3

I have heard that the original Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote, being dictated by Hashem, had no spaces, and that they were added in later. In the original Torah, were the final letters (ךםןףץ) included or were the letters only in the normal forms (כמנפצ)?

On a side note, how about the inverted nuns in Beha'aloscha - were they in the original Torah?

  • 1
    Regarding the inverted nuns.. The Maharal claimed that they are based on the kabbalah, and that they actually invalidate the Torah! (Shut HaMaharal no. 73) – yechezkel Jun 9 '15 at 14:42
  • In should be noted that there is an opinion in the Gmara that the Torah was originally given in Ktav Ivri, known today as ancient Hebrew. In those letters there are no final letters. – yechezkel Jun 9 '15 at 15:49
  • @yechezkel are you sure about that (first comment)? I think he meant the minhag to invert the nuns of בנסוע and כמתאוננים, not the ones before/after. – Shamiach Jun 9 '15 at 17:07
  • Yes, I'm sure. It's very surprising, but that's what the Maharal claimed. – yechezkel Jun 9 '15 at 19:03
  • @yechezkel, I never heard of a Shut HaMaharal. Do you mean Maharil? – HaLeiVi Jun 9 '15 at 21:26
4

The origional Torah did in fact have מנצפ׳ך in both forms, but over the generations, their proper use was confused. People forgot which form went in the middle of a word and which at the end, whereupon the צופים, נביאי הדורות, reinstated their proper use.

This is found in maseches Shabbos 104a, and Megila 2b.

  • The Gemara says this about the Luchos, not the Torah. The Torah might have been written in Ksav Ivri. – HaLeiVi Jun 9 '15 at 21:23
  • Might have is the operative word. To separate between the luchos and the Torah is a chidush of the Radbaz, to make this sugya flow better with the sugya in Sanhedrin. But that is all according to the opinion tgat the original Torah was ivri. If we assume it was ashuris, as the op seemingly did, than these forms were in there too. – user6591 Jun 9 '15 at 23:39
  • @user6591 Radbaz IIRC said that luchos #1 vs #2 one was ksav ivri and the other ashuri to answer yerushalmi that says samech in the luchos stood via miracle. Everyone agrees the Torah was ivri until Ezra Hasofer cf Sanhedrin 21 – Yoni Jun 10 '15 at 3:54
  • 1
    @Yoni No, not everyone agrees. See Sanhedrin 22a: Rebbi says it was originally Ashuris then roetz (Ivri) then back to Ashuris, and R' Shimon ben Elazar in the name of a chain of tannaim says it was always Ashuris. – Shamiach Jun 10 '15 at 17:51
  • Thus מנצפ״ך, an acronym for מן צופיך, as opposed to the proper alphabetical order כמנצ״ף. – DonielF May 8 '17 at 15:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .