Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Did Judaism Really Just Lose a Whole Script?

I have to admit that I have been bothered by the prospect that the Jewish People had at one time written their Torahs in one "font" only to have it be lost and then reintroduced by Ezra hundreds of years later.  If they couldn't be trusted to keep their alphabet straight, how could we believe that the "Mesora" (the chain of transmission of law) has been accurately conveyed?

Well, as of last night I thought that I had got myself a pretty good answer to it and then I came across a much better one.  So instead of recreating the wheel, I'll just cut and paste an excellent analysis from '02 that I found on the Aish Das website:

The Script of the Torah

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21b-22a tells us what at first seems very surprising. However, after a careful reading and placing the events in an historical context they do not seem surprising at all.
Mar Zutra and some say Mar Ukva said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri (paleo-Hebrew characters) and in the holy lanugage. It was given again to them in Ezra's time in Ktav Ashurit (Assyrian characters) and in Aramaic. Israel selected for themselves Ktav Ashurit and the Hebrew language... It was taught: Rebbe said: Torah was originally given to Israel in Ktav Ashurit. When they sinned it was changed to Roetz (Ktav Ivri). When they repented, Ktav Ashurit was reintroduced... R' Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R' Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of R' Elazar Hamodai: This writing was never changed...
We see three opinions regarding the script of the Torah. According to Mar Zutra, the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri and in Hebrew but Ezra changed it to Ktav Ashurit and Aramaic. The people, however, only accepted Ktav Ashurit and Hebrew. According to Rebbe, the Torah was given in Ktav Ashurit but was changed to Ktav Ivri due to the people's sins. According to R' Elazar Hamodai, the script of the Torah never changed.

This passage raises a number of questions. How could Ezra change the script of the Torah? How could he change the Torah's language from Hebrew to Aramaic? Furthermore, if he found the authority to do so, how could the people determine an outcome against his decision? According to Rebbe, why would the script of the Torah change based on whether Israel sinned or repented?
R' Reuven Margoliyot (Margoliyot Hayam, Sanhedrin ad loc,; Hamikra Vehamesora, ch. 9) answers all of these questions with the following historical reflection. It is known that some ancient cultures had one script for sacred purposes and one for everyday use. For example, the Indians only used Sanskrit for religious purposes and not for the mundane. The talmudic sages mentioned in the above passage were debating the extent of this practice of having a script for only holy purposes in Israel. However, according to everyone this was the practice, similar to the talmudic dictum, "Something that is used for the sacred may not be used for the profane" (Avodah Zara 52a).

According to Mar Zutra, the first tablets of the ten commandments were written in Ktav Ashurit (see Responsa Radbaz 3:442) but once Israel sinned with the Golden Calf they were deemed unworthy. They could not be trusted to use Ktav Ashurit for purely sacred matters. Therefore, the second tablets and the Torah scrolls written for general use were in Ktav Ivri. This can, perhaps, be seen from the fact that in Megillah 2b Rav Chisda says that the mem and samech in the tablets were miraculously hanging in the air. This can only happen in Ktav Ashurit and not in Ktav Ivri. However, in the Gemara in Sanhedrin quoted above, Rav Chisda seems to agree with Mar Zutra that the Torah was originally given to Israel in Ktav Ivri. Therefore, it seem that Rav Chisda would have to say that the tablets were in Ktav Ashurit and the Torah in Ktav Ivri. Or, as the Radbaz suggested, everything was originally in Ktav Ashurit but after the sin of the Golden Calf the second tablets and the Torah were in Ktav Ivri. But not all of the Torahs were in Ktav Ivri.

That the original tablets were given in Ktav Ashurit but not the second tablets can be seen hinted in a number of sources. For example, the Gemara in Pesachim 87b says "the tablets broke and the letters floated in the air". Exactly what it means that the letters floated in the air is unclear. However, on that same page the Gemara says, "Three things returned to their origin... the script of the tablets". That sounds like Ktav Ashurit being replaced with Ktav Ivri. Similarly, the Mechilta on Exodus 17:8 says that after the tablets were broken "the heavenly writing returned to its place". We perhaps also see evidence of the disappearance of Ktav Ashurit much later in history. The Tanchuma on Vayeshev 2 says, "What did they do [in response to the Samaritans]? Ezra, Zerubavel, and Yehoshua gathered the community to the sanctuary... and excommunicated the Samaritans with the sacred name of G-d, with the script that was written on the tablets, with the decree of the heavenly court,..." The use of the "script that was written on the tablets" is important for two reasons. First, it seems that this script was unique. Furthermore, we know from the Gemara in Sanhedrin and from other historical sources that the Samaritans used Ktav Ivri. The contrast between the Samaritans and the "script that was written on the tablets" implies that this script was not Ktav Ivri. We thus see that there is ample material supporting the Radbaz's claim that the first tablets were in Ktav Ashurit.

Recall that Mar Zutra said that the Torah was given to Israel in Ktav Ivri. The Ritva deduced from this that the special Torah of Moshe that was kept in the ark and later in the Temple was in Ktav Ashurit. Only Torahs for the people were in Ktav Ivri. The ability to read Ktav Ashurit was maintained by priests and scribes, which is why King Yoshiyahu needed a priest to read to him from Moshe's Torah when it was found in the Temple (2 Kings 22:8-11; Abarbanel). The king had never before seen Ktav Ashurit and his reaction to seeing it fo the first time, and in the Torah scroll that Moshe himself had written, demonstrates the deep religious emotion it evoked. We perhaps find hints of this in Isaiah 8:1 where the prophet is commanded, "Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters". This is must have been referring to Ktav Ivri that was used by the common people (see Rashi). Ktav Ivri had gained such prominence that the existence of ending letters (ךףץןם) was forgotten by the masses and had to be restored (Megillah 2b-3a).

However, Ktav Ashurit was still studied by the priests and scribes, of which Ezra was both. When he saw that Ktav Ashurit was so forgotten that, when it was written on the wall of King Belshatzar of Babylonia, only Daniel could read it (Daniel 5) he realized that it must be reintroduced to the people. Yet, he still had the dilemma that people would then be writing Hebrew in the holy Ktav Ashurit for improper purposes. His solution was to translate the Torah into Aramaic and introduce the Aramaic Torah in Ktav Ashurit into common usage. That way people would become familiar with Ktav Ashurit without using it in their daily Hebrew writing. This is what is meant in Nehemiah 8:8, "So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation." It was interpreted by translation into Aramaic (Megillah 3a). (This translation was later recreated by Onkelos). However, the people had lived their whole lives with a Hebrew Torah and were not ready to change the language of their holiest of books. Therefore, they decided to retain a Hebrew Torah in Ktav Ashurit but conduct their daily business in Aramaic. This would produce the results that Ezra desired because Ktav Ashurit in Hebrew would not be a part of the daily routine.

Rebbe agreed with this historical reconstruction but attributed the original transition from Ktav Ashurit to Ktav Ivri to the idolatrous era of the First Temple rather than the episode of the Golden Calf. According to Rebbe, it is even more plausible that the scholars always retained knowledge of Ktav Ashurit. It was only the masses who were busy with their daily lives and/or idolatrous ways who forgot Ktav Ashurit when the Torahs were changed to Ktav Ivri.

R' Elazar Hamodai does not necessarily disagree that people forgot Ktav Ashurit. He only argued that the Torahs were never changed from one script into another. However, he agreed that people had forgotten Ktav Ashurit, the script used only for sacred purposes, and that Ezra had to re-educate the masses in the holy script (see Teshuvot HaRambam, ed. Blau no. 268).

As a final note, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 22a offers two opinions why the script is called Ktav Ashurit. One is that the Jews brought it back to Israel with them from Babylonia/Assyria (Ashur). The other is that it is a beautiful script (me'usheret). Since the literal translation of Ktav Ashurit is "Assyrian script", we must ask why the Gemara even asks such a basic question. It is called Ktav Ashurit because the Assyrians used it. Furthermore, the view that it is called Ktav Ashurit because the script is beautiful strains credibility. We already know that it is called Ktav Ashurit because it is an Assyrian script, as the words simply mean.

We have seen that many questions can be raised about the validity of our Torahs. However, Judaism, like any other serious thought system, is complex. While by necessity we were taught simplicites in our childhood, we need to sieze all available opportunities to broaden our perspectives and deepen our faiths. Rather than using questions as reasons to reject traditional Judaism, we must use them as opportunities for intellectual and religious growth.


 

15 comments:

  1. Great piece, and interesting subject. I think that this is problematic though: "According to Mar Zutra, the first tablets of the ten commandments were written in Ktav Ashurit (see Responsa Radbaz 3:442) but once Israel sinned with the Golden Calf they were deemed unworthy." (That sounds more like Rebbe)

    The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21b-22a is a clear discussion about what the original script was and Mar Zutra gives a clear position --with no qualitifactions- that Kethav Ivri was the original script, until Ezra changed it. The other opinions by contrast for Kethav Ashuri being the original one. Conversations in other sections of the Gemera, in other time periods, in other contexts (some of which are likely allegorical and discussions about the alphabet perse) should not necessarily by used to discount or white-wash Zutra's "bold" statement. Interestingly, Mar Zutra's opinion corresponds to the archaeological record and academic consensus of how ancient Hebrew was written. I get why talmudic/medieval commentators would feel compelled try to defend the "Ashuri script" as the original one, but why should we? Especially when we have Mar Zutra's admission to this...

    If we actually accept this as a possibility then we might come to understand what the mechanism or justification was of Ezra changing it. Regarding the validity of a certain Torah scroll based on it's alphabet, let's remember that the Sanhedrin is the one that decides/codifies the criteria of a valid scroll, and they ratified the the Ashuri script. The "Kabbalah" might be the only one actual threatened by the prospect that Kethav Ivri is actually original the Hebrew script.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great piece, and interesting subject. I think that this is problematic though: "According to Mar Zutra, the first tablets of the ten commandments were written in Ktav Ashurit (see Responsa Radbaz 3:442) but once Israel sinned with the Golden Calf they were deemed unworthy." (That sounds more like Rebbe!)

    The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21b-22a is a clear discussion about what the original script was and Mar Zutra gives a clear position --with no qualitifactions- that Kethav Ivri was the original script, until Ezra changed it. The other opinions, by contrast, argue for Kethav Ashuri being the original one. Conversations in other sections of the Gemera, in other time periods, in other contexts (some of which are likely allegorical and NOT discussions about the alphabet perse) should not necessarily by used to discount or white-wash Zutra's "bold" statement. Interestingly, Mar Zutra's opinion corresponds to the archaeological record and academic consensus of how ancient Hebrew was written. I get why talmudic/medieval commentators would feel compelled try to defend the "Ashuri script" as the original one, but why should we? Especially when we have Mar Zutra's admission to this...

    If we actually accept this as a possibility then we might come to understand what the mechanism or justification was of Ezra changing it. Regarding the validity of a certain Torah scroll based on it's alphabet, let's remember that the Sanhedrin is the one that decides/codifies the criteria of a valid scroll, and they ratified the the Ashuri script. The "Kabbalah" might be the only one actual threatened by the prospect that Kethav Ivri is actually original the Hebrew script.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shalom R. AJ,

    I thought I'd let you know that I referred to this post over on my blog. Not a formal "rebuttal" - more "derech agav." No obligation to respond unless you want to. This is just a courtesy call. :-)

    http://atheodoxjew.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/alternative-medicine-torah-and.html

    Best regards and good Shabbos,
    AJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Rabbi - Based on linguistic, archaeological, historical evidence regarding Hebrew scripts the overwhelming academic consensus is Paleo Hebrew evolved from Phoenician scripts. Ktav Ashurit evolves much later out of the Aramaic scripts. Neither Hebrew script can be claimed to be of solely "Jewish" origins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I have always found this matter of script to be over-complicated by the religious, who seem to find it necessary to make a religious issue out of it. Seeing as Archaeology has already ascertained the issue conclusively (that the so-called paleo Hebrew script was the original and the "Assyrian" developed later), I don't see the need for further controversy, other than the religious adherents' need to justify Talmudic opinions. What does it matter, theologically speaking, which script was used and when?

      In any case, the term "paleo Hebrew" is a misnomer. The fact is that there was no specific or distinct ancient Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrews merely used what was locally available, i.e. the script developed by the Phoenicians. Later in exile, they similarly adopted the current, local alphabet, termed "Assyrian" in the rabbinic literature, but more accurately Aramaic, the basis of 2nd. Temple-period "square" Hebrew script. Nowadays, the Syriac language, a late dialect of Aramaic, is sometimes referred-to as "Assyrian" by its speakers. It has three different styles in its written form which represent a further evolution of the 22-letter alphabet. Ezra didn't "change" anything!


      Ephraim

      Delete
    2. You are spot on, my friend! I previously expanded on your post but, alas, it was not published. What are they scared of?


      Ephraim

      Delete
  5. I know that that's the current consensus but current consensuses don't always impress me. I do know that Prof William Schniedewind has commented that Ktav Ashurit seems "almost frozen in time."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not what impresses, but what is correct that counts. Rabbinic opinion is often wrong. It amazes me how people exert so much effort in the study of such over-rated literature as the Talmud, whilst neglecting the primary sources of Judaism. And it amazes me even more that Halacha is still based on its erroneous ideas. The only thing "frozen in time" is Orthodox thinking.


      Ephraim

      Delete
    2. Rabbinic opinion is often wrong about what? What should halacha be based on in your opinion?

      Delete
    3. Wrong about what?! Basic scientific facts, some of which are, nowadays, common knowledge. Like, for example, the time it takes for dough to leaven (which the poskim themselves couldn't even agree on!). Or the erroneous idea that fruit juice does not have a leavening effect. Or various biological misconceptions, like the notion that a pregnant woman can be further impregnated. Or the insistence that "peri-eitz hadar", by faulty linguistics, equates to the "ethrogh" (a word not of Hebrew origin, which does not even appear in the Tanach), even though citrus fruits were not indigenous to Israel.

      But I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, anyway, so I need not go on.


      Ephraim

      Delete
    4. My (long overdue) response: http://shakenfaithless.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-secret-life-of-nonsense.html Thanks...

      Delete
    5. Rabbi have no special authority as the priests in ancent times had, so they should especially have no special authority to say what is an archaeological matter about language. It seems improbable that partially nomadic tribes who had such a special position for writing would lose their original script in a few hundred years because of miss when it was clear that they could do that with any script because of free will (and later on would do the same thing with square script, supposedly again, with no larger consequences)

      Delete
  6. the incorrect nomenclature is to blame for most of the confusion. The first Tablets as well as the first Torah scroll (perhaps even the 12 scrolls Moshe wrote which he gave to the 12 tribes) were definitely written in Ktav "Ashurit". We know that the 22 letters of this script are the building blocks of the universe and the creation itself according to Kabbalah. Therefore it is ridiculous to assume that the Nation of Israel "adopted" this script from the Assyrians/Babylonians. This was the holy script which was known only to the spiritual elite. So as our language, the Lashon Ivri, is the original and holy language, it would only be reasonable to call the Ktav Ashuri by the more historically and religiously correct term Ktav Ivri.

    The ancient script used for mundane purposes by ancient Israelites in the Land of Israel, which is mistakenly called Ktav "Ivri", is instead Ktav "Yehudit" as it was mainly used by the Kingdom of Yehuda. After the northern tribes seceded, led by the tribe of Joseph, a slightly different script developed from this "mundane" Ktav Yehudit for use in the Josephic north and therefore it is more correctly called Ktav Yosephi, or better known by its more common name Ktav Shomroni. Ktav Yehudit and Ktav Yosephi are thus slight variations of each other and were both used by the general public for mundane purposes in both the southern Kingdom of Yehuda and the northern Kingdom of Yoseph/Samaria while the spiritual teachers and priests in both south and north used the holy Ktav Ivri (originated at Sinai) for religious and spiritual matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ahh yes! the ancient Torah. The unbroken written and oral law. Handed down from God to Moses to the people. Never changed, never forgotten and continually handed down.

    2 Chronicles 34:14-15

    The forgotten book had been found. The oral law had not yet been published (or even in existence or otherwise the written law wouldn't had been forgotten). There are many opinions as to what alphabet was used.

    ...and yet, now this is the most confusing, it's all 100% truth and handed down unchanged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That episode in Chronicles has been deal with many times. No one has ever suggested that large swaths of the Jewish population could forget the Torah (as is clearly the case today) - just that it would not be entirely forgotten - which it has not been.

      King Josiah was only 8 when he became king and his Sadducee handlers did not teach him more about the Torah than they wanted him to know (which was not much). The definite article "hey" implied that a very specific scroll was found - "The Scroll" - referring to the one written in Moses's own hand. The fact that it was found open to the section of rebuke in Deuteronomy was what discomfited them and caused his awakening. The Torah was certainly not lost...

      Delete