Monday, July 4, 2016

What כתב was the Torah given in?

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (21b-22a) has a 3 way dispute.

  1. R' Yosi says that the Torah was given in כתב עברית and at the time of Ezra the כתב was changed to אשורית which is what we have now.
  2. Rebbe says that the torah was given in כתב אשורית but after the Jewish people sinned during the time of the first Beis Hamikdash the כתב was changed to כתב עברית and at the time of Ezra the כתב was changed back to אשורית which is what we have now.
  3. R' Elazar Hamodai says that the כתב never changed and the torah was given in כתב אשורית and remained in כתב אשורית.
Before getting into any lomdus, lets think about the implications of this dispute. According to Chazal the second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years and the Tannaim lived a little before and after the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash. In other words, the dispute in the Gemara in Sanhedrin took place no more then 550 years after Ezra and yet they have no idea what really happened at the time of Ezra, did he change the כתב or not. This is not some minor dispute, this is a major dispute with huge historical ramifications. According to R' Elazar Hamodai all Sta"m from matan torah on were written in כתב אשורית. According to R' Yosi all Sta"m during from the time of Matan Torah through the period of the first Beis Hamikdash were written in כתב עברית and only at the time of Ezra the כתב was changed to אשורית. How could a dispute of this magnitude not be known? How could they not know what כתב was used 500 years before? According to R' Yosi there was a huge disruption, the כתב was  changed, how could that not be a well known event? R' Chaim Kanievsky claims that when Ezra changed the כתב all Sta"m written in כתב עברית became פסול. Think about that, at the time of Ezra every Sefer Torah, Tefillin and Mezuza had to be rewritten according to R' Yosi and Rebbe. Wouldn't such a change be remembered very clearly? How can R' Elazar Hamodai disagree? Of course, the disagreement is not based on historical sources, but rather each side brings pesukim further confirming the notion that they had no mesora/tradition on this at all.

The Ritva at the beginning of Megilla (and many Achronim) asks a very obvious question. How could R' Yosi say that the Torah was given in כתב עברית we know that there are so many halachos related to כתב אשורית and how to write a Sefer Torah? He brings a proof from the famous Gemara (Shabbos and the places) which states that the mem and samech of the luchos were בנס. He points out that that only works with כתב אשורית not כתב עברית. Therefore he says that it must be that even R' Yosi holds that the luchos were given in כתב אשורית which was then נגנז. 

The Radvaz points out that the Yerushalmi in Megilla contradicts the Ritva and states that according to R' Yosi the ע in the luchos was בנס because they were כתב עברית.

The Geonim, R' Chananel and others understand R' Yosi כפשוטו and pasken like R' Elazar Hamodai. According to the Geonim the Ritvas question certainly stands, how could it be that there are so many halachos related to כתב אשורית and so many mystical things when it wasn't even the כתב that the Torah was given in according to R' Yosi?

To summarise, the fact that there is a dispute whether the כתב changed shows that the mesora was basically non-existent. The Tannaim did not know critical religious/historical facts from only 500 years before. 


1 comment:

  1. Excellent research AJWQ - First there was no 'Torah' as in the 5 books of Moshe. It was most likely a compilation over many years using many scrolls and finally redacted at a much later date than the alleged Sinai revelation. The older scrolls were probably written in paleo Hebrew and maybe before that there were records in cuneiform. Very late written scrolls and redactions could have been and some probably were in square Hebrew. So actually it is possible some of the Torah was 'written' in paleo Hebrew and some in Square Hebrew. None of what I have written refutes your main point though.

    ReplyDelete