Greetings. What does it mean in Niddah 13b that R. Yossi ben Chanina says the "blind" is not in the mishnah? What is the implication of such a statement, and how often is it found that that someone in the gemara questions the text of the mishnah?
Thanks,
David Goldman
1) The phrase "Einah Mishnah"; "it is not a Mishnah"; occurs quite a number of times in the Gemara. However sometimes (see Kesubos 81b) it means that a Braisa is not reliable. Our Gemara says a bigger chidush; that the Mishnah itself is occasionally not reliable [I have not yet found another example, where an Amora uses the phrase "Einah Mishnah" to mean that a Mishnah is not reliable ].
2) We also find (see Beitzah 13b) the term "Beis Shamai in the place of Beis Hillel is 'Eina Mishnah' ". This is a way of saying that we do not rule like Beis Shamai because we do not rely on their opinion against Beis Hillel. This would fit in with our Gemara, that even though the blind woman is mentioned in the Mishnah, we do not pasken like the Mishnah. I found that the sefer Beis Aharon, By Rav Aharon Magid, has a long entry about "Einah Mishnah" and in volume 6 page 128, #12, he cites our Gemara and writes that the intention of R. Yosi ben Chanina is that the Mishnah about the blind woman is not reliable.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
I should just add that it seems to me that the Gemara is not questioning the text of the Mishnah. The Gemara knows that the text of the Mishnah includes "blind" but the Gemara disagrees with this Halacha. The check of the blind lady can be effective, as long as she shows it to a sighted person. The Gemara is not questioning the text of the Mishnah; the Gemara is questioning the din of the Mishnah.
Dovid Bloom
Additional reply:
Looking again at the question, I feel I may not have answered how often is the text of the Mishnah questioned?
1) Probably the reason why I have not answered this question is because I understand that the "Einah Mishnah" of Nidah 13b;"it is not a Mishnah"; is not a textual challenge. Rather, the Gemara agrees what the text of the Mishnah is; but the Gemara says that this does not have the authority of the Mishnah, because there is a strong question on it.
2) But let us now look at cases where the Gemara actually changes the text of the Mishnah. Possibly the most spectacular example of this is when the Gemara states "Chisurei Mechsara VeHachi Ketani"; literally "there is something missing in the Mishnah and this is what it should say" [ I saw an estimation that this phrase occurs 104 times in Shas]. Whenever anyone sees for the first time an example of Chisurei Mechsara veHachi Ketani, he is usually astonished. How could the Gemara change seemingly totally the text of the Mishnah?!
3) Rav Yosef Karo (the author of Shulchan Aruch) writes (in Halichos Olam Gate 2 chapter 2 pargraph 14 in Klalei Hagemara):
"It appears to me that the Gemara says this because when they used to learn the Mishnah by heart, sometimes the students forgot some of the words. Rabbi Yehudah Hanosi, when he compiled the Mishnah, did not want to change the text that was familiar to most of the students. This conforms with the rule 'And the Mishnah did not move from its place' ".
(see for instance Chulin 32b. This means that even though there may be a more accurate version of the Mishnah, we nevertheless do not change the original version - DB).
4) There is also a common phrase in the Gemara (in fact it is estimated to appear 106 times) "Hachi Ketani"; "this is how the Mishnah should read". This is also a textual change but I think it usually changes fewer words than a Chisurei Mechsara
Shavua Tov
Dovid Bloom
If this is the case that the inyan in the mishnah is ignored because it's an error, weren't there other manuscripts that didn't have the word "suma"? And if it's an error, why does the word or phrase remain in the mishna itself??
David, this is a very difficult inyan and I am going to have to say some big chidushim, bs'd.
1) We will start off with the Gemara Eruvin 50b (and a few other places in Shas also) which tells us that Rav is a Tana and has the power to disagree with the Mishnah. We learn from this, that even though Rav is never mentioned in the Mishnah, and did live at the beginning of the period of the Amoraim and therefore is not really a Tana, nevertheless, because of his great stature in Torah learning, he has the authority to disagree with the Mishnah sometimes.
2) One of the Rishonim, Rabbi Shimshon of Kinon, the author of Sefer Hakrisus, writes in his sefer (Part 3 Gate 5, first section) that Rabbi Yochanan is also a Tana and has the stature to disagree with the Mishnah. I am aware of the fact that many disagree with Sefer Hakrisus on this matter, and some actually say that there is a scribe's error in the Sefer Hakerisus and he never actually wrote this; nevertheless we do get an idea from this that there are some great scholars close to the time of the Mishnah who have sufficient authority to dispute the Mishnah.
3) The Amora in Nidah 13b who states that Suma is not a Mishnah, is Rabbi Yosi b'Rebbe Chanina. I now refer us to Maseches Temurah end 3a. where we see that R. Yosi bRebbe Chanina disagrees with R. Yochanan. I am not suggesting that R. Yosi b'Rebi Chanina is also a Tana who can disagree with the Mishnah, but I am arguing that, in certain special circumsances, a very great Amora who lived close to the time of the Mishnah (and R' Yosi b'Rabi Chanina meets those credentials) may have the power to say that one word in a Mishnah, does not actually possess the authority of a Mishnah.
4) However, in the middle of writing this, I have seen that Tosfos Nazir 29a DH Kesavar writes in the name of Rabeinu Tam, that there is a Rabbi Yosi beRebbe Chanina who is a Tana. According to this, we will not have difficulty with Nidah 13b, because we can say that it was in fact a Tana who said that our Mishnah is not a Mishnah.
Kol Tuv
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
1) At the end of the above reply I pulled out of the hat a Tosfos in Nazir which proves that there was a Rabbi Yosi beRebbe Chanina who was a Tana. That was an elegant find, but to be honest I do not really feel it solves our problem.
2) What I am worried about, David, is that you could have asked me on Chulin 82a a very similar question that you asked on Nida 13b. Just like Nida 13b says that Suma is not a Mishnah, so Chulin 82a says that Poras Chatas is not a Mishnah, even though Poras Chatos does appear in our Mishnah on 81b.
3) David, clearly I have only just started answering this question, but due to lack of time I want to send off now what I have written so far, and, bs'd, will continue later.
Good Shabbos
Dovid Bloom
Rav Kornfeld,
Please thank Rav Dovid Bloom the next opportunity that presents itself for ameilus, bekius and pilpul with a healthy dose of hachnaah.
In our 530am daf chabura, as opoosed to our nightly daf shiur, we often get frustrated with different girsa changes with the conclusion of "Chesurei Mechasera v'Hachi Katani" and we teitch it as "change the facts".
One of us tried to be melamed zchus it was due to the old method of memorization that was later recorded by hand on paper.
Rav Bloom didnt give up plunging intk the explanation of the question untill he got to the logical historically compatible truth.
Thank you Rav Kornfeld, and Rav Bloom
David
I would refer you to a very interesting (and rather surprising) explanation of Chisurei Mechsara, by the Tiferes Yisrael in Masechet Archin, 4th chapter, 1st Mishnah, in "Boaz".
Good Shabbos
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. I am not sure I understand properly. If the text of the mishna specifies a halacha for a set of people, and the text of the mishna is correct, then how can the halacha not apply to the blind woman who is part of the set of people involved??
And how does this principle of eina mishna work in general especially if the amoraim elucidate the halachas and rulings of the mishnah, they don't contradict or reject them since that is what distinguishes a tanna from an amora.
If this is the case that the inyan in the mishnah is ignored because it's an error, weren't there other manuscripts that didn't have the word "suma"? And if it's an error, why does the word or phrase remain in the mishna itself??
Yet it seems mysterious then why the text of the mishnah was not actually changed in fact when such a strong statement is made by an amora, even if relatively infrequently. Could it be because the redactors of the gemara or the recipients of the statement felt that this was simply the personal opinion or tradition of R. Yossi ben Chanina even if authoritative, and given that he was only an amora his claim (regarding suma in this example) was not strong enough to warrant changing the text of the mishnah itself??
DG
1) My argument is that it is true that, generally speaking, an Amora cannot argue with the Mishnah. However there are certain very special Amoraim who do have the power to argue with the Mishnah. The classic example is Rav. Rashi Chulin 106a writes that Chizkyah can also argue with a Mishnah. R. Yochanan was a pupil of Chizkyah, and R. Yochanan might be nearly on the level that he can argue on a Mishnah. However, our Gemara which states "It is not a Mishnah" is not an example of an Amora arguing with a Mishnah. Rather, the Amora states that a certain detail, that appears in our version of the Mishnah, does not actually possess the authority of the Mishnah. The blind lady in Nidah 13b is similar to the other disabilities mentioned there, but when you think about it carefully you see that there is a subtle difference. If one likes, one could say that the blind lady got into the Mishnah through the back door. Possibly it was a student of Rebbe Yehudah Hanosi that put the suma in, but at any rate R. Yochanan (and therefore also his student Rabbi Yosi beRebbe Chanina) has the authority to take this slight inaccuracy out of the Mishnah. It will not help us to find different manuscripts, because R. Yochanan has the authority to disagree with these manuscripts.
2) The Gemara Chuilin 32b can help us to understand the reason why the text of the Mishnah was not changed. The Gemara states that the Mishnah there is only valid before Rabbi Akiva retracted from a certain position, but nevertheless "Mishnah lo Zaza Mimkoma"; "the Mishnah does not move from its place". We keep the old text of the Mishnah and we rely on the fact that the Gemara has told us it is outdated. The Gemara is the final authority.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Further sources for above suggestions:
1) I found in Chulin 81b-82a what I believe is a sort of sister sugya of the sugya in Nida 13b. There the Gemara states "Poras Chatas Einah Mishnah"; "the Red Cow is not a Mishnah", in a similar way that Nida 13b states "suma Einah Mishnah"; "the blind lady is not a Mishnah".
2) Rashi Chulin 82a DH Einah Mishnah explains "it was not taught in our Mishnah". I understand this to mean 2 things:-
(a) This is not a machlokes. What I mean is that all over Shas we find disputes between Tanaim and Amoraim. The 2 sides argue; each one acknowledges that his opponent has a bona fide opinion but he disagrees with this opinion. "Einah Mishnah" is different. It means that there is no such opinion of authority in the Mishnah. On certain rare occasions, an opinion crept into the Mishnah which should not be there. I suspect there are only a handful of examples where the Gemara declares "Einah Mishnah" about soemthing which appears in the Mishnah itself, not merely in a braisa.
(b) The Gemara is not merely making a textual change. A textual change means that there was some slight confusion about what the words should be, and if one makes a small amendment it fits into place. "Einah Mishnah" is not the same. Rather this means that an entire new case has erroneously found its way into the Mishnah.
3) Now to the question about why the Gemara allowed this mistake to remain in the text of the Mishnah we have.
A few replies ago, in what I titled "Additional reply" in point 3, I cited Rav Yosef Karo in Halichos Olam, who addresses the following question. We find frequently in the Gemara a "Chisurei Mechsara" where the Gemara says there is something missing in the text of the Mishnah. Why then was the old text in the Mishnah not removed? Rav Yosef Karo cited Chulin 32b, that we saw in my previous reply, that "Mishnah Lo Zazah Mimekomah"; "the Mishnah does not move from its place". That was the old way of learning the Mishnah, and we retain it even though we now know that it is not correct. We do not depart from the familiar, traditional, text. We are not concerned that a mistake in the Halacha will result from this, because anyway we do not pasken according to the Mishnah (see Sotah 22a).
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
An interesting find:
1) I noticed an interesting thing. In at least 3 places in Shas, where the Gemara decares "It is not a Mishnah!", the author of this statement is either Rabbi Yochanan or a student of R. Yochanan. The first place is Chulin 82a where Rav Sheman bar Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan that Poras Chatas is not a Mishnah. The second place is Beitzah 12a where the "Tana" (in this context, a person who knew a lot of Mishnayos) said a certain Mishnah in front of R. Yochanan and R. Yochanan replied (top 12b) "say your Mishnah outside; not here; Havara and Bishul is not a Mishnah!". The third place is our Gemara Nidah 13b where Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said "suma is not a Mishnah!". See Sanhedrin 30b where we learn that R. Yosi bar Chanina received Semichah from R. Yochanan. I therefore suggest that R. Yosi knew that suma was not a Mishnah because he had heard this from R. Yochanan.
2) So even though Tosfos Kesubos 8a DH Rav writes that R. Yochanan is an Amora, not a Tana, nevertheless Rashi Yevamos 64b DH Amar Lah writes that R. Yochanan is at the end of the Tanaim, and I argue that even though Tosfos writes that he does not have the authority to disagree with the Mishnah, nevertheless we see that he is able to say that something which appears in our version of the Mishnah, is not worthy of being there.
Dovid Bloom