Question

Hello and blessings,
Regarding the Mishnah at the beginning of the fourth chapter of tractate Pesachim, “We place upon him the stringencies of the place he left and the stringencies of the place he went to” — Abaye interprets it in two opposite ways. Following the case of Rabbi Zeira (Hullin 18b), he explains the Mishnah as dealing with a case where one intends to return, whereas following the case of Rabbah bar bar Hana (Pesachim 51a), he explains the Mishnah as dealing with a case where one does not intend to return. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) saw this as a problem (“How can the Mishnah be made to fit?!”), and even Tosafot, who explained that “it teaches different sides,” saw this as somewhat forced.

I wondered whether, according to your understanding of these contextual readings, there is really a problem here. Abaye does not mean that the Mishnah is speaking specifically about a case where he intends to return / does not intend to return, but rather that the laws stated there come into expression in different situations. Is that a correct implication of what you wrote? And if so, can one infer from this that the medieval authorities (Rishonim) did not understand these contextual readings that way?

Thank you in advance,