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:
View 1) R. Yosi:
תניא
רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא (לא) קדמו משה במשה
הוא אומר (שמות יט, ג) ומשה עלה אל האלהים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, ו) הוא עזרא עלה מבבל מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה אף עלייה האמור להלן
תורה
Paraphrase (See Appendix for full translation):
R. Yosi says that Ezra could have received the Torah had
Moshe not preceded him chronologically. The Torah says: “Moshe went up to
G-d” (Shemot 19:3) and regarding Ezra, it states: “Ezra went up from
Babylon,” (Ezra 7:6). The similar expressions עלה “went up” are
said to allude to the idea of going up to receive the Torah.
במשה
הוא אומר (דברים ד, יד) ואותי צוה ה' בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים בעזרא הוא
אומר (עזרא ז, י) כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת ה' (אלהיו) ולעשות וללמד בישראל
חוק ומשפט ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נשתנה על ידו הכתב שנאמר
But Ezra changed the Hebrew script of the Torah (to the
square script we use today).
(עזרא
ד, ז) וכתב הנשתוון כתוב ארמית ומתורגם ארמית וכתיב (דניאל ה, ח) לא כהלין כתבא
למיקרא ופשרא להודעא למלכא וכתיב (דברים יז, יח) וכתב את משנה התורה הזאת כתב
הראוי להשתנות
The Talmud offers a word play to emphasise this change in
writing style: Moshe’s Torah in the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is called “mishnah
Torah” which means a repetition of the Torah – but it can also mean
a Torah whose script would change “lehishtanot”.
למה נקרא אשורית שעלה עמהם מאשור
Why was this new script that Ezra introduced called “Ashurit”?
Because it came to Jerusalem with the returning exiles from
the land of Ashur.
תניא
רבי אומר בתחלה בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישראל כיון שחטאו נהפך להן לרועץ כיון שחזרו בהן
החזירו להם שנאמר (זכריה ט, יב) שובו לביצרון אסירי התקוה גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב
לך
R. Yehuda haNasi says that the Torah was originally given in
Ashuri script. However, after they sinned with the Golden Calf, the
Israelites began writing in another script (called Libona’a[4]
which is synonymous with Old Hebrew).
When they repented, the Ashuri script was restored to
them.
View 3) R. Shimon ben Elazar:
רשב"א
אומר משום ר' אליעזר בן פרטא שאמר משום רבי אלעזר המודעי כתב זה לא נשתנה כל עיקר
שנאמר (שמות כז, י) ווי העמודים מה עמודים לא נשתנו אף ווים לא נשתנו ואומר (אסתר
ח, ט) ואל היהודים ככתבם וכלשונם מה לשונם לא נשתנה אף כתבם לא נשתנה
R. Shimon ben Elazar says that the script never underwent
any change. The Torah, he believes, was given in our Ashurit script and that
script remained the same up to the present.
ASHURIT and IVRIT:
The Torah that we have today is written in Ashuri
script.
When the Samaritans (or Kutim in Talmudic parlance) were
living in the land of Israel, they had a Torah almost identical to ours. The Samaritans claim to be the original Jews
who never went into exile after the destruction of the first Temple, and some are
still living in Israel today. One of the main differences between their Torah
and ours, is that the Samaritan Torah referenced Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem,
as the place to bring sacrifices.[5]
Also, the Samaritan Torah is written in Ketav Ivri as opposed to Ketav
Ashuri. This Ketav Ivri was certainly known to the Talmudic rabbis.
These facts raise some fundamental questions: If the
Samaritan script is the original Ketav Ivri,
then what does that say about our script, Ketav Ashuri? Is it an import
or did the Ashuri script somehow attain the same sanctity as the
original Ivri script? And who today is sitting with the most ‘original’
Hebrew scripts, Jews or Samaritans?
It seems that the Talmud offers three approaches to these
questions:
THREE APPROACHES:
View 1) R. Yosi:
R. Yosi is described by Misgav as “the historian of the
group…[who] could not close his eyes to historical information, and was
prepared to reexamine his positions in view of reality.” For R. Yosi, facts
mattered and could not be overlooked. An evolution of sorts had occurred with
the textual history of the Jewish people and the turning point could be traced
to around the time of Ezra. It was then that נשתנה על ידו הכתב, the script had
changed from Ketav Ivri to Ketav Ashuri, or from Old Hebrew to
Modern Hebrew.
Misgav paraphrases R. Yosi rather bluntly, as follows:
“The Torah was not given in
our holy script [i.e., Ashuri]. The Samaritans actually possess this ancient
script [i.e., Ivri] [6],
but it is no longer holy because Ezra had the authority to change it.”
View 2) R. Yehuda haNasi:
R. Yehuda haNasi adopted a different approach. He
acknowledged that a change had taken place with regard to the Hebrew script but
he sought a compromise or middle ground. He knew that the alternate (or ‘older’)
script was called “Ivri” but he was still prepared to claim that the
Torah was given in the ‘newer’ text. The “Ivri” text certainly existed
but he said it was only used from the time of the sin of the Golden Calf until the
moment of repentance. Thereafter the Ketav Ashuri was restored as of
old.
R. Yehuda haNasi didn’t deny the historicity of the Ketav
Ivri but he wove it into a system that made ‘Halachic’ sense even if
not historical sense, and it preserved the authority, and therefore, the
sanctity of the existing Ketav Ashuri. Compromises are never clear.
View 3) R. Shimon ben Elazar:
R. Shimon ben Elazar took perhaps the most dramatic
approach. He simply denied that any change had taken place at all. The
empirical existence of older scrolls in older Hebrew did not concern him. The
Torah was given in exactly the same script as the one we use today, Ketav
Ashuri - and no changes or development or historical actuality occurred
regarding the scripts.
Misgav writes:
“This is an approach that
refuses to recognize the existence of any development in the Jewish religion.
It is not far removed from the view that says, ‘Anything new is forbidden by
the Torah.’[7]”
DEFINING HOLINESS:
This three-pronged debate is not just about dealing with
history, rabbinical authority and empirical facts, it is also about defining
holiness.
Both R. Yehuda haNasi and R. Shimon ben Elazar define
holiness as being rooted only in antiquity. Any break in the line of antiquity
represents a departure from holiness. The problem with this approach is that it
sometimes demands creativity in developing a narrative of antiquity. This in
itself is an innovation involving the formulation of conceptual frameworks.
Either way, whether through creative re-framing (R. Yehuda haNasi)
or a blind acceptance that nothing changed (R. Shimon be Elazar), holiness
stands or falls on the ability to show antiquity.
R. Yosi was the odd man out, he did not believe holiness was
contingent only upon created or perceived antiquity.
In Misgav’s words:
“Whatever is consecrated by
the people, the leaders, the sages, and the halakhah is holy. Rabbi Yose, the
historian, was prepared to redefine his beliefs in light of new information
from an external source, from his observation of the surrounding situation.
Holiness does not determine the halakhah; halakhah determines holiness.”
R. Yosi was not afraid of the evidence of history. According
to him - whatever the provenance, history or journey of the Hebrew script -
Ezra introduced the script we use today and because we use no other script,
that script is now holy. On this view, there
is no desperate need to innovate the matter further.
ANALYSIS:
In the final analysis, the debate will probably never be resolved. The religious camp will always comprise these three personalities:
1) Those for whom facts are real, but who still can express their faith regardless, without the need to either creatively re-interpret them or deny them. These people are not afraid to engage in any inquiry - and the outcome or results are not seen as contradictions to their faith.
2) Those who acknowledge the facts in principle, but do not allow them their role to effectively alter anything (even in their minds) and thereby they effectively re-create and re-frame those facts to fit their pre-existing narrative. These people will only use science and data for 'chizuk' when it 'proves' or is somewhat compatible with their worldview.
3) Those who actively deny the data and the facts, and innovate a world where reality has little currency or purchase.
APPENDIX:
FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE GEMARA TEXT (SEFARIA):
View 1):
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta
4:5): Rabbi Yosei says:
Ezra was suitable, given his greatness, for the Torah to be given
by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first and received the
Torah already. With regard to Moses the verse states: “And Moses went
up to God” (Exodus 19:3), and with regard to
Ezra the verse states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon and he was a
ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had
given” (Ezra 7:6). Just as the going up
stated here, with regard to Moses, is for the Torah, which he
received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, so too, the going
up stated there, with regard to Ezra, is for the Torah, as he taught
Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give
it.
The baraita continues: With regard to Moses
the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you
statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra
the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord
his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even
though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script
of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated:
“And the writing of the letter [hannishtevan] was
written in the Aramaic script, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue” (Ezra 4:7). The term “hannishtevan”
is similar to the word nishtana, meaning changed, alluding to the fact
that the script had been changed. And it is written with regard to the
writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace: “Then came in all the king’s
wise men. But they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the
interpretation” (Daniel 5:8),
and the reason they could not read it is that it was written in the new script
that Ezra would transmit. And it is written: “That he shall write for
himself a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18), where “second [mishne]”
teaches that it is written in a script that is apt to be changed [lehishtannot].
The baraita continues: Why is this script called
Ashurit? Because it ascended with the Jewish people from Ashur
when they returned from their exile in Babylonia.
View 2):
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta
4:5): Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in this
script, Ashurit, which is in use today. Once the Jewish
people sinned, it turned into an impairment for them and they began
writing with a different script, Libona’a. Once they repented,
the first script was returned to them, and they resumed writing with Ashurit
script, as it is stated: “Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope;
even today do I declare that I will render double [mishne] unto you”
(Zechariah 9:12), meaning that God restored to
the Jewish people this script that had been changed [nishtanna].
View 3):
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says
in the name of Rabbi Eliezer
ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi
Elazar HaModa’i: This script did not change at all, as it is stated
with regard to the construction of the Tabernacle: “The hooks of [vavei]
the poles” (Exodus 27:10). This teaches that just
as the poles were not changed, so too, the hooks [vavim] were not
changed. The letter vav in Ashurit script has the shape of a
hook. Evidently, this is why the term for hook in the Torah is vav. And
the verse states: “And to the Jews according to their script and according
to their language” (Esther 8:9). This teaches
that just as their language was not changed over the generations but
remained Hebrew, so too, their script was not changed.
[1]
Haggai Misgav, 2019, ‘Archaeology and the Bible’, in The Believer and the
Modern Study of the Bible.
[2] Misgav
is an expert in ancient inscriptions and has decoded and published what is
considered to be the oldest ancient piece of pottery with a Hebrew inscription.
[3] b. Sanhedrin
21b–22a.
[4] In
the Talmud, the Paleo-Hebrew script is known as the Libona'a (translated
by some as "Lebanon script") associated with the Samaritan community
who continued to preserve the script.
[5] Hjelm
(2000:76-7) cites the London Polyglot publication of the Samaritan Pentateuch
in 1657 which lists six thousand variants to the Masoretic text (although the
number varies in subsequent editions depending on which manuscripts were used).
Most of these are indeed minor, with the exception of references to Mount
Gerizim to where the sacrifices are to be brought. The Samaritan text adds its
own tenth commandment to build an altar of unhewn stone on Mount Gerizim.
[6]
Parentheses mine.
[7] “Chadash
assur min haTorah” (innovation is forbidden by the Torah) was a motto of
the Chatam Sofer (1762-1839) an early ideologue of the nascent Chareidi
or ultra-orthodox movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment