Let's learn a sugya in megila [:ב] and if you stick it out the gemara will dance! Purim is around the corner so meseches megilla is the order of the day:-). Our PENETRATING analysis is NOT our own but that of the sefer מרבה שמחה in סימן ג.
והדברים נפלאים למביני מדע!
Answers the gemara - Indeed these letters existed before the period of the נביאים but it hadn't yet been determined which letters go in the middle of the word and which go at the end. The נביאים made the determination which letters go in the middle and which at the end.
Asks the gemara: At the end of the day סוף סוף "אלה המצות" -והא אין נביא עתיד לחדש דבר. So how did the נביאים have the right decide where the letters go??
Answers the gemara - It really had been the law all along and it was forgotten and the נביאים re- instituted the law.
End of sugya!
Got it?
Good!:-)
Now lets look at the parallel sugya in maseches Shabbos :ק"ג [with translating help from Soncino and Artscroll] - Now since if an open letter is written closed, it is valid, a closed [letter] is the same, [viz.,] if a closed letter is written open, it is fit. But how can you compare! If an open [letter] is written closed, it['s sanctity] is enhanced, for R. Hisda said: The mem and the samech which were in the Tables stood [there] by a miracle [this indicates that the luchos contained closed mem's] Thus, when a person closes a mem that should have been open, he elevated it to a form that was found on the luchos]. But as for a closed letter which is written open, it['s sanctity] is diminished, for R. Yermiya, and some say R. Hiyya b. Abba-said [The double form of] מנצפך was declared by the Watchmen [prophets]. But, is that reasonable: surely it is written, אלה המצות - These are the commandments, [teaching] that a prophet may henceforth [i.e., after Moshe] make no innovations! — Rather they were in existence, but it was not known which were [to be used] in the middle of a word and which at the end of a word, and which finally, and the Watchmen came and fixed [the mode of their employment]). ואכתי - But still, 'these are the commandments' [teaches] that a prophet may henceforth make no innovations? — Rather they had forgotten them, and they [the Watchmen] reinstituted them.
End of sugya.
Got it?
Good:-).
Now the party begins. In our sugya in Megila it asks on R' Yirmiya [who said that מנצפך was innovated by the נביאים] from the fact that אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר. The gemara answers that they didn't actually create the letters - just their placement in words, middle or end. Then the gemara asks סוף סוף אין נביא עתיד לחדש דבר. This clearly implies that there are two categories: First, a נביא is not allowed [רשאי] to make innovations in the Torah and create new letters. We answered that this is really no innovation because the letters were already there and the נביאים merely established their placement in words. Second - The gemara counters that we have a different problem of אין נביא עתיד לחדש דבר -that even such details are not left to the נביאים.
In contrast, the gemara in Shabbos even after the gemara answers that the נביאים just determined the placement of the letters asks ואכתי and still, meaning we haven't resolved our original question because we remain with the problem that אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. In megilla it seems we resolved the original issue but found a new problem whereas in shabbos it seems that the original issue is not yet resolved so the gemara uses the same exact terminology אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר [but in megilla the gemara changes to אין נביא עתיד - different terminology than originally used in the first question].
We have to understand the סתירה between the two sugyos.
Also, in megilla the word מנצפ"ך is written with two little lines between the פ and ך implying that it's just a list of letters while in shabbos the gemara writes מנצפך without those lines implying that it's a real word.
Why???
Also, in our sugya Rashi explains מנצפ"ך is כפל אותיות - double letters, whereas in shabbos, Rashi neglects to explain anything.
Why??
The explanation is as follows: Chakira A - Are the אותיות סופיות the same as their fellow standard letters just in a different form or are they completely different letters?
Chakira B [based on chakira A] - Is a letter primarily defined by its sound or by its shape? If the sound determines the definition of a letter then it makes sense that the אותיות סופיות are the same as the regular letters because they have the same sound. But if the defining feature of a letter is its shape then it makes sense that the אותיות סופיות are different than their sister letters.
This leads us to chakira C - Do we write JUST in order to facilitate reading or does writing have inherent value? If we just write in order to read then the defining feature of a letter will be its sound and thus an open mem and a closed mem [מ"ם סופית] are really one and the same. But if writing has its own independent value and form then an open and closed mem are two different letters. This leads us to discuss the relationship of a letter to the rest of the word. If the sound of the letter is primary then the letter is מתבטל and subsumed into the rest of the word. But if the shape of the letter is primary then the letter retains its independence even within a word. Think about it....
In maseches shabbos the gemara is understanding that a word is defined by the way it is read and the sound it makes and not by its shape. This can be proven by Rashi in the mishna [104b] who says that the letters must be נהגין ונקרין זה עם זה - read together. This is also borne out by the opinion of Rev Yossi who says that one is חייב for רושם just making a mark because it conveys a רמז even though it doesn't have the form of a letter.
Since according to this sugya the עיקר מחייב is the sound of the letter and the way it is read, it emerges that the two sister mem's are really two forms of the SAME LETTER. This is why the gemara was bothered by the fact that the נביאים established two different forms of the same letter. How are they allowed to do such a thing - אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר? Neviim are not allowed to make such innovations! Yet, even after the gemara answered that all they did was establish where the letter should appear in a word, the gemara was still not satisfied because the primary definition of a letter is its sound and the way it relates to the rest of the word. So determining where a letter should be placed in a word is ALSO an innovation, hence the question is not answered.
To allude to this the gemara wrote מנצפך without two little lines in between the פ and the צ to show that we view the letters in the framework of the complete word and the letters are in fact מתבטל to the word. This is also why when referring to the double letters the gemara in shabbos says הויא which is a לשון יחיד to show that they are really two forms of one letter.
That is also why Rashi doesn't explain כפל אותיות in maseches shabbos because it is really not "double letters" but two forms of the same letter.
However, the gemara in megilla is taking on a completely different approach. According to the gemara in megilla the defining feature of a letter is its shape. That is why is says מנצפ"ך with two little lines in order to show that EACH LETTER has its own significance. He also explains כפל אותיות because in fact there are double letters here, each one with its own importance. That is why the gemara refers to the two letters with the word הוו which is לשון רבים because there are really two distinct letters here.
That also explains why the gemara is satisfied with the answer that there is no חידוש דבר when the נביאים just established the placement of the letters. If each letter has its own significance then it really doesn't matter where it is written in the word. But the gemara is still bothered by the fact that it doesn't make sense that such a detail should be left to the נביאים. That is why the gemara uses different terminology in the second question - שאין נביא עתיד לחדש to show that it is really a new question.
NOTE: I ponder whether this blog is the appropriate forum for such analysis. If you read it and want to see more, please tell me. If you automatically skip over it - also please tell me.
If you are female I really don't expect you to be interested because most ladies are not particularly interested in intense talmudic analysis. This is not an insult [I have a reader with strong feminist tendencies and I fear offending him....] but a description of reality as I see it. That would explain why thousands upon thousands of Jewish girls get doctorates in everything but just about none in Talmud. This would also account for the fact that in general conversation a girl will never drop a line like "Yeah, it's mefurash in Shiurei Reb Shmuel on Ksuvos." And sharing with a girl a mehalech of Reb Shmuel on a date is a good way to prove to a her that you're an absolute bore [even though it's one of the most riveting books ever written]. Men and woman just have different brains and hence different interests. But if you are female and understood and enjoyed the post [for real and not just to try to make me feel good] I'd like to hear from you.
