Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 20, scan section 32

by the Amoraim. Therefore in the first volume of our editions, for all the quotations we have used only one expression, "we have learned," or "it was taught." However, after we were criticised for this, we also adopted a method of distinguishing the quotations, which is printed in the Explanatory Remarks to each volume ; namely : Remark i . For a quotation from the Mishna, "we have learned in a Mishna," for a Tosephta or a * See letter of Dr. M. Jastrow in the prospectus of our work, on page lo. OUR METHOD. 95 Boraitha, " we have learned in a Tosephta or a Boraitha," and for the sayings of the Amoraim, ' ' it was taught. ' ' Thus have we also corrected in the second edition of the first and the fourth volumes: Remark 2. To save space we did not adopt the method of the German translators who usually write question and answer to each paragraph where such is to be found ; we have indicated the question by an interrogation point, and im- mediately follows the answer without being so marked. Com- ing to the third explanatory remark, in which we say that we translate only the second, we have to give here this ex- planation at length, as this treats about omissions from the text in the translation. In our Hakol, vol. VI., No. 298, 1885, in which we an- nounced that we desire to revise and correct the Talmud so as to make its translation possible into a living language, we gave some examples of the omissions necessary in Halakha and Hagada for this purpose. And we dare say that the examples were favorably received by eminent students of the Tal- mud. As an answer to another criticism in a Hebrew monthly in New York, Ner Hamarobe, we wrote a long article in the same about our method of the omissions in Halakha, claiming that in reality we omit nothing of importance of the whole text, in the shape given out by its compilers, and only that which we were certain to have been added by the dislikers of the Talmud for the purpose of degrading it we do omit. We cannot very well translate the whole article here for lack of space and time. We will therefore limit ourselves to pointing out the omissions of Halakha and Hagada with one or two examples: (i) Omitting repetitions, e.g., in Tract Kethuboth 72b, there is a Mishna, "if one betroths a woman with the stipulation that she is not subject to any vows," and the whole Mishna with its Gemara is repeated in Tract Kedushin 58, without any change, and the Gemara to this Mishnayoth questions why the repetition? To which the same answer, "it was learned by the way," is repeated in both tracts. In our edition the Mishna will appear only once, in Tract Kedu- shin, and it is self-evident that the question and the answer of the Gemara falls off. However, the continuation which is of importance comes in the proper place. This is concerning the Mishnayoth. The discussions in the Gemara are repeated 96 THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD. sometimes from one to fifteen times, some of them without any change at all, and some with change of little or no importance. In our edition we give the discussion only once, in its proper place. True, it is a great difficulty to go over all the repetitions, to mark the changes wherever they are, and to consider the matter thoroughly as to which is the most proper place for them. However, we did not spare time and careful study. And according to our ability we left it at the place which seemed to us to be proper and cancelling all other repetitions.* (2) There is a custom in the text when it brings a statement from an Am.ora (very seldom also from a Tana) which is in conflict with a Mishna or a Boraitha, and trying to reconcile them by a long discussion, and after it comes to the conclusion that such a reconciliation is impossible, it concludes that "if such was taught it must be so and so," contrary to the first statement. We in our edition translate only the conclusion, omitting the whole discussion, which partly or wholly is to be found elsewhere. (Examples of this are given in our above- mentioned article, and as they are very numerous, we cannot give them here). (3) Where there are two versions in the text tmder the term Lishna achrena (another version), or Jka d'amri (some say), or Waihayith Aema (if you wish, we may say), and the second is contrary or entirely different from the first, we mostly give the second only. However, we are very careful in omitting such. " (See our concluding words in Vol. XVn., page 8), and as to the last phrase, Waihayith Aema, which in many places is said twice or thrice, the reader will find all of them translated in our translation, imder the term, "if you wish it may be said so, and if you wish, it may be said so." (4) The reader will find in our edition foot-notes stating, " transferred from tract so and so," in Halakha as well as in Hagada. We do so when the subject treated is inserted in a place where it is disconnected with the preceding and following statement; however, there is a special discussion about the same subject in another tract. (Concerning Hagada we did so in Tract Sanhedrin, transferring Hagadas which have * In our edition, if such an omission comes from that which was already printed, we mark it in parentheses or in a foot-note : " repeated from tract or from volume so and so, page so and so," whicli we could not do with the text which was not as yet translated. OUR METHOD. 97 no connection in the preceding chapters, to the last (eleventh) chapter which is all Hagada. This is done for the purpose of preventing confusion in the reader's mind, which, while engaged in one subject, is abruptly confronted with a strange subject. (5) In a very few places we combine two Mishnayoths which are united in the editions of the separate Mishnayoths, but are divided in the Gemara into two or three (see Nedarim 32b and 33a), to which the Gemara questions "in accordance with what Tana the statement of this Mishna is given," and answers "in accordance with so and so," and the same it does with the divided Mishna with the same question and answer. (6) In places where the Gemara discusses in a long paragraph, "how was the case? Shall we assume so, then such a statement would be in the way, and if we assume so, another statement of so and so would be in the way," etc. The conclusion, however, is explained clearly and nicely. In such cases we often translate the conclusion only, omitting the discussion, which seems to us to be inserted only for the purpose of sharpening the mind. (However, we are very careful with such omissions, and if we see in them something of importance, we do not omit them.) To this point, may be added then that all the discussions usual in the Gemara why the Tana or the Amora A does not say hke B, and why B does not say like C, and C like D, and then why D