Ch. 6 (10) The Plain Meaning of the Mishna and Its Interpretation in the Gemara

VI. “They Left Room for Us As Well”

The third and final type of gap between the plain meaning of a mishna and the Gemara’s ukimta corresponds to a certain extent to the third type of case with which we dealt in chapter 4 (section IV, 2), to explain the gap between the plain meaning of Scripture and the Midrash Halakha. Whereas with regard to the two previous types of cases, we noted the phenomenon of an ukimta that does not seek to present a necessary interpretation of the wording of the Tannaitic source, but rather stems from a different halakhic position or from a desire to reconcile a contradiction between Tannaitic sources in a practical manner, the third type involves cases in which the goal is to understand the Tannaitic source in itself, there being a difficulty with understanding the source in its plain sense. This interpretation is binding in the halakhic context, but as we saw above, it does not necessarily deny the legitimacy of alternative interpretations that deal differently with the plain meaning of the source.

We saw a clear example of this at the beginning of the chapter (section II), in Rabbi Saadya Gaon's interpretation of a difficult mishna in tractate Ketubot regarding the distribution of the ketuba in the case of "a man who was married to three wives and died." As may be recalled, the Gemara interpreted the mishna by proposing two complicated ukimtot. These ukimtot were motivated not by external considerations, but by a desire to understand a difficult Tannaitic source. Although the Gemara’s interpretations are not implicit in the Mishna’s wording, it seems the Amoraim preferred to deal with the difficulty in a logical manner. Since in any event, there is a difficulty in understanding the mishna, there are two possibilities: either the difficulty is in its logic, or the difficulty is in the peshat (plain meaning) of the mishna. The preference for understanding the logic over adherence to the plain sense is a conscious choice, and in any case, the halakhic ruling on this issue is determined according to what is stated in the Gemara.

However, as we saw earlier, Rabbi Saadya Gaon proposed a way to explain the mishna according to its plain sense, without resorting to ukimtot. He also explained the legitimacy of doing so: "they left room for us as well."[1] As may be recalled, we saw additional sources for this type of interpretation in different generations. Indeed, if Biblical commentators across the generations could interpret the verses of Scripture in accordance with their plain sense, even when their interpretations contradict the interpretations of Chazal and even with respect to halakhic issues, based on the idea of "insights into the plain meaning of Scripture that are newly thought of day by day"[2] – then there is no reason why the Tannaitic sources cannot also be interpreted in their plain sense. Of course, the binding halakha in every case is in accordance with the interpretation of Chazal.

Let us illustrate this type with another case. The Mishna defines the times for the prayers that are recited over the course of a day:

The morning prayer – until noon [chatzot]. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until the fourth hour. The afternoon prayer – until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until the middle of the afternoon [pelag ha-mincha]. The evening prayer has no fixed limit. (Berakhot 4:1)

The Gemara has difficulty understanding the words "has no fixed limit":

What is the meaning of "has no fixed limit"? If you say it means that if one wishes, he can recite the prayer any time in the night, then let it state: "The time for the evening prayer is the entire night." Rather, what is the meaning of "has no fixed limit"? As the one who says: The evening prayer is optional. (Berakhot 27b)

The Gemara rules out the possibility of understanding these words as referring to prayer times, even though that is the mishna’s topic, because were that the case, the mishna should have read: "The time for the evening prayer is the entire night." For this reason, the Gemara prefers to understand the phrase “has no fixed limit” not with regard to the time of the evening prayer, but to its very obligation – that it relates to the fact that the evening prayer is different from the other prayers, as it is defined as "optional" rather than obligatory.

The Vilna Gaon, however, clings to the possibility that the entire mishna deals with the times of prayer; therefore, he explains the words "has no fixed limit" differently:

This means: it has no time on its own part, but rather its time is when one cannot recite the other prayers; that is, between the afternoon prayer and the morning prayer. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one recites the afternoon prayer until pelag ha-mincha, and the time for the evening prayer starts from pelag ha-mincha; according to the Rabbis, who say that the time for the afternoon prayer is until the evening, the time for the evening prayer starts from the evening. (Shenot Eliyahu, ad loc.)

According to the Vilna Gaon, the phrase "has no fixed limit" means that the evening prayer has no positive time frame on its own part; rather, its time is defined as the time when the other prayers cannot be recited. Thus, there is a direct connection between the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages regarding the time of the afternoon prayer, and the time of the evening prayer.[3]

In any case, the Vilna Gaon offers an original interpretation of the mishna, different from that of the Gemara. In this case, his interpretation has no halakhic ramifications, and therefore it is likely that even the Tosafot Yom Tov would not rule it out. It is reasonable to assume that according to the Vilna Gaon, the Gemara's interpretation does not constitute a reason for barring additional proposals for interpreting the mishna according to its plain sense.[4] This is how the Vilna Gaon's disciple, Rabbi Menashe of Ilya,[5] briefly summarized his teacher’s approach: "And he added further valor, that even in the Mishna, there is the plain sense and the exposition" (introduction to Binat Mikra).

(Translated by David Strauss)