Halakhah Study Group 030

1:
The text of the Bible has been handed down through the ages with surprising conformity. For example, the book which is now called the book of Isaiah must have been originally published some time in the 5th century BCE (and large parts of its text must date back to the 8th century BCE); but the earliest written copy of the book that has come down to us – recovered from the caves at Qumran by the Dead Sea – dates to the beginning of the 1st century BCE. (For the sake of clarity let us say that the physical scroll that was hidden in the caves by the inhabitants of Qumran around the year 70 CE was about 150 years old when it was secreted.) However, ignoring differences of orthography, the text is almost identical to the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah which is to be found in our bibles today. Similar comments could be made about other, more fragmentary, copies of biblical texts recovered from Qumran since 1947.

2:
The uniformity of the biblical text as presently received is due to the work of a group of scholars known collectively as the massoretes. The massoretes were individual scholars working according to a school of thought that flourished for many centuries. The last vestiges of their work must be dated as late as the 15th century CE, but the main bulk of their work dates from the 5th century CE to the 10th century CE. Most of these scholars are anonymous. What is now seen as being a 'definitive' version of the text was set out by Aaron ben-Asher in the 10th century CE. Rambam [Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 8:4] recommends this as being the most accurate version of the text and says that he copied his own personal sefer Torah from the Ben-Asher manuscript.

3:
What the massoretes wanted to do was to pass on to later generations a biblical text that was as accurate and as reliable as possible. It is this desire of these scholars to 'pass on' or transmit an accurate text that gave them their name: massorah in Hebrew comes from a root which indicates 'passing on' or 'transmission'. Thus scholars and academics call the present Hebrew text of the Bible the Massoretic text. The massoretes were responsiblwe for many innovations whose purpose was to ensure that not only was the text accurate but that later generations, for whom Hebrew might not be a spoken language, would be able to recite the text properly. To this end they invented a system of diacritical signs that could be added above and below the existing text in order to indicate how the vowels were to be correctly pronounced. They also invented another system of diacritical signs whose purpose was to indicate the correct relationship of the words of a sentence to each other. The former system we now recognize as nekudot – the vowel-signs by which we read the text – and the latter system is what we now call ta'amé ha-mikra and they are the signs which now serve to indicate how the biblical text is to be chanted in public.

4:
However, paragraph 8 of section 141 is not about either of these textual aids. Often the massoretes indicated that a word should not be read as it is written. In the margin of the text they would note that although the received text is written (ketiv) in one manner it is to be read (kré) in a different manner. Sometimes these variations were simply orthographic: for instance, the correction noted in Genesis 39:20 – a correction which makes no significanct change to the import of the word. Sometimes, however, the change was great and deliberate. For example, in Deuteronomy 28:30 the JPS English translation reads as follows:

The word rather coyly translated here as 'shall enjoy her' is indicated by the massoretic marginal note as to be read 'shall bed her' (or as vulgar modernity would have it, 'shall lay her'). But the written text actually uses a much more juicy and down-to-earth expression – which I shall to your imagination to guess.. The Massoretes were not saying that the word was an error to be corrected; they were saying that the substitute word should be used when reading the Torah publicly for reasons of propriety. In both the example from Genesis and the example from Deuteronomy the received text is marked ketiv (written) and the adjusted text is marked kré (read).

5:
The rule laid down (with some emphasis) by Karo in paragraph 8 of section 141 is that when the Torah is read publicly the kré is always to be used, never the ketiv. The dire consequences that will befall a Torah reader who obstinately deviates from this rule are illustrated by historical reference. The Rabbi Isaac Abohav mentioned by Karo is probably not the great author of Menorat ha-Ma'or, Isaac Aboab who died around the year 1300. In all probability Karo is referring to the Rabbi Isaac Aboab [1433-1493] who was known as 'the last ga'on of Castille'.

In HSG 025 I wrote: Paragraph 3 of section 141 introduces a custom which nowadays is certainly 'more honoured in the breach than the observance' – and rightly so. Rashi, in his commentary on Tractate Shabbat, mentions the custom whereby the cantor reads each word out loud and then the honoree repeats this word, 'parrot fashion'. Since it is hard to imagine a custom more shaming than this Jewish tradition, rightly in my view, seems to have consigned this custom to oblivion.

Ze'ev Orzech writes:

We go to great length not to shame somebody in connection with the reading from the Torah. Is it not strange then that we accept the wide range of tallitot (some of which are very high priced, indeed) that some people wear when coming up for an aliyyah? Or are these acceptable as hiddur mitzvah?

I respond:

It is very rare that Jewish communities issue sumptuary laws – laws designed to prevent expensive extravagance. If a community were to issue such a law today I would hope that it would be directed against Bar-Mitzvah celebrations that might shame a wedding feast for their brilliance and expense. As long as a tallit accords with the requirements of halakhah there is no need to prohibit demonstrative decoration. If the use of unecessarily expensive tallitot were to become a social fashion, causing financial distress to those who feel shamed at not being able to meet the fashionable expense then a case could be made out for some kind of sumptuary law. In Israel, at least, I see no cause for such a step; nor do I see how a sumptuary law could be enforced anywhere else. If in a particular community there is such a problem the congregation could purchase a communal tallit or two and require all those who are honoured with an aliyyah to use it exclusively as a ceremonial item.

---

Mark Lehrman writes:

I have a question somewhat related to the question posed by "Adriana" in Torah 026 – is there a rule that requires the honoree who recites the blessings before and after the Maftir reading to then read the Haftarah?

I respond:

If you mean must the person who recites the blessings for the haftarah be the one who actually reads the haftarah? – the answer is that it is generally permissible for an agent to recite the haftarah on behalf of the principle who recited the blessings (just as is habitually the case with reading from the Torah). However, if you mean to ask whether it is permitted for one person to be honoured with maftir and another person to recite the haftarah (with the blessings) I must say that I have never heard of such an arrangement. The whole purpose of maftir – rereading a few verses from the Torah – is so that the person reading the haftarah will not be left with no honour from the Torah reading.

More of your queries and comments next time.