The Mishna (Bava Metzia 12a) states:
מציאת עבדו ושפחתו העבריים ... הרי אלו שלהן
A Jewish slave who finds a lost object is entitled to keep it
The Gemara on 12b asks from a Baraisa which states that a worker who finds a lost object, the object belongs to the employer. The Gemara asks, if a worker who finds an object must give it to the employer certainly a slave must give it to the owner (as the owner is at least equivalent to an employer). The Gemara gives a number of answers:
- R' Yochanan says that the Mishna is talking about a slave who works with precious stones and therefore the owner doesn't want him to pick up lost objects because the slaves work time is so valuable. Therefore, the slave can keep the lost object and needs to pay the owner for his lost time.
- R' Papa says that the Baraisa is talking about a worker who was hired to pick up lost objects.
WADR, there is no way that the Mishna wrote a general statement like מציאת עבדו ושפחתו העבריים and meant only a slave who works with precious stones and the Baraisa wrote מציאת פועל goes to the employer and meant only a worker who was hired to pick up lost objects.
Did the Amoraim really believe that these answers are what the Tannaim meant? Or did they not care about the historical truth and simply were looking for a logical answer to their questions?
IMHO the Mishnayos are meant to be interpreted simply as they read and contradictions are simply that contradictions. When you are dealing with a work that was complied from a whole bunch of oral traditions, the fact that there are contradictions shouldn't surprise anyone.
Additional posts on this:
Why does the Gemara give outlandish explanations for Mishnayos? Part 2
Why does the Gemara give outlandish explanations for Mishnayos? Part 3
Why does the Gemara give outlandish explanations for Mishnayos? Part 4
> Did the Amoraim really believe that these answers are what the Tannaim meant? Or did they not care about the historical truth and simply were looking for a logical answer to their questions?
ReplyDeleteA lot of learning is an exercise in being clever. Had you and I lived 1500 years ago, the vorts we come up with might have also made it into the gemara.
Also, the idea of looking for the original author's intent is a modern concept, especially when it came to authoritative holy texts.
In general the GEMARA which was hundreds of years later than the MISHNA does not contradict the MISHNA,but sometimes they find a ruling from the MISHNA that they just cannot accept,so because of the KAVOD they had for the previous generation of scholars instead of saying we don't accept that ruling they just said "well most probably the MISHNA only ruled in a case where they found precious stones,but of course they knew that the MISHNA'S ruling was in all cases
ReplyDeleteYou realize how intellectually dishonest that is.
DeleteJust want to say that I'm enjoying your blog so far.
ReplyDeleteAs far as this topic, I think I agree with the other commenter who says that this is just a way for the Gemara writers to remove an undesirable law from the mishnah without violating the restriction on directly contradicting them. It's the same as the carmelis post you wrote about a while back.