Should our masoretic text read וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא as malei or chaser?

Summary: Another instance of Chazal darshening what appears in the Samaritan text. But in this 'promising' instance, perhaps we should emend our text to match.

Post: The following variant, from Vetus Testamentum, from parashat Metzora, on Vayikra 15:10:

The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left shows the changes we find in the Samaritan text. Thus, while the Masoretic text is malei in both וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא  and אוֹתָם, the Samaritan text is chaser in both. Now, the general trend of the Samaritan text is to make the Biblical text more readable, and this typically involves transforming chaser into malei. This goes against the grain, and therefore is quite promising as being the original text.

Perhaps one could argue that והנשא is perfect (=past) tense. However, given that אתם accompanies it and is also divergently chaser, this is less likely. Also, semantically I don't think it makes as much sense. We could perhaps confirm by examining the Samaritan Targum, but unfortunately, the scan available at Google Books skips all of sefer Vayikra. I would consider the following as evidence that the Samaritans understood it as with a cholam chaser rather than a kametz associated with the nun -- Vetus Testamentum gives two Samaritan texts which have it malei:

Nor should we really consider this to be purely a "Samaritan" text. Quite a number of Jewish, 'masoretic' texts also have this chaser spelling, both for vehanosei and osam. Again, from Vetus Testamentum:

I would also add that, all else being equal, a chaser reading is more compelling than a malei reading, because of its seeming irregularity and the late introduction of internal Hebrew vowel letters.

It appears that Chazal had this spelled chaseir. For this pasuk is darshened in masechet Niddah, based on its chaser value. Thus, the Mishna in Niddah 31b reads:

מתני' בנות כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות והן יושבות על כל דם ודם ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק:

Or, in English:

MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SAMARITANS⁴⁴  ARE REGARDED AS MENSTRUANTS FROM THEIR CRADLE;⁴⁵  AND THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE,⁴⁵  SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD.⁴⁶  ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS,]⁴⁷  HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION⁴⁸  IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE NOR IS TERUMAH⁴⁹  BURNT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE THEIR UNCLEANNESS⁵⁰  IS ONLY OF A DOUBTFUL NATURE.⁵¹

The gemara on Niddah 33a reads:

<והנושא נמי יטמא ומאי ניהו נישא מ"ט והנשא כתיב>

Soncino does not translate it, likely because this text is removed from many a gemara. Rashi emends this text out of the gemara, writing:

ומאי ניהו נישא - בגד הנישא על הזב מאי טעמא והנושא והנישא כתיב לא ידענא מאי היא ונראה בעיני שהוא פי' משובש:

"ומאי ניהו נישא  {and what it is, nisa} -- clothing which is carried {nisa = supported} upon a zav {rather than what is under him}. What is the reason? The word והנישא , והנושא {with a yud} is written. I don't know what this is, and it appears in my eyes that it is a messed-up explanation."

I believe the 'peirush meshubash' means that the gemara's explanation, meaning the mai tayma; that is, some post-Talmudic author inserted into the Talmudic text this erroneous explanation, and we should not be gores it. (Or else some explanation existed and the text became corrupted. The alternative is to suggest that someone was saying that this was an erroneous or corrupted explanation in Rashi; but this seems much less likely.)

Tosafot differs with Rashi, and explains:

והנשא כתיב. חסר וי"ו. תימה דבמסורת הוא מלא מיהו מצינו שהמסורת הוא חולק על הש"ס במסכת שבת (דף נה:) גבי בני עלי מעבירם כתיב ובמקראות שלנו כתיב מעבירים מלא:

"והנשא is written: with the vav deficient. This is a wonder, for in the Masoret, it is plene. However, we have found that the Masoret contradicts the gemara in Masechet Shabbat (55b) regarding the children of Eli, that it states that מעבירם  is written, while in our texts is written מעבירים, plene."


I discussed this textual variant, in a slightly different way, just last year. See that post for my translation of Or Torah, Minchas Shai, and Chasam Sofer about this.

One rather interesting idea occurred to me this year. Who is under discussion in the Mishnah? The כותים. (Minchas Shai renders this akum, taking it to be a euphemism for or by the censors, but Kutim, Samaritans, makes some good sense.) And whose Torah text has this word written like this? The Samaritans! Thus, we could say, why are the Samaritans specifically מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון? Not (just) because שהן בועלי נדות. Rather, perhaps they themselves, the Samaritans, regard themselves as such. Or perhaps this derash, since it applies to Samaritans, is derived from a Samaritan text.

I would dismiss this possibility, since the derasha in question applies just as well to Israelites, to zav in general, and it is extrapolated from there.

Some more sources to examine -- (a) the Hagahot veChiddushim on this daf, and this Tosafot, regarding what happens if a sefer Torah diverges, in accordance with Chazal, and where not; (b) Chachmas Shlomo on the girsa of Tosafot.

Truth be told, I consider the evidence in favor of this girsa so compelling that I am tempted to say that our Torah texts should be emended to match this. But there is no real need to enter into a machlokes on this matter, I think, since this is just a malei / chaser distinction, and anan la bekiin in plene and deficient spellings in our sifrei Torah. Presumably, there are a great number of such corruptions, yet they don't invalidate our sifrei Torah; and even if they would, then surely this is not the only one, so we are not practically fixing anything.