-1

In Gilyon HaShas on bShabbat 55b, R. Akiva Eiger includes bBerachot 7b's statement רַב הוּנָא רָמֵי כְּתִיב ״לְעַנּוֹתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְכַלּוֹתוֹ״ as an example in which hazal's quotation of a pasuk is at odds with "all the [biblical] books" of his time since the verse Rav Hunah is quoting (1 Chronicles 17:9) is usually written:

וְשַׂמְתִּ֣י מָ֠קוֹם לְעַמִּ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֚ל וּנְטַעְתִּ֙יהוּ֙ וְשָׁכַ֣ן תַּחְתָּ֔יו וְלֹ֥א יִרְגַּ֖ז ע֑וֹד וְלֹֽא־יוֹסִ֚יפוּ בְנֵֽי־עַוְלָה֙ לְבַלֹּת֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר בָּרִֽאשׁוֹנָֽה

And yet neither Rashi much earlier nor Rav Steinsaltz much later mentions this discrepancy, except maybe inasmuch as Rav Steinsaltz amends "ketiv" to "ne'emar" in his Hebrew paraphrase.

What I don't understand is: if this is just one of those places where hazal is actually just exegeting a long-standing kri-ketiv tradition that may not be universal, why is the "discrepancy" included in R. Akiva Eiger's famous list apparent deviations? But if this isn't a long established alternate reading, why isn't anyone else bothered by the slip, when the whole gemara here is based on the fact that 1 Chronicles 17:9 and II Samuel 7:10 are supposed to have contrasting meanings when actually in the Tanakh text as we know it those two pasukim just use two synonyms (לבלות and לענות)?

1
  • I'm not sure I understand the question. Why would Rashi note this? What do you mean by "established kri"? Please edit to clarify. – Double AA May 26 '20 at 17:51
4

See Minchas Shai on that verse:

ולא יוסיפו בני עולה לבלתו. פרק קמא דברכות רב הונא רמי כתיב לענותו וכתיב לכלותו. בתחלה לענותו ולבסוף לכלותו. ובפירש"י כתבי לענותו בספר (שמואל ב' ז') וכתיב לכלותו בד"ה. בתחלה כשנבנה הבית נבנה ע"מ שלא לענות עוד אויבים לישראל ולבסוף כשחטאו נגזר עליהם עינוי ותפלתם מגינה עליהם מן הכליון ע"כ. נראה שבספרו הי' כתוב לכלותו בכ"ף וכן פירש בעל מכלל יופי ענין כליה ואף רד"ק הביא בספר שמואל מדרש הנזכר ופירש כפירש"י. אמנם בספר השרשים הביאו בשרש בלה בבית וכן בכל הספרים (זולתי מעט מזעיר) כתוב לבלתו בבי"ת:

[After citing the relevant passage in Berachos and Rashi ad loc:] It seems that Rashi's text of the verse had לכלותו, with a chaf. Michlal Yofi, too, explains it as related to כליה, destruction; and Radak, in his commentary on [II] Shmuel [7:10], quotes this Midrash and explains it as Rashi does. On the other hand, in his Sefer Hashorashim [Radak] puts it under the root בלה, with a beis, and most manuscripts (with the exception of a very few) have לבלתו with a beis.

So Rashi doesn't comment on it simply because his text matched the Gemara's. As for Steinsaltz, I don't know, but his notes in the earlier volumes aren't as extensive as in the later ones, so he may not have found it necessary to comment.

3
  • Interesting! I wonder if that means the Minhat Shai already knew/thought that the Rashi on Divre Hayamim was not really Rashi since at the pasuk the Rashi commentary (a bit like the Radak) contradicts this line and says: ולא יוסיפו בני עולה לבלתו. כמו לענותו. Is pseudo-Rashi not a modern scholarly discovery? – NotGoodAtExamples May 27 '20 at 1:44
  • @NotGoodAtExamples It may well have been known much earlier, seeing as how this commentary quotes Rashi himself in a couple of places, such as II Chronicles 3:15. – Meir May 27 '20 at 3:06
  • 1
    I'm not sure this is correct. Rashi may have just been quoting a Midrash not reflective of his text. There's no proof he had it one way or another. This can be seen in Radak too who had it one way but still quoted chazals midrash. Seemingly they just were fine with variants or thought it was some sort of "al tikri ela" exegesis. For Rashi and Bavel to have the same textual variant and everyone geographically in between to have it the other way would be such an unlikely coincidence. Do we have any manuscript evidence of this from Medieval France? – Double AA May 27 '20 at 11:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .