luan’s Lunzhu,” in Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald
S. Lopez, Jr. (Honolulu, forthcoming).
ROGER J. CORLESS (1987)T’AN-LUAN SEE TANLUAN
TANNAIM. The term tanna is used to refer to an author-
ity of the Mishnah and its related works, in contradistinction
to amora, referring to a sage of the gemaraD. The word derives
from the Aramaic teni (“to repeat”) and by extension means
“to learn” or “to teach.”
The tannaim were the sages of rabbinic tradition who
lived immediately before, and then during the century and
a half following, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
(70 CE). This period is traditionally divided into five or six
generations. The most prominent authorities of the period
included Hillel, GamliDel the Elder, Yoh:anan ben ZakkDai,
GamliDel of Yavneh, EliEezer ben Hyrcanus, EAqivaD ben
Yosef, MeDir, and Yehuda ha-NasiD. The period ends with the
generation of Yehuda ha-NasiD, the editor of the Mishnah (c.
200 CE), although the following generation in Palestine is
one of transition. The division in Babylonia is clearer,
though the amora Rav is occasionally spoken of as having
tannaitic authority.
The texts that record the traditions of these sages are
termed tannaitic, and they include the Mishnah, the Tosefta,
the halakhic midrashim, and a broad variety of traditions pre-
served in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Traditions
that are ascribed tannaitic authority are introduced, almost
without exception in the Babylonian Talmud but with fre-
quent exception in the Jerusalem Talmud, with a set of tech-
nical vocabulary that employs the root tny. Such traditions
are termed baraitot (sg., baraitaD), meaning “traditions out-
side, or excluded from, the Mishnah” (from Aramaic bar,
“outside”).
The tannaitic texts, particularly the Mishnah but to a
significant extent the baraitot as well, form the basis of later
rabbinic legal deliberations. These texts were tested, inter-
preted, and sometimes emended by the amoraim, and they
were in a very real sense accorded the authority of canon. The
tannaim often became great legendary figures who were
thought to have experienced, and sometimes even instigated,
miracles.
The term tannaD is secondarily used to refer to the pro-
fessional repeater or reciter of the rabbinic schools who func-
tioned during both the tannaitic and amoraic periods, even
into the centuries that followed (the amoraic period ended
c. 500 CE). The tannaD may also have been referred to as roveh
(“repeater”), later confused with rabbah (“the great”).
The official traditions of the rabbinic schools were oral.
The functionaries who memorized the official texts were the
tannaDim, who were in all respects living books. The process
of committing the official text to memory most likely oc-
curred in the following way. First, the master would decide
upon the version of the tradition to be taught. He would
then call upon his tannaD, who would be asked to recite the
tradition a great many times until its memorization was se-
cure. At that time other tannaDim might be called in, for
whom the first tannaD would then recite the tradition. He
would test their memorization, and in this way the version
of the text would be secured in the mouths of increasing
numbers of tanna’im.
Such a method constituted genuine publication. There
are several accounts in Talmudic literature in which the
tannaD is consulted to clarify the official version of a tradi-
tion. When the tannaD testified to the reading of a text, his
testimony was deemed authoritative. Even the Mishnah’s ed-
itor, Yehuda ha-NasiD, is reported to have consulted his
tannaD for a proper reading, and this particular tannaD is
spoken of as having a “tested” or “revised” version of the
Mishnah.
Because the tannaD was depended upon to provide pub-
lished traditions, without commentary and without emenda-
tion, the tannaDim were apparently chosen for their phenom-
enal memories, not their intelligence. An overly intelligent
tannaD; might have been tempted to emend a text if he
thought it to be problematic. One sage speaks of a tannaD as
“a basket filled with books” (B.T., Meg. 28b), that is, filled
with information but not able to do much with it. A popular
saying declares that “the tannaD recites and doesn’t know
what he is saying” (B.T., Soh:. 22a). Still, some of the greatest
sages also acted as tannaDim. In addition, the potential falli-
bility of oral publication was widely recognized, and it is
probably for this reason that Avot 3.7 warns strongly against
any interruption during one’s repetition exercises.
The traditions of certain schools were thought to be es-
pecially reliable. This was true of the schools of HiyyaD and
OshayaD, Palestinian sages of the transitional generation fol-
lowing the compilation of the Mishnah. The former of these
teachers is also spoken of as being a repeater for Yehuda ha-
NasiD.SEE ALSO Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai; EliEezer ben Hyr-
canus; GamliDel of Yavneh; GamliDel the Elder; MeDir; Mish-
nah and Tosefta; Yehuda ha-NasiD; Yoh:anan ben ZakkDai.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jacob N. Epstein provides a comprehensive review of the termi-
nologies that identify tannaitic sources; see MavoD le-nusah:
ha-Mishnah, 2 vols. (1948; reprint, Jerusalem, 1964),
pp. 813ff. The authoritative review of the tannaitic process
is Saul Lieberman’s “The Publication of the Mishnah,” in his
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950; reprint, New York,
1962), pp. 83–99. Lieberman was the first to frame the pro-
cess in terms of publication. Also extremely useful, despite
its flaws, is Birger Gerhardsson’s Memory and Manuscript,
translated by Eric J. Sharpe (Uppsala, 1961), pp. 93–112.TANNAIM 8983