From the Desert of Gift – 2000

With God’s help

At the beginning of the article "Soul Stealer" in the latest issue of Mamdbar Matana (a summary of David Haneska's lecture), an opinion attributed to the GRA is presented regarding narrow forms of interpretation of mishnayot that appear in the Gemara, such as "Okimetot," "Tebra Mi Shi Shana Kot Non Shana Kot," "Hasuri Mahsara," and the like. I would like to emphasize that I do not intend here to address the rest of the content of the aforementioned article, which also deserves much discussion, but only this point.

As described there, the Gra (in his commentary on Yerushalmi Challah Pa'a 14, and as also cited in the introduction to 'Fa'at Shulchan') explains that the Mishnah was formulated by a Rabbi in a manner that suited the halakha that was accepted by him, and the Amoraim neutered it in the above forms in light of a different tradition or interpretation that was accepted by them for halakha. According to the author, this is how the various constraints in the interpretation of the Mishnahs were created: the constraints originate from jurisprudential rather than interpretive motives. The constraints of mahsara, or ta'bara, are Amoraic corrections to the language of the Mishnah so that it would fit the halakha that was accepted by them. In what follows, I will attempt to summarize what the Amoraim have to say about this picture. indeed It is possible that the intention of the above was similar to the proposal I will present here. If this is indeed the case, then there is no objection here, but clarification is needed for the sake of argument.

The seemingly contradictory statements are a mistake. The fundamental question is what would the Amora do in a situation where he could not make Hasuri Mahsara regarding the Mishnah. Would he then abandon the accepted halakha in his hands?[1] If he were to abandon the halacha he has in such a case, then it is clear that in his opinion the Hasuri Mahsara is the true Mishnah, and it is consistent with the halacha he has. On the other hand, if in any case he were to stick to the halacha he has, it is not clear why he should neuter the language of the Mishnah, in a way that he himself does not believe in, just so that it fits the halacha that is accepted in his hands. What is the point of wasting his time doing so, especially when it is not really necessary (since he would stick to the halacha he has even without it)? Does he intend to convince someone (falsely) that the foundation of his words is in the Mishnah? Even if so, it seems to me that he is not successful in doing so. Anyone who tries to do so is suspected not only of nullifying the Torah and of intellectual dishonesty, but even of stupidity. I see no point in emasculating Rabbi's mishnahs, and even more so in such an unconvincing manner, especially when instead one could simply say (the truth) that they rule not according to this mishnah but according to another Tana, and explain why they rule in this way (in tradition or in interpretation).

Another way to present the difficulty is as follows: The above description provides an explanation of the textual sequence of the Mishnah, but it does not provide an explanation of the essence. There is a 'historical' description here of how the 'exclusion' or 'creation' evolved in the Mishnah, but it has not yet raised the question of how the 'exclusion' or 'creation' constitutes an appropriate interpretation (at least according to that Amora) of the language of the Mishnah, and why the Amora would do such a thing. What place does the Amoraim's interpretation have in the Mishnah, if it is truly not included in it, and it is certainly not what is intended by it. If indeed this 'exclusion' interpretation does not enter the Mishnah, even in the opinion of the one who offers it, why should we have a description of one historical sequence or another? Often, Talmudic scholars are content with historical reasoning for difficulties in the essence, and this is neither appropriate nor appropriate for them.

In particular, it is difficult to say that the above understanding is in accordance with the Gra's method, since it is known that he was precise in the language of the Mishnah, and wrote that it contains ways of explaining and expounding, as in the Bible.[2]

Therefore, it seems to me that the language of our rabbi the Gra and his disciples should be examined carefully and whether this is indeed their intention. There are three possible conclusions to such an investigation: 1. If it turns out that this is indeed the case, then I need a great investigation, and I will not do anything (interpretative) based on this reasoning. 2. If it turns out that this is not necessary in the intention of the Gra's words, then it is clear that it should not be understood in this way. 3. And if it turns out that it is clear (positively) that the Gra's intention is not so, then it is a mistake. Later, I will try to show that it is not necessary to understand this in the Gra, and in any case, this is enough to reject the proposed understanding, since the reasonable interpretation is 'held', and the evidence is inferred from it. In addition, I will also try to show that it is clear (positively) that this is not the Gra's intention.

For this purpose, one should carefully review the words of the Gra cited in the above-mentioned sources (in addition, I was informed on behalf of the Neshka that there is also such a reference in the book 'Rav Pe'alim' by his son, Rabbi Avraham, which is not currently in my possession).

The Gra's direct reference is only to the 'chasuri mahsara' and 'tabra'. As for the okumitot, the explanation is already known that the okumitot is the simple explanation in the Mishnah, but the Mishnah as a whole states the pure law, and the gemma that makes okumitot only tries to adjust things so that they fit lateral constraints (such as the instructive article of the Neske himself in 'Ha'ain' 1977 regarding the sermon on the readings, p. s.). And in this matter, I accept that the main law of the Mishnah never appears in the okumitot. If so, we must discuss only the two remaining mechanisms ('tabra' and 'chasuri mahsara'). In the introduction to 'Fa'at Shulchan'an, the Gra refers to the 'chasuri mahsara' and says:

And he would know that all the Ḥasuri from the Talmud, in his methods, are not lacking at all in the order that our holy Rabbi arranged, and there is no way that he is lacking anything. Only the Rabbis, may God have mercy on them, have a complete understanding of the Ḥasuri from the Ḥasuri and the Ḥasuri. And he would demand according to "Ḥamukhi yirikhich" R. R. R., may God have mercy on them

Apparently, the Gra's words here do indeed mean as described above. It is true that there is room to say in the Gra's opinion in two ways:

• The text of the Mishnah is an ancient text, which the Rabbi adopted according to his own method.[3] The same text itself is found to be suitable for the views of the Amoraim and is interpreted differently with the help of the Hasuri of Hasra. According to this proposal, Rabbi is not the one who ordered the text but only the one who conveyed the text, and therefore one can disagree with him about the intention of the text.
• Even if it is said that Rabbi himself formulated the Mishnah, 13 in a different way. In my article on halakhic hermeneutics[4] I argued that the content conveyed in the Toshbap tradition, to which future generations are committed, is the text, and not the author's intention.[5] Therefore, even if we say that Rabbi was the compiler of the Mishnah, I believe we are bound by the meaning of the text itself and not by the intention of Rabbi (see 3rd Bk. 111a, where Rava interprets the Mishnah according to a baraita against the words of Rabbi the compiler himself, and in Rashi there 20: "And we did not consider it as if Rabbi were a Rabbi of Bariya." See also 'Sridei Ash' 4th in his article 'The Talmudic Interpretation of the Mishnah', which explains this by considering the text of the Mishnah itself). If so, an Amora is entitled to interpret the text of the Mishnah differently from Rabbi.[6]

And if you say, according to these two explanations, what reason did these Amoraim find to interpret the Mishnah as being so narrow, while seemingly the plainness of the matter is taught by a Rabbi? It is clear that the apparently narrow manner in the Mishnah is not so in the eyes of the Amoraim. One can think of at least two reasons for this:

1. Perhaps even if they agree that this is a narrow interpretation, I would rather have them narrow it down than understand it (as the well-known Rabbi, and as is known from the Proverbs),[7] And yet, this is the true way of interpreting the mishna in question (at least according to their understanding of the explanation that is similar to the halakhic version). As is known, 'Pesht' in the mishna is the reasonable (and not necessarily literal) way to read it.[8]

According to us here, wherever the Rishonim or Aharonim wrote that the sages distorted/neutered the plain meaning of the Mishnah (see, for example, the Netziv Sha'ilta 128 SA), their intention was to distort the literal plain meaning in order to arrive at the reasonable plain meaning, exactly as is understood here in the words of the Gra.

2. Another Yalpa says that the absence of mahsara is not really pressing in their eyes for some reason. This reason can be specific to each particular mishna, or it is a general understanding that the mishnais are essentially abbreviations (although this is somewhat more pressing in the absence of mahsara of the type that omits significant content in the mishna. And in the absence of mahsara of the type that adds detail to an abbreviated mishna, even if it is in space). And see also this in the commentary of Nedarim 23b, which explains 'absence of mahsara' in the mishna with the following words: 'Tana ka matsim la stumi'. And see in the book 'Tiknat Hashabin' by R. Tzadok (p. 160), who expanded this to a general, fundamental principle in the interpretation of the mishna, as we say here.

What emerges from our words here in all the explanations: The 'urging' Amoraim are not just performing a formal trick, but rather claiming that, according to their understanding, this is indeed the true and original intention of this text..

Up to this point I have suggested a possibility that only allows us not to say as the understanding proposed in the Gra. It seems to me that it is possible to say that this is also the reasonable understanding in the Gra, and if not evidence, then a semblance of evidence for the words found in the wording of the above-mentioned 'Fath Shulchan'. He concludes with admiration (by the Gra himself) for the greatness of the ways of Toshvaf that are found in the hidden. If indeed his intention is as suggested by the Haneska, what great thing did our Rabbi the Gra find here? Apparently, there is nothing here to be admired about. The Amoraic interpretation does not fit the wording, and is not found in it even in the contradictory. These ways of interpretation are nothing more than a formal act (for which I also do not know the purpose, and as above). What greatness did the Gra find here in the ways of Toshvaf?

Although, according to us, here is the conclusion of the words of the Gra, since according to them, his main argument is that in the Mishnah, the words do indeed enter Appropriately The two commentaries (of Rabbi and the Amoraim). The greatness of the Toshabeh is that two different commentaries fit the same Mishnai text.[9]

In fact, the things are explained in the introduction of the Grach of Volozin, according to the Grach to the Sefer Datzni'ota, "And we have seen that the Hidayah" wrote several times that there is nothing in the Gemara and Baraitot that does not originate from the Mishnah (of Rabbi). For example:

And so will every generation and its sages see, and so will its companions make compilations. Until the Aruch Shulchan, all the details and details of the laws for eating for seven. Indeed, all their holy words are the pure semolina that they dug like springs flowing from their source in the two Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. And the source of all the sources is Ramizin.[10] In the middle of the night.

And a name that extends and repeats this. If so, it is clear that everything in the Gemara arises from the Mishnah (and perhaps sometimes not from the Mishnah on the subject under discussion, and so on).

In the Jerusalem commentary, the Gra refers to 'Tabra'. There is also an appellation as I suggested above, and there the words are more eloquent, since the basic problem is less substantial. In the case of 'Tabra', nothing is missing from the Mishnah's text, but there is only a practice of formulation that may have been acceptable to them. If we indeed accept that the purpose of the Mishnah's text is abbreviation, and the Amoraim were aware that sometimes abbreviation is achieved by linking two contradictory conditional positions, then there is no significant difficulty in saying 'Tabra' (and as I believe the author of 'Sridei Esh' interpreted there). In the context of the issue of the aforementioned Yerushalmi Challah, I found no reason to go into detail, and I will only say that a Rabbi who believes (according to Yerushalmi, in the opposite version of the Babylonian version) 'Ila' Gaver,' will interpret the Mishnah as it is, and Shmuel who believes 'Ta'a Gaver,' will interpret it in the manner of 'Tabra'. As stated above, in cases such as this, the pressure in the Amoraic interpretation is not so great, and our previous explanations themselves can be stated more broadly.

There is more to be said about this matter, and God willing, I have come here only to arouse the hearts of those who are interested.

Summary:

1. According to the suggestion of the Neske, the Amoraic ways of suppressing the Mishnah in its interpretation are a deliberate Amoraic castration, which does not constitute an appropriate interpretation of the Mishnah even according to the method of the Umrah.
2. My conclusion is that the three above-mentioned types of Amoraic Duchuk in the interpretation of the Mishnah a priori cannot be understood as the neutering of the Mishnah in its entirety, and in particular, this cannot be said of the Gra's Shi'a. In my opinion, the 'duchuk' interpretations constitute an appropriate interpretation of the Mishnah text itself (at least in the eyes of their interpreters). In addition to the interpretation of the Mishnah, there is a Dush Mishnah (and not as a borrowed term, but a real Dush).
3. I have shown that at least we are not obliged to say otherwise in the Gra's intention, and as I have already noted, even if we are not obliged to do so, it is clear, due to the fundamental difficulties that exist in the proposed understanding, that we must reject it.
4. Beyond that, I believe I have shown that it is even reasonable to understand the Gra's words as I suggested. This emerges from the precise language of the aforementioned 'Fa'at Shulchan', and from the words of the Gra's students in note 9 here, who cite in his name that the Mishnah has ways of preaching and expounding, and from the words of the Gra's son Volozin in his introduction to the Sefer DeTzni'ota, which were cited above.
5. And I honestly don't know if there is an objection here to the words of the messenger, or a mere clarification.

[1] It is clear that if it is said that it is always possible to make khusuri mahsara and fundamentally change the mishna, then khusuri mahsara has no meaning at all.

[2] See, for example, Landau's book "The Pious Gaon of Vilna," page 128 and the notes there, as well as note no. 9 below. Even with regard to the regulations of the sages, the words of the Gra are known to have additional layers of meaning, and if so, it is difficult to say that the wording in the Mishnayot (according to the "pressing" Amoraim) is vague and inaccurate.

[3] The issue of time and identifying the order of the Mishna text has been widely discussed among scholars, see, for example, the article by Shirei Ash, Chd., entitled "Researching the Mishna," but for our purposes I would like to suggest this only with regard to the "compressed Mishna."

[4] See 'Akademut', issue 10 of the current issue, and in the previous 'Mamdbar Matana'.

[5] By the way, some of the evidence I presented was based on exactly the type of argument presented here.

[6] See the aforementioned 'Shiridei Ash', which explained in a similar way, and his words should be discussed and agreed upon. And Radetz Hoffman brought from this Gemara evidence for the words of the Gra.

[7] And see on this matter also Ezra Cohen's article 'The Pressure of the Tongue and the Pressure of the Matter', in 'Ma'veni Hamakom' (Beit El Yeshiva), volume 11, 5776, page 118.

[8] See on this subject the articles of Rabbi Whitman and Rabbi Breuer in Ha-Ma'in 5738. There, Rabbi Whitman also argues this against the neshka, except that this time the topic of discussion is the definition of 'Pesht' in relation to the Torah, and not Pesht in the Mishnah as in the topic of Didan.

[9] There is an interesting similarity here, and I wonder if it is coincidental, to the language of the Maimonides in his Shoresh (Shoresh 2), referring to laws that come from midrashim that also have support in tradition. Laws that come from the Midrashim of the Scriptures are important to the Maimonides as laws of the Torah only if they are supported by tradition. The Maimonides says there, "Because of the wisdom of Scripture "It is possible that there may be a hint in it that points to that accepted interpretation or that the straw points to it." Maimonides' intention is to say that the wisdom of the text is that although the plain text is the true interpretation (no reading deviates from its plain text), there is also another interpretation (the sermon) hidden within the text. When two interpretations are hidden in the same text, this is the wisdom (or greatness) of the text, and elsewhere I have elaborated on these words of his.

I found again in the Aderet Eliyahu of the Hira in the book of Mishpatim and Zal:

"And we shall approach the door or the mezuzah" (Exodus 21:6) – it is easy to read that the mezuzah is also kosher, but the halakha overrides the Bible, and so it is in most of this parasha, and also in several parashahis in the Torah, And they are among the greatness of our Torah, sevenfold. That it went to Moses from Sinai, and it turns into a sealing material. So.

And that is not the case. We see that the greatness or wisdom of the Toshab"k or the Toshab"p is an expression that reflects the presence of parallel levels of interpretation in the same text, both of which are appropriate to it and are contained in it.

It has been found that the Amoraic methods of exegesis in the interpretation of the Mishnah are a kind of sermons of the Mishnah. According to the commentary of the Gra, there are also 'qualities that the Mishnah is required to have' in the Toshevap. A rabbi in the book 'Giv'ei Giv'i El-Kesef', 14:2 (Shkelov 1974): "And I heard from the rabbi [= the Gra]...that the Mishnah is required to be explained in plain language and in sermons" (see Bezalel Landau, 'The Pious Gaon of Vilna', p. 111, note 16). And so did some of his students, such as Rabbi Menashe of Ilya in his book 'Be'inat Mikra' (see ibid., and in Rabbi Kalman Kahana's book 'Haqqar Ve'ayon', p. 112, Tel Aviv, 1979). It is interesting that the 'Shiridei Ash' in his aforementioned articles also calls these methods of exegesis 'sermon interpretation' of the Mishnah.

[10] Although the expression is that the things are alluded to in the Mishnah, his intention is clearly that they originate there. See also Ramban in his interpretations of the root 3 of Maimonides, who expanded on the matter of allusions, which in many places is as written in the commentary on the Torah. Although even without this, in the context of the discussion it is clear that this is the intention of the Grach.