[Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna

[Zvi Lampel]

*Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400*
*From: Looking ForInspiration <loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com
<loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com>>*
*To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>*
*Subject: *

*Hello!*

*This is my first post to aishdas.org <http://aishdas.org>, so forgive me
and direct me **if needed.*

*Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when
there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it
holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean
that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?*

*I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna
Larambam, **Klallei
Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct
me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what
transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much
appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question
above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he
stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama?
Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna
from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?*

*Thank you in advance.*

*Mordechai*


This should be helpful:

>From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition,
Teshuva 140):

...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without
attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ‎but] with other
sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those
decisions, ‎but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from
the mouths of others, and the ‎others from still others, back to Moshe
Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, “Rebbi
‎endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them
anonymously; but he ‎endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and
presented them anonymously.".This ‎openly states that whatever Rebbi
endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ‎practice to follow,
he stated without associating anyone’s name with it. And in so many places
‎the Gemora says, “This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual’s
opinion [and not the ‎majority’s]”--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of
any of them [--neither that of the ‎individual whom the halacha followed,
nor that of the majority].
‎
‎[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but
still debatable, and ‎about which he did not lean one way or the other, did
he state both opinions in the names of ‎their proponents (“R. So-and-so
says this, and R. So-and-so says that”) mentioning the names ‎of those
sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but
[still] not of ‎their mentors or mentors’-mentors' names. For at the time,
many people still followed one ‎opinion, and many still followed the
opposing one.

Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ‎explicitly why, in some of the
mishnas, he attached names:‎
And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them
[by ‎adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided
differently]?—to ‎teach the following generations....‎ ‎ And why do we
mention the dissenting words of ‎individuals along with those of the
majority...??—So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ‎individual’s
opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we
‎mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority
only to negate ‎them?—So that if a person reports receiving a teaching
other than that which was ‎accepted by the majority....”‎

...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times
‎that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when
some obtained the ‎law according to one sage’s opinion, and some according
to another sage’s opinion.

End of quote from Teshuva.

Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author
and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One
explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the
rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an
opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice
versa.

However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with
him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a
formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow
Rebbi's decision.

Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the
Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how
it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz

Zvi Lampel

[image: Mailtrack]
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality6&>
Sender
notified by
Mailtrack
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality6&>
10/15/18,
9:02:19 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181015/c8be2127/attachment-0001.htm>