Sanhedrin 22a — 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: In the Book of Daniel it is related that King Belshazzar made a feast, at which they drank from the vessels of the Temple. Suddenly a hand appeared from heaven, which wrote on the wall of the house in a script that the participants could not understand, as it is said: “They could not read the writing.” It was in the Aramaic language. And since Jews were also reclining at that feast, and they could not understand what was written, it follows that they did not know the Aramaic language.

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

And it follows that at that time they knew Aramaic script. And from this it is proven that in the days of Ezra their script was changed. And it is proven even more from what is said there, “the script of the document,” whose meaning is a script that was changed.

And likewise Rabbi Yosei expounds the expression in the Torah, “a repetition of the Torah,” which is from the language of “change,” as explained above.

“The script of the document” —

“written in Aramaic and translated into Aramaic,”

so the people of Judah wrote Aramaic after their ascent from the Babylonian exile, at the beginning of their building of the Second Temple.

And

further

it is written

in the Book of Daniel,

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

So, during their exile in Babylonia, they still did not know Aramaic script.

And

further

it is written

in the Torah, in the section concerning the king,

“And he shall write for himself this repetition of the Torah,”

and we expound:

a script fit to be changed,

that is, Moses hinted to Israel that in the future the script would be changed from Hebrew to Aramaic [Assyrian], and in the days of Ezra it was changed.

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

why is it called “Assyrian”!?

Because

it

this script ascended

with them from

the land of

Assyria.

But Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, and holds 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 they disgraced the Torah,

it became a stumbling block for them,

a cause of collapse, for they forgot the script [and were unable to read it before Belshazzar].

When they repented,

when they returned in repentance,

He restored

the Holy One, blessed be He,

it to them,

as

it is said

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

Return to the stronghold

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

prisoners of hope,

who hoped for the Holy One, blessed be He, throughout the seventy years of the Babylonian exile;

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

And we expound: “double”—the Torah that you forgot, I will restore to you.

And according to Rabbi,

why is it called “Assyrian”?

But it is Hebrew! Because

it

is

the perfected script,

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

And the tannaim later in the beraita hold like Rabbi, that the script was not changed, but they disagree and hold that it was also not forgotten.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModai: This script

in which the Torah was given

was not changed

and was not forgotten

at all.

As it is said

in the work of the Tabernacle,

“the hooks of the pillars,”

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

Just as the pillars were not changed,

just as the pegs did not change their form,

so the hooks were not changed.

That is, the letters remained as they were at the beginning.

And there is another proof:

And it says

the verse, in the second letters of Mordecai and Esther,

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

Just as their language was not changed,

for the Torah was given in the sacred language and it is still in the sacred language,

so their script was not changed.

Rather,

perhaps you will say: If “repetition” is not expounded in the sense of “change,”

what do I establish

“this repetition of the Torah”?

This comes for another exposition,

for two Torah scrolls: one that goes out and comes in with him, and one that is placed in his treasury.

And

that

Torah

that goes out and comes in with him, he makes

small, in fine writing,

like an amulet,

so that it will be easy to carry,

and he hangs

it

on his arm, as it is said:

“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 “repetition” in the sense of “change,” and did not expound it in the sense of “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 for him

to expound

as

in the manner

that

they expounded

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 said:

“I have set the Lord before me always.”

And now the Gemara asks:

According to Rabbi Shimon

ben Elazar, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModai,

who said: This script was not changed

and was not forgotten, if so,

what

is the meaning of the verse

“They could not read the writing”!?

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

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

The Gemara now brings several opinions as to in what manner it was written by way of a hint.

Rav said: In gematria,

the language of hints of Atbash,

it was written for them,

and this is how it was written:

Yatot Yatat Adakh Pugahmat.

And this is the hint of the writing according to 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. And the entire word is “mene.” And through this language of hints Daniel arrived at reading: “Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin.”

What did he interpret for them?

What interpretation did Daniel give them? “

Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin” —

“Mene, mene: God has numbered your kingdom,

the Holy One, blessed be He, has numbered and counted the exact number of the days of your kingdom,

and the completion

and you have already completed them.

‘Tekel’: You have been weighed on the scales

and weighed before me on scales,

and you have been found deficient,

and found deficient in every form of righteousness. ‘Ufarsin’: two divisions;

your kingdom has been divided

your kingdom has been broken from you,

and given

and it shall be given

to Media and Persia.”

And that very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, died, and Darius the Mede inherited him.

And Shmuel said:

The inscription on the wall was in another hint. And what was it?

“Mamtos Nankefi Aאלרן,”

that is, it was written “Mamtos Nankefi Aאלרן,” which, when read from above downward, reads: “Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin,” and Daniel understood this as well; but they read from right to left, and therefore could not read it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It was written

“Anem anem lekat nisrafu,”

that is, each word was written from left to right, and Daniel understood, while they did not understand.

Rav Ashi said: “Nema nema ketal ufarsin,”

that is, with the letters jumbled, so that the second letter of each word was written before the first.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains the laws concerning the people in relation to the king, and the caution required regarding 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 implements designated for the king.

And

likewise one may 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 said: “You shall surely set a king over yourself,”

and we expound:

so that his fear

of the king

shall 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. And the Gemara explains that indeed, a commoner may not use the implements of a king, but a king may use the implements of a king.

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

And the Gemara explains that although Abishag had not married David and was not forbidden to Adonijah by the prohibition of a father’s wife, nevertheless it was forbidden for Adonijah, who was a commoner, to use her, by the law that one may not use the scepter of a king. And by requesting to marry her, he demonstrated that he considered himself to have the status of a king; therefore Solomon judged him as a rebel against the kingship.

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

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

his predecessor.

And she is forbidden to Adonijah —

for he is a commoner.

And now the Gemara 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 she?

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

As it is written

at the beginning of the Book of Kings: “

And King David was old,

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

And his servants said to him: Let them seek

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

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 exceedingly beautiful, and she became his attendant.”

And the Gemara relates:

Abishag said

to David:

“Marry me,”

take me as a wife.

He said to her

David:

“I am forbidden to you,”

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

She said to him

Abishag: A common proverb says: “

The thief’s loss,

when the thief is lacking, when he has no place to steal,

he takes hold of himself for peace!”

he presents himself as humble, like a man of peace. And by way of a parable she said to him: Because you have grown old and your strength has weakened, you tell me that I am forbidden to you.

David said

to

them

his servants:

“Call Bathsheba to me,”

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

And the Gemara brings proof that Bathsheba was called in order to demonstrate this to Abishag.

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

and it is written:

“And Bathsheba came to the king into the chamber,”

and the conclusion of the verse concerns something that seemingly has no connection to Solomon’s kingship, as it is said, “And the king was very old, and Abishag the Shunamite served the king.” Therefore the Sages expounded from here that Bathsheba entered the chamber following Abishag the Shunamite, to testify to David’s sexual potency.

And it is further 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 one act of intercourse and another of David, in order to substantiate David’s claim that his not marrying Abishag was 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 holy conduct of King David

how difficult divorce is

in the eyes of God and man,

for the sages of his generation permitted King David

the Sages of his generation

to seclude

himself with an unmarried woman, even though the Sages had already prohibited seclusion with an unmarried woman from the time of 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: Whoever divorces his first wife —

even the altar sheds

tears.

As it is said in the Book of Malachi: The prophet rebukes them [in the language of the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda Kara]: “When they divorced their wives, they came to the altar of the Lord and wept with weeping and lamentation, saying: If our husbands suspect us that we became impure in secret—behold, we are ready to be examined with the bitter waters. And your sin causes that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not turn to accept you favorably.”

As it is said:

“And this second thing you do

[another sin that you commit],

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

[and therefore]

so that there is no more turning to the offering, nor taking pleasure from your hand

[the Holy One, blessed be He, is not appeased by your sacrifices].”

And with what tears is the altar covered?

And it is written

further: "

And you say, For what reason? For the Lord has testified between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt 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 brings further statements of 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

it was Rabbi Eleazar who said so:

A man's wife does not die unless money is being demanded of him

that he borrowed or robbed

and he does not have it

to repay. As

it is stated: "

And if you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take your bed from beneath you." And we expound “your bed” as an appellation for a wife.

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

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said: Anyone whose first wife dies in his lifetime—it is as though the Temple were destroyed in his days.

As

it is stated,

what the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Ezekiel: "

Son of man! Behold, I am taking from you the delight of your eyes through a plague, but you shall not mourn, nor weep, nor shall your tears come."

And

further

it is written: "

And 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 it was an analogy concerning their not mourning for the Temple: either because no consolers would remain, and there is no mourning where there are no consolers, or because they were afraid to weep on account of the Chaldeans.

Thus, Scripture compared mourning for the Temple to mourning for the death of a wife.

And

further

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 mustache...".

Rabbi Alexandri said: Anyone whose wife dies in his lifetime—

the world becomes dark for him .

As

it is stated

in the Book of Job: "

Light grows dark 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.

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

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: His steps become shorter.

As

it is stated

further in that same verse: "

They make

[they become narrow]

the steps of his strength."

Rabbi Abbahu said: His counsel falls.

As

it is stated

further in the verse: "

And his counsel casts him down."

In tractate Sotah it is related that Resh Lakish opened his discourse with the section concerning the sota: A wife is matched for a man only according to his deeds, as it is stated: “For the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous.”

And concerning this

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

before the Omnipresent

to match them,

those who are according to their deeds,

as

in

the splitting of the Sea of Reeds,

for the orders of Creation were changed.

And his exposition is:

As it is stated: "

God settles the individuals in a house; He brings out prisoners with singing." And we expound: The Holy One, blessed is He, settles for a man and a woman who are individuals—a house; that is, He matches them together,

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, just as He brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt.

Do not read “with singing,” but rather: “with weeping and songs”

weeping for the Egyptians and song for the Children of Israel, who sang at the sea]. Thus, a man's match is equated with the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so!?

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

And

but surely

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

a heavenly voice goes forth

meaning: a decree from Heaven

and says: So-and-so's daughter to so-and-so,

yet 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 fear of Heaven. And it is difficult, for the two statements contradict one another?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult; this

that Rav said, that they proclaim in Heaven according to the constellation, applies

to the first match, whereas this

that Rabbi Yohanan said, that they are matched according to deeds, applies

to the second match,

and it is difficult to match them, since she is not his destined mate.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said: For every

thing

there is a replacement,

and an exchange,

except for the wife of one's youth.

As

it is stated: "

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

Meaning: The prophet Isaiah compares Israel to a wife of youth who is not rejected in her husband's eyes; and even if he is angry with her, the rejection will not endure—he will take her back. Thus: “So said your God: For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great mercies I shall gather you”; therefore, there is no replacement for the wife of one's youth.

The Gemara relates:

He taught it to him

it should read

her

—he taught it

Rav Yehuda to Rav Yitzhak his son

his son:

A man finds contentment only with his first wife.

As

it is stated: "

May your spring be blessed, and rejoice with the wife ![](pamud.bmp "

location of exact page position")

of your youth."