Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew!

[lavikor201]

In the days of Moschiah there wont be annymore arguing!! Not before!! Because we just cant understand everything untill then!!

That is great. I will keep out of the Zionism discussion. If your asking if I support the State of Israel, I say yes. RebElisha may have a different opinion. You can ask him.

In an organized way, why he may not, and also only posts verses that are relavent. I am telling you right now, if you post another full chapter text on this thread I will advise that all your posts be removed.

 

[King David]

From Sh’ma 13/258, September 30, 1983 by Louis Jacobs



Whether the traditional halachah has been a dynamic and developing or static and unchanging system is not a halachic but a historical question, to be investigated by the standard employed in scholarly research. These methods, originating in the 19th century, were not available to the great halachists of the pre-modern era. The result has been (it is to this, I take it, which Singer wishes to draw our attention) that the halachists proceed as if the halachah were an exact science, its prac*titioners untainted by any subjective or external considerations.

While recognizing this, the historian is also fully aware that, whatever the halachists say about their work, they are not disembodied spirits operating with bloodless abstractions, but are influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by life's realities in the concrete situations in which they find themselves. To give one example among many, ostensibly the halachic debate over the means of circumventing the prohibition of agricultural labor during the sabbatical year in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) is of exactly the same order, say, as a question about whether a chicken with a particular defect is kosher. Yet it is obvious that the real motivation on both sides was theological. Rav Kook, who advanced halachic reasons for permitting the sale of the land to a non-Jew for the purpose, [felt] the need to come up with a conclusion that would not frustrate his Zionist aspirations; his opponents [arrived] at their conclusion because they were convinced it was more important to have the most cogent demonstration of Jewish faith and trust in God than to encourage the struggling settlers.

Rav Kook knew that only the permissive ruling was acceptable if his vision was to be realized. His opponents had a very different vision, one that demanded a strict ruling. To be sure, each side presented sound halachic arguments, but it was not the arguments which led to the conclusions; it was the conclusion which led to the arguments.



Value Judgments And Halachah

For historically minded, observant Jews, faithful to the halachah as the most distinctive feature of Judaism, the implications are shattering. If the halachists of the past were not only concerned with what the law is but with what it should be, if they were not only academic lawyers but also practical legislators, why should the process be called to a halt because present day halachists are hostile to historical investigation? If the halachists did base their rulings on what the law should be, on values other than that of pure legal theory, why must contemporary halachists be inhibited from reinterpreting the law when it no longer serves those values or where values have changed? It will not do to reply that value judgments must never be introduced into the halachic process. For one thing, such a statement is itself a value judgment and, for another, history has shown that pan-Halachism, as Heschel felicitously dubbed this attitude, was not adopted by the halachists themselves.

As long as fundamentalism reigns, as it does, at least on the surface, in halachically committed circles, there is no hope of a solution. Modern critical investigation is not in itself incompatible with devotion to the halachah. On the contrary, once the dynamism of the traditional halachah is uncovered, it becomes a powerful tool for the preservation of the halachah, exhibiting as it does the flexibility and capacity for adaptation without which the halachah would have become fossilized. The possibility and desirability of change, where change is needed, is then not seen as a sop to modernity, but as an integral part of the halachic tradition. The issue is a theological one. It amounts to whether or not the human role in revelation is acknowledged. When the advocates of change and the upholders of the dogma of changelessness argue for their respective viewpoints, it is this that ultimately they are arguing about.



Separate Domains For Rabbis And Scholars

Rabbi Meir Berlin tells, in his autobiography, of a young would-be rabbi who asked Reb Chayim Brisker to what a rabbi should direct his efforts. "Let him busy himself in communal activities," replied Reb Chayim. "As for paskenen shaales (rendering decisions in Jewish law), he should leave that to the Rabbonim!" Many of the yarmulka-wearing scholars, to whom Singer refers, evidently hold that scholarship is for the academics alone and of no relevance to halachic decision-making. That must be left to the rabbis. The rabbis, in turn, leave scholarship to the academics, whose work can be tolerated provided it does not dare to encroach on their domain. There is little evidence of any forthcoming rapprochement. Until there is, it is somewhat futile to speak of changes in the halachah. Singer rightly hints at the need for Jews who observe the halachah, but cannot accept the fundamentalistic premises on which it is now based, to declare openly where they stand. If they do, they may discover to their surprise that their fears that it will lead to halachic anarchy are unfounded and, who knows, it may even happen that the halachists will be moved to admit: "This is what we believed all along!"

 

[lavikor201]

Alright so you post from somone who does not believe in Halacha. Do you follow the religion of "conservatism" or "Masortism"?

Either way, remove all your posts that are not questions, since you are not aloud, (mod woodrow said) to post in this thread as anything more than a questioner since your views do not coincide with Torah Judaism, which are what the answers of this thread are.

Thank you.

 

[King David]

I have a problem I dont know who to follow!!!

I try to follow what my brain tells me is right!!!

Im from a non religious family!!! But lately I have become very interested in the religion.

 

[lavikor201]

I have a problem I dont know who to follow!!!

I try to follow what my brain tells me is right!!!

Im from a non religious family!!! But lately I have become very interested in the religion.

That is great that you are becoming interested in your religion, however, to follow "conservatism" and "reformism" is a mistake. Reform Judaism began in Germany to try and secularize Jews. They allow intermarriage and because they do so, they have driven up the intermarriage rate since it is according to them "legal". Only a while back, did they actaully "allow" Kippot and Tallit again in their services. The Cinservative movement formed from them because an argument over some unkosher food at a conference of theres.

Orthodox Judaism is the only legit form of Judaism because we follow the Torah which is "eternal". I am afraid that if you wish to embrace the Torah lifestyle, and become more religious it will be nessesary to follow the Talmud to some point. If you just followed the Tanakh, well... you would be following a different religion.

I mean, what tefillin would you wear?? How would you tie your tallit tzit tzit? What would you do for Succot?

G-d gave an instruction manual for life called the Torah to the Jewish people. The Five books of Moses contain the basic outline of what we have to do but they leave a tremendous amount to be explained. The Torah says “Don’t Kill”. How about abortion? Euthanasia? Let’s say someone is threatening to kill me? No explanations. So He also gave us oral explanations to each passage in the Torah. They were passed down orally from generation to generation until about 2000 years ago when the Mishna and then the Talmud were written down to explain the Torah and present the basic outlines of the oral transmission. The Talmud contains these explanations as well as Rabbinic decrees, ethics, health guidelines, philosophy, even humor.

When Moses received the Torah from G-d, there were two parts to it – the written law and the oral law. Without the oral explanation much of the written law is ambiguous and not understandable. For example, we are commanded to put on “teffilin”, or “totafos”. What are these? What color are they? What shape? What’s in them? The list goes on and on. The oral law is what makes the written bible understandable, and meaningful. Many years later, around the time of the destruction of the second Temple, the Sages felt that the oral law had to be put into writing. Due to all the persecutions against the Jews, they felt that if the oral law wasn’t written, it would be totally forgotton. This is the Talmud.

Generally, the Jewish Bible, and the Torah refer to the written law. (Although Torah can be used to mean the oral Torah – or the oral law). The Talmud is the oral law. They were all given by G-d to Moses, but the oral law was first committed to writing at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple – around the year 70 CE.

When we speak of our “Sages” we are refering to the great rabbis of previous generations. These rabbis were not like the rabbis of today. Today we have to struggle to understand the most simple of concepts. To the sages, the Torah was constantly on the forefront of their minds. They saw a piece of text, not as an isolated piece, but as a part of a bigger picture.

Throughout Jewish history there have been a number of rabbis who fall under the category of “sage.” They lived in times when mystical learning was part and parcel with understanding the basics of Jewish philosophy. In other words, the sages were not your normal, everyday rabbis of old. They were the rabbis who truly understood our oral and written traditions. They had a pure tradition and could see things about Judaism that others could not.

When asking about who they were specifically, we call them “Chazal.” This is an acronim for “Chachamim zichronam levracham.” This means, “Rabbis of blessed memory.” If you want a sample then Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the codifier of the mishna is a great example, as well as Rabbi Akiva, whom you may have heard of.

 

[lavikor201]

I don’t think that Talmud is “divine”, if you mean by that it came from G-d. It was written by human beings, and most of it is quotes from various people who lived in that time, a thousand years after prophecy ended.

However, the Talmud is Torah, and as such is holy (maybe that’s what you meant). When G-d gave the written Torah to Moshe, he also certainly must have explained to him the details of what it meant. That is what we call the Oral Torah. But beyond that, the Torah also prescribes a means of settling whichever disagreements arise afterwards, whether because of information lost through the trials and tribulations of many generations, or because of new issues that had not arisen before. It says in Deuteronomy 17:11 that such issues are settled by the Sanhedrin (The high court in Jerusalem of the Temple period), and we must follow whatever they say exactly. G-d wants us to be guided by our leaders.

That means that part of the Torah is the understanding of it that comes from our Rabbis. Though humans wrote it, G-d has commanded us to obey that part too, just as if he said the words himself. Since the Talmud is the last collection of decisions by a court that had the authority of the Sanhedrin, its decisions are real Torah. That is why all the Rabbinical authorities that followed always based their understanding on that of the Talmud.

 

[King David]

You didnt understand what I meant:

I meant That Part of the Talmud Is The Oral Law(traddition,history) and of course that tradition started at mount Sinai.

And That The Other one is a debate! Of course I think the Tefilin Should be like that and That the Tsisit should be like that
(but actually it says in the Torah it shall be with threads of blue and I see a lot of black ones?why?)

 

[lavikor201]

And That The Other one is a debate! Of course I think the Tefilin Should be like that and That the Tsisit should be like that
(but actually it says in the Torah it shall be with threads of blue and I see a lot of black ones?why?)

We do not have the blue strings anymore, although, some have said they have refound it. Many traditions has said that the Moshiach will identify the correct blue dye to use for us again.

 

[King David]

I don’t think that Talmud is “divine”, if you mean by that it came from G-d. It was written by human beings, and most of it is quotes from various people who lived in that time, a thousand years after prophecy ended.

However, the Talmud is Torah, and as such is holy (maybe that’s what you meant). When G-d gave the written Torah to Moshe, he also certainly must have explained to him the details of what it meant. That is what we call the Oral Torah.

Agreed! That is prettymuch what I meant. That the whole Talmud isnt 100% flawless because it wasnt all revealed by G*D. And because it was only written down After the Exile. There where +-1800? years between the revelation of the Oral Law until it was written down. I think that a big part of it is maybe lost. Remember how many sins we did from Sinai untill the 2nd exile.

That is also one of the reasons we nead machiah to give us for a second time the Oral Law.

But beyond that, the Torah also prescribes a means of settling whichever disagreements arise afterwards, whether because of information lost through the trials and tribulations of many generations, or because of new issues that had not arisen before. It says in Deuteronomy 17:11 that such issues are settled by the Sanhedrin (The high court in Jerusalem of the Temple period), and we must follow whatever they say exactly. G-d wants us to be guided by our leaders.

That means that part of the Torah is the understanding of it that comes from our Rabbis. Though humans wrote it, G-d has commanded us to obey that part too, just as if he said the words himself. Since the Talmud is the last collection of decisions by a court that had the authority of the Sanhedrin, its decisions are real Torah. That is why all the Rabbinical authorities that followed always based their understanding on that of the Talmud.

Exacly, since 70CE we dont have the Sanhedrin.

This is also a reason why we nead the Maschiah to bring back the Sanhedrin with The Full Oral Law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we think Talmud is perfect then we actually say that we dont nead maschiah because we know what we are doing and we dont nead G*d to tell us the Laws through Maschiah!
So we didnt repent fully

 

[King David]

We do not have the blue strings anymore, although, some have said they have refound it. Many traditions has said that the Moshiach will identify the correct blue dye to use for us again.

So you see that the Talmud isnt perfect!! We nead Machiah NOW!!!

Numbers 15:37-41

Vayo'mer Ad-nai el mosheh lei'mor
And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying...

Dabeir el b'nei Yis'ra'eil v'amar'ta aleihem
Speak to the children of Israel and say to them

v'asu lahem tzitzit al kan'fei vig'deihem l'dorotam
v'nat'nu al tzitzit hakanaf p'til t'kheilet
they should make themselves tzitzit (fringes) on the corners of their clothing throughout their generations,
and give the tzitzit of each corner a thread of blue.

V'hayah lakhem l'tzitzit ur'item oto uz'khar'tem et kol mitz'vot Ad-nai
va'asitem otam v'lo taturu acharei l'vav'khem v'acharei eineikhem
asher atem zonim achareihem
And they shall be tzitzit for you, and when you look at them you will remember all of the Lord's commandments
and do them and not follow after your heart and after your eyes
which lead you astray.

L'ma'an tiz'k'ru va'asitem et kol mitz'votai viyitem k'doshim lei'l-heikhem
In order to remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your G-d.

Ani Ad-nai El-heikhem
asher hotzei'ti et'khem mei'eretz Mitz'rayim lih'yot lakhhem leilohim
Ani Adonai El-heikhem
I am the L-rd, your G-d
who lead you from the land of Egypt to be a G-d to you.
I am the L-rd, your G-d.



Everyday we pray that we should make ourself tsitsit with blue strings. but we wear black strings???

At least the Flag is with blue lines on the side

 

[lavikor201]

First off you said:

If we think Talmud is perfect then we actually say that we dont nead maschiah because we know what we are doing and we dont nead G*d to tell us the Laws through Maschiah!
So we didnt repent fully

That is not the reason we need Moshiach. Read this as well: That means that part of the Torah is the understanding of it that comes from our Rabbis. Though humans wrote it, G-d has commanded us to obey that part too, just as if he said the words himself. Since the Talmud is the last collection of decisions by a court that had the authority of the Sanhedrin, its decisions are real Torah.

As for the blue strings. That problem is not with the Oral law but finding the species with the dye.

 

[King David]

First off you said:



That is not the reason we need Moshiach. Read this as well: That means that part of the Torah is the understanding of it that comes from our Rabbis. Though humans wrote it, G-d has commanded us to obey that part too, just as if he said the words himself. Since the Talmud is the last collection of decisions by a court that had the authority of the Sanhedrin, its decisions are real Torah.

They (the rabbies that wrote the Talmud) had the the authority of the Sanhedrin???? :rollseyes
And I thought that the Sanhedrin will be reinstated with the comming of maschiah!!!:-[
Who gave that authority????

As for the blue strings. That problem is not with the Oral law but finding the species with the dye.

Hein Ok, black is closer to lightblue (tchelet) than the lightblue that is neaded???

 

[lavikor201]

Comon, black is closer to lightblue (tchelet) than the lightblue that is neaded???

It has nothing to do with the color, but instead the dye.

They (the rabbies that wrote the Talmud) had the the authority of the Sanhedrin????

And I thought that the Sanhedrin will be reinstated with the comming of maschiah!!!

Would you really like me to go very deep into the topic and explain why? if so I will but I will save it for tommorow.

 

[Skywalker]

This thread is getting very difficult to follow. I wish I could say it was amusing, but...no. Oh well, carry on.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The enumeration differs though.

If you simply mean the naming and numbering system is different between the Protestant "Old Testament" and the Tanakh, yes. I have stated that. But if you mean something more than that, perhaps you could give me an example?

Then I would suggest they get better translators or ones with more neutrality.

I'll certainly accept this as your point of view. Beyond the use of the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, what are some of the other places you notice it being so different as to qualify as a "hideous" translation?

 

[lavikor201]

CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

Would you like more? Although I admit, majority of "mistranslations" are actually just more "taken out of context" and "twisted".

 

[Grace Seeker]

CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

My particular bible provides both renderings, though it does indicate a preference for the translation you reject. I take it that this is not the thread to discuss why one might be preferred over another, but simply to observe the differences you are noting.

Would you like more? Although I admit, majority of "mistranslations" are actually just more "taken out of context" and "twisted".

Most certainly I would like more. I am not afraid to the truth, anyone's truth. If it really is true, then I prefer to know it than not know it, even if it is not what I expected to find. If it causes one to rethink some previously held assumptions, better to rethink because of the truth, than to continue with unchanged thinking when that thinking is based on an untruth. If it is something is other than truth, then being aware of non-truths masquerading as truth is valuable information as well.

SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

That seems more one of different interpretations of the meaning of the text than bad translation of the text itself. Or am I missing something?

 

[lavikor201]

My particular bible provides both renderings, though it does indicate a preference for the translation you reject. I take it that this is not the thread to discuss why one might be preferred over another, but simply to observe the differences you are noting.

Well I am pretty sure I know why a Christian would prefer one translation over the other, however, they are not both "translations". One is a translation from the Hebrew text, while the other is a straight up mistranslation.

That seems more one of different interpretations of the meaning of the text than bad translation of the text itself. Or am I missing something?

I wrote: "majority of "mistranslations" are actually just more "taken out of context" and "twisted"."

Which I stand by, since although the text in many cases is not translated accuratly, I am focusing more on passages twisted on purpose instead of just translated to a different word to make it sound more "poetic".

 

[Grace Seeker]

And as I said: Most certainly I would like more. I am not afraid to the truth, anyone's truth. If it really is true, then I prefer to know it than not know it, even if it is not what I expected to find. If it causes one to rethink some previously held assumptions, better to rethink because of the truth, than to continue with unchanged thinking when that thinking is based on an untruth. If it is something is other than truth, then being aware of non-truths masquerading as truth is valuable information as well.


I think that you may be right as to why a Christians might prefer one translation over another, but I am not sure that is why Psalm 22 is translated the way it is. I note there there are various existant texts. Depending on which one chooses as most original you would have to prefer one over the other. The Masoretic text has what you indicated. But I think that there are other older texts, which, while not complete, do bring light upon certain passages. The change in Isaiah 7 is one of conceding to pressure. But I am not sure that this is the case with Psalm 22. There are texts, Jewish texts, not Christian texts, that are older that would need to be translated as "pierced" rather than refering to a lion simply to have an accurate translation of the words written on the page. Determining which text to prefer may be biased, but perhaps the bias is against having anything that might be considered to a reference to a Christian interpretation of the passage? Could that not have been a possibility in the historical development and transmission of the Masoretic text itself?

(Btw, I am familiar with the detailed process by which the Masoretic text has been kept, counting the individual letters, etc. -- so you don't need to go into that detail. There was a time before the Masoretic text existed, and there do exists some other copies of the Hebrew scriptures that are at variance with the Masoretic text.)

Is it the Jewish position that these other texts should not be studied and the only the Masorectic text should be considered when doing translation work? Can you fill me in on the work of textual criticism with regard to the Tanakh?

 

[lavikor201]

And as I said: Most certainly I would like more. I am not afraid to the truth, anyone's truth. If it really is true, then I prefer to know it than not know it, even if it is not what I expected to find. If it causes one to rethink some previously held assumptions, better to rethink because of the truth, than to continue with unchanged thinking when that thinking is based on an untruth. If it is something is other than truth, then being aware of non-truths masquerading as truth is valuable information as well.

In Isaiah 53:8, the Gentile spokesperson continues to acknowledge the fault of the nations for the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant, Israel, during his passage through history (cf. Isaiah 52:1, 15-53:1-2). Thus, he states: "As a result of the transgression of my people [the Gentile nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted." The literal translation of' this verse is: "From the transgression of' my people there has been affliction to him [or "to them"]." The poetic form of lahem, lamo, "to them," is used in this verse in reference to a collective noun (cf. Genesis 9:26). Lamo is rendered "to him" as it refers to the collective noun, "suffering servant of the L-rd," that is, the Jewish people. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity given the appellative "suffering servant of the L-rd."

The proper rendering of lamo is sometimes unclear. For example, there appears to be a question on how to render lamo in the verse, "Then a man uses it [a tree] for fuel: and he takes it, and warms himself; he kindles it and bakes bread; he makes a G-d, and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down lamo ["to them," alternately suggested "to it,"]" ( Isaiah 44:15). Since the noun, "G-d," is in the singular it would seem to show that lamo can mean "to it" as an actual singular and not just when used as a collective noun. This is not the case. Although the prophet's words are in the singular he uses the poetic form lamo, "to them," to show that the content of his message is to be understood as being in the plural. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood this and rendered the verse accordingly: "That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves G-ds, and they worship them."

The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the fifty four places it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures. That the plural lamo, in verse 8, refers to the suffering servant of the L-rd as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. As a result, it cannot refer to Jesus. The suffering servant of the L-rd is a collective noun and, as such, does not refer to a specific Israelite.

I think that you may be right as to why a Christians might prefer one translation over another, but I am not sure that is why Psalm 22 is translated the way it is. I note there there are various existant texts. Depending on which one chooses as most original you would have to prefer one over the other. The Masoretic text has what you indicated. But I think that there are other older texts, which, while not complete, do bring light upon certain passages. The change in Isaiah 7 is one of conceding to pressure. But I am not sure that this is the case with Psalm 22. There are texts, Jewish texts, not Christian texts, that are older that would need to be translated as "pierced" rather than refering to a lion simply to have an accurate translation of the words written on the page. Determining which text to prefer may be biased, but perhaps the bias is against having anything that might be considered to a reference to a Christian interpretation of the passage? Could that not have been a possibility in the historical development and transmission of the Masoretic text itself?

No. Of course this is the Jewish answer. You may believe what you wish. Psalm 22 also is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Therefore it is a blatent mistaranslation, since you said earlier that Christians translate from the Hebrew.

(Btw, I am familiar with the detailed process by which the Masoretic text has been kept, counting the individual letters, etc. -- so you don't need to go into that detail. There was a time before the Masoretic text existed, and there do exists some other copies of the Hebrew scriptures that are at variance with the Masoretic text.)

Is it the Jewish position that these other texts should not be studied and the only the Masorectic text should be considered when doing translation work? Can you fill me in on the work of textual criticism with regard to the Tanakh?

Scrolls copied (indirectly) from Moshe's Torah were not the only texts written by the scribes. At that time in history, the only books of religious material that Jews were allowed to have were the biblical works (Gittin 60a). Therefore, there was a need to mass produce these books. Since scrolls written according to the demanding halachic requirements take a long time to write, they are impractical for mass production. However, an alternative to a scroll is what the Talmud called a megillah letinok. In the ancient times there was no printing press, of course, so Bibles were handwritten. However, in order to speed the writing to enable the mass production necessary to have teaching materials for schoolchildren, the normal stringencies required for a scroll were ignored. Scribes wrote from memory and without concern for exact spelling. However, these were not viewed as authoratative, because ony actual scrolls were considered holy, but for teaching and mass production purposes, this is where you may see a miss match.