Megillah 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: It is not difficult.

Here—

in our Mishna—it is speaking of a case where it was written

in the script [

script

of ours,

namely, Ashurit; and therefore, even though it was written in another language, it is fit.

Whereas

here—

in the beraita—it is speaking of a case where it was written

in their script,

namely, a script that is not Ashurit; and therefore it does not render the hands impure.

Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that

beraita—that the scroll was written

in their script

and not in Ashurit?!

If so,

why specifically

that

a biblical text that one wrote in the translation, or a translation that one wrote as a biblical text—

does not render the hands impure;

even

a

biblical text that one wrote as a biblical text, or a translation that one wrote as a translation—

also

does not render them impure,

as it teaches

there, in the conclusion of the beraita:

“Until one writes it in Ashurit, on a scroll, and in ink!”

And since you established the beraita as referring to their script, in every case it will not render the hands impure?!

And since this is so, Rava’s explanation is rejected, and both the Mishna and the beraita are speaking of writing in our script.

Rather,

for this reason

it is not difficult

to reconcile the Mishna with the beraita:

This—

the Mishna—

is the opinion of the Rabbis,

who hold that scrolls may be written in every language. And

this—

the beraita—

is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who disagrees with the Rabbis in the Mishna and says that even with regard to scrolls, they permitted writing in another language only in Greek.

And we raise an objection:

If

so, if the beraita is the opinion of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

then

there is

also the language of

Greek,

for he agrees that the Sages permitted writing in it, whereas the beraita teaches: “Until one writes it in Ashurit” specifically; and if one writes it in another language, it does not render the hands impure, without distinguishing between Greek and the other languages.

And since this is so, this explanation too is rejected. In fact, it is possible to establish both the Mishna and the beraita in accordance with the Rabbis.

Rather, it is not difficult. Here—

in the Mishna—

with

other

scrolls

it is speaking, whereas

here—

in the beraita—it is speaking specifically

of phylacteries and mezuzot.

And with regard to them, the Mishna teaches that they may be written only in the Ashurit language.

And

with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason

that they may be written only in the Ashurit language?

Because it is written concerning them: “And these words shall be

these things.” And we expound: “And they shall be”—

in their existing form

specifically

shall they be,

as they were written in the Torah, and not in another language!

And we raise an objection: If the beraita is speaking only of phylacteries and mezuzot,

what is meant by “a translation that one wrote as a biblical text,”

which it teaches in the beraita? Where

is there

a translation in phylacteries and mezuzot?

Granted,

in the

Torah there is “Yegar Sahaduta”,

which is a translation.

But here,

with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot,

what translation is there?

And since this is so, this explanation too is rejected. In fact, it is possible to say that the beraita as well is speaking of scrolls.

Rather, it is not difficult. Here—

in the beraita—

it is speaking of the Megilla,

which is written only in the Holy Tongue, whereas

here—

in the Mishna—

it is speaking of scrolls

in general.

And

with regard to the Megilla, what is the reason

that it may be written only in the Ashurit language? Because

it is written concerning it: “According to their script and according to their language”.

And the early authorities explained that the intention is not that the Megilla may not be read in other languages at all, for we learned later [17a]: “But one may read it to those who speak foreign languages in the foreign language”!

Rather, certainly the Rabbis permitted one to read it to every person in a language that he understands, even if the Megilla was written in that same language. But when it is written in Ashurit, even a person who does not understand the language fulfills his obligation.

And therefore the Mishna teaches that specifically a Megilla written in Ashurit renders the hands impure, because it is of greater importance, as it enables every person to fulfill his obligation. By contrast, with other scrolls, one fulfills the obligation in every language, even when one does not understand the language; and therefore all of them render the hands impure.

And we raise an objection:

What instance of “a translation that one wrote as a biblical text” is there

in the Megilla? Where do we find language of translation in the Megilla?

Rav Pappa said:

For it is written:

“And the king’s decree was heard.”

The word “decree” is a term from the language of translation.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

For it is written:

“And all the women shall give honor to their husbands .”

The word “honor” is the translation of the word “glory.”

Rav Ashi offered another resolution so that the Mishna would not contradict the beraita, saying that in truth there is a dispute concerning this matter:

For when that

beraita

was taught, it was with regard to other scrolls,

and not a Torah scroll,

and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

As it is taught: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written only in Ashurit, but our Rabbis [

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

permitted

writing also in

Greek.

And we are astonished: Did they permit writing phylacteries and mezuzot in Greek?

But is it not written

concerning them

“And they shall be,”

and we expounded above: “They shall be in their existing form”?

Rather,

it must be that

you should say

this:

Scrolls may be written

in every language, but our Rabbis permitted Greek.

And in truth, it is not speaking of phylacteries and mezuzot.

And we are astonished: Since it teaches, “And our Rabbis

permitted,” does this imply that the first tanna prohibited it?!

But the first tanna said, “Scrolls may be written in every language”!

Rather, say

this: And

our Rabbis did not permit them to be written—

except

in

Greek.

And now he concludes his resolution, establishing the beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda:

And it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they did not permit it—

except for a Torah scroll, and because of the incident involving King Ptolemy

mentioned below. But with regard to other scrolls, they did not permit it. If so, the earlier beraita, which teaches that scrolls may not be written in every language, is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

And what was that incident involving King Ptolemy?

As it is taught: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy [

who was the king of Egypt

who gathered seventy-two elders

from Israel

and placed them in seventy-two separate rooms,

with none of them knowing about the others,

and he did not reveal to them why he had gathered them.

He entered separately to each and every one of them

individually

and said to them: Write for me the Torah of Moses, your teacher!

The Holy One, blessed be He, placed in the heart of each and every one of them

the same counsel, and they all agreed on a single understanding, and

they all made in their scrolls the same thirteen alterations, in those same places. As follows:

A.

They all wrote for him

in their scrolls:

“God created in the beginning [

the creation of the heavens] ”, and they did not write, “In the beginning God created.” This was so that Ptolemy would not say: “In the beginning” is the name of one deity, and “created” refers to another deity; if so, there are two authorities.

B. And likewise they wrote for him:

“I shall make a human being in an image and a likeness” ,

and they did not write, “Let us make a human being in our image, according to our likeness.” This was so that he would not say: There are two authorities, and the Holy One, blessed be He, took counsel with another authority. For the verse says “Let us make,” in the plural.

C. They wrote for him:

“And God finished

His

work on the sixth day

that He had made,

and He ceased on the seventh day,”

and they did not write, “And He finished on the seventh day.” This was so that he would not say: If so, God performed work on Shabbat! [And our Rabbis expounded: What was the world lacking? Rest! When Shabbat came, rest came; this was the completion and conclusion of the work of creation].

D. They wrote for him:

“Male and female He created them,” and they did not write, “He created them”—

which would imply that He created two bodies. Rather, they wrote “He created him,” implying one body with two faces.

E. They wrote for him:

“Come, I shall descend and confuse

there

their language,”

and they did not write, “Come, let us descend,” so that he would not say: There are two authorities.

F. They wrote for him:

“And Sarah laughed among her relatives,”

and they did not write, “And Sarah laughed within herself,” so that Ptolemy would not say: After all, with regard to Abraham too it is written [Genesis 17:17], “And Abraham fell on his face and laughed,” and the Holy One, blessed be He, did not take issue with him, whereas He took issue with Sarah?!

Therefore, they wrote that she laughed among her relatives, in public. Abraham, however, laughed only in his heart, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, did not take issue with him.

G. They wrote for him, in the words of Jacob concerning Simeon and Levi:

“For

in their anger they slew an ox, and in their will they uprooted a stall,”

and they did not write: “For in their anger they slew a man.” This was so that he would not say: Your ancestors [the tribes] were murderers, for Jacob their father testifies concerning them that they slew a man!

Therefore, they wrote “they slew an ox,” for the people of Shechem were not important in Jacob’s eyes, but were like an ox; he took issue with his sons only over the killing of animals.

H. They wrote for him:

“And Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a bearer of human beings,”

for “a bearer of human beings” implies a camel. They did not write, “And he had them ride on the donkey,” so that he would not say: Did Moses, your teacher, not have a horse or a camel?! I. And they wrote for him:

“And the residence of the Children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years.”

For the verse does not state “and in other lands,” and they wrote this so that Ptolemy would not say: A falsehood is written in the Torah! For Kehat was among those who descended to Egypt, Amram was his son, and Moses was his grandson. When you count their years, there are not four hundred years between them. Moreover, some of the years of the sons overlap with the years of the fathers; if so, how could the Torah write that the Children of Israel resided in Egypt for four hundred years?

And in truth, Scripture reckoned from the birth of Isaac [and not earlier, for the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: “For your offspring shall be strangers”], since when he was born, Abraham was already a sojourner in the land of the Philistines, and from then until the Exodus the calculation amounts to four hundred years [see Rashi at length].

10. In the passage preceding the giving of the Torah, it is written: “And he sent the young men [the firstborn] of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings.” And they wrote for him:

“And he sent the zatutei of the children of Israel.”

They did not write for him: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel,” lest he say: “You have sent the inferior ones among you to receive the Divine Presence” ! But “zatutei” is an expression of distinction .

Likewise, later in the passage, it is written: “And He did not stretch out His hand to the nobles of the children of Israel,” and they wrote for him:

“And He did not stretch out His hand to the zatutei of the children of Israel,”

for since at the beginning of the passage they had written the term “zatutei,” they likewise concluded with this expression [even though “the nobles” is also an expression of distinction, and for that reason they did not need to change it].