364) Who should lead – the rabbis or the representatives of the people?

 

Ateret Zekeinim (Crown of the Elders): Abravanel's first main work defending the negative image of the biblical elders.

Part 1

Introduction

There is a fundamental difference of opinion between Maimonides (Rambam, 1135-1204) and Abravanel (1437-1508) as to who is entitled to lead the Jewish people. According to Rambam, it is Moshe (or the relative equivalent in subsequent generations, which we shall refer to as the “rabbis”); and according to Abravanel, it is the representatives of the people (which we shall refer to as the “elders”).

This article is based extensively on the research by Cedric Cohen-Skalli[1] although the adaptation of this debate to modern times is my own.

363) Trying to define the theology of Abravanel

 

Introduction

The length, breadth and depth of classical rabbinic thought continues to fascinate and intrigue me unabatedly. One such rabbinic figure is that of Abravanel (1437-1508), who, the more one reads about, the more complicated a personality he becomes.

We noted in an earlier article that Abravanel is difficult to define as being either a rationalist or a mystic as he seems to vacillate between the two approaches. This article, based extensively on research by Professor Eric Lawee[1], explores Abravanel’s complexity even further.

362) Between Talmudic and Academic Academies

Rabbi Dr Binyamin Lau - a man straddling both worlds of Talmudic and Academic Judaism. 

Introduction

Is Torah study like drawing water from a well, involving a preoccupation only with a set group of ideas laid down by earlier authorities – or is it like a spring, with space for a constant flow of new ideas? This article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Binyamin Lau[1], explores the question of whether or not only old or precedented material qualifies as Torah study.

Two Talmudic scholars; two different approaches

 The tractate Avot records a debate as to which of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s disciples was the most esteemed: R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (described as the בּוֹר סוּד, or “plastered well” who only drew from earlier sources) or R. Elazar ben Arach (described as the מַעְיָן הַמִתְגַבֵּר, an “ever-flowing spring”.)?[2]

The plastered or cemented well only allows what it already contains to be drawn from it, while the ever-flowing spring simply becomes the means through which new material constantly emerges.

361) What Can't be Said: Social Engagement in the Torah World

 

"Microphone" by visual.dichotomy is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

 A GUEST POST BY RABBI BORUCH CLINTON: 

The internet crowd has been busy of late grappling with the question of how - or if - the exchange of information should be controlled. Should anyone be free to publish anything, anywhere? Is there an objective way to define things like "harmful misinformation" and even "truth" and "lies" so that filters could be applied fairly?

This post (which also appears on my Substack publication, B'chol Darchecha) will not address those questions, but they were its inspiration. So I'd like to explore how Torah law and practice might address the matter of free speech. How, in other words, citizens committed to Torah values might come to interact with each other. In a way, this post continues on from my Who Makes Decisions for a Jewish Community piece: that one deals with communal authority, while we're now going to think about whether that authority can be brought to bear on the way we share ideas with our peers.

360) Why was The Guide For The Perplexed intended to be a secret document?

 

 

Introduction

 

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) places tremendous importance on the meaning and usage of words. He dedicates major sections of his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For The Perplexed[1]) to explain how words are used in the Torah. He believed that most of the rabbinic world during his time misunderstood and misrepresented many basic words, especially those used in relation to G-d. Yet, for some reason, he also wanted this writing to remain hidden. This article explores some readings selected from early sections of the Moreh Nevuchim.

359) Is Torah Statutory Law or Common Law?

 

Introduction

Are our modern perceptions of both secular and Halachic law responsible for the way we view the laws contained within the Torah? This article is based extensively on the writings of Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman[1], a professor of Tanach at Bar-Ilan University. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks refers to him as “one of the most original biblical scholars of our time.” Berman presents an interesting approach that allows one to understand how Law, in general, functioned in the Ancient Near East - and in fact, up to recent times. Although he does show theoretical rabbinic precedent, some may find his method theologically challenging while others may find it enlightening.

358) Why the Insatiable Need for Magic?

 

Introduction

At what point does religion end and magic begin? Many of the magical activities and beliefs of some of the sages are, as we shall see, quite surprising. Have some religious practices become inherently magical, or is something declared “magic” only when performed (or believed) by the “other”, even if it is identical to ours? This article is extensively based on the research by Professor J H (Yossi) Chajes[1] who has opened up important vistas into the extent of Jewish magic.

357) Tehillim as a Rebellion against the Monarchy

                                       Political and Theological tensions in the Siddur

Introduction

In this article, I propose that the early to central section of the Shacharit (morning prayer) service, known as Pesukei Dezimra - incorporated into the Siddur (prayer book)  only at around the 10^th to 11^th centuries - was related to the decline and eventual demise of the office of the Reish Galuta (Exilarch), occurring at that time. The Reish Galuta had overwhelming religious, political and social powers, indeed mirroring the status of a Jewish king. The general tenor of the Pesukei Dezimra (essentially comprising the last six psalms of Sefer Tehillim) is one of rebellion against, and minimising the role of, the monarchy and drawing focus, instead, towards a divine Kingship. In other words, it was a reaction against human intervention and intercession in a theology that was supposed to be monotheistic.

Simply put, this is an attempt at answering why it was that specifically the last six psalms of Sefer Tehillim were chosen to be inserted into an already well-established Siddur, at that late juncture in history. Was it a “re-enactment” of why those types of psalms were instituted in the first place when the parallel and original biblical monarchy was also in decline?

Although I do draw on previous scholarship (in Part I), this hypothesis (in Part II) is my own and any shortcomings or inaccuracies are entirely my own.

356) Tehillim as therapy?

 

Introduction

I recall some years ago, the Lubavitcher Rebbe asked a number of religious psychologists to research Jewish mysticism and develop a “kosher” form of meditation for observant Jews. In this article, based extensively on Brent Strawn’s research[1] on psychology and psalms, we explore the possibility of using Tehillim as a personal form of spiritual therapy.

Attachment Theory

Since earlier times, Biblical psychology was generally synonymous with systemic theology (the theology of any given religious system). Today, we can be a little more universal and use modern psychology by applying it to biblical texts, including Tehillim.

355) R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila: The Psalms are just prayers

Introduction

 

In the previous post, The Psalms are not prayers, we saw how Rav Saadia Gaon held the unusual view that psalms may not be used as prayers and that, like the Torah itself they are meant only to be studied but not prayed. Psalms are not liturgy. According to Rav Saadia, the psalms were used as a strictly controlled and regulated ritual during Temple times, but never as liturgy (supplications or prayers). On this view, the psalms were never an ‘early prayer book’ as was claimed by the Karaite Jews. It is believed that Rav Saadia formulated his unusual and limited view on the function of the psalms, in reaction to the Karaites, who had rejected the Rabbanite siddur and used the psalms as their prayer book instead.

In this article, however, based extensively on the work by Professor Uriel Simon[1], we explore another unusual view of the psalms. This is the view held by R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila, who believed that that the psalms are indeed prayers - but nothing more than prayers. And because they are just prayers, they are not profoundly holy nor do they carry any prophetic or spiritually subliminal innuendo.

354) Rav Saadia Gaon: The Psalms are not prayers

 

 

Introduction

 

Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) was a philosopher and biblical exegete born in Egypt and died in Baghdad during the time of the Abbasid Caliphate. He had some rather interesting views about the origins of the psalms in that he adopted a fundamentalist approach claiming that the five books of psalms served as a ‘second Torah’ revealed to David.

This article is based extensively on the research by Professor Uriel Simon[1].

353) Who Makes Decisions for a Jewish Community?

 

A page from the manuscript of Pitchei Teshuva by Rabbi Avraham Zvi Eisenstadt (1813-1865)

GUEST POST BY RABBI BORUCH CLINTON

In terms of Jewish law, exactly what is a kehila (community)? Jewish residents of modern cities like London or Toronto will generally identify with each other only in the loosest of terms. Formal relationships, in non-chassidic communities at least, are usually limited to synagogues and educational institutions of various kinds. 

But it wasn’t always that way. Kehilos in Europe often submitted to the authority of a single rabbi, rabbinical court, and council. It wasn’t uncommon for consumption taxes - typically on the purchase of meat - or membership dues to finance communal services. 

A model based on direct communal responsibility is probably closer to the Torah ideal. But that begs the question: who got to choose the rabbi and his court, and whose voice determined the tax rates everyone else had to pay?

352) The Parshan, Darshan … and Sadran?

Muslim Spain at around the eleventh century 

Introduction

 

Parshan and Darshan are terms which usually describe a Torah commentator or exegete, but who is the Sadran? The term Sadran means compiler or editor.  This is not an expression one would expect to find in the context of the Torah. This article, based extensively on the work by Professor Richard Steiner[1] from Yeshiva University explores instances where our classical texts make reference to a Sadran. Interestingly, this is one of the most peer-reviewed papers I have come upon in a long time.

Some of the texts originated in Byzantium (Constantinople) and were discovered in the Cairo Geniza and published by Nicholas de Lange. One is a midrashic commentary on Bereishit and Shemot[2], another is a peshat commentary by R. Reuel of Byzantium, on Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Both texts are probably from the tenth or early eleventh century and therefore pre-date Rashi (1040-1105). These different commentaries have one thing in common, they both reference an elusive Sadran or biblical ‘editor’.

351) The Conquest of the Land?

 

Introduction:

The conquest of the Land of Canaan from the seven nations and the apparent decimation of all its inhabitants, followed by its appropriation by the Israelites, raises some interesting questions. Why did Israel’s history in the land have to begin with a violent conquest? Could not the epic tradition surrounding the founding of a just and moral nation under the guidance of a just and moral G-d, be something other than a conquest that is so typical of the founding traditions of other less moral nations?

In this article, we shall explore some of the primary texts of the Tanach, and try to establish what the biblical verses themselves have to say about this conquest.

350) Messianic Parallelisms

 

Introduction

In this article I want to show fascinating parallelism between the twelfth-century story of David Alro’i; the seventeenth-century episode of Shabbatai Tzvi; and a modern event from a completely different culture and context. By comparing these three stories, we might come to a better understanding of modern messianism which is popular within the Jewish world today. And, surprisingly, it may have a stronger component relating to basic sociology and psychology than to spirituality.

349) WHY BLOW 100 SHOFAR SOUNDS ON ROSH HASHANAH?

A GUEST POST BY RABBI BARUCH CLINTON:

Here's another example of the innovation-heavy Tzfas mindset at work in modern Jewish life.

The way most communities perform the mitzva of shofar on Rosh Hashana is an excellent example of the spread of the Tzfas ideology and mindset. Here, based on Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim 590:1, is what the Torah requires:

כמה תקיעות חייב אדם לשמוע בר"ה, תשע; לפי שנאמר: תרועה ביובל ובר"ה ג' פעמים, וכל תרועה פשוטה לפניה ופשוטה לאחריה, ומפי השמועה למדו שכל תרועות של חדש השביעי אחד הן, בין בר"ה בין ביוה"כ של יובל, תשע תקיעות תוקעין בכל אחד משניהם: תר"ת, תר"ת, תר"ת

How many tekiyos must a man hear on Rosh Hashana? Nine, for it mentions the word “terua" three times (in the passages concerning) Yovel and Rosh Hashana, and each terua must have a simple sound (i.e., tekiya) both before and after it. And from tradition we learn that all teruos during the seventh month (i.e., Tishrei) are the same…tekiya-terua-tekiya; tekiya-terua-tekiya; tekiya-terua-tekiya.

348) MAY PARENTS TELL THEIR CHILDREN NOT TO MOURN FOR THEM?

 

INTRODUCTION:

What is the view of Halachic sources regarding parents who tell their children not to mourn for them? This article is based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Shlomo Brody[1] from Bar Ilan University who writes that his parents did not want their children to observe mourning practices for a full year. He then set about researching the matter in Halachic sources and these are some of his findings.

NOTE: This is a purely academic exploration of various sources and is not meant as an authoritative guide. For practical purposes, as always, the reader should consult with his or her competent Halachic decisor on matters of this nature.

347) ABRAVANEL’S HYPOTHESIS:

 

INTRODUCTION:

As we have seen in a previous article, the theology of  Don Yitzchak Abravanel (1437-1508) - leader of Spanish Jewry at the time of the Expulsion in 1492 - is difficult to define and characterise.  He seems to have vacillated between rationalist and mystical ideologies, but he also had some interesting views on who wrote some of the books of the Tanach.  This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Eric Lawee[1], deals with some of Abravanel’s views on biblical authorship.

346) THE REGENSBURG TORAH CODEX:

 

The Regensburg Codex from around 1300.

INTRODUCTION:

The Regensburg Torah scroll (Ms. Jerusalem IM 180/52) was written in around 1300 and reflects some of the mystical writing practices of the German Pietists known as Chasidei Ashkenaz. Of interest is the unusual use of taggin (crownlets) that differs from our style today and other peculiarities that emphasise the mystical theology of Chasidei Ashkenaz. The Masora notes in the margins include many commentaries that clearly go beyond the usual scope of Masora notes. This article is based extensively on the research by Professor Hanna Liss[1] from the University of Heidelberg.

346) IS DERUSH PART OF TORAH?

 

Did Yosef's brothers want to encourage their dogs to kill him?

                                     GUEST POST BY RABBI BARUCH CLINTON

Note: I'm unsure how to even translate the word "derush". Words like "research" or "investigation" come close, but the way it's used in Torah literature has a clear overtone suggesting greater authority. And then, as we'll see, there are two distinct ways the word is used even within the context of Torah.

What exactly is "Torah"? Are there limits to the kinds of explanations and interpretations that can reasonably be included and, by extension, connected with the Mt. Sinai revelation? It goes without saying that modern efforts to understand how Torah law (halacha) should be applied to our lives are legitimate parts of the process, as are ethical works (mussar) that are designed to inspire us to properly observe halacha. But is any derush-based interpretation automatically included? What about commentaries that claim to fill gaps in the Biblical historical record? Are they "Torah"? By what mechanism could they be included?

345) REVISITING THE NOTION OF "ABRAHAMIC FAITHS”:

Antikythera Mechanism from second century BCE. This was an early analog computer which could calculate positions of astronomical objects.

 

INTRODUCTION:

Much has been written about the idea that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are united under the general banner of Abrahamic faiths. This is a good thing because we would all rather live in a world where there is more harmony than disharmony and there are certainly many areas where we have much in common. However, testing the notion of Abrahamic faith from a technically theological position reveals some interesting fault lines.

This article, based extensively on the writings of Professor Jon D Levenson[1] from Harvard Divinity School, explores how differently Abraham is depicted within the three main faith groups of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

344) WAS ABRAVANEL THE ‘FATHER’ OF ALL FUTURE MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS?

A 1767 edition of Abravanel's Mashmia Yeshua.

INTROUCTION:

The Portuguese statesman and commentator R. Don Yitzchak Abravanel (1437-1508) had lived through the harsh period of the Expulsion of practicing Jews from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497 respectively. He sought to inspire his people by encouraging messianic hope in order to counter the general feelings of hopelessness and despair. Between 1496 and 1498 he wrote three messianic works: מעייני הישועה‎, "The Wellsprings of Salvation", a commentary on the Book of Daniel; ישועות משיחו‎, "The Salvation of His Anointed", an interpretation of rabbinic literature about the Messiah; משמיע ישועה‎, "Announcing Salvation", a commentary on the messianic prophecies in the prophetical books. These form part of the larger work entitled מגדל ישועות‎, "Tower of Salvation". Abravanel counts Daniel - a symbol of the messianic idea - as one of the prophets, which goes against the Talmudic and rabbinic tradition which places the book under Ketuvin (Writings) and not Nevi’im (Prophets)[1].

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Eric Lawee[2] deals with some of these messianic ideas expressed by the so-called ‘father’ of Jewish messianic movements, Abravanel. After the Expulsion, Abravanel believed that the messianic arrival was imminent. Most of Abravanel’s messianic writings took place in the post-Expulsion period.

Generally speaking, scholars have held that Abravanel’s messianism was influential in shaping future messianic trends within Judaism, but as we shall see, Lawee points out that that assumption is not always so clear.

 

343) SCHOLARLY WOMEN - “ALMOST LIKE ONE OF THE PROPER MEN”:

INTRODUCION:

R. Baruch haLevi Epstein (1860-1942) is best known for his Torah commentary Torah Temima.  His father was R. Yechiel Michel Epstein of Novarodok, author of the Aruch haShulchan. R. Baruch Epstein moved to Pinsk where he remained all his life, besides for a short time he spent in America trying unsuccessfully to get a job as a rabbi. He worked as a bookkeeper. R. Epstein had studied at Volozhin Yeshivah under his uncle Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, known as the Netziv (who later became his brother-in-law after being widowed and remarrying R. Epstein's sister[1]). He died in Pinsk during the Nazi occupation of that city, while he was a patient in the Jewish hospital which the Nazis had burned down.

Besides his Torah and other commentaries, he also wrote an autobiography entitled Mekor Baruch. Some of this work was translated into English under the title, My Uncle the Netziv. Surprisingly, this book was later banned, see Kotzk Blog: 053) Hey, Teacher Leave the Text Alone!.

This article, based extensively on the research by Don Seaman and Rebecca Kobrin[2], will examine one aspect of that autobiography, concerning R. Epstein’s aunt, Rayna Batya – the first wife of the Netziv - who was denied the Torah education she so longed for.

342) HAYYUN’S HYPOTHESIS: DANCING BETWEEN THE LINES:

 

INTRODUCTION:

The Portuguese Torah commentator Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel (1437-1508) was an interesting exegete who was not afraid to pose penetrating questions or even criticise earlier texts.

During the 1460s, Abravanel wrote to R. Yosef Hayyun (d. 1497), the rabbi of Lisbon and presented a challenging question to him:

“My question and request is whether this book of Deuteronomy was given by the Lord from heaven, and its contents are like the rest of the Torah that Moses placed before the Israelites and everything from ‘in the beginning’ through ‘in the sight of all Israel’ are the words of the living God; or whether Moses himself composed Deuteronomy in order to expound what he understood of the divine intent in the elucidation of the precepts?”^[1]

In other words, was Deuteronomy essentially the work of Moshe or was the authorship of purely Divine origin?

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Eran Viezel[2], deals with some of the related issues that arise from this fascinating piece of rabbinic communication.

 

341) ‘VASSAL TREATIES’ AND READING THE TORAH IN THE ‘LANGUAGE OF MAN’:

 

Suzerain Vassal Treaty, as found in the British Museum, calling the sun and the moon as witnesses to land grants. These stones were often placed at the boundaries of the land indicating legal ownership.

INTRODUCTION:

Maimonides (1135-1204) writes that if he had access to ancient historical works, he would have had a much better understanding of the laws and institutions in the Torah. He refers, in particular to the writings of the ancient Sabians:

“I…say that the meaning of many of the laws became clear to me and their causes became known to me through my study of the doctrines, opinions, practices…of the Sabians.”^[1]

However, writing over eight hundred years ago, Maimonides expresses dismay that these works were largely lost to history:

“[T]hey have been out of practice and entirely extinct since two thousand years. If we knew all the particulars of the Sabean worship, and were informed of all the details of those doctrines, we would clearly see the reason and wisdom of every detail in the sacrificial service, in the laws concerning things that are unclean, and in other laws….”^[2]

The fact of the matter is that only since the time of Napoleon, have these types of writings, known as the traditions of the Ancient Near East, been discovered and analysed. We now know more about the practices of the Ancient Near East than ever before.

This article, based extensively on the writing of Rabbi Professor Joshua Berman[3], deals with an interpretation of Torah based on an understanding of the writing style of the Ancient Near East of which we now know much about. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has described Berman as “one of the most original biblical scholars of our time.”[4]

 

340) CENSORING THE TORAH COMMENTARY ASCRIBED TO R. YEHUDA HECHASID:

 

Image from The Temple Institute

INTRODUCTION:

In 1975 Rabbi Yitzchak Shimshon Lange published a collection of commentaries by R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1271), a leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz, entitled Commentaries on the Torah by R. Judah he-Hasid[1].

Despite the rather innocuous-sounding title, this anthology included three commentaries that suggest that certain sections of the Torah were added after the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. A fourth commentary suggests that David removed sections of poetry from the Torah and included them in his book of Psalms. All this coming from someone like R. Yehuda heChasid naturally raised some eyebrows.

In this article, based extensively but not exclusively on the research by Professor Eran Viezel[2], we examine one of these four commentaries.

339) DO SOME KABBALISTIC NOTIONS OF G-D VIOLATE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MONOTHEISM?

 

A 19th century depiction of the Ten Sefirot (unknown origin).

INTRODUCTION:

Kabbalists always had to deal with the challenge of their seemingly multiple perceptions of G-d coming very close to a violation of the monotheistic idea of a single unity of the divine being. In this article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Marc Shapiro[1], we delve into some of these perceptions in an attempt to see just how far they have sometimes gone.

338) ABRAHAM’S ANGELS AND G-D’S SPEECH:

 

 Three angels, Senoy, Sans(m)enoy and Semangelof, tasked with protecting newborn babies. 

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we examine the debate between the rationalist, Maimonides (Rambam, 1135-1204), and the mystic, Nachmanides (Ramban, 1195-1270) on the nature of the angels.  Our starting point is the episode in Genesis 18 describing the “three men” who visit Abraham by the oaks of Mamre.

There are a number of questions one could ask on the basic structure of the well-known text: G-d appears to Abraham in verse 1 and the three men, apparently unrelated to the initial vision, appear in verse two. Abraham leaves G-d and attends to the men. Then verse three suddenly changes from the plural to the singular: “My lord, if I find favour with you.” And in verse thirteen, G-d unexpectantly enters the conversation asking why Sarah laughed.

 

337) RABBI CHAIM HIRSCHENSOHN – BETWEEN RAV KOOK AND R. YOM TOV SCHWARZ?

 

Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn 1856-1935.

INTRODUCION:

R. Chaim Hirschensohn (1856-1935) is another of those forgotten rabbis whose voices have been quietened and whose ideas have been, unintentionally or otherwise, overshadowed by history. This article seeks to explore some of R. Hirschensohn’s thinking and is based extensively on the research by Dr David Zohar[1] who is republishing an updated version of R. Hirschensohn's writings.

336) WHEN THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO:

INTRODUCTION:

In reading rabbinic responsa literature (She’elot uTeshuvot), Halacha, and other writings, one sometimes notices a certain ambiguity. The subject matter is weighed up from all angles and then a final verdict is provided. Before reaching the final conclusion, however, one is presented with a number of options. What is the purpose of those options if the field of choice is narrowed down to only one ruling at the end?

Is it just a style of writing or,  depending on the personality of the writer, is another dynamic perhaps at play?

Some examples follow:

335) WHEN FAITH AND FACTS COLLIDE – THREE RABBINIC APPROACHES

Ketav Ivri

INTRODUCTION:

If the person of faith has not lost their ability to think, they soon realise that facts sometimes get in the way of faith. What happens when faith and facts collide?

This article, based on the writing of Haggai Misgav[1] from the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explores three rabbinic approaches to this question.[2]

 

THE TALMUDIC DISCUSSION ON THE PROVENANCE OF HEBREW WRITING:

There are two forms of Hebrew script, Ketav Ivri or Old Hebrew and Ketav Ashuri, the square script of the Hebrew we still use today. Technically, our ‘Hebrew’ script is not really Hebrew but Ashurite.

The Talmud[3] records a second century CE discussion between three rabbis about the original format of Hebrew writing:

334) Torah Institutions and the Truth

 

A GUEST POST BY RABBI BORUCH CLINTON:

 

Rabbi Boruch Clinton is a regular contributor to Kotzk Blog. He is most qualified to write about Torah education and Torah institutions, having taught at both yeshiva and Bais Yakov schools for twenty years. He currently works as an information technology provider, authoring books and courses on cloud computing, technology security, server virtualization, data analytics, and Linux system administration.

 Do people running Orthodox communal institutions have a responsibility to the truth? By which I mean: is the active use of deception and misrepresentation reasonable when, say, you’re attempting to protect individual children and families from possible harms associated with school closures and pandemic-related shut downs?

The problem

Here’s what I’m talking about. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of Torah schools were faced with mandated closure alongside all the public and private schools in their city. Rather than shut down, these schools claimed to comply while, in fact, remaining effectively open in one form or another. They also issued vaguely worded communications to parents that, in plain English, suggested compliance while hinting to alternate guidance.

There is no question that remote schooling is, in nearly all cases, less effective, perhaps even disastrous. Nearly everyone agrees that children should be in school whenever possible. The issue I’ll be discussing here involves the use of deception to achieve that goal. Is such behavior within the bounds of accepted Torah tradition? And, from the perspective of a straightforward cost/benefit analysis, does it even make sense?

323) TIKUNEI SOFERIM – CORRECTIONS OF THE SCRIBES:

Maimonides' Eighth Principle

 INTRODUCION:

Is a Jew required to believe that every single word and letter from the Torah is of divine origin? According to many - including Maimonides in his Thirteen Principles - the answers is a resounding yes.

In this article, however, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Marc Shapiro[1], we shall explore whether or not this position of Maimonides is the final rabbinical word on matter.

 

MAIMONIDES’ EIGHTH PRINCIPLE:

Maimonides' Introduction to Mishnah Sanhedrin, chapter 10, also known as Perek Chelek contains his famous Thirteen Principles of Faith.

The eighth principle states:

“That the Torah has been revealed from heaven. This implies our belief that the whole of this Torah found in our hands this day is the Torah that was handed down by Moses and that it is all of divine origin.

By this I mean that the whole of the Torah came unto him from before God in a manner which is metaphorically called ‘speaking’; but the real nature of that communication is unknown to everybody except to Moses…

And there is no difference between verses like ובני חם כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען “And the sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim, Phut and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6)…and verses like אנכי ה’ אלהיך ‘I am the Lord thy God’ (Exodus 20:2), and שמע ישראל ‘Hear, O Israel’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). They are all equally of divine origin and all belong to the תורת ה’ תמימה טהורה וקדושה אמת “The Law of God which is perfect, pure, holy, and true…

[O]ne who believes that all the Torah is of divine origin save a certain verse which (says he) was not spoken by God but by Moses himself … of such a one the verse says כי דבר ה’ בזה ‘For he hath despised the word of the Lord’ (Numbers 15:31).”[2]

Here Maimonides clearly, and in no uncertain terms, lays out the fundamental parameters for the Jewish belief that the entire Torah which we have today is absolutely of divine origin. There can be no give or take - and if there is, one is a deemed a heretic.[3]

Accordingly, there can be no accommodation of a concept of ‘history’ or ‘development’ of the Pentateuchal texts.

Shapiro (2011:91) captures the prevailing sentiment as follows:

“In popular circles this aspect of the [Maimonidean][4] Principle is often repeated dogmatically as if traditional Judaism is unimaginable without it.”

Thus, across the spectrum of contemporary Jewish writings, we find expressions similar to the following:

“The text of the Torah has been preserved as it was given more than 3,000 years ago without an addition or deletion of a verse, a single word, or even a single letter.”[5]

Even the popular ArtScroll Chumash[6] (Pentateuch) refers to the “unanimously held view that every letter and word was given to Moses by God”, indicating that the matter has been settled for once and for all, and that this position is “unanimous”.

 

MASORETIC “TEXT” OR “TEXTS”?

The standard version of the Torah text that we use today is known as the Masoretic[7] text, which essentially originated from Aaron ben Asher around the tenth century. Aaron ben Asher was one of three main schools of biblical grammarians and scribes at that time who collected and collated centuries of older scrolls. The Ben Asher scroll became the dominant version which Maimonides was later to endorse.

[See Kotzk Blog: 073) THE ALEPPO CODEX - The Mystery Surrounding the Most Important Manuscript in Jewish History:]

However, Maimonides’ son, Avraham ben haRambam, conceded that there was no one authoritative text. And although his father said that the text now known as the Aleppo Codex (which contained the Ben Asher Masoretic text) was the most accurate scroll, Avraham ben haRambam was not prepared to invalidate other scrolls that differed from his father’s scroll of choice.^[8]

Interestingly, the Catalan Rishon, R. Menachem ben Shlomo Meiri (1249–1315) wrote about the Masoretic “texts” (in the plural).[9] It is correct that there may not have been major differences between the different Masoretic versions, but to say that they matched each other in every single word and letter would be incorrect.

Shapiro (2011:93) explains just how relatively recently the updated Masoretic version in use today is:

“When we currently speak of the Masoretic text or the textus receptus, we refer to the edition of the Bible edited in 1525 by the future apostate Jacob ben Hayim (c.1470-c.1538), including the corrections made to it by the Masoretic scholars R. Menahem de Lonzano (1550-c.1620) and R. Yedidyah Solomon Norzi (1560-1616). Before this time, pentateuchal texts, even though they can be termed Masoretic, were not united around a single text.”

Shapiro continues in a footnote:

“As for the apostasy of Jacob b. Hayim, earlier scholars were often unaware of this and thus referred to him in glowing terms…Communications not being what they are today, this is not surprising. However, in our day, when anyone can open an encylopedia and learn this information, it is truly remarkable that a book[10] could be published, in Benei Berak no less, which describes Jacob b. Hayim as one of the great scholars of Israel.”

In a similar vein, there is also evidence that Ben Asher himself may have been a Karaite Jew. Karaites were known to be meticulous in their reverence to the Written Law and opposed to the Oral or rabbinic tradition. If this is the case, it would mean that there is a surprising Karaite link in the Mesora chain.

[See Kotzk Blog: 122) BEN ASHER - A KARAITE LINK IN THE MESORA CHAIN?]

 

SOME VARIANCES:

Our Masoretic texts do have a number of variances, prompting R. Moshe Feinstein to write that “the kashrut of our Torah scrolls is not so certain.”

The Talmud itself contains quotations of verses from the Tanach that are different from our accepted Masoretic texts. There is even a responsum from R. Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashba, c.1235-c.1310) who discusses when Torah scrolls need to be corrected in keeping with these Talmudic versions. One of these variants is found in the first verse of the text of the Ten Commandments where in one instance it has הוצאתך and in another, הוצאתיך.  Other times the differences are with entire words. And the Talmudic versions of the Tanach contain variances more stark than those in the Torah text.

R. Aryeh Loeb Guenzberg (1695-1785) and R. Eleazar Fleckeles (1754-1826) went so far as to suggest that (mide’oraita) we are no longer able to fulfil the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah because our present texts are not accurate enough to allows us do so. Also, if the Talmudic version is correct then our current Torah scrolls would certainly be invalid.[11]

With regard to the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshitta, and Targumim, (while some variances may be due to scribal error) there are distinctly different textual traditions. This is noteworthy with particular regard to the Septuagint because we are quick to tell the story of the seventy-two sages who independently translated the Torah text into Greek in the third century BCE, and they duly produced the exact same word-perfect translation. What we forget is that the version of that Septuagint differs from our version.

During Temple times the variances in Torah scrolls is indisputable. R. Akiva and R. Ami spoke of the importance of using a corrected text:

  וכשאתה מלמד את בנך למדהו בספר מוגה

“[R. Akiva said] And when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected scroll” ^[12]

 

אתמר ספר שאינו מוגה אמר רבי אמי עד ל' יום מותר לשהותו מכאן ואילך אסור לשהותו משום שנא' אל תשכן באהליך עולה

“[R. Ami said] One may keep an uncorrected text for up to thirty days, but from then onwards one may not retain it, as it is said ‘And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14)’.”[13]

Midrashic sources tell of R. Meir who had a Torah scroll that differed from that of his colleagues.[14] Instead of his text of Bereishit reading  “G-d saw all that He had made and behold it was good” טוב מאד, it read “behold death was good” טוב מות. Similarly, our texts read “garments of skin” עור, R. Meir’s scroll read “garments of light” אור.

Shapiro explains that it is possible that R. Meir’s scroll came from Severus which is mentioned in Bereishit Rabati. This Midrash records some textual variants found in the scroll which “came out of Jerusalem in captivity and went up to Rome and was stored in the synagogue of Severus.”

Yemenites today use a Torah scroll that have nine differences in single letters, to the texts used by most other Jews.

All this adds up to the fact that it is impossible to speak of the Torah “now found in our hands” which is the same one as G-d gave to Moshe at Sinai, because there is no singular text.

R. Yakov Kamenetzky (1891-1986) suggested that it is possible that Maimonides had a different text of the Pentateuch to ours.[15]

 

WHEN TEXT TAMPERING IS PERMITTED:

The rabbinic sages refer to tikunei soferim, or scribal corrections, where earlier copyists of the Torah scrolls sometimes ‘corrected’ the texts. These changes were made when it was considered that certain texts were disrespectful towards G-d, or when the text was too anthropomorphic (ascribing human characteristics to G-d):

 

a) BEREISHIT 18:22

An example of this is Bereishit 18:22 where, after the angels inform Sarah that she will have a child and then depart for Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham escorts them and he remains standing alone after they are gone. The verse reads:

“The men had turned from there and went to Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before Hashem”

וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עוֹדֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃

The eleventh century biblical commentator Rashi explains that Abraham did not approach G-d but instead, G-d approached Abraham telling him that the cries of Sodom had become great. The text therefore, should have read that G-d remained standing with Abraham. However, that would have been disrespectful to G-d, so the scribes ‘corrected’ the text.

ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ה'. וַהֲלֹא לֹא הָלַךְ לַעֲמֹד לְפָנָיו, אֶלָּא הַקָּבָּ"ה בָּא אֶצְלוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ, זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה, וְהָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב "וַה' עוֹדֶנּוּ עוֹמֵד עַל אַבְרָהָם"? אֶלָּא תִּקּוּן סוֹפְרִים הוּא זֶה (אֲשֶׁר הֲפָכוּהוּ רַזִ"לִ לִכְתֹּב כֵּן) (בראשית רבה)

The bracketed section explains what tikkun soferim means: “[that] which our Rabbis, of blessed memory, altered, writing it thus”.

Rashi, quoting Midrash Rabbah, in this case clearly acknowledges some form of alteration to the biblical texts by the rabbis.

Shapiro (2011:98) mentions that this particular Rashi commentary does not appear in some manuscripts, and some, therefore, deny its authenticity. However, they seem to have overlooked Rashi’s commentary on Job 32:3 where he repeats this notion and gives further examples of tikkun soferim:

 

b) JOB 32:3

וירשיעו את איוב. זה אחד מן המקראות שתקנו סופרים את לשון הכתוב וירשיעו כלפי המקום בשתיקותם היה לו לכתוב אלא שכינה הכתוב

Commenting on the verse: “He was angry as well at his three friends, because they found no reply, but merely condemned Job”, Rashi writes:

“This is one of the verses wherein the Scribes rectified the language of the Scripture. ‘And they condemned,’ as directed against the Omnipresent, by remaining silent, should have been written, but Scripture euphemized.”

 

c) NUMBERS 11:15

Rashi then brings other examples, including one from Bamidbar 11:15 where Moses complains to G-d that he can no longer bear this nation and says it’s better to die,  ואל אראה ברעתי – “and let me not see my evil.” Rashi again states this as another example of tikkun soferim where the scribes “corrected” the text which originally read: ברעתו – “and let me not see His [G-d’s] evil”.

Rashi concludes by saying:

וכן הרבה מקומות בספרי ובמסורת הגדולה

“And there are many other examples of this [tikunei soferim] …”

 

SCRIBAL CORRECTIONS (TIKUNEI SOFERIM) RELATED TO EZRA:

Identifying just who these ‘scribes’ were who corrected the texts usually leads one directly to Ezra. Tikunei soferim is often used synonymously with Tikunei Ezra. A Cairo Geniza fragment refers to “a tikkun [textual correction] of Ezra and the scribes”.[16] Another fragment refers to “a tikkun of Ezra, Nehemiah and Zachariah and Haggai and Baruch”.[17]

The Midrash Tanchuma^[18] similarly writes that it was Ezra’s Anshei Kenesset haGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly)^[19] who changed certain words of the Torah.

Also of significance is the view of R.  Eleazar of Worms (1176-1238) the last leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz, who attributed the book of Psalms to Ezra and not to David. This represents a very radical departure from the traditional view on the authorship and provenance of the Book of Psalms.

[See Kotzk Blog: 318) AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS – THE DISCOVERY OF A LOST TEXT FROM CHASSIDEI ASHKENAZ:]

According to Ta-Shma, in a text by a R. Shlomo ben Shmuel, student of R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217), the word “Azazel” (mentioned in Vayikra 16:10 in the story of the he-goat to be pushed off the cliff) is not a Hebrew word but is Aramaic. R. Shlomo ben Shmuel has no issue with saying that Moshe did not write that verse and that it is a later insertion. He writes:

“Do not be surprised at what I say, that another wrote it, because this is not unique, and there are many [verses] which Moses did not say…”[20]

 

DISPARATE VERSIOINS OF THE MASORETIC TEXTS:

Shapiro (2011:98) cites the following verse from Vayikra, as an example of disparate versions of the Masoretic text:

וְכִֽי־יָג֧וּר אִתְּךָ֛ גֵּ֖ר בְּאַרְצְכֶ֑ם לֹ֥א תוֹנ֖וּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

“When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him.”[21]

In the Hebrew, the grammar is inconsistent as the verse should read either in the singular אתך – ארצך, or the in plural אתכם – ארצכם.

Of course, one could adduce all sorts of interpretive reasons for this inconsistency but a variant reading of אתכם instead of our version of אתך is actually found in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmudim. And that same plural variant becomes the basis for the translations of Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rav Saadia Gaon.

(One could also add that the plural version is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and is the basis for the translations of the Septuagint, Neofiti, Vulgate, and Peshitta.)

The Targum Onkelos reads:

וַאֲרֵי יִתְגַּיַּר עִמָּכון גִּיּוֹרָא בְּאַרְעֲכוֹן לָא תוֹנוּן יָתֵיהּ:

This version maintains the (plural) grammatical consistency throughout the verse, and seems to be based on a variant text.[22]

The same (plural) grammatical consistency in the verse is repeated in Targum Yonatan:

וַאֲרוּם אִין אִיתְגַיֵיר וְאִיתְחַזֵק עִמְכוֹן גִיוֹרָא בְּאַרְעֲכוֹן לָא תוֹנוּ יָתֵיהּ בְּמִילִין קָשִׁין

This Targum Yonatan also seems to be based on a variant text from the standard Masoretic text used today (and it adds the words בְּמִילִין קָשִׁין).

 

ANALYSIS:

While popular Chumashim refer to the “unanimously held view that every letter and word was given to Moses by God”, we see a different stance taken by many classical rabbinical sources. The matter may be controversial but it is far from unanimous.

Certainly, not everyone would agree with the examples we have seen, and, at best would say that tikunei soferim refer somehow to the original biblical text being written with and containing these “corrections” in the first instance - or, at worst, would say that all these sources are not authentic and that they are even fraudulent. Others would take the middle ground and say they are merely the views of individual rabbis whose opinions have been rejected by the mainstream, and hence, irrelevant.

R. Shmuel Yaffe, author of the Yefeh To’ar commentary on Midrash Rabbah, writes:

“if we admit that the scribes altered [the text] in one place, what prevents us from saying so with regard to the other places?”^[23]

On the other hand, rabbis like Chaim Hirschensohn (1857-1935) maintained that it is not at all ‘heretical’ to point out that the text of the Pentateuch undergoes scribal emendations as even Rashi has shown that it does. On the contrary, he says, when dealing with such issues (such as the matters we are discussing) it is even considered part of the mitzvah of Torah study.[24]

Alternatively, one could adopt the approach of saying that textual analysis is textual analysis, and Halacha is Halacha. Although it is often tempting to blur the boundaries, both are very different worlds. The fascinating stance of seventeenth century Egyptian rabbi Avraham ben Mordechai haLevi is that once the Halacha concerning Sifrei Torah has been determined - which it has - we consider our current Torah text, for all intents and purposes, to be “as if” (ke’ilu) it is from Sinai.[25]

Wherever one chooses to position oneself within the divergent spectrum of all these views, at least we know that there is a spectrum, and that the rabbinic position, notwithstanding the view of Maimonides, is far from unanimous.

 

---

[1][1] Marc. B Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in association with Liverpool University Press; 1st edition (August 25, 2011).

[2] Maimonides' Introduction to "Helek" by Maimonides, translated by J. Abelson

[3] Maimonides, Hilchot Teshuva, 3:8. The Eighth Principle continues with the injunction to further believe that the Oral Law and rabbinic tradition is similarly of divine origin:

“The interpretation of traditional law is in like manner of divine origin. And that which we know to-day of the nature of Succah, Lulab, Shofar, Fringes, and Phylacteries (סוכה, לולב, שופר, ציצית, תפילין) is essentially the same as that which God commanded Moses, and which the latter told us.”

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Avraham Kushelevsky, Meetings between Judaism, Science, and Technology on the Basis of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles, Jerusalem, 2001, 86.

[6] Chumash, The Stone Edition, Mesorah Publication Ltd, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, 1993, xix.

[7] ‘Masoretic’ is from the Hebrew word mesora which means tradition.

[8] Teshuvot Avraham ben haRambam, no. 91.

[9] Meiri, Beit haBechira on b. Kiddushin 30a.

[10] Moshe Tsuriel, Masoret Seyag laTorah, i. 9, 94 ff.

[11] Eleazar Fleckeles, Teshuva meAhavah, iii. 56b.

[12] b. Pesachim 112a.

[13] b. Ketuvot 19b.

[14] Bereishit Rabbah 9:5, 20:12, 94:9.

[15] R. Yakov Kamenetzky, Emet leYakov, 388.

[16] Taylor-Schechter Collection, Job (a).

[17] Taylor-Schechter Collection, Job (b).

[18] Beshalach 16. See also Yalkut haMachiri Zecharia 30-2.

[19] According to Jewish tradition, Ezra established this rabbinic Synod at around 516 BCE, and it continued to function until the beginning of the Hellenistic period (also known as Roman Greece) around 323 BCE.

[20] Ta-Shma, Israel, Bible Criticism in Early Medieval France and Germany, in Sara Japhet (ed.), Hamikra bire’i meforshav (Jerusalem, 1994), 455-6.

[21] Vayikra 19:33.

[22] Here is another version of Targum Onkelos: See https://www.sefaria.org/Onkelos_Leviticus.19?lang=bi  Note that in this version, the verse is given as Leviticus 19:35 and not 19:33!

וַאֲרֵי יִתְגַּיַּר עִמָּךְ גִּיּוֹרָא בְּאַרְעֲכוֹן לָא תוֹנוּן יָתֵיהּ

This version maintains the Aramaic translation which corresponds directly to our standard Pentateuch, where the grammar remains inconsistent.

 

[23] Yefeh To’ar on Bereishit Rabbah 49:12.

[24] R. Chaim Hirschensohn, Malki baKodesh, ii. 219.

[25] Ginat Veradim, Orach Chaim, kelal 2, no. 6.