1) Everyone agrees that the Sifrei Torah written at the time of the Gemara were written with forms of "Menatzpach" letters at the ends of words that differed from their forms in the middle of the words. The discussion in the Gemara concerns what was the historical source of this Halachic difference. Therefore, it would not have helped them to open up a Sefer Torah and look inside, because this would not have proved that it was the Tzofim who started off this distinction between the final letters and the other letters.

2) The Gemara here (3a) states that when the Torah was given it was known which were the final letters and which where the other letters. However, at some point in time it was forgotten which form was used for which letter. It was the Tzofim who came and taught us which is which.

3) Tosfos (2b) writes that the reason why this was forgotten was

that King Amon burned the Torah. This tragic event is in fact recorded by the Gemara in Sanhedrin 103b.

4) The Ritva here gives a different historical event which caused the form of the letters to be forgotten: the hiding of the Aron ha'Kodesh. See the Mishnah in Shekalim (6:1) that relates that the Aron was hidden away. The Tiferes Yisrael there (#4) writes that it was hidden by King Yoshiyahu when it became known that the Gezeirah had been decreed that the Beis ha'Mikdash would be destroyed (see Melachim II 22:11). It was only when they returned to Eretz Yisrael, at the time of the building of the second Beis ha'Mikdash in the time of Ezra the Scribe, that they were able to write the Torah again.

5) The Chidushei ha'Ramban to Shabbos 104a writes that the Tzofim who reinstituted the letters lived much later. They were the Tana'im of the Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1.

(a) The Mishnah Berurah OC 32:71 writes with regard to all of the Menatzpach letters that one must write the simple form at the beginning or middle of a word, and the final version of the letter must be written at the end of the word. If one did it the wrong way, this invalidates the writing. In Sha'ar ha'Tziyun (#84) he writes that the source of this ruling is Maseches Sofrim and the Gra.

(b) The Gra on Shulchan Aruch OC 32:18 writes that the Halachah does not follow Rav Chisda, cited in Shabbos 103b. Rav Chisda states there that if a letter should have been closed and one wrote it open, this does not invalidate the writing. The Gemara questions Rav Chisda from a Beraisa which, among other things, states that one should not write a letter that should be at

the beginning of the word in the way that a letter is written at the end of the word. The Gra writes that all of the Poskim cite only this Beraisa. In addition, the Gra cites Maseches Sofrim (printed in the back of the standard editions of the Shas), chapter 2, that if one wrote the Menatzpach letters in the middle of the word, or the non-Menatzpach at the end of the word, the writing is rendered invalid.

2. They knew about the differences in the times of Moshe Rabeinu but the Gemara in Shabbos 104a states that afterwards they forgot the differences.

3. Concerning the connection between Menatzpach and Parnasah:

(a) I found a beautiful interpretation in the Shem mi'Shmuel on Parshas Vayechi, on the verse, "Pakod Yifkod" -- "Hash-m will surely remember you and redeem you" (Bereshis 50:24). He cites Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer, chapter 48, which states that Menatzpach are the letters of redemption. In addition, the Midrash Rabah (Parshas Vayechi 97:3) states, "Redemption is compared to Parnasah, and Parnasah is compared to redemption. Just as redemption is double, so Parnasah is double."

The Shem mi'Shmuel asks, what is the meaning of these Midrashim? Why are the letters of Menatzpach associated with redemption, and what is the connection between the double nature of redemption and of Parnasah?

Of course, the Menatzpach letters all have a double aspect since they can be written in two possible ways. What, though, does the Midrash mean when it says that redemption is double, and why did Yosef tell his brothers in a doubled phrase, "Pakod Yifkod," that Hash-m would redeem them?

The Shem mi'Shmuel writes that this is because, in reality, there are two parts of Ge'ulah: (1) Hash-m redeemed Klal Yisrael from their subjugation to the Egyptians; (2) Hash-m drew the Jewish people closer towards Him. It is not sufficient for

the slave to be set free; he also must be able to utilize his new-found freedom in the most productive and meaningful way.

Now we must answer the questions, why does the Midrash say that Ge'ulah is compared to Parnasah, and what is the double nature of Parnasah? The Shem mi'Shmuel explains that there is a difference between the Parnasah of Yisrael and the Parnasah of the nations of the world. The Parnasah of a Jew is not based on natural cause and effect. It comes directly from a very high place, from the source of spirituality. After the Parnasah has been brought down from its high source, we see its double nature as it becomes the everyday, natural food of a physical person. This is the double nature of Parnasah: both the spiritual source from above, and the mundane, physical manifestation of it in this world.

(b) This, then, is the connection between Menatzpach and Parnasah. Menatzpach are double letters and they herald the Ge'ulah, which starts off as a redemption from the physical subjugation and concludes as a spiritual closeness to Hash-m. Parnasah also possesses this double nature, because Parnasah conversely starts off in the high spiritual realms and is converted in this world into the physical sustenance that all earthly creatures require.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) The Machlokes concerning the type of script in which the Torah was written appears in Sanhedrin 21b-22a. The Maharsha there (21b, DH b'Techilah) writes that the Gemara (Megilah 2b) which says that the "Mem" and "Samech" of the tablets were suspended through a miracle is consistent only with the opinion that there was no change whatsoever in the writing between the time of Moshe and the time of Ezra. The Maharsha writes that this is the intent of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megilah 1:9) when it says that according to the opinion that the Torah was given in Ivri script, the "Ayin" was suspended through a miracle, while according to the opinion that the Torah was given in Ashuri script, the "Samech" was miraculous.

This topic certainly deserves further discussion but I will close here for the time being.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Teshuvas ha'Radbaz (3:442; the Radbaz was an older contemporary of Rav Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, who lived about 500 years ago) writes at length on this question. He starts with the question that if the Torah was written in Kesav Ivri, how could this be reconciled with what Rav Chisda says that the Mem and Samech stood by a miracle? The Radbaz writes that he saw Sifrei Torah belonging to the Kusim. Since the Gemara in Sanhedrin (end of 21b) states that it is only the Kusim who still use Kesav Ivri, one may assume that the Sifrei Torah of the Kusim (Samaritans) are written in the Kesav Ivri mentioned by the Gemara. The Radbaz writes that the only totally closed letter in the Samaritan scrolls is the Ayin, which is a closed triangle. (This is not consistent with what you write that several letters in Kesav Ivri would need a Nes to stand up). At any rate, the opinions in Sanhedrin 21b-22a that maintain that the Torah was written originally in Kesav Ivri do not seem to fit with Rav Chisda.)

2) After he cites the Talmud Yerushalmi (that I mentioned in my first reply) -- that according to the opinion that the Torah was given in Kesav Ivri, it was only the Ayin that stood through a Nes -- the Radbaz writes that one must make a distinction between the first Luchos ha'Bris and the second. The Radbaz asserts (a Chidush) that the dispute concerning whether the Torah was given in Ashuris or Ivri concerns the second tablets. Everyone agrees that the first Luchos were written in Ashuris.

3) The Radbaz has a few reasons for saying this. First, he writes that many secrets of the Torah were given through the letters in which the Torah was given, as expounded in Sefer ha'Zohar, Sefer ha'Bahir, Sefer ha'Kaneh, and others). It is not possible that these secrets were handed over in any script other than Ashuris.

4) The Radbaz cites further proof for his assertion from the Torah. Shemos 32:16 tells us, when Moshe Rabeinu came down from Har Sinai the first time, "And the tablets were the work of Hash-m, and the writing was the writing of Hash-m." In contrast, in Shemos 34:1, Hash-m said to Moshe Rabeinu, concerning the second Luchos, "And I wrote on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke." The Radbaz points out the difference between these two verses. The first tablets were written with the actual writing of Hash-m Himself. In contrast, while the words that were on the first tablets were also on the second ones, it was not actually the writing of Hash-m. This means that the first tablets were written in Ashuris, because this is the writing of Hash-m through which He gives over the secrets of the Torah. In contrast, the second tablets (according to the opinion in Sanhedrin 21b that the Torah was given to Moshe in Hebrew script) were written in Kesav Ivri, which is not called the "writing of Hash-m." This is the script that Sanhedrin 21b tells us was later left over to the "Hedyotos."

5) Therefore, when Rav Chisda said that the Mem and the Samech stood through a Nes, this is referring (according to the opinion that the Torah was given to Moshe in Hebrew script) only to the first tablets, which everyone agrees were written in Ashuris.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Shem mi'Shmuel (the son of the Avnei Nezer) is near the beginning of Parshas Vayechi (near the end of the piece under the year 5671).

In the edition of the Shem mi'Shmual that I used (Yerushalayim, 5752) it is on page 320.

My apologies for not giving a more detailed reference the first time. I did not realize that the Shem mi'Shmuel mentioned that Midrash about redemption being double so many times in Parshas Vayechi.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom