|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jerusalem Talmud article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"The language of the Jerusalem Talmud is Western Aramaic"  , "The Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud is Western Aramaic" , "The Talmud of the land of Israel (=Talmud Yerushalmi [TY] or Palestinian Talmud [PT]) is a treasure house for all those who are interested in halakhic development, customs, history, realia, social and economic conditions, superstition, midrash, and folklore. This extensive work, written in a mixture of postbiblical (Mishnaic) Hebrew and Jewish Western Aramaic,"  "The Mishnah is written in a late literary form of Hebrew; but the Gemara is in Aramaic (except the Baraithas), that of the Bab. T. being an Eastern Aram. dialect (akin to Mandaitic), that of the Pal. T. being Western Aram. (akin to Biblical Aram. and the Targums)."  etc. Jayjg 01:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The secondary sources above actually contradict each other... If you take a look at the primary source (the Yerushalmi itself), you may probably find that your third source (incidentally the academic one out of the three) is the one actually describing the situation most precisely. And I do of course agree with them that the Yerushalmi is a very good source for the study of Jewish Western Aramaic. I agree that there are significant portions of (western) Aramaic there. But is "is" not in Aramaic — rather, it contains a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic, where the Hebrew component is quite dominant. Quite typically, the Hebrew has its normal -in endings rather than the Biblical -im, and you'll find the occasional Aramaic word — maybe a word per every two or three lines or so. Occasionally, there is an Aramaic sentence or two...
- I agree that it would be a mistake to say that the Yerushalmi is "in Hebrew" without mentioning the Aramaic part of things. But isn't it at least equally wrong to call it "Aramaic" without mentioning the Hebrew component, which as far as I can judge is much more prominent...? (And I am (of course) not talking about the Mishna sections here...)
- Kol tub, Olve 02:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Commentary by anon editor
The Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud was written down a while before the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian) and so when it comes down to a contrast between the two, Yerushalmi (Jerusalem) is probably the more correct one. By correct I mean a truer rendition of the tradition, not the correct practice to be followed. When there is a conflict between the two, Jerusalem and Babylonian, the ruling of the Babylonian is the universally accepted one in practice. Why is this so? The Jerusalem Talmud applies to the land of Israel, whereas the Babylonian is specific to the Diaspora. Jerusalem therefore included rules about tithes and land that applied only to a VERY small portion of Jews throughout history (those in the land of Israel). Because most Jews lived in the scattered Diaspora, the Bavli was much more relevant to their lives. In Talmud Bavli, there are many parts of the Mishna not treated at all, because of their irrelivance to diaspora Jews. Even though Yerushalmi includes many of these things, is is shorter overall for two reasons: one its commentary is shorter, less comprehensive, and harder to interpret; and two many parts of it are mnissing. It is also more difficult than the Bavli and because it seems less "essential" to knowing how to conduct ones life (because of the more heeded rulings of Bavli) its study had historically been ignored by all but the most eminent or interested scholars.
See also Talmud.
Regarding the recent edit, there are two basic facts that cannot be denied:
- The vast majority of Jews who study Talmud have nearly always called this the Jerusalem Talmud ("Yerushalmi"), up to and including today. They have also sometimes called it "The Talmud of the Land of Israel" or the "The Talmud of the West".
- Some but not all scholars, Jewish & non-Jewish alike, have been calling it the "Palestinian Talmud" for the past century or more, something that began long before the term "Palestine" had such heavy political baggage associated with it.
To me this seems to mean that "Palestinian Talmud" should be noted along with the other names that have been used, and nothing more than that. The basic info shouldn't be deleted based on the claim that it is political. Dovi 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good summary. This name should be mentioned. It is easy to find examples from the 1880s, but the Jewish Encyclopedia implies that it is very much older:
The Palestinian Talmud.
Before entering into any discussion of the origin and peculiar form of the Talmud, the two recensions of the work itself may be briefly described. The general designation of the Palestinian Talmud as "Talmud Yerushalmi," or simply as "Yerushalmi," is precisely analogous to that of the Palestinian Targum. The term originated in the geonic period, when, however, the work received also the more precise designations of "Talmud of Palestine," "Talmud of the Land of Israel," "Talmud of the West," and "Talmud of the Western Lands." --Zerotalk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so. No one was ever in danger of associating this Talmud with "Palestinians" in the modern ethnic/political sense. "Palestine" was a purely geographical term for the region in question, applicable at any time from its invention by Hadrian to Israeli independence. The correct name is "Talmud shel Eretz Yisrael": "Palestinian Talmud" is simply a translation of that.
It is undeniable that Western scholarship has sometimes applied the term, however much we dislike it: see for example Strack and Billerbeck's Introduction to Talmud and Midrash. To argue, as User:Simulacra11 does, that, because it is not Jewish usage, "no true scholar" would ever use it is an instance of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
In discussing either the Talmudic or the Geonic period, we often have to distinguish between the customs and scholars of Babylonia and those of "Eretz Yisrael" or "the West". I see no reason for not using "Palestine" for this: to call it "Eretz Yisrael" is incomprehensible to non-Jewish readers, and to call it "Israel" is a glaring anachronism. (In some articles, say on the liturgy, when faced with zealous editors that keep replacing "Palestine" with "Israel", I have had to give up and use phrases like "Judaea and Galilee"; but that won't do here.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- See for instance Jerusalem Talmud page on Britannia :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Idea for Talmud articles
- I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Steinsaltz and the Yerushalmi
To clarify why I put the fact template on the sentence about Adin Steinsaltz, (and why I'm about to put it back), I know Steinsaltz has published peah (and that fact is well cited), my question is whether or not he plans to do any more of the Yerushalmi as the article claims. (For the record I have no idea, but I can't find any evidence one way or the other, and I just know that such a claim requires citation on wikipedia). --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)