CHAPTER 11 Talmud: East and West The relations between the two Talmuds, the Babylonian and the Palestinian, have engaged scholars since the middle ages. Whereas much of pre-modern scholarship concentrated on harmonizing contradictions, usually in favor of the Babylonian recension, more recent effort has been directed to utilizing the disparate sources for purposes of historical reconstruction and for understand- ing the literary history1 of the talmudic pericope, or sugya.2 At the same time, much significant work has been done in providing reliable texts,3 and in talmu- dic philology and lexicography.4 We are now at the stage where it has become * I am very grateful to Professor David Weiss Halivni for reading this paper and for offering extremely helpful suggestions. Abbreviations of references to rabbinic literature and relevant secondary sources follow DJPA and Melamed Millon. 1 For a survey of personalities and methods in modern Talmud criticism, see J. Neusner ed., The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud (Leiden: Brill, 1970); D. Goodblatt, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. 19. 2, ed. W. Haase (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1979), 257–336, especially 281–318; B. Bokser, “The Palestinian Talmud,” ibid., 139–256; H. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991; translation of a German original published in 1982), 5–52; “Accumulative Bibliography,” in The Literature of the Sages, Part 1, ed. S. Safrai, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 415–432; More recent work on the literary history of the Talmud may be found in J. Hauptman, Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (Lanham: University Press of America, 1987); R. Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989); See further the programmatic article, M. Chernick, “Contemporary Talmudic Studies: The Continuing Agenda,” in The Literature of Early Rabbinic Judaism: Issues in Talmudic Redaction and Interpretation, ed. A. Avery-Peck (Lanham: University Press of America, 1989), 73–80; M. Chernick ed., Essential Papers on the Talmud (New York: New York University, 1994). 2 The term may mean “course” or “lesson.” See A. Goldberg, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in Safrai, Sages, 337–339 (with references to earlier literature). 3 See the bibliography in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 225–233; Cf. Goodblatt, “Talmud,” 268–273. 4 There is an excellent bibliography on lexical and philological work on PT by B. Bokser in Aufstieg, 201–208; For BT see Goodblatt, ibid., 273–281. Among the more recent significant publications are DJPA (See the review by M. Tal in Tarbiz 60 [1991], 227–287; Cf. S. Kaufman, JAOS 114 [1994], 239–248); D. Sperber, Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982); idem, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1984); idem, Nautica Talmudica (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1986); idem, Material Culture in Eretz Israel During the © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004340879_0�� 116 CHAPTER 11 possible to combine philological efforts with source-critical studies5 to clarify the process of the transmission of traditions between the scholars of Palestine and Babylonia. Writing in 1990, Jacob Neusner stated: “A study of the relation- ship between the Talmud of the Land of Israel and the Talmud of Babylonia, particularly how the latter receives and reworks what it receives from the for- mer will pay attention to the two kinds of Aramaic6 that were available to the writers.”7 Talmudic Period (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1993); M. Moreshet, A Lexicon of the New Verbs in Tannaitic Hebrew (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1980); S. Morag, Babylonian Aramaic: The Yemenite Tradition (in Hebrew with English summary; (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1988); M. Kaddari and S. Sharvit eds., Studies in the Hebrew Language and the Talmudic Literature Dedicated to the Memory of Dr. Menahem Moreshet (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1989); Important programmatic articles are, E. S. Rosenthal, “For the Talmudic Dictionary-Talmudica Iranica,” in Irano Judaica I, ed. S. Shaked (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1982), 38–134; M. Bar Asher, “The Different Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew,” in “Working with No Data”; Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. Golomb (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 1–38; idem, “L’hébreu mishnique; esquisse d’une description,” CRAIBL 1990, 199–237; idem,“Introduction to Mishnaic Hebrew,” in Rabbi Mordecai Breuer Festschrift Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), 657–688. Access to the philological studies of Saul Lieberman has been greatly facilitated by the appearance of the well-indexed Saul Lieberman Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, ed. D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem Magnes, 1991); of related interest to talmudic philology and lexicography is the appearance of C. Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen Teil 1 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1991). 5 Important work in this direction is being done by Y. Ellman. See idem, Authority and Tradition: Toseftan Baraitot in Talmudic Babylonia (Hoboken: Ktav, 1994). 6 In addition to the basic division into Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic, the BT tractates Nedarim, Nazir, Keretot, Tamid, Meʿilah and the “alternative formulations” that occur fre- quently in Temurah, share a sub-dialect with its own characteristics. See M. Schlesinger, Satzlehre der aramäischen Sprache des babylonischen Talmuds (Leipzig: Asia Major, 1928), 1–2; Kut, SGA, 58; Z. Rabinovitz, Shaʿare Torat Eretz Yisraʾel (Jerusalem, 1939/40); J. N. Epstein, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), 14; idem, Prolegomena ad Litteras Amoraiticus (in Hebrew; Jerusalem, Magnes, 1962), 72–74, 131–144; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 214–215; S. Rybak, “The Aramaic Dialect of Nedarim.” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis New York: Yeshiva University, 1980) There is evidence for regional dialects as well as school dialects. See Epstein, Amoraiticus, 141; idem, Grammar, 14. According to BT Ketubot 54a, R. Nahman was able to discern from a certain woman’s speech that she was native of Mahoza on the Tigris rather than Nehardea on the Euphrates. 7 J. Neusner, Language as Taxonomy The Rules for Using Hebrew and Aramaic in the Babylonian Talmud (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), xi, n. 4; Cf. ibid., 24, n. 20..