Ch. 6 (2) The Plain Meaning of the Mishna and Its Interpretation in the Gemara

 

II. The Legitimacy of Interpreting the Mishna According to its Plain Sense

We ended the previous shiur with a question: What justification is there for interpreting Tannaitic sources in a way that seems so far from their plain meaning, and at times even contradicts it? Before we answer this question, however, we must examine its very legitimacy: Is it even possible to say that the Gemara's interpretation of the Mishna contradicts its plain sense? A similar question was raised in Chapter 4, with regard to contradictions between the plain sense of Scripture and the Midrash Halakha. We saw that Biblical commentators often explained the verses in accordance with their plain sense, and saw no problem in doing so. Do we find a similar phenomenon among the commentators to the Mishna? Did they deem it acceptable to interpret a mishna differently from the Gemara's understanding, or did they perceive the Gemara's ukimta as the sole legitimate interpretation of the mishna?

First, it should be noted that in contrast to the Bible, the Mishna is often not studied as a book in itself, but as part of the study of the Gemara. This can be seen in the simple fact that over the course of about thirteen hundred years, from the time of the writing of the Mishna until the beginning of the period of the Acharonim (when interpretation of the Mishna began to flourish, as we will see below), almost no commentaries were written on the Mishna,[1] and the Rambam's commentary to the Mishna remained an exceptional work in the literature of the Rishonim.[2] Furthermore, even in places where they saw value in studying the Mishna in itself, it was generally seen as a tool for learning Halakha[3] and was therefore studied in accordance with the Gemara's conclusion; no significant value was attached to studying the Mishna in accordance with its plain sense, which does not contribute to knowledge of Halakha. This perspective is also indicated by the absence of manuscripts of the Mishna without the Rambam's commentary, and the fact that in general, manuscripts of the Mishna are very few in number in comparison to manuscripts of the Talmud and other works. This shows that "in the great Torah centers of Europe, at least from the end of the eleventh century and until the fifteenth century, the Mishna was not considered a free-standing literary unit. The Mishna of the orders that have the Babylonian Talmud on them was not studied, nor was it widespread; it was embedded in the Babylonian Talmud as a single unit and integrated into it. The Mishna as a halakhic corpus of its own, not within the framework of the Talmud, was apparently not widespread in reality or in the minds of those who studied it."[4] Later commentators of the Mishna took the same approach.

At the same time, however, the commentators did not completely rule out interpreting the Mishna in accordance with its plain sense, as long as no halakha was established based on that interpretation. Below are several examples of interpretations of the Mishna in accordance with its plain sense and against the Gemara, from the Geonim to the Acharonim.

1.  Interpretations of the Geonim

A well-known example of this phenomenon is Rabbi Saadya Gaon's interpretation of a difficult mishna:

If a man who was married to three wives died, and the ketuba of one was a maneh, of the other two hundred zuz, and of the third three hundred zuz, and the estate [was worth] only one maneh, [the sum] is divided equally. If the estate [was worth] two hundred zuz, [the claimant] of the maneh receives fifty zuz [and the claimants respectively] of the two hundred and the three hundred zuz [each receive] three gold dinars.[5] If the estate [was worth] three hundred zuz, [the claimant] of the maneh receives fifty zuz, and [the claimant] of the two hundred zuz [receives] a maneh, while [the claimant] of the three hundred zuz [receives] six gold dinars. (Ketubot 10:4)

The Mishna deals with a case of a man who was married to three wives, each of whom had a ketuba with a different obligation: one had a ketuba of a hundred silver dinars (a maneh), another had a ketuba of two hundred, and the third had a ketuba of three hundred. The man died and left behind a sum of money that did not suffice to pay off all the ketubot. How should this sum be divided among the three women? The Mishna lists three potential cases, in each of which the man left a different amount of money. The table below summarizes the different cases in the Mishna and the law in each of them:

 

The Mishnah is difficult to understand: In the first case, we divide the money equally between the three women; in the third case, it is divided proportionately to the ketubot; and in the middle case, two of the women receive an equal amount despite the difference in their respective ketubot. Why?

In response to this difficulty, the Gemara proposes two ukimtot:

[The claimant] of the maneh receives fifty zuz? Should she not be entitled to only thirty-three and a third zuz? Shmuel said: [Here it is a case] where the one who is entitled to the two hundred zuz gave a written undertaking to the woman who was entitled to one maneh: "I have no claim whatsoever upon the maneh." But if so, read the next clause: [The claimants respectively] of the two hundred and the three hundred zuz [each receive] three gold dinars. Why can she not tell her: "You have already renounced your claim upon it"? Because she can reply: "I have only renounced my claim."

If the estate [was worth] three hundred, etc. [Why should the claimant] of the two hundred zuz receive a maneh, [when in fact] she should be entitled to only seventy-five zuz? Shmuel said: [Our mishna refers to a case] where the woman who was entitled to the three hundred zuz gave a written undertaking to the one who was entitled to the two hundred zuz and the other who was entitled to a maneh: "I have no claim whatsoever upon you in respect of one maneh."

Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod said in the name of Ravina: The first clause deals with two acts of seizure and the last clause deals with two acts of seizure. The first clause deals with two acts of seizure – that is, seventy-five zuz came into their hands the first time and one hundred and twenty-five the second time. The last clause deals with two acts of seizure – that is, seventy-five came into their hands the first time and two hundred and twenty-five the second time. (Ketubot 93a)

Both ukimtot are difficult to understand, and much ink has been spilled to explain them.[6] In general, Shmuel interprets the Mishna as referring to cases where the women made certain commitments to each other, whereas Ravina interprets it as referring to cases where the deceased husband left no free assets, but did have assets in the form of liens on the property of people who had borrowed money from him, and the women collected these debts in two stages. The common denominator of the two ukimtot is that under normal conditions – without agreements among the women and where the deceased husband left free assets – the money is not divided up as stated in the Mishna. It should also be remarked that in the end, the Gemara notes that the halakha is not in accordance with this mishna:

It was taught: This is the teaching of Rabbi Natan. [But] Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] says: I do not approve of Rabbi Natan's views in these [cases] for [the three wives] take equal shares.

Rabbi Saadya Gaon proposed an approach that explains the logic of the Mishna without any ukimta whatsoever:

Even though we know that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] and not Rabbi Natan, and even though Shmuel sets the mishna up as referring to a case where [the women] write to each other renouncing claims, and Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Ravina sets it up as referring to a case where there were two seizures of money – nevertheless, they left room for us as well. We can set the mishna up as referring to a case where there was a court stipulation regarding the assets of the deceased husband: Any wife regarding whom the available assets are less than her ketuba does not receive more than the wife before her, and when they are more than her ketuba, she receives up to the value of her ketuba equally, and the rest proportionately. Therefore, when there is a maneh, which is less than the ketuba of the second and the third wife, they do not receive more than what is given for the ketuba of the first wife, and therefore the three of them divide the money equally. And when there is two hundred, the first wife takes fifty, because it is more than her ketuba. She takes thirty-three and a third equally with the other women from the first maneh, and from the second maneh she takes sixteen and two-thirds, which is a sixth proportionately. And the third wife does not receive more than the second wife, but rather they each take seventy-five. And when there is three hundred, it is not less than the largest ketuba, and therefore they take proportionately: the first takes fifty, the second a hundred, and the third a hundred and fifty. (Otzar ha-Geonim, Ketubot, responsum no. 721, p. 310)[7]

Rabbi Saadya Gaon explains that the rule underlying the Mishna, which is in the realm of a "court stipulation," is that if the sum left by the deceased is less than the ketuba, the money is divided equally among the three women; and if it is greater than the ketuba, then they divide up to the value of the ketuba equally among them, and anything above that is divided proportionately. Therefore, when the deceased left a maneh, that is, a sum equal to the smallest ketuba, the three women divide the money equally among them. When he left two hundred, the first woman receives fifty: the first hundred, which is not more than her ketuba, she divides equally with the other two women and receives a third, i.e., thirty-three and a third dinars; and from the second hundred, which is above the value of her ketuba, she receives a share in proportion to the total value of the various ketubot, that is, a sixth, which is sixteen and two-thirds dinars; in total she receives fifty dinars. The second and third women, regarding whom the second hundred is not more than the value of their ketubot, divide their shares equally. In the third case, the deceased husband left three hundred dinars, a sum that is not less than the largest ketuba, and therefore the women divide up the money proportionately: the first receives fifty, the second a hundred, and the third a hundred and fifty.

This explanation is not without its difficulties, but what is important for our purposes is that Rabbi Saadya Gaon sees no problem in interpreting the mishna in accordance with its plain meaning, as he understands it – and not like the ukimtot of the Gemara. He explicitly notes that the Amoraim interpreted the mishna as referring to special cases, but he sees no problem with proposing a different interpretation in accordance with the plain meaning of the mishna: "nevertheless, they left room for us as well."[8] In this way, he clears the way for other explanations of the Mishna in accordance with its simple meaning, and not like the ukimtot in the Gemara.[9]

Let us move on to another example. The Mishna states:

Whatever is poured out [from one vessel to another] is ritually pure,[10] except for zifin honey and honey batter. (Makhshirin 5:9)

What is "zifin honey"? The Gemara offers two interpretations:

What means "zifin"? Rabbi Yochanan said: Honey used for adulteration [ziyyef]; and Resh Lakish said: It is named after its place, as it is written: "Zif, Telem, and Be'alot" (Yehoshua 15:24). (Sota 48b)

According to the first interpretation, zifin is thick honey, which "is used for adulteration"; "since it is good and thick, people mix water and wine into it, and they cannot be detected" (Rashi). According to the second interpretation, it is honey brought from the region of Zif. However, in Peirush ha-Geonim le-Seder Taharot[11] on this mishna, we find:

Zifin – they are similar to bees [devorin], and there are four: devorin, zifin, gazin, and tzorin.

According to this interpretation, zifin is a type of bee, rather than a type of honey. The Arukh[12] cites the two explanations proposed by the Gemara, and then mentions the interpretation of the Geonim as "another explanation" – even though it is not in accordance with what is stated in the Gemara.

(Translated by David Strauss)