Sotah 33a — the Talmud in English

The entire Torah was stated in every language,

that is: the Torah was given to be read in the synagogue in every language? And because of

if it enters your mind that it was stated in the sacred language,

then

“and they shall be”

to teach specifically concerning the recitation of the Shema that it is stated in the sacred language—

why do I need the Merciful One to write it!?

And we answer: There is no necessity from here, for one can say: even though it was stated in the sacred language, nevertheless

it was necessary

“and they shall be” to teach concerning the recitation of the Shema that it may be recited only in the sacred language,

because

on the other hand

it is written

concerning the recitation of the Shema:

“Hear,”

and so that we should not expound it as “in every language that you hear,” but rather expound it to teach that one must make it heard to his ears.

The Gemara asks further:

Let us say that the Rabbis hold: The entire Torah was stated in the sacred language?

And because of

if it enters your mind that it was stated in every language,

then

“Hear”

which the Merciful One wrote—

in order to include the recitation of the Shema, that it may be recited in every language—

why do I need it!?

And we answer: There is no necessity from here, for one can say: even though it was stated in every language, nevertheless

it was necessary

for the verse to say “Hear,”

because

on the other hand

it is written

“and they shall be,”

and so that we should not expound “and they shall be—in their form they shall remain,” but rather expound it to teach that one may not recite it retroactively.

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in every language, and so on:

prayer:

And we explain the reason: because prayer

is mercy

[it is a request for mercy],

one prays in whatever manner he wishes,

in every manner through which he knows how to direct his heart, he prays.

And we raise an objection to our Mishna:

And

indeed,

prayer is in every language

that it is recited!?

For Rav Yehuda said:

A person should never ask

[request]

his

needs

from the Holy One

in

the Aramaic language,

and because

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whoever asks for his needs in the Aramaic language, the ministering angels do not attend to him, because the ministering angels do not recognize the Aramaic language!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult!

For

this—

that of Rav Yehuda, that one should not pray in the Aramaic language—

is for an individual,

who requires the assistance of the ministering angels.

This—

our Mishna, that it is recited in every language—

is for a congregation,

which does not require the ministering angels, as he said in Job [36:5], “Behold, God is mighty and does not despise,” for He does not despise the prayer of the many. And we raise another objection:

And

is it so that

the ministering angels do not recognize the Aramaic language!?

And it was taught in a beraita:

Yohanan the High Priest heard—

on the Day of Atonement, during the time of the war of the Hasmoneans with the Greeks, when he was performing the service of the day—

a heavenly voice emerge from the Holy of Holies, saying:

“The youths have triumphed

[the young priests from the house of the Hasmoneans]

who went to wage war against Antiochus”

[who went to Antiochus to wage war].

And again, an incident involving Shimon the Righteous,

who was the High Priest,

who heard a heavenly voice

on the Day of Atonement

from the Holy of Holies, saying: “The undertaking has been annulled

which the enemy had said he would bring upon the Sanctuary”

[the mobilization of the force that the enemy was supposed to bring against the holy Sanctuary in Jerusalem had been annulled],

and Gaskalgas was killed,

the Greek king,

and his decrees were annulled.

And they wrote down at that time,

when the heavenly voice emerged,

and they calculated,

later, the time at which the Greek king died, and found that it corresponded—

And it was in the Aramaic language

that the heavenly voice

was speaking!

It follows that the ministering angels recognize the Aramaic language!?

The Gemara resolves this difficulty in two ways:

If you wish, say: A heavenly voice is different, for it is made to make heard,

the entity appointed over this indeed knows the Aramaic language, because it is made in order to make heard, and sometimes it is sent to this nation and sometimes to another.

And if you wish, say:

the heavenly voice that emerged was

Gabriel’s,

for he indeed also knows the Aramaic language,

as the Master said: Gabriel came and taught

Joseph

seventy languages.

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in every language, and so on:

the Grace after Meals:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written:

“And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord”

“your God,”

and the Torah did not say how and with what formulation to bless, but rather

“in every language in which you bless.”

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in every language, and so on:

the oath of testimony:

and we explain the reason, because

it is written

in the passage of the oath of testimony:

“And if a person sins and hears the voice of an oath,”

and from the fact that the Torah said “and hears,” and not “and they administer an oath to him,” it follows

“in every language that she hears.”

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in every language, and so on:

the oath of a deposit:

and we explain the reason, because it

comes

by a gzera shava:

“sins, sins”

from the oath of testimony,

which does not require the sacred language.

We learned in the Mishna:

And these are recited in the sacred language: the recitation over the first fruits and halitza

and so on.

How is the recitation over the first fruits performed?

“And you shall respond and say before the Lord”

“your God,”

and there it says:

“And the Levites shall respond and say to every man of Israel,”

just as the responding stated there is in the sacred language, so too here it is in the sacred language:

the Gemara asks:

And from where do the Levites themselves derive it,

that the Torah was particular that they speak specifically in the sacred language!?

And we answer: It

comes

by a gzera shava concerning the blessings and curses of the Levites:

“voice, voice”

from Moses.

It is written here

concerning the Levites:

“a loud voice,”

and it is written there

concerning Moses:

“Moses would speak, and God would answer him with a voice.”

To teach:

just as there

concerning Moses at the giving of the Torah

it was in the sacred language,

for the Torah was given in it,

so too here,

concerning the blessings and curses of the Levites,

it is in the sacred language.

We learned in the Mishna:

How is halitza performed? “And she shall respond and say,” and there it says, “And the Levites shall respond and say”; just as there it is in the sacred language, so too here it is in the sacred language. Rabbi Yehuda says: “And she shall respond and say, ‘So’”—until she says it in this wording:

“And she shall respond and say,” and there it says, “And the Levites shall respond and say”; just as there it is in the sacred language, so too here it is in the sacred language; Rabbi Yehuda says: “‘And she shall respond and say, so,’” until she says it in this wording:

And

we explain according to

the Rabbis,

who derive the sacred language in halitza from a gzera shava: if so,

this

“so”

stated concerning halitza

what do they do with it?

They need it

for “so,” in order to teach that

a matter that is an action,

in halitza, such as the removal of the shoe and spitting, is

indispensable,

since the Torah juxtaposed “so” to “shall be done”; yet we have not heard that the language is indispensable.

And Rabbi Yehuda derives from

“so,”

“thus”:

that is: If the Torah had come only to teach about an action that is indispensable, it would have sufficed for it to say “thus”; and since it said “so,” we have learned that the language too is indispensable.

And

the reason of

the Rabbis,

who do not derive that the action is indispensable from “thus” and “so,” is because

“thus”

“so”

does not imply to them

any exposition at all; if so, we derive from “so” that the action is indispensable, but we have still not heard that the language is indispensable.