From the first there were various opposing opinions regarding the problems when and by whom the Mishnah was reduced to writing. According to the Letter of Sherira Gaon (l.c. pp. 2, 9, 12), Judah ha-Nasi himself performed this task; and this view is supported by Rabbenu Nissim b. Jacob (in the preface to his "Sefer ha-Mafteaḥ," ed. J. Goldenthal, p. 3a, Vienna, 1847), Samuel Nagid (in his "Mebo ha-Talmud"), Maimonides (in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah and in the preface to the Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah), Meïri (in his "Bet ha-Beḥirah"), and a commentary on Pirḳe Abot (pp. 6a, 8b, 9a, Vienna, 1854); and many other medieval authors, as well as some modern scholars (comp. Strack, "Einleitung in den Talmud," p. 54), hold the same opinion. Rashi, on the other hand (see his commentary on Shab. 13b; 'Er. 62b; B. M. 33a; Suk. 28b; Ket. 19b), with some tosafists and other medieval and modern authors (comp. Strack, l.c. p. 55), held not only that the Mishnah was not reduced to writing by Rabbi himself, but that even the later amoraim did not have it in written form. He maintained that it, together with the Gemara, was written by the Saboraim. This view is based principally on the passage Giṭ. 60b, which declares that it was forbidden to record halakot, as well as on certain other statements of the Amoraim (comp. e.g., Tan., Ki Tissa, ed. Buber, pp. 59b et seq.), which draw a distinction between the Bible as being a written doctrine and the Mishnah as a system of teaching which is not and may not be reduced to writing. It is, however, extremely unlikely that such a systematized collection, dealing with problems so numerous and so diverse, could have been transmitted orally from generation to generation; and this improbability is increased by the fact that in the Talmud remarks concerning "resha" and "sefa" (the "first" and the "last" cases provided for in a single paragraph) are frequently added to Mishnah quotations, a fact explicable only on the assumption that the text of the Mishnah was definitely fixed in writing.
It must be assumed, therefore, that Rabbi himself reduced the Mishnah to writing in his old age, transgressing in a way the interdiction against recording halakot, since he deemed this prohibition liable to endanger the preservation of the doctrine. He did not abrogate this interdiction entirely, however; for the oral method of instruction continued, the teacher using the written Mishnah merely as a guide, while the pupils repeated the lesson orally. Thus the distinction between "miḳra" (the law to be read) and "mishnah" (the oral teaching) was retained (comp. "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v. "Mishnah," pp. 219 et seq.; Frankel, "Hodegetica in Mischnam," pp. 217-218; Brüll, "Einleitung," ii. 10-13; Weiss, "Dor," p. 216).
The Mishnah has been transmitted in four recensions: (1) the manuscripts and editions of the mishnayot; (2) the Babylonian Talmud, in which the several mishnayot are separated by the Gemara in those treatises which have it, while in the treatises which have no Gemara they follow in sequence; (3) the Palestinian Talmud, in which the Gemara follows each entire chapter of the Mishnah, the initial words of the mishnaic sentences to be expounded being repeated (of this version only the first four orders and chapters i.-iv. of the treatise Niddah of the sixth order are extant); (4) "the Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests," published by W. H. Lowe in 1883 after the Mishnah manuscript (Add. 470, 1) in the library of the Universityof Cambridge. On the relation of the first three editions to one another see above (comp. A. Krochmal, "Yerushalayim ha-Benuyah," Introduction, pp. 10-14; Frankel, l.c. pp. 219-223; Weiss, l.c. ii. 313). The relation of the fourth version to the preceding three has not yet been thoroughly investigated.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Babylonian and Palestinian Mishnah.
Many of Rabbi's own emendations have been preserved in the different readings of Yerushalmi and Babli, although the differences between these two versions are not all due to his changes, as Rapoport assumes ("Kerem Ḥemed," vii. 157-167); for most of the differences not due to philological causes must be ascribed to the different mishnaic schools. In addition to the Debe Rabbi, later amoraim also emended the Mishnah if the received reading seemed untenable. These emendations were then incorporated into the Mishnah; those made by the Babylonian amoraim into the Mishnah which was taught in the Babylonian schools; and those made by the Palestinian amoraim into the Mishnah as taught in the Palestinian schools. Thus, in 'Ab. Zarah i., the Mishnah in the Palestinian Talmud was corrected according to the Gemara (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah i. 39d), while the Mishnah in the Babylonian Talmud retained its original reading. Sometimes—curiously enough—the Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud was corrected to harmonize with the results of the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud, and vice versa (comp. O. H. Schorr in "HeḤaluẓ," vi. 32-47; Frankel, "Mebo," pp. 19a-22a), although only a few of these emendations, of which there are many in the Talmud—introduced by the phrases "sami mi-kan" = "omit from here," or "ḥasuri miḥasra" = "something missing," or "teni kak" = "teach thus"—found their way into the Mishnah itself. Many of the amoraim objected to corrections in the Mishnah, holding that the phraseology chosen by the ancients in their mishnaic collections should be retained unchanged (Yer. Nazir i. 51a).
The Mishnah is written in a peculiar kind of Hebrew, which is far more different from the Hebrew of the earlier books of the Old Testament than from that of some of the later ones and which is, therefore, correctly designated as "Neo-Hebraic." This language was spoken by the people of Palestine as late as the second century of the common era, but was cultivated especially by the scholars; so that it was called "leshon ḥakamim" = "the speech of the wise." It contains many old Hebraic terms which were preserved in popular speech, although they are not found in the Bible, as well as numerous foreign elements, especially from Aramaic, Greek, and Latin; the scholars being forced to adopt these loanwords as terms for objects and concepts which were formerly unknown and for which there were no designations in the Hebrew vocabulary. Foreign words were especially used to designate implements borrowed from foreign peoples (comp. Weiss, "Mishpaṭ Leshon ha-Mishnah," pp. 1-7; A. Geiger, "Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischna," pp. 1-3); and these borrowed terms were so Hebraized as to be taken by many for native words.
The Mishnah is written in a peculiar kind of Hebrew, which is far more different from the Hebrew of the earlier books of the Old Testament than from that of some of the later ones and which is, therefore, correctly designated as "Neo-Hebraic." This language was spoken by the people of Palestine as late as the second century of the common era, but was cultivated especially by the scholars; so that it was called "leshon ḥakamim" = "the speech of the wise." It contains many old Hebraic terms which were preserved in popular speech, although they are not found in the Bible, as well as numerous foreign elements, especially from Aramaic, Greek, and Latin; the scholars being forced to adopt these loanwords as terms for objects and concepts which were formerly unknown and for which there were no designations in the Hebrew vocabulary. Foreign words were especially used to designate implements borrowed from foreign peoples (comp. Weiss, "Mishpaṭ Leshon ha-Mishnah," pp. 1-7; A. Geiger, "Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischna," pp. 1-3); and these borrowed terms were so Hebraized as to be taken by many for native words.
Modifications of the Text.
This Mishnah, however, has not been preserved in the form in which Rabbi redacted it; for, as stated above, it was subjected to many changes, and received numerous additions before it reached its definitive form. Notwithstanding the superiority of Rabbi's Mishnah to its predecessors, it had many defects, some of which may still be seen in the present Mishnah. Though Rabbi himself subsequently renounced many of his Mishnaic opinions, as his views changed in the course of time, he retained such discarded opinions in his Mishnah as he had held them in his younger days (B. M. 44a; 'Ab. Zarah 52b; Yer. 'Ab. Zarah iv. 44a). Occasionally he recorded one decision as authoritative in one passage of his Mishnah, considering it the correct view, and, deciding later in favor of an opposite opinion, he in another place gave this also as authoritative without retracting or suppressing his former view (Sheb. 4a). These shortcomings would not have been serious, since Rabbi did not intend to furnish a mere halakic code, if he had not failed to include in his collection many halakot which were taught in his school and which were, therefore, highly important, not only for halakic decision, but also for a knowledge of tradition in general. He furthermore excluded his own halakot and the points of divergence between him and his contemporaries. These omissions were the most serious defects in his Mishnah for his pupils, since, being a compendium of the entire traditional instruction, it must have seemed incomplete inasmuch as it did not include the teachings of the last tannaim, whose legal decisions should certainly have been incorporated in it if it was to serve as an authoritative code. Rabbi's pupils R. Ḥiyya, R. Hoshaiah, Levi, and Bar Ḳappara began, therefore, even during Rabbi's lifetime and with his knowledge, to make additions and emendations to his Mishnah. Rabbi, who was aware of the deficiencies of his work, probably approved many of these corrections (comp. Oppenheim, l.c. pp. 344 et seq.), and added some himself (Yer. Ket. iv. 29a, b). Most of the changes, however, were such as were contrary to his views, and were consequently concealed from him by his pupils (see Megillat Setarim; comp. Weiss, "Dor," ii. 191).
