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, why was the text of the Mishna not emended to follow the reading of the Talmud?

  • 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
  • 1
    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
  • 1
    @danny doesn't seem like a dupe. This asks why not edit mishnayot. That asks what a particular expression means; two different questions. – mevaqesh Oct 3 '17 at 13:55
  • 2
    Please people, before voting to close, maybe you should read the questions - and comments - a little more closely. – DonielF Oct 4 '17 at 15:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .