Did the hand of the LORD or the spirit of God rest on Elisha?

Divrei Chaim has an excellent post, in which he wonders whether we should emend the text of Tanach to conform to the apparent reading of Rishonim, and where the modern masoretic text appears to be the result of a fairly recent corruption by printers. And this reflects the divide we see nowadays over whether the interpretation of nearly all Rishonim, or the interpretation of a majority of Acharonim, should be considered the masorah, and if to the exclusion of the other.

Were this indeed the case that it could be proven to be a very late corruption, I think a good argument could be made for emending the text, and that you might even get some major chareidi Gedolim to sign on to it.

My concern in this is whether this modern reading is indeed a recent corruption; and how compelling the evidence is from Chazal and the Rishonim. First, an excerpt from Divrei Chaim:

On Friday I was reviewing the parsha with the whole discussion of looking only for "truth" irrespective of the consensus of tradition echoing in my mind when I found myself looking at a pshat of R"Y haChassid (quoted in Pardes Yosef p.457) explaining that Yehoshua told Moshe to burden Eldad and Meidad with community obligations so they would become sad and cease prophesying, for prophecy only occurs when a person is happy. R"Y haChassid proves this from Melachim II 3:15, where Elisha says to play music so he can overcome his anger and restore his mental equilibrium; immediately "vat'hi alav ruach Elokim."

The same pasuk is referred to by the Yerushalmi in Sukkah, by the Midrash Shocher Tov, the same limud and pasuk are cited by the Ramban (Braishis 25:34) and by R' Chananel (Shabbos 30b)...

One little problem: there is no such pasuk. Melachim II 3:15 in our Tanach reads: "vat'hi alav yad Hashem."

The Pardes Yosef notes that not only is the pasuk cited by Chazal and Rishonim with the text "ruach Elokim", but in all the early printings that he checked except one the text appears that way...

But read it all, despite my lengthy excerpt.

The pasuk in question is in II Melachim 3:15:

טו וְעַתָּה, קְחוּ-לִי מְנַגֵּן; וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן, וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד-ה'.

15 But now bring me a minstrel.' And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the LORD came upon him.

The Yerushalmi in question can be found in Yerushalmi Succah 22b until 23a:

א"ר יונה יונה בן אמיתי מעולי רגלים היה ונכנס לשמחת בית השואבה ושרת עליו רוח הקודש ללמדך שאין רוח הקדש שורה אלא על לב שמח מ"ט (מלכים ב ג) והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו רוח אלהים.א"ר בנימין בר לוי והיה כנגן במנגן אין כתיב כאן אלא והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו רוח אלהים.

Now, if our text was found in only one printing, it might represent a corruption. But it might also represent a solid tradition. We would need to look in manuscripts.

Indeed, we can establish the text before us in our Tanach as very old. It is found in LXX, that is the Septuagint, which precedes all the Rishonim. There, it is written:

"15 And now fetch me a harper. And it came to pass, as the harper harped, that the hand of the Lord came upon him."

The hand of the LORD parallels yad YKVK, rather than ruach Elokim. And as I'll argue later, it is unlikely that it would be substituted for it in translation.

It also appears in the Leningrad Codex, written in 1008 CE. This is a famous and standard masoretic text. And in the Leningrad Codex we have:

וְעַתָּ֖ה קְחוּ־לִ֣י מְנַגֵּ֑ן וְהָיָה֙ כְּנַגֵּ֣ן הַֽמְנַגֵּ֔ן וַתְּהִ֥י עָלָ֖יו יַד־ה'׃

So how should we decide between the two texts? Perhaps we should not. But at the very least, I am obligated to mention the principle of lectio difficilior, the principle that the "more difficult word" is more likely to be original.

Which would we be more likely to expect? Which would be less likely to expect? The apparently less likely is probably the original, because who would make an error in the text in that direction?

Looking through Tanach for Alav Ruach Elokim, we have a bunch of hits:

• במדבר פרק כד
  פסוק ב: וַיִּשָּׂא בִלְעָם אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֹׁכֵן, לִשְׁבָטָיו; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו, רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים.

שמואל א פרק י

• פסוק י: וַיָּבֹאוּ שָׁם הַגִּבְעָתָה, וְהִנֵּה חֶבֶל-נְבִאִים לִקְרָאתוֹ; וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, וַיִּתְנַבֵּא בְּתוֹכָם.

שמואל א פרק יט

• פסוק כג: וַיֵּלֶךְ שָׁם, אֶל-נוית (נָיוֹת) בָּרָמָה; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו גַּם-הוּא רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וַיִּתְנַבֵּא, עַד-בֹּאוֹ, בנוית (בְּנָיוֹת) בָּרָמָה.

דברי הימים ב פרק טו

• פסוק א: וַעֲזַרְיָהוּ, בֶּן-עוֹדֵד, הָיְתָה עָלָיו, רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים.

In each case, it describes prophecy. But the phrase Yad Hashem usually denotes something bad happening. Or else some powerful act of God. The exception is in Yechezkel, as we shall see. Thus,

שמות פרק ט

• פסוק ג: הִנֵּה יַד-יְהוָה הוֹיָה, בְּמִקְנְךָ אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה, בַּסּוּסִים בַּחֲמֹרִים בַּגְּמַלִּים, בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן--דֶּבֶר, כָּבֵד מְאֹד.

דברים פרק ב

• פסוק טו: וְגַם יַד-יְהוָה הָיְתָה בָּם, לְהֻמָּם מִקֶּרֶב הַמַּחֲנֶה, עַד, תֻּמָּם.
• 
  
• יהושוע פרק ד
  • פסוק כד: לְמַעַן דַּעַת כָּל-עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-יַד יְהוָה, כִּי חֲזָקָה, הִיא--לְמַעַן יְרָאתֶם אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, כָּל-הַיָּמִים.
  
  
  שופטים פרק ב

  • פסוק טו: בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ, יַד-יְהוָה הָיְתָה-בָּם לְרָעָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה, וְכַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לָהֶם; וַיֵּצֶר לָהֶם, מְאֹד.

  
  

  שמואל א פרק ה

  • פסוק ו: וַתִּכְבַּד יַד-יְהוָה אֶל-הָאַשְׁדּוֹדִים, וַיְשִׁמֵּם; וַיַּךְ אֹתָם בעפלים (בַּטְּחֹרִים), אֶת-אַשְׁדּוֹד וְאֶת-גְּבוּלֶיהָ.
  • פסוק ט: וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הֵסַבּוּ אֹתוֹ, וַתְּהִי יַד-יְהוָה בָּעִיר מְהוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד, וַיַּךְ אֶת-אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר, מִקָּטֹן וְעַד-גָּדוֹל; וַיִּשָּׂתְרוּ לָהֶם, עפלים (טְחֹרִים).

  
  

  שמואל א פרק ז

  • פסוק יג: וַיִּכָּנְעוּ, הַפְּלִשְׁתִּים, וְלֹא-יָסְפוּ עוֹד, לָבוֹא בִּגְבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַתְּהִי יַד-יְהוָה בַּפְּלִשְׁתִּים, כֹּל יְמֵי שְׁמוּאֵל.

  
  

  שמואל א פרק יב

  • פסוק טו: וְאִם-לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה, וּמְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה--וְהָיְתָה יַד-יְהוָה בָּכֶם, וּבַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם.
    
    
  • ישעיהו פרק יט
    • פסוק טז: בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה מִצְרַיִם כַּנָּשִׁים; וְחָרַד וּפָחַד, מִפְּנֵי תְּנוּפַת יַד-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא, מֵנִיף עָלָיו.
    
    
    ישעיהו פרק כה

    • פסוק י: כִּי-תָנוּחַ יַד-יְהוָה, בָּהָר הַזֶּה--וְנָדוֹשׁ מוֹאָב תַּחְתָּיו, כְּהִדּוּשׁ מַתְבֵּן במי (בְּמוֹ) מַדְמֵנָה.

    
    

    ישעיהו פרק מא

    • פסוק כ: לְמַעַן יִרְאוּ וְיֵדְעוּ, וְיָשִׂימוּ וְיַשְׂכִּילוּ יַחְדָּו--כִּי יַד-יְהוָה, עָשְׂתָה זֹּאת; וּקְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּרָאָהּ.

    
    

    ישעיהו פרק נט

    • פסוק א: הֵן לֹא-קָצְרָה יַד-יְהוָה, מֵהוֹשִׁיעַ; וְלֹא-כָבְדָה אָזְנוֹ, מִשְּׁמוֹעַ.

    
    

    ישעיהו פרק סו

    • פסוק יד: וּרְאִיתֶם וְשָׂשׂ לִבְּכֶם, וְעַצְמוֹתֵיכֶם כַּדֶּשֶׁא תִפְרַחְנָה; וְנוֹדְעָה יַד-יְהוָה אֶת-עֲבָדָיו, וְזָעַם אֶת-אֹיְבָיו.

    
    

    יחזקאל פרק א

    • פסוק ג: הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן-בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן, בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים--עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו שָׁם, יַד-יְהוָה.

    
    

    יחזקאל פרק ג

    • פסוק כב: וַתְּהִי עָלַי שָׁם, יַד-יְהוָה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי, קוּם צֵא אֶל-הַבִּקְעָה, וְשָׁם, אֲדַבֵּר אוֹתָךְ.

    
    

    יחזקאל פרק ח

    • פסוק א: וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית, בַּשִּׁשִּׁי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ, אֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתִי, וְזִקְנֵי יְהוּדָה יוֹשְׁבִים לְפָנָי; וַתִּפֹּל עָלַי שָׁם, יַד אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה.

    
    

    יחזקאל פרק לז

    • פסוק א: הָיְתָה עָלַי, יַד-יְהוָה, וַיּוֹצִאֵנִי בְרוּחַ יְהוָה, וַיְנִיחֵנִי בְּתוֹךְ הַבִּקְעָה; וְהִיא, מְלֵאָה עֲצָמוֹת.

    
    

    יחזקאל פרק מ

    • פסוק א: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנָה לְגָלוּתֵנוּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, אַחַר, אֲשֶׁר הֻכְּתָה הָעִיר--בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, הָיְתָה עָלַי יַד-יְהוָה, וַיָּבֵא אֹתִי, שָׁמָּה.

    
    

    איוב פרק יב

    • פסוק ט: מִי, לֹא-יָדַע בְּכָל-אֵלֶּה: כִּי יַד-יְהוָה, עָשְׂתָה זֹּאת.

    
    

    רות פרק א

    • פסוק יג: הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה, לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ; אַל בְּנֹתַי, כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם--כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי, יַד-יְהוָה.

We see that this phrase is used all over in Yechezkel to denote prophecy. But elsewhere this is not its intent. Furthermore, while sometimes he says hayta alay yad Hashem, often it is vatipol. Meanwhile, the text as it appears with ruach elokim directly matches the text in Behaalotecha, with the words vatehi alav ruach elokim. And from a very familiar source, namely Torah rather than Nach. If I had to guess, and choose between two variants with great support, I would say that our text of yad Hashem is the original, for it is the most "difficult," even though of course it is not difficult.

Now I want to see if I can take the wind out of the sails of the ruach elokim variant. Is it really so old? We could investigate and see how many manuscripts from the time of the Rishonim this text appears in.

In terms of Chazal being a source for this, perhaps. But there are hundreds of instances in which Chazal's citation of a pasuk varies from the text before us. One of my teachers suggested that this was deliberate, because Chazal do not want to orally (or later, on text) cite a real pasuk, and so they deliberately mangle or summarize it. And this works for many cases in which the derasha is not based on the variant word. (In other cases, as in Chacham Mah Hu Omer, it would seem that one cannot say that.) In the Yerushalmi cited, the derasha was not based on this text. And it is clearer with ruach elokim there, that what we are dealing with is prophecy rather than some visitation of destruction. So maybe it is a variant text, but it is not conclusive, any more than the many times an incorrect pasuk appears in Rif or in our Gemara.

Rabbenu Chananel, Ramban, and Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid do not prove this either. Since their intent is to cite the derasha of the Yerushalmi, they would cite the text of the Yerushalmi as it stands. They would not necessarily bother to look up the pasuk to make certain it is accurate, and they would not necessarily emend the text to match even if they did.

A stronger case could be made once we see the words of the meforshim when they comment on Tanach. I did not look at all meforshim. If it is part of their dibbur hamatchil, it would be more convincing than embedded in the text of their commentary, where their goal might be explanation. But a repeated use of the word in their commentary might indeed connote that they had this girsa before them. Still, I would be very cautious.

Here is the Mikraos Gedolos on that pasuk. Most impressive is the Targum. It translates ושריא עלוהי רוח נבואה מן קדם ה. But does this prove anything? Not at all! Look up the Targum to Yechezkel 1:3, where everyone agrees it says Yad Hashem. What text do we find in Targum? רוח נבואה מן קדם ה! This is therefore translation and commentary, and there is no reason to think differently in our local pasuk in Melachim.

On that pasuk, Rashi says nothing. Radak refers to Ruach Nevuah, rather than Ruach Elokim. Again, this is not in citing the pasuk itself, and so is not solid evidence that he had that text. Ralbag does not cite the text but ends his comment with az shareta alav ruach hakodesh. Again, not solid evidence, since everyone agrees that the subject is prophecy.

Indeed, while we have ancient manuscript evidence for Yad Hashem, I do not know that we do for Ruach Elokim. I could theorize at this point that all those printings which had otherwise stemmed from a single printing from someone who knew the Ramban's citation of the derasha and saw the Targumic text, and put 2 and 2 together to get an incorrect 4.