The one man's sin, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Summary: The word הָאִישׁ should likely be read as initiating a question, but that is against the nikkud. Shadal has no problem with that, but others do. They discuss. Finally, what this has to do with the authenticity of the Zohar. If nikkud is post-Talmudic, you can argue against it. Yet the Zohar, purportedly from Rashbi, discusses the orthography of nikkud.

Post: In parshas Korach, in Moshe and Aharon's defense of Klal Yisrael, they exclaim:

22. They fell on their faces and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?"		כב. וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל פְּנֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵל אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא וְעַל כָּל הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף:
		אל אלהי הרוחות: יודע מחשבות. אין מדתך כמדת בשר ודם, מלך בשר ודם שסרחה עליו מקצת מדינה אינו יודע מי החוטא, לפיכך כשהוא כועס נפרע מכולם, אבל אתה לפניך גלויות כל המחשבות ויודע אתה מי החוטא:
		האיש אחד: הוא החוטא ואתה על כל העדה תקצוף. אמר הקב"ה יפה אמרת, אני יודע ומודיע מי חטא ומי לא חטא:

The kamatz in הָאִישׁ is a promoted patach. That is, it began as a patach, but since there was no place in the next letter for a dagesh, because it was a guttural, compensatory lengthening turned the patach into a kamatz.

If so, this is the heh of the definite article, rather than the heh of questioning. Of course, we would expect a heh of questioning here, much more than a heh of definite article!

(And so Rashi intends in his comment here.)

Targum Onkelos on this word, according to Mechon Mamre, lacks the heh of questioning. Thus:

טז,כב וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵל, אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל-בָּשָׂר:  הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא, וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף.  {ס}

וּנְפַלוּ עַל אַפֵּיהוֹן, וַאֲמַרוּ, אֵל, אֱלָהּ רוּחַיָּא לְכָל בִּסְרָא:  גֻּבְרָא חַד יְחוּב, וְעַל כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא יְהֵי רֻגְזָא.  {ס}

The kamatz aleph ending of guvra supports the definite article ('the'), and the absence of an explicit question word indicates how Onkelos reads it. Of course, Onkelos will often have the kamatz aleph ending even where no definite article is called for. Yet the absence of an explicit question word is still telling.

Tg Pseudo-Yonatan, meanwhile, leads off with האין, to indicate a question. This does not prove anything, since we might say the question is implicit in the pasuk and Targum Yonasan just made it explicit. So too, the Samaritan Targum has the ה"א התימה.

Shadal, in Ohev Ger, notes variants in Onkelos, in which there actually is a heh of questioning there:

Based on מא"ד, לסבונא, קוסטנטינא and אנוירשא, he asserts there is a heh there in the Targum. Since the heh is not a way of marking the definite article in Aramaic, it is clearly the heh of questioning. And now he has a bit more support of it being a heh of questioning in the pasuk, even though it goes against the nikkud. He concludes:

"and so is correct based on the meaning, even if it is not in accordance with the nikkud."

He thus pits Targum Onkelos against the nikkud, and decides against nikkud.

He says as much in his commentary on Chumash:

האיש אחד יחטא: לפי הענין לא ייתכן שתהיה הה"א לידיעה, ואין ספק שהיא לתמיהה, וננקדה על דרך ה"א הידיעה, כמו שכתבתי באוהב גר. והחכם ר' משה לנדא נ"י תפש אותי במעמר ואמר, כי התמיהה אינה נופלת על האחד אשר חטא, כי אם על הקצף על כל העדה; וזה שיבוש , כי בכמה מקומות באה התמיהה בראש המאמר, אע"פ שעיקר התימה אינו אלא בסופו, כמו (למטה ל"ב ו) האחיכם יבאו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה? האני אשביר ולא אוליד אם אני המוליד ועצרתי? ( ישעיה ס"ו ט ).

"According to the meaning, it is not possible that the heh is for the definite article, and there is no doubt that it is for questioning, and yet it is pointed in the manner of the heh of the definite article, as I wrote in Ohev Ger. And the scholar, R' Moshe Landau, nero yair, seized upon it in the Maamar and said that the questioning does not apply to the one who sinned, but rather on the ketzef on the whole congregation. And this is an error, for in many places the question comes at the head of the statement, even though the primary question is only at its end..." 

And then Shadal gives two examples of just this phenomenon.

This is what Maamar had said:

"The Targum renders it גברא חד, and some sefarim have written in them הגברא חד, with a heh of questioning. And the scholar, the author of Ohev Ger decided and said 'and so is correct according to the meaning'. And my heart does not think so, for beside from the fact that the nikkud does not agree with him position, so does the pattern of speech oppose him. Does not the question only fall not on the one who sinned but rather on the ketzef to the entire congregation? And thus it would be fitting based on common sense for the heh to be adjoined there and to say התקצוף על כל העדה, or else העל כל העדה תקצוף. And primarily, the heh comes in place of the word אם, and the question is understood from the subject matter of the verse and falls upon the statement which is drawn after האיש אחד יחטא, and just as R' Moshe Mendelsohnn translates it. (The words of the printer.)"

(See the Beur from Mendelsohnn, just above Maamar, basing himself on Rashi and discussing the dikduk.)

Someone else who argues with Shadal here is Wolf Heidenheim, in Havanat HaMikra, printed in Moda Le'vinah, a supercommentary on Rashi:

"(Citing Rashi) 'האיש אחד' - he is the sinner, and You will be angry with the whole congragation?!' End quote of Rashi. His intent is that the heh of haIsh is not for questioning, for if so, it would have been proper to but the nikkud with a patach, as in (Nechemia 6:11) haIsh kamoni yivrach. Rather, it is for the definite article, while the wonder is upon ועל כל העדה תקצוף. And there are places that the heh of wonder is absent {J: but implicit}, such as (Iyov 40:30) יִכְרוּ עָלָיו, חַבָּרִים; יֶחֱצוּהוּ, בֵּין כְּנַעֲנִים. And (I Kings 21:7) אַתָּה, עַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלוּכָה עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל. For from the movements of the speaker and his winking and his hinting, the meaning of the matter is understood after the intent of his heart, that this is what was meant. Such that therefore there are to spoken words an advantage over written words, just as Chazal said, 'from soferim {=teachers} and not from sefarim {books}.' This because spoken words are with standing {?} in place of interruption {?}, and with diligence in place of leaning upon {?}, and with {prosody:} the strengthening and weakening of the speech, and with his hints and winks, he can express wonder, question, relating, hope, fear, and pleading. And with {such} movements he shortens the simple expression. And it is possible for the speaker to be aided by the movements of his eyes and eyelashes, and with all his head and hands, to make understood the anger and the wanting, the pleading and the haughtiness, to the extent that he wishes.


And with this remnant which is left to our clear tongue is found fine and deep points, which are impressed upon it, to understand the meaning and for them to be in place of these actions, which would be gotten face to face. And these are the taamim {trup symbols} which the reader reads from, in which are indicated the place of disjunction and conjunction. And it separates the place of the question from the answer, and the beginning {?} from the telling, and the hurriedness from the deliberate, and the command from the request, etc., as is written in the Kuzari, the second maamar, siman 72.


And he says further, at the end, that there is to the science of the trup secrets hidden from him, etc. And at the end he says to the king, 'and I have only shown you a very little from this fine wisdom, and that it is not random, but rather it is high {?} and from tradition.' And in maamar 3, siman 31

he adds, to say that without doubt it was preserved in their hearts, the patach, kamatz, the shever, the netiya, the sheva and the trup in the hearts of the kohanim, kings, judges, the Sanhedrins, and the chasidim, and in the hearts of the men of התונף {?} by which to be circumscribed. And they placed the seven melachim {disjunctive trup symbols} and the teamim as signs for these features, which they had received as tradition from Moshe, etc. See there at length, together with what the scholar, the author of Kol Yehuda commented on it.


And yet, I have gone on at length in all this to cast out the error from the heart of those making the mistake, who say that the nekudot and the taamim are an innovation which came to be in the days of the Geonim, and after the closing of the Talmud. And this is overt falsehood. For behold, this dispute {mentioned in the Kuzari} occurred in the year 4500 to the Creation, as is written in the first maamar there, siman 47. And the Rav, Rabbenu Hai Gaon za"l also already mentioned in his letters this dispute, which was to this scholar, the chaver {the author?} with the king of the Khazars. Therefore, the mind does not bear that the chaver would be so audacious as to say to a scholar and delver such as the king of the Khazars, to say to him about things which had only recently been innovated, that they were things which were received at the accepting of the Torah. 


And Chazal say at the end of Megillah {32b} that whoever reads without ne'ima {tune} and learns without zimra {song}, upon him the verse states, etc. And Rashi explains there that נעימה is such as the taamim of the verses. And in Masechet Berachot, 62a, he says that the taamei Torah are the songs, the taamei hamikra. And in Masechet Nedarim, 37b, as well as in Megillah 3a, the neginot {tunes} are called taamim. And in Bereishit Rabba, the end of perek 36, ושום שכל, these are the taamim, and Rashi explain that the taamim explain the verse, for in many places in the Scriptures, a person is able to understand via the trup the meaning of the verse. And in Masechet Soferim, perek 3, halacha 6, a sefer which has been pointed {with nikud} is invalid. From all these it is known that the words of the chaver are true and correct, and all of them were halacha leMoshe."

Basically, what Wolf Heidenheim is doing here is counteracting Shadal. Shadal thinks one can argue with trup and nikkud, because they are a late innovation. And that is what he is saying here. Argue on the kamatz in haIsh, because it is just not so.

Shadal has answers to many of these points, and I have others.

Let us try to respond to some of Wolf Heidenheim's points:

1. Proof from sefer haKuzari is sketchy. It was composed after the period of the Geonim, by Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi. To cite Wikipedia:

   The Kitab al Khazari, an Arabic phrase meaning Book of the Khazars, is one of most famous works of the medieval Spanish Jewish philosopher and poet Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, completed around 1140.^[1] Divided into five essays ("ma'amarim," Articles), it takes the form of a dialogue between the pagan king of the Khazars and a Jew who was invited to instruct him in the tenets of the Jewish religion. Originally written in Arabic, the book was translated by numerous scholars (including Judah ibn Tibbon) into Hebrew and other languages. Though the book is not considered a historical account of the Khazar conversion to Judaism, scholars such as D. M. Dunlop have postulated that Yehuda had access to Khazar documents upon which he loosely based his work. His contemporary, Avraham ibn Daud, reported meeting Khazar rabbinical students in Toledo, Spain in the mid-12th century.

   Even if it was based on an actual dispute, and even if R' Yehuda Halevi loosely based his work on historical documents, that does not mean that every aspect of his work is true to what actually was mentioned in the dispute!
   
   Similarly, even though Rav Hai Gaon mentions the dispute, he does not mention the content of the dispute. It is quite possible that R' Yehuda HaLevi innovated this aspect by himself, especially if he intent was not to be a historian but to use this as a framework to advance the truth and reliability of the Jewish religion. 
   .
2. Shadal discusses the age of trup and nikkud at great length in his Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah. See the Age of Trup, part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six, part seven, part eight, part nine, part ten, part eleven, part twelve, part thirteen, part fourteen, part fifteen, part sixteen, part seventeen, part eighteen, part nineteen, part twenty, part twenty one, part twenty two, part twenty three, part twenty four, part twenty five, part twenty six, part twenty seven, part twenty eight, part twenty nine, and part thirty. He answers many of the points raised by Wolf Heidenheim, and many others, in depth. I'll try to point to where he answers some of Heidenheim's points.
   .
3. Heidenheim asks about Talmudic references to nikud and trup. In part twenty eight, Shadal writes:

    It is true that the early scribes, the Sages of the second Temple era, established the reading in all of Tanach with the vowels and the trup, and therefore its reading was called "mikra Soferim {the scribes}"; but from the days of the scribes until that days of the authors of the nikkud, many generations passed, and we have already seen beforehand, in the days of the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud that many doubts were born and many disputes in the reading and in the separation of the trup, and in these the authors of the nikkud did not have a support or director except for their intellect and wisdom, and in these I see their impressive understanding and their extremely deep intellect.

   In part nineteen and part twenty, he states this Chazal did not have the orthography of trup and nikkud. Rather, it was an Oral tradition. This would account for any gemara talking about נעימה. So too for Bereishit Rabba, which is an admittedly early midrash.
   .
   For some midrashic references to trup, Shadal asserts that these midrashim are late. See part fourteen and fifteen.
   .
4. Heidenheim points to Masechet Soferim referring to nikkud. It is quite possible that this was composed quite late, post Talmudically, in the middle of the eighth century. See this Jewish Encyclopedia article. Or else, perhaps Shadal would explain the pointing in Masechet Soferim in a different manner. But in part eleven he asserts that Chazal never said that a sefer with nikkud is invalid, and uses it in a proof. (And in part seven quotes someone who speaks of Rambam and Geonim invalidating a sefer with nikkud.)
   

{Update: I neglected to mention a few other points.

1. Heidenheim might himself maintain it was an oral tradition. See what he cites the Kuzari as saying, that it was in the hearts of all these people through the years. I'd have to look in the Kuzari itself to see if that can support it.
2. If it was an Oral Tradition, as per Shadal, then how does that allow us to differ? Well, kamatz is not pronounced much differently from patach and chataf-patach, and it could be that the Masoretes simply encoded what they heard. The same for dagesh or non-dagesh chazak in certain letters. If so, nikkud need not be dispositive, if there is room for ambiguity.
3. And what would Shadal say? What he said above. That even the Tannaim and Amoraim have doubts and disputes as to the nikkud and/or trup, and so there must be gaps in this oral tradition. And while the one(s) who established the trup and nikkud for us was a most excellent scholar, that does not mean that one cannot argue with him.

}

This is all relevant and somewhat important because the Zohar mentions the names and shapes of nikkud, and darshens the form of trup. If trup and nikkud are a late innovation, then Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai could not have discussed them, and therefore the Zohar would be a forgery.

I'll just end with Rabbi Bentzion Berkowitz in Lechem Abirim. He mentions what a number of people say in this discussion, and does not really see a problem even with Onkelos having the heh hatema, since it is implicit anyway. See inside.