0

On Shabbos 147b the phrase is found:

דתניא אמר רבי כשהיינו למדין תורה אצל רבי שמעון בתקוע

I understand that the word “רבי" refers to Rebbi Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the mishnah, and that the term “תניא" refers to a Beraisa which is a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah.

“Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai established an academy in Tekoa where the top minds of the day studied, including Yehuda haNasi” (see here).

Why therefore is a statement by רבי included in a Beraisa and not in a mishnah?

  • 3
    Rebbe didn't necessarily codify everything he said in the mishnah – user15253 Apr 1 at 11:38
  • Evidently. What could have excluded this statement? Are there many other examples? – Avrohom Yitzchok Apr 1 at 11:41
  • 1
    @AvrohomYitzchok Check out Horayos 1:2 for another one. There are others but they are hard to search for. . . – WAF Apr 1 at 14:35
  • 1
    Here he is paskening on preexisting disputes: Chulin 2:5, Mo'ed Katan 1:3, Sh'vi'is 8:5 (all Tosefta). – WAF Apr 1 at 14:41
  • 1
    I didn't make myself clear either. My examples are all Tosefta. Is it more expectable to see RY"H there than in other baraisos? – WAF Apr 1 at 16:00
2

R. Yehuda Hanasi's view being cited in a Beraita is hardly anomalous. There is another instance of דתניא אמר רבי in Niddah 13b, and there are a few dozen instances of דתניא רבי אומר. There doesn't seem to be a reason to assume that the Mishnah would include everything he ever said. Just like the Mishnah is a selection of tannaic statements, it is also a selection of his own statements. His statements that were left out of the Mishnah and only appear in Beraitot are just like the statements of any other tanna that were left out of the Mishnah but included in Beraitot – for some reason those statements were deemed non-integral to the Mishnah, but later compilers of Beraitot found them useful. As Rambam writes in his introduction to the Mishnah:

לפיכך ראה אחד והוא ר' חייא לחבר ספר ללכת בעקבות רבו לבאר בו מה שאינו ברור בדברי הרב והיא התוספתא ונתכוון בה לבאר המשנה ולהוסיף ענינים שאמנם אפשר ללמדם מן המשנה אבל אחרי יגיעה וחדשם כדי ללמדנו איך ללמוד ולחדש מן המשנה וכן עשה גם ר' אושעיא וגם רב חבר בריתא והיא ספרא וספרי (Kapach translation)

Therefore one [person], namely R. Chiya, saw [fit] to compose a book to go in the footsteps of his teacher, to clarify in it that which was not clear in the words of the teacher. And that [book] is the Tosefta. and he intended therein to clarify the Mishnah and to add things that could be learned from the Mishnah but only with toil. And he produced them in order to teach us how to learn and originate from the Mishnah. And R. Oshaya did likewise, and Rav as well composed a Beraita which is the Sifra and the Sifrei.

  • I thought that one of the criteria for inclusion in the Mishnah was the validity of the statement. Hence my question. From the Rambam that you quote, it is not easy to see the statement in my cited text "was not clear in the words of the teacher" or added "things that could be learned from the Mishnah but only with toil". – Avrohom Yitzchok Apr 1 at 17:13
  • @AvrohomYitzchok It might not be easy to see why this particular statement doesn't qualify to be in the Mishnah. But is that any different from other tannaic statements? Surely there are plenty of statements of other tannaim that would be hard to pin down why they were excluded from the Mishnah. The point of my answer is simply to say that R. Yehuda Hanasi's statements should be no different from anyone else's. – Alex Apr 2 at 5:12
0

Mahartz Chayus writes (Taanis 12):

ומפ״ז על כל ענין משנה וברייתא מובא בכ״מ בלשון תנן תניא ת״ר [משום דנשנו בע״פ]

If I may understand him, he seems to imply that oral teachings, generally, can be quoted using תניא, among others words.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .