“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

Talmuda de-Eretz Israel:Archaeology and theRabbis in Late AntiquePalestine

Edited by Steven Fine and Aaron Koller

DE GRUYTER

��()1!��!"��."04��/.�"(��"!&0"!��3��0"2"*��&*"��*!��.+*��+((".��"��.130".��* ��.+�1"/0��++'��"*0.�(��%00,��"�++' "*0.�(�,.+-1"/0� +)�(&��*31(&�.�.3�"�++'/�!"0�&(�� 0&+*�!+ ��."�0"!�#.+)�*31(&�.�.3�"�++'/�+*��

�+,

3.&$%0�5

��

��"��.130".��*

��((�.&$

%0/�."/"

.2"!

�

ISBN 978-1-61451-485-5e-ISBN 978-1-61451-287-5ISSN 0585-5306

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataA CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/BerlinTypesetting: META Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, WustermarkPrinting and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck! Printed on acid-free paperPrinted in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Talmuda de-Eretz Israel, edited by Steven Fine, and Aaron Koller, De Gruyter, Inc., 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1037920.Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2020-08-06 06:16:24.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.

Lawrence H. SchiffmanJerusalem Talmud Megillah 1 (71b–72a) –“Of the Making of Books”: Rabbinic ScribalArts in Light of the Dead Sea ScrollsAlmost all the subjects of halakhah that can possibly be studied based on thefindings from Qumran are known to us from texts. However, there are a num-ber of subjects that are tied also to archaeological, physical evidence, such asthe miqva’ot.1 Somewhere in the middle stand laws pertaining to books andscribes. In this field, the material for study is also physical, even archaeologi-cal, however it is “scrolls” and the comparisons are to literary evidence – inthe present study to laws that are found in rabbinic literature.2

Already in the research proposal that I submitted before I began my doc-toral dissertation I stated that it was appropriate to study this field. However,to my great fortune, before I began working on this topic, Emanuel Tov pub-lished his magnum opus regarding the work of the scribes of the Dead SeaScrolls.3 In this thoroughly researched work, Tov described all the technicalaspects of the creation of the physical books that are found in the collectionsof the Judean Desert. In the course of this work, he tried to make use as muchas possible of relevant material from rabbinic literature. He even compared indetail the legal rulings that may be assumed from the physical evidence to thelegal rulings of the sages, and at the end included in his book a systematiccomparison between the scrolls as he had described them and one of the pri-mary halakhic collections on this topic in the Talmud Yerushalmi TractateMegillah.4 Our hope is that a systematic investigation of this Talmudic materialwill help us to bring to this subject a more exact and deeper historical andhalakhic perspective.

In addition, among our purposes is to expand on the short rabbinic allu-sions of Tov and to open this important material to both scholars of the DeadSea Scrolls and to rabbinic scholars who can gain greatly from this data.

It is a general rule in the study of the halakhah in the Dead Sea Scrolls andin other Second Temple period sources to attempt always to base ourselves as

! See J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI,2002), 134–62." Cf. L. H. Schiffman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the Jewish Book”, AJS Review34 (2010), 359–65.# E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert (Lei-den, 2004).$ Tov, Scribal Practices, 274–76.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.

98 Lawrence H. Schiffman

Fig. 1: Detail of Pesher Isaiah, showing horizontal and vertical scoring. (Image by Bruce andKenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research. Courtesy Department of Antiquities, Jordan.)

much as possible on material that is tannaitic and not amoraic, and certainlynot on the halakhic decisors of the Middle Ages. However, most of the materialin Yerushalmi Megillah upon which Tov based his comparisons and his lists isindeed from the amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, and some of it was even transmittedin the names of Babylonian amoraim, although it appears in the Yerushalmi.We will concentrate on a baraita that appears in Yerushalmi Megillah and alsoin a rather different form in Bavli Mena!ot. The tannaim in the version foundin the Yerushalmi define certain laws as !"#!"$%!$&'(' , laws attributed toGod’s oral revelation to Moses at Sinai, indicating that they themselves lookon these laws as extremely ancient.5

As Tov notes, it is possible that there were different standards of scribal pro-cedure for Biblical books as opposed to for other books. He also takes intoaccount the expectation that we would find that those Biblical books writtenaccording to the proto-Masoretic text and tradition would also be written accord-

% On the history and expansion of the concept over time, see D. W. Halivni, RevelationRestored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (Boulder, CO, 1997), 54–74.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1 (71b–72a) – “Of the Making of Books” 99

ing to the scribal halakhah and practices that are described in rabbinic litera-ture.6 We must also take into account the possibility that there were texts usedfor public liturgical reading and others that were used only for examination andstudy.

We will now set forth the baraita according to the version of the Yeru-shalmi (y. Megillah 1:9 [71d]):

!"#!"$%!$&'('%'!)#)*+',+-).)*)#)*+',+/'))$&.0"',+1(!)#).#',+%'-.)2)"',+$2"'*)/)+1',+/+1)*)3.',+0'/',)#%!)4*)3.'!4*)3.#*3.!5!)6.'7%'!4$%''.+',%'2!"%'2!#$")4%'2!+',*'+!"*'+!#$"44)*+',4)*"4)*#"%!)4+',/8"/8$")40)/"-%!&)8!/8%)!"*9'"*)3&"6.'7"'*,.')9+&3.$"$-",%*'46+-)*)$"$2,%"%.+'4)$.+*).!$"$-",%"%)$"$2,239)6.'7%'!4$%''.+',&3."&3.#$")44.+-%'2',)+(+'4%"%(':-%.%"%)6.'7%'!40)$.+4$6-!/8)$*9'"+4$6-'*))+(+'40)$.+&)3))$*9'"+.4%))+(+'4%"%(':-%.4&).4',-)%','.'-!39)*!$%"%!/3',)"4')*.-"%$)(!…)6.'7%'!4#)*+-"!0)'"+$1):!%'-.)-"!1"8+$1)'(9)%*)4:%'(!3&""4'!4#)*+96')-"!-).)96')-"!1"84+"#)*+!)496')-"-).+!$!2!).!)96')-"-).9'!2!).!…)-)%',-$)/"&3.+&)3)"*).'$'#,)$'#,"3'#70)""',!&3."*9'"*))!*).!"4$6-'*!

It is a law (transmitted) to Moses from Sinai that they must write on skins. And they mustwrite with (black) ink. And they must rule (the writing surface) with a reed. And theymust tie (the parshiyyot of the Tefillin) with hair. And they may attach a patch and glueit with glue. And they must sew (the sheets together) with sinews and when he sews hemust sew with this stitch. And he must leave blank: between one line and another linethe space of a line, between one word and another word the space of a letter, betweenone letter and another letter a minimal space, between one page and another page thespace of a thumb’s width. If one made the bottom of the page equal to its beginning, itis unfit. He must leave a space in the scroll (sefer) of two finger breadths above and threebelow. Rabbi (Judah the Prince) says: In the Torah, three above and below a handbreadth.And it is required to leave between one book and another the space of four lines, and ina Prophet of the Twelve (a space) of three. And it is required that he finish in the middleof the column, and begin in the middle of the column, but in a Prophet he may finish atthe end of a column and begin at its beginning, but in a Prophet of the Twelve this isforbidden. They may not make a sheet with less than three columns nor more thaneight … And regarding the sheets of qelaf, the sages did not impose a minimum amount.And it is required that he write on gevil on the hair side and on qelaf on the inner side.If he did differently it is rendered unfit. He may not write it half on skin and half onqelaf, but he may write it half on the skin of a pure (kosher) domesticated animal andhalf on the skin of a pure wild animal … And they must make a roller for the scroll at itsend, for a Torah at the beginning and end. Therefore, they roll a scroll towards its begin-ning, but the Torah (scroll) to its middle.

The text begins by noting that those laws that follow are to be considered!"#!"$%!$&'(' as we have noted above. In what follows we will quote each

section with translation and provide detailed discussion in light of additionalrabbinic sources (where appropriate) and the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

& Tov, Scribal Practices, 250–56, esp. 254.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


1 Writing Material#)*+',+-).)* , “they must write on skins”. Mishnah Megillah 2:2 also forbids

writing on papyrus ( (''. ) or on difthera’.7 Greek !"#$%&' refers to a preparedhide (b. Meg. 19a and Git. 22b), “a skin prepared with salt and flour but notwith gall nut”.8 The purpose it gall nut is to enable the ink to be permanentlyfixed. Tov concludes that the Biblical texts written on papyrus that were foundat Qumran are not of the proto-Masoretic type. He also notes that texts inpaleo-Hebrew script are not written on papyrus.9 It is important to note thatthe number of Biblical manuscripts written on papyrus is exceedingly small,seven in Hebrew and maybe four in Greek, although some of the Greek textsare marked with question marks in the official catalogs.10

2 Ink)#)*+',+/') , “And they must write with (black) ink.” This law is also taught

in m. Meg. 2:2. In m. Shabbat 12:4 there is a list of liquids with which one maywrite, including ink. (That passage is discussing transgression of the Sabbathlaws, not the writing of scrolls.) In this matter, the scrolls illuminate the rab-binic texts, rather than the reverse. According to later halakhic authorities andJewish traditional practices ink was made of the carbon of oils, pitch or paraf-fin, mixed with tree resin and honey as well as the juice of gall nuts.11 Thismeans that there was no metal in it. If we see the metallic material detectedin the ink of several scrolls as secondary, from the metal container in whichthe ink was stored,12 it is possible to say that the scrolls follow the same viewas that of the later rabbis.

It is certain that according to the rabbis it is forbidden to use colors. Inkmust be totally black. Among the four scrolls that have some red ink, two areBiblical13 and in both of them only a few lines are written in this manner,

' Tov, Scribal Practices, 32.( M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and the Midra-shim (New York, Berlin and London, 1926), 304.) Tov, Scribal Practices, 33.!* See Tov’s list of papyrus texts in Scribal Practices, 289–92.!! Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller, Tosefot Yom Tov to m. Megillah 2:2 in Mishnayyot, ed. Vilna(Brooklyn, 1983/4).!" Y. Nir-El, M. Broshi, “The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls”, Discoveries in the JudeanDesert 3 (Oxford, 1996), 157–67.!# Tov, Scribal Practices, 54.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


something that was certainly forbidden according to the rabbis. However, itappears that these manuscripts are not proto-Masoretic (2QPs and 4QNumb).

3 Dry Lines)$&.0"',+1(! , “And they must rule (the writing surface) with a reed.” In

almost all the Qumran scrolls (except papyri) there are what are termed drylines, known in halakhic terms as sir"u". There are a small number of Biblicaltexts that have either no ruling lines or ruling lines made with ink, perhapswith a less dark black ink. We must be carful to note that ruling lines in theDead Sea scrolls are often not visible in the photographs. Tov assumes thatthe Qumran scrolls were ruled using a bone implement, despite the fact thatthe rabbis require that the dry lines be incised with a reed. It appears to me,however, that it is perfectly possible that they did use reeds to rule the Qumranscrolls. As is well known, the letters are hung from the lines, unlike the wayin which we write above the line. A phenomenon that seems not to be men-tioned at all in rabbinic literature is the use of guide dots that are used bythose who prepared the skins in order to know how to rule the writing mate-rial;14 apparently this was done by those who prepared the skins before theycame into the hands of the scribes. Almost none of the proto-Masoretic manu-scripts make use of these guide dots.15 This fact seems to accord with the lackof reference to this technique in rabbinic literature.

)#).#',+%'-. , “and they must tie (the parshiyyot of the Tefillin) withhair”. We skip this requirement because we are not dealing in this article withTefillin.)16

4 Patches for Repair)2)"',+$2"'*)/)+1',+/+1 , “And they may attach a patch and glue it with

glue.” It is not certain whether this refers to attaching a patch before or afterwriting. The word "olin appears here to mean “to attach”.17 A number of Qum-

!$ Tov, Scribal Practices, 57–68.!% Tov, Scribal Practices, 63.!& Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (XQPhyl 1–4) (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969),L. H. Schiffman, “Phylacteries and Mezuzot”, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls eds. L.Schiffman, J. Vanderkam (Oxford, 2000) 2.675–7.!' This definition follows the commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud of M. Margaliot, PeneiMosheh, rather than that of D. Fraenkel, Qorban ha-’Edah (who follows Maimonides).


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


ran scrolls have blank patches (that is, without writing). However, there isonly one extant example that was apparently written upon after the writing ofthe scroll in 4QPaleo-Exodm. This patch was sewn on. It appears to me thatone has to explain the Yerushalmi to the effect that it is permitted even toattach a patch with glue, meaning that according to our baraita there is abso-lutely no doubt that it is permissible to sew on a patch. It appears that in4QPaleo-Exodm a patch was sown on as a repair to the manuscript. It is pos-sible that there is evidence of a second patch that was not preserved in5/6 Hev Ps 9. It is important to point out that we have no example of the useof glue, as mentioned in the baraita. Despite the fact that this method of repairwas permissible according to our baraita, Tractate Soferim 2.17, from the earlyMiddle Ages, forbids repair with inscribed patches. However there, as also iny. Megillah 71d, they quote the words of the tanna Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazarin the name of Rabbi Meir who permits a repair of this sort, as in our baraita,and he specifically mentions the use of glue. Tov points out that the onlymanuscript that has such a patch is not proto-Masoretic; the example fromNa(al )ever, however, is in a proto-Masoretic text.18 Apparently, inscribedpatches were permissible in the tannaitic period but over time the rabbisbecame stricter. In general, the more one moves further away from the periodin which scrolls were the ordinary forms of books, as opposed to codices, andto the extent that scrolls gradually became religious objects only and symbolsof Judaism, the rabbis became stricter regarding the manner of their writingand emphasized more the physical beauty of scrolls.

5 Sewing)*)3.',+0'/',)#%!)4*)3.'!4*)3.#*3.!5! , “And they must sew (the

sheets together) with sinews and when he sows he must sew with this stitch.”The sewing of the sheets together had to be done with catgut, the sinewsof kosher animals. Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9 (71d) identifies as a halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai the requirement that the sinews must be from the skin of akosher animal, just like the skins that serve as the writing material. The verysame ruling appears in b. Mena!ot 31b and in Soferim 1:1.

!( Tov, Scribal Practices, 124–5. See Illustration 14 at the back of the book. Cf. P. Flint inJ. Charlesworth et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Miscellaneous Textsfrom the Judaean Desert (DJD 38; Oxford, 2000), 141–5 and plate XXVII.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


Apparently, most of the Qumran manuscripts were sewn with catgut, thesinews of kosher animals. The papyri were glued with fastened. Unfortunately,we do not know about the method of sewing used for all the scrolls. However,the two Biblical scrolls that were sewn with linen are not written according tothe proto-Masoretic practice.

In the scrolls there are more stitches than what has become customary inmodern Torah scrolls. According to the Palestinian amoraim, it is required thata small section above and below be left without any stitching in order that thescroll will not be torn (see y. Megillah 1:9 (71d), b. Megillah 19b and Soferim2:18). There are examples of this in the scrolls, but the vast majority of thosescrolls that are in good enough condition to examine have not been sewn inaccord with this amoraic ruling.19

6 Spacing)6.'7%'!4$%''.:+',%'2!"%'2!#$")4%'2!,+',*'+!"*'+!#$"44)*,+',4)*"4)*#"%!)4,+',/8"/8$")40)/". ,

“And he must leave blank:between one line and another line the space of a line,between one word and another word the space of a letter,between one letter and another letter a minimal space,between one page and another page the space of a thumb’s width.”

Let us begin with the arrangement of the lines. The very same requirement forspace between the lines appears also in b. Mena!ot 30b. However, it is almostnonexistent in the scrolls except for a small number of examples – the TempleScroll, the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa), and Masada Psalms A (MasPsa).

Regarding the spaces between words that serve as word dividers, most ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls follow this ruling, although there are some exceptions.Sometimes, small words may be attached to words that follow them.20 Thisusually happens with prepositions or other small words. However, in the caseof most of the Biblical scrolls, there are spaces of one letter between all words.

!) Tov, Scribal Practices, 36–39."* Tov, Scribal Practices, 133–35.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


In addition to our baraita, this requirement is also found in b. Mena!ot30a, and according to the Yerushalmi and b. Megillah 29a every letter must besurrounded by space on the writing material. This means that if letters touchone another, the scroll is disqualified (cf. Soferim 2:1 and Sefer Torah 2:1).However, the Yerushalmi mentions an opinion according to which it is permis-sible for the letters to touch in their lower strokes (the base), such as we areused to in cursive writing. We should mention that the requirement of thebaraita regarding space around each letter is generally fulfilled in the scrollswhere there is a small space between letters on all sides.

The baraita requires a space “equivalent to a thumb’s width” betweeneach and every page (column). Vertical ruling lines appear on both sides ofthe columns in most of the manuscripts.21 The same ruling appears also in b.Men. 30a with the addition of the word ro!av, “width”. Tov notes that themargins in the scrolls are generally 1–1.5 cm. wide, although there are somethat are wider.22 Apparently, the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls operated inthis respect more or less as the later rabbis required.

To sum up the matter of the spaces: the requirements of the rabbis regard-ing spaces between lines were not observed at Qumran. However, the rest ofthe spaces in the scrolls are generally in accord with rabbinic tradition.

7 Upper and Lower Margins-%!&)8!/8%)!"*9'"*)3&".6.'7"'*,.')9+&3.$"$-",%*'46+-)*

)$"$2,%"%..+'4)$.:+*).!$"$-",%"%)$"$2,239. , “If one made thebottom of the page equal to its beginning, it is unfit. He must leave a spacein the scroll (sefer) of two finger breadths above and three below. Rabbi (Judahthe Prince) says: In the Torah, three above and below a (single) handbreadth.”The baraita requires that the blank margin below, at the end of the column,must be longer than the margin above, at the top of the column. This legalruling appears also in Soferim 2:4.

Many of the scrolls have a margin that is greater at the bottom of thescroll, as the halakhah requires. However, there are also examples with thesame space above as below. Only in scrolls of the type that Tov terms asdeluxe23 or texts that are later or from sites other than Qumran do we findcorrespondence between the scrolls and the rabbinic requirement. The Temple

"! Tov, Scribal Practices, 59–60."" Tov, Scribal Practices, 103–4."# Tov, Scribal Practices, 99.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


Scroll does accord with this requirement according to the measurements ofYadin.24

8 Space between Books)6.'7%'!4$%''.+',&3."&3.#$")44.+-%'2',,)+(+'4%"%(':-%.

%"%.)6.'7%'!40)$.+4$6-!/8)$*9'"+4$6-'*).)+(+'40)$.+&)3))$*9'"+.4%).)+(+'4%"%(':-%.4&). , “And it is required to leave

between one book and another the space of four lines, and in a Prophet of theTwelve (a space) of three. And it is required that he finish in the middle of thecolumn, and begin in the middle of the column, but in a Prophet he may finishat the end of a column and begin at its beginning, but in a Prophet of theTwelve this is forbidden.”25 In Pentateuch scrolls in the Qumran collectionthat preserve more than one Biblical book, there are spaces of several linesbetween the books.26 However, the scrolls do not exactly fulfill the instructionsof our baraita. For example, there are only three blank lines (not four) betweenthe books in 4QPaleo Gen-Exl. However, all of these requirements are observedin the Twelve Prophets Scroll from Wadi Murabbaat, a proto-Masoretic text.

Apparently, a large portion of the spacing principles fixed by the rabbiswere part of the tradition of the scribes of the scrolls. However, the specificregulations were not always completely observed in the scrolls.27

9 Number of Columns in a Sheet4',-)%','.'-!39)*!$%"%!/3',)"4')*.-"%$)(! , “they may not make

a sheet with less than three columns nor more than eight”. The Yerushalmihere adds a comment as a gloss to the baraita that says that this law dealswith the beginning of the scroll (or its middle) but not with the end, for thereit is permissible to have a sheet of less than three columns.

The average number of columns on a sheet in the scrolls is between threeand four.28 There are scrolls with sheets of only one, among them two manu-

"$ Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem, 1983), 1.15–17; Cf. the lists of Tov, Scribal Practices,100–3."% Cf. b. Baba Batra 13b, Soferim 2:6."& Tov, Scribal Practices, 165."' Tov, Scribal Practices, 165–6."( Tov, Scribal Practices, 80–2.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


scripts of Deuteronomy. One of these is the first sheet and the other the finalsheet. There is no evidence for any scroll with a sheet longer than seven col-umns. This limitation arises from the size of the skins of the animals. Twonon-Biblical scrolls show evidence of sheets of two columns. We must takeinto account the fact that the fragmentary preservation of the scrolls makesimpossible a complete picture. Even if the scroll with one column actuallybegan with a blank column, it still would not be in accord with the view ofthe baraita.29

10 Writing Surface)6.'7%'!4#)*+-"!0)'"+$1):!%'-.)-"!1"8+$1)'(9)%*)4:%'(!

3&" , “And it is required that he write on gevil on the hair side and on qelaf onthe inner side. If he did differently it is rendered unfit.” The term meqomne!ushato refers to the inner side of the skin.30 Gevil is a thick hide on thehair side of which one writes. However, it is also permissible to write on qelafthat is much thinner, and is written on the inside. As far as we know, thescrolls were written in accordance with these rules,31 on gevil on the hairside.32 However, in a technical matter such as this we would not have expectedany differences. It is necessary to write on the side that is practical in accordwith the manner in which the writing material was prepared (cf. Soferim 1:8and Sefer Torah 1:4).

An additional law requires: "4'!4#)*+96')-"!-).)96')-"!1"84+"#)*+!)496')-"-).+!$!2!).!)96')-"-).9'!2!).! , “He may

not write it half on skin and half on qelaf, but he may write it half on the skinof a pure (kosher) domesticated animal and half on the skin of a pure wildanimal.”33 There is insufficient information to be able to examine this particu-lar requirement, but it is worth noting that the Dead Sea Scrolls are writtenon skins of kosher domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, goat) and also on theskins of kosher wild animals (deer and ibex).34

") There now appears a law that no one has been successful in explaining and, therefore,we will skip it at this time.#* Jastrow, Dictionary, 804, translating our passage, “its smooth side”.#! Tov, Scribal Practices, 34–5.#" M. Glatzer, “The Book of Books–From Scroll to Codex and into Print”, Jerusalem Crown: TheBible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (ed. M. Glatzer, 2002), 63–4.## Cf. Soferim 1:1, Sefer Torah 1:1.#$ Tov, Scribal Practices, 33–4.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


11 Wooden Rollers)-)%',-$)/"&3.+&)3)"*).'$'#,)$'#,"3'#70)""',!&3."*9'"*))!*).!"4$6-'*!

“And they must make a roller for the scroll at its end, for a Torah at the beginningand end. Therefore, they roll a scroll towards its beginning, but the Torah (scroll) to itsmiddle.”

Apparently the roller for a scroll other than a Torah remained inside at theend of the scroll, and the book was rolled up around it, in such a way as itwas easy to read the first part of the scroll. In connection with a Torah scrollthe baraita requires an arrangement similar to that of the Ashkenazic, Spanish-Portuguese and Italian Jews of today.35 In the scrolls there is only one actualexample of such a piece of wood preserved, on 11QApoc Ps.36 However, itappears to me that among all the scrolls we would have expected more exam-ples. For this reason I assume that such rollers were not used in the majorityof scrolls, including biblical scrolls in the Hellenistic period.37 We should pointout that we do not have a scroll with more than two biblical books preservedon it.38

12 ConclusionsThe more we compare the literature of the Dead Sea sect to the literature ofthe rabbis, the more we learn that the relationship is complicated and mixed.There are some subjects where we are speaking about almost exactly the samething, as in the example of the laws of Shabbat39 or regulations pertainingnon-Jews in the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document).40 However, thereare some subjects where everything is in disagreement, as in the laws pertain-

#% Tov, Scribal Practices, 116–18 and the Talmudic sources provided there.#& F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–30 (DJD 23; Oxford, 1998), 183 and Plate XXII.#' Cf. M. Haran, “Torah and Bible Scrolls in the First Centuries of the Christian Era”, Shnaton10 (1986–89), 93–106 (Hebrew).#( See Tov, 75, Table 10. Five manuscripts preserve two sequential books of the Torah. Nomanuscript from Qumran preserves more than two books, but Mur 1 preserves Genesis, Exodusand Numbers and may be evidence of a Torah scroll. We cannot be sure, therefore, if inHellenistic times such Pentateuchal scrolls existed or not.#) L. H. Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden, 1975), 84–133.$* L. H. Schiffman, “Legislation concerning Relations with non-Jews in the Zadokite Frag-ments and in Tannaitic Literature,” Revue de Qumran 11 (1983), 379–89.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


ing to courts and testimony41 and various laws pertaining to women and ritualpurity.42 The closeness of the two halakhic systems is emphasized by examina-tion of the archaeological aspects regarding miqva’ot43 and Tefillin.44 There isno doubt that every single subject requires independent examination, and thisis the case regarding matters pertaining to scribes and books.

Here, the matter is not consistent. There are some matters in which thescribes of the scrolls and the rabbis received a common tradition of techniquesfor preparing and writing scrolls. However, there exist several requirements inrabbinic literature which we do not see observed in the scrolls.

However, in actuality, the story is even more complicated. We must expecta greater degree of closeness regarding Judean Desert manuscripts that areproto-Masoretic than with those of other biblical manuscripts, and this isindeed the situation. As Tov noted, we must remember that the scribal lawsof the rabbis concern only biblical scrolls.45 The rabbis opposed writing downany other legal text.46 In addition, we must take into consideration the possi-bility that among the biblical books there were different levels of texts, thoseintended for public reading47 and those that were intended for study and per-sonal reading. Of course, scrolls for reading in public would be written withgreater stringency. This relationship is similar to that of today’s Torah scrollsto printed copies of the Pentateuch. If so, we would not expect that everysingle scroll in the collection from the Judean Desert should observe all therules, even those of the scribes of Qumran.

How do we explain the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and therabbis regarding these issues? We must always take into consideration thesectarian aspect as well as the chronological. On the sectarian side, we mustassume that the Qumran sect tended always to greater stringency because ofits being part of the Sadducee/Zadokite halakhic trend.

$! L. H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the PenalCode (BJS 33; Chico, CA, 1983), 23–132.$" L. H. Schiffman, “Laws Pertaining to Women and Sexuality in the Early Strata of theDamascus Document”, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture; Proceedings of theInternational Conference held at the Israel Museum, July 6–8, 2008 (ed. A. Roitman, L. H.Schiffman and S. Tzoref; Leiden, 2011), 548–69.$# Magness, Archaeology, 134–62.$$ See above, n. 17.$% Tov, Scribal Practices, 275.$& b. Temurah 14b.$' L. H. Schiffman, “The Early History of the Public Reading of the Torah”, Jews, Christians,and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period,ed. S. Fine (London and New York, 1999), 44–56.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


In the material that we are discussing here, we can see this inclination ingeneral terms. Overall, there were more requirements among the rabbis thanwhat were apparently observed by the scribes of the scrolls. From the chrono-logical point of view, is possible that the requirements and the quest for perfec-tion and beauty became more and more important in halakhah, so that thescribes who did their work earlier did not observe all the requirements of thelater rabbis. If so, we would expect that Pharisaic scribes at an earlier timewould also have been working according to rules more lenient than the onesthat we find mentioned by the rabbis. Finally, although I often stress the exis-tence of two basic trends in halakhah in Second Temple times, in the case ofthe laws of scribal practice, we find evidence of the common Judaism of thishistorical period.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. D

e G

ruyt

er, I

nc..

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed.

Documents

“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