Appendix: A Guide to the Main Rabbinic Sources Although, in an historical sense, the Hebrew scriptures are the foundation of Judaism, we have to turn elsewhere for the documents that have defined Judaism as a living religion in the two millennia since Bible times. One of the main creative periods of post-biblical Judaism was that of the rabbis, or sages (hakhamim), of the six centuries preceding the closure of the Babylonian Talmud in about 600 CE. These rabbis (tannaim in the period of the Mishnah, followed by amoraim and then seboraim), laid the foundations of subsequent mainstream ('rabbinic') Judaism, and later in the first millennium that followers became known as 'rabbanites', to distinguish them from the Karaites, who rejected their tradition of inter­ pretation in favour of a more 'literal' reading of the Bible. In the notes that follow I offer the English reader some guidance to the extensive literature of the rabbis, noting also some of the modern critical editions of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) texts. Following that, I indicate the main sources (few available in English) in which rabbinic thought was and is being developed. This should at least enable readers to get their bearings in relation to the rabbinic literature discussed and cited in this book. Talmud For general introductions to this literature see Gedaliah Allon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1980-4), and E. E. Urbach, The Sages, tr. I. Abrahams (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1987), as well as the Reference Guide to Adin Steinsaltz's edition of the Babylonian Talmud (see below, under 'English Transla­ tions'). Hyam Maccoby' s Early Rabbinic Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1988) is an excellent introduction, with selected texts, to rabbinic literature up to about 200 CE. Professor Peter Schafer, of Berlin, opened a recent debate on what he chose to call 'the Status Quaestonis of Research in Rabbinic Literature'; his controversy with I. Milikowsky can be read in the pages of the Journal of Jewish Studies (Oxford) from 1986 onwards. What seems to be at issue is the question of whether one can speak at all of 'definitive' texts (Urtext, original text) of the main rabbinic works, such as Mishnah, Tosefta and Genesis Rabbah. I incline to Shafer's view of 'rabbinic literature as an open 245 246 Appendix continuum in which the process of emergence is not to be separated or distinguished with further ado from that of transmission, and the process of transmission from that of redaction'- JJS, XL (1989) 89. Although 'critical texts' are referred to below, and approximate dates given for the composi­ tion of works, one has to be aware of the difference betwen the gradual consolidation and acceptance of particular recensions of, for example, the Mishnah, and the composition of a book (such as this one) at a definite time and place by a specific person or persons. It is, to the careful scholar, alarming that we have no Mishnah and Tosefta manuscripts, and few fragments, from within six or seven hundred years of the 'composition' of those works. What we are presented with is not the unmodified work of second-century Palestinian rabbis but a scene frozen at an arbitrary point in time within the dynamic transmission of a tradition, modified at least in the Babylonian academies and often enough in those of the mediaeval Rhineland as well. Halakhic texts, being regarded as authoritative for practical purposes, were more conscientiously preserved than aggadic midrashim, though on the other hand there was a temptation to bring them into line with whatever the 'transmitter' thought was the correct ruling. Wherever, in the next section, dates are given for 'compilation' or 'completion' of books, these terms are used for convenience only, and do not imply the existence at any time of some authoritative Urtext. The main texts The core of the Talmud is Mishnah, compiled under Judah the Patriarch in Galilee in the early third century CE. Mishnah is divided into six sedarim (volumes), subdivided into sixty or so mesekhtot (tractates), which sub­ divide further into chapters and paragraphs. Tosefta is closely related to Mishnah, comprising supplementary ma­ terial and commentary, and divided into the same orders and tractates. Though much of its material is contemporary with Mishnah, its formation continued somewhat later. Mishnah, Tosefta and other tannaitic works were discussed in the schools of Palestine and Babylonia from the third century onwards. The debates, with much other material, are known as gemara (learning, com­ pletion). Written in the form of commentary on Mishnah, gemara together with Mishnah comprises the Talmud. The Palestinian, or Jerusalem, Talmud (in Hebrew Yerushalmi), reflects the discussions in the Holy Land; it was completed about 400. The Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) is much more comprehensive, except in agricultural law, and would have achieved much the form in which we know it by about 550. The Babylonian rather than the Jerusalem Talmud was formative for rabbinic Judaism throughout the Middle Ages, though recently, partly in view of its relevance to agriculture in the land of Israel, the status of the Jerusalem Talmud has been enhanced in orthodox circles. Appendix 247 How talmudic texts are referenced Since Mishnah's division into tractates provides the framework for all these works, it is convenient to refer to texts by M (Mishnah), T (Tosefta), J or P Oerusalem or Palestinian Talmud), or B (Babylonian Talmud), fol­ lowed by the name of the tractate, in transliterated Hebrew, in italic. References to Mishnah (standard editions) and Tosefta (Zuckermandel's Hebrew edition) list tractate, chapter and paragraph; Yerushalmi Oeru­ salem Talmud) is referred to by tractate, chapter and section; Bavli (Babylo­ nian Talmud) references are to tractate and to the page in Bomberg's Venice edition of 1520-3: this has been followed by most subsequent editions, including the Vilna (1880-6) edition normally reproduced and used today. Here are some examples. M Gittin 7:4 means: Mishnah, tractate Gittin, chapter 7, mishnah (para­ graph) 4. T Berakhot 4:2 means: Tosefta, tractate Berakhot, chapter 4, paragraph 2. B Bava Qama 42b means: Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Qama, second side (side 'b') of folio 42. J Shevi'it 4:3 means: Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Shevi'it, chapter 4, halakha (law, section) 3. This could also appear asP Shevi'it 4:3, 'P' standing for 'Palestinian' (for the Yerushalmi was not indeed composed in Jerusalem, from which Jews had been banned). Yerushalmi references are some­ times made by page, but this causes confusion as unlike the Bavli it is not published in standard pagination. Lists of the tractate names and their meanings will be found in any of the translations referred to below, or in appropriate encyclopaedia articles under 'Mishnah'. Of course, there are alternative transliterations of the Hebrew names. English translations MISHNAH The following translations are available. H. Danby (tr.), The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933). Mishnayot, Hebrew text of the Mishnah with translation and explanatory notes by Philip Blackman, 7 vols (New York: Judaica Press, 1951-6; 2nd edn 1963-4). 248 Appendix J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987). The Mishnah is subdivided into six sedarim ('orders'). Five of these are now available in translation and with form-critical analysis and historical as­ sessment in the series published by Brill of Leiden and mainly written by or under the guidance of Jacob Neusner. There are forty-three volumes. Several volumes of the first order, Zeraim ('Seeds'), have appeared under different publishing arrangements. One can avoid tedious repetition by focusing on volume 22 of the sixth order, Tohorot ('Purities'), in which Neusner sums up his method and conclusions. TOSEFfA The Hebrew text was edited by M. S. Zuckermandel (Pasewalk, 1881; Jerusalem, 1937); an important critical commentary (incomplete), Tosefta Kifshutah, was added by S. Lieberman (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955--73). J. Neusner has published an English translation of the text: The Tosefta, 6 vols (New York: Ktav, 1977-86). JERUSALEM TALMUD J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, 35 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982-7). BABYLONIAN TALMUD I. Epstein (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, translation with notes, glossary and indexes, 18 vols (London: Soncino Press, 1935--48). There have been subsequent editions, including some individual tractates with Hebrew text. Neusner has entered the field with his The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation (Atlanta, 1984- ), but few volumes of this have as yet appeared. A Reference Guide and the first volume of text with translation by Adin Steinsaltz have been published by Random House (New York, 1989). Targum The Aramaic translations (paraphrases) of scripture, known as targumim, have been used continuously by Jews since early rabbinic times, in both synagogue and study, and have recently received considerable scholarly attention. For an introduction see John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); but lively de­ bate on fundamental issues has taken place in the intervening twenty years. Among the published translations of the targumim is D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch Gerusalem, 1974). Appendix 249 Liturgy Rabbi Gamaliel II, round about the year 100, presided over the institution of the forms of prayer which became normative for subsequent Judaism. However, there is no satisfactory account in English of the development of Jewish liturgy in the early centuries. especially since the revision of much earlier scholarship under the impact of Genizah studies. The works of Idelsohn, Heinemann and others remain valuable. See J. Heinemann and J. J. Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue (New York: Behrman House, 1975).