37b bottom
How can the kri ksivs all come from moshe misinai, what about all the pesukim the gemoro brings from nach.
Avrumi hersh , London england
You are asking a great question, and the answer is a great Machlokes.
There are some Rishonim (see Teshuvos Radbaz 3:594 and others) who say that even the cases of Kri u'Ksiv cited by the Gemara that are from the Nevi'im were all told to Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai, as all the Chidushim that every "Talmid Chacham Asid l'Chadesh."
Others say that the idea the Gemara is saying is that where there are cases Kri u'Ksiv, it is not because there is a Machlokes there, or something that was forgotten or unclear, but rather it was passed down from the source to write the Torah or the Nevu'ah this way. So, in the Torah, the Kri u'Ksiv comes from Sinai, but in the Nevi'im, the words were passed down from generation to generation exactly like they were said to be written by the Navi, and that is exactly the way we have it now, including the Kri u'Ksiv.
There is a third opinion, that the Gemara doesn't mean that the specific examples are Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, but rather the idea that Torah sheb'Ksav can be written in a way that the reading can be different from the writing is a deep idea that was explained to Moshe on Har Sinai, and the way it was used later was according to the idea given to Moshe.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
I don't understand the first answer.
Even if it was given to moshe the same way as all of the Torah, it was still not TRANSMITTED from moshe at Sinai, because it is impossible to transmit the word changes if a book that hadn't been written yet.
I hear what you mean. This opinion "uses" what is brought down in Chazal, that Hash-m showed Moshe Rabeinu every Chidush that every Talmid would be Mechadesh in the future. I am not really sure I fully understand how exactly Hash-m showed this to Moshe, how long it took and it what context did he show him a Chidush that needed a long history that still didn't happen yet, but I feel that in the shadow of these serious issues, showing Moshe the Nevu'ah that every Navi will say in the future, including the Kri u'Ksiv nuances, is not much more difficult.
Let me guess that whatever happened up there on Har Sinai was a form of roots to all of the countless details that came later, and only someone like Moshe Rabeinu could understand how all the details grew out of the deep comprehensive roots.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
What I mean to say is,
Moshe may have been mystically shown everything.
But he certainly didn't pass it down as halocha from him at Sinai. It is certainly not that every chiddush of every talmid was given over to all of the Jews.
In which case it is irrelevant that he was taught it in some mystical fashion, because it was certainly not known to us from the time it was taught to him, so the kri ksivs in nach must have had a NEW source after moshe passed away without transmitting it.
I understand what you are asking, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. I can just offer that the idea of showing Moshe the future has, as you point out, no relevance to the Halachah. We can still say that the idea of Kri u'Chsiv is not [only] a Halachic idea, but a deeper idea that the Pasuk has two ways of appearance. Obviously, it goes without saying that Kri u'Chsiv isn't just a "mistake" needed to be fixed and replaced, but it expresses the idea that the Torah has a written form and another form which is how we read the Torah. An extreme example of this idea can be found in the introduction of the Ramban to his commentary on the Torah. Chazal tell us that the Torah was written before the world was created. The Ramban says that since the Torah talks about the creation and parts of it have to do with the history of the world, it is difficult to understand that the Torah was written as we know it. He offers that although all the letters were in the order we have, the spaces between the words were different, and the letters connected in a different way. This is a mind-boggling idea but it can open our thoughts not only to a whole new world of ideas about text and the significance of words, but to the understanding that the Torah words and verses can be read in different ways and apply to different "Olamos" or eras.
If we follow this approach, perhaps we can explain that showing Moshe the Nevu'os of the future means that he was shown the ideas behind the Nevu'ah, and the different aspects expressed by the form of Kri, and another one by the form of the Kesiv. This might be an interesting idea, even if it isn't what this opinion really meant.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner