“cannot receive a commandment to change even the slightest detail (e.g. Mantzipa”kh)”

Thank you very kindly.

1. There are three areas which have caused dispute as to the “correct” text of the Torah:
a. the differences in the three formulations of the Torah: the traditional, the Samaritan and the Hebrew original of the Greek translation
b. the changes introduced intentionally by Soferim: Itturei Soferim and Tikkunei Soferim, changes such as those described by Ibn Ezra and Yehudah He-Chasid (as in this blog), and the kri/ketiv family of changes as stated by Radak and Aphodi. [By the way, R Spira refers us to Radak’s comment in Samuel II (repeated in his introduction to Prophets) and says Radak’s comments on kri/ketiv do not refer to the Torah, but Abarbanel says Radak’s comments refer to the Torah]
c. text transmission problems (mainly, but not only malei/chaser)

2. The differences between the two texts of the Torah in use today (the Ashkenazi/Sephardi and the Yemenite) result only from transmission problems. The Yemenite method was to always copy from the one correct master-copy (the Aleppo Codex). The Ashkenazi/Sephardi method was, in every place in the text where there is a dispute between scrolls, to go according to the majority of available authoritative scrolls. The Ramah (Abulafia) was the father the Ashkenazi/Sephardi text, with the Or Torah and Minchat Shai putting the polishing touches to his work. It’s important to note what disarray the text of the Torah was in, in the days of the Ramah. He writes in his introduction to Masoret Seyag Letorah:
“ספרים מוגהים בידינו גם הם נמצאו בהם מחלקות רבות ולולי המסרות שנעשו סייג לתורה כמעט לא מצא אדם ידיו ורגליו במחלקות … ואם יאמר אדם לכתוב ס”ת כהלכתו ילקה בחסר וביתר ונמצא מגשש כעור כאפלת המחלקות … ואני מאיר הלוי … וללכת אחרי הישנים הנאמנים ולנטות בהם אחר הרוב”
He settles thousands of disputes over predominantly (but not only) malei/chaser.

3. I have not seen a treatment of how and when the various Ashkenazi and Sephardi versions coalesced into one. If anybody can refer me to such a treatment I would appreciate it.

4. There are two articles I recommend reading on the faith issue of this blog:
• האידיאה בדבר קדושת הנוסח לאותיותיו וביקורת הטקסט, מאת מנחם כהן
His discussion of the three “types” of text of the Torah in use towards the end of Second Temple times and his discussion of the texts of the Torah in various locations (Israel, Babylon, Spain, Ashkenaz) in the Middle Ages, are particularly illuminating.
• Encounters between Torah min Hashamayim and Biblical Criticism, by Ilana Goldstein Saks. She discusses how four contemporary thinkers handle this encounter: Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann, Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, Rabbi David Weiss Halivni and Dr. Tamar Ross.

5. Each of today’s leading Rabbis determines his policy on whether, and how, to grapple publicly with the problems of faith raised by the proposition that parts of the Torah are post-Mosaic. His policy is determined by his theological, religio-political and sociological framework.

6. R. Feinstein forbade (unsuccessfully) the publication of R. Yehudah He-Chasid’s commentary to the Torah, and after it was published, wanted to burn the whole book. All this was because of a few dubious references in the commentary to post-Mosaic changes to the Torah (see R. Feinstein’s answers nos. 114 and 115). Following Haym Soloveitchik’s idea, the reason for R. Feinstein’s vehement reaction to the commentary is that he saw it in the framework of the twentieth century and orthodox Jewry’s battle with the Documentary Hypothesis and with the Reform/Conservative approach to Torah min hashamayim. If some famous twelfth century or twentieth century Rabbi would have written that G-d created the whole universe except black holes, R. Feinstein would not have had such an extreme reaction, but would have dismissed it as weird. And this, even though such a proposition goes against Rambam’s first principle as much as R. Yehudah He-Chasid goes against his eighth.

Unlike R. Feinstein, the Tzitz Eliezer and R.Sherlo, for instance, are definitely in favour of publicising the comments of Ibn Ezra and R. Yehudah He-Chasid and dealing with the issues they raise.

7. Another point to be taken into account by the Rabbis in their decision whether to publicise the issue or not, is from whom are they trying to conceal it. With twenty-first century communications, the “secret” is going to get out. This is true even for charedi Rabbis trying to conceal it from their communities. As R. Sherlo points out, concealing it is wrong in principle and, in the long run, harmful in practice.

Furthermore, any “baal habayit” who learns the secret is faced with the choice of propagating it or not. Many will choose to propagate it.

8. Ibn Ezra and R. Yehudah He-Chasid wrote their comments in the framework of the 11-12th centuries and the surrounding cultures in their localities. R. Spira judges them from the perspective of 21st century Orthodoxy, for instance when he says “thus, giving Ibn Ezra the benefit of the doubt, it can be assumed that the Ibn Ezra was an Orthodox Jew who is indeed one of the Rishonim (and therefore one of our ba’alei mesorah), as befits someone who is quoted by Tosafot”. This is inappropriate time-wise and culture-wise. It is also inappropriate to view the issue purely through the spectacles of Halachah. R. Spira strains to, one by one, dismiss and explain away many Rishonim and Achronim who do not agree with R. Feinstein’s halachic ruling. One can be surprised that various Rishonim had certain views but one should not bend over backwards to try to deny they had those views because it goes against what is politically correct today in certain circles.

1. The issues brought up are very important to Jews today.

2. There’s a great drash (I don’t remember who wrote it) on the verse
ויהי ריב בין רעי מקנה אברם ובין רעי מקנה לוט והכנעני והפרזי אז ישב בארץ:
It says that the Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the land to stress that they were dwelling in the land together in peace with one another, but the shepherds of Abraham and Lot could not manage to do that.

3. In his article in the Israeli magazine “Shabbaton” on parshat Vayishlach, R. Yuval Sherlo tackles the very same issues being tackled in your post. He discusses whether today the Rabbis should deal with the post-Mosaic belief conflict raised by the verse
ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום לפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל:
and Ibn Ezra’s comments on it.
He says that the policy of not dealing with the issue is not a good one for two reasons. Firstly, many people encounter the issue only when they are young men or women and are not equipped to deal with it, and then lose faith in their Rabbis. He writes that many students feel they’ve been duped and the Rabbis have concealed from them true faith by burying complex questions deep in the ground. Secondly, we are demanded to believe with open eyes not shut eyes. When there is a big question, true faith is strengthened by a tough meaningful answer. We are not allowed to hide anything of G-d’s true Torah. Doing so is deviating from the path of the Chachamim and Rishonim. They didn’t conceal – they asked, they struggled with the issues and found answers.

(A) Dr. Steiner reports substantial evidence regarding textual emendations that the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah effectuated in various books of the Prophets and Hagiographa.
My personal analysis is that this substantial evidence identified by Dr. Steiner is entirely consistent with R. Feinstein’s ruling. R. Feinstein affirms the authenticity of the Masoretic text of our Sefer Torah, but is certainly amenable to editorial changes having been orchestrated to the Prophets and Hagiographa. Cf. points (2) and (7) above, where I apply this to the Book of Esther and the Book of Zechariah, respectively.

(B) Dr. Steiner reports that the dots on words in the Sefer Torah are taken by one non-halakhic source to indicate a doubt that Ezra entertained whether the words belong in the Sefer Torah. This non-halakhic source is identified by Dr. Steiner on p. 139 in footnote no. 49 as “De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts, 95 (3 recto 11-3)”. The non-halakhic source states as follows in its Commentary on Genesis and Exodus (at Genesis 33:4):

“Why is וישקהו dotted? Some say that Ezra found a manuscript in which (the word) was written and another in which it was not written, and so he dotted it, and if you take it (the word) out, the verse is not detached from its plain meaning. And so it is with all of the dotted words (in Scripture).”

By contradistinction, continues Dr. Steiner on pp. 140-141, the rabbinic sources regard the dots as a sign that the text belongs, but that it should be interpreted in a special way. In Dr. Steiner’s words, the rabbinic tradition teaches that the dots cast aspersion “not about the correctness of the text but about its literal truth or about the sincerity of the action it describes” [E.g. Esav did not kiss Jacob sincerely, or – alternatively (to the converse extent) – Esav experienced an uncharacteristic moment of repentance and therefore kissed Jacob.]
This certainly confirms what I wrote in point (6) above. Accordingly – as further elucidated in point (6) – there was no actual need for R. Feinstein to take umbrage at R. Joshua Falk’s interpretation of Ezra’s soliloquy in Avot Di-Rabbi Natan, for R. Falk and R. Feinstein are actually saying the very same thing. They both agree that every single word in our Sefer Torah was dictated by HaKadosh Barukh Hu to Mosheh Rabbeinu. Thus, Dr. Steiner’s treatment of the dots on the Sefer Torah is fully consistent with R. Feinstein’s ultimate ruling. Although the one non-halakhic source Dr. Steiner quotes does contradict R. Feinstein’s ruling, this is of no concern to Orthodox Jewish theology, which gleans its information from halakhic sources.

(C) On pp. 148-149, Dr. Steiner cites the Radak in his commentary to II Samuel 15:21 regarding kri u’khtiv. [Actually, this information is also correctly marshalled by Dr. Shapiro on p. 101 in ch. 7 of his own book “The Limits of Orthodox Theology”. I apologize that I neglected to ever relate to this Radak in point (10) above. I will now make restitution for that omission.]
The Radak, as translated by Dr. Steiner, states that:

“As for these words, which are written but not read or read but not written, as well as that which is written and read (differently), it seems that in the first exile books were lost and moved around, and the scholars who knew Scripture died, and the men of the Great Assembly who restored the Torah to its original state found disagreement among the extant manuscripts, and they followed the majority in (dealing with) them, in accordance with their understanding. And in places where their understanding did not attain clarity, they wrote one thing but did not point it, or they wrote it outside but not inside, or they wrote one thing inside (in the text) and another outside (in the margin).”

The Radak offers the above remarks in his commentary on Na”kh (and specifically in reference to the first appearance of the word “Im” in II Samuel 15:22) and not in his commentary on the Torah, apparently indicating that the Radak is only referring to the kri u’khtiv of the Prophets and Hagiographa. After all, if the Radak had intended to claim that there are words in the Sefer Torah itself whose Masoretic authenticity is questionable, then the Radak should have offered these remarks in his treatment of the Pentateuch, on the very first kri u’khtiv that appears in the Pentateuch. Indeed, this supposition that Radak refers only to Na”kh is seemingly confirmed in the fact that the Radak combines his analysis of kri u’khtiv with ktiv vilo kri and kri vilo ktiv. The latter two phenomena only exist in the Prophets and Hagiograpaha, *not* the Pentateuch. Thus, it makes sense to assume that the Radak refers only to the Prophets and Hagiographa. The Me’iri, by contradistinction [whose approach is explained in point (10) above] specifically advises his reader that he will be addressing the Pentateuch in addition to the Prophets and Hagioagrapha, and therefore that one should by aware that the 2 anomalies of kri vilo ktiv and ktiv vilo kri do not exist in the Pentateuch. Thus, the Radak appears consistent with R. Feinstein’s ruling.

However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I must add that I do not know whether the article itself would agree with my reading of the Radak. I say this because of one sentence that the article proffers on p. 150:

“Thus, one suspects that the words אנשי כנסת הגדולה שהחזירו התורה לישנה מצאו מחלוקת בספרים may be Radaq’s expansion of ג’ ספרים מצא עזרא.”

On the one hand, the article might simply be positing that just as the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah adjudicated the validity of three Torah scrolls – as cited in Mesekhet Sofrim 6:4 [and as explained in point (13) above] – so too the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah took upon themselves the task of correcting the extant manuscripts of Prophets and Hagiographa. If so, the article is not contradicting my understanding of the Radak, and is therefore consistent with R. Feinstein’s ruling

Nevertheless, one might alternatively interpret the article as understanding the Radak to maintain that even in the Sefer Torah itself the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah entertained doubts regarding the authenticity of its Masoretic text of the words. Such a reading of the Radak would contradict R. Feinstein’s ruling that one must believe that our Sefer Torah is word-perfect. The basis for this alternative reading of the Radak is the Radak’s comment that the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah “restored the Torah to its original state”.

In my opinion, I do not think that the Radak actually meant to assert with his phrase “shehecheziru ha-Torah li’yoshnah” that the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah discovered doubts regarding the legitimacy of any of the words in our Sefer Torah. In addition to the considerations raised earlier (viz. that the Radak makes this comment only in Na”kh and not in Chumash, as well as the Radak’s equation of kri u’khtiv with kri vilo ktiv and ktiv vilo kri which is only relevant to Na”kh), I would observe that the Radak says in context “Anshei Knesset Hagedolah shehechizru ha-Torah li’yoshanah matz’u machaloket basefarim”; there is a letter “sheen” at the beginning of “shehecheziru”. The Radak is apparently simply explaining who the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah are – what is their background. If the Radak actually meant that the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah discovered problems with the legitimacy of the Masoretic text of the Pentateuch, then the Radak should seemingly have omitted the “sheen” and instead have written “Anshei Knesset Hagedolah hecheziru ha-Torah li’yoshnah umatz’u machaloket basefarim…” [-adding a “vav” to “matz’u”]. I.e., while attempting to restore the authentic Masoretic text of the Torah scroll, the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah discovered insoluble doubts.

Accordingly, it would seem to me that the Radak is compatible with R. Feinstein’s ruling.

D) There is one further topic of interest in Dr. Steiner’s article, which – while peripheral to the article – is central to the halakhic discussion of R. Feinstein’s ruling. In footnote no. 117, Dr. Steiner writes that “This is not the place to deal with Ibn Ezra’s use of the expression והמשכיל ידום (cf. Amos 5:13) in his commentary to Gen 12:6…”
Indeed, the Ibn Ezra’s views on the authenticity of the Masoretic text lie at the very heart of this halakhic discussion. Accordingly, I hope we will soon hear a response from R. Eliashiv, as indicated in my previous post (Nov. 30).

(a) He is one of the scholars to whom R. Feinstein addressed the original alarm call that R. Yehudah Hachassid’s alleged commentary is a forgery that is endangering the spiritual welfare of the public.
(b) He is reputed to be a kabbalist, and so perhaps he can offer a better account that I regarding the Ibn Ezra’s “secret of the twelve”.

Thank you very much for patiently waiting whatever amount of time this consultation process will take.

1. I congratulate my former student, Rabbi Spira for his thorough review of the issue.

2. Rabbi Spira appears to have committed the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. That is, he assumes the point to be proven, namely, that Rav Feinstein’s position on this issue is normative, and therefore he draws the conclusion that anyone who dissents from it cannot be a genuine rishon, but must be a heretic. Rabbi Spira even says that if it could be shown, which he does not believe to be the case, that ibn Ezra (IE) did in fact believe in post-Mosaic additions, then he could no longer be considered to be a genuine rishon. WADR, that way madness lies.

3 Perhaps with regard to IE’s comment on Gen. 12.6 one could with difficulty offer another explanation as to what the sod might be. But from his comment on Deut. 1.3, “be-ever hayrden” it is as clear as day that the sod there is the existence of post-Mosaic additions, and any other explanation regarding supposed kabbalistic secrets is so so strained as to be simply unbelievable.

I have the same problem with Rabbi Klapper’s new post, as he seems to be running it through his personal conception of what is acceptable according to his own theological perspective.

As I have tried to stress, the only issue I raise is whether Rabbi Klapper’s original post misrepresents Ibn Ezra’s theology,in light of the preeminent commentary Tzafnas Paneach.

The issue is careful scholarship.