Misplaced Pages

#699300

111-642: There are two versions of the Gemara: the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) and the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). The Babylonian Talmud, compiled by scholars in Babylonia around 500 CE and primarily from the academies of Sura , Pumbedita , and Nehardea , is the more commonly cited version when referring to the "Gemara" or "Talmud" without further qualification. The main compilers of

222-520: A compilation by Zechariah Aghmati called Sefer ha-Ner . The Tosafot are collected commentaries by various medieval Ashkenazic rabbis on the Talmud (known as Tosafists or Ba'alei Tosafot ). One of the main goals of the Tosafot is to explain and interpret contradictory statements in the Talmud. Unlike Rashi, the Tosafot is not a running commentary, but rather comments on selected matters. Often

333-431: A conclusion. Defeasibility means that when additional information (new evidence or contrary arguments) is provided, the premises may be no longer lead to the conclusion ( non-monotonic reasoning ). This type of reasoning is referred to as defeasible reasoning . For instance we consider the famous Tweety example: This argument is reasonable and the premises support the conclusion unless additional information indicating that

444-577: A consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as the Tannaim (literally, "repeaters", or "teachers"). These tannaim—rabbis of the second century CE--"who produced the Mishnah and other tannaic works, must be distinguished from the rabbis of the third to fifth centuries, known as amoraim (literally, "speakers"), who produced the two Talmudim and other amoraic works". Since it sequences its laws by subject matter instead of by biblical context,

555-462: A contemporary practice called " Daf Yomi ," or "daily page," wherein participants study one page of the Talmud daily in cycles lasting seven and a half years each. This initiative ensures that both scholars and laypeople across the globe engage in the comprehensive study of the entire Talmud. The Gemara and the Mishnah together make up the Talmud . The Talmud thus comprises two components: the Mishnah –

666-481: A group of philosophical arguments that according to Nikolas Kompridis employ a disclosive approach, to reveal features of a wider ontological or cultural-linguistic understanding—a "world", in a specifically ontological sense—in order to clarify or transform the background of meaning ( tacit knowledge ) and what Kompridis has called the "logical space" on which an argument implicitly depends. While arguments attempt to show that something was, is, will be, or should be

777-538: A lower boundary on the dating of the Babylonian Talmud, it must post-date the early 5th century given its reliance on the Jerusalem Talmud . From the time of its completion, the Talmud became integral to Jewish scholarship. A maxim in Pirkei Avot advocates its study from the age of 15. This section outlines some of the major areas of Talmudic study. One area of Talmudic scholarship developed out of

888-449: A necessary premise in their reasoning if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. The missing premise is: Iron is a metal. On the other hand, a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise—a "hidden assumption"—which, if highlighted, can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out

999-496: A self-contained, edited passage known as a sugya . Much of the Gemara is legal in nature. Each analysis begins with a Mishnaic legal statement. With each sugya, the statement may be analyzed and compared with other statements. This process can be framed as an exchange between two (often anonymous, possibly metaphorical) disputants, termed the makshan (questioner) and tartzan (answerer). Gemara also commonly tries to find

1110-697: A series of questions before he satisfies himself of having understood its full meaning." This analysis has been described as "mathematical" in approach; Adin Steinsaltz makes the analogy of the Amoraim as scientists investigating the Halakha , where the Tanakh , Mishnah , Tosefta and midrash are the phenomena studied. Prooftexts quoted to corroborate or disprove the respective opinions and theories will include: The actual debate will usually centre on

1221-664: A sole for one's foot. Despite its incomplete state, 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 primary source for 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

SECTION 10

#1732766095700

1332-440: A valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds ) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, is a necessary truth, it is without regard to the premises. Some examples: In the above second to last case (Some men are hawkers ...),

1443-435: A word frequently used to indicate a conclusion is used as a transition (conjunctive adverb) between independent clauses. In English the words therefore , so , because and hence typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument. Thus: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is an argument because the assertion Socrates is mortal follows from the preceding statements. However, I

1554-568: Is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. In antiquity, the two major centres of Jewish scholarship were located in Galilee and Babylonia . A Talmud was compiled in each of these regional centres. The earlier of the two compilations took place in Galilee, either in the late fourth or early fifth century, and it came to be known as the Jerusalem Talmud (or Talmud Yerushalmi ). Later on, and likely some time in

