On Ketubot 40b, we encounter varying reports of an exposition by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on the spelling of na’arah. While na’arah is considered a precise legal term, referring to a six-month span from the onset of puberty , the consonantal Biblical text is often “נער” — but in a single instance is spelled נערה. Based on context and oral tradition as to the vowels, we know this word refers to a young girl, na’arah. The deficient (“חסר”) spelling seems strange and would call out for midrashic exposition; alternatively, the plene (“מלא”) spelling is exceptional and calls for the same. In favor of the deficient being unsurprising, consider that matres lectionis (“אמות הקריאה”) to aid pronunciation in the absence of vowel symbols are later, and a kametz can appear at the end of words (“לך” and “ואהבת”).
We have three or four accounts of Resh Lakish’s exposition. The first might be associated with Sura academy. As background, Rav (cited by Rav Yehuda, who was a second-generation Amora, learned from Rav in Sura, then established Pumbedita academy) conveyed that there’s a Tannaitic dispute about whether the fines for rape described in Devarim 22 extended only to a na’arah (Rabbi Meir, the Mishnah) or even to the younger ketanah (the Sages). Rav Chisda (third-generation, Sura academy) explained Rabbi Meir’s rationale is based on Devarim 22:29,“וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה,” that we’re dealing with one capable of marrying by herself. As for the Sages’ rationale, this is provided (by Rav Chisda, or by a Talmudic narrator who’s fifth-generation Amoraic or earlier) based on Resh Lakish’s exposition. Na’arah is spelled deficiently as “נער ” in this verse: “וְ֠נָתַ֠ן … לַאֲבִ֥י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ — he shall pay the father of the נַעֲרָ fifty silver.” (That is how it appears in the verse 29; the Talmudic citation is just “אָמַר קְרָא נַעַר.”) Thus, even a ketanah is implied.
Pumpeditan Variant
Rav Pappa bar Rav Chana of Bei Kluchit heard the entire aforementioned (Suran) sugya and related it before Rav Shimi bar Ashi. Now, Rav Shimi bar Ashi was a fifth-generation Amora who frequented Abaye’s household, but wasn’t one of Abaye and Rava’s students. After Abaye’s death, when Rav Pappa set up in Naresh, he would ask him questions, until he saw that Rav Pappa was troubled by it. I would, therefore, broadly associate Rav Shimi bar Ashi with the Pumpeditan academy.
When Rav Shimi heard this sugya, including Resh Lakish’s exposition, he said, “You (plural) teach this (Resh Lakish’s) statement in that context. We teach it in the following context.” Namely, Resh Lakish speaks of the slandered girl (of 22:19), that a ketana is excluded from a fine, because verse 19 states: “וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה,” where na’arah is plene. Next, Rav Ada bar Ahava objects to this exposition. If Rav Ada bar Ahava I, he’s a second-generation Amora associated with Pumpedita, responding to his contemporary Resh Lakish. Several manuscripts (e.g. Munich 95) have Rav Ada bar Abba, and this variation corresponds with Rav Ada bar Ahava II — a fourth-generation Amora associated with Mechoza — where Rava set up his academy, thus also Pumpeditan in nature. Regardless, Rav Ada bar Ahava’s objection is part of Rav Shimi bar Ashi’s wording, as he explains the Pumpeditan context .
What accounts for the variation in Resh Lakish’s statement between Sura and Pumpedita? It was an oral transmission, and they knew that he associated deficient spelling with excluding a ketanah and plene spelling with including her. The prooftexts are quite similar, either venatan … la’avi hana’ar(ah) or venatenu la’avi hana’arah. The singular versus plural distinction is easy to mistake. Whichever prooftext is selected, the exposition will consistently follow.
Yerushalmi Variant
Since Resh Lakish is a Palestinian Amora, especially where a statement’s version is unclear, I’d consult Talmud Yerushalmi. Yerushulami Ketubot 3:9 (paralleled in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:11) has essentially the Suran presentation, though about whether the stoning penalty applies. Rabbi Yasa quoting Rabbi Yochanan (quoting earlier Sages) matches our Rav Yehuda quoting Rav —that the Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s position, but the Sages disagree. The Yerushalmi narrator gives Rav Chisda’s explanation about na’arah written deficiently.
Then, Rabbi Abahu (third-generation) quotes Resh Lakish’s exposition. “נַעֲרָה אַחַת שְׁלֵימָה כָתוּב ”.בַּפָּרָשָׁה. לִימְּדָה עַל כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁהִיא גְדוֹלָה Since na’arah is written plene in one instance, it teaches that all instances in this section / parasha, including those spelled deficiently, refer to a non-ketanah. I’m uncertain what is meant by “parsha” here, whether topic, whether between petucha and setuma breaks, or whether all sections of motzi shem ra, na’arah hameorasa, seduction and rape appearing in the chapter.
In our Masoretic texts, the solitary plene spelling is within motzi shem ra, but the topic under discussion in this sugya is na’arah hameorasa. Then, in Aramaic, they explain how Rabbi Meir responds: by motzi shem ra, it is (once) consonantally spelled“ נער.” Yet, if found guilty, she’s stoned, so she must be a non-ketanah. Rabbi Avin gives an explanation of that particular deficient spelling. This Rabbi Meir response seems akin to Rav Ada bar Ahava’s objection in the Pumpeditan sugya. (It is strange to target motzi shem ra for the deficient spelling, Resh Lakish’s interpretation for the Sages already seemingly addressed it as part of the same parsha, but its kinship to Rav Ada bar Ahava’s objection may answer this: ”“Why would the derasha be necessary?”) At the end of the day, assuming their Torah texts match our own, Resh Lakish in Yerushalmi closely matches the Suran presentation of the derasha, interpreting the plene instance of venatenu la’avi hanaarah.
Rambam / Semag Variant
Minchat Shai on Devarim 22:19 notes that this is the singular plene instance of נערה in the Torah, and quotes the expositions in Ketubot 40b and 44b. Then he notes that Rambam (Hilchot Naarah Betulah 3:1) and Semag (Positive Commandment 55), when restricting it to a na’arah, refer to the plene spelling of hana’arah in verse 15, where the girl’s parents bring evidence of her innocence. “”וְאֵינוּ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עַל הַנַּעֲרָה —שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר: וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת-בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָה’,נַעֲרָה‘ מָלֵא דִּבַּר הַכָּתוּב”. Minchat Shai believes it inaccurate,“שלא בדקדוק”, and points us to Kesef Mishnah’s commentary. This seems to me constructed like a real alternative derasha — note“ עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא” and “וְהוֹצִיאוּ ”, but maybe it does refer to spelling of verse 19. We should expect Rambam and Semag to base themselves on our Talmudic texts.
Could it be that our Masoretic texts are incorrect in its selection of the one plene spelling? After all, in the Talmud, only where Resh Lakish interpreted the deficient na’arah, do we see preceding words. Where Resh Lakish interpreted the plene spelling, he never cited the full verse! He just said there is an instance of complete na’arah. (And Rambam and Semag could have alternate Torah texts, and interpreted the ambiguous Gemara accordingly.) Aside from faith in our masoretic tradition, I’ll again point out the Suran / Pumpeditan divergence of whether Resh Lakish interpreted a plene or a deficient spelling. The oral confusion works extremely well if dealing with a minimal pair, venatenu / venatan la’avi hanaarah.
One final bit of evidence is Ketubot 29b, where Resh Lakish proffers another midrashic interpretation, this time about אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נַעֲרָה, נַעֲרָה, הַנַּעֲרָה. חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד ” ”.לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת Rashi writes: “hachi garsinan,” so should we read the text, with“ נַעֲרָה נַעֲרָה הַנַּעֲרָה,” then details which verse each word is selected from. However, the textual variant he’s rejecting is“ נַעֲר נַעֲרָה הַנַּעֲרָה,” found for example in Vatican 112, suggesting the derasha is repeatedly adding on extraneous letters to a single word. (Resh Lakish would then be doubly interpreting the verse.) The context is the fine to the girl’s father, and so Resh Lakish knows of a na’arah with both plene spelling and the definite article, matching Ketubot 40b.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
