Sotah 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

The entire Torah was stated in every language,

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

if it enters your mind that it was stated in the Holy Tongue,

then

“and they shall be”

to teach specifically concerning the recitation of the Shema that it is recited in the Holy Tongue—

why do I need the verse that the Merciful One wrote?!

And we answer: This is not conclusive, for one can say: Although it was stated in the Holy Tongue, nevertheless

it was necessary

to write “and they shall be” in order to teach concerning the recitation of the Shema that it may be recited only in the Holy Tongue,

because

on the other hand

it is written

with regard to the recitation of the Shema:

“Hear,”

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

The Gemara asks further:

Shall we say that the Rabbis hold: The entire Torah was stated in the Holy Tongue?

And this is because

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, teaching that it may be recited in every language,

why do I need it?!

And we answer: This cannot be derived from here, for one can say: Although 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” to mean, “They shall remain in their original form,” 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 a plea for mercy

[it is a request for mercy];

one prays in whatever manner he wishes,

in any form in which he knows how to direct his heart, he is praying.

And we challenge our Mishna:

But

indeed,

is prayer recited in every language

as well!?

For Rav Yehuda said:

A person should never ask

[request]

a person

for

his needs

from the Holy One

in Aramaic,

and this is because

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who asks for his needs in Aramaic, the ministering angels do not attend to him, because the ministering angels do not understand Aramaic?!

And we answer:

There is no difficulty!

This

one—

Rav Yehuda’s statement that one should not pray in Aramaic—

applies to an individual,

who requires the assistance of the ministering angels.

This

—our Mishna, which says that prayer is recited in every language—

applies to a community,

which does not require the ministering angels, as it says in Job (36:5): “Behold, God is mighty, and He does not despise,” meaning that He does not despise the prayer of the many. And we challenge this further:

But

is it so that

the ministering angels do not understand Aramaic?!

But it was taught in a beraita:

Johanan the High Priest heard

on Yom Kippur, during the time of the war of the Hasmoneans against the Greeks, while he was performing the Yom Kippur service,

a Divine voice emerging from the Holy of Holies, saying:

“The young men have triumphed

[the young priests of the Hasmonean house]

who went to wage war against Antioch.”

[They went to Antioch to wage war.]

And there was another incident involving Shimon the Righteous,

who was the High Priest,

who heard a Divine voice

on Yom Kippur

from the Holy of Holies, saying: “The undertaking

that the enemy was about to bring against the Temple has been cancelled

[the mobilization of the force that the enemy had intended to bring against the holy Temple in Jerusalem had been cancelled],

and Gascallgus was killed,

the king of Greece,

and his decrees were annulled.

And at that time they recorded

when the Divine voice emerged,

and they determined

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

And it was in Aramaic

that the Divine voice

spoke!

Thus, the ministering angels do understand Aramaic?!

The Gemara resolves this difficulty in two ways:

If you wish, say: A Divine voice is different, for it is intended to make something heard,

and the entity appointed for this purpose indeed knows Aramaic, because it is made to communicate; at times it is sent to one nation, and at times to another.

And if you wish, say:

The Divine voice that emerged was

that of Gabriel,

who indeed also knows Aramaic,

as the Master said: Gabriel came and taught

Joseph

the seventy languages.

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

the blessing after a meal:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written:

“You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless the Lord

your God,”

and the Torah did not state how or in what formula one should 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 concerning the oath of testimony:

“And if a person sins, having heard the voice of an oath,”

and since the Torah said, “having heard,” and not “and they administered an oath to him,” it follows that it may be recited

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

is derived

by a gzera shava:

“sins, sins”

from the oath of testimony,

which does not require the Holy Tongue.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And these are recited in the Holy Tongue: 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 elsewhere it says:

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

just as the response stated there is in the Holy Tongue, so too here it is in the Holy Tongue:

The Gemara asks:

And from where do the Levites themselves derive this,

that the Torah was particular that they speak specifically in the Holy Tongue?!

And we answer: It

is derived

that the blessings and curses of the Levites are in the Holy Tongue by means of a gzera shava:

“voice, voice”

from Moses.

It is written here,

with regard to the Levites:

“a loud voice,”

and it is written there,

with regard to Moses:

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

This teaches:

Just as there,

with regard to Moses at the giving of the Torah,

it was in the Holy Tongue,

for the Torah was given in it,

so too here,

with regard to the blessings and curses of the Levites,

it is in the Holy Tongue.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

“‘She shall respond and say,’ and elsewhere it says, ‘The Levites shall respond and say.’ Just as there it is in the Holy Tongue, so too here it is in the Holy Tongue. Rabbi Yehuda says: ‘She shall respond and say, “Thus”’—until she says it in precisely this wording”:

And

we explain according to

the Rabbis,

who derive that the Holy Tongue is required in halitza by means of a gzera shava: If so,

what

purpose does

the word “so,” stated with regard to halitza,

serve for them?

They need it

for the word “so,” to teach that

a matter that is an act

in halitza, such as removing the shoe and spitting,

is indispensable,

since the Torah juxtaposed “so” with “shall be done,” and we still had not learned that the wording is indispensable.

And Rabbi Yehuda derives from

“so,”

“in this manner,”

meaning: Had the Torah come only to teach that an act is indispensable, it would have sufficed to say “so.” Since it says “in this manner,” we learn that the wording too is indispensable.

And

the reason of

the Rabbis,

who do not derive that an act is indispensable from “so” and “in this manner,” is that

“so”

“in this manner”

does not appear to them

to be a derivation at all. Accordingly, we derive from “in this manner” that the act is indispensable, but we still have not learned that the wording is indispensable.