Some of the most ancient surviving Hebrew texts are written in what looks, to the untrained eye, like chicken scratch. This is the original Hebrew script that scholars call Paleo-Hebrew. The Hebrew script that we are familiar with doesn’t appear in the Jewish historical record until after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE, during the time of Ezra the scribe. This newer script was adapted from the Aramaic alphabet, the standard alphabet of the Babylonian Empire. While most of the biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from the third century BCE to the first century CE) are written in this new alphabet, many continue to spell out the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God, in Paleo-Hebrew. Presumably, the authors of these scrolls associated this older script with God and increased holiness.
Eventually, the practice of writing even God’s name in Paleo-Hebrew fell out of favor, and all Hebrew texts were written in the newer script — the one familiar to us — based on Aramaic. Though this may be the first time you’re hearing about Paleo-Hebrew, the rabbis of the Talmud were well aware of it. On today’s daf, they try to explain why the Hebrew script changed:
With regard to Ezra it states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances.” (Ezra 7:10) And even though the Torah was not given by him, the script was changed by him, as it is stated: “And the writing of the letter (hannishtevan) was written in the Aramaic script, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue.” (Ezra 4:7)
This beraita attributes the script change from Paleo-Hebrew, which the Talmud calls simply Hebrew, to the more contemporary script, which the Talmud calls Ashurit (Assyrian), to Ezra the scribe, one of the leaders of the Jewish people after they returned from exile. The biblical word nishtevan means letter, but is similar to the rabbinic word nishtana, meaning changed, hinting to the rabbis that Ezra was responsible for instituting the new script.
But what gave Ezra the authority to change the script of the Torah? The beraita continues by citing a text we examined closely yesterday:
And it is written: “That he shall write for himself a second (mishneh) Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18) — a script that is apt to be changed (lehishtannot).
According to the rabbis’ clever wordplay, the ability to change the script of the Torah is written into the Torah itself in Deuteronomy. We saw yesterday that the word mishneh has several possible meanings, including copy and second. Today, we see it is also related to the verb that means to change and it is used to authorize Ezra’s change from one Hebrew script to another.
While this beraita seems very comfortable with the idea that the script of the Torah has changed and that the justification for that change is found right in the Torah itself, the Talmud then quotes a different beraita that rejects this idea:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in this script (Ashurit). Once they sinned, it turned into an impairment for them. Once they repented, the first script was returned to them, as it is stated: “Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope; even today do I declare that I will render double (mishneh) unto you.” (Zechariah 9:12)
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi insists that the script we are familiar with today is in fact the Torah’s original script. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Paleo-Hebrew (which, reading between the lines, he must have found difficult to decipher) was temporarily introduced in response to Israel’s sin. But in his day the original script, Ashurit, had been restored — a sign Israel repented properly.
Finally, we get a third opinion, which rejects the idea of a second script entirely:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i: This script did not change at all, as it is stated with regard to the construction of the Tabernacle: “The hooks (vavei) of the poles.” (Exodus 27:10) This teaches that just as the poles were not changed, so too, the hooks were not changed.
This interpretation relies on the fact that the Hebrew word for hook, vav, is identical to the name of a Hebrew letter. Thus, when the Torah says the hooks of the Tabernacle were unchanged, this can be read as saying the vavs were unchanged — and therefore, by extension, all the letters.
The rabbis don’t resolve the dispute, but present all three opinions for us to consider. As such, the Talmud offers us three different ways to approach evidence of an historical change that makes us uncomfortable: accept it and map it onto what is already known about Jewish history, insist that what seems to change is actually just a marker of the cycle of sin and repentance, or reject the idea that change happens at all. Today, we might add a fourth option to this list: Accept it with humility and use it to develop a more nuanced understanding of Jewish history.
Read all of Sanhedrin 22 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 8, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
