Misplaced Pages

#174825

73-586: As a targum , it is not just a translation but incorporates aggadic material collected from various sources as late as the Midrash Rabbah as well as earlier material from the Talmud . So it is a combination of a commentary and a translation. It is also a composite text, involving the Old Palestinian Targum, Targum Onkelos , and a diverse array of other material. The original name of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

146-512: A broad discursive framework was created. The law as laid down in the two compilations is basically similar, except in emphasis and in minor details. In a novel view, David Weiss Halivni describes the longer discursive passages in the Babylonian Talmud as the "Stammaitic" layer of redaction, and believe that it was added later than the rest: if one were to remove the "Stammaitic" passages, the remaining text would be quite similar in character to

219-625: A common linguistic shift from haphalah to aphalah forms. However, a minority of scholars believe that these words derive from a separate Aramaic root נגד meaning "draw, pull, spread, stretch" (corresponding to the Hebrew root משך or נטה). According to the latter etymology, aggadah may be seen as "the part of the Torah which draws man towards its teachings", or the teachings which strengthen one's religious experience and spiritual connections, in addition to explaining texts. (See similar re Masorah – in

292-532: A student of Hillel the Elder , fashioned an Aramaic translation of the Nevi'im . It makes no mention of any translation by him of the Torah. So all scholars agree that this Targum was not authored by Yonatan ben Uziel. Indeed, Azariah dei Rossi (16th century) reports that he saw two very similar complete Targumim to the Torah, one called Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel and the other called Targum Yerushalmi . A standard explanation

365-597: A work of the quality they had intended and that this is the reason why the Gemara do not comment upon the whole Mishnah, or that certain sections were lost. Current perspectives on the dating of the closure of the text of the Palestinian Talmud rely on an understanding of activity of rabbinic scholarship and literary production, identifying datable historical datapoints mentioned by the text, and its reliance on and citation by other datable (or roughly datable) texts. Broadly,

438-498: Is a compendium of rabbinic texts that incorporates folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and practical advice in various spheres, from business to medicine. The Hebrew word haggadah (הַגָּדָה) is derived from the Hebrew root נגד, meaning "declare, make known, expound", also known from the common Hebrew verb להגיד. The majority scholarly opinion is that the Hebrew word aggadah (אַגָּדָה) and corresponding Aramaic aggadta (אֲגַדְתָּא) are variants of haggadah based on

511-983: Is a compilation of the aggadic material in the Babylonian Talmud together with commentary. It was compiled by Jacob ibn Habib and (after his death) by his son Levi ibn Habib , and was first published in Saloniki (Greece) in 1515. It was intended as a text of aggadah, that could be studied with "the same degree of seriousness as the Talmud itself". Popularized anthologies did not appear until more recently—these often incorporate "aggadot" from outside of classical Rabbinic literature . The major works include: Notes Bibliography Discussion Source material Textual resources Jerusalem Talmud The Jerusalem Talmud ( Hebrew : תַּלְמוּד יְרוּשַׁלְמִי , romanized :  Talmud Yerushalmi , often Yerushalmi for short) or Palestinian Talmud , also known as

584-403: Is because she pounds [the spiced ingredients] with him." The Hebrew word for "pound" is dakh ( דך ), which rules out the spelling of rabah ( רבה ), as found in the printed editions. Yemenite Jews still call it dūkeh .   Leiden University Libraries has digitised both volumes of the manuscript and made it available in its Digital Collections. Among the Hebrew manuscripts held in

657-672: Is devoid of understanding, it is the reader" ( Shnei Luchos HaBris , introduction). See also the Maharal's approach . The Aggadah is today recorded in the Midrash and the Talmud . In the Midrash, the aggadic and halakhic material are compiled as two distinct collections: Many of the Torah commentaries , as well as the Targumim , interpret the Torah text in the light of Aggadic statements, particularly those in

730-768: Is found in the Apocrypha , the Pseudepigrapha , the works of Josephus and Philo , and the remaining Judæo-Hellenistic literature; but aggadic exegesis reached its highest development in the great epoch of the Mishnaic-Talmudic period , between 100 and 550 CE. The Aggadah of the Amoraim (sages of the Talmud) is the continuation of that of the Tannaim (sages of the Mishna). The final edition of

803-472: Is important in that it preserves some earlier variants to textual readings, such as in Tractate Pesachim 10:3 (70a), which brings down the old Hebrew word for charoset (the sweet relish eaten at Passover), viz. dūkeh ( Hebrew : דוכה ), instead of rūbeh/rabah ( Hebrew : רובה ), saying with a play on words: "The members of Isse's household would say in the name of Isse: Why is it called dūkeh ? It

SECTION 10

#1732855324175

876-579: Is in the TPsJ. More specifically, this expansion includes the phrase 'My people, children of Israel' (‮עמי בני ישראל‬‎), which is known from Neofiti and the Cairo Geniza , as well as the phrase 'As I am merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth', only found in TPsJ. Flesher and Chilton take this to imply that the Jerusalem Talmud, which reached its form by the first half of the fifth century, has cited

949-661: Is meant to be a similar style to Tosafot . Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky published a commentary on tractates Berakhot through Nedarim (roughly 70% of the Jerusalem Talmud), considered by many to be the clearest commentary. Most of it is reprinted in the Oz Vehadar edition of the Yerushalmi. Rabbi Yitzchok Isaac Krasilschikov wrote the Toledot Yitzchak and Tevuna commentaries on tractates Berakhot through Rosh Hashanah (roughly 50% of

1022-430: Is sometimes used to argue for an early date. Aggadic Aggadah ( Hebrew : אַגָּדָה , romanized :  Aggāḏā , or הַגָּדָה Haggāḏā ; Jewish Babylonian Aramaic : אֲגַדְתָּא , romanized:  Aggāḏṯā ; 'tales', 'fairytale', 'lore') is the non-legalistic exegesis which appears in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism , particularly the Talmud and Midrash . In general, Aggadah

1095-411: Is that the original title of this work was Targum Yerushalmi , which was abbreviated to ת"י (TY), and these initials were then incorrectly expanded to Targum Yonatan which was then further incorrectly expanded to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel . For these reasons, scholars call it "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan". TPsJ is known from two extant sources. One is a manuscript called British Museum Add. 27031, stored at

1168-629: The Babylonian Talmud is also presented separately in Ein Yaakov , a compilation of the Aggadah together with commentaries. Well-known works interpreting the Aggadot in the Talmud include: The Aggadah has been preserved in a series of different works, which, like all works of traditional literature, have come to their present form through previous collections and revisions. Their original forms existed long before they were reduced to writing. The first traces of

1241-793: The British Museum in London , and first published by M. Ginsburger in 1903 though provenanced in 16th century Italy . Due to the many errors in Ginsburger's edition, Rieder published a new edition of this manuscript in 1973. This manuscript bears the date 1598, though was written earlier, and was transcribed in an Italian hand. The second is the Venice edition first printed in 1591 and whose manuscripts were known earlier to Azariah dei Rossi (d. 1578), an Italian physician who discussed them in his work Meʾor ʿEynayim (1573–1575). Earlier scholarship once posited that

1314-608: The Hebrew Bible ( Exegetic Sayings— מאמרים ביאוריים ‎). Rabbinic thought, therefore, understands much of the Aggadah as containing a hidden, allegorical dimension, in addition to its overt, literal sense. In general, where a literal interpretation contradicts rationality, the rabbis seek an allegorical explanation: "We are told to use our common sense to decide whether an aggada is to be taken literally or not" (Carmell, 2005). Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (1707–1746), discusses this two-tiered, literal-allegorical mode of transmission of

1387-610: The Nasi of the Sanhedrin and put an end to the practice of semikhah (formal scholarly ordination). The redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud was done to codify the laws of the Sanhedrin as the redaction of the Mishnah had similarly done during the time of Judah ha-Nasi . It was thought that the compilers of the Jerusalem Talmud worked to collect the rulings of the Sanhedrin and lacked the time to produce

1460-615: The Talmud of the Land of Israel , is a collection of rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah . Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or the Land of Israel —rather than Jerusalem —is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews lived at

1533-561: The Tosafot and the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides . The Babylonian Talmud has traditionally been studied more widely and has had a greater influence on the halakhic tradition than the Jerusalem Talmud. However, some traditions associated with the Jerusalem Talmud are reflected in certain forms of the liturgy, particularly those of the Italian Jews and Romaniotes . Following the formation of

SECTION 20

#1732855324175

1606-563: The Vatican Library is a late 13th-century – early 14th-century copy of Tractate Sotah and the complete Zeraim for the Jerusalem Talmud ( Vat. ebr. 133 ): Berakhot , Peah , Demai , Kilayim , Sheviit , Terumot , Maaserot , Maaser Sheni , Ḥallah and Orlah (without the Mishnah for the Tractates, excepting only the Mishnah to the 2nd chapter of Berakhot). L. Ginzberg printed variant readings from this manuscript on pp. 347–372 at

1679-458: The region of Palestine – or the Land of Israel – is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews lived at the time. The use of the parallel terms dates to the period of the geonim (6th–11th century CE), alongside other terms such as "Talmud of the Land of Israel," "Talmud of the West," and "Talmud of

1752-639: The rishonim (i.e. the early exponents of the Torah). In addition, the Jerusalem Talmud remains an indispensable source of knowledge of the development of the Jewish Law in the Holy Land. It was also an important resource in the study of the Babylonian Talmud by the Kairouan school of Chananel ben Chushiel and Nissim ben Jacob , with the result that opinions ultimately based on the Jerusalem Talmud found their way into both

1825-403: The 6th or 7th century. In the initial Venice edition, the Jerusalem Talmud was published in four volumes, corresponding to separate sedarim of the Mishnah. Page numbers are by volume as follows: Each page was printed as a folio , thus it contains four sub-pages (i.e., 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d), in contrast to the Babylonian Talmud which only has two sub-pages (7a, 7b). In addition, each chapter of

1898-666: The Aggadah in his Discourse on the Haggadot . He explains that the Oral Law, in fact, comprises two components: the legal component ( חלק המצוות ‎), discussing the mitzvot and halakha ; and "the secret" component ( חלק הסודות ‎), discussing the deeper teachings. The Aggadah, along with the Kabbalah , falls under the latter. The rabbis of the Mishnaic era ( c. 10 to c.  220 CE) believed that it would be dangerous to record

1971-519: The Babylonian . The Jerusalem Talmud is often fragmentary and difficult to read, even for experienced Talmudists. The redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is more careful and precise. The traditional explanation for this difference was the idea that the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud had to finish their work abruptly. A more probable explanation is the fact that the Babylonian Talmud wasn't redacted for at least another 200 years, in which

2044-627: The Babylonian Talmud has been far greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In the main, this is because the influence and prestige of the Jewish community of Israel steadily declined in contrast with the Babylonian community in the years after the redaction of the Talmud and continuing until the Gaonic era . Furthermore, the editing of the Babylonian Talmud was superior to that of the Jerusalem version, making it more accessible and readily usable. Hai ben Sherira , on

2117-499: The Gemara is reproduced alongside his commentary in the Vilna and Mutzal Mi'Eish editions of the Jerusalem Talmud. Another 16th century commentary on the Yerushalmi is Rabbi Elazar ben Moshe Azikri 's commentary to Tractates Berakhot and Betzah. Today's modern printed editions almost all carry the commentaries, Korban ha-Eida , by David ben Naphtali Fränkel (c. 1704–1762) of Berlin on

2190-573: The Jerusalem Talmud (paralleling a chapter of Mishnah) is divided into "halachot"; each "halacha" is the commentary on a single short passage of Mishnah. Passages in the Jerusalem Talmud are generally references by a combination of chapter and halacha (i.e., Yerushalmi Sotah 1:1), by a page in the Venice edition (i.e., Yerushalmi Sotah 15a), or both (Yerushalmi Sotah 1:1 15a). In addition to the sedarim of Tohorot (except part of Niddah ) and Kodashim , several tractates and parts of tractates are missing from

2263-559: The Jerusalem Talmud are the commentaries to Tractate Shekalim of Menachem Meiri , Meshulam ben David and Shemuel ben Shniur . All three of these commentaries are reprinted in the Mutzal Mi'Eish edition of the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shekalim. Many Acharonim , however, wrote commentaries on all or major portions of the Jerusalem Talmud, and as with the Babylonian Talmud, many also wrote on individual tractates of

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan - Misplaced Pages Continue

2336-464: The Jerusalem Talmud's continued importance for the understanding of arcane matters, Hai ben Sherira wrote: Whatever we find in the Jerusalem Talmud and there is nothing that contradicts it in our own Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud), or which gives a nice explanation for its matters of discourse, we can hold-on to it and rely upon it, for it is not to be viewed as inferior to the commentaries of

2409-644: The Jerusalem Talmud), which was published from his manuscript by the Mutzal Me-esh Institute. A modern edition and commentary, known as Or Simchah , is currently being prepared in Arad ; another edition in preparation, including paraphrases and explanatory notes in modern Hebrew, is Yedid Nefesh . The Jerusalem Talmud has also received some attention from Adin Steinsaltz , who planned a translation into modern Hebrew and accompanying explanation similar to his work on

2482-475: The Jerusalem Talmud, Rash Sirilio appears only for tractates Berakhot and Pe'ah but the commentary for the entire Seder Zeraim appears in the Mutzal Mi'Eish edition of the Jerusalem Talmud and is reprinted in the Oz Vehadar edition. In addition to his commentary, Sirilio worked to remove mistakes made by manuscript copyists that over time had slipped into the text of the Jerusalem Talmud and his amended text of

2555-513: The Jerusalem Talmud, which was quoted by other rishonim but has now been lost. Kaftor VaFerach , by Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280–1355), a disciple of Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel , the Rosh , is one of the few surviving compositions of the Rishonim about all of Seder Zeraim . However it is a Halachic work and not per se a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud. The only surviving commentaries of Rishonim on

2628-403: The Jerusalem Talmud. Neither the Jerusalem nor the Babylonian Talmud covers the entire Mishnah: for example, a Babylonian Gemara exists only for 37 out of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah. In particular: The Babylonian Talmud records the opinions of the rabbis of Israel as well as of those of Babylonia, while the Jerusalem Talmud seldom cites the Babylonian rabbis. The Babylonian version contains

2701-603: The Jerusalem Talmud. One of the first of the Acharonim to write a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud was Solomon Sirilio (1485–1554), also known as Rash Sirilio , whose commentaries cover only the Seder Zeraim and the tractate Shekalim of Seder Moed . Sirilio's commentary remained in manuscript form until 1875, when it was first printed in Mainz by Meir Lehmann. In the Vilna edition of

2774-699: The Jerusalem Talmud. The last four chapters of Shabbat , and the last chapter of Makkot , are missing. Niddah ends abruptly after the first lines of chapter 4. Tractates Avot and Eduyot are missing from both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Tractate Shekalim from the Jerusalem Talmud is printed in printings of both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia , Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety; large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. The editio princeps (ed. Bomberg, Venice, 1523 et seq.), based on

2847-454: The Leiden manuscript and on which all later editions are based, terminates with the following remark: "Thus far we have found what is contained in this Talmud; and we have endeavored in vain to obtain the missing portions." Of the four manuscripts used for this first edition (comp. the note at the conclusion of Shab. xx. 17d and the passage just cited), only one is now in existence; it is preserved in

2920-484: The Midrash, and hence contain much material on Aggadah interpretation. Throughout the Talmud, aggadic and halakhic material are interwoven—legal material comprises around 90%. (Tractate Avoth , which has no gemara , deals exclusively with non-halakhic material, though it is not regarded as aggadic in that it focuses largely on character development.) The Talmudic Aggadah, generally, convey the "deeper teachings"—though in concealed mode, as discussed. The aggadic material in

2993-504: The Mishnah, which was of such signal importance for the Halakah, is of less significance for the Aggadah, which, in form as well as in content, shows the same characteristics in both periods. It is important to emphasize the fundamental difference in plan between the midrashim forming a running commentary (מאמרים ביאוריים) to the Scripture text, and the homiletic midrashim (מאמרים לימודיים). When

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan - Misplaced Pages Continue

3066-407: The Palestinian Talmud corresponds to a Roman official also named Proclus , who became the governor of Palestine around 380 and eventually climbed to the position of praefectus urbi Constantinopolis (Prefect of Constantinople) which he held between 388–392. The dating of the Palestinian Talmud is definitively prior to that of the Babylonian Talmud, which heavily relies on it. The Babylonian Talmud

3139-465: The Palestinian Talmud is dated at some time from the second half of the fourth century to the first half of the fifth century. Christine Hayes has argued that a lack of evidence for Amoraim activity in Syria Palaestina after the 370s implies that the text was closed by around 370. However, reference to historical events from around or even slightly after 370 may push the earliest possible date to

3212-512: The TPsJ dated to the first century or earlier, although this approach has been widely abandoned. The Aramaic dialect used is late and TPsJ is likely the latest of the Pentateuchal Targums. Today, a wide variety of dates have been proposed for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, ranging from the 4th to 12th centuries, although most date it to after the Islamic conquests and the upper boundary for the date of

3285-442: The TPsJ prior to the Islamic conquests, and these have included Robert Hayward, Paul Flesher, and Beverly Mortensen who place the text between the late fourth century to the early fifth century. A lower boundary for the date of TPsJ is given by references to certain external events, activities, and people. For example, TPsJ describes the six orders of the Mishnah , and the Mishnah dates to around 200. References can also be found to

3358-513: The TPsJ. However, Leeor Gottlieb has retorted that this only provides evidence for the presence of a tradition acting as the common source for the Jerusalem Talmud and TPsJ Lev. 22:28. Instead, Gottlieb dates the TPsJ to the end of the 12th century in Italy on the basis of a textual relationship with a 12th-century Hebrew lexicon which Gottlieb argues has priority over it. Independently, Gavin McDowell reached

3431-625: The Western Lands." The Jerusalem Talmud probably originated in Tiberias in the School of Johanan bar Nappaha as a compilation of teachings of the schools of Tiberias, Caesarea, and Sepphoris . It is written largely in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic , a Western Aramaic language that differs from its Babylonian counterpart . This Talmud is a synopsis of the analysis of the Mishnah that

3504-420: The city of Constantinople which was constructed in 324–330. Later still, the rendering of Genesis 21:21 in the TPsJ contains a polemic reducing the status of Ishmael and against Khadija (called Adisha in the text), the first wife of Muhammad , and a daughter of theirs name Fatima. As such, the current form of the targum must date to the mid-7th century at the earliest, although some argue that this material

3577-448: The deeper teachings in an explicit, mishnah-like, medium. Rather, they would be conveyed in a "concealed mode" and via "paradoxes". (Due to their value, these teachings should not become accessible to those "of bad character"; and due to their depth they should not be made available to those "not schooled in the ways of analysis".) This mode of transmission nevertheless depended on consistent rules and principles such that those "equipped with

3650-411: The end of his Fragments of the Yerushalmi (New York 1909). Saul Lieberman printed variants at the end of his essay, ʿAl ha-Yerushalmi (Hebrew), Jerusalem 1929. Both editors noted that this manuscript is full of gross errors but also retains some valuable readings. Traditionally, the redaction of this Talmud was thought to have been brought to an abrupt end around 425, when Theodosius II suppressed

3723-470: The keys" would be able to unlock their meaning; to others they would appear as non-rational or fantastic. In line with the above, Samuel ibn Naghrillah (993–1056), in his "Introduction to the Talmud", states that "Aggadah comprises any comment occurring in the Talmud on any topic which is not a commandment (i.e. which is not halachic ) and one should derive from it only that which is reasonable." As regards this, Maimonides (1138–1204), in his preface to

SECTION 50

#1732855324175

3796-524: The late 4th century. For example, the Roman general Ursicinus , who had a public role between 351 and 359, is mentioned several times in a legendary context, suggesting that these references are somewhat later than his public career. Furthermore, there is also a reference to the Persian campaign of the Roman emperor Julian from 363. While less clear, there is also confidence that the Roman official "Proclus" named by

3869-498: The library of the University of Leyden (see below ). Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while the sixth, Ṭohorot, contains only the first three chapters of the treatise Niddah (iv. 48d–51b). There are significant differences between the two Talmud compilations. The language of the Jerusalem Talmud is Jewish Aramaic, a Western Aramaic dialect which differs from that of

3942-463: The literature of the Rishonim. Most significantly, Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens (c. 1150 – c. 1230), known as the Rash , excerpts and explains many sections of the Jerusalem Talmud in his commentary to the Mishnah of Seder Zeraim. His work, however, is focused on the Mishnah and is not a comprehensive commentary on the entire Jerusalem Talmud. Judah ben Yakar (died c.1210) wrote a commentary to much of

4015-419: The midrashic exegesis are found in the Bible itself; while in the time of the Soferim the development of the Midrash Aggadah received a mighty impetus, and the foundations were laid for public services which were soon to offer the chief medium for the cultivation of Bible exegesis. Abtalion and Shemaiah are the first to bear the title darshan , and it was probably by no mere chance that their pupil Hillel

4088-404: The modern state of Israel , there was some interest in restoring Jerusalem Talmud's traditions. For example, David Bar-Hayim of the Machon Shilo institute has issued a siddur reflecting the practices found in the Jerusalem Talmud and other sources. There is no comprehensive commentary to the Jerusalem Talmud by any of the Rishonim , but explanations of many individual passages can be found in

4161-414: The opinions of more generations because of its later date of completion. For both these reasons, it is regarded as a more comprehensive collection of the opinions available. On the other hand, because of the centuries of redaction between the composition of the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud, the opinions of early amoraim might be closer to their original form in the Jerusalem Talmud. The influence of

4234-505: The orders of Moed, Nashim and parts of Nezikin, and Pnei Moshe , by Moses Margolies (c.1710?–1781) of Amsterdam on the entire Talmud. The Vilna edition also includes the Ridvaz by Rabbi Yaakov Dovid Wilovsky on most of the Talmud. The goal of all three of these commentaries is to explain the simple meaning of the Talmud similar to Rashi 's commentary on the Bavli, and the authors each wrote an additional commentary— Sheyarei ha-Korban , Marei ha-Panim and Tosefot Rid respectively—that

4307-441: The preeminence of the Babylonian Talmud, wrote: Anything that has been decided halachically in our Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud), we do not rely on [any contradictory view found in] the Jerusalem Talmud, seeing that many years have passed since instruction coming from there (i.e. the Land of Israel) had ceased on account of persecution, whereas here (i.e. in Babylonia ) is where the final decisions were clarified. However, on

4380-404: The same conclusion as Gottlieb, both for a provenance in the 12th century and for Italian origins, on the basis of his renewed argument for dependence of the TPsJ on the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer composed in the 9th century, as well as the Chronicles of Moses dating to the 11th century. According to McDowell, a 12th-century Italian provenance also explains the absence of Arabic loanwords, which

4453-500: The scholars undertook to edit, revise, and collect into individual midrashim the immense array of haggadot, they followed the method employed in the collections and revisions of the halakhot and the halakhic discussions. The form which suggested itself was to arrange in textual sequence the exegetical interpretations of the Biblical text as taught in the schools, or the occasional interpretations introduced into public discourses, etc., and which were in any way connected with Scripture. Since

SECTION 60

#1732855324175

4526-426: The sense of "tradition" – at Masoretic Text § Etymology .) The Aggadah is part of Judaism 's Oral Torah , the traditions providing the authoritative interpretation of the Written Torah . In this context, the widely-held view in rabbinic literature is that the Aggadah is in fact a medium for the transmission of fundamental teachings (Homiletic Sayings— מאמרים לימודיים ‎) or for explanations of verses in

4599-407: The tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin ( Perek Chelek ), describes three possible approaches to the interpretation of the Aggadah: Maimonides' approach is also widely held amongst the non-rationalistic, mystical streams of Judaism—thus, for example, Isaiah Horowitz ( c.  1555 -1630) holds that "none of these sometimes mind-boggling 'stories' are devoid of profound meaning; if anyone

4672-402: The text is the 13th century due to its citation in material from that time, specifically its repeated reference by Rabbi Menahem Recanati (1250–1310) in his Perush 'Al ha-Torah . Earlier citations to the TPsJ are not known, and none exist in the works of Nathan b. Yehiel of Rome who otherwise cited Palestinian Targums many times. A small number of academics in recent times have continued to date

4745-428: The time. The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud (known in Hebrew as the Talmud Bavli ), by about a century, written primarily in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic . It was compiled between the late fourth century to the first half of the fifth century. Both versions of the Talmud have two parts, the Mishnah (of which there is only one version), which was finalized by Judah ha-Nasi around

4818-411: The work of the editor was often merely that of compilation, the existing midrashim show in many passages the character of the sources from which they were taken. This was the genesis of the midrashim which are in the nature of running haggadic commentaries to single books of the Bible, as Bereshit Rabbah, Eikah Rabbati, the midrashim to the other Megillot, etc. See Midrash for more details. Ein Yaakov

4891-434: The year 200 CE, and either the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Gemara . The Gemara is what differentiates the Jerusalem Talmud from its Babylonian counterpart. The Jerusalem Gemara contains the written discussions of generations of rabbis of the Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina at Tiberias and Caesarea . This version of the Talmud is frequently named the Jerusalem Talmud or the Palestinian Talmud. The latter name, after

4964-507: Was Targum Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Targum). However, due to an error in the fourteenth century, it came to be known as the Targum "Jonathan" instead of "Jerusalem" in reference to Jonathan ben Uzziel . Due to the pseudonymous nature of this attribution, it is now also referred to as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, although this is variously abbreviated as TPsJ or TgPsJ. There are editions of the Pentateuch that continue to call it Targum Jonathan to this day. The Talmud relates that Yonatan ben Uziel ,

5037-403: Was composed at some time between the mid-sixth century to the early-seventh century, but prior to the onset of the Arab conquests. This provides an upper absolute boundary as to when the Palestinian Talmud could have been compiled. To further push down the upper boundary, some lines ( Demai 2:1; Shevi'it 6:1) of the Palestinian Talmud are also extant in the Tel Rehov inscription which dates to

5110-499: Was copied in 1289 by Jehiel ben Jekuthiel Anav and shows elements of a later recension. The additions which are added in the biblical glosses of the Leiden manuscript do not appear in extant fragments of the same Talmudic tractates found in Yemen, additions which are now incorporated in every printed edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. These Yemenite fragments, a consequence of isolation the Yemenite community, are important as source material (as evidenced below). The Leiden manuscript

5183-448: Was developed for nearly 200 years by the Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina (principally those of Tiberias and Caesarea ). Because of their location, the sages of these Academies devoted considerable attention to the analysis of the agricultural laws of the Land of Israel . The Leiden Jerusalem Talmud (Or. 4720) is today the only extant complete manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud and available at Leiden University Libraries . It

5256-499: Was inserted into an earlier core of the TPsJ at a later date with respect to its original composition. Paul Flesher and Bruce Chilton have argued that all three major Targums, including Pseudo-Jonathan, should date to the fifth century or earlier because of a lack of Arabic loanwords, for one, and that the Jerusalem Talmud describes a variant containing an expansion of Leviticus 22:28 in y . Ber. 5.3 (9c) whose only similar witness

5329-558: Was the first to lay down hermeneutic rules for the interpretation of the Midrash ; he may have been indebted to his teachers for the tendency toward aggadic interpretation. These two scholars are the first whose sayings are recorded in the aggadah . The new method of derush (Biblical interpretation) introduced by Abtalion and Shemaiah seems to have evoked opposition among the Pharisees. Much Aggadah, often mixed with foreign elements,

#174825