10

To pose a few examples of the types of Mishnayos I'm speaking about:

  • Pesachim 4:1-5 discusses various activities which depend on the local custom, most of which have nothing to do with Pesach
  • Gittin 4:2-5:9 discusses various activities done for improving public welfare and peace (and some of these Mishnayos are tangents off of tangents!), most of which have nothing to do with divorce
  • Megillah 1:4-11 discusses various pairs of items which are generally similar, except for a couple of differences, most of which have nothing to do with Purim
  • Erchin 2:1-6 lists various things which can be no less than some amount but no more than some other amount, most of which have nothing to do with donations to the Beis HaMikdash
  • Erchin 3:1-5 lists various things which have leniencies and stringencies over other things, most of which still have nothing to do with donations to the Beis HaMikdash

etc. etc.

I see two ways to interpret these kinds of tangents on a general basis, each of which poses questions to be answered on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Mishnayos are ordered to make it easier to memorize, and often similar-ish topics are put together just so that it's easy to remember. So, once we bring up the topic, we discuss all similarly-posed discussions. The follow-up question is why we often don't exhaust the list.
  2. Really, there is an inherent connection between all of the items on the list beyond that they can be phrased similarly. The follow-up question is often what that connection is.

Do any Mefarshim comment on this pattern and give either of the above interpretations (or another one)?

Improve this question
5
  • Rambam does it almost always – kouty Feb 19 '19 at 3:44
  • 1
    I've found that in most cases, some commentary explains why the Mishna mentions apparently "off topic" items. In particular, I think R. Bartenura or R Yonah explains the various pairs in M. Megillah. My mani point is that you need to check each situation. I don't believe there's a general rule as to why the Mishnah does this. It could be nothing more than this was what a group of people were discussing at the time, like having a "chevrusa" conversation. Something comes to mind that triggers a related thought or question, and someone says. "Write it down, so you don't forget it". – DanF Feb 19 '19 at 15:01
  • nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/12/… – Joel K Feb 19 '19 at 20:54
  • @JoelK Beginnings of an answer? – DonielF Feb 19 '19 at 21:34
  • @DonielF Possibly. I don’t really have time at the moment, so if you (or anyone else) wants to write it up, feel free to do so – Joel K Feb 20 '19 at 4:28
1

It's because the Mishna is Oral Torah, not written Torah. The Mishna preserves the way the Oral Law was learned before it was written down.

For instance, in Shevuot it starts by talking about two oaths that are four and continues with many other things that are two () that are four. You wouldn't write a book this way, but a conversation could easily proceed in such a manner.

Improve this answer
2
  • +1, and to expand on that, sometimes such expressions were stated without even specifying what they refer to, which then the Gemara then needs to explain. An example is in today's Daf Yomi (Shabbos 52b), where a talmid asks R' Eliezer about dinim that he had heard where there's a difference between one type of ring and another, and between one type of needle and another, and in both cases R' Eliezer clarifies that the difference is regarding Hilchos Shabbos but not Hilchos Tum'ah. – Meir Apr 27 '20 at 20:15
  • -1 This doesn’t answer the question as posed, “Do any Mefarshim comment on this pattern and give either of the above interpretations (or another one)?” – DonielF Apr 27 '20 at 20:55
0

The Tosfos Yom Tov (Shekalim 1:3) seems to hold like my first approach, by addressing why that Mishnah doesn’t appear in Gittin.

מפני דרכי שלום. ... ונראה לי דהיינו דרכי שלום שאם לא נחלוק להם כבוד אתו לאנצויי ולפי שאין כאן דרכי שלום אלא א"כ שנקדים מסברא שראוי לחלוק להם כבוד הלכך לא נשנה בפרק ה' דגיטין גבי הנהו דקתני התם דמפני דרכי שלום

And it appears to me that that is “ways of peace,” for if we don’t give them honor, they will come to make arguments. Since there is no “ways of peace” unless we first pose the logic that it’s fitting to accord them honor, therefore it’s not taught in Chapter 5 of Gittin regarding all cases where it’s taught by them that they are because of “ways of peace.”

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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