In the mishna on 41B there was an issue with the reisha not being consistent with R Shimon, yet R Shimon only being cited as arguing on the seifa. One answer given is that originally the two halves may not have been taught together, with R Yehuda later compiling them into one mishna, so R Shimon didn't see the reisha to argue against it. Following this logic, why don't we use the same answer whenever the Gemara is stuck trying to figure out the author of a mishna given that often a Tanna's opinion will only work with half of the mishna. Let us just say that the two halves were not originally together, and so could be the work of two different Tannaim.

In the mishna on 41B there was an issue with the reisha not being consistent with R Shimon, yet R Shimon only being cited as arguing on the seifa. One answer given is that originally the two halves may not have been taught together, with R Yehuda later compiling them into one mishna, so R Shimon didn't see the reisha to argue against it. Following this logic, why don't we use the same answer whenever the Gemara is stuck trying to figure out the author of a mishna given that often a Tanna's opinion will only work with half of the mishna. Let us just say that the two halves were not originally together, and so could be the work of two different Tannaim.