page 157 note1 Brull, Nahum, “Die Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerk, ” Jahrbucher fur judische Geschichte und Literatur 2 (1876): 4,Google Scholar and Kaplan, Julius, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Bloch, 1933), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar Some modern proponents of the view that Rav Ashi edited the Talmud include Rapoport, Solomon, Erekh Milin (Prague, 1852), s.v. “Amora”Google Scholar; Frankel, Zacharias, “Beitrage zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud, ” Monatsschrift fuer Geschichle und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1861, pp. 210–211Google Scholar; Graetz, , GeschichtederJuden, pp. 352 ff., Brull, “Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds, ” pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar; Weiss, I. H., Dor Dor ve-Dorshav (1871—91; rpt. Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv, 1964), 3:184 ff.Google Scholar; Halevy, Isaac, Dorot ha-Rishonim (1897–1939; rpt. Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1923), 2:522, 562—571Google Scholar; Hyman, Aaron, Toledo! Tannaim ve-Amoraim (London: Ha- Express, 1910), s.v. “Rav Ashi, ” pp. 243 ff.Google Scholar; Lewin, B., Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam (Jerusalem: Ahiavar, 1937), p. 1Google Scholar; and Jawetz, W., Toledo! Yisrael (Tel Aviv: Ha-Po'el ha-Za'ir, 1938), pp. 134 ff.Google Scholar See Ephrati's, Jacob survey of the recent literature on this subject in Tekufat ha-Saboraim ve-Sifruta (Petah Tikvah: Agudat B'nai Asher, 1973), pp. 50–62.Google Scholar

page 159 note6 Frankel, , “Beitrage zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud, ” pp. 191—192; Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 2:480 and 490.Google Scholar

page 159 note7 David Goodblatt, “The Babylonian Talmud, ” in The Study of Ancient Judaism II: The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, ed. Jacob Neusner (New York: Ktav, 1981), p. 311.

page 159 note8 Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 69–70, 79–80, 94, 104–105, and 127.

page 159 note9 Amora (pi. amoraim) is the name given to the attributed talmudic rabbis who flourished following the redaction of the Mishnah in ca. 200 C.E. until the beginning of the saboraic period, ca. 501 or 520 C.E. See Table 1 for a summary of their characteristics.

page 159 note10 Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 104.

page 159 note11 Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud.

page 160 note12 Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 297–308.Google Scholar However, it must be noted that Kaplan is not consistent on this matter. See Ibid., pp. 69–70, where he concludes that Rav Ashi played an important role in the creation of the anonymous element of the Talmud. See also n. 21 below.

page 160 note13 See also Klein, Hyman, “Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from Sebara in the Babylonian Talmud, ” Jewish Social Studies 3 (1958): 370–371.Google Scholar

page 160 note14 Hanokh Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), pp. 576 ff. See also S. M. Rubinstein, Le-Heker Sidur ha-Talmud (Kovno, 1932), who posits at least two levels of redaction during the amoraic period. At times (p. 3) he refers to “a Talmud” that was before the final editors of the Talmud, and at other times (pp. 5 and 14) he refers to “various editions” that were before the final editors of the Talmud. He does not specify, however, when he thinks these amoraic redactions took place.

page 160 note15 However, in Albeck's earlier work, he accepts the traditional view of Rav Ashi's unique role in the final editing of the Talmud. See Albeck, Hanokh, “La-Arikhat ha-Talmud ha-Bavli, ” Sefer Zikaron la-Asher Gulak u-le-Shmuel Klein (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press Association, 1942), p. 2.Google Scholar

page 160 note16 In referring to Albeck's theory as the theory of continuous redaction, we have borrowed the terminology of David Goodblatt, “Babylonian Talmud, ” p. 313.

page 160 note17 Halivni, David, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), pp. 5–18. See also Y. N. Epstein, Mevo'ot le-Sifrut ha-Amoraim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1962), p. 12, who asserts that Rav Ashi and Ravina “gathered all of the material that preceded them... explained it, completed it, and arranged it, ” and that this activity of explanation, completion, and arrangement continued during the two amoraic generations between the death of Rav Ashi and Ravina and the beginning of the saboraic period. The saboraim, claims Epstein, made only superficial changes to the Talmud basically completed by the amoraim. Epstein, however, does not develop these ideas further, nor does he attempt to supply proof for them.Google Scholar

page 160 note18 The former (501 C.E.) is the date assigned by Rav Sherira in Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, p. 95, and Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. Kahan, p. 6, for the death of the later Ravina, which both geonic sources identify as the point at which hora'ah ended. The latter (520 c.E.) appears to be the date assigned by Rav Sherira (accepting the interpretation of Halevy, Dorol ha-Rishonim, 3:26) for the death of Rav Yose (or Rav Assi), whom he enumerates among the amoraim. (See Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, p. 97. Compare p. 70 there, where Rav Sherira refers to Rav Yose as a sabora.) Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim begins its account of the saboraim immediately after recounting the death of the above-mentioned Ravina, while Rav Sherira begins his account of the saboraim immediately after recounting the death of Rav Yose. It is therefore unclear, based on the geonic sources, exactly when the saboraic period began. Due to the fact that we are almost entirely dependent upon the geonim for our knowledge of this period, we have at present no choice but to treat the approximate date for the beginning of the saboraic period as a matter of doubt.

page 161 note19 Klein, in “Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from Sebara, ” credits Rav Ashi with the first compilation of the amoraic sections of the Talmud in association with the Mishnah. See also Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 289, according to which Rav Ashi is credited with “perfecting the gemara [the amoraic sections of the Talmud] in substance and extent.” Kaplan does not make clear what the exact nature of Rav Ashi's role in perfecting the gemara was, although from his brief description it does not seem to have included the arrangement of material. According to Klein, the Talmud as edited by Rav Ashi consisted entirely of “gemara, ” i.e., of tersely formulated statements without proof-texts or argumentation. In his earlier work, Klein expressed uncertainty as to the identity of the compilers of gemara, and even in the above-cited source, he offers no proof for his contention, and his conclusion is only tentative.Google Scholar

page 161 note20 See, for example, Sefer ha-Kritut, who writes that That is, according to Sefer ha-Kritut, Rav Ashi and Ravina, the editors of the Talmud, are responsible for all objections that are not explicitly attributed to an amora. See also Tosafot on ffullin 2b. Among modern scholars, see Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 2:551, who writes that the consensus among scholars of his day was that all of the stam dates from the time of the final editing (the “sealing”) of the Talmud. Even Halevy, who maintains the existence of early stamot, sees these early stamot as evidence of earlier amoraic editings prior to the final “sealing” of the Talmud by Rav Ashi. See note 165 there. See also Feldblum, Meyer, “The Impact of the 'Anonymous Sugya' on Halakic Concepts, ” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 37 (1969): 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In discussing the traditional view of the redaction of the Talmud, he writes, “The prevalent Rabbinic view … assumes a uniform redaction of the Talmud completed by the close of the fifth century…. This view is rooted in the Talmudic statement, Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of Hora'ah, on the basis of which responsibility for the anonymous material is ascribed to Rav Ashi and Ravina.” That is, according to Feldblum, in identifying the redactors of the Talmud, we have also identified the authors of the stam. See also Tenenblatt, Mordechai, Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Historit (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1972), pp. 86 and 89,Google Scholar for his discussion of the theories of S. M. Rubinstein. See also Goodblatt, “Babylonian Talmud, ” pp. 154 ff. However, Friedman, Shama, “Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya, ” Perek ha-Isha Rabbah ba-Bavli (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), p. 20,Google Scholar addendum to n. 9, observes that it cannot be claimed that the opinion of Sefer ha-Kritut (see above) is a view held in common by all Rishonim.

page 162 note21 Mention should also be made of the theory of Abraham Weiss. See the reference to Weiss's work cited in n. 5 above, and see his Ha-Yefirah she!ha-Saboraim (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1953), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar Weiss's later view, expressed in the latter work, is shared by his disciple, Meyer Feldblum. See his “Impact of the 'Anonymous Sugya' on Halakhic Concepts” and also his summary of Weiss's work, “Prof. Avraham Weiss: Ha-Arakhat Darko be-Heker ha-Talmud ve-Sikum Maskanotav, ” in Sefer ha-Yovel li-Kevod ha-Rav Dr. Abraham Weiss (New York: Shulsinger Bros., 1964), pp. 34–41,Google Scholar and 50–52. It is difficult to evaluate the impact that our research into the post-Rav Ashi amoraim will have on Weiss's theory. Dr. Michael Chernick, in a telephone conversation that took place on March 1, 1985, informed me that late in Weiss's career, when speaking of the saboraic element in the Talmud, Weiss was referring less to the material produced during a particular time period than to material possessing certain stylistic features that distinguish it from amoraic material. Nevertheless, in his published work, Weiss never retracted the view he expressed in Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, pp. 254 ff., according to which the final generations of amoraim lived during a period of persecutions—persecutions which gradually increased in intensity as the fifth century progressed, bringing about the gradual reduction of amoraic creativity during this period until its final elimination by the beginning of the sixth century. Weiss's expansion of the usual meaning of the term“saboraic” thus entailed the blurring of the traditional distinction between the saboraic and geonic contributions to the Talmud. It did not entail a blurring of the distinction between the saboraic and late amoraic contributions to the Talmud. That is, when Weiss uses the term “saboraic, ” it seems legitimate to assume that he does not mean to include material produced before the death of the last amora. In Weiss's early writings, he limited the saboraic contribution to literary polishing, to adding explanatory comments, improving the connecting links between elements within a sugya, between one sugya and another, and the like. Accordingly, most of the stam would have to be considered an amoraic creation, and would not be confined to any one particular generation within the amoraic period. With regard to the date for the composition of the stam, therefore, Weiss's early view closely resembles the view of Hanokh Albeck. Any arguments we make for or against the theory of Albeck therefore apply with basically the same force to the early Weiss. In Weiss's later writings, he attributes a much more extensive role to the saboraim. In addition to attributing to them the literary polishing described above, he claims that they were responsible for the first, and in many cases for the second sugyot in every tractate. Such sugyot are often predominantly anonymous, or at least the framework within which the amoraic and tannaitic material appears is anonymous. He claims further that saboraic sugyot bearing “similar marks of lateness” are found throughout the entire Talmud, even though in most cases it is not possible to definitively prove their saboraic provenance. Although Weiss stops short of claiming that all of the stam is saboraic, his later view is clearly no more than a step removed from the view of Kaplan with regard to the saboraic role in the creation of the stam. Kaplan himself does not think that all that is anonymous in the Talmud is saboraic. At one point (p. 316), he writes that “there is nothing anomalous about the presence of Saboraic passages in the Talmud. They are numerous and varied and make up a goodly portion of the anonymous element in that work” (emphasis added). Any arguments we make for or against Kaplan's theories regarding the stam will apply with basically the same force to the theory of the later Weiss. According to the latter, no less than according to the former, we would not expect the unique characteristics of the post—Rav Ashi amoraim to indicate their role in the anonymous editing of the Talmud, nor would we expect the stam commentary based on these amoraim to be qualitatively different from the stam based on earlier amoraic generations (since in both cases, most of the stam is not contemporary with its sources). In our critique of the various theories regarding redaction, therefore, we have not found it necessary to treat Weiss's theories separately. For our purposes, the differences between Weiss's views and the views of other scholars are of negligible importance.

page 163 note22 We will see later on that there were a small number of post—Rav Ashi amoraim who acted in several respects as typical amoraim. A full treatment of these amoraim cannot be provided in the context of the present paper, since such a treatment would add inordinately to the length and complexity of our discussion. Suffice it to say that between forty-six and fifty four post—Rav Ashi amoraim exhibit several characteristics that set them apart from amoraim in general (see Table 2), and thus fall in the category of “stammaitic amoraim, ” while only five to seven act as typical amoraim. It is clear that the latter group, such a small minority, cannot be viewed as representative of the period as a whole. Cf. below, n. 26. In addition, see the present writer's doctoral dissertation, The Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim: Transition or Continuity? A Study of the Role of the Final Generations of Amoraim in the Redaction of the Talmud (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1985), pp. 259–287, for a fuller discussion of this issue.Google Scholar

page 164 note23 See, for example, Halevy, , Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:20 ff., who maintains that the amoraim after Rav Ashi added virtually nothing that was independent and original. See also Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 3—27,Google Scholar and Blumberg, Herman, “Heinrich Graetz and Ze'ev Jawitz, ” Shamai Kanter, “I. H. Weiss and J. S. Zuri, ” and David Goodblatt, “Y. I. Halevy, ” in The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 3—47, for outlines of the major nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century theories concerning the redaction of the Talmud.Google Scholar

page 164 note24 For example, in DeVries, Benjamin, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Talmudit (Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1966), pp. 98–107, the post-Rav Ashi amoraim completely disappear from view. On p. 104, in his account of the editing and arrangement of the Talmud, he passes from the generation of Rav Ashi and his colleagues to the “end of the fifth century, ” i.e., the beginning of the saboraic period.Google Scholar

page 164 note25 See Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:21, who notes that the material composed after the death of Rav Ashi amounts to less than one-third of a talmudic tractate. While Halevy's observation is extremely imprecise, his basic insight regarding the sudden dropping-off in amoraic material produced after the death of Rav Ashi is correct. See also Weiss, , Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, p. 256, and n. 117,Google Scholar and Klein, Hyman, “Gemara Quotations in Sebara, ” Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1953): 344—345,Google Scholar n. 8. Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-lfagigah, p. 7, notes that the period between the death of Rav Ashi in 427 and the death of the later Ravina in 501 represents approximately one-third of the total duration of the amoraic period, and claims that the material which can be dated with certainty to this period adds up to less than 5 percent of the total amoraic contribution to the Talmud.

page 165 note26 See Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 146—147. Kaplan evidently believes that statements by Rav Aha and Ravina, which he correctly concludes are typical of amoraic statements in general, are characteristic of the post—Rav Ashi amoraic period as a whole. We have found, however, that the statements of these two amoraim are uncharacteristic of statements by the overwhelming majority of post—Rav Ashi amoraim. See above, n. 21, and the references cited there.Google Scholar

page 165 note27 Albeck, Hanokh, in “Sof ha-Hora'ah ve-Siyyum ha-Talmud, ” Sinai, Sefer Yovel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1958), pp. 73—79, argues that the post—Rav Ashi amoraim are unique only in that they appear very infrequently in the Talmud and do not interpret tannaitic sources. (See Kalmin, Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 92–98, where I refute Albeck's claim that the post—Rav Ashi amoraim do not interpret tannaitic sources.) Albeck certainly assigns to the post—Rav Ashi amoraim no special editorial role.Google Scholar

page 166 note28 Mention should also be made of Shama Friedman's view of the redaction of the Talmud (see Friedman, “Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya, ” pp. 17–18, esp. n. 42). Friedman, who relies heavily on the theories of Hyman Klein, observes that in all of the talmudic material he has analyzed thus far, the stam always postdates the amoraic layer of the sugya. Friedman does not commit himself with regard to the question of whether the stam was composed entirely during the saboraic period, or whether its composition began already during the amoraic period. He points out that Klein himself did not explicitly identify the saboraim as the authors of the stam until the very end of his career. See, for example, “Gemara and Sebara, ” Jewish Quarterly Review 38 (1947/48): 70, n. 10, where Klein claims that the periods of gemara and sebara overlap. Our research, therefore, will not affect the substance of Friedman's postion but will serve to decide an issue concerning which he expressed uncertainty: the approximate date for the beginning of the composition of the stam.

page 166 note29 Halivni, , Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Shabbat, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

page 167 note30 See, however, Cohen, Avinoam, Mar bar Rav Ashi and His Literary Contribution (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1980).Google Scholar Although Cohen's primary interest is in Mar bar Rav Ashi, he attempts in several places to generalize about the period as a whole. He suggests that the statements of Mar bar Rav Ashi might be characteristic of the post—Rav Ashi amoraic period as a whole. However, we found repeatedly that the activity of Mar bar Rav Ashi is atypical of the period as a whole. See Kalmin, Post—Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 348–352 and pp. 517–522, for an analysis of Cohen's work. See also below.

page 167 note31 Albeck, “Sof ha-Hora'ah ve-Siyyum ha-Talmud, ” pp. 73—79, makes the post—Rav Ashi amoraim its primary focus, but treats only a tiny selection of the available material.

page 167 note32 Cohen's study (see above, n. 30), which owes much to the thought of Abraham Weiss, is once again an exception to this generalization. Nevertheless, substantial differences exist between the methodology employed in Cohen's work and that employed by Halivni and his students (including the present writer). Analysis of the differences between the methodology of Weiss and Halivni has only recently begun. See Semeia 27 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983).

page 167 note33 See Friedman, “Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya, ” pp. 12 ff.

page 168 note34 Alt, Alexander, “Die Ursprunge des Israelitischen Rechts, ” in Kleines Schriften (1934; rpt. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959), 1:278–332.Google Scholar

page 168 note35 See the annotated bibliography by Hayes, John H., Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), pp. 103 ff.Google Scholar

page 168 note36 DeVries, Benjamin, “Le-Aeurat ha-Halakhot bi-Tekufat ha-Tannaim, ” Sinai 56 (1965): 212 ff.Google Scholar

page 168 note37 See Mekorot u-Mesorol on Eruvin 32b, pp. 91 ff., and Halivni, , '“Whoever Studies Laws …' The Apodictic and Argumentational in the Talmud, ” in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 41 (1979): 298 ff.Google Scholar

page 169 note38 Ibid., p. 302, n. 3.

page 169 note39 See Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 217–234 and 289–308Google Scholar; Klein, , “Gemara and Sebara, ” pp. 67—91Google Scholar; idem, “Gemara Quotations in Sebara, ” Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1953): 341—363; idem, “Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from Sebara, ” pp. 363—372; idem, “Some Methods of Sebara, ” Jewish Quarterly Review 50 (1959): 124–146; Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-Hagigah, and introduction to Shabbat; Friedman, “Al Derech Heker ha-Sugya, ” pp. 7—45.Google Scholar

page 170 note40 Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 147, noting that “word economy, brevity, and terseness are characteristic features of all Amoraic records, ” observed that “the peculiar form … of all the recorded controversies between R. Aha and Rabina … brief beyond laconicism, abrupt and obscure to the point of a riddle– is found in the records of the very first Amoraim …, it is employed by every Amoraic generation, and is quite as much in vogue in the period of the last Amora, Rabina bar R. Huna.” Unfortunately, however, Kaplan's focus was far too narrow. He based his characterization of the entire post—Rav Ashi amoraic period on a tiny, and as it turns out unrepresentative, sampling of statements. While the apodictic form, or hora'ah, as Kaplan calls it, was still to be found even among the last amoraim, it was clearly the exception rather than the rule as far as the period as a whole is concerned.Google Scholar

page 170 note41 We must note, however, that even though the post—Rav Ashi amoraim share the distinctive stammaitic preoccupation with argumentation, the argumentation deriving from the two sources is not identical. Halivni, , in the chapter on the stammaitic period in his Midrash, Mishnah and Gemarah (Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, describes the stam as “plush, ” meaning that stammaitic argumentation is rich and overflowing. In contrast to argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim, which is almost always concise, the stammaitic variety is prolix. As a rule, argumentation by the post—Rav Ashi amoraim includes only that which is necessary for adequate comprehension. It is reminiscent of the argumentation found in midrash halakhah, where only the bare bones of an argument are preserved. Or, more accurately, argumentation by the post—Rav Ashi amoraim should be placed in between midrash halakhic argumentation at one end of the scale, and stammaitic argumentation at the other end, but a good deal closer to the midrash halakhic extreme. By contrast, the stam often appears to engage in argument for argument's sake, out of sheer delight in dialogue and rhetoricity. To be specific, only about 15 percent of the argumentational statements by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim are multi-tiered, that is, go beyond the initial level of question and answer. In addition, even though there are isolated instances in which this argumentation is exceptionally long and complicated, it is most typically quite brief. Finally, once again in contrast to stammaitic argumentation, argumentation by the post—Rav Ashi amoraim is never rhetorical. The difference between the augumentation deriving from the post-Rav Ashi amoraim and that deriving from the stam seems best explicable in terms of the differing functions that their argumentation fills within the sugya. We will see later on that in their role as attributed amoraim, the post-Rav Ashi amoraim are not integrated into the most important aspects of the sugya. Their primary function is as anonymous editors, and when we encounter them as named amoraim, they appear as outsiders. They are not concerned with questions affecting the totality of the sugya, but with specific issues of limited scope, usually involving some detail of an opinion expressed by an earlier authority. In their role as named amoraim, the task of the post-Rav Ashi amoraim was limited to the glossing of the earlier amoraic or tannaitic core of the sugya, which task was completed when the specific problem to which they addressed themselves had been resolved. As a result, argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim tends to be brief and single-tiered, adequate for the task these amoraim set for themselves qua amoraim. Argumentation by the stammaim, however, fills an editorial function, and is consequently far more extensive and complex.

page 171 note42 See Kraemer, David, Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1985), for a statistical survey of the argumentational and apodictic material produced by amoraim prior to the post—Rav Ashi period. He found that the approximate ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements by Rav and Shmuel was 22 to 1 (p. 57), by Rav Yehuda was 3.3 to 1 (p. 64—see n. 36 there), by Rav Huna was 4 to 1 (p. 64), by R. Yobanan and Resh Lakish was 12 to 1 (pp 69–70, n. 45), by Rav Sheshet, Rav Hisda, Rav Nahman, Rav Yosef, Rabbah, and R. Zeira was 3.5 to 1 (pp. 80—81), by Rava and Abbaye was 3 to 2 (p. 109), by Rav Papa was 2.4 to 1 (p. 138), and by Rav Ashi was 1.4 to 1 (p. 146). At no time did he find argumentation to be the primary activity engaged in by these amoraim. There is thus a basic lack of correspondence between the activity of these earlier amoraim and the activity of the stam.Google Scholar

page 171 note43 See n. 25 above.

