Do I Have the Babylonian Talmud or not?

I click a reference to b. Hag. 15A which brings up Neusner's translation of the Babylonian Talmud. I check my library and see that I have a copy of the Babylonian Talmud (on the left).

Are these resources actually different? Is it an error in indexing? Do I own the actual Babylonian Talmud or something pretending to be?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

The two resources are different translations of the same work but they do not have identical indexing. Your reference appears to be a folio reference which is supported by Neusner but not by Rodkinson.

Morgan

Thank you for the response.

Any ideas on how to find references in Rodkinson? I can put in Hag 1-3 but am not familiar with how the Talmud is divided up and how the two index types correspond.

DMB

The actual issue is Rodkinson doesn't have all the tractates that the Neusner has (besides being an old translation).

MJ. Smith

"Abbreviations distinguish the versions of the Talmudic tractates: y. for Jerusalem and b. for Babylonian. A prefixed t. denotes the tractates of the

Tosefta and an m. those of the Mishnah. A prefixed bar. denotes a baraita

(an authoritative Tannaitic rule external to the Mishnah). When citing the

Mishnah, a colon separates the chapter from the paragraph (i.e., mishnah);

thus, m. Ber. 1:1. The standard way to cite the Talmud is by folio and side (a

or b); "

SBL Handbook of Style

Thus:

m. Šabb 1:1

(If I understand you correctly and you want to cite the passage that contains the parable of the pauper standing outside)

TIP of the day: Searching on Mishnah and Talmud - Logos Forums