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

III. “It is the Way of the Gemara to Distort the Meaning of a Mishna so that it Agrees with the Normative Law” (continuation)

To understand the words of the Meiri cited in the previous shiur, we will illustrate two of the phenomena that he mentions, "The text is defective, and should read thus" (chasurei mechasera ve-hakhi katanei) and "Explain it thus" (tareitz ve-eima hakhi), beginning with the former.

The Gemara (Kiddushin 44b) cites the opinion of Rav Nachman that a na'ara (a young girl, between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half) can accept a get on her own, but she cannot appoint an agent to accept it on her behalf, such that she would be divorced as soon as the agent receives the get. The Gemara then raises an objection against Rav Nachman, from a mishna that implies otherwise:

If a ketana [a young girl below the age of twelve] says: "Accept my get on my behalf," it is not a valid get until it reaches her hand. Therefore, should the husband wish to retract, he may do so, for a minor cannot appoint an agent. But if her father says to him [the agent]: "Go and accept the get for my daughter," should her husband wish to retract, he cannot do so. (Mishna Gittin 6:3)

This mishna specifies that a ketana cannot appoint an agent to receive her get, implying that a na'ara can in fact appoint such an agent: "Hence, in the case of a na'ara, it is a valid get! (Kiddushin 44b). The Gemara reconciles the difficulty with an ukimta: "With what are we dealing here? With a girl who has no father." That is to say, the mishna speaks of a girl who has no father, and therefore, if she is a na'ara, she can indeed appoint an agent herself to receive her get.[1] A na'ara who has a father, however, cannot appoint such an agent. The Gemara raises an objection against this ukimta from the second part of the mishna, "But if her father says to him" – which implies that we are discussing a girl who does have a father, but nevertheless, only a ketana cannot appoint an agent. Thus, the objection against Rav Nachman stands! In order to reconcile the position of Rav Nachman, the Gemara proposes that "the text [of the mishna] is defective," and explains what the Mishna actually means:

The text [of the Mishna] is defective, and should read thus: If a ketana says: "Accept my get for me," it is not a [valid] get until it reaches her hand; but in the case of a na'ara, it is a [valid] get. When is that said? If she has no father. But if she has a father and he says: "Go and accept the get for my daughter," and [then] the husband wishes to retract, he cannot do so.

Inserting these words into the mishna changes the entire picture and allows us to reconcile Rav Nachman’s position, that a na'ara cannot appoint an agent to receive her get, with the mishna.

According to the Meiri, we can well understand the course of the Talmudic passage. Rav Nachman maintained a certain position, but a difficulty was raised against it from a mishna that contradicts his view. In order not to directly disagree with a mishna, Rav Nachman took the approach of "the text [of the mishna] is defective, and should read thus," and added words that removed the mishna from its plain meaning and made it consistent with his opinion.

In another example, the Mishna states: "On three occasions of the year, the priests lift up their hands [to bless the people] four times during the day: at the Shacharit service, at the Musaf service, at the Mincha service, and at the closing of the gates. [The three occasions are:] fast days, ma'amadot, and Yom Kippur" (Ta'anit 4:1). According to the plain sense of this mishna, the Musaf service was recited even on fast days and on ma'amadot,[2] as on Yom Kippur. The Gemara expresses surprise: "Is there a Musaf service on fast days and ma'amadot?" and it resolves the matter by arguing that "the text [of the Mishna] is defective":

The text [of the mishna] is defective, and should read thus: "On three occasions, the priests lift their hands [to bless the people] at all services, and on one of these occasions four times during the day, at the Shacharit service, at the Musaf service, at the Mincha service, and at the closing of the gates. The following are the three occasions: Fast days, ma'amadot, and Yom Kippur. (Ta'anit 26b)

On the other hand, it is clear in a parallel passage in the Tosefta that indeed, they used to recite the Musaf service on fast days: "On public fast days, the priests lift their hands [to bless the people] four times during the day, which is not the case on a private fast day" (Tosefta Ta'aniyot 2:4, p. 331). The solution of "the text is defective" does not work here, for Yom Kippur is not mentioned at all. The Yerushalmi also implies that the mishna was understood in its plain sense: "Infer from here three things: that we fast on ma'amadot, that we pray four times, and that there is no lifting of the hands [to bless the people] at night, but only during the day" (Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4:1, 67b). It seems that this is a case in which the Bavli disagrees with the Yerushalmi; the Bavli maintains that there is no Musaf service on fast days, and therefore it offers a forced explanation of the mishna.[3] Similar examples can be found in other cases as well.[4]

The same is true for the second phenomenon: "Explain it thus." For example, the Gemara cites Rava’s position that a sukka whose sekhakh branches are not all at the same level is nevertheless valid, even if there are three handbreadths between them, as long as the upper branch is a handbreadth wide:

Rava said: Even if there are three handbreadths between one and another, we also do not say [that the sukka is invalid], unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide; but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and throw it down." (Sukka 22a)

The Gemara raises an objection against Rava’s statement based on a baraita that implies the sekhakh can be considered as uniform, despite the differences in height, even without the width of a handbreadth:

If one was above and the other below, Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda said: We regard the upper one as though it were lower down or the lower one as though it were higher, provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground] nor the lower one less than ten [cubits from the ground]. (Sukka 22b)

This baraita indicates that it suffices if the beams are within the height of a valid sukka – i.e., not higher than twenty cubits and not lower than ten handbreadths – and they do not have to be at the same height even if the upper beam is not a handbreadth in width. The Gemara answers that according to the opinion of Rava, words must be added to the baraita:

He said to him: Explain it thus: Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], or else: Provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths]. (ibid.)

According to Rava, if the upper beam is not a handbreadth wide, the sukka is valid only if the distance between the two beams is less than three handbreadths; if the distance between them is greater, the sukka is valid only if the upper beam is a handbreadth wide. Inserting the condition, "near it within less than three handbreadths," into the baraita changes its meaning entirely. According to the approach of the Meiri, Rava maintained that these words must be added to the baraita in order to make it consistent with his view that in order for the sukka to be valid, the upper beam must be a handbreadth wide. In effect, this was his way of expressing his position that disagreed with the positions appearing in the Tannaitic sources.

This is how it is explained in the name of the Vilna Gaon by his disciple Rabbi Israel of Shklov:[5]

He knew regarding all instances of "the text is defective" in the Talmud, that nothing is defective in what our Holy Rabbi [Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi] arranged in the Mishna, and it is not the way that something should be missing. It is only that Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] agreed with one Tanna and formulated the Mishna in accordance with him, and nothing is defective according to him, whereas the Gemara agreed with another Tanna, and in accordance with him, the Gemara said "the text is defective, and should read thus." And he expounded the verse: "The roundings [chamukei] of your thighs" (Shir Ha-shirim 7:2), that is to say, the initial letters of "the text is defective, and should read thus" (chasurei mechasera ve-hakhi katanei) are like your thighs; just as your thighs are concealed, so too regarding the words of the Torah; the greatness of the ways of the Oral Law is found in the most concealed place.[6] (Pe'at Ha-shulchan, introduction).

According to this approach, when the Gemara says "the text [of the mishna] is defective, and should read thus," it means to adapt the mishna to the opinion of another Tanna – while the plain meaning of the mishna reflects the opinion of the Tanna who taught it, and whose words Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi chose to include in the Mishna. According to him, any other understanding impairs the grand enterprise of Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi, who, were this true, would have included mishnayot in his Mishna that are not properly formulated. It should be noted, however, that the Vilna Gaon accepts this approach only when the emendation is done to adapt the Tannatic source to the opinion of some other Tanna;[7] he does not say what the Meiri said, that this is a way for an Amora to disagree with a Tanna.[8]