מי ערך את התלמוד? - ?Who edited the Talmud

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im, the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im, the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im.

Toutes les anciennes générations avaient des traditions, qu’elles étudiaient avec application et répétaient continuellement. Comme nous le lisons : «  R. Chiyya bar Abba répétait (en présence de R. Yochanan) ce qui avait été enseigné, tous les trente jours  », (ensuite nous lisons : R. Schéscheth répétait ce qui avait été enseigné, tous les trente jours), se cramponnant au verrou de la porte il dit : «  réjouis-toi, mon âme, réjouis-toi, mon âme, pour toi j’ai appris, pour toi j’ai répété.  » Ces enseignements traditionnels qui étaient étudiés par tout le monde, chaque maître les expliqua à son disciple d’une manière différente, par des recherches spéciales et en déduisit pour la pratique de nouveaux enseignements, selon les questions qui lui étaient posées ; des discussions de thèses [et des controverses] eurent également lieu parmi les maîtres.

À chaque génération suivante la sagesse diminua encore davantage. Comme nous le lisons : «  R. Jochanan disait : Notre esprit est pareil au trou d’une aiguille avec laquelle on ferme la déchirure ; Ahayi disait : Nous entrons aussi difficilement dans le sens de la Tradition, que le piquet dans la muraille ; Raba disait : nous comprenons aussi difficilement les enseignements profonds de nos devanciers, que le doigt entre dans la cire dure. R. Aschi disait : par rapport à l’oubli, nous ressemblons au doigt qu’on enfonce dans du grain de semence, qui se réunit de nouveau quand on l’en retire.  » Puisque l’esprit diminuait à présent et que continuellement des doutes surgirent, on fixa, enseigna et utilisa [maintenant] pour la pratique (ces) explications des devanciers, qui [de leur temps] n’avaient pas été rassemblées.

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a disqualification befalls the High Priest and they appointed another in his stead, and then the cause of the disqualification of the High Priest is resolved, e.g., he was purified from impurity, the original High Priest returns to his service. With regard to the second, acting High Priest, all the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him. He serves wearing eight garments and it is prohibited for him to let his hair grow, to rend his garments in mourning the death of a relative, to subject himself to impurity imparted by the corpse of a relative, or to marry a widow. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The original priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest with eight garments, because there is a different High Priest; nor as a common priest with four garments, as once he was elevated to a state of extreme sanctity he may not be reduced to a state of minor sanctity. Rabbi Yosei said as proof for his opinion: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a reason for disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that the original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest.