Reflecting on Judaism

Dear Friend,
 
 
I want to thank you most sincerely for having given me of your time to explain your theory concerning the above subject. The problem is a simple one; the explanation much more complicated. Set out in simple terms the problem is as follows.
 
 
 
It is a little known but accepted fact that the script now being used for writing the Torah is different from the script that was used before the time of Ezra the scribe (circa 450 BCE) and it was Ezra who introduced the change.  Rabbis in the Talmud Sanhedrin, chapter 22, discuss the subject
 
 
 
The problem is that since we Jews consider the Torah to be inviolate and ‘from heaven’ (for whatever meaning we give to this expression), by what authority did Ezra change its script. If it were today suggested that the Torah be rewritten in the Latin script the suggestion would be instantly, vigorously condemned and dismissed by today’s rabbis as being sacrilege.
 
 
 
I believe that you raised the subject with me as a result of comments I made in one of my essays showing that this transliteration serves to confirm the fact that our religious leaders have the power to amend the Halachah when circumstances require it. The circumstance that prevailed at the time of Ezra was that our people in Eretz Yisroel could no longer read the original script.
 
 
 
Your explanation is, and I hope that I am not misquoting you, that originally at Mount Sinai, God intended that the Torah be written in the same script as is used for writing the Torah today. i.e. Aramaic square script. However, following the sin of the ‘Golden calf’ God changed this intention as a punishment, and the script He substituted, Ktav Ivri, was that which prevailed until Ezra changed it. What sort of punishment was that? All that Ezra did, you say, was to revert to the Aramaic square script as was intended at Sinai.
 
 
 
In support of your theory you quoted from Deuteronomy, chapter 17 v.18 which refers to a possible future king of Israel which states ‘he shall write him a ‘copy’ of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites’.  In Hebrew the word for ‘copy’ is ‘mishnah’ which can also mean ‘change’ and you give this second meaning as the authority for Ezra to change the script back to that originally intended, the knowledge of which, you claim, still existed.
 
 
 
You very kindly confirmed that you were advancing only your theory, which I could accept or reject, and I promised to research it further. I set out my reaction.
 
1.      Every book that I have read or referred to states that the king was to carry a ‘copy’ of the Torah with him. Your suggested alternative meaning of ‘change’ does not fit comfortably with these references.
 
2.      Revelation at Sinai occurred circa 1300 BCE. We call the script then in general use by many nations, ‘ktav Ivri’ (and by several other names by historians). This script is still used by the Samaritans for writing their version of the Torah.
 
3.      The oldest known document using the Aramaic square script is dated circa 515 BCE, some 65 years before Ezra (450 BCE).  The earliest known use of the Aramaic language is circa 800 BCE
 
4.      If Saul, the first king of Israel (circa 1000 BCE) received the Torah in the ‘ktav Ivri’ script, how was he able to know of the Aramaic square script that came into use only some 500 years after his time?  Alternatively, if God did change the Torah script from the intended ‘Aramaic square’ to ‘ktav Ivri’ at Sinai, how did Saul get a copy of the originally intended ‘Aramaic square’ script across a span of three hundred years; from Sinai to his time. By your definition, the originally intended script could no longer have existed.  
 
5.      You did explain to me why changing the Torah script in response to the building of the Golden Calf represented a punishment. I won’t repeat the details here but do admit that I found the explanation somewhat esoteric. What you did not explain is the reason for the punishment being removed after some 850 years (from the time of Revelation to Ezra) and the original script reinstated. 
 
 
 
It is an unfortunate fact, acknowledged by many Jewish orthodox historians, that when the rabbis wish to introduce new concepts or explain difficulties such as I am now describing, they try to find a reference in the Torah which can be interpreted to accommodate their requirements. I wonder whether your explanation is of this nature?
 
 
 
Personally, I prefer to accept the alternative, namely, that the religious leaders have the authority to alter and amend Halachah when circumstances require it.
 

March 2001.