Q&A: Ukimtas and "Something Is Missing Here"
Ukimtas and "Something Is Missing Here"
Question
Hello Rabbi, I saw the Rabbi's deep explanation in explaining ukimtas. But what does the Rabbi think about "something is missing here"? It's hard to say that this is a tradition, because there are cases where only one amora proceeds that way, while another amora disagrees and interprets the Mishnah without saying "something is missing here."
Answer
It's quite clear that this is not a tradition. Indeed, "something is missing here" is harder to explain than ukimtas. But there are places where it can be explained as a textual correction whose purpose is only to clarify. There are more difficult cases. Many times, "something is missing here" arises from a contradiction between the first clause and the latter clause (which imply opposite conclusions regarding the intermediate case), and in such a situation, "something is missing here" is only a way of saying how the text should be read correctly, and not really a correction of the wording. But I don't have a general solution for this; each case has to be dealt with on its own merits.
Discussion on Answer
Whether it's deep or not, I don't know. See here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%AA/
Why is it so obvious that this is not a tradition?
Because it isn't plausible to write in a crooked way and then pass down a tradition about how to read it correctly. Also, you can see in the Talmudic passages that the Talmud arrives at an ukimta because of difficulties, not because of a tradition that was transmitted to it.
Where can the deep explanation about ukimtas be found?