Talmudic literature – the “stama d’talmuda” – is different than the tannaitic and amoraic sources it presents and discusses. It is also clear from sugyot all over the Talmud that the stama layer adds concepts, expressions and interpretations that are not found in the statements of the Amoraim, while the talmudic layer is constantly using the decisions, expressions and examples of Tannaim and Amoraim. Therefore, it seems that the majority of talmudic literature is later chronologically than the majority of amoraic literature.

What literary and logical characteristics differentiate amoraic sources and “stama d’talmuda” throughout the Babylonian Talmud? The primary characteristics are:
1. Amoraic sources are always brought in the name of the amora who authored them, while talmudic literature is always anonymous. As we have seen, the name of the author is critical in amoraic sources, so we know to whom to attribute the halachic decisions of the memrot. Stama sources deal mostly with suggested explanations of halachic decisions, and the authors of the suggestions are less required.
2. Amoraic sources are overwhelmingly Hebrew, and talmudic sources virtually entirely Aramaic. Hebrew language was used for sources meant to be memorized and transmitted in a given form. Aramaic language was used for discussions, dialogues, and case histories in which the exact format was less critical.
3. Amoraic sources are generally formulated as practical halachah, and talmudic sources are more interpretive, and discuss and clarify the various Amoraic opinions.
4. Amoraic sources are generally in a case-law format, that is, they relate to specific cases, events, or earlier sources, and talmudic sources are more concerned with generalizations, conceptualizations and abstractions. This is probably the most far-reaching distinction between amoraic sources and stama d’talmuda. The process of generalization and conceptualization demands analysis of all amoraic sources in a manner which adapts them to general principles. This is one of the main foci of stama discussion in the Talmud.
5. Amoraic sources rarely utilize fixed argumentation or discussion patterns, and talmudic literature uses them frequently. Dozens of such patterns, some of which can be found hundreds of times in Talmud, have been identified. These patterns, such as öøéëåúà, éìôåúà, and äëà áîàé ÷à îéôìâé, can be learned as set forms, aiding recognition in unseen sugyot.

These distinctions mean that a student must apply different cognitive skills for amoraic and talmudic sources. Since amoraic and talmudic sources always appear interwoven, their separation one from the other by scanning of the sugyah is a prerequisite to proper study. By scanning the sugyah, it can be determined if the amoraim in the sugyah are brought in chronological sequence or not, and this determination decides whether the sugyah is an amoraic sugyah into which s’tama d’talmuda has entered, or a talmudic sugyah into which amoraic sources have been imported. If the sugyah is amoraic, the amoraic sources should all be learned first, and the stama only afterwards as commentary. If, on the other hand, the sugyah is talmudic, the sugyah should be learned in sequence, since the amoraic quotations as brought in the sugyah are inseparable from the course of the stama.

Back to the reading section