Updates & Insights

Chapter 15, "We Are Not Experts," showcases three incidences of third-generation Amoraim expressing uncertainty regarding specific words and letters in the Torah, including Rabbi Yosef’s statement of “We are not experts,”¹ Rabbi Chiya bar Abba’s uncertainty regarding the word "tov,"² and Rabbi Avahu’s encounter with the heretics.³

More specifically, Rabbi Avahu’s encounter with the heretics suggests that the Sages of Eretz Yisrael were more proficient with regards to the pesukim as compared to the Sages of Bavel.⁴

However, the following two excerpts from the Yerushalmi suggest that disputes regarding letters of the Torah appears even among the Sages of Eretz Yisrael. 

Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:9

In the following passage, Rabbi Abba bar Zamina, Rabbi Zeura, Rabbi Yochanan bar Marya, and Rabbi Shmuel bar Avudeima, fourth and fifth-generation Amoraim from Eretz Yisrael, are discussing the halachic implications of the following passuk relating to permissible aquatic creatures:⁵

אֶת־זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ׃

These you may eat of all that live in water: anything in water, whether in the seas or in the streams, that has fins and scales—these you may eat.

As explained by the commentaries on the Yerushalmi, the dispute concerns whether the letter vav is included in the word "בַּיַּמִּים" (i.e., whether it should read "וּבַּיַּמִּים"). Alternatively, the dispute concerns whether the word "וּבַנְּחָלִים" includes the letter vav.

At one point, Rabbi Yochanan bar Marya declares, "In any Sefer Torah in which I find a vav [in that word], I will erase it!"

The Yerushalmi's text follows:⁶

הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וְהָא כָתוּב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. מֵעַתָּה אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּכָתַב וָי״ו.

אָמַר רַב יוֹחָנָן בַּר מַרְיָיא. כָּל הֵן דַּאֲנָא מַשְׁכַּח וָי״ו אֲנָא מְחִיק לֵיהּ. 

אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדֵּמָא. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. מַה שֶׁבַּיָּמִים יְהוּ אֲסוּרִין וּמַה שֶׁבַּגִּיגִּיּוֹת וְשֶׁבַּבֵיבָרִים יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם. רִיבָה.

The Sheyarei Korban⁷ explains:

שהיה כתוב בס"ת דר' אבא כל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת במים ובימים ובנחלים וקשיא ליה שפיר שאין לדרוש כאן פרט הואיל וכתיב הפרט בוי"ו.

ואמר ר' יוחנן שיש למחוק וי"ו דובמים שזה ט"ס כן הוא בס"ת שלנו בלא וי"ו:

The Korban HaEdah⁸ explains:

כל הן. כל ס"ת שאני רואה שכתוב בה ובנחלים אני מוחק הוי"ו דהא דרשינן כלל ופרט וכלל ש"מ שאין שם וי"ו: 

מכל אשר במים. דמיותר אתי לריבוייא מה שבגיגית ולאו בכלל ופרט וכלל דרשינן ליה ולעולם ובנחלים כתיב בוי"ו:

Yerushalmi Shabbos 9:2

In the following passage, Rabbi Chaggai and Rav Huna the Sofer, fourth-generation Amoraim from Eretz Yisrael, discuss Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching on the maximum number of seeds that may be planted in a garden bed measuring six by six tefachim (hand-breadths) without transgressing the prohibition of kelayim (the mixing of seeds).⁹ According to one opinion, up to five seeds may be planted; according to another, six are permitted.¹⁰

The dispute centers on the precise spelling, and specifically the number of letters, of the word "זֵרוּעֶיהָ" in the following passuk:¹¹

כִּי כָאָרֶץ תּוֹצִיא צִמְחָהּ וּכְגַנָּה זֵרוּעֶיהָ תַצְמִיחַ

For as the earth brings forth her growth and a garden makes the seed shoot up.

Similar to the previous Yerushalmi, at one point, Rabbi Chaggai declares, "In any Sefer [Yeshaya] in which I find a vav [in that word], I will erase it!"

The Yerushalmi's text follows:¹²

רִבִּי יְהושֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. זַרְעָהּ זְרָעֶיהָ זֵירוּעֶיהָ. וּכְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. שִׂשָּׁה. זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ זְרָעֶיהָ זֵירוּעֶיהָ.

רִבִּי חַגַּי אָמַר. זְרָעֶיהָ חֲמִשָּׁה. כָּל הָהֵן דַּאֲנָא מִשְׁכַּח לֵהּ וָו אֲנָא מְחִיק לֵהּ.

אִישְׁתְּאָלַת לְרִבִּי חוּנָה סַפְרָא דְסִדְרָא וַאֲמַר. זֵירוּעֶיהָ מָלֵא.

The Penei Moshe¹³ explains:

ר' חגיי אמר זרעיה חמשה. אליבא דת"ק דמתני' הוא דקאמר וכלומר דלא צריכת כדדרש ריב"ל אלא דזרעיה חסר כתיב בלא וי"ו ומחמשה אותיות של התיבה שפיר נפקא לן חמשה והשתא לא מצית למידרש אליבא דר' יהודה והיינו טעמא דהת"ק דלא ס"ל אלא חמשה: 

כל הין וכו'. הש"ס הוא דקאמר שכך השיבו לו לר' חגיי א"כ כל ספר ישעיה שאני מוצא כתיב זרועיה מלא בוי"ו צריך אני למוחקו להוי"ו וכן נשאלה שאלה זו לרב הונא ספרא דסידרא של המקראות שהיה בקי במסורת המקרא ואמר שכך הוא זרועי' מלא כתיב בוי"ו. 

א"נ האי כל הין דאנא משכח וכו' ר' חגייא הוא דקאמר לה שאני מקובל שהוא חסר וכל מקום שאמצא מלא אני מוחק להוי"ו ושאלו לרב ספרא ואמר שכך הוא שצריך להיות מלא בוי"ו וכמו שכתוב בספרים שלפנינו ודלא כרבי חגיי:

The Korban HaEdah¹⁴ explains:

ר' חגי אמר זרעיה ה' כל ההן דאנא משכח לה וכו'. וה"פ כל היכא שאני מוצא בספר כתוב זרועיה מלא בוי"ו אני מוחק אותו שחסר וי"ו כתיב וטעמא דר"י דדריש הקרי שהוא זרועיה: 

אישתאלי'. שאלו לר"ה סופר של בית המדרש ואמר זירועיה מלא כתיב:

This chapter, regarding the first Luchos, notes that the Aseres Hadibros consisted of  six hundred and twenty letters. Footnote 13 cites the Midrash,¹ which explains that this number corresponds to the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos together with the seven days of Creation. Alternatively, the final seven letters of the phrase "asher l’reiacha" (אשר לרעך) are understood to allude to the seven Rabbinic enactments.²

The Daas Zekeinim MiBaalei Tosafos³ offers a novel comment in this context. Addressing the requirement that a king possess two Sifrei Torah,⁴ one kept in his treasury and the other carried on his person,⁵ the Daas Zekeinim maintains that the king's personal "Sefer Torah" contained nothing more than the text of the Aseres Hadibros:

ושמעתי כי אותו ס"ת התלוי בזרועו לא היה כתוב בו כי אם עשרת הדברים ולפי שיש מן אנכי עד לרעך תרי"ג אותיות כנגד תרי"ג מצות קרוי ס"ת

And I heard that that Torah scroll which hung on the king's arm had nothing written in it except the Ten Statements; and since there are, from the word 'Anochi' until 'asher l'reiacha,' 613 letters, corresponding to the 613 commandments, it is called a "Sefer Torah."

See also the Rashash,⁶ who hesitantly suggests this "Sefer Torah" may have consisted of only a brief enumeration of the mitzvos.

Chapter 15, “We Are Not Experts,” mentions that the the very Rav Yosef who declared “אֲנַן לָא בְּקִיאִינַן - We are not experts”¹ was commonly referred to as “Sinai,”² and there are indications that Rav Yosef was a master of Torah She’bichsav (the Written Torah). Specifically, the Erchei Tannaim V’Amoraim³ is quoted as having heard that Rav Yosef restored the Targum [Aramaic translation] of the Kesuvim:

ושמעתי כי תרגום של כתובים שיש בידינו כגון תרגום איוב ושאר כתובים שהן דרשות נשתכחו ורב יוסף החזירן.

I have heard that the Targum of the Kesuvim that we have, such as the Targum of Iyov and other Kesuvim, which are interpretations, were forgotten, and Rav Yosef restored them.

The following comment from Tosafos⁴ confirms Rav Yosef's proficiency regarding the Targum of Neviim:⁵

נקט רב יוסף לפי שהיה בקי בתרגום

Rav Yosef is cited, because he was an expert in Targum.

However, another Tosafos⁶ appears to indicate that that Rav Yosef was not the author (or restorer) of the Targum on Kesuvim:⁷

ודלא כאומרים דתרגום של כתובים רב יוסף עשאו

And this is not in accordance with those who say that the Targum of Kesuvim was composed by Rav Yosef.

Regarding the date of the Mishkan's completion, footnote 2 cites Pesikta Rabbasi,¹ which states that the Mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev. However, Moshe postponed its inauguration until Nissan, an auspicious month associated with the birth of Yitzchak. Ultimately, Hashem "compensated" the month of Kislev by designating it as the time of Chanukah.

It is worth noting that this is also cited in the Mishnah Berurah:²

כדאיתא במדרש דמלאכת המשכן נגמר בכ"ה בכסליו אלא שהמתין הקב"ה בהקמה עד ניסן שנולד בו יצחק ואמר הקב"ה עלי לשלם לכסליו ושילם לו חנוכת בית חשמונאי.

The Midrash states that the work of the Mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev, but the Holy One, blessed be He, waited to erect it until Nissan, the month in which Yitzchak was born. And the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I owe a debt to Kislev, and He repaid it with the dedication (Chanukah) of the House of the Hasmoneans.

This chapter, "The Fate of Moshe Rabbeinu’s Sefer Torah," points out that, although the prevailing understanding is that Moshe Rabbeinu’s Sefer Torah still exists physically¹ and remains hidden,² there are indications that it may have been burned during the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash.³

The following enigmatic wording of Rabbeinu Bachya⁴ may lend credence to this view:

בחדש החמישי באחד לחדש. זה ראש חדש שבו נפטר אהרן, ובתשעה בו נשרף בית המקדש והתורה עמו, ובשבעה באדר לשנה הבאה אחר זו נפטר משה רבינו ע"ה.

"In the fifth month, on the first of the month" — this is [the day of] Rosh Chodesh [Av] on which Aaron passed away. And on the ninth of that month, the Beis Hamikdash was burned, and the Torah with it. And on the seventh of Adar of the following year after this, Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, passed away.

To be sure, a Mishna in Taanis⁵ mentions a burning of "the Torah" by the Greek⁶ general Apostomus during the period of the second Beis Hamikdash ("וְשָׂרַף אַפּוֹסְטֹמוֹס אֶת הַתּוֹרָה").⁷ However, that episode would likely not be what Rabbeinu Bachya is referring to as the Mishna lists it among the five calamities that occurred on 17 Tammuz, not 9 Av. Further, that episode did not occur in conjunction with the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.

Nonetheless, it is possible that Rabbeinu Bachya's reference to "the Torah" that was burned with the Beis Hamikdash refers, not to Moshe Rabbeinu’s Sefer Torah, but to the infamous incident described in the Gemara⁸ regarding Titus:

זֶה טִיטוּס הָרָשָׁע שֶׁחֵירַף וְגִידֵּף כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה. מָה עָשָׂה? תָּפַשׂ זוֹנָה בְּיָדוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהִצִּיעַ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ עֲבֵירָה. וְנָטַל סַיִיף וְגִידֵּר אֶת הַפָּרוֹכֶת, וְנַעֲשָׂה נֵס וְהָיָה דָּם מְבַצְבֵּץ וְיוֹצֵא, וּכְסָבוּר הָרַג אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

This is the wicked Titus, who blasphemed and cursed toward Heaven. What did he do? He took a prostitute by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies, and he spread out a Torah scroll and committed a transgression upon it. And he took a sword and slashed the curtain (paroches), and a miracle occurred and blood spurted out, and he thought he had killed [Hashem] himself.

Chapter 1, "Our Love of Torah," begins by referring to the Torah as the "Divine masterpiece gifted to us by Hashem through Moshe Rabbeinu."

There are a number of sources indicating that the Torah was given to the Jewish nation as a gift:¹

Berachos 5a

 רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת טוֹבוֹת נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל... אֵלּוּ הֵן: תּוֹרָה וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the Jewish nation three precious gifts... These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come.

Eiruvin 54a

אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה״, אִם מֵשִׂים אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּמִדְבָּר זֶה שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין בּוֹ — תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם לָאו — אֵין תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ. 
[רש"י: ממדבר מתנה - אם כמדבר הוא תורה נתונה לו במתנה ולא ישכח:]
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אָדָם מֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּמִדְבָּר זֶה שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין בּוֹ — תּוֹרָה נִיתְּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה.

Rav Masna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah” (Bamidbar 21:18)? If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, his Torah study will endure. And if not, his Torah study will not endure.

[Rashi: Meaning, it will be given to him as a gift - mattana - and will not be forgotten]

Rava said to him: If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, the Torah will be given to him as a gift [mattana].

Nedarim 38a

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּתְּחִלָּה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה לָמֵד תּוֹרָה וּמְשַׁכְּחָה, עַד שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה.

And Rabbi Yochanan said: Initially, Moses would study Torah and forget it, until it was given to him as a gift.

Nedarim 55a

כֵּיוָן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אָדָם אֶת עַצְמוֹ כַּמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁהוּא מוּפְקָר לַכֹּל — תּוֹרָה נִיתְּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה״.

Once a person renders himself like a wilderness, deserted before all, the Torah is given to him as a gift [mattana], as it is stated: “And from the wilderness they went to Mattana” (Bamidbar 21:18).

Rashi on Shemos 31:18

שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לוֹ תּוֹרָה בְּמַתָּנָה כְּכַלָּה לֶחָתָן.

The Torah was given to him [Moshe] as a gift, like a bride to a groom.

This chapter, "The Tumultuous Periods of Bayis Rishon," examines the perilous reigns of Kings Achaz, Menasheh, and Amon, whose suppression of Torah study and desecration of Sifrei Torah compelled the Kohanim of the Beis Hamikdash to conceal Moshe Rabbeinu's Sefer Torah. The following two statements from our Sages provide additional context:

Three Evil Monarchs

The Gemara¹ depicts the increasing depravity of the Kings Achaz, Menasheh, and Amon in the following way:

אָחָז הֶעֱמִידוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּיה... מְנַשֶּׁה הֶעֱמִידוֹ בַּהֵיכָל... אָמוֹן הִכְנִיסוֹ לְבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים.

 [אָחָז בִּטֵּל אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה], וְחָתַם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה... מְנַשֶּׁה קָדַר אֶת הָאַזְכָּרוֹת, וְהָרַס אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמוֹן שָׂרַף אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, וְהֶעֱלָה שְׂמָמִית עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. 

אָחָז הִתִּיר אֶת הָעֶרְוָה. מְנַשֶּׁה בָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ. אָמוֹן בָּא עַל אִמּוֹ.

Achaz placed [an idol] in the upper chamber [of the Beis Hamikdash]… Menasheh placed it in the Heichal... Amon introduced it into the Kodesh Hakodashim.

Achaz nullified the service [of the Beis Hamikdash] and “sealed” the Torah [prohibiting its study]… Menasheh cut out the mentions of Hashem’s names [from holy books] and destroyed the mizbeiach. Amon burned the Torah and sacrificed a gecko, an impure creeping animal, upon the mizbeiach.

Achaz permitted engaging in forbidden relationships. Menasheh engaged in relations with his sister. Amon engaged in relations with his mother.

The Moon and the LEADERS

The following Midrash² finds, embedded in the very first mitzvah given to the Jewish nation, a hint about the shape their history would take. The commandment to sanctify the new moon carries a hidden message: the moon waxes for fifteen days until it's full, then wanes for fifteen more until it disappears entirely, a thirty day cycle. Jewish kingship, the Midrash teaches, would follow the same pattern over thirty generations.

The first fifteen generations, from Avraham to Shlomo, are the waxing half. Avraham begins to shine, and each generation after him, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and onward through the line, adds a bit more light, until Shlomo's reign brings the moon to its fullness with the building of the Beis Hamikdash. From there the pattern reverses. Starting with Rechavam, the kings grow progressively dimmer (with some exceptions, such as the righteous King Chizkiyahu), generation by generation, until Tzidkiyahu, whose own blinding coincides with the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash: the moment the light goes out entirely.

The reigns of Kings Achaz, Menasheh, and Amon occurred during the second half of the thirty generations.

עַד שֶׁלֹא הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּרֶמֶז הוֹדִיעַ לָהֶם שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְכוּת בָּאָה לָהֶם עַד שְׁלשִׁים דּוֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים, הַחֹדֶשׁ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וּמַלְכוּת שֶׁלָּכֶם שְׁלשִׁים דּוֹר. הַלְּבָנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל נִיסָן מַתְחֶלֶת לְהָאִיר, וְכָל שֶׁהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת מְאִירָה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יָמִים, וְדִסְקוֹס שֶׁלָּהּ מִתְמַלֵּא, וּמֵחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר עַד שְׁלשִׁים אוֹר שֶׁלָּהּ חָסֵר, בִּשְׁלשִׁים אֵינָהּ נִרְאֵית.

כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר דוֹר מִן אַבְרָהָם וְעַד שְׁלֹמֹה. אַבְרָהָם הִתְחִיל לְהָאִיר... בָּא יִצְחָק אַף הוּא הֵאִיר... בָּא יַעֲקֹב וְהוֹסִיף אוֹר... וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְהוּדָה, פֶּרֶץ, חֶצְרוֹן, רָם, עֲמִּינָדָב, נַחְשׁוֹן, שַׂלְמוֹן, בֹּעַז, עוֹבֵד, יִשַּׁי, דָּוִד. כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא שְׁלֹמֹה נִתְמַלֵּא דִסְקוֹס שֶׁל לְבָנָה.

וּמִשָּׁם הִתְחִילוּ הַמְלָכִים פּוֹחֲתִין וְהוֹלְכִין... וּבֶן שְׁלֹמֹה רְחַבְעָם, וּבֶן רְחַבְעָם אֲבִיָּה וּבְנוֹ אָסָא, יְהוֹשָׁפָט, יְהוֹרָם, אֲחַזְיָהוּ, יוֹאָשׁ, אֲמַצְיָהוּ, עֻזִּיָה, יוֹתָם, אָחָז, יְחִזְקִיָּה, מְנַשֶּׁה, אָמוֹן, יֹאשִׁיָהוּ, (יְהוֹיָקִים)³. כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ... חָסַר אוֹרָהּ שֶׁל לְבָנָה.

This chapter, titled "Transmitting Torah: A Unique Methodology," references a remarkable episode recorded by Rashi.¹ According to this account, while in the desert, Moshe summoned every living creature, including fish, aquatic animals, birds, and crawling creatures, and displayed them before the Jewish people in order to teach them which species were permitted for consumption and which were forbidden.

Rashi's source is the following Midrash:²

(ויקרא יא, ב) "זאת החיה אשר תאכלו" – מלמד שהיה משה אוחז החיה ומראה להם לישראל ואומר להם "זו תאכלו וזו לא תאכלו". (שם, ט) "את זה תאכלו מכל אשר במים" – "זה תאכלו וזה לא תאכלו". (שם, יג) "את אלה תשקצו מן העוף" – "את אלה תשקצו ואת אלו לא תשקצו" (שם, כט) "זה לכם הטמא" – "זה טמא וזה אינו טמא".

"These are the living creatures that you may eat":³ this teaches that Moshe would hold up each creature and show it to the Jewish nation, telling them, "This one you may eat, and this one you may not eat."

[Similarly, regarding the pasuk describing fish]⁴ "These you may eat of all that is in the water": [Moshe showed them,] "This one you may eat, and this one you may not eat." 

[Similarly, regarding the pasuk describing birds]⁵ "These you shall detest among the birds": [Moshe showed them,] "These you shall detest, and these you shall not detest." 

[Similarly, regarding the pasuk describing insects]⁶ "These are unclean for you": [Moshe showed them,]  "This is unclean, and this is not unclean."

The Ra'avad, commenting on this Midrash, clarifies: "וכן בדגים וכן בעופות וכן בשרצים - [Moshe also displayed] the fish, birds, and crawling creatures."

Now, the Mishnah states:⁷

כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר

Any fish that has scales also has fins.

Tosafos⁸ raises the question of how the Sages could have known this zoological principle, given the vast number of aquatic species in existence. Tosafos considers the possibility that this knowledge originated with Adam, and also suggests that it may have been transmitted through Moshe Rabbeinu.

כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר - וא"ת מנין היה להם זה לחכמים וכן לעיל (חולין דף סג:) דתניא שאין במיני דגים טמאים אלא ז' מאות מנין היה להם שהתירו בכך את השאר 

וליכא למימר מאדם שקרא להם שמות קים להו הכי שמסר לדורות כך שהם טמאין שכן הוא הכיר את כולם דהא לא משמע במקרא שקרא שמות אלא לבהמות ולעופות שאע"פ שידע שמו של הקב"ה כדדרשינן (במ"ר בראשית פי"ז) אני ה' (הוא) שקרא לי אדם הראשון בדגים מיהא לא אשכחן

ויש לומר מכל אשר יקרא לו האדם יש לרבות אפי' דגים ואיכא למימר דמאדם קים להו ואם תמצא לומר שלא קרא להם שמות יש לומר דהכי קים להו הלמ"מ:

'Any fish that has scales also has fins.' One might ask: how did the Sages know this? Similarly, earlier⁹ it is taught that there are only seven hundred non-kosher species of fish; how did they know this, such that they permitted all the rest?

One cannot say that this knowledge came from Adam, who named all the creatures and thereby transmitted through the generations which ones were non-kosher, on the assumption that he was familiar with all of them, for the Torah does not indicate that he gave names to any creatures other than animals and birds. Even though he knew the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as is expounded,¹⁰ 'I am Hashem, He whom Adam, the first man, called Me,' we nonetheless do not find that he named fish.

However, one could say that the phrase 'whatever the Adam called it' includes fish as well, in which case this knowledge would indeed derive from Adam. And if one maintains that he did not name them, one could say that this was known through a halacha transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.

In light of the Sifra cited above, it appears that this information was in fact conveyed by Moshe Rabbeinu directly to the Jewish nation in the desert.

Chapter 2, "“This Is the Torah” — The Central Question," includes anecdotes and laments from Teshuvos Ginas Veradim,¹ Lev Chaim,² and Minchas Shai³ regarding the unreliability of soferim and the state of Sifrei Torah in their time.

The following similar sentiment is quoted from Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman Milhausen's (d. 1421) "Tikkun Sefer Torah" (first published in 5727/1967):

יען כי בעוונותינו הרבים התורה נשתכחה ולא נמצא ס"ת כתובה כשורה, מפני שהסופרים בורים, והלומדים אין משימים לבם לזאת, על כן יגעתי למצוא ס"ת כתובה כתיקונה באותיות ובפתוחות ובסתומות ולא מצאתי, ואין צ"ל בדקדוק חסרות ויתרות אשר נעלם מכל בני הדור, וע"ז אנו אנוסים

Because, due to our many sins, the Torah has been forgotten and no properly written Torah scroll can be found, since the scribes are ignorant and the scholars do not pay attention to this matter, I therefore labored to find a Torah scroll written correctly with regard to its letters, its open sections, and its closed sections, but I could not find one. Needless to say, this applies all the more to the precise spelling of deficient and plene writings, which is hidden from all the people of this generation, and regarding this we are blameless.

This chapter details the aftermath of the Eigel (Golden Calf) and Hashem's declaration that the Shechinah (Divine Presence) would no longer dwell among the people.¹  Instead, the nation would be led by an angel² named Matat-ron.³ Ultimately, Moshe Rabbeinu's pleading⁴ during his second forty-day stay on Har Sinai proved successful, and Hashem agreed to restore His Divine Presence among the people.⁵

The following  additional information should be noted:

Although Hashem ultimately agreed to restore His Divine Presence among the people, Hashem’s decree that the nation would be led by an angel was deferred until the leadership of Yehoshua, with the angel being Michael rather than Matat-ron.⁶

Chapter 39, "Mesorah in Every Generation," elucidates, based on the Maharam Shick¹ and Marganisa D’Rav,² that the transmission of Torah (masores haTorah) is ultimately determined by the sages of each generation, grounded in the directive of ³ "וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם - and to the judge who will be in those days" and the commandment of⁴ "לֹא תָסוּר - Do not deviate."

It follows that the kashrus of Sifrei Torah in any given generation is intrinsically bound to the mesorah upheld by Chazal of that era, irrespective of its precise alignment with the Sefer Torah originally transmitted by Moshe Rabbeinu.

A remarkable parallel may be drawn from an ostensibly unrelated area: the halachic examination of an animal's kashrus and the laws governing tereifos, injured animals.

Rashi and the Bahag

In the following passage, Rashi⁵ cites the Halachos Gedolos (Bahag) to the effect that our ability to halachically determine the kashrus of animals that suffered a serious injury has been lost. Notably, the precise language used by the Bahag mirrors that of the Amoraim⁶ in the context of masores haTorah: "ה"מ בדורות קמאי דהוו בקיאי למיבדק אבל אנן לא בקיאינן - This was true in earlier generations when they possessed the expertise to examine [the injured animal], but we are not experts." Rashi, however, takes issue with this position, invoking "וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם" as the authoritative basis for applying the best available contemporary knowledge to determine the kashrus of such animals.

כתוב בהלכות גדולות כל היכא דבעי בדיקה כגון נפולה ושבורה ודרוסה דמיתכשרי בבדיקה ה"מ בדורות קמאי דהוו בקיאי למיבדק אבל אנן לא בקיאינן ולא סמכינן אנפשין

ולי נראה דאין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות ומותר לסמוך עליו דכתיב (דברים יז) ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אבל הוא יזהר יפה ולהביא לפניו כל הטבחים וכל הבקיאין בדבר כי היכי דנימטייה שיבא מכשורא:

It is written in the Halachos Gedolos: Wherever examination is required, such as in the cases of a nefula (an animal that fell), a shevura (a broken/injured animal), and a derusa (one attacked by a predator), which can be rendered permitted through examination, this was true in earlier generations when they possessed the expertise to examine [the injured animal], but we are not experts, and we do not rely on ourselves.

And it seems to me [Rashi] that a judge has only what his own eyes see, and he may rely on that, as it is written (Devarim 17): 'and to the judge who shall be in those days.' However, he should be careful and thorough, and bring before him all the butchers and all those expert in the matter, so that he may be aided by as many knowledgeable people as possible.

Mechaber and Rama

To further deepen the parallel, Chapter 46, "Reading from a Torah with Missing or Extra Letters," examines the divergent positions of the Mechaber and Rama⁷ regarding the discovery of a missing or extra letter during k'rias haTorah. Whereas the Mechaber draws no distinction between types of errors, the Rama rules that a Torah scroll defective solely on account of chaseiros and yeseiros does not require the removal of a second scroll.

As established in that chapter through an analysis of the Darkei Moshe,⁸ Chacham Tzvi,⁹ Pri Chadash,¹⁰ Maharitz,¹¹ and Avnei Nezer,¹² the crux of the dispute turns on the current state of masores haTorah and whether we remain in a condition of "אין אנו בקיאין - we are not experts." The Mechaber holds that the mesorah has been fully restored, whereas the Rama maintains that the Amoraim's declaration of "אין אנו בקיאין" remains operative.

This dispute finds a striking structural counterpart in hilchos tereifos. The Mechaber consistently rules in accordance with Rashi, affirming that the kashrus of an animal may be determined based on contemporary knowledge, while the Rama rules in accordance with the Bahag, maintaining that "אין אנו בקיאין" remains in effect.

Examples of this dispute are found in the following halachos in Yoreh De'ah: 18:6, 23:6, 24:6, 24:10 (see Biur HaGra), 33:6, 33:8, 55:10, 57:18, 58:6.

The following is one selected example:¹³

וושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אצל דרוסה שצריכה בדיקה מפני שכיון שהוא אדום אין אודם הארס ניכר בו כיצד יעשה אם עוף הוא בודק הקנה מבחוץ [ושוחטו] ואח"כ מהפך הוושט ובודקו מבפנים ואם בהמה היא אין לה תקנה: 

הגה ולדידן דאין אנו בקיאין בבדיקה אף עוף אין לו תקנה:

The esophagus cannot be examined from the outside in a case of derusa (one attacked by a predator) that requires examination, because since it is red, the redness of the venom is not noticeable on it. What should one do? If it is a bird, one examines the windpipe from the outside, [slaughters it,] and then turns the esophagus inside out and examines it from the inside. But if it is an animal, there is no remedy.

Rama: And according to us, since we are not expert in examination, even a bird has no remedy.

[Additional instances where the Rama disagrees with the Mechaber on the basis of "אין אנו בקיאין" are found in Yoreh De'ah 92:1 and 98:1 as well as Orach Chaim 317:1 and 330:5.]

Chapter 15, "We Are Not Experts," examines the contrast between the knowledge of the Amoraim and the Tannaim, particularly regarding the words and letters of the Sefer Torah, as well as their candid admission of "אֲנַן לָא בְּקִיאִינַן - We are not experts."¹ and the astonishing statement of Tosafos:² "פעמים שלא היו בקיאין בפסוקים - Sometimes, they [the Amoraim] were not proficient in the pesukim."

The following passage from the Ohr Hachaim³ sheds light on another area in which the Amoraim did not always possess expertise - Mishnayos and Beraisos:

וּמֵעַתָּה בְּכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מָצִינוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהָאָמוֹרָאִים לֹא הָיוּ בְּקִיאִים בַּבָּרַיְתוֹת, וְלָזֶה הַתַּלְמוּד לֹא יָדַע גִּרְסַת הַבָּרַיְתָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּבְאָה בַּסִּפְרֵי, שֶׁאִלּוּ יְדָעָהּ לֹא הָיָה דּוֹחֶה דִּבְרֵי אַבַּיֵּי... וְתִמְצָא שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת⁴ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְּמִשְׁנָיוֹת נוּכַל לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְּקִיאִים, וְזֶה כְּפִי הַטָּיַת הָעִיּוּן לְצַד הַהֶכְרֵחוֹת וְאַחַר מִשְׁקוֹלֶת צִדְדֵי הַהַטָּיָה וְהָעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁאָנוּ דָּנִין עָלָיו.

And from this we can say something similar: that the Amoraim were not always expert in the Baraisos, and therefore the Talmud did not know the text of the Baraisa as it appears in the Sifri. For had it known it, it would not have rejected the words of Abaye... And you will find that the Tosafos wrote that even regarding Mishnayos we can say that they were not expert in them, and this is in accordance with the inclination of careful analysis toward what is compelling, and following the weighing of the sides of that inclination, as it pertains to the matter we are discussing.

The Ohr Hachaim writes similarly elsewhere:⁵ 

וְלֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֶיךָ מַה שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ הַתַּנָּאִים בְּמַה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ הָאָמוֹרָאִים, כָּזֶה הֵם רַבִּים, כִּי לֹא הָיוּ הָאָמוֹרָאִים בְּקִיאִים בַּבְּרַיְתוֹת וּבִפְרָט בָּאַגָּדוֹת.

And do not find it troubling that we have explained that the Tannaim disputed the very same points that the Amoraim disputed. Such cases are numerous, for the Amoraim were not expert in the Baraisos, and particularly not in the Aggados.

See also Mesoras HaShas on Tosafos on Pesachim 97a, s.v., Ela as well as Gittin 6b (אטו כל דלא ידע הא דרבי יצחק לאו גברא רבה הוא... הא גמרא היא וגמרא לא שמיע ליה) and Rashi on Sukka 28a, s.v. Gemara.

"Nadav and Avihu passed away about nine months later (Vayikra 10:1–2) while the elders were killed around a year later (Rashi on Devarim 11:16)."

This reference is actually to Rashi on Bamidbar 11:16.

The following is the text of Rashi there:

אספה לי. הֲרֵי תְשׁוּבָה לִתְלוּנָתְךָ שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לֹא אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי; וְהַזְּקֵנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הֵיכָן הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא אַף בְּמִצְרַיִם יָשְׁבוּ עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ג') "לֵךְ וְאָסַפְתָּ אֶת זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"? אֶלָּא בְּאֵשׁ תַּבְעֵרָה מֵתוּ; וּרְאוּיִים הָיוּ לְכָךְ מִסִּינַי, דִּכְתִיב "וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים" (שם כ"ד) — שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ כְּנוֹשֵׁךְ פִּתּוֹ וּמְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְזֶהוּ "וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ", וְלֹא רָצָה הַקָּבָּ"ה לִתֵּן אֲבֵלוּת בְּמַתַּן תּוֹרָה וּפָרַע לָהֶם כָּאן (תנחומא):

Chapter 15, titled "We Are Not Experts," examines the Gemara in Kiddushin,¹ which identifies the middle letter of the Sefer Torah as the vav of the word gachon² (גחון). The Gemara records Rav Yosef's inquiry as to which half of the Torah that letter actually falls in. His colleagues propose: "Let's bring a Sefer Torah and count them. Didn't Rabbah bar bar Chanah say that they did not move from there until they brought a Sefer Torah and counted?", to which Rav Yosef responds, "אִינְהוּ בְּקִיאִי בַּחֲסֵירוֹת וִיתֵרוֹת אֲנַן לָא בְּקִיאִינַן - They were experts in the missing and extra letters. We are not experts in this regard."

Footnote 11 includes: "See Shabbos 49b and the Ben Yehoyada there."

The reference to the Ben Yehoyada was included as a subtle response to a prominent talmid chochom and rov who suggested that Rav Yosef's statement "אֲנַן לָא בְּקִיאִינַן - We are not experts in this regard" should not be taken literally as an admission of inability to verify whether the vav of gachon is indeed the middle letter. According to his interpretation, the counting is certainly possible and the midpoint of the vav of gachon is verifiable,³ but Rav Yosef simply had no interest in investing the time when it could be better spent learning Torah.

The example offered was: "Suppose someone were asked how many kal vachomers appear in the Gemara. One would likely reply, 'I don't know' - not because the answer is unknowable, but because there is no reason to count, and doing so would not constitute time well spent."

However, the Ben Yehoyada's comment on Shabbos 49b forecloses this interpretation entirely. To the contrary, the Sages were willing and eager to count every letter - notwithstanding the considerable time and effort, but it was Rav Yosef's reply that rendered the effort futile: "They were experts in the missing and extra letters. We are not experts in this regard."

For full context, the Gemara in Shabbos⁴records a statement of Rabbi Shimon that the word "melacha" (labor) appears in the Torah exactly 39 times. The Gemara then presents a dilemma raised by the very same Rav Yosef as in Kiddushin, and the exchange is strikingly parallel:⁵

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ״, מִמִּנְיָנָא הוּא, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלַיְתֵי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְלִימְנֵי. מִי לָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּמְנָאוּם!

Rav Yosef asked: The pasuk says "And he [Yosef] came into the house to do his labor"⁶ -- is this instance [of "labor"] counted [as part of the 39 instances], or not?

Abaye said to him: Let us bring a Sefer Torah and count! Did not Rabbah bar bar Chanah say in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: They did not move from there until they brought a Sefer Torah and counted them?

The Ben Yehoyada writes the following:

מקשים למאי אצטריך להביא סיוע לדבריו מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הנזכר, כי לדבריו אלו שאומר 'לֵיתִי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְלִמְנִי' אין צריך ראיה והוכחה?

ונראה לי בס"ד, דבלאו הכי היו אמר להם לא נביא ספר תורה ונמנה, משום ביטול בית המדרש דאיכא טרחא, וגם עובר זמן הרבה עד שיראו כל פסוקי התורה מראש ועד סוף וימנו כל מלאכה ומלאכתו הכתובים בתורה

ולכן הביא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן דהביאו ספר תורה ומנו ולא חשו לביטול בית המדרש, אף על גב דבהך איכא טרחא והעברת זמן יותר למנות כל האותיות עד שיתברר האות שהוא בחצי האותיות.

The question is raised: why did Abaye need to bring proof for his position from the statement of Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan? Surely his suggestion to "bring a Torah scroll and count" requires no proof at all!

It seems to me, with Hashem's help, that without this source, people would have objected: we cannot bring a Torah scroll and count, because it would disrupt the learning in the Beis Hamedrash, involve considerable effort, and take a very long time to go through the entire Torah from start to finish and count every instance of "labor" written in the Torah.

Abaye, therefore, cited the ruling of Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, where they actually brought a Torah scroll and counted without any concern for disrupting the study hall, even though that case also involved significant effort and actually took even longer, since they had to count every single letter until they identified the one at the exact midpoint of the Torah.

Chapter 13 references several compilations documenting textual discrepancies between Chazal and our Sifrei Torah, Neviim, and Kesuvim. These include the Gilyon HaShas,¹ Haflaah She’ba’arachin,² Darkei Hashinuyim,³and S’dei Chemed.⁴

An additional comprehensive work on this subject is Mishpachas Soferim, authored by Rabbi Shmuel Rosenfeld (d. 1887). The sefer is available on HebrewBooks.org and may also be viewed below:

The following is a fascinating shiur given to students in a yeshiva in South Florida. The shiur is based on the contents of Chapters 20 and 23 of Our Mesorah.

The sightings map referenced throughout the shiur may be found in Our Mesorah on Page 171 as well as in the following link:

Chapter 40 includes a citation from the Chida,¹ who references the Kabbalistic view that the two pesukim of Vayehi Binso'a² found in Parashas Behaaloscha actually constitute a substantial and independent sefer,³ on par with the other books of the Torah. While we currently have access to only these two pesukim, the Kabbalists maintain that the complete sefer of Vayehi Binso'a will be revealed with the arrival of Mashiach.⁴

The idea that Vayehi Binso'a was originally intended to encompass significantly more than what we currently possess finds support in the following Midrash:⁵

וַיְהִי בִּנְסוֹעַ הָאָרוֹן - בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה נָקוּד, רַבִּי אָמַר: סֵפֶר הָיָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְנִגְנַז.

"And it came to pass when the Aron set out” – [This passage contains] indications both above and below. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] explains: It was a book unto itself, and it was hidden away.

In addition to the citation from the Chida on Page 299, the Chida mentions the hidden sefer in a number of additional places, including:

Midbar Kedeimos (Letter Yud, 6)

וְרָאִיתִי בְּסֵפֶר כַּף וְנָקִי… דְּשַׁעַר הַנּוּ"ן נֶעְלַם מִמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וּלְכָךְ יֵשׁ נוּנִי"ן בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ לִרְמֹז לְנוּ"ן שַׁעֲרֵי בִינָה, וְסֵפֶר וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ גָּדוֹל כְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה, וְלֹא זָכָה מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם פֶּ"ה אוֹתִיּוֹת.

I have seen in the sefer Kaf v'Naki⁶… that the fiftieth gate [of understanding] was concealed from Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him. This is why there are nuns in the passage of Vayehi Binso'a — to allude to the fiftieth gate of understanding. The book of Vayehi Binso'a is as great as the entire Torah, yet [Moshe] merited to receive of it only eighty-five letters.

Chomas Anach (on Zecharia 4:2)

כָּתְבוּ הַמְקֻבָּלִים דְּסֵפֶר וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרוֹן הוּא סֵפֶר גָּדוֹל וְלֹא זָכִינוּ אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵי פְּסוּקִים, וְלֶעָתִיד לָבֹא שֶׁנִּזְכֶּה לִשְׁמֹעַ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיו יִהְיוּ ז' סְפָרִים מְפֻרְסָמִים וְנִכָּרִים... וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁזֶּה רֶמֶז "וְהִנֵּה מְנוֹרַת זָהָב כֻּלָּהּ" — רֶמֶז עַל הַתּוֹרָה, כִּי לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא תִּהְיֶה כֻּלָּהּ, כִּי עַד עַתָּה לֹא זָכִינוּ אֶלָּא לְה' סְפָרִים, אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד תִּהְיֶה מְנוֹרַת זָהָב שֶׁהִיא הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ... "וְשִׁבְעָה נֵרֹתֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ" — רֶמֶז לְז' סְפָרִים שֶׁיִּתְגַּלּוּ.

The Kabbalists have written that the book of Vayehi Binso'a HaAron is a great book of which we have merited only two verses; but in the era of Mashiach, when we will merit to hear Torah from his own mouth, there will be seven books, well known and recognized... It is possible that this is alluded to in the verse “and behold, a menorah entirely of gold"⁷ — an allusion to the Torah, for in the era of Mashiach it will be whole, since until now we have merited only five books, but in the future it will be a "menorah of gold" in its entirety, which is the complete Torah... And "its seven lamps upon it" alludes to the seven books that will be revealed.

Section XIV of the Matan Torah supplement references a rabbinic debate¹ regarding the final eight pesukim of the Torah,² which describe the passing of Moshe. Rav Yehudah holds that these verses were written by Yehoshua, while Rav Shimon maintains that Moshe himself wrote them "be'dema," commonly translated as "with tears."³

The Vilna Gaon⁴ offers a novel interpretation of the word "be'dema":

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִכְתּוֹב בְּגִלּוּי וַיָּמׇת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה דְּמִיחֲזִי כְּשִׁקְרָא. וְגַם לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִגְמוֹר ע״י יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. כִּי אֶפְשָׁר ס״ת חָסֵר אוֹת א׳. לְכָךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹתֵב בְּדֶמַע. וְהַפֵּירוּשׁ הוּא מִלְּשׁוֹן מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ. וּלְשׁוֹן מְדֻמָּע וְעִרְבּוּב אוֹתִיּוֹת. שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹתֵב מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ ע״פ צֵרוּפֵי תֵּיבוֹת וְהֵם שְׁמוֹתָיו שֶׁל הקב״ה וְלֹא הָיָה נִקְרָא כְּלָל וַיָּמׇת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה רַק תֵּיבוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת ע״פ סוֹדוֹת הַתּוֹרָה. וּלְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ כְּתָבָן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּפִי שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַלּוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה.

From this point onward [referring to the final verses of the Torah], Moshe could not write openly "And Moshe died there," because it would appear false. Nor could he leave it to be completed by Yehoshua, because it is impossible that the Sefer Torah should be missing even a single letter. Therefore, the Gemara says that he was writing be'dema. The meaning is from the language of "Your fullness offering and your heave offering"⁵ (meleiascha ve'dim'acha), and from the language of meduma (a mixture) and the mixing of letters. For from this point onward, he was writing according to combinations of words, and these were the Names of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. It did not read at all as "And Moshe died there," but rather as different words, according to the secrets of the Torah. After his passing, Yehoshua wrote them out as they appear now, according to the permission he was given to reveal the Torah.

Chapter 22 discusses Ezra HaSofer updating the Sefer Torah’s script from Kesav Ivri (an ancient “Hebrew script” also known as Paleo-Hebrew) to Kesav Ashuris (“Assyrian script,” the currently used script). This change occurred at the end of Galus Bavel,¹ shortly after the Purim story.²

The Meshech Chochmah³ explains that the phrase⁴ "ככתבם וכזמנם - according to their writing and according to their time" teaches that the Megillah must be written in whatever script Jews are using at the time of its writing. Since the script changed from Kesav Ivri to Kesav Ashuris  (via Ezra), the valid script for the Megillah is determined by its era. The elongated vav in "ויזתא - Vayzasa"⁵ serves as proof that this particular letter was not altered by Ezra,⁶ unlike all other letters that underwent the script change.

משך חכמה, מגילת אסתר ט׳

ככתבם וכזמנם. הנה הלועז ששמע אשורי יצא, ומקודם היה הכתב עברי. והיה צ"ל כתוב בכתב עברי ואחרי זה היה כתוב בכתב אשורי, וצ"ל כתוב בכתב אשורי, לכן אמר ככתבם וכזמנם כזמן שיהיה אז הכתב אצל היהודים, כן תכתב המגילה ולכן דריש מוי"ו דויזתא דלזקפיה כמורדיא דלוברת, הוראה בוי"ו שלא נשתנה אחרי זה ע"י עזרא שבכולהו נשתנה ועיין פרק כ"ג ודו"ק.

Chapter 40, "A Mystical Perspective," presents the Heichal Haberachah's¹ position that the varying versions of mesorah found throughout Chazal carry profound significance and validity on an elevated spiritual plane. What may appear on the surface as contradictions between differing traditions in the Gemara and Midrashim, each in fact possesses its own inherent spiritual truth. The following sources lend further support to this principle:

Minchas Shai on Bamidbar 23:9 

אִצְטַעַרְנָא כָּל יוֹמַאי עַל מַאי דַּחֲזֵינַן בְּכַמָּה דּוּכְתֵּי עַל פְּלוּגְתֵּיהּ טוּבָא בֵּין מָארֵי דְתַלְמוּדָא דְאַגַּדְתָּא וּמָארֵי דְמַסֹּרְתָּא בַּחֲסֵרֵי וְיִתֵּרֵי. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאִתְחֲזֵי לִי הָדֵין לִישָׁנָא דְהַאי סִפְרָא קַדִּישָׁא, אָמִינָא דִּילְמָא מַאן דְּיִזְכֶּי נָמֵי לְמֵינְדַּע מַאי נִינְהוּ מְתִיבְתָּא עִילָּאָה וּמְתִיבְתָּא דִּרְקִיעָא, וְאוֹרַיְּיתָא הֵיכִי כְּתִיבָא בְּהָנֵי מְתִיבְתֵּי, יִזְכֶּה נָמֵי לְמֵינְדַּע טַעְמֵי דְּהָלֵין פְּלוּגְתֵּי דְרַבָּנַן קַשִּׁישֵׁי, דְּחָכְמַת אֱלָהִין אִשְׁתְּכַחַת בְּהוֹן, הֲווֹ בְּקִיאֵי בְּרָזֵי עִילָּאֵי דְהָנָךְ מְתִיבְתֵּי, וְאִינְהוּ דְּאָמְרֵי כְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְאִיתָא לְהַאי וְאִיתָא לְהַאי, וְלָא פְּלִיגֵן אַהֲדָדֵי.

I have been troubled all my days over what we see in many places concerning the many disputes between the masters of the Talmud and Aggadah and the masters of the Mesorah regarding chaseiros and yeseiros. And now that the language of this holy book [the Zohar] has been revealed to me, I say: perhaps whoever merits to know what the Heavenly Academy (Mesivta Ila'ah) and the Academy of the Firmament (Mesivta d'Rakia) are, and how the Torah is written in these academies – he will also merit to know the reasons for these disputes of the elder sages, in whom divine wisdom was found. They were experts in the supernal mysteries of these academies, and those who speak as one of them [say]: 'this one is valid and that one is valid,' and they do not contradict one another.

Shaar HaGilgulim, Hakdamah 40

The Shaar HaGilgulim² cites the Zohar on the pasuk³ וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם כַּלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה (“On the day that Moshe finished”), where Chazal⁴ expound כַּלַּת (meaning, a bride), a deficient spelling that does not appear in our Sifrei Torah, in which the word is written כַּלּוֹת, full with a vav. The Zohar resolves the apparent discrepancy with a foundational principle:⁵

דְּהָכִי כְּתִיב חָסֵר בַּתּוֹרָה לְמַעְלָה בַּשָּׁמַיִם, וְלֹא בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּתְּנָה לָנוּ דְּנָעוּ מַעְגְּלוֹתֶיהָ. 

Thus it is written deficient in the Torah above in the heavens, but not in the Torah that was given to us, whose paths have shifted.

Zohar, Balak 31:340 (Zohar III, 203b)

Another passage of the Zohar⁶ explains similarly: Our Sifrei Torah read the words⁷ וּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ (“and I behold them as hills”), with a vav, yet in the loftiest heavenly realms the word is written deficiently – וּמִגְּבָעֹת, without a vav.
  וְדָא הוּא וּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ, בִּמְתִיבְתָּא עִלָּאָה, גְּבָעֹת חָסֵר ו'. (רמאה דכלא ההיא עלאה דכלא) בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דִּרְקִיעָא, וּמִגְּבָעוֹת בְּאָת ו'.

  And this is the meaning of "and I behold them as hills" [ּוּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ]: in the Heavenly Academy, "גְּבָעֹת" is written deficient, without a vav. (The highest [academy] of all is that supernal one of all.) In the [lower] Academy of the Firmament, "וּמִגְּבָעוֹת" is written with a vav.

Chapter 41, "Current Disputes," identifies two letters in the Sefer Torah for which variations exist in the mesorah: daka¹ (with an aleph, דַּכָּא, or hei, דַּכָּה) and va'yehi² (וַיְהִי) or va'yihiyu (וַיִּהְיוּ). One dispute concerning the spacing between parshiyos in Parashas Tzav is also addressed.

These disputes are highlighted because they are directly discussed by the halachic authorities (as is detailed in Chapter 45). The differences in spelling of daka and va'yehi also bear slightly on the meaning of the words themselves: daka spelled with an aleph means "humbled," while with a hei it is a feminine form;³ va'yehi is singular, whereas va'yihiyu is plural.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the Yemenite tradition contains a small number of additional minor spelling variations relative to Sephardic and Ashkenazic Sifrei Torah. All of these are classic cases of chaseiros and yeseiros and carry no change in meaning or pronunciation:

• Bereishis 4:13 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: מנשוא | Yemenite: מנשא
• Bereishis 7:11 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: מעינות | Yemenite: מעינת
• Bereishis 41:45 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: פוטי פרע | Yemenite: פוטיפרע
• Shemos 25:31 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: תיעשה | Yemenite: תעשה
• Shemos 28:26 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: האפוד | Yemenite: האפד
• Bamidbar 10:10 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: חדשכם | Yemenite: חדשיכם
• Bamidbar 22:5 - Ashkenaz/Sephard: בעור | Yemenite: בער