usha. His residence was in South Judea ina place called 
 Kephar Aziz. His academical controversies were mostly with R. 
 Akiba to whose artificial methods of interpreting the law he was 
 stronsly opposed, on the principle that the Thora, being composed in 
 the usual language of man, must be interpreted in a plain and ration- 
 alway. As guiding rules of interpretation he accepted only the seven 
 logical rules which had been laid down by Hillel, which he howeve’, 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 29 
 
 by some modifications and subdivisions, enlarged to thirteen. Of these 
 thirteen rules we shall treat in the second part of this work. A separate 
 school which he founded was continued after his death by his dis- 
 ciples and was known by the name of “Be R. Ishmael”. Of the book 
 Mechilta which is ascribed to R. Ishmael and his school we have spoken 
 above (p. 18). 
 
 38. R. Akiba (b. Joseph) was the most prominent among the 
 Tanaim. He is said to have descended from a proselyte family and to 
 have been altogether illiterate up to theage of his manhood. Filled with 
 the desire to acquire the knowledge of the law, he entered a school 
 and attended the lectures of the distinguished teachers of that time, 
 especially of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, R. Joshua b. Chanania, and of 
 Nachum of Gimzo. Subsequently he founded a school in B’ne Brak, 
 near Jabne, and became a member of the Sanhedrin in the last men- 
 tioned city. Through his keen intellect, his vast learning and his 
 energetic activity he wielded a great influence in developing 
 and diffusing the traditional law. He arranged the accumulated 
 material of that law in a proper system and methodical order, and 
 enriched its substance with many valuable deductions of his own. His 
 methodical arrangement and division of that material was completed 
 by his disciple R. Meir, and later on became the groundwork of the 
 Mishna compiled by R. Jehuda Hanasi. Besides, he introduced a new 
 method of interpreting the Scriptures which enabled him to find a 
 biblical basis for almost every provision of the oral law. This ingen- 
 ious method, which will be described in the IT Part of this book, was 
 admired by his contemporaries, and notwithstanding the opposition of 
 some of his colleagues, generally adopted in addition to the 13 hermen- 
 eutic rules of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba’s legal opinions are very frequently 
 recorded in all parts of the Mishna and inthe kindred works. His acad- 
 emical discussions are mostly with his former teachers R. Eliezer, R. 
 Joshuaand with his colleagues R. Tarphon, R. Jochanan b, Nuri, R. 
 Jose the Galilean and others. 
 
 R. Akiba died a martyr to religion and patriotism. Having been 
 a, stout supporter of the cause of Bar Cochba, he was cruelly executed 
 by the Romans for publicly teaching the Law contrary to the edict of 
 the emperor Hadrian. 
 
 4. R. Jochanan b. Nuri was a colleague of R. Akiba with whom 
 he frequently differed on questions of the law. In his youth he seems 
 to have been a disciple of R. Gamaliel II. for whose memory he always 
 
30 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 retained a warm veneration, He presided over a college in Beth She- 
 arim, a place near Sepphoris in Galilee. 
 
 do. &. Jose the Galilean was a very distinguished teacher. Of 
 his youth and education nothing is known. At his first appearance in 
 the Sanhedrin of Jabne, he participated in a debate with R Tarphon 
 and with R. Akiba and displayed such great learning and sagacity 
 that he attracted general attention. From this debate his reputation as 
 a teacher was established. He was an authority especially in the laws 
 concerning the sacrifices and the temple service. His discussions were 
 mostly with R. Akiba, R. Tarphon and R, Elazar b. Azariah. Of his 
 domestic life it is related that he had the bad fortune of having an ill- 
 tempered wife, who treated him so meanly that he was compelled to 
 divorce her, but learning that she in her second marriage lived in great 
 misery,he generously provided her and her husband with all the neces- 
 saries of life. One of his sons, R. Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean, 
 became a distinguished teacher in the following generation and estab- 
 lished the thirty two hermeneutic rules of the Agada. 
 
 6. AR. Simon b. Nanos, also called simply Ben Nanos, wasa 
 great authority especially in the civil law, so that R. Ishmael recom- 
 mended to all law students to attend the lectures of this profound 
 teacher. His legal controversies were mostly with R. Ishmael and R. 
 Akiba. 
 
 7 R, Judah b. Baba, who on account of his piety was called 
 the Chasid, is noteworthy not only as a distinguished teacher but also 
 as a martyr to Judaism. Contrary to the Hadrianic edict which,under 
 extreme penalty, prohibited the ordination of teachers, he ordained 
 seven disciples of R. Akiba as Rabbis, and for this act was stabbed to 
 death by the Roman soldiers. 
 
 8. &. Jochanan b. Broka was an authority especially in the civil 
 law, Also his son R, Ishmael was a distinguished teacher who flourish- 
 ed in the following generation. Of other teachers belonging to this 
 generation the following are to be mentioned. R. Elazar (or Eliezer) 
 of Modin, an authority in Agada interpretation. R. Mathiab. Charash 
 who, formerly a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, founded a school in 
 the city of Rome and thus was the first teacher who transplanted the 
 knowledge of the rabbinical law from Asia to Europe; further, several 
 of R, Akiba’s earlier disciples, especially (Simon) Ben Zoma ana 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 31 
 
 (Simon) Ben Azai, both of whom, besides being distinguished in the 
 law, were also deeply engaged in the theosophic speculations of those 
 times. 
 
 THE FOURTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 
 § 16. 
 
 This generation extended from the death of R. Akiba to 
 the death of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel IT, from the 
 year 139 to about 165. Almost all leading teachers of this ge- 
 neration belong to the latter disciples of R. Akiba, 
 
 eis a Kah 
 
 2. R. Jehuda (ben Ilai). 
 
 8. R. Jose (ben Chalafta). 
 
 4, R. Simon (b. Jochai). 
 
 5. R. Elazar (b. Shamua). 
 
 6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar. 
 7. KR. Elazar b. Jacob. 
 
 8. R. Nehemia. 
 
 9, R. Joshua b. Korcha. 
 
 10. R. Simon b. Gamaliel. 
 
 Characteristics and Biographical Sketches, 
 
 1. R. Meir, the most prominent among the numerous disciples 
 of R. Akiba, was a native of Asia Minor and gained a subsistence as 
 a skilfull copyist of sacred Scripture. At first, he entered the acad- 
 emy of R. Akiba, but finding himself not sufficiently prepared to 
 grasp the lectures of this great teacher, he attended, for some time, 
 the school of R. Ishmael, where he acquired an extensive knowledge 
 of the law. Returning then to R. Akiba and becoming his constant and 
 favored disciple, he developed great dialectical powers. R. Akiba 
 soon recognized his worth and preferred him to other disciples by 
 ordaining him at an early date. This ordination was later renewed 
 by R. Judah b. Baba. On account of the Hadrianic persecutions, R. Meir 
 had to flee from Judea, but after the repeal of those edicts, he 
 returned and joined his colleagues in re-establishing the Sanhedrin 
 in the city of Usha, in Galilee. His academy was in Emmaus, near 
 
 Tiberias, and for a time also in Ardiscus near Damascus where a large 
 
ayy HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 circle of disciples gathered around him. Under the patriarch R. 
 Simon b. Gamaliel IT he occupied the dignity of a Chacham (advising 
 Sage), in which office he was charged with the duty of pre- 
 paring the subjects to be discussed in tne Sanhedrin. A conflict 
 which arose between him and the patriarch seems to have induced 
 him to leave Palestine and return. to his native country, Asia Minor, 
 where he died. R. Meir’s legal opinions are mentioned almost in every 
 Masechta of the Mishna and Baraitha. His greatest merit was that 
 he continued the labors of R. Akiba in arranging the rich material 
 of the oral law according to subjects, and in this way prepared the 
 great Mishna compilation of R. Judah Hanasi. Besides being one of 
 the most distingued teachers of the law, he was also « very popular 
 lecturer (Agadist) who used to illustrate his lectures by interesting 
 fables and parables. Of his domestic life it is known that he was 
 married to Beruria the learned daughter of the celebrated teacher 
 and martyr R. Chananiah b. Teradyon. The pious resignation which 
 he and his noble wife exhibited at the sudden death of their two 
 promising sons has been immortalized by a popular legend in the 
 Midrash. 
 
 2. R. Jehuda b. Ilaiis generally called in the Mishna simply 
 R. Jehuda. After having received instruction in the law from his 
 father who had been a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, he attended 
 the lectures of R. Tarphon and became then one of the distinguished 
 disciples of R. Akiba. On account of his great eloquence he is called 
 p2707 wx “The first among the speakers”, Also his pietv, mod- 
 esty and prudence are highly praised. He gained a modest subsistence 
 by a mechanical trade, in accordance with his favored maxims: ‘‘Labor 
 honors man”, and ‘‘He who does not teach his son a trade, teaches 
 him, as it were, robbery”. Having been one of the seven disciples who 
 after the death of R. Akiba were ordained by R. Juda b. Baba contrary 
 to the Hadrianic edict, he had to flee. After three years he returned 
 with his colleagues to Usha and became one of the prominent mem- 
 bers of the resuscitated Sanhedrin. The patriarch R. Simon ben Gama- 
 liel honored him greatly, and appointed him as one of his advisers. 
 As expounder of the law he was a great authority, and is very often 
 quoted in all parts of the Mishna and Baraitha. His legal opinions 
 generally prevail, when differing from those of his colleagues R. Meir 
 and R. Simon. To him is also ascribed the authorship of the essential 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 33 
 
 part of the Siphra. (See above p. 19). The Agada of tiie Talmud records 
 many of his beautiful sayings which characterize him not only asa 
 noble-hearted teacher, but also as a sound and clear-headed interpreter 
 of Scriptures. He, for instance, denied the literal meaning of the 
 resurrection of the dead bones spoken of in Ezekiel ch. XXXVII, but 
 declared it to be merely a poetical figure for Israel’s rejuvenation (Talm 
 Sanhedrin 72 b.). 
 
 R. Jehuda had two learned sons who flourished as teachers in the 
 following generation. 
 
 3. R. Jose b. Chalafta, in the Mishna called simply R. Jose, was 
 from Sepphoris where already his learned father had established a 
 school, Though by trade a tanner, he became one of the most disting- 
 uished teachers of his time. He wasa disciple of R. Akiba and of 
 R. Tarphon. Like his colleagues he was ordained by R. Juda b. Baba 
 and, on this account, had to flee to the south of Palestine, whence he 
 later on returned with them to Usha. For having kept silent, when 
 in his presence R. Simon made a slighting remark against the Roman 
 government, he was banished to Asia Minor. When permitted to 
 return, he settledin his native city Sepphoris where he died in a high 
 age. Besides being a great authority in the law, whose opinions prevail 
 against those of his colleagues R. Meir, R. Jehuda and R. Simon, he 
 was an historian to whom the authorship of the chronological book 
 Seder Olam is ascribed. 
 
 4, R. Simon b. Jochai from Galilee, in the Mishna called simply R. 
 Simon, was likewise one of the most distinguished disciples of R. 
 Akiba whose lectures he attended during thirteen years. ‘‘Be satisfied 
 that I and thy creator know thy powers”, were the words with which 
 this teacher comforted him, when he felt somewhat slighted on 
 account of a certain preference given to his younger colleague R. Meir. 
 He shared the fate of his colleagnes in being compelled to flee after 
 ordination. Afterwards, he joined them at the new seat of the 
 Sanhedrin in Usha. Onacertain occasion he gave vent to his bitter 
 feeling against the Romans, which was reported tothe Roman governor 
 who condemned him to death. He, however, escaped this fate by 
 concealing himself ina cave where he is said to have remained for 
 several years together with his son, engaged in the study of the law, 
 and subsisting on the fruit of the carob-trees which abounded there 
 in the neighborhood. In the meantime political affairs had taken a 
 
34 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 favorable turnso that he had no longer to fear any persecution; he left 
 his hiding place and reopened his academy at Tekoa, in Galilee, where 
 a circle of disciples gathered around him. Me survived all his col- 
 leagues, and in his old age was delegated to Rome, where he succeeded 
 in obtaining from the emperor (Marcus Aurelius) the repeal of some 
 edicts against the Jewish religion. 
 
 In the interpretation of the law, R. Simon departed from the 
 method of his teacher R. Akiba, as he inclined to the view of R. 
 Ishmael that ‘the Thora speaks the common language of man”, and 
 consequently regarded logical reasoning as the proper starting point 
 for legal deductions, instead of pleonastic words, syllables and letters. 
 In accordance with this sound principle, he tried to investigate the 
 evident motive of different biblical laws, and to make conclusions 
 therefrom for their proper application.! In regard to treating and 
 arranging the oral law, however, he followed the method of R. Akiba 
 in subsuming various provisions under guiding rules and principles. 
 R. Simon is regarded as the author of the Siphre, though that work in 
 its present shape shows 1aany additions by the hands of later authorities. 
 (See above p. 20). 
 
 do. &. Elazar b. Shamua, in the Mishna simply R. Elazar, was 
 among those of R. Akiba’s disciples who in consequence of the Hadrian 
 edicts went to the South, whence he went to Nisibis. He does not, 
 however, appear to have joined his colleagues when they gathered 
 again at Usha. He is regarded asa great authority in the law. The 
 place of his academy is not known, but it is stated that his school was 
 always overcrowded by disciples eager to hear his learned lectures. 
 Among his disciples was also the later patriarch R. Jehuda. Ona 
 journey, he visited his former colleague R. Meir at Ardiscos. in Asia 
 Minor, and with him had discussions on important questions of the 
 law which are recorded in the Mishna and Baraitha. 
 
 6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar had this surname probably from 
 his trade in sandals. Born in Alexandria in Egypt, he came to Palestine 
 to attend the lectures of R. Akiba, and was so faithful a disciple that 
 he visited this teacher even in prison, in order to receive instruction 
 from him. His legal opinions are occasionaly recorded in the Mishna 
 as well as in the Tosephta and Baraitha. 
 
 1 See Talm. B. Metzia 115 a and Sanhedrin 21 a. 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 85 
 
 7 Rh. Elazar (or Eliezer) 6. Jacob was a disciple of Rk. Akiba and 
 later a member of the Sanhedrin in Usha. This teacher must not be 
 confounded with a former teacher by that name who flourished in the 
 second generation (See above p. 26). 
 
 8. R. Nechemia belonged to the last disciples of R. Akiba and was 
 an authority especially in the sacrificial law and in the laws concerning 
 levitical purificaticn. His controversies are mostly with R. Juda b. 
 lai. He is said to have compiled a Mishna- collection which was 
 embodied in the Tosephta. 
 
 9. &. Joshua b. Korcha is supposed by some to have been a son 
 of R. Akiba who, on one occasion, is called by such asurname (meaning 
 the bald head) ; but this supposition is very improbable, for it would 
 be strange that the son of so illustrious a man should not rather have 
 been called by his father’s proper name, and that he should never have 
 alluded to his celebrated parent or to any of his teachings. ! 
 
 R. Joshua b. K. belonged to the authorities of this generation, 
 though only a few of his opinions are recorded in the Mishna. 
 
 10. &. Simon b. Gamaliel was the sun and successor of the 
 patriarch Gamaliel II of Jabne. In his youth, he witnessed the fall of 
 Bethar, and escaped the threatened arrest by flight. After the death 
 of the emperor Hadrian, he returned to Jabne where he in connection 
 with some teachers, reopened an academy, and assumed the hereditary 
 dignity of a patriarch. As the returning disciples of R. Akiba, who were 
 the leading teachers of that generation, preferred Usha as the seat of the 
 new Sanhedrin, R. Simon was obliged to transfer his academy to that 
 city, and appcinted R. Nathan as Ab Beth-din (vice-president) and R, 
 Meir as Chacham (advising sage, or speaker). Both of these two officers 
 had to retire however, when found planning his deposal on account of 
 some marks of distinction introduced in order to raise the patriachal 
 dignity. Hedid not enjoy the privilege of his predecessors to be titled 
 Rabban (our teacher), but like the other teachers, he was simply called 
 Rabbi (my teacher) !,probably because many of his contemporaries were 
 
 1 That R. Akiba had ason by the name of R. Joshua is stated in 
 a Baraitha (Pesachim 112a and Shebuoth 6a); but the identity of this 
 son with R. Joshua b. Korcha is conclusively disproved by the Tosaph- 
 ist Rabenu Tam in hisremarks on Sabbath 150a and B. Bathra 1138a. 
 
 1 There are, however, some passages in the Mishna and Gemara 
 
 in which he is called Rabban, as Gittin 74a; B. Bathra 118a; Arachin 
 28a. 
 
36 HLISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 superior to him in learning. Still, his legal opinions, which are fre- 
 quently quoted inthe Mishna and Baraitha, give evidence that he was 
 aman of considerable learning and of sound and clear judgment as 
 well as of noble principles. He introduced several legal provisions for 
 the protection of the rights of women and slaves and for the general 
 welfare of the community. All his opinions expressed in the Mishna, 
 with the exception of only three cases, are regarded by later teachers 
 as authoritative (Halacha). His discussions recorded in the Mishna and 
 Baraitha are mostly held with his celebrated son R. Jehuda Hanasi. R. 
 Simon b. Gamalie! appears to have been acquainted also with the Greek 
 language and sciences. 
 
 Of other authorities belonging to this generation, we have to 
 mention: Abba Saul, R. Elazar b.Zadok. and especially R. Ishmael 
 the son of R. Jochanan b. Broka. 
 
 Apart from the great circle of teachers mentioned above, the 
 disciples of R. Ishmael b. Elisha formed a school in the extreme South 
 of Judea (Darom) where they continued the methods of their teacher. 
 Of this separate school, called Debe R. Ishmael, only two members are 
 mentioned by name: R. Josiah and Rk. Jonathan. 
 
 THE FIFTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 § Lis 
 
 This generation extends from the death of R. Simon b. 
 Gamaliel II to the death of R. Jehuda Hanasi (from 165 to 
 about 200.) 
 
 The following are the most prominent teachers of this gen- 
 eration. 
 
 — 
 
 . R. Nathan (the Babylonian). 
 2. Symmachos. 
 
 3. KR. Jehuda Hanasi (the patriarch), called simply 
 Rabbi. 
 
 -4. R. Jose b. Juda. 
 5. R. Elazar b. Simon, 
 6. KR. Simon b. Elazar. 
 Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 
 1. R. Nathan was the son of one of the exilarchs in Babylon, and 
 probably received his education in his native country. For some 
 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE M:‘SHNA. 87 
 
 unknown reasons he emigrated to Judea, and on account of his great 
 learning he was appointed by the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel 
 to the dignity of Ab-Beth-din (chief Justice or vice-president) in the 
 Sanhedrin of Usha. He had to retire from this office because of his 
 and R. Meir’s dissension with the patriarch, but was soon reinstated 
 and became reconciled with the Synhedrial president who held him in 
 high esteem. Also the succeeding patriarch R. Jehuda, with whom he 
 had many discussions on questions of the law, speaks of him with great 
 respect, R.Nathan was not only an authorityin the rabbinical law, espec- 
 ially in jurisprudence, but appears also to have been well versed in mathe- 
 matics, astronomy and other sciences. To him is ascribed the authorship 
 of Aboth de R. Nathan, which is a kind of Tosephta.to Pirke Aboth. 
 
 2. Symmachos was a prominent disciple of R. Meir and disting- 
 uished for his great dialectical powers. After the death of his teacher, 
 he as well as other disciples of R. Meir were excluded from the academy 
 of R. Jehuda Hanasi, as they were charged of indulging in sophistical 
 disputations in order to display their dialectical sagacity, instead of 
 seeking after truth. Nevertheless the Mishna as well as the Tosephta 
 makes mention of the opinions of Symmachos. His renown lay in the 
 rabbinical jurisprudence in which he laid down certain principles often 
 referred to in the Talmud. 
 
 3. &. Jehuda (Juda) Hanasi, by way of eminence simply called 
 Rabbi, was a son of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel IT, and is said 
 to have been born on the same day when R. Akiba was executed. His 
 principal teachers were R. Simon b. Jochai and R. Elazar b. Shamua 
 ‘under whose guidance his intellectual capacity and splendid talents 
 early developed. Beside his immense knowledge of the whole range 
 of the traditional law, he had a liberal education in secular branches and 
 was especially acquainted with the Greek language which he preferred 
 to the Syriac, the popular language of Palestine at that time. After 
 the death of his father he succeeded him in the dignity of patriarch, 
 and became the chief authority eclipsing all other teachers of that 
 generation. Though blessed with great riches, he preferred to live in 
 a simple style and applied his wealth to the maintenance of his numer- 
 ous pupils and to charitable works. The seat of his academy was first 
 at Beth-Shearim, afterward at Sepphoris and also at Tiberias. Among 
 his most distinguished disciples were: R. Chiya; (Simon) bar Kappara: 
 
88 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Levi bar Sissi; R. Abba Areca, later called Rab; Mar Samuel, and many 
 others. He issaid to have been ina friendly relation with one of the 
 Roman emperors, either Marcus Aurelius or, more probably, Lucius 
 Verus Antoninus. By virtue of his authority R. Jehuda abolished 
 several customs and ceremonies which though sanctified by age had 
 become impracticable through the change of times and circumstances. 
 His most meritorious work by which he erected for himself a monu. 
 ment of enduring fame was the completion of the Mishna compilation 
 which henceforth became the authoritative code of the traditional law 
 and superseded all similar compilations made by former teachers. 
 
 4. R. Jose ben Juda (b. Ilai) belonged to the great teachers of 
 that generation and was a friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi, His legal 
 cpinions are frequently recorded in the Mishna as well as in the 
 Tosephta. . 
 
 5. R. Elazar b. Simon (b. Jochai) was a disciple of R. Simon b. 
 Gamaliel and of R. Joshua b. Korcha. Although an authority in the 
 rabbinical law to whom even the patriarch sometimes yielded, he 
 incurred the severest censure of his colleagues for having, on a certain 
 occasion, lent his assistance to the Romans in persecuting some Jewish 
 freebooters. 
 
 6. R. Simon b. Elazar (probably E. b. Shamua) was a disciple of 
 R. Meir whose opinions he often quotes. He established several import- 
 ant principles, especially in the civil law. 
 
THe AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 86 
 
 THE SIXTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
 § 18. 
 
 To this generation belong the younger contemporaries and 
 disciples of R. Juda Hanasi. They are not mentioned in the 
 Mishna, but inthe Tosephta and Baraitha, and are therefore 
 termed semi-Tanaim, who form a connecting link between the 
 period of Tanaim and that of the Amoraim. Their names are: 
 
 lee limo; 
 
 9. Ise b. Juda. 
 
 See Wlazareb,J) ose. 
 4. RR. Ishmael bar Jose. 
 5. R. Juda b. Lakish. 
 6. R. Chiya. 
 
 Tee Wwe ACh ae 
 
 8, R. Abba (Areca). 
 
 The most prominent among these sémi-Tanaim were R, Chiya and 
 R. Abba (Areca). 
 
 1. BR. Chiya (bar Abba) the elder, which epithet is to distinguish 
 him from a later Amora by the same mame, wasa Babylonian who 
 came at an already advanced age to Palestine where he became the 
 most distinguished disciple and friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi. He and 
 his disciple R. Oshaya (or Hoshaya) are regarded as the principal authors 
 or compilers of the Tosephta (see above p. 17). 
 
 2, R. Abba (Areca) a nephew of R. Chiva was likewise a Babyl- 
 onian and a disciple of R. Jehuda Hanasi, after whose death he 
 returned to his native country where, under the historical name of Rab, 
 he became the principal Amora. (See the following chapter). 
 
 Of other distinguished teachers flourishing in this generation and 
 in the beginning of the period of the Amoraim we have to mention 
 especially R. Janai (the elder) and R. Jonathan (the elder). The 
 former lived in Sepphoris and was one of the teachers of R. Jochanan 
 bar Naphachi, the greatest among the Palestinian Amoraim. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 
 § 19. 
 
 As the Mishna compilation of R. Jehuda Hanasi became 
 the authoritative code of the oral Law, the activity of the 
 teachers was principally devoted to expounding this code. This 
 was done as well in the academies of 77berias, Sepphoris, Caesarea 
 in Palestine, as in those of Vahardea, Sura, and later of Pumba- 
 ditha and some other seats of learning in Babylonia. The main 
 object of the lectures and discussions in those academies was to 
 interpret the often very brief and concise expression of the 
 Mishna, to investigate its reasons and sources, to reconcile seem- 
 ing contradictions, to compare its canons with those of the Ba- 
 raithoth,and to apply its decisions and established principles to 
 new cases not yet provided for. The teachers who were engaged 
 in this work which finally became embodied in the Gemara, are 
 called Amoraim, meaning speakers, interpreters, expounders. ! 
 They were not as independent in their legal opinions and de- 
 cisions as their predecessors, the Tanaim and semi-Tanaim, as 
 they had not the authority to contradict Halachoth and prin- 
 ciples accepted in the Mishna or Baraitha. The Palestinian 
 Amoraim having generally been ordained by the Nasi had the 
 
 * Ina more restricted meaning the term Amora(from 4px to say, 
 to speak) signifies the same as Methurgeman (po271n1 the interpreter), 
 that is the officer in the academies who, standing at the side of the 
 lecturer or presiding teacher, had to announce loudly and explain to 
 the large assembly what the teacher just expressed briefly and in a 
 low voice, 
 
 The term Tana, which generally applies only to the teachers men- 
 tioned in the Mishna and Baraitha, is in the period of Amoraim some- 
 times used also to signify one whose special business it was to recite the 
 memorized Baraithoth to the expounding teachers. In this sense the 
 term is to be understood in the phrase: 17557 4p NIN %2N Betza 29b. 
 and often. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 4] 
 
 title of Raddi, while the Babylonian teachers of that period had 
 only the title of Aad or of Mar. 
 
 The period of Amoraim extends from the death of R. Jehuda 
 Hanasi to the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, that 1s, 
 from the beginning of the third to the end of the fifth century. 
 This period has been divided by some into six, by others into 
 seven minor periods or generations which are determined by the 
 beginning and the end of the activity of the most prominent 
 teachers flourishing during that time. 
 
 The number of Amoraim who are mentioned in the Talmud 
 amounts to several hundreds. The most distinguished among 
 them, especially those who presided over the great academies 
 are contained in the following chronological tables of the six 
 generations of Amoraim.’ 
 
 THE FIRST GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 
 
 § 20. 
 
 A. Palestinian (219-279). B. Babylonian (219-257). 
 1. R. Chanina bar Chama. 1. Abba Areca, called simply 
 2. R. Jochanan (bar Napacha) Rab. 
 
 8. R. Simon ben Lakish (Resh | 9, (Mar) Samuel. 
 Lakish). 
 4, R. Joshua ben Levi. 
 
 Biographical Sketches. 
 A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 
 
 During this generation R. Gamaliel III and R. J udah ITI were suc 
 cessively the patriarchs. 
 1. R. Chanina bar Chama (born about 180, died 260) was a disciple 
 
 of R. Jehuda Hanasi whose son and successor R. Gamaliel III bestowed 
 
 1 Some scholars count the semi-Tanaim as the first generation, 
 and have consequently seven instead of six generations. The period of 
 Palestinian Amoraim being much shorter than that of the Babylonian, 
 ends with the third generation of the latter. Frankel in his woe NY, 
 treating especially of the Palestinian Amoraim, divides them also into 
 six generations. 
 
rB, HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 on him the title of Rabbi. He then presided over his own academy in 
 Sepphoris and stood in high regard on account cf his learning, modesty 
 and piety. As teacher he was very conservative, transmitting that 
 only which he had received by tradition, without ever allowing himself 
 an independent decision. Of his prominent contemporaries are: R. 
 Ephes who reopened aschool at Lydda in South Judea; Levi b. Sissi 
 (called simply Levi) who though not presiding over an academy, was a 
 distinguished teacher,and later emigrated to Babylonia; further Chizkia 
 who was a son of R. Chiya the Elder and whose teachings are fre- 
 quently quoted in the Talmud. This Chizkia who had not the title of 
 Rabbi must not be mistaken for a R. Chizkia who belonged to the third 
 generation. 
 
 2. kk. Jochanan bar Napacha, in general called simply R. Jochanan 
 (born about 199; d. 279), was in his early youth a disciple of R. Jehuda 
 Hanasi, later of R. Oshaya in Caesarea, also of R. Janai and especially 
 of R. Chanina b. Chama. He then founded his own academy in Tiberias 
 which henceforth became the principal seat of learning in the holy 
 land. By his great mental powers he excelled all his contempuraries 
 and is regarded the chief Amora of Palestine. In expounding the 
 Mishna he introduced an analytical method, and laid down certain 
 rules for the final decision in such cases in which the Tanaim expressed 
 opposite opinions. His legal teachings ethical aphorisms, and exegetical 
 remarks, transmitted by his numerous disciples, form the principal 
 elements of the Gemara. He is supposed to have laid the foundation 
 of the Palestinian Talmud, though, in its present shape, this work 
 can not have been compiled before at least one century after R. Jocha- 
 nan’s death. ! 
 
 3. R. Simon b.Lakish, whose name is generally abbreviated in Resh 
 Lakish, was a man who combined great physical strength with a noble 
 heart anda powerful mind. It is said, that in his youth, he was com- 
 pelled by circumstances to gain his livelihood as a gladiator or soldier 
 
 1 As to further characteristics of this and the other prominent 
 Amoraim, the folloving works may be consulted: Graetz, History of 
 the Jews, vol. IV; Z. Frankel, Mebo; I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor, vol III; 
 I, Hamburger, Real Encyclopédie, vol II. Besides, J. First, ‘‘Kultur 
 und Literaturgeschichte der Juden in Asien”, which treats especially 
 of the Babylonian academies and teachers during the period of the 
 Amoraim. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 48 
 
 until making the acquaintance of R. Jochanan who gained him for the 
 study of the law and gave him his sister in marriage. Having devel- 
 oped extraordinary mental and dialectical powers, he became R. Jocha- 
 nan’s most distinguished friend and colleague. In the interpretation 
 of the Mishna and in legal questions they differed however very often, 
 and their numerous controversies are reported in the Babylonian Tal- 
 mud as well asin the Palestinian. Also in his Agadic teachings, Resh 
 Lakish was original and advanced some very rational views. 
 
 4, R. Joshua b. Levi presided over an academy in Lydda. He is 
 regarded as a great authority in the law, and lis decisions prevail 
 even in cases where his celebrated contemporaries, R. Jochanan and 
 Resh Lakish differ from him. Though himself a prolific Agadist, he 
 disapproved the vagaries of the Agada and objected to their being 
 
 written down in books. The circunstance that, on a certain occasion, 
 his prayer for rain proved to be efficient, probably gave rise to the 
 mystic legends with which the fancy of later generation tried to 
 illustrate his great piety. 
 
 To other celebrities flourishing in this generations belongs R. 
 Simlai of Lydda who later settled in Nahardea. He was reputed less 
 as teacher of the Halacha than for his ingenious and lucid method of 
 treating the Agada. 
 
 B. BABYLONIAN AMORAIM. 
 
 1. Abba Areca (or Aricha) was the real name of the chief Babyl- 
 onian Amora who, by way of eminence, is generally called Rab (the 
 teacher). He was born about 175 and died 247. As an orphaned youth 
 he went to his uncle the celebrated R/ Chiya in Palestine to finish his 
 studies in the academy of R. Jehuda Hanasi. The mental abilities 
 which he displayed soon attracted general attention. After the death 
 of R. Jehuda, Abba returned to his native country and in the year 
 219 founded the academy in Sura where 1200 pupils flocked around 
 him from all parts of Babylonia. His authority was recognized even by 
 the most celebrated teachers in Palestine. Being regarded as one of 
 the semi-Taniim he ventured in some instances even to dispute some 
 opinions accepted in the Mishna, a privilege otherwise not accorded to 
 any of the Amoraim.! Most of his decisions, especially in ritual 
 questions, obtained legal sanction, but in the civil law his friend 
 
 2 bp) Nin Non a, Erubin 50b and often. 
 
44 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Samuel in Nahardea was his superior!. Over one hundred of his 
 numerous disciples, who transmitted his teachings and decisions to 
 later generations are mentioned in the Talmud by their names. 
 
 2. Samuel, or Mar Samuel, was born about 180 in Nahardea, died 
 there 257. His father, Abba bar Abba, and Levi b. Sissi were his first 
 teachers. Like Rab he went to Palestine and became a disciple of 
 Rabbi Jehuda Hanasi from whom, however, he could not obt:in the 
 ordination. After his return to Nahardea, he succeeded R. Shela in 
 the dignity of president of the academy (Resh-Sidra) in that city. 
 Besides the law, he cultivated the sciences of medicine and astronomy. 
 As Amora he developed especially the rabbinical jurisprudence in 
 which he was regarded as the greatest authority 7, Among other import- 
 ant principles established by him is that of ‘Dina d’malchutha Dina”, 
 that is, the civil law of the government is as valid for the Jews as their 
 own law. The most friendly and brotherly relation prevailed between 
 Samuel and Rab, although they often differed in questions of the 
 law. After Rab’s death (247), his disciples recognized Samuel as the 
 highest religious authority of Babylonia. He died about ten years 
 later, leaving behind numerous disciples, several of whom became the 
 leading teachers in the following generation. 
 
 A distinguished contemporary of Samuel was Mar Ukba, at first 
 head of the court in Kafri, and later Exilarch in Naharde... 
 
 1 pa Syywsr ona a9 xnabn Bechoroth 49b. 
 
 * Mar Samuel made also acompilation of Baraithoth which is 
 quoted inthe Talmud by the phrase Sew IIT NIN. Betza 29a and 
 Moed Katon 18b; see Rashi’s remark to the first mentioned passage. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 45 
 
 THE SECOND GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 
 
 § 21. 
 
 A. Palestinian (279-320) B. Babylonian (257-320). 
 t. R. Elazar b. Pedath. 1. Rab Huna. 
 2. R. Ame. 2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel. 
 es “ mae anctenr 3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda). 
 4. R. Chiya bar a. 
 5. Simon bar Abba. 1 ARE ele at 
 6. R. Abbahu. 5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob. 
 ie 
 
 R. Zera (Zeira). 
 Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 
 
 The patriarchate during this generation was successively in the 
 hands of R. Gamaliel IV and R. Judah III. 
 
 1. R. Elazar ben Peduth, generally called simp'y R. Elazar, like 
 the Tana R. Elazar (ben Shamua) for whom he must not be mistaken, 
 was a native of Babylonia and a disciple and later an associate of R. 
 Jochanan whom herurvived. He enjoyed great authority and is very 
 often quoted in the Talmud. 
 
 9 and 3. R. Ame and R. Assi were likewise Babylonians, and 
 distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan. After the death of R. Elazar 
 they became the heads of the declining academy in Tiberias. They 
 had the title only of ,,Judges, or the Aaronites of the Holy Land” and 
 subordinated themselves to the growing authority of the teachers in 
 Babylonia, Rabbi Assi is not to be confoundend with his contempor- 
 ary, the Babylonian Amora Rab Assi, who was a colleague of Rab 
 Saphra and a disciple of Rab in Sura. ? 
 
 4 and 5. R. Chiya bar Abba and Simon bar Abba were probably 
 brothers. They had immigrated from Babylonia and became disci 
 ples of R. Jochanan. Foth were distinguished teachers, but very poor. 
 In questions of the law they were inclined to rigorous views. 
 
 6. R. Abbahu of Caesarea, disciple of R. Jochanan, friend and 
 colleague of R. Ame and R. Assi, was a man of great wealth and of 
 a liberal education. Hehad a thorough knowledge of the Greek 
 
 1 See Tosaphoth Chullin 19a, 
 
46 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 language, and favored Greek culture. Being held in high esteem by the 
 Roman authorities, he had great political influence. He seems to have 
 had frequent controversies with the teachers of Christianity in 
 Caesarea. Besides being a prominent teacher whose legal opinions are 
 quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud, he was a 
 very popular lecturer. ; 
 
 7. R. Zeira (or Zera) was a Babylonian and adisciple of Rab Juda bar 
 Jecheskel, but dissatisfied with the hair splitting method prevailing in 
 the academies of his native country, he emigrated to Palestine where 
 he attended the lectures of R. Elazar b. Pedath in Tiberias, and tried, 
 in vain, to unlearn his former method of study. Having been ordained 
 as Rabbi, he became one of the authorities in Palestine together with 
 R. Ame, R. Assi and R. Abbahu. 
 
 B. BABYLONIAN AMORAIM. 
 
 1. Rab Huna (born 212, died 297) was a disciple of Rab, whom, 
 after Mar Sa1ouel’s death. he succeeded as president of the academy in 
 Sura. In this office he was active for forty years. He employed fifteen 
 assistants to repeat and explain his lectures to his 800 disciples. 
 Highly revered for his great learning and his noble character,he enjoyed 
 an undisputed authority to which even the Palestinian teachers R. Ame 
 and R. Assi voluntarily subordinated themselves. | 
 
 2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel, generally called simply R. Juda 
 (or Jehuda), was a disciple of Rab and also of Samuel. The latter 
 teacher, whose peculiar method he adopted and developed, used to 
 characterize him by the epithet Now “the acute”. He founded the 
 academy in Pumbaditha, but after R. Huna’s death he was chosen as 
 his successor (Resh Methibta) at Sura, where after two years (299) he 
 died in an advanced age. 
 
 3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda) belonged to the younger disciples of 
 Rab after whose death he attended also the lectures of R. Huna. But 
 from the latter teacher he soon separated on account of a misunder- 
 standing between them and established a school of his own, At the 
 same time, he was one of the Judgesin Sura. After Rab Juda’s death 
 R. Chisda, though already above 80 years old, became head of the 
 academy in Sura and remained in this office for about ten years 
 
 4, Rab Shesheth, a disciple of Rab and Samuel, was member of 
 the court in Nahardea. After the destruction of that city he went to 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA, AT 
 
 Mechuza; later he settled in Silhi where he founded an academy. 
 Being blind, he had to rely upon his powerful memory. He was 
 R. Chisda’s opponent in the Halacha, and disapproved the hair splitting 
 dialectical method which had come in vogue among the followers of 
 Rab Juda in Pumbaditha. 
 
 5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob, called simply Rab Nachman, was a 
 prominent disciple of Mar Samuel. By his father-in-law, the exilarch 
 Abba bar Abuha, he was appointed chief justice in Nahardea. After 
 Mar Samuel’s death he succeeded him as rector of the academy in that 
 city. When two years later (259) the city of Nahardea was destroyed, 
 R. Nachman settled in Shechan-Zib. He is regarded as a great 
 authority especially in the rabbinical jurisprudence in which he 
 established many important principles. Among others, he originated 
 the rabbinical oath termed n>‘7 Nnyiay, that is, the purging oath 
 imposed ina law suit on the claimee even in cases of general denial 
 on his part (S27 4p)9). 
 
 Of other teachers belonging to this generation who, though not 
 standing at the head of the leading academies, are often quoted in 
 the Talmud, the following must be noted: 
 
 a. Rabba bar bar Chana who was aBabylonian and son of Abba 
 bar Chana. After having attended the academy of R. Jochanan in 
 Palestine, he returned to his native country where he frequently 
 reported the opinions of his great teacher. Heisalso noted for the 
 many allegorical narratives ascribed to him in the Talmud. 
 
 b. Ulla (b. Ishmael) was a Palestinian who frequently travelled 
 to Babylonia where he finally settled and died. Although without the 
 title of Rabbi or Rab, he was regarded as a distinguished teacher whose 
 opinions and reports are often mentioned. 
 
48 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE THIRD GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 
 
 
 
 Sa) 
 A. Palestinian (320-359). | 3B. Babylonian (320-375). 
 
 1. R. Jeremiah. } 1. Rabba bar Huna. 
 2. R. Jonah. 2. Rabba bar Nachmani. 
 
 3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya). 
 3. R. Jose. AL Nee 
 
 5. Raba. 
 
 6. Rab Nachman bar Isaac. 
 
 7. Rab Papa. 
 
 
 
 Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
 A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 
 
 The patriarch of this period was Hillel II who introduced the fixed 
 Jewish calendar. 
 
 In consequence of the persecutions and the banishment of several 
 religious teachers under the emperors Constantin and Constantius, the 
 Palestinian academies entirely decayed. The only teachers of some 
 prominence are the following: 
 
 1. &. Jeremiah was a Babylonian and disciple of R. Zeira whom 
 he followed to Palestine. In his younger days, when still in his native 
 country, he indulged in propounding puzzling questions of trifling 
 casuistry by which he probably intended to ridicule the subtile method 
 prevailing among some of the contemporary teachers, and on this 
 account he was expelled from the academy. In the holy land he was 
 more appreciated and after the death of R. Abbahu and R. Zeira was 
 acknowledged as the only authority in that country. 
 
 2. R. Jonah was a disciple of R. Ila (Hila) and of R. Jeremiah. 
 His opinions are frequently quoted especially in the Palestinian Tal- 
 mud. 
 
 3. KR. Jose (bar Zabda), colleague of the just mentioned R. Jonah, 
 was one of the last rabbinical authorities in Palestine. 
 
 It is probable that the compilation of the Palestinian Talmud 
 was accomplished about that time, though it cannot be stated by whom. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 49 
 
 B. Babylonian Amoraim. 
 
 1. Rabba (or Rab Abba) bar Huna was not, as erroneously 
 supposed by some, the son of the exilarch Huna Mari, but of Rab 
 Huna, the disciple and successor of Rab. After the death of Kk. Chisda 
 (309) he succeeded him in the dignity of president of the academy in 
 Sura. Under his presidency, lasting 13 years, this academy was 
 eclipsed by that of Pumbaditha, and after his death it remained deserted 
 for about fifty years until Rab Ashe restored it to its former glory. 
 
 2. Rabba bar Nachmani, in the Talmud called simply Rabba, was 
 born 270 and died 330. He was a disciple of Rab Huna, Rab Juda and 
 
 tab Chisda, and displayed from his youth great dialectical powers on 
 accountof which he was characterized as ‘‘the uprooter of mountains’. 
 Selected as head of the academy of Pumbaditha, he attracted large 
 crowds of hearers by his ingenious method of teaching. In his lectures 
 which commented on all parts of the Mishna he investigated the 
 reason of the laws and made therefrom logical deductions. Besides, 
 he tried to reconcile seeming differences between the Mishna, the 
 Baraithoth and the traditional teachings of later authorities. He also 
 liked to propound puzzling problems of the law in order to test and 
 sharpen the mental powers of his disciples. A charge having been 
 made against him by the Persian government that many of his 
 numerous hearers attended his lectures in order to evade the poll-tax, 
 he fled from Pumbaditha and died in sclitude. 
 
 3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya) was a disciple of Rab Juda and Rab 
 Shesheth, and succeeded his friend Rabba in the dignity of president 
 of the academy in Pumbadita, after having once before been elected 
 for this office which he declined in favor of Rabba. On account of his 
 thorough knowledge of the sources of the Law, to which he attached 
 more importance than to ingenious deductions, he was called Sinaz. 
 Besides being a great authority in the rabbinical law, he devoted 
 himself to the Targum of the Bibie, especially of the prophetical books. 
 In his old age he became blind. He died in the year 333 after having 
 presided over the academy of Pum)aditha only for three years. 
 
 4. Abaye, surnamed Nachmani(b. 280. d. 338), wasason Kaylil 
 and a pupilof his uncle Rabba bar Nachmani, and of Rab Joseph. He 
 was highly esteemed not only for his profound knowledge of the law 
 and bis mastership in Talmudical dialectics, but also for his integrity 
 
50 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and gentleness. After Rab Joseph’s death he was selected as head of 
 the academy in Pumbaditha, but under his administration which lasted 
 about five years, the number of hearers in that academy decreased 
 considerably, as his more talented colleague Raba had founded a new 
 academy in Machuza which attracted greater crowds of pupils. 
 Under these two Amoraim the dialectical method of the Babylonian 
 teachers reached the highest development. Their discussions, which 
 mostly concern some very nice distinctions in the interpretation of the 
 Mishna in order to reconcile conflicting passages, fill the pages of the 
 Talmud.! In their differences concerning more practical questions 
 the opinion of Raba generally prevails, so that later authorities 
 pointed out only six cases in which the decision of Abaye was to be 
 adopted against that of his rival. ? 
 
 5. Raba was the son of Joseph b. Chama in Machuza. He was 
 born 299 and died 852. In his youth he attended the lectures of Rab 
 Nachman and of R. Chisda, Later, he and Abaye were fellow-students 
 in the academy of Rabba bar Nachmani. Here he developed his 
 dialectical powers by which he soon surpassed all his contemporaries. 
 He opened an academy in Machuza which attracted a great number of 
 students. After Abaye’s death this academy supplanted that in Pumba- 
 ditha and during Raba’s lifetime became almost the only seat of learn- 
 ing in Babylonia. His controversies with his contemporaries, especially 
 with his rival colleague Abaye, are very numerous. Wherever an 
 opinion of Abaye is recorded in the Talmud, it is almost always fol- 
 lowed by the contrary view and argument of Raba. 
 
 6.kab Nachnan b. Isaac was a disciple of Rab Nachman (b. 
 Jacob) and afterwards an officer as Resh Callain the academy of 
 Raba. After the death of the latter he was made president of the 
 academy in Pumbaditha which now resumed its former rank. In this 
 capacity he remained only four years (852-56) and left no remarkable 
 traces of his activity. Still less significant was the activity of his 
 
 1 The often very subtile argumentations of these two teachers 
 became so proverbial that the phrase No) YONI ny “the critical 
 questions of Abaye and Raba” is used in the Talmud as a signification 
 of acute discussions and minute investigations, so in Succah 28a. 
 
 aD a0 Gi yiiyg YONT MND xnobn Baba Metzia 21b; Sanhedrin 
 27a; Erubin 15a; Kidd. 52a; Gittin 34a. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 51 
 
 successor R. Chama from Nahardea who held the office for twenty one 
 years (3856-377). 
 
 7%. Rab Papa (bar Chanan),a disciple of Abaye and Raba, founded 
 a new school in Nares, in the vicinity of Sura, over which he presided 
 for nineteen years (354-375). He adopted the dialectical method of his 
 former teachers without possessing their ingenuity and their inde- 
 pendence, and consequently did not give satisfaction to those of his 
 hearers who had formerly attended the lectures of Raba. One of 
 his peculiarities was that he frequently refers to popular proverbs 
 CWITN MUN). 
 
 THE FOURTH GENBRATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM (375-427). 
 
 \ 
 
 § 23. 
 . Pumbaditha. CG. Nahardea. 
 
 Rab Zebid. Amemar, 
 Rab Dime. 
 
 Rafram. 
 
 Rab Cahana. 
 
 Mar Zutra. 
 
 A. Sura. 
 1. Rab Ashe. 
 
 hae eke och daw ho 
 
 Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 A. Rab Ashe, (son of Simaibar Ashe) was, at the age of twenty, 
 made president of the reopened academy of Sura, after the death 
 of Rab Papa, and held this office for fifty two years. Under his 
 presidency, this academy, which had been deserted since the time of 
 Rabba bar Huna,regained its former glory with which Rab had invested 
 it. Combining the profundity of knowledge which formerly prevailed 
 in thisacademy with the dialectic methods developed in that of Pumba- 
 ditha, he was generally recognized as the ruling authority, so that his 
 contemporaries called him by the distinguishing title of Rabbana (our 
 teacher). Invested with this great authority, Rab Ashe was enabled 
 
 
 
 1 This Rab Papa must not be mistaken for an elder teacher by 
 the same name, who had ten sons, all well versed in the law, one of 
 whom, Rafram, became head of the academy of Pumbaditha in the 
 following generation. Neither is Rab Papa identical with Rab Papi, 
 a distinguished lawyer who flourished in a former generation. 
 
52 HSTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to assume the task of sifting, arranging and compiling the immense 
 material of traditions, commentaries and discussions on the Mishna 
 which, during the two preceding centuries, had accumulated in the 
 Babylonian academies. In thecompilation and revision of this gigantic 
 work which is embodied in the Gemara, he was occupied for over 
 half a century, and still he did not complete it entirely but this was 
 done, after his death, by his disciples and successors. 
 
 B. During the long period of Rab Ashe’s activity at the academy 
 in Sura, the following teachers presided successively over the academy 
 in Pumbaditha. 
 
 1. Rab Zebid (b. Oshaya) who succeeded Rab Chama and held 
 the office for eight years. (877-385). 
 
 2. kab Dime (b. Chinena) from Nahardea, presiding only for 
 three years (885-388). 
 
 3. Rafram bar Papa the elder, in his youth a disciple of Raba, 
 succeeded R. Dime (888-894), 
 
 4. Rab Cahana (b. Tachlifa), likewise a disciple of Raba, was 
 one of the former teachers of R. Ashe. In an already advanced age 
 he was made president of the academy of Pumbaditha, and died in the 
 year 411. This Rab Cahana must not be mistaken for two other 
 teachers of the same name, one of whom had been a distinguished 
 disciple of Rab, and the other (Rab Cahana b. Manyome) a disciple of 
 Rab Juda b. Jecheskel. 
 
 5. Mar Zutra who, according to some historians, succeeded Rab 
 Cahana as rector of the school in Pumbaditha (411-414) is probably 
 identical with Mar Zutra b. Mare, who shortly afterwards held the 
 high office as Exilarch. In the rectorship of Pumbaditha he was suc_ 
 ceeded by Rab Acha bar Raba (414-419): and the latter by Rab Gebiha 
 (419-433). 
 
 C. Amemar, a friend of Rab Ashe, was a distinguished judge 
 and teacher in Nahardea. When his former teacher Rab Dime became 
 president of the academy in Pumbiditha, he succeeded him in the rector- 
 ship of that of Nahardea from 390 to about 422. With him this once 
 so celebrated seat of learning passed out of existence. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. . 53 
 
 THE FIFTH GENERATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM (427-468). 
 
 § 24. 
 Ay Sura. B. Pumbaditha. 
 1. Mar Jemar (Maremar). 1. Rafram II. 
 2. Rab Ide bar Abin. 9. Rechumai. 
 3. Mar bar Rab Ashe. 3. Rab Sama b. Rabba. 
 4. Rab Acha of Difte. 
 
 Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
 
 A. 1. Mar Jemar (contracted to Maremar), who enjoyed high 
 esteem with the leading teachers of his time, succeeded his colleague 
 and friend Rab Ashe in the presidency of the academy in Sura, but 
 held this office only for about five years (427-482). 
 
 5. Rab Ide (or Ada) bar Abin became, after Mar Jemar’s death, 
 president of the academy at Sura and held this office for about twenty 
 years (432-452). Heas well as his predecessor continued the compilation 
 of the Talmud which Rab Ashe had commenced. 
 
 3. Mar bar Rab Ashe, whose surname was Tabyome, and who, 
 for some unknown reasons, had been passed over in the election of a 
 successor to his father, was finally made president of the academy in 
 Sura and filled this office for thirtcen years (455-468). In his frequent 
 discussions with contemporary authorities he exhibits independence of 
 opinion and great faculties of mind. | 
 
 4. Rab Acha of Difte, a prominent teacher, was onthe point of 
 being elected as head of the academy of Sura, but was finally defeated 
 by Mar bar Rab Ashe who aspired to that office which his father had 
 so gloriously filled for more than half a century. 
 
 B. The academy of Pumbaditha which had lost its earlier influence, 
 had during this generation successively three presidents, of whose 
 activity very little is known, namely: 
 
 1. Rafram II who succeeded Rab Gebihah, from 433 to 448. 
 
 2, Rav Rechumai, from 443-456. 
 
 3. Rab Sama b. Rabba, from 456-471. 
 
 Toward the end of this generation, the activity of both academies 
 was almost paralyzed by the terrible persecutions which the Persian 
 King Firuz instituted against the Jews and their religion. 
 
54 ; HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE SIXTH AND LAST GENERATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM 
 
 (468-500). 
 § 25. 
 A. Sura. B. Pumbaditha. 
 1. Rabba Thospia (or'Tosfaah), Rab Jose. “ 
 
 9. Rabina. 
 
 Remarks and Biographical Sketches, 
 
 A. 1. Rabba of Thospia' succeeded Mar bar Rab Ashi as recto. 
 of the Suran academy just at the time when the Persian King Firuz 
 had ordered the Jewish jurisdiction to be abolished and the academical 
 assemblies to be prohibited. It is but natural that under such circum- 
 stances the academical activity of this Rabbi which lasted only about 
 six years could not amount to much. 
 
 2. Rabina (contraction of Rab Abina) bar Huna,? who succeeded 
 Rabba of Thospia, entered his office which he held from 488 to 499. 
 under more favorable circumstances, since the persecution had ceased 
 after the death of Firuz and the academies were reopened. He conse- 
 quently developed a great activity, the object of which was to complete 
 and close the compilation of the Talmud begun by Rab Ashi. In this 
 task he was assisted by Rab Jose, the school head of Pumbaditha,and 
 by some associates. 
 
 With the close of the Talmud and the death of Rabina (499) ended 
 the period of the Amoraim. The Babylonian teachers who flourished 
 during the subsequent half century are cailed Saboraim (Kn3D 133). 
 They did not assume the authority to contradict the decisions established 
 by the Amoraim, but merely ventured to express an opinion (7425, to 
 reason, think, suppose, opine) and to fix the final decision in cases where 
 
 1 Regarding the correct name and native place of this Rabbi see 
 Leopold Léw’s ‘‘Lebensalter” p. 376, note 54, and Neubauer Géogr. 
 du Talm., p. 382. 
 
 2 This head of the Suran Academy is by, chronographers usually cal- 
 led Rabina II, in order to distinguish him from a former teacher Rabina 
 who was a disciple of Raba and flourished in the fourth generation. 
 In the Talmud, both of them are called simply Rabina, and only from 
 the connection it is to be seen whether it refers to that elder teacher 
 or to the last of the Amoraim. 
 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 55 
 
 their predecessors, the Amoraim, disagreed. They gave the Talmud 
 a finishing touch by adding those final decisions, also numerous, 
 especially Agadic, passages. | 
 
 B. Rab Jose presided over the academy in Pumbaditha 475-520. 
 As Rabina was the last Amora for Sura, so Rab Jose was the last for 
 Pumbaditha. Flourishing still for anumber of years after the close of 
 “the Talmud,he was at the same time the first of the Saboraim,and must 
 be considered as the most prominent among them. 
 
 Of Rab Jose’s contemporaries and successors who like himself 
 formed the connecting link between the period of Amoraim and that 
 of the Saboraim, and whose opinions and controversies are still recorded 
 in the Talmud, the following two must be mentioned: Rab Achai b. 
 Huna and Rab Sumuel b. Abbahw 
 
CHAPTER, V. 
 whe bi Geka ASR eA 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF ITS CONTENTS INTO HALACHA AND AGADA.. 
 § 26. 
 
 Tne collection of the commentaries and discussions of the 
 Amoraim on the Mishnaistermed Gemara. This term, derived 
 from the verb 993 which in Hebrew means / finish, to complete, 
 and in the Aramaic also Zo learn, to teach, signifies either the 
 completion, the supplement (to the Mishna), or is identical with 
 the word Za/mud which is often used in its place, meaning, the 
 teaching, the study. 
 
 Besides being a discursive commentary on the Mishna, the 
 Gemara contains a vast amount of more or less valuable mate- 
 rial which does not always have any close connection with the 
 Mishna text, as legal reports, historical and biographical infor- 
 mations, religious and ethical maxims and homiletical remarks. 
 
 The whole subject matter embodied in the Gemara is 
 generally classified into Halacha and Agada. 
 
 To Halacha* belongs that which has bearing upon tne law, 
 hence all expositions, discussions and reports which have the 
 object of explaining, establishing and determining legal princip- 
 les and provisions. The principal branches of the Halacha are 
 indicated by the names of the six divisions of the Mishna, and 
 by those of the Masechtoth belonging to each division. See 
 above pages 9-14. 
 
 The Agada* comprises every thing not having the character 
 
 1 Halacha (nzbn) means custom, usage practice; then, an 
 adopted rule, a traditional law. In a more extended meaning, the 
 term applies to matters bearing upon that law. 
 
 2 Agada or Aggada (A7IN ;> RNIN ,7WI3n, derived from 43) which 
 ju the Hebrew Hiphil or Aramaic Aphel form signifies to narrate, to 
 tell, to communicate) means that which is related, a tale, a saying, an 
 individual utterance which claims no binding authority. Regarding 
 this term, see W. Bacher’s learned and exhaustive article, “The origin 
 of the word Hagada (Agada)” in the Jewish Quarterly Review (London) 
 
THE GEMARA, 57 
 
 of Halacha, hence all historical records, all legends and par- 
 ables, all doctrinal and ethical teachings and all free and unre- 
 strained interpretations of Scripture. 
 
 According to its different contents and character, the 
 Agada may be divided into: 
 
 1. Lxegetical Agada, giving plain or homiletical and al- 
 legorical explanations of Biblical passages. 
 
 2. Dogmatical Agada, treating of God’s attrributes and 
 providence, of creation, of revelation, of reward and punishment, 
 of future life, of Messianic time, ete. | 
 
 3. Ethical Agada, containing aphorisms, maxims, proverbs, 
 fables, sayings intending to teach and illustrate certain moral 
 duties. ; 
 
 4. Historical Agada, reporting traditions and legends 
 concerning the lives of biblical and post-biblical persons or con- 
 cerning national and general history. 
 
 5. Mystical Agada, refering to Cabala, angelology, demo- 
 nology, astrology, magical cures, interpretation of dreams, ete. 
 
 6. Miscellaneous Agada, containing anecdotes, observa- 
 tions, practical advices, and occassional references to various 
 branches of ancient knowledge and sciences. 
 
 Agadic passages are often, by the way, interspersed among 
 matters of Halacha, as a kind of diversion and recreation after 
 the mental exertion of a tiresome investigation or a minute dis- 
 cussion ona dry legal subject. Sometimes, however, the Agada 
 appears in larger groups, outweighing the Halacha matter 
 with which it is loosely connected; f. i. Berachoth, 54a—64a; 
 Sabbath 30a—-33b; Megilla 10b-17a; Gittin 55b-58b; 67b—T0a; 
 Sota 9a-14a; B. Bathra 14b-17a; 73a—76a; Sanhedrin, Perek 
 Chelek. 
 
 There are two compilations of the Gemara which differ from 
 each other in language as well as in contents; the one made in 
 Palestine is called /erushaimi, the Jerusalem Gemara or Talmud; 
 
 VolIV, pp. 496-429. As to fuller particulars concerning Halacha and 
 Agada, see Zunz’ G. Vortraege pp. 57-61 and 83 sq.; also Hamburger’s 
 Real Encyclopidie II, the articles Halacha and Agada, 
 
58 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 the other originating in Babylonia is called Bad/, the Baby- 
 lonianGemara or Talmud: 
 COMPILATION OF JERUSHALMI, 'THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD. 
 Sai 
 
 As no academy existed in Jerusalem after the destruction 
 of the second temple, the customary appellation Jerusalem Tal- 
 mud is rather a misnomer. More correct is the appellation the 
 Palestinian Talmud (Oxnw> yx 71p9N) or the Gemara of the 
 teachers of the West (NS5y 9337 N73). 
 
 Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
 ascribes the authorship of the Palestinian Talmud to the celebrat- 
 ed teacher R. Jochanan who flourished in the third century. 
 This statement, if literally taken, cannot be correct, since so 
 many of the teachers quoted in that Talmud are known to have 
 flourished more than a hundred years after R. Jochanan, This 
 celebrated Amora may, at the utmost, have given the first 
 impulse to such a colleetion of commentaries and discussions on 
 the Mishna, which was continued and completed by his succes- 
 sorsin the academy of Tiberias. In its present shape the work 
 is supposed to belong to the fourth or fifth century. Some modern 
 scholars assign its final compilation even to a still later period 
 namely after the close of the Babylonian Talmud. 3 
 
 The Palestinian Gemara, as before us, extends only over 
 thirty nine of the sixty three Masechtoth contained in the 
 Mishna, namelly all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, Seder Moed, 
 Nashim and Nezikin with the exception of Eduyoth and Aboth. 
 But it has none of the Masechtoth belonging to Seder Kodashim, 
 and of those belonging to Seder Teharoth it treats only of Ma- 
 secheth Nidda. (see above pages 12-14). 
 
 Some of its Masechtoth are defective; thus the last four 
 
 1 Critical researches on this subject are found in Geiger’s Jued. 
 Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaft 1870; Z. Frankel Mebo, p. 46 sq. and in 
 Wiesner’s Gibeath Jeruschalaim (Vienna 1872). 
 
 I. H. Weiss (Dor Dor III, p. 114 sq.) regards R. Jose (bar Zabda) who 
 was a colleague of R. Jonah and one of the last authorities in Palestine, 
 as the very compiler of the Pal. Talmud which in the following 
 generation was completed by R. Jose bar Bun (Abun). 
 
THE GEMARA 59 
 
 Perakim of Sabbath and the last Perek of Maccoth are wanting. 
 Of the ten Perakim belonging to Masecheth Nidda it has only 
 the first three Perakim and a few lines of the fourth. 
 
 There are some indications that elder commentators were 
 acquainted with portions of the Palestinian Gemara which are 
 now missing, and it is very probable that that Gemara origin- 
 ally extended to all or, at least, to most of the Masechtoth of 
 the Mishna. The loss of the missing Masechtoth and portions 
 thereof may be explained partly by the many persecutions which 
 interrupted the activity of the Palestinian academies, partly by 
 the circumstance that the Pelestinian Gemara did not command 
 that general attention and veneration which was bestowed on 
 the Babylonian Gemara. 
 
 CoMPILATION OF BABLI, THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
 § 28. 
 
 The compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is generally as- 
 cribed to Rab Ashe who for more than fifty years (375-427) 
 officiated as head of the academy in Sura. It is stated that it 
 took him about thirty years to collect, sift and arrange the im- 
 mense material of this gigantic work. During the remaining 
 second half ofhis activity he revised once more the whole work 
 and made in it many corrections. This corrected edition is 
 termed SAND SWI the latter revision, and the former SITS 
 sop the frst reviszon, ' 
 
 1 See Baba Bathra fol 157b. 
 
 Those scholars who maintain that the Mishna was not written 
 down by R. Jehuda Hanasi, but that he merely arranged it orally 
 (see above p. 5, note), maintain the same in regard to Rab Ashe’s 
 compilation of the Gemara, without being able to state when and by 
 whom it was actually commited to writing. Against this opinion it 
 has been properly argued that it must be regarded as absolutely 
 impossible for a work so voluminous, so variegated in contents and so 
 full of minute and intricate discussions, as the Talmud, to have been 
 orally arranged and fixed, and accurately transmitted from generation 
 to generation. On the strength of this argument and of some in- 
 dications found inthe Talmud, Z. Frankel (in his Mebo p. 47) even 
 regards itas very probable that Rab Ashe in compiling the Gemara 
 
 a 
 made use of some minor compilations which existed before him, and 
 of some written records and memoranda containing short abstracts 
 of the academical discussions in the preceding generations. Collecting 
 
60 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 But Rab Ashe did not succeed in finishing the gigantic 
 work. It was continued and completed by his disciples and 
 successors, especially by the last Amoraim Rabina II who from 
 488 to 499 presided over the academy in Sura, and R. Jose, the 
 school-head of Pumbaditha. Some additions were made by the 
 Saboraim, and perhaps even by some still later hands. 
 
 The Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud covers only thirty 
 seven Masechtoth of the Mishna, namely: 
 
 Of Zeraim only one, Berachoth, ommitting the remaining 
 ten Masechtoth; 
 
 Of Moed eleven, omitting only Shekalim which in our 
 Talmud editions is replaced by the Palestinian Gemara; 
 
 Of Nashim all of the seven Masechtoth beloning to that 
 division; 
 
 Of Nezikin eight, omitting Eduyoth and Aboth; 
 
 Of Kodashim nine, omitting Middoth and Kinnim. In 
 Thamid only chapters I. I. IV are provided with Gemara, but 
 not chapters III. V. VI and VII. 
 
 Of Teharoth only Nidda; omitting eleven Masechtoth. 
 
 There being no traces of the Gemara missing to twenty six 
 Masechtoth, it is very probable that this part of the Gemara 
 has never been compiled, though those Masechtoth have un- 
 doubtedly also been discussed by the Babylonian Amoraim, as is 
 evident from frequent references to them in the Gemara on the 
 other Masechtoth. The neglect of compiling these discussions 
 may be explained by the circumstance that those Masechtoth 
 mostly treat of laws which had no practical application outside 
 of Palestine. This is especially the case with the Masechtoth 
 of Zeraim, except Berachoth, and those of Teharoth, except 
 
 and arranging these records he partly enlarged them by fuller explan- 
 ations, partly left them just as he found them. Some traces of such 
 memoranda, made probably by R Ashe’s predecessors, are still found in 
 numerous passages of the Talmud. We refer to the mnemonical 
 signs and symbo.s (0°39'D) which every now and then are there met 
 with (in brackets) as headings of discussions and indicating either the 
 names of the teachers to be quoted or the order of the subjects to 
 be discussed. A critdcal investigation ,on these often very enigmatic 
 Simanim is found in Jacob Briill’s xy) waa Die Mnemotechnik des 
 Talmuds (Vienna 1864). 
 
THE GEMARA. 6] 
 
 Nidda. It was different with the Masechtoth belonging to 
 Kodashim which,though treating of the sacrificial laws, are fully 
 discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, as it was a prevailing 
 opinion of the Rabbis that the merit of being engaged with the 
 study of those laws was tantamount to the actual performance 
 of the sacrificial rites (See Talm. Menachoth 110a). 
 
 The absence of Gemara on the Masechtoth Eduyoth and 
 Aboth is easily accounted for by the very nature of their 
 contents which admitted of no discussions. 
 
 THE TWO GEMARAS COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER. 
 § 29. 
 
 The Palestinian and the Babylonian Gemaras differ from each 
 other in language and style as well as in material and in the 
 method of treating the same, also in arrangement. 
 
 As regards the language, the Palestinian Gemara is 
 composed in the West Aramaic dialect which prevailed in Pa- 
 lestine at the time of the Amoraim. 
 
 The language of the Babylonian Gemara is a peculiar idiom, 
 being amixture of Hebrew and East Aramaic with an occasional 
 sprinkling of Persian words. Quotations from Mishna and 
 Baraitha and sayings of the elder Amoraim are given in the 
 original, that is, the New Hebrew (Mishnic) language, while 
 forms of judicial and notary documents and popular legends of 
 later origin are often given in the Aramaic idiom. 
 
 Although the Palestinian Gemara extends to two more Ma- 
 sechtoth than the Babylonian, its total material amounts only 
 to about one third of the latter. Its discussions are generally 
 very brief and condensed, and do not exhibit that dialectic 
 acumen for which the Babylonian Gemara is noted. The Agada 
 in the Palestinian Gemara includes more reliable and valuable 
 historical records and references, and is, on the whole, more 
 rational and sober, though less attractive than the Babylonian 
 Agada which generally appeals more to the heart and imagin- 
 ation. But the latter, on many occasions, indulges too much 
 in gross exaggerations, and its popular sayings, especially those 
 evidently interpolated by later hands, have often an admixture 
 of superstitious views borrowed from the Persian surroundings. 
 
62 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The arrangement of the material in the two Talmuds dif- 
 fers in this, that in the Babylonian, the Gemarais attached to 
 the single paragraphs (Nm3np) of the Mishna, while in the 
 Palestinian all paragraphs (there termed miz57) belonging to 
 one Perek of the Mishna, are generally placed together at the 
 head of each chapter. The comments and discussions of the 
 Gemara referring to the successive paragraphs, are then marked 
 by the headings ’s n55m ‘3 755m and so on. 
 
 The two Gemara collections make no direct mention of 
 each other as literary works. But the names and opinions of 
 the Palestinian authorities are very often quoted in the Babyl- 
 onian Gemara; and in a similar way, though not to the same 
 extent, the Palestinian Gemara mentions the views of the Bab- 
 ylonian authorities. This exchange of opinions was effected 
 by the numerous teachers who are known to have emigrated or 
 frequently travelled from the one country to the other. 
 
 The study of the Babylonian Talmud, having been trans- 
 planted from its native soil to North Africa, andthe European 
 countries (especially Spain, France, Germany and Poland), was 
 there most sedulously and religiously cultivated in the Jewish 
 communities,and gave rise to an immense Rabbinical literature. 
 The Palestinian Talmud never enjoyed such general veneration 
 andattention. Eminent Rabbis alone were thoroughly convers- 
 ant with its contents,and referred to it in their writings. It is 
 only in modern times that Jewish scholars have come to devote 
 more attention to this Talmud, for the purpose of historical and 
 literary investigations. 
 
CHAPTER V1. 
 APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD. 
 § 30. 
 
 Besides the Masechtoth contained in the Mishna and the 
 two Gemaras, there are several Masechtoth composed in the 
 form of the Mishna and Tosephta, that treat of ethical, ritual, 
 and liturgical precepts. They stand in the same relation to 
 the Talmud as the Apocrypha to the canonical books of the 
 Bible. When and by whom they were composed, cannot be as- 
 certained. Of these apocryphal treatises, the following are ap- 
 pended to our editions of the Talmud: 
 
 1. Abothd Rabbit Nathan 3 1397 Nias, divided into 41 
 chapters and a kind of Tosephta to the Mishnic treatise 
 ‘‘Pirke Aboth,” the ethical sentences of which are here con 
 siderably enlarged and illustrated by numerous narratives. In 
 its present shape, it belongs to the post—Talmudic period, though 
 some elements of a Baraitha of R. Nathan (who was a Tana 
 belonging to the fourth generation) may have been embodied 
 
 therein.’ 
 
 2. Sopherim DO 21D the Scribes, containing in 21chapters rules 
 for the writing of the scrolls of the Pentateuch,and of the book 
 of Esther ; also Masoretic rules, and liturgical rules for the ser- 
 vice on Sabbath, Feast and Fast days. R. Asher already 
 expressed (in his Hilchoth Sepher Thora) the opinion that this 
 Masecheth Sopherim belongs to the period of the Gaonim.? 
 
 
 
 1 Compare Zunz, Gottesd. Vortraege, p. 108, sq.—Solomon Taussig 
 published in his ody m3 (Munich 1872) from a Manuscript of the 
 Library in Munich a recension of the Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan which 
 differs considerably from that printed in our Talmud editions. The 
 latest edition of Aboth d. R. N. in tworecensions from MSS, with 
 critical annotations was published by 8. Schechter (Vienna 1887). 
 
 2 See Zunz, GD. V. p. 95, sq. The latest separate edition of Ma- 
 secheth Sopherim from a MS. and with a German commentary 
 was published by Joel Mueller, (Leipsic 1878). 
 
64 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 8. Ebel Rabbathi sz 5a (the large treatise on Mourn- 
 ing), euphemistically called minzw Semachoth (Joys), is 
 divided into 14 chapters, and treats, as indicated by the title, 
 of rules and customs concerning burial and mourning. It is 
 not identical with a treatise under the same title, quoted already 
 in the Talmud (Moed Katon 24a; 26a; Kethuboth 28a), but 
 seems to be rather areproduction ofthe same with later additions. ') 
 
 4. Callah 755 (the bride, the woman recently married). 
 This minor Masechta, being likewise a reproduction of a Masechta 
 by that name, mentioned already in the Talmund (Sabbath 114 a; 
 Taanith 10b; Kiddushin 49b; Jer. Berachoth, II, 5.), treats 
 in one chapter of the duties of chastity in marriage and in 
 general. 
 
 5. Derech Eretz yx 777 (the conduct of life), divided 
 into 11 chapters, the first of which treats of prohibited mar- 
 riages,and the remaining chapters, of ethical, social and religious 
 teachings. References to a treatise by that name, are made 
 already in the Talmud (B. Berachoth 22a and Jer. Sabbath 
 Viloe2o) ? 
 
 6. Derech Eretz Zuta Noy prs WI (the conduct of 
 life, minor treatise), containing 10 chapters, replete with 
 rules and maxims of wisdom.’ 
 
 1. Perek Ha-shalom py wn pr (chapter on Peace) consists, 
 us already indicated by the title, only of one chapter, treating 
 of the importance of peacefulness. 
 
 Remark :—Beside these apocryphal treatises appended to our 
 editions of the Talmud under the general title of miwp ninso2 
 ‘¢Minor Treatises,” there are seven lesser Masechtoth which 
 were published by Raphael Kirchheim from an ancient manu- 
 script. (Frankfort on the Main 1851.) 
 
 1 See Zunz, G. V. p. $0, and N. Brill ‘‘Die talm. Tractate tiber 
 Trauer um Verstorbene (Jahrbicher fiir Jiid. Geschichte und Litera- 
 tur I (Frankfurt a. M.) p. 1-57. M. Klotz just published ‘‘Der Talm. 
 Tractat Ebel Rabbathi nach Handschriften bearbeitet, iiberzetzt und 
 mit Anmerkungen versehen” Frankf. on the Main, 1892. 
 
 2 On both of these Masechtoth Derech Eretz see Zunz GD. V. 
 pp. 110-112. See also: Abr. Tawrogi ‘‘Der Talm. Tractat Derech Erez 
 Sutta Kritisch bearbeitet, ibersetzt und erlautert”? (Berlin 1885), 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 
 
 THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH COMMENTARIES. 
 § 31. 
 
 The Talmud offers to its students great difficulties, partly 
 on account of the peculiar idiom in which it is written and which 
 is intermixed with so numerous, often very mutilated, foreign 
 words ; partly on account of the extreme brevity and succinct- 
 ness of its style, the frequent use of technical terms and phrases, 
 and mere allusions to matters discussed elsewhere 5 partly 
 also, on account of the circumstance that, in consequence of 
 elliptical expressions, and in the absence of all punctuation marks, 
 question and answer, in the most intricate discussions, are some- 
 times so closely interwoven, that it is not easy to discern at 
 once, where the one ends and the other begins. To meet all 
 these difficulties, which are often very perplexing, numerous 
 commentaries have been written by distinguished Rabbis. 
 Some of the commentaries extend to the whole Talmud, or a 
 great portion thereof; others exclusively to the Mishna, or some 
 of its sections. The following are the most important com- 
 mentaries which are usually printed in our Talmud, and in the 
 separate Mishna editions. 
 
 A. COMMENTARIES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
 § 32. 
 
 1. The celebrated Rablenu Chananel (m3) of Kairwan 
 (Africa), flourishing in the beginning of the eleventh century, 
 wrote a commentary on the greater portion of the Talmud, 
 which is often quoted by later commentators, and is now printed 
 in the latest Talmud edition of Wilna. 
 
 2. Rashis''y , as theprince of commentators is generally 
 called from the initials of his name, Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, of 
 Troyes (1040—1105), wrote a commentary on almost the whole of 
 
66 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Babylonian Talmud, which is printed in all editions thereof. 
 It is atrue model of concise,clear and systematic commentation. 
 By a few plain words it often sheds light upon the obscurest 
 passages, and unravels the most entangled arguments of the 
 Talmudical discussions. As if anticipating the slightest hesita- 
 tion of the unexperienced student, it offers him at once the 
 needed explanation, or at least a hint that leads him the right: 
 way. It has truly been said that but for this peerless comment- 
 ary of Rashi, the Babylonian Talmud would have remained as 
 neglected as the Palestinian. An additional merit of that com- 
 mentary is the fact that it very often establishes the correct 
 version of the corrupted Talmud text. Such corrections are 
 generally headed by the initials 975 (standing for j7D73 %5n 
 ‘‘thus we are to read”’). 
 
 8. Supplements and additions to Rashi’s commentary. 
 The commentary on some Masechtoth, not being finished by 
 Rashi, was completed in his spirit by his relatives and disciples. 
 His son-in-law R. Jehuda b. Nathan completed that on Maccoth 
 from fol. 19b.; his grandson R. Samuel b. Meir p’a¥ com- 
 pleted that on B. Bathra from fol. 29a. The last mentioned 
 author, besides, added his commentary to Rashi’s on the last 
 Perek of Pesachim. The missing commentary of Rashi on Ned- 
 arim from fol. 22b. is supplemented by that of his predecessor, 
 the celebrated Rabbenu Gershom.' To this commentary on 
 Nedarim two others areadded in our Talmud editions, one by 
 Rabbenu Nissim (7) and the other by R. Asher ysnn, both 
 flourishing in the fourteenth century. 
 
 4. Tosaphoth (meaning Additions) are a collection of an- 
 notations printed in all Talmud editions on the exterior margin 
 of the page, while the interior margin on the opposite side of 
 the Talmud text is generally assigned to Rashi’s commentary. 
 They are not, like the latter, a running commentary, but rather 
 separate remarks and discussions on some passage of the text, 
 intended to elucidate its meaning. Sometimes the explanations 
 1 Some bibliographers maintain that also the commentary on 
 
 Nazir and Meilah, ascribed to Rashi, does not belong to him, but to 
 his disciples. 
 
COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 67 
 
 given in the commentaries of R. Chananel and Rashi are 
 criticised and corrected. The latter of these two commentaries 
 is, by way of excellence, generally designated as Contros (ow Pp 
 commentarius). The Tosaphoth often display great acumen and 
 hair-splitting dialectics in finding, and again harmonizing, ap- 
 parent contradictions between passages of the Talmud. Such 
 questions of contradiction are generally introduced by the phrases: 
 TON ONi(abbrev. n’s1) “ifthou wilt say or object..”, or mpsn “it 
 is astonishing that..”, or sm ‘‘thou mayest say or object..? 
 or nwe “here is the difficulty that....,” and the final solution 
 ofthe question or difficulty by -15 ws (abbr.5"5) “but it may be 
 said in answer to this.....” 
 
 The numerous authors of these Tosaphoth (mipoin »Sya The 
 Tosaphists, the glossarists) flourished during the 12th and 13th 
 centuries in France and Germany. ‘To the first among them be- 
 long the nearest relatives and disciples of Rashi, namely his two 
 sons-in-law R. Meir b. Samuel and R. Jehuda b. Nathan Cyt 
 his grandsons. Isaac b. Meir (p*3%5), R. Samuel b. Meir (a aia) 
 and R. Jacob b. Meir, called Rabbenu Tam (m’) and a nephew 
 of the latter, R. Isaac b. Samuel, of Dampierre (pin). 
 
 Other autherities frequently mentioned in the Tosaphoth 
 are: R. Jehuda b. Isaac, of Paris, called Sir Leon (12th century) : 
 R. Perez b. Elias in Corbeil (13th century).? 
 
 The Tosaphoth printed in our Talmud editions are 
 merely extracts of older collections, namely of ‘Tosaphoth 
 Sens” by R.Samson b. Abraham of Sens (abbrev. N34, not to be 
 confounded with the same abbreviation of R.Solomon b. Adereth) 
 who flourished in the beginning of the 13th eentury, and prin- 
 cipally of ‘“‘Tosaphoth Tuch” or Touques by R. Eliezer of Tuch, 
 (Touques), second part of that century. 
 
 A collection of “former Tosaphoth” p*yY9 mIpD\m on Yoma 
 is, in some editions, appended to that Masecchta. BR. Moses of 
 Coucy, the author of S’mag, is supposed to have been the origin- 
 ator of that collection, 
 
 1 A full list of the Tosaphists is given by Zunz, Zur Geschichte 
 und Literatur, pp. 29-60. 
 
68 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 An anonymous author of the 14th century, excerpted from 
 all Tosaphoth the practical results of their remarks and discuss- 
 ions. These paragraphed excerpts called MIDDIN 3pds (Decisions 
 of the Tosaphoth) are in our Talmud editions appended to each 
 Masechta. 
 
 Remark 1. References to certain passages in Rashi as well as 
 Tosaphoth are usually made by citing the beginning words, or the catch 
 words onnon 3125 abbrev. 15) of that passage. 
 
 Remark 2. Of the great number of later commentaries and super- 
 commentaries, generally published in separate volumes, the following 
 are appended to some Talmud editions: 
 
 a. mpow nosnor 5“wand wrn by Solomon Luria (S4wanp), in 
 the XVI century. This shorter commentary is valuable especially on 
 account of its numerous critical emendations in the reading of the Tal. 
 mud text as well as of Rashi and Tosaphoth. 
 
 b. x’vanpd owron, Novellae, i.e. new comments by &. Samue, 
 Edels (of Posen, died in the year 1631). In these explanatory and 
 dialectical comments on Talmudical passages, and on Rashi and 
 Tosaphoth, the author often displays a high degree of sagacity and 
 penetration. 
 
 c. pane wrtn, Novellae, i. e. new comments by R. Meir Lublin 
 (Rabbi in Cracow and Lemberg, died in the year 1616). These likewise 
 very sagacious comments refer mostly to the Tosaphoth. 
 
 B. COMMENTARIES EXCLUSIVELY ON THE MISHNA. — 
 § 33. 
 
 1. The first to write a commentary on the whole Mishna 
 was Moses Maimonides [XII century]. He commenced it in 
 the 23rd year of his age, in Spain, and finished it in his 30th 
 year, in Egypt. This commentary was written in Arabic, 
 manuscripts of which are to be found in the Bodleian Library 
 at Oxford, and in some other libraries. From the Arabic it 
 was translated into Hebrew by several scholars, flourishing in 
 the XIII century, namely Seder Zeraim, by Jehuda Char’zi; 
 Seder Moed, oy Joseph Ibn Alfual; Seder Nashim, by J acoh 
 
COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 69 
 
 Achsai (or Abbasi’). Seder Nezikin, by Solomon b. Joseph, 
 with the exception of Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin and Masecheth 
 Aboth, including the ethical treatise Sh’mone Perakim, in- 
 troducing the latter, which were translated by Samuel Ibn 
 Tibbon; Seder Kodashim, by Nathanel Ibn Almuh; the trans- 
 lator of Seder Teharoth is not known. These translations are 
 appended to all Talmud editions, behind each Masechta under 
 the heading of o’sD9n9 nyswe»n wins. 
 
 The characteristic feature of this commentary of Maimonides 
 consists in this, that it follows the analytical method, laying 
 down at the beginning of each section the principles and general 
 views of the subject, and thereby throwing light upon the par- 
 ticulars to be explained, while Rashi in his Talmud commentary 
 adopted the synthetical method, commencing with the explan- 
 ation of the particulars, and thereby leading to a clear under- 
 standing of the whole of the subject matter. 
 
 29. Several distinguished Rabbis wrote commentaries on 
 single sections of the Mishna, especially on those Masechtoth to 
 which no Babylonian Gemara (and hence no Rashi) exists. Of 
 these commentaries the following are found in our Talmud 
 editions: 
 
 a. wreas wis on all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, except 
 Berachoth, and all Masechtoth of Seder Teharoth, except Nidda, 
 by R. Simson of Sens (XII century), the celebrated Tosaphist. 
 
 b. wns wip, on the same Masechtoth, by &. Asher d. 
 Yechiel (XIII cemtury) the author of the epitome of the Talmud 
 which is appended to all Masechtoth. 
 
 c. wr wip on Masecheth Middoth, by &. Shemaya who 
 is supposed to have been a disciple of Rashi. 
 
 d. sayqn wins on. Masecheth Eduyoth, by «. Abraham 
 b. Davia( XII cent.), the celebrated author of critical annotations 
 on Maimonides’ Talmudical code. 
 
 e. Commentary on the Masechtoth Kinnim and Tamid 
 by an anonymous author. 
 
 3. R. Obadya of Bertinoroin \taly, and Rabbi in Jerusalem 
 (d. in the year 1510), wrote a very lucid commentary on the 
 whole Mishna which accompanies the text in most ofour separate 
 
 1 See Graetz, Geschichte d. J. vol. VJI, p. 302, 
 
70 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODU CTION. 
 
 Mishna editions. He follows the synthetic method of Rashi, and 
 adds to each paragraph of the Mishna the result ofthe discussion 
 of the Gemara. 
 
 4, wy mippin Additional Comments by Yom Tob Lipman 
 Heller, Rabbi of Prague and Cracow (XVII century). These 
 comments likewise extending to all parts of the Mishna, and 
 accompanying its text on the opposite side of Bartinoro’s com- 
 mentary in most of our Mishna editions, contain very valuable 
 explanations and critical remarks. 
 
 5. Ofshorter commentaries to be found only is some special 
 editions of the Mishna text the following may be mentioned: 
 
 a orn py, by Jacob Chagiz, Kabbiin Jerusalem (XVII 
 century), the author of a Talmudical terminology Zechilath 
 Chochma. 3 
 b. mm 55 x5, by Senior Phoebus (XVIII cent.). This 
 commentary is an abstract of Bertinoros and Yom Tob Lipman 
 Heller’s commentaries. 
 
 ce. HMI}, by /saae Jon Gabbai in Leghorn (XVII century), is © 
 generally based on the commentaries of Rashi and Maimonides. 
 
 C. COMMENTARIES ON THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD. 
 § 34. 
 
 The Palestinian Talmud was not as fortunate as the Babyl- 
 onian in regard to complete and lucid commentaries. Most of 
 the commentaries on the former extend only to some sections 
 or parts thereof, and none of them dates further back than to 
 the sixteenth century. 
 
 The first commentary on the whole Palestinian Talmud by 
 an anonymous author, appeared in the Cracow edition of the 
 year 1609, and is reprinted in the latest Krotoschin edition. It 
 is a brief and insufficient commentary. 
 
 2. ypwin mw, a commentary on 18 Masechtoth by &. 
 Joshua Benveniste (XVII century). 
 
 Sanaa and additions, called ja7p ww on Seder 
 Moed, Nashim and part of Nezikin by &. David Fraenkel, Rabbi 
 in Dessau and later in Berlin, (teacher of Moses Mendelssohn, 
 XVIII century). 
 
COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. (ol 
 
 4. swe ssp and oan mx, a double commentary on the 
 whole Jerushalmi dy 2. Moses Margolioth (XVII century). This 
 double commentary and the preceding of David Fraenkel are 
 embodied in the Shitomir edition (1860-67). 
 
 5. js Mans on Berachoth, Peah and Demai by Z. Frankel 
 (Vienna 1874 and Breslau 1875). 
 
 6. Commentary on Seder Zeraim and Mosecheth Shekalim 
 by Solomon Syrileio (or Serilio), an exile from Spain. Of this 
 commentary only Berachoth was published from a MS. with 
 annotations by M. Lehmann (Frank. on the Main 1875). 
 
 Regarding some other commentaries on single parts of the 
 Palestinian Talmud see Z. Frankel, Mebo Ha-Jerushalmi 
 134a-136a. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 § 35. 
 
 Since the Babylonian Talmud was considered by most of 
 the Jewish communities in all countries as the source of the rab- 
 binical law by which to regulate the religious life, it is but 
 natural that already at a comparatively early period attempts 
 were made to furnish abstracts of the same for practical purposes. 
 ‘This was done partly by epitomes or compendiums which, retain- 
 ing the general arrangement and divisions of the Talmud, bring 
 its matter into a narrower compass by omitting its Agadic and 
 unnecessary passages, and abridging the legal discussions; and 
 partly by codes in which the results of the discussed legal mat- 
 ter 1s presented in a more systematic order. The first attempts 
 in this direction were made by R. Jehudai Gaon of Sura VALET 
 century) in his book Hadachoth Ketuoth (abridged Halachoth), 
 and by R. Simon of Kahira (—IX century) in his (Halachoth 
 Gedoloth. Both of these two works which afterwards coalesced 
 into one work still extant under the latter title, were however 
 eclipsed by later master works of other celebrated Rabbinical 
 authorities, 
 
 A. EPITOMES. 
 § 36. 
 
 The principal epitomes or compendiums of the Talmud are 
 by the following authors: 
 
 1. &. Lsaac Alfasi (after the initials called ‘Rif’, born in 
 1013 near the city of Fez in Africa, died in 1103 as Rabbi at 
 Lucena in Spain) wrote an excellent compendium which he called 
 ‘‘Halachoth” but which is usually called by the name of its 
 author 255s or 9%. In this compendium he retains the 
 general arrangement, the language and style of the Talmud, 
 but omits, besides the Agada, all parts and passages which 
 
EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS. 73 
 
 concern laws that had become obsolete since the destruction of 
 the temple. Besides, he condensed the lengthy discussions, and 
 added his own decision in cases not clearly decided in the Talmud. 
 
 Remark. Alfasi’s compendium comprises in print three large folio 
 volumes in which the text is accompanied by Rashi’s Talmud com- 
 mentary and, besides, by numerous commentaries, annotations and 
 glosses, especially those by R. Nissim b. Reuben (}4); by R. Zerachia 
 Halevi (Maor); by R. Mordecai b. Hillel; by R. Joseph Chabiba (Nimuke 
 Joseph), and by some other distinguished Rabbis. 
 
 2. R. Asher b. Jechiel (y'san), a German Rabbi, later in 
 Toledo, Spain, where he died in 1327, wrote a compendium after 
 the pattern of that of Alfasi and embodied in the same also the 
 opinions of later authorities. This compendium is appended in 
 our Talmud editions to each Masechta, under the title of the 
 author (Ws 13°35. 
 
 R. Jacob, the celebrated son of this author, added to that 
 compendium an abstract of the decisions contained in the same, 
 the yw’ san ‘pd*D WS"p. 
 
 B. CODES. 
 
 Ss BN 
 
 1. Mishne Thora mn m3wy ‘Repetition of the Law”, by 
 R. Moses Maimonides (92%) flourishing in the XII century. 
 Thisis the most comprehensive and systematically arranged Code 
 of all the Laws scattered through the two Talmuds, or resulting 
 from the discussions inthe same. Occasionally also the opinions 
 of the post Talmudic authorities, the Gaonim, are added. 
 
 This gigantic work, written throughout in Mishnic Hebrew 
 in a very lucid and attractive style, is divided into fourteen 
 books, hence its additional name Sepher Ha-yad (7 having the 
 numerical value of 14), and by way of distinction, it was later 
 called ‘Yad Hachazaka”, the strong hand. Every book is, ac 
 cording to the various subjects treated therein, divided into 
 Halachoth, the special names of which are given at the head of 
 each of those fourteen books. The Halachoth are again subdi- 
 vided into chapters (Perakim), and these into paragraphs. 
 
74. HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Remark. This Codeis usualy published in four large folio volumes, 
 and provided with the following annotations and commentaries: 
 
 a. Hasagoth Rabed “3“aN7n niwn Critical Remarks, by R. 
 Abraham b. David, of Posquieres, a contemporary and antagonist of 
 Maimonides. 
 
 b. Migdal Oz py S543, the Tower of Strength, defending Maimonid- 
 es’ Code against the censures of the critic named above, by Shem Tob 
 Ibn Gaon, of Spain (beginning of XIV century). 
 
 c. Hagahoth Maimuniyoth myweyoy ning, Annotations, by R. 
 Meir Ha-Cohen, of Narbonne (XIV century ). 
 
 d. Maggid Mishne. a commentary, generally referring to the 
 Talmudical sources of the decisions in Maimonides’ Code, by Don 
 Vidal di Tolosa (XIV century). . 
 
 e. Khesef Mishne, wd D5, acommentary like the preceding, 
 by R. Joseph Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (XVI century). 
 
 In some editions the following two commentaries are also ap- 
 pended, 
 
 Lechem Mishne rawr ond, by &. Abraham de Boton, of Szafed, 
 XVI century. | 
 
 Mishne Ilmelech 05 mwy, by Jehuda Rosanes, Rabbi in Con- 
 stantinople, d. 1727. 
 
 2. Sita misy’p (abbrev. 3’19D), the great Law book, by the 
 Tosaphist #, Moses of Coucy, in France (XIII century). This 
 work arranges the Talmudical law according to the 613 precepts 
 which the Rabbis found to be contained in the Pentateuch, and is 
 divided into j*wy commendatory, and puso prohibitory laws. 
 
 Remark. A similar work, but ona smaller scale, is }OP nis ‘dD 
 (p19D), also called Amude Golah, by R. Isaac b. Joseph, of Corbeil. 
 (d. 1280). 
 
 3. Turim gn (the Rows of Laws), by &. Jacob, son of 
 that celebrated R. Asher b. Jechiel who was mentioned above. 
 The work is divided into four parts, called: Zur Orach Chayim, 
 treating of Liturgical Laws ; Zur Yore Dea, treating of 
 the Ritual Laws; Zur Eben Ha-ezer on the Marriage 
 Laws, and Zur Choshen Mishpat on the Civil Laws. Each of 
 these four books is subdivided according to subjects under ap- 
 propriate headings, and into chapters, called Simanim. This 
 
EPITOMES AND CoDIFICATIONS. 15 
 
 code differs from that of Maimonides in so far as it is restricted to 
 such laws only which were still in use outside of Palestine, and 
 as it embodies also rules and customs which were established 
 after the close ofthe Talmud. Besides, it is not written in that 
 uniform and pure language and in that lucid style by which the 
 work of Maimonides is characterized. 
 
 Remark. The text of the Turim is generally provided with the 
 commentaries Beth Joseph, by R. Joseph Karo, and Darke Moshe, by 
 R. Moses Isserles. 
 
 4. Shulchan Aruch, yy ow (the prepared table), by 2. 
 Joseph Karo (XVI century), the same author who wrote the com- 
 mentaries on the codes of Maimonides and of R. Jacob b. Asher. 
 Taking the last mentioned code (Turim) and his own commentary 
 on the same as basis, and retaining its division into four parts as 
 well as. that into subjects and chapters, he subdivided each 
 chapter (Siman) into paragraphs (%5%;;p) and so remodeled its 
 contents as to give it the proper shape and style of a law book. 
 This Shulchan Aruch together with the numerous annotations 
 (mina) added to it by the contemporary R. Moses Isserles (/195) 
 was up to our time regarded by all rabbinical Jews as the autho- 
 ritative code by which all questions of the religious life were 
 decided. 
 
 Remark. The glosses and commentaries onthe Shulchan Aruch 
 are very numerous. Those usually printed with the text in the folio 
 editions are the following, all belonging to the seventeenth century: 
 
 a. Beer ha-Gola, giving the sources of that code, by Moses Ribkes 
 in Amsterdam. 
 
 b. Ture Zahab (}"t9) commentary on all parts of the code, by R. 
 David b. Samuel Halevi. 
 
 c. Sifthe Cohen (4“w) on Jore Dea and Choshen Mishpat, by R. 
 Sabbathai Cohen. 
 
 d. Magen Abraham (x) on Orach Chayim, by R. Abram 
 Gumbinner, 
 
 e. Beth Samuel on Eben Ha-ezer by R. Samuel b. Uri, of Furth. 
 
 f. Chelkath Mechokek on Eben Ha-ezer, by R. Moses of Brisk. 
 
76 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Constant references to the four Codes mentioned above are 
 made in the marginal glosses which are found on every page of 
 the Talmud, under the heading of ‘‘Zz Aishpat, Ner Mitzwah’. 
 It isthe object of these glosses to show, at every instance when 
 a, law is quoted or discussed in the Talmud, where the final decision 
 of that law is to be found in the various codes. The authorship 
 of these marginal glosses is ascribed to R. Joshua Boas Baruch 
 (XVI century). The same scholar wrote also the glosses 
 headed Zhora Orwhich are found in the space between the 
 Talmud text and Rashi’s commentary, and which indicate the 
 books and chapters of the biblical passages quoted in the Talmud, 
 besides, the very important glosses on the inner margins of the 
 pages, headed Massoreth Ha-shas (pwr Mai) which give 
 references to parallel passages inthe Talmud. The last ment- 
 ioned glosses were later increased with critical notes by Isaiah 
 Berlin (Pik), Rabbi in Breslau (d. 1799). 
 
 C. COLLECTIONS OF THE AGADIC PORTIONS OF THE TALMUD. 
 § 38. 
 
 While the above mentioned Compendiums and Codes are 
 restricted to abstracting only the legal matter (Halacha) of the 
 Talmud, &. /acob tbn Chadbib, flourishing at the beginning of the 
 sixteenth century, collected all the Agadic passages especially of 
 the Babylonian Talmud. This very popular collection which is 
 usually printed with various commentaries has the title of Zz 
 Jacob (apy jy; in some editions it is also called ON? py). 
 
 R. Samuel Jafe, flourishing in the latter part of that century, 
 made a similar Collection ofthe Agadic passages of the Palestinian 
 Talmud with an extensive commentary under the title of 
 MMi mp? (Vienna, 1590 and Berlin 1725-26). An abridged 
 edition with a short commentary was published under the title of 
 pwn pia’p (Lemberg, 1860). 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE 
 TALMUD. 
 
 A. MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 § 39. 
 
 In consequence of the terrible persecutions of the Jews 
 during the Middle Ages, and the destruction of their libraries, 
 so often connected therewith, and especially in consequence of 
 the vandalism repeatedly perpetrated by the Church against 
 the Talmud,! only a very limited number of manuscripts of the 
 same have come down to our time. Codices of single Sedarim 
 (sections) and Masechtoth (tracts or treatises) are to be found in 
 various libraries of Europe, especially in the Vatican Library of 
 Rome, and in the libraries of Parma, Leyden, Paris, Oxford, 
 Cambridge, Munich, Berlin and Hamburg. The only known 
 complete manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud, written 
 in the year 1369, is in possession of the Royal Library of 
 Munich. A fragment of Talmud Pesachim, ofthe ninth or tenth 
 century, is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, 
 and wag edited with an autotype fascimile, by W. H. Lowe, 
 Cambridge 1879. 
 
 The Columbia College in the city of New York, lately 
 acquired a collection of manuscripts containing the treatises 
 Pesachim, Moed Katon, Megilla and Zebachim of the Babylonian 
 Talmud. These manuscripts came from Southern Arabia, and 
 date from the year 1548. ? 
 
 1 It is stated that at the notorious auto-da-fe of the Talmud, held 
 in the year 1249, at Paris, twenty four cart-loads of Talmud tomes were 
 consigned to the flames. Similar destructions of the Talmud were 
 executed by the order of Pope Julius III, in the year 1553, first at Rome, 
 then at Bologne and Venice, and in the following year in Ancona and 
 other cities. Among the 12,000 tomes of the Talmud that were burned 
 at Cremona, in the year 1559 (see Graetz Geschichte d. Juden X. p. 382), 
 were undoubtedly also numerous Manuscripts, though most of them 
 may have been printed copies. 
 
 2 See Max L. Margolis, ‘The Columbia College MS. of 
 Meghilla examined,” New York 1892. ‘ 
 
78 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Manuscripts of the A/7shna or of single Sedarim thereof, 
 some of which dating from the thirteenth century, are preserved 
 in the libraries of Parma, of Berlin, of Hamburg, of Oxford and 
 of Cambridge. That of the last mentioned library was edited 
 by W. H. Lowe: ‘‘The Mishna on which the Palestinian Talmud 
 rests,’ etc., Cambridge, 1888. ~ 
 
 Of the Palestinian Talmud the only manuscript, of consid- 
 erable extent, is preserved in the Library of Leyden. See 8. 
 M. Schiller-Szinessy, ‘‘Description of the Leyden MS. of the 
 Palestinian Talmud.” Cambridge 1878. Fragments of the 
 Palestinian Talmud are also found in some other libraries, 
 especially in those of Oxford and Parma. 
 
 Fuller information concerning MSS. of the Talmud is given 
 in F. Lebrecht’s ‘‘Handschriften und erste Ausgaben des Babyl. 
 Talmud,” Berlin 1862. See also M. Steinschneider’s ‘‘Hebritische 
 Bibliographie,” Berlin, 1862 and 1868. 
 
 B. THE TALMUD IN PRINT. 
 
 a. The Mishna editions. 
 
 § 40. 
 
 Already as early as the year 1492, the first edition of th» 
 Mishna together with the commentary of Maimonides appearea 
 in Naples. It was followed by several editions of Venice (1546-50, 
 and 1606), of Riva di Trento (1559) and of Mantua (1559-63). 
 In the last mentioned editions the commentary of Obadia di 
 Bertinoro is added. The editions which have since appeared 
 are very numerous. Those which appeared since the seven- 
 teenth century are generally accompanied, besides Bertinoro’s 
 commentary, by ws mipoin by Lipman Heller or some other 
 shorter commentaries. 
 
 b. The Babylonian Talmud. 
 
 § 41. 
 
 The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was 
 published by Daniel Bomberg in 12 folio volumes, Venice 
 
MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS. 79 
 
 1520-23.1 Besides the text, it contains the commentary of Rashi, 
 the Tosaphoth, the Piske-Tosaphoth, the compendium of Asheri, 
 and the Mishna commentary of Maimonides. This original 
 edition served as model for all editions which subsequently ap- 
 peared at Venice, Basel, Cracow, Lublin, Amsterdam, Frank- 
 fort on-the-Oder, Berlin, Frankfort on-the-Main, Sulzbach, Dy- 
 hernfurt, krague, Warsaw, and recently at Vienna and Wilna. The 
 later editions were greatly improved by the addition of valuable 
 literary and critical marginal notes and appendices by learned 
 rabbis. But the Basel and most ofthe subsequent editions down 
 almost to the present time, have been much mutilated by the 
 official censors of the press, who expunged from the Talmud all 
 those passages which, in their opinion, seemed to reflect upon 
 
 ‘hristianity,and, besides, changed expressions, especially names 
 of nations and of sects, which they suspected as having reference 
 to Christians. ? 
 
 The Amsterdam editions, especially the first (1644-48), es- 
 caped those mutilations at the hand of the censors, and are on 
 this account considered very valuable. Most ofthe passages which 
 have elsewhere been eliminated or altered by the censors, have 
 been extracted from the Amsterdam edition, and published in 
 separate small books. Of these the following two may be menti- 
 oned: MiDsawan HSS (3.1L. )andp'’wr misimon, Koenigsberg, 1860. 
 
 A critical review of the complete editions of the Babylonian 
 Talmud and of the very numerous editions of single Masechtoth 
 
 1 Prior to this first complete edition, a number of single Masechtoth 
 of the Babyl. Talmud had already been published by Gershom of 
 Soncino, between the years 1484 and 1519, at Soncino and at Pesaro. 
 
 * Words mostly changed are: instead of 3 (gentile) %p\5 
 (a Samaritan) or ‘yp (an Aethiopian); instead of }"9 (a heretic) spyy 
 (a Sadducee) or D\71p"pN (an Epicurean); instead of 143) (an alien, a Non 
 Israelite) O”“)Dy (an idolater); instead of 7“\~ (the nations of the world)— 
 o%533(Babylonians) or O°99)3(Canaanites); instead of 3xD)7(the Romans) 
 *NOIN (Syrians) or ‘ND15 (Persians); instead of %\7(Rome) > y7 (the city) 
 etc, 
 
 In the more recent editions, however, except those appearing 
 
 under Russian censorship, the original readings have mostly been 
 restored, 
 
80 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 since the year 1484, was published by Raphael Rabbinovicz, in 
 his Hebrew pamphlet, 195mm noDtn Sy apm Munich 1877.1 
 
 The same author also collected and published very rich and 
 important material for a critical edition of the Babylonian 
 Talmud from the above mentioned manuscript in the Royal 
 Library of Munich and other manuscripts, as well as from early 
 prints of single Masechtoth in various libraries. The title of 
 this very extensive work, writtenin Hebrew, is Dikduke Sopherim, 
 Deb *PITIPT'D with the Latin title: Variae lectiones in Mishnam 
 et in Talmud Babylonicum, etc., Munich 1868-86. The fifteen 
 volumes in octavo which have appeared of this valuable work 
 comprise only three and a half Sedarim of the six Sedarim of the 
 Talmud. It is to be regretted that in consequence of the death 
 of the learned author the completion of this important work has 
 been suspended. 
 
 c The Palestinian Talmud. 
 | § 42. 
 
 Of the Palestinian Talmud (Jerushalmi) only four complete 
 editions appeared: 
 
 1. The first edition, published by Daniel Bomberg, Venice 
 1523-24, in one folio volume, without any commentary. 
 
 2. The Cracow edition, 1609, with a short commentary 
 on the margin. | 
 
 3. The Xvotoshin edition, 1866, with a commentary like 
 that in the Cracow edition, but added to it are marginal notes, 
 containing references to parallel passages in the Babylonian 
 Talmud, and corrections of text readings. 
 
 4, The Shitomir edition, 1860-67, in several folio volumes, 
 with various commentaries. 
 
 Besides these four complete editions, several parts have 
 been published with commentaries. 
 
 1 This instructive pamphlet is also reprinted as an appendix to 
 vol. VIII of Dikduke Sopherim, 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TAL MUD. 
 
 A. LEXICONS. 
 § 43. 
 
 1. The Aruch (Jin) by &. Nathan b. Jechiel, of Rome, 
 flourishing in the eleventh century. This oldest Lexicon for 
 both Talmuds and the Midrashim, on which all later dictionaries 
 are based, still retains its high value, especially on account of 
 its copious quotations from the Talmudical literature by which 
 many corrupted readings are corrected. It received many va- 
 luable additions (qy1yr spi) at the hand of Benjamin Mussaphia 
 (XVII century). These additions, generally headed by the 
 initials 3”"N=pDH 3S DN, mostly explain the Greek and Latin 
 words occurring in the Talmud and Midrash. The edition by 
 M. Landau (Prague 1819-24, in five 8vo volumes) 1s increased by 
 numerous annotations and supplied with definitions in German. 
 The latest and best edition of that important work is: 
 
 2. Aruch Completum (nd>wn iy) by Alexander Kohut, vol. 
 1-VIII. ‘Vienna and New York, 1878-1892. In this edition the 
 original lexicon of Nathan b. Jechiel is corrected by collating 
 several ancient Mss. of the work, and, besides, considerably 
 enlarged by very valuable philological and critical researches 
 and annotations. 
 
 3. Lexicon Talmudicum by Joh. Buxtorf, Basel, 1640. Of 
 this work written in Latin, a new corrected and enlarged edition 
 was published by B. Fischer, Leipsic, 1869-75. 
 
 4. Neuhebraisches und chald. Weérterbuch tiber die Tal- 
 mudim wnd Midrashim, by 7. Zevy in four volumes. Leipsic 
 1876-89. 
 
 5. A Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and 
 the Midrashic Literature, by JZ. /astrow. London and New 
 York, 1886-1903, in two volumes. 
 
82 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Remark. There are, besides, several small dictionaries, mostly 
 abstracts of the Aruch, and useful for beginners. Special mention 
 deserves M. Schulbaum, Neuhebrdisch-deutsches Worterbuch, Lem- 
 berg, 1880. 
 
 B. GRAMMARS, 
 oS ay 
 
 The modern works on the Grammar ofthe J/ishna have 
 already been mentioned above p. 15 in the Note to the paragraph 
 speaking of the Language of the Mishna. The first attempt at 
 compiling a Grammar of the peculiar dialect of the Babylonian 
 Gemara was made by: 
 
 S, D. Zuzzatto in his ‘Elementi grammaticali del Caldeo 
 Biblico e det dialetto Talmudico Babilonese”. Padua, 1865. 
 
 Two translations of this work appeared, namely: 
 
 1. Grammatik der bibl. chaldaeischen Sprache und des 
 Idioms des Talmud Babli. Hin Grundriss von 8. D. Luzzatto, 
 mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von JZ. S. Kriiger. Breslau, 
 1873. 
 
 2. Luzzatto’s Grammar of the bibl. Chaldaic Language and 
 of the idiom of the Talmud Babli, translated by /. Goldammer, 
 New York, 1876. . 
 
 Caspar Levias. Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained 
 in the Babylonian Talmud. Cincinnati, 1900. 
 
 I, Rosenberg. Das Aramaische Verbum in babyl. Talmud. 
 Marburg, 1888. 
 
 C. CHRESTOMATHIES, 
 § 45. 
 
 A.B. Ehrlich, Fashe Perakim, Selections from the Talmud 
 and the Midrashim. New York, 1884. 
 
 B. Fischer, Talmudische Chrestomathie mit Anmerkungen, 
 Scholien und Glossar. Leipsic, 1884. 
 
 Ph. Lederer. Lehrbuch zum Selbstunterricht im babyl. Tal. 
 mud, 3 parts, Pressburg, 1881-88. 
 
 A, Singer. “719% Talmudische Chrestomathie fiir den 
 ersten Unterricht im Talmud, 2 parts. Pressburg, 1882. 
 
AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD, 82 
 
 D. InrrRopUcTORY WORKS AND TREATISES. 
 a. OLDER WORKS. 
 § 46. 
 
 1. Samuel Hanagid, of Granada (XI century), was the first 
 to write an introduction to the Talmud. Only a part of his 
 work has come down to our time, and is appended to the first 
 volume of our Talmud editions under the heading tip5mnm siat. 
 
 2. Moses Maimonides opens his Mishna commentary on 
 Seder Zeraim with an introduction to the Talmud, especially to 
 the Mishna. 
 
 This introduction of Maimonides as well as that of Samuel 
 Hanagid have been translated into German by Pzzzer in his 
 Translation of Talm. Berachoth. 
 
 3. mind ’D (Methodology of the Talmud), by Samson of 
 Chinon (XIV century). Constantine (1515), Cremona, (1558), 
 Verona (1657). 
 
 4. odsy miovon, by /eshua b.. Joseph Halevi, of Toledo, 
 (XV century). 
 
 This work was translated into Latin by Constantin 
 L’Empereur, under the title Clavis Talmudica, Leyden, 1634. 
 
 In the editions of Venice (1639), and of Livorno (1792) the 
 Halichoth Olam is accompanied by two complementary works. 
 modnn 555, by Joseph Karo, andpypiny as, by Solomon Algazi. 
 
 Abstracts ofthe works 3 and 4 are added to Samuel Hanagid’s 
 Mebo Hatalmud in the appendix to our Talmud editions. 
 
 5. sopasm %oat Methodology of the Talmud by Jsaac 
 Campanton, of Castilia (XV century), published in Venice (1565) 
 Mantua (1593), Amsterdam (1754). A new edition was pub 
 rished by Isaac Weiss, Vienna, 1891. 
 
 6. moon ndnn (Methodology of the Talmud), by /acod 
 Chagiz (XVII century). Verona 1647. Amst. 1709. 
 
 b. MopERN WORKs IN HEBREW. 
 
 ers 
 
 J. Abelsohn, FIT W721, Methodology of the Mishna and 
 Rules of Halacha. Wilna, 1859. 
 
84 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Jacob Brill. Fw size, Introduction to the Mishna, 2 
 volumes. Frankf. 0. M. 1876-85. Vol. I treats of the lives and 
 methods of the teachers from Ezra to the close of the Mishna, 
 and vol. II of the Plan and System of the Mishna. 
 
 Lebt Hirsch Chajes. siponn sind, Introduction to the 
 Talmud. Lemberg, 1845. 
 
 Z. Frankel. m3yon D595, Hodegetica in Mishnam etc., 
 Leipsic, 1859. A little Supplement to this important work was 
 published under the title of ‘‘ Additamenta et Index ad librum 
 Hodegetica in Mischnam”., Leipsic, 1867. 
 
 Z. Frankel. sabyiasn sip, Introductio in Talmud Hiero- 
 solymitanum. Breslau, 1870. 
 
 Joachim Oppenheim. —sy on mitdin, the genesis of the 
 Mishna. Pressburg, 1882. 
 
 J. A. Weiss. penta withthe German title: Zur 
 Geschichte der jiidischen Tradition. Vienna, 1871-83. Vol I 
 and II treat of the period to the close of the Mishna, and Vol. 
 III of that of the Amoraim. 
 
 J. Wiesner, prowyins myss, Investigations concerning 
 the origin and the contents ofthe Palestinian Talmud. Vienna, 
 1872, 
 
 c. WORKS AND ARTICLES IN MODERN LANGUAGES, 
 § 48. 
 
 S. Adler. The article Za/mud in Johnson’s Encyclopedia, 
 New York. Reprinted in the author’s collective work ‘‘Kobetz 
 al Yad”. New York, 1886: pp. 46-80. 
 
 J. S. Bloch. Finblicke in die Geschichte der Entstehung’ 
 der Talmudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1884. 
 
 NV. Brill. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des baby]. Talmuds 
 als Schriftwerkes (in Jahrbiicher fiir Jtid. Geschichte u. Literatur 
 II pp. 1-123). 
 
 Sam. Davidson. The Article Zalmud in John Kitto’s 
 Cyclopaedia. 
 
 J. Derenbourg. Article Talmud in Lichtenberg’s Ency- 
 
 clopedie des sciences religieuses. Paris, 1882. XII pp. 1007 
 10386. 
 
AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. 85 
 
 Z. Frankel. Beitrige zur Hinleitung in den Talmud (in 
 Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 
 X, pp. 186-194; 205-212; 258-272). 
 
 J. Hamburger. Articles Mischna and Talmud in Real 
 Eycyclopadie fiir Bibel und Talmud. Strelitz 1883. Vol II pp. 
 789-798 and 1155-1167. 
 
 D. Hoffmann. Die erste Mischna und die Controversen 
 der Tanaim. Berlin, 1882. 
 
 B. Pick. Article Talmud in Clintock and Strong’s Cyclo- 
 paedia of theological Literature. Vol. X, pp. 166-187. 
 
 Ludw. A. Rosenthal, Ueber den Zusammenhang der Mischna. 
 Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. Strasburg, 1890. 
 
 S. M. Schiller-Szinessy. Article Mishnah in Encyclopedia 
 Britannica, 9th Edition, vol. XVI, and Article Za/mud in vol. 
 XXIII. 
 
 Hermann L. Strack. Yinleitung in den Thalmud. Leipsic, 
 1887. This work of the celebrated Christian scholar which treats 
 of the subject with thoroughness, exactness and impartiality, 1s 
 a reprint of the article Za/mud in Herzog’s Real Encyclopidie 
 fiir protestant. Theologie. Second Edition, vol. XVIII. 
 
 d. HISTORICAL WORKS. 
 
 Of modern historical works which, treating of the Talmudical 
 period shed much light upon the genesis of the Talmud, the fol- 
 lowing are very important: 
 
 Julius First. Kultur und Literaturgeschichte der Juden 
 in Asien (Leipsic, 1849), treats of the Baoylonian academies 
 and teachers during the period of the Amoraim. 
 
 I. M. Jost. Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten 
 (Leipsic 1857-59). Vol I, pp. 13-222 treat of the period from 
 the destruction of the temple to the close of the Talmud. 
 
 H. Graetz. Geschichte der Juden, Vol. IV, second edition, 
 - Leipsic, 1866. This volume has been translated into English 
 by James K. Gutheim: History of the Jews from the Downfall 
 of the Jewish State to the conclusion of the Talmud. New 
 YWOtkieLs (3. 
 
 G. Karpeles. Geschichte der jiidischen Literatur. Berlin, 
 1886. pp. 265-382. 
 
86 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION 
 
 e. ENCYCLOPEDICAL WORKS, 
 § 50. 
 
 Jsaac Lamperonti, physician and Rabbi in Ferrara (XVIII 
 century) wrote in the Hebrew language a very extensive and 
 useful Encyclopedia ofthe Talmud and the Rabbinical Decisions, 
 under the title of pny? InB. Five folio volumes of this work, 
 comprising the letters ¥-p, were published at Venice (1750) and 
 Livorno (1840). The remaining volumes have lately been 
 published in 8vo at Lyck (1864-1874) and Berlin (1885-1889), 
 where also a new edition of the former volumes appeared. 
 
 Solomon Rapaport. 35% Tay, an encyclopedical work in 
 Hebrew of which only one volume, containing the letter 3, ap- 
 peared (Prague 1852). 
 
 J. Hamburger. Real Encyclopaedie fiir Bibel und Talmud, 
 Abtheilung HI. Die Talmudischen Artikel A-Z. Strelitz, 1883. 
 Three Supplements to this valuable work appeared Leipsic 
 1886-92, 
 
 f. SOME OTHER BOOKS OF REFERENCE. 
 
 § 51. 
 
 Simon Peiser. ssyyw mndom3. Onomasticon of Biblical per- 
 sons and of the Mishna teachers quoted in the Talmud and in 
 Midrash (Wandsbeck 1728). 
 
 Malachi ben Jacob (XVIII century), »385y 4°. This book 
 is a Methodology of the Talmud, alphabetically arranged. 
 Livorno, 1767, Berlin, 1852. 
 
 A, Stein, Talmudische Terminologie; alphabetisch geordnet. 
 Prague, 1869. 
 
 Jacob Brill, y35 wry Die Mnemonotechnik des Talmud. 
 Vienna, 1864. 
 
 This little book explains the Szmanim, i. e. the mnemoniéal 
 signs and symbols so often met with in the Talmud which are 
 intended to indicate the sequence of the discussing teachers or 
 of their arguments. See above p. 60, Note. 
 
 Israel Mash. 43375 por Rabbinical Sentences, alphabetically 
 arranged. Warsaw, 1874. 
 
AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. 87 
 
 S. Ph. Frenkel. wots jy. Index of the Agadic passages 
 vf the Talmud. Krotoschin, 1885. 
 
 Moses Halevi. py. Legal and ethical maxims of the 
 Talmud, alphabetically arranged. Belgrade, 1874. 
 Weesner. Scholien, wissenschaftliche Forschungen aus dem 
 
 Gebiete des babyl. Talmud. I Berachoth; II Sabbath; III 
 Erubin and Pesachim. Prague, 1859-67. 
 
CHAPTER XI. : 
 TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 
 A. THE MISHNA, 
 8 52. 
 a. LATIN TRANSLATIONS, 
 
 The learned Dutch G. Surenhusius published (Amsterdam, 
 1698-1703) a Latin version of the Mishna and ofthe com- 
 mentaries of Maimonides and Obadia Bertinoro with annotations 
 by several Christian scholars. 
 
 Remark. Prior to this publication of Surenhusius, a Latin version 
 of some single Masechtoth of the Mishna was published by various 
 Christian Scholars, as Sabbath and Erubin by Seb. Schmidt (Leipsic, 
 1661); Shekalim, by Joh. Wiilfer (Altdorf, 1680); Aboda Zara and Tamid, 
 by C. Peringer (Altdorf, 1680). 
 
 b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Johann Jacob Rabe. Mishnah tibersetzt und erliiutert. 
 Anspach, 1760-63. | 
 
 Lf. M. Jost, the celebrated Jewish historian, published 
 (Berlin 1832-34) a new German translation in Hebrew characters 
 with short introductions and annotations, together with the 
 vocalized Mishna text and the commentary mn3 D>. 
 
 A. Sammter. Mischnajoth, vokalisirter Text mit deutscher 
 Uebersetzung und Erklirung. Berlin, 1886—. 
 
 c. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 W. Walton, Translation of the treatises Sabbath and 
 Erubin, London, 1718. 
 
 D. A. de Sola and M. J. Raphall. Fighteen treatises from 
 the Mishna translated. London, 1843. 
 
 Joseph Barclay published under the title ‘‘The Talmud” a 
 translation of eighteen treatises of the Mishna with annotations. 
 London, 1878. 
 
 C. Zaylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (the treatise 
 Aboth). Cambridge, 1877. 
 
 Remark. The treatise Aboth has been translated into almost all of 
 the European languages. 
 
TRANSLATIONS. 89 
 
 B. THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
 § 53. 
 
 To translate the Mishna is a comparatively easy task. 
 Its generally plain and uniform language and style of expression, 
 and its compendious character could easily enough be rendered 
 into another language especially when accompanied by some 
 explanatory notes. but it is quite different with the Gemara, 
 especially the Babylonian. There are, of course, also passages 
 in the Gemara which offer no great difficulties to a translator 
 who is sufficiently familiar with the idiom in which the original 
 is composed. We refer to the historical, legendary and hom1- 
 letical portions (Agadas) which the compilers have interspersed 
 inevery treatise. The main part ofthe Gemara, however, which 
 is essentially of an argumentative character, giving minute 
 reports of discussions and debates on the law, this part, so rich 
 in dialectical subtilities,and so full of technicalities and elliptical 
 expressions, offers to the translator almost insurmountable 
 difficulties. Here a mere version of the original will not do; 
 neither will a few explanatory foot notes be sufficient. It would 
 sometimes require a whole volume of commentary to supplement 
 the translation of a single chapter of the original, in order to 
 render fully and clearly the train of thought and dialectical 
 arguments so idiomatically and tersely expressed therein. Meee lis 
 
 1 A striking analogy to this difficulty of translating the legal 
 discussions of the Talmud is found in an other branch of legal literature, 
 as may be seen fom the following Note which a learned jurist 
 kindly furnished me: ‘‘The Year Books of the English Law, sometimes 
 caled. the Black Letter Books, written in the quaint French Norman, 
 which was the court-language of that day, have always been more or 
 less a sealed book, except to experts in historical antiquities. By the 
 effort of the Selden Society these Reports are being translated from 
 time to time into the English; but to the uninitiated, even in English, 
 these reports are gibberish, and none but those thoroughly versed in 
 legal antiquities, and who have so to speak imbibed from a thousand 
 other sources the spirit of the laws of that day, will be much benefited 
 by this translation. It will take volumes of commentary, a hundred 
 
 times more bulky than the text, to make this mine of Englsh common 
 law of any value to the general practitioner, not to speak of the laity. 
 “It is caviar to the general public.” 
 
90 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 explains why the various attempts at translating the whole of 
 the Babylonian Talmud have, thus far, proven a failure, so that 
 as yet only comparatively few Masechtoth of this Talmud have 
 been translated,and these translations are in many cases not in- 
 telligible enough to be fully understood by the reader who is not 
 yet familiar with the original text and with the spirit of the 
 Talmud. 
 
 a. LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF SINGLE MASECHTOTH. 
 
 Llasius Ugolinus published in volume XIX of his Thesaurus 
 antiquitatum sacrarum (Venice 1756) a translation of the 
 Masechtoth Zebachim and Menachoth, and in vol. XXV (1762) 
 the Masecheth Sanhedrin. 
 
 G. £. Ldzard published (Hamburg, 17 05) a Latin trans- 
 lation of the first two Perakim of Aboda Zara. 
 
 b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Johann Jacoh Rabe. Der Tractat Brachoth nach der Hiero- 
 solymitan und Babylonischen Gemara tibersetzt uud erliutert. 
 Haleen iy: 
 
 C. M. Pinner. Tractat Berachoth. Text mit deutscher 
 Uebersetzung und Einleitung in den Talmud. Berlin, 1842. 
 
 ferd, Christian Ewald. Aboda Sarah, ein Tractat aus dem 
 Talmud tibersetzt. Niirenberg, 1856 and 1868. 
 
 A. Sammter. Tractat Baba Mezia. Text mit deutscher 
 Uebersetzung und Erklirung. Berlin, 1876. 
 
 M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Megilla nebst Tosafoth ins Deutsche 
 ubertragen. Frankfort on the Main, 1883. , 
 
 M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Rosch ha-Schanah ings Deutsche 
 ubertragen. Frankf. on the Main, 1886. 
 
 M, Rawicz. Der Tractat Sanhedrin ubertragen und mit 
 erléuternden Bemerkungen versehen. Frankf. 1892. 
 
 D. O. Straschun. Der Tractat Zaanith ins Deutsche tiber- 
 tragen. Halle, 1883. 
 
 August Wiinsche. Der Baby]. Talmud in seinen haggadischen 
 Bestandtheilen iibersetzt, 2 volumes. Leipsic, 1886-88. 
 
 fsaak Levy. Derachte Abschnitt ausdem Tractate Sabbath 
 
TRANSLATIONS, 91 
 
 (Babli und Jeruschalmi) iibersetzt und philologisch behandelt. 
 Breslau, 1892. 
 c. FRENCH TNANSLATIONS. 
 
 I. Michel Rabbinowicz, this translator of several parts of 
 the Babyl. Talmud adopted the proper method in presenting the 
 mental labor embodied in that work. In selecting a treatise for 
 translation he followed the example of Alphasi (see above p. 72) 
 in his celebrated epitome of the Talmud, in omitting all digres" 
 sions from the main subject, and all episodic Agadas which the 
 compilers interspersed among the stern dialectical discus- 
 sions. The main part thus cleared from all disturbing and 
 bewildering by-work, is then set forth in a clear and fluent 
 translation which combines correctness with the noted ease 
 and gracefulness of the French language. Necessary explan- 
 ations are partly given in short foot-notes, and partly, 
 with great skill, interwoven into the translation ofthe text. An 
 understanding of the intricate dialectical discussions is greatly 
 facilitated by appropriate headings, such as: Question; Answer; 
 Rejoinder; Reply; Objection; Remark, etc. Besides, each treatise 
 is prefaced by an introduction, in which the leading principles 
 underlying that part of the Talmud are set forth. Of this lucid 
 translation the following parts have appeared: 
 
 1. Législation criminelle du Talmud, containing the treatise 
 of Sanhedrin and such portions of AZaccoth as refer to the punish- 
 ment of criminals. Paris, 1876. 
 
 2. Législation civile du Talmud, traduction du traité 
 
 ‘ethuboth. Paris, 1880. 
 
 3. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Lada 
 Kamma. Paris, 1873. 
 
 4. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Bada 
 Metzia, Paris, 1878. 
 
 5. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Baba 
 Bathra, Paris, 1879. 
 
 6. La médicine, les paiens etc. This volume contains such 
 portions of thirty different treatises of the Talmud as refer to 
 medicine, paganism, etc. Paris, 1879. 
 
 M. Schwab, added to the first volume of his French trans- 
 
92 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTIOX 
 
 lation of the Palestinian Talmud, (Paris, 1871) also a peegleiats 
 of Berachoth of the Baby]. Talmud. 
 
 d. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. 
 
 A. W. Streane. Translation of the treatise Chagiga. 
 Cambridge, 1891. . 
 
 C. THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD, 
 
 § 54. 
 
 a. LATIN TRANSLATION. 
 
 Blasius Ugolinus published in volumes XVII-XXX of his 
 Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum (Venice 1755-65) the following 
 treatises in Latin: Pesachim (vol XVII); Shekalim, Yoma, 
 Succah, Rosh Hashanah, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Betza, 
 Moed Katan (vol. XVIII); Maaseroth, Maaser Sheni, Challah, 
 Orlah, Biccurim (vol. XX); Sanhedrin, Maccoth (vol. XXV); 
 Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth (vol. XXX). 
 
 b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Joh. Jacob Rabe, besides translating Berachoth in connec- 
 tion with that treatise in the Babylonian Gemara, as mentioned 
 above, published: Der Talmudische Tractat Pea, tibersetzt und 
 
 erlaiutert. Anspach, 1781. 
 August Wiinsche, Der Jerusalemische Talmud in seinen 
 
 haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in’s Deutsche 
 tibertragen. Zurich, 1880. ; 
 
 c. FRENCH TRANSLATION, 
 
 Moise Schwab. Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la 
 premiére fois X volumes. Paris, 1871-90. 
 
 d. ENGLIsd TRANSLATION. 
 
 M. Schwab, the author of the French translation just 
 mentioned, published in English: The Talmud of Jerusalem. 
 Vol. I Berachoth. London, 1886. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 OF MODERN WORKS AND MONOGRAPHS ON TALMUDIC SUBJECTS. 
 
 (Arranged with reference to subjects and in alphabetical 
 
 W. Bacher. 
 
 6¢ 
 
 $6 
 
 Se Duck, 
 
 M. Griinbaum. 
 
 M. Giidemann. 
 
 D. Hoffmann. 
 
 Ad, Briill. 
 
 order of authors). 
 
 § 55. 
 AGADA,. 
 
 Die Agada der Tannaiten. Strasburg, Als. 1884. 
 
 Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoréer, Strasburg, 
 Als. 1878. 
 
 Die Agada der Palastinischen Amordaer, Strasburg, 
 Als. 1891. 
 
 Die Fabel im Talmud u. Midrasch (in Monatsschrift 
 f. Geschichte u, Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, XXIV, 
 1875; XXV, 1876; XXIX 1880; XXX, 1881; XXXII, 
 1883; XX XIII, 1884). 
 
 Beitrige zur vergleichenden Mythologie aus der Hag- 
 gada (in Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, vol. 
 XXXI, 1877). 
 
 Mythenmischung in der Haggada (in Monatschrift f. 
 Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 
 XXV, 1876). 
 
 Die Antonius Agadoth im Talmud (in Magazin fiir 
 Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XIX, 1892). 
 
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL. 
 
 Trachten der Juden im nachbiblischen Alterthum 
 Frankf. on the M. 1878. 
 
 Franz Delitzsch. Jiidisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, Elangen, 
 
 1879. Translated by B. Pick “Jewish Artisan Life.” 
 New York, 1833. 
 
 M. B. Friedlinder, Die Arbeit nach FPibel u. Talmud. Brinn, 1891. 
 
94 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 L. Herzfeld. Metrologische Voruntersuchungen, Geld und Gewicht 
 der Juden bis zum Shluss des Talmuds (in Jahrbuch 
 fiir Geschichte der Juden u. des Judenthums, vol. III 
 pp. 95-191, Leipsic, 1863). 
 
 Alex. Kohut. Ist das Schachspielim Talmud genannt? (Z. d. D. M. 
 G. XLVI, 130-39). - 
 
 Leopold Léw. Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, 
 Leipsic, 1870-71. 
 
 ae * Die Lebensalter in der Jiid. Literatur. Szegedin, 1875. 
 B. Zuckerman. Ueber Talmudische Miinzen u. Gewichte. Breslau, 
 1862. 
 cs Das jiidische Maassystem, Breslau, 1867. 
 BIOGRAPHICAL. 
 
 Sam. Back. Elischa ben Abuja, quellenmassig dargestellt. Frankf. 
 on the M., 1891. 
 
 A. Blumenthal. Rabbi Meir, sein Leben u. Wirken. Frankf. 1889. 
 
 M. Braunschweiger. Die Lehrer der Mischna, ihr Leben u. Wirken. 
 Frankf. on the M., 1890. 
 
 S. Fessler. Mar Samuel, der bedeutendste Amora, Breslau, 1879. 
 M. Friedlinder. Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten u. Amoriaer. 
 Briinn, 1879. 
 
 S. Gelbhaus. R. Jehuda Janasi und die Redaction der Mischna. 
 Vienna, 1876. 
 
 D. Hoffmann. Mar Samuel, Rector der Academie zu Nahardea. Leipsic, 
 1878. 
 
 Armand Kaminka. Simon b. Jochai (chapter in the author’s Studien 
 zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890). 
 
 Raphael Lévy. Un Tanah (Rabbi Meir), Etude sur la vie et l’enseignement 
 dun docteur Juif du II siécle. Paris 1883. 
 
 M. I, Mihifelder. Rabh. Ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte des Talmud, 
 Leipsic, 1873. 
 
 J. Spitz. Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkai, Rector der Hochschule 
 zu Jabneh. Berlin, 1883. 
 delrenc Vie de Hillel Ancient. Paris, 1867. 
 
 H. Zirndorf. Some Women in Israel (pp. 119-270 portraying distin- 
 
 guished women of the Talmudic ag»). Philadelphia’ 
 1892. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 95 
 
 CHRONOLOGY AND CALENDAR. 
 
 L, M. Lewisohn. Geschichte u. System des jiidischen Kalenderwesens. 
 Leipsic, 1856. 
 
 B, Zuckermann. Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjiidischen Zeit- 
 rechnung. Breslau 1882. 
 
 CUS OMS: 
 
 Joseph Perles. Die jiidische Hochzeit in nachbiblischer Zeit. Leipsic, 
 1860, 
 
 Die Leichenfeierlichkeiten im nachbiblischen Juden- 
 thum. Breslau, 1861. 
 
 Remark. An English translation of both of these two monographs 
 is embodied in ‘‘Hebrew Characteristics”, published by the American 
 Jewish Publication Society. New York, 1875. . 
 
 M. Fluegel. Gedanken tiber religidse Briuche und Anschauungen. 
 Cincinnati, 1888. 
 
 DiTAS Terr ACs, 
 
 66 66 
 
 Aaron Hahn. The Rabbinical Dialectics. A history of Dialecticians 
 and Dialectics of the Mishna and Talmud, Cincinnati. 
 1879. 
 
 Ha DyUsC eA LON. 
 
 Blach-Gudensberg. Das Paedagogische im Talmud. Halberstadt. 1880. 
 M. Duschak. Schulgesetzgebung u. Methodik der alten Israeliten. 
 Vienna, 1872. 
 Sam. Marcus. Zur Schul-Paedagogik des Talmud. Berlin, 1866. 
 Joseph Simon. L’éducation et linstruction d’aprés la Bible et le Talmud 
 Leipsic, 1879. 
 
 J. Wiesen. Geschichte und Methodik der Schulwesens im talmudi- 
 schen Alterthum. Strasburg, 1892. 
 Kye TCs: 
 M. Bloch Die Ethik der Halacha, Budapest, 1886. 
 
 Herman Cohen. Die Niachstenliebe im Talmud. Ein Gutachten. 
 Marburg, 18°86. 
 
 M. Duschuk. Die Moral der Evangelien u. des Talmuds. Brinn 1877, 
 
 H, B. Fassel. Tugend-und Rechtslehre des Talmud. Vienna, 1848, 
 
96 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTROD UCTION. 
 
 E. Griinebaum. Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums andern Bekentnissen 
 gegentiber. Strasburg, 1878. 
 
 M. Giidemann. Nachstenliebe. Vienna, 1890. 
 
 Alex. Kohut. The Ethics of the Fathers. A series of lectures. New 
 
 York, 1885. 
 
 L. Lazarus. Zur Charakteristik der talmudischen Ethik. Breslau, 
 1877. 
 
 Mare. Lévy. Essai sur la morale de Talmud. Paris 1891. 
 
 Luzzatto. Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von L. E. Igel, 
 
 Breslau, 1870. 
 S. Schaffer. Das Recht und seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmud- 
 ischer Sitten, und Rechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 
 N. J. Weinstein. Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Gebotes der Nachsten- 
 liebe innerhalb des J udenthums, kritisch beleuchtet. 
 Berlin, 1891. 
 
 KEXEGESIS. 
 
 H. S. Hirschfeld. Walachische Exegese. Berlin, 1840. 
 os ie Die Hagadische Exegese. Berlin, 1847. 
 S. Waldberg. Darke Hashinnuyim, on the methods of artificial inter- 
 pretation of Scriptures in the Talmud and Midrash. 
 (in Hebrew) Lemberg, 1870. 
 
 GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY. 
 
 A. Berliner. Beitrage zur Geographie u. Ethnographie Babyloniens 
 im Talmud u. Midrasch. Berlin 1888. 
 
 J. Derenbourg. Essai sur Vhistoire et la géographie de la Palestine 
 daprés les Talmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. 
 Paris, 1867. 
 
 H. Hildesheimer. Beitrage zur Geographie Palastinas. Berlin, 1886. 
 
 Armand Kaminka. Studien zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890. 
 
 Ad. Neubauer. La géographie du Talmud. Mémoire couronné par 
 
 . lacadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris, 1868, 
 
 LA W. 
 a. IN GENERAL. 
 
 Jacques Levy. La jurisprudence du Pentateuque et du Talmud. 
 Constantine. 1879. 
 
S. Mayer. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 97 
 
 Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Romer. 
 Leipsic, 1862-66. 
 
 I. L. Saalschiitz. Das Mosaische Recht, nebst den vervollstaindigenden 
 
 S. Schaffer. 
 
 y Fae! El 
 
 J. Selden, 
 
 E. Hoffmann. 
 
 I. Blumenstein. 
 Z. Frankel. 
 
 D. Fink. 
 
 O. Bahr. 
 | P. B. Benny. 
 M. Duschak. 
 J. First. 
 
 E. Goitein. 
 
 S. Mendelsohn, 
 
 Julius Vargha. 
 
 thalmudisch-rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2-nd Edi- 
 tion. Berlin, 1853. 
 Das Recht u. seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmudischer 
 Sitten-und Rechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 
 The Law (in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 12-82. 
 Cincinnati, 1880). 
 
 b. JUDICIAL COURTS. 
 
 De Synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebrae- 
 orum. London, 1650; Amsterd. 1679; Frankf., 1696. 
 Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligtbhums, 
 Berlin, 1878. 
 
 c. EvIDENCE IN Law. 
 
 Die verschiedenen Eidesarten nach mosaisch-talmud- 
 ischem Rechte. Frankf. on the M., 1883. 
 
 Der Gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaisch talmudischem 
 Rechte. Berlin. 1846. 
 
 ‘‘Miggo” als Rechtsbeweis im bab. Talm. Leipsic, 1891. 
 
 d. CRIMINAL Law. 
 
 Das Gesetz tiber falsche Zeugen, nach Bibel u, Talmud. 
 Berlin, 1862. | 
 
 The Criminal Code of the Jews. London, 1880. 
 
 Das mosaisch-talmudische Strafrecht. Vienna, 1869. 
 Das peinliche Rechtsverfahren im jiid. Alterthum. 
 Heidelberg, 1870. 
 
 Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmudischen Straf- 
 recht (in Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft d. J. Vol. XIX. 
 The Criminal Jurisprudence of the ancient Hebrews 
 compiled from the Talmud and other rabbinical 
 writings. Baltimore, 1891. 
 
 Defense in criminal cases with the ancient Hebrews, 
 translated from the first chapter of the author’s large 
 work ‘‘Vertheiaigungin Criminalfallen’’, and publisch- 
 ed inthe Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 254-268. Cincinnati, 
 1880. 
 
98 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I, Wiesner. Der Bann in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung auf 
 dem Boden des Judenthums. Leipsic, 1864. 
 Thonisson. La peine de mort dans le Talmud. Brussels, 1886, 
 
 e. CIVIL LAW. 
 
 M. Bloch. Die Civilprocess-Ordnung nach mosaisch-rabbinischem 
 Rechte. Budapest. 1882. 
 
 H. B. Fassel. Das mosaisch-rabbinische Civilrecht. Gr. Kanischa. 
 1852-54. 
 
 ss os Das mosaisch-rabbinische Gerichtsverfahren in civil- 
 
 rechtlischen Sachen. Gr. Kanischa, 1859. 
 
 L. Auerbach. Das jiidische Obligationsrecht. Berlin, 1871. 
 
 S.. Keyzer. Dissertatio de tutela secundum jus Talmudicum, Leyden 
 1847, 
 
 f. INHERITANCE AND TESTAMENT, 
 
 L. Bodenheimer. Das Testament. Crefeld, 1847. 
 
 Eduard Gans. Grundztige des mosaisch-talmudischen Erbrechts (in 
 Zunz’ Zeitschrift fir die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 
 p. 419 sq.). 
 
 Moses Mendelssohn. Ritualgesetze der Juden, betreffend Erbschaften 
 Vormundschaft, Testamente etc. Berlin, 1778, and 
 several later editions. 
 
 Joh. Selden. De Successionibus in bona defuncti ad leges Hebrae 
 orum. London, 1646; Frankf., 1696. 
 
 g. Po.icE Law. 
 
 M. Bloch. Das mosaisch-talmudische Polizeirecht. Buda Pest, 
 1873. Transated into English by I. W. Lilienthal in the 
 Hebrew Review Vol. I, Cincinnati 1881. 
 
 h. LAW oF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 
 
 P. Buchholz. Die Familie nach mos.-talmud. Lehre. Breslau, 1867, 
 
 M, Duschak. Das mosaisch-talmudische Eherecht. Vienna, 1864, 
 
 Z. Frankel, Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts. Breslau, 
 1860. 
 
 S. Holdheim, Die Autonomie der Rabbinen und das Princip der 
 jidischen Ehe. Schwerin, 1847, 
 
 1, Lichtschein. Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talm. Auffassung. Leipsic, 
 1879. 
 
M. Mielziner. 
 
 Joh. Selden. 
 
 I. Stern, 
 
 M. Mielziner. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 99 
 
 The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in ancient 
 and modern times, and its relation to the law of the 
 State. Cincinnati, 1884. 
 
 Uxor Ebraica sive de nuptiis et divortiis etc. London, 
 1646. 
 
 Die Frauim Talmud. Zirich, 1879. 
 
 i. LAwWs CONCERNING SLAVERY. 
 
 Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebrdern nach 
 biblischen und talmudischen Quellen, Copenhagen, 
 (Leipsic), 1859. 
 
 An English translation of this treatise was published by Prof. H. 
 I, Schmidt in the Gettysburg Evang. Review vol XIII, No 51, and 
 reprinted in the Am. Jew’s Annual. Cincinnati, 1886. 
 
 I. Winter, 
 Zadok-Kahn. 
 
 66 66 
 
 A. Berliner. 
 Ad. Briill 
 
 N. Brill. 
 
 Jos. Perles. 
 G. Rilf. 
 
 Mich. Sachs. 
 
 Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden. Breslau, 1886. 
 L’esclavage selon la Bible et le Talmud. © Paris, 1867, 
 Sklaverei nach Bibel u. Talmud, Deutsch von Singer. 
 Berlin, 1888. 
 
 TAN, GAUs ED SeliGis: 
 
 Beitrage zur hebréischen Grammatik im Talmud u, 
 Midrasch. Berlin, 1879, 
 
 Fremdsprachliche Redensarten u. Worter in den Tal- 
 muden u. Midraschim. Leipsic, 1869. 
 Fremdsprachliche Worter in den Talmuden u. Midra- 
 schim (in Jahrbiicher fiir jiid. Geschichte u. Literatur I, 
 128.220). Frankf. o. M., 1874. - 
 
 Etymologische Studien zur Kunde der rabbinischen 
 Sprache und Alterthtiimer. Breslau, 1871. 
 
 Zur Lautlehre der aramdisch-talmudischen Dialocte. 
 Breslau, 1879. 
 
 Beitrage zur Sprach-und Alterthumsforschung. 2 
 volumes. Berlin, 1852-54. 
 
 MATHEMATICS. 
 
 B, Zuckermann. Das Mathematische im Talmud, Beleuchtung und 
 
 Elauterung der Talmudstellen mathematischen Inhalts. 
 Breslau, 1878. 
 
100 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 MEDICINE, SURGERY etc. 
 
 Jos. Bergel. Die Medizin der Talmudisten. Leipsic, 1885. 
 
 Joach. Halpern. Beitraige zur Geschichte der talm. Chirurgie. Breslau, 
 1869. 
 
 A. H. Israels. Collectanea Gynaecologica ex Talmude Babylonico. 
 Groningen, 1845. 
 
 L. Katzenelsson. Die Osteologie der Talmudisten. Eine talmudisch- 
 anatonische Studie (in Hebrew). St. Petersbourg, 188%. 
 
 R. I. Wunderbar. Biblisch-talmudische Medicin, 2 volumes. Riga 
 (Leipsic), 1850-60. 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY AND SCIENCES. 
 
 Jos. Bergel. Studien tiber die naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse der 
 Talmudisten. Leipsic, 1880. 
 
 M. Duschak. Zur Botanik des Talmud. Buda Pest, 1870. 
 
 L. Lewysohn. Die Zoologie des Talmuds. Frankf. on the M., 1858. 
 
 Imm. Low. Aramiaische Pflanzennamen. Leipsic, 1881. 
 
 PARSEEISM IN THE TALMUD. 
 Alexander Kohut. Washat die talm. Eschatologie ausdem Parsismus 
 aufgenommen? (in Z, d. D. M. G. vol. XXI pp. 552-91). 
 Oe «“ Die jiidische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihrer 
 - Abhangigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 
 sf ‘© Die talmudisch-midraschische Adamssage in ihrer 
 Riickbeziehung auf die pers. Yima und Meshiasage, 
 in Z. d. D. M. G. XXV pp. 59-94. 
 s «© Die Namen der pers. u. babylonischen Feste im Talmud 
 (in Kobak’s Jeschurun, vol. VIII, 49-61). The same 
 subject in Revue. des Etudes Juives, Vol. XXIV. 
 
 PrOttelen ay: 
 S. Sekles, The Poetry of the Talmud. New York, 1880. 
 PROVERBS, MAXIMS, PARABLES. 
 L. Dukes. Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipsic, 1844. 
 6 ¢ Rabbinische Spruchkunde. ‘Vienna, 1851. 
 
 J. R. Firstenthal. Rabbinische Anthologie. Breslau, 1834. 
 
 Giuseppe Levi. Parabeln, Legenden u. Gedanken aus Talmud u. 
 Midrasch,aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche tibetragen 
 von L. Seligmann. Leipsic, 1863. 
 
 Léwenstein. Sentenzen, Spriiche u. Lebensregeln aus dem Talmud, 
 Berlin, 1887. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 101 
 
 PS, C HOT OIGsy: 
 M. Jacobson. Versuch einer Psychologie des Talmud. Hamburg, 
 1878, 
 I. Wiesner. Zur talmudischen Psychologie (in Magazin fiir judische 
 Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. I, 1874, and II, 1875). 
 
 RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY. 
 
 M. Friedlinder. Ben Dosaund seine Zeit, oder Einfluss der heidnischen 
 Philosophie auf das Judenthum u. Christenthum. 
 Prague, 1872. 
 
 M. Giidemann. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Leipsic, 1876. 
 
 M. Joel. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des II 
 Jahrhunderts. Breslau, 1880. 
 A, Nager, Die Religionsphilosophie des Talmud. Leipsic, 1864, 
 
 SUPERNATURALISM AND SUPERSTITION, 
 
 Gideon Brecher. Das Transcendentale, Magik und magische Heilarten 
 im Talmud. Vienna, 1850. 
 
 David Joel. Der Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu 
 demselben. 2 parts. Breslau, 1881-83. 
 
 Alex. Kohut. Jiidische Angelologie u. Daemonologie in ihrer Abhiin- 
 gigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 
 
 Sal, Thean. Das Princip des planetarischen Einflusses nach der 
 Anschauung des Talmud. Vienna, 1876, 
 
 S, Wolffsohn. Oneirologie im Talmud, oder der Traum nach Auffas- 
 sung des Talmuds. Breslau, 1874. 
 
 POPULAR TREATISES AND LECTURES ON THE TALMUD. 
 
 Tobias Cohn. Der Talmud. Ein Vortrag. Vienna, 1866. 
 
 Emanuel Deutsch. What is the Talmud? (inthe Quarterly Review for 
 October, 1867, reprinted in the Literary Remains, 
 New York, 1874). 
 
 M. Ehrentheil. Der Geist des Talmud. Breslau, 1887, 
 
 Karl Fischer. Gutmeinung tiber den Talmud. Vienna, 1883. 
 
 Sams. Raph. Hirsch. Beziehung des Talmuds zum Judenthum und zur 
 sozialen Stellung seiner Bekenner. Frankf. o. M., 1884, 
 
 P,. I. Hershon. Talmudic Miscellany. London, 1880, 
 
102 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 P. L. Hershon. Treasures of the Talmud. London, 1882. 
 
 Abram S. Isaacs. Stories from the Rabbis. New York. 1893. 
 
 A, Jellinek Der Talmud. Zwei Reden. Vienna, 1865. 
 Der Talmndjude. 4 Reden. Vienna, 1882-83. 
 
 M. Joel. Gutachten tiber den Talmud. Breslau, 1877. 
 
 Albert Katz. Der wahre Talmudjude. Die wichtigsten Grundsatze 
 des talmudischen Schriftthums iber das sittliche Leben 
 des Menschen. Berlin, 1893. 
 
 S. Klein. Die Wahrheit tiber den Talmud, (aus dem Franzésischen 
 “Ta verité sur le Talmud”, tibersetzt von S. Mannheimer, 
 Basel, 1860. 
 
 Isidore Lueb. La Controverse sur le Talmud sous Saint Louis, Paris, 
 1881. 
 
 H. Polano. The Talmud, Selections from the contents of that an- 
 cient book. London, 1876. 
 
 Ludwig Philippson. Zur Characteristik des Talmuds (in ‘‘Welt- 
 bewegende Fragen’. Vol. II, pp. 349-416. Leipsic, 
 
 1869). 
 Em. Schreiber. The Talmud. A series of (4) Lectures. Denver, 1884. 
 L. Stern. Ueber den Talmud. Vortrag. Wurzburg, 1875. 
 J. Stern. Lichtstrahlen aus dem Talmud. Zurich, 1883. 
 
 A. A. Wolff. Talmudfjender (the Enemies of the Talmud),in Danish. 
 Copenhagen, 1878. 
 August Wiinsche. Der Talmud. Eine Skizze. Zurich, 1879. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 
 § 57. 
 
 No literary monument of antiquity has ever been subject to 
 so different and opposite views and opinions, as the Talmud. Its 
 strict followers generally looked upon it as the very embodiment 
 of wisdom and sagacity, and as a work whose authority was 
 second only to that of the Bible. In the non-Jewish literature 
 it was often decried as ‘“‘one of the most repulsive books that 
 exist”, as ‘‘a confused medley of perverted logic, absurd subtile- 
 ties, foolish tales and fables, and full of profanity, superstition 
 and even obscenity”, or at the most, as ‘‘an immense heap of 
 rubbish at the bottom of which some stray pearls of Hastern 
 wisdom are hidden.” 
 
 It is certain that many of those who thus assumed to pass 
 a condemning judgment upon the gigantic work of the Talmud 
 never read nor were able to read a single page of the same in the 
 original, but were prompted by religious prejudice and antag- 
 onism, or they based their verdict merely on those disconnected 
 and often distorted passages which Hisenmenger and his consorts 
 and followers picked out from the Talmud for hostile purposes. 
 
 Christian scholars who had a deeper insight into the Talmud- 
 ical literature, without being blinded by religious prejudices, 
 expressed themselves quite differently on the character and the 
 merits of that work, as may be seen from the following few 
 quotations. 
 
 Johann Buxtorf, in the preface to his Lexicon Chald. et 
 Talmudicum, says: ‘‘The Talmud contains many legal, medical, 
 physical, ethical, political, astronomical, and otner excellent 
 documents of sciences, which admirably commend the history of 
 that nation and time; it contains also luminous decisions of an- 
 tiquity; excellent sayings; deep thoughts, full of grace and sense; 
 and numerous expressions which make the reader not only better, 
 but also more wise and learned, and which, like unto flashing 
 
704 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 jewels, grace the Hebrew speech not less than all those Greck 
 and Roman phrases adorn their languages.” 
 
 Other favorable opinions expressed by Christian scholars of 
 the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries are collected in Karl 
 Fischer’s ‘‘(Gutmeinung iiber den Talmud der Hebrier.” Vienna, 
 1883. 
 
 Of such scholars as belong to our time, the following may be 
 quoted here. 
 
 The late Prof. Delitesch in his ‘‘ Jédisches Handwerkerleben 
 zur Lett Jesu’ Says: 
 
 ‘Those who have not in some degree accomplished the 
 extremely difficult task of reading this work for themselves, will 
 hardly be able to form a clear idea of this polynomical colossus. 
 It is an immense speaking-hall, in which thousands and tens of 
 thousands of voices, of at least five centuries, are heard to com- 
 mingle. A law, as we all know from experience, can never be 
 so precisely formulated that there does not remain room for 
 various interpretations; and question upon question constantly 
 arises as to the application of it to the endless multiplicity of the 
 existing relations of life. Just imagine about ten thousand 
 decrees concerning Jewish life classified according to the spheres 
 of life, and in addition to these, about flve hundred scribes and 
 lawyers, mostly from Palestine and Babylon, taking up one after 
 another of these decrees as the topic of examination and debate, 
 and, discussing with hair-splitting acuteness, every shade of mean- 
 ing and practical application; and imagine, further, that tbe finc- 
 spun thread of this interpretation of decrees is frequently lost in 
 digressions, and that, after having traversed long distances of such 
 desert-sand, you find, here and there, an oasis, consisting of 
 sayings and accounts of more general interest. Then you may 
 have some slight idea of this vast, and ofits kind, unique, juridic 
 codex, compared with whose compass all the law-books of other 
 nations are but Lilliputians, and beside whose variegated, buzzing 
 market din, they represent but quiet study-chambers,” 
 
 J. Alexander, in his book on The Jews; oy Past, Preseny 
 and Future (London, 1870), says: 
 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 105 
 
 “The Talmud, as it now stands, is almost the whole literature 
 of the Jews during a thousand years. Commentator followed 
 upon commentator, till at last the whole became an immense 
 bulk; the original Babylonian Talmud alone consists of 2947 folio 
 pages. Out ofsuch literature it is easy to make quotations which 
 may throw an odium over the whole. But fancy ifthe production 
 ofathousand years of English literature, say, from the ‘‘History” 
 of the venerable Bede to Milton’s ‘‘Paradise Lost,” were thrown 
 together into a number of uniform folios, and judged in like man- 
 ner; if because some superstitions monks wrote silly ‘‘Lives of 
 Saints,” therefore the works of John Bunyan should also be 
 considered worthless. The absurdity is too obvious to require 
 another word from me. Such, however, is the continual treat- 
 ment the Talmud receives both at the hand of its friends and of 
 its enemies. Both will find it easy to quote in behalf of their 
 preconceived notions, but the earnest student will rather try to 
 weigh the matter impartially, retain the good he can find even in 
 the Talmud, and reject what will not stand the test of God’s word.”’ 
 
 Tne impartial view of the Talmud taken by modern Jewish 
 scholars may be seen from the following opinion expressed by 
 the late Prof. Graetz in his ‘History of the Jews” (vol. IV. 
 308 sq.). 
 
 ‘‘The Talmud must not be considered as an ordinary literary 
 work consisting of twelve folios; it bears not the least internal 
 resemblance to a single literary production; but forms a world 
 of its own which must be judged according to its own laws. It 
 is, therefore, extremely difficult to furnish a specific sketch of the 
 Talmud, seeing that a familiar standard or analogy is wanting. 
 And however thoroughly a man of consummate talent may have 
 penetrated its spirit and become conversant with its peculiarities, 
 he would scarcely succeed in such a task. It may, in some 
 respects, be compared with the Patristic literature, which sprang 
 up simultaneously. But on closer inspection, this comparison 
 will also fail.... 
 
 The Talmud has at different times been variously judged 
 on the most heterogeneous assumptions; it has been condemned 
 and consigned to the flames, simply because it was presente 
 
106 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRDUCTION. 
 
 in its unfavorable aspect without taking into consideration its 
 actual merits. It cannot be denied that the Babylonian Tal- 
 mud labors under some defects, like any other mental product, 
 which pursues a single course with inexorable consistency and 
 undeviating dogmatism. These defects may be classified under 
 four heads: the Talmud contains some unessential and trivial 
 subjects, which it treats with much importance and a serious 
 air; it has adopted from its Persian surroundings superstitious 
 practices and views, which. presuppose the agency of interme- 
 diate spiritual beings, witchcraft, exorcising formulas, magical 
 cures and interpretations of dreams and, hence, are in conflict 
 with the spirit of Judaism; it further contains several uncharit- 
 able utterances and provisions against members of other na- 
 tions and creeds; lastly it favors a bad interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, absurd, forced and frequently false commentations. For 
 these faults the whole Talmud has been held responsible and 
 been denounced as a work devoted to trifles, as a source of im- 
 morality and trickery, without taking into consideration, that 
 it is not a work ofa single author who must be responsible 
 for every word, and if it be so, then the whole Jewish people 
 was its author. Over six centuries are crystallized in the Tal- 
 -Iud with animated distinctness, in their peculiar costumes, 
 modes of speech and of thought, so to say aliterary Herculaneum 
 and Pompeii, not weakened by artistic imitation, which trans- 
 fers a colossal picture to the narrow limits of a miniature. It is, 
 therefore, no wonder, if inthis world sublime and mean, great 
 and small, serious and ridiculous, Jewish and heathen elements, 
 the altar and the ashes, are found in motley mixture. Those 
 odious dicta of which Jew-haters have taken hold, were in 
 most cases nothing else but the utterances of a momentary in- 
 dignatian, to which an individual had given vent and which were 
 preserved and embodied in the Talmud by over-zealous disci- 
 ples, who were unwilling to omit a single expression of the 
 revered ancients. But these utterances are richly counterbal- 
 anced by the maxims of benevolence and philanthropy towards 
 every man, regardless of creed and nationality, which are also 
 preserved inthe Talmud. As counterpoise to the rank super- 
 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD, 107 
 
 stition, there are found therein sharp warnings against supersti- 
 tious, heathen practices (Darke Emori), to which subject a 
 whole section, under the name of Perek Emorai, is devoted.1 
 
 “The Babylonian Talmud is especially characterized and 
 distinguished from the Palestinian, by high-soaring contempla- 
 tions, a keen understanding, and flashes of thought which fit- 
 fully dart through the mental horizon. An incalculable store 
 of ideas and incentives to thinking is treasured in the Talmud, 
 but not in the form of finished themes that may be appropriated 
 in a semi-somnolent state, but with the fresh coloring of their 
 inception. The Babylonian Talmud leads into the laboratory 
 of thought, and its ideas may be traced from their embryonic 
 motion up to a giddy height, whither they at times soar into the 
 region of the incomprehensible. For this reason it became, 
 more than the Jerusalemean, the national property, the vital 
 breath, the soul of the Jewish people——”. 
 
 WHY STUDY THE TALMUD ? 
 § 58. 
 
 Some years ago, the author addressed the Classes of the 
 Hebrew Union College on this question. An abstract of that 
 address may find here a proper place for the benefit of younger 
 students: 
 
 Upon resuming our labors for a new scholastic year, I wish 
 to address the students regarding that branch of instruction 
 which I have the privilege of teaching in the collegiate classes 
 of this institution. I wish to answer the question: 
 
 FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO WE STUDY THE TALMUD? 
 
 There was a time—and it is not so very long since it passed 
 by—there was a time when such a question would scarcely 
 have entered into the mind of one who was preparing for the 
 Jewish ministry. For the Talmud was then still regarded as 
 theembodiment of all religious knowledge ail Jewish lore. 
 Its authority was considered second only to that of the Bible, 
 its study regarded asa religious service, a God-pleasing work in 
 
 1 Sabbath 66a; Toseptha ch. VII, VIII. 
 
108 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 which all pious and literate men in Israel were engaged, even 
 those who did not aspire to a rabbinical office. He, to whom 
 the Talmud was a ¢erra incognita was looked upon as an Am 
 fTfa’arets, a rustic and illiterate man, who had no right to ex- 
 press an opinion in religious matters. How then could he who 
 wanted to become a religious guide and leader in Israel ask, 
 for what purpose is the Talmud to be studied ? The Talmudic 
 literature was the very source of the Jewish law. By it all 
 conditions of the religious and moral life were ordered. How 
 could a rabbi expect to be able to answer and decide the many 
 religious questions laid before him daily, without a thorough 
 acquaintance with that source ? 
 
 But it is quite different in our time, which looks upon the 
 Talmud with less reverential eyes. The mere study of its lite- 
 rature is not any longer considered a religious act that secures 
 eternal bliss and salvation; neither is the Talmud any longer 
 regarded as the highest authority by whose dicta questions of 
 religion and conscience are to be finally decided. 
 
 Of what use is the study of the Talmud in our time ? Is it 
 nowadays absolutely necessary even for the Jewish theologian, 
 yr aJewish minister,to cultivate this hard and abstruse braneh 
 of literature ? Would it not be more useful if our students in- 
 stead of devoting a part of their valuable time to this obsolete 
 and antiquated study would apply it to some other branch of 
 knowledge which is of more import to, and has more bearing 
 upon the present time? 
 
 It sometimes seemed to me as if I could read this question 
 from the faces of some of our students during the Talmudic in- 
 struction, especially when we ‘ust happened to have before us 
 some abstruse passages in the Talmud in which seemingly quite 
 indifferent and trifling subjects are minutely treated in lengthy 
 discussions, or where the whole train of thought widely differs 
 from modern conception and modern ways of thinking. 
 
 Nay, Ihave even heard such a question from the tips of 
 men who take great interest in our college, of earnest and judi- 
 cious men who are highly educated and versed in our literature 
 and who themselves in their yonth imbibed spiritual draughts 
 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 10¢ 
 
 from the Talmudic fountain. Why trouble our students with 
 that irksome and useless branch of literature. why not instead 
 of it rather take up other subjects of more modern thought? 
 
 Let us, therefore, shortly consider the question: For what 
 purpose do we study the Talmud, or why is that study wndispen- 
 sable for every one who prepares for the Jewish ministry ? 
 
 In the first place, my young friends, I wish to call your at 
 tention to the fact that the Talmud is a product of the mental 
 labors of our sages and teachers during a period of eight hun- 
 dred to one thousand years, and that the pages of this volumin- 
 ous literary work offer a natural reflection of whatever the 
 Jewish mind has thought, perceived and felt during that long 
 period under the most different circumstances and times, under 
 joyful and gloomy events, under elevating and oppressing in- 
 Auences. 
 
 I beg you to consider furthermore what a powerful and 
 decided influence this gigantic literary work after its final con- 
 clusion has exercised upon the mind and the religious and mo- 
 rat life of the professors of Judaism during fourteen centuries 
 up to our time. Consider, how it is to be ascribed to their 
 general occupation with, and veneration for the Talmud that 
 our ancestors during the dark centuries of the Middle Ages did 
 not become mentally hebetated and morally corrupted, in spite 
 of the degradation and systematic demoralization which they 
 had been exposed to. For while the study of the more dialectic 
 part of that literature preserved their intellectual powers ever 
 fresh and active and developed some of the greatest minds, the 
 reading of those popular sayings and impressive moral and re- 
 ligious maxims with which the Talmudic writings are so amply 
 provided, fostered even within our masses that unshaken faith- 
 fulness and that unparalleled firmness of character by which 
 they resisted all persecutions and all alluring temptations. 
 
 Take all this into gonsideration, and you will perceive that 
 none can expect to know and understand Judaism as histori- 
 eally developed, without knowing the Talmud, without being 
 familiar with the spirit cf that vast literature which proved 
 
110 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 such a powerful agency in the development of Judaism and in 
 its preservation. 
 
 Let me also tell you, that he is greatly mistaken who ima 
 gines that modern Judaism can entirely discard and disregard 
 the Talmud in religious questions. Although its authority is 
 not any longer respected as absolutely binding, albeit under. 
 the changed circumstances in which we are living, many laws 
 and customs treated and enjoined in the Talmud have become 
 obsolete and impracticable, and though many religious views ex- 
 pressed by the Talmudists are rejected as incompatible with 
 modern thoughts and conceptions, it is a fact, that Juda- 
 ism nowadays still rests on the foundation which is laid down 
 inthe Talmud. Thus for instance, the elements of our ritual 
 prayers and the arrangement of our public service, our festive 
 calendar and the celebration of some of our holiest festivals, 
 the marriage law and innumerable forms and customs of the re- 
 ligious life are, though more or less modified and fashioned ac- 
 cording to the demands of our time, still on the whole permeat- 
 ed and governed by the Talmudic principles and regulations. 
 
 You can therefore never expect to have a full and clear 
 insight into our relgious institutions without being able to go 
 to the source from which they emanated. 
 
 I could also speak of the great importance of the Talmud 
 in so far as it contains a vast fund of informations which are of 
 decided value to general history and literature and to different 
 branches of science, but I will remind you only of its great sig- 
 nificance in regard to two branches of knowledge which are of 
 vital import to Jewish theology and the Jewish ministry. I 
 refer to the interpretation of the Bible and to Ethics. 
 
 The great value of the Talmud for Bible exegesis and Bible 
 criticism is generally acknowledged even by non-Jewish scholars. 
 
 In regard to its value for Hthics I shall quote here a pas- 
 sagefroman elaborate and lucid article on the Talmud which the 
 venerable Rabbi Dr. Samuel Adler in New York published lately 
 in one of the American Encyclopedias. He says: 
 
 ‘With the consideration of the ethical significance of the 
 Talmud we approach the highest level, the crowning portion of 
 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 111 
 
 the whole work. Not but that we meet with passages that 
 must be rejected by a pure morality; prevailing views and em- 
 bittering experiences have certainly exercised a disturbing in- 
 fluence on the ethical views of various spiritual heroes of the 
 Talmud; but these are isolated phenomena, and disappear, com- 
 pared with the moral elevation and purity of the overwhelming 
 majority of the men of the Talmud, and compared with the spirit 
 that animates the work as a whole. What is laid down as the 
 moral law in the Talmud can still defy scrutiny at the present 
 day; and the very numerous examples of high moral views and 
 actions on the part of the Talmudists are such as can not be 
 found in any work of antiquity, and must still excite the admir- 
 ation of the reader of the present day, in spite of the ceremonial 
 fetters which they bore, and in spite of the occasional narrow- 
 ness of their point of view.” 
 
 To impress you the more with the necessity of the Talmudic 
 studies for a clear conception of Judaism and its history, I could 
 also quote the opinions of many of our greatest scholars, but 
 shall confine myself only to a quotation from the writings of two 
 of our most renowned scholars whom none will suspect of hav- 
 ing been biased by a too great predilection for the Talmud; one 
 is the late Dr. Geiger, and the other our great historian, the 
 late Dr. Jost. 
 
 k 
 Geiger (Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte I. p. 155) in 
 speaking of the Talmud and the rabbinical literature, says: 
 
 “Gigantic works, productions of gloomy and brighter per- 
 iods are here before us, monuments of thought and intellectual 
 labor; they excite onr admiration. I do not indorse every 
 word of the Talmud, nor every idea expressed by the teachers 
 in the time of the Middle Ages, but I would not miss a tittle 
 thereof. They contain an acumen and power of thought which 
 fill us with reverénce for the spirit that animated our ancestors, 
 a fulness of sound sense, salutary maxims—a freshness of opinion 
 often bursts upon us that even to this day exercises its enlive- 
 ning and inspiring effect.” 
 
112 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Jost in his Geschichte des Judenthum's und sciner Secten IU., 
 202, characterizes the Talmud by the following masterly words: 
 
 “The Talmud is a great mine, in which are imbedded all 
 varieties of metals and ores. Here may be found all kinds of 
 valuables, the finest gold and rarest gems, as also the merest 
 dross. Much has been unearthed that has realized countless 
 profit to the world. The great spiritual work whose outcome 
 has been apparent in the advancement of religion has shown 
 that the Talmud is not only of incalculable value in the pursuit 
 of wisdom, but that it has a self-evident significance for all times, 
 which can not be shown by any mere extracts from its pages, 
 and that it can not be disregarded on the plea of its antiquit 
 as valueless in the knowledge of the Jewish religion. Indeed 
 it is and must remain the chief source of this knowledge, and 
 particularly ofthe historical development of the Jewish religion. 
 More than this, it is the abode of that spirit which has inspired 
 that religion, these many centuries, that spirit from which even 
 those who sought to counteract it could not escape. It is and 
 willremain a labyrinth with deep shafts and openings, in which 
 isolated spirits toil with tireless activity, a labyrinth which 
 offers rich rewards to those who enter impelled by the 
 desire to gain, not without hidden dangers to those who venture 
 wantonly into its mazes and absorb its deadly vapors. Re- 
 ligion has created this work, not indeed to give utterance in an 
 unsatisfactory way to the great questions of Deity and Nature, 
 Mortality and Eternity, and not to carry on controversies upon 
 the proper formulation of articles of faith, but to give expres- 
 sion to a religion of deed, a religion designed to accompany 
 man from the first steps in his education until he reaches the 
 grave, and beyond it; a guide by which his desires and actions 
 are to be regulated at every moment, by which all his move- 
 ments are to be guarded, that takes care even of his food and 
 drink, of his pleasures and pains, of his mirth and sorrow, and 
 seeks to elevate him, at all times, to an enunciation of the pur- 
 est faith. 
 
 It is thus that this spirit, which breathes from the 'l'almud, 
 enters into the nation’s inmost life. It offers repeated recitals 
 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 113 
 
 of the various modes of thinking, practising, believing, of the 
 true and false representations, of hopes and longings, of know- 
 ledge and error, of the great lessons of fate, of undertakings 
 and their consequences, of utterances and their effects, of per- 
 sons and their talents and inaptitudes, of words and examples, 
 of customs, both in matters of public worship and private life; 
 in short, of all the happenings, past or cotemporary, in the 
 time which the Talmud comprises, 2. ¢., a period of nearly one 
 thousand years, excluding the Bible times. 
 
 Hence, also, its great value to antiquarians in the frequent 
 allusions to facts, opinions and statements, to modes of expres- 
 sion and grammatical construction, to peculiarities of every 
 kind, which at the same time afford a view of the development 
 of mankind, such as no other work of the past gives. 
 
 To treat the Talmud with scorn because of its oddnes, on 
 account of much that it contains that does not conform to our 
 maturer modes of thinking, because of its evident errors and 
 misconceptions—errors from ignorance or errors in copying,— 
 to throw it overboard, as it were, as useless ballast, would be 
 to insult all history, to deprive it of one of its strongest limbs, to 
 dismember it. 
 
 To dam up its channels by taking away the Talmud, would 
 be to close the access to the head waters and living sources of 
 the Jewish religion, and thus leave her again in a desert land, 
 after the tables of the law have already called forth a world of 
 life and activity. It would be turning one’s back, as it were, 
 denying and disregarding one’s own. ‘There is a historical jus- 
 tification for the sharply defined modes of worship and religious 
 forms that have their embodiment in set words and in fixed 
 deeds. For this we must look to the Talmud. Judaism is 
 
 rooted in the Talmud and would be tossed about in mid-air if — 
 
 torn from its soil,or require a new planting and a new growth.” 
 In conclusion, my young friends, let me say this: 
 If our College had no other purpose than to graduate com- 
 mon Sabbath school teachers who should be able to occasional- 
 ly deliver popular though superficial lectures, the study of the 
 
 —s* 
 
114 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Talmud as wellas that of our rabbinical and philosophical litera- 
 ture, might have been stricken from the course of your studies. 
 But our College has a higher aim and object. Its object is to 
 educate future guides and leaders of our congregations, to edu- 
 cate banner-bearers of Judaism, representatives and cultivators 
 of Jewish knowledge and literature. 
 
 You can never expect to answer this purpose without a 
 thorough knowledg> of, and familiarity with, that vast literature 
 that offers us the means to follow and understand the religious 
 formation, the growth and the entire course of development of 
 Judaism from its beginning to the present time.” 
 
AT elie 
 
 LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 
 

 
LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 a. DEFINITION. 
 
 Sat 
 
 Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation or of explain- 
 ing the meaning ofan author’s words, according to certain 
 rules. The term is especially applied to the exegesis or inter- 
 pretation of the sacred Scripture. 
 
 Although hermeneutics and exegesis are synonyms, as both 
 words from which they are derived éeunvevery and éény ei6San 
 mean to explain, interpret, still literary usage makes that differ- 
 ence betweenthem, that the term ermeneutics refers to that 
 branch of science which establishes the principles and rules of 
 interpretation, while exegesis is the actual application of those 
 principles and rules. 
 
 By Legal Hermeneutics of the Talmud we understand 
 an exposition of those principles and rules which the teachers 
 of the Talmud established in their interpretation of the Biblic- 
 al Law. 
 
 b. METHODS OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 § 2. 
 
 The Ta'mud distinguishes between two methods of Script- 
 ural interpretation, one which is termed /esha/, and the 
 other Derash. 
 
 Peshat (ww) is the plain interpretation, where a law or a 
 passage in Scripture is explained in the most natural way ac- 
 cording to the letter, the grammatical construction, and 
 the spirit of the passage. Hence the talmudic phrase: muws 
 Spt the plain meaning, the immediate and primary sense of a 
 Scriptural passage (Chullin 6a). 
 
118 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 Derash (from ws to search, investigate) is that method 
 by which it is intended, for certain reasons, to interpret a 
 passage in a more artificial way which often deviates from the 
 plain aud natural meaning. The result of this method of inter- 
 pretation is termed yy that which is searched out, the artifi- 
 cial deduction, as ‘5 wot wast my this artificial interpretation 
 was made by that certain teacher, Mishna Shekalim VI, 6. 
 
 As an illustration of these two methods of interpretation 
 we refer to the following passage in Deut. XXIV, 16. inp 5 
 AAV DS 2p OSs 
 
 ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
 neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers.” The 
 plain and natural meaning of this passage is that the family of a 
 criminal shall not be involved in his punishment. But the arti- 
 ficial interpretation of the Rabbis which is also adopted in the 
 Targum Onkelos takes the word 5y in the sense of mya 
 through the testimony, and explains this passage to the effect 
 that the testimony of relatives must never be accepted in a crim- 
 inal or civil case. Talm. Sanhedrin fol. 27b. 
 
 c. TWO KINDS oF MIDRASH. 
 
 Se. 
 
 There are two kinds of Midrash. Where the interprcta- 
 tion bears on the enactment or determination of a law, be it 
 a ritual, ceremonial, civil, or criminal law, it is called wasn 
 nbn Interpretation of Halacha, or legal interpretation. 
 
 But where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments 
 and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and signi- 
 ficance of the laws or where it only uses the words of Scripture 
 as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruc- 
 tion and consolation, it is called A738 wasy Interpretation of 
 the Agada, homiletical interpretation. 
 
 The following examples will illustrate both kinds of Midrash. 
 
 1) In Lev. XIX, 3 the law reads: IN7°M P2Ni ION woN 
 ‘‘Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father”. In the 
 interpretation of this passage the Rabbis explain that the ex- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 119 
 
 pression ws every man must here not be taken in its literal 
 sense, as if referring to the man (the son) only, and not also to 
 woman (the daughter), for the plural form ‘‘ye shall fear” in- 
 cludes the daughter as wellas the son in this divine injunction 
 of filial respect and obedience: 
 
 2 pao TWN wes Noe 05 pS wo 
 Dw [SD MTN IDS NInw 
 Talm. Kiddushin 30b. 
 
 This is Midrash Halacha, as it concerns the determination 
 of the law. 
 
 Commenting on the same passage, the Rabbis further ex- 
 plain why in this passage the first place is given to the mother, 
 while in the decalogue where filial love to parents is command- 
 ed, the father is mentioned first. The reason offered is, 
 that as a rule children fear the father, but love the mother more 
 particularly. (Ibid. fol. 31a.) This explanation belongs rather 
 to the Agada. 
 
 2) In Exodus XX, 25 the law reads: ‘‘And if thou wilt 
 make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it (jms) of 
 hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy iron tool upon it, thou hast 
 polluted it.” 
 
 The Midrash Halacha of this passage emphasizes the ob- 
 jective pronoun WAS and concludes that the prohibition of 
 hewn stones is restricted to the altar only, but in building the 
 temple such stones may be used: 
 
 S595 mrs TIS TOs ODN A TID AN ON 1D 
 Mechilta, Yithro XI. 
 
 The Midrash Agada to this passage explains ingeniously 
 the reason why the application of iron is here called a pollution 
 of the altar; it is because iron abridges life, the altar prolongs 
 it; iron causes destruction and misery, the altar produces re- 
 conciliation between God and man; and therefore the use of 
 iron cannot be allowed in making the altar. (Mechilta ibid. ; 
 compare also Mishna Middoth III, 4.) 
 
120 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 The hermeneutic rules for Midrash Agada resemble in 
 many respects those of Midrash Halacha, in others they differ. 
 We propose to treat here especially of the Hermeneutics of 
 the Halacha. 
 
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MIDRASH HALACHA. 
 
 a. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NECESSITATED ARTIFICIAL 
 INTERPRETATION, 
 
 § 4, 
 
 Ever since the time of Ezra, the Scribe, and especially 
 since the religious and political revival under the Maccabees, 
 the law embodied in the Pentateuch was generally looked upon 
 as the rule of Israel’s life. But side by side with this wrztten 
 law, ANDaw ANN, went an unwritten, oral law Fb oyow Pinhiate 
 
 This consisted partly of a vast store of religious and na- 
 tional customs and usages which had been established in the 
 course of several centuries and handed down orally from gen- 
 eration to generation; partly of decrees and ordinances enacted 
 according to exigencies of the changed times and cir- 
 cumstances by the Sopherim and the succeeding authorities, 
 the Sanhedrin. 
 
 As long as the validity of this oral law had not been 
 questioned, there was no need of founding it on a Scriptural 
 basis. It stood on its own footing, and was shielded by the 
 authority of tradition. From the time hovever when the 
 
 ~Sadducean ideas began to spread, which tended to undermine 
 the authority of the traditional law and reject everything not_ 
 founded on the Scriptures, the effort was made by the teachers 
 to place the traditions under the shield of the word of the 
 Thora. To accomplish this task, the plain and natural inter- 
 pretation did not always suffice. More artificial methods had 
 to be devised by which the sphere of the written law could be 
 extended so as to offer a basis and support for every traditional 
 law and observance, and, at the same time, to enrich the sub- 
 stance of this law with new provisions for cases not yet provi- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 12) 
 
 ded for. This artificial interpretation which originated in the 
 urgent desire to ingraft the traditions on the stem of Seripture 
 or harmonize the oral with the written law, could, of course, in 
 many instances not be effected without strained constructions 
 and the exercise of some violence on the biblical text,’ as is illus- 
 trated in the following example. 
 
 It was arule of law established by tradition, firstly, that 
 judicial decisions are rendered by a majority of votes; secondly 
 that in capital cases, the majority of one vote was sufficient for 
 the acquittal, but for the condemnation a majority of at least 
 two votes was required; thirdly that in taking the votes in a 
 criminal case, it must be commenced from the youngest judge, 
 in order that his opinion and vote shall not be influenced by 
 that of his older colleagues. 
 
 When the question came up to find a biblical basis for 
 these rules, reference was made to the following passage in Ex. 
 XXIII, 2 which reads: 
 
 moiyad> oan sans monn xd 
 mond oan sins minad an Sp mayn so 
 
 “Thou shalt not follow the many to evil, neither shalt thou 
 speak in a case to deviate after the many to pervert justice”. 
 
 In its simple sense this passage is a warning for the judge 
 as well as for the witness not to be influenced by the unjust 
 
 1 This effort to base traditional institutions and usages on the 
 written law is not without a certain parallel-though under quite differ- 
 ent circumstances and influences—in the history of jurisprudence . 
 among other nations, as may be seen from the following interesting 
 notice in Lieber’s ‘‘Legal and Political Hermeneutics,” page 239. Speak- 
 ing of the law which grew upin the course of centuries by the combina- 
 tion of the lex scripta, or Roman law, with the customs of the various 
 nations that received it, he says: ‘‘A favorite field for the exercise of 
 professional ingenuity was the interpretation of the Roman law in such 
 manner as to find therein formal written authority for the institutions, 
 rules and usages that the Germanic races had inherited from their 
 ancestors. Fora century past it has been one of the chief tasks of the 
 continental jurists, and especially of the class among them known as 
 Germanists, to restore these remains of national law to their original 
 shape, free from the distortions and disguises forced upon them by 
 this Romanizing process.” 
 
122 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 opinion of the multitude in a law suit, but to follow his own 
 conviction in giving his vote or his testimony. But the arti- 
 ficial interpretation forced upon this passage a different mean- 
 ing. By separating the last three words mind od “ns from 
 the context and forming them as aseparate sentence:the Rabbis 
 found therein an express biblical precept ‘‘to lean to the major- 
 ity”, that is, to decide doubtful cases by a majority of votes. 
 The first part of the passage ‘‘thou shalt not follow the many 
 to evil” was interpreted to mean ‘‘do not follow the simple maj- 
 ority (of one) for condemnation, as for the acquittal, but it re- 
 quires at least a majority of two votes to condemn the accused 
 (Mishna Sanhedrin I, 6) 
 
 The word 3% in the middle part of the passage, being 
 here exceptionally written in the text without a mater lectionis 
 35, So as to admit the word to be read RadA (the superior), one 
 of the Babylonian teachers made use of this circumstance to in- 
 terpret a5 Sy myn x5 “thou shalt not express thy opinion af- 
 ter the superior”, hence the younger members of a criminal 
 court have to vote first (Talm. Sanhedrin 36a). 
 
 Conclusions derived by authoritative interpretations from 
 the Mosaic Law were, in general, endowed with the same au- 
 thority and sanctity as the clear utterances of that Law, and 
 termed FANN jp or, in the Aramaic form, Sn (derived 
 from the Biblical law). 
 
 In many instances, however, the Talmudic teachers freely 
 admit that the meaning which they put upon the text was not 
 the plain and natural interpretation; that ‘‘the natural sense 
 ofa passage must never be lost sight of”’, and that their strain- 
 
 > Maimonides (‘3 wyw nyypn ‘p) holds that laws derived from 
 the Mosaic law by means of the hermeneutic rules are, in general, not 
 to be regarded as biblical laws (A7\nn jd) except when expressly char- 
 acterized as such in the Talmud. But this somewhat rational view 
 is strongly criticized by Nachmanides (in his annotations to that book) 
 who shows that from the Talmudical standpoint every law which 
 the Rabbis derived by the authoritative interpretation from sacred 
 Scripture, has the character and sanctity of a Mosaic Law. 
 
 PDIWD MO NY Spon psx Sabbath 63a; Yebamoth 11b; 24a. 
 
INTRODUCTION. $235 
 
 ed interpretation must be regarded merely as an attempt ‘‘to 
 provide an established custom and law with a Biblical sup- 
 port”. 
 
 Remark. There are some legal traditions of an ancient date most- 
 ly concerning the ritual law, for which the Rabbis were unable to find 
 a biblical support or even a mere hint. They are termed pwnd nabn 
 ‘DY ‘‘traditional laws handed down from Moses on Sinai”. That this 
 phrase is not to be taken literally, but often as merely intended to desig- 
 nate a very old tradition the origin of which cannot be traced, is evid- 
 ent from Mishna Eduyoth VIII, 7. Maimonides in the introduction to 
 his Mishna Commentary enumerates the traditions mentioned in the 
 Talmud by that appellation to the number of twenty three. This enu- 
 meration, however has been found not to be quite correct, as the tradi- 
 tions designated by that name actually amount to the number of fifty 
 five. Compare Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, 227-2382. 
 
 b. THE EARLIEST COLLECTION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
 
 § 5. 
 
 Hillel the Elder. who flourished abount a century before 
 the destruction of the second temple, is mentioned as having 
 been the first to lay down certain hermeneutic rules (mip), 
 seven in number, for the purpose of expounding the written 
 law and extending 1ts provisions. Some of these rules were 
 probably already known before Hillel, though not generally 
 applied; but it was his merit to have fixed them as standard 
 rules of legal interpretation. The headings of his seven rules 
 are : 
 
 1. Dim rey the inference from minor and major. 
 2. mw my, the analogy of expressions. ; 
 3. INN DNDN SN p32, the generalization of one special 
 provision. 
 sh) Sahtablc cob Stedman hss pss, the generalization of two special 
 provisions. 
 FP syapy qo29 wyD9DN) 19999 NDS Erubin 4b; Succah 28a; Kidd, 
 
 Qa. Compare also the phrase: xodoyn NMDCDN Np Berachoth 41b; 
 Yoma 80b; B. Metzia 88b and elsewhere very often used. 
 
124 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 5. taps 555, the effect of general and particular terms. 
 
 6. “MS pip S3.NBYD, the analogy made from another 
 passage. 
 
 7. se3po soma, the explanation derived from the 
 context. 
 
 These seven rules of Hillel having later been embodied in 
 the system of R. Ishmael, their fuller contents and application 
 will be explained in the exposition of the single rules of that sys- 
 tem.? 
 
 c. A NEW METHOD OF INTERPRETATION INTRODUCED 
 BY NAHUM. 
 
 § 6. 
 
 Besides the seven rules of Hillel which were generally 
 adopted,some other peculiar methods of interpreting the Scrip- 
 ture were introduced by succeeding teachers for the sake of 
 making new deductions from the writtenlaw. Thus Wahum of 
 Gimzo, a contemporary of R. Johanan ben Zaccai, vriginated a 
 method which is termed pips) 35 the extension and limitation. 
 According to this method certain particles and conjunctions 
 employed in the Mosaic law were intended to indicate the ex- 
 tension or limitation of its provisions, so as to include the ad- 
 ditions of tradition, or exclude what tradition excludes, As 
 extensions were regarded especially the words: QS ON D2 and 
 52, and as limitations the words: 4y, yD and pr. 
 
 This method is illustrated by the following examples: 
 
 1) The word my which marks the direct objective case 
 agrees in form with the preposition mS w/z. Hence this word 
 in the passage Deut. X, 20: syn TON 179 FS is interpreted 
 oopon adn misnd “It is to include the wise men”, who are 
 to be revered along with God (Pesachim 22b.). 
 
 2) The principle that ‘‘acts done through our agent are 
 as if done by ourselves”, is derived from the passage Numbers 
 XVIII, 28: ons oi ann ja ‘Thus ye also shall offer an 
 "1 These seven rules of Hillel are quoted in Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. 
 
 VII; Aboth of R. Nathan ch. XX XVII and in the introductory chapter 
 of the Siphra. 
 
INTRODUCTION 125 
 
 heave offering”, by interpreting: mown ms misn> 2 ‘this 
 also is to include your agent; he may offer your heave offering in 
 your place”. Kiddushin 41b. 
 
 3) That the rigorous precepts of the Sabbath do not 
 apply to cases where life is in danger (w53 mip’5), is derived 
 from the limiting word 4 inthe passage Exod. XXXI, 13: 
 Mawr ominay AS IN: “merely my Sabbaths you shall keep” 
 by interpreting pon? uty this ‘‘merely” excludes such cases. 
 Yoma 85b. 
 
 d. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS METHOD BY R. AKIBA.- 
 
 Ses 
 
 This new method of R. Nahum of Gimzo was not general 
 ly approved by his contemporaries. One of its opponents was 
 R. Nehunia ben Hakana who insisted upon retaining only the 
 rules of Hillel.! But in the following generation, the celebrat- 
 ed Rk. Akiba resumed the method of his former teacher Nahum 
 of Gimzo, and developed it into a system. The underlying 
 principle of that system was that the language of the Zhora 
 differs from human language. ‘The latter often uses more 
 words, to express ideas, than necessary; superflous words being 
 inserted either for the sake of grammatical form or for the sake 
 of rhetorical flourish and emphasis. Not so the language in 
 which the divine law was framed. Here not a word, not a 
 syllable and not even a letter is superfluous, but all is ase 
 and of vital importance to define the intention of alaw and to 
 hint at deductions to be made therefrom. According to this 
 principle the indication of an extension and limitation of the 
 law is not confined to those few particles pointed out by 
 Nahum of Gimzo, but every word or part thereof which is not 
 absolutely indispensable to express the sense of the law is de- 
 signed to enlarge or restrict the sphere of its provisions. 
 
 Thus R. Akiba and the followers of his system found indi- 
 cations for the intended extension of a law in the repetition of 
 
 1 See Talm. Shebuoth 26a. 
 
126 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 
 
 a word'; inthe absolute infinitive joined with the finite forms 
 of a verb;” in the conjunction {x ‘and in the conjunctive 5 . In- 
 dications for an intended limitation of the law are found by 
 laying stress either ona demonstrative pronoun,® or on the 
 definite article 7°, or on the pergonal prenoun added to a 
 verb’, or on a pronominal suffix® or on any noun’ or verb!’° 
 occurring in that law. 
 
 The new hermeneutic rules which R. Akiba thus added to 
 those of Hillel and Nahum offered entirely new ways and means 
 to find a Scriptural basis for the oral laws, and to enrich its 
 substance with many valuable deductions. 
 
 e. R. ISHMAEL’S RULES. 
 
 § 8. 
 
 The ingenious system of R. Akiba,though received with ad- 
 miration by many of his contemporaries, had also its opponents. 
 One of the most prominent among these was R. Ishmael b. 
 Elisha. He claimed: oc 533 mw rabrhimirminhahr te cu MiYes warmer ae 
 
 Law speaks in the ordinary language of Men”. Therefore, no ) 
 
 special weight ought to be attached to its turns of speech and 
 repetitions so customary in human language. He consequently 
 rejected most of the deductions which R. Akiba based on a 
 
 seemingly pleonastic word, superfluous syllable or letter, and ~ 
 
 1 f, i, Pesachim 36a: FI NY NNy; Yebamoth 70a: y*~KN vx 
 Sayn nad compare also Shebuoth 4b: oby9) o5y9) ; 
 
 2 Sanhedrin 64b pian ni2n; B. Metzia 31 a.b. opwn awn, ndbw 
 nbwn, anyn ary ete. 
 
 * Sanhedrin 34b: nyanb nat 1; B. Kamma 53b: pdon nx miand i. 
 
 ‘Sanhedrin 51b: nyand nay na; Yebamoth 68b ; mr wett ya; 
 compare also Kethuboth 108a: 5y3n NN nN maid ayn. 
 
 ® Horioth 9a: MINN PR Jaap at; Chulin 42a: AN ANT MN 
 xd nins. 
 
 ° Pesachim 5a: (Hy) ny *S and pwxan wR xp Ino. 
 
 7 Maccoth 2b: p01 xd) N17 DIN" $4; compare also Horioth 12b: 
 sim S/n. 
 
 ® Kiddushin 17b: yan nw xdy pdwyd ayn; Sanhedrin 46a in mnt 
 amis 851 
 
 * Kiddushin 18a: yaaa xd) 1n2232;Sanhedrin 52a: pd DID vN. 
 
 1° Gittin 20a: ppn xd) 3n>); Kiddushin 64a: pAyiy o $n pon by 
 OID PN 
 
 > vi 
 
INTRODUCTION. 127 
 
 | admitted only such deductions which could be justified by the 
 
 \spirit of the passage of law under consideration. As standard 
 rules for interpretation he recognized only those laid down by 
 Hillel which he however enlarged to thirteen by subdividing 
 some of them, omitting one, and adding a new one of his own. 
 
 The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are: 
 
 i slehiny 2p identical with Hillel’s Rule I. 
 
 Dae ee ase identical with Hillel’s Rule II. 
 
 oy ISS pal contraction of Hillel’s Rules III and IV. 
 
 4 maps 555 
 
 o 5553 AD subdivision of Hillel’s Rule V. 
 
 6 555; 011555 
 
 7. 8. 9. 10 and 11 are modifications of Hillel’s Rule V. 
 
 12 spon mada aati aysyo 355 127 with some addition 
 identical with Hallel’s Rule VII. 
 
 13 FAT ANT Oowndon oan {3y, this rule is not at all 
 found among Hillel’s. 
 
 Among those rules of R. Ishmael, the sixth rule of Hille] 
 ‘the analogy made from another passage” is omitted, but this 
 omission is seeming only, since that rule was, under differnt 
 names: wor (the analogy) and 1393 7 (as we find-analogy) 
 included partly in the rule of yy 7933, partly in that of oy 133; 
 as will be seen further on in the fuller exposition of these two 
 rules. 
 
 R. Ishmael’s thirteen rules were generally adopted as the 
 authoritative rules of rabbinical interpretation without however 
 supplanting the methods of R. Akiba which continued to be 
 favored by many sf the Rabbis and were applied even by some 
 of the immediate disciples of R. Ishmael.’ 
 
 Remark. R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose the Galilean, again enlarged 
 the hermeneutic rules to the number of thirty two. But as his rules 
 mostly refer to the homiletical interpretation, they do not strictly be- 
 long to our subject. The Talmud though incidentally praising the emi- 
 nence of this teacher (Chulin 89), nowhere mentions his rules. But in 
 
 *? Compare B. Kamma 84a: *w57 NYN' NP byw 439955; also Kid- 
 dushin 43: mand ws xan Seyow 3 135. 
 
128 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 
 
 the Agadic interpretation of the Amoraim,some of his rules are applied. 
 A Baraitha of R, Eliezer containing his thirty two rules is not men- 
 tioned in the Rabbinical writings before the tenth century. This Ba- 
 raitha is embodied in the books: Sefer Kerithoth and Halichoth Olam 
 of which we shall speak in the following paragraph. 
 
 LITERATURE ON THE HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
 § 9, 
 
 The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are collected in the intro- 
 ductory chapter of the Siphra. 
 
 R. Abraham b. David of Posquteres (4"387), in the XII cen- 
 tury, wrote some valuable annotations on that chapter in his 
 commentary on the Siphra. 
 
 Re. Solomon b. Isaac (9"Yy>), the celebrated commentator of 
 the Talmud, in the XI century, occasionally explained, in his 
 lucid way, the single rules where they are applied in the Talmu- 
 dical discussions. * 
 
 Of standard works treating of the hermeneutic rules we 
 mention: 
 
 mamas ‘Dp by &. Samson of Chinon, in the XIV century. 
 
 ody mindn ’p by &. Jeshua b. Joseph Halevi, flourishing 
 inthe XV century, in Spain. 
 
 An abstract of the two last mentioned works is found in 
 an appendix to Mid 13 ADDY in the usual Talmud editions. 
 
 FAN MII 'D by Aaron b. Chayim, XVI century. This very 
 valuable treatise forms the first part of the author’s greater 
 work called JAAN jaqp Which is a commentary on the Siphra. 
 
 myiow pap by #. Solomon 6. Abraham Algazi, XVII cen- 
 tury. 
 
 1 A separate treatise on the hermeneutic rules, ascribed to this 
 commentator and published in Kobak’s ‘‘Ginze Nistaroth” 1 11 under 
 the title of nnn by wn win seems to be spurious. Itis, at most, a 
 compilation of his various incidental remarks on the single rules found 
 in his commentary on the Talmud. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 129 
 
 moon ndonn’p, by Jacob Chagiz XVII, century. 
 
 Of modern works on our subject the following deserve to 
 be mentioned: 
 
 Halachische Exegese by H. S. Hirschfeld, Berlin, 1840. 
 
 nee Sn by Mordechai Plongian, Wilna, 1849. This Heb- 
 rew book treats exclusively of the rule of Gezera Shava. 
 
 Palaestinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung by Z. 
 Frankel, Breslau, 1854, 
 
EXPOSITION OF R. ISHMAEL’S HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE INFERENCE OF KAL VE-CHOMER. 
 
 The rule which occupies the first place in the hermeneutic 
 system of Hillel as well as in that of R. Ishmael, is termed 
 spin op. This rule is very frequently used in the Talmudic 
 discussions. It has quite a logical foundation, being a kind 
 of syllogism, an inference a fortiori. 
 
 I. DEFINITION. 
 § 10. 
 
 In the Talmudic terminology the word 9p (light in weight) 
 means that which, from a legal point of aie is regarded as 
 being less important, less significant, and 41m (heaviness) that 
 which is comparatively of great weight and importance. By 
 the term 337M) 2p then ismeant aninference from the less to the 
 more nota and vice versa, from the more to the less im- 
 portant. 
 
 For the sake of convenience, we shall use the word *mznor 
 instead of ney and major instead of =~in; but we must caution 
 against contents the meaning of these words with that of 
 the terms major and minor, commonly used in logic in regard 
 to syllogisms. 
 
 II. PRINCIPLE. 
 
 3 Stil, 
 
 The principle underlying the inference of =1\m 2p is, that 
 the law is assumed to have the tendency to proportionate its 
 effect to the importance of the cases referred to, so as to be more 
 rigorous and restrictive in important, and more lenient and 
 permissive in. comparatively unimportant matters. Hence, if a 
 certain rigorous restriction of the law is found regarding a mat- 
 ter of minor importance, we may infer that the same restriction 
 is the more applicable to that which is of major importance, 
 
THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 131 
 
 though that restriction be not expressly made in the law for this 
 case. And on the other hand, if a certain allowance is 
 made by the law regarding a thing of majorimportance, we may 
 properly conclude that the same allowance is the more applicable 
 to that which is of comparatively minor importance. 
 
 Thus, for instance, May is in some respects regarded as 
 being of more importance (719m) than w/’}) (a common holiday). 
 If, therefore, a certain kind of work is permitted on my, we 
 justly infer that such a work is the more permissible on wy’ 
 and vce versa, if a certain work is forbidden on 1/8 it must all 
 the more imperatively be forbidden on pay. Mishna Betza V. 2: 
 
 nawawp mex ws wx 55 
 Ill. BIBLICAL PROTOTYPE. 
 § 12, 
 
 The inference, drawn in Scripture (Numbers xii. 14) on a 
 certain occasion is regarded as a prototype of this manner of 
 drawing indifferences which is employed in the Talmudic Halacha. 
 Miriam had been punished with leprosy as a sign of the Lord’s 
 disfavor, and when the question arose how long she ought to be 
 shut out of the camp in consequence of that disfavor, the 
 answer was; ‘‘If her father had but spit in her face, should she 
 not be ashamed (shut up) seven days? Let her be shut out 
 from the camp seven days.” Here an inference is made 
 from minor to major, namely, from a human father’s to the 
 Lord’s disfavor. 
 
 Iv. ‘TALMUDIC TERMS, 
 
 § 13. 
 
 Every 393m 2p contains two things, A and B, standing 
 in certain relations to each other and having different degrees 
 
 ‘Modern jurisprudence admits also a certain argument which is 
 quite analogous to the principle of Kal ve-chomer, as may be 
 seen from the following maxim, quoted by Coke on Littleton, 260: 
 “Quod in minori valet, valebit in majori; et quod in majori non 
 valet nec valebit in minori.” ‘What avails in the less, will avail in 
 the greater; and what will not availin the greater, will not avail 
 in the less.” 
 
hay HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 of importance. Of these two things, A, which in Talmudic 
 terminology is called 3~5~ (teaching) is expressly subject to a 
 certain law or restriction, which by way of inference is to be 
 transferred to B, termed 7195 (learning). 
 
 An inference is termed j»t (a judgment); to make an infer- 
 ence jit (to judge). The peculiar law found in the “spdp is 
 called j153 (to be judged from), while the law finally transferred 
 to the 3195 is termed }77m 7) Nan (the result of the inference). 
 
 Thus, in the biblical inference mentioned above, the father’s 
 disfavor is the 71951, the Zord’s disfavor is 35. The punish- 
 ment in consequence of a father’s disfavor (nysy aban son 
 n°) is the j173, and the final decision derived from this infer- 
 ence (0%) yaw ON) 1s pan jd Nan. 
 
 v. LOGICAL AND FORMAL ARRANGEMENT. 
 § 14. 
 
 Logically, every 1} (like every syllogism) has three propo- 
 sitions, of which two are the Premises and one the Conclusion. 
 
 The first premise states, that two certain things, A and B, 
 stand to each other in the relation of major and minor impor- 
 tance. 
 
 The second premise states that with one of these two things 
 (A) a certain restrictive or permissive law is connected. 
 
 The conclusion is that the same law is the more applicable 
 to the other thing (B). | 
 
 The first premise is termed p74 nonin the outset of the infer- 
 ence, OF NTT NIP y, the most essential part of the inference ; 
 while the final conclusion is called jt 41D the end of the 
 inference. 
 
 The formal arrangement of these three propositions differs, 
 however, from this logical order, as a 1/’p is usually expressed 
 by two compound propositions, one of which is the antecedent 
 and the other the conseguent, as in case of an inference 
 from minor to major: 
 
 (ayn) TION (Op) sw OB nD 
 (2Yny) TONY PT IN (CON) oy 93198 
 
THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 35 
 
 ‘¢ If A which in this or that respect is of minor impor- 
 tance, iS subjcct to a certain severity of the law; ought not B, 
 which is of major importance, be the more subject to the same 
 severity?” Or, in case of an inference frome major to minor: 
 
 (105) amie Gion) sewonds mp 
 (MIDEW PTS) JDW ID ND (Op) cw ondD 
 
 “Tf a certain allowance is made by the law in the case 
 of A, which is of major importance ; ought not the same allow. 
 ance be the more made in the case of B, which is of minor 
 importance ?”’ 
 
 VI. [ILLUSTRATIONS OF INFERENCES FROM MINOR TO MAJOR. 
 Sabi, 
 
 a. In Exodus xxii. 13, the law is laid down that ifa man 
 borrow of his neighbor an animal or a thing, and the animal 
 die or the object be destroyed, the borrower must restore the 
 loss. But itis not expressly mentioned in this law whether the 
 borrower was also responsible in cases when the borrowed 
 animal or thing is stolen. he liability in this eventuality 
 is then proved by way of an inference from the law regarding 
 a (paid) depositary who, according to Exodus xxii. 9—11, 2s 
 not bound to make restitution when the animal intrusted to 
 his care died or became hurt, and yet zs held responsible in 
 case the intrusted thing was stolen (o5y° iy 333° 2332 ON) 
 The inference is made in the following way : 
 
 ae) ae eae bm me hay Tan hy em eae nt Caan pn) ern hea ee a 
 He J15 SOW PT IDS an MVsws sn ow 
 
 “If the depositary, though free from responsibility for 
 damage and death, is still bound to restore the thing stolen 
 from him, ought not the borrower, who is responsible for da- 
 mage anddeath, to be the more bound to restore the thing 
 stolen from him?” In this inference the depositary 1s mznor, 
 the borrower major. Baba Metzia 95a. 
 
 6. By asimilar inference it is proved that a depositary 
 has to make restitution in cases where the intrusted thing has 
 become Jost, though the law only speaks of his responsibility 
 for theft (Exodus xxii. 11): 
 
134 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 Dowd nN) manpy maa ne 
 jw 92 8? Aywe> manpy nas 
 
 “Tf he has to make restitution for the ¢Ae/¢, 
 which is almost an accident (as the greatest vigilance may 
 not always prevent it), how much the more is restitution to be 
 made for ‘o-zng (the intrusted object), which is almost a 
 trespass (since he was deficient in the necessary care and 
 vigilance). Here 72933 is minor, 7738 major. Baba Metzia 94b. 
 
 Vil. ILLUSTRATION OF AN INFERENCE FROM MAJOR TO MINOR. 
 § 16 
 While the Sadducees took the law ‘‘Eye for eye” etc., 
 (Exodus xxi. 24), literally as jus talionis, the rabbinical inter- 
 pretation was, that a limb was not actually to be maimed for a 
 limb, but that the harm done to the injured person was esti- 
 mated and a pecuniary equivalent paid by the offender. Among 
 other arguments in support of this interpretation one of the 
 rabbis applied the inference from major to minor, referring to 
 the law (Exodus xxi. 29—30), by which, under certain circum- 
 stances, the proprietor of a beast which is notably dangerous 
 and which has killed a person, is judged hable to the death 
 penalty; but the capital punishment could be redeemed by 
 money. Now, if the law expressly admits a pecuniary compen- 
 sation in a case where the guilty person deserved capital pun- 
 ishment, how much the more is a pecuniary compensation admis- 
 sible in our case where it does not concern capital punishment : 
 POD NON way RD on snIA wiyw ope. 7 
 MOD NOS way? Xow sin PT MD way Now IND 
 Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 24. 
 XIII. RESTRICTIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF INFERENCES. 
 Saale 
 Conclusions made by an inference are restricted by three 
 rules: 1-st, p73 MVNO PIN [DO N22 YT ‘Tt is sufficient that the 
 result derived from an inference be equivalent to the law from 
 which it isdrawn”; that is to say, the law transferred to B 
 (the major), must never surnass in severity the original law in 
 A (the minor), from which the inference was made. 
 
THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 135 
 
 Thus, inthe inference made in the Scripture in regard to 
 Miriam, we might have expected that the time of her exclusion 
 from the camp should be more than seven days, since the Lord’s 
 disfavor is of more consequence than a human father’s; never- 
 theless, Scripture says, ‘‘Let her be shut out from the camp seven 
 days,’ which is just as long as she would have felt humiliated if 
 her father had treated her with contumely. On this passage 
 the restrictive rule just mentioned is founded. An ample appli- 
 cation of this rule is found in Mishna Baba Kamma II. 5. 
 
 2d. Another restrictive rule is Pm jo Pwsy Ps. ‘The in- 
 ference from minor to major isnot to be applied in the ezal 
 law.” 
 
 The reason for this rule lies in the possibility that the con- 
 clusions drawn by inference might have been erroneous, so that 
 the infliction of a penalty derived from such a conclusion would 
 not be justified.’ 
 
 An application of the rule j75 jp pwaiy psx is made in Tal- 
 mud Maccoth 5b, to refute an objection to the rabbinical inter- 
 pretation of the law, that the punishment of false witnesses 
 (Deuteronomy xix. 19), is totake place only when the judg- 
 ment against the falsely accused party has not yet been executed. 
 The objection to this interpretation was raised by way of an 
 inference from minor to major: 
 
 Pein mp IN ...paam PS wm pay wa NP 
 
 1Quite analogous to this rabbinical rule is that established in 
 modern law, “that penal statutes must be construed strictly. They can 
 not, therefore, be extended by their spirit or by equity to any other 
 offenses than those clearly described and provided for.” (See Bouvier’s 
 Law Dictionary, article Penal Statutes). 
 2A ccording to Talmudic interpretation, however, this rule is derived 
 from the Scripture, in which the law sometimes finds it necessary to 
 expressly mention a case in which the punishment is to be inflicted, 
 though it could have been easily found by a mere inference from an- 
 other case. Thus, for instance, in regard to the law, Exodus xxi. 33, we 
 read in Mechilta: wx mop *D /n pon aD nme| Nos °d ps wen nD DI 
 pe an opow 52 eb anon ayn omen ox pa ow qx Nder oy 
 ean pyay pare ood aias N72 732 In wo nwa yD MK 
 In Talmud Maccoth 5 b, the same principle is proved in a similar 
 way from Leviticus xx. 17. 
 
136 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 “Tf the witnesses are to be put to death, though their false tes- 
 timony has not caused the death of the innocent, how much the 
 more when it really had fatal consequences?” 
 
 But this quite logical objection is removed by the axiom })s 
 Pan jo pwsiy ‘No penalty can be inflicted which is based 
 upon an inference.” j 
 
 3d. A third restrictive rule in the application of inferences 
 of np is laid down in Mishna Yadaim III. 2: 
 
 ADI DMDID MDI AN MDT PIT NN 
 
 or as the rule is expressed more concisely in Talmud Sabb. 132, 
 and Nazir 57: no$onn WD Pst Px ‘‘No inferences must be made 
 from traditional laws to establish a new law.””’ 
 
 Ix. REFUTATION OF INFERENCES. 
 § 18. 
 
 Not every n”’3p offered in the Talmudic discussions of the 
 law is correct and valid. We sometimes find there very proble- 
 matic and even sophistical inferences set forth merely as sup- 
 positions or hypotheses; these are, however, finally refuted. A 
 refutation of a mp 18 called NOD. 
 
 Refutations may be made in two different ways: a. Either 
 the correctness of the premise in the antecedent is disputed by 
 showing that A (3959) which was supposed to be of minor 
 importance (5p) is in some other respects really of major im- 
 portance (719M); or 2. The correctness of the conclusion in the 
 consequent is diputed by showing ‘that the peculiar law con- 
 nected with A (4195) can not be transferred to B (4195) as 
 itis not transferred to C, which in certain respects is like B. 
 
 The first kind of refutation is called xooqs SIP YS NOTH a 
 refutation Of the mostessential part of the infevence, and the sec- 
 ond kind is termed N37 HIDN NIWD refutation of the final 
 conclusion of the inference. The styles of expression in these two 
 
 1R. Akiba, however, did not accept this restrictive rule, but at- 
 tempted to make inferences even from traditionallaws to establish a 
 new law. See Sabbath 132a. Compare also Talm. Jer. Kiddushin 1, 2: 
 sb yo Tod mS mex NIpY 
 
THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 1387 
 
 kinds of refutation are quite different. A refutation of the 
 premise is usually expressed in the following way: 
 
 (Jo1 [D2 TON) pow 19B! nD 
 (3) j23 Ven (DSW) AD WSN 
 
 “Why has A that particular severe provision of the law ? 
 Because it is of major importance in this or that respect. But 
 how will you apply it to B, which is not so important in the same 
 respect?” 
 
 The refutation of the final conclusion is usually expressed 
 by the words, jaw mov 39D. ‘The case of C proves it;” viz. : 
 that such a conclusion can not be admitted, since C isof equal 
 importance with B, and still the restriction of A, which is 
 intended to be transferred to B, is not applied to C. 
 
 x. ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF REFUTATION. 
 § 19. 
 
 1. It is well known that the law, ‘‘thou shalt not seethe 
 a kid in its mother’s milk,” is, according to Talmudic interpre- 
 tation, a general prohibition against boiling any kind of meat 
 in any kind of milk. After having demonstrated that aon wa 
 (meat, which in contradiction to this law had been boiled with 
 milk), is forbidden to be eaten (R583 WON), it is undertaken 
 to prove that it is likewise forbidden to make any other use 
 of it (ANIN3 VION). One ofthe rabbis tried to prove this by 
 way of an inference from pony (the fruits of a tree during the 
 first three years, which fruits were deemed forbidden to be used 
 in any way mNima ven). The inference was made in the fol- 
 lowing way : 
 aNIND TNCN AVY MI Isp Now Moy np 
 SNINS VON PT IDS TVSy 12 May 29n2 wa 
 ‘Tf those fruits, regarding which 
 no law had been violated, are forbidden to be used in any 
 way, ought not meat and milk, which, in violation of a law, 
 have been boiled together, the more be forbidden to be used 
 in any way?” 
 The premise in this inference is that mony is of miner 
 
1388 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 
 
 importance (9p) compared with 423; but this premise is dis- 
 
 puted by demonstrating that in certain respects it was, in fact, 
 
 of major importance, since those fruits had at no time before 
 
 been permitted to be used, while in regard to m’335 there had 
 
 been a time (namely, before being boiled together), when the 
 
 use of each of these components was allowed: 
 
 (SNIFI ANON JID?) AMAA yw no ann sd jw mdayd mo 
 snnn mpd mnw maa son 
 
 Chullin 115b; Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 19. 
 
 2. Refutation of the conclusion in the inference. An illus- 
 tration of this kind of refutation is furnished in Mishna Pe- 
 sachim vi. 1, 2. There the law is laid down that ifthe eve of 
 mod happened to fall on a Sabbath, the sacrificial acts with the 
 Paschal lamb, as the slaughtering, sprinkling, etc., were allowed, 
 though such acts are otherwise regarded as labor (M2850), 
 while certain preparatory acts (as carrying the lamb to the 
 temple, ete.), though not regarded as real labor, but only as 
 mizy (incompatible with a day of rest), are not allowed. This 
 restriction is disputed by R. Eliezer, on the ground of the fol- 
 lowing inference: 
 
 nawn os on mosdp pw xinw mony os np 
 
 (Naw AN INT No miaw owe jaw ds 
 
 “If slaughtering, though a real labor, abrogates the Sab- 
 bath, ought not things not regarded asreal labor the more °h- 
 rogate the Sabbath?” 
 
 But this logical conclusion is refuted by R. Joshua: 
 may mw is IoNi moSop ow, is nny moi Den 
 
 ‘‘A common holiday proves that this conclusion is not ad- 
 nissible, for on such aday some real labors (as cooking, baking, 
 etc.), are permitted, while at the same time certain actions, 
 which fall under the category of nia, are positively pro- 
 hibited.” 
 
 XI REINSTATEMENT OF A REFUTED INFERENCE. 
 Spe AA GY 
 
 When an inference has been refuted in one of the two ways 
 just mentioned, the attempt is sometimes made to defend and 
 retain it by removing the objection raised in the refutation. If 
 
THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 139 
 
 the arguments proffered for this purpose are found to be correct, 
 the original inference is reinstated; if not, the refutation is 
 sustained and the inference finally rejected. 
 
 Thus, for instance, in regard to R. Eliezer’s inference, which 
 R. Joshua refuted by the objection mp3) ws, R. Eliezer, in 
 turn, attempted to remove this objection by asking: A S45 AD 
 mpd myn “What can that which is voluntary prove against 
 a command?” That is to say, if minw actions are not allowed 
 on 3, it must be remembered that they concern only 
 voluntary or private affairs, while the prohibition of such 
 actions in regard to the Paschal lamb concerns a religious duty 
 which is expressly commanded. 
 
 R. Joshua was silenced by this point of argumentation, and 
 seemed to be willing to withdraw his objection to R. Elezer’s 
 inference; but now R. Akiba appeared in the arena to defend 
 R. Joshua’s objection by showing that a difference between miwn7 
 and mix~ could not be admitted. He said mw mosin myn 
 HWaovn AS Am ASS Maw owe sym msp ‘The sprinkling 
 (by which an unclean person was declared to be again clean) 
 may prove it, because this also is an act belonging to the cate- 
 gory of miny, and at the same time concerns a command 
 (since the performance of this act would make the person fit to 
 bring his Paschal offering), and still itis not to be done on a 
 Sabbath-day; therefore, you shou'd nc-t wonder that in our case 
 those other acts (the carrying of the Paschallamb, ectc.), though 
 concerning a my and only maw, are not to be done on a 
 Sabbath day.” 
 
 A repeated attempt of R. Eliezer to reinstate his infer- 
 ence by disputing R. Akiba’s new objection, having been frus- 
 trated by the latter’s counter-arguments, the inference was fi- 
 nally rejected. 
 
 XII. SOPHISTICAL INFERENCES. 
 Sooke 
 
 In conclusion, we wish to call attention to some sophistical 
 inferences of \’5 mentioned in the Talinudic literature, which 
 are refuted simply by an argument ad absurdum. 
 
140 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 One of these inferences is quoted in the Mishna Yadaim iv. 
 7: ‘The Sadducees said, We have a strong argument against 
 you Pharisees. You teach that one is responsible for a damage 
 caused by his ox or ass, but not responsible for a damage 
 caused by his slave or his bondwoman; is this not contrary to 
 a simple rational inference?” ~ 
 jjPtas Sn N OAT TSO OAS SN UPN MT Tw ON tS 
 jas SSH OASY PT IPS Dis OA YN NY AST Aaay 
 
 ‘Tf I be responsible for my animals regarding which I have 
 no religious obligation, how much more must I then be respon- 
 sible for the damage caused by my servants, regarding whom I 
 have a religious obligation?” 
 
 The Pharisees promptly answered: ‘‘No! I am responsible 
 for my animals, which have no free will and deliberation, but 
 not for my slaves, who have knowledge and deliberation. If I 
 offend them, they may go and deliberately set fire to my neigh- 
 bor’s property. Should I then be bound to pay?” 
 
 Another still more sophistical 4’ is mentioned in Mass. 
 Derech Eretz Rabba, chapterI. A certain Jose b. Tadai, of 
 Tiberias, tried, inthe presence of R. Gamaliel, to ridicule the 
 application of inferences in ritual laws by the following 
 paralogism: 
 
 MIS VON US 73 WS UN OWS 7D 
 M33 VON MANY PT IDS 73 VIDS TINY WN US 
 
 ‘Tf the marriage with one’s own daughter is prohibited, 
 although the marriage with her mother is permitted, how 
 much more unlawful must it be to marry another married 
 woman’s daughter, since the marriage with her mother, a mar- 
 ried woman, is positively prohibited?” 
 
 The fallacy in this inference is that the conclusion contra- 
 dicts the premise. The premise is that the marriage with one’s 
 own wife is lawful, while according to the conclusion any mar- 
 riage would be prohibited. But R. Gamaliel answered caus- 
 tically: ‘‘Go, thou, and take care of the high-priest,in regard to 
 whom it is written, Only a virgin fron among his people he shall 
 marry; I shall then take care of all Israel.” That is to say, 
 show me, in the first place, how, according to the inference, the 
 
THe INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 141 
 
 high-priest could enter a marriage, as Scripture expressly per- 
 mits him to do, and I shall prove the same permission for all 
 Israelites. 
 
 According to another version, R. Gamaliel e::communicated 
 the scoffing questioner, remarking: j19 735 “py? 437 PIT PN 
 =ssm- ‘No inference can be admitted in which the ie a 
 contradicts the law.” 
 
 A masterpiece of sophistical inferences is recorded in San- 
 hedrin 17. Referring to a tradition, according to which none 
 could aspire for membership in the ancient Sanhedrin, without 
 having given a proof of his dialectic ability by demonstrating, 
 for instance, the cleanness of those eight reptiles which the law 
 (Leviticus xi. 29, 30), expressly declares to be unclean, one of 
 the Amoraim jokingly remarked: “If I had been living at the 
 time when the Sanhedrin was still in existence, I might have 
 aspired for membership by offering the foliowing inference: 
 
 “ITD TNO WAIN oDy wns mi 
 ITD SMW PTIPS ANDI 731) MDD IDS! yw 
 Abe) Pent though killing men and beasts, and thus in- 
 creasing ritual uncleanness, still is regarded a clean animal; 
 ought not a reptile that does not kill and increase ninlowaniace 
 be the more regarded clean?” 
 
 This inference, though merely intended to display dialectic 
 acumen, is earnestly refuted by the following argumentum ad 
 absurdum: It, according to the first premise of this inference, 
 a serpent ought to be unclean on account of its capability to 
 kill a person, then any wooden instrument by which a person 
 can be killed ought to be unclean. 
 
 This inference and its refutation are of some intrest as an 
 instance which shows clearly that many of the Talmudic dis- 
 cussions on the law had no other purpose than to be a mental 
 tournament, in which the rabbis and their disciples delighted 
 
 to exercise ‘their intellectual powers and exhibit their skill and 
 acuteness in the art of reasoning and debating. 
 
 1The serpent is, of course, unclean in respect to food, but it is clean 
 in as far as it does not belong to those eight reptiles concerning which 
 the law ordained : ‘‘Whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, 
 shall be unclean until the even.” 
 
CG EATEHUHG Ee lie 
 THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 
 RULES: 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 S22: 
 
 Analogy, in the ordinary sense of the word, denotes such 
 resemblance between things, as enables us to assume of one 
 what we know of the other. Although conclusions ‘drawn 
 from analogy do not in general afford cerfainty, but only some 
 degree of probability at best, much recourse is often taken to 
 such conclusions in every branch of human knowledge, espe- 
 cially when all other means of argumentation fail. 
 
 The argument from analogy is also admitted as an aid in 
 modern legal interpretation, either to determine an ambiguous 
 expression in a law, or to decide a case not expressly provided 
 for therein, or to supply a defect in one law by reference to the 
 fuller contents of another law. 
 
 The analogy between twolaws may be either vea/ or formal 
 It is real when these laws are of the same nature and the cases 
 treated of in them resemble each other in material points and 
 in important relations. It is formal, when the resemblance 
 consists merely in some external points and relations, as in 
 the wording of the laws or in the connection in which they are 
 set forth, Arguments from a real analogy existing between 
 different laws are very often applied in the Rabbinical interpre- 
 tation. Such an analogy is termed 33° my» of which we shall 
 speak in the following chapter. But the Rabbis also admit the 
 argument froma formal or external analogy. Whether also 
 this kind of argumentation be in accordance with logical rea- 
 soning, depends upon the nature of the conclusion which is 
 intended to be drawn therefrom. If the external relations - 
 upon which the argument proceeds, imply also an internal 
 relation which has a bearing on the conclusion, it is logical 
 and valid, otherwise it is not. There are especially two rules 
 
THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 143 
 
 of Talmudical interpretation in which use is made of this kind 
 of analogy. These are termed: 1. Gezera Shava; 2. Hakkesh. 
 
 A. GEZERA SHAVA. 
 I.—TERM, CLASSIFICATION AND FORMULA, 
 § 23. 
 
 The term Gezera Shava (mw m3) means literally either 
 a similar section (part) or a similar decision (decree). In the 
 Talmudic phraseology it denotes an analogy of expressions, that 
 is, an analogy based on identical or similar words occurring in 
 two different passages of Scripture. The Gezera Shava is 
 used: first, as an exegetical aid to determine the meaning of an 
 ambiguous expression in a law; second, as an argument in.con- 
 struing laws with reference to each other, so that certain provis- 
 ions connected with one of them may be shown to be applicable 
 also to the other. We have, then, two kinds of Gezera Shava, 
 and in order to distinguish them clearly we propose to call the 
 former the exege/ical and the latter the constructional Gezera 
 Shava. The usual formula for both kinds of Gezera Shava is: 
 
 wees Joie WONT. - + ee jSD NI 
 INI AN... 26s. n> np 
 HLGnepisesald a -gernien es There ds'said?.y.. 
 PAS SULLGLC wep ne. ote ts so here. 
 
 II.—THE EXEGETICAL GEZERA SHAVA. 
 § 23. 
 
 The theory of the exegetical Gezera Shava is expressed in 
 the Talmudical phrase sometimes used in connection with this 
 kind of analogy: wnibin ji ond mip5> ‘the indefinite is tobe 
 explained by the definite,” that is to say, if an expression in one 
 passage of Scripture is used ambiguously, its meaning is to be 
 ascertained from another passage, where the same expression 
 occurs in a connection in which it is clearly defined. 
 
 This quite rational theory is also adopted in modern scien- 
 tific exegesis in reference to parallel passages, and is in some 
 
144 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 measure admitted even in the legal interpretation of statutes 
 and documents.! 
 
 Examples of exegetical Gezera Shava: 
 
 1. In Levit. xvi. 29 the law relating to the Day of Atone- 
 ment enjoins p>MwWpDI AN yn “Ye shall afflict your souls,” 
 without defining the nature of this affliction. But the expres- 
 sion 73y occurs in other passages in a connection where it evi- 
 dently refers to the suffering of want and hunger,as for instance 
 in the passage Ja yw Jpn Deut. vill. 3. (Compare also Psalm 
 XXXV. 13 °WD3 oy °M3y). Hence the expression in our pas- 
 sage is to be taken in the meaning which tradition has put on 
 it, 2 ¢., asa term of fasting. 
 
 D*NIW)DI AN YN IND IONS 
 
 Sa yy qayt yon) as 
 
 payr way pond me 
 
 Payr Wy RI TONIw Ny |X 
 Siphra to Levit. xvi., and Talmud Yoma, 74. 
 
 2. Inthe law restricting the time of slavery, Exod. xxi. 
 2, the expression \3y 7Z3y is somewhat ambiguous, as it might 
 mean either a servantof a Hebrew (a heathen slave belonging 
 to an Israelite) ora Hebrew servant (an Israelite who has been 
 sold asa slave). That the expression is to be taken in the lat- 
 ter sense (the word “ay being here used as an adjective and 
 
 ‘One of the chief rules in ascertaining the meaning of doubtful 
 words is to try first to ascertain the meaning—from other passages of 
 the same text in which the ambiguous word occurs, so used that it 
 leaves no doubt—by parallels.” Francis Lieber, ‘Legal and Political 
 Hermeneutics,” page 91.—The following rule of interpretation, which 
 is quoted in ‘‘Broom’s Legal Maxims,” page 586, comes still nearer to 
 the character of Talmudical Gezera Shava: ‘‘Where an act of Parlia- 
 ment has received a judicial construction putting a certain meaning on 
 its words, and the Legislature in a subsequent act in pari materia uses 
 the same words, there is a presumption that the Legislature used those 
 words intending to express the meaning which it knew had been put 
 upon the words before, and unless there is something to rebut that pre- 
 sumption the act should be so construed, even if the words were such 
 that they might originally have been construed otherwise.” 
 
THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 145 
 
 not as a noun) is proved by a reference to Deut. Xv. 12, where 
 in a repetition of the same law the servant is called “5yn ns 
 ‘thy Hebrew brother.” 
 ayn pms jn aN May Ty jSD INI 
 ssto ainon Sxnw jss yon? mp 
 sa72 sins Oxnw j23 jND AS 
 Mechilta to Exodus XXI. 
 IIIL—THE CONSTRUCTIONAL GEZERA SHAVA. 
 § 25 
 
 While the exegetical analogy is limited to the purpose of 
 ascertaining the meaning of an ambiguous word, the construc- 
 tional Gezera Shava intends to supply an omission in one law 
 by the more explicit provisions of another law. For this pur- 
 pose use is made of an identical characteristic word occurring 
 in both laws. By showing that this characteristic word has 
 some bearing on certain provisions made in one case, itis ar- 
 gued that the same provisions must apply also in the other 
 case. 
 
 IV.—ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 § 26. 
 
 1. Hillel, the elder, who first mentioned this rule of inter- 
 pretation, applied it in the following case: The eve of the Pe- 
 sach festival once happened to be on a Sabbath, and the question 
 was whether it should be permitted to sacrifice the Paschal 
 lamb on such aday. Among other arguments to prove the 
 permission, Hillel referred also to the rule of Gezera Shava. 
 He argued: In the law concerning the dadly offering it is said 
 (Num. Xxill. 2) that it was to be brought yryima ‘‘in its due 
 season,” and also in the law regarding the Paschal lamb we 
 
 1The ancient versions, as well as the modern commentaries on the 
 Bible, fully coincide with the Rabbinical interpretation of this expres- 
 sion. Strange enough, Saalschuetz, in his ‘‘Mosaisches Recht,” page 
 "2, tries to defend the other interpretation so promptly refuted by the 
 Rabbis, and claims that “ay t1y refers to a certain class of heathen 
 slaves in the service of a Hebrew. Compare Mielziner’s “Die Verhaelt- 
 nisse des Sklaven bei den alten Hebraern,” page 28. 
 
146 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 read: The children of Israel shall keep the Passover Wypirs 
 ‘in its due season.” (Num. ix. 2.) But concerning the daily 
 offering the law expressly provides that it was to be brought 
 also on the Sabbath day. (Num. xxviii. 10.) The expression 
 Wwyi3 then means that the offering must take place at the ap- 
 pointed time under all circumstances, even on a Sabbath; there- 
 fore, the same expression }7y13 in regard to the Paschal 
 lamb likewise enjoins that the offering take place at the time 
 appoined, even ona Sabbath day. 
 
 THOS TTYUS VWONII ADDI Wp WsS3 
 
 DSU OS AAT WOND WANT typi AD 
 
 HIV NS ONT NOD. MPSA wy aN 
 Pesachim, page 66 a. 
 
 2. Another example, taken from the civil law, may here 
 be added to illustrate the application of the Gezera Shava in 
 construing a law which appears to be defective. 
 
 In Exod. Xxii. 6-8, and 9-12, are contained two different 
 laws concerning the safe-keeping of the property of a fellow- 
 man. The traditional interpretation correctly distinguishes 
 between these two laws. The first treats of a gratuitous guar- 
 dian, while the other refers to a paid depositary who has a 
 greater responsibility than the former. Now, the first law 
 seems to be somewhat defective. It provides that if the ob- 
 jects intrusted have been stolen from the house of the guardian 
 ‘he shall be brought to the judges—that he has not put his 
 hand to his neighbor’s goods,” but nothing is said of the way 
 in which he was to prove this, neither is it said whether he was 
 free from making restitution if he succeeded in proving this. 
 The Rabbis supply this defect by means of a Gezera Shava. 
 They refer to the second law in which (verse 10) the same 
 phrase occurs, ‘that he has not put his hand to his neighbor's 
 goods.” Here the phrase is introduced by the words, “an oath 
 of the Lord shall be between them both,” and is followed by the 
 words, ‘and shall not make restitution.” Hence, according to 
 this analogy, the phrase inthe first case must also be supplied 
 
THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 147 
 
 z.: He shall be brought before the judges Zo take an oath» that 
 he did not act fraudulently, which oath frees him from making 
 restitution. 
 
 moyn? 3 mimow miosn mand 1 mim>w mess 
 myiaw? JRO AS myaw yon} no 
 Mechilta to Exod. xxii., and Baba Metzia 41b. 
 
 The examples given above illustrate the process and cha- 
 racter of most of the Gezeroth Shavoth which are quoted inthe 
 Talmud in the name of the great authorities of the Mishnic per- 
 iod. The external analogy (the parity of expressions) from 
 which the argumentation proceeds, is there generally of such a 
 nature as to imply also an internal or real analogy which jus- 
 tifies the conclusion to be drawn from it. 
 
 Usually the two words which form the basis for a Gezera 
 Shava are exactly alike, but sometimes even such words are 
 used for this purpose which, though different in expression, are 
 identical in their meaning. Thus, for instance, a certain ana- 
 logy is occasionally formed on the basis of the expressions Sw} 
 jaan “the priest shall re¢wrn” (Levit. xiv. 39), and jFom 82) 
 ‘the priest shall come” (2dzd., 44), since the verb ‘‘to return” 
 is almost identical with the verb “to come” (as the former 
 means to come again.) 
 
 MVS SAV AY STW IISA S31 jan sw 
 Siphra to Levit xiv., and very often quoted in the Talmud. 
 
 V.—THE EXORBITANT GEZERA SHAVA, 
 § 27 
 
 There is a peculiar kind ofGezera Shava sometimes resort- 
 ed to, especially by Amoraim, which is quite different from 
 the rational character of the analogies generally used by the 
 Tanaim. Its peculiarity consists in this, that the argument 
 from a parity of expressions is also admitted in cases where 
 the two laws or passages, compared with each other, have noth- 
 ing in common except a single, often very insignificant word 
 
 1The Septuagint already supplied the passage in this way by adding 
 to ‘the shall appear before the judges” the words xai ometrai ‘and he 
 shall swear.’ 
 
148 ; HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 which has not the least natural bearing on the conclusion to be 
 drawn therefrom. 
 
 It is obvious that arguments from such mere verbal ana- 
 logies easily result in what is termed in Logic a fa/acy, or 
 sophistical conclusion. It must, however, be stated that the 
 Amoraim never used such purely verbal analogies for the 
 purpose of deducing a new law from Scripture, but merely as 
 an attempt to find a Scriptural support for an opinion expressed 
 by one of the authorities in the Mishna.? 
 
 This kind of Gezera Shava is externally characterized by 
 being usually introduced by this peculiar formula """p7s ony 
 or ==" p7303 ‘tbat is derived from,” followed by the two 
 identical words on which the analogy in question is assumed to 
 be based. 
 
 VI. ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXORBITANT USES OF GEZERA SHAVA. 
 § 28. 
 
 a. In Mishna Sanhedrin I. 1, it is stated that criminal 
 cases involving corporal punishment (stripes) could be decided 
 by a minor court of three judges, but according to the opinion 
 of R. Ishmael, such cases required a higher criminal court of 
 twenty-three judges. The reason for this divergence of opinion 
 was, probably, that this Rabbi regarded the infliction of corpo- 
 ral punishment as too serious a matter to be left to the deci- 
 sion of a civil court of three; as a criminal case it ought, like 
 a case of capital punishment, to be judged by the higher court 
 of twenty-three. But the Gemara, commenting on this Mishna, 
 wants to know the Scriptural ground on which R. Ishmael 
 based his analogy, and in answer to this question the Babylo- 
 nian Amora, R. Ashi, thinks that he can find such a basis in 
 the word pw “the guilty” or criminal, which occurs as well in 
 the law referring to corporal punishment (Deut. xxv. 2) as in 
 that regarding the execution of capital punishment. (Num. 
 Xxxv. 31.) 
 
 FUDD YY pwa NOS 
 Talmud Sanhedrin 10. 
 
 ‘Compare Z. Frankel’s ‘‘Palaestinishe und Alexandrinische Schrift 
 forshung,” page 20. 
 
'THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 149 
 
 4. Mishna Kiddushin I. 1 lays down the law that one of 
 the means to contract marriage was SDD, that is, the giving of 
 a piece of money or its value to the woman, with the express in- 
 tention of engaging her for this consideration as his wife. The 
 Gemara asks for a Biblical basis of this law, and the following 
 answer is given: The Law, in speaking of marriage, uses the 
 expression MWS BN mpd “if a man ¢eke a wile” (Deut. xxii. 
 13); but np? ‘to dake” also means “ta acguire” property, ! and 
 is used elsewhere in connection with money given in considera- 
 tion for the acquisition of property *39) np mown yon (Gen. 
 XXlil. 13); hence also a wife is acquired by means of money. 
 
 jmby retiree) ni nie ae 
 Talmud Kiddushin 2a. 
 
 As to illustrations of Gezeroth Shavoth of a still more de- 
 cidedly sophistical character, we refer to the following two 
 examples in which an argument from analogy is based, in one 
 instance, on an identical pronoun (75) and in the other on an 
 identical adverb (nw), occurring in two laws or passages of to- 
 tally ditferent nature and contents. ’ 
 
 F390 32) 75 nay nwsenvemsn 55 
 mwxe mo n> 7237 
 Talmud Chagiga, 4a. 
 
 1In the Pentateuch, however, the word npb nowhere has the mean- 
 ing of ‘‘to acquire or to buy;” it occurs in this meaning only a few 
 times in some of the other books of the Bible (2 Sam. iv. 6; Prov. xxxi. 
 16, and Nehem x. 32); but in the Talmudic idiom it is almost exclusi- 
 vely used in this sense.—The formality of contracting marriage by 
 means of a piece of money was probably of a late origin, and was per- 
 haps influenced by a similar Roman custom—the nuptials by coemptio. 
 The probability of such an influence gains some ground if we compare 
 the expression of the Mishna 7N°33 TOW 70D DDT nwowa np AWE 
 with the corresponding expression used by Gajus I., § 11U, in speaking 
 of the Roman custom; ‘‘Feminae olim tribus modis in manum conve- 
 niebant: usu, farreo, coemptione.” It is moreover evident that the 
 civii law of the Mishna, though in doctrines and principles so widely 
 different from the Roman law, adopted several legal formalities from 
 the latter and modified them according to the leading Jewish principles. 
 
 2A very extensive use of this kind of Gezera Shava was made 
 especially in the Agada(the homiletical explanation of moral and 
 historical passages of Scripture), where it was not restricted by any 
 rules. There it gave rise to many of those most fanciful interpretations 
 and legendary narratives quoted in the Midrash and Talmud. 
 
150 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 ANAS VOX not 7530 
 MDM Mosyo ow ow NON 
 Aboda Zara 29b. 
 
 VII. RESTRICTIONS INTHE USE OF GEZERA SHAVA. 
 
 §. 29. 
 
 The exorbitancies which some teachers permitted. themselves 
 to make use of in the application of the Gezera Shava, served 
 only to demonstrate the weakness of the theory of basing ar- 
 guments upon an analogy of expressions. It having been 
 found that such arguments easily run into vague fallacies, this 
 whole theory seems to have been slighted by many. That such 
 must have been actually the case is evident from the repeated 
 admonitions which several prominent teachers addressed to 
 their contemporaries: ‘‘Do not look slightingly upon arguments | 
 from the analogy of Gezera Shava, since very important in- 
 junctions of the traditional law can derive their Scriptural au- 
 thority in no other way than by means of such an analogy.” 
 
 But as an arbitrary application of the analogy of Gezera 
 Shava could easily lead to misuse, it was found necessary to 
 subject it to some restrictions. This was done by the following 
 rules : 
 
 1. The identical expression occurring in two different laws 
 must at least in one of them bemapiy ‘‘empty,” that is, seemingly 
 superfluous, or pleonastic, and not already engaged for another 
 deduction of the traditional interpretation, to enable it to be 
 used for an analogy of Gezera Shava. Thus, for instance, in Deut. 
 Xxlll. 38, the law provides that a dastard ‘‘shall not enter into 
 the congregation ofthe Lord, even to the tenth generation.” In- 
 mediately after this law follows another, with a similar provis- 
 ion, in regard to an Ammonite or Moabite: ‘‘Zven to the tenth 
 generation they shall not enter into the congregation of the 
 Lord for ever.” The identical expression in both cases are the 
 characteristic words, ‘‘even to the tenth generation.” But in 
 
 the second case this expression seems to be somewhat superflu- 
 ous, or ‘‘empty,” since the emphatic words ‘for ever’ which 
 
 45) pya AdSp my avon bx ods Talmud Kherithoth. 54. This 
 admonition is there repeated in the name of four different teachers. 
 
THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. Jol 
 yd 
 
 are added here exclude even the /a¢es¢ generations of an Am- 
 monite or Moabite from the congregation. The expression is 
 then assumed to have been used here for the purpose of inti- 
 mating an analogy of Gezera Shava. As the phrase, ‘‘even to 
 the tenth generation,” is here clearly defined to mean for ever 
 or the latest generations (¢ex being a round number taken to 
 signify nerfection and completeness), so the identical expres- 
 sion in the former law must be likewise taken in this sense— 
 a bastard and his descendants are for ever disqualified from 
 entering the community of Israel.' 
 iw mya ToT wep mpi 
 DoW Ty ND WONT Spwy at a 
 DIY TY JON? MONT wy WT AN 
 
 Siphre to Deut., section 259; compare also Talmud Jeba- 
 moth, 78b. An other example is found in Tal. Chagiga 9a. 
 
 A Gezera Shava in this case is termed IMS 731 MID 
 ‘empty on one side,” and is regarded admissible, but may still 
 be rejected for certain reasons. Only when the identical ex- 
 pression is found to be superfluous in both laws under consi- 
 deration, pIT¥ ‘Jw MID, is the analogy regarded as irrejec- 
 table. But if no pleonasm is recognizable in either of the two 
 passages of the law, no analogy can be formed between them 
 because of an identical expression occuring in each of them. 
 Baba Kama 25b; Jebamoth 70a; Nidda 22b; Sabbath 131a. * 
 
 2. The second restrictive rule is less artificial and answers 
 the purpose better than the former. It is this: yw’) }7 OTN PS 
 wosypp (Pesachim 66; Nidda 19b) ‘‘No one is permitted to 
 reason from a Gezera Shava of his own.” While the applica- 
 tion of the logical inferences of Kal Vechomer could be left to 
 the discretion of the teachers of the law, the use of the un- 
 
 IThat is, according to Rabbinical interpretation, they are not per 
 mitted tointermarry with Israelites. 
 
 *The Galmud further makes many nice distinctions in regard to 
 this A:519, which however, are too intricate and subtle to be treated 
 here. Those who take an interest in the details of this subject will 
 
 consult with advantage Dr. H. 8. Hirschfeld: Halachische Exegese 
 p. 462—467, 
 
152 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 
 
 certain conclusions from an analogy of expression had neces- 
 sarily to be restrained. Such an analogy must be sustained by 
 the authority of tradition in order to be valid and conclusive, 
 or as a post-Talmudic addition to this rule explains: ‘‘One must 
 have received the analogy from his teacher, and the teacher 
 from his teachers, up to the time of the highest legislative 
 
 authority.” 
 This rule, however, hardly meant to say, as many interpreters 
 
 understand it, that either the special application of a Gezera 
 Shava in a certain case must have been handed down, or the 
 identical expression on which the analogy is based must have 
 been pointed out by tradition. If so, it is difficult to perceive 
 how so many controversies could have been raised in the Tal- 
 wud in which analogies of Gezera Shava are set forth and 
 disputed, or withdrawn and replaced by others. 
 
 The true meaning of that rule seems rather to be that no 
 new laws are to be deduced from Scripture by means of a 
 Gezera Shava, out that such analogies could be only ap- 
 plied for the purpose of offering a biblical support to a law 
 which already had the sanction of tradition. Such a support 
 might be found in one way or another, and hence arose the 
 difference of opinion in regard to some analogies.’ 
 
 Aaya PSO CIO Si ah 
 
 VIII. TERM AND THEORY. 
 § 30. 
 
 There is another kind of analogy, somewhat similar to. 
 Gezera Shava, which, though not expressly mentioned among 
 the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael, was generally adopted and 
 very frequently applied in the Talmudic interpretation of the 
 law; itis termed Heckesh. 
 
 The word wps7, derived from the verb wipn, to compare, 
 means originally a comparison, an analogy, in which general 
 sense it also occurs;? but in the Talmudic terminology it 
 usually denotes a particular kind of analogy, based 
 
 1Compare Frankel: ‘‘Ueber palaestinische und Alexandrinische 
 Schriftforshung p, 16, Note6andp. 20. 
 
 *For instance, Talmud Jerushalmi Pesachim vi. 1. 
 
THE ANALOGY oF HECKESH. 153 
 
 on the close connection of two subjects in one and the same 
 passage of the Law. 
 
 The theory of this peculiar analogy is that where two 
 subjects are connected in the law by a common predicate, the 
 same provisions otherwise made in regard to one of them are 
 under certain circumstances applicable also to the other. 
 
 Within certain limits this theory is not inconsistent with 
 logical reasoning, since the connection of two subjects by a 
 common predicate indicates that they in some respects have a 
 relation to each other. In modern rules of legal interpreta- 
 tion also isa maxim: ‘Coupling. words together shows that 
 they ought to be understood in the same sense.”: But in 
 their endeavor to provide every traditional law witha Biblical 
 support, the rabbis sometimes carried also this theory beyond 
 its legitimate limits and beyond the natural scope of the 
 written law. | 
 } IX. ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Sees 
 
 The following examples will illustrate the different modes 
 in which the theory of Heckesh is applied: 
 
 a. According to the traditional law, women are exempted 
 from the performance ofall periodical rites and religious duties 
 incumbent on male Israelites. In regard to prohzbitory com- 
 mandments, however, no difference is made between man and 
 woman. Her obligation in this respect is derived by the analo- 
 gy of Heckesh from the words of Scripture (Numbers v. 6). 
 ‘When a man or woman shall commit any sin,” etc., in which 
 passage women are placed in one category with men in regard 
 to a trespass against the law. 
 
 DINT NwDN 55D wy? D> TWN IN UNS 
 mnay pway 555 wes? nes sina mun 
 Kiddushin 35a. ~ 
 
 6. Among other rules and regulations concerning civii 
 and criminal courts, the traditional law provides that the ses- 
 sions ofa court must be opened in day time only; and further, 
 
 *Copulatio verborum indicat acceptionem in eodem sensu. Bacon, 
 Max. Reg. 3; Broom, Max. 3d, Lond. edition, 523. 
 
154 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 that ddndness disables a man from acting as one of the judges. 
 The reason for these two provisions is obviousenough. But their 
 Biblical support is offered by R. Meir in the following more in- 
 genious than natural deduction. He says: The Law, in speak- 
 ing of the judicial functions of certain priestly courts, enjoins 
 that ‘by their word shall every controversy and every injury 
 be decided” ya3 S55 9 55 sD (Deuteronomy xxi. 5). 
 ‘‘Controversy” refers to civil litigations, and ‘‘injnry” refers to 
 the plague of leprosy (which in Leviticus xiii. 3, is termed pa3 
 and was to be investigated by the priest). Both kinds of cases 
 being connected in this law, they must be analogous to each 
 other also in regard to their investigation. As the dnd would 
 not be the proper man, and w#ghz¢ not the proper time for the 
 investigation of a case of leprosy (Leviticus xiii. 6), so ought 
 day to be the proper time for the trial of any case of litigation, 
 
 and the d4nd not be admitted to judge such a case. 
 
 peyas) Da wn 
 
 “D1 DS HS POI NOV OVD oy AD 
 Sanhederin 34, b. 
 e. The traditional permission to cut off the sheaf of the 
 first fruits for the purpose of the wave offering on the 16th day 
 of Nissan, even if that day happened to be on a Sabbath, is 
 based by R. Ishmael on the following passage (Exodus xxxiv. 
 21), miawn wspri wenn. ‘In the time of ploughing and reaping 
 thou shalt rest on the seventh day.” Ploughing is under all 
 circumstances an optional (private) act, since it is nowhere 
 commanded to be done for a religious purpose. Hence, also 
 the prohibition of reaping on a Sabbath day refers only to the 
 optional reaping for private purposes, but not where it is to be 
 
 done in fulfillment of a religious duty: 
 
 iw VSP BS TW Bean Ae 
 Ms SAY Ayr VSP S39 
 Mishna Shebiith I. 4. Menachoth 72. 
 _X. HECKESH FROM PREDICATES. 
 § 32. 
 The analogy of Heckesh is also made from two predicates 
 
THE ANALOGY OF HECKESH. 155 
 
 belonging to oue subject. In this case, the yerbs constituting 
 the common predicate are treated as verbal nouns. Such a 
 Heckesh is, for instance, applied to prove that a wife may be 
 taken in matrimony by means of a written contract of marriage 
 which is handed to her. The law (Deuteronomy XXiv. 2), in 
 speaking of a case where a divorced woman contracts a second 
 marriage, uses the words: AMA ANY ‘when she has departed 
 out of his house she may éecome another man’s wife.” As the 
 departing out of his house (divorce) is by means of a written 
 document (bill of divorcement), so, also, the Jdecoming a wile 
 may be effected by means of a document written for that pur- 
 pose. 
 mes.) mn wp 
 TDW S I TT AS IWS mss) A 
 
 Talmud Kiddushin 5. As to other examples compare B. 
 
 Kamma, 7la,, and Chagiga, 40. _ 
 
 XI. HECKESH IRREFUTABLE. 
 § 33, 
 
 Arguments from Heckesh are, in general,regarded as being 
 more conclusive than those from Gezera Shava, the latter 
 admitting of a refutation, but not the former.’ But as 
 Gezera Shava, so also Heckesh could be applied only for the 
 purpose of supporting a traditional law. 
 
 Iwo by paw px Menachoth 82b; Baba Kamma 106b. Con- 
 cerning the prevalence of one or the other of these two kinds of 
 analogy in cases where they seem to be in conflict with each 
 other, compare the divergence of opinions in Gittin 41, and Zebachim 48. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 
 RULE Il, BINYAN AB, 
 
 I THEORY AND TERM. 
 § 34. 
 
 It is an established principle of modern interpretation of 
 laws: ‘‘When the law is special, but its reason general, the law 
 is to be understood generally’. This principle is also applied 
 in the rabbinical legal interpretation, as may be seen from the 
 following example: In Deut. xxiv, 6, the law provides ‘‘No 
 man shall take the mill or the upper millstone as pledge: for 
 he taketh a man’s life to pledge.” This law is special, prohib- 
 iting certain specified utensils, the hand-mill and the mill-stones, 
 to be taken as pledges. 
 
 The reason, however, which the law expressly assigns to 
 this prohibition is general; by taking away from the poor debtor 
 these utensils, so essential for daily domestic use, you are 
 depriving his family of the means of preparing their food. Hence 
 the Rabbis feel justified in generalizing this law, so that ‘‘Hvery- 
 thing which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken 
 as pledge.’” In a similar way the special law: ‘Thou shalt 
 not plow with an ox and an ass together” (Deut. xxii, 10) is 
 generalized by the Rabbis so as to equally prohibit the yoking 
 together of any two other animals of different Species and 
 strength. Ox and ass are here mentioned especially as being 
 those animals ordinarily employed in agriculture. And not 
 only in plowing, but also for any other purpose it is prohibited 
 to yoke such different animals together.* From the quite ra- 
 tional principle just illustrated, developed the Rabbinical rule of 
 
 1Quando lex specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est 
 intelligenda. | 
 
 arm wal Tow wes dow ia pony at bo aos t2$a as on xd 
 ayn. Mishna B. Metzia ix, 13. 
 
 *See Siphre P. 131; compare also Mishna Khilayim villi, 2. 
 
T'HE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 157 
 
 generalizing special laws. According to the theory ofthis rule it 
 is not even necessary to investigate whether the reason of a 
 certain law is general or not, but any special law found in the 
 Mosaic legislation is assumed to be applicable to all similar or 
 analogous cases. Only where Scripture, in some of those ways 
 which are defined by the Rabbis, indicates that the law in ques- 
 tion is provided exclusively for the particular case mentioned 
 therein, it is not applicable to similar cases. But otherwise, 
 the provisions of the law are to be taken in a comprehensive 
 and general sense, and the particular case expressly mentioned 
 is to be regarded only as an illustrative example for its ap- 
 plication.’ 
 
 This theory is termed Ainyan Ab (38 732), the construc- 
 tion of a leading rule i. e. the Generalization of a special law.* 
 
 ll. METHOD OF GENERALIZING A LAW. 
 § 35. 
 
 In Generalizing a special law so as to make it applicable 
 to other cases, the Rabbis apply the following method: 
 
 They try to point out in the special case some character- 
 istic peculiarities which taken together are the probable reason 
 for the provision made by the law for this case. Any other case 
 having the same peculiarities is regarded as an analogous case, 
 subject to the same provision of the law. 
 
 The formula ofthis method is usually: 
 
 (132 NYS) ...99 HS ...w Ime (NOD 37) AD 
 
 1A somewhat similar view is expressed by a modern law writer, 
 the celebrated Frenchman Toullier in his Le Droit Civil Francais 
 suivant Pordre du Code, liv 3. t. I. c. 1. “It is analogy which induces 
 us, with reason, to suppose that, following the example of the Cre- 
 ator of the Universe, the lawgiver has established general and u- 
 niform laws, which itis unnecessary to repeat in all analogous cases.”’ 
 
 2In the application of this theory sometimes the phrase is used: 
 53N 73 7 ‘this (special case) establishes the general rule or law”, f. 
 ex. Sanhederin 30a; B. Kamma 7%b. Sota 2b. In this phrase, the word 
 4X meaning father, chief, ruler is taken in the sense of principal or 
 general rule (compare the terms nixby MIN: Ppt nas). Hence 38 793 
 to build or construct a general rule, and 3x }.32 the construction of a 
 general rule, the generalization of a special law. 
 
158 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 ‘‘As A (the case mentioned in the law) being characterized 
 by (that and that certain peculiarity) 1s subject here to a cer- 
 tain provision, so any case similar to it (by having the same 
 pecularities), is subject to the same provision. 
 
 Where it is to be shown why the generalized law does not 
 apply to a certain not quite analogous case, the formula is: 
 
 PAsrserre) ihe aascriee ean) ins 
 
 ‘As A (having those certain peculiarities) is here subject 
 to that provision, so any other case (similar to it by having 
 the same peculiarities). The case of B however is excepted 
 from that provision, because of its not having the same 
 peculiarities.” 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 Se Sade 
 
 a. In Leviticus chapter xi and Deut. chap. xiv, the law 
 treats of clean and unclean animal food. Concerning the quad 
 rupeds, fishes and flying insects, general rules are given 
 pointing out certain criteria by which to distinguish between 
 the clean and the unclean. For the distinction between clean and 
 unclean fowls, however, no general rule is given, but there is 
 merely a list of nineteen or twenty specified birds which 
 are unclean. To have a general rule also for this kind 
 of animals was the more necessary as many of the spe- 
 cified fowls can not easily be identified. The Rabbis therefore 
 tried to find such a rule by generalizing the eagle which 
 stands at the head of the specified list of unclean fowls. The 
 eagle, they say, has four peculiarities: 1. it has not a ‘‘pro- 
 longed toe”; 2. it has no crop; 38. the inner coat of its giz- 
 zard cannot easily be peeled off from the fleshy part: 4, it 
 “strikes” with its claws the prey in eating it. Hence any 
 fowl resembling it in these peculiarities, is to be regarded as 
 unclean.’ 
 
 6. In Deut. ch xix, the law contains some particulars 
 supplementary to a former law concerning the cities of refuge 
 
 Sosy pan abpo aap pry pan am paseo pre inn ows ap? 
 Talmud Chullin 6la. Nod 2 NYYD DD AN NOV 
 
THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 159 
 
 which were designed to serve partly as a protection, partly 
 as a punishment and atonement for him who unintentionally 
 had committed a homicide. In this connection the special 
 provision is made, that when a man goes zzfo a forest with his 
 neighbor to hew wood, and the iron of the axe slips out from 
 the handle and accidentally kills the neighbor, the slayer shall 
 flee into one of those cities. 
 
 This special provision is, of course, generalized by the Rab- 
 bis, so as to be applicable to analogous cases, e. g. if one in 
 breaking down a wall kills a man accidentally by one of its 
 falling stones. If, however, such an accident happened in 
 private premises, where the man who was killed had no 
 right to enter, he who unintentionally caused his death is en- 
 tirely acquitted, without having to flee to the city of refuge; 
 for ‘‘as the forest mentioned in the law is a public place which 
 the slayer and the slain man equally had a right to enter, so 
 that law applies only to accidents occurring on places which 
 both of them were permitted to enter, but not in private 
 premises, where the man who was killed was neither permitted 
 nor expected to be.’ 
 
 Remark. Where it is not intended to raise a special provision to a 
 general law applicable to all similar cases, but merely to draw from 
 it an analogy for one single similar case, there the method is termed 
 11D 11D (abbrev. 19''p), from the phrase by which such an analogy is 
 usually introduced: . . . \yp AY "as we find concerning... so here”; 
 e. g. Yebamoth 7b: nN nwND dD Nedarim 4b: p79 y’'p. 
 
 Incorrectly the 19') is sometimes termed 3x })3, asin Menachoth 
 76a; 1/93 "NAND N32; see Rashi ‘s commentary on that passage. 
 
 III. GENERALIZATION OF TWO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
 © By 
 
 In the instances of Binyan Ab mentioned above, the 
 general law is drawn merely from one special provision. Such 
 generalization is qualified as IAN SIMD IN pia ‘a general 
 law drawn from one passage (or provision).” But sometimes 
 it 1s formed by a combination of two special provisions found 
 either in one and the same passage or in two different passages 
 of Scripture. In this case it is termed p’DIMD UbywHD ND “a 
 
 ' Mishna Maccoth II, 8. qx ows doad prady prad men cn an 
 p2> Omen paw man Syn ayn xy ows p2o%5 pds pray my bs 
 
160 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 
 
 general rule drawn from two provisions” It makes no es- 
 sential difference whether the two provisions are found in the 
 same or in different passages, as the same method is applied 
 in either case. 
 
 The method of generalizing two special provisions, so as 
 to make of them one general law, is indicated by the formula 
 always used for this purpose. It is: 
 
 ay nD mtn Som (aD nn? an 89 
 1S TWA IT 
 
 ‘‘Behold, this case ig not like the other, and the other not 
 like this; the common peculiarity is....”” That is to say, first a dif- 
 ference between the two special provisions is stated, and then 
 again those points are set forth which are common to both 
 of them, and which form their characteristic peculiarity. Any 
 other case having the same peculiarity is then subject to the 
 same law. 
 
 Remark. The reason why a ditference of the two special provisions 
 has first to be demonstrated before generalizing them, is explained in 
 the following way: 
 
 It isa Talmudic rule of interpretation that INND DO N3A D DIND sw 
 mon px ‘wherever two provisions of the law are found in Scripture 
 which are so_ identical that one of them is seemingly superfluous, as 
 it might as well have been derived from the other by way of an ana- 
 logy, then no further deduction from either of them can be admitted” 
 (Kiddushin 24a and elsewhere). In making a Binyan Ab by a combina- 
 tion of two special provsions it is therefore necessary first to show that 
 they are not so identical as to be regarded as 4M +5 D°X3F D'DIND 3w,but 
 that they really dodiffer in some points. 
 
 1 This definition is according to the opinion of R. Abraham b. 
 David (Rabed) in his exposition of the hermeneutic rules. Some com- 
 mentators, however, call the generalization of one special provision of 
 a law: 1¥9 19; the generalization of two provisions if found in one 
 passage: INN 3n5dD x“3, and if found in two different passages of 
 Scripture: D3\NI wD XI. 
 
THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 161 
 
 ILLUSTRATION OF GENERALIZING TWO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
 § See 
 
 In Exodus XXI, 26 and 217, the law provides, that ‘‘if a 
 man smite the eye of his Servant and destroy it, he shall let him 
 go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his servant’s 
 tooth, he Shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.” 
 
 Here two provisions are made, one concerning the eye and 
 one concerning the tooth of the servant. Though different in 
 their nature, eye and tooth have that in common that they are 
 essential parts of the human body and the loss of them cannot 
 be restored. Hence the Rabbis draw from these two provisions 
 the general law that the mutilation of any member of the ser. 
 vant’s body in consequence of brutal treatment on the part ofthe 
 master, causes the immediate manumission of that slave.’ 
 
 IV. GENERALIZING SEVERAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
 § 39. 
 
 } There are some instances where a Binyan Ad is formed by 
 
 a combination of three or even four different special provisions. 
 The method of operation in such cases is just the same asin the 
 case of generalizing two provisions. 
 
 An example of a combination of four different provisions 
 for the purpose of forming one general rule is furnished in the 
 first Mishna of Baba Kamma. ‘There, reference is made to 
 four principal damages provided for in the law: 1) the damage 
 caused by a goring beast (Exod. XXI, 28. 35. 36.); 2) the dam- 
 age caused by an uncovered ct (Exod. XXI, 33. 34.) 8) the 
 damage caused by depasturing foreign fields (Exod. xxii. 4) and 
 4) damage caused by unguarded fre (ibid. verse 5.). 
 
 Of these four provisions the general law is formed that a 
 man is responsible and has to make restitution for any damage 
 
 pay jay mw sya ywa ns py oan eds py now a Nd? 
 Tyind pois) pry or as war 5a And poi paw oa we 
 pain ya poy xy 
 Mechilta Mishpatim P. ix; cf. also Talmud Kidd. 24a, 
 
162 FHLERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 caused by his neglect to guard that property which is under 
 his care and liable to do damage.’ 
 
 V. RECAPITULATION. 
 § 40. 
 
 Briefly recapitulating this whole chapter on Generaliza 
 tion, we shall find that according to the Talmudical view every 
 provision of the Mosaic law is, as far as possible, to be taken 
 as a general law, applicable to all analogous cases. A plain 
 application ofa special provision to one analogous case is termed 
 soyp mp, The generalization of special provisions, so as to 
 make them applicable to all analogous cases is termed 3S p33 
 the construction of a general rule. If such a general rule is 
 derived merely from one special provision, it is termed 3s }532 
 sms sinde. A general rule formed by a combination of two 
 (or more) special provisions which, though different, have some 
 characteristic points in common, is termed p/31AD wD IN 132 
 These common characteristics are termed 7iwwnr 43M. 
 
 
 
 
 
 wyan ar xd means ayoo sn sSy ryan saa awn xd? 
 aan mas pind 35 psaqw an arsdy own m1 paw wen na ann a 
 oy inown prs jaatw yale awn syn pnd tS a3 paw 
 Examples of Binyan Ab formed of three provisions are found in 
 Sanhedrin 66a; Maccoth 4b; Chullin 65b. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 § 41. 
 
 In order to understand the different hermeneutic rules un- 
 der this heading, it is necessary to have a clear conception of 
 the meaning of the two talmudical terms wp and $55. 
 
 555 means the Geverad, that which comprehends a class of 
 objects; that which is applicable to a number of things agree- 
 ing in a certain point in common. 
 
 map means the Particular or the Special, that which sin- 
 gles out an individual from among a number or class. 
 
 Hence, any general term or any noun with the adjective 
 S> ‘all’ “whatsoever”, is regarded as 555; while any term de- 
 noting only a single object is taken as trp. 
 
 The law usually speaks either in general or in particular 
 terms. as: ‘‘He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be 
 put todeath” (Ex. XXI,12); “Thou shalt not eat axzy abominable 
 thing” (Deut. XIV, 3). Inthese two cases the terms are gener. 
 al. But inthe law: ‘‘Thou shalt not seethe the 27d in its mother’s 
 milk (Ex. XXIII, 19), the terms are particular.: 
 
 It is obvious that where the law speaks in general terms 
 it intends to refer to everything included in those terms. 
 Where, however, it uses particular terms, the whole tenor of 
 the law will decide whether it refers exclusively to the single 
 objects mentioned and enumerated or also to others of a simi- 
 lar nature. 
 
 But it sometimes occurs that the law uses both kinds of 
 terms together, so that either 1) the general is succceded by 
 
 1The terms bb5 and 75 are applied by the Rabbis even to verbs. A 
 verb denoting an indefinite act, as to do, totake, is regarded as: = 5, 
 while a verb denoting a special kind of act, as tobuke, isa pnb; e. &. 
 Kiddushin 2!b. M$>5-nnpd); Menachoth 55b: prD-maNN x, 5355 nwyn n5. 
 
164 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 particulars, pb 555, or 2) the particulars are ‘succeeded by a 
 general, 6555 7p, or 3) one general term preceding and another 
 succeeding the particulars, 5553 pip; 555. In each of these three 
 cases the contents of either the general or that of the particu- 
 lars are modified in some way. These modifications are defined 
 by the following three rules. 
 
 RULE IV. GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. 
 § 42, 
 
 JONpaw md Nos 5552 ps wp 555 
 
 In the case of General and Particular, the general includes 
 nothing but the purticular. 
 
 That is, when a general term is followed by an enumer- 
 ation of particulars, the law is assumed to refer exclusively to 
 the enumerated particulars. The particulars are then not re- 
 garded as a mere illustrating example of the preceding general, 
 but an indication that the contents of the latter are restricted 
 solely to that of the particulars.: 
 
 The following examples will illustrate the application of 
 this rule: . 
 
 a. In Levit I, 2. The law defines the offerings to be 
 ‘brought on the altar by the following words: ‘‘you shall bring 
 your offering of the dJeas¢ (mMAnsN jp), of the zerd or of the 
 flock.” The general term is here ‘“‘the beast (M2) which 
 otherwise includes any kind of quadrupeds, both wild and tame 
 (cf. Deut. XIV, 4. 5); but thespecial terms‘‘kerd and flock” limit 
 the offering to these domesticated animals. The law is then to be 
 construed in the following way: of the beast, viz. only of the herd 
 and of the flock you shall bring your offering.’ 
 
 * Somewhat analogous to this Rabbinical rule of interpretation is 
 the following rule of construction of modern laws: ‘‘Where a genera] 
 enactment is followed by a special enactment on the same subject, the 
 latter enactment overrides and controls the earlier one” . See Broom’s 
 Legal Maxims p. 650. 
 
 2am Ndi 75 one INYI IPI. Tal. Zebachim 3fa. 
 
THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 165 
 
 b. In Deut. XXII, 11 the law reads: ‘Thou shalt not 
 wear a mingled stuff (t3Hpw), wool and linen together’. Here 
 the general term TDyw, meaning a mixture of different sorts, 
 is followed by the particulars ‘‘wool and linen together;” hence 
 the Rabbis regard the prohibition of wearing a garment of ming- 
 led stuff to be restricted to a mixture of wool and linen.} 
 
 c. In Levit. XVIII,6 sq. the law on prohibited marriages 
 begins with the general terms: ‘‘None of you shall approach 
 to any that 1s near ofkin to him—”. According to this general 
 interdiction the intermarriage with any degree of relationship 
 would be prohibited. But as the general is followed by a spe- 
 cification of prohibited degrees, the interdiction is to be re- 
 stricted to these specified degrees.’ 
 
 RuLE V. PARTICULARS AND GENERAL. 
 
 § 43, 
 20m jpster wren Sy soy 545m mwys 5523 wap 
 
 In the case of Partieulars and General, the general term 
 adds to the contents of the particulars, and we include everything (be- 
 longing to this general). 
 
 That is to say, where particular terms are followed by a 
 general term, it is assumed that the law refers to anything in- 
 cluded in the general,* the particulars being regarded merely 
 as illustrative examples of that general. 
 
 
 
 1 See Mishna Khilayim X, 1, and the commentary of Obadiah 
 Bertinoro, 
 * Siphra in loco: 392-4) nwa aNw 5. 5x wx wre 
 DIB— A JON my Pax nny 
 prpay ay xbx 5593 psy pray 555 
 It is true, the rabbinical law adds some extensions to the biblical list 
 of prohibited degrees, but these extensions are not regarded as biblical, 
 but as ny3w ‘secondary prohibitions’ made by the authority of the 
 Sopherim. See Mielziner ‘The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce’, 
 Dewol: 
 * In a somewhat similar case, the modern rules of construction 
 take just the opposite view, as may be seen from the following quota- 
 tion in Broom’s Legal Maxims p. 650: ‘It is said to be a good rule of 
 
166 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 This rule is applied inthe following law in Exodus XXII,9: 
 
 ‘Tf a man delivereth to his neighbor an ass, or an ox,or a 
 sheep, or any beast to keep, and it die, etc.” 
 
 Here the enumerated particular terms ass, ox, sheep are 
 followed by the general term ‘‘azy beast”. Hence this law re- 
 fers to any kind of animal which is delivered to be guarded.’ 
 
 RULE VI. GENERAL, PARTICULAR AND GENERAL. 
 § 44, 
 
 A case of one general preceding and another following the 
 particular can, in some respects, be regarded as an combina- 
 tion of the two former cases, namely of General and Particular 
 and of Particular and General, and the rule for this combina- 
 tion is, consequently, a kind of amalgamation of the two rules 
 given above concerning these two cases. While in the case of 
 General and Particular (Rule IV) the general includes nothing 
 but the strict contents of the particular, and in the case of Par- 
 ticular and General (Rule V) the contents of the particular are 
 extended to tbe whole comprehension of the general, it is held 
 that a particular between two general terms is to be extended 
 only as far as to include that which is similar to the contents of 
 this particular, or as the rule is expressed in the talmudic phra- 
 seology: 
 
 orpT py sos ptoams ts 5527 erp 955 
 
 construction that‘‘where anAct of Parliament begins with words which 
 describe things or persons of an inferior degree and concludes with 
 general words, the general words shall not be extended to any thing 
 or person of a higher degree”, that is to say, where a particular class 
 [of persons or things] is spoken of, and general words follow, the 
 class first mentioned is to be taken as the most comprehensive, and the 
 general words treated as referring to matters ejusdem generis with 
 such class, the effect of general words when they follow particular 
 words being thus restricted’. 
 
 1 Mechilta on this passage: 
 ny ix won ix aw xoecd ps 
 mona Soy S/n 2? psp npn 55 any 
 15552 5am pian Sy Eoinw 55am Say 
 
THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 161 
 
 In a case of General, Particular and General, do tnclude only 
 that which resembles the particular. 
 
 An example illustrating the application of this rule is fur- 
 nished in Ex. XXII, 8, where the law is laid down that in all 
 cases when a person has been found guilty of having embezzl- 
 ed property, that person shall pay the double amount of the em- 
 bezzlement. This law is introduced by the words: ‘‘For any mat- 
 ter of trespass (General), for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment 
 (Particulars), for anything lost (General)... he shall pay double 
 to his neighbor.” 
 
 Applying the rule of General, Particular and General, the 
 Rabbinical interpretation of this law is to the etfect that the 
 restitution of the fwofold value is to be made only for such em 
 bezzled property which resembles the particular (the specified 
 objects: ox, ass, sheep, raiment) in this that it 1s movad/e pro- 
 perty, and that it is an object of zvtrinsic value. Hence the fine 
 of double payment for the embezzled property does not apply 
 where it concerns rea/ estate which is not movable, and neither 
 where it concerns 47//s or notes which have no intrinsic but 
 only a representative value.’ 
 
 Remark 1. In regard to the limitation of ‘that which res- 
 embles the particulars” (wrDr pps), the Talmud expresses two 
 Opinions which differ from each other slightly. 
 
 According to one opinion it is assumed that in a connection 
 of General, Particular and General SPIT NDP x555 ‘the first 
 general is prevailing and deciding,” so that such a connection 
 is to betreated mainly in accordance with the rule for isi 55D 
 viz. that the general comprises nothing but the strict contents 
 of the particular. These contents are, however, in our case 
 modified by the succeeding general, so that it now comprises 
 
 1 Baba Kamma 62 b: bb5 —ywe rat 55 by 
 pip — nnby dn aw Sy syn Sy ew oy 
 3) IN — ATK 55 by 
 mop ie1) Sodyon 134, wap pan AD 
 noo apn Sy5uonn rat 55 AS 
 mondo iNew Myprp my 
 moo yo ps poodpnw »b“yxe nip INy? 
 Other examples are furnished in Nazir 35 b; Shebuoth 4 b; 43 a. 
 
168 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 
 
 anything which resembles the particular, at least, in three 
 points (pty mw wa). 
 
 But the other opinion assumes that in a connection of Ge- 
 neral, Particular and General SPIT SANS 555 ‘the last gener- 
 al is prevailing and deciding”. Hence, such a connection is to 
 be treated rather in accordance with the rule for 555; x5, so 
 that the contents of the particular are extended to everything 
 comprised in the general. This extension is, however, in our 
 case modified by the first general in as far as it excludes that 
 which resembles the particular only in one point (7mX 5), 
 while anything resembling itin more than one point (sw2 
 773) is included. See Talm. Erubin 28a; compare also Rashi 
 on Chullin 65b sub voce 55, 
 
 Remark 2. Two general terms either preceded or followed by a 
 particular are, according to some authorithies, also treated as a case 
 of General, Particular and General : 
 
 mtd At yD 297 Dd] Ww Nv ANNw Drpn 55 
 
 bday 07815592 pm ya pra Syn 
 Chullin 66 b; B. Kamma 64 b. 
 
 Remark 3. The rule of General and Particular applies only when 
 both are found in one and the same passage of the law, but not 
 when in different passages: 
 
 pres 5592 prwat xd am ar ppm pray S45 
 B. Kamma 85 a; Menachoth 55 b. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULES OF GENERAL 
 AND PARTICULAR. 
 
 The Rules VII-XI contain five different modifications of 
 the preceding rules concerning the General and Particular. 
 First MODIFICATION. RULE VII. 
 $45 
 9925 Jas sinw wip wad pay sinw 955 
 
 Lhere ts a general that requires the Particular, and a Parlicu- 
 lar that requires the General. 
 
 That is to say, the preceding rules of General and Particu- 
 lar do not apply to cases where either the general needs the 
 supplement of the particular, or where the particular necessarl- 
 ly requires the supplement of the general in order to express 
 a full and clear meaning. For, an ambiguous general term 
 cannot be treated as a general; neither can an indefinite special 
 term be regarded as a particular. 
 
 Thus, in Leviticus XVII,13 the law enjoins that he who 
 taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, shall 
 pour out the blood thereof =Dys 3npai ‘and cover it with dust’. 
 
 In this passage the word \7pD) might have been taken 
 as a general expression, since there are various ways of cover- 
 ing a thing; "bys again is a particular term, and according to 
 the rule of Klal u-Phrat (Rule IV) the interpretation of this 
 law would be, that the blood must be covered with dust and 
 with nothing else. 
 
 But the general expression mp5 is ambiguous, as it admits 
 of different meanings; it means as well /o cover (i. e. to overlay, 
 to envelop), as also to Azde (to conceal, to withdraw from the 
 sight). Without the addition of "bya we might suppose that 
 the law only intended to enjoin that such blood pe put out of 
 sight or concealed in a closed vessel. Hence the expression 
 
170 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 WD) is ‘‘a General that requires the Particular”, to express 
 that the meaning is to overlay it with something, 
 
 Consequently the rule of K’lal u-Phrat cannot be applied 
 here, and the term "Dy= is not necessarily to be taken in its 
 strictest sense, but may be extended so as to include anything 
 resembling the dust. 
 
 The same passage can also serve to illustrate the second 
 part of our rule. The specialterm -py2 without the general 
 expression }703) would have been quite meaningless, as no 
 verb would be there indicating what to do with the dust. 
 Hence it is ‘‘a Particular that requires the supplement of the 
 General”. Another, somewhat intricate, example in Talmud 
 Bechoroth 19a. 
 
 SECOND MODIFICATION. RULE VIII. 
 § 46. 
 102? 559m jo eum 55D mnw at 55 
 83° 15D 5595 Sy 3055 Noe ee iosy Sy 70dd.N5 
 When a single case, though alveady included in a general law, 
 ts expressly mentioned, then the provision connected with tt, applies 
 to all other cases included in that general law. 
 
 This rule is illustrated by the two following cases: 
 a. The practice of witchcraft was according to the gener. 
 
 allaw in Ex. XXII, 17 (monn yb mpwon) a capital crime. 
 The nature of the capital punishment is, however, not defined 
 in this general law. But in regard to a certain kind of witch- 
 craft, namely »33p5) DIN (having a familiar spirit and being a 
 wizard) the law specifies the punishment as that of stoning 
 (Lev. XX, 27). Hence this punishment applies to the practice 
 of any kind of witchcraft’, 
 
 ‘Tal. Chullin 88b: pnp apy .555 InDD) RDN 
 2x5 NINN TTD PN DY 
 
 pind qryn 545 man pwn 
 
 9751 5553 mI PIT PN) 
 
 "Talm. Sanhederin 67): yo oewoo d5$53 sys oe 
 35 aby ome wpa 2 eye andy 
 
 DPI Awa AX Ad pA oN IN AD 
 
MODIFICATIONS. 171 
 
 b. Deut. XXII 1-3, the law treats of the duty to restore 
 found property to its owner. After having enjoined this duty 
 concerning animals found going astray, it is added: ‘‘And so 
 shalt thou do with his gavmen?¢; and so shalt thou do with every 
 lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast 
 found...”In interpreting this law the Rabbis say:Why is garment 
 expressly mentioned, though contained in the general term of 
 “every lost thing’? It isto indicate of what nature the found 
 things must be concerning which it is your duty to advertise 
 in order to restore them to their owner. Every garment had 
 certainly an owner and, besides, it has some marks by which 
 he could identify it. So the duty of advertising found things 
 refers only to such property which obviously had an owner who 
 will reclaim it and which has certain marks by which he might 
 be able to identify it.’ 
 
 THIRD MODIFICATION. RULE IX. 
 § AT. 
 syd Naw Ins Iw pywd sey 59a menw iat OD 
 oni 891 Opn? NS 
 
 Wherever a single case, though already included in a general 
 law, is expressly mentioned with a provision similar to the general, 
 such a case ts mentioned for the purpose of alleviating, but not 
 of aggravating. 
 
 An example is furnished in Ex. XX XV,3: ‘‘you shall kindle 
 no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day”. 
 Now kindling fire being regarded as a labor, is included in the 
 general prohibition of doing any labor on the Sabbath day. 
 Since here expressly mentioned, it is for the purpose of alle- 
 viating this special case by exempting it from the rigor of the 
 general law in regard to labor on the Sabbath day, so that he 
 
 'Mishna B. Metzia I, 5: _mbsbo 5992 ann vbown AN 
 a5 smb dy wrpnd ? ney andy 
 myosin nd wy oD na ww nonin adpw ay 
 poand ayn oyain id ew pn 12 wy rat 5a AS 
 Other examples are furnished in Tal. Yehamoth 7a, and Kheri. 
 thoth 2b, 
 
Li? HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 who kindles fire on that day, transgresses only a prohibitory 
 law, but is not subject to that severe punishment which the 
 preceding verse appoints for other kinds of labor. 
 
 FourTH MopIFICcATION. RULE X, 
 § 48. 
 IY Now ans yyw Pywo? Nv OOD3 Mnwass 45 
 VON OPAD NB 
 
 Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, is 
 separately mentioned with a provision differing from that contained 
 tm the general, such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviat- 
 tiny as well as of aggravating. 
 
 This rule may be illustrated by the passage in Ex. XXI, 
 28-32. There the law provides that if a man or woman has 
 been killed by a beast that had not been duly guarded by the 
 proprietor, though its savage nature was known to him, that 
 proprietor, besides losing the mischievous animal, had to 
 pay (to the bereaved family) such an indemnification as may 
 be laid upon him by the court. After this general provision 
 the law adds that ifa male or female slave was killed by such 
 a vicious animal, its proprietor has to pay to the master of 
 the slave an indemnification of ¢#7rty shekels. Now the case 
 of male or female slave, though included in the preceding gen- 
 eral law of man and woman, is here separately mentioned 
 with a provision different from the general in this, that the 
 amount of the indemnification is fixed. This separate provision 
 is for the purnose of alleviating as well as aggravating; ad/e- 
 
 2) 
 viating in the case of the actual value of the killed slave being 
 
 'Talm. Sabbath 70a, and Sanhederin 35b: my 5 mayan. 
 
 There is however another opinion represented by R. Nathan who, 
 interpreting this special prohibition of ‘kindling fire’ according to 
 the second modification (Rule VIII), holds: nxy pdnd Mayan, this 
 special prohibition of one kind of labor is an indication that each of 
 several labors done on a Sabbath-day is to be regarded as a separ- 
 ate desecration of tbat day, for which the transgrassor, under 
 circumstances, had to bring a separate sin - offering. Talm. ibid. 
 
MODIFICATIONS. 173 
 
 more, and aggravating in the case of its being less than thirty 
 shekels. 
 
 See Mechilta, Mishpatim, Parsha XT and Mishna B. Kam- 
 ma IV, 5. 
 
 FirtH MODIFICATION. RULE XI. 
 .§ 49. 
 
 wonn rats 75 55am jo gsm 5553 mnw ast 55 
 wisps 15595 ainamasimy sy 19555 ind aN ON 
 
 Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, 1s ex- 
 cepted from tt by an entirely new provision, such a case ts not to be 
 brought again under the general law, unless this be expressly indic- 
 ated in the Scripture. 
 
 An illustrating example is furnished in Ley. XIV, 11-16. 
 One of the two sacrifices which the healed leper had to bring 
 for his purification was a ¢respass-offering (DWN). But while 
 the blood of trespass-offerings in general was sprinkled only 
 onthe altar, the offering of the healed leper made an excep- 
 tion in this, that some of its blood was applied to the person 
 of him that was to be cleansed (verse 25). This peculiar way 
 of sprinkling is yoann 127 the entirely new (extraordinary) 
 provision by which this sacrifice is excepted from the general 
 law of trespass-offerings. | Hence it would have to be excepted 
 also trom the other ordinances and rites regarding trespass-offer- 
 ings, had not the Scripture expressly brought it again under 
 the general law by adding (verse 13 S17 QWANT MNwnd) that 
 this offering was otherwise to be sacrificed as a trespass-offer- 
 ing in the usual way. Talm. Zebachim 49a. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 RULES XII AND XIII. 
 
 THE EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. RULE XII. 
 
 § 50. 
 
 WiDd TH9n wT ye som 124 
 A word (or passage) ts to be explained from its connection or 
 Jrom what follows. 
 
 That is to say,the true meaning of a law or of a clause in a 
 law is sometimes to be interpreted by considering the whole 
 context inwhich it stands or by looking tothat which follows.? 
 
 Examples: 
 
 a. Explaining an ambiguous word from the context: 
 
 The word mpwsn occurs in Levit. XI,18,among the names 
 of unclean fowls, and again in verse 30 among the: creeping 
 things on earth. Hence, it is corcluded, that the law does not 
 refer to the same animal, but in the former place toa certain 
 kind of bird (namely according to LXX the szan, and accord- 
 ing to the Talmud, to the da/), and in the other place to 
 the mole.2 
 
 b. Explaining the meaning of a passage from the context. 
 
 In Ex. XVI, 29, we read: ‘‘Abide you every man in his 
 place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” If 
 taken out of its connection, this passage would contain an in- 
 junction that no Israelite shall leave his place on the Sabbath 
 day. But ifwe look to the context, we find that it refers to 
 
 1Sompare the following rule of modern jurisprudence with refer- 
 ence to the mode of construing deeds and written instruments: Hx 
 antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio. ‘‘A passage 
 will be best interpreted by reference to that wich precedes and fol- 
 lows it”. (Broom, Legal Maxims 577). Compare also the maxim: NVos- 
 citur a soctis ‘‘The meaning of a clause may be ascertained by ref- 
 erence to the meaning of expressions associated with it” (ibi. 588). 
 
 *Chullin 68a: AD IYO W997 WAT MwA Ns3a nowsan 
 4) oswwsy M2 nowsn 
 
THE EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. 175 
 
 the manna gatherers, prohibiting them to go out on the Sab- 
 bath day with the intention to seek manna.} 
 
 c. Interpreting a clause in a law by aclause which follows: 
 
 In Deut. XIX, 5 relating to the cities of refuge for the 
 manslayer, the law says: ‘Lest the avenger of the blood pur- 
 sue the slayer and overtake him and slay him ; avd he ts not 
 worthy of death etc.” This last clause is somewhat ambiguous, 
 whether referring to the dood avenger or to the manslayer. 
 The latter interpretation is supported by the clause following 
 it: ‘“nas much ashe hated him not in time past.’” 
 
 RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING PASSAGES. RULE XIII. 
 Saa he 
 
 Mm OS A Dns DANS ww 
 
 DS. PDN ww BNI Sw Ty 
 Two passuges contradicting each other are, tf possible, to be re- 
 
 conciled by a third one. * 
 
 As an instance of poner dictony passages we may refer to 
 Ex. XIII, 6 and Deut. XVI, 8. While the former passage en- 
 joins: ‘Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,” the lat- 
 ter passage says: ‘“Szx days thou shalt eat unleavened bread.” 
 In a plain way, the contradiction between these two pas- 
 
 
 
 1This p!ain interpretation according to the context is also adopt- 
 ed by Rashi in his commentary on this passage. Talmudical 
 interpretation, however, disregarded in this case the context, and 
 deduced from the words of this passage the general prohibition that 
 no Israelite shall, on a Sabbath-day, go farther than 2000 cubits 
 from the place of his abode (naw oinn ‘“‘the Sabbath way”); for 
 that was the distance of the holy tabernacle from the remotest 
 nart of the Israelitish camp in the desert. See Talm. Erubin 51a. 
 
 *Maccoth 10b: 337) DNIA AYN. MD paw prrdy 
 
 @onn Sea xox IN IN MYA WIN ANN 
 
 mwoy Synod xd saw iS sam aw 8 nw 
 
 Ay pelt oie h met a ge aol 
 * Compare the following rule of interpretation established in 
 molern jurisprudence (Potter, Dwarris treatise on statutes p. 144): 
 ‘‘Where there is a discrepancy or disagreeynent between two statutes, 
 such interpretation should be given that both may, if possible, stand 
 
 together.” 
 
176 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 sages may be removed by taking the latter passage in the 
 sense that six days unleavened bread shall be eaten, but that 
 on the seventh, besides this observance, a holy convocation 
 shall be held; or, that unleavened bread shall be eaten during 
 six days Jdesides the first, the celebration of which had been 
 treated more fully in the preceding verses. 
 
 In a more artificial way, the rabbinical interpretation 
 tries to reconcile the contradictory passages according to our 
 Rule by referring to a third passage, namely Lev. XXIII, 14 
 where the law enjoins that no use whatsoever was allowed to 
 be made of the new corn until the offering of an Omer of the 
 first produce of the barley harvest had taken place on the 
 morning after the first day of Pesach. Hence unleavened 
 bread prepared of the new corn was to be eaten only during 
 the six remaining days of that festival. Referring to this cir— 
 cumstance, the passage in Deut. XVI, 8 speaks of six days, 
 while the passage in Ex XIII, 6 refers to the unleavened bread 
 prepared of the produce ofthe former year’s harvest which 
 might be eaten during seven days.! 
 
 Remark. Some of the Rabbis however, apply in their interpret- 
 ation of Deut. XVI, 8 the Rule VIII and arrive at the conclusion 
 that,just as, according to this passage, the eating of unleavened bread 
 on the seventh day was optional, so it was also optional on the first 
 six days, so that it was not obligatory to eat just that whichis prop- 
 erly called unleavened bread (Matza), provided that nothing is eaten 
 which is leavened (Chametz). Only on the first eve of this festival 
 the eating ot such unleavened bread was regarded as obligatory, as the 
 
 law concerning the paschal-lamb on the eve expressly enjoins (Ex. 
 XII, 8) ‘‘with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.’” 
 
 * Mechilta, Bo, VIII (compare also Talmud Menachoth 66a): 
 nYIYv WX INAS DN) Aww We INk AND 
 29559 mxapp cw wpm Iy1D 
 jw yO Ayaw win jo aww NN 
 * Pesachim 120a: Nw DY NwY AX Mw yay AD 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 ADDITIONAL RULES. 
 
 A. JUXTAPOSITION. 
 
 § 52. 
 
 A peculiar kind of analogy which has some similarity to 
 Heckesh (above p. 152) is that called poqtaD contiguous passages, 
 or the azalogy made from the juxtaposition of two laws in Script- 
 ure. ; 
 
 The theory of this rule is that the meaning of a law is 
 sometimes explained from another law or passage which is 
 placed near by, either preceding or following it.’ 
 
 The following examples will illustrate this rule: 
 
 1. The word Mamzer (usually translated a dasfard) in the 
 law Deut. XXIII, 3: ‘‘A Mamzer shall not enter the congrega- 
 tion of the Lord” denotes, according to rabbinical interpreta- 
 tion, one born of incest or adultery. This interpretation is 
 based on the circumstance that a preceding law (ib. verse 1.) 
 interdicts an incestuous connection.’ 
 
 2. The law prohibits every labor on Sabbath, without 
 specifying the occupations included in that interdiction, thus 
 leaving a wide scope to individual opinion on the nature of 
 Sabbatical labor. Tradition, in order to prevent arbitrariness 
 in so important a point, tried to fill out this void by a detailed 
 definition of the nature of work, and minutely specified the 
 labors which are allowed and which are forbidden on Sabbath. 
 The Talmud distinguishes thirty nine chief labors MiDNd5D MSN, 
 comprising all those occupations which were necessary for the 
 
 1 This rule was probably introduced by R. Akiba, see Siphre, 
 Numbers 181: 43) naWwDW AWAD DD WIN y"9 
 
 2 Yebamoth 49a. 
 PIN NWR AN wee npr xd 
 
 stop wa xd md qrpi 
 
178 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 construction of the holy tabernacle. This is based on the cir- 
 cumstance that Scripture repeatedly (Exod XXXI 1-17; 
 XXXV, 1 sq.) brought the Sabbath law in juxtaposition with 
 the description of the tabernacle.’ 
 
 Remark. The theory of }3\19D which Ben Azai, one of R. Akiba’s 
 disciples, even applied in the construction of criminal laws, was not 
 generally adopted. R. Jehuda ben Iai, another disciple of R. Akiba, 
 is especially mentioned as having been opposed to its general application. 
 He strongly objected to a deduction based by the former on that the- 
 ory in the case of acertain capital crime, remarking with astonishment: 
 “How, shall we inflict the punishment of stoning upon a criminal be- 
 cause two laws are incidentally in juxtaposition?” (Yebamoth 4a; San- 
 hedrin 67b.). : 
 
 He admitted the analogy from juxtaposition only in cer- 
 tain cases, especially in regard to laws found in the book of Deuternomy 
 where the laws are evidently arranged according to a certain plan, 
 while in regard to the other books of the Pentateuch it is held: psx 
 MIN3 AMIN) Op ‘“‘there is no certain order for the sequence of the 
 laws” (Pesachim 6b),hence no analogy must there be based on the jux- 
 taposition of two laws (Sanhedrin ibid.). 
 
 § 53. 
 
 Another kind of jsD113D consists in the method of sepa- 
 rating the final part of a clause or sentence and connecting it 
 with the beginning of the following clause or sentence, and in 
 this way artiticially forming a new sentence, the sense of which 
 is to support a certain traditional law. 
 
 This peculiar method may be illustrated by the following 
 examples. 
 
 1. It was a traditional rule of law, based on common 
 sense, that a judge was unfit to sit in court when known to 
 nourish inimical feelings either against the defendant or against 
 one of his fellow judges. In the absence of an express passage 
 
 2 Talm. Sabbath 49b: won nay 3229 MaNdyp nN; see Rashi’s 
 Commentary on this passage. Other examples of this kind of analogy 
 are found in Pesachiin 96a; Yebamoth 4a. 
 
ADDITIONAL RULES. bios 
 
 in the Mosaic law bearing on this rule, the Rabbis construed 
 au artificial support inthe following way. In Numbers XXXYV, 
 23, in the law about unintentional murder, it is said..... 
 ‘whereas he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm”. 
 These words plainly refer to the slayer and the slain man, but 
 by connecting them with the beginning of the following sen 
 tence (verse 24): ‘the congregation (i. e. the court) shall 
 judge...”, the new sentence is construed: Being no enemies and 
 not seeking his harm, they shall judge as a court.! 
 
 2. In Lev. XXIII, 22 we read:... ‘‘and the gleaning of 
 thy harvest thou shalt not gather ; unto the poor and the stranger 
 shalt thou leave them.’ By closely connecting the end of the 
 first clause with the beginning of the next clause, the sentence 
 is formed : “‘¢hou shalt not gather unto the poor’, intimating that 
 the owner of the field has no right to gather the gleaning in 
 behalf of a certain poor and thereby depriving the other poor 
 of their claim to that gleaning warranted them by the laws.’ 
 
 B. RESTRICTIVE RULES IN THE APPLICATION OF ANALOGY. 
 § 54 
 
 By way of a plain analogy, particular provisions of the 
 law concerning a certain case are in the Talmud often trans- 
 ferred to another case. This method is termed 33°31 7D; 
 (compare above p. 159). The phrases used in this process are 
 either... 7) j2B>» or ....jo jaa, we derive, learn (this pro- 
 vision) from (that other case of...). 
 
 The use of analogy for such purpose presupposes consisten- 
 cy in the law, so that its provisions in one case were intended 
 to apply also to an another similar case. But though the two 
 cases from the comparison of which an analogy is drawn need 
 not to be alike in all respects, stifl they must, at least, be- 
 long to the same sphere of the law. The provisions con 
 
 
 
 i Ay wEwT ny weap xd xd ane ed nm 
 (ay xd swt) psd sn 
 SnND PTD pawy pre Mer penwy n’n ww) 7x 
 Talm. Sanhedrin 29a: compare Rashi’s commentary. 
 * Tal, Gittin 12a: syn nx yron xd 25 ppdn Nd 
 
180 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 nected with the one case cannot be applied to another case 
 which is totally different in its legal nature. Hence the follow- 
 ing restrictive rules in the application of analogy: 
 1, j2D9o ND NNOOD NUON 
 DD. NO NTOND ROO 
 In a ritual case we do not apply an analogy from a civil 
 
 case, and vice versa. Berachoth 19a; Baba Metzia 20a; Kid- 
 dushin 3b. | 
 
 2, jPD ND NDIPD NNDD 
 
 In a case concerning pecuniary restitution we do not apply 
 an analogy from a case concerning fine. Kethuboth 46b; Kid- 
 dushin 3b. 
 
 3. IAN? owIpp pdin 
 
 In a case concerning profane things we do not apply an 
 analogy from laws concerning sanctified things. Pesachim 45a; 
 Shebuoth 26b; Nazir 36b. 
 
 4. qomp3 Nd wiinp 
 
 From an extraordinary, exceptional case we make no ana- 
 logy. Pesachim 44b; Moed Katon 7b; Chullin 98b. 
 
 C. LIMITED OR UNLIMITED EFFECT OF AN ANALOGY. 
 § 55. 
 
 When provisions of one law (A) are to be applied to an- 
 other law (B) by virtue of a traditional analogy (the construc- 
 tional Gezera Shava, compare above § 24), the question arises 
 whether those laws are to be treated alike in every respect,so 
 that all particulars found in A are applicable to Bor whether 
 the consequences of such an analogy are to be restricted to 
 the main provision only. Concerning this question two differ- 
 ent Opinions are expressed. 
 
 * A similar rule is also laid down in modern law interpretation; 
 compare Fr. Lieber, Legal and Political Hermeneutics, p. 276: ‘An ex- 
 ceptional case can of itself sustain no analogy, since the instance from 
 
 which we reason, the analogon, must always be one which implies the 
 rule’, 
 
ADDITIONAL RULES. 181 
 
 One opinion, represented by R. Meir, holds: mami mp "7 
 “deduce from it, and again from it”, that is tosay, any further 
 provision connected with A may be transferred to B. 
 
 But the other opinion is: SANS SPAN) AID pT Cdeduce 
 from it, and (as for the rest) leave it in its place”, that is to 
 say, after having transferred the main provision of A to B, we 
 are to let B retain its own character and the provisions ex- 
 pressly connected with it. 
 
 The difference between these two opinions may be illustrat- 
 ed by the following example. 
 
 In Deut. XXIII, 3, the law provides that a Mamzer, that 
 is, one born of incest, ‘‘shall not enter the congregation of the 
 Lord, even to the tenth generation.” A similar provision has an- 
 other law concerning an Ammonite and a Moabite: ‘‘Zven to 
 the tenth generation they shall not enter into the congregation 
 of the Lord, for ever.” By aGezera Shava the conclusion is 
 made that also inthe former luw concerning Mamzer the phrase 
 ‘even to the tenth generation” is to be understood ‘‘for ever”. 
 (See above p. 150). 
 
 But while the term JZamzer implics the female as well as 
 the male, the masculin form of the words ‘aN (By is taken 
 by tradition strictly, referring to males only, but not to females 
 (Mszioy N71 Dy). 
 
 According to the opinion of 7311 7319 115, a female AZamzer, 
 after the tenth generation, might be admitted to enter the con- 
 eregation ; her case being then, in all respects, analogous to 
 that of a female Amonite who 1s exempted from the prohibi- 
 tion. | 
 
 But according to the opinion of s"AN3 SPIN 739 7, the 
 two laws are analogous only in respect to the meaning of the 
 phrase ‘‘even to the tenth generation”, while the expression 
 Mamzer always retains its comprehensive meaning, including 
 females as well as males. See Yebamoth 78b. Another ex- 
 ample Shebuoth 31a. 
 
182 HERMENEUTICS OF THE 'TALMUD.: 
 
 D. REFUTATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF HERMENEUTIC 
 ARGUMENTS. 
 
 § 56. 
 
 The generalization of a Special Law (above Chapter III) 
 may be refuted by the objection that a particular circumstance 
 is connected with that special law which renders it unfit to be 
 generalized or to be applicable to other cases. 
 
 The phrase used in such a refutation is the same as that 
 which is used in refuting the premise of an inference of Kal 
 Vechomer (see above p. 137), namely:..... jpw 9D AD 
 
 ‘Why is that special provision made for the case A? Be- 
 cause that certain peculiarity is connected with this case’’.... 
 
 After such a refutation, the attempt is usualky made to de- 
 fend the Binyan Ab by a reference to case B having the same 
 provision, though not connected with that peculiarity. Ifthen 
 also the generalization of case B is objected to, on account of 
 an other peculiarity connected with its provision, this objection 
 is again removed by a reference to case A in which that pecu- 
 liarity is not found. The common provision of A and B is then 
 generalized according to the usual method of ‘3w1 SN p33 
 mains. (See above vn. 160’. The procedure of this combined 
 generalization is usually introduced by the following phrase: 
 
 JOIY TWh TSA ATT AP 89 pa am 
 
 ‘The conclusion returns (that is,the former argument is to 
 be reinstated), for A is not like B, and vice versa, but the 
 common point of both is.....”” Examples: Maccoth 2b; Sanhed 
 rin 66a. 
 
 Remark. The same dialectic procedure and the same 
 phrases are also applied where a refuted inference of Kal Ve- 
 chomer is to be reinstated by a combination of two similar cas- 
 es, asin Berachoth 35a ; Kiddushin 5 b; B. Metzia 4a, and 
 often. 
 
 KE. Tae THEORY OF EXTENSION AND LIMITATION. 
 SNE: 
 
 The term 35 means exfension; wry limitation. The idea 
 
ADDITIONAL RULES. 183 
 
 connected with each of these two terms when applied separate- 
 ly, was explained in the introductory chapter § 6 and § 7. 
 We have here to consider their meaning when applied con- 
 jointly mipi us to signify a theory in contradistinction to 
 that of mip 555 (chapter IV). 
 
 In as much as a general term (555) denotes an indefinite 
 number of individuals having something in common, it may also 
 be regarded as ‘57, an extension of the meaning; and in as 
 much as a particular, singular term (p15) restricts the mean- 
 ing to definite individuals, it may be regarded as piy%, a lim- 
 itation. 
 
 That which in the theory of R. Ishmael is called wipi 555, 
 is according to the theory of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba regard- 
 ed as pip N34. 
 
 There is the following difference between these two the- 
 ories. 
 
 a) Ina combination of pp} 555, the particular is regard- 
 ed as the explanation of the preceding general, so as to narrow 
 down its comprehension to the strict contents of the particular, 
 excluding even that which is similar to this (AO NOs 5552 MNS 
 papsy, see above § 42). 
 
 According to the other theory, the wpiy% merely limits the 
 extension of the preceding ‘35,80 as to include everything sim- 
 ilar. and exclude that only which is not similar to it. 
 
 SOIT pw wy Som man wip 1 wa 
 
 b) Inacombination of 552. p1b the geueral following a 
 particular includes everything falling under the general (comp. 
 Rule V. § 43). But according to the other theory, the ‘23> fol- 
 lowing the pip includes that only which is similar to that 
 Dip. 
 
 c) Ina combination of 555) opi 555 we include only that 
 which resembles the particular (comp. Rule VI. § 44). 
 
 But, according to the other theory, the rule for sipis N24 
 371 is, that the “a5 includes everything, even that which is 
 not similar to the wip, the effect of the latter being, however, 
 to exclude merely one single thing which has the least simil- 
 
184 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 arity to it. To define this one thing to be excluded, is entire- 
 ly left to the judgment of the expounding Rabbis.: 
 
 Sms 127858 py sd Son nasa sa yD 
 The theory of pip i 434, being not as clear and exact as 
 that of mi51 555, is rejected by most of the Tanaim, and ad- 
 initted only in some special cases.? 
 
 The difference between these two theories is illustrated by 
 the following example. 
 
 In Levit. V, 21-23, the law provides that if an embezzler 
 without having been coxvicted before a court, but prompted 
 by his conscience, wants to expiate the sin of his injury to 
 some person in respect to property, then*he has to restore the 
 fraudulently acquired property, with the addition of one fifth 
 of its value, and besides bring a trespass-offering. The law in- 
 troduces the case by the words: 
 
 “If a person commits a misdeed, and “es to his neighbor 
 (General) concerning a ¢rust or a deposit (Particulars), ete. ete. 
 
 or whatever it may be about which he has sworn falsely (General), 
 then he shall restore etc”. 
 
 According to the theory of 555° pip; 552, these expres- 
 sions are to be construed in a way that the mulct of one fifth 
 of the original amount is required for such embezzled objects 
 only which are movadles; and have an intrinsic value, the former 
 excluding veal estate, and the latter excluding 2/s or notes. 
 
 But according to the theory of my} ‘25, the law refers 
 to any kind of embezzled property, ¢cluding real estate, exclud- 
 ing, however, 4dz//s or notes which have merely a representative 
 value. 
 
 The argumentation according to these two theories is expressed in 
 the following way: 
 
 *See Rashi on Talm. Kiddushin 2!b, and on Shebuoth 4b. 
 "Sev B. Kamma 64b; Shebuoth 5a; Chullin 67a. 
 
ADDITIONAL RULES. 185 
 
 B A 
 SIP OT MIST WIT pS say 9909 °wT IST 
 139 — nya wn 553 — InvyI YN) 
 Dy — TW NOAWNI IW pIpH3a HD — VT NIwWNA WwW NIppha 
 Va Pmt ene 1a leas mel 225s S319 IN 55>) WH — YIM TS pia) als 
 
 Soa am yp yan ota pya sds. tans ox 5$5) opr 555 
 
 op Sacasoasorn — yo0 1B Sydonn 735 wan pren AD 
 
 MIO WI" PYND ND “oo iin Sodunn 55 aN 
 
 poodpr paw myprp my 
 
 2D | PAW MDW NY 
 
 Talm. B. Kamma 117b; Shebuoth 37b. Other examples:Succah 
 50b; Kiddushin 21b; Shebuoth 26a. 
 
 FF, ‘“MriKRA” or ‘‘Masorna’”’? 
 § 58 
 
 Although our vowel-signs of the Biblical text were not yet 
 introduced at the Talmudic period, still the correct pronun- 
 ciation according to the vowels was fixed by oral tradition. 
 
 The reading of the text according to the established pro- 
 nunciation was called y1pp (reading). The proper spelling 
 of the words of the sacred text as fixed by tradition, letters 
 without vowels, is termed J/asora (MID or ANE). 
 
 The peculiar spelling of many words sometimes admits a 
 meaning somewhat different from that which is expressed by 
 the established pronunciation or our present vocalization. 
 The question then arises whether in such a case the law is to 
 be intrepreted according to the vowel reading or rather accord- 
 ing to the letters with which the word is spelled in the Magora. 
 
 In this respect two opposite opinions are expressed in the 
 Talmud. One holds: s1p9 ox w ‘The source of law is in 
 the reading” i, e. the reading of a word according to its estab- 
 lished vocalization is essential to decide its meaning. The 
 other opinion is: mio) ox we “the source is in the Masorc,” 
 that is, the spelling of the word as fixed by the Masora is more 
 material in defining its meaning. 
 
186 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
 
 Example: Speaking of the cities of refuge to which he who 
 unintentionally killed a fellow-man was to flee, the law illustrates 
 the case of such an unintentional homicide by the following 
 words: AS when a man goeth into the the woods with his 
 neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the 
 axe to cut down the tree, pyn jp Sian Swai and the tron slip 
 peth from the wood, and findeth his neighbor, that he die, etc.” 
 (Deutr. XIX, 5.) 
 
 According to the opinion of spo? ON, this passage refers 
 only to the case where the killing happened by the iron of the 
 axe slipping from the helve. But according to the opinion of 
 mouipysS os the letters of the word 5y3; admit that word to be 
 read 5y3; in the Piel form, so as to give the sense ‘‘and the iron 
 splints a piece from the tree”, hence this passage refers only 
 to acase where the killing happened by a piece of wood which 
 the axe cut from the tree. 
 
 Bbire bya) smaion> os we 150 °S4 
 ip by) WIPO? ON WeDo II 
 
 Maccoth 7b; other ene Pesachim 86a, and Sanhedrin 4a. 
 
 In this, as in most of other cases, the opinion of spo) ox 
 prevailed. The opposite opinion was accepted only where it 
 served to support a traditional interpretation of a law; for in- 
 stance, that the expression of pon mipD (Levit XXIII, 40) 
 which the Masora spells M55 (without 4) refers only to one 
 branch of the palm tree (Talm. Succah 32a). 
 
 CLOSING REMARK. 
 
 Concluding this exposition of the principal rules of Talmu- 
 dical Hermeneutics, we must remind the student that this sys- 
 tem of artificial interpretation was mainly calculated to offer 
 the means of ingrafting the tradition on the stem of Scripture, 
 or harmonizing the ora/ with the written law. 
 
 Modern scientific exegesis, having no other object than to 
 determine the exact and natural sense of each passage in Scrip- 
 ture, must resort to hermeneutic rules fitted to that purpose, 
 and can derive but little benefit from that artificial system. 
 
CLOSING REMARK, 187 
 
 Thus already the great Jewish Bible commentators in the Mid- 
 dle Ages, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others who are justly re- 
 garded as the fathers of that thoroughly sound and scientific 
 system of exegesis that prevails in modern times, remained in 
 their interpretation of the Bible entirely independent of the 
 hermeneutic rules of Hillel, R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. Never- 
 theless, this system deserves our attention, since it forms a very 
 essential part of the groundwork on which the mental structure 
 of the Talmud is reared. It must be known even in its details, 
 if the Talmudic discussions, which often turn on some nice 
 point of the rules of that system, are to be thoroughly under- 
 stood. 
 

 
PALE Lis 
 
 TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 
 
TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 PREFATORY. 
 
 Like any other branch of science and literature, the Talmud 
 has its peculiar system of technical terms and phrases adapted 
 to its peculiar methods of investigation and demonstration. 
 To familiarize the student with these methods and with the 
 terms and phrases most frequently used in the Talmud is the ob- 
 ject of the following chapters. As the Mishna is the text on | 
 which the Gemara comments, we begin with the explanation 
 of some of the terms in reference to certain features in the 
 structure of the Mishna. We shall then proceed to the various 
 modes and terms used by the Gemara in explaining and discus- 
 sing the Mishna. .This will be followed by an exposition of the 
 ways in which the Talmud generally discusses the reports and 
 opinions of the Amoraim. Finally, the methods and processes 
 of Talmudical argumentation and debates as well as the terms 
 and stereotyped phrases connected therewith, will be set forth. 
 
A. THE MISHNA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF A MISHNA 
 PARAGRAPH, 
 
 ono 
 § 1. 
 
 .»c .ishna very often simply lays down the law without 
 mentioning its author or any conflict of opinions that existed 
 in regard to it. Such a Paragraph of the Mishna is termed 
 OnpD, an anonymous and undisputed Mishna. Examples: Bera- 
 choth I, 4; III, 1-3. 
 
 Such anonymous and undisputed Mishna paragraphs -~are 
 generally regarded as authoritative. They are mostly of a ve- 
 ry ancient origin, having been incorporated into the work of R. 
 Jechuda Hanasi from older Halacha collections made by former 
 teachers, especially that of R. Meir. yp ‘4 PIN OND, 
 Sanhedrin 86a. 
 
 npn 
 
 § 2. 
 
 Often also the Mishna reports a conflict of opinions in regard 
 to a certain law. Such a conflict is termed npyne a division 
 or difference of opinion. 
 
 The conflicting opinions are set forth in different ways: 
 
 a. After having laid down the anonymous rule of law,the 
 dissenting opinion of a certain teacher is added by: spy 3355 5, 
 Rabbi A says.. In such cases, the anonymous author ofthe 
 first opinion is ere in the Gemara NDP SIN the former tea- 
 cher. ‘Example: Berachoth IV, 1. 
 
 Remark. As the anonymous opinion represents that of the teachers 
 in general, the Gemara sometimes calls it also p'95n “35 the words 
 (the collective opinion) of the sages; f. i. Sanhedrin 31a. 
 
 b. A rule of law is laid down with the addition ™ “35 
 
192 TERMINOLOGY. AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 i 9giop these are the words of Rabbi A, and then the dissent- 
 ing opinion is introduced by :4p5~8 ‘3 °75D but Rabbi B 
 says...; or the question of law is propounded, and then the dis- 
 senting opinions concerning it are introduced by “pix ’s dob 3 
 “ois ‘s°nb5p 1. Examples: Berachoth II, 1 and 3. 
 
 Such a difference of opinion in which the opposite views 
 are represented by single teachers is teimed in the Gemara 
 Sm am npyna a difference between individuals. 
 
 c. The opinion of a single teacher concerning a question 
 of law having been set forth, the collective opinion of other 
 contemporary teachers differing therefrom is introduced by: 
 Dis ONDDM) but the (other) sages say.... Example: Bera- 
 choth VI, 4. 
 
 Such a conflict of opinions between an individual and a 
 majority of other teachers is termed in the Gemara nosny 
 Ds WM a conflict between an individual and the majority. Gene- 
 rally, the opinion of the majority prevails. This rule is phrased: 
 oan moon peas asm where an individual and the majority 
 differ from each other, the opinion of the majority is Halacha 
 (the accepted law). Berachoth 9a. 
 
 * d. The conflicting opinions are represented by different 
 schools, especially those of Shamai and Hillel. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth I, 1; VIII, 1. 5. 7. 8. 
 
 Remark. In a conflict between those two schools the opinion of 
 the School of Hillel generally prevails. Ajwy mS 7/3 Dipda wa Be- 
 rachoth 36b. 
 
 NOY SD IND D NW 
 § 3. 
 
 Where a Mishna paragraph contains provisions for two 
 or more cases, the former case is signified by xy (the case at 
 the beginning), and the following or last case by "b%D (the case 
 
 at the end). The case between these two is termed pny wy 
 the middle case, 
 
 Example for a Mishna paragraph with two cases: B. Metzia 
 I, 3; for one with three cases: B. Metzia I, 4. See also Gema 
 ra Kiddushin 63a; Kerithoth 316; Chullin 94b. 
 
 In a paragraph divided into two main parts, A and B, 
 each containing two cases, aand b, the case cf A bh is termed 
 NWT ND, and that of B, a ND%DT Nw. 
 
TERMS AND PHRaSES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 193 
 
 Example: Shebuoth VI, 7. Compare Talmud Shebuoth 
 43b; B. Metzia 34b. 
 
 Remark. <A part of a Mishna paragraph referring to a separate 
 case or proposition is also termed x3) (gate, section, clause); hence 
 the terms xw 75 825 the clause of the first proposition, N5°DI N59 
 the clause of the subsequent proposition. Sabbath 3a; Yebamoth 18b, 
 
 nye 
 § 4. 
 
 The Mishna, in general, simply lays down the rule of law 
 without stating its reason. At times, however, the reason is 
 added. The reason of a law is termed py. It is either based 
 a) on a biblical passage (Sp) and its interpretation, and is 
 then usually introduced by 3 N34; or b) on common sense 
 (N12D); or c) on a general principle (555). 
 
 Examples: a) Berachoth IX, 5; B. Metzia II, 7.10. b) B. 
 Metzia I, 7; II, 11. c) B: Kamma III, 10.11. 
 
 Remark. The Gemara generally invertigates the reasonot the 
 law where it is not stated in the Mishna. 
 
 nnnoD 
 esr: 
 
 Also the different opinions of the teachers concerning a point 
 of the law are generally set forth in the Mishna without the reason 
 of the difference being added. Occasionally, however, not only 
 the reason of one or both of the contradictory opinions is stated, 
 but even a shorter or longer controversy is recorded in which 
 the teachers argue in opposition to each other on some questions 
 oflaw. Such a controversy is termad in the Gemara yradp. 
 The elaborate argumentation pro and con is also termed pw 
 jn} or in Aramaic S7D1 Sopw (literally, a taking and giving 
 of arguments, 1. e., a azscussion), Examples of controversies in 
 the Mishna: Berachoth I, 3; Pesachim VI, 2; Taanith I, Deb. 
 Kamma II, 5. 
 
 nwyp 
 § 6. 
 
 The Mishna sometimes adds to its rule of law or to its 
 
194 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 opinions of the contesting teachers the report of a certain case 
 in which a celebrated anthority gave a decision either 1) in 
 accordance with or 2) in contradiction to the rule just laid 
 down or the opinion just expressed. Such a report is usually 
 introduced by the word pvp it is a reported fact that...., 
 it once occured that... 
 
 Examples ad 1: Berachoth I, 1; Bechoroth IV, 4; ad 2: B. 
 Metzia VIII, 8; Gittin I, 5. 
 
 mos 955 
 Sa) Uh 
 
 The word 555, often occurring the Mishna, signifies a gener- 
 al rule, a guiding principle of a law. Such a general rule either 
 precedes or follows the details of a law. 
 
 Where it precedes the details, it 1s usually introduced by 
 the words ps 55D they (i. e. the former teachers) established 
 the following rule concerning.... | 
 
 Examples: Pea I, 4;Shebiith VII, 1. 2; Maaseroth I, 1. 
 Sabbath VII, 1. 
 
 Where the general law follows the details. it is introduced 
 by 555m nt this is the general rule..... 
 
 Examples: Berachoth VI, 7; Pesachim III, 1; B. Metzia 
 Teen. 
 
 Remark. The Gemara usually investigates the necessity of this ge- 
 neral rule by asking: *8 NN) what is this to add?i.e; which new 
 cases is this general rule to imply besides those explicitly stated in the 
 
 details of the law? 
 Pin 22 122 
 
 § 8. 
 
 Paragraphs of the Mishna containing a generalizing or 
 comprehensive provision are introduced by S5/or 95a alae 
 “every”, ‘whatever’. Mostly some exceptions from such a 
 generalizing provision are added by the word pin ‘‘except”.. 
 
 Examples: Chagiga I, 1; Kiddushin I, 6. 7.9; Gittin H, 
 5.; Chullin 1,1. 
 
 Remark. The Gemara finds that such comprehensive provisions 
 are not always exact, as they often admit of exceptions besides those 
 expressly stated inthe Mishna. Erubin 27a; Kiddushin 34a. 
 
TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 195 
 
 Shela 
 
 Sour 
 
 Without laying down a general rule, the Mishna sometimes 
 states the exact number of cases to which a certain law refers 
 and then specifies those cases more fully, f. i. “there are four 
 main kinds of damages to property, namely....” B. Kamma iF, 
 1; or: ‘‘Marriage may be contracted in three ways, namely...” 
 Kiddushin I, 1. Such a stated number is termed sg3959%. 
 
 Remark. The Gemara finds that such a number is intended to 
 limit the law exactly to those cases mentioned in the Mishna, so as to 
 exclude certain other cases, and the question is generally made : 
 ND MIDS NID What cases are excluded by this limiting number? 
 
 Svar 
 § 10. 
 Another limitation of the Mishna occurs, where certain 
 
 cases are enumcrated by the introductory words 45» “these 
 DEC we OleN est hississ.c: 
 
 Examples: Pea I, 1; Pesachim II, 5; Yebamoth III, 3. 5. 
 
 Remark. Also where these limiting words are used in the Mishna 
 the Gemara usually asks: ‘x9 ‘wiyn5 what cases are excluded by this 
 limitation? 
 
 anu t carl pets 
 § 11, 
 
 Still another limitation admitting of no other exceptions 
 t ian those expressly mentioned, is found, where the Mishna points 
 out the only difference that in certain legal respects exists 
 betwcen two things, by the limiting phrase: EN Nee aN 
 “there is no difference between...and....except in regard...” 
 
 Examples: Megilla I, 4-11, 
 
 sy] NIN 
 § 12. 
 
 Where the Mishna enumerates different cases to which a 
 
196 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 certain law applies without fixing their number and without using 
 any of those limiting terms mentioned above, the enumerated 
 cases do not always exclude other cases to which the same law 
 applies. The Gemara uses in this case the phrase: Wi NIN 
 ‘the Mishna teaches concerning certain cases, and leaves 
 others to be added”. 
 
 Examples: Taanith 14a; B. Kamma 10a; Maccoth 21b. 
 
 TT NS TD 
 $13. 
 
 Where in enumerating certain cases of a law a subsequent 
 case 18 more unexpected than the preceding, the Gemara uses 
 the phrase 93np 1 AN 1 x5 ‘the Mishna teaches not only that, 
 but even this,” that is, the Mishna intended to arrange the 
 cases in a climax, starting from that which is plain,and adding 
 that which is more unexpected. 
 
 Examples: B. Metzia III, 4 and 5, See Talm. B. Metzia 
 38a. 
 
 Remark. The climax in the arrangement of several cases is also ex- 
 pressed by the Talmudical phrase:..;5 ax x5x syn xd Np yl Nd 
 the author of the Mishna states here a case of ‘“‘not only”; not only as 
 to...but even .., i. e., the Mishna adds here to that which is unquestion- 
 able (plain and obvious enough) that which is more unexpected. 
 
 Examples: Betza 37a; B. Kamma 54b; Kiddushin 78b. 
 
 WADI PAS PR 
 § 14. 
 
 On the other hand, the Mishna sometimes arranges the 
 cases of a law in an anticlimax, so that the subsequent case is 
 self-evident from the preceding. This is expressed in the Ge- 
 mara by the phrase: 47 31915 Jay PRI Ww “that,and it is unnec- 
 essary .to say this” i. e. after having stated the law in the 
 former case, it applies the more to the following case. 
 
 Example: Rosh Hashana IV, 8; see Talm. R. Hashana 
 82b, 33a. 
 
TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 197 
 
 sti) ctabhinineb, 
 § 15. 
 
 Of these two antithetical terms the Gemara makes frequent 
 use in the interpretation of the Mishna, especially in questions 
 ofthe ritual law. nonma5 means, literally, as for the beginning, 
 at the outset, beforehand, previously. The term denotes the 
 question of law concerning an act to be done, whether it may 
 properly be done in that certain manner or not, 
 
 Tay°t (contraction of 4s) °N7) means 7f he has done. In 
 contradistinction to the former, this term denotes the question 
 of law concerning an: act a/ready done, whether iv is valid and 
 acceptable or not. 
 
 The phrases in connection with these two terms are: 
 
 1 mdonn5d id: Dx or soa moon even directly, i. e. the ex: 
 pression of the Mishna indicates a direct permission to do the 
 act under consideration, so that it may be done unhesitatingly. 
 
 Example: Tal. Chullin 2a. 
 | 2) so nosnns? PN Ty. 2f done, yes, but directly not okey 
 only if it has already been done, it is acceptable and legiti- 
 mate, but directly permissible it is not. 
 
 Example: Chullin 13b; 15b. 
 
 BY, bi hlalap ba}ag aah debe ANY, avhlatabab directly not, butif done tt ts 
 right, i. e. it ought not to be done, but if already done, it is 
 acceptable and valid’. 
 
 Examples: Mishna Berachoth II, 3. Terumoth I, 6; Talm. 
 Berachoth 15a b. 
 
 4. wb 93 tapes even if done, it is not accepted as valid. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 15a; Megilla 19b. 
 
 1 Compare the phrase in the civil law: Fieri non debet, sed fac- 
 tum valet. 
 
B. THE GEMARA EXPLAINING AND DISCUSSING 
 THE MISHNA. 
 
 Oat AR Ra Dy Ha haa te 
 
 MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 
 § 16. 
 
 The Gemara uses a great variety of modes in commenting 
 the Mishna and discussing its contents. Generally, the com- 
 ments are introduced by a query which is intended to call at- 
 tention to the point that requires elucidation. This methoa of 
 introducing a statement or explanation by queries is to some ex- 
 tent already found in the Mishna itself, as ‘n° from what 
 time on may weread....? Berachoth I, 1. 2; Taanith I, 1;..7y55 
 how are benedictions to be recited..? Berachoth VI, 1; VII, 
 3;...mD1....m22 with what...and with what...? Sabbath II, 1; 
 IV, 1; VI, 15... jam whence is it derived...?.. IAMS... TADS 
 which are...and which are...? B. Kamma II, 4; B. Metzia V, 1, 
 and many other similar interrogative phrases. But in the 
 Gemara this method is more commonly applied. 
 
 The following is an outline of the different modes and 
 phrases mostly used in the Gemara at the outset of its com- 
 mentation and discussion on the Mishna. 
 
 1. EXPLAINING WORDS AND PHRASES OF THE MISHNA. 
 Santis 
 
 Such explanations are mostly introduced by the question: 
 ee ND what ts...? or, what means....? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 59a; Pesachim 2a; Kiddushin 29a. 
 
 In answer to this query, the explanation is generally 2iven 
 in the name of a certain Amora. Sometimes, two teachers dif- 
 fer in the answer; f. ex. Berachoth 29a; Pesachim 2a. Where 
 the schools of Babylonia and Palestine differ in the interpreta- 
 tion, that difference is usually expressed by... 1O10N Non 
 
MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 199 
 
 SIDS OM Zere (in Babylon) they explain..., but ¢here (in Pales- 
 tine) they say...; or...1139N Nom Zere they explain,.. VO8 ’B 7), 
 but a certain (Palestinian) Rabbi says....; fiex. R. Hashana 
 30b, Sanhedrin 25a; B. Metzia 20a. Sometimes, however, 
 Non refers to Suva in opposition to other Babylonian schools; 
 f. ex. Pesachim 42b; B. Bathra 61a. 
 
 Remark. Where the question ‘x1 is followed by... xpos af to 
 say.. ? is it to say....? an anticipated explanation is to be rejected as 
 wrong; f. ex, Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a. 
 
 2. ASKING FOR THE MBANING OR CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE 
 SENTENCE OR OF A STATEMENT IN THE MISHNA 
 
 § 18. 
 
 a. “WAND ND what does he (the author of this Mishna) in- 
 tend to say here? 
 
 The answer to this question is generally introduced by: 
 “ONpP 27 thus he says.... Example: Sabbath 41a; Taanith 27a. 
 
 b. pow ost what does he let us hear? 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 84b; Sanhedrin 46b. 
 
 Remark. Different is the meaning of the question pow» 'Nd,when 
 followed by....4, in which case it is to be translated by: What proves 
 that....? f. ex. R. Hashana 21b; 22b. 
 
 3. ASKING FOR THE OBJECT OF A SEEMINGLY INDIFFERENT OR 
 SUPERFLUOUS STATEMENT. 
 
 § 19. 
 
 a. snmsdsm ond for what practical purpose is this (state- 
 ment)? 
 
 Examples: R. Hashana 2a; Yebamoth 39a; Kethuboth 82a. 
 
 b. 5 yowrpe os (abbr. 27D ss) What does he intend 
 to let us hear? What does he want to teach us, here? 
 
 The answer to the latter question is mostly introduced by 
 
 ...5’pp sm This he intends to teach us, that... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 89a; Sebachim 85b; Meilah 21a. 
 ec. sapspsosp What is this to say? Why teach this? 
 
200 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 Example: Nazir 13a. 
 
 4. INVESTIGATING THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A 
 CASE REFERRED TO 1N THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 20. 
 
 a [poy ND. Of what case, of what circumstances do 
 we treat here? 
 Examples: Betza 2a; B. Metzia 12b; Gittin 37b. 
 
 b. ‘27 9D°T (abbr. 7’m) How shall we imagine this case? 
 
 Examples: Megilla 18a; Gittin 78a; B. Kamma 28b. 
 
 Both of these two interrogative phrases are mostly follow- 
 ed either by ...sp:9 77 do say..; ts tt to say...? anticipating an 
 answer which is rejected at once; or by a dilemma...%$§....°§, 
 if...? and tf...? presenting two anticipated alternatives to either 
 of which the law under consideration cannot well refer. 
 
 The answer to such questions is introduced either by x57 
 [Ppoy ‘sma Here we treat of the case...., or by... NOY x5, 
 no (1. €. not as you anticipated, but) xecessarily..... (we have to 
 imagine the case under the circumstances that...), or by.... 
 obiy>, owever, still (i. e. notwithstanding your objection) 7 
 
 This last phrase is especially used when one of the altern- 
 atives is defended against the objection made to it. 
 
 5. INVESTIGATING THE BIBLICAL SOURCE OF A LAW LAID DOWN 
 IN THE MISHNA. 
 S21; 
 The question introducing such an investigation is either: 
 75 s30, contr. 7539 (abbr. 53) Whence do we have this? 
 Example: Kidd. 14b; 22b and very often. 
 Or °5° 935 NID, contr. 95 *3nID (abbr. yD) Whence 
 ure these words (laws)? 
 Examples: Berachoth 30b; 35a a. v. o. 
 
 Both of these questions correspond to the Mishnic 730, 
 whence is it derived? 
 
MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 201 
 
 Correctly the question 531 is applied where the source of 
 only one single point of the law is to be investigated, while 
 mr is used where several points or provisions are under 
 consideration. But this distinction is not always strictly re- 
 garded. 
 
 In answer to this question either an Amora is quoted who 
 points to the source, by the phrase: N4p 7DN7 for Scripture 
 says...., or reference is made to a Baraitha in which the law 
 in question is artificially derived from a biblical passage. This 
 reference is introduced by: m7 for the Rabbis have taught.. 
 
 Remark 1. Instead of answering the question of ban, the Gema- 
 ra sometimes repeats the same question with astonishment: 12590, as 
 if tosay, How can you ask such a question, since the source of the 
 law under consideration is obvious enough from a plain biblical pas- 
 sage? The original question is then set forth in a modified form by the 
 phrase: }ONP 1377 fIN We mean tosay (ask) thus:...;f. ex. Megilla 2a; 
 Sanhedrin 68b; Sebachim 89a. 
 
 Remark 2. In answering the question of bon, the Amoraim often 
 differ, one deriving the law from this, and another from another pas- 
 sage. After having investigated the merits of their different deriva- 
 tions, the Gemara sometimes adds another biblical basis given by a 
 Tana in a Baraitha. In this case, the phrase is used ; ab any xeon 
 xn but a Tana derives it from this passage... 
 
 Example: Betza 15b; Chagiga 9a; Kiddushin 4b; see Rashi o the 
 first mentioned passage. 
 
 6. INVESTIGATING THE REASON OR THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE 
 oF A LAW. 
 
 § 22. 
 
 Such an investigation is generally introduced by the query 
 syn oND (abbr. 1p) What is the reason? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 33a; R. Hashana 32b; Megilla 24a; 
 B. Metzia 38a. 
 
 This query is especially made in regard to such anonymous 
 Mishna paragraphs where the law contained therein is evi- 
 dently not based on scriptural grounds, but merely on a rabbin- 
 
202 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 ical institution or principle. But in regard to a Mishna con- 
 taining a difference of opinion, the question:... "TRDypD OND 
 ‘What is the reason of the dissenting Rabbi A?” is often also 
 answered by a reference to a biblical passage; f. ex. Berachoth 
 15a. 
 
 Remark 1. Exceptionally the question 1» is found in Moed 
 Katon 19a in the sense of 9" roy d ‘in what respect?’ See Rashi on 
 that passage. . 
 
 Remark 2. Where the reason of one of two cases or one of two 
 opinions contained in a Mishna paragraph is clear enough, but not the 
 other, the query is usually set forth in the following phrase: 
 
 2NOYO ND... NON... DW... dDdwA 
 
 It is all right (in the one case)...., there it is on account Of eee) DUE 
 in the case of... what is there the reason? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 33b; 52b; Yebamoth 41b. 
 
 Remark 38. Sometimes, both questions »'» and pm) are made. 
 In this case the former asks for the underlying principle, and the lat- 
 ter for the biblical basis of that principle; for. ex. Sabbath 24b. The 
 reversed order is found in Betza 15b; see Rashi on that passage. 
 
 7. INVESTIGATING THE GENERAL BASIS OF THE PARTICULARS 
 OF A LAW. 
 
 § 23. 
 
 The Mishna sometimes starts with the particulars of a law 
 without having stated the principal law to which those partic- 
 ulars refer. In this case the Gemara asks: 
 
 JN PT I8P NIT NIN Where (on what basis) does the 
 author of this Mishna stand, that he here teaches....? i. e. to 
 what general law does he refer? or where is the principal law 
 of these particulars? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 2a; Taanith 2a; see also Shebuoth 
 ATC by 
 
 The answer 1s introduced by the phrase: ‘ND onn ‘he 
 refers to the passage there”.... (in which the required basis is 
 stated). 
 
MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 203 
 
 8. INVESTIGATING THE AUTHORSHIP OF AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 
 § 24. 
 
 The Gemara often endeavors to trace an anonymous Mish- 
 na to its author, 1. e. to find out whether or not that anony- 
 mous Mishna representsthe opinion of a certain Tana expressed 
 elsewhere in another Mishna or in a Baraitha. Such an 
 investigation is introduced by one of the following phrases. 
 
 a. ...83N js Who is that Tana (author)?..., Berachoth 
 40a; Yoma 14a; Megilla 19b. 
 
 hb. ... 1093p 13D or...%31 jn Whose Opinion represents 
 our Mishna?... B. Kamma 38a; Gittin 10a; Nedarim 87a. 
 
 ce. pom/b 3 2399 Nm Whose opinion is this? It is that of 
 Rabbi A... B. Metzia 40b. 
 
 d. snp N57 ymeasno Our Mishna does not represent the 
 opinion of.... B. Kamma 32a. 
 
 Remark 1. Where the investigation is merely problematical with 
 a negative result, it is generally preceded by xd (or ND°5), is it to 
 say...? The answer is then usually: ...xdO°n yar, you may even say... 
 (our Mishna agrees with the opinion of that Tana); as: jn‘2n0 xp 
 SON NNT x55, Is it to say that our Mishna does not represent the 
 opinion of that certain Rabbi in the Baraitha ? B. Kamma 30a; B. 
 Metzia 2b; Kiddushin 52b. Sometimes, it is also phrased: yn xd 
 xonp..'95 (x54) Is it to say,that that which is taught here anonymously 
 does (or does not) agree with the view of that Rabbi? Berachoth 2ob; 
 Betza 27b; Bechoroth 28a. 
 
 Remark 2. Also where the Mishna records a dissenting opinion 
 of the sages collectively by a DIX OWI, the Gemara often investig- 
 ates OMIN yND, Who is the representative of these sages ? f. ex. Giitin 
 22a; B. Metzia 60b; Sanhedrin 66a. 
 
 9. INVESTIGATING THE FORCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE OR A LIMITING 
 TERM. 
 A, COMPREHENSIVE TERMS, 
 See 
 As stated above chapter I, 7. 8, the Mishna often intro- 
 
204 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY. 
 
 duces the provisions of law by general and comprehensive 
 terms, as mp 555 ,552n mr jon .55 which terms are assumed 
 to imply other cases in addition to those expressly mentioned. 
 Investigating the force of such a comprehensive term, the Ge- 
 mara usually asks: °xo "MNS What is this to include? What 
 is this term to add? | 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 8a; Chagiga 2a; Gittin 19a. See 
 Erubin 2a—3b. ; 
 
 B. Limiting Terms. 
 § 26. 
 
 Where the Mishna is making use of a limiting term (see 
 above I. 9.10), the question of the Gemara is: oxo  wiynd 
 What is this to exclude? 
 
 Examples: Pesechim 76b; Kiddushin 3a; B. Kamma 13b. 
 
 10. INVESTIGATING THE REFERENCE OF A CERTAIN STATEMENT 
 IN THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 27. 
 
 After having laid down certain provisions of the law, the 
 Mishna sometimes adds either a modification or a dissenting 
 opinion without clearly stating to which of the preced- 
 ing provisions this addition refers. Investigating such a 
 case the Gemara usually asks: SN Zo which 7? 1. e. to which 
 of the preceding provisions or cases does this addition refer ? 
 This question is generally followed by:....so°" shall J say.... 
 (it refers to the latter or to the former case)? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 34b; Kiddushin 46a; Sanhedrin 79a. 
 11. QUALIFYING A PROVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
 § 28. 
 Without an introductory question, the Gemara often quali- 
 
 fies a provision of the Mishna by limiting its application to 
 certain circumstances. The phrases used for this purpose are: 
 
 a. d....5ay....e5s aay s> they only taught this in reference 
 
MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 205 
 
 to.... (a case under that certain circumstance), /u¢.. (under 
 the different circumstance of...) zo¢. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 42b; Succah 32a; B. Kamma 28a. 
 
 b. N7....2ONe.- SDTITI only....but... not. 
 
 Examples: Yebamoth 98b; B. Bathra 146a; Aboda Zara 
 TAb. 
 
 c. The shortest phrase for this purpose is: ....W SIM 
 provided thai... 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 53a; B. Metzia lla; Maccoth 6a. 
 
 Remark. The phrase RS su xb corresponds to the Mishnic 
 phrase O° \08 O37 D3 or (NN. 
 
 12. EXTENDING A PROVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
 § 29. 
 
 Opposite to the preceding case, the Gemara often also ex- 
 tends the effect of a provision above the limits or circumstan- 
 ces indicated in the Mishna. The usual phrase for such an ex- 
 tension is:.... SDN NON won....e> zl strictly.. (to the circum- 
 stance stated in the Mishna refers this law) du even... 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 53b; Kethuboth 23a; B. Metzia 34a. 
 
 Remark. This phrase introducing an extension of the law is 
 often shortened to the simple word:... DN or Say and even...3f. i. 
 B. Metzia 22b; 26b; Aboda Zara 4la. 
 
 13. MAKING CONCLUSIONS AND DEDUCTIONS FROM THE MISHNA. 
 § 30. 
 
 A conclusion or deduction made eitber from the contents 
 or from the wording of the Mishna is termed xpys (B. Metzia 
 8a) or NPT (Kethuboth 31b). Such conclusions at the outset of 
 the Gemara form generally the basis of a subsequent question 
 and are introduced by one of the following technical terms and 
 phrases: 
 
 a. .... NSN hence..., consequently..., f. ex. Yoma 14b; 
 Betza 9b; B. Metzia 37a. 
 
206 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 b. ...538...7 Spy the reason (of the decision given in this 
 Mishna) is...., but... (under different circumstances the decision 
 must be different) ; f ex. Pesachim 9a ; B. Kamma 47b; B. 
 Metzia 18a; 25a. 
 
 Remark. This latter phrase is especially used where a conclusion 
 is made from a positive statement to the negative, or vice versa. Such 
 conclusions are sometimes also phrased: ~b.. (NT) PN... (in this case) 
 yes, but... (in the opposite case) not; f. ex Berachoth 17b; Nazir 34b; 
 Chullin 18a. 
 
 c. ... 3D pow (abbr. py) Zear from thts, conclude from 
 this that... f. ex. Berachoth 13a. Interrogatively it is phrased 
 ma myppw do you not conclude from this...? Yoma 37b; San- 
 hedrin 71a; B. Metzia 97b. 
 
 Remark. 1)“w is mostly used in deductions by which a legal prin- 
 ciple is finally to be established. At the end of an argument the phra- 
 se "yw expresses the acceptance of the preceding conclusions as 
 proved and correct, and is then to be translated by: you may hear it 
 herefrom, it is proved herefrom. 
 
 d_....55>2 in this is implied that.., from this follows that... 
 f. ex Pesachim 45a, Sanhedrin 66a. This term of inference is 
 often preceded by:... °3np72 since the Mishna teaches.., as : 
 G5... np since he teaches...., it follows....; f ex. Bera- 
 choth 43a, B. Kamma 2a; Or... 9731...°Ip x55... “MPI since 
 he teaches....and not...., it follows...; f. ex. Kethuboth 90a. 
 
 e. .... MAUDIS MAN? this tells, this teaches that... This 
 phrase introduces deductions ofa general principle froma spe- 
 cial case in the Mishna, f. ex. Berachoth 20b; Rosh Hashana 
 22a; B. Kamma 35b. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 
 
 Another kind of questions with which the Gemara intro- 
 duces its comments onthe Mishna are those of astonishment 
 andsurprise at finding therein either an incongruity or an in- 
 consistency, a superfluity or an omission, or another difficulty. 
 The following are the different modes in which questions and 
 objections of this kind are set forth and answered. 
 
 1. FINDING AN INCONGRUITY OF EXPRESSIONS. 
 § 31. 
 
 A. INCONGRUITY IN ONE AND THE SAME MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 
 
 .. DDD 1...ammp “Why begin with... (this term or 
 expression) and then end with...(a different one)?” | 
 
 Example: mans. oD) 332 MND B. Kamma 27a. Other 
 examples: Moed Katon 11b, B. Bathra 17b. 
 
 The answer is usually....939977....13° 2¢ 2s chis...2¢ ts the same; 
 i. e. both expressions are identical, mean the same thing. 
 
 B. INCONGRUITY OF EXPRESSIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE 
 _ MiSHNA. 
 
 307 OMG NW ONDT ... SIT NOT NW ND (abbr. wr) 
 “Why is the Mishna using here.... (this expression), and there.. 
 (a ditferent one)?” 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 2b; Kiddushin 2a; Shebuoth 5a. 
 
 Remark. The answer to this question is sometimes; NANI NINA 
 Sat gman on binp ‘‘by that change of expression it was intended 
 to add something new and unexpected here as Well as there”: f. ex. 
 Kidd. 59b. 
 
 2, FINDING A TAUTOLOGY IN THE MISHNA. 
 § 32. 
 
 The technical phrase used in the objection to a tautology is: 
 
208 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 13.19 “Is not.... (this expression or case) the same as... 
 (that other one)?”; why then this repetition? 
 
 Examples: Rosh Hashana 23b; B. Kamma 17b; Shebu- 
 buoth 12b. 
 
 8. OBJECTING TO THE ORDER OF THE STATED CASES. 
 § 33. 
 
 suena... Nw... NIT NIwW ND Why does the Mish- 
 na just teach the case of.... first, instead of teaching that 
 other case of...first? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 2a; B. Bathra 108a; Bechoroth 13a. 
 
 4. OBJECTING TO A CERTAIN MODE OF EXPRESSION. 
 § 34. 
 
 a. ...09me>.... 99m%p5 m5 m5 Why does the author of the 
 Mishna use the expression...., instead of using.... (that other 
 expression)? 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 90b; B. Metzia 2a; B. Bathra 98b. — 
 
 b. ...9595....°3T NPN IND What does he intend to teach 
 in using this expression, instead of....? 
 
 Examples: Yebamoth 84a; Kiddushin 69a. 
 
 Remark. The answer to such an objection is often: 35x xnbp 
 Sinn mnie (In using this expression) he lets us hear something by 
 the way, namely... ; f. ex. Berachoth 2a. 
 
 5. OBJECTING TO A CERTAIN LIMITATION OF A PROVISION IN 
 THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 35. 
 
 102 (ODN... NN OND Why just teaching....since the law 
 applies also to....? 
 Examples: Pesachim 50b; Gittin 34b; B. Bathra 59b. | 
 6. FINDING AN OMISSION OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO CASES. 
 § 36. 
 
 The objection to such an omission is generally phrased in 
 the following way; 
 
THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 209 
 
 NIU 891..-8307 NNT PDD NP 
 SND... NIN. NDIWA 
 ‘The Mishna decides here....without distinguishing be- 
 tween....and...;it is right... (concerning the one case), but why 
 should the law apply also to....(the other case)?” 
 Examples: Succah 29b; Gittin 10b; Sanhedrin 18b. 
 
 7. FINDING AN EXPRESSION TO BE INCORRECT OR TOO INDEFINITE. 
 Seat 
 
 yt ND2D (abbr. 3’’D) Does this enter your mind? 1. e.,do 
 you indeed mean to say this? 
 Examples; Yoma 67b; Pesachim 42b; Kiddushin 29a. 
 Tbe corrected version is then usually introduced by: x5>x 
 ~ND°S but rather say.... 
 
 8. FINDING A TERM OR PROVISION TO BE OUT OF PLACE. 
 § 38. 
 
 mpw “D7 jk Who mentioned the name of this? i. e. what 
 has this to do here? how is this to be mentioned in this con- 
 nection? 
 
 Examples. Sabbath 57a, Pesachim 8b, Nazir 4a. 
 
 The answer to this question is generally introduced by the 
 phrase: TaNP som thus he means to say, or by: S7DMmD “ION 
 ‘3Np 2371 something is omitted here which must be supplied 
 by construction, namely.... 
 
 9, FINDING A CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE MISHNA UNNECESSARY, 
 BEING TOO PLAIN AND OBVIOUS TO BE EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, 
 
 8 39. 
 
 nows ‘this is too plain!” i.e, why make this provision 
 for a case which is so plain? why state that which is a mat- 
 ter of course? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 20b; 47b; Pesachim 21b; Megilla 25a. 
 
 The full phrase of this elliptical expression is 58S NwwD 
 
210 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 ssi it is too plain, why then expressly say (teach) it? f. ex. 
 Nedarim 16a. 
 
 In answer to this objection, the Gemara generally tries to 
 show that under certain circumstances the provision under consi- 
 deration is not as plain and self-evident as it appears to be ; or 
 that it was needed in order to prevent some possible misunder- 
 standing inthe application of the general law. Such an answer 
 is mostly phrased either: 
 
 eves (TAD) sos Noms NO it is not so (plain), as it is needed 
 for the case... ;0r:... RIYIN NYT NP2D Fywss it was necessary 
 to state this, since you might have misunderstood me to say...; 
 or: MDP... ROT im what you might have supposed is that....; 
 therefore the author informs us (of this provision). 
 
 Remark. Different from this meaning of the word nyo we, as an 
 elliptical expression of astonishment and objection is that, when the 
 word precedes a propounded question of problem, where two cases 
 are set forth one of which is plain and obvious enough, but not the 
 other. Insuch a connection the word is simply a statement of self- 
 evidence, and is to be translated by: this case isclear and plain, but 
 (my question concerns that other case); f. ex. Berachoth 12a; B. Kamma 
 8b; Kiddushiu 8b. This kind of xo wh is generally explained in Rashi’s 
 commentary by the remark ~xnj\n'22 ‘‘in calmness” i. e. to be read here 
 not as a question but in a calm manner as a plain statement, while the 
 other kind of xO°wHd is explained by AMON “in astonishment”. Asa 
 simple statement preceding a question of doubt and problem, the term 
 NtOwH is sometimes supplied in the Talmud by the word 5 ‘“‘this case 
 is plain to me”; f. ex. Sabbath 3b; Megillah 3b. 
 
 10. FINDING AN UNNECESSARY REPETITION OF THESAME PROVISION 
 ALREADY STATED ELSEWHERE. 
 
 § 40. 
 
 The question objecting to such a repetition is phrased: 
 
 a. (NID SMT) NIN 2p ss What does he inform us 
 here, since I have already once before been informed thereof in 
 another passage of the Mishna? 
 
MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Yaa: 
 
 the divergence of opinions in this case is in full accordance 
 with the opposite Views or principles expressed elsewhere by 
 the same teachers. ‘The phrases used in showing such consist- 
 ency of opinion in both of the contesting Amoraim are: 
 
 a. impo iss; they go according to their principles, 
 i, e., they differ, each following his own principle. 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. 
 
 b. ....mopw> ‘anda; mryod x omdp Amora A follows 
 his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle.... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. 
 
 Remark. The phrase Woppd Stx) is used where reference is 
 made to another dispute between the same teachers, while mpypd 'S 
 refers to a principle laid down by either of the two teachers independ” 
 ently from each other. 
 
 6. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
 § 78. 
 
 By the introductory phrase: pow sn (abbr. wn) Come 
 and hear, OY: FIDNIN Or: IBN @ certain teacher or they (the 
 members of the academy) odjected (by appealing to a higher au- 
 thority), a Mishna or a Baraitha is referred to in suport 
 (y9D or NMypp)of the opinion of one, and as a refutation (NAN) 
 of that of the other of the contesting Amoraim. A discussion 
 then usually follows with the object of rejecting the support 
 or repelling the attack. The result of that discussion is ei- 
 ther that the question at issue remains undecided, or it is decided 
 against one and in favor of the other ofthecontesting Amoraim. 
 The usual phrase in the latter case is: 
 
 (/2ndpa mnn> snzdom) | ynavn 2's oondat xnsin “Is 
 this not a refutation of the opinion of Amora A? It is a refu- 
 tation! And the decision is according to the vpinion of Amora B.”’ 
 
 Examples: Sanhedrin 27a; B. Metzia 21b-22b; Chullin 
 28a. Examples of not distinctly decided discussions: Pesachim 
 30b-31b; B. Kamma 56b-57b; B. Metzia 38b. 
 
212 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 or 54% ‘all the mentioned cases are necessary”, generally at- 
 tempts to show that with each of the stated cases a peculiar 
 circumstance is connected on account of which the analogy 
 with the other case might have been objected to, hence the ex- 
 press statement of all cases. The phraseology of this answer is 
 mostly: 2p .. NDON Tn... Namows for if the author had 
 only taught... (that other case) I might have supposed....; the- 
 refore he lets us hear this. | 
 
 Remark. The question ‘“‘why are all these cases needed?” is some- 
 times omitted and the Gemare starts with the explanation: “3°7y) it 
 was necessary (to state all these cases), since...;f. ex. Sabbath 122a; 
 Kiddushin 50b; B. Kamma 382b. 
 
 12. FINDING ONE OF TWO CASES SUPERFLUOUS, SINCE @ fortiori 
 IMPLIED IN THE OTHER. 
 § 42. 
 
 The question based on the argument @ fortiord is generally 
 phrased: (j>w 95 85) s*ysd...(NdM) ...0DN ...(O00 md) sAwn 
 if (there in the one case) you say... (that the decision 
 is...) Can it here (in our case) be questionable ? 1. e., 1s it not 
 here the more so, why then state the other case? 
 
 Examples: Rosh Hashana 32b; Pesachim 55b; Yebamoth 
 30a; Shebuoth 32b. 
 
 Remark. The answer to this objection is sometimes, that the 
 Mishna intended to arrange cases in a climax (} NY 5, Rosh Hashana 
 32b), or in an anticlimax (}t sp Jy priv, Kethuboth 58a), Concern - 
 ing these two phrases see above § 13 and § 14. 
 
 138. FINDING AN OMISSION OF CASES WHERE THE MISHNA EX- 
 PRESSLY LIMITS THEIR NUMBER. 
 
 § 43. 
 a. ...993 9355 (or "3m33) should not the author also have 
 
 added the case of....? 
 Examples: B. Metzia 55a; Yebamoth 53a; Zebachim 49b. 
 
THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 213 
 
 b. .... NDS NT (N99) NO im are there not more cases? 
 but behold. there is the case of.... (which is not mentioned). 
 Examples: Gittin 9b; 86a; Chullin 42a; Menachoth 74b. 
 
 14. FINDING A GENERAL RULE OF LAW NoT CoVER G ALLCASES. 
 § 44, 
 
 It NIT N5O5D; Is this a general rule? behold the case 
 of... (to which it does not apply.) 
 Examples: Kiddushin 34a; 66b; Temurah 14a; Chullin 59a. 
 
 15. FINDING A DECISION OF THE MISHNA NOT IN ACCORDANCE 
 WITH AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE. 
 
 § 45. 
 
 we NMI ONDS or NONI Why so ? How isthis? Is this not 
 against the principle of... ? , 
 Examples: Berachoth 47b; Betza 31b; B. Metzia 94a. 
 
 Remark. The question "XN is sometimes omitted, and must be 
 supplied, f. ex. in B. Metzia 99a; Gittin 22b. 
 
 16. FINDING A DIFFERENT DECISION REGARDING TWO CASES 
 WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED ALIKE. 
 § 46. 
 
 NDID NSW ND) RW Now ons What difference is there 
 between the former and the latter case? i. e., since the two 
 cases mentioned in the Mishna are seemingly alike, why does 
 the decision in the one case differ from that in the other? 
 
 Examples: B. Metzia 65b; B. Bathra 20a; Kiddushin 64a. 
 
 17. FINDING AN INCONSISTENCY OF PRINCIPLES IN ONE AND THE 
 SAME MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 
 
 § 47. 
 The phraseology mostly used in such objection of inconsist- 
 ency is: : 
 te BOON... DIDNT... NOON... FON, NWP NBW NT is this 
 not self-contradictory ? you say...hence.... and then you say.... 
 hence...? 1. e., the underlying principle or the consequence of 
 one part of this Mishna contradicts that of the other part. 
 
232— TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 The answer having been given, question 1 is again direct- 
 ed to B: why does he not explain as A? This question is then 
 treated in a similar way as the former. 
 
 Examples: Gittin l7a; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 
 
 8. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE REASON OF A LAW. 
 § 75. 
 
 The practical consequence of adopting either of the two 
 reasons assigned to the law by the contesting Amoraim is in- 
 vestigated by asking: 
 
 3S ND what is the difference between them? i. e., in 
 what respect does it make a difference in the application of the 
 law, whether this or the other reason be assigned to it? 
 
 The answer is always introduced by the phrase: wo» 
 i393 there is (it makes) a difference concerning.... 
 
 Examples: Gittin 2b; B. Metzia 15b; Sanhedrin 24b. 
 
 4. INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
 OF OPINION. 
 
 8 76. 
 
 Where the difference between the contesting Amoraim in- 
 volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the 
 question : Pr Piel ‘Noa in what do they differ? Or, What is 
 the point of difference ? On what general principle do they 
 disagree ? 
 
 Examples: Pesachimn 63b; Gittin 34a; B. Metzia 15b. 
 
 Remark. Before defining the difference, sometimes the points 
 are stated in which both sides agree, and which therefore ure exclud- 
 ed from the discussion. This is usually done in the following phrase: 
 wD Le 7°55 x5 (by 955)... 80 59 As regards....they (both of 
 the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concerning.... 
 
 Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 21b. 
 
 5. SHOWING CONSISTENCY OF OPINIONS IN BOTH OF THE 
 
 CONTESTING TEACHERS, 
 
 SHU, 
 After having stated the difference, the Gemara shows that 
 
TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 229 
 
 Remark 1. This objection is mostly removed by showing that 
 the Memra contains something in addition to the Mishna. 
 
 Remark 2. The question by ‘OD OND is not raised where the opinion 
 of the Memra is not expressly but merely impliedly contained in the 
 Mishna. In this case the Mishna is referred to just to corroborate the 
 Memra by the phrase §3°9N ‘D) }N AN we have also a Mishna to 
 the same effect; f. ex. Berachoth 27a; Yoma 26b; Aboda Zara 8a. 
 
 4, CORROBORATING THE MEMRA BY A BARAITHA. 
 § 69. 
 
 Such a corroborating Baraitha is generally introduced by 
 the phrase: 935 °93 NIN (abbr. 73N) a Baraitha, too, teaches 
 thus; or, we have also a Baraitha to the same effect. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 9b, Taanith 10a; Sanhedrin 23a. 
 
 Remark. The question : ‘‘Why does the Amora need to teach 
 that which is already stated in the Raraitha ?” is never raised, since 
 the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but nut every Ba- 
 raitha, 
 
 5, CORROBORAITING THE MEMRA BY ONE OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. 
 Sen: 
 
 Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one 
 which is introduced by ...°%93 “FAN we have also another Mem- 
 ra tothe same effect. Such is especially the case where the 
 Memra of a Babylonian Amora is supported by one of a Pa- 
 lestinian authority. 
 
 Examples: Chagiga 24a; Gittin 13b; Sanhedrin 29a. 
 6. A DIFFERENT REPORT. 
 § 71. 
 
 After a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, 
 a different report ("N73 SDN some say,some report....) is some- 
 times introduced in which the Amora referred to just expresses 
 the opposite opinion. ‘The discussion then turns the tables, so 
 
ys 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 TREATMENT OF A MISHNA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
 ENCE OF OPINION. 
 
 1. ASKING FOR THE REASON OF THE DISSENTING TEACHER. 
 § 50. 
 
 IT NOpY wy what is the reason of Rabbi.... (the dis- 
 senting teacher)? 
 
 The answer is usually followed by the further question 
 NOP NIM and the first anonymous teacher? or 20 and our 
 other teachers? i. e., what have they to say against this reason? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth lda; 44a; R. Hashana 22a; B. 
 Kamma 23b. 
 
 2. ASKING FOR A COUNTER-ARGUMENT, 
 Sake 
 
 The Mishna sometimes records an argument of one of the 
 dissenting teachers against his opponent which is neither ac- 
 cepted nor refuted by the latter. In this case, the Gemara 
 usnally asks for the probable counter-argument of that oppon- 
 ent, in the following way: 
 
 2(2) 13) 99 (8) "9D WONp EY Very well did Rabbi 
 A argue against Rabbi B, What then had the latter to say? 
 
 Examples: R. Hoshana 26a; Megilla 27b; Kiddushin 61a. 
 
 3. FINDING TWO OF SEVERAL OPINIONS TO BE IDENTICAL. 
 Spo 
 
 After having laid down an opinion concerning a case, the 
 Mishna sometimes adds two dissenting opinions,one of which 
 does not at all seem to differ from that which had been laid 
 down first. The Gemara then usually asks: 
 
 SOP NIN WT ....’9 (or oD5N) Is not the opinion of R. 
 So and So (or of the sages) identical with that of the first men- 
 tioned teacher? 
 
DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN A MISHNA. 217 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 30a; Sanhedrin 15b; Aboda Zara 7b. 
 The answer to this question is generally...15393 NS 
 there isa difference between them concerning.... 
 
 4, INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
 OF OPINION. 
 
 § 53. 
 
 SSO) een aoD) (Nam Ma5D.p ss3 In what (principle) 
 do they differ? R. A holds... and R. B holds.... 
 
 Examples: Succah 16a; Betza 26a; Gittin 64b. 
 
 Remark. Where such an investigation is problematic only, it is 
 introduced by: .,.730 7....920 WOT Wap xna xo is it to say, 
 that they differ concerning the principle of...., so that one holds that 
 ..., and the other holds that....2? The answer is then generally: sb 
 8 oy a spby sot No, both of them agree concerning this principle, 
 but they differ concerning another principle, namely.... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 46b; Nazir 62b; Sanhedrin 23a. 
 
 5, LIMITING THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISSENT- 
 ING ‘l‘EACHERS. 
 
 § 54, 
 0-997 1DT.--95N...3 Mpiona the difference concerns 
 only...., but regarding.... all agree that.... 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 41a, Betza 9a, B. Kamma 6la. 
 
 Remark. Where such a limitation of the difference between Ta- 
 naim is to offer a basis for a subsequent question, it is usually phrased 
 as follows: 
 
 oo Mba de Sp 5 IND Ty so far only they differ that... ., 
 but concerning....both of them agree that...etc. 
 Examples: Sabbath 132a; Yebamoth 50b; B. Metzia 28b. 
 
 6. INQUIRING WHY THE DISSENT OF THE TEACHERS IN ONE CASE 
 DOES NOT EXTEND ALSO TO THE OTHER. 
 
 § 55. 
 SPODT NBO wD POD NOT Nw NOY OND 
 What difference is between the former and this case, that 
 
NJ 
 
 228 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 2. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE COLLIDING WITH A MISHNA OR 
 A BARAITHA, 
 
 § 67. 
 
 The objection is raised against the author of the Memra 
 that the latter isin conflict with an undisputed Mishna or Ba- 
 raitha, the authority of which is superior to that of an Amora. 
 Such an objection is generally introduced either by the pnrase 
 ‘oom they (i. e. the members of the academy) refuted it, they 
 raised a point of contradiction from the higher authority of a 
 Mishna or Baraitha, or 7.3.4 .s he raised against this a point 
 of contradiction from a higher authority, or 93355 39m a cer- 
 tain teacher refuted this, or simply by jan) but are we not 
 taught in the Mishna ? ‘ynmi are we not taught in the Ba- 
 raitha....(differently) ? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 10b; Rosh Hashana 6b; B. Metzia 10a. 
 
 Remark. Such an objection or refutation from a higher autho- 
 rity is termed “nan. The argument of the objection often closes 
 with the phrase wba4 xnavn this is a refutation of that Amora; or 
 xnayn ?°ndpt xnavn is this not a refutation of that Amora? Itisa 
 refutation! (i. e., the point of refutation is well taken). Mostly how- 
 ever the objection is removed by showing that the Mishna or Baraitha 
 referred to treats of a different case or different circumstances, and such 
 a defense is introduced by the phrase: ...‘5 a 198 that Amora might 
 say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berach: th 84a; B, 
 Kamma 14a. 
 
 3. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE SUPERFLUOUS. 
 § 68. 
 
 The Memra is shown to be unnecessary, since the same 
 opinion which the Amora expresses therein is already stated 
 in a Mishna. This objection is phrased: sy5n 2p ss what 
 does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been 
 taught that in the following Mishna..? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, B. Kamma 85b. 
 
ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 241 - 
 
 Mishna and the Baraitha, it is termed s°p14 (of the verb ‘5 
 to cast, to throw against, to bring in opposition) setting 
 authority against authority, bringing authorities in opposition 
 to each other. Such a question of objection or contradiction 
 is generally introduced by the phrase ;...‘D 5 sop a certain 
 teacher asked the following question of contradiction between 
 two passages....; or by ;...2ngaai T raise against this the ques- 
 tion of a conflict of authorities, i. e., I find this Mishna to be 
 in conflict with the following passage in an other Mishna or in 
 a Baraitha.... Omitting this introductory phrase, such a 
 question is often set forth simply by: ...j3nmi but are we not 
 taught in (another) Mishna...? 93mm are we not taught in 
 a Braitha...? (See above § 49) 
 
 b. smavn (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word Fawn 
 an answer, gainsaying, objection, refutation) signifies an ob- 
 jection raised against an Amora as being in conflict with the 
 superior authority of a statement in a Mishna or Baraitha, It 
 is generally introduced by 939155 39m a certain teacher raised 
 the following objection from a higher authority...; or MN 
 he objected to him from a higher authority; or: sa». they 
 (the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection 
 (See above § 67) 
 
 The answer to such a point of objection is termed _o43°y 
 a difference or distinction, in as much as it mostly attempts to 
 remove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, 
 seeiningly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different 
 cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced 
 by :...89M ‘Nw here isa different case, or by: ....O0M...-jND 
 here... there..., OF ....Nm ....N$7 in this case..., but in the other 
 case...., or by: ....j>DY %NDS Non here we treat of the 
 special case that..... / 
 
 Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a 
 contradiction ase often very strained, and are ir this case sometimes 
 characterized by the Talmud itself as xD'nT NYDW a forced or 
 strained answer, f. ex.: B. Kamma 43a. ; 106a.; Kethuboth 42b. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 THE GEMARA QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED 
 WORKS. 
 
 1. TERMS USED IN REFERRING TO THE MISHNA. 
 Saou: 
 
 In contradistinction to the extraneous Mishna or Baraitha, 
 also called NMv3ND, the authorized Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha- 
 nasi is termed PIVING or wNHsww our Mishna, and the author of 
 a teaching contained in a paragraph of this Mishna, is desig- 
 nated as [TT NIN our teacher, in contradistinction to S43 NIN 
 the teacher in the Baraitha; f. ex. Moed Katon 17b; B. K. 61a. 
 
 Quotations from the Mishna are introduced by: 
 
 a. jin (contraction of j33 %3n we learn, study) we are taught 
 (in a Mishna). 
 
 b. DN IN we are taught there. This phrase is mostly 
 used when a Mishua belonging to another Masechta is to be 
 quoted; f. ex. Yoma 2a; B. Metzia 9b. Exceptionally, how- 
 ever, it refers also to a passage in the same Masechta; f. ex. 
 Pesachim 4b; Maccoth 16a. 
 
 Cc. NIN (=1WIY) we have learned, we have been taught 
 in a Mishna (rarely referring also to a Baraitha). 
 
 This term is used only in certain phrases as y3°3M 2p ta 
 What does he inform us here, since we have already been taught 
 thereof in that Mishna? f. ex. Berachoth 50a, 0r N39IF 393 JIN AN 
 we have also a Mishna to the same effect, f. ex. Berachoth 27a. 
 
 2. TERMS USED IN QUOTING THE TOSEPHTA AND BARAITHA. 
 § 60. 
 a. NIN one has taught, without adding any subject, mostly 
 
 quotes a passage from the Tosephta, f. ex. Pesachim 53b; B. 
 Metzia 28a. 
 
 b. jaan (abbr. 9"n) our Rabbis taught, refers to a 
 well known Baraitha, especially to passages from the Mechilta, 
 Siphra and Siphre. 
 
QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS. 221 
 
 C. S5M 77 is a teaching, refers to a Baraitha in general. 
 
 Remark. Two.or more Baraithoth contradicting each other are 
 generally introduced by:....JW& NUM... TVN NIN. NIT IN in one Ba- 
 raitha it is taught...; in the other.... and again in another....; f. ex. 
 Maccoth 7b. 
 
 3. DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF SUCH QUOTATIONS. 
 § 61. 
 
 1, q3M or on jin, at the outset of the Gemara, intro- 
 duces another Mishna which directly or indirectly has some 
 bearing upon the passage of the Mishna under consideration;or 
 it ig intended to use the latter as an argument in a discussion on 
 the quoted Mishna. | 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 2a; Pesachim 11b: B. Metzia 9b. 
 
 Remark, jn) at the outset of the Gemara as well as under a dis- 
 cussion in the same, raises a question of contradiction or incongruity 
 from the cited Mishna 3 }j3n75 or jn) OF pan RS) %9 adduces a support 
 from that Mishna. 
 
 2. syn, at the outset of the Gemara, usually introduces a 
 brief quotation from the Tosephta explaining or qualifying a 
 certain point in the Mishna under consideration. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 50b; Yoma 19a; B. Metzia 28a. 
 
 8. wrgn, atthe outset of the Gemara, introduces a pas- 
 sage from a Baraitha in which a difference of opinion mentioned 
 in the Mishna is more fully set forth with the addition of some 
 arguments. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 12b; Pesachim 27b; Maccoth 7b. 
 
 Remark 1. s9nM) raises a question of contradiction from that 
 Baraitha.! Sn) or NNT or NINID refers to the Baraitha as an ar- 
 
 
 
 1 Exceptionally, N°3Mn) is sometimes used not as a question of 
 contradiction, but as an argument in support of astatement, in the 
 sense of x°3n). In this case, Rashi in his commentary generally re- 
 marks: NXM\M3 “in calmness”, or NMYy"D ‘‘a support”, i. e., the phrase 
 xvonn) is here not a question, but a calm statement in support of the 
 preceding; f. ex. Moed Katon 19b in the first line; Gittin 74b; Kidd. 60b. 
 
A 
 240 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 same question. Great ingenuity is in this respect displayed by some of 
 the teachers, especially by the rivaling contemporaries Abaye and 
 Raba, in showing that a question already answered by the other tea- 
 cher might also have been answered in a different way; f. ex., Pesa- 
 chim 5b; Kiddushin 5a; B. Metzia 52a. 
 
 Remark 2. The answer to a question or an objection is often re- 
 futed, and a new answer is then offered either by the refuter, or by 
 another. In this case, the new answer is generally introduced by nde 
 ‘08, the word xbx but indicating that the point of refutation 
 against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; 
 Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 81a. 
 
 Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept- 
 ance of the former is indicated either by the phrase 9)bp5 NMmnyD xby 
 but more correct is the answer of the first teacher (f. ex. Taanith 4b; 
 Chullin 117%a), or in case that answer had been given anonymously, by 
 the phrase yap yp IWID KXMNDd xby more correct is as we answered 
 at first (f. ex. Pesachim 17b; Maccoth 2b; B. Metzia 3a). 
 
 Remark 3. In questions of investigation as well as of objection, 
 the questioner sometimes anticipates an answer which he shows to be 
 inadmissible. Such anticipation (termed in rhetoric prolepsis) in 
 questions of investigation is introduced by:... xp Sy is it to BAYavet Le 
 ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec- 
 tion it is introduced by:...x»°p 5) and if you will say ( answer)..., f. ex. 
 Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 8b; Gittin 8b. On the other hand, where in 
 giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is 
 to be removed, it is introduced by 9DN7 DN (abbr. ns) but if you 
 will say (object)... f. ex. Succah 16b; Gittin 11b; B. Metzia 10a : 
 WhIwr N's. 
 
 SOME SPECIAL KINDS OF OBJECTION. 
 S 86. 
 
 The terms p17 and NMawN are but species of the general 
 term wip a question of objection. 
 a. Where the objection consists in raising a point of con- 
 tradiction between two statements of equal authority, as 
 between two passages of Scriptures or between passages of the 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 D. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS, 
 
 § 82. 
 
 According to their different nature, the questions asked 
 in the Talmudic discussions may be divided into the following 
 classes: 
 
 1. Questions of investigation. 
 
 2. Questions of astonishment. 
 
 3. Questions of objection. 
 
 4, Questions of problem. 
 
 Remark. The Talmud, besides, often makes use of the rhetoric 
 interrogation, that is, that figure of speech which puts in the form of a 
 negative question what is meant to be strongly affirmative, and in the 
 form of a positive question what is meant to be a decided negation, as: 
 wd xbx is it then not—? = it is certainly so. 
 
 in NOD are we not taught in the Mishna? = we are certainly 
 taught so. 
 
 95 1D % did he say so ? = he cannot have said so, 
 
 maapd % do you think..? = you can not think so 
 
 1. QUESTIONS OF INVESTIGATION. 
 § 83. 
 
 As already stated above ($16.), the Talmud mostly in- 
 troduces its explanations and investigations by a query, the 
 object of which is to call attention to the point which requires 
 elucidation, as ‘st what is the meaning of....? spy %ND what 
 is the reason....? ;53 whence do we have this? 
 
 Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the 
 answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, ‘5 3px 
 the teacher....said (in answer to this question)... 
 
 Remark. To investigate asubject by questioning is sometimes 
 
Oo MEMRA. 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CONCERNING MEMRA. 
 
 § 63. 
 
 In contradistinction tothe teachings, opinions and dect- 
 sions of the Tanaim, contained in the Mishna and Baraitha, a 
 reported teaching, opinion or decision of the Amoraim is termed 
 Memra (S79), a saying. 
 
 This term, like that of Amora, is derived from the verb 
 “8 to say, which verb is mostly used in reference to the ex: 
 pounders of the Mishna; while the verbs m3w and ‘3h are more 
 restricted to references to Mishna and Baraitha.1 
 
 As a characteristic term designating a reported teaching 
 of the Amoraim,the word Meira is but rarely met with inthe 
 Talmud; f. i. Gittin 42b; B. Bathra 48a. More frequently it 
 occurs in the post - Talmudic literature. In the Gemara such 
 reported opinions and decisions of Amoraim, especially con 
 cerning legal matters are generally termed S/’maatina(RAnyow 
 that which was heard by tradition, f. ex. Berachoth 42a; Sab- 
 bath 24b; Chullin 46a), in contradistiction to ARE a re- 
 ported homiletical teaching. 
 
 A Memrais generally introduced by the word 4p a certain 
 Amora said, related; sometimes also this word is preceded by 
 the term 79s (contraction of “aNMN) it has been said, it is 
 reported. 
 
 1 Compare, for instance, the two modifying phrases: RON sw RS) 
 and nds ‘ION x5, the former exclusively used in reference to a state- 
 ment of the Mishna, and the latter to a teaching afan Amora. In 
 connection with a Memra the verb xX9n is used only in certain phrases 
 as: ... NAN... NoaT NNDd WNT NDN “some report the just quoted saying 
 of that Amora in reference to the following case....”; f. ex. Berachoth 
 8b; Sanhedrin 28b; Aboda Zarah 8b. 
 
PHRASES CONCERNING MEMRA., 225 
 
 A. “08 
 § 64. 
 
 a “DN preceding the name of a teacher,as 55 "iN, gener: 
 ally introduces an interpretation, opinion, principle or decision 
 of law originated or reported by that Amora, and not disputed 
 by another, while 4x following the name, as 3 35 indicates 
 at once that he is to be contradicted by another teacher, hold- 
 ing a different view on that subject, as 7p Sssow...D8 2. 
 
 b. ‘s 05D aps ’x °dp aos refers to a report which a 
 disciple ora contemporary makes concerning a teaching which 
 he received orally from its author, as Ssipy ADS mM DADS 
 Rab Juda said that Samuel said (Berachoth 12a). 
 
 But (3 mDwy or) 'D Dw 'D AON refers to a report con- 
 cerning a teaching which he indirectly received from an author- 
 ity of a former generation, as: .Dy)’" Dw pny 7 aps R. 
 Jochanan reported in the name of R. Jose (Berachoth 7a). 
 
 Where a different version existed concerning the teacher 
 who reported or in whose name something is reported, that dif- 
 ferent version is conscientiously added either by 75 ‘spy and 
 some say it was.... (Berachoth 4a); or Sp°m Ss) (contracted of 
 SDM si) there are some who say it was.... (Berachoth 5a), 
 or pws mai) and some differ therefrom, saying it was in 
 the name of... (Rosh Hashana 10a). 
 
 d. IAMTN NT 13 955b: 8 IoD Both of the two teach- 
 ers A and B said... This phrase introduces an opinion cvn- 
 cerning which two Amoraim fully agree, though they mostly 
 differ from each other, asim “DNT Ssipwi 33 Both Rab 
 and Samuel said.. (Berachoth 36b). 
 
 B. “8 
 § 65. 
 
 The word "SAN zt was said, tt ts reported, especially at the 
 beginning of a passage in the Gemara, generally introduces a 
 Memra containing a difference of opinion or a controversy 
 (NmnoD) between two or more Amoraim. Such differences ana 
 controversies concern either: 
 
236. TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 out the representative of each opinion by referring to another 
 case in which one of these two teachers expressed a certain 
 view which coincides with one ofthe two opinions under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: 
 OST NIT NST OMMOM it may be ascertained that it is the 
 Amora A who holds....If the argument is accepted, this is in- 
 dicated by the closing term gmon it is correctly ascertained, 
 or 9’w, hear it from this. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 45a; Megillah 27a; B. Kamma 29b. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A SINGLE 
 OPINION. 
 
 1. QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORTED MEMRA 
 § 66. 
 
 The correctness of the Memra is questioned, since the 
 same author expressed elsewhere an opinion which is in con- 
 flict with that contained inthis Memra. Such a question is al- 
 ways phrased : (NDD‘S).....9ON NTT ’D WN 11 Did that 
 Amora really say so ? But is he not reported as having said.... 
 (something implying just the opposite opinion)? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 24b; Pesachim 30a; B. Kamma 29b. 
 
 In answer to such a question, the Gemara generally tries 
 to show, that in one or the other way the two contradicting 
 Memras can be reconciled. | 
 
 Remark. All Amoraim being regarded as having equal authority, 
 the objection that another Amora expressed an opinion conflicting 
 with the Memra under consideration is generally not admitted. 
 Where such an objection is attempted, it is rejected by the phrase ; 
 MD 7 XP $IDIN X73) how will you raise an objection from the opinion 
 of one man (teacher) against that of another (who has the same au- 
 thority and is entitled to have an opinion of his own)? Taanith 4b; 
 Sanhedrin 6a; B. Kamma 43b, 
 
 Sometimes, however, such an objection is admitted, especially in 
 the case where the opinion of an Amora is in conflict with the gener- 
 ally accepted decision of a former leading authority among the Amo- 
 raim. In this case, the objection is phrased: ....xm)\2.29& Is that so? 
 but that other Amora (expressed an opinion which conflicts with 
 that under consideration), Examples: Berachoth 14a; Moed Katon 
 20a; Betza 9a; compare Rashi’s remark on the last mentioned pas 
 sage. 
 
228 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 9. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE COLLIDING WITH A MISHNA OR 
 A BARAITHA, 
 
 § 67, 
 
 The objection is raised against the author of the Memra 
 that the latter isin conflict with an undisputed Mishna or Ba- 
 raitha, the authority of which is superiorto that of an Amora. 
 Such an objection is generally introduced either by the phrase 
 saomey they (i. e. the members of the academy) refuted it, they 
 raised a point of contradiction from the higher authority of a 
 Mishna or Baraitha, or ~pa NS he raised against this a point 
 of contradiction from a higher authority, or 93355 a°n1 a cer- 
 tain teacher refuted this, or simply by jana but are we not 
 taught in the Mishna ? s°snnmi are we not taught in the Ba- 
 raitha....(differently)? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 10b; Rosh Hashana 6b; B. Metzia 10a, 
 
 Remark. Such an objection or refutation from a higher autho- 
 rity is termed Nna\n. The argument of the objection often closes 
 with the phrase s554 Nnayvn this is a refutation of that Amora; or 
 xnayn 2 SD Nnayvn is this not a refutation of that Amora 2? Itisa 
 refutation! (i. e., the point of refutation is well taken). Mostly how- 
 ever the objection is removed by showing that the Mishna or Baraitha 
 referred to treats of a different case or different circumstances, and such 
 a defense is introduced by the phrase; ...‘5 “0 79x that Amora might 
 say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berach th 84a; B. 
 
 Kamma 14a. 
 
 8. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE SUPERFLUOUS. 
 S 68. 
 
 The Memra is shown to be unnecessary, since the same 
 opinion which the Amora expresses therein is already stated 
 in a Mishna. This objection is phrased: »993n "2p SH what 
 does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been 
 taught that in the following Mishna..? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, B. Kamma 5b. 
 
TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 229 
 
 Remark 1. This objection is mostly removed by showing that 
 the Memra contains something in addition to the Mishna. 
 
 Remark 2. The question Supp ‘NH is not raised where the opinion 
 of the Memra is not expressly but merely impliedly contained in the 
 Mishna. In this case the Mishna is referred to just to corroborate the 
 Menira by the phrase ~9°9n 3 JIN AN we have also a Mishna to 
 the same effect; f. ex. Berachoth 27a; Yoma 26b; Aboda Zara 8a. 
 
 4, CORROBORATING THE MEMRA BY A BARAITHA. 
 § 69. 
 
 Such a corroborating Baraitha is generally introduced by 
 the phrase: %35 %3 N93n (abbr. 7”’3n) a Baraitha, too, teaches 
 thus; or, we have also a Baraitha to the same effect. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 9b, Taanith 10a; Sanhedrin 23a. 
 
 Remark. The question : ‘‘Why does the Amora need to teach 
 that which is already stated in the Raraitha ?” is never raised, since 
 the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but nut every Ba- 
 
 raitha, 
 
 5. CORROBORAITING THE MEMRA BY ONE OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. 
 S270; 
 
 Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one 
 which is introduced by ...°%3 “ins we have also another Mem- 
 ra to the same effect. Such is especially the case where the 
 Memra of a Babylonian Amora is supported by one of a Pa- 
 lestinian authority. 
 
 Examples: Chagiga 24a; Gittin 13b; Sanhedrin 29a. 
 6. <A DIFFERENT REPORT. 
 Ss 70h 
 
 After a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, 
 a different report ("ONT SDN some say, some report....) is some- 
 times introduced in which the Amora referred to just expresses 
 the opposite opinion. The discussion then turns the tables, so 
 
330 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 that every objection which was madeto the former report, be- 
 comes now a support, and every former support an objection. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 10b; Betza 13a; Maccoth 3b. 
 7. CORRECTING THE MEMRA. 
 § 72. 
 Strong objections having been raised against a Memra, it 
 is sometimes re-established in a rectified form by the phrase: 
 
 -IDAN MITA oS NON but if such Memra was report-— 
 ed, it must have been reported in the following way... 
 Examples: Berachoth 15b; Yoma 28a; Kiddushin 11b. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
 ENCE OF OPINION. 
 
 1. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE CORRECT READING OF A 
 MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 
 
 §.73, 
 
 Each of the contesting teachers argues for the correctness 
 of his way of reading; the argument being based either on the 
 context of the Mishna under consideration, or on a common 
 sense reason. The question is then finally settled by referring 
 to another Mishna or to a Baraitha in support of one of the 
 two ways of reading. 
 
 Examples: B. Kamma 37a; B. Metzia 80a; Shebuoth 16a. 
 Remark. Sometimes, both ways of reading are declared to be 
 
 admissible by the phrase: wanwy NXO....INT IND Wanwy Xd.....07 IND. 
 ‘‘He who reads the Mishna in this way is pe Maen and he whe 
 reads it in the other way is neither wrong, for... 
 Examples: Succah 50b; Yebamoth 17a; Aboda Zara 2a. 
 
 29. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE EXPLANATION OF A TERM 
 OR PASSAGE IN THE MISHNA. 
 
 § 74. 
 
 The supposed arguments for and against each of the differ- 
 ent explanations are investigated in the following way: 
 
 Question]: ‘a °7d5DD aps No wD ’s 75D Why does the 
 Amora A not explain as Amora B? 
 
 Answer: eae “2x he might say.,. (I have the following 
 objection to his explanation.. ) 
 
 Question 2: TIPS and the other (teacher B) ? i. e 
 
 YU 
 how will be he remove this objection? 
 
932 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 The answer having been given, question 1 is again direct- 
 ed to B: why does he not explain as A? This question is then 
 treated in a similar way as the former. 
 
 Examples: Gittin lia; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 
 
 3. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE REASON OF A LAW. 
 S715. 
 
 The practical consequence of adopting either of the two . 
 reasons assigned to the law by the contesting Amoraim is in- 
 vestigated by asking: 
 
 MIS IN what is the difference between them? i. e., in 
 what respect does it make a difference in the application of the 
 law, whether this or the other reason be assigned to it? 
 
 The answer is always introduced by the phrase: po» 
 e393 there is (it makes) a difference concerning... 
 
 Examples: Gittin 2b; B. Metzia 15b; Sanhedrin 24b. 
 
 4. INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
 OF OPINION. . 
 
 § 76. 
 
 Where the difference between the contesting Amoraim jn- 
 volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the 
 question : DOP ‘N12 in what do they differ? Or, What is 
 the point of difference ? On what general principle do they 
 disagree ? 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 68b; Gittin 34a; B. Metzia 15b. 
 
 Remark. Before defining the difference, sometimes the points 
 are stated in which both sides agree, and which therefore are exclud- 
 ed from the discussion. This is usually done in the following phrase: 
 pda 1 da xd (sndy a)....8007 52 As regards....they (both of 
 the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concernin pee 
 
 Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 21b. 
 
 5. SHOWING CONSISTENCY OF OPINIONS IN BOTH OF THE 
 
 CONTESTING TEACHERS, 
 
 Salil 
 After having stated the difference, the Gemara shows that 
 
MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION 233 
 
 the divergence of opinions in this case is in full accordance 
 with the opposite Views or principles expressed elsewhere by 
 the same teachers. The phrases used in showing such consist- 
 ency of opinion in both of the contesting Amoraim are: 
 
 a. impypod itn: they go according to their principles, 
 i, e., they differ, each following his own principle. 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. 
 
 b. .... mayod ‘andar meypod ‘sy ondp Amora A follows 
 his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle.... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. 
 
 Remark. The phrase pypd stKxXi is used where reference is 
 made to another dispute between the same teachers, while sappy #2) 
 refers to a principle laid down by either of the two teachers independ” 
 ently from each other. 
 
 6. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
 § 78. 
 
 By the introductory phrase: pow sn (abbr. wn) Come 
 and hear, OF: FAD MIN or: INN @ certain teacher or they (the 
 members of the academy) objected (by appealing to a higher au- 
 thority), a Mishna or a Baraitha is referred to in suport 
 (yrrD or smy"p)of the opinion of one,and as a refutation (NADI) 
 of that of the other of the contesting Amoraim. A discussion 
 then usually follows with the object of rejecting the support 
 or repelling the attack. The result of that discussion is et- 
 ther that the question at issue remains undecided, or it is decided 
 against one and in favor of the other ofthe contesting Amoraim. 
 The usual phrase in the latter case is: 
 
 (3 ondpt mn snodm) Psnavn 2's ondat snavn “Ts 
 this not a refutation of the opinion of Amora A? It is a refu- 
 tation! And the decision is according to the opinion of Amora B.”’ 
 
 Examples: Sanhedrin 27a; B. Metzia 21b-22b; Chullin 
 28a. Examples of not distinctly decided discussions: Pesachim 
 80b-31b; B. Kamma 56b-57b; B. Metzia 38b. 
 
234 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 Remark. Commenting on a Mishna-paragraph which has some 
 bearing on a well known difference of opinion between Amoraim, the 
 Gemara sometimes starts with the question, whether, or not this Mishna 
 offers an argument in favor of, or against, the opinion of one of these 
 Amoraim. The phrases used in such an investigation are: 
 
 a. .../Bd m5 yyp nd is it to say, that this Mishna supports the 
 Amora A? 
 
 Examples: Succah 15b; Betza 11a; B. Kamma 62b. 
 
 Dieses avnenniia xpd is it to say, that this Mishna isa refuta- 
 tion of Amora B? 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 9b; Succah 15a; Yoma 19a, 
 
 7. TRACING BACK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMORAIM TO ONE 
 BETWEEN ‘T'ANAIM. 
 
 § 79, 
 
 After having treated a Memra in accordance with the above 
 stated methods, the Gemara often attempts to show that the 
 same difference of opinion between the two Amoraim is already 
 found among two Tanaim. For this purpose a Mishna or a 
 Baraitha is quoted containing a difference between Tanaim 
 concerning a subject which has some bearing upon the differ. 
 ence under consideration. The point of discussion becomes 
 now whether or not the principle underlying the difference be- 
 tween those two Tanaim is identical with that under considera- 
 tion, so that Amora A agrees with Tana A, and Amora B with 
 Tana B. The phrases introducing this investigation are: 
 
 a. SIND NO° (or, ND) is it tosay, that this difference 
 is like that between Tanaim? 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 81a; Gittin 14b; Sanhedrin 27a. 
 
 b. 0b ‘DP (‘21/8 ONIN) ...TSMMdDZ Nor is it to say, 
 that these Amoraim differ according to the difference of opinion 
 between those Tanaim A and B? 
 
 Examples: Shebuoth 25a; Maccoth 11b; Nedarin -5b. 
 
MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 235 
 
 Remark. Like other investigations of the Gemara introduced by 
 xo or X1°), also this attempt leads generally to a negative result, as 
 it is finally shown that the principle implied in the difference between 
 the Tanaim does not at all concern the case under consideration. But 
 where after a discussion between Amoraim the Gemara simply states: 
 WIND ‘‘this is like the difference between Tanaim”, or 7 ONIN “this 
 difference is identical with that of the Tanaim”, (f. i. Berachoth 22a; 
 R. Hashana 15a; B. Metzia 54a) that statement is generally not disputed. 
 
 8. SUPPORTING EACH OF TWO CONTESTING TEACHERS BY A 
 BARAITHA. 
 
 § 80. 
 
 Two anonymous Baraithoth are referred to, one of which 
 agrees with the opinion of one, and the other with that ofthe 
 other of the contesting Amoraim. The phrase used in this case is, 
 
 'Q°N5DT MND NINN NOT MND gn there isa Ba- 
 raitha agrecing with the opinion of Amora A, and a Baraitha 
 agreeing with the opinion of Amora B. 
 
 Examples: Yoma 4a; Betza 6a; Gittin 18a. 
 
 9. ASCERTAINING THE AUTHORSHIP OF TWO OPPOSITE 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 § 81, 
 
 There are Memras reporting that, concerning a certain 
 question, two Amoraim A and B differed from each other, one 
 holding one, and the other the opposite opinion, without clear- 
 ly stating which is which, that is, who of the contesting Amo- 
 raim holds the one, and who the other opinion, as: 
 
 TDN TM...Is TH 3 55) SIH... 1M it is reported, 
 that concerning....the Amora A and Amora B expressed differ- 
 ent opinions, one holding....and the other... 
 
 In treating such a Memra, the Gemara usually tries to find 
 
236 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 out the representative of each opinion by referring to another 
 case in which one of these two teachers expressed a certain 
 view which coincides with one ofthe two opinions under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: 
 DONT Sin OPT oon it may be ascertained that it is the 
 Amora A who holds....If the argument is accepted, this is in- 
 dicated by the closing term pon it is correctly ascertained, 
 or )’w, hear it from this. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 45a; Megillah 27a; B. Kamma 29b. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 D. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 § 82. 
 
 According to their different nature, the questions asked 
 in the Talmudic discussions may be divided into the following 
 classes: 
 
 1. Questions of investigation. 
 
 2. Questions of astonishment. 
 
 3. Questions of objection. 
 
 4. Questions of problem. 
 
 Remark. The Talmud, besides, often makes use of the rhetoric 
 interrogation, that is, that figure of speech which puts in the form of a 
 negative question what is meant to be strongly affirmative, and in the 
 form of a positive question what is meant to be a decided negation, as: 
 wd xby is it then not—? = it is certainly so. 
 
 pn NS) ‘) are we not taught in the Mishna? = we are certainly 
 taught so. 
 
 37 DN 1 did he say so ? = he cannot have said so, 
 
 nad % do you think..? = you can not think so 
 
 1. QUESTIONS OF INVESTIGATION. 
 § 83. 
 
 As already stated above ($16.), the Talmud mostly in- 
 troduces its explanations and investigations by a query, the 
 object of which is to call attention to the point which requires 
 elucidation, as ‘st what is the meaning of....? spy~y Np what 
 is the reason....? 73) whence do we have this? 
 
 Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the 
 answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, ‘5 “9s 
 the teacher....said (in answer to this question)... 
 
 Remark. To investigate asubject by questioning is sometimes 
 
238 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY 
 
 termed ‘5 73°" a certain teacher asked investigatingly concerning 
 this matter (B. Kamma 7a; Kethuboth £8b; Nedarin 88b); m2 pA 
 we asked investigatingly concerning it (Berachoth 45b; Sabbath 6b; 
 Gittin 4b and frequently). This latter phrase is especially used where 
 reference is made to investigating questions asked in another passage 
 ‘of the Talmud. Also the noun of this verb ‘7 is occasionally used, 
 as Ssioen 304 nyvin the investigating questions of Rab and Samuel 
 (Berachoth 20a) xan “ays ny (Succah 28a; B. Bathra 134a). 
 
 2. QUESTIONS OF ASTONISHMENT, 
 § 84, 
 
 A question of astonishment, termed mmiisn, expresses wond- 
 er and surprise at an unexpected statement or argument just 
 heard; as: 358 is thisso? 53 is this not the case? sy NpoD 
 does this enter thy mind? i. e., do you really mean to say this ? 
 s13Dni how can you understand (explain) it in this way? 
 ‘SO ONT what is this! how can you say this? 
 
 Such a question does in generul not expect an answer 
 though the latter mostly follows the question. 
 
 To this kind of questions belongs also the counter-question 
 in which a question asking for information, instead of being 
 answered, is repeated with surprise, as if to say, how can you 
 ask such a strange question, as: nae 2 yoap (Megilla 2a; 
 Sanhedrin 68b), !p 39 qa (Chullin 42b.). 
 
 Remark. A peculiar phrase expressing a question of astonish- 
 ment is: ab INP UND m xpi) he who asks (or objects) this, what 
 does he ask (object) here? i. e., why ask a question where the 
 answer iS obvious enough ? or, why raise an objection so easily re. 
 moved? Yoma 80b; Yebamoth 11a; B. Bathra 2b. ! 
 
 ‘According toa tradition mentioned by Joshua b. Joseph Halevi 
 (Halichoth Olam p. 9a; compare Frankel, Monatsschrift 1861, p. 267), 
 all passages of the Talmud introduced by this peculiar phrase of 
 question belong to the additions made by the Saburaim. 
 
ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS 239 
 
 3. QUESTIONS OF OBJECTION. 
 § 85. 
 
 These are questions in which a point of difficulty, disagree- 
 ment, incongruity or contradiction is raised against a state- 
 ment, construction or argument. The Gemara uses different 
 terms for such questions: 
 
 The general term for a question of this kind is Swip 42 
 difficulty, also used as a verb WON to ask an objecting question, 
 to raise a point of objection, to show adifficulty. The question 
 is mostly introduced by the interjection: 7 but lo! which is 
 often prefixed to the following word, as jinmi but lo! are 
 we not taught in the Mishna...? s»3nmi is it not taught in 
 the Baraitha.. ? 4DMNmi was it pot said by an Amora.... ? 
 mapxm but did you not say....? 
 
 The answer to such a question is termed PIV @ re- 
 conciliation, a satisfactory answer, and is usually introduced by 
 the phrase: s*wp x5 tnere is no difficulty. Where no satis- 
 factory auswer can be found, it is indicated by the closing term 
 swp the difficulty remains, the point of objection is well taken, 
 f. ex. Moed Katon 22b, Maccoth 5b. 
 
 Remark 1. When two different questions are raised at the same 
 time, the second is introduced by jn} and again... (I further ask...); 
 f. ex. Berachoth 2a. 
 
 Where the same question is answered by the Gemara in two dif- 
 ferent ways, the second answer is introduced by: NON Nya) and if 
 you wish, you may Ssay....; f. ex. Berachoth 8a. In this case the se- 
 cond answer has generally more force than the former. Sometimes, 
 however, both answers are introduced by this phrase, as...ND"X Mya sx 
 (ONO'S MYDN you may either answer.... or you may answer...; f. ex. 
 Berachoth 4b. In this case both answers are of equal force. 
 
 The same question is often answered by two or more teachers, by 
 each in a different way. In this case, the former teacher is introduced 
 by ‘px, and each of the following by 7px ‘B; f. ex., Sanhedrin 32 
 a. b, where four teachers belonging to different generations (R. Cha- 
 nina, Raba, Rab Papa and Rab Ashe) offer different answers to the 
 
240 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 same question. Great ingenuity is in this respect displayed by some of 
 the teachers, especially by the rivaling contemporaries Abaye and 
 Raba, in showing that a question already answered by the other tea- 
 cher might also have been answered in a different way; f. ex., Pesa- 
 chim 5b; Kiddushin 5a; B. Metzia 52a. 
 
 Remark 2, The answer to a question or an objection is often re- 
 futed, and a new answer is then offered either by the refuter, or by 
 another. In this case, the new answer is generally introduced by xbyx 
 ‘3D, the word xx but indicatin g that the point of refutation 
 against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; 
 Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 81a. 
 
 Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept- 
 ance of the former is indicated either by the phrase a5 Nya bbi ata) xox 
 but more correct is the answer of the first teacher (f. ex. Taanith 4b; 
 Chullin 117a), or in case that answer had been given anonymously, by 
 the phrase NIP YS pIWID KXAN xbx more correct is as we answered 
 at first (f. ex. Pesachim 17b; Maccoth 2b; B. Metzia 3a). 
 
 Remark 3. In questions of investigation as well as of objection, 
 the questioner sometimes anticipates an answer which he shows to be 
 inadmissible. Such anticipation (termed in rhetoric prolepsis) in 
 questions of investigation is introduced by:... xp*s»~ is it to say...0 f. 
 ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec- 
 tion it is introduced by:...~ 7 95) and if you will say ( answer)..., f. ex. 
 Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 8b; Gittin 8b. On the other hand, where in 
 giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is 
 to be removed, it is introduced by 79NnN ON) (abbr. nx) but if you 
 will say (object)... f. ex. Succah 16b; Gittin 11b; B. Metzia 10a: 
 WNIwID N's. 
 
 SoME SpecIAL KINDS oF OBJECTION. 
 
 § 86. 
 
 The terms x15 and sn3aN are but species of the general 
 term swip a question of objection. 
 a. Where the objection consists in raising a point of con- 
 tradiction between two statements of equal authority, as 
 between two passages of Scriptures or between passages of the 
 
ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 241 
 
 Mishna and the Baraitha, it is termed yp (of the verb %p5 
 to cast, to throw against, to bring in opposition) setting 
 authority against authority, bringing authorities in opposition 
 to each other. Such a question of objection or contradiction 
 is generally introduced by the phrase:....99 9355 a certain 
 teacher asked the following question of contradiction between 
 two passages....; or by ;....ny wi I raise against this the ques- 
 tion of a conflict of authorities, i. e., I find this Mishna to be 
 in conflict with the following passage in an other Mishna or in 
 a Baraitha.... Omitting this introductory phrase, such a 
 question is often set forth simply by:...jinmi but are we not 
 taught in (another) Mishna...? s93mmi are we not taught in 
 a Braitha...? (See above § 49) 
 
 b. smawn (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word msiwn 
 an answer, gainsaying, objection, refutation) signifies an ob- 
 jection raised against an Amora as being in conflict with the 
 superior authority of a statement in a Mishna or Baraitha, It 
 is generally introduced by 93155 ssn a certain teacher raised 
 the following objection from a higher authority...; or Ma°MS 
 he objected to him from a higher authority; or: %39n°» they 
 (the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection 
 (See above § 67) 
 
 The answer to such a point of objection is termed ssygsy 
 a difference or distinction, in aS much as it mostly attempts to 
 reinove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, 
 seeiningly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different 
 cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced 
 by :...N2m Nw here isa different case, or by: ....OMN....{N2 
 here... there..., or ....N7 ....Nfj.in this case..., but in the other 
 case...., Or by: ....jPPDY %NOS Son here we treat of the 
 special case that..... 
 
 Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a 
 contradiction ase often very strained, and are in this case sometimes 
 characterized by the Talmud itself as Xpnt Kw a forced or 
 strained answer, f. ex.; B. Kamma 43a. ; 106a.; Kethuboth 42b. 
 
242 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 Remark 2. The answer to an objection is also termed xpi" (from 
 p15 to redeem, to rescue, to unload ; hence, to free one from the burden 
 of an objection) ; as "ANT NpinD B. Kamma 14a. More frequently 
 used is the verb, as 75 pipd xim nd any xin he asked a question 
 of objection, and he answered it, Kiddushin 44b; Gittin 58a. B. Kamma 
 43b. 3 or ah mIpPrHyDI 5 wp he asked me questions of objection, 
 and I answered them, B. Metzia 84a. 
 
 THE. DILEMMA, 
 § 87 
 
 Objections are sometimes set forth in the form of a dilem 
 ma (termed 7w53 7), presenting two or more alternatives 
 of a case or an opinion, and showing it to be equally objection- 
 able whichever alternative we may choose, as: 
 
 a (sw) CoN] (Sw) ON WHI MD whal is thy wish? 
 i. e., which alternative do you choose ? zf... (then my objection 
 is; ....) avd 77... (then my objection 1824...) 
 
 Examples : Sabbath 46a; B. Kamma 38a; Chullin 12a. 
 
 DB. (NW) ....98T (NWP)... DT D9 how shall we 
 imagine this case? if... (then my objection is....) and if... 
 (then I have to object....). 
 
 Examples : Kethuboth 72a ; B. Metzia 21a; B. Bathra 78b. 
 
 Ce ee NT NM JPDY NDS of what circumstance do we 
 treat here? if.... (objection), and if.... (objection). 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 30a, Gittin 37b, B. Metzia 12b. 
 
 CLESa er SNe ae KS 720P ND what 1s his opinion? If he 
 holds that.... (then I object....), and if he holds.... (I also 
 ODIeCti)s 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 3a; Sanhedrin 2b; Kiddushin 6b. 
 The answer to a dilemma either shows a middle ground bet ween 
 the two alternatives, or defends one of the alternatives against 
 the objection made to it. In the first case, it is introduced by 
 
 ‘The phrase of Jw5) 719 is also used in introducing am argument 
 in defense, proving that a decision or opinion is equally correct which- 
 ever of the two alternatives we may choose. Examples: Betza 10b, 
 Gittin 48b; B. Metzia 6b. 
 
ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 243 
 
 the phrase ...7 xo™¥ Nd it is not necessary so (namely to 
 choose just one of the presented alternatives), for....(a third al- 
 ternative is imaginable to which none of your objections ap- 
 plies). Inthe second case, the answer is generally introduced 
 by the word o5iy5 which in this connection stands for odsyd 
 ie NOS sz [ maintain (one of the alternatives with some mo- 
 difications). 
 REJOINDER, 
 
 § 88, 
 
 Where the answer to an objection or to a refutation is 
 found to be insufficient, the weak points thereof are set forth 
 in a rejoinder. The phrases mostly used in such a rejoinder are: 
 
 CS ocsclspeniahta) (literally: the end of the end...) anyhow, at 
 all events, that is, however extreme my concession to the suppo- 
 sition of your answer mayle,my former objection still remains... 
 
 Examples: Megilla 3a; Gittin 24a; B. Metzia lé6a. 
 
 b. Where the rejoinder goes to demonstrate that the 
 answer does not cover all cases the following phrase is used: 
 
 [D°D5 NON OND ....3 ....9 MIM) you may be right... (i. e., 
 your defense is acceptable concerning one case), but concer- 
 ning... (that other case of....) what have you to say? 
 
 Examples: Pesachim lla; Gittin 4b; B. Metzia 38a. 
 
 c. Where the answer is found to be based only ona dis- 
 
 puted principle, the rejoinder is phrased; 
 
 [D109 NINN ...TONT NOD NOS... ONT INOS NIN 
 
 That 1s all right according to him who holds...,but accord- 
 ing tohim who holds....(the opposite opinion), what is there to 
 say? Hxamples: Berachoth 12a; Yoma 3a; Sanhedrin 8a. 
 
 4, (QUESTIONS OF PROBLEMS. 
 S 89. 
 
 Problem is a question proposed for solution concerning a 
 matter difficult of settlement. The pages ofthe Talmud are 
 full of such questions. The doubt involved in those questions 
 concern there either the correct reading, or the proper con- 
 
244 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 
 
 struction and meaning of the Mishna, or the decision of a case 
 not provided for in the Mishna. 
 
 Such questions are termed pps problems, questions of 
 doubt, and are generally introduced by »95p ‘pa a certain tea- 
 cher asked the following difficult question, he propounded a 
 problem for solution, or 3955p °n5D %ys A asked B to solve 
 the following question ; or when such a question was asked 
 anonymously in a school, it is introduced by: wd ssya%s the 
 following problem was proposed by them (i. e. by the members 
 of the academy). 
 
 The point of the question is generally followed by the 
 interrogative wnt how is it ? The two sides of the question 
 are usually set forth by: ....ND9T IN ....72O8 1 shall 
 we say.... or perhaps..... Sometimes, however, the phrase 
 j27D8 > is omitted, and must be supplied. 
 
 Examples of problems: 1. Concerning the proper 
 reading or construction of the Mishna: Sabbath 36b ; 
 Yoma 41b; B. Kamma 19a. 
 
 2 Concerning the source or reason of a: law: 
 
 Taanith 2b; Aboda Zara 6a; Gittin 45a. 
 
 3 Concerning cases not provided for in the Mishna : 
 
 Sabbath 38a Pesachim 4b Kiddushin 7b; B. Bathra 5b. 
 
 Remark. Where the propounded problem appears to be merely 
 theoretical, the practical consequence of its solution is investigated 
 by the query: AID NpD x05 for what case will it be of 
 consequence ? Examples: Pesachim 4a; B. Kamma 24a; Gittin 36b.’ 
 
 SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM. 
 § 90 
 
 The solution of a problem (the verb is pws) is 
 introduced by the phrase yaw sr (abbr. wn) come and 
 hear. When rejected, another solution introduced by the same 
 phrase is generally attempted. The final acceptance of a 
 solution is indicated by the closing phrase s 39% yow hear 
 it therefrom, i. e., this settles the question, this is the 
 correct solution. 
 
ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS 245° 
 
 Where no solution is found, it is indicated by the term 
 IPN (=D) it stands, i. e., the question remains unsolved. 
 
 Where the questioner himself finds a solution, the phrase 
 is: AOWD wIM %pyat wanz after having propounded this 
 question, he again solved it. Examples: Sabbath 4b; Kid- 
 dushin 9b; Sanhedrin 10a. 
 
 ihe ont of several problems only one can be solved, the 
 solution is introduced by the phrase 4m NAD wiwD you 
 may solve, at least, one of them: f. ex. B. Metzia 25a; 
 Gittin 44a. | 
 
 A SERIES OF PROBLEMS LINKED TOGETHER. 
 § 91 
 
 Sometimes, a series of problems concerning imaginary 
 cases of a certain law are set forth by a teacher, and so 
 arranged that if one of them be solved, the following one 
 would still remain doubtful. Hach problem, except the first 
 one, is then generally introduced by the phrase...->15 SSR ON 
 and if you should be able to say.... (to solve it in one way) 
 ) still ask... (the following case). 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 10b; Kiddushin 7b; Kethuboth 2a; 
 B. Metzia 21a; 24a. 
 
 Remark. Some of the Babylonian teachers, especially Raba, R. 
 Jirmiah, Rab Papa, were noted for having indulged in propounding 
 such problems concerning imaginary cases in order to display their 
 ingenuity. R. Jirmiah was at a certain occasion even expelled from the 
 academy for having troubled his colleagues by his imaginary and trif- 
 ling problems (B. Bathra 28b). Of Raba and some other teachers it is 
 expressly stated that they occasionally propounded such _ problems, 
 merely for the purpose of examining the ability and acuteness of their 
 pupils; Erubin 51a; Menachoth 91b; Chullin 188a. 
 
 QUESTIONS LAID BEFORE HIGHER AUTHORITIES FOR DECISION. 
 § 92. 
 
 Different from the questions of problem just spoken of are 
 
246 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 those questions which were directed to a higher authority, 
 either to a celebrated teacher or to an academy, especially of 
 Palestine, to consider and deciie upen » difficulty or a dis- 
 pute. Such questions are usually introduced by the phrase : 
 .dd7 75) das m5 indw they sent to a certain teacher 
 (asking.}: may our teacher instruct us concernrixg...... The 
 answer is then introduced by: ....3m5 mow he sent to them 
 (the answer)... . 
 
 Examples :  sanneiris 8a; B. Kamma 27b; Gittin 66b. 
 Remark. Also the phrase pn» ynby they sent from there {i. e. 
 
 from Palestine to Babylon) means, they sent an answer to a question 
 airected to them; f. 2s,, Bstza 4b; Gittin 20a; Sanhedrin 17b. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 E. ARGUMENTATION. 
 
 1. TERMS AND PHRASES INTRODUCING AN ARGUMENT. 
 
 § 93 
 
 An argument, that is. the reason offered to prove or dis- 
 prove any matter of question, is termed pyy (the reason). 
 
 In the Talmudic discussion, arguments are mostly intro- 
 duced by one of the following phrases ; 
 
 a. Spy No what isthe reason? Berachoth 3b, a. elsewhere. 
 
 b. pow Nm come and hear, i. e., you may derive it from 
 the following...; Berachoth 2b, a. elsewhere. 
 
 © yam you may know (infer) it from the following. Berachoth 
 15a; B. Metzia 5b, a. elsewhere. 
 
 d. soso xsp whence doI maintain this ?on what do I 
 base my opinion? Berachoth 25a; Sabbath 11b, a. elsewhere. 
 
 e. saipsm xgup3 and whence may you say (prove) that....? 
 Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 1la. 
 
 f. jax ‘mj let us see (into the subject), let us argue on the 
 subject. Berachoth 27a; B. Kamma51b; B. Metzia 8b. 
 
 g. sasmon it is reasonable. it is in accordance with com- 
 mon sense. Berachoth 2b; Sabbath 25a; Kiddushin 5a. 
 
 h. NSIDNDD D3 DM so it is also reasonable; this may be 
 proved by the following reasoning. Yoma 16a; B. Kamma 26a; 
 B. Metzia 10a. 
 
 1 M3 RPT it is also proved by a conclusion. Berachoth 
 26a, a. elsewhere. 
 
 The last mentioned phrase is especially used where the 
 argument is based on a conclusion drawn from the wording 
 of a passage. 
 
248 ‘TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 2. CLASSIFICATION OF ARGUMENTS, 
 S$ 94 
 
 Arguments are either direct or indirect. In the first case, 
 the grounds or reasons are laid down, and the correctness of 
 the proposition to be proved is inferred from them. In the 
 second case, the thesis is not proved immediately, but by 
 showing the falschood of its contradictory. 
 
 In the Talmud, the arguments mostly used in direct as 
 well as indirect reasoning, are the following: 
 
 The argument from common sense. 
 
 The argument from authority. 
 
 The argument: from construction and implication. 
 
 The argument from analogy. 
 
 The argument @ fortiort. 
 
 a. ARGUMENT FROM COMMON SENSE. 
 § 95 
 
 A common sense argument is termed s45p, so in the 
 phrases: Ni $120 it is a common sense reasoning; Pesachim 
 21b; Sanhedrin 15a, B. Metzia 27b. S”’sy5 p15D NOS Mys oN 
 sip if you wish, I refer to common sense, and if you wish, 
 I refer to a biblical passage; Berachoth 4b, Yebamoth 39b, 
 Kiddushin 35a. 
 
 Common sense reasons are generally introduced by the 
 conjunctives: ....Nm7 for behold..., ....9 59m because, jv 
 we.e7 Since, ....959 because, .,..7 OD on account of, 35D 
 eect Ola shDeCCalse.es. 
 
 oh ASAT ier te 
 
 b. ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. 
 
 SwoD: 
 
 An argument from authority, termed "4 the proof, 
 the evidence, is that which appeals to the authority of the 
 Bible (Sup “ast for Scripture says; ssn57 for it is written; 
 “Osiw for it is said), or to the authority of the Mishna (janis 
 for it-is taught in: the Mishna), or to that of the Baraitha 
 (NIT; WT), or to the accepted teaching of an Amora (DN5 
 
ARGUMENTATION. 249 
 
 sso), or to an accepted tradition (3 we have learned by 
 tradition, Beracbhoth 28a, Succah 5b; jup3 we have received 
 it by tradition, Erubin 5a, Gittin 32b, Maccoth 10b), or to 
 a settled rule and established principle of law (}5 sowpt for 
 it is established among us, it ig a generally accepted opinion 
 or maxim, Yebamoth 6a, Gittin 28b; jams for we generally 
 say, hold the opinion, Yebamoth 8b, B. Metzia 25p). 
 
 The Talmud being occupied chiefly with questions of law, 
 arguments from authority are there of supreme importance. 
 
 The inference from the cited authority is generally intro- 
 duced by sp5s hence, consequently (Pesachim 2a-3a), or by 
 4554 in this is implied, from this follows, or by m3 pow 
 hear from this, i. e. you may infer herefrom.... 
 
 Remark 1. The phrase 7°31) pow is also used to express the final ap- 
 proval of the preceding argument, and is then to be translated by: It 
 follows therefrom the argument is accepted; Pesachim 3a a. elsewhere. 
 
 Remark 2. Where the argument from authority is based merely 
 on the supposition of a certain interpretation of the quoted passage 
 or on a supposed circumstance to which it refers, that supposition 
 is introduced by Nd o~p is it not (to be supposed) that....? 
 In answering such an argument, the opponent generally denies 
 that supposition by ..Nd it is not so, but... ; f. ex., Pesachim 16b; 
 Sanhedrin 24b; B. Kamma 15b. 
 
 c. ARGUMENT FROM A CLOSE CONSTRUCTION OF A PASSAGE. 
 Si in 
 
 This is an argument which draws conclusions from a 
 careful consideration of the words in which a law is framed. 
 Such an argument is termed Spry (from the verb pit to 
 examine minutely, to consider a thing carefully), and is most- 
 ly introduced by the phrase: gait Pinel ED. ehh it is also 
 proved by a conclusion from the expression used in this Mishna 
 or Baraitha. | 
 
 Examples: Succah 3a; Kiddushin 8a; Shebuoth 29b. 
 
 Remark. Hereto belongs also that argument in which conclusions 
 
250 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 are drawn from a positive statement to the negative, and vice versa, 
 by emphasizing either the subject or the predicate or the modification 
 in the clause of a law under consideration. The phrase used in such 
 conclusions is either: ....Nn ....3 NDy the reason (the force, stress) 
 of this law is in the expressly stated case of.... but.... (in the opposite 
 case, the decision of the law is the reverse); f. ex., Kiddushin 5b; 
 B. Kamma 48b;R. Meztia 25a. Sometimes the phrase is: Sax, Pees 
 x5... strictly in this case yes, but...(otherwise) not; f. ex., Yoma 
 85b; B. Metzia 80a; 34a. ) 
 
 Such arguments resting merely on the emphasis of an expression 
 are often very arbitrary and fallacious, and are in this case prompt- 
 ly rcfuted in the Talmud. 
 
 d. ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGY. 
 § 98. 
 
 An argument from analogy, termed won or sop34, is that 
 which infers from the similarity of two cases that, what has 
 been decided in the one, applies also in the other. 
 
 Such arguments are introduced by one of the fol- 
 lowing phrases: 
 
 a. ....7 NDT in similarity with the case of...; Kiddushin 
 12a; B..Bathra 28b. 
 
 b. «89 N58 suotNd NO this is rather like that other 
 case of...; Sabbath 12a; Kiddushin 7a; B. Metzia 30a. 
 
 C.  «...923 [MDWNTD as we find concerning...; Berachoth 20b. 
 
 d.  ....8 MINT 4 something which is found concerning..., 
 i. €., just as in the case of...; Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 4a; 
 Gittin 8b. 
 
 Also the phrase: ($%3n) J3n ND ° are we not taught in the 
 Mishna (or Baraitha) ? mostly introduces an argument from 
 analogy; Pesachim 7a, 9a; Kiddushin 7a. 
 
 The application of the analogous case to the case under 
 
 consideration is generally introduced by °D3 NOM ...Onn OND 
 as there... so here, too. 
 
ARGUMENTATION. 251 
 
 e. ARGUMENT a Fortiori, 
 § 99. 
 
 The argument a fortiori, termed 193m) 2D; is a kind of 
 argument from analogy, and consists in proving that a thing 
 being true in one case js more evidently so in another in which 
 the circumstances are more favorable. 
 
 In regard to Biblical interpretation, this argument was 
 treated in Part II of this book as the first rule of the ‘lal- 
 mudical Hermeneutics. Its application in the discussions of 
 the Gemara is less artificial than there. The phraseology used 
 in setting forth this argument is: 
 
 ANS NOs... ddaONi....Gun (ital) Niwa NOW, (Since) 
 there... (in that other case of...) yousay...., could it here be 
 questioned ? 
 
 Examples: Gittin 15b; B. Bathra 4a; Maccoth 6b. 
 
 b. iow So xd son ....OnT ADI NMwn now, if there...., 
 how much the more (or the less) here. 
 
 Examples: Yoma 2b, B. Metzia 2b; Yebamoth 32a. 
 
 Remark. In the Agadic passages of the Talmud, the final con- 
 clusion of such an argument is generally expressed by 703 NNN by 
 mp); f. ex. Gittin 35a; Nedarim 10b; Maccoth 24a. 
 
 38. INDIRECT ARGUMENTATION. 
 § 100. 
 
 The mode of proceeding in indirect argumentation is to 
 assume the denial of the point in question or a hypothesis 
 which is the contradictory of the proposition to be proved, and 
 then to show that such a denial or hypothesis involves some 
 false principle, or leads to consequences that are manifestly ab- 
 surd. The assumed contradictory thus shown to be false, the 
 original proposition must consequently be true. 
 
 This method is very frequently applied in the Talmudic 
 discussion. The phrases used in indirect argumentation are: 
 
 a. (NWP)...9DT som s5 os for if you do not say so (i. e. 
 if you deny my proposition), the difficulty or the objection is.... 
 
252 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 26b; Yoma 15a; R. Metzia 5b. 
 
 b. (SUD)... NON NT for ifyou say... (the contrary), then... 
 (objection). 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 2b; Yoma 24b; Gittin 35b; B. 
 Metzia 28b. 
 
 C. (NWP)... YI NpoD ‘st for if it should enter your mind, 
 (i. €., if you should assume the contrary...), then... (at will 
 lead to the following objectionable consequence). 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 13a; Sanhedrin 6a; B. Metzia 5b. 
 
 Indirect arguments are often introduced by the phrase 
 S12Mo it is proved by the following reasoning... or %$3 957 
 s1anpp it may thus also be proved by reasoning..... 
 
 The conclusion from an indirect argument is generally ex- 
 pressed by 1x5 NOs is it then not...? or m5999 pow ond xds 
 is it then not to be concluded herefrom... (the correctness of 
 the proposition which was to be proved)? In direct arguments, 
 the phrase is simply: m3 pow. 
 
 Remark. Arguments introduced by x nanDy 9 "57 or by xp 
 3 are generally regarded conclusive. As to the exceptions, see To- 
 saphoth Yoma 84a, s. v. »”9n and Tosaphoth Sebachim 18a and 
 Chullin 67b, 8. v. 15 NP’. 
 
 4, DIRECT AND INDIRECT ARGUMENTS COMBINED. 
 
 SHY, 
 
 To support a proposition against the contrary view of an 
 opponent, the Talmud often uses a combination of direct and 
 indirect arguments, by referring to an authority, and showing 
 it to be in harmony with the proposition and in disharmony 
 with the contradictory. The phrases used in such argument- 
 ations are: 
 
 a. (DY)... NDIWS ANON ON (=NNON ON NDdp) 
 (Sa) nos on Nos 
 it is well, if you say... (if you accept my proposition), then every 
 thing is all right; but ifyou say... (the contradictory), then... 
 (you meet some difficulty). 
 
ARGUMENTATION. 253 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 26h; Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 3a. 
 Davi Ol) 3b se, 79 Nowa 
 wp... TTD NON 
 it is well according to my view....; but according to your 
 view... (there is a difficulty). 
 Examples: Yoma 4a; Pesachim 46b; Moed Katon 2b. 
 c. Gen) yew ....esT nnd xoby 
 NWP... WONT INDI NON 
 it is well according to him who holds....; but according to him 
 who holds....(the contrary view)....(there is the difficulty). 
 Examples: Berachoth 41a; Yoma 40a; B. Kamma 22a, 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 REFUTATION. 
 
 DEFINITION AND TERMS. 
 Sel U2: 
 
 A refutation consists either in proving that a given pro- 
 position is false, or in overthrowing the arguments by which 
 it has been supported. In the first case, it is termed: snsyp 
 (the Aramaic word for the Hebrew paiwn an answer, gainsay- 
 ing, refutation), and in the second case: s57%5 (from the verb 
 775 to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, to destroy, to in- . 
 validate), or: m°n7 (from the verb %47 to push aside, to over- 
 throw to supersede). 
 
 A. THE REFUTATION OF A PROPOSITION, 
 Ses, 
 
 The strongest argument against a proposition advanecd 
 by an Amora is to show that it conflicts with the authoritative 
 decision laid down in a Mishna or a Baraitha. Such a refuta- 
 tion is generally introduced by: m=msx, or dD sony, or 
 s97°; see above § 86b. 
 
 A proposition is refuted indirectly by showing that, assum- 
 ing it to be true, a certain passage ofa Mishna or Baraitha 
 bearing on that subject ought to have been expressed differently 
 or could not well be explained. The phrases mostly used in 
 Such negative argumentation after quoting such a passage are: 
 
 a. (SLD) Gabbe cbepebley conse FADS ON} now, if you say.. (main- 
 tain your proposition), then... (we meet with a difficulty). 
 
 Examples: Gittin 53a; Kiddushin 32a; B. Metzia 10a. 
 
 b. (NWP) ...JAYT NPD Ni now, if you assume... (your 
 proposition to be true), then... 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 7b; Betza 9b; B. Metzia 10b. 
 
 C. (SWD) ... NTN ON now, if it were so.. (as you main- 
 tain), then.... 
 
 Examples: R. Hashana 3b; Pesachim 25a, Betza 18a. 
 
REFUTATION. 255 
 
 Remark. A proposition is also refuted indirectly by proving the 
 truth of its contradictory. The confirmation of one of two antagonis- 
 tic opinions is thus the virtual refutation of the other, and vice versa. 
 Hence the Talmudic phrases: (3) nda xnav (8) wndpd m5 yep 
 this Mishna is a support (confirmation) of the opinion of A, and a 
 refutation of the (opposite) opinion of B; f. ex, Yebamoth 53a, and: 
 (3) s9y505 syyr05 (&) 19595 an» he refuted A in support of B; f. 
 ex., Yoma 42b; B. Bathra 45b; Chullin 10a; Zebachim 10a. 
 
 B. REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS. 
 
 § 104. 
 
 Such refutations are very often introduced by the phrase: 
 
 9955 5 mpna a certain teacher asked a strong question 
 against this (argument)....; (f ex., Sabbath 4a; R. Hashana 
 13a; Sanhedrin 4a; Maccoth 3a). Occasionally, it is introduced 
 by: .../B J" a certain teacher refuted this argument (f. ex. 
 Kiddushin 13a; Yebamoth 24a; Shebuoth 41b), or...’b 72 73 
 a certain teacher ridiculed this argument, in showing its ab- 
 surdity (Sabbath 62b: Kidd. 71b; Sanhedrin 3b; Aboda Zara 
 35a; Zebachim 12a).’ 
 
 1) The term pnd (from pn to overpower, t» attack; hence, 
 to overthrow. to confute an argument,) is mostly used only in re- 
 ference to refuting questions asked by the later Amoraim from the 
 time of Rabba and Rab Joseph, though in Temura ‘a it is exceptionally 
 applied to a question raised by Resh Lakish. 
 
 “75 meaning, literally, to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, 
 to invalidate an argument, to refute, is by the earlier Amoraim 
 used as a term of refuting especially a Kal vechomer or a Binyan Ab 
 (in the phrase sna NDN, and as a noun X59'5). Asa term of refu- 
 ting any argument it is mostly used by Rab Acha. The Talmud com- 
 mentators. Rashi and Tosaphoth often use the verb 745 in the general 
 sense, to ask a question. 
 
 The term 473 is mostly used by R. Abuha, and only once by R. 
 Jirmija and once by R. Chanina. —Tosaphoth Yebamoth 2b, s. v. yw 
 calls attention to the circumstance that some of the Amoraim used 
 their own peculiar terms in setting forth a question. See Kohut’s 
 Aruch Completum s. v. 573. 
 
256 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 The procedure of refuting a particular argument varies 
 with the nature of the latter, as will be shown in the following 
 paragraphs. 
 
 § 105. 
 
 1. An argument from common sense (see above § 95) is 
 overthrown by showing that good common sense rather sides 
 with the opposite view. 
 
 The phrase used in such counter-argument is: Ma" 
 (aiso spelled NantN) on” the contrary, or more emphatically : 
 NiISMD NDDS*N MIWN on the contrary, the reverse is more 
 reasonable. 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 3b; Pesachim 28a; Gittin 23b. 
 
 Remark 1. The term 72958 or NaN (a contraction of the 
 words 735% Sy, literally, on that which is greater or stronger, i. e., 
 on the contrary side is a stronger argument) must not be confoun- 
 ded with the words 72758 and NIW4N meaning against the view 
 of Rabba or of Raba, in the phrases ; 73758 Aa N’wp Gittin 27a, 
 and NIIIN NaI Nwp B. Bathra 30a. 
 
 Remark 2. A similar meaning as the term 73795~% on the contra- 
 ry, is expressed by the phrase ; 195 1955, literally: where does this turn? 
 i.e., on the contrary, the opposite view is more reasonable; f. ex. Pe- 
 sachim 5b; B. Metzia 58b. 
 
 § 106. 
 
 2. An argument from authority, (see above § 96) is defeat- 
 ed in different ways: 
 
 a. By showing that the whole argument is based on a 
 misapprehension of the passage referred to. In demonstrating 
 this, either of the following phrases is used: 
 
 N120n1 how do you reason? How can you understand that 
 passage in this way? 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 26a; Yebamoth 15a, B. Kamma 14a. 
 
 y5...n920 4 do you think...,do you understand the pas- 
 gage in this way ? It is not so, but.... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 29a; Kiddushin 7a, B. Metzia 32b. 
 
 b. By showing that the authority referred to does not 
 
REFUTATION, 257 
 
 necessarily concern the case under consideration. This is 
 phrased either: (N3r or) onm Nw there (or, here) the case 
 is different, for.... 
 
 Examples: Pesachim 5a; Shebuoth 15a; B. Metzia 10a. 
 
 Or: ---JU}PDY "NA Non here we treat of the special case 
 Ole. 
 
 Examples; Gittin 12a; B. Kamma 8a; B. Metzia 10b. 
 
 c. By showing that the passage referred to is not autho- 
 ritative, as it only expresses the individual opinion of one 
 Mishna Teacher, disputed by another authority. 
 
 SOMOS ID ASAT NM he holds it with that other teacher 
 peeleex ee Maccotls lOb: 122. 
 
 Or: y1n....35D 13 NM whose opinion is here accepted ? 
 that of....; fex., Sabbath 11b; Pesachim 32a; B. Kamma 10a. 
 
 Or: ST °NIN concerning this matter, the Tanaim differ. 
 
 Examples: R, Hashana 19b; Detza 9a; B. Metzia 62a. 
 
 § 107. 
 
 3. <An argument from a close construction or from implica- 
 tion (see above § 97) is refuted by showing it to be too arbitra- 
 ry, as the same construction, if applied to another clause of 
 the same passage, would result ina contradiction of the con- 
 clusious from the two clauses. 
 
 This refutation is mostly introduced by: (Nw°") NDI NOS 
 tell me the other clause... (and apply to it the same construc- 
 tion).... 
 
 The result of this counter-argument is often added in the 
 phrase: 
 
 mm pown> sooo smo eds hence nothing can be proved 
 herefrom. 
 
 Examples: Kiddushin 5b; Yebamoth 76b; B. Metzia 26b. 
 
 § 108. 
 
 4. An argument from analogy (see above § 98) is refuted 
 by impugning the premise, in showing that the resemblance 
 
258 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY. 
 
 between the two cases is merely superficial, or that points of 
 difference have been overlooked which vitiate the analogy. 
 The phrases used in such refutations are: 
 
 a NST... DTD are the two cases alike? there.... 
 here.... 
 
 Examples: Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 7a; Gittin 3a. 
 be .ORSA. DAT SAW ID zew, ts his sol 1.6.18 this anaes 
 
 logy correct? There....; but htre.... 
 Examples: Berachoth 21a; R. Hashana 28a; Kiddushin 7a. 
 
 Remark. The phrase 95 % is used in refuting an analogy which 
 was intended to support a proposition, while that of Xnwnr DN in re- 
 futing the analogy on which an objection to a proposition was based. 
 In other words, the former phrase is mostly applied in attacking a pro- 
 position, and the latter in repelling such an attack. 
 
 C. NOVNTD NTUSIYSTD NT NMS OTD does this prove any- 
 thing? This case as it is, and the other case, as ttis ; 1. @., the two 
 cases are not as analogous as you presume, since the circum- 
 stances are quite different. 
 
 Examples: Succah 43b; Gittin 33a: B. Metzia 14b. 
 
 Remark. This phrase is applied especially in refuting an analogy 
 based on the parallelism or the juxtaposition of two cases in one and 
 the same Mishna paragraph (N5°D) Xw"). 
 
 § 109. 
 
 5. An indirect argument (see above § 100) is often refut- 
 ed by a counter-argument, showing that a similar objection, as 
 had been raised against the contradictory proposition, might 
 also be raised against the original proposition. To remove the 
 latter objection, a distinction must necessarily be made, but this 
 distinction at the same time removes the objection against the 
 contradictory proposition, and thus destroys the whole indirect 
 argument. 
 
 The phrases used in introducing such a counter-argu- 
 ment are: 
 
REFUTATION 259 
 
 @ (...92 (WN) (7 NMI 1) ...Joyd) but according to 
 your own opinion... (does it agree with the passage re 
 ferred to?) (is there not also an objection to be raised ie) 
 
 Examples: Yoma 8b; Posachim 19b; Betza 8a. 
 
 b. (sw) 5793) (? NNPTD) sp x53 and what then?.. 
 (shall it be so as you say? i. e. do you want me to accept 
 your proposition ?) but also against this the objection is... 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 27a; Betza 18a: B. Metzia 3a, 
 
 Remark. The words *x19 xbx introducing such a counter-argu- 
 ment must not be confounded with the same words in a different 
 connection in which they are to be translated by: what then is...? 
 what then means? as: \n\X *ND NSN “but what means the expres 
 sion \n\x ‘(Rosh Hashana 22b), or in the frequent phrase: »~p sox 
 spd 72 ms “but what then remains for you to say? (Yoma 8b). 
 
 In Rosh flashana 18a, we find on the same page the words 3~p xx 
 in three different connections and meanings. 
 
 $ 110. 
 
 6. A mode of refutation very frequently applied in the 
 Talmudical discussions, consists in showing that the advanced 
 argument, if admitted at all, would prove too much, that 
 is, it proves, besides the intended conclusion, another which 
 is manifestly inadmissible. The characteristic phrases used 
 in this mode of invalidating an argument are: 
 
 Ba 93...10DN DM ON tf so, even... Aso Pere. wie onat 
 urgument (or conclusion) were correct, its consequences 
 ought also to extend to that other case of... to which, 
 however, they do not extend. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 7b; Betza 8b. 
 
 b. og ...159DS EITM NI) BSP Che a2) i sOy CU Se 
 teaching... (this case) ? since it ought to apply also to the 
 CAsee Ole. 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 16b; Betza 8a; Gittin 10a. 
 
 § 111. 
 
 7. A similar but more effective mode of overthrowing an 
 argument is, to introduce another analogous case where the 
 
260 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 application of that argument would lead to a palpable absur- 
 dity. 
 
 The phraseology of this kind of refutation is: 
 
 305m... mayo sos but now (according to your argument. 
 or conclusion), can it apply also to that other case of... ? 
 
 Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 5a; Gittin 23a. 
 
 § 112. 
 
 8. Propositions as well as arguments are often refuted by 
 the objection that the advanced opinion is without parallel and 
 example, and against common sense, or against the establish- 
 ed principles in law. 
 
 wT "TD NDS UW is there anything like this, that...? 
 
 Examples: Yoma 2b; Betza 13b; Sanhedrin 55a. 
 § 113. 
 
 9. Amild and polite mode of refuting an argument is that 
 which, instead of a decided objection, merely intimates a certain 
 possibility which would invalidate the argument under consider- 
 ation. Such refutations are introduced either by. ....ND‘S} 
 but I might say...; f ex. Yoma 2b, or, by... idem) but per- 
 haps....; f ex. Sabbath 5a; B. Metzia 8b. 
 
 The answer to such a mild objection or refutation is often: 
 "Nyt Np2D N°} this cannot enter thy mind, i. e., you can impos- 
 sibly think so, since...; f. ex., R. Hashana 13a. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 THE DEBATE. 
 
 1. DEFINITION AND TERMS. 
 § 114. 
 
 Besides the minor discussions to be found almost on 
 every page ofthe Talmud, and consisting either of a query, 
 an answer, and a rejoinder, or of an argument, an objection, 
 and a defense, the Talmud contains also numerous more 
 elaborate discussions or debates in which two or more 
 teachers holding different opinions on a certain question 
 contend with each other in mutual argumentation, Such an 
 interchange of arguments between opposing parties is 
 termed S12} Nopw (literally, taking up and throwing back, 
 namely, arguments). A debate displaying great dialectical 
 acumen is termed 53555. These debates generally concern 
 either the interpretation and application of a provision of 
 the Mishna, ora new principle of law advanced by an Amora. 
 
 2. THE PRINCIPAL DEBATERS. 
 $116: 
 
 The debates recorded in the Talmud are generally between 
 the associate memberg of an academy, or between a teacher 
 and his prominent disciples. The most noted among them 
 are the following: 
 
 R. Jochanan with Resh Lakish. 
 
 Rab Huna with Rab Nachman; also with Rab Shesheth 
 and Rab Chisda. 
 
 Rab Nachman with Rab Shesheth; also with Raba. 
 
 Rab Chisda with Rab Schesheth; also with Rab Nach- 
 man b. Isaac. 
 
 Rabba with Rab Joseph; also with Raba and with Abaye. 
 
 Raba with Abaye, and both of them also with Rab 
 Papa and with Rabina I. 
 
 Abaye with Rab Dime. 
 
262 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
 
 Rab Ashe with Amemar, also with Rabina, with Mar Zutra 
 and Rab Acha. 
 
 Of most of the other numerous Amoraim only opinions, 
 remarks, traditions and occasional discussions, but no formal 
 debates are recorded in the Talmud. 
 
 Some contemporary authorities, as Rab and Mar Samuel, 
 though widely differing from each other in many legal questions, 
 are rarely (f. i, B. Kamma 75a; Aboda Zarah 36a) mentioned 
 as having been personally engaged in debates with each other. 
 But their differences of opinion are frequently quoted, and 
 made a basis of academical discussions between the teachers 
 of later generations. 
 
 3. ILLUSTRATION OF DEBATES. 
 
 § 116. 
 
 Ihe following synopsis of a debate between Rabba and 
 Kab Joseph, the former being seconded by Abaye, may serve 
 to illustrate the usual procedure in the Talmudical controver- 
 sies. 
 
 In Baba Kamma 56b the question is as to the degree of 
 legal responsibility of ATaN ADiw, that is, ofthe keeper of a 
 lost object waiting for its owner to claim it. 
 
 Rabba maintains that the responsibility of that keeper is 
 only that of a gratutous depositary (o3n 7Diw) who is not 
 liable for the loss of the object entrustcd to his care, except in 
 the case of gross negligence. 
 
 Rab Joseph holds that he has the greater responsibility of 
 a paid depositary ("Dw DIN’) who is lable for all losses ex- 
 cept those caused by inevitable accident. ; 
 
 The reasons for each of these two opinions are stated. 
 
 Rab Joseph opens the debate with the attempt to refute 
 the opinion of his opponent (A215 oY aVmann) by showing 
 it to be in conflict with a passage in the Mishna. 
 
 Rabba parries this attack by construing that Mishna pas. 
 sage differently. 
 
THE DEBATE. } 263 
 
 R. J. objects to this construction. 
 
 Rabba removes the objection. 
 
 R. J. renews his attack by appealing to a Baraitha from 
 which he infers that the keeper of a lost object has the greater 
 responsibility of a paid depositary. 
 
 Rabba admits the correctness of this inference in the special 
 case mentioned in that Baraitha, but denies its general applica- 
 tion to the question at issue. 
 
 After having thus far been successful on the defensive, 
 Rabba assumes the offensive (qD1° 375 Asi msm), by calling 
 attention to another Baraitha which he dialectically interprets 
 in such a way as to be a refutation of his opponent’s opinion. 
 
 R. J. overthrows the refutation by showing that there was 
 no necessity for construing this Baraitha just in the way as 
 done by his opponent. 
 
 Now, Abaye, a disciple of Rabba, enters the arena to sec- 
 ond the opinion of his master. Addressing himself to the op- 
 ponent of the latter, he quotes a reported decision of the 
 acknowledged authority of one of the former Amoraim in Pales- 
 tine (R.Jochanan) from which decision he, by indirect reasoning, 
 draws the conclusion that the keeper of a lost object has only 
 the responsibility of a gratuitous depositary. 
 
 Rab Joseph rejects this conclusion by restricting the deci- 
 sion of the quoted authority to certain circumstances which 
 alter the case. 
 
 Abaye denies that the case is altered even under the sup- 
 posed circumstances, and the discussion continues without 
 leading to a definite result. But later authorities decided in 
 favor of Rab Joseph’s opinion which is adopted in the Rabbi- 
 Aical codes. 
 
 Other examples of such debates are furnished: Yoma 
 6b—7Tb; Pesachim 46b—47a; Moed Katon 2b; Kiddushin 
 59a; Gittin 32b—33a; Nedarim 25b—27a; B. Kamma 6la— 
 62a; B. Metzia 43a; B. Bathra 45a—46a. 
 
 Remark. Different from these debates in which two Amoraim 
 holding opposite opinions argue personally against each other, are the 
 
264 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 
 
 discussions of the Gemara ona reported difference between autlor.ties 
 of a former generation (f. ex. Gittin 2a sqq.) in which discussions, ar 
 guments for and against either of those authorities are advanced, 
 refuted or defended. See above §§ 74—80. 
 
 4. ANONYMOUUS DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES. 
 Seis 
 
 Dicussions and debates are, as a rule, reported very care- 
 fully with the names of those engaged therein. But in nu- 
 merous instances, the names are omitted, so that either a 
 question or an answer, or both ofthem are reported anonymously. 
 Sometimes, a lengthy discussion carried on anonymously is in- 
 terrupted by an answer made by an authority mentioned by 
 name, At other times again, a debate started by named 
 authorities is continued anonymously. 
 
 The omission of names in a discussion is probably indicative 
 that this was a general discussion among the members of the 
 academy, while only the questions and answers of the prominent 
 teachers were recorded with the names of their authors. 
 
