|
|
유대교의 전승
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
유대교의 문학
|
|
A paradigmatic statement is made in the narrative that begins with
Genesis and concludes with Joshua. In the early chapters of Genesis the
divine is described as Creator of the natural order, including mankind. In
the Eden, Flood, and Tower of Babel stories, man is recognized as
rebellious and disobedient. In the patriarchal stories (about Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph) a particular family is called out of humankind
to restore the thwarted relationship through personal and communal
responsiveness. The subsequent history of the community thus formed is
recounted so that the divinely sought restoration may be recognized and
the nature of the obedient community may be observed: the Egyptian
servitude, the going out from Egypt, the revelation of the
"teaching," the wandering years, and finally fulfillment through
entrance into the "land" (Canaan). The prophetic books (in the
Hebrew Bible these include the historical narratives up to the Babylonian
Exile--i.e., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) continue to deal
with the rebellion-obedience tension, interpreting it within the changing
historical context and adding new levels of meaning to the
fulfillment-redemption motif. (The literature of the Old Testament is
treated in the article BIBLICAL LITERATURE.) |
|
|
It is from this "narrative theology," as it has been recited
throughout the centuries, that new formulations of the primal affirmations
have been drawn. These have been clothed in a number of vocabularies:
philosophical, mystical, ethnic, political, and others. The emphases have
been various, the disagreements often profound. No single exposition has
exhausted the possibilities of the affirmations or of the relationship
between them. Philosophers have expounded them on the highest level of
abstraction, using the language of the available philosophic systems.
Mystics have enveloped them in the extravagant prose of speculative
systems and in simple folktales. Attempts have been made to encompass them
in theoretical ethical statements and express them through practical
ethical behaviour. Yet, in each instance, the proposed interpretations
have had to come to terms with the biblical affirmations and with the
particular mode of understanding them required by the spiritual and
intellectual demands arising out of the community's experience. The
biblical texts, themselves the products of a long period of transmission
and embodying more than a single outlook, were subjected to extensive
study and interpretation over many centuries and, when required, were
translated into other languages. The whole literature continued to provide
the basis of further developments, so that any attempt to formulate a
statement of the affirmations of Judaism must, however contemporary it
seeks to be, give heed to the scope and variety of speculation and
formulation in the past. |
|
|
The concept "Giver of Torah" played a central role in the
understanding of God, for it is Torah, or "teaching," that
confirms the events recognized by the community as the act of God. In its
written form, Torah was considered to be especially present in the first
five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch), which therefore came to be
called Torah. In addition to this written Torah, or "Law," there
were also unwritten laws or customs and interpretations of them, carried
down in an oral tradition over many generations, which acquired the status
of oral Torah. (see also Index: Jewish law, Oral law) |
|
|
The Talmud ("study" or "learning") is the literary
culmination of this oral tradition, which, according to the rabbis who
created the Talmud, originated at Mt. Sinai as part of the divine
revelation vouchsafed to Moses, along with the material recorded in the
Pentateuch. In its broadest sense, the Talmud is a set of books consisting
of the Mishna ("repeated study"), the Gemara
("completion"), and certain auxiliary materials. The Mishna is a
collection of originally oral laws supplementing scriptural laws. The
Gemara is a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of the Mishna,
which in "the Talmud" is reproduced in juxtaposition to the
Gemara. For present-day scholarship, however, Talmud in the precise sense
refers only to the materials customarily called Gemara--an Aramaic term
prevalent in medieval rabbinic literature that was used by the church
censor to replace the term Talmud within the Talmudic discourse in the
Basel edition of the Talmud, published 1578-81. This practice continued in
all later editions. (see also Index: Sinai covenant) |
|
|
The term Midrash ("exposition" or "investigation";
plural, Midrashim) is also used in two senses. On the one hand, it refers
to a mode of biblical interpretation prominent in the Talmudic literature;
on the other, it refers to a separate body of commentaries on Scripture
using this interpretative mode. |
|
|
The oral tradition interpreted the written Torah, adapted its precepts
to ever-changing political and social circumstances, and supplemented it
with new legislation. Thus the oral tradition added a dynamic dimension to
the written code, making it a self-regenerating, endless source of
guidance, a perpetual process rather than a closed system. The vitality of
this tradition is fully demonstrated in the way the ancient laws were
adapted after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and by the role the
Talmud played in the survival of the Jewish people in exile. By the 11th
century, Diaspora Jews lived within a Talmudic culture that unified them
and that superseded geographical boundaries and language differences.
Jewish communities governed themselves according to Talmudic law, and
individuals regulated the smallest details of their lives by it. |
|
|
Central to this vast structure was, of course, the Jewish community's
concern to live in accordance with the divine will embodied and expressed
in Torah in the widest sense. Scripture, Halakhic and Haggadic Midrash,
Mishna, and Gemara were the sources from which the leaders of the
communities drew in order to provide both stability and flexibility. The
dispersion of the Jews outside Palestine confronted communities and
individuals with novel and unexpected situations that had to be dealt with
in such a way as to provide continuity while at the same time making it
possible to exist with the unprecedented. |
|
|
Torah in the broad sense includes the whole Hebrew Bible, including the
prophetic books. In biblical prophecy, God is seen as continuing to be
disclosed in the nexus of historical events and as making ethical demands
upon the community. According to rabbinic Judaism, this source of
Torah--the charismatic person--dried up in the period of Ezra (i.e., about
the time of the return from the Babylonian Exile in the 5th century BCE).
This opinion may have been a defensive reaction to the luxuriant growth of
apocalyptic speculation about the end of the world and the kingdoms of
this world, a development that was considered dangerous and unsettling in
the period after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE). Indeed, there appears
to have developed an ongoing suspicion that unrestrained individual
experience as the source of Torah was inimical to the welfare of the
community. Such an attitude was by no means new. Deuteronomy (13:2-19) had
already warned against such "misleaders." The culmination of
this attitude is to be found in a Talmudic narrative in which even the bat
qol, the divine "echo" that announces God's will, is ignored
on a particular occasion. Related to this is the reluctance on the part of
teachers in the early Christian centuries to point to wonders and miracles
in their own time. Far from expressing an ossification of religious
experience--the development of the Siddur and the Talmudic reports
on the devotional life of the rabbis contradict such an
interpretation--the attitude seems to be a response to the development of
such religious enthusiasm as was exhibited, for example, in the behaviour
of the Christian Church in Corinth (I Cor.) and among Gnostic sects and
sectarians. Thus, even among the speculative mystics of the Middle Ages,
where allegorization of Scripture abounds, the structure of the community
and the obligations of the individual are not displaced by the deepening
of personal religious life through mystical experience. The decisive
instance of this is Joseph Karo (16th century), who was thought to be in
touch with a supernal guide, but who was, at the same time, the author of
an important codification of Jewish law, the Shulhan 'arukh. |
|
|
Admittedly, there have been occasions when Torah, even in the wide
sense, has been rigidly viewed and applied. In certain historical
situations, the dynamic process of rabbinic Judaism has been treated as a
static structure. What is of greater significance, however, is the way in
which this tendency toward inflexibility has been checked and reversed by
the inherent dynamism of the rabbinic tradition. |
|
|
In modern times--since the end of the 18th century--the traditional
position has been challenged both in detail and in principle. The rise of
biblical criticism has raised a host of questions about the origins and
development of Scripture and thus about the very concept of Torah, in the
senses in which it has functioned in Judaism. Naturalistic views of God
have required a reinterpretation of Torah in sociological terms as the
ideals and sancta (holy things) of the Jewish people. Other and varying
positions of many sorts have been and undoubtedly will be forthcoming.
What is crucial, however, is the concern of all these positions to
retain--with whatever modifications are required--the concept of Torah as
one of the central and continuing affirmations of Judaism. (see also Index:
exegesis) |
|
|
Despite the central place of the Talmud in traditional Jewish life and
thought, significant Jewish groups and individuals have opposed it
vigorously. The Karaite sect in Babylonia, beginning in the 8th century,
refuted the oral tradition and denounced the Talmud as a rabbinic
fabrication. Medieval Jewish mystics declared the Talmud a mere shell
covering the concealed meaning of the written Torah, and heretical
messianic sects in the 17th and 18th centuries totally rejected it. The
decisive blow to Talmudic authority came in the 18th and 19th centuries
when the Haskala (the Jewish Enlightenment movement) and its aftermath,
Reform Judaism, secularized Jewish life and, in doing so, shattered the
Talmudic wall that had surrounded the Jews. Thereafter, modernized Jews
usually rejected the Talmud as a medieval anachronism, denouncing it as
legalistic, casuistic, devitalized, and unspiritual. |
|
|
There is also a long-standing anti-Talmudic tradition among Christians.
The Talmud was frequently attacked by the church, particularly during the
Middle Ages, and accused of falsifying biblical meaning, thus preventing
Jews from becoming Christians. The church held that the Talmud contained
blasphemous remarks against Jesus and Christianity and that it preached
moral and social bias toward non-Jews. On numerous occasions the Talmud
was publicly burned, and permanent Talmudic censorship was established. |
|
|
On the other hand, since the Renaissance there has been a positive
response and great interest in rabbinic literature by eminent non-Jewish
scholars, writers, and thinkers in the West. As a result, rabbinic ideas,
images, and lore, embodied in the Talmud, have permeated Western thought
and culture. |
|
|
The Talmud is first and foremost a legal compilation. At the same time
it contains materials that encompass virtually the entire scope of subject
matter explored in antiquity. Included are topics as diverse as
agriculture, architecture, astrology, astronomy, dream interpretation,
ethics, fables, folklore, geography, history, legend, magic, mathematics,
medicine, metaphysics, natural sciences, proverbs, theology, and
theosophy. |
|
|
This encyclopaedic array is presented in a unique dialectic style that
faithfully reflects the spirit of free give-and-take prevalent in the
Talmudic academies, where study was focussed upon a Talmudic text. All
present participated in an effort to exhaust the meaning and ramifications
of the text, debating and arguing together. The mention of a name,
situation, or idea often led to the introduction of a story or legend that
lightened the mood of a complex argument and carried discussion further. |
|
|
This text-centred approach profoundly affected the thinking and
literary style of the rabbis. Study became synonymous with active
interpretation rather than with passive absorption. Thinking was
stimulated by textual examination. Even original ideas were expressed in
the form of textual interpretations. |
|
|
The subject matter of the oral Torah is classified according to its
content into Halakha and Haggada and according to its literary form into
Midrash and Mishna. Halakha ("law") deals with the legal,
ritual, and doctrinal parts of Scripture, showing how the laws of the
written Torah should be applied in life. Haggada ("narrative")
expounds on the nonlegal parts of Scripture, illustrating biblical
narrative, supplementing its stories, and exploring its ideas. The term
Midrash denotes the exegetical method by which the oral tradition
interprets and elaborates scriptural text. It refers also to the large
collections of Halakhic and Haggadic materials that take the form of a
running commentary on the Bible and that were deduced from Scripture by
this exegetical method. In short, it also refers to a body of writings.
Mishna is the comprehensive compendium that presents the legal content of
the oral tradition independently of scriptural text. |
|
|
Midrash was initially a philological method of interpreting the literal
meaning of biblical texts. In time it developed into a sophisticated
interpretive system that reconciled apparent biblical contradictions,
established the scriptural basis of new laws, and enriched biblical
content with new meaning. Midrashic creativity reached its peak in the
schools of Rabbi Ishmael and Akiba, where two different hermeneutic
methods were applied. The first was primarily logically oriented, making
inferences based upon similarity of content and analogy. The second rested
largely upon textual scrutiny, assuming that words and letters that seem
superfluous teach something not openly stated in the text. |
|
|
The Talmud (i.e., the Gemara) quotes abundantly from all
Midrashic collections and concurrently uses all rules employed by both the
logical and textual schools; moreover, the Talmud's interpretation of
Mishna is itself an adaptation of the Midrashic method. The Talmud treats
the Mishna in the same way that Midrash treats Scripture. Contradictions
are explained through reinterpretation. New problems are solved logically
by analogy or textually by careful scrutiny of verbal superfluity. |
|
|
The strong involvement with hermeneutic exegesis--interpretation
according to systematic rules or principles--helped develop the analytic
skill and inductive reasoning of the rabbis but inhibited the growth of
independent abstract thinking. Bound to a text, they never attempted to
formulate their ideas into the type of unified system characteristic of
Greek philosophy. Unlike the philosophers, they approached the abstract
only by way of the concrete. Events or texts stimulated them to form
concepts. These concepts were not defined but, once brought to life,
continued to grow and change meaning with usage and in different contexts.
This process of conceptual development has been described by some as
"organic thinking." Others use this term in a wider sense,
pointing out that, although rabbinic concepts are not hierarchically
ordered, they have a pattern-like organic coherence. The meaning of each
concept is dependent upon the total pattern of concepts, for the idea
content of each grows richer as it interweaves with the others. |
|
|
Ezra the scribe who, according to the Book of Ezra, reestablished and
reformed the Jewish religion in the 5th century BCE, began the
"search in the Law . . . to teach in Israel statutes and
ordinances." |
|
|
His work was continued by soferim(scribes), who preserved,
taught, and interpreted the Bible. They linked the oral tradition to
Scripture, transmitting it as a running commentary on the Bible. For
almost 300 years they applied the Torah to changing circumstances, making
it a living law. They also introduced numerous laws that were designated
"words of the soferim" by Talmudic sources. By the end of
this period, rabbinic Judaism--the religious system constructed by the
scribes and rabbis--was strong enough to withstand pressure from without
and mature enough to permit internal diversity of opinion. |
|
|
At the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, a judicial body headed by the zugotpairs
of scholars--assumed Halakhic authority. There were five pairs in all,
between c. 150 and 30 BCE. The first of the zugot also
introduced the Mishnaic style of transmitting the oral tradition. |
|
|
Hillel and Shammai, the last of the zugot, ushered in the period
of the tannaim--"teachers" of the Mishna--at the end of
the 1st century BCE. This era, distinguished by a continuous attempt to
consolidate the fragmentary Midrashic and Mishnaic material, culminated in
the compilation of the Mishna at the beginning of the 3rd century CE. The
work was carried out in the academies of Hillel and Shammai and in others
founded later. Most scholars believe that Halakhic collections existed
prior to the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 CE. Other compilations were made at
Yavne, a Palestinian town near the Mediterranean, as part of the effort to
revitalize Judaism after the disaster of 70 CE. By the beginning of the
2nd century there were many such collections. Tradition has it that Rabbi
Akiba organized much of this material into separate collections of
Midrash, Mishna, and Haggada and introduced the formal divisions in
tannaitic literature. His students and other scholars organized new
compilations that were studied in the different academies. |
|
|
After the rebellion of the Jews against Roman rule led by Simeon bar
Kokhba in 132-135, when the Sanhedrin (the Jewish supreme court and
highest academy) was revived, the Mishnaic compilation adopted by the
Sanhedrin president became the official Mishna. The Sanhedrin reached its
highest stature under the leadership of Judah ha-Nasi (Judah the Prince,
or President); he was also called Rabbi, as the preeminent teacher. |
|
|
It seems certain that the official Mishna studied during his presidency
was the Mishna we know and that he was its editor. Judah aimed to include
the entire content of the oral tradition. He drew heavily from the
collections of Akiba's pupils but also incorporated material from other
compilations, including early ones. Nevertheless, the accumulation was
such that selection was necessary. Thus almost no Midrash or Haggada was
included. Colleagues and pupils of Judah not only made minor additions to
the Mishna but tried to preserve the excluded material, the Baraitot
("Exclusions"), in separate collections. One of these was the
Tosefta ("Addition"). Midrashic material was gathered in
separate compilations, and later revisions of some of these are still
extant. The language of all of the tannaitic literature is the new Hebrew
developed during the period of the Second Temple (c. 6th century
BCE-1st century CE). |
|
|
The expounders of the Mishna were the amoraim("interpreter"),
and the two Talmuds--the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) and the
Babylonian--consist of their explanations, discussions, and decisions.
Both take the form of a running commentary on the Mishna. (see also Index:
Palestinian Talmud, Babylonian Talmud) |
|
|
The foundations for these two monumental works were begun by three
disciples of Judah ha-Nasi: Johanan bar Nappaha, Rav (Abba
Arika), and Samuel bar Abba, in their academies at Tiberias, in Palestine,
and at Sura and Nehardea in Babylonia, respectively. Centres of learning
where the Mishna was expounded existed also at Sepphoris, Caesarea, and
Lydda in Palestine. In time new academies were established in Babylonia,
the best known being those at Pumbedita, Mahoza and Naresh, founded by
Judah bar Ezekiel, Rava, and Rav Pappa, respectively. The enrollment of
these centres often numbered in the thousands, and students spent many
years there. Those who no longer lived on the academy grounds returned
twice annually for the kalla, a month of study in the spring and
fall. |
|
|
Academies differed in their methods of study. Pumbedita, for example,
stressed casuistry, while Sura emphasized breadth of knowledge. Students
often moved from one academy to another and even from Palestine to
Babylonia or from Babylonia to Palestine. This kept open the channels of
communication between the various academies and resulted in the inclusion
of much Babylonian material in the Palestinian Talmud, and vice versa. |
|
|
Despite the overwhelming similarity of the two Talmuds, however, they
do differ in some ways. The Palestinian Talmud is written in the Western
Aramaic dialect, the Babylonian in the Eastern. The former is invariably
shorter, and, not having been subject to final redaction, its discussions
are often incomplete. Its explanations tend to remain closer to the
literal meaning of the Mishna, preferring textual emendation to casuistic
interpretation. Finally, some of the legal concepts in the Babylonian
Talmud reflect the influence of Persian law, for Babylonia was under
Persian rule at the time. |
|
|
The main endeavour of the amoraim was to thoroughly explain and
exhaust the meaning of the Mishna and the Baraitot. Apparent
contradictions were reconciled by such means as explaining that
conflicting statements referred to different situations or by asserting
that they stemmed from the Mishnayot (Mishnas) of different tannaimThe
same techniques were used when amoraic statements contradicted the Mishna.
These discussions took place for hundreds of years, and their content was
passed on from generation to generation, until the compilation of the
Talmud. |
|
|
The portion of the Palestinian Talmud dealing with the three Bavot
("gates")--i.e., the first three tractates of the fourth
order of the Mishna (for orders and tractates, see Talmudic and
Midrashic literature , below)--was compiled in Caesarea in the
middle of the 4th century and is distinguished from the rest by its
brevity and terminology. The remainder was completed in Tiberias some 50
years later. It seems likely that its compilation was a rescue operation
designed to preserve as much of the Halakhic material collected in
Palestinian academies as possible, for by that time the deterioration of
the political situation had forced most Palestinian scholars to emigrate
to Babylonia. |
|
|
The Babylonian Talmud was compiled up to the 6th century. Some scholars
suggest that the organization of the Talmud began early and that
successive generations of amoraim added layer upon layer to
previously arranged material. Others suggest that at the beginning a
stratum called Gemara, consisting only of Halakhic decisions or short
comments, was set forth. Still others theorize that no overall arrangement
of Talmudic material was made until the end of the 4th century. |
|
|
The statement in the tractate Bava metzia that "Rabina and
Rav Ashi were the end of instruction" is most often understood as
referring to the final redaction of the Talmud. Since at least two
generations of scholars following Rav Ashi (died 427) are mentioned in the
Talmud, most scholars suggest that "Rabina" refers to Rabina bar
Huna (died 499) and that the redaction was a slow process lasting about 75
years to the end of the 5th century. |
|
|
According to the tradition of the geonimthe heads of the
academies at Sura and Pumbedita from the 6th to the 11th centuries--the
Babylonian Talmud was completed by the 6th-century savoraim("expositors").
But the extent of their contribution is not precisely known. Some
attribute to them only short additions. Others credit them with creating
the terminology linking the phases of Talmudic discussions. According to
another view, they added comments and often decided between conflicting
opinions. The proponents of the so-called Gemara theory noted above
ascribe to them the entire dialectic portion of Talmudic discourse. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Mishna is divided into six orders (sedarim), each order into
tractates (massekhtot), and each tractate into chapters (peraqim).
The six orders are Zera'im, Mo'ed, Nashim, Neziqin, Qodashim, and Tohorot. |
|
|
1. Zera'im("Seeds") consists of 11 tractates: Berakhot,
Pea, Demai, Kilayim, Shevi'it, Terumot, Ma'aserot, Ma'aser sheni, Halla,
'Orla, and Bikkurim. Except for Berakhot ("Blessings"),
which treats of daily prayers and grace, this order deals with laws
related to agriculture in Palestine. It includes prohibitions against
mixtures in plants (hybridization), legislation relating to the sabbatical
year (when land lies fallow and debts are remitted), and regulations
concerning the portions of harvest given to the poor, the Levites, and the
priests. |
|
|
2. Mo'ed("Season" or "Festival") consists of
12 tractates: Shabbat, 'Eruvin, Pesahim, Sheqalim, Yoma, Sukka, Betza,
Rosh Hashana, Ta'anit, Megilla, Mo'ed qatan, and Hagiga. This
order deals with ceremonies, rituals, observances, and prohibitions
relating to special days of the year, including the Sabbath, holidays, and
fast days. Since the half-shekel Temple contribution was collected on
specified days, tractate Sheqalim, regarding this practice, is
included. |
|
|
3. Nashim("Women") consists of seven tractates: Yevamot,
Ketubbot, Nedarim, Nazir, Sota, Gittin, and Qiddushin. This
order deals with laws concerning betrothal, marriage, sexual and financial
relations between husband and wife, adultery, and divorce. Since Nazirite
(ascetic) and other vows may affect marital relations, Nedarim ("Vows")
and Nazir ("Nazirite") are included here. |
|
|
4. Neziqin("Damages") consists of 10 tractates, the
first three of which were originally considered one (the Bavot): Bava
qamma, Bava metzia, Bava batra, Sanhedrin, Makkot, Shevu'ot, 'Eduyyot,
'Avoda zara, Avot, and Horayot. This order deals with civil and
criminal law concerning damages, theft, labour relations, usury, real
estate, partnerships, tenant relations, inheritance, court composition,
jurisdiction and testimony, erroneous decisions of the Sanhedrin, and
capital and other physical punishments. Since idolatry, in the literal
sense of worship or veneration of material images, is punishable by death,
'Avoda zara ("Idolatry") is included. Avot ("Fathers"),
commonly called "Ethics of the Fathers" in English, seems to
have been included to teach a moral way of life that precludes the
transgression of law. |
|
|
5. Qodashim("Sacred Things") consists of 11 tractates:
Zevahim, Menahot, Hullin, Bekhorot, 'Arakhin, Temura, Keretot, Me'ila,
Tamid, Middot, and Qinnim. This order incorporates some of the
oldest Mishnaic portions. It treats of the Temple and includes regulations
concerning sacrifices, offerings, and donations. It also contains a
detailed description of the Temple complex. |
|
|
6. Tohorot("Purifications") consists of 12 tractates: Kelim,
Ohalot, Nega'im, Para, Tohorot, Miqwa`ot, Nidda, Makhshirin, Zavim, Tevul
yom, Yadayim, and 'Uqtzin. This order deals with laws governing
the ritual impurity of vessels, dwellings, foods, and persons, and with
purification processes. |
|
|
The Tosefta ("Addition") closely resembles the Mishna in
content and order. In its present form it at times supplements the Mishna,
at other times comments on it, and often also opposes it. There is no
Tosefta on the tractates Avot, Tamid, Middot, and Qinnim. The
Talmud quotes from many other collections of Mishnaiot and Baraitot: some
are attributed to tannaimand predate the established Mishna; and
others, to amoraim. The original material is lost. |
|
|
Although the entire Mishna was studied at the Palestinian and
Babylonian academies, the Palestinian Talmud (Gemara) covers only the
first four orders (except chapters 21-24 of Shabbat and chapter 3
of Makkot) and the first three chapters of Nidda in the
sixth order. Most scholars agree that the Palestinian Talmud was never
completed to the fifth and sixth orders of the Mishna and that the missing
parts of the other orders were lost. A manuscript of chapter 3 of Makkot
was, in fact, found and was published in 1946. |
|
|
The Babylonian Talmud does not cover orders Zera'im (except Berakhot)
and Tohorot (except Nidda) and tractates Tamid (except
chapters 1,2,4), Sheqalim, Middot, Qinnim, Avot, and 'Eduyyot. Scholars
concur that the Talmud for these parts was never completed, possibly
because their content was not relevant in Babylonia. |
|
|
Halakhic Midrashim are exegetic commentaries on the legal content of
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The five extant collections
are Mekhilta, on Exodus; Mekhilta deRabbi Shim'on ben Yohai, on
Exodus; Sifra, on Leviticus; Sifre, on Numbers and
Deuteronomy; Sifre zuta, on Numbers. (Mekhilta means
"measure," a norm or rule; Sifra, plural Sifre, means
"writing" or "book.") Critical analysis reveals that Mekhilta
and Sifre on Numbers differ from the others in terminology and
method. Most scholars agree that these two originated in the school of
Ishmael and the others in that of Akiba. In their present form they also
include later additions. Mention should also be made of Midrash tannaim
on Deuteronomy, consisting of fragments recovered from the Yemenite
anthology Midrash ha-gadol. |
|
|
Haggadic Midrashim originated with the weekly synagogue readings and
their accompanying explanations. Although Haggadic collections existed in
tannaitic times, extant collections date from the 4th-11th centuries.
Midrashic compilations were not authoritatively edited and tend to be
coincidental and fragmentary. |
|
|
Most notable among biblical collections is Midrash rabba ("Great
Midrash"), a composite of commentaries on the Pentateuch and five
Megillot (Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations)
differing in nature and age. Its oldest portion, the 5th-century Genesis
rabba, is largely a verse-by-verse commentary, while the
6th-century Leviticus rabba consists of homilies and Lamentations
rabba (end of 6th century) is mainly narrative. The remaining portions
of Midrash rabba were compiled at later dates. |
|
|
The Tanhuma (after the late-4th-century Palestinian amora Tanhuma
bar Abba), of which two versions are extant, is another important
Pentateuchal Midrash. Additional Midrashic compilations include those to
the books of Samuel, Psalms, and Proverbs. Mention should also be made of Pesiqta
("Section" or "Cycles") deRab Kahana (after
a Babylonian amora) and Pesiqta rabbati ("The Great
Cycle"), consisting of homilies on the Torah (Pentateuch) readings
that occur on festivals and special Sabbaths. |
|
|
Haggadic compilations independent of biblical text include Avot
deRabbi Natan, Tanna deve Eliyyahu, Pirqe ("Chapters") deRabbi
Eliezer, and tractates Derekh eretz ("Correct
Conduct"). These primarily deal with ethics, moral teachings, and
biblical narrative. |
|
|
Among the medieval anthologies are the Yalqut ("Compilation")
Shimoni (13th century), Yalqut ha-makhiri (14th century),
and 'En Ya'aqov ("Eye of Jacob," 16th century). The two
most important modern Haggadic anthologies are those of Wilhelm Bacher and
Louis Ginzberg. |
|
|
The Talmud's dialectic style and organization are not those of a code
of laws. Accordingly, codification efforts began shortly after the
Talmud's completion. The first known attempt was Halakhot pesuqot ("Decided
Laws"), ascribed to Yehudai Gaon (8th century). Halakhot gedolot ("Great
Laws"), by Simeon Kiyyara, followed 100 years later. Both summarize
Talmudic Halakhic material, omitting dialectics but preserving Talmudic
order and language. The later geonim concentrated on particular
subjects, such as divorce or vows, introducing the monographic style of
codification. |
|
|
Codification literature gained impetus by the beginning of the 11th
century. During the next centuries many compilations appeared in Europe
and North Africa. The most notable, following Talmudic order, were the Hilkhot
Harif, by Isaac Alfasi (11th century), and Hilkhot Harosh, by
Asher ben Jehiel (13th-14th centuries). Though modelled after Halakhot
gedolot, the Hilkhot Harif encompasses only laws applicable
after the destruction of the Temple but includes more particulars. The Hilkhot
Harosh closely follows Alfasi's code but often also includes the
reasoning underlying decisions. |
|
|
The most important of the topically arranged codifications were: the Mishne
Torah, Sefer ha-turim, and Shulhan 'arukh. (1) The Mishne
Torah("The Torah Reviewed") by Maimonides (12th century), is
a monumental work, original in plan, language, and order; it encompasses
all religious subject matter under 14 headings and includes theosophy,
theology, and religion. (2) The Sefer ha-turim ("Book of
Rows," or " Parts"), by Jacob ben Asher (14th century), the
son of Asher ben Jehiel, introduced new groupings, dividing subject matter
into four major categories (turim) reminiscent of the Mishnaic
orders; it includes only laws applicable after the destruction of the
Temple. (3) The Shulhan 'arukh("The Prepared Table") by
Joseph Karo (16th century), the last of the great codifiers, is structured
after the Sefer ha-turim, but presents the Sefardic (Middle Eastern
and North African) rather than the Ashkenazic (Franco-German and eastern
European) tradition, with decisions largely following those of Alfasi,
Maimonides, and Rabbi Asher. When the 16th-century Ashkenazic codifier
Moses Isserles added his notes, this became the standard Halakhic code for
all Jewry. |
|
|
The interpretive literature on the Talmud began with the rise of
academies in Europe and North Africa. The earliest known European
commentary, though ascribed to Gershom ben Judah (10th-11th centuries), is
actually an eclectic compilation of notes recorded by students of the
Mayence (Mainz) Academy. Compilations of this kind, known as quntresim ("notebooks"),
also developed in other academies. Their content was masterfully reshaped
and reformulated in the renowned 11th-century commentary of Rashi (acronym
of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi), in which
difficulties likely to be encountered by students are anticipated and
detail after detail is clarified until a synthesized, comprehensible whole
emerges. |
|
|
The commentaries of Hananel ben Hushiel and Nissim ben
Jacob ben Nissim, the first to appear in North Africa (11th century), are
introductory in nature. They summarize the content of Talmudic
discussions, assuming that details will be understood once the general
idea becomes comprehensible. This style was later followed by the Spanish
school, including Joseph ibn Migash and Maimonides. However, as Rashi's
work became known, it displaced all other commentaries. (Note its
predominant role in the sample page of Talmud.) |
|
|
A new phase in Talmudic literature was initiated by Rashi's
grandchildren, Rabbis Isaac, Samuel, and Jacob, the sons of Meir, who
established the school of tosafot(These medieval
"additions" are not to be confused with the tannaitic Tosefta
discussed above.) Reviving Talmudic dialectic, they treated the Talmud in
the same way that it had treated the Mishna. They linked apparently
unrelated statements from different Talmudic discourses and pointed out
the fine distinctions between seemingly interdependent statements. This
dialectic style was soon adopted in all European academies. Even the
writings of Ravad (Abraham ben David), Zerahiah ha-Levi, and Yeshaya
deTrani, three of the most original Talmudists (12th century), reflect the
impact of Tosafist dialectic. |
|
|
The works of Meir Abulafia and Menahem Meiri, although of the
North African genre, include a strong dialectic element. In Spain such
dialectic works were known as hiddushim or novellae (since
they sought "new insights"), the most famous being those written
by four generations (13th-14th centuries) of teacher and pupil: Ramban (Nahmanides,
or Moses ben Nahman), Rashba (Solomon ben Adret), Ritba (Yomtov ben
Abraham), and Ran (Nissim ben Reuben Gerondi). |
|
|
A major role in establishing Talmudic authority was also played by the responsaliterature,
replies (responsa) to legal and religious questions. Beginning in
the 7th century, when the Babylonian geonim responded in writing to
questions concerning the Talmud, it developed into a branch of Talmudic
literature that continued to the present. Then, as now, Talmudic
authorities were approached for explanations and decisions. Among the geonim
the best known were Sherira (10th century) and his son Hai. In the
Middle Ages the most important were Alfasi, Ibn Migash (Joseph ibn
Migash), Maimonides, Ravad (Abraham ben David of Posquières),
Ramban, Rashba, Rosh (Asher ben Jehiel), Ran, and Ribash (Isaac ben
Sheshet Perfet). |
|
|
Study in the academies was always oral; hence the question of when the
Mishna and Talmud were first committed to writing has been the subject of
much discussion. According to some scholars, the process of writing began
with Judah ha-Nasi. Others attribute it to the savoraim. |
|
|
Sample page (7a) of the tractate Makkot (of the fourth order, Neziqin)
of the Vilna edition of the Babylonian Talmud, first printed in 1880-86.
It discusses the fate of a man who was convicted and escaped and how he is
to be judged. Code numbers, a box surrounding the Mishna, and brackets
indicating the extent of comments (3-a) and (3-b) have been superimposed
onto the original page. (1) End of the Gemara to the previous Mishna. (2)
Mishna. (3) Gemara. (3-a) Halakhic Midrash supporting the Mishna. (3-b)
Three short comments from Palestine, Sura, and Pumbedita. (4) Mark
indicating the end of the chapter. (5) Mishna of the next chapter. (6)
Commentary of Rashi (1040-1105). (7) Tosafot, discussing special
points in the Gemara and Rashi. (8) Cross-reference notes to other
Talmudic and Rabbinic sources and textual variants. (9) Notes by Joel
Sirkes (1561-1640). (10) References to the codes of Maimonides, Moses of
Concy, the Tur, and the Shulhan 'arukh. (11) Commentary of
Hananel of North Africa, early 11th century. (12) References to scripture.
(13) Notes by Elijah Gaon of Vilna (1720-97).
|
|
|
. |
|
|
The Palestinian Talmud was first printed in Venice (1523-24). All later
editions followed this one. Printing of the Babylonian Talmud was begun in
Spain about 1482, and there have been more than 100 different editions
since. The oldest extant full edition appeared in Venice (1520-23). This
became the prototype for later printings, setting the type of page and
pagination (a total of close to 5,500 folios). The standard edition was
printed in Vilna beginning in 1886. It carries many commentaries and
commentaries upon commentaries. In the sample page reproduced here, the
Mishna and the Gemara are placed in the centre column of the page and are
printed in the heavy type. The commentary of Rashi is always located in
the inner column of the page and the tosafot in the outer column.
Other commentaries and references to legal codes and to scriptural verses
surround the major commentaries, in smaller type. Talmudic citations are
made by tractate name, folio number, and side of the folio (a or b). |
|
|
While the Talmudic rabbis never formally systematized their beliefs,
their underlying religious concepts are clearly reflected in their
decisions, ideas, and attitudes. Preeminent in rabbinic thinking were the
concepts of God, Torah, and Israel. |
|
|
The rabbinic God was primarily the biblical God who acted in history,
the creator and source of life who was experienced through the senses
rather than intellect. In reaction to sectarian teachings (i.e., Gnosticism
and early Christianity), however, the rabbis stressed God's universality,
absolute unity, and direct involvement with the world. His immanence and
transcendence (being present in and beyond the universe) were emphasized,
and biblical anthropomorphisms (ascribing human attributes to God) were
explained metaphorically. The rabbis also stressed an intimacy into the
relationship between God and man. God became the father to whom each
individual could turn in direct prayer for his needs. To the names YHWH
and Elohim, which traditionally were identified with God's mercy and
judgment, respectively, the rabbis added new terms reflecting his other
attributes--e.g., Shekhina ("Presence"), representing his
omnipresence, or immanence; and Maqom ("Place"), his
transcendence. |
|
|
Torah, in the Talmudic sense, refers to all religious and ethical
teachings handed down by tradition. According to the rabbis, God created
the Torah long before the world. It contained the eternal divine formula
for the world's future workings and thus the answers to all problems for
all times and all people. God himself is depicted as studying the Torah,
for even he cannot make decisions concerning the world that contradict it. |
|
|
The people Israel, according to the rabbis, were chosen by God to be
the guardian of his Torah, and, just as God chose Israel, Israel chose
God. Thus, the concept of Israel as a nation bound together by an
irrevocable commitment to bring the Torah to the world, and bearing
corporate responsibility for this mission, was formed. No Jew can free
himself from this commitment, but anyone accepting it, regardless of race,
becomes a full-fledged Jew with obligations binding him and his
descendants. |
|
|
With this in mind, the rabbis repeatedly emphasized the importance of
studying Torah. They pointed out that the Torah is not a declaration of
religious beliefs. Rather it is a statement of a discipline regulating
each detail of life. Any transgression of this discipline hampers the
divine plan of establishing God's way of life in this world. |
|
|
The intensive rabbinic religious involvement led to the growth of a new
concept of worship. While in the Bible worship was usually centred in the
sanctuary of the Temple in Jerusalem, the rabbis, particularly after the
destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), attempted to sanctify all of
life. Thus, they said that one must bless God upon arising in the morning,
before dressing, before and after meals, and in all ordinary daily actions
or routines. Each move in life should be an act of worship glorifying
God's name. (see also Index: Jerusalem, Temple of) |
|
|
In rabbinic thinking the establishment of God's kingdom was tied to the
Messiah, who was to be a descendant of King David, wise, just, a great
scholar, a moral leader, and courageous king. He would redeem the Jews
from exile and reestablish their independence in the land of Israel. With
this the world would be ushered into a new era of righteousness and
universal peace. The rabbis referred to this era as "the world to
come," portraying it as an immense academy in which the righteous
would study Torah without interruption. They refrained from describing it
further, saying that human language and fantasy are inadequate to its
wonders. |
|
|
The nature of the Messiah and the time of his arrival raised much
speculation. Following the defeat of Bar Kokhba, leader of the revolt
against Roman rule (135 CE), the Messiah's coming, in rabbinic thought,
faded into the mysterious and distant future, and descriptions concerning
his personality assumed supernatural overtones. |
|
|
For a fuller discussion of major religious doctrines, see below, Basic
beliefs and doctrines . |
|
|
The fate of man, his achievements and failures, his being and
nothingness, occupy an important place in Talmudic literature. The rabbis'
concept of man was a universal one. While they assumed that Jews are bound
by greater religious duties than others, they considered all men equal,
all created in the image of God. "Therefore, but a single man was
created . . . That none should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater
than thy father"' (tractate Sanhedrin). |
|
|
The world, according to the Talmud, was created for the sake of man,
and it is incumbent upon him to keep it in order. His responsibility
begins at home. Man must care for his health, marry, build a family,
provide for and educate children, honour parents, friends, and elders. He
also carries social responsibilities and has to be part of the community.
He must learn a trade and work so that he does not become a burden to the
community. |
|
|
The uniqueness of man in this world, likened by the Talmud to the
uniqueness of God in the universe, lies in his freedom of choice. Nature
follows its laws and angels their missions, but man is his own master. In
contrast to St. Paul's doctrine that the original sin of Adam made sin an
integral part of human nature, the rabbis considered man a wondrous and
harmonious being. The duality of his nature was explained by the existence
of a good and bad impulse, personified by two angels, yetzer ha-tov (the
good inclination) and yetzer ha-ra' (the evil inclination), which
enter each man after birth. It is the duty of man to overcome his evil
inclination, and it is for this that he is rewarded. Moreover, since there
is corporate responsibility, not only is the sinner punished but the
community at large also suffers. Here again, however, man is his own
master. He can reverse the course of sin and punishment by repentance.
Although repentance may be accompanied by formal and ceremonial acts, such
as fasting, its basic principle is the renunciation of the sin and the
wholehearted decision not to repeat it. When a man transgresses against
God, his sin is forgiven by repentance alone, but, when he transgresses
against his fellow man, he must make good his wrongdoing as well as
repent. |
|
|
The Talmud devoted considerable attention to the maintenance of good
health, regarding it a religious duty. A keen understanding of the
importance of hygiene in preventing illness was reflected in an emphasis
upon bodily cleanliness. The rabbis also stressed the necessity for
moderation in eating and drinking and the importance of a proper diet. The
Talmud prescribed remedies for illnesses and mentioned surgical
techniques, such as cesarean section. |
|
|
Religious concerns surrounding the calendar, prohibitions against
planting seeds of different kinds together, dietary laws, and
Sabbath-walking limits resulted in an intense rabbinical interest in
astronomy, zoology, mathematics, and geometry. |
|
|
Side by side with the Midrashic Haggada, which was the outgrowth of
Bible exegesis and developed in the academies, the Talmuds and Midrashic
collections contain a large quantity of Haggadic material with
mythological rudiments, allusions to pagan beliefs and customs, and
folkloristic elements of a world strange to the rabbis. Folktales and
legends, animal lore, and adventure narratives, containing pagan ideas and
beliefs, that were told by their Gentile neighbours were no doubt a major
attraction to the common Jews, especially those in the countryside (the 'am
ha-aretzor "people of the land"). The rabbis realized the
great danger involved in this situation and developed their own folk
material. They adopted the dramatic and artistic parts of these stories
but rejected the unwanted elements, replacing them with their own ideas.
Thus the animals and birds in fables quote the Bible and discuss it in the
same manner that the rabbis do. |
|
|
Ancient mythology seems to have been well known and liked by the Jewish
masses. Again, in order to fight its influence, the rabbis reworked its
content in their own spirit. They retained the mythological suspense--the
sea tries to drown the earth--but there is no mythological struggle
between equal powers; angels try to prevent the creation of man, but they
do not possess titanic power. All are subdued by the command of God. Thus,
the rabbis transformed the ancient myths into dramatic evidence against
polytheism. (See also below, Jewish myth and legend .) |
|
|
Astrology was a recognized science in the ancient world. The rabbis
could not reject it entirely, and some concluded that the power of the
stars is confined to Gentiles. Others made it part of God's order, saying
that stars influence this world in the same way that climate influences
plants. The rabbis strenuously objected to omens and other forms of
divination because they considered them magic. Dreams were considered by
some rabbis as meaningless, while others saw in them an element of
prophecy. |
|
|
The rabbis believed in the efficacy of magic but strenuously objected
to its practice. They permitted only magic that had been proved effective
in healing. They also permitted the use of incantations for the purpose of
counteracting the hold of magic. Because of their supposedly protective
nature, the use of amulets was also countenanced. |
|
|
The existence of a demonic kingdom was accepted by the rabbis without
question. Evil spirits are invisible and fill the nether world. They avoid
sunlight and concentrate in waters and deserted places. They also mingle
with people, trouble them, and help them. They have passions and are born
and die like people. However, they also have some of the traits and powers
of angels. The evil eye was considered as dangerous as evil spirits. It
was thought that for mysterious reasons some people have the power to
injure others by looking at them and that it is generally jealousy that
triggers this effect. The rabbis, however, repeatedly emphasized that all
of these strange powers are under the divine government and, moreover,
that they cannot hurt the pious. |
|
|
Unlike the Romans, who considered ritual law (fas) God-given and
social law (lex) man-made, the rabbis believed all Jewish law to be
of divine origin. Thus, for example, unfairness in labour relations was
considered a religious sin and caring for the sick a religious obligation.
Though familiar with the concept of natural law (ethical principles
inherent in the nature of things and apprehensible through human reason),
the rabbis objected to making nature the basis of law. Even rabbinic
ordinances were regarded as having validity only because the authority of
the rabbis is sanctioned by the Torah. |
|
|
Ancient Halakha knew no controversy. The earliest controversy dates to
the pre-tannaitic zugotHillel and Shammai differed on significant
issues, and, with the rise of their schools, Halakhic uniformity began to
crumble. Halakha became a scholastic discipline that developed in academic
rather than judicial settings, more and more issues remaining unresolved.
Over 300 controversies between the schools of Hillel and Shammai (called
the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, respectively) are reported
in Talmudic sources. As time passed, disputes proliferated even more and
were considered legitimate provided they conformed to the rule of Halakhic
discipline. |
|
|
No attempt was made to restore Halakhic uniformity until the beginning
of the 2nd century CE. Controversies were sometimes resolved by citing old
traditions, by establishing precedents, or, when the sages could convene,
by vote taking. |
|
|
At Yavne, Gamaliel II, the president of the revived Sanhedrin (c. 80-c.
115 CE), attempted to suppress diversity of opinion, but failed. The
right to differ was already established. Moreover, in the Halakhic
collection compiled at Yavne (tractate 'Eduyyot), the views of
individual scholars were preserved. The sages at Yavne, however, did take
a major step toward restoring Halakhic consistency by upholding the
generally more lenient views of the House of Hillel over those of the
House of Shammai, thus establishing the Hillelite tradition as the main
trend of rabbinic Judaism. |
|
|
The principle that differing opinions should be recorded was followed
by Judah ha-Nasi in his Mishna. Modern scholars differ as to whether he
meant to compile a code of law or merely a Halakhic collection. The amoraimhowever,
accepted his Mishna as the definitive code and introduced a set of
guidelines according to which disputes were decided. Thus, for example,
collective (". . . the sages said") and individual opinions
stated anonymously were taken as law; Akiba's decisions were upheld over
those of his colleagues. Similar guidelines developed also with regard to
amoraic controversies. |
|
|
With the completion of the Talmud, a new phase in Halakhic development
began. Not only were there two different Talmuds and a large Haggadic
literature but even within each of the Talmuds diversified opinions were
reported. The geonim laid down rules governing the use of this
enormous literature for lawmaking. They designated the Babylonian Talmud
the highest authority, taking the Palestinian Talmud into consideration
only when it did not disagree with the Babylonian or when the latter
expressed no opinion on a subject. They also deprived the Haggadic
literature of Halakhic authority and set guidelines for the precedence of
opinion among amoraim. These geonic rules served as the basis of
all future codifications. (see also Index: gaon) |
|
|
After the geonic period two methods of decision making were applied.
The first of these relied primarily upon the authoritative codes. The
Mediterranean rabbis, for example, made the code of Maimonides the source
of all of their lawmaking. The second method relied on the original
Talmudic sources for decision making. This method was applied by the
Tosafists and their followers, who, though they consulted the older codes,
did not accept them as the final authorities. The responsaliterature
represents a synthesis of these two methods. Although it makes use of
codes as the main source of law, its decisions are always accompanied by a
discussion and analysis of earlier relevant literature. This approach has
been used by rabbis to the present day. (see also Index: tosafot) |
|
|
In addition to the above, in particular instances throughout the ages
rabbinic authorities promulgated ordinances (taqqanot) and edicts (gezerot).
These were made in response to pressing needs of time and circumstance,
and this form of lawmaking was most frequently used by rabbinic synods in
the Middle Ages. |
|
|
A comprehensive judicial system is described in Talmudic sources. The
highest court was the Great Sanhedrin. It consisted of 71 members and
convened daily in one of the Temple halls. It was the highest legal and
religious authority in the country and had exclusive jurisdiction over
matters of a national and public nature. It also functioned as the court
of appeals, dealing with cases that were not resolved by the lower courts. |
|
|
Next in line of judicial authority was the Lesser Sanhedrin. Each town
with a population of 120 or more had a court of this kind. These courts
each consisted of 23 members and dealt with cases involving capital
punishment. |
|
|
The members of the Sanhedrins had to be ordained, pious, mature in age,
sound in mind and body, of wide knowledge, and of pure Jewish descent.
Persons who were too old or who had never had children were ineligible,
for it was thought that they might not be merciful. |
|
|
The lower courts dealt with all remaining cases. Each consisted of
three members and convened on Mondays and Thursdays. In cases involving a
penalty the three judges had to be ordained, but in those involving
ordinary monetary litigation ordination was not required. In the latter
type of case, concerned parties were allowed the alternative of setting up
ad hoc arbitration bodies. |
|
|
Jewish law was extremely strict regarding evidence acceptable in court.
In cases entailing physical punishment, no circumstantial evidence,
confession, or self-incrimination was recognized. The testimony of two
eyewitnesses who confronted the defendant was required. In monetary cases
documentary evidence and, at times, oaths were acceptable. Any mental or
moral defects or self-interest in the case disqualified witnesses.
Relatives could not serve as judges or witnesses. |
|
|
Jewish law knows of no lawyers. After the facts were presented, the
court investigated, deliberated, and made its decision by voting. Both
sides had to be treated equally, even to the point of seeing to it that
neither should be dressed more richly than the other. Each side could be
heard only in the presence of the other. |
|
|
In the trial procedure of capital cases, there was a clear tendency
toward bias in favour of the defendant. Thus, only the judges could argue
for conviction, but all present could argue for acquittal. The most junior
judges voted first so that they would not be unduly influenced by their
seniors. A majority of one was sufficient for acquittal, but a majority of
two was necessary for conviction. A verdict of acquittal could be reached
on the same day but one of conviction only on the following day. When the
court erred, only its convictions, and not its acquittals, were reversed.
(see also Index: capital punishment) |
|
|
In Jewish law, ritual and nonritual transgressions were crimes
punishable by court. Each of the 36 most severe transgressions (e.g., adultery,
sodomy, idolatry, sorcery, or murder) carried one of four types of death
penalty (stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling). Rabbinic law,
however, tended to minimize the practice of capital punishment. The
rigorous cross-examination of witnesses and the warning of impending
punishment that the transgressor had to receive immediately before
committing his crime made it almost impossible to reach a death verdict. |
|
|
If despite all of this a death verdict was reached, every legal effort
was made to allow for a last-minute reversal. Execution was expedited and
carried out in the most humane manner possible, the accused being given an
opiate before dying. To show their compassion the judges fasted on the day
of execution. According to tradition the death penalty was abolished 40
years before the destruction of the Temple, when the Great Sanhedrin was
exiled from the Temple complex. |
|
|
The punishment for 207 other transgressions (e.g., perjury, some
forms of incest, the eating of forbidden foods) was flagellation. Here,
too, the rabbis tended to be lenient. As in capital cases, a rigorous
cross-examination and a warning were required. The maximum number of
stripes administered was 39. Prior to flagellation the transgressor was
examined medically to determine the number of stripes he could withstand. |
|
|
Side by side with the above penalties, the courts also inflicted makkat
mardut (disciplinary stripes) and excommunication in cases where
regular flagellation could not legally be applied. These two punishments
were generally used in Babylonia, where ordained courts did not exist. It
should be mentioned also that the Mishna includes a few obscure references
to a form of imprisonment used instead of capital punishment. |
|
|
Although the rabbis considered both ritual and nonritual law sacred,
they demonstrated great independence in supplementing the relatively brief
relevant scriptural comments and regulations with a comprehensive system
of civil and social law. In response to variations in social and economic
circumstances, certain differences in Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic
law emerged. The Babylonian rabbis, for example, recognized the law of the
state as binding in monetary matters, while the Palestinian rabbis did
not. In general, however, Jewish civil law developed relatively
autonomously. In instances where the rabbis did adopt alien legal
concepts, they elaborated upon them until they could be fully integrated
into the spirit and structure of Jewish law. |
|
|
The following are some of the areas covered: (1) Social welfare: a
comprehensive social welfare system was worked out, including obligations
to provide for children, educate them, and train them for a profession.
Regulations of charity, medical assistance, and burial of the dead were
established. (2) Torts: included were all damages caused by a person
directly or indirectly via his property. The main aim was to compensate
for damages. Consequently, no torts were classified as criminal. Even
"an eye for an eye" was interpreted to mean financial
compensation. (3) Family law: included were regulations concerning
marriage and divorce procedures and the innovation of the ketubba (marriage
contract), which spells out the mutual obligations of husband and wife in
the areas of finance, medical care, clothing, housework, sexual relations,
and child care. According to biblical law, the right to inherit belongs to
sons first. To protect the rights of wives and daughters, rabbinic law
obligated the sons to maintain the widows and unmarried daughters. (4)
Financial law: except for Gen. 23:9 ff., Jer. 32:10, and Ruth 4:8,
Scripture makes no reference to transaction procedures. The growth of
finances, industry, and land estates led the rabbis to develop laws
concerning contracts, partnerships, and legal arrangements to circumvent
the biblical prohibition against usury. A series of modes of transaction
effecting the transfer and acquisition of property evolved. Labour
relations, rents, and leases were also carefully regulated. |
|
|
With the rebirth of a Jewish national state (since 1948) and the
concomitant revival of Jewish culture, the Talmud has achieved renewed
importance. Orthodox Jewry has always focussed upon its study and has
believed it to be the absolute Halakhic authority. This belief has now
become even further intensified. While rabbinic courts in Israel have
jurisdiction only in the area of family life, it has become one of the
aims of religious (Orthodox) Jewry there to establish Talmudic law as the
general law of the state. (see also Index: Orthodox Judaism) |
|
|
It should also be noted that, aside from the special case of Israel,
the legal system described above has continued to function down to the
present day in Jewish communities all over the world. The jurisdiction of
rabbinic courts is voluntarily accepted by Orthodox Jews. These courts
continue to exert authority, especially in the areas of family and dietary
law, the synagogue, and the organization of charity and social activity. |
|
|
Conservative Jewry, too, has always been committed to rabbinic
tradition. It has, however, conceptualized this tradition as an
evolutionary process in which Halakha changes to meet the challenge of new
conditions. Professional scholarship was considered crucial for
understanding the furthering of this process. More recently, however, as a
result of revived nationalism, new emphasis has been put upon lay
education. Thus, a network of day schools and higher institutions of
learning in which rabbinic tradition occupies a major role in the
curriculum has been established. Scores of young Conservative Jews now
search in the Talmud for answers to crucial problems, such as abortion and
civil violence. (see also Index: Conservative Judaism ) |
|
|
Classical (19th-century) Reform Judaism not only disassociated itself
from the Talmud but negated it. More recently, however, Reform leaders
have been inclined to reestablish some measure of ritual practice and
rabbinic climate. Thus, it is now not unusual to find them stating their
decisions in the form of responsa and using the rabbinic style of
argument and even the casuistic type of Talmudic dialectic (pilpul)
to justify their religious practices. |
|
|
Although Talmudic scholarship continues to be advanced by individuals
in a number of countries, its two main centres are in Israel and the
United States. The Israeli centre has tended to focus upon research of a
critical nature. Like Bible criticism, this work is divided between source
criticism (i.e., discovering the different sources, their dates,
and the methods by which Talmudic literature was formed) and textual
criticism (i.e., establishing the correct text and reading).
Research is also being done on Haggadic concepts and thinking, Talmudic
law, and Halakhic development. (see also Index: Halakhah) |
|
|
Talmudic scholarship in the United States has tended to be more
philosophically and historically oriented. There has been great interest
in the development of Halakha and in folklore and custom. Essential work
has been done and continues to be done in the areas of source criticism. A
work unique in scope and method is S. Lieberman's commentary on the
Tosefta. ( H.Z.D./L.H.S./Ed.) |
|
|
