Below I attach an Insight of the Kollel's from Shabbos 55:5 which addresses this issue.

As you will see, the third approach assumes these seeming inconsistencies do not really stem from differing Mesorahs. Rather, the Gemara is expounding what is written in our Mesorah, as though something else were written there (due to some inference that was found in the verse that implies the other word).

In keeping with that approach, I would like to point out that of the three times it says that blood shall be placed on the "Karnos" of the altar, twice the verse ends with the phrase "and all of its blood you shall pour to the foundation of the altar." (Vayikra 4:30, 34). The third time, the verse ends with "and its blood you shall pour to the foundation of the altar." (Vayikra 4:25).

The two times that "all the blood" is poured, it is clear that there only was a single placing of the blood on the altar. Since only a single bit of blood was missing, it is still considered as though all the blood is left (because the lack of a single item is overlooked; for this reason the Torah often refers to 39 as 40 and 49 as 50 etc., see ROSH to Pesachim 10:40). However, in the third verse, the word "all" is omitted. This is because blood has been placed on the altar more than a single time, and therefore what is left can no longer be referred to as "all" the blood. This is the "Karnos" to which our Gemara refers (which implies two placements of blood on the altar.

(Rashi and the Ran write that the third verse has a Vav, not the first, as I wrote. However, from our Girsa in the Gemara it would appear that the first verse is the one with the Vav.)

Best wishes,

M. Kornfeld

========

5) ARE THERE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES?

QUESTION: The Gemara learns from the way the word "Ma'avirim" is spelled ("Ma'aviram") that only one of the sons of Eli sinned. Rashi points out that even though the Gemara says that the text of the Navi is "Ma'aviram," the text of our Navi reads "Ma'avirim." Rebbi Akiva Eiger, in Gilyon ha'Shas, cites many places where Chazal quote a verse differently than the way it appears in the texts that we have. How do we reconcile these differences?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Ma'avirim) says that there often are inconsistencies between the text of our Mesorah and the text of the Midrash (or Gemara). He cites an instance where the reading of a Yerushalmi differs from the readings of our texts; the Yerushalmi appears to have had the word "40" where our texts state "20." Apparently, the text of the Mesorah overrides the text of the Midrash, as the Mesorah reflects the majority opinion of the early authorities. See Also Chidushei ha'Ran to Sanehdrin 4a.

(b) The YAD MALACHI (#283) contests the conclusion of Tosfos. When there is a question regarding Chaseiros and Yeseiros (single letters that do not change the pronunciation nor the meaning of the word, such as the Yud or Alef of "Bereishis"), it is possible that there are two different versions. But in a case of an entirely different word , it is not possible that an incorrect word drifted into Tanach. The Yad Malachi explains that in cases such as the Yerushalmi quoted by Tosfos, Chazal are not telling us that the text of Tanach should actually read differently; rather, they are teaching that we can infer a particular understanding from the Tanach as if it read differently. The Yerushalmi that Tosfos cites that seems to argue with our text regarding an entire word, is not really arguing at all. (For further elucidation of this topic, see TORAH FROM THE INTERNET Parashat Naso, by Rabbi M. Kornfeld, Judaica Press, 1998. See also the Yad Malachi there who discusses many other such instances.)

(c) Our Gemara, "Ma'avirim" versus "Ma'aviram," is a case of Chaseiros and Yeseiros (because the question is that of an extra Yud, which is seen but not heard). Nevertheless, perhaps what the Yad Malachi writes regarding entire words also applies here. That is, Chazal are teaching us to understand the verse as if it said "Ma'aviram." Like Rashi himself says, "Ma'avirim" can be interpreted to mean that "the Jewish people passed around bad rumors about Eli's child (singular)." That is indeed how the Targum understands the verse. Therefore, even if the word in the verse is not "Ma'aviram," it is as if it said that only one of Eli's children sinned. (M. Kornfeld -- RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS, Ha'Mikra v'ha'Mesorah #2, reaches a similar conclusion. However, the interpretation that he offers to explain our Gemara based on a Midrash does not appear to conform to the words of our Gemara -- the Midrash is clearly following the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, and not that of Rav.)

The RITVA in Moed Katan 28b in fact proposes using an approach similar to that of the Yad Malachi with regard to a verse in Iyov cited by the Gemara there. Even though the inconsistency in spelling is only with regard to whether a word in Nach is spelled Chaser or not, he does not want to accept that there were differing versions of the scriptures.