Gemara

studying the Gemara (June 1, 1935) Maimonides describes the Gemara as: The rabbis of the Mishnah are known as Tannaim (sing. Tanna ). 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 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: , "Talmud Yerushalmi"), and the Babylonian Talmud (Hebrew: , "Talmud Bavli"), corresponding to the Jerusalem Gemara and the Babylonian Gemara; both share the same Mishnah. The Gemara 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. ==Origins of the word==

In a narrow sense, the word refers to the mastery and transmission of existing tradition, as opposed to , which means the deriving of new results by logic. Both activities are represented in the 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, 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 the Talmud frequently substitute for the word "Gemara" the Aramaic abbreviation for "the six orders of the Mishnah," pronounced as "Shas," which has become a popular designation for the Babylonian Talmud. ==The Sugya==

recording their summary of each sugya alongside its Mishnah (using the Mishnah Sdura'' edition) 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 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 ; the name for such a passage of Gemara is a (; plural ). A will typically comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of the . Every aspect of the text is treated as a subject of close investigation. This analysis is aimed at an exhaustive understanding of the full meaning. In the Talmud, a 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 thus takes the form of a dialectical exchange (by contrast, the states concluded legal opinions – and often differences in opinion between the Tannaim. There is little dialogue). The disputants here are termed the (questioner, "one who raises a difficulty") and (answerer, "one who puts straight"). The records the semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim. Some of these debates were actually conducted by 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. ==Argumentation and debate==

, c. 1900), depicting a debating a The distinctive character of the derives largely from the intricate use of argumentation and debate, described above; these "back and forth" analytics are characterized by the Talmudic phrase ''shakla v'tarya'' (שקלא וטריא; lit. "taking and throwing"). In each , either participant may cite scriptural, and 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 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 Prooftexts quoted to corroborate or disprove the respective opinions and theories will include: • verses from the Tanakh: the exact language employed is regarded as significant; • other : cross-references to analogous cases, or to parallel reasoning by the in question; • Beraitot (ברייתות) – uncodified which are also sources of halakha (lit. outside material; sing. ברייתא); • references to opinions and cases in the (תוספתא); • references to the (); • cross-references to other : again to analogous cases or logic. Questions addressed The actual debate will usually centre on the following categories: Language Why does the use one word rather than another? If a statement is not clear enough, the seeks to clarify the intention. Logic Exploring the logical principles underlying the statements, and showing how different understandings of the reasons could lead to differences in their practical application. What underlying principle is entailed in a statement of fact or in a specific instance brought as an illustration? If a statement appears obvious, the 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 Legal Resolving contradictions, perceived or actual, between different statements in the , or between the 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 clarifies how much is included; if an exception, how much is excluded. Biblical exposition Demonstrating how the rulings or disputes derive from interpretations of Biblical texts, the will often ask where in the Torah the derives a particular law. See Talmudic hermeneutics and . ==See also==