Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Center of the Torah

Parshat Tazria-Metzora

This week's post is superficially about various claims about where the center of the Torah lay, but more deeply it's about the importance of having a skeptical view on unsubstantiated claims.  This is something that everyone struggles with, as we all find it very easy to accept information that agrees with what we already think is true.  However, when we come across something we disagree with, or that conflicts with what we already know, we tend to look at it more skeptically.  Anyway, we'll see that later.  For now let's get to the topic at hand.


Where is the Torah's Center?

There is a somewhat famous Talmudic passage in Kiddushin 30a, which states (my translation):

"Therefore the Rishonim were called sofrim because they would count (sofrim) all the verses that were in the Torah, and they would say: The vav of gahon (Lev. 11:42) is the midpoint of the letters in the Torah,  darosh darash (Lev 10:16) is the midpoint of words, vehitgalach (Lev. 13:33) is the midpoint of verses....Rav Yosef asked, which half does the vav of gahon belong to?  They said, bring us a Torah and we'll count.  Didn't Rav Bar Bar Hannah say, they did not move until they counted them all?  They said to him, they were knowledgable about full and missing spellings*, we are not (implying they can't count it) Rav Yosef asked, how about the verses, which half does vehitgalach belong to?  At least we can bring a Torah (and count).  With sentences we are also not knowledgable.  In the west (Israel) they split the verse "behold I come before you in a cloud" into three.  There are 5888 verses in the Torah, Psalms has 8 more and Chronicles has 8 less."
 *The full and missing spellings are when you have an extra vav or yud in the vowel.  The grammar of these weren't set fully until the time of the Masoretes (see below).

It's true that there might be some errors in defective spellings and this could alter the movement of a letter by some amount, and make it impossible to determine which half the middle letter belongs to.  Nevertheless, the Rabbis of the Talmud made it clear that they were unwilling or unable to check the previous generation's work.  I don't really blame them.  The Torah is large and it would take a long time to count it by hand.  And even then you're pretty likely to make errors, because these kinds of tasks are ones that humans are bad at.

Nevertheless, there was a later attempt in the 10th century by the Masorete Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher, famous for setting the version of the text with all the cantillation notes we use today.  In this work, called, Sefer Dikdukei ha-Te'amim (Grammar or Analysis of the Accents), he also compiles lists of various quantities in the Torah, including verse amounts, word amounts and letter amounts along with letter counts for each letter.  In his count there are 5845 verses in the Torah, a significant difference from the Talmud's count of 5888.  I should mention that one of the main purposes for Ben Asher's work was to elucidate the grammatical rules of biblical Hebrew and thus standardize the spelling and pronunciation of the text.

Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher also calculated the midpoints and came up with answers that were very different from the Talmud's.  He found the midpoint of letters to be in Lev 8:28, 4829 letters off from the Talmudic count.  The midpoint of words is in 8:26, 743 words off, and the midpoint of verses is Lev. 8:8, 164 verses off.  Furthermore, the skew is very strange, where the Talmud's calculation have the midpoints of words and verses three chapters off, this calculation has them differ by only 18 verses (in the other direction).  For the Talmud's calculation to be correct, the first half of the Torah would have to be full of long sentences with a lot of words.  Even if the Talmudic Rabbis made a bunch of errors in defective spellings and verse distribution, they would at least have realized that something was way off had they actually sat down to to the work.  Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher's results can be found here, along with some apologetics which we'll get to in a bit.

We'll get to these problems in a minute, but since the theme is checking other people's work, why not do it myself?  So I did just that, using unicode text from mechon mamre and python to parse the text.  My calculation for verses is 5844, or one less than Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher.  My letter count is also very close, with 4 more letters.  My word count is considerably different, as I have almost 150 more words.  I also have considerable differences with the alphabetical makeup of the Torah, and some differences in what the middle letter, word and verse is.  Nevertheless, my middle values are much more consistent with Ben Asher's than they are with the Talmud's.  At the end I'll post the output of my code so you can see where the differences are.

Why is the Talmud so Far off?

There are three possibilities for the discrepancies of the midpoints mentioned in the Talmud.  They are.

1) The text that the Tana'im and Amoraim were using were significantly different from the text we have today.  This difference would have to be larger than can be accounted for by defective/full spellings which would not affect word or verse count anyway.

2) The Rabbis in the Talmud (Tana'im) erred in their counts.

3) The Rabbis in the Talmud (Tana'im) actually meant something else entirely and were misinterpreted by the Rabbis of the Gemara (Amoraim).

Answer 1 does show up sometimes in various sites.  For example, this criticism of Judaism, seems to imply that this is the most likely answer.  However, I actually find it a bit unlikely that the Torah in the time of the Talmud would differ by that much compared to current day.  If this were true, we would expect to see many more differences in the verses that the Talmud quotes, and we see hardly any.  I think it's pretty likely that we are working with fundamentally the same text as the Talmudic Rabbis were.

Answer 3 is one commonly used by apologists.  They say that what the Tana'im actually meant with regard to the central letter was that it was really counting the big and small letters of the Torah, in which the vav of gahon is the 8th out of 16 (note that there's no actual "middle" one).  They bolster this claim by noting that the middle letter claimed for Tehilim (Psalms) in the Talmud is also the middle big/small letter, but not the actual middle letter. Similarly, with regard to the middle word of the Torah, it claims that darosh darash is the middle "double word" of the Torah.  We'll examine both these claims in a bit.

I actually think the apologists are on to something, but not quite what they intend.  As I'll explain now.  I actually think the second approach is the most likely, and I think it goes a bit further than the Tana'im just making an error.  I think this goes very much to the way Chazal approached questions of this type, questions with definite answers.  Instead of verifying it in the scientific way we think of today, they just assumed an answer they heard was correct, or just chose one that seemed good and then it became the answer due to what is essentially an argument from authority.  The answers quoted in the Talmudic passage all seem good.  Why?  It's exactly what the apologists explain, except they get it backwards.

The vav of gahon is a big letter.  There are a few such large and small letters in the Torah, the actual amount differs between versions.  One of them is the vav in question, and another one (the next, 9th) is the gimel in vehitgalach the first word in the supposed middle sentence.  It's very likely to me that the thinking of Chazal went something like this:

"This vav is big, why?  Well it's roughly in the middle of the text, it must be the middle letter!"  "But wait, this gimel is also big, and also near the middle, maybe it's the middle letter."  "Well, the gimel is in the first word of the sentence so maybe it's the middle verse instead."  "Cool, and what about a middle word?  There's no other weird letters nearby."  "How about the nice double word darosh darash wish essentially means to really learn about, that sounds like a great middle for the Torah."

Admittedly, this is rampant speculation, but if you've read enough Talmud, this type of argumentation should be familiar enough to you to be plausible.

Returning to the apologist explanation, it's worth looking at it a little more deeply.  It's clear that the Amora'im who are doing the conversing in the Mishnah are not talking about big and small letters.  The conversation of them not being able to count because of confusion over extra vavs and yuds makes no sense in that context.  So this must mean that the Amora'im misunderstood what the Tana'im where saying about the middle letter.  However, this is also problematic if you're one of those people who relies on the integrity of the oral tradition.  If they make such a blatant misunderstanding here, where else did they err?

Rather, this form of apologetics is a blatant way of saving face for Chazal.  But another question to ask is are the apologists even correct?  We'll look at the double word issue, since the large and small letters differ between versions.  From the apologists site, the claim is that there are 77 double words of which darosh darash is the 39th, or middle one.  They give two examples for double words, lech lecha, and avraham avraham.  The first example is important, since lech lecha is actually two different words entirely that just happened to be spelled the same way.  So we're looking for consecutive words that are spelled the same, but may not be pronounced the same.  I searched through this and counted 91, of which darosh darash was the 47th (not the middle).

All the verses with double letters will be included on a separate page here.

The count of 77 is wrong.  No doubt about it.  To make darosh darash the middle set, we would have to discount 2 instances in the first half.  Perhaps you can argue this by eliminating Exod. 7:17 which is actually one that straddles verses (verse markers post-date the Torah though, although based on the passage in the Talmud they had some form of marking).  7:16 ends in coh and 7:17 begins in coh; Perhaps you can also eliminate Exod 15:25 which is sham sam, two words that are spelled with the same written characters, but you can differ between the shin in the first word and the sin in the second.  I'm not sure how they got the count of 77. Even if you discount all the words that appear across broken phrases, these would be: Gen 6:9, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, Lev 13:38, Num 14:34 it does not remove enough, and the middle count would then be more wrong.  So it's not clear to me that the answer offered here to validate Chazal's claims makes any sense anyway, and it's also done by people who were also very sloppy in their calculations.

What Else Have I Learned From This?

So the cool thing about these sort of exercises is you actually see new things that you didn't expect.  One thing I noticed, when looking through all the double words was the relative rarity of them in Devarim (Deuteronomy).  There are only 7 double words in Devarim, and the 7th appears in Ha'azinu, which is sort of a special case being poetry.  Furthermore, when going through the words for the middle three books, a very large number come from the phrase ish ish, which literally means "man man" and idiomatically means, "each or every person".  This phrase is completely absent in Deuteronomy, despite having a lot of similar legislative style content.  Similarly, several of the double words in Vayikra (Leviticus 11:41-43) come from the "kosher" passage which talks about unkosher animals using the phrase hasheretz hashoretz, a phrase that's completely absent when Devarim talks about kosher animals, (it actually doesn't mention insects at all in those kashrut laws!)  When people talk about differences in the way the books were written, this is what they are talking about.

Again, the full output of my code including verse counts, and the location of the double letters can be found here.  If you actually want the python code used for analysis, send me an email and I'll be happy to provide it.

24 comments:

  1. I searched through this and counted 91, of which darosh darash was the 46 (not the middle).

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but the 46th element is the median of a set with 91 element -- there are 45 before it and 45 after it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ack! That's an embarrassing typo, it should be the 47th not the 46th! If you'll look at the linked page at the bottom, you can see the full count for all the double letters. darosh darash is in 10:15, it is the 3rd double letter in vayikra. There are 30 in bereishit and 14 in shmot. So it's the 47th. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching it!

      Delete
  2. Your brain is probably more up to it than mine, but a mathematician friend - and one of the finest baalei koreh that I know - felt that this article was quite compelling regarding that Talmudic pasage : http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%205%20Epstein.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh, I read through it, waiting for the punchline. I find it somewhat sad that they are so quick to discount other explanations as arbitrary and then offer up their own arbitrary one (and use faulty math at that.) The faulty math shows up here:

      From a mathematical perspective the likelihood that 3 “middle” verses would all be divisible by 46 is less than one tenth of 1%. Thus the verwhelming likelihood is that this arrangement is by design.

      The fault math is assuming the importance of 46. Once you allow any other number, the probability goes up significantly. 46 is admittedly (by him) an arbitrary number, there's no reason not to have 47 or 45 for example.

      Other arbitrarinesses like requiring 6 blank pages for the math to work out don't really help his case.

      Regardless, even if your friend is correct, he's essentially saying that the Amoraim completely whiffed on what the Tana'im were saying. Which shouldn't be all that comforting.

      This idea of reinterpreting Chazal in a face-saving way. "No, they really meant something *completely* different!" is a bit silly to me. Once you divest yourself of the requirement that Chazal had genius intellects and were already correct, it's a lot easier to see how they could make mistakes of this nature, and other ones found all throughout the Talmud.

      Delete
  3. Wow! Great post, Kefira. There is so much to say about how we were indoctrinated to idolize amoraim as superhuman prophets, instead of a group of Babylonian Jews with too much time on their hands. You said it best "This vav is big, why?  Well it's roughly in the middle of the text, it must be the middle letter!"  "But wait, this gimel is also big..". After studying (and teaching) gemara for over 20 years, I came to realize that some of their arguments and conclusions were brilliant, others were interesting, and many were just plain silly or outright wrong!

    The question for us though, is why after reaching these conclusions, do we continue to be fascinated by the Torah, dissect it, analyze it, read and write blogs about it? Knowing what we have learned and what bible scholars have proven, shouldn't next Wednesday's blog post be about nanobiotechnology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've often asked myself the same question. I think I enjoy it because the experience of looking at something that is so familiar in a new, more academic, more true way is simply fascinating. I am used to learning and enjoyed it so this is continuing my learning about a subject I am very used to learning (in a different way). Often though I do follow the urge to say enough of this and go learn about nanobiotechnology and the sort (really just the sort - loosely defined).

      Delete
    2. I thought I answered it better in my "about" page than I actually did. So I guess I'll jot down some of my thoughts here.

      First, I did exactly what you said. After I came to the conclusion that the Torah was not the divine blueprint for life, I devoted my academic energies into the sciences, namely physics. I completed my doctorate in 2011, and am currently employed as a physicist. I spend a lot of time working on physics problems, and that really occupies most of my mental energy.

      It was only about 3-4 years ago that I decided to read back through Tanach for the first time as an atheist. And it was pretty fascinating. I've always been a sucker for history and how people lived and thought in past times. And here was a huge document that can be used to discover how people related to the world around them some 2500 years ago. In a sense, what I discovered was that the Torah was far more interesting as a primary historical document than it was as a divine book. This led me to several years of devouring nearly everything I could find on academic biblical studies. (well maybe not everything, it turns out there's a lot) I had a new hobby, which was eerily similar but also radically different from my old "hobby" of Torah study.

      I started this blog because I really wanted a way to crystallize various topics into succinct ideas. I use it as motivation to actually take trips to the library and research topics that I want to discuss. I also know that I'm fairly careful about double-checking stuff when I commit it to public writing, so this is a good way to make sure that I'm actually accurate in my thoughts.

      There's another, much lesser reason. It's that a lot of biblical criticism that you find online comes from a Christian standpoint. This isn't terribly surprising, but it is annoying. It creates an easy way for Orthodox Judaism to dismiss biblical scholarship with something like, "bah, they're just Christians, what do they know about the Torah anyway." It's hard to go back 15 years to when I was religious and before blogs were even a "thing." But I often wonder what I would think if I came across something like this as a thoughtful 18 year old who was struggling with religion. I don't know the answer to that, and never will. I do know that something like this did not exist then.

      Delete
    3. SJA: absolutely! Having the background knowledge and especially the ability to read Tanach and Talmud in its' original language makes bible study so much more enjoyable and nuanced. Even some of the most knowledgeable bible scholars (Friedman, Hayes etc.) struggle with the reading and understanding of the original scriptures. I guess it's one more thing to thank my yeshiva education for. Maybe next time my Rosh Yeshiva calls for a check, I won't send him to voicemail!

      Delete
  4. I kinda knew your answer, but had to ask it. I ask myself all the time what draws me back to scholarly (read secular) bible study, and concluded some of the same things you noted. I think I may be 'learning' more now than when I was observant in yeshiva. One of the most enjoyable lectures is a series by Christine Hayes from Yale University (available on YouTube). I'm also surprised at myself when I gravitate towards the biblical section of my library. I now own almost as many books with 'bible' in the title than bar mitzvah seforim in my house.

    I also wonder how my life would have turned out had I discovered in my teens what I found in my 30's. But I'm thankful that I discovered what I did and am finally able to live a life of truth and most of all, freedom! As chazal say: "you have no greater free man, than he who studies (deals in) torah". I'm glad you became a 'ben chorin' as well, or as they say in Yiddish 'a frei yid!

    ReplyDelete
  5. u dont tell us were to email for python code?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can't figure out how to find his contact info, you probably can't read Python.

      Delete
    2. Insults say more about you, than about the person you're insulting.

      Delete
    3. Vafsi, there's a "contact" tab on the header of the blog page.

      Delete
  6. Kefira, I forgot to compliment you on the refreshing post, and for not doing the classic 'Tzora'as stems from Ancient Near East purity taboos'. Big Shkoyach! And agreed, no insults on this blog! Only Torah!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice blog! For the most part, I didn't realize these were still around. Added to my must reading.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The fact that the wording in Deuteronomy is different from the wording in the other four books is actually proof for Judaism. This is because the while God composed the first four books, Moshe composed the wording of the book of Deuteronomy (Megillah 31b). Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky uses this concept to explain the verse that Moshe said "Mah Hashem Elokeicha Shoel Mimcha Ki Im Leyira." The Gemara asks, "Is fear of God something small?" The Gemara answers, "Yes, from Moshe's perspective fear of God is something small, easily obtainable" The obvious question is that if God is talking to the Jewish people, what relevance is there that fear of God in Moshe's eyes is something small. He says that since Moshe composed the text, he spoke from his own perspective (Rabbi Chaim claims that all other prophets, even when prophesying in God's name, composed the wording of God's revelation...) (God subsequently ratified all the five books of Moses, See. E.g., Joshua chapter 1)

    In ancient times, during the Second Temple, no one could seriously claim that the Sinai miracles didn't happen, since they were so close to the events under question. But the yetzer hara doesn't rest. The common kefirah then, rather, was to claim that Moshe added commandments on his own. Your analysis could have stymied those heretics, by showing them that the parts that Moses claimed came from God are different from the parts that Moshe admitted were from himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you commenting on the wrong article?

      Also, the second temple period was at least 1000 years after the supposed time of the Sinai miracle. That's not "close" to the events in question by any marker.

      Delete
  9. You mentioned that "when people talk about differences in the way the books were written, this is what they are talking about."

    What I was saying is that the differences between Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch would be could apologetic materials against those Second-Temple skeptics (sad that they died before your research surfaced).

    1000 years are relatively close to the events. Thus, there may have been only 20 generations between the events and those living during the Second Temple era. Thus, in Mishnaic and Talmudic times, people were aware even from which tribe and from which biblical figures they descended from (not just the priests). We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, that the yetzer hara argued for alternative "reasonable" approaches to allow them to become skeptics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a post about Devarim in general. Maybe this topic is better suited there. Just saying.

      "1000 years are relatively close to the events."

      I completely disagree.

      "Thus, there may have been only 20 generations between the events and those living during the Second Temple era."

      That would make a generation 50 years. That's ridiculously long. 35 generations is probably the minimum amount, and 40 is probably closer given the average ages of procreation at that time period. Regardless, even 20 generations is insanely long. Can you trace any of your relatives back 20 generations?

      Delete
    2. "Can you trace any of your relatives back 20 generations?"

      If this is correct:
      http://www.hugogold.com/Horwitz/Horowitz%20Rev.6.2.pdf
      Then I can! As can a whole lot of ashkenazi jews, given the prominence of this family.

      Delete
  10. I descend from Rashi. I know someone who descends from the Rambam. I know someone else who descends from the Beis Yosef. I know someone else who descends from the Arizal. I don't know all my ancestors, obviously. I don't know of any of my ancestors before Rashi, but I assume that he was more than 20 generations.

    Some people gave birth at age fifty, especially since they could take a second wife in their late middle-age (thus, for example, David fathered Solomon when he was in his fifties).

    ReplyDelete
  11. I counted 87 double words. One of these days I'll compare my list to yours and say something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Really interesting piece. I had heard the explanation of the "middles" referring to middle large letter, double word etc. before and thought that it was too neat to be a coincidence. I never thought to check the counts!

    Unfortunately now I am stuck with the problem that I should probably check *your* counts. Unlikely I'll get around to that any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please do. It's always good to have independent confirmation. I've written enough code in my lifetime to know how easy it is to make an error.

      Delete