and barbarous terms and grammatical solecisms to a much greater extent than
the “Jerusalem Talmud.” Mr. Blunt asserts that “the Haggadic narratives
resemble more closely the vernacular Aramaic, showing their origin in ordinary
folk lore. The Halacoth are in Mishnic Hebrew, carrying evidence of higher date.
The style is so exceedingly concise as to make the sense that it contains a
microscopic study. The difficulties indeed of the Gemara are so great, that no
one need think to master them thoroughly who has not drawn in Gemara with his
mother’s milk. The study of the Talmud presumes a thorough knowledge also of
the Hebrew Bible, a single word often indicating an entire passage. The
wonderful moral confusion of the Talmud, the mixed character of which may be
detected in every page, is nowhere more strikingly exemplified than in the
prayer put by the Gemarist into the mouth of Rabbi Nechoniah ben Hakakana,
on entering the school, or Beth Midrash, and quitting it again in the evening.”
The morning prayer was as follows:—
“I beseech Thee that no scandal may occur through fault of mine, and that I err
not in matters of Halacah, so as to cause my colleagues to exult. May I not call
impurity pure, or purity impure; and may my colleagues not blunder in matters
of Halacah, that I may have no cause to triumph over them.”
The spirit of this prayer, in its meekness and modesty, is truly commendable, and
presents a striking contrast to that of the evening prayer:—
“I thank Thee that Thou hast given me my portion among those who have a seat
in the Beth Midrash, and that Thou hast not cast my lot among those who sit in
the corner. I early rise, and they early rise; but I rise to the service of the law,
they to vanity. I labour, and they also labour, but I labour and receive a
recompense; they labour, but receive nothing. I hasten, and they also hasten; but
I hasten in the direction of the world to come, they hasten towards the pit of
destruction.”
It is impossible to believe that both these prayers come from the same source;
“sweet waters and bitter” do not alike flow from the fountain of Marah.
With respect to the general character of the Talmud, with all its weakness and
strength, its beauty and deformity, its poetry and commonplace, its tender
wisdom and glaring absurdity, we cannot do better than quote the moderate
opinion of the writer already cited, as infinitely more trustworthy than the
dithyrambic utterances of Deutsch and his imitators. He says:—