Amoraic traditions in the Talmud may be in case history or legal precedent format, or in dialogue format. However, by far the most common form for amoraic tradiitons is the statement format. Individual statements of Amoraim are called memrot (singular: memra), and they represent carefully formulated and edited amoraic interpretations of earlier sources, halachic decisions or general statements. There are two distinguishing characterisitcs of memrot: first, every memra is tagged with the name of its author, because amoraic statements have binding halachic importance. The second characteristic of memrot is that in more than eighty-five percent of the cases, amoraic statements will be formulated in Hebrew. (This refers to the original kernel of the statement of the Amora, and excludes the linguistic polishing or explanations in Aramaic often added later to the statement, such as äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï .) Amoraim generally spoke and taught in Aramaic, but their decisions were given official status and authority by Hebrew formulation which also aided memorization. These two markings of Amoraic statements set them off from the Aramaic language discussion of the Talmud which analyzes them.

There are several different types of memrot. Many memrot relate to earlier sources, either mishnayot, beraitot or early memrot. These statements may explain the simple meaning of an earlier source, or they may be memrot which render halachic decisions by selecting one of the opinions in an earlier source. Other memrot interpret earlier sources by limiting them to specific cases or applications, and begin with terms such as ìà ùðå àìà.. or very simply á... . These memrot are called okimtot, and there are disagreements among rishonim and acharonim regarding some of these statements - those which seem to be distant from the simple meaning of the earlier source - whether they give us the actual intended meaning of the earlier source, or whether they present later re-interpretations of the earlier sources. Lastly, memrot which relate to earlier sources may be of a challenging nature, measuring the earlier source by another source, or by an accepted principle which contradicts it. Such memrot begin with the word îú÷éó ìä.. to caution us that a challenge is under way.

In addition to memrot which interpret, limit or challenge earlier statemetns, another category of memrot, called “independent memrot,” do not relate to earlier sources, but bring a new case or issue, and the relevant opinions of one or more Amoraim. In many cases, independent and opposing amoraic opinions may be edited into a combined memra with the addition of the presentation word àéúîø.

Memrot were intended to be learned by memory, and to be mentioned together with the source to which they relate. As generations passed, memrot accumulated one after the other, forming a series on a given source or topic. These series of memrot are called sugyot (singular sugya). Because the sugyot were formed by long-term accumulation of statements, they are virtually always in generational sequence. By following the structure of the sequence, it is possible to know when and where the discussions took place. Also, the development of the sequence teaches us about the evolution of the halachah over the generations included in the sequence. Because the structure of the sequence is so important, it is recommended to examine every sugyah carefully before studying it for content, in order to be aware of its order and stages of development.

Sometimes, the Talmud itself will quote memrot as part of its own discussion. In such cases, the memrot may not be quoted in their original context, but as part of a much later discussion. Therefore, in sugyot such as these it is appropriate to check the original context of the memra and the purpose of its quotation in the Talmudic sugyah which developed later.

Back to the reading section