1665-554: Is entailed in a statement of fact or in a specific instance brought as an illustration? If a statement appears obvious, the Gemara seeks the logical reason for its necessity. It seeks to answer under which circumstances a statement is true, and what qualifications are permissible. All statements are examined for internal consistency. See: List of Talmudic principles and Category:Talmud concepts and terminology Resolving contradictions, perceived or actual, between different statements in

1776-925: Is excluded. Demonstrating how the Mishnah's rulings or disputes derive from interpretations of Biblical texts, the Gemara will often ask where in the Torah the Mishnah derives a particular law. See Talmudic hermeneutics and Oral Torah § The interplay of the Oral and Written Law . [REDACTED]  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain :  Singer, Isidore ; et al., eds. (1901–1906). " Talmud ". The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Talmud#Talmud Bavli The Talmud ( / ˈ t ɑː l m ʊ d , - m ə d , ˈ t æ l -/ ; Hebrew : תַּלְמוּד ‎ , romanized :  Talmūḏ , lit.   'teaching') is, after

1887-429: Is from Proto-Indo-European argu-yo- , suffixed form of arg- (to shine; white). Informal arguments as studied in informal logic , are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse . Formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic , more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language . Informal logic emphasizes

1998-435: Is invalid. This can be done by a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal logic this is called a counter argument . The form of an argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional , and an argument form

2109-852: Is largely in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic , although quotations in the Gemara of the Mishnah, the Baraitas and Tanakh appear in Mishnaic or Biblical Hebrew. Some other dialects of Aramaic occur in quotations of other older works, like the Megillat Taanit . The reason why earlier texts occur in Hebrew, and later texts in Aramaic, is because of the adoption of the latter (which was the spoken vernacular) by rabbinic circles during

2220-786: Is mostly written in Aramaic , the Jerusalem Gemara in Western Aramaic and the Babylonian in Eastern Aramaic , but both contain portions in Hebrew . Sometimes the language changes in the middle of a story. In a narrow sense, the word gemara refers to the mastery and transmission of existing tradition, as opposed to sevara , which means the deriving of new results by logic. Both activities are represented in

2331-494: Is necessarily true based on its connection to our experience, while Nikolas Kompridis has suggested that there are two types of " fallible " arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure of possibility ( world disclosure ). Kompridis said that the French philosopher Michel Foucault was a prominent advocate of this latter form of philosophical argument. World-disclosing arguments are

SECTION 20

#1732766095700

2442-461: Is often criticized as being a modern-day version of pilpul . Nevertheless, the influence of the Brisker method is great. Most modern-day Yeshivot study the Talmud using the Brisker method in some form. One feature of this method is the use of Maimonides ' Mishneh Torah as a guide to Talmudic interpretation, as distinct from its use as a source of practical halakha . Rival methods were those of

2553-466: Is possible. An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises. In formal logic, the validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form . The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive:

2664-568: Is primarily because the 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. Maimonides claims that all Jewish communities in the Gaonic period formally accepted the Babylonian Talmud as binding, and that in any areas where the two Talmuds conflict, deference is given to

2775-424: Is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism , which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction , a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render

2886-443: Is regarded as more comprehensive. The structure of the Talmud follows that of the Mishnah, in which six orders ( sedarim ; singular: seder ) of general subject matter are divided into 60 or 63 tractates ( masekhtot ; singular: masekhet ) of more focused subject compilations, though not all tractates have Gemara. Each tractate is divided into chapters ( perakim ; singular: perek ), 517 in total, that are both numbered according to

2997-537: Is sound when the argument is valid and argument's premise(s) is/are true, therefore the conclusion is true. An inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the probability of the premises. For example, given that the military budget of the United States is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since

3108-520: Is the cause of much difficulty in thinking critically about claims. There are several reasons for this difficulty. Explanations and arguments are often studied in the field of information systems to help explain user acceptance of knowledge-based systems . Certain argument types may fit better with personality traits to enhance acceptance by individuals. Fallacies are types of argument or expressions which are held to be of an invalid form or contain errors in reasoning. One type of fallacy occurs when

3219-476: Is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid , and the valid ones can be sound : in a valid argument, premises necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premises necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments , by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength:

3330-422: Is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion. Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation , can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical , the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic , an argument

3441-510: Is treated as a subject of close investigation. This analysis is aimed at an exhaustive understanding of the Mishna's full meaning. In the Talmud, a sugya is presented as a series of responsive hypotheses and questions – with the Talmudic text as a record of each step in the process of reasoning and derivation. The Gemara thus takes the form of a dialectical exchange (by contrast,

Gemara - Misplaced Pages Continue

3552-407: Is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language , and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science . Logic

3663-412: Is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth . A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under all interpretations . A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure . The corresponding conditional of

3774-570: Is written largely in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic , a Western Aramaic language that differs from its Babylonian counterpart . The eye and the heart are two abettors to the crime. The final redaction of the text was in the late fourth or early fifth century, once Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire and Jerusalem. Just as wisdom has made a crown for one's head, so, too, humility has made

3885-399: The Gemara as one literary work. The Aramaic noun gemar (and gemara ) was formed from the verb that means "learn." This substantive noun thus designates what was learned, and the learning transmitted to scholars by tradition, though it connotes in a more limited sense to exposition of the Mishnah. The word therefore gained currency as a designation of the Talmud. In the modern editions,

3996-418: The Mishnah states concluded legal opinions – and often differences in opinion between the Tannaim . There is little dialogue). The disputants here are termed the makshan (questioner, "one who raises a difficulty") and tartzan (answerer, "one who puts straight"). The Gemara records the semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim . Some of these debates were actually conducted by

4107-403: The Mishnah , or between the Mishnah and other traditions; e.g., by stating that: two conflicting sources are dealing with differing circumstances; or that they represent the views of different rabbis. Do certain authorities differ or not? If they do, why do they differ? If a principle is presented as a generalization, the Gemara clarifies how much is included; if an exception, how much

4218-692: The Talmuda de-Eretz Yisrael ("Talmud of the Land of Israel"). Prior to being written down, it was transmitted orally for centuries and represents a compilation of scholastic teachings and analyses on the Mishnah (especially those concerning agricultural laws) found across regional centres of the Land of Israel now known as the Academies in Galilee (principally those of Tiberias , Sepphoris , and Caesarea ). It

4329-458: The Aggadic material from the Talmud. It was intended to familiarize the public with the ethical parts of the Talmud and to dispute many of the accusations surrounding its contents. Geonic -era (6th-11th centuries) commentaries have largely been lost, but are known to exist from partial quotations in later medieval and early modern texts. Because of this, it is known that now-lost commentaries on

4440-452: The Amoraim is generally focused on clarifying the positions, words and views of the Tannaim . These debates and exchanges form the "building-blocks" of the Gemara ; the name for such a passage of Gemara is a sugya ( סוגיא ‎; plural sugyot ). A sugya will typically comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of the Mishna . Every aspect of the Mishnaic text

4551-458: The Amoraim , though many of them are hypothetically reconstructed by the Talmud's redactors. (Often imputing a view to an earlier authority as to how he may have answered a question: "This is what Rabbi X could have argued ...") Only rarely are debates formally closed. The distinctive character of the gemara derives largely from the intricate use of argumentation and debate, described above; these "back and forth" analytics are characterized by

Gemara - Misplaced Pages Continue

4662-572: The Gemara ( גמרא , c. 500 CE), a commentary of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings whose greater goal is to systematically understand the Hebrew Bible . Sometimes, the term "Talmud" is only used for the Gemara. As a whole, the traditions of the Talmud emerged in a literary tradition that occurred between the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the Arab conquest in

4773-401: The Hebrew Bible , the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law ( halakha ) and Jewish theology . Until the advent of modernity , in nearly all Jewish communities, the Talmud was the centerpiece of Jewish cultural life and was foundational to "all Jewish thought and aspirations", serving also as "the guide for the daily life" of Jews. Above all,

4884-446: The Hebrew alphabet and given names, usually using the first one or two words in the first Mishnah. A perek may continue over several (up to tens of) pages . Each perek will contain several mishnayot . The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates. Statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject; or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing

4995-506: The Mir and Telz yeshivas . See Chaim Rabinowitz § Telshe and Yeshiva Ohel Torah-Baranovich § Style of learning . The text of the Talmud has been subject to some level of critical scrutiny throughout its history. Rabbinic tradition holds that the people cited in both Talmuds did not have a hand in its writings; rather, their teachings were edited into a rough form around 450 CE (Talmud Yerushalmi) and 550 CE (Talmud Bavli.) The text of

5106-562: The Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara, the latter representing the culmination of more than 300 years of analysis of the Mishnah in the Talmudic Academies in Babylonia. The foundations of this process of analysis were laid by Abba Arika (175–247), a disciple of Judah ha-Nasi . Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina II . Rav Ashi

5217-465: The Tosafot and the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides . Ethical maxims contained in the Jerusalem Talmud are scattered and interspersed in the legal discussions throughout the several treatises, many of which differ from those in the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud ( Talmud Bavli ) consists of documents compiled over the period of late antiquity (3rd to 6th centuries). During this time,

5328-424: The disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting. In dialectics, and also in a more colloquial sense, an argument can be conceived as a social and verbal means of trying to resolve, or at least contend with, a conflict or difference of opinion that has arisen or exists between two or more parties. For the rhetorical perspective, the argument is constitutively linked with the context, in particular with

5439-416: The 15th and 16th centuries, a new intensive form of Talmud study arose. Complicated logical arguments were used to explain minor points of contradiction within the Talmud. The term pilpul was applied to this type of study. Usage of pilpul in this sense (that of "sharp analysis") harks back to the Talmudic era and refers to the intellectual sharpness this method demanded. Pilpul practitioners posited that

5550-498: The 15th century on, some authorities sought to apply the methods of Aristotelian logic , as reformulated by Averroes . This method was first recorded, though without explicit reference to Aristotle, by Isaac Campanton (d. Spain, 1463) in his Darkhei ha-Talmud ("The Ways of the Talmud"), and is also found in the works of Moses Chaim Luzzatto . According to the present-day Sephardi scholar José Faur , traditional Sephardic Talmud study could take place on any of three levels. In

5661-473: The 18th century, pilpul study waned. Other styles of learning such as that of the school of Elijah b. Solomon, the Vilna Gaon , became popular. The term "pilpul" was increasingly applied derogatorily to novellae deemed casuistic and hairsplitting. Authors referred to their own commentaries as "al derekh ha-peshat" (by the simple method) to contrast them with pilpul. Among Sephardi and Italian Jews from

SECTION 50

#1732766095700

5772-462: The 5th century by Rav Ashi and Ravina II . There is also an earlier collection known as the Jerusalem Talmud ( Talmud Yerushalmi ). It may also traditionally be called Shas ( ש״ס ), a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim , or the "six orders" of the Mishnah . The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah ( משנה , c. 200 CE), a written compendium of the Oral Torah ; and

5883-596: The Babylonian Talmud may draw upon the Mishnah, the Jerusalem Talmud, midrash, and other sources. The traditions that the Gemara comments on are not limited to what is found in the Mishnah, but the Baraita as well (a term that broadly designates Oral Torah traditions that did not end up in the Mishnah). The baraitot cited in the Gemara are often quotations from the Tosefta (a tannaitic compendium of halakha parallel to

5994-491: The Babylonian Talmud were Ravina and Rav Ashi . The Jerusalem Talmud, also known as the Palestinian Talmud, was compiled by Jewish scholars in the Land of Israel, primarily from the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea , around 350–400 CE. The Talmud is organized into six sedarim , or "orders," which include Zeraim, Moed, Nashim, Nezikin, Kodshim, and Taharot. In 1923, Polish Rabbi Meir Shapiro introduced

6105-592: The Babylonian opinion. Neither covers the entire Mishnah. For example, the Babylonian commentary only covers 37 of 63 Mishnaic tractates. In particular: The Babylonian Talmud records the opinions of the rabbis of the Ma'arava (the West, meaning Israel) as well as of those of Babylonia, while the Jerusalem Talmud seldom cites the Babylonian rabbis. The Babylonian version also contains the opinions of more generations because of its later date of completion. For both these reasons, it

6216-474: The Bavli especially was not firmly fixed at that time. Gaonic responsa literature addresses this issue. Teshuvot Geonim Kadmonim, section 78, deals with mistaken biblical readings in the Talmud. This Gaonic responsum states: Logical argument An argument is a series of sentences , statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion . The purpose of an argument

6327-541: The Mishnah discusses individual subjects more thoroughly than the Midrash , and it includes a much broader selection of halakhic subjects than the Midrash. The Mishnah's topical organization thus became the framework of the Talmud as a whole. But not every tractate in the Mishnah has a corresponding Gemara. Also, the order of the tractates in the Talmud differs in some cases from that in the Mishnah . The Gemara constitutes

