Structure and Style of the Mishnah / Baraita / Tosefta
Please note: "Reisha" refers to the first case in a mishnah or baraita, "Seifa" refers to the last case in a mishnah or baraita, and "Metziata" refers to a case which is between the Reisha and Seifa.
Links
Structure of Cases / Attributions
Why tractates are ordered in a certain sequence: Sotah 2a
A Tanna bringing cases in the case in which he learned them, and not changing the order or structure after it had already been taught in the original form ["Lo Zazah MiMekomah"]: Kiddushin 25a
Bringing a list of cases because they share a similar point which another, highly similar case does not: Eruvin 83a
Bringing one case which represents a class of cases ["Chada Minayhu Nakat" or "Chada miTartei KaTani"]: Sotah 8a; Keritot 3b
Bringing a mishnah in simple form, then expanding and explaining [sometimes identified with "Tanna VeHadar Mefareish" or "Tani v'Hadar Tani"]: Bava Kama 13b [2x]; Zevachim 20b; Keritot 17b, 22a
Bringing a reisha and then bringing subsequent cases as logical extensions of the reisha: Niddah 4b
Bringing a set of cases in which one sage stated a law, and the sages did not agree ["Lo Hodu Lo Chachamim"]: Eruvin 39a
Establishing details of the seifa/reisha based on those of the reisha/seifa: Pesachim 60a, 60b, 62a, 62b; Ketuvot 42a-b; Nedarim 33a; Gittin 12a; Kiddushin 2b [2x], 8a; ; Zevachim 11b
Juxtaposing cases because the Hebrew words for the two of them are similar: Keritot 3a
Using language in the seifa to match that of the reisha [Aydi diTanna Reisha...]: Eruvin 16a, 37b, 70a; Succah 41a; Beitzah 12b; Nedarim 15b, 33a; Zevachim 11b
Using language in the reisha to match that of the seifa [Aydi diBa'i liMitna Seifa...]: Eruvin 16a; Nedarim 28b; Zevachim 32a, 35b, 41b
Stating law in a Mishnah: Niddah 7b
Bringing a list of cases only because one item taught something new: Bava Metzia 55a
Interrupting two related cases with an unrelated case, in order to show that there is separate liability for the two related cases: Keritot 3a
Bringing the seifa in order to reveal the true meaning of the reisha [Tani Seifa leGaluyei Reisha]: Eruvin 70a; Kiddushin 8a; Bava Metzia 10a
Splitting a reisha/metziata/seifa into different types of cases rather than assume they must be dealing with similar cases: Shabbat 72b-73a; Eruvin 70a, 101a-b; Rosh HaShanah 7b; Ketuvot 23b; Gittin 24a; Zevachim 29b-30a, 35a-b; Keritot 17b
Bringing one case in order to provide an example of a rule stated in another case in the same Mishnah: Eruvin 92a
Bringing two different topics in the same Mishnah: Nedarim 2b
A sage defending his "opponent's" opinion in a Mishnah: Niddah 3b
Rebbe bringing his own ruling, which happens to be split between conflicting sages: Megillah 9b
Having a ruling in the seifa contradict a ruling in the reisha: Kiddushin 5b
A sage's ruling in the seifa contradicting his own ruling in the reisha, because he recanted from his position in the reisha [implicitly, not explicltly]: Bechorot 18b
Addressing the first/most recent issue mentioned, before continuing to the later issue: Berachot 2a; Nedarim 2b-3a
Discussing a case which requires extensive explanation, vs one of less extensive explanation: Nedarim 2b-3a
Bringing a Rabbinic case, or a case learned from a derashah, first [because it is more beloved to the Sage]: Rosh HaShanah 12a; Nedarim 3a; Zevachim 48a
Bringing a case of higher sanctity first, because it is more beloved to the Sage: Zevachim 48a
Bringing Biblical cases before Rabbinic cases: Nedarim 3a; Kiddushin 2b
We try to end a section on a positive note: Tos. Moed Katan 28b #1
Bringing an original position [mishnah rishonah], and then a later ruling: Ketuvot 57a-b
Authorship of Mishnayot
We may assume that the author of an Unattributed [stam] mishnah is Rabbi Meir: Gittin 4a
An unattributed [stam] mishnah which was not authored by Rabbi Meir: Ketuvot 71a
Assuming that an unattributed mishnah is a statement of Rabbi Akiva's: Megillah 2a; Makkot 17a
Law is like an unattributed Mishnah: Shabbat 112b, 147b, 148b, 156b; Beitzah 2a-b; Bava Metzia 33a
Assuming a mishnah is authored by a single sage, barring evidence to the contrary: Ketuvot 51b; Keritot 3a, 18b
If a sage is named in the seifa of a mishnah, we can assume he was not the author of the reisha: Shabbat 103a; Eruvin 75a, 88b, 99a; Bechorot 10a; Temurah 3b, 7b; Keritot 18b
[Not] splitting authorship of the reisha/metziata/seifa into different sages, because of apparent conflict between the voices or because of difficulty in identifying consistent opinions: Shabbat 86a; Eruvin 16b, 16b-17a, 34b, 73b, 88b, 97b-98a, 98b-99a, 99a; Pesachim 37b; Megillah 9b; Ketuvot 42a-b; Nedarim 11a, 33a, 44a; Bava Kama 14a, 15b; Bava Metzia 41a; Zevachim 28a, 44a-b; Temurah 22b-23a; Keritot 16a, 18b
An Unattributed Mishnah which is like an individual's position against the majority: Yevamot 104a
A Tanna leaving a statement unattributed, when it follows the opinion of the School of Shammai: Niddah 11b
Weighing Unattributed Mishnayot against each other: Yevamot 101b
Multiple Unattributed Mishnayot vs. an Individual Unattributed Mishnah: Rosh Berachot 1:9
An Unattributed Mishnah with an attached Debate: Yevamot 101b; Niddah 11b
An unattributed Mishnah which is Rabbi Akiva's: Megillah 2a
A mishnah that was taught by the testimony of Rabbi Tzaddok: Zevachim 25b
A Mishnah bringing a seifa with a debate, which indicates that the voices speaking in two earlier cases it cited were different sages, who disagreed with each other: Temurah 23a
A Mishnah bringing a debate between a lone opinion and the collective sages, and then bringing an individual opinion which actually includes that of the Sages in its view: Temurah 26a
A sage preferring to explain a mishnah as consistent with the view of the Sages rather than just consistent with the view of Rabbi Meir: Ketuvot 34b
Brevity in a Mishnah/Baraita
A Mishnah is usually as brief as possible: Bava Metzia 2a, 9a
A Mishnah will not add verbosity to teach a special case ["Ichfil Tanna איכפיל תנא"]: Ketuvot 62a; Kiddushin 26b; Zevachim 15a
Where a Mishnah brings, or doesn't bring, similar cases/laws: Nedarim 2b
A Mishnah will not teach both the positive "This qualifies" and its converse "This does not qualify" where the converse is clear from the positive statement: Eruvin 76a
Asking why a Mishnah didn't combine two cases into briefer delineation ["Ne'Arvinhu VeNitninhu..."]: Eruvin 16a; Nedarim 4b; Kiddushin 23a
Statement of amazement at verbosity in a Mishnah: Kiddushin 16b
Bringing sets of clear, cut-and-dry Laws [Halachot Pesukot]: Rosh Berachot 1:9
A Mishnah concisely repeats what we know: Tos. Berachot 2a #5
A Mishnah presenting part of a set of cases, and the set being completed in a baraita: Bava Metzia 51a
The Mishnah will not get into a case which will require verbosity to explain [Delo Pesika Leih Lo Katani]: Eruvin 2a; Rosh HaShanah 7a-b; Succah 2a; Temurah 22a, 23b [2x]; Keritot 8a
Asking why a Mishnah extended a case involving generations, adding "ad infinitum," and responding that it was to indicate the extent of disagreement regarding status of descendants: Temurah 17b
They will not bring a long and difficult-to-implement solution, if a simpler [albeit weaker] solution to a problem is available [Kulei Hai Lo Atrichuha Rabbanan]: Eruvin 10b
A Mishnah presenting only whole numbers, and not fractions: Bava Batra 3b
A law was reported in one mishnah, and then mentioned along the way in another mishnah despite its redundancy ["agerara nasbah"]: Zevachim 11b
In the name of brevity, a mishnah stating a ruling will use wording that is appropriate for the majority of the cases it has enumerated, even if that wording is imprecise, and leaves a misimpression, for the rest of the cases: Zevachim 19a
Selection of cases to present in a Mishnah
"Lo Mibaya לא מיבעיא" - One Case wasn't brought, because it could have been understood from another: Succah 30a; Moed Katan 14b, 18b; Ketuvot 41a, 70b; Nedarim 12a; Kiddushin 8a, 8b, 25a; Bava Metzia 41a, 53b; Menachot 50b
A Mishnah will only list elements which have a set parameter, not vague elements: Kiddushin 16a, 16b [2x]
A Mishnah presenting "good advice" rather than law [Eitzah Tovah]: Eruvin 39a
"Tana VeShayer תנא ושייר" - A Mishnah left out certain cases from its list, despite enumerating others: Succah 54a-b; Ketuvot 41a; Kiddushin 16a, 16b [2x], 40a; Bava Kama 10a, 15a [2x]; Makkot 21b
Bringing sets of cases, each spelled out, instead of bringing them in one concise expression: Kiddushin 6a; Temurah 34a
A Mishnah doesn't tell is what was already in another Mishnaic lesson ["Taneina leHa" "Taneina Chada Zimna"]: Eruvin 41b, 69b, 76a, 81a, 85b; Gittin 15a; Kiddushin 30b; Makkot 19b; Zevachim 43a; Temurah 28a
A Mishnah doesn't bring bizarrely unlikely cases: Bava Metzia 46a
Mishnah records cases which are normal: Succah 10a, 46b; Bava Metzia 15a, 32b, 34a
A Mishnah bringing a series of dissimilar cases together [Mili Mili]: Menachot 45a
We don't bring "De'i" ["What If"] Cases: Pesachim 105a; Menachot 52a, 52b
A Mishnah only presenting cases which are ruled in an explicit, clear-cut fashion: Kiddushin 5b
Using a Mishnah to confirm what is known already in a Non-Mishnah: Bava Kama 14b
Bringing an anecdote in a Mishnah to argue with a Law ["Maaseh Listor?!"]: Berachot 16b; Succah 26b, 28b
Using one reason, where a second approach could also have been used ["Chada Ve'Od Kaamar"]: Berachot 14b; Rosh HaShanah 26a [2x]; Negillah 20a; Kiddushin 37b; Bechorot 10a
Bringing a case to teach a non-obvious rule: Keritot 3a
Bringing a case to show how one side held his point in an argument even to that extreme ["Lehodia Kocho/Kochan"]: Berachot 21b; Eruvin 35a-b, 45b, 72b; Succah 4b; Beitzah 2b, 6b, 11a; Nedarim 19b, 28a; Keritot 23b
Bringing an extra element to teach something along the way ["Milta Agav Urcheih"]: Berachot 2a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Succah 21b, 41b; Nedarim 25a; Niddah 10b [note that this principle also appears in talmudic discussion]
Bringing an anecdote in a Mishnah to back up a law: Shabbat 122a; Eruvin 87a
Adding cases because once one case was brought, the set is brought: Rosh HaShanah 5a; Gittin 23a; Bava Metzia 4b; Sanhedrin 3a-b
If a law is stated by an anonymous sage in a mishnah, without opposition, can we assume that other sages of the time agree?: Bechorot 2a
A sage stating that a person does not receive lashes for a certain act, even though he held that a person would receive lashes. He stated the exemption because the topic under discussion was an issue under which the person committing the act would be exempt [APetura Kai]: Temurah 4a-b
A sage stating an opinion related to a case which was discussed much earlier in a tractate: Eruvin 104b, 105a
Bringing the same case in mishnayot in both Kiddushin and Ketuvot because it relates to both areas of law: Ketuvot 72b
Mishnaic Language
A Mishnah's [in-]consistent use of days of the week and dates of the month to refer to the identical set of days: Megillah 4b
A sage re-stating the opinion which he himself stated anonymously as the mishnah's initial speaker, in order to idenitfy him: Niddah 19b
Sages later in a mishnah re-stating [or specifically not merely re-stating, but expanding] the law of the initial sage: Eruvin 23b; Nedarim 4b, 14a; Gittin 4a; Niddah 19a, 19b ["Hayyenu Tanna Kama!"]
A tanna will not use a fluctuating currency when explaining the amount to pay, or currency to use, for a given law: Bava Metzia 44b
Use of feminine or masculine language in a mishnah may depend on the content of the mishnah and not just its context: Kiddushin 2b
A mishnah may use masculine or feminine language imprecisely, and that should not be used to interpret law: Bechorot 2b
A mishnah's use of a language of approximation for one measure, because another measure in that Mishnah is going to have to be approximate: Eruvin 19a-b
Beginning a Mishnah with "ve'Od," adding to something which was, presumably begun in the preceding Mishnah: Eruvin 23a [see the Gemara's explanation]; Succah 27a
Use of "Shamati [I heard]" to indicate that one doesn't necessarily maintain this opinion as his own: Eruvin 35b
Rabbi Yehudah's use of "Eimatai" or "Bameh" ["When is this true"] in a Mishnah is always meant to explain the preceding view, and not to argue against it: Eruvin 81b-82a
The way a mishnah presents a verb teaches us whether the mishnah is supporting the action LeChatchilah [something permitted] or only explaining what to do Bedieved [ex post facto]: Shabbat 147a; Beitzah 7b; Rosh Hashanah 32b; Sotah 2b
Use of plural language to mean "cases like this" rather than to indicate that multiple parties are involved in that specific case [Ketanot]: Keritot 17a
A mishnah's use of a technical noun to mean one thing in a mishnah's first case, and to mean another thing in that mishnah's second case: Keritot 26b-27a
Order in a Mishnah
Teaching cases or subjects that are beloved to the Sages first: Bechorot 13a
Teaching subjects that are more concise first, before proceeding to more elaborate issues: Bechorot 13a
One mishnah is supposed to flow into the next, with a logical order: Taanit 2a
Bringing an additional statement which teaches more than the initial statement [Lo Zu Af Zu]: Eruvin 75a; Gittin 15b; Bava Metzia 37b-38a
Bringing an additional statement which could actually have been deduced from an earlier statement [Zu Ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu זו ואין צריך לומר זו]: Eruvin 76a; Rosh HaShanah 32b, 33a; Ketuvot 58a; Nedarim 14b; Keritot 17b
"'Mah Hein' Ketani" - Mentioning a case and then explaining it: Sanhedrin 2b
Asking one question as a lead-in to another [Chada migo Chada mibaya leih]: Nedarim 7a
The lessons taught in a Mishnah
Rulings of Mishnayot are not to be expanded to include all cases, unless such an expansion is indicated in the Mishnah itself: Shabbat 148a
Establishing a Mishnah to be discussing an odd case, rather than have it argue with established law: Shabbat 112b
Bringing a rule of disqualification for a specific circumstance, as well as a method of correction: Succah 2a; Eruvin 2a
Bringing a rule as well as cases, to be a general study aid ["Simna be'Alma" סימנא בעלמא]: Megillah 22b
Using language in two opposite cases which present opposite lessons about an intermediate case ["meiha leca l'mashma mineih" מיהא ליכא למשמע מיניה]: Bava Metzia 81b
A mishnah ruling like one authority, but we rule otherwise in practice: Ketuvot 54a
Mishnah [or Baraita] Phraseology
The word "Eilu" ["These"] comes to exclude potential elements from a Mishnah's Rule: Shabbat 75b; Kiddushin 16b, 40a
Difference between the terms "Derachim" and "Devarim": Kiddushin 2b-3a
Listing a certain number of cases, to exclude other possibilities: Gittin 9b; Kiddushin 3a, 3b, 5b, 16b; Makkot 21b; Keritot 2b
Counting the cases in a mishnah in order to teach that they carry separate, individual liability: Keritot 2b
Mishnah using standard forms of speech [like "4 or 5 items"], in delineating a law: Shabbat 126b-127a, Bava Metzia 2a
Using a parable ["Mashal LeMah haDavar Domeh"] to explain a case: Eruvin 45b, 48a; Niddah 17b
Using the language/case of one's own locale ["Ki Atreih"/"Ha Lan, veHa Lehu"]: Shabbat 153a; Pesachim 3a, 37a; Succah 36a, 48a; Beitzah 15a; Kiddushin 29b; Bava Metzia 40a
Use of the phrases "Zeh haKelal [This is the Principle]" "Kelal [Principle]" and "Kelal Gadol [Central Principle]": Shabbat 68a, 103a; Eruvin 26b-27a, 29a, 70b; Megillah 20b, 21a; Kiddushin 34a
Use of the phrase "Be'Emet Amru [They Actually Said]" and its meaning: Shabbat 92b; Bava Metzia 60a
Does the word "Amru [They said]" indicate specifically that multiple people said something, or could it also mean that one person said it: Keritot 11b
The word "Patur", used in reference to a mitzvah, means one is exempt from the mitzvah, but not that the mitzvah action is prohibited: Zevachim 19a
Tosefta
Terming the teachings of an Amora [sage of the gemara's time] as "Tosefta": Rashi Bava Metzia 48a "ubadkah"
Ilfa suspending himself from the mast of a ship and declaring that if anyone can tell him a tosefta of Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshia that he cannot support from a mishnah, he will throw himself from the mast and drown: Ketuvot 69b
