Why does the Torah emphasize that 'on the day of the Shabbat' there is a prohibition of kindling?

From Ateres HMikra:

Q: Why does the Torah emphasize that 'on the day of the Shabbat' there is a prohibition of kindling?

A: In sefer Magid Meisharim, from the Bet Yosef, he answers this question and says that the words 'on the day of the Shabbat' comes specifically to remove us from the hearts of the Sadducees, who say that there is a prohibition of lighting a lamp on Erev Shabbat, based on our pasuk. Rather, so writes the Bet Yosef: It states 'on the day of the Shabbat' to teach you that only on the day of Shabbat itself it is prohibited to light a lamp, but to leave a lamp lit from Erev Shabbat to the day of Shabbat, it is clear that it is permitted.

According to this, another reason is explained for the commandment of lighting lamps for Shabbat, besides the reason stated in the gemara, of Shalom Bayit. And this is to take us out from the hearts of the Sadducees and to make known that there is no such prohibition to kindle fire on Erev Shabbat such that it will remain lit on Shabbat.

The derasha that blind people are not valid witnesses

Summary: Found in the Tur, with a basis and derasha in Tosefta Shevuos.

Post: In parashat Vayikra, in Vayikra 5:1:

1. If a person sins, whereby he accepts an oath, and he is a witness [to some matter] by seeing or knowing [it], yet he does not testify, he shall bear his transgression;

א. וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ:

In Torat HaTur, he cites the following Tur:

The Tur in Choshen Mishpat siman 35 writes: "A blind man in invalid, though he recognizes the voice and the people, and directs his testimony, the Torah invalidates him, for it is written וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע."

Though one might interpret this as "he is a witness, either by seeing it or by knowing it in some other way", it seems like the midrash here understands this pasuk otherwise. How? Is it simply ignoring the word אוֹ? Is it employing selective citation, to sever off  אוֹ יָדָע? Maybe not. We can simply say that the Torah states וְהוּא עֵד, and such an eid needs to be capable of knowledge via direct sight or some other method. And since sight is not one of the two options for the blind, they are not within the realm of valid witnesses. Peshat and derash both work here in tandem.

As discussed in footnote 258 on the page (see image above):

"In Torah Temima, os 18, he shows that this din is explicit in the Tosefta in Shevuos perek 3, [the very last brayta in the perek]:

ג,ו  והוא עד הכשר לעדות (ויקרא ה) ושמעה להוציא את החרש.  או ראה להוציא את הסומא או ידע להוציא את השוטה אם לא יגיד ונשא את עונו להוציא את האלם. 

[where it excludes, based on phrases throughout this verse, the deaf, blind, imbeciles, and mute.]

And it is confounding according to this what the Kesef Mishneh [=Rav Yosef Karo] wrote at the end of the second perek of hilchos eidus [in the Rambam], that he wrote 'where is this derasha found?', and behold, it is an explicit Tosefta.

And see Pischei Teshuva, seif katan 7, who precedes him in pointing out this source in the aforementioned Tosefta."

I don't think that it is so astonishing. It was not necessarily the case (can we establish this one way or the other based on citations?) that Rav Yosef Karo had access to the Tosefta on every masechet.

The Metaphor of the Tzitzis and the Mezuzah

The midrash brings down two complaints to Moshe. One is related by Rashi:

What did he do? He went and assembled two hundred and fifty men, heads of Sanhedrin, most of them from the tribe of Reuben, his neighbors. These were Elitzur the son of Shedeur and his colleagues, and others like him, as it says, “chieftains of the congregation, those called to the assembly.” And further it states, “These were the chosen ones of the congregation” (1:16). He dressed them with cloaks made entirely of blue wool. They came and stood before Moses and asked him, “Does a cloak made entirely of blue wool require fringes [’tzitzith’], or is it exempt?” He replied, “ It does require [fringes].” They began laughing at him [saying], "Is it possible that a cloak of another [colored] material, one string of blue wool exempts it [from the obligation of techeleth], and this one, which is made entirely of blue wool, should not exempt itself? - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2, Num. Rabbah 18:3]

Another is that he asked whether a room filled with sefarim required a mezuzah.

The meaning of the midrash seems fairly clear. The tzitzit and mezuzah are stand-ins for the leadership, and the beged and the room full of sefarim are stand-ins for the Bnei Yisrael. As we read their complaint in the beginning of parshat Korach:

ג וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם ה; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל ה.

3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'

And indeed, so does Rabbenu Bachya explain it (see right).

But kabbalists give a kabbalistic explanation to these two midrashim. I saw the following in Maggid Meisharim. It appears in other kabbalistic works, but I would guess that it first occurs there.

According to Rav Yosef Karo's maggid, Korach was debating with Moshe about how Bnei Yisrael should relate to the Sefirot, and which to unify with.

According to Korach's first complaint about the tallis made entirely of techeiles, the techeiles represents Malchus, and Malchus {Shechina} is how Hashem relates to and interacts with the world. In the mashal, the entire tallis was made of techelet, and Korach argued that there is no need for white strings. In the nimshal, Korach is saying that one does not require yichud with the seven Sefirot above Malchut. Moshe's reply was that one does need those seven sefirot as well. Thus, the fringes consist of seven white strings and one string of techelet, representing Malchut together with the seven sefirot above.

Korach's second complaint was about the house filled with sefarim, which he claimed did not require a mezuzah. Maggid Meisharim explains this as a continuation of the previous dispute. If the seven Sefirot above are in charge of Malchut, then perhaps one should only attempt to unify with those upper Sefirot. Just as a house is filled with sefarim, does one need the mezuzah (which in this case represents Malchut)? Here, Moshe says that it is required.

I understand the connection of techeilet to Hashem (and one can see Ramban who I cite a bit below for an elaboration). Still, I do not believe that this was the intent of these midrashim about Korach's arguments, but rather this is the usual kabbalistic exercise of reinterpreting earlier sources to bolster their beliefs.

If I wished to, I could challenge this interpretation on the details. In the first mashal, the 7 white strings and 1 blue string represented the seven upper Sefirot and Malchut. But that only works according to the position of Rambam, that the techelet is half a string. Then, only one string of 8 would be blue, and the white ones would number seven. But according to Raavad, that it is a whole string, it would be 2 blue and 6 white. How are 6 white supposed to represent the 7 Sefirot. And according to Tosafot, that it is two full strings of blue, then there are 4 blue and 4 white. How can this interpretation work according to Tosafot? It can't.

And my tzitzit are in accordance with Tosafot, in terms of blue vs. white. Bet Yosef, who is Rav Yosef Karo, cites both Rambam and Tosafot in his commentary on Tur, and does not rule in favor of one. As far as I can tell, in Shulchan Aruch he brings down nothing, since he did not have techelet in his day. But Mishnah Berurah only brings down the position of Tosafot. Vilna Gaon is sure Tosafot is wrong, but is unsure whether Rambam or Raavad is correct.

Can we do such a nitpick? I have precedent for such a nitpick, as Ramban does the same to reject Rashi's interpretation of the mnemonic of tzitzit, in parshat Shelach:

כתב רש"י:

מפני המנין של ציצית בגימטריא שש מאות, ושמונה חוטין וחמשה קשרים הרי תרי"ג.

ולא הבינותי זה, שהציצית בתורה חסר יו"ד ואין מנינם אלא חמש מאות ותשעים.

ועוד, שהחוטין לדעת בית הלל אינם אלא שלושה (מנחות מא ב), והקשרים מן התורה אינם אלא שנים, כמו שאמרו (שם לט א):

שמע מינה קשר העליון דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך לאו דאורייתא כלאים בציצית דשרא רחמנא למה לי הא קיימא לן התוכף תכיפה אחת אינו חבור:

אבל הזיכרון הוא בחוט התכלת, שרומז למדה הכוללת הכל שהיא בכל והיא תכלית הכל.
ולכן אמר: וזכרתם את כל -
שהיא מצוות השם.

וזהו שאמרו (שם מג ב):

מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד וכו'.

והדמיון בשם גם הגוון תכלית המראות, כי ברחוקם יראו כולם כגוון ההוא, ולפיכך נקרא תכלת:

Thus, the halachic details of tzitzit, that only two knots are required deOrayta, is used to reject Rashi's explanation.

(Read the first part of Rabbenu Bachya, though, about Korach's wife, and chut echad shel techelet.)

I would add that we can read Rav Yosef Karo's interpretation into the pasuk which is the source (or one of the sources at least) of the midrash. Thus, the pasuk in the beginning of parshat Korach read:

ג וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם ה; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל ה.

3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'

It can center on וּבְתוֹכָם ה. We can read the pasuk in a way roughly approximating the following, taking kahal and edah to refer to the seven Sefirot:

רַב-לָכֶם: You have something which is over you -- Malchut.
כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם ה: The entire "Congregation" of Sefirot are holy, and within them is be Hashem = Shechina, Malchut.
וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל ה -- Taking the other tack, why do you elevate it over the kahal of Hashem -- rather, one should just focus on the kahal.

There are all sorts of variants of this parsing one can give. This, along with the identity of techelet, might be what influences this kabbalistic interpretation of the midrash.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxx

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest just finished a lengthy citation (spanning several segments) of the words of Rabbi Menachem of Rikanti from Taamei haMitzvot. He now explains the purpose of the lengthy citation -- to show that there is dispute among the kabbalists about the nature of God and the Sefirot. For Rabbi Menachem notes that position he puts forth is not in like with Ramban and the kabbalists. The author suggests that Rabbi Menachem is not arguing but rather interpreting them. But the guest replies that Rabbi Menachem is not saying this as a received tradition, but rather engages in an elaborate shakla vetarya. The guest then cites Shnei Luchot haBrit that the maggid of Rav Yosef Karo said, about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat about the nature of the Sefirot, that Hashem should forgive him. Thus, surely there is dispute. The author admits that this may indeed be dispute, but that perhaps those who argue on Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, and so on, were not true kabbalists. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And I {=the author} said to the man: And what purpose is this lengthy reading, and what comes out to you from the words of Rabbi Menachem?

And the man {=the guest} answered and said: And could you request clearer testimony than this that the wisdom of the kabbalah is without tradition man from the mouth of man? Behold you see this matter, the matter of the Sefirot, the fundamental upon which all hangs, and this Sage, Rabbi Menachem, who was of the eminent kabbalists, expounds and delves, asks and answers, in order to find the truth. And in the end he brings up in his hand a position and opinion which he himself admits not all the Sages of kabbalah accept admit to and accept.

And in the beginning of his words, did you not see that when he said that the Shechina is a created form, he said that this was not the opinion of the Ramban, and that all the Sage of kabbalah argue upon this.

Will you still say that there is no dispute among the kabbalists? And were this in a leaf of its leaves, I would have remained silent, but behold the dispute is in the root of roots, and in the fundamental from which everything hangs.

And there is no doubt that if the truth is with Rabbi Menachem and with the chassid {pious one} mentioned by the Rivash, behold all the kabbalists who argue upon them and who believe that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity, all of them are considered like idolators.

The author: It is still not clear by me at all that there was dispute among the kabbalists, for still I can say that the received tradition of all the kabbalists was always so, that the Sefirot are not the identity of the Divinity, like the tradition of that chassid the Rivash brought, and as appears from the words of Rabbi Eliezer of Germaiza, and like the position of Rabbi Menachem and the Chayyat, and as appears as well from the words of Sefer Yetzirah. And that so {despite appearing to say otherwise} was also the opinion of the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya and the author of Maarechet haElohut, and all the rest of the kabbalists, but they, because of their love of concealing, closed up their words, and from the brevity of their language it was extended to a few of the kabbalistic folk who understood their words as the opposite of their {actual} intent, until Rabbi Menachem deemed it necessary to remove the stumbling block from before the blind man, and to explain the matter broadly.

And do you not see that even Rabbi Menachem, at the end of his words, brings a proof to his words from the words of the Ramban on the statement {from Bava Batra from Rabbi Yitzchak} about "one who wishes to become wise..." Behold that it was not clear to him that his opinion did not accord with the kabbalah of the Ramban. Also he would not be arguing upon the Ramban after he brings for himself a proof from his words.

Behold that there is not here a necessity that there was dispute among the kabbalists.

The guest: But Rabbi Menachem did not say, nor hint that his opinion was received {from prior generations} in his hand, and in fact the opposite -- that he expounds and delves in the manner of the philosophers, and he brings out from his thoughts a new opinion which he knows that all those of this wisdom will not agree to, and he says about all sages who preceded him that they built upon a foundation of nothingness. And this is kabbalah {received knowledge}?

And now, an additional thing I will place opposite your eyes, and from it you will see whether there is disagreement among kabbalists. Take please to me the sefer Shnei Luchot haBrit.

And I took the sefer and the man read in it before me (Amsterdam printing, page 34b), and this is its language: "And to complete this idea, I will repeat the opinion of the words of the maggid {angel} who was to the great rav, the Bet Yosef z"l, etc., {namely} that that which brought the author of Minchat Yehuda (he is Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat) to say what he said, that is it in the pattern of the vessels of the boat, etc., may his Master forgive him, may that All-Merciful forgive on that position. And still, he will not be punished for those words which he said, for since he did not say it with intent to sin before Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but rather it was a complete error, etc., and all these ten Sefirot are really united as one, and they themselves are Divinity, for behold, they are in Ein Sof like a flame tied to a coal, and this is in the pattern of the soul in the body of man with the limbs, in that all is one, and all is entirely united, without any aspect of separation in the world, forfend. And Kingship, which is Matronita, and the other Sefirot, all is one with complete unity with the Ein Sof, and all was, all is, and all will be.

I {=the author} said to him: In truth this is difficult in my eyes, for Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat, Rabbi Menachem Rikanti, Rabbi Eliezer of Germaiza, and that chassid the Rivash brought, all of them are kabbalists in name but are not kabbalists in truth, since all of them did not know Hashem and His Sefirot.

And still, against my will I admit to this, and I say that all these Sages were not true kabbalists, and the true kabbalah was with the Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, and the author of Maarechet haElahut, since it appears from their words that they believed that the Sefirot were themselves Divinity.

The Gap Between One Navi and the Next

I was learning through Yoreh Deah siman 273 the other day in Aruch haShulchan and I came across an interesting discussion and pesak halacha.

ערוך השולחן יורה דעה סימן רפג
ומניח בין חומש לחומש ד' שיטין וכבר בארנו פרטי דינים בזה בסי' רע"ג ע"ש ובין כל נביא ונביא ג' שיטין וכן בין נביא לנביא של תרי עשר כן כתבו הרמב"ם והטור והש"ע וכן מפורש במסכת סופרים פ"ב [ה"ד] ע"ש אבל גירסת רש"י בב"ב שם דרק בתרי עשר ג' שיטין אבל בכל הנביאים צריך ד' שיטין ריוח כמו בס"ת וכן משמע להדיא בירושלמי פ"ק דמגילה [ה"ט] שאומר בין ספר לספר ד' שיטין ובתרי עשר ג' שיטין ע"ש ומבואר להדיא דבין ספר לספר הוה אפילו בנביאים ובוודאי יש לעשות כדעת הרמב"ם והטוש"ע וכל זה לא לעיכובא כמ"ש שם בסי' רע"ג ע"ש:

The gemara, in Bava Basra 13b, discusses situations in which various chumashim are bound together into a sefer Torah, or where Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim are bound in the same scroll, and so on and so forth. An interesting sugya in its own right, of whether, and why, one could do this.

But then, the gemara discusses how much of a gap needs to exist between one Chumash and the next in the same scroll, how much of a gap needs to exist between one Navi and the next in the same scroll, and finally how much of a gap needs to exist between one Navi and the next within Trei Asar, the Twelve Prophets, which are all extremely short and have been grouped into a single sefer of Navi.

The Aruch haShulchan makes note of the fact that there are multiple girsaot of the gemara: Rashi's girsa is:

• Four lines between two chumashim.
• Four lines between two Neviim.
• Three lines between two Neviim within Trei Asar.

Meanwhile, the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch (see siman 273 and 283) say differently, reflecting a different girsa:

• Four lines between two chumashim.
• Three lines between two Neviim.
• Three lines between two Neviim within Trei Asar.

This girsa of Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch is echoed in the second perek of Maseches Soferim, thus bolstering it. But, continues Aruch haShulchan, the text in Yerushalmi Megillah matches the conclusions one would draw if one had Rashi's girsa.

That is, Yerushalmi Megillah 12a reads:

וצריך שיהא משייר בין ספר לספר כמלא ארבע שיטין ובנביא של י"ב שלש וצריך שיהא גומר באמצע הדף ומתחיל באמצעיתו ובנביא גומר בסופו ומתחיל בראשו ובנביא של י"ב אסור

Therefore, concludes Aruch haShulchan, one should certainly rule like Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

This surprised me, for I would have read all this and said the opposite, that one should certainly rule like Rashi.

This presumably is a difference in methodology. I can definitely see where Aruch haShulchan is coming from. To argue along his lines: After all, the standard halachic tracts -- Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch all rule this way. And this is a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi, so we should rule like Bavli. And we even have maseches Soferim bolstering the Bavli! Of course we should rule this way. The fact that Rashi has a girsa parallel to Yerushalmi should not matter, because major halachic words favor a different version of the Bavli, and there is masechet Sofrim to support this girsa.

My methodology is different, and so it can conceivably lead to a different conclusion. I would (initially) summarize the situation, and argue, as follows:

First of all, Aruch haShulchan does not cite another important Rishon who has the same girsa as Rashi. Namely, as Masoret haShas notes, Rif also has the same girsa as Rashi and the Yerushalmi:

רי"ף מסכת בבא בתרא דף ח עמוד ב
ומניח כדי לגול עמוד בתחלתו וכדי היקף בסופה ונותן בין כל חומש וחומש ארבע שיטין וכן בין כל נביא ונביא ובנביא של י"ב שלש שיטין ומתחיל מלמעלה ומסיים מלמטה שאם רצה לחתוך חותך

I tend to be partial to Rif's girsa in general, but a must put aside any favoritism.
However, now, within Rishonim we have another opinion favoring Rashi's girsa. So we have:

One one side: Girsat Rashi, Girsat Rif, Yerushalmi. Also the girsa in our gemara (which has bein navi leNavi rather than veNavi, which is effectively the same), but what they happened to print does not really impact the halachic conclusion. It is a girsa like any other.
On the other: Girsat Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and Masechet Soferim.

These sources are not all equal. Specifically, the Shulchan Aruch from Rav Yosef Karo is relatively late. Perhaps we might say Tur's position reflects his father, so that we have Rambam and Rosh on one side and Rif (and Rashi) on the other, such that following Rav Yosef Karo's methodology we would rule in favor of the two of the triad over the Rif.

However, note that the Rosh has a general principle that when the Bavli is silent on some matter, and there is a machlokes between Maseches Soferim and Yerushalmi, we rule like the Yerushalmi. Why? Because Maseches Soferim is post-Talmudic, from the Savoraim. Thus, even though the Rosh is silent on this matter, and does not cite the gemara lehalacha at all, we might speak on his behalf the following extension: say that Maseches Soferim should not factor into this dispute of Bavli/Yerushalmi, since alone against the Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi would win.

It is therefore a machlokes between one girsa of Bavli vs. a different girsa of Bavli with a Yerushalmi. That is, we should reckon and weight all the sources on the basis of their respective strengths. We still don't know what Rosh would say in such a situation, but I am just pointing out that this is not as straightforward as it may seem at first glance.

Another point to consider is that Rosh very often responds to, and builds off, the Rif. If Rif cites a specific gemara lehalacha, and Rosh thinks the girsa is or should be different, then he should not be silent. Perhaps we should say that his shtika is kehodaah.

Continuing my analysis: if Maseches Soferim says this, it is Savoraic and it presumably saying this on the basis of one girsa on the gemara that it has. So it is not an independent source, but rather a source which depends on the Bavli. It does give weight to that particular girsa, in that it shows this was a fairly early girsa, but still, it comes down to one girsa of Bavli.

But the other girsa of Bavli also has weight. The Rif has this girsa, and the Rif's girsa in general is an important factor to weigh.

And furthermore, Rashi does not just summarize or cite the gemara such that we may derive what his girsa is. Rather, he says hachi garsinan. That is, Rashi is absolutely aware that there are multiple girsaos available. He has seen them and is now deciding in favor of one girsa. We do not know that this is so for Rambam, who just states the halacha and does not list his sources which feed into the final decision. And we don't know this for Rambam and Tur. They just cite this, but do not attribute this text to be the text of the brayta. Perhaps it is thus not one girsa vs. another, but rather one girsa which happened to be before them vs. a girsa which was explicitly chosen as best by a Rishon.

Furthermore, we should factor in the odds of coming up with various girsaot.
That is, first assume that Rambam's girsa of Bavli is correct. Then, what happened is that there was an original machlokes between Bavli and Yerushalmi, and then somehow, through the random process of scribal error, the Bavli developed a variant girsa which just happened to be in line with the Yerushalmi, even though the Yerushalmi has different text.

Second, assume that Rashi and Rif's girsa is correct. Then what happened was that there was an original agreement between the Bavli and Yerushalmi, and then somehow, through the random process of scribal error, the Bavli developed a variant girsa which diverged from this semantic agreement with the Yerushalmi.

Obviously, I think that the latter is more probable than the former. In general, we would expect entropy to cause systems to go into a state of randomness rather than of order. (Aside from this, in general I believe that many of the purported disputes between Bavli and Yerushalmi are not in fact disputes. Rather, they are agreements but either through development of girsological differences, or through a reinterpretation by the setama digmara, a dispute develops.)

Because it is less likely for agreement to come about via scribal error than for disagreement to arise via the same process, I would say that the existence of this parallel Yerushalmi demonstrates which of the two Bavlis is correct and original. And so we should surely rule in favor of Rashi and Rif's girsa of Bavli.

However, there is an extra twist here, and that is Ritva's girsa of Rashi's girsa, and Ritva's interpretation of what Rashi is saying. That is, in Chiddushei haRitva on Bava Basra 13b, Ritva cites Rashi as saying וכן נביא של י"ב שלשה שיטין. (Or perhaps he does not. See below.) He explains that what the gemara is saying here according to Rashi is that there is no difference between a regular sefer of Navi and one of the Neviim in Trei Asar. One would think that since the Neviim in Trei Asar are so small, there would not need to be any gap. Ka Mashma Lan that there is no difference between a Navi one the one hand and a Navi in Trei Asar on this other hand -- both get a gap of 3 lines.

Thus, Ritva's girsa of Rashi, and his explanation of the intent of Rashi, accords with Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch, rather than Rif and Yerushalmi!

It is somewhat troubling that a variant girsa arises in a text whose very purpose is to establish the correct girsa. One would think that a sofer would take extra special care in this case! Yet it appears that there is this variant girsa in Rashi. Our Rashi has the וכן before the words בין כל נביא ונביא. Ritva's citation of Rashi begins after that phrase, so we are not sure exactly what full text he has of Rashi, or believes Rashi has. This also suggests that Ritva has, or knows of some other text, which is not like the text he attributes to Rashi.

It is also possible that Ritva is misquoting Rashi here. This would be strange since his intent is to explain Rashi's meaning, and so he would be careful here. Unless, he somehow thinks his citation of Rashi is good enough, that is, equal to the girsa as actually found in Rashi.

On the other hand, that was the text as printed in a specific printing of Ritva I have. In the Bar Ilan of the Ritva, we have: Girsat Rashi veChen [Bein] Navi leNavi UveNavi shel Shneim Asar Shelosha Shitin. And then the explanation. Note though how "bein" is in square brackets.

This made me start to think. Is it possible to read the girsa of Rashi and Rif in a way that accords with Rambam, Tur, et al? Certainly so.

Recall that the girsa according to our printed Rashi, and according to the Rif, would be approximately as we have in our printed Bavli:
בין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שיטין וכן בין נביא לנביא ובנביא של שנים עשר שלש שיטין.

We can parse this in one of two ways:
בין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שיטין וכן בין נביא לנביא
and then
ובנביא של שנים עשר שלש שיטין

This first parsing would mean that chumash is the same as navi in having 4 lines separating.

We could also parse this as:
בין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שיטין
and then
וכן בין נביא לנביא ובנביא של שנים עשר שלש שיטין

The second parsing would mean that between chumashim there are four; and so too between Neviim, even between those of Trei Asar, there would be three.

Sefer HaEshkol has the following:

ספר האשכול (אלבק) הלכות ספר תורה דף נו עמוד ב
ובין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שטין, וכן בין נביא לנביא [ובנביא של שנים עשר שלשה שטין] ש

Without the text in brackets, one would certainly read this as the first parsing. Once the text in brackets is put in, we suddenly are back to the possibly-ambiguous text of the gemara, such that both parsings are possible.

Then, the Meiri:

קרית ספר (למאירי) מאמר ג חלק א

ולדעתנו אפילו סיים בסוף הדף אינו מתחיל בספר האחר בתחילת הדף האחר אלא בהרחקת ד' שטין, וכן בין נביא לנביא ובנביאים של תרי עשר ג' שטין בין זה לזה.

This is basically the same as our gemara, but the commas, and perhaps the saving of בין זה לזה until the end, make the parsing semantically the same as Rambam, Tur, and company.

Elsewhere, Meiri writes

קרית ספר (למאירי) מאמר ג חלק א
ויש גורסין בין חומש לחומש ד' שטין ובין נביא לנביא של תרי עשר ג' ובין כל נביא ונביא מסיים מלמטה ומתחיל מלמעלה ופירושו בבין נביא לנביא לא דיו בהבדל ד' שטין אלא שלא יתחיל בדף שסיים בו. ועקר הדברים או כפי' הא' לשטתנו או כפי' אמצעי לשי' גדולי הרבנים.

This shows that there was an alternate girsa that established that for Neviim, there would have to be a start on a separate page, and a division of four (or even three) lines would not suffice. This, I think, tells us that what Rashi was doing with hachi garsinan was not to necessarily take away from a variant girsa which the Rambam had, but rather from this alternate girsa which the Meiri mentions. Which is why his hachi garsinan continues into the next text of umatchil.

See also haGahot Maimoniyot:

הגהות מיימוניות הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה פרק ז
ומסיים למטה וכו' אנביאים דוקא קאי אבל בין חומש לחומש א"א לעשות כן ואפילו יניח ד' שיטין כדאמר בירושלמי פ"ק דמגילה וצריך שיהא גומר באמצע ומתחיל באמצעיתו ובנביאים גומר בסופו ומתחיל בראשו.

Kesef Mishna (=the Mechaber) talks about the girsa of Rambam and Tur:

כסף משנה הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה פרק ז
ומ"ש ומניח וכו' ברייתא שם בין חומש לחומש של תורה ד' שיטין וכן בין כל נביא ונביא ובנביא של י"ב ג' שיטין כך היא גירסת ספרינו אבל גירסת רבינו ובין כל נביא ונביא ג' שיטין וכן בנביא של י"ב וכך היא גירסת הטור

Thus, he would understand the girsa as we have in our sefarim the same way as Aruch haShulchan, and in a way semantically equal to the Yerushalmi, but that Rambam who moves ג' שיטין to be before beNavi shel Trei Asar, it would mean 3 for both a regular Navi and a Navi in Trei Asar.

And so too a bit later:

בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן רפג
ולעולם מניח ד' שיטין ודוקא בין נביא לנביא אבל בין חומש לחומש לא יסיים מלמטה ויתחיל מלמעלה אפילו בהנחת ד' שיטין כדאמרינן בירושלמי פ"ק דמגילה (הל"ט) צריך שיהא גומר באמצע הדף ומתחיל באמצעיתו ובנביא מסיים בסופו ומתחיל בראשו ונראה לי הטעם דאין לו לסיים בסוף הדף אפילו יניח ד' שיטין משום שמא יבוא לחתוך אבל בין נביא לנביא שאם בא לחתוך חותך מסיים מלמטה עכ"ל

Let us turn to consider Masechet Sofrim. We have:

מסכתות קטנות מסכת סופרים הוספה ב פרק א
הלכה יח
בין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שיטין, ובין נביא לנביא נותן ריוח לכל אחד ואחד, ומתחיל מלמעלה.

Here, in this hosafa, it omits mention of particularly 3 lines as opposed to 4. I wonder why.

In terms of the actual statement in Masechet Soferim, we see:

מסכתות קטנות מסכת סופרים פרק ב
הלכה ו
מניחין בין ספר לספר, בתורה ריוח ארבע שיטין, ובנביא של שנים עשר שלש שיטין.

Thus, we do not actually see mention of what to do for a regular Navi. I think that this claim made by Masoret haShas and of Aruch haShulchan is incorrect. Masechet Sofrim is not mechaven to the girsa of the Tur and Rambam. For there is no mention of what to do for a regular Navi.

It seems that the assumption is that one would put the sefarim in Torah together, so there is need for a specification of the separation. And similarly in Trei Asar, one must put them together. So, there is need for a specification of the separation. But there is no mention of between one Navi and Navi in general. And this would accord not with Rambam and Tur, but rather with the girsa which the Meiri brought down -- that for a regular Navi, one must begin at the next page, but no mere separation of a few lines would suffice.

I now think this it is quite possible that these were the only two girsaot, namely that of Rashi-Rif and our gemara, on the one hand, and that Meiri notes exists on the other. That Rambam and then Tur said otherwise, in what appears to be a third girsa, may not in fact be a third girsa. Rather, it may be a rephrasing of the gemara to make it clearer. Recall that our gemara is ambiguous, with two possible parsings. By slight rearrangement, it makes it clearer what is meant. It is certainly possible that such a girsa indeed exists, but I would suggest it may be subservient to and derived from our girsa, which encompasses both meanings.

If so, it is not a matter of whose girsa is correct, but rather we might cast it as which interpretation of the Bavli makes the most sense. And then, the Yerushalmi which uses sefer lesefer as opposed to ובנביא of Trei Asar could shed light on which interpretation is correct.

Now, what about the dispute between the girsaot as mentioned by Meiri?
We have on one side: Rashi, Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and possibly the Yerushalmi.
And on the other side: Hagahot Maimoniyot, the Meiri's mention of it, and possibly the Yerushalmi.

I think we can add the Maseches Soferim to the second list, given that it does not mention "Ben Navi leNavi" except as within Trei Asar. But Masechet Soferim should have the same weight I argued in favor of earlier, that is, nil.

But what does the Yerushalmi really say? After all, the Yerushalmi weighed in on both sides of this dispute. How is this possible? To quote that Yerushalmi again:

Yerushalmi Megillah 12a reads:

וצריך שיהא משייר בין ספר לספר כמלא ארבע שיטין ובנביא של י"ב שלש וצריך שיהא גומר באמצע הדף ומתחיל באמצעיתו ובנביא גומר בסופו ומתחיל בראשו ובנביא של י"ב אסור

I agree with Aruch haShulchan that saying sefer rather than chumash implies also a regular sefer of navi, especially when the contrast is to navi shel Trei Asar. One could claim this only means chumash, but I am not convinced of the truth of this argument.

It then continues that one needs to end in the middle of the daf and begin in the middle, presumably by chumash, which will be bound together in a single sefer; that by (regular) Navi, he ends in the end of the page and begins at the beginning; and that by a Navi of Trei Asar, this is forbidden, but presumably one must end and begin in the middle of the page, just as by a chumash.

I would not read this like hagahot Maimoniyot, that this a requirement by a regular Navi, to end at the bottom of the page and begin at the beginning of the page. Rather, I would say this is something which is permitted, for one is allowed to separate one regular Navi from another. But if one does not, there would need to be a separation. And this should be the separation of four lines, as specified above as bein sefer leSefer.

Turning back to the girsa cited by the Meiri:

ויש גורסין בין חומש לחומש ד' שטין ובין נביא לנביא של תרי עשר ג' ובין כל נביא ונביא מסיים מלמטה ומתחיל מלמעלה ופירושו בבין נביא לנביא לא דיו בהבדל ד' שטין אלא שלא יתחיל בדף שסיים בו

This girsa could work out well even according to the parallel Yerushalmi according to my interpretation. That is, the Yerushalmi and this girsa of Bavli would say:

1. Between one chumash and the next, four lines. This is required since one may not end in the middle. (Perhaps one can even parse this that this is not required. Examine both texts and see what I mean.)
   
2. Between one navi in Trei Asar to the next, three lines. This is required since one may not end in the middle.
3. Between one regular Navi and the next, four lines. This is not required since one could just end at the end of a page.

This would be an explanation different than that offered by Meiri, that בבין נביא לנביא לא דיו בהבדל ד' .שטין אלא שלא יתחיל בדף שסיים בו

And we can read the text as given by our gemara, and the Rif, the same way -- that next statement of ending at the end, if such occurs, is permitted. Or even that one can do this ab initio. But this is specifically for a regular Navi, not for a Navi within Trei Asar.

Thus, I would conclude that regardless of the choice between Rif's girsa and the girsa mentioned in Meiri, one can come to the same conclusion, and that it would work out well with the Yerushalmi. Even with Rif's girsa, we can still parse it according to Rambam and Tur's halachic ruling. However, I think that they are wrong in this parse, or else their girsa is wrong. I do not think that Masechet Soferim actually supports their parse or girsa, but rather that one cited by Meiri.

Therefore, I would conclude that 3 lines are not really sufficient as a division between one sefer and the next. Either four lines are required, or else starting on a new page. This because our girsa and understanding of the Bavli is much better if parallel to the Yerushalmi. I would favor first Meiri and Hagahot Maimoniot's girsa, then Rashi-Rif, and finally Rambam-Tur.

One thing that might help resolve all of this is to look at manuscripts or old scrolls which contained multiple Neviim, from different geographical locations from different times. We could then perhaps understand what Rashi meant, and what various girsaot meant.

All this quickly expanded past my original intent. This all needs reworking. Perhaps at some later date.

Also, my regular caveat: this is not intended as halacha leMaaseh.

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt ix

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest now attempts to prove his assertion that the words of the maggid are really just the thoughts of Rav Yosef Karo by showing how Rav Karo's student, Rabbi Moshe Cordevero, refers to it. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: Say what you want, but Rabbi Moshe Cordevero, who was the student of Maran Rav Yosef Karo, when he brought down in sefer haPardes (shaar seder haAtzilut, perek 3) the words of the maggid who was to Maran haRav Yosef Karo, he mentions the matter as if it is the position of Maran Rav Yosef Karo, and his reasoning. Take place the sefer haPardes.

And I took sefer haPardes, and I read in it the beginning of the chapter, and this is his language: The intent in this chapter is to explain a different opinion which is opposed to this, and this is the kabbalah of my teacher and rabbi, the pious, kevod moreinu harav Rabbi Yosef Karo, נטריה רחמנא ופרקיה, and this is his language: הא אתינא, etc., etc.

Then I said to him: Here for you is to see that he calls the matter kabbalat {the received wisdom} of Maharik {=Rav Yosef Karo}, not his thoughts and his opinion, as you said in your haste.

The guest: Descend to the end!

Then he read before me, in that same perek, like these words: "All this teaches about the strength of the opinion of my teacher, which is right and true."

And so later on, in the sixth perek, he mentions the matter twice in the name of "the words of my teacher, נטריה רחמנא ופרקיה."

The author: He still has not said that it the opinion of Maharik {=Rav Yosef Karo}, but rather for love of brevity he said it is the position of my teacher and master, and the words of my teacher, and the intent (as he said in the beginning of the chapter) is the opinion and the words which Maharik received from the mouth of the maggid who was revealed to him.

And behold, please, the sun comes {down}, and the time of the evening prayer is near. And also you have already emptied the sack-bag of your blasphemies, such there is not left with you (I think) what to add to speak to me further in these things. And I have already told you all that is with me from the answers, and my effort was empty and vain, and not only empty and vain, but also to cause you do be even freer {more hefker}, and to place a sword in your hand to wipe out and to destroy more and more.

And behold, tomorrow, when the weekdays begin, I will go early in the morning to my burdens, and with the few hours which are available to me {from now on}, I will endeavor in the investigation of peshat in language, and I have no engagements in the hidden. Therefore, I see that the best thing is for each man to separate from his brother in peace, and to leave aside all matters of the wisdom of the kabbalah to the unique few who merit to receive them from the mouth of a true kabbalist, and who is exceptional beyond me, and from you I will not seek it.

The guest: Also I go tomorrow to my burdens {work}, but not to do holy work like you, but rather I will go on my travels to and fro on the earth, exiled and always moving about, wandering for my bread, perhaps the Lord of Hosts will grant favor and chance before me rest, which will be good for me.

The author: May Hashem answer you in the day of trouble, may Hashem give to you that you should find rest.

The guest: And I am a pauper and sufferer. Let me live 1000 years, your name will not be blotted out from the slate of my heart, and your kindness which you did wondrously with me, and your dear trains of which I tested in you in these three days shall not cease from my mouth, from now until forever.

For in truth, from the day which Hashem took from upon my head my master, my father, peace be upon him {or perhaps servant of Hashem}, and I was left an orphan, naked and lacking all, this I have done for myself for ten years, there were not for me such good days {a pun, for it was also Yom Tov} like these three days that I have been with you. These days will be remembered and recorded in my heart in every place to which I travel -- they will not stray from my heart all the days of my life.

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt viii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) Here, the guest continues his mention of how references to the identity of the maggid switch off, and specifically between Mishna and Neshama. This he takes as proof that it was Rav Karo's own neshama, that is his own thoughts, that were being communicated. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: In other places you will find in the book this: "I, the Mishna, am speaking in your mouth, and I an the mother who chastises man and straightens him out."

Only, in one place (Venice, 47a, Zalkwa, 51b) you will find the Mishna is switched for Neshama {soul}.

Arise, and read: "It is I who speaks with you, your soul {neshama}, not the nefesh nor the ruach, but rather the neshama herself. And is it not so, if prophesy has ceased from Israel, from you it has not ceased, for each time I come to you to direct you in which way to go."

Is this not the thing which I have told you at the start? -- that perhaps the entire matter is only said in the way of secret {sod}, and hint and riddle.

And behold, here, at the end of the book, Maran Rav Yosef Karo saw fit to reveal his secret to those who can understand {maskilim} and that secret is that the maggid who spoke with him was only his neshama; and this secret, he hinted to it in the other places, and specifically in the first speech which came to him from the maggid (is it not written in the introduction of Rav Shlomo Alkebetz which was written in the beginning of the Lublin printing), in the word Mishna, which are the letters of Neshama, and with the nickname of "the mother who chastises man." And according to this, it is well understood who the maggid said to him, "is it not that according to what is in your will, I say."

The author: All this is a false dream that you are inventing from your heart, and there is no doubt by me that the Mishna and the Neshama which are spoken of here are a hint to the Divine Presence {shechina}, she is the congregation of Israel, she is Kingship, she is Matronita, and she is the mother who chastises man, as is made clear in sefer haZohar (chelek 3, page 74); also in sefer haPardes (the gate of ordering of kinuyim) you will find that Malchut {kingship} is called Mother and Mishna.

The guest: But you will not find Malchut called Neshama.

The author: But you will find that Malchut is called Mother by virtue of the neshamot, for all of them derive {??} from it. And how is it possible to consider that the intent was on the actual neshama, when right away and immediately he says, "and is it not so that if prophecy has ceased from Israel, from you it has not ceased?" Is it possible that he would call prophecy to the words of the Neshama of man?

The guest: Perhaps he called them prophecy in the way that King David, and Heman, Asaf, Yedutun, and the rest of the poets are called prophets, for they said their words in the way of people, but there was an Upper Spirit which stirred them, as Radak wrote in the introduction to his commentary of Tehillim.

The author: Behold I see that it is a waste of time to argue with you in these matters, which are loftier than my knowledge and your knowledge. And behold I see that all your desire is to place a blemish in the consecrated and to desecrate the glory of all desirable thing.

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt vii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest continues pointing out even more passages in Maggid Meisharim which appear arrogant. The author is confused by who the speaker is, Hashem or one of his messengers. The text of the Vikuach follows:

{The guest continues:} Further read (Venice, page 21a, Zalkwa page 39 {seif?} 2): "Peace to you from the Heavenly Mesivta, for you are my Tanna. For until now, when you went out in the market, five lights would illuminate for you, matching the 5 orders of Mishna that you know, and announced before you, 'Give honor to the visage of the King.' Now that you have begun to learn the fifth order, and have learned from it 10 and a half chapters, behold there are 6 lights illuminating before you, but the 6th light does not shine brightly, but is seen and not seen, until you know all of it. And from these six lights will spread out six strong ones who announce this announcement, except that this sixth strong one will be seen and yet not seen, for the reason I have told you. And from these light will spread out a seventh light, and they are to match the seven Clouds of Glory, and all of them accompany you and go before you as I have believed {said??}."

Further, read (Venice, 50c, Zalkwa 53a): "Strengthen yourself and be bold. Do not fear and do not be terrified, for all that you do Hashem makes succeed, and all that you have done and ruled {הורית} until today, Hashem has made succeed in your hand, and so do they agree in the Heavenly Mesivta, by the Life of Hashem, that this halachic ruling is true, and firm, halacha leMoshe miSinai, the halacha is like you, and for your reason."

Read further (Venice 32b, Zalkwa 45a): "And is it not for you to know that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, and all the members of the Upper Yeshiva, send you greetings -- the true prophets, the Tannaim, Amoraim, Savoraic Rabbanim, the Geonim, halachic decisors -- all of them bless you when you engage and their words and understand them {מכוין}, how many strong ones shake at the sweet sound of these blessings, and ask and say 'Who is this? This is the head of the great Metivta in Eretz Yisrael, the great halachic decisor of Eretz Yisrael, of the great company of Eretz Yisrael, Yosef who is called Karo, whom the King, the King of Kings, desires his honor.' All of them answer and say, 'Blessed be the Master of the World.' And behold they send me to reveal to you closed up secret in the holy parsha."

The author: Behold, there is born in me a new confusion. For I do not understand who is the speaker of all the words of this book. For behold, when he said "Only cling to Me, and to My Torah, and My fear, and My service," it appears that the blessed God is he, and not another who is speaking. And when he said "And behold, they sent me to reveal to you," it appears that it is not God, but rather one of his messengers. And now, my thought tilt to believe that in truth it is a messenger who is speaking, except that we already know that at times the messenger speaks in the language of his sender, and therefore he is able to say, "Only cling to Me, etc."

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt vi

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest continues pointing out passages in Maggid Meisharim which appear arrogant:

Further, please read this (Venice printing, page 4b, Zalkwa printing page 3b): "For behold, when you go out to the market, my seven strong ones, and all their soldiers accompany you, and announce before you, 'give honor to the visage of the holy King, and clear a place for the visage of the holy King, for behold this one is our Tanna'a, our Gammara, our Savara. How many camps, soldiers, and strong ones shake from this announcement, and all of them ask, 'what is this sound?' And they answer and say 'This is he, Ploni, in whom the Holy One, Blessed Be He, is exalted every day; And so too, at every time you finish learning with the colleagues, a voice goes out in announcement in this pattern."

Further, read (Venice, page 4a, Zalkwa page 3a): "And any student who does not study in your yeshiva will not be held to know anything at all, and you will be elevated and lifted up, for I will make you great and raise you up, I will lift you up and place you to be Naggid {Prince} on my nation Israel, and your yeshiva will become greater that the yeshiva of my chosed, Yitzchak Aboav."

Read further (Venice, page 15a, Zalkwa page 37a): "And you, when you attach to me and my Torah, and in my fear and my Mishnayot, and not separate even a single instant, then I will give you paths between these pillars, and I will cause you to merit to complete all your writings without any error, and to print them and to spread them out in all the boundaries of my nation Israel, and I will cause your name to be great, with students, greater than Yitzchak Aboav my chosen. Therefore strengthen yourself and be bold in your Torah, as you do in Torah, in Mishnah, in Gemara, Rashi, Tosafot, in halachic rulings, and in kabbalah, for you tie them together, and all the angels on high seek your peace and good. And do not take pains with provisions {making a living}, for I have already told you countless times that your livelihood is prepared for you, and you will not lack anything, for there is Providence upon you in all your matters, specifically when you attach yourself to me, and to my Torah, to my fear, and to my service. And already you see this great ascent which I have raised you become all the nation of Hashem, to speak with you with a loud voice. And you will further merit to see Eliyahu, as I have told you, if you improve your way before me.

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt v

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest had just suggested that the words of the maggid are Rav Yosef Karo's own thoughts. He now backs it up by analyzing the content, first that the maggid can say an explanation on a verse which is not so, and then that the maggid tells Rav Karo many things which appear not to be to any useful purpose but rather seem like arrogance. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: Shush! What do you say!?

The guest: I have said something that the maggid said to Maran Rav Yosef Karo. Come and see (Venice printing, page 43c, Zalkwa printing page 50a {?} ): "Is it not so, that even though at times I explain some explanation on a verse, which is not so, am I not saying according to that which in your will."

The author: In truth, this matter does not make sense to me.

The guest: The words of the kabbalists, one need to accept {lekabbel} and not understand.

So now, if you find in Maggid Meisharim a few matters which appear that they were said to no good purpose, but rather by way of arrogance, pride, and superiority, you should not say like that stupid philosopher that Maran Rav Yosef Karo invented words of falsehood in order to increase his stature, forfend! Rather, you should say that the Maggid spoke according to what was in the will in Maran Rav Yosef Karo.

The author: And what are these words which appear to be said not to any good purpose, but rather merely for arrogance? For it is distant in my eyes that such will be found in the sefer haMaggid.

The guest: They are very many, and the entire book is filled with them.

Arise, and read (Lublin printing, page 45d, Zalkwa printing, page 22a): "For you are a man, and who is like you in Israel, for there is no yeshiva in the Diaspora which learns in pilpul as in your yeshiva. And behold, every time that you go in the market, if they eye were given permission to see, it would see as far as the eye could see soldiers surrounding you on all sides, and you as a king in a company {of soldiers}, and they announcing and saying, 'clear a path, give honor to the visage of the holy one of the king.' How many strong ones shake to the sound of this sweet voice, and ask 'Who is he?' They respond and say, 'This is So-and-so, who the King, the King of kings desires his honor, for he is more honored for all desired vessels, for he is the Tanna of Eretz Yisrael, the head of the Mesivta in Eretz Yisrael, the Exilarch of all the Diaspora, our halachic decisor, our thinker, our composer. And at the time that you cease contemplating matters of holiness, and furthermore if you contemplate matters of the body, this announcement weakens, and all the strong ones and say, 'What is this that the announcement ceased?' And since this is so, make yourself strong in this and do not turn your thoughts from me even a single instant, and see that I will raise you up and make you a Nagid {Prince} on my nation Israel, the two communities, and further I will place you as a Nagid on all the communities of Eretz Yisrael."

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt iv

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The author defends the words "I wrote" said by the maggid. In terms of an apparently nonsensical and blasphemous derasha on the shem Shakkai to drink 14 cups of wine on Shabbat, he suggests that it was an insertion by a student, but that this could not have been said with Divine Inspiration. The guest now suggests a general answer to it all -- that it was not a heavenly maggid speaking but that the "maggid" was only conveying to him his own thoughts. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: It appears that Maran Rav Yosef Karo, when he wrote in the sefer that which he heard from the maggid, because of his speed he was not exact, and he wrote in his usual language, and he said "that I wrote" rather than "that I said." And this does not detract at all from the truth of his prophecy and Divine Inspiration which rested upon him.

The guest: And what will you say when you see the maggid (Lublin printing, page 59d, Zalkwa printing, page 27a) say to Maran Rav Yosef Karo that he is able to drink 14 cups {of wine} on Shabbat, 6 at night and eight during the two meals of the day, and that this is hinted by the name Shakkai, for the Shin hints to Shabbat, and the daled yud hints to the cups which it is sufficient to drink on it.

The author: I am astounded at the sight which my eyes see. And there is no doubt that these words, one of the students added them, and Maran Rav Yosef Karo did not write them, for forfend for a man who is a holy one of Hashem, to desecrate the holy and to take out the Holy Names for faulty derashot; Also forfend that the Divine Inspiration, or one who was sent from on high, said over such things.

The guest: And what will you say about the number of cups that he drank on Shabbat, at each and every meal? Does it not appear that he made Purim during each and every Shabbat? For behold, in the midrash (Bemidbar Rabba parasha 10), the Sages mean a measure for drunkenness, with four reviits of undiluted wine, which are four cups. If a man drinks a single cup, which is a reviit, 1/4 of his sense leaves, etc., etc.

Rather, one should not be astounded at this, for it appears that the kabbalists were mighty in drinking wine, for behold in the sefer haZohar (chelek 1, page 70 {270?} b), it is written that the 1/4 of a hin (which is the measure of 3 log, that is to say 12 reviits, of 12 cups) was the measure which, if one drank, he would rejoice, and rest {?} would happen to him.

Behold, according to the midrash, once a man drinks four cups, all his intelligence {/sense} leaves him, all the kidneys become dispirited {? bored?}, and his heart is torn up and his tongue is stopped, he wishes to speak and is unable. And according to the Zohar, once a man drinks 12 cups, he is not drunk, but rather happy and good of heart.

See how mighty are the kabbalists!

The author: This is nothing, for there is wine and there is wine, and not all wines are equal. And furthermore, the midrash says unmixed wine, and perhaps the wine of the Zohar and of Maran Rav Yosef Karo was mixed wine.

However, what I do not understand, and it is in my eyes a great wonder, it that the maggid darshened one of the holy Names for the matter of the cups that a man should drink. This is, in my eyes, greatly astounding.

The guest: If in your eyes it is wondrous, it is not wondrous in my eyes. For the maggid did not speak to Maran Rav Yosef Karo except according to what was in the thoughts of Rav Yosef Karo himself.

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt iii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) In the previous segment, the guest ended his words about Rav Yosef Karo's Maggid Mesharim with:

However, it appears to me that when the prophet says in the name of Hashem, and the matter does not come to be, that is the thing which Hashem did not say.

And behold, many times it is written in sefer Maggid Meisharim that the voice says to him, "and afterwards I will cause you to merit to be burnt on the holiness of my Name," and this matter was not fulfilled at all.

The author now tries to defend against this, as not being meant literally. Then to another positive thing whch did not come to be, he suggests shema yigrom hachet. The guest then asks another question -- that several times, the maggid refers to what "I" or to what "we" wrote, yet surely the maggid did not write on the paper with ink. The text of the Vikuach follows:

I answered him: Already, the author of Maavar Yabbok answered on this (maamar 1, chapter 3), that it was not hinted to him with this that he would be actively burnt, but rather that at the time of his death, this would be his intent, to surrender his soul on the holiness of the Name {al kiddush Hashem}.

And the man said: The author of Maavar Yabbok was a man who loved him; perhaps he believed in him. Do you have with you the sefer Maggid Meisharim?

The author: I have. And there are three printings. The Lublin printing, from the year 405 (=1645), the Venice printing, from the year 409 (=1649), and the Zalkwa {??} printing, from the year 533 (=1773). And this last one included the other two, for the Venice printing is not like the Lublin printing, for it includes that which was left out in the first printing, and the third one includes the words of both of them.

The guest: I know, I know. And now, take out for me these books, even all three of them.

And I took out the books and placed them before him, and the man opened the Lublin printing, and read before me (page 6, seif 1), "and I will cause you to merit to be burn on the holiness of my Name, to everyone's sight, in great honor and joy. And thus, all your chovot {/sins} will be released in the fire, and you will come out like clean wool."

And the man said to me: Would someone who sees these words judge that their intent is only that at the time of his death, his intent would be to surrender his soul al kiddush Hashem? And what will you say about that which the maggid give him tidings (Venice printing, page 4b, and Zalkwa {??} printing, page 3a): "and your sons will be a Sanhedrin in the chamber of hewn stone, and you will see them teaching the halachot of kemitza, and this son of yours will be a rav, and great man, and a greatly wise in gemara and kabbalah, and in his days there will not be found a kabbalist as great as he is, for he will attain in the wisdom of kabbalah that which no man has attained in 500 years, ten times more than my beloved Shlomo. And he will make a commentary to the Zohar, and he will also make glosses to your writings, etc."

{And this obviously did not come to be.}

I said to him: This statement of theirs z"l is known, that perhaps the sin caused {that the prediction for good did not come to be}.

And the man answered: Do you also have a maggid?

The author: And why is this?

The guest: For so, exactly, did the maggid say to Maran Rav Yosef Karo (Lublin printing, page 37d, Zalkwa printing, page 18b): "For that which you see, that at times I speak with you and it does not come to be, do you not know what Chazal say, 'perhaps the sin caused it.' "

And what will you say when you see the maggid say (Lublin printing, page 23c, Zalkwa printing page 12a) "and that which I have written you will understand," and also (there, page 62b, and in Zalkwa printing page 28a) "a hint to that which we wrote." And did the maggid write on the sefer with ink?

Discussion of Maggid Meisharim -- pt ii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest now defends Rav Yosef Karo against the philosopher who claimed that Maggid Meisharim was made up by Rav Karo to increase his stature. The guest says that one can have some Divine Inspiration or the like without it being due to the truth of kabbalah and the Zohar. The author says that kabbalistic dream inquiries made by his father were answered, and his father was not making this up to increase his stature. The guest replies that this may well have been because of Shadal's father being righteous, not because of the specific kabbalistic machinations. The guest then suggests three things that could cause Rav Yosef Karo, or any kabbalist, to experience or state this: (a) the power of imagination, after going through all this preparation anticipating it, such that he dreams this or his thoughts are confused even while awake; (b) that it is a falsehood intended to be mezakkeh es harabbim; (c) that it was in a way of secret, hint, and riddle, as are most of the words of the kabbalists. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And the man read all the words of the chapter from beginning to end, and afterwards opened his mouth and said: This philosopher who decided while standing on one foot to say that one must say that Rav Karo invented words of falsehood in order to increase his stature, was in truth a man who spoke hurriedly. For indeed, forfend to decide a sentence on a man, and even more so on a Sage, and well known righteous man, such as Rav Yosef Karo, without investigation and careful deliberation.

Behold, there is no doubt that if one assumes (as is the truth) that the wisdom is kabbalah is not true and that the sefer haZohar is not true, the matter is automatically understood that all that the kabbalists will say that Eliyahu was revealed to them, or that the spirit of Hashem spoke to them in one of the forms of prophecy, Divine inspiration, and telling over in darkness, all this is not possible to be the truth. And one who does not believe that which was revealed to the Raavad and to his teacher via Divine inspiration of via Eliyahu, he will also not believe that which was revealed to Maran Bet Yosef.

But to decide about all those who say that they merited to a smidgen of these, that all of them invented falsehood in order to increase their stature, this is not a righteous judgment.

I {=the author} said to him: And what will you say if I relate to you that also my master, my father, zatz"al would make, at necessary times, a dream query based on the wisdom of the kabbalah, from that which he learned in the sefer haBrit, and he attained at times correct dreams which included telling over of future events, which came to pass.

And he, z"l, did not say this in order to increase his stature, for he was a wood turner (drechsler), and he was in truth God-fearing, and benefited from his own efforts, and was was not appointed among the chachamim and mekubalim, and his wisdom and piety did not go outside the walls of his house {=he kept it to himself}. And so is the matter of the dreams of which I told you -- he never informed anyone except the people of his household of them, and no benefit came to my master, my father z"l of them, except at times a great benefit, from knowing the future, to be saved from harm.

And behold, in terms of my master, my father, zatza"l, the matter is clear to me above any uncertainty, that he did not invent from his own heart that which he told me, and that which is written in his memoirs.

If so, how should I not believe in the wisdom of the kabbalah, after I have seen that its power is good to obtain prophetic dreams?

And the man answered: Since, according to your words, your father was a righteous and upstanding man, it is not wondrous in my eyes if he found favor in the eyes of God, and God acceded to him, and heard his cry, and related to him a few future event, to save him from harm. And even though he made his prayer in a kabbalistic way, it was not his {kabbalistic} intentions {kavanot} which caused Hashem to accede to him, but rather his upstanding character and righteousness were what stood for him for God to be near to him.

And we will return to the matter of the kabbalists with Divine Inspiration {ruach hakodesh}, {or convene with} Eliyahu or a maggid {an angel} and say that it is possible for this to be in one of three ways, assuming that the man is not an entirely evil person who invents falsehoods for his own honor. For behold, firstly, it is known how much the power of the imagination does, and it is possible that a person who invests many days in the study of kabbalah and the acts of chassidut, and in mortifications, to prepare himself for Divine Inspiration, and in the end it happens to him in truth that he dreams in his bed at nights empty communications and reports, as if God or his angels, or Eliyahu, instructs him and informs him of matters from the topics of those studies which he contemplated all day.

It is also possible that his thoughts were confused to the extent that even while awake, it seemed to him as if the voice spoke to him.

And secondly, it is possible that there is a man who is wise and righteous who invents falsehoods not for his own honor and benefit and good, but rather to help the public and to plant in their hearts fear of Heaven.

And thirdly, it is possible that the entire matter was said in a way of secret, hint, and riddle, as are most of the words of the kabbalists.

And as such, I will not decide judgment upon Rav Yosef Karo. However, it appears to me that when the prophet says in the name of Hashem, and the matter does not come to be, that is the thing which Hashem did not say.

And behold, many times it is written in sefer Maggid Meisharim that the voice says to him, "and afterwards I will cause you to merit to be burnt on the holiness of my Name," and this matter was not fulfilled at all.