Хагига 10: Мишна с плавающей точкой.

[nedosionist]

В развитие предыдущей темы. Точка в этой Мишне (см. текст ниже, после “BUT MANY LAWS.”) - поставлена как в классическом “Казнить нельзя помиловать”; но еще лучше. О нее спотыкаешься, как о камень лежащий посреди дороги, и перечитываешь текст с недоумением. Откуда это здесь?

Comments

[brotherinlaw]

The meaning of the Mishna is unambiguous. Like it or not, it says what it says: the 1st/2nd/3rd group has the least/relatively small/sufficiently large scriptural basis, respectively. This meaning is plainly evident from the Mishna itself and is clearly supported by the Gemara.

The only moot point can be the precise meaning of "ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH". One might suppose an inaccurate translation but my Hebrew is not up to it.

[nedosionist]

Sure, the ordering of the groups is by quantity of scriptural basis. But that part is a descriptive classification scheme; and is not the meaning of the Mishna.

Assuming you came here from my last point, at issue is which of these groups the last clause actually points to.

But how and why would you even consider the precise meaning of "ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH" to be a moot point!?!?

[brotherinlaw]

at issue is which...
I don't see any issue. The text is clear enough.

But how and why would you even consider the precise meaning of "ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH" to be a moot point!?!?
This can qualify for an issue. The characterization sounds fishy, and the Gemara seems confused about it. I would expect something like "these laws are essentially of the Torah", i. e. (unlike with the 1st and 2nd groups) these laws are essentially in the text of the Torah (whereas the others' essence derives from interpretations of the text). But this is a wild guess, not to be defended against the slightest educated objection.

[nedosionist]

I don't see any issue. The text is clear enough.
Oh, the lasting beauty of phantoms! :))

Gemara seems confused about it
What exactly do you mean? M.b, where is the confusion?

I would expect something like ... i. e. (unlike with the 1st and 2nd groups)
Perhaps this could indeed be expected with the plain reading, but do you actually see that?

[brotherinlaw]

One cannot speak of a phantom unless there is at least some evidence that it is a phantom, which I don't see here.
>>Confused:
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 11b
IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH, These are and those are not! - Say, therefore, these and those are essentials of the Torah.
So it looks as though the Amoraim (not just I) sense something fishy here, saying: whatever it is, it is not acceptable. So either the Mishna text is ambiguous, and the Gemara finds it appropriate to reject the more obvious meaning; or the text is corrupt, and the Gemara points to the corruption ("it cannot be that, so read: ..."). (The only third option is that the Gemara simply belies the Mishna, which would be untalmudic).

[nedosionist]

the Mishna text is ambiguous, and the Gemara finds it appropriate to reject the more obvious meaning
Exactly!

These are and those are not!
I quite enjoy the gnomic beauty of it: Gemara communicates this thought about ambiguity using but a pair of juxtaposed 3rd-person pronouns, this clause being very ambiguous by itself. On plain reading it may even look as if they say nothing here at all, just confirming the obvious.

From here: 1) hold on to the more obvious meaning (The text is clear enough.), state it explicitly. 2) Why and how is the text of Mishna ambiguous?, (hint: 3PP, juxtaposition), list alternatives. 3) one of the alternatives was 1, reject it. What are you left with?

BTW, I now think that my analysis in this post can be further improved/revised.

[brotherinlaw]

The situation here is rather standard, I don't see why it should be dramatized. The only - but obviously - questionable segment of the Mishna text is "IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH". Corrupted or infelicitously expressed, it renders the intent (whatever it may be) inadequately, which is clear to the Gemara and to us. Now, this is not a Toranic text, so the standard reasons for corruption may be numerous (a lacuna, an interpolation, a scribal error etc.). Attempts to derive the "true" or "coded" meaning from the context, as if an error or an infelicity of expression cannot be there by definition, seem unproductive and remind поиск потерянной монеты под фонарем, потому что там светлее. And I would not be so sure in this view if it were not so clearly supported by the Gemara. The Gemara sarcastically exclaims: "These are and those are not! [Isn't it ridiculous? We know that all commandments are essentials of the Torah!] Therefore [disregard this]." This explains away the problem in the Mishna, and rightly so, since

[nedosionist]

As always, understanding of Tanakhic pshat and Talmud depends on reader's intent (and his understanding of authors' intent, and context). Clearly there two ways of reading this, as you point in your previous comment. If one looks for meaning, it is there to be read; if one looks for corruption, he'd find little but. If I have two alternatives, and a choice between 1) a meaning that is clear, informative, quite fitting, thought-provoking but a bit hard to discern (and uses available information), or 2) nothing but a corrupted confusion - I take the first anytime. There's no shortage of people who regard much of Talmud as confused incomprehensible gibberish to be explained away.

as if an error or an infelicity of expression cannot be there by definition
This is certainly not my view, see PPP. However it is only by understanding first what they are actually saying we can ever hope to correct their errors.

[brotherinlaw]

I must stress that here I only speak of Mishna text, not Tanakh text. (The reasons for a fundamental difference between the two is a big subject well beyond this discussion.)

The problem (for this conversation) is that I don't accept your paradigmatic dichotomy "1st=meaningful vs. 2nd=meaningless". A corrupted text ("2nd reading") does not mean that it was originally nonsensical. An ambiguity ("1st r.") that was not clear to the Amoraim is not a coded message for the initiated few but a form of corruption.

In either case, it may or may not be possible to recover the original intent (which we may rightfully presume to have been there and to have made sense). My point is that your method of the recovery (moving the real or imaginary ".", etc.) is not legitimate, at least in this case. Why not? Because it does arbitrary violence to the logic of the exposition, on top of the real problem of the text.

[nedosionist]

But this is the dichotomy you made! and now criticize me for using.

I stressed in my last post, that some of these linguistic forms result in inherently ambiguous text. An extra bit of confusion is perhaps because in these two posts I apply two different methods: here it is pshat-reading of Mishna, like you did; and there it is analysis of grammar structures that would neatly apply to this example as well, both Mishna and this section of Gemara.

[brotherinlaw]

...you made! I didn't. It was "your gemara" to "my mishna":-( I didn't equate 2 with nothing but a corrupted confusion etc. etc. (Take a look at any apparatus criticus to any ancient text of value. Compared to that, I employed no new approaches. Just tried to be brief, unsuccessfully.)
I stressed in my last post, that some of these linguistic forms result in inherently ambiguous text. As a general statement this is obviously true. But your examples/applications are IMHO unconvincing. And the lack of convincing examples strips a general statement of any interpretative force. A really appropriate example was PPP: good conjecture, correct methodology and its underlying assumptions. But that had nothing to do with the "ambiguous syntax" methodology (as well as with the "ambiguous words" methodology, I venture to add).

[nedosionist]

I didn't equate 2 with nothing but ...
Therefore [disregard this]
So then, what can we learn from the last clause of the Mishna under your 2nd approach? .. other than ignore it, and revert to the prior understanding.

Thanks for the good words about PPP. :) your examples/applications are IMHO unconvincing I've already addressed this issue. The key word in your phrase is "imho", that is - only your own examples/applications would/should be subjectively convincing. a) Because we're dealing with a religious subject matter. PPP was naturally less controversial as written because I was conveniently and timely provided with a suitable non-religious example. b) Because clarifying applications further would give you as a reader a feel of my drash, instead of your pshat, as intended.

Just do it! (c)

[brotherinlaw]

So then, what can we learn from the last clause of the Mishna under your 2nd approach?
First, I must re-stress that there is no substantial difference between 1 and 2. Such a difference would only be there if 1 meant an intended ambiguity, such as to spook off the amhaarets and to provide the initiated elite with intellectual food. I strongly disbelieve such an Intent for Mishna (in Scripture, there may be intended ambiguities so as to constructively address different valid understandings, as in the Cain story and many others, but we must leave it out here); therefore Mishna ambiguities (1) result from subjective (scribal errors etc.) or objective (language change etc.) factors, like what we call text corruption (2).
Now, what can we learn...? The Tannaim posed the same question for the "rebellious son" commandment, which they nullified from the bench (E. Berkovits, Not in Heaven). Here, I would not go as far as they did but would follow their general idea: the Mishna doubtless meant something important; ponder on this matter (I did,

[nedosionist]

meant an intended ambiguity, such as to spook off the amhaarets and to provide the initiated elite with intellectual food
Yammy! :) I guess that's pretty close, except we may hope against odds that it may still be possible to self-initiate, with the right intent, reliable method and some Help.

A problem that you're trying to imagine to explain away Mishna, with assorted ways of text corruption, may indeed be serious when we're merely guessing at the content of a single copy of a sacred infallible text. But you're postulating a corruption between Tannaim and Amoraim, when Mishna existed in multiple copies, and on this hypothesis it was compiled knowingly with a clear error. Not a typo, but an error going to the core, in claiming that not all laws are equal whereas, of course, everybody knows they are. Why would that be likely? Then Gemara just 1) sarcastically 2) shrugs this off. Would you care to find/cite other places where this happens!?

Interestingly, however, the attitude towards interpreting Mishna might have differed

[brotherinlaw]

I guess that's pretty close, except we may hope against odds that it may still be possible to self-initiate, with the right intent, reliable method and some Help. Well, the point is that the elitist view (in whatever form) is erroneous. This judgment is not IMHO, for it is not mine (though I do agree) but tradition's. It is the judgment of Hillel's school over Shamai's school (see e.g. r. Telushkin's Hillel); then, throughout rabbinical tradition, the amhaarets ignorance was considered a problem to solve, not a fact to accept. Even the elitist Maimonides, even in MN, kept along this line. Of dire necessity, it was not so in Temple Judaism, hence the priestly elite which eventually degenerated into the Sadducees, and hence the Korah story. But even before Hillel, Korah was vindicated, so to say. Btw: as you once showed me, there is a legitimate pshat that Korah did NOT end up in the pit; my drash: it is the hint to the above. No Jews are "more equal." Btw2: as Kugel correctly observes, the core of the mishpatim is noticeably similar to

[nedosionist]

Would you care to find/cite other places ... a textologically valid line of argument ... rather ask professionals
Actually I mumbled this very point, even though it is a valid argument. Restatement: Afaik, Gemara simply does not 1) sarcastically 2) shrugs Mishna off. Now you're right, that the corpus of the text, is huge and therefore I reserve the possibility of unusual etc., so I'd be curious if you or someone were able to show me otherwise. (I implied the first point, and it came across a bit harder.) I didn't mean to lay a discovery burden on you here, since healthy dose of ignorance and humility can be assumed in our discussions. :))

But barring this my first point stands - we can assume this doesn't happen; we could imagine it happening, but there's no evidence for that. Hence, you didn't disparage Mishna, of course, but you've imagined an attitude of Amoraim which would be close, and highly unlikely. ("Double affirmative cannot mean a negation." - "Yeah, right."). Again, I'm ok with such blasphemy here :), but the point is