Home |
Note: Mishnah.net is an independent, noncommercial educational project written from a traditional Orthodox Jewish perspective. This article is intended for general study and does not provide halachic guidance. Questions of Jewish law or religious practice should be directed to a qualified rabbi. See the Mishnah.net legal and editorial notice.
A baraita [Aramaic: an “external” teaching] is a Tannaitic teaching preserved outside the Mishnah. The plural commonly used in English is baraitot.
The Tannaim [the rabbinic sages active roughly from 20 to 200 CE] were the sages of the Mishnaic period whose teachings are preserved in the Mishnah and other early rabbinic sources.
Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, also known as Rabbeinu HaKadosh [the leading sage traditionally associated with the final redaction of the Mishnah], brought the Mishnah into its received form around 200 CE.
The Mishnah [a foundational early compilation of the Oral Torah] became the central collection of Tannaitic teachings studied and discussed in the later Talmudic tradition.
The Mishnah did not include every Tannaitic teaching that continued to be transmitted. Baraitot preserve additional cases, opinions, explanations, Scriptural interpretations, disputes, and formulations that are not found in the Mishnah itself.
This becomes especially important when reading Gemara [the later rabbinic discussions that, together with the Mishnah, form the Talmud].
The Gemara frequently quotes baraitot as evidence, objections, parallels, or alternative formulations. The baraitot belong to the earlier Tannaitic period, while the Gemara represents a later stage of rabbinic discussion in which the Amoraim [the sages who followed the Tannaim, roughly 220–500 CE] analyze, compare, question, and interpret Tannaitic teachings.
The Aramaic word baraita, ברייתא, carries the sense of something external or outside. In this context, the important question is what it is outside of: the Mishnah.
Calling a teaching a baraita does not place it outside Torah Shebe'al Peh, the Oral Torah. In traditional Orthodox Jewish learning, baraitot are part of the transmitted rabbinic literature of Torah Shebe'al Peh.
Nor does “outside” mean rejected, unimportant, or unreliable by definition.
A useful basic distinction is:
Mishnah: The central Tannaitic compilation brought into its received form by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi.
Baraita: A Tannaitic teaching outside that Mishnah.
Gemara: The later rabbinic discussion that studies the Mishnah together with baraitot, Scripture, traditions, legal reasoning, narratives, and other material.
The Mishnah can be browsed in full on Sefaria.
The existence of baraitot becomes easier to understand when the Mishnah is viewed as a highly compressed compilation rather than a transcript of everything taught by every Tanna.
The Mishnah often states laws in remarkably concise language. It can give a ruling without recording every argument surrounding it, preserve a disagreement without every related opinion, or state a principle that other Tannaitic traditions develop in more detail.
Traditional sources themselves emphasize this concision. In his Introduction to the Mishnah, Rambam discusses the concise form of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's Mishnah and the additional Tannaitic material associated with Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya.
Rav Sherira Gaon's Epistle also describes a world in which the Mishnah's concise teachings existed alongside additional baraita traditions and collections.
The point is not that the Mishnah is incomplete in some accidental sense. Its concentrated form is part of its literary character. Baraitot allow a student to see more of the Tannaitic world surrounding it.
It is easy to describe a baraita too simply as a teaching that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi “rejected” when compiling the Mishnah.
That conclusion goes beyond what the word tells us.
A baraita is a Tannaitic teaching that was not incorporated into the received Mishnah. Its absence does not by itself tell us why it was not included.
Different circumstances may lie behind different passages. The Mishnah's concision may explain some cases. Other traditions may have belonged to different collections or chains of transmission. Some baraitot expand principles already represented in the Mishnah, while others preserve additional cases or opinions.
For many individual passages, the precise history cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
The Gemara itself makes clear that recognized baraitot were not simply treated as discarded material. They are cited as serious Tannaitic evidence, compared with mishnayot, used to support or challenge statements, and examined closely when their wording creates a difficulty.
At the same time, the Gemara could question the transmission of a particular baraita. The category “baraita” therefore does not guarantee that every reported version of every teaching was considered equally reliable.
There is no single surviving book containing every baraita. Tannaitic teachings outside the Mishnah have reached us through several different channels.
The Tosefta is a major surviving collection of Tannaitic material arranged broadly in parallel with the Mishnah's orders and tractates.
It frequently discusses the same subjects as the Mishnah while preserving additional cases, explanations, attributions, disputes, and formulations.
The relationship between the surviving Tosefta, the Mishnah, and baraitot quoted in the Talmud is not always simple. A passage in the Bavli may closely parallel the Tosefta, differ from it, or have no surviving Tosefta parallel at all.
Important Tannaitic material is also preserved in the halachic Midrashim.
Unlike the Mishnah, which is generally organized by legal subject, these works often begin with verses of the Torah and develop rabbinic interpretation around the biblical text.
Major examples include the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Sifra, and Sifrei.
Many baraitot are known to us because they are quoted in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud.
A Talmudic discussion may introduce an earlier teaching and then spend several lines, or considerably longer, determining what it means and how it relates to other sources.
This is one reason a page of Gemara should not be read as though it were written in a single voice. The discussion moves between sources from different periods and then analyzes the relationships among them.
This distinction is important:
Baraita is a category. Tosefta is a particular work.
The Tosefta contains Tannaitic material outside the Mishnah, so its teachings may function as baraitot. But not every baraita quoted in the Gemara appears in the surviving Tosefta.
Traditional accounts also describe the collection and transmission of Tannaitic material in different ways. Rambam associates the Tosefta with Rabbi Chiya and describes Rabbi Oshaya as undertaking related work. Rav Sherira Gaon gives a more detailed account involving different collections and traditions of transmission.
These accounts are important traditional sources. The exact literary history and redaction of the surviving Tosefta is a more complicated historical question.
For a beginning student, the safest distinction is straightforward: the Tosefta is a major surviving collection of Tannaitic teaching outside the Mishnah, while baraita is the broader category.
The halachic Midrashim show that Tannaitic teaching could be organized very differently from the Mishnah.
A mishnah usually begins with a legal subject, case, or dispute. A halachic Midrash often begins with a Torah verse and develops its interpretation word by word or phrase by phrase.
The difference is therefore not merely that one work contains more material than another. These are different literary forms through which Tannaitic teaching was transmitted.
Rav Sherira Gaon discusses works including Tosefta, Sifra, and Sifrei when describing the traditions outside the Mishnah. His account is useful because it presents them within a larger world of transmitted Tannaitic teaching rather than as isolated books.
See the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon.
The Bavli frequently uses recognizable formulas when introducing Tannaitic material.
Two particularly important expressions are:
תניא, tanya: commonly translated as “it was taught.”
תנו רבנן, tanu rabbanan: commonly translated as “the Rabbis taught” or “the Sages taught.”
By contrast:
תנן, tnan: “we learned,” commonly introduces or cites a mishnah.
Another expression worth recognizing is:
מיתיבי, meitivei: “they raised an objection.” This frequently introduces a Tannaitic source being brought as a challenge to an Amoraic statement.
A student may also encounter תא שמע, ta shema, “come and hear,” when the Gemara introduces evidence relevant to a question. The evidence that follows must still be identified from context rather than assumed automatically to be a baraita.
These formulas are reading signals, not a substitute for reading the sugya carefully.
Rav Sherira Gaon gives a more particular traditional account of some of this terminology. He associates tanu rabbanan especially with established baraita traditions transmitted through the schools of Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya and describes other baraitot as being introduced through formulas such as tanya.
A baraita can perform several different functions in a sugya.
It may support a statement, challenge an Amora, explain a mishnah, supply an additional case, preserve another Tannaitic opinion, or provide a Scriptural derivation not stated in the Mishnah.
A baraita can also create a new problem.
Its wording may appear internally inconsistent. It may seem to contradict a mishnah, another baraita, or an Amoraic interpretation. The Gemara then has to determine what kind of problem it is dealing with.
Perhaps the sources discuss different circumstances. Perhaps they represent different Tannaim. Perhaps a phrase needs to be interpreted more precisely. Perhaps one text preserves a general rule and another an exception. In some cases, the reliability of the transmitted wording itself becomes part of the discussion.
A baraita is therefore not simply a footnote explaining the Mishnah. It can become one of the main pieces of evidence around which the sugya develops.
Bavli Sotah 8a offers a useful example because closely parallel Tannaitic material survives in the Tosefta.
The Gemara introduces a teaching with tanu rabbanan concerning whether two women undergoing the sotah procedure may be given the water at the same time. The first position gives one reason for the rule, while Rabbi Yehudah derives it from the wording of a Torah verse.
A close parallel appears in Tosefta Sotah 1:6.
The passage allows a beginning student to see several literary layers together. The Mishnah provides the central Tannaitic text under discussion. Related Tannaitic teaching exists outside the Mishnah. The Bavli introduces that material and then subjects it to later analysis.
It is safer to describe the Bavli passage and Tosefta passage as close parallels than to assume a simple process in which the Bavli copied the surviving Tosefta exactly as we possess it today.
Bavli Shabbat 74a illustrates a different role for a baraita.
The discussion concerns borer, selecting or sorting on Shabbat. The wording of a baraita initially appears to permit selecting under certain conditions but later states that one may not select.
The Gemara immediately has a problem: how are the statements supposed to fit together?
Several Amoraim offer explanations that distinguish between the cases.
The example is useful because the baraita is not presented as an easy explanation of another source. The baraita itself requires interpretation. Its status as an earlier Tannaitic teaching makes it important evidence, but it does not make its meaning obvious.
The Gemara itself shows that the transmission of a baraita could be questioned.
In the discussion spanning Chullin 141a–141b, Rabbi Zeira objects to relying upon a particular baraita because it was not taught in the study halls of Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya. The concern is that the text may have become corrupted in transmission.
This passage prevents another common oversimplification.
Calling something a baraita identifies it as Tannaitic teaching outside the Mishnah. It does not mean that every reported text called a baraita automatically had the same standing or textual reliability.
The sages themselves paid attention to how teachings had been transmitted. Rav Sherira Gaon's later account likewise gives particular importance to the baraita traditions associated with Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya.
Yes, and this is an important part of understanding how Gemara works.
The Amoraim came after the Tannaim. In ordinary Talmudic argument, a recognized Tannaitic source such as a mishnah or authoritative baraita can therefore be brought as an objection to an Amoraic statement.
That does not mean every apparent contradiction immediately defeats the Amora.
The Gemara may show that the sources concern different circumstances, identify the baraita with a particular Tannaitic opinion, interpret its wording differently, cite another Tanna who supports the Amora, or question whether the baraita has been reliably transmitted.
The important point for the beginning student is that an Amora generally cannot simply ignore recognized Tannaitic evidence. An apparent contradiction has to be addressed.
This helps explain why the introduction of a baraita can dramatically change the direction of a sugya.
There is no single automatic rule for every apparent disagreement between a mishnah and a baraita.
The Gemara may determine that the two teachings represent different Tannaim. It may distinguish the circumstances of their cases. One may express a general rule and another a qualification or exception. One may preserve an anonymous ruling while another identifies the Tanna behind it.
Sometimes the apparent contradiction disappears after closer interpretation. In other cases, an actual Tannaitic disagreement remains.
It is therefore misleading to teach either that “the Mishnah always wins” or that a baraita automatically overrides another source.
The particular sugya must first establish what the sources mean and how they relate to one another. Questions of practical halacha are then determined through the later halachic process, not by a simple rule based only on whether a statement appears in the Mishnah or in a baraita.
When tanya or tanu rabbanan appears, stop briefly and identify what has changed.
The Gemara has probably introduced an earlier Tannaitic source. The next question is what that source is doing in the argument.
Is it supporting something just said?
Is it challenging an Amora?
Is it explaining or expanding a mishnah?
Does it introduce another Tannaitic opinion?
Does it add a circumstance or qualification that the Mishnah did not mention?
Then watch what the Gemara does immediately afterward.
If the Gemara treats the teaching as proof, the baraita is functioning as evidence. If it raises an objection from the source, the baraita is creating a problem for the preceding argument. If the Gemara begins analyzing the wording clause by clause, the baraita itself has become the text under examination.
Learning to recognize these shifts is more useful than simply memorizing that tanu rabbanan means “the Rabbis taught.” It helps reveal the structure of the sugya.
Yes, in traditional Orthodox Jewish learning. Baraitot belong to the literature of Torah Shebe'al Peh. “Outside” means outside the Mishnah, not outside the Oral Torah.
Individual texts still have histories of transmission, and the Gemara itself can question whether a particular reported wording is reliable.
No. The term tells us that a Tannaitic teaching was not incorporated into the received Mishnah. It does not tell us why every individual teaching was absent.
It would therefore be inaccurate to imagine Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi personally reviewing and rejecting every passage that later appears as a baraita.
No. The Tosefta is a work, while baraita is a category.
The Tosefta contains a large body of Tannaitic material outside the Mishnah, but not every baraita quoted by the Gemara appears in the surviving Tosefta.
No. Some survive in collections such as the Tosefta and halachic Midrashim. Others are known to us through quotations preserved within the Bavli or Yerushalmi.
No. Baraitot can preserve halachic teachings, Scriptural interpretation, aggadic material, and other Tannaitic traditions.
The category is defined primarily by the teaching's Tannaitic character and its position outside the Mishnah, not by a single subject matter.
It is one of the clearest common signals in the Bavli that Tannaitic material outside the Mishnah is being introduced. Tanya is another important signal.
The surrounding text still matters, and these expressions should not be treated as a mechanical labeling system.
Meitivei, מיתיבי, means that an objection is being raised. In the Bavli, it commonly introduces Tannaitic evidence brought against an Amoraic statement or another part of the argument.
For a beginning student, it is an especially useful signal because it often announces that the sugya is about to test a statement against an earlier source.
Yes. Apparent disagreements occur, and sometimes they reflect different Tannaitic opinions.
The Gemara may also reconcile the sources by distinguishing their authors, circumstances, or meanings. The answer depends on the individual passage.
Yes. A recognized Tannaitic source can be brought as evidence against a statement made by a later Amora.
The Gemara may resolve the challenge in several ways, but the Tannaitic evidence ordinarily has to be addressed rather than simply ignored.
Baraita is a common modern English spelling. Other forms include beraita, baraitha, beraisa, and baraysa.
They represent different transliterations of the same rabbinic term. Mishnah.net uses baraita and the plural baraitot consistently.
Mishnah, Sefaria — Browse the Mishnah by order and tractate.
Tosefta, Sefaria — A major surviving collection of Tannaitic material to compare with the Mishnah.
Rambam, Introduction to the Mishnah — Traditional discussion relevant to the Mishnah's concise form and the additional Tannaitic material associated with Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya.
Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon — An important traditional source concerning the Mishnah, Tosefta, baraitot, and their transmission.
Bavli Sotah 8a and Tosefta Sotah 1:6 — A useful example of closely parallel Tannaitic material.
Bavli Shabbat 74a — An example in which the Gemara must interpret a difficult baraita.
Bavli Chullin 141a–141b — A passage showing concern about the transmission of a reported baraita and the standing of traditions associated with Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya.
Source note: English translations available through linked digital libraries are useful for orientation, but they should not replace examination of the Hebrew or Aramaic when exact wording matters. Links are provided for study and reference. Their inclusion does not imply endorsement of every translation, interpretation, commentary, or other material appearing on the linked website.
Mishnah.net is an independent, not-for-profit educational project and is not affiliated with any synagogue, yeshiva, religious institution, or other organization. Ardan Michael Blum is not a rabbi, and the material published here should not be treated as halachic guidance. Questions about Jewish law or religious practice should be directed to a qualified rabbi.
Said otherwise: This page was created independently of the individuals and organizations discussed, none of whom had editorial control over its contents. It contains no affiliate links, sponsored content, paid placements, or compensated endorsements. Neither the author nor this website received any payment, free or discounted product or service, preferential access, travel, hospitality, gift, or other material benefit connected with this page. Unless expressly disclosed otherwise, neither the author nor this website is affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or officially connected with any individual or organization mentioned. Names and trademarks are used only to identify the subjects discussed. A mention does not, by itself, constitute a recommendation or endorsement.
Please review the website's full Privacy Policy, Disclaimer, and Further Terms.
For project inquiries, corrections, accessibility assistance, or general questions:
Ardan Michael Blum
Online: Contact Form