Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 23.djvu/46

Rh Ḳaphri, Maḥuza, Shekhanṣib, but notably at the two great academies of Sura and Pumbaditha, from about 190 to nearly the end of the 6th century. The doctors of both recensions, although they primarily discuss the correctness of the text and meaning of the Mishnah, and what should be the right legal decision according to it, do not confine themselves to this. They introduce, as occasion serves, not merely the whole of the oral tradition handed down to their time, and the necessary references to, and interpretations of, the various laws to be found in the Pentateuch and the other sacred writings, but exhibit also, though only in a fragmentary manner, an almost complete cycle of the profane sciences as current orally and known to them by books composed by Jews and Gentiles. The doctors of both these recensions were and are called Amoraim (ותלמור ) i.e., mere "discussers, speakers," because, unlike the Mishnic doctors, who were and are called Tannaim (ותלמור) "learners, teachers," they abstained from making new laws unless absolutely compelled by circumstances to do so. These Amoraim stand, on the whole, in the same relation to their Mishnic predecessors as counsel giving a legal opinion, or judges deciding legal cases, stand to the legislature which frames the laws. In these points the doctors of both recensions agree. There are, however, also points of considerable difference between the two Talmuds. These are not merely geographical, and so necessarily linguistic, but also material. Whilst the discussions in the Palestinian Talmud are simple, brief, and to the point, those in the Babylonian Talmud are subtle, long-winded, and, although always logical, sometimes even far-fetched. But there is another difference. The Palestinian Talmud, besides containing legal and religious discussions, is a storehouse of history, geography, and archæology, whilst the Babylonian Talmud, taking into consideration that it is treble the size of its fellow Talmud, contains less of these. On the other hand, it bestows more care upon the legal and religious points, and, being the later and the more studied of the two, it is also the more trustworthy.

System of the Talmud.—Most people imagine not only that the Talmuds are a pathless wilderness, without so much as grammatical rules in their respective languages, but that the laws laid down in them rest on mere tradition. In reality their languages have strictly grammatical rules (see below under Aids, &c.), and their laws rest on a strictly logical system. The laws in both Talmuds are discussed and argued on philosophical rules, for which it is claimed that they have existed from time immemorial, and can be traced to the Pentateuch itself. These are — (1) the Seven Rules (ותלמור ס) put forth by Hillel (Tosephto Synhedrin, vii., last §; Siphro, towards the end of the Introduction; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, xxxvii.) but a great deal older than his time; (2) the Thirteen Rules (ותלמור תורק בבר לסס ) put forth by R. Yishmaˤel (Introduction to Siphro), which can, however, be traced in nuce to the foregoing "Seven Rules": both these are for the Halakhah; and (3) there are also the Thirty-two Rules (ותלמור תורק בבר לסס) put forth by R. Eliˤezer b. R. Yose Haggalili (vol i. of most editions of the Babylonian Talmud), which are for the Agadah. In addition, most of the points to which these rules apply are secured by early tradition. It is quite true that by idiosyncrasy digressions are very frequent both in Talmud and Midrash; but in the Halakhah the digression, however long, invariably ends in coming back to the original cause of the logical combination, whilst in the Agadah the digression either comes back to the place from which it started, or else will be found, on examination, to have been introduced for its own sake, and have served its own purpose. As the doctors of Talmud and Midrash are mostly introduced in dialogues, this is the only practical, if somewhat uncommon, method.

Division of the Talmud.—The external division of both Talmuds is identical with the division, subdivision, and sub-subdivision of the Mishnah, although there is not always Gemara in the one when there is Gemara in the other. This, however, need not be further discussed here, as all on this head is minutely specified in. Concerning the internal division into Halakhah and Agadah, it ought to be said that the former is more largely represented in the Babylonian Talmud, whilst the latter is more largely and more interestingly given in the Palestinian Talmud. Whole collections of Midrashim now in our hands have constituted (if we may judge from the known to the unknown) part of the Palestinian Talmud, and seem to have chiefly belonged to those portions of it which have been gradually lost.

Purpose.—The Talmud, unlike the Mishnah, contains not only individual decisions, but everything that is necessary for arriving at legal and religious decisions of whatever description these may be, whilst, like the Mishnah, it is not itself a handbook of decisions. This is only in accordance with the nature and spirit of an oral law which delegates the decisions to the Talmudico-speculative capacities of the teachers of every age. Even several of the comparatively few instances in which the words ותלמו ("and the