Book of the Host

I have discovered that the Gemara is also expounded by means of thirteen principles, corresponding to the principles by which the Torah is expounded. In most instances, their purpose is well known, but since there are some places where their use is obscure, I deem it appropriate to clarify them so that the students should not misunderstand. I have already alerted the reader regarding some of them in my book The Luminary, which is divided into two sections—The Great Luminary on the order of damages [Nezikin] and family matters [Nashim] and The Lesser Luminary on the order of holidays [Mo‘ed]—which is why I have now written this work, where these principles will be clarified and will thereby illuminate the Gemara like the numerous stars in the heavens. Still, we have not taken upon ourselves the task of gathering all such cases; rather, we have chosen the most obvious examples of cases where the principles might be misunderstood, so that the student will learn about these principles and will extrapolate to other, similar cases, as the verse states: Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser (Proverbs 9:9). Since most of these ideas are simple and straightforward, we do not go to the trouble of explaining them at great length, choosing instead to present these ideas in a succinct fashion, which is the best manner of doing so.

We have named this modest work The Book of the Host, which is an appropriate name for it, and we pray that God will merit us to be counted among those of whom it is said: And they who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they who turn the many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever (Daniel 12:3). [ . . . ]

The Eighth Principle: Tradition Is Authoritative [yesh em le-masoret]

Its ordinary usage in the Gemara is well known, as we find in: keranot, keranot, keranot [b. Sanhedrin 4a].¹ In sukkot, sukkot, sukkot [b. Sukkah 6b];² and in yera’eh, yera’eh [b. Ḥagigah 2a].³ There are many similar examples.

On occasion, this same principle can refer to a case where, according to tradition, an entire word is missing, since according to the holy tongue, either nouns or verbs can be missing, as we have been taught by the grammarians. Here are a number of examples:

With divinations in their hands (Numbers 22:7) should be understood as “with the fees for divination in their hands.”

I am all peace (Psalms 120:7) should be understood as “I speak in peace,” as can be proven by the conclusion of the verse: but when I speak, they are for war.

And I am prayer (Psalms 109:4) should be understood as “And I am speaking in prayer.”

For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit (Psalms 109:2) should be understood as “the mouth speaking deceit.”

There are many such examples, where the word is missing from the text of scripture, yet we have been handed down traditions that clarify matters.

I believe that this is the meaning of the dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva found in tractate Kiddushin [18b] on the homiletic explanation of the words be-vigdo vah (Exodus 21:8). When the Gemara suggests that their dispute revolves around the question of whether or not tradition is authoritative, it means to suggest that an entire word is missing, which is supplied to us by tradition. This is the meaning of this Gemara that says [that the verse means to indicate]:

Once the master has spread his garment over her, [her father] may no longer sell her.

The Gemara continues and defines the source of the argument as one of tradition. For R. Eliezer maintains that tradition is authoritative and that there is a word missing in the biblical text that reads: be-vigdo vah (Exodus 21:8: “with his garment upon her”), since it should say, “once he has spread his garment upon her,” given that the noun beged [garment] cannot be conjugated as a verb. This is true of many—perhaps most—nouns, which cannot be conjugated as verbs, even though in some cases it may be done. He therefore concludes that the verb is missing from the verse, and that our tradition teaches us to insert it. This approach does not contradict the rules of Hebrew grammar, for the holy tongue, as well as all other languages, accept lacunae such as these, each according to its own rules. This is the tradition that we have received regarding the grammatical elements of the holy tongue.

R. Akiva maintains that the wording of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that we cannot view anything as being missing from the text that can be inserted based on tradition. He understands the root b-g-d of be-vigdo as referring to a word that is [actually] often used as a verb [bagad], meaning to betray, as in: Why are the workers of treachery at ease? (Jeremiah 12:1); Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother? (Malachi 2:10); So have you dealt treacherously with Me (Jeremiah 3:20). It is with this meaning in mind that scripture writes: be-vigdo vah [“he has dealt deceitfully with her”]. Since the father dealt deceitfully with her and sold her once, he cannot sell her again. This is the meaning of [the phrase yesh em le-mikra’] scripture is authoritative: the wording of the Torah is complete and authoritative and we may not add a single word based on tradition.

I have seen the commentary of our teacher, R. Solomon [Rashi], who switched the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva with one another, as well as the commentary of R. Jacob [Rabbenu Tam] who suggested that the letter bet of be-vigdo should be vocalized with a segol vowel [i.e., so that the word is be-vegdo] so that it is understood to mean a garment, as we find in expressions like be-‘emdo be-merdo [when he persists in his rebellion; see b. Shevu‘ot 13a]. I do not understand his use of grammar in this case, for the reading that we have is be-‘omed be-mirdo with the ḥirik vowel under the letter mem [mi], although, in truth, we have no accurate tradition with regard to vocalization of words in the Mishnah and the Gemara. Thus, I have written what appears to be truthful in my eyes.