Significance of the Project

In general, most of the currently available studies in the history of rhetoric place their emphasis upon the development of the art in western culture. Studies if rhetoric customarily consider its beginnings in ancient Greece, its development in the classical doctrines of Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian, and then trace these influences upon subsequent theories current in Western Europe, Britain and American.

So far as this author knows, however, no attempt has been made to describe what practices of public speaking were followed in early Jewish culture, or what theories of rhetoric, if any, were developed by that culture. And yet, that culture is at least as old as the Greek and Roman cultures; it shows unbroken continuity from earliest times to the present day, and in addition, is generally regarded as having had an important influence upon Western thought. the significance of this study, then, is that it represents a preliminary examination of Jewish sources in an attempt to ascertain what rhetorical theory and practice may have been developed in the Academies of this early Jewish culture. It is, thus, the hope of this author that this study may open a whole new field for further examination by students of rhetoric.

Materials

In attempting to describe and analyze the rhetorical practices of the Babylonian Academies, the writer has relied primarily upon the English translation of the Babylonian Talmud. This Talmud is the whole Talmud and consists of Mishnah, the Oral Law redacted in the Palestinian Academies, and Gemara, the commentary which was redacted in the Babylonian schools. It is also differentiated from the Palestinian Talmud, which was an abbreviated version used in the Palestinian Academies, and from the midrash, which was a collection of homilies and sermons.

The Talmud is one of the most important works in the Jewish culture, and even today provides the core of religious education for many Jews. According to a leading historian:

The Talmud forms a turning point in Jewish history, and...constitutes an essential factor therein... It is of less consequence what the Talmud is in itself, than was its influence on history, that is to say on the succeeding generations, whose education it chiefly controlled.

According to Louis Finklestein;

It is impossible to understand Judaism without an appreciation of the place it assigns to the study and practice of Talmudic law. therefore, to this day, he [the Jew] must devote considerable time not merely to the mastery of Talmud, but also to training in its method of reasoning. The study of Bible and Talmud...is itself a means of communion with God.

The Babylonian Talmud was selected as a primary source for this project since it is considered authoritative wherever it differs with any other contemporary source, and it is a complete collection of the work done in this area. The Soncino English translation is used since it is considered a highly reliable translation and valid for research in areas other than religious minutiae.

The Talmud, itself, is a valid source for this project, since it is representative of the literature of the period. It is likely, therefore, that it provides a clear picture of the process of education at the Academies in which it was redacted. The Talmud, in the standard Hebrew-Aramaic editions, consists of twelve folio volumes, totaling nearly ten thousand pages. The English translation consists of thirty-five volumes (19,457 quarto pages) of text and commentary. All of these editions carry a standard pagination, so that references may be carried either to the Hebrew or English editions.

Because of the special nature of this work, certain peculiarities in style will be observed throughout:

1. All footnotes to Talmudic tracts will cite the folio page number and the reference to the English translation. The number appearing first is the folio page, while the second number refers to the Soncino translation. In cases where Mishnah alone appears, the reference will be to the chapter and paragraph of the Mishnah.

2. In Hebrew-English transliteration, the system used by the Soncino translation was employed. In direct quotations from other sources, the transliterations of the authors are used.

3. The frequently recurring abbreviation, "R," refers to "rabbi" and "B." means "son of." B.C.E. stand for, "Before the Common Era," and corresponds to the more popular "B.C." C.E. stands for "the Common Era," and corresponds to "A.D." This system was used since the bulk of the source materials use this method of abbreviation.

Methods

The method of research used by the author in this project was to examine the Babylonian Talmud to ascertain (1) whether it contains any advice to speakers which might be construed as a complete or a fragmentary theory of rhetoric, and (2) to determine whether the lectures, disputations and discussions recorded in the Talmud show any consistent patterns of organization, common forms of proof, or follow any discernible form from which one might infer an implicit theory of rhetoric.

Limitations

This study is limited, first, to a study of Academic speaking. There is ample evidence of a widespread use of forensic and homiletic oratory, but these are beyond the scope of this study.

A second limitation is that of time. This study is confined to the period generally agreed upon as that during which the Babylonian Talmud was redacted. Its opening date, 70 C.E., is the year when the Jewish Temple was destroyed and Judaism was forced to reorganize as an intellectual, rather than a sacrificial religion. 500 C.E. is generally regarded as the date when the talmud was complete, and no further material could be added.

A third limitation is geographical in that only the Babylonian and Palestinian Academies are to be studied. Actually this limitation is enforced by circumstances due to the fact that no other such academies are known to have existed during the time period of this study. Further, these Academies are generally recognized as forming a definable group and, therefore, can be studied as a unit.

The basic function of the Talmud was according to Cohen, "...to provide the Jewish people with a body of teaching, which should be more than a creed, but, also a guide of life in every phase. It created the world in which the Jew moved and had his being." This comprehensive nature of the Talmud presents great difficulties to the non-professional student. Solomon Schechter states three obstacles to study of Talmud:

1. The Jumble of material makes indexing virtually impossible. The groupings under subject matter are misleading on many occasions.

2. A great number of authorities, estimated at 500, appear in the Talmudic text.

3. The minute detail of the discussions complicates them for the student who is untrained in Judaism.

The mass of material in the Talmud is presented uncritically. The men who took part in the redaction of the Talmud were also the Talmudic authorities, whose opinions appear in Talmud. According to Bacher;

Although the Talmud is an academic product and may be characterized in the main as a report (frequently with the accuracy of minutes) of the discussions of the schools...neither teachers nor pupils stood aloof from that life, but took part in it as judges, instructors and expounders of the Law, caused the Talmud to represent even non-scholastic affairs with an abundance of minute details, and made it an important source for the history of civilization. Talmud discussed the most varied branches of human knowledge - astronomy and medicine, mathematics and law, anatomy and botany.

In order to extract any sort of uniform philosophy from Talmud, individual expressions of view must be compared with the actual customs followed by the group. The Talmud is not the work of one man, or even one school. It is the work of many differing authorities, covering a great span of time. The Talmud then is actuarially a report of development rather than a code of law, and any conclusions drawn concerning the Talmudic view on anything must bear this fact in mind.

In addition to the formal division of Talmud into Mishnah and Gemara, there is a further division according to type of material. the bulk of the material in the Talmud is halachah, which is defined as;

...a specific declaration of the Divine will applicable to a given case; and as such, it was binding on all who accepted the Torah as their supreme authority.

The imaginative material in the Talmud is called haggadah. These passages are designed for instruction in morality, and they are largely in the province of the synagogue. They are inserted in Talmud for the purpose of providing variety and making the subject matter more interesting to the listener.

The Talmud, then, represents the most significant production in the Jewish religion since the Bible. It is highly authoritative, and its contents present a good picture of conditions and practices in the academies under study. The practice and theory ascertained from a study of the Talmud is likely to be the common practice of the whole Jewish culture during this period.

Simeon b. Shetah is regarded as the founder of the elementary school system. During the reign of Queen Salome Alexandra (70 B.C.E. - 67 B.C.E.) he established charity schools throughout Judea, under the general supervision of the Scribes and the immediate direction of synagogue officials. Just before the destruction of the Temple the educational program was completed by Joshua b. Gamala, who set up a system of compulsory education including an elementary school and a rudimentary form of high school.

The bulk of the history of Jewish education in Talmudic days concerns itself with the history of the Talmudic Academies. Aside from the brief mention in the Talmud of Simeon b. Shetah and Joshua b. Gamala, there are few direct statements about the development of the Academies. The Talmud give some Idea of the extent of this education;

Did not R Phinehas state on the authority of R. Oshaia that there were three hundred and ninety four courts of law in Jerusalem, and an equal number of Synagogues, of Houses of study and of schools.

While probably an exaggeration, this passage illustrates the pride which the rabbis took in their school system.

The Talmud also describes the compulsory nature of education and fixes the responsibility for education by pointing out that if a father did not educate his son, he had the duty of turning his son over to a tutor. Fathers frequently failed their duty, however, and therefore compulsory schools were set up. Graetz feels that these schools later developed into the community elementary and high schools.

Although the first Academy is considered to be that of Johanan b. Zakkai, founded in 70 C.E., the Academies did not spring into existence suddenly. Some form of higher education existed during the pre-exilic period, since many of the early authorities cited in Talmud were educated at such institutions. The organized schools emerged from the periodic meetings held by the Scribes some time before the beginning of the Christian era. The schools were quite closely connected to the informal legislative bodies organized by the Pharisees during this period and the recurring phrase, "Great Assembly", probably refers to these predecessors of the academies.

According to a Midrashic legend, the first academy was founded by Johanan b. Zakkai in 70 C.E. He was the leader of the Pharisees in Jerusalem, and tiring of the war with Rome, he had his followers carry him out of the city in a coffin, and smuggle him to Jabneh where he opened his school. It is more likely that Johanan ben Zakkai reached some agreement with the Roman generals which gave him and his supporters permission to leave the city and establish their school.

The first problem confronting the founders of the new school was the re- organization of the religion. With the Temple destroyed, it was necessary to group the religion around another central core. This required that some legislative body decide on the many questions that arose, such as fixing of the calendar, regulation of ritual law and the role of the sacrifice. With the establishment of this legislative body at the academy, the beginnings of the aristocracy of education which was to arise, were made.

The Academy of Jabneh attempted to meet the needs of the time by educating a new generation of scholars, and by attempting to replace the former aristocracy of priesthood and landed nobility with an aristocracy based on the Pharisaic ideas of scholarship. This task was successfully accomplished at Jabneh. According to Moore;

What is certain is that at Jamnia under the lead of Johanan b. Zakkai in the years immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem, the work of conservation and adaptation was accomplished with such wisdom that Judaism was not only tided over the crisis but entered upon a period of progress which it may well count among the most notable chapters in its history.

The work begun by Johanan b. Zakkai was completed by Gamaliel II, who took over as head of Jabneh at the death of Johanan. Despite his authoritarian personality, Gamaliel managed to get the remnant of the Jews in Palestine to recognize this academy as the central authority in all political and religious matters. Several other academies had sprung up, and all of these were brought under the control of Jabneh.

After Gamaliel, the site of the main academy shifted several times. Despite continuing warfare and recurring persecutions, there was always at least one Academy in Palestine which maintained itself as the center of the religion. After an ill-fated revolt in 132 C.E., rabbinical synod was held at Usha, which led to the final redaction of the Mishnah. This was the work of R. Judah Ha-Nasi, known simply as Rabbi.

Up to the time of Rabbi, Babylon, which was by far the larger Jewish community, had remained subordinate to Palestine. With the intensification of Roman persecution after the death of Rabbi, the Babylonian Academies became the more important than the Palestinian. In Babylon the Jewish religion was not only tolerated, but was even allowed an autonomous government under the Babylonian rulers. This shift of authority from Babylon to Palestine represented a sort of continuum, for two pupils of Rabbi, Samuel and Rab, elevated the stature of the Academy in Babylon. The Babylonian Academies were organized on the same lines as the Palestinian. They had essentially the same heritage and were confronted with similar problems. Consequently, though the Talmudic Academies existed in two geographical areas, they shared a common development, and represent one complete unit.

With the elevation of the Babylonian Academies to first rank, the educational system of the Jewish culture became as universal as any that had existed until then in the World. While there were still many illiterates, the bulk of the community had some education, and, at any event, they recognized the leadership of the scholars who headed the community.

Draizin holds that these age limits were generally followed and only upon completion of this study, or its equivalent, was a student allowed to enter the Academy. Because of the lack of central control, however, depending on the community the child would begin his schooling anywhere from three to six, and move on to the next level after he had completed the subject matter of the preceding level. Another Talmudic dictum allows leeway in starting ages;

Do not accept a pupil under the age of six; a pupil of the age of six, you shall accept and stuff him like an ox...Nurse told me that a child of six is ripe for Scripture; one of ten for Mishnah...

Apparently, the actual divisions in the curricula were the elementary school which dealt with mikra, or the simple reading of the Bible; the high school, which taught Mishnah and the Academy which dealt with Talmud and mastery of subject, rather than age was the criterion of promotion.

Respect for the teacher was a keynote of the whole Talmudic educational system. However, the respect existed in varying degrees, and there was a sharp distinction between the privileges accorded a teacher at the Academy, and the lesser figure, the teacher at the elementary school. In order to qualify as an elementary school teacher, a man had to be married and over forty. Women were not eligible to serve as teachers. The teacher was allowed to have an assistant if he had more than forty pupils and two assistants if there were more than fifty. Non-Jews were not allowed to serve as teachers. Teachers could be suspended for maltreating their students, and both the parents and officials of the Academy had the right to examine the elementary teacher's ability at any time.

The Bible was the sole subject of study in the elementary school. Training in the Bible consisted of learning of the Hebrew text and not with the meaning of the text. The reading that was taught was complicated by the fact that Hebrew was no longer the language of everyday speech. The text of the Bible had no vowels, and the children were required to commit to memory the traditional pronunciation of the entire Bible. Writing was prohibited since all writing was done by the community Scribes, and the art was handed down in guild fashion. The elementary school also taught the child how to participate in the synagogue service. No secular subjects were taught in the elementary schools.

Sessions were held in the schools from morning to evening from ten to twelve hours without a break. The children were excused on Friday afternoon, and on the days before holidays. special sessions were held on the Sabbath and on holidays, so that parents could visit the schools and hear the children recite. Children were also obligated to attend the daily synagogue services. In addition, the father of the child had the responsibility of teaching him a trade or craft, and this instruction usually took place after regular school hours.

The pedagogical base of the whole elementary school system was training of the memory. All of the material taught had to be retained in the memory of the student. This compelled the teachers to base their teaching on a system of memory jogs. In teaching the alphabet, for example, the students were taught to use the shapes of the Hebrew letters as mnemonic aids. One particularly characteristic Talmud passage describes an exhibition lesson one of the elementary schools;

The rabbis told R. Joshua b. Levi: Children have come to the Beth Hamidrash and said things the like of which was not said even in the days of Joshua the son of Nun. Thus: Alef Beth means 'learn wisdom' [alef binah]; Gimmel Daleth, 'show kindness to the poor' [Gemol Dallia]. Why is the foot of the Gimmel stretched toward the Daleth? Because it is fitting for the benevolent to run after [seek out] the poor. And why is the top of the Daleth stretched out toward the Gimmel? Because he [the poor] must make himself available to him. And why is the face of the Daleth turned away from the Gimmel? Because he must give him help in secret, lest he be ashamed of him. He Waw That is the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He [These letters in combination form the Tetragrammaton, which is the unpronounceable name of God.] Zayyin, Heth, Yod, Kaf, Lamed, this sequence teaches that if thou doest [Zan] thee, be gracious [Hen]unto thee, show goodness [meTib] to thee, give thee a heritage [Yerushah], and bind a crown [Kether] on thee in the world to come [oLam habah]. The open Mem and the closed Mem denote open teaching [Ma'amar] and esoteric teaching. the bent Nun and the straight Nun: the faithful [Ne'eman] if humble, will ultimately be the faithful, straightened. Samek, Ayyin: support [Semok] the poor [Aniyyim]. Another interpretation: devise [Aseh] mnemonics [Simanim] in the Torah and thus memorize it. The bent Pe intimate an open mouth [peh] and a closed mouth. A bent Zadde and a straight Zadde: the righteous [Zaddik] is bent in the world: the righteous is straightened in the next world... Kuf stands for holy [Kadosh]; Resh for wicked [rasha]. Why is the face of the Kuf averted from the Resh? The Holy One, Blessed be He said: I cannot look at the wicked. And why is the crown of the Kuf turned toward the Resh? The Holy One, Blessed be He, saith: If he repents, I will bind a crown on him like Mine... SHIN stands for falsehood [SHeker]; Taw for truth [emeTH...

The object of the elementary training was to transmit the whole Bible without any attempt to understand it. Therefore, mnemonics were used, and usually the memorization was based on "...mechanical associations, arbitrary, ingenious aids...endless repetitions." Where understanding was important, learning took place through observation or participation, like the learning of the rules pertaining to holiday observances and the Sabbath. These were learned by actual participation in the synagogue service and observation of the ritual. The child learned the entire liturgy, ritual and daily observance through this method. Because of the necessity of teaching religious observances to children, many of the holiday observances were geared specifically to do this. The Passover ritual, for example, was designed to answer the questions of children arising from their observation of the ritual. The liturgy was taught by association between the chants learned in the elementary school and the chants in the synagogue. The weekly Bible portion which was read in the synagogue coincided with the portion taught in the school. According to Morris, "...the history of education knows no parallel to this collective feat of memory."

There is some conflict in the philosophy of elementary pedagogy. One Talmudic disputation concerns the relative merits of the elementary teacher who encourages through rewards as opposed to the one who forces through threat, but no conclusion is reached. This is one of the few places in Talmud where education is actually discussed.

This elementary education provided the basis for all further education. The same process was carried on in the High School with Mishnah. By the time the student reached the high school, he was about thirteen, and therefore had the obligation of manhood as far as religious observance was concerned. Consequently, when and if he reached the Academy, he had committed to memory the entire Scripture and Oral Law. He had a thorough knowledge of the ritual and liturgy of his faith. He was then ready to begin the work of understanding and interpreting the material he knew so well.

This broad definition of Torah or Law as consisting of both the Oral and Written Law was specifically stated in Talmud and became, for the Orthodox Jew, an article of faith. The relations between the Oral and Written Law is described by Moore;

Between the written and the unwritten Law there could be no conflict. It was one of the principal works of the schools to exhibit and establish the complete accord between Scripture and Tradition; not as though the authority of the unwritten law as such depended on the written, but because the agreement was a criterion of the soundness of the particular tradition or interpretation.

Talmud attributes great antiquity to this process of learning the Oral and Written Law. Abraham is designated as the first to teach this, and the description of his method is similar to a description of the method of instruction in the Academy.

The underlying philosophy of education was clear cut. Study was encouraged because study was the highest religious precept. The actual motive of the student is immaterial, according to the Talmud, since study, regardless of the original motive will lead to study for its own sake. Study of precepts was regarded as superior even to practice of precepts since it was felt that practice could not come about without study, and, "...Study is greater for it leads to action." This emphasis on study kept the religion alive during periods of persecution. When observances were prohibited, the Rabbis held that study of the observances would be a valid substitute.

The precept of study was a universal obligation. No man was exempt from the obligation of study. It is likely, however, that this universal obligation was not universally observed. Through most Jews were probably familiar with Bible and had some knowledge of Mishnah, only a few of them ever attended the Academy. Certainly, the frequent mention of am-haarez, in the Talmud, referring to the non- observer, indicates that there were many people who did not fulfill the religious obligation.

In order to encourage study, therapeutic powers were attributed to it. One of the rabbinic clans, the House of Eli, had exceedingly short lives. It was pointed out that if they had studied harder, they would have lived longer. The Rabbis, generally, felt that study would lengthen life, and that death could not come to a man while he was engaged in study. Further, study was an essential element of life, and salvation could not be achieved by the man who did not study. The element of study in salvation appears to outclass all other elements. One passage states;

Raba said; When a man is led in for judgment he is asked, Did you deal faithfully, did you fix time for learning, did you engage in procreation, did you hope for salvation, did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom, did you understand one thing from another?

Another story tells of how R. Hisda struggled with the Angel of Death, and kept him away from his family by continuing to study. When he fell asleep, he was seized. Elsewhere, study is compared to an "elixir of life" while lack of study is called a "deadly poison." A more practical reward is given to the student, for he is told that when he finishes studying Mishnah, he is rewarded with Gemara. An inducement for everyone to study was the idea that if man studied only one day out of the year, the Scripture proves that it is considered that he studied all year.

With the great importance of study firmly fixed, the teacher at the Academy occupied a high place in the Talmudic Educational system. One passage states that the teacher will, "...be privileged to sit in the Heavenly Academy." The person who teaches the illiterate will be so powerful, that God will annul His decrees for him. Since no one was allowed to take a fee for teaching, it was felt that God would make miraculous provision for the teacher.

Study and learning were highly regarded by the Rabbi. Study was an all- pervasive element in their lives. They felt the obligation to study while young and old; age was not an excuse for ending study. The Talmud states that, "...one may meditate on learning everywhere, except at the baths or in a privy." Even though the precept of study is not mentioned in the Bible, through interpretations, the Rabbis elevated it over many of the Biblical precepts. One Rabbi presented proof that study superseded the daily offering at the Temple. Even the rebuilding of the Temple took second place to study, and the Rabbis were told that study takes precedence over the precept of honoring father and mother. Study is held to be equal to the practice of charity and peace-making. A Talmudic proverb indicated that the man who studied had everything in the world. A basic ethical passage indicates that the only good man is the man who studies constantly, and all evil results from failure to study.

Philosophically, then, education was the most important element in life according to the Rabbis. Since they held that study and learning were important for everyone they attempted to disperse learning throughout all the people. The existence of the elementary education system indicates that they succeeded in spreading literacy to some extent. The higher education of the Academy was restricted, however, since it required intense dedication on the part of the student.

An elaborate ceremony took place when rabbis were ordained. Ordination was decreed by the Nasi, sustained by a vote of the members of the Academy. There were different levels of ordination, which gave the rabbi different privileges in judgment. The lowest level conferred the right to decide religious questions; the second to decide both religious and civil questions; the third, religious civil and criminal questions; the fourth gave privilege in all questions, plus the honorary right to inspect firstlings and sacrifices if the Temple was ever rebuilt. There appeared to be no formal requirements for the selection of candidates for ordination. When the Nasi, or another member of the Academy felt that a student was worthy, he could be nominated for ordination and the members would either approve or reject the decree of the Nasi. The rabbi receiving ordination was put through the ritual of laying on of hands, which dated back to the anointment of Joshua as successor to Moses. The laying on of hands was sometimes accompanied by a chanting of the virtues of the candidate by the members. In some cases the newly ordained rabbi was asked to defend a difficult point in a disputation.

There were a number of minor rules of etiquette that had to be observed. The students were told never to expectorate in front of their teacher. They were also not allowed to sit in front of their teacher unless they were given permission. I was considered a gross insult to the teacher if the student remained outside the Academy while a lecture was in progress. Students were expected to visit their teachers after the sessions on festival days, and frequently were asked to recite before their teachers on these occasions. Despite some trivial rules, the respect which existed between teacher and student was genuine. Modesty and politeness were virtues which were encouraged in students and teachers. Students and teachers were both admonished to listen politely and respect each other's ideas. To punish violations of the accepted code of ethics or protocol, the Academies had the power to expel a student, which they used on rare occasions.

Many different pedagogical devices were used by the teachers at the Academies. One authority describes the method of instruction as, "...a protracted conversation into which the Rabbis decoyed their disciples, and from which they...profited as much as the latter." According to Goldin there was general agreement among the rabbis that the teaching methods used by Hillel should be used. This method followed a pattern of lecture followed by question, discussion and debate, with the order frequently becoming jumbled. The teaching methods of Hillel were based on the ideas that though fame was not the end of study, a man should be proud of his learning; that study is an essential element of life and cannot be postponed or abandoned; and that study must serve a moral end and should not be used for the personal advancement of the student.

The teachers in the Academies felt that they had Divine sanction for their teaching, based on the Divine revelation of Moses.

Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. The latter used to say three things: Be patient in the administration of Justice, rear many disciples and make a fence around the Torah. They felt that the whole law had been revealed to Moses, but because of human frailty, much of it was lost. The means of recovering the lost laws were in the hands of the rabbis. Therefore, their responsibility in education was threefold; to be careful in justice, since the law might not be exactly correct; to obtain many pupils, for the more pupils the more likely that the laws would be restored; and to make each law that they had just a little more strict to prevent even an unconscious violation. Independent study was vigorously condemned for it was feared that the student who studied alone might fall into error. The student had the right to select his own teacher, and he was told that if one man's methods did not appeal to him, he was to attend another Academy until he found someone whose teaching he respected. By the same token, the teacher was admonished to send away the student that he could not help. In addition, since the students had to learn by memory, exactly as in the lower schools, the authorities insisted on regular attendance and much repetition. The idea of repetition combined with regularity was a basic concept of the educational philosophy. Since a student could not study alone, the students were advised to study in groups; to repeat halachoth and to discuss them. There was a special merit given to this group study.

There is some evidence that students were tested. Some of the rabbis held special sessions prior to the public sessions of the Academy and quizzed their students. Others authorities tested their students orally, and without warning.

Although corporal punishment was widely used in the lower schools, the method of encouragement was widely used in the Academy. One authority said, "If you see a student who finds his studies hard as iron, it is because his teacher does not encourage him." Some authorities made it a practice to declare a festive day when a student had finished a tractate.

Despite some modern ideas, there was a great deal of superstition attached to education in the Academy. One passage describes what foods can be eaten, tells the students to avoid passing under a camel, and advises them to beware of women. By and large, however, the education at the Academy followed a fairly modern format. It was based on lecture and discussion, and this coupled with the lack of books made it an excellent place for the exercise of speaking skills.

Qualifications for admission were not based on social status. It was presumed that the children of rabbis would be better trained in ritual and basic knowledge than others, and they were not as rigidly examined. In general, however, the Academies admitted anyone who could meet the basic qualifications, regardless of economic or social status.

The student was expected to be of high moral character. He had to be willing to declare his own animals unclean, if they were unclean. This would indicate a high degree of objectivity, since scholars generally lived in great poverty. The scholar was expected to be meek in the presence of other scholars, and display sufficient pride in the presence of the community in order to give weight to his decisions. The Academy in general, and his instructor in particular, were responsible for the behavior of the student in and out of the Academy. they felt that any misdeed on the part of the scholar was reflected on the Academy, and the rabbis took great care to maintain their good reputations.

The scholar had many privileges in the community because of his learning and because of the high regard in which learning was held. It was generally felt that a scholar was superior to a king of Israel, since kings ere hereditary, while if a scholar died, he could not be replaced. Some authorities felt that the scholar should be ranked next to God. In the event that a scholar was captured and put up for ransom, the community had the obligation of ransoming him, and the scholar took precedence over any relative, including father or mother. The Mishnah states, "...In captivity for ransom...the learned bastard takes precedence over the ignorant high priest." This respect had practical aspects as well. Any citizen who publicly insulted a scholar was subject to excommunication, nor could the scholar be publicly reprimanded. the scholar had the right to collect priestly dues on behalf of any priestly family, since, because the Temple was no longer in existence, the scholar had more prestige than the priest. In business transactions, the scholar had the right to demand to be served first. The scholars served as judges in the community, and had full privilege in judgment. In court cases to which he was a party, he needed no corroborative witnesses for his testimony and he had the privilege of prompting witnesses about their testimony or using notes for his own testimony. The scholar was exempted from all oaths, in or out of court. The most important privilege of all was exemption from taxation. All taxes levied against the scholars were assumed by the community.

The community felt that it was a blessing for a woman to marry a scholar, and as a result, fathers in the community offered board and room for a specified period of time to the scholar in return for marrying their daughters. The scholar was not obligated to live with his wife and could leave home for "...two to three years" in order to further his study. Though scholars were told to earn a living through engaging in a trade, they were exempted from all non-paying community labor. The scholar also had the privilege of demanding the best food and drink when he was a guest in anyone's home.

In order to earn the privileges given him, the scholar had many obligations to the community. His major obligation was to continue his study all the days of his life. He was expected to be scrupulous in his religious observance, thereby setting a good example for the community. Further, certain vestigial ritual practices still existed which demanded the services of someone of a priestly family. These included inspection for leprosy, determining the tax for a first-born son, and inspection of foods for ritual cleanliness. Since the priests were no longer instructed in these things, the scholar served as guide to the priests, and actually decided these matters.

The scholar's major obligation was teaching. The scholar who did not teach was called, "...myrtle in the wilderness." He taught in community schools if he was not too far advanced or in the Academy if he was ordained. Scholars were not allowed to take fees for any service which they rendered to the community, including judging or teaching. It was also considered essential that the scholar marry and have children, since it was felt that the child of a scholar would be a scholar himself.

There is a great deal of advice given to scholars about their personal behavior. he was to be neatly dressed and avoid ignorant people. He was to be courteous to his colleagues. One leading authority told scholars to "...provoke the anger of a Syrian woman."

Generally, the scholar at the Academy did not live the kind of life normally expected of a student. he was the ruling force in his community and was expected to live up to the privileges accorded him.

The curricula of the Academies presupposed a thorough reading knowledge of the Bible and Mishnah on the part of the student. The lower schools provided mastery and memory of the subject matter while the Academy worked to provide understanding and application of this material. In the Academies, as in the elementary schools, the emphasis was on religious material. Other studies were considered extraneous and entered the curriculum only as they related to religious matters. One authority stated;

Kinnim [the ritual use of bird's nests in the sacrificial law of the Temple] and Pithethe Niddah [the calculation of periods of menstruation in women for religious purposes] are essential ordinances; The study of the revolutions of the heavenly bodies [astronomy] and arithmetic are aftercourses of wisdom. However, much of the more complex and archaic religious material was ignored in many of the Academies. Tohoroth and Kodashim were generally neglected, since the bulk of their material was only pertinent to the land of Palestine. Certain Academies studied these books on the premise that study about the Temple service was a valid substitute for the Temple service. One authority defended the teaching of these obsolete laws on the grounds that it was good mental exercise for the students. Since the curriculum was not formally established, some authorities felt that the students should be allowed to select what they wanted the teachers to teach. They held that allowing the student to follow his own inclination would make for better learning. The bulk of the authorities gave the student the right to select his teacher, but once he had selected a teacher, he was obligated to learn according to that teacher's system. All of the Academies taught some form of hermeneutics, dialectic, and disputation and other matters as they saw fit.

Subjects such as history, literature, art, and others which are common in a modern curriculum enter the Talmudic curriculum only as they relate to religious matters. Some training in grammar and spelling was essential to the comprehension of the Bible. Much of this training was given in the elementary school, but since the Talmud includes many debates about grammar and spelling, we can assume that these were not taught according to any universal plan. Spelling was a frequent topic for disputation. These were largely concerned with the use of the two silent letters, which caused a great deal of confusion in meaning.

The study of literature took the form of criticism and explanation of the historical portions of the Bible. The vernacular translations of the Bible were also discussed and criticized, and evaluated as to reliability.

Government and civics were probably not studied, for the Talmud is almost devoid of references to these subjects. One authority remarked about the study of government;

...If all seas were ink, all reeds, pens; the heavens all parchment, and all men writers, they would not suffice to write down the intricacies of government.

History was not studied in any chronological order. Some history was gained through study of the Bible. The bulk of the historical material existed in the form of hero stories and legends which grew up around Biblical characters and Talmudic authorities.

There was a great deal of teaching of science and medicine. The Rabbis were concerned with the human body and its functions for religious reasons, and from this, a great medical lore grew. It appeared that the Academy served as medical center for the community, and sick people were brought there for treatment.

The formal study of philosophy did not exist. Though various Academies worked out different modes of religious behavior, these codes were worked out on the basis of determining what God wanted man to do. There was no concern with Who God was, or where He was.

Certain other subjects were studied in a few Academies. Some of the rabbis taught comparative religion, by urging their students to attend the houses of worship of gentiles. Astronomy and geometry were studied as they applied to calculation of the year and determination of Sabbath limits. Art was studied through an examination of the architecture of the Temple and analysis of the murals on its walls. Study of music existed through a study of the Psalms, the historical study of the music used in the Temple service, and the determination of the chants in the liturgical service in the synagogue. Some authorities taught mysticism and magic though this was condemned by most of the rabbis. The scholars were also taught ritual slaughtering, circumcision, writing of scrolls and preparation of religious objects.

Certain areas of study were strictly forbidden. Greek philosophy was interdicted;

Ben Deman...asked R. Ishmael, May one such as I who have studied the whole of the Torah learn Greek wisdom? He thereupon read to him the following verse, This book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night. Go then and find a time that is neither day nor night, and learn the Greek wisdom.

Even the most liberal of the rabbis, R. Ishmael, flatly outlawed the study of anything other than Jewish material. Historically, the ban on Greek studies came from the time of the Hasmonean kings, when the Greeks were invited in to settle a civil war. The rabbis feared that Greek philosophy and Greek military power would destroy their state, and from that point forward, the rule was, "...cursed be the man who rears pigs, and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom."

The writings of Christians and other sectarians were also forbidden, except to the heads of Academies. The heads made some attempt at teaching apologetics, and provided some information to the students about the practices of Christians. The horrible example held up to the students was that of Elisha b. Abuyah, a great rabbi, who studied the writings of other peoples and became an atheist. To avoid becoming like him, students were told to avoid this sort of study.

The necessity of banning non-Jewish writings implied that these writing were having some circulation among the rabbis at the Academies. It is probably for this reason that Greek words and ideas frequently appear in the Talmud, with no specific references to Greek authorities.

The curriculum of the Academies was firmly based, then, on Jewish subject matter. The whole curriculum had a religious base.

The purpose of oral discourse or disputation was always related in some way to Torah in general, and Oral Law in particular. In one statement, R. Johanan stated bluntly that, "God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally." The object of oral discourse was to determine the law orally, and then explain this law.

The Talmud makes no explicit mention of an art of public speaking. Based on Deuteronomic dictum to teach the law diligently to the children, the Scribes began to interpret the Pentateuch in public. This took the form of a lecture interpreting the meaning of a Scriptural verse. This same method was used by the rabbis later on in the Synagogue. From this interpretation of Scripture grew the interpretation of Oral Law and the determination by the rabbis of new law from the Oral Law.

The ribbis disagreed on the actual importance of oral communication. It should be noted here that their comments on oral communication were not made during the course of a study of rhetoric but were interpolations into a religious discussion. One authority commented on the use of the word, "persuasion" in scripture stating that, "persuasion is Scripture never means with words." According to his view, persuasion comes about through, "eating and drinking." Another authority advocated silence, except when it was necessary to give judgment. Hillel's counter-part, Shammai, told his students to, "...speak little but do much."

The majority of the authorities however, hold that public speaking is exceedingly important. Rabbah for example interpreted the Biblical passage in Numbers dealing with the speech of Caleb as meaning that, "...he won the people with words."

There was a general scarcity of written materials in the Academies which enhanced the importance of oral communication. Most of the rabbinic authorities agreed that those things which existed in writing should not be reported orally, and conversely, those things which were originally oral should not be put in writing. These things must be committed to memory and recited orally. The only written material which existed officially was the Bible, all other material was oral for the vast majority of the rabbis. There appeared to be a general prohibition on writing down anything other than the Bible. The task of writing was considered to be so exacting that those who knew how to write were told to confine their writing to Scripture. The leading authorities were quite explicit about this prohibition. R. Johanan stated flatly that as far as the Academy was concerned, the Oral Law superseded the Bible. According to George Foot Moore, this expressed a fundamental principle of Judaism. The belief was that all religion is revealed; that the whole revelation was given to Moses, and there fore, man was in possession of the whole law. According to this view, the Bible is only a small portion of that law. The bulk of it was oral, and means for discovering the law was also oral. Thus the extensive use of oral communication came about to fill the gap caused by the lack of valid texts.

The work of the Academies was directly related to the traditional unbroken succession of the revelation. There was a Divine sanction given to revelation or explanation of the law, and since the whole content of revelation was religion, and since religion pervaded every phase of life, the Talmudic discourse had Divine sanction for its existence, and was free to deal with any phase of life. Tradition held that the law was given to Moses orally, and he was enjoined not to reduce this law to writing, but to transmit it to future generations, orally. Moses did not receive a law for every detail of life, but he received a framework form which the law could be deduced. Because of this, in many situations, Mishnah took precedence over the Bible. The Bible was understandable only as it was explained and applied by Mishnah. Thus the rabbis generally followed a pattern of concentration on oral matters.

The rabbis, themselves, deduced Divine sanction to justify oral communication. One authority cited a legend which described the reaction of Moses who was allowed by God to visit the Academies. Moses was bewildered by the complexity of the discussions there, but God comforted him by explaining that this came directly from His revelation on Mount Sinai. Thus Moses understood that the law was not given to him in its final form, but was given by an omnipotent God, Who recognized that His words would become the subject of speculation. Therefore the discussions and disputations at the Academies served a Divine end. Many of the great figures in the Bible were cited as having taught in the same fashion as the rabbis at the Academies. Thus the sanction for public speaking was reinforced by Divine will and by historical tradition. The rabbis engaged in a continual process of deriving sanction for their method of oral teaching. Frequent references were made to Biblical figures participating in oral discourse and disputation. The Academic lecture was raised almost to the status of religious worship by the rabbis, when they pointed out that since the Temple had been destroyed, God had halachah alone as a form of religious worship. The ability to discourse well was granted by Divine decree to the rabbis who fulfilled the religious precepts. God, Himself, according to the rabbis, used the same teaching methods as the rabbis. God, according to this view, took no action without consulting his heavenly Academy. God frequently intervened into the disputations at the Academy, thus showing His interest in the discussions held there. In a powerful, rhetorical passage the rabbis give Divine sanction to their practice of rhetoric;

It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. [R. Eliezer was disputing with his colleagues and could not get a vote in his favor.] Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it.' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place... 'No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. [The majority of the rabbis held that human reason was superior to miraculous proof.] Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this stream of water prove it.' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it.' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked the schoolhouse walls saying; 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?' ...Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven.' Whereupon a heavenly voice cried out: 'Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him?' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven' What did he mean by this? Said R. Jeremiah: 'That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly voice, because thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.

...The Holy One...laughed with joy...saying, My sons have defeated me.

This remarkable passage makes it clear, in the minds of the rabbis, God approved of their practice of rhetoric. It indicates that the rabbis reserved for themselves the right to dispute, without outside interference and subject to majority rule, any detail of human life. God's laughter at the conclusion approves that doctrine that man is in possession of God's whole law, and it is up to man to determine how to discover, how to use it, and how to follow it. The discovery of the halachah would correspond to the classical concept of invention, while the communication of halachah involved disposition, style and delivery, the whole process resting on a body of knowledge mastered through memory. Thus, while it was not explicitly stated in the Talmud, the elements of a rhetorical system existed in the very nature of the purpose and process of oral communication at the Academies. The teaching methods used at the Academies made rhetoric the most important element in the whole process.

In addition to a discussion of an assigned topic, the members of the Academy lectured to the visitors on problems which had arisen during the year. During these lectures, they reviewed the decisions reached in the Academy on these community problems.

Aside from the size of the audience, the kallah lectures followed essentially the same pattern as the lectures in the Academy. Out of courtesy to the lecturer, the members of the Academy refrained from questioning the speaker, but the floor was still open for question on the part of the visitors.

The Kalloth were set after the harvest so that the maximum number of people could attend. There is no accurate estimate of the size of these audiences, but one Talmudic passage, which may be hyperbolic, estimates the audience at 10,000. One rabbi indicated that demons attended these sessions because they could lose themselves in the crowd and push and crush the rabbis. Some authorities held that simple attendance at these gatherings fulfilled religious precept, since the crowds were so large, most people could not hear the speakers.

The rabbis did a great deal of speaking during these sessions. All judicial and homiletic functions of the rabbis were abandoned during the kallah periods, since, in order to reach the maximum number of people, the rabbis conducted lectures day and night. The Kallah lectures were basically explanatory, the idea of the rabbis being to make as much of their knowledge available to people in outlying communities, so that disputes arising in those communities could be speedily and equitably settled.

Thus, the speaking opportunities provided at the Academy occurred day and night, all year round. The rabbis and students had ample opportunity for self expression, both in the form of lecture and disputation.

The head of the Academy did the bulk of the lecturing. He opened the meetings of the Academy with a prepared lecture, by asking someone else to lecture, by stating a topic for discussion or by simply stating, "ask", indicating that the students should select the topic.

The speaker began his lecture while standing, but usually, he sat down after beginning. The other officials of the Academy sat on a bench at the front of the audience, with the head of the Academy in the center. The students were grouped around in a semi-circle, either seated on lower benches or on the ground. The speaker was always raised above the students, sometimes with cushions. The students were crowded closely around the speaker and if there was room at the rear, people from the community were allowed to stand and listen. For important lectures the sessions were sometimes moved outdoors so that more people could attend them.

When a prepared lecture was delivered, it was usually concerned with a complex matter of halachah stemming from a situation which had arisen in the community which the lecturer felt was important to the students. This type of lecture contained very little haggadic material, since the rabbis felt that the synagogue was the proper place for this and further, because later on in the session, it might be necessary to use haggadah to break the monotony and regain attention of the students. Prepared Halachic lectures were held to be so important that if an important member of the academy came in late, the speaker would go back to the beginning for his benefit. These lectures were always subject to interruption for questions, but it appeared that in many cases, the students allowed the lecturer to finish the prepared portion before questioning.

When the formula, "ask", was used, this served as a signal for open discussion. The students could conceivably ask the lecturer to explain something they could not understand. They might ask for a statement on a controversial issue, on which they disagreed with the view of the lecturer, so that they might have a chance to dispute with him. The students had the right to ask the lecturer to lecture on either halachah or haggadah. Sometimes these requests taxed the ingenuity of the lecturer;

When R. Ammi and R. Assi were sitting before R. Isaac the Smith, one of them said to him; 'Will the Master please tell us some legal points?' while the other said: 'Will the Master please give us some homiletical instruction?' When he commenced a homiletical discourse he was prevented by the one, and when he commenced a legal discourse, he was prevented by the other. He therefore said to them, 'I will tell you a parable: to what is this like? To a man who has two wives, one young and one old. the young one used to pluck out his white hairs, whereas the old one used to pluck out his black hair. He thus finally remained bald on both sides. I will accordingly tell you something which will be equally interesting to both of you.'

R. Isaac then proceeds to discuss the law on lighting of fires on the Sabbath, using homiletics, the interpretation of Biblical verses to present his point of view.

Halachah always took precedence in the Academy, and normally in a request for both halachah and haggadah, and lecturer would speak on halachah. In some cases, however, the lecturer was not ready to speak on the topic requested. In these cases the lecturer would use this request as the basis for the next day's lecture, thus giving himself time to prepare.

The audience was brought into direct relation with the speech by allowing free questioning and discussion during the lecture. Some of the rabbis selected prize students and charged them with the responsibility of interrupting the lecture to ask questions. These questions were prepared by the students, and were designed to catch lagging interest, or to change the pattern from lecture to disputation. Some of the rabbis objected to these interruptions and called down curses on the students that interrupted them. These curses did not stop the interruptions, since the right to interrupt was very highly prized in the academies.

This privilege of interruption maintained student interest, and provided the format for the academic disputation. A typical Talmudic passage describing a academic session presents an anonymous lecture discussing the time of day when the morning prayer should be recited. After the lecturer responds by showing that these authorities expressed their views in different countries and under different conditions. The lecturer then cites support for his view from Scripture and cites authorities which agree with him. A vote is then taken, and the majority of the academy votes for the point of view of the lecturer. This appears to be the general pattern of the daily academic session. At the review session, the vice-head officiated, and he was not usually interrupted during his discourse since the students could carry on their discussion after he had completed his review.

The subject matter of most of the lectures was halachah. Some examples are the lecture of R. Tanhum on extinguishing fires; R. Nahman on determining ownership in land disputes; R. Johanan on how to get along with non-Jews; Raba on methods of taxation; R. Joshua on determination of the holidays; and R. Hanian on the proper size of dowries. Even the lectures which dealt with haggadah were not comparable to the inspirational lectures delivered in the synagogues, and dealt with such topics as, how to calm down an angry man or what precautions to observe when lending money. A number of the lectures dealt in full or in part with the justification of the scholar as the leading figure in the community. Some of the lectures were on theoretical matters of behavior such as "the frequent practice of sexual intercourse is desirable", "charity must be given to maintain the community", "the Israelite is intellectually superior to his neighbor", or "the advantages of being rich and intelligent". There was little mention of anything that might be construed as eschatology or metaphysics.

Unreal topics came in for their share of discussion. The Temple service, which had been abandoned long before, was frequently discussed as were other archaic laws. Stories and fables were also included. These were usually hero stories about great intellectuals like Hillel and Nahum of Gimzo; the vanquishing of the scholars of Athens or the defeat in a disputation of Alexander of Macedon.

On rare occasions, visiting lecturers were allowed to speak in the Academy. Sometimes these were itinerant preachers who were invited in so that the students could dispute with their strange views. It is possible that some of the preaching of St. Paul came about in this way. The itinerant preachers usually dealt with material that the rabbis considered mysticism or esoterica. They were compelled to submit to question and disputation from the heads of the academy as well as the students.

Frequently the heads of other Academies visited. On these occasions they were allowed to participate in the sessions and were frequently called upon to speak extempore upon their specialties. On these occasions they were given the same courtesies and subject to the same interruptions as the heads of the home Academy.

A fundamental principle of public speaking at the academies was the doctrine of free speech. According to Graetz:

Freedom of speech...became so firmly established a right that no one could be attacked for expressing...opinions, unless he controverted any received dogma or rejected the conception of the Divinity peculiar to Judaism.

The Talmudic passage describing the deposition of R. Gamaliel as the head of the Academy of Jabneh reveals this spirit of free speech. Gamaliel frequently insulted the highly respected R. Joshua. The members of the Academy were so concerned about these insults that they voted Gamaliel out of office, and as an insult to him, replaced him as head with an eighteen year old. After his restoration to office, he confirmed the principle of free speech which guided later Talmudic speaking. The Talmud holds that difference of opinion is natural, necessary and to be encouraged. One significant passage points out that it is expected that two rabbis would differ in opinion, but the only type of dispute that was wrong is when two rabbis differed about what a third rabbi said. Students were told that they were expected to speak out when they detected an error made by their teachers, or when they felt that the conclusion was wrong. Students were told that the Bible says, From a false matter keep far and therefore they had an obligation to see that truth resulted from every disputation.

Because of the frequent clash of opinion, students were advised to show tolerance toward the views of others. They were told to respect another scholar's decisions, unless they could prove them wrong. Raba indicated that if scholars were intolerant of each other, it provoked the anger of God, while Resh Lakish held that if scholars were tolerant it would multiply peace in the world.

The concept of free speech and respect for other opinions is one of the factors that makes the Talmud the jumble that it is. there are few absolute decisions reached. A majority view and a minority view are recorded in almost every case, and the minority is not absolutely obligated to bow to the will of the majority. In many cases where the halachah is not firmly established, each individual was allowed to follow and to express his own view. In many cases, even when agreement is reached, and a decision made, the minority view is recorded, so that later generations might understand the reasons and conceivably decide to follow that view. It was held by the leading authorities that any decision might be overthrown if time and circumstances demanded it. It must be remembered, however, that the discipline of the academy was strong, and individuals rarely differed from the view of the majority unless their feeling was exceedingly strong.

Generally, then, the characteristics of the Talmudic discourse were that it was largely extemporized, it was subject to interruption for discussion and question, it usually dealt with halachah, using haggadah sparingly. Its dominant feature was freedom of speech.

This continual clash of opinion at the Academies was called, shekla v't'ri'a or literally, "taking up and throwing back."

Disputations in the Academies usually arose spontaneously. Sometimes the lecturer would throw out a challenge to the whole assembly to dispute with him. Exuberant phrases like, "...Behold, I am like Ben Azzai in the streets of Tiberias," made clear the willingness of the lecturer to dispute with his students. Usually the disputations arose from the subject matter of the lecture. A question from a student would lead to an answer form another student, and the issue would then be disputed until it was settled by vote, or it was agreed that the issue could not be settled. Some of the students interrupted the lecturer to heckle, to challenge their authorities or their reasoning. R. Ammi and R. Assi did this heckling silently, by rudely turning their faces away from the lecturer when they disagreed with him. Because of the insult the lecturer was forced to question them about their point of view, and the disputation would begin. The frequency of occurrence of words like "argument" and "disputation" leads to the conclusion that virtually every speech delivered inside the Academy led to some sort of disputation.

Though many of the disputations in the Talmud are anonymous, there are several pairs of consistent opponents whose controversies are reported in great detail. some of the most frequent are R. Johanan vs. Resh Lakish, Raba vs. Abaye, and Rab vs. Samuel. No set of rules was laid down for these disputations, and since there appears to be no consistent form followed in the debates, it is likely that no rules existed. They were apparently extempore based on a quick use of the knowledge possessed by the disputants. Sometimes courtesy prevailed, and the disputant would wait until the lecturer had finished but on other occasions, when tempers were flaring, the disputant would interrupt. One of the rabbis is said to have, "cried like a crane" in order to get his point of view expressed.

Some of the disputations were quite heated. One account states that two disputing rabbis grew so excited that they committed the major sin of tearing a Torah scroll in their excitement. Though displays of this sort are rare, many of the disputations did descend to name-calling and personal vilification.

Some of the rabbis attempted to maintain decorum during debates. One authority, while confirming the right of the student to interrupt the lecturer to dispute, expressed concern over the name-calling that sometimes resulted and asked that it be stopped. R. Jannai made it a practice to expel any student that he felt was indecorous in disputation, and who disputed out of a sense of competitiveness rather than a sincere belief in his point of view.

Some of the debates may have been partially prepared. One passage indicates that students were sometimes asked to gather information, generally, on a certain subject. The lecturer would then question them about it, using this to stimulate a debate.

Debates may have been carried on through a meturgeman. When the meturgeman was used, he was used only by the lecturer, unless the disputant was of equal rank. In disputes of this type, all questions and arguments were addressed to the meturgeman, who would then ask his rabbi for the answers.

No time limits were placed on the debates. Some were exceedingly long and, on occasion, lasted all day. The length of the disputation was determined by the importance of the topic, the number of participants, and the leniency of the lecturer in allowing the students to dispute with him. No set pattern was used for an opening. In addition to the privilege that the student had of interrupting the lecturer, the lecturer had the right to ask any student to rise and defend his opinions. When visitors from another Academy came to a session, they were usually invited to match their wits through disputation with the students. When the visitor was distinguished, he was invited to dispute with the head of the Academy. In a few cases debate was carried on between two heads of Academies by messenger. The statement of one disputant was delivered to the other. He and his students would work out an answer and send it back. The first Academy would then prepare an answer and return it. These debates would sometimes continue over a period of years.

The subject matter of the debates covered every field of life. Many of them dealt with matters of applying general law to specific occurrences. Some of these were:

1. R. Huna vs. Rabbah on the inheritance of estates by women.

2. Rab vs. Samuel on size of legacies of brothers.

3. Raba vs. R. Aha on payment of damages caused by cattle.

4. R. Abba vs. 'Ulla on responsibilities of finders of lost property.

5. R. Nahman vs. R. Shesheth on the legal form of a business contract.

Since the Academy was the authority for the religious behavior of the community, many of the debates were about religious matters. some good examples are;

1. R. Abba b. Ahabah vs. R. Eleazar b. Zadok on the proper method of intercalating the year to determine the date of holidays.

2. Rabina vs. R. Nahman b. Isaac on the proper time of the day to recite the prayer of sanctification for the Sabbath.

3. Abaye vs Rabbah on the application of the ban on writing on the Sabbath.

4. R. Johanan vs. Resh Lakish on purification after handling an article that was ritually unclean.

Frequently, debates occurred over matters of procedure and interpretation, like;

1. R. Abba vs Rabina on the right of the Academy to discuss personal disputes that were not specifically referred to it.

2. R. Johanan vs. R. Eleazar on the proper method of quoting authorities.

3. R. Joseph vs. R. Abba and R. Huna on the proper method of closing a debate in an Academy.

Debates also took place about highly personal matters of human behavior. Some examples are;

1. R. Judah vs his students on the ethicality of therapeutic abortion.

2. R. Bibi vs Raba on the permissibility of spitting on the floor of a synagogue.

3. R. Eliezer vs. his students on the length of quarantine of a house when its occupant has been stricken with leprosy.

Disputes were sometimes hypothetical, and concerned outdated rituals. The temple service and agricultural laws of Palestine were debated long after the Temple had been destroyed and Palestine lost. This was done since some authorities felt that talking about these laws which could not be performed, was a substitute for the performance of the laws. Other authorities held that discussions of this type sharpened the wits of the students. Some examples are;

1. R. Eleazar vs R. Johanan on thanks-offerings in the Temple.

2. Resh Lakish vs. R. Eleazar o