The Mishnah (/ˈmɪʃnə/; Hebrew: מִשְׁנָה, romanized:mišnā, lit.'study by repetition', from the verb לִשְׁנוֹת lišnot, "to repeat") is the first written collection of the Jewish oral traditions. These oral traditions are known as the "Oral Torah", to differentiate them from the (written) Torah, and both are believed in rabbinic tradition to have been revealed alongside each other to Moses at Mount Sinai. While the Torah was passed down in writing, the Oral Torah is believed to have been transmitted by Jewish scholars until the compilation of the Mishnah in the late second or early third century CE. The Mishnah is viewed as authoritative and binding revelation by most Orthodox Jews and some non-Orthodox Jews. The Mishnah is also the basis of the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, which are both commentaries on the Mishnah.
According to tradition, the Mishnah arose during the persecution of Jews in the late second or early third century. Fearing that these events would lead to the oral traditions of the Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) being forgotten, Judah ha-Nasi compiled the Mishnah in its current form, either in Beit Shearim or in Sepphoris. It was mainly written in Mishnaic Hebrew, but some parts are also in Jewish Aramaic. The oldest surviving physical fragments are from the 6th to 7th centuries.
Etymology
Mishnah comes from the verb shanah, which means "to repeat", "to study", "to heed oral instruction", or "to teach".
Traditional accounts, especially the Iggeret of Sherira Gaon, credit Judah ha-Nasi ("Judah the Prince") with the final redaction and publication of the Mishnah, including arranging the Mishnah from earlier tannaitic traditions. Modern scholarship likewise treats the Mishnah as a redacted collection rather than a work composed at a single moment. Although Judah's redaction became authoritative, the received text appears to contain some later additions or supplements. Examples commonly cited include the end of tractate Sotah, which refers retrospectively to Judah ha-Nasi’s death, and traditions associated with Judah II, Judah ha-Nasi’s grandson, such as the ruling permitting oil prepared by non-Jews.
The Babylonian Talmud preserves a tradition that the anonymous rulings in the Mishnah can be attributed to the school of Rabbi Akiva, especially his pupil Rabbi Meir. This tradition was cited by Sherira Gaon's account of the development of the Mishnah. However, modern scholars treat this tradition as evidence for earlier collections and schools of thought, instead of proof of authorship going back to individual rabbis.
Scholars have also debated the relative role of written aides and oral traditions in the formation of the Mishnah; these modes were not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The Mishnah is arranged by subject matter, and is divided into six "orders" (sedarim, singular sederסדר). More often referring to the entire Talmud, the Mishnah may also be called the Shas (meaning "Six Orders"). Tradition attributes this division back to its author, Judah Ha-Nasi.
Except for Zeraim, the orders are arranged from longest (in number of chapters) to shortest. A popular mnemonic for these orders is the acronym "Z'MaN NaKaT".
Each order contains 7–12 tractates (masechtot, singular masechetמסכת; lit. "web"), 63 in total. Tractates are divided into chapters (perakim, singular perek) and then paragraphs (mishnayot, singular mishnah). In this last context, the word mishnah means a single paragraph of the work, i.e. the smallest unit of structure, leading to the use of the plural, "Mishnayot", for the whole work.
According to the Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 14a:9, there were originally six to seven hundred orders of the Mishnah, with only six surviving to the present.
The goal of the Mishnah is to enable the everyday practice of the 613 Commandments of the Torah and allow them to guide all aspects of human living, a task that became increasingly needed in Jewish life since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Before the publication of the Mishnah, Jewish scholarship and judgement were predominantly oral, as according to the Talmud, it was not permitted to write them down. The earliest recorded oral law may have been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical commentary on the Torah, with the oldest surviving written material dating to the 6th to 7th centuries CE. Rabbis expounded on and debated the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves). However, some may have made private notes (מגילות סתרים) for example of court decisions. The oral traditions were far from monolithic and varied among various schools, the most famous of which were the Houses of Hillel and Shammai.
After the First Jewish–Roman War in 70 CE, with the end of the Second Temple center in Jerusalem, Jewish social and legal norms were in upheaval. The rabbis faced the new reality of Judaism without a Temple to serve as the center of teaching and study and a Judea without autonomy. During this period, Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. The possibility was felt that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (530s BCE / 3230s AM – 70CE/ 3830 AM) would be forgotten, so the justification was found to have these oral laws transcribed.
Over time, different traditions of the Oral Law came into being, raising problems of interpretation. According to the Mevo Hatalmud, many rulings were given in a specific context but would be taken out of it, or a verdict was revisited, but the second ruling would not become popularly known. To correct this, Judah the Prince took up the redaction of the Mishnah. If a point was of no conflict, he kept its language; where there was conflict, he reordered the opinions and ruled and clarified where context was not given. The idea was not to use his discretion but to examine the tradition as far back as he could and only supplement as required.
According to Rabbinic Judaism, when the Written Torah was revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, it was also accompanied by an Oral Torah, an authoritative oral tradition transmitted through the ages by the sages. Rabbinic sources present this oral tradition as the basis for interpreting and applying the Written Torah, and sometimes as necessary even for its proper reading and liturgical performance. Later rabbinic teaching could also be conceptualized as part of what had already been revealed at Sinai, even when articulated by sages of subsequent generations.
Much of the Mishnah formulates rabbinic law connected with biblical commandments, but it usually presents its rulings as independent legal traditions rather than deriving them explicitly from biblical verses. For this reason, the Mishnah is arranged topically, by orders and tractates, rather than as a running commentary on Scripture. By contrast, the tannaitic halakhic midrashim organize legal material according to the sequence of biblical verses and present many laws as arising from scriptural interpretation, although the distinction between the two genres is not absolute. Some rabbinic laws were understood as received traditions rather than as laws derived directly from Scripture, including the special category known as halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai ("Law given to Moses at Sinai").
Mishnah studies
Manuscripts
Mostly-complete manuscripts (mss.) bolded. Each is missing pages, some of which have been replaced by later hands.
The earliest extant material witness to rabbinic literature of any kind is dated to the 6th to 7th centuries CE, see Mosaic of Rehob.
A very careless copy, it is nonetheless useful where the Kaufmann text is corrupt.
Parma B
Biblioteca Palatina ms. Parm. 2596
North Africa(?)
12th C.
Tohorot only. Fully vocalized by the original scribe and contains teamim, including an early question mark.
MS "A" etc.
Scattered geniza fragments
Middle East
10th C.
The earliest manuscript fragments of the Mishna, which date to the 10th century, were discovered in the Cairo Geniza. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger has claimed that some are 9th century, but this is not generally accepted.
Nezikin to Tohorot. The consonant text is dependent on early printed editions. The value of this ms. lies exclusively in the vocalization.
Printed editions
The first printed edition of the Mishnah was published in Naples. There have been many subsequent editions, including the late 19th century Vilna edition, which is now the most widely available edition.
Several vocalized editions of the Mishnah were printed in early modern Italy, including the Venice 1737 edition of David ben Solomon Altaras, which became influential in later Italian and Sephardic printings. The Livorno editions in particular are important evidence for Sephardic traditions of Mishnah vocalization and recitation.
In printed editions of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the Mishnah is printed together with the corresponding Gemara, which comments on and discusses its rulings. The Mishnah text transmitted in the Talmuds is not always identical with the text transmitted in independent Mishnah manuscripts and editions; citations and discussions in the Gemara may preserve variant readings, some of which are important for reconstructing the history of the Mishnah text.
Critical editions
The nearest approach to a critical edition is that of Hanoch Albeck. There is also an edition by Yosef Qafiḥ of the Mishnah together with the commentary of Maimonides, which compares the base text used by Maimonides with the Napoli and Vilna editions and other sources.
Oral traditions and pronunciation
Many medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah are vowelized, and some of these, especially some fragments found in the Genizah, are partially annotated with Tiberiancantillation marks.
The Mishnah has also been transmitted through oral reading traditions, some of which include unique melodies or intonations. Frank Alvarez-Pereyre published a book-length ethnomusicological and linguistic study of the Aleppo tradition of Mishnah recitation, based on recorded oral performances and concerned with the rules and parameters of its oral transmission. Similar evidence for this character of rabbinic study traditions appears for Ashkenazic Talmud study, where modern Yalmudic chant has been compared with practices recorded in the in rabbinic documents found among the Cairo Genizah manuscripts.
The vocalization of the Mishnah has also been the subject of contemporary scholarship. Hanoch Yalon vocalized the Mishnah text in Hanoch Albeck's edition and later set out the principles of his vocalization in Mavo le-nikkud ha-Mishnah. Yalon's work also drew some attention to the linguistic value of vocalized manuscripts, as well as the living oral reading traditions, in the study of the Mishnaic Hebrew dialect.
Two institutes at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Jewish Oral Traditions Research Center and the National Voice Archives, have collected major oral archives which hold extensive recordings of Jews chanting the Mishnah using a variety of melodies and many different kinds of pronunciation.
As a historical source
Both the Mishnah and Talmud contain little serious biographical studies of the people discussed therein, and the same tractate will conflate the points of view of many different people. Yet, sketchy biographies of the Mishnaic sages can often be constructed with historical detail from Talmudic and Midrashic sources.
It is accepted that Judah the Prince added, deleted, and rewrote his source material during the process of redacting the Mishnah between the ending of the second century and the beginning of the 3rd century CE.
Following Judah the Prince's redaction there remained a number of different versions of the Mishnah in circulation. The Mishnah used in the Babylonian rabbinic community differing markedly from that used in the Palestinian one. Indeed, within these rabbinic communities themselves there are indications of different versions being used for study. These differences are shown in divergent citations of individual Mishnah passages in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli, and in variances of medieval manuscripts and early editions of the Mishnah. The best known examples of these differences is found in J.N.Epstein's Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (1948).
Epstein has also concluded that the period of the Amoraim was one of further deliberate changes to the text of the Mishnah, which he views as attempts to return the text to what was regarded as its original form. These lessened over time, as the text of the Mishnah became more and more regarded as authoritative.
Many modern historical scholars have focused on the timing and the formation of the Mishnah. A vital question is whether it is composed of sources which date from its editor's lifetime, and to what extent is it composed of earlier, or later sources. Are Mishnaic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines, and in what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? In response to these questions, modern scholars have adopted a number of different approaches.
Some scholars hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Mishnah (and later, in the Talmud). Lacking outside confirming texts, they hold that we cannot confirm the origin or date of most statements and laws, and that we can say little for certain about their authorship. In this view, the questions above are impossible to answer. See, for example, the works of Louis Jacobs, Baruch M. Bokser, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Steven D. Fraade.
Some scholars hold that the Mishnah and Talmud have been extensively shaped by later editorial redaction, but that it contains sources which we can identify and describe with some level of reliability. In this view, sources can be identified to some extent because each era of history and each distinct geographical region has its own unique features, which one can trace and analyze. Thus, the questions above may be analyzed. See, for example, the works of Goodblatt, Lee Levine, David C. Kraemer and Robert Goldenberg.
Some scholars hold that many or most of the statements and events described in the Mishnah and Talmud usually occurred more or less as described, and that they can be used as serious sources of historical study. In this view, historians do attempt to tease out later editorial additions leaving behind a possible historical text. See, for example, the works of Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, Avraham Goldberg and Dov Zlotnick.
Criticism
Herbert Danby, the translator of the Mishnah into English, argues that the historical value of the traditions preserved in the work is debatable:
It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party (whose standards chiefly prevailed during the century before the destruction of Jerusalem) — these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage: what was ideally true had a higher value in the eyes of the disputants than what once may have been actual but mistaken usage.
—Herbert Danby, "Introduction", The Mishnah (1954)
Commentaries
Maimonides' Mishnah commentary in Judeo-ArabicBartenura Mishna commentaryTitle page of the Mishna with the Tosefet Yom TovGemara students using the Mishnah Sdura to note their summary of each sugya alongside its MishnahSet of Mishna Kehati: modern print on top row; old format beneath
The main work discussing the Mishnah is the Talmud, as outlined.
However, the Talmud is not usually viewed as a commentary on the Mishnah per se, because:
the Talmud also has many other goals; its analysis – "Gemara" – often entails long, tangential discussions; and neither version of the Talmud covers the entire Mishnah (each covers about 50–70% of the text). As a result, numerous commentaries-proper on the Mishna have been written, typically intended to allow for the study of the work without requiring direct reference to (and facility for) the Gemara.
In 1168, Maimonides published Kitab as-Siraj "Book of the Lantern" (Arabic: كتاب السراج) a comprehensive commentary on the Mishnah. It was written in Judeo-Arabic and was one of the first commentaries of its kind. In it, Maimonides condensed the associated Talmudic debates, and offered his conclusions on a number of undecided issues. Of particular significance are the various introductory sections – as well as the introduction to the work itself – these are widely quoted in other works on the Mishnah, and on the Oral law in general. Perhaps the most famous is his introduction to the tenth chapter of tractate Sanhedrin where he enumerates the thirteen fundamental beliefs of Judaism. An (incomplete) Hebrew translation was composed by the ibn Tibbon family; a modern Hebrew translation is by Yosef Qafih.
Samson of Sens was, apart from Maimonides, one of the few rabbis of the early medieval era to compose a Mishnah commentary on some tractates. It is printed in many editions of the Mishnah. It is interwoven with his commentary on major parts of the Tosefta.
Menachem Meiri's commentary on most of the Mishnah, Beit HaBechirah, providing a digest of the Talmudic discussion and Rishonim there
An 11th-century CE commentary of the Mishnah, composed by Nathan ben Abraham, President of the academy in Eretz Israel. This relatively unknown commentary was first printed in Israel in 1955.
Obadiah ben Abraham of Bertinoro (15th century) wrote one of the most popular Mishnah commentaries. He draws on Maimonides' work but also offers Talmudical material (in effect a summary of the Talmudic discussion) largely following the commentary of Rashi. In addition to its role as a Mishnah commentary, this work is often used by students of Talmud as a review-text and is often referred to as "the Bartenura" or "the Ra'V".
Yomtov Lipman Heller wrote a commentary called Tosefet Yom Tov. In the introduction, Heller says that his aim is to add a supplement (tosefet) to Bertinoro's commentary in the style of the Tosafot. The glosses are sometimes quite detailed and analytic. In many compact Mishnah printings, a condensed version of his commentary, titled Ikar Tosefot Yom Tov, is featured.
Kav veNaki (Amsterdam 1697) by R. Elisha en Avraham, a brief commentary on the entire Mishnah drawing from "the Bartenura", reprinted 20 times since its publication
The Vilna Gaon (Shenot Eliyahu on parts of the Mishnah, and glosses Eliyaho Rabba, Chidushei HaGra, Meoros HaGra)
19th century:
A (the) prominent commentary here is Tiferet Yisrael by Israel Lipschitz. It is subdivided into two parts, one more general and the other more analytical, titled Yachin and Boaz respectively (after two large pillars in the Temple in Jerusalem). Although Lipschutz has faced some controversy in certain Hasidic circles, he was greatly respected by such sages as Akiva Eiger, whom he frequently cites, and is widely accepted in the Yeshiva world. The Tiferet Yaakov is an important gloss on the Tiferet Yisrael.
Hayim Nahman Bialik's commentary to seder Zeraim with vocalization (partially available here) in 1930 was one of the first attempts to create a modern commentary on Mishnah. His decision to use the Vilna text (as opposed to a modern scholarly edition), and to write an introduction to every tractate describing its content and the relevant biblical material, influenced Hanoch Albeck, whose project was considered a continuation and expansion of Bialik's.
Hanoch Albeck's edition (1952–59) (vocalized by Hanoch Yelon), includes Albeck's extensive commentary on each Mishnah, as well as introductions to each tractate (Masekhet) and order (Seder). This commentary tends to focus on the meaning of the mishnayot themselves, with less reliance on the Gemara's interpretation and is, therefore, considered valuable as a tool for the study of Mishnah as an independent work. Especially important are the scholarly notes in the back of the commentary.
Symcha Petrushka's commentary was written in Yiddish in 1945 (published in Montreal). Its vocalization is supposed to be of high quality.
The commentary by Pinhas Kehati, which uses the Albeck text of the Mishnah, is written in Modern Israeli Hebrew and based on classical and contemporary works, has become popular in the late 20th century. The commentary is designed to make the Mishnah accessible to a wide readership. Each tractate is introduced with an overview of its contents, including historical and legal background material, and each Mishnah is prefaced by a thematic introduction. The current version of this edition is printed with the Bartenura commentary as well as Kehati's.
The encyclopedic editions put out by Mishnat Rav Aharon (Beis Medrosho Govoah, Lakewood) on Peah, Sheviit, Challah, and Yadayim.
Yehuda Leib Ginsburg wrote a commentary on ethical issues, Musar HaMishnah. The commentary appears for the entire text except for Tohorot and Kodashim.
Shmuel Safrai, Chana Safrai and Ze'ev Safrai have half completed a 45 volume socio-historic commentary "Mishnat Eretz Yisrael".
Mishnah Sdura, a format specially designed so as to facilitate recital and memorization, published by E. Dordek in 1992. The layout is such that an entire chapter and its structure is readily visible, with each Mishnah, in turn, displayed in its component parts using line breaks (click on above image to view); includes tables summarizing each tractate, and the Kav veNaki commentary.
ArtScroll's "Elucidated Mishnah", a phrase-by-phrase translation and elucidation based on the Bertinoro - following the format of the Schottenstein Edition Talmud. Its "Yad Avraham" commentary comprises supplementary explanations and notes, drawing on the Gemara and the other Mishnah commentaries and cross referencing the Shulchan Aruch as applicable. The work also includes a general introduction to each tractate. The Modern Hebrew (Ryzman) edition includes all these features.
↑The same meaning is suggested by the term Deuterosis ("doubling" or "repetition" in Koine Greek) used in Roman law and Patristic literature. However, it is not always clear from the context if the reference is to the Mishnah or the Targum, which could be regarded as a "doubling" of the Torah reading.
123Fine, Steven; Koller, Aaron J. (2014). Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: archaeology and the rabbis. Studia Judaica. Center for Israel studies. Boston: De Gruyter. pp.231–237. ISBN978-1-61451-485-5.
↑Outhwaite, Ben. "Mishnah". Cambridge Digital Library. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
↑The plural term (singular tanna) for the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah; from the Aramaic root tanna (תנא) equivalent for the Hebrew root shanah (שנה), as in Mishnah.
↑"Chagigah 14a:9". www.sefaria.org. One of them said: They were proficient in six hundred orders of Mishna, and the other one said: In seven hundred orders of Mishna, only six of which remain today.
↑Scherman, Nosson; Zlotowitz, Meir, eds. (2016). Shishah Sidre Mishnah = The Mishnah Elucidated: A phrase-by-phrase interpretive translation with basic commentary. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications. pp.3–16. ISBN978-1422614624. OCLC872378784.
↑Strack, Hermann Leberecht (1945). Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Jewish Publication Society. pp.11–12. Retrieved 9 October 2018. [The Oral Law] was handed down by word of mouth during a long period. ... The first attempts to write down the traditional matter, there is reason to believe, date from the first half of the second post-Christian century. Strack theorizes that the growth of a Christian canon (the New Testament) was a factor that influenced the Rabbis to record the oral law in writing.
↑The theory that the destruction of the Temple and subsequent upheaval led to the committing of Oral Law into writing was first explained in the Epistle of Sherira Gaon and often repeated. See, for example, Grayzel, A History of the Jews, Penguin Books, 1984, p. 193.
↑Though as shown below, there is some disagreement about whether the Mishnah was originally put in writing.
↑Schloss, Chaim (2002). 2000 Years of Jewish History: From the Destruction of the Second Bais Hamikdash Until the Twentieth Century. Philipp Feldheim. p.68. ISBN978-1583302149. Retrieved February 1, 2019. Despite the many secular demands on his time, Rabbeinu Shmuel authored a number of books. The most famous is the Mevo HaTalmud, an introduction to the study of the Talmud which clarifies the language and structure which can be so confusing to beginners. In addition, the Mevo HaTalmud describes the development of the Mishnah and the Gemara and lists the Tannaim and Amoraim who were instrumental in preparing the Talmud.
12Sommer, Benjamin (2012). Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction. New York University Press. pp.36–41.
↑Jaffee, Martin (2001). Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford University Press. pp.84–99, 126–152.
↑Neusner, Jacob (1973). The Modern Study of the Mishna. Brill. p.5.
↑Lightstone, Jack (2020). In the Seat of Moses: An Introductory Guide to Early Rabbinic Legal Rhetoric and Literary Conventions. Cascade Books. pp.78n25.
↑Strack, Hermann; Stemberger, Günter (1996). Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Bockmuehl, Markus. Fortress Press. pp.119–127, 164–183, 184–209.
↑Epstein, J. N. (1948). Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (in Hebrew). Magnes Press.
↑Rosenthal, David (1987). "The History of the Text and Problems of Redaction in the Study of the Babylonian Talmud". In Safrai, Shmuel (ed.). The Literature of the Sages. Van Gorcum. pp.159–175.
↑Yeivin, Israel (1960). Cantillation of the Oral Law (in Hebrew). Leshonenu 24. pp.47–231.
↑Alvarez-Pereyre, Frank (1990). La Transmission Orale de la Misnah. Une Methode d'Analyse Appliquee a la Tradition d'Alep. Peeters.
↑Yalon, Hanoch (1964). Mavo le-nikkud ha-Mishnah[Introduction to the Vocalization of the Mishnah]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
↑Pérez Fernández, Miguel (1999). An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Translated by Elwolde, John. Leiden: Brill. pp.4–7.
↑Bar-Asher, Moshe (2006). "Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey". In Katz, Steven T. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol.4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.369–403.
↑Shelomo Morag, The Samaritan and Yemenite Tradition of Hebrew (published in: The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen; ed. Yosef Tobi), Tel Aviv 2001, p. 183 (note 12)
123Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael (2007). "The Traditional Interpretation of the Mishnah". Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol.14 (2ed.). p.327. ISBN978-0-02-865942-8.
↑"Jehovah". Insight on the Scriptures. Vol.2. p.7. Retrieved 2025-12-29.
↑See summary of per-tractate coverage: Birnbaum, Philip (1975). "Tractates". A Book of Jewish Concepts. New York, NY: Hebrew Publishing Company. p.373-374. ISBN088482876X.
Howland, Jacob (2010). Plato and the Talmud. Cambridge University Press.
Resources
English translations
Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, Hayim Lapin (eds.), The Oxford Annotated Mishnah: A New Translation of the Mishnah With Introductions and Notes, New York, Oxford University Press, 2022.
Isidore Epstein (ed.). Soncino Talmud. London, 1935–1952. Includes Mishnah-translations for those tractates without Gemara.
Various editors. The Mishnah, a new translation with commentary Yad Avraham. New York: Mesorah Publications, since the 1990s. (ArtScroll mentioned above)
Yoseph Milstein, et al. The Mishnah, a new integrated translation and commentary based on Rabbeinu Ovadiah M'Bartenurah, Machon Yisrael Trust, available online at eMishnah.com (archived).
Shalom Carmy (Ed.) Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations Jason Aronson, Inc.
Shaye J.D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholarchs", Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981), pp.57–87
Steven D. Fraade, "The Early Rabbinic Sage", in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp.417–23
Robert Goldenberg The Sabbath-Law of Rabbi Meir (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978)
John W McGinley 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving JewishlyISBN0-595-40488-X
Jacob NeusnerMaking the Classics in Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp.1–13 and 19–44
Jacob Neusner Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp.14–22.
Gary Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), vol. 4, pp.212–25
Dov Zlotnick, The Iron Pillar Mishnah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1988), pp.8–9
Hebrew Wikisource has original text related to this article: משנה
Wikisource's "Open Mishna Project" is developing Mishnah texts, commentaries, and translations. The project is currently available in four languages: Hebrew (the largest collection), English, French and Portuguese.
Mechon MamreArchived 2024-05-16 at the Wayback Machine (Hebrew) – Hebrew text of the Mishnah according to Maimonides' version (based on the manuscript of his Mishnah commentary in his own handwriting).
The Structured Mishnah – Hebrew text according to the Albeck edition (without vowels) with special formatting.
Mishnah (Hebrew & English) – English text as translated in The William Davidson edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.
Mishnah study and the daily Mishnah
Ahrend, Aaron (2004). "לימוד משנה וחברות משנה בעת החדשה"[Mishna Study and Study Groups in Modern Times](PDF). JSIJ – Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal (in Hebrew). 3. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2022-12-26. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
Mishna Yomit at the Wayback Machine(archived 10 October 2011) – One Mishnah per day. (Note: this study-cycle follows a different schedule than the regular one; contains extensive archives in English).
Mishnah Yomit – MishnahYomit.com hosts a weekly publication complementing the learning of people studying the regular program. It include articles, review questions and learning aids.
Kehati Mishna at the Wayback Machine(archived June 25, 2003) – A program of two Mishnayot per day. Currently inactive, but archives contain the complete text of Kehati in English for Moed, Nashim, Nezikin, and about half of Kodashim.
MishnaSdura – Popular edition of Hebrew text (with vowels), used in many schools, formatted to encourage review and aid memory. Tables summarizing content. Mishna songs and recordings. Wiki article in Hebrew Mishna Sdura
Perek HaYomiArchived 2024-05-09 at the Wayback Machine (Hebrew) – Host to Shiurim, and learning and review according to the Perek HaYomi in Mishna instituted by the Maharal.
2 Mishnas A Day – A program of learning two mishnayos every day. Site include Hebrew and English together with a link for audio for each day.
,_Palatina.jpg)
