Vilna Talmud

Thoughts, questions, and discussions of all topics pertaining to Torah
Forum rules
1. Polite discourse only. No ad hominem attacks or any other name-calling
2. No politics.
3. No comparative religion, no bashing other religions.
4. NO MISSIONARIES! Not even for Karaites.
5. Moderators may delete or break links to other web sites.
6. This is an Orthodox forum. Attacks on Halacha will not be tolerated.
7. Moderators reserve full rights to edit and delete posts, and ban users.

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby aries » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:36 am

the misnaot in the shas vilna are not the same as the mishnaot in the mishnaot or in the Talmud yerushalmi. the divisions are pretty much up to the publisher. for example most people who published a yerushalmi in the last twenty years do not follow the vilna yerushalmi page numbers or divisions.
sometimes the misneh in mishnaot list a braita as a misneh.
Aryeh Shore
aries
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby David_L » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:52 am

I was wondering whether the numbering of the Mishnaot is standardized.

So if a book contains a reference such as "Mishnah Eruvin 1:3", that reference is ambiguous unless the name of the source publication is also specified?
David_L
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:54 pm
Location: Eastern US

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby aries » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:27 pm

the division of misnaot is standard today and refers to the division found in the published misnaot. they are not the same as found in the Talmud. i.e chapter three misneh 3 is not necessarily the third printed in the villa shas and almost certainly not the same as the villa yerushalmi.
Aryeh Shore
aries
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby David_L » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:17 am

Thanks. I think I understand now.
David_L
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:54 pm
Location: Eastern US

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby David_L » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:43 pm

Tractate Shekalim, in the Babylonian Talmud, the current tractate in the Daf Yomi schedule, differs in some structural ways from the previous Daf Yomi tractates:

1) There are fewer pages (only 22 Dafim, compared to 40 or more in earlier tractates).
2) The Dafim are longer (an average of 10-12 pages of English translation and commentary, compared to 6-8 pages in earlier tractates).
3) Each element of the Mishnah is actually prefaced, in the Mishnah itself, with a numbered heading, e.g. "Halacha 3".

Are these items typical of the Jerusalem Talmud? The Artscroll commentary, if I understand it correctly, says that this tractate basically comes from the Jersusalem Talmud.
David_L
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:54 pm
Location: Eastern US

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby aries » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:22 pm

Since Shekalim come up again recently, I will make a few comments, very technical and not at all inspiring.
1. Shekalim is from the Jerusalem Talmud. However it was included in the study of the Babalonian Talmud section of Moed since the 11th century. Therefore unlike the rest of the Jerusalem Talmud, there are commentaries by the Rishonim (Talmud scholars from the 10th to 15th century.).
2. We have three manuscripts for Shekalim. a. The Leiden manuscript of the whole Jerusalem Talmud. b. When the Vilna shas of Bavli came out, Shekalim was included in it. The editor of the tractate felt obligated to change all of the texts to fit the Babylonian Talmud so there would be no disagreement. This is book is therefore considered virtually useless for studying but he had some good ideas and c. the Vilna people put out a Jerusalem talmud which was based on a manuscript close to the Leiden manuscript but with many variants.
Aryeh Shore
aries
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby David_L » Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:20 am

Thanks for the information on Shekalim, but why do you say it's "considered virtually useless for studying"?
David_L
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:54 pm
Location: Eastern US

Re: Vilna Talmud

Postby aries » Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:58 pm

Useless for scholarship, that is, what was the true text of the Yerushalmi. The Vilna editor changed hundreds of words and phrases so they would not contradict the bavli or because he didn't like they way they read. It is therefore not useful for determining the text of the Yerushalmi Shekelim because he did not make any notation where he changed the text. Such behavior was not any more ethical two hundred years ago than it would be unacceptable today. The 19th century commentators on the Yerushalmi, the korban ada and the pnei moshe suffered from the same problem and thought nothing about changing the text to agree with the bavli. At least they did it inside their commentary and not on the text of the halacha.
Aryeh Shore
aries
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:07 pm

Previous

Return to Torah Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron