meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Commentary/Tosafot Yom Tov/Tosafot Yom Tov Introduction to the Mishnah/English/Tosafot Yom Tov Introduction to the Mishnah, trans. Moshe Hollender .txt"}
text: Tosafot Yom Tov Introduction to the Mishnah
  הקדמת תוספות יום טוב למשנה
  Tosafot Yom Tov Introduction to the Mishnah, trans. Moshe Hollender 
  
  
  Tosafot Yom Tov Introduction to the Mishnah
  
  By Yom Tov, who is called Lipmann, son of my father and master the Rabbi Natan, of blessed memory, who was the son of my illustrious master and grandfather, our Teacher the Rabbi Moshe Wallerstein, of blessed memory, the Levi, Heller. .
  Our holy rabbi, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, taught this Mishna during his lifetime: “Occupying oneself with Scripture [alone] is somewhat meritorious, occupying oneself with Mishna [alone] is meritorious and one receives reward, and occupying yourself with Gemara – there is nothing more meritorious than this.” Upon learning this, everyone abandoned the study of Mishna and pursued the study of Gemara. Subsequently, Rabbi expounded: “And always run to study Mishna even more than Gemara.”
  Likewise, our great rabbi and master, the <i>gaon</i> Rabbi Yehuda Loew son of Betzalel (the MAHARAL), of  blessed memory – who famously led a yeshiva and disseminated the “most meritorious” area of Torah to  the masses, the Gemara – subsequently instructed his students to “run to study Mishna.” In response,  many Torah scholars joined together in various study groups and classes. Each day they studied one chapter of Mishna, and reviewed their studies over and over.
  With divine assistance, the students kept to  this study schedule with utmost seriousness. The program spread not only throughout Prague, where the  aforementioned <i>gaon</i> enacted it, but to many other communities near and far, and in this way it  disseminated knowledge of the Mishna throughout Israel.
  In fact, the instruction of our great rabbi [the MAHARAL] was even greater than that of our holy Rabbi!  The reason is this:  The type of Mishna study that our holy Rabbi was referring to when he instructed his students to “run  after” it involved simply learning the words and basic meaning of each Mishna. It is the same as one would  approach a codified body of law, without paying careful attention to understanding the reasoning that lies behind the laws. The student would not attempt to resolve contradictions, which is actually the  definition of “Gemara”. In fact, our holy Rabbi’s whole intention when composing the text of the Mishna was to teach each and every point of law in brief statements.
  He left their underlying reasons to be taught orally to knowledgeable and wise scholars, while omitting them from the Mishna, which was meant for the masses as well. Anyone who spent his time gaining knowledge and understanding of the reasons behind the <i>Mishnayot</i> and resolving their contradictions was called one who “serves <i>talmidei chachamim</i> (Torah scholars),”  because he was required to serve them and [at the same time he would] hear [lessons] from them. This was in contrast to the “study of Mishna” alone, which meant understanding the meaning of the words and learning the laws and statutes without knowledge of the source and reasons for the law.
  The intention of our holy Rabbi in composing the Mishna was simply to rule on matters of law, and that is  why he himself taught that “there is nothing more meritorious than the study of Gemara” – because  studying Mishna without Gemara will not lead to the ultimate purpose, which is being able to teach  correct application of the law in Israel. If the scholar does not know the underlying reasons, then he may  mistakenly compare two unlike cases and render an incorrect judgment.  The following passage of Talmud in tractate Sotah refers to those who learn only Mishna:  “<i>Tana’im</i> wear out the world.” Could this statement really mean that they ‘wear out the world’?  Are they not the ‘settlers’ of the world? As it states: “The pathways of the world are his.” Rather, the [critical] statement is referring to those who render legal judgements based on their study of  Mishna alone. 
  Even though the Oral Torah that Moshe transmitted to Yehoshua and Yehoshua to the Elders, etc. was  explained completely in all its details, there is no age and no generation that lacks new situations and  novel discoveries within the Torah’s laws.
  Do not object to this idea based on the Talmud in tractate Megillah (p. 19b): “<i>What does the verse ‘...and upon [the tablets, write] all these things that G-d spoke with you on the mountain’ mean? It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moshe subtleties of the Torah and subtle inferences of the Scribes.</i>” For I contend that Moshe did not transmit any of  these subtleties to others. The wording of the Talmud indicates this, because it says that G-d “showed”  Moshe and not that he “transmitted” to him or that he “taught” him. If the Torah had phrased it in one of these ways, then Moshe would certainly have passed on this knowledge to Yehoshua as well, for he would never act miserly [even in spiritual matters]. This was proven when he ordained Yehoshua by placing both  hands upon him, even though he was only commanded to do it with one hand.
  However, when the Torah wrote “showed,” it meant that G-d merely allowed Moshe a glimpse of this  knowledge, just as someone shows an object to his friend but does not give it to him. This is a true and  fitting interpretation of the verse.
  Now, the early generations possessed a broad perspective and clarity of thought. Therefore, they knew  how to accurately compare one case to another without error, based on the principles passed down by  tradition. But at the end of the Second Temple period—although they were still in possession of these  principles—their perspective narrowed and their thoughts became clouded due to the difficulties and  sufferings of that time. Therefore, it is possible that they erred by comparing one case to something not  similar to it and ignoring another case that was similar.  (In any event, since they did possess true principles that were passed down to them by our  teacher Moshe, of blessed memory, [who received them] from the mouth of G-d, we apply to them the principle of "These and those are the words of the living G-d." This means that we  treat both sides of a <i>halachic</i> dispute—whether to acquit or convict, whether to declare pure  or impure, whether to permit or forbid—as valid opinions. In the fifth chapter of Ketubot (p.  57 s.v. <i>Ha kamashma lan</i>), Rashi explains that this is because sometimes one line of reasoning is valid in one case, and in another subtly different case, a different line of reasoning is valid. Very small differences in the case at hand can critically distinguish it from another, similar  case, and then the reasoning used in that case would not apply.)   
  Due to these challenges, our holy Rabbi gathered together all the sages of his generation, and they  debated each issue at length until they were able to issue a final, definitive ruling for all future generations.  He only codified the final law, but did not include the explanation and reasoning, because those details  were entrusted to the worthiest sages. Anyone who wanted to know, comprehend and analyze the laws  served the sages, and in return they taught him; this is called <i>Gemara</i>.
  This process continued for generation after generation, until the text of the Gemara itself was finally  codified and passed down to us in the form that we have it today.  Rabbi's own reasoning prompted the sages of the generations after the sealing of the Talmud to author  codes of law. These codes represent the final <i>halacha</i> that results from the debates and discussions of the  Gemara. The rabbis saw that due to the students' loss of focus and the many constant disturbances [of  the Exile], even learning the set text of the Gemara was not beneficial for everyone. Therefore, they  extracted every detail of the law and ordered them topically, while leaving out the debates that gave rise  to these <i>halachot</i>—for example, the Mishneh Torah of the great Maimonides (RAMBAM).
  Just as Rabbi taught that there is no study more praiseworthy than Gemara, these later authors wrote  their codes with the same intention—that the highest level of learning remained in understanding the  reasoning that lay behind the laws. If students spent all their time simply learning <i>halachic</i> compendiums,  they too would be in the category of those who "wear out the world," as explained. Who could say it  better than the RAMBAM himself: When a correspondent asked him the proper path in learning, the  RAMBAM replied that he should study the Mishneh Torah along with the works of Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi (RIF).
  This guidance of the RAMBAM parallels that of Rabbi in instructing his students to learn the  Mishna and then to "run" to study the Gemara, and from his advice you can extrapolate to the works of  later authors, as well. 
  Returning to our original point: When Rabbi instructed his students to "run" to study Mishna, his intent was the Mishna alone without any accompanying explanations. But later, the RAMBAM—and after him our master, Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura (RAV), of blessed memory—saw the need to write commentaries on the Mishna. The RAV wrote his commentary because he was not satisfied with the RAMBAM's work. This was not only because occasionally he saw fit to explain the Mishna differently than the RAMBAM—if  that had been his only reason, he could have simply written glosses on the RAMBAM's commentary.
  The RAV preferred an entirely different style in approaching the commentary, similar to that of Rashi's commentary on the Talmud. The RAMBAM's approach is to formulate general principles and conceptual categories that explain the Mishna. He then writes these alongside the Mishna, and expects the student to analyze them and apply them logically to all the cases of the Mishna in order to understand the reasons behind each law. Rashi, on the other hand, divides each Mishna [and Gemara] into small parts, and writes brief explanatory comments on each of those parts in the order that they appear in the Talmud.  Since Rashi's commentaries on the <i>Tanach</i> and the Talmud were disseminated widely and accepted by every community, the basic approach in studying Talmud typically follows Rashi's explanation. The RAV wisely saw this as a powerful reason to write a full commentary on the Mishna alone based upon Rashi's style, method, and explanation of each Talmudic topic.
  This is why, when our master and teacher Rabbi Loew, of blessed memory, promulgated his decree to  increase Mishna study among the Jewish people, it was not meant in the same way as Rabbi's decree to  study the Mishna without any reasons or explanations. Rather, the idea was to study it together with one  of the later commentaries.  
  This is what I meant when I said that the instruction of our rabbi and master, [Rabbi Loew,] of blessed  memory, was greater than that of our holy Rabbi, of blessed memory—since it mandates the study of the  Mishna with a commentary, the students are automatically studying the “Gemara” together with the  Mishna. 
  I made my best effort to understand the Mishna with the commentary of the RAV, because his  commentary usually reflects the generally accepted explanation of each topic, being that his commentary  is based on that of Rashi, as I have explained. I joined one of the previously mentioned study groups, and  I plunged into the great, wide sea of the Mishna—filled with hints, subtle inferences and matters of great  profundity, where my weak intellect reached as far as it was able to go. We found several passages of the  Mishna that were ambiguous and indecipherable. Similarly, there were various <i>Mishnayot</i> that  contradicted each other, and [the RAV] did not explain how to resolve them.
  Now, these things are not  the fault of the commentator, but rather our own fault. The commentator knew the answers to these  questions and did not explain them, thinking that an explanation was not necessary. We find this  phenomenon even in the earliest generation of Amoraim, for example, the story of Rav and Shmuel in the  third chapter of tractate Nazir, p. 19. The Mishna there states, about a person who was standing in a  graveyard and declared he wanted to become a <i>nazir</i>, "If he walked out and walked back in, the days  count [toward the 30-day time period of <i>nezirut</i>]." The Gemara expresses surprise at the Mishna's  implication that as soon as the person walks out of the graveyard, he becomes a <i>nazir</i>. Someone who is  impure (as is one who stood in a graveyard) cannot acquire the status of a <i>nazir</i>!  Shmuel explained that the Mishna is only referring to someone who left the graveyard and then  underwent the full 7-day purification process. At that point, the <i>nezirut</i> automatically goes into effect and  remains even if the <i>nazir</i> later defiles himself by entering a graveyard.  Later, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi (who had gained clarity from Shmuel in understanding the Mishna)  approached Rav and asked him, "Why didn't you explain the Mishna to us in those words?" He said to  them, "I thought perhaps you did not need the explanation." [We find a similar story in tractate Megillah, chapter "Hakorei omed", p. 23 and in the first chapter of  Sanhedrin, p. 10, where Rav Yosef asked Abaye the same question.]
  Beyond that phenomenon, though, we also find open, clear contradictions within the RAV's commentary  itself. The majority of these contradictions are because in one Mishna the RAV explained according to one  opinion in the Talmud, and in another Mishna he explained according to an opposing opinion.  Occasionally, he will also combine two different opinions in a way that does not fit together well.  I encountered all of these things, and I understood some small bit of them.  
  A person understands his own flaws better than anyone else. Only he can perceive how extensive they are, as King Solomon wisely said, "A man's heart knows the bitterness of his soul." I evaluated myself and know in my soul that of all my peers, I am the most lacking—whether it be in understanding vague or ambiguous passages, or contradictory <i>Mishnayot</i>, or even in understanding the difficult parts of the RAV's commentary that require further explanation. And if I was lacking in these three areas, then I could not have a comprehensive, true understanding of the Mishna as a whole.
  Therefore, I contemplated the works of those who came before me, to the best of my ability, in order to see if I could fill in the gaps in my understanding. When I exerted myself, I found success and I began to have confidence in my abilities. I was then able to properly write down the results of my analyses. This proves the statement of <i>Chazal</i>, "If someone exerts himself [in Torah learning] and says that he was successful, you should believe him.”
  This is my system of analyzing the Mishna: If there is 1) something in the Mishna requiring explanation that is not explained by the RAV; 2) a contradiction from another Mishna that was not addressed by the RAV; 3) something in the RAV's commentary that needs elaboration or explanation; 4) a contradiction between two passages in the RAV, and all the more so between something in the RAV's commentary and a clear Mishna—I will go to the Gemara, Rashi, Tosafot, and the works of the <i>halachic</i> authorities and their commentaries, to see if I find an explanation or resolve the contradiction. In my writing, I will suffice with mentioning only one way to solve the problem instead of listing several solutions at length.
  I shall fulfill the dictum of Esther to say something in the name of he who said it before me. Conversely, the Sages command us to admit when we have not heard an answer [from the oral tradition], and say, "This is how it seems to me." And if someone can prove me wrong, let him present his proof. If, by way of explanation, I am forced to quote the words of the codifiers, whether it be the RAMBAM or Rabbeinu Yaakov Ba'al HaTurim, and those passages themselves need explanation or further investigation—or if they do have an explanation, but I prefer an alternate explanation—I will treat them as long as is necessary for me to thoroughly critique them. The choice as to which opinion is correct lies with you, my valued peer. And I have not come to contend with those beloved scholars who are wiser than myself, Heaven forbid.  
  And you, my dear, discerning reader—if it is too daunting to approach the work as a whole, do not hesitate to study only those parts that please you, where you require an incisive commentary. I have separated each comment [so that it stands on its own].
  I will take the liberty of explaining the nature of my composition and why I named it Tosafot Yom Tov. Every author among both the earlier and later sages named his work so that people anywhere could refer to it unambiguously and say, "in such-and-such a book it says this, and in such-and-such a work it says that."
  Some authors named the book after themselves, and some named it according to its topic or purpose. Both approaches were learned from the Prophets, like Yehoshua, Shmuel, Yeshaya, Yirmiyah, and the like, as well as Judges, Kings and Psalms. It is quite fitting when both styles can be combined—for example, King Solomon named his book "Proverbs of Solomon". According to our Sages, the book of Kohelet [Ecclesiastes] is also like this, as Rashi explains: The book is called <i>Divrei Kohelet</i>, the "Words of Kohelet," and the connotation of the word "<i>Divrei</i>" hints to words of rebuke, which is the topic of the book.
  Therefore, I saw fit to name my work  Tosafot Yom Tov, based both on the nature of the work and its creator. It contains "<i>tosafot</i>" [supplements], because it adds explanations to the RAV, both in <i>Mishnayot</i> that lack adequate explanation, or in places where his own commentary needs further clarification. It also parallels the style of the commentaries of Tosafot that were composed on the Talmud. It is also a Torah principle that "one who 'adds' [to Torah learning] is himself 'added to' 26 from Heaven," based on the mystical explanation of the "rabbinic cloak [<i>chaluka/חלוקא</i>]". This is also an appropriate reason to call it Tosafot Yom Tov, for my soul proclaims that this is my portion [<i>chelek/חלק</i>]; a portion from G-d above. 
  <i>May He Whose hand doled out the deep, My road to truth from swerving keep, And Judah’s sons from exile wrest, To dwell with them in Zion’s breast.</i> This corresponds to what the Sages say in the Midrash Rabbah, <i>parashat</i> Tzav, "Rav Huna said, 'All the Diaspora shall only be gathered together in the merit of the <i>Mishnayot</i>, as Scripture states, «When they study among the nations, then I will gather them.'" Amen, so may it be His will speedily in our days.