באיזה כתב ניתנה התורה
הדף מאת: נח חיות, מרכז יעקב הרצוג / מרכז יעקב הרצוג
השאלה באיזה כתב ניתנה תורה איננה רק שאלה של סקרנות; יש בה נגיעה לעמדה תרבותית-חברתית-ערכית עמוקה. מי אנחנו? עד כמה אנו מוכנים להיפתח ולקבל מבחוץ טכנולוגיות והישגי תרבות, ומתי אנו צריכים לשמר את הייחודיות שלנו? עיון ביחסם של חז"ל לשינוי שעבר הכתב העברי מדגים סוגיה זו ומעלה תשובות אפשריות. דף לימוד זה הוא חלק מסדרת 'כי מציון תצא תורה' שדנה ביחסי ישראל והעמים לאורך הדורות. הסדרה גובשה במקורה עבור סמינר חי"ל שהתקיים במרכז יעקב הרצוג בשנת תשע"א.
התורה ניתנה בלשון הקודש ובלשון ארמית
אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא [=ויש אומרים] מר עוקבא: בתחילה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש, חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי. ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש, והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי. מאן [=מיהם] הדיוטות? - אמר רב חסדא, כותאי [כך כינו חז"ל בזלזול את השומרונים (כותים)].

מילים
  • כתב עברי, כתב אשורית, לשון ארמי, - לשון הקודש - עברית כתב עברי - כתב עברי עתיק כתב אשורית - כתב מרובע או ארמי - הכתב המקובל עד היום לשון הקודש - עברית כתב עברי - כתב עברי עתיק כתב אשורית - כתב מרובע או ארמי - הכתב המקובל עד היום לשון ארמי - השפה הארמית
about seclusion, that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, and about a single woman. The Gemara objects: Seclusion with a woman forbidden by familial ties is prohibited by Torah law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there an allusion to the halakha that seclusion is forbidden by Torah law? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? Why mention only the son of a mother? Rather, this verse serves to tell you that only a son may be secluded with his mother. Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. But another individual may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together. Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? Rather, say that they decreed against seclusion of a man with a single woman, to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar. Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” (I Kings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term “exalted himself” teaches that he sought for the monarchy to fit him, but it did not fit him. The verse continues: “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” (I Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed. MISHNA: The king “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:16), but only enough for his chariot in war and in peace. “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance [aspanya]. And the king writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. When he comes in from war, he brings it in with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he reclines to eat, it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19). GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “He shall not accumulate many horses [susim] for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses [sus]” (Deuteronomy 17:16): One might have thought that he shall not have even enough horses for his chariot and riders. Therefore, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the horses are for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate them, but he may accumulate horses for his chariot and riders. How, then, do I realize the meaning of “horses [susim]” in the verse? It is referring to idle horses, which serve no purpose other than glorifying the king. From where is it derived that even if the king has one horse that is idle, that he transgresses “he shall not accumulate”? The verse states: “For the sake of accumulating horses [sus],” with the term for horses written in the singular. The Gemara asks: But once the verse taught that even one horse that is idle stands to be included in the prohibition of “he shall not accumulate,” why do I need the plural form “horses” in the first clause of the verse? The Gemara responds: Its purpose is to teach that a king would transgress the prohibition an additional time for each and every idle horse. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to idle horses is that the Merciful One writes: “He shall not accumulate for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that even enough horses for his chariot and riders are not permitted; and this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that it is permitted for the king to add a reasonable number of horses beyond the necessary minimum, and it is only strictly personal use that is prohibited. The mishna teaches: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Sages taught in a baraita: From the command “neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” one might have thought that he should not have even enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. To counter this, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the silver and gold is for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate it, but he may accumulate enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to personal wealth accumulation is that the Merciful One writes: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that it is not permitted for the king to accumulate even enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance; this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that the king is permitted to allow for a liberal appropriation to the military budget, so that the army has a comfortable financial cushion. The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that the term “for himself” in the verse is stated for the purpose of a derivation for practical halakha, which limits and narrows the verse’s scope, what do you derive from the next phrase in the verse: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? The Gemara answers: That usage of “for himself” serves to exclude ordinary people, to specify that only the king is restricted from having many wives, but a civilian may marry as many women as he wants, provided he can support them financially. § Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots” (I Kings 5:6), and it is written in another verse: “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots” (II Chronicles 9:25). How can these texts be reconciled? If there were forty thousand large stables [itztablaot], each and every one of them had in it four thousand stalls, or rows, for horses. And alternatively, if there were four thousand large stables, each and every one had in it forty thousand stalls for horses. Therefore the two verses are reconciled. Rabbi Yitzḥak raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Silver was not worth anything in the days of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:20), and it is written in another verse: “And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones” (I Kings 10:27), i.e., gems. The Gemara responds: It is not difficult: Here, where silver was worthless, this was before Solomon sinfully married Pharaoh’s daughter. There, where the silver was valuable, this was after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from Heaven and implanted a pole in the sea. And it gradually raised up a sandbar [sirton] around it, creating new, dry land, and on it the great city of Rome was built. This shows that the beginning of the Jewish people’s downfall to Rome came with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason were the rationales of Torah commandments not revealed? It was because the rationales of two verses were revealed, and the greatest in the world, King Solomon, failed in those matters. It is written with regard to a king: “He shall not add many wives for himself, that his heart should not turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Solomon said: I will add many, but I will not turn away, as he thought that it is permitted to have many wives if one is otherwise meticulous not to stray. And later, it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (I Kings 11:4). And it is also written: “Only he shall not accumulate many horses for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and Solomon said: I will accumulate many, but I will not return. And it is written: “And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver” (I Kings 10:29), teaching that not only did Solomon violate the Torah, but he also failed in applying the rationale given for its commandments. This demonstrates the wisdom in the Torah’s usual silence as to the rationale for its mitzvot, as individuals will not mistakenly rely on their own wisdom to reason that the mitzvot are inapplicable in some circumstances. § The mishna teaches that the king writes a Torah scroll for his sake. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:4): The king fulfills the mitzva provided that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of his ancestors for this purpose, i.e., he must write his own scroll. Rava says: With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, it is a mitzva to write a scroll of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves this song and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita concerning the king’s Torah scroll: And he writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, so that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of others. Read precisely, this indicates that a king, yes, he is included in the halakha not to have a scroll inherited from his ancestors suffice, but an ordinary person is not. The Gemara dismisses Abaye’s objection: No, the ruling of that baraita is necessary to teach that the king is commanded to write two Torah scrolls; he writes one scroll as does any Jew, and he writes an additional scroll because he is king. And this is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That he shall write for himself a second Torah in a scroll, out of that which is before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18). This teaches that he writes for his sake two Torah scrolls, one that goes out and comes in with him at all times, and one that is placed in his treasury. The baraita continues: With regard to the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it very small, like an amulet, and he hangs it on his arm, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” (Psalms 16:8). This alludes to the small Torah scroll that is always on his right hand. He does not go into the bathhouse with it, nor into the bathroom, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read from it” (Deuteronomy 17:19), meaning, it shall remain in a place that is appropriate for reading from it. § Mar Zutra says, and some say that it is Mar Ukva who says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in Ivrit script, the original form of the written language, and the sacred tongue, Hebrew. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected Ashurit script and the sacred tongue for the Torah scroll and left Ivrit script and the Aramaic tongue for the commoners. The Gemara asks: Who are these commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [Kutim]. The Gemara asks: What is Ivrit script? Rav Ḥisda says: Libona’a script. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, given his greatness, for the Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first and received the Torah already. With regard to Moses the verse states: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). Just as the going up stated here, with regard to Moses, is for the Torah, which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, so too, the going up stated there, with regard to Ezra, is for the Torah, as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it. The baraita continues: With regard to Moses the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated:
דיון
  • עברית היא "לשון הקודש", מהו "כתב הקודש"?
  • האם יש כתב "קדוש"? האם יש לשון קדושה? מדוע?
  • "ביררו להן ישראל" למה הכוונה בפועל "ביררו"? מה היו הקריטריונים לבירור זה?
  • אילו קריטריונים הייתם מציעים לבירור מעין זה כיום?
עזרא והכתב העברי
רבי יוסי אומר: ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל, אלמלא קדמוֹ משה. במשה הוא אומר: 'ומשה עלה אל האלוהים' (שמות י"ט). בעזרא הוא אומר: 'הוא עזרא עלה מבבל' (עזרא ז). מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה [=כפי שהמילה עלייה אצל משה מתייחסת לתורה] - אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה [=כך גם המילה עלייה אצל עזרא מתייחסת לתורה]. [...] ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו - נשתנה על ידו הכתב [שבו נכתבה התורה], שנאמר "וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּוָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתֻרְגָּם אֲרָמִית" (עזרא, פרק ד, פסוק ז) [...] 'כתב הנשתוון' - כתב הראוי להשתנות. למה נקרא אשורית - שעלה עמהם מאשור.
about seclusion, that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, and about a single woman. The Gemara objects: Seclusion with a woman forbidden by familial ties is prohibited by Torah law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there an allusion to the halakha that seclusion is forbidden by Torah law? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? Why mention only the son of a mother? Rather, this verse serves to tell you that only a son may be secluded with his mother. Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. But another individual may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together. Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? Rather, say that they decreed against seclusion of a man with a single woman, to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar. Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” (I Kings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term “exalted himself” teaches that he sought for the monarchy to fit him, but it did not fit him. The verse continues: “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” (I Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed. MISHNA: The king “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:16), but only enough for his chariot in war and in peace. “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance [aspanya]. And the king writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. When he comes in from war, he brings it in with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he reclines to eat, it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19). GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “He shall not accumulate many horses [susim] for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses [sus]” (Deuteronomy 17:16): One might have thought that he shall not have even enough horses for his chariot and riders. Therefore, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the horses are for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate them, but he may accumulate horses for his chariot and riders. How, then, do I realize the meaning of “horses [susim]” in the verse? It is referring to idle horses, which serve no purpose other than glorifying the king. From where is it derived that even if the king has one horse that is idle, that he transgresses “he shall not accumulate”? The verse states: “For the sake of accumulating horses [sus],” with the term for horses written in the singular. The Gemara asks: But once the verse taught that even one horse that is idle stands to be included in the prohibition of “he shall not accumulate,” why do I need the plural form “horses” in the first clause of the verse? The Gemara responds: Its purpose is to teach that a king would transgress the prohibition an additional time for each and every idle horse. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to idle horses is that the Merciful One writes: “He shall not accumulate for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that even enough horses for his chariot and riders are not permitted; and this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that it is permitted for the king to add a reasonable number of horses beyond the necessary minimum, and it is only strictly personal use that is prohibited. The mishna teaches: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Sages taught in a baraita: From the command “neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” one might have thought that he should not have even enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. To counter this, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the silver and gold is for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate it, but he may accumulate enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to personal wealth accumulation is that the Merciful One writes: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that it is not permitted for the king to accumulate even enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance; this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that the king is permitted to allow for a liberal appropriation to the military budget, so that the army has a comfortable financial cushion. The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that the term “for himself” in the verse is stated for the purpose of a derivation for practical halakha, which limits and narrows the verse’s scope, what do you derive from the next phrase in the verse: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? The Gemara answers: That usage of “for himself” serves to exclude ordinary people, to specify that only the king is restricted from having many wives, but a civilian may marry as many women as he wants, provided he can support them financially. § Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots” (I Kings 5:6), and it is written in another verse: “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots” (II Chronicles 9:25). How can these texts be reconciled? If there were forty thousand large stables [itztablaot], each and every one of them had in it four thousand stalls, or rows, for horses. And alternatively, if there were four thousand large stables, each and every one had in it forty thousand stalls for horses. Therefore the two verses are reconciled. Rabbi Yitzḥak raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Silver was not worth anything in the days of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:20), and it is written in another verse: “And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones” (I Kings 10:27), i.e., gems. The Gemara responds: It is not difficult: Here, where silver was worthless, this was before Solomon sinfully married Pharaoh’s daughter. There, where the silver was valuable, this was after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from Heaven and implanted a pole in the sea. And it gradually raised up a sandbar [sirton] around it, creating new, dry land, and on it the great city of Rome was built. This shows that the beginning of the Jewish people’s downfall to Rome came with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason were the rationales of Torah commandments not revealed? It was because the rationales of two verses were revealed, and the greatest in the world, King Solomon, failed in those matters. It is written with regard to a king: “He shall not add many wives for himself, that his heart should not turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Solomon said: I will add many, but I will not turn away, as he thought that it is permitted to have many wives if one is otherwise meticulous not to stray. And later, it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (I Kings 11:4). And it is also written: “Only he shall not accumulate many horses for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and Solomon said: I will accumulate many, but I will not return. And it is written: “And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver” (I Kings 10:29), teaching that not only did Solomon violate the Torah, but he also failed in applying the rationale given for its commandments. This demonstrates the wisdom in the Torah’s usual silence as to the rationale for its mitzvot, as individuals will not mistakenly rely on their own wisdom to reason that the mitzvot are inapplicable in some circumstances. § The mishna teaches that the king writes a Torah scroll for his sake. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:4): The king fulfills the mitzva provided that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of his ancestors for this purpose, i.e., he must write his own scroll. Rava says: With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, it is a mitzva to write a scroll of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves this song and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita concerning the king’s Torah scroll: And he writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, so that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of others. Read precisely, this indicates that a king, yes, he is included in the halakha not to have a scroll inherited from his ancestors suffice, but an ordinary person is not. The Gemara dismisses Abaye’s objection: No, the ruling of that baraita is necessary to teach that the king is commanded to write two Torah scrolls; he writes one scroll as does any Jew, and he writes an additional scroll because he is king. And this is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That he shall write for himself a second Torah in a scroll, out of that which is before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18). This teaches that he writes for his sake two Torah scrolls, one that goes out and comes in with him at all times, and one that is placed in his treasury. The baraita continues: With regard to the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it very small, like an amulet, and he hangs it on his arm, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” (Psalms 16:8). This alludes to the small Torah scroll that is always on his right hand. He does not go into the bathhouse with it, nor into the bathroom, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read from it” (Deuteronomy 17:19), meaning, it shall remain in a place that is appropriate for reading from it. § Mar Zutra says, and some say that it is Mar Ukva who says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in Ivrit script, the original form of the written language, and the sacred tongue, Hebrew. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected Ashurit script and the sacred tongue for the Torah scroll and left Ivrit script and the Aramaic tongue for the commoners. The Gemara asks: Who are these commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [Kutim]. The Gemara asks: What is Ivrit script? Rav Ḥisda says: Libona’a script. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, given his greatness, for the Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first and received the Torah already. With regard to Moses the verse states: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). Just as the going up stated here, with regard to Moses, is for the Torah, which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, so too, the going up stated there, with regard to Ezra, is for the Torah, as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it. The baraita continues: With regard to Moses the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated:
דיון
  • מי שינה את הכתב לפי ר' יוסי?
  • באיזו זכות הוא שינה את הכתב?
  • מדוע הוא עשה זאת?
  • האם רבי יוסי נותן לכך תשובה?
כתב עברי - האם השתנה הכתב העברי?
רבי [=רבי יהודה הנשיא] אומר: בתחילה בכתב זה [אשורי, של ימינו] ניתנה תורה לישראל, כיון שחטאו - נהפך להן לרועץ, כיון שחזרו בהן החזירו להן [...] למה נקרא שמה אשורית? - שמאושרת בכתב. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר בן פרטא שאמר משום רבי אלעזר המודעי: כתב זה לא נשתנה כל עיקר, שנאמר "וָוֵי הָעַמּוּדִים" (שמות, פרק לח,פסוק י); מה עמודים לא נשתנו - אף ווים לא נשתנו. ואומר: "וְאֶל-הַיְּהוּדִים כִּכְתָבָם וְכִלְשׁוֹנָם" (אסתר, פרק ח, פסוק ט), מה לשונם לא נשתנה - אף כתבם לא נשתנה.
about seclusion, that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, and about a single woman. The Gemara objects: Seclusion with a woman forbidden by familial ties is prohibited by Torah law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there an allusion to the halakha that seclusion is forbidden by Torah law? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? Why mention only the son of a mother? Rather, this verse serves to tell you that only a son may be secluded with his mother. Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. But another individual may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together. Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? Rather, say that they decreed against seclusion of a man with a single woman, to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar. Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” (I Kings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term “exalted himself” teaches that he sought for the monarchy to fit him, but it did not fit him. The verse continues: “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” (I Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed. MISHNA: The king “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:16), but only enough for his chariot in war and in peace. “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance [aspanya]. And the king writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. When he comes in from war, he brings it in with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he reclines to eat, it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19). GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “He shall not accumulate many horses [susim] for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses [sus]” (Deuteronomy 17:16): One might have thought that he shall not have even enough horses for his chariot and riders. Therefore, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the horses are for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate them, but he may accumulate horses for his chariot and riders. How, then, do I realize the meaning of “horses [susim]” in the verse? It is referring to idle horses, which serve no purpose other than glorifying the king. From where is it derived that even if the king has one horse that is idle, that he transgresses “he shall not accumulate”? The verse states: “For the sake of accumulating horses [sus],” with the term for horses written in the singular. The Gemara asks: But once the verse taught that even one horse that is idle stands to be included in the prohibition of “he shall not accumulate,” why do I need the plural form “horses” in the first clause of the verse? The Gemara responds: Its purpose is to teach that a king would transgress the prohibition an additional time for each and every idle horse. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to idle horses is that the Merciful One writes: “He shall not accumulate for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that even enough horses for his chariot and riders are not permitted; and this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that it is permitted for the king to add a reasonable number of horses beyond the necessary minimum, and it is only strictly personal use that is prohibited. The mishna teaches: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Sages taught in a baraita: From the command “neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” one might have thought that he should not have even enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. To counter this, the verse states: “For himself,” teaching that only if the silver and gold is for himself, for personal pleasure, he shall not accumulate it, but he may accumulate enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance. The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific reason for limiting the prohibition to personal wealth accumulation is that the Merciful One writes: “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” which indicates, consequently, that if the Torah had not written this, I would say that it is not permitted for the king to accumulate even enough silver and gold to provide his soldiers’ sustenance; this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: No, the term “for himself” is necessary to teach that the king is permitted to allow for a liberal appropriation to the military budget, so that the army has a comfortable financial cushion. The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that the term “for himself” in the verse is stated for the purpose of a derivation for practical halakha, which limits and narrows the verse’s scope, what do you derive from the next phrase in the verse: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? The Gemara answers: That usage of “for himself” serves to exclude ordinary people, to specify that only the king is restricted from having many wives, but a civilian may marry as many women as he wants, provided he can support them financially. § Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots” (I Kings 5:6), and it is written in another verse: “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots” (II Chronicles 9:25). How can these texts be reconciled? If there were forty thousand large stables [itztablaot], each and every one of them had in it four thousand stalls, or rows, for horses. And alternatively, if there were four thousand large stables, each and every one had in it forty thousand stalls for horses. Therefore the two verses are reconciled. Rabbi Yitzḥak raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Silver was not worth anything in the days of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:20), and it is written in another verse: “And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones” (I Kings 10:27), i.e., gems. The Gemara responds: It is not difficult: Here, where silver was worthless, this was before Solomon sinfully married Pharaoh’s daughter. There, where the silver was valuable, this was after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from Heaven and implanted a pole in the sea. And it gradually raised up a sandbar [sirton] around it, creating new, dry land, and on it the great city of Rome was built. This shows that the beginning of the Jewish people’s downfall to Rome came with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason were the rationales of Torah commandments not revealed? It was because the rationales of two verses were revealed, and the greatest in the world, King Solomon, failed in those matters. It is written with regard to a king: “He shall not add many wives for himself, that his heart should not turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Solomon said: I will add many, but I will not turn away, as he thought that it is permitted to have many wives if one is otherwise meticulous not to stray. And later, it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (I Kings 11:4). And it is also written: “Only he shall not accumulate many horses for himself nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and Solomon said: I will accumulate many, but I will not return. And it is written: “And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver” (I Kings 10:29), teaching that not only did Solomon violate the Torah, but he also failed in applying the rationale given for its commandments. This demonstrates the wisdom in the Torah’s usual silence as to the rationale for its mitzvot, as individuals will not mistakenly rely on their own wisdom to reason that the mitzvot are inapplicable in some circumstances. § The mishna teaches that the king writes a Torah scroll for his sake. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:4): The king fulfills the mitzva provided that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of his ancestors for this purpose, i.e., he must write his own scroll. Rava says: With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, it is a mitzva to write a scroll of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves this song and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita concerning the king’s Torah scroll: And he writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, so that he does not beautify himself with the Torah scroll of others. Read precisely, this indicates that a king, yes, he is included in the halakha not to have a scroll inherited from his ancestors suffice, but an ordinary person is not. The Gemara dismisses Abaye’s objection: No, the ruling of that baraita is necessary to teach that the king is commanded to write two Torah scrolls; he writes one scroll as does any Jew, and he writes an additional scroll because he is king. And this is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That he shall write for himself a second Torah in a scroll, out of that which is before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18). This teaches that he writes for his sake two Torah scrolls, one that goes out and comes in with him at all times, and one that is placed in his treasury. The baraita continues: With regard to the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it very small, like an amulet, and he hangs it on his arm, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” (Psalms 16:8). This alludes to the small Torah scroll that is always on his right hand. He does not go into the bathhouse with it, nor into the bathroom, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read from it” (Deuteronomy 17:19), meaning, it shall remain in a place that is appropriate for reading from it. § Mar Zutra says, and some say that it is Mar Ukva who says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in Ivrit script, the original form of the written language, and the sacred tongue, Hebrew. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected Ashurit script and the sacred tongue for the Torah scroll and left Ivrit script and the Aramaic tongue for the commoners. The Gemara asks: Who are these commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [Kutim]. The Gemara asks: What is Ivrit script? Rav Ḥisda says: Libona’a script. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, given his greatness, for the Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first and received the Torah already. With regard to Moses the verse states: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). Just as the going up stated here, with regard to Moses, is for the Torah, which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, so too, the going up stated there, with regard to Ezra, is for the Torah, as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it. The baraita continues: With regard to Moses the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated:
דיון
  • כמה פעמים השתנה הכתב לפי רבי?
  • מה הביא אותו לטענה מפתיעה זו?
  • מה טוען ר' שמעון בן אלעזר? במה טענתו חזקה יותר?
כתב שמטמא את הידיים
מקרא שכתבו תרגום, ותרגום שכתבו מקרא, וכתב עברי -

אינו מטמא את הידיים, עד שיכתבנו בכתב אשורית, על הספר, ובדיו.

הסברים
  • "מטמא את הידיים" – חז"ל קבעו כי ספר קדוש מטמא את הידיים, ואילו ספר שאינו קדוש אינו מטמא את הידיים.
The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred.
דיון
  • לפי הגמרא במגילה, האם כתב עברי נחשב קדוש?
  • מה יהיה אפוא הכתב הקדוש?
  • לפי הגמרא במגילה, מהי השפה הקדושה?
תרגום השבעים
מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יוונית, והיה אותו היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו [חטא] העגל, שלא הייתה התורה יכולה להיתרגם כל צרכה. שוב מעשה בתלמי המלך, שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים, והושיבם בשבעים ושנים בתים, ולא גילה להם על מה כנסם. נכנס [תלמי] אחר כל אחד ואחד מהם, אמר להם: כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם [ביוונית]. נתן המקום [=אלוהים] עצה בלב כל אחד ואחד, והסכימה דעתן לדעת אחת, וכתבו לו תורה בפני עצמה, ושלושה עשר דבר [=דברים] שינו בה [בתורה].
דיון
  • " שלא הייתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה" מהי הבעיה המהותית בכל תרגום שהוא?
אריה רייך, 'תרגום השבעים – אור או חושך?', מתוך דף פרשת שבוע של בר אילן
תרגום השבעים - למה להתענות?
ניתן היה לחשוב שתרגום התורה ליוונית יהיה מאורע משמח, מאורע שבזכותו יוכל עם ישראל למלא את ייעודו להיות "אור לגויים" ולהפיץ את תורת ה' באומות העולם, ובייחוד במתורבתות שבהן, אלה שלשונן יוונית. אך לא כך מסתבר מן המקורות שלנו. במגילת תענית למשל, אותה מגילה עתיקה של מועדים בלוח העברי אשר קדמה אף למשנה, תאריך זה, ח' בטבת, כלול ברשימת הימים שבהם ראוי להתענות. וכך לשון המגילה: "בשמונה בטבת נכתבה התורה בימי תלמי המלך בלשון יוונית, והחושך בא לעולם שלושה ימים".
© כל הזכויות שמורות לאוניברסיטת בר אילן
www.biu.ac.il
דיון
  • מדוע, לדעתכם, נחשב יום תרגום התורה ליוונית ליום תענית?
  • האם אתם מסכימים עם תפיסה זו, מדוע?
  • איזה קשר ראוי לדעתכם להיות בין התרבות המקומית לתרבות הכללית המקובלת?
הרב ד"ר שמעון פדרבוש, 'מורשת דורות או יהדות – תרגום? על הרפורמה', בתוך: שנה בשנה, תשכ"ז,
הרפורמה ולשון הקודש
בהשתלשלות הפולמוס על הרפורמה, מתבלט חזיון מתמיה. מחוללי הרפורמה סמכו את נימוקיהם על ההלכה (שמתפללים בכל לשון שאדם שומע ומבין), שהם לא הודו בה ורצו להעבירה מהעולם, ודווקא הרבנים החרדים הורו, כי הזמנים השתנו, ואף על פי שהתלמוד והשולחן ערוך מתירים להתפלל בכל לשון, נעשית בתקופות האחרונות התפילה בלשון עברי חוק דתי ולא יעבור, ואסור לשנות ממטבע העברי של התפילות, שטבעו אנשי כנסת גדולה ונתקדשו בהרבה דורות. לבלתי מבינים עברית, אמרו, יש רק תקנה אחת, שיילמדו לבניהם שפת עמם כשם שמלמדים אותם שפות אחרות.
דיון
  • באיזו שפה נהגו להתפלל בעבר, לפי הכתוב בקטע זה?
  • מי שינה את שפת התפילה, ומדוע?
  • מהו המסר ביחס לתרבות ישראל העומד מאחורי כל אחת מהתפיסות לגבי שפת התפילה, ועם איזו מביניהן אתם מסכימים? מדוע?
  • באיזו שפה ראוי להתפלל, לדעתכם, כאשר המתפלל אינו מבין עברית? מדוע?
פרנץ רוזנצוויג, כוכב הגאולה
קדושת הלשון העברית
האמת שהעברית היא לשון קודש של גוי קודש, והשקר, שהעברית היא לשון דיבור של עם ככל העמים. קדושת הלשון העברית אינה כרוכה ב"התבדלות", על הפירוש הזה של קדושה התגברה היהדות המקורית. לשון הקודש, שפתו של הקב"ה כביכול, תמיד שאבה התחדשות מהלשון המדוברת, מלשונות מדוברות של המין האנושי [...] העברית על כל קדושתה, מעולם לא קפאה על שמריה, לא הפכה יצירה נוקשה. חיה הייתה תמיד. העברית של התורה ושל מגילת אסתר, הרוממות של לשון תפילות היסוד, הממדים המדויקים של לשון המשנה, הסגנון של פיוטי רבי אלעזר הקליר, הלשון הקלאסית של גדולי המחברים מתקופת ספרד, אמונתו המפוכחת של הרמב"ם, הוראתו השלווה והמפוקחת של רש"י, לשון התיבונים על חידושיהם הבלתי זהירים, לשון השולחן ערוך כולם עבריים...
דיון
  • מדוע לדעת רוזנצווייג, העברית היא לשון קודש?
  • כנגד איזו תפיסה של 'לשון קודש' יוצא רוזנצווייג? מדוע?
  • האם העברית היא גם בעיניכם לשון קודש? מדוע?
  • אם כן במה מתבטאת קדושתה של העברית?
  • האם תיתכן קדושה ועם זאת השפעה מתרבויות אחרות?
שם ויפת
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אף בספרים [=בספרי הקודש] לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית [בנוסף לעברית]. אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן: הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל. ואמר רבי יוחנן: מאי טעמא [=מהי הסיבה לדברי] דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל? אמר, קרא: 'יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי-שֵׁם' (בראשית, פרק ט, פסוק כז) - דבריו של יפת [אביו של יוון] יהיו באוהלי שם. ואימא גומר ומגוג! [ואולי הכוונה גם לבני יפת האחרים!] אמר רבי חייא בר אבא: היינו טעמא דכתיב [=זהו טעם הכתוב ופירושו]: 'יפת אלהים ליפת' - יפיותו של יפת יהא באוהלי שם.
Instead of Moses’ assertion: “I have not taken one donkey [ḥamor] from them” (Numbers 16:15), they wrote in more general terms: “I have not taken one item of value [ḥemed] from them,” to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:19), they added a word to make it read: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations,” to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them. The verse: “And has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3), could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them. And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze’irat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: “And the hare [arnevet]” (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy’s wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features. The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: “God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27), indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied. The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10:2). The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: “God shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet].” Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi]. The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth. MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position. The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “The anointed,” with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest. The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest. And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tanna’im, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest. MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple. MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls. And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,
דיון
  • את מי מייצג יפת ואת מי מייצג שם בדיון?
  • מדוע התירו חכמים לתרגם את התורה ליוונית?
  • מדוע הם לא התירו לתרגם את התורה לשפות נוספות?
  • אילו יחסים בין-תרבותיים מתאר התלמוד?
  • אילו יחסים בין תרבות ישראל לתרבויות נוספות צריכים להתקיים בימינו, לדעתכם?
שלמה יידוב, חולם בספרדית, 1988
חולם בספרדית/ אהוד מנור
אני קם בעברית בבוקר ושותה בעברית קפה,

משלם בעברית ביוקר על כל דבר שאני קונה.

בשפתו של דוד המלך

אני חי ומשמיע קול

וקורא סיפורים לילד -

כן, תמיד מימין לשמאל.

בעברית יש מילים בשפע

להגיד את הכל, כמעט -

יש בה תקע ויש בה שקע

אך אין מילה בעברית לטאקט.

מתרגש בעברית מפרח

ונושא בעברית תפילה,

מתרגז בעברית בן-רגע

ומרביץ בעברית קללה.

אני חושב ואני כותב בעברית בלי קושי

ואוהב לאהוב אותך בעברית בלעדית.

זאת שפה נהדרת, לא תהיה לי אחרת

אך בלילה, בלילה

אני חולם עוד בספרדית.

אמונים בעברית שומר לך

וסוגר בעברית תריסים.

"לילה טוב" בעברית אומר לך

וגם סופר בעברית כבשים.

העברית משתנית בלי הרף -

זה התחיל בלוחות הברית.

אני חי בשפה דוהרת ואמות,

כנראה, בעברית.

אני חושב..

© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר ולאקו"ם
www.acum.org.il
שלמה יידוב, חולם בספרדית, מתוך אתר YouTube
דף מספר 2 בסדרה 'כי מציון תצא תורה?" - על יחסי ישראל והעמים, דפים נוספים בסדרה:
1 3 4 5 6