5

In Kelim 28:5, the Mishna comments upon the susceptibility to impurity of various objects whose primary usage has been changed. A canteen that is turned into a mat, or a mat that has been turned into a canteen, is no longer susceptible to impurity. A canteen, however, that has been turned into a saddle bag, a pillow that has been turned into a sheet, a cushion that has been turned into a cloth, and vice versa with each of those, is susceptible (according to most editions of the Mishna) to impurity.

The Bartenura, however, comments that the Mishna should say that it is unsusceptible ("טהור: ולא גרסינן טמא"). He goes on to note that this is the version of his teachers ("וכך היא גירסת רבותי"), that such a reading is buttressed by the Tosefta ("והכי מוכח מן התוסתא"), and that he even found this in a particular manuscript of the Mishna ("וכך מצאתי במשנה דווקנית"). Which manuscript is he referring to?


To be more precise, does דווקנית mean "of Vaknit" (and if it does, what is "Vaknit"?), or does it mean "precise/methodical"? If it's the latter, is the Bartenura referring to a specific manuscript that might be checked today, or is this a way of referring to a careful comparison of different manuscripts? (It almost looks like he's referring to an early critical edition, but such a thing did not exist.)

3
4

It means precise, as noted above by Josh Waxman in the comments (here and here), and is not a specific manuscript.

The evidence for this is that such a phrase is used many times by other Mishnah commentators who surely did not have access to the same specific manuscripts that the Bartenura had (see Hon Ashir Yoma 6:1, and various places in Melechet Shlomo, sometimes citing other earlier commentaries), and even by other authors, such as Machzor Vitry in his commentary to Avot (printed as section 425,426 and 428 of old printings of Machzor Vitry).

(In regards to "critical editions of Mishnah", see Machzor Vitry there (428), who speaks of a Mishnah that was edited based on the "Mishnah of Rabbeinu Efraim"; for more on this, see Chapter 6 of "Rabbeinu Efraim", by ישראל שציפנסקי (I'm not attempting to transliterate that name). )

4
  • [Shatzipanski?] Jan 17 at 16:29
  • 1
    It’s easier than it looks: Schepansky.
    – Oliver
    Jan 17 at 17:58
  • @kazi shcha is a Russian letter
    – Double AA
    Jan 18 at 4:19
  • @DoubleAA It's perfectly possible, and shows that the cases I found on the internet were also mistaken. I'd have expected something more Yiddish-oriented (שטש) or a geresh ('שצ). Jan 18 at 6:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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