Organization
Mishnayos are the basis for Torah Sheball Peh and yet they are actually very disorganised and illogical. Comparison of the Mishna to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah presents a stark contrast between the Rambam's logical method of presenting a topic and the Mishna's lack of logical order and disorganisation. The first tractate of Mishna is Berachos which in and of itself is puzzling. You would think that the first tractate would provide some background/introduction like the first Mishna in Avos and as the Rambam does with Sefer Hamada. However, the first tractate Berachos starts off with the halachos of Krias Shema. Lets contrast the Rambam to the Mishna. Rambam's Hilkhot Keriyat Shema opens by explaining the scriptural mitzva of a morning and evening recitation, continuing with the exact content of the three parshiyot and with the berakhot associated with keriyat shema, and then explaining what the exact times for the recitation are. The Mishna opens with: "From when do we recite shema in the evenings?" A seemingly random question when we haven't even established that there is a mitzva of Krias Shema in the evening. Only in mishna 3 do we encounter the scriptural basis for the mitzva and only in 2:2 are we told which parshiyot to recite. The Gemara's question (2a) "Where was the Tanna located that he said: 'From when'" is merely the tip of the iceberg and doesn't address the fundamental question of logical ordering. The entire presentation of shema in chapters 1-2 seems to be arranged in haphazard fashion.Lets take Maseches Shabbos as another example. You would think that it would start with a general introduction to the idea of Melacha and then proceed from there. Instead it starts with the laws governing hotza'a and hakhnasa (1:1), again without even establishing the prohibition. The Mishna then shifts to laws related to actions performed on 'erev shabbat which result in melakhot continuing into Shabbat (1:3-4:2), interrupting from time to time to bring tangentially related topics (1:2, end of 1;3, 1:4, part of 2:3, part of 3:6). In chapters 5-11 the Mishna returns to the laws of hotza'a, interrupting them in 7:1-2 to finally explain the most fundamental principle of the laws of Shabbat, the 39 avos melakha, and in 9:1-4 to bring an associative sequence of assorted principles derived midrashically from scripture. From chapter 12 the Mishna begins to discuss several of the 39 melakhot in no discernible order - and so forth till the end of the masekhet.
The Gemara continues with this approach, partly because it is based on the mishnayos, and amplifies it. One of my Rebbeim used to say you can't pasken a shaila in hilkchosf shabbos unless you know all of Shas because if you don't, there will be some obscure Gemara (in Zevachim, Erchin, etc.) which you don't know which changes the whole view of the sugya. He said this with pride, however, it really speaks to the complete disorganisation of Torah Sheball Peh.
Until now, we spoke about the halachic portion which is at least semi organised. Maseches Shabbos does contain most of hilchos Shabbos etc. When it comes to the hashkafic portion there is no order whatsoever. For example, if you want to understand the parameters of Hashgacha Pratis, where would you look in the Gemara? The answer is all over. There are statements relating to this scattered all over shas (Bava Basra 144b, Moed Katan 14b, Avoda Zara 54b, Shabbos 129a, etc.).
Explanations of Mishnayos
The Gemara more often then not, explains Mishnayes in a way that completely and utterly changes the meaning of the Mishna. The Gemara will say because of a question, הכא במאי עסקינן, the Mishna is talking about some strange corner case and not the straightforward case that we thought. Lately, every time I come across an explanation like this I groan to myself and think really??? Is this really what the Mishna meant? Another very prevalent explanation found in the Gemara is חיסורא מחסרא והכי קתני. The Mishna is missing words which the Gemara proceeds to add which completely change the meaning of etc Mishna. For more about this see this post.
The שרידי אש in both a teshuva and a published letter says that R' Chaim's explanations of the Rambam are not historically correct. He writes that it is clear that the Rambam's derech was not R' Chaim's. All you have to do is look at the Teshuvos Harambam where he deals with some of the issues/contradictions. The Rambam never gives any lomdus to explain his psak, rather he gives what we would call Baal Habatish answers. He had a different girsa in the Gemara, their copy of the Mishne Torah was wrong, he made a mistake, etc. Not once does he employ anything close to Brisker lomdus. I get the same feeling when I learn Mishna and Gemara, the Gemara's explanations of the Mishnayos are not what the Tannaim really meant, and the Rishonim's understanding of the Gemara is not what the Amoraim meant, and last but not least, the Acharonim's understanding of all both above is certainly not what they meant.
Summary
We find that Torah Shebaal Peh (Mishna and Gemara) is disorganised and not very logical. If this is all from heaven then woe is to us.
More to come on this topic ...
It is disorganized because it was not made like a modern book. It is a compilation. It was an evolving document.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but don't tell that to a Charedi. I used to love the Brisker derech in learning, but now I realize that it's a fraud, that it's building castles on foundations of sand. There is no single underlying system of halacha, its a hodgepodge of cases that contradict each other.
Delete