Wordtrade.com
Judaism
Review Essays of Academic, Professional & Technical Books in the Humanities & Sciences
Mishnah
Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (Texts & Studies in Ancient Judaism)
Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts by Judith Hauptman (Texts & Studies in Ancient Judaism: Paul Mohr Verlag) An important historical reworking of the development of the tradition.
There are two main arguments to this volume. The first is
that not only are individual passages of the Mishnah based on
individual, parallel passages of the Tosefta, but even entire
chapters of the Mishnah are based on entire chapters of the Tosefta.
If one were to line up all the Tosefta paragraphs that give rise to
Mishnah paragraphs, they would join together to form a vast
network. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that there
existed an ordered collection of tannaitic passages that preceded
the Mishnah and served as one of its sources. That collection was
the Tosefta.
The problem with this understanding of the relationship of
the Mishnah and the Tosefta is that many statements in the Tosefta
quote the Mishnah and comment on it, thus offering strong evidence
that the Tosefta is later, not earlier, than the Mishnah. I
therefore propose, as the second main argument of this volume, that
not only is the Tosefta a basis of our Mishnah, it is also a
commentary on some other, earlier Mishnah or ur-Mishnah. The Tosefta
explains many of the ur-Mishnah's phrases, develops further its
halakah, and adds related, albeit autonomous aggadah. The Tosefta's
order, which diverges from that of our Mishnah, follows the order
of the ur-Mishnah.
The ur-Mishnah and the Tosefta, as text and commentary,
evolved in tandem over the years, continually and gradually
assimilating new material. In about 200-220 C.E., a redactor came
along who, basing himself on both the Tosefta and the ur-Mishnah,
and on other material too, produced his own collection, the Mishnah.
This is, thus, a new model of the inter-relationship
Seeing the Tosefta as a source of the Mishnah solves the
problem of how there could be so many statements of tannaim who
preceded the Mishnah in a collection that follows the Mishnah. The
standard answer is that the Tosefta contains much old material but
that the collection itself is new, postmishnaic. The problem with
this answer is that it does not account for how the old materials,
which did not form an ordered collection, were transmitted from
generation to generation. That they floated as "bits and pieces"
does not satisfy. How could thousands of individual traditions
circulate independently of each other for so many years? It is far
simpler, and hence more likely, according to the logic of Occam's
razor, to say that these old materials, too, were arranged in a
collection, i.e., a Tosefta, that accompanied the early Mishnah and
preceded our Mishnah.
Another benefit of this new model is that it highlights the
role of the redactor. The old model, which saw the Mishnah as the
oldest extant tannaitic collection, did not allow for assessing his
contribution. One could not know what he was attempting to
accomplish vis-a-vis an earlier collection. But if we approach these
texts from the perspective that the Tosefta predates the Mishnah, it
becomes possible to understand, appraise, and appreciate his role.
We can now read the Mishnah and see how the redactor
utilizes his Tosefta sources – which stances he chooses to overlook,
which to endorse, and which to modify. Can we determine the
editorial program of the redactor of Mishnah and distinguish it from
that of previous editor(s)? Only in a limited way. Each text
analysis gives rise to conclusions specific to that set of texts.
The sample is too small to permit generalization. Even so, I can
say, on the basis of studies conducted so far, that the redactor had
certain goals – theological, social, economic, and even, in a few
instances, "feminist" – that he sought to accomplish. He did not
reformulate earlier material only to produce a pithy code but also
to implement ideas of his own. Many more studies of rabbinic texts,
in as broad a context as possible, need to be carried out to grasp
the redactor's objectives more fully and precisely.'
This book provides a strategy for enriched reading. There
is no need to wait until the entire corpus is reviewed before
putting this model into the public domain. In a sense, we all become
co-investigators as we read Mishnah and Tosefta from this
perspective and discover new interpretations of ancient texts. In
addition to being of use to rabbinics researchers, who are always
chasing the elusive peshat, the plain-sense meaning of the words,
this reading strategy should also benefit historians. If they, too,
see the Tosefta as earlier than the Mishnah, they stand on the brink
of reassessing the history of Jewish religion and culture.
This book is not, and does not purport to be, a systematic
study of, or a commentary on, the Mishnah and the Tosefta. The
materials analyzed herein were chosen for how well they illustrate a
point. It is not clear that a systematic study of a tractate or
even an order would yield conclusive proof that the Tosefta precedes
the Mishnah.' One could always suggest that the materials be read
and interpreted in some other way. At the same time, there exists no
contradictory evidence, i.e., there are no texts that prove that the
Tosefta, as a collection, followed the Mishnah.
As for the Tosefta, one notices almost immediately that it
contains many radical disjunctures. It thus gives the impression
that it is not a unitary document but a haphazard assemblage of
texts. If it is not a coherent work, then one cannot draw
conclusions about its evolution over time. But that concept of the
Tosefta is wrong. It does have clear order. Its frequent
discontinuities are a function of its nature: the Tosefta comments
on an ur-Mishnah. For that reason, it jumps from topic to topic
without its audience being able to follow what is being said unless
the hearer has the ur-Mishnah "open" to the right place in his or
her head. The same might be said for the collections of midrash
halakah and the Aramaic targums on the Torah. They can only be
understood in conjunction with the text upon which they comment.
The Tosefta thus "reads" like the commentary that it is.
Seeing the Tosefta as older than the Mishnah reveals a
number of the ways in which the redactor of Mishnah shaped the
materials at his disposal. The first is that he felt free to alter
his sources. The ur-Mishnah and the Tosefta seem to have been
transmitted in a more or less fixed form from one generation to the
next. But in producing a new work, the redactor of Mishnah permits
himself to rewrite earlier material extensively.
A second practice of his is to make only an oblique
reference to an aggadic narrative or ethical teaching and leave it
to the hearer to find out the story in full. To a certain extent,
this editorial practice undermines the conclusion that the Mishnah
emerged later than the Tosefta and sought to be an independent
statement of Jewish law and practice. But this is not so. The
redactor of Mishnah could assume, when it came to aggadah, that his
work did not have to contain all the necessary information. By just
hinting at the story, the redactor could push a reader to go
elsewhere to obtain it. By limiting aggadic references to few words
and to a minimum, the redactor of Mishnah could preserve the halakic
tenor of his collection and keep it relatively short. In this way he
deviates from the Tosefta which frequently takes off on a flight of
aggadic fancy.6 The tendency toward compression may also have
implications for the study of the synoptic gospels. Rather than
seeing Matthew's shorter version of the Jesus stories and sayings as
earlier than Mark's and Luke's longer versions, as was standard for
years, it now becomes possible to regard the longer versions of Mark
and Luke as the basis for Matthew's later, shorter version.?
A third editorial practice of the redactor of Mishnah is to
introduce summary statements and mnemonic devices, often in the form
of lists, often preceded by a number, like "there are four bailees"
(M Baba Mezia 7:8; M Shevuot 8:1). The insertion of such numbers and
lists makes it possible for someone committing much material to
memory to recapitulate more easily the substance and the order of
many and diverse items that follow. The comparison of parallel units
of Mishnah and Tosefta shows that the Mishnah has many more summary
lists and paragraphs. It is not true that the Tosefta has none. It
is possible that the Tosefta's practice of occasionally presenting
such lists and statements led the redactor of Mishnah to adopt it
and develop it further. There is no question that these materials
assist in understanding the Mishnah.
The redactor of Mishnah produced a work that could stand on
its own.8 The Mishnah, for the most part, aside from aggadic
references, can be understood without consulting another source.
Even so, in many places the halakah of the Mishnah needs the
corresponding Tosefta paragraph to elucidate its terms. Is the
Mishnah free-standing? Yes. Does it make better sense when read with
the Tosefta? Also yes. Although the Mishnah is not dependent on the
Tosefta in the same way and to the same extent that the Tosefta is
dependent on the Mishnah, the Mishnah makes better sense when read
with the Tosefta.
Below is a brief list of the new interpretations that
resulted from reading the Mishnah as a response to the Tosefta and
the ur-Mishnah. In most cases it is possible to see why the redactor
altered the materials he was working with.
Chapter 1, Rethinking the Relationship between the Mishnah
and the Tosefta:
- The redactor of Mishnah creates a new view of how to
pray on the road, redefining, in the process, the term
"directing the heart."
- The redactor of Mishnah adds a fourth new year to the
ur-Mishnah's three. He gives new meaning to Rosh Hashanah as a
day of judgment.
Chapter 2, The Tosefta as Commentary on an Early Mishnah:
- The redactor of Mishnah is more liberal than the
Tosefta and the urMishnah in allowing ownership of dogs in
Israel.
- The redactor of Mishnah forces men who become
physically impaired to divorce their wives, whereas the Tosefta
and the ur-Mishnah recommend but do not compel divorce.
- The redactor of Mishnah alters the rules of the unpaid
bailee in Baba Mezia 8 for mnemonic reasons but preserves the
older formulation of the rule elsewhere in the same tractate, in
chapter 3. The Tosefta knows only the older formulation of the
ur-Mishnah.
- The redactor of Mishnah slightly rewrites the rules of
acquiring a wife, a slave, a field, and so on, as presented in
the ur-Mishnah. He significantly reduces the Tosefla's aggadah.
Chapter 3, Rewriting Tosefta's Halakic Paragraphs for
Inclusion in the Mishnah:
- The redactor of Mishnah transforms the late night
study session of laws of Pesah, following the seder meal and
Hallel, into an early evening dialogue between child and father
about the Exodus. In other words, the redactor of Mishnah adds a
haggadah to the seder, something totally absent from the Tosefta.
He also moves the appetizers to early in the evening, infusing
each with symbolic meaning.
- The redactor of Mishnah reduces the level at which
Tooth pays for damages. Rather than full damages, as the Mishnah
prescribes for a muad, the redactor stipulates proportional
assessment.
- The redactor of Mishnah awards women direct payment
for assault. The moneys would not be invested for them in land
with the income accruing to their husbands, in some cases the
very men who assaulted them, but rather be placed in their own
hands, to do with as they pleased.
- The redactor of Mishnah outlaws cooking on a festival
for after the festival, a practice permitted in certain
circumstances by the Tosefta. The redactor of Mishnah rules
stringently with regard to several other details of eruvei
tavshilin.
- The redactor of Mishnah alters a collective memory of
the omer harvesting ceremony, changing it from an occasional
public, dramatic ritual on a Friday night into a yearly one,
performed on any night of the week.
Chapter 4, Condensing Aggadah:
- The redactor of Mishnah tones down and condenses the
Tosefta's fanciful aggadic description of the blessings and
curses at the mountains. He takes a stand, in the process, on
several disputed matters.
- The redactor of Mishnah condenses the lengthy dispute
in the Tosefta about ongoing gratitude for the Exodus to a brief
statement about incorporating reference to the Exodus in the
blessings recited after the Shema at night.
- The redactor of Mishnah expands and interprets the
Tosefta's obscure statement about the eglah arufah.
- The redactor of Mishnah conceals the stories behind
separating men and women at the Bet Hashoevah celebration,
punishing the Bilgah priestly watch, and leaving Niqanor's gates
without a coat of gold. The Tosefta relates these episodes in
detail.
- The redactor of Mishnah obligates the assailant to ask
the victim for a pardon whereas the Tosefta requires the victim
to seek mercy from God for the assailant.
Chapter 5, Editing for Ease of Memory:
- The redactor of Mishnah augments the list of a
husband's responsibilities to his wife to make it comprehensive,
even though these rules are listed elsewhere in the Mishnah.
- The redactor of Mishnah adds a new paragraph to the
beginning of Baba Qamma in order to establish a midrashic basis
for the old, second mishnah, thereby changing its meaning
somewhat. This new paragraph gives an overview of the first
seven chapters of the tractate.
- The redactor of Mishnah interpolates a list of
instances of muadin into a mishnah that defines tam and muad.
This addition gives the reader a "heads up" on the topics to be
discussed in the next chapter.
- The redactor of Mishnah reorganizes the material on
the men who return home from war, adding summary statements to
make the details easier to remember.
- The redactor of Mishnah reorganizes the paragraphs on
rituals that must be recited in Hebrew, adding several more, and
composes a list of all eight to help the reader remember them.
- The redactor of Mishnah creates a list of Hag rituals,
and the number of days each is performed, in order to help the
reader remember all seven. He adds a mishnah about giving Day
Eight its due. He rewrites the Tosefta materials in order to
address the interface of Hag and the Sabbath.
Chapter 6, From Tosefta to Mishnah to Talmud:
- The redactor of Mishnah converts several Tosefta
stories about fathers requiring children to eat on Yom Kippur
into a rule that parents are forbidden to force their children
to fast. The Bavli shifts the focus of the Tosefta baraita from
the requirement to feed children on Yom Kippur to the
requirement to wash one's hands before feeding children on Yom
Kippur.
- The redactor of Mishnah raises the bar of testimony
based on childhood memory but at the same time expands it to
include several cases involving money that the Tosefta had
excluded. The redactor of Mishnah does not accept the testimony
of women in cases in which the Tosefta does accept it. The Bavli
significantly limits the range of cases in the Tosefta baraita
in which testimony based on childhood memory may be accepted.
These new understandings result once one approaches the
Mishnah from the perspective that the Tosefta and the ur-Mishnah are
its base documents. As studies of this sort proliferate, it will
become possible to grasp better the meaning and message of the
Mishnah and the Tosefta and the nature of their interrelationship.
Just as separating the anonymous voice of the gemara (the stama
degemara) from the amoraic and tannaitic passages continues to give
rise to new insight into the talmudic pericope, so too, this model
of the interrelationship of these two tannaitic works will yield
more accurate comprehension of both. I place before the reader a
stratagem for reading the Mishnah, the cornerstone of rabbinic
Judaism, and its companion volume, the Tosefta, in ways that accord
with their evolution as collections. The possibilities for new
interpretations are vast.
Special Contents
insert content here