Home Forums Blogs Articles Photos Videos Contact FAQ

Talmud - Historical study

Talmud - Historical study: Encyclopedia II - Talmud - Historical study

The Talmud contains little serious biographical studies of the people discussed therein, and the same tractate will conflate the points of view of many different people. Yet, sketchy biographies of the Talmudic sages can often be constructed with historical detail from Talmudic sources. Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Talmud. A vital question is whether it is comprised of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it comprised of earlier, or later sources. A ...

Talmud: Encyclopedia II - Talmud - Historical study

Talmud - Historical study

Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Talmud. A vital question is whether it is comprised of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it comprised of earlier, or later sources. Are Talmudic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines, and in what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? In response to these questions, modern scholars have adopted a number of different approaches.

Traditionally, rabbinic Judaism has viewed the statements in the Talmud as being historically accurate, and written under a subtle form of near-prophecy called Ruach haKodesh (Divine inspiration). Most Orthodox Jews today view the statements described therein are entirely reliable, and accepted as such. Nevertheless, classical rabbinic commentators on the Talmud, known as the Tosafists, and the early Babylonian rabbis (Savoraim and Geonim) point out that the Talmud is often ambiguous or unclear. In general, textual criticism of the Talmud from Orthodox point-of-view has ceased after the completion of the Talmud, and modern attempts at textual criticism are mainly considered heretical, though some Modern Orthodox Rabbis view critical Talmud study as acceptable. [2].

Some scholars hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Talmud. Lacking outside confirming texts, they hold that we cannot confirm the origin or date of most statements and laws, and that we can say little for certain about their authorship. In this view, the questions above are impossible to answer. See, for example, the works of Louis Jacobs and Shaye J.D. Cohen.

Some scholars hold that the Talmud have been extensively shaped by later editorial redaction, but that it contains sources which we can identify and describe with some level of reliability. In this view, sources can be identified to some extent because era of history and each distinct geographical region has its own unique feature, which one can trace and analyze. Thus, the questions above may be analyzed. See, for example, the works of Lee Levine and David C. Kraemer.

Some scholars hold that many or most the statements and events described in the Talmud usually occurred more or less as described, and that they can be used as serious sources of historical study. In this view, historians do their best to tease out later editorial additions (itself a very difficult task) and skeptically view accounts of miracles, leaving behind a reliable historical text. See, for example, the works of Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, and Avraham Goldberg.

Talmud - Changes within the text of the Talmud

The Talmud is presented as an analysis of the Mishnah, as opposed to a later, competing, teaching. Generally, the rabbis of the Talmud will not disagree with their counterparts from earlier generations. In fact, for an Amoraic opinion to be accepted as authoritative it must be in accordance with the teachings of at least one of the Tannaim.

However, some scholars suggest that the current text of the Talmud is artificially smooth; the text, having been edited by the Savoraim (post-Talmudic rabbis), covers up many disagreements between the rabbis of the Mishnah and the rabbis of the Talmud. The present text of the Talmud thus shows little disagreement. Eli Turkel writes:

What is the reason that later generations never disagree with a halacha in the Talmud? In the introduction to Mishne Torah, Maimonides declares that the sages after the generation of Rav Ashi and Ravina accepted on themselves not to disagree with any halacha in the Gemara. Thus, even if individual portions of the Gemara were ADDED BY LATER GENERATIONS they did not change the halacha. This viewpoint is reiterated by Rav Yosef Karo in his commentary on Mishne Torah (Kesef Mishne on Maimonides' Hilchot Mamrim 2:1, also Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in Two Kinds of Tradition in Yahrzeit lectures vol. 1.). It is interesting to note that Rav Yosef Karo mentions this only with regard to the Mishna and Gemara. There is no such ruling with regard to Gaonim and Rishonim. Rav Yosef Karo, among the early generations of Acharonim, recognized no formal barrier to disagree with a Rishon or a Gaon. (Turkel's essay "Rabbinic Authority" in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah)

Some within Orthodoxy are comfortable with noting that when someone writes "later generations never disagree with a halacha in the Talmud", this is in effect a legal fiction. In practice, legal authorities did disagree with what was in the Talmud, and in some cases actually changed the Talmud itself. This new Talmudic text then became accepted as binding, and the Jewish community acts as if there was no change.