[Mesorah] Is the Masoretic text the most authentic?

Mon Nov 11 13:03:30 PST 2019

The words "correct" and "authentic" are vague and therefore misleading. I
suggest using the phrases "has the same text as was in Moshe Rabenu's
sefer" or "has the text that halacha requires us to use."

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 3:49 PM Danny Levy via Mesorah <
mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> I think we need to distinguish between the recognition that the Masoretic
> text is the (most) correct one and the question of whether we can or should
> change our Sifrei Torah accordingly.
> My question was only about the former.  Changing p'sak that has been
> accepted for hundreds of years is quite a different story.
> I read that R. Nachum Rabinowitz corrected the Sifrei Torah in his Yeshiva
> in Maalei Adumim but I have not heard of any other posek of stature who
> gave a similar p'sak.
> R. Yitzchak Goldstein told me that he discussed this with R. Mordechai
> Eliyahu, who forbade it.
>
> Danny Levy
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 11 בנוב׳ 2019 ב-22:08 מאת ‪rabbirichwolpoe‬‏ <‪
> rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
>>
>> It means neither,
>> The truth trumps everything, because the Torah is always true.
>> Once it was decided that we pasken like Aharon ben Asher and we have a
>> manuscript that he himself wrote, the story is finished.
>> Other Rishonim, had they had the mss. as the Rambam did, would not have
>> disagreed. >>
>>
>> well I'm not convinced
>>
>> I had a private conversation with an Orthodox bible prof and he said
>>
>> "For me it's all about the quality of the manuscriot"
>>
>> I told him about some German customs
>>
>> and he then said
>>
>> "That's where community Minhog comes in..."
>>
>> He clearly did not presume that superior Mss. Trumped existing
>> established customs.
>>
>> It's also not clear about repeating bifeihem and lifnehem and unlikely to
>> uproot Zecher vs. Zeicher
>>
>> <<Other Rishonim, had they had the mss. as the Rambam did, would not have
>> disagreed>>
>>
>> how do we know this?
>>
>> I once presumed that The Rav MIGHT have changed his mind about a matter
>> of Mingagand I was excoriated for presuming he MIGHT  change his mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> RRW
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: "Mandel, Seth" <mandels at ou.org>
>> Date: 11/11/19 11:19 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: rabbirichwolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>, dovbbb at gmail.com, Danny
>> Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Moshe Bloom <moshebl at gmail.com>, mesorah at aishdas.org, Mesorah Email
>> List <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>, "Pickholtz, Ritchie" <
>> IsraelP at pikholz.org>, "Shanoon, Elihu" <elihu at saad.org.il>, Chaya
>> Bloom-Schorer <chayabloom at gmail.com>, Levmore david <dlevmore at gmail.com>,
>> Sandy K Bloom <sandykbloom at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Is the Masoretic text the most authentic?
>>
>> It means neither,
>> The truth trumps everything, because the Torah is always true.
>> Once it was decided that we pasken like Aharon ben Asher and we have a
>> manuscript that he himself wrote, the story is finished.
>> Other Rishonim, had they had the mss. as the Rambam did, would not have
>> disagreed.
>>
>> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>> Rabbinic Coordinator
>> The Orthodox Union
>>
>> Voice and Fax (212) 613-8330        e-mail mandels at ou.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* rabbirichwolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2019 9:31 AM
>> *To:* Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org>; dovbbb at gmail.com <dovbbb at gmail.com>;
>> Danny Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Moshe Bloom <moshebl at gmail.com>; mesorah at aishdas.org <
>> mesorah at aishdas.org>; Mesorah Email List <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>;
>> Pickholtz, Ritchie <IsraelP at pikholz.org>; Shanoon, Elihu <
>> elihu at saad.org.il>; Chaya Bloom-Schorer <chayabloom at gmail.com>; Levmore
>> david <dlevmore at gmail.com>; Sandy K Bloom <sandykbloom at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] Is the Masoretic text the most authentic?
>>
>>
>> The fact that Tosfos may have done so does not justify it nowadays when
>> we have so much more from the Masorah from mss than Tosfos did. >>
>>
>> So does this mean that
>> quality of mss. trumps
>>
>> 1. Minhag?
>> 2. Poskim?
>>
>>
>> RRW
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: "Mandel, Seth via Mesorah" <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>
>> Date: 11/10/19 19:59 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: dovbbb at gmail.com, Danny Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Moshe Bloom <moshebl at gmail.com>, mesorah at aishdas.org, Mesorah Email
>> List <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>, "Pickholtz, Ritchie" <
>> IsraelP at pikholz.org>, "Shanoon, Elihu" <elihu at saad.org.il>, Chaya
>> Bloom-Schorer <chayabloom at gmail.com>, Levmore david <dlevmore at gmail.com>,
>> Sandy K Bloom <sandykbloom at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Is the Masoretic text the most authentic?
>>
>> It is the fact that the ba’alei haNasorah worked so hard at establishing
>> the correct text (almost superhumanly) that R. Bloom refers to that won
>> them the allegiance of the poskim.
>> I also found it rather ludicrous that a rabbi would claim that all the
>> different versions were correct. The fact that Tosfos may have done so does
>> not justify it nowadays when we have so much more from the Masorah from mss
>> than Tosfos did.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__whatisworkspaceone.com_boxer&d=DwMGaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=paw1x03gzRXlvVAwYZU8aQizuNU93K-8f2_ZmW-ug2I&s=pGkgoFLkw24-hxr_JB46FE2zJ6wjA8cjPr1_g642-s4&e=>
>>
>> On November 10, 2019 at 7:50:49 PM EST, Dov Bloom via Mesorah <
>> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>>
>> It seems surprising that an ostensibly knowledgeable person would try to
>> claim that the Massoretic text means nothing, and any other version is
>> equal to it, being 'eilu veeilu divrei elokim haim'.
>> Look at any of the hachamim of the Mesorah, how they struggle to
>> establish what the correct MT is, and never come up with a response 'who
>> cares, eilu veeilu...'.
>> Look at the Ramah (with a heh, not with an aleph; R Meir HaLevi Abulafia)
>> in Massoret Syag laTora, or the Minhat Shai, or the Keset Sofer (R Shlomo
>> Ganzfried, author of the Kitzur SA). They all toil to pinpoint the correct
>> Massoretic text. Using all the sources they have at hand, specifically:
>> 1. good established texts,
>> 2. Massoretic comments (masorah gedola/ktana/sofit/ochla ve'ochla)
>> 3. other Massoretic Rishonim/Massoretic Acharonim
>> 4. sometimes other sources:Gmara Midrash Rishonim
>>
>> See for example the Massoretic scholars struggle with the spelling of the
>> word Mezuzot: the Minhat Shai on Shemot 12:7 (pages 172-174 in the
>> excellent Betzer edition of the Minhat Shai) and the Keset Sofer on Dvarim
>> 6:9 (pages 117b to 118b in my edition, a facsimile version of the classic
>> mahadura tinyono with the haskama of the Hatam Sofer).
>>
>> No one ever says "any version is equally fine, eilu veveilu.." They
>> struggle to establish the correct MT.
>>
>> I am aware that sometimes  the poskim will conclude 'both are OK', like
>> when deciding about a sefer Torah that has different parshiot
>> petuchot/stumot, some poskim not being willing or able to decide between
>> the Rosh and Rambam. Some  poskim even saying any sefer you find with
>> different petuchot/stumot is kosher becaus it probably is based on some
>> rishon. But these statements are 1. often in cases of bedi-eved (bediavad)
>> 2. don't reflect the enormous efforts of the chachmei haMassora in almost
>> all cases to establish THE correct version.
>> So to make these exceptional statements (eilu ve'eilu) the norm seems to
>> me to be incorrect.
>>
>> N. B. WRT places where the Shas seems to  reflect a different text from
>> the Messora: there is a voluminous discusdion of this over hundreds of
>> years and it deserves its own thread, or really it's own book.
>> See for a teaser the in-passing comments of Eliyahu Levitas HaBachur in
>> his Sefer Massoret HaMassoret(1538, 5299), section Luchot Rishonot,
>> subsection Dibur shishi, where he mentions the phenomenon.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 22:42 Danny Levy via Mesorah <
>> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>>
>> I recently had a fascinating discussion with Rabbi Yitzchak Goldstein,
>> head of Machon Ott (see ott.co.il
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ott.co.il&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=FclVTbdDzJbru9g7YyIHhTPs5YLN6SjQrXhV7_xPRiM&s=2frxVL22b06L01GohaYtpfEz7u-n9eL-CNVg-6WDkuA&e=>),
>> who is very knowledgeable about differences in minhagim of writing Sifrei
>> Torah among the various communities over hundreds of years.
>>
>> I mentioned to him that every year on Shabbat Noach I feel a twinge of
>> sadness when I hear the Ba'al Kore lein "Vayhi kol y'mei Noach" (9:29),
>> considering the work of R. Breuer and others who have proven conclusively
>> that the text in Yemenite Sifrei Torah, "Vayihyu kol y'mei Noach", is that
>> of the Ba'alei Hamesorah.  His response was "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim
>> chaim" and our text is no less authentic than any other.  To illustrate his
>> point he mentioned a number of places in the Gemara where it is evident
>> that Chaza"l and the Rishonim had texts or spellings that were different
>> from what we have today and different from the Masoretic text (R. Akiva
>> Eiger gives a long list of examples in Gilyon Hashass on Shabbat 55b).  He
>> also mentioned the fact that the Aleppo community preserved the Sephardic
>> tradition of writing Sifrei Torah and did not correct them according the
>> Aleppo Codex despite their tradition (now confirmed) that it was the Tanach
>> that the Rambam relied on in his Hilchot Sefer Torah as being the most
>> accurate.
>>
>> I would welcome input from group members on this interesting question: is
>> the Masoretic text the closest we can get to the text of the Torah given to
>> Moshe Rabbeinu or is it just one tradition, not necessarily preferable to
>> others?
>>
>> Danny Levy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mesorah mailing list
>> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
>> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.aishdas.org_listinfo.cgi_mesorah-2Daishdas.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=FclVTbdDzJbru9g7YyIHhTPs5YLN6SjQrXhV7_xPRiM&s=KWASPli8Kz6dB6uFefRvSn31MeZjQe_8IyUKKnng_og&e=>
>>
>> <ATT00001.txt>
>>
>>
>>
>> Legal Disclaimer
>>
>> The contents of this email and any attachments are intended solely for
>> the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
>> information. You must not use or disclose them other than for the purposes
>> for which they were supplied. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
>> immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete or destroy all
>> copies of this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or
>> storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may
>> be unlawful. Any privilege or confidentiality pertaining to this email and
>> attachments is not waived by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20191111/1514c0fe/attachment-0002.htm>