Megillah 9
Summary
- A sequence of *ein bein* distinctions in Megillah 9a-b sets *sefarim* (Tanach: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) apart from *tefillin* and *mezuzot* by allowing *sefarim* to be written in any language, while *tefillin* and *mezuzot* require *ashurit*, with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel restricting even *sefarim* to Greek. The presentation qualifies that the Mishnah’s contrast is not exhaustive, brings the Turei Even’s difficulty about what “written in other languages” practically means, and then moves through the Gemara’s attempted resolutions of a contradiction with a Mishnah in Yadayim about what conveys *tum’at yadayim*. The sugya develops into the classic account of King Talmai gathering seventy-two elders to translate the Torah into Greek, the miracle of their identical emendations, and later reflections on why this translation is treated as a tragedy, concluding with the halakhic ruling like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rambam’s statement that authentic Greek is no longer known. The text then continues to the next *ein bein* cases about different types of *kohanim gedolim* and about a replacement *kohen gadol*, setting the Mishnah against Beraitot and resolving that the Mishnah’s two halves follow different Tanna’im or reflect Rabbi’s editorial approach.
- A Mishnah states that the difference between *sefarim* and *tefillin*/*mezuzot* is that *sefarim* are written in any language while *tefillin* and *mezuzot* are written only in *ashurit*, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says even *sefarim* are permitted only in Greek. A clarification adds that the *ein bein* is not literal because other practical differences exist, including that a *sefer Torah* need not be written *kesidran* while *tefillin* and *mezuzot* must be written *kesidran*, and additional parchment-related distinctions are noted. A Turei Even questions what case the Mishnah addresses, arguing that if the writing is not for the mitzvah but for study then all should be allowed in any language, and if it is for fulfilling mitzvah obligations then the Torah should also require *lashon hakodesh*, and he proposes that the Mishnah’s permissibility concerns writing for study while *tefillin* and *mezuzot* remain restricted.
- A Gemara line asserts that regarding sewing with sinews and causing *tum’at yadayim*, *sefarim*, *tefillin*, and *mezuzot* are equal. Rashi explains sewing with sinews as a *halakha leMoshe miSinai* for *tefillin* and *mezuzot* and relates the Mishnah to a view that a *sefer Torah* also requires sinews rather than linen. A difficulty is raised because a *mezuzah* is written on a single parchment, and the Gilyon HaShas cites *Shu”t Chavot Ya’ir* and contrasts Rashi with the Rambam, who rules that a *mezuzah* written on two skins is invalid even if sewn, while the Ritva suggests sewing could refer to repair or to such a multi-skin case. A broader framework identifies these items as *tashmishei kedushah*, contrasted with *tashmishei mitzvah* like *lulav*, whose post-mitzvah status allows discarding, and this distinction is tied to later material on Megillah 26b.
- A contradiction is posed from Yadayim: a biblical text written as *targum* or vice versa, or written in *ketav ivri*, does not convey *tum’at yadayim* until written in *ashurit* on a scroll with ink. Rava answers that one source refers to using “our script” while changing the language and the other to using the foreign script, and Abaye challenges that the Yadayim case would then be problematic even without switching languages because it explicitly requires *ashurit*. A second answer attributes the dispute to Tanna’im by aligning permissive language-writing with the Rabbis and restriction with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Gemara challenges this because Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel still allows Greek. A third answer distinguishes *sefarim* from *tefillin* and *mezuzot* and explains the latter’s restriction from *vehayu*—*behavayatan yehu*—and then challenges where “*targum* written as *mikra*” would even apply in those parashiyot, with the Pnei Yehoshua proposing that the word *totafot* could be treated as foreign-language-derived per one Rashi in Parashat Bo. A fourth answer limits the Yadayim requirement to the Megillah itself due to *kichtavam u’chilshonam*, and it identifies examples of foreign terms in Esther such as *pitgam* and *yekar* as candidates for the Yadayim formulation. A fifth answer, attributed to Rav Ashi, reads Yadayim as applying to other books and connects the Greek allowance specifically to a Torah scroll through Rabbi Yehudah’s framing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s position.
- A Beraita teaches that *tefillin* and *mezuzot* are written only in *ashurit*, while “our Rabbis” permit Greek, and it is refined to mean that for *sefarim* the only non-Hebrew permission is Greek, with Rabbi Yehudah limiting the permission to a *sefer Torah* because of the episode of Talmai. Rashi identifies Talmai as a king of Egypt, and the narrative situates him within broader Greek-era control while treating the permissibility as emerging from the historical event rather than general policy. A Sefat Emet asks how an event under coercion can create a lasting permission and suggests that writing in other languages is fundamentally permissible *min haTorah* for these texts and that the restriction is rabbinic, leaving Greek permitted because the translation became entrenched, aligning with the Rambam’s description *v’nitparsemah etzlam otah ha’ha’ataka*. A Ben Yehoyada adds that the permission endures as a memorial of the miracle that all elders made the same changes.
- Tosafot in Bava Kamma explains that teaching Torah to non-Jews in a coercive political context is permitted because it is *ba’al karcham* and not one of the three cardinal sins requiring self-sacrifice. The Yam Shel Shlomo argues that even under danger it is forbidden to falsify Torah content, treating misrepresentation as *zuyif haTorah* and *k’kofeir b’Torat Moshe*, and he explains the elders’ coordinated textual adjustments under Talmai as *al pi ha’dibbur* and not a substantive change of halakhic meaning but a protective rephrasing against heretical readings.
- The elders write *Elokim bara bereishit* instead of *Bereishit bara Elokim* to prevent a reading that “Bereishit” created God, and they write *E’eseh adam* instead of *Na’aseh adam* to avoid implying multiple powers. The text adds reflections from Rashi about divine humility in *na’aseh* and from the Ramban that *na’aseh* indicates the partnership of earth producing the body and God giving the soul. They write *Vayechal bayom hashishi* and *Vayishbot bayom hashvi’i* to avoid implying completion on Shabbat, and they write *zachar u’nekeivah b’ra’o* rather than *b’ra’am* to avoid ambiguity. They write *Havah eirdah v’avlah* and alter Sarah’s laughter to *b’kroveha* so the narrative does not appear to single her out unfairly compared to Avraham. They replace “they killed a man” with “they killed an ox” in Yaakov’s critique of Shimon and Levi to prevent branding the patriarchs as murderers, and they change Moshe’s donkey to *nosei bnei adam* to avoid diminishing Moshe. They expand the sojourn chronology to include Egypt and other lands so the years are not misunderstood, and they replace *na’arim* with *z’tutei* to avoid describing youths performing sacred service. They insert *l’ha’ir* into the apportioning of the luminaries so it is not read as authorization for worship, and they add *l’ovdam* to clarify “other gods” are not to be served. They avoid naming *arnevet* because Talmai’s wife bears that name, writing *tze’irat haraglayim* so he will not claim the Jews mocked him by embedding her name in the Torah.
- A tradition cited from Shulchan Aruch and Beit Yosef links fasting around *Asarah b’Tevet* to events on the eighth, ninth, and tenth of Tevet, identifying the Torah’s Greek translation as the eighth’s tragedy, uncertainty about the ninth with Beit Yosef connecting it to Ezra’s death, and the siege on the tenth. The tragedy is framed as the loss of the Torah’s layered depth—*pshat, remez, drash, sod*—once rendered into translation, with a metaphor that the Torah becomes like a lion in a cage, unable to express its full force.
- Rabbi Abahu reports in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the halakhah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, permitting only Greek as a non-Hebrew option. The Rambam rules that *tefillin* and *mezuzot* are only in *ashurit* and that the Greek allowance for *sefarim* is limited, but he adds that Greek has been forgotten and corrupted—*u’kvar nishkechah Yevanit min ha’olam*—so all three are written today only in *ashurit*. Rabbi Yochanan grounds Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s preference for Greek in *Yaft Elokim l’Yefet v’yishkon b’ohalei Shem*, reading it as *divrei* Yefet residing in the tents of Shem, and it is narrowed to Greece rather than other descendants like Gomer and Magog by associating it with *yefifuto shel Yefet*. A Rav Soloveitchik idea is cited that contrasts Shem’s “ethics” with Yefet’s “etiquette,” linking Yefet’s external beauty to the aesthetic suitability of Greek as the lone language that can “reside” within Torah expression.
- A Mishnah distinguishes an anointed *kohen gadol* from a *merubeh begadim* by *par haba al kol hamitzvot*, which most Rishonim understand as the special sin-offering of the *kohen gadol* for transgressions, applying only to the anointed and not to the *merubeh begadim*. A Tosafot view from Yoma is brought that *par haba al kol hamitzvot* can mean *par he’elem davar shel tzibbur* in broader Shas usage, implying a different technical application. A Beraita then presents a dispute in which Rabbi Meir holds a *merubeh begadim* brings the *par*, deriving it from *haMashiach*, while the Chachamim say he does not, and the Gemara states the Mishnah’s first clause does not follow Rabbi Meir.
- A Mishnah states that the difference between the serving *kohen gadol* and the one who substituted and then stepped down is only the *par Yom HaKippurim* and the daily *asirit ha’eifah* offering, implying equality in other respects. A Beraita records that if a *kohen gadol* becomes disqualified and another serves in his place, Rabbi Meir holds the second retains all *mitzvot kehunah gedolah* even after the first returns, while Rabbi Yosei rules the second is fit for neither *kohen gadol* nor *kohen hedyot* due to *eivah* and *ma’alin ba’kodesh v’lo moridin*. The Gemara notes the Mishnah’s second clause aligns with Rabbi Meir, creating tension with the first clause’s alignment against him, and it resolves this either by splitting the Mishnah between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir or by attributing it to Rabbi, who formulates the Mishnah in accordance with differing Tanna’itic positions.
- A Meiri addresses the tradition that a *kohen gadol* did not experience certain disqualifications on Yom Kippur by suggesting the miracle applied only in the First Temple era or only to specific disqualifications such as *keri*. A Gilyon HaShas reference points to *Tosafot Yeshanim* in Yoma for that reconciliation. A concluding reflection notes that the *minchat chavitin* is brought once by a *kohen hedyot* on his first day of service but daily by the *kohen gadol*, and it explains this as the *kohen gadol* needing continual awareness of his appointed role and a daily “first-day” enthusiasm in serving as the representative of all of Israel.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions