HOW AN OLD TRADITION GAVE WAY TO A NEW 'TRADITIONALIST' VIEW:
INTRODUCTION:
The Hebrew vowel-points, or nekudot, are the markings
at the bottom, middle and top of the Hebrew letters of the Alphabet.
Surprisingly, the origins of the nekudot became the subject
of a very emotional debate, which sometimes became quite heated. It also,
perhaps very unfairly, turned into a symbolic debate which weeded out the so-called ‘non-traditionalists’ from the ‘more authentic traditionalists.’
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
SEPTUAGINT:
Perhaps the earliest indication of some form of nekudot
system is alluded to in the first translation of the Torah into Greek, known as
the Septuagint of around 200 BCE. This is where some Hebrew words are spelt out
with Greek equivalent vowel-pointing to indicate the pronunciation.
SPACE SEPARATION:
Besides vowels, space separation between words, was another
development which may have occurred over time. According to Ramban, in his
introduction to his commentary on the Torah, originally there were no space
separations between words in the early books of the Torah.
In other ancient documents, there is evidence of short
vertical lines indicating breaks between words. These were later replaced by
dots. [1]
THE BAALEI HAMESORAH:
The Masoretes or Baalei haMesora were active between
the 6th and 10th centuries CE. They were a group of scribes
(many of them were Karaites)
who were involved in identifying and establishing the most accurate texts, and
readings thereof, for future Torah transmission.
However, it was only from around the 7th century
where the nekudot system appears to have been firmly established.
From around the 9th century, the Baalei
haMesora, developed official schools of Hebrew grammar and vocalization.
Three main schools existed at that time: The Babylonian school, or nikud
Bavli; the Jerusalem school, or nikud Eretz Yisrael; and the
Tiberius school, or nikud Teveiriyani.
The Babylonian school developed six vowels, the Palestinian
school developed five and the Tiberius school had seven.
In the Babylonian and Jerusalem schools, the nekudot
were placed above the letters, known as superlinear vocalization. With time,
the Tiberius school became more dominant and remains the system still in use
today. The Tiberius school also used cantillation marks which indicate the tune
the text is to be recited in.
[For more on how Hebrew used to be pronounced see The
‘JIN’, the ‘RIMMEL’, the ‘THAW’ and the ‘WOW’.]
BEN ASHER (d. 960):
A key figure in the Tiberius school was Aharon ben Moshe ben
Asher, and the Torah text we follow today, as well as our general
pronunciation, are largely according to his version. His Torah was later
endorsed by Rambam. [See The
Aleppo Codex.]
Ironically, it is quite possible that the Ben Asher family were
Karaite Jews. [See A
Karaite Link in the Mesora Chain?]
BEN NAFTALI (d. 940):
A conflicting family of Baalei haMesora of the same
period, was the Ben Naftali family. (Yaakov?) ben Naftali also wrote his own
version of the Torah which provided different nekudot and
pronunciations. Rav Saadia Gaon preferred the Ben Naftali version.
There are about 875 differences between the Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali schools.
R. ELIYAHU HABACHUR (1468-1549):
During the 1500’s R. Eliyahu
Bachur created waves when he suggested - although borne out by the
historical record - that the nekudot were not as ancient as many maintained.
Many believed, based on the Zohar which
had surfaced just 200 years earlier, that the tradition of nekudot went
right back to Sinai. Bachur, however, suggested that the origins of the nekudot
were relatively new - dating back to the end of the Talmudic period at around
the 5th century CE - and not dating back to Sinai.
Bachur put forward some strong arguments for his case. Most
compelling was the fact that nekudot are not mentioned in neither the Mishna
(0-200 CE) nor the Talmud (200-500 CE), nor Aggadot nor Midrashim.[2]
Additionally, Bachur writes that “most of the names of
the nekudot are not Hebrew, but they Aramaic.” This was a strong support
for the notion that they are relatively new cannot be regarded as being ancient.
NATRONAI (d. 858):
Eliyahu Bachur was not the first rabbi to propose this,
because other scholars, such as Natronai II ben Hilai the Gaon of Sura,
had made similar suggestions already in the 9th century.
Natronai replied to a
question as to whether it was permitted to put vowels points in a Sefer
Torah scroll.
He wrote:
“...since the law, as give to Moses on Sinai, had no points,
and...having been invented by the sages, and put down as signs for the reader;
and moreover since it is prohibited to us to make any additions from our own
cogitations, lest we transgress the command ‘Ye shall not add’...; hence we
must not put points to the Scrolls of the Law.”
MACHZOR VITRY (d. 1105):
In a similar fashion, according to Machzor Vitry - written
by Simcha ben Shmuel of Vitry who was a student of Rashi:
“In the [unspecified]
Teshuvot ha-Geonim… the Torah that was given to Moses at Sinai did not contain
nekkudot, and in fact the nekkudot were not even given at Sinai. . . therefore
we do not place nekkudot in the sefer Torah.”[3]
IBN EZRA (1089-1167):
At around the same time, Ibn Ezra made a similar
observation.
Referring to the dots
on the shin and sin, Ibn Ezra wrote:
“...it was the custom of the sages of Tiberius to put down these
points...from whom we obtained the whole system of punctuation.”
CODEX HILALI (600 CE):
Historically, these views are corroborated by the Codex Hilali:
“It is now generally
acknowledged among scholars that the Codex Hilali derives its name from the
fact, that it was written at Hilla, a town near the ruins of ancient Babel.
This Codex, which was
completed circa A.D. 600, had not only the then newly invented vowel-points and
accents, but was furnished with Massoretic glosses.
It was brought to Toledo about
A.D. 1100, where the grammarian Jacob b. Eleazar used it for his works, and a
portion of it was purchased by the Jewish community in Africa, about A.D.
1500.”[4]
ZOHAR (first published in 1558):
All our sources so far, indicate that the nekudot
were introduced during the period of the Baalei haMesora sometime between
500 and 1000 CE.
However, at the other end of the spectrum was the Zohar
which regarded the nekudot as ancient and divinely given:
“The vowel points proceeded from the same Holy Spirit
which indited the sacred Scriptures, and that far be the thought to say that
the scribes made the points.”[5]
Because of the position of pre-eminence the Zohar
held amongst many (most?) Jews, this view naturally became the dominant view.
It should be pointed out, though, that there are divergent
views regarding the dating and authority of the Zohar. [See Mysteries
Behind the Origins of the Zohar.]
R. AZARIA DEI ROSSI (1512-1577):
R. Azaria dei Rossi, in his Meor Eynayim, attacks
Eliyahu Bachur for his view on the dating of the origins of the nekudot
as being around the 5th century.
Azaria dei Rossi fervently subscribed to the view of the Zohar
which claimed that the nekudot originated at Sinai.
Azaria quoted Bachur who had confidently proclaimed: “I
shall succumb to the will of any person who can disprove my argument against
our rabbis.”
And he equally confidently proceeded to be the one to
disproved Bachur because - very simply – the Zohar had settled the
debate, and the nekudot were from Sinai!
But he gives Bachur a little wiggle room because he
acknowledges that:
“...the kabbalistic works to
which we shall refer were not yet in print in his [Bachur’s] lifetime…
However today … the Bahir,
Zohar, Tikkunim...have been published . . . and they all discuss the nekkudot
by their names and their descriptions...
Thus, Bachur’s view is
patently undermined since we have intimations to prove that the different kind
of vowels and accents were in existence not only before the close of the
Gemara, but even before the composition of the Mishnah.
And if he were with us today,
he would certainly submit to our view.”[6]
Eliyahu Bachur died in 1549[7],
the Zohar was first printed in Mantua in 1558 [although it had surfaced
300 years earlier – either written - or discovered[8]
- by Moshe de León
(1240-1305)], and the Meor Eynayim was published in 1573.
Azaria dei Rossi’s support of the Zohar and the more ‘traditionally
conservative’ view that the nekudot were given at Sinai, is rather
surprising since he certainly was not accepted within the traditional camp. In
fact, rabbis like the Maharal and even R. Yosef Karo had wanted to ban his
writings including his Meor Eynayim. [For more, see Azaria dei Rossi.]
THE CHIDAH (1724-1806):
R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, the Kabbalist known as
the Chidah, also defends the view of the Zohar:
“In my youth I saw . . . in Mesorat
ha-Masorat [by Eliyahu Bachur] that tammim and nekkudot were instituted
after the close of the Talmudic era by the wise [Baalei haMesora] of
Tiberius.
R. Eliyahu is incorrect and
must beg forgiveness, as these [nekudot] are Halacha leMoshe miSinai.
Further, it is already known
that R. Simeon ben Yohai the teacher of Rebbi Yehuda haNasi, the compiler of
the Mishna, in the Tekkuni Zohar speaks wonders regarding the tammim and the
nekkudot.”[9]
THE TENSION:
Dan Rabinowitz describes the tension between those who claim
the nekudot were given with the Torah (and even before[10]);
and those who claim the vowels - as we know them - only came into existence
around the 6th century CE, as follows:
“If one assumes that G-d
unquestionably gave the Torah with a single, undisputed reading, one would
argue that the current nekkudot system was in place at the time the Torah was
given. In other words, at the time of the reception of the Torah, we also
received from G-d a codified pronunciation system, the nekkudot.
The other opinion understands
that although Hebrew necessarily includes a vowel system, the actual nekkudot
symbols themselves were not given by G-d along with the Torah. Indeed, this
"non-traditional" view generally holds that the nekkudot symbols were
instituted by the Ba’alei Mesorah sometime between the sixth and eighth
centuries of the Common Era.”[11]
R. YAAKOV EMDEN (1697-1776):
Rabinowitz also points out that R. Yaakov Emden mentions the
reference to the vowel-point ‘kametz’ in the Tikkunei Zohar. R.
Emden uses this reference to suggest that:
“this language is a clear
proof that this [Zohar] is not written by R. Simeon ben Yohai, because
it is known that the Ba’alei haDikduk are very late.
They do not date to the
Tannaim, nor even during the Amoraim or Gaonic periods as there is no mention
of them, instead they are after the Gaonic period, in the countries of the East
is where we find the first Ba’al Dikduk, R. Judah ibn Hayyuj.”
R. Emden places the origins of nekudot at a much
later time than anyone else in this debate – at the end of the period of the Gaonim
which was around the year 1000, and was even 500 years later than Eliyahu
Bachur’s estimation!
MOSES MENDELSSOHN (1729-1786):
Fascinatingly, Rabinowitz informs us about a surprising irony
relating to Moses Mendelssohn, who founded the Enlightenment movement and leaned
towards the Reform movement.
Mendelssohn also weighed in on the debate as to the age of the
nekudot. Yet, instead of siding with those who concluded that the nekudot
were introduced by the Baalei haMesora around 600 CE - as one might have
expected – he followed the view of the Zohar and maintained they
originated at Sinai!
In his Torah commentary known as the Biur, he
mentions the view of Eliyahu Bachur – but disagrees with him and instead
chooses to go with:
“the mekubalim [Kabbalists],
specifically the Bahir...[and the] Zohar...which are not only before the
close of the Talmudic era, but even before the writing of the Mishna. They all
mention the names of the nekkudot.”
This is interesting for two reasons; firstly because Mendelssohn
the Maskil selects the Zohar over ‘historical’ sources, and secondly
because he also believes the Zohar was indeed an ancient work written by
R. Shimon bar Yochai, a thousand years before Moshe de León.
ANALYSIS:
As Dan Rabinowitz shows, the fiery debate as to the age of
the nekudot has brought some interesting opinions from some unlikely
sources. It is not surprising to see that the Chidah unquestionably supported
the view of the Zohar.
But it is surprising that people like R. Azaria
de Rossi and Moses Mendelssohn, who were regarded as more ‘academic’
than ‘traditional’ by the Renaissance and Enlightenment standards
respectively - yet both defended the position of the Zohar.
On the other hand, it is interesting to see that someone
like R. Yaakov Emden, a fierce defender of orthodoxy - and a ‘hunter’ of secret
followers of Shabbatai Zvi whom he believed had infiltrated into, and were
threatening the essence of, mainstream orthodoxy - opted to challenge the very
authenticity of the Zohar itself and dated the nekudot to even
more recent times than anyone else had.
And it is also interesting to see that with the surfacing of
the Zohar, suddenly even the authentic voices of Gaonim like
Natronai, and Rishonim like Ibn Ezra and the Machzor Vitry - and the
historical records of the schools that specialised in nekudot and texts,
like Ben Asher and Ben Naftali - were overwhelmingly silenced.
To bring this debate into our modern era, it would be best to
conclude with the opening remarks of Rabinowitz himself:
“Recent history has witnessed
a rise in the polarization within the Jewish community...
...this polarization is
evidenced by – if not exacerbated by – some individuals or groups who have
sought to mask the relative heterogeneity of philosophical, historical or
halakhic opinions firmly within Orthodox or traditional scholarship.
That is, some rabbinic
authorities and authors have attempted to portray Orthodoxy as a unified and
monolithic collection of viewpoints, such that any dissent is to be
characterized as “out-of-the-mainstream,” if not outright heretical.
This effort to marginalize
viewpoints on fundamental topics of Jewish law and philosophy – even though such
viewpoints have been the opinion of many distinguished sages – quite obviously
promotes polarization by effectively casting disfavored views in a pejorative
light.
Orthodox Judaism itself is not
homogeneous; instead it is comprised of individuals who espouse many different
views and defy rigid categorization. One example of this rich diversity and
lack of homogeneity within Orthodox Judaism is the controversy regarding the
origins of the system of nekkudot, vowel markers.
...Orthodoxy is comprised of
multiple viewpoints, and...the bearers of those views cannot necessarily be
categorized by shorthand labels.”
SOURCES:
Massoreth HaMassoreth
(Ginsburg).
Nekkudot: The Dots that Connect Us, by Dan Rabinowitz.
(Hakirah Journal 2005.)
[1]
This can be seen in the Mesha Stone from around 850 BCE, which some believe to
have been written in Old Hebrew.
[2]
See Messoreth haMessoreth.
[3]Machzor
Vitri, p. 192. (Goldschmidt edition.)
[4]
Messoreth haMessoreth (Ginsburg) footnote 40.
[5]
Zohar on Song of Solomon, 57b, ed. Amsterdam, 1701.
[6]
Me'or Enayim, R. Azariah di Rossi, Warsaw 1899 p. 413.
[7]
However, see Eliyahu
Bachur, where it appears that copies of the Zohar (in manuscript form) were
apparently available during Bachur’s lifetime.
[8]
Moshe de Léon had claimed he had discovered the 1000-year-old text written by
R. Shimon bar Yochai.
[9]
Shem haGedolim, Tuv Tam p. 59.
[10]
According to Jewish mysticism, the world was created with the Hebrew letters,
and the specific Hebrew words for all manner of creation as written and
pronounced, provided the life-force for each individual entity.
[11]
Nekkudot: The Dots that Connect Us, by Dan Rabinowitz. (Hakirah Journal 2005.)
