The Torah Scroll: How the Copying Process Became Sacred

Judah D. Eisenstein, ed., אוצר ישראל: אנציקלופדיה [Oẓar Yisrael, An Encyclopedia of All Matters Concerning Jews and Judaism], 5 vols. (New York: Pardes, 1951), s.v. “Sepher Torah.”

The English translation is from Jen Taylor, “Keset Ha-Sofer, ch. 10,” HaSoferet. Ganzfried continues by warning scribes not to take this too far:

אך לעשות כן בכל הס"ת יש לחוש מחמת שכל הכתב נתישן קצת והשמות יהיו בכתב חדש יהי' נראה כמנומר. ואין לעשות כן.

But we are cautious if doing this for the entire sefer Torah, because the writing will have aged a little, and the Names will be newer, and it will look speckled, so we do not do this.

This term comes from the word חמש “five,” i.e., one of the five scrolls. The original pronunciation was likely חֹמֶשׁ chomesh, as noted in Moshe Greenberg, Introduction to Hebrew (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965), 175. In modern Hebrew, a chumash refers to a printed text of the Torah.

For some basic background on the book, including the dating, see Myron B. Lerner, “The External Tractates,” in The Literature of the Sages, First Part, ed. Shmuel Safrai, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987), 367–403 [397–400]. Lerner argues that calling the work Soferim is an error, and that the original name was likely סְפָרִים sefarim “Scrolls.” While Lerner dates the editing of the work to the Geonic period, he argues that the material from the first five chapters is much earlier. 

The Hebrew of Tractate Soferim is from the (eclectic) critical edition, Michael Higger, מסכת סופרים [Tractate Soferim] (New York: Ginsburg Linotyping, 1937), ad loc. The line in brackets, found in the standard printing, is missing from the Higger text, apparently a victim of parablepsis.

See also y. Meg. 1.9 [p. 71d]. Note that 1QIsa^a did not have such a handle sheet at its end.

Ostensibly the concern is that starting on the next page would imply that each of the Twelve Prophets constitutes its own book.

The calculations are quoted from Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977–1983), I.16.

Tractate Soferim includes both formulations:

^{סופרים ב:ה} מניחין מלמטן בתורה ריוח טפח, ומלמעלן שלשה חלקים בטפח, ובנביאים ובחומשין שלש אצבעות מלמטן, ושתים מלמעלן.

^{Soferim 2:8} On the bottom margin of a Torah scroll must be a margin of a handbreadth, and on the top margin, three-fifths of a handbreadth. For the Prophets and chumashim, three fingerbreadths in the bottom margin, and two [fingerbreadths] in the top.

See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 99–101.

The standard halakha differs a bit from these options. If even one mistake is found, the Torah cannot be used for reading (like R. Simeon ben Gamaliel) until it is corrected. If three mistakes are found in a column (as R. Judah discusses), the text can still be corrected. If more than three mistakes are found in a column, the scroll may never be used for the lection. See Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah §279.

See my brief discussion in “Part 4: The Scribes of Proto-MT and Their Practices,” from my series on proto-MT.

The exact relationship between Pharisees and Rabbis is debated, but the strong connection between the two is accepted by many scholars. See, for instance, discussion in Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2^nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 148–157.

See my “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017), parts 4 and 5.

See “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017), part 2.

For a detailed discussion of Proto-MT, see “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017).

See “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017), part 6.

Under these circumstances, it would not be unusual to find scribes who copied both a Torah scroll and other scrolls. So far, two such scribes have been identified, first, the scribe who copied the nonbiblical texts 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb and the biblical 4QSam^c, and his hand is also visible in several corrections in 1QIsa^a. See Eibert J. C.  Tigchelaar, “In Search of the Scribe of 1QS,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields, VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 439–452. Further, see Eugene Ulrich, “Identification of a Scribe Active at Qumran: 1QPs^b–4QIsa^c–11QM,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V–VI, A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant, ed. M. Bar-Asher and E. Tov (Haifa: Haifa University Press; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007): 201*–10*. For further details regarding Qumran scribes writing more than one manuscript, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 23–24.

The same rule is found already in b. Shabbat 103b without a reference to the storing away of the scroll. Thus also Sifre Deuteronomy §36.1 on Deuteronomy 6:9.

Similarly, in medieval times Maimonides’ list of the open and closed sections based on the Aleppo Codex became canonical, at least in theory. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefar Ahavah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, §8 and Jordan S. Penkower, “Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex,” Textus 9 (1981): 39–128.

See Emanuel Tov, “The Development of the Text of the Torah in Two Major Text Blocks,” in idem, Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4, VTSup 181 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 237–56.

See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, revised and expanded fourth edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022), 75.

The great variety of these texts could not have been created at Qumran. For an analysis of the texts that have been brought to Qumran, see my study “The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts,” in Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, STDJ 133, ed. Henryk Drawnel (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 50–65.  

A little fragment of Genesis, 4QGen^b, carries proto-MT features, but already in its initial publication, it was recognized that this scroll was mislabeled as a Qumran scroll, and ought to be ascribed to one of the Judean Desert sites. See James R. Davila, Eugene Ulrich and Frank M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 31. Further, a few small Qumran fragments seemingly reflect the proto-MT, but they are too small for textual assessment. In contrast, Armin Lange describes eight Qumran fragmentary scrolls as proto-Masoretic, see his “1.2.2. Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1A, Overview Articles, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 112–166 (136).

See “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017), part 7.

For both, see Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions,” in idem, Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4, VTSup 181 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 3–20.

See Tov, Scribal Practices, 205.

See the evidence quoted by Grace M. Crowfoot, DJD I, 18–19. Important scrolls were protected by linen wrappings.

Quotations follow Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, in association with Geraldine I. Clements, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Volumes 1–2, 2nd ed., rev. and exp. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1.17, with some adjustments in the English.

The scribes of the MT-like text, although different from the proto-MT scribes, also copied their scrolls with relatively great care. See also the discussion of Paleo-Hebrew scrolls below.

All these scrolls are written in the style of the Qumran scribal practice best known from the large Isaiah scroll, 1QIsa^a. Thus 4QNum^b includes such spellings as כיא (for כי), למטי (for למטה), פוה  (for פה), and such forms as הואה (for הוא), ואכלתמה (for ואכלתם), etc.

1QpaleoLev (1Q3¹); 1QpaleoNum (1Q3²); same scroll as 1QpaleoLev?; frgs. 16–24 (1Q3³) possibly derived from yet (a) different scroll(s); 2QpaleoLev (2Q5); 4QpaleoGen-Exod^l (4Q11); 4QpaleoGen^m (4Q12); 4QpaleoExod^m (4Q22) including (4Q22^patch); 4QpaleoDeut^r (4Q45); 4QpaleoDeut^s (4Q46); 4QpaleoJob^c (4Q101); 6QpaleoGen  (6Q1); 6QpaleoLev (6Q2); 11QpaleoLev^a (11Q1).

Cf. b. Baba Batra 14b–15a; cf. also manuscripts and editions of the Peshitta in which Job follows the Torah.

As note, proto-MT “proper” does not appear in Qumran. Nevertheless, some “MT-like” Qumran texts were found there, among these were some of the Paleo-Hebrew texts.

Unlike in Qumran, where we find multiple text groups in one place, including some MT-like texts, on Masada among the Zealots, as well as in the Judean Desert sites inhabited by the followers of Bar-Kokhba, we find exclusively proto-MT scrolls. Similarly, rabbinic tradition quotes only from proto-MT. For more on this, see “Part 3: Socio-Religious Background and Stabilization,” in my series on proto-MT.

Rav Hisda explains this word in b. Sanhedrin 21b asכותאי  (Samaritans), and several scholars agree. See Shemaryahu Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Mandel Institute of the Hebrew University; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 344 [n. 34].

See Tov, Scribal Practices, 248.

Among the thirty-seven Judean Desert scrolls with wide top and bottom margins, twenty-seven (or 77%) are biblical.

For an updated list, see my study “‘Luxury Scrolls’ from the Judean Desert,” Fountains of Wisdom: In Conversation with James H. Charlesworth, ed. Gerbern Oegema, Loren Stuckenbruck, and Henry Rietz (London: Bloomsbury, 2022), 422–32. The Torah scrolls are: 2QNum^a, 4QGen^b, 4QExod^c, 4QpaleoGen-Exod^l, 4QpaleoExod^m, 4QDeut^g frg. 11, MurGen frg. 1, MurNum 6, MurDeut frg. 6, XḤev/SeNum^b, 34ṢeNum, MasLev^b, MasDeut, SdeirGen, XQLev^c = Mur/ḤevLev. Among the 37 known luxury scrolls, fifteen (41%) are of the Torah. This ratio is much larger than that of the Torah scrolls among all the literary Judean Desert scrolls: 101 (87+14) Torah scrolls among 1068 (930+138) literary scrolls or 9.5%. In these figures, the numbers in parenthesis list the Qumran scrolls first, followed by scrolls from the other sites in the Judean Desert.

In fact, all the scrolls from Naḥal Ḥever, Murabba‘at and Masada, for which the margins are known are of this type, while MasLev^a (2.8 cm), MasLev^b (2.7 cm), and 5/6HevPs (2.5–2.7 cm) come very close.

4Q82 (a scroll of the Minor Prophets, 4QXII^g), cf. Drew Longacre, “Reconsidering the Date of the En-Gedi Leviticus Scroll (EGLev): Exploring the Limitations of the Comparative-Typological Paleographic Method,” Textus 27 (2018): 44–84 (79–80). For parallels in the rabbinic literature, see m. Yad. 3.4; b. B. Bat. 14a; Sof. 2.5, all referring to a single bar attached to the end of a regular scroll and two bars for the Torah scrolls, each attached to one of the extremities.

See W. Brent Seales, C. Seth Parker, Michael Segal, Pnina Shor, Emanuel Tov, and Yoseph Porath: “From Damage to Discovery via Virtual Unwrapping: Reading the Scroll from En-Gedi,” Science Advances 2, e1601247 (2016): 1–9;  Michael Segal, W. Brent Seales, C. Seth Parker, Pnina Shor, Emanuel Tov, and Yoseph Porath: “An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publication,” in  Emanuel Tov, Textual Developments, Collected Essays, Volume 4 (2019), 458–69.

For a different view, see Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Ein Gedi Torah Scroll?” TheTorah (2016).

For example, Menahem Haran, “Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins,” HUCA 54 (1983): 111–122 [p. 115].

Some thirty chapters of Genesis are represented in one or more fragments; for the other four books, all or virtually all chapters are represented. Coincidence and the position of the text in the scroll (book) may have played a role (beginning, middle, or end).

The figures are based on Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010). A few scrolls contain text from two Torah books. In those cases, the first figure refers to the total number of scrolls that contain text from the book referred to. The second figure, in parenthesis, excludes the scrolls that contain text from additional Torah books. For example, 4QpaleoGen-Exod^l is counted twice, in Genesis and Exodus, but is excluded in the counting in Exodus in the number in parenthesis.

Traditionally, the book of Psalms is divided into five “books.” 1QIsa^a consists of two scrolls differing in script, spelling, marginal signs, and horizontal imprints in the middle of the column in the first scroll, stitched together after column XXVII (thus Marcello Fidanzio, lecture Israel Museum, 21.2.2023); Presumably 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, and 1–2 Chronicles were once written in two scrolls each; differences in translation character in the sections of Samuel–Kings and Jeremiah in the LXX were probably created when various small scrolls were combined in the archetypal copies of these books in the LXX canon.

4QGen-Exod^a (125–100 BCE); 4QpaleoGen-Exod^l (125–100 BCE); 4QExod^b = 4Q[Gen-]Exod^b (30 BCE–20 CE); 4QExod-Lev^f (250 BCE); 4QLev-Num^a (150–100 BCE); 4QRP^c (40–10 BCE).

According to Sof. 3.4, two books of the Torah should not be combined if there was no intention to add the other three books to the scroll. If this rule was followed in the case of the scrolls found at Qumran, all the instances of two combined books of the Torah would have belonged to longer Torah scrolls, but Soferim reflects a much later reality.

The evidence pertains to fragments of Genesis, Exodus, and possibly Numbers (DJD II, 75–78 and pls. XIX–XXI). These fragments, written in the same handwriting, probably belong to the same scroll, but the joins between the books have not been preserved.

Menahem Haran, “Torah and Bible Scrolls in the First Centuries of the Christian Era,” Shnaton 10 (1986–89): 93–106 (Heb. with Eng. summ.), basing himself on rabbinic and other references, believes that no scrolls combining all five books of the Torah were in existence in this early period.

David Stern, The Jewish Bible: A Material History, Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 66.

Stern, The Jewish Bible, 67.