Another idea that arose in yesterday’s daf (Nazir 34a) was the word mishum in the context of citation, and its implication. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. After all, we have two distinct positions from Rabbi Yehuda, namely that which he cites mishum Rabbi Tarfon (which is inconsistent with authorship of our Mishnah) and Rabbi Yehuda himself when discussing the doubtful pile of grain.
[There are several parallel sugyot (Chagiga 10a, Nazir 62a, Nedarim 21a, Sanhedrin 25a) where Rabbi Tarfon’s statement surfaces, but the primary and rather important central sugya is IMHO Nedarim 19b with Rav Ashi’s statement and secondarily Nedarim 21a.]
Rishonim and Acharonim stake out the meaning of mishum, suggesting that it means:
he was the rebbe muvhak (primary teacher, most of his learning was from him)
he was NOT the rebbe muvhak
they didn’t actually encounter one another
I wrote an article in the Jewish Link exploring the bases of these claims, and whether they pan out. I arrived at two overlapping features which could prompt the usage of mishum instead of amar.
The first is that the target of the citation is a Tanna, or a member of the transitional Tanna / Amora generation. Mishum is simply the commonly used word to indicate citation.
The second is that it is citation without endorsement. That is, usually when I encounter e.g. “amar Rav Yehuda amar Rav”, I will take it not just as neutral reporting of Rav’s opinion, but also that Rav Yehuda thinks that this is the halacha, which is why he is transmitting it.
In contrast, literally mishum can be understood as “on behalf of”, and so the sage introduces the earlier sage’s words into the conversation.
Indeed, there is a common resolution of seeming internal contradictions in the gemara, הָא — דִידֵיהּ, הָא — דְרַבֵּיהּ, that one is his own opinion, while that is the opinion of his teacher. (And some people took de-rabbeih too literally, as his absolute teacher, rather than the one he is citing.) In every instance where the gemara proposes this, as well as in other cases where the particular words aren’t explicitly used, but the intent is the same, such as the aforementioned Nedarim 19b, the seeming contradictory quote involves the word mishum. Also it involves a Tanna or otherwise transitional figure.
Now, that 100% may be misleading. Saying every instance of ha dideih is also an instance of mishum is not the same as saying that every instance of mishum is also an instance of ha dideih ha derabbeih. That is the difference between recall and precision. Still, this may be deemed a legitimate prompt. And as for the overlap of reasons, it could be that when bringing a Tanna or quasi-Tanna into the discussion, the point is not always endorsement, but sometimes is simply analysis and to broaden the discourse to explore all positions.
Here is the article: