Temple') has Halakhah in only fourteen places; while in the rest of the tractates Haggadah

occurs in not fewer than 207 places.74 Only thirteen out of the sixty-three tractates of the

Mishnah are entirely free from Haggadah.

Hitherto we have only spoken of the Mishnah. But this comprises only a very small part of

traditionalism. In course of time the discussions, illustrations, explanations, and additions to

which the Mishnah gave rise, whether in its application, or in the Academies of the Rabbis, were

authoritatively collected and edited in what are known as the two Talmuds or Gemaras.75 If

we imagine something combining law reports, a Rabbinical `Hansard,' and notes of a theological

debating club - all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions, anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies,

legends, and too often of what, from its profanity, superstition, and even obscenity, could

scarcely be quoted, we may form some general idea of what the Talmud is. The oldest of these

two Talmuds dates from about the close of the fourth century of our era. It is the product of the

Palestinian Academies, and hence called the Jerusalem Talmud. The second is about a century

younger, and the outcome of the Babylonian schools, hence called the Babylon (afterwards also

`our') Talmud. We do not possess either of these works complete.76 The most defective is the

Jerusalem Talmud, which is also much briefer, and contains far fewer discussions than that of

Babylon. The Babylon Talmud, which in its present form extends over thirty-six out of the sixty-

three tractates of the Mishnah, is about ten or eleven times the size of the latter, and more than

four times that of the Jerusalem Talmud. It occupies (in our editions), with marginal

commentations, 2,947 folio leaves (pages a and b). Both Talmuds are written in Aramæan; the

one in its western, the other in its eastern dialect, and in both the Mishnah is discussed seriatim,

and clause by clause. Of the character of these discussions it would be impossible to convey an

adequate idea. When we bear in mind the many sparkling, beautiful, and occasionally almost

sublime passages in the Talmud, but especially that its forms of thought and expression so often

recall those of the New Testament, only prejudice and hatred could indulge in indiscriminate

vituperation. On the other hand, it seems unaccountable how any one who has read a Talmudic

tractate, or even part of one, could compare the Talmud with the New Testament, or find in the

one the origin of the other.

Jerusalem, and two whole tractates (Eduyoth and Abhoth) in both Gemaras. The fifth order is wholly