On Friday I was reviewing the parsha with the whole discussion of looking only for "truth" irrespective of the consensus of tradition echoing in my mind when I found myself looking at a pshat of R"Y haChassid (quoted in Pardes Yosef p.457) explaining that Yehoshua told Moshe to burden Eldad and Meidad with community obligations so they would become sad and cease prophesying, for prophecy only occurs when a person is happy. R"Y haChassid proves this from Melachim II 3:15, where Elisha says to play music so he can overcome his anger and restore his mental equilibrium; immediately "vat'hi alav ruach Elokim."
The same pasuk is referred to by the Yerushalmi in Sukkah, by the Midrash Shocher Tov, the same limud and pasuk are cited by the Ramban (Braishis 25:34) and by R' Chananel (Shabbos 30b). Not only is it thematically relevant to our parsha, but the words that describe the prophetic experience of Elisha match the words used in our parsha -- "k'noach aleihem haruach" (11:25), "vatanach aleihem haruach" (11:26), "yitein Hashem es rucho aleihem" (11:29).
One little problem: there is no such pasuk. Melachim II 3:15 in our Tanach reads: "vat'hi alav yad Hashem."
The Pardes Yosef notes that not only is the pasuk cited by Chazal and Rishonim with the text "ruach Elokim", but in all the early printings that he checked except one the text appears that way (it should be possible to more exhaustively investigate this for those who have time).
Interestingly, the Chavel edition changes the text of the Ramban so it matches the text of our pasuk, but that is going about things backwards. The evidence in this case is clear and compelling: the text that was used by Chazal, that was used by the Rishonim, that was even used by the printers, all point to the fact that the pasuk should read "ruach Elokim". The term "yad Hashem" must be a corruption that arose relatively late in history. Why change the Ramban when the real mistake is in the text of our Tanach?
Is it time to start reprinting an "authentic" Tanach based on what the evidence tells us the text used by Chazal and the Rishonim was, what their mesorah was, or do we stick to the "traditional" text accepted by a consensus of Jewish communities for the past few generations, the mesorah which has emerged in our time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Take a look at B. Barry Levy's Fixing God's Torah which discusses some of these issues.
ReplyDeletein this case, is this a "masorah" that was actually looked at by acharonim, or was it a masorah of the printers? people don't often pay as much attention to Nach...
ReplyDeletethere are other cases which give greater angst. for example, the one cited by the chacham...
kt,
josh
a related question. how did the Gra emend so many texts to match what he felt was the correct original intent? (e.g. turning asur to mutar.) shouldn't the corruptions in his day be regarded as the masorah? could he really argue against it?
ReplyDeleterelated, let us say (as is in fact the case) the printed Shas incorporated a whole slew of errors that the Rishonim did not have but that many Acharonim using the standard printed text did have. And let us say that they based some pesak on some now *clearly* erroneous text that it turns out none of the Rishonim had. should we still hold by that pesak? what do you think those Acharonim would have said had the manuscript of all the Rishonim been shown to them?
what is the meaning of "masorah"?
kt,
josh
i would add that in this instance i am not sure i am convinced by the proofs. i am not sure in this instance i would agree that one should change it.
ReplyDeletedo we have ancient manuscripts? what do they say?
kt,
josh
indeed, now looking, I see the septuagint, which was in existence well before the Rishonim came along. It has:
ReplyDeletehttp://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Kings%20IV/index.htm
"15 And now fetch me a harper. And it came to pass, as the harper harped, that the hand of the Lord came upon him."
If we are dealing with a variant text, then it is a very early variant text, and the finding of that singular printing would *seem* to reflect a very old tradition.
How to explain the Rishonim and Targum? I can explain them as engaging in clarifying translations rather than direct quote, since Yad Hashem USUALLY means that Hashem is doing something bad to someone.
Thus, how to explain ruach YKVK? Either an old variant translation as well, or else borrowed from Targum (which was just translating into sensible Aramaic) or influenced by the many times this phrase occurs.
I could rationalize it away the other way, as well, if you want. But LXX (=Septuagint) is fairly convincing that this is no modern corruption.
and *THAT'S* where a modern methodology to analyzing Torah can help one out!
kol tuv,
josh
All you have proven is that there is some early varient which Chazal, Rishonim, and all early printings ignored -- so on what basis should we pay heed to it? What makes it more authoritative?
ReplyDelete>>>I can explain them as engaging in clarifying translations
This is a dochak gadol given the context. Since when do Chazal and Rishonim cite a "clarification" of the pasuk instead of the original text?
all i proved is that it is certainly not a late *corruption*. rather, it is something early, and there are competing traditions.
ReplyDeletethen, i would need to see how many Rishonim we are talking about. are we only talking about those who are citing this particular derasha? because when citing a derasha, people don't play around with the text; and it is quite possible that they do not bother looking up the original text to make certain it matches precisely.
it is also possible that this is all being carried from a variant text that the Yerushalmi had. how do we know the Tannaim and Amoraim of Bavel had it as well?
"Since when do Chazal and Rishonim cite a "clarification""?
where it makes for a more fluid reading. see how Ralbag calls it ruach hakodesh rather than ruach hashem.
looking at the mefarshim on the pasuk in a Mikraos Gedolos, it is nowhere in their dibbur hamaschil, but within the text of their commentary.
in fact, there was a book that was written giving (IIRC) HUNDREDS of citations Chazal make that do not accord with the actual text of the pesukim. I seem to recall Rav Schachter suggesting that this was simply due to not wanting to cite Torah or Tanach text (either not from a ktav, or so as not to write it down outside of context, I can't recall); this works for many many instances, though not for the ones where they seem to be making derashot *based* on the variant text.
it is certainly possible that this was the text of all the Rishonim, but the text as cited in statements of Chazal is not necessarily compelling evidence.
kt,
josh
maybe it also was not rav schachter in this instance. my memory on this particular point is spotty...
ReplyDeleteif you don't like Septuagint, I would add the Leningrad Codex. Written in 1008, and which the Allepo Codex, endorsed by Rambam as the basis for our masoretic text, was corrected from, also has Yad Hashem:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#2%20Kings3:12-3:15
וְעַתָּ֖ה קְחוּ־לִ֣י מְנַגֵּ֑ן וְהָיָה֙ כְּנַגֵּ֣ן הַֽמְנַגֵּ֔ן וַתְּהִ֥י עָלָ֖יו יַד־יְהוָֽה׃
We are not dealing with some fly-by-night variant text. We are talking about the standard masoretic text, not some corruption caused by printers.
as such, i would treat citations of the pasuk in the text of Chazal and Rishonim very carefully and conservatively, and not jump to conclusions.
kt,
josh
With regard to rabbinic texts which seem to show a different text from the masoretic, there seem to be two halachic approaches; one is to change the Tanachs to match rabbinic texts, the other is not to. Most of the relevant citations are brought in Barry Levy's book, in Marc Shapiro's book on the Ikkarim, and (I think) in Edward Breuer's book on the Biur.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, judging between the two positions, it seems very hard to suggest changing Tanach on the basis of rabbinic texts, because the provenance of their texts is either unknown or not known to be better. As Josh pointed out, the best Masoretic codices read yad Hashem. Why is the Ramban's Tanach better than Ben Asher's? Furthermore, it seems that the accepted halachic way to ascertain the correct reading is to find the best texts and choose a majority.
Of course it is a perfectly fair question, why not put in a little footnote in our Tanachs and say "29 rishonim or the Gemara on Daf such and such according to four printed editions and six mansucripts had a different word here, and here's what it is"?
A: (Because then it would be a quasi-critical text and not "our" Tanachs.)
ReplyDelete:-)
Look in a Tanach Koren. 3:15 is correct. The Abarbanel touches on this topic. The P'rakim used today are not those used by Chazal. The Church changed the way the P'rakim were divied.
ReplyDeletedo you think there is any connection to that which we find this phenomenon sometimes in shas i.e. moed kattan 2a? (see mesoras hashas there if i remember correctly)
ReplyDeletedo you think there is any connection to that which we find this phenomenon sometimes in shas i.e. moed kattan 2a? (see mesoras hashas there if i remember correctly)
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDeletei'm not sure i understand you correctly in your first comment, but the question is not whether the numbering is correct, but whether the wording in the pasuk is correct.
chaim:
there were some points that there was not room to expand upon in a comment section, so i made it into a full-blown post. see here.
kt,
josh
anon:
ReplyDeleteah, i see you grasp that, by the moed katan reference. the masoret hashas notes an old nusach in tosafot with a different version of prooftext, with a non-existent pasuk.
kt,
josh
Quoth Mississippi Fred:
ReplyDelete“[W]hy not put in a little footnote in our Tanachs and say ‘29 rishonim … had a different word here…’?”
You mean to put dots over the words in question, the way Ezra HaSofer did?
>You mean to put dots over the words in question, the way Ezra HaSofer did?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Although I believe that elements of the massorah do appear to be a kind of critical apparatus.
Chaim B,
ReplyDeleteHas the "ruach elokim"phrseology ever appeared in the actual melachim passage cited ?
The passage is about Elishas anger, not sadness.As you know anger is one of the worst sins known to mankind and leads to all sorts of bad and irrational decisions. (see the iggeres haramban for a fun daily read on anger ). From a simple reading i would think the yad hashem reference is directly related to the anger the king is attempting to get rid of by playing his harp.
Everyone quoting this passage from the yerúshalmi to the ramban, if they r using the Ruach elokim translation they r probably referring to the spiritual results when the harp playing angry king managed to play away his anger.
For those who dont play the harp very well, saying the iggeres haramban letter is a good way to overcome anger.
Anyway my longwinded point, maybe, or i think yad hashem refers to the kings spiritual state when he is still one angry guy, about to do something stúpid, punishable by the hand of Gd.
Chazal or the French sages, lïke the Ramban (i think he was French or at least ashkenazi)and the Jerusalem talmud súccah passage r both referring to the king once he gets rid of the anger and no longer worthy of gds punishing hand but is worthy of gds prophecy.
Unless there r ancient melachim manuscripts that have the ruach elokim phraseology
jaded topaz
Chaim B,
ReplyDeleteHas the "ruach elokim"phrseology ever appeared in the actual melachim passage cited ?
The passage is about Elishas anger, not sadness.As you know anger is one of the worst sins known to mankind and leads to all sorts of bad and irrational decisions. (see the iggeres haramban for a fun daily read on anger ). From a simple reading i would think the yad hashem reference is directly related to the anger the king is attempting to get rid of by playing his harp.
Everyone quoting this passage from the yerúshalmi to the ramban, if they r using the Ruach elokim translation they r probably referring to the spiritual results when the harp playing angry king managed to play away his anger.
For those who dont play the harp very well, saying the iggeres haramban letter is a good way to overcome anger.
Anyway my longwinded point, maybe, or i think yad hashem refers to the kings spiritual state when he is still one angry guy, about to do something stúpid, punishable by the hand of Gd.
Chazal or the French sages, lïke the Ramban (i think he was French or at least ashkenazi)and the Jerusalem talmud súccah passage r both referring to the king once he gets rid of the anger and no longer worthy of gds punishing hand but is worthy of gds prophecy.
Unless there r ancient melachim manuscripts that have the ruach elokim phraseology
jaded topaz
jaded: see my post, linked above. the yad hashem phraseology is used to mean prophecy many times, but only in Yechezkel, which is why this is out of the ordinary in Melachim. that is the simple meaning of this pasuk.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
Sorry about repititious comments. nòt sure why it posted twice.
ReplyDeleteYou can delete one.
jaded topaz
Ramban was Spanish, thus Sepharadi, however from Christian, but not Muslim Spain.
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteIm nòt following ,
What makes you think yad hashem is referring to prophecy initially in that melachim passage.
Anonymous, Which territory was the Ramban born in.Not the territory he resided in later on in life for various reasons.
jaded topaz
look at the context, starting from pasuk 11 and continuing to the following pasuk. it is clear that this is what it means, which is why you will find every single commentator explain it like this.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
Josh,
ReplyDeleteMaybe youre right, i have no patience for navi which is why i never bothered analyzing any of the texts for both neviim or kesuvim but i still think that the precise working definition for both yad hashem and ruach elokim does nòt necessarily translate as the kind prophecy Associated with Moshe on Mt Sinai with lapis tablets eárth shattering kind of way.
It could also mean the presence of Gd or "shechinah" resting around.
Whatever ! Navi is one thing i will never argue.you can never win ! Its worse than argúing philosophy.
jaded topaz
Josh,
ReplyDeleteOne last thing , when you say every last commentator explained it this way what r you referring to ? The hand of Gd or the spirit of Gd. Which commentator defined hand of Gd as hand of Gd ? I thought all the commentators translated the scenario of angry prophet playing the harp with the hand of Gd right above him as , when the prophet played away the anger the spirit of Gd was around. Which commentator referenced the hand of Gd ?
jaded topaz
Josh,
ReplyDeleteLast point promix, was the prophet still angry when the Lords hand came upon him ? If the prophet was still angry when the lords hand was úpòn him im nòt sure that yad hashem could ever be defined initially as ruach elokim. Ruach elokim by definition does nòt mix so well with anger.
Im still nòt convinced that the ruach elokim result that the commenters commonly refer to is just a different version of yad hashem.especially if the prophet was still angry when the lords hand came úpòn him.
I would think ruach elokim is more of a conclusion then a translation of the scenario.
jaded topaz
"when you say every last commentator explained it this way what r you referring to"
ReplyDeleteevery commentator explains the pasuk in Melachim it as starting to prophesy. and i would add, this is the meaning of the phrase "the hand of God was upon him." See how this phrase is used throughout Yechezkel, and see how Targum consistently translates it. depending on context the phrase means different things, but in Yechezkel and in this verse in Melachim it consistently means prophecy.
again, read the Biblical translation in your native tongue for a sense of context. this is the plain meaning of the verse, regardless of what the specific choice of language is.
kt,
josh
Josh,
ReplyDeletePhraseology and translation aside, My question was, was the prophet still angry when the hand of the Lord came upon him.
If he was still angry what does this. passage prove. If he wasnt angry anymore how did you come to that conclusion.
jaded topaz
Josh,
ReplyDeleteWhat does native biblical tongue have to do with anything and is melachim even part of "the bible" as in the "torah" nòt additional fanciful texts about concepts we could only Dream about. And or attempt to learn from. Im nòt sure that it makes sense logically to use textual analysis on any of the books in neviim and kèsúvim.
Also how can one translation in melachim be considered "consistent" consistent to what ? Translations in òther sections of neviim ?
The prophets i come across in the City these days r hardly the consisten kind of folks ! Just trying to out prophecy into my native tongue and context in 2009. Have you ever come across any prophets in the City ? Would you engage in a critical textual analysis of the súbway sage and which particúlar phrases he is attèmpting to scare you into salvation with.
What about my favorite message at the 42nd st station. Next time your at the 42nd station walking through the indoor corridor look up at the ceiling for the best set of phrophecy oriënted inspirational phrases.
Maybe we could analyze the text and the prophet that painted it.
jaded topaz
Josh,
ReplyDeleteWhat does native biblical tongue have to do with anything and is melachim even part of "the bible" as in the "torah" nòt additional fanciful texts about concepts we could only Dream about. And or attempt to learn from. Im nòt sure that it makes sense logically to use textual analysis on any of the books in neviim and kèsúvim.
Also how can one translation in melachim be considered "consistent" consistent to what ? Translations in òther sections of neviim ?
The prophets i come across in the City these days r hardly the consisten kind of folks ! Just trying to out prophecy into my native tongue and context in 2009. Have you ever come across any prophets in the City ? Would you engage in a critical textual analysis of the súbway sage and which particúlar phrases he is attèmpting to scare you into salvation with.
What about my favorite message at the 42nd st station. Next time your at the 42nd station walking through the indoor corridor look up at the ceiling for the best set of phrophecy oriënted inspirational phrases.
Maybe we could analyze the text and the prophet that painted it.
jaded topaz
Early in the gemara in Sanhedrin, there are drashot attempting to decide the question of whether we follow the K'tiv or the K'ri (yesh im l'mikra or yesh im l'mesoret is the phrase there.) One of them, involving the corners of the mizbeach depends on a spelling which is not in accord with our s'farim. (Although it does seem to be in accord with Rashi's) The Rishonim address the question of whether we ought to edit our sforim to match the gemara and conclude not.
ReplyDelete