More Discussions for this daf
1. Selling a Shul 2. Kri u'Kesiv 3. In Hash-m's hands
4. "Modim, Modim" and Hallel 5. One Who Says Shema Twice 6. Insulting Gimel & Shin - Lashon Hara
7. כבודו של דוד
DAF DISCUSSIONS - MEGILAH 25

Reuven Miller asked:

From the mahalach of the Gemara, from the lashon of the Rach and of the Maharsha, it would seem that the changing of the ktiv to the kri in the tora is of Rabbinic origin.

Is my understanding correct?

Reuven Miller

The Kollel replies:

(a) The Gemara in Nedarim (37b) says that the words that are read but not written, or written but not read, are from Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, implying that they are mid'Oraisa. Even though the Gemara there mentions other examples and not the one in our Sugya, it appears that they are all from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. The Gemara there mentions only the cases where an entire word is left out or added.

However, all of the examples mentioned in the Gemara there are from Nevi'im and Kesuvim, and if so, how is it appropriate to say that they are a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, if those Sefarim were written only later, by Shmuel and David with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh (as in Bava Basra 15b)?

This question is addressed by RAV REUVEN MARGOLIUS (in YESOD HA'MISHNAH V'ARICHASAH, Birurim #3). He concludes, based on the words of the KIN'AS SOFRIM (in Shoresh Sheni of the Rambam's Sefer ha'Mitzvos, DH Acharei), that a Kabalah that was received from the Beis Din ha'Gadol is also included in the category of Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, for the verse states, "Al Pi ha'Torah Asher Yorucha" (Devarim 17:11), even if it is only a Takanah d'Rabanan. (This is also expressed by the BARTENURA in Terumos 2:1, who says that the phrase "Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai" can refer also to a rabbinical enactment; see TIFERES YISRAEL, Yoma 2:19. See also RAMBAM's introduction to Mishnayos, who says that the Halachah that the Shamash may use the light of a flame on Shabbos to show the children where to read is called a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai; see our Insights to Eruvin 5b, and see also MAHARITZ CHAYOS to Chagigah 3b.)

Hence, when the way to read or write the Sefarim was handed down from Shmuel or David and received by the Beis Din ha'Gadol and then handed down from them to the ensuing generations, it was called a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Likewise, the way to read all of the verses mentioned there in Nedarim and in our Gemara are Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, even though they are rabbinical enactments.

Even the reading of the word "Yishkavenah," which appears in the Torah, seems to be a rabbinical enactment, enacted by the Nevi'im with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Alternatively, in that case it is indeed mid'Oraisa, and Moshe received the tradition how to read it at Sinai.

(b) RAV DAVID METZGER, in his footnotes to RABEINU CHANANEL, asks how could the Rabanan institute a different way to read a word than the way it appears, when Rabeinu Chananel himself says earlier (25a) that it is Asur to read the verse "Ervas Avicha" as "Ervas Aviv" in order to be polite, because "you have no right to be more particular [in the use of words] than was Moshe." If so, how could the Rabanan change the reading of the words?

If the readings of these words is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then the answer is clear: the Rabanan did not make any changes -- it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to read the words in that particular way! If it is not an actual Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, though, then it must be that there is a difference between the changes in our Gemara and the change of reading "Ervas Avicha" as "Ervas Aviv." When changing "Ervas Avicha" to "Ervas Aviv," one is not reading it in a more pure and refined language. In the cases in our Gemara, though, the reading of each word adds to the purity of one's speech (as the Gemara in Pesachim (3a) instructs us to do).

M. Kornfeld

Russell J Hendel via Reuven Miller remarks:

Just a quick answer to [what D.A.F. posted in answer to] Reuven Miller's posting on Kri Ktiv

As I already indicated there is an explicit Minchat shai which goes thru all the alleged verses that Chazal changed and shows this is not the case.

If someone really wants the reference I will look it up and

post it

Russell

The Kollel replies:

Reuven and Russell,

Thanks for the note. You are probably referring to the Minchas Shai on the Pasuk in Devarim that the Gemara here (Megilah 25b) discusses, Yishgalenah/Yishkavenah (Devarim 28:30). There he cites a Teshuvas ha'Rashba who asks how can the Shaliach Tzibur read a different word than is written in the Pasuk; it is like reading it Ba'al Peh! He answers that the Kri/Ksiv is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (I think the Minchas Shai also discusses this in his Introduction, arguing vehemently with some Teshuvas ha'Geonim, although I could not find it offhand.)

The Rashba's source for not reading Ba'al Peh is probably the Gemara in Temurah 14b and elsewhere that one may not say over Devarim she'Bichtav by heart. If so, the argument ought to apply to Tanach as well; it cannot be read (at least b'Tzibur) by heart. (As far as the words of the prophets are concerned, as we wrote in the last message, Halachah l'*Moshe* cannot be taken literally. Rather, the Kri and Ksiv must have been part of the original Nevu'ah of the particular Navi who wrote that Sefer.) However there is one opinion in the Rishonim that permits reading Nevi'im and Kesuvim by heart (Tosfos ibid. -- we discussed this at length in the Insights to the Daf there and in Yoma 68:2, which can be accessed from our archives at http://www.dafyomi.co.il or by email request), in which case the Rashba's argument will not apply to Nach.

The Radak in II Shmuel 15:21 seems to have a very radical opinion about Kri u'Ksiv. He writes there that after the destruction of the first Temple, the most reliable manuscripts were lost or forgotten, and we were left with numerous conflicting manuscripts. Anshei Kneses ha'Gedolah chose the correct Girsa based on Rov etc., and when they were not certain that they were right, they left in both versions: one as a Kri and the other as a Ksiv (and without Nekudos).

However, he seems to be referring only to those instances in which the meaning of the Kri and the Ksiv is identical (such as "Hem" and "Hemah" -- see more expclicitly in Radak II Shmuel 21:9), and perhaps only to those cases which are not mentioned in Nedarim 37b as "Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai." In addition, he may mean to propose this only for the Kri and Ksiv in Nach, but not in the Chumash. (However, it is not at all clear why he had to invent this means for explaining the Kri u'Ksiv in Nach, if he knew that the Chumash and even the Nach had similar cases of Kri and Ksiv that did not come about in such a manner but were Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai as the Gemara stated in Nedarim 37b.)

Take care, Mordecai

Russell J Hendel comments:

I thank people for bringing Mordechai Kornfeld's into the discussion, I was a member of his list for several years. While he brings down some sources he does not bring down all.

Allow me to reopen the discussion with however proper sources It is understood that this is not just something that can be settled by Teshuvoth but rather something that must be accompanied by many lists of such midrashim to see if there is a real problem. Such lists are brought down by the Minchat Shai at the following

1) Zec 2:12

2) Mal 2:15

The minchat shai goes out of his way to show that there is no differences in texts and Chazal did not change anything. In my own Rashi website (http://www.shamash.org/rashi/ I have frequently tried to show that their is a grammatical basis to these midrashim).

3) Re the RDK which Mordechai quotes. This was actually brought to my attention by Rabbi Bechoeffer when he ran the list BaisTefillah.

I showed in that list that RDK says "There are those who say" and he didn't really hold the opinion. I then explained Rashis view which I reproduce here.

-KI means IF -KI IM means EXCEPT -There are 4 KI IM in TNACH which are read KI IM and written KI (without the IM). I show that Rashi (on Ruth) holds these to mean PERHAPS EXCEPT.

So we have:

KI = IF KI IM = EXCEPT KI IM (Ktiv KI) = PERHAPS EXCEPT

Over and above the remarkable capacity of Rashi to know such minutae I therefore conclude that Rashi regarded KRI and KTIV as a VEHICLE to describe NUANCES. have similarly treated Rashi on chumash. For example EPHRON spelled deficiently in last weeks parshah means >he was a deficient person In other words the spelling deficiency indicates a content deficiency.

As already commented RDK does not disagree (or agree with this)--but he cites an opinion. The MINCHAT SHAI brings a good list. The conclusion of all this is that the proper attitude is that we should work until we find the rules governing these

I hope this clarifies this difficult topic. For those who want more examples see my Rashi website at the URL above. Any questions on KRI and KTIV will be answered on my Rashi website

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA

The Kollel replies:

Thank you, Russell, for your excellent overview of this topic, and for "returning my lost item" -- yes, the Minchas Shai on Zecharyah 2:12 was the one I had been looking for (the reference to Minchas Shai on Malachi is off the topic, though.)

I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly; the more we delve into it, the greater our understanding of the fine nuances of the Kri and Kesiv will be. There is no basis at all for the suggestion that Chazal did any "tampering" with the words of Tanach; all that we have is the original. (In our Insights to the Daf to Shabbos 55b, we discussed the question of whether the Gemara's version of Tanach differed from ours, and concluded that there is no basis for such a suggestion either.)

Thus far, the only two sources that seemed to suggest otherwise are the Radak I brought in earlier, and the opinion of the ARUCH Erech Kvar brought by the Minchas Shai you cited, which is apparently based on the words of the Geonim (I'll return to this Aruch soon). As for the Radak, you pointed out that he himself does not necessarily endorse the opinion. Let us add that even that opinion applies its theory (that the original spellings were forgotten and the Kesiv represents one of the possibilities of the original) only in cases where there is no difference at all in meaning between the Kri and Kesiv (so that we cannot apply the rule that the Kesiv clarifies the Kri). This is evident from the examples that the Radak brings in the sources I cited. In addition, it only applies to Nach and not to the Chumash.

As for the Aruch, in Erech "Kavod" the Aruch discusses a Midrash which refers to "Tikun Sofrim." One example of "Tikun Sofrim" cited by the Midrash is the verse in Zecharyah 2:12 which refers to "Bavas Eino." The Aruch says that "the books originally said 'Bavas Eini'" (meaning Hash-m's eye; "He who touches [Israel] is as if he has touched Hash-m's eye." The Minchas Shai understands from this that according to the Aruch, the Sofrim (= Anshei Kneses ha'Gedolah) actually changed the word from Eini to Eino (= his own eye) in order to show respect to Hash-m. The Minchas Shai rejects this proposal vehemently. Still, the Aruch is a very early, and eminent source.

However, I believe that this was not the Aruch's intention at all. In Erech "Atar," the Aruch discusses a similar expression of Chazal, "Itur Sofrim." He explains that Itur Sofrim (which, according to Nedarim 37b is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai) means that the Sofrim noticed that "villagers" kept inaccurate versions of the scriptures, in which the letter "Vav" was added to several verses "since it would appear logical for there to be a Vav there." The Sofrim corrected the texts, and returned them to their original state (this is what the Gemara refers to as Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai). The villagers called these corrections "Itur Sofrim," meaning "removals of the Sofrim", mistakenly thinking that it was the Sofrim who effected these changes. Actually, the Gemara tells us, the Sofrim just returned the text to its original state.

After seeing this, it is clear that "Tikun Sofrim" involved the exact same situation. The Sofrim corrected textual changes in the villagers Nach that were introduced because they "seemed to be correct." When the villagers saw the Sofrim change these, they called them "Tikun Sofrim," not realizing that the Sofrim simply returned the text to its former glory rather than changing it on their own. This is what the Aruch means, then, when he says that "the books originally said 'Bavas Eini." That is, before the Sofrim corrected the villagers books, the villagers books said - incorrectly - "Eini."

If so, there remains absolutely no source in the Rishonim or Acharonim for asserting that any of the texts were changed by Chazal in any significant manner.

Be well,

-Mordecai

Yitzchok Zirkind comments:

See Megilah 7a Ksoiv Zois Zikoroin Basefer, and see the Sherei Korban on the Yerushalmi Megilah 1:5 D"H Nemroh Lmoshe Msinai.

Additional references for the Etzem Hoinyan, see the Mizrachi and Sefer Hazicoron on Rashi Breishis 18:22, and the Mizrachi Bamidbar.

See also Divrei Nvi'im from the MaHaRaTZ C.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Kollel adds:

Thank you Yitzchok!

1) The SHIYAREI HA'KORBAN there cites the words of the YEFEI MAR'EH, who understands that all of the text of Megilas Esther was transmitted to Moshe Rabeinu to write down, and Moshe passed it on to the Gedolim of each generation who did not write it down until the times of Mordechai and Esther, after the miracle occurred.

His explanation is very farfetched and difficult to understand, both from a logical perspective, and from the text of the Yerushalmi there. Indeed, the Shiyarei ha'Korban himself refutes this explanation. (The correct explanation is that of the Korban ha'Eidah there.)

When the Shiyarei ha'Korban says that "'even the Chidushim that the students will be Mechadesh in the future were said to Moshe at Sinai' (referring to the Gemara in Megilah 10b) -- and certainly the words of the Nevi'im throughout the generations were given over to Moshe" -- this is also not at all clear. First, his logical extension to the words of the Nevi'im from the Chidushim of the Talmidim is not accurate, because the Chidushim deal with explanations of the Torah (the Chumash in particular) and have nothing to do with future events. Moreover, it has nothing to do with our topic, because the future Chidushim were not transmitted to Moshe in order to pass them on to ensuing generations, but rather for his own personal benefit, so that he should know all of the Chidushim that will be said in his Torah. Accordingly, it is obvious that this has nothing to do with saying that the Kri and Ksiv are Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, meaning that there is a tradition handed done from Moshe Rabeinu how to write the Pesukim of the Torah and of the Nevi'im.

2) Let me just add that the Rambam (in the beginning of Shoresh ha'Rishon of Sefer ha'Mitzvos), writes, "... the suggestion that Moshe was told at Sinaai to command us that when, in the far future, we will have such and such a conflict with the Greek nation, we should light Neros Chanukah to celebrate the victory -- I can't imagine that there is anyone who would seriously consider such a suggestion." I imagine the Rambam would say the exact same thing about the suggestion that Megilas Ester was passed down, in its entirety, from the times of Moshe Rabeinu, in order to be put to use upon the occurrence of the events it records.

-Mordecai Kornfeld

Yitzchok Zirkind replies:

Reb Mordecai

On the other hand see Pirush Hamishnayois of the Rambam on Eduyois 8:7, (and this is Nogeia to Halacha see Hil. Mlochim 12:2-3), and see Radvaz oh Hil. Trumah 1:6, (Ulhoir that the Rambam in his Hakdama to P"H considers this a HLL"M), hence Pshat in Shoresh Rishon is perhaps with regards to considering it a Mitzvah Min Hatorah, (vs. actual knowledge of and following i.e. if Avrohom kept Eiruvin before Shlomo Hamelech was Msakein, shouldn't we say that Moshe Rabbeinu did too), Vyesh Lhaarich Bchol Zeh.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Kollel replies:

Yitzchok-

The Rambam in Eduyos that you referred to simply says that Moshe Rabeinu had a Kabalah of the general events that would occur at or shortly befroe and after the arrival of Mashi'ach. I don't think that has any bearing on the subject we are discussing, which is whether Moshe Rabeinu was given a Kabalah of the details of events that would occur in general during the history of the world (as they are recorded in Tanach).

Firstly, the times of Mashi'ach are a given; they are not dependent upon Bechirah etc., since the world was created from the start such that it would eventually reach its "completion and fulfillment" in the times of Mashi'ach. It is a promised future that will inevitably come. This has nothing to do with the details of everyday life on earth, such as are recorded in Tanach. They are entirely Bechirah-dependent (will Achav sin or not, etc.), and could not possibly have been taught to a man of flesh and blood before they occurred. (That is to say, although Hash-m knows all that will happen and that somehow does not present a contradiction to Bechirah, as the Rambam and others discuss, nevertheless the prior knowledge of a man of flesh and blood would indeed preclude Bechirah, as the Rambam himself implies in Hil. Teshuvah.)

Secondly, even regarding the coming of Mashi'ach, Moshe was taught very general points -- that a Mashi'ach will come, and that some prophet will precede him and fix some sort of problem, as the Rambam makes clear in the Perush ha'Mishnah you referred to. In fact, it seems clear from his wording there that he is trying to say the Moshe did not know the name of the preceding prophet (who will be Eliyahu, according to the Mishnah), since Eliyahu did not live yet (and his appointment as the prophet of Mashi'ach would depend upon his individual Bechirah).

Thanks for another comprehensive list of "Marei Makomos"!

-Mordecai

Yitzchak Zirkind comments:

See also Vayikra Raboh 26:7, Bamidbar Raboh 23:5, Tana Dvei E. Jutoh Perek 6, HKB"H showed Moshe Dor Dor... (and if Yaakov Avinu in the Brochos to the Shvotim was Mnabeia on the future events, why not Moshe Rabon Shel Nvi'im, Veod Kamoh Rayois).

[With regard to whether Moshe's knowledge of future events precludes Bechirah:]

Bkitzur in order not to stretch this out into other areas, a Novee who sees the future does not create a problem of Bchira, Vein Kan Mkomoi, and in above sources it says that Moshe was shown the Risho'im of each generation.

In addition to above sources see Shmos Raboh 40:2 HKB"H which implies that HKB"H showed Moshe Rabbeinu their name.

(I don't understand the Rambam as excluding Moshe (and/or transmitting) from any knowledge, and even without alluding to Shaarei Tirutzim lo Ninalu, he could have said the name E. as that doesn't prove that the one by Moshiach has to be the same as earlier, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin 98b discusses about Dovid).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Kollel repies:

Yitzhchok -

Yasher Kochach!

-Mordecai

Yehuda comments:

Hi! Thank you for your wonderful Diverai Torah. Did you realize in Terumah Rashi has a nice peshat on the vav of "Vais" in the posuk of "Vinoaditee" after Shaine. Our Torahs don't have a vav. I just thought you might like to know that. Have a great day.

Kol tuv,

Yehuda

The Kollel replies:

The Sifsei Chachamim and Avi Ezer (on the Ibn Ezra) there dwell on that. Indeed, there are a number of places where it seems that Rashi had a slightly different text of the Torah (see Rashi end of Lech Lecha, and in Ki Sisa 31:18 "k'Chaloso".)

(a) It is possible that in Rashi's region, they had a different Nusach than today's Sefarim. We consider ours to be more accurate, based on the research of the Or Torah and other Kadmonim, who inspected hundreds of Sifrei Torah from around the world and compared them. (Rabbi Lichtman discussed this issue at length in my Parasha-Page to Parshas Shemini 5758.)

(b) In other places, Rashi seems to be basing his comments on a Midrash, which makes things more complicated, since it seems that the Midrash had this Nusach as well. However, in a number of places we pointed out that when the Midrash seems to be presenting a different Nusach than we have, it actually is just

making a Drasha from the Pasuk as it does appear in our Nusach. I discussed this in a Parasha-Page (Naso, it's in my "Torah from the Internet," Judaica Press), and we have written on it in the D.A.F. as well. Below is one excerpt. You probably saw what I wrote about this in a former Discuss the Daf message, where we discussed the Minchas Shai, I'll include that at the bottom of this message as well.

Best wishes,

-Mordecai Kornfeld

=================

(from Insights to Shabbos 55:5)

ARE THERE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES?

QUESTION: The Gemara learns from the way the word "Ma'avirim" is spelled ("Ma'aviram") that only one of the sons of Eli sinned. Rashi points out that even though the Gemara says that the text of the Navi is "Ma'aviram," the text of our Navi reads "Ma'avirim." Rebbi Akiva Eiger, in Gilyon ha'Shas, cites many places where Chazal quote a verse differently than the way it appears in the texts that we have. How do we reconcile these differences?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Ma'avirim) says that there often are argument between the text of the Mesorah and the text of the Midrash (or Gemara). He cites an instance where the reading of a Yerushalmi differs from the readings of our texts; the Yerushalmi appears to have had the word "40" where our texts state "20." Apparently, the text of the Mesorah overrides the text of the Midrash, as the Mesorah reflects the majority opinion of the early authorities.

(b) The YAD MALACHI (#283) contests the conclusion of Tosfos. When there is a question regarding Chaseiros and Yeseiros (single letters that do not change the pronunciation nor the meaning of the word, such as the Yud or Alef of "Bereishis"), it is possible that there are two different versions. But in a case of an entirely different word, it is not possible that an incorrect word drifted into Tanach. The Yad Malachi explains that in cases such as the Yerushalmi quoted by Tosfos, Chazal are not telling us that the text of Tanach should actually read differently; rather, they are teaching that we can infer a particular understanding from the Tanach as if it read differently. The Yerushalmi that Tosfos cites that seems to argue with our text regarding an entire word, is not really arguing at all. (For further elucidation of this topic, see TORAH FROM THE INTERNET Parashat Naso, by Rabbi M. Kornfeld, Judaica Press, 1998. See also the Yad Malachi there who discusses many other such instances.)

(c) Our Gemara, "Ma'avirim" versus "Ma'aviram," is a case of Chaseiros and Yeseiros (because the question is that of an extra Yud, which is seen but not heard). Nevertheless, perhaps what the Yad Malachi writes regarding entire words also applies here. That is, Chazal are teaching us to understand the verse as if it said "Ma'aviram." Like Rashi himself says, "Ma'avirim" can be interpreted to mean that "the Jewish people passed around bad rumors about Eli's child (singular)." That is indeed how the Targum understands the verse. Therefore, even if the word in the verse is not "Ma'aviram," it is as if it said that only one of Eli's children sinned. (M. Kornfeld -- RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS, Ha'Mikra v'ha'Mesorah #2, reaches a similar conclusion. However, the interpretation that he offers to explain our Gemara based on a Midrash does not appear to conform to the words of our Gemara -- the Midrash is clearly following the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, and not that of Rav.)

The RITVA in Moed Katan 28b in fact proposes using an approach similar to that of the Yad Malachi with regard to a verse in Iyov cited by the Gemara there. Even though the inconsistency in spelling is only with regard to whether a word in Nach is spelled Chaser or not, he does not want to accept that there were differing versions of the scriptures.