THE GEONIC PERIOD in Jewish history is named
The Talmud in the Geonic Period
for the heads of the great yeshivot of Babylonia and Palestine who were known as geonim. The title gaon by RO B E RT B RO DY appears to be an abbreviation of rosh yeshivat geon Yaakov (the head of the academy that is the pride of Jacob). The leading Babylonian academies were known as the academies of Sura and Pumbedita after the towns in which they originally operated, although towards the end of the period they relocated to Baghdad. Palestine, meanwhile, had a single central academy that moved several times in the course of the period, including to Tiberias and Jerusalem. This was the last era in pre-modern Jewish history in which the cultural and intellectual centers of the Jewish world were located in the area to the east of the Mediterranean, and its end was marked by a westward shift in the cultural center of gravitto the newer communities of North Africa and Europe. The chronological 1. See R. Brody, The Geonim definition of this period is a matter of some controversy. Some degree of imprecision of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture is probably inevitable, but for the purposes of this article we will consider the geonic (New Haven and London, period to have extended from the middle of the sixth to the middle of the eleventh 1998), especially pp. 4–18. century c.e.1 We should, however, note that our sources for the earlier part of the 2. Ibid., pp. 4–7. This is not the place to enter into period, up to the middle of the eighth century, are scant. Prior to this date we can debate with D. Halivni, who hardly o√er more than informed guesses. in the latest volumes of his This survey will focus on the Babylonian Talmud and to a large extent on the series Traditions and Sources [Hebrew] has proposed Babylonian context. One of the defining characteristics of the geonic period in assigning the anonymous Babylonia, and probably the single most important di√erence between it and the portions of the Babylonian preceding savoraic period (early sixth century), was that the Talmud was treated as Talmud to the first two centuries of the geonic period. a finished product and no longer as a work in progress. Although the exact nature 3. Even within this elite we of their contribution is somewhat unclear and has given rise to a voluminous schol- hear complaints of talmudic arly literature and to widely diverging assessments, several sources of the geonic study being neglected in favor of the less demanding study of period state unambiguously that the savoraim played a role in the completion of the halakhic compendia (see ibid., Babylonian Talmud, the foundations of which had been laid by the amoraim (third- pp. 230–231), and these too fifth centuries). The geonim, on the other hand, no longer saw themselves as active presented serious di¥culties even to members of the intelparticipants in the creation of the Talmud. Their role was to transmit, explicate, and ligentsia (ibid., pp. 222–223). apply it as a guide to Jewish life.2 Towards the end of the period
Knowledge and Teaching of the Talmud.
Although it was not treated as an esoteric text, it is virtually certain that first-hand knowledge of the Talmud was confined to a relatively narrow stratum of the rabbinic cultural elite.3 The Babylonian academies attracted students from near and far, especially for the semi-annual kallah (study) months of Adar and Elul. The sole eyewitness description we possess describes a kallah session attended by approximately four hundred students (and an unknown number of spectators like the author of this account), in addition to
04Talmud.Brody.indd 29
we also encounter an educated elite that was relatively sophisticated in other areas but less knowledgeable in rabbinic matters; see D.E. Sklare, Samuel ben Óofni Gaon and his Cultural World: Texts and Studies (Leiden—New York—Köln, 1996), especially Chapter Four.
6/2/05 3:53:49 PM
30
p ri n t i ng t h e tal m u d : f rom bom be rg to sc hot t e nst e i n
the seventy “senior members” who sat in fixed places and were considered to comprise a latter-day version of the ancient Sanhedrin. Students were encouraged in their endeavors by a system of examinations and stipends, and there were also lectures intended for broader audiences, such as the pirka. The seventy senior members of the academy were expected to use the five months between kallah meetings to study a specific talmudic tractate announced by the gaon, while the other students were free to study whatever tractate they pleased. In any event, it was expected that talmudic study would be carried on by numerous students outside the confines of the academy itself during ten months of each year, but we know very little about organized 4. For details of the eyewitness account, see Brody, ibid., schools or centers of study in the periphery, with the notable exception of the beit pp. 26–28, 43-47; for the midrash of Kairouan in present-day Tunisia, one of the most important centers pirka see ibid., p. 56. For Kai4 rouan see M. Ben Sasson, The of Jewish learning up to its destruction in 1057. On the other hand, questions Emergence of the Local Jewish addressed to the geonic academies from various Jewish communities reflect a conCommunity in the Muslim siderable degree of talmudic learning on the part of their authors, although some World: Kairouan, 800–1057 were clearly more proficient than others.5 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1996), especially Part Three, Chapter The Babylonian Talmud undoubtedly represented the core curriculum of the Three. geonic academies. To be more precise, we should say that the basic curriculum 5. Compare, for example, the consisted of most of the Talmud but excluded a number of tractates, and “the Talpassage translated in Brody, mud” included the underlying text of the Mishnah, which was assimilated with the ibid., p. 190, with those cited in R. Brody (ed.), Teshuvot talmudic text to a much greater extent in Babylonia than in Palestine.6 However, Rav Natronai bar Hilai Gaon we know relatively little about the ways in which these core texts were taught. The (Jerusalem and Cleveland, most detailed description of talmudic pedagogy at our disposal is contained in the 1994), p. 63. 6. For further details and ref- aforementioned account of a kallah month, which reads in part as follows:
erences to related literature, see Brody (n. 1 above), pp. 155–156. 7. This translation is based on the Hebrew version of the account of Rabbi Nathan the Babylonian published by A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, II (Oxford, 1895), pp. 87–88. 8. The text of this letter has been published most recently by M. Gil, In the Kingdom of Ishmael, Volume II: Texts from the Cairo Genizah—The Jews of Iraq and Persia; Letters of Jewish Merchants (Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute, 118) [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, 1997), no. 23, pp. 72–75, with references to earlier publications given on p. 71; the passage quoted is found on p. 72.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 30
And when the head of the academy wants to examine them concerning their study texts, they gather around him in the four weeks of the month of Adar, and he sits and the first row recites before him, and the other rows sit silently. And when they reach a point that is obscure to them, they discuss it between themselves and the head of the academy listens to them and understands their words. . . . And when he finishes his reading, he recites and expounds the tractate . . . and explains in the course of his exposition the point that the students have debated. And sometimes he asks them the explanation of laws . . . and expatiates to them on the meaning of each law, until all are clear to them. . . . Thus they did all the days of the month.7 This presumably represented the most advanced teaching that went on within the framework of the geonic academies, but it is reasonably clear that instruction on a lower level was carried on there, at least in normal times, more or less year-round. An important piece of evidence in this regard is the following passage from a letter by the renowned gaon Sherira, describing the dire straits in which his academy found itself and the heroic e√orts he and his son were making to maintain a semblance of normal operation: “And we bring the students before us from time to time to see what they have recited and learned. . . . Also our young man Hayya is diligent in teaching them and putting [the texts] in their mouths; and whoever does not know
6/2/05 3:53:50 PM
t h e ta l m u d i n t h e g eon i c p e r iod
31
how to ask, he teaches him the method of objection (qushya) and endears this method to him.”8 Hayya, later to achieve even greater prominence than his father as “the last of the geonim in respect of time and the greatest in distinction,”9 seems to have been engaged in rather elementary instruction at this time, which may in fact reflect the crisis in the academy rather than the normal state of a√airs. There are some indications that the geonic academies prided themselves on the number of levels of instruction that they were able to o√er, but the interpretation of the relevant texts is less than certain.10 A number of geonic sources reflect the importance attributed to individualized teaching and the master’s intimate familiarity with the student’s abilities and limitations. For instance, Sar Shalom Gaon writes: “If . . . you were before us, it would be possible to explain them (the cases under discussion) very well, and distinguish very well between one and another . . . for when a student sits before his master and discusses a matter of law, his master perceives the trend of his thoughts, and what he has overlooked and what is clear to him and what stubbornly eludes him, and explains to him until his eyes light up . . . but in writing, how much is possible?” In a di√erent context, Sherira Gaon writes: “And this is how it was in the beginning, as we o√er 9. I have not succeeded in explanations today, each one of the masters as he sees fit, and instructs each of his identifying the author of this description. A number students according to his needs and his abilities—[to] some of them (the master of authors from the middle teaches) chapter headings and principles and the rest he understands by himself, and of the twentieth century onwards treated it as a quotasome need to have things explained simply, at length and with examples.”11
Oral and Written Transmission.
One important aspect of Talmud study in the geonic period that deserves to be highlighted is the manner in which the text was transmitted. The Mishnah and Talmud are the central texts of the so-called oral law, the Torah she-be-al peh, of rabbinic Judaism. Despite scholarly controversy as to whether these texts were originally redacted and promulgated orally or in writing, there can be little doubt that in the geonic academies they were treated first and foremost as oral literature. Perhaps the most striking testimony to this e√ect may be found in a responsum of Aaron Sarjado Gaon, who bases his interpretation of a talmudic passage on its traditional recitation (as a rhetorical question rather than as a declarative sentence) and describes this as the tradition of “the entire academy—and it is known that their recitation is from the mouth of the masters, and most of them do not know what a book is.”12 Despite the obvious exaggeration, the gaon apparently means to say that most members of the academy are unfamiliar with written talmudic texts and their recitation depends on an unbroken chain of oral transmission. Written texts of talmudic tractates were certainly in existence well before the end of the geonic period—the earliest clear evidence for such texts refers to events in the mid-eighth century—and the geonim were not averse to consulting them on occasion, but the paradigmatic mode of transmission continued to be an oral one. The inferior status of written copies in the eyes of the geonim is clearly indicated by the fact that they always cite oral versions when discussing textual problems, while written copies are mentioned infrequently and invariably after the oral traditions.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 31
tion but without providing a source. 10. I propose this interpretation of the term siyyum; see Sh. Abramson, Ba-Merkazim u-va-Tefutsot bi-Tekufat haGeonim (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 19, 45–46, 57, and D. Rosenthal, “Rabbanan deSiyyuma and Bene Siyyume,” Tarbiz 49 (1979), pp. 52–61, especially p. 60. 11. For bibliographic details concerning the text and authorship of the responsum of Sar Shalom, see Brody (n. 1 above), p. 55 n. 2; the quotation from Sherira's Epistle is from B.M. Lewin (ed.), Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, (Haifa, 1921), p. 58 (according to the so-called French recension, see Brody, ibid., pp. 21–22). 12. The text of this responsum may be conveniently consulted in B.M. Lewin, Otzar ha-Geonim, VII (Jerusalem, 1936), Responsa, no. 170; the passage quoted is found on p. 71.
6/2/05 3:53:50 PM
32
p ri n t i ng t h e tal m u d : f rom bom be rg to sc hot t e nst e i n
It seems likely, in fact, that talmudic texts would have remained part of an exclusively oral tradition had it not been for the needs of students living far from the Babylonian centers. Of the two sources that describe the earliest occasions on which talmudic texts are said to have been written, one refers to a text sent from Babylonia at the request of Spanish scholars, and the other reports that a Babylonian exile wrote the Talmud from memory after his arrival in Spain.13 It appears that written transmission dominated in the periphery although there were certainly “reciters” who were active outside the immediate environs of the academy.14 13. See Judah b. Barzilai, One noteworthy aspect of this situation is the fact that a substantial degree of texSefer ha-Ittim, ed. J. Schorr (Cracow, 1903), p. 267, and tual fluidity was taken more or less for granted; it is not unusual to find a gaon citing Lewin (n. 11 above), p. 104 two or even more alternative versions of a given talmudic passage and treating them and n. 7; Gil (n. 8 above), no. 13, p. 49. A major study as equally legitimate, especially if they can be understood as conveying the same by Y. Sussmann, who takes a meaning in di√erent words. The relative frequencies of di√erent sorts of variation position similar to mine, is to correspond to what might be expected of a text transmitted orally. There are many appear in Meòkerei Talmud, III (The E.E. Urbach Memovariations in wording that do not a√ect the sense, relatively frequent variations with rial Volume), in press. respect to proper names, occasional additions or omissions of dialectical elements, 14. See Brody (n. 1 above), but very few instances of variations in the basic structure of the talmudic sugya. It pp. 157–158 and n. 12. is worth emphasizing that when we encounter two versions of a talmudic passage, 15. For the substance of this of which one may be shown on internal grounds to be more original than the other, paragraph see ibid., pp. 158– this is not necessarily the one quoted by a gaon; sometimes an earlier form of a 160, and in greater detail, R. Brody, “Sifrut ha-Geonim certain passage circulated outside Babylonia while the gaon’s version absorbed later ve-ha-Tekst ha-Talmudi,” additions. On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence of conscious emendation Meòkerei Talmud, I, eds. Y. Sussmann and D. Rosenof the talmudic texts by the geonim, who appear to have identified so strongly with thal (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. the living oral tradition that they found it almost inconceivable that this tradition 237–303. Sh. Friedman, “On the Origin of Textual Variants as a whole could have been contaminated by error. This is in sharp contrast to the in the Babylonian Talmud” practice of some medieval rabbinic scholars, especially in Franco-Germany, who [Hebrew], Sidra 7 (1991), pp. treated the written talmudic texts that they had received through unknown channels 67–102, argues against this with considerable suspicion, and had little hesitation in diagnosing textual corrupapproach, while Z. Stampfer, Rav Samuel ben Óofni Gaon’s tion when confronted with passages that they found problematic for one reason or “Treatise on Divorce” KitÄb another.15 al-talÄq: Texts and Studies (Ph.D. dissertation, Jerusalem, 2004) suggests that some influence of written transmission may be discerned in the talmudic citations found in this work and U. Fuchs, The Role of the Geonim in the Textual Transmission of the Babylonian Talmud (Ph.D. dissertation, Jerusalem, 2003) believes that Hayya Gaon, at the very end of the geonic period, emended the talmudic text on several occasions.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 32
Talmudic Exegesis and Commentary.
Much of the prestige of the Babylonian geonim, especially in the eyes of those not subject to their political authority, derived from the perception that they and their academies represented a direct continuation of the milieu that had produced the Babylonian Talmud, which came to be seen as the most authoritative codification of rabbinic Jewish law and belief, and the geonim for their part emphasized this continuity. Furthermore, their role as the most direct continuators of the amoraim granted them the status, unquestioned throughout most of this period, of the preeminent interpreters of the Talmud. The geonim enjoyed two great advantages over other interpreters: access to the richest, and presumably most authoritative, textual traditions of the Talmud, and native
6/2/05 3:53:51 PM
t h e ta l m u d i n t h e g eon i c p e r iod
33
fluency in Babylonian Aramaic. Although the Aramaic used by the geonim was not identical with that of the Talmud, it was su¥ciently close that the geonim were often in a position to provide clear, authoritative explanations of talmudic words and phrases that presented insuperable di¥culties for other students of the text.16 Many exegetical traditions were transmitted for generations—whether orally or in writing—in the geonic milieu,17 although the many disagreements between various geonim and others of their circle clearly rule out the possibility that they possessed a uniform, ancient exegetical tradition covering the entire Talmud. Certain basic attitudes and perceptions, however, appear to have been widely shared. Particularly worthy of notice is an appreciation of the dialectical spirit of talmudic discussion, which made the geonim more open than many later interpreters to the possibility that talmudic arguments are intended to point out logical or exegetical possibilities rather than to o√er authorized interpretations, or that they would explore the ramifications of positions 16. See Brody (n. 1 above), that need not be authoritative. On the other hand, the Talmud was certainly not seen p. 164 and n. 29; geonic Araas a purely academic work, and some of the ways in which it utilizes sources were maic has been investigated most recently and thoroughly understood to imply an authoritative status for those sources, although the precise by M. Morgenstern, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic in limits of this phenomenon were subject to debate.18 Issues of talmudic exegesis figure prominently among the questions addressed Geonic Responsa: Studies in Phonology, Verb Morphology, to the geonim at least from the mid-eighth century.19 In the ninth century we some- Pronouns and Style (Ph.D. distimes find long series of exegetical responsa that might be said to represent a sort of sertation, Jerusalem, 2002). rudimentary commentary, primarily lexical, on the texts in question; but it is only in 17. See Brody (ibid.), pp. the tenth century that we first encounter genuine commentaries that address issues 180–183. selected by their authors rather than responding to specific questions addressed to 18. See ibid., pp. 164–165, and the sources cited in notes them. The great innovator in this respect, as in many others, was Saadiah Gaon, who 31–34. composed a commentary in Arabic on “the di¥cult words in all the six orders of the 19. The earliest gaon whose Mishnah.” Despite the fact that this commentary was restricted to the Mishnah and responsa have survived in some quantity is Yehudai almost exclusively to its lexical interpretation, it represented a new departure that Gaon, and some of the paved the way for later scholars to proceed to systematic interpretation of sections questions addressed to him of the Talmud.20 Samuel ben Óofni Gaon suggested to one of his correspondents clearly reflect familiarity with talmudic texts. It should, that “if you, or some of you, desire to (have someone) elucidate for you one of the however, be borne in mind books of the prophets of God or explain to you a tractate of the Mishnah or the that the largest collection Talmud, kindly let him notify us, for we will then hasten to do his will,” and appar- of his responsa, found in its fullest form in J. Musa¥a ently composed several such commentaries, though only a few fragments of these (ed.), Teshuvot ha-Geonim have survived. His contemporaries in Pumbedita, the father-and-son team of Sherira (Lyck, 1864), no. 45, consists and Hayya, made a greater mark as commentators. Large portions of their commen- of third-person reports of questions that may have been taries on several tractates, and on selected chapters of others, have survived. These presented to him orally and commentaries, written primarily in Hebrew with a limited admixture of Aramaic, so might conceivably reflect a go well beyond lexical exegesis and concentrate on clarifying the talmudic dialectic level of learning confined to the immediate environs of his and the halakhic implications of the text. From time to time statements, especially of academy. a non-halakhic nature, are rejected, and we find Hayya enunciating the methodolog- 20. See Brody (n. 1 above), ical principle that “it has never been our way to cover something up and interpret it pp. 267–269.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 33
6/2/05 3:53:52 PM
34
p ri n t i ng t h e tal m u d : f rom bom be rg to sc hot t e nst e i n
other than in accordance with the opinion of the one who said it . . . we explain the opinion of this tanna . . . without warranting that these things are halakhah (i.e. normative).”21 The latter part of the geonic period also saw the beginnings of systematic activity in the field of talmudic methodology, most importantly in Samuel ben Óofni’s monumental Introduction to the Science (or: Knowledge) of the Mishnah and Talmud. This work, written in Judeo21. See ibid., pp. 270–274; Arabic, comprised 145 chapters, ranging in length from a few lines to dozens of the second passage quoted is from Lewin (n. 12 above), VI pages; only a few of these have been published to date, while others have been (Jerusalem, 1932), Óagigah, identified and are being prepared for publication. The first fifteen or sixteen chapResponsa, no. 20, p. 14. ters are devoted to a discussion of issues connected with the reliability of tradition 22. See Brody, ibid., pp. in general and rabbinic tradition in particular, and these are followed by a section 274–282, where some additional works belonging to or dealing with tannaitic literature and especially with the Mishnah. The larger part of bordering on this genre are the book, which is devoted to the Babylonian Talmud, begins with chapter 54, and also discussed. includes sections on talmudic dialectic, on rules for reaching halakhic decisions on 23. Discussions of the the basis of talmudic discussions, and on the amoraim and their interrelationships, Talmud's authority are to be found primarily in polemical as well as a glossary covering hundreds of words and expressions.22 contexts, whether directed against opponents of rabbinic authorities (most prominently but by no means exclusively the Karaites) or against adherents of the Palestinian rabbinic tradition; see for example, R. Brody, Pirqoy ben Baboy and the History of Internal Polemics in Judaism (Tel Aviv, 2003).
24. In some instances custom was allowed to prevail over talmudic precedent, especially in areas (such as the laws of mourning) where it had played a central role even in talmudic law; see Brody (n. 5 above), p. 88 and n. 141. There was also limited scope in geonic halakhah for conscious departures from talmudic law in view of changed circumstances; see ibid., pp. 88–89, and R. Brody, “Kelum Hayu ha-geonim Meòokekim?” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 11–12 (1984–1986), pp. 279–315. 25. See Brody (n. 1 above), pp. 164–165 (where earlier treatments are listed in n. 35), pp. 181, 274–277.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 34
The Authority of the Talmud.
It was the geonim of Babylonia who transformed “their” Talmud into the most authoritative embodiment of rabbinic tradition—their greatest contribution to the course of Jewish history. In so far as we can tell, this was accomplished for the most part without much theoretical or ideological reflection. They simply placed the Talmud at the center of the rabbinic academies’ agenda and issued practical directives on the basis of its discussions.23 The geonim and their correspondents appear to take it for granted, with rare exceptions, that the halakhah is to be decided wherever possible on this basis.24 This was by no means a simple undertaking for a number of reasons, including the fact that a great many talmudic discussions come to an end without a clear conclusion having been reached. The geonic period saw a proliferation of rules governing halakhic adjudication, which had begun to appear already in tannaitic times but now took on greater complexity. In addition to rules saying that Rabbi X is to be followed whenever he disputes with Rabbi Y and the like, there are rules of a more general nature (e.g., for deciding disputes between an earlier and a later authority), as well as rules reflecting beliefs about the halakhic implications of various redactional terms and techniques. Some of these rules appear to have been universally accepted, while others were themselves the subject of disputes. They play a major role in geonic (and later) halakhic ruling, whether or not they are cited explicitly. In addition to being scattered throughout the responsa and other literature of the geonic period, they were organized in a number of special collections.25 There were, however, exceptions to the general rule that the halakhah should be decided on the basis of the Talmud. First of all we should remark that the rule of thumb given above applies specifically to the realm of halakhah, whereas aggadic
6/2/05 3:53:52 PM
t h e ta l m u d i n t h e g eon i c p e r iod
35
traditions found in the Talmud were not necessarily considered to be binding.26 Fur- 26. See ibid., p. 166 and n. thermore, even halakhic statements that appear unopposed in the Talmud might be 38 and pp. 273-274. Clear statements to this e√ect are rejected by the geonim, either on the basis of a specific tradition or on the strength to be found only towards the of a well-established custom. As an example of the latter possibility, we may cite a end of the geonic period, but I see no reason to suppose that responsum of Sherira and Hayya that denies the authority of talmudic statements to they represent a new attitude. the e√ect that one should not pray in Aramaic because the angels do not understand 27. The quotation is from this language, on the grounds that “we have never seen or heard that the rabbis Lewin (n. 12 above), II (Jerurefrain from asking for their needs in the Aramaic language . . . and from these state- salem, 1930), Responsa, no. ments and from the deeds that we have seen . . . we learn that the rabbis disagree 16, pp. 5–6; for examples of traditions explicitly rejectwith them . . . and just as the earlier ones did not concern themselves with this, we ing halakhic statements see Brody, ibid., pp. 179–181. too do not concern ourselves.”27 On a broader theoretical level, too, ultimate authority was considered to reside 28. The responsum in quesin the tradition as a whole rather than specifically in the Talmud, although the tion is found in Lewin (n. 12 above), V (Jerusalem, 1933), extant statements to this e√ect may be tinged by polemical motives. Thus, when Rosh ha-Shanah, Responsa, asked about the relationship between the talmudic discussion of the proper way of no. 117 (the quotation is from p. 62); for a di√erent translablowing the shofar on Rosh Ha-Shanah and contemporary practice, Hayya Gaon tion and discussion see Ts. responded in part by saying, “the words of the many outweigh any Mishnah and Groner, The Legal MethodolGemara, and more than anything else the proof is from this: ‘Go out and see how ogy of Hai Gaon (Chico, Cal., 1985) (Brown Judaic Studthe nation conducts itself.’ This is the root and the support, and afterwards we look ies 66), pp. 16–17. Yehudai at all the things that have been said in the Mishnah or the Gemara on this matter and Gaon is reported to have said whatever arises from them and can be construed in accordance with what is in our that he would only issue a halakhic ruling if it was supsouls is well . . . and we have needed these things in this responsum because most of ported both by the Talmud these questions are like pretexts (for questioning rabbinic authority), and because and by a tradition received of this we have revealed that the essence of the commandment is not dependent on from his teacher; see Brody (n. 1 above), p. 179. them (i.e. on the words of the Talmud).”28 In the vast majority of cases, however, the voice of the Talmud was identified with the voice of tradition and deemed to be its most authoritative expression. In a very real sense it was their custodianship of the Babylonian Talmud that made the geonim what they were, and it was their stewardship that made the Talmud what it has been for the past millennium—the quintessential statement of rabbinic Judaism.
04Talmud.Brody.indd 35
6/2/05 3:53:53 PM