Signposts in Sacred Text: Formulaic Terms Used in Talmud Bavli

On the related issue of punctuation of the Talmud, see my previous piece, based on discussion related to the end of my latest article in the Seforim Blog: 

Repeated structures and phrases facilitate the transmission of oral texts. Throughout the Talmud Bavli, various formulaic terms and phrases are used to introduce arguments, cite sources, ask questions, and more. These terms serve as signposts to guide readers through the intricate discussions and debates. They help structure the arguments and facilitate the dialectical method that characterizes the Talmud. These are especially helpful in the absence of punctuation. 

Yaakov Elman, in a monumental 1999 article, discussed the oral transmission of the Talmud, and how that influenced the style.¹ He mentions the “patterning typical of oral composition”, and gives some examples parenthetically:²

“[F]ormulaic language, mnemonics as part of the text, ring-cycles, chiastic structures of various sorts, the use of the number “three” as an organizing principle, and so on […]”

Compare the Wikipedia entry on “Oral-formulaic composition”. Although that scholarship is focused on oral transmission of epic poetry, it is quite relevant to the transmission of Talmud, as Elman ibid. discusses at length. I’ll quote the beginning of that entry:

Oral-formulaic composition is a theory that originated in the scholarly study of epic poetry and developed in the second quarter of the twentieth century. It seeks to explain two related issues:

1. the process by which oral poets improvise poetry

2. the reasons for orally improvised poetry (or written poetry deriving from traditions of oral improvisation) having the characteristics that it does

The key idea of the theory is that poets have a store of formulae (a formula being 'an expression that is regularly used, under the same metrical conditions, to express a particular essential idea') and that by linking the formulae in conventionalised ways, poets can rapidly compose verse. Antoine Meillet expressed the idea in 1923, thus:

‘Homeric epic is entirely composed of formulae handed down from poet to poet. An examination of any passage will quickly reveal that it is made up of lines and fragments of lines which are reproduced word for word in one or several other passages. Even those lines of which the parts happen not to recur in any other passage have the same formulaic character, and it is doubtless pure chance that they are not attested elsewhere.’

Commonly used formulaic terms in the Talmud Bavli, divided by type

The following is based on: מושגי יסוד בתלמוד הבבלי – ויקיפדיה, section “מונחים לשוניים ארמיים”. I recategorized the terms into more intuitive and descriptive groupings.

1. Source Indicators

   1. Tannan (תנן = "We learned"): Quote from Mishnah (Tannaic source).

   2. Tenu Rabbanan (תנו רבנן = "The sages taught"): Quote from Baraita or Tosefta (Tannaic source).

   3. Tanya (תניא = "It was taught"): Quote from Baraita (Tannaic source).

   4. Itmar (איתמר = "It was said"): Introduction to a halachic discussion, typically from the words of Amoraim.

   5. Amar Mar (אמר מר = "Master said"): Discussion on a previously quoted Mishnah or Baraita.

2. Discussion Starters

   1. Gufa (גופא = Main subject): Introduction to an extensive discussion on a previously mentioned topic.

   2. Iba'ya Lehu (איבעיא להו = "They had a question"): Discussion with two sides of a ruling.

3. Clarifying Queries

   1. Mai Beinaihu (מאי בינייהו = "What's the difference between them?"): Difference between two similar opinions.

   2. Mai Ta'ama (מאי טעמא = "What's the reason?").

   3. Mena Hani Mili (מנא הני מילי = "From where are these words?"): Biblical or study source for a halacha.

   4. Mai Nafka Mina (מאי נפקא מינא = "What's the outcome?"): Practical difference between opinions.

4. Challenges and Contradictions (קושיא)

   1. Mativei (מתיבי): Challenge from a more authoritative halachic source.

   2. Veraminhu (ורמינהו = "And juxtapose them"): Contradiction between equal halachic sources.

   3. Matkif (מתקיף): Logical challenge.

   4. Bishlama (בשלמא = "It's fine according to... but according to..."): Challenge aligning with one opinion but contradicting another.

   5. Tiyuvta (תיובתא)

5. Supports and Disputes

   1. Tana Kavatei (תנא כוותיה = "A Tanna like him"): Tannaic source for an Amora's opinion.

   2. Ta Shema (תא שמע = "Come and hear"): Introduction to a Tannaic source as proof or challenge.

   3. Shema Mina (שמע מינה = "Understand from this"): Attempt to prove; summary of accepting proof.

   4. Ketannai (כתנאי): Dispute where Tannaim disagreed.

   5. Lema/Nima Ketannai (לימא/נימא כתנאי = "Say like the Tannaim"): Source where Tannaim disputed in an Amoraic dispute.

   6. Mistabra (מסתברא = "It makes sense"): Logical support for an opinion.

   7. Chasuri Mechsera VeHachi Katani (חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני): Flawed Tannaic source that needs correction.

   8. Ika D'Amri ... VeIka D'Amri (איכא דאמרי ... ואיכא דאמרי): Dispute with multiple opinions or alternative version of the topic.

   9. Iba'it Eima (איבעית אימא = "If you want, say"): Introduction to one solution among several.

1. "Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud", in Oral Tradition, volume 14/1 (1999), pp. 52-99

2. Ibid., p. 59