If we have full copies of the Torah in an unchanged form (Dead Sea Scrolls), why don’t we revert our Torah scrolls back?

Question

We have found very old Torah scrolls, which were named the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls are some of the oldest Torah scrolls out there; however, there are some discrepancies between these ancient scrolls, which are considered to be more correct, and our modern-day Torah scrolls.

If we have these very old, uncorrupted scrolls, why don’t we change our corrupted scrolls back?

Furthermore, Kabbalah and Rashi both teach that every single letter has a massive amount of importance. If this is true, how can we be satisfied with Torah scrolls that prove to be changed, even though they were only changed by one letter? Shouldn’t we try to have our Torah scrolls be exactly how they were during the time of the Beit Hamiqdash?

Answer 1

Halakhah does not assume that anything older is necessarily more precise despite the principle yeridat hadorot (ירידת הדורות), and this is scientifically not reasonable either. Assume you write an important letter, and you ask a little child living next door to copy it, and a week/year/decade/century later you ask a professional copy editor to copy your same letter. Which copy would you trust more?

Instead, in the Yerushalmi Taanit 4:2 it is taught:

שְׁלֹֹשָה סְפָרִים מָצְאוּ בָעֲזָרָה. סֵפֶר ״מְעוֹנֵי״, וְסֵפֶר ״זַעֲטוּטֵי״ וְסֵפֶר ״הִיא״. בְּאֶחָד מָצְאוּ כָתוּב מְעוֹן אֱלֹהֵי קֶדֶם, וּבִשְׁנַיִם כָּתוּב מְעוֹנָה אֱלֹהֵי קֶדֶם. וְקִייְמוּ שְׁנַיִם וּבִיטְלוּ אֶחָד. בְּאֶחָד מָֽצְאוּ כָתוּב וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת זַעֲטוּטֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבִשְׁנַיִם כָּתוּב וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת־נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְקִייְמוּ שְׁנַיִם וּבִיטְלוּ אֶחָד. בְּאֶחָד מָצְאוּ כָתוּב תֵּשַׁע הִיא, וּבִשְׁנַיִם כָּתוּב אַחַד עֶשְׂרֵה הִיא, וְקִייְמוּ שְׁנַיִם וּבִיטְלוּ אֶחָד.‏

Three scrolls were found in the Temple courtyard, the Meone scroll, the Zaatute scroll, the hi scroll. In one they found written meôn (מְעוֹן) is the preexisting God, but in two was written meônāh (מְעוֹנָה) is the preexisting God (Moses V. 33:27). They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written he sent the zaatûtē (זַעֲטוּטֵי) of the Children of Israel but in two was written he sent the naarē (נַֽעֲרֵי) of the Children of Israel (Moses II. 24:5). They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written nine היא, but in two they found eleven היא. They confirmed the two and annulled the one.

The same is discussed in Sifrei Devarim 356 and in Soferim 6. Therefore, our sages of blessed memory used the majority principle to decide which manuscript was correct if they had conflicting versions. Despite not being flawless,* this is a scientifically valid method as well, and this is how they reconstructed missing parts of the Aleppo Codex as well.

^{* The choice of the manuscripts for comparison is not trivial.}

Answer 2

There's been extensive scholarship on this, especially by Professor Schiffman. The "Qumranites" -- the group to whom these scrolls belonged -- did not follow the mainstream "Pharisee" (Perushim) practice; see their Book of Jubilees. There's even a letter sent to Jerusalem from the Qumranites noting differences between their practices and what was done in the Temple in Jerusalem.

So -- different calendar, different take on some religious aspects ... it's thus very possible that already by this point, there had been a divergence in the detailed Torah text itself. Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect one of the many splinter groups rejected by the Talmud -- so we are not going to take their word on the Masoretic text!

Answer 3

I appreciate where you're coming from but unfortunately your premise is faulty for a few reasons.

1. I don't believe we have found entire complete Torah scrolls. I believe we have found various fragments and scrolls and they cover the entire text of the Torah. The only complete text found at Qumran was a scroll of Isaiah

   "The most outstanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls is undoubtedly the Isaiah Scroll (Manuscript A) – the only biblical scroll from Qumran that has been preserved in its entirety (it is 734 cm long). This scroll is also one of the oldest to have been preserved; scholars estimate that it was written around 100 BCE"

   Source: https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls

2. Multiple copies of Torah books were found, such as 30 copies of Devarim (Deuteronomy). But despite these books being written in a similar time period, they do not agree with each other

   All the books of the Hebrew Bible, except for Nehemiah and Esther, were discovered at Qumran. In some cases, several copies of the same book were found (for instance, there were thirty copies of Deuteronomy), while in others, only one copy came to light (e.g., Ezra). Sometimes the text is almost identical to the Masoretic text, which received its final form about one thousand years later in medieval codices; and sometimes it resembles other versions of the Bible (such as the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Greek translation known as the Septuagint). Scrolls bearing the Septuagint Greek translation (Exodus, Leviticus) and an Aramaic translation (Leviticus, Job) have survived as well.

   Source: https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls

3. For a long time Judaism has been practicing a concept of "correcting text according to the majority" as can be seen in Yerushalmi Taanit 4:2. But I cannot fathom how we could apply this concept when we have so many Dead Sea Scrolls with so many variants. And it's possible the Qumran community did not believe in correcting by majority, perhaps they sought out to collect all divergent traditions and study all of them. I have no objection to that methodology, I sometimes will read the Samaritan Torah to see what insights might be gained. But if the community of Qumran believed in having and preserving multiple variants of texts, it means that you can't extract a single authoritative text from the variants. Which means that despite having 30 copies of Deuteronomy, we aren't much closer to knowing what the "Original Deuteronomy" looked like.