YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL INTRODUCTION TO THE TALMUD. HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY and METHODOLOGY. OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. APPENDIX. Key to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud and its Commentaries. M. MIELZINER, PH. D., Professor of Talmud at the Hebrew Union Collegp. J% « The American Hebrew Publishing House, THE BLOCH PRINTING COMPANY. CINCINNATI — AND — CHICAGO. 1894. k\\VL Copyrighted by M. MIELZINER, PH. D. 1891. INSCRIBED TO THE BLESSED MEMORY OF MY Beloved Brother EPH RAI M M I ELZI N ER, LATE OF THORN, GERMANY. PREFACE. The Talmud is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable literary productions pf antiquity. In its twelve folio volumes it 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 vi 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 of an intricate subject. It is 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 "Einleitung 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 in 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 binical idiom, 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.1 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 Hermeneutics is Dr. H. S. Hirschfeld's "Halachische Exegese". But the usefulness of this learned work is greatly impaired by the fact that, 1 The literature on this Bubject is given further on in the chapter 'Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud" pp. 83—85. Preface. vii 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 numerous examples which have been carefully selected,and which will afford the student an opportunity of becoihing 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 oft he technical terms and phrases show their prevalence in all sections of the 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, March, 1894. THE A UTHOR. TABLE OK CONTENTS. PART I. HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. Page. THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. 3 CHAPTER I. THE MISHNA. Its Origin, Compilation and Division. Order of Succession, Names and General Contents of its 63 Tracts. Language of the Mishna. - 4-16 CHAPTER II. WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA. Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre ; Frag mentary Baraithoth. 17-21 CHAPTER III. THE AUTHORITIES' OF THE MISHNA. The Sopherim, the " Zugoth," the Tanaim. The six Generations of the latter. Char acteristics and Biographical Sketches of the principal Tanaim. 22-39 CHAPTER IV. THE EXPOUNDERS OP THE MISHNA. Palestinian and Babylonian Amoraim. Their Division into Generations. Bio graphical Sketches of the principal Amo raim. - 40-55 CHAPTER V. THE GEMARA. Classification of its Contents into Halacha and Agada. Compilation of the Palastinian and the Babylonian Gemara. The two Gemaras compared with each other. 56-62 CHAPTER VI. APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD. 63-64 CHAPTER VII. COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. A. On the Babylonian Talmud. B. Exclu sively on the Mishna. C. On the Palesti nian Talmud. 61-71 TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. CHAPTER X. MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED TIONS. EDI- CHAPTER XI. CHAPTER XII. CHAPTER XIII. AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. A. Lexicons. B. Grammars. C. Chres- tomathies. D. Introductory Works, a. Older Works. 6. Modern Works in He brew, c. Works and Articles in Modern Languages, d. Historical Works, e. En cyclopedical Works. /. Some Other Books of Reference. TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD. A. The Mishna. B. The Babylonian. C. The Palestinian Talmud. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Modern Works and Monographs on Tal mudical Subjects. 1. OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 2. WHY STUDY THE TALMUD. Page. CHAPTER VIII. EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS. 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. Collections of the Agadic Portions of the Talmud. 72-76 77-80 81-87 88-92 93-102 103-107108-114 FART II. LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OP THE TALMUD. 1. INTRODUCTION. Definition. Plain and Artificial Interpre tation. Legal and Homiletical Interpreta tion. - 117-120 2. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL IN- TERPRETATION. • Hillel's Seven Hermeneutic Rules. A New Method, by Nahum. Development of this Method, by R. Akiba. The Thirteen Rules of R. Ishmael. Literature. 120-129 TABLE OF CONTENTS. EXPOSITION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. CHAPTER I. THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. .... CHAPTER II. CHAPTER III. CHAPTER IV. CHAPTER V. THE ANALOGY. A. Gezera Shava. .... B. Heckesh. GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULE OF GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. - CHAPTER VI. 1. EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. 2. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING PASSAGES. CHAPTER VII. ADDITIONAL RULES. A. Juxtaposition. B. Restrictions in the Application of Analogy. C. Limited or Unlimited Effect of an Analogy. D. Refu tation and Reinstatement of Hermeneutic Arguments. E. The Theory of Extension and Limitation. F. " Mikra " or " Masora." Closing 'Remark. XI. Page. 130-141 142-152 152-155 156-162163-168 169-173 174-176 177-187 PART III. TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. Prefatory. 190 CHAPTER I. TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF A MISHNA PARAGRAPH. - - - 191-197 CHAPTER II. MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA PARAGRAPH. - 198-206 CHAPTER III. THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. • 207-215 CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN A MISHNA. 216-219 CHAPTER V. QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS. - 220-223 XII. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. CHAPTER VI. DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CON CERNING MEMRA. 224-226 CHAPTER VII. TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 227-230 CHAPTER VIII. TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAIN ING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 231-236 CHAPTER IX. CHAPTER X. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. Classification : 1. Questions of Investi gation. 2. Questions of Astonishment. "a. Questions of Objection. Some Special Kinds of Objection. The Dilemma. The Rejoinder. 4. Questions of Problem and Their Solution. 237-246 ARGUMENTATION. 1. Terms and Phrases Introducing an Argument. 2. Classification of Arguments : a. Argument From Common Sense. 6. Argument From Authority, c. Argument From Construction, d. Argument From Analogy. t>. Argument a fortiori. 3. Indi rect Argumentation. 4. Direct and Indirect Arguments Combined. 247-253 REFUTATION. Definition and Term", a. The Refutation of a Proposition, b. Procedure of Refuting the Various Kinds of Arguments. 254-260 CHAPTER XII. THE DEBATE. Definition and Terms. The Principal De baters. Illustration of a Debate. Anony mous Discussions and Debates. 261-264 CHAPTER XI. PART IV OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 265-280 Alphabetical Index of Tanaim and Amoraim. Index of Explained Terms and Phrases. APPENDIX. Key to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud and its Commentaries. 281-282 283-285 286-292 INTRODUCTION TO THE TALMUD PART I. HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. § 1. 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 religious law 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 nnd occasional references to the different branches of ancient knowledge and sciences. The Talmud consists of two distinct works, the Mishna, 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 m later times, the name Talmud is applied also to the combined work of Mishna and Gemara. ' We have two compilations of tbe 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 ^22 TID^n tha Babylonian Talmud, and the former id^BTI'' TlD^n the Palestinian Talmud. The Mishna text in both of them is the same, though occasionally offering slight variations. 1 As a technical term the word llB^ri was applied by the ancient teachers to signify the method of deducing a law from the words of Scripture; compare the phrase ^1? Dcbn, Maccoth I, 7, a. o. Sub sequently the word was applied to the discussions of the teachers on the Mishna; compare Sanhedrin 24a: Jj^a bll? miobn. 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 Obigin, 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 (aM^DI miVJ mjfin) 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 traditional law. Such a scroll was called D'lriD fDJO "Secret Scroll." The Mishna. 5 celebrated R. Akiba who subdivided the subject matter belonging to each of the six 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, as every 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 Hauasi, 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 of its 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 Mishna. 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 Mishna without any further modification.1 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 60 b and Temura 14 b in the name of some teachers, that the oral law ought not to be 6 HlSTOKICAL AND LlTERAEY 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 ~Wft there is a difference of opinion. Some regard it as a t: • feminine form of the Hebrew word nJtPD (analogous to the double form PIJpD and ftfpO), meaning the second in rank, hence a signi- ..I; . Tl. . fication of the work containing the oral law which takes the second rank compared with the biblical law; which in considered the first. In this sense the word is taken not only by the fathers of the Church who rendered it by the term devrepaadis, but also by many modern scholars. Others derive it from the verb njtf to repeat, which in new Hebrew, like the Aramaic NJfi received written down 3F133 pDt6 ^\W\ i"Il"IK 'X ns i>MB> DH21 it is maintained by Sherira Gaon (according to one version in his Iggereth), by Rashi in his commentary on B. Metzia 33 a and Erubin 62 b, 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. Nis3im, 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. 112-132; the contrary arguments in FrankePs Darke Hamischna p. 211: Weiss' Dor Dor III, 244-248. Compare also Hamburger's Real-Encycl. II, p. 796, and S. 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 Is 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 IDIX yy\ or '3i nan 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, to relate, to teach, to transmit orally. Mishna then means the oral teaching, the instruction in the traditional law, in contradistinction to SlpO 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 tipJ ]Ot (time he took), formed by the initials of their names. I. Zeraim D^JPlT 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. II. Moed TjJiD Festival, treats of the laws concerning the Sabbath and all festivals. III. Nashim X^V\ Women, regulations concerning marriage and divorce. IV. Nezikin pp^U Damages, embracing a great part of the civil and criminal law. V. Kodashim CtJHp Sacred things, treats of the sacrificial laws and the temple service. VI. Teharoth mints 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 Chapters, called Perakim, and each Perek into paragraphs, of which each is termed Mishna or 1 On account of this division of the Mishna into six series the whole Talmud is signified by the technical term D£> which is an abbreviation of the words DniD TVt/W. 2 The word rDDD or xri3DD is probably derived from -|DJ to weave, and means then a web, just as in Latin textus from texere, means a web, and then a 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. Oeder of Succession, Names and General Contents of the Masechtoth. 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 nYWO)1 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 Sedarimll — VI, while in Seder I the order of succession is the same in all editions. 1 Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary endea-\ors to find some reasons for the order of succession of the Masechtoth in each 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 : mri3DD '"irQ njE^ob "HD pN; 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 : nt31D H2T\ D"D p^D THD N3D H3D; 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 is in its contents a continua tion of the subject treated in Sanhedrin, forming with it fourteen Pe rakim. The Mtshna. 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 „ . Mishna _ . ,. T . , • Number edition. Babh- Jen>shalmi. of Perakim 1 l.G. l.G. Berachoth, rvm3. Benedictions or Prayers, 9 treats of liturgical rules. 2 2 2.G. Peah, riND, Corner, treats of the corners and 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. 21. 3 3 8.G. Demai, ^a'Dl, The Uncertain, treats of corn 7 bought from persons suspected for not hav ing given thereof the tithes. 4 4 4.G. Khilayim,wJtJ> n£>J?D, The second Tithe, 5 according to Deut. XIV, 22-26. 9 9 9.G. Challa. r6n, The Dough, the portion to be 4 given thereof to the Priests, according to Num. XV, 20. 21. 10 10 10. G. Orla, rblVi Tne Uncircumcised, treats of 3 the fruits of a tree during the first four years after its planting, according to Lev. XIX, 23-25. 10 Historical and Literary Introduction. Order of Succession in the ISa TALMUD Number edition. BaD'i. JeruBhalmi. of Perakim 11 11 ll.G. Biccurim, D'"I133, The First fruits to be 3 brought to the Temple, according to Deut. XXVI, 1-11. II. Seder Moed, containing twelve Masechtoth. 1 l.G. l.G. Sabbath, n3C, treats of the labors prohibit- 24 ed on that day. 2 2.G. 2.G. Erubin, pans/, 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 3.G. 3.G. Pesachim, D'nDSr treats of the laws relating 10 to the feast of Passover and the paschal lamb. 4 11 5.G. Shekalim, D'bpB>r 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. 4.G. Yoma, KOV, the Day, i. e. the day of At- 8 onement, according to Lev. XVI, 3-34. 6 9.G. 6.G. Succah, H31D, treats of the laws concerning 8 the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. XXIII, 34"36. 7 4.G. 8.G. Betza rreu or Yom tov 21D D1\ 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. 7.G. Rosh Hashana, njBTI CN1, Beginning of the 4 year, treats of the feast of New Year. 9 10.G. 9.G. Taanith, mittl, on the public fasts. 4 10 12.G. 10.G. Megilla, n^JD, the Scroll, treats of the read- 4 ing of the book of Esther on the feast of Purim. 11 5.G. 12.G. Moed Katon, )Bp 1JND, Minor feast, treats of 3 laws relating to tue days intervening be tween the first and last days of Pesach and Succoth. 12 6.G. ll.G. Ghagiga, TWirt, Feast offering, treats of the 3 private offerings on the three feasts of pil grimage, according to Deut. XVI, 16, 17. III. Seder Nashim, containing seven Masechtoth. 1 l.G. l.G. Yebamoth, niD3V Sisters-in-Law, treats of 16 Levirate marirage, according to Deut. XXV, 5-10. The Mishna. 11 Order of Succession in the Separate TALMUD Mishna Number edition. Bab1'- Jerushalmi. of Peraklm 2 2.G. 3.G. Khelhuboth, ni3iri3, Marriage deeds, treats 13 of dower and marriage settlements. 3 5.G. 4.G. Nedarim, Q>-nj, Vows, treats of vows and 11 their annulment, with reference to Num. XXX, 3-16. 4 6.G. 6.G. Nazir, TTJ, the Nazarite, treats of the laws 9 concerning him, according to Num. VI, 2-21. 5 7.G. 2.G. Sota, DOID* on the woman suspected of adult- 9 ery, according to Nnm! V, 12-31. 6 4.G. 5.G. Gittin, J'D'J, on Divorces, based on Deut. 9 XXIV, 1-5. 7 3.G. 7.G. Kiddushin, ['Clip, on Betrothals. 4 IV. Seder Nezikin, containing ten Masechtoth. 1 l.G. l.G. Baba Kama, xop V33, First Gate, treats of 10 Damages and Injuries, and their remedies, with reference to Ex. XXI, 28-37 ; XXII, 1-P. 2 2.G. 2.G. Baba Metzia, KJTVD S33, 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, S1D3 K33, 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. XXVII, 7-11. 4 5.G. 4.G. Sanhedrin, jmnjDi treats of the courts and 11 their proceedings, and of the punishment of capital crimes. 5 7.G. 5.G. Maccoth, JYI3D, 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, 1-13) and of crimes pun ished by stripes (Deut. XXV, 1-3. 6 6.G. 6.G. Shebuoth, mj/UK', 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. XXII, 6-10. 12 Historical and Literary Introduction. Order of Succession in the Separate TALMUD „ . Mishna _, , . T ... Number edition. BM ¦ Jerushalmi. of Perakim 7 8 Wanting Eduyoth, riVIV, Testimonies, contains a col- 8 lection of traditional laws and decisions gathered from the testimonies of disting uished teachers. >| 8 ' 4.G. 7.G. Aboda Zara, mt mi3$?r Idolatry, treats of f5 laws concerning idols and the relation to the worshipers thereof. 9 10 Wanting Aboth, ni3K, Fathers or Sentences of the 5 Fathers (the principal teachers), contains ethical maxims of the Mishna teachers. 10 9.G. 8.G. Horayoth, nimn, Decisions, treats of the 3 consequences of acting according to errone ous decisions rendered by areligious author1 ity, with reference to Lev. chapters IV and V. V. Seder Kodashim, containing eleven Masechtoth. 1 l.G. Zebachim, D,ri3T/ Sacrifices, treats of the 14 animal sacrifices and the mode of their of fering, with reference to the first chapters of Leviticus. 2 2.G. o Menachoth, rVirOD, Meat-offering, treats of 13' meat-and drink offerings, with reference to £ Lev. ch. II 3 4.G. Cholin, (or Ohullin) p^in, Profane things, 12 " treats of the traditional manner of slaught ering animals for ordinary use; besides of j-, the dietary laws. 4 3.G. Bechoroth, nVYI33, The first born, treats of 9 2 the laws concerning the first born of man and animals, according to Ex. VIII, 12.13 , 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. XXVII, 2-37. 6 O.G. Themwra, miDrh Exchange, treats of the 7 laws concerning sanctified things having been exchanged, according to Lev. XXVII, 10-27. 7 7.G. Kherithoth, nim3, Excisions, treats of the 6 sins subject to the punishment of excision, and their expiation by sacrifices. Order of Succession in the Separate Mishna edition. TALMUD Babli. Jerushalmi. 8 8.G. 9 10.G. 0 7, H 10 11. < > The Mishna. 13 Number of Peiakim Mt>-ila, nb'yD. Trespass (Sacrilege), treats of 6 the sins of violating or profaning sacred things, according to Lev. V, 15. 16. Thamiil, Ton, The Daily Sacrifice, describes 7 the Temple service connected with the daily morning and evening offering, according to Ex. XXIX, 38-41; Num. XXVIII, 2-8. Middoth, ni~D( Measurements, contains the 5 measurements and description of the Temple, its courts, gates and halls, also de scription of the service of the priestly guards in the Temple. 11 9. Kinnim, D'Jp, The bird's nests, treats of 3 the sacrifices consisting of fowls, the offer ing of the poor, according to Lev. I, 14; V, 7; XII, 8. VI. Seder Teharoth, containing twelve Masechtoth. 1 2. Klielim, Q'p3, Vessels, treats of the con- 30 ditions under which domestic utensils, gar ments etc. receive ritual uncleanness, ac- 0 cording to Lev. XI, 33-35. 2 3. Ohaloth, nibilN, Tents, treats of tents and 18 fc houses conveying the ritual uncleanness of a dead body, according to Num. XIX, 14.15. 3 4. m Nega-im, W]}i2, Leprosy, treats of the laws 14 relating to leprosy of men, garments and & dwellings, according to Lev. XIII and XIV. 4 5. Parah, n")2, The Heifer, treats of the laws 12 fc concerning the red heifer and the use of its ashes for the purification of the unclean, -"t according to Num. XIX. 5 6. Teharoth, imnt3, Purifications. The word 10 £ 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. 6 7. Mihvaoth, niNlpD, Wells, treats of the con- 10 ditions under which wells and reservoirs are fit to be used for ritual purifications. 7 l.G. l.G. Mdda, mj, The Menstruous, treats of the 10 legal uncleanness arising from certain con ditions in women, according to Lev. XV, 14 Historical and Literary Introduction. Order of Succession in the MKbnf TALMUD Number edition. Babli.Jerushalmi. of Perakim 19-31 and XII, 2-8. 8 8. Mach-shirin, p'BOD, Preparations, treats of 6 liquids that, according to Lev. XI, 34. 38, 0 prepare and dispose seeds and fruits to re ceive ritual uncleanness. 9 9. 52. Zabim, D'OT, Persons suffering of running 5 issues, treats of the uncleanness arising m from such secretions, according to Lev. XV, 2-18. 10 10. h Tebul Yom, DV ^1313. Immersed at day time, 4 treats of the state of him who at day time K immersed for his purification, while his per fect cleanness according to the law is not < acquired before the setting of the sun. 11 11 Yadayim, QH\ Hands, treats of the ritual 4 £ uncleanness of hands, according to the trad itional law, and of their purification. 12 12 Uk-tzin, pypiy, Stalks of Fruit, treats of 3 stalks and shells of fruit in regard to con veying ritual un cleanness . Remark 1. In connection with the main subject treated 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 enncerning 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 '« p*iS and in the Talmud edition by pawi pIS/ TiDKD. In earlier rabbinical literature references to a certain Perek of the Mishna are generally made by giving only the name of that Perek without stating the Masechta to whieh it belongs, as The Mishna. 15 TpSOn p"iS referring to the third Perek of Baba Metzia. An alphabetical list of the names of all Parakim with the indication of the Masechteth to which they belong is found in the appendix to Masechoth Berachoth in the Talmud editions, immediately after Maimonides' Introduction to Seder Zeraim. Language op 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 and objects, 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 C. Siegfried, Lehrbuoh der neuhebraeischen Sprache und Literatur, Karlsruhe und Leipzig, 1884. Salomon Stein, Das Verbuin der Mischnasprache, Berlin 1888. 1 6 Historical and Literary Introduction. In this New Hebrew language, also called the language of the sages (D^DOn 'ilVtb or p;-n S'Jtt>7), are composed not only the Mishna but also the kindred works to be mentioned in the fol lowing chapter. As to the style of expression, the Mishna is very brief and concise well calculated to impress itself upon the memory- CHAPTER II. WORKS KINDRED TO THE MTSHNA. §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 Tosephta, the Mechilfa, 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 are frequently quoted in the Gemara. The follow ing will briefly describe each of these works. a. The Tosephta. §?• The word Tosephta (snSDin) means Addition, Supplement, and, as indicated by this name, the work is intended to complete deficiencies of 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 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 Historical and Literary Introduction. b. The Mechilta. § 8. The Mechilta, the Siph.ra 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 (sn^ao), being the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word mo, 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 tillch. XXIII, 19. Of the remaining chapters it comments only on XXXI, 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, 1T-XIX, 25. The Mechilta is divided into nine main sections (Masechtoth), named according to the contents of the Bible passage which they expound, as snDST rDDD, rt7tt>an 'DC etc. Each Masechta is subdivided into chapters (Parashoth), the total number of which is 11. 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 'Tl KJT^DD 7Kj}D2". 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. II pp. 217-225 ; also in I. H. Duenner's Wesen and Ursprung der Tosephta, Amster dam 1874. Works kindred to the Mishna 19 (nourishing in the beginning of the second century) as its author; but against this opinion speaks the circumstance that the names 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. ' c. The Stphra. § 9. The Siphra (xiSD i. e. the book), "also called Torath Coha- nim, is a collection of traditional interpretations of the whole hook 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 (milT "\ N15D DflD 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 ai ,,a"TN"i£D-2 As before us, the book has two different divisions which are 1 The latest editions of the Mechilta with critical introductions and annotations were published by I. H. Weiss (Vienna .1885) 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 Ursehrift pp. 140, 152 sqq. and in his Zeitung 1871 pp. 8-28. I. H. Weiss Dor Dor II, pp. 225-231. 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. 231-236. ¦ 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 confer ts and subdivided into chapters termed Parasha or Parashata. d. The Siphre. § 10. The Siphre, or, as its fuller title reads, an 131 *nBD (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. The style 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 ofR. Akiba (jlj?DB> 'THSD DnD 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.1 e. Baraitha. § 11- Besides the Tosephta, the Mechilta, the Siphra and the Siphre just described, other collections of a similar character existed during the Talmudical perio.d. 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. 21 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 (NIVHa,), or Malhnitha Baraitha, 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, i 1 Some critical researches on the Baraitha are found in Frankel's Darke Hamishna p. 311-313, 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 Sophcrim 2. The period of Zugoth, and 3. The period of Tanaim. a. Sophcrim or scribes were the learned men who succeed ed Ezra during a period of about two hundred years. To them many institutions and extensions of the Mosaic law are ascribed D'HSID """13T ,D,1S1D JTUpn. The Sopherim are also called collect ively n^HJn fiDJa ''tMK 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 Ezra, its founder, and of Simon the Just (the high priest Simon I, between 310-392, or his grandson Simon II, between 220-202 B. C.) 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 Zugoth (niJlt), 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: ] . Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Jochanan, flourishing- at the time of the Maccabean wars of independence. 2. Joshua b. Perachia and Nitai of Arbela, flourishing at the time of John Hyrcan. The Authorities of the Mishna. 23 3. Juda b. Tabai and Simon b. Shetach, flourishing at the time of Alexander Janai and queen Salome. 4. Shemaiah and Abtalion, flourishing at the time of Hyrcan II. 5. Hillel and Shamai, flourishing at the time of king Herod. c. With the disciples of Hillel and Shamai begins the period of Tanaim, which lasted about 210 years (from 10 to 220 Ch. Era). With the beginning of this period the title Rabbi (my teacher) for the ordained teachers, and the title Rabban, our teacher) for the president of the Sanhedrin came in use. In the Mishna, the term Tana (Kjn), meaning a teacher of the oral law, does not yet occur. Those teachers are there sig nified by generally adding the title of Rabbi to their names, or by calling them collectively D^oan the Sages, while the author ities of the preceding period are occasionally designated n'OpT D^JItWin the former elders. It is first in the Gemara that the term Tana (ton) 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 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 II. Jacob Bruell, Mebo Hamishna, Vol. I. J. Hamburger, Real Encyclopaedic, Vol. II. Die Talmudischerj Artikel. M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah. 24 Historical and Literary Introduction. The first Generation of Tanaim. § 13. 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 Chanina, 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 a very few are occasionally mention ed 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 Elder. He was a son of R. Simon, and grandson of Hillel whom he succeeded in the office of Nasi. Many important ordinances (niipri) 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" D'JHS 7C Y'3 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 (he 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 ISachwni 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). 2. Rabbi Zadok. 3. R. Dosa (b. Harchinas). 4. R. Eliezerb. Jacob. 5. R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos). 6. R. Joshua (b. Chanania). 1. R. Elazar b. Azaria. 8. R. Juda b. Bathyra. Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 1. Rabban Gamaliel II. 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. 2. R. 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. R. 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. R. Eliezer b. Jacob was head of a school, and in possession of traditions concerni ng 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" ('p}l 3p). There was also an other Tana by a similar name who flourished in the fourth generation. 5. R. 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 Gamaliel II. 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 R. 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. 27 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. Elazar b. 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 K. 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: "a gen 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 office 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 *\2~\ D1JJD1 (extension and limitation) which was later further developed by his great disciple R. Akiba. 28 Historical and Literary Introduction. The third Generation of Tanaim. § 15. Several Teachers of the third generation, which lasted from the year 120 till about 139, flourished already in the preceding one. The principal teachers arc: 1. R, Tarphon. • 2. R. Ishmael. 3. R. Akiba. 4. R. Jochanan b. Nuri 5. R. Jose the Galilean, 6. R, Simon b. Nanos. 1. R. Juda b. Baba. 8. R. Jochanan b. Bro' Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 1. R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, of Lydda. He is snid 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 in a place called Kephar Aziz. His academical controversies were mostly with R. Akiba to whose artificial methods of interpreting the law he was strongly opposed, on the principle that the Thora, being composed in the usual language of man, must be interpreted in a plain and ration al way. As guiding rules of interpretation he accepted only the seven logical rules which had been laid down by Hillel, which he however, 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). 3. 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 the age 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 II 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 in the kindred works. His acad emical discussions are mostly with his former teachers R. Eliezer, R. Joshua and 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. 5. R. 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. R. Simon b. Nanos, also called simply Ben Nanos, was a 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 Romas soldiers. 8. R. 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. Mathia b. 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 and The Authorities ok 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 II, from the year 139 to about 165. Almost all leading teachers of this ge neration belong to the latter disciples of R. Akiba. 1. R. Meir. 2. R. Jehuda (ben Ilai). 3. R. Jose (ben Chalafta). 4. R. Simon (b." Jochai). 5. R. Elazar (b. Shainua). 6. R. Jochanan the Sandolar. 7. R. 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 skilf ull copy ist 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 32 Historical and Literary Introduction. circle of disciples gathered around him. Under the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel II 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 a 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 . llai is 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 D"131Dn tWI "The first among the speakers". Also his piety, 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 the Talmud records many of his beautiful sayings which characterize him not only as a 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 was a 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 settled in 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 colleagues in being compelled to flee after ordination. Afterwards, he joined them at the new seat of the Sanhedrin in Usha. On a certain occasion he gave vent to his bitter feeling against the Romans, which was reported to the Roman governor who condemned him to death. He, however, escaped this fate by concealing himself in a 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 turn so 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. He 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. 1 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 many additions by the hands of later authorities. (See above p. 20). 5. R. 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 as a 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. On a 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. ' See Talm. B. Metzia 115 a and Sanhedrin 21 a. The Authorities of the Mishna. 35 7. R. Elazar (or Eliezer) b. Jacob was a disciple of K. 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 purification. His controversies are mostly with R. Juda b. Ilai. He is said to have compiled a Mishna -collection which was embodied in the Tosephta. 9. R. Joshua b. Korcha is supposed by some to have been a son of R. Akiba who, on one occasion, is called by such a surname (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. R. Simon b. Gamaliel was the son 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, preferredjUsha as the seat of the new Sanhedrin, R. Simon was obliged to transfer his academy to that city, and appointed 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. He did 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 a son 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 Tarn in his remarks on Sabbath 150a and B. Bathra 113a. 1 There are, however, some passages in the Mishna and Gemara in which he is called Rabban, as Gittin 74a; B. Bathra 113a; Arachin 28a. 36 Historical and Literary Introduction. superior to him in learning. Still, his legal opinions, which are fre quently quoted in the Mishna and Baraitha, give evidence that he was a man 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. J ehuda Hanasi. R. Simon b. Gamaliel 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 R. Jonathan. The Fifth Generation of Tanaim. § 1»- This generation extends from the death of R. Simon b. Gamaliel II to tho death of R. Jehuda Hanasi (from 165 to about 200.) The following are the most prominent teachers of this gen eration. 1. R. Nathan (the Babylonian). 2. Symmachos. 3. R. Jehuda Hanasi (the patriarch), called simply Rabbi. 4. R. Jose b. Juda. 5. R. Elazar b. Simon. 6. R. 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 Mishna. 37 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 becauce 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 authorityinthe 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. R. Jehuda (Juda) Hanasi, by way of eminence simply called Rabbi, was a son of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel II, 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 Syriae, 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 Uve 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; 38 Historical and Literary Introduction. Levi bar Sissi; R. Abba Areca, later called Rab; Mar Samuel, and many others. He is said to have been in a 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 opinions 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. 39 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 in the 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: 1. Plimo. 2. Ise b. Juda. 3. R. Elazar b. Jose. 4. R. Ishmael bar Jose. 5. R. Juda b. Lakish. 6. R. Chiya. 1. R. Acha. 8. R. Abba (Areca). The most prominent among these semi-Tanaim were R. Chiya and R. Abba (Areca). 1. R. Chiya (bar Abba) the elder, which epithelas to distinguish him from a later Amora by the same mame, was a 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. Chiya 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 OP 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 Tiberias, Sepphoris, Caesarea in Palestine, as in those of Nahardea, 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 whicli 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 1 In a more restricted meaning the term ^mora(from -|DK to say, to speak) signifies the same as Methurgeman (pj"rtnD 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: 'Ji^BT rPDp NJri \3ri Betza 29b. and often. The Expounders of the Mishna. 41 title of Rabbi, while the Babylonian teachers of that period had only the title of Rab or of Mar. The period of Amoraim extends from the death of R. Jehuda Hanasi to tho compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, that is, 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 tho 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.1 The first Generation of Amoraim. § 20. A. Palestinian (219-2T9). 1. R. Chanina bar Chama. 2. R. Jochanan (bar Napacha) 3. R. Simon ben Lakish (Resh Lakish). 4. R. Joshua ben Levi. B. Babylonian (219-257). 1 . Abba Areca, called simply Rab. 2. (Mar) Samuel. Biographical Sketches. A. Palestinian Amoraim. During this generation R. Gamaliel III and R. Judah II were sue 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 'c6e>vvn NUD. treating especially of the Palestinian Amoraim, divides them also into six generations. 42 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 of 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 a school 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 lo the third generation. • 2 . R . 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 contemporaries 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 and a 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 Encyclopadie, vol II. Besides, J. Fiirst, "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. 43 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 as in the Palestinian. Also in his Agadic teachings, Resh Lakish was original and advanced some very rational views. 4. R. Joshua b. Levi (ben Sissi) presided over an academy in Lyd- da. He is regared as a great authority in the law, and his 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-Tanaim he ventured in some instances even to dispute some opinions accepted in the Mishna, a privilege otherwise not accorded to any of the Amoraim. 1 Most of his decisions, especially in ritual questions, obtained legal sanction, but in the civil law his friend 1 J^Ql Nin fc»n 31, 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 Pal estine and became a disciple of Rabbi Jehuda Hanasi from whom, however, he could not obtain 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 2- 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 aw. 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 TJkba, at first head of the court in Kafri, and later Exilarch in Naharcu. . 1 pna bsiDB'31 niD'Nl 313 »Tcbn Bechoroth 49b. 2 Mar Samuel made also a compilation of Bara ithoth which is quoted in the Talmud by the phrase 'jnidc '3T XJn. Betza 29a and Moed Katon 18Li; see Rashi's remark to the first mentioned passage. The Expounders of the Mishna. 4 5 The second Generation of Amoraim. § 21. A. Palestinian (279-320) . R, Elazar b. Pedath. o_ R. Ame. 3. R. Assi. 4. R. Chiya bar Abba 5. Simon bar Abba. 6. R. Abbahu. 7. R. Zera (Zeira). B. Babylonian (257-320). 1. Rab Huna. 2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel. 3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda). 4. Rab Sliesheth. 5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob. Remarks and Biographical Sketches. •A. Palestinian Amoraim. The pariarchate during this generation was successively in the hands of R. Gamaliel IV and R. Judah III. 1. R. Elazar ben Pelath. 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 he survived. He enjoyed great authority and is very often quoted in the Talmud. 2 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 pies of R. Jochanan. Both 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. He had a thorough knowledge of the Greeu 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 Zero) was a Babylonian and a disciple 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 Samuel'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 bt}yg> "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 Judges in 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. 47 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 hairsplitting 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 Sanuel. By his father-in-law, the exilarch Abba bar Abulia, 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 riO'n nVUZ'. that is, the purging oath imposed in a law suit on the claimee even in cases of general denial on nis part (^on -ID13). 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 Ghana who was a Babylonian 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. He is also noted for the many allegorical narratives ascribed to him in the Talmud. b. Vila (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. § 22. A. Palestinian (320-359). B. Babylonian (320-375). 1. R. Jeremiah. 2. R. Jonah. 3. R. Jose. 1. Rabba bar Huna. 2. Rabba bar Nachmani. 3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya). 4. Abaye. 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. R. 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. R. 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 H. 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 Rab Chisda, and displayed from his youth great dialectical powers on account of 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 solitude. 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 Sinai. Besides being a great authority in the rabbinical law, he devoted himself to the Targum of the Bible, 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 Pumbaditha only for three years. 4. Abaye, surnamed Nachmani (b. 280. d. 338), was a son Kaylil and a pupil of his uncle Rabba bar Nachmani, and of Rab Joseph. He was highly esteemed not only for his profound knowledge of the law and his 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. l 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. 2 5. Raba was the son of Joseph b. Chama in Machuza. He was born 299 and died 352. 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. Rab Nachman b. Isaac was a disciple of Rab Nachman (b. Jacob) and afterwards an officer as Resh Calla in 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 (352-356) 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 Nail «3NT nVW "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. a D"J"p b"V'"<2 «3N*1 iTJ-lVlS Knsbn 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 (356-377). 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 Cwk nox). ' The fourth Generation of Babylonian Amoraim (375-427). § 23. B. Pumbaditha. A. Sura. 1. Rab Ashe. C. Nahardea. Ainemar. 1. Rab Zebid. 2. Rab Dime. 3. Rafram. 4. Rab Cahana. 5. Mar Zutra. 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 this academy 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 the compilation and revision of this gigantic work whioh 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. (377-385). 2. Rab Dime (b. Chinena) from Nahardea, presiding only for three years (385-388). 3. Rafram bar Papa the elder, in his youth a disciple of Raba, succeeded R. Dime (388-394). 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 Pumbaditha, he succeeded him in the rector ship of that of Nahardea from 390 to about 422. With him this once bo celebrated seat of learning passed out of existence. The Expounders of the Mishna. 53 The fifth Generation of Babylonian Amoraim (427-468). § 24. B. Pumbaditha. A. Sura. 1. Mar Jemar (Maremar) 2. Rab Ide bar Abin. 3. Mar bar Rab Ashe. 4. Rab Acha of Difte. 1. Rafram II. 2. Re chum ai. 3. Rab Sama b. Rabba. 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 (427^432). 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 (433-452). He as 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 thirteen 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 on the 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 443. 2. Rab 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 Kin»- 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. 1. Rabba Thospia (or Tosfaah). 2. Rabina. B. Pumbaditha. Rab Jose. Remarks and Biographical Sketches. A. 1. Rabba of Thospia 1 succeeded Mar bar Rab Ashi as rector 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,2 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 called Saboraim ('N113D }33"l). They did not assume the authority to contradict the decisions established by the Amoraim, but merely ventured to express an opinion ("QD, 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 Low's "Lebensalter" p. 376, note 54, and Neubauer Geogr. du Talm., p. 332. 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 thei ast for Pumbaditha. Flourishing still for a number 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 Samuel b. Abbahu, CHAPTEE V. THE GEMARA. Classification of its contents into Halacha and Agada. § 26. Tne collection of the commentaries and discussions of the Amoraim on the Mishna is termed Gemara. This term, derived from the verb -|BJ which in Hebrew means to finish, to complete, and in the Aramaic also to learn, to teach, signifies either the completion, the supplement (to the Mishna), or is identical with the word Talmud which is often used in its place, moaning, the teaching, the study. Besides being a discursive commentary on tho 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. Tho Agada " comprises every thing not having the character 1 Halacha (rD^n) 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. * Agada or Aggada (mjK ,xmjN ,mjn, derived from ~\): which ;n 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 aud 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. Exegetical 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, etc. 3. Ethical Aga,d&, 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, etc. 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 on a 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-lia; Gittin 55b-58b; 67b-70a; 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 Jerushalmi, the Jerusalem Gemara or Talmud; Vol IV, pp. 406-429. As to fuller particulars concerning Halacha and Agada, see Zunz' G. Vortraege pp. 57-61 and 83 sq.; also Hamburger's Real Encyclopadie II, the articles Halacha and Agada. 58 Historical and Literary Introduction. the other originating in Babylonia is called Babli, the Baby lonian Gemara or Talmud: Compilation of Jerushalmi, The Palestinian Talmud. § 27. As no academy existed in Jerushalem 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 (^K"iB^ ps TlD^n) or the Gemara of the teachers of the West (&C1J7D i}yi SIOH). 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 collection of commentaries and discussions on the Mishna, which was continued and completed by his succes sors in 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. > 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. Wissenschaf t 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 of his activity he revised once more the whole work and made in it many corrections. This corrected edition is termed Niro N"11"!"iD the latter revision, and the former NTPImQ KQp the first revision. ' ' 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 in the Talmud, Z. Frankel (in his Mebo p. 47) even regards it as very probable that Rab Ashe in compiling the Gemara 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. II. 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 symbols (D'JD'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 critical investigation on these often very enigmatic Simanim is found in Jacob Brtiii's rfnfr gr\ri Die Mnemotechnik dps Talmuds (Vienna 1864). The Gemara. 61 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 a mixture 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 (Mislmic) 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 Gemara is attached to the single paragraphs (MT'jno) of the Mishna, while in the Palestinian all paragraphs (there termed rTD^n) 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 '« rD^T! '3 "O^n.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, and the 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 and attention. 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 VI. 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. Aboth d' Rabbi Nathan jnj ^"H mjK, 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.1 2. Sopherim D'HE'lD 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.a 1 Compare Zunz, Gottesd. Vortraege, p. 108, sq. — Solomon Tausik published in his Dl^K* ITO (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 two recensions from MSS. with critical annotations was published by S. Schechter (Vienna 1887). s 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. 3. Ebel Rabbathi*j\2T\ ^>3N (the large treatise on Mourn ing), euphemistically called mnctP 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 a reproduction of the same with later additions. x) 4. Callah n^O (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 v~\$ -pi (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 VI, 2.) 6. Derech Eretz Zuta KBIT p« -jm (the conduct of life, minor treatise), containing 10 chapters, replete with rules and maxims of wisdom.2 7. Perek Ha-shalom ci^tfn D"1S (chapter on Peace) consists, as 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 /TUtSp mrODD "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. 90, and N. Briill "Die talm. Tractate fiber Trauer um Verstorbene (Jahrbucher fur Jud. Geschichte und Litera- tur I (Frankfurt a. M.) p. 1-57. M. Klotz just published "Der Talm. Tractat Ebel Rabbathi nach Handschriften bearbeitet, uberzetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen" Frankf. on the Main, 1892. a 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, iibersetzt 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, tho frequent use of technical terms and phrases, and mere allusions to matters discussed elsewhere ; ¦ 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 Rabbenu Chananel (n""i) 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. Rashi *"V!~\, as the prince of commentators is generally called from the initials of his name, Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, of Troves (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 a true model of concise, clear and systematic commentation. By a fe *v 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 yn (standing for p*D"ti "0~ "thus we are to read "). 3. 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 D"2ttH 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 Gershoni.1 To this commentary on Nedarim two others are added in our Talmud editions, one by Rabbenu Nissim (p) and the other by R. Asher ty'N"in> 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, byway of excellence, generally designated as Coniros (DVltflJ'p commentarius). The Tosaphoth often display great acumen and hair-splitting dialectics in tinding, and again harmonizing, ap parent contradictions between passages of the Talmud. Such questions of contradiction are generally introduced by the phrases : "ID«nnK1(abbrev. JVNl) "if thou wilt s.ay or object..", or nnTl "it is astonishing that . .", or NETl "thou mayest say or object. . ' or ntS>p "here is the difficulty that ," and the final solution of the question or difficulty by'iDi^ nyi", (abbr.^i",) "but it may be said in answer to this " The numerous authors of these Tosaphoth (mSDlfi "hyi 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 (]"3'H) ; his grandson R. Isaac b. Meirj(n'3',l),R. Samuel b.Meir (D"2BH)- and R. Jacob b. Meir, called Rabbenu Tam (n*"i) and a nephew of the latter, R. Isaac b. Samuel, ofDampierre (Jptn V1). Other authorities 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).1 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. K'OtiH, 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 Tucli, (Touques), second part of that century. A collection of "former Tosaphoth" DW mSDin on Toma is, in some editions, appended to that Masechta. R. Moses of Coucy, the author of S'niag, 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 ni3Din ipD3 (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 (^TinDn "I3T abbrev. n""l) 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. rmbw neon or b"ennD WVn by Solomon Luria 6"ennD), 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. N"Bnni3 WITI, Novellae, i. e. new comments by R. 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. D""lrlC 'BTTn, 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 Chaiizi; Seder Moed, oy Joseph Ibn Alfual; Seder Nashim, by Jacob Commentaries on the Talmud. 69 Ach.>ai (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 D"2D-ir6 hTWCn PYT'B. 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. 2. 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. B>"in tt'TT'S on all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, except Berachoth, and all Masechtoth of Seder Teharoth, exceptNidda, by R. Sim son of Sens (XII century), the celebrated Tosaphist. b. D"N".n DTPS, on the same Masechtoth, by R. Asher b. Yechiel (XIII cemtury) the author of the epitome of the Talmud which is appended to all Masechtoth. c. C'T EMT'S on Masecheth Middoth, by R. Shemaya who is supposed to have been a disciple of Rashi. d. Y'3M"in tPIT'S on Masecheth Eduyoth, by R. Abraham b. David(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 Bertinoro in Italy, and Rabbi in Jerusalem (d. in the year 1510), wrote a very lucid commentary on the whole Mishna which accompanies the text in most of our separate See Graetz, Geschichte d. J. vol. VII, p. 302 In Historical and Literary Introduction. Mishna editions. He follows the analytic method of Rashi, and adds to each paragraph of the Mishna the resultofthe discussion of the Gemara. 4. tS'T mBDin Additional Comments by Yom Tob Liptnan 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. Of shorter commentaries to be found only is some special editions of the Mishna text the following may be mentioned: a. D"n r*y, hj Jacob Chagiz, Rabbi in Jerusalem (XVII century), the author of a Talmudical terminology Techilath Chochma. 6. nnJ Cp nbo, by Senior Phoebus (XVIII cent.). This commentary is an abstract of Bertinoros and Yom Tob Lipman Heller's commentaries. b. nnJ!p, by Isaac Ibn 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. yw\TV rntl>, a commentary on 18 Masechtoth by R. Joshua Benveniste (XVII century). 3. my p"ip and additions, called pnp i-pb> on Seder Moed, Nashim and part of Nezikin by R . David Fraenkel, Rabbi in Dessau and later in Berlin, (teacher of Moses Mendelssohn, XVIII century). Commentaries on the Talmud. 71 ¦L nPD "03 and n^SH nxnD, a double commentary on the whole Jerushalmi by R. Moses Margolioth (XVIII century). This double commentary and the preceding of David Fraenkel are embodied in the Shitomir edition (1860-67). 5. fps MariK 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 Serillo), 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 tho 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 is presented in a more systematic order. The first attempts in this direction were made by R. Jehudai Gaon of Sura (VIII century) in his book Halachoth Ketuoth (abridged Halachoth), and by R. Simon Kahiro (Cairo, — 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. R. Isaac 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 "cs^s or E]'"H. 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 (|"l); 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 (ty"K"in), 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 -|BW \V*2~\- R. Jacob, the celebrated son of this author, added to that compendium an abstract of the decisions contained in the same, the tr'K-in ''pes "v^p. B. Codes. § 37. 1. Mishne Thora mifi nJtPD "Repetition of the Law", by ll. Moses Maimonides (D"2D"l) flourishing in the XII century. This is the most comprehensive and systematically arranged Code of all the Laws scattered through the two Talmuds, or resulting from the discussions in the 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 (-p 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 Code is usualy published in four large folio volumes. and provided with the following annotations and commentaries: a. Hasagoth Rabed T'DNin nWPl Critical Remarks, by R. Abraham b. David, of Posquieres, a contemporary and antagonist of Maimonides. b. Migdal Oz ny ^|JD, 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. Ilagahoth Maimuniyoth nV'JIO'O Dinjn, 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, rUE'O ep3, a commentary 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 DJB'D Dl"6, by R. Abraham de Boton, of Szafed, XVI century. Mishne Vmelech -]Sob nJB>D, by Jehuda Rosanes, Rabbi in Con stantinople, d. 1727. 2. bvti JTiXQ'D (abbrev. 3"D3), the great Law book, by the Tosaphist R. 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 ]"hpjj commendatory, and pnt^ prohibitory laws. Remark. A similar work, but on a smaller scale, is |t3p 111SD 'D (p"DD), also called Amude Golah, by R. Isaac b. Joseph, of Corbeil. (d. 1280). 3. Turim D^TltS (the Rows of Laws), by R. Jacob, son of that celebrated R. Asher b. Jechiel who was mentioned above. The work is divided into four parts, called: Tur Orach Chayim, treating of Liturgical Laws ; Tur Yore Dea, treating of the Ritual Laws ; Tur Eben Ha-ezer on the Marriage Laws, and Tur 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. 75 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 of the 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, "py jrV7B> (the prepared table), by R. 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 (d,S,,J?D) 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 (rYirun) added to it by the contemporary R.Moses Isserles (K"0"l) 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 on the 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. Tare Zahab (t"D) commentary on all parts of the code, by R. David b. Samuel Halevi. c. Siflhe Cohen ("|"K') on Jore Dea and Choshen Mishpat, by R. Sabbathai Cohen. d. Magen Abraham (x"B) on Orach Chayim, by R. Abrain 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 "En Mishpat, Ner Mitzwah". It is the 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 Thora Or which 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 (D"BTi miDD) which give references to parallel passages in the 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, R. Jacob ibn C/za^, 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 En Jacob (apy pi?; in some editions it is also called ^nty py). R. Samuel Jafe, flourishing in the latter part of that century, made a similar Collection of the Agadic passages of the Palestinian Talmud with an extensive commentary under tho title of i-iJOO nS"1 (Vienna, 1590 and Berlin 1725-26). An abridged edition with a short commentary was published under the title of D^tPW p3 'D (Lcmberg, 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,1 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, of the ninth or tenth century, is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, and was 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 Zebaehim of the Babylonian Talmud. These manuscripts came from Southern Arabia, and date from the year 1548. 2 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 bythe 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 Mishna 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 S. M. Schiller-Szinessy: "The Mishna on which the Palestin ian Talmud rests," etc., Cambridge 1883. Of the Palestinian Talmud the only manuscript, of consid erable extent, is preserved in the Library of Leyden. See S. 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 "Hebraische Bibliographic," Berlin, 1862 and 1863. 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 appeareu in Naples. It was folloived 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 Bertrinoro 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 a'"1 niSDin 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, Prague, 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 of the 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 Christianity, and, besides, changed expressions, especially names of nations and of sects, which they suspected as having reference to Christians. 2 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 of the 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 :mt2DtynnmXi;p(s.l.)andD"iynmjnDn,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 tbe 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 >)} (gentile) YI13 (a Samaritan) or itj'13 (an Aethiopian); instead of po (a heretic] 'pnx (a Sadducee) or DTllp'SK (an Epicurean); instead of n3J (an alien, a Non Israelite) D"l3y (an idolater); instead of n"lX (the nations of the world) — D«^33(Babylonians) or Q'jyj3(Canaanites) ; instead of iXDVl(the Roman?) 'KDIK (Syrians) or 'ND"IB (Persians); instead of 'DVl(Rome) -\iyn (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, TID^nri DD2nn by "lOKO Munich 1877. ' 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, written in Hebrew, is Dikduke Sopherim, qi-SID ipHpYD 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 Krotoshin 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 TALMUD. A. Lexicons.§ 43. 1. The Aruch ("P"IJ?n) by R. 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 ("pljjn E)D10) at the hand of Benjamin Mussaphia (XVII century). These additions, generally headed by the initials 2"K = pD,|J2 "IDS, mostly explain the Greek and Latin words accuring in the Talmud and Midrash. The edition by M. Landau (Prague 1819-24, in five 8vo volumes) is increased by numerous annotations and supplied with definitions in German. The latest and best edition of that important work is: 2. Aruch Completum (D^tyn "|VIJJ) 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. Busiorf 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. Worterbuch tiber die Tal- mudim und Midrashim, by /. Levy in four volumes. Leipsic 1876-89. 5. A Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, by M. Jastrow. London and New York, 1886-92. The five parts, thus far published of this Dictionary, the only one in English, reach to the letter 0- 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. Schidbaum, Neuhebraisch-deutsches Worterbuch, Lem- berg, 1880. B. Grammars. § 44. The modern works on the Grammar of the Mishna 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 . Luzzatto in his "Elementi grammaticali del Caldeo Biblico e del dialetto Talmudico Babilonese" Padua, 1865. Two translations of this work appeared, namely: 1. Grammatik der bibl. chaldaeischen Sprache und des Idioms des Talmud Babli. Ein Grundriss von S. D. Luzzatto, mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von M. S. Kriiger. Breslau, 1873. ' 2. Luzzatto's Grammar of the bibl. Chaldaic Language and of the idiom of the Talmud Babli, translated by J. Gbldammer, New York, 1876. Caspar Levias. Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained in the Babylonian Talmud. In preparation. I. Rosenberg. Das Aramaische Verbum in babyl. Talmud. Marburg, 1888. C. Chrestomathies, § 45. A. B. Ehrlich. Rashe 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. "p"nen Talmudische Chrestomathie fur den crsten Unterricht im Talmud, 2 parts. Pressburg, 1882. Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 83 D. Introductory 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 TiD^nn K13C- 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 Pinner in his Translation of Talm. Berachoth. 3. nifVD 'D (Methodology of the Talmud), by Samson of Chinon (XIV century). Constantine (1515), Cremona, (1558), Verona (1657). 4. D^IJ? niD^n, by Jeshua 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: TID^nn i^D, by Joseph Karo, and njJIDty p3,) by Solomon Algazi. Abstracts of the works 3 and 4 are added to Samuel Hanagid's Mebo Hatalmud in the appendix to our Talmud editions. 5. K"lD3n *OTT Methodology of the Talmud by Isaac Campanton, of Castilia (XV century), published in Venice (1565) Mantua (1593), Amsterdam (1754). A new edition was pub lished by Isaac Weiss, Vienna, 1891. 6. riDDn J"6nn (Methodology of the Talmud), by Jacob Chagiz (XVII century). Verona 1647. Amst. 1709. b. Modern Works in Hebrew. § 47. /. Abelsohn. mirf |Tl3t, Methodology of the Mishna and Rules of Halacha. Wilna, 1859. 84= Historical and Literary Introduction. Jacob Brull. nation NUS, Introduction to the Mishna; 2 volumes. Frankf. o. 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. Zebi Hirsch Chafes. lID^nn N130, Introduction to the Talmud. Lemberg, 1845. Z. Frankel. x\lW&7\ "Oil, Hodegetica in Mishnam etc., Leipsic, 1859. A litle Supplement to this important work was published under the litle of "Additamenta et Index ad librum Hodegetica in Mischnam". Leipsic, 1867. Z. Frankel. "lO^tyrpn N120, Introductio in Talmud Hiero- solymitanum. Breslau, 1870. Joachim Oppenheimer. nJB>Dn rVrT7iri, the genesis of the Mishna. Pressburg, 1882. J. H. Weiss. WllTl "in "in with the German title: Zur Geschichte der judischen Tradition. Vienna, 1871-83. Vol I and II treat of the period to the close of the Mishna, and Vol. Ill of that of the Amoraim. J. Wiesner. C^WY1 fiJJSJ, Investigations concerning the origin and the contents of the Palestinian Talmud. Vienna, 1872. c. Works and Articles m Modern Languages. §48. S. Adler. The article Talmud in Johnson's Encyclopedia, New York. Reprinted in the author's collective work "Kobetz al Yad". New York, 1886: pp. 46-80. J. S. Block. Einblicke in die Geschichte der Entstehung der Talmudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1884. N. Brull. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des babyl. Talmuds als Schriftwerkes (in Jahrbiicher furJiid. Geschichte u. Literatur II pp. 1-123). Sam. Davidson. The Article Talmud in John Kitto's Cyclopaedia. J. Derenbourg. Article Talmud in Lichtenberg's Ency" clopedie des sciences religieuses. Paris, 1882. XII pp. 1007" 1036. Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 85 Z. Frankel. Beitrage zur Einleitung in den Talmud (in Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums X, pp. 186-194; 205-212; 258-272). J. Hamburger. Articles Mischna and Talmud in Real Eycyclopadie fur 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. Ueberden Zusammenhang der Mischna. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. Strasburg, 1890. .!>. M. Schiller-Szinessy. Article Mishnah in Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Edition, vol. XVI, and Article Talmud in vol. XXIII. Hermann L. Strack. Einleitung in den Thalmud. Leipsic, 1887. This work of the celebrated Christian scholar which treats of the subject with thoroughness, exactness and impartiality, is a reprint of the article Talmud in Herzog's Real Encyclopiidie fur protestant. Theologie. Second Edition, vol. XVIII. d. Historical Works. Of modern historical works which, treating of the Talmudical periodshed much light upon the genesis of the Talmud, the fol lowing are very important: Julius Fiirst. Kultur und Literaturgeschichte der Judeu 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 II, 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 York, 1873. G. Karpcles. Geschichte der jiidischen Literatur. Berlin, 1886- pp- 265-332. 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 of the Talmud and the Rabbinical Decisions, under the title of pnS'1 ins. Five folio volumes of this work, comprising the letters, N-D, 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. p^>D "py, an encyclopedical work in Hebrew of which only one volume, containing the letter s, ap peared (Prague 1852). J. Hamburger. Real Encyclopaedie fur Bibel und Talmud, Abtheilung II. 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. iJljJOty T\bni- Onomasticon of Biblical per sons and of the Mishna teachers quoted in the Talmud and in Midrash (Wandsbeck 1728). Malachi ben Jacob (XVIII century), 'OX^D V- This book is a Methodology of the Talmud, alphabetically arranged. Livorno, 1767, Berlin, 1852. A. Stein. Talmudische Terminologie; alphabetisch geordnet. Prague, 1869. Jacob Brull. jt>X^ ttnn Die Mnemonotechnik des Talmud. Vienna, 1864. This little book explains the Simanim, i. e. the mnemonical 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. ]J2"np^>D Rabbinical Sentences, alphabetically arranged. Warsaw, 1874. Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 87 6*. Ph. Frenkel. ty"H^ p^X- Index of the Agadic passages of the Talmud, Krotoschin, 1885. Moses Halevi. D'O'PX. Legal and ethical maxims of the Talmud, alphabetically arranged. Belgrade, 1874. Wiesner. Scholien, wissenschaftliche Forschungen aus dem Gebiete des babyl. Talmud. I Berachoth; II Sabbath; III Erubin and Pesachim. Prague, 1859-67. CHAPTER XI. TRANSLATIONS dF THE TALMUD. A. The Mishna. §52. a. Latin Translations. The learned Dutch G. Siirenhusius published (Amsterdam, 1698-1703) a Latin version of the Mishna and of the 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 iibersctzt und erlautert. Anspach, 1760-63. /. M. Jost, the celebrated Jewish historian, published (Berlin 1832-34) anew German translation in Hebrew characters with short introductions and annotations, together with the vocalized Mishna text and the commentary nrtt Cp. A. Sammter. Mischnajoth,vokalisirter Text mit deutscher Uebcrsetzung und Erklarung. Berlin, 1886 — . c. English Translations. W. Walton. Translation of the treatises Sabbath and Erubin, London, 1718. D. A. de Sola and M. I. Raphall. Eighteen 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. Taylor. 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 homi letical portions (Agadas) which the compilers have interspersed in every treatise. The main part of the 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. l This 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 from the following Note which a learned jurist kindly furnished me: "The Year Books of the English Law, sometimes called 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 op single masechtoth. Blasius 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. E. Edzard published (Hamburg, 1705) a Latin trans lation of the first two Perakim of Aboda Zara. b. German Translations. Johann Jacob Rabe. Der Tractat Brachoth nach der ILiero- solymitan und Babylonischen Gemara iibersetzt uud erlautert. Halle, 1777. 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 iibersetzt. Niirenberg, 1856 and 1868. A. Sammtcr. Tractat Baba Mezia. Text mit deutscher Uebersetzung und Erklarung. Berlin, 1876. M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Megilla nebst Tosafoth ins Deutsche iibertragen. Frankfort on the Main, 1883. M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Rosch ha-Schanah ins Deutsche iibertragen. Frankf. on the Main, 1886. M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Sanhedrin iibertragen und mit erlauternden Bemerkungen versehen. Frankf. 1892. D. O. Straschun. Der Tractat Taanith ins Deutsche iiber tragen. Halle, 1883. August Wunsche. Der Babyl. Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen iibersetzt, 2 volumes. Leipsic, 1886-88. Isaak Levy. Der achte Abschnitt aus dem Tractate Sabbath Translations. 91 (Babli und Jeruschalmi) iibersetzt und philologisch behandelt. Breslau, 1892. c. French Tnanslations. /. 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) r 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 of the 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. Legislation criminelledu Talmud, containing the treatise of Sanhedrin and such portions of Maccoth as refer to the punish ment of criminals. Paris, 1876. 2. Legislation civile du Talmud, traduction du traite Kethuboth. Paris, 1880. 3. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traite" Baba Kamtna. Paris, 1873. 4. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traite" Baba Metzia. Paris, 1878. 5. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traite" Baba Bathra. Paris, 1879. 6. La medicine, les pa'iens 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 Introduction lation of the Palestinian Talmud, (Paris, 1871) also a translation of Berachoth of the Babyl. Talmud. d. English Translation. A. W. Slreane. 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 Rabc, besides translating Berachoth in connec tion with that treatise in the Babylonian Gemara, as mentioned above, published: Der Talmudische Tractat Peah, iibersetzt und erlautcrt. Anspach, 1781. August Wiinsche. Der Jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in's Deutsche iibertragen. Zurich, 1880. c. French Translation. Moise Schwab. Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la premiere fois X volumes. Paris, 1871-90. d. English 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 order of authors). § 55. AGADA. W. Bacher. Die Agada der Tannaiten. Strasburg, Als. 1884. " Die Agada der Babylonischen Anioraer, Strasburg, Als. 1878. " Die Agada der Palastinischen Anioraer, Strasburg, Als. 1891. S. Back. Die Fabel im Talmud u. Midrasch (in Monatsschrift f. Geschichte u, Wissenschaf t d. Judenthums, XXIV, 1875; XXV, 1876; XXIX 1880; XXX, 1881; XXXII, 1883; XXXIII, 1884). M. Grunbaum. Beitrage zur vergleichenden Mythologie aus der Hag gada (in Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, vol. XXXI, 1877). M. Gudemann. Mythen'mischung in der Haggada (in Monatschrift f . Geschichte u. Wissenschaf t d. Judenthums, vol. XXV, 1876). D. Hoffmann. Die Antonius Agadoth im Talmud (in Magazin fur Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XIX, 1892). ARCHAEOLOGICAL. Ad. Brull. Trachten der Juden im nachbiblischen Alterthum Frankf. on the M. 1873. Iranz Delitzsch. Jiidisches Handworkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, Elangen, 1879. Translated by B. Pick "Jewish Artisan Life." New York, 1883. M, H. Iriedlander. Die Arbeit nach Bibel u. Talmud. Briinn, 1891. 94 Historical and Literary Introduction. L. Herzfeld. Metrologische Voruntersuchungen, Geld und Gewicht der Juden bis zum Shluss des Talmuds (in Jahrbuch fur Geschichte der Juden u. des Judenthums, vol. Ill pp. 95-191, Leipsic, 1863). Alex. Kohut. Ist das Schachspiel im Talmud genannt? (Z. d. D. M. G. XLVI, 130-39). Leopold Low. Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, Leipsic, 1870-71. " " Die Lebensalter in der Jiid. Literatur. Szegedin, 1875. B. Zuckerman. Ueber Talmudische Miinzen u. Gewichte. Breslau, 1863. '• 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. Friedlander. Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten u. Amoraer. Brunn, 1879. S. Gelbhaus. R. Jehuda Hanasi und die Redaction der Mischna. Vienna, 1876. D.Hoffmann. Mar Samuel, Rector der Academiezu Nahardea. Leipsic, 1873. Armand Kaminka. Simon b. Jochai (chapter in the author's Studien zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890). Raphael Levy. Un Tanah (Rabbi Meiir),Etude sur la vie et I'enseignement d'un docteur Juif du II siecle. Paris 1883. M. I. Muhlf elder. Rabh. Ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte des Talmud. Leipsic, 1873. J. Spitz. Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkai, Rector der Hochschute zu Jabneh. Berlin, 1883. I. Trenel. Vie de Hillel l'Ancient. Paris, 1867. H. Zirndorf. Some Women in Israel (pp. 119-270 portraying distin guished women of the Talmudic ago). Philadelphia* 1892. Bibliography. 95 chronology and calendar. L. M. Lewisohn. Geschichte u. System des jiidischen Kalenderwesens. Leipsic, 1856. B. Zuckermann. Materialien zur Entwiokelung der altjiidischen Zeit- rechnung. Breslau 1882. CUSTOMS. Joseph Perles. Die jtidische 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 fiber religiose Brauche und Anschauungon. Cincinnati, 1888. DIALECTICS. Aaron Hahn. The Rabbinical Dialectics. A history of Dialecticians and Dialectics of the Mishna and Talmud, Cincinnati. 1879. EDUCATION. Blach-Gudensberg. Das Paedagogische im Talmud. Halberstadt. 1880. M. Duschak. Schulgesetzgebung u. Methodik der alten Israeli ten. Vienna, 1872. Sam. Marcus. Zur Schul-Paedagogik des Talmud. Berlin, 1 866. Joseph Simon. L'education et I'instruction d'apres la Bible et le Talmud Leipsic, 1879. J. Wiesen. Geschichte und Methodik der Schulwesens im talmudi- schen Alterthum. Strasburg, 1892. ETHICS. M. Bloch Die Ethik der Halacha, Budapest, 1886. Herman Cohen. Die Nachstenliebe im Talmud. Ein Gutachten . Marburg, 1886. M. Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien u. des Talmuds. Brfinn 1877. H. B. Fassel. Tugend-und Rechtslehre des Talmud. Vienna, 1848. 96' Historical and Literary Introduction. E. Grunebaum. Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums andern Bekentnissen gegeniiber. Strasburg, 1878. M. Gudemann. 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. Marc. Levy. Essai sur la morale de Talmud. Paris 1891. Luzzatto. Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von M. Joel, 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 Ent wickelung des Gebotes der Nachsten liebe innerhalb des Judenthums, kritisch beleuchtet. Berlin, 1891. EXEGESIS. H. S. Hirschfeld. Halachische Exegese. Berlin, 1840. " " 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. GE GRAPHY AND HISTORY. A. Berliner. Beitrage zur Geographie u. Ethnographic Babyloniens im Talmud u. Midrasch. Berlin 1883. J. Derenbourg. Essai sur l'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine d'apres 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 geographie du Talmud. Memoire couronne par l'academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris, 1868. LAW. a. In General. Jacques Levy. La jurisprudence du Pentateuque et du Talmud. Constantine. 1879. Bibliography. 97 Israeliten, Athener und Romer. S. Mayer. Die Rechte der Leipsic, 1862-66. 1. L. SaalschiXtz. Das Mosaische Recht, nebst den vervollstandigenden thalmudisch-rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2-nd Edi tion. Berlin, 1853. S. Sehaffer. Das Recht u. seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmudischer Sitten-und Kechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. J. M. Wise. The Law (in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 12-32. Cincinnati, 1880). b. Judicial Courts. J. Selden, De Synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebrae- orum. London, 1650; Amsterd. 1679; Frankf., 1696. E. Hoffmann. Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums. Berlin, 1878. c. Evidence in Law. I. Blumenstein. Die verschiedenen Eidesarten nach mosaisch-talmud- ischem Rechte. Frankf. on the M., 1883. Z. Frankel. Der Gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaisch talmudischem Rechte. Berlin. 1846. D. Fink. "Miggo" als Rechtsbeweis im bab. Talm. Leipsic, 1891. d. Criminal Law. O. Bohr. Das Gesetz fiber f alsche Zeugen, nach Bibel u. Talmud. Berlin, 1862. P. B. Benny. The Criminal Code of the Jews. London, 1880. M. Duschak. Das mosaisch-talmudische Strafrecht. Vienna, 1869. J. Fiirst. Das peinliche Rechtsverfahren im jild. Alterfchum. Heidelberg, 1870. E. Goitein. Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmudischen Straf recht (in Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft d. J. Vol. XIX. S. Mendelsohn. The Criminal Jurisprudence of the ancient Hebrews compiled from the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. Baltimore, 1891. Julius Vargha. Defense in criminal cases with the ancient Hebrews, translated from the first chapter of the author's large work "Vertheidigung in Griminalf&Ukn", and publisch- ed in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 254-268. Cincinnati 1880. Historical and Literary Introduction. Thonisson. M. Bloch. H. B. Fassel. L. Auerbach S. Keyzer, I. Wie&ner. Der Bann in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung auf dem Boden des Judenthums. Leipsic, 1864. La peine de mort dans le Talmud. Brussels, 1886. e. Civil Law. Die Ciyilprocess-Ordnung nach mosaisch-rabbinischem Rechte. Budapest. 1882. Das mosaisch-rabbinische Civilrecht. Gr. Kanischa. 1852-54. Das mosaisch-rabbinische Gerichtsverfahren in civil- rechtlischen Sachen. Gr. Kanischa, 1859. Das jildische Obligationsrecht. Berlin, 1871. Dissertatio de tutela secundum jus Talmudicum. Leyden 1847. f. Inheritance and Testament. L. Bodenheimer. Das Testament. Crefeld, 1847. Eduard Gans. Grundzuge des mosaisch-talmudischen Erbrechts (in Zunz' Zeitschrift fur die Wissenschaf t des Judenthums p. 419 sq.). Moses Mendelssohn. Ritualgesetze der Juden, betreffend Erbschaften Vormundschaft, Testamente etc. Berlin, 1778, and several later editions. De Successionibus in bona defuncti ad leges Hebrae orum. London, 1646; Frankf., 1696. g. Police Law. Das mosaisch-talmudische Polizeirecht. Buda Pest, 1878. Transated into English by I. W. Lilienthal in the Hebrew Review Vol. I, Cincinnati 1881. h. Law of Marriage and Divorce. Die Familie nach mos.-talmud. Lehre. Breslau, 1867. Das mosaisch-talmudische Eherecht. Vienna, 1864. Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts. Breslau, 1860. Die Autonomie der Rabbinen und das Princip der jiidischen Ehe. Schwerin, 1847. L. Ljchtschem. Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talm. Auffassung. Leipsic 1879. Joh. Selden. M. Bloch. P. Buchholz. M. Duschak. Z. Frankel. S. Holdheim, Bibliography. 99 M. Mielziner. The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in ancient and modern times, and its relation to the law of the State. Cincinnati, 1884. Joh. Selden. Uxor Ebraica sive de nuptiis et divortiis etc. London, 1646. J. Stern. Die Frau im Talmud. Zurich, 1879. i. Laws Concerning Slavery. M. Mielziner. Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebraern 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. Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden. Breslau, 1886. Zadok-Kahn. L'esclavage selon la Bible et le Talmud. Paris, 1867, " " Sklaverei nach Bibel u. Talmud. Deutsch von Singer. Berlin, 1888. LINGUISTICS. A. Berliner. Beitrage zur hebraischen Grammatik im Talmud u. Midras«h. Berlin, 1879. Ad. Brull Fremdsprachliche Redensarten u. Worter in den Tal- muden u. Midraschim. Leipsic, 1869. Jf. Brull. Fremdsprachliche Worter in den Talmuden u. Midra schim (in Jahrbiicher fiir jiid. Geschichte u. Literatur I, 123 220). Frankf. o. M., 1874. Jos. Perles. Etymologische Studien zur Kunde der rabbinischen Sprache und Alterthfimer. Breslau, 1871. 67. Riilf. Zur Lautlehre der aramaisch-talmudischen Dialgcte. Breslau, 1879. Mich. Saehs. Beitrage zur Sprac -u nd Alterthumsforschung. 2 volumes. Berlin, 1852-0-*. MATHEMATICS. B. Zuchcrmann Pas Mathematisohe 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. Beitrage zur Geschichte der talm. Chirurgie. Breslau, 1869. A. II. Israels. Collectanea Gynaecologica ex Talmude Babylonico. Groningen, 1S45. L. Katzenelsson. Bie -Osteologie der Talmudisten. Eine talmudisch- anatonische Studie (in Hebrew). St. Petersbourg, 188s. R. I. Wunderbar. Biblisch -talmudische Medicin, 2 volumes. Riga (Leipsic), 1850-60. NATURAL HISTORY AND SCIENCES. Jos. Bergel. Studien fiber 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. lmm. Low. Aramaische Pflanzennamen. Leipsic, 1881. PARSEEISM IN THE TALMUD. Alexander Kohut. Was hat die talm. E schatologie aus dem Parsismus aufgenommen? (in Z. d. D. M. G. vol. XXI pp 553-91). " " Die jfidische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihrer Abhangigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. " " Die talmudisch - midraschische Adamssage in ihrer Rfickbeziehung auf die pers. Yima und Meshiasage, in Z. d. D. M. G. XXV pp. 59-91. " " 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. POETRY. S. Sekles. The Poetry of the Talmud. New York, 1880. PROVERBS, MAXIMS, PARABLES. L. Dukes. Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipsic, 1844. " " Rabbinische Sprachkunde. Vienna, 1851. J. R. Furstenthal. Rabbinische Anthologie. Breslau, 1834. Giuseppe Levi. Parabeln, Legenden u. Gedanken aus Talmud u. Midrasch, aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche ubetragen von L. Seligmann Leipsic, 1863. Lowenstein. Sentenzen, Spriiche u. Lebensregeln aus dem Talmud Berlin, 1887. Bibliography. 101 PSYCHOLOGY. M. Jacobson. Versuch einer Psychologie des Talmud. Hamburg, 1878. 1. Wiesner. Zur talmudischen Psychologie (in Magazin fur judische Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. I, 1874, and II, 1875). RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY. M. Friedldnder. Ben Dosa und seine Zeit, oder Einfluss der heidnischen Philosophie auf das Judenthum u. Christenthum. Prague, 187a. M. Gudemann. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Leipsic, 18"6. 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 Transcendental e, 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. Judische Angelologie u. Daemonologie in ihrer Abhan- gigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. Sal. Thein. Das Princip des planetarischon Emflusses 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? (in the Quarterly Review for October, 1867, reprinted in the Literary Remains, New York, 1874). M. Ehrentheil. Der Geist des Talmud. Breslau, 1887. Karl Fischer. Gutmeinung fiber den Talmud. Vienna, 1883. Sams. Raph. Hirsch. Beziehung des Talmuds zum Judenthum und zur sozialen Stellung seiner Bekenner. Frankf. o. M., 1884. P. /. 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. Gutachten fiber den Talmud. Breslau, 1877. Der wahre Talmudjude. Die wichtigsten Grundsatze des talmudischen Schrif tthums fiber das sittliche Leben des Menschen. Berlin, 1893. Die Wahrheit fiber den Talmud, (aus dem Franzosischen "La verite sur le Talmud", ubersetztvon S. Mannheimer, Basel, 1860. La Controverse sur le Talmud sous Saint Louis, Paris, 1881.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. Talmudf jender (the Enemies of the Talmud),in Danish. Copenhagen, 1878. August Wiinsche. Der Talmud. Eine SMzze. Zurich, 1879. M. Joel. Albert Katz. S. Klein. Isidore Loeb. H. Polano. 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 loo ked 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 rubbisu at the bottom of which some stray pearls of Eastern 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 Eisenmenger 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 other 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 104 Historical and Literary Introduction. jewels, grace the Hebrew speech not less than all those Greek 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 deh. Talmud der Hebraer." Vienna, 1883. Of such scholars as belong to our time, the following may be quoted here. The late Prof. Delitzsch in his "Jiidisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu" says: "Those who have not in some decree 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 five 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 the fine 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 of its 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; their Past, Present 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 ot such literature it is easy to make quotations which may throw an odium over the whole. But fancy if the 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 mill 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, withcraft, 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 of a 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 mud with animated distinctness, in their peculiar costumes, modes of speech and of thought, so to say a literary Herculaneum and Pompeii, not weakened by artistic imitation, which trans fers a colossal pictureto the narrow limits of a miniature. It is, therefore, no wonder, if in this 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 in the Talmud. As counterpoise to the rank super- Opinions on the value of the Talmud. , 10T 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, i "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 i;i 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 hy 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 the embodiment of all religious knowledge aal Jewish lore. Its authority was considered second only to that of the Bible, its study regarded as a religious service, a God-pleasing work in i Fabbath 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 terra incognita was looked upon as an Am Ha'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 ot 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, for a Jewish 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 just 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, I have even heard such a question from the lips 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 youth imbibed spiritual draughts Opinions on the value of the Talmud. 109 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 indispen 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 fluences. 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 ral 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 consideration, and you will perceive that none can expect to know and understand Judaism as histori cally developed, without knowing the Talmud, without being familiar with the spirit of 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 in the 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 gener ally ackuowledged even by non-Jewish scholars. In regard to its value for Ethics I shall quote here a pas sage from an 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. Ill 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. 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 reverence 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 seiner Secten II., 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 antiquity as valueless in the knowledge of the Jewish religion. Indeed it is and must remain the chief source of this knowledge, and particularly of the 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 will remain 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 Talmud, enters into the nation's inmost life. It ofl'ers 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, i. "nO that which is searched out, the artifi cial deduction, as 'S am ttmD fit 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. inev $b ,"m &:z by jtcn "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 by in the sense of nn^3 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. § 3. There are two kinds of Midrash. Where the interpreta tion bears on the enactment or determination of a law, be it a ritual, ceremonial, civil, or criminal law, it is called ttmo T\^b~ 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 mJN tt>1t» Interpretation of the Agada, homiletical interpretation. The following examples will illustrate both kinds oi'Midrash. 1) In Lev. XIX, 3 the law reads: lNVfi "P2N1 IDS WH "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 tys 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 well as the son in this divine injunction of filial respect and obedience: ? pD TWK tt»K K^S *h p« E»N ow ]«a nn ikiti naiN Kintso 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 (jnflN) 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 jriHK and concludes that the prohibition of hewn stones is restricted to the altar only, but in building the temple such stones may be used: ^dtd rvn rum nn« bnx ma nm nns •>« u 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 written ¦ law, ar03tP mill, went an unwritten, oral law HE by2W "Tin. 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 tbe 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. 121 ded for. This artificial interpretation which originated in the urgent desire to ingraft the traditions on the stem of Scripture 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,1 as is illus trated in the following example. It was a rule 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: min*? o^an "nnN "Tin nb nitar6 ami Tns rvmib n by mj?n nb\ ' '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 up in 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. For a century past it has been one of tbe chief tasks of the •continental jurists, and especially of tbe 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. opiniou cf 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 niBH^ D'On "nrw from the context and forming them as a separate 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 31*1 in the middle part of the passage, being here exceptionally written in the text without a mater lectionis 2*1, so as to admit the word to be read Rabh (the superior), one of the Babylonian teachers made use of this circumstance to in terpret 3-1 by njjjn Nh ' '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 minn |D or, in the Aramaic form, JWIIK'TD (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 of a passage must never be lost sight of"2, and that their strain- 1 Maimonides ('3 VTW nilVOrl 'D) holds that laws derived from the Mosaic law by means of the hermeneutic rules are, in general, not to be regarded as biblical laws (minn |D) except when expressly char acterized as such in the Talmud. But this somewhat rational view is htrongly 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. ¦' ibib>b '"VD N¥V tnpen PN Sabbath 63a; Yebamoth lib; 34a. Introduction. 123 ed interpretation must be regarded merely as an. attempt "to provide an established custom and law with a Biblical sup port".1 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 nK>D^ rDpri TOO "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, 227-232. 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 clown certain hermeneutic rules (nitn), seven in number, for the purpose of expounding the written law and extending its 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. "lOini bpi the inference from minor and major. 2. rW PIT'M/ the analogy of expressions. 3. triK 3WDO 2K p2> the generalization of one special provision. 4. o*2in2 "WQ.2K PJ3/ the generalization of two special provisions. > 'SIpK |33T lnraODKl 1W J xrobn Erubin 4b; Succah 28a; Kidd. 9a. Compare also the phrase : KO^'3 W13DDK ti~\p Berachoth 41b; Yoma 80b; B. Metzia 88b and elsewhere very often used. 124 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 5. I21S1 bbz, the effect of general and particular terms. 6. "inK DlpOD 12 KXV3,the analogy made from an another passage.. 1- li^JJD lofn 121, 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.1 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 written law. Thus Nahum of Gimzo, a contemporary of R. Johanan ben Zaccai, originated a method which is termed BlJTQl l|12"l 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: ns ,ns ,D2 and bs, and as limitations the words: "]N, ja and pi. This method is illustrated by the following examples: 1) The word ns which marks the direct objective case agrees in form with the preposition ns with. Hence this word in the passage Deut. X, 20: NTTl "piY?K '»'"' ns is interpreted D^OSn "H^n ni21^> "It is to include the wise men", who are to be revered along with God (Pesachim 22b.). 2) The principle that "acts done tlirough our agent are as if done by ourselves", is derived from the passage Numbers XVIII, 28: DnN D3 ID'nn |2 "Thus ye also shall offer an 1 These seven rules of Hillel are quoted in Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. VII; Aboth of R. Nathan ch. XXXVII and in the introductory chapter of the Siphra. Introduction 125 heave offering", by interpreting : rT^ttTI n« ni2"6 D3 "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 (tpsj mpis), is derived from the limiting word -|« in the passage Exod. XXXI, 13: mCBTl "•mnatf n« *|X : "merely my Sabbaths you shall keep" by interpreting pbvb *]tf, this "merely" excludes such cases. Yoma 85b. d. Development of this method by R. Akiba. - § 1. 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.1 But in the following generation, the celebrat ed R. 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 Thora differs from human language. The latter often uses more words, to exjiress 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 essential and of vital importance to define the intention of a law 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 B.. 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 word1; in the absolute infinitive joined with the finite forms of a vero;2 in the conjunction itf * and in the conjunctive l . In dications for an intended limitation of the law are found by laying stress either on a demonstrative pronoun,5 or on the definite article n °, or on the personal pronoun added to a verb', or on a pronominal suffix " or on any noun" or verb10 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 : m« "02 |1B>^2 mm m2T "The divine Law speaks in the ordinary language of Men". Therefore, no special weight ought to be attached to its tu.-ns of speech and repetitions so customary in human language. He consequently rejected most of the deductions which II. Akiba based on a seemingly pleonastic word, superfluous syllable or letter, and 1 f . i. Pesachim 36a: nyn J11YO mVD ; Tebamoth 70a : b»k {}"« injjn nunb compare also Shebuoth 4b: D^Vil obi!3 ¦ ¦ 2 Sanhedrin 64b man man ; B. Metzia 31 a. b. DTBT) SOTI, nb& rh&n, 3wn an? etc. s Sanhedrin 34b: n\2lb roTlK; B. Kamma 53 b: D^anDK rimnb IK 4 Sanhedrin 51b: T))2~b mi D3 ; Yebamoth 68b : pi umi y""l; compare also Kethuboth 103a : isnjri *pnN DK rn3"6 iTTTV VI- ' Horioth 9a: mnK p^ IT P^P '"IT; Chul'm 43a: n'n ,iTnn riNt k!j nnnx. « Pesachim 5a: (mnb) o"v "b nob iie>»nn $vttr\ xnp 3\ri33. 7 Maccoth 2b: poDH K^l NVI ,Nr Kin ; compare also Horioth 19b; swi b"n- 8 Kiddushin 17b: pn DX i6l d!j11& mjn; Sanhedrin 46a VllK TV^M nniK vh\ ' Kiddushin lSa^ tf)»D33 SO! WU'JiajSanhedrin 52a: ]topb ttnB B^K. 10 Gittin 20a: ppn »b) 3rD1 ; Kiddushin 64a : neny D^bn ,^rv xijl Introduction. 12T 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: 1. "lDim bp identical with Hillel's Rule I. 2. niB> rrVU identical with Hillel's Rule II. 3- 2« pa contraction of Hillel's Rules III and IV. 4= tDISl ^2 i 5 ^21 BIB I subdivision of Hillel's Rule V. 6 ^21BnS1^2 I 1. 8. 9. 10 and 11 are modifications of Hillel's Rule V. 12 1S1DD ID^n T.2T) WJJJD ~!£>b~ T.21 with some addition identical with Hillel's Rule VII. 13 nt n« HT D^TOD" C2in2 i}W, this rule is not at all found among Hillel's. Among those rules of R. Ishmael, the sixth rule of Hillel "the analogy made from another passage" is omitted, but this omission is seeming only, since that rule was, under differnt names: typTi (the analogy) and iji^D no (as we find-analogy) included partly in the rule of mtP m,T3, partly in that of 2tfJ,32, 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. Juse 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 1 Compare B. Kamma 84a: 'gm HTTP K"lp bjJDB" "\ '31 ; also Kid dushin 43: nu-6 in Njn btxvnw 'n '31. 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 Posquieres (T2N"l), in the XII cen tury, wrote some valuable annotations on that chapter in his commentary on the Siphra. R. Solomon b. Isaac (i"W-[), 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: nin'Ha 'D by R. Samson of Chinon, in the XIV century. tlbiy ni2',I?ri 'D by R. Jeshua b. Joseph Halevi, flourishing in tlie XV century, in Spain. An abstract of the two last mentioned works is found in an appendix to ni2*12 n2DO in the usual Talmud editions. pHN nn» 'D by Aaron b. Chayim, XVI century. This very valuable treatise forms the first part of the author's greater work called pntf ]21p which is a commentary on the Siphra. nj?lDty pa"1 'D by R. Solomon b. Abraha?n Algazi, XVII cen tury. 1 A separate treatise on the hermeneutic xules, ascribed to this commentator and published in Kobak's "Ginze Nistaroth" 1 11 under the title of nn»n bv 'BH BTVB seems to be spurious. It is, at most, a compilation of his various incidental remarks on the single rules found in his commentary on the Talmud. Introduction. 129 nD2n n^>nn 'D, 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. nVB~^>n by Mordechai Plongian, Wilna, 1849. This Heb rew book treats exclusively of the rule of Gezera Shava. Palaestinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschang 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 10im bt>- 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 therminology the word bp (light in weight) means that which, from a legal point of view, is regarded as being less important, less significant, and IDin (heaviness) that which is comparatively of great weight and importance. By the term-ioini bp then is meant aninference from the less to the more important, and vice versa, from the more to the less im portant. For the sake of convenience, we shall use the word minor instead of bp, and major instead of ":oin ; but we must caution against confounding the meaning of these words with that of the terms major and minor, commonly used in logic in regard to syllogisms. ii. Principle. § n. The principle underlying the inference of iDini bp 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. 181 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 major importance, we may properly conclude that the same allowance is the more applicable to that which is of comparatively minor importancei. Thus, for instance, n2t£> is in some respects regarded as being of more importance (man) than a"V> (a common holiday). If, therefore, a certain kind of work is permitted on n2tt", we justly infer that such a work is the more permissible on to"T> ; and vice versa, if a certain work is forbidden on ta"V it must all the more imperatively be forbidden onnaty. Mishna Betza V. 2: natt>2 i"p lias to'Ta fix bs in. Biblical Prototype. § 12. The inference, drawn in Scripture (Numbers xii. 14) on a certain occasion is regarded as a prototype of this manner of of drawing inferences 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 "inim bp 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 nee valebit in minori." "What avails in the less, will avail in the greater ; and what will not avail in the greater, will not avail in the less." 132 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. of importance. Of these two things, A, which in Talmudic terminology is called "ra^a (teaching) is expressly subject to a certain law or restriction, which by way of inference is to be transferred to B, termed mb (learning). An inference is termed pi (a judgment); to make an infer ence jn (to judge). The peculiar law found in the 112^0 is called jnj (to be judged from), while the law finally transferred to the mb is termed ]i-in JO Mil (the result of the inference). Thus, in the biblical inference mentioned above, the father's disfavor is the ID^Q, the Lord's disfavor is 112b- The punish ment in consequeace of a father's disfavor (njjaff D^>2n xbn D^D"1) is the jnj, and the final decision derived from this infer ence (o'ic nyaff ijon) is pn ;o Kan- y. Logical and Formal Arrangement. § 14. Logically, every yp (like every syllogism) has tree 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 p n^Tin the outset of the infer ence, or 'Win SIp^J?, the most essential part of the inference ; while the final conclusion is called |"«*t md the end of the inference. The formal arrangement of these three propositions differs, however, from this logical order, as a y'p is usually expressed by two compound propositions, one of which is the antecedent and the other the consequent, as in case of an inference from minor to major : (3"n) iidn {bp) •••ff ^3 no (aiTlff) TIDNff p WK (IIDI-I) — ff 'Ul'jS The Inference from Minor and Major. 133 " If A which in this or that respect is of minor impor tance, Is subject to a certain severity of the law ; ought not B, which is of majori mportance, be the more subject to the same severity?" Or, in case of an inference frome major to minor: (iibb) ima (mon) "'ff •'Ji'jb no (llBBff pir>N) pff ^>2 xb {bp) — ff 'ui'jb ' 'If 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. § 15. a. In Exodus xxii. 13, the law is laid down that if a 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 it is not expressly mentioned in this law whether the borrower was also responsible in cases when the borrowed animal or thing is stolen. The 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, is not bound to make restitution when the animal intrusted to his care died or became hurt, and yet is held responsible in case the intrusted thing was stolen (n1?!^ lajja 2W 21) DKl) The inference is made in the following way : n2,o:i2 a^n nnai niiaffa iiasff -off noiff na n2-J32 2>Ttff pi ww nnai rniaffa 3"nff bxw "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 and death, to be the more bound to restore the thing stolen from him?" In this inference the depositary is minor, the borrower major. Baba Metzia 95a. b. By a similar inference it is proved that a depositary has to make restitution in cases where the intrusted thing has become lost, though the law only speaks of his responsibility for theft (Exodus xxii. 11): 134 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. D^ffo oils'? nanpff -2*1: no pff ^2 n1? -ywsb nanpff nra« "If he has to make restitution for the theft, which is almost an accident (as the greatest vigilance may not always prevent it), how much the more is restitution to be made for losing (the intrusted object), which is almost a trespass (since he was deficient in the necessary care and vigilance). Here n2,JJ is minor, nT"2S major. Baba Metzia 94b. vn. 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 liable 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 : paa xbx ffjj? xb nn^a 2in2n ff:jjff oipoa -a ;iaa xbx ff :y xbu? sin p nn^a ffjy xbv ]X2 Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 24. xiii. Restrictions in the application of inferences. § It Conclusions made by an inference are restricted by three rules: 1-st, pJ2 HINT? pn |Q N2^ TH "It is sufficient that the result derived from an inference be equivalent to the law from which it is drawn"; that is to say, the law transferred to B (the major), must never surpass in severity the original law in A (the minor), from which the inference was made. The Inference from Minor and Major. 135 Thus, in the 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," wich 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 pn jD pffJTJ? pN "The in ference from minor to major is not to be applied in the penal law." The reason for this rule lies in the possibility that the con- cusions 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 pn ja pffJIJJ pK 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 to take 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: ?sin n"ip )xb ...pnn: ptnnn p:nn: mn xb 'Quite 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). 2 According 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 : e»K my '3 b"T\ pJO mi3 nniB &6« "b J'K t5"K nnB' '31 d« xn pp b3 »b rrvon 3"n nnisn dk H3 "b e» nox' tbw iy \nn jo j'tww pac nobb my '3 now T3? pin jo ntwv J3 mox In Talmud Maccoth 5 6, the same principle is proved in a similar way from Leviticus xx. 17. 136 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. "If 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 ps pn p pffJIJ? "No penalty can be inflicted which is based upon an inference." 3d. A third restrictive rule in the application of inferences of n"lp is laid down in Mishna Yadaim m. 2: 'i2i onsiD n2ia niin n2n pjT pa or as the rule is expressed more concisely in Talmud Sabb. 132, and Nazir 57: n2^na l"p pjl pK "No inferences must be made from traditional laws to establish a new law."' ix. Refutation of inferences. § 18. Not every n"'lp offered in the Talmudic discussions of the law is correct and valid. We sometimes find th,ere very proble matic and even sophistical inferences set forth merely as sup positions or hypotheses; these are, however, finally refuted. A refutation of a n'lp is called K2"PS- Refutations may be made in two different ways: a. Either the correctness of the premise in the antecedent is disputed by showing that A (TBf?B) which was supposed to be of minor importance (^>p) is in some other respects really of major im portance (man); or b. The correctness of the conclusion in the eonsequent is diputed by showing that the peculiar law con nected with A (no|?B) can not be transferred to - B (ia^) as it is not transferred to C, which in certain respects is like B. The first kind of refutation is called wm NIp^K tOTS a refutation of the most essential part of the inference, and the sec ond kind is termed SJH rpDX «2T,2 refutation of the final conclusion of the inference. The styles of expression in these two ¦R. Akiba, however, did not accept this restrictive rule, but atr tempted to make inferences even from traditionaUaws to establish a new law. See Sabbath 132a. Compare also Talm. Jer. Kiddushin 1, 2: -\vb 1» Toh rv1? n'K ntpv "i The Inference from Minor and Major. 137 kinds of refutation are quite different. A refutation of the premise js usually expressed in the following way : (12i "pa man) pff *i\bs>b na (121 "12a man irsff) nt2 iasn "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, wich is not so important in the same respect?" The refutation of the final conclusion is usually expressed by the words, p{y nOT1 "Ol^S- "The case of C proves it;" viz.: that such a conclusion can not be admitted, since C is of equal importance with B, and still thp 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 a^na Iffa (meat, which, in contradiction to this law had been boiled with milk), is forbidden to be eaten (n^2K2 TIDK), it is undertaken to prove that it is likewise forbidden to make any other use of it (nS3n2 11DS). One of the rabbis tried to prove this by way of an inference from rh"\y (the fruits of a tree during the first three years, wich fruits were deemed forbidden to be used in any way r\XlT\2 11DK). The inference was made in the fol lowing way : n«:n2 nmcs n-pay na map xbv rh-\y na nwna niDKff pn ir« n"vaj; ia may:ff a^na nffa "If 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 ~b"\y is of minor 138 Hermeneutics of the Talmud importance (bp) compared with n"aa; 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 n'aa there had been a time (namely, before being boiled together), when the use of each of these components was allowed: (nsjna hiidk i^sib) inTin nyff n^> nnTi xb pff r\b-\yb na -im-in nyff i^> nTiff n"22 na«n Chullin 115b; Mechilta to Exodus xxiii. 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 if the eve of nDS 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 (n2K^B), while certain preparatory acts (as carrying the lamb to the temple, etc.), though not regarded as real labor, but only as ni2ff (incompatible with a day of rest), are not allowed. This restriction is disputed by R. Eliezer, on the ground of the fol lowing inference: n2ffn n« nnn na^a niffa sinff naTiff nx na ?n2ffn n« in-p xb ni2ff oiffa jnff ibx "If slaughtering, though a real labor, abrogates the Sab bath, ought not things not regarded as real labor the more ab rogate the Sabbath?" But this logical conclusion is refuted by R. Joshua: ni2ff oiffa 12 "iidki nsxbv niffa 12 l-pnnff n^u b"v ' 'A common holiday proves that this conclusion is not ad missible, for on such a day some real labors (as cooking, baking, etc.), are permitted, while at the same time certain actions, which fall under the category ofniaff, are positively pro hibited." xi reinstatement of a refuted inference. § 20. 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 n'OT' 12'T1, B- Eliezer, in turn, attempted to remove this objection by asking: n^KI na niSB^ niffl "What can that which is voluntary prove against a command^ That is to say, if ni2ff actions are not allowed on B"V», 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. Eliezer's inference; but now R. Akiba appeared in the arena to defend R. Joshua's objection by showing that a difference between niffl and ni¥B could not be admitted. He said NTlff ns3in nstn naffn n« nnn nrsi niaff niffa mtii mxa "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 niaff, 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 it is not to be done on a Sabbath-day; therefore, you should n<-t wonder that in our case those other acts (the carrying of the Paschal lamb, etc.), though concerning a niSB and only niaff, 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. §21. In conclusion, we wish to call attention to some sophistical inferences of l"p mentioned in the Talmudic 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. 1: "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?" jpna a^Ti •ok nn nisa nna a«n wm mam niff n« nn jpua 3«n \n«ff )n wn nixo nna a«n ^Kff '•nasi nay "If 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 l"p is mentioned in Mass. Derech Eretz Rabba, chapter I. A certain Jose b. Tadai, of Tiberias, tried, in the presence of R. Gamaliel, to ridicule the application of inferences in ritual laws by the following paralogism: nnaa mns *jk na mia ••jKff Tiffs na nnaa tidn nTiKff p wk na mns ¦UNff wx nff« "If 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, Bhow 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 excommunicated the scoffing questioner, remarking: ja iai "ftpyb 13T j"OT pK minn ' 'No inference can be admitted in which the conclusion 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 following inference: mna nsaia nanai n^aaff ff m nai nina «nvff jn wn n«aia nanai n^aa lrwff pff "la serpent, though killing men and beasts, and thus in creasing ritual uncleanness, still is regarded a clean animal;1 ought not a reptile that does not kill and increase uncleanness be the more regarded clean?" This inference, though merely intended to display dialectic acumen, is earnestly refuted by the following argumentum ad absurdum: If, 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. 'The 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." CHAPTER II. THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAYA. Rule II. Introductory. §22. Analogy, in the ordinary sense of the word, denotes such resemolance 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 certainty, 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 two laws may be either real 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 i^¥B na of which we shall speak in the following chapter. But the Rabbis also admit the argument from a 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 (mff'nT'tt) 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 im 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 tbe other. We have, then, two kinds of Gezera Shava, and in order to distinguish them clearly we propose to call the former the exegetical and the latter the constructional Gezera Shava. The usual formula for both kinds of Gezera Shava is: — ^rh 1BKJ1 jto 1BNJ jN2 r)« iprh na Here is said: There is said:. . . . As there, 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: tJnisan jB ninD "HaV1 "the indefinite is to be 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.1 Examples of exegetical Gezera Shava: 1. In Levit. xvi. 29 the law relating to the Day of Atone ment enjoins n2,niff3J r\X i:j?n "Ye shall afflict your souls," without defining the nature of this affliction. But the expres sion nJ]? 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 -p',JJ"l',l "pyi Deut. viii. 3. (Compare also Psalm xxxv. 13 ^sj ni¥2 Wiy). Hence the expression in our pas sage is to be taken in the meaning which tradition has put on it, i. e ., as a term of fasting. a3,'niffsj m ujjn j«2 nas: •p^Tn "pjn frrh "iaxn pajn •'Wj? \br\b na jiajn ^py }X2 natoff n^y cjk Siphra to Levit. xvi., and Talmud Yoma, 74. 2. In the law restricting the time of slavery, Exod. xxi. 2, the expression 1-123} "13JJ is somewhat ambiguous, as it might mean either a servant of a Hebrew (a heathen slave belonging. to an Israelite) or a Hebrew servant (an Israelite who has been sold as a slave). That the expression is to be taken in the lat ter sense (the word naj? 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 naj?n "\T\X "thy Hebrew brother."1 naj?n its finb ibnji nay naj? \xs now i2ia 2inan bxw ]22 j^nV nn 121a ainan bxw j22 jK2 cj« Mechilta to Exodus xxi. in. — 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, it is 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 ease: 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 a day. Among other arguments to prove the permission, Hillel referred also to the rule of Gezera Shava. He argued: In the law concerning the daily offering it is said (Num. xxiii. 2) thas it was to be brought Hj?1B2 "in its due season," and also in the law regarding the Paschal lamb we 'The 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 7< 3, tries to defend the other interpretation so promptly refuted by the Rabbis, and claims that ^1311 135? refers to a certain class of heathen slaves in the service of a Hebrew. Compare Mielziner's "Die Verhaelt- nisse des Sklaven bei den alteu Hebraein," page 23. 146 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. read: The children of Israel shall keep the Passover n>1C3 "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 lljjiaa 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 njjiaa in regard to the Paschal lamb likewise enjoins that the offering take place at the time appoined, even on a Sabbath day. rana njna nawi nnaa hj?ib ibsj naffn n« nnn Tana masn ttjjib na naffn nx nnn nnsa mn«n nyia rjs 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 bythe words, "and shall not make restitution." Hence, according to this analogy, the phrase in the first case must also be supplied The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 147 viz. : He shall be brought before the judges to take an oath ¦ that he did not act fraudulently, which oath frees him from making restitution. nbynb t mnnff mawi naa1? r mnnff mcxi nyiaff^ jsa s\x nyiaff1? j^n1? na 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 in the 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 affl jnan "the priest shall return" (Levit. xiv. 39), and jn2n N21 "the priest shall come" (ibid., 44), since the verb "to return" is almost identical with the verb "to come" (as the former means to come again. ) -x^z ntj it n2,,ff nt it ,jnan «2i jnan 2ffi Siphra to Levit xiv., and very often quoted in the Talmud. v. — the exorbitant gezera, shava. § 21 There is a peculiar kind of Gezera 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 •The Septuagint already supplied the passage in this way by adding to "he shall appear before the judges" the words nai 6/ieirai "and he shall swear." 148 v 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 fallacy, or sophistical conclusion. It must, howeyer, 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 ""B'fcOnN or a — IBJ "that 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 jjttn "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.) nTPB ^TB JJffl JJffl KTW Talmud Sanhedrin 10. 'Compare Z. Frankel's "Palaestinishe und Alexandrinische Schrift forshung," page 20. The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 149 h. Mishna Kiddushin I. 1 lays down the law that one of the means to contract marriage was f]D2, 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 nffN ff'W np"1 "O "if a man take a wife" (Deut. xxii. 13); but np*? "to take" also means "to acquire" property, ] and is used elsewhere in connection with money given in considera tion for the acquisition of property ijaa np mvm C)D2,|nnj (Gen. xxiii. 13); hence also a wife is acquired by means of money. jiiBj? niffa -rvp nn^p na: 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 (r\b) and in the other on an identical adverb (nff), occurring in two laws or passages of to tally different nature and contents.2 r.a a^n iajj na na^n nffxnff mxa ^a nff«a nb nb inn Talmud Chagiga, 4a. ¦In the Pentateuch, however, the word npp 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 (3 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 nK'33 "ltiB>3*|D33 D'STl HBOCD IVJpJ nt!>Nn with the corresponding expression used by Gajus I., § 110, in speaking of the Roman custom : "Feminae olim tribus modis in manum conve- niebant : usu, farreo, coemptione." It is moreover evident that the civil 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. 3 A 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 noL restricted by any rules. There it gave rise to many of those most fanciful interpretations and legendary narratives quoted in the Midrash and Talmud. 1 50 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. nsjn2 iidk nai ]bya nsnj; nbiyn nff nff kvin Aboda Zara 29b. VII. RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF GEZERA SHAVA. §. 29. The exorbitancies which some teachers premitted 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."1 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 ©neofthembenJSIB "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. xxiii. 3, the law provides that a bastard ' ' shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation." Im mediately after this law follows another, with a similar provis ion, in regard to an Ammonite or Moabite: ki Even 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 "131 T?y2 nbp Hit? PITM 'nn bs tM? Talmud Kherithoth, 5a. This admonition is there repeated in the name of four different teachers. The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 151 are added here exclude even the latest 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 (ten 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 eve disqualified from entering the community of Israel.1 niff nin: jii^i ff'pn1? n:sia nVi;; iy j«2 naxn n^ffy nn na .nbyy ij? ^r\b nasn n^ffj? in f|« 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 *rntf 1XB nJSIB "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, jniX 'UffB nJSIB, is the analogy regarded as injec 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: &"} p niS j^S 1BXJ7B (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- •That is, according to Rabbinical interpretation, they are not per ¦ mitted to intermarry with Israelites. 2The Talmud further makes many nice distinctions in regard to this n;31D, 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. S. Hirschfeld : Halachische Exegese p. 402-467. 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 mud 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 iii regard to some analogies. ' B. H E C K E S 11. 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; it is termed Hcckcsh. The word ffpTi, derived from the verb typn, to compare, means originally a comparison, an analogy, in which general sense it also occurs; 3 but in the Talmudic terminology it usually denotes a particular kind of analogy, based 'Compare Frankel : "Ueber palaestinische und Alexandrinische Schriftforshung p. 16, Note 6 and p. 20. 3For 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 is a maxim: "Coupling words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense. "> But in their endeavor to provide every traditional law with a Biblical support, the rabbis sometimes carried also this theory beyond its legitimate limits and beyond the natural scope of the written law. IX. ILLUSTRATIONS. § 31. 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 of all periodical rites and religious duties incumbent on male Israelites. In regard to -prohibitory 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. mwn n«an ^an iff y >2 nff« in wx nnn2ff j^ff iij? W w>xb nffN ainan niffn Kiddushin 35a. b. Among other rules and regulations concerning civil and criminal courts, the traditional law provides that the ses sions of a 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 blindness disables a man from acting as one of the judges. The reason for these two provisions is obvious enough. 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" y:i ^21 2^~\ ^2 nTi1 (Deuteronomy xxi. 5). "Controversy" refers to civil litigations, and "injnry" refers to the plague of leprosy (which in Leviticus xiii. 3, is termed y}} 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 blind would not be the proper man, and night 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 blind not be admitted to judge such a case. wyub o^an ff^pa 'iai a*an C|« j^nwa kVi ova opyn na 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), maffn TXpai ffnna "In the time oi 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: niffi TXp t\x niffi ffnn na mxo NTff imyn TXp N2P 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 one subject. In this case, the verbs 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: nnTl n«i",1 "when she has departed out of his house she may become 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 becoming a wife may be effected by means of a document written for that pur pose. nxwb n^in ff^pa iBffa >ta n^in cj« laffa ns^ na Talmud Kiddushin 5. As to other examples compare B. Kamma, 11a,, and Chagiga, ib. 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.1 But as Gezera Shava, so also Heckesh could be applied only for the purpose of supporting a traditional law. 1 B>p'Mn bi! J'3'E>0 J'N Menachoth 826; Baba Kamma 1065. 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 Zebacbim 48. CHAPTER III. THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. RULg III, 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"1. 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: tor 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 "Every thing which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken as pledge."3 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.3 From the quite ra tional principle just illustrated, developed the Rabbinical rule of ¦Quando lex specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. 