The Talmud

We see that the categories of understanding the nation produced in its adolescence are a result of emotions developed in its childhood. According to our approach, we can conclude that the Talmud—which is the sum of the philosophies and views that the nation produced in its adolescence, when it first acquired wisdom—is a corollary of the prophets whom the nation produced in its youth, when it was dominated by emotion and poetry. The Talmud includes the development and apogee of the Jewish spirit; it is the same image and likeness accorded to it by the prophets. Thus, the Talmud is not a contradiction to the prophets but, on the contrary, comes to fulfill and complete them; the prophets are the principle behind the Talmud. That which they envisioned through the prism of prophecy was studied by the talmudists using the attribute of wisdom and the observation of intellect. The prophets sought to reveal to the world what lay in the Jewish nation’s heart, the Talmud—what was in its mind. Thus, one must conclude that the Talmud is the sequel to the Prophets and Writings. It was created by the nation when it had grown up, when it emerged from a world of childhood dominated by imagination and emotion, entering into adulthood, entering into the world of thought and observation.

The main characteristic of the Talmud is its explanation of vague passages in the Torah, expounding upon its principles, and making the doctrines of Torah dependent upon the fulfillment of good deeds. And let not this matter be light in your eyes, for many great people have stumbled over this very issue; because they sought to educate the people with nothing but the study of ethics, but when a real case arose, they had a dilemma. Since their ethical teachings are unclear, general, and demanding, no person could possibly understand its character and regulate all his conduct in mundane (derekh erets) and worldly matters. And sometimes a person would find himself committing a sin thinking it a mitzvah. Therefore, the Talmud declared: it is not study which is primary but rather deeds. The understanding of ethics does not educate the people. It is the organization of the world according to ethics and the perfection of good deeds that educates a man and completes his spirit. For this reason, the Talmud sought to discuss every detail of life and daily practice according to the ethical principle of the Torah, to make all things in the world and all practices correspond with the Torah and its ethical spirit. [ . . . ]

Two

The Talmud can generally be divided into halakhah and agadah.

The halakhah has three categories: (1) Scriptural exegesis; (2) Oral traditions; (3) Regulations, enactments, and laws:

1. The interpretations come in various forms: Sometimes an interpretation exists in the thing itself—meaning, the tradition interprets that which the Torah did not clearly specify. For example, the Torah states “and they shall be as totafot between your eyes,” but does not explain what totafot were. Tradition explained that totafot are tefillin (b. Sanhedrin 4b). Likewise, “you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a hadar tree” and the Torah did not explain what this hadar is. Tradition explained that it refers to a citron (b. Sukkah 35a). The Torah did not explain these words because their meaning was well known when the Torah was given and disseminated among the people. Therefore, it did not need to provide an explanation and based itself on tradition. One can thus conclude that such interpretations were disseminated among the people along with the Torah. For otherwise, one would not know what a hadar tree is—perhaps it is an apple or a fig—and therefore the explanation must have been known through tradition. And if we find the talmudic sages using proofs and homiletical exegesis to shed light on a word, to show that hadar refers to a citron (b. Sukkah 35a) or that totafot are tefillin (b. Sanhedrin 4b), this is merely because they loved homiletics and wished to show how the tradition was actually rooted in the text of the Torah itself. It is not because there was ever a doubt about the meaning of these words. [ . . . ] In a case where [a goring] ox is killed, scripture states: and its owners shall also be put to death (Exodus 21:29). The tradition teaches that this refers to money as opposed to the simple meaning. For one executes a person for his own act of murder but not for that of his ox (b. Sanhedrin 15b). This was because tradition taught that the accepted practice in such cases had always been to pay money and not to execute the owner of the ox. And therefore, they explained that this was what scripture had intended.

Likewise, in the case of meat and milk, the Torah states: you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19). The tradition explained that this refers to all milk and meat (b. Ḥullin 113a)—for it was a tradition among the people that milk and meat were prohibited and thus this was interpreted as the intention of scripture. In all these cases, and in others like them, the sages who transmitted tradition believed that their interpretation was the simple meaning of scripture; they did not have a concept of another simple reading. [ . . . ]

And just as you find these three divisions in halakhah so too are there [three divisions] in agadah. Agadah includes exegesis and homiletical interpretation of scripture; there are agadot from tradition which include the traditions of ancestors, folk stories, legends, tales, and poems that were passed down from one generation to the next until they were codified in the Talmud. There are also new agadot that were created by scholars for their time. In which one finds ethics, practical advice, good conduct, and allusions, which were intended for generations to come or exclusively for their contemporaries. And when we describe agadah and its character, we shall discuss each one of these divisions, explaining their purpose, and the time at which each one evolved in the study hall.