Casuistic Elements in Mishnaic Law: Examples from M. Shevu<ot Elizabeth Shanks Alexander Scholars have made a number of classic observations about the literary form of the Mishnah. They have noted that mishnaic materials tend to be cryptic, condensed and terse (as opposed to the Tosephta or the gemaras, which are more expansive). They have noted that it suppresses its connections to biblical scripture (as opposed to midrash, which makes the connections between its own constructions and its biblical roots explicit). Finally, scholars have observed that the Mishnah ar- ranges its materials topically (again, as opposed to midrash, which structures its materials according to the contours of the biblical text on which it is based). Making these observations about the Mishnah)s literary form allows scholars to speculate about its function within the early rabbinic movement. So for example, scholars suggest that the Mishnah)s cryptic form indicates that its contents were to be memor- ized; according to this view, the materials were condensed into a most basic form as an aid to memorization. Alternatively, scholars speculate that the Mishnah suppresses its connections to biblical scripture and arranges its contents topically because it wishes to position itself as a newauthoritative source for law, independent of, but complementary to, scripture. In each of these cases, literary form and function within the early rabbinic movement have been understood to be integrally linked. In all of the attention to the Mishnah)s literary form, however, scho- lars have neglected to observe that a large percentage of the Mishnah is formulated according to the conventions of casuistic law. 1 This essay attempts to address this oversight by delineating the particular features Jewish Studies Quarterly, Volume 10 (2003) pp. 189—243 ' Mohr Siebeck — ISSN 0944-5706 1 One notable exception would be Menachem Elon who does note that the Mishnah employs the casuistic form. His discussion focuses on the extent to which the Mishnah employs a casuistic style as opposed to what he calls a normative style. The normative style states norms in the forms of rules. Elon also notes the extent to which the Mis- hnah)s casuistic form has influenced the style of subsequent Jewish legal works. See Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri), vol.