(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Sanhedrin 004: Did the Amoraim have a different Torah than today?
Barry Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
Beis Hillel expound the 3 times that the word karnot is mentioned (4a).
There version of the written Torah has the 3 writings of the word spelled 1
time with a vav and 2 times without a vav.
The Rashba and Ran point out that our Torah scrolls have the word without a
vav ALL THREE TIMES!
How could this be?
How is their Torah different than ours?
Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Below I attach an Insight of the Kollel's from Shabbos 55:5 which addresses
this issue.
As you will see, the third approach assumes these seeming inconsistencies
do not really stem from differing Mesorahs. Rather, the Gemara is
expounding what is written in *our* Mesorah, as though something else were
written there (due to some inference that was found in the verse that
*implies* the other word).
In keeping with that approach, I would like to point out that of the three
times it says that blood shall be placed on the "Karnos" of the altar,
twice the verse ends with the phrase "and *all of its blood* you shall pour
to the foundation of the altar." (Vayikra 4:30, 34). The third time, the
verse ends with "and *its blood* you shall pour to the foundation of the
altar." (Vayikra 4:25).
The two times that "all the blood" is poured, it is clear that there only
was a *single* placing of the blood on the altar. Since only *a single* bit
of blood was missing, it is still considered as though *all* the blood is
left (because the lack of a single item is overlooked; for this reason the
Torah often refers to 39 as 40 and 49 as 50 etc., see ROSH to Pesachim
10:40). However, in the third verse, the word "all" is omitted. This is
because blood has been placed on the altar *more* than a single time, and
therefore what is left can no longer be referred to as "all" the blood.
This is the "Karnos" to which our Gemara refers (which implies *two*
placements of blood on the altar.
(Rashi and the Ran write that the *third* verse has a Vav, not the first,
as I wrote. However, from our Girsa in the Gemara it would appear that the
*first* verse is the one with the Vav.)
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
========
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 inconsistencies between
the text of our 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. See llso Chidushei ha'Ran to Sanehdrin 4a.
(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.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
