Traditions of Amoraic statements, like traditions of Tannaitic statements, were passed on in oral form. Students did not learn from texts, and they worked hard to review traditions tens and even hundreds of times to ensure accuracy of transmission. Indeed, Oral Tradition includes tens of thousands of transmitted statements, dialogues, case histories and legal narratives and precedents, and the degree of accuracy is extremely high! Despite the general accuracy of the traditions, some doubts regarding the original language of certain traditions did arise, and these traditions with transmission issues are marked by very specific languages of presentation.

There are various types of transmission issues in amoraic statements: Complications may arise in the name of the Amora being quoted, the content of his statement, the context of his statement, and the conditions in which the statement was made. Name complications include doubts about which Amora made the statement, in whose name the Amora is saying the statement if it is not his own and, if the memra is a dispute between two Amoraim, which Amora actually held which opinion. Content complications arise either because different students remembered the statement of their teacher differently, or because the teacher changed his opinion, and each student heard something else. Context complications are in reference to which mishnah, beraita, or early memra the statement was actually made, and complications about conditions include arguments over the circumstances of a given case or event about which the statement was made.

In all of these cases of variants or versions of amoraic statements, they will be presented in Talmud with very specific headings: sometimes the phrase àéëà ãàîøé. or àéëà ãîúðé... (some say or some recite), sometimesàéúéîà... or àîøé ìä... (some say or some attribute) and sometimes the termìéùðà àçøéðà... (another version) may appear. We can sometimes suggest linguistic or circumstantial reasons for the alternative versions. Often, the preferred version or variant will be presented last in the series, as reflected in the jurisprudence principles of the Rishonim. This may be due to the fact that the sugyot were learned orally as lessons, and the teachers sought the didactic tension caused by movement from the less desirable version to the preferred one.

In traditions of amoraic dialogues, there may be doubt who said what to whom, who asked whom what question, in what circumstances, etc. In case histories or legal narratives, there may be different transmissions about the circumstances of the event, the way in which the Amora related to it, or even what he decided in the case.

Versions of statements also may arise in the event that amoraic traditions are transferred from one venue to the other. If an Amora from Sura made a decision, then transmission of his decision in Pumbedita may raise questions or complications. Even more so, when traditions are transferred from Israel to Babylonia. For example, Rabbi Yohanan ben Napaha was head of the academy in Tiberias from c. 240 to 280 CE, and over two thousand of his statements were transmitted to Babylonian academies. When comparing these transmissions to the original statements as brought in the Talmud of the Land of Israel, significant differences occur in over one third of all cases!

Even when the transmission of an amoraic statement is clear, the Talmud may suggest changes in amoraic traditions for various reasons. Sometimes, the statement is a non-sequitur, in which case the Talmud may interrupt the transmission with a clarification and then propose: àé àéúîø äëé àéúîø... (if a statement was made, it was/should have been like this…) or simply àìà àéîà... (rather, I should say… ).

Back to the reading section