'Nin E>BJ '3 -|0NJB> B>E0 ^>31K 13 |'BW 131 i>3 tib* 13^*3 3311 D'm N^> ^>3in. Mishna B. Metzia ix, 13. "See Siphre P. 131; compare also Mishna Khilayim viii, 2. The 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.1 This theory is termed Binyan Ab (2X j^a), the construc tion of a leading rule i. e. the Generalization of a special law. '' n. 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 reguardedas an analogous case, subject to the same provision of the law. The formula ofthis method is usually: .(ia kxto) ...bs tj« ...ff mva Coi^s iai) na 1A somewhat similar view is expressed by a modern law writer, the celebrated Frenchman Toidlier in his Le Droit Civil Francais suivant Vordre du Code, liv 3. 1. 1, 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 it is unnecessarv to repeat in all analogus cases.1' 3 In the application of this theory sometimes the phrase is used: 3N i133 nr "this (special case) establishes the general rule or law", f . ex. Sanhederin 30a; B. Kamma 77b. Sota 2b. In this phrase, the word 3K meaning father, chief, ruler is taken in the sense of principal or general rule (compare the terms DISKED H13K, }'p'»ni3S). Hence 3N HJ3 to build or construct a general rule, and 3x |'J3 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 pecularity) is 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: ...Kr> ...bs tjs ...oji^b 121) na "As A (having those certain pecularities) 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. § 36. 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 tbe 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; 3. the inner coat of its giz zard cannot easily be peeled off from the fleshy part: 4. it "strikes" with its claws the prey by eating it. Hence any fowl resembling it in these peculiarities, is to be regarded as unclean.1 b. In Deut. ch xix, the law contains some particulars supplementary to a former law concerning the cities of refuge ^oiNi Dim «|Spj uapiip t'Ki pan mw ysvx ii> 1'nb> invo im no1 Talmud Chullin 61a. NDB 13 NVl'3 53 S|K KDB 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 into 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 aud 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."1 Remark. Where it is not intended to raise a .gpgclal pfSJvision 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 U'VJD HD (abbrev. D"D), from the pharase by which such an analogy is usually introduced: . . . U'XD HD "as we find concerning ... so here"; e. g. Yebamoth 7b: r\H HCSD D"D Nedarim 4b: D'VUD O'^O. Incorrectly the D''D is sometimes termed 3S pj3, as in Menachoth 76a; y'm 'JV3riD K"3; see Rashi 's commentary on that passage. iii. Generalization of two special provisions. § 37. In the instances of Binyan Ab mentioned above, the general law is drawn merely from one special provision. Such generalization is qualified as inK 2W2B 2S p2 "a general law drawn from one passage (or provision)." But sometimes it is 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 n,,2in2 ''JffB X"2 "a ' Mishna Maccoth II, 3. f\tt DB>S DJ3'^> p'lD^Jl pt'jS men -IJJ'n TO dj:^ b men |'kb> n'3n b])2 nvn «*' oe6 0:2b p'lo^i pnb men b 100 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: nT nna nr nn n^i nr nna ni nn xb • •••(na niffn isn "Behold, this case is 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 difference of the two special provisions has first to be demonstrated before generalizing them, is explained in the following way: It is a Talmudic rule of interpretation that "inX3 D'K3il D'3iri3 'JB' ]nD?DJ'N "wherever twaprovisions of the law are found in Scripture which are so indentical 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 asiriNS D'JOil D'3103 ^e'.but that they really do differ 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 : U'sb TO ; the generalization of two provisions if found in one passage: nnN 3in3D N"3, and if found in two different passages of Scripture: D'3in3 'JB'D N"3. The Generalization of Special Laws. 1 01 Illustration of generalizing two special provisions. § 38. In Exodus XXI, 26 and 27, 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 of the master, causes the immediate manumission of that slave.1 iv. Generalizing several special provisions. §39. There are some instances where a Binyan Ab is formed by a combination of three or even four different special provisions. The method of operation in such cases is just the same as in 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 pit (Exod. XXI, 33. 34.) 3) the damage caused by depasturing foreign fields (Exod. xxii. 4) and 4) damage caused by unguarded fire (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 \rvs ;me> meri ivn |e>n nna py nn vh\ pi? nna te>n nn ab l nrrv? yb\y Pkb> onax "e>. nn nr tub) nie>n nna nina ^n n!>i ninon nns -iie'n nn ah ' nun nna p'tnisi fbb> pile' nn nt n!>i D"n nn 13 pxe> e>Nn '-ins D"n nn ins "\bv jni'OEn p'tni? pnne» in3e> me>n nvn p'tnbi -fab isn ptw 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 aiS and ^3. ^2 means the General, that which comprehends a class of objects; that which is applicable to a number of things agree ing in a certain point in common. BIS 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 ^2 "all" "whatsoever", is regarded as ^2; while any term de noting only a single object is taken as ana. The law usually speaks either in general or in particular terms, as: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be put to death" (Ex. XXI, 12); "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing" (Deut. XIV, 3). In these two cases thr terms are gener al. But in the law: ' 'Thou shalt not seethe the kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. XXIII, 19), the terms are particular.1 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 succeeded by "The terms ^O and t3ia are applied by the Rabbis even to verbs. A verb denoting an indefinite act, as to do, to take, are regarded as X>3, while a verb denoting a special kind of act, as to bake, is a ans; e. g. Kiddushin 21b. ^OTinpbl; Menachoth 55b: t31Q-nBXn K5, b72'\WVT\ ab- 164 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. particulars, B1B1 772, or 2) the particulars are succeeded by a general, 7721 BIS, or 3) one general term preceding and another sncceeding the particulars, 7721 BIB! 772- 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. .taiS2ff na xbx 7722 ps aisi 772 In the case of General and Particular, the general includes nothing but the particular. 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.1 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 beast (nan2n ]B); of the herd or of the flock." The general term is here "the beast (nana) which otherwise includes any kind of quadrupeds, both wild and tame (cf. Deut. XIV, 4.. 5); but the special terms "/*«'3 -IKB> ba !>N B"X e"J« tna— 'ui idk nnin -pax nnj? Enaae> no xbx bbsa psi mai bbs 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 ni'JB> 'secondary prohibitions' made by the authority of the Sopherim. See Mielziner 'The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce', p. 37. 3 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. COO : 'it is said to be a goud rule of 1 66 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. This rule is applied in the following law in Exodus XXII, 9: "If 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 ' 'any 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 the 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: .aisn pjja xbx p nns* •<« 7721 bibi 772 construction thafwhere an Act 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 : nc in -non is -iie> t*bn b px nana ioi b"n ? pa nana bi ix& lbbaa ban a-ian by ^dibe' i^an bae> The General and the Particular. 167 In a case of General, Particular and General, do include only that tvhich 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 effect that the restitution of the twofold 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 is movable pro perty, and that it is an object of intrinsic value. Hence the fine of double payment for the embezzled property does not apply where it concerns real estate which is not movable, and neither where it concerns bills or notes which have no intrinsic but only a representative value.1 Remark 1. In regard to the limitation of "that which res embles the particulars" (BIBil \*yS), 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 XpYl KBD X772 "the first general is prevailing and deciding," so that such a connection is to be treated mainly in accordance with the rule for aiBl 772 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: ppa — jj{»>s 131 73 71) one — nD7e> 7yi ne> by non by "iie> 7y 7731 Itn — m'3N 73 7J) poo leui 7D7taon i3i eniBD oian no )1D0 1BU1 7B7BB.1 731 73 *|N P7B7BD p'XB> mjp"lp INS' )1»D }BU pN P7B7BDe> a"VNe' ni-lBE> 1NV 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 (pIS nff7ff3). But the other opinion assumes that in a connection of Ge neral, Particular atid General XpM Nina X772 "the last gener al is prevailing and deciding". Hence, such a connection is to be treated rather in accordance with the rule for 7731 ais, 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 tar as it excludes that which resembles the particular only in one point (inN IX), while anything resembling it in more than one point City 2 PT'X) is included. See Talm. Erubin 28a; compare also Rashi on Chullm 65b sub voce n"31. Remark 2. Two general terms either preceded or followed by a particular are, according to some auihorithies, also treated as a case of General, Particular and General : nr? ni paiaon D'773 'je> nvid nnxe' mpa 73 7731 B1B1 7733 JJVTI p'J'3 BIB 7Bn 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 : b-ibi 7733 jrem ab nro nr ppmion Bnai 773 B. Kamma 85 a ; Menachoth f>f> 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 YI1. § 45 7727 TIS Ninff B1B1 B1B7 TIS Kinff 772 There is a general that requires the Particular, and a Particu 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 necessari 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 1Sj?a WD31 "and cover it with dust" . In this passage the word inD31 might have been taken as a general expression, since there are various ways of* cover ing a thing; -|BJ?2 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 nD2 is ambiguous, as it admits of different meanings; it means as well to cover (i. e. to overlay, to envelop), as also to hide (to conceal, to withdraw from the sight). Without the addition of iay2 we might suppose that the law only intended to enjoin that such blood oe put out of sight or concealed in a closed vessel. Hence -the expression 170 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. inD21 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 1BJJ2 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 special term 1BJJ2 without the general expression inD21 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 19 a. Second Modification. Rule VIII. §46. 1B77 772n jB KS"1! 7722 n'nff 121 72 .KS"1 172 773n 7JJ 1B77 xbx XV IBSy 7J? 1B77 Xb When a single case, though already included in a general law, is expressly mentioned, then the provision connected with it, 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 al law in Ex. XXII, IT (nTin xb nBff2B) 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 'UlJJTl 21N (having a familiar spirit and being a wizard) the law specifies the punishment as that of stoning (Lev. XX, 11). Hence this punishment applies to the practice of any kind of witchcraft". ¦Tal. Chullin 88b: Qia 7BJt ,773 WD31 KD'N ? K7 Kinnx n'B pN nay B7B7 T"lVn 773 nWI D!B>B •B7B1, 7733 WIS PJ1 J'WI, "Talm. Sanhederin 67b: vn D'EEpD 7733 'JlJrVl 31K 17 7D171 Dn'7K B"pn7 ? 1XV' n07T •n7'pD3 eie>3B us n7pD3 \5!$n'i 31N nn Modifications. Ill 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 garment; 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 is to 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.1 Third Modification. Rule IX. § 47. i3'3j?a sinff ins jjnta \\yvh xw 7722 nviff 121 72 • Tann? K?i7pn7 xs"1 Wherever a single case, though already included in a general law, is expressly mentioned with a provision similar to the general, such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviating, but not of aggravating. An example is furnished in Ex. XXXV, 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 II, 5: rbx 73 7733 nmn nn7BE>n tqttf 17 1817 n'7N e>pn7 ? nsv na7i D'jnin n7 ci D'jd'd ns ce" mnva nbae- na m3n7 3"n D'vain 17 e»i d'jb'd 13 e"e» -on 7a t)N Other examples are furnished in Tal. Yehamoth 7a, and Kheri- thoth 2b. 172 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.1 Fourth Modification. Rule X. §48- .UMjja S7ff in« JJJ1B J1JJB7 KSil "7733 Tnff 131 73 .TBnn7i bprh «s>i Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, is separately mentioned with a provision differing' from that contained in the general, such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviat ing 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 if a 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 thirty 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 purpose of alleviating as well as aggravating; alle viating in the case of tjie actual value of the killed slave being 'Talm. Sabbath 70a, and Sanhederin 35b: ns*i' 1K77 mjnn. 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 : riKV pbxb ni5?3n, 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 that day, for which the transgressor, under circumstances, had to bring a separate sin - offering. Talm. ibid. Modifications. 17:1 more, and aggravating in the case of its being less than thirty shekels. See Mechilta, Mishpatini, Parsha XT and' Mishna B. Kam ma IV, 5. Fifth Modification. Rule XI. § 49. ffinn 1212 jii7 ?72n ja ns^i 7722 Tnff 121 bs ff1TB2 17737 3W3n IJinTff 1JJ 17737 lTrna r\nx is Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, is ex cepted from it by an entirely new provision, such a case is not to e brought again under the general law, unless this be expressly indic ated in the Scripture. An illustrating example is furnished in Lev. XIV, 11-16. One of the two sacrifices which the healed leper had to bring for his purification was a trespass-offering (DffS). But while the blood of trespass-offerings in general was sprinkled only on the 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 annn 131 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 from 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 sin DffKn n«Bn3) that this offering was otherwise to be sacrificed as a trespass-offer- in°- in the usual way. Talm. Zebachim 49a. CHAPTER VI RULES XII AND XIII. The Explanation from the Context. Rule XII. § 50. ibidb iB^n 1311 i:p:jjd ia7n iai A word (or passage) is to be explained from its connection or from what follows. That is to say, tbe true meaning or of a law of a clause in a law is sometimes to be interpreted by considering the whole context in which it stands or by looking tothatwhich follows.1 Examples: a. Explaining an ambiguous word from the context: The word naffin 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 concluded, that the law does not refer to the same animal, but in the former place to a certain kind of bird (namely according to LXX the swan, and accord ing to the Talmud, to the bat), and in the other place to the mole 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 if we look , to the context, we find that it refers to 'Compare the following rule of modern jurisprudence with refer ence to the mode of construing deeds and written instruments : Ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima inter pretatw. "A passage will be best interpreted by reference to that wich precedes and fol lows it". (Broom, Legal Maxims 577). Compare also the maxim: Nos- citur a sociis "The meaning of a clause may be ascertained by ref erence to the meaning of expressions associated with it" (ibi. 588). "Chullin 63a: "131 lriVO 1B7n 731 ,n!Dl»3B> m«3 nDBOn 'i3i D'-ncae' mxa naeon The Explanation from the Context. 175 the manna gatherers, prohibiting them to go out on the Sab bath day with tbe intention to seek manna.1 c. Interpreting a clause in a law by a clause 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 ; and he is not worthy of death etc." This last clause is somewhat ambiguous, whether referring to the blood avenger or to the manslayer. The latter interpretation is supported by the clause following it: "in as much as he hated him not in time past."'1 Reconciliation of Conflicting Passages. Rule XIII. ¦ § 51. nr ns nr D^ff^naBn o'oina ^ff cn'U'a y-\s^ •'ff^ffn 2inan jcff -\y Two passages contradicting each other are, if possible, to be re conciled by a third one. 3 As an instance of contradictory 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: "Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread." In a plain way, the contradiction between these two pas- ^his plain 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 (nae» Dinn "the Sabbath way"J; for that was the distance of the holy tabernacle from the remotest »>art of the Israelitish camp in the desert. See Talm. Erubin 51a. "Maccoth 10b: -Q1B 31H31 rtVTO ,niO BBB'B px 171 ? Din 7N1J3 N7N U'K IN r«m 7D1N nnt* Diene- 7iana ab toie' 17 Nim 7B1N Nine>a .nanB sinsn nvns naix 'in 3 Compare the following rule of interpretation established in modern jurisprudence (Potter, Dwarris treatise on statutes p. 144) : "Where there is a discrepancy or disagreement 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 besides 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. XXILT, 1.4 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 of the 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 which is 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.'"a Mechilta, Bo, VIII (compare also Talmud Menachoth 66a): nyac "ibin int* ainai ne>e> naiK inx ains ?i77n mx-ipa 'jb> lB'pm ivs .je"n ;a nine* ennn ja ne'e- jon Pesachim 120a: men D'B' T\VW *\X men 'V3B' na CHAPTER VII. ADDITIONAL RULES. A. Juxtaposition. § 52. A peculiar kind of analogy which has some similarity to Heckesh (above p. 152) is that called "paiDD contiguous passages, or the analogy 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.1 The following examples will illustrate this rule: 1 . The word Mamzer (usually translated a bastard) 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 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 Ihirty nine chief labors ni2N7B TW2X, comprising all those occupations which were necessary for the 1 This rule was probably introduced by R. Akiba, see Siphre, Numbers 181: '131 n31BDB> nena 73 1B1N y"l 3 Yebamoth 49a. vats vx>a na c"ts np' ab itaa N13' ab n'7 tcdi 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.1 Remark. The theory of p3!BD which Ben Azai, one of R. Akiba's disciples, even applied in the construction of criminal laws, was not generally adopted. R. Jehuda ben Ilai, 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 a certain 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 booksjjf the Pentateuch it is held : px mina 7mxai DlplB "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 paiBD 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 artificially 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 » Talm. Sabbath 49b: pPDfl mi35> 1JM ni3K7B mat*; see Rashi's Commentary on this passage. Other examples of this kind of analogy are found in Pesachim 96a; Yebamoth 4a. Additional Rules. 179 in the Mosaic law bearing on this rule, the Rabbis construed an artificial support in the following way. In Numbers XXXV, 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.1 2. In Lev. XXIII, 22 we read:... "and the gleaning of thy harvest thou shalt not gather ; unto the poor and the stranger slialt thou leave them. " By closely connecting the end of the first clause with the beginning of the next clause, the sentence is formed : "thou 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 U'XB na ; (compare above p. 159). The phrases used in this process are either.... ja p,Si?'1 or ....ja jmaj, 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, still they must, at least, be long to the same sphere of the law. The provisions con 1 'ui iBBe»i mm e-paa N7i 17 3'in ab tnm (jit xb wien) pn? in in«3 pi3 p3e>v yaw t"mt p-wicc n"n 'je>7 -p'N Talm. Sanhedrin 29a: compare Rashi's commentary. * Tal. Gittin 12a: vyn HN VDH *b ,'3V7 Bp?n K7 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- jr-S-r- Xb S31BBB N11DK jrS^ Xb N11DNB NJ1BB 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. jrs^ xb XOlpIS 8J1BB In a case concerning pecuniary restitution we do not apply an analogy from a case concerning fine. Kethuboth 46b; Kid dushin 3b. 3. jmaii xb cffipa j-»7in In a case concerning profane things we do not apply an analogy from laws concerning sanctified things. Pesachim 45 a; Shebuoth 26b; Nazir 36b. 4. jjiiaa xb ffnna Prom an extraordinary, exceptional case we make no ana logy.' Pesachim 44b; MoedKaton 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 B or 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. 1 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: n3Bl nJB jll "deduce from it, and again from it", that is to say, any further provision connected with A may be transferred to B. But the other opinion is: «inN3 "»p*1«*l nJB jll "deduce 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 maybe 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: "Even to the tenth generation they shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, for ever." By a Gezera Shava the conclusion is made that also in the former law concerning Mamzer the phrase "even to the tenth generation" is to be understood "for ever". (See above p. 150). But while the term Mamzer implies the female as well as the male, the masculin form of the words 13KIBI 'UIBJJ is taken by tradition strictly, referring to males only, but not to females (n^iaj; K7i '•nay). According to the opinion of n^Bl nJB jll, a female Mamzer, after the tenth generation, might be admitted to enter the con gregation ; her case being then, in all respects, analogous to that of a female Amonite who is exempted from the prohibi tion. But according to the opinion of KinsO ""plKl niB jll, 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 "Sebamoth 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 iu 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: j2ff ^1737 na "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 usually made to de fend the Binyan Ab by a reference to case B having the same provision, though not connected with that peculiarity. If then 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 "we 2S ]"»32 D',2in2. (See above p. 160). The procedure ofthis combined generalization is usually introduced by the following phrase: ...jn2ff niffn ixn nt ¦nna nr •¦in xb j^in itm "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, as in Berachoth 35a ; Kiddushin 5 b; B. Metzia 4a, and often. E. The Theory of Extension and Limitation. § 57. The term ^21 means extension; Biya 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 B.iyBl ''121 to signify a theory in contradistinction to that of B1S1 772 (chapter IV). In as much as a general term (772) denotes an indefinite number of individuals having something in common, it may also be regarded as '•121, an extension of the meaning; and in as much as a particular, singular term (BIB) restricts the mean ing to definite individuals, it may be regarded as B1JTB, a lim itation. That which in the theory ofR. Ishmael is called aiSI 772, is according to the theory of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba regard ed as B1JTB1 '•121. There is the following difference between these two the ories. a) In a combination of B1S1 772, 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 (na xbx 7722 j^S B1B2ff, see above § 42). According to the other theory, the BIJ^B merely limits the extension of the preceding ''121, so as to include everything sim ilar, and exclude that only which is not similar to it. nan u^ff ayai hsx\ n3i ,aiyBi •¦ui b) In a combination of 7721 BIS the general following a particular includes everything falling under the general (comp. Rule V. § 43). But according to the other theory, the ti21 fol lowing the Biya includes that only which is similar to that taijpa. c) In a combination of 7731 ansi 772 we include only that which resembles the particular (comp. Rule VI. §,44). But, according to the other theory, the rule for aiyai ''121 ''1211 is, that the 1121 includes everything, even that which is not similar to the BIpB, 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.1 ins 121 xbx toya xb"\ ,bsn nan 'Uii taiyai^ui The theory of BlpBI '•121, being not as clear and exact as that of aiSI I7'72, is rejected by most of the Tanaim, and ad mitted only in some special cases." The difference between these two theories is illustrated by the following example. In Levit. V, 2i-23, the law provides that if an embezzler without having been coavicted 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 lies to his neighbor (General) concerning a trust or a deposit (Particulars), etc. etc. or whatever it may be about which he has sworn falsely (General), then he shall restore etc". According to the theory of 7731 B1B1 772, 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 movables, and have an intrinsic value, the former excluding real estate, and the latter excluding bills or notes. But according to the theory of B1JTB1 ,121, the law refers to any kind of embezzled property, including real estate, exclud ing, however, bills 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 21b, and on Shebuoth 4b. JSeu B. Kamma 64b; Shebuoth 5a; Chullin 67a. Additional Rules. 185 B A raiyai "is-' ff*ni Mybx 'i ^bibi ^773 ¦'ffn j:2i '137 — wain emai 773 — lmaya e»nai era — t naiero ik jnpaa bib — t neiena in tnpsa nsni nm — jne" -wa 73a is 77ai im — yae" iva 7aa in ban nan i3'7i awe m anan pin n7k p nna 'N 7731 bibi 773 '7'a 7a 'an 'an 'Ka paa »ui 7B?aan 137 enisa anan na nnae" bj?'b .bp'b 'kbi p,aa laui 7B7aan 73 t\a P7B7BB pse- mypip i&w pea jau pse" nnae' it«' Talm. B. Kamma 117b; Shebuoth 37b. Other examples :Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b; Shebuoth 26a. F. "Mikra" or "Masora"? § 58 Although our vowel-signs of the Biblical text weiv nut 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 NIpB (reading). The proper spelling of the words of the sacred text as fixed by tradition, letters without vowels, is termed Masora (miDB or nilDB). 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 Masora. In this respect two opposite opinions are expressed in the Talmud. One holds: «lpB7 DN ff*' "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: nilDB7 OS ffs "the source is in the Masorr," 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, Vy~ jB 7t12n 7ff 31 and the iron slip peth from the wood, and findeth his neighbor, that he die, etc. " (Deutr. XIX, 5.) According to the opinion of N1pB7 OX, 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 n-'IDB? DN the letters of the word bw\ admit that word to be read ?tWl 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 a case where the killing happened by a piece of wood which the axe cut from the tree. ,3*^3 StTJ1) ,miDB7 DS tr 12D '•31 jnp SsT'JI ,S1pB7 DX W ''12D JJ211 Maccoth 7b; other examples Pesachim 86a, and Sanhedrin 4a. In this, as in most of other cases, the Opinion of K1pB7 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 D^IBn niB2 (Levit XXIII, 40) which the Masora spells nS2 (without l) 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 oral 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. PART HI. 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. d n d § 1- 'ihe Mishna 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 DnD, 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. Jehuda Hanasi from older Halacha collections made by former teachers, especially that of R. Meir. "ji^a '1 jVi'unB cnD Sanhedrin 86a. npi7na §2. Often also the Mishna reports a conflict of opinions in regard to a certain law. Such a conflict is termed np17na 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: laiK ^172 "\, Rabbi A says.... In such cases, the anonymous author of the first opinion is termed in the Gemara XOp XiT\ 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 D'Ban '737 the words (the collective opinion) of the sagesy f. i. Sanhedrin 31a. b. A rule of law is laid down with the addition "\ i-qt 1 92 Terminology and Methodology. 'X ''J17B these are the words of Rabbi A, and then the dissent ing opinion is introduced by : iaiS '3 ''J17B '11 but Rabbi B says. . . ; or the question of law is propounded, and then the dis senting opinions concerning it are introduced by IBIS 'X ""Jl^B "> IBIS '3'*J17B 'IV Examples: Berachoth II, 1 and 3. Such a difference of opinion in which the opposite views are represented by single teachers is termed in the Gemara TWI Tn*' npl?na 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: D'HBIK D>ia3ni 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 npl7na D,211 ITf a conflict between an individual and the majority. Gene rally, the opinion of the majority prevails. This rule is phrased: ?•¦373 n37n D^ll VW 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. njB'B nj'X n"3 D1pB3 B>"3 Be rachoth 36b. NnjJ^B ,SBiD ^ff^l § 3. Where a Mishna paragraph contains provisions for two or more cases, the former case is signified by XW~\ (the case at the beginning), and the following or last case by nsid (the case at the end). The case between these two is termed snyxa 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 lib; Chullin 94b. In a paragraph divided into two main parts, A and B, each containing two cases, a and b, the case of A bis termed KB^H KB^D, and that of B, a «B*'D1 Kff*n. 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 X33 (gate, section, clause); hence the terms NB"17 N33 the clause of the first proposition, SB'DT N33 thef clause of the subsequent proposition. Sabbath 3a; Yebamoth 18b_ d y b § i- 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 DJJB- It is either based a) on a biblical passage (Sip) and its interpretation, and is then usually introduced by iaS3ff ; or b) on common sense (JS13D) ; or c) on a general principle (772). 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 reason of the law where it is not stated in the Mishna. NnJ173 § 5. Also the different opinions of the teachers concerning a point of'the laww 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 of law. Such a controversy is termad in the Gemara «njl7B- The elaborate argumentation pro and con is also termed SffB jnBl or in Aramaic S^IBl xbpW (literally, a taking and giving of arguments, i. e., a discussion). Examples of controversies in the Mishna: Berachoth I, 3; Pesachim VI, 2; Taanith I, 1; B. Kamma II, 5. n ff j? a § 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 nff J?B 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. 11BN 772 § 1- The word 772, 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 is usually introduced by •the words UBS 772 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 772n nf this is the general rule Examples: Berachoth VI, 7; Pesachim III, 1: B. Metzia IV, 1. Remark. The Gemara usually investigates the necessity of this ge neral rule by asking: 'Na "inN7 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? fin ,72n ,72 § 8. Paragraphs of the Mishna containing a generalizing or comprehensive provision are introduced by 72 or ?2n "all", "every", "whatever". Mostly some exceptions from such a generalizing provision are added by the word pn "except"., Examples: Chagiga I, 1; Kiddushin I, 6. 7.9; Gittin II, 5.; Chullinl,l. Remark. The Gemara finds that such comprehensive provisions are not always exact, as they often admit of exceptions besides those expressly stated in the Mishui. Erubin 27a; Kid luihiti 31a. Terms and Phrases regarding the Mishna. 195 § 9- 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 1, 1; or: "Marriage maybe contracted in three ways, namely..." Kiddushin I, 1. Such a stated number is termed toiija. 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 : 'KB 'B111B7 N3"3B what cases are excluded by this limiting number? XTi IT ,1?K § 10. Another limitation of the Mishna occurs, where certain cases are enumerated by the introductory words }bx "these are..." or «tn il "this is..." Examples: Peal, 1; Pesachim II, 5; Yebamoth III, 3. 5. Remark. Also where these limiting words are used in the Mishna, the Gemara usually asks: 'KB 'BlyB7 what cases are excluded by this limitation? * ..xbx ....pa fN § n. 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 between two things, bythe limiting phrase: ...N7K....j',2 j^N "there is no difference bet ween... and.... except in regard..." Examples: Megilla I, 4-11. T^ffl Xin §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 : l^ffl X2T\ "the Mishna teaches concerning certain cases, and leaves others to be added". Examples: Taanith 14a; B. Kamma 10a; Maccoth 21b. IT t)« IT Xb §13. Where in enumerating certain cases of a law a subsequent case is more unexpected than the preceding, the Gemara uses the phrase ijnp IT WX IT xb "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 bythe Talmudical phrase:.. ib'SN N7X N'J"3'B N7 ,7BNp N'JDB N7 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 iR unquestion able (plain and obvious enough) that which is more unexpected. Examples: Betza 37a; B. Kamma 54b; Kiddushin 78b. IT 1B17 -pX pKI IT §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: IT 1B17 "pX j'W IT "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 32b, 33a. Terms and Phrases regarding the Mishna. 197 layi ,n!r'jin37 § 15- Of these two antithetical terms the Gemara makes frequent use in the interpretation of the Mishna, especially in questions of the ritual law. n?nn37 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. layi (contraction of naj? >X7) means if he has done. In' contradistinction to the former, this term denotes the question of law concerning an act already done, whether it is valid and acceptable or not. The phrases in connection with these two terms are: 1. n'rnnS'? l^BK or "{KB ^BiyB*? 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: K^MK to which ? i. e. to which of the preceding provisions or cases does this addition refer ? Thisquestion is generally followed by:....xa,7'1K shall I say.... (it refers to the latter or to the former case)? Examples: Berachoth 34b; Kiddushin 46a; Sanhedrin 79a. 11. Qualifying a Provision of the Mirhna. §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. K7- • • • 73S. . • . K7S Uff Xb the? only taught this in reference Modes of treating'an anonymous Mishna. 205 to.... (a case under that certain circumstance), but., (under the different circumstance of...) not. Examples: Berachoth 42b; Succah 32a; B. Kamma 28a. b.- K7..-.72K-...Kpim only.... but... not. Examples: Yebamoth 98b; B. Bathra 146a; Aboda Zara 74b. . c. The shortest phrase for this purpose is : . . . . tf? xi~1 provided that Examples: Sabbath 53a; B. Metzia 11a; Maccoth 6a. Remark. The phrase N7X UB' K7 corresponds to the Mishnic phrase D'"llBN D'H31 PIB3 or 'nB'N. 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: .... I^BK K7KffBB-.--K7 not strictly., (to the circum stance stated in the Mishna refers this law) but 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: ... 17'BX or lp'BNl and even...; f. i. B. Metzia 22b; 26b; Aboda Zara 41a. 13. Making Conclusions and Deductions from the Mishna. § 30. A conclusion or deduction made either from the contents or from the wording of the Mishna is termed spin (B. Metzia 8a) or K'-pn (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 KB7K hence..., consequently..., f. ex. Yoma 14b; Betza 9b; B. Metzia 37^. 206 Terminology and Methodology. b. ...73K---1 KBJJB 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 47 b; 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 : X}. . (xn) |'X. •'• (in this case) yes, but... (in the opposite case) not; f. ex Berachoth 17b; Nazir 34b; Chullin 13a. c. ...n,|J''B JJBff (abbr. a"ff) hear from this, conclude from this that ... f. ex. Berachoth 13a. Interrogatively it is phrased n^B nj?Bff do you not conclude from this...? Yoma 37b; San hedrin 7 la; B. Metzia 97b. Remark. d"B> 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 B"e> 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 . . . . 773B in this is implied that. . , from this follows that. . . ; f. ex Pesachim 45a, Sanhedrin 66a. This term of inference is often preceded by:... ijnpIO since the Mishna teaches.., as : 773B... "UnplB since he teaches...., it follows....; f. ex. Bera choth 43a, B. Kamma 2a; or...bbSQ-..^r\p xb\.. ''jnplB since he teaches.... and not...., it follows...; f. ex. Kethuboth 90a. e niBIK nKT this tells, this teaches that .... This phrase introduces deductions of a general principle from a 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 on the Mishna are those of astonishment and surprise 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. ... 3 B^DI ..-3 nna "Why begin with... (this term or expression) and then end with... (a different one)?" Example: n,'3n3 B^Dl 132 WIS B. Kamma 27a. Other examples: Moed Katon lib, B. Bathra 17b. The answer is usually.... IJ^n.-.-l }"~ it is this... it is the same; i. e. both expressions are identical, mean the same thing. B. Incongruity of Expressions in Different Parts of the MiSHNA. ... •¦am cnn saff "-kbi ....•'ini ton Kaff •'KB (abbr. tya) "Why is the Mishna using here.... (this expression), and there.. (a different one)?" Examples: Sabbath 2b; Kiddushin 2a; Shebuoth 5a. Remark. The answer to this question is sometimes ; xni37 X3n 7'Bp Sni37 Dnni 7"Bp "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. ...ia,T, ....ia,,n ''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. 3. Objecting to the Order of the Stated Cases. § 33. Kffil2....,,an,|7 Kff''72....Kani Kaff ""KB Why does the Mish na just teach the case of.... first, instead of teaching that other ease of... first? Examples: Berachoth 2a; B. Bathra 108a; Bechoroth 13a. ' 4. Objecting to a Certain Mode of Expression. § 34. a. ...i:wb ..-• ''iniftb r^b nB7 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. ...ian,'7...-',ani K^TK ""KB 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: 3jx XD7B 7"Bp n'mlN (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. "¦aa I'rSK.... K^K ""KB 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 ...Kaff K7i-..Kaff xb ¦¦am' pins xp •'KBK....K7K ...KB7ff3 "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. §37. "|njJ1 Kp7D (abbr. T'D) Does this enter your mind? i. e.,do you indeed mean to say this? Examples; Yoma 67b; Pesachim 42b; Kiddushin 29a. Tbe corrected version is then usually introduced by; xbx •KBnK but rather say.... 8. Finding a Term or Provision to be out of Place. §'38. n^aff 731 jNB Who mentioned the name ofthis? i. e. what has this to do here? how is this to be mentioned in this con nection? Examples. Sabbath 57 a, Pesachim 8b, Nazir 4a. The answer to this question is generally introduced by the phrase: IBKp ,3n thus he means to say, or by : KIDn^B ""lion ''anp "Om 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. §39. KD^ffB "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 i^a KWffB 210 Terminology and Methodology. KlB^a1? 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 in the application of the general law. Such an answer is mostly phrased either: .... (jia3) xbx WIS Xb it is not so (.plain), as it is needed for the case...;or:... WBK "jnjjl Kp7D "j',7Bi"lK it was necessary to state this, since you might have misunderstood me to say... ; or: 7'Bp....KB,niina what you might have supposed is that....; therefore the author informs us (ofthis provision). Remark. Different from this meaning of the word XB'tPB, 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. In such a connection the word is simply a statement of self- evidence, and is to be translated by: this case is clear and plain, but (my question concerns that other case); f. ex. Berachoth 12a; B. Kamma 8b; Kiddushin 8b. This kind of XB'B'B is generally explained in Rashi's commentary by the remark xmn'J3 "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 XB'B'B is explained by n'BfiS "in astonishment". Asa simple statement preceding a question of doubt and problem, the term XB'B'B is sometimes supplied in the Talmud by the word '? "this case is plain to me"; f . ex. Sabbath 3b; Megillah 3b. 10. Finding an Unnecessary Repetition of the Same Provision already Stated elsewhere. § 40. The question objecting to such a repetition is phrased: a. (Kaan Kin) Wan 7"Bp "'KB What does he inform. us here, since I have already once before been informed thereof in another passage of the Mishna? The Gemara criticising the Mishna. . 21 1 Examples: Berachoth 50a; Kethuboth 42a; 65b. b- KaBV Kin sa^an (Kn) But I learned this already once before.... Examples: Sabbath 89b; B. Metzia 55a; Sanhedrin 20b. c ...r^b Kan Kn •'7 nB7 in Kn Why do I need this again, since he taught this already once before? Example: Gittin 15a. The answer is introduced in different ways according to its different nature: a. ...7"Bp Kn this he intends to inform us here, that.... b r\ib WIBXK KB^D on account of the addition to be made here, this repetition was necessary. c. ...WIS it was necessary (to repeat here this provi sion), since.... d. 7"Bp .. WaK nin ""Kna •¦« if to derive it from that other Mishna, 1 might have supposed that...., therefore here the additional information. Remark. Where a similar provision is found in two Masechtoth concerning different, though analogous, cases, the question of unne cessary repetition is not raised, but the Gemara simply states: • •••N3'-I¥l 'JW 'Nn '3....'3J 'BJ pni also in reference to... .the Mishna provides for a case similar to this, but both of these provisions are necessary, for.... Examples: Kiddushin 50a; Gittin 74a; B. Metzia 119a. 11. Finding in a Mishna an Unnecessary Abundance of Analogous Cases. §41. a. ''b nB7 "Un *73 Why are all these cases needed? Examples: Succah 17a; Kethuboth 23b; Bechoroth 2a. b. Cjn la^n) *b nB7 in K.l Why is this case still added (since both cases are identical)? Examples: Yebamoth 23b; Kiddushin 65a; Shebuoth 27b. c. ...,'anB7 n,7 nB71 ...',anB7 n*b nB7 Why does he need to teach... and then teach again...? Examples: B. Metzia 33b; Shebuoth 27b; Kiddushin 60b. The answer, always introduced by K2'11X "it is necessary' 212 Terminology and Methodology. or 1311s "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 ofthis answer is mostly: 7'Bp ... XPtSX nin ••• Kan iKI 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: X3'"IV1 it was necessary (to state all these cases), since...; f. ex. Sabbath 122a; Kiddushin 50b; B. Kamma 32b. 12. Finding one of two Cases Superfluous, since a fortiori Implied in the Other. §42. The question based on the argument a fortiori is generally phrased: (j2ff 72 K7) K^2B ...(K2.1) ...niBK ...(Dnn nai) KTiffn if (there in the one case) you say... (that the decision is...) can it here (in our case) be questionable ? i. e., is 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 (u S]X IT N7, Rosh Hashana 32b), or in an anticlimax (IT nB17 1'7X J'Nl IT, Kethuboth 58a). Concern ing these two phrases see above § 13 and § 14. 13. Finding an Omission of Cases where the Mishna ex pressly Limits their Number. §43. a. ...iaa ian71 (or ianai) 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 X2'K Km (K2,!?) Xb 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 all cases. §44. ...-iin Kin K7721 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. ....Km iKBK or i«aKl Why so ? How is this? Is this not against the principle of...? Examples: Berachoth 47b; Betza 31b; B. Metzia 94a. Remark. The question 'XBS 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. § *6. KBiD Kaff '"KBl Kffil Kaff i«B 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: .... KB7K •••• niBKI.-. NB7K....niBK, Kiffp KBia Kn is this not self-contradictory ? you say ...hence.... and then you say.... hence...? i. e., the underlying principle or the consequence of one part of this Mishna contradicts that of the other part. 214 Terminology and Methodology. Examples: Berachoth 50a, B. Kamma 39, B, Metzia 3la. When the self-contradiction is more obvious, the objection is simply phrased: ....Kff'H niBK Km but did you not say in the first part...? Examples: Betza 31b; Moed Katon 13a; Gittin 21b. Remark. In answer to such an objection, the Gemara usually at tempts to reconcile the contradictory members of the Mishna. Some times, however, the contradiction is admitted by th? tmrase: 'B Ni3n IT nJB' K7 IT race' verily, (or, here is a breakl) he who taught this part did not teach the other; i. e., this Mishna does not represent the opinion of one author, but the opposite opinions of two different teachers; f . ex, Sabbath 92b; B. K. 47b. 18. Finding a Law Report quoted in the Mishna to be Contrary to the Preceding Law. §48. As stated above § 6, the Mishna, after having laid down a rule of law, occasionally adds the report of a certain case(nffj!B) in which a celebrated authority gave a decision in accordance with that law. Sometimes, however, that decision is just con trary to the preceding law. In this case, the Gemara starts with the question : mnD7 nffJJB is this report to contradict (the preceding)? i. e., instead of corroborating the preceding law, it just conflicts with it. Examples: Betza 24a; Gittin 66a, B. Metzia 102b. This question is generally answered by: 13m KIDnB illDn iJHp something is missing here, and thus the Mishna ought to read.... i. e., the Mishna evidently omitted here a dissenting opinion which must be supplied by construction, and to this opinion the report refers. 19. Finding a Conflict of Authoritative Passages. §49. Anonymous and undisputed paragraphs of the Mishna and of the Baraitha are generally regarded to be authoritative (See above § 1). But the Gemara often finds such a paragraph The Gemara Criticising the Mishna. 215 of the Mishna to be in conflict with another passage of the Mish na or of a Baraitha. This objection of contradiction is usually in troduced by: ... MaiBII (contraction of inK xaK ''B11) I raise against this the question of a conflict of authorities, i. e. I find this Mishna in conflict with the following passage in another Mishna or in a Baraitha.'... Examples: Berachoth 26a; Taanith 4b, Sanhedrin 33a, The answer, mostly introduced by : K^ff p xb this is no dif ficulty, generally removes the contradiction by showing either, that the conflicting passages treat of different cases or circum stances (...JK31-...JK3), or that those passages represent the opposite views of different teachers ('3 '1 Km 'K'IKn). Remark 1. Whero not the plain Mishna, but its underlying principle or its consequence is in disharmony with an other Mishna or a Baraitha, there the question 1P0'B71 is preceded by an argument pointing out that principle or consequence. Examples: Berachoth 17b; Yoma 14b; B. Metzia 18a. Remark 2. The introductory phrase 'riJ'BII is often omitted and the question of a conflict of authorities is started simply by ...pnni but are we not informed in another Mishna ...? or ...X'jnni is it not stated in a Baraitha (differently) ? Examples: Rosh Hashana 27a; B. Kamma 61a; Gittin 23b. CHAPTER IV. TREATMENT OF A MISHNA CONTAINING A DIFFER ENCE OF OPINION. 1. Asking for the Reason of the' Dissenting Teacher. §50. ...."IT KBJ7B iSB what is the reason of Rabbi.... (the dis senting teacher)? The answer is usually followed by the further question KBp Kam and the first anonymous teacher ? or ja311 and our other teachers? i. e., what have they to say against this reason? Examples: Berachoth 15a ; 44a ; R. Hashana 22a; B. Kamma 23b. 2. Asking for a Counter-argument. §51. 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 usually asks for the probable counter-argument of that oppon ent, in the following way: ?(3) '11 (3) '17 (K) '7 m7 IBKp TBff 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. §52. 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: KBp Kan la^n ....'1 (or DiB3n) 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... mnai3 K3SK there is a difference between them concerning.... 4. Investigating the Principle Underlying the Difference of Opinion. § 53. 130 (3) '11...13D (K) '1 ?ia7Biap 1KB3 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: .,.n3D 7B1....73D 7B1 'J7S"Bp Km KB'7 is it to say, that they differ concerning the principle of...., so that one holds that ..., and the other holds that....? The answer is then generally: X7 ¦ -''120 N87V X7131 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 Teachers. § 54. ....73n 1121--..72K ...2 np!7na the difference concerns only...., but regarding.... all agree that.... Examples: Berachoth 41a, Betza 9a, B. Kamma 61a. 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: . . "7...73N.— K7N,J',7SN7 IN3 iy 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 Casi:' does not extend also to the other. , § 55. iJ^DI KfiiD ff"Bl iai7S K71 Kffil Kaff iKD What difference is between the former and this case, that 218 Terminology and Methodology. they dissent here and not also there (though both cases are seemingly alike)? Examples: Yebamoth 38a; Kethuboth 78a; Gittin 65a. Remark. Sometimes that question is phrased shorter : 317D71 (XC""l3)Xn3 'B3 Ought not this teacher also to differ in the other case? Ex. Sabbath 39a; Nazir 11a; Yeb. 118a. 7. Finding an Inconsistency of Opinion' in one of the Con testing Teachers. § 56. a (Kianni) janm '112D1 Does this teacher hold the opinion....? but in that other Mishna (or in that Baraitha) he expresses the opposite opinion? Examples; Yebamoth 44a; 122a; Kethuboth 56a; Chul lin 100b. b. ...janm ...'17 m7 m71 Does this teacher not hold that ..., but in that other Mishna he expresses himself differently? Examples: B. Kamma 61b; Aboda Zara 6b. 8. Finding an Inconsistency of Opinion in both of the Con testing Teachers. §57. ....72D (2) ..'11 .... 12D (K) ..'11 K7B1B7 .... (Kiam) jam in7 jaiyaff K2si« Km Is this to say that Rabbi A holds that ...., and Rabbi B that ; but from that other Mishna (or Baraitha) we under stand just the reverse. . . ? Examples: Berachoth 17b; Pesachim 49b; Kiddushin 64b; Sanhedrin 21a. Remark. The contradiction is generally removed by the answer that in one of the conflicting passages na,'e>n nD7niB "the position of the contesting teachers is to be reversed", or shorter "pQ'X "I reverse", that is, I correct the Mishna or Baraitha by placing Rabbi A instead of Rabbi B and vice versa. To such a correction suggested by one of Discussing the difference of opinion in a Mishna. 219 the Amoraim, another sometimes objects: "pBTI N7 "you do not need to reverse", as I have to offer another way of reconciling these two passages.9. Hypothetical Conclusion from the Opposite Opinions of Dissenting Teachers. §58. ....(2) '1 11217 ....(K) "i "31? 7B17 K¥Bnff3 If you should find (conclude) that according to the opinion of Rabbi A.... (a certain case must be decided in a certain way), then according to the opinion of Rabbi B.... (that case, must.be decided differently). Examples: Pesachim lib, 121a; B. Metzia 40b; Sanhed rin 78a. CHAPTER V- THE GEMARA QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS. 1. Terms Used in Referring to the Mishna. § 59. In contradistinction to the extraneous Mishna or Baraitha, also called Kmana, the authorized Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha nasi is termed jiniana or lanaffB our Mishna, and the author of a teaching contained in a paragraph of this Mishna, is desig nated as jt*h nan our teacher, in contradistinction to N13 Kan the teacher in the Baraitha; f. ex. Moed Katon 17b; B. K. 61a. Quotations from the Mishna are introduced by: a. jan (contraction of jaK san we learn, study) we are taught (in a Mishna). b. Dnn jan we are taught there . This phrase is mostly used when a Mishna 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. c. Kasan (=iaiaff) 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 Kaian 7''Bp 1KB What does he inform us here, since we have already been taught thereof in that Mishna? f. ex. Berachoth 50a, or Kasan iaa jaK 5]K we have also a Mishna to the same effect, f. ex. Berachoth 27a. 2. Terms Used in Quoting the Tosephta and Baraitha. § 60. a. san one hast taught, without adding any subject, mostly quotes a passage from the Tosephta, f. ex. Pesachim 53b; B. Metzia 28 a. b. ja37 ian (abbr. -|"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. Ksan it is a teaching, refers to a Baraitha in general. Remark. Two or more Baraithoth contradicting each other are generally introduced by:....-p'x twni.—TTN K*0n....N7n 'jn 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. jan or nnn jan, 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 is intended to use the latter as an argument in a discussion on the quoted Mishna. Examples: Sabbath 2a; Pesachim lib: B. Metzia 9b. Remark. prim 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 ; pm or pm or fjn X7 'B adduces a support from that Mishna. 2. Kan, 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. 3. Kian, at the 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. X'Jnm raises a question of contradiction from that Baraitha.1 X'jni or X'JHI or K'jri13 refers to the Baraitha as an ar- 1 Exceptionally, X'Oflm is sometimes used not as a question of contradiction, but as an argument in support of a statement, in the sense of X'JnV In this case, Rashi in his commentary generally re marks: xnin'33 "in calmness", or XW'D "a support", i. e., the phrase X'Onm 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. 222 Terminology and Methodology. gument tn support of something stated in a discussion. The phrase: "OP! 'BJ N'jn we have also a Baraitha to the same effect, is used to show that an explanation or opinion just expressed by an Amora is corroborated by that Baraitha, while the phrase: ...T rpni3 X'Jfl we have a Baraitha- coinciding with .... is a reference in support of au opinion of one Amora against that of his opponent. Remark. 2. In quotations following after the phrases 'nj'B71 "I raise a question of contradiction against this" and '3'ri'B "they object to this by appealing to a higher authority" the terms pn as well as X'jn are always omitted, thus leaving it uncertain whether the quotation is from the Mishna or from the Baraitha. In most cases, however, this can be ascertained by looking up the parallel passages which are mark ed in the marginal glosses of the Talmud. 4. ja21 13n (abbr. i"n) introduces longer passages from a well known Baraitha, mostly from the Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre which stand in some connection with the Mishna-paragraph under consideration. Such quoted passages are then usually explained and discussed in tbe Gemara in the same way as a Mishna-paragraph. Examples: Berachoth 16a; Sabbath 19a; B. Kamma 9b. Remark. Vm "for the Rabbis taught'' usually introduces the answer to the question of )?J8 or a"n XJB. (See above § 21.) -|"n is never used as a question or objection, hence not "1'IHtni, but instead thereof, X"Onm is used. 5. T'm X~b Kaian "what we read in this Mishna has reference to that which the Rabbis taught". The meaning of this often used phrase is, the Mishna before us supports the following Baraitha, so as to make it authoritative. Examples: B. Metzia 25a; Maccoth 8b; Kiddushin 29a. 4. Referring back to a Preceding Quotation. §62. There are, besides, two peculiar terms of reference which are often used in the Gemara for the purpose of indicating that a quotation incidentally made in a preceding discussion is now Quoting the Mishna and kindred Works. 223 to be taken up as a main subject of investigation and discus sion. The terms indicating this are: a. IB 7BK the master (teacher) said above.... Examples. Berachoth 2a; Pesachim 5b; B. Kamma 33b. b. KSia (the body, the substance, the subject) meaning, that which was mentioned above incidentally is now to to be the main subject. This term is usually translated by: it was stated above; our text says; returning to our subject. Examples: Berachoth 40b; Pesachim 16a; Sanhedrin 24a. The difference between these two terms is that, as a rule, the former is used in reference to a quotation from the Mishna or Baraitha, and S2ia in regard to a quoted saying of an Amora. Remark 1. This rule admits, however, some exceptions, as on the one hand, na 7BN is occasionally also applied to a saying of an Amora; f. ex. Rosh Hashana 20b; Yoma 21b; Gittin 12b; on the other hand, XQU is sometimes found as a reference to a Baraitba and even to a Mishna, especially a Mishna belonging to those sections to which no Gemara is extant; f. ex. Berachoth 18a; Succah 14a; Kiddushin 4a. See Rashi on Succah 14a, s. v. '3n DICB- In B. Kamma 13a, both terms are used as references to the same Baraitha. Remark 2. Different from IB 7BN, in ihe above mentioned sense, are the phrases na 7BK7 "for the teacher said" and io iBXm "but did not the teacher say?" which are used where in an argument, reference is made to a well known saying of an anonymous author; f. ex. Be rachoth 4a; B. Metzia 6a. C. MEMRA. CHAPTER VI. Definition of and Phrases concerning Memra. § 63. In contradistinction to the teachings, opinions and deci sions of the Tanaim, contained in the Mishna and Baraitha, a reported teaching, opinion or decision of the Amoraim is termed Memra (KIBiB), a saying. This term, like that of Amora, is derived from the verb 7BK to ,say, which verb is mostly used in reference to the ex pounders of the Mishna; while the verbs naff and ijn are more restricted to references to Mishna and Baraitha. > As a characteristic term designating a reported teaching of the Amoraim, the word Meinra is but rarely met with in the 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 Sh,maattha(xr\r\yti^l that which was heard by tradition, f. ex. Berachoth 42a; Sab bath 24b: Chullin 46a), in contradistiction to Agadatha, a re ported homiletical teaching. A Memra is generally introduced by the word naK a certain Amora said, related ; sometimes also this word is preceded by the term nans (contraction of iBKnK) it has been said, it is reported. 1 Compare, for instance, the two modifying phrases: ..X7X 1JK> K7 and X7X |7BK N7, the former exclusively used in reference to a state ment of the Mishna, and the latter to a teaching af an Amora. In connection with a Memra the verb xjfl is used only in certain phrases as: ...Xnx...'J17S1 KD7 WBI N3'X "some report the just quoted saying of that Amora in reference to the following case...."; f. ex. Berachoth 8b; Sanhedrin 28b; Aboda Zarah 3b. Phrases concerning Memra. 225 A. 1BK § 64. a. 1BK preceding the name of a teacher, as 21 IBS, gener ally introduces an interpretation, opinion, principle or decision of law originated or reported by that Amora, and not disputed by another, while naK following the name, as "iBK 21 indicates at once that he is to be contradicted by another teacher, hold ing a different view on that subject, as 7BK 7KlBffl...1BK 21. b. '2 iai7S 7BK 'K iai7S 7BK refers to a report which a disciple or a contemporary makes concerning a teaching which he received orally from its author, as 7KlBff 7BK mini 21 1BK Rab Juda said that Samuel said (Berachoth 12a). But ('T niBffB or) 's BlffB 'S 1BK refers to a report con cerning a teaching which he indirectly received from an author ity of a former generation, as : iDT1 '1 BlffB janii '1 IBS 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 ~7 ilBKI and some say it was. . . . (Berachoth 4a) ; or KBi^KI (contracted of KBV1 iKl) there are some who say it was.... (Berachoth 5a), or Dlffa n2 1BB1 and some differ therefrom, saying it was in the name of... (Rosh Hashana 10a). d. millin ilBKI '2 ^1*731 'K iai*7S Both of the two teach ers A and B said. . . This phr,ase introduces an opinion con cerning which two Amoraim fully agree, though they mostly differ from each other, as inillin ilBKI 7KlBffl 27 Both Rab and Samuel said.. (Berachoth 36b). b. , -ianK §65. The word ianK it was 'said, it is reported, especially at the beginning of a passage in the Gemara, generally introduces a Memra containing a difference of opinion or a controversy (Knai7B) between two or more Amoraim. Such differences and controversies concern either: 226 Terminology and Methodology. a. The proper reading of a passage in the Mishna, as pn 7ina irxi -ibk tot 21 inna . pn -\y\Q •wa ina kqs 31 B. Kamma 37a. Other examples: Pesachim 64b; B. Metzia 80a; Shebu oth 16a. b. The reason of a law laid down in the Mishna. Examples: Gittin 17b; B. Kamma 22a; B. Metzia 38a. c. The meaning of an expression used in the Mishna, as B"B8 id:b -yaa 3-1 idjb 7Bns 3-iya 7BK 7K1BBM Gittin 52b. Other examples: Kiddushin 60a; B. Bathra 106a. d. The final decision in a case concerning which the Ta naim expressed opposite opinions, as: '313 wo7n -\aa 7xiae>i p"n3 xn37n ibk 3-1 ianK B. Kamma 48b; B. Metzia 33a; Sanhedrin 28b. e. A principle of law not clearly stated in the Mishna, as: 'B7 Djn naiB-3 ma r\2i m'3x tbib> -*mna 'Bl B'"B'3--ibx c|DV 31 B. Kamma 56b. Other examples: Pesachim 30b, B. Metzia 21b, Sanhed rin 27a. f. A case not provided for in the Mishna. Examples: Berachoth 25a; Kiddushin 43a; B. Kamma 9a. Remark. There are also Memras containing a controversy with out being introduced by the term "ianK, f • ex. Gittin 2a; B. Kamma 3b; Aboda Zara 2a. On the other hand, this term is occasionally ap plied also to a Memra containing no controversy, for instance Kiddu shin 45a; especially, where reference is made to such a Memra in order to corroborate or correct the opinion of a later Amora by the phrase:... ^83 IBnx we have also a Memra of a former authority to the same effect, f. ex. Gittin 13b; or...rby 7BnX xn is not a certain Amora re ported having remarked concerning this...? f. ex. Gittin 16b; B. Metzia 29b. Besides, this word is used in certain phrases, as : 1X7 "017B1 Nil nanK K773B K7K nan« BTI'33 the opinion ascribed to Amora A was not expressly stated by him, but it is merely implied in an occasional decision given by him; f. ex. Berachoth 9a; Sabbath 29a; B. Kamma 20b. CHAPTER VII. TREATMENT OP 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 in this Memra. Such a question is al ways phrased : (K3fiiK) 1BK Km i2n 'S 1BK iBl 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 tho other way the two contradicting Memras can be reconciled. Remark. All Amoraim being regarded as halving 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 : n'BT ap X13JX X13J 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: ....XiTi? 'J'K 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. 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 is in 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 phrase i2sniB 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 n^WK he raised against this a point of contradiction from a higher authority, or iai7S 2sna a cer tain teacher refuted this, or simply by janm but are we not taught in the Mishna ? Ksanm 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 xn3"lTl. The argument of the objection often closes with the phrase 'J1PDT xn31TI this is a refutation of that Amora; or Nnni'n ? "01737 Kn3Vn is this not a refutation of that Amora ? It is a 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: ...'3 "|p n8N that Amora might say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berachrth 34a; 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: XFlft 7"Bp 1KB what does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been taught that in the following Mishna. . ? Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, E. Kamma 35b. 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 V'Bp 'KB 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 NJ'jn 'BJ pN SIX 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: i3n iaa Ksan (abbr. n"an) 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 Baraitha ?" is never raised, since the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but not every Ba raitha.5. CORROBORAITING THE MEMRA BY ONE OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. §70. Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one which is introduced by ...iBa IBnK 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. §71. After a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, a different report (ilBKI K2SK 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 230 Terminology and Methodology. that every objection which was made to 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: • ••lEnK i2manK SK Xbx but if such Memra was report ed, it must have been reported in the following way.... Examples: Berachoth 15b; Yoma 28a; Kiddushin lib. ' CHAPTER VIII. TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFER ENCE OF OPINION. 1. The Difference concerning the Correct Reading of a Mishna Paragraph. § T3. 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: tJOnCB N7 •¦•.,Jni JKB1 ¦K»3nB'B K7....'3m 'KB- "He who reads the Mishna in this way is not wrong, and he wh< reads it in the other way is neither wrong, for..." Examples: Succah 50b; Yebamoth 17a; Aboda Zara 2a. 2. The Difference concerning the Explanation of a Term or Passage in the Mishna. §74. The supposed arguments for and against each of the difier- ent explanations are investigated in the following way: Question 1 : '3 iai7B2 IBN K7 B"B X 1J17S Why does the Amora A not explain as Amora B? Answer: ...."\b IBS he might say... (I have the following objection to his explanation. . ) Question 2: ?T|-[iKT and the other (teacher B) ? i. e., how will be he remove this objection? 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 17a; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 3. 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: mnai2 1KB 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 : K2SK .¦•innai2 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 in volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the question : 1J7S1BJ7 iKB2 in what do they differ? Or, What is the point of difference ? On what general principle do they disagree ? Examples: Pesachim 63b; 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: ....^S '3 'ibs N7 (aoby ^....tOMba As regards.... they (both of the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concerning.... Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 2 lb. 5. Showing Consistency of Opinions in both of the Contesting Teachers. §77. 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. iniBJJB7 11TK1 they go according to their principles, i. e., they differ, each following his own principle. Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. b niBJ7B7 '2 iai731 niBJJB7 'K 1J17S Amora A follows his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle.... Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. Remark. The phrase in'BJ)B7 17TX1 is used where reference is made to another dispute between the same teachers, while n'BVB7 '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: jJBB*' Kn (abbr. tt>"n) Come and hear, or: nO^K or: 12WB a 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 (jJliDor snjJiD)of the opinion of one, and as a refutation (Kn2Vn) 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 of the contesting Amoraim. The usual phrase in the latter case is: (.'2 iai73i nimi2 «n27m) ! Kn2vn ? x iai7in xn3iin "is 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 30b-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. ...'sb Tfb V^DB K8,7 is it to say, that this Mishna supports the Amora A? Examples: Succah 15b; Betza 11a; B. Kamma 62b. b 7 xn3Vn inn NB'7 is it to say, that this Mishna is a refuta tion of Amora B? Examples: Sabbath 9b; Succah 15a; Yoma 19a. 7. Tracing back the Difference between Amoraim to one between Tanaim. § T9. 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. iKan3 KBi7 (or, X&:) is it to say, that this difference is like that between Tanaim? Examples: Pesachim 31a; Gittin 14b; Sanhedrin 27a. b. la^Bp ('21 'K BiKan) ...1 Knai732 KB17 is it to say, that these Amoraim differ according to the difference of opinion between those Tanaim A and B? Examples: Shebuoth 25a; Maccoth lib; Nedarin 5b. Memra Containing a Difference of Opinion. 235 Remark. Like other investigations of the Gemara introduced by XB'7 or XB'3, 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: 'N3n3 "this is like the difference between Tanaim", or X'rl 'XJn "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 of the other of the con testing Amoraim. The phrase used in this case is, '2 iai7S1 ninil2 Kian 'X iai7B1 ninil2 Ksan there is a Ba raitha agreeing 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: ...IBS im.-.IBK in '2 iai7S1 'X iai7B ..-ianK 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 of the two opinions under con sideration. Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: ...1BK1 Kin iai721 Dunan 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 QiinDn it is correctly ascertained, or a"U*, 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: 1N7 K7N is it then not — ? = it is certainly so. pn N7 'B are we not taught in the Mishna ? = we are certainly taught so. '3n IBS 'B did he say so ? = he cannot have said so. ni3D '8 do you think..? = you can impossibly 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 1KB what is the meaning of....? KBJJB 1KB what is the reason....? j7aa whence do we have this? Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, '2 -|BK the teacher.... said (in answer to this question)... Remark. To investigate a subject by questioning is sometimes 238 Terminology and Methodology termed 'a n3 11 a certain teacher asked investigatingly concerning this matter (B. Kamma 7a; Kethuboth 68b; Nedarin 38b); m p'lin 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 'in is occasionally used, as 7X1B£>1 377 ni'lil the investigating questions of Rab and Samuel (Berachoth 20a) X311 "3X7 min (Succah 28a; B. Bathra 134a). 2. Questions of Astonishment. § 84. A question of astonishment, termed nnian( expresses wond er and surprise at an unexpected statement or argument just heard; as: ijik, is this so? K71 is this not the case? "jnyi KD7D does this enter thy mind? i. e., do you really mean to say this ? K13Dm how can you understand (explain) it in this way? iKB sKn what is this! how can you say this? Such a question does in general 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: !j7aa ? j7aa (Megilla 2a ; Sanhedrin -68b), !jnaa ?jnjB (Chullin 42b.). Remark. A peculiar phrase expressing a question of astonish ment is : D7 ''tap 'XB 1*17 '7Np71 he who asks Cor 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 30b; Yebamoth 11a; B. Bathra 2b. > 'According to a 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 KUtflp a difficulty, also used as a verb ififpK to ask an objecting question, to raise a point of objection, to show a difficulty. The question is mostly introduced by the interjection: xm but lo! which is often prefixed to the following word, as janm but lo ! are we not taught in the Mishna...? Kianm is it not taught in the Baraitha... ? "iBnKm was it not said by an Amora.... ? niBKni but did you not say....? The answer to such a question is termed pTn a re conciliation, a satisfactory answer, and is usually introduced by the phrase: KH^p xb tnere is no difficulty. Where no satis factory answer can be found, it is indicated bythe closing term jSHyp 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 ini 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: XB»X n'lH'Nl and if you wish, you may say...,; f. ex. Berachoth 3a. In this case the se cond answer has generally more force than the former. Sometimes, however, both answers are introduced by this phrase, as ...XB'X n'V3'X XB'X n'JQ'W 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 'B-7BK, and each of the following by IBN 'S; f. ex., Sanhedrin 32 a. b, where four teachers belonging to different generations (R. Cha nina. Rabba, 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 X7X 'B 7BS, the word X7X but indicating that the point of refutation against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 31a. Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept ance of the former is indicated either the phrase: by 'J1PE3 xmiinB X7X 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 XIp'JlB P'JBHS XmiinB X7K 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:... X8'7'K is it to say...? f. ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec tion it is introduced by:...XBTI '31 and if you will say (answer)..., f. ex. Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 3b; Gittin 3b. On the,, other hand, where in giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is to be removed, it is introduced by -|BXn DX1 (abbr. ri "Xl) but if you will say (object).... f. ex. Succah 16b ; Gittin lib; B. Metzia 10a : unje>B n"xi- Some Special Kinds of Objection. § 86. The terms joan and Kn2T*n are but species of the general term KHjrip 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 KiBII (of the verb iai 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 : ...iai iai7S a certain teacher asked the following question of contradiction between two passages....; or by ; ...inaiail 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 : ...janm but are we not taught in (another) Mishna...? K^anm are we not taught in a Braitha. . . ? (See above § 49) b. Kn21in (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word n21t5>n 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 iai?2 2inB a certain teacher raised the following objection from a higher authority...; or m2iniK he objected to him from a higher authority ; or : 12WB they (the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection (See above §67) The answer to such a point of objection is termed Ks iai VI a difference or distinction, in as much as it mostly attempts to remove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, seemingly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced by : ...K2n ^IXW here is a different case, or by : ....ann ••••JK2 here... there..., or ....Kn ....Kn in this case..., but in the other case...., or by: — pipDJ? iKB2 K2n here we treat of the special case that Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a contradiction a»e often very strained, and are in this case sometimes characterized by the Talmud itself as Xp'm a^W a forced or strained answer, f. ex. : B. Kamma 48a. ; 106a. ; Kethuboth 42b. 242 Terminology and Methodology. Remark 2. The answer to an objection- is also termed xplTB (from pnB to redeem, to rescue, to unload ; hence, to free one from the burden of an objection) ; as "3X1 KplTB B. Kamma 14a. More frequently used is the verb, as rb p7B8 KW1 H7 3'TOB X1H he asked a question of objection, and he answered it, Kiddushin 44b; Gittin 53a. B. Kamma 43b. ; or n7 nj'p7BBl b ¦"tfpB 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 "jtyaa nBB), 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. (K^p) ...iKl (KHyp)...i« "jtrsa nB what is thy wish? i. e., which alternative do you choose 1 if.... (then my .objection is : . . . .) and if. . . . (then my objection is :....). ' Examples : ^Sabbath 46a ; B. Kamma 38a ; Chullin 12a. b. (KUPp) ....iKl (WtPp) ...iK iBI 13V1 how shall we imagine this ease ? if... (then my objection is ) and if.... (then I have to object....). Examples : Kethuboth 72a ; B. Metzia 21a ; B. Bathra 78b. c iKl ....iK jaipDJJ 1KB2 of what circumstance do we treat here ? if.... (objection), and if.... (objection). ' Examples: Sabbath 30a, Gittin 37b, B. Metzia 12b. d iKl ....iK 12Dp 1KB what is his opinion ? If he holds that.... (then I object....), and if he holds.... (I also object....). Examples: Berachoth 3a; Sanhedrin 2b; Kiddushin 6b. The answer to a dilemma either shows a middle ground between the two alternatives, or defends one of the alternatives against the objection made to it. In the first case, it is introduced by 1 The phrase of 1CB3 HB is also used in introducing an 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 43b; B. Metzia 6b. Asking and Answering Questions. 243 the phrase . .7 K217X K7 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). In the second case, the answer is generally introduced by the word B71JJ? which in this connection stands for B71JJ7 17 KBSK still I maintain (one of the alternatives with some mo difications). Rejoinder. 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: a DIB DIB (literally: the end of the end...) anyhow t at all events, that is, however extreme my concession to the suppo sition of your answer may be, my former objection still remains... Examples: Megilla 3a; Gittin 24a; B. Metzia 16a. b. Where the rejoinder goes to demonstrate that the answer does not cover all cases the following phrase is used: IBia'i K2iK '"KB ....2 ...-2 na*n 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 11a; Gittin 4b; B. Metzia 3a. c. Where the answer is- found to be based only on a dis puted principle, tbe rejoinder is phrased; 7B1B7 K21K ''KB ..-1BK1 JKB7 K7K ...1BK1 JKB7 Kman That is all right according to him who holds..., but accord ing to him who holds.... (the opposite opinion), what is there to say? Examples: Berachoth 12a; Yoma 3a; Sanhedrin 3a. 4. Questions of Problems. Problem is a question proposed for solution concerning a matter difficult of settlement. The pages of the 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 niiy2 problems, questions of doubt, and are generally introduced by iai7B ij?2 a certain tea cher asked the following difficult question, he propounded a problem for solution, or vjl7BB iai73 ij?2 A asked B to solve the following question ; or when such a question was asked anonymously in a school, it is introduced by: in7 KiJ?2iK 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 WB bow is it ? The two sides of the question are usually set forth by : ....KB71 IK ...-jailBK. iB shall we say.... or perhaps Sometimes, however, the phrase ja^BK iB 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 3a 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: nj'B KpBJ 'NB7 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 Bt5*B) is introduced by the phrase yet? Kn (abbr. t^'Tl) 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 maiB yatt* 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 lpin (=Blpin) it stands, i. e., the question remains unsolved. Where the questioner himself finds a solution, the phrase is : nBtPB lin ij?21 V12 after having propounded this question, he again solved it. Examples : Sabbath 4b; Kid dushin 9b; Sanhedrin 10a. If out of several problems only one can be solved, the solution is introduced by the phrase Kin Kna B1tt*B you may solve, at least, one of them : f. ex. B. Metzia 25 a; 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. Each problem, except the first one, is then generally introduced by the phrase... nai7 K¥Bn BK1 and if you should be able to say.... (to solve it in one way) 1 still ask... (the following case). Examples : Pesachim 10b; Kiddushin 7b; Kethuboth 2a; B. Metzia 21 a; 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 23b). 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 133a. Questions laid before higher Authorities r 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 decide upon a difficulty or a dis pute. Such questions are usually introduced by the phrase : ....ia27 iaiB?i iai?B7 m7 in7tt> they sent to a certain teacher (asking,): may our teacher instruct us Concerning The' answer is then introduced by : ....in? n7B* he sent to them (the answer).... Examples : Sanhedrin 8a; B. Kamma 27b; Gittin 66b. Remark. Also the phrase QriB in?B> they sent from there (i. e. from Palestine to Babylon) means, they sent an answer to a question directed to them; f. ex., Betza 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 BJJB (the reason). In the Talmudic discussion, arguments are mostly intro duced by one of the following phrases : a. KB J?B iKB what is the reason? Berachoth 3b, a. elsewhere. b. yo& Kn come and hear, i. e., you may derive it from; the following...; Berachoth 2b, a. elsewhere. c jjin you may know (infer) it from the following. Berachoth 15a; B. Metzia 5b, a. elsewhere. d. n? KaiEK Kaa whence do I maintain this ? on what do I base my opinion ? Berachoth 25a; Sabbath lib, a. elsewhere. e. KIBin KaBI and whence may you say (prove) that....? Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 11a. f. jaK ""fna let us see (into the subject), let us argue on the subject. Berachoth 27a; B. Kamma 51b; B. Metzia 8b. g. K12nDB it is reasonable, it is in accordance with com mon sense. Berachoth 2b; Sabbath 25a; Kiddushin 5a. h. K12nDB iaa s2n so it is also reasonable; this may be proved by the following reasoning. Yoma 16a; B. Kamma 26a; B. Metzia 10 a. i. iaa Kp,1 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. § 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 falsehood of its contradictory. In the Talmud, the arguments mostly used in direct as well as indirect reasoning, are the following : a. The argument from common sense. b. The argument from authority. c. The argument from construction and implication. d. The argument from analogy. e. The argument a fortiori. a. Argumet from Common Sense. § 95 A common sense argument is termed K12D, so in the phrases: Kin K12D it is a common sense reasoning; Pesachim 21b; Sanhedrin 15a, B. Metzia 27b. K"2K1 K12D KasK nij?2 SK Kip 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: ....Km for behold..., ...,i 71KW because, JY"2 ....1 since, ....ifl7 because, ...,i DIE'S on account of, iaBB ....VI for..., because.... b. Argument from Authority. § 96. An argument from authority, termed nsK1 the proof, the evidence, is that which appeals to the 'authority ol the Bible (sip 1BK1 for Scripture says; 2in21 for it is written; IBKaB' for it is said), or to the authority of the Mishna (jam for it is taught in the Mishna), or to that of the Baraitha (K"*am; T'm), or to the accepted teaching of an Amora (1BK1 Argumentation. 249 "0172), or to an accepted tradition (1713a "we have learned by tradition, Berachoth 28a, Succah 5b; jasBpa we have received it by tradition, Erubin 5a, Gittin 32b, Maccoth 10b), or to a settled rule and established principle of law (j7 KBupl for it is established among us, it is a generally accepted opinion or maxim, Yebamoth 6a, Gittin 28b; jailBKI for we generally , say, hold the opinion, Yebamoth 3b, B. Metzia 25b). 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 KB7K hence, consequently (Pesachim 2a-3a), or by v772a in this is implied, from this follows, or by n^B "JJBtt' hear from this, i. e. you may infer herefrom.... Remark 1. The phrase n'J'B Vats' 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 ....1X7 'KB is it not (to be supposed} that....? In answering such an argument, the opponent generally denies that supposition by ...X7 it is not so, but... ; f. ex., Pesachim 16b; Sanhedrin 24b; B. Kamma 15b. c. Argument from a Close Construction of a Passage. § 97. 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 spin (from the verb pn to examine minutely, to consider a thing carefully), and is most ly introduced by the phrase: ....ijnpl iaa Kp*H it is also proved by a conclusion from the expression used in this Mishna or Baraitha. Examples: Succah 3a; Kiddushin 3a; 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: ....xn ¦¦•¦1 KBVB 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; B. Meztia 25a. Sometimes the phrase is: 73X, px-- X7... strictly in this case yes, but... (other wise) not; f. ex., Yoma 85b; B. Metzia 30a; 34a. Such arguments resting merely on the emphasis of an expression are often very arbitrary and fallacious, and are in this case prompt ly refuted in the Talmud. d. Arguments from Analogy. § 98. An argument from analogy, termed tppin or KiBll, 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 1 KiBll in similarity with the case of...; Kiddushin 12a; B. Bathra 28b. b XTib Xbx KiBI Xb Xn this is rather like that other case of...; Sabbath 12a; Kiddushin 7a; B. Metzia 30a. c 13a jn2B"-K12 as we find concerning...; Berachoth 20b. d K mm 1TB something which is found concerning..., i. e., just as in the case of...; Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 4a; Gittin 8b. Also the phrase: («ian) jan xb i» 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 iaa K2n ...Dnn ''KB as there... so here, too. Argumentation. 251 e. Argument a Fortiori. § 99. The argument a fortiori, termed -iaim bp, is a kind of argument from analogy, and consists in proving that a thing being true in one case is 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 Tal mudical Hermeneutics. Its application in the discussions of the Gemara is less artificial than there. The phraseology used in setting forth this argument is: a. KijJ2a K2n ....niBK ....ann (nai) Kntyn now, (since) there... (in that other case of...) you say...., could it here be questioned ? Examples: Gittin 15b; B. Bathra 4a; Maccoth 6b. b. j2E> 72 K7 K2n ....ann nai KnBT! 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 riB3 nnN by nB31; f. ex. Gittin 35a; Nedarim 10b; Maccoth 24a. 3- 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. (Kitfp^-.-'On KBV1 Xb ''Kl 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; B. Metzia 5b. b. (Kijyp). . . . niBK iKl for if you say. . . (the contrary), then. . . , (objection). Examples: Berachoth 2b; Yoma 24b; Gittin 35b; B. Metzia 28b. c' (Kityp)...-"jnj?1 Kp7D iKl for if it should enter your mind, (i. e., if you should assume the contrary...), then... (it will lead to the following objectionable consequence). Examples: Berachoth 13a; Sanhedrin 6a; B. Metzia 5b. Indirect arguments are often introduced by the phrase K12nDB it is proved by the following reasoning. . . or iaa i2d K12nDB it may thus also be proved by reasoning The conclusion from an indirect argument is generally ex pressed by 1K7 Xbx is it then not...? or n^B J?BtP 1K7 K7K 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: n^B JJBtt"-. Remark. Arguments introduced by X73nDB 'BJ "OH or by Xp'7 2) (xwp) max i« xbx it is well, if you say... (if you accept my proposition), then every thing is all right; but if you say... (the contradictory), then... (you meet some difficulty). Argumentation. 253 Examples: Berachoth 26b; Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 3a. ' b. (ian.1 or) 11BB*- ni17 KB7tt>2 Kitfp' ....1,1117 K7K 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. (iann) 1iBB> ....1BK1 JKB7 KB7tt>2 K^p ....1BK1 jKB? Xbx it is well according to him who holds. . . . ; but according to him who holds.... (the contrary view)... .(there is the diffiiculty). Examples: Berachoth 41a; Yoma 40a; B. Kamma 22a. CHAPTER XI. REFUTATION. Definition and Terms. § 102.. 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 : Kn2W (the Aramaic word for the Hebrew n21tt*n an answer, gainsay ing, refutation), and in the second case: X271B (from the verb ¦ps to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, to destroy, to in validate), or: n^m (from the verb im to push aside, to over throw to supersede). A. The Refutation of a Proposition. §103. The strongest argument against a proposition advanced 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: ni2niK, or iai7B 2inB, or i2iniB; see above § 86b. A proposition is refuted indirectly by showing that, assum ing it to be true, a certain passage of a 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. (Nipp) (ni7 1JJ21B) niBK iKl now, if you say., (main tain your proposition), then. . . (we meet with a difficulty). Examples: Gittin 53a; Kiddushin 32a; B. Metzia 10a. b. (KHyp) ...TnjJI Kp7D i«l now, if you assume... (your proposition to be true), then... Examples: Sabbath 7b; Betza 9b; B. Metzia 10b. c. (KitS>p) ...KniK BK1 now, ifitwereso.. (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) 'J17B1 Nn3Vm (K) <:i7S7 Tib 1PDB 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) •01737 WD? (0) 'mSb? 3'nB 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: iai7B T\b Cjipna 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 TIB a certain teacher refuted this argument (f. ex. Kiddushin 13a; Yebamoth 24a; Shebuoth 41b), or.. .'3 n2 Cliaa a certain teacher ridiculed this argument, in showing its ab surdity (Sabbath 62b: Kidd. 71b; Sanhedrin 3b; Aboda Zara 35a; Zebachim 12a).' ') The term sj'pna (from F|pn to overpower, to 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 7a it is exceptioually applied to a question raised by Resh Lakish. 113 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 "pBB7 KS'N, and as a, noun X3VQ). As a term of refu ting any argument it is mostly used by Rab Acha. The Talmud com mentators Rashi and Tosaphoth often use the verb "ps in the general sense, to ask a question. The term cpaa is mostly used by R. Abuha, and only once by R. Jirmija and once by R. Chanina. —Tosaphoth Yebamoth 2b, s. v. a'E'B 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. tfll. 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 : n211K {also spelled K211K) on the contrary, or more emphatically : K12nDB K2fiiK n211K on the contrary, the reverse is more reasonable. Examples: Sabbath 3b; Pesachim 28a; Gittin 23b. Remark 1. The tesm n3V!X or X3Y1X (a contraction of the words ri37 "H 71?, 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 rQYlX and X317N meaning against the view of Rabba or of Raba, in the phrases : naYIX 1371 X'Cp Gittin 27a, and X377K N317 N't^p B. Bathra 30a. Remark 2. A similar meaning as the term n377N on the contra ry, is expressed by the phrase n"7 'B73, 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: K73Dm how do you reason? How can you understand that passage in this way? Examples: Pesachim 26a; Yebamoth 15a, B. Kamma 14a. K7-..ni2D iB do you think..., do you understand the pas sage 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: (xs~ or) Dnn "UKC there (or, here) the case is different, for.... Examples: Pesachim 5a; Shebuoth 15a; B. Metzia 10a. Or: ...jaipBJ? iKB2 K2n here we treat of the special case of... 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. Kan iKn 12 7BK"t Kin he holds it with that other teacher ...;f. ex., Maccoth 10b; 12a. Or: KVI...iai7B ^B Kn whose opinion is here accepted ? that of....; f. ex., Sabbath lib; Pesachim 32a; B. Kamma 10a. Or: sin iKan concerning this matter, the Tanaim differ. Examples: R. Hashana 19b; Betza 9a; B. Metzia 62a. §107. 3. An argument from a close construction or from impli ca 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 in a contradiction of the con clusions from the two clauses. This refutation is mostly introduced by: (Ktt*il)' KfiiDKBiK 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: naiB JJBtS*a7 XS'b Kna Xbx 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 Methodology. 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 K2n.-- annual iB are the two cases alike? there.... here.... Examples: Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 7a; Gittin 3a. b. ...K2n..-Bnn Knt^n "OH now, is thisso? i. e., is thisana- logy correct? There....; but here.... Examples: Berachoth 21a; R. Hashana 28a; Kiddushin 7a. Remark. The phrase 'a7 'B is used in refuting an analogy which ¦ was intended to support a proposition, while that of xntWI "On 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. KniK12 KP1 KniK12 Kn KilK 1T*B does this prove any thing? This case as it is, and the other case, as it is ; i. e., tl i cases are not as analogous as you presume, since the c. 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 (XB'DI NB"7). §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 a. (...iaa itfpn) (? Knia iB) ...1,B-J?B71 but according to your own opinion... (does it agree with the passage re ferred to?) (is there not also an objection to be raised?..) Examples: Yoma 8b; Posachim 19b; Betza 8a. b. (Kitt>p iaa) (?niBKp13) ...1KB K7K1 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 13a; B. Metzia 3a. Remark. The words 'XB N7K 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..."i what then means? as: mix 'KB N7N "but what means the expres sion 1J11N "(Rosh Hashana 22b), or in the frequent phrase: 'XB kSn 7B,B7 77 n'K "but what then remains for you to say? (Yoma 8b). In Rosh Hashana 13a, we find on the same page the words 'XB N7X in three different connections and meanings. § no. 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: a. iaa • ••I^BK s2n iK if so, even... also, i. e. if that argument (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. iaa • ¦•iV'SK ...^1^ 1KB i2n iK if so, why just teaching... (this case)? since it ought to apply also to the case of. . . 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 ofthis kind of refutation is: iaa i2n... nnya Xbx 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. ....1 i1sB K2iK iB is there anything like this, that...? Examples: Yoma 2b; Betza 13b; Sanhedrin 55a. § H3. 9. A mild 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 KBW but I might say...; f. ex. Yoma 2b, or, by... KB^n but per haps....; f. ex. Sabbath 5a; B. Metzia 8b. The answer to such a mild objection or refutation is often: injjl Xpbs xb 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 of the 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 KilBl NhpVf (literally, taking up and throwing back, namely, arguments). A debate displaying great dialectical acumen is termed 71B7B- These debates generally concern either the interpretation and application of a provision of the Mishna, or a new principle of law advanced by an Amora. 2. The Principal Debaters. § H5. The debates recorded in the Talmud are generally between the associate members 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. The following synopsis of a debate between Rabba and Rab 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 nT2K 1B1ttf, that is, of the keeper of a lost object waiting for its owner to claim it. Rabba maintains that the responsibility of that kee per is only that of a gratuitous depositary (aan 7B1B0 who is not liable for the loss of the object entrusted to his care, except in the case of gross negligence. Rab Joseph holds that he has the greater responsibility of a paid depositary (712c 1B1&') who is liable 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 (n217 ClDIi 27 ni2niK) 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 (CjDT1 217 n27 n^niK), 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 circumstance's, 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 nical codes. t Other examples of such debates are furnished : Yoma 6b — 7b ; Pesachim 46b — 47a ; Moed Katon 2b ; Kiddushin 59a ; Gittin 32b — 33a; Nedarim 25b — 27a; B. Kamma 61a — 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 on a reported difference between authorities of a former generation (f. ex. Gittin 2asqq.) 