There is a famous saying, from the Zohar Chadash on Song of Songs (74d),
that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah. The Megaleh Amukot (186) explained
that these letters correspond to the 600,000 Jewish souls that exist (evidently,
a person can have part of a soul because there are more than 600,000 Jews). He
also suggested that the word Yisrael is an acronym for "Yesh Shishim Ribo
Otiyot LaTorah" - "There are 600,000 letters in the Torah". The
difficulty with this is that the Gemara in Kiddushin 30a says that there are
5,888 verses in the Torah. Even if each verse had 100 letters, and a quick
check will reveal that the average is well below that, the Torah would still
have less than 600,000 letters (see Chavot Yair 235).
Furthermore, our Torahs have 304,805 letters. This can be verified by
counting and is recorded by the famous 10th century Masorete Aharon Ben Asher
in his Dikdukei Taamim. For the Torah mentioned by the Zohar Chadash to have
600,000 letters it must be almost twice as long as our Torah. However, we have
ancient Bibles such as the Septuagint (third century BCE) and the Samaritan
Torah (from before Ezra) that are almost identical to our texts (we discuss the
differences elsewhere). It is inconceivable that there was ever a Torah that
was twice as long as the Torah we currently have. Rather than this saying being
a statement about ancient Torah scrolls and therefore an indictment of ours, it
is a puzzling statement that does not seem to describe any known or possible variant
of the Torah.
The puzzle is solved, however, when we remember that this saying is
recorded in kabbalistic books. Characteristic of this genre, the statement is
referring to mystical issues and not the simple letters of the Torah. Some
claim that it refers to the strokes a scribe requires to write the letters
while others suggest that it refers to both the written and unwritten portions
of a scroll. See R' Reuven Margoliyot's Hamikra Vehamesora ch. 12. Whatever the
saying means, we can be certain that it does not mean that there are literally
600,000 letters in the Torah.
|
Letters and Words in the Torah
|
While we are on the subject of letters, let us mention that Rav Saadia
Gaon wrote a poem about the letters of the Torah whose total of 792,077 does
not match ours of 304,805. However, as R' Chaim Yair Bachrach pointed out in
his Chavot Yair (235), Rav Saadia Gaon's list is impossible. The list has
the alephs, gimmels, and zayins with almost
the same frequency in the Torah while everything we know about the Hebrew
language tells us that this is not naturally possible. Aleph is
an extremely common letter while gimmel and zayin are
not. The Tanach Yehoash has a list of how many times each letter appears in the
Torah. Aleph appears 27,057 times while gimmel appears
2,109 times and zayin 2,198 times. Aleph is
more than ten times more frequent than either gimmel or zayin.
Similarly, we counted in Genesis ch. 1 and found aleph 158
times, gimmel 5 times, and zayin 11 times.
From where Rav Saadia Gaon got his list we do not know. But he definitely did
not get it from counting letters in his Torah. How he could have used that list
and exactly what this sage meant remains a mystery.
|
Letters in the Torah
|
Is this number of 304,805 letters in the Torah exact? Did G-d give Moshe
a Torah with precisely that number of letters? We do not know for sure but we
know that it was very close to that number. The reason we cannot be certain is
twofold. First, the Gemara in Kiddushin 30a says that we are not experts
in chaser and yeter. There are certain vowel
sounds in Hebrew that can be spelled with (yeter) or without (chaser)
an assisting letter. It is important to note that the presence or absence of
this letter make no difference in terms of meaning and pronunciation. The words
and verses mean exactly the same whether they are spelled chaser or yeter,
which may be how these uncertainties crept in. Because of this, there are
certain discrepancies between even good versions of the Torah in this respect.
Beginning in the 8th century, the Masoretes tried to standardize the spelling
of chaserand yeter words by recording them in
their masoretic notes. Surprisingly, even some excellent manuscripts do not
follow this Masora precisely (see R' Mordechai Breuer's introduction to The
Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible, par. 20). However, this
standardization of chaserand yeter came after the
talmudic statement that we are not experts in them so the standardization is
not final (see Rama, Orach Chaim 143:3). Therefore, there remain differences
between texts in terms of chaser and yeter. Again,
it is important to emphasize that these minor differences do not change the
meaning or pronunciation of the words (see ).
The second reason that there might be slight discrepancies between
Torahs is that there are some words whose spelling is a matter of dispute. In
the Torah itself, there are two major questions. Genesis 9:29 has a word that
may be spelled ויהי or ויהיו. Ashkenazi Torahs have the former
and Yemenite Torahs have the latter. The difference is between singular and
plural and is insignificant enough to be lost in translation from Hebrew to
English. Small as it is, it is still a difference. Similarly, there is a
question in Deuteronomy 23:2 whether a word should be
spelled דכא or דכה. Here, there is no difference in meaning at
all. Some would suggest based on midrashim that there are a handful of other
single-letter differences in the Torah but others argue that this is merely a
misunderstanding of midrashic techniques (we discuss this at length in our
essay on The Text of the Torah).
In the end, out of over 300,000 letters in the Torah, there are at most
a dozen or two instances where a letter is under question. This means that the
Torah text we have is over 99.99% correct. That is important to remember when
discussing this issue.
The Accepted Text of the Torah
Some may wonder whether the less than one hundredth of a percent that is
under question presents an halachic problem. How can we make a blessing over
the reading of the Torah in synagogue if we are not entirely certain that the
Torah has been written correctly? The simple answer is that the Rambam wrote in
a responsum (Pe'er Hador, 9) that, for the purposes of synagogue use, even an
invalid Torah scroll may be used. While many disagree with this ruling, we rely
on it in times of great need (see Rama, Orach Chaim 143:4 and Mishnah Berurah,
29).
However, we do not need to rely on this ruling of the Rambam because of
two important halachic concepts. The first is that of majority. In Sofrim 6:4
we are told that this is a valid method of determining an authoritative text of
the Torah (we discuss this passage at length elsewhere). By taking well-known,
reliable texts we can resolve the few differences based on majority. This is
certainly sufficient halachically (Chullin 11a-b) but is also an excellent tool
for arriving at the original version of the Torah. All scribes err occasionally
but excellent scribes do so only rarely. By taking the majority of readings, we
can be fairly certain that the resulting version is based on error-free
transmission. The second tool we have is that of tradition - masora.
We can rely on good ancient texts because they were accepted as authoritative
in their time. Similarly, we can rely on the Masoretic notes because they were
written based on intensive study of manuscripts that were ancient even in the
days of the Masoretes.
These two principles have been used before. In 1525, Daniel Bomberg's
publishing house printed a rabbinic Bible - Mikraot Gedolot -
that was arranged by Yaakov ben Chaim. In addition to arranging this edition,
Yaakov ben Chaim gathered together the masoretic notes from many different
manuscripts into one text that he called Masora Rabbata. Many like to
exaggerate his role in the transmission of the Torah because, later in his
life, he became an apostate by converting to Christianity, thus embarrassing
traditionalists who rely on his work. However, his accomplishments were not
original but technical. He helped publish things that had already been written
and attempted to publish them as accurately as possible. Yet, his rabbinic
bible is still riddled with errors that had to be corrected later. This was
done by R' Menachem di Lonzano in his Or Torah and R' Shlomo Yedidiah Nortzi in
his Minchat Shai. These two scholars used the tools of majority and tradition
to clarify the accepted text of the Bible and their work remains the guide for
scribes as codified by R' Shlomo Ganzfried (the author of Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch) in his Kesset Sofer. The claim that Yaakov ben Chaim determined the
basis of the accepted text is entirely wrong. He contributed to the confusion
by printing a mistaken text and to the solution by printing masoretic notes.
The true determinators of the accepted text were the authors of Or Torah and
Minchat Shai (see Breuer, par. 23).
Recently, R' Mordechai Breuer applied this same methodology to the best
and most ancient texts of the Bible available. He used the following versions:
The Aleppo Codex, the Leningrad Codex, the British Museum Manuscript, the Cairo
Codex, and the two Sasoon Manuscripts of the Bible. Based on the principles of
majority and tradition, he arrived at a text of the entire Bible that is
consistent with the Masora and is, surprisingly, almost identical to the Aleppo
Codex. See his The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible. His edition
of the Bible is already becoming standard in many libraries and synagogues.
Going back to our original question, when we use the halachic principle
of majority then there is no problem of making a blessing. Halachically, this
Torah is considered acceptable. Similarly, there is no problem in fulfilling
the mitzva of writing a Torah scroll. While the Chatam Sofer (Responsa, Orach
Chaim, 52) suggested that we do not recite a blessing on the mitzva of writing
a Torah scroll because of the doubts regarding chaser and yeter,
this has been refuted by later halachists. See his student the Maharam Schick's
work on the 613 Mitzvot (613:2-3), Responsa Ginat Vradim (Orach Chaim 2:6),
Yabia Omer (vol. 8, Yoreh Deah, 36:3), and Ateret Paz (1:2, Yoreh Deah, he'arot
12:2). With the accepted text based on the majority of manuscripts and
Masoretic notes, we can assert that we have confidence that even the less than
0.01% of letters that were in question have been resolved correctly.
However, we cannot be absolutely certain. Therefore, a Torah based on an
ancient tradition that was in the minority cannot be summarily rejected. For
example, a Torah that has Genesis 9:29 written asויהיו, based on the minority
Yemenite tradition, cannot be considered unacceptable. While it should not be
written that way, a Yemenite scribe who followed his tradition and wrote it
that way did so based on an ancient masora. We must therefore
accept it as a possible version. See the sources quoted by R' Ovadia Yosef in
his Yechave Daat 6:56. He cites rulings by R' Avraham ben Harambam, Meiri,
Radbaz, and others as precedent. However, as the Meiri wrote in his commentary
to Kiddushin 30a, only variations that have traditionally been in question may
be considered acceptable ex post facto. For the over 99.99% of the spellings in
the Torah in which we are expert, including the thousands of chaser and yeter that
have never been questioned, variations are not acceptable.
Verses in the Torah
We have already cited above the Gemara in Kiddushin that there are 5,888
verses in the Torah. Some versions of the Gemara have 8,888. This version is
clearly incorrect because it implies a Torah that is over 50% larger than the
Torah we have. We can again turn to the ancient Samaritan Torah and Septuagint
that do not imply a book that is 150% the size of our Torah. However, this
version of 8,888 caused great anguish to many commentators, including the
Minchat Shai, who were puzzled that our Torah is thousands of verses shorter
than that mentioned in the Gemara. We can say with confidence that this was
simply due to a copyist's error.
The Gemara also says that Psalms has an additional eight verses and
Chronicles has eight less. With this, we find two puzzles in this Gemara. The
first is that our Torahs have 5,845 verses rather than the 5,888 stated in the
Gemara. The second is that Psalms and Chronicles do not have anywhere near that
number of verses. Psalms has 2,527 verses and Chronicles has 1,764 verses. That
is far from being within eight verses of 5,888.
R' Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, vol. 28 addenda ch. 12) quotes an
explanation of this Gemara from R' Yehuda Epstein, a student of R' Chaim of
Volozhin. R' Epstein pointed out that there are 43 verses from the Torah that
are quoted in Psalms and Chronicles - 8 in Psalms and 35 in Chronicles. If
these Torah verses that are cited in Psalms and Chronicles are added to the
5,845 verses in the Torah we arrive at the number of 5,888 that the Gemara
mentions. While the exact wording of the Gemara is still difficult, the meaning
seems to have been elucidated. It is not that Psalms and Chronicles have a few
more or less verses than the Torah. Rather, if we add certain Torah verses from
these books to the count in the Torah then we arrive at the number cited by the
Gemara.
The Middle of the Torah
That same Gemara in Kiddushin states the following: The vav of gachon (Leviticus
11:42) is the middle of the letters of the Torah, darosh darash (Leviticus
10:16) is the middle of the words of the Torah, and the ayin of miyaar (Psalms
80:14) is the middle letter of Psalms. Simply counting the letters and words of
these two books shows that everything on the list is incorrect. Does this shed
doubt on the authenticity of our books? Not only are they incorrect, but for
the vav of gachon to be the middle of the
Torah, the Torah would need another 9,667 letters. That is a large number of
letters to be missing.
R. Menachem Kasher (ibid.) quoted R. Yitzchak Yosef Zilber (in Shmaatin
issue 43) who offered the following explanation. Almost all of the letters of
the Torah are written in the standard Hebrew script in the standard size.
However, there are some letters that are written in an unusual fashion and some
that are written large or small. If one were to count all of the small and
large letters in a standard Torah, one would find that there are exactly 16 of
these letters. Of these, the ninth, the middle one, is vav of gachon.
In other words, the Gemara was not referring to vav of gachon as
the middle of all the letters of the Torah. Rather, it was
referring to it as the middle of all the unusually large and small letters in
the Torah. However, there is another tradition of large and small letters, that
of R' Yosef Tov Elem. But, even according to that tradition there are 32 such
letters and the sixteenth is vav of gachon. While
this explanation seems far-fetched, it is confirmed by noting that there are
exactly seven unusually large and small letters in Psalms and the fourth - the
middle letter - is ayin of miyaar.
Similarly, there are 77 instances of double words in the Torah (like
Avraham Avraham and Lech Lecha). Of those 77 cases, the 39th instance - the
middle one - is darosh darash. It is not the middle of all the
words in the Torah but it is the middle of all the unusual double-words.
|
Large and Small Letters in the Torah
|
The Script of the Torah
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21b-22a tells us what at first seems very
surprising. However, after a careful reading and placing the events in an
historical context they do not seem surprising at all.
Mar Zutra and some
say Mar Ukva said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri
(paleo-Hebrew characters) and in the holy lanugage. It was given again to them
in Ezra's time in Ktav Ashurit (Assyrian characters) and in Aramaic. Israel
selected for themselves Ktav Ashurit and the Hebrew language... It was taught:
Rebbe said: Torah was originally given to Israel in Ktav Ashurit. When they
sinned it was changed to Roetz (Ktav Ivri). When they repented, Ktav Ashurit
was reintroduced... R' Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R' Eliezer ben
Parta, who said in the name of R' Elazar Hamodai: This writing was never
changed...
We see three opinions regarding the script of the Torah. According to
Mar Zutra, the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri and in Hebrew but Ezra
changed it to Ktav Ashurit and Aramaic. The people, however, only accepted Ktav
Ashurit and Hebrew. According to Rebbe, the Torah was given in Ktav Ashurit but
was changed to Ktav Ivri due to the people's sins. According to R' Elazar
Hamodai, the script of the Torah never changed.
This passage raises a number of questions. How could Ezra change the
script of the Torah? How could he change the Torah's language from Hebrew to
Aramaic? Furthermore, if he found the authority to do so, how could the people
determine an outcome against his decision? According to Rebbe, why would the
script of the Torah change based on whether Israel sinned or repented?
R' Reuven Margoliyot (Margoliyot Hayam, Sanhedrin ad loc,; Hamikra
Vehamesora, ch. 9) answers all of these questions with the following historical
reflection. It is known that some ancient cultures had one script for sacred
purposes and one for everyday use. For example, the Indians only used Sanskrit
for religious purposes and not for the mundane. The talmudic sages mentioned in
the above passage were debating the extent of this practice of having a script
for only holy purposes in Israel. However, according to everyone this was the
practice, similar to the talmudic dictum, "Something that is used for the
sacred may not be used for the profane" (Avodah Zara 52a).
According to Mar Zutra, the first tablets of the ten commandments were
written in Ktav Ashurit (see Responsa Radbaz 3:442) but once Israel sinned with
the Golden Calf they were deemed unworthy. They could not be trusted to use
Ktav Ashurit for purely sacred matters. Therefore, the second tablets and the
Torah scrolls written for general use were in Ktav Ivri. This can, perhaps, be
seen from the fact that in Megillah 2b Rav Chisda says that the mem and samech
in the tablets were miraculously hanging in the air. This can only happen in
Ktav Ashurit and not in Ktav Ivri. However, in the Gemara in Sanhedrin quoted
above, Rav Chisda seems to agree with Mar Zutra that the Torah was originally
given to Israel in Ktav Ivri. Therefore, it seem that Rav Chisda would have to
say that the tablets were in Ktav Ashurit and the Torah in Ktav Ivri. Or, as
the Radbaz suggested, everything was originally in Ktav Ashurit but after the
sin of the Golden Calf the second tablets and the Torah were in Ktav Ivri. But
not all of the Torahs were in Ktav Ivri.
That the original tablets were given in Ktav Ashurit but not the second
tablets can be seen hinted in a number of sources. For example, the Gemara in
Pesachim 87b says "the tablets broke and the letters floated in the
air". Exactly what it means that the letters floated in the air is
unclear. However, on that same page the Gemara says, "Three things
returned to their origin... the script of the tablets". That sounds like
Ktav Ashurit being replaced with Ktav Ivri. Similarly, the Mechilta on Exodus
17:8 says that after the tablets were broken "the heavenly writing
returned to its place". We perhaps also see evidence of the disappearance
of Ktav Ashurit much later in history. The Tanchuma on Vayeshev 2 says,
"What did they do [in response to the Samaritans]? Ezra, Zerubavel, and
Yehoshua gathered the community to the sanctuary... and excommunicated the
Samaritans with the sacred name of G-d, with the script that was
written on the tablets, with the decree of the heavenly court,..." The
use of the "script that was written on the tablets" is important for
two reasons. First, it seems that this script was unique. Furthermore, we know
from the Gemara in Sanhedrin and from other historical sources that the
Samaritans used Ktav Ivri. The contrast between the Samaritans and the
"script that was written on the tablets" implies that this script was
not Ktav Ivri. We thus see that there is ample material supporting the Radbaz's
claim that the first tablets were in Ktav Ashurit.
Recall that Mar Zutra said that the Torah was given to Israel in
Ktav Ivri. The Ritva deduced from this that the special Torah of Moshe that was
kept in the ark and later in the Temple was in Ktav Ashurit. Only Torahs for
the people were in Ktav Ivri. The ability to read Ktav Ashurit was maintained
by priests and scribes, which is why King Yoshiyahu needed a priest to read to
him from Moshe's Torah when it was found in the Temple (2 Kings 22:8-11;
Abarbanel). The king had never before seen Ktav Ashurit and his reaction to
seeing it fo the first time, and in the Torah scroll that Moshe himself had
written, demonstrates the deep religious emotion it evoked. We perhaps find
hints of this in Isaiah 8:1 where the prophet is commanded, "Take a large
tablet and write on it in common characters". This is must have been
referring to Ktav Ivri that was used by the common people (see Rashi). Ktav
Ivri had gained such prominence that the existence of ending letters (ךףץןם)
was forgotten by the masses and had to be restored (Megillah 2b-3a).
However, Ktav Ashurit was still studied by the priests and scribes, of
which Ezra was both. When he saw that Ktav Ashurit was so forgotten that, when
it was written on the wall of King Belshatzar of Babylonia, only Daniel could
read it (Daniel 5) he realized that it must be reintroduced to the people. Yet,
he still had the dilemma that people would then be writing Hebrew in the holy
Ktav Ashurit for improper purposes. His solution was to translate the Torah
into Aramaic and introduce the Aramaic Torah in Ktav Ashurit into common usage.
That way people would become familiar with Ktav Ashurit without using it in
their daily Hebrew writing. This is what is meant in Nehemiah 8:8, "So
they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation." It was
interpreted by translation into Aramaic (Megillah 3a). (This translation was
later recreated by Onkelos). However, the people had lived their whole lives
with a Hebrew Torah and were not ready to change the language of their holiest
of books. Therefore, they decided to retain a Hebrew Torah in Ktav Ashurit but
conduct their daily business in Aramaic. This would produce the results that
Ezra desired because Ktav Ashurit in Hebrew would not be a part of the daily
routine.
Rebbe agreed with this historical reconstruction but attributed the
original transition from Ktav Ashurit to Ktav Ivri to the idolatrous era of the
First Temple rather than the episode of the Golden Calf. According to Rebbe, it
is even more plausible that the scholars always retained knowledge of Ktav
Ashurit. It was only the masses who were busy with their daily lives and/or
idolatrous ways who forgot Ktav Ashurit when the Torahs were changed to Ktav
Ivri.
R' Elazar Hamodai does not necessarily disagree that people forgot Ktav
Ashurit. He only argued that the Torahs were never changed from one script into
another. However, he agreed that people had forgotten Ktav Ashurit, the script
used only for sacred purposes, and that Ezra had to re-educate the masses in
the holy script (see Teshuvot HaRambam, ed. Blau no. 268).
As a final note, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 22a offers two opinions why the
script is called Ktav Ashurit. One is that the Jews brought it back to Israel
with them from Babylonia/Assyria (Ashur). The other is that it is a beautiful
script (me'usheret). Since the literal translation of Ktav Ashurit is
"Assyrian script", we must ask why the Gemara even asks such a basic
question. It is called Ktav Ashurit because the Assyrians used it. Furthermore,
the view that it is called Ktav Ashurit because the script is beautiful strains
credibility. We already know that it is called Ktav Ashurit because it is an
Assyrian script, as the words simply mean.
We have seen that many questions can be raised about the validity of our
Torahs. However, Judaism, like any other serious thought system, is complex.
While by necessity we were taught simplicites in our childhood, we need to
sieze all available opportunities to broaden our perspectives and deepen our
faiths. Rather than using questions as reasons to reject traditional Judaism,
we must use them as opportunities for intellectual and religious growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment