RUHI AL-KHALIdI’S “AS-SAYūNīZM” • 79Israel from the Babylonian exile. ezra the Scribe, possessor of the
book, had the greatest hand in the composition [tadwīn] of the
Torah; to him is attributed the Hebrew script method, known as
the square or Assyrian method.^139Though al- Khalidi’s manuscript does not cite Moyal’s work here (it
does do so, however, elsewhere in the text), this passage from “as-
Sayūnīzm” seems to offer al- Khalidi’s elaboration and emendation of
Moyal’s account in at-Talmūd. Several basic elements are present in
both passages: ezra the Scribe, the national renaissance, and the alter-
native names for the Hebrew script attributed to ezra. What al- Khalidi
has added to Moyal’s original, however, is of critical importance.
Following an Islamic understanding of ezra popularized by the great
medieval Muslim polemicists ibn Hazm (994– 1064) and as- Samawʾal
(c. 1130– 1180),^140 al- Khalidi sees ezra as the true author of the Jews’
Torah, which was thus written long after Moses’s death and far from
Mount Sinai.^141 As as- Samawʾal put it in his SilencingtheJews, “now
this Torah that they have is in truth a book by ezra, and not a book of
God.”^142 Given this long- standing polemical tradition, one cannot draw
any definitive conclusions from al- Khalidi’s inclusion of this charge
in his narrative. Nonetheless, one wonders to what extent al- Khalidi’s
(^139) al- Khālidī, “as- Sayūnīzm, ay al- masʾala aṣ- ṣahyūniyya” [copyist version], 7.
(^140) On as- Samawʾal al- Maghribi, see Perlmann, ed., “Samauʾal al- Maghribī,” 5– 136.
(^141) Moyal, in his exposition on Pirkeiavot, emphasizes the centrality, for the talmudic
rabbis, of the belief in Moses’s reception of the Torah from the heavens. It is for this
reason, Moyal explains, that the first line of Pirkeiavot is “Moses received the Torah
from Sinai.” Moyal writes that “the basis of saving faith is the faith in the truth of the
descent of the Torah to Moses from the heavens, because the religious leaders decreed
salvation for the Israelite who does not believe in the descent of the Torah from the
heavens.” Moyal, to be sure, ascribes an important role to ezra in “preserving” the Torah.
In discussing the figure of Rabbi Akiba, Moyal writes: “After the destruction of Beitar,
only he [Rabbi Akiba] remained among all of the scholars of the children of Israel. And
the Roman government forbade the Israelites from studying Torah [an-namus is the term
Moyal typically uses for Torah study]. He [Rabbi Akiba] risked his life and taught five
exceptional young men. . . . Thus Akiba’s relationship to the Talmud is like the ezra’s re-
lationship to the Torah.” In other words, in Moyal’s view, ezra perpetuated knowledge of
the Torah, though he certainly did not write it ex nihilo, just as Rabbi Akiba perpetuated
the study of the Talmud, though he was not its author nor even its compiler. Another line
concerning ezra that al- Khalidi takes from Moyal nearly verbatim is “And it is said that
there are three fathers to the Torah— the first is the prophet Moses, the second is ezra
the Scribe, and the third is Judah the Nasi.” Mūyāl,at-Talmūd, 60, 136, 49, respectively.
The corresponding line in al- Khalidi’s manuscript reads: “it is said that there are three
fathers to Torah— the first is Moses peace be upon him, the second is ezra the Priest, and
the third is Rabbi Judah the Nasi, the compiler of the Mishna.” al- Khālidī, “as- Sayūnīzm,
ay al- masʾala aṣ- ṣahyūniyya” [copyist version], 29.
(^142) Perlmann, “Samauʾal al- Maghribī,” 55 (english), 51 (Arabic).