diagrammatic art in the publication of the talmud
DESCRIPTION
A study of diagrammatic images that appear in the Vilna Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, and related Rabbinic works.TRANSCRIPT
Benjamin Greenfield
1-28-09
Dr. Steven Fine
Jewish Art & Visual Culture
The Talmud as Picture Book:
Diagrammatic Images in the Pages and Experience of Talmud Study
A. Introduction
The printing of the Babylonian Talmud, from incunabula of five centuries past through modern
day publications, represents a slow but absolute “physical transformation”1 of a holy text. Prior to the
development of print, the majority of Talmudic2 manuscripts contained little more than mishna,
gemara, assorted textual corrections, and only occasionally, towards the end of the medieval period,
Rashi3. The advent of type, however, affixed to the page a growing list of glosses, including those of
the Tosafists, Hananel ben Hushiel4, and Rabbi Yehoshua Boaz Mevorakh5. The “classic” tripartite
structure so familiar to today's Talmud students – with gemara in the center, Rashi6 and Tosafot in
opposite margins – only gained prominence with the printing press. In time, the number of
supplementary sources on a single page rose to nearly a dozen with the publication between 1880 and
1886 of the Vilna edition, produced by the brothers and widow Romm, who concurrently tacked to the
back of each tractate reams of additional commentaries7. The tremendous popularity of the Vilna
1 Heller, Marvin. “Designing the Talmud: The Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page.” Tradition 29.3 (1995): 41.2 Unless otherwise indicated, Talmud always refers to the Babylonian Talmud.3 There are a rare manuscripts that combine gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot. For a list of these occurrences and their location, see Urbach, E.E. The Tosafists: Their History, Writings and Methods. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980. p. 29 [Hebrew].4 Popularly known as Rabbeinu Hananel.5 Author of the reference tools Ein Mishpat, Ner Mitzva, Mesorat Ha-shas, and Torah Or.6 In several tractates, other commentators take Rashi's place. When the context suggests so, “Rashi” also refers to these
works. 7 Early printings of the Talmud included a bare appendix featuring Piskei Ha-tosafot and Maimonides' Commentary on the
Mishna. The Vilna edition added dozens more.
edition – due to its clear type set, myriad secondary sources, and monopoly publishing rights in
Northeastern Europe8 - led it to almost entirely replace any competing version and achieve, in one
historian's words9, the status of “authoritative and traditional” version of the Talmud. “Authoritative”
relates to practice: its format for each page and version of the text (nusah) remain a conventional
standard. “Traditional”, however, refers to mindset: the aura of authenticity and antiquity implied by a
revered tome like the Talmud, the glow of holiness and force of tradition that religious Jews imbue it
with, are associated most with the Vilna edition, which has basically become synonymous with the
Talmud itself. The gemara has indeed transformed – and its most current reincarnation is the Vilna
edition.10
The content and structure of a typical Vilna page – sprawling layers of commentary filling an
already dense folio, surrounding an overwhelmed central column – conjure in the minds of both
students and masters the impression of a complex, heavy, and complicated corpus of text. Aware of its
intimidating visage, popular introductions to the Talmud often include a model page, where each of the
divers components are labeled and discussed; each element, as one would imagine, is composed
entirely of text11 (Fig. 1). However, one of the most remarkable features of today's standard edition is
often obscured by the daf's dense format and, in fact, is omitted in many of these guides. They obscure
from the “popular image” of the Talmud one its most distinguishing ingredients: images themselves!
Images appear in nearly one hundred pages12 of the Vilna edition, illustrating situations and
objects discussed in the Talmud. In general, these visuals appear in the peripheral columns allotted to
8 See Stanislawski, Michael. “The 'Vilna Shas' and East European Jewry.” Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein. Ed. Goldstein, Gabriel and Sharon Liberman Mintz. New York: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005.
9 ibid., p. 97.10 Various contemporary protests against changing the now-beatified tzurat hadaf certainly highlight this status.11 See, among others, Parry, Aaron. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Talmud. New York: Alpha Books, 2004. p. 30. For
online guides, see Segal, Eliezer “A Page from the Babylonian Talmud.” Gemara (Talmud). <http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/> or “Talmud and its Shape.” The Basics: Electronic Resources for Courses. <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/talmud.html>
12 That is, single pages, not double folios. Bear in mind that many of these pages contain more than one image and, according to Mayer Gruber's count, (see below, n. 33) 104 images are printed in Rashi alone. This paper only addresses pictures appearing on sheets of the Vilna edition that actually contain gemara; the many images occurring in tosefta, seder zeraim, seder taharot, and any of the numerous addenda to the Vilna edition are not included in that number. (For example, the sixteen diagrams belonging to tractate Keilim or the set of images printed in the postscript-like Sota 50a.)
commentaries – including those of Rashi, the Tosafot, R. Yoel Sirkes, and R. Betzalel Ashkenazi 13 - and
they serve to illustrate textual interpretations offered by these secondary sources. On occasion,
however, they illustrate the Talmud directly and thus appear within the central pillar that houses the
actual Talmudic text.14 In terms of size, each diagram occupies between one and twenty lines of text
space15, with some being no more sizable than a few letters16 and others engaging perhaps fifteen
percent of the given page17. Stylistically, the typical image is plain and geometric, clarifying with a few
straight lines an item's basic shape or mapping out the position of two adjacent objects (Fig. 2).
Nonetheless, exceptions do exist and in the pages of the Talmud one may find more complicated
sketches of jugs18, maps19, gates20, a menorah21, trees22, birds23, bushes24, intricate catacomb
complexes25, and even a cow inside a brick house drinking from an outdoor trough 26 (Fig. 3). Even
these remain almost entirely diagrammatic, preferring simplicity to realism and including only the most
essential details. The menorah represents a lone exception, whose thoroughness and style betray hints
of the artistic. Their distribution is by no means just, with Eruvin, Bava Batra, and Menahot housing,
on their own, two-thirds of the pictures27. Although in the context of the entire Talmud's 2,711 folios,
one hundred pages accounts for less than two percent, when studying these and other image-heavy
tractates, illustrations are a blatant and memorable aspect of the learning experience28.
13 Menahot 24a. Examples for the other works are referenced below. All pagination follows the Vilna edition, which in turn follows the pagination of the Bomberg Talmud, third edition.
14 Sukka 4a, 7a, 8a, 19b. 15 Measured in the smaller font used for Rashi and Tosafot.16 Bava Metzia 23a.17 Bava Batra 101a.18 Menahot 77b.19 Eruvin 15a.20 Eruvin 11b.21 Menahot 98b.22 Eruvin 100a.23 Representing the kruvim. Bava Batra 99a.24 Eruvin 49b.25 Bava Batra 101ab.26 Eruvin 20b.27 A detailed list of images by tractate is included in the appendix.28 In a certain sense, the unique format of a Talmud page is, in and of itself, an icon. See Binder, Jacob. The Talmudist.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston., where the subtle depiction of the pages' details makes immediately evident what book is being studied.
While the appearance of images is noteworthy in any publication of the Talmud, the Vilna
edition's popularity and eventual quasi-canonization has converted these visuals into an an inherent
component of the Talmud itself – have ensconced them, just like Rashi or Tosafot, into the very body of
the document29. One need merely compare with Judaism's primary religious text – the Bible – to
appreciate the novel role images play in the Talmud: the Old Testament is a holy book, while the
gemara is, post-Vilna, a holy illustrated book30.
Unfortunately, the excellent and detailed scholarship regarding the Talmud's manuscripts,
printing, and interpretation have yet to adequately address the role of visual diagrams. All three
groundbreaking, thorough, and voluminous books bearing the title “Printing the Talmud” neglect or
only briefly address this phenomenon.31 With its ambitious goal of digitizing central Halakhic works,
the Bar Ilan Responsa Project is arguably the best candidate to replace the Vilna shas, yet apparently
will not continue its important visual legacy: images are not included in the database.32 As for attempts
to analyze or “read” individual images from the Talmud33, I have uncovered no formal studies. In
regard to Halakhic images from other sources, I am aware of two investigations. R. Yosef Qafih's
edition of Maimonides' Commentary on the Mishna devotes a small section to the autograph
29 I have long wondered if the Halakha demands that these images be treated with the respect commonly attached to pages of the Talmud. If a picture was accidentally torn out of the book, would it be blithely tossed in the waste bin? If dropped, would it merit a kiss? For this paper, the concern regards not formal Halakhic requirements but popular social practice. In the current American Orthodox scene, I imagine that the scrap would find its way to the geniza.
30 While there is a long history of illuminated Bibles, for three important reasons their images should not be considered as throughly assimilated into the text. Firstly, they did not enjoy nearly the same level of standardization, such that a particular set of manuscripts was seen as representative of the Bible in general, or that a specific group of images could be universally associated with a given chapter. Second, the persistent ritual use of Torah scrolls meant that a written or printed Pentateuch could never achieve the level of authenticity heaped upon the Vilna shas. Third, illustrated Bibles had a clear decorative purpose, suggesting that they were mere ornaments and not a serious part of the text.
31 See n. 8 and Heller, Marvin. Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. Brooklyn, New York: Im Hasefer, 1992.; Heller, Marvin. Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700 to 1750. Boston: Brill, 1999.
32 Their appearance is noted, often with a parenthetical ציור הופיע במקור . Unfortunately, the terminology is inconsistently applied, making it difficult to search for texts accompanied by images. Likewise, no distinction is made between diagrams that belong originally to a given work and those added by a later hand. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberger, Project Manager for the Responsa Project, informs me that images are now included in their digital versions of Sefer Ha-shem, Sodei Razaya, and Encyclopedia Talmudit. For an example of the confusion caused in less fortunate works, see Maimonides' and Rabbi Yitzhak ben Malkitzek Simponet's quite ambiguous commentaries to Kilaim 4:6, in the Bar Ilan Responsa Project.
33 There is, however, a sizable scholarly literature on the images employed in Biblical commentary., particularly his maps. See Gruber, M.I. “Light on Rashi's Images.” Solomon Goldman Lectures VI. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1993. p. 82 n. 8. I must thank Julian Horowitz for his help in accessing and analyzing this and several other articles.
manuscript's images, wherein Qafih observes that the diagrams which make use of cardinal directions
consistently, and oddly, place west at the page's top end and east at its bottom 34. Based on this and
outside Halakhic information, Qafih infers the orientation of Maimonides' writing table35. Of a
completely different variety, the Kollel Daf Yomi of Har Nof published a detailed essay comparing
various sketches of the second Temple composed by different rabbinic36 authorities,37 in effect treating
each image as an authentic Halakhic source. Both studies – one endeavoring to produce historical
information, the other Halakhic insight - serve as models for much needed future research and
underscore the potential latent in serious analysis of the Talmud's images. For its part, this paper
endeavors to briefly introduce the early use of images in early rabbinic literature, before detailing the
development of the diagrams found in the Vilna Talmud. At its close, I hope to present a few examples
of “visual peirush”, where these presumably “objective” visual figures appear to betray underlying
layers of interpretation.
Before doing so, however, it is important to take pause and clarify that text and image interact in
a variety of different relationships. I believe one can point to and define four independent types:
1. “Image with Textual Description” - the visual takes center stage, with text merely describing
and supplementing what is primarily pictorial material. The relationships between a photo slide
and its descriptive captions, or artwork and an explanatory plaque, serve as examples.38
2. “Text with External Illustration” - text is the centerpiece, complete on its own and making no
explicit reference to any visual. Images are juxtaposed to the text, intended to supplement or
“add color” to the written material. An illustrated newspaper article or illuminated Bible
34 See Qafih, Yosef, ed. Mishna: with the Commentary of Maimondes. Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-rav Kook, 1963. Introduction, sec. 9. [Hebrew]
35 Qafih admits the conclusion is very speculative. (For one thing, it assumes that Maimonides himself, and not an assistant, sketched the images.)
36 When capitalized, Rabbinic relates to “the Rabbis”, i.e hazal. Otherwise, it refers to Jewish scholars of any period.37 “Introduction to the Beis Ha'mikdash”, The Daf Yomi Advancement Forum.
< http://www.dafyomi.co.il/midos/middos01.htm> Two of the images discussed appear in appendages to the Vilna Talmud.
38 For an example in Halakhic literature, see Rabbi Yonaton of Loznai's sketch of the Temple, which appears in the postscript-like Midot 40b.
contain this form. Purely decorative sketches, with no plausible connection to the adjacent text,
could be considered a subcategory.39
3. “Text with Internal Illustration” - text is the centerpiece, but includes explicit reference to
images featured within. (E.g. “the picture on the right dates from before the battle . . .” or “I
have included here the original portrait . . .”) In this case, pictures are planted into the actual
text – their absence would leave it lacking and corrupt.40
4. “Image-Text” - the two components are of equal or near-equal importance in the reading
experience. Neither is complete without the other: lacking one element, the document becomes
more than merely corrupt, but loses its essential form. A graphic novel, for example, sans
dialogue or artwork, would cease to maintain its basic structure. A museum exhibit where
artwork and text together form one narrative experience also fall into this category.41
Of the four types, this paper is primarily concerned with subtle differences in effect between external
and internal illustration. External images can be added long after original composition. For example,
the explanatory plaque complimenting a piece of art is usually produced some time after the visual it
describes. The initial dissemination of a newspaper article may include a photograph, but these images
can also be added at a later point. In contrast, an essay that makes internal reference to a picture, quite
obviously requires the image's presence from the very start.42 As such, internal images require
complicity between author and artist, at least in its initial publication, while external illustrations, it is
more likely that a foreign hand is responsible for their presence. Together, these technical distinctions
between the point to a more important conceptual difference, namely, varying levels of unity between
image and text. For a text with internal illustration, pictures are undoubtedly part of the document as a
39 For examples of completely decorative sketches, see Mishne Torah MS Kaufmann A77, published in Scheiber, Sándor, ed. Codex Maimuni : Moses Maimonides' Code of law : the illuminated pages of the Kaufmann Mishneh Torah. Budapest: Corvina, 1984. Other instances of internal illustration are discussed below.40 Examples are discussed below.41 I am not aware of any Halakhic document composed in this style.42 When dealing with ancient texts, one might be tempted to claim that the reference itself was added at a later point. Whether or not this is the case, an internal reference, at the least, appears as part of the original document. Without good reason to distinguish, doubting its authenticity is tantamount to doubting the legitimacy of the entire document.
whole while for external images the relationship is more volatile. Depending on the method and
consistency of presentation, a magazine article's photographs may eventually become entirely
associated with the piece, forming one cohesive unit. Alternatively, though, the text may be seen to
stand on its own, with any pictures viewed as at best a supplementary bonus, as is often revealed to be
the case when later editors replace the images or remove them entirely. The identification of these four
categories and the distinction between varying levels of unity will be useful in exploring the changing
history of images in the Talmud.
B. The Drawings of our Fathers: Illustration in the Body of Early Halakhic Literature
For thousands of years, Judaism's holy documents were image-free. There is no evidence –
either in the manuscript record or from outside reference – to suggest that any Biblical or Rabbinic tract
contained in early form anything but text.43 The owner of an individual codex may have drawn in his
own marginal doodles, but no image became a consistent and acknowledged addition to a document.
The distinction of earliest Torah text to include a visual belongs, to the best of my knowledge 44,
to the Talmudic commentary of Hananel ben Hushiel, who thrived between 990 and 1053 C.E.
Describing a complex case in Shabbat 85a, he supplies a diagram (Fig. 4) and notes, “וכן צורתו למראית
While no autograph text survives, the image and phrase do appear in ”.עין the foundational Vatican
manuscript45. Some argue46 that this section of Hananel's work was originally authored by his
predecessor, the gaon Hai ben Sherira47, subtracting a few more years from the earliest likely date of
publication. In any event, it appears that images first entered the language of Torah literature sometime
43 The particular case of images in the gemara is discussed in the next section. The use of images in mystical texts awaits further research.
44 Gruber makes mention of an even earlier set of images, from the work of Saadya Gaon (882/892-942 C.E.). Unfortunately, this is the only instance where he did not proceed to publish any information regarding an image's whereabouts and I was unable to locate them. See Gruber, p. 73 and 81 n. 3. 45 In the Vilna edition, a footnote leads to the back of the tractate, where the image is reproduced. The original is published
in Keller, Yosef, ed. Commentary and Rulings of Rabbi Hai Gaon to Tractate Shabbat. Brooklyn, New York: 2005. [Hebrew]
46 ibid., Introduction.47 939-1038 C.E.
around the year 1000 CE.
Rashi's Biblical works also make use of images, several of which have been the subject of some
scholarly research. Mayer Gruber catalogues ten images – six of them maps – which appear in
manuscripts of Rashi's commentary to the Bible48, one of which survived to be included in
contemporary standard editions.49 A final image appears in a letter to Rabbi Shmuel of Auxerre50
regarding Ezekiel's description of the Temple51 Rashi responded that “I do not know how to add upon
what I had already expounded”, but nonetheless sent Rabbi Shmuel a diagram to clarify his position
(Fig. 5). Most of these instances may be classified as “text with internal images”, with phrases like
“this is the image of the land of Israel”, “here for you is an image”, or a simple “כזה”, like this,
preceding the picture. Despite the absence of these images from late manuscripts and almost all printed
editions, Gruber offers seven pieces of evidence for their authenticity. I will mention the two most
convincing, namely, their appearance in a large and geographically diverse pool of early manuscripts
and, even more convincingly, a reference by Rashi's contemporary and grandson, Rabbi Samuel ben
Meir, to the map produced by Rashi in Numbers 34:2: “my master and elder here commented and
drew."52
The introduction of images into Halakhic literature begs the question of their authority vis-a-vis
text. In a legal language almost entirely text based, are images considered a recognized form of
communication? In particular, should images – like words – be imbued with the weight of their
author's authority? Do they lose value when representing ideas absent from – or countermanded in –
the text proper?
These concerns come to the fore with the most well-known and controversial of early Halakhic
48 See Gruber, p. 77.49 1 Kings 6:31. Gruber notes that the image appearing on Gittin 7b, beside Rashi's comments, has its origins in a
manuscript of Rashi on Judges 21:19.50 In the original, אלצויירא. The image appears in Oxford mss. 186 and is reprinted in Cohen, Menahem, ed. Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univesity, 1992., in an appendix to Ezekiel. 51 Rabbi Eliezer Beugency, who flourished in the twelfth century, produced images in his commentary to these passages,
available ibid.52 From his own comments to Numbers 34:2.
images, Maimonides' diagrammatic sketch of the Menora53. As previously mentioned, Maimonides
included a number of images in his Commentary, a characteristic likewise found in Mishne Torah54 and
his responsa.55 This particular illustration, however, features a property not mentioned explicitly by
Maimonides which, in fact, stands in contrast to popular opinion. Archeological specimens portraying
the Menora56, as well as diagrams by other Medieval artists57 are consistent in denoting curved, semi-
circular or semi-elliptical branches. Ibn Ezra explicitly describes this shape in his comments to Exodus
25:32.58 Maimonides' illustration, however, features diagonal, linear limbs (Fig. 6). Is this what the
Rambam meant? Even if so, do his illustrations matter? Three distinct trends can be found in
subsequent copies of the Commentary, creating for their readers three disparate answers to these
questions59. There are editions60 that omit the picture entirely, even while including the (now irrelevant)
phrase that appears in the original, “I saw it fit to draw the Menora here.” In effect, the image is
discounted from its place in Halakhic literature, not seen as part of the transmitted text. Other reprints
contain a diagram, but updated to exhibit curling offshoots61 (Fig. 7). At some point, the original image
was treated as a rough schematic, to be interpreted liberally, not literally. Maimonides' refers to this
himself when he points out inaccuracies in the image and notes that “my intent in this picture is not that
you should know the precise form . . . but for knowledge of [limited features].” Nevertheless,
53 Commentary to Menahot 3:7.54 Hilkhot Beit Ha-behira 3:10 has a Menora. It is absent from standard editions, but appears in Qafih's rendering of the
text, as found in Makbil, Yohai, ed., Mishne Torah Or Vishua: Haifa, 2006. Apparently this example is less well known, as the debate regarding the Menora tends to focus solely on the image appearing in the Commentary.
55 cf. Responsum 127: “ּBehold, I will draw for you the Land of Israel's shape, marking its borders and its seas, and by this image those lines in the beginning of Gittin will be explained, and from it all the laws dependent on knowledge of the Land of Israel will be explained.”
56 Including the Arch of Titus. See Haran, Menahem and Efraim Gottlieb, “Menora.” Encyclopedia Judaica. ed. 2007. vol. 14., for an assortment of reliefs, mosaics, and stamps featuring a curved Menora. For an essay devoted to this question, see Sperber, Daniel. Customs of Israel. Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-rav Kook: 2005., vol. 5. [Hebrew]
57 See Haran, ibid. p. 54.58 Rashi uses the term אלכסון, diagonal, in his description. Rabbi Seth Mandel brings evidence that despite the term,
Rashi referred to curved arms in his “The Shape of the Menora of the Temple” found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml#12. Indeed, in the Rashi manuscript cited and published in Gruber, Mayer. “What Happened to Rashi's Pictures?” Bodleian Library Record 14.2 (1995): 118, the illustrated arms are in fact curved.
59 I am not claiming that printers consciously made this decision based on a given attitude towards diagrams. Rather, the product of that decision, regardless of its motivation, creates a de facto treatment of images.
60 cf. Bomberg Talmud, 1520, and the standard Vilna edition of mishnayot.61 For example, the Commentary published in the back of the Vilna Talmud.
