This research report answers the question, how and specifically in what passages do the distinct Rabbinic modes of discourse, Halakhah and Aggadah, intersect? How do they make a statement in common? Halakhah is given priority. Then where and how does Aggadah play a role in Halakhic discourse? What is at stake is the context of thought and expression established by systematic composites, compilations of many discrete facts in the service of a coherent argument. What is catalogued is the intersection of large aggregates of well-composed Aggadic data in a Halakhic composite or of Halakhic ones in an Aggadic setting. The upshot is simple. The Aggadic documents rarely introduce Halakhic materials in their exposition of Aggadic propositions, and the contrary is also the case. The exposition of the Halakhic components of the Halakhic documents, meaning, nearly the entirety of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Yerushalmi, and the greater part of the Bavli, only rarely requires Aggadic complements or supplements. Yet while the Aggadic documents rarely resort to Halakhic materials to make the case they wish to set forth, in some of the Rabbinic documents of the formative age the presentation of the Halakhah is accompanied by a massive Aggadic component. Why, and with what outcome? The answers to all of these questions are spelled out in this three-volume account of the data.

This research report answers the question, how and specifically in what passages do the distinct Rabbinic modes of discourse, Halakhah and Aggadah, intersect? How do they make a statement in common? Halakhah is given priority. Then where and how does Aggadah play a role in Halakhic discourse? What is at stake is the context of thought and expression established by systematic composites, compilations of many discrete facts in the service of a coherent argument. What is catalogued is the intersection of large aggregates of well-composed Aggadic data in a Halakhic composite or of Halakhic ones in an Aggadic setting. The upshot is simple. The Aggadic documents rarely introduce Halakhic materials in their exposition of Aggadic propositions, and the contrary is also the case. The exposition of the Halakhic components of the Halakhic documents, meaning, nearly the entirety of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Yerushalmi, and the greater part of the Bavli, only rarely requires Aggadic complements or supplements. Yet while the Aggadic documents rarely resort to Halakhic materials to make the case they wish to set forth, in some of the Rabbinic documents of the formative age the presentation of the Halakhah is accompanied by a massive Aggadic component. Why, and with what outcome? The answers to all of these questions are spelled out in this three-volume account of the data.

This research report answers the question, how and specifically in what passages do the distinct Rabbinic modes of discourse, Halakhah and Aggadah, intersect? How do they make a statement in common? Halakhah is given priority. Then where and how does Aggadah play a role in Halakhic discourse? What is at stake is the context of thought and expression established by systematic composites, compilations of many discrete facts in the service of a coherent argument. What is catalogued is the intersection of large aggregates of well-composed Aggadic data in a Halakhic composite or of Halakhic ones in an Aggadic setting. The upshot is simple. The Aggadic documents rarely introduce Halakhic materials in their exposition of Aggadic propositions, and the contrary is also the case. The exposition of the Halakhic components of the Halakhic documents, meaning, nearly the entirety of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Yerushalmi, and the greater part of the Bavli, only rarely requires Aggadic complements or supplements. Yet while the Aggadic documents rarely resort to Halakhic materials to make the case they wish to set forth, in some of the Rabbinic documents of the formative age the presentation of the Halakhah is accompanied by a massive Aggadic component. Why, and with what outcome? The answers to all of these questions are spelled out in this three-volume account of the data.

In separate multi-volume works, the project has presented form-analytical English translations of the Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, and Bavli, outlined the Yerushalmi and the Bavli and compared these outlines. In this volume, the main points of the Halakhah of the topological expositions or tractates of the Mishnah-Tosefta-Bavli Hullin are set forth and the theological message of the tractate is laid out. The project yields a systematic account of the Halakhah in its documentary unfolding.

In separate multi-volume works, the project has presented form-analytical English translations of the Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, and Bavli, outlined the Yerushalmi and the Bavli and compared these outlines. In this volume, the main points of the Halakhah of the topological expositions or tractates of the Mishnah-Tosefta-Bavli Hullin are set forth and the theological message of the tractate is laid out. The project yields a systematic account of the Halakhah in its documentary unfolding.

The Halakhah constitutes a coherent construction comprised by category-formations defined by topics purposively amplified. These category-formations everywhere pursue a cogent analytical program, addressing diverse subjects, treated systematically, a single set of questions of definition and analysis. Is Scripture the origin of the Halakhic system, which defines the norms of Judaism? At stake is not the starting point of discrete bits of legal data. At issue is the origin of the comprehensive structure comprised by the Halakhic category-formations, by these topics and no others. Scripture forms the natural starting point for any inquiry into the origins of Judaism. So it is quite natural to treat Scripture as the base-line and the Halakhic category-formations as the variable when seeking the origin of the system. But what happens when, as in this project, we treat the system as the base-line and Scripture as the variable? Then we see that the Halakhic system viewed as a coherent statement does not originate in Scripture. Important parts of that statement do, important parts do not. But the system viewed whole does not.