Sanhedrin 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei’s exposition that in the days of Ezra the script was changed is composed of three verses.

The first: The Book of Daniel relates that King Belshazzar held a feast, at which they drank from the vessels of the Temple. Suddenly, a hand appeared from heaven and wrote on the wall of the palace in a script that the participants could not understand, as it is stated: “They could not read the writing.” It was written in Aramaic. Since Jews were also reclining at that feast, and they could not understand what was written, this indicates that they were not familiar with the Aramaic language.

The second: In the period that followed, it is stated in the Book of Ezra that they wrote a letter in Aramaic.

This indicates that at that time they knew the Aramaic script. And from this it is proven that in the days of Ezra their script was changed. This is even more clearly proven by what is stated there: “the script that was changed,” meaning a script that had undergone a change.

Rabbi Yosei likewise expounds the expression in the Torah, “Mishne Torah,” as deriving from the language of “change,” as explained above.

“The script that was changed” —

“written in Aramaic and translated into Aramaic,”

indicating that the people of Judah wrote in Aramaic after their ascent from the Babylonian exile, when they began building the Second Temple.

And

another

is written

in the Book of Daniel:

“They could not read the writing, nor make known its interpretation to the king.”

This indicates that during their exile in Babylonia they still did not know the Aramaic script.

And

another

is written

in the Torah, in the passage concerning the king:

“And he shall write for himself this Mishne Torah,”

and we expound it:

a script destined to undergo change,

that is, Moses hinted to Israel that the script would eventually change from Ivrit to Aramaic [Assyrian], and in the days of Ezra it changed.

And since in the days of Ezra the script was changed to Aramaic, then

why is it called “Assyrian”?

Because

the

script

came up with them from

the land of

Assyria.

But Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and maintains that the Assyrian script of the days of Ezra is the script in which the Torah was given to Israel.

It was taught:

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi says: At first —

the Torah was given to Israel in this script

in the days of Moses. And why were the Jews unable to read it at Belshazzar’s feast?

Because they sinned in the days of the First Temple,

and treated the Torah with contempt,

it became a stumbling block for them,

a cause of ruin, for they forgot the script [and could not read it before Belshazzar].

Once they repented,

having returned in repentance,

the Almighty restored

it to them

for them,

as

it is stated

in the prophecy of the prophet Zechariah, when he prophesied about the ascent from Babylonia and the construction of the Second Temple: “

Return to the stronghold

—to Jerusalem, your fortified city, you children of Israel—

prisoners of hope,

who hoped for the Almighty throughout the seventy years of the Babylonian exile;

even today I declare: I will restore double to you.”

And we expound: “Double” refers to the Torah that you forgot; I will restore it to you.

According to Rabbi,

why is it called Assyrian?

After all, it is Ivrit! Because

it

is

the perfected script,

the “perfect” script in which the Torah was given.

The tannaim later in the beraita agree with Rabbi that the script did not change; however, they disagree with him and maintain that it was not forgotten either.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i: This script

in which the Torah was given

did not change

and was not forgotten

at all.

As it is stated

in the work of the Tabernacle: “

the hooks of the pillars,”

for the pegs fixed in the pillars, into which the loops of the courtyard curtains and the screen were inserted, are called “hooks,” because they were shaped like the letter vav.

Just as the pillars did not change,

just as the pegs did not change their form,

so too, the hooks did not change.

That is, the letters remained as they had been at the beginning.

There is another proof:

And it says

the verse, in the second letters of Mordechai and Esther: “

And to the Jews according to their script and according to their language.”

Just as their language did not change,

for the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue and it remains in the Holy Tongue,

so too, their script did not change.

Rather,

if you say that “Mishne” is not expounded as deriving from “change,”

how do I understand

“this Mishne Torah”?

It comes to teach a different exposition:

there are two Torah scrolls: one that goes out and comes in with him, and one that is kept in his treasury.

And

that

Torah

that goes out and comes in with him, he makes

small, written in fine script,

like an amulet,

so that it will be easy to carry,

and he hangs

it

on his arm, as it is stated:

“I have set the Lord before me always,

for He is at my right hand; I shall not falter,” [as explained above].

The Gemara asks:

And the other one,

Rabbi, who expounded “Mishne” as deriving from “change” and not from “two,” and does not expound the verse “I have set” as referring to two Torah scrolls,

this

verse,

“I have set

the Lord before me always,”

what does he expound from it,

what exposition does he derive from this verse?

And it answers:

That

verse

is needed

to be expounded

in

the same way

as

was expounded by

Rav Ḥana bar Bizna. For Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida: One who prays must see

himself

as though the Divine Presence

rests

opposite him, as it is stated:

“I have set the Lord before me always.”

The Gemara now asks:

With regard to Rabbi Shimon

ben Elazar, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i,

who said: This script did not change

and was not forgotten, then

what

is the meaning of the verse

“They could not read the writing”? Why were the Jews who were at that feast unable to read and understand the inscription on the wall, and why did they have to bring Daniel to read and interpret it?

And the Gemara answers: Because it was not written explicitly, but in allusions. Daniel knew how to interpret the allusions.

The Gemara now brings several opinions concerning the manner in which it was written by allusion.

Rav said: In gematria,

the code of Atbash,

it was written for them,

and this is what was written:

Yat Yatat Adakh Pugahmat.

This is the allusive script of Atbash:

Alef-Tav, Bet-Shin, Gimel-Resh, Dalet-Kuf, Heh-Tzadi, Vav-Peh, Zayin-Ayin, Het-Samekh, Tet-Nun, Yod-Mem, Kaf-Lamed.

Accordingly, the word “Yatat” is read as follows: yod-mem, tet-nun, tav-alef. The entire word is therefore “Mene.” By means of this code Daniel arrived at the reading: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin.”

What did he interpret for them?

What interpretation did Daniel give them?

“

Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin” —

“Mene, Mene”: God has numbered your kingdom;

the Almighty counted and calculated the precise number of the days of your reign,

and the completion

has already arrived.

“Tekel”: You have been weighed on the scales

before Me,

and found deficient,

found deficient in every respect of righteousness. “And Parsin” means two divisions:

“Your kingdom has been divided,”

your kingdom has been broken away from you,

and given

to the

Medes and Persians.

That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, died, and Darius the Mede inherited his kingdom.

And Shmuel said:

The inscription on the wall was written in another allusive manner. What was it?

“Mamtos Nankefi A’alran,”

meaning that this was what was written: “Mamtos Nankefi A’alran.” When read from top to bottom, it yields: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin,” and Daniel understood it in this way. But they read it from right to left, and therefore they could not read it.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

This is what was written:

“Anem Anem Lekat Nisrafu,”

meaning that each word was written from left to right, whereas Daniel understood it and they did not.

Rav Ashi said: “Nema Nema Ketel Parsin,”

meaning that the letters were jumbled, with the second letter of each word written before the first.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains the laws concerning the people’s relationship to the king and the care required for his honor.

One may not ride on his horse. One may not sit on his throne. One may not use his scepter,

or the king’s crown, or any of his other objects designated specifically for the king.

And

one may likewise not treat his honor lightly. For example:

One may not see him when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bathhouse.

Because the people are obligated to fear the king, as

it is stated: “You shall surely set a king over yourself,”

and we expound it:

so that his awe

the king’s awe

will be upon you,

upon the people.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One may not use his scepter, and all the more so one may not use his servants. The Gemara explains that indeed, a commoner may not use the objects of a king, but a king may use the objects of a king.

The First Book of Kings, chapter 2, relates that Adonijah son of David [from his wife Haggith] asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, to ask Solomon to give him Abishag the Shunamite, who had attended David, as a wife. Solomon saw this as rebellion against his kingship and had him killed.

The Gemara explains that although Abishag had not married David and therefore Adonijah was not forbidden to her under the prohibition against a father’s wife, nevertheless Adonijah, who was a commoner, was forbidden to use her, by virtue of the principle that one may not use the scepter of a king. By asking to marry her, he demonstrated that he considered himself to possess the status of a king; therefore Solomon judged him as a rebel against the king.

But she was permitted to Solomon, since she had not married David, and a king may use the scepter of a king.

Rav Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Abishag was permitted to Solomon but forbidden to Adonijah. She was permitted to Solomon because he was a king, and a king may use the scepter of his predecessor,

his predecessor.

but she was forbidden to Adonijah —

because he was a commoner.

The Gemara now explains that she was not forbidden to Solomon on account of the nakedness of a father’s wife, because she had not married David.

Abishag—what was her status?

That is, what was her personal status in relation to Solomon?

As it is written

at the beginning of the Book of Kings: “

Now King David was old,

and they covered him with garments, but he did not become warm.

And his servants said: Let them seek

for my lord the king a young virgin... and she will warm my lord the king.”

And it is written

there: “

And they sought a beautiful young woman

... and they found Abishag the Shunamite and brought her to the king,

and the young woman was very beautiful, and she became his attendant.”

The Gemara relates:

Abishag said

to David:

“Marry me,”

take me as a wife.

He said to her,

David:

“You are forbidden to me,”

you are forbidden to me, because I have already married eighteen wives.

She said to him,

Abishag: A common proverb says:

“When the thief lacks,

when the thief has nothing left to steal

he presents himself as a man of peace!”

he conducts himself humbly, like a man of peace. She was saying to him metaphorically: Because you have grown old and your strength has waned, you tell me that I am forbidden to you.

David said

David

to them,

to his attendants:

“Call Bathsheba to me,”

so that she would come and testify that my strength is with me as in the days of my youth.

The Gemara brings proof that Bathsheba was summoned in order to demonstrate this to Abishag.

For when Bathsheba came to ask King David that her son Solomon should reign after him,

it is written: “

And Bathsheba came to the king into the chamber,”

and the conclusion of the verse apparently has no connection to Solomon’s kingship, as it states: “And the king was very old, and Abishag the Shunamite served the king.” Therefore, the Sages expounded from here that Bathsheba entered the chamber because of Abishag the Shunamite, to testify to David’s potency in marital relations.

It is also hinted by the fact that this verse contains thirteen words. Therefore,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: At that time Bathsheba wiped herself

herself

with thirteen cloths,

between each of David’s acts of intercourse, in order to substantiate David’s claim that he did not marry Abishag because of the prohibition.

And why did David not divorce one of his eighteen wives in order to marry Abishag?

Rav Shemen bar Abba said: Come and see

from the righteous conduct of King David

how difficult divorce is

in the eyes of God and man.

For the Sages of his generation permitted King David

to

seclude

himself with an unmarried woman, despite the fact that the Sages had already prohibited seclusion with an unmarried woman following the incident of Amnon and Tamar,

but they did not permit him to divorce

one of his wives, because “divorce is difficult.”

And likewise

Rabbi Eliezer said: Anyone who divorces his first wife —

even the altar sheds

tears .

As it is stated in the Book of Malachi: The prophet rebukes them [in the language of the commentary of Rabbi Yosef Kara]: “When they divorced their wives, the women came to the altar of the Lord and wept with crying and sighing, saying: If our husbands suspect us of having become defiled in secret, we are ready to be examined with the bitter waters. Your sin causes the Almighty not to turn to accept you favorably.”

As it is stated: “

And this is a second thing you do

[another sin that you commit],

covering the altar of the Lord with tears, weeping, and sighing

[and therefore]

so that He no longer turns to the offering or accepts it favorably from your hand

[the Almighty does not accept your sacrifices favorably].”

And with what tears is the altar covered?

And it is written

later: "

And you say: For what reason? Because the Lord has testified between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have acted treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant."

And Rabbi Eliezer expounds that the altar sheds tears over one who divorces his first wife.

The Gemara cites further statements of the amoraim concerning a man's love for his first wife and the extent of his grief at her death.

Rabbi Yohanan said, and some say

that it was

Rabbi Elazar who said: A man's wife dies only if money is demanded from him

that he borrowed or stole

and he does not have it

to repay. As

it is stated: "

If you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take your bed from beneath you?"

And we expound "your bed" as a euphemism for one's wife.

And

another

Rabbi Yohanan said: Any man whose first wife dies is as though the Temple were destroyed in his days.

As

it is stated

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: "

Son of man! Behold, I am taking from you the delight of your eyes through a plague, but you shall neither mourn nor weep, and your tears shall not come."

And

later

it is written: "

I spoke to the people in the morning, and my wife died in the evening."

And it is written there that the people asked him why he was not observing mourning, and he answered them that this was a parable indicating that they should not mourn for the Temple: either because no mourners would remain, and there is no mourning where there are no mourners, or because they feared crying on account of the Chaldeans.

It follows that Scripture compares mourning for the Temple to mourning over the death of a wife.

And

later

it is written: "

Behold, I am profaning My Sanctuary, the pride of your strength"...

and you shall do as I have done; you shall not cover your upper lips...".

Rabbi Alexandri said: Any man whose wife dies during his lifetime—

the world is dark for him .

As

it is stated

in the Book of Job: "

Light is darkened in his tent, and his lamp above him is extinguished."

And we expound "in his tent" as referring to his tent, which is his wife.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: His steps become shorter.

As

it is stated

later in the same verse: "

He makes [

his

mighty steps narrow]."

Rabbi Abbahu said: His counsel falls.

As

it is stated

later in the verse: "

And his counsel casts him down."

In tractate Sotah, it is related that Reish Lakish began his discourse on the passage concerning the sota: A wife is matched to a man only according to his deeds, as it is stated: "For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous."

And concerning this

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is difficult

before the Omnipresent

to match them,

those who are matched according to their deeds,

as

it is

the splitting of the Red Sea,

when the order of Creation was altered.

And his exposition is as follows:

It is stated: "

God settles the individuals in a house; He brings out prisoners with songful cries."

And we expound: The Holy One, blessed be He, settles individual men and women in a house—that is, He matches them with one another—

(Do not read, "He brings out prisoners," but rather, "as one who brings out prisoners

that is, as He brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt.

Do not read, "with songful cries," but rather, "with weeping and songs

weeping for the Egyptians and song for the Children of Israel, who sang at the sea.) It follows that a man's match is equated with the splitting of the Red Sea.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?!

Is this indeed the case, that a man's match is according to his deeds—that is, according to whether they are righteous or wicked?

But

this, after all,

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Forty days before the formation of the fetus—

a Divine voice emerges

meaning, a decree from Heaven

and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so.

But before the formation of the fetus, it is not known whether he will be righteous or wicked, for everything is in the hands of Heaven except for fear of Heaven. This is difficult, since the two statements contradict one another.

And the Gemara answers:

This is not difficult: This

statement of Rav, that a heavenly announcement is made according to one's constellation, refers

to the first match, whereas that

statement of Rabbi Yohanan, that they are matched according to their deeds, refers

to a second match,

and it is difficult to match them because she is not his original mate.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: For every

thing

there is a replacement,

a substitute,

except for the wife of one's youth.

As

it is stated: "

And the wife of your youth, when she is rejected."

The meaning is that the prophet Isaiah compares the Jewish people to a wife of one's youth who is not rejected in her husband's eyes. Even if he becomes angry with her, the rejection will not last, and he will take her back. So too: "Thus said your God: For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you." It follows that there is no replacement for the wife of one's youth.

The Gemara relates:

He taught it to him [

it should read

to him]

Rav Yehuda taught

to Rav Yitzhak, his son

his son:

A man finds satisfaction only with his first wife.

As

it is stated: "

May your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife

of your youth."