A colossal rabbinic blunder caused by a drop of spilled ink? (Mishpatim)

אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין, הַשּׁוֹר וְהַבּוֹר וְהַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר…

 There are four primary categories of damage: The category of  שור Ox; and the category of  בור Pit; and the category of מבעה Maveh; and the category of הבער   Fire …

These are the opening words of the first Mishnah in tractate Baba Kama, and arguably the most famous line in the Babylonian Talmud.

Clearly based on verses in this week’s Torah portion, Parshat Mishpatim, these classifications are designated as the master categories of damages to any life or property caused by negligence. And, by definition and intent, each title is crystal clear, with the exception of the third, מַּבְעֶה / Maveh which defies translation because the sages of the Talmud, the Amoraim, themselves were clueless as to the word’s meaning, spending any number of pages on verbal pilpulation and exegetical contortions in their efforts to discern the meaning of this unique idiom.

One would assume that the Amoraim, the sages of the Talmud, would question whether this word actually exists. After all, the redactor of the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi (Judah the Prince) was, if nothing else, extremely precise in his vocabulary. He was scrupulous about using language, primarily Hebrew, that would be absolutely intelligible. Hence, in selecting the name for a master classification of laws of damages, the last thing he would do is pick some obscure, if not nonexistent, term. This would be especially true in this case where the other three categories are given the simplest and most readily comprehensible nouns:  OX, PIT, FIRE.

Moreover,  categories 1, 2 and 4 are all found in our Parsha, Mishpatim (Shemot/Exodus 21,22) and in sequence. Hence it would stand to reason that this category, this mysterious MAVEH, should be found in this very same parsha between #2 and #4.

Indeed, one would assume the Amoraim would ask themselves whether somehow this mystery word was, Heaven forfend, an error?  That somewhere along the line of transmission some accident had occurred thereby distorting an otherwise extraordinarily simple word, one that would make perfect sense BOTH as a category of damages AND in situ, nestled between the third and fourth categories, as the editor of the Mishnah had intended?

In fact this is clearly the case.  Indeed, there is no such word as MAVEH מַּבְעֶה, but there is such a word as מבער (MEVA’ER) which would be a ruminant animal that munches its way through a field causing devastation to a crop.

Prior to the invention of the lawn mower, cattle were let loose to clear a garden or field of its vegetation. If this was the intention, then the act of מבער MEVA’ER would be a desired one.  On the other hand, if the owner of said cattle – intentionally or accidentally –  allowed his sheep or goats or cows to invade a neighbor’s field and lay waste to its crops, this would be something else entirely. In an ancient agrarian society, such an occurrence was not uncommon, hence it would readily be declared a master category of damages from which, myriad derivatives and sub-categories would emerge.

And, yes, it is RIGHT THERE in our parsha:

1. OX/שור

וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished.  (Shemot/Exodus 21:28)

2. PIT/בור

כִֽי־יִפְתַּ֨ח אִ֜ישׁ וְבּ֗וֹר א֠וֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ בֹּ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יְכַסֶּ֑נּוּ וְנָֽפַל־שָׁ֥מָּה שּׁ֖וֹר א֥וֹ חֲמֽוֹר׃ בַּ֤עַל הַבּוֹר֙ יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם כֶּ֖סֶף יָשִׁ֣יב לִבְעָלָ֑יו וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ׃

When someone opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must make restitution—paying the price to the owner, but keeping the dead animal. (21:33-34)

3. MAVEH/ מבעה

כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־בְּעִירֹ֔ה וּבִעֵ֖ר בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר מֵיטַ֥ב שָׂדֵ֛הוּ וּמֵיטַ֥ב כַּרְמ֖וֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃

 When someone who owns livestock lets it loose to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare, restitution must be made for the impairment of that field or vineyard. (22:4)

4. FIRE/הבער

כִּֽי־תֵצֵ֨א אֵ֜שׁ וּמָצְאָ֤ה קֹצִים֙ וְנֶאֱכַ֣ל גָּדִ֔ישׁ א֥וֹ הַקָּמָ֖ה א֣וֹ הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה שַׁלֵּ֣ם יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם הַמַּבְעִ֖ר אֶת־הַבְּעֵרָֽה׃

When a fire is started and spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed, the one who started the fire must make restitution. (22:5)

Except that the correct word for #3 is not MAVEH/ מבעה but, rather, MEVA’ER/מבער. Apparently a drop of ink had fallen under the letter reish ״ר״  of מבער thereby turning it into the letter heh ״ה״ and voila we have this mysterious word MAVEH.  Because the root word for such grazing is בער (as in כי יבער) and, of course, the noun for an animal ( or the human responsible for that animal) engaged in such activity is מבער.

It’s really all very clear and simple So the question is why did the Talmudic sages not reach this obvious conclusion?  Why did they indulge in an orgy of fruitless and, frankly ridiculous, exegetical efforts to find some basis for a nonexistent word?  And it is not as if the Sages were loath to play footloose and fancy free with texts when it suited them to do (so long as it  did not involve negating, God forbid, what some earlier rabbi had declared.).

But here the Amoraim couldn’t bring themselves to state the obvious because this would have meant rejecting a written text that had been handed down to them, one which just happened to have a droplet of spilled ink that turned a ר into a ה. And for this, endless rolls of parchment, and mountains of paper, and a flood of precious ink, and a million hours of disputation in yeshivas has been – and continues to be – spent on refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

(And the proof of the pudding is that, without ever acknowledging its source or adjusting the spelling, they did eventually conclude that MAVEH meant some sort of damage cause by teeth.)

There is a fine line between venerating previous generations and outright foolishness caused by a rigid unwillingness to believe that any rabbi from an earlier time could possibly have made a mistake EVEN WHEN this mistake is clearly intentional (because surely they could not have been so illiterate.)  Case in point:

ההר נקרא “סיני” על שם השנאה שירדה לעובדי כוכבים ומזלות

  The mountain  was called Sinai (סיני) for the hatred ( sin’ah) that descended upon  idol-worshippers and pagans

 (B. Talmud 89a)

The name Sinai and the word for hated ‘sin’ah’ have phonetic similarity,  yet they are totally different words with totally different spellings.  But, apparently, the sage who made this statement had an axe to grind, and for the next 2,000 years down to our time, little boys in heders are taught to believe that the name of Mount Sinai is derived from the word for hatred. And no one dares to question that. After all, someone more ancient had said so.

***

PS For my earlier column on Parshat Mishpatim please go to  https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-coherence-of-incoherence-plusperverting-the-words-of-a-tzaddik-mishpatim/