 In consequence of the succinct and elliptical mode ot 
 expression, so prevalent in the Talmud, and in the absence of 
 all punctuation marks, the anonymous discussions especially, 
 often offer great and perplexing difficulties to the inexperienced 
 student, as question and answer are there sometimes so closely 
 connected that it requires a considerable practice in Talmud 
 reading to discern where the one ends and the other begins. 
 
A tae Ve 
 
 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHIC8. 
 

 
 
 
 
 WS eas | ae 
 mer S| 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 Ethics is the flower and fruit on the tree of religion. 
 The ultimate aim of religion is to ennoble man’s inner 
 and outer life, so that he may love and do that only 
 which is right and good. This is a biblical teaching which is 
 emphatically repeated in almost every book of Sacred Scrip- 
 tures. Let me only refer to the sublime word of the pro- 
 phet Micah: ‘‘He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, 
 and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice 
 and to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God.‘ 
 (Micah -vi,.43). 
 
 As far as concerns the Bible, its ethical teachings are 
 generally known. Translated into all languages of the world, 
 that holy book is accessible to every one, and whoever 
 reads it with open eyes and with an unbiased mind will 
 admit that it teaches the highest principles of morality, 
 nrinciples which have not been surpassed and _ superseded 
 by any ethical system of ancient or modern philosophy. 
 
 But how about the Talmud, that immense literary work 
 whose authority was long esteemed second to that of the 
 Bible ? What are the ethical teachings of the Talmud ? 
 
 Although mainly engaged with discussions of the Law, 
 as developed on the basis of the Bible during Israel’s se- 
 cond commonwealth down to the sixth century of the 
 Christian era, the Talmud devotes also much attention to 
 ethical subjects. Not only are one treatise of the Mishna 
 (Pirke Aboth) and some Baraithoth (as, Adoth @R. Nathan, 
 and Derech Eretz) almost exclusively occupied with ethical 
 teachings, but such teachings are also very abundantly 
 contained in the Aggadic (homiletical) passages which are 
 so frequently interspersed in the legal discussions throughout 
 all parts of the Talmud.' 
 
 1 Also the Midrash, a post-Talmudic collection of extracts 
 from popular lectures of the ancient teachers on _ Biblical texts, 
 contains an abundance of ethical teachings 1nd maxims advanced 
 
 by the sages of the Talmud, which must likewise be taken into 
 consideration, when speaking of Talmudical Ethics. 
 
268 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the Talmudical litera- 
 ture embraces a period of about eight centuries, and that 
 the numerous teachers whose ethical views and utterances 
 are recorded in that vast literature, rank differently in re- 
 gard to mind and authority. At tbe side of the great lumi- 
 naries, we find also lesser ones. At the side of utterances 
 of great, clear-sighted and broad-minded masters with 
 lofty ideas, we meet also with utterances of peculiar views — 
 which never obtained authority. Not every ethical remark 
 or opinion quoted in that literature can, therefore, be re- 
 garded as an index of the standard of Talmudical ethics, 
 but such opinions only can be so regarded which are 
 expressed with authority and which are in harmony with 
 the general spirit that pervades the Talmudic literature. 
 
 Another point to be observed is the circumstance that 
 the Talmud does not treat of ethics in a coherent, philo- 
 sophical system. The Talmudic sages made no claim of 
 being philosophers; they were public teachers, expounders 
 of the Law, popular lecturers. As such, they did not care 
 for a methodically arranged system. All they wanted was to 
 spread among the people ethical teachings in single, concise, 
 pithy, pointed sentences, well adapted to impress the minds 
 and hearts, or in parables or legends illustrating certain moral 
 duties and virtues. And this, their method, fully answered 
 its purpose. Their ethical teachings did actually reach the 
 Jewish masses, and influenced their conduct of life, while 
 among the Greeks, the ethical theories and systems re- 
 mained a matter that concerned the philosophers only, 
 without exercising any educating influence upon the mas- 
 Ses at large. 
 
 Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Talmu- 
 dical ethics is largely based on the ethics of the Bible. 
 The sacred treasure of biblical truth and wisdom was in 
 the minds and hearts of the Rabbis. This treasury they 
 tried to enrich by their own wisdom and observation. Here 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 269 
 
 they develop a principle contained in a scriptural passage, 
 and give it a wider scope and a larger application to 
 life’s various conditions. There they crystallize great moral 
 ideas into a pithy, impressive maxim as guide for hunan 
 conduct. Here they give to a jewel of biblical ethics a 
 new lustre by setting it in the gold of their own wisdom. 
 There again they combine single pearls of biblical wisdom 
 to a graceful ornament for human life. 
 
 Let us now try to give a few outlines of the ethical 
 teachings of the ‘lalmud. In the first place, concerning 
 
 MAN AS A MORAL BEING. 
 
 In accordance with the teaching of the Bible, the rab- 
 bis duly emphasize man’s dignity as a being created in the 
 likeness of God.’ By this likeness of God they understand 
 the spiritual being within us, that is endowed with intel- 
 lectual and moral capacities. The higher desires and inspi- 
 rations which spring from this spiritual being in man, are 
 called Yetzer ¢ob, the good inclination; but the lower appe- 
 tites and desires which rise from our physical nature and 
 which we share with the animal creation, are termed Yedzer 
 ha-ra, the inclination to evil.2 Not that these sensuous de- 
 sires are absolutely evil; for they, too, have been implant- 
 ed in man for good purposes. Without them man could 
 not exist, he would not cultivate and populate this 
 earth *, cr, as a Talmudical legend runs: Once, some 
 overpious people wanted to pray to God that they 
 might be able to destroy the Yetzer ha-ra, but a war- 
 ning voice was heard, saying: ‘‘Beware, lest you destroy 
 this world !’* Evil are those lower desires only in that 
 
 1 Aboth I, 14: R. Akiba used to say: ‘‘How distinguished 
 is man, since created in the image of God, and still more dis- 
 tinguished by the consciousness of having been created in the 
 image of God !” 
 
 ? Mishna Berachoth IX,5: yy ay ah aNd AY JY wa 
 
 3 Midrash R. Bereshith IX: 45) any “Ooxw pray ar aNe nwo a3 
 
 ‘ Yoma 69b: .xody sda mS imbSep ont oun 
 
270 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 they, if unrestrained, easily mislead man to live contrary 
 to the demands and aspirations of his divine nature. Hence 
 the constant struggle in man between the two inclinations.! 
 He who submits his evil inclination to the control of his 
 higher aims and desires, is virtuous and righteous. ‘‘The 
 righteous are governed by the Yefzer tod, but the wicked 
 by the Yetzer ha-ra.* ‘The righteous have their desires in 
 their power, but the wicked are in the power of their 
 desires.’ 
 
 FREE-WILL. 
 
 Man’s free will is emphasized in the following sentences: 
 ‘“Hverything is ordained by God’s providence, but freedom 
 of choice is given to man.’* ‘Everything is foreordained 
 by heaven, except the fear of heaven’”’ or, as another 
 sage puts it: Whether man be strong or weak, rich or poor, 
 wise or foolish depends mostly on circumstances that 
 surround him from the time of his birth, but whether man 
 be good or bad, righteous or wicked, depends upon his own 
 free will.* 
 
 Gop’s WILL, THE GROUND OF MAN’S DUTIES. 
 } 
 
 The ground of our duties, as presented to us by the 
 Talmudical as well as the biblical teachings, is that it is 
 the will of God. His will is the supreme rule of our being. 
 “Do His will as thy own will, submit thy will to His 
 
 Lt iat 
 
 will’.” ‘Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift 
 
 as aroe, and strong as a lion, to dothe will of thy Father, 
 
 39,3 
 
 who is in heaven’. 
 MAN ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD FoR HIS CONDUCT. 
 Of man’s responsibility for the conduct of his life, we 
 
 1 Kiddushin 30b: py 593 ySy wine ote by ny. Berachoth 5b: 
 wins Sy aw oy ote pi diy 
 2 Berachoth 61b. 3 Midrash Bereshith X XXIII. 
 ‘ Aboth ITI, 15. °® Berachoth 38a. * Nidda 16b. 
 TTA DOtn ML, 47 bid fey acs 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDIOCAL ETHICS. 271 
 
 are forcibly reminded by numerous sentences, as: ‘Consider 
 three things, and thou wilt never fall into sin; remember 
 that there is above thee an all-seeing eye, an all hearing 
 ear, and a record of all thy actions’. And again, ‘‘Con- 
 sider three things, and thou wilt never sin; remember whence 
 thou comest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt 
 have to render account for thy doings.” 
 
 HIGHER MoTIVES IN PERFORMING OUR DUTIES. 
 
 Although happiness here and hereafter is promised as 
 reward for fulfillment, and punishment threatened for neglect 
 of duty, still we are reminded not to be guided by the con- 
 sideration of reward and punishment, but rather by love 
 and obedience to God, and by love to that which is good 
 and noble. ‘‘Be not like servants, who serve their master 
 for the sake of reward.”* ‘‘Whatever thou doest, let it 
 be done in the name of heaven’ (that is, for its own 
 sake). 
 
 Duty OF SELF-PRESERVATION AND SELF-CULTIVATION. 
 
 As a leading rule of the duties of se/f-preservation and 
 self-cultivation, and, at the same time, as a warning against 
 selfishness, we have Hillel’s sentence: ‘If I do not care 
 for myself, who will do it for me? and if I care only for 
 myself, what am [ ?’ 
 
 The duty of acquiring knowledge, especially knowledge of 
 the divine Law (Thora) which gives us a clearer insight in 
 God’s will to man, is most emphatically enjoined in nume- 
 rous sentences: ‘‘Without knowledge there is no true moral- 
 ity and piety.” ‘‘Be eager to acquire knowledge, it does 
 not come to thee by inheritance”.’ “The more knowledge, 
 the more spiritual life.”’ ‘‘If thou hast acquired knowledge, 
 what doest thou lack? but if thou lackest knowledge, what 
 
 
 
 DOL ie tee Lids LL ats 
 STA DOC aba wel ids Liat Samat old,, 1014, 
 SMIDICVeLL ADs) eh Dilew L. Loe eLDIGser lot. 
 
OTD OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAY, ETHICS. 
 
 hast thou acquired ?”! But we are also reminded that even 
 the highest knowledge is of no value, as long as it does 
 not influence our moral life. ‘The ultimate end of all 
 knowledge and wisdom is man’s inner purification and the 
 performance of good and noble deeds.’? ‘He whose know- 
 ledge is great without influencing his moral life, is compared 
 to a tree that has many branches, but few and weak roots; 
 a storm cometh and overturneth it.’” 
 
 GEASBYOER, 
 
 Next to the duty of acquiring knowledge, that of zndust- 
 rious labor and useful activity is strongly enjoined. It is 
 well known that among the ancient nations in general, 
 manual labor was regarded as degrading the free citizen. 
 Kven the greatest philosophers of antiquity, a Plato and 
 Aristotle, could not free themselves of this deprecating view 
 of labor.‘ How different was the view of the Talmudic sages 
 in this respect! They say: ‘Love labor, and hate to be a 
 -lord.”*® “Great is the dignity of labor; it honors man.’’s 
 ‘Beautiful is the intellectual occupation, if combined with 
 some practical work.’’ ‘(He who does not teach his son a 
 handicraft trade, neglects his parental duty.”* ‘(He who lives 
 on the toil of his hands, 1s greater than he who indulges 
 in idle piety.’” 
 
 In accordance with these teachings, some of the most 
 prominent sages of the Talmud are known to have made 
 their living by various kinds of handicraft and trade. 
 
 CARDINAL DUTIES IN RELATION TO FELLOW-MEN. 
 
 Regarding man’s relation to fellow-men, the rabbis 
 consider justice, truthfulness, peaceableness and charity as 
 cardinal duties. They say, ‘‘The world (human society) 
 rests on three things—on justice, on truth and on peace.’ 
 
 } Midrash Levit. I: map AD MIDN AY WMIDN AY DD Dalal 
 
 * Berachoth 1%a. * Aboth III, 17. 
 
 * Arist. Polit. VIII, 3. * AbothI,10. * Gittin 67a; Nedarim 49a, 
 * Aboth II, 2. *Kiddushin 29a. ° Berachoth 8a. 
 
 % Aboth I, 18, 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS Dera. 
 
 JmUESe Tet Oun: 
 
 The principle of jws/ice in the moral sense is expressed 
 in the following rules: ‘‘Thy neighbor’s property must be 
 as sacred to thee, as thine own.”' ‘Thy neighbor’s honor 
 must be as dear to thee, as thine own.’* Hereto belongs 
 also the golden rule of Hillel: ‘‘Whatever would be hateful 
 to thee, do not to thy neighbor.’® 
 
 TRUTH AND TRUTHFULNESS. 
 
 The sacredness of ¢ruth and truthfulness is expressed in 
 the sentence: ‘‘Truth is the signet of God, the Most Holy.’ 
 suet thy years be in truth; and thy nay . bein truth.’” 
 ‘Truth lasts forever, but falschood must vanish.’ 
 
 Admonitions concerning fazthfulness and fidelity to given 
 promises are: ‘‘Promise little and do much."”’ "To he faith- 
 less to a given promise is as sinful as idolatts.’* “To break 
 a verbal engagement, though legally not binding, is a mor- 
 al wrong.”* Of the numerous warnings against any kind 
 of deceit, the following may be mentioned: ‘It is sinful to 
 deceive any man, be he even a heathen.’?° ‘“‘Deception in 
 words is as great a sin as deception in money matters.’”!! 
 When, says the Talmud, the immortal soul will be called to 
 account before the divine tribunal, the first question will 
 be, ‘hast thou been honest and faithful in all thy dealinys 
 with thy fellow-men ?”!? 
 
 PEACEFULNESS. 
 
 Peace and harmony in domestic life and social inter- 
 course as well as in public affairs are considered by the 
 Talmudic sages as the first condition of human welfare and 
 happiness, or as they express it: ‘‘Peace is the vessel in 
 which all God’s blessings are presented to us and preserved 
 
 1 [bid. II, 12. ? Ibid. II, 10. * Sabbath 30a. 
 
 ‘ Sabbath 45a, ° B. Metzia 45a.. ® Sabbath 104a. 7 Aboth I, 15. 
 ® Sanhedrin 92a. ° B. Metzia 48a. ?°Chullin 94a, 7! B. Metzia 58b. 
 12 Sabbath 28b. 
 
274 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHSS. 
 
 by us.”? ‘Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace, and _ pur- 
 suing peace.”? To make peace between those in disharmony 
 is regarded as one of the most meritorious works that 
 secure happiness and bliss here and hereafter.’ 
 
 As virtues leading to peace, those of mzldness and 
 meekness, Of gentleness and fplacidity are highly praised 
 and recommended. ‘‘Be not easily moved to anger’* ‘‘Be 
 humble to thy superior, affable to thy inferior, and meet 
 every man with friendliness.”*® ‘He who is slow to anger, and 
 easily pacified, is truly pious and virtuous.”® ‘Man, be ever 
 soft and pliant like a reed, and not hard and unbendiug like 
 the cedar.”’ ‘Those who, when offended, do not give offence, 
 when hearing shighting remarks, do not retaliate—they are 
 the friends of God, they shall shine forth like the sun in 
 its glory.”* 
 
 CHARITY. 
 
 The last of the principal duties to fellow-men is charity, 
 which begins where justice leaves off. Prof. Steinthal in his 
 work on General Ethics, remarks, that among the cardinal virt- 
 ues of the ancient philosophers, we look in vain for the idea 
 of Jove and charity, whereas in the teachings of the Bible, we 
 generally find the idea of love, mercy and charity closely con- 
 nected with that ofjustice.’ And we may add, as in the Bible 
 so also inthe Talmud, where charity is considered as the highest 
 degree on the scale of duties and virtues. It is one of the main 
 pillars on which the welfare of the human world rests.’° 
 
 The duty of charity (Gemilath Chesed) extends farther 
 than to mere amsgiving (Tzedaka). ‘‘Almsgiving is practiced 
 by means of money, but charity also by personal services and | 
 by words of advice, symphaty and encouragement. Alms- 
 giving isa duty towards the poor only, but charity towards 
 
 !Mishna Oketzin Ji, 12.5.7 Aboth wil, 12: 
 
 *Mishna Peah I, t. tA both If,.10,5" 1bid? IT ioe ibid avers 
 ' Taanith 20b. * Yoma 23; Gittin 3hb, — 
 
 * Allgemeine Ethik. p. 108. 3° Aboth I, 2. 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS, 275 
 
 the rich as well as the poor, nay, even towards the dead 
 (by taking care of their decent burial)” 
 
 By works of charity man proves to be a true image of God 
 whose atributes are love, kindness and mercy.* ‘He who 
 turns away from works of love and charity turns away from 
 God”.* ‘*The works of charity have more value than sacrifices; 
 they are equal to the performance of all religious duties.’”* 
 
 Concerning the proper way of practicing this virtue, the 
 Talmnd has many beautiful sentences, as: ‘The merit of cha- 
 ritable works is in proportion to the love with which they 
 are practiced.”* ‘Blessed is he who gives from his substance 
 to the poor, twice blessed he who accompanies his gift with 
 kind, comforting words’.* ‘The noblest of all charities is en- 
 abling the poor to earn a livelihood”.’ He who is unable to 
 give much, shall not withhold his little mite, for ‘‘as a garment 
 is made up of single threads, so every single gift contributes 
 to accomplish a great work of charity”.° 
 
 DUTIES CONCERNING SPECIAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Besides these principal duties in relation to fellow-men in 
 general, the Talmud treats also very elaborately of duties con- 
 cerning the various relations of life. Not intending to enter 
 here into all details, we shall restrict ourselves to some of its 
 ethical teachings in reference to the domestic relations, and 
 regarding the relation to the country and the community. 
 
 THE CONJUGAL RELATION. 
 
 ‘First build a house and plant a vineyard (i. e., provide 
 for the means of the household), and then take a wife”’.’ ‘Let 
 youth and old age not be joined in marriage, lest the purity 
 and peace of domestic life be disturbed’””’ ‘‘A man’s home means 
 
 1 Succah 49b. 
 
 * Sotah 14a. * Kethuboth 6la. ‘ Succah 49a; B. Bathra 9a. 
 § Succah 49a. * BR. Bathra 9b. 7 Sabbath 68a. * B. Bathra l0b. 
 ° Sotah 44a, 1° Sanhedrin 76a. 
 
276 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 his wife.” ‘Let a man be careful to honor his wife, for he 
 owes to her alone all the blessings of his house”.* “If thy 
 wife is small, bend down to her, to take counsel from her”.s 
 ‘(Who is rich ? He who has a noble wife.”* ‘‘A manshould be 
 careful lest he afflict his wife, for God counts her tears.’® “If 
 in anger the one hand removed thy wife or thy child, let the 
 other hand again bring them back to thy heart.”* ‘He who 
 loves his wife as his own Self, and honors her more than 
 himself, and he who educates his children in the right way, 
 to him applies the divine promise: Thou shalt know that 
 there is peace in thy tent.”” ‘Tears are shed on God’s altar 
 for the one who forsakes the wife of his youth.’® ‘He who 
 divorces his wife, is hated before God”’.’ 
 
 PARENTS AND CHILDREN. 
 
 “Parental love should be impartial, one child must not be 
 preferred to the other”.’” “It is a father’s duty not only to 
 provide for his minor children, but also to take care of their 
 instruction, and to teach his son a trade and whatever is ne- 
 cessary for his future welfare’... ‘The honor and reverence 
 due to parents are equal to the honor and reverence due to 
 God”.'* “Where children honor their parents, there God dwels, 
 there He is honored’)* 
 
 COUNTRY AND COMMUNITY. 
 
 Regarding duties to the country and the community, the 
 Rabbis teach: ‘Che law of the country is as sacred and bind- 
 ing as God’s law”."* ‘Pray for the welfare of the government, 
 without respect for the government, men would swallow each 
 other”.”” “Do not isolate thyself from the community and 
 its interests”.’® ‘It is sinful to deceive the government regard- 
 
 1 Yoma 2a. ? B. Metzia 59a. * Ibid. * Sabbath 25b. 
 
 ° B. Metzia 59a. * Sota 47a. 7 Yebamoth 62b. *® Gittin 90b. 
 
 * Ibid. '° Sabbath 10b. *! Kiddushin 29a. 12 Ibid 29b. 
 
 1° Tbid 80a. '* Gittin 19b; Nedarim 28a; B. Kamma 1l3a; B. 
 Bathra 54b. 1° Aboth JII, 2. '* Ibid II, 4. 
 
OUTLINES Of TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 277 
 
 ing taxes and duties’.! ‘Do not aspire for public offices’; 
 ‘but where there are nomen, try thou to be the man”.’ 
 “Those who work for the community shall do it without self- 
 ‘ishness, but with the pure intention to promote its wel- 
 HEWES ah 
 
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 To these short outlines of Talmudical ethics let us add 
 only a few general remarks. Being essentially a development of 
 the sublime ethical principles and teachings of the Bible, the 
 Talmudical ethics retains the general characteristics of that 
 origin. 
 
 It teaches nothing that is against human nature, nothing 
 that is incompatible with the existence and welfare of human 
 society. It is free from the extreme excess and austerity to 
 which the lofty ideas of religion and morality were carried 
 by the theories and practices of some sects inside and outsile 
 of Judaism. 
 
 Nay, many Talmudical maxims and sayings are evidently 
 directed against such austerities and extravagances. Thus 
 they warn against the monastic idea of obtaining closer 
 communion with God by fleeing from human society and 
 by seclusion from temporal concerns of life: ‘‘Do not sepa- 
 rate thyself from society.” ‘‘Man’s thoughts and ways shall 
 always be in contact and sympathy with fellow-men.”* ‘‘No 
 one shall depart from the general customs and manners.”’ 
 ‘Better is he who lives on the toil of his hand, than he who 
 indulges in idle piety.’”® 
 
 They strongly discountenance the idea of ce/zbacy, which 
 the Essenes, and later, some orders of the Church regarded 
 as a superior state of perfection. The rabbis say: ‘‘He who 
 lives without a wife is no perfect man.’ ‘‘To be unmarried 
 
 1 Pesachim 112b: pop jo WOyy man Ss also B. Kamina 113a 
 pon mx mrad me. 
 
 SA Donel at LO wee LOI Le eee Olde, | Leto: 
 
 ®* Aboth II, 4. * Kethuboth lla. ‘'’B. Metvia 86b. 
 
 * Berachot 8b. *® Yebamoth 63a. 
 
278 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 is to live without joy, without blessing, without kindness, 
 without religion and without peace.” ‘‘As soon as man mar- 
 ries, his sins decrease.” 
 
 While, on the one hand, they wurn against too much 
 indulgence in pleasures and in the gratification of bodily 
 appetites and against the insatiable pursuit of carthly goods 
 and riches, as well as against the inordinate desire of honor 
 and power, on the other hand, they strongly disapprove the 
 ascetic mortification of the body and abstinence from en- 
 joyment, and the cynic contempt of all luxuries that beau- 
 tify life. They say: ‘‘God’s commandments are intended to 
 enhance the value and enjoyment of life, but not to mar it 
 and make it gloomy.” ‘If thou hast the means, enjoy life’s 
 innocent pleasures.”* ‘(He who denies himself the use of wine 
 is a sinner.”® “No one is permitted to afflict himself by 
 unnecessary fasting.’® ‘‘The pious fool, the hypocrite, and 
 the pharisaic flagellant are destroyers of human society.”’ 
 ‘That which beautifies life and gives it vigor and strength, 
 just as riches and honor, is suitable to the pious, and 
 agreeable to the world at large.” 
 
 Finally, one more remark: The Talmud has often been 
 accused of being illiberal, as if teaching its duties only for 
 Jews towards fellow-believers, but not also towards fellow- 
 men in general. This charge is entirely unfounded. It is 
 true, and quite natural, that in regard to the ritual and ce- 
 remonial law and practice, a distinction between Jew and 
 Gentile was made. It is also true, that we occasionally 
 meet in the Talmud with an uncharitable utterance against 
 the heathen world. But it must be remembered in what 
 state of moral corruption and degradation their heathen 
 surroundings were, at that time. And this, too, must be 
 
 1 Ibid. 62a, ? Ibid. 6b. 
 * Yoma 85b: ona now xd) onan. * Erubin 54a: 95 mw ox 
 "> aun. * Taanith lla, ‘Ibid. 22b, ’Mishna Sota III, 4. 
 teenage Aboth VI, 8: oypyyyd aN2 «39m AwyM nom On 
 A 
 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 279 
 
 remembered, that such utterances are only made by individ- 
 uals who gave vent to their indignation in view of the 
 eruel persecutions whose victims they were. As regards 
 moral teachings, the Talmud is as broad as humanity. It tea- 
 ches duties of man to man without distinction of creed and 
 race. In most of the ethical maxims, the terms Adam and 
 Beriyot, ‘‘man,” ‘“fellow-men,” are emphatically used; as: ‘Do 
 not despise any man. ‘Judge every man from his favorable 
 side.” “Seek peace, and love fellow-men.”* ‘‘He who is pleas- 
 ing to fellow-men is also pleasing to God.”* ‘The right way 
 for man to choose, is to do that which is honorable in kis 
 own eyes (i. e., approved by his conscience) and at the same 
 time, honorable in the eyes of his fellow-men.”® In some in- 
 stances, the Talmud expressly reminds that the duties of 
 justice, veracity, peacefulness and charity are to be fulfilled 
 towards the heathen as well as to the Israelites; as: “It is 
 sinful to deceive any man, be he even a heathen.”* It is 
 our duty to relieve the poor and needy, to visit the ae 
 and bury the dead without distinction of creed and race.’ 
 
 “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. XIX, 
 18); this is, said R. Akiba, the all embracing principle of 
 the divine law. But Ben Asai said, there is another passage 
 in Scriptures still more embracing; it is the passage (Gen, 
 v, 2): ‘This is the book of the generations of man; in the 
 day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of 
 God.’ That sage meant to say, this passage is more embracing, 
 since it clearly tells us who is our neighbor; not, as it might be 
 misunderstood, our friend only, not our fellow-citizen only, not 
 our co-religionist only, but since we all descend from a com- 
 mon ancestor, since all are created in the image and likeness 
 of God, every man, every human being is our brother, our 
 neighbor whom we shall love as ourselves. 
 
 VAboth LV, 8° Ibid. 16. * Ibid. 1, 12.) “ Tbid IIT, 10: 
 * Ibid. II, 1. * Chullin $1a. 7 Gittin 61a, * Siphra on Lev. XTX, {8. 
 
280 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 
 
 The liberal spirit of Talmudic ethics is most strikingly 
 evidenced in the sentence: ‘‘The pious and virtuous of all 
 nations participate in the eternal bliss,’! which teaches that 
 man’s salvation depends not on the acceptance of certain 
 articles of belief, nor on certain ceremonial observances, but 
 on that which is the ultimate aim ofreligion, namely, Aorality, 
 purity of heart and holiness of life. 
 
 'Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. XIII; Maimonides Yad Hachezaka, 
 Teahuba ITI, 5; Melachim VIII, 11. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Erc. 
 
 
 
 The initial in parenthesis following a note indicates the author: 
 (M.) for Mielziner; (B.) for Dr. Joshua Bloch; (F.) for Dr. Louis 
 Finkelstein, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 4. As to the opinions of Hoffmann, Lerner and Halevy concern- 
 ing the origin of Mishna, see Strack, Einl., p. 19 f. Ginzberg 
 (in Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 33 ff.) 
 has proven that Tamid was the oldest treatise of the Mishna. 
 Tamid and Middot, however, do not belong to the Mishna. The 
 Mishna of the Tannaim consisted of only 58 tractates. (B.) 
 
 5. When R. Jehuda Hanasi arranged the final collection of the 
 Mishna, he entrusted it to the memory of R. Isaac b. Abdimi 
 (or Roba)) who made some changes in it, introducing the 
 opinions of his master. See Lewy, J ahresbericht, Breslau Sem- 
 inary, 1905, p. 25, and Marx JQR N.S., Vol. 13, p. 353. (B.) 
 Paragraph 3. 
 
 Since several of the colleagues of R. Jehuda Ha-Nasi had 
 arranged their own Mishna-systems, each of those works was 
 distinguished by being called after its author. Thus the 
 Mishna of Bar Kappara was the work of that scholar, the 
 Mishna of R. Hiyya, was the work of another scholar of the 
 same period. Some parts of these works are preserved in quo- 
 tations in the Talmud, and have been incorporated into other 
 books. The Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha-Nasi, being the gener- 
 ally accepted code, was called Mishna, without further descrip- 
 tion. (F.) 
 
 Note. 
 
 The question of whether the Mishna was actually committed 
 to writing or not has further been discussed by the following 
 authors: Jacob Bruell, Mebo Ha-Mishna, II, 10-138; Jawitz, 
 Toledot Israel, p. 340ff.; and J. S. Bloch, Einblicke in der 
 Gesch. der Entstehung der Talmud. Literatur, Vienna, 1884. 
 The first two hold that it was committed to writing, the last 
 that it was not. It is now generally believed that the Mishna 
 was not committed to writing till a much later date, but that 
 the scholars used private notes as an aid to their memory. See 
 Marx, JQR N.S., XIII, 353. (F.) 
 
 7. The six divisions of the Mishna are sometimes also termed 
 Shesh Erke Hamishna. See Pesikta d. R. Kahana 7a and Cant. 
 R. 6, 4: (B.) 
 
 8. As to the names of the Masechtoth and the order of their ar- 
 
 281 
 
282 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 11: 
 
 Us: 
 
 13. 
 
 15. 
 
 Lis 
 
 rangement, some important notes are given by Prof. Louis 
 Ginzberg in his remarkable study Tamid the Oldest Treatise 
 of the Mishna; in Neumark’s Journal of Jewish Lore and 
 Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 33-44, 197-209, and 265-295. (B.) 
 
 As to the particulars concerning each Masechta listed herewith, 
 consult the respective articles in the JE. (B.) 
 
 Baba Kama. As to particulars concerning this and the two 
 following Masechtoth, see the articles Baba Kamma, Baba 
 Mezia and Baba Batra, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 
 Ce CMS) ) 
 
 On Kethuboth cf. D. Kaufmann, Zur Geschichte der K. in 
 MGWJ 41 (1897), 213-221; E. N. Adler in JE 7, 472-478; 
 S. Krauss, Archeol. 2, 44; M. Gaster, Die K. bei den Samar- 
 itanern, MGWJ 54 (1910), 174 ff; M. Gaster, The Kethubah, 
 Berlinyel 923, saGb.) 
 
 Eduyoth. See Herman Klueger, Ueber die Genesis und Com- 
 position der Halachasammlung Edujoth, Berlin, 1898. 
 
 Aboda Zara. See article Abodah Zarah in Jewish Encyclo- 
 pedia, Vol. I, 
 
 Aboth. See article Abot in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. 
 Arachin. See article Arakin in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 
 II. (M.) 
 
 Eduyoth. See J. H. Duenner, Ueber Ursprung u. Bedeutung 
 des Tracktates Edojoth, MGWJ 20 (1871), 33-42, 59-77; H. 
 Klueger, Genesis u. Composition der Halacha-Sammlung Edu- 
 jot, Breslau, 1895. Cf. MGWJ 41 (1897), 278-288, 330-333; 
 D. Feuchtwang, Der Zussammenhang der Mischna im Tractat 
 Edujoth, Hoffmann-Festschr. 92-96. 
 
 Aboda Zara. See P. Fiebig, ZDMG 57 (1903), 581-604; N. 
 Blaufuss, Roemische Feste und Feiertage nach den Traktaten 
 ueber fremden Dienst, Nuernberg, 1909. (B.) 
 
 Middoth. See I. Hildesheimer, Die Beschreibung des hero- 
 dianischen Tempels im Tractate Middoth u. bei Flavius Jose- 
 phus, Berlin, 1877. 
 
 Khelim. See D. Graubart, Le véritable auteur du traité Kélim, 
 REI 82)'(1896), 1200-225... (8B) 
 
 Addition to Bibliography in the foot note: F. Hillel, Die Nom- 
 inal bildungen in der Mischna. Frankf. a. M., 1891. 
 
 H. Sachs, Die Partikel der Mischna, Berlin, 1897. (M.) 
 
 Note 1. 
 
 To the list of works on the language of the Mishna, must now 
 be added Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical 
 Hebrew, JQR XX, 617-737. (F.) 
 
 Chapter II. 
 The sixty treatises of the Tosefta are not identical with those 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 283 
 
 PAGE 
 
 18. 
 
 of the Mishna. There is no Tosefta to Abot, Tamid, Middot, 
 or Kinnim. As there are 63 treatises in the Mishna (as at 
 present divided) that would leave only 59 treatises in the 
 Tosefta. But as the Tosefta of Kelim is divided into three 
 parts (called Baba Kamma, Baba Mezia and Baba Bathra) 
 there are 61 treatises in the Tosefta. In the Erfurt Ms. which 
 is the basis of Zuckermandel’s edition the treatise Arlah is 
 omitted, and there remain therefore in that edition but 60 
 treatises. 
 
 The nucleus of the Tosefta as now extant, is probably that of 
 R. Hiyya. But the redactor has made use of several other 
 sources. It is clear that very often the order of the laws in 
 the Tosefta presupposes an earlier arrangement of the Mishna, 
 than that found in our texts of that work. A complete discus- 
 sion of the various theories advanced as to the nature of the 
 Tosefta, is given by Malter, JQR 11, 75. (F.) 
 
 The various theories bearing on the origin and composition of 
 the Tosephta and its relation to the Mishna are well summa- 
 rized by Strack. See his Einl. p. 75 ff., and bibliography given 
 there. 
 
 In the Tosephta, as we have it, are to be found side by side 
 statements and supplements to the Mishna which cannot be 
 understood without the latter and enlarged Mishnas including 
 both the text of our Mishna and additions to it. The Tosephta 
 frequently follows the arrangements of an earlier form of the 
 Mishna, perhaps that of R. Meir. (See Briill, Central Anzeiger, 
 DewiowcCt. Marx..JQR N.S. Vol. 13, . 354.)) The Amoraim 
 
 .made frequent use of the Tosephta texts in statements which, 
 
 later, were quoted in their own names by their pupils. See 
 Horowitz, Magazin, 1891, pp. 145-154. (B.) 
 
 Section 8. 
 
 The Tannaitic Midrashim are the various works consisting 
 mainly of the explanations given by the Tannaim on the Pen- 
 tateuch. These works were developed primarily in the second 
 century, when the Rabbinic world was divided in two great 
 schools, the School of Ishmael, and the School of R. Akiba. 
 There were therefore two groups of such midrashim or com- 
 mentaries. Each group consisted originally of four books, 
 commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuter- 
 onomy. There was no such commentary on Genesis because the 
 main legal portions of the Pentateuch begin with Exodus XII, 
 and it was in the legal portions of the Scriptures that these 
 Sages were primarily interested. 
 
 It so happens that of the eight works that were extant only 
 
 four have survived in a complete form. Two of these are from 
 the School of R. Ishmael and two from that of R. Akiba. In 
 
284 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 modern times, however, scholars have succeeded in reconstruct- 
 ing partially on the basis of quotations in early books and 
 manuscripts recovered from the Genizah, a large part of the 
 lost books. We therefore now have the following books: 
 
 On the From the school From the school 
 book of of R. Ishmael of R. Akiba 
 xXOdUS 1s, Mechilta of R. Ishmael Mechilta of R. Simeon 
 b. Johai. 
 Leviticus...)... Sifre Sifra 
 Numbers..... Sifre Zuta 
 
 Deuteronomy. . Mechilta on Deuteronomy Sifre 
 
 The works marked in italics have only partially been recov- 
 ered in modern times. It is somewhat confusing to the student 
 that the two parts of the Sifre (that on Numbers and that on 
 Deuteronomy) should be from two different schools. It is 
 especially confusing since they are usually printed together. 
 But it is only within the last generation that the true facts 
 about these Midrashim have been discovered, mainly through 
 the efforts and wide learning of the late Professor David 
 Hoffmann. 
 
 The Mechilta of R. Ishmael is sufficiently described in the text. 
 The Mechilta of R. Simeon b. Johai, has been published by 
 Dr. D. Hoffmann, Frankfurt-a-M., 1905. It is ascribed to 
 R. Simeon b. Johai, the disciple of R. Akiba, but has been 
 revised at a later time, by Hezekiah, the son of the R. Hiyya 
 who is mentioned in connection with the Tosefta. The meth- 
 ods of study in the two schools were quite different and this is 
 reflected in a difference in the methods of interpreting the 
 Biblical verses. In general it may be said that the school of 
 R. Ishmael adhered to the thirteen hermeneutic rules laid down 
 by their founder, while the school of R. Akiba, besides using 
 some additional rules of interpretation laid special emphasis 
 on the redundancy of words and letters. Naturally each school 
 had its technical terms by means of which it is easy to dis- 
 tinguish the works of the one from those of the other. 
 
 For further studies on the Mechilta of R. Simeon b. Johai, see 
 D. Hoffmann, Einleitung in d. Hal. Midrashim, 45-51; J. Lewy, 
 Ein Wort u. d. Mechilta d. R. Simon, Breslau, 1889, and Ginz- 
 berg, in Lewy Festschrift, p. 403-436. 
 
 Mechilta or Mechilta de R. Ishmael are designations for the 
 Halachic or Tannaitic Midrash on Exodus. According to 
 Lauterbach (JQR n.s. Vol. II., 1920-21, pp. 169 ff.) Mechilta 
 is a later name for the older, original name Sifre, which in- 
 cluded the Midrash on Exodus. He also finds no proof from. 
 Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature in support of the inter- 
 pretation of the term Mechilta to mean a Midrashic collection. 
 Hence he assumes that Mechilta, originally meant, like Me- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 285 
 
 PAGE 
 
 20. 
 
 sichta, Tractates, and its correct pronunciation is Mechilata in 
 the plural, since the Midrash so named is composed of many 
 (9) tractates. The original arrangement according to trac- 
 tates has been slightly changed later on and adopted to an- 
 other. arrangement according to Sidras. See J. Z. Lauterbach, 
 The Arrangement of the Mekilta in Hebrew Union College An- 
 nual, Vol. 1, 1924, p. 427. The views as to the meaning of the 
 name Mechilta expressed by J..Z. Lauterbach in JE 8, 444 f.,, 
 are abandoned by him in the above mentioned article. (B.) 
 Of the Sifra, it must merely be added, that while it originates 
 in its present form mainly from the school of R. Akiba, it con- 
 tains large parts of the lost commentary of the school of R. 
 Ishmael on Leviticus. The name Sifra d’be Rab may mean 
 merely that these were school text books rather than they were 
 primarily redacted in the academy of Rab. (F.) 
 
 Of the Sifre it must be remarked that since that on Numbers 
 comes from the school of R. Ishmael while that on Deuter- 
 onomy comes primarily from the School of R. Akiba, they must 
 be discussed separately. The Sifre on Numbers is more Hala- 
 kic in character than the Mechilta of R. Ishmael, as has been 
 pointed out by the author, but otherwise its earmarks are 
 those of the works of that school. The authorities mentioned 
 are those of that group, the technical terms are the same, and 
 the methods of interpretation are the same. The latest edition 
 of this work is that of Horovitz, Leipzig, 1917. At the end of 
 that book is also published what remains of the Sifre Zuta, the 
 commentary to Numbers from the school of R. Akiba. 
 
 The Sifre on Deuteronomy is the work to which the Talmud 
 refers when it says that the Sifre is mainly the work of R. 
 Simeon b. Johai. That is evident from the fact that a number 
 of statements that occur anonymously in this book are else- 
 where quoted as those of R. Simeon. But as the names of 
 later authorities occur in it, it must have been redacted at a 
 later time. According to Hoffmann (Einleitung z. d. Hal. 
 Midraschim) its final redactor was R. Johanan. 
 
 As was the case with other books, there existed also a Midrash 
 on Deuteronomy from the school of R. Ishmael. Fragments of 
 this work have been found in the Genizah and were published 
 by Dr. S. Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly Review. These 
 fragments together with extracts from the Midrash Ha-Gadol, 
 in which the Sifre and this work were found side by side, have 
 been published by Dr. D. Hoffmann as the Midrash Tannaim 
 to Deuteronomy (1908). (F.) 
 
 Baraita. 
 
 The Baraitot were traditions which were not included in the 
 standard collections of Tannaitic statements studied in the 
 academies. When the Mishna of R. Judah Ha-Nasi was ac- 
 
286 
 
 ADDITIONAL NoTEs, CorRRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 24. 
 
 25. 
 
 cepted by all groups as the authoritative basis for academic 
 study, other traditions which had not been included, were 
 studied “without” the academy. Some of these have bcen 
 shown by Professor Ginzberg to have been of high antiquity. 
 See his article Baraita in Jewish Encyclopedia, II., 513b. 
 Baraita is generally understood to be the technical term where- 
 by Tannaitic traditions not found in the Mishna are designated. 
 Such traditions are scattered in the Talmuds and Midrashim 
 such as Sifra, Sifre, Mekilta, Tosefta, etc. In post-Talmudic 
 times it became the general designation of those works which 
 either originated or were claimed to have originated in the 
 time of the Tannaim. See Ginzberg, JE 2, 514-516; Zunz, 
 Gottesd. Vortr. 2nd ed., p. 52; Strack, Einl., p. 2. (B.) 
 
 - On the Zugoth, see Frankel, Monatschrift, 1852, pp. 405- 
 
 421. (M.) 
 The literature dealing with the important teachers of the 
 Mishna and Gemara is surveyed by Strack, Einl., p. 116 f. (B.) 
 
 The differences between the School of Shamai and that of 
 Hillel have been discussed by several scholars, e. g., Ad. 
 Schwarz, Die Controversen der Schammaiten u. Hilleliten, Wien, 
 1893. Cf. D. Feuchtwang, MGWJ 39 (1895), 370-379; S. Men- 
 delsohn, JE 8, 115 f.; Rosenthal, Entst. 2, 16-48; Strack, 
 Einl., pp. 119-120. . (B.) 
 
 Akabia b. Mahalalel was the subject of a study by J. Kaempf, 
 MGWJ 5 (1856), pp. 146-158. See also S. Mendelsohn REJ 41 
 (1900), 31-44; JE 1, 302; Strack, Einl., p. 120. 
 
 Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (Spoken of as the teacher of the 
 Apostle Paul. See Acts of the Apostles, 22, 8 and cf. 5, 34 ff.; 
 see also Weiss Dor. II., 6) was the son of Hillel. The assump- 
 tion that he was Hillel’s grandson rests on a single prayer 
 in the Talmud which states that Simon, the son of Hillel, must 
 have been Gamaliel’s father (Sab. 15a). See S. J. Kaempf, 
 MGWJ 3 (1854), 39 ff., 98 ff.; Zipser in Ben Chananja, 1886, 
 supplement 4; JE 5, 528-550; Strack, Einl., p. 120. As to his 
 ordinances, cf. Hollander, Die Institutionen des Rabban Gama- 
 liel, Halberstadt, 1869. (B.) 
 
 Paragraph 5. 
 
 The story that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was executed by the 
 Romans is found only in very late sources, such as Masseket 
 Semahot, chapter 8. There is no historical corroboration of 
 the legend and it is extremely doubtful. (F.) 
 
 R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. See Rosenthal Entst. 2, §25-30; A. 
 Schlatter, Jochanan b. Zakkai, der Zeitgenosse der Apostel, 
 Guetersloh, 1899. Cf. L. Blau, MGWJ 43 (1899), 548-561. (B.) 
 Rabban Gamaliel IT. Cf. Landau, MGWJ 1 (1851-52), pp. 2838- 
 295, 322-335; A. Scheinin, Die Hochschule zu Jamnia u. ihre 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 287 
 
 PAGE 
 
 26. 
 
 7k 
 
 28. 
 
 29. 
 
 bedeutendsten Lehrer mit besonderer Ruecksicht auf Rabbi 
 Gamaliel II., Halle, 1878; H. Reich, Zur Genesis des Talmud, 
 Wien, 1892; JE 5, 560-562; A. Sulzbach, Gamaliel u. Josua, in 
 Jeschurun 4 (1917), pp. 75-90. (B.) 
 
 R. Eliezer 6b. Hyrkanos. Cf. REJ 60, pp. 107 £; Ch. Oppen- 
 heim, Beth Talmud 4 (Wien, 1885), 311 ff., 332 ff., 359 ff.; 
 Zarkes in Suwalski’s Keneseth Hagedolah 4 (1891), pp. 65-71; 
 Wassertrilling, Die halachische Lehrweise des Eliezer b. Hyr- 
 kanos in JLB, 1877, No. 22, f. 26; Halevy, Dorot le, 293-296; 
 S. Mendelsohn, JE 5, 1138-115; J. Bassfreund, MGWJ 42, 
 (1898), pp. 49-57. The view of C. A. R. Totterman (R. Eliezer 
 ben Hyrkanos, Leipzig, 1877) that R. Eliezer leaned towards 
 Christianity is without foundation or proof. 
 
 R. Joshua 6b. Chanania. Cf. Graetz, Geschichte, 4th ed. 4, 
 47-50, and Note 6; Halevy, Doroth le, 317-318, 386-392. See 
 also L. J. Mandelstamm, Horae Talmudicae I., Berlin, 1860; 
 Br. Meissner, ZDMG 1894, 194 f.; M. Guedemann, Religions- 
 geschichtliche Studien, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 131-144; Brill, Jhb 
 apeakelthe MU sea) 
 
 R. Elazar b. Azaria. See J. Derenbourg in MGWJ 37 (1893), 
 895-398; JH 5, 97 £.; Halevy, Dorot le, 362-368. (B.) 
 
 R. Tarphon is said to have witnessed, while a youth, the tem- 
 ple and was strongly opposed to the Judeo-Christian worship 
 (Sab. 11la). His permanent home was Lydda where an acad- 
 emy existed already three decades prior to the destruction of 
 the Temple. See S. Klein, Die Beschluesse zu Lod, in Jeschu- 
 run, 5 (1918), 522-535 and JH 12, 56 f. As to the mention of 
 Tarphon in early church literature cf. Freimann, MGWJ 55 
 (1911), 565 ff.; and S. Krauss, JQR 5 (1892-93), 123-134. (B.) 
 R. Ishmael (b. Elisha) and his academy are frequently men- 
 tioned in Midrashic literature such as the Mechilta, Siphra and 
 Siphre. See Hoffmann, Einleitung in d. hal. Midr., p. 87 f.; 
 M. Petuchowski, Der Tanna Rabbi Ismael, Frankfurt, 1894; 
 JE 6, 648-650. (B.) 
 
 R. Akiba. As to fuller characteristics of this teacher, see L. 
 Ginzberg’s article, Akiba ben Joseph, in JE 1, pp. 304-310, and 
 ef. Landau, MGWJ 3 (1854), 45-51, 81-93, 180-148; Is. Gast- 
 freund, Toldoth R. Akiba, Lemberg, 1871; Halevi, Dorot le. 
 455-467, 620-629, 659-664; S. Funk, Ein palaestinenischer 
 Gelehrter aus dem zweiten nachchristl. Jahrhundert, Jena, 
 1896; J .Hirsch, Religionsgeschichtl. Bedeutung R. Akibas, 
 Prag, 1912; L. Stein, R. Akiba u. seine Zeit, Berlin, 1913; P. 
 Billerbeck, R. Akiba, Leben u. Wirken eines Meisters in Israel. 
 in Strack’s “Nathanael,” 1916-1918; G. J. Horowitz, Menorah 
 Journal 1 (1915), pp. 227-236; Witkind, Chut Hameshulash, 
 
288 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 30. 
 
 31. 
 
 32. 
 
 33. 
 
 34. 
 
 35. 
 
 Vilna, 1877, pp.-9-60. (B.) 
 R. Jochanan b. Nuri. See JE 7, 213. (B.) 
 
 R. Jose the Galilean. See JH 7, 240 f. Cf. Ch. Oppenheim, 
 Beth Talmud 5, 138-145, 172-176. (B.) 
 
 R. Jochanan b. Broka was the pupil of R. Joshua b. Chanania. 
 See Frankel, Darke, p. 131; Brill, Mebo, 1387 f; JE 7, 210. (B.) 
 Ben Zoma who belonged to the second generation of Tannaim 
 was a famous Darshan (expounder) who became absorbed in 
 theosophic and mystic speculations and as a result, he is said 
 to have become demented.  (B.) 
 
 R. Meir. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 4 (1855), 88 ff., 125 ff.; Isaac 
 Broyde, JE 8, 432-435. (B.) 
 
 Of R. Meir’s origin little is known. It is by no means certain 
 that he was not a native Palestinian. As to the story of his 
 dying in Asia Minor, that forms the subject of a controversy 
 between Weiss and Graetz on the one hand, and Halevy on the 
 other. See Halevy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, Ie, p. 790-6, and 
 Weiss II., p. 182 and note. (F.) 
 
 Ben Azai really belonged to the second generation of Tannaim 
 and flourished in the second century C.E. His untimely death 
 is ascribed to the fact that he, too, was absorbed in the theo- 
 sophic speculations of his time. (B.) 
 
 Rk. Jehuda b. Ilat. See M. Joel, MGWJ 6 (1857), 125-134; 
 Lauterbach, JH 7, 343 f. As to his controversies with R. Nehe- 
 miah (see p. 35) and anonymous scholars, see Bacher, Rab- 
 banan, Budapest, 1914, pp. 23-30. (B.) 
 
 k. Jose b. Chalafta. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 6 (1857), 83-91; 
 M. Seligsohn, JE 7, 341 f.; Halevi, Dorot le, 781-788. (B.) 
 
 R. Simon b. Jochai. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 5 (1856), 365 ff., 
 401 ff.; M. Seligsohn, JH 11, 359-363; L. Lewin, R. Simon ben 
 Jochai, Frankfurt, 1893. (B.) 
 
 R. Elazar b. Shamua was born in Alexandria and was a loyal 
 disciple of R. Akiba whom he visited even while in prison in 
 order to receive instruction. See JE 5, 94 f. Halevi, Dorot le, 
 806-809. (B.) 
 
 R. Jochanan the Sandelar. Cf. JE 7, 213 f. (B.) 
 
 k. Elazar b. Jacob. S. Horovitz (Siphre, p. xviiif.) is in- 
 clined to attribute to this school the authorship of Siphre 
 AuttaweGlsJ/ 17 2b 111 GameCba) 
 
 R. Joshua b. Korcha. Cf. JE 7, 298. (B.) 
 
 Rk. Simon b. Gamaliel. Cf. Ph. Bloch, MGWJ 13 (1864), 81 
 ff., 121 ff.; Lauterbach, JH 11, 347 f.; Ad. Biichler, La con- 
 spiration de R. Nathan et R. Meir contre le Patriarche Simon 
 
 _ ben Gamaliel, REJ 28, 60-74. (B.) 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 289 
 PAGE 
 36. R. Nathan usually called the Babylonian, because he had emi- 
 grated from Babylon to Palestine. JE 9,176 f.; Halevi, Dorot 
 le, 819-830; Bacher, Tannaiten 2, 437-453. (B.) 
 
 37. R. Jehuda Hanasi, also spoken of as Rabbenu (Yeb. 45a) or 
 
 Rabbenu Hakadosh (Pes. 37a, Sab. 156a) because of his strict 
 ethical conduct, was born in 185 C.E. Scholars differ as to the 
 date. See Abr. Krochmal, Hechaluz, 2 (1853), 63-93; 3 (1854), 
 118-146; A. Bodek, Mare Aurel. Antoninus als Zeitgenosse 
 und Freund des Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi, Leipzig, 1868; H. W. 
 Schneeberger, The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi, 
 Berlin, 1870; S. Gelbhaus, Rabbi Jehuda Hanassi u. die Re- 
 daktion der Mischna, Wien, 1876; A. Biichler, Der Patriarch 
 R. Jehuda u. die griechisch-roemischen Staedte Palaestinas; 
 JQR 13 (1901), 683-740; Die Maultiere u. die Wagen des 
 Patriarchen Jehuda I., MGWJ 48 (1904), 193-208; JE 7, 333- 
 337; J. Furst, Antoninus u. Rabbi, in Mag. 1889, 41-45; R. 
 Leszynsky, Die Loesung d. Ant. Ratsels, Berlin, 1910; S. 
 Krauss, Ant. u. Rabbi, Wien, 1910; La lagende de la naissance 
 de Rabbi, REF 58 (1909), 65-74; Zifronowitz in Hashiloah 23 
 (1910), pp. 246-255; Strack, Hinl., 1338. (B.) 
 The most important of the teachers of R. Judah Ha-Nasi seems 
 to have been R. Jacob b. Korshai (Jer. Sabbath 12.5, 10c). (F’.) 
 Bar Kappara was actually named R. Elazar b. Elazar Hakap- 
 par and was the teacher of Hoshaya and of R. Joshua b. Levy. 
 His academy was located in Ceasarea. See Halevi, Dorot 2, 
 114 ff., 123-126; Bacher, Tann. 2, 503-520; L. Ginzberg, JE 2, 
 503-505. (B.) 
 
 38. R. Jose b. Juda (b. Ilai) I. See Rosenthal, Entst. 3, §64; 
 Dacner mLannerd 41 1-42 bee Mery, 24304 (BY) 
 Rk. Elazar b. Simon. See JE 5, 104 f.; S. Krauss, R. Elazar 
 ben Simon als roemischer Befehlshaber, MGWJ 38 (1894), 
 
 Lol-lo6, 3 (B;) 
 R. Simon b. Elazar is often mentioned in Tosephta. See JH 
 Tiss 4928 (Be) 
 
 39. R. Hlazar b. Jose (b. Chalafia). JH 5, 99 f.: (B.) 
 
 Rk. Chiya was also one of the editors of the Siphra. See 
 Bacher, Tann. 2, 520-530; Baer, Mag. 1890, 28-49, 119-135; 
 Is. Broyde, JH 6,480 f. (B.) 
 
 R. Oshaya was also.a disciple of Bar Kappara. He collected 
 Mishnayoth. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 89-108; Halevi, Dorot 2, 
 2538-258; JH 6, 475 f. Cf. Bacher, The Church Father Origen 
 and Hoshaya, JQR 3 (1890-91), 357-360. (B.) 
 
 40. Expounders of the Mishna. See the article Amora in Jewish 
 Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 
 
 41. The question as to whether the Babylonian Amoraim knew the 
 
290 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 42. 
 
 Palestinian Talmud is still unsettled. Rabbi H. Hirschenson 
 in Hamisderona II. (1888), pp. 97-120, is against such an as- 
 sumption while Jerushalimski in Hakerem (1887), pp. 144-154, 
 and Halevi, Dorot, Vol. 3, pp. 111-113, favor such a view. (B.) 
 Rk. Chanina b. Chama, succeeded R. Ephes in Sephoris. See 
 Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 1-34; Halevi, Dorot 2, 258 ff.; JE 6, 
 DIG Tins.) 
 
 R. Hanina b. Hama was a man of considerable importance even 
 during the life of R. Judah Ha-Nasi. That scholar on his 
 death-bed commanded that R. Hanina should succeed him as 
 chief lecturer at the academy, while his son, Gamaliel, was to 
 succeed to the Patriarchate. Thus for the first time since the 
 days of Hillel was the office of the head lecturer separated from 
 the Patriarchate. R. Hanina refused to accept the office, with- 
 drawing in favor of the older R. Efes. (F.) 
 
 Rk. Gamaliel III. See Weiss, Dor. 3, 42-44; Bacher, Tann. 2, 
 554; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 19-28; JH 5, 562. (B.) 
 
 Rk. Judah II. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 8, 581; JE 7, 337 f; Halevi, 
 Dorot, 2, 23-52. Cf. A. Marmorstein, L’opposition contre le 
 patriarche R. Juda II., REJ 64, 59-66. (B.) 
 
 R. Judah Ill, the Patriarch, was likewise an Amorah but of a 
 later date. It was he who commissioned R. Ame and R. Ashi 
 to establish schools for children. See Graetz, Gesch, 4 ed., 4, 
 276 f£.; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 338 ff.; Bacher, JE 7, 338 f. (B.) 
 
 R. Ephes was also Rabbi’s successor as head of the Academy 
 in Sephoris. See JE 5,50 f. (B.) 
 
 Levi b. Sissi generally quoted as R. Levi. He should not be 
 confused with another Amora bearing the same name who was 
 a disciple of R. Johanan and a friend of R. Abba b. Kahana. 
 See Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 296-486; Tann. 2, 5386-539; JE 8, 21; 
 Halevy, Dorot, 2, 119-121; B. Ratner, Die Mishna des Levi b. 
 Sissi, in Harkavy Festschrift, 117-122; A. M. Padua, Chut 
 Hameshulash, Vilna, 1877, pp. 61-104. (B.) 
 
 k. Jochanan b. Napacha is said, by Sherira Gaon, to have been 
 the head of the Academy for about eighty years. Halevi, Dorot, 
 2, 298-332, endeavored to prove that he was born in 175-180 C.E., 
 and died in 290. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 205-339; Graetz, 
 Gesch. 4th ed., 4, 234-238, and Note 26; J. Bondi, JLG 1, 233- 
 268; S. Mendelsohn, JE 7, 211-213; Loewenmayer, MGWJ 4 
 (1855), 285-294; 321-328; Horowitz, Literaturblatt d. jud. 
 Presse, Berlin, 1871-1873; S. A. Jordan, Rabbi Jochanan bar 
 Nappacha, Budapest, 1895; S. J. Zuri, R. Jochanan, Berlin, 
 1918; Witkind, Chut Hameshulash, Vilna, 1877, pp. 105- 
 142-2552) 
 
 Rk. Simon b. Lakish. See Bacher, Pal. Am. I, 340-418; Graetz, 
 Gesch. 4 ed., 238-240; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 317-327; JE 11, 354 f. 
 (B.) 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. pagal 
 
 PAGE 
 
 43. 
 
 44, 
 
 45. 
 
 Note 1. To the list of books mentioned must be added now 
 Halevi, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, the Jewish Encyclopedia, Hy- 
 man’s Toledot Tannaim v’Amoraim, Bacher’s Agada der Pal. 
 Amoraer. (F.) 
 
 R. Joshua b. Levi. I. H. Weiss, in his Dor Dor III., p. 60, 
 proves that Levi, the father of this Amora, was not the cele- 
 brated Levi bar Sissi, and that there were two teachers by the 
 name of Joshua b. Levi. 
 
 R. Joshua 6b. Levi, one of the most prominent Palestinian 
 Amoraim. A pupil of Bar Kappara, Judah b. Pedaya and R. 
 Phineas b. Jair, he flourished during the first half of the third 
 century C.E. He organized the communities in Southern Judea 
 and visited Rome as collector of revenues for the patriarch. 
 See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 124-194; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 293-296; 
 JH %, 298 f.; J. Rachlin, Toldoth R. Joshua b. Levy, N. Y., 
 1906. 
 
 R. Simlai b. Abba had frequent controversies with Christian 
 dogmatists. Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 552-566; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 
 4, 241-246. (B.) 
 
 Abba Areca was called Areca because of his bodily form. See 
 JE 1, 29 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 256-261; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
 210-223, 400-410; Funk, Jud. in Bab. I., 42-56; Umanski, in 
 Graeber’s Ozar Hasifruth (Krakau 1896), 159-212; J. S. Zuri 
 (Schesak), Rab, sein Leben u. seine Anschauungen, Ziirich, 
 1918; J. E. Melamed, Raban shel kol bene hagolah, Wilna, 
 Lotte Db.) 
 
 Mar Ukba I, was Exilarch 210-240 C.E. See Hoffmann, Mar 
 Samuel 74 ff.; Felix Lazarus in Briill’s Jhb., 10, 74-84; S. 
 Funk, Jud. in Bab. I. 44, 68, and Note 4; JH 5, 589. Cf. 
 Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, Note 27; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 246-252. (B.) 
 Mar Ukba II. was, like his grandfather, also Exilarch. See 
 Funk, Ib. 107-109, and Note 4; JH 5, 289. (B.) 
 
 R. Abbahu. See S. Perlitz? monograph on Rabbi Abahu in 
 Monatschrift XXXVI (1887); also article Abbahu in Jewish 
 Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 
 
 R. Elazar b. Pedath. Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 1-87; Halevi, Dorot, 
 2, 327-332; Bondi, JLG 1, 258-256; JH 5,95 f. (B.) 
 
 R. Ame. See JE 1, 522 f.; Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 143-178. (B.) 
 R. Assi. See Halevi, Dorot, 2, 232; JE 2, 231. . (B.) 
 
 The R. Assi who lived his whole life in Babylon is said to have 
 been inferior to Rab in knowledge of traditional teachings, but 
 his equal in dialectic ability (Sanhedrin 36b). It can hardly 
 be maintained therefore that he was in any real sense a disciple 
 of Rab’s. When Rab came to Babylonia he found this Rab 
 Assi and Rab Kahana in Nahardea. Rab treated him with 
 respect as an equal (Baba Kamma 80b, Kiddushin 44b). (F.) 
 
292 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 46. 
 
 46. 
 
 47. 
 
 R. Chiya bar Abba and Simon bar Abba. See Graetz, Gesch. 
 4 ed., 4, 280 f.; Bacher, Bab. Am. 86 f.; Pal. Am., 2, 174-204; 
 JH 11, 348. ( B.) 
 
 Rk. Abbahu. See Perlitz, MGWJ 36 (1887), 60-88, 119-126, 
 177-183, 269-274, 310-320; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 282-287; 
 Bacher, Pal. Am., 2, 88-142; K. Kohler, JE 1, 36 f. (B.) 
 
 There is no evidence to point to the election of R. Judah to 
 the presidency of the Sura academy after the death of R. 
 Huna. It is known, however, that while R. Hisda, who occu- 
 pied toward R. Huna the relation of Talmid-Haber, i. e. a pupil 
 who afterward had developed into a colleague, remained at 
 Sura, most of R. Huna’s other pupils left that city to continue 
 their studies under R. Judah b. Ezekiel after the death of their 
 master, R. Huna. When R. Judah died two years later, a 
 number of the students of Sura returned and re-organized 
 the academy under the presidency of R. Hisda. (F.) 
 
 R. Zeira I. (Must not be confused with a later Palestinian 
 Amora who bore the same name and who was a pupil of R. 
 Jeremiah.) L. Bank, RE J 38, 47-63, points out that there were 
 three Amoraim bearing this name, two of whom were Baby- 
 lonians. Cf. Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 300-302; Bacher, Pal. 
 Am.)3,/1-384; Halevi, Dorot.2,1242 fie. 12565 inten) 
 
 R. Zeira. See JE 12, 652b; S. Berman in Luach Erez Yisrael 
 X, 145-154.) 
 
 R. Huna. See Bacher, Babl. Am., 52-60; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 
 4, 289-292; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 411 ff., 417 ff.; JE 6, 492 f. S: 
 Funk, Jud. in Bab. 1, 111-116; A. Lapiduth in Rabinowitz’s 
 Keneseth Yisrael III., 297-308. Another R. Huna, son of R. 
 Joshua was, like his contemporary, R. Papa (see above p. 51), 
 a disciple of Raba and was rather rich as well as scholarly. 
 See Bacher, Babl. Am., 141; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 505 ff.; JH 6, 
 493. 
 
 k. Chisda. A distinguished Casuist (Er. 67a); Bacher, Babl. 
 Am., 61-71; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 297; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
 421 1:;' JE 6, 422 f3; Funk,, dudsin Babs 11162123eeecne 
 
 Rk. Shesheth. Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 289; JH 11, 285 f.; 
 Bacher, Bab. Am. 76-79. (B.) 
 
 Rab Nachman b. Jacob.. I. H. Weiss, in his Dor Dor, contra- 
 dicts the generally accepted statement that Rab Nachman had 
 an academy in Shechan-Zib. (M.) 
 
 It is now generally agreed that while R. Abba b. Abuha, the 
 father-in-law of R. Nahman, was a member of the family of 
 the exilarch, and because of that fact and through his wealth 
 very influential, he was not himself the Exilarch. (See Hal- 
 evy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim II. 207a.) (F.) 
 
 Rk. Nachman b. Jacob made the Masora a subject of study in 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Eve. 293 
 
 PAGE 
 
 48, 
 
 49. 
 
 50. 
 
 his home. See J. Mann, JQR ns. 8, 352 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 
 ed., 4, 298-300; Halevi, Dorot, 2,412" ts; Bacher, Bab. Am. 79- 
 83; Funk, supe in Bab. il: 123- 132; JE 9, 143 tes CB.) 
 
 Rabb ers Chana was a nephew of ie Chiya. See Bacher, 
 Bab. Am. pp. 87-98; Heilprin, Seder Hadorot Loo Ler te 
 Lauterbach, JE 10, 290 fr ath.) 
 
 Ulla. See Bacher, Bab. Am. 93-97; JE 12, 340. (B.) 
 
 Hillel II, Patriarch 330-365 was the son of Patriarch Judah 
 III. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 316- 318; JH 6, 400; Bacher, 
 Peal ATI cs: 203 f. (Bay 
 
 R. Phorm tte See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 95-106; Halevi, Dorot 
 2, 356-366; JE 7, 108 f. (B.) 
 
 R. Jonah yan R. Jose were at 350 C. E. heads of the academy 
 in Tiberias. See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 220-237; Halevi, Dorot 
 aon IL oad te 1, O0070, .(B.) 
 
 Rabba ae Huna. See Heilprin, Seder Hadorot, pp. 167b, 
 168a; Weiss, Dor III, 195; Bacher, Bab. Am., pp. 62-63; J. Z. 
 Lauterbach, JE 10, 291, (B.) 
 
 Rabba bar Ria See Heilprin, Seder Hadorot II., 332- 
 334; Weiss, Dor III., 190-191; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 320- RDARE: 
 Bacher, Bab. Am., 97- LO Halevi, Dero Pek i all Be 220, 435-440; 
 Funk, inne in Bee! PVA 33: Lauterbach, JE 10, 292 a (By) 
 ie ocean (bar EDIOAG The redaction es the eee on the 
 Prophets is attributed to him. Bacher, Bab. Am., 101-107; 
 Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 325 f. Halevi, Dorot, 2, 440 .; Funk, 
 Jud. in Bab. 2, 25- 34, (B.) 
 
 A baye. There was another Amora by that name who flourished 
 in a former generation, and is characterized as Abaye the 
 elder; see Jebamoth 24 a. (M.) 
 
 Abaye. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 327-329; Bacher, Bab. 
 Se UT ESN OT 8 Die ly PA ee Halevi, Dorot, Pa 473- 480; Funk, 
 ie in Bab. 9, 345 40. (B.) 
 
 §5. 
 
 Raba is stated in the Talmud to have been born when R. Judah 
 died (Kiddushin 72b). Since we know from the letter of R. 
 Sherira Gaon (ed. B. Levin, p. 85) that R. Judah died in the 
 year 299, it has been assumed by some that Raba was born in 
 that year. But the correct texts of the Talmud read “Raba 
 was born before the death of R. Judah,” and that is the sense 
 of the passage as it occurs elsewhere. We may therefore as- 
 sume that Raba was born before 299. That view is corrob- 
 orated by the several instances in the Talmud of discussions 
 between naba and R. Huna who died in 297. On the basis 
 of these facts and others pointing in the same direction, it is 
 now the generally accepted view that Raba was born about 
 BOOSH, eve 
 
294 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 51. 
 
 52. 
 
 53. 
 
 54, 
 
 Raba. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 108 f., 150, and Prodm, 88; 
 Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 829-335; J. A. Joffe, Mag., 1885, 217- 
 224; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 473-480, 494-496; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab. 
 2, 66-77, and in JLG 4, 204-213; JH 10, 288 f.; Antokolski in 
 Straschun’s Heasif, I., Sect. 2, 194-201; A. Lapiduth, in Rabino- 
 witz’ Keneseth Yisroel III., 333-340. (B.) 
 
 Rab Nachman b. Isaac. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 133-137; Proém, 
 88; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab., 2, 86-88; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 499-502; 
 Ji 9,5143-4.°(B.) 
 
 Rab Papa. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 141-148; Graetz, Gesch. 
 4 ed., 4, 336 f.; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 505-517; JH 9, 510; Piyoska 
 in Graeber’s Ozar Hasifruth 5, 213-218; S. Funk, Jud. in 
 Bab., 2, 89, 98. His disciple, Huna b. Nathan, who is fre- 
 quently mentioned by R. Ashi, was, according to Sherira Gaon, 
 Exilarch. See JE 6, 493 f. (B.) 
 
 Rab Ashe (d. 427 C.E.). See Bacher, Bab. Am., 144-147; JE 
 2, 187 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 348-353; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
 536-539; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab. 2, 98-110, 140-148. As to his 
 relations to the Exilarch, Huna bar Nathan, see L. Bank, 
 REJ 32, 51-55. (B.) 
 
 Rab Ashe. As to fuller characteristics of this distinguished 
 Amora, see in Jewish Encyclopedia, article Ashi, Vol. II. (M.) 
 
 Rab Zebid. See JE 12, 645. (B.) 
 
 Rab Dime also called Abudim. See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 691- 
 693; JH 4, 603 f. Was head of the Academy in Pumbe- 
 ditha. (B.) 
 
 Rafram bar Papa was a pupil of R. Chisda (Sab. 82a) in 
 whose name he translated various halachik and haggadic say- 
 ings. See Weiss, Dor. 3, 207; Halevi, Dorot, 3, 85-89; J. Z. 
 Lauterbach in JE 10, 307. (B.) 
 
 Mar Zutro who was on friendly terms with R. Ashe, died in 
 417 C.E. See Bacher, Bab. Am. 147. His successor, Rab 
 Acha bar Raba, died in 419 C.E. JE 1, 278. (B.) 
 
 Rab Gebiha. See JH 5, 578; Funk, Jud. in Bab., 2,102. (B.) 
 Amemar. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 146; JE 1, 490 f; Halevy, 
 Dorot,) 2)7b15,03;, 68=/34 CB.) 
 
 Mar bar Rab Ashe. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 399 f.; Hal- 
 evi, Dorot, 3, 93 f.; Bacher, JH 11, 665. (B.) 
 
 Rafram II. was a pupil of R. Ashi to whom he frequently 
 addressed questions (Ket. 95b; Git. 42a). See Halevi, Dorot, 
 3, 85-89; J. Z. Lauterbach, JE’ 10, 307. (B.) 
 
 Rabina (II.) bar Huna was a nephew of Rabina I. See 
 Halevi, Dorot, 3, 5-15, 100-102; J. Z. Lauterbach, JE 10, 
 5007 74) 
 
 The period of the Saboraim, which is by most Jewish histo- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 295 
 
 PAGE 
 
 56. 
 
 rians limited to about sixty years, is one of the activities of 
 which we know little, and yet to which we owe very much. 
 According to R. Sherira Gaon in his letter (ed. Lewin, p. 
 70-1) it is the Saboraim who in many cases fixed the decisions 
 of the law which are found in the Talmud, and added ex- 
 plantory remarks and editorial signs by means of which the 
 study of the Babylonian’ Talmud has been rendered so much 
 less difficult than the study of the Talmud of Jerusalem in 
 which this editorial work is lacking. We also are told by 
 R. Sherira that it was a tradition of the academy that the 
 long passage in the beginning of Kiddushin 2a-3b dealing 
 with the exact use of the words in that first Mishna and com- 
 menting on each of them, is of Saboraic origin. It may per- 
 haps be assumed on the basis of this that the several other 
 passages in the Talmud of like character are of the same 
 origin. Besides those Saboraim mentioned in the text there 
 should be named, R. Simuna, who is said by R. Sherira Gaon 
 to have been the last of the Saboraim, R. Ahai who is men- 
 tioned by name several times in the Talmud and who has by 
 some commentators erroneously been identified with the R. 
 Ahai of Shabha of the eighth century, who wrote the Sheeltot. 
 The period of the Saboraim was one of persecutions, at one 
 time the academy at Pumbedita had to be closed because of 
 the persecution of the Persian government. A criticism of 
 the views of Weiss and Graetz on this period has been at- 
 tempted by Halevi in Dorot Ha-Rishonim III., 2a-32a, but 
 much of his argument has been refuted by Epstein in the 
 Revue d. Etudes Juives, XXXVI., 222-236. See also Bacher 
 inex, 610b. (CF) 
 
 Note 2. As to Rabina I., who died at about 420 C.E., see 
 Halevi, Dorot, 2, 536-550, 3, 74-85. Cf. JH 10, 300. (B.) 
 
 Agada. The Agada of the Talmud served as a fruitful source 
 for many subsequent collections of Jewish legends For a 
 list of such works, see Strack, Einl. pp. 172-175. Cf. also Ch. 
 11, pp. 95 f., 100 ff.; H. S. Hirschfeld, Die hagadische Exegese, 
 Berlin, 1847; J. Ziegler, Die haggad. Exegese und der ein- 
 fache Wortsinn, MGWJ 43 (1899), 159-167, 241-250; N. J. 
 Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada, Goettingen, 1901. Cf. 
 Leop. Cohn, MGWJ 47 (1903), 89-96; Z. Frankel, Geist der 
 palaest. u. babylon. Haggada, MGWJ 2 (1853), 388-398, 3 
 1854), 149-158, 191-196, 387-392, 453-361; Bacher, Rabbanan, 
 Budapest, 1914; Die Prooem., Leipzig, 1918. Cf. V. Apto- 
 witzer, MGWJ 60 (1916), 184-188; J. Bergmann, Geschichte 
 u. Legende, Schwarz-Festschr., 89-108; H. G. Enelow, The 
 Significance of the Agada, Year Book, CCAR 24, pp. 283 ff.; 
 Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 4 vols., Phila., 1909-13; Rapa- 
 port, Tales and Maxims of the Talmud, 2 vols., London, 1912; 
 
296 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 58. 
 
 59. 
 
 63. 
 
 64. 
 
 65. 
 
 66. 
 
 A. S. Isaacs, Stories from the Rabbis, N. Y., 1911; Berdi- 
 zewsky, Der Born Judas, 6 vols. (B.) 
 
 Section 27. 
 
 As the author has shown above, bottom of p. 48, the state- 
 ment that the Palestinian Talmud was completed after the 
 Babylonian is not to be taken seriously. There can be no 
 doubt whatever that the Talmud of Jerusalem was completed 
 long before that of Babylonia. (F.) 
 
 The appellation Talmud eretz Yisrael is mentioned already by 
 Saadia Gaon, but in later Gaonic literature, the Palestinian 
 Talmud is also called Gemara d’eretz Yisrael and Talmud 
 d’Maarba as well as other appellations. See Harkawi, Teshu- 
 both Hageonim, Berlin, 1885 ff.; Hakedem ll, obs pipes 
 LS otto iee) 
 
 The Babylonian Talmud is so called to distinguish it from the 
 Palestinian. In Gaonic literature it is frequently referred to 
 as Talmud dilan “our Talmud.” (B.) 
 
 Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan. See article under that heading in 
 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 
 
 The following are the seven “minor Treatises”: (a) Sefer 
 Torah, (b) Mezuzah, (c) Tephillin, (d) Zizith, (e) Abadim, 
 (f{) Kuthim, (g) Gerim.. English translations of Kuthim are 
 found in Nutt’s Samaritan Targum, p. 68-72, and J. A. Mont- 
 gomery’s Samaritans, p. 196-203. (B.) 
 
 For a larger list of commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud, 
 see Strack, Hinl., pp. 160-167. (B.) 
 
 Paragraph 8. 
 
 The commentary on the last chapter of Pesahim which is 
 ascribed to Rashi, has been shown by Dienemann, Lewy Fest- 
 scrift, p. 259, not to have been the work of Rashi—at least 
 not in its present form. That the commentary on Nedarim 
 ascribed to Rashi is from another hand is well known. The 
 commentary ascribed to R. Gershom, which is substituted after 
 f. 22b, for that ascribed to Rashi, is by a group of later schol- 
 ars at Mayence. For references on both these facts, see 
 Freimann in Hoffmann, Festschrift, p. 122, and Epstein in 
 Steinschneider, Festschrift, p. 116. (F.) 
 
 Note 4. 
 
 The Tosafot to most of the treatises are those of R. Eliezer 
 of Touques. But there are a large number which were writ- 
 ten by R. Perez or his pupils. These are the treatises, Bezah, 
 Nedarim, Nazir, Sanhedrin, Maccot and Meila. The Tosafot 
 on Sabbath, Erubin, Sotah and Menahot, are those of R. Sam- 
 son of Sens, while those on Succah are a reworking of his 
 Tosafot, in many cases preserving the original readings. The 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 297 
 
 PAGE 
 
 68. 
 
 69. 
 
 Tosafot on Yoma are those of R. Meir of Rothenburg. Be- 
 sides these Tosafot which have been printed with the ordi- 
 nary Talmud editions, there are a large number that have been 
 printed separately, and many that are still in manuscript. (F.) 
 The Tosaphoth and their authors are described by M. Selig- 
 sohn, JE’ 12, 202-207; P. Buchholz, Die Tosaphisten als Meth- 
 odologen, MGWJ 38 (1894), 343-3859, 398-404, 450-462, 549- 
 556; Ch. Tschernowitz, Schwarz-Festschrift (Hebrew sec- 
 tion), pp. 9-18. (B.) 
 
 For a fuller list of commentaries on the Mishna cf. Strack, 
 EKinl., pp. 156-159. 
 
 For other commentaries on the Babyl. Talmud, see Strack, 
 Kinl., pp. 161-163, and the literature there referred to. 
 
 Parts of Moses Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna in 
 Arabic have been published by Edw. Pococke and J. Dern- 
 bourg, and formed the subject for quite a number of Doctor 
 dissertations. They have all been listed by Strack in his Einl., 
 p. 157 f. Mention should be made of J. Gorfinkle’s Eight 
 Chapters of Maimonides on Ethics N. Y., 1912. Cf. A. Cohen, 
 POs 40470-479 erlusik, J Qiins. Vol 4) px b0s cf." An 
 earlier effort to translate the Eight Chapters was made in 
 Raphall’s Hebrew Review, Vols. 1 and 2 (1834-36). Maimon- 
 ides’ commentary on Pesachim was edited with a Hebrew 
 translation by J. M. Toledano, Safed, 1915, under the title 
 Yede Moshe, from a MS. Sassoon which the editor considered 
 as an autograph. See Marx, JQR ns. 18, 360. It should be 
 mentioned that Maimonides was not the first to write a com- 
 mentary on the Mishna. There is extant a Gaonic commentary 
 to Sedar Teharoth, the publication of which J. N. Epstein re- 
 cently undertook for the Mekize Nirdamim and to which he 
 has already published a critical introduction. See Malter, 
 JQE ns. Vol. 13, pp. 102-105. (B.) 
 
 Section 2. 
 
 The commentary of R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg on 
 Negaim, Ahalot, Parah and Mikvaot, has been printed on the 
 margin of the ordinary Talmud editions. Similarly a com- 
 mentary ascribed to R. Hai Gaon on the Mishna of the Order 
 Taharot has been printed in the late Talmud editions. Both 
 R. Abraham b. David (Rabad) and his contemporary R. Zera- 
 hiah Ha-Levi (Provence, twelfth century) wrote commenta- 
 ries to the treatise Kinnim. On the other hand the commen- 
 tary on Eduyot, ascribed to R. Abraham b. David in the Tal- 
 mud editions, has been shown not to have been written by him. 
 To the list of modern commentaries must be added the Tiph- 
 eret Israel, by R. Israel Lifschitz, a popular commentary which 
 
298 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 with that of Bertinoro, has been printed in all recent editions 
 of the Mishna. (F.) 
 
 69. Of R. Asher b. Yechiel’s commentary on Zeraim and Teharoth, 
 the last two chapters of Sotah, Kinnim and Middoth is printed 
 besides commentaries on various Talmudic treatises. See A. 
 Freimannj#JLG12,\1918.0237231 706 (Bo) 
 
 70. Add to the commentaries on the Palestinian Talmud the fol- 
 lowing: Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb, Zeraim, Amsterdam, 1710; 
 Baba Kama, Meziah and Bathra, Frankfurt, 1742; N. Tre- 
 bitsch, Shelom Yerushalayim on Moed., Wien; Elijah Wilna, 
 Hagaoth Yerushalmi, Konigsberg, 1858; A. Krochmal, Yeru- 
 shalayim Habnuyah, Lemberg, 1868; D. B. Ashkenazi, Shaare 
 Yerushalayim, Warsaw, 1866; Joshua Isaac of Slonim, Noam 
 Yerushalayim, 4 vols., Wilna, 1863-1869. (B.) 
 
 71. Lunz has published part of the Talmud of Jerusalem to the 
 order, Zeraim, with a commentary. Even more useful to the 
 student is the Ahabat Zion v’Yerushalaim, by B. Ratner, con- 
 taining numerous references to the early codes, compendia 
 and responsa in which the Talmud of Jerusalem is quoted. 
 This is of very great aid not merely in establishing the cor- 
 rect text, but very often the quotation is accompanied by a 
 clarifying sentence of commentary which is very helpful. Un- 
 fortunately the author did not live to complete his work. The 
 part published practically covers the orders Zeraim and Moed. 
 Of great aid in re-establishing the text of the Talmud of 
 Jerusalem, has proven the discovery of the Genizah. A large 
 number of fragments bearing on the Jerushalmi have been found 
 in that treasure. These have been published as Jerushalmi 
 Fragments, by Professor L. Ginzberg (New York, 1909). The 
 most recent edition of the Jerushalmi, that of Wilna, 1923, 
 contains a republication of the commentary of Sirillo on the 
 treatise Berakot, and has made use of the Ahabat Zion v’Ye- 
 rushalaim of Ratner as well as of the Jerushalmi Fragments 
 of Ginzberg. (F.) 
 
 Lehman’s edition of Syrileio’s commentary on P. Berachoth 
 was severely criticized by R. Kirchheim in Hamagid, 1875, 
 pp. 220 ff. For other commentaries, see Strack, Hinl., p. 
 Sb. 7D.) 
 
 73. The code of Mordecai b. Hillel, after its author, the Mordecai, 
 has most often been published with Alfasi, but there is at least 
 one edition (that of Riva, the text of which differs to some 
 extent from that of the ordinary editions) in which the Mor- 
 decai is printed separately. It is compendium like that of 
 Asheri, but can hardly be described as a commentary on 
 Alfasi. (F.) 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 299 
 
 PAGE 
 
 74. 
 
 75. 
 
 fatie 
 
 78. 
 
 Paragraph c. 
 
 R. Meir Ha-Cohen, author of the Hagahot Maimoniot, was, 
 like R. Asher b. Jehiel and R. Mordecai b. Hillel, a disciple 
 of R. Meir b. Baruk of Rothenburg. (F.) 
 
 Besides the commentary on R. Joseph Caro on the Tur, men- 
 tion should be made of that of R. Joel Sirkes (Poland, 1561- 
 1640), called Bet Hadash (usually abbreviated BaH. (F.) 
 
 Besides the MSS. mentioned in the text there should be noted 
 the MS. of treatises Rosh-Ha-Shanah, Succah and Yoma in the 
 Elkan Adler Collection (Cat. Adler 850) and that of Aboda 
 Zara in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
 America. The Munich MS. of the Talmud has been published 
 in a photographed edition by Strack, while the Hamburg MS. 
 containing the treatises of Baba Kamma, Baba Mezia and 
 Baba Bathra has been published in a similar way by Gold- 
 schmidt. (F.) 
 
 Where the text of the Mishna published by Lowe differs from 
 that of the ordinary editions and of the Talmud copies, it 1s 
 very often supported by the reading of the Mishna in. the 
 Talmud of Jerusalem. This did-not however justify Lowe in 
 calling his text “that on which the Palestinian Talmud rests.” 
 So far as is at present known the Mishna as studied in Pal- 
 estine and in Babylonia was practically identical. 
 
 Regarding the MSS. of the Jerushalmi, the Leyden MS. is one 
 of those that lay at the basis of the first printed edition. Lunz 
 found in the library of the Vatican a MS. of a portion of the 
 Order Zeraim, which he utilized in his edition. There are 
 other fragments in the libraries of Oxford, the British Mu- 
 seum and Paris. There is no MS. of the Talmud of Jerus- 
 alem known to exist in the Parma library at present. Of the 
 Genizah MSS. which were utilized by Professor Ginzberg in his 
 Jerushalmi Fragments mention has been made. (F.) 
 
 78 f. For additional interesting bibliographical material on the 
 
 80. 
 
 80. 
 
 various editions of the Babylonian Talmud, see Strack, Finl., 
 pp. 85-88. © (B.) 
 
 End of Section 41. See M. Jastrow, The History and the 
 Future of the Talmudic text. Philadelphia, 1897. (M.) 
 
 Section ec. 
 
 Since the appearance of the last edition of this book, there 
 have been printed two complete editions of the Palestinian 
 Talmud. They are: The Pietrokow Edition, with all the 
 commentaries that had appeared in the Shitomir edition, and 
 also a new commentary by Ridbaz (R. Jacob David of Slutsk). 
 (F.) 
 
300 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 81. 
 
 82. 
 
 To the editions of the Palestinian Talmud listed, the following 
 
 should be added: The Krotoshin edition was reprinted in 
 1919 by L. Lamm, Berlin. A new edition of the text with all 
 MSS., variants and commentaries was published in Wilna, 1922. 
 The Shitomir edition was reprinted in Petrokow, 1900-02. (B.) 
 
 On the Aruch and its author, see Dr. H. G. Enelow’s illu- 
 minating article, Nathan ben Jehiel, in JE 9, pp. 180-183. (B.) 
 
 LEXICONS. 
 
 Dr. D. G. H. Dalman, Aramaisch-Neuhebraisches Handwor- 
 terbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, Frankfurt, 1922. 
 S. J. Fuenn, Ozar Leshon Hamikra Wehamishnah, 4 vols., 
 Warsaw, 1912-1913. 
 
 Jul. Fuerst, Glossarium Graeco-Hebraeum oder der griech. 
 Woerterschatz der jued. Midrasch werke, Strassburg, 1891. 
 Cf. Jos. Cohn, MGWJ 37 (1898), 283-285, 341 f., 429-434, 485- 
 488, and J. Furst, Zur Erklaerung grieschischer Lehnworter 
 in Talmud u. Midrasch, MGWJ 38 (1894), 305-311, 337-342. 
 Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwoerter in 
 Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Berlin, 1898. Cf. also his 
 Zur griech. u. latein. Lexikographie aus jued. Quellen, in 
 Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893), 493-548. (B.) 
 
 GRAMMARS. 
 
 Margolis, Max L. A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the 
 Babylonian Talmud. Miinchen, 1910. Cf. Bacher in JQR, 
 Violins ana lG0eehoe 
 Albrecht, K. Neuhebraeische Grammatik auf Grund der 
 Mischna. Miinchen, 1913. 
 I. H. Weiss, Mishpat Leshon Hamischna. Wien, 1867. 
 Abraham Geiger, Lehr-und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischna, 
 Breslau, 1845. Cf. Graetz, Der Orient, Literaturblatt, 1844, 
 No. 52; 1845, Nos. 1, 2, 4-6, 41, 42, 46, 48-50; J. Levy, Ibid, 
 1844, No. 51. 
 D. G. H. Dalman, Grammatik des juedisch-palaestinischen 
 Aramaeisch nach den Idiomen des pal. Talmud, des Onkelos- 
 targum, etc. Second ed., Leipzig, 1905. (B.) 
 W. B. Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. 
 Oxford, 1924. 
 
 C. Chrestomathies. 
 
 S. A. Wolff, Mishna-Lese oder Talmud Texte religioes-moral- 
 ischen Inhalts 2 Parts, Leipzig, 1866. 
 
 O. Lipschuetz, Mishnath Samuel. Lehr und Uebungsbuch fuer 
 den ersten Unterricht in der Mischnah, I., Hamburg, 1867. 
 IT) +Berlin. 31871; 
 
 Ch. D. Rosenstein, Mishna Berurah, Warsha, 1910. Beth Mid- 
 rash, Wilna, 1907. . 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. - 801 
 
 PAGE 
 
 83. 
 
 84. 
 
 84. 
 
 85. 
 
 86. 
 
 Chananiah. E. H. Kohen, Sefer Sofoh Ahath Ragionamento 
 sulla linqua del testo misnico. Reggio, 1819-22. 
 
 J. Goldmann, Gemarah lemathhilim, Wilna, 1902. 
 
 N. Lewin, Mebo Hatalmud, 15th edition, Wilna, 1918. 
 
 Ch. Tschernowitz, Kizzur Hatalmud I., Lausanne, 1919. II, 
 Berlin,31922. IIT. Leipzig,- 1923... (B.) 
 
 The Kelale Ha-Talmud, by R. Bezalel Ashkenazi (Egypt, 17th 
 century), has recently been published by Professor A. Marx 
 (Hoffmann Festschrift, pp. 179-217). (F.) 
 
 I. H. Weiss in Beth Talmud, Vol. I. (1881), pp. 26-31, 53-60, 
 85-89, 115-122, 153-159, 181-184, and Vol. II. (1882), pp. 1-8, 
 gives a fine bibliographical survey of the various introduc- 
 tory works to the Talmud. See also Strack, Einl., pp. 150- 
 1547s CBs) 
 
 The latest work on the history of Talmudic times in Hebrew, 
 is Halevy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, Berlin, 1901. 4 vols. 
 
 Of articles on the Talmud in modern languages, the most im- 
 portant are that by Schechter in Hastings Dictionary of the 
 Bible, and that by Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The 
 Einleitung in den Thalmud, by Herman L. Strack, which is 
 mentioned in previous editions, has now been revised in the 
 fifth edition, as Strack’s Einleitung in Talmud u. Midrasch, 
 Munich, 1921. 
 
 For an appreciation of that important work and for impor- 
 tant additions, see a review of it by Professor A. Marx, JQR 
 Near Seon iloae hs) 
 
 WORKS AND ARTICLES IN MopERN LANGUAGES. 
 
 J. Bassfreund, Zur Redaktion der Mischna, MGWJ 51 (1907), 
 291-322, 429-444, 590-608, 678-606. 
 L. Ginzberg, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mischna, in Hoff- 
 mann, Festschrift, 311-345. 
 Z. L. Lauterbach, JE 8, 609-619. 
 S. Schechter, Talmud, in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 5 
 (1904), pp. 57-66. Reprinted in his Studies in Judaism, Third 
 Series, Philadelphia, 1924. 
 W. Bacher, JE 12, 1-37. 
 M. Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud, N. Y., 1903. 
 W. Bacher, Traditionen u. Tradenten, Leipzig, 1914. (B.) 
 H. Graetz. An English translation of the whole work of this 
 historian has been published by the Jewish Publication So- 
 ciety of America. The Talmudical period is treated espe- 
 cially in Vol. II. Philadelphia, 1893. (M.) 
 
 EX\NCYCLOPEDICAL WORKS. 
 M. Guttmann, Mafteah Hatalmud, Vol. I., Budapest, 1908. 
 Vol. Il., Budapest, 1917. An encyclopedical work in Hebrew. 
 (B.) 
 
302 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 pe Wf 
 
 88. 
 
 88e. 
 
 90. 
 
 Similar to Zionim, but more complete is the book Ozar Le- 
 shon Chakamim by Kalman Perla. Warsaw, 1900. (M.) 
 Translations of the Talmud. See E. Bischoff Kritische Ge- 
 schichte der Talmuduebersetzungen. Frankf. 0. M., 1899. (M.) 
 The treatise Abot has been most recently translated into Eng- 
 lish by B. Halper, printed together with the Hebrew text and 
 a Yiddish translation by Yehoash, New York, 1922. (F.) 
 R. T. Herford, Pirke Abot, in Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseude- 
 pigrapha, Vol. II., Oxford, 1913, pp. 686-714. 
 C. Taylor, The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, appeared in 
 a second edition, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1897. (B.) 
 To the list of Mishna translations, the following should be 
 added: Mischnajoth Hebr. Text mit Punktation, deutscher 
 uebersetz., u. Erklaerung. Berlin-Frankfurt. Seraim von A. 
 Sammter, 1887. Moed v. Ed. Baneth, 1920. Naschin v. Petu- 
 chowski 189 (incomp.). Nesikin v. D. Hoffmann, 1898. Kado- 
 schim, J. Cohen, 189 (incomp.). Die Mischna Text, Ueberset- 
 zung u. ausf. Erklaerung, von G. Beer u. O. Holtzmann. Gies- 
 sen, 1912 ff. Carelessly done, see Halper, JQR ns. Vol. 5, pp. 
 99-108, Vol. 6, 209-215; Vol. 7, pp. 408-414;. Aptowitzer, 
 MGWJ 57 (1913), pp. 1-23, 129-152, 272-283; 58 (1914), 386- 
 394. 
 H. L. Strack, Ausgewaehte Mischna-traktate nach Hand- 
 schriften u. alten Drucken. Aboth 4 ed. (1915), Berakoth 
 (1915), Joma 3 (1912), Sanhedrin Makkoth (1910), Aboda 
 Zara (2nd edition, 1909), Pesahim (1911), Schabbath (1890). 
 J. Rosenfeld, Der Mischna-tractat Berachot uebs. u. erlau- 
 tert. Pressburg, 1886. 
 P. Volz, Das Neujahrfest Jahwes (Laubhiittenfest), Ti- 
 bingen, 1912. (B.) 
 
 ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 H. Danby, Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishna and Tosefta...... 
 translated with brief annotations. London, 1919. 
 
 W. A. L. Elmslie, The Mishna on Idolatry. Aboda Zara. Ed- 
 ited with translation and notes. Cambridge, 1911. 
 
 Greenup, A. W. The Mishna Tractate Taanith...with brief 
 annotations. London, 1918. 
 
 Tractate Sukkah Mishna and Tosephta. London, 1921. 
 A. Lukyn Williams, Tractate Berakot, Mishna and Tosefta. 
 London, 1922. (B.) 
 
 Latin Translations of single Masechtoth. H. S. Hirchfield 
 Tractatus Maccoth cum Scholiis hermeneuticis, ete. Berlin, 
 1842. 
 
 German Translations, add: Laz. Goldschmidt. Der Baby]. 
 Talmud herausgegeben nach der ersten Zensurfreien Bom- 
 
 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 303 
 
 PAGE 
 
 bergschen Ausgabe...uebersetzt und mit kurzen Anmerkungen 
 verschen. Vols. I.-VIII. Berlin, 1897-1922. 
 
 M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Kethuboth uebersetzt. Frankf. o. 
 M., 1898, 1900. (M.) 
 
 GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 90b. H. Georg F. Loewe. Der erste Abschnitt des ersten Trak- 
 
 ol 
 
 tats von Babylonischen Talmud betitelt Brachoth....uebers. 
 nebst Vorrede u. Einl. Mit drei Anhangen. Hamburg, 1836. 
 M. Rawicz, Der talmud. Traktat Chulin....nach der Wiener 
 Ausgabe von Jahre 1865 uebertragen und kommentiert. Of- 
 fenburg, 1908. ; 
 
 , Der Tractat Kethuboth....uebertragen und kommen- 
 tiert. Frankfurt, 1898, 1890. 
 W. Rothstein, Der Mischnatractat Megilla....uebersetz.... 
 mit Anm. Tuebingen, 1912. 
 H. Bahr und L. A. Rosenthal, Der Mischna-tractat Sotah. 
 Hinl., Textausgabe und Uebersetz, Berlin, 1916. 
 G. Hoelscher, Sanhedrin und Makkot, uebers. und....mit 
 Anm., Tuebingen, 1910. 
 G. pe Mischnatractat Sabbath uebers. u. mit Anm., etc., Tue- 
 bingen, 1908. 
 Wiinsche, Bab. Talmud has been completed in four volumes, 
 of which Vol. 3 and 4 appeared in 1889. (B.) 
 
 FRENCH TRANSLATIONS. 
 L. Chiarini, Le Talmud de Babylone traduit....et complété 
 
 par celui de Jérusalem. 2 vols., Leipzig, 1831. (Only Bera- 
 choth.) (B.) 
 
 
 
 ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 92d. Michael L. Rodkinson is publishing The Babylonian Talmud, 
 
 92. 
 
 93. 
 
 translated into English (partly abridged), of which the fol- 
 lowing volumes appeared: Volumes I. and II., Sabbath; Vol- 
 ume III., Erubin; Volume IV., Shekalim and Rosh- Hashana: 
 Volume V., Pesachim; Volume VI., Yomah and Hagigah; Vol- 
 ume VII., Betzah, Succah and Moed Katon; Volume VIII., 
 Megillah ‘and Ebel Rabbathi; Volume IX., Aboth, Aboth de 
 Rabbi Nathan and Derech Eretz; vy cime Dh ee Kama; 
 Volumes XI. and XII., Baba Metzia; Volumes XII. and XIV., 
 Baba Bathra. New York, 1896, 1902. (M.) 
 
 Palestinian Talmud. 
 
 Greenup, A. W. A Translation of the Treatise Taanith from 
 the Palestinian Talmud. London, 1918. (B.) 
 
 Agada. Of his “Agada der Palastinischen Amoraer,” W. 
 Bacher published 1896, Volume II., Die Schueler Jochanan’s, 
 and 1899, Vol. III., Die letzten Amnoraer des heiligen Landes. 
 
304 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 94, 
 
 95. 
 
 Archaelogical. P. Rieger, Technologie u. Terminologie der 
 Handwerke in der Mischnah. Berlin, 1895. 
 H. Vogelstein. Die Landwirthschaft in Palestina zur Zeit der 
 Mischna. Berlin, 1894. (M.) 
 
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL. 
 S. Meyer, Arbeit und Handwerk im Talmud, Berlin, 1878. 
 Gust. Loewy, Die Technologie u. Terminologie der Mueller u. 
 Baecker in den rabbin. Quellen. Leipzig, 1898. 
 J. Krengel, Das Hausgeraet in der Mischnah, Frankfurt, 1899. 
 M. Winter, Die Koch-u. Tafelgeraete in Palestina zur Zeit der 
 Mischnah, Berlin, 1910. 
 A. Sch. Herschberg, Cemer u. Pista zur Zeit der Mischna u. d. 
 Talmuds. Hakedem 2 (1908), 57-80; 3 (1912), 7-29. 
 A. Rosenzweig, Das Wohnhaus in der Mischnah, Berlin, 1907. 
 Siegfr. Schemel, Die Kleidung der Juden im Zeitalter der 
 Mischnah, Rostock, 1914. 
 S. Krauss, Baden u. Badenwesen im Talmud. Hakedem 1 
 (1907), 87-110, 171-194; 2 (1908), 32-50. 
 A. Sch. Herschberg, Yofi wehithyafutha shel haishah bizman 
 ha-Talmud. Heathid 4 (1912) 1-56; 5 (1913), 102-4. 
 S. Krauss, Hakrah Hair we’hakfar batalmud. Heathid, 3 
 (1911), 1-50. 
 A Sch. Herschberg, Habarsauth bime ha Mishna wehatalmud. 
 Hakedem, 3 (1909), 93-106. (B.) 
 
 Biographical. M. D. Hoffmann. Biographie des Elischa ben 
 Abuya. Vienna, 1870. 
 
 F. Kanter.. Beitraege zur Kenntniss des Rechtsystems und 
 der Ethik Mar Samuels. Bern, 1895. 
 A. Kisch. Hillel der Alte, Lebensbild eines jued. Weisen Prag 
 1889. 
 
 L. Lewin, R. Simon b. Jochai. Frankf. o. M., 1893.) (v2) 
 
 To biographical literature on Hillel add: 
 
 Alex. Kisch, Hillel der Alte. Lebensbild eines juedischen 
 Patriarchen, Prag, 1889. 
 
 G. Goitein, Mag. 1884, 1-16, 49-87. 
 
 Fr. Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, 3 Aufl. Erlangen, 1879. (B.) 
 
 Customs. J. M. Cassanowicz. Non-Jewish religious ceremo- 
 nies in the Talmud (in proceedings of the American Oriental 
 Society). New York, 1894. 
 
 Education. EH. Van Gelden. Die Volkeschule des juedischen 
 Alterthums nach Talmudischen Quellen. Berlin, 1872. 
 
 J. Lewit. Darstellung der theoretischen und practischen Paed- 
 agogik im juedischen Alterthum. Berlin, 1896. 
 
 Ethics. M. Lazarus. Die Ethik des Judenthums. Franf., o. 
 M., 1898. Translated into English (the Ethics of Judaism) 
 by Henriette Szold, 2 volumes. Philadelphia, 1900-1901. (M.) 
 
PAGE lj 
 
 96. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 305 
 
 CUSTOMS. 
 
 W. Bacher, Zur Geschichte der Ordination. MGWJ 38 (1894), 
 L22eLot, 
 L. Loew, Die Horaa (Schriften 4, 158-166). 
 ——, Der Titel Rabbi u. Rabban. Ib. 210-216. (B.) 
 
 é EDUCATION. 
 Ad. Buechler, Learning and Teaching in the Open Air. JQR 
 ns. 4, 485-491. 
 N. H. Imber, Education in the Talmud, in Report of the U. S. 
 Commissioner of Education for 1894-5, pp. 1795-1820. Wash- 
 ington, 1896. 
 Sal. Stein, Schulverhaeltnisse, Erziehungslehre und Unter- 
 richtsmethoden im Talmud. Berlin, 1901. 
 L. Wiesner, Die Jugendlehrer in der talmudischen Zeit. Wien, 
 1914. 
 B. Strassburger, Geschichte der Erziehung u. der Unterrichts 
 bei den Israeliten. Von der vortalm. Zeit bis auf die Gegen- 
 wart. Stuttgart, 1885. 
 J. Ster, Die talmudische Paedagogik, Breslau, 1915. 
 E. van Gelder, Die Volkschule d. jued. Altertums nach tal- 
 mud. u. rabb. Quellen. Berlin, 1872. 
 Jul. Lewit, Darstellung der theoret: u. prakt. Paedagogik in 
 jued. Altertum. Berlin, 1896. 
 W. Bacher, Das Pivodisene Schulwesen. Jhrb. JGL 6, 48-81. 
 B. Spiers, School System of the Talmud. London, 1898. 
 H. Gollancz, Padagogics of the Talmud and that of modern 
 times. London, 1924. (B.) 
 
 ETHICS. 
 
 Salo Stein, Materialen zur Ethik des Talmud, Frankfurt, 1894. 
 Cf. MGWJ 41 (1897), 289 f. 
 
 Albert Katz, Der Wahre Talmud-jude. Berlin, 1898. 
 
 M. Guedemann, Moralische Rechtseinschraenkung in mo- 
 saisch-rabb. Rechtssystem. MGWJ 61 (1918), 422-448. 
 
 J. Giinzig, Pessimistische Gedanken in Talmud u. Midrasch. 
 Maybaum-Festsch. 148-156. 
 
 Felix Perles, Zar Wurdigung der Sittenlehre des Talmuds in 
 his Jued. Skizzen, pp. 100-110. 
 
 J. Z. Lauterbach, The Ethics of the Halakah in Year Book 
 GG ACK LU LS: 
 
 S. Stein, Das Problem d. Notluege im Talmud. JLG 5, 206- 
 2248 (Ba) 
 
 Exegesis and Bible Criticism. W. Bacher. Ein Woerterbuch 
 der bibelexegetischen Kuntsprache der Tannaiten. Leipzig, 
 1899. 
 
 M. Hisenstadt. Ueber Bibelkritik in der talmud. Literatur. 
 Berlin, 1894. (M.) 
 
306 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Die 
 
 98: 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY. 
 Is. Levi, Les sources talmudiques de V’histoire juive. REJ 35 
 (1897), 2138-228. 
 M. Weinberg, Die Organisation der jued. Ortsgemeinden in 
 der talmud. Zeit. MGWJ 41 (1897), 588-604, 639-660, 673-691. 
 S. Krauss, Die Versammlungstatten der Talmud. Gelehrten. 
 
 Levy-Fest. 17-35. (B.) 
 
 LAW (a) IN GENERAL. 
 Ch. Tschernowitz, Zur Erforschung der Geschichte des jued. 
 Rechts. Zeitsch f. verg. Rechtswissenschaft 27, 404-424. (B.) 
 Law in General. M. Mielziner. Legal Maxims and Funda- 
 mental Laws of the Civil and Criminal Code of the Talmud. 
 Cincinnati, 1898. 
 M. W. Rapaport. Der Talmud und sein Recht (In Zeitschrift 
 fuer vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XIV. Band. Stutt- 
 gart, 1900. 
 Judicial Courts. Adolf Buechler, Das Synhedrion in Jerus- 
 alem. Vienna, 1902. 
 J. Klein. Das Gesetz ueber das gerichtliche Beweisverfahren 
 nach mosaisch talmudischem Rechte. Halle, 1885. (M.) 
 
 (b) JUDICIAL COURTS. 
 H. P. Chajes, Les juges juifs en Palestine d l’an 70 a l’an 500. 
 REJ 39 (1899), 39-52. 
 M. Waxman, Civil and Criminal Procedure of Jewish Courts. 
 JTS Students’ Annual I., N. Y., 1914, pp. 259+309. 
 
 (c) EVIDENCE IN LAw. 
 Z. Frankel, Die Hidesleistung der Juden, Dresden und Leip- 
 zig, 1840. 2nd edition, 1847. (B.) 
 
 CRIMINAL Law. 
 
 J. Wohlgemuth, Das. jued. Strafrecht u. die positive Straf- 
 rechtsschule. Berliner-Fest. 364-376. 
 Joel Blau, Lex Talionis. Year Book, C.C.A.R., 26, p. 336 ff. 
 M. Aron, Histoire de excommunication juive. Nimes, 1882. 
 D. W. Amram, Retaliation and Compensation, JQR ns. 2, 
 191-211. 
 The Summons, a Study in Jewish and Comparative Pro- 
 cedure. Reprint from Univ. of Penna. Law Review, 1919. 18 
 pp. (B.) 
 Civil Law. M. Bloch. Der Vertrag nach mosaisch-talmud. 
 Rechte Budapest, 1892. 
 Inheritance and Testament. M. Bloch. Das mosaisch-talmud. 
 Erbrecht. Budapest, 1890. 
 M. Mielziner. The Rabbinical Law of Hereditary Succession. 
 Cincinnati, 1900. 
 M. W. Rapaport. Grundsaetze des (talmudischen) Intestater- 
 
 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 307 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ahh 
 
 brechts und Schenkungen (in Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende 
 Rechtswissenschaft XIV. Band, pp. 33-148). Stuttgart, 1900. 
 
 LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, ETc. 
 
 D. W. Amram. The Jewish Law of Divorce. Philadelphia, 
 1896. (M.) 
 
 Lewi Freund, Genealogien und Familienreinheit in biblischer 
 u. talm. Zeit. Schwarz-Fest., pp. 163-192. 
 
 L. Blau, Die jued. Ehescheidung u. der jued. Scheidebrief, 
 Budapest, 1911-12. 
 
 Is. Unna, Die Aguna-Gesetze, Jeschurun 3 (1916), 347-366. 
 Jacob Neubauer, Beitraege zur Geschichte des biblisch-tal- 
 mudischen Eheschliessungsrechtes. Leipzig, 1920. 
 
 A. Sch. Herschberg, Minhage Haerusin Wehane’suim bizman 
 hatalmud in Heathid 5 (1913), pp. 75-102. 
 
 W. Leiter, Die Stellung der Frau im Talmud. Amsterdam, 
 1918s0(B.) 
 
 LAWS CONCERNING SLAVES, MINORS AND DEFECTIVES. 
 
 Laws Concerning Slavery. D. Farbstein. Das Recht der 
 freien und der unfreien Arbeiter nach Juedish-talmudischem 
 Recht. Frankf. o. M., 1896. 
 Is. Lebendiger, The Minor in Jewish Law. JQR ns. 6, 459- 
 493; 7, 89-111, 145-174. 
 M. Bloch, Die Vormundschaft nach mosaisch-talmudischen 
 Recht. Budapest, 1904. 
 J. Blau, The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature. N. Y., 
 1916. 
 R. Kirsch, Der Erstgeborene nach mosaisch-talmud. Recht. 
 Frankfurt, 1901. 
 S. Rubin, Der naseiturus als Rechtsubject im talmud u. ro- 
 mischen Rechte. ‘Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtwiss., 20 (1907), 
 119-156. (B.) 
 R. Grunfeld, Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden nach 
 bibl. u. talm. Quellen. 1886. 
 M. Olitzski, Der juedische Sklave nach Josephus u. der Hal- 
 acha. Mag. 1889, 73-83. 
 D. Farbstein, Das Recht der unfreien u. der freien Arbeiter 
 nach jued.-talm. Recht, etc. Frankfurt, 1896. 
 S. Rubin, Ein Kapitel aus der Sklaverei im Talmud. u. roem. 
 Rechte. Schwarz-Fest. 211-229, 572-574. Das Talmudische 
 Recht. I. Buch: Die Sklaverei, Wien, 1920. (B.) 
 
 LINGUISTICS. 
 S. Mannes, Ueber den Einfluss des Aramaeischen auf den 
 Wortschatz der Mishnah. Posen, 1899. 
 L. Dukes, Die Sprache der Mischna, lexikographisch u. gram- 
 matisch betrachtet. Esslingen, 1846. 
 
308 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 100. 
 
 H. Rosenberg, Das Geschlecht der Hauptwoerter in der Misch- 
 na. Berlin, 1908. 
 
 Sal. Stein, Das Verbum der Mischnasprache. Berlin, 1888. 
 
 fF’, Hillel, Die Nominalbildungen in der Mischnah. Frankfurt, 
 1891. 
 
 H. Sachs, Die Partikeln der Mischna. Berlin, 1897. 
 
 C. Siegfried, Beitraege zur Lehre von dem zusamengesetzten 
 Satze im Neuhebraeischen. Kohut Studies, Berlin, 1897, 543- 
 556. 
 
 M. H. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical 
 Hebrew and to Aramaic. JQR 20 (1908), 647-737. 
 
 Felix Perles, Nachlese zum neuhebr. u. aram. Woerterbuch. 
 Schwarz-Fest. 293-310. 
 
 J. N. Epstein, Zur Babylonisch-Aramaischen Lexikographie. 
 Schwarz-Fest. 317-327. 
 
 Louis Ginzberg, Beitraege zur Lexikographie des Aramaei- 
 schen. Schwarz-Fest. 329-360. 
 
 S. uw. M. Bondi, Or Esther oder Beleuchtung der im Talmud 
 von Babylon und Jerusalem in d. Targumim u. Midraschim 
 vorkomenden fremden bes. lateinischen Woerter. Dessau, 1812. 
 M. Schlesinger, Das aramaeische Verbun im Jerusalemischen 
 Talmud. Berlin, 1889. 
 
 A. Liebermann, Das Pronomen u. das Adverbium des Babylon- 
 isch-talmud. Dialekts. Berlin, 1895. 
 
 I. Rosenberg, Das aramaeische Verbum im Babylonischen Tal- 
 mud. Marburg, 1888. 
 
 M. Lewin, Aramaische Sprichwoerteh u. Volksspraeche. Ber- 
 lin, 1895. 
 
 Z. Rabbiner, Beitraege zur hebr. Synonymik in Talmud u. 
 Midrasch. Berlin, 1899. (B.) 
 
 Proverbs, Maxims. Henry Cohen. Talmudic Sayings. Cin- 
 cinnati, 1895. 
 
 G. Taubenhaus. Echoes of Wisdom or Talmudic Sayings. 
 Part I. Brooklyn, 1900. (M.) 
 
 MEDICINE, SURGERY, ETc. 
 
 M. Steinschneider, Schriften ueber Medizin in Bibel u. Tal- 
 mud, etc. Wiener Klinische Rundschan, 1896, No: 25-2640.07- 
 AN Preuss, ZHB 1 (1896) ,.22-28. 
 Isr. M. Rabbinowicz, Hinl. in die Gesetzbung u. die Medizin 
 des Talmuds. Leipzig, 1883. 
 G. Nobel, Zur Geschichte der Zahnheilkunde im Talmud. Leip- 
 zig, 1909. 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY AND ScrRN ene) 
 
 Imm. Loew, Die Flora der Juden. Wien, 1924. 
 M. Z. Taksin, Yediath Hateba Shebatalmud. Warsaw, 1907. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 309 
 PAGE | 
 S. Alexander, Beitraege zur Ornithologie Palaestina’s auf 
 Grund der alten hebraeischen Quellen. Berlin, 1915. (B.) 
 
 101. Popular Treatises. Arsene Darmstetter. The Talmud (trans- 
 lated from the French by Henriette Szold). Philadelphia, 
 1897. 
 
 H. Goitein. Anklaeger und Vertheidiger des Talmud. Frankf. 
 o. M., 1897. 
 
 J. Eschelbacher. Zwei Reden ueber den Talmud. Frankf. o. 
 M., 1897. (M.) 
 
 123. On Halacha l’Moshe Mi-Sinai, see also Schorr in Hechaluz, 
 Vol. IV., pp. 28-49. In the Mishna this term occurs only 
 three times, namely: Peah, ii, 6; Eduyoth, viii, 7; and Ye- 
 dayim, iv, 6. (M.) See also Bacher in Studies in Jewish Lit- 
 erature...in honor of K. Kohler, pp. 56-70. (B.) 
 
 128. The earliest commentary on the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael 
 of which we know, is that by Saadia Gaon (tenth century). 
 It was published by Schechter in Bet Talmud, IV eco and 
 in the Oeuvres Completes, IX., 73-83. The most important 
 recent work on the subject has been that of A. Schwartz, in 
 his books, Die Hermeneutische Analogic, Vienna, 1897, and 
 Die Hermeneutische. Syllogismus, ib. 1901. (F.) 
 
 129. Add to Literature on Hermeneutic Rules the following: 
 Adolf Schwarz. Die Hermeneutische Analolgie in der Tal- 
 mudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1899. Cf. L. Blau, REJ 36, 
 150-159. 
 
 Adolf Schwarz. Der Hermeneutische Syllogismus in der Tal- 
 mudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1901. Cf. Wachstein, MGWJ 
 1902, 538-62. (M.) 
 
 140. Instead of the last eight lines of this and the first three lines 
 of page 141, read the following: 
 The fallacy of this inference is obvious. It postulates that 
 one may enter marriage only with such a woman in whose 
 place he can marry her mother, hence when that mother is 
 either a widow or a divorced woman. But according to this 
 postulate the high priest could not enter marriage at alls 
 since he was forbidden to marry either a widow or a divorced 
 woman. Rabbi Gamaliel therefore answered the questioner: 
 “Go thou and take care of the high priest in regard to whom 
 it is written, ‘Only a virgin from among his people he shall 
 marry;’ I shall then take care of all Israel.” (M.) 
 
 PAR DLL: 
 
 Po ae hapterc |. 
 The best work of reference on the subject of the Terminology 
 of the Talmud for the advanced student is Bacher’s “Die 
 
310 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 195. 
 
 de 
 
 220. 
 
 Exegetische Terminologie der Judischen Traditions-liter- 
 ature ha) 
 
 Section 11. 
 
 In Hoffmann Festschrift (p. 311) Professor Ginzberg has 
 pointed out that the words “en ben” which occur as the 
 beginning of a number of Mishnayot in Megillah are a trace 
 of the time when rules of law were arranged not always in 
 accordance with their subject but often in accordance with 
 the terms of their formulation . There are a number of other 
 such collections still preserved in our Mishna. (F.) 
 
 Section 15. 
 
 The terms lakathillah and b’diabad require somewhat further 
 elucidation. They are usually mentioned in connection with 
 ritual law. Some of the details of a ceremony are essential 
 to its performance, and some ought to be observed but are 
 not absolutely essential. For instance, in slaughtering fowl, 
 one ought to cut both the esophagus and the trachea; never- 
 theless if one has cut either of them, the fowl may be eaten. 
 The manner in which the ceremony ought to be performed 
 is called lakathillah; those elements of the ceremony with- 
 
 out which it cannot be performed at all are called b’diabad. 
 (F.) 
 
 Sections 59, 60 and 61. 
 
 For a further discussion of these terms see Bacher, Exeg. 
 Termin., II., 238-240. T’nan is to be translated “We have 
 studied.” Tnena is an older form of the same word; Tania 
 is a passive participle of the same root, and is to be trans- 
 lated “It is studied” or “It is handed down by tradition.” (F.) 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 The expression “hewe” has been discussed by Bacher, op. cit, 
 Il., 49, and by Ginzberg in Schwarz Festschrift, p. 347. (F.) 
 
 ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 A list of the important commentaries on the Talmud that have 
 thus far been printed is given by Freimann, in the Hoffmann Fest- 
 schrift, pp. 115 ff. He also gives a list of the MSS. of commen- 
 taries to the Talmud and the various libraries in which they are 
 to be found. 
 
 English. 
 
 A. Cohen, The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakot, translated 
 into English for the first time, with Introduction, Commentary, 
 Glossary and Indices, Cambridge, 1921. 
 
 S. Krauss, The Mishnah Treatise Sanhedrin, with Introduction, 
 Notes and Glossary, Leyden, 1909. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. oud 
 PAGE 
 AGADA. 
 
 W. Bacher, Rabbanan. Die Gelehrten der Tradition, Budapest, 
 1914. 
 ade . Bacher, Die Prodmien der alten jiidischen Homilie, Leipzig. 
 In Hebrew (Compendia, Collections, Indices). 
 
 En Jacob, by R. Jacob Ibn Habib, translated in part into English 
 by J. Glick, 5 vols., New York, 1918-1922. 
 
 Sefer Ha-Agadah, by J. Ravnitski and Ch. N. Bialik, Vols. I., 
 II., IlI., Cracow, 1908-10. 
 
 Ozar Ha-Midraschim, by J. D. Eisenstein, New York, 1915. 
 
 Ozar Kol, by K. W. Perla, Vol. I., Lublin, 1909. 
 
 Ozar Agadot, by G. Muller, Vols. I., II., III., Pressburg, 1877; 
 Vol. IV., Paks, 1901. 
 
 Bet Vaad La-Hakamim, by A. Hyman, London, 1902. 
 
 Zikron Torath Mosheh, by Moses Figo, Constantinople, 1552. 
 
 Yefeh Mareh, by S. Jaffe (a collection of the aggadic statements 
 of the Palestinian Talmud), Constantinople, 1587, Amsterdam, 
 TANG 
 
 Asher Feldman, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis. Cam- 
 bridge, 1924. 
 
 M. Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis. London-Leipzig, 1924. 
 
 Yalkut Eliezer, by E. Z. Sofer, Pressburg, 1874. 
 
 Mafteah Ha-Aggadot, by Mordecai b. Benjamin, Wilna, 1880. 
 
 Zion Lidaresh, by 8S. P. Frankel, Krotoschin, 1858. 
 
 Rab Pe’alim, by Abraham Wilna, Warsaw, 1894. 
 
 Z. Frédnkel, Geist der palast. u. babyl. Haggada, MGWJ 1853, 
 1854. 
 
 M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage zur semit. Sagenkunde, Leyden, 
 1893. 
 
 M. Griinbaum, Aufsatze zur Sprach u. Sagenkunde, Berlin, 1901. 
 
 H. S. Hirschfeld, Die Halachische Exegese, Berlin, 1847. 
 
 S. Hurwitz, Pygmy Legends in Jewish Literature, JQR, NS, VI. 
 
 N. J. Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada, Vol. II., Die Alexan- 
 drinische Agada, Gottingen, 1901. 
 
 I. Ziegler, Die K6énigsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch 
 die rdmische Kaiserzeit, Breslau, 1903. 
 Smaller Collections. 
 
 B. Beer, Leben Abrahams nach Affassung der jiidischen Sage, 
 Leipsic, 1859. 
 
 P. Billerbeck, Abrahams Leben u. Bedeutung...nach Auffas- 
 sung der alteren Haggada, Strack’s Nathanel, 1899-1900. 
 
 R. Faerber, Konig Salomon in der Tradition, Vienna, 1902. 
 
 R. Fischer, Daniel u. seine Drei Gefahrten in Talmud u. Mid- 
 rasch, Frankfort-am-M., 1906. 
 
 J. S. Renzer, Hauptpersonen des Richterbuches in Talmud u. 
 Midrasch, Vol. I., Samson, Berlin, 1902. 
 
312 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 PAGE 
 
 A. Rosner, Davids Leben u, Charakter nach Talmud u. Mid- 
 rasch, Oldenberg, 1908. 
 
 G. Salzberger, Die Salomo-Sage in der semit. Literatur, Berlin, 
 1907. 
 
 G. Salzberger, Salomos Tempelbau u. Thron in der semit. Sagen 
 literatur, Berlin, 1912. 
 
 ARCHAEOLOGY. 
 
 General. 
 
 S. Krauss, Talmudische Archdologie, Vols. I., II., III., Leipzig, 
 1910-1912. Hebrew translation, Wien, 1923. 
 Particular Phases. 
 
 J. Krengel, Das Hausgerat in der Mishnah, Vol. I., Frankfort- 
 am-M., 1899. 
 
 Adolph Rosenzweig, Kleidung u. Schmuck in biblischen u. Tal- 
 mudischen Schrifttum, Berlin, 1905. 
 
 Arthur Rosenzweig, Das Wohnhaus in der Mishnah, Berlin, 1907. 
 
 M. Winter, Die Koch- u. Tafelgerate in Paldstina zur Zeit dcr 
 Mishna, Berlin, 1911. 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL. 
 
 Hebrew Works. 
 
 Seder Ha-Dorot, by Jehiel Hailperin, Warsaw, 1882. 
 
 Mebo Ha-Mishna, by J. Brull, Frankfort-am-M., 1876. 
 
 Darke Ha-Mishna, by Z. Frankel, Leipsic, 1859. 
 
 Mebo Ha-Jerushalmi, by Z. Frankel, Breslau, 1870. 
 
 Dor Dor Ve-Dorshav, by I. H. Weiss, Vienna, 1871, and later. 
 
 Dor Jesharim, by J. Lifschitz, Petrokow, 1907. 
 
 Dorot Ha-Rishonim, by I. Halevi, Pressburg, 1896-1918. 
 
 Toledot Israel, by W. Yavitz, Vol. VI., Cracow, 1907; VII. and 
 VIII., Berlin, 1909-12; IX., London, 1922. 
 
 IN MODERN LANGUAGES. 
 
 Bacher’s works on the Agada mentioned above. 
 
 M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah, Frankfort-am-M., 
 1903. 
 
 S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, Berlin, 1902. 
 
 H. Tj. de Graaf, De Joodsche Wetgeleerden in Tiberias van 
 70-400 n.c., Groningen, 1902. 
 
 Jewish Encyclopedia, Under the names of the individual scholars. 
 
 H. Kottek, Die Hochshulen in Palastina u. Babylonien, JJLG, 
 1905. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY AND CALENDAR. 
 
 J. von Gumpach, Uben den altjiidischen Kalendar, Brussels, 1848. 
 
 A. Kistner, Der Kalender der Juden, Karlsruhe, 1905. 
 
 D. Sidersky, Etude sur l’origine astronomique de la chronologie 
 juive, Paris, 1914. Cf. MGWJ 1914, 382-384. 
 
 FE. Mahler, Handbuch der jiidischen Chronologie, Leipzig, 1916. 
 
. ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 313 
 PAGE 
 CUSTOMS. 
 
 Ff’. I. Grundt, Die Trauergebraéuche der Hebrder, Leipsic, 1868. 
 
 S. Klein, Tod u. Begrabnis in Palastina zur zeit der Tannaiten, 
 Berlin, 1908. Cf. REJ LX., 110-1138. 
 
 J. L. Palache, Das Weinen in jiid. Literatur, ZDMG 1916, 251-6. 
 
 J. Rabbinowicz, Der Todtenkultus bei den Juden, Frankfort- 
 am-M, 1889. 
 
 Adolph Biichler, Das Ausgiessen von Wein u. Ol als Ehrung bei 
 den Juden; MGW, 1905, 12-40. 
 
 A. Wiinsche, Der Kuss in Bibel, Talmud u. Midrasch, Breslau, 
 Lols 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 W. Bacher, Das altjtidische Schulwesen, JJLG VI., pp. 48-81. 
 
 E. van Gelder, Die Volksschule des jiid. Altertums nach talmud 
 u. rabbinischen Quellen, Berlin, 1872. 
 
 J. Lewit, Darstellung der theoret. u. prakt. Padagogik im jiid. 
 Altertum, Berlin, 1896. 
 
 GHOGRAPHY. 
 
 W. Bacher, Rome dans le T. et Midrash, REJ, Vol. XXXIIL., 
 187-196. 
 
 P. Berto, La temple de Jérusalem, REJ, Vol. LIX., 14-35, 161- 
 13y lek ee loo. 
 
 I. Goldhor, Admat Kodesh, Jerusalem, 1913. 
 
 S. Klein, Beitrage zur Geographie u. Geschichte Galilaas, Leip- 
 sic, 1909. 
 
 S. Krauss, Les divisions administratives de la Palestine 4 
 Pépoque romaine, REJ, Vol. XLVI., 218-236. 
 
 ETHICS. 
 H. G. Enelow, Kawwana, The Struggle for Inwardness in Ju- 
 daism, in Studies in Jewish Literature....in honor of Kaufmann, 
 
 Kohler. pp. 82-107. 
 
 M. Gtidemann, Moralische Rechtseinschrainkung im mosaisch- 
 rabbinischen Rechtssytem, MGWJ 1917, pp. 422-448. 
 
 A. Katz, Der Wahre Talmudjude, Berlin, 1893. 
 
 k. Kohler, Die Nachstenliebe in Judentum, Cohen Festschrift, 
 pp. 469-480. 
 
 A. Kohut, The Ethics of the Fathers. A series of lectures, New 
 York, 1885. New edition edited by Dr. B. A. Elzas, New York, 1920. 
 
 J. Z. Lauterbach, The Attitude of the Jew, etc. Yearbook C. C. 
 AR. 21921; 
 
 Luzzatto, Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von L. E. Igel, 
 Breslau, 1870. 
 
 S. J. Moscoviter, Het nieuve Testament en de Talmud, Rotter- 
 dam, 1884. 
 
314 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
 PAGE 
 
 H. Oort, Evangelie en Talmud uit het oogpunt der zedelijkheid 
 vergeleken, Leyden, 1881. 
 
 H. Oort, The Talmud and the New Testament, London, 1883. 
 
 fF’, Perles, Zur Wirdigung der Sittenlehre des Talmuds, in his 
 Juidische Skizzen, Leipsic, 1912, pp. 114-124. 
 
 J. Scheftelowitz, Grundlagen einer Jiidischer Ethik, MGWJ 
 1912, pp. 129-146, 359-378, 478-495. 
 
 M. Steckelmacher, Etwas iiber die “leichten u. schweren” Gebote, 
 Schwarz Festschrift, pp. 259-268. 
 
 S. Stein, Materialen zur Ethik des Talmuds, Vol. I., Die Pflich- 
 tenlehre, Frankfurt-am-M., 1894. 
 
 S. Stem, Das Problem d. Notliige im Talmud, JJLG, V5 DD: 
 206-224, 384. 
 
 INDUSTRY AND ECONOMICS. 
 
 F’. Goldmann, Der Olbau in Paldstina in der tanndit. Zeit; 
 MGW4J 1906, 563-580, 707-728; 1907, 17-40, 129-141. 
 
 S. Klein, Weinstock, Feigenbaum u. Syckomore in Palistina in 
 Schwarz Festschrift, 389-402. 
 
 E. Lambert, Les changeurs et la monnaie en Palestine, RE, 
 Vole lse2 7-244 -°017) ee ted 
 
 J. Z. Lauterbach, Weights and Measures, JE XII., 4838- 490. 
 
 M. Mainzer, Der Jagd, Fischfang u. Bienenzucht bei den Juden 
 in der tannait. Zeit, Frankfort-am-M., 1910. 
 
 S. Meyer, Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud, Berlin, 1878. 
 
 P. Rieger, Technologie u. Terminologie der Handwerke in der 
 Mischnah, Vol. I.: Spinnen, Farben, Weben, Walken, Berlin, 1894. 
 
 M. Salmonoski, Gemiisebau u. Gewachse in Palastina zur Zeit 
 der Mishnah, Berlin, 1911. | 
 
 M. B. Schwalm, L’Industrie et les artisans. juifs 4 Vepoque de 
 Jésus, Paris, 1909. 
 
 H. Voglestein, Die Landwirtschaft in Paldstina zur Zeit der 
 Mishnah, Berlin, 1894. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 a. In General. 
 
 M. E'schelbacher, Recht und Billigkeit in der Jurisprudenz des 
 Talmuds, Cohen Festschrift, pp. 501-514. 
 
 S. Gandz, Recht (Monumenta Talmudica, Vol. II.), Vienna, 1913. 
 
 J. Kohler, Darstellung des talmudischen Rechtes, Zeitschrift 
 fur vergleich. Rechtswissenschaft, Vol. 20, 1908, pp. 161-264. Cf. 
 V. Aptowitzer, MGW/J, 1908, 37 ff. 
 
 M. Mielziner, Legal Maxims and Fundamental Laws of the Civil 
 and Criminal Code of the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1898. 
 
 A. Perls, Der Minhag im Talmud, Lewy Festschrift, pp. 66-75. 
 
 M. W. Rappaport, Der Talmud u. sein Recht, Berlin, 1912. 
 Courts. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 315 
 PAGE 
 
 L. Fischer, Die Urkunden im Talmud, zugestellt, erklart, und 
 mit den Ausgrabungen verglichen. Berlin, 1912; JJLG, IX, 47- 
 197; 
 
 S. Funk, Die Gerichtshofe in nachexil. Judentum, MGW, 1911, 
 pp. 33-42, 699-712. Cf. A. Karlin, MGWJ, 1913, 24-31; Funk, 
 pp. 501-506. 
 
 H. Heinemann, Das Konigtum nach biblisch-talmudischer Recht- 
 sauffassung, JJLG, X., 115-190. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 J. Blumenstein, Die Verschiedenen Hidesarten nach mosaisch- 
 talmudischen Rechte u. die Falle ihrer Anwendung, Frankfurt- 
 am-M., 1883. 
 
 Z. Frankel, Die Eidesleistung der Juden, Dresden, 1840. 
 
 J. Horovitz, Zur rabb. Lehre von den falachen Zeugen, Frank- 
 furt-am-M., 1914. 
 
 ile, Das Gesetz uber das gerichtliche Beweisverfahren nach 
 mosaisch-thalmudischen Rechte, 1885. 
 
 A. Gulak, Yesode hamishpat haibri. 4 vols., Berlin, 1922. 
 
 J. S. Zuri, Mishpat hatalmud. Warsaw, 1921. 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 D. W. Amram, Retaliation and Compensation, JQR, a LUD: 
 191-211. | shea” 
 
 M. Bloch, Das mosaisch-talmud. Se ree ier eetahe on Buda- 
 pest, 1901. Cf. MGW, 1902, 381-388. 
 
 A. Buchler, Die Todesstrafen der Bibel u. der jiidischen nach- 
 biblischen Zeit, MGWJ, 1906, pp. 589-562, 644-706. 
 
 A. Buchler, Vy enterrment des eaninols d’aprés le Talmud et le 
 Midrasch, REJ 46: 74-88. 
 
 A. Buchler, Die Strafe der Ehebrecher in der nachexilischen Zeit, 
 MGW, 1911, pp. 196-219. 
 
 J. Goitein, Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmud. Straf- 
 rechte, Mag. 1892-3. 
 
 J. Horovitz, Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn, Cohen Festschrift, 
 
 pp. 609-658. 
 
 S. Mandl, Der Bann, Brunn, 1898. Cf. MGW, 1898, 524 f. 
 
 S. Ohlenburg, Die Bibl. Asyle in talmud. Gewande, Munich, 1895. 
 
 A. Perls, Der Selbstmord nach der Halakha, MGWJ, 1911, 287- 
 295. 
 
 I. Steinberg, Die Lehre vom Verbrechen im Talmud, Stuttgart, 
 1910. Cf. MGW, 1916, 429-431. 
 
 Ch. Tschernowitz, Der Einbruch nach bibl. u. talmud. Rechte: 
 Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXV., pp. 443- 
 458. 
 
 Ch. Tschernowitz, Der Raub nach bibl. talmudischem Recht, 
 Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXVII., 187- 
 196. 
 
316 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 
 PAGE 
 H. Vogelstein, Notwehr nach mosaisch.-talmud. Recht, MGW, 
 1904,“pp. 5138-5383: 
 J. Weismann, Talion u. offentliche Strafe im mosaisch. Rechte, 
 Leipzig, 1913. 
 CIVIL LAW. 
 
 L. Auerbach, Das jiidische Obligationenrecht, Berlin, 1871. 
 
 M. Bloch, Das mosaisch-talmud. Erbrecht, Budapest, 1890. 
 
 M. Bloch, Der Vertrag nach mosaisch-talmud. Rechte, Budapest, 
 1898. . 
 
 H. B. Fassel, Das mosaisch-rabbin. Civilrecht, 2 vols., Gross- 
 kanischa, 1852. 
 
 N. Hurewitsch, Die Haftung des Verwahrers nach talmud. Recht, 
 Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXVIII., 425- 
 439. 
 
 I. Lewin, Die Chasaka des talmud. Rechts, Stuttgart, 1912. 
 
 J. Marcuse, Das Biblisch-talmud. Zinsenrecht, Konigsberg, 1895. 
 
 N. A. Nobel, Studien zum talmud. Pfandrecht, Cohen Festschrift, 
 pp. 659-668. 
 
 A. Wolff, Das jiidische Erbrecht, Budapest, 1890. 
 
 JEWISH LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 
 
 David W. Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, Philadelphia, 
 1896. 
 
 J. Bergel, Die Eheverhaltnisse der alten Juden im Vergleiche 
 mit den griechishen u. rémischen, Leipsic, 1881. 
 
 A. Billauer, Grundztige des biblisch-talmud. Eherechts, Berlin, 
 1910. 
 
 L. Blau, Zur Gesch. des jiid. Eherechts, Schwarz Festschrift, 
 pp. 193-209. 
 
 A. Bichler, Familienreinheit u. Familienmakel in Jerusalem vor 
 dem Jahre 70, Schwarz Festschr., pp. 133-162. 
 
 L. Fischer, Die Urkunden im T. Eherechtliche Urkunden, JJLG, 
 IX, pp. 103-197. 
 
 S. Krauss, Die Ehe zwischen Onkel u. Nichte, in Studies in Jew- 
 ish Literature in honor of K. Kohler. pp. 165-175. 
 
 L. G. Lévy, La famille dans l’antiquite israélite, Paris, 1905. 
 
 L. Low, Eherechtliche Studien (in Schriften, III., Szegedin, 
 18933? ppm 18-384)2 
 
 Israel Mattuck, The Levirate Marriage in Jewish Law, in Studies 
 in Jewish Literature in honor of K. Kohler. pp. 210-222. 
 
 Ch. Tschernowitz, Das Dotalsystem nach der mos.-talmud. 
 Gesetzgebung, Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechstwissenschaft, 
 XXIX, pp. 445-473. 
 
 E. Weill, La femme juive. La condition légale d’aprés la Bible 
 et la Talmud, Paris, 1874. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 317 
 PAGE 
 K. Weissbrodt, Gattenpflichten nach Bibel u. Talmud, Berlin, 
 1891. 
 LINGUISTICS. 
 
 Z. Rabbiner, Beitrage zur hebraischen Synonymik in T. u. Mid- 
 rasch, Vol. I., Synonyme Nomina, Berlin, 1899. 
 
 MEDICINE. 
 
 W. Ebstein, Die Medizin im N.T. und im Talmud, Stuttgart, 
 1908. 
 
 M. Grunwald, Die Hygiene der Juden, Dresden, 1911. 
 
 J. L. Katzenelson, Die Normale u. die Pathelogische Anatomie 
 in der althebr. Literatur u. ihr Verhdltnis zur altgriech. Medizin, 
 St. Petersburg, 1889; trans. into German, by R. Kirshberg, His- 
 torische Studien aus dem pharmakolog. Institut zur Dorpat, Vol. 
 5 (1896), pp. 164-296. 
 
 L. Kotelmann, Die Opthalmologie bei den alten Hebriern, Ham- 
 burg, 1910. 
 
 L. Low, Zur Medizin u. Hygiene, Shriften, Vol. III., pp. 368- 
 406, Szegedin, 1898. 
 
 J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmud. Medizin, Berlin, 1911. Cf. Imm 
 Loew, MGW, 1912, 167-115; H. Illoway, Jewish Review, Vol. 4, pp. 
 175-185. | 
 
 M. Rawitzkit, Die Lehre vom Kaiserschnitt im Talmud; Vir- 
 chow’s Archiv fiir patholog. Anatomie, Vol. 80 (1880), pp. 494- 
 503. 
 
 A. Rosenzweig, Das. Auge in Bibel u. Talmud, Berlin, 1892. 
 
 D Schapiro, Obstétrique des anciens Hébreux d’apres la Bible, 
 les Talmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques, comparée avec la 
 tocologie gréco-romaine, Paris, 1904. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY. 
 R. Wohlberg, Grundlinien einer talmud. Psychologie, Berlin, 
 1902. 
 L. L. Mann, Freedom of the Will in Talmudic Literature. 
 C.C.A.R. Year Book, Vol. 27, pp. 301-337. 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 J. Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature, 
 London, 1912. 
 
 G. Dalman, Der leidende u. sterbende Messias der Synagoge im 
 erst. nachchristl. Jahrtausend, Berlin, 1888. 
 
 M. Duschak, Biblisch.-talmud. Glaubenslehre, Vienna, 1873. 
 
 J. Klausner, Die Messianischen Vorstellungen des jiid. Volkes 
 im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, Berlin, 1904. 
 
 M. J. Lagrange, Le Mesianisme chez les Juifs, Paris, 1909. 
 
 Israel Lévi, Le péché originel dans les anciennes sources juives, 
 Paris, 1909. 
 
318 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
 PAGE 
 
 L. Léw, Die talmud. Lehre vom Géttlichen Wesen, Schriften, 
 Vol. I., pp. 177-186, Szegedin, 1889. 
 
 C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance, JQR, 
 1904, pp. 209-257. 
 
 F. C. Porter, The Yecer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine 
 of Sin, Biblical and Semitic Studies, Yale University, N. Y., 1901. 
 
 Solomon Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, London, 
 1909. 
 
 F. Weber, Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud u. ver- 
 wandter Schriften, Leipsic, 1897. 
 
INDEX TOPSUB] ECES TAN DENAMES 
 
 Aaron b. Chayim, on Hermeneu- 
 tics,7128; 
 
 Abadim, a Minor Treatise, 296. 
 
 Abaye (Nachmani), Amora, 48; 
 teachers, Rabba and R. Jo- 
 seph, 49; at Pumbaditha, 50; 
 his colleague, Raba, 50; in ar- 
 guments with Raba, 50, 50n; 
 faueht Rei Papa, ol; enswer- 
 ing question, 240; debates 
 with Rabba, Raba, R. Papa, 
 Rabina I, Rv Dime, 261; sup- 
 ports Rabba in debate, 262, 
 263; authorities on, 293. 
 
 Abaye, the elder, 293. 
 
 Abba Areca, called Rab, 43, 291; 
 Semi-Tana, Amora, 39; school 
 of, makes additions to Siphra, 
 19: Babylonian schools of, 20, 
 51: disciple of Jehuda Hanasi, 
 38, 39; nephew of R. Chiya, 
 39: teacher of Mar Samuel, 
 44: opinions disputed by Mar 
 Samuel, 44; disciples, R. Assi, 
 AD alt: Huna, R. Chisda, R. 
 Shesheth, 46; differs from 
 Mar Samuel, 225, 2023 
 tigating question of, 238; 
 Siphra de be, explained, 230% 
 R. Assi and, 291; authorities 
 ceyahy 48a 
 
 Abba b. Abba, father, teacher 
 of Mar Samuel, 44. 
 
 Abba b. Abuha, father-in-law of 
 R. Nachman b. Jacob, 47, 292. 
 
 Abba b. Chana, father of Rabba, 
 47; friend of Levi, 290. 
 
 Abbahu, Amora, 45; friend of 
 R. Ame, R. Asse, 45; knew 
 Greek, 45; controversy over 
 Christianity, quoted in Tal- 
 mud, 45; associate of R. Zera, 
 46; succeeded by R. Jeremiah, 
 48; ridicules a question, 255n; 
 authorities On; 291,292. 
 
 Abba Saul, Tana, 36. 
 
 inves- 
 
 Ab Beth Din, of Sanhedrin, 22; 
 R. Nathan, 35, 37. 
 
 Abina, R. v. Rabina. 
 
 Aboda Zara, Masechta of Nezi- 
 kin, nature of, 12; transla- 
 tions, Latin and German of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 90; of 
 Mishna, 302; authorities on, 
 282; MS., 299; for references 
 to, v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Aboth, v. Pirke Aboth; Masech- 
 ta of Nezikin, nature of, 12; 
 Tosephta to, 37; not in Pales- 
 tinian or Babylonian Talmud, 
 60, 61; ethical teachings in, 
 267; translations, English, 88, 
 302, 308; translations of Her- 
 ford, Taylor, and Strack, 302; 
 
 - Jewish Encyclopedia on, 282; 
 v. Special Mishnaic Refer- 
 ences, 37. 
 
 Aboth de R. Nathan, 37; nature 
 of, 63; editions with notes, 63; 
 rules of Hillel in, 124n; eth- 
 ical teachings in, 267; Jewish 
 Encyclopedia on, 296; Eng- 
 lish translation of, 303. 
 
 Abraham b. David, Rabbi, on 
 writing down Mishna, 6n; 
 criticism of Maimonides’ Tal- 
 mudical Code, 67; commentary 
 on Eduyoth, 69, 297; Hasa- 
 goth Rabed of, 74; on rules 
 of R. Eliezer, 128. 
 
 Abraham de Boton, R., Lechem 
 Mishna of, 74. 
 
 Absolute Infinitive, law extend- 
 ed, in use of, 126, 126n. 
 
 Abstinence, disapproved, 278. 
 
 Absurdity, of an argument, 259. 
 
 Abtalion, one of Zugoth, 23. 
 
 Academies, v. Schools; Jabne, 
 Jamnia, 25; reopened, 35; 
 Lydda, 26, 42, 287; Beth Shea- 
 rim, 30, 37; Emmaus, 31; Ar- 
 discus, 81; Tekoa, 34; Usha 
 
 319 
 
320 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 35; Sepporis, 37; Tiberias, 37, 
 42, 293; Mishna expounded at, 
 40; Caesarea, 40, 289; Nahar- 
 dea, Sura, Pumbaditha, 40, 
 46; R. Judah at Pumbaditha, 
 46; at Sura, 292; decay of 
 Palestinian, 48; at Nares, 51; 
 Assemblies at Nares, prohib- 
 ited, 54; R. Dime at Pumba- 
 ditha, 52, 294; Palestinian, in- 
 terrupted, 59; debates between 
 members of, 261; anonymous 
 debates at, 264; Baraithoth 
 studied at, 285, 286; Jehuda 
 Hanasi, 289; R. Chanina b. 
 Chama at, 290; R. Jochanan 
 b. Napacha head of, 290; un- 
 der R. Chisda, 292; at She- 
 chan-Zib, 292; tradition of, 
 295; at Pumbaditha closed by 
 Romans, 295; v. Babylonian 
 and Palestinian. 
 
 Acceptable and valid cases, 197. 
 
 Accidents, in public, private, 
 159; loss through, 262. 
 
 Accountability, of man to God, 
 OT 0 oils 
 
 Acha, R., Semi-Tana, 39. 
 
 Achaybs RabawRe Amora, 
 294; at Pumbaditha, 52; suc- 
 ceeds Mar Zutra, succeeded 
 by Rab Gebiha, 52; refuting 
 an argument, 255n. 
 
 Acha of Difte, R., Amora, 53; 
 debates with R. Ashe, 262. 
 Achai b. Huna, R., Amora, 55; 
 
 not'a Sabora, 295. 
 
 Achsai (Abbasi), Jacob, Graetz 
 on, 69n; translated commen- 
 tary on Seder Nashim, 69. 
 
 Acts of Apostles, on Rabban 
 Gamaliel, the Elder, 286. 
 
 Ad absurdum, argument to, 
 TSO MLA 1e 
 
 “Adam,” used for all men, 279. 
 
 Additional Comments of Yom 
 Tob Lipman Heller, 70. 
 
 Adler, Elkan, collection of MSS. 
 of, 299. 
 
 Adler, E. N., on Kethuboth, 282. 
 
 Adler, 8., Kobetz al Yad, 6n; 
 
 on Talmud, 84; on ethics in 
 Talmud, 110. 
 
 Admon, Tana, 25. 
 
 Adultery, woman suspected of, 
 11;yone,borniok Alt 
 
 Adverb, as basis for Gezera 
 Shava, 199. 
 
 Aethiopian, substituted for Gen- 
 tile, 79n. 
 
 A fortiori, inference, 130; im- 
 plied, 212; argument from, 
 248.6201" 
 
 Africa, study of Babylonian 
 Talmud in North, 62; Kair- 
 wan, 65; R. Isaac Aflasi in, 
 (ps 
 
 Agada, Midrash, hermeneutic 
 rules of, 30; interpreted by R. 
 Eleazar, 30; of Talmud rec- 
 ords Jehuda’s sayings, 33; 
 Resh © Lakish; originalgin, 
 43>! Ri eJoshuad= ona ces ae 
 Simlai skilled in, 43; Sab- 
 oraim add to, 55; as part 
 of. ‘Gemara, 56, 1/61],58.295; 
 value of, 56, 56n; different 
 types of, nature of, 56n; omit- 
 ted from epitome of Rif, 72; 
 collections of, 76; bibliography 
 on, 98, additional, 3038, 311, 
 312; translations of, 90; 92; 
 method of interpretation of, 
 118, 127; hermeneutic rules 
 for, 120; Gezera Shava in, 
 149n* "a? fortior. inveeo baa 
 Talmud, 295; authorities on, 
 295, 296: 
 
 Agadatha, 224. 
 
 Agadic, ethics, 267; sayings 
 translated by Rafram b. Papa, 
 294. 
 
 Agent, use of, 125. 
 
 Aggravating, purpose of, 171, 
 pEFOUL. 9 Ey is) 
 
 Ahabat Zion v. Jerushalaim, of 
 B. Ratner, 298. 
 
 Ahai of Shabha, Sabora, au- 
 thor of Sheeltot, 295. 
 
 Akabia b. Mahalel, Tana 24; 
 J. Kaempf on, 286. 
 
 Akiba (b. Joseph), systematizes 
 oral law, 5; in Tosephta, 17; 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES S21 
 
 disciples, Jehuda b. Ilai, 19, 
 a2;,  1mon b. Jochai, 20; 33, 
 284; controversy with R. EI- 
 azar b. Azaria, 27; a disciple 
 of Nachum, 27; controversies 
 with Ishmael, 28, 121; of a 
 proselyte family, 29; member 
 of Sanhedrin, teacher, ar- 
 ranges law, discussions with 
 Tanaim, 29; died a martyr, 
 29; controversies with R. Jose 
 the Galilean, 30, with R. 
 Simon b. Nanos, 30; disciples 
 Oi,9750,0932, 178: -ordains’ RR. 
 Meir, 31; work carried on by 
 R. Meir, 32; disciple, R. Jose 
 by Chalatta,.33;7 in: prison, 34. 
 disciples, R. Elazar b. Sha- 
 mua, o4;ec003) Riv Klazay ~b. 
 Jacob, R. Nechemia, 35; re- 
 lationship to R. Joshua b. 
 Korcha, 385, 385n; rules of 
 Akiba,_125; opposed by R. 
 Ishmael, 126; supplanted by 
 R. Ishmael’s rules, 127; de- 
 fends R. Joshua’s argument, 
 139; introduced juxtaposition 
 analogy, 177n; extension and 
 limitation of, 183; rules of, 
 not used, 187; on all em- 
 bracing principle, 279; school 
 of, 2838; Midrashim extant 
 of, 288; methods of school of, 
 284; Siphra originated with, 
 285; Siphre Zuta from School 
 of, 285; authorities on, 287. 
 Albrecht, R., grammar of, 300. 
 Alexander, J., on Jews in Pal- 
 estinian Talmud, 104, 105. 
 Alfasi, R. Isaac, in Africa, 72; 
 compendium of, 72; method 
 of, 73; methods followed, 91; 
 published with Mordecai, 298. 
 Algazi,.Solomon, on Talmud, 83. 
 Alien, idolater for, 79n. 
 Alleviating, purpose of, 
 Nive ee) 
 Almsgiving, 274. 
 “Also”, use of, 125. 
 Alternatives anticipated, 200. 
 Ame, R., Amora, 45; disciple of 
 R. Jochanan, head of Acad- 
 
 171, 
 
 emy at Tiberias, 45; friend, 
 Abbahu, 45; R. Zera, asso- 
 ciate of, 46; submitted to R. 
 Huna, 46; schools for chil- 
 dren, 290; authorities on, 291. 
 
 Amemar, Amora, 52; at Nah- 
 ardea, 52; R. Dime, teacher, 
 52; debates with R. Ashe, 
 262; authorities on, 294. 
 
 Am-ha-arets, did not study Tal- 
 mud, 108. 
 
 Ammonite, regarded as a bas- 
 tard, 150,215.15 1S basis: for 
 Gezera Shava, 150, 151. 
 
 Amora, Amoraim; principal, R. 
 A DDAUMATEeECAa ios Chlein OL 
 Palestine, 42; defined, 40n, 
 224; explanation in name of, 
 
 198; quoted, to point source, 
 201; memra of Babylonian, 
 229; quotation from, 223; 
 
 conflicting opinions of, 227; 
 objects to memra, 228; sup- 
 
 ' ports argument, 248; refuted 
 proposition of, 254; debated 
 principle of law of, 261; R. 
 Leviek. Judah lll4290sPal- 
 estinian, 292; authority on, 
 23 
 
 Amoraim, in Tosephta, 17; dis- 
 tinguished from Tanaim, 23; 
 R. Abba Areca, one of, R. 
 Janai, R. Jonathan, R. Joch- 
 anan b. Napacha, 39; teach- 
 ers called, 40; definition of, 
 40; Palestinian, ordained by 
 Nasi, 40; use of title, extent 
 of period of, 41; number of 
 generations of, 41; first gen- 
 erations of, Palestinian, 41, 
 41n; Babylonian, 48; bibliog- 
 raphy on, 42n; second gen- 
 eration of Babylonian, Pales- 
 tinian, 45; third generation 
 of Babylonian, Palestinian, 
 48; fourth generation of 
 Babylonian, 51; fifth genera- 
 tion of Babylonian, 53; last 
 and sixth generation of, 54; 
 discussion of, in Mishna, 56; 
 
322 
 
 language of, 61; New Hebrew 
 used by, 61; Agadic interpre- 
 tation of, 128; on eligibility 
 to Sanhedrin, 141; Gezera 
 Shava of, 147, 148; differ on 
 source of law, 201; memra of, 
 2245) agree. 225s" ditler in 
 opinion, 225; have equal au- 
 LOORILY eee (2a OD me COMLeSE 
 
 about law, 232; refutation of, 
 
 233, 255n; difference between 
 Tanaim and, 235; supported 
 by Baraithoth, 235; quoted to 
 support, 263; differ from 
 earlier generations, 264; used 
 Tosephta, 283; 
 Talmud known by Babylon- 
 1AD oO CU Mm Rem Osh ama. 
 Levi, one of Palestinian, 291; 
 three Zeras, 292. 
 
 Amsterdam, Moses Ribkes of, 
 75; edition of Babylonian 
 Talmud at, 79. 
 
 Amude Golah, code by R. Issac’ 
 
 b. Joseph, 74. 
 Analagous cases, 
 ance of, 211. 
 Analogy, v. Gezera Shava, of 
 expressions 123; from*an- 
 other passage, 124, 127; v. 
 Hackesh; as-we-find, 127; 
 definition of, 142: real or 
 formal, 142; from juxtapo- 
 sition, v. juxtaposition; rules 
 restricting application of, 
 179, 180; limited or unlimited 
 elects. Olu lL oUt eVicinaon: 
 181; examples of, 181; argu- 
 ment from, 248, 250; refuted, 
 
 ZO s BoOD 
 
 Analytical method, 42; of Rashi, 
 70; OLmEeruinoro. se: L; 
 
 Ancona, Talmud destroyed at, 
 on, 
 
 Animals, responsibility for, 
 140; different, used together, 
 1G -estrayeniiie 
 
 Anonymous, opinions, adopted 
 by Jehuda Hanasi, 5; opin- 
 ions of Mishna, 191, 198; pas- 
 sages of Mishna and Bara- 
 
 Palestinian | 
 
 overabun- | 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 itha, 214; teacher, 215;.sup- 
 porting, Baraitha, 215; ques- 
 
 tion, 244; discussion or de- 
 bate, 264; statements in 
 Siphre, 285; scholars argue 
 
 with R. Jehuda b. [lai, 288. 
 Answer, to question, 237-246; 
 anticipated, 240; to objection, 
 
 241, 242, 260; anonymous, 
 264. 
 Antecedent, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
 132; premise in, disputed, 
 136. 
 
 Anticipation of answer, 240. 
 
 Anti-climax, in cases, 196; in 
 Mishna, 212. 
 
 Antigonos of Socho, disciple of 
 Simon) the Just, 22: 
 
 Antokolski, on Raba, 294. 
 
 Application of a provision of 
 Mishna debated, 261. 
 
 Apocryphal appendices, to the 
 Talmud, 63. 
 
 Aptowitzer, on Agada, 295. 
 
 Arabia; MSS. ‘tromya77: 
 
 Arabic, used by Maimonides in 
 commentary, 68. 
 
 Arachin, Masechta of Kodashim, 
 native of, Biblical basis for, 
 12; Jewish Encyclopedia on, 
 282; v. special Talmudic ref- 
 erences. 
 
 Aramaic, supplants Hebrew, 
 15; definition of Gemara, 56; 
 of Agada, 56n; West, lan- 
 guage of Palestinian Gemara, 
 61; East, in Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 61; form for Biblical 
 law, 122. 
 
 Archaeological bibliography, on 
 Talmud, 98, 304, 312. 
 
 Ardiscus, Academy at, 31; R. 
 Elazar at, 34. 
 
 Argumentation, 247-253; nega- 
 tive, 254; mutual, in debate, 
 261. 
 
 Arguments, to prove or dis- 
 prove a question, 247; classi- 
 fication of, 248; direct or indi- 
 rect, 248, 252, 253; from com- 
 mon sense, 248, refuted, 256; 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 from authority, 248, refuted, 
 256-257; from construction 
 and application, 248, 249, 
 250, refuted, 257; from anal- 
 ogy, 248, 250, refuted, 257, 
 258; a fortiori, 248, 251, in- 
 direct, 248, 251, refuted, 259): 
 refuted, 254- 260; absurdity 
 in; unparelleled, ‘polite mode 
 of refuting, 260; in debate, 
 261. 
 
 Aristotle, on labor, 272. 
 
 Artificial, interpretation, de- 
 rash, 118; necessity for, 1203 
 E2de "123. 
 
 Aruch, of R. Nathan b. Jechiel, 
 lexicon for Talmud, 81; addi- 
 tions to Benjamin Mussaphia, 
 81; corrected by Kohut, 81, 
 255n; Enelow on, 300. 
 
 Asceticism, disapproved of, 278. 
 
 Ashe, R., Amora, 51; restored 
 Sura, 49, 59; sketch Otol: 
 
 dialectic ‘method, compiler of 
 
 material in Gemara, SUE 4: 
 o9s pupil of R: Cahana, 52; 
 friend, Amemar, 52; did not 
 complete Palestinian Talmud, 
 59n, 60; on corporal punish- 
 ment, 148; way of answering 
 objections, 239; debates with 
 Amemar, Rabina, Mar Zutra, 
 262, 294; with R. Acha, 262; 
 relations with Huna b. Na- 
 than, 294; pupil, Rafram II, 
 294; authorities on, 294. 
 
 Asher b. Jechiel, R., Hilcoth 
 Sepher Thora of, 63; on time 
 of Sopherim, 63; on Nedarim, 
 66; compendium of, 73, 298; 
 included in Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 79; additional commen- 
 tary of, 298; disciple of R. 
 
 _ Meir of Rothenburg, 299. 
 Asia Minor, R. Meir’s death in, 
 287. 
 
 Ashkenazi, D. B., Shaare Yeru- 
 shalayim, 298; " Chrestomathy 
 Of.9501, 
 
 Assi, R., Amora, 45; Babylon- 
 ian, 45, 29 bis disciple Ota Re 
 
 323 
 
 Jochanan, head of Academy, 
 at Tiberias, not Amora Rab 
 Asse, friend of R. Abbahu, 45; 
 associate of R. Zeira, 46: 
 submitted to R. Huna, 46: 
 schools for children, 290: 
 compared with Rab, 291; at 
 Nahardea, 291. 
 
 Assi, Re Amora, Babylonian, 
 colleague Oheharsaphrar dis 
 ciple of Rab, in Sura, 45. 
 
 Astonishment, in, 21073 tyne! of 
 question, 237, 238. 
 
 Astronomical, documents in 
 Talmud, 103. 
 
 “AS-we- find analogy”, 127, 159, 
 160n, 162, 179. 
 
 Atonement, ‘Day of, v. Yoma. 
 
 Authenticity, of Mena ques- 
 tioned, 227. 
 
 Authorities, of Mishna, 22-39; 
 in conflict, 240, 241: ques- 
 tions laid before, 245 : argu- 
 ment from, 248, 249; argument 
 from, refuted, 256, O57: later, 
 supported R, Joseph, 263: of 
 earlier generations discussed, 
 264; mentioned by name, 264; 
 difference in grade of, 268; 
 of Siphre, 285. 
 
 Authorship, of an anonymous 
 Mishna, 203; of two opposite 
 opinions, 235. 
 
 Auto-da-fe, of Talmud, 77, 77n. 
 
 Auxiliaries, to study of Talmud, 
 81-87, 300: lexicons, 81-82, 
 300; grammars, 82, 300: 
 chrestomathies, 2. 300; in- 
 troductory works, 83; in mod- 
 ern languages, "4. 85, 301; 
 historical works, 85; encyclo- 
 pedic works, 86, 301- 302: gen- 
 eral reference, 86- 87. 
 
 Azai, on an all embracing prin- 
 ciple of law; 279. 
 
 B 
 Baba, gate, section of Mishna, 
 193. 
 Baba Bathra, Masechta of Nez- 
 ikin, nature of, Biblical basis 
 
324 
 
 for, 11; translations, French 
 of Babylonian Talmud, 91; 
 English, 303; MS. of 299; in 
 Tosephta of Khelim, 283; 
 Jewish Encyclopedia on, 282; 
 vy. Special Mishnaic and Tal- 
 mudic References. 
 
 Baba Kamma, Masechta of 
 Nezikin, Biblical basis for, 
 11; translations, French of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 91; Eng- 
 lish 303s) MS. OL mr 299 see ID 
 Khelim, 283; Jewish Encyclo- 
 pedia on, 282; commentary of 
 R. Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb 
 on, 298; v. special Mishnaic 
 and Talmudic references. 
 Baba Metzia, Masechta of Nezi- 
 kin, nature of, Biblical basis 
 for; 114) jin Khelimjym2s3, 
 translations, German of Bab- 
 ylonian Talmud, 90; French, 
 91; English, 303; commen- 
 tary of Jehuda b. Loeb, 298; 
 MS. of, 299; authorities on, 
 299; v. special Mishnaic and 
 Talmudic references. 
 
 Babli, v. Babylonian. 
 
 Babylonia, Mechilta brought to, 
 19; academies at, 40; R. Levi 
 b. Sissi migrates to, 42; R. 
 Nathan migrates from, 289; 
 R. Elazar, R. Ame, R. Assi, 
 R. Chiya, R. Simon b. Abba, 
 natives of, 45; R. Zera, 46; 
 Rabba, 47; R. Jeremiah, 48; 
 Mechuza, seat of learning in, 
 50; for nations of the world, 
 Vie Atelier) ) sageert TAIEGe 
 schools of, differ from Pales- 
 tinian, 198, 199; report from 
 Palestinian to, 246; R. Assi 
 aoe 
 
 Babylonian, v. academies; v. 
 Schools; v. Talmud; Amor- 
 aim, 17; R. Nathan the, 37; 
 teachers, 41; Amoraim, per- 
 iod of; Amoraim of first gen- 
 eration, 41, 48, of second 
 generation, 45, 46, of third, 
 48, 49, of fourth, 51, of fifth, 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 58, of last and sixth, 54; 
 teachers called Saboraim, 54; 
 authorities quoted by Pales- 
 tinian, 62; memra, 229; Am- 
 oraim knew Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 289, 290. 
 
 Bacher, W., On Agada, 56n, 
 295; R. Jehuda b. Ilai, 288; 
 R. Nathan, Bar Kappara, R. 
 Jose b. Juda, R. Chiya, R. 
 Oshaye, 289; Chanina b. 
 Chama, R. Gamaliel III, R. 
 Judah, II, R. Judah, III, Levi 
 b. Sissi, Jochanan b. Napacha, 
 R. Simon b, Lackish, 29030K- 
 Joshua b. Levi, R. Simlai, 
 R. Elazar b. Pedath, R. Ame, 
 291; R. Chiya b. Abba, Simon 
 b. Abba, R. Abbahu, R. Huna, 
 R. Chisda, R. Shesheth, 292; 
 R. Nachman b. Jacob, Rabba 
 b:-Chana, sUlla,@ HilteaeLt: 
 Jeremiah, R. Jose, R. Jonah, 
 Rabba b. Huna, Rabba b. 
 Nachman, R. Joseph, 293; 
 Raba, R. Nachman b. Isaac, 
 Ri) Papa, R. Ashe, RoeDime; 
 Mar Zutra, Amemar, Mar b. 
 R. Ashe, 294; on Talmud, 
 301; on Halacha le Moshe mi- 
 Sinai, on Terminology of Tal- 
 mud;,.209, 9510; 
 
 Baer, on R. Chiya, 289. 
 
 Bahr, H., with Rosenthal, trans- 
 lation of Sota, 308. 
 
 Bank, on R. Zera, 292; R. Ashe, 
 294, 
 
 Baraitha, nature of, “2ij2s8o, 
 286; quoted in Gemara,. 21; 
 use of, contrasted with Mish- 
 na, spurious, 21; critical re- 
 searches on, 21n; authorities 
 of, 22; teacher of, 23; quotes 
 R. “Jehuda, 932; recordgmis 
 Elazar, 34; opinions mofmh, 
 Jochanan the Sandelar in, 34; 
 opinions of Simon b. Gamaliel 
 in, 86;3//Tanaim in}'oosepen 
 ciples accepted in, 40; com- 
 piled by Mar Samuel, 44n; 
 recited by Tana, 40n; Rabba 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 325 
 
 on, 49; quotation uses new 
 Hebrew, 61; of R. Nathan, 
 638; of R. Eliezer, 128; law 
 derived in, 201; opinions of, 
 203; conflicting passages of, 
 215; inconsistency of opin- 
 ions in, 218; quotations from, 
 220-223; contrary teaching to, 
 224; memra in conflict with, 
 228; corroborating Memra, 
 229; correct reading of, 231; 
 used to support opinion, 235; 
 containing a _ difference be- 
 tween Tanaim, 234; support- 
 ing a contesting teacher, 235; 
 
 contradiction between two 
 passages of, 241; supports 
 argument in Talmud, 248; 
 
 conflict with decision of, 254; 
 introduced into debate, 263; 
 on asceticism, 278n; on eth- 
 ics; 267; traditions included 
 injec: 
 
 Barclay, Joseph, Mishna trans- 
 lated into English by, 88. 
 
 Bar Cochba, war of, 29. 
 
 Bar Kappara, Simon, in Tos- 
 ephta, 17; disciple of Jehuda 
 Hanasi, 37; Mishna of, 281; 
 dames 289;" teacher .of © R: 
 Hoshaya, R. Joshua b. Levy, 
 289, 291; at Caesarea, 289; 
 authorities on, 289. 
 
 Bartinoro, v. R. Obadya 
 
 Basel, printed edition of Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 79. 
 
 Basis, of particulars of a law, 
 202, 
 
 Bassfreund, J., on Eliezer b. 
 Hyrkanos, 207; on editions of 
 Mishna, 301. 
 
 Bastard, prohibited from con- 
 gregation, 150, 151; illustra- 
 tion of Gezera Shava, 150, 
 iNsak. 
 
 Beast, general term, 164, 166; 
 death caused by, 172. 
 
 Becharoth, Masechta of Koda- 
 shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
 Vv. Special Talmudic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Bede, English author, 105. 
 
 Beer, G., on Sabbath, 303. 
 
 Beer ha-Gola, sources of Shul- 
 chan Aruch, Moses Ribkes, 75. 
 
 Beginning, case at, 192. 
 
 Bekiin, school at, 26, 
 
 Ben Azai, Va Azai: Simon, dis- 
 ciple of Akiba, 31, 178; death 
 of, 288; applies analogy from 
 juxtaposition, 178. 
 
 Ben Zoma, Simon, disciple of 
 Akiba, 31; death, 288. 
 
 Bene Bathyra, leaders of San- 
 hedrin, 27. 
 
 Benedictions, v. Berachoth. 
 Benveniste, Joshua, commentary 
 on Palestinian Talmud, 70. 
 Berachoth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 9; in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 60; Syrileio 
 on Palestinian Talmud, 2S 
 German translation, 90, 92: 
 Commentaries, 71; English 
 translation, 92, 310: of Mish- 
 NaseoUg wave special Talmudic 
 References and Mishnaic Ref- 
 
 erences. 
 
 Berdizewsky, on Agada, 295. 
 
 Bergman, J., on Agada, 295. 
 
 Berman, S., on R. Zeira, 292. 
 
 “Beriyot, ” used for “man, SC OOMAYE 
 
 Berlin, R. David Fraenkel hE: 
 TED ‘collection of Agada pub- 
 lished at, 76; Codice of Tal- 
 mud at, 77: MSS. of Mishna 
 to be found at, 78; edition 
 Babylonian Talmud at, fig) 
 
 Bertinoro, v. Obadya. 
 
 Beruria, wife of R. Meir, 32. 
 
 Beth Hadash, commentary of 
 Sirkes on Tur, goes 
 
 Bethar, fall of, 35. 
 
 Beth Joseph, of R. Joseph Karo, 
 on Turim, 75. 
 
 Beth Samuel, on Eben Ha-Ezer 
 Olle Samuel Dae Lise Lo. 
 
 Beth Shearim, academy at, 30, 
 37. 
 
 Betrothals, v. Kiddushim. 
 
 Betza, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
 lical basis for, nature of, 10; 
 Tosaphoth of R. Perez on, 
 
326 
 
 296; v. Special Mishnaic & 
 Talmudic References. 
 
 Biblical, laws in Aramaic, 122; 
 Mosaic law as, 122n; support 
 for law, 123, 152, 153; proto- 
 type for Kal ve-Chomer, 131; 
 inference, 131, 132; support 
 for statement, 154; text, vow- 
 els in, 185; passage, 193; 
 source investigated in Mish- 
 na, 200, 201; reference to pas- 
 sage in Mishna, 202; teach- 
 ing of ethics, 267; ethics give 
 new lustre, 269; teachings for 
 man’s duty, 270; verse drawn 
 from Midrash, 284. 
 
 Bibliography, on language of 
 Mishna, 15; on Talmudic sub- 
 jects, 93-102; additional, on 
 editions of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 299; on Agada, 93, 303, 
 811, 312; archaeological, 93- 
 94, 304, 312; biographical, 94, 
 304, 312; historical, 312; in 
 Modern Languages, 312; chro- 
 nology and calendar, 95, 312; 
 customs, 95, 304, 305, 318; 
 dialectics, 95; educational, 95, 
 304, 312; ethics, 95, 96, 304, 
 305, 3138, 314; exegesis, 96, 
 305; geography, history, 96, 
 306, 313; law, 96, 97, 306, 314- 
 315; judicial courts, 97, 306; 
 evidence, 97, 306; criminal, 97, 
 306, 315; civil, 98, 316; inher- 
 itance and testament, 98, 306; 
 police, 98; marriage and di- 
 vorce, 98, 99, 307, 316; Slav- 
 env) (99; 307 se \linorss)D efcce 
 tives, 307; Linguistics, 97, 
 307, 308, 316; Mathematics, 
 99; Medicine, Surgery, 100, 
 308, 317; Natural History and 
 Sciences, 100, 308, 309; Par- 
 seeism, Poetry, 100; Proverbs, 
 Maxims, Parables, 101, 308; 
 Religious Phliosophy and His- 
 tory, 101, 308; Supernatural- 
 ism and Superstition, Popular 
 Treatise and Lectures, 101, 
 
 102; Industry and Economics, 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 314; Philosophy and Psychol- 
 ogy, 317; Theology, 317-318. 
 Biccurim, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 10; Latin 
 translation of Palestinian Tal- 
 
 MuUGw Gs: 
 
 Billerbeck, P., on R. Akiba, 207. 
 
 Bills and notes, embezzlement of, 
 167, 184. 
 
 Binyan Ab, generalization of 
 special ‘laws, 123,127, 810% 
 theory and formula of, 157; 
 illustration of, 158, 159; from 
 one special provision, from 
 two special provisions, 159, 
 160; method of, 160; types of, 
 160n; illustration of general- 
 ization of two special provis- 
 ions, 161; several special pro- 
 visions, 161; examples, 161, 
 162n; defense of, 182; refuta- 
 tion of, 255n; Biographical 
 matter, bibliography on, 94, 
 S04wSL2: 
 
 Bischoff, E., translations of Tal- 
 mud, 302. 
 
 Blau, L., on R. Jochanan b. Zac- 
 cai, 286, 
 
 Blaufuss, on Aboda Zara, 282. 
 
 Blindness, disability for judge, 
 154, 
 
 Bloch, J. S., on Talmud, 84; on 
 unwritten Mishna, 281. 
 
 Block, Ph., on R. Simon b. Ga- 
 maliel, 288. 
 
 Blood, covering of, 169; used for 
 trespass-offering, 738; aveng- 
 er, 178. 
 
 B’ne Brak, school at, 29. 
 
 Baruch, R. Joshua Boas, glosses 
 in "Lalmud,.75) Lora, Open. 
 Massoreth Ha-Shas, 776. 
 
 Bodek, A., on R. Jehuda Ha- 
 Nasi, 289. 
 
 Bodleian Library, at Oxford, 68. 
 
 Bologne, Talmud destroyed at, 
 77n. 
 
 Bomberg, Daniel, printed first 
 edition of Babylonian Talmud 
 complete, 78, 79; first edition 
 of Palestinian Talmud, 80. 
 
 Bondi, on R. Jochanan b. Na- 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 pacha, 290; on R. Elazar b. 
 Pedath, 291. 
 
 Bouvier, on penal law, 135n. 
 
 Braunschweiger, M., Die Lehrer 
 der Midrash, 238n. 
 
 Bread, unleavened, 
 176n. 
 
 British Museum, MSS. of Tal- 
 mud at, 299. 
 
 Broom, on Gezera Shava, 144; 
 on Hackesh, 153; on general 
 and particular, 164n; on ex- 
 planation from context, 174n. 
 
 Broyde, Is., R. Chiya, 289. 
 
 Brull, N., on Ebel Rabbathi, 64; 
 on Talmud, 84. 
 
 Brull, Jacob, Mebo Hamishna on 
 Tanaim, 28n; on signs for 
 memory, 80; on Talmud, 84, 
 86; on written Mishna, 281; 
 on argument of Tosephta, 
 283; on R. Jochanan b. Broka, 
 288. 
 
 Buchholz, B., on Tosephta, 297. 
 
 Buchler, A., on R. Simon b. Ga- 
 maliel, 288; on R. Jehuda Ha- 
 nasi, 289. 
 
 Burial, rules for, 63, 275; care 
 LOD eo (9s 
 
 Buxtorff, Johann, Lexicon Tal- 
 mudicum, 81; on value of Tal- 
 mud, 103. 
 
 (Dr Los 
 
 C 
 
 Cabala, in Agada, C.. 
 
 Caesarea, Academy at, Mishna 
 expounded at, 40; R. Oshaya, 
 Runs ochanan. at,42°. RR. Ab- 
 bahu of, 45; Bar Kappara at, 
 289. 
 
 Cairo, R. Simon Kahiro of, 72. 
 
 Cahana b. Manyome, R., disci- 
 ple of R. Juda b. Jecheskel, 
 52 
 
 Cahana b. Tachlifa, R., Amora, 
 51; disciple of Raba, teacher 
 of R. Ashe, at Pumbaditha, 52. 
 
 Calendar, bibliography on, 95, 
 312; festive, in Talmud, 110. 
 
 Callah, additional Masechta to 
 one Talmud, 64; nature of, 64. 
 
 Calmness, in, 210. 
 
 Cambridge, Codice of Talmud at, 
 
 327 
 
 77; fragment of Pesachim at, 
 77; MS. of Mishna at, 78. 
 Shane at Isaac, on Talmud, 
 
 83. 
 
 Canaanite, for nations of the 
 world, 79n. 
 
 Capital, punishment, 134; judg- 
 ed by higher court, 148; for 
 witchcraft, 170. 
 
 Case, at beginning, middle, end, 
 192; unexpected subsequent, 
 196; particular circumstances 
 of, in Mishna, 200; analogous, 
 211; superfluous, 212; omis- 
 sion of, 212; not provided for 
 in Mishna, 226; refers to dif- 
 ferent, 241; two or more al- 
 ternatives of, 242; altered by 
 certain circumstances, 263. 
 
 Casuistry, of R. Jeremiah, 48; 
 of Chisda, 292. 
 
 Celibacy, discouraged, 277. 
 
 Censors, mutilate Talmud, 79. 
 
 Ceremony, manner of perform- 
 ing, 310; elements for, 310. 
 
 Ceremonial, law and _ observ- 
 ances, basis of distinction, 
 278, 280. 
 
 Chabiba, Joseph R., Nimuke 
 
 Joseph, notes accompanying 
 Rite a: i 
 
 Chacham, of Sanhedrin, 32. 
 
 Chagiga, Masechta of Moed, 
 Biblical basis for, 10; trans- 
 lations, English of Babylon- 
 ian Talmud, 92, 303; Latin of 
 Palestinian Talmud, 92; v. 
 special Mishnaic and Tal- 
 mudic references. 
 
 Chagiz, Jacob, Techilath Choch- 
 ma of, 70, 88; on Hermeneu- 
 ties LO: 
 
 Chajes, Zebi Hirsch, on Talmud, 
 84 
 
 Challa, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 9; Latin 
 translation of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 92. 
 
 Chama, R., of Nahardea, 51; at 
 Pumbaditha, 51; succeeded by 
 R. Zebid, 52. 
 
 Chometz, leavened bread, 176n. 
 
528 
 
 Chanan, Tana, 25. 
 
 Chananel, Rabbenu, 
 tary on Talmud, 67. 
 
 Chananiah b. Teradyon, father- 
 in-law of R. Meir, 32. 
 
 Chanina b. Chama, R., Amora, 
 41; biography, 41; disciple of 
 R. Jehuda Hanasi, 41, 290; 
 title bestowed on, contempo- 
 raries of, 42; chief lecturer of 
 Academy, 290; answering ob- 
 jection, 239; ridicules a ques- 
 tion, 255; succeeds R. Ephes, 
 289. 
 
 Chanina, R., Tana, 24; chief of 
 the Priests, 25. 
 
 Chapter, single division of Ma- 
 sechta, 7; v. Perak. 
 
 Charity, a duty, 274. 
 
 Children, in relation to parents, 
 276; schools for, 290. 
 
 Charizi, Jehuda, translated Mai- 
 monides’s commentary on Ze- 
 raim into Hebrew, 68. 
 
 Chelkath Mechokeh, of R. Mo- 
 ses, on Eben Ha-Ezer, 75. 
 
 Chiarini, L., translates Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 3038. 
 
 Chisda, R., Amora, 45; disciple 
 Ola DO Oued Unaee.o. 
 292; head of Academy at 
 Sura, 46; opposed by R. She- 
 sheth, 47; succeeded by Rabba 
 bar Huna, 49; taught Rabba, 
 Raba, 49, 50; debates with 
 Huna, R. Shesbeth, 261; Acad- 
 emy under, 292; a casuist, 
 292; '\Kairam ib, <Papa, pupil 
 of, 294; authorities on, 292. 
 
 Chiya, the elder, disciple of Je- 
 huda Hanasi, 17, 37, 39; Semi- 
 Tana, 89; compiler of Toseph- 
 ta, 39, 283; son of, 42; Mishna 
 of, 281; an author of Siphra, 
 289; authorities on, 289. 
 
 Chiya b. Abba, Amora, 45; 
 brother of Simon, 45, 292; 
 migrated from Babylonia, dis- 
 ciple of R. Jochanan, 45; un- 
 cle of Rabba bar bar Chana, 
 293; authorities on, 292. 
 
 Chizkia (Hezekiah), son of R. 
 
 commen- 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Chiya, quoted in Talmud, 42; 
 revised Mechilta, 284. 
 
 Chomer v. major of Kal ve-Cho- 
 mer; defined, 130. 
 
 Choshen Mishpat, Tur, of R. 
 Jacob, a Code, 74; commen- . 
 Lavy OllwiD: 
 
 Chrestomathies, of Talmud, 81, 
 300-301. 
 
 Christianity, R. Abbahu’s con- 
 troversies over, 45; censors 
 mutilate passages on, 79. 
 
 Christians, references to, ex- 
 purgated from Babylonian 
 Talmud, 79, 79n; on value of 
 Talmud, 103, 104; dogmatists 
 and R. Simlai, 291. 
 
 Chronology, Bibliograph on, 95, 
 Be 
 
 Chullin, Masechta of Kadashim, 
 nature of, 12; German trans- 
 lation of, 303; v. Special Mish- 
 naic and Talmudic References. 
 
 Church, against Talmud, van- 
 dalism of, 77; favors celibacy, 
 277; literature, R. Tarphon 
 hab, AY bs 
 
 City, The, substituted for Rome, 
 79n; of Refuge, 158, 175,9186. 
 
 Civil Laws, Tur Choshen Mish- 
 pat of R. Jacob, 74; Bibliog- 
 raphy on, 98, 306, 316; testi- 
 mony in, 118; application of 
 Gezera Shava in, 146; ritual 
 case not applicable in, 180. 
 
 Climax, in cases, 196. 
 
 Codes, of Talmud, 73-76; rab- 
 binical, accepted Rab Joseph, 
 263; of Mishna, 281; in Aha- 
 bat Zion v. Jerushalaim, 298; 
 of Mordecai b. Hillel, with 
 Alfasi, 298. 
 
 Codices, of Sedarim and Ma- 
 sechtoth, 77. 
 
 Cohen, A., on Maimonides, 297; 
 translation of Berachoth, 310. 
 
 Cohen, Sabbathai, R., Sifte, Co- 
 hen of, on Shulchan Aruch, 
 75. 
 
 Cohn, Leopold, on Agada, 295. 
 
 Columbia College, MSS. of Pe- 
 sachim, Moed Katon, Megilla, 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Zebachim of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud at, 77, 77n. 
 
 Combinations, v. Erubin. 
 
 Command versus volition, 139. 
 
 Commentaries, in Mechilta, 
 Siphra, Siphre, 18; Siphra of 
 Abraham b. David, 19n; to 
 Sopherim, 63n; on the Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 65-68, 296; 
 exclusively on Mishna, 68, 69, 
 70, 297; features of, 69; on 
 Palestinian Talmud, 70; of 
 Maimonides, 78, 297; in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 79; of Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 80; on Bible 
 agree with Gezera Shava, 
 145n; Midrashim, 283; on Pe- 
 sachim, 296; not Rashi’s, on 
 Nedarim, 296; not R. Ger- 
 shom’s, 296; of Gaonim to Se- 
 der Teharoth, 297; of R. Meir 
 of Rothenburg, 297; of Hai 
 Gaon, on Teharoth, 297; on 
 Eduyoth, of Abraham b. Da- 
 vid, 297; of Zerakiah Ha- 
 Levi, on Kinnim, 297; Mod- 
 ern, Tiphereth Israel, 297; of 
 Bertinoro, 298; other modern, 
 298; Strack on, 298; of Jo- 
 seph Caro on Tur, 299; Beth 
 Hadash of Joel Sirkes, 299; 
 additional, English, 310; on 
 thirteen rules of Ishmael, 
 309; list of, 310. 
 
 Commentators, on Bible during 
 Middle Ages, 187. 
 
 Common Sense, 1938; argument 
 from, 248; refuted, 256; 
 against, 260. 
 
 Commonwealth, of Israel, sec- 
 ond, 267. 
 
 Community, v. relations, duties 
 LOmma TO: 
 
 Comparison v. Heckesh. 
 
 Compendium, of Asher, 73, 298; 
 included in printed edition of 
 Talmud, 79; in Ahabat Zion 
 v. Jerushalaim, 298; of Mor- 
 decai b. Hillel, 298. 
 
 Comprehensive, terms, 208. 
 
 Conclusion, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
 132; restricted, 134; in the 
 
 329 
 
 consequent, 136; refutation of 
 final, 186; contradicts pre- 
 mise, 140; from contents of 
 Mishna, 205; hypothetical, 
 219. 
 
 Conduct, man responsible to God 
 for 2s OAZ2il. 
 
 Conflict, of opinions, how set 
 down, 191; between an indi- 
 vidual and majority, 192; of 
 authoritative passages, 214. 
 
 Conjugal v. Relations. 
 
 Conjunctions, in Mosaic law, 
 124; extension in use of, 126. 
 
 Consequent, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
 182; conclusion in, 136. 
 
 Consistency, of opinions, 232, 
 233. 
 
 Constantin, banished religious 
 teachers, 48. 
 
 Constantius, banished religious 
 teachers, 48. 
 
 Construction, argument from, 
 248, 249, 250; refuted, 257; 
 objected to, 2638. 
 
 Constructional, Gezera Shava, 
 148; theory of, 145, 146, 147. 
 
 Context, explanation from the, 
 v. explanation. 
 
 Contradiction, in question, 239, 
 240; attempt to remove, 241. 
 Contradictory, in disharmony 
 with, 252; proposition, 258. 
 
 Contrary, on the, 256. 
 
 Contros, name for Rashi, 67. 
 
 Controversy, civil litigation, 
 154; through different opin- 
 ions, 193; between Amoraim, 
 255; none in Memra, 226; of 
 R. Simlai with Christians, 
 291° 
 
 Corner v. Peah. 
 
 Corporal Punishment, like crim- 
 inal case, 148; R. Ishmael, R. 
 Usha on, 148. 
 
 Correction, of Memra, 230; of 
 Mishna reading, 281. 
 
 Corroboration, of memra, 229. 
 
 Coucy, R. Moses of, 67. 
 
 Counter-argument, 216; to com- 
 mon sense, 256; to close con- 
 
330 
 
 struction, 257; to indirect ar- 
 gument, 258. 
 
 Country, v. Relations, duties to, 
 ra theve PAG 
 
 Courts, v. Sanhedrin, when open, 
 1533 Unorder indemnification, 
 172: Judicial, bibliography on, 
 oT 306. 
 
 Cracow, R. Meir Lublin of, 68; 
 Yom ob wotwe7 0. edition of 
 Talmud, 70, 79, 80. 
 
 Creed, no distinction ee Car eth 
 
 Cremona, Talmud destroyed at, 
 fale 
 
 Criminal Law, Bibliography on, 
 O77 BUG, 315: testimony in, 
 118; involving corporal pun- 
 ishment, 148. 
 
 Criticism, of Bible in Talmud, 
 
 110. 
 
 Customs, Bibliography One 9b, 
 304, 305, 313; in Talmud, "110: 
 supports for, D2e8 
 
 D 
 
 Daily Sacrifice, The, v. Thamid. 
 
 Dalman, G. H. ’ Lexicon of, 300; 
 grammar of, 300. 
 
 Damages, v. Nezikin; treated 
 in Baba Kamma, 11; types 
 Ofte GIS atO property, 194, 
 
 Danby, ii) translation of San- 
 hedrin, Mishna and Tosephta, 
 B02; 
 
 Darke Emorai, 
 tices, 107. 
 Darke Hamishna, of Frankel, 
 6n, 84; on Tosephta, Lene ton 
 Baraitha, Z1n>*, on Tanaim, 
 
 Zon 
 
 Darke Moshe of R. Moses Is- 
 serles, on Turim, 75. 
 
 Darshan, Ben Zoma, 288. 
 
 David, Jacob R., of Slutsk, on 
 Palestinian Talmud, 299. 
 
 heathen prac- 
 
 David b. Samuel Halevi, Re 
 Ture Zahab, on Shulchan 
 Aruch, 75. 
 
 Davidson, S., on Talmud, 74. 
 
 Day vot ‘Atonement, v. Yoma; 
 rules for, 144. 
 
 Dead body, igs 
 
 Debate, definitions and terms 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 of, 261; illustrations of, 261, 
 262, 264: anonymous, 264; 
 principal debaters i In; 2oLy 262. 
 
 Deception, a sin, 273. 
 
 Decisions y. Horayoth; of ma- 
 jority given by Jehuda Ha- 
 nasi, 5; Simlai, Gezara Shava, 
 143% not in accordance with 
 established principle, 213; of 
 Amoraim, 224, 225; of Tan- 
 aim, final, 295 « of higher au- 
 thorities, 245; "quoted to sup- 
 port argument, 268; of law 
 fixed by Saboraim, 294 = Of, 
 Tosaphoth, 68; abstracted by 
 Jacob b. Ashari, 73; of an- 
 tiquity in Talmud, 103. 
 
 Decrees, subject for discussion, 
 104. 
 
 Deduction, from 
 Mishna, 205. 
 
 Defence, argument in, 242n. 
 
 Defectives, laws on, bibliography 
 on, 307. 
 
 Definite article, 
 use of, 126. 
 
 Deity, in Talmud, 112. 
 
 Delitzsch, on value of Talmud, 
 104. 
 
 Demai, Masechta of JZeraim, 
 biblical basis for, 9; com- 
 mentary on Jerushalmi of 
 Frankel, 71. 
 
 Demonstrative pronoun, exten- 
 sion in use of, 126, 126n. 
 
 Depositary, gratuitous, 262.2635 
 paid, 262, 268. 
 
 Derash, method of interpreta- 
 tion, 117, 118; circumstance 
 necessitating, 120: reason for, 
 T28; 
 
 Derech Eretz, nature of, 64; 
 reference to, 64, 64n Rabba on, 
 140; ethical teachings ins 267% 
 English translation of, 3038. 
 
 Derech Eretz Zuta, nature of, 
 64; reference to, 64. 
 
 Derenbovrg, J., on Talmud, 84; 
 on R. Elazar b. Azaria, 287, 
 
 De Sola, D. A., Mishna trans- 
 lated into English by, 88. 
 
 Deuteronomy, a basis for Mid- 
 
 contents of 
 
 extension in 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 331 
 
 rash, 283; basis for Siphre of 
 school of R. Akiba, 284; basis 
 for Midrash of school of R. 
 Ishmael, 285; v. Special Bib- 
 lical References. 
 
 Dialectical, method, 50; adopted 
 Dyetarapa sw leaner AshGroL: 
 acumen in debate, 261, 2638. 
 
 Dialectics, Bibliography on, 95; 
 acumen for, necessary in San- 
 hedrin, 141. 
 
 Dienemann, on commentary of 
 Rashi, 296. 
 
 Dignity, of man, 269. 
 
 Dictionaries v. Lexicons. 
 
 Dictionary of the Talmud, of 
 M. Jastrow, 81. 
 
 Dietary Laws, treated in Chu- 
 lineal 
 
 Difference, of opinions, 191; 
 method of propounding, 192; 
 between individuals, 192; rea- 
 son of, 193; principle underly- 
 ing limiting point of, 217; be- 
 tween two Amoraim, 225; of 
 opinion in Memra, 231-236; in 
 reading of Mishna, 231; con- 
 cerning explanation of a 
 term, 231; concerning reason 
 of law, 232; principle under- 
 Ine eOLupOPiniony 200." OL 
 opinion, discussed, 233;  be- 
 tween Amoraim, 234; and 
 Tanaim, 235; answer to ob- 
 jection of, 241; between 
 schools of Shammai and Hil- 
 lel, 24, 286. 
 
 Difficulty, in question, 239; in 
 ALSumMent, 202) 20a, Jo4d. 
 
 Dikduke Sopherim, contains 
 work of Rabbinowicz on Bab- 
 ylonian Talmud, 80, 80n. 
 
 Dilemma, objection set forth as, 
 mae we 2AS. 
 
 Dime b. Chinena, R., Amora, 51; 
 at Pumbaditha, 52, 294; suc- 
 ceeded by Rafram, 52; taught 
 Amemar, 52; debates with 
 Abaye, 261; authorities on, 
 294. 
 
 Direct argument, 248. 
 
 Disagreement in question, 239. 
 
 Disciples, debate with teachers, 
 261, 262; support teachers, 
 263. 
 
 Discussion, in controversy, 193; 
 of difference of opinions, 233; 
 minor, in Talmud, 261; Ge- 
 mara on differences of earlier 
 generations, 264; anonymous, 
 of law, 267; of Talmud, ethics 
 in legal, 267. 
 
 Dissenting teacher, 217, 219. 
 
 Distinction, omission of, 208. 
 
 Division, of opinions, 191; of 
 Mishna, 7, 281. 
 
 Divorce Law, Bibliography on, 
 Srey fil Wied Meh 
 
 Divorces v. Gittin. 
 
 Dogmatical Agada v. Agada. 
 
 Dogmatists, Christian, contro- 
 versies with R. Simlai, 291. 
 
 Domestic Relations v. Relations. 
 
 DGreD Ora VemUonshoy es OL eLavrl. 
 Weiss, on writing down Mish- 
 na, 6n; on Tosephta, 18n; on 
 Mechilta, Siphra, 19n; on Ba- 
 raitha, 21n; on Amoraim, 42n; 
 on compilation of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 58n; on Talmud, 84. 
 
 Dosa, R., Tana, 25; of school of 
 Hillel, 26. 
 
 Dough, The, v: Challa. 
 
 Duenner, I. H., on Tosephta, 
 18n; on Eduyoth, 282. 
 
 Dukes, L., on language of Mish- 
 na, 282 
 
 Dust, covering blood, 169, 170. 
 
 Duties, of man, 270; motives 
 for performing, 271; of self- 
 preservation and cultivation, 
 of industry and activity, 272; 
 of justice, truth, peace, and 
 CHATILY me lotr Ore Charityenc tc, 
 275; of relations, of life, 275; 
 to country, to community, to 
 fellow-men, 276, 277. 
 
 Dyhernfurt, printed edition of 
 Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 
 
 1D) 
 
 Eagle, Rabbis on, 158. 
 Ebel Rabbathi, on mourning. 
 Semacoth, 64; nature of, 64; 
 
oo INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 bibliography on, 64n; Eng. 
 lish translation, 303. 
 
 Eben Ha-Ezer, Tur, of R. Ja- 
 cob, code, 74; commentary on, 
 75. 
 
 Economics, bibliography on, 314. 
 
 Edels, Samuel R., commentary 
 of, 68. 
 
 Editions, printed of Talmud, 77, 
 299; of Mishna, 78; of Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, ‘78-80; of 
 Siphre, 285; of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 80, 299. 
 
 Education, bibliography on, 95, 
 S040 30a ol 2: 
 
 Eduyoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
 nature of, 12; not in Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 58; not in 
 Babylonian, 60; reasons, 61; 
 R. Abraham b. David com- 
 mented on, 309; commentary 
 on, 297: authorities on, 282; 
 v. Special Mishnaic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Edzard, G. E., Latin translation 
 of Aboda Zara, 90. 
 
 Effect, of general and particu- 
 lar ytd: 
 
 Egg, the v. Betza. 
 
 Egypt, Maimonides in, 68. 
 
 Ehrlich, A. B., chrestomathy of, 
 82. 
 
 Eight Chapters of Maimonides, 
 297: 
 
 Kisenmenger, on value of Tal- 
 mud, 103. 
 
 Elazar, R. of Modin, authority 
 in Agada, 30. 
 
 EilazaribyAzaria, hk. Vana 255 
 biography, 27; discussion with 
 R. Jose the Galilean, 30; au- 
 thorities on, 287. 
 
 Elazar b. Elazar Kappara v. 
 Bar Kappara. 
 
 Hlazar (Eliezer) b. Jacob, R., 
 Tana, 31; disciple of Akiba, 
 member of Sanhedrin at Usha, 
 35; Siphre Zuta attributed to, 
 288. 
 
 Elazar b. Jose, R., Semi-Tana, 
 39; authority on, 289. 
 
 Elazar (b. Pedath), R., Amora, 
 
 45; native of Babylon, .45; 
 disciple of R. Jochanan, 45; 
 taught R. Zeira, 46; author- 
 ities on, 291. 
 
 Elazar (b. Shamua); Re Tanase 
 81; disciple of Akiba, 34, 288; 
 at Nisibis, 34; his disciple, R. 
 Jehuda, 34, 37; visits R. Meir, 
 34; quoted in Mishna and -Ba- 
 raitha, 34; confused with R. 
 Elazar b. Pedath, 45; born 
 at Alexandria, 288; authori- 
 ties on, 288. 
 
 Elazar b.-Simon,;)R., Lana.soa:s 
 disciple of R. Simon b. Gama- 
 hel, of R. Joshua b. Korcha, 
 38; authority on law, assist- 
 ed Romans, 38; authorities on, 
 289. 
 
 Elazar b. Zadok, Tana, 36. 
 
 Elders, former, 23. 
 
 Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean, 
 R., teacher, 30; hermeneutics 
 of, 80,127; Baraithasotel2Ze- 
 refutes inference, 138; re- 
 futed by R. Joshua, 139; ex- 
 tension and limitation of, 183. 
 
 Eliezer, R., of Touques, Tosa- 
 phothsots 67. 
 
 Eliezer (b. Hyrkanos), R. Tana, 
 25; disciple of Jochanan b, 
 Zaccal, 26; excommunicated, 
 26; teacher of Akiba, 29; R. 
 Mathia, a: disciple ol,mes0- 
 leaning towards Christianity, 
 287; authorities on, 287. 
 
 Eliezer b. Jacob, R., Tana, 25; 
 method of, 26. 
 
 Eliezer b. Zadok, R., Tana, 25. 
 
 Elmslie, W. A. L., translation 
 of Aboda Zara, 302. 
 
 Emmaus, academy at, 31. 
 
 ’En ben ella, 195, 310. 
 
 Encyclopedic works, on Talmud, 
 Soes0lee502: 
 
 End, case at, 192. 
 
 Einelow, H. G., on Agada, 295; 
 on Aruch of Nathan b. Jech- 
 jel, 300. 
 
 English, translations of Mishna, 
 88; of Talmud, 92, 302; litera- 
 ture compared with Talmud, 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 333 
 
 105; translations of Mishna 
 and Tosephta, 302. 
 
 En Jacob, of R. Jacob Ibn Cha- 
 bid, 76. 
 
 Ephes, R., contemporary of R. 
 Chanina b. Chama, 42, 290; 
 reopened school at Lydda, 42; 
 succeeds Jehuda Hanasi, 290; 
 authorities on, 290. 
 
 Epicurean, substituted for He- 
 retic, 79n. 
 
 Epitomes, of Talmud, 72-73; of 
 Jehuda Gaon, of Simon Ka- 
 Nico wOlehwusaaceA irasi, 
 asa bos 
 
 Epstein, on Saboraim, 295; on 
 commentary, on Talmud, 296; 
 on commentary of Seder Te- 
 Narounecol: 
 
 Eriurt. Moat, 283: 
 
 Erubin, Masechta of Moed, na- 
 ture of, 10; Tosaphoth of R. 
 Samson on, 296; Mishna, 
 translated into English, 88; 
 English translation of Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 303; v. Spe- 
 cial Talmudic References. 
 
 Esther, Megilla discusses read- 
 ni O1 910; 
 
 Estimations v. Arachin. 
 
 Eternity in Talmud, 112. 
 
 Ethical, Agada, v. Agada; doc- 
 uments in Talmud, 103; teach- 
 ings of Bible, 267; of Talmud. 
 
 267; teachings of Talmud 
 outlined, 269-280; maxims, 
 279; 
 
 Ethics, bibliography on, 95, 304, 
 305, 313, 314; interpreted in 
 Talmud, 110; Adler, on, 110, 
 111; Talmudic, 267-280; and 
 religion, 267; against nature, 
 277; spirit of Talmudic, 280. 
 
 Evidence, bibliography on, 97, 
 306. 
 
 Evil, inclination to, 269. 
 
 Europe, Babylonian Talmud in, 
 
 . 62; libraries of, codices to be 
 POuUNGeIN eS (iL 
 
 Ewald, F. C., German transla- 
 tion of Aboda Zara, 90. 
 
 Exceptions, from generaliza- 
 tions, 194. 
 
 Exceptional, no analogy from, 
 180, 
 
 Exchange v. Themura. 
 
 Excisions v. Kherithoth. 
 
 Exegesis, bibliography on, 96, 
 305; of Rabbis in Talmud, 
 110; Hermeneutics for, 117, 
 143; modern scientific, 186. 
 
 Exegetical Agada, v. Agada, 
 Gezera Shava, 143; example 
 Olga ay Ab: 
 
 Exilarch, Abba bar Abbahu, 47, 
 292; Huna Mari, 49; Mar Zu- 
 tra, 52; Mar Ukba, 291; Huna 
 b. Nathan, 294. 
 
 Exodus, basis for Midrashim, 
 283; basis for Mechilta, of 
 Ishmael, 18, 28; of R. Simon 
 b. Jochai, 284; Halachic or 
 Tanaitic Midrashim on, 284; 
 Siphre, original Midrash on, 
 284; v. Biblical References. 
 
 Exorbitant, Gezera Shava, 147, 
 148. 
 
 Explaining words and phrases 
 of Mishna, 198. 
 
 Explanation, from context, 124, 
 TOfali4, 617 introduced by 
 question, 198; by name of 
 Amora, 198; difference con- 
 cerning, 231. 
 
 Expounders, of Mishna, 39-55; 
 of law, 268; Ben Zoma, one 
 of, 288. 
 
 Expression, incongruity, tautol- 
 ogy of, 207; objected to mode 
 of, 208; incorrect or indefinite, 
 209; meaning of, 226. 
 
 Extension, and limitation of 
 Mishna, 124; uses of, 125, 126; 
 in contradiction to general 
 and particular, 183, 184; the- 
 ory of, 182, 183, 184. 
 
 Ezekiel, refuted by R. Jehuda, 
 33; v. Special Biblical Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Ezra, founder of Great Synod, 
 22; ancestor of R. Elazar, 27; 
 Pentateuch esteemed by, 120. 
 
334 
 
 F 
 Fallacy, result of Gezera Shava, 
 148. 
 
 Fasts) vie Laanith:® onieyoma, 
 144, 
 Fathers, Sayings of, v. Aboth. 
 
 Feast Offering, v. Chagiga. 
 Fellow-men, relation of man to, 
 
 212 hOLg) OWSILO,aetce ivan” 
 used for, 279. 
 Festivals, v. Moed, in Talmud, 
 
 110; 
 
 Feuchtwang, on Eduyoth, 282; 
 on difference between Sham- 
 mai and Hillel, 286. 
 
 Fez, R. Isaac Alfasi of, 72. 
 
 Fone to promises, 273. 
 
 Fiebig, P pe tep al Aboda Zara, 282. 
 
 Fine, in case of restitution, 180. 
 
 First Born, the, v. Becharoth. 
 
 First Fruits, The, v. Biccurim. 
 
 First Gate v. Baba Kamma. 
 
 Fischer, B., Chrestomathy, 82. 
 
 Fischer, ieey ‘on value of Talmud, 
 104. 
 
 Food, clean and unclean, 158. 
 
 Forbidden Fruits, use of, 137. 
 
 Forest, man killed in, 159. 
 
 Formal, analogy, 142. 
 
 Fowls, unclean, 174. 
 
 Fraenkel, R. O., of Dessau, 
 teacher of Mendelssohn, com- 
 mentary on Talmud, 70. 
 
 France, study of Talmud in, 62; 
 Tosaphists Olano ;oepre Moses 
 0,474; 
 
 Frankel, ©. P., on Talmud, 87. 
 
 Frankel, Lis on Mishna written 
 by Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; on To- 
 sephta, 18n; on Mechilta, 19n; 
 on Siphra, ‘19n; on Baraitha, 
 Zs On Tanaim, Zoe ON Amo- 
 raim, 42n; on compilation of 
 Palestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
 R. Ashe as compiler, 59n; 
 commentary on Berachoth, 
 Peah, and Demai in Palestin- 
 ian Talmud, 70; other com- 
 mentary, 71: on Talmud, 84, 
 85; on Hermeneutics, 129: on 
 Gezera Shava, 148n, 152n: on 
 “astonishment,” 238: on Zu- 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 goth, 286; on Jochanan b. 
 Broka, 288; on Agada, 295. 
 Frankfort, printed editions of 
 
 Talmud at, 79. 
 
 Free-Will, of slaves, 140; of 
 man, 270; 
 
 Freimann, on commentary on 
 Lalmud; 92965 310 sone com- 
 mentary of R. Asher, 298; on 
 ReeVarphon2s7. 
 
 French Translations, of Baby- 
 lonian. Talmud) °91°9 (3023 -s00 
 Palestinian Talmud, 92. 
 
 Friedman, M., edition of Me- 
 chilta, 19n; of Siphre, 20n. 
 
 Fuenn, Lexicon of, 300. 
 
 Funk, S., on Akiba, 287; on 
 Abba Areka, Mar Ukba, Mar 
 Ukba IT, 291: -on2har be unas 
 R. «Chisda, Rs, Nachmangab: 
 Jacob, 292; on Rabba b. Nach- 
 mani, R. Joseph b. Chiya, 293; 
 on Raba, R. Nachman b. Isaac, 
 R. Papa, R. Ashi, R. Gebiha, 
 294. 
 
 Furst, J.. on Amoraim, 42; on 
 Talmud, 85; on R. ‘Jehuda 
 Hanasi, 289; Lexicon of, 300. 
 
 Furiz, King, persecution of, 53, 
 54. 
 
 G 
 
 Gajus, on Roman marriage, 
 149n. 
 Gamaliel, the Elder, Rabban, 
 
 Tana, 24; his son, 25; refutes 
 Jose b. Tadai, 140, 141; teach- 
 er of Paul, 286; authorities 
 on, 286. 
 
 Gamaliel II, Rabban, Tana, 25; 
 grandson ‘of Gamaliel is: Nasi, 
 Patriarch, 26; excommunicat- 
 ed R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, 
 26; quarrels with R. Joshua, 
 27; teacher of Jochanan, b. 
 Nuri, 29; authorities on, 286, 
 oe 
 
 Gamaliel III, Patriarch, 41, 290; 
 bestows title on R. Chanina b. 
 Chama, 42; authorities on, 
 290. 
 
 Gamaliel IV, R., Patriarch, 45. 
 
 Gaonie, Literature, Palestinian 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 335 
 
 Talmud in, 296; Babylonian 
 Talmud in, 296; commentary 
 on Seder Teharoth, 297. 
 Gaonim, opinions of, in Mishne 
 Torah, 73; Sherira, one of, 6n. 
 Garment, restitution of lost, 171. 
 Gaster, M., on Kethuboth, 282. 
 Gastfreund, on Akiba, 287. 
 Gebiha, Amora, 52, 294: at Pum- 
 baditha, succeeds R. Acha b. 
 
 Raba, 52; succeeded by Ra- : 
 
 crams 53; authorities on, 
 uo2s 
 
 Geiger, on writing down of 
 Mishna by Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; 
 
 on order Masechtoth, 8n; on | 
 Mechilta, 19n; on .completion | 
 
 of Palestinian Talmud, 58; 
 
 on study of Talmud, 111; on | 
 
 language of Mishna, for 
 grammar, 300. 
 
 Gelbhaus, Spay Cale dae Jehuda Ha- | 
 
 nasi, 289. 
 
 Geman as part of Talmud, two | 
 compilations of Babylonian | 
 and Palestinian, 9, 57; quotes © 
 other collections, 23; work of | 
 Amoraim in, 40, 56; principal | 
 
 elements contributed by R. 
 
 Jochanan, 42; R. Ashe, com- , 
 piler of, 51, 59n; definition of | 
 term, 56; classification of 
 contents of, 56; of teachers of | 
 West, 58; known to elder | 
 commentators, 59; extent of, | 
 
 in Babylonian Talmud, 60; 
 references to missing MSS. 
 in, 60; comparison of two, 61; 
 language of each, 61; quan- 
 tity of material in each, 61; 
 Agada in each, 61; arrange- 
 ment in each, 62; make no 
 mention of each, 62; authori- 
 ties quoted by each, 62; gram- 
 mars for Babylonian, 82; dif- 
 ficult to translate, 88; on cor- 
 poral punishment, 148; on 
 marriage contract, 149; in- 
 vestigates reason of law, 193; 
 general rule in, 194; excep- 
 tion, to generalization in, 194; 
 stated cases i wlOD: self-evi- 
 
 
 
 dent cases in, 196; mode of 
 commenting on Mishna para- 
 graph, 198; source of law in, 
 201; particulars of law in, 
 202; authorship of anonymous 
 Mishna in, 203; limiting term 
 in, 204+ reference, to a cer- 
 tain statement, 204; qualify- 
 ing a provision of. Mishna, 
 204, 205; extending a provi- 
 sion, 205; inclusion and de- 
 duction from, 205, 206; criti- 
 cising Mishna, 207-215; in- 
 consistency of principle in, 
 214; conflicting passages in, 
 214, 215; counter-argument 
 in, 216; quoting Mishna, 220; 
 Tos sephta, Baraitha in, 220, 
 221; other works, 22) Zune; 
 traditional reports in, 224: 
 two memras_ reconciled in, 
 227; differences between Amo- 
 raim in, 234; between Tan- 
 aim, 234, 235; on authorship 
 of opposite opinions, 235; ar- 
 gument a fortiori in, 251; 
 Strack on, 286; d’Eretz Yis- 
 rael, 296. 
 
 General v. Terms; reason, 156; 
 
 sense, 157; law, 162; the, de- 
 fined, 163; and particular, 
 defined, 163, 164; term fol- 
 lowed by particulars, 164; 
 Arsturulev ol. Lo4,4 1 605m gen- 
 eral introduced by particular, 
 165; second rule, 165; third 
 rule, 1665) 1675 with particu- 
 lar and general, 166, 167, 168; 
 two, preceded and followed by 
 particular, 168; requiring 
 particular, 169; single case in- 
 cluded in general law, 170; 
 with similar provisions, 171; 
 in dissimilar provisions, 172; 
 with new provisions, 173; 
 known as extension, 1838, 184; 
 principle, 198, 194; rule of 
 law, 213. 
 
 Generalization, of one special 
 
 provision, 123; of two special 
 provisions, 123; v. Binyan 
 
336 
 
 av refuted, 182; in Mishna, 
 
 user of Tanain, first, 24, 
 25; second, 25, 26, QT; third, 
 28-31, fourth, 31. 36, fifth, 36- 
 388, sixth, 39; of “Amoraim, 
 first, 41- “4A, ’ second, 45-47, 
 third, 48-51, fourth, 51-52, 
 fifth, 53-55. 
 
 Genesis, as early basis for Mid- 
 rash, 283; v. Special Biblical 
 References. 
 
 Genizah, discoveries of, 284; of 
 Schechter in Midrash, 285: 
 fragments of, 298, 299. 
 
 Gentile, Samaritan substituted 
 for, 79n; Aethiopian substi- 
 tuted for, 79n; and Jew, 278, 
 219: 
 
 Geography, Bibliography on, 96, 
 306, 812; Neubauer on, 54n. 
 
 Gerim, a minor treatise, 296. 
 
 German translations, of Mishna, 
 88, 303; of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud,7.9057302;5303 orebales- 
 tinian Talmud, 92; laws, 121n. 
 
 Germany, study of Talmud in, 
 OZ au Losaphistsa O16 4g, wmly 
 Asher Ol i3: 
 
 Gershom of Soncino, 
 single Masechtoth, 79. 
 
 Gershom, R., commentary of, 
 296: 
 
 Geschichte der Juden v. Graetz. 
 
 Gezera Shava, analogy of ex- 
 Pressions, 123,12 760145 -eMor- 
 dechai Plongia on, 129; defi- 
 nition, classification, formula 
 for, 143; exegetical theory of, 
 143; examples of, 144, 145; 
 constructional, 145, 146, 147; 
 exorbitant, 147-150; in Agada, 
 149n; restriction in use of, 
 150; rules for restricting, 150- 
 152: Heckesh similar to, 152: 
 limiting a LOU Lode 
 
 Gibeath Jerushalaim, on compi- 
 lation of Talmud, 58n, 84. 
 
 Ginzberg, Louis, on origin of 
 Mishna, 281; on names and 
 order of Mishna, 282; on Me- 
 chilta of Simon b. Jochai, 284; 
 
 printed 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 on Baraitha, 286; on Akiba, 
 287; on Bar Kappara, 289; on 
 Agada, 295; Jerushalmi Frag- 
 ments of, 298, 299; on Mishna 
 and Talmud, 301: Ona tun 
 Ben,” 310; on terms in Tal- 
 mud, 310. 
 
 Gittin, Masechta of Nashim, 
 Biblical basis for,- 11a. Spe- 
 cial Talmudic References and 
 Mishnaic References. 
 
 God, humility before, 267; like- 
 ness of man and, 269, 279; 
 providence of, 270: will of, 
 270; man’s accountability to, 
 270, 271; love and obedience 
 to, 271, 
 
 Golden Rule of Hillel, 273. 
 
 Goldmann, J., Chrestomathy of, 
 301. 
 
 Goldschmidt, L., MS. of Talmud, 
 299s German translation of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 302-308. 
 
 Good, 267; inclination ‘to, 269. 
 
 Grammars, of Mishna, ibn; for 
 Talmud, 82, 300. 
 
 Gorfinkle, J., Eight Chapters of 
 Maimonides, ao te 
 
 Graetz, H., Geschichte der Ju- 
 den, on compilation of Mishna, 
 6n, 301; on Tanaim, 23n; on 
 Amoraim, 42n; on Alfasi, 
 69n on: burning of Talmud, 
 77n; on Talmud, 85; on value 
 of Talmud, 105; on Ri Joshua 
 b. Chanania, 287: on R. Meir, 
 2838 -Oneh: Judah ILE, 290860 
 ie Jochanan be Napacha, 290: 
 on R. Simon b. Lachish, 290: 
 on R. *Simlai, (291: on "Abba 
 Areca, 291; on Mar kbae 
 20 Leone ne ’ Abbahu, 292 50H 
 Re Huna, R,/’Chisda.si Shes- 
 heth, 292; on Hillel m0), R. Jo- 
 seph’ (bar Chiya), 293 « on 
 aba ekeiea pasek. Ashe, "Mar 
 bar Rab Ashe, 294; views of, 
 criticised by Halevi, 295. 
 
 Graubart, D., on Khelim, 202e 
 
 Great Tavs Book, of R. Moses, 
 74, 
 
 Great Synod, contribute of Oral 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Law, 4; Men of, 22; Ezra of, 
 22; Simon Just; Simon II of, 
 jie 
 
 Greek, used in language of 
 Mishna, 15; known by Simon 
 b. Gamaliel II, 36; preferred 
 by Jehuda Hanasi, 37; by R. 
 Abbahu, 46; words explained 
 in Aruch, 81. 
 
 Greenup, A. W., translation of 
 Taanith, 302; of Palestinian 
 Talmud Taanith, 308. 
 
 Guedemann, on R. Joshua Db. 
 Chanania, 287. 
 
 Gumbiner, R. Abraham, Mogen 
 Abraham of, on Orach Cha- 
 yim, 75. 
 
 Guttmann, M., 
 Work of, 301. 
 
 Encyclopedic 
 
 H 
 
 Hadrian, edict of, 29; defied by 
 Judah b. Baba, 30, 32. 
 
 Hagahoth Yerushalmi, of Elijah 
 Wilna, 298. 
 
 Hagahoth Maimuniyoth, anno- 
 tations by R. Meir Ha-Cohen, 
 7A, 298. 
 
 Halacha, as section of Perak, 7; 
 in Palestinian Talmud, 8; 
 Midrash, 18; of R. Simon b. 
 Gamaliel II, 36; subject of 
 dispute between R. Chisda 
 and R. Shesheth, 47; as part 
 of Gemara, 56; real nature of, 
 56, 56n; a division in Mishna 
 Toreh, 73; interpretation of 
 Midrash.) 118," 119; differs 
 from Midrash Agada, 120; 
 origin and development of 
 Midrash, 120; Kal ve-Cho- 
 mer in, 131; collection of, 191; 
 majority opinion as, 192; le 
 Moshe Mi-Sinai, 128, 399. 
 
 Halachic, Midrash on Exodus, 
 284; sayings translated by 
 Rafram bar Papa, 294. 
 
 Halachische Exegese, of H. S. 
 Herzfeld on Hermeneutics, 
 129: 
 
 Halachoth, contradicted by Tan- 
 aim, 40; Ketuoth of R. Jehu- 
 dai Gaon, 72; Gedoloth of R. 
 
 oo7 
 
 Siman Kahiro, 72; of R. Isaac 
 Alfasiy 72% 
 
 Halevi, Joshua b. Joseph, on 
 Talmud, 88; Halicoth Olam 
 of, on Baraitha of Eliezer, 
 128, 238n. 
 
 Halevi, Moses, on Talmud, 87, 
 301; on origin of Mishna, 281; 
 on R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, R. 
 Joshua b. Chanania, R. Ela- 
 zar b. Azaria, R. Akiba, 287; 
 on R. Meir, R. Jose b. Cha- 
 lafta, Elazar b. Shamua, 288; 
 on Bar Kappara, R. Nathan, 
 289; on Babylonian Amoraim 
 and Palestinian Talmud, 289; 
 on R. Chanina b. Chana, R. 
 Gamaliel III, R. Judah II, R. 
 Judah III, on Levi b. Sissi, 
 R. Simon b. Lakish, 290; on 
 R. Joshua b. Levi, Abba Are- 
 ka, Mar Ukba, R. Elazar b. 
 Pedathe har Asse zu Lswonek. 
 Huna, R. Chisda, R. Nach- 
 man b. Jacob, 292; on R. Jer- 
 emiah, R. Jonah b. Jose, Rab- 
 banbeeNaehmant,..293 con. K. 
 Josephelb. wChiya, ekhabayn kh. 
 Nachman b. Isaac, R. Papa, 
 RavAshes Ratram <b. Papa, 
 Amemar, Mar b. Rab. Ashe, 
 Rafram II, 294; on Saboraim, 
 295. 
 
 Halicoth Olam, of R. Joshua b. 
 Joseph Halevi, on Baraitha of 
 R. Eliezer, 128, 238n. 
 
 Halle, on Rabban Gamaliel II, 
 287. 
 
 Hamburg, codices of Talmud at, 
 i MSS ols Mishna lat. 135 
 MSS. of Talmud at, 299. 
 
 Hamburger, I., Real Encyclope- 
 dia of, 6n; on Jehuda Hanasi 
 on Tannaim, 6n; on Amoraim, 
 42; on Agada, 56n; on Tal- 
 mud, 85, 86. 
 
 Hands, v. Yadaim, uncleanness 
 of, treated in Yadaim, 14. 
 
 Hasagoth Rabed, of Abraham b. 
 David on Mishna Thora, 74. 
 
 Heathen, practices attacked, 
 107; and Jew, 278. 
 
338 
 
 Heave, The, v. Therumoth, of- 
 fering, by agent, 125. 
 
 Hebraische Bibliographie, on M. 
 Steinschneider, 78; on MSS. 
 of Talmud, 78. 
 
 Hebrew, new, language of Mish- 
 na, 15, 16; supplanted by Ar- 
 amaic, 15; mixture of Ara- 
 maic and, in Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 61; commentary of Mai- 
 monides translated into, 68; 
 in Mishne Torah, 73; in Tal- 
 mud, 108. 
 
 Hebrew Union College, address- 
 by author, 107.113 5144: 
 
 Heckesh, 250; analogy from an- 
 other passage, 127, 148; sim- 
 ilar to Gezera Shava, 152; 
 definition and theory of, 152, 
 158, 154; from two subjects, 
 1538-154; from two predicates, 
 154-155; irrefutable, (155; 
 Juxtaposition similar, to, 177. 
 
 Heifer, The, v. Parah. 
 
 Heilprin, on Rabba b. Chana, 
 298; on Rabba b. Huna, 293; 
 on Rabba b. Nachmani, 298. 
 
 Heller, Yom Tob Lipman, R., 
 of Prague and Cracow, com- 
 mentary on Mishna, with ab- 
 stract, 70; Tosaphoth sot, .in 
 edition of Mishna, 78. 
 
 Herculaneum, Talmud called a, 
 106. 
 
 Herd, and _ flock, particular 
 terms, 164. 
 
 Heretic, Sadducee substituted 
 TOT on: 
 
 Herford hae transia gone r 
 Aboth, 302. 
 
 Hermeneutics v. Rules of R. 
 Nachurn, 22770124 fote Ris sh- 
 mael, 295 1412.7 128 "asci- 
 ence of interpretation, 117; 
 derivation of, 117; similar for 
 Midrash Agada and Halacha, 
 120; collection of, 123; seven 
 of Tilel A123 el 2 an ean OF 
 of Akiba, 125, 126; literature 
 on, 128, 309; exposition of. R. 
 Ishmael’s, 1380ff; R. Abraham 
 b. David on, 160n; thirteen 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 rules, Kal-ve-Chomer, 130- 
 141; Gezera Shava, 142- ie aye 
 Heckesh, 152-155; Binyan Ab, 
 156-162; general. and partic. 
 ular, three rules, 163-168; 
 modification of, 169- Liss ex- 
 planation from context, two 
 rules, 174-176; additional 
 rules, 177-186; argument, ref- 
 utation and reinstatement of, 
 182; purpose of, 186; not used 
 by medigeval commentators, 
 LS 
 
 Herod, at time of Zugoth, 23; 
 Sanhedrin under, 27. 
 
 Herzfeld, on untraceable tradi- 
 tion, 123. 
 
 Hezekiah v. Chizkia. 
 
 High Priest, marries virgin, 140, 
 141. 
 
 Hilcoth Sepher Tora, of R. Ash- 
 ou on time of M. Sopherim, 
 3. 
 
 Hillel, F., on language of Mish- 
 Da, cous 
 
 Hillel, the elder, as president of 
 Sanhedrin, 4, 290; first to sys- 
 tematize oral law, 4; last of 
 Zugoth, 22-23; school Ol goa 
 Gamaliel the Elder, grandson 
 of, 24, 286; disciples, Simon b. 
 Gamaliel, Jochanan b. Zaccai, 
 25; hermeneutics of, 123, 8b24. 
 124n, 127, 130; followed by R. 
 Nehunia -b. Hakana} 125; 
 rules of adopted by R. Ish- 
 mael, 127; illustrates Gezera, 
 145, 146; Hermeneutic rules 
 of, not used by Mediaeval 
 commentators, 187; prevailing 
 opinions of school of, 192; on 
 self-preservation, 271n; on 
 justice, 273n; difference be- 
 tween school of Shamai and 
 school of, 286; Simon, son, 
 286. 
 
 Hillel II, Patriarch, 48, 293; son 
 of Judah III, 293. 
 
 Hillelites v. School of Hillel. 
 
 Hirsch, J., on Akiba, 287. 
 
 Hirschenson, H., on Babylonian 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Amoraim and Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 290. 
 
 Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese 
 on Hermeneutics, 129; on re- 
 stricted Gezera Shava, 151n; 
 on Agada, 295; on Maccoth, 
 302. 
 
 Historical, Agada v. Agada, 
 works on Talmud, 85; bibli- 
 ography, 312. 
 
 History, Bibliography on, 96,- 
 306. 
 Hoelscher, G., Translation of 
 
 Sanhedrin and Maccoth, 303. 
 
 Hoffman, D., on Talmud, 85; on 
 origin of Mishna, 281; on Mid- 
 rashim, 284; on Siphre, on 
 Midrash of school of Ishmael, 
 285; on R. Ishmael, 287; on 
 Mar Ukba, 291. 
 
 Holiday, Sabbath more import- 
 ant than, 131, 138. 
 
 Hollander, on ordinances of Ga- 
 maliel the Elder, 286. 
 
 Homiletical, interpretation, 118; 
 R. Eliezer developed, 127; 
 teaching, 224; passages, eth- 
 ical teachings in, 267. 
 
 Horayoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
 biblical basis for, 12; v. Spe- 
 cial Talmudic References. 
 
 Horowitz, on Amoraim’s use of 
 Tosephta, 283; on Akiba, 287; 
 on R. Jochanan b. Napacha, 
 290. 
 
 Horowitz, edition of, on Siphre, 
 285; on Siphre Zuta, 288. 
 
 Humility, a virtue, 267, 274. 
 
 Huna, R., Amora, 45; disciple 
 of Rab, 46; president of Acad- 
 emy at Sura, authority over 
 R. Ame and R. Assi, succeed- 
 ed by R. Juda, disciples, R. 
 Chisda, 46; Rabba, 49; his 
 son, Rabba, 49; debates with 
 R. Nachman, R. Shesheth, R. 
 Ghisda;) 261-4 pupils#gottoek. 
 Juda, 292; authorities on, 
 292; discussions with Raba, 
 2938: 
 
 Huna, R., son of R. Joshua, con- 
 temporary of R. Papa, disci- 
 
 339 
 
 ple of Raba, 292; authorities 
 on,? 292. 
 
 Huna b. Nathan, disciple of R. 
 Papa, mentioned by Ashi as 
 exilarch, 294. 
 
 Husik, on Maimonides, 297. 
 
 Hypothetical, conclusion, 219. 
 
 Hyrcan, John, at time of Zu- 
 goth, 22. 
 
 Hyrcan, II, at time of Zugoth, 
 
 23. 
 
 I 
 
 Ibn Alfual, Joseph, translated 
 commentary on Moed, 68. 
 
 Ibn Almuli, Nathaniel, trans- 
 lated commentary on Seder 
 Kodashim, 69. 
 
 Ibn Chabib, Jacob, En Jacob of, 
 76, 
 
 Ibn Ezra, commentator, 187. 
 
 Ibn Galbai, Isaac, commentary 
 Or ei U: 
 
 Ibn Gaon, Shem Tob, Migdal Oz 
 of, defended Maimonides, 74. 
 
 Ibn Tibbon, translated Shemone 
 Perakim, 69. 
 
 Ide b. Abin, R., Amora, 53; suc- 
 ceeded Mar Jemar, continued 
 work on Talmud, 53. 
 
 Idolater, for alien, 79n. 
 
 Idolatry v. Aboda Zara. 
 
 Identical opinions, 216. 
 
 Iggereth, of Sherira Gaon, 6n. 
 
 Ila, R., teacher of Jonah, 48. 
 
 Immersion, Day of, v. Tebul 
 Yom. 
 Implication, argument from, 
 
 248; refutation, 257. 
 Incest, 177. 
 
 Inclinations, to good, to evil, 
 269, 270. 
 Incongruity, of expressions, 
 
 207; in question, 239. 
 Inconsistency of principle in 
 Mishna, 213; of opinion, 218. 
 Incorrect, expression, 209. 
 Indefinite expression, 209. 
 Indirect v. Argument; argu- 
 ment, 248; refuted, 258, 259; 
 reasoning, 263. 
 
 Individual opinions, given by 
 
340 
 
 Jehudah Hanasi, 5; conflict 
 between majority and, 192. 
 Indulgence, warning against, 
 
 ole 
 
 Industry, Bibliography on, 314. 
 
 Inference v. Kal-ve-Chomer 
 from major and minor, 128; 
 terms used to draw an, 181, 
 132; result of, outset of, most 
 essential part of, end of, 
 132ff; restriction in applica- 
 tion of, 184-136; refutation of, 
 136, 137, 138; reinstatement 
 of refuted, 138, 139; sophis- 
 tical, 139, 140, 141; refutated 
 in conclusion, 188: 
 
 Inheritance, Bibliography on, 98, 
 306. 
 
 Injury, plague of leprosy, 154; 
 to slave, cause for freedom, 
 iy 
 
 Interpretation, of Scriptures by 
 Akiba, 29; of Agada, 30; of 
 Scriptures by R. Jehuda, 33; 
 of Scriptures, poor, in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 106; hermeneu- 
 tics, 117, 186; two methods of, 
 117, of PH alacha:alevaleedid ss 
 123; of Agada, homiletical, 
 118, 127; rules of, derived 
 from Mosaic law, 122, 122n; 
 new method of, 124; Rabbin- 
 ical, 127, 134; Talmudic, on 
 penal code, 185n; on restric- 
 tion of application of infer- 
 ence, 135, 137; analogies in, 
 142, 148; parallel to Gezera 
 Shava in legal, 144, 144n; 
 Talmudic Heckesh used in, 
 152; of law, modern, 131, 135, 
 142, 158, 156; Binyan Ab in 
 Rabbinical, 156; in Talmud by 
 Binyan Ab, 160; modern, re- 
 sembles Rabbinical, on par- 
 ticular and general, 164; ac- 
 cording to context, 174n, 
 175n; on reconciliation of con- 
 flicts, 175n, 176; Rabbinical, 
 of bastard, 177; of law, mod- 
 ern, on analogy from excep- 
 tional tradition, 186; Herme- 
 neutics, artificial method of, 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 186; of Amora how intro- 
 duced, 225; Biblical,» 25130im 
 debate on Mishna on law of 
 Amora, 261; of term Mechil- 
 ta, 284; methods of, same in 
 Mechilta and Siphre, 285. 
 
 Introducing, a statement, 198. 
 
 Introductory Works and Trea- 
 tises, on Talmud, 83; in He- 
 brew, 83-84; in modern lan- 
 guages, 84; historical, 84; en- 
 cyclopedic, 86; reference, 86, 
 87; introduction to Siphra of 
 Weiss, 19n. 
 
 Investigation, type of question, 
 as Fos, lp tes seri Np 
 
 Isaac b. Abdimi, R. Jehuda Ha- 
 nasi entrusted Mishna to, 281. 
 
 Isaac b. Joseph, Amude Golah 
 OL ia 
 
 Isaac ‘b. Meir, grandsoneeos 
 Rashi, Tosaphist, 67. 
 
 Isaac b. Samuel, nephew of 
 Rabbenu Tam, Tosaphist, 67. 
 
 Isaac, Joshua, Noam Yerusha- 
 layim of, 298. 
 
 Isaac, A. S., on Agada, 296. 
 
 Ise b. Juda, Semi-Tana, 39. 
 
 Ishmael b. Elisha, High Priest, 
 Grandfather of R. Ishmael, 
 28 
 
 Ishmael b. Elisha, author of Me- 
 chilta, 18, 283; school of, 20, 
 29, 36, °2838, 284, 280,028 7 seas 
 author of Sifre, 20, 283; con- 
 troversy with R. Elazar b. 
 Azaria, 27; teacher of, 27; 
 controversy with Akiba, 28, 
 126; logical rules of, 28; thir- 
 teen rules of, 29, 124, 127; Me- 
 chilta of School of, 29, 284; 
 controversy with R. Jose the 
 Galilean, 30; taught R. Meir, 
 31; method of interpretation 
 of, 34; rules in Siphra, 128; 
 on capital punishment, 148; 
 Heckesh, not a rule of, 152; 
 on wave offering on Sabbath, 
 154; general and particular 
 of, 188; not followed by me- 
 jiaeval commentators, 187; 
 Mechilta, Siphre of school of, 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES ~ 341 
 
 284; Siphra contains com- 
 mentary of School of, 285; 
 Midrash on Numbers and 
 Deuteronomy from school of, 
 285; comment. on rules of, 
 309; authorities on, 287. 
 
 Ishmael b. Jochanan, R., Tana, 
 36. 
 
 Israel, devoted to Talmud, 108; 
 Pentateuch of, 108; marriage 
 for, 140, 141; bastard prohib- 
 ited from congregation of, 
 abog 
 
 Israelites, prohibited from mar- 
 rying with bastard, 151n; 
 working on Sabbath, 174, 
 175n. 
 
 Isserles, Darke Moshe of, on 
 Turim, 75; annotated Shul- 
 chan Aruch, 75. 
 
 J 
 Jabne, Academy founded at, 25; 
 Gamaliel at, 26; R. Elazar, 
 president of Academy at, 27; 
 Sanhedrin moved from, 28; 
 R. Jose the Galilean at, 380; 
 debate of Akiba and Tarphon 
 
 at, 30; Academy reopened by 
 
 Simon b. Gamaliel II, 35. 
 
 Jacob b. Asher, R., abstract of 
 decisions, 73; Turim of, Code 
 of Law, 74; commentaries on, 
 75. 
 
 Jacob B. Korchai, R., teacher of 
 Jehuda Hanasi, 289. 
 
 Jacob b. Meir, R., v. Rabbenu 
 Tam. 
 
 Jafe, Samuel, R., collection of 
 Agada of, 76. 
 
 Janai, Alexander, at time of 
 Zugoth, 23. 
 
 Janai, R., Semi-Tana, Amora, 
 lived at Sephoris, teacher of 
 R. Jochanan b. Napacha, 39, 
 a2. 
 
 Jastrow, M., Dictionary of Tal- 
 mud, on texts of Talmud, 299. 
 
 Jawitz, on written Mishna, 281. 
 
 Jehuda Hanasi, called Rabbi, 
 37; Rabbenu, 289; Patriarch, 
 5, 387; codifies Oral Law, 5, 
 220, 285; question his author- 
 
 ship of Mishna, 5n; carried 
 Oral Law in mind, 6n, 59n; 
 in Tosephta, decisions after 
 death of,.17; disciples, 17, 37, 
 3929h.t-Chiya, R. Chanina b. 
 Ghama, 41, R.. Jochanan, A2; 
 teachers after, 23; son of Si- 
 mon b. Gamaliel II, 36, 37; 
 triendly.toek. Nathan, 37; 
 excludes Symmachos, 37; 
 birth of, 37, 289; teachers of, 
 37, 289; Academy of, at Beth 
 Shearim, at Sepphoris, at Ti- 
 berias, 737; .deathy.41,5. 293; 
 anonymous Mishna in work 
 of, 191; appoints Chanina b. 
 Chama, 290; appoints Gama- 
 liel as Patriarch, 290; author- 
 ities on, 289. 
 
 Jehuda’ b. lai; Ry; author) of 
 Siphravsl 952 sana, 5 lndis- 
 ciple of R. Eliezer, of Akiba, 
 32, 178; eloquence at Usha, 
 
 _interprets Scriptures, 33; sons 
 of, 33; controversy with R. 
 Jose, 33; his son, 38; opposed 
 to analogy from juxtaposi- 
 tion, 178; controversies with 
 R. Nehemiah, 284. 
 
 Jehuda b. Isaac, of Paris on To- 
 saphoth, 67. 
 
 Jehuda b. Nathan, son-in-law of 
 Rashi, supplements Rashi, 66; 
 Tosaphist, 67. 
 
 Jeremiah, v. Jirmiah; R., Amo- 
 ra, 48; disciple of R. Zera, 
 casuistry of, expelled, 48; se- 
 riessol, 245*_Zera,. pupil, of, 
 292; authorities on, 293. 
 
 Jerusalem, Talmud v. Talmud, 
 Palestinian; Talmud, a mis- 
 nomer, 58; R. Obadya in, 69; 
 Jacob Chagiz in, 70. 
 
 Jerushalmi, v. Palestinian, 
 Fragments of Ginzberg, 298, 
 299. 
 
 Jerushalmiski, on Babylonian 
 Amoraim and _ Palestinian 
 Talmud, 290. 
 
 Jew-Haters, attacked in Tal- 
 
 mud, 116. 
 
342 
 
 Jewish Encyclopedia, for gen- 
 eral references. 
 
 Jewish, Jurisdiction abolished, 
 54; scholars study Palestin- 
 ian Talmud, 62; life guided 
 by Rabbinical Law, 71; Theo- 
 logical Seminary, MSS. in, 
 299; non-, on value of Tal- 
 mud, 105-107; scholars on 
 value of Talmud, people, soul 
 OLF 07 stministry 2007-108. 
 109; love, 107; law, 108; “re- 
 ligion, source of, 112-113; his- 
 torians on Saboraim, 294; 
 legend in Agada, 295. 
 
 Jews, during Middle Ages, per- 
 secuted, 77; Talmud as litera- 
 ture of, 105; duties of, to Gen- 
 tiles, 278, 279. 
 
 Jirmiah, R., v. R. Jeremiah. 
 
 Jochanan b. Broka, R., Tana, 
 28; authority on Civil Law, 
 30; other teachers with, 30; 
 authorities on, 287; disciple, 
 R. Joshua b. Chanania, 288. 
 
 Jochanan b. Napacha, Amora, 
 39, 42, 290; disciple of R. Je- 
 huda Hanasi, of R. Oshaya, 
 of R. Janai, of Chanina b. 
 Chama, 42; ’method Of snl 2* 
 lays foundation for Talmud, 
 42, 58; befriends Resh Lack- 
 ish, 43; disciples of, R. Ela- 
 zar, R. Ame, R. Ashi, R. Chi- 
 ya b. Abba, Simon b. Abba, 
 45; Rabba, 47; Levi b. Sissi, 
 290; debates with Resh Lack- 
 ish, 261; as author of Siphre, 
 290; authorities on, 290. 
 
 Jochanan ». Nuri, Tana, 28; 
 discussions with Akiba, 29; 
 disciple of Gamaliel II, 29, 30; 
 authorities on, 288. 
 
 Jochanan, the Sandelar, Tana, 
 O43 disciple Ofek. Akiba, 34° 
 recorded opinions of, 34; au- 
 thority on, 288. 
 
 Jochanan b. Zaccai, R., Tana, 
 24; disciple of R. Hillel, 25; 
 founder of Academy, 25; Elie- 
 zer b. Hyrcanos, disciple of, 
 26; Joshua, disciple of, 26; 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Nahum of 
 authorities on, 
 
 contemporary, 
 Gamzu, 124; 
 286. 
 
 Joel, M., on R. Jehuda b. Ilai, 
 288; on R. Jose b. Chalafta, 
 288; on R. Simon b. Judai, 
 288. 
 
 Joffe, J. A., on Raba, 294. — 
 
 Jonah, R., Amora, 48;eRauay 
 teacher of, 48; R. Jeremiah, 
 48; Talmud quotes, 48; head 
 of Academy at Tiberias, 293. 
 
 Jonathan, Tana, 36; disciple of 
 R. Ishmael, 36. 
 
 Jonathan, R. (the elder), Semi- 
 Tana, Amora, 39. 
 
 Jordan, S. A., on R. Jochanan 
 b. Napacha, 290. 
 
 Jose, R., Amora, 55; at Pumba- 
 ditha, Sabora, 55; helped 
 complete Babylonian Talmud, 
 60 
 
 Jose b. Bun, R., completed Pal- 
 estinian Talmud, 58n. 
 
 Jose b. Chalafta, R., Tana, 31; 
 born at Sepphoris, disciple of 
 Akiba and Tarphon, banished, 
 33; controversies of, 33; au- 
 thorities on, 288. 
 
 Jose the Galilean, Tana, 28; au- 
 thority on sacrifice and tem- 
 ple service, 30; R. Eliezer, 
 son of, 127; authorities on, 
 288. 
 
 Jose b. Joezer, first of Zugoth, 
 22s 
 
 Jose b. Jochanan, first of Zu- 
 goth, 22. 
 
 Jose bu Juda, R:, “Lanaymage 
 friend of Jehuda Hanasi, 38: 
 opinions of, 38; authorities on. 
 239; 
 
 Jose b. Tadai, argument with 
 R. Gamaliel, 140, 141. 
 
 Jose b. Zabda, R., Amora, 48; 
 last Rabbinical ’ authority in 
 Palestine, 48; regarded as 
 compiler ‘of Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 58n; colleague of Jonah, 
 48, 293: head of Academy at 
 Tiberias, 293; authorities on, 
 PAS Be 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Joseph b. Chama, father of 
 Raba, 50. 
 Joseph b. Chiya, Amora, 48; 
 
 disciple of R. Juda, R. She- 
 sheth, 49; succeeded Rab at 
 Pumbaditha, 49; called Sinai, 
 49; made Targum of Bible, 
 49, 293; his pupil, Abaye, 49; 
 refutes question, 255n; de- 
 bates with Rabba, 261, 262, 
 263; opposed by Abaye, 262, 
 263; authorities on, 293. 
 
 Joshua, R., Father of R. Huna, 
 292. 
 
 Joshua b. Bathyra, R., Tana, 
 Dis 
 
 Joshua b. Chanania, R., Tana, 
 25; disciple of Jochanan b. 
 Zaccai, 26; humiliated by Ga- 
 malielell> ©2775 <controversy 
 with R. Elazar b. Azaria, 27; 
 on mission to Rome, 28; 
 taught Akiba, 29; refutes R. 
 Eliezer, 129; authorities on, 
 287; taught R. Jochanan b. 
 Broka, 288. 
 
 Joshuath, Korcha,k;, Tana, 31; 
 biography, 35; as son of Aki- 
 ba, 35; disciple R. Elazar b. 
 Simon, 38; authority on, 288. 
 
 Joshua b. Levi b. Sissi, R., Amo- 
 ra, 41; authority, 43; differs 
 from R. Jochanan and Resh 
 Lakish, 43; expert in Agada, 
 43; taught by Bar Kappara, 
 289; teachers of, 291. 
 
 Joshua b. Levi, not R. Joshua b. 
 Levi b. Sissi, 291. 
 
 Joshua b. Perachia, one of Zu- 
 goth, 22. 
 
 Josiah, R., Tana, disciple of R. 
 Ishmael, 36. 
 
 Jost, I. M., on compilation of 
 Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 85; 
 on study of Talmud, 112. 
 
 Juda b. Baba, R., Tana, 28; the 
 Chasid, 30; killed by Romans, 
 30; renews ordination of R. 
 Meir, 31; ordains seven disci- 
 ples, 32; ordains R. Jose b. 
 Chalafta, 33. 
 
 Juda b. Bathyra, R.,Tana, 25, 27. 
 
 Juda b. Jecheskel, R., Amora, 
 
 343 
 
 45; taught by R. Zeira, disci- 
 ple of Rab and Samuel, 46, 
 225; founded Academy at 
 Pumbaditha, 46, 47; succeeded 
 Huna at Sura, 46, 292; taught 
 Rabba, 49. 
 
 Juda b. Lakish, R., Semi-Tana, 
 39. 
 
 Juda b. Tabai, one of Zugoth, 
 2os 
 
 Judah liek: sbatmarch Al au- 
 thorities on, 290. 
 
 woudahwelliwet:,batriarch 4), 
 290; Amora, 290; on school 
 for children, 290; authorities 
 on, 290; Hillel II, son of, 293. 
 
 Judah b. Padayah, teacher of 
 R. Joshua b. Levi, 291. 
 
 Judaism, conflicts with, in Tal- 
 mud, 106; professors of, 109; 
 unknown without Talmud, 
 109, 110; leaders of, 114; de- 
 velopment of, 114; sects of, 
 WATE 
 
 Judeo-Christian, worship, op- 
 posed by R. Tarphon, 287. 
 
 Judenthum, Das, und seine Ge- 
 schichte, v. Geiger. 
 
 Judge, make an inference, 132. 
 
 Judges, qualification for, 178. 
 
 Judgment, an inference, 132. 
 
 Judicial Courts, Bibliography 
 on, 97; decisions of, 121. 
 
 Julius III, Pope, destroys Tal- 
 mud, 77n. 
 
 Jus talionis, of Sadducees, 134. 
 
 Justice, 267; duty of man to 
 man, 272, 273; principles of, 
 273; charity related to, 274. 
 
 Juxtaposition, analogy from, 
 similar to Heckesh, 177; the- 
 ory of, 177, 178; Akiba on, 
 177n; Ben Azai upholds, 178; 
 R. Jehuda opposed to, 178; 
 another method of, 178, 179; 
 resha vesefa in, 258. 
 
 K 
 Kaempf, J., on Akabia b. Maha- 
 lel, 286; on Gamaliel the Eld- 
 er, 286. 
 Kafri, court at, 44. 
 Kahana v. Cahana. 
 
344 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Kal, defined, 130; v. Minor v. 
 Kal ve-Chomer. 
 
 Kal ve-Chomer, inference from 
 major and minor, 123; a for- 
 tiori, 1380, 251; defined, 130; 
 theory of, 1380, 1381; biblical 
 prototype for, 131; analogy in 
 modern jurisprudence, 131n; 
 Talmudic terms used in, 132; 
 arrangement of, proposition 
 OL, locsediibers, 102, 6100 ,—.0e" 
 striction in application of, 
 134, 185, 136; refutation of, 
 136, 187, 139, 182, 255n; rein- 
 statement of refuted, 138, 
 139; sophistical, 136, 189, 140, 
 141: left, to discretion “or 
 teachers, 151. 
 
 Kappara, Bar v. Bar Kappara. 
 
 Karo, Joseph, Shulchan Aruch 
 of, 74; code, 75; Kheself 
 Mishna, 74; Beth Joseph of, 
 on Turim, 75, 299; on Talmud, 
 83. 
 
 Karpeles, G., on Talmud, 85. 
 
 Kashya, of Raba or Rabba, 256. 
 
 Kaufmann, D., on Kethuboth, 
 282. 
 
 Kera, Biblical passage, 193, 201. 
 
 Kethuboth, Masechta of WNa- 
 shim, nature of, 11; transla- 
 tions, French of Babylonian 
 Talmud, 91; Latin of Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 92; English, 
 303; German, 303; authori- 
 ties on, 282; v. Special Tal- 
 mudic References. 
 
 Khelim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis efor, 2158: 
 Graubart on, 282; division of, 
 in Tosefta, 283. 
 
 Kherithoth, Masechta of Koda- 
 shim, nature of, 12; v. Special 
 Talmudic References. 
 
 Khesef Mishne, of R. Joseph 
 Karo, 74. 
 
 Khilayim, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 9; Biblical basis, 9n; v. Spe- 
 cial Mishnaic References. — 
 
 Kiddushim, Masechta of Na- 
 shim, 11; nature,of; ligais 
 Translations, Latin of Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 92; v. Special 
 Mishnaic and Talmudic Ref- 
 erences. 
 
 Kimchi, commentator in Mediae- 
 val Ages, 187. 
 
 Kindness, 267. 
 
 Kinnim, Masechta of Kodashim, 
 nature of, 13; not in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 60; anony- 
 mous commentary on, 69; 
 Abraham b. David on, 297; 
 R. Asher on, 298. 
 
 Kircheim, R., published lesser 
 treatises, 64; criticism of 
 Syrileio, 298. 
 
 Klal, Uphrat v. General and 
 particular, as a general prin- 
 ciple, 198; as general’ rule, 
 LOA? 
 
 Klein, S., on R. Tarphon, 287. 
 
 Klotz, M., on Ebel Rabbathi, 
 64n. 
 
 Klueger, H., on Eduyoth, 282. 
 
 Knowledge, encouraged, 271. 
 
 Kobak, on Hermeneutics, 128; 
 commentary on Talmud, 128. 
 
 Kobetz al Yad, of Adler, S., 6n, 
 84. 
 
 Kodashim, Seder of Mishna, 11; 
 Masechtoth of, 12; none of, in 
 Palestinian Talmud, 58; in 
 Babylonian Talmud, 60; com- 
 mentary on, translated into 
 Hebrew, 67; translation of 
 Mishna, 302. 
 
 Kohen, E. H., Chrestomathy of, 
 301. 
 
 Kohler, on R. Abbahu, 292. 
 
 Kohut, Alexander, Aruch Com- 
 pletum of, corrected, 81, 254, 
 255n. 
 
 Kol, introducing generalization, 
 194, 204. 
 
 Krauss, S., on R. Tarphon; 2575 
 on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 289; on 
 R. Simon B. Elazar, 289; Lex- 
 icon of, 308; Translation of 
 Mishna Sanhedrin, 310. 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Krochmal, on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 
 289; Yerushalayim Habnu- 
 Van, 200. 
 
 Krotoschin, edition of Palestin- 
 ian Talmud, with commentary, 
 70, 80, 300. 
 
 Kultur und Literaturgeschichte 
 der Juden v. J. Fuerst. 
 
 Kuthim, a Minor Treatise, 296. 
 
 L 
 
 Labor, on Sabbath, 138, 1389, 
 177; forms of, in Talmud, 177; 
 as a duty, 272. 
 
 Lamperonte, Isaac, Encyclope- 
 dia on Talmud, 86. 
 
 Landau, M., on language of 
 Mishna, 15n; edition of Aruch, 
 81; on Rabban Gamaliel, 286; 
 on Akiba, 287. 
 
 Language of Mishna, 15; bib- 
 liography on, 15n, 282; of 
 sages, 16; of Maimonides, of 
 Turim, 75; of Thora, 125, 126. 
 
 Lapiduth, on Raba, 294; on 
 Huna, 292. 
 
 Last Gate v. Baba Bathra. 
 
 Latin, used in Mishna language 
 15; words explained in Aruch 
 81; translations of Mishna. 
 88: of Babylonian Talmud, 
 90; of Palestinian Talmud, 
 92; of Maccoth, 302. 
 
 Lauterbach, on Mechilta, 284, 
 285; on R. Simon b. Gamaliei, 
 288; on Rabba bar Chana, 
 293; on Rabba bar Huna, 293; 
 on Rafram bar Papa, Rafram 
 II, 294; on Talmud, 301. 
 
 Law, v. Oral, Written, v. Hala- 
 cha, general, bibliography on, 
 96-99, 306, 314-316; moral, in 
 Talmud, 111; interpretation 
 of, 118; determination of, 118, 
 119: Oral harmonized with 
 written, 121, 186; Roman, 
 121n; Aramaic for Biblical, 
 122; biblical, not generally 
 Mosaic, 122, 122n; support 
 for, 123; law from Moses on 
 Sinai, 123; restrictive or per- 
 missive, 185; no minor or ma- 
 
 345 
 
 jor in penal law, modern in- 
 terpretation of, analogous in 
 Talmudpeeto soos ali hee, 
 156; basis for new, 186; re- 
 stricting time of slavery, 144; 
 application of Gezera Shava 
 gel. Conighhe WPM Vs, sy Mate 
 Roman, affects Jewish, 149n; 
 traditional, derived by Heck- 
 esh, 155; on duties of women, 
 on courts, 153; special and 
 general, 156; Mosaic, as gen- 
 eral, 162; Rabbinical, on pro- 
 hibited marriages, 165n; tra- 
 ditional, on influence of 
 judges, 178; Mosaic, on 
 judges, 179; modern, on anal- 
 ogy from exceptional, 180n; 
 unstated reason of, 1938; con- 
 cerning act to be done, 197; 
 Biblical source of, 200, 201; 
 reason of, 201, 202, 225, 244; 
 particular of, 202; contrary to 
 preceding, 214; unclean prin- 
 ciple of, 226; difference con- 
 cerning reason of, 232; source 
 of, 244; debated principle of, 
 261; discussed in Bible, 267; 
 divine, to be studied, 271; all 
 pervading principle of, 279; 
 ceremonial, 278; decisions 
 fixed by Saboraim, 295; terms 
 determine rules of, 310; terms 
 with ritual.o10; 
 
 Laws, v. Oral, and Written; v. 
 Halacha, v. Rabbinical, tradi- 
 tional, 56; obsolete, 72; com- 
 mendatory, 74; prohibitory, 
 74; liturgical, ritual, mar- 
 riage, civil of R. Jacob, 74; 
 open to interpretation, 104. 
 
 Lazarus, on Mar Ukba, 291. 
 
 Learning, as part of Kal ve- 
 Chomer, 132. 
 
 Lebrecht, on written Mishna, 
 6n; on Talmud, 78. 
 
 Lechem Mishne, of R. Abraham 
 de Boton, 74. 
 
 Lederer, Ph. Chrestomathy, 82. 
 
 Legal, v. Hermeneutics v. inter- 
 pretation, 118, 123; interpre- 
 tation parallel to Gezerah 
 
346 
 
 Shava, 144, 144n; principle of 
 generalization, 156; responsi- 
 bility in case of loss, 262; dis- 
 cussions, ethics in, 267. 
 
 Legal and Political Hermeneu- 
 tics v. Lieber. 
 
 Legends, v. Agada; in Agada, 
 
 Zou. 
 Lehman, M., published commen- 
 tary of Solomon Syrileio, 71. 
 Lemberg, R. Meir Lublin of, 68; 
 edition of R. Samuel Jafe, 76. 
 Leon, Sir, v. R. Jehuda b. Isaac. 
 
 Leper, brings’ trespass-offer- 
 mee 173: 
 Leprosy v. Negaim, investi- 
 gated, 154. 
 
 Lerner, on origin of Mishna, 
 2aLs 
 
 Leszynski, R., 
 Hanasi, 289. 
 
 Levi, father 
 Levi, 291. ° 
 
 Levi b. Sissi, R., disciple of Je- 
 huda Hanasi, 38; emigrates 
 to Babylonia, 42; teacher of 
 Mar Samuel, 44; authorities 
 on, 290; father of R. Joshua 
 b. Levi, 291. 
 
 Levi b. Sissi, disciple of R. Joch- 
 anan, 290; friend of R. Abba 
 b. Cahana, 290. 
 
 Levias, Caspar, grammar of, 82. 
 
 Levirate, marriage, 10. 
 
 Leviticus, v. Special Biblical 
 References, basis for Mid- 
 rashim, 283; for Siphre, for 
 Siphra, 284. 
 
 Levy, Isaac, German translation 
 of Sabbath, 90. 
 
 Levy, J. Neuhebraisches 
 Chald. Worterbuch of, 81. 
 
 Lewin, L., on R. Simon b. Jochai, 
 288. 
 
 Lewy, on changes in Mishna, 
 281; on Mechilta of R. Simon 
 b. Jochai, 284. 
 
 Lexicon Talmudicum, of Johann 
 Buxtorf, 81; on value of Tal- 
 
 _mud, 108. 
 
 Lexicons, for study of Talmud, 
 81-82, 300. 
 
 on R. Jehuda 
 Olin OSHilAmeD: 
 
 und 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Leyden, codices of Talmud at, 
 ils ONLS oura Gaal oe 
 
 Lieber, Francis, Legal and Po- 
 litical Hermeneutics of, 121n; 
 on traditional law, 144; on 
 analogy from exceptional, 
 180n. 
 
 Life, conduct of, 64. 
 
 Lifschutz, Israel, R., commen- 
 tary of, 297: 
 
 Limitation, extension and, of 
 Nahum, 1242°125,79126-sein 
 Mishna, 195; of a provision, 
 208; of point of difference, 
 LTE 
 
 Limiting, words and_ phrases, 
 195, 
 
 Linguistics, Bibliography on, 
 JIU TeoUS so kbs 
 
 Lipscheutz, O., Chrestomathy 
 of, 300. 
 
 Lists, of terms and phrases in 
 Mishna, 191-197, 198-199. 
 Liturgical Laws, Tur Orach 
 
 Chayim, 74. 
 
 Liturgical rules v. Berachoth. 
 
 Lives, of Saints, 105. 
 
 Loeb, Elijah b. Jehudah, com- 
 mentary on Zeraim, Baba 
 Kamma, etc., 298. 
 
 Loew, Leopold, on compilation 
 of Mishna, 6n; ‘“Lebensalter” 
 of, on Rabba of Thospia, 54n. 
 
 Loewenmayer, on R. Jochanan 
 b. Napacha, 290. 
 
 Lord, as father, 131. 
 
 Loss, legal responsibility in, 262, 
 202% 
 
 Love, of God, 271; missing in 
 ancient philosophers, 274. 
 Lowe, W. H., text of Mishna, 
 
 {1 ePAls 
 
 Lublin, Talmud edition of, 79. 
 
 Lunz, edited Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 298; fragments found in 
 Vatican by, 299. 
 
 Luria, Solomon, commentary of, 
 
 Luzzatto, on compilation of 
 Mishna, 6n; grammar of, 82. 
 Lydda, school of, 26, 287; R. 
 Tarphon, of, 28; school at, re- 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 347 
 
 opened, 42, 287; R. Simlai at, 
 43. 
 
 M 
 
 Maaseh, report cited as proof, 
 194, 214. 
 
 Maaseroth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 9; Latin 
 translation of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 92; v. Special Mish- 
 naic References. 
 
 Maaser Sheni, Masechta of Ze- 
 raim, Biblical basis for, 9; 
 Latin translation of Palestin- 
 ian Talmud. 
 
 Maccabean Wars, time of Zu- 
 goth during, 22. 
 
 Maccabees, Pentateuch at time 
 oy ae AO 
 
 Maccoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
 Biblical basis for, 11; Tosa- 
 photh of R. Perez on, 296; 
 last perek of, missing, 297; 
 translations, 91, 302; v. Spe- 
 cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
 References. 
 
 Machlokat, division of opinion, 
 191, 192; limiting the point of 
 difference, 217. 
 
 Maschsirim, Masechta of Teha- 
 roth, nature of, Biblical basis 
 fore 4: 
 
 Magen Abraham, on Orach Cha- 
 yim, of R. Abraham Gum- 
 biner, 75. 
 
 Maggid Mishne, of Don Vidal di 
 Tolosa, on Maimonides, 74. 
 Magic, in Babylonian Talmud, 
 
 106. 
 
 Mah Mazinu, v. as-we-find anal- 
 ogy. 
 
 Maimonides, Moses, on writing 
 down of Mishna, 6n; on order 
 of Masechtoth, 8n; introduc- 
 tion to Seder Zeraim, 15; com- 
 mentary on Mishna, 58, 68, 
 BOTee Mim. 01,7 68,569 sa al- 
 mudical code of, 69; Mishne 
 Torah of, 73; commentary on, 
 74, 75; compared with Turim, 
 75; in editions of Mishna, 78; 
 in Babylonian Talmud, 78; on 
 Talmud, 83; on Mosaic Law, 
 
 122n; criticized by Nachman- 
 ides, 122n; on untraceable 
 traditions, 123; on Jew and 
 Gentile, 280n; Eight Chapters 
 of, 297; commentary of Pe- 
 sachim, 297. 
 
 Major, v. Kal ve-Chomer; in- 
 ference from, 123, 130. 
 
 Majority, decision, 121, 122; 
 conflict between individual 
 and, 192. 
 
 Malachi b. Jacob, on Talmud, 
 86. 
 
 Malter, on value of Tosephta, 
 283. 
 
 Mamorstein, on R. Judah II, 
 290, 
 
 Mamzer v. Bastard. 
 
 Man, killed by brute, 72; as bas- 
 tard, 181; as moral being, 
 269; dignity of, 269; free-will 
 of, 270; duties of, 270; differ 
 from women, 153; accounta- 
 
 Dilly Ol, t0,G0d, 270.2712 re- 
 lation to fellow-men, 272; and 
 Wilese210,) 210,007 1.218 tO 
 all men, 279; salvation of, 
 280. 
 
 Mandelstamm, on R. Joshua b. 
 Chanania, 287. 
 
 Mann, J., on R. Nachman b. 
 Jacob, 293. 
 
 Manna, gathered on Saturday, 
 175; Rashi on, 175n. 
 
 Mantua, Mishna of, 78. 
 
 Manuscripts, of the Talmud, 77; 
 lost and destroyed, 77, 77n; 
 of Palestinian Talmud, 78; of 
 Mishna, 78; basis for recon- 
 structed Midrashic, 284; of 
 separate treatises of Talmud, 
 299. . 
 
 Mar, title for Babylonian teach- 
 er, 41. 
 
 Mar b. R. Ashe, Amora, 53; 
 president at Sura, 53; author- 
 ities on, 294. 
 
 Marginal glosses, 222. 
 
 Margolioth, Moses R., commen- 
 tary on Jerushalmi, 71. 
 
 Margolis, Max L., edited Megil- 
 la, 77n; grammar of, 300. 
 
348 
 
 Mar Jemar (Maremar), Amora, 
 538; succeeded R. Ashe, 53; 
 continued work on Talmud, 
 53. 
 
 Marriage, Levirate, 10; deeds, 
 11; bibliography on, 98, 3807, 
 315; when lawful, 140; con- 
 tracted by money, 149; by 
 contract, 155; prohibited, 165; 
 how contracted, 194; age for, 
 275; encouraged, 277, 278. _ 
 
 Marriage Deeds v. Kethuboth. 
 
 Marriage Laws, Tur Eben Ha- 
 Ezer of R. Jacob, 74; in Tal- 
 mud, 110. 
 
 Mar Samuel, disciple of R. Je- 
 huda Hanasi, 38; Amora, 41; 
 teachers of, 44; succeeded R. 
 Shela, 44; principles of, 44; 
 friend of Rab, 44; defeated 
 Mar Ukba, 44; compiler of 
 Baraithoth, 44n; death of, 45; 
 Rab Juda, disciple of, 46, 225; 
 Rab Shesheth, 46; Rab Nach- 
 man, 47; investigating ques- 
 tions of, 2388; differs from 
 Rab, 262. 
 
 Marx, on written Mishna, 281; 
 on arrangement of Tosephta, 
 283; on Maimonides, 297; on 
 Strack, 301. 
 
 Mar Zutra, Amora, 51; succeed- 
 ed Cahana, 52; succeeded by 
 R. Acha b. Raba, 52. 
 
 Mar Zutra b. Mare v. Mar 
 Zutra, Exilarch, 52. 
 
 Masechta v. Mesichta; division 
 of Seder, 7; derivation of, 7n; 
 quoting a Mishna from anoth- 
 er, 220; oldest in Mishna, 282; 
 particulars of each, 282; Me- 
 chilta for plural of, 284. 
 
 Masechtoth v. Divisions; divi- 
 sions of Seder, 7, 283; differ- 
 ences as to order of, 8; rea- 
 sons for order of, 8n; list of, 
 9-14; in each Seder, 9-14; or- 
 der of, 9-14, 281; in Tosephta, 
 17; in Palestinian Talmud, 
 58; reasons for loss of, 59; in 
 Babylonian Talmud, 60; addi- 
 tional dealing with precepts, 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 63; published by Raphael 
 Kirchheim, 64; with no Rashi, 
 65; missing Babylonian Ge- 
 mara, 66; codices of, 77; been 
 translated, 90. 
 
 Masora, text by tradition, 185; 
 Talmud on, 185, 186; Mikra 
 prevails over, 186; studied by 
 Nachman b. Jacob, 292. 
 
 Masoretic rules, 63. 
 
 Masseket Semahot, on execution 
 of Simon b. Gamaliel, 286. 
 
 Massoreth Ha-Shas, parellel 
 passages on Talmud, 76; im- 
 creased by Isaiah Berlin, 76. 
 
 Mash, Israel on Talmud, 86. 
 
 Master, of slave paid damages, 
 ioe 
 
 Mater lectionis, 122. 
 
 Mathematics, Bibliography on, 
 98. 
 
 Mathia b. Charash, R., disciple 
 of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos, 30. 
 
 Mathnitha Baraitha v. Ba- 
 raitha. 
 
 Matza v. unleavened bread. 
 
 Maxims, value of, 308; in Tal- 
 mud, 267n; of Rabbis, 269; on 
 austerity, 277, 278; of ethical 
 teachings, 279. 
 
 Mayence, scholars of, comment 
 on Talmud, 296. 
 
 Measurements, of Temple, v. 
 Middoth. 
 
 Meat, and milk, 137. 
 
 Meat-offerings v. Menachoth. 
 
 Mebo-Ha-Jerushalmi, of Z. 
 Frankel, on commentary to 
 Palestinian Talmud, 71, 84. 
 
 Mebo-Ha-Mishna, of Jacob 
 Brill, v. Jacob Brill. 
 
 Mechilata, correct for Mechilta, 
 285. 
 
 Mechilta, akin to Mishna, 17; 
 commentary, 18; meaning of 
 term, 18, 284, 285; Biblical 
 material used in, 18; legal and 
 homiletical character of, 18; 
 sections of, 18; passages 
 quoted in Talmud, authorship 
 of, 18; brought from Pales- 
 tine to Babylon, 18; Baraitha 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 inet (e280 editions: OL,.100; 
 R. Ishmael, author of, 29, 
 284; R. Simon b. Jochai, 284; 
 on Deuteronomy, 284; D. 
 Hoffmann on, 284; Lauter- 
 bach’s rearrangement of, 284; 
 Sifra contains passages of, 
 285; mentions Ishmael and 
 school, 287; references to, 119, 
 134 13b,.l55n.4130,0L47,,161n, 
 166,113, 220,2222. 
 
 Mechuza, Rab Shesheth at, 47; 
 academy at, 50; chief seat of 
 learning, 50. 
 
 Medicine, Bibliography on, 100, 
 308, 317; French translations 
 of references to, 91; in Tal- 
 mud, 103. 
 
 Megilla, Masechta of Moed, na- 
 ture of, 10; reading of Scrip- 
 ablegeicte” SWS SW Gere Kenia e rere. i het 
 English translation of, 303; 
 German translation, 90, 303; 
 Latin, 92; v. Special Mishnaic 
 and Talmudic References. 
 
 Meila, Masechta of Kodashim, 
 Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
 mentary on, 66n; Tosaphoth 
 of R. Perez on, 296; v. Spe- 
 cial Talmudic References. 
 
 Meir of Rothenburg, R., special 
 Tosaphoth of, 297; commen- 
 tarveot, 297+) hiss disciples, 
 299: 
 
 Meir, R., systematizes Oral Law, 
 5; in Tosephta, 17; arranges 
 Oral Law after Akiba, 29, 32; 
 Tana, 31; at Academy of Aki- 
 ba, at school of Ishmael, 31; 
 Chacham, 32, 35; conflict with 
 Simon b. Gamaliel II, 32, 37; 
 Agadist, 32; controversy with 
 Rew OSe,. 60° his, disciple, R- 
 Simon b. Elazar, 38; on courts 
 open in day, 154; authorities 
 on, 288; origin and death of, 
 288. 
 
 Meir Ha-Cohen, R., author of 
 Hagahot Maimuniyoth, 74, 
 299; disciple of R. Meir of 
 Rothenburg, 299. 
 
 349 
 
 Meir Lublin, R., commentary of 
 on Talmud, 68. 
 
 Meir b. Samuel, R., son-in-law 
 of Rashi, Tosaphist, 67. — 
 Melamed, J. E., on Abba Areca, 
 
 291. 
 
 Memra, definition of, phrases 
 of, 224; in Talmud, 224-226; 
 treatment of, 227; questioning 
 authenticity of, 227; in col- 
 lision with Mishna or Barai- 
 tha, 228; superfluous, corrob- 
 orated by Baraitha, 229; cor- 
 recting the, 230; with a dif- 
 ference of opinion, 231-236. 
 
 Menachoth, Masechta of Koda- 
 shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
 Tosaphoth of R. Samson on, 
 296; Latin translation of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 90; v. 
 Special Talmudic References. 
 
 Mendelsohn, Moses; his teacher 
 R. David Fraenkel, 70. 
 
 Mendelsohn, S., on differences 
 between Hillel and Shammai, 
 286; on Akabia b. Mahalel, 
 286; on R. Eliezer b. Hyr- 
 kanos, 287; on R. Jochanan b. 
 Napacha, 290. 
 
 Mesichta v. Masechta. 
 
 Menstrous, the, v. Nidda. 
 
 Mental tournaments, of Talmuc 
 141. 
 
 “Merely,” use of, 125. 
 
 Meziatha, middle case, 192. 
 
 Mezuza, a minor Treatise, 296. 
 
 Micah, teacher of ethics, 267; v. 
 Special Biblical References, 
 2078 
 
 Middle, case at, 192. 
 
 Middle Ages, Jews during, 109; 
 teachers of, 111; Biblical 
 Commentators of, 187. 
 
 Middle Gate v. Baba Metzia. 
 
 Middoth, Masechta of Kodashim, 
 nature of, 13; not in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 60; R. She- 
 maya comments on, 69; not in 
 Mishna® of \Tanaim; 2813" 1. 
 Hildesheimer on, 282; R. Ash- 
 er on, 298; v. Special Mish- 
 naic references. 
 
350 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Midrash, traditional interpreta- 
 tion, 18° Utwomkindsmol, 113° 
 Halachasyisag ls 0 120° 
 Agada, 18, 118, 119, 126; leg- 
 end of R. Meir in, 32; lexicon 
 for, 80; result of Derash, use 
 of Gezera Shava, in, 149n; 
 Rabba quoted, 269n, 270n, 
 272n; Tanaitic, based on Pen- 
 tateuch, 283, 284; on Deuter- 
 onomy of School of Ishmael, 
 285; Ha-Gadol in Genizah, 
 285. 
 
 Midrashim, Biblical basis for, 
 284; Baraitha in, 286; R. Ish- 
 mael and school mentioned in, 
 287. 
 
 Mielziner, on Gezera_ Shava, 
 145n; on Marriage, 165n. 
 
 Migdal Oz, of Shem Tob Ibn 
 Gaon, 74. 
 
 Mikra, reading of text, 185; 
 Talmud on, 185, 186; preva- 
 lence over Masora, 186. 
 
 Mikvaoth, Masechta to Teha- 
 roth, nature of, 138; commen- 
 tary of R. Meir of Rothenburg 
 OnpezZor. 
 
 Mildness, Rabbis on, 274. 
 
 Mill, man deprived of, 156. 
 
 Milton, John, Paradise Lost of, 
 105. 
 
 Ministry, Jewish, 108, 109. 
 
 Minor Feast v. Moed Katon. 
 
 Minor, v. Kal ve-Chomer; infer- 
 ence from major and, 123, 
 130: 
 
 Minors, Bibliography on, 307. 
 
 Minor Treatises, of Talmud, 64, 
 296. 
 
 Miriam, incident of, example of 
 Kal-ve-Chomer, 131, 135. 
 
 Miscellaneous Agada v. Agada. 
 
 Mishna, a section of Perek, 7; 
 Gemara attached to,’62. 
 
 Mishna (general) as part of 
 Talmudys3> onigingot 4231 
 codification of oral, 4; of Je- 
 huda Hanasi, 5, 29, 220, 281, 
 285; of Akiba and Meir, 5; 
 revised by disciples of Je- 
 da, 6; explanation of term, 6; 
 
 authorship of Jehuda Hanasi 
 questioned, 6n; written or not, 
 6n, 281; additions to, 6n; di- 
 visions of, 7, 281, 283; order of 
 Masechtoth of, 8, 8n; order of 
 succession in, 9-14; language 
 of, 15, 15n; style of expres- 
 sion in, 16; kindred works, 
 17; contrasted with Baraitha, 
 21, 285; authorities of, 22; 
 teacher of, 28; laws on courts 
 of Priests in, 25; opinions of 
 Simon b. Gamaliel in, 25; 
 quotes R. Jehuda Hanasi, 32; 
 records R. Elazar, 34; quotes 
 R. Jochanan the Sandelar, 34; 
 collection by R. Nechemia, 35; 
 opinions of R. Joshua Korcha 
 in, 35; opinions of Simon b. 
 Gamaliel II in, 36; opinions 
 of Symmachos in, 37; opinion 
 of R. Jose b. Juda in, 38; Ta- 
 naim not mentioned in, 39; 
 expounders of, 40; expound- 
 ed at Academies, 40; princi- 
 ples accepted in, 40; expound- 
 ed by R. Jochanan, 42; inter- 
 preted by Resh Lakish, 43; 
 Rabba on, 49; interpreted by 
 Abaye, 50; R. Ashe compiler 
 of material in, 51; discussions 
 of Amoraim on, 56; Maimon- 
 ides’s commentary on, 58; 
 Masechtoth of, in Palestinian 
 Talmud, 58, 78; New Hebrew 
 in, 61; additional Masechtoth 
 in form of, 63; commentaries 
 to, 65, 68, 69, 70, 299; MSS. 
 of, 78; printed editions of, 78; 
 translations of, 88, 302-303; 
 Amoraim found support for 
 authorities in, 148; resembles 
 Roman Law, 149n; entrusted 
 by R. Jehuda to Roba, 281; 
 systems of others, 281; of Bar 
 Kappara, R. Hiyya, 281; trea- 
 tises of Tosephta not identical 
 with, 282, 283; arrangement 
 of, 283; of R. Meir, followed 
 by Tosephta, 283; teachers of, 
 286; commentaries printed in, 
 298; text of Lowe supported 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 351 
 
 by Palestinian Talmud, 299; 
 identical in Babylonian and 
 Palestinian, 299; translation 
 of, 302; Tamid, oldest treatise 
 Deol oo 
 
 Mishna (treatment of), struc- 
 ture of, 191; anonymous, un- 
 disputed, 191; treatment of 
 anonymous, 198; reports con- 
 flict of opinion, 191; contain- 
 ing two or more cases, 192; 
 general rule in, 194; general- 
 ization in, 194; stated number 
 of cases in, 195; limitation in, 
 195; no limitation extended 
 in, 196; unexpected case, 196; 
 self-evident case in, 196; act 
 to be done or done in, 197; di- 
 rect permission in, 197; ‘“‘ac- 
 ceptable and valid cases in, 
 197; explained and discussed 
 in Gemara, 198; explaining 
 words and phrases of, 198; 
 meaning of a whole statement 
 in, 199; seemingly different or 
 superfluous statement in, 199; 
 investigating particular cir- 
 cumstances of a case in, 200; 
 source of law investigated in, 
 200; reasons for anonymous, 
 201; general basis of partic- 
 ulars of a law in, 202; au- 
 thorship of anonymous, 203; 
 comprehensive and_ limiting 
 terms in, 203-204; reference 
 to certain statement in, 204; 
 qualifying a provision of, 204; 
 Miklal in, 206, 207; incongru- 
 ity in, 207; tautology in, 207; 
 order objected to in, 208; 
 mode of expression in, ob- 
 jected to, 208; objected to a 
 certain limitation of provi- 
 sion in, 208; unnecessary pro- 
 vision of, in, 209; unnecessary 
 repetition in, 210; analogous 
 cases in, cases in a climax in, 
 212; omission of cases in, 212; 
 decision not in accordance 
 with established principle in, 
 213; inconsistency of princi- 
 ple in, 218, 214; law contrary 
 
 to preceding law in, 214; con- 
 flict of authoritative passages 
 in, 214, 215; difference of 
 opinions, 216; inconsistency of 
 opinions in, 218; Gemara 
 quoting the, 220; terms used 
 in referring to, 220-223; quo- 
 tations from in Gemara; con- 
 trary to teaching of, 224; Ge- 
 mara treats of proper reading 
 of passage in, of meaning of 
 an expression in, of unclear 
 principle of law in, of formal 
 decision in, of case not pro- 
 vided for in, 226; Memra in 
 collision with, 227, 228; cor- 
 roborates Memra, 229; Memra 
 discusses correct reading of, 
 231; Memra treats of differ- 
 ent explanation of terms in, 
 231; referred to in support 
 Of an, opinion, 72330304 so dit 
 ference between Tanaim in, 
 204 contradiction” of; +244; 
 Supports argument, 248; con- 
 
 flict with decision of, 254; par- 
 allellism in, 258; juxtaposi- 
 tion in, 258; debated provision 
 of, 261; passage used in de- 
 bate, 262. 
 
 Mishnayoth, Mishna edition, 8; 
 collected by R. Oshaya, 289; 
 “en ben” at beginning of, 310. 
 
 Mishne L’Melech of Jehuda Ro- 
 sanes, on Maimonides, 74. 
 
 Mishne Torah of Maimonides, 
 73; annotations and commen- 
 
 wtarysto, (4: 
 
 Mixtures v. Khilayim; prohibi- 
 tion of, 165. 
 
 Mnemonical signs, 60n; explain- 
 ed, 86. 
 
 Die Mnemotechonich des Tal- 
 muds, of Jacob Brill, 60n. 
 
 Moabite, as bastard, 150, 151, 
 181; basis of Gezera Shava, 
 Lot: 
 
 Modern, interpretation of law, 
 analogies, to major and mi- 
 nor, 181, 1385; to Gezera Sha- 
 va, 142; to Heckesh, 153; to 
 Binyan Ab, 156; Toullier on, 
 
352 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 157n; resembles Rabbinical, 
 on General and Particular, 
 164, 165, 166n; on explana- 
 tion from context, 174n; on 
 reconciliation of conflicts, 
 175n; on exceptional, 180n. 
 
 Modern Languages, works in, 
 on Talmud, 84-85, 301; Bib- 
 liography on, 312. 
 
 Modes, of treating an anony- 
 mous Mishna, 198; polite, of 
 objection, 260; of expression, 
 succinct and elliptical in Tal- 
 mud, 264. 
 
 Modification, of the rules of 
 General and Particular, 169- 
 173; of a statement, 204. 
 
 Moed, Seder of Mishna, 7; num- 
 ber of Masechtoth in, 10; in 
 Palestinian’ Talmud, 58; in 
 Babylonian Talmud, 60; Mai- 
 monides on, 68; R. David 
 Fraenkel on, 70; in Ahabat 
 Zion v’ Jerushalaim, 298; 
 translation of Mishna, 302. 
 
 Moed Katon, Masechta of Moed, 
 nature ,01,7 10 seve OL aed 1 
 Translation, Latin of Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, English of 
 Babylonian, 303; v. Special 
 Talmudic References. 
 
 Monasticism, 
 Rabbis, 277. 
 
 Montgomery, on Kuthim, 296. 
 
 Moral, law in Talmud, 111; 
 teachings in Agada, 118; du- 
 ties in Talmud, 268; ideas 
 crystallized by Rabbis, 269; 
 being, man as, 269; teaching 
 with regard to Jew and Gen- 
 tile, 279. 
 
 Morality, principles of, 267; 
 with knowledge, 271; exces- 
 sive ideas of, 277; aim of re- 
 ligion, 280. 
 
 Mortality, in Talmud, 112. 
 
 Mosaic Law, as Biblical, 122n; 
 special legislation in, 157; 
 every provision general of, 
 162; on unfitness of Judges, 
 lis) 
 
 Mordecai b. Hillel, R., notes of, 
 
 discouraged by ) 
 
 accompanying Rif, 73; code 
 of, 298; compendium of, 298; 
 disciple of R. Meir Ha-Cohen, 
 
 BID, 
 Mosaisches Recht, of Saal- 
 schuetz, on Gezera Shava, 
 145n) 
 
 Moses, v. Mosaic Law, second 
 Book of, interpreted, 18; con- 
 clusion from law of, 122; laws 
 Trommel Ze. 
 
 Moses of Brisk, R., Chelkath 
 Mechkokeh, on Eben Ha- 
 Ezer, 75. 
 
 Moses of Coucy, R., 67, 74; au- 
 thor of Tosaphoth, 67; Smag 
 of, 67; Great Law Book of, 74. 
 
 Motives, for duty, 271. 
 
 Mourning, rules for, 63. 
 
 Mueller, J., on Sopherim, 63n. 
 
 Munich, codices of Talmud at, 
 77: MS. of Babyloniamaty 77 
 299; critical editions at, 80. 
 
 Mussaphia,, Benjamin, additions 
 of, to Aruch, 81. 
 
 Mystic, speculation, of Ben Zo- 
 ma, 288. 
 
 Mystical Agada v. Agada. 
 
 N 
 
 Nachman b. Isaac, R., Amora, 
 48; teacher of Raba, 50; pu- 
 pil of R. Nachman b. Jacob, 
 Resh Calla, 50, at Pumba- 
 ditha, succeeded by R. Cha- 
 ma, 51; debates R. Chisda, 
 261; authorities on, 294. 
 
 Nachman (b. Jacob), R., Amo- 
 ra, 45, 292; disciple of Mar- 
 Samuel, 47; chief justice at 
 Nahardea, 47; taught s@hs 
 Nachman, 50; debates with 
 R. Huna, R. Shesheth, Raba, 
 261; authorities on, 292; 293% 
 R. Abba b. Abuha, father-in- 
 law of, 292; studied Masora, 
 292. 
 
 Nachmani v. Abaye. 
 
 Nachmanides, criticizes 
 monides, 122n. f 
 
 Nachum (Nahum), R., of Gim- 
 zo, Tana, 27; teacher of Aki- 
 
 Mai- 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 353 
 
 ba, 27; rules of interpretation 
 of, 124, 125; followed by Aki- 
 Dat 2b, 
 
 Nachum, the Mede, Tana, 25. 
 
 Nahardea, Academy at, Mishna 
 expounded at, 40; R. Simlai 
 at, 48; Mar Samuel at 44; 
 exilarch at, 44; R. Shesheth 
 at, 46; R. Nachman, chief jus- 
 tice at, 47; R. Chama at, 51; 
 Amemar at, 51; Rab Dime of, 
 52; passes out of existence, 
 52° Rab, R. Asst’ at, 291. 
 
 Names, of Masechtoth, 281, 282. 
 
 Naples, edition of Mishna, at, 
 Tie 
 
 Narbonne, R. Meir Ha-Cohen 
 Ori 4. 
 
 Nashim, Seder of Mishna, 17; 
 Masechtoth of, 10; in Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 5S walleot, 
 Babylonian Talmud, 60; ae 
 mentary of Maimonides on, 
 67; commentary of R. David 
 Fraenkel on, Palestinian, 70; 
 translated, 382. 
 
 Nasi, of Sanhedrin, 22; title for, 
 23; Gamaliel the Elder, 24. 
 Nathan (the Babylonian), R., 
 Tana, 36; R. Simon b. Gama- 
 liel appoints him Ab Beth 
 Din, 35, 37; retired and rein- 
 stated, 37; R. Jehuda speaks 
 of, 37; author of Aboth de R. 
 Nathan, 37, 63; on kindling 
 fire on Sabbath, 172n; emi- 
 grated to Palestine, 289; au- 
 
 thorities on, 289. 
 
 Nathan b. Jechiel, R., Aruch of, 
 
 Lexicon for Talmud, 81, 300. 
 
 Nations, of the world, Baby- 
 lonians for, 79n; in Babylon- 
 ian Talmud, 106. 
 
 Natural History and Science, 
 Bibliography on, 100, 308, 309. 
 
 Nature, in Talmud, 112. 
 
 Nazarite, The, v. Nazir. 
 
 Nazir, Masechta of Nashim, 
 Biblical basis for, 11; com- 
 mentary on, 66n; Tosaphoth 
 
 of R. Perez on, 296; v. Spe- 
 
 cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
 References. 
 
 Nechemia, R., Tana, 31; disci- 
 ple of R. Akiba, 35; authority 
 on sacrificial law, 35; contro- 
 versy with Jehuda b. Ilai, 35, 
 288. 
 
 Nechunia b. Hakana, R., 27; 
 teacher of R. Ishmael, 24; re- 
 tained rules of Hillel, 125. 
 
 Nedarim, Masechta of Nashim, 
 nature of, Biblical basis for, 
 11; commentaries on, 66; 
 commentary on, not Rashi’s, 
 296;. Tosaphoth. of Rx .Perez 
 on, 296; v. Special Talmudic 
 References. 
 
 Negaim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis for, 11; R. Meir 
 of Rothenburg, on, 297. 
 
 Negligence, loss through, 262. 
 
 Nehemia, R., in Tosephta, 17. 
 
 Nehemiah, verse from, on mean- 
 ing of term “to buy,’ 149n; 
 v. Biblical References. 
 
 Neighbor, love of, 279. 
 
 Neubauer, Geographie du Tal- 
 mud, on Rabba of Thospia, 
 54n. 
 
 Neumark, on names and order 
 of Masechtoth, 282. 
 
 New Year v. Rosh Hashana. 
 
 ING Wale hiOLl ieee Vio. A yeahs tve 
 Samuel Adler of, 110. 
 
 Nezikin, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
 number of Masechtoth of, 11; 
 in Palestinian Talmud, 58; in 
 Babylonian, 60; commentary 
 of Maimonides on, 69; R. Da- 
 vid Fraenkel on, 70; Mishna, 
 translated, 302. 
 
 Nidda, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis for, 18; in Pal- 
 estinian Talmud, 58; in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 60; v. Special 
 Talmudic References. 
 
 Nisibis, school at, 27; R. Elazar 
 at, 34. 
 
 Nissim, Rabbenu, on written 
 Mishna, 6n; commentary of, 
 on Nedarim, 66; accompanies 
 Tifeecoe 
 
354 
 Nitai of Arbela, one of Zugoth, 
 22 
 
 Noam Yerushalayim, of Joshua 
 Isaac, 298. 
 
 Non-Israelite, Idolater for, 79n. 
 
 Noun, extension in use of, 126, 
 126n. 
 
 Novellae, of R. Meir Lublin, 68; 
 of R. Samuel Edels on Tal- 
 mud, 68. 
 
 Number, of cases stated, 195. 
 
 Numbers, a basis for Mid- 
 rashim, 20, 283; for Siphre of 
 school of R. Ishmael, 284, 285; 
 for Siphre Zuta of school of 
 R. Akiba, 284, 285; v. Special 
 Biblical References. 
 
 Nutt, on Kuthim, 296. 
 
 O 
 
 Obadya, v. Bartinoro, R., Berti- 
 noro, commentary on Mishna, 
 69; method of, 78; in edition 
 of Mantua, 78; commentary 
 on Khilayim, 165n. 
 
 Oaths v. Shebuoth. 
 
 Obedience, of man to God, 271. 
 
 Objection, against Memra, 228- 
 230; how removed, 231; type 
 of question, 237; question of, 
 239-240; special kinds of, 240, 
 241, 242; set forth as dilem- 
 ma, 242, 243; answer to weak, 
 243; to a proposition, 258; 
 mild, 260; to Mishna removed, 
 263. 
 
 Ohaloth, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
 mentary of R. Meir of Rothen- 
 burg on, 297. 
 
 Omer, offering of, 176. 
 
 Opinions, ethical in Talmud, 
 268. 
 
 Omission, of a distinction, 208; 
 of a case, 212; of names in 
 discussion, 264. 
 
 Opinions, anonymous, of Jehu- 
 da Hanasi, 5; on Talmud, 103- 
 ibAbeconilictio1gi 01-922 GRO 
 ferences of, 192; of Hillel and 
 Shammai, 192; different, 
 without reason, 193; dissent- 
 ing, 204, 216; difference of, 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 216; identical, 216; inconsist- 
 ency of, 218; opposite, 219, 
 229; of Tanaim, Amoraim, 
 225; of Amoraim in agree- 
 ment, 225; of Tanaim oppo- 
 site, 226; differing in Memra, 
 231-236; principle underly- 
 ing difference of, 282; con- 
 sistency of, 2382; discussion 
 of difference of, 233; differing 
 between Amoraim, 234; au- 
 thorship of, two opposite, 235; 
 two or more alternatives of, 
 242; accepted, 249; confirm- 
 ed, 255; in debate, 261; of R. 
 Joseph accepted, 263; in Mish- 
 na altered, 281. 
 
 Oppenheim, Ch., on R. Elezer 
 b. Hyrkanos, 287; on R. Jose 
 the Galilean, 288. 
 
 Oppenheimer, Joachim on Tal- 
 mud, 84. ; 
 
 “Or,” extension in use of, 126. 
 
 Orach Chayim Tur, of R. Jacob, 
 Code, 74; commentary on, 75. 
 
 Oral Law v. Mishna, composi- 
 tion of, 4, 120; transmitted, 
 4; first attempt to arrange, 
 4; R. Akiba subdivides, R. 
 Meir continues to divide, 5; 
 R. Jehuda Hanasi codifies, 5, 
 6n; not to be written down, 
 120; authority of, 120; har- 
 monized with writers, 121, 
 186. 
 
 Oral, teaching, defined as Mish- 
 na, 7; report, how reported, 
 22: 
 
 Order v. Seder; division of 
 Mishna, 7; in Mishna, object- 
 ed to, 207; of laws in Toseph- 
 ta, 283. 
 
 Orders v. Sedarim. 
 
 Ordinances of Gamaliel the Eld- 
 er, 24. 
 
 Origin, of the Mishna, views on, 
 281; of Tosephta, 17, 288. 
 Orla, Masechta of Zeraim, Bib- 
 lical basis for, 9; Latin trans- 
 lation of Palestinian Talmud, | 
 92; omitted from Tosephta, 
 
 283. 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 855 
 
 Oshaya, R., disciple of R. Jehu- 
 da Hanasi, 39; in Tosephta, 
 17; compiler of Tosephta, 39; 
 R. Abba Areca, nephew of, 
 39; R. Jochanan, disciple of, 
 42; disciple of Bar Kappara, 
 289; Mishnayoth of, 289. 
 
 Oxford, Bodleian Library at, 
 68; codices of Talmud at, 77; 
 MSS. of Mishna at, 78; MSS. 
 of Palestinian Talmud at, 78, 
 299. 
 
 E 
 
 Padua, A. M., on Levi b. Sissi, 
 290. 
 
 Pairs v. Zugoth. 
 
 Palestine, origin of Mechilta in, 
 19; origin of Siphra in, 19; 
 language of, 37, 61; Acade- 
 mies at, 40; chief Amora of, 
 42> R. Zera of, 46; Ulla of, 
 47; last Rabbinical authorities 
 
 in, 48; Talmudists from, 104; | 
 
 schools of Babylon differ from 
 schools of, 198, 199; authori- 
 ties@O0, arlLO. Support, 12ba,, K. 
 Nathan migrates from, 289; 
 Mishna identical in Babylonia 
 and, 299. 
 
 Palestinian v. Talmud, Acade- 
 mies, Schools, Amoraim, 17, 
 39, 41n; Amoraim ordained 
 by Nasi, 41; Amoraim of first 
 generation, 41,42; Amoraim of 
 second generation, 45; Amo- 
 raim of third generation, 48; 
 Academies decay, 48; authori- 
 ties quoted in Babylonian Ge- 
 mara, 62; authorities support 
 Babylonian, 229; decisions, 
 263; R. Meir a, 288; Joshua 
 |e AREAS Cbg PARR Cer TEAS OAS thigs 
 Amora, 292. 
 
 Papa b. Chama, R., Amora, 48; 
 disciple of Abaye and Raba, 
 51, 292; new school at Nares 
 of, 51; dialectical method of, 
 51; another by same name as, 
 
 5ln; answering questions, 
 239; series of problems of, 
 245; debates with Raba, 
 
 Abaye, 261; authorities on, 
 294 
 
 Paradise Lost, of John Milton, 
 105. 
 
 Paragraph, section of Perak v. 
 Mishna; division in Mishne 
 Thora, 73. 
 
 Parah, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
 mentary of R. Meir of Roth- 
 enburg on, 297. 
 
 Parasha, division of Siphra, 20. 
 
 Parashoth, divisions of Siphra, 
 20. 
 
 Parallel passages, similar to Ge- 
 zera Shava, 1438, 258. 
 
 Parents and children, 276. 
 
 Paris, auto-de-fe of Talmud at, 
 Times COGICES r OL Lalmugea bt, 
 77; fragments at, 299. 
 
 Parma, codices of, 77; MSS. of 
 Mishna at, 78; MSS. of Pal- 
 estinian Talmud, at, 78, 299. 
 
 Parseeism, Bibliography on, 100. 
 
 Particles, in Mosaic Law, 124. 
 
 Particular v. Terms; v. General 
 and Particular; the, defined, 
 63; terms follow general, 164; 
 include general, 165; partic- 
 ular and general with, 166; 
 two general proceeded or fol- 
 low by, 168; requiring gen- 
 eral, 169; known as limita- 
 tion, 183; as explanation of 
 general, 183. 
 
 Paschal Lamb, treated in Pe- 
 sachim, 10; on Sabbath, 138, 
 139, 145, 146; on eve of Pe- 
 sach, 176n. 
 
 Passage, v. Reconciliation of 
 conflicts; parallel, 143, 258; 
 explained from context, 174, 
 175; contiguous, 177; differ- 
 ence concerning explanation 
 OmeaeL: 
 
 Passover, treated in Pesachim, 
 10; unleavened bread on, 176; 
 waving of omer on, 176. 
 
 Patriarch, Simon b. Gamaliel 
 Il, 35; R: Gamaliel III, 41, 
 2I0-eh Juda hlina be heaGae 
 maliel IV, R. Judah III, 4, 5, 
 
356 
 
 POO ee iel gel lye o 2050 me by, 
 Joshua b. Levi, as collector 
 109 be AGB be 
 
 Patristic Literature, compared 
 with Talmud, 105. 
 
 Paul, pupil of Gamaliel the Eld- 
 er, 286. 
 
 Peace, chapters on, 64; a duty, 
 272; virtues of, 274. 
 
 Peah, Masechta of Zeraim, Bib- 
 lical basis for, 9; Z. Frankel’s 
 commentary on Palestinian 
 Talmud, 71; German transla- 
 tion of Palestinian Talmud, 
 92; v. Special Mishnaic Ref- 
 erences. 
 
 Peiser, Simon, on Talmud, 86. 
 
 Penal Law, no minor to major 
 in, 135; analogies in Modern, 
 135n; in Scriptures, 135n. 
 
 Pentateuch, basis for oral law, 
 4; rule for writing, 63; law 
 of Israel, 20; on meaning of 
 acquire, 149n; - juxtaposition 
 in, 178; basis for Midrashim, 
 250. 
 
 Perak, single division of Ma- 
 sechta, 7; Gemara attached to, 
 62. 
 
 Perakim, divisions of Masechta, 
 7; number of, as basis of or- 
 der of Masechtoth, 8n; num- 
 ber of, 9-14; how designated 
 in Mishna and Talmud, 14; in 
 Rabbinical Literature, 14; 
 listed after Berachoth, 15; 
 number of, in Tosephta, 17; 
 lacking in Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 59; in Mishne Torah, 73. 
 
 Perek Emorai, attack on hea- 
 then practices, 107. 
 
 Perek Hashalom, nature of, 64. 
 
 Perez b. Elias, R., of Corbeil, in 
 Tosaphoth, 67, 296. 
 
 Perla, Kalman, Encyclopedic 
 work of, 302. 
 
 Perlitz, S., on R. Abbahu, 291, 
 292, 
 
 Permission, to act, direct and 
 indirect, 197. 
 
 Persecutions, of Jews by Per- 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 sians, 53; of Middle Ages, 77; 
 of Saboraim, 295. 
 
 Persian, persecutions, 53, 295; 
 words in Babylonian Talmud, 
 61; influence on Agada, 61; 
 views in Talmud, 106. 
 
 Personal pronoun, extension in 
 use of, 126, 
 
 Persons, with running issue, v. 
 Zabim. 
 
 Pesachim, Masechta of Moed, 
 nature of, 10; fragments of 
 at Cambridge, 77; MSS. of 
 Babylonian at Columbia, 77; 
 commentary on last Perek of, 
 66°) Translations,” Gatingees 
 Palestinian, 92; English of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 302, 303; 
 Maimonides on, 297; v. Spe- 
 cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
 References. 
 
 Pesaro, Masechtoth of Babylon- 
 ian Talmud printed at, 79n. 
 Peshat, method of interpreta- 
 
 tion; LI his el 22d 
 
 Pesikta de R. Kahana, on Di- 
 visions of Mishna, 281. 
 
 Petuchowski, on R. Ishmael, 287. 
 
 Phariseeism, opposed by Saddu- 
 cees, 140. 
 
 Philosophers, ancient and mod- 
 ern, 267; differences in an- 
 cient. 274, 
 
 Philosophy, 
 Sg 
 
 Phineas b. Jair, R., teacher of 
 R. Joshua b. Levi, 291. 
 
 Phoebus, Senior, commentary 
 OTUs : 
 
 Phrases, regarding structure of 
 Mishna, 191-198; of Mishna, 
 198; introducing an argu- 
 ment, 247. 
 
 Physical) in, Talmud? 10a: 
 
 Pietrokow, edition of Talmud of, 
 299; 
 
 Piety, with knowledge, 271. 
 
 Pilpuly26is 
 
 Bibliography on, 
 
 Pinner, C. M., translation of 
 Babylonian Talmud _ Bera- 
 choth, 90. 
 
 Pirke Aboth v. Aboth. 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES ope 
 
 Pirke Tosaphists, 
 Tosaphists, 68; 
 Talmud, 79. 
 
 included in 
 
 Piskoth, paragraphs of Siphre, 
 
 20. 
 
 Plain Meaning, v. Peshat. 
 
 Plato, deprecates labor, 272. 
 
 Plimo, Semi-Tana, 39. 
 
 Plongian, Mordecai, on Gezera 
 Shava, 129. 
 
 Ploughing, on Sabbath, 154. 
 
 Poetry, Bibliography on, 100. 
 
 Poland, study of Talmud iteG2. 
 
 Police Law, Bibliography on, 98. 
 
 Political Documents in Talmud, 
 1038. 
 
 Pompeii, Talmud called a, 106. 
 
 Poor, gleanings for, 179; treat- 
 ment Oi AAS, 279, 
 
 Posen, R. ‘Samuel Edels of, 68. 
 
 Posquieres, Abraham b. David 
 ae 
 
 Post- Talmudic, period, Aboth 
 d’Rabbi Nathan belongs to, 
 63; additions to Gezera Sha- 
 va, 152; Memra in, literature, 
 224; literature no support for 
 Mechilta, 284; times, Barai- 
 tha in, 286. 
 
 Potter, on reconciliation of con- 
 ichs sel con. 
 
 Prague, Yom Tob. of, 70; -edi- 
 tion of Babylonian Talmud at, 
 19; 
 
 Prayers, in Talmud, 110. 
 
 Precepts, ethical, ritual, liturgi- 
 eal, 63. 
 
 Predicates, 
 154: 
 
 Premise, first, second of Kal ve- 
 Chomer, 132; terms for, 132; 
 in antecedent disputed, 136: 
 contradicted by conclusion, 
 140. 
 
 Preparations v. Machshirim. 
 
 Priests, Chanina, chief of, 25. 
 
 Principle, general, 193; of law, 
 underlying, 201; Rabbinical, 
 202; decision not in accord 
 with, 213; inconsistency of, 
 213, 233; underlying differ- 
 ence of opinion, 217, 232; of 
 
 for Heckesh, two, 
 
 Decisions of 
 
 Amoraim, 225, 260; of law, 
 not clearly stated, 226; of 
 law, debated, 261; of moral- 
 ity, 267; Rabbis develop, 269; 
 of justice, 273; all- embracing, 
 Paes) 
 
 Problem, type of question, 237; 
 question of, 243-244: solution 
 of 244, 245; series of, 245; be- 
 fore higher authority, 2.45, 
 246. 
 
 Profane Things v. Chullin; 
 analogy in, not applicable to 
 sanctified, 180, 
 
 Prolepsis, anticipation, 240. 
 
 Promises, faithfulness to, 273. 
 
 Prohibitory commandments, 
 Same for man and woman, 
 153; of Sopherim, 165n; of 
 working on Sabbath, 172. 
 
 Prophets, Targum on, ‘edited by 
 Re Joseph, 2933 
 
 Pronominal suffix, extension in 
 use of, 126. 
 
 Pronoun, as basis for Gezera 
 Shava, 149, 
 
 Proom, on Raba, 294; on R. 
 Nachman b. Isaac, "294: on 
 Agada, 295. 
 
 Property, found, treated in Baba 
 Metzia, 11; modes of acquir- 
 ing, 14, 149: embezzled, 167, 
 S184; moveable, 167, 184: dam- 
 ages to, 194. 
 
 Proposition, in harmony with, 
 252; refutation of, 254, 255; 
 objection to, 258; without par- 
 allel, 260. 
 
 Proprietor, responsible for dam- 
 age, 172. 
 
 Proverbs, Bibliography on, 100, 
 308; v. Special Biblical. Ref- 
 erences. 
 
 Provision, qualifying, 204; . ex- 
 tending a, 205; limitation of 
 a, 208; out of place, 209; un- 
 necessary, 2097 210; repetition 
 Ola 2 LONE ile similar, in two 
 Masechtoth, O11, 
 
 Pryoska, on R. Papa, 294. 
 
 Psalms, mentioned, 144; y. Spe- 
 cial Biblical References, 
 
358 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Psychology, Bibliography on, 
 LOD gaol te 
 
 Pumbaditha, Academy at, Mish- 
 na expounded at, 40; founded 
 by R. Juda, 46; surpasses 
 Sura, 49; Rabba’ flees from, 
 AO se Re Joseph at, 40s eA Dave 
 at, "49; surpassed by Mechuza, 
 50; R. Nachman at, 50; R. 
 Chama Ats00. Rafram, head 
 apy bile. Rte Zebid, 51s R.sDime; 
 51, 294: Rafram, R. Cahana, 
 Mar Zutra, 5 lay Ree A chassp: 
 Raba, R. Gebiha, 52; Rafram 
 II, Rechumai, R. Sama b. 
 Raba aAumo. loses earlier in- 
 fluence, 53; R. Jose at, 54, 60; 
 Saboraic Academy at, closed, 
 295. 
 
 Punctuation, lack of, 264. 
 
 Punishment, discussed in Mac- 
 coth, 11; for neglect of duty, 
 ike 
 
 Purification v. Teharoth; ritual, 
 13: 
 
 Purim, a feast day, 10. 
 
 Questions, asking and answer- 
 ing, 237-246; types of, 237; 
 negative, 237; of investiga- 
 tion, 237, 238; of astonish- 
 ment, 238; of objection, 239; 
 of problem, 234; laid before 
 higher authorities, 245; ar- 
 gument to prove, 247; debate, 
 261; Rab and Mar Samuel 
 differ in, 262; anonymous, 
 264, 
 
 Quotations, from Mishna, 220- 
 223; from Tosephta, 220-223; 
 from Baraitha, 220-223; pur- 
 poses of, 221; ‘referring back 
 to preceding, 229, 223; in Tal- 
 mud, 281; help to restore text, 
 284, 
 
 Quoting, Mishna, 220. 
 
 R 
 Rab. v. Abba Areca; title for 
 Babylonian teacher, 41. 
 Raba, Amora, 48, 293; pupil of 
 R. Nachman, R. Chisda, col- 
 
 league of Abaye, 50; at Me- 
 chuza, 50; discussions with 
 Abaye, 50, 50n; R. Papa, R. 
 
 - Huna, pupils of, 51, 292; Ra- 
 fram, R. Cahana, disciples of, 
 52; Rabina, disciple of, 54; 
 answers objections, 240; pro- 
 pounds series, 245; opposite 
 view to, 256; debates with R. 
 Nachman, Rabba, Abaye, Pa- 
 pa, Rabina 15) 261% Sbirthwe 
 293; discussions with R. 
 Huna, 293; authorities on, 
 294. ; 
 
 Rabad, v. R. Abraham b. David. 
 
 Rabba b. bar Chama, Amora, 
 47> pupil of R. Jochanan, 47% 
 his nephew, R. Chiya, 293; 
 authorities on, 293. 
 
 Rabba (Rab Abba) b. Huna, 
 Amora, 48; son of Huna, 49; 
 succeeded R. Chisda, 49; at 
 Sura, 51; authorities on, 293. 
 
 Rabba b. Nachmani, Amora, 49; 
 disciple of R. Huna, R. Juda, 
 R. Chisda, on Mishna and 
 Baraithoth, flees from Pumba- 
 ditha, 49; succeeded by R. Jo- 
 seph, 49; Abaye, nephew of, 
 49; teacher of Raba, 50; an- 
 swers objections, 239; refutes 
 questions, 255n; opposite view 
 
 ' to, 256; debates with R. Jo- 
 seph, Raba, Abaye, 261; sec- 
 onded by Abaye, 262, 263; au- 
 thorities on, 293. 
 
 Rabba, of Thospia, Amora, 54; 
 succeeds Mar b. R. Ashi, at 
 Sura, 54; authorities on, 54n. 
 
 Rabban, as title, 23; R. Simon 
 b. Gamaliel II, 35n. 
 
 Rabbenu, Ha-Kadosh, 289. 
 
 Rabbi, v. Jehuda Hanasi; as 
 title, 28; Palestinian title, 41. 
 
 Rabbis, eminent, study Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 62; study Tal- 
 mud, 108; use Derash and 
 Peshat, 118, 119; on majority, 
 122; derive laws, 122; search 
 for Biblical’ support, gigas 
 adopt rules of Ishmael, 127; 
 on “eye” for “eye,” 134; on 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 859 
 
 Gezera Shava, 146; on Heck- | 
 
 esh, 158; generalize from par- 
 ticular, 156; method in gen- 
 eralization, 157; on unclean 
 fowls, 158; on freeing slaves, 
 161; on restoration of lost 
 property, 171; on fitness of 
 judges, 179; on extension and 
 limitation, 184; taught, 222; 
 cherished Bible, 268; on com- 
 munity, on celibacy, 277. 
 
 Rabbinical, v. Interpretation; 
 literature, manner of desig- 
 nating Perakim, in, 14; juris- 
 prudence of R. Nachman, 47; 
 law, R. Joseph on, 49; litera- 
 ture, Geiger on, 111; inter- 
 pretation, 127, 134, 135; inter- 
 pretation, analogies in, 142; 
 Gezera Shava in, 145n; of 
 bastard, 151n, 177; of Binyan 
 Ab, 156; of generalization of 
 special laws, 157; resembling 
 modern interpretation, 164n; 
 law on prohibited marriages, 
 interpretation of embezzled 
 property, 167; of eating un- 
 leavened bread, 176n; princi- 
 ple, 202; codes accepted opin- 
 ion of R. Joseph, 263; world 
 in two schools, 284. 
 
 Rabbinovicz, Raphael, review of 
 printed editions of Babylon- 
 ian Talmud, 80; critical edi- 
 tion of Babylonian Talmud 
 begun by, 80; author of Dik- 
 duke Sopherim, 80. 
 
 Rabbinowicz, Michael, transla- 
 tion of Babylonian Talmud, 
 fal, 
 
 Rabe, Johann Jacob, German 
 translations of Mishna, 88; 
 Babylonian Berachoth trans- 
 lated by, 90; Palestinian Ber- 
 achoth translated by, 92; Pal- 
 estinian Peah translated by, 
 2, 
 
 Rabh, the Superior, 122. 
 
 Rabina I, Amora, pupil of Raba, 
 54n; debates with Raba, 
 Abaye, 261, R. Ashe, 262; Ra- 
 
 bina II, nephew of, 294; death 
 OL, 629). 
 
 Rabina b. Huna II, Rab Abina, 
 nephew of Rabina I, 294; 
 Amora, 54, 54n; succeeds 
 Rabba of Thospia, 55, 60; as- 
 sists R. Jose in compilation 
 of Talmud, 54, 60; authorities 
 on, 294. 
 
 Race, no distinction of, 279. 
 
 Rachlin, on R. Joshua b. Levi, 
 BO 
 
 Rafram b. Papa, Amora, 51, 
 51n; head of Pumbaditha, 
 51n, 52; disciple of Raba, 52; 
 succeeds R. Dime, 52; pupil of 
 R. Chisda, authorities on, 294. 
 
 Rafram II, Amora, 53; at Pum- 
 baditha, 538; succeeded Rab 
 Gebihah, 53; pupil of R. Ashi, 
 294. 
 
 Rapaport, S., on compilation of 
 Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 86; 
 on Agada, 295. 
 
 Rashbam v. Samuel b. Meir. 
 
 Rashi, on Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; 
 on Baraitha of Mar Samuel, 
 44n; on Babylonian Talmud, 
 65; Jehuda b. Nathan, son-in- 
 law of, 66, 67; R. Samuel b. 
 Meir, grandson of, 66; R. 
 Samuel Edels on, 68; R. She- 
 maya, disciple of, 69; Berti- 
 nero follows method of, 70; 
 Rif accompanied by commen- 
 tary of, 73; in first printed 
 edition of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 79; comments on rules 
 of R. Ishmael, 128; on Men- 
 achoth, 76n, 159; in Chulin, 
 65b, 168; on gathering of 
 Manna on Sabbath, 175n; on 
 Sabbath, 49b, 178n; Sanhed- 
 rin, 29a, 179n; on Kiddushin, 
 21b, Shebuoth, 4b, 184n; on 
 Betza, 15b, 201; on Moed Ka- 
 ton, 202; on Betza, 15b, rea- 
 son of law, 202; explains Pe- 
 shita, 210; supporting state- 
 ment of, 221n; on Succah, 149, 
 223; on Betza, 9a, 227; ask- 
 ing a question, 255n; no com- 
 
360 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 mentary of, on certain Ma- 
 sechtoth, 296. 
 
 Ratner, on Levi ib. Sissi, 290; 
 Ahabat Zion v’ Yerushalaim 
 of, 298. 
 
 Rawicz, M., German translation 
 of, Babylonian tractates, 90, 
 303, 308. 
 
 Reading, of Mishna, concerning 
 correct, 231; 
 
 Real analogy, 142. 
 
 Real Encyclopedia, of Hambur- 
 ger, 6n. 
 
 Real Estate, treated in Baba 
 Bathra, 11: embezzlements of, 
 167, 184, 
 
 Reaping, on Sabbath, 154. 
 
 Reason, of law, 193, ZO dao. 
 dissenting teachers i in Mishna, 
 226; of law, difference con- 
 
 cerning, 239, 244; indirect, 
 264. 
 Rechumai, R., Amora, 53; at 
 
 Pumbaditha, Soy 
 
 Reconciliation, of conflicting 
 passages, 127, i S230. 
 
 References works, on Talmud, 
 86. 
 
 Refutation, 254-260; of a propo- 
 sition, O54. 255; of an argu- 
 ment, 255-260. 
 
 Refutation, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
 136; 137; Ulustration of dif- 
 ferent kinds of, 137, 138-sand 
 reinstatement : of Hermeneu- 
 tic arguments, 182; theory of, 
 182; answer to weak, 242: of 
 
 proposition, oA, O55: of. ar- 
 guments, 255, 260; in debate, 
 263. 
 
 Reinstatement, of Hermeneutic 
 arguments, 182. 
 
 Rejoinder, 2438. 
 
 Relations, domestic, to country, 
 Zt, 276, i Ms conjugal, 21D, 
 276: between parents and 
 children, Pad SS ATE 
 
 Religion, and ethics, aim of, 267, 
 280. 
 
 Rephall, M. I. Mishna translated 
 into English, 88. 
 
 Repetition, of a word, in exten- 
 
 sion, 126, 126n; unnecessary, 
 of a provision, 210, 
 
 Report v. Maaseh: cited as 
 Drool, 3194. snow transmitted 
 in Talmud, 225; of Amora 
 differs, 229. 
 
 Reptiles, proof of cleanness of, 
 141, 14in. 
 
 Resha, beginning case, 192. 
 
 Resh Lakish vy. R. Simon b. 
 Lackish. 
 
 Resh Methibta, 
 Academy, 46. 
 Resh-Sidra, academy at, 44; 
 
 Mar Samuel, at, 44. 
 
 Responsa, in Ahabat Zion wv’ 
 Yerushalaim, 298. 
 
 Responsibility, in case of loss, 
 262; of man to God, 270. 
 
 Restitution of property, in case 
 of theft, 1338, 184; in case of 
 loss, 188, 134; of embezzled 
 property, 167; of found prop- 
 erty, 171; pecuniary, 180. 
 
 Restrictive rules, for conclusion, 
 134, 135, 136. 
 
 Revision, latter and first, 59. 
 
 Revue des Etndes Juives. on R. 
 EHlazar b. Hvrkanos. 287. 
 
 Reward, for fulfillment of duty, 
 PHAN 
 
 Rhetoric interrogation, 237. 
 
 Ribkes, Moses, Beer-ha-Gola, on 
 ShuJechan Aruch, 75. 
 
 Rif v. R. Isaac Alfasi. 
 
 Ritual, prayers in Talmud. 110; 
 Biblical support for. 123. 
 
 Ritual Law, v. (Tur) Yore Dea; 
 analogy of civil case not ap- 
 plicable in, 180; Jew and Gen- 
 tile separated by, 278. 
 
 Riva di Trento, printed edition 
 of Mishna at, 78. 
 
 Roba v. Isaac b. Abdimi. 
 
 Rodkinson, M., on history of 
 Talmud, 801; English transla- 
 tion of Babylonian Talmud, 
 303. 
 
 Roman, custom of marriage, 
 149; law, Gajus on, 149n. 
 
 Romans, execute Simon b. Ga- 
 
 president of 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 maliel, 25; execute Akiba, 29; 
 kul R.y Judah b.) Baba, 330; 
 banish R. Jose b. Chalafta, 
 Base assisted by Ry. Hlazar b. 
 Simon, 38; R. Abbahu esteem- 
 ed by, 46; Syrians substituted 
 fOr wi Oem AW, Ol wel ein: 
 
 Rome, school at, 30; R. Simon 
 at, 34; Talmud destroyed at, 
 Tina. city. «substituted. for, 
 79n; Nathan b. Jechiel of, 81; 
 R. Joshua b. Levi visited, 291. 
 
 Rosanes, Jehuda, of Constanti- 
 nople, Mishne l’melech on 
 Maimonides, 74. 
 
 Rosenberg, I., Grammar of, 82. 
 
 Rosenfeld, J., translation of Be- 
 rachoth by, 302. 
 
 Rosenstein, C. D., Chrestomathy 
 of, 300. 
 
 Rosenthal, L. A., on Talmud, 85. 
 
 Rosenthal, on differences  be- 
 tween Hillel and Shammai, 
 286; on Jochanan b. Zaccai, 
 DCO MON mites) Osea Da udae (D. 
 Tai) 572389. 
 
 Rosh Hashana, Masechta of 
 Moed, nature of, 10; transla- 
 tions, German of Babylonian 
 Talmud, 90; English, 303; 
 Latin of Palestinian, 92; of 
 Mishna, 302; MS. in Adler 
 collection, 299; v. Special 
 Mishnaic and Talmudic Ref- 
 erences, 
 
 Rothstein, W., 
 Megilla, 303. 
 
 Royal Library v. Munich. 
 
 Rules v. Hermentutics; of Hillel, 
 25-mOt rsnmael.5 29,309.54 of 
 Jochanan, 42; Masoretic, 63; 
 Sabbath and holiday, 63; for 
 burial and mourning, 64; re- 
 stricting application of Kal 
 ve-Chomer, 134, 185, 136; re- 
 stricting application’ of anal- 
 ogy, 179, 180; general, 194, 
 Mio eeOt alUStice (os Ol. 1sn- 
 mael disputed, 309; literature 
 on, 309. 
 
 Russia, censorship in, 79n. 
 
 translation of 
 
 361 
 
 Saadya Gaon, on Talmud Eretz 
 Yisrael, 296; on rule of Ish- 
 mael, 309. 
 
 Saalschuetz, on Gezera Shava, 
 145n. 
 
 Sabbath, “way,’ 175; labor on, 
 is 
 
 Sabbath, Masechta of Moed, 10; 
 nature of, 10; last of Pera- 
 kim missing in Palestinian 
 Talmud, 59; translation, Eng- 
 lish csStmo0as, German. O0" 
 English of Mishna, 302, 303; 
 R. Samson on, 296; v. Special 
 Mishnaic and Valmudic Ref- 
 erences. 
 
 Sabbath, school teachers, 113; 
 precepts of, 125; importance 
 of, 131; paschal lamb on, 138, 
 145; wave-offering on, 154; 
 labor on, 171, 172n;, manna 
 Ona 4 
 
 Sabbatical Year, The, v. She- 
 biith. 
 
 Saboraim, Babylonian teachers 
 after Amoraim, 54; nature of, 
 54; Rab Jose, one of, 55; 
 make additions to Talmud, 60; 
 put questions, 238n; Jewish 
 historians on, 294, 295; edited 
 Talmud, 295; R. Simuna, R. 
 Ahai of Shabha, 295; perse- 
 cuted, 295. 
 
 Sachs, H., on language of Mish- 
 Nac: 
 
 Sacred Things v. Kodashim. 
 
 Sacrifices, annual, 12; daily, 13; 
 of fowls, 13; R. Jose the Gal- 
 ilean on, 30; laws of, in Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 61; maintain- 
 ed by study, 61. 
 
 Sacrifices v. Zebachim. 
 
 Sadducees, substituted for her- 
 etics, 79n; ideas of, spread, 
 120; make literal interpreta- 
 tion, 1384; against Pharisees, 
 140. 
 
 Sages, taught Oral Law, 23; 
 words of, 191; on early Mid- 
 rashim, 283. 
 
 Salome, at time of Zugoth, 28. 
 
362 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Sama b. Rabba, R., Amora, at | 
 
 Sura, 53. 
 
 Samaritan, substituted for Gen- 
 tile, 79n. 
 
 Sammter, A., German transla- 
 tions of Mishna, 88; of Baby- 
 lonian Baba Metzia, 90. 
 
 Samson b. Abraham, R., Tosa- 
 photh of, 67, Tosaphist, 69, 
 296. 
 
 Samson, of Chinon, on Talmud, 
 83; Sefer Kerithoth of, 128. 
 Samuel, Biblical book, 149n; v. 
 Special Biblical References. 
 
 Samuel v. Mar Samuel. 
 
 Samuel Hanagid, on written 
 Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 83. 
 Samuel b. Abbahu, R., Amora, 
 
 55 
 
 Samuel b. Meir, v. Rashbam; 
 R., 66; supplements work of 
 Rashi, 66, 67; Tosaphist, 67. 
 
 Samuel b. Uri, Beth Samuel on 
 Eben-Haezer, 75. 
 
 Sanctified, analogy, 180. 
 
 Sanhedrin, Masechta, of Nezi- 
 kin, nature of, 11; Perek Che- 
 lek of, not commented on, 69; 
 Agadic material in, 57; trans- 
 lations, Latin of Babylonian 
 Talmud, 90; German of Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 90; French, 
 91; Latin of Palestinian Tal? 
 mud, 92; translations of Mish- 
 na, 302, 303, 310; rules of 
 Hillel in Tosephta, 124n; v. 
 Special Talmudic and Mish- 
 naic References. 
 
 Sanhedrin, contribute to Oral 
 Law, 4, 120; president of, 22; 
 R. Joshua, member of, 26; 
 Bene Bathyra, leaders of, 27; 
 Ishmael, member of, 28; at 
 Usha, 28, 35; Akiba, member 
 Of 2) a Cnachammor evr te 
 Nathan, Ab Beth Din of, 35, 
 37; eligibility for, 141. 
 
 Saphra, R., colleague of R. Assi, 
 ADS! 
 
 Schechter, Solomon, on Aboth 
 d’ Rabbi Nathan, 63; Genizah 
 discoveries of, 285; on Tal- 
 
 mud, 301; on rules of Ish- 
 mael, 309. 
 
 Schiller-Szinessy, M., on Mish- 
 na, 78; on Talmud, 84. 
 
 Scheinen, A., on Rabban Gama. 
 liel, 286. 
 
 Schlatter, on Jochanan b. Zac. 
 cai, 286. 
 
 Schneeburger, H. W., on R. Je- 
 
 huda Hanasi, 289. 
 
 Schools v. Academies; Babylon- 
 ian, Palestinian, 3; of Areca, 
 19; Sifre produced by Baby- 
 lonian, ©20; of -Shamai, 9245 
 1925 “Of =i Hillel 24 gee oe 
 at Lydda, 26, 287; at -Be- 
 kin, 26; at, Nisitbis02 (mean 
 B’ne Brak, 29; at Rome, 30; 
 of R. Elazar b. Shamua, 81, 
 288; of R. Ishmael, 20, 29, 36, 
 283, 284, 285, 287; of Chisda, 
 46; Babylonian and Palestin- 
 jan differ, 198, 199; of R. 
 Akiba, 283; Midrashim of R. 
 Ishmael, 288, 284, 285; text- 
 books of, 285; difference be- 
 tween those of Hillel and 
 Shamai, 192, 286; for chil- 
 dren, 290. 
 
 Schorr, on Halacha le’moshe 
 Mi-Sinai, 309. 
 
 Schulbaum, M., Neuhebrdisch- 
 deutsches Worterbuch of, 82. 
 
 Schwab, Moise, French transla- 
 tion of Berachoth, 92. 
 
 Schwartz, Adolph, new edition 
 of Tosephta, 17n; on differ- 
 ences between Hillel and Sha- 
 mai, 286; on rules of Ishmael, 
 309. 
 
 Sciences, Bibliography on, 100, 
 308, 309. 
 
 Scribes v. Sopherim. 
 
 Scriptural, grounds, 201; pas- 
 sages developed by Rabbis, 
 BO. 
 
 Scriptures, read, 14; badly in- 
 terpreted in Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 106; hermeneutics for, 
 117; two methods of interpre- 
 tation of, 117, 123; basis for 
 law in, 121, 122n; Kal ve- 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 363 
 
 Chomer, 131, 135n; Gezera 
 Shava based in, 143; new law 
 deduced from, 148, 152; Bin- 
 yan Ab from, 159, 160; gen- 
 eral law in, 173; quoted a 
 source of law, 201; contradic- 
 tion between two passages of, 
 240; all embracing principle 
 of law in, 279; legal portion 
 of, basis for Midrashim, 2838. 
 
 Scroll, The, v. Megilla. 
 
 Sechan-Zib, R. Nachman at, 47; 
 Academy at, 292. 
 
 Seclusion, disapproved, 277. 
 
 Second Law, definition of Mish- 
 na, 6: 
 
 Second Tithe v. Maaser Sheni. 
 
 Secret Scroll, for private use of 
 traditional law, 4n. 
 
 Section v. Seder. 
 
 Sedarim, orders of, or series of 
 Mishna, 7; listed with Ma- 
 sechtoth, 9-14; codices of, 77; 
 MSS. of, 78. 
 
 Seder v. Section; division of 
 Mishna, 7; list of Masechtoth 
 in, 9-14. 
 
 Seder Olam, 
 Jose, 33. 
 
 Seeds v. Zeraim. 
 
 Sefer Kerithoth, of R. Samson, 
 128; Baraitha of R. Eliezer. 
 128. 
 
 Sefer Torah, a Minor Treatise, 
 296. 
 
 Segal, on language of Mishna, 
 282. 
 
 ascribed to R. 
 
 Selfishness, warning against, 
 Olde 
 
 Self, cultivation, preservation 
 Oral 
 
 Seligson, M., on R. Jose b. Cha- 
 LALLA A Sou ON SIMON), 
 Jochai, 288; on Tosaphoth, 
 297. 
 
 Semachoth y. Ebel Rabbathi. 
 
 Sepha, end of case, 192, 211. 
 
 Sepher Ha-Yad v. Mishne 
 Thora. 
 
 Septuagint, supplies Gezera 
 Shava, 147n; explanation 
 
 from context of, 174. 
 
 Sepphoris, academy at, 37; R. 
 Janai lived at, 39; Mishna ex- 
 pounded at, 40; R. Chanina b. 
 Chama at, 41. 
 
 Series v. Sedarim; 
 lems, 245. 
 
 Service, at Temple daily, 13; 
 reading Scriptures at public, 
 14; rules for Sabbath, etc., 
 63; study of Talmud a relig- 
 ious, 107; public in Talmud, 
 110. 
 
 shamai, last of - Zugoth, 23; 
 SCHOULOL me 24s OPINIONS a7 OF 
 schools of, 192; differences 
 between School of Hillel and 
 School of, 286. 
 
 Shamaites v. School of Shamai. 
 
 Shebiith, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 9; v. Spe- 
 cial Mishnaic References. 
 
 Shebuoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
 8n; nature of, Biblical basis 
 for, 11; v. Special Mishnaic 
 
 and Talmudic References. 
 
 Sheeltot, of R. Achai, 295. 
 
 Shekalim, Masechta of Moed, 
 Biblical basis for, 10; in 
 Babylonian Talmud, 60; com- 
 mentary of Palestinian, by 
 Solomon Syreleio, 7i; Latin 
 translation of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 92; English transla- 
 tion of Babylonian, 303; v. 
 Special Mishnaic References. 
 
 Shela, R., president of Academy 
 at, 44. 
 
 Sheloam Yerushalayim, of N. 
 Trebitsch, 298. 
 
 Shemaiah, one of Zugoth, 23. 
 
 Shemaya, R., disciple of Rashi, 
 69; commentary on M. Mid- 
 doth, 69. 
 
 Sherira Gaon, author of Igge- 
 reth, on oral law of R. Jehuda 
 Hanasi, 6n; on order of Ma- 
 sechtoth, 8n; on R. Jochanan 
 b. | Napacha, °290:- on, Raba, 
 205ee Ona Unasbe Natnan.coe: 
 on Saboraim, 295; on Sabo- 
 raic edition, on R. Simuna, 
 205. 
 
 of prob- 
 
364 
 
 Shesh Erke Hamishna, for di- 
 vision of Mishna, 281. 
 
 Shesheth, R. Amora, 45; biog- 
 raphy, 46: disciple of Rab and 
 Samuel, 46: memory of, 46; 
 opposed iB, Chisda, AT; taught 
 R. Joseph, 49; debates R. 
 Huna, R. Nachman, R. Chis- 
 da, 261: authorities on, 292. 
 
 Shitomir, "edition of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 71; printed editions 
 of, 80, 300. 
 
 Sh’mone Perakim, of Maimoni- 
 des, translated by Samuel Ibn 
 
 Tibbon, 69. 
 Shulchan Aruch, of R. Joseph 
 Karo, 74, 75; annotations and 
 
 commentaries to, 75. 
 
 Sick, treatment of, 279. 
 
 Sifra v. Siphra. 
 
 Sifthe Cohen, of R. Sabbathai 
 Cohen, on Shulchan Aruch, 
 75. 
 
 Silhi, Academy at, 47. 
 
 Simai b. Ashe, father 
 Ashe, 51. 
 
 Simanim v. Mnemonical signs; 
 chapters of Turim, 74; divid- 
 ed into paragraphs by Karo, 
 75; explained, 76. 
 
 Similar provisions, 211. 
 
 Similarity, of arguments, 250. 
 
 Simlai, R., Amora, at Lydda, at 
 Nahardea, 43; controversies 
 with Christian dogmatists, 
 291; authorities on, 291. 
 
 Simon b. Abba, Amora, 45; 
 brother of Chiya b. Abba, 45, 
 292; emigrated from Baby- 
 lonia, disciple of R. Jochanan, 
 45; authorities on, 291. 
 
 Simon Dwbathyraske bana eay. 
 
 Simon b. Elazar, R., Tana, dis- 
 ciple of R. Meir, 38; authori- 
 ties on, 289; on Tosephta, 289. 
 
 Simon b. Gamaliel, R., Tana, 24; 
 son of Elder, executed by Ro- 
 mans, 25, 286; by Titus, 28; 
 
 Simon b. Gamaliel II, Tana, 31; 
 patriarch, honors R. Jehuda, 
 32; controversies with R. 
 Jose, 38; son of Gamaliel II, 
 called Rabbi, 36; authority on 
 
 Olmmn: 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Halacha, knew Greek, 36; R. 
 Jehuda Hanasi, son ‘of, "36: 
 appoints R. Nathan, 37: R. 
 Elazar b. Simon, disciple of, 
 58; authorities on, 288. 
 
 Simon, son of Hillel, 286. 
 
 Simon b. Kappara, v. Bar Kap- 
 para 
 
 Simon Dd. Lakish, R., Amora, 
 Resh Lackish, 41; acquaint- 
 ance of R. Jochanan, 43; orig 
 inal in Agadic teachings, Ao 
 refutes question, 255n; de- 
 bates with R. Jochanan, 2646 
 authorities on, 290, 291. 
 
 Simon the Just, High Priest, one 
 of Great Synod, ans 
 
 Simon (b. Jochai), R., Tana, 31; 
 disciple of Akiba, 333 con- 
 demned to death, 33; at Te- 
 koa, at Rome, 34: disciple of 
 Akiba, 20, 34; as author of 
 Siphre, 20, 34, 285; teacher R. 
 Jehuda Hanasi, 37; son of, 38; 
 Mechilta of, 284; authorities 
 on, 288. 
 
 Simon\b. Nanos, R., Tanayece. 
 authority on civil law, 30. 
 
 Simon b. Shatach, one of Zu- 
 goth, 23. 
 
 Simon II, last of Great Synod, 
 Bas 
 
 Simuna, R., Sabora, 295. 
 
 Sinai, laws from, 123. 
 
 Singer, A., Chrestomathy of, 82. 
 
 Siphra, akin to Mishnayi7; 
 name for, 19; nature and Bib- 
 lical basis for, 19; additions 
 to, editions of, 19n; divisions 
 of; 20;>Baraitha’ of, 2iazco. 
 commentary by Abraham b. 
 David-on,.19n; RR. Jehudash 
 Ilai as author of, 32; Hillel’s 
 rules in, 124; Ishmael’s rules 
 in, 128; quotations from, 220, 
 222; on love of neighbor, 279; 
 of school of R. Akiba, 284, 
 285; school of Ishmael in, 
 287; R. Chiya as author of, 
 289; Special References to, 
 TAd Sel 4 Loe 
 
 Siphre, akin to Mishna, 17; na- 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 365 
 
 ture of, Biblical basis for, au- 
 thorship of, 20, 284; differ- 
 ences in style of, 20; divisions 
 Orel mbaraltnigOfmclsecso- 
 editions of, 20n; R. Simon, as 
 author of, 34; quotations 
 livereyenee WPAN CLAS SAVES Lee 
 school of R. Ishmael, 284, 285, 
 293-6 OLpschooy olan Akiba; 
 284; includes Mechilta, 284; 
 on Numbers of school of R. 
 Ishmael, on Deuteronomy of 
 school of Akiba, 285; Halachic 
 nature of, 285; on Deuteron- 
 omy, 285; Talmud on, of Si- 
 mon b. Jochai, 285; mentions 
 R. Ishmael, 287; references 
 TOwe Die Loon, el iin. 
 
 Sirkes, Joel, R., Bet Hadash on 
 Pairs 299) 
 
 Sisters-in-law v. Yebamoth. 
 
 Slaves, free-will of, 140; free- 
 ing injured, 161; male or fe- 
 male killed by beast, 172. 
 
 Slavery, Bibliography on, 98, 
 307; laws restricting time of, 
 144, 
 
 S’mag, of R. Moses, 67. 
 
 Solomon b. Abraham Algazi, on 
 hermeneutics, 128. 
 
 Solomon b. Adereth, R., 67. 
 
 Solomon Isaaki, R., v. Rashi. 
 
 Solomon b. Joseph, translated 
 commentary on Nezikin, 69. 
 
 Solution, of the problem, 244, 
 245. 
 
 Soncino, MSS. printed at, 79n. 
 
 Sopherim, contributors to oral 
 law5743,922, 4120, 
 
 Sopherim, v. Scribes; 21 chap- 
 ters of, 63; editions of, 63n. 
 Sophistical inference, 189, 140- 
 141: conclusion, 148; as Geze- 
 
 ra Shava, 149. 
 
 Sota, Masechta of Nashim, Bib- 
 lical basis for, 11; evidence of 
 additions to Mishna in, 6n; on 
 order of Masechtoth, 8n; 
 translations, Latin of Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 92; of Mishna, 
 308; Tosaphoth of R. Samson 
 on, 296; R. Asher’s commen- 
 
 tary on, 296; v. Special Mish- 
 naic and Talmudic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Source, of law, 200, 201, 244. 
 
 Southern Judea, communities 
 organized by R. Joshua b. 
 Levi, 291. 
 
 Spain, study of Talmud in, 62; 
 Moses Maimonides in, 68; R. 
 Isaac Alfasi in, 72; R. Asher 
 of, 73; Shem Tob Ibn Gaon 
 Ong ae 
 
 Special v. Binyan Ab; v. Partic- 
 ular; law, 156; provision, 162; 
 generalization refuted, 182. 
 
 Sprache und Literatur, on lan- 
 guage of Mishna, 15n. 
 
 Stalks of Fruit v. Uk’tzin. 
 
 “Stam,” Mishna, 191. 
 
 Stein, A., on Talmud, 86. 
 
 Stein, L., on R. Akiba, 287. 
 
 Stein, S., on language of Mish- 
 na, 282 
 
 Steinthal, on virtues, 274. 
 
 Steinschneider, M., on MSS. of 
 Talmud, 78. 
 
 Stevenson, W. B., Grammar of, 
 300. 
 
 Stoning, form of punishment, 
 170; R. Jehuda b. Iai on, 178. 
 
 Strack, H. L., on Talmud, 85; on 
 origin of Mishna, 281, 283; on 
 lan:ruage of Mishna, 15n; on 
 Baraitha, 286; on teachers of 
 Gemara and Mishna, 286; on 
 differences between Hillel and 
 Shamai, 286; on Akabia b. 
 Mahalel, 286; on Gamaliel the 
 Elder, 286; on Akiba, 287; on 
 Jehuda Hanasi, 289; on Aga- 
 da, 295; on commentaries of 
 Maimonides, 297; MSS. of 
 Talmud photographed by, 
 299; bibliography on editions 
 of Talmud of, 299; on Tal- 
 MudweoO b-weetranslation 01 
 Mishna, of, 302. 
 
 Straschun, D. O., translated 
 Babylonian Taanith, 90. 
 
 Streane, A. W., translated into 
 English Babylonian Chagiga, 
 92. 
 
366 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 study,.ofsialmud;#81-87--300- 
 302. 
 
 Subjects, two, for Heckesh, 153. 
 
 Subsequent, unexpected case, 
 196. 
 
 Succah, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
 licalys basis s401 44 04a Latin 
 translation of Palestinian 
 Talmud, 92; English of Baby- 
 lonian, 808; Tosaphoth of R. 
 Samson on, 296; MSS. of, 299; 
 v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Succession, of Masechtoth dis- 
 puted, 8, 8n; or order Masech- 
 toth, 9-14. 
 
 Sulzbach, printed 
 Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 
 
 Superfluous, expressions in Ge- 
 ZOLA onava, eLO0,. Lol: case: 
 212; Memra, 228. 
 
 Supernaturalism, Superstition, 
 Bibliography on, 101; from 
 
 Persians in Babylonian Tal- . 
 
 mud, 106; attacked, 107. 
 
 Supplement v. Tosephta. 
 
 Sura, Academy at, Mishna ex- 
 pounded at, 40; R. Huna pre- 
 sided at, 46; R. Juda at, 46, 
 292 > Re Chisdamat, 46,8292: 
 Rabba at, 49; eclipsed by 
 Pumbaditha, 49; restored, 49; 
 RiaAshaeattinles Ose Varese 
 mar iat, 53} thew ldesb.sAbin 
 succeeded Mar Jemar at, 53; 
 Mar bar R. Ashe succeeds at, 
 53; R. Ashe at, 538; Rabba of 
 Thospia at; 54; Rabina’ II at, 
 55, 60; R. Jehudai Gaon of, 
 72; opposed to Palestinian 
 schools, 199; when referred to, 
 199. 
 
 Surenhusius, G., Latin transla- 
 tion of Talmud of, 88. 
 
 Surgery, Bibliography on, 308. 
 
 Syllogism v. Kal ve-Chomer. 
 
 Symbols, in Talmud, 80n. 
 
 Symmachos, Tana, 36; disciple 
 of R. Meir, 37. 
 
 Synagogue, sanctity of, 14. 
 
 Syrians, substituted for © Ro- 
 mans, 79n. 
 
 Syriac, of R. Jehuda Hanasi, 37. 
 
 edition of. 
 
 Syrileio, Solomon, exile from 
 Spain, commentary on Pales- 
 tinian Talmud, 71; commen- 
 tary of, 298. 
 
 Systems, of R. Ishmael, 124; of 
 R. Nahum, 124, 125; R. Akiba 
 develops, 125. 
 
 Szafed, R. Abraham de Boton 
 of, 74. 
 
 ay 
 
 Taanith, Masechta of Moed, on 
 order of Masechtoth, 8n; na- 
 ture of, 10; translations of, 
 German of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 90; Latin of Palestinian, 
 92; English of Palestinian, 
 303; of Mishna, 302; v. Speci- 
 
 _al Mishnaic and Talmudic 
 References. 
 
 Tabernacle, Sabbath 
 agreement with, 178. 
 
 Tabernacles, v. Succah. 
 
 “Taking up and throwing back”, 
 261. 
 
 Talmud (general), v. Gemara, 
 v. Talmud, Babylonian; and 
 Talmud, Palestinian; defini- 
 tion of, 3n. 56; compilation 
 and nature of, 3, 109; a com- 
 mon name for, 7; number ¢f 
 Masechtoth in, 9-14; com- 
 pendium to, 17; Mechilta 
 quoted in, 18; Siphra in, 18; 
 Siphre in, 20; Agada of, 32; 
 principle of Symmachos in, 
 37; quotes Chizkia, 42; dis- 
 ciple of Rab in, 44; Baraitha 
 of Mar Samuel in, 44n; 
 quotes R. Elazar, 45; quotes 
 R. Abbahu, 45; quotes Rabba 
 b. bar Chama, Ulla, 47; calls 
 Rabba, 49; Abaye, Raba in, 
 50; Rabina completes Baby- 
 lonian, 54; begun by R. Ashi, 
 52, 54; name of Rabina in, 
 54n; “records = Rv VAchaiga: 
 Huna, R. Samuel b, Abbahu. 
 55; traces of memoranda used 
 by R. Ashi in, 60n; Apocrypha 
 of the Talmud, 638, 64; refer- 
 ences to Ebel Rabbathai, 
 Callah, Derech Eretz, 64; 
 
 laws in 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 367 
 
 difficulties of, 65; commen- 
 taries to, 65, 71; Tosaphoth 
 in, 67; later commentaries to, 
 Go eee eee Lranclationss a OL 
 Maimonides appended to, 69; 
 terminology of, 70; epitomes 
 of, 72, 738; codes of, 73-76; 
 epitome of R. Asher in, 738; 
 rules after, in Turim, 75; re- 
 ferences to Shulchan Aruch in 
 editions of, 75; glosses in, 75; 
 Biblical references in, 76; 
 parallel passages, 76;  col- 
 lected Agadic portions of, 76; 
 vandalism against, 77, 77n; 
 MSS. of printed editions of, 
 77-80, 299; auxiliaries to 
 study of, 81-87; 300-302; lexi- 
 cons for, 81, 300; grammars 
 for, 82, 300; chrestomathies 
 for, 82, 301; works on, 83-87, 
 301-302; translations of, 88- 
 90, 302-303; opinions on value 
 of, 103-114; second to Bible, 
 107; study, substitute for re- 
 ligious service, 107; in our 
 times, 108, 110; no Judaism 
 without, 109, 110; Bible inter- 
 preted in, 110; ethics in, 110; 
 Geiger on, 111; Jost on, 112; 
 methods of interpretation, 
 117; legal hermeneutics of, 
 118; untraceable tradition in, 
 123; praises R. Eliezer, 127; 
 Kobak on, 128; sophistical in- 
 ference in, 189; mental tour- 
 
 naments in, 141; Gezeroth 
 Shavorneninvwe 1475 149n 33) or 
 restricted Gezera  Shava, 
 
 151n; on general, particular, 
 and general, 167; explanation 
 from context of, 174; forms 
 of labor in, 177; on reading 
 text, 185; based on hermeneu- 
 tics, 187; climax in cases, 196; 
 explains “Peshita”, 210; Mem- 
 ra in, 224; rhetoric interroga- 
 tion in, 237; astonishment in, 
 238n; strained attempt to re- 
 move contradiction in, 241; 
 problem questions in, 243; 
 arguments to prove in, 247; 
 direct and indirect arguments 
 
 in, 284; refutation in Talmud, 
 ZOU waestOrtiorie in, 201.) in- 
 direct argument in, 251, 252; 
 directs vrargzument = rin)? 252; 
 minor discussions in, 261; de- 
 bate in, 262; succinct and 
 elliptical expressions of, 264; 
 ethical teachings of, 267; 
 maxims in, 267n; no system 
 of ethics in, 268; on fairdeal- 
 ing, 278; charity in, 274; re- 
 lations of life in, 275; not il- 
 liberal, 278; charity, veracity, 
 peace toward Heathen, 279; 
 quotations in, 281; on Simon 
 b. Jochai, 285; Baraitha in, 
 285; on relationship of Ga- 
 maliel to Hillel 286; on birth 
 of Raba, 298; laws fixed by 
 Saboraim in, 295; legends in 
 Agada of, 295; of Eretz Is- 
 rael, “d’Maarba”, “dilan” 296; 
 Tosaphoth in, 297; of com- 
 mentary of R. Meir in, 297; 
 commentary of Hai Gaon in 
 Teharothe olse) 29 13.8) biblid- 
 graphy on editions of, 299. 
 
 Talmud (Babylonian) name of, 
 
 3, 296; order of Masechtoth 
 of, 8; list of Masechtoth, 9- 
 14; Vienna’ edition of, 17n; 
 completed, 41; by Rabina, 54; 
 by kh Ashe: b2)1504s109 ;) cities 
 Reshmlakiste45-uek. desb: 
 Abin and Mar Jemar work 
 on, 538; given finishing touch 
 by Saboraim, 55; more noted 
 than Palestinian, 59; revised 
 by R. Ashe, Babina II, R. Jose, 
 Saboraim, 60, 295; extent of, 
 GU LUD DA. Cada nein eg Ol: 
 arrangement of, 62; where 
 studied, 62; commentaries on, 
 65, 66-71, 296; source of Rab- 
 binical laws, 72; epitomes of, 
 72, 73; codes of, 73-76; Agadic 
 portions collected, 76; MSS. 
 of, 77; first printed edition of, 
 78; other editions of, 79, 79n, 
 80, 299; censors mutilate, 79; 
 translations of, 89-90, 302- 
 303; defects of, 106; period 
 of, 106; distinct from Pales- 
 
368 
 
 tinian, 107; bibliography on 
 editions of, 299. 
 
 Talmud (Palestinian) name of, 
 3, 58; use of “Halacha” in, 8; 
 order of Masechtoth, 8; list 
 of Masechtoth in, 9-14; found- 
 ation laid by R. Jochanan, 42; 
 completed, 42, 48, 58, 296; 
 cites Resh Lakish, 43; quotes 
 R. Jonah, 48; research on, 
 58n; Maimonides on, 58; time 
 and extent of, 58; arrangement 
 of, 62; where studied, com- 
 mentaries on, 70-71, 298; col- 
 lected Agadic portions of, 76; 
 MSS. of, 78, 299; complete 
 printed edition of, 80; other 
 editions of, 298, 299, 300; 
 translations of, 92, 303; less 
 noted than Babylonian, 107; 
 known by Babylonian Amor- 
 aim, 289, 290; not edited by 
 Saboraim, 295; in Gaonic 
 period, 296; Zunz’ commen- 
 tary on Zeraim, of, 298; 
 quoted in Ahabat Zion v’ Yeru- 
 shalayim, 298; reconstructed 
 text of, 298; fragments of, in 
 Genizah, 298; commentary of 
 Syrileio on, 292: used to cor- 
 rect Mishna, 299. 
 
 Talmudic, idiom, “buy” in, 149n; 
 interpretation of Heckesh, 
 152; interpretation of iden- 
 tical provisions, 160; view of 
 Mosaic law, 162; interpreta- 
 tion of working on Sabbath, 
 175n; period, Biblical text in, 
 185; refutation of a proposi- 
 tion, 255, 259; literature, age 
 of, 268; ethics, 267-280; sages, 
 nature of, 268, 277; ethics 
 based on Bible, 268; teachings 
 on duties of man, 270; sages 
 on labor, 272; ethics, maxims 
 against austerity and extra- 
 vagance, 277; ethics, liberal 
 spirit of, 280; literature, no 
 support for term Mechilta, 
 284; treatises, commentary of 
 R. Asher on, 298; texts, 299; 
 times and history, 301. 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Tam, reason of law, 1938, 247. 
 
 Tam, Rabbenu, Tosaphist, 67; 
 on son of Akiba, 35n. 
 
 Tamid, not in Mishna, 281; v. 
 Thamid. 
 
 Tana, as teacher of oral law, 
 23; first use in Gemara, 23; as 
 reciter of Baraithoth, 40: 
 Kama, former teacher, 191; 
 supplies another name for 
 law, 201; anonymous opinions 
 of, 203, 216, 
 
 Tanaim, decisions of, 4; period 
 of, 23. distinguished from 
 Amoraim, 23; bibliography 
 on, 238n; first’ generation of, 
 24° ‘second generation of, 25; 
 third generation of, 28; fourth 
 generation of, 31; fifth gen- 
 eration of, 36; sixth genera- 
 tion of, 39; semi-, 39; more 
 independent than Amoraim, 
 40; Opposing opinions of, 42; 
 semi-, counted as Amoraim, 
 4in; Gezera Shava of, 47; re- 
 ject extension and limitation, 
 184; contrary to teaching of 
 final decision of, 226; differ- 
 ence between Amoraim and, 
 234, 235; Middot and Tamid 
 not in Mishna of, 281; base 
 Midrash on Pentateuch, 2833 
 Baraitha as literature of, 286; 
 Ben Zoma, one of, 288. 
 
 Tanaitic, Midrashim of Penta- 
 teuch, 283; on Exodus, 284; 
 traditional statements of Bar- 
 aitha, 285, 286. 
 
 Targum, of Bible by R. Joseph, 
 49; Onkelos of Derash, 118; 
 on prophets, 293. 
 
 Tarphon, oR.,> Lana.) 2oeeom 
 discussions with Akiba, 28, 
 29; with R. Jose the Galilean, 
 30; disciples, R. Jehuda, R. 
 Jose b. Chalafta, 32; ordained 
 by Juda b. Baba, 33; authori- 
 ties on, 287; saw Temple, op- 
 posed Judeo-Christian wor- 
 ship, 287; in early church 
 literature, 287. 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 36% 
 
 Tausik, Solomon, on Aboth d’- 
 Rabbi Nathan, 63n. 
 
 Tautology, in Mishna, 207, 208. 
 
 ee vane Abr, on Derech Eretz, 
 
 n. 
 
 Taylor, C., The Sayings of Jew- 
 ish Fathers of, 88, 302. 
 
 Te. v. The. 
 
 Teacher, former, 
 mous, 191. 
 
 Teachers, anonymous, 216; in 
 Baraitha, 220; contesting, 
 232; 200; Of Academy, 241, 
 series propounded by Bapy- 
 lonian, 245; in debate, 261, 
 dispute on basis of Rab and 
 Samuel, 262; names of prom- 
 nent, -2645s public,..263,. of 
 Mishna and Gemara, 286. 
 
 Teachings, as part of Kal ve- 
 Chomer, 132; homiletical, 224; 
 of ethics, Biblical, 264; of 
 Talmud, ethical, 267, 268: 
 outline of, 269-280; on duties 
 of man, 270; charity in Buib- 
 lical, 274; Jew and Gentile 
 with regard to moral, 279. 
 
 Tebul Yom, Masechta of Te- 
 haroth, nature of, 14. 
 
 Techilath Chochma, on Talmudic 
 terminology, of Jacob Chagiz 
 70. 
 
 Teharoth, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
 Masechtoth of, 13; treated in 
 Palestinian Talmud, 60; Nid- 
 da of, in Babylonian Talmud, 
 60; reasons for law of, 60; 
 Mar on Teharoth, 69; com- 
 mentary by R. Samson and R. 
 Asher, 69. 
 
 Teharoth, Masechta of Teha- 
 roth, Biblical basis for, 13; 
 Maimonides on, 297; R. Asher 
 b. Jechiel on, 298. 
 
 Tekoa, Academy at, 34. 
 
 Temple, second, 4, 15: daily ser- 
 vice in, 13; measurements Ol, 
 
 13; destruction of, 25, 26, 73; 
 tradition referring to, 26; ser- 
 vice, 80; seen by Tarphon, 
 287; destruction of, 287. 
 
 Tents v. Ohaloth. 
 
 191; anony- 
 
 Tephillin, 
 PAL ep 
 Terminology, of Mishna, 191 ff; 
 of Talmud, 192; works on, 
 
 309. 
 
 Terms v. General and Particu- 
 lar; Talmudic, used in draw- 
 ing “inference, 132; with “all’’, 
 “whatsoever” paket regarding 
 structure of Mishna, para- 
 graph, 191-197; comprehen- 
 sive or limiting, 203; out of 
 place, 209; used in referring 
 Mishna, 220; used in quoting 
 Tosephta and Baraitha, 231; 
 difference concerning explana- 
 tion of, 231; differences con- 
 cerning explanation of, 231; 
 introducing an argument, 247; 
 used in refutation, 254; used 
 by school of Akiba and Ish- 
 mael, 284. 
 
 Testimonies vy. Eduyoth; 
 through the, 118. 
 
 Texts, reconstructed, 298, 299. 
 
 Teyubta, v.. Teshuba,’ 228, 233, 
 ZAO eA aD, 
 
 Thamid, v. Tamid; Masechta of 
 Kodashim, Biblical basis for, 
 13; sections of, in Babylonian 
 
 a Minor Treatise, 
 
 Talmud, 60; commentary on, 
 Go; 
 Themura, Masechta of Koda- 
 
 shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
 v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
 ences. 
 
 Theology, Bibliography on, 317, 
 318. 
 
 Theosophic, speculations, 288. 
 
 Therumoth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
 Biblical basis for, 9. 
 
 Thora, manner of interpreting, 
 28: word of, 120; language 
 different from human, 125; 
 not different from human, 
 126; urged to study, 271. 
 
 Thora Or, Biblical references in 
 Talmud, 76. 
 
 Tiberias, Academy at, 37; 
 Mishna expounded at, 40; R. 
 Jochanan at, 42; R. Ame, R. 
 Assi at, 45; Talmud com- 
 
370 
 
 pleted at, 58; Jose b. Tadai 
 at, 140; R. Jonah, R. Jose 
 BRIN BAS Bae 
 
 Tithes, The v. Maaseroth. 
 
 Toledo, R. Asher of, 73. 
 
 Torah v. Thora. 
 
 Torath Cohanim, v. Siphra. 
 
 Tosaphists, authors of Tosa- 
 photh, 67; decisions of, 68; 
 authorities on, 297. 
 
 Tosaphoth, on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 
 6n; on Talmud, 66; criticize 
 R. Chananel and Rashi, 67; 
 authorities mentioned in 67; 
 in our Talmud editions, 67, 
 299; on Yoma,, 67; decisions 
 in, 68; references to 68; in 
 Mishna, 78; in first printed 
 edition of Babylonian Talmud, 
 79; asking a question, 255; 
 of R. Eliezer of Touques, 296: 
 of R. Perez, R. Samson, 296; 
 of R. Meir of Rothenberg, 
 Pa 
 
 Tosephta, akin to Mishna, 17, 
 2O2 LOO en explained, meine 
 arrangement of, 17, 283; com- 
 pleted, 17; where printed, 17n; 
 critical researches on, 18n; 
 Baraitha of, 21, 286; quotes 
 
 R. Jochanan the Sandelar, 34; 
 
 to Pirke Aboth, 37, 63; opin- 
 ions of Symmachos in, 37; of 
 R. Jose ben Juda, 38; men- 
 tions Tanaim, 39; R. Chiya, 
 A compiler mole o ecco, cao: 
 R. Oshaya, a compiler of, 39; 
 Masechtoth in form of, 63; 
 treatises in, 283; treatises of 
 Mishna not identical with, 
 202,) 0205 4), quotations arom, 
 2022200222" nelimilnacos 
 order follows R. Meir, 283; 
 texts used by Amoraim, 288; 
 ResSimonsbs Blazarvin,: 230° 
 
 Totterman, C. A., on R. Elie- 
 zer’s leaning toward Christi- 
 anity, 287. 
 
 Touques, Tosaphoth of, 67; R. 
 Eliezer of, 67. 
 
 Traditional Law v. Law; v. 
 Oral Law; authority of, 120; 
 no basis for new, 1386; derived 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 by Gezera Shava, 150, 155; 
 by Heckesh, 155; on duties of 
 women, 153; on opening of 
 courts, 153; on fitness of 
 judges, 178; analogy to, 180; 
 interpretation of, prefers 
 Masora, 186. 
 
 Traditions, in oral law, 120; 
 legal,» or ritual Jaw; ices 
 origin of, 128; additions to, 
 124; exclusions of, 124; au- 
 thority of, necessary for 
 Gezera Shava, 1538; originate 
 in Scriptures, 186; reports 
 by, 224; supports argument, 
 249; Baraithoth were, 285, 
 286; of Academy, 295. 
 
 Translations, of Mishna, 88, 302, 
 310; of Talmud, 88-92; 302- 
 303, 310, 89n; of Kuthim, 296. 
 
 Treatise v. Masechta; oldest of 
 Mishna, 282; minor, 64, 296. 
 
 Trebitsch, N., on Palestinian 
 Talmud, Shelom Yerushalay- 
 im, 298. 
 
 Trespass v. Meila. 
 
 Trespass-offering, of leper, 173; 
 blood wsed for, 178. 
 
 Troyes, Rashi of, 65. 
 
 Truth, sacredness of, 273. 
 
 Tschernowitz, Ch., on Tosa- 
 photh, 296. 
 
 Tuck v. Touques. 
 
 Tur, a commentary of R. Jacob 
 b. Asher, 74; basis for Shul- 
 chan Aruch, 298, 299. 
 
 Ture Zahab, commentary on 
 Shulechan Aruch, by R. David 
 b. Samuel Halevi, 75. 
 
 Turim, of R. Jacob b. Asher, 
 74; differs from code of 
 Maimonides, 75; remodeled in- 
 to law-book by Joseph Karo, 
 iy 
 
 Ugolinus, Latin translation of 
 Babylonian Talmud of, 90; 
 Several treatises of Palesti- 
 nian Talmud translated by, 
 92. 
 
 Ukba I. Mar, contemporary of 
 Samuel, 44; Exilarch, 291; 
 authorities on, 291. 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Ukba II, Mar, 291. 
 
 Uk’tzin, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 nature of, 14; Mishna, evi- 
 dence of addition to, 6n. 
 
 Ulla (b. Ishmael), Amora, 47; 
 as teacher, 47; authorities on, 
 293; 
 
 Umanski, on Abba Areca, 291. 
 
 Uncertain, The v. Demai. 
 
 Uncircumcised, The v. Orla 
 
 Undisputed, Mishna, 191. 
 
 University Library, at Cam- 
 bridge, 77. 
 Unnecessary, provisions of 
 
 Mishna, 209; repetition, 210; 
 abundance of analogous cases, 
 palates 
 
 Unwritten law v. Oral Law 
 
 Urschrift, of Geiger, on Mechil- 
 Talon. 
 
 Usha, Sanhedrin at, 28; re- 
 established at, 381, 32; R. 
 Jose b. Chalafta returns to, 
 33; R. Simon (b. Jochai) at, 
 33s heeblazareb. ed acob at, 
 35; academy transferred to, 
 Bose ose Nathansat,. 30; 
 
 V 
 Vatican Library, of Rome, 77; 
 codices of Talmud at, 177; 
 MSS. of Lunz in, 299. 
 Vaw, extension in use of, 126. 
 Venice, Talmud destroyed at, 
 
 77n; printed edition of Mishna | 
 
 at, 78; edition of Babylonian 
 Talmud at, 78; late printed 
 edition at, 79; first edition of 
 Palestinian at, 80. 
 
 Verb, extension in use of, 126, 
 126n; use of, in general and 
 particular, 1638n. 
 
 Vessel v. Khelim 
 
 Vidal di Tolosa, Don, Maggid 
 Mishne, on Maimonides, 74. 
 
 Vienna, R. Samuel Jafe of, 76; 
 
 printed edition of Babylonian 
 
 Talmud, at 79. 
 Virgin, for a High Priest, 140. 
 
 Vives mei Lealmud,)) i268); 
 charity one of, 274. 
 Volz, translation of Mishna 
 
 Rosh Hashana, 302. 
 
 Voluntary, as opposite to com- 
 manded, 139. 
 
 Vortraege, of Zunz, 57n; on 
 Halacha and Agada, 57n; on 
 Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan, 63; 
 on Sopherim, 63n; on Ebel 
 Rabbathi, 64n; on Derech 
 Eretz, 64n. 
 
 Vowels, text without, 185. 
 
 Vows, v. Nedarim; annulment 
 OL gales 
 
 W 
 Walton, W., translation of 
 Mishna, 88. 
 Warsaw, printed edition of 
 
 Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 
 
 Wassertrilling, on Eliezer b. 
 Hyrkanos, 287. 
 
 Wave-offering, on Sabbath, 154. 
 
 Weinstein N. J., on Agada, 295. 
 
 Weiss, I. H., Dor Dor Ve-Dor- 
 shav of, 6n; on: written 
 Mishna, 6n; on language of 
 Mishna, 15n; on Tosephta, 
 18n; edition of Mechilta of, 
 19; introduction to Siphra of, 
 19n; Yon. Baraitha,: 21n;.".on 
 Tanaim, 25n; on Amoraim, 
 42n; on compilation of Pa- 
 lestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
 Talmud, 84; on Rabban Ga- 
 amliel the Elder, 286; on R. 
 Meir’s death, 288; on R. 
 Gamaliel II, 290; on Joshua 
 b. Levi, 291; on Rab b. Huna, 
 293; on Rabba b. Nachmani, 
 293; on Rafram b. Papa, 294; 
 grammar of, 3800; __biblio- 
 graphy on Introduction to 
 Talmud, 301; on Saboraim 
 criticized by Halevi, 295. 
 
 Wells v. Mikvaocth 
 
 Wesen und Uhrsprung of I. H. 
 Duenner, on Tosephta, 18n. 
 
 Wiesner, Gibeath Jeruschalaim 
 of, 58n; on completion of 
 Palestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
 Talmud, 8&4, 87. 
 
 Wife, treatment of, 276; need 
 Ol; iis 
 
 Will, of man, free-, 270; of God, 
 270s Oi Le 
 
372 
 
 Williams, A. Lukyn, translation 
 of Berachoth, Mishna and 
 Tosephta, 302. 
 
 Wilna, Elija, Hagahoth Yeru- 
 shalmi of, 298. 
 
 Wilna, Talmud edition of, 65, 
 79; most recent edition of, 
 
 298, 300. 
 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, 
 of Geiger, on order. ot 
 
 Masechtoth, 8n. 
 
 Witchcraft, in Babylonian .Tal- 
 mud, 106; a capital crime, 
 Ge 
 
 “With”, use of, 124. 
 
 Witkind on Akiba, 281; on R. 
 Jochanan, 290. 
 
 Wolff, S. A., Chrestomathy of, 
 300. 
 
 Woman, duties of, 153; killed 
 by beast, 172; bastard, 181. 
 
 Women v. Nashim 
 
 Words, explained from context, 
 174; illustration by, 174; ex- 
 plaining, in Mishna, 198. 
 
 Works, akin to Mishna, 17. 
 
 Worship, modes of, 113. 
 
 Written v. Scriptures; v. Law; 
 lawn Us 
 
 for expounding, 123, 124; law, 
 
 going beyond, 153; or not, 
 Mishna, 4, 5, 281. 
 
 Winsche, August, German | 
 translation of Babylonian | 
 Agadic parts, 90, 303; of 
 
 Palestinian, 92. 
 
 NG 
 Yadayim, Masechta of Teha- 
 roth, nature of, 14; v. Special 
 Mishnaic references. 
 Yad Hachazaka, v. Mishne Tora; 
 on Jew and Gentile, 280. 
 Yebamoth, Masechta of Nashim, 
 
 Biblical @basiswetor,n eL0syev. 
 Special Mishnaic and Tal- 
 mudic References. 
 
 Yede Moshe, commentary of 
 Maimonides on  Pesachim, 
 Bo. 
 
 Yetzer ha-ra, evil inclination, 
 AL PATE 
 
 law harmonized | 
 with oral, 121, 186; law, rules | 
 
 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Yetzer tob, good 
 ZY") 
 
 Yoma, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
 lical basis for, 10; Tosaphoth 
 on, 67, 296; translations, Latin 
 of Palestinian Talmud, 92; 
 English of Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, 303; of Mishna, 302; 
 MSS. of, 299; v. Special Tal- 
 mudic References. 
 
 Yom Tov v. Betza. 
 
 Yore Dea, Tur, of R. Jacob, 74; 
 commentary on, 75. 
 
 Z 
 
 Zabim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
 Biblical basis for, 14. 
 
 Zadok; RK... Tana,;25. 
 
 Zarkes, on R. Eliezer b. Hyrk- 
 anos, 287. 
 
 Zebachim, Masechta of 
 Kodashim, Biblical basis for, 
 12; Latin translation of Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, 90; v. Special 
 Talmudic References. 
 
 Zebid (b. Oshaya), Amora, 51; 
 succeeded by R. Chama, 52, 
 294; authorities on, 294. 
 
 Zedaka, 274. 
 
 Zeira, R., Amora, 45; ,Baby- 
 lonian, 46; disciple of R. Juda 
 b. Jecheskel 46; attended lec- 
 tures of R. Elazar b. Pedath, 
 46; associated with R. Ame, R. 
 Assi, R. Abbahu, 46; his dis- 
 
 inclination, 
 
 ciple, R. Jeremiah, . 48; 
 authorities on, 292. 
 
 Zeira v. Zera; Palestinian 
 Amora, 292. 
 
 Zerachia Halevi (Maor) R., 
 
 notes accompanying epitome 
 OLMRIL AT ce 
 
 Zeraim, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
 Masechtoth of, 9; Maimonides’ 
 introduction to, 15; Masech- 
 toth of, in Palestinian Tal- 
 mud, 58; Berachoth, only 
 Babylonian Masechta of, 60; 
 commentary of Maimonides 
 on, 68; commentaries of R. 
 Samson on, 69; R. Asher on, 
 69, 298; - commentary of 
 Syrileio on, 71; commentary of 
 
INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES oe 
 
 Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb, on, 
 298; commentary of Lunz on, 
 298; in Ahabat Zion v’Yeru- 
 shalaim, 298; MSS. of, 299. 
 
 Ziegler, I, on Agada, 295. 
 
 ALLYONO Witz, - Onsmeh. 
 Hanasi, 289. 
 
 Zipser, on Gamaliel the Elder, 
 286. 
 
 Zizith, a Minor Treatise, 296. 
 
 Zuckermandel, revised edition 
 of Tosephta of, 17n, 283. 
 
 ZUcotneesassleachers, \22°" cas 
 heads of Sanhedrin, 22; suc- 
 cession of, 22, 285. 
 
 Zunz, Vortraege of, on Halacha 
 and Agada, 57; on Aboth d’ 
 
 Jehuda 
 
 Rabbi Nathan, 638n; on Sop- 
 herim, 68n; on Ebel Rabbathi, 
 64; on Derech Eretz, 64; on 
 Tosaphists, 67n; on Barai- 
 tha, 286. 
 
 Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 
 of Zunz, on Tosaphist, 67n. 
 
 AULI wo, FOnew hens) OChanalrsD, 
 Napacha, 290; on Abba Are- 
 Cam 25 1% 
 
 Zutra, Mar, Amora, succeeded 
 Ra aCahanamaue Cumbaditha, 
 Exilarch, 52; debates R. Ashe, 
 202; friend of R. Ashe, 294; 
 succeeded by R. Acha b. Raba, 
 52, 294; authorities on, 294. 
 

 
SPE GUAWIC TB ETGALS 
 MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 PAGE 
 BGR L Loirs erent oy 144 
 wml Oitmaa te 124 
 DG BAN. GRAS is AL Ae 163 
 EXOT face cetera crake 164 
 XIV, 22. 207 9 
 De Vee ie aaa 9 
 VEL een oma tesa es 145 
 XVI, S75, L176, 176n 
 XVI, 16, 17. 10 
 XVIII, = oe. a5 
 EXP ote eu roe 158 
 Ooo a al Es i 11 
 ENON ca Oe LO oa ial 
 SD. Gia Sh hs eR a 13D 
 SOO A SNE A/a ee LDp 
 NOX [emleos sl RFA 
 OGD ee 11 
 OAT Bead a eg 156 
 XXIT,. 9-11. 9 
 OG he, A Bae 165 
 PRONE 3 Os areits 149 
 
 SOOO. ab Byes: 
 MXIT 34.5150, 181 
 
 EXPL Vetere oni hye 118 
 LOGIE IS Say ae 1G 
 XXIV, 6 156 
 CMA Vic a Lec eres tales 11 
 RO 4 148 
 KACV S10. 10 
 XXVI, 1- 11. Pe aie 10 
 EXODUS 
 NVA We a ee la ye rane Le 
 XII, 1-X XIII, 19—18 
 oT TSS eee 2, 176n 
 A ALTSELG 10 
 OCU SG) an: 175, 176 
 DA AL Aa jy 
 9,00.@ PATE Seucom Maen 119 
 0.0. GES AN Ain Sie 144 
 20D, @ In gop ea 163 
 
 Balebris tt CeAGL 
 
 9.0. Ee atone 134 
 
 » ee © @ © @ © 
 
 XX129-80%. Lh 134 
 
 Oscik, Vay ayes en EERE 
 Od Peeves op 11 
 SEN 98 Meni 135n 
 Oe aub nla il 
 Neel ah wee 161 
 XXII, 6-8, 9-12.146 
 eK LCs ee 11 
 KENT Ob epee, 166 
 Rie G- LO aL 
 Noah, SP aks wiles 
 ONE TM pel en 170 
 XXII, 24-26. 11 
 5 O.ONN be Ves 121 
 OCH. Til 5 eQule 9 
 SOME V eT Oar 138 
 Ord Bey eile de Ws: 
 Ke OT Ge 10 
 
 MOL ely eee 178 
 OKIE ABEAEY. 
 POO sankey. Laks 
 
 XGA DS ance 
 XOXO IT 1 Oe, 163 
 EXEX EX SV Uliana ears 178 
 ERA yO tna vain ryt 
 EZEKIEL 
 [XEXUXAV Lie eer 
 GENESIS 
 ah Mege Mees ake e Wier 279 
 SeTiT ALS weet 149 
 LEVITICUS 
 Let, Cee ere one, 12 
 | Ra NE Sane aie See Aa 164 
 DRA ey es eee 183) 
 Tee ee eta ae hiee 12 
 
 eee ec eo oe we eo wo ow 
 
 eo ree ee we oe oo 
 
 Nova Tw Gn ee 
 
 X XIU, 34-36... 
 ALE CAO ee 
 
 roan Bee okt 
 SOV ID oT ee 
 Mead ae eon 
 MBOME ER no ee 
 
376 
 
 PAGE 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 ROR ae ee 149n 
 NUMBERS 
 VASE Ee eae eee 20 
 VS 62 tea re eee 153 
 Viol 2e8 Lee eee intl 
 Vil 2-2 eee At 
 LXPN 2 res Vl en 145 
 SL WL eee es iesue 
 DEV ie 20-2. Lees 9 
 ABOTH 
 Tle 2s he hae, 274 
 TSS es tee a 2 
 LALO ae tae 279n 
 RCE ces eee 2120 
 LielOle 2 te ee 2720. 
 Pal One ac hae ee 276n 
 Tere ene 274n 
 | Gstaad ACA ee osha, On vege ha 
 DS ae eee 274n 
 US Psi Oe ae C2 273n 
 Lets seen ee 271n 
 ED Relicee ae ae Zion 
 LER aera 272n 
 Lira Sate 276n 
 1 Ot ay Ge ie 270n 
 UG OG Weal har Buin 
 LRA ee eee 276n 
 Lieto eee On 
 Len tae ren yee) 
 Li, Oe ee Do 
 Lijgi0ee ee 274n 
 RBs Ci Pten 8 Hien yale 
 Liselovaa se cre 279n 
 TL eee 2UAn 
 TLE eee eae 276n 
 DLT See cee 2000 
 DLT OMe ere 279n 
 TEE ee eee 269n 
 Tet Os tk eke 279n 
 De A ea AEs ies a che ee 274n 
 V M204 ee cee 270n 
 Vil aS eerrentercts 278n 
 BABA KAMMA 
 
 TO Sivare iene 161 
 
 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC 
 
 ATAUME, NER 5 2 9 
 XEVILL A pale aet 
 KV LL 2 eo 
 
 XVII 125 
 XL XWRea ethene, 13 
 MUXM4s 15a 13 
 DO GERE OFS Lo 145 
 NOG SING oid 11 
 
 XVI tee 
 SOGVILL SOM mle 
 LOO aie hese... il 
 
 MISHNAIC 
 4G La ee Lelie bo 193 
 LETS LO Wal oes: 193 
 LV a0 ee ee 193 
 BABA METZIA 
 LRBtee See 192 
 | hoes ha Aaah bis alo 192 
 [0 Ee wane, 193 
 ELS age O tee 193 
 TS Leena ese 193 
 TIGR, LB ect eevee. iin 
 Ti Ta eee 196 
 TVG LA ey sisees cre 194 
 cL a er ane 198 
 VELL GS eee 194 
 TX 1 Bae 156n 
 BERACHOTH 
 Tyca fine On eee eee 192 
 1 Dat eg A 5 194 
 MSs deer grit toy 5s 193 
 1 Wie: ae Way betes 191 
 Li Rie eaten eee 192 
 LES Stree Speer: 197 
 ELT lee = epee 191 
 LV elon eres 194 
 VL Sees ma ae 194 
 VIED SID ioe 2 
 EXE EED ec oaeese 269n 
 BETZA 
 Vite 2 Set, ane meee eo 
 CHAGIGA 
 Tee eae ee prem 194 
 CHULLIN 
 LeU Aa Sie en ees 194 
 
 AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 PAGE 
 XXX V)28-249ee 
 
 XXXV, 31s 148 
 
 PROVERBS 
 XX XI) 167 ea 
 
 PSALMS 
 DO. O.ON05 ABT oie, 3 144 
 
 SAMUEL 
 2. LV, Gur sean 149n 
 
 EDUYOTH 
 
 Ve Gl eee 24 
 VIII,’ 7... 1238800 
 
 GITTIN 
 
SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 AVAL MeL. aes 138 
 Md et Sold Coca has 192 
 RosH HASHANA 
 DS ASD Cole eee 196 
 SABBATH 
 16 the aa 198 
 MRR Us peeesteciee rs 198 
 Velma to cvavey. oe 198 
 SAN HEDRIN 
 RS tak CoP dota a 148 
 1B de) eel eee ee 122 
 
 ABODA ZARA 
 
 BABYLONIAN 
 DAM TY ee Nal ee aie « 226 
 DP AE oe Pa ote, ae 
 BAY 4 Katee ene 224n 
 Green ee ks 244 
 ih ee ae ee ee 218 
 TRA) cick ey eee 8n 
 hike pe eee AUT 
 TANS Ae Behe namie ee 150 
 ATES by ac bee ee 255 
 LO UMMe Roses es) 5 ss 262 
 2G ER apt A 205 
 CAV ee CRR ING 5... « 205 
 ARACHIN 
 BABYLONIAN 
 Pants OUNCES eee 35n 
 BABA BATHRA 
 BABYLONIAN 
 Ameer Oe es 251 
 eet al BA nny eee 244 
 Gare seit. - Passa 
 OD ime Frise ine + 275n 
  Olpeaer es < epee est « 275n 
 146-L7a aye! 
 TErd a) Oe ape aie ra 204. 
 DADS vo pare Spl aA Iori 7A 
 POL oW Gal we area 245 
 FATES. J oma, ohne ape 256 
 PAY ATL eens Ee 250 
 JASE Ww), Ake ble See 67 
 AD Ae OAM: « 263 
 AE Lier teeee eee ie ts o> ss 250 
 AR emer oleueiar ese > 224 
 
 SHEBIITH 
 
 Seo Wee ee 208 
 ap Rey area Rea | 199 
 (ER oThoee ek ie ye uh 
 Fhe} 6s; See tere ES, Rae DAZ. 
 OS amit yce th rarer: 208 
 LOG site o5. CG Seer 226 
 LO SMEG or eater oe 208 
 BPRS Ph eee Fe ab teme 35n 
 BRYN Ns mi oes 238 
 TAG ae ate each: 205 
 T(r 59 
 BABA KAMMA 
 BABYLONIAN 
 DEO ee 5 SAE 206 
 3 eo oe ANA ay ag 226 
 HEN Oar Sc 238 
 Ramet a DOM Zo i 
 8 at cree ne 210 
 O ater A! Gens 226 
 OD Ernst eee 220 
 LOA eee: 296,200 
 1S Mana) Cae ee, 223 
 1B eee: Seen 204 
 iA see eee Se 228 
 LA er ee 256 
 BY Na Dae 
 TS baat to 249 
 LOS Meee wer oe, 244 
 PAN Ser pe RE 226 
 DO AM re ey kere 226 
 DOAN Oss beeen Das 
 D2 OA ea 253 
 23 Dawes eat: mes tees 21€ 
 Da aeRT Eas aueay as 244 
 Qa a ssn 151 
 VALET Ws pte eure hertes 207 
 
 TAANITH 
 Lg hp a Let ena eee Ce ty: 193 
 10 GA Se ee bee 198 
 
 YY ADAYIM 
 Leos case ns 13 
 TAR Oe sents eta 309 
 EGOS Cae tse Fe 140 
 
 YEBAMOTH 
 MB he So fuphiie earls 195 
 OT tae erect nee 246 
 PATEK, hte dy ane cents 205 
 PARA Oy ape Soe Maa NR 200 
 DO DIRT ee 227 
 29 Dee ee 23 
 S OAM aes seet 203 
 Sw LE & alee ete 240 
 Bam s ateras oa) 203 
 SQD ea ene OV? 
 at: eed gi sah rae 5 Pike 203 
 SODA AAO ae 220 
 Sb Deine meee 206 
 SCO NIA A Ae sera 228 
 YUE es SA OMe 226 
 OSTA Me per hee 231 
 TS ary rem Nowe ete 242 
 SER ba gts ot or Aeey ea 214 
 CBRE Vil ee dy Raed a ee 241 
 AS yrs iets Lite, Parad 
 AS yma wee ces a 24? 
 ATTY met nar uta ects 206 
 HAT o\ae iniiies evi Neee 2 aa 214 
 AS Dies ter han tne 226 
 CS yee heen Ne te 250 
 als; (Chee aa he 247 
 So be ae ea 230 
 BONDS tres Aon. tao 298 
 Vs an On tee 196 
 EP ee 262 
 SLAM eee 215 
 CGlapesa ce ea ae 2 
 GLABRA aah ia wee) 220 
 GLAM A 4 epee 263 
 62th rere eee 167n 
 SYA # heee-pee ae Seu eee 234 
 G4 Dee Oo otalaein: 168 
 GAD Mee edeiaie es 184n 
 
 O77 
 
378 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 TIA TR tee eee 155 DOD heehee. eee Deh BERACHOTH, 
 PBS eA WS nr ores 262 OS break we ete 952 BABYLONIAN 
 refi: fe Ra AA Gath 168 OO beet Here ee ae ee 296 
 LOA WN crane BAU AMg oan hin Sd ie 2501 8 he ae Ng 
 LUG REC eee 155n 31a-b Waele par ae 1296h Get eee 
 ear FA SEO is Tan 213.1 Sy ae 
 BaBA METZIA Pd an Mire Miaka 2067 obs nee ee 251, 252 
 BAPYLONIAN DOAge arenes On). +a) at ae 242 
 Ee eh teen Shia ciel Bh resi 996.9 Ui8b.- kee 247 
 Pek a. olen 203 SoD eee Cass wait 4a! eee 225 
 Beene We via all Det aod ev ok B05 Abi ys eee 238 
 as ated reed an 240 SAA Wire, kere hose o 250 AD OO ors pee 239 
 DAM mene hae He 439 Md belay earn 199°) 8h 4b 5 ee 248 
 oe Lana a fay SA a) 253 Oy aa ee eee 205 Da) 4 Uh eee 225 
 Site ene) Ob OW Roa Manor: Serene 196) Wa ee ee 225 
 BS aces teare ete eae 182 BO aa be 201, 226 Sa) ce eee 277n 
 Did tions teed 247 SSbi hak eee 233 Bien Caer 224n 
 Bb rokes cals kak 252 AQ Dae ome 203 Sb ee hee AI 
 Speen aamakrere ee 256 AO Diy sc 7a cence 219 Dal. sence ae een 226 
 Ger atts arate 223 Aap SPP ote Meee icdcs. 199 
 Chueitatauee BAD ET Bee opeMiaats Br) Peal 229 
 Rees weet sles ste PALS eG Reon NG ane ts an LOB eee 928 
 at AB ANN) leper 273n ; 
 ee rnp mete Avena Lg 259 Noy. | Ree hy 
 8a DE Marek te 260 48a Beati eved eee Re 273n 12 eo, a 
 Sa ie SAT) [Boa tee ee 240 Va ete ae are 
 iran octet DOD oat 315 by Meh eo hk ape ior Sea 9941 
 ft Geta ae ea ame 228 Bose Mereside, te Zio 13a. cee 206 
 AT Pity Pad Ree ace 240 59a Rakin! Coe Mette rake Me 276n 13a hie: 951 “O59 
 tlh Ws a ke gh ee end 2AT 60b aie joniethe ete tance 203 13 hal ie Oa : 259 
 Oates og ee et eee 254 GC 2a gaye ames 2b ie SA ae 260 
 fad Oe DHT AEC DAW hae 213 i Bio a 
 (Come yr la Tw in eet 231, 236 a ee ti 
 Frey h ubaaneyaes DAT NER ta Watney Mane 94g 1ba .....e eee 197 
 TEE cated ys DADL aw Gants amie O77n Lda .-+---- ee 202 
 Tih a nad DSO MSSh i uk anes 123n 158 ..--.- eee 216 
 Pera Pen are D1 Oda kes) came 213 dab ........ 197 
 TEE opto atelain) DOB TOLD plat eee 134 db .......... 230 
 Tey ee ome Dain’ O15 a O4b Lay ee 147 16a .......... 222 
 Oa nee Whee TRO na wOn ae.) emer 193) 10D oe ee 259 
 DOA AEC, Wea Pee 199 pwMeOOa ee tase 913) h(a eee 277M 
 Dane (eae DAD raw O@ay men ee PAVE MESA OB cuseier os 206 
 Lake: Mele DAB el They i eg iee Sdn gt (Oa iecete tee 215 
 OT an) tine keene BON Del Loa wmieg 2119) LTDA. even 218 
 Daas ae ae 232 1Sb ae Cee 923 
 Tene aen sie 233 BECHAROTH, 19a oe ee 180 
 OD strane Wt weit 205 BABYLONIAN 20b2) Jo ee 206 
 Doane een wee) PAW Se ek ded sc 05 D1 lees Ub iane eae 209 
 Oras a eae DOO NA ase h wal ween 999. tes 20 ba nen aoe 250 
 Dba sie Si vlMe iene ORO Sa yen gin rey DOSu S21 awe ae 258 
 Sib ee a bueae DAG ana Satan eee eae L700 22a eee 64 
 OG b ie Mae bee DOB wy Dba Oren tenn 30 80) 228 lal en ae 235 
 
Dipy eee ae DAT fe 8a ae ee DEO MMO Te time tw. 252 
 ray Nia Mens DBT FE Shy eee paren et D5 O MSS bi aha vena Re 170n 
 PTs 0 hee DATA On mUeEe se Dalit ten te A Wk 127 
 Dene 2h 1 Ob2 25S we laeee fe de ep DOTemn Uda 273n 
 D7 Ate ere ae OPA Ws telat) ela te er aad DOD TRMROLAMS. oh eka & 279n 
 cael. ane eae DOO LN ObAne capt e ale Ae SAGA a ek eA 192 
 iby Gente eaaeae Dini ie ORNCN hak aeeeel eae DAO Og ater 1a end toe 180 
 Doom eaten aie OS RUEMEN | letra t tty foe DS 4s awe Obie an ee 218 
 DS away enue ne SAG NETL Sat nee DBO ait Lobe eee nee 138 
 DOM ae LOSA  Saeet  aaege ty SC0RTML Ia ee 240 
 PLIE\. abt aan tenn DI oor Shee verte oe SOW 304 cee te oe oe 245 
 SObME eee PAN MALLE A tat nemeba icia Macmter 202 
 EP eed eam DOI) VL SAeen ro nue 254 ERUBIN, 
 eh RE rd ini en DiDiE Mec aereegin janie ce: 214 BABYLONIAN 
 CON. Ute D0? Mer Po aete pe eked ae 217 ; 
 BAR kee DSM AL OOM tae ae ia rs a ea ase 
 AY" @hecpe, coke kee ee 204 DO DBE Ee ee 40n pias CMe eas eG 149 
 BR Aaadete ahs Pe 182 GHD iy ae wut mee 213 [Saree Meee ney ARO 
 BSL es Pa PANE crny ei Me Mahe ee 196 9575 SPO ah od 
 BOD wie. on 192 GARG faerie ae 259 Dit Moe ca eee 168 
 Mas) i ee 225 Se Mea nE 43n 
 AU) EMER Ee sea 20S CHAGIGA, aes LE 175n 
 AOD on 223 BABYLONIAN Set ras G 945 
 a he ol 217 2 came) oan ey Tey tt 204 SFO wana AOD 278 
 da ai eh tes 149 CValeaiiclionehowel ovens n 
 BUI: 72ers See eee WANE) Wie pie) TON x Maiowaeia st 62b 6n 
 AA Mee cree 123n ae See ore ibcaToye nee Fai ee a 
 AREY ls, 5 teepegee 224 bet ote ale estat GITTIN, 
 AW GN i4 eae ae 205 7S: a a 229 BABYLONIAN 
 AGES ca Ble aiaeden tees 206 CHULLIN, DE Ne RRA ee 3 | 226 
 LED ETL MY ed 236 Sgn aN Se A Near cA 964 
 ANN AY. Dialed Og 228 2a 197 ob 932 
 2 rae NAN Abe iieae a gS ehed COME (Qe s Mr takes a co? 
 ATb SMT aioe joie Se lame 209 6a Su Miele: 117 8a ah eh Ae eT LO 258 
 ATD .......05. LOM Valin more ta die SHSM sb eure oe 240 
 50a ...... AURA 1s CSI Seba bel ae a) Oo Ih aA Ty went ena a 238 
 DO AGERE eae ue IE ee ithe noe 197 AN pte Mate an at rae 9243 
 HO0AS 5.22.5. CA OMIT SMe COTE pee Titibe Gavel ey tone eee 250 
 50a ......--5. AA 1 Shee Seale TOTMURE Oa le noe ue 240 
 52b .......0e. 202 page 1 Batwing TO TMG ODM es 213 
 538b .......4-. AONE TO au uel ats Histiy KOE G | Wet ea eee 203 
 54a-64ar ...... Dame OS tay NT Dao Mamet anniyins eran 259 
 5) LO ak Ske kee (OCR LOD Lease 209 
 6lb .......... LOTR) ee Re Sal) Bl Maal Die ee 276n 
 Bact 1D DSc Cees DOOWMRT bias sence tee ae 240 
 PALESTINIAN A GAMMA Chee, 224 Piney sees es eee. 179n 
 i Lites OE. abide ae tag toe OL OO Ate oe kee 257 
 : Glade eee te We it ROL pL eaee week 223 
 BETZA, Bpebn Le ee Ree LAT Sher eae 226 
 BABYLONIAN GhDeee wie iu TOOrieeed So Dias eta ta a 229 
 BP io ane eee DS00F ech bade tae ae HGEi nde 8) Oath LeU eee Np OBA 
 Hehe heen. SAGA GGA MULL eee OQUIMEL Haat te ie: 211 
 
380 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 LOD ny ere 226 HORAYOTH, 7a VS) ee 250 
 LAM Geet eee Don BABYLONIAN eat Pr a eee 256 
 LU ee een DOG Ma Oa Wes eee 126n a eee eee 258 
 BEST dys Wee eed DOH wane Oana eee 126n3 2b eee 242, 245 
 TO a See ue ee 204 begs eee 210 
 Saye eae 126n KETHUBOTH, Fie alee ihe? 123n 
 obama eae 246 re souhea : een 245 
 21b Vb wey Olan > 914 2a sists: ene a: eee. elairs 245 toa) aolel ene ees Cares 230 
 OO Sa toe. 9203 SWE ENT eee © ag iT L2ebe Ue eee 250 
 SDs mate ee 913 Py res Dln BOR ae bere 205 Laie tty eee 255 
 5d Sas el hea SORT CO eee rte 211) © 14 200 
 PY ahd ih dl ee 915 OSA rg Poe eae 64 L7i a eee 126n 
 Sayeumeltoa smite Brau SNL Pen eek 906) 18a ee 126n 
 Sis ee ious Aca gee eae O1f Ol h e 163n 
 Sine Bey a las Bate 941 OLR a eee 184 
 SoM ehh eH AG bea ation eer 1802 7220 ee 200 
 Ses cares HOamianiota ee PAR = I aha 160, 161 
 28b ...--+-++: 249 BeiS Same eet attamee Pay fe yo en 198, 199 
 BAS 1 cliche ea 249 sc 5 Shien ee ee Dette PAY apg ee a 209 
 32b-38a ...... 263 G6 Ta ties DUS ie ay a ee ee 222 
 Bo ae ayer 258 a.m Tlaee ee eee 919M 00a tne 240 
 Si ae ake, 5Oni. Thame ee 18S 2 090a eee eee 272 
 SAD Mw bike eee 208 BO at Tha. eae eee 199 29a-b 276n 
 yea) See bat be 951 G ia Fa ee See, 206 30b38 2 eee 119 
 Se he eee See kee O51 1032) eee 126n= 250 be ee ee 270n 
 Slave 2 ae 119 
 STE hoe KHERITHOTH 32a. Se 254 
 Bi abd ac oe 249 BABYLONIAN 5An is eee 194 
 am hea Mea 155 D9 WES a ae 171in 348) — We. eee 213 
 PA ORC von iF 242 
 Wiiiver ius Bey aioe ea, Oy ae 1995).. (35a, eee 24 
 ; Bay eee ee ba 1501 po ase oe coe 153 
 43b BL ere ER es 942n 11b al bed nae 192 41b i tear ee 125 
 os 245 Aan Renae 127n 
 ADAM ci aicks iaiaits 244 KIDDUSHIN AD at ORE NI aRe 296 
 SBE LY guaran ras 242 BABYLONIAN 14) eee 242 
 boavenue eee OB ALAM i Pat peer: heen 140 bea ba eee 291 
 BB bp Shae sere Si a Wee Pee eat hoy 207% ACen 204 
 Glave haere SWishi: Cede yariaecences.c 2051. wd Obie ae 64 
 CAh re aie 917 ei pare keteeteenes 204 50a as wacom 2 lah 
 A+ tin Le eee 218 Bodin s orttas Sete 249 DO Deion elenare gone 212 
 ped une ence 1800) 9) b2aci ee eee 50 
 art Oe Se bite ae SA0H, VASO ne ete 203 
 eee Fea ee) dul Rive coe 223 Od eles So ene 203 
 ee ene an ee Ay eee 350; Ob ee eee 207 
 Abe | laren aha S0iee 1 60a eee 226 
 (CC AD TUES piste get ae th tele 155 60K ee en P11 
 TA veer ee eee DIL SBE ia pe ee ON eee 54049 G0b wee ees 221 
 TAD Mors ua 22 ISS Faulk freer ee DATE G 1 ade een are 216 
 HRCEY Yeo Ge ASS 203 RL RRA ree Ae 182 63408) ene 192 
 Gam da tay ee QL Mee baht eee O57 64a ee ee 126n 
 
SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 381 
 
 GENS de ee 218 MENACHOTH PESACHIM 
 
 DUR ae) chabert Has BABYLONIAN BABYLONIAN 
 hold iio ae Pays Salah easel ae Cee gap 1638n OE eal VALS Leh 198 
 69a pie Fel Werte; 6. .6 eis, 208 66a SPicloh's Veuelemed olLets 176n 2a-3a ere ee 249 
 76 Na oul ee A 2D5 Ae Paste belt at Sue AE 154 Ata Time oY 244 
 ee DVM soe tet. 293 Fi ey oir rd Seat dane Zino a een 920 
 (fal thc ee eee 196 NGAe eek het ee 159 A Se DAA 
 eA ROPER rie eae 1 ODT ear ie eee 126n 
 MACCOTH Sia oy ey A ee es 245 So eee eens: O57 
 BABYLONIAN 110a .......-ee 61 ey 5 Tian Rua 260 
 OA el > i Aan By Sere Oe 126n MorpD KATON 5 Dates vee nee Sin 
 
 A a 9 ee Low BABYLONIAN DDR ee ke e's ye 
 ANY 1s) en gee 240 CATR Roy faieak dehy ae a 253 ee Wee eae 256 
 aie | Soy ae ist Aa gy “a hrah Matbeneeee 263 Ob .-.-eeeeeeee 178 
 AM Sear LG ATR amr ran 180 7A eee eee eee 250 
 BD meta cate fied. sDeASyo UU Ig A hy see ee De OMe desiree: 259 
 Ais Ce ane US BM amr cet 214. 8A eee reese eee 204 
 GO mM e oie + - 2b lemme meee Nee 920 DA verse renee es 206 
 Teoh So St ee Ae ae OTe SO Oe eee es 44n EY ith Ak iy Ola ee 250 
 Py ye ed sch ee 186 19b-20a 297 ODMR rie arc 240 
 iy) |: ape, oleae Peal EOP] vy) ena ecitoe 227 10b ......-+ee. 245 
 STs Sica 29? CEA) Ear een 64 VD aeea ata nee os 243 
 iON ey A et eee 175 TL Dakatrc ites te ena. 219 
 TODA oes. os 249 NAZIR LE Dieta ce ctarsceae oe 221 
 1a oy a 257 BABYLONIAN LOSE ere aes 22o 
 EW ee) ee ee 934 CE acne Ai Ar EOeee 209 LObae Oe eee 249 
 | WEES ee a a 920 A mee eon ave tee 218 Nd oy ee oe 240 
 TOR ns we 66 Sy ES Se 200 TO Beare eines: 259 
 POL MN eo ke 939 Po Sa eee Aig oe 206 DADiats.. aaa 209 
 ihc, | Liey ee aE O51 151 nd een mille? Botan LG Pre 22 Deen eee ee 124 
 {lh hed EAI Lee pelt oy Ac ye 
 
 SA Sa eae on ay 136 DOAREA aie. acti 
 eh at GO lk, Boeing § 217 PATA We Ae cia ee eg 221 
 EE Petey sce 5 eiteae Whas 256 
 AMEE ate Ce Siok 201 NEDARIM 99a OBI 
 TIEN. © ‘ohak Sih tee he 238 BABYLONIAN 99a-29b Se ates aoe 933 
 DAME es ces 243 AT yee =: Seer tee 159 30a poe Tog 997 
 21S. | bse Se 210 Dea ces 234 Ary ee ae 296 
 Lbad | ec eek. POD Bre. crete 251 30h je Pa ae 939 
 [oes DOOMMIE OAC eer acc: 2d (eigenen, pete ena a8 
 TOD ee ee ees 197 DO Dame URE As 66 814 234 
 LODE RR eee 203 25b-27a 263 TORNCeI phy O57 
 Dh ae eae 209 ZOE mE ee cues § 276n Be 126n 
 HIG Bak oe Ae ee 236 bey Ob! 5 uke: ir the cree 238 SAND AUER N He lace. 939 
 Du hes Rte eee 216 AD a eee ek pista POM 19h is en Ek GO 
 TIEN in ane er Ghia Sade ee 203 De ice oaeeaten 120 
 PON CE Sa 201 NIDDA Ab ee eee 180 
 BABYLONIAN AOD RNC Croce. 206 
 MEILA 1Ghwiee ee ee DOT EE. Chae eee 217 
 BABYLONIAN TOM ey a 15 lege dG baste eee. 253 
 
382 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 AOD eit ote es 218 By te aa eae eee 256 SABBATH 
 Bb Aha ee 208 Aha ON eek ee vee, 255 PALESTINIAN 
 515] sah aD ia aa PAIVAS) nal Os ly nae aR Er ak 245. UN T0200 64 
 DTA vse eee ees UT Ns Wr oe bene yb 260. XLS 289 
 2) Ce 2B Bar Gai teeht Gabeata 250 
 OAAAE Se el as teie es 226 6a 258 SANHEDRIN 
 Le Oa at ne AN hen rae BABYLONIAN 
 Ta, Sue ak ee D0 4ge ae Uneaten eens abe re mare oe 
 SGA Me bre ee 186 9b eras eek ce 4 ee 234 3b SLL. ES ae aa 255 
 5 eater yy tc aaeevta 199 LOD te ts ees 276n The ee 136 
 GOB wea 17ST LL ieee neater a4T ia eee O55 
 Lea ARs loth Metabo mens 85n 11b COC RICIIC I CHIC E) 257 6a Te a oe ae 927 
 Tae eh te nek OT TL on week ee 250” lee iy ee alee 
 7 Oa atacis etenetys 276n ae A Ser, De ON a Sail. 14 Of ae 246 
 Che tereren ror Ob aka eee 240 
 i eanemere Doe: ee tebe nas 247 1 Cte oe eee 148 
 Vr ee FETA Ctl Uh sear Be 258 hol Oawhi ace ee 245 
 , DA eee Ree PAV I Es) spam eernale 217 
 RosH HASHANA DAD Bac si eee 224 L Tiki 141 
 BABYLONIAN DAS) eRe ene aele PS D7 Gh Diet See ee 249 
 AEN es Cabal HN ae 199 OS me viaite, Laat weed O7OT. LL SD Bee ieee 209 
 2) Be pects Popa tha tee ni DO eels eae wl: 226 aoe s Lslge moe Role ae a 
 Pisdictie eater award fave A etal helisnacte teens n 
 Rie ence tag Sone een Soa 334) rn 217 
 TRAUG eure eee S55 D0. 1 ea pear ie mene gan) 28a eee 229 
 Tiaee eee ee 260) ies ae en gieal YY ue Cy ee 5 3n 
 [Shae coe Dah rasetibede tae oar OSS SAat | ee 223 
 That ate bas 935  - B9A_ weer eee 2185. 4b e ee 249 
 {Ober he ee 957 41a ........0-. 199 2 OF ven yee 199 
 DO baie aie oe O23 SOA asta a dale = PAL GI UE BOA ee ne). 231 
 ON EN Mabe apne 1.99) furs 0 aiken oe vere 24275) | 2hg 58.0 et ee 231 
 PLY Psa che ey tae PA sy 3) Peete Iris GI be Lisi oa ee eee 50n 
 DD aye teen cna ean DUG ie Oi B= 1c fee oe ene 209 OV nie ne eee 226 
 OD ene hand one {OO O2Di agi ee 2D) 1 OV aus ee 233 
 DO me ctw ens 25 ty Od emia. ew ieatees 1220 8 O7 Rte es 234 
 OG again were eke 9165.9 Gdare en ee 2700. OT pee |e eee 118 
 Take we Vener O15 COATT kuin. ty peer 10(n) 22h) eae 224 
 OSA ae erage PASS sh) 9 AUEE SS BS cles L720) | OShee eee 226 
 SOD ae ee ae 19S eos ie ta ae sees De eR nm a To 179n 
 Se ty Mas Oy LOG MIE OO Uae triers ante: Ald OG ae een 229 
 SONA hw vam PAINE ie es Ut sie aang ta 208 20S 0b une eee 240 
 BON a iT one een D1 OM ROAD seinen etn 214i Fae ye eee 191 
 18 abd edie aet tee 196 104a .......... 2130s 2 89a vas. ee 239 
 Pa vie. cia 287 Bey Any ee 915 
 SABBATH 1485 et tee 64 tS Sb eee 126n 
 BABYLONIAN tPA Bie B's be Hx 212 SAD ee eee 154 
 DA inte Me dean LE DOT BL Od ate weer cramenras 151 54° Ree eae 233 
 brea at eee 20 TS Zaateee 136, 217 Sh bt ge beeen 172n 
 Sa chs eee ne 193 LLOQ wa ee: 35 36a Soha ee 122 
 
SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 383 
 
 OME ov sis sah 126n SUCCAH LS Ueerean eaneeh dices 193 
 AAA) EO ears 199 BABYLONIAN Bomar vey ae Zt 
 BA Ey a As Soe ars pA ey AR Re PO) eee 249 DANG ate | Lieaten 123n 
 TEE Aon ae ee 12605 Psy ee ie eter cies 249 Ud’ TE ae 255 
 ERD) i i ea 260 aye Soa ae Ne 292 DAG Men aorta fa 298 
 G2 ite. LOZ FES Rate Pepe: 224 VY Sh ee Seat Ale 
 Ga ate ta et as TZON AR Rh ater kee 234 Pas fetes al eee 251 
 i Cea LOOSE Aneel alk co BE heats ta atey aa 218 
 GOAME evar 203 Taya de edn eee teens 240 OO ata witness 199 
 BOAR alias ss 205 Se Nine ee ee P11 SOAR Ba creme < 248 
 Gl DINE gee acs ote s 170 DOG tn OUT) aaa ete ets 5 ee 218 
 GUD Mert ore hs UOT CoG n muna hem es 209 AGA Pee eee ead « slay, 
 Ges), hate a Rear 20% 59 5 errant ney, 186 Bt) iy oaeseseee eee hake Pepe 
 (BEN oS aan ea iper 206 Sa ae ae) REN at: 205 Dons haa cea: 212 
 INGE SS Ss eRe 33 Piety, Ades piel ess 258 boa. Meee 250 
 TES Ra Bion 98h StF HEYA we este ah ati 276n 
 pois Ty bu. Aa © gen tae 219 Bae ee ae 185 UAE We ree is ener 278n 
 ODM eee tsk rtat 204 AC ik cole re cane 231 63a-b Bi Peon 
 oat: Wong os uh Manmade ae tok eyed ei ae en wees 126n 
 ne AN AC tr, AD Pan 2738n TAANITH LA Clercta nate ae ee 126n 
 BABYLONIAN TAU ae hah Bee ins 
 S HEBUOTH PEC aa aa aad 202 T6a ........+ 257 
 BABYLONIAN Ohare es. (aac nS PY Wiles edt keh AA EN aess MRR 151 
 Ula) os Ec ae TOOT ee Di. eae ieee 215 ADM Mls Shateteetis 208 
 AW * oa a eee LON Tie bee ere ers: cis 228 LS Diners ate cae urea. 205 
 Ab PSA del SATA Rae Mele: SAG MRL Sadho ae ie 218 
 PMP Mees x! 45 53 Wee Say GENE ee Peal lei 229 LOO a eee ie eerie 218 
 DAMME ac Nil: sos ss 207 
 Brameries vices.) saa) WE AOE Re ace Ae eo 240 YOMA 
 IRS 0 | tal eg mee 257 ae ce Baga ey BABYLONIAN 
 HO Desert fo la> 233 co Ea Cr LE eh tometer te 20 
 tome te. 226 22b sss MECN a Seta 2760 
 TAS yA ae tok PAV) oA a es Nice LO OMe thane 251 
 25a ose eee 234 Bye ash tae Ria rte: 243 
 (gs aaa gs 7 URES 8 ee ae 538 
 RECO ew snes catia 466 185 Feet SIE ernie 4AM tals 252, 253 
 26D 6... eee 180 Tey tis wae Cee ES GDetrer steer 232 
 PAO. etn iene ee 211 TENN ca etc en w6b-7b 283 
 2 PEAY ROOT iat ea haa Sei Abed «heel 259 
 Bla .......eeee 181 YEBAMOTH deta eee oer 208 
 SPAN ea eer ecg 212 BABYLONIAN Dd treme i ait 205 
 BTb .....-.---. LBD pep ate Sac eenta DOS MMMELAD He henyae ete 215 
 BALDY wate as PARISH ANP ak oe ane DAG eae 1B agtien ve urine ot 252 
 ABA .o. secre es 10 Ted ameter it. 1S MES TOMOL OAR ees Obani ee 247 
 A8b ........45: LOSBrir Garter tics PAO Many | Gadi NS Vs Ban: 221 
 TL Ateay ees eon areas PTR EOD SE aa es a atekartes 234 
 SOTA THR Mos TOO PMD 1h MN Rg cr eas 223 
 BABYLONIAN Eo eke 2B Oe MEO Di cde ai aces 274n 
 DAD rere sss ie 57 Ld eaters cn take. eZ d DO ie.tesae sdetetaiae 252 
 PAREN“ One are 21 DY pe La ate el cienae os 256 VAG) a Sarar hens Wa 229 
 
384 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 
 
 RAN bate atc eh ae DBR RY al eae 952° 1990). ee 255 
 STB aaa Ree DUG) SR5b chk wale 125 (1345 ee 252 
 40 2 Mite 202, 200 shh] Sb ate eeu Ss re se 250 S4a°.), ee 164n 
 EWA Ee ee ae DAA EES 5 ae eee 278n 
 
 count a iene 255 Wain a 
 OT bee hore 209 ZEBACHIM Ae i ae 
 
 G9b ee woe 269n BABYLONIAN 49biin 3. Pee 242 
 Tf Sen Ra De ay 144 OD kero eee 260 SDD) oe ayaa 199 
 
INDEX OF EXPLAINE 
 
 D TECHNICAL TERMS 
 
 PHRASES. 
 
 Page. Page. 
 217.2382 . J oSay5 se 
 210 ; xmim23 256 
 157 . ; oN 2 204 
 159 3 faba poiay ain) pa! 244 
 244 . . Nya 292 
 244 : : mg ya 230 
 202 s . : nDow 7 244 
 253 ~ wot nnd sndya 239 
 210 : : mona 259 
 245 MOws WIN ya An. 259 
 227 . MD NP NwDIN NID 242 
 223 : ; . NDI miki 
 143 . : my nN 229 
 249 : : no i bheb 200.204 
 148 : , wey yee 257 
 252 . : NA7DN ONT 827 
 251 son won xdboNt 125 
 252 : NYT NPD ONT 218 
 225 . © WIN MONI 256 
 250 “ ; 26 TRON 228 
 174 : WV sad ass 240 
 132 A a] Anes 9209 
 181 2 NINNI PIN AN WN 252 
 254 ° mnt 257 
 134 yay pan sad 240 
 249 ° ° A eiyyehben| 264 
 197 e ; tal iat 205 
 947.252 . : SOI XPT 213 
 238 emda wi ad aps 185 
 118 : ‘ » aay 223 
 
 229 
 g ot 210 
 ae ae SD NEW NT ra haat 
 
 224,225 
 226 4 noy one Nn eh 
 233 A a SND ONT aa 
 258 NIPNID NT NNTID NN 
 203.257 . : . 90 Nn 
 132 : Ay heat evsete 197 
 257 NINN 9D WONT NI 90°.249 
 
 385 
 
 AND 
 oN 
 ° meas hs 
 ® ° SVAN 
 
 NDI IN 
 
 sobwa mis ts 
 WIAX VDT WINN OS 
 VERE teas 
 
 NON MYDS 
 
 Hop eas had. vaya hots: 
 NS IND ODI ON 
 oN OARS 
 
 ° MRL NeIS 
 
 =) SANT NIN 
 
 : » NIDDN 
 SENELO RNS 
 2 NIT) UDR 
 
 ST YO PWIA PN 
 
 mpl 
 
 WIBNDD SIDS 
 MATS 
 
 ° : xox 
 
 b NN NON 
 py asd xox 
 
 porns xavb xa xbs 
 
 ~ Nmap wbx 
 : any xbx 
 
 . » xpdx 
 
 NON 
 
 nary xapod ox 
 
 “1 TOR 
 
 NIN WD JIN AN 
 
 z OE 
 
 3 ase ssimixs 
 
 ! . Dns 
 
 ‘ 123 DNS 
 lice 
 
 ° - sialipnyal 
 
 we MtorDy NDA 
 
386 
 
 Page, 
 240 
 
 213 
 
 259 
 
 218 
 
 218 
 
 225 
 
 227 
 
 247 
 
 218 
 
 212 
 215.222 
 147 
 
 239 
 
 213 
 
 201 
 238.256 
 
 206 
 157 
 147 
 196 
 235 
 182 
 209 214 
 193.247 
 206.250 
 137 
 192 
 143 
 246 
 1b8 
 
 215 
 200 
 232 
 163 
 164 
 166 
 167 
 256 
 219 
 
 : NON 3) 
 ein DDD 
 ; . yoyn) 
 
 © dS md) 
 exmapo bay 
 . DwE I wY) 
 . OTIDN wD) 
 . NINN 
 
 : ‘5 93D) 
 é . yy 
 : m0 
 . §D{TIN aw 
 
 eet 
 ~ (xa) xin 
 
 » Sond adonyw som 
 
 e 
 
 ° S1720N 
 
 opal 
 
 NDS NNT 
 BIS WEP POG 
 
 AND WAY NT 
 ord Jy pvt 
 
 VON IN WS TW 
 
 : man 
 » spn) Non 
 . Siebel 
 ee SENDS 
 a apes Tabieh pl 
 
 pan 
 
 . wpnn yo ono sb) 
 
 . aim 
 : wee NY? 
 
 ees 
 
 LANDY. IND 
 ea aes 
 
 soda xd .xa 55 
 
 St obadaee 
 é pray bs 
 © 555) pies bb5 
 prt Nop xbb5 
 ‘ m5 sebs 
 . aod xyenes 
 
 —EEeeeeeeeeeSSSFSSSSSFMSseF = ae 
 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 242 
 211 
 238 
 238 
 
 207.208 
 
 216 
 
 200.242 
 152.250 
 200.241.257 
 
 207 
 198 
 258 
 
 247.252 
 
 209 
 56 
 
 123 
 243 
 160 
 
 212.25 
 
 199 
 258 
 202 
 
 235 
 204 
 204 
 231 
 260 
 225 
 209 
 2138 
 254 
 225 
 240 
 245 
 205 
 260 
 214 
 205 
 233 
 221 
 
 Ieee 
 
 e 
 
 ° 
 
 ° 
 
 INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 
 
 PID) DN NIN 
 ° NON AA 
 ° ena WwW 
 ° - AY 
 2 S94. 54 
 « NDP NIN 
 ° ty Bebe L be: 
 wn 
 
 IMPDY °&D3 NSA 
 “99 NID NIA 
 WIN KIN 
 NNW 957 
 NaDNOD °D3s"Sn 
 IONP Dn 
 
 nbn 
 
 yon AWS Dbz 
 [2x7 pd NMA 
 
 maw mMwn ayn 
 
 DAT AD KnvnT 
 
 ’ WSS OnAA 
 e « -NOT...ONnA 
 NP ON 
 
 el 
 
 Moy sry 
 
 . AON ON 
 -qnyt xpdp oxy 
 : TPN 
 : » OND NY 
 : ND MN 
 : 6D bey 
 NDR) 
 NTN Day 
 ‘ MD DN 
 VON OX? 
 
 25 ssn ox 
 NDI 
 
 » xpd 
 
 xem maps 
 somite? sw) 
 
 e 
 
 cman xnsday 
 
 - sunt pn 
 han am 
 
Page. 
 159 
 
 242 
 
 218 
 
 151 
 191.217 
 260 
 
 244 
 
 258 
 
 250 
 
 258 
 
 224 
 
 259 
 
 256 
 206.249 
 132 
 
 247 
 
 200 
 
 243 
 
 20% 
 
 195 
 
 208 
 
 200 
 201.2388 
 255 
 247.252 
 193 
 
 214 
 
 192 
 
 193 
 222.241 
 220 
 
 255 
 
 182 
 247 
 234 
 249 
 193.248 
 132 
 243 
 233 
 192 
 
 INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 387 
 
 : wD AD 
 : qwb) nD 
 eno wn nabmy 
 ; . TDOBW 
 
 ~ npn 
 » PO RDND 
 : WIN 
 
 - RMR TD 
 - mat 
 
 4 2 DID 
 : . xo 
 : NID 
 : MID YD 
 : ban 
 : spon 
 
 nd NODN NID 
 ~ SD on NID 
 . wn ow 
 » mMOYADT ID 
 mynd xmD 
 
 IND 30 
 ; . $930 
 s Sop 53 
 : m3 SDB 
 ; NINDY 
 : . mwyp 
 . nod nvyn 
 ; NYY 
 
 : IND) NW 
 4) Si ahazrebiete: 
 Inn NNN 
 
 ; md HYpnD 
 eat 
 
 ._ op 
 ; ope IMD 
 » OND NY 
 ; . yop? 
 ; » NTDD 
 : . PTD 
 . ND AND 
 ° NNMY'D YO 
 NE'D 
 
 Page. 
 235 
 224 
 160 
 226 
 196 
 196 
 260 
 
 200.210. 243 
 
 239 
 224 
 194 
 219 
 233 
 
 208.217.235 
 
 234 
 234 
 197 
 199 
 244 
 
 218 
 
 195 
 200.243 
 
 198 
 24u 
 
 232 
 
 201 
 
 249 
 
 199 
 
 199 
 199.228 
 199.210 
 142 
 
 208 
 213.217 
 205 
 
 122 
 
 123 
 
 118 
 244 
 210 
 157 
 
 ‘ MOND 
 ' MON ND 
 » AAPA Nd 
 
 TOMS WIWDD IND 
 » WANN 
 
 SOND Nya Nd 
 snys xpbp xd 
 xony xb 
 
 ‘ rye xd 
 ww xd 
 
 2p NN 
 
 : pan xd 
 : mops 
 » rps 
 » own xpos 
 mS xy yon xpos 
 
 : nonnod 
 
 xnzda ons 
 A) Npa wns 
 : son 
 » sr wind 
 ‘ pbyy5 
 
 ND 
 spr NON ND 
 ’ WY5 WY 
 
 NOY WH 
 
 é tad ND 
 sD" 15 IS 
 
 » POW We! 
 ; IONP IND 
 » PP yowyp wy 
 ‘ 32D (Ns 
 . SON Iw ND 
 » NY NOW ND 
 ma AD 
 NATIT 
 
 nw 
 
 mbm mK yap 
 ; . nD 
 NONI IND 
 
 . SnD ...nD 
 
388 
 
 Page. 
 
 206.249 . . 
 
 206 
 224 
 241 
 241 
 160 
 175 
 252 : 
 216 
 193.261 
 233 
 
 214 : 
 247 
 
 132 
 228.233.241.254 . 
 243 
 
 245 : 
 
 239 
 
 238 
 
 220.221 . 
 
 220 . 
 
 202 
 
 195 
 
 191 
 
 235.257. 
 
 222 : 
 
 221 : 
 
 222.229 . . 
 22.230 4 . 
 
 221 : 
 
 220.228 
 
 222 ° 
 
 220 ° 
 
 236 ’ , 
 
 MIND POW 
 MIND NYOw 
 
 SNOW KXNYOY 
 
 RIIY 
 XPT RIIY 
 
 SMX3 Dyan DDND Sw 
 Mer Owns Dandy 
 
 WEY 
 
 om ooxp vey 
 
 xno xdpw 
 pew xn 
 
 » enon 
 yon 
 
 mi nonn 
 rnorn 
 aay 
 Nn 
 
 oF PIN 
 anon 
 
 ; : Non 
 (JS) S13 NN 
 
 NP NDT SON 
 “S27 NIN 
 
 NOP NON 
 
 NT NON 
 
 maa wn 
 
 NN 
 
 997 19) NIN 
 TMD kN 
 son 
 
 xDIN 
 
 nt ad soon 
 
 (ann) yan 
 - oynon 
 
 | Page. 
 etl 
 209.238 
 210 
 177 
 191 
 217 
 132 
 
 242 
 186.254 
 193 
 255 
 242 
 245 
 117 
 209 
 210 
 207 
 160 
 211 
 212 
 209 
 239 
 | 180 
 124 183 
 240 
 207 
 192 
 258 
 
 241.257 
 246 
 246 
 
 INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 
 
 m5 NDR NBD 
 snyt xpbo 
 
 NON Joy xpdo 
 “19D 
 
 : . pno 
 opsp xboxo sy 
 NTT SID Y 
 
 . i—.d 
 
 » Npyve 
 
 NINH 
 
 . osmnbp 
 
 a hie) 
 
 (P7515) Prp 
 
 NTO NAD DWE 
 NIPT MOWD wD 
 
  ND'RD 
 -, (5) rows 
 w3D"D) 2 nine 
 . yaw mw sy 
 ; ND 
 . : oben ta ya 
 
 9M) DDE ND 
 Se PN WID 
 : spim 5p 
 Diy) V7 
 mon 
 
 NMI 
 
 : nw 
 NENDD NOM 
 
 SO ets 
 
 (ONT) XDA Nw 
 , m5 ynbw 
 ; pn inby 
 
a 
 
 KEY TO THE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD 
 AND ITS COMMENTARIES. 
 
 OYY NS opr 
 aby ax oye 
 DB Sy ry opp 
 
 1p Spay .o“pyN 
 
 sonar .n/aN 
 oN ODN 
 TAVIS 
 aod pay psa bys 
 NIP IDX wR 
 IN YN 
 Oa ONS AN 
 (in Tosaphoth) 
 vey one Seow ape ows 
 “DSN OX .n“S 
 sod xyonox ons 
 pga! 
 DINWI-IN PID ND 
 527082 ND 
 Sen para MN 
 Salen) oo 
 mo dya.sanaN22 0.2/3 
 abnaqwa mon q232a .n’a3 
 Repophek grea 
 OUND 37 ADIs .N7I3 
 wiepa ma oS$ama  .n’s 
 Ninqaa-nanSya 
 oroe Soa ma ox’na 
 mova moon. w/z 
 (in Tosaphoth) 
 nodaAn. .D/Aa 
 mA nD. pA 
 
 yoaqon m2 nna 
 wIpon m3 .ppAa 
 onawa yg 
 ovnSys andy. ona 
 spy bw dina pena 
 pipp baa. ’D3 
 
 ys 
 STN IN DN OTN 
 WEN ON MID ON 
 BN nen 
 xoowa nies oN 
 1 ox xdx 
 (793) 13 PX AYIA RDN 
 NON MYIw 
 MD ON 
 Mary 32 arpdsy 
 DONT NDN 
 NWNIN OWN 
 naa 
 OT ODN DT ON 
 odyn nim 
 192° TN 
 ON) IN 
 SON) InN 
 ndiyn nie 
 wp Sais 
 nrNN 
 DYNAN .DYn DN 
 Trane 
 7D 4nN 
 Sse pax 
 NOON YD ON 
 1D ON 
 ndion nolD woe 
 ND OND PR 
 ssp sox 
 (nb) a5 se 
 On5) ad mew wxtd ox 
 sons » KN 
 son eon xbox 
 3 DN 
 ‘7 1D TAN 
 ohyn 5p abs 
 | I °N 
 209 
 
 
 
 
 
 NN 
 
 a“ 
 
 a“ 
 
 -24NR 
 -D/NN 
 “Ss 
 NIN 
 “TIN 
 Aiptals 
 An Fat 
 oS 
 pauier Per 
 T'S 
 “ 
 
 dann 
 “NIEN 
 RI’R 
 mE 
 IN 
 Jp < 
 tle 
 ITN 
 eaatis 
 Be NS 
 
 INeDEN 
 
 Nya eK 
 
 3/’R 
 “TDN 
 Be 
 mp iodte 
 buy 
 
 a“ 
 
 a“ 
 
 nbs 
 sent 
 px 
 px 
 
 3° 
 
390 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 NYDN I 
 Pq NIT 
 
 mo m4 
 s905 m5 m7 
 yD m7 
 sod 0 mI 
 3DND D4 
 xody 105 
 rw 
 ONT INDI 
 NDYY ONT 
 nipp bao 
 Mvp. 
 M3 NPI 
 ODD II 
 snaz dy 
 
 pvp 55 Sys 
 Sexo 
 
 SNyI NPD NPT 
 mn ps ANN 24 
 37 n4 
 
 wt 
 
 NYON TT 
 mvayl x24 
 
 N17 2 eytpA 
 IPDY NDI NINA 
 SoVIUNT 
 
 (in Rashi) })°973 935 
 mdi mon 
 wIIIN 
 
 Noha iaata et bate ohn 
 2n27 Nn NAN 
 
 YD mA 
 
 mresn 
 
 m3 In 
 
 NDYO ONT 
 
 ayo man 
 
 nbn 
 
 syd aS min 
 syp nwod nada 
 yp min 519 9n 
 
 SOR AST AD TT 
 
 sot “¥9 m7 
 
 Sat 
 a 
 as 
 bubs 
 
 oelah 
 
 bela 
 
 pint 
 3257 
 
 Nays) 
 Sah ae | 
 
 497 
 
 "D7 
 aa 
 ay oh 
 D4 
 hit 
 BOT 
 NDT 
 WOT 
 nis 
 vn 
 
 7x53 
 
 NSD XII 
 YD 7D. 
 MN ND NII 
 mI Nw. 
 NDT XN DI 
 man Oya 
 
 (in Tosaph.) Dwr ntya3 
 mn ody 
 
 NAD Dy3 
 
 mp Syn 
 
 MOINS MD NN 
 
 nnd 
 
 Dat 
 
 Ay ich | 
 He poy 
 hen 
 aa abel 
 myo 
 shiv 
 Ppa a 
 ee) 
 S53 
 
 DANI IDI vshD) D557 Saeees 
 
 NOP NII 
 NOW NI 
 
 DDN NOW MI 
 “J Dw2 
 
 ® 
 oa 
 
 (in Rashi) S7NN XDOW3 
 
 ph) sta 
 
 MW IT TW) 
 
 mt Oo 
 
 MY AW 
 
 (in Marginal pw 7 D3 
 Notes) 
 
 pon md: 
 
 NDW NOW) 
 
 {3 O) 
 
 NWA 
 
 Ov) 23 
 
 may nda yp 
 
 DMDy5D ‘3 
 
 MD .O7) 
 
 MC? TIN 
 
 et 
 
 TIPS DER 
 WEN ONT 
 
 ey a 
 wa 
 NWA 
 ws 
 
 Na 
 Geo 
 oe 
 we 
 Bra dd 
 
 a“ 
 
 ame 
 
 Aha Ss 
 Pe I 
 ap 
 Pt: 
 rg 
 ES 
 
 i 
 we) 
 
 RT 
 NRT 
 
 NSoxet 9455 
 
 on won 8S ot nbs 
 aod eyon ot .SO/ngs 
 som ndat wn’ nba3 
 
 Satatota tate 
 
 (in Marginal Notes) 
 
 si) aad 
 
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 sob er sy 
 wp por Syd yn 
 WY PD 
 (in Tosaphoth) Awp My 
 (in Tosaphoth) jy Fy) 
 
 Noy 
 pand Spy 
 (in Marginal }9pD) OW) 
 Notes) 
 4] 
 
 SON AT AN TT 
 SPN Antony mt 
 mom 
 
 mn nt 
 
 pw an at 
 
 monad (psDt) wt 
 yw ar 
 
 pops Now pond por 
 mI) wt 
 
 sroy nr nr Sy ar 
 3D WNW At 
 
 a 
 
 [ON Nn 
 synon din 
 
 ovr on 
 
 yosd ayn 
 
 syn Sw abin 
 
 mpi pt aN 
 DDN DYDIN 
 
 nvnd $n 
 
 yasd yin 
 
 DAD DIN 
 
 snp YM) AION “NON 
 pt sn 
 
 op) nw won 
 syn dyin 
 2) 
 
 (OND TYwWN) aX. ‘Y 
 ov dyau 
 
 yyy 
 4 
 ew) 
 Spekty 
 esl 
 . bay Dr) 
 uy 
 Ww 
 
 eT 
 TONY 
 gral: 
 aual: 
 it 
 buy 
 
 a 
 wr 
 ab hata) 
 yt 
 er 
 
 wn 
 n'n 
 AE 
 54 
 "WIN 
 bn 
 wan 
 bn 
 
 u 
 
 Bale a 
 p“aon 
 3’n 
 “Yen 
 
 - Prawn 
 Yn 
 
 Fon hid wo 
 alah my) 
 
 yoy wand xeyion 
 xn 
 
 9) °Dn 
 
 1) NOM 
 
 bsyb anon 
 
 ndynd spson 
 
 S509 990 
 
 NISNDD 3 D7 
 
 xan bya 
 
 mn pda 
 
 SID DA WIND Dn 
 omy) man 
 
 NOpN wp 
 
 "OND Dn 
 
 xin 3 wripa 
 sw. Tn 
 sop WIDy 20 
 “yan own 
 
 at 
 
 NDS ON 
 
 NON MPD) 
 
 [ONN ON) 
 
 310 
 
 oon now 
 
 bp xyom py 
 (in Commentaries) 
 
 ys NIM 
 
 2 PIT NM 
 
 95919 3771 
 
 orn DDIM) 
 
 aod wy 
 
 pyran wy 
 
 11 
 
 NON 
 
 siody 1595) 
 
 “ONT IND) 
 
 97 DWH) 
 
 330) 
 
 anDv nn) 
 
 myn 
 
 391 
 
 on SON 
 
 sya 
 
 4“ 
 
 Mon 
 f] 
 
 4 
 
 OT 
 
 UT] 
 
 liken 
 
 an‘ yn 
 
 TY 
 Bin 
 "BN 
 pn 
 Ot 
 wap 
 ea) 
 “yan 
 wr 
 
 NN) 
 eNoN) 
 0 RS) 
 a) 
 mi) 
 pvt) 
 
 Eiiai) 
 oy aha 
 10" 3i7) 
 
 w/in 
 
 bay 
 
 Ban 
 
 <heh 
 
 “n“3) 
 yah) 
 
 fg fhm 
 
 mp 
 jetta) 
 wd 
 
 Ah 
 
92 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 (o5° 19') 3° an5 
 
 ID NYYD 
 
 19 19-40 55 
 
 nia 55 
 
 3n3 43 
 
 ppp 55 
 
 ANYD JD pow 1D 
 1) nw DD 
 
 MONT INDI 
 (nON2Y) TN 1193 
 AND 
 
 xpdy wy5 
 
 5p 85 wcdy “dys 
 owe mp orda 
 nvnd Fy yD 
 
 sinw 53 «pw 55 
 
 — on3 
 
 ey, 
 
 sone gwd 
 ‘DAN 
 ody omst yn xd 
 xpdy “dios 
 roy 55 N5 
 m5 m5 95 and 
 soya xb 
 sox xd 
 xan boys 
 aroy yw 
 Gays 
 sad pny 
 9955 Nb 
 myst map res 
 (in Commentaries ) 
 wpd 
 sw xb 
 TD wp NS 
 (ow) sow x5 
 mow xd 
 yin ped 
 pow owd 
 sawyn x5 
 
 ws 
 saad 
 alse) 
 
 4“ 
 uu 
 jae 
 “4 
 
 Oy 
 
 ah ahs 
 wr 
 bM95 
 is 
 
 B'DYD 
 
 fats) 
 bys 
 wd 
 p> 
 
 Aan nNow 
 say indie a 
 
 (in Marg. Notes) 
 
 WD NOVO 
 ADD myo 
 | 
 
 DMN wy 
 (73) 19 w 
 pov w 
 nan 
 pw 4) 
 
 om537 OV 
 
 wan 
 pa} ov | 
 
 D323" 
 seh ye and we 
 DAD y 
 ppp 
 py my 
 yin 
 3) 9" 
 Dy Ney 
 wor m>3an 1) WII yy 
 panda psa 
 pow 
 ww TaN 
 
 a 
 
 ans 59 .oN%D 
 tnx ans 55 
 Wynd 
 
 IDI FD 
 
 NOM NMD 
 San wn 
 advan nos 
 bi3 
 
 word .nr 55 
 orn onde 
 
 IG 
 YO 
 
 e 
 
 nly 
 
 mh oo} 
 
 ° 
 
 ws 
 ere 
 eh) 
 
 ns 
 
 wy 
 
 4 
 yt 
 
 pe ny 8. 
 ny 
 sppda yya om am 
 
 mre 
 ws 
 ia fg © 
 Pee 
 jb 
 19!" 
 Reith) 
 
 ee 
 ST 
 yy 
 "'y) 
 
 eds 
 hat) 
 
 mp" 
 
 A alin), 
 
 Areal 
 
 reat at 
 
 1) Name of Joseph Karo’s Commentary on the code of Maimonides, 
 
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 py ini 
 
 om now 
 
 1) DY *prD9 
 
 by ano -ndyndspey 
 SANs 
 
 mI) NPD) 
 
 ody pro 
 
 DY NWI Naw 9 
 
 Dd 
 
 MIAN NND 
 
 DYINN DED 
 
 snyt xpop 
 
 NON JnyT Npdp 
 
 nnn 37 AND 
 
 MIAN 
 
 1D 
 
 m5 v2 
 
 (in S43 myn TAD 
 Marginal Notes) *) 
 
 MW) pad 
 
 NDDD PED -AID FID 
 
 AYO 
 
 DIB ANID 
 
 NIND PID No 
 
 NOP Pr Ao 
 
 MN NBD 
 
 mini povan oS 
 
 7) 
 WyOY yy 
 odds nti 
 is Ny 
 mp2) no ans by 
 “apy 
 ay by 
 so by 
 pidwn voy -yaxm oy 
 
 Non aby | 
 
 Pa) 
 
 mwD 
 ION 
 spd NIN OND 
 ov yan 
 DNDTIND ONT IND 
 DAD NII 
 37 Dw On 
 wa nt 
 95) 9 NID 
 2D AND 
 mown vaedp 
 mn yd 
 avai) 
 sn) pd 
 nd) ND 
 (in Marginal 7; pny 
 
 notes) 
 yoxd ayinn 
 NOVY OND 
 73D 4 
 nwy myn 
 nyd nyo 
 Op IY 
 on nD 
 maa wat 
 own by ya AwD 
 INDY AD .NIW OND 
 Naw wy ww WY 
 37 DWY 
 , nw 
 (MpDINA) AMY M7 
 manny 
 inn 
 
 od 
 
 NIMINN XDI 
 VSI 
 non 43 
 
 393 
 
 Sha) 
 ND 
 ORD 
 YAY 
 oT'1D 
 DID 
 e meas, 
 edi 
 
 O79 
 
 bY 
 
 wD 
 
 Anh tele’ 
 DD 
 0! ND 
 
 ‘4 
 
 inl | 
 
 ond 
 wD 
 Di" 
 Biase) 
 by 
 pi’ 
 ana 
 
 4 
 
 Tales lA) 
 
 Set a 
 dd 
 
 wD 
 
 wo 
 
 mec 
 
 n'y 
 OND 
 
 WD 
 palin 
 ms 
 
 1) Name of annotations to Alfasi’s ‘Talmudical compendium by 
 R. Joseph b. Chabiba, often referred to in Tosapboth Yomtov (Heller). 
 2) Name of the rabbinical code by R. Moses of Coucy. It is di- 
 vided into wy commendatory, and mind prohibitory laws. 
 
394 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 7 
 pwn ya apy 
 mwa Ty 
 maw mwnr oy 
 mend qr said Joy 
 Vy Py 
 +P 
 TNA ANP 
 spim 5p 
 
 S xomp 
 
 rand bp 
 
 Syown xp 
 
 snyt xpdop xp 
 
 Vy Pry nyp 
 
 DIP wip 
 
 (in Tosaph.) Awp nyp 
 ow map 
 
 am 
 
 maka), opal! 
 
 arydye 49 ards 235 
 mary pa aydsx 25 
 (7 m799073(9) 1339 
 sonoa2q2n 
 
 obiy Sy yoa5 
 Srobia yas 
 
 NOT ID wn we 
 wren mw 
 
 oan nw 
 
 vIn WNT 
 
 ANI RYN 
 NIon 
 
 (mppina) Ss39n 1999 
 
 NIN ID NN 
 
 NAD 9 
 
 porn 9 aaa 
 
 DITS) caine al 
 
 agen 
 Gage 
 
 YIN 
 
 cle 
 
 1 0 
 en 
 
 baal 
 Tate 
 wea 
 eelaenial 
 oT lean 
 
 Uy 
 
 ad 
 
 ‘4 
 
 SIM 
 
 fasts) 
 Aen 
 
 a“ 
 
 arn phy 
 
 mar may .nr by 
 myyn vary 
 
 sy fu by 
 
 Go apyy ry 
 
 my ov Ty 
 
 791) w* Tip 
 
 3 by 3NxD oy 
 snns by 
 
 ‘ID Ty 
 
 yay py 
 midway o355 ty 
 ww IND Ty 
 pve 55 by 
 
 Syd my 
 
 nod oY 
 
 ayy yy ay Tay 
 ods nay say 
 oenpa ‘ajy a by 
 mown WN Day 
 win ex ay 
 oy my nay aay 
 yoinn ‘any 
 
 >) 
 MWD .prAp 
 2S PID NON DY 
 2 pap .NINA PAD 
 (in To- DMNA WIND 
 
 ‘5 
 wN/5 
 05 
 eiteee) 
 
 saphot referring to Rashi) 
 
 wd 
 DID 
 mm pob 
 NDP PID - 
 Ssoon 3909 wD 
 (in Tosaphoth) 
 
 OM WAND 
 (in Tosaphoth) 
 
 aa) 
 ‘DB 
 “WDD 
 pd 
 p“7B 
 A een) 
 
 nb 
 
 1) En Jacob to which sometimes references are made in the 
 marginal notes to the Talmud is the name of a collection of all Agadic 
 passages of the Talmud. See above p. 76. 
 
 2) Frequently occurring in Tosaphoth Yom Tob (Heller) and 
 
 referring to the Mishna Commentary by R. Obadja Bertinoro. 
 
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD, 
 
 sadn =p ID AwY 
 oay yanw 
 yy ymw 
 Dyn ms Wy now 
 WYN JIN Woy jmow 
 ay my qa inte 
 bEwD win qry indy 
 way 
 my my 
 sas by 
 sob unyaw 
 Sow Wow .oow oy 
 syanw DY 
 nban pow 
 
 4 
 JUN NIN 
 pidone pwn 
 aN. nywn 
 ondn nvnn 
 7777 nen 
 [wy aon 
 med 
 NINN .ODN WSN 
 ‘nya oan 
 ow. mpown 
 ao OY NDOIN 
 pond avn 
 sa mbyn 
 3253 7 
 p’ain> O'Nta2 TN 
 ap TON 
 997 DI NIN 
 Nop Non 
 72D NOP Nin 
 3°y noyn 
 ‘satin 
 naw oynn .yow xn 
 na spar ain 
 wn adn 
 
 Dy 
 Seite 
 
 a“ 
 US We 
 AN pw 
 sy yy 
 on yy 
 “bw 
 by 
 ie, 
 Ap tena 
 ww 
 
 4d 
 
 ny 
 
 wn 
 4 
 ea) an) 
 mn 
 | 
 Saat 
 ON 
 slant 
 Lg 
 “4 
 SUAS a) 
 am oa 
 44 
 TON 
 Bl goht 
 iat 
 Sein 
 eral 
 Any ha) 
 VN 
 An Wa 
 Yen 
 BUyaen 
 eh) aaa 
 
 NOPD PAY 
 
 0D ya port 9 
 
 son 
 
 vps wy 
 
 vND 49 
 
 fond 37 Ind 9 
 
 Napy 9 
 
 DID WYT.NDD 9 
 
 nyo 9 
 
 TIYSN JI NyNw 9 
 
 DATA jy Nwow 1397 
 (mpDINI) 
 
 ANY TD Ny 4 
 Ssedio3 1a py 9 
 aoa Seow 9 
 (mpoina) 
 
 sony? ndy 1935 
 
 Mn wen 
 (nipp1n3) ,On 1939 
 
 a4 
 
 AWE ONY 
 IPR 
 mwyD 1D PRY 
 1 wd ony 
 Sy RY 
 np syay 
 DOI ADaY “OT TAY 
 mony yom 
 own ey 
 mown moxw 
 nvad nw 
 ane 
 ww 
 mon pow 
 yw Day 
 pipn bonw 
 aoe | 
 
 —_—_—» eo 2s © o> —__— 
 
 395 
 
 Hb 
 Sua 
 Jia 
 bs 
 eat 
 a's 
 sae) 
 
 A >)eha| 
 wits 
 Sytee te) 
 
 M4 
 
 Pain tata 
 lelCal 
 0/34 
 
 Paes am) 
 m4 
 m4 
 
 NY 
 Ny 
 Db INw 
 Sew 
 SUN 
 yay 
 oy 
 aw 
 way 
 nw 
 alii 
 new 
 Racy 
 
 44 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
BM503 .5.M63 1925 
 Introduction to the Talmud; historical 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00010 1479