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:
Chapter 2, The Tosefta as Commentary on an Early Mishnah:
Chapter 3, Rewriting Tosefta's Halakic Paragraphs for Inclusion in the Mishnah:
Chapter 4, Condensing Aggadah:
Chapter 5, Editing for Ease of Memory:
Chapter 6, From Tosefta to Mishnah to Talmud:
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.
insert content here