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

Re: external scholarly help

[brotherinlaw]

2 and 3 are (a) utterly foreign to the tradition and (b) have nothing to do with the topic considered in the Mishna, which is the relative amount of the scriptural basis for different groups of commandments, NOT the relative importance of those groups. Jaffee, too, is within the scriptural basis theme and not the "importance" theme. Your identification of his position with 2 is thus incorrect. E.g.: "In any event, the real point comes at the end: 8. Abba Yose b. Hanan says: these eight topics of Torah are the essence of the halakot (/M. Hag.1:8.4)."

However, 1 is not necessarily true. The Mishna's statement may mean "These [the last group of laws] constitute the bulk of the corpus of Pentateuch laws." This differs from my uneducated guess, perhaps favorably, but not essentially. In any event, a conjecture of this kind is largely consistent with both your references. The implication is that studying this last group of laws can be done on the basis of the Pentateuch itself. (Your 1st reference, though it quotes the Gemara correction (?) of the Mishna, implicitly accepts this or a similar conjecture: "for a doubt in Hilchos Ohalos, he should look in the Mishnah, and for a doubt in Hilchos Nega'im, he should look in the Torah".)

Re: external scholarly help

[nedosionist]

The implication is that studying this last group of laws can be done on the basis of the Pentateuch itself.
"for a doubt in Hilchos Ohalos, he should look in the Mishnah, and for a doubt in Hilchos Nega'im, he should look in the Torah".
So, would you be willing to accept this thesis as a shared working hypothesis, as a move forward? :)

Re: external scholarly help

[brotherinlaw]

This is not a thesis, still less a hypothesis, but a statement of the fact. I doubt a move forward can be achieved so cheaply:\

Re: external scholarly help

[nedosionist]

If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs search the Bible, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning tent-covering search the Mishnah.
1. Would you say that this is how it's done nowadays? Does Tradition actually keep following this fact/guidance?
2. Where does the authority of Mishna seemingly independent from the Scripture comes from?
3. Notice that your own phrasing that I cited just above is consistent with Soncino, and Ok; but daf-yomi makes an important (and improper) typical pseudo-synonymic substitution.
4. Does the Mishna as written equates these two (re: 2-3 here)?

5. R. Papa said: It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws, tent-covering has scant Scriptural basis and many laws.
Based on this phrase, and Mishna, to which groups of laws (1-3) in the Mishna you'd allocate respectfully leprosy-signs and tent-covering?

One spoon of sugar little fact goes a long, long way. :) That's just for starters.