Kaphri, Mahuza, Shekhansib, 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 (D*KΙit3⅛), ⅛.e. j mere “discussers, speakers,” because, unlike the Mishnic doctors, who were and are called Tannaim (D'N2Π) j t>. j “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 farfetched. But there is another difference. The Palestinian Talmud, besides containing legal and religious discussions, is a storehouse of history, geography, and archaeology, 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 (n∏O y3B>), put forth by Hillel (fΓosephto 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 (∏∏0 K ,i PB*), put forth by R. Yishma'el (Introduction to Siphro), which can, however, be traced in mice to the foregoing “Seven Rules”: both these are for the Halakhah ; and (3) there are also the Thirty-two Rules (n∏0 D'ΠBH D'E⅛B ’), put forth by R. Eli'ezer 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 externa] 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 Mishnah (q.v.). 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 . . . ’ □ κn□S∏1 (“and the the civil government is the law,” t.e., that except in religious matters the Jew must submit to the laws of his country (T. B., Bαbα Βathra, 54b). Shemuel aud Rab (like Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish, Abayye and Raba, and others), though intimate friends, nevertheless differ on nearly all imaginable points, so that when the Talmud wishes to give firmness to a certain decision or opinion, it uses the phrase; “Rab and Shemuel, &c., both agree.”

decision is according to so and so ”) occur in the Babylonian Talmud are a later addition. They belong to the Halakhoth Gedoloth f and are consequently, at the earliest, of the 8th century, but are probably of even much later date.

Editors.—The editorship of the Palestinian Talmud is generally, after Maimonides, ascribed to Rabbi Yohanan (b. Napha). But this, if literally taken, is a gross mistake, as that teacher (ob. 279) died more than a hundred years before the latest Amorα (c. 450) mentioned in that Talmud. A similar error is made with respect to the editor or editors of the Babylonian Talmud, whose names are given as Rab Asshi (see Rab) (ob. 427) and Rabina (ob. 550), and who lived still much earlier than the last teachers mentioned in that Talmud (8th century). But it ought to be remembered that when the ancients speak of editors of books of such a mixed character as the Mishnah, the Zohar, both Talmuds, &c., they mean the person or persons who gave the first impulse to the collection or redaction of such books. In this sense, certainly, Rabbi Yohanan was the editor of the Palestinian and Rab Asshi and Rabina were the editors of the Babylonian Talmuds. For, whilst the first of the latter pair went more than once through the discussion of the whole Mishnah by the Amoraim from 190 to his time (c. 427), the latter supplemented the collection down to his own time (550). As regards the Babylonian Talmud, the Amoraim were succeeded by a new order of men called Saboraim (p3Ι 'X")13D), i∙e∙, “opiners,” who ventured only occasionally to revise and authenticate the sayings of their predecessors. The last of these Saboraim were Rab Tna (or Giza) and Rab Simona (c. 550-590). In any case neither the one Talmud nor the other was written down, slight private notes excepted (dηγ ∣ d JT)Sjo), before the close of the 6th century, if then. The apparently insurmountable difficulty of keeping such vast masses of literature in the head is removed when one takes into consideration that both teacher and student had means of help to their memory fully corresponding to the vastness of the literature. In the first place, they had the numbers already occurring in the Mishnah (e.g., five must not separate the heave-offering on account of the benediction to be recited in connexion with the act; Terumoth i. 1), &c. Secondly, they had names. Since to the sayings of the Talmud were generally attached the names of those who uttered them, saying and name became in the memory of the student identical. If somebody who had heard a certain saying from somebody, who in his turn had heard it from somebody else, was mentioned in the Talmud, all other sayings, however unlike these in nature, if they had only the same link of tradition, were recited on the same occasion: e.g., in the Palestinian Talmud, Megillah iv. 1, “says Rabbi Haggai, says Rabbi Shemuel b. Rab Yishak,” &c.; T. B., Berakhoth, leaf 3δ, Arc., “says Rabbi Zerika, says Rabbi Ammi, says Rabbi Yehoshua' b. Levi,” &c. Thirdly, other oral traditions, which went by the order of the Pentateuch, received in the written Pentateuch vast aids to memory. Fourthly, the Mishnah (although itself not written down), by its divisions, subdivisions, and sub-subdivisions, became, in its turn, a mighty aid to memory. Fifthly, as regards the Babylonian Talmud, there are additional means of aiding memory in existence, for every now and then one meets with a Mnemosynon (Siman), which strings together the order of subjects (e.g., T. B., Berakhoth, '3 c la, last line). Both in MSS. and printed editions these Simanim are given in brackets. Rapoport and his followers would have us believe that these mnemonic phrases are late inventions, but they have as yet failed to make good their assertions. See T. B., Shabbath 104α, and T. B., Hrubνn, 54ό, where these Simanim are positively mentioned early in the 4th century; cf. Rashi in loco.

Value.—The value of the Talmuds may be estimated by the fact that they contain the Mishnah in various recensions and a large portion of the contents of Midrashic collections, and in addition comprise a vast amount of Sopheric literature not to be found in the canonical Mishnah and Agadic matter not to be found in the known Midrashim, and have thousands of notices on secular knowledge of all kinds. Here, however, the reader ought to be again reminded that, whilst the Babylonian Talmud, the one of much larger extent, contains a great deal more Judaeo-religious matter, the Palestinian Talmud—of much smaller extent—is of much greater value for the historian, the geographer, the numismatist, and other students.

Vicissitudes of the Talmud.—Whilst the Babylonian Talmud commanded the attention of a hostile world, and was proscribed, mutilated, and condemned, and finally delivered over to the flames by popes and kings, the Palestinian Talmud suffered still more from one single enemy—neglect. Thousands of copies of the former recension were destroyed in the course of time, but, this Talmud being studied in all parts of the world, the few copies surviving became the means of an endless supply. Not so as regards the Palestinian Talmud, which found no students, or but few, after the closing (c. 450) of the Jewish academies in Palestine; and we have even to thank the enemies of traditional Judaism, the Karaites, who used it in controversy with their Rabbanite opponents, for the preservation of some copies of it. By degrees the neglect of the book became so great that whole chapters of treatises, whole treatises of orders, and almost two whole orders themselves, disappeared, and are lost to this day.

Aids to the Study of the Talmuds.—(a) Lexicons.—The first rank is occupied by lexicons for both Talmuds and Midrashim, and of these that by R. Nathan b. Yehiel of Rome, compiled in the 11th and 12th centuries, claims the first place. All other lexicons, from Elias Levi ta, Philip Aquinas, Johannes Buxtorf, &c., down to Levy and Jastrow, are more or less based upon this grand work called 'Arukh. (b) Grammars.—A slight attempt at compiling a grammar, and this only for the Babylonian Talmud, was made by the late learned S. D. Luzzatto. It exists in Italian (Padua, 1865), German by Krüger (Breslau, 1873), English by Goldammer (New York, 1876), and Hebrew by Lerner (St Petersburg, 1880). Of more value, however, is Noldeke’s Mandaitic Grammar, although it stands in connexion with the Babylonian Talmud only in an indirect way. (c) Commentaries.— Commentaries on the greater portion of the Babylonian Talmud are extant, by the famous Rabbenu Hananeel of Kairwan, the teacher of Riph ⅛.v.), by Rashi (q.vf, and by the descendants and disciples of this latter commentator, who composed the Tosaphoth. All these are included in the latest Talmud edition of Vilna. It is asserted by Rabäd II. {q.vf that the whole (B.) Talmud had been commented on in Arabic. As regards the commentaries on the Palestinian Talmud, it ought to be said that the Pene Mosheh, &c., by R. Mosheh Margaliyyoth, and the Korban II<xedah, &c., by R. David Fränkel (the teacher of Mendelssohn), make more than one commentary on the whole, and they are embodied in the Zhitomir edition (1860-67). (d) Methodology.— Among the many Introductions to the Babylonian Talmud that of R. Shemuel Hannagid must noλv be considered the first, not only in time but also in value. There was indeed an earlier, and perhaps a still more valuable one in existence (see Saadia), but it is now unfortunately lost. As regards the Palestinian Talmud, the only one in existence is that by the late Z. Frankel (Breslau, 1870, 8vo). The author was a most learned man, but somewhat confused in his diction, (e) Translations.— Renderings of isolated treatises of the Babylonian Talmud exist in Latin, Ugolini, Thesaurus, xix., Zebahim and Menahoth, and xxv., Synhedrin; in French, e.g., Berakhoth, by Chiarini (Leipsic, 1831,

8vo); and in German, e.g., Berakhoth, by Rabe (Halle, 1777, 4to), regard being had also in both to the same treatise of the Palestinian recension, and again by Pinner (1842); Baba Mesi ’ a, by Sammter (1876), both at Berlin and in folio; 'Abodah Zarah, by Ewald (Nuremberg, 1856, 8vo); Tdanith, by Straschun (Halle, 1883); Megillah and Rosh Hasshanah, by Rawicz (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1884 and 1886). The assertion that the whole of this Talmud has been translated into Spanish has yet to be proved. As regards the Palestinian Talmud, Ugolini’s Thesaurus contains the following treatises in Latin :— Pesahim (vol. xvii.); Shekalim, Yoma, Sukkah, Rosh Hasshanah, Tdanith, Megillah, Hagigah, Besah, Mded Katan (vol. xviii. ); Mdaseroth, Mdaser Sheni, Hallah, 'Orlah, Bikkurim (vol. xx. ); Synhedrin, Makkoth (vol. xxv. ); Kiddushin, Sotah, Kethuboth (vol. XXX. ). Μ. Schwab (of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) has undertaken a French translation of the entire Palestinian Talmud, which is now in progress; from this Berakhoth has been translated into English (London, 1886, 4to).

Editions.— The editions of the Palestinian Talmud, in what was then called its entirety, are only four:—(a) Venice, 1523, without any commentary; (5) Cracow, 1609, with a short commentary, the text apparently from a different MS. from that used for the editio princeps; (c) Krotoschin, 1866, with a short commentary differing from that of Cracow: these three editions are each comprised in one volume; (cZ) the fourth edition came out at Zhitomir, with commentaries by different men (see Commentaries above). All these editions are in folio. Of the editions of isolated treatises, which are not a few, we will only mention those of Berakhoth (Vienna, 1874) and Peah and Demai (Breslau, 1875, both in 4to), with a new commentary by Z. Frankel. The editions of the Babylonian Talmud are so numerous that they would require several entire sheets for enumeration. There is in existence an approximately good treatise on them (see Variae Lectiones, vols. i. and viii.). We will only name three of the entire editions (1) the editio princeps, Venice, 1520-23, —which, though disfigured by numerous misprints, was not mutilated by the censor; (2) the edition of Basel (1578-81), which omits 'Abodah Zarah altogether, and has a cheering (?) notice in Latin; (3) the latest edition, now printing·at Vilna, with old commentaries hitherto unpublished. Of isolated treatises, which may be counted by more than hundreds, we will only mention one (the Portuguese of at least Berakhoth), the existence of which was asserted in the last century {Pahad Yishak, s.v. N∏Ι∏ΠDΠ K∏ll), then again called in question in our own times, but positively proved by the present writer from an early work composed at the time when but few editions of the Talmud existed. It is the Zerd Abraham (Camb. MS. Ti. 6. 50, leaf 595). Materials for the critical edition of the Babylonian Talmud from an ancient MS. formerly in the monastery of Pfersee, but now in the Royal Library of Munich, and other MSS. and early prints of isolated treatises in various public and private libraries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, have been collected and are being published by Rabbinovicz. Of this important work fifteen volumes, containing the following treatises, have already come out:—the whole SederZerdim (1867); Besah, Hagigah, Mded Katan (1869); Su,kkah, Tdanith (1870); Rosh Hasshanah, Foma (1871); 'Enιbin (1873); Pesahim (1874); Shabbath (1875); Megillah, Shekalim (1877); Synhedrin (1878); 'Abodah Zarah, Makkoth, Shebdoth, Horayoth, 'Eduyyoth (1879); Baba Bathra (1881); Baba Kamma (1882); Baba AÎesi'a (1883); Zebahim (1884); Menahoth (1886). All these were printed in 8vo and at Munich, except vol. ix., which came out at Mainz.

Influence of the Talmud.— It must be admitted by every critical student of history that the Talmud has not merely been the means of keeping alive the religious idea among the Jews, but has formed their strongest bond of union. When, after the fall of the city of Jerusalem and its temple, and the expatriation of the Jews from Palestine, a goodly portion of the Mosaic law lost its application, the Talmud became the spirit which put fresh life into the letter which had become to a great extent dead. Moreover, by the Talmud, the interpretation of which was chiefly in the hands of the academies of Sura and Pumbaditha, the Jews of all the world found, if not a new Jerusalem, at least a new Yabneh (Jamnia), i.e., a place where the old learning was not merely continued, but made to shine with a yet greater splendour. This fact will be the more readily acknowledged and appreciated when one casts a glance at the miserable religious condition of the Karaites, the so-called Scriptural Jews.

Transference of Talmudic Learning from the East to the West.— There naturally came a time when Talmudic learning, if it was to maintain its influence upon the Jews, could not be confined to one spot. We have seen under Rashi (q.vi} that the great emperor of the West (Charlemagne) had been the means, towards the close of the 8th century, of bringing learned Talmudists not only to Provence but to the north of France and the south of Germany. But when nearly two hundred years later the academies of Babylonia were threatened with extinction (because of their lacking, from various causes, the means of subsistence), so that they had to send out members of their body to supplicate the support of their richer brethren in other countries, it providentially happened that the four men whom they sent were taken by a Spanish corsair admiral and sold in four different slave-markets. Rabbi Shemaryah was sold at Alexandria, and was redeemed by the Jews, and great was their astonishment when they recognized in him a most able Talmudist. He became the head of the Cairo community, and one of the most successful Jewish Talmud teachers Egypt ever had. Rabbi Husshiel was taken...