[Avodah] Paleo-Hebrew Script

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:31:02AM -0400, Prof. Levine forwarded from
an anonymous emailer:
> * By now, there is ample evidence that Paleo-Hebrew script was indeed
> the only one in use during Bayis Rishon. If Ashuris already existed,
> it was very severely restricted, because AFAIK no document with
> Ashuris has been found in Bayis Rishon Israel.

You then hedge on this:
> is no way to prove or disprove this, since the number of documents
> where Ashuris would have been permissible was comparatively small (the
> Lu'hos and perhaps the sifrei Torah, made of materials that
> disintegrate over time, so that none were preserved to this day that

As I wrote in the post I linked to before (v8n113), the data is also
consistent with the third shitah on Sanhedrin 22b:
> 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.

Back to the anonymous email:
> * Whether Kessav Ashuris was the original alphabet or not is a matter
> of dispute in the Talmud. The Bavli in Sanhedrin rules that Ashuris
> was the original alef-beis...

> * I understand that the Yerushalmi concludes differently than the
> Bavli,

As above, that's the gemara in Megillah, implied by "mem vesamech
shebaluchos", but is does NOT appear to be the masqanah in Mes' Sanhedrin.
R' Yosi, the first name on the third opinion in Mes' Sanhedrin, is a 
major voice in the Y-mi, so this may not be coincidental. (Unless
I'm getting two different R' Yosi's confused.)

>        and even if it didn't, on historical matters, either something
> was or wasn't, and the usual rules of arriving at halakhic conclusions
> don't apply, so the rejected view in the Bavli may just as well be
> right.

It could be, but it wouldn't be halachic. Just as the nisuch hamayim in
bayis rishon not being halachic as per pesaqim in bayis sheini. (And the
shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini made this new nisuch hamayim
possible, and weren't in the first mizveiach.) This is a point I want
to develop further down.

> * It certainly seems more convincing that Ashuris was from Ashur, and
> that under the guidance of Neviiim, we allowed the adoption of this
> new script, because one would be hard pressed to explain how a bunch
> of exiled, downtrodden people could teach an empire to use a new
> alphabet...

WELLL.... Mentioning those neviim... They were major figures in the
court of Bavel and among the intelligentsia of that empire. Could they
not have taught Ashuris to Ashur?

Could the writing on the wall in the days of Daniel not have been taken
by the Assyrians as a sign that heaven uses a different script and they
should to?

But I prefer the resolution in the beggining of Yonah Rabba. I have no
idea how old YR is, but it's a clever resolution...
Of the generation of the Hahaflagah (I'm guessing this is as opposed to
the elders alive at time, like Sheim) two people refused to participate.
Avraham and Ashur. Avraham was given the gift of lashon haqodesh.
Ashur was given two gifts: kesav Ashuris, and Nineveh being given a
second chance in the days of Yonah.

And so, the script ends up being that of heavenly Osher AND of Ashur.

...
> * The modern understanding of the significance of tagin is problematic
> no matter what...

This is where I think the difference between history and halakhah is
relevent.

Tagin are significant whether the product of Adam's pre-haflagah
knowledge, Moshe's nevu'ah, Ezra's nevu'ah, or bestowed to the tannaim
by ruach haqodesh just in time for R' Aqiva to darshen them. (Which I
think is guzmah for his darshening "extra" words that are normal idiom,
but that's a different discussion.) We now pasqen they are mandatory,
at least lechatkhilah -- I think that of the tagin, only qutzo shel yud
is me'aqev. 

>          Rabbi Akivo believes in connecting the messoroh, including
> halokho leMoshe miSinai, to the Biblical text with whatever methods he
> could come up with...

Basically, R' Aqiva tried to eliminate TSBP as a distinct concept. More
like that which is more or less obvious in the Torah. Could be related
to his founding a school of medrash halakhah as well as initiating
the mishnah project. Leshitaso, there is no devarim shebe'al peh that
one can't write down.

> * Regarding the requirements that kisvei kodesh be written
> kehaviyatam, that refers to the minimal tzuras haos, the pessu'hos and
> setumos (and seduros, according to those Rishonim who hold we have
> such a kind of parshiyo), and that we generally follow the pessak of
> the botei din hagedolim shebiyrusholayim throughout the generations of
> yore. That is our messorah, not some historical revisionism as to the
> "true" tzuras haosiyos. Anshei Knesses haGedolo had enough authority,
> and some prophets to boot, to obligate us in writing this way.

Well, isn't a letter a convention among those who use it?

In any case, your description of your position WRT tzuras ha'os blurs
lechat-khilah, bedi'eved, and hidurim. You skip between whether tagin of
"significant", which even as a hidur would imply they are to what kind
of tzuras ha'os is kasher.

> * Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Sheim Havayo in Kessav
> 'Ivris, there are two ways to understand that: Either the switch to
> Ashuris took a lot longer than we think, and people didn't "trust" the
> new script for the holiest word...

Or people didn't want the holiest word in the holiest script. (As you
later write, which again follows the form of firm claim followed by
a conflicting opinion.)

Or the Qumranim bedavqa wanted to be cholqim on us WRT kesav.

BTW, here's a picture of what the author is writing about. Here is
a section from Hallel <http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/images/psalm-b.jpg>
See on the 1st amudah, the 2nd line ends "Beis Aharon" <new line>
"borkhu es H'".

My point overall is that for someone who notes all those conflicting
possibilities, you sure come across as being very convinced of a given
position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha at aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507