Did the Scribes change the text of the Bible?

The Mechilta (Beshalach, Shirah ch. 6 on Exodus 15:7) lists eleven places in which the Biblical text used a euphemism (kinah hakatuv). For example, it says in Zechariah (2:12) "Whoever touches you, touches the apple of his eye." It should have said "touches the apple of My [i.e. G-d's] eye." However, out of respect for G-d, the text used a euphemism instead. There is no reason to believe that someone later changed the text of the Bible. Rather, the original text itself was written with a euphemism.

In Shemot Rabbah (13:1) we find that R' Yehoshua ben Levi quoted this same example from Zechariah but, rather than calling it a euphemism, he called it a "correction of the Scribes" (tikkun Sofrim). Similarly, in Bereshit Rabbah (49:7) we find his student, R' Shimon, giving the same explanation to the verse (Genesis 18:22), "And Abraham was still standing before G-d." R' Shimon says that really G-d was waiting for Abraham but, out of respect for G-d, there was a "correction of the Scribes." This explanation of R' Shimon is quoted by Rashi on that verse.

The question that remains is whether tikkun Sofrim means that scribes actually changed the wording of the Bible or is it really the same as a text using a euphemism (kinah hakatuv) but that the Scribes discovered and explained this euphemism? In other words, the Scribes fixed the understanding of the verse. Do R' Yehoshua ben Levi and R' Shimon agree or disagree with the Mechilta?

There is no reason to assume that they disagree. Indeed, the Rashba (quoted by R' Eliyahu Mizrachi on Genesis 18:22) explains that they do not disagree and that the change the Scribes made was to the understanding of the text. That is how they fixed the verse. Maharal (Gur Aryeh, there) agrees. R' Yosef Albo writes a little differently in his Sefer HaIkkarim (3:22):

The meaning is not that any person changed anything in the Torah, G-d forbid, because no one would forge a book and then say "I forged this" or "I changed this." How could they say that the Scribes changed it? Rather, the meaning is that... [the Torah spoke] like a scribe who changes his words out of respect for G-d."

While some editions of Rashi (on Genesis 18:22) have him actually saying that the rabbis changed the text, manuscripts do not bear out this reading. It must have been added by a copyist who made a mistake. See the Berliner and Mossad HaRav Kook editions of Rashi and the Yefeh Toar on Bereshit Rabbah 49:7. Indeed, had earlier scholars known this they would not have been so confused on this issue. For example, see R' Avraham Bucrat's Sefer Zikaron on Rashi where he argues that Rashi believes that tikkun Sofrim means the same as kinah hakatuv but then stumbles over Rashi's language. However, we have found proof that Rashi understand tikkun Sofrim like the Rashba that it means that the Scribes fixed the meaning of the text. On Job (32:3) Rashi writes, "This is one of the verses in which the Scribes fixed the language of the text. It should have read, 'And they condemned G-d in their silence' but the text used a euphemism (kinah hakatuv)." Here we see clearly Rashi saying both that the text used a euphemism and that the Scribes fixed the language. Obviously, the Scribes fixed the language by explaining the text's true meaning without the euphemism. See also Rashi's commentary to Numbers 11:15. Ibn Ezra, at the end of his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, rejects the entire concept of tikkun Sofrim. See also his commentary to Numbers 11:15 and 12:12.

However, it should be noted that the Tanchuma (Beshalach 16) as we have it says that the Scribes actually changed the text of the Bible. No less than R' Azariah de Rossi, who was called a heretic by the Maharal and whose books were banned, testified that two manuscripts of Tanchuma in his possession did not have this passage (Me'or Einayim ch. 19). Only one rishon, the Aruch (s.v. Kabed, 1) quotes this tradition of the Tanchuma. While the Aruch believed that the Scribes did, on limited occasions, change a letter in the Torah - with the exception of Genesis 18:22, every case was the change of one letter - the overwhelming majority, as we have seen, did not believe this. The manuscript evidence has proven that the Aruch was himself, ironically, relying on a faulty text of the Tanchuma. (See also Responsa Radbaz no. 1020, vol. 3 no. 594 who poses many difficult questions to the Aruch).

Regarding words that are written one way but are read another way (kri uktiv) etc., Radak in his introduction to Joshua claims that these were due to different texts of the Bible. For this, he was sharply criticized by R' Yitzchak Abarbanel in his introduction to Jeremiah. Abarbanel write, "A scroll which has one letter missing is invalid. How much more so that many letters would be missing." Therefore, Abarbanel suggests that the reading (kri) was added by Ezra as an explanation to the writing (ktiv). However, this too was criticized by later scholars.

The simple and most obvious explanation for kri and ktiv is that offered by the Maharal (Tiferet Yisrael ch. 66) and Radbaz (Responsum no. 1020, vol. 3 no. 594). The prophets who wrote their books included both kri and ktiv in them. Since, as some suggest, these books were revealed to Moshe at Sinai and then later to the prophets to say and write down, the kri and ktiv originate at Sinai. What this means is that the books were originally written with the kri and ktiv. In addition to this, Malbim in his introduction to Jeremiah boldly claims that the ktiv represents the simple meaning - the pshat - and the kri represents the exegetical meaning - the drash. Malbim follows through with this in his commentary and demonstrates this difference between pshat and drash. One who truly wishes to understand the Bible would do well to study it with the commentary of Malbim.

On the Authorship of the Torah

There is no document more central to the Jewish faith than the Torah. Throughout the Bible, the Pentateuch is called the Torah of Moshe (Deut 33:4; Joshua 8:31,32;23:6; 2 Kings 14:6; 23:25; Malachi 3:22; Nechemiah 8:1; 1 Chronicles 34:14) but in no place does it describe how it was written by him. What we will attempt to do is evaluate the evidence and present a view consistent with rabbinic teachings.

The Gemara in Gittin 60a records a dispute regarding the writing of the Torah:

R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Bena'ah, "The Torah was given scroll by scroll." R' Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) said, "The Torah was given sealed."

According to R' Yochanan, the Torah was written section by section and, according to Reish Lakish, the Torah was written at one time, at the end of the forty years in the desert, as Rashi explains.

Who wrote it? The Gemara in Menachot 30a brings the following Baraita:

(Deut. 34:5) "So Moshe, servant of G-d, died there' ( Is it possible that Moshe was alive and wrote "So Moshe died"? Rather, until here Moshe wrote, from here on Yehoshua bin Nun wrote ( these are the words of R' Yehudah, and some say R' Nechemiah. R' Shimon said to him, "Is it possible that a Torah scroll was missing one word and its says (Deut. 31:26) "Take this Torah scroll and place it..."? Rather, until here G-d said and Moshe wrote and said, from here on G-d said and Moshe wrote in tears (or in confusion).

So we see that Moshe wrote the entire Torah, with the possible exception of the last eight verses, after hearing from G-d exactly what to write. According to R' Yochanan, this process took place over a long period of time and according to Reish Lakish it took place at the end of Moshe's life. The Ramban, in his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, says that according to R' Yochanan the process was as follows. When Moshe descended from Mt. Sinai he wrote from the beginning of the Torah until the end of the passages about the Mishkan, i.e. the books of Genesis and Exodus. He wrote the rest of the Torah at the end of the forty years, as evidenced by Deut. 31:26. According to Reish Lakish, the entire Torah was written at that late time.

Scrolls of the Forefathers

However, the process was actually more complicated than this suggests. We find the following in Shemot Rabbah 5:22: "And Moshe said before the Holy One, blessed be He, (Exodus 5:22) 'Why have You done evil to this people...' I opened the book of Genesis and read it and saw the acts of the generation of the flood..." As R' Zev Wolf Einhorn points out in his Perush Maharzu, it seems like Moshe had some sort of book of Genesis well before he descended from Mt. Sinai. Similarly, we find in Yalkut Shimoni on Chukat (247) Moshe informing Aharon of his impending death by reading from the book of Genesis. According to Reish Lakish, that the Torah was written at the end of the forty years, how could Moshe have already had a book of Genesis? The Talmud Yerushalmi in Megillah 3:4 tells us that Moshe instituted that the Torah be read on Shabbat, holidays, Mondays, and Thursdays and in Talmud Bavli, Bava Kamma 82a, it seems like that was done during the stay in the desert. Yet, according to Reish Lakish, there was not yet a written Torah to be read.

The answer is simply that our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, and even those who preceded them like Adam and Noach, wrote down personal histories and theological works that were kept by their descendants. As prophets, their writings were sacred and treated like holy books. They were studied by their children and handed down from generation to generation. Rashi on Gittin 60a sv. katuv says that first the scroll of Creation was written, then the scroll of Noach, and then the scroll of Avraham. Unlike the Ramban above, that the entire book of Genesis was written at one time, Rashi seems to say that it was written at different times, scroll by scroll. Or, perhaps Rashi is not talking about the book of Genesis at all. Rather, he is telling us that all of these people wrote their own scrolls. Adam wrote a book about his life and what happened during his lifetime. He was a prophet and, naturally, this was an inspired book. G-d directed what Adam wrote. Similarly, Noach and Avraham wrote books about their lives, their thoughts, and the important events they witnessed (see all this in Torah Shelemah vol. 19 pp. 345-346). This should not be surprising at all. Indeed, we find that many other prophets, such as Shmuel and Gad, kept records of their lives and the events of their times (see 1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles 9:29). As we shall see, even Moshe kept such records. The scrolls of the forefathers, the pre-Torah prophets, are mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 1:3. Radak also mentions them in his commentary to Genesis 5:4 and 11:1. See also Meiri's Seder Hakabbalah p. 23.

Throughout the stay in Egypt and the desert, the scrolls of the forefathers were treated as sacred books and studied. These books, which were written under prophetic inspiration, form the basis of the book of Genesis. Granted, they were highly edited so that the book would not be too long. Also, phrases and even verses were added to the texts that perhaps even these prophets could not have written. For example, Ramban explains (Genesis 8:21) "G-d said in His heart" as meaning that this was only revealed to Moshe at the time of the writing of the Torah. See also Ralbag there and Moreh Nevuchim 1:29. Another case is Genesis 32:33, "Therefore the Children of Israel are not to eat the gid hanasheh." According to the Mishna and Gemara in Chullin 101b, as explained by Rashi, this verse was a later insertion by Moshe. See the Radak's commentary to this verse. It is possible that Ibn Ezra, in his "secrecy", believed that many more verses fall into this category and were inserted into pre-existing narrative by G-d to Moshe. Most importantly, G-d had to edit the scrolls in order to perfect the exact wording and phrasing of the Torah so that many meanings can be found in it. While a good writer can insert two or three layers of meaning into a text, only a divine Author can insert dozens of meanings. Despite all this editing, the inspired scrolls of the patriarchs form the basis of the book of Genesis. That is why the midrash says that Moshe had a "book of Genesis". He had a collection of scrolls that told the story of Genesis and served as the basis for what we now call the book of Genesis. These were also what were publicly read on Shabbat, holidays, Mondays, and Thursdays, much like we currently read from the Prophets as a Haftarah. Only after the Torah was written and the scrolls of Genesis divinely summarized and combined with other well-known scrolls to form the Torah did the Pentateuch replace the scrolls for the weekly readings. This can also explain what we find in Bamidbar Rabbah that the tribes had traditions from Ya'akov about what would happen to them. These traditions could have come from written testaments of either Ya'akov or his sons. Indeed, these scrolls could have been the sources of what eventually, after translation and some distortions, became part of the Apocrypha (see Torah Shelemah on Genesis ch. 50 n. 104).

Scrolls of Moshe

These types of scrolls were not only written by the patriarchs. It says in Exodus 24:4,7: "Moshe wrote all the words of G-d... He took the Book of the Covenant (Sefer HaBrit) and read it in earshot of the people." The Rashba on Gittin 60a quotes R' Avraham Av Bet Din, the author of Sefer HaEshkol, as asking how R' Yishmael, who believed that the entire Torah was written at the end of the forty years in the desert, understood these verses. The Rashba answers, "The passages that were needed at that time were written down so people could see and learn from them." In other words, Moshe wrote scrolls containing halachic information that people studied in the desert. Similarly, R' Ya'akov Gesundheit in his Tiferet Ya'akov on Gittin, writes, "The meaning here is that the Torah was given to the Jews with the sanctity of a Torah scroll only in its complete form at the end when it was written and given to them. Then it had the sanctity of a Torah scroll. Anything written before that time was only for memory purposes."

Similarly, the Mechilta of R' Shimon bar Yochai and the Midrash HaGadol on Exodus 19:6 write that on the fifth day of preparation for the giving of the Torah, Moshe wrote down things like he was writing a history book. Also, the Gemara in Bava Batra 14b says that Moshe wrote the Book of Bilam which the Ritva explains is a non-biblical book that has been lost.

