The Origin and Nature of the Babylonian Talmud

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE by the Romans, Judaism faced a crisis of identity. The Sages of the period, known as the Tannaim, gathered at Yavneh in an attempt to reformulate their religion now that the center, the Temple, was gone. There they established an academy and began studying the laws of the Torah, formulating the Oral Law which would become the Mishnah after Rabbi Judah Hanasi complied the relevant teachings of the Tannaim into one text in 200 CE. The generation after the Tannaim, known as the Amoraim, had academies both in Palestine and Babylonia. It is from the discussions held in these academies in Babylonia that the Babylonian Talmud, or Bavli, came to be.

Structure

Two elements make up the Talmud. They are known as the Mishnah and the Gemara.[i] The Mishnah is, "the first written summary of the Oral Law," while the Gemara consists of the explanatory commentary on the Mishnah passage.[ii] By and large, the redactors of the Talmud organized it in the same fashion as the Mishnah [iii], however only 36.5 of the 63 Mishnaic tractates have Gemara attached to them.[iv] The information given in the Talmud can be classified as either Halakhah, law, or Aggadah, which includes all issues not classified as Halakhah.

The Bavli employs a unique literary unit in the course of its discussions called the sugya, which means �course' or �lesson'.[v] The structure of the sugya itself originated in Palestine, but its shape and development took its present form in Babylonia.[vi] The sugya consists of "an extended discussion of a particular topic which incorporates many of the Tannaitic and other sources connected with it."[vii] According to Hyman Klein, the sugya has two distinct parts which he refers to as gemara and sevara.[viii] Gemara in this context consists of "the bare statements of an Amora," while sevara refers to the reason behind the Amora's statement or its special interpretation.[ix] The sugya are considered a special literary structure unique to the Bavli, which give it its distinctive style.[x]

As noted earlier, the Bavli consists of commentary on only 36.5 of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah. The traditional explanation for this, according to Gunter Stemberger, is that the missing tractates had no practical usage in Babylonia, and were therefore left out.[xi] He explains, "the agricultural laws were largely tied to the land of Israel, the purity laws were generally no longer practicable because there was no temple cult."[xii] However, he does explain that one exception exists. The tractate Qodashim, which deals with sacrificial regulations, was certainly obsolete after the destruction of the Temple, but Stemberger posits that the study of such regulations held similar value with that of the Torah, hence the need for its explanation.[xiii]

According to Adin Steinsaltz , the Talmud is structured associatively.[xiv] Its materials were transmitted orally in the academies, and its structure reflects that fact. "Talmudic discourse shifts from one subject to a related subject, or to a second that brings the first to mind in an associative way."[xv] Although the tractates are ordered in the fashion of the Mishnah, the subjects therein are organized in a way meant to stimulate interest in the material. Usually a subject will begin with a "somewhat puzzling introduction", to use Steinsaltz's explanation, which is expounded as one reads on.[xvi]

Generally speaking, each subject in the Talmud will begin with an excerpt from the Mishnah, followed by a discussion amongst the Amoraim regarding the particular Mishnah called the Gemara. Though sometimes the Amoraim veer seemingly off-topic in the Gemara, they tend to remain on topics that can relate back to the Mishnah in question in an associative manner, even further illustrating the origins of the Talmud as an oral exercise.[xvii]

Redaction

There are many popular theories concerning the redaction of the Bavli. The first theory is considered the traditional approach.[xviii] This approach names Rabbi and R. Natan as the end of the Mishnah, and Rav Ashi and Ravina as the end of the Talmudic teaching.[xix] To clarify, according to Abraham Goldberg, the Ravina in question is not Ravina survived by Rav Ashi. Instead, it is Ravina bar Rav Huna, who died in 499.[xx] However, it does not seem plausible that Rav Ashi was in fact the final editor of the Bavli since names of Sages who lived after his time do appear in the Gemara.[xxi]

According to the theory detailed by Goldberg, the Bavli could not have been edited by a single person. As Goldberg puts it, "The editing of the Babylonian Talmud must have had its beginning long before Rav Ashi and its final form was reached long after him."[xxii] Goldberg agrees that Rav Ashi must have played an important role in the composition of the Bavli, since a large number of the sugyot end with statements from him. He posits that rather than attributing the final editing of the Talmud to Rav Ashi, he should instead be considered as the end of the sugyot.[xxiii] Another indicator that Rav Ashi could not have been the final editor of the Talmud is that it was not appropriate for a textual editor to include the opinions of his own generation into the final composition.[xxiv]

The grounds on which the refutation of Rav Ashi's position as editor of the Talmud stand are the gemara of the sugyot, of which many are attributed to Rav Ashi. Goldberg postulates that after the generation of the Amoraim who laid the foundations of the sugyot, the gemara, the following generation, the Savoraim, inserted the sevara portion to link the gemara into the cohesive unit of the sugya.[xxv] To paraphrase Goldberg, the gemara are the �bricks', and the sevara are the �mortar'.[xxvi] Since Rav Ashi is credited for many gemara, and the sevara must be attributed to the generation following Rav Ashi, clearly he cannot be the final editor of the Bavli. Though the official close of the Talmudic teachings was with the Amoraim, and the official end of the sevara occurred during the generations of the Savoraim, many �unofficial' additions to the discourse were inserted as late as the Geonic period, which lasted until the twelfth century.[xxvii]

David Weiss Halivni posits a different theory on the redaction of the Talmud. According to his theory, The Tannaim and early Amoraim wrote in a strictly apodictic manner, leaving much of the "give and take" of Talmudic discussion unrecorded.[xxviii] In his paper, he argues for the existence of another generation of Talmudic scholarship, the Stammaim (427-501 CE), or �the anonymous ones'.[xxix] It was the Stammaim, according to this theory, who became aware of the importance of the discursive process undertaken by the Sages, and deemed it necessary to preserve such discussions in the Gemara.[xxx]

It is clear from the analysis of many seemingly forced Talmudic passages that the Sages did not have a uniform text of the Talmud to study from.[xxxi] Havlini draws the conclusion that, "The absence of an accurate text of the Talmud - the lack of faithful reproduction, as it were, of the sayings and statements of the sages as early as prior to the closing of the Talmudic period - is definite proof that the redactors of the Talmud were not contemporaries of the authors, that the redactors lived later, at a time when first hand information was difficult to obtain."[xxxii] This fact is important to keep in mind in relation to Halivni's theory, because since the first hand information was arduous to find, the Stammaim had to attempt a reconstruction of the discursive process of the Amoraim and even the Tannaim![xxxiii]

According to R. Sherira Gaon, the Mishnah and the Talmud emerged because "with each succeeding generation the hearts were weakened" and "were now in this [later] generation a matter of doubt [in need of recording and clarification]."[xxxiv] This is important to Halivni's theory. He argues that the Stammaim were concerned with the discursive materials which brought forth the apodictic laws on account of the decline of scholarship as the generations passed.[xxxv] It was not a matter of insight on the part of the Stammaim, it was in fact a sign of weakness, an indication of general intellectual decline.[xxxvi]

Rabbi Irwin H. Haut has managed to find some holes in Halivni's theory regarding the existence of the Stammaim. Haut explains that though Halivni's theory is quite novel, he has not adequately discussed a motive for the Stammaim, nor has he taken into account other possibilities for the anonymity surrounding much of the discursive material.[xxxvii] Haut postulates a different theory to explain the anonymous material. He maintains an equally viable theory may be that the anonymous passages were actually classroom discussions in which the Sage in question may have been directly answering inquiries made by his students, in which case the students would remain anonymous.[xxxviii] Haut points out that his theory does not cover every instance of anonymous material, however he feels that the lack of evidence surrounding the existence of the Stammaim is too great for Halivni's theory to be considered fact.[xxxix]

The final theory this paper will deal with was presented by Jacob Neusner in his book The Bavli's One Voice. He explains that since, "the Talmudic unit of discourse approaches the explanation of a passage of the Mishnah without systematic attention to the layers in which ideas were set forth, the schools among which discussion must have been divided, the sequence in which statements about a Mishnah law were made," it must be the case that the Talmud was formulated at the end of Talmudic scholarship, by a single person or group.[xl] He asserts that if the Talmud was really compiled over the span of many generations, as Goldberg posits, chronological considerations as well as contextual considerations (such as which school the opinion came from, etc.) would certainly be taken into account.[xli]

Another argument Neusner uses to support his theory is that the Talmudic choice of language, repertoire of problems and the text which governs the whole Bavli are all uniform.[xlii] This simply could not be the case if generation after generation were involved in the compilation. He maintains that the Talmud's "overriding program of inquiry" and "conformity with a single plan of rhetorical expression" can only point to one possible conclusion.[xliii] The Talmud was planned, compiled and edited by a single voice, not grown over the course of many generations.[xliv]

As the main authority in Jewish Law, the Talmud is an exceedingly important document, whose literary importance and character are unique. It's a document which has fascinated scholars for generations, and, with its controvertible origins, will certainly keep scholars intrigued for many generations to come. From the delicate crafting of the sugyot to the overall voice of authority that the Babylonian Talmud speaks with, it is clear why it has been the object of much research and debate over the centuries. Regardless of what one believes the nature and origin of the Babylonia Talmud are, he cannot discount the contribution the it has made to Judaism, its scholars and its admirers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[i] Adin Steinsaltz, "The Essential Nature of the Talmud," in The Talmud. The Steinsaltz Edition, A Reference Guide (New York: Random House, 1987), 1.

[ii] Steinsaltz, 1.

[iii]Lawrence Schiffman, "The Sea of the Talmud," in From Text to Tradition, A History of SecondTemple and Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1991), 224.

[iv] Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 191.

[v] Abraham Goldberg, "The Babylonian Talmud," in Shmuel Safrai, ed., The Literature of the Sages, First Part (Assen/Maasstricht: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortune Press, 1987), 337.

[vi] Stemberger, 203.

[vii] Goldberg, 337.

[viii] Goldberg, 338.

[ix] Goldberg, 338.

[x] Goldberg, 339.

[xi] Stemberger, 191.

[xii] Stemberger, 191.

[xiii] Stemberger, 191.

[xiv] Steinsaltz, 7.

[xv] Steinsaltz, 7.

[xvi] Steinsaltz, 7.

[xvii] Steinsaltz, 7.

[xviii] Stemberger, 192.

[xix] Goldberg, 341.

[xx] Goldberg, 341.

[xxi] Goldberg, 341.

[xxii] Goldberg, 341.

[xxiii] Goldberg, 342.

[xxiv] Goldberg, 342.

[xxv] Goldberg, 342.

[xxvi] Goldberg, 342.

[xxvii] Goldberg, 342.

[xxviii] David Weiss Halivni, "The Stammaitic Period," in Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 76.

[xxix] Halivni, 76.

[xxx] Halivni, 77.

[xxxi] Halivni, 77.

[xxxii] Halivni, 79.

[xxxiii] Halivni, 79.

[xxxiv] Havlini, 87

[xxxv] Halivni, 87.

[xxxvi] Halivni, 87.

[xxxvii] Irwin Haut, "Halivni: Theory of the Setam," in The Talmud As Law or Literature (New York: Bet Sha'ar Press, 1982), 8.

[xxxviii] Haut, 8.

[xxxix] Haut, 9.

[xl] Jacob Neusner, The Bavli's One Voice (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 460.

[xli] Neusner, 460.

[xlii] Neusner, 462.

[xliii] Neusner, 463.

[xliv] Neusner, 463.