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. §117. 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 of them 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. PART IV. OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. OUTLINES OP 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, 0 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, 8). 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, principles 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, Aboth d'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 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 and 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, therefoie, be re garded as an index of the standard of Talmudical ethics, but such opinions only can be so regarded which are expressed witti 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 human 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 Talmud. 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 tob, 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 Yetzer ha-ra, the inclination to evil."1 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 s, or, 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 1"* Evil are those lower desires only in that 1 Aboth '1.1, 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 1" * Mishna Berachoth IX,5: JD 7V31 31B -IV3 TIT "OKO 8 Midrash K. Bereshith IX: '131 nn"s' bfrxv J>7 7V HT 7KB 310 njnl 4 Yoma 69b: .KB7J* abs T\b in^Bp 'NI 1fn 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.1 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 Yetzer tob, 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."3 Free-will. Man's free will is emphasized in the following sentences: "Everything is ordained by God's providence, but freedom of choice is given to man."4 "Everything is foreordained by heaven, except the fear of heaven"5 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. ' God's Will, the Ground o"f 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 will".' "Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a roe, and strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father, who is in heaven".8 Man Accountable to God for his' Conduct. Of man's responsibility for the conduct of his life, we 1 Kiddushin 30b: DV 733 V71* tnnnB D7K b& 11VV Berachoth 5b: ¦inn it py 3ia 7v din vsv D7116 * Berachoth 61b. s Midrash Bereshith XXXIIL ' Aboth III, 15. " Berachoth 33a. • Nidda 16b. ' Aboth II, 4. " Ibid. V, 20. Outlines of Talmudical 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."2 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."3 "Whatever thou doest, let it be done in the name of heaven"4 (that is, for its own sake). Duty of Self-Preservation and Self-Cultivation. As a leading rule of the duties of self-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 I ?'"> 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."8 "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 1 Ibid. II, 1. * Ibid. Ill, 1. 3 Aboth I, 3. ' Ibid. II, 12. ' Ibid. I, 14. s Ibid. II, 5. ' Ibid. II, 12, 8 Ibid. II, 7. 272 Outlines of Talmudical 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."2 "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."3 Labor. Next to the duty of acquiring knowledge, that of indust 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. Even the greatest philosophers of antiquity, a Plato and Aristotle, could not free themselves of this deprecating view of labor.1 How different was the view of the Talmudic sages in this respect ! They say: "Love labor, and hate to be a lord."6 "Great is the dignity of labor; it honors man."8 "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, is 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."10 1 Midrash Levit. I: TVip .7B n7DPI HJH (mDn HB n'Jp njn • Berachoth 17a. 3 Aboth III, 17. * Arist. Polit. VIII, 3. « Aboth 1, 10. • Gittin 67a; Nedarim 49a, ' Aboth II, 2. 8 Kiddushin 29a. * Berachoth 8a. "> Aboth I, 18. Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 273 Justice. The principle of justice in the moral sense is expressed in the following rules: "Thy neighbor's property must be as sacred to thee, as thine own."1 "Thy neighbor's honor must be as dear to thee, as thine own."2 Hereto belongs also the golden rule of Hillel: "Whatever would be hateful to thee, do not to thy neighbor."8 Truth and Truthfulness. The sacredness of truth and truthfulness is expressed in the sentence: "Truth is. the signet of God, the Most Holy."* "Let thy yea be in truth, and thy nay be in truth."8 "Truth lasts forever, but falsehood must vanish."6 Admonitions concerning faithfulness and fidelity to given promises are: "Promise little and do much."7 "To be faith less to a given promise is as sinful as idolatry."8 "To break a verbal engagement, though legally not binding, is a mor al wrong."8 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."18 "Deception in words is as great a sin as deception in money matters.'"1 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 dealings with thy feflow-men ?"'a 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 Ibid. II, 12. * Ibid. II, 10. • Sabbath 30a. 4 Sabbath 45a. • B. Metzia 45a.. e Sabbath 104a. ' Aboth I, 15. 8 Sanhedrin 92a. " B. Metzia 48a. ' "Chullin 94a. " B. Metzia 58b, >» Sabbath 28b. 274 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. by us."1 "Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace, and pur suing peace."2 To make peace between those in disharmony is regarded as one of the most meritorious works that secure happiness and bliss here and hereafter.3 As virtues leading to peace, those of mildness and meekness, of gentleness and placidity 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 unbending like the cedar.'" "Those who, when offended, do not give offence, when hearing slighting remarks, do not retaliate — they are the friends of God, they shall shine forth like the sun in its glory."8 Charity. The last of the principal duties to fellow-men is cha> ity, 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 love and charity, whereas in the teachings of the Bible, we generally find the idea of love, mercy and charity closely con nected with that of justice. ' And we may add, as in the Bible so also in the 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.10 The duty of charity (Gemilath Chesed) extends farther than to mere almsgiving (Tzedaka). ' 'Almsgiving is practiced by means of money, but charity also by personal services and by words of advice, symphaty and encouragement. Alms giving is a duty towards the poor only, but charity towards ' Mishna Oketzin III, 12. " Aboth I, 12. 3 Mishna Peah I, 1. ' Aboth II, 10. " Ibid. Ill, 12. « Ibid. V,ll ' Taanith 20b. 8 Yoma 23; Gittin 36b. • AUgemeine Ethik. p. 108. ,0 Aboth I, 2. Outlines op 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.2 "He who turns away from works of love and charity turns away from God".3 "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."5 "Blessed is he who gives from his substance to the poor, twice blessed he who accompanies his gift with kind, comforting words"6 "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".8 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"10 "A man's home means Succah 49b. 1 Sotah 14a. 3 Kethuboth 61a. * Succah 49a; B. Bathra 9a. Succah 49a. 8 B. Bathra 9b. ' Sabbath 63a. ' B. Bathra 10b, Sotah 44a. ' ° Sanhedrin 76a. 276 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. his wife."i "Let a man be careful to honor his wife, for he owes to her alone all the blessings of his house".2 "If thy wife is small, bend down to her, to take counsel from her".8 "Who is rich ? He who hag a noble wife."* "A man should be careful lest he afflict his wife, for God counts her tears."6 "If in anger the one hand removed thy wife or thy child, let the other hand again bring them back to thy heart."6 "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."7 "Tears are shed on God's altar for the one who forsakes the wife of his youth."8 "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".10 "It is a fathers 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".11 "The honor and reverence due to parents are equal to the honor and reverence due to God".12 "Where children honor their parents, there God dwels, there He is honored"13. Country and Community. Regarding duties to the country and the community, the Rabbis teach: "The law of the country is as sacred and bind ing, as God's law".1* "Prayfor the welfare of the government; without respect for the government, men would swallow each other".16 "Do not isolate thyself from the community and its interests".16 "It is sinful to deceive the government regard- 1 Yoma 2a. » B. Metzia 59a. s Ibid. * Sabbath 25b. 0 B. Metzia 59a. • Sota 47a. ' Yebamoth 62b. 8 Gittin 90b. 0 Ibid. |0 Sabbath 10b. u Kiddushin 29a. la Ibid 29b. 13 Ibid 30a. " Gittin 10b; Nedarim 28a; B. Kamma 118a; B. Bathra 54b. » Aboth III, 2. "¦ Ibid II, 4. Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 277 ing taxes and duties".1 "Do not aspire for public offices"3; "but where there are no men, try thou to be the man".3 "Those who work for the community shall do it without self ishness, but with the pure intention to promote its wel fare".* 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 outside 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."6 "Man's thoughts and ways shall always be in contact and sympathy with fellow-men."6 "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."8 They strongly discountenance the idea of celibacy, 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: D3B1 p-pty nn3n 7K1 also B. Kamma 113a Dsan n« ararb -iidn. " Aboth I, 10. ¦ Ibid. II, 5. " Ibid. II, 2. • Aboth II, 4. • Kethuboth 11a. 'B. Metzia 86b. 8 Berachot 8b. • Yebamoth 63a. 278 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. is to live without joy, without blessing, without kindness, without religion and without peace."1 "As soon as man mar ries, his sins decrease."2 While, on the one hand, they warn against too much indulgence in pleasures and in the gratification of bodily appetites and against the insatiable pursuit of earthly 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."3 "If thou hast the means, enjoy life's innocent pleasures."' "He who denies himself the use of wine is a sinner."6 "No one is permitted to afflict himself by unnecessary fasting."6 "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."8 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 ¦ Ibid. 62a. " Ibid. 63b. 3 Yoma 85b: DH3 niB'tJ' t6l DD3 7W ...1133m 7S5>lJ>m n3.71 Un .&71V71 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 cruel 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. "i ' 'Judge every man from his favorable side."2 "Seek peace, and love fellow-men."3 "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 his own eyes (i. e. , approved by his conscience) and at the same time, honorable in the eyes of his fellow- men."6 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."6 It is our duty to relieve the poor and needy, to visit the sick 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 Azai 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."8 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. ' Aboth IV, 3. 2 Ibid. I, 6. ¦ Ibid. I, 12. <¦ Ibid. Ill, 10. 6 Ibid. II, 1. ' Chullin 94a. ' Gittin 61a. 8 Siphra on Lev. XIX, 18. 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,"1 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 of religion, namely, Morality, purity of heart and holiness of life. 1 Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. XIII; Maimonides Yad Hachezaka, Teshuba III, 5; Melachim VIII, 11. ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL TANAIM AND AMORAIM. A. Page. Page. Chiya bar Abba . 45 Abba (Areca or Aricha) = D.— H. ' Bab. 39.43 Abba Saul . 35 Dime . 52 Abbahu 45 Dosa b. Harchinas 26 Abaye Acha 49 Elazar b. Azariah 27 39 Elazar b. Jacob . 35 Acha of Difte 53 Elazar of Modein 30 Achai bar Huna 55 Elazar (b. Shamua) T. 34 Ada (or Ide) bar Abin 53 Elazar (b. Padath) Arc 45 Admon 25 Elazar b. Simon . 38 Akabia b. Mahalalel . 24 Elazar b. Zadok 36 Akiba 29 Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos) 26 Ame .... 45 Eliezer b. Jacob 26 Amemar 52 Gamaliel (the Elder) 24 Ashe .... 51 Gamaliel II of Jamnia 25 Assi .... 45 Gamaliel IH. 41 Gebiha 52 B. Hillel . 23 Bar Kappara 37 Hillel II 48 Bar Napacha Hoshaya (or Oshaya) 39 (Jochanan) . 42 Huna 46 Ben Azai 31 I. -J. Ben Bathyra 27 Ben Zoma . 30 Ide bar Abin 53 Ben Nanos (Simon) . 30 Ilai 32 Beth Hillel ( Beth Shamai < 24 Ise b. Judah. 39 Ishmael (b. Elisha) 28 C. Ishmael bar Jose 39 Janai (the Elder) 39 Cahana 52 Jehuda, see Juda. Chanan 25 Jeremiah for Jirmiah 48 Chanina, chief of the Jochanan b. Broka 30 Priests . 24 Jochanan (bar Napacl a). 42 Chanina (bar Chama) 41 Jochanan b. Nuri 29 Chisda (or Chasda) . 46 Jochanan, theSandela r 84 Chizkia 42 Jochanan b. Zaccai 24 Chiya, the great Jonah . 48 (or the Elder) 39 Jonathan (the Elder) 39 282 Index of Principal Tanaim and Amoraim. Jose (bar ChalaftaJ, a Tana 33 Jose (bar Zabda), Pal. . Amora ... 48 Jose, a Babyl. Amora . 55 Jose, the Galilean . 30 Jose b. Juda . . 38 Joseph (bar Chiya) . 49 Joshua (b. Chanania). 26 Joshua b. Korcha . 35 Joshua b. Levi . . 43 Juda b. Baba . . 80 Juda b. Bathyra . . 27 Juda Hanasi (=Rabbi) 37 Juda II (Nesiah) . . 41 Juda (b. Ilai) Tana . 32 Juda (b. Jecheskel), Babyl. Amora ... 46 L.— M. Levi (bar Sissi) . . 43 Mar bar Rab Ashe . 53 Maremar (=Mar Jemar) 53 Mathia b. Charash . 30 Meir .... 31 Nachman (bar Jacob) 47 Nachman b. Isaac . 50 Nachum the Median . 25 Nachum of Gimzo . 27 Nathan (the Babylonian) 36 Nechemia ... 35 Nechunia b. Hakana . 27 O.— R. Oshaya (or Hoshaya) PapaPapi Plimo . Rab (=Abba Aricha) Raba 39 515139 43 50 Page. Rabba bar Huna . . 49 Rabba (bar Nachmani) 49 Rabba bar bar Chana. 47 Rabba of Tusfah (or Tospia) 54 Rabbi (=Juda Hanasi) 37 Rabbina I and II. . 54 Rafram bar Papa . 52 Rafram II. , . . 53 Resh Lakish ( = R. Simon b. Lakish) ... 42 S. Sama bar Rabba . . 53 Samuel (Mar) . . 44 Samuel bar Abbuha . 55 Saphra .... 45 Shamai .... 23 Shela .... 44 Shesheth- ... 46 Simai bar Ashe . . 51 Simlai .... 43 Simon bar Abba . . 45 Simon b. Elazar . . 38 Simon b. Gamaliel I. 24 Simon b. Gamaliel II. 35 Simon (ben Jochai) . 33 Simon b. Lakish . . 42 Simon ben Nanos. . 30 Symmachos (or Symchos) 37 Tarphon (or, Tryphon) 28 Ukba(Mar) ... 44 Ulla (bar Ishmael) . 47 Zadok (Tzadok) . 26 Zebid ... 52 Zera (Zeira) ... 46 Zutra (Mar) ... 52 INDEX OF EXPLAINED TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. Page. Page. 217.232 . . 'jbs'Bp 'XB3 .« 210 xnin'J3 256 . n3Y1X 157 3K J'J3 204 . x"nx 159 a'31H3 'JB"B 3X t'J3 244 xabi ix 244 . X'M 252 xabaa niBX 'x 244 n'J'B 'S>3 230 nanx '3n nanx 'x 202 . XabtJQ 244 mb x'jn'x 253 naxi jXBb xabuo 239 . XB'X n'JD'X v:j ib'QX '3n 'X 210 . n'ans 259 245 ntx-a -nn tot ina 259 N'VX 'XB 'an 'X 227 n'BI Xp X13JX X13J 242 . ... 'XI ... 'X 223 xau 217 in"J'3 X3'X 143 .nitr n-iw 229 . '-IBXT X3'X 0 . ¦ XB'b'X 249 . 'TBJ 2*0.204 24 148 ....B1BJ 257 XS'D XB'X 252 n-'.ax 'xi 227 ...xm 'rx 251 '3n xa'n xb 'XT 185 pn JB J'BW px 252 inm xpbD 'xi 218 . -JIS'X 225 . in'vnn naxn 256 .xnanDB X32'x 250 . . .1 X'BIT 228 n'3'n'x xbx xb'X xbx 174 U'jjjb iabn i3i 240 132 pi .tn 209 181 . xinxs 'pixi njB ;n 252 . b"k> ixb xbx r.j'Bbca'bxnBxbx 254 n'm 257 134 . '131 I'll jB X3b 1'1 246 . xmnna xbx nnyB xbx 249 . Xpl'l 260 197 . 13D'1 205 . xabx 247.252 .'BJ Xp'1 213 . 'XBX . niiD^b- xipsb dx 288 . rb nxp 'xa rb nxpi 185 118 em 223 IB -1BK 229 xj'Jn 'bj px fqx •ii 210 I'-IBVX 148 ...b x'nx 213 X'SPp xbu xn rby "iBnx xn 224.225 . -iBnx 226 229 'bj ianx 238 .'xb 'xn 258 t .irais xm xn'xis xn .1 -2 203.257 . na xn 132 Yin jb X3n 197 . 13V13 257 . xjn 'xn "<2 ibxi xm 200.242 p'pDP 'XB3 284 Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. Page. Page. 240 NB'n '31 242 pIBBI 3'ma xin 213 xin xbbsi 211 xj'ax mn 259 . iBjjabi 238 • .13 in 218 ..b n'b n'bi 238 • ni'iin 218 . X>13 'BJ aibsbi 207.208 . u*»n...u«n 225 . D1E>B n3 1BB1 216 . NBpxjnij"n 227 '3.1 -IBK '01 200.242 'bi o'n 247 XIB'n KJB1 152.250 vp*n 218 'a i3Di 200.241.23 7 P'PDJJ 'XB3 X3.T 212 . '3'Til 207 b"ap xnm xsn 215.222 . MJ'B-11 198 lau-in ton 147 . 'i3i tnsn 2m 258 xnK*n '3n 239 mi 247.252 X13nD8 'BJ '3n 213 . (X3'b)xbim 209 -iaxp '3n 201 . N3iB nb 'n"a xjni 56 . nsbn 238.256 N-|3Dni 123 'J'db ntfab nsbn .'»— T 243 -lax-t |xeb xmjn 160 P2& men nxn 206 niBix nxt 212.251 ...nnn noi xnss-n 157 3xnj3 nt 199 nax cinn 147 nx'3 it n3'B» xm it 258 • ..-x3n...Dnn 196 it naib T"ix j'xi it 202 'xp onn 235 -tax im -ibx in 182 pn itn .1 209.214 . xiDn'a niDn 233 . imayobntxi 193.247 . DVB 254 .¦max 'xi 206.250 . ...i xbvb 254 . invi xpbD 'xi 137 pt? nor - 231 1TX1 192 D'311 Tl' 260 • XB'XI 143 eniBan p DmD iab' 225 •XB'n'xi 246 1J31 UIBb' 259 'XB xbxi 158 ... XX' 213 'XBX1 .b-3 254 xrrx dni 225 nb nexi 215 . ...JN31 ... JX3 240 IBXn DX1 250 . ...'33 jrDB-XIS '3'ba xb ...X3'n bs • ?» aiQi bbs . bbsia-isibba 245 iab XiBn DX1 232163 205 260 • xpini • xab'ii 164 214 . xen maxm 166 205 55>Nim 167 •xpn xbp xbbs n«b 'aba . 1B1?t«Bne>3 233 ..i n'niis xnsbm 256 221 • x'jnm ,pnm 219 lb2 pin itm Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. 285 Page. 159 U'xb ne 242 1B>bj na 218 . no'B>n nsbma 151 . njsiB 191.217 . . npibna 260 TO X3'X 'B 244 P'-IBX 'B 258 X'-IX 'T8 250 mm n'B 258 . 'Bl 'B 224 . XIB'B 259 . xn'j '8 256 .ni3D 'B 206.249 . bb3B 132 iaba 247 . nb xj'bx xjb 200 . 'b'a 'jn xjb ai? X-IBTI XJB 2!te . n'BB-131 p 195 'aiyab xj"jb 203200 jri'jnB'JB ., bio 201.238 . :?ss 6:q 255 nb T 'oe 247.252 . x-ianDa 193 . nswa 214 . -imob npyo 192 xnv'xa 193 |nB1 XB'B 222.241 . . '3'n'a ,3'na 220 . p'jnB xn'jna 255 nb n'pna .y-.a 132 . pj 247 . px 'tm 234 vjna xb'j 249 • P'BpJ 193.248 . . X13D 132 • p*iie 243 . mD niD 283 xnv'D ,vi'D 192 xa'D Page. 235 'xjna 224 pax x? 160 . 'ni nt nn xb 226 -ianx BTPB3 IX} 196 it «ix it xb inap x'j/3'B xb 196 260 inyi xpbD xb 200.210.24 : xanx xb 239 x'e>p xb 224 ub> xb 194 'xa mxb 219 lis'n xb 233 n'ayab 203.217. 2'6 0 . XB'b 234 'xjns xB'b 234 n'b x"rD8 XB'b 197 nb'nnab 199 xnabn 'xab 244 nj'B xpsj 'xab 218 XIB'Bb 195 'xa 'aipab 200.243 obivb .12 i«e 'XB 24% IB'ab X3'X 'XB 232 in"J'3 'XB 101 KBJJB 'XB 249 IS^ 'XB 199 X1B1S"? HO 199 DBt^O "-ND 199.228 IBXP 'XB 199.210 • p l?BB>Bp '*!B 142 13DP 'X£ 208 . XJniXJt5"XB 213.217 • XB"-1XJB"X8 255 na epja 122 xmnixia 123 ¦ nna 118 nabm mix ema 244 me 210 xa'm ma 157 ini'a ...na 286 Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. Page. Page. 206.249 . n'J'B VBB- 211 n'b xanaxx nb'd 206 n'j'a nvBB' 209.238 inyi xpbD 224 xnnu8B> xnyaB* 210 xj'ax inyi xpbo 241 . X'U'B" 177 . j'sibd 241 xp'm x'U'B1 191 DnD 160 inxa D'xan nuins ub> 217 .'j'bs xb |xa iy 175 t"xt D'B"naBn nuins ub> 132 XJ'11 KIP'V 252 . TBB- 216 n'b laxp -i'be> .1— .3 193.261 . . X'1B1 xbpB> 242 . XpiTE 233 yaB* xn 136.254 . X3TB 214 . xnan 193 . xnjiba 247 inn 255 TIB 132 p nb'nn 242 (p-lBB) piSl 228.233.241.254 . tip iBim bp 235.257 . x'n 'xjn 130 222 pa-i un 124.183 Biyai iai 221 xun 240 . man 222.229 . 'an 'bj xun 207 . ux 222.235 . n'nia xun 192 XB"1 221 xin un 258 ...XB'DI ••¦ XB"1 220.228 . xjun -i"m nb xjun .n— .w 222 220 236 (onn) pn . D"non 241.257 . 246 246 (onn) xan uxb* n'b inbB* Dna itibc APPENDIX. KEY TO THE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD AND ITS COMMENTARIES. axy nx .y"x 3J by "^x .j"yx 'aby^x .'B"yx p 'a by ^x .a"eyx 'anib'BX .n"sx ib'BN -"BN "pX U'X .X"X -iBib inx t'x .b"xx XIplBX -P"X '31 1BX .1"X on u'3t ibx .n"-ix (in Tosaphoth) TBB"nX .bxiBC "IBX -B^X -iBxn ox -n"x .iBib xxBn dx -b"nx D1X U3 -3X i'J3 -X"3 -i3T mixa .i"X3 bxiB" px3 .'"xa '"' nnx ilia " n'3 bya .xina X33 o"3 sbn3 -ie"3 .un 13 -i3 .n"3a p nu -i"a nniax D'-i3i na3 .x"i3 Bnpan n'3 -bbn n'3 -n"3 xm 11-13 -n'3n by3 d'-ibix bbn n'3 -x"n3 mbiu mai>n3 .J"n3 (in Tosaphoth) nojann'3 .a"na ptannaia .a"n3 emen. n'3 .T'Bn3 Bnpan n'3 .p"an3 D11 -IB»3 -1"3 D"n'bya.3inby3 -n"3 nyiB bv ibin3 .8"B>na Dipa bs3 .B"aa .« .x"x •J'X IX .U'3X Dni3X IB'BX 'X .max 'X B"X nB>x xebao max 'x p dx xbx Cn3). 13 t'x .imu'3 xs'x xb'x n'y3 'x I'l n'3 3X nnty j3 -itybx naxi X3'x tlB'Xin D1X nanx '3n ib'ax .'an 'x obiyn niaix 'bj 'an fx DX13X inxi nnx Dbiyn niaix .y"mx B>Bj'baix .j"ix ntnx D"n mix .3"n U'x ntinx ia -inx bxiB" px xb'x n'ya 'x [ .$§'* p dx .a"x nbn3n nDJ3 'b>jx .3"n3x txa 3'na fx .a"ax xaby 'biax (inb J n'b ibx (inb] n'b n'x .xa'b 'x iB'sb xa'x '" 'an XB'n xb 'x .n"nbx IB nax .b"x 'nn jb -iax .n"ax Dbiyn -6b u'nbx .n"ax '8J 'X o"x •3"XX •a"xx • 3"X • X"3X n"3X .y"3X •T'x ¦-in"iK -'mx . ,n"x .j"nx .xi"x •xi"x ¦t"x ,n"x •f'nx •a"nx -"'x •y"ax .b"x 288 Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. xj'bx mm .x"m jnn xim .n"m m"? mm .b"m -iB'ab n'b mm .b"bm 'xa mm .B"m -iB'ab 'xb mm .b"Bm iBxp 'am .p"m xabv ibiai -y"ai nuiaa un .a"i "IBXItXBI -T'BI xaya 'xnai .a"nai dipb baai -a'ai nwaj un .j"i nu'a XpBJI .b"ji D'-ibid nai .o"i inns byi o"y-i dub ba byi .a"ay-i tb xa'pi .b'"pi inyi xpbD xpi .Y'dpi min jn ,mm iai -n"i .)j3i um .-i"m xj'bx mn .x"n ni'aya X3n .ya"an xin -pa B»npn .n"3n P'poy'XB3 xan .y"an xjiij 'xn .3"n (in Rashi) p.1 mty3 .n"y3 ntn Dbiy3 .t"ny3 mia by3 o"y3 na bya .a"y3 naix 'IB X113 -X"B3 onnj uB3i 3nsj ua3 .j"aai j"aa XBp X33 .p"3 'XBB> n'3 .W"2 D'-IBIX 'XBB' n'3 .X"B>3 .'1 DBU .-|"E>3 .3 (in "Rashi) XJ'inX XDTJ .X"J tn in n"j nB>jn tj -J"n3 nt dj .t"J niB> m'fj .E»"tJ (in Marginal DB1 nt D3 " Notes) DnDn nib'B3 .n"j nDTJ ,XDTJ .'U P DJ 0"J xnaj .'bj D'B>J 'BJ .J"3 mny ibj -tiy p .y"j D'ByB 'J .B"3 nD-ij .Oil nj niB» m'fj .b"'j •i -inx -iai .a"i 1E>BX'X1 .x"xi p xb dxi .a"bxi 'anxB'nxb'xi.n"nbxi -iBib xxan dxi .b"nxi 'an ixbai .n"xbai b'nnan mm .n"i (in Marginal Notes) Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 289 iBib B" liyi japb t"yi -b'yb t"yi iiyp'yi (in Tosaphoth) nB'p liyi (in Tosaphoth) fvy -pxi jb XB"pl t'anb bpi (in Marginal ]DDJ DB>1 Notes) .t -ibix nt .u'x nt nt nx nt -nt inx nt nt3 nt nn nt Diu nn nt na-iab Dixb fat naij jat nt oy nt .nt by nt ainan -ibxb* nt .n -iBxtn nyiBn bm DibB*i Dn pxb nxin nyia bB» ibin naiab Djnat u'aan D'-iaix D'aan nvnb bn pxb pn BBE>8 JB'in unp 'am x-iDna mon pu 'xn •b'"yi •y"yi •P"yi.y"xi •b/"pi •b"pi .J"B*1 ¦x"t •t"xt •t"3t •t"1t •J"tlt •b"t •3"B-bt .13"Bt ¦t"yt ..T'B't tapi naiB1 Bnn •nyia bB» ibin .to (axa nyBTi) 3X3 'a DV bl3B .x"n •an"n •i"n .b"m .B"B>in •b"tn •x"an •b"n il •B"n .p"ni8n ¦j"n •VB-n .p'lB'n •B'^n •3"a .'"13B i'by lmana x'xian .n"yBn n'xin 'bj 'an .j"n 'bj xan " b'yb anajn .b'Un nbyab naxjn " 'b'B un .a'Un xianDB 'bj 'an " X3n Dbiyn { *$™ ntnobiyn .t"myn ins 'an .ib-itb 'an .a"n onnj man .j"an papn .nB*pn .'pn -iaxp 'an .p"n xin ii-ia B>npn .n"3pn mua-i3 ain -3"-in mua-13 nnsiy 3in -a"y-in •Tian' DB*n .'"bvi .1 • max 'xi .x"xi xb'x n'y3 'xi .x"3xi -iaxn DXl .Y'xi 18131 .'UI D'lDnnb'BJi .n"3i bp xxani p"ii .p"ni (in Commentaries) pn xim .n"m 'bj pn xim .j"nm 'b'a um .a"jm D'-ibix D'aam .x"m -iaib B"i .b"'i D'Bnaa tsn .o"ii ibiai .'iai xa'n 'ai .n"ai xaby ibabi .y"abi 1BX1 (XB1 .Y'ai 'an dib»bi .n"ai -I3D 181 .D"B1 3naB> nai .b"'bi j"yi .'yi 290 Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. (dt it) T 3ns 13 KXl'3 p iaa -ia ba Dia 'xba 3n3 13 Dipa ba 'nxxs ia .yaB>a p ') njB'B *|D3 -ibxi txaa (-ibxje-) ainsB* 1B3 'b nxiJ ia xaby 'bia 'j'ba xb xaby 'bia D'aya naa .'J'ba 'a nvnb i'-iv ta xinB» ba •pB' ba t ana .b xjnnx xjB"b P'DIJ xb Dbiya Dnai vn xb xaby 'bia1? PB- ba xb n'b n'b .'b nab x'ya'a xb -ibxi txab X3n D*piyb it oy iiB>b xab mnyb u'ba xb 'nyi muy 'bS l (in Commentaries) J t»pb , X'B>p xb 'TB X'B"P xb CUB*) xjb» xb n'BB" xb y-in tiB«b D'BB* DB"b .nB>yn xb ."'a .3"va •a"a .a"a .Y'B3 .B*"B3 •b"J3 .y"a •a"3ya .a"a .b"xa •B""a .'"na •x"b •3"b •a'nnb •y"aS .B>"ab •b"b ¦B"b .Y'ab •a"nyb •t"yb ''yb •b"yb •B"b .Y'yab .Y'jya} ¦P"b •B"pb •B"'b n .Y'nB-b .B"'B*b •n"b ^un nxaia iny jnbiB*i ma (in Marg. Notes) 'xa xaya /ibid mya _i onaix B" (na) ia B" t'DIU B" main n' d'SB1 'T omsan dv 1'jabativ-i 'm main n' aia DV 1DJ t" 3B"b B" ."IBib B" D'BHBB B" D'-IDD B" DB> fiy y-in ix' 31B IX' Dnxa nx'X' tat nbi3n -u Blip t" tuaba pxi 'm D'BB* 'T IBB" 113n' .2 inx ba .dx 'a inxi inx ba biu tna p'D-13 ia Kjiu 'xna bii3n pa nbii3n nD3a ibn tBtbs-ntbs D'y-it 'xba .an*a .y'B'iB .oib •D"B .X"' •B"" .3'" •n"T • B>"T •n'" .3"m •a"ni' •a"-in' •n"' .tj"' • B"l' '.b'" .8"'• D'" .B"'y •Y'nx' •B"X' •B"X' •f'njp' •B"T .B1'" .E>"n' .X"3 •x"ixa •3"a ii .3"n3 .'13 •t"3 ') Name of Joseph Karo's Commentary on the code of Maimonides. Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 291 Dya jnu •a"3 D't nb'BJ •'"j ')flDl"piBU n b'ybsnaj.nbyabiBxj •b"J b nan '/ nj'B xpaj .B"J ab® ptJ .B"'J ¦iaB> ami .naB- -u n .D •xjnnx xuid .X"D onnx DneD >' inyi xpbD .Y'D xj'bx inyi xpbD .X"1D b'nnBn -nai pjid .1"1D niiai niD •8"1D JB'D • ''D n'b XT3D • b"D (in bnj mxa "IBD •3"BD Marginal Notes) 3) niB'BJ paD .J"D VpttD pBD .5)1D B)1D • D"D "ryo ''yD p-ia (qlD .B"D Xin3 pIB syiD •3"BD xap p-IB S|1D • P"£D min -ibd •n"D ninta pb'sn onac •a"nD .y -nay .j"y •'y D'b'bx mi3y .x"y 'x nay n nasi naa nnx by .V'axy .'a may .3"y 33 by ¦j"y , Tn to •Y'y DibB'n vby -pxn oy .n"y x3nobiy| .a"ny .3"my njB*B .'a pnax '8 ¦X"B 18'Bb X3'X 'XB .y'xa DV Ty3B .'"yaa a'nai 'xb .naxi jxa •Y'B D'-IBID '"1318 .D"na 'anDiB-B .D'nnjna -n"p fin nTB •Y'na 'b'B un xjb .B"nB u'D nna •D"na niB*n 'axba ¦v"na minn ib •n"nB IBIB .'BIB lacai npa •B"18 tnai XB'b u [in Marginal nt pnB • t"B notes) pxb nxina •b"na xaya 'xb •a"a -iaD -ib .d"b nB*y mxa •y"a nyb nya •b"ya jap iyia • P"B D'am ma .Y'B ma-i ame ii DibB-n vby U3-i nB»B •n"y-ia 3naB> na .xjb- 'xa .B"'B n3B" 'XX1B .UB»*lB"yB a 'an dib-b .n'^a D1B-B 'ie-b (maDina) mma- ma .n"'B*B mm tna ¦n"B tnuna .: xjnnx xnou .'una •X"J ii'xa anaj .3"J naun -ij •n"j ') Name of annotations to Alfasi's Talmudical compendium by R. Joseph b. Chabiba, often referred to in Tosaphoth Yomtov ( Heller). ') Name of the rabbinical code by R . Moses of Coucy. It is di vided into J'B*y commendatory, and J'lixb prohibitory laws. 292 Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. D"n bya nyx -n"3x niB'n ix .n"x tn3B* niB'n nx .B^nx nvnb inx .naib inx .b"x •jvy inx -y"x •P minn nxnp .n"np iBinibp) .ni:;p jb xa"p .b'"P I'anb bp -b"p tb yas-a xp .b"ap inyi xpbD xp .Y'Dp jvy inx nxp .y"-£p D'B>1p 'B»1p -p"p (in Tosaph.) nB'p nxp " .yaB> nxnp .B»"p .1 31 .'31 .'I -itybx n .ity'bx 'an .x"-i nnty p itybx 'an .y"ax-i (a n-iuBia(B) uan -a"-i xjn ia ia nai .n"33T Dbiy bB> um -y' tson bx'bej 131 .3""l xjinsi •njB'n cxi -n"-i Tn'S man .'"m D'ann man -Y'm B'-in b>x-i -n"i ' .njun 'ai ,x"n '3i " XIDn 31 " (niBDina) bxJjn 1331 " xax 13 x"n '3T .x"am }1B1B '31 .B"-| yB'in' n .mim '3i .'"n pnx' n .pnv n " J) 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. a) Frequently occurring in Tosaphoth Yom Tob (Heller' and referring to the Mishna Commentary by R. Obadja Bertinoro. ntn obiy ¦t"ny mf muy -nt by ¦t"y nmn 'any .n"y n'by .'"y (' apy fy 't 31B DV 3iy .a"vy naib B" my •b'"y b3 by ,;x3 ny .a"y ini3 by n uyj3 nay '/ inai jxa ny •Y'ay mbtai D'aaa taiy .D"i3y uiE>b txa ny •b"3y dub ba by •B"ay b'yb t"y •b"y njaby •B"y my j"y -'"ny nay ¦y"y D'b'bx miay naiy ¦a"yy D'nDB 'any ,'a by •a"y njB'n b"X-i aiy .n"-iy anin bx-i 3-iy •n"ny db> t"y ,naB- any .B""y t'Binn '3ny ¦n"y .3 nB-ia .pis .'a .'a pna .nnx oya •«"B .'3 pna .xnna pia .3"B (in To- DllQJIpn E'lTB •n"a saphot referring to Rashi) BH'B .''a piDa .'DB fl pDB • Y'DB xap pna | ¦ p"3 .p"-B bxJjn u3-i fTD .n'na (in Tosaphoth) on uan b»vb .n"ns (in Tosaphoth) Key ToABBRKV'ATI0*^***tTHK Talmud. 293 D'i3y ni i^„ iny inbc D"n mix iny tnbE> ntyn px iny tnbB"- nyn mv iny (nba* d:b*d ttvin -jny tnbB" B'-I'BB' nana niB* to'x n'bB> IBib U1X-IB" TaB" -IDIB' .D'BB" DB» -innB' -ibb1 nb'an yaiB* .n ITx xun DibpJiK Dunn 3X3 nyan — «-.WBn'n"nn W-. Tin nban ,WyavnDi-in ' nmDin xin un -Dan Tabn tnjin' Du-in dub" n'BDin aiDDi"niBDin Duna, mm. baa 'Biba-n man na im b'aina D'X'3J min naib nabn 'an 'bj xun xap xjn -qd xap xjn -ii3'x njyn tJ3-i un naa- Dinn -yov xn na by3K> mm .mm nabn ,o"b>'.y'B' a ¦n"x y/ig, y"nx y-:. ¦ •n"v y"B" •a"n y"& .'BB1 .B"B> .X"B> .b"x-iB» II .n"B« .x"n .a"n •n"n >t .a' in -'Din •n"n "'n u'"n •-"n .Y'an Y':n Yn .n"jn .p"n .D"pn ¦x"n n"n .B»"n .a"yaB'n .n"n 'X3t J3 pnv 'i ib p yB*in' n xjna an B"pb B""l Txa n tanj an .jnj 'i X3'py n pna B"i .xaa 'i jiyaB' "i ity^x p tiyaB* n DT13X p JIB'BB' 1J31 (niBDins) 'xnv p jiyBB- 'i bx'baj p pyBB- n TXB p bxiBB> n (niacin3) 'pnx' nabB'iJ3-i nnm 'b»x-i (niBDins) ,on mn "IB'BX 'NB" 13 fXB» nB"ya ia t'XB» p xb DXE» I'-IX U'XB> na byaa- D'an na'BB» .'an tbb* nai3 tBtnB- D'TB»n tb* niaiBm nibxB* nvnb bnB* 3in -ibb* 13 tw nu'a yBB* yiB 3'aB1 Dipa baaB* -laxjB-j •fan .b"an .a"-i •b"i .B"T .J"1 ,y"i .B"1 .B"'-| .x"aB>T ."'3B"n .j"3Bn .D"3BH .'"BH .n"n •n"n ^"XB".3"XB> .B"3NB> .3"bxE» .X"XB> .3;'y3B- •Y'B- •3"tnB> .B-'^B1 .n"lE> •b"nB" .n"ac> • 3"'B' .8"B» '/ .B"8B> ¦ 'JB' .'XJB" Typographical Work of A. Ginsberg. THEJEWISF? LAA*T marriage3cpivokce, In Ancient and Modern Tim „ ,>nd its Relation to the Laws of t\,U State, BY M. MIELZINER, PH. D., PROFESSOR HEBREW UNION COLLEGE, CINCINNATI, O. Cloth Binding, - Price, $2.00. ' Dr. Mielziner's book offers completely and scientifically, perfectly objective and impartial, the entire matter in the title page. The rich and instructive material of the book is en hanced, not only by the author's steady references to non- Jewish legislations on this subject, but als.o by his historical tact "ni pointing out all modern resolves and views on the most important points of his researches, which gives to the book an additional value, as that material was never compiled sepa rately. In form and style the book may be called a success. It is simple and perspicuous in style, perfectly intelligible to the ordinary reader, concise and strictly logical in consyjsjjji ion, arrangement and definition." This work has received the highest encomiums from the LEGAL, RELIGIOUS and^SECUL AR RR.E,SS in this country as well as abroad. SLAVERY AIVIONO HEBREWS, BY M. MIELZINER, PH. D., PROFES'.OR AT THE H. U. C. This treatise on an important ar>^i very interesting branch of Biblical Archreology was published in 1859, at Copenhagen and Leip zig, under the title, "Die Verhseltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebrseern, nach biblischen und talmudischen Quellen dargestellt." The little work attracted a great deal of attention in Germany, and was very favorably received by eminent scholars. It has since been quoted in numerous works on the different branches, of Biblical Liter ature and Antiquities, among others, in Oehler's Theology of the Old Testament, and especially in Herbert Spencer's Descriptive Sociology (No. 7). By request of some American scholars and theologians, the . late Professor H. I. Schmidt, of Columbia College, New York, fur nished an English translation, which was published in the Gettysburg Evangelical Revieir, vol. xiii. No. Ii. As both the original German edition and the English translation thereof are out of print, we republished Prof. Schmidt's translation, in a somewhat revised edition. Price 25 Cts. THE BLOCH PUBLISHING AND PRINTING CO., CINCINNATI, O.1 Bloch & Co., Chicago. III. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02457 1763