The Babylonian Talmud is composed of three overall layers: tannaitic sources such as Mishnah and beraitot from up to approximately 240 CE, amoraic sources such as memrot and sugyot from up to approximately 500 CE, and a third layer which presents the tannaitic and amoraic sources, comments on them, and extrapolates from them to new cases and topics. This third layer is known to the rishonim by various names: “gemara,” “talmud,” “stama d’gemara,” “stama d’talmuda,” or simply “stama,” which means “anonymous.” Who exactly wrote it, when, and why?

Historically, we know the named amoraic sources conclude by c. 500 CE. The Gaonic Period commences about a century later, and is documented by significant literature of various forms from the year 700 CE. Therefore, virtually no literature has survived from the intervening period of 500 to 700 CE. Is this because it is to be found in the stama layer of the Talmud? Or, is the stama from the last generations of the Amoraim themselves, and therefore appears to be later than most amoraic traditions in the Talmud? In either case, the stama seems to be later than most of the amoraic statements in the Talmud.

Rabbis and scholars have taken different positions on this topic. The standard approach credits Rav Ashi (6th generation Babylonian amora, d. 427 CE) and his colleague Rabina with editing the Talmud. This approach is based on Rashi’s interpretation of b. Baba Metzia 86a – that Rav Ashi and Rabina are “sof hora’ah,” “the end of teaching,” and on similar statements of other Rishonim. Rav Sherira Gaon (10th century Babylonian Gaon) who predates Rashi by a century and reflects the Babylonian opinion, clearly identifies the editing of the Talmud with Rav Asi and Rabina b. Rav Huna (8th generation Babylonian amoraim, d. circa 500-505 CE). Rav Sherira adds that after the end of the Amoraic period, additional interpretations and explanations that were “similar to teaching” were added to the Talmud. Rishonim point to many passages in the Talmud which they claim are very late additions to the text, either from the period of the Gaonim, or copyist errors from even later. However, these late sugyot are clearly a terminus ad quem and exceptions to the rule, and do not reflect on what we may call the “normative stama” of the third layer which accompanies the sources of the Tannaim and Amoraim on every page of Talmud.

The identification of the Stama d’Talmuda as late Amoraic or Saboraic is a fascinating question for learning and research, but the issue has no halachic relevance, for several reasons:
1. the people of Israel have accepted the Talmud in its entirety as the source for halachah
2. halachah is derived from Talmud, but fixed in later codes such as the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (Safed, 16th century) which bind observant Israel, irrespective of the exact dating of any given source material
3. Saboraim are also part of the unbroken chain of tradition, just like the Amoraim before them and the Gaonim who follow them. A source dated from the saboraic period will be no less relevant halachically because it is post-amoraic.

For the Revadim Project, however, the pure historical research question has less relevance than the functional question of how the third, stama layer is to be learned. It is clear that the talmudic layer of the sugyah functions differently than the amoraic traditions. It presents, comments, interprets, generalizes, conceptualizes, and extrapolates tannaitic and amoraic traditions. The talmudic layer also develops sugyot of its own to investigate issues not dealt with in earlier sources, and it utilizes very specific, highly sophisticated, and frequently recurring patterns of logic, discussion and argumentation which rarely if ever occur in Amoraic discussions. Since talmudic literature assumes learning and understanding of all the earlier sources on which it is based, it should be learned only after study of all the earlier teachings in any given sugyah.

Back to the reading section