In its second answer, denoted by the איבעית אימא - the Gemara says that בדאורייתא נמי תני תקנתא - which we explained to mean: in an area of Torah law, the mishna could have also used a terminology of תקנתא - like ימעט was used in mavui. In other words, contrary to what the Gemara presumed before, the mishna - whether dealing with a Torah law or a rabbinic law - is indeed an instruction manual; its style would not be impacted by the fact that it was relating to a concept/law that precedes the time of the mishna.
The reason, however, that the mishna did not use a lashon of תקנתא, is that נפישי מילתא - there were many topics being dealt with in the mishna of Succah, whereas only one issue was at stake in the mishna of mavui. Rashi explains that the language in our mishna would have been rather cumbersome, because each particular problem in our mishna, would have had to have its own separate "instruction" as to what to do. The word פסולה, however, is broad, relating to the invalid status of a succah that had any one of the psulim mentioned there. Rashi goes on to say that the reason this would be objectionable is the principle of לעולם ילמד אדם את תלמידיו בלשון קצרה - one should always try to be concise when teaching. The mishna - at the end of the day - has more of a pedagogical than instructional goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment