Q&A: Textual Tradition or Reading Tradition
Textual Tradition or Reading Tradition
Question
I would be happy to know whether the Rabbi has a satisfactory explanation for this dispute, which seems very puzzling to any reasonable person. After all, it is obvious that we have both the letters and the vocalization, and it is impossible to follow only one of them. For example, in Sanhedrin 3b–4a, it is clear to everyone that although the written form is "yarshi'un," the intention is plural—those who declare guilty. Otherwise it would have been written "yarshi'a." And so on.
Answer
It is hard to elaborate here, and this depends on the approaches of the medieval authorities (Rishonim). In general, “textual tradition” means that what determines things is the written text. The reading tradition is an interpretation and does not determine Jewish law. “Reading tradition” sees the form of the reading as part of what was given at Sinai. This also depends on whether the dispute applies only when there is a contradiction between the reading tradition and the textual tradition or not (the medieval authorities disagree about this), and more besides. It also depends on whether we are dealing with an interpretive exposition or the plain meaning. In short, it is hard to elaborate here. I remember giving lectures on this, but for some reason right now I can only find a very brief discussion in lecture 12 here: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AEouDri5fuHfPes&id=395204EC53F39CE0%21581&cid=395204EC53F39CE0
I have now again seen a fuller discussion in lecture 14 and in the sources brought in the files next to it here: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AMbiFNQNnxwxPk8&id=395204EC53F39CE0%21584&cid=395204EC53F39CE0