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
denition 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. 418.
century c.e.1 We should, however, note that our sources for the earlier part of the 2. Ibid., pp. 47. 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 oer 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 dening characteristics of the geonic period in assigning the anonymous
Babylonia, and probably the single most important dierence between it and the portions of the Babylonian
preceding savoraic period (early sixth century), was that the Talmud was treated as Talmud to the rst two centuries of the geonic period.
a nished 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. 230231), and these too
fth centuries). The geonim, on the other hand, no longer saw themselves as active presented serious diculties
even to members of the intelparticipants in the creation of the Talmud. Their role was to transmit, explicate, and ligentsia (ibid., pp. 222223).
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 rst-hand knowledge of the Talmud was
conned 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 ofni Gaon and
his Cultural World: Texts
and Studies (LeidenNew
YorkKln, 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 xed 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 ve months between kallah meetings to study a specic 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 connes 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. 2628, 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 reect a conCommunity in the Muslim
siderable degree of talmudic learning on the part of their authors, although some
World: Kairouan, 8001057
were clearly more procient 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.
155156.
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. 8788.
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
GenizahThe 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. 7275, 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 rst 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 nishes 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 eorts 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 reect
the crisis in the academy rather than the normal state of aairs. There are some indications that the geonic academies prided themselves on the number of levels of instruction that they were able to oer, but the interpretation
of the relevant texts is less than certain.10
A number of geonic sources reect the importance attributed to individualized teaching and the masters intimate familiarity with the students 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 dierent
context, Sherira Gaon writes: And this is how it was in the beginning, as we oer 9. I have not succeeded in
explanations today, each one of the masters as he sees t, 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 rst and
foremost as oral literature. Perhaps the most striking testimony to this eect 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 academyand 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 periodthe earliest clear evidence for such texts refers to events
in the mid-eighth centuryand 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, 4546, 57, and D.
Rosenthal, Rabbanan deSiyyuma and Bene Siyyume,
Tarbiz 49 (1979), pp. 5261,
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.
2122).
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 uidity was taken more or less for granted; it is not unusual to nd 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 dierent words. The relative frequencies of dierent 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 Mekerei Talmud,
III (The E.E. Urbach Memovariations in wording that do not aect 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. 157158 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 gaons version absorbed later
ve-ha-Tekst ha-Talmudi,
additions. On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence of conscious emendation
Mekerei Talmud, I, eds. Y.
Sussmann and D. Rosenof the talmudic texts by the geonim, who appear to have identied so strongly with
thal (Jerusalem, 1990), pp.
the living oral tradition that they found it almost inconceivable that this tradition
237303. 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
67102, argues against this
with considerable suspicion, and had little hesitation in diagnosing textual corrupapproach, while Z. Stampfer,
Rav Samuel ben ofni Gaons
tion when confronted with passages that they found problematic for one reason or
Treatise on Divorce Kitb
another.15
al-talq: Texts and Studies
(Ph.D. dissertation, Jerusalem, 2004) suggests that some
inuence 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 codication 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

uency in Babylonian Aramaic. Although the Aramaic used by the geonim was not identical with
that of the Talmud, it was suciently close that the geonim were often in a position to provide clear,
authoritative explanations of talmudic words and phrases that presented insuperable diculties for
other students of the text.16
Many exegetical traditions were transmitted for generationswhether orally or in writingin
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 oer
authorized interpretations, or that they would explore the ramications 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 gure 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 nd 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 rst encounter genuine commentaries that address issues 180183.
selected by their authors rather than responding to specic questions addressed to 18. See ibid., pp. 164165,
and the sources cited in notes
them. The great innovator in this respect, as in many others, was Saadiah Gaon, who 3134.
composed a commentary in Arabic on the dicult 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 ofni Gaon suggested to one of his correspondents clearly reect 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. Musaa
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 reect a
go well beyond lexical exegesis and concentrate on clarifying the talmudic dialectic level of learning conned 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 nd 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. 267269.

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 eld of
talmudic methodology, most importantly in Samuel ben ofnis monumental Introduction to the
Science (or: Knowledge) of the Mishnah and Talmud. This work, written in Judeo21. See ibid., pp. 270274;
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), agigah,
identied and are being prepared for publication. The rst fteen 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
274282, 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.
8889, and R. Brody, Kelum
Hayu ha-geonim Meokekim? Shenaton ha-Mishpat
ha-Ivri 1112 (19841986),
pp. 279315.
25. See Brody (n. 1 above),
pp. 164165 (where earlier
treatments are listed in n. 35),
pp. 181, 274277.

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 traditiontheir 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
reection. 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 reecting 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 specically 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 eect are
rejected by the geonim, either on the basis of a specic 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 eect 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. 56; 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. 179181.
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 specically in the Talmud, although the tion is found in Lewin (n. 12
above), V (Jerusalem, 1933),
extant statements to this eect 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 dierent 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. 1617. 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 identied 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 millenniumthe quintessential statement of rabbinic Judaism.

04Talmud.Brody.indd 35

6/2/05 3:53:53 PM