Q&A: The Mishnah as an Abridged Code of Jewish Law?
The Mishnah as an Abridged Code of Jewish Law?
Question
I spoke with a well-known rabbi here. We got into a discussion about what the Mishnah’s original purpose was. I told him, based on what you wrote in the article about the ukimtot, that the Mishnah was originally meant to democratize things and make learning the halakhot simpler for everyone, so that everyone would know the laws, and not the opposite—to make the laws more complex and more hermetic. In other words, you could say that at first the Mishnah was their abridged Shulchan Arukh. Only afterward were the Talmud and so on born.
And he argued that absolutely not—the Mishnah is just a collection of the teachings of the tannaim of that time, a collection of their statements and teachings.
Then he said that this is why he isn’t impressed by ukimtot. Because the Mishnah was written plainly, and oral explanations accompanied it that explained and expanded on it.
Who do you think is right?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. You present my view and then a dissenting view, and ask me who I think is right?
But that isn’t my view. The Mishnah was not intended to be an abridged code of Jewish law. I don’t know where you saw that in my words. The Mishnah is a collection of halakhic opinions, and its purpose is not necessarily to decide the law or to serve as a law book, but rather to gather traditions. In that, he is right.
But I didn’t understand what this has to do with the question of ukimtot. Even if that was the Mishnah’s purpose, it still isn’t clear why it was written in an illogical and unclear way. Beyond that, it is clear that the oral traditions are not the source of the ukimtot, because otherwise the Talmud should have brought the ukimta directly, not as an answer to difficulties in the Mishnah. These are common answers, and they are plainly unreasonable.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know, but it’s reasonable to assume he didn’t know in advance what would happen.
I understand. More precisely, my question is this:
When Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi wrote the Mishnah, did he write it in such a way that there would later be a Talmud on it—that is, explanations, disputes about it, and so on? Did he write it so that it would serve as a basis for broader discussion, or did he write it simply so that people would know the various views of the tannaim on different issues, and he could not have imagined that because of it a Talmud and commentaries would come into being, etc.?