Book of Responses

To begin, he [Se‘adya] interprets and [she] sent her handmaiden [amatah] [to fetch it] (Exodus 2:5) as meaning that she [the daughter of Pharaoh] extended [sent forth] her [own] arm [amatah]. This is mistaken in several ways. [ . . . ]

Now, the [correct] explanation of this is as follows. In the beginning of the narrative [i.e., at the start of this same verse], it says: while her maidens walked along by the river side (Exodus 2:5). These are her handmaidens. Upon seeing the basket, she [the daughter of Pharaoh] sent one of her handmaidens to seize it. It is impossible to interpret this otherwise, because it doesn’t say amatah, meaning, in fact, [to say] amah [with the meaning of an arm], because the [word] amah is the name of the measurement of an arm’s length, as when you say zeret and tefaḥ, for these are names of measurements. Now, you will find nowhere in all of scripture such language used about a measurement: “He sent forth his cubit.” Or: “[He sent forth] his zeret.” Or: “[He sent forth] his tefaḥ.” But instead [you will find]: So, putting out his hand (Genesis 8:9) and: But the men stretched out their hands (Genesis 19:10). Now, it does not say amatam, nor zirtam, nor tifḥam. [ . . . ]

This would be a destruction of the Hebrew language. Heaven forfend we should commit such a breach, interpreting [even] one of the words of the living God in vain, lawlessly, ungrammatically, without weighing each word so that we do not incur punishment. This is opposite to the [way] of the cautious, who are meticulous in their words and blameless. [ . . . ]

Now, he [Se‘adya] interpreted niv‘u matspunav [How are his hidden things sought up!] (Obadiah 1:6) from the language of the Mishnah. He says that there are seventy words for which one can find no parallel in scripture without recourse to the language of the Mishnah. For they [in the Mishnah] call a shepherd mav‘eh [and therefore the verb niv‘u must be understood as “they grazed”].

Now, let us respond to him: there is no mention at all of shepherding in this verse. Rather, it says: How is Esau searched out, [by] those who seek his hidden things! (Obadiah 1:6). Now, how can this verse have anything to do with shepherding? But had he [Se‘adya] investigated and examined [these matters], [he would have found] the likes of im tiv‘ayun be‘ayu [If you would inquire, inquire] (Isaiah 21:12), [inquire here has the same root as niv‘u], and this means: if you [want to] seek, [then] seek! But grazing only applies to the grass of the land and its crops. O [my] son, understand my refutation [of Se‘adya]! [ . . . ]

He [Se‘adya] explicated mi khamokha ḥasin yah [who is like You, inheriting, O Lord?] (Psalms 89:9). He says this comes from Aramaic, [where] meḥasin [possessing] is the translation of noḥel [inheriting]. Know, my brother, that no verb in the form of ḥasin exists in all of scripture. Rather, it is of the noun [forms], as in meri’, kefir, gevir, devir. Know that Hebrew is dissimilar to Aramaic and Arabic, [and we have no recourse to comparisons between them] except where we find nothing similar to it [i.e., a Hebrew word] at all [in scripture]. [ . . . ]

He [Se‘adya] said, regarding [the word] satan [adversary], as it is written: The Lord said to the adversary (Job 1:7, 8), that he was [merely] a man. But evidence proves that he is not of men, but of the angels. The proof is when he [the Lord] says to him [to the satan]: Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life (Job 2:6). Then it says afterward: and [the satan] smote Job with sore boils (Job 2:7). Now, it is well known that the Holy One does not deliver a man into the hands of his fellow to afflict him or [to carry out a divine] decree, as he does with angels, who smote with blindness all those gathered at the door of Lot’s house and [who] burned Sodom and Gomorrah.