3

Often times in analyzing a Mishna the Talmud will say that the Mishna is missing certain information and should read as follows - חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני. The Talmud will then posit the missing information which will allow the Mishna's reading to make sense.

Assuming this type of reading is meant to be taken literally, as some authorities do (see numbers 5, 6), why was the text of the Mishna not emended to follow the reading of the Talmud?

  • 1
    "Assuming this type of reading is meant to be taken literally" why assume that? Maybe no one assumes that and that's why no one emmended the text – Double AA Oct 3 '17 at 1:52
  • 1
    See judaism.stackexchange.com/a/83149/8775 for the various views on what this means. Only according to some does it mean that the text was emended. – mevaqesh Oct 3 '17 at 1:56
  • 1
    @DoubleAA isn't that the plain meaning of the text? I would argue that the burden of proof is on any other approach – rikitikitembo Oct 3 '17 at 2:10
  • 2
    Even if it means that they changed the text, that doesn't mean that the text of the Mishna isn't useful. It is useful in learning the gemara in the first place. Furthermore, the yerushalmi doesn't engage in this method on the Mishna, so these changes aren't unanimous, so it a lot of sense to leave the text. – mevaqesh Oct 3 '17 at 5:59
  • 4

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .