[Avodah] Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah

[Michael Makovi]

> We also frequently revisit the question of archeology and whether it could
> change the text we should use in a seifer Torah. If we found something
> provably from Ezra's seifer Torah that differed on malei vechaseir,
> would we follow that text -- or do we continue defining "kosher" via rov?
>
> R' Micha

According to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman, "Hazon Ish on Textual
Criticism and Halakhah - A Rejoinder" (Tradition 19:4, Winter 1981),
responding to Zvi Yehuda, "Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and
Halakhah" (Tradition 18:2, Summer 1980), if we found Moshe Rabbenu's
Torah scroll, we WOULD change our Torah scrolls to match it. Professor
Leiman notes that Rambam himself altered his Torah scroll to match the
Aleppo Codex, so why wouldn't we change our Torah scrolls similarly if
we found Moshe's scroll?

Additionally, Professor Leiman disputes Zvi Yehuda's description of
the Hazon Ish. According to Yehuda, the Hazon Ish, as a matter of
philosophical principle, did not utilize new manuscripts, etc., since
we can only go by our mesorah. But according to Leiman, based on Hazon
Ish's writings, the Hazon Ish's position was very different. According
to Leiman, the Hazon Ish was simply skeptical of many new manuscripts,
since one cannot know who wrote it, whether it was considered
acceptable in its own time, etc. The Hazon Ish brings an example: if
the Munich manuscript is found today with a significantly different
girsa, how do we know that the Munich's girsa isn't the erroneous one,
and the Vilna's the correct? The Hazon Ish, according to Leiman, was
skeptical of manuscripts only because we often don't know who wrote
them or how reliable they were in their own time. But Leiman shows
that in a few select cases, where the Hazon Ish was sure of the
manuscript's veracity and reliability, he DID rely on the manuscript,
overturning the mesorah and accepting new discoveries instead of the
mesorah.

Michael Makovi