Thus arose new collections by R. Ḥiyya, R. Hoshaiah, and Bar Ḳappara, which were called "Mishnayot Gedolot," since they were more voluminous than Rabbi's collection. As these new compilations imperiled the uniformity of teaching, which was possible only through the existence of a Mishnah familiar to all teachers, the "Debe Rabbi" (the scholars of Rabbi's school) undertook a revision of his Mishnah, probably long after his death. They made various changes and a large number of additions in agreement with current demands; and in this form the Mishnah has been transmitted to the present time. The majority of the additions made by the Debe Rabbi betray their later origin, although some of them are known to be supplementary only by statements in the Gemara. For instance, the discussion between R. Hezekiah and R. Johanan, in Men. 104b, indicates that the passage in the present Mishnah (Men. xiii. 2), beginning "Rabbi omer," is a later addition of which Hezekiah and Johanan did not know. The same is true of Mishnah Sanh. ix. 2, since the R. Simeon there mentioned is Rabbi's son, as is shown by Yerushalmi (ad loc. 27a, b). Mishnah 'Ab. Zarah ii. 6, where a decision of Judah ha-Nasi is quoted, also comes in this category, since it refers to Judah II., grandson of Judah ha-Nasi I., the original redactor of the Mishnah (comp. Tos. 'Ab. Zarah 36a, s.v. "Asher"). In general, all the passages in which something concerning Rabbi is related, or something which he did either alone (Sheb. vi. 4) or together with his colleague (Oh. xviii. 19), must be regarded as later accretions (comp. Frankel, l.c. pp. 215 et seq.); and the same statement holds good of all the passages in which Rabbi's opinion is quoted after that of other tannaim. On the other hand, there are passages concluding with "dibre Rabbi" (the words of Rabbi), which are not necessarily additions; for Rabbi may in such instances have quoted his own opinion anonymously as setam, as he frequently did, and the words "dibre Rabbi" may have been added by later editors. Various sentences of the Tosefta also found their way into the Mishnah (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 156 et seq.). Many of these are haggadic in nature, such as those at the end of the treatises Makkot, 'Uḳẓin, Ḳinnim, Ḳiddushin, and Soṭah, as well as many sentences in the treatise Abot, which must be regarded as accretions. The later origin of many of these sentences is at once indicated by the name of the author, as in the cases of R. Joshua b. Levi, who belonged to the first generation of Amoraim ('Uḳẓin, end); Simon, son of Judah ha-Nasi (Ab. ii. 2); and Hillel, grandson of Judah ha-Nasi (ib. ii. 4 et seq.; comp. Lipmann Heller in Tos. Yom-Ṭob, ad loc.). Aside from these additions, the Debe Rabbi emended the phraseology and single words of the Mishnah (comp. Yer. Ḳid. iii. 64c), even as Rabbi himself had done (comp. B. M. iv. 1; 'Ab. Zarah iv. 4, and the Babylonian and Palestinian Gemaras, ad loc.).
Thus arose new collections by R. Ḥiyya, R. Hoshaiah, and Bar Ḳappara, which were called "Mishnayot Gedolot," since they were more voluminous than Rabbi's collection. As these new compilations imperiled the uniformity of teaching, which was possible only through the existence of a Mishnah familiar to all teachers, the "Debe Rabbi" (the scholars of Rabbi's school) undertook a revision of his Mishnah, probably long after his death. They made various changes and a large number of additions in agreement with current demands; and in this form the Mishnah has been transmitted to the present time. The majority of the additions made by the Debe Rabbi betray their later origin, although some of them are known to be supplementary only by statements in the Gemara. For instance, the discussion between R. Hezekiah and R. Johanan, in Men. 104b, indicates that the passage in the present Mishnah (Men. xiii. 2), beginning "Rabbi omer," is a later addition of which Hezekiah and Johanan did not know. The same is true of Mishnah Sanh. ix. 2, since the R. Simeon there mentioned is Rabbi's son, as is shown by Yerushalmi (ad loc. 27a, b). Mishnah 'Ab. Zarah ii. 6, where a decision of Judah ha-Nasi is quoted, also comes in this category, since it refers to Judah II., grandson of Judah ha-Nasi I., the original redactor of the Mishnah (comp. Tos. 'Ab. Zarah 36a, s.v. "Asher"). In general, all the passages in which something concerning Rabbi is related, or something which he did either alone (Sheb. vi. 4) or together with his colleague (Oh. xviii. 19), must be regarded as later accretions (comp. Frankel, l.c. pp. 215 et seq.); and the same statement holds good of all the passages in which Rabbi's opinion is quoted after that of other tannaim. On the other hand, there are passages concluding with "dibre Rabbi" (the words of Rabbi), which are not necessarily additions; for Rabbi may in such instances have quoted his own opinion anonymously as setam, as he frequently did, and the words "dibre Rabbi" may have been added by later editors. Various sentences of the Tosefta also found their way into the Mishnah (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 156 et seq.). Many of these are haggadic in nature, such as those at the end of the treatises Makkot, 'Uḳẓin, Ḳinnim, Ḳiddushin, and Soṭah, as well as many sentences in the treatise Abot, which must be regarded as accretions. The later origin of many of these sentences is at once indicated by the name of the author, as in the cases of R. Joshua b. Levi, who belonged to the first generation of Amoraim ('Uḳẓin, end); Simon, son of Judah ha-Nasi (Ab. ii. 2); and Hillel, grandson of Judah ha-Nasi (ib. ii. 4 et seq.; comp. Lipmann Heller in Tos. Yom-Ṭob, ad loc.). Aside from these additions, the Debe Rabbi emended the phraseology and single words of the Mishnah (comp. Yer. Ḳid. iii. 64c), even as Rabbi himself had done (comp. B. M. iv. 1; 'Ab. Zarah iv. 4, and the Babylonian and Palestinian Gemaras, ad loc.).
Development of the Mishnah.
In order to obtain a correct conception of the Mishnah, as well as of its value and importance, it is necessary to consider its relation to preceding collections of similar content as well as the general development of the oral doctrine from the earliest midrash of the Soferim down to the time when the Halakah received its final form.
According to a reliable tradition, contained in the Letter of Sherira Gaon (Neubauer, "M. J. C." p. 15) and confirmed by other sources (Hoffmann, "Die Erste Mischna," pp. 6-12), the earliest form of discussion of halakic regulations was the Midrash (see Midrash Halakah); and vestiges of such halakot may still be found in the Mishnah.
In addition to this form of the Midrash, which connects the halakic interpretation with the Scriptural passage on which it is based, the independent, definitive Halakah, apart from Scripture, was used in very early times in certain cases, and collections of such halakot were compiled (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. p. 11, note 2). As early as the time of the Second Temple the definitive Halakah was used more frequently than the midrashic form, the change having begun, according to geonic accounts, as early as the time of Hillel and Shammai (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 12-14). Although it can not be assumed that a collection of halakot, arranged in six orders, was undertaken when this change was made, or that Hillel himself edited a Mishnah, as Lerner has attempted to show (Berliner's "Magazin," 1886, pp. 1-20), it is probable that the material of the Mishnah first began to be collected at the time of the "Ziḳne Bet Shammai" and "Ziḳne Bet Hillel," the elder pupils of Shammai and Hillel. The beginnings of the present Mishnah may be found in this first mishnah collection, which in the completed text is termed "Mishnah Rishonah" (Sanh. iii. 4; 'Eduy. vii. 2; Giṭ. v. 6; Nazir vi. 1). A large portion of this first Mishnah is still preserved in its original form, notwithstanding the many changes to which it was subjected by the Tannaim; for many portions can be proved to have been redacted, in the form which they now bear, at the time of the schools of Shammai and Hillel, while the Temple was still standing (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 15-20; idem, "Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna," in Berliner's "Magazin," 1881, pp. 170 et seq.).
This first collection of the Mishnah and its separation from the Midrash were intended, on the one hand, to reduce the traditional Halakah to a shorter form, and, on the other, to fix the disputed halakot as such; of these disputed halakot there were then but few. The isolation of the Halakah from the Midrash not only resulted in a shorter and more definite form, but also removed many differences then existing. Indeed in many cases the divergency had been merely one of form, the proof and the derivation from Scripture being differently stated for the same halakah by different teachers. This earliest Mishnah was intended to afford the teachers both a norm for their decisions and a text-book for their classes and discourses, and thus to preserve the uniformity of teaching. It did not accomplish this purpose entirely, however; for when the political disorders and the fall of the Jewish state diverted attention from careful doctrinal studies, many halakot of the Mishnah were forgotten, and their wording became a subject of controversy. Since, moreover, in addition to these differences each tanna taught the first Mishnah according to his own conception of it, the one Mishnah and the one doctrine developed into many mishnayot and many doctrines (Sanh. 88b; Soṭah 47b). This multiplication occurred during the period of the later "Bet Hillel" and "Bet Shammai" (comp. Letterof Sherira Gaon, l.c. pp. 4, 9; Hoffmann, l.c. p. 49).
According to a reliable tradition, contained in the Letter of Sherira Gaon (Neubauer, "M. J. C." p. 15) and confirmed by other sources (Hoffmann, "Die Erste Mischna," pp. 6-12), the earliest form of discussion of halakic regulations was the Midrash (see Midrash Halakah); and vestiges of such halakot may still be found in the Mishnah.
In addition to this form of the Midrash, which connects the halakic interpretation with the Scriptural passage on which it is based, the independent, definitive Halakah, apart from Scripture, was used in very early times in certain cases, and collections of such halakot were compiled (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. p. 11, note 2). As early as the time of the Second Temple the definitive Halakah was used more frequently than the midrashic form, the change having begun, according to geonic accounts, as early as the time of Hillel and Shammai (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 12-14). Although it can not be assumed that a collection of halakot, arranged in six orders, was undertaken when this change was made, or that Hillel himself edited a Mishnah, as Lerner has attempted to show (Berliner's "Magazin," 1886, pp. 1-20), it is probable that the material of the Mishnah first began to be collected at the time of the "Ziḳne Bet Shammai" and "Ziḳne Bet Hillel," the elder pupils of Shammai and Hillel. The beginnings of the present Mishnah may be found in this first mishnah collection, which in the completed text is termed "Mishnah Rishonah" (Sanh. iii. 4; 'Eduy. vii. 2; Giṭ. v. 6; Nazir vi. 1). A large portion of this first Mishnah is still preserved in its original form, notwithstanding the many changes to which it was subjected by the Tannaim; for many portions can be proved to have been redacted, in the form which they now bear, at the time of the schools of Shammai and Hillel, while the Temple was still standing (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 15-20; idem, "Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna," in Berliner's "Magazin," 1881, pp. 170 et seq.).
This first collection of the Mishnah and its separation from the Midrash were intended, on the one hand, to reduce the traditional Halakah to a shorter form, and, on the other, to fix the disputed halakot as such; of these disputed halakot there were then but few. The isolation of the Halakah from the Midrash not only resulted in a shorter and more definite form, but also removed many differences then existing. Indeed in many cases the divergency had been merely one of form, the proof and the derivation from Scripture being differently stated for the same halakah by different teachers. This earliest Mishnah was intended to afford the teachers both a norm for their decisions and a text-book for their classes and discourses, and thus to preserve the uniformity of teaching. It did not accomplish this purpose entirely, however; for when the political disorders and the fall of the Jewish state diverted attention from careful doctrinal studies, many halakot of the Mishnah were forgotten, and their wording became a subject of controversy. Since, moreover, in addition to these differences each tanna taught the first Mishnah according to his own conception of it, the one Mishnah and the one doctrine developed into many mishnayot and many doctrines (Sanh. 88b; Soṭah 47b). This multiplication occurred during the period of the later "Bet Hillel" and "Bet Shammai" (comp. Letterof Sherira Gaon, l.c. pp. 4, 9; Hoffmann, l.c. p. 49).
The Name Mishnah
The term "mishnah" connotes also (3) the sum and substance of the teachings of a single tanna (e.g., Giṭ. 67a; Yeb. 49b, 50a: "mishnat R. Eliezer b. Ya'aḳob" = "the teachings of R. Eliezer b. Jacob"; comp. Rashi ad loc.); or it may mean (4) the view of a tanna in regard to some one matter (e.g., Men. 18a: "mishnat R. Eliezer" = "the view of R. Eliezer," and the expressions "mishnah rishonah" = "the earlier view," and "mishnah aḥaronah" = "the later view," Ḥag. 2a; Ket. v. 29d; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b). It may furthermore denote (5) a single tenet (e.g., B. M. 33b; Hor. 13b; B. Ḳ. 94b; Shab. 123b), being in this sense parallel to the expression Halakah (on the difference between the two see Frankel, "Hodegetica in Mischnam," p. 8). It is used also for (6) any collection of such tenets, being thus applied to the great Mishnaic collections ("Mishnayot Gedolot") of R. Akiba, R. Ḥiyya, R. Hoshaiah, and Bar Ḳappara, in Lam. R., Introduction, and in Cant. R. viii. 2 (comp. Yer. Hor. iii. 48c; Eccl. R. ii.).
Finally the name "Mishnah" is applied particularly to (7) the collection of halakot made by R. Judah ha-Nasi I. (generally called "Rabbi"), which constitutes the basis of the Talmud, and which, with many additions and changes, has been transmitted to the present time. In Palestine this collection was called also "Halakot," as in Yer. Hor. iii. 48c; Ber. i. 53c; Lev. R. iii. (comp. Frankel, l.c. p. 8). The designation "Talmud" is likewise applied to R. Judah ha-Nasi's Mishnah (Yer. Shab. v. 1, 7b; Beẓah ii. 1, 61b; Yeb. viii. 9a; comp. also Frankel, l.c. p. 285; O. H. Schorr in "He-Ḥaluẓ," 1866, p. 42; A. Krochmal in the introduction to "Yerushalayim ha-Benuyah," p. 6; Oppenheim, "Zur Gesch. der Mischna," p. 244).
The "Mishnah of R. Judah," however, is not to be regarded as a literary product of the third century, nor R. Judah as its author. It is, on the contrary, a collection which includes almost the entire material of the oral doctrine as developed from the period of the earliest halakic exegesis down to that of the fixed and crystallized halakot of the early third century. Judah ha-Nasi, who was the redactor of this work, included in his compilation the largest and most important portion of the earlier collections that he had at hand, and fortunately preserved, for the most part without change, the traditional teachings which he took from older sources and collections; so that it is still possible to distinguish the earlier from the later portions by their form and mode of expression.
Finally the name "Mishnah" is applied particularly to (7) the collection of halakot made by R. Judah ha-Nasi I. (generally called "Rabbi"), which constitutes the basis of the Talmud, and which, with many additions and changes, has been transmitted to the present time. In Palestine this collection was called also "Halakot," as in Yer. Hor. iii. 48c; Ber. i. 53c; Lev. R. iii. (comp. Frankel, l.c. p. 8). The designation "Talmud" is likewise applied to R. Judah ha-Nasi's Mishnah (Yer. Shab. v. 1, 7b; Beẓah ii. 1, 61b; Yeb. viii. 9a; comp. also Frankel, l.c. p. 285; O. H. Schorr in "He-Ḥaluẓ," 1866, p. 42; A. Krochmal in the introduction to "Yerushalayim ha-Benuyah," p. 6; Oppenheim, "Zur Gesch. der Mischna," p. 244).
The "Mishnah of R. Judah," however, is not to be regarded as a literary product of the third century, nor R. Judah as its author. It is, on the contrary, a collection which includes almost the entire material of the oral doctrine as developed from the period of the earliest halakic exegesis down to that of the fixed and crystallized halakot of the early third century. Judah ha-Nasi, who was the redactor of this work, included in his compilation the largest and most important portion of the earlier collections that he had at hand, and fortunately preserved, for the most part without change, the traditional teachings which he took from older sources and collections; so that it is still possible to distinguish the earlier from the later portions by their form and mode of expression.
About Mishnah
A noun formed from the verb "shanah," which has the same meaning as the Aramaic "matnita," derived from "teni" or "tena." The verb "shanah," which originally meant "to repeat," acquired in post-Biblical Hebrew the special force of "to teach" and "to learn" that which was not transmitted in writing but only orally; the development of connotation being due to the fact that the retention of teachings handed down by word of mouth was possible only by frequent recitation.
"Mishnah," the derivative of the verb "shanah," means therefore:
(1) "instruction," the teaching and learning of the tradition, the word being used in this sense in Ab. iii. 7, 8; and
(2) in a concrete sense, the content of that instruction, the traditional doctrine as it was developed down to the beginning of the third century of the common era. "Mishnah" is frequently used, therefore, to designate the law which was transmitted orally, in contrast to "Miḳra," the law which is written and read (e.g., B. M. 33a; Ber. 5a; Ḥag. 14a; 'Er. 54b; Ḳid. 30a; Yer. Hor. iii. 48c; Pes. iv. 130d; Num. R. xiii.; and many other passages); and the term includes also the halakic midrashim, as well as the Tosefta or explanatory additions to the Mishnah (Ḳid. 49b; see Baraita). In this wider sense the word was known to the Church Fathers, who, however, regarded it asthe feminine form of "mishneh," analogous to "miḳneh" and "miḳnah," and supposed that it signified "second teaching" (comp. "'Aruk," s.v. ), translating it by δευτέρωσις (see the passages in Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., i. 113).
"Mishnah," the derivative of the verb "shanah," means therefore:
(1) "instruction," the teaching and learning of the tradition, the word being used in this sense in Ab. iii. 7, 8; and
(2) in a concrete sense, the content of that instruction, the traditional doctrine as it was developed down to the beginning of the third century of the common era. "Mishnah" is frequently used, therefore, to designate the law which was transmitted orally, in contrast to "Miḳra," the law which is written and read (e.g., B. M. 33a; Ber. 5a; Ḥag. 14a; 'Er. 54b; Ḳid. 30a; Yer. Hor. iii. 48c; Pes. iv. 130d; Num. R. xiii.; and many other passages); and the term includes also the halakic midrashim, as well as the Tosefta or explanatory additions to the Mishnah (Ḳid. 49b; see Baraita). In this wider sense the word was known to the Church Fathers, who, however, regarded it asthe feminine form of "mishneh," analogous to "miḳneh" and "miḳnah," and supposed that it signified "second teaching" (comp. "'Aruk," s.v. ), translating it by δευτέρωσις (see the passages in Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., i. 113).
A historical source
Both the Mishnah and Talmud contain little serious biographical studies of the people discussed therein, and the same tractate will conflate the points of view of many different people. Yet, sketchy biographies of the Mishnaic sages can often be constructed with historical detail from Talmudic and Midrashic sources.
Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Mishnah. A vital question is whether it is composed of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it composed of earlier, or later sources. Are Mishnaic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines, and in what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? In response to these questions, modern scholars have adopted a number of different approaches.
Some scholars hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Mishnah (and later, in the Talmud.) Lacking outside confirming texts, they hold that we cannot confirm the origin or date of most statements and laws, and that we can say little for certain about their authorship. In this view, the questions above are impossible to answer. See, for example, the works of Louis Jacobs, Baruch M. Bokser, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Steven D. Fraade.
Some scholars hold that the Mishnah and Talmud have been extensively shaped by later editorial redaction, but that it contains sources which we can identify and describe with some level of reliability. In this view, sources can be identified to some extent because each era of history and each distinct geographical region has its own unique feature, which one can trace and analyze. Thus, the questions above may be analyzed. See, for example, the works of Goodblatt, Lee Levine, David C. Kraemer and Robert Goldenberg.
Some scholars hold that many or most of the statements and events described in the Mishnah and Talmud usually occurred more or less as described, and that they can be used as serious sources of historical study. In this view, historians do their best to tease out later editorial additions (itself a very difficult task) and skeptically view accounts of miracles, leaving behind a reliable historical text. See, for example, the works of Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, Avraham Goldberg and Dov Zlotnick.
Historical study
Shalom Carmy (Ed.) Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations Jason Aronson, Inc.
Shaye J.D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholarchs", Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981), pp. 57–87
Steven D. Fraade, "The Early Rabbinic Sage," in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 417–23
Robert Goldenberg The Sabbath-Law of Rabbi Meir (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978)
John W McGinley 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly ISBN 0-595-40488-X
Jacob Neusner Making the Classics in Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 1–13 and 19–44
Jacob Neusner Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 14–22.
Gary Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), vol. 4, pp. 212–25
Dov Zlotnick, The Iron Pillar Mishnah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1988), pp. 8–9
Reuvain Margolies, Yesod Ha-Mishnah V'Arichatah (Heb.)
David Tzvi Hoffman, Mishnah Rishonah U'flugta D'tanna'e (Heb)
Hanokh Yalon, Mavo le-nikud ha-Mishnah [Introduction to the vocalization of the Mishnah] (Jerusalem 1964) (Heb)
Robert Brody, Mishna and Tosefta Studies (Jerusalem 2014)
Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Mishnah. A vital question is whether it is composed of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it composed of earlier, or later sources. Are Mishnaic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines, and in what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? In response to these questions, modern scholars have adopted a number of different approaches.
Some scholars hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Mishnah (and later, in the Talmud.) Lacking outside confirming texts, they hold that we cannot confirm the origin or date of most statements and laws, and that we can say little for certain about their authorship. In this view, the questions above are impossible to answer. See, for example, the works of Louis Jacobs, Baruch M. Bokser, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Steven D. Fraade.
Some scholars hold that the Mishnah and Talmud have been extensively shaped by later editorial redaction, but that it contains sources which we can identify and describe with some level of reliability. In this view, sources can be identified to some extent because each era of history and each distinct geographical region has its own unique feature, which one can trace and analyze. Thus, the questions above may be analyzed. See, for example, the works of Goodblatt, Lee Levine, David C. Kraemer and Robert Goldenberg.
Some scholars hold that many or most of the statements and events described in the Mishnah and Talmud usually occurred more or less as described, and that they can be used as serious sources of historical study. In this view, historians do their best to tease out later editorial additions (itself a very difficult task) and skeptically view accounts of miracles, leaving behind a reliable historical text. See, for example, the works of Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, Avraham Goldberg and Dov Zlotnick.
Historical study
Shalom Carmy (Ed.) Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations Jason Aronson, Inc.
Shaye J.D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholarchs", Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981), pp. 57–87
Steven D. Fraade, "The Early Rabbinic Sage," in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 417–23
Robert Goldenberg The Sabbath-Law of Rabbi Meir (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978)
John W McGinley 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly ISBN 0-595-40488-X
Jacob Neusner Making the Classics in Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 1–13 and 19–44
Jacob Neusner Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 14–22.
Gary Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), vol. 4, pp. 212–25
Dov Zlotnick, The Iron Pillar Mishnah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1988), pp. 8–9
Reuvain Margolies, Yesod Ha-Mishnah V'Arichatah (Heb.)
David Tzvi Hoffman, Mishnah Rishonah U'flugta D'tanna'e (Heb)
Hanokh Yalon, Mavo le-nikud ha-Mishnah [Introduction to the vocalization of the Mishnah] (Jerusalem 1964) (Heb)
Robert Brody, Mishna and Tosefta Studies (Jerusalem 2014)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)