Editing of tannaitic literature was completed within a generation of the death of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (c. 220 CE). At the same time, the Amoraic Period began (“amora”= academy head or master, or scholar), and concluded in Israel five generations later (c. 375), and in Babylonia eight generations later (c. 500). Mishnah and the rest of tannaitic literature developed in only three or four academies, but amoraic literature developed in tens of academies in the Land of Israel and Babylonia.

Amoraim interpret Mishnah, compare and contrast parallel tannaitic texts, add their own layers of commentary, opinion and discussion, and deal with matters untreated in tannaitic sources. Amoraic literature is a direct continuation of tannaitic teachings, concerned basically with halachic decision-making on a case by case basis. There is little generalization or conceptualization in amoraic literature. Amoraic literature is unique, however, since it is a gradual, layered accumulation of remarks, terse discussions or legal decisions, and is not presented in edited works such as Mishnah or Tosefta. Most importantly, amoraic literature does not exist on its own. It is part of the overall discussion in the talmudic text, which is very different than the amoraic sources themselves in form and language. Correct identification and separation of amoraic literature from the talmudic landscape is an inescapable first step in learning the teachings of the Amoraim. How is this done?

The basic unit of amoraic literature is the “memra” (plural: “memrot”), or statement, of the amora. Although the spoken language at the time of the Amoraim was Aramaic, memrot are over eighty-five percent of the time in tannaitic Hebrew, signalling that they were edited for memorization. (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 .) The remaining fifteen percent of amoraic literature contains conversational material, legal decisions preserved as originally rendered in Aramaic, narrative case studies or aggada (non-halachic sources). Whether in Hebrew or Aramaic, however, amoraic literature is recognized by its exact attribution of every edited amoraic statement to a given scholar. This enables consistent analysis of varying judicial trends or approaches. These two characteristics – consistent named attribution and predominately Hebrew language redaction – aid in identifying amoraic memrot within the talmud.

Individual memrot accumulate by generational sequence, giving rise to sugyot (singular: sugyah), or discussions, surrounding given topics. In Talmud study, one comes across sugyot comprised of memrot from a single academy, muliple-academy sugyot, and sugyot combining memrot from Israel and Babylonia. Each type of sugyah has its own unique characteristics and challenges.

It is customary to attribute editing of the amoraic literature (and most of the talmudic literature as well!) to Rav Ashi and Rabina, of the sixth and seventh generations, respectively. This attribution is based on the prevalent interpretation of the words of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi, 11th century France) on the phrase “Rav As(h)i and Rabina are the end of teaching” in b. Baba Metzia 86a, and the clear attribution of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam, 12th century Spain and Egypt), in his introduction to Mishneh Torah. However, Rav Sherira Gaon (Babylonia, 10th century) does not discuss any such editing of the Talmud, but rather the close of the Amoraic period with Rabina b. Rav Huna and Rav Asi=Yosi of the eighth generation.

Back to the reading section