6438-409: The Mishnah) and the Midrash halakha (specifically Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifre ). Some baraitot , however, are known only through traditions cited in the Gemara, and are not part of any other collection. In addition to the six Orders, the Talmud contains a series of short treatises of a later date, usually printed at the end of Seder Nezikin. These are not divided into Mishnah and Gemara. The work

6549-508: The Roman destruction of the Jewish commonwealth and the Second Temple in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and total Roman control over Judaea , without at least partial autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It

6660-770: The Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period, known as the Savoraim or Rabbanan Savora'e (meaning "reasoners" or "considerers"). Unlike the Western Aramaic dialect of the Jerusalm Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud has a Babylonian Aramaic dialect. The Jerusalem is also more fragmentary (and difficult to read) due to a less complete redactional process . Legally, the two differ minimally. The Babylonian Talmud has received significantly more interest and coverage from commentators. This significantly greater influence

6771-507: The Talmud could contain no redundancy or contradiction whatsoever. New categories and distinctions ( hillukim ) were therefore created, resolving seeming contradictions within the Talmud by novel logical means. In the Ashkenazi world the founders of pilpul are generally considered to be Jacob Pollak (1460–1541) and Shalom Shachna . This kind of study reached its height in the 16th and 17th centuries when expertise in pilpulistic analysis

SECTION 60

#1732766095700

6882-557: The Talmud frequently substitute for the word "Gemara" the Aramaic abbreviation for "the six orders of the Mishnah," pronunced as "Shas," which has become a popular designation for the Babylonian Talmud. The building block of gemara is known as a sugya, "a self-contained basic unit of Talmudic discussion" (p.203) that often centers on a statement from the mishnah, the amoraic rabbis (memra), or simply independent of these. They vary in size and complexity and, though self-contained, may mention or assume knowledge of other sugiyot. The analysis of

6993-439: The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah , primarily written in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic . It contains the teachings and opinions of thousands of rabbis on a variety of subjects, including halakha , Jewish ethics , philosophy , customs , history , and folklore , and many other topics. The term Talmud normally refers to the collection of writings named specifically the Babylonian Talmud ( Talmud Bavli ), compiled in

7104-614: The Talmud was compiled appears to have been forgotten at least by the second half of the Middle Ages, when estimates between the 3rd century BCE to the 9th century CE are suggested in the Wikkuah , a text that records the debates that took place in the Disputation of Paris (also known as the "Trial of the Talmud") which took place in 1240. A wide range of dates have been proposed for the Babylonian Talmud by historians. The text

7215-402: The Talmud were written by Paltoi Gaon, Sherira , Hai Gaon , and Saadya (though in this case, Saadiya is not likely to be the true author). Of these, the commentary of Paltoi ben Abaye ( c. 840) is the earliest. His son, Zemah ben Paltoi paraphrased and explained the passages which he quoted; and he composed, as an aid to the study of the Talmud, a lexicon which Abraham Zacuto consulted in

7326-460: The Talmud, has become a classic. Sections in the commentary covering a few tractates (Pes, BB and Mak) were completed by his students, especially Judah ben Nathan , and a sections dealing with specific tractates (Ned, Naz, Hor and MQ) of the commentary that appear in some print editions of Rashi's commentary today were not composed by him. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a genre of rabbinic literature emerged surrounding Rashi's commentary, with

7437-439: The Talmudic phrase shakla v'tarya (שקלא וטריא; lit. "taking and throwing"). In each sugya , either participant may cite scriptural, Mishnaic and Amoraic proof to build a logical support for their respective opinions. The process of deduction required to derive a conclusion from a prooftext is often logically complex and indirect. "Confronted with a statement on any subject, the Talmudic student will proceed to raise

7548-410: The above argument and explanation require knowing the generalities that a) fleas often cause itching, and b) that one often scratches to relieve itching. The difference is in the intent: an argument attempts to settle whether or not some claim is true, and an explanation attempts to provide understanding of the event. Note, that by subsuming the specific event (of Fred's cat scratching) as an instance of

7659-408: The abstract structure of the most common types of natural arguments. A typical example is the argument from expert opinion, shown below, which has two premises and a conclusion. Each scheme may be associated with a set of critical questions, namely criteria for assessing dialectically the reasonableness and acceptability of an argument. The matching critical questions are the standard ways of casting

7770-535: The acceptance of its premises) with rules of material inference, governing how a premise can support a given conclusion (whether it is reasonable or not to draw a specific conclusion from a specific description of a state of affairs). Argumentation schemes have been developed to describe and assess the acceptability or the fallaciousness of defeasible arguments. Argumentation schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing

7881-414: The argument into doubt. Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the particular to particular. An argument by analogy may use a particular truth in a premise to argue towards a similar particular truth in the conclusion. For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because

7992-399: The case is an exception comes in. If Tweety is a penguin, the inference is no longer justified by the premise. Defeasible arguments are based on generalizations that hold only in the majority of cases, but are subject to exceptions and defaults. In order to represent and assess defeasible reasoning, it is necessary to combine the logical rules (governing the acceptance of a conclusion based on

8103-431: The case, explanations try to show why or how something is or will be. If Fred and Joe address the issue of whether or not Fred's cat has fleas, Joe may state: "Fred, your cat has fleas. Observe, the cat is scratching right now." Joe has made an argument that the cat has fleas. However, if Joe asks Fred, "Why is your cat scratching itself?" the explanation, "... because it has fleas." provides understanding. Both

8214-459: The commentary portion of the Talmud. The Mishnah, and its commentary (the Gemara), together constitute the Talmud. This commentary arises from a longstanding tradition of rabbis analyzing, debating, and discussing the Mishnah ever since it had been published. The rabbis who participated in the process that produced this commentarial tradition are known as the Amoraim . Each discussion is presented in

8325-410: The conclusion are truth bearers or "truth-candidates", each capable of being either true or false (but not both). These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny

8436-525: The conclusion because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises. Based on the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty). Given premises that A=B and B=C, then the conclusion follows necessarily that A=C. Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments. For example, consider the argument that because bats can fly (premise=true), and all flying creatures are birds (premise=false), therefore bats are birds (conclusion=false). If we assume

8547-405: The conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be true or false. Logic seeks to discover the forms that make arguments valid. A form of argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be shown invalid by showing that its form

8658-453: The core text; and the Gemara – analysis and commentary which "completes" the Talmud (see Structure of the Talmud ). Maimonides describes the Gemara component as: understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts, understanding [the Law] based on the principles of Torah exegesis , until one appreciates

8769-409: The correct biblical basis for a given law in the Mishnah as well as the logical process that connects the biblical to the Mishnaic tradition. This process was known as talmud , long before the "Talmud" itself became a text. In addition, the Gemara contains a wide range of narratives, homiletical or exegetical passages, sayings, and other non-legal content, termed aggadah . A story told in a sugya of

8880-596: The counter-example follows the same logical form as the previous argument, (Premise 1: "Some X are Y ." Premise 2: "Some Y are Z ." Conclusion: "Some X are Z .") in order to demonstrate that whatever hawkers may be, they may or may not be rich, in consideration of the premises as such. (See also: Existential import ). The forms of argument that render deductions valid are well-established, however some invalid arguments can also be persuasive depending on their construction ( inductive arguments , for example). (See also: Formal fallacy and Informal fallacy ). An argument

8991-520: The early seventh century. In all, the Talmud is divided into 63 tractates , with each tractate systematically discussing one general subject or theme. In the standard print of the Talmud (the Vilna Shas ), the Talmud runs to a length of 2,711 double-sided folios . Talmud translates as "instruction, learning", from the Semitic root lmd , meaning "teach, study". Originally, Jewish scholarship

9102-476: The essence of those principles and how the prohibitions and the other decisions which one received according to the oral tradition (i.e. Mishnah) can be derived using them.... The rabbis of the Mishnah are known as Tannaim (sing. Tanna תנא ‎). The rabbis of the Gemara are referred to as Amoraim (sing. Amora אמורא). The analysis of the Amoraim, recorded as gemara , is thus focused on clarifying

9213-466: The explanations of Tosafot differ from those of Rashi. Among the founders of the Tosafist school were Rabbeinu Tam , who was a grandson of Rashi, and, Rabbenu Tam's nephew, Isaac ben Samuel . The Tosafot commentaries were collected in different editions in the various schools. The benchmark collection of Tosafot for Northern France was that of Eliezer of Touques . The standard collection for Spain

9324-426: The fifteenth century. Saadia Gaon is said to have composed commentaries on the Talmud, aside from his Arabic commentaries on the Mishnah. The first surviving commentary on the entire Talmud is that of Chananel ben Chushiel . Many medieval authors also composed commentaries focusing on the content of specific tractates, including Nissim ben Jacob and Gershom ben Judah . The commentary of Rashi , covering most of

9435-416: The following categories: Why does the Mishna use one word rather than another? If a statement is not clear enough, the Gemara seeks to clarify the Mishna's intention. Exploring the logical principles underlying the Mishnah's statements, and showing how different understandings of the Mishnah's reasons could lead to differences in their practical application. What underlying principle

9546-462: The front door except the milkman; therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. The hidden assumptions are: (1) the milkman was not the murderer and (2) the murderer has left (3) by a door and (4) not by e.g. a window or through an 'ole in 't roof and (5) there are no other doors than the front or back door. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with

9657-424: The future is uncertain. An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak. If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent. The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument. Non-deductive logic

9768-545: The general rule that "animals scratch themselves when they have fleas", Joe will no longer wonder why Fred's cat is scratching itself. Arguments address problems of belief, explanations address problems of understanding. In the argument above, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas" is up for debate (i.e. is a claim), but in the explanation, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas" is assumed to be true (unquestioned at this time) and just needs explaining . Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use. This

9879-460: The late 19th century another trend in Talmud study arose. Hayyim Soloveitchik (1853–1918) of Brisk (Brest-Litovsk) developed and refined this style of study. Brisker method involves a reductionistic analysis of rabbinic arguments within the Talmud or among the Rishonim , explaining the differing opinions by placing them within a categorical structure. The Brisker method is highly analytical and

9990-584: The most important of the Jewish centres in Mesopotamia , a region called " Babylonia " in Jewish sources (see Talmudic academies in Babylonia ) and later known as Iraq , were Nehardea , Nisibis (modern Nusaybin ), Mahoza ( al-Mada'in , just to the south of what is now Baghdad ), Pumbedita (near present-day al Anbar Governorate ), and the Sura Academy , probably located about 60 km (37 mi) south of Baghdad. The Babylonian Talmud comprises

10101-429: The need to ascertain the Halakha (Jewish rabbinical law). Early commentators such as Isaac Alfasi (North Africa, 1013–1103) attempted to extract and determine the binding legal opinions from the vast corpus of the Talmud. Alfasi's work was highly influential, attracted several commentaries in its own right and later served as a basis for the creation of halakhic codes. Another influential medieval Halakhic work following

10212-607: The order of the Babylonian Talmud, and to some extent modelled on Alfasi, was "the Mordechai ", a compilation by Mordechai ben Hillel ( c. 1250–1298). A third such work was that of Asher ben Yechiel (d. 1327). All these works and their commentaries are printed in the Vilna and many subsequent editions of the Talmud. A 15th-century Spanish rabbi, Jacob ibn Habib (d. 1516), compiled the Ein Yaakov , which extracts nearly all

10323-603: The period of the Amoraim (rabbis cited in the Gemara) beginning around the year 200. A second Aramaic dialect is used in Nedarim , Nazir , Temurah , Keritot , and Me'ilah ; the second is closer in style to the Targum . The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud (Codex Hebraicus 95), dates from 1342 and is available online. Manuscripts of the Talmud are as follows: The exact date at which

10434-455: The positions, views, and word choice of the Tannaim. Because there are two Gemaras, as mentioned above, there are in fact two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud (Hebrew: תלמוד ירושלמי ‎, "Talmud Yerushalmi"), and the Babylonian Talmud (Hebrew: תלמוד בבלי ‎, "Talmud Bavli"), corresponding to the Jerusalem Gemara and the Babylonian Gemara; both share the same Mishnah. The Gemara

10545-404: The premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily, and it is a valid argument. In terms of validity, deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. An argument is valid, if and only if (iff) it is impossible in all possible worlds for the premises to be true and the conclusion false; validity is about what is possible; it is concerned with how the premises and conclusion relate and what

10656-691: The purpose of supplementing it and addressing internal contradictions via the technique of pilpul . This genre of commentary is known as the Tosafot and focuses on specific passages instead of a running continuous commentary across the entire Talmud. Many Talmudic passages are difficult to understand, sometimes owing to the use of Greek or Persian loanwords whose meaning had become obscure. A major area of Talmudic scholarship developed to explain these passages and words. Some early commentators such as Rabbenu Gershom of Mainz (10th century) and Rabbenu Ḥananel (early 11th century) produced running commentaries to various tractates. These commentaries could be read with

10767-451: The reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal. Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity or justification. For example, philosopher Charles Taylor said that so-called transcendental arguments are made up of a "chain of indispensability claims" that attempt to show why something

10878-467: The sixth century, the Babylonian Talmud was compiled. This later Talmud is usually what is being referred to when the word "Talmud" is used without qualification. The two Talmuds were likely written independently of one another. The Jerusalem Talmud ( Talmud Yerushalmi ) is known by several other names, including the Palestinian Talmud (which is more accurate, as it was not compiled in Jerusalem ), or

10989-418: The stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability. The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments , the quality of hypotheses in retroduction , or even

11100-513: The study of argumentation ; formal logic emphasizes implication and inference . Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. The rational structure—the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion—is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must be made explicit by analysis. There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best known of which are "deductive" and "inductive." An argument has one or more premises but only one conclusion. Each premise and

11211-465: The term gemara occurs frequently in this sense -- but in nearly every case it was substituted at a later time for the objectionable word talmud , which was prohibited by the Christian censors . The only passage in which gemara occurs with the meaning of "Talmud" in the strict sense, and not censored, is Eruvin 32b, where it is used by Rav Nahman , a Babylonian amora (3rd C.). Later editions of

11322-480: The text likely trace to this time regardless of the date of the final redaction/compilation. Additional external evidence for a latest possible date for the composition of the Babylonian Talmud are the uses of it by external sources, including the Letter of Baboi (mid-8th century), Seder Tannaim veAmoraim (9th century) and a 10th-century letter by Sherira Gaon addressing the formation of the Babylonian Talmud. As for

11433-618: The text of the Talmud and would help explain the meaning of the text. Another important work is the Sefer ha-Mafteaḥ (Book of the Key) by Nissim Gaon , which contains a preface explaining the different forms of Talmudic argumentation and then explains abbreviated passages in the Talmud by cross-referring to parallel passages where the same thought is expressed in full. Commentaries ( ḥiddushim ) by Joseph ibn Migash on two tractates, Bava Batra and Shevuot, based on Ḥananel and Alfasi, also survive, as does

11544-540: The time and place in which the argument is located. From this perspective, the argument is evaluated not just by two parties (as in a dialectical approach) but also by an audience. In both dialectic and rhetoric, arguments are used not through formal but through natural language. Since classical antiquity, philosophers and rhetoricians have developed lists of argument types in which premises and conclusions are connected in informal and defeasible ways. The Latin root arguere (to make bright, enlighten, make known, prove, etc.)

11655-462: The truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong ), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic 's analogue to deductive logic 's " soundness ". Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. The lack of deductive validity is known as the problem of induction . In modern argumentation theories, arguments are regarded as defeasible passages from premises to

11766-430: Was Rabbenu Asher 's Tosefot haRosh. The Tosafot that are printed in the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud are an edited version compiled from the various medieval collections, predominantly that of Touques. A recent project, Halacha Brura , founded by Abraham Isaac Kook , presents the Talmud and a summary of the halachic codes side by side, so as to enable the "collation" of Talmud with resultant Halacha. During

11877-568: Was oral and transferred from one generation to the next. Rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written Torah expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes ( megillot setarim ), for example, of court decisions. This situation changed drastically due to

11988-679: Was considered an art form and became a goal in and of itself within the yeshivot of Poland and Lithuania. But the popular new method of Talmud study was not without critics; already in the 15th century, the ethical tract Orhot Zaddikim ("Paths of the Righteous" in Hebrew) criticized pilpul for an overemphasis on intellectual acuity. Many 16th- and 17th-century rabbis were also critical of pilpul. Among them are Judah Loew ben Bezalel (the Maharal of Prague), Isaiah Horowitz , and Yair Bacharach . By

12099-435: Was most likely completed, however, in the 6th century, or prior to the early Muslim conquests in 643–636 CE at the latest, on the basis that the Talmud lacks loanwords or syntax deriving from Arabic . Recently, it has been extensively argued that Talmud is an expression and product of Sasanian culture, as well as other Greek - Roman , Middle Persian , and Syriac sources up to the same period of time. The contents of

12210-486: Was president of the Sura Academy from 375 to 427. The work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina's death in 475 is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view, a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited

12321-538: Was thirsty and therefore I drank is not an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty . The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that . Often an argument is invalid or weak because there is a missing premise—the supply of which would make it valid or strong. This is referred to as an elliptical or enthymematic argument (see also Enthymeme § Syllogism with an unstated premise ). Speakers and writers will often leave out

#699300