One of the underlying principles of rabbinic Judaism is the centrality of the biblical corpus. The Bible is seen as providing fundamental beliefs, principles and rituals that serve as the basis for later Jewish life. The role of the Bible is itself predicated on the belief that it represents divine revelation, most directly in the Torah, somewhat less directly in the Prophets, and even more indirectly in the Writings. Complex issues surround the reception of the Bible in rabbinic Judaism, and we will deal here with only one of them, namely, the reception of the text and issues surrounding its transmission through oral and written channels.
This paper will begin with (1) a survey of the state of the canon and text of the Hebrew Bible as quoted and interpreted in rabbinic literature, establishing clearly that the text under discussion is uniformly the one that modern scholars term proto-Masoretic. We will then (2) explain the effects of the rabbinic requirement that the biblical text be transmitted in writing, discuss the regulations regarding its transmission, and explain the rabbis’ view of the Oral Law and the oral nature of its transmission. (3) This study will then show how textuality and orality intersect in the public reading of the Torah (and other Scriptures) and how specific halakhic requirements guarantee this. We will (4) trace the types of textual variation in rabbinic quotations of Scripture and propose a general classification system for them. We will then (5) investigate rabbinic references to textual variants and their understanding of textual accuracy. Finally (6), a summary of the intersection of orality and textuality in rabbinic literature will be presented, explaining how both contribute to the perpetuation of cultural and religious memory.
1. Canon and Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Literature
Any discussion dealing with the reception of the Bible in rabbinic literature is, of course, based on the assumption that there exists something that would have been identifiable as the Bible to Jews in Antiquity.1 Indeed, one term for authoritative scriptures already appears in the book of Daniel, ha-sefarim, “the books.”2 Two other terms for the Bible appear in rabbinic texts, already from the tannaitic period. Kitve ha-Qodesh, literally “writings of holiness,”3 is best translated as “Holy Scriptures.” This term assumes that the Bible is a collection of writings (ketavim), each of which is considered to be holy. A second term, often translated “Scripture” as well, is Miqra,’4 however this term really means “that which is read.” It is used, for example, in distinction to the oral teachings of the Mishnah (m. Qid. 1:10). This term serves as a collective noun but, in contrast to Kitve ha-Qodesh, emphasizes not the aspect of writing, that is, composition or copying, but rather that of reading. In reality, for the rabbis as well as the later Jewish tradition, the transmission of the Jewish Bible involved both steps, copying the holy texts and then reading them liturgically and studying them. While reading in Antiquity represents an oral activity, it is extremely tightly bound to the written text from which it is read. The biblical term sefer, meaning “document” or “book,” is used extensively by the rabbis.5 When used for an extensive written text, this term emphasizes the form in which it was preserved, namely, in a scroll, which was the usual form in which books were written in ancient Israel.6 We should call attention here to the fact that the codex was not adopted by the Jewish people until after the core compositions of the rabbinic corpus were complete.7
A further term indicating canonicity is ṭum’at yadayim, “impurity of the hands.” It is necessary here to make a brief digression into how to understand canonicity in relation to Jewish texts. Here, scholars have adopted the term, “canon,” borrowed from discussions of the collection of texts included in the New Testament.8 While it is perfectly appropriate to use such borrowed terms, it needs to be recognized that both the term “canon” and the concept are quite different from the Jewish approach. The closest thing to a term for canonical Scriptures used by the rabbis would be the very difficult expression meṭame’ ’et ha-yadayim, “renders the hands impure.”9 Ironically, while the real reason why holy texts should render the hands of those who handle them impure is not understood,10 it is known that this is an effective test of whether books are considered to be “canonical.” However, besides connoting inclusion in the collection of “biblical” books, canonical status implies two additional characteristics in Jewish terms: first, that the book in question is considered to be the result of divine inspiration at some level; second, that it is one of those texts that may serve as the building blocks for later texts that will derive expressions, terminology, or ideas from them. Indeed, in the entire history of Judaism, the only books that have served this type of role are those that were later considered to be those of the Tanakh, the three-part collection of Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Further, it is these books that are subjected in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages to systemic biblical exegesis.
Despite the difficulties of applying the term “canon” to the Hebrew Scriptures, because it assumes a formal process of “canonization,” we shall use it here to describe the corpus of texts that are actually included in the Bible, designated by the rabbis by the terminology we have just discussed. Two approaches could be used to determine what books were viewed as authoritative in rabbinic literature. The first, and easiest, is simply to investigate the tannaitic source that lists the biblical books of the Prophets and Writings,11 including all those in a Hebrew Bible that one would buy today. These books are already divided by the rabbis into the three descending classes of authority/sanctity, namely the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.12 However, another approach to very same question would be to investigate what texts are actually cited or quoted by the rabbis as authoritative for their teachings. Such an examination would add one book to the mix, namely Ben Sira, since it is quoted several times with the very same quotation formulae used to indicate scriptural quotations.13 Yet any argument to the effect that this additional book, part of the Septuagint canon of the Apocrypha, was actually considered to be canonical by the Talmudic rabbis would run up against the specific designation of this text as part of the sefarim ḥiṣoniyyim, the “external books,” clearly referring to its not being part of the biblical collection.14
2. Written and Oral Law
At the core of rabbinic Judaism there lies a fundamental concept that God revealed two Torahs to Israel at Sinai, the written Torah and the oral.15 According to rabbinic teachings, the written Torah, indeed the entirety of Scripture, must be transmitted in written format. Oral transmission is reserved—indeed permitted—only for those traditions believed to be part of the Oral Law.16 Essentially, the Oral Law was understood to take in a great body of exegetical and legal traditions that had been passed down, in the understanding of the Talmudic rabbis, from the time of the Mosaic revelation, or that had somehow stemmed from and been built upon those early revelations. While modern scholars look differently at the history of the rabbinic tradition,17 it was the understanding just explained that molded the rabbinic views of textuality and orality. These views, in turn, impacted numerous practices as we will see.
When in the aftermath of the Great Revolt of 66 to 73 CE and the destruction of the Temple in 70, the tannaim (teachers of the Mishnaic period) began to collect their post-Hebrew biblical traditions into collections, they sought to maintain the distinction between what they saw as the divinely inspired teachings of the Bible, the Written Law, and their own teachings, the Oral Law. Because they wanted to accent this distinction, they insisted on presenting their own teachings as oral and in fact initially prohibited the writing of these teachings.18 Only later on, according to most views after the completion of the Talmuds soon before the Muslim conquest, were rabbinic traditions in the Mishnah, Midrashim and Talmuds committed to writing.19 Another view maintains that the Mishnah may have been written down already at its completion, ca. 200 CE.20
Numerous rabbinic texts make clear that the rabbis insisted that what they saw as the two parts of the revelation, the written and oral, were required to be transmitted in accordance with the manner in which they had been revealed. Accordingly, biblical manuscripts were required to be copied from other manuscripts.21 Rabbinic law included numerous regulations to make sure that texts were copied exactly, preserving also a variety of textual peculiarities like large or small letters, dots placed over some letters, and the poetic form of certain passages.22 Clearly, such an approach would not have been appropriate in a system such as that of the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical manuscripts in which large textual variations and expansions seem to have been able to coexist within one community.23 This is despite the fact that comparison of the scribal techniques and practices in evidence in the Qumran Scrolls conforms almost entirely to the regulations found already in tannaitic sources that govern the preparation and writing of scrolls.24
Those traditions believed to have been revealed orally, as well as the ongoing development of the oral tradition that took place during Late Antiquity, were understood by the rabbis to require oral transmission. That is the reason most rabbinic materials were written down only later. In fact, traditions were passed on orally within the context of the tannaitic and amoraic academies in the Land of Israel and in the less formal study circles that prevailed among the Babylonian amoraim. In other words, oral performance was required for the oral traditions. This is true even though some scholars maintained personal notebooks in which they recorded substantial amounts of oral tradition.25
Indeed, the word tannaim, in one of its uses, designated the memorizers whose job it was to recite those texts to be studied and, at the same time, to record orally the additional traditions and explanations that were attached to those earlier texts.26 The various parallel versions of rabbinic traditions found in different rabbinic texts seem to reflect, in their textual differences, the result of the passing on of these traditions orally. Often, they show evidence of expansion and explanation, or, on the other hand, they may be shortened and/or reshaped in order to be presented as part of a dispute form. In any case, the presentation of various versions of the same or similar traditions is best described with the term “intertextuality,” and indicates that in certain ways the various redacted texts derive their source material from a kind of large oral collection of data that they, to a great extent, sorted and reshaped.
3. Public Reading of Scripture
Another area where written and oral performance intersected was in the public reading of Scripture.27 Public reading of the Bible is already referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The reading of the Pentateuch was a central part of the synagogue service in tannaitic times. Some scholars even think that the synagogue originally developed as a place for study and reading of Scripture, and that its function as a place of prayer was only acquired later on.28 Despite the prominence of the Torah, both in terms of Jewish law and symbolism, tannaitic texts testify also to the reading of the haftarah, a prophetic portion that went along with the lectionary drawn from the Torah.29 This practice seems to have already existed by the turn of the era, as it is in evidence in the Gospels. The prophetic portions were read each week, originally out of scrolls, but later virtually everywhere out of codices. The Torah was read over three and a fraction years in the Land of Israel (scholars call this the triennial cycle) and yet was completed each year in Babylonia (the annual cycle). Prophetic portions gradually became standardized both for each Sabbath of the year as well as for the festivals and other special occasions. Originally, the use of prophetic scrolls encouraged a greater aura of sanctity, but replacement with codices in most communities removed that aura.30 We should note as well evidence that some Palestinian synagogues may have also read a Psalm each Sabbath.31 The Scroll of Esther was read publicly as well. Here we are essentially dealing with oral performance of a written text.
From the Mishnah and later sources, we learn of the practice of providing Aramaic translations (Targum) of the biblical reading, between the verses for the Torah and between every three verses for the prophets. In rabbinic times it was required that these translations, considered to be part of the Oral Law, be recited from memory. Ultimately, toward the end of the rabbinic period or shortly afterwards, these translations ended up standardized in the form of several written texts. However, the normal practice seems to have been that the translators, passing on an oral tradition, recited, but at the same time adapted, and often expanded what was essentially a common substratum. We should note in passing that these written translations, especially that of Onkelos, sometimes evidence either textual variants in the consonantal text or variations in the pronunciation and parsing of words that differ from those of the Tiberian Masoretes. This same phenomenon can be observed in a few passages in the Job Targum from Qumran.32
The synagogue in the Land of Israel was the venue for another kind of oral performance, that of aggadic midrash.33 Here rabbis strung together homilies based on Midrashic exegesis that constituted a passing on of oral tradition to the common worshipers in synagogues. The pattern in Babylonia seems to have been to hold afternoon study sessions, but it appears that these were more concerned with Jewish law than with homiletical interpretations. In any case, in both the Palestinian and Babylonia Jewish communities it is apparent that there were oral presentations of traditions that eventually ended up compiled in rabbinic literature. These originally ad-libbed translations developed extensively in their tellings and retellings, and the written texts of the so-called “Palestinian Targumim,” namely, Pseudo-Jonathan,34 the Fragment Targum35 and the Neofiti Targum,36 all show evidence of multiple halakhic and aggadic expansions.
4. Quotations of the Bible in Rabbinic Literature
Another form of the intersection between the written and the oral comes when we examine quotations of biblical passages in the redacted rabbinic texts available to us.37 Needless to say, such work must be based only on manuscripts and critical editions. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that a small number of consonantal variants remained in the MT manuscripts that circulated in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Both in the rabbinic period Itself and in the later stages of manuscript transmission of rabbinic literature, biblical texts were quoted both by memory and by reference to written texts. Both of these modes of transmission shaped the textual character of quotations of Scripture in rabbinic texts.
Examination of the innumerable quotations of Scripture in rabbinic literature (and these are very prominent in Midrashic texts) indicates the following kinds of correspondences: (1) quotations corresponding exactly to MT; (2) actual textual variants that can be confirmed due to their serving as the basis for exegetical derivations; (3) errors due to quotation from memory at the rabbinic oral, compositional stage or in oral transmission; (4) errors of copyists when rabbinic texts were transmitted in writing.38
In this context we need to indicate that especially prominent in these variations are the differences between plene and defective spelling. On the one hand, the Babylonian Talmud reminds us that the Babylonia sages were not expert as regards the presence or absence of the multiple vowel letters vav and yod.39 On the other hand, the attempt to preserve an exact writing tradition for the MT was a major part of the efforts of the Masoretes in the last years of Late Antiquity and the early medieval period. However, an examination of rabbinic texts reveals several examples in which halakhic derivations are made depending on the presence or absence of these matres lectionis and in which cases the readings preserved in the Talmud do not match those of our Masoretic Bibles.40 These anomalies have been discussed already by medieval Jewish commentaries on the Talmud41 and for our purposes are excellent examples of actual textual variation, rather than simply sloppy copying of verses in Talmudic manuscripts.
A related area regarding textuality is in a group of passages listed in the Babylonian Talmud where words are to be read that are absent from the text or where words in the text are to be omitted.42 Although this list does not conform exactly to what one finds in our Masoretic Text, it shows that such instructions already existed before the work of the Masoretes. Furthermore, rabbinic texts contain references several times to the difference between how the text appears in their manuscripts and how it was read publicly.43 This Qere/Ketiv function is indeed preserved in our Masoretic Bibles and continues in Jewish public reading as well.44
5. Concerns for Textual Accuracy
Rabbinic traditions allude to important activity that must relate to a major step in the standardization of the proto-Masoretic Text, the consonantal text that provided the raw material for the efforts of the Masoretes. (While it is beyond the scope of this study, we cannot avoid calling attention to the virtual revolution that the Masoretes brought to the biblical text by the development of signs to indicate vocalization/parsing, cantillation/phrasing, and punctuation of the biblical text.45) We know from comparison of the situation at Qumran, Masada, and the Bar Kokhba caves that the biblical text developed from the state of various text forms in the late Second Temple period into a relatively standardized text available in the years after the destruction of the Temple.
It seems from the rabbinic account, the historicity of which can in no way be proven, that Temple officials were involved in this process. The rabbis describe text correctors, called magihe sefarim (“correctors of books”) as employed by the Temple and paid out of the annual half-Shekel Temple tax.46 Furthermore, the rabbis refer to three authoritative texts of the Torah kept in the Temple that themselves at some point were found to have a few textual variants that had to be corrected and regularized according to the majority reading.47 If one extrapolates from this account, one can imagine a period in which texts were being corrected according to others that were assumed to be more authoritative and that this was part of the standardization process.48
There is one set of rabbinic traditions in which questions regarding textual accuracy of biblical tradition are addressed directly. There are a number of traditions, scattered in a variety of rabbinic collections, especially Midrashic texts, which deal with the establishment of the correct version or call attention to a variant based on a manuscript reported to have been copied by the famed Tanna Rabbi Meir (mid-second century) who was known to be an expert scribe. Some passages refer to the Torah (Scroll) of Rabbi Meir49 but in other places the “book” (sefer).50 It seems that the term “book” is applied in some of these passages either to the Pentateuch or to the latter two sections of the Bible, whereas the term “Torah” only refers to the Pentateuch. Here we have rabbinic traditions in which people are consulting a specific text regarding various passages. While this is not a common feature in rabbinic literature, no doubt because of the paucity of significant textual variants in the proto-MT manuscripts available to the sages, we can see that on rare occasions they made such comparisons.
Although there seem not to be outright discussions of textual variation in biblical texts, numerous techniques are used in the Talmudic texts, Babylonian and Palestinian, to correct earlier rabbinic oral traditions. Such passages include numerous corrections of, or debates about, the text of quotations from the Mishnah, as well as presentation of alternate versions of some passages, and attempts to establish the correct attribution of statements of various tannaim or amoraim.51 Despite this interest in textual accuracy, we must again observe the way in which rabbinic collections contain numerous different versions of parallel or similar material as well as even different redactions of groups of traditions. One might have expected, in view of the stringencies that surrounded the transmission of Scripture, that similar concerns might have militated against such variations in the transmission of oral materials. Here we need to emphasize that for the rabbis, the medium of oral tradition brought with it the revision and expansion that produced these varying versions. While they remained concerned about the accurate transmission of such traditions, they seemingly were not bothered by the growth and development of parallel, extended, or recast versions of the same material. Somehow this was supposed to happen in the world of the Oral Law. Considering certain traditions pertaining to the publication of the Mishnah, however, it may be that here the rabbis sought to maintain an exactitude that for them stemmed from the authority of this document.52
6. Conclusions: Orality, Textuality and Memory
In general terms, one can say about the ancient rabbis that “the medium is the message.”53 On the one hand, they held to a considerable effort to maintain relatively exact transmission of the written traditions of ancient Israel as found in what was for them the canonized Bible. Not only could nothing additional from later periods be admitted to this collection,54 but the text had to be maintained carefully and as exactly as possible. They seem to have been aware that this corpus had a textual history, yet they saw the proto-Masoretic version in their hands as a reflection of divine revelation, and throughout their corpus they had no hesitation about interpreting its smallest details and peculiarities of spelling in developing both aggadic and halakhic principles.55
On the other hand, while adhering to certain standards of exactitude in the transmission of what they regarded as the Oral Law, they allowed numerous expansions and developments and parallel redactions of traditions. In this respect, they seem to have seen the Oral Law as a dynamic and developing entity that supplemented and explained the Written Law. Nowhere is this more evident than in the regulations regarding the exactitude of the reading of the Torah and the need to correct the reader in cases of mispronunciation, when contrasted with the loose structure of the on-the-spot translation into Aramaic, seen as part of the Oral Law.56 Clearly, what we have here is the rabbinic concept of the interplay of the static and fixed written law providing the basis for the developing and growing Oral Law. Later Jewish interpretations understood this combination as what guaranteed the continuity of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple.
At the same time, the rabbis made room for a kind of combination of the oral and the written in the reading of Scripture. Here we have oral performance of a written text. In some ways we might say that the reverse happened when rabbinic literature was written down and what were originally oral “documents” became written texts.57
If what we have presented here demonstrates anything, it is the way orality and textuality work hand-in-hand in preserving the collective religious memory of Judaism in rabbinic times. This interplay of the oral and written, of the fixed and the organically developing, typifies rabbinic theology and practice. In many ways, therefore, the crowning achievement of the Masoretes, coming on the heels of the Talmudic period, may be seen as reducing to written symbols the oral component of the performance of the written text. This is probably the greatest example of the interrelationship of oral and written that lies at the basis of rabbinic Judaism.
Bibliography
Albeck, Theodor C., ed. Bereshit Rabbah. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965.
Aptowitzer, Avigdor. Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, with Prolegomenon by D. Samuel Loewinger. Repr. Library of Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Ktav, 1970.
del Barco, Javier. “From Scroll to Codex: Dynamics of Text Layout Transformation in the Hebrew Bible.” In From Scrolls to Scrolling: Sacred Texts, Materiality, and Dynamic Media Cultures, edited by Bradford A. Anderson, 91–118. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020.
Baumgarten, Joseph M. Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Blau, Ludwig. Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteratur- und Textgeschichte. Strassburg: J. Trübner, 1902.
Brandes, Yehuda. “The Canonization of the Mishnah.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 10 (2019): 145–180.
Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.
Brody, Robert. “The Talmud in the Geonic Period.” In Printing the Talmud: from Bomberg to Schottenstein, edited by Sharon Liberman Mintz and Gabriel M. Goldstein, 31–32. New York, NY: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005.
Díez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5 volumes. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968–2000.
Finkelstein, Eliezer A., ed. Sifre on Deuteronomy. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969.
Frendsdorff, Salomon. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah. Hannover: Hahn, 1864.
Ginsburger, Moses, ed. Das Fragmententhargum: Thargum jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch. Berlin: S. Calvary, 1899.
Ginsburger, Moses. Pseudo-Jonathan: Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch. Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903.
Haran, Menahem. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 161–173.
Haran, Menahem. “Melekhet ha-Sofer bi-Tequfat ha-Miqra’: Megillot ha-Sefarim ve-‘Avizare ha-Ketivah.” Tarbiz 50 (1981): 65–87. [In Hebrew.]
Heinemann, Joseph. “The Nature of the Aggadah.” In Midrash and Literature, edited by Geoffry H. Hartman and Sanford Budick, 41–55. New Haven, CT: Yale, 1986.
Higger, Michael, ed. Massekhet Soferim. New York, NY: Debe Rabanan, 1937.
Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature. 2 volumes. New York, NY: Pardes Publishing, 1959.
Klein, Michael L., ed. and trans. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to their Extant Sources. 2 volumes. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.
Klein, Michael L. Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 volumes. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986.
Lange, Armin. “An Interpretative Reading in the Isaiah Scroll of Rabbi Meir.” HĀ-’ÎSH MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, edited by Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke, 110–122. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Lauterbach, Jacob Z. “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem.” In The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, edited by Sid Z. Leiman, 416–454. New York, NY: Ktav, 1974.
Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976.
Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
Levy, B. Barry. Fixing God’s Torah: Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962.
Maori, Yeshayahu. “Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible: History and Practice.” In Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, edited by Shalom Carmy, 101–129. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York, NY: Mentor, 1969.
Neusner, Jacob. Uniting the Dual Torah: Sifra and the Problem of the Mishnah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Rabinowitz, L. “Does Midrash Tillim Reflect the Triennial Cycle of Psalms?” The Jewish Quarterly Review 26 (1936): 349–368.
Resnick, Irven M. “The Codex in Early Jewish and Christian Communities.” Journal of Religious History 17 (1992): 1–17.
Schechter, Salomon Z., ed. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan. Reprinted New York, NY: Feldheim, 1967.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Early History of the Public Reading of the Torah.” In Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, edited by Steven Fine, 44–56. London: Routledge, 1999.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1991.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Haftarah: An Historical Introduction.” In From Within the Tent: The Haftarot, Essays on the Weekly Haftarah Reading from the Rabbis & Professors of Yeshiva University, edited by Daniel Z. Feldman and Stuart W. Halpern, xix–xxvii. Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2011.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1 (71b–72a)—‘Of the Making of Books’: Rabbinic Scribal Arts in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine, edited by Steven Fine and Aaron J. Koller, 97–109. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1998.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Textual Criticism and the Evolution of Rabbinic Texts: Will There Ever Be a Final Text?” In Comparative Textual Criticism of Religious Scriptures, edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Russell Fuller, Armin Lange, and Jason K. Driesbach, 133–151. Leiden: Brill, 2024.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “What is a Jewish Biblical Text?” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020): 296–305.
Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2 1971.
Sokoloff, Michael. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974.
Stern, David. The Jewish Bible: A Material History. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2017.
Strack, Hermann L. and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Three Scrolls of the Law that Were Founds in the Temple Court.” In The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, edited by Sid Z. Leiman, 455–468. New York, NY: Ktav, 1974.
Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Tov, Emanuel. “Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by Michael V. Fox and Menahem Haran. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Scribal and Textual Transmission of the Torah Analyzed in Light of Its Sanctity.” In Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period. Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007, edited by Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 32012, 4 2022.
Trebolle, Julio. “Canon of the Old Testament.” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 1:548–549.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999.
Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 volumes. Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1987.
L. H. Schiffman, “What is a Jewish Biblical Text?” HBAI 9 (2020): 296–305.
Dan 9:2, referring to the book of Jeremiah. Old Greek and Theodotion both have
This term occurs four times in the Mishnah: m. Shab. 16:1, m. Eruv. 10:3, m. B. Bat. 1:6 and m. Yad. 4:6. The examples in the rest of the rabbinic corpus are too numerous to list.
This term with this meaning occurs six times in the Mishnah, m. Shek. 1:4, m. Ḥag. 1:8, m. Ned. 4:3 (2x), m. Qidd. 1:10, m. Avot 5:21 (and the baraita in Avot 6:5). It can also refer to a verse or passage, as in m. Soṭ. 5:2, 5:3, Mak. 3:14 (2x). The examples in the rest of the rabbinic corpus for both usages are too numerous to list.
Often in the phrase sefer Torah, referring to a Torah scroll, e.g., m. Yoma 7:1, m. Beṣ. 1:5, m. Soṭ. 7:8, for a total of nine occurrences in the Mishnah alone.
On the formal characteristics of scrolls see E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 39–43; idem, “Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 383–403; idem, “The Scribal and Textual Transmission of the Torah Analyzed in Light of Its Sanctity,” in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period. Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007, eds. A. Moriya and G. Hata (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 57–72; M. Haran, “Melekhet ha-Sofer bi-Tequfat ha-Miqra’: Megillot ha-Sefarim ve-‘Avizare ha-Ketivah,” Tarbiz 50 (1981): 65–87; idem, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times,” JJS 33 (1982): 161–73. An outdated work on this topic is L. Blau, Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteratur- und Textgeschichte (Strassburg: J. Trübner, 1902).
D. Stern, The Jewish Bible: A Material History (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2017), 66–8 and 226 n. 15. Cf. I. M. Resnick, “The Codex in Early Jewish and Christian Communities,” Journal of Religious History 17 (1992): 1–17, and J. del Barco, “From Scroll to Codex: Dynamics of Text Layout Transformation in the Hebrew Bible,” in From Scrolls to Scrolling: Sacred Texts, Materiality, and Dynamic Media Cultures, ed. B. A. Anderson (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020), 91–4. For early Jewish avoidance of the codex format, see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), 203–8.
J. Trebolle, “Canon of the Old Testament,” NIDB 1:548–49.
For rabbinic passages using this terminology, see S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976), 102–10.
See the survey of explanations in Leiman, Canonization, 110–20.
B. B.B. 14b.
Leiman, Canonization, 57, 60–66.
M. Z. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 21971), 12–13.
M. Sanh. 10:1 as interpreted in y. Sanh. 10:1 (28a), attributed to Rabbi Akiva as is the Mishnaic statement; Leiman, Canonization, 99–102.
For sources, see L. H. Schiffman, Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1998), 517–22.
For the pre-history of this concept see J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 13–35.
M. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 35–49; J. Neusner, Uniting the Dual Torah: Sifra and the Problem of the Mishnah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 11–30; E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols., trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1987), 1:286–314; M. S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 65–156.
Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 48–49; Lieberman, Hellenism, 84, 204–5.
On the oral publication of the Mishnah, see Lieberman, Hellenism, 83–99; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 155.
Lieberman, Hellenism, 84.
B. Meg. 18b (attributed to the Palestinian amora Rabbi Yohanan), cf. b. Men. 32b.
E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 42022), 47–62. It is probable that the Tiqqune Soferim (“corrections of the scribes”) and ‘Itture Soferim, (“omissions of the Scribes”), described in Rabbinic literature were exegetical expressions rather than descriptions of actual changes made in the biblical text. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 4th ed., 314–5 and the more detailed discussion in Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 59–61. On this usage of the term ‘ittur, see the entry “‘ṭr II,” meaning “omit, remove,” in M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York, NY: Pardes Publishing, 1959), 2:1064–5.
Tov, Textual Criticism, 4th ed., 109–38; E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999), 17–50, 79–120.
L. H. Schiffman, “Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1 (71b-72a)—‘Of the Making of Books’: Rabbinic Scribal Arts in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine; eds. S. Fine and A. J. Koller (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 97–109.
Lieberman, Hellenism, 84, 204–5; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 41–2, 49.
Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 13–14.
Cf. L. H. Schiffman, “The Early History of the Public Reading of the Torah,” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, ed. S. Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 44–56.
L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 134–59.
L. H. Schiffman, “The Haftarah: An Historical Introduction,” in From Within the Tent: The Haftarot, Essays on the Weekly Haftarah Reading from the Rabbis & Professors of Yeshiva University, eds. D. Z. Feldman and S. W. Halpern (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2011), xix–xxvii.
Some synagogues are now returning to the use of scrolls, and so the Jewish community is again having the opportunity to see the Prophets as they would have been seen by Jews in the rabbinic period.
L. Rabinowitz, “Does Midrash Tillim Reflect the Triennial Cycle of Psalms?” JQR 26 (1936): 349–68.
M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974), 6–8.
L. H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1991), 234–6; cf. J. Heinemann, “The Nature of the Aggadah,” in Midrash and Literature, eds. G. H. Hartman and S. Budick, trans. M. Bregman (New Haven, CT: Yale, 1986), 41–55; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 545–51.
M. Ginsburger, ed., Pseudo-Jonathan: Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903); M. L. Klein, ed. and trans., Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986).
M. Ginsburger, ed., Das Fragmententhargum: Thargum jeruschalmi zum Pemtateuch (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1899); M. L. Klein, ed. and trans., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980).
A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 5 vols. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968–2000).
V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, with Prolegomenon by D. S. Loewinger (repr. Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), esp. 1–36. See also D. S. Loewinger’s “Prolegomenon,” VII–XLIV. (For some reason the title page refers to Samuel Loewinger, but the “Prolegomenon” is signed by D. S. Loewinger.).
Y. Maori, “Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible: History and Practice,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, ed. S. Carmy (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 101–29.
B. Qidd. 30a.
Cf. the list of significant variants assembled by Akiva Eiger in “Gilyon ha-Shas,” in the Vilna edition of the Babylonian Talmud to b. Shab. 55b and the discussion in B. B. Levy, Fixing God’s Torah: Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 164–6. This volume contains an enormous amount of information about medieval and early modern manifestations of the issues raised in the present study.
Tosafot b. Sanh. 4b and b. Zevaḥ. 37b.
B. Ned. 37b–38a, Sof. 6:9; Sefer ’Okhlah ve-’Okhlah, ed. S. Frendsdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Hannover: Hahn, 1864), 96, list 97 (Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [32012], 56).
B. Eruv. 26a, b. Yoma 21b, b. Ned. 37b, Gen. Rab. 34:8 (ed. J. Theodor, C. Albeck, Bereshit Rabbah [Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965] 1.316), Sof. 7 (ed. M. Higger [repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970], 176–87), cf. Tov, Textual Criticism (32012), 55.
Shulḥan ’Arukh, ‘Oraḥ Ḥayyim 141:8; cf. Solomon ben Adret (Rashba, Responsa, 7:361) quoted in Bet Yosef to Ṭur ‘Oraḥ Ḥayyim 141:8.
On the role of Masoretes, see Stern, Jewish Bible, 68–78.
B. Ket. 106a (Babylonian amoraic) referring to sefarim. Y. Shek. 4:3 (48a) and Num. Rab. 11:3 referring to sefer ha-‘azarah (Palestinian amoraic).
Sifre Deut. 356 (Sifre on Deuteronomy, ed. L. Finkelstein [New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969], 423); Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 33:27 (ed. D. Hoffmann [vol. II, Berlin: I. Itzkowski, 1909]; y. Ta’an. 4:2 (68a); Sof. 6:4 (Massekhet Soferim, ed. Higger, 169–70); Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version B, chap. 46 (ed. S. Z. Schechter [repr. New York, NY: Feldheim, 1967], 129). Cf. J. Z. Lauterbach, “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem,” in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, ed. S. Z. Leiman (New York, NY: Ktav, 1974), 416–54, and S. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that Were Founds in the Temple Court,” The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, ed. S. Z. Leiman (New York, NY: Ktav, 1974), 455–68.
With the rise of printing, a similar process took place in many Jewish communities where Torah scrolls were corrected to accord with the printed texts that were now assumed to be authoritative.
Cf. A. Lange, “An Interpretative Reading in the Isaiah Scroll of Rabbi Meir,” in HĀ-’ÎSH MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, eds. B. Y. Goldstein, M. Segal, and G. J. Brooke (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 110–22.
Gen. Rab. 9.5 (eds. Theodor and Albeck, 1.70, torato), 94:9 (3.1181–2, torato), 20:12 (1.196, torato), Midrash Bereshit Rabbati 45 line 12 (ed. C. Albeck [Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940], 209, sifro), y. Ta’an. 1:1 (64a, sifro).
L. H. Schiffman, “Textual Criticism and the Evolution of Rabbinic Texts: Will There Ever Be a Final Text?” in Comparative Textual Criticism of Religious Scriptures, eds. K. Finsterbusch, R. Fuller, A. Lange, and J. K. Driesbach (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 133–51.
Cf. Y. Brandes, “The Canonization of the Mishnah,” JAJ 10 (2019), 145–80.
The title of the first chapter of M. McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York, NY: Mentor, 1969).
B. B.B. 12b.
Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 17–34.
Y. Meg. 4:1 (74d).
On the transition from oral to written Talmud, see R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 156–61; idem, “The Talmud in the Geonic Period,” in Printing the Talmud: from Bomberg to Schottenstein, eds. S. Liberman Mintz and G. M. Goldstein (New York, NY: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005), 31–32.