Maimonides pens a short list of inexact details, in which the branches are not included, perhaps
implying by silence that their straight design was actually intended. Finally, Yemenite manuscripts
maintain the linear branches, treating the original image as an important Maimonidean work worthy of
loyal transcription. His son Avraham is the loudest advocate of this approach, arguing that the arms are,
“straight, as my father and teacher drew it, not circular, as others have drawn.”62 Rabbi Seth Mandel is
correct in pointing out that Avraham Maimuni does not refer to an opinion that his father told him, but
instead relies solely on the pictorial evidence - “as my father drew it” - when debating this point 63. The
image thus contains, in and of itself, an authentic and authoritative ruling of the Rambam. Some seven
centuries later, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe continued this line, using this ancient image to argue that a
diagonally branched Menora is the genuine Maimonidean sentiment and the authoritative Halakha64.
He proposed that hanukiot should also be diagonal65, leading to the now ubiquitous and distinctive
“Chabad menorah” (Fig. 8). Consideration of the archeological evidence, the original diagram's mixed
reception, and the fact that Maimonides never explicitly states his opinion, leaves Rabbi Schneerson
with a difficult position to defend – at least on historical grounds. Nevertheless, his position may also
be recognized as an ambitious and complete acceptance of visual Torah media: regardless of authorial
intent, the image has entered the canon of Jewish legal literature and can be interpreted as such. On
these grounds, Maimonides may have produced an imprecise sketch, but it is Mishne Torah, not
Maimonides that is authoritative; the image's appearance in an canonical document transforms it into a
codified unit of Torah, worthy of study, interpretation, and ultimately, replication.66
62 In his commentary to Exodus 25:32.63 Mandel, ibid.64 See Schneerson, Menahem. An Anthology of Talks. Brooklyn, New York: Kehat, 1990. Vol. 26. p. 186. [Hebrew]65 The innovative rational for linking the menora of Hanuka with the Menora of the Temple is beyond the scope of this
paper. 66 The philosophical model for such a reading of Maimonides' works was famously pioneered in the Brisker school of
Talmudic analysis. See Shapiro, Marc. “The Brisker Method Reconsidered.” Tradition. 31(3): 1997. pp. 86-89.
C. From Pesaro to Vilna: The Development of Images in the Talmud
The pictures appearing in today's standard Talmud represent a subtle break from the examples
so far surveyed, but the story of these nineteenth century Lithuanian creations begins in a fifteenth
century Italian press. Between 1483 and 1520, Joshua and Gershon Soncino printed dozens of tractates
from the Babylonian Talmud. Moving through a number of Italian cities, the bulk of these tractates
were produced in Pesaro and their eponymous hometown, Soncino67. Although not the first to put the
Talmud to print, theirs surpassed previous attempts in accuracy and technique68. It was a foundational
accomplishment responsible for features of the Talmud prevalent to this day: they selected the now
standard version of Tosafot69; they incorporated it, with Rashi, onto a tripartite page; they initiated the
convention of Rashi appearing on the inner margin, Tosafot on the outside70, and gemara commencing
four lines from the top71. In addition, they illustrated selections from Rashi, Tosafot, and the gemara
with scores of images. In general, the visuals are rough and unbalanced, resembling in print the
drawings of an incautious and untrained hand (Fig. 9).
Quick comparison to the Vilna edition demonstrates that the Italian diagrams serve as
prototypes to today's finer, more precise illustrations72. Sukka 7b-8a, as it appears in the Pesaro and
Vilna publications, proves a particularly useful model for comparison (Figs. 10 & 11). Diagrams in the
latter are quite clearly more advanced stages in the evolution of the former. At the same time, the
correspondence is by no means perfect and several images appearing in one do not appear in the other,
a feature found throughout the two editions73.
Where do these images come from? Did Rashi, the Tosafot, and the gemara's “original authors”
67 The dates, location, and tractates printed are described in Rabbinovicz, Raphael. Essay on the Printing of the Talmud. Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-rav Kook, 1972. pp. 9-31. [Hebrew]
68 For the short-lived story of Judeo-Spanish printing, see Heller, Menahem. “Earliest Printings of the Talmud.” in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein. pp. 64-68.
69 The so called “Tosafot Shelanu.” 70 With some exceptions. See, for example, their print of Sukka 7b-8a, which is discussed below.71 For several exceptions to this rule, see Heller, ibid., p. 62 n. 5.72 As noted by Heller in Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. p. 145.73 This example contains images that appear in the Pesaro edition but are absent from the Vilna version. For an instance of
the converse, see Bava Batra 101a-102b.
pen these diagrams? Do they first surface in later manuscripts or were they perhaps composed by
members of the Soncino press?
As regards the gemara, I believe it safe to assume against savoraim codifying into the Talmud
pictorial content, let alone it being accepted as canonical and transmitted accurately through the
generations.. That presumption is backed by four manuscripts of Sukka, the only tractate to feature
images in the gemara74, none of which contain any hint of diagrams.75
Unfortunately, access to manuscripts of Rashi and Tosafot has been far more difficult to
achieve. It is perhaps for that reason that Gruber, who appears to harbor an equal interest in Rashi's
Biblical and Talmudic illustrations, chose to focus his scholarly efforts on the former. While Gruber
contends that both sets of diagrams were in fact composed by Rashi himself, the bulk of his arguments
only make reference to the Biblical commentary. There is perhaps one exception – he points to an
instance where Tosafot refer to drawings in Rashi's Talmudic commentary76 - but that particular
drawing is absent from the Pesaro and Vilna editions77. At this point, for both Rashi and Tosafot, the
central question of composition requires further research.
Regardless of their history, images do occur in the Pesaro edition and their role in the
experience of Talmud study is still worth ascertaining. Of particular note, they part from previous
examples of images in representing the incorporation, en masse, of “external illustrations”. A repeat
glance at Pesaro Sukka 7b-8a reveals that none of the twelve images are accompanied by an explicit
textual introduction78. An explicit preface provides the reader with evidence that the diagrams are
authentic: to take the Commentary on the Mishna as an example, if one assumes that the text as a whole
was first authored by Maimonides, and is not a later corruption or forgery, one could also accept
74 Although Heller, in Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700 to 1750. p. 129 n. 19 implies that images also appeared in the body of a Pesaro printing of mishayot Midot.
75 British Library – Harley 5508; Munich – 95 and 140; Vatican – Ebr. 139.76 See Menahot 75a s.v. “k'min”.77 Based on this citation, perhaps Rashi's commentary did originally contain images, just different – and presumably, much
scarcer – than today's assortment.78 None of the examples occur in Rashi. For instances of external illustration in Rashi, see Pesaro 6b and 7a.
phrases like “and this here is an image of the altar”79, with their accompanying pictures. In Pesaro,
however, many images simple appear, floating without mention beside the text they illustrate. Even if
originally drawn by the Tosafot themselves, there would be no indication present to the reader that the
images before their eyes are anything but a contemporary appendage. Pesaro 62a provides another,
more complex form of external illustration. While most of Rashi's diagrams are prefaced with a “כזה”,
in a few instances the word is quite clearly marked off from the text proper, serving not as an internal
reference in the actual commentary, but as an outside caption for an external image (Fig. 12). The most
blatant instance of “כזה” seeming to be anything but commentary appears in Pesaro Bava Batra 101a,
where a line of Rashi is interrupted mid-phrase by a caption, producing a rather awkward, “ולא אסיק
The reader can easily discriminate between these subtitles and the 80." לאקשויהמערה דרבנן כזהאדעתיה
actual commentary, and is left with less reason to assume that they or the images they accompany
belong to the original work. Having experienced “כזה” in this form, even those printed so as to appear
in the proper body of the text would be viewed with similar doubt.
As a result, the reader confronts a new sort of Torah text, where he is expected to imbibe not
merely the holy words of ancient and revered men, but perhaps independently composed illustrations of
others. Looking back on tractates previously learned, a scholar would remember the form and
placement of these images, which had become a part of his study experience. In previous generations –
either before the composition of these drawings or, at the least, before their ready availability - students
of the Talmud no doubt composed by hand or imagination a variety of visual representations. The
appearance of images in gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot – and in particular, their wide dissemination in the
popular Soncino edition – cut this step out of the traditional learning process, for instead of conjuring
up one's own vision of the text, it was immediately provided. A spectrum of possible representations
were replaced with one permanent, un-editable, “canonized” vision of the passages at hand.
79 Commentary, Midot 3:1.80 That is, “and it should not enter your mind a cave according to the Rabbis is like this to ask. . . ” (The underline is my
own.) The image appears immediately after the word כזה.
In but a few decades time, however, these images began to disappear from printings of the
Talmud. Between 1519/20 and 1523, Daniel Bomberg published the first complete set of Talmud, a
feat then repeated in three ensuing impressions. While modeled after the Soncino edition 81, Bomberg's
pages feature one obvious, and quite literal, gap: instead of detailed images, one finds empty spaces
(Fig. 13). The correlation is not perfect; there are instances where Bomberg ignored a diagram and
simply filled the area with text82, and one rare case where the he actually re-prints a Soncino picture83.
The spaces he left were apparently not filled by an in-house artist, as extant copies abound with gaps,
but instead were shipped to the reader with the expectation that he might fill them in.
The use of blank gaps highlights the phenomenon of students crafting images in the midst of
Talmud study. A passage in Tosafot hints to this circumstance, when, in describing a geometrically
complicated patch of land, it begins with the words, “when you draw such a patch . . .” My survey of
Pesaro Talmuds at the Yeshiva University and Jewish Theological Seminary revealed, apart from the
many printed pictures, several instances of hand-drawn images. In one memorable example, the
anonymous artist rendered two slightly dissimilar pictures, labeling one “ י"שיטה של רש " and the other
”.שיטה של תוספות“ In a somewhat strange case, the illustrator chose to re-sketch images already
printed onto the page, his only improvement being the addition of a “כזה” caption (Fig. 14). (This
example also serves as evidence that to the Pesaro readership, “כזה” was seen as an external locution
and not part of the commentary proper.) My survey of Bomberg Talmuds also uncovered several
impromptu illustrations, where the empty gaps were filled in by hand. A modern day offset and
republication of an original Bomberg Talmud inadvertently captured some of these drawings, printing
them into the page.84
While drawing may have occurred as part of the study process prior to Bomberg's printing, his
81 A fact Gershon Soncino protested against. See Heller, ibid., p. 74.82 For examples, compare the Bomberg and Pesaro versions of Shabbat 85a and Bava Batra 101a.. 83 Sota 43a, as pointed out in Heller, Printing the Talmud: Earliest Printing of the Talmud. p. 145. This exceptional image is
discussed in the next section. 84 See Eruvin 6a in Talmud Bavli. Jerusalem: Sifriat Mekorot, 1967
Talmud no doubt represents a shift in the role of illustration. When faced with a typical text – one
without conspicuous empty spaces – drawing by a student is at most an optional foray, not inherently
suggested or necessitated by the document itself. When the idea of making a sketch enters the reader's
mind, the decision for or against would be based on his own assessment of its necessity and use. If
resolved to create a sketch, it would appear in the margin or on a separate sheet, clearly distinct from
the holy text. When studying with a Bomberg Talmud, however, the experience transforms. The
document's emptiness calls to be filled in – illustration is a visibly accepted and expected part of study;
an active demand is made of the learner, to visualize and draw. At the same time, specific passages are
deemed worthy of illustration while others are disregarded: by simply opening the Talmud, an opinion
is voiced about where and when one should illustrate. Finally, any sketch produced enters the actual
page – in fact, completes it – instead of standing as a marginal doodle. In effect, Bomberg creates a
“canon” of blank spaces, one integrated into the Talmud page and the Talmud study experience. The
Bomberg Talmud served as basis for ensuing editions, and its legacy of blank spaces continued for
centuries85.
That legacy came to a close with the rise of the Vilna edition, wherein printed images were re-
introduced into those empty spaces. While the pictures clearly resemble those produced by the Soncino
family, it is difficult to ascertain if they were modeled on an extant copy of a Pesaro Talmud, or
produced independently. Either way, by filling in Bomberg's blanks, the Vilna edition effectively
substituted the notion of canonized spaces for canonized images. Visuals are more than just a
pedagogical tool, drawn by a student for himself, but are to be published and transmitted just like text.
Whether conscious or not, the Romm family best expressed this outlook on images in printing Hagahot
HaBah – the glosses of R. Yoel Sirkes86 – which is situated along the outer edge of most Vilna
85 I had the opportunity to check tractates from the Basel 1548, Justinian 1548, Krakow 1608, Krakow 1616, Lublin 1617, and Lublin 1625 editions, all of which maintained the Bomberg blanks. Heller, in Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700 to 1750. p. 129 identifies the first Frankfurt on Oder Talmud (1722) as the next edition to print images in Sukka.
86 Known by the acronym of his most famous work, Bayit Hadash.
tractates. The glosses, first published in 1824 as a separate pamphlet87, were originally composed as
private notes in Sirkes' personal copy of the Talmud. That copy, handed down for over two centuries as
a prized relic of the great rabbi, was in a dismal state when Sirkes' marginal comments were cleaned
up, faithfully transcribed, and published . Apart from textual emendations and analytic entries, some of
Sirkes' notes are just visual illustrations of scenes described in Rashi and Tosafot, which were likewise
copied and brought to the public's attention. These publishers, and the Romm editors who incorporated
the glosses onto the daf, viewed the marginal illustrations as a sort of visual commentary, equal in value
to his textual notes. A rabbi's purely diagrammatic interpretation of a text had achieved treatment as a
Torah document.
The Vilna edition includes one other subtle but important change, in its re-integration of many
wayward instances of “כזה”. Instead of appearing apart from the regular text of Rashi and Tosafot –
often physically detached or occurring after the terminating “:” - they now tend to occur within the text
itself, before the concluding colon.88 As such, the term once again gives the impression of belonging to
the actual text and serving as references to an “internal illustration.” Many counterexamples still
exist89, but to a greater extent “כזה” is not presented as a caption, but as part of the commentary,
effectively imbuing the images they accompany with a greater flavor of authenticity.
In sum, the Talmud's images underwent three stages of formation. They first appear in editions
published by the Soncino family, where some, if not all, of the illustration represent original work.
Many are presented as “external illustrations” - lacking any textual reference and, at the most, featuring
a “כזה” that appears to serve solely as a caption. These images are soon removed, replaced with blank
spaces, in Daniel Bomberg's widely influential edition, producing a canon of emptiness that actively
encourages students to visualize and illustrate the Talmud. That implicit call to creativity comes to a
close with the Vilna edition, which moves images from the realm of student activity to publishable
87 Sirkes, Yoel. Glosses of the Bah. Warsaw: Avigdor ben Yoel Press, 1824.88 The awkward “cave of the Rabbis” line is likewise moved to a more apt location.89 e.g. Eruvin 57a.
corpus of Torah material. Scores of images again appear in the pages of the Talmud and drawings from
important rabbinic figures are likewise incorporated. Today, with the advent and acceptance of the
Vilna edition, these images have attained a ubiquitous place in Talmud study. They serve as the primary
example of visual, not just textual, forms of Torah achieving an aura of the “authoritative and
traditional.”
D. Excursus: Subjectivity in Talmudic Images
Presumably, illustrations in the Soncino and Vilna Talmuds are meant as objective “visual
translations” of the text depicted. Of course, translation is impossible without interpretation and, in
certain situations, a closer look reveals pictures taking controversial positions. Such images would
have an unconscious effect in shaping the reader's view of the topic and, potentially, lead him to
attribute unverified positions to the adjacent text.90 I present two examples, in no particular order and
by no means exhaustive. They represent cases of subtle and perhaps unintended “visual peirush”:
1. Bava Batra 99a – The gemara discusses different possible positions for the kruvim, especially
when considering that the length of the inner sanctuary is listed at twenty cubits, and their
wings alone take up that much distance. One proposed solution suggests that the wings crossed
the room at a angle, moving from the northeast to southeast sides. Rashbam's explanation of
this opinion is illustrated in both the Soncino and Vilna editions. However, in the four hundred
years that passed between the two dates of publication, the aron managed to travel from the east
end of the sanctuary, to its west end (Compare Figs. 2 & 9). The Pesaro version thus represents
an opinion of the Ritzva, as cited in Tosafot to Bava Batra 25a. (For the sake of accuracy, the
original Pesaro image is terribly labeled, leaving it unclear if the aron stands against the eastern
or northern walls. It is with generosity that I assume the east side is intended; if situated on the
north, it correlates to no known authoritative opinion.) However, the Vilna version, by subtly
90 Apart from impartial illustrations, one can also point to instances of simple mistakes.
advocating a western position, corresponds with Maimonides' ruling on the matter.91 A third
opinion92, that it rested in the chamber's middle, is not represented in either image.
2. Sota 43a – As previously mentioned, this page contains the only image appearing in the
Bomberg edition. (Fig. 15) Why did he choose to reprint this of all diagrams? While the
historical reasons are likely to be technical or purely arbitrary, it is worth noting a remarkable
characteristic of this particular picture and considering that perhaps a more meaningful factor
lies at the core of the decision. A typical picture in the Pesaro Talmud contains no new
information – the purpose of a diagram is not to add information, but to neatly express
otherwise cumbersome and complex material already present in a passage. Given enough time
and concentration, however, a student could deduce all he needs to know solely from the text.
Such is not the case with the illustration on this page. The mishna discusses the law by which
owners of a newly planted orchard are discharged from military duty. It states that “anyone
who has planted five fruit trees” falls under the category of planting an orchard. Rashi points
out that five trees only constitute an orchard if planted in a specific arrangement, namely, “two
by two with one extending like a tail.” This is a direct quote from Kilaim 4:6, where the laws of
orchards are detailed. Unfortunately, the meaning of the phrase is both difficult to comprehend
and subject to dispute – in and of itself, its impossible to know what those words mean.
Maimonides interprets it as a form resembling : : . while Ovadia of Bartenura prefers a
more symmetrical : : - By simply quoting the tannaitic passage without taking a side, Rashi's
words give no indication as to how the trees are arranged. Omitting an image would leave
Rashi's words difficult to comprehend, but including an image means favoring one opinion93.
Ultimately, the Soncino editors decided to incorporate a diagram, one which sides with
Bartenura. To Daniel Bomberg's staff, the default position of leaving it blank would be the
91 Beit Ha-behira 4:1.92 PT Bava Batra 6:2, Rashi to Megila 10b s.v. dehainu, Tosafot to Menahot 98b s.b. dohakin.93 It is also possible that Rashi himself drew in a clarifying image which served as basis for the Soncino diagram.
worst possible option. Without any help from Rashi's words as to what “extending like a tail
looks” looks like, the reader would be completely unprepared to fill the space. If the reader
attempted to occupy it with an image, it would not be an illustration of Rashi, but a picture
corresponding to his own preconceived notions and outside knowledge. Although admittedly
speculative, perhaps this is the reason why Sota 43a represents the single instance when
Bomberg's editors preferred an image to a space. In making that decision and furnishing a
picture that follow Bartenura's ruling, both the Soncino and Bomberg Talmuds ran the risk of
readers seeing the : : - formation as Rashi's actual opinion. It appears that Rabbi Yom Tov
Lipmann made this very assumption, for in his classic Tosafot Yom Tov, he outlines the various
opinions on the orchard question, and places Rashi in the Ovadian camp, despite the fact that, to
the best of my knowledge, no such sentiment is manifest in any of Rashi's writings.
These are but two examples and no doubt more remain to be discovered . Similarly, I am aware of
several images that seem to be flat-out inaccurate, with little correspondence to the text they
supposedly portray94. Efforts can be made to locate and analyze these images, investigate the basis
behind their error95 and, potentially, uncover any accidental impact on ensuing Halakhic developments.
94 The images in Pesaro Bava Batra 101a are particularly bewildering. Turning to the Vilna edition, the second image in Rashi Shabbat 85a will only confuse its reader. In fact, the so-called “Oz V'hadar” Talmud has replaced it with a more suitable diagram. Nonetheless, they maintained the image in Tosafot Shabbat 85a, which, while primarily accurate, contains a few misleading details.
95 For example, one of the images in Pesaro Bava Batra 101a, while admittedly very rough, appears to follow a position specifically rejected in Rashbam s.v. “v'yeish”. In the Vilna version, the image is removed.
APPENDIX- Images by Tractate
Tractate Number of Pages with Images
Pages with Images
Berakhot 0Shabbat 7 59b, 60b, 70a, 74b, 75a, 75b, 98bEruvin 42 2a, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 11a, 11b, 14b, 15a, 20a, 20b, 25b,
26a, 44b, 49b, 51a, 53a, 55a,56b, 57a, 57b, 59a, 60a, 61a, 66a, 68a, 73a, 74b, 75b, 76b, 78a, 85b, 92b, 93b, 94b, 100b, 102a, 102b
Pesahim 1 109aShekalim 0Yoma 3 11b,17a,17bSukkah 7 4a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 19bBeitzah 2 11a, 28aRosh Hashanah 0Ta'anit 0Megillah 0Mo'ed Katan 0Hagigah 0Yevamot 0Ketubot 0Nedarim 0Nazir 0Sotah 1 43aGittin 2 7b, 77aKiddushin 0Bava Kamma 2 20b, 21aBava Metzia 2 23b, 108bBava Batra 10 13a, 62a, 62b, 99a, 101a, 101b, 102a, 103b, 160a, 164bSanhedrin 0Makkot 0Shevu'ot 0Avodah Zarah 0Horayot 0Zevahim 4 20a, 53b, 55b, 62bMenahot 11 19b, 24a, 29b, 30a, 31b, 33a, 63a, 77b, 94, 98b, 99aHullin 0Bekhorot 1 55aArakhin 1 15aTemurah 0Keritot 0Me'ilah 0Niddah 0
Total: 96