Ordinary estimates of the Talmud are often in fluenced by the attitude of Christianity to Judaism and Jewish legalism, and by the preponderating interest which has been taken in the religious-legal side of the Rabbinical writings. The canoni zation of oral tradition in the Mishnah brought the advantages and the disadvantages of a legal religion, and controversialists have usually seen only one side. The excessive legalism which pervades the Talmud was the scholarship of the age, and the Talmud suffers to a certain extent because accepted opinions and isolated views are commingled. To those who have no patience with the minutiae of legislation, the prolix discussions are as irk some as the arguments appear arbitrary. But the Talmudical discussions were often merely specialized and technical—they were academical and ecclesiastical debates which did not always touch every-day life ; sometimes they were for the purpose of reconciling earlier conflicting views, or they even seem to be mere exhibitions of dialectic skill (cf., perhaps, Mk. xii. 18-23). It may be supposed that this predilection for casuistry stimulated that spirit which im pelled Jewish scholars of the middle ages to study or translate the learning of the Greeks. Once again it was—from a modern point of view—old-fashioned scholarship; yet one may now recognize that in the development of European science and philos ophy it played a necessary part, and one can now realize that again the benefit was for common humanity rather than for the Jews alone. In any case, the Talmud must be judged, like other authori tative religious literature, by its place in history and by its survival.
The Talmud itself is still the authorita tive and practical guide of the great mass of the Jews, and is too closely connected with contemporary and earlier Palestinian his tory to be neglected by Christians. With the progress of modern research the value of this and of the other old Rabbinical writings is being re-estimated, and criticism has forced a modification of many old views. Thus, an early reference to the title of a work does not prove that it is that which is now current ; this applies, for example, to the tractate
(see Jew. Ency. viii. 611), and to the Midrash Siphre, which frequently differs from that as known to the Talmud (ib., xi. 335). It has been found that a tra dition, however tenacious or circumstantial, is not necessarily gen uine, and that, too, in spite of the chain of authorities by which its antiquity or genuineness appeared to be confirmed. Implicit reliance can no longer be necessarily placed upon the reputed authorship or editorship of a work; yet, although many of the views of mediaeval Jews in this respect prove to be erroneous (e.g., on the authorship of the alai; see KABBALAH), they may
sometimes preserve the recollection of a fact which only needs restatement (e.g., R. Johanan as the editor of the Pal. Talmud).
Finally, the Talmud comes at the end of a very lengthy develop ment of Palestinian thought (see PALESTINE: History). It is in the direct line of descent from the Old Testament—intervening literature having been lost—the essence of which it makes its own. Forced by the events of history, this legacy of the past was sub jected to successive processes and adapted to the needs of succes sive generations and of widely different historical and social con ditions. Legal compendiums and systems of philosophy served their age and gave place to later developments; and the elasticity of interpretation which characterizes it enabled it to outlive Karaites and Kabbalists. It also escaped the classicism of the Renaissance with its insistence upon the test—either fact or fiction. As an oriental work among an oriental people the moral and spiritual influence of the Talmud has rested upon its con nection with a history which appealed to the imagination and the feelings, upon its heterogeneity of contents suitable for all moods and minds, and upon the unifying and regulative effects of its legalism. The relationship of Talmudism to the Old Testament has been likened to that of Christian theology to the Gospels ; the comparison, whether fitting or not, may at least enable one to understand the varying attitudes of Jewish thinkers to their ancient sources. With closer contact to the un-oriental West and with the inevitable tendencies of modern western scholarship the Talmud has entered upon a new period, one which, though it may be said to date from the time of Moses Mendelssohn (see JEws), has reached a more distinctive stage at the present day. In the weakening of that authority which had been ascribed almost unani mously to the Talmud, and invariably to the Old Testament, a new and greater strain has been laid upon Judaism to reinterpret its spirit once more to answer the diverse wants of its adherents. This is part of that larger and pressing psychological problem of adjusting the "authority" ascribed to past writings to that of the collective human experience ; it does not confront Judaism alone, and it must suffice to refer to the writings of "Reformed Juda ism"; see, e.g., C. G. Montefiore, Liberal Judaism (1903); Truth in Religion (1906) ; I. Abrahams, Judaism
Permanent Values (1924), and the essays of S. Schechter.