page 172 note44 This hiatus has been accounted for on the basis of Persian persecutions that were directed against the Jewish communities during the post—Rav Ashi amoraic period, in the course of which rabbinical academies were closed and rabbis were put to death. During this period of disruption, the argument goes, Jewish learning was in an extremely precarious state, and it was not until the first part of the sixth century, the beginning of the saboraic period, that order was restored and Jewish learning was allowed to resume unhindered. See Weiss, , Hithavvul ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, pp. 256—257,Google Scholar and Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 293–299.Google Scholar and 315. It does appear that the rabbis suffered some sort of persecution at the hands of the Persians during this period. However, it should be noted that all of the relevant Jewish sources were composed several hundred years after the events they describe. Also, the Jewish sources are extremely laconic in their accounts of these events, making it difficult for us to gauge their exact extent and duration. And see Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970): 60—72,Google Scholar who notes that Persian sources, also late, only preserve a record of a local persecution of limited duration. In addition, one who explains the dramatic drop in amoraic creativity during the fifth century as due to persecution cannot account for the fact that the first three decades after the death of Rav Ashi, which according to geonic accounts were free from persecution, are no less empty of amoraic activity than are the next several decades, during which the persecutions were taking place. (See Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. Kahan, p. 6, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, pp. 94–95, according to which the persecutions did not begin until 455 C.E.). Furthermore, this explanation cannot account for the fact that these persecutions, ostensibly of such momentous impact upon rabbinic learning, left virtually no explicit traces in the Talmud itself. The one exception to the Talmud's total silence on this matter is found on Hullin 62b, where we find a reference to “the wicked Peroz, ” in whose reign some of the worst persecutions appear to have been carried out. See also Shabbat 1 la. Saul Lieberman, in “On Persecution of the Jewish Religion, ” Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume, ed. S. Lieberman and A. Hyman (Jerusalem, 1974), 3:234—235, claims that it is extremely unlikely that the Talmud would have avoided mention of an anti-Jewish persecution had such a persecution made a big impression on the rabbis. A further, even more basic difficulty with explaining this hiatus in terms of persecution is that it has by no means been demonstrated that a persecution such as would have been within the resources of an ancient (or medieval) empire to inflict would have been of sufficient intensity to serve as the impetus for a sudden and dramatic drop in creativity on the part of the victims of that persecution. This point was first suggested to me by Dr. Shaye Cohen in a course entitled “Jews and Judaism in the Ancient World, ” offered at the Jewish Theological Seminary in the spring of 1976. Dr. Cohen noted that there is a tendency among modern scholars to deny the role of persecution in shaping the extent and nature of literary creativity. For example (the following examples are the responsibility of the present writer, and not of Dr. Cohen), a figure such as the Rambam, who composed one of his classic works, the Perush ha-Mishnah, in the midst of persecution, is incomprehensible according to this explanation. To take a more modern example, Bauer, Yehuda, in A History of the Holocaust (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982), p. 179,Google ScholarPubMed writes that “following the Nazi entry into Poland, and later the USSR, education in the Jewish Ghettos was forbidden. Newspapers were not permitted and libraries were closed.” Even under these circumstances, however, “writers continued to write, and painters to paint, and scientists continued their research. The few archives that survive supply ample evidence of a feverish intellectual activity during the ghetto period.” In general, in explaining the formation of the Talmud, or any other rabbinic work, it seems preferable to search first for explanations that arise out of the internal logic of the work itself, rather than for explanations that originate outside the text. It appears that the explanation of the phenomenon before us in terms of persecution is nothing more than one further working out of the “lachrymose conception of Jewish history” on the part of nineteenth- and earlytwentieth- century scholars, decried by Baron, Salo in, “New Horizons in Jewish History, ” Freedom and Reason: Studies in Philosophy and Jewish Culture in Memory of Morris Raphael Cohen, ed. Baron, S. W, E. Nagel, and K. S. Pinson (Glencoe, III., 1951), pp. 340–344.Google Scholar See Cohen, Jeremy, “Roman Imperial Policy Toward the Jews from Constantine Until the End of the Palestinian Patriarchate (ca. 429), ” Byzantine Studies 3 (1976): 1–29Google Scholar, who provides a convincing refutation of the attempt on the part of several Jewish historians to account for the redaction of the Palestinian Talmud in terms of Roman persecution. My thanks to Dr. Shaye Cohen for drawing my attention to this article.

page 173 note45 See above, n. 22, where I discuss briefly the fact that there were a small number of post-Rav Ashi amoraim who share several characteristics in common with earlier, classical amoraim. I concluded there that these few amoraim cannot be considered representative of the post-Rav Ashi amoraic period in general. See also below.

page 174 note46 It might be objected that while it is true that apodictic statements are extremely rare in the anonymous parts of the Talmud, they are nevertheless occasionally found. What determines, therefore, when an apodictic statement was formulated anonymously, and when it was attributed to a particular authority? We can answer this question by pointing out that there was certainly more than one school of stammaim. Some stammaim thought that under no circumstances should they be mentioned in the Talmud by name. Therefore, even their apodictic statements were recorded anonymously. Other stammaim were not so extreme, and thought that their names should be mentioned under certain well-defined circumstances. To the former group no doubt belong the heads of academies who are mentioned by Rav Sherira (Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, pp. 94–97; see also Albeck, Shalom, “Sof ha-Hora'ah va-Aharonei ha-Amoraim, ” Sinai Sefer Yovel [Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1958], pp. 68–73)Google Scholar as having lived after the death of Rav Ashi and yet are never mentioned in the Talmud by name. It should also be emphasized that the picture I have presented of a variety of stammaitic schools is a great deal more than mere speculation. Modern critical scholarship has revealed that the anonymous sections of the Talmud are by no means monolithic (see, for example, Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, pp. 254 ff., who concludes that the Talmud did not undergo uniform redaction). We find numerous contradictions between various stammaitic passages which are indicative of opposing schools of thought. See Kalmin, Post—Rav Ashi Amoraim, for my treatment of Bava Mezia 46b–47a (pp. 394–395), Huttin lOa–b (pp. 459–463), and Niddah 67b–68a (pp. 512–514). See also Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorol on Eruvin 37a, p. 109, n. 6, and the references cited there. It would be a simple matter to multiply examples.

page 175 note47 For example, see Kalinin, , Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 110—119, where I discuss the absence of quotations by later post-Rav Ashi amoraim of earlier post-Rav Ashi amoraim.Google Scholar

page 177 note48 Kaplan, , Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 143—147.Google Scholar

page 177 note49 Kaplan adduces other proofs for his thesis that the final editing of the Talmud was saboraic. See our discussion of these proofs in note 54 below.

page 177 note50 In defense of Kaplan, it must be noted that, in common with nearly all modern scholars, he places the beginning of the saboraic period after the death of Ravina b. d'rav Huna in 501 C.E. Halivni likewise originally held this view (see Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-lfagigah, p. 7) and only recently revised his opinion. See n. 1 to his chapter on the stammaim in Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara.

page 177 note51 According to Solomon Rapoport, in Kerem ffemed, ed. Samuel Goldenberg (Prague: Landau, 1841), p. 250, all of the stam based on statements by “later” amoraim derives from the saboraic period. Rapoport cited Gittin 60a, where we find an anonymous rejection of a statement by Mar bar Rav Ashi, who died according to geonic accounts in the year 468 C.E., approximately half a century before the beginning of the saboraic period (see Friedman, “Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya, ” pp. 10—11, n. 14). Several scholars have taken issue with Rapoport's claim, arguing that in the case he cites, the stam might derive from an anonymous authority who postdated Mar bar Rav Ashi, but who lived prior to the saboraic period. (See, for example, Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:137–138. His argument is repeated by Yeljiel Weinberg, Mehkarim be-Talmud [Berlin: Jewish Theological Seminary of Berlin, 1937–38], p. v. However, Weinberg claims that the case cited by Rapoport can be shown on the basis of stylistic considerations to be a saboraic addition. Compare Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-Hagigah, p. 10.) In the opinion of the present writer, the same argument can be directed against the view that stam material based on statements by Ravina b. d' Rav Huna must be saboraic. See our discussion below.

page 178 note52 Lewin, B., Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam, pp. 15—16, quoting Meshulam Behr, Divre Meshulam (Frankfurt am Main: D. Draller, 1925–26).Google Scholar

page 178 note53 Halivni, , Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-lfagigah, p. 10,Google Scholar and on Sukkah 18a, pp. 182 ff.

page 178 note54 Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 143—146, also records a few cases in which the attribution of a statement to the later Ravina is uncertain, and a few other cases in which Ravina's statements were taught in alternative versions. Kaplan argues that Ravina could not have been the editor in these instances, which provides further proof for his thesis that the final editing of the Talmud was carried out by the saboraim. However, are the handful of cases cited by Kaplan sufficient to prove his point? Many instances in which there are two traditions regarding the author of a statement, or regarding the actual content of a statement, are traceable to transmissional difficulties that arose during the post-talmudic period (see, for example, Mekorot u-Mesorot on Yoma-Hagigah. p. 101, and p. 389, n. 3). That is, the few cases in which the later Ravina's statement has come down to us in more than one version might involve nothing more than post-talmudic errors in transmission. The same holds true for the other amoraim who lived during the post-Rav Ashi period. That is, the few cases in which the author or the content of a statement by a post-Rav Ashi amora was transmitted in more than one version (I counted six or seven such cases) might be traceable to post-talmudic errors in transmission.

page 179 note55 Many of these halakhic decisions, even in the absence of explicit proof, can be assumed to be post-talmudic additions to the text. Lewin, , Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam, pp. 46 ff,. points out how frequently such halakhic pronouncements are additions to the sugya based on decisions by the geonim. This is not to suggest, however, that all such halakhic pronouncements are post-talmudic additions. Compare Frankel, “Beitrage zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud, ” p. 269.Google Scholar

page 180 note56 Stam commentary consisting of three distinct statements of normal length, or four extremely brief statements, has been considered brief. Stam commentary consisting of more than three distinct statements of normal length, or more than four extremely brief statements has been considered extensive. This cut-off point is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but any point at which we impose such a boundary will inevitably be arbitrary. We have therefore attempted to set the boundary at a point at which all would agree that everything we identified as brief was in fact brief. In doing so, it is quite likely that we have set the boundary too low, and that some portion of what we have characterized as extensive stam should in actuality be described as brief.

page 181 note57 The term , a transmissional term (i.e., a term which introduces quotations of earlier statements or sugyot), is found introducing statements by post—Rav Ashi amoraim. (I have at present no explanation for why this term should be consistently exceptional in this regard.) Also, very rarely we find technical terms introducing statements by post-Rav Ashi amoraim made during the lifetime of Rav Ashi.

page 181 note58 Bruit, “Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds, ” pp. 67–68, was the first to attribute certain technical terms to the saboraim. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 13, pointed out that the absence of some of these terms in the Yerushalmi no doubt suggested this conclusion to BrCill. Halivni in his Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara, chap. 6, goes further, crediting the saboraim with the introduction of all of the technical terminology into the Talmud. Halivni was anticipated by Hyman Klein, who in “Gemara and Sebara, ” pp. 85 ff., and p. 91, argues that technical terms belong to the sebaric interpretation and not to the original text. In his later work, Klein explicitly identifies the saboraim as the authors of sebara. See also the present writer's treatment of Bava Mezia 80b–81a and Avodah Zarah 22a in The Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 400–404 and 433.

page 183 note59 Mar bar Rav Ashi's ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements is between 1.1 and 1.2 to 1. See Kraemer, Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature, p. 146, who concludes that Rav Ashi's ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements was approximately 1.4 to 1.

page 183 note60 It is certainly no coincidence that of the two cases in which Mar bar Rav Ashi comes into contact with atypical amoraim, one takes place while he is still a student (Berakhot 45b), before tensions had fully developed, and the other (Hullin 97b) also involves the later Ravina, who, like Mar bar Rav Ashi, acted for the most part as a typical amora.

page 185 note61 Bava Batra 12b.

page 186 note62 Such editorial activity is minor in comparison with the editorial activity of the stam. It is undeniable that the addition of a term indicating the role that a particular statement fills within a sugya can have a significant effect on our understanding of the sugya. The words of a sage that might admit of interpretation as a declarative statement will, upon addition of the appropriate technical term, be interpreted as an objection. This will in turn affect our interpretation of the statement that follows, which must now be understood as a response to the objection, and so on until the conclusion of the sugya. Nevertheless, such superficial editorial additions are much less likely to fundamentally alter our understanding of the sugya than are additions by the stam, in which the interpretation of a statement, or of the sugya as a whole, is routinely affected by the addition by the stam.

* We have omitted reference to tannaim (the rabbis who flourished prior to the redaction of the Mishnah in ca. 200 C.E.) in this brief list, since they do not figure prominently in our research.

* From 200 c.E., publication of Mishnah, to 501 or520c.E.

† Begins 501 or 520 C.E.; date of conclusion of period uncertain.

‡ Continuation of amoraic period, begins with death of Rav Ashi, 427 C.E.