I think that we are living at a time when Torah learning can enter into a new era thanks to Judaic Libraries on CD-Rom. I have been using the CD put out by Bar-Ilan to help me research the development of the Siddur and it has been a great aid.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Bar-Ilan CD let me explain what it contains: hundreds of seforim that can be searched by entering a word or series of words. What I have been able to so is to compare sugyot in the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi. I have been able to search ancient siddurim including Rav Amron Gaon, Siddur Rashi, the Machzor Vitri, the Siddur of the Rokeach, the Avudrohom, the Klo Bo, the Eshkol and others as well as many ancient books of minhagim. Through my Hebrew-English word processing program, I can then copy the material into my newsletter. Do you understand what this means for teachers? Teachers can copy Chumasch and Rashi and prepare their own questions and make their own comments. Teachers can create their own textbooks in any subject. How I would like to see our Gedolai HaDor present their method of learning step by step so that we could all follow in their derech.

But it is also a great tool for learning gemara. With the computer in front of you, you can access the Rambam, the Shukchan Aruch and the Rishonim, including the Rashba, the Ritva and the Ramban. Need to search the references made by Tosafot, no problem. You can open multiple windows and click between them. I also have the Soncino translation of the Gemara in my computer, so that I can always look up the English translation of a word.

Want to see if anyone has a comment about something? Just enter the word and you will find if someone made a comment. The hardest thing to do is to think of a key word. It is something that I find easy because that is the method that I use to do computerized research as a lawyer.

Let me give you a simple example of the power of the CD-Rom. There is a controversy as to when the Zohar was written; in the Midle Ages or by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai after the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. So I decided to check how many times Rashi quotes the Zohar. Any guesses. How about "never". I checked in the Ramban and found that he quotes the Zohar four times. Clearly, Rashi never read the Zohar. Chances are the Zohar was just getting to be known at the time of the Ramban.

My conclusion: if you are serious about learning, you are missing an opportunity to move your learning into a higher level if you do not use Judaic Libraries on CD-ROM.

Still, it could only be of limited help. like all computer programs, it could only find the places. But nothing can replace knowing Shas very well and the Sugyos, and be able to know it by yourself. To be able to make your own connections and to really know it.

Reb Chaim-I think that you and I agree that one of the goals of Torah learning is to expand Torah by making connections that others have not made before us. You suggest that learning as much as possible is one way to make those kind of connections. I agree wholeheartedly. I can even point to a דרשה by the בית הלוי where he says that the more a person learns, the more the רבונו של עולם helps that person discover more secrets in theתורה . I am suggesting that the same people who are able to make connections because of their vast learning will be able to make even more connections by using computer software. I am also suggesting that for the rest of us who will never be able to reach that level of learning, computer software gives us the ability to contribute to learning תורה by making connections that we would otherwise be unable to make.

Let me give you an example from the world of תפלה . To me once you recognize that after the חורבן, מנהג ארץ ישראל and מנהג בבל developed separately, you cannot study תלמוד בבלי without studying the parallel סוגיא in תלמוד ירושלמי. Unless you are בקי in both, you will have trouble making those comparisons. But with computer software the comparison can be done in seconds. Study these two sections of גמרא with me:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף כח' עמ' ב'-תנו רבנן: שמעון הפקולי הסדיר שמונה עשרה ברכות לפני רבן גמליאל על הסדר ביבנה. אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים: כלום יש אדם שיודע לתקן ברכת המינים? עמד שמואל הקטן ותקנה, לשנה אחרת שכחה-דף כט' עמ' א'-והשקיף בה שתים ושלש שעות ולא העלוהו. אמאי לא העלוהו? והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב: טעה בכל הברכות כלן - אין מעלין אותו, בברכת המינים - מעלין אותו, חיישינן שמא מין הוא! שאני שמואל הקטן, דאיהו תקנה.

תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת ברכות פרק ה' דף ט' טור ג' /ה"ג'-רבי אחא ורבי יודה בן פזי יתבין בחד כנישתא אתי עבר חד קומי תיבותא ואשגר חד ברכה. אתון ושיילון לרבי סימון. אמר לו רבי סימון בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי: שליח ציבור שהשגיר שתים שלש ברכות אין מחזירין אותו. אשכח תניי ופליג: לכל אין מחזירין אותו חוץ ממי שלא אמר מחיה המתים ומכניע זדים ובונה ירושלים, אני אומר מין הוא. שמואל הקטן עבר קומי תיבותא ואשגר מכניע זדים בסופה שרי משקיף עליהון אמרין ליה לא שיערו חכמים כך.
Why is it that in בבל, they only considered a person who erred in the ברכה of ולמלשינים to be a מין but in ארץ ישראל they considered a person who erred in the ברכות of בונה ירושלים, מחיה מתים or ולמלשינים to be a מין? I will let you figure that one out yourself.

My point is that I was able to find that connection by searching the word מין and it only took a few minutes to do. If someone with as little knowledge as I have can do that, just think of how much more a person whose life is dedicated to learning will be able to accomplish.

Quote "Why is it that in בבל, they only considered a person who erred in the ברכה of ולמלשינים to be a מין but in ארץ ישראל they considered a person who erred in the ברכות of בונה ירושלים, מחיה מתים or ולמלשינים to be a מין? I will let you figure that one out yourself."


The Bais Yosef says the reason the Bavli doesn't hold of the Yerushalmi, that only when there is a curse he would refuse to say it. But if to him it's only a "lie", then there is no reason for him to refuse.

(BTW, the person that regularly posts for me (I send e-mails since I don't have regular internet) won't be available for a few weeks. so until someone from the Hanhala will agree to post for me, I won't be able to respond promptly. sorry for the inconvenience.)

For me the only answer which is satisfactory is a historical answer. In ארץ ישראל you had a theological battle that was raging between the צדוקים and the פרושים. In בבל, there were no צדוקים. In ארץ ישראל, it was חז"ל ’s opinion that you remove a שליח ציבור who made a mistake in the ברכה of מחיה מתים because they were concerned that the שליח ציבור might be a צדוקי who did not want to make a statement that contradicted his belief that there was no תחיית המתים. In ארץ ישראל, it was חז"ל's decision that you remove a שליח ציבור who made a mistake in the ברכה of בונה ירושלים because in ארץ ישראל, they combined the ברכות of בונה ירושלים and את צמח דוד. They were concerned that the שליח ציבור might be a צדוקי who did not want to make a statement that contradicted his belief that מלכות does not have to follow בית דוד.

Rabbi-I think that you are going to find that in the next few years because Arstcroll is coming out with an edition of the תלמוד ירושלמי and because publishers in ארץ ישראל are publishing critical editions of the תלמוד ירושלמי that the Yeshiva world is going to have reconcile many differences between the תלמוד בבלי and the תלמוד ירושלמי. How do I know that there are so many differences?. You can take a peek at the book: מנהגי ארץ ישראל by יעקב גליס published by מוסד הרב קוק. You will find in that book 430 pages of differences in מנהג covering every section of the שולחן ערוך. The sooner that every one accepts the fact that historical, social and political factors affected חז"ל living in ארץ ישראל differently than they affected חז"ל living in בבל, the easier it will be to answer your students questions when they start studying תלמוד ירושלמי בעיון.

If it would be true that there was no Tzeduki in Baval, how do you learn the following Gemarah from Shabbos 88 as paraphrased from Kollel Iyun Hadaf


(o) A Tzeduki (heretic) saw Rava engrossed in learning; Rava's fingers were under his leg, he was pressing on them [without realizing], they were bleeding.

1. The Tzeduki: You are a hasty nation! You put your mouths before your ears, and you persist in your haste! You should have heard [the Mitzvos] first - then, you can accept if you see that you can keep them!

