The Meaning of the Word Eduyos in מסכת עדיות
The Meaning of the Word Eduyos in מסכת עדיות
David S Farkas
Mr. Farkas received his rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in 1999. He lives with his family in Cleveland, Ohio, where he serves as Senior Corporate Counsel for one of the largest energy distribution companies in the United States.
Masechet Eduyos is a unique volume of the Talmud. It is the only halachic tractate not confined to a single defined area of law. It is, rather, a collection of Mishnayos on diverse topics, some of which appear elsewhere throughout the six orders of the Mishna and the Gemara. It is also, along with Avos, the only volume in Seder Nezikin with no Gemara, neither Bavli nor Yerushalmi.[1]
What exactly does the word Eduyos mean? Two traditional explanations have been offered, one significantly older than the other. Both explanations are not without difficulties. In this brief note I propose, with all appropriate caution and respect, a new explanation – a חדוש that, to my knowledge, has never before been suggested.
The classical explanation is stated by the Rambam in his Introduction to the Mishna, as follows:[2]
ורוב עניין זאת המסכתא הוא לזכור בה כל ההלכות שהעידו עליהם אנשים ברורים נאמנים, ושעדותם ראוי לסמוך עליה… ועדויות הם הודעת הדברים שהעידו בם לפני השופטים בעיתים ידועים וקבלו אותם מהם
Thus, Eduyos means “testimonies”. The volume is a record of various halachic statements made by reliable men in front of judges, assembled into a single volume. To be more precise, as the Rambam also writes at the end of the second chapter of his commentary, based on Berachos 27b, these testimonials took place when R. Gamliel was deposed from his position of Nasi, and replaced by R. Elazar ben Azaryah. This would indeed appear to be the simplest explanation, as the phrase העיד – a Tanna “testified” – appears numerous times in Eduyos. And the plural of the word is, in fact, עדיות, as it appears in Makos 6b הרי אלו שתי עדיות.
And yet the matter is not quite that simple. For these numerous examples all appear only in the last three chapters of the 8-chapter volume. (The word is also used, in a passing and different context, in the third Mishna of the first chapter.) In fact, the majority of the rulings found in the volume were not decided on the basis of any testimony at all. Shouldn’t the name of the masechta reflect the character of the entire masechta?
There is a second interpretation of the word, based on an alternate name for Eduyos found several times in the Gemara: בחירתא. The meaning of this word is “the chosen”, or “the best”. The sense of the word is that these Mishnayos are “the best”, because the halacha follows them, since their content comes from great authorities. See, e.g., Rashi to Brachos 27a and Kiddushin 54b. Noting this, the Tiferes Yisrael commentary of R. Yisrael Lifschitz (1782-1860) writes in the name of his father that the name of the volume should really be pronounced עִדיות (Idiyos) with a chirik under the ayin. The word would thus parallel the term בחירתא, and would also be understood as “the choice ones”, in the same way that word is sometimes used in the Talmud, as in לא בא הכתוב אלא לִגְבּוֹת לנזקין מן העדית (Bava Kama 6b). The scholar Y. N. Epstein, in his מבוא לנוסח המשנה, also prefers this alternative “choice” explanation, citing Geonic spellings of the volume as עידיות which, in concert with the alternative name בחירתא, supports this understanding. (Interestingly, while Epstein cites this explanation in the name of the early Reform leader Abraham Geiger, a contemporary of R. Lifschitz, this view is already found in the Maarich of R. Menachem di Lonzano (1550-1626) under the entry for בחר.)[3]
Nevertheless, after R. Lipschitz records this suggestion he discredits it, based on Rashi in Kiddushin 54b. Rashi thereto, in explaining the word בחירתא, writes: מסכת עדיות קרי בחירתא שכל דבריהם העידו מפי הגדולים והלכה כמותן. Since Rashi deliberately employs the word העידו (rather than אמרו), he feels that Rashi did not agree with his father’s proposal, and instead accepted the traditional explanation that it means “testimony.” Yet this too, is not quite clear. While Rashi does clearly make a point of emphasizing the word העידו, he also uses the words מפי הגדולים, which speaks to “the best”. (And in his commentary to Brachos he does not use the word העידו at all.) The following must be noted as well: In the Rambam cited above, en route to explaining the word to mean “testimony”, Rambam writes that the volume contains “testimony from choice and trustworthy men.” (אנשים ברורים נאמנים). This too, speaks to the alternative “choice” explanation. Thus, both Rambam and Rashi appear to deliberately conflate both meanings – “testimony” and “choice” – in explaining the meanings of עדיות and בחירתא.
The ambiguity in Rashi and Rambam seem to suggest they saw merit in both explanations – which is another way of saying, perhaps, that they also sensed the difficulties in both. The most glaring difficulty, it seems to me, is that neither of the two explanations get to the heart of what Eduyos really is: a miscellany of disconnected and unrelated teachings. If the name of the volume is supposed to characterize the content it contains, surely a more apt appellation could have been chosen.
It is precisely because of this question that R. Yitzchak Rabinowitz, in Doros HaRishonim, posits that strictly speaking, only the last three chapters are called עדיות; these three chapters were added to a pre-existing work written in the early days of Yavneh (as the Tosefta to Eduyos indicates) that contained the first five chapters.[4] Together, the entire work is called בחירתא. R. Rabinowitz proceeds at length, with close analysis, to describe how the work ultimately came together, but of interest here, in doing so notes the following:
המס‘ הזאות היוצאת לגמרי מכל כלל מסכתות כולו, אשר הם ידברו מפרט אחד של שבת או יבמות וכו‘ והיא אין לא פרט כלל מסויים. ולא יכול להיות כזה, לפי שכל ענינה היפך מזה, כי מתחילה נבראה בימי הבירורים להביא שם העוללות מענינים השונים אשר עדיין לא נסדרו אצל יסוד המשנה ובמקומם, העוללות השייכים לדברי ב“ש וב“ה, והעוללות של סוף ימי הבית אשר עדיין לא נסדרו במקומם….יש בהם אשר נשארו כן גם לפנינו רק במס‘ עדיות לפי שהינם [כצ“ל] עומדים לעצמם, ואין להם התלת גמורה אצל יסוד המשנה…והדבר מובן מעצמו כי בעסקם בימי הבירורים כל דברי ב“ש וב“ה היה עליהם להביא את הדברים האלו אשר עדיין לא קנו מקומם ואשר אך במקום הזה הוא גם עיקר מקומם בהמס‘ הזאת, אשר נוסדה לכל העוללות האלה
R. Rabinowitz’s point is that Eduyos was intended as a sort of clearing house to record all sorts of information that did not have a natural home elsewhere in the Mishna.
With this in mind, I draw the reader’s attention to the following verse, Isaiah 64:5:
וַנְּהִי כַטָּמֵא כֻּלָּנוּ וּכְבֶגֶד עִדִּים כָּל צִדְקֹתֵינוּ וַנָּבֶל כֶּעָלֶה כֻּלָּנוּ וַעֲוֹנֵנוּ כָּרוּחַ יִשָּׂאֻנוּ
We have all become defiled, and all our righteousness is like a worn-out garment; we all wither like a leaf, and like a wind, our sins carry us off. (Artscroll translation)
Note the phrase כבגד עדים. Rashi explains: וכבגד עדים – וכלבוש מרחק (ת“י) כבגד מאוס שהכל אומרים הסר. עדים תרגום של הסרה. The phrase means a piece of clothing to be cast out, something repulsive that everyone removes. Idim is the Targum of the word “removal”.
Rashi writes similarly in Genesis 4:19, in explanation of Lemech’s two wives, one of whom was named עדה. After explaining that the custom then was for men to take two wives, one for propagation and one for carnal pleasure, Rashi writes: עדה – היא של פריה ורביה, ועל שם שמגונה עליו ומוסרת מאצלו. עדה תרגום של סורה. Adah was called by this name because she was repulsive to and cast out from her husband. It is the Targum on the word “remove”. Indeed, in Genesis 49:10 the words לא יסור are translated by Targum as לא יעדי.
R. Isaiah D’Trani (רי“ד c. 1165-1240) relates the phrase to Proverbs (25:50) מעדה בגד ביום קרה, and says it means בגד ישן הרבה והוסר כל צמרו a very old cloth from which all the wool has been removed. The JPS translation (1999) renders it “Disrobing on a chilly day”, which retains the sense of discarding or removing.[5]
Radak, in his commentary to Isaiah, explains similarly: תרגום ספחת עדיא, ויש מפרשים מתרגום הרה מעדיא, כלומר כשתלד בגדיה מלוכלכים בדם, ויש לפרש בגד סמרטוט ובלוי, וכן בדברי רבותינו ז“ל המשמשת בעדים עד שהוא נתון תחת הכר, והענין אחד כי בגד מלוכלך הוא מוסר מהבריות.. The Targum of “discoloration” (Leviticus 13:2) is Adia. Some explain it based on the Targum of “pregnant” (Genesis 16:11) which is Mi-Adya, that is, when one gives birth, her clothes are soiled with blood. It should thus be understood here as a used rag. The sages employed a similar usage concerning a woman who cohabits with the use of cloths, i.e, the sheet under the pillow [to determine her halachic status as a menstruant.] The sense of the phrase is thus a dirty rag removed from people.
The concept of הסרה removed is thus common to all these explanations. Stated otherwise, the word עד or perhaps עדי means something cast aside. As noted by Radak (as well as the Aruch; see also R. Hai Gaon to Nidah 1:1, cited in Kohut’s Aruch Ha-Shalem) the word עד used in the laws of Nidah, commonly thought to mean that the use of a cloth bears “witness” to one’s halachic status as a menstruant, actually refers to the cloth itself. In the context of Isaiah, the phrase takes on a connotation of “filth”. However, as both Rashi and the Rid explain, and in view of the examples they cite, it appears that the word itself has no inherent connotation of uncleanliness. (To the contrary, if the rag were already soiled it would be of no use for determining one’s halachic status for purposes of Nidah.) The key point is that it refers to something cast off or discarded – a negligible item of no value by itself.
If so, we may have here the true meaning of the name of this most unusual Masechta. For, as noted by the Doros HaRishonim, what is the volume of Eduyos, if not an eclectic collection of random Mishnayos without any unifying theme in which they could otherwise find a home?
In Bava Basra 14b, after proposing that the prophet Hosea, of the 12 minor prophets, should be written separately, the Gemara rejects the proposal, commenting איידי דזוטר מירכס. Since it is small, if it would be written separately it would be lost.
Just so. The Mishnayos of Eduyos are teachings without a בית אב. They are small, individual items, with no common theme. If they were not assembled together in a single volume, they would have been lost. They would have been discarded and forever removed from the Talmudic cannon, except insofar as some of them found their way into the Gemara in the same way as other Beraisos did. These Mishnayos are all בגדי עידם – outcasts, left outside the other tractates because of their individualized nature. They are, then, to use the word we would use today: Miscellaneous.
It remains to be asked, if the name of the Masechta is based on the meaning of עד or עדי in the sense of “Outcasts”, (or as I prefer, “Miscellaneous”), rather than “Testimonies”, why then is it called עדיות rather than עדים? For this it is sufficient to note that there are many places in which the Sages employed words in grammatical formats different from the way they are found in Tanach. See Chulin 137b. כי סליק איסי בר היני אשכחיה לר‘ יוחנן דקא מתני ליה לבריה רחלים אמר ליה אתנייה רחלות א“ל כדכתיב רחלים מאתים אמר ליה לשון תורה לעצמה לשון חכמים לעצמן. In this example, R. Yochanan directed Issi to use the term רחלות with a feminine suffix, even though the Torah itself uses the masculine, because rabbinic terminology has its own pattern. As noted in the Soncino commentary, “In the speech of the rabbis there is a marked tendency to adopt the plural ending ‘oth’ in place of the ending ‘im’ with which the same words are found in the Bible. Compare the plural of המון, קרבן, עולם etc.” The word עדיות would thus fit neatly within this pattern.[6]
Alternatively, perhaps the sages thought the word עדים might be confused with the word for “witnesses”, and thus chose to use the word עדיות instead. There is precedent for such a suggestion – מסכת ביצה, it has been suggested, is pronounced differently from how the ordinary word ביצה is pronounced, for fear of confusion with a similar-looking word.[7]
Finally, it is entirely possible that the sages deliberately used the word עדיות to give it a broad meaning, so as to encompass all three meanings of the word עד: testimonies, choice, and miscellaneous. To call it עדים would only have given this third, new meaning suggested here. We have already noted above that both Rashi and the Rambam appear to recognize both of the first two meanings within their commentary. If so, and if I am correct in this suggestion that the word carries the connotation of “miscellaneous”, the sages may still have called the volume עדיות to preserve the other two meanings as well.
I acknowledge the inherent risk one undertakes in proposing a new reading in so basic and fundamental a point. Nevertheless, מקום הניחו לנו להתגדר. I believe this rare but well-established meaning of the word עד is, in whole or in part, the source of the name of Masechet עדיות.
[1] There is, however, a kind of pseudo-gemara to Eduyos, compiled from the rest of the Talmud by R. Shlomo Sirillo (1485 – 1554) with a commentary of his own. The manuscript, which was seen and highly praised by the Chida in Shem HaGedolim, was part of the Gunzburg collection in Moscow for many years. Parts of it were published sporadically by R. Avraham Shoshana of Machon Ofeq, and the complete manuscript was finally published in Jerusalem in 2014.
[2] R. Yehuda Al-Charizi translation, Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Introduction to the Mishna.
[3] It is unclear, at least to me, if the word עידית is Hebrew or Aramaic. It could be the word is based on the usage of עד in the sense of “ornament”, as in Jeremiah 4:30 (מַה תַּעֲשִׂי כִּי תִלְבְּשִׁי שָׁנִי כִּי תַעְדִּי עֲדִי זָהָב) or Ezekiel 16:7 (וַתִּרְבִּי וַתִּגְדְּלִי וַתָּבֹאִי בַּעֲדִי עֲדָיִים). Yet the word is also often found contrasted with זיבורית, meaning “inferior quality”, a word which does not appear in Tanach and which most scholars seem to think is Aramaic. At any rate, both עידית and זיבורית are found already in the Mishna, so it is not impossible that a volume of Mishnayos would be named עדיות in the sense of “choice.”
[4] Doros HaRishonim, Vol. 3, pp. 216-222.
[5] Rashi in Chulin 133a also connects the two phrases of וכבגד עדים and מעדה בגד.
[6] Soncino translation and commentary of R. Eli Kasdan, both of whom I have previously written in this space.
[7] See Tiferes Yisrael commentary, beginning of Beitzah. Note that Rabbeinu Chananel’s commentary to the volume begins with a rhyme אתחיל מסכת ביצה, בעזרת גדול העצה perhaps an indication that it is to be pronounced in its usual way.
22 thoughts on “The Meaning of the Word Eduyos in מסכת עדיות”
I think rather than miscellaneous, the author means miscellany or miscellanies
“The Mishnayos of Eduyos are teachings without a בית אב. They are small, individual items, with no common theme. If they were not assembled together in a single volume, they would have been lost. They would have been discarded and forever removed from the Talmudic ca(n)non, except insofar as some of them found their way into the Gemara in the same way as other Beraisos did. “These Mishnayos are all בגדי עידם – outcasts, left outside the other tractates because of their individualized nature.
I believe that, on the contrary, a number of the משניות in this מסכתא have second homes in other מסכתות. For example, the first משנה of עדיות is also the first משנה of נדה. The 9th and 10th can be found in מסכת מעשר שני.
Upon careful reading of the excerpt you quote from Doros Rishonim, it would appear that R. Rabinowitz’s point is not “that Eduyos was intended as a sort of clearing house to record all sorts of information that did not have a natural home elsewhere in the Mishna”, but rather to house משניות deemed important enough to secure their place in the משנה even before their ‘natural neighbourhoods’ had been constructed—not the “outcasts” of משנה, in other words, but its VIPs.
Not sure what you mean by “before their ‘natural neighborhoods’ had been constructed.” R. Rabinowitz there is out to argue against a view that sees Eduyos as having been the first attempt at a proto-Mishnah. Instead he explains that most if not all of these topics already had proto-tractates dealing with them, but that these had to be highlighted because of unusual features, such as Beis Shammai being lenient and Beis Hillel stringent, etc.
“כי מתחילה נבראה בימי הבירורים להביא שם העוללות מענינים השונים אשר עדיין לא נסדרו אצל יסוד המשנה ובמקומם”
“They had not yet been arranged … in their places” means (as I understand it) that the proto-tractates dealing with these topics, to use your term, had not yet been finalized and those mishnayos of Eduyos that ultimately would appear in other tractates had therefore not yet been placed in those tractates at the time that Eduyos was compiled.
Again, towards the end of the excerpt, he says “עדיין לא קנו מקומם”, “they had not yet acquired their place” [i.e. their places in other tractates, at the time that Eduyos was compiled].
Interesting discussion and interesting suggestion, but I think that the traditional reading is correct. Your argument is grounded in the questionable assumption that the name of the tractate reflects “the character of the entire massekhet”. For a few counterexamples: Berakhot – only the last four chapters (of nine) deal with berakhot; Kiddushin – only chapters two and (most of) three deal with “kiddushin”, and chapters 1 and 4 (and the end of 3) have other topics (noted already by Epstein); Peah is the subject of the first four chapters in the massekhet by that name; Ohel is only one of the topics in massekhet Ohalot; Rosh Hashanah takes up half of its massekhet, and similarly Hagigah and Megillah. So there is nothing problematic with naming a massekhet in accordance with a – not the – central topic. Inasmuch as a clear majority of all appearances of העיד in the Mishnah appear in Eduyot, it would be highly coincidental if the name of the tractate had nothing to do with that fact.
Additionally there are some inaccuracies in your discussion that should be corrected. First, the term העיד plays a central role in chapters 2 and 5 (listed in Epstein’s מבואות לספרות התנאים, 442), not only in the last three chapters. Second, Epstein’s discussion in מבוא לנוסח המשנה, 990 in no way indicates a preference for “idiyot”, and I assume your reference is to מבואות לספרות התנאים, 444-443. However, Epstein does not claim there that this reading is accurate or original. He does note the spelling עידיות in manuscripts and Rabbeinu Hananel, but this is probably just a plene spelling of עדיות. He goes on to argue that the Aramaic name בחירתא in the Bavli is rooted in their having read עדיות as עידיות (with a hirik), but it is clear that he thinks this is a Babylonian (mis)reading, rather than the original sense of the name.
Birchos Krias Shema and
Shemoneh esrei, named after its original 18 berachos
Yes, it is true that each of the first 5 chapters of Berakhot makes reference to berakhot – and in my book מרבדי משנה I used that to help explain how and why keriyat shema and tefilla were joined to the four chapters of berakhot in this massekhet. It remains true nonetheless that the name Berakhot refers primarily to the last four chapters, and not to the first five.
You also have to explain why Chazal put this Masechta in Seder Nezikin. If it’s just a collection of discarded Mishnayos without a home, it probably should have been the last Masechta.( According to the Rambam it’s placement in Nezikin makes the most sense since we are dealing with testimonies)
The author seems to acknowledge that the Rambam’s explanation is accurate (although he does express some problems with it,) only that this “miscellany” one is also one that the titler may have initially intended for.
Thus you can utilize the “Testimonies” explanation for its placement as you stated.
There’s an alternative ordering of the six Sedarim, נז”ם קט”ן, which places Nezikin last (see Midrash Shocher Tov, Tehillim 19). So Eduyos would come pretty close to the end, followed only by Avos (which isn’t halachah at all) and Horayos (which, granted, I can’t account for).
Genius as usual! D.S. Farkas never disappoints
Thank you for the thought-provoking article.
re: “And yet the matter is not quite that simple”
Correct – out of 74 mishnayos in the masechta, approximately only 26 eduyos appear with לשון העיד\העידו, so not in most of the mishnayos.
re: “these numerous examples all appear only in the last three chapters”
Yet in the earlier perakim there are also a few:
א:ג – עדות שמעיה ואבטליון
ב:א-ג – עדויות של ר’ חנינא סגן הכהנים
ה.ו – עדות עקביא בן מהללאל
More food for thought:
Of the 74 mishnayos in the masechta there is almost an even split where about half are halachos not mentioned elsewhere in shas and about half are quoted in other masechtos.
The breakdown of # of mishnayos appearing in other masechtos are:
סדר זרעים
פאה: 3, כלאים: 1, תרומות: 1, מעשרות: 1, מעשר שני: 4, חלה: 1
סדר מועד
פסחים: 2, ביצה: 5
סדר נשים
יבמות: 4, כתובות: 1, נזיר: 1, גיטין: 3, קידושין: 1
סדר נזיקין
NONE – NOTE THE ABSENCE
סדר קדשים
זבחים: 1, חולין: 1, כריתות: 1, בכורות: 1, תמורה: 1
סדר טהרות
כלים: 5, אהלות: 2, טהרות: 1, מקואות: 2, נדה: 1
As noted above, there are no halachos here that appear elsewhere in Seder Nezikin.
The following Nezikin topics do appear as unique statements that only appear in Eduyos in the following number of mishnayos
ענייני הוראה (כמו עומד על דברו, יחיד ורבים) : 3
שטרות: 1
פסולי עדות: 1
נזקי בהמה: 1
היכן נמצא המונח ‘עד’ במובן הסרה בלשון משנה וגמרא, פרט ל’עדים’ במסכת נדה שהוא רק שם בגד מבוסס על מונח זה? אם לא מצינו עיקר המונח בלשון משנה קשה מאד שהתנאים ישתמשו בו לשם מסכתא .
מצינו בלשון ארמית:
בארבעה עשר בתמוז עדת ספר גזירתא (מגילת תענית, פרק ד)
לעדויי חושכא (ביצה לב.)
וכו’. וא”כ לא רחוק שישתמשו בשרש זה, כשם שקראו למסכת יומא בשם ארמי.
Thanks for this. The English word you’re looking for might be “scraps.”
I wonder if the fact that this masechta has 74 mishnayos, the gematria of עד, is significant.
עד- is a single loose page, used in the context of עד הבדוק
This מסכת is a compilation of those single pages
Interesting. It should be noted that I have heard many use the pronunciation of עִדִיוֹת (Idiyos) which would fit with this explanation (although it would also fit with עדית as well).
Perhaps there is support for this interesting theory in that the teachings that did not make it into the Mishna itself are called ברייתות, or “outsiders”. Parallel to that, then, would be the teachings that *did* make it into the Mishna, but were not assigned a specific Masechta, and these are known as עדיות, or, as the author suggests, “Miscellaneous”, or as a commenter above suggests, “scraps”.
Is the email address down? I tried several time yesterday and today to email an article for posting, but received bouncebacks.
ISTM that Tosfos in ע”ז כ”א ע”ב ד”ה מאי indicates that the mishnayos which appear in both Idiyos and in other mesechtos were originally in the other mesechtos and later incorporated into Idiyos, rather than the other way around.
It would also make sense why they called it בחירתא as the word עדיות would have the neutral term (miscellany) and the negative (scraps): to emphasize the positive, they would use euphemism like smakhot for aveilut. Just food for thought tacked on the end.
Otherwise it could he “testimony” that the system works. Rabban gamliel thought the people below his standards wouldn’t be able to add anything to the halacha. These mishnayot “testify” otherwise as they are “choice” halachot and couldn’t have been added otherwise.
Another idea!