So far, we have seen the talmudic and midrashic evidence that the forefathers, including Moshe, wrote books other than the Torah that were maintained and studied. However, there is also much internal evidence that there were other books written. Consider the following verses:

• (Exodus 17:14) G-d said to Moshe, "Write this as a remembrance in the book and recite it in the ears of Yehoshua, that I shall surely erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens."
• 
  
• (Exodus 24:7) He took the Book of the Covenant and read it in earshot of the people, and they said, "Everything that G-d has said, we will do and we will obey."
• 
  
• (Numbers 11:26) Two men remained behind in the camp, the name of one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad, and the spirit rested upon them; they had been among the recorded (written) ones, but they had not gone out to the Tent, and they prophesied in the camp.
• 
  
• (Numbers 21:14) Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, "Vaheb in the Safah and the rivers of Arnon."
• 
  
• (Numbers 33:2) Moshe wrote their goings forth according to their journeys at the bidding of G-d, and these were their journeys according to their goings forth.

Ibn Ezra on Numbers 21:14 says that the Book of the Wars of the Lord "was a book in itself and in it were written the wars of the Lord on behalf of those who fear Him. It probably was from the times of Avraham for many books were lost and are no longer extant, like the words of Natan, Ido, the chronicles of the kings of Israel, the songs of Shlomo, and his proverbs." R' Sa'adia Gaon, Ramban, and Chizkuni explain likewise. On Exodus 17:14, Ibn Ezra suggests that the book mentioned there is the Book of the Wars of the Lord. R' Sa'adia Gaon, as explained by R' Yosef Kaffih in his footnote, suggests that it was another independent scroll.

Another piece of evidence is Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the descendants of Adam." See Bereshit Rabbah 25:1-4 where this is taken to be a literal book. See Torah Shelemah vol. 1 n. 2, 6. It is possible that this is a section from a book that was written by one of Adam's descendants, perhaps Noach who is the last person in the list and was a known prophet, that G-d chose to include in the Torah. The fact that G-d retained in the text the word "book" is certainly significant and has deservedly received attention. However, it also serves as a clue to the development of the text.

What we have seen is that throughout history our prophets and wise men have written books on their lives, thoughts, and the events of their times. These books were studied and helped for our national identity. Indeed, it is certain that G-d guided the hands of our prophets to write what He wanted so that these books could be easily incorporated into the Torah. However, and this is crucial, the actual Torah was dictated word for word by G-d to Moshe. The other books have been more-or-less lost over time but remain in the form of midrashim.

Given all this, we can now better understand how the book of Deuteronomy was written. Most of it is Moshe speaking to the people. Does this mean that the book was all Moshe's creation? As the Radbaz writes in a responsum (2143), no. The Torah says (Deut. 1:3) that Moshe was telling the people what G-d had commanded him to say. See also the Ramban's introduction to Deuteronomy and Shita Mekubetzet to Berachot 21a. There is one exception to this, however. The Gemara in Megillah 31b says that the curses in Deut. 28:16-68 were said by Moshe on his own. In other words, Moshe (prophetically) chose the words to say to the people and, when G-d dictated the Torah to Moshe, these same words were used. It is not that Moshe wrote this portion of the Torah. Rather, Moshe's words were like the ancient scrolls that were chosen by G-d to be incorporated into the Torah. See Ramban to Leviticus 26:15 and Torah Shelemah vol. 19 p. 334.

The Number of Letters in the Torah

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 Words Letters Genesis 20,512 78,064 Exodus 16,723 63,529 Leviticus 11,950 44,790 Numbers 16,368 63,530 Deuteronomy 14,294 54,892 Total 79,847 304,805

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 Letters Letters א 27,057 ל 21,570 ב 16,344 מ 25,078 ג 2,109 נ 14,107 ד 7,032 ס 1,833 ה 28,052 ע 11,244 ו 30,509 פ 4,805 ז 2,198 צ 4,052 ח 7,187 ק 4,694 ט 1,802 ר 18,109 י 31,522 ש 15,592 כ 11,960 ת 17,949 Total 304,805

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 1. Genesis 1:1 5. Exodus 34:7 9. Leviticus 11:42 13. Deuteronomy 6:4 2. Genesis 2:4 6. Exodus 34:14 10. Leviticus 13:33 14. Deuteronomy 29:27 3. Genesis 23:2 7. Leviticus 1:1 11. Numbers 14:7 15. Deuteronomy 32:6 4. Genesis 27:46 8. Leviticus 6:2 12. Deuteronomy 6:4 16. Deuteronomy 32:18

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.