LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Mishnah
built 641 days ago
The narrative of the origin of the Mishnah as the oral Torah of Sinai that is implicit in tractate Abot finds its counterpart in an explicit statement within the Mishnah itself, that Scripture's contribution to the Mishnah's topical program is diverse. Some of the topics the Mishnah systematically expounds come directly from Scripture. The exposition of the Day of Atonement in Mishnah tractate Yoma, for example, follows the outline of Lev 16 and simply paraphrases that narrative. Other topics draw upon facts of Scripture but fill out a program of exposition that only partially derives from Scripture. The tractates devoted to the civil law, Baba Qamma "the first gate," Baba Mesi'a "the middle gate," and Baba Batra "the final gate," encompass civil laws of Scripture but organize them into a logical construction of their own, which includes numerous topics not documented by Scripture. Still other topics expounded by the Mishnah have no roots in Scripture at all.
Source:
The Mishnah is in Hebrew. This Hebrew differs somewhat from that of the Tanach (Bible). By the time the Mishnah was composed, Aramaic dialects had supplanted Hebrew as the language of everyday life, and Hebrew had ... become a language employed only for legal and religious purposes. The Hebrew of the Mishnah thus contains new grammar and forms of words as the language evolved according to the needs of those using it.
Source:
The code and commentary, the Mishnah and the Gemara, begin in the oral Torah of Moses (Scripture) and in significant measure carry forward the Scripture's law and theology. Judaism maintains that the traditions of law found in the Mishnah derive from God's revelation to Moses at Sinai. That claim registers in the opening sentence of tractate Abot, "The Fathers," written ca. 250 C.E., and tacked onto the Mishnah as an explanation of its origin and authority. It states, "Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets. And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly." This oral Torah is represented by sayings not found in Scripture and was set forth by sages who were not credited with the authorship of scriptural books.
Source:
Many commentaries on the Mishnah have been written. Maimonides wrote one in Arabic with a general introduction on the history, origin, and arrangement of the Mishnah. This commentary, which was translated into Hebrew several times, is printed in many editions of the text. The Arabic original of several treatises has recently been published, in addition to that of the entire sixth order, edited by Derenbourg (comp. the enumeration in Strack, l.c. p. 113 and Appendix); the Hebrew translation, which is faulty in many passages, being corrected to agree with it.
Source:
The Mishnah is divided into six orders; each order is divided into tractates; each tractate is divided into chapters, and each chapter has a number of halakhot. This structure became the template for all of subsequent Talmudic literature. The first document to follow the Mishnah’s structure was the Tosefta (supplement), which included many of the materials that Rabbi left out. Collectively, the Tosefta, as well as materials in works of Midrash (Scripture interpretation), and materials preserved orally until their appearance in the Talmud are called Baraitot (excluded materials). The terms Tosefta and Baraitot, which implicitly refer to the Mishnah, serve to emphasize the significance and centrality of the Mishnah in Jewish culture.
Source:
From the first there were various opposing opinions regarding the problems when and by whom the Mishnah was reduced to writing. According to the Letter of Sherira Gaon (l.c. pp. 2, 9, 12), Judah ha-Nasi himself performed this task; and this view is supported by Rabbenu Nissim b. Jacob (in the preface to his "Sefer ha-Mafteaḥ," ed. J. Goldenthal, p. 3a, Vienna, 1847), Samuel Nagid (in his "Mebo ha-Talmud"), Maimonides (in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah and in the preface to the Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah), Meïri (in his "Bet ha-Beḥirah"), and a commentary on Pirḳe Abot (pp. 6a, 8b, 9a, Vienna, 1854); and many other medieval authors, as well as some modern scholars (comp. Strack, "Einleitung in den Talmud," p. 54), hold the same opinion.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Mishnah