233) WERE THREE DIFFERENT TORAH SCROLLS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE?

THE ME’ONA, ZA’ATUTEI AND HI BOOKS:

INTRODUCTION:

As we shall see, based on two Talmudic, one Midrashic and one Aggadic account[1], there appears to have been a weak point in the integrity of a perfectly unblemished line of transmission from Ezra’s Sefer Torah to ours.

In this article, we will attempt to show how - fascinatingly - in a 100-year-old scholarly paper[2], Jacob Lauterbach reinterprets aspects of these rabbinic accounts, thereby strengthening what otherwise may have been a weak link in the rabbinic narrative of that transmission.

BACKGROUND:

After the destruction of the First Temple, the Jews went into exile in Babylon for a period of about seventy years. During that exile, Torah observance and study went into sharp decline and it became impossible to find accurate Torah scrolls.

The situation took a turn for the better when Ezra the Scribe led the Jews[3] back to the Holy Land, and built the Second Temple. One of the first things Ezra did was to write a Torah scroll which was be become the Master Copy  from which all future Torah scrolls would be copied and checked against.

When Ezra decided to write his Master Copy, he found three Torah scrolls, and no one was sure which one was the previous Master Copy from earlier times. The problem was that there were some discrepancies in the texts. 

To rectify the situation it was decided to accept the versions of two out of the three Torah scrolls which (better) matched each other, and by that majority, the new Master Copy was established.[4]

In the words of the Talmud[5], they authorised two and rejected one version.

THE TALMUDIC TEXT (Masechet Sofrim):

OPENING STATEMENT:

The Talmudic opening statement records:

“R. Shimon ben Lakish says: ‘Three books were found in the [Temple] courtyard - the Maon book, the Za'atutei book, and the Hi book...’”

This implies that each of the three Torah scrolls had a unique textual variant and the scrolls, therefore, assumed the name of the particular variant in order for it to be identified.

EXPLANATION:

Then an explanation ensues where the differences between the three scrolls are specified:

"In one scroll, the word מעונה was written מעון without the final ה.

In another, the word נערי was written in its Aramaic translation זאטוטי.

And in the third, the word היא was written as הוא (but vocalized as 'hi') in eleven places.” [6]

All in all, there were, according to this account, thirteen ‘minor’ discrepancies between them.

“So they retained the [majority] reading of the two and abandoned the [minority] of one...”

THE PROBLEM:

The problem is that by accepting two out of three, although their accuracy rate would score very high, we must remember that we are dealing with our Primary Source - the Torah - whose every nuance has meaning. And now the Torah’s unbroken chain, by the Talmud’s own admission, is not entirely unbroken.

According to this Talmudic account which we have just described, the possibility remains for some error because perhaps the correct text was the one that was disregarded.[7]

THE SOLUTION:

To alleviate this problem, the traditional answer, as (always) well articulated by R. Gil Student[8], is summed up follows:

“Other than these [minor discrepancies][9], the texts matched exactly which, frankly, is outstanding for texts produced by human hands.”

But again we want a perfect Torah, not just an outstanding one.

ANOTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

Many would probably rest better had these few lines of Talmud not existed, because then the assumption - at least based on Talmudic literature - would have remained that the Torah is perfectly preserved.

Well, in a great scholastic irony, Jacob Lauterbach[10] (1873-1942) researched this particular text and shows very convincingly that it is probable that the three books or ‘Sefarim’ are not referring to Books of the Torah at all, but rather to books of genealogical records!

THE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS:

According to Lauterbach, the actual historical report is limited to the opening statement of ten words. The names are ‘archaic’ and not found elsewhere in the Talmud. The author’s account is brief and to the point and appears to be speaking about either a contemporaneous or a well-known event. He assumes that his audience would be well acquainted with the particulars:

 “Three Books were found in the [Temple] Courtyard: The Book of Me’ona, the Book of Za’atutei and the Book of Hi.”

In fact, this original statement is so old that when the later Talmudic Amoraim debated this issue, they were completely unfamiliar with its original intent.

According to Lauterbach:

“It may, accordingly, be assumed with reasonable certainty that our report originated at a very early date, possibly during the time when the Temple was still in existence; at least, not long after its destruction...

The later teachers, who found the brief statements of this old report without any comment to it, could only guess at its meaning.”

The rest of the account, therefore, which lists the details of the variations in the three scrolls, is not part of the original text, but, according to Lauterbach’s analysis, a later interpolation or commentary on it. And we, therefore, have four ‘commentaries’ from our four rabbinic sources, with the details of the versions of text all differing somewhat and even contradicting each other.

The Talmudic Amoraim (or possibly even the later editors or redactors) assumed ‘Sefarim’ meant Sirfei Torah or Torah scrolls and that, therefore, three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple.

Writing in 1918, Lauterbach states:

“To my knowledge, at least, no one has questioned the correctness of the assumption that our report speaks about Torah scrolls.”

He proposes that the ten-word opening statement did not originate with R. Shimon ben Lakish[11] (200-275) nor did he write the detailed description of the differences between the books in the subsequent commentary. Rather, it was an old report which was just cited by him.

Lauterbach continues his methodical investigation:

“To understand correctly this ancient report we must try to find its real meaning independently of these explanatory remarks of the later teachers. We must even be careful not to allow ourselves to be biased by their guesses in favour of their supposition. The proper way to proceed, then, would be to ignore their commentary altogether and consider only the text of the report itself.”

VIEWING THE OPENING STATEMENT INDEPENDENT OF THE REST OF THE TEXT:

If we just look at the ten words of the original opening statement, there is no reason to suggest that they even refer to Torah Scrolls. In its literal and simple meaning ‘sefarim’ means books. And books do not necessarily have any sacred connotations.

'TORAH'  MEANS TORAH – 'SEFER'  MEANS BOOK:

Generally, during Temple and Mishnaic times (0-200CE) when referring to the Five Books of Moses, the term Torah was used. As was the plural Torot used instead of sefarim.

When the term sefarim was used, it usually referred only to the Nach or Books of the Prophets and the Writings, but not to the Pentateuch.

So, for example in Mishna Megilah (3:1), a hierarchical scale of holiness is presented where we see that it is permissible to sell a (smaller village as opposed to an established city) synagogue, in order to buy an Ark (because an Ark is more holy than an informal place of worship). They may sell an Ark to buy coverings for a Torah scroll. They may sell coverings for a Torah scroll in order to buy ‘sefarim’ (i.e. Book of the Prophets and the Writings.) They may sell ‘sefarim’ in order to buy a Torah scroll, but they may not sell a Torah scroll in order to buy ‘sefarim’.

Clearly, the term ‘sefarim’ does not refer to the Torah. 

And since our ten-word opening statement goes on to mention three names of books, it can be assumed that they were not sacred books, but general books called Me’ona, Za’atutei and Hi.

Lauterbach continues:

“The first part of this report tells us that these three books were found in the [Courtyard of the][12] Temple of Jerusalem. This does not mean that these books were accidentally found in the Temple, but it means rather that these books were found in the Temple, because the Temple (i. e. its archives) was the place where these books were always kept and preserved...

We have only to find out what kind of books were especially preserved and kept in the Temple archive.”

THE NATURE OF THE BOOKS:

These books were well-known as Sifrei Yuchasin, or Books on Genealogy, which contained archived records of the nation’s lineages.

Josephus records, for example, that the Temple contained exact records of families of priestly Cohanim.[13] He also attests to having consulted the archives to ascertain his own lineage.

Also, the Talmud refers to the  

as a tribunal which sat to determine who were Cohanim and Leviim.[14] This tribunal convened in the Lishkat haGazit which was situated within the Temple and it is reasonable to assume that records were kept in easily accessible archives close at hand.

Another archive existed containing records of who was a Jew. Josephus also references this archive which a priest must consult before taking a wife, so as to ensure she was of pure Jewish descent.

The Mishna[15] implies that an archive was consulted to confirm lineages, and mentions that altogether there were ten genealogical classes that came from Babylonia together with Ezra when he built the Second Temple. Ezra started keeping lineage records in a book known as Sefer haYachas, or Book of Genealogy. These later developed to become the official Sifrei Yuchasin.

The Mishna informs us that we only need to go back one generation to prove a lineage. Thus a Cohen only needs to prove that his immediate ancestor worked around the Altar. A Levi needs to prove that his immediate ancestor worked on the Duchan (the Platform from which Leviim sang), and a Yisrael only needs to show how his immediate ancestor served on the Sanhedrin. The assumption was that before any of those immediate ancestors would have been allowed to assume those positions, they too would have been scrutinised as to their genealogy, and that was sufficient to provide proof of lineage.

Special records also had to be kept for converts to Judaism, which become quite commonplace particularly after the time of Ezra. The Jews in Israel had an intermarriage rate of close to 90 per cent and Ezra made a decree that all Jews who had intermarried had to divorce their non-Jewish wives, until they converted properly to Judaism.

There is even an account by Eusebius that Herod destroyed some of these registers so as to hide his own non-Jewish origin and thus claim Jewish ancestry.

According to the last book of the Prophets, Malachi, written around the time of Ezra[16], a special register was opened for sincere converts to Judaism (despite the anti-assimilation policies of the time) and this record was kept within the Temple.

“Then those (converts) who feared the Lord talked with each other (protesting their exclusion), and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored his name.”[17]

Lauterbach reads this verse very simply as meaning that a Book of Records was opened up for sincere converts who were known as ‘yirei Hashem’- the G-d fearing - recording their names and archived ‘lefanav’ - before Him - i.e. filed in the Temple.

FOUR CATEGORIES OF JEWS:

This action formally recognized converts as having official Jewish status. There were now four categories of Jews: Cohen, Levi, Yisrael and Yirei Hashem (converts) and all were archived in the Sifrei Yuchasin (Books of Lineage) in the Temple.

Regarding the expression Yirei Hashem, Rashi in his commentary (Psalms 115:11) interprets it to mean converts.[25] 

There is a parallel to this in Tehilim (Psalms)[18]:

The various ‘Houses’ that praise G-d are defined as the Cohanim (Beit Aharon), Leviim (Beit Levi), Yisrael (Beit Yisrael) and converts (Yirei Hashem).

THREE BOOKS:

The fact is that the priestly tribes of Cohanim and Leviim were often grouped together as one. In Devarim[19] the Cohanim and Leviim are referred to as ‘Cohanim haLeviim’ with regard to the laws of inheriting the land. And the Talmud[20] gives 24 examples of where Cohanim are called Leviim.

We also see, again, in Tehilim[21]:

Here Cohanim and Leviim are grouped together under Beit Aharon, with Beit Yisrael and Yirei Hashem making up the other two groups – essentially presenting the Jews as comprising three categories: The Priestly Tribes, the Israelites and the Converts.

It was these three archives, according to Lauterbach, which are referred to as the Three Books - not Torah Scrolls, but genealogical records - which were found in the vicinity of the Temple courtyard!

THE TITLES OF THE THREE BOOKS:

One Book was called Meonin. Maon literally means ‘dwelling place’ and is often used in reference to the Temple itself. This was the archival record of those who served in the Temple, namely, the Cohanim and Leviim.

The second Book was called Za’atutim. Zata literally means ‘born’[22], and za’atut means an infant, indicating a childlike form of purity. These were the people who were born as Jews and did not convert to Judaism.

Sefer Za’atutim, in our context, refers to archives of the ‘nobles’ or those of pure Jewish descent, (much like the pedigreed ‘Children of Israel’[23]).

The third and final Book was called Hi[24]. This was the record of the converts to Judaism. The archive was originally called Sefer haYirei Hashem, the Book of the G-d-fearing (converts). 

The Hebrew; 

would have been abbreviated as;

Hence the record of the converts became known as the Book of Hi.

CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT FROM THE YERUSHALMI:

Fascinatingly, Lauterbach backs up this thesis by pointing out that in the Talmud Yerushalmi version of our text, the very next section references R. Levi who speaks about an allied topic concerning a ‘Megilat Yuchasin’, or a scroll containing genealogical records which probably also came from the Temple archives. This places our entire discussion, according to the Yerushalmi version, well within the context of genealogical records, and not alluding to Torah Scrolls.

CONCLUSION:

Jacob Lauterbach’s fascinating research, whether he intended it or not, may alleviate the difficulties of having to accept the perceived Talmudic view that our Torah scrolls which we use today, are just a chance result of a majority principle which simply selected two out of three variant scrolls.

Although this research does not prove anything about the traditional Torah transmission process, it nevertheless removes the apparent Talmudic admission that there was a weak link in the chain.

..................................................

APPENDIX:

The following are the four ‘commentaries’ to the original statement that Three Books were found in the Courtyard - the Me'ona, Za'atutei and the Hi:

           

Yerushalmi text:

                     

Avot de R. Natan (700-900CE):

Masechet Soferim:

Sifre:

---

[1]Masechet Sofrim 6:4. Yerushalmi Taanit 3:4.  Sifre Devarim 356. Avot de R. Natan 46. (There are some minor variations between these different sources). Note that none of the references are from the Babylonian Talmud.

[2] The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem, by Jacob Z. Lauterbach (1918). I thank my dear friend the Honourable Mr Jack Bloom for alerting me to this source.

[3] The majority of Jews, however, chose to remain in exile. It is estimated that just 40 000 Jews returned to Israel with Ezra, out of a Population of half a million. The greater scholars, the elite and the Levites largely stayed behind in Babylonia. (See R. Berel Wein: Ezra and Nehemiah). 

[4] According to some, the discovery of the three scrolls took place 400 years later, during the persecutions which took place around the end of the period of the Second Temple.

[A source, however, for the discovery of the three scrolls during Ezra’s time is in Torah Sheleima vol. 19 p. 254 n.29 and Rashi, 1 Chronicles 8:29.]

[5] Yerushalmi Taanit 3:4 and Masechet Sofrim 6:4. Masechet Sofrim is from 750 CE, which places it about two centuries after the Talmudic period (this technically excludes it from being labelled as Talmudic, although the term is still used because of the Talmudic nature of the work). It forms part of what is known as the Masechtot Ketanot, or Minor Talmudic Tractates.

[6] See Yerushalmi version in Appendix.

[7] Although the principle of Rov, or following the majority, is a well-established expediency of Jewish Law, it is not comforting to see it used in relation to the authenticity of the Torah text.

[8] Torat Emet: On the Text of the Torah, by Gil Student.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Jacob Lauterbach was a contributor to hundreds of articled in Jewish Encyclopaedia and specialised in Talmudic and Midrashic literature. His father, Israel, had fallen under the spell of the Haskalah Movement, but later had a change of heart and he put all his Haskalah books into a ‘Geniza’. These books were later to be discovered by his spiritually adventurous son. His mother was from a devout Chassidic family and he attributed his interest in Jewish folklore to her. Jacob Lauterbach was not afraid to use manuscript comparison and decryption to better understand the Talmudic texts. He was ordained at the Berlin Rabbinical seminary in 1902, and later received his PhD from the University of Gottingen.

[11] Also known as Reish Lakish.

[12] Parenthesis mine. The assumption is that the after the Temple was pillaged and destroyed, items of lesser value to the conquerors may have been left scattered around the courtyard.

[13] Contra Apionem, I,7.

[14] Kiddushin 76 b.

[15] Kiddushin 4:1 and 4:4.

[16] According to a Targum, the author was indeed Ezra himself, as malachi simply means a messenger.

[17] Malachi 3:16.

[18] Psalm 135: 19,20.

[19] Devarim 18:1.

[20] Yevamot 86b.

[21] Psalms 115 12,13.

[22] In the Zend Language,

[23] Parenthesis my suggestion. Zatutei also corresponds with Na’arei as we see in the ‘commentary’ section of the texts.

[24] Pronounced ‘hee’.

[25] On the other hand, Radak and  Malbim say it refers to Jews with great wisdom, whereas Ibn Ezra and Meiri say it refers to righteous gentiles.