Talk:Talmud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

request for dates

Someone ought to frame this article with some dates. Right now it's floating in one big moment. --MichaelTinkler

Terminology about "gemara"

This article begins with "The Talmud, also known as gemara, is a collection of Jewish scripture". But aren't the Talmuds the Mishnah plus gemara? Gemara printed by itself without the associated Mishnah wouldn't be a Talmud. Right? -- SJK

If the world made sense, you'd be absolutely correct. But religious Jews have their own slang, sometimes jokingly called Frum-speak, or "Hebronics", and this slang is used very consistently. A gemara printed by itself wouldn't be a Talmud; however, one never sees this in real life. The Mishnah is only about 10% of a Talmud, so it just is easier to print them both together. Gemara became, in practice, a synonym for the whole Talmud. You may note that Jews also have this same terminology problem when it comes to the word "Torah". it should mean the five books of Moses (and often does), but it also is used as a synonym for the combined written law (the entire Hebrew Bible) AND the entire corpus of classical rabbinic exposition on the Oral Law (the Mishnah, and both Talmuds. Further, Torah is also used forRK

Maybe we should note something like that in the article. I've always thought of Talmud as Mishnah+Gemara, but then my exposure to Judaism is limited to having read some books. But if that's the impression I got from reading books, doubtless others may get that impression also. -- SJK

Yes; I should try and note this in the main text of the article! And you are correct - Talmud is Mishna and gemara, and I hate it when people refer to the entire Talmud as "the gemara" for precisely this reason. But Orthodox Jews do this very often; Conservative Jews tend to do this less often. I guess the ambiguity arose because whenever someone reads the Talmud, 90% of the time it is the gemara portion of it that they are reading, so these terms (unfortunately) became synonomous. But if you want my real beef with Judaism (and I am a religious Jew) just try and get me started on anthropomorphic language. The medieval Jewish scholars like Maimonides and Gersonides were more advanced in many ways than most Jewish laypeople today. Christians don't have the same problem, because for them Jesus really is part of the Trinity, and Jesus was a human, so it isn't blasphemy for them to have anthropomorphic views of God in a literal sense. According to many rabbinic authorities, this view of God is supposed to be strictly forbidden - but in practice, Jews have anthropomorphic views of God almost as much as Christians do. I understand that this is a a natural thing for people to do, and the Bible itself certainly portrays God in such terms, but the glaring difference between later Jewish theological texts and actual beliefs held by laypeople bothers me. Sometimes I think some of my co-religionists are worshipping "God, the friednly heavenly miracle caterer that you can talk to!", while I am philosophically contemplating the groundsource of reality. Then again, they probably think of me as a Deist, and not a Theist! RK

Jews also have this same terminology ambiguity when it comes to the word "Torah". This word used to mean only the five books of Moses (and still often does), but it eventually became used as a synonym for the combined Written Law (the entire Hebrew Bible) AND the entire corpus of classical rabbinic exposition on the Oral Law (the Mishnah, and both Talmuds). Further, Torah is also used to denote the entire collection of Jewish law in its theoretical totality, which includes the Written Law, the entire corpus of classical rabbinic exposition on the oral law, and and ALL commentaries on that, from Talmudic times to the present! Thus, the word "Torah" may be used as a synonym for all of religious Jewish thought! One can usually figure out that meaning intended by the context, but that doesn't make it any better in my book. I prefer using more precise terms; Professor Jacob Neusner refers to the "Dual Torah" of the Jews, meaning the written law and the classical expositions on it. Since he uses this term consistently in his published works (over 400 of them!) it is easier to figure out than just the generic word "Torah". RK

Original versus censored editions

The discussion of the original versus expurgated editions should be continued into the modern era. I'm not qualified to write it, but isn't it true that there is now a trend to restore the unexpurgated text? Doesn't the Steinsaltz edition also attempt to undo the work of the Christian censors?

I wrote a few words about this. Please take a look and say what you think. Nahum 21:11 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraphs referring to Jeshu/Yeshu and will be adding pages refuting the libels that these refer to Jesus.

The situation is not as simple as you have presented it to be. Jayjg 21:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

clarification

"...regions destined to become the abodes of the Jewish spirit; and in all these countries intellectual interest centered in the Talmud."

Is the claim that "general" intellectual interest centered in the Talmud - or Jewish intellectual interest? Is there an argument that the majority non-Jewish population did not have intellectual interests, or that the majority non-Jewish population was deeply engaged in the study of the Talmud, or is this just sloppy language?

The article was discussing Jewish culture. It wasn't talking about Christian, Muslim or Hindu culture. There is nothing in this article that condemns non-Jews as being without intellectual interest! As for your statement "Does the word 'the' before abodes exclude?", that is not meant either. We can rewrite these sections to make them clearer. RK

Romm Brothers were Jewish!

Made one small amendment to text. Previously asserted that Romm printers were not Jewish. This was incorrect, so I fixed it. I know because I am their great great great grandson. Michael Romm

Notes about the article

Hi. First of all, I see that a great deal of work went into this page. Thanks to those who did it. Second, without getting into content, some points about the format, which maybe I'll get around to switching if people agree.

1. The list of tractates: in my opinion this is redundant, and should appear only in the Mishnah article. The only justification to have it in the Talmud article is if, for each tractate, the list contains information about whether or not there is gemara on that tractate (perhaps even how many folios). Also, the names of the tractates should be in English too (such titles can be legally taken from English translations if credit is given).

2. Even though I agree that important technical terms for which there is no exact English equivalent can be used in italics, it still shouldn't be done when there is a perfectly good English equivalent. E.g. Babylonian Talmud for Talmud Bavli.

3. A technical slip: rarely is the gemara printed without the Mishnah, but is has been. Most recently, the most accurate version of the Yerushalmi (whoops! Jerusalem Talmud) ever printed, based on mss, was issued in one large volume by the Academy for the Hebrew Language. It has gemara without Mishnah (a big mistake, in my opinion, but it happened.)

If nobody objects to these changes I'll try to make them.Zabek 18:51, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Talmudic History and Censorship

Sorry, Dbabbit, but you seem not to know very much about Talmudic history or censorship. There were passages in many of the other tractates that were also censored at various times in history (though primarily in the Middle Ages) because some authority or another thought them to be offensive to the dominant religious culture. It was not only Sanhedrin. In other instances, code words were used to mask true meanings: legends referring to Balaam are sometimes understood to be referring to Jesus (the name of someone who was perceived by the Rabbis as a false prophet was replaced by someone else deemed a false prophet). By the way, I don't have a set of Talmud here, but you might want to check if the passage was expunged or not. If it was, then it is hardly representative of the Talmud as it stands today, since it is fairly unchanging, to the point that page numbers are now a constant (although Steinzaltz did some revolutionary work with pages, even he maintained the numbering, which goes back several hundred years, but not as early as most of the censorship). In other words, if the passage was censoredm, it was probably not on 43a.

On a much broader scope, that passage is hardly representative of the content of the Talmud, which is actually two vast compendiums of Jewish law and legend. Quotations, which are rather limited in the context of an encyclopedia article, should reflect the totality of the work. The quote you did hardly does that. In fact, there are not that many quotations about Jesus in the Talmud--there are much more about Rome, for instance. There is a reason for this too--the dominant, Babylonian, Talmud was written in an area in which Christianity did not have the same dominant hold it had elsewhere. Finally, I can find countless quotes by various pillars of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant (Martin Luther is a good one), which are less than flattering to Jews, but I would not use them as a primary or sole quote, because I don not believe that they reflect the totality of their teachings. Danny 03:16, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, Danny. It was not my intention to dis Jews through my ignorance of Talmudic history and censorship. The correct way to handle content which you do not agree with, though, is to move it to another article with a "See also" link to it. We are called to respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect we are able to cooperate effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Etiquette.

I will move the content to Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud and make the "See also" links myself. Dbabbitt 10:25, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Can the Letter to Yemen quote also be moved into Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud? Dbabbitt 11:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dbabbit wrote: The correct way to handle content which you do not agree with, though, is to move it to another article with a "See also" link to it I dunno, I have been at Wikipedia since 2001 and I never heard that. I have been exceedingly respectful. You have written about something you know nothing about, making claims about texts you cannot put into context (your question about the Letter to Yemen is certainly indicative of that--it was written in response to the question by a certain community that was faced with conversion to Islam or death--Maimonides actually answered that they should act as Muslims at least outwardly, until they can resume a Jewish lifestyle. It is not Talmudic. It is not even part of his compendium of Talmudic law. It is a pastoral letter of advice from some 600 years after the Talmud was written.) Danny 13:26, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So what is the correct way to deal with claims about texts that I cannot put into context? Should I have just added them to the talk section and hoped someone as exceedingly respectful as yourself would respond? I have found you can learn just about everything you need to know by updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, etc. If I had just let the deletes happen I would still know as little about Talmudic history or censorship as I did before. From what you are saying I think you should write your own article about The Yemen Epistle. Or maybe I should, which would provoke you to indirectly add context to it in your own exceedingly respectful way.

And make sure to include my quote! :-) Dbabbitt 14:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the link to an article I have created about Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz says Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition. This has been the wrong way to go about getting the other side told and setting the record straight. The controversy is an article in the Jewish press (The Forward) telling Jews not to protest the Mel Gibson film because there are Jewish sources that were not Jesus-friendly (to "misquote" Danny). Dbabbitt

Misc. comments about terms

I have difficulties with the following paragraphs: Ezra Wax

A reaction against the supremacy of the Talmud came with the appearance of Moses Mendelssohn and the intellectual regeneration of Judaism through its contact with the gentile culture of the eighteenth century, the results of this struggle being a closer assimilation to European culture, the creation of a new science of Judaism, and the movements for religious reform. Despite the quasi-Karaite inclinations which appeared in early Reform Judaism, the majority of Jews clung to the Talmud as the primary document through which mainstream Judaism was understood.

The term intellectual regeneration seems to imply that only gentile culture can be dignified with the term intellectual. Ezra Wax

The text implies no such thing. RK

"Modern culture has gradually alienated most Jews from from Talmud study; Talmud is now regarded by the majority of Jews as merely one of the branches of Jewish theology."

What would be considered the other branches? Ezra Wax

There are many aspects of Jewish theology. See our article on Jewish principles of faith and Jewish philosophy. RK

On the whole Jewish learning has done full justice to the Talmud, many scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth century having made noteworthy contributions to its history and textual criticism, and having constituted it the basis of historical and archeological researches. The study of the Talmud has even attracted the attention of non-Jewish scholars; and it has been included in the curricula of universities.

It is difficult to swallow this praise when the Talmud (in Avos) itself says that the Torah shall not be used as a shovel with which to dig. The Torah also forbids non-Jews from studying it considering it a gift solely to the Jews. Ezra Wax

The Talmud in modern-day Judaism

Orthodox Jews use the Talmud as the basis for all subsequent laws, as such they consider any changes or lack thereof to be done in accordance with the talmud. This paragraph implies that Conservative Jews have got it right and that Orthodox Jews are simply deluding themselves. Ezra Wax

I don't see that; that paragraph says and implies no such thing. In fact, it only says that Conservative Jews are more willing to make changes to halakha, based on Talmudic methodology. As far as I know, Orthodox authorities agree that this is true; Orthodox rabbis say that one of the problems with CJ is that it makes such changes, when in fact they should not be doing so. RK

Changing text of the Talmud and halakha

The text below was put in the article itself by 68.196.200.233 - I'm cutting and pasting it here without opinion - David Gerard 10:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Thus, some Orthodox scholars are comfortable with admitting that when someone writes "later generations never disagree with a halacha in the Talmud", this is in effect only a legal fiction. In practice, legal authorities did disagree with what was in the Talmud, and in some cases actually changed the Talmud itself! This new Talmudic text then becomes legally binding, and we thus act as if there was no change."'

The above paragraph has no factual basis. In fact, the previous quote by the author states "Thus, even if individual portions of the Gemara were ADDED BY LATER GENERATIONS they did not change the halacha." Edits made were only to clarify the text - not to change the meaning.

That is not at all what Rabbi Turkel says. You are twisting his words to mean the opposite of what he stated. RK

Maimonidies explains that when someone might think the Talmudic Sages were mistaken, the doubter was missing the meaning (often metaphorical and/or theoretical) behind the text. Rav M. Tendler in the Journal of Halacha in Contemporary Society gives the example in the Talmud discussing a man who is half-earth. Does this mean the man grows from the ground as it suggests? No. Rather, the Sages are discussing the case of a decomposing body in the laws of purity. Only the uninformed (or to use Maimonidies word, "pathetic" [See his intro to Chailek]) person would consider the literal meaning of a man growing from the ground! - 68.196.200.233

And that is the point-of-view of Rabbi Tendler. It is not the point of view of Rabbi Turkel. RK

Role of the Savoraim in editing the Talmud

I have been taught that the Savoraim (Persian sages, 500 CE-650 CE) played a very important role in the smoothing and finishing of the text of the Babylonian Talmud; I have read about their work in some Modern Orthodox and in some Conservative sources. (See the quote by Eli Turkel in this article.) For those that disagree with Turkel's understanding, what other views of the Savoraim exist within Orthodoxy? In other views, what was the Savoraim's contribution to the Talmud, hlakha, ethics, etc?

Different articles with the same lists

At the moment, there are 3 separate articles which contain the same information (lists of tractates in a Seder) - albeit with variations: Mishna,Talmud and the articles on the orders (eg Nashim). I think these should be placed in one place and cross-linked. Any ideas where that should be? I think separating them into the articles on each of the Sedarim woudl be best, as that would decrease the size of the Mishnah and Talmud articles, allowing material more pertinent to those specificarticles be put up. Then, each Seder can have a list with abstracts (and possibly links to individual tractate pages),an overview of the Seder as well as differences in the orderings in various editions. Or can someone think of a better arrangement?

Also, some of the earlier abstracts (Zeraim) seem to be from the Jewish Encyclopedia or some other source. Can someone please confirm that (I assume this is copyrighted material)? Thanks Frikle 09:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RK's new historical section

RK has inserted a section on historical study, copied almost word-for-word from a similar insertion he has made in Mishnah (but without most of my changes in that text). It comes with a long list of references, most of which are not quoted directly and are supposed to be examples of the work of historical scholars quoted en passant in the text. In Mishnah, I have asked RK to trim these references, and I will request the same over here: please reduce this list to 5-7 good informative resources. I plan to unilaterally and randomly remove references if this move is not made soon by the contributor. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You seem bothered by this list of references. I do not understand why. Hundreds of articles and books exist on this subject. A list of about ten references is not onerous. Many Wikipedia articles have much longer reference sections. The reference list is matching people whose views are discussed within the main body of the article. It doesn't offer quotes from each of these people. I guess we can, if anyone thinks that it would be productive; however, I currently do not see the need to do so. It seemed prudent to instead summarize these schools of thought; this makes the text much shorter. Still, we can cut down the list; let me give it a try. RK

This subject, historical study of the Mishnah Talmud, could become an entire article, given the literature on the subject. (The same goes for the historical study of the midrash, but that would be very esoteric.) I don't have the time to research this properly, which is why I am making no attempt to expand this section. RK 17:45, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have made more cuts. The original list I offered a couple of days ago contained references for both Mishna and Talmud study (they are linked subjects); I have cut this initial list of about 20 references down to eight. This seems to be the minimum possible to cover one reference for each major point of view. RK 17:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's not just the references, but the bias towards one particular segment of this article. I'm sorry about the threat above - I appreciate your work on this and wish I'd had the time to add some content (e.g. responses from those opposed to textual criticism, e.g. Hirsch). JFW | T@lk 18:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It would be a good idea to add Hirsch's (and others) points of view as well. RK 19:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Conservative Talmud authorities

In "The most renowned Conservative Talmud scholars of the 20th century include Louis Ginzberg, Saul Lieberman, Judith Hauptman, David Weiss Halivni and Jacob Neusner."

I'm not sure I would include Judith Hauptman. In addition, Halivni, while he taught at JTS for decades would not consider him Conservative but I'm not sure what to do about that since much of his style was formed by interactions with Lieberman at JTS. In addition, Joel Roth should be added to this list.

Some within Modern Orthodoxy may consider Weiss Halivni as Orthodoxy, but the great majority of Orthodox Jews consider him as Conservative. In truth, there is no simple balck and white dividing line between the right-wing of Conservative Judaism and the left-wing of Orthodoxy. He is listed as Conservative for sociological reasons; he spent most of his life in the Conservative community as a Conservative Jew. And like many Conservative Jews of his generation, he did not believe that Conservative Judaism was a denomination of Judaism; like Solomon Schechter before him, he viewed it as a school of thought. Those who accept the positive-historical school of thought believe that this way of thinking is totally compatible with traditional rabbinic Judaism. RK 16:45, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

What about Shamma Friedman, who has probably directed more doctorates on the Bavli than the rest of them put together?

This is a very anglocentric discussion.

Critical Talmud study in Orthodox Judaism

The following is from Finding A Home for Critical Talmud Study by Rabbi David Bigman, Rosh Yeshivah, Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa, from The Edah Journal 2:1.

Our method for learning Talmud can be summarized in the following question: “What is it saying and what is it saying?” In order to make this question intelligible, we have to define what we mean by three crucial terms, “it”, “saying”, and “saying”. The first two have been well developed by the academic world. However, since that consensus is not widespread in the yeshivah world, I will summarize them here. It is the third where we have something to contribute to the discourses both of the yeshivah and of the academy....

...Once we comprehend the Talmud’s genre (“it”), our first task in learning a sugya is to identify and separate its strata. As we do so, we listen to what each voice is “saying”, that is, what each one means in its own context. This task requires expanding our study of primary texts, including the Tosefta, midrashic literature, and the Talmud Yerushalmi....Instead of accepting the Bavli’s formulations carte blanche, we first study memrot (statements) as they appear in the less edited Yerushalmi. This increases our ability to appreciate the character and significance of the positions themselves. (4)

...In the course of identifying original voices, the learner should utilize the wide corpus of manuscripts of the Bavli and other Rabbinic texts. (5)

Footnote 5. I am perplexed to no end by the taboo that accompanies manuscripts in much of the contemporary yeshivah world. One need only peruse the haskamot to Rav Raphael Natan Nata Rabbinovitz's Diqduqei Soferim to be impressed by what a radical innovation this taboo is and how valued manuscript comparison was to many of the gedolim of a century ago. This work, published between 5627 and 5646 (1867-1886), lists variants between the printed edition and the significant Munich manuscript of the Talmud and scattered other manuscript references, and includes his long essay on the history of printing of the Bavli. It received the glowing haskamot of no less than Rav Shlomo Kluger, zt"l, Rav Yoseph Shaul Ha-Levi Natanzohn, zt"l, Rav Ya'aqov Ettlinger, zt"l (the "Arukh la-Ner"), Rav Avraham Shemuel Binyamin Sofer, zt"l (the "Ketav Sofer”), Rav Yitsaq Elhanan Spektor, zt"l, and Rav Shimon Sofer, zt"l (the "Mikhtav Sofer").

Rabbi B. Barry Levy, Professor of Biblical and Jewish Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University, writes in Text and Context: Torah and Historical Truth, The Edah Journal 2:1, writes:

Similarly, text-critical work is a natural and important part of many classical rabbinic books; in fact, anyone who studies Mishnah, Talmud, midrash, and the like, finds rabbinic discussions of textual variants virtually everywhere. The editors of the Mishnah printed the variants right on the page; the printers of Babylonian Talmud did likewise. The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (author of the Torah Temimah), and many other respected writers concerned themselves with textual details and inconsistencies.

These are classic attempts to fix the texts, to correct them, to establish them, and to deal with inconsistencies in a text-critical way. Early commentators on the Talmud were more sensitive to issues surrounding the accuracy of texts than are most moderns, because they studied from manuscripts that often differed from one another in relatively significant and insignificant ways. Studying any text was predicated on first determining what it was.

Rabbinic culture today is generally far removed from such endeavors, and those who challenge the textual integrity of any holy book are often branded as heretics. The medieval rabbis studied from manuscripts, and they knew that manuscripts differ from one another. To see this applied to the Bible text, read any page of Norzi’s Minhat Shai. To see it applied to rabbinic texts, particularly the Babylonian Talmud, examine the notes and commentaries of the Vilna Gaon, and Rabbis Hayyim Bachrach and Samuel Strashun, and Diqduqei Soferim, writen by Raphael Rabbinovicz and supported by letters of approbation by seven rabbis, including Solomon Kluger, Joseph Saul Nathanson, Jacob Ettlinger, and Isaac Elchanan.

Jay writes that the following is "too much detail; links are better, repetitive and poorly organized material."

Most Orthodox Jews today view the biographical statements in the Talmud as being entirely historically reliable. However, some rabbis within Orthodoxy view critical Talmud study as acceptable, e.g. Rabbis David Bigman, B. Barry Levy, Eli Turkel and Raphael Natan Nata Rabbinovitz.

How is the one sentence deleted "too much material"? It is only one sentence. Why is this criticised as repetitive and poorly organized? It seems clearly set into four specific categories, with examples for each one. Each sections offers a handful of examples to back the statement up. What's too long or confusing? RK 14:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

The changes were not simply one deleted sentence, nor were they made to this one small area of the paragraph; rather they were made to the larger paragraph as a whole; see [1]. The paragraph you created mentioned in two places that most Orthodox Jews view it as entirely reliable (only one mention is necessary), and if it is viewed as entirely reliable then adding "biographical statements" in fact adds nothing. "Deficient" is an ambiguous term, so I said "unclear"; if you can think of a better term, feel free to change it to your preferred one. The Rabbis who accept some form of textual criticism are all Modern Orthodox, so this qualifier was added. The actual names are in my view unnecessary detail, particularly with the link provided. I think the lists of Rabbis names in general in this and other articles are usually too much detail, but your view may differ. Jayjg 15:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the Dikdukei Soferim "modern orthodox"? I'd say this is an anachronism. The word "critical study" means different things to different people, and the university-taught critical approach is not the same as the one employed by some of the major Acharonim (such as the Vilna Gaon) in correcting ancient texts. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, in regards to the critical study of the Talmud, their really is no difference between the methods used by the rabbis, and by university Talmud scholars today. The big divide is between those who allow such study, and those who now view this study as endangering the Talmud's status within Judaism. Higher textual criticism of the Talmud, until recently, was a mainstream part of rabbinic Judaism. How could it not be? No rabbis had ever claimed that one person wrote the entire Talmud, or that the text of the Talmud had ever changed. It was always understood that it contained the statements and views of many people, written over many centuries. The only real strictures were against higher criticism of the Tanakh in general, and the Torah in specific. The newly developed widespread reticence towards higher textual study of the Talmud only developed after the development of modern day higher criticism of the Torah, and the resulting documentary hypothesis. As far as I can tell, 200, 400 and 600 years ago, the atttiude against higher textual Talmud study was a very minority position, if not totally non-existent. RK 21:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Note: Higher criticism of a text merely means studying how a text was compiled from earlier sources, nothing more. RK