# Jerusalem Talmud

Rabbinic literature :
Talmud Readers by Adolf Behrman :
Talmudic literature :
Halakhic Midrash :
Aggadic Midrash :
Targum :
vte :
The Jerusalem Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד יְרוּשַׁלְמִי, romanized: Talmud Yerushalmi, often Yerushalmi for short) or Palestinian Talmud, also known as the Talmud of the Land of Israel, is a collection of rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah. Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or the Land of Israel—rather than Jerusalem—is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews were allowed to live at the time.
The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud (known in Hebrew as the Talmud Bavli), by about a century. It was written primarily in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. It was compiled between the late fourth century to the first half of the fifth century. Both versions of the Talmud have two parts, the Mishnah (of which there is only one version), which was finalized by Judah ha-Nasi around the year 200 CE, and either the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Gemara. The Gemara is what differentiates the Jerusalem Talmud from its Babylonian counterpart. The Jerusalem Gemara contains the written discussions of generations of rabbis of the Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina at Tiberias and Caesarea.

## Name

This version of the Talmud is frequently named the Jerusalem Talmud or the Palestinian Talmud. The latter name, after the region of Palestine – or the Land of Israel – is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews lived at the time. The use of the parallel terms dates to the period of the geonim (6th–11th century CE), alongside other terms such as "Talmud of the Land of Israel", "Talmud of the West", and "Talmud of the Western Lands".

## Origins and historical context

The Jerusalem Talmud probably originated in Tiberias in the School of Johanan bar Nappaha as a compilation of teachings of the schools of Tiberias, Caesarea, and Sepphoris. It is written largely in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, a Western Aramaic language that differs from its Babylonian counterpart.
This Talmud is a synopsis of the analysis of the Mishnah that was developed for nearly 200 years by the Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina (principally those of Tiberias and Caesarea). Because of their location, the sages of these Academies devoted considerable attention to the analysis of the agricultural laws of the Land of Israel.

## Manuscripts

The Leiden Jerusalem Talmud (Or. 4720) is today the only extant complete manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud and available at Leiden University Libraries. It was copied in 1289 by Jehiel ben Jekuthiel Anav and shows elements of a later recension. The additions which are added in the biblical glosses of the Leiden manuscript do not appear in extant fragments of the same Talmudic tractates found in Yemen, additions which are now incorporated in every printed edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. These Yemenite fragments, a consequence of isolation the Yemenite community, are important as source material (as evidenced below).
The Leiden manuscript is important in that it preserves some earlier variants to textual readings, such as in Tractate Pesachim 10:3 (70a), which brings down the old Hebrew word for charoset (the sweet relish eaten at Passover), viz. dūkeh (Hebrew: דוכה), instead of rūbeh/rabah (Hebrew: רובה), saying with a play on words: "The members of Isse's household would say in the name of Isse: Why is it called dūkeh? It is because she pounds [the spiced ingredients] with him." The Hebrew word for "pound" is dakh (דך), which rules out the spelling of rabah (רבה), as found in the printed editions. Yemenite Jews still call it dūkeh.
Leiden University Libraries has digitised both volumes of the manuscript and made it available in its Digital Collections.
Among the Hebrew manuscripts held in the Vatican Library is a late 13th-century – early 14th-century copy of Tractate Sotah and the complete Zeraim for the Jerusalem Talmud (Vat. ebr. 133): Berakhot, Peah, Demai, Kilayim, Sheviit, Terumot, Maaserot, Maaser Sheni, Ḥallah and Orlah (without the Mishnah for the Tractates, excepting only the Mishnah to the 2nd chapter of Berakhot). L. Ginzberg printed variant readings from this manuscript on pp. 347–372 at the end of his Fragments of the Yerushalmi (New York 1909). Saul Lieberman printed variants at the end of his essay, ʿAl ha-Yerushalmi (Hebrew), Jerusalem 1929. Both editors noted that this manuscript is full of gross errors but also retains some valuable readings.

## Dating
### Premodern estimates

Traditionally, the redaction of this Talmud was thought to have been brought to an abrupt end around 425, when Theodosius II suppressed the Nasi of the Sanhedrin and put an end to the practice of semikhah (formal scholarly ordination). The redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud was done to codify the laws of the Sanhedrin as the redaction of the Mishnah had similarly done during the time of Judah ha-Nasi. It was thought that the compilers of the Jerusalem Talmud worked to collect the rulings of the Sanhedrin and lacked the time to produce a work of the quality they had intended and that this is the reason why the Gemara do not comment upon the whole Mishnah, or that certain sections were lost.

### Modern estimates

Current perspectives on the dating of the closure of the text of the Palestinian Talmud rely on an understanding of activity of rabbinic scholarship and literary production, identifying datable historical datapoints mentioned by the text, and its reliance on and citation by other datable (or roughly datable) texts. Broadly, the Palestinian Talmud is dated at some time from the second half of the fourth century to the first half of the fifth century.
Christine Hayes has argued that a lack of evidence for Amoraim activity in Syria Palaestina after the 370s implies that the text was closed by around 370. However, reference to historical events from around or even slightly after 370 may push the earliest possible date to the late 4th century. For example, the Roman general Ursicinus, who had a public role between 351 and 359, is mentioned several times in a legendary context, suggesting that these references are somewhat later than his public career. Furthermore, there is also a reference to the Persian campaign of the Roman emperor Julian from 363. While less clear, there is also confidence that the Roman official "Proclus" named by the Palestinian Talmud corresponds to a Roman official also named Proclus, who became the governor of Palestine around 380 and eventually climbed to the position of praefectus urbi Constantinopolis (Prefect of Constantinople) which he held between 388–392. The final generation of rabbis whose opinions are found in the text belong to the second half of the fourth century. The time of the editing and compilation of these opinions would likely have occurred in the generation of their disciples, again leading to a date of the text during the late fourth or the early fifth century.
The dating of the Palestinian Talmud is definitively prior to that of the Babylonian Talmud, which relies heavily on it. The Babylonian Talmud was composed at some time between the mid-sixth century to the early-seventh century, but prior to the onset of the Arab conquests. This provides an upper absolute boundary as to when the Palestinian Talmud could have been compiled. To further push down the upper boundary, some lines (Demai 2:1; Shevi'it 6:1) of the Palestinian Talmud are also extant in the Tel Rehov inscription which dates to the 6th or 7th century.$^{:182}$

## Contents and pagination

In the initial Venice edition, the Jerusalem Talmud was published in four volumes, corresponding to separate sedarim of the Mishnah. Page numbers are by volume as follows:
* Zeraim: Berakhot (2a–14d); Pe'ah (15a–21b); Demai (21c–26c); Kilayim (26d–32d); Sheviit (33a–39d); Terumot (40a–48b); Maasrot (48c–52a); Maaser Sheni (52b–58d); Hallah (57a–60b); Orlah (60c–63b); Bikkurim (63c–65d).
* Moed: Shabbat (2a–18a); Eruvin (18a–26d); Pesachim (27a–37d); Yoma (38a–45c); Shekalim (45c–51b); Sukkah (51c–55d); Rosh ha-Shanah (56a–59d); Beẓah (59d–63b), Ta'anit (63c–69c); Megillah (69d–75d); Ḥagigah (75d–79d); Mo'ed Ḳaṭan (80a–83d).
* Nashim: Yebamot (2a–15a); Sotah (15a–24c); Ketuvot (24c–36b); Nedarim (36c–42d); Gittin (43a–50d); Nazir (51a–58a); Kiddushin (58a–66d).
* Nezikin (and Tohorot): Bava Kamma (2a–7c); Bava Metziah (7c–12c); Bava Batra (12d–17d); Sanhedrin (17d–30c); Makkot (30d–32b); Shevuot (32c–38d); Avodah Zarah (39a–45b); Horayot (45c–48c); Niddah (48d–51b).
Each page was printed as a folio, thus it contains four sub-pages (i.e., 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d), in contrast to the Babylonian Talmud which only has two sub-pages (7a, 7b).
In addition, each chapter of the Jerusalem Talmud (paralleling a chapter of Mishnah) is divided into "halachot"; each "halacha" is the commentary on a single short passage of Mishnah. Passages in the Jerusalem Talmud are generally references by a combination of chapter and halacha (i.e., Yerushalmi Sotah 1:1), by a page in the Venice edition (i.e., Yerushalmi Sotah 15a), or both (Yerushalmi Sotah 1:1 15a).

### Missing sections

In addition to the sedarim of Tohorot (except part of Niddah) and Kodashim, several tractates and parts of tractates are missing from the Jerusalem Talmud. The last four chapters of Shabbat, and the last chapter of Makkot, are missing. Niddah ends abruptly after the first lines of chapter 4. Tractates Avot and Eduyot are missing from both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Tractate Shekalim from the Jerusalem Talmud is printed in printings of both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia,
   Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety; large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. The editio princeps (ed. Bomberg, Venice, 1523 et seq.), based on the Leiden manuscript and on which all later editions are based, terminates with the following remark: "Thus far we have found what is contained in this Talmud; and we have endeavored in vain to obtain the missing portions." Of the four manuscripts used for this first edition (comp. the note at the conclusion of Shab. xx. 17d and the passage just cited), only one is now in existence; it is preserved in the library of the University of Leyden (see below). Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while the sixth, Ṭohorot, contains only the first three chapters of the treatise Niddah (iv. 48d–51b).

### Missing passages

Occasionally, the rishonim quote passages from the "Yerushalmi" which are not found in extant versions of the Jerusalem Talmud. Proposed explanations for this include the following:
* The current Jerusalem Talmud has been truncated from its original version by the scribes who copied it.
* For these rishonim, "Yerushalmi" was a collective term which included any work of midrash from the Land of Israel, and not necessarily a reference to the Jerusalem Talmud proper.
* A separate text, summarizing the Jerusalem Talmud, was composed at some stage and the rishonim quote this work rather than the Jerusalem Talmud proper.

## Comparison to Babylonian Talmud

There are significant differences between the two Talmud compilations. The language of the Jerusalem Talmud is Jewish Aramaic, a Western Aramaic dialect which differs from that of the Babylonian.
The Jerusalem Talmud is often fragmentary and difficult to read, even for experienced Talmudists. The redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is more careful and precise. The traditional explanation for this difference was the idea that the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud had to finish their work abruptly. A more probable explanation is the fact that the Babylonian Talmud was not redacted for at least another 200 years, in which a broad discursive framework was created. In a novel view, David Weiss Halivni describes the longer discursive passages in the Babylonian Talmud as the "Stammaitic" layer of redaction, and believe that it was added later than the rest: if one were to remove the "Stammaitic" passages, the remaining text would be quite similar in character to the Jerusalem Talmud.
The two compilations are similar in examining the Mishnah according to rabbinic tradition, but numerous differences exist in the details in their interpretations. Such differences are listed and examined in depth in the modern works Amrei Bemaarava and Darkhei Hatalmudim.
Neither the Jerusalem nor the Babylonian Talmud covers the entire Mishnah: for example, a Babylonian Gemara exists only for 37 out of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah. In particular:
* The Jerusalem Talmud covers all the tractates of Zeraim, while the Babylonian Talmud covers only tractate Berachot. The reason might be that most laws from the Orders Zeraim (agricultural laws limited to the land of Israel) had little practical relevance in Babylonia and were therefore not included. The Jerusalem Talmud has a greater focus on the Land of Israel and the Torah's agricultural laws pertaining to the land because it was written in the Land of Israel where the laws applied.
* The Jerusalem Talmud does not cover the Mishnaic order of Kodashim, which deals with sacrificial rites and laws pertaining to the Temple, while the Babylonian Talmud does cover it. It is not clear why this is, as the laws were not directly applicable in either country following the Temple's 70 CE destruction.
* In both Talmuds, only one tractate (Niddah) from the order of Tohorot is examined, since the other tractates deal exclusively with Temple-related laws of ritual purity.
The Babylonian Talmud records the opinions of the rabbis of Israel as well as of those of Babylonia, while the Jerusalem Talmud seldom cites the Babylonian rabbis. The Babylonian version contains the opinions of more generations because of its later date of completion. For both these reasons, it is regarded as a more comprehensive collection of the opinions available. On the other hand, because of the centuries of redaction between the composition of the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud, the opinions of early amoraim might be closer to their original form in the Jerusalem Talmud.

## Influence

The Jerusalem Talmud, and other classical rabbinic sources from the Land of Israel, strongly influenced Jewish practice there and in lands further west for many centuries, even forming the basis of many customs of early Ashkenaz. This influence is attested to in the works of Pirqoi ben Baboi (8th-9th century) and Sherira Gaon (10th century). Some traditions associated with the Jerusalem Talmud have been retained to this day, for example in the liturgy of the Italian Jews and Romaniotes.
In time, though, the Babylonian Talmud came to be seen as the canonical work of rabbinic tradition across the entire Jewish world. As such, the Babylonian Talmud has traditionally been studied more widely and has had a greater influence on the halakhic tradition than the Jerusalem Talmud. Already in the 11th century, the great works of Rashi and Isaac Alfasi were based on the Babylonian Talmud, not the Jerusalem Talmud. The shift to Babylonian authority occurred mainly because the influence and prestige of the Jewish community of Israel steadily declined in contrast with the Babylonian community in the years after the redaction of the Talmud and continuing until the Gaonic era. Furthermore, the editing of the Babylonian Talmud was superior to that of the Jerusalem version, making it more accessible and readily usable. Hai ben Sherira, on the preeminence of the Babylonian Talmud, wrote:
   Anything that has been decided halachically in our Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud), we do not rely on [any contradictory view found in] the Jerusalem Talmud, seeing that many years have passed since instruction coming from there (i.e. the Land of Israel) had ceased on account of persecution, whereas here (i.e. in Babylonia) is where the final decisions were clarified.
Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Talmud was still accorded a certain status as a secondary work useful for the clarification of halakha. Regarding the Jerusalem Talmud's continued importance for the understanding of arcane matters, Hai ben Sherira wrote:
   Whatever we find in the Jerusalem Talmud and there is nothing that contradicts it in our own Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud), or which gives a nice explanation for its matters of discourse, we can hold-on to it and rely upon it, for it is not to be viewed as inferior to the commentaries of the rishonim (i.e. the early exponents of the Torah).
A similar judgment was made by Ritva: "We always rely on their Talmud (i.e. the Jerusalem Talmud) and interpret and codify our Talmud (the Babylonian) based on their (the scholars of Yerushalmi) words."
It was also an important resource in the study of the Babylonian Talmud by the Kairouan school of Chananel ben Chushiel and Nissim ben Jacob, with the result that opinions ultimately based on the Jerusalem Talmud found their way into both the Tosafot and the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides.
Following the formation of the modern state of Israel, there was some interest in restoring Jerusalem Talmud's traditions. For example, David Bar-Hayim of the Machon Shilo institute has issued a siddur reflecting the practices found in the Jerusalem Talmud and other sources. In addition, from a historical perspective, the Jerusalem Talmud remains an indispensable source of knowledge of the development of the Jewish Law in the Holy Land.

## Commentators

There is no comprehensive commentary to the Jerusalem Talmud by any of the Rishonim, but explanations of many individual passages can be found in the literature of the Rishonim. Most significantly, Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens (c. 1150 – c. 1230), known as the Rash, excerpts and explains many sections of the Jerusalem Talmud in his commentary to the Mishnah of Seder Zeraim. His work, however, is focused on the Mishnah and is not a comprehensive commentary on the entire Jerusalem Talmud.
Judah ben Yakar (died c. 1210) wrote a commentary to much of the Jerusalem Talmud, which was quoted by other rishonim but has now been lost.
Kaftor VaFerach, by Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280–1355), a disciple of Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, is one of the few surviving compositions of the Rishonim about all of Seder Zeraim. However it is a Halachic work and not per se a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud.
The only surviving commentaries of Rishonim on the Jerusalem Talmud are the commentaries to Tractate Shekalim of Menachem Meiri, Meshulam ben David and Shemuel ben Shniur. All three of these commentaries are reprinted in the Mutzal Mi'Eish edition of the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shekalim.
Many Acharonim, however, wrote commentaries on all or major portions of the Jerusalem Talmud, and as with the Babylonian Talmud, many also wrote on individual tractates of the Jerusalem Talmud.
One of the first of the Acharonim to write a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud was Solomon Sirilio (1485–1554), also known as Rash Sirilio, whose commentaries cover only the Seder Zeraim and the tractate Shekalim of Seder Moed. Sirilio's commentary remained in manuscript form until it was first printed in 1875. In the Vilna edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, Rash Sirilio appears only for tractates Berakhot and Pe'ah, but the commentary for the entire Seder Zeraim appears in the Mutzal Mi'Eish and Oz Vehadar editions. In addition to his commentary, Sirilio worked to remove mistakes made by manuscript copyists that over time had slipped into the text of the Jerusalem Talmud, and his amended text of the Gemara is reproduced alongside his commentary in the Vilna and Mutzal Mi'Eish editions.
Another 16th century commentary on the Yerushalmi is Rabbi Elazar ben Moshe Azikri's commentary to Tractates Berakhot and Betzah.
Today's modern printed editions almost all carry the commentaries, Korban ha-Eida, by David ben Naphtali Fränkel (c. 1704–1762) of Berlin on the orders of Moed, Nashim and parts of Nezikin, and Pnei Moshe, by Moses Margolies (c.1710?–1781) of Amsterdam on the entire Talmud. The Vilna edition also includes the Ridvaz by Rabbi Yaakov Dovid Wilovsky on most of the Talmud. The goal of all three of these commentaries is to explain the simple meaning of the Talmud similar to Rashi's commentary on the Bavli, and the authors each wrote an additional commentary—Sheyarei ha-Korban, Marei ha-Panim and Tosefot Rid respectively—that is meant to be a similar style to Tosafot.
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky published a commentary on tractates Berakhot through Nedarim (roughly 70% of the Jerusalem Talmud), considered by many to be the clearest commentary. Most of it is reprinted in the Oz Vehadar edition of the Yerushalmi. Rabbi Yitzchok Isaac Krasilschikov wrote the Toledot Yitzchak and Tevuna commentaries on tractates Berakhot through Rosh Hashanah (roughly 50% of the Jerusalem Talmud), which was published from his manuscript by the Mutzal Me-esh Institute.
A modern edition and commentary, known as Or Simchah, is currently being prepared in Arad; another edition in preparation, including paraphrases and explanatory notes in modern Hebrew, is Yedid Nefesh. The Jerusalem Talmud has also received some attention from Adin Steinsaltz, who planned a translation into modern Hebrew and accompanying explanation similar to his work on the Babylonian Talmud before his death. So far only Tractates Pe'ah and Shekalim have appeared.

## Translations into English

* The first volume, Berakhoth, was translated into English in 1886 by Dr. Moses Schwab, under the title "The Talmud of Jerusalem" . The author has an earlier translation into French, which covers many more volumes.
* Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation Jacob Neusner, Tzvee Zahavy, others. University of Chicago Press. This translation uses a form-analytical presentation that makes the logical units of discourse easier to identify and follow. Neusner's mentor Saul Lieberman, then the most prominent Talmudic scholar alive, read one volume shortly before his death and wrote a review, published posthumously, in which he describes dozens of major translation errors in the first chapter of that volume alone, also demonstrating that Neusner had not, as claimed, made use of manuscript evidence; he was "stunned by Neusner's ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all the subject matter with which he deals" and concluded that "the right place for [Neusner's translation] is the wastebasket". This review was devastating for Neusner's career. At a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature a few months later, during a plenary session designed to honor Neusner for his achievements, Morton Smith (also Neusner's mentor) took to the lectern and announced that "I now find it my duty to warn" that the translation "cannot be safely used, and had better not be used at all". He also called Neusner's translation "a serious misfortune for Jewish studies". After delivering this speech, Smith marched up and down the aisles of the ballroom with printouts of Lieberman's review, handing one to every attendee.
* Schottenstein Edition of the Yerushalmi Talmud Mesorah/ArtScroll. This complete translation (to Hebrew and English) is the counterpart to Mesorah/ArtScroll's Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. The 51-volume set, completed in 2022, is the first and only Orthodox non-academic English translation of the Jerusalem Talmud.
* The Jerusalem Talmud ed. Heinrich Guggenheimer, Walter de Gruyter. This edition, which is a complete one for the entire Jerusalem Talmud, is a scholarly translation based on the editio princeps and upon the existing manuscripts. The text is fully vocalized and followed by an extensive commentary.
* Modern Elucidated Talmud Yerushalmi, ed. Joshua Buch. Uses the Leiden manuscript as its based text corrected according to manuscripts and Geniza Fragments. Draws upon Traditional and Modern Scholarship