Megillah 9a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: It is not difficult. ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

Here —

in our Mishna, it is speaking of a case where they wrote it

in the script [כתב]writing

[writing]

of ours,

namely, Ashurit; and therefore, even though they wrote it in another language, it is valid.

Whereas

here —

in the beraita, it is speaking of a case where they wrote it

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 have you established that

beraita—that the scroll was written

in their script

and not in Ashurit script?!

If so,

why specifically

that specifically

Scripture that they wrote in Aramaic, and Aramaic that they wrote in Scripture

does not render the hands impure—then

even

in

Scripture that they wrote in Scripture, and Aramaic that they wrote in Aramaic—

also

does not render them impure,

for 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 answer is rejected, and both the Mishna and the beraita are speaking of our script.

Rather,

for this reason

it is not difficult

from the Mishna to the beraita:

This—

the Mishna—

is the Rabbis,

for they hold that scrolls may be written in every language. And

this—

the beraita—

is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who disagrees with the Rabbis in the Mishna and says that even concerning scrolls they did not permit writing in another language, except in Greek.

And we raise an objection:

if

so, that the beraita

is 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 he wrote it in another language, it does not render the hands impure, and it did not distinguish between Greek and the other languages?

And since this is so, this answer too is rejected. In any event, one may establish both the Mishna and the beraita according to the Rabbis.

Rather, it is not difficult. Here—

in the Mishna—

in

the other

scrolls

it is speaking, whereas

here—

in the beraita—it is speaking specifically

of phylacteries and mezuzot.

And concerning them, the Mishna indeed teaches that they may be written only in the Ashurit language.

And

phylacteries and mezuzot—what is the reason

that they may be written only in the Ashurit language?

Because it is written concerning them: “And they shall be

these words.” And we expound: “And they shall be”

in their existence

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 “Aramaic that they wrote in Scripture”

that it teaches in the beraita? Where

is there

Aramaic in phylacteries and mezuzot?

Granted,

in

the Torah, there is “Yegar Sahaduta”

which is Aramaic.

But here,

in phylacteries and mezuzot,

what Aramaic is there?

And since this is so, this answer too is rejected. In any event, one may say that even the beraita is speaking of scrolls.

Rather, it is not difficult. Here—

in the beraita—

of a megilla

it is speaking, which is written only in the holy language , whereas

here—

in the Mishna—

of scrolls

it is speaking .

And

a megilla—what is the reason

that it is 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 below [17a]: “But one reads it to those who speak foreign languages in a foreign language”!

Rather, certainly the Rabbis permitted reading it to every person in a language that he understands, even if the megilla is written in that language . But in the Ashurit language, even a person who does not understand it fulfills his obligation.

And therefore the Mishna teaches that specifically a megilla written in Ashurit renders the hands impure, because it is important, as it enables every person to fulfill his obligation. This is not so with other scrolls: one fulfills the obligation with them in every language, even though one does not understand the language, and therefore all of them render the hands impure.

And we raise an objection:

what “Aramaic that they wrote in Scripture” is there

in a megilla? Where do we find Aramaic language in a megilla?

Rav Pappa said:

for it is written:

“And the king’s pronouncement shall be heard.”

For “pronouncement” is an Aramaic expression.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

for it is written:

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

For “honor” is the Aramaic translation of the word “honor.”

Rav Ashi gave another answer, so that the Mishna would not pose a difficulty against the beraita, for in truth there is a dispute concerning this:

When that

beraita

was taught, it was concerning other scrolls,

and not a Torah scroll,

and it is Rabbi Judah.

For it was taught: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written only in Ashurit, and our Sages [רבן שמעון בן גמליאל]

[Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]

permitted

also to write in

Greek.

And we are astonished: Is it permitted to write 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 existence”?

Rather,

necessarily

say

this:

Scrolls may be written

in every language, and our Sages permitted Greek.

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

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

permitted,” does it follow that the first tanայ prohibited it?!

But the first tanայ said, “Scrolls may be written in every language”?

Rather, say

this: And

our Sages did not permit them to be written—

except

in

Greek.

And now he concludes his answer, that we establish the beraita according to Rabbi Judah:

And it was taught: Rabbi Judah said: Even when our Sages permitted Greek, they did not permit it—

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

which follows . But with other scrolls they did not permit it. And if so, the beraita above, which teaches that scrolls may not be written in every language, is Rabbi Judah.

And what was that incident involving King Ptolemy?

For it was taught: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy [שהיה מלך מצרים]who was the king of Egypt,

[who was king of Egypt],

who gathered seventy-two elders

from Israel,

and placed them in seventy-two houses,

and no one knew about the other,

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

And he entered to each and every one

of them separately,

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

counsel, and they all agreed on one view, and

they all changed in their scroll those thirteen changes, in the same places. As follows:

1.

They wrote for him

all of them in their scrolls:

“God created in the beginning [הבריאה את השמים]the creation, the heavens,” and they did not write, “In the beginning God created.” Ptolemy might say: “Beginning” is the name of one deity, and “created” is another deity; if so, there are two authorities .

of creation the heavens,” rather than “In the beginning God created.” This was so that Ptolemy would not say: “Beginning” is the name of a deity, and “created” is another deity; therefore there are two authorities.

2. And likewise they wrote for him:

“I shall make man in an image and in a form” ,

and they did not write, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,” lest he say: There are two authorities, and the Holy One, blessed be He, took counsel with another authority, for “Let us make” is written in the plural .

3. They wrote for him:

“And God finished

God

on the sixth day

His work that He had done

and He rested on the seventh day,”

and they did not write, “And He finished on the seventh day,” lest he say: If so, God performed work on Shabbat! [And our Sages expounded: What was the world lacking? Rest! Shabbat came, rest came, and this is the completion and finishing of the work of creation].

4. They wrote for him:

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

for that would imply that He created two bodies; rather, they wrote, “He created him,” which implies one body, with two faces .

5. They wrote for him:

“Come, let Me descend and confuse

there

their language,”

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

6. They wrote for him:

“And Sarah laughed among her relatives,”

and they did not write, “And Sarah laughed within herself,” lest Ptolemy say: Behold, concerning Abraham too it is written [Genesis 17:17], “And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed,” and the Holy One, blessed be He, was not particular with him, but with Sarah He was particular?!

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

7. They wrote for him, in Jacob’s words to Simeon and Levi:

“For

in their anger they killed an ox, and in their will they uprooted a manger,”

and they did not write: “For in their anger they killed a man,” lest he say: Your fathers [the tribes] were murderers, for Jacob their father testifies concerning them that they killed a man!

Therefore they wrote, “they killed an ox,” for the people of Shechem were considered in Jacob’s eyes only like an ox, and he was particular with his sons only regarding the killing of animals .

8. They wrote for him:

“And Moses took his wife and his sons and placed them upon a bearer of human beings,”

for “a bearer of human beings” implies a camel. And they did not write, “and he placed them upon the donkey,” lest he say: Did Moses your teacher not have a horse or a camel ?! 9. And they wrote for him:

“And the dwelling of the Children of Israel, during which they dwelled in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years.”

For “and in other lands” is not written in the verse, and they wrote this so that Ptolemy would not say: A lie is written in the Torah! For Kohath was among those who descended to Egypt, Amram was his son, and Moses was his grandson. And when you count their years, there are not four hundred years among them all. Furthermore, some of the years of the sons overlap with the years of the fathers; if so, how did the Torah write that the Children of Israel dwelled in Egypt for four hundred years?

And in truth, the verse counted from Isaac’s birth [and not earlier, for the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham: “For your seed will be a stranger”], for when he was born, Abraham was already a stranger in the land of the Philistines, and from then until the Exodus from Egypt the reckoning 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 youths [firstborns] of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings.” And they wrote to him:

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

And they did not write to him: “And he sent the youths of the children of Israel,” lest he say: “The inferior ones among you have you sent to receive the countenance of the Divine Presence” ! But “zatutei”—it is an expression of importance .

And likewise later in the passage it is written: “And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He did not send His hand,” and they wrote to him:

“And upon the zatutei of the children of Israel He did not send His hand,”

for since at the beginning of the passage they wrote the expression “zatutei,” they likewise concluded with this expression [even though “nobles” is also an expression of importance, and they did not need to change it on account of this].