 |
| 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.
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.
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.