2. Rava: We go with a pure heart (We knew that Hashem would not demand more than we are capable of) - it says about us "Tumas (from the root 'Tam', pure) Yesharim Tanchem";

88b-------------88b

3. It says about people [like you] who are full of accusations "V'Selef Bogdim Yeshadem" (Maharsha - those who seek to be straight receive Hashem's help, those who seek to be crooked are given the opportunity).


Rava lived in Bavel and in the time after the decline of the Yishuv of E. Yisrael (we never see that anyone from his generation go there)and where he was there was TZudikim.

Also, if there weren't heretics in Bavel, then why would the Bavli kick you out for not saying Birchas Haminim (it's difficult to say that those heretics believed in Tichias Hameisim)?

Also, since Rav learnt in E. Yisrael and was familiar with it, and also seemed to have Talmidim from E. Yisrael, so why did he make a blanket statement and didn't differentiate between E. Yisrael and Chutz L'Aretz?

Reb Chaim-Good question. You have to differentiate between heretics who are a political force and heretics on an individual basis. In Eretz Yisroel, the Tzedukkim represented a strong political force. They were never a strong political force in Bavel. I am sure that there were individual Tzdukkim who lived in Bavel but not enough to concern Chazal.

As far as Birchat Haminim is concerned, Judaism has always been faced with heretics. The fact that there were groups who only believed in Torah Sh'B'Ktav and not Torah Sh'B'aal Peh has always extisted within Judaism. Didn't the Samaritans who only believed in Torah Sh'B'Ktav intefere with the rebuilding of the Second Beit Hamikdash at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah? Doesn't the Gemara talk about the Cutim?

Do you know that the reason that the Gaonim changed their mind about interrupting the first three Brachot of Chazarat Ha'Shatz by reciting Piyuttim was as a reaction to the growth of the Karaite movement? And the funny thing is that there are still Karaites Ad Ha'Yom Hazeh. In fact I heard that there are Tshuvot about the status of Karaites who want to immigrate to Israel in our time.

Let us talk about Christianity. We cannot deny the fact that Eretz Yisroel was the birthplace of Christianity but did Christianity ever permeate into Bavel? No. Zorastrianism, certainly. That is why we say the Bracha of Yotzer Ohr. At one point, Zorastrianism became so strong in Bavel that they would not allow Jews to recite Kriyat Shema. That is why we say Kriyat Shema as part of L'Olam Yihai Adom Yirai Shamayim before Korbanot. Islam had a strong presence in Bavel but Christianity was never a threat in Bavel.

Reb Chaim-Tell me why so many differences in Minhag developed between Eretz Yisroel and Bavel? Every time I try to find an answer, I only find answers that are based on historical, political and social factors. Let me give you one example. The Sefer Hachilukim says that in Eretz Yistroel, they would use a ring for Kiddushin but in Bavel, Chazal was opposed to using a ring. Why the difference? According to scholars, Chazal in Eretz Yisroel allowed a ring to be used because it was the Roman custom to use a ring. Chazal then adopted the custom for Kiddushin. In Bavel, they were not under Roman domination. Chazal was opposed to using a ring because it was not the custom in their area and they were concerned that a bride would not know its value and later claim fraud (sound familiar?)

I understand that the Yeshiva world is opposed to introducing historical factors into the study of Gemara and I do not disagree . . . to a point. But I think that a method can be found to discuss some of these issues from a historical point of view without feeling that we are somehow undermining the foundation of Torah Sh'Baal Peh.

Quote "I understand that the Yeshiva world is opposed to introducing historical factors into the study of Gemara and I do not disagree . . . to a point. But I think that a method can be found to discuss some of these issues from a historical point of view without feeling that we are somehow undermining the foundation of Torah Sh'Baal Peh."

I think the bottom line why the hesitation is that it's a different type of scholarship and in ways it's a much inferior. For starters, I think History has a lot to do with theories and guess work. With the limited articles that they have, they must reconstruct what really happen which is very speculative. (Since the proofs are very loosely put together, then it's very hard to disprove, so the whole scholarship is iffy, can't be completely proved or disproved.)

Then, even based on whatever Historical facts that we decide are true, then you have to make theories on those theories what are the implications of them and how they affected the Jews and how Chazal viewed them. For instance the Tzidukim case, we have to first assume where the problem was and how much of a problem, say that the main concern was only political and not religious. (That even if it was not out of hand, you still need to worry about them and separate them from your group so that they don't convince others.) SO there so much guess work trying to link everything together and hopefully they're all true. This, IMHO, is quite inferior to a Glatta Svora (a straight piece of logic) that can be proved and disproved and open to scrutiny.)

B"H

Rav Chaim,

Well said! It could not have been worded better!

David

Reb Chaim-I am a little confused. I do not see how logic is not speculation. In fact, I see logic as being more speculative than historical fact. Do you deny that there was a dispute between the Tzdukkim and the Perushim at the time of the second בית המקדש? Do you deny that the Romans never controlled Bavel? We have been discussing a סוגיא of גמרא that deals with מינים. That there were מינים is a historical fact. Logic did not create מינים. Do you deny that Judaism as it is practiced today is different than it was practiced before the destruction of the בית המקדש? The destruction of the second בית המקדש is a historical fact. I have presented many differences in Minhag between the people who lived in Eretz Yisroel and who lived in Bavel after the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. Can each of the differences be explained through logic? Is it your position that none of the differences that existed between Minhag Eretz Yisroel and Mihnag Bavel can be explained in historical terms? I hope that you would not deny that there were differences between the two areas. The book that lists 52 differences in Minhag, the Sefer Hachilukim was not authored by a Harvard professor. It was written by an anonymous Gaon sometime between the years 500 and 700 of the common era. The book itself is very short. I can reproduce it here if you like. I have been told, although I have not seen it myself, that the book appeared and was included in the book ים של שלמה on מסכת בבא קמא that was authored by Rabbi Shlomo Luria, the מהרש"ל who was born in 1510 CE.

And so I have difficulty with the idea that none of Halacha was affected by historical fact. Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying with those who say that Halacha should change because of historical fact. There is a big difference between those two concepts. The fact that חז"ל adopted the use of a ring because the Romans used a ring is not the same as saying that today we should have a double ring ceremony because in America, most Americans have a double ring ceremony. In every historical fact that I ever present, the historical fact never overrode an underlying Halachic rule.

What you need to recognize is that it is possible to investigate historical fact without interfering with the underlying Halachic premises. I wish that you would take the time and read some of the scholarly works that are coming out Bar-Ilan and Hebrew University. You will see that the conclusions that most scholars reach from historical data never comes close to disturbing the Halachic foundation. Let me conclude by going back to the fact that a ring was used for קידושין. You must keep in mind that חז"ל would have never adopted the use of a ring if the ring did not have the value of a שוה פרוטה. And the reason why חז"ל in Bavel refused to use a ring was based on both the historical fact that in Bavel the general population did not use a ring for the wedding ceremony and the Halachic principle that if the general population did not use a ring, a Kallah would have trouble estimating the value of the ring and could claim fraud.

Let me end with a question: why is it that so little time is spent in the Yeshiva world studying תלמוד ירושלמי. I have been told that the reason is because there is no רש"י and תוספות on תלמוד ירושלמי so that the תלמוד ירושלמי is difficult to understand. I am not sure if that is really the reason. The reason could be because of the differences in מנהג that one sees in the תלמוד ירושלמי. Not all the differences can be explained by סברא. Many of the differences developed because of historical circumstances.

Quote "am a little confused. I do not see how logic is not speculation. In fact, I see logic as being more speculative than historical fact. "

It depends what makes it a "fact." How could anyone verify what was going on over 2000 years ago? Of course big events like the Churbon or who ruled what, but to say what exact things where going at each place and if they affected the Jews etc. is speculative. That's why a lot of history facts are written as "historians believe" or the like. The proofs could be based on certain implications which may or may not be accurate. Thus, we don't know who the historians that come up with the facts nor their level of proof. Thus a straight shooting S'vara or a few possible ones would be the most probable reasons.

Now, most differences of Minhagim are based on Machlokes between those Rabbis that were the head of those groups. The Yekkes are from the P'sakim of Rama and the Obberlander go after the Chasam Sofer. The Lubav. after the SO of the RAv, the Sfardim from Maran Bais Yosef and Yeminites from Rambam. SO why can't the Minhagim Btw EY and Bavel also be because of the Machlokes between the Rabanan.

Also, I feel that sometimes, while someone wants to go with that Mihalech, so he'll push an answer, though it might or might not fit so well. Like the case with the Tzidukim, you were willing to reject the Bais Yosef's answer because of the Historical facts. But the fact that there weren't Minim in Baval wasn't so accurate, so then you needed to say it wasn't so prevalent etc. But the Bais Yosef has a very straight shooting S'varah which I don't see any problem with it.

The Kiddushin question could be the basic Machlokes Amaraim on Kidushin 7b-8a and as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(a) A man was Mekadesh a woman with silk.

(b) (Rabah): We need not appraise the silk. (c) (Rav Yosef): The silk must be appraised.

1. [Version #1: If he told her that he engages her with an arbitrary (very small) amount, all agree that no appraisal is needed.

2. If he told her that it is worth 50, and it is not -she did not agree to be Mekudeshes for less!

3. They argue when he told her that it is worth 50, and it is. i. Rabah says, no appraisal is needed, for it is worth 50;

ii. Rav Yosef says, an appraisal is needed - sincewomen do not know the value, if it is not appraised, she does not firmly decide that she wants to be Mekudeshes.]

4. [Version #2: They also argue if he told her that he engages her with an arbitrary amount. i. Rav Yosef says, something worth money must be as money (to engage): just as money has a set value, also something worth money.]

The Rishonim (Tosfos, Rosh) compare the case of silk to a ring.

Quote ": why is it that so little time is spent in the Yeshiva world studying תלמוד ירושלמי. I have been told that the reason is because there is no רש"י and תוספות on תלמוד ירושלמי so that the תלמוד ירושלמי is difficult to understand. I am not sure if that is really the reason."

You can ask the question, why didn't the Rishonim write on The Yerushalmi and only on the BAvli? It's because the Bavli were accepted as the defining Chazal above all others, thus the Poskim and Yeshivos spent much more time studying Bavli. It's more relevant.

Rabbi-Here are two examples from the גמרא where the גמרא itself is not afraid to admit that historical circumstances affected Jewish practice:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף יב' עמוד א'-וקורין עשרת הדברות שמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר אמת ויציב ועבודה וברכת כהנים. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: אף בגבולין בקשו לקרות כן, אלא שכבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין.
The גמרא openly admits that it would not allow the practice of reciting עשרת הדברות before קריאת שמע because of the heretics. רש"י tells us what was troubling חז"ל:
רש"י- מסכת ברכות דף יב' עמוד א'- מפני תרעומת המינין - שלא יאמרו לעמי הארץ: אין שאר תורה אמת, ותדעו שאין קורין אלא מה שאמר הקדוש - ברוך - הוא ושמעו מפיו בסיני.
By the way, רש"י is paraphrasing Christian theology.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף לב עמוד ב-משנה. העובר לפני התיבה ביום טוב של ראש השנה - השני מתקיע, ובשעת הלל - הראשון מקרא את ההלל. גמרא. מאי שנא שני מתקיע - משום (משלי יד) דברב עם הדרת מלך, אי הכי הלל נמי נימא בשני משום דברוב עם הדרת מלך! אלא: מאי שנא הלל דבראשון - משום דזריזין מקדימין למצות, תקיעה נמי נעביד בראשון, משום דזריזין מקדימין למצות! - אמר רבי יוחנן: בשעת השמד שנו.
Why did the practice not return to blow שופר during שחרית once the שמד was over?
תוספות מסכת ראש השנה דף לב' עמוד ב' -בשעת גזרת המלכות שנו - ואע"פ שבטלה גזרת המלכות לא עבדינן כדמעיקרא אע"ג דזריזין מקדימין למצות דחיישינן שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו ולפירוש הירושלמי ניחא טפי דמפרש שם שדמו האויבים שנתאספו לתקוע תרועת מלחמה ועמדו עליהם והרגום ולכך תקנו תקיעות וברכות במוסף דכי חזו דקרו בקריאת שמע ומתפללין וקורין בתורה וחוזרין ומתפללין ותוקעין אמרי בנימוסייהו אינון עסקין כלו' בחוקיהם ובתורתם.
The מחזור ויטרי seems to take your approach. He tries to find a סברא as to why they kept the practice to blow שופר in מוסף.
מחזור ויטרי סימן שמז ד"ה אמ' שמואל-ת': והעובר לפני התיבה בראש השנה. השני מתקיע. א"ר יוחנן בשעת השמד שנו. שגזרו על ישר' שלא לתקוע בראש השנה ומארבים להם כל זמן תפילת השחר עד שש שעות. לכך תקנו תקיעת שופר במוסף. וכשבטלה הגזירה לא זזה ממקומה. וסמכו על האמור בפסיקת'. מפני מה תוקעין בתפילת מוסף ואין תוקעין ביוצר. מפני שאז מצויין ישר' מעוטרין במצות. שכבר נתעטפו בציציותם וקורא ק"ש. וקורא ספר תורה. עכשיו שהשופר יוצא ומצות מלמדות סניגורייא עליהם. מיד נרתע השטן ונאלם קטיגור:

It would appear to me that if the גמרא was not concerned about admitting that Jewish practices were affected by historical circumstances then why is the Yeshiva world so afraid to agree?

Let me give you a third example that involves our own practices today . Why does the סידור place the ברכה of על נטילת לולב just before הלל? Should the rule not be that a person recites על נטילת לולב immediately upon waking based on the rule of זריזין מקדימין למצות? The answer that I believe is that the preferred practice is to recite על נטילת לולב immediately upon waking and doing so in the סוכה. However, before the 20th Century and the establishment of the State of Israel, very few people could manage to purchase ארבע מינים. I have been told that in many European cities and towns, they were happy if the whole city or town had one set. Under those circumstances few were in a position to recite על נטילת לולב until they came to shul and took the communal set. Once they were in shul, the appropriate time to make the ברכה became just before הלל when the שליח ציבור would take the ארבע מינים in order to shake them during הלל.

Rabbi-I understand your concern with examining the גמרא with a historical magnifying glass. But to me it shows a lack of confidence in people’s beliefs. You are concerned that by examining the historical circumstances, there will be those who say: change the practices because times are different. I do not see that happening. Instead, I see your students eyes opening up. I see them enjoying the experience of learning even more because suddenly the personalities in the gemara are human. The personalities are dealing with life around them just as we do. For that reason, I think that giving the gemara a historical perspective makes it a much more real and a much more meaningful experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:


Also, if there weren't heretics in Bavel, then why would the Bavli kick you out for not saying Birchas Haminim (it's difficult to say that those heretics believed in Tichias Hameisim)?

Just a question... How does one know if another said birchas haminim if the shemonei esrei is a silent prayer? Was there a different way of reciting shemonei esrei at that time?

I think that one person (the Shalia'ach Tzibbur) would recite the Amidah out loud on behalf of everyone who would have to listen to every word.

This was, of course, before ArtScroll had been invented, so there were no Siddurim to go round!

Right of course- so it seems to me that only about the shaliach tzibur it would known whether or not he made the bracha.

Quote "It would appear to me that if the גמרא was not concerned about admitting that Jewish practices were affected by historical circumstances then why is the Yeshiva world so afraid to agree?"
You're right that when there is a historical circumstance behind something, the Gemarah brings down that Historical fact. The question is if the Gemarah tells us something and doesn't bring down any historical reason for it, if it was based on a historical reason, wouldn't the Gemarah bring it down?

So my main problem with mixing historical facts not from the Talmud to explain the Talmud is still the accuracy of the facts, since a lot of secular history is based on speculation. Secondly, I don't think the logical explanation of the two cases which we discussed (Birchas Haminim and Kiddushin) were far superior to the historical answers. I feel that, due to the nature of the historical answers, that a lot needs to be put into the connection, so the answers are more "pushed."

QUote"Just a question... How does one know if another said birchas haminim if the shemonei esrei is a silent prayer? Was there a different way of reciting shemonei esrei at that time?"

It's referring to the Chazan

quote:

Originally posted by Abe:
I understand that the Yeshiva world is opposed to introducing historical factors into the study of Gemara and I do not disagree . . . to a point. But I think that a method can be found to discuss some of these issues from a historical point of view without feeling that we are somehow undermining the foundation of Torah Sh'Baal Peh.

Abe,

For me, I always enjoy reading the histories written by Josephus (in his "Antiquities" and the "War of the Jews," etc.) but without the x-tian commentaries, because of their bias.
I do think it is important for reasons other than those which you stated. Namely, 1) they help us to understand the chronological order of events; 2) these same histories sometimes bring anecdotes about oral-traditions and bona fide Jewish practices that were later disputed or simply not understood by the Amoraim in the Talmud. They can actually help us understand more about those same practices and which are discussed in our Talmud. I will proceed to give you an example:

In Mishnah Betza 2:3 (cf. Talmud Betzah 19a), we find a dispute between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai.

"The school of Shammai says: They bring peace-offerings שלמים, but do not lay their hands upon them (i.e. by applying one's full-weight upon the animal). Yet, whole-burnt offerings עולות are not [brought]. The school of Hillel says: They bring both peace-offerings
and whole-burnt offerings, and they lay hands upon them."

In Antiquities (written in the 13th year of the reign of Caesar Domitian by the Jew, Yoseph Mathiah), we find the following anecdote. He writes in Book III, chapter X, vs. 6:
"When a week of weeks has passed over this sacrifice (which weeks contain forty and nine days), on the fiftieth day which is the Feast of Weeks, but is called by the Hebrews Asartha עצרתא, which signifies the Feast of Weeks, they bring to G-d a loaf, made of wheat flour, of two tenth deals, with leaven; and for sacrifices, they bring two lambs...they also slay three bullocks for a burnt-offering, and two rams; and fourteen lambs, with two kids of the goats, for sins; Nor is there any one of the festivals but in it they offer whole-burnt offerings עולות."

So, here, we are able to learn about our Mishnah (ibid.), namely, that the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel were not in dispute when it came to offering whole-burnt offerings on that holiday known as "Shavuoth" (the Feast of Weeks), but rather, only on the other holidays. This fact could not have been learnt by us, without looking at these histories.

Sincerely,
David

David, I agree with you. Perhaps I did not make my point clearly. The more you study the history of the period in which the Mishna and Gemara were compiled, the better you understand the discussions in the Gemara. But I want to take it a step further. There seems to be so much emphasis put on studying Talmud Bavli that one forgets that there is also a Talmud Yerushalmi. Once you begin to study Talmud Yerushalmi, you see differences in Minhag between those who lived in Eretz Yisroel and those who lived in Bavel. There is no doubt that Sevara played a role in creating the differences but historical circumstances played a role as well. So what I would like to suggest is that Yeshiva high schools consider adding a course in the Jewish history of the period of the gemara in order to help their students gain a better understanding of the gemara.