[Avodah] Ksav Ivri and Ksav Ashuri

[Micha Berger]

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n027.shtml#14 is the repost of
an scjm post that I copied here. He based himself on "The Commentator's
Gift of Torah" by Rabbi Yitzchak Sender (RY Skokie).

In Chapter 2, there is a discussion "How was the Torah written" that
discusses the 3 opinions.

the 3 positions are
> 1 The Torah was originally in hebrew and then ezra changed it to
> assyrian script
> 2 The Torah was originally in assyrian script then it was changed to
> hebrew script then ezra changed it back to assyrian
> 3 The Torah was always in assyrian.

> position 1 is held by Mar Ukva and Rabbi Yosi
> position 2 is held by Rabbi Yehuda the prince
> position 3 is held by Rabbi Elazar of modin

> position 1  appears to raise many objections.
> a)... 

My own 2 cents are at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n113.shtml#03>,
including the Radvaz who says the first luchos were in Ashuris, but after the
eigel we only deserved kesav Ivri. I also have a longer discussion of Sanhedrin
21a-22b, and the machloqes mora'im there.

The minim would use kevav Ivri for sheim Havayah perhaps to keep the
shemos issue down to a minimum. But they're minim -- for all we know
they could have just chosen to go bedavqa with the script we eschewed.

I closed my post with:
> 3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final opinion.
> The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim to conclude
> that this is the gemara's maskana.

> The script was always used in sifrei qodesh. Rather, it was only
> popularized for other writing biymei Ezra.

> The Radvaz's resolution would lead to this metzi'us as well, that the
> sacred Ashuris was known to only a few, but given to the masses in Ivris.

> This would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
> rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin is
> discussing how it was given to the rabbim. If understood this way, then
> the reference to Aramis is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
> Aramis and not LhQ, were given a targum. However, no one proposed changing
> the language of the text itself. (What would happen to derashos if that
> really were the proposal?)

> This would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing on the
> wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!

RSM notes that Kesav Ashuris is more likely from "osher" than Assyria, as
it's not a script used in Assyria.

Thinking out loud:
OTOH, Aramaic was the Assyrian language, and Kesav Ashuris was our Aramaic
kesav, so maybe the name reached it by that two-step association.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
micha at aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org   	     - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507