Amoraic traditions are usually recorded as specific legal decisions, interpretations of specific sources or case studies that conclude with actual decsions. However, in the middle amoraic generations the Talmud brings us a rich literature of another type: amoraic dialogues, in which we can actually follow the emergence of decisions from the legal conversations of amoraim.

Amoraic dialogue is recorded conversation between two or more Amoraim: Amora 1 said to Amora 2, Amora 2 responded, etc. In direct dialogue, the topic and context of the individual remarks of the amoraim are clear. Direct dialogue can be identified by a variety of terminologies. For responses and general remarks: àîø ìéä is a common formulation. For challenges of one discussant to the other based on tannaitic sources: îúéá ìéä or àéúéáéä is utilized. Sometimes, the Talmud describes possible dialogue on the basis of two amoraic opinions. In such cases, the Talmud will edit the possible dialogue with the terminology àîø ìê ôìåðé which means: he could/would/should have said to him…

Amoraic dialogue is different from other statements of Amoraim, in that they are presented in Aramaic, not in Hebrew, and they tend to be expansive rather than terse